tv Glenn Greenwald Our Civil Liberties at Risk LINKTV June 18, 2017 3:15am-4:01am PDT
boundary of starvation, typically unable to feed themselveses in any y way that provides major sustenance. this is incredibly common among the regime sanctions. although he was earning a modest salary, he simply could not in good conscious live even whwhat was really a lower middle-class american existence with some discretionary funds while his family was suffering so greatly in iraq. he began to find ways to send very small amount of money back to his family in a rack, but a -- literarally 10, $15, $20 per month to allow them to eat and buy medicine. when others figured out he had no figured out a way to do this, they wanted to send money back to their families. on behalf of 13 families, he spent very small amounts back to erect, never more than $100 a month for anyoyone famamily, enh
to basically sustained 13 families. he did thihis for a a decade. when the sanctions on t the regime wewere lifted. and 2003 he became an outspoken advocate of the propososed attack on iraq. as a nuclear engineer, h he was incredibly well-susuited, very credible to o argue ththat saddm had no active progrgram, that te war was being sold based on an in litany of misinformation about a rack -- - about iraqi weapons of mass to russian, arguing that removing saddam by forereign powers would spawn hun suffering, basically warning of everything that would happen. as a result he attracted a lot of attention from the u.s. government. blue,e, 35t of the federal agents showed up at his home, armed, w while his two
teenage chilildren were there, showing a search warrant for his home, spending the next nine hours in his house removing everything they could find. passports, documents, photos, marriage license, heirlooms, huge documents. beenich they have never returned to them.. only three yrsrs later did hee learn the charge the government was able to indict him for. it was basically a single count of technically violating the law that's s part of the e sanctionn the regime that aren't any american from sending money back to a rack -- sending money back to iraq. the u.s. government acknowledged that every penny that he sent was intended only for purely humanitarian assistance for these 14 families. intended forit those purposes, even the government a acknowledging the money never went everywhere --
anywhere but those recipients to buy food, by shelter, medicine. nobody contends that a single tony w went to saddam's regime buy weaponons, to terrorist groups, anything else. yet the u.s. government indicted him for whahat i think he calle, aptly, a crime of compassion. two months ago, he stood in a federal court in missouri expecting to r receive probation because what he was accused of the wiwing has not been a crime now for nine yeyears. yet he was sentencnced to three in federal prison, which he began serving two weeks ago at fort leavenworth. i was able to speak to his son and son-in-law on the devastation this has wreakaked n dr. moody also hihis family. he has several college-age students. has another son who is 16 years old and is a junior in hihigh school, and his brother
totold me about the way in which this has affected his brother at a very vulnerable time, six years old, to have his fatather disasappear. 60-y-year-old man, highly educated, now consigned to a cage for the next three years for literally having done nothing other than try to save hihis family from starvation, starvation that occurred because of the same government that just prosecuted him for doing that. this is the kind of story that if you go into muslim communities in the united states you will hear over and again. it's the sort of thing you can become angry about if you think about it or read about it without the human connection. itit takes on a different didimension when you realize the are all human beings whose wives have ashlock said been destroyed in the family members continue to suffer. it's not just meeting the aims of these injustices that makes my going around so valuable but
also the people who are fifightg them and combating them on a daily basis, usually in obscurity and often at great personal risk to themselves. the unitedways states government has terrorized muslim comommunities using the w is to use material stuck boards statutes -- ethereal support statutes to makake it a felony punishable by decades in prison to have any involvement with any element the united states government deems off-limits cocomer regardless of whatat tht entails. it's really quite risky, quite scary for people, especially muslim activists and lawyersrs,o prprovide aid to people accusedy the government of materially supporting terrororism, to prove legal l networks, financining fr them, a support network and infrastrucucture so thehe u.s. government's goal of disappearing them, having us forget they eveven e exist. the two organizations who have
