tv Democracy Now PBS January 6, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
01/06/17 01/06/17 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> russia has clearly assumed an even more aggressive cyber posture but increasing espionage operations, leaking data stolen from these operations, and targeting article infrastructure systems. amy: james clapper testifies at a senate hearing on foreign cyber threats ahead of a highly classified briefing today with president-elect donald trump. we will speak with pulitzer prize-winning journalist glenn greewald, who has faced an onslaught of criticism for questioning the premise of russian hacking of the u.s. election. >> these are obama appointees
who are running these agencies, even though they were high-level bush officials, in the middle of important controversial war on terror policies. they have a long history, not just of agencies, but they themselves approving legally dubious, if not right -- not outright illegal, lying and deceiving the public. amy: donald trump's military government. ,e will talk to gordon adams coeditor of the book "mission creep: the militarization of u.s. foreign-policy." all of that and more coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. house speaker paul ryan said thursday republicans are preparing to strip federal funding for planned parenthood as part their effort to repeal the affordable care act. the move would end about $400 million in annual medicaid
reimbursements to planned parenthood. republicans framed the move as an effort to halt abortions, though federal law already bars federal funds from paying for abortions except to save the life of the woman. in washington, planned parenthood legislative director jacqueline ayers said the attack was aimed at women's health care. >> this republican leadership has made a priority quite clear. with the speaker ryan's announcement today to defund planned parenthood, we know the real goal is about taking away health care access. we cannot let that happen. we know they're not going to only define planned parenthood, but rollback coverage under the affordable care act and take away health care for the 20 million people who now have access for the first time. in the 55 million women who have had coverage under no-cost birth control for the first time. amy: on thursday, planned parenthood announced plans for nearly 300 events in 47 states, including marches, protests, and letter-writing campaigns.
in washington, d.c. republican , lawmakers have scheduled confirmation hearings for donald trump's cabinet nominees next week with at least six candidates set to testify to on the same day. it's a move that critics say is a clear effort to prevent public scrutiny of trump's controversial cabinet picks. the six scheduled to appear ungenerous 11th are betsy devos for education, elaine chao for john kelly for homeland transportation john kelly for homeland, secretary rex , tillerson for secretary of state mike pompeo for cia. and , jeff sessions, who's scheduled for a second day of testimony on the 11th. critics say sessions has failed to complete his senate judiciary questionnaire, and are asking for a delay in his confirmation hearings. the crush of hearings comes on the same day that republican senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has scheduled a rapid fire series of budget items dubbed a vote-o-rama that will include votes related to repealing the affordable care
act. and topping it off, president-elect donald trump is scheduled to field questions for that day, january 11, the first since july when he called on russia to hack hillary clinton's emails. meanwhile, donald trump is expected to name former dan coats as director of national intelligence. coats is a former republican senator from indiana, who served two terms. he was a vocal enemy of planned parenthood, saying in 2015 -- "the barbaric practices of planned parenthood should not receive a dime of taxpayer money." in 2003, coats served as u.s. ambassador to germany, where he pressured the german government not to oppose president george w. bush's invasion of iraq. if confirmed, coats would oversee a sprawling intelligence service whose power donald trump reportedly wants to rein in. on capitol hill top intelligence , officials told a receptive audience of both democrats and republicans in the senate armed services committee that russia sought to meddle in november's election through a series of hacks and leaks.
this is james clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence. anrussia has clearly assumed even more aggressive cyber posture by increasing cyber operations, leaking data stolen from these operations, and targeting critical of her structure systems. amy: critics including journalist glenn greenwald question the case that russia interfered in november's election. and james clapper has previously lied during sworn testimony to congress. in march 2013, clapper was asked by senator ron wyden, "does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans?" to which he replied, "no, sir." clapper later defended himself by claiming he had answered the question in the least untruthful manner. later today, donald trump is set to meet with clapper, along with cia director john brennan and fbi director james comey, who say they'll present evidence to the president-elect that russian hackers meddled in november's election.
