READ THE TRANSCRIPT

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. In the aftermath of the Boston bombings and the massive manhunt which led to the death of one suspect and the arrest of another, both of them Muslims, there have been calls for increased surveillance and scrutiny of the public at large and Muslims in particular.

On Fox News the other day, New York congressman Peter King said: “If you know a threat is coming from a certain community, that's where you have to look." Proceed with caution here, Mr. King. And first take a look at that “Council on Foreign Relations” analysis of an FBI study showing that from 1980 to 2001, around two-thirds of domestic terrorism was carried out by American extremists who were not Muslims. That number actually skyrocketed to 95 percent in the years immediately after 9/11. And the magazine “Mother Jones” found that of the 62 mass shootings in America since 1982 – mass killings defined as four deaths or more – 44 of the killers were white males.

My guest, the journalist and columnist Glenn Greenwald, was flying here from his home in Brazil as events in Boston were unfolding. The investigation once again raised issues of civil liberties in the fight against terrorists. So, we reached out to Glenn Greenwald, who, as a former constitutional and civil rights litigator, keeps his critical and contrarian eye on potential conflicts between national security and individual liberty.

Among his best-selling books: How Would a Patriot Act?And most recently: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Currently, Glenn Greenwald writes regularly for The Guardian. You can read him on their website. Welcome, Glenn. It's good to see you again.

GLENN GREENWALD: Great to be back.

BILL MOYERS: Was it right, in your opinion, for the suspect in Boston to be charged as a criminal rather than an enemy combatant?

GLENN GREENWALD: Absolutely. There were very few people who even took seriously the idea that he ought to be charged as an enemy combatant for many reasons, including the fact that he's an American citizen on US soil. And if there's one thing we're taught to think about our country, it's that the government can't punish people or put them in cages or threaten them with death without charging them with a crime, giving them a trial with a jury of their peers, and then convicting them beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the broader question is, should we change or radically alter or dismantle our standard protocols of justice in the name of terrorism. That's been the debate we've been having since the September 11th attack. And I'm firmly in the camp that we need not and should not do that. And therefore he should be treated like any other criminal.

BILL MOYERS: If it turns out that he and his brother had some significant contact with a radical organization back in their home country, would that change anything in your mind?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think that the most important thing that we need to start asking and if that were the case, this question would become even more urgent, is why is it that there seem to be so many people from so many different parts of the world willing to risk their lives or their liberty in order to bring violence to the United States, including to random Americans whom they don't know. There has to be something very compelling that drives somebody to do that. And this was the question that was asked in the wake of the 9/11 attack in the form of the sort of iconic question, "Why do they hate us?" And the government needed to answer that question because people were quite rightly asking. And the answer that was fed to them was, "Well, they hate us for our freedom."

And I think ten years, 11 years later, people are very cynical about that answer and realize that's not really the reason. Because what you see is that people from parts of the world that weren't part of 9/11 are now starting to attack the United States as well.

And when they're heard, which is rare, but sometimes they are, about what their motive was, invariably, they cite the fact that they have become so enraged by what Americans are doing to Muslims around the world, to their countries in terms of bombing them, imprisoning them without charges, drone attacking them, interfering in their governments, propping up their dictators that they feel that they have not only the right but the duty to attack America back. And so I think the discourse then ought to really be focused on what is driving this war. How is it that we can do something that will, instead of perpetuating it further and exacerbate it further, start to think about how to undermine and dilute the sentiments that continue to fuel it, you know, 12 years after the 9/11 attacks.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote the other day of America's “invisible victims.” And they are?

GLENN GREENWALD: The invisible victims are the women and children and innocent men who the United States continues to kill in places like tribal regions in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, at times in the Philippines. Places throughout the Muslim world where the United States sends flying robots.

We never hear about who those people are. And you can contrast it with the few instances in which the United States is attacked, we learn the names of the victims, we know their lives, we hear from how their family members are grieving, we never hear any of that in terms of the children, the women, and innocent men whom we kill.

In the Muslim world and it's sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" dynamic whereby not hearing about them, we never think about them. And by not thinking about them, we forget that they exist. And that's when somebody attacks the United States, it leads to this bewilderment, like, "Well, what have we ever done to anybody that would make them want to attack us?"

BILL MOYERS: I think you were traveling when the Boston siege was unfolding. Is that right? When did you--

GLENN GREENWALD: Right.

BILL MOYERS: When did you actually find out that it was happening?

GLENN GREENWALD: What happened was, I was flying overnight to the United States on Thursday night, which is when the shootout took place between the two brothers and the police, in which the older one was killed.

And then Friday morning when I got off the plane at JFK, was really the start of when people woke up and heard that there was this intense manhunt for the younger brother. And because I was traveling, I was generally in public places for the next several days in airports, hotels, restaurants. And what I saw was everybody glued to the television in order to observe and engage with a very political event, which was this manhunt.

And the reason that struck me was because there are very few events that really engage most people in the United States on a political level. Maybe there's one or two events like that every few years, maybe a national presidential election. But this was one of them.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you call it a political event?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, it was political because it was infused with all kinds of political messages about Muslims, about radicalism, about what the proper role of the police and the military are in the United States. There were instantly these calls for greater surveillance, there was a lockdown of Boston in a very extraordinary act on a major American city, would be completely locked down. What you could see in how people were observing, what it was that they were watching, was their political impressions about the world, about their government, about political debates being formed, based on the very few incidents that they really pay attention to.

And I think that's the reason why incidents like this are incredibly significant in an enduring way, because it shapes how people who don't pay much attention to politics regularly really think about the world.

BILL MOYERS: And you think viewers, were evaluating this manhunt that was playing out in front of them through a political lens?

GLENN GREENWALD: Absolutely. I mean, it's inherently the case. Because when somebody does something, like detonates two bombs, one of which is placed behind an eight-year-old child, which it kills, and then tears off the limbs of dozens of other people, none of whom are known to the perpetrators, the question naturally arises, why would any human being engage in that behavior? And generally, when the person is a white Christian or a white American, there's an attempt instantly to assure everybody that it's simply kind of a one-off. That it doesn't have a political content, that the person is mentally ill, that they're a lone actor, that they just snap, is usually the jargon, to assure everybody that there's no political conclusions that ought to be drawn. When the person though is Muslim, everything reverses. So there's no consideration to the possibility that they were mentally ill, that they simply snapped, that they were being driven by political considerations of alienation or frustration about things in their lives.

Instead, there's an assumption that this bolsters the idea that we face this grave and potentially even existential threat from radical Muslims against whom we've been fighting this decade-long war. And it really bolsters the premises of that war by ratcheting up the fear levels and by reaffirming the political convictions in which it's grounded.

BILL MOYERS: But you agree that terrorism is a threat and has to be dealt with. Not only in trying to understand what provokes it, but in trying to prevent it.

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure, it's the responsibility of the U.S. government to prevent its citizens from being killed and attacked in the way that they were attacked in Boston. Unfortunately, the answers that are typically offered to that question, of how can the government protect us, usually end up not only not protecting us, but making the threat worse.

So that's the problem, as I see it. Is that the more we react by saying, "Well, we now need to go bomb further with drones, we need to infiltrate and surveil more, we need to put Muslims under more of a microscope and be more aggressive in how we attack them when we think they're a threat," I think the worse this problem becomes. I think that's the problem, is that the policies justified in the name of stopping terrorism have actually done more to exacerbate that threat and to render us unsafe than any other single cause.

BILL MOYERS: That raises the really deep question, the serious question, of how do we thrive as an open society and become the country that we wanted to become, when we are faced with the knowledge that these attacks can come when and where we don't expect them.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, this is the problem, is that the reality is, is that if you have an open society, then you can't prevent attacks like this. You can build enormous structures of security to prevent people from going on airplanes with bombs or guns, but then what do you do about trains or crowded malls or Times Square?

And I think then that really underscores the choice that we have, which is number one, we can do what we've been doing, which is become a more closed society, authorize the government to read our emails, listen in our telephone calls put people in prison without charges, enact laws that make it easier for the government to do those sorts of things.

Or we can try and understand why it is that people want to come here and do that? And so the question then becomes, why are people wanting to attack United States this way, but not dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the world. And I think we need to get to the bottom of that question in order to figure out how to stop these attacks, is to undermine the motive.

BILL MOYERS: Here in New York City this week, a lot of officials, including the police commissioner, have been saying-- praising surveillance cameras that were so helpful in Boston and saying, "We need far more of those," and are asking for them. Are we moving into an era where the government is going to know more and more about each and every one of us?

GLENN GREENWALD: We are close to that already. There is a Washington Post series in 2010 called Top Secret America, three-part series by Dana Priest and William Arkin. And one of the facts that reported was that the National Security Agency, every day, collects and stores 1.7 billion, that's with a B, billion, emails, telephone calls, and other form of electronic communications by and between American citizens.

And what's amazing is, is that if you look at the case in Boston, the surveillance state, this massive apparatus of monitoring and storing information about us that we've constructed over the last decade that's extremely expensive and invasive really didn't do much. It didn't detect the attack before it started. The attempted Times Square attack in 2010 wasn't stopped because of eavesdropping or government surveillance but because a hot dog vendor noticed something amiss with the bomb that had been left.

So again, the surveillance state doesn't really do much in terms of giving us lots of security. But what it does do, is it destroys the notion of privacy, which is the area in which human creativity and dissent and challenges to orthodoxy all reside. The way things are supposed to work is we're supposed to know everything that the government does with rare exception, that's why they're called the public sector.

And they're supposed to know almost nothing about us, which is why we're private individuals, unless there's evidence that we've committed a crime. This has been completely reversed, so that we know almost nothing about what the government does.

It operates behind this impenetrable wall of secrecy, while they know everything about what it is we're doing, with whom we're speaking and communicating, what we're reading. And this imbalance, this reversal of transparency and secrecy and the way things are supposed to work, has really altered the relationship between the citizenry and the government in very profound ways.

BILL MOYERS: Is it conceivable to you that-- that giving up our privacy and even much of our liberty becomes a way of life in exchange, a trade for security? Tom Brokaw suggested as much the other day. Here he is.

TOM BROKAW on NBC News: Everyone has to understand tonight however that beginning tomorrow morning, early, there are going to be much tougher security considerations all across the country. However exhausted we may be by them, we're going to have to learn to live with them and get along and go forward and not let them bring us to our knees. You'll remember last summer how unhappy we were with all the security at the Democratic and Republican convention. Now I don't think that we could raise those complaints after what happened today in Boston.

GLENN GREENWALD: I mean, I think that is, first of all, it's extraordinary that journalists lead the way in encouraging people to accept greater government intrusion into their lives. The media, journalists, are supposed to be adversarial to the government, not encouraging people to submit to greater government authority.

But I think the broader point is that it's that false dichotomy, that the more the government learns about us, the safer we'll be. In part because what history shows is that when governments are able to surveil people in the dark, generally the greatest outcome is that they abuse that power and it becomes tyrannical. If you talk to anybody who came from Eastern Europe, they'll tell you that the reason we left is because society's become deadened and soulless, when citizens have no privacy. And it's a difficult concept to understand, why privacy is so crucial, but people understand it instinctively. They put locks on their bedroom doors, not for security, but for privacy.

They put passwords on their email accounts, because people know that only when you can engage in behavior without being watched is that where you can explore, where you can experiment, where you can engage in creative thinking, in creative behavior. A society that loses that privacy is a society that becomes truly conformist. And I think that's the real danger.

BILL MOYERS: That's what happens to people in power, as you know. Henry Kissinger may have been joking back in 1975 when off the record, although it was later transcribed, he said, "The illegal we can do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

GLENN GREENWALD: Secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of government power. If people are able to operate in the dark, it is not likely or probable, but inevitable that they will abuse their power. It's just human nature. And that's been understood for as long as politics has existed. That transparency is really the only guarantee that we have for checking those who exercise power.

And that's the reason why the government has progressively destroyed one institution after the next designed to bring transparency, whether it's the media that they turned into the supine creatures or the Congress that does more to empower government secrecy than any other, or the courts that have been incredibly subservient towards sources of government secrecy. One of the only avenues we have left for learning what people in power do are whistleblowers. People who essentially step out and risk their individual liberty, and that's why there's such a war being waged against them.

BILL MOYERS: A war being waged against whistleblowers?

GLENN GREENWALD: There have been more prosecutions of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, which is a 1917 statute under world-- enacted in World War I, designed to enable Woodrow Wilson to punish people who were opposed to the United States involvement in that war. More prosecution of whistleblowers under that statute, under the Obama administration, than all previous administrations combined.

Just in the last four years, double the number, in fact. You've had people who have exposed government deceit and waste and corruption and illegality being systematically prosecuted as criminals in very harsh ways, threatened with decades in prison, being prosecuted as spies, essentially, under espionage statute. Whereas the people on whom they blew the whistle, the actual bad actors in the government, have been shielded and protected.

And what this is designed to do is to send a message as every investigative journalist in the United States will tell you, including ones who work for the most established of newspapers. To send a message to would-be sources and whistleblowers, who want to advise the public about government wrongdoing, that they better think twice because they will be severely punished if they do so.

BILL MOYERS: One of our best journalists, Jonathan Landay of McClatchy has turned up evidence from government documents, that President Obama and his senior aides have not been telling the truth when they claimed to have only deployed drones against known senior leaders of Al Qaeda and their allies. The headline above your column on Jonathan's reporting referred to the Obama administration's “drone lies.” Tough language.

GLENN GREENWALD: McClatchy article included language that the Obama administration at senior levels had misled the country and was deceitful because what these documents showed was that often times, they were? targeting very low level people whose role in these militias were unknown. They had targeted as a favor to the Pakistani government various individuals who posed no threat to the United States, but who Pakistan thought had become extremists. And worst of all the United States government has adopted what are called "signature strikes" which is where even by their own admission, they don't even know the identity of the people they're targeting. And they simply extinguish their lives without knowing who they are. But then justify it to the public by saying, "We're only targeting senior Al Qaeda leaders." And these leaked documents revealed how false those claims were. And again, it underscores how only leaks and whistleblowing, which the Obama administration is trying to criminalize harshly is the way that we learn about what the government does.

BILL MOYERS: You are a lawyer as well as a journalist and an essayist. What's the distinction between death by drones in a tribal area in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what the bombers did in Boston, in your mind?

GLENN GREENWALD: I don't think there is much difference. You could certainly say that one difference, and this is what people would typically say to defend what the United States does and to distinguish it, is that we are not deliberately killing civilians while the people in Boston did. And I'm not sure how true that is. There certainly are cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians.

But even the drone program itself, in its normal operating state, consists of a very high level of possibility that innocent people will be killed in places where there hasn't been a declared war, that aren't on a battlefield. In people's homes, in their work places, where they congregate in their villages.

And so at some point, when a government engages in behavior year, after year, after year, after year, that continues to kill innocent people in a very foreseeable way, and continues to do that, in my mind that reaches a level of recklessness that is very similar to intentional killing.

BILL MOYERS: You are contrarian on this, because there's a reputable poll which shows that 65 percent of the American people support drones.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right, I mean, this is what we were going back to a little bit earlier, which is that people have been inculcated to believe those falsehoods that the Obama administration has been propagating about drones, that they only target high-level terrorists.

And when you combine that assumption, that false assumption with the invisibility of the victims, so that Americans never have to think about the human cost, both to the people we're killing and ultimately to themselves from the security threat that it produces, it's very easy to have a warped understanding of the cost of benefits it's deliberately inducing people to view these drone attacks in a much more favorable way than reality would suggest.

BILL MOYERS: So what's playing out here? Is it human nature, media, politics, propaganda, as you say, fear, all of the above?