sponsored this event tonight our orgaganizations i have reallllye to know very well l over the pat year. they're doing brave and important work. without them, many of the people targeted by the u.s. government would have no defenses. one of the things i think about quite a bit and i debate with myself quite a bit about and go back and forth on is when i think about these issues of civil liberties, abuses, the like. whether or n not there is really anything unique about the way in which primarily muslim americans and others in the e united stats have been targeted with this kind of persecution. as alluded to earlier tonight, the history of the united states is one that has a continuous stream of minority g groups who have been targeted landscape goaded and victimized by abuses of power, african-americans being the most common and consistent example, butut other groups as well, whethther
immigrgrants or accuse communiss were japanese-americans during world war ii have been similarly targeted based on the knowledge that these marginalized minorory groups that the government can seize power without anyone much caring about it. the air is an argument that the muslims are the latest in this continuum, the currentnt example ththat has replaced communists d other groups as this favorite group from the u u.s. government to target and demonize to justify ababuses of power. there is a an argument that one should l look at it thatat way. i actually think there are some unique attributes about this persecution that distinguish it from those other prior examples. i think is very difficult to compare injustices quantitativeve to see whwhich ae better or woworse. it's not profitable to d do tha, there are uniquque attributes to the way in which t the civil liberties are being jusustified. the first of those unique
attributes is all of the civil liberties abuses are taking place within the context of multiple wars. the reason why that is so important is because the number one tactic of the government in vogue, true since the e historyf war was begun, is the enemy y of the war has to be dehumanized, has to be completely demonize to the point of almost subhuman state of nonexistence. the reason for this is even the most sociopathic citizenry will not sustain very long a knowledge that it is supporting a continuous killing of their fellow human beings. it's why those people have to be dehumanized, so that knowledge can be abated. what you have over the past 11 years of continuous bombing and killing and attention and torture is the continuous dehumanization of the victims of this violence which no most every case are muslims.
you have a american politicians who will stand up and say, we are not at war with islam, we understand the m majoritity of muslims are peaceful, and we are only interested in punishing and bringing to justice those muslims work stream s who w were violent. the reality, the impact of this this constant- of dehumanization is to render muslims completely voiceless. the most striking instatance o f how popotent this dehumananizatn is occurred recently.. to me at least. if you look back at what happened in the immemediate aftermrmath of the 9/11 attack, what was amazing about the media reaction of the mayor can people was that for decades there had been this list of grievances in the muslim world about the united states, that it supports dictators, that it brings violence to the muslimim world, that it renders the wishes of powerless and
irrelevant, that it steadfastly supports israeli aggression, a whole litany of grievances that if you pay attention to the discourse of the muslim world or you would be familiar with. after 9/11, the reaction of the majority of americans, which was quite genuine, was bafflement. it was, i don't understand why anyone would possibly want to attack the united states. we are such a peaceful nation. all we want to do is go about living our lives with freedom and liberty, yet people seem to really hate us and it's impossible to understand why. the question that was asked of the mirkin people was -- of the american people was the famous "why do they hate us" question, and the u.s. government needed to provide an answswer because people wanted to know why they were attacked. the answer was, they hate us for our freedodom. what's remarkable a about that, that was understandable because muslims and their grievances haveve been basically excluded
completely from public discourse. the reason americans did not know that is because they were not subjected to it. they were never exposesed t to . 11 years later, here we are, after the ununited states has full-scaletwo invasions and invasions of predominantly muslslim countrie, has bombed many others, has created a worldwide torture regime, has created a lawless prison in the middle of the ocean that has brought thousands of muslims, and even after all this violence and aggression and lawlessness, a full decade's worth, when recent protests broke out in the muslim world that were anti-american directed at the united states, that same question arose, why could they possibly be so angry at us? it has evolved to the point where there was bafflement theyy wewere not grateful to the unitd states for all the freedom we brought them. this to me really underscores
how completely muslims are excluded from anything we think about or talk about in the united states. themve debates about without their participation, we have discussionsns about what ty are ththinking without actuaualy hearing what they are thinking. we have constant reports about who we are k killing and how may people w we are killing withouot ever stotopping and thinkingng t who those people are or whether they have done anything that warranted that violence. so much so it was recently revealed a couple e months ago y the new york times the obama administration has adopted a new definition of militants, which says that any military aged male and a strike zone, meaning any malele who dies above the age of 16 or below the age of 55, is automatically deemed a militant without knowing anything else about them. this is how we have come to think about muslims, to the extent we think about them all, they die at the hands of our violence justififiably because even when we don't know anything
about them, we assume they are militants or terrorists. this has been so indoctrinated for so many years i in the mindt of americans that i think it really distinguishes this form of persecution from prior once. i don't mean it i mean it is a unique form off how this persesecution is justifified. another unique attribute of the current persecution campaign is that as we move further away from the prerepitating event, in justifyipitated the abuses, the 9/11 attack, the injustices actually worsen. to become morere extreme, not less. whatat is amazing about that,t,f you look at the precipitating event that l led to the intermet of japanesee americans, , the attack on pearl harbor and the war with the japanese, the japaneseon againstt americans was very intense during the initial conflict, but
after the initial trauma wore off, the persecution lesson. japanese-americans were integrated back into the american comommunity relativelyy quickly.y. as the country moved away from the precipitating event, the persecution got better gradually. what you see in this campaign is the opposite. we have one successful terrorist attack on u.s. soil 11 years ago, get if you look at such -- things neverer get better. never or the abubuses curtailed. even furthther away from the 9/11 attackck, things continue to worsen. you see far morere fbi raids and arrests where the fbi creates and funds and conceals a plot that it tricks young muslims into joining, then they trurumpt that they have dismantled the
plot. then they put them in prison for decades, far more so now than 10 years ago. when you look at the form of material prosecutions, they are far more remote connections to his designanated terrorist grou, literally 20 two-year-old muslim americans who upload youtube videos critical of u.s. foreign policy are being indicted based on the grounds of the youtube video encouraging support for terrorist group, done in coordination with them, therefore being indicted. far less proximate to any terrorist organization then mamaterial support was 10 years ago. then probably the most disturbing example is the claim byby the obama administration tt it actually has the ability to target even american citizens for extrajudicial assassination, to kill anybody a president decides without a whitit of
transparenency is guilty of terrorism, a power that not even george bush and dick cheney attempted. you see the worsening of this trend rather than the curtailment. i think that is also unique. importation ofhe the war t that i just describedd onto american soil progressively as we move further away y from 9/11. one of t the things that made te post 9/11 theheories s of dick cheney and georgrge bush so extrememist is there is nono moe limitlesess power t that a prest hann the powerer he can exerercise during a theaeatf war. on a battlefield, there really is no law. everybody acknowledges that. terrorist say when men take up arms, law false. more is the ultimate expreressin of l lawlessness in limitless
powerful stuff on the battlefifield, peoplple shoot eh other without haviving tririalsr due e process. everyone a agrees that is war to nobody thinks soldiers have to giveve opposing soldiers a trial before shooting them. that is what war is. what made these post-9/11 theories so radicacal is the assertion was made for the first time theaters of war w were no longer confined to find a physical faces, the battlefield. it was now the case the e entire planet w was the battlefield. including u.s. soil. therefore, the limitless power that the president can exercise on a battlefield are now no longer confined to physical spaces. essentially the president t is omnipotent everywhere because that i is where the battlefields found. what you have seen the past several years, ththe concern was at some point the world as a battlefield and d the president can exert more power is inside the united states. what you have seen over the last couple years is very much moving in that direction.
security.s. national officials five years ago talked about al qaeda as the greatetest nanational security threat werel qaeda and the e arabian peninsua or vararious affiliates, now thy talk about almost uniformly the greatest threat eating what they call homegrown terrorists. what you have seen the civil liberty abuses, new ones, spreading up almost exclusively on american soil. two years ago, the obama justice department announced new rules where miranda rights weree diluted. delududed -- you have legislation being proposed to strip people of citizenship and eliminate legal protections they h have. and the end of last year, you had the national defefense authorization act which codified the power, probably the mosost un-american power there is, lookining at america and he romanticize sent, on u.s. soil as well.
you see ththis incredibly rapid importation of war theory that used to bebe applied both h oute the united states nonow being applied on u.s. soil, to the u.s. citizens and those being residents of the u.s. i also think that is unique. attribute i want to talk about that i think distinguishes this current prosecute -- persecutionn cacampaign i is the way in which extremism rapidly becomes normalized. this is probably the most difficult to describe, but a alo the e most odious. think about what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. the country was traumatized by the attack. the political and media class became mac we us into political power. whateverer the u.s. government wanted, everybody was willing to giveve them forhehe most partrt. very f few objected in thahat immediate titiframame after thte attack. acquiescent, even
submissive all most every sector of american society was to the u.u.s. governmenen, when the government stood up and introduce the patriot act, that really set off lots of alarm bebells. go back to october and november in2001 and you will find most major american newspapers people reacting with a fair amount of alarm over the fact the government had now suggested and opposed ththat they seize nw surveillance and detention powers that were quite radical. the patriot act became the and thef e extremismsm danger of overreach on the part of the government. so much so that when the u.s. congress, as compliantnt as they were, and acted the patriot act by an overall majority, even the u.s. congrgress two o weeks aftr septemember 11 inserted into the patriot act a provision that says the power this law createts will expire in four years.
the reason being that everyone recognized this was an incredibly radical piece of legislation and that nobody wanted this to become permanent as part of america's political landscape. it was justified only because the situation was so extreme. later, thears situation was no longer extreme and the ideaea was those poweres could be curtailed and everything would return to normal. later, in 2005, the patriot act came up for renewal and it was renewed with almost no debate b ba vote of 89-10, even in the face of abundant evididence powers had been abus. in 2009, the obama administration issued a statement saying they wanted the patriot act quickly renewed. the handful of senators said, maybe we should modify this a tiny bit because there are some abuse taking plalace and this wl help prevent that, and t they we immediately accused by harry reid, the democratic majority leader, of risking a terrorist
attack on the united states and a quickly passed withh almost no debate. nobody thinks the patriot act is radical anymore, evenen though after 9/11 it was viewed as that bebecause extremism becomes normalized once we accept it for a long enough time. it blends into the woodwork and becomes a permanent fixture in american political culture. one other example of that is s i mentioned d a little bitit ago e obama administration has claimed the popower to target american citizens even for judicial and extrajudicial assassination with no charges, no due process, no oversight, n no judicial review. look atmazing is if you what the controversies were of the bush administration, things that had democrats and progressives running around with hysteria, screaming g and yelllg in protest, the shredding of the constitutionon, the war on
american v values, the things george bush and dick cheney did to provoke that protesest werere things like asserting the power to detain people, including american citizens, without due to eavesdropsimply on thehe conversations of ameren citizens without first going to court and getting judicial review. this was years ago, considered so extreme as there was s no insult you could expres that would be considered too extreme for how radical these powers were, yet here we are three years later and the current president is asserting that the power to detain people without charges, although he is doing that, and not merely the power toto ease drop on conversations without going through court, though he is doing that as well, but also the power to execute people, to assassinate people without going to court or invoking judicial review. yet there is very little controversy becausert time ago has now become normalized.
the reason why i consider this to be the most odious aspect of all these developments was really underscored a few months ago. i was speaking at a college in indiana, purdue university, and severaral high school students o write for their high school newspapers drove several hours to hear me speak.. i talked about the state of civil liberties in the united states and the way these russians had taken place. they interviewed me after for their high school newspaper. one of the things they said, they said a l lot more e intereg things than i did because it really has an impact. one thing they putut it out as they saiaid, look, you keep talking about all theseehanges to the civil liberties l landsce and the way y in which we have freedoms in this country, but one of the things you keep talking about is you make it seem like there are these great changes, there was the world pre-9/11 and now post-9/11. they told me for peopople who ae our age, 15, 16 years old, we were four years old at the time
of 9/11. really, there is no pre-9/11 world we know. our political consciousness has been shaped almost exclusively by the post-9/11 world. as i is all we know. what we consider extremist and radical and threatetening is for them increasingly morore and moe americans coming of age in the post-9/11 world all they know. it's nonormal. not objectionable, something they don't even pay much thought to in terms of questioning are challenging because it's the only experience they've had. that underscores why this long time in which these russians have b been permitted to takee d or so significant. important issue to me whenever i write about these issues is the term civil liberties. people try to guess about my
political ideology or where e im on the spectrum of political ideology and believe. that's always t the phrase -- that's really the only phrase i accept. the reason is i consider it completely central to everything wewe are talking about tonight. in order to have that discussion, i think it is important to step back. so many terms in our political discourse are terms ththat get thrown around all the time without paying attention to whwt thth mean. we heard before the term internal support that sendss people to prison for decades even though almost nobody can say what it means. the term terrorist and militant are terms that are at least as conseqequential, yetet almost he no real definition. i think civil liberties is the same way. everybody talks a about, yet t y few people s stop and think abot what i it means. the reason that's important to do is it actually has a very clear meaning, onone that is prettyty simple. all civil liberties really means
is the list ofof limitationsns t we have imposed on what the government can do to us. it's the things that first were conceiveved by the founders t to prevent a replica of the monarchy they had jujust foughta war to liberate themselves from an over the next two under 50 years it has b been added to and elaborated on in all kinds of ways. it''s the list of limits we have imposed onon the goverernment. we don't need to guess what they are, we haveve a constitution ad bill o of rights that tells us what those limits are. ..ose limits arere very clear they are intended to bebe very clear. they a are absolutist in their nature. ananybody can read them anand se what they say. the e first amendment sasays congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. before the men it sasays none of us will be subject to unreasonable searches of our person our home without probable cause. the fiftfth amendment says thato person s shall be deprived of le or libiberty without due process
of law. these are exactly the limitations that we have allowed the government systetematicallyo transgress without much backlash or objection. i just want to spend a little time as the lalast main point to talk about thinking g about what the implications are of allowing the government literally 2-wood nor all of the limitations -- allowing the govovernment to ignore all the limitations we have told them they have to abide by for us to consider their power legitimate. some of those implications are fairly obvbvious. if y you allow the government to transgress these themes that you have a government of the lawless, that means as citizen we lose crucial rights to change our society, touches what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is intended to guarantee. it means we lose the right of privacy if we can be eavesdrop on without a demonstration we
have done anything wrong to a court of law, if we can be killed or imprisoned without due procesess. i means we are at the mercy of the government. but there is something more insidious about allowing the government to violate the civil liberties systetematically thati think is to me the most important. it's a little difficult to describe, but i think it's worth doing because it's not very obvious. the main implication of allowing this to happen,n, allowing the government across these lines without implications or repercussions is it fundamentally changes the relationship between the citizenry and the government. what i mean by that is t this, n an ideal worldld, people exercie , they have fear over the people they are exercising p por that if they abuse that power, bad things will happen. ththat fear has always been n a to theryy deterrent temptation to abuse power. that's what happens in an ideal
society that a government fears it citizenry. look at what happened when tyrants and kings abuse their power. look at the world and history and you can see what happened to kings. they see of rulers abuse power, they have something to feaear. in a tyranny, the opposite happens. overtyranny, the people whom power is exercised fear the people who are exercising g pow. i think very much that is what has happened in the united states is the climate of feaear that has been created and that is increasasing, that is beieing bolstered all the time and has changed relationship between the citizenry and the government. i want to share an anecdote about when i first really realize this not in a theoretical way bubut a very visceral wayay and started thinking about it more. in january 2010, the first time i ever wrote about you organization w wiki leaks, devod to transparency and exposingg
secretet government wrongdoing. january 2010 was a time when almost nobody had heard of wiki leaks, including me. the way that i came to learn about wiki leaks was that the had prerepared a top-secret report. in this report it decreed that wiki leaks was an enemy of the state, a threat toto national secucurity. prepared as top-secret plot at ways to destroy wiki leaks, to expose feed them faketo documents that when published would destroy their credibility. ironically enough, this top-secret pentagon report about wiki leaks was linked to a few weeks -- it was leaked to wiki leaks, which published it.t. the nenew york times w wrote an article about this in 2010, which is very short t because nobody knew who this group was inin a talked about this weird, smalall transpaparency group had
been decreed as an enemy of the state by the pentagon and had plotted to destroy it. i remember reaeading this artice thinking that t any group that e pentagon had declared an enemy of the state in secret was a group that merited a lot more attention and probably a lot of support. i did a bunch of research and found out wiki leaks had brought transparenency in all sorts of important ways to other parts of the world, africa, berlin, exposing the secrets of corporations and the government's. i talked about the promise that i thought wiki leaks held for exposing the worlds most powerful factions in bringiging liked what they were doing. i interviewed the group's founder and publish the audio tape of the interview. at the end of the article, i incurred people to donate money to the organization because i knew they were sitting on a bunch of important secrets. this was before theyey had released the video of the babaghdad incident where megan soldiers and apache helicopters killed in unarmed jouournalist d
civilian, before all the big newsmaking leaks. they cannot process these leaks and they made it more, so i encourage people to donate money to them and prprided a link toto how they c could donatate moneyo them by paypal or to their bank accounts and other information. ,n response to that article specifically in response too my ananchor urging peopople to done money to wiki leaks, i had dozens of people, literally dozens and dozens in various , and the comments section, events like this say to me essentially something along the lines of, look, i concur completely with what you wrote about t wiki leaks, ii see the value in the work they are doing in the proromise they hold. i definitely want to support them. my fear, though, is if i wire money to wiki leaks or use paypal, i will end up on a government was somewhere.
or even w worse, if at some poit wiki leaks is formally decreed to be a terrorist organization i could be subjected to l liabili, criminal liability for materially supporting a terrorist group. these are not people prone to weird conspiracies that you hear from occasionally. these are very sober, rational americans. the reason i found that striking is because these were american citizens who were petrified of exercising their core first amendment constitutional right, which is what donating money to an organization or political causes. they were petrified they would be punished if they exexercised those rights. what made it more remarkable is wiki leaks was an organization, is still an organization that has s never been charged witith little loan coconvicted of any crime. yet here we are with all kinds of people voluntarily relinquishing their own rights at all fear the government would
abuse its power and punish them for exercising the right the constitution guararanteed. the reasason i found that so significant is you can provide all the rights you one on a piece of paper word piece of parchmenent, but if you intimide the citizenry f from exercicisig theieir rights, signaling there are no limits which thehe government has to abide by, those rights become completely worthless. one other antidote. 10 months after i wrote that first article about wiwiki leak, i was the first person to write manning, the extremely inhumane anand detentn conditions of long-term sololity confinement t without being convicted of any crime, all caps of harassment designed to dedestroy them psychologogicall. at the time i wrote the article, a lot of people were asking me -- i was asksking myself, too -- why would the u.s. government
subject this 23-year-old army private to this form m of serios opprpression? au and invesestigation concluded was that conclcluded it wass inhumane and borderline torture. ,t did not make sense to me because it turned manning into a martyr even if people e israel with what he did. they were sympathetic to the mistreatment. it risked having statements he made while in custody excluded from any trial on the ground it was foforced. it created a small scandal. even obama's s chief spokesman publicly denounce the treatment and resigned after he criticized the president for it. it did not make sense to me why they would want to subject him to this kind of abusive treatment that the whole world coululd see. after a little time thinking about that, i realized the reason they did that is the same reason that they are so aggressively putting fear into
people's hearts about supporting wiwiki leaks and threatening to prosecute wiki leaks, it's the same reason the u.s. governmenet spends all those years abducting thousands s of people from aroud the world and shipppping them ta lawless prison in the middle of the ocean and dressing them in .range jumpsuits and shackles the reason is it wanants to sena signal to anybody who may oppose them or try to impede their will in any way. it wants everyone toto know thee are no limits on what we can do to you. if you opposose us. if you want to expose things we have done in secret that are a a legal or deceitful or wrong, look at what we have just done to bradley manning. if you want to oppose our foreign policy, look at the people on this board t that we sent to prison for decades for doing, really, nothing. if you wanant to oppose our foreign policy, look at the guantánanamo detainees who have been tortured and are starting to die in that camp without any
hope of ever escaping. it is a purposeful way of creating this climate of fear as a means of pacifying people and prpreventing anybody from opposg or meaningfufully challenging wt they are doing even when it comes to exercising the rights of the constitutution. of fear is most palpable to me whehen i speak to people whoho live in mususlim communities s in the uninited states, , where they believe, my ofof them, with h great r reasot every conversation they have on their televisionon and every e-mail exchange they have with their friends or family are being monitored and recorded and explored. where they fear whenever somebody new shows up at theirir mosque thatt this is not a stranger whom they can befriend, that s somebody sent by thehe fo trick anand deceive them and get things to prosecute the master rest. it's people who are petrified of expressing p political opipinios because those political opinions can be used to convince a jury
ththey intended to harm unitited states. look at the righghts that people are petrified in the united states, muslim communitieses of exexercising the right t to pri, the right to free speech, the right to association. the core rights the constitution guarantees, that americaca is defined by, that people on the road are relinquishing out of fefear -- that people on their n are relinquishing out of fear. it's very e ey to intimimidate ople out o of exercising their rights while preventing them from even realizing it's happening. you can reach the point where you essentially tell yourself you have no real interest in opposing the government, you have no interest in protesting what they're doing or objecting to what they're doing, when in reality you have been intimidated out of it. the socialist activist rosa luxemburg said he does not move does not notice the chain. convince yout can that you actually don't want to
do any of the things you a are actually not able to do, you won't even realize you have been restricted in any meaningful way. you will think you are free, even though you been intimidated out of it.t. the only otherer point i w wanto happens is ife what you gather at an event like this and talk about all the horrible things taking place and youou dissect them and analyze them and focus s on the harm it's doing, one of the things you can do is sort of spread this horrendodous gloloominess. everybody walks outut depressed. like, i just listened to the last few things over an hour, i want to jump off a bridge. i think it's important to think about why ththat's not a rationl reaction. not for rosy eyed reasonsns, but because reality suggest there is no need to think that way.y. temptations for
groups historically in the united states will a been targeted for persecution is to believe that they can simply go in hide, that they can stayy object, tole, not nothinin and they wiwill be left alone. that never works. there was this w woman at an evt i was at at the universrsity of missouri last weeeek who was one of the earliest founders of f te stst. louis chapter of care. which she described was fascinating. she talked about how prior to 9/11 when they start the st. louis chapter of care, she and her fellow muslim activist thought they would have this nice innocuous little group. they would create t-shirts that said muslims care, a play on the word, they would have bake sales and showow the community they we happy, f fun people and not make waves. she said after 9/11, when the entire world changed for muslims in america, she realized that is not a solution.
that is what makes communinities vulnerable, , by not demanding their rights they will curry favor and protect themselves stop the only way she realized for muslims or any other group in history to have improved their situation is to find allies outside of the group and band together and demand those rights rather than hoping they will be accordrded to them. there is a lot of sesentiment in the united states that makes clear there was really groundsds for optitimism foror believing that's true. a couple months agogo there wasa mosque in joplin, missouri, that had been the target of arson and other vavandalism over the past several yeyears that eaearned te ground. leadaders in that community seta goal of a quarter million dollars they wanteted to raise oaltat'll is an optimistic ga to rebuild the mosque. i wrote about it and several other people wrote about it, and within 24 hours they had wildldy
exceeded their g goal, raising almost double the amount. now they are not only going to just rebuild the mosque,e, they will build a much larger and more moderern mosque with h a mh greater presence thatat can do a lot more for the community. these are the kinds of sentiments that we s see quite pervasively in the united states that need to be tapped to redress these problems. optimism isson fofor that t the united statesasas but on a a foundation, a premise tht injujustices were always going o take place, that the nature of leaders and human nature is such that power would be abuse. wewe have lots of f different institutions that are designed to safeguard those rights and prprevent those abuses, but they don't do it on around. but they are there. really are organizations out there that y you can participate in andnd join and support in all kinds of ways that are very effectively fighting against these abuses.
the two groups that are the sponsors of this evening's event and have invited me e to go arad the coununtry for four-day spspeaking about different issus are the groups that i think deserve your support the e most. that is really why i'm genuinely excited to be part of this four-day event, to tatalk about these issues with each of you, and i really appreciate your coming tonight. thank you very much. [
>> the following program is an original production of link tv. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm so delighted to come here and talk about our work. and this i is an o occasion tha, uh, gives me the opportunity to raise more issues that we see in the connection with our work. grameen bank, which was started back in 1976... not as an effort of a bank or ani