Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy

Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy


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:
“The 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.

100 thoughts on “Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy

  1. Do you live in a democracy? Do you live in the greatest nation? Do you live in the home of the free and the brave? If your answer is 'NO' three times, you are absolutely right, however, if your answer is 'YES' one or more times you are absolutely wrong. 6 million people murdered by the USA in 6 nations -John Tirman, executive director and principal research scientist at the MIT Center for International Studies-

  2. I agree.
    Don't forget Chris Hedges(war,dissent and the corporate state),Matt Taibbi(the intersection between global finance and government),Allan Nairn and Seymour Hersh(US imperial foreign policy and human rights record)Norman Finkelstein(the Israeli occupation),Michelle Alexander and Angel Davis(the prison caste system),David K. Johnston(the regressive US tax code),etc.,
    Alot of very bright,courageous voices out there.

  3. You are not doing anything wrong, right? At least you have the ability to point that out on a YouTube comment page. The innocent woman, children and men in middle Eastern countries who are murdered are unable to proclaim their innocence. None of us are clean-especially those of us who are aware of what is going on.

  4. Not you you.. you know, the editorial you.. as in the system which you, me and the rest of north Americans fall in to.

  5. I was watching this yesterday and just today the crazy happenings in Woolwich London. It was scary to see how 100% Glenn was.

  6. Im not a liberal or Democrat but Glenn is a boss. All journalists should go after the government on a constant basis, not like yahoo and the msm with their "celebs" they get obsessed over.

  7. So Hedges is a lunatic on religion because he doesn't agree with lunatic policies like dropping bombs on and torturing Muslims?
    Ok.

  8. You're probably right.Personally I've only read the 'Death of the Liberal Class',precisely because I've never been all that interested in most people's religious views.I've only heard Hedges speak on religion and although I certainly saw points of disagreement I never heard anything from him that sounded "lunatic".If anything more often then not he comes off as an atheist with a deep appreciation for scripture.I could be wrong.
    But if you're going to make those accusations,atleast elaborate.

  9. Anybody wonder why the hijakers of 911 or the boston bomber do not have any person or group claiming responsibility and complaint or demand or friends or family in their home tow celebrating. That has always been trademark and before you say Bin Ladin claimed it on video if that was him and not a Jesica Lynch gov special The FBI COULD AND WOULD HAVE CHARGED BIN LADIN but they did not due to lack of evedence. Video confesion is decent evidence. The Israli guys were with prior knowlege filming

  10. Hopefully now people will start to understand its not West vs East.Its a few against all the rest,they use u as their shield by pitting u against others when required and when they get all powerful as they are now and u arent required anymore then u get the same treatment as all the rest

    Stop getting deceived.We all freakin humans

    Apply ur own mind to investigate who the real enemies and traitors are.

  11. its not Obama, its both parties, the democrats, the republicans, the congress and senate all of whom are corrupt, bought and paid by big corporations… and do not forget the people who are uneducated.. and who flock to any politicians the media tells them to.

  12. PLEASE FORWARD THIS QUOTE FROM A LONG TIME AGO:

    "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security." — Sen. Huey Long and Former Governor of Louisiana (40th)

    (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935 until he was assassinated.)

    WOW!!! So True. Wake up America! Please read on our history of government repression and control. Some have knew all along and paid the price!

  13. Do you get bored going on to every YouTube video with Greenwald in it and writing the exact same crass comments?

    The label "troll" is thrown about way too liberally in forums. But you, sir, are the real deal.

  14. Did you get away from your all-white upper-class racist suburb for a few moments of excitement to write this shallow post? I see that you fail to mention Greenwald's Communist connections. If he is so fucking concerned with human rights, why doesn't Greenwald pen about the Communist and Muslim murders, human rights abuses, and other shit? Break away from your country club and think about it–if you can!

  15. Mr. Greenwald! You are a hypocrite, You favor Communist regimes by addressing them over and over; yet you decry the means such regimes use–eavesdropping. You are schizophrenic!

  16. This is, of course, assuming the brothers actually did this at all. Funny how any and all proof of what is claimed is completely missing. I guess we have to just trust the authorities….again.

  17. Whatever happened to the second suspect. In a prison hospital somewhere. What is the status of his case and does he have a lawyer????????

  18. OMG. What has happened is that honest journalist like Cronkite have devolved, splitting into two camps: those journalists that are looking out for the common man, and those journalist who become propogandists.