GLENN GREENWALD: I think it's all of the above. I mean, there have been all kinds of political theorists, statesmen, leaders, philosophers throughout history who have talked about the dangers that come from allowing a government to ratchet up fear levels by continuously focusing on external threats and enemies.

That this is the greatest menace to liberty domestically. I think what ultimately happens, the worst part of it, is that when you continuously induce people to support militarism and aggression and violence by demonizing a foreign other, what you really do is you degrade the population. You transform how it is that they think, the kind of people that they are, the things that they come to expect from life.

You really make it a much more savage and bloodthirsty populace that will then support things that in the absence of that sustained propaganda, they would find horrific. And I think you see lots of examples of that in American discourse.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see long-range implications from what happened in Boston?

GLENN GREENWALD: Absolutely. I mean, one of the most amazing things to me over the last few years was in the aftermath of our killing of Osama bin Laden, there was all kinds of chanting and marching and celebratory dancing taking place in the street, which was striking to me because, even if you believe that the killing of Osama bin Laden was justifiable, any time you're killing somebody and dumping their corpse into the ocean, that should be a cause of somber reflection, even if you believe it was necessary.

And I think you saw much the same thing in Boston. Again, the chanting and the sense of collective self-esteem and the reverence for military and political and police institutions, I think is very disturbing and will really endure.

BILL MOYERS: But Glenn, couldn't it have been just relief? Relief that they had found the other guy? That they didn't have to go to bed that night wondering if another bomb would go off?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. I think that relief is a natural reaction, just like I think that relief from the killing of Osama bin Laden is natural. He had been this sort of hovering menace for so long. But the way in which this was all done, both in Boston and then the killing of Osama bin Laden, is something that is a very extreme form of government behavior and of police force and of military power. But ultimately, what I really think more than anything else, and this is, I think, what the most profound point is from all of this, is--I remember the night that Osama bin Laden was killed and President Obama went on television and said, "This shows again that any time America sets its mind to something, our greatness allows us to achieve it.”

And the reason why that was so striking to me was because it used to be the case that as a country, what gave us our sense of nationalistic pride was going to the moon, or discovering new cures for diseases, or investing technologies that elevated the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

And I think that the way in which Americans now relate to their government, that the way in which they get nationalistic pride is through the assertion of this massive, military or police force, and very few other things produce that kind of pride, I think shows a lot about our value system and what the government is failing to do. And that's the way in which this culture becomes coarsened.

BILL MOYERS: Glenn Greenwald, it's been good to see you again and I wish you a safe trip home.

GLENN GREENWALD: Thank you for having me.

Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy

April 26, 2013

The violent Boston rampage triggered a local and federal response that, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald, adds a new dimension to troubling questions about government secrecy, overreach, and what we sacrifice in the name of national security. Greenwald joins Bill to peel back layers that reveal what the Boston bombings and drone attacks have in common, and how secrecy leads to abuse of government power.

“Should we change or radically alter or dismantle our standard protocols of justice in the name of terrorism? That’s been the debate we’ve been having since the September 11th attack,” Greenwald tells Bill. “We can do what we’ve been doing, which is become a more closed society, authorize the government to read our emails, listen in our telephone calls, put people in prison without charges, enact laws that make it easier for the government to do those sorts of things. Or we can try and understand why it is that people want to come here and do that.”

Greenwald also talks about the limitations of government surveillance as an anti-terrorism tactic, and draws a parallel between the Boston bombings — which he calls a “political event” — and U.S. drone attacks.

“There certainly are cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians,” he tells Bill. “So at some point, when a government engages in behavior year after year after year after year, that continues to kill innocent people in a very foreseeable way, and continues to do that, in my mind that reaches a level of recklessness that is very similar to intentional killing.”

Producer: Jessica Wang. Editor: Rob Kuhns. Associate Producer: Lena Shemel.
Photographer: Dale Robbins.

  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • Anonymous

    Old Saw: Don’t turn in your guns to a guy that runs a kill list.

  • davidp

    The Who & the Why? I like what Solzhenitsyn say on good and evil: If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously commiting evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?
    Only reminds me what Jesus says what comes out of the heart of a person…thoughts of….(leads to actions later) Suppose this comment via internet will be 1 of the Billions that will be saved somewhere.

  • Cliff Welch

    Excellent points made by Greenwald. Thank you!

  • susanpub

    I don’t for ONE SECOND think Henry Kissinger was joking, Bill.

  • Mary Bell Lockhart

    Greenwald said in recent article “…it is nonetheless
    vital to understand why there are so many people who want to attack the US as opposed to, say, Peru, or South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Japan, or
    Portugal.” True, but in stopping at American foreign policy as a cause he’s not answering the question because he’s not asking “Cui bono?” Who benefits? Behind all of this, including American foreign policy and the security state, are the multi-national corporations, mainly the financial, fossil fuel and war profiteers. They were behind misguided American
    foreign policy in the first place and then behind the use of terrorism to inflame Americans to counterattack. They fed and fostered al queda and
    spread anti Islamic rage. They’re behind those like the impressionable Tsarnaev brothers. They had no real beef with the USA and, if they did, violent revenge is the WORST way to get grievances addressed. Who told them this would be
    effective? The profiteers are behind ALL sides in this drama. That’s what we must deal with.

  • HypocriteGG

    Greenwald should quit being a hypocrite and return to reside in the
    United States instead of lounging in Brazil. He has no credibility after
    his support of Iraq war and GW Bush as well as his support for Citizens
    United and his love for racist Ron Paul. Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian posing as a progressive. Still he makes some good points although his constant attacks on Obama and the United States are disingenuous.

  • melvinchisel

    Enough! You fear offending the offensive! Why is it that Americans accept what is fed to us by our government? Simple; as a nation we are fat, ignorant and intellectually lazy.

  • melvinchisel

    How could our policy and politicians be anything other than what they are? Some sobering numbers: US world rankings. Infrastructure- 25th. Education-13th. Social mobility-10th. Quality of Life-9th. Income Inequality-4th.
    Rate of Incarceration-1st.
    Obesity-1st.
    Hours spent watching TV-1st.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Silviu-Craescu/100000784303206 Silviu Craescu

    ,/

  • MikeD

    I was struck by a comment made by Norm Ornstein. When their op-ed appeared in the Washington Post, they had more than 5000 comments and hits on Facebook, etc. Not only were they not invited on the Sunday talk shows but none of the panels thought it worthwhile to even to discuss their thesis. Ornstein said, “It was as if there was a radio silence on the topic.”

    Glenn Greenwald’s bailiwick is civil liberties but there seems to be a radio silence on not just that topic but him as well. In presenting alternative voices, this program shines like a jewel in the dark, sterile gloom of soulless conformity..

  • Mary Bell Lockhart

    Appropos to my comment below, please read http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/19/chechen-terrorists-and-the-neocons/
    Chechen Terrorists and the Neocons
    Coleen Rowley
    April 19, 2013
    The Boston bombers may have been taught that they were mad at the USA because of the wars, etc., but they were taught this by the neocons who informed their actions. Thus is was not so simple as they just objected to US involvement in wars. And the actions they took were exactly the wrong thing to do if they wanted to stop wars. They were put up to it for the purpose of continuing war.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Albie-Farinas/1318745200 Albie Farinas

    I’m speechless…! Glenn hits it out of the park again, “World Wresting Federation” nation…

  • DT

    Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Ben Franklin .

  • http://www.facebook.com/monte.letourneau Monte Letourneau

    on the point!

    what more to say –
    forward to a future “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monte.letourneau Monte Letourneau

    Allness will Be, with or without u

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002532107104 Kenton J. Kakuk

    I was fired by The City of Camas Washington as being threatening
    after fifteen years of service in Public Works. I never got to face my
    accusers, did not get any support from the association attorney. I never
    did anything to anyone. What I did do was be outspoken about transparency
    and ethics that in Camas. I was subjected to a Spanish inquisition
    “investigation”. Then they sent me to a forensic psychologist
    that requested that I give them my complete medical history. Believing
    that was my private information and was protected information I declined.
    I was immediately fired for insubordination. I had registered to run for
    Mayor of Camas. That is when the city disclosed the press that I had been
    fired for threatening behavior – Pure corruption!