donald trump big knowledged today he will not force mexico to pay for a wall along the u.s. mexico border in a reversal of one of his signature campaign pledges. cnn reported he would ask congress for funds. trump tweeted -- the house of representatives voted overwhelmingly thursday to condemn a u.n. resolution that declares israeli settlements a flagrant violation of international law. all but four republicans voted in favor of the measure, which passed on a vote of 342-to-80. more than 100 democrats joined in support, with 76 opposed. the non-binding resolution declares unwavering u.s. support for israel, and condemns security council resolution 2334, which was approved in late december after the obama administration refused a veto sought by israeli officials and
president-elect donald trump. this is republican house speaker paul ryan. speaker ryan: i am stunned -- i am stunned at what happened last month. this government -- our government abandoned our ally israel when she needed us the most. amy: among the minority of lawmakers who opposed thursday's house resolution was oregon democrat earl blumenauer. >> but unfortunately, israel's future is being threatened by its own actions as well as its adversaries. for years, reckless settlement expansion has been opposed i the united states and the rest of the world. they're confiscating palestinian land in a way that is not just contrary to long-standing american policy, but is often illegal under israeli law. amy: some top republican
lawmakers, including senators ted cruz of texas and lindsey graham of south carolina, have proposed cutting off funding to the united nations over the security council's condemnation of israeli settlements. in israel police have arrested , two people for threatening judges who brought a manslaughter conviction against an israeli soldier caught on tape executing a wounded palestinian man. video of the killing last march shows palestinian abdel fattah al-sharif lying immobilized on the ground as israeli sergeant elor azaria fires a single shot into the man's head at close range. azaria's conviction last week drew outrage across israel, with prime minister benjamin netanyahu joining calls for a presidential pardon of the soldier. on thursday, israeli police said they arrested a man and a woman who used social media to post death threats against the military judges who convicted azaria. this is police spokesperson micky rosenfeld.
>> is really police units are looking out for individuals, putting out information threatening individuals in connection with the case. this will continue as long as necessary. amy: one of the two arrested was identified as a 22-year-old woman who allegedly threatened the top military judge on azaria's case, writing-- "take a grenade and blow up the judge and scatter all of her parts in different places, let the dogs eat her." according the "jerusalem post," she was questioned by police, released, and banned from posting on facebook for 30 days. in chicago, four teenagers will face felony hate crimes and other charges after a video they posted to facebook showed them torturing a bound and gagged mentally disabled teenager, while taunting him with racial epithets. the four could face sentences of up to 30 years in prison. the suspects are african-american and their victim is white, which prompted a racist backlash on social media sites. white supremacist groups sought to tie the four to the black lives matter movement, using the
hashtag #blmkidnapping. in texas, republican lawmakers said thursday they would introduce legislation requiring that school children and people in government buildings use bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex. the bill is similar to a bathroom bill passed in north carolina that has prompted a boycott and widespread protests from lgbtq groups will stop in mississippi police are , investigating the death of mesha caldwell as a homicide, making her the first transgender woman to be murdered in 2017. from 2010 through 2016, at least 111 transgender and gender-nonconforming people were murdered nationwide. 75% of those killed were african american. in north dakota, a water protector opposing the $3.8 billion dakota access pipeline says he's willing to go to jail on contempt charges rather than give testimony to a federal grand jury.
on wednesday, a federal judge threw out a motion by steve martinez to quash a subpoena ordering him to testify about injuries to sofia wilansky, a water protector whose arm was severely wounded during a police crackdown on november 20. martinez has been ordered to testify on february 1. he says he believes the grand jury is a fishing expedition aimed at forcing him to list the names of other activists opposing the dakota access pipeline. 1, i am looking at contempt because i'm not going to cooperate with this. i just think it is just a way for them to bully me into giving names and helping them out. i don't want to lose my freedom at all, but it is a small price to pay. amy: in turkey a pair of , attackers wielding guns and grenades opened fire on a courthouse in the western city of izmir before blowing themselves up in a car bomb attack that killed a police officer and a court employee. turkish officials blamed the banned kurdistan workers party
for the violence. the attack came after turkish officials said they've identified the gunman responsible for a new year's day massacre at an istanbul nightclub, which left 39 people dead. police released a photo of the suspect who they say remains at large, but have not revealed his name. in syria, state media said thursday at least 11 people died and 35thers were injured after a car bomb exploded in the coastal town of jableh. it was the first attack in the city since a fragile truce went into effect last week. there was no claim of responsibility for the attack, but isis and several other groups were not part of the russian, iranian, and turkish-brokered ceasefire. and with just two weeks until inauguration day, the act now to stop war and end racism are answer coalition now knows where it will be permitted to protest. the national park service granted answer a permit for a small portion of the west end of freedom plaza in the nation's capital. the agency says 24 other permit requests are still pending because donald trump's inaugural committee has not confirmed
which locations it does not plan to use. this is attorney carl messineo with the partnership for civil justice fund. >> the fact is there try to disrupt protest organizing, to sanitize the parade route of the kind of dissent that organized planning creates. a symbol onto donald trump, but the public space belongs to the people. amy: the partnership for civil justice fund says it may sue to get more permits issued. this is executive director mara verheyden-hilliard. >> we're getting calls from people all over the country who are worried about whether or not they should by bus to gets, whether or not they're going to be able to be able to speak out, to stand, to have land under their feet. we're here to tell them that it is safe to come, that it is lawful to come, that you can bring your children, your parents. there will be permitted space
and washington, d.c. -- there is permitted space and washington, d.c., and it is safe and legal to protest a new ship by your bus tickets today. amy: and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president-elect donald trump is slated to meet with u.s. intelligence chiefs today for a highly classified briefing on the alleged russian cyberattack of the 2017 election -- a claim trump disputes. thursday night trump tweeted -- "the democratic national committee would not allow the fbi to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by russia. so how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? what is going on?" president obama received the same briefing thursday, along with a 50-page classified intelligence document that reportedly says u.s. spy agencies intercepted russian communications in which top russian officials were
congratulating each other on donald trump's presidential win. "the new york times" wrote of trump's meeting today with director of national intelligence james clapper, cia director john brennan, and others -- "in effect, they will be telling the president-elect that the spy agencies believe he won with an assist from president vladimir v. putin of russia." an unclassified version of the report is expected to be released to the public next week. this comes as clapper appeared thursday before a senate armed services committee hearing on foreign cyberthreats, and said the intelligence community was resolute in its findings that russians hacked the u.s. election. arizona republican senator john mccain asked clapper whether the alleged hacking would constitute an act of war. >> really, what we're talking about is if they succeeded in changing the results of an election, which none of us believe they were, that that
would have to constitute an attack on the united states of america because of the effects if they had succeeded. would you agree with that? >> first, we cannot say -- they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort. we have no way of gauging the impact that certainly intelligence community cannot gauge the impact it had on the made.s the electorate there's no way for us to gauge that. whether or not that constitutes an act of war, i think is a very that i don'tcall believe the intelligence community should make. but it is certainly -- it would carry, and my view, great gravity. amy: that is national intelligence had james clapper being questioned by senator john mccain.
democracy now!'s nermeen shaikh and i sat down with pulitzer prize-winning journalist glenn greenwald, one of the founding editors of the intercept. his latest piece is headlined, "washpost is richly rewarded for false news about russia threat while public is deceived." this is part two of our cold about this article the onslaught of , criticism he's received for questioning the premise of russian hacking of the us election and how this compares , to criticism he's received in the past. -- nwald recently wrote "in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues -- including the snowden reporting -- nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work i've done questioning and challenging claims about russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally." i asked him to talk further about this. >> yes, i've done some pretty controversial and polarizing reporting in the past decade
when i have been writing about politics. when you do that, you obviously get attacked in lots of different ways. it is not just me. it is just sort of the rough-and-tumble of politics and journalism. that i really have not expense anything remotely like smear campaign that has been launched a democrats in his coordinated way ever since i began expressing skepticism about the prevailing narrative over russia and its role that it allegedly played in the election, in particular, and helping to defeat hillary clinton. not even the reporting i did based on the edward snowden archive, which is externally controversial in multiple countries around the world -- not even that compared to the attacks now. the reason is very obvious, which is that it has become exceptionally important to democratic partisans to believe that the reason they lost this election is not because they chose a candidate who was corrupt and who was extremely
disliked and who symbolized all of the worst failings of the democratic party. it is extremely important for them not to face what is really a systemic collapse on the part of the democratic party as a political force in the united states and the house and the senate and state houses and governorships all over the country. in order not to face any of that and have to confront their own failings, they instead want to focus everything on vladimir putin and russia and insist the reason they lost was because this big bag dictator interfered in the election. anyone who challenges or questions that instantly becomes not just their enemy, but now according to their framework, someone who is unpatriotic, that if you question the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this there is that somehow your loyalties are suspect, that you're not just a critic of the democratic party, you are actually a's do or an or agent oftooge
the kremlin. we saw this in the cold war. back then, was the far right using it against democrats for wanting to have that relations with russia. we saw it in 2002 when people who question the sufficiency of the evidence about saddam's wmd's were accused of being agents ofiraq. we us in reportedly in the war on terror -- we have seen it reportedly in the war on terror. these are the kinds of bullying, smear tactics that have become very common. but because democrats are so desperate to put the blame on everybody but themselves for their complete collapse of their party, they are particularly furious at anybody who vocally challenges this narrative. since i have been one of the people most vocally doing so, the smear campaign has been none like i've ever encountered. i have been accused of being a member of the alt-right, of
being an admirer of breitbart, of being supportive of donald trump, of helping get him elected. of course of being a kremlin operative. it is this constant flow, not from fridge accounts online, but from the democratic operatives and pundits with the greatest influence -- in fact, howard dean went on twitter three weeks ago and said, i think would be really interesting to find out whether the intercept is receiving money from russia or iran. something he obviously has zero evidence or basis for sugstg , but this is what the democratic party has become. nermee y mentioned breitbart news. one of the pieces of evidence that people cite for your alleged simply with breitbart is part of an interview that you tillie stranahan last month in which you said "breitbart is actually a fascinating case and i do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment
authority that left-wing media has not." you went on to say "it is very impressive in terms of the impact they have been able to have." is, breitbart media. lb had a breitbart media has been named by trump as his chief strategist. could you respond to that and explain what you meant? >> sure. breitbart has had a huge impact on american politics is something that no honest person could possibly dispute. their traffic alone has quadrupled were even more just in the past six to nine months. they became the go to plays for part of the republican party that ended up dominant, it up nominating and electing a candidate who the entire political establishment thought had no chance of ever winning. they gave voice to a huge part of the republican party that had been completely it systematically excluded from all
of the republican mainstream venues like national review and weekly standard. the impact they had had is immense. to deny that is delusional. it even worse is to suggest that knowledge and the impact that they had -- acknowledging the impact that they had somehow makes me an admirer of them. in the same interview, i told him directly to their face that the content of their producing is repellent. that is the word i used. i said i have all kinds of terrible things to say about breitbart reporters and about breitbart's content. all of the work i have done over the past decade, the sort of primary issue on which i have worked has been a defense of the civil liberties of muslims, is completely antithetical to everything that breitbart believes in. so to take a comment i made, which is an undeniably true, which is that the impact they have had on the political process is extraordinary and impressive, and convert that into me saying i somehow like
right part or am a supervisor with breitbart or it admirer or supporter of breitbart is dishonesty in the extreme. anyonebvious to minimally literate that that is the case will set a nickel and we come back, we talk about julian assange's from the obama administration of russia's involvement. in many other issues. stay with us. ♪ [music break]
amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we continue our conversation with glenn greenwald, pulitzer prize-winning journalist and one of the founding editors of the intercept. i spoke with him on thursday with nermeen shaikh. nermeen: i want to turn to an op-ed published last week in "wall street journal" written by journalist edward jay epstein will becoming book
published later this month. in the article, he writes -- "it was not the quantity of mr. snowden's theft, but the quality that was most telling. mr. snowden's theft put documents at risk that could reveal the nsa's level three tool kit, reference to documents containing the nsa's most important sources and methods. since the agency was created in 1952, russia and other adversary nations have been trying to penetrate its level three secrets without great success, yet it was precisely these secrets that mr. snowden changed jobs to steal. that is what edward jay epstein wrote in a wall street journal op-ed. in response to the article, journalist issued several tweets discrediting the piece including writing -- glenn greewald, could you talk
about that and respond to this forthcoming book on snowden? >> first of all, it is a huge irony because as we just discussed, democratic partisans spent the last return attorney into a breitbart admirer. at the same time, many of the same democratic partisans were heralding this attack on snowden by edward jay epstein. who is edward jay epstein? is a longtime neocon who is written forever for "the wall street journal" op-ed page, probably the most right-wing organ in the mainstream american media outlet. he is also a writer for breitbart. he is written multiple articles for breitbart. at the same time that these democrats are accusing me of being a breitbart supporter, they are heralding an article, a smear by breitbart writer. beyond that, the theme of this article and the theme of his book -- honestly, we cannot
detail all of the falsehoods here. i encourage you to look at what barton gellman posted online who said there so many falsehoods that he doesn't even have time to discredit them all. the central theme is essentially to insinuate that all along edward snowden was an operative of russia, that he was really just a russian spy. he was in a whistleblower, he wasn't acting out of conscience or anything else. number one, even cia and nsa officials who hate edward snowden with the burning passion have publicly repudiated this theory over and over. they have said, we have no evidence to believe that snowden ever work with the russian government, either before he leaked these secrets or after. in fact, the former cia chief mike murrell said, i believe both the chinese and the russians tried to get snowden to share information with them, and snowden said, i absolutely will not share anything with you because of his disdain for intelligence agencies in general.