  19. USA. Built on killing the natives and keeping slaves.
    Defended by scrutinizing their own Citizens without proper cause, and imprisoning
    foreigners in Guantanamo, without the inconvienience of a court of law.

    We are determined to make it easier for terrorist organizations to recruite more members.

  20. I'm very concerned with big business invading the internet with ads etc….they are slowly "buying" people.

  21. The two brothers are/were not both Muslims. The elder brother converted to Islaam but the younger brother who is still alive has not converted to Islaam. It's one of the reasons that the Boston narrative stinks; we are supposed to believe that the younger brother who is not interested in Islaam joined his elder brother's 'jihaad'. Yes, of ourse he did. Duh.

  22. Brilliant interview. The stuff about being "glued" to the television especially. Americans are too eager to watch the carnage and too lazy to understand why it really occurred and how their illusions are used against them.

  23. yeah i hadn't thought about it but we do really have amazing access nowadays to important people like greenwald and chomsky that we would have never had access to before

  24. Has anyone googled "Boston Bombing Craft" If you do, you will see that the two Russians were framed and the Craft "Mercenaries For Hire" were the perps.

  25. excellent point he makes that white terrorists are simply schiz, but non white americans are motivated by political or religious reasons. is he still with snowden?

  26. imagine u go to google and you type in a phone number and 100000 results come up.
    that's what he's talkin about with the NSA database. total bullshit.. they're using can-do technology to create work where we don't need to be focused. like he said, doin this kind of surveillance hasn't stopped anything. we're using this info to keep people from spreading the word about monsanto and chemtrails. not to protect the citizens. jeez.. like it makes me laff its so evil

  27. your right. I saw what happened to occupywall street; obama and his justice department have created a culture of fear- there are still people fighting-that's a given- but not most people. maybe some day as more of us wake up

  28. yep, i know alot of people who think it is fake. i can tell you one thing, i get sent a list of high paying surveys every few days and easy make around $60 off each list. its worth a try here: bit.ly134ow57

  29. As if taking to the streets en masse would actually change anything, do you think they would not employ large amounts of the police? Call in the national guard if they had to?

  30. Depends. If the movement gains a credible claim to universality, that might change. compare upheavals in e.g. East Europe around 1990. They never thought they could do it, but then it happened.

  31. A massive change to the system needs to occur and I am honestly unable to contemplate how a people's upheaval would really do much to changes things when the government is not even the ones in charge…

  32. the problem is that the profligacy of the government is heading the nation into total bankruptcy greek style – so there will be upheavals but more due to terrible economic conditions – and that's why the government wants to have totalitarian police state in place 🙁

  33. Nonsense. It's capitalism that is the problem. It's a dying system and it's defending itself with ever more brutal measures.

  34. Are you for real?

    When the government is setting interest rates artificially low, bailing out banks and large corporations left and right you seriously think that's capitalism?

    Gov DO NOT guarantee bank deposits in capitalism and people shop for better banks so banks r forced to be responsible

    government took all the natural restraint out of capitalism and made everyone irresponsible by guranteeing everything and you STILL think it's capitalism that failed?

    Your brain is NONSENSE.

  35. What makes this gentleman even more bold and admirable is the fact that he is of Jewish origin. We need more ppl like him. Stay strong, Greenwald!

  36. I _am_ distracted easily. It annoys me to know there is such a thing as someone that is paid to be a troll. Can we stop paying people for things that are stupid now?

  37. If you're planning on lacing it with poison, sure. You were asking "Can we stop paying people for things that are stupid now?" — The Koch brothers are doing that.

  38. Not capitalism. Corporate socialism (and I don't mean socialism is bad, but our government only helps the companies that bribe them the best).

  39. Skankuser, what you inaccurately call "Corporate socialism" is FASCISM, pure and simple, plain and evil. Like every instance of fascism before this one.

  40. Like 9/11, and for the same reason (Greed), the Boston Framathon was an Inside Job.
    Manipulation of the sheeple for the profit of the already superwealthy.
    That is why the Greedia were served their programming (including one "witness" who was interviewed at both the marathon and the middle-of-the-night-"shootout", days later…she wore the same clothes at both of these "eyewitness" interviews. Who falls for that? Only an idiot.

  41. Why isn't EVERY intelligent American saying out loud what Mr. Greenwald is saying here? Where are the Americans who allegedly care about freedom? The NSA and CIA have DOUBLED their spending since 9/11, BILLIONs each year. So the surveillance is a FARCE, for the enrichment of many industry CEOs, many unelected Govt officials, and to the impoverishment of most Americans, and American communities. Brokaw certainly talks like one of the Fascist propagandist whores here, doesn't he?

  42. if u work for a living in a private sector, and keep what you make, that means you are a capitalist

    that's most of us. capitalism is what enriches us and makes us responsible.

    what's destroying us is fascism. the government gives trillions of bailout money to banks and select corporations for "campaign contributions" and cushy jobs after they leave office and promises citizens tons of "free stuff" so that they willl get reelected and funnels oUR money to private prisons/intelligence firms

  43. The biggest idiots are people who are uninformed about how the economy really works like you – who love to simply badmouth capitalism. U r buying into government propaganda wholesale, because the more they convince idiots that more regulations and more government control is necessary the more powerful ie. corrupt governments become.

    how did we get into 17 TRILLION dollars of debt? money is power, and the corrupt politicians in gov. abuse power for their own ends (reellection bribery etc)

  44. Is it possible for a person to be this ignorant?

    We haven't had capitalism in this country for decades. With over 40% of the economy directly controlled by the increasingly fascistic/welfare government do you still entertain the notion that it's capitalism that's failing?

    Government centrally controlled interest rates and cheap money/credit is what's creating dangerous bubble/burst cycles. Gov. love to create bubbles bc that makes the politicians look good.

    LEARN something b4 u comment

  45. Why are you even here? Shouldn't you be watching the latest Peter Schiff diarrhea? You're just another libertarian troll on a leftist video.

  46. They say the average Liberal stands about 5' 7"….

    It's hard to believe they can stack shit that high.

    Glenn Greenwald is the EXCEPTION…

    A TRUE progressive who is UNAFRAID to call a turd a turd….irregardless of political affiliation.

    Keep rocking it Glenn.
    You are bringing the FIRE and the TRUTH.

  47. What Tom Brokaw says around 14:00 is amazingly stupid. How can he say that? The guy who reported from Berlin in 1989? Must be getting senile… Don't those people know that what they are saying is virtually exact words of the Nazis – check the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial and also an amazingly appropriate one from Benjamin Franklin: ""Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one". Doesn't Brokaw know that?? Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

  48. Yeah. We're the first generation that isn't skilled in public stone throwing anymore, dad told me that already. We've invented virtual stoning aka trolling instead. Somewhat ridiculous, I know.

  49. I never thought I would I love a gay jew. But I LOVE THIS GAY JEW. He's a genius and he's more courageous than 99% of the big muscled macho guys who walk around and think they are tough. Sure. Picking a fight at a bar is different than picking a fight with the most powerful empire the world has ever known. This guy is absolutely brilliant.

  50. Glenn sounds a lot like Ron Paul. Much respect. Some alt news is question glens intentions up how can you try to discredit this guy? Every time I see him make a public appearance he is speaking out against big government.

  51. Have a lot of respect for Greenwald, but as he expounds on the US government's intrusiveness and the distrust attached to it, he also accepts without question that Bin Laden's assassination actually took place. There's still a naivete associated with his reporting.

  52. I live in Massachusetts.  Attended the same college as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  I used to party with him.  Smoke cannabis and drink with him.  He was in no way radical.  A normal college kid just like anyone else.  Something happened.  Not sure if/how his brother got in his head or something more sinister is at hand.

    Again, Tsarnaev went from a everyday college student, smoking herb, selling it, and drinking to militant Muslim who hates America.

    Something happened to Dzhokhar that changed him.

    I will not be fooled by the stupid slogans "Boston Strong" and "Shelter In Place", both which entered the lexicon thanks to this bombing.  The police lock-down did shit.  A homeowner found Dzhokhar in his boat.  

    To the idiots who think it was a false flag event, your wrong.  I know someone who had a leg when she went to the marathon and left that day without one.  She was no crisis actor.

  53. Glenn Greenwald is an excellent journalist and lawyer,  He know his stuff. This person is hard to beat, he knows how to answer everything he talk about with excellent evidences and facts. 

  54. Greenwald argues that the reasons radical Muslims have targeted America is because we have waged war against them, imprisoned them without cause, propped up dictators, etc. While that may be true, it cannot be denied that the values of these radical Muslims are fundamentally at odds with liberal democratic ones. Look no further than the Charlie Hebdo attacks, or the Danish Cartoon ones before that (freedom of speech vs. sanctity of Muhammad). Terrorists are not only attacking Americans in retaliation, but see it as their duty to quash the world's most eminent and proud liberal democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *