Bill Moyers with Glen Greenwald - Transcript

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12122008/transcript4.html

"...GLENN GREENWALD: I'm saying they took it to an entirely different level. What we have, in the last eight years, is not merely a case of individual and isolated law breaking. It's a declaration of war on the whole idea of a law itself, on the idea that our political leaders are constrained in any way by the limitations of the American people imposed through our Congress. The rule of law has essentially ceased to exist. And that I do think is quite new...

...What you have is a two-tiered system of justice where ordinary Americans are subjected to the most merciless criminal justice system in the world. They break the law. The full weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down upon them. But our political class, the same elites who have imposed that incredibly harsh framework on ordinary Americans, have essentially exempted themselves and the leaders of that political class from the law.

They have license to break the law. That's what we're deciding now as we say George Bush and his top advisors shouldn't be investigated let alone prosecuted for the laws that we know that they've broken. And I can't think of anything more damaging to our country because the rule of law is the lynchpin of everything we have...


...GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think what you're getting at is the reason why the political class on a bipartisan basis is coming together to say, "Oh, no, we don't want to investigate these crimes. We think it's best to let it go." It's not because they're being magnanimous. It's not because they think it's important that Barack Obama be able to fix the economy undistracted by the controversies that would be created. It's because exactly as you said. Top Democrats were complicit in these crimes and assented to them. I mean, it wasn't just the warrantless eavesdropping..."

[Dover]

1. Yes....a lot of 'let's just move on', or 'we've got enough on our plates and don't need to get

sidetracked'. If the criminals (both corporate and political) are not accountable for ruining
the lives of countless people not just in the U.S. but all over the world, then NO ONE deserves
to be in prison. Open the prison gates and let them ALL walk.

[slipslidingaway]

3. Glad that he pointed out that is what we have been doing

since Nixon, it is not fair to leave the next gang of criminals to our children, not to mention the increasing debt burden.


"...I mean, it's going to be a controversial thing to do. The problem is that if you decide that you're not going to do it in order to pursue political harmony or bipartisanship, what you're essentially announcing is what we've been announcing for decades. When we pardoned Richard Nixon for his crimes, when the Iran-Contra criminals were pardoned and now even continue to serve in government, which is that the rule of law is not for our highest political officials..."

[Dover]

7. What better proof of 'bipartisanship' than to hold criminals from BOTH parties accountable?

Truth has to be the basis of Obama's actions, as well as justice, if harmony is to be meaningful.
We can ALL rally around truth, regardless of our differences.

[slipslidingaway]

9. So very true! And it could be something that unites people

if done in an unbiased manner.

[Dover]

11. Exactamundo!

However, party loyalists can be dangerous animals to meet up with in dark alleys if they
feel that they or the pack is threatened.

If Obama has the courage to do this dangerous house cleaning chore, then he'd best avoid dark alleys.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Maybe I'm wrong and a little too hopeful, but if he suggested

that the rules were changing I bet he would gain some followers.

He just needs to take the lead in that direction :)

[Dover]

13. Yes, I agree. But he'll need to watch his back if he's the leader...or walk backwards..lol!..n/t

[Fumesucker]

2. Nixon, Iran Contra..

Now Dubya..

Next time, and if nothing is done now there *will* be a next time, it will be even worse.

[glinda]

4. I agree. Dems or Republicans, the people at the highest levels

need to be held accountable. If they are not and rule of law is not restored, then law means nothing and the new Administration will be surrounded with crooks. The White House and Government needs a good housecleaning. I believe it important. I want ALL of our money accounted for that we gave to them in bail outs also. ALL of it. I think if they cannot account for it then they will have to give it back or face charges of theft.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Exactly and that is what we leave to our children...

more terrorists, massive debt, less resources etc.

[EFerrari]

14. Hard to imagine worse short of shooting people in the street.

Our elections are opaque, the Feds are spying on us and all our transactions, we can be arrested and held without charge, our media is brutalized and the news is faked. They're putting a battalion on our soil just as the new FBI guidelines network local law enforcement with federal agencies. American citizens have been picked up in the War on Terra and tortured already. Congress shovels billions of dollars of our tax money out the door with no oversight AND they blame us for their negligence WHILE working to lower our wages.

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

15. Ouch... but nice summary n/t

[slipslidingaway]

6. Thanks for the R's :) n/t

[Fumesucker]

8. No problemo.. I really dig Glennzilla.. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

10. Me too...

and nice post on the driver vs. the auto.