if you are going even more extreme than both the nsa and cia in saying bad things about edward snowden, that shows how far off the rails you actually have gone. the other thing i would say is that what is being done to edward snowden by these far organs, the democratic party partisans are now cheering, is exactly what is done to all whistleblowers beginning with dinner oils burke. if you go back and look at what "the new york times" was reporting in 1971 about dan oil spurt after he leaked the pentagon papers, john ehrlichman, one of the top domestic policy aides to richard nixon and henry kissinger at the time next the special security advisor continually said that they believe that daniel ellsberg was a soviet spy, that before giving the pentagon papers to the new york times he had given them to the kremlin, exactly the same playbook was used against daniel ellsberg now being used against snowden which is to say, don't listen to these disclosures, don't regard this
person is a hero for exposing our corruption and law breaking, focus instead on the fact that these are traitors working with our enemies. just as it was completely false in the case of ellsberg, so too is it in the case of snowden. amy: what do you think will happen with edward snowden under a donald trump administration? and then what do you think will happen with julian assange, who is being cited now back trump as having the accurate information -- all of this over the 17 intelligence agencies? >> so i think, certainly, it is unclear -- there is this assumption that because donald trump and vladimir putin have been saying positive things about one another come and there is connection between the trump campaign and various russian interests, that means there's going to be this flowering detente between the two countries and this great relationship is going to emerge and there going to become allies. and that is early possible.
it may be there is an alliance between the u.s. and russia against china as a struggle for power and imperialism ensues. it is also the case -- if that really does happen, one of the fears that some people have is that as part of the kind of coming together of the u.s. and russia, that trump will be able to persuade putin to hand snowden over as kind of a gift, as something that trump can show to the american people -- look, i got my hands on snowden and obama was unable to do so. that certainly is a concern. i think that is a little bit of a superficial view because the animosity between the american political class and intelligence community on the one hand and the russian political class and intelligence community on the other is very ingrained. it has existed for decades. it is systemic and cultural. i think there's a very good likelihood that those entities, which most certainly do not want detente between russia and the united states, will find ways to
undermine and subvert this agenda. it is easy to see the u.s. and the soviet -- and russia can once again become loggerheads and resume this animosity. i do not think we know what is going to happen with snowden. as for assange for the reason he's in ecuadoran embassy is not because the u.s. is trying to get their hands on him, it is because sweden has these pending charges against him that various courts in the u.k. and the eu have upheld the validity of. i don't really see how trump can alter that, how he can change that dynamic. that is one of the tragedies. i don't see an exit for julian assange exiting the ecuadorian embassy without facing those charges in sweden. with the position of julian assange and ecuador has always been, if the u.s. were sweden agree that his going to sweden won't result in his extradition
to the u.s., he will go on the next flight and face those charges. so if the trump administration says, we have no interest in extraditing julian assange, if they and the grand jury pending against wikileaks, that i could see as a potential resolution he goes to sweden, faces the charges against him. if convicted, he gets in prison. if acquitted, he is free. nermeen: i want to go to another recent piece of yours on julian assange headlined "the guardian summary of julian assange's interview went viral and was completely false." in the piece, you cite a passage from a recent interview with julian assange conducted by italian journalist maurizi. you then point out the distortion of the words in the account given by the ben jacobs. his precise words are worth citing at length. when asked about his response to trump's election, he said in an interview "hillary clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the united states.
donald trump is not a d.c. insider. he is a part of the united states and his gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. they do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is destabilizing the pre-existing central part of the network within d.c. it is a new structure which will evolve rapidly but at the moment, it is looseness means there are opportunities for change in the united states. change for the worst and change for the better." so could you explain, glenn sreewald, how julian assange' response was conveyed in the guardian article which was headlined "julian assange gives guarded praise of trump and blasts clinton in interview." of course, the guardian subsequently posted a correction to the piece. >> right. let me take a step back. i officer worked at the guardian
when i did this snowden reporting. i have a lot of respect for the reporters and editors there. but one of their big flaws as an institution is they develop personal feuds with people they cover. when that happens, they dispense with all journalistic standards. one of the people they have particular hatred for its jeremy corbyn. over and over they have produced journalistic garbage about corbyn in pursuit of their feud. probably the only person they despise more than jeremy corbyn is julian assange met with whom they had once worked and had a huge falling out with its for personal and a great money is -- whenever the guardian reports on julian assange, all journalistic standards get thrown out the window. this article was a perfect example. there's not just a correction, there is actually a retraction at the bottom of the article because they claimed with zero evidence that wikileaks has had a long-standing close relationship with the putin regime, as they called it, that has now been deleted from the
story. they also claimed that julian assange crazed russia for having a free and vibrant press and therefore, there was no need for whistleblowing. when in fact, he said nothing of the sort. he simply said the reason why russian leakers do not go to wikileaks as opposed to other outlets in russia is because wikileaks does not speak russian and has no presence in the russian media landscape, therefore, is not viewed as a good option for a russian whistleblower. they also corrected the total distortion of what he said. what they also said, which is what you just asked about, they try to make it seem like julian assange was a fan of donald trump, that he was praising trump at the expense of hillary clinton. as the quote you just read proves, he was not praising trump at all. he was neutrally describing what he thought would be the consequence, the fallout of the truck residency, -- trump presidency.
instead he is creating a new power structure filled with rich people who are corrupt. because it is new, it is going to take some time to become entrenched. and in that process, there will be instability. that instability will enable some positive outcomes and also some very negative ones. he was just describing his predictions for what the fallout would be of a trump presidency come a by no means raising trump. the guardian was trying to feed this narrative that assange is a trump fan, that he loves russia, that he serves putin. that was the whole point of the article. this is another article that really went viral all over the internet and the key claims ended up collapsing. they had to retract and correct several key claims. none of those retractions went anywhere near as far as the original false claims themselves dead. amy: during his fox news interview, julian assange said the obama administration's
implication of russia into the leaks to delegitimize trump. >> our publications had white uptake by the american people. they're all true. but that is not the allegation that has been presented by the obama white house. so why such a dramatic response? well, the reason is obvious. they're trying to delegitimize the trump administration as it goes into the white house. they're going -- they are trying to say president-elect trump is not a legitimate -- amy: your thoughts on this, glenn greewald? >> i do think there is an element of truth to this, which is that if you look, for example, at the agency that has led the way in pushing these allegations about russia, which is the cia, there is no question that the cia -- the community of the cia was vehemently in support of hillary clinton's
candidacy and with equal vehemence opposed to donald trump. the two leading members of the cia community, former cia director michael morel's of president obama, and former cia director and all hayden reserve under president bush, both inorsed hillary clinton, one "the washington post" and the other in "the new york times." they attacked dona trump with a viciousness that is very rare, claiming he essentially have been turned into, converted, and recruited into a tool of putin. aggressively in favor of hillary clinton's victory. there is a lot of different reasons for that, but i think the primary one is the cia proxy war in syria is something that hillary clinton have promised not just to support, but to escalate. she was critical of obama for restraining the cia's efforts to support these rebels and remove assad, waltrip said we have no business try to change the government of syria.