  • http://www.ccrider27.com/ ccrider27

    Exactly. Follow the money.

    That’s why we’ll soon be going to war with Iran, Mali, numerous other African countries, and why we have special forces in 71 countries currently.

    The more hatred they have for us, the more profit for the war corporations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.elgee.5 Pat Elgee

    “Secrecy” does not belong in a democracy. The government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” The People, must therefore, be informed if only to be able to make intelligent choices. Protecting the people from terrorism should not allow infringement on basic rights without due process. Nevertheless, I have never considered any correspondence on line private, so do not object to that monitoring.

  • dndolan9agmail.com

    A perfect example of this was attica. Sadly the guard that was injured initially was reported as doing well and then unpredictably his tonsils dropped (in his brain) from his head bump…That is when the guards went nuts and started firing on all. This truth has STILL not been revealed..some …too many decades ago.

  • http://twitter.com/troy1308 T13

    Calling RP a racist is just ignorant.

  • http://twitter.com/zinzinzor Sylvia Scarletti
  • Anonymous

    That’s a great link. Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    @HypocriteGG If all you’ve got is ad hominem attacks and lies don’t bother coming to the discussion. (Everyone else–see Sylvia Scarletti’s link–these are common lies that have been showing up in Greenwald’s comments for years)

  • Lculley

    Greenwood has one foot over the line of objectivity . Clearly he has a skewed view of the world. His past statements clearly show an arrogant, anti Obama anti government viewpoint. Bill, why didnt you give him a tougher interview. You made it sound like you kind of agreed with him. Disappointing. If he’s going to be on solo, you have to counterpoint him. The appalling behavior of then residents of Watertown when our first responders took a twisted murderer and torturer alive without harming a soul.- this is an unusual milataryesque act by the government that they should fear? they should be somber? Is he for real? You gotta comment on stuff like that bill.

  • Paul Gottschalk

    Greenwald is one of the most objective voices in the world today. Making ad hominem attacks on him only decreases your own credibility.

    Yes, DUH – Moyers DOES agree with him, as do all of Us who are intelligent, informed, logical, and moral. It’s why Moyers invited him to his show. Are you new to the show?

  • Anonymous

    “You made it sound like you kind of agreed with him.”

    Gee, no kidding. I wonder why that is.

  • Hector Aguilar

    I don’t like Glenn Greenwald. For some reason he draws very visceral reaction from me. That being said I believe that his interview was incisive and important. He makes very good points that need to be trumpeted further by the main stream media. I came here to hear a little more of him because I was absolutely shocked and outraged by his latest statements about what Edward Snowden is carrying in those four laptops of stolen NSA data. The man in the interview in my opinion is a sharp, thoughtful journalist. I had to instead of just making snap decisions about the man try to get more into his works and opinions and I know I could do that from Bill Moyers who I highly respect. For Mr. Greenwald to go and declare the following “Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. Government in a single minute than any other person ever had.” Why oh why would you trumpet that to La Nacion knowing that Mr. Snowden is stuck in Russia right now out of sight? What happened to the deliberate, thoughtful journalist I just heard and much to my chagrin agreed with so much? This kind of thing keeps the very important discussion of government overreach and all the secrecy out of the center stage. Frankly now I’m really concerned as to the health of my nation. I thought it was mostly hyperbole coming from the likes of Melissa Harris Perry, Joy Reid, and even David Gregory about the possible damaging secrets Snowden had taken away with him in (Mr. Greenwald looks right much as I hate to agree on the media seemingly becoming a bit too cozy with the Beltway) . Now its not only confirmed apparently but its become a real damn threat. From April to July, the question I would have like Mr. Moyers to ask is why is Mr. Greenwald becoming so irresponsible and caviler in his attitude toward us? By us I mean the US government which is still in my opinion by the people and even though it is fractious and truly needs some real reform as noted, for the people.