:)

[slipslidingaway]

16. Greenwald - Some observations on this week's television appearances

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/13/moyers/index.html

"...The show's format, as well as Moyers' interviewing style, allowed for what I thought was a very substantive and in-depth discussion -- especially for television -- of the Bush legacy, the rule of law, the need for investigations and prosecutions of the government crimes of the last eight years, the complicity of key Congressional Democrats, and several other issues.

We had also intended to discuss the fundamental dysfunction and corruption of the American establishment media and the indispensable role it played in the most consequential and destructive events of the Bush era. No discussion of the events of the last eight years is complete without extensive consideration of that topic (Moyers' program last year on the vital role of the media in selling the Iraq War to the American public -- "Buying the War" -- is unquestionably one of the best pieces of journalism produced on that topic and, quite revealingly, was one of the only television programs ever even to address the issue). We ran out of time before getting to those media issues and are trying to schedule another interview, principally to talk about those topics, likely for late January.

...But the contrast between Moyers' format -- which permits, even compels, lengthy, detailed, highly developed answers and all sorts of in-depth follow-ups -- and the universal limitations imposed by the cable news format -- where major, complex topics are reduced to 5-minute segments involving a handful of questions and 3o-second answers that cannot possibly entail anything beyond the most generalized, conventional bullet points -- was even starker to me as a result of taping these two interviews on the same day (see this definitive 3-minute explanation from Noam Chomsky on precisely how mainstream television's demand for "concision" -- which shapes how the overwhelming majority of Americans receive their "news" -- precludes any meaningful examination or challenging of prevailing political orthodoxies)..."


Noam Chomsky on "Concision" in the US Media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY

[EFerrari]

17. I was surprised to learn that Greenwald at one time bought Junior's line.

I'd forgotten that about him, if I ever knew it.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Did not know myself, he liked what Bush was saying initially...

that old words and actions thing :)

"BILL MOYERS: But the paradox is that you were impressed with the president after 9/11. You talked about his eloquent and principled response to terrorism. And you yourself said Islamic extremism is a threat to this country. And then you lost your faith in him.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, if you go back and read the speeches that were given in the immediate aftermath after 9/11, the president that appears in that time period is literally unrecognizable. The emphasis was not on any of what ended up taking place. There was no sense of we are going to go to war with the Islamic world or start invading countries indiscriminately or creating gulags and secret prisons and institute a torture regime.

Not only was none that mentioned, the opposite was emphasized, that our response was going to be extremely directed. He made a personal point of meeting openly with Muslim leaders in the United States and emphasized that our war was not with the Muslim world, that it was critical if we were to conduct our response intelligently and effectively that it be targeted and restrained and limited to the extremists who were waging war against the United States.

And had he adhered to those original commitments, I think the presidency would have been much different. At the time, I was living in Manhattan and was litigating constitutional cases. As you say, my interest was much more in vindicating constitutional values on a case-by-case basis, rather than being active politically. And it was only once I saw how radical of a war was being waged on the rule of law and our constitutional values by this administration, justified by the 9/11 attacks, that I think that political activism was necessary..."

[EFerrari]

19. Iirc, at the time, Greenwald was one of those folks on the cable shows

that was talking up the "Islamic threat".

I sort of don't buy this part of Glenn's story because Junior was never remotely believable, but that doesn't matter. He's doing great work now. :)

[slipslidingaway]

20. I'll have to look for some links as I do not remember that,

then again I was not paying as much attention to politics at that time.

I would be interested in any links.

[EFerrari]

22. I can't find anything for him before 2005 so

take me with a pillar of salt on this one.

[slipslidingaway]

23. I always question :) He said that he was practicing law until

he saw what was happening in the Padilla case.

From everything I've read by him it would be shocking to me if that was the case, but I am always open to being wrong.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

24. Checking is a good thing!

:)

[slipslidingaway]

25. Yes and so is "The google" :) n/t

[Uncle Joe]

21. The cardinal signs of an excellent interviewer.

Moyers asks great questions, follows up with good questions and lets the subject do most of the talking.

With the corporate media propaganda pundits, it's the opposite, they do most of the talking, they almost always get the last word, they ignore obvious elephants in the living room without asking any follow up questions, they must put their spin on it, or they just ask asinine, misleading and or irrelevant questions.

After watching Moyers it has become almost painful for me to watch regular corporate media propaganda puppets mangle any concept of serious, honest and in depth journalism.

Thanks for the thread, slipslidingaway.:thumbsup: