Scott Horton Interviews Charles Peña

Scott Horton, October 14, 2009

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Charles Peña, author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism, discusses the difficult task of preventing domestic terrorism in a free society, the unwise U.S. decision to treat 9/11 as a paradigm-shifting existential threat, the Obama administration’s change in Iran strategy (but not policy) and how dubious terrorism prosecutions make the FBI even less trustworthy.

MP3 here. (40:44)

Charles V. Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project. Mr. Peña has been senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute and Foreign Policy Advisor for the 2008 Ron Paul Presidential Campaign.

He is the author of the book Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism, co-author of The Search for WMD: Non-Proliferation, Intelligence and Pre-emption in the New Security Environment, and co-author of Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda. Peña is currently an analyst for MSNBC television and has been an analyst for Global TV (Canada) and Channel One News (a PRIMEDIA Inc. company) during the Iraq war.

11 Responses to “Charles Peña”

  1. The September 11, 2001 attack was "blowback" for America's accumulated sins in the Middle East–our threats, our attacks, our sanctions, and the like. And, of course, there's that matter of our slavish support for the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv. Three thousand Americans paid the price for it.

    Yes, the FBI had better be careful about the integrity of its "terrorism" investigations.

  2. Scott your passion for standing up against the War is inspiring. Great interview too by the way.

  3. "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
    Terrorism Ter"ror*ism, n. Cf. F. terrorisme.
    1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a
    mode of government by terror or intimidation. –Jefferson.
    1913 Webster

    2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to
    political demands by committing violence on civilian
    targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
    PJC

    Who are the f***king terrorsists, Mr. Pena?

    In a free society, there would be no terrorism.

    Again, who are the terrorists? We are all at risk as long as the U.S. Government continues to act the way it does.

    What do you call someone who resists terrorism?

    Mr. Pena is a rube. Anti-war.com can do better, Scott.

  4. Mr Peña is not going far enough. I would say one needs to be brought up in an amnesiac and narcicisstic society, laden with bunker mentality, to consider that the guys "out there" did not attack "us" out of "intrinsic hatred" but there may actually be something along a cause-and-effect relationship playing here as a mental process of some noteworthiness.

    If people bore serious grudges against "US", there would be tens of terrorists coming in from Middle and South America, the Middle East and the Far East or the "Tribal Territories" every single day and there would not be a week without a highrise going "pop". Luckily, people tend to "move on", look after their immediate concerns, do the gallic shrug and generally not go on revenge trips against abstract entities. The abstract entities go on revenge trips against them, though.

  5. I, also, was inclined to believe and accept that the terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11/01 were due to US foreign policy in the Middle East. That is until I finally began reading and researching what had occurred on that day and realized that the US government had once again lied by stating what had happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden and those 19 [alleged] crazed Arabs from the Middle East make convenient scapegoats. But curiously the FBI, whom you mention, still to this day has refused to place bin Laden on their Most Wanted List concerning 9/11/01 because, in the words of FBI spokesperson Rex Tomb, "there is not enough hard evidence to connect bin Laden to those attacks." One would think that the FBI and the former Bush administration, as well as the current gang in office, would be trumpeting how bin Laden was behind those attacks. But they cannot do that as they do not have the proof to make that claim. All the more reason to call for a true and open and honest investigation [as opposed to the whitewash that was conducted by the 9/11 Commission which was headed by Bush insider Philip Zelikow] as to what occurred on that heinous day.

  6. @Erroll: Right on.

  7. http://www.ae911truth.org/

  8. “Ask the Israeli’s about defending against terrorism” don’t you mean ask the Israeli’s how to perform terrorism: Lavon affair is one of many examples.

  9. Didn’t the Americans execute revenge for 9/11? You know someone bombed us so we will now kill how many Iraqi’s? American and Israeli revenge is sanctioned; eye for an eye hey.

  10. The US has a colossal military so how would you fight against your own tyranny? Stand in an open field? Israel conducts mafia style hits on Palestinians who are organising peaceful protests against the apartheid wall what would happen if Palestinians enacted the same policy? Why are all the resistance movements against US tyranny terrorists?

  11. Victims of terrorism are not necessarily innocent. If you support the actions of our government that injure people in other countries, you deserve to be bombed and killed. I'm sorry to say that the majority of Americans are at least indifferent to the evil done by our government, if not supporting that, or even wanting more bloodshed of foreigners.

Leave a Reply