we ought to let russia run free in syria, kill isis, kill whoever else they want to kill because we have no interest, we should keep assad and russia in charge of syria. there other reasons as well. there is no question the cia was a political actor behind the hillary clinton presidency and has pointedld trump out the cia is unreliable, pointed out wmd's. chuck schumer when on the rachel maddow show yesterday and asked him about this conflict between the cia and trump. he said something incredibly important. and very revealing. he said, it is really stupid of trump, just from the perspective of self interest, to go to war with the intelligence community because they have six different ifs to sunday to destroy you you stand up to them -- which is something that people have known forever, that the deep state can destroy even politicians were
supposed to be more powerful than they are. i think a lot of this is exactly what julian said, the cia is attending to undermine and subvert trump because they never wanted him to be president in the first place and they're trying to weaken and subvert his agenda that they oppose. amy: on friday, president elect trump is meeting with cia director john brennan, fbi director james comey, in the dni briefedapper as they him, summarize what the 17 intelligence agencies say. tell us who these three men are. interestingly, james comey has become after vladimir putin, probably the most despised villain in the democratic narrative about what happened in the election. in fact, after the election, hillary clinton blamed not putin or would clicks, but comey for why she lost because of the letter he wrote surely after the thetion in which he said
fbi was essentially reopening the investigation into whether she wrote -- broke the law through the use of her emails. james comey was a bush administration justice department official who was appointed not by george bush and iove by barack obama -- but barack obama to be the fbi director. john brennan was also a bush year a cia official, who is a supporter of a night of all aspects of the bush torture program, but some aspects including rendition another interrogation techniques that are widely regarded as torture, and he was made the national in the obamasor white house after obama tried to make him cia director in the beginning and liberals objected and balked his nomination but he ultimately became cia director. these are obama appointees who are running these agencies, even though they were high-level bush officials in the middle of onortant controversial war
terror policies. and they have a long history, not just their agencies, but they themselves, of approving legally dubious, if not right -- not outright illegal programs and lying and deceiving the public. there are no angels in any of these machinations taking place as his various factions five for power in this new scheme in washington. shouldt who donald trump find a lot of common ground with, who also once to expand torture techniques, as he said, expand guantanamo come his own appointees. >> in fairness to people like james comey and john brennan, and other people in the cia and the pentagon, a lot of those people who became either actively involved in or in a more passively complicit way
extremesome of the more war on terror programs, actually did come to regret it. either on moral and legal grounds or just pragmatic grounds commit when they realize that the u.s. interests are undermined if they're doing things like operating black sites and torture camps all over the world. in fact, brennan and other leading members of the cia has said, including michael hayden, that some of the things donald trump has said he wants to do like murder the families of terror suspects were reintroduced even more extreme forms of torture, are such forms the ciariminality that and the military would refuse to follow those orders. so there is a significant part of that world that things that trump has gone too far or will go to far, but there are also -- and that includes actually the person he wants to make his defense secretary, which is general mattis, who is a pretty
outspoken opponent actually of the reintroduction of torture. but there are some really unhinged extremist in that world, like michael flynn, honestly john bolton, others who may end up with the bush administration that want to do that and worse. there is this jockeying for power over who it is that is going to have what levels of influence and what the u.s. government and the trump administration does. with hill simply do not know who is going to prevail among these factions. amy: and what role do movements play in this now, glenn? >> i think the most important thing is that you have things like the constitution that are supposed to impose limits on even what age arranged leader can do. you have courts that are supposed to check that and congress that is supposed to check that in the media that is supposed to check that -- all of which have failed. i think the only truly effective
check against true abuse of revolt, popular protest. but in order for that to work, it can't just be confined to some sort of partisan movement. remember, you had huge arches against the iraq war in cities like san francisco and new york and washington and los angeles in 2003 that were ignored because they were viewed mostly as just liberal or democratic supporters, therefore, viewed through partisan prism. it has to be a kind of trance partisan movement were the american population really stands up and says, this is not about ideology. this is about the choice between democracy and authoritarianism and we choose democracy. and i do think, ultimately, only popular movements are the kinds of force that can really put a meaningful check on things trump wants to do. amy: that is still it's a prize-winning journalist than greenwald, one of the founders of the intercept.
amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. confirmation hearings for president-elect donald trump's key cabinet members begin monday. one of the first to go before congress will be trump's pick for homeland security secretary, retired marine general john kelly. kelly was formerly the head of united states southern command, where he oversaw the military prison at guantanamo. he is repeatedly testified to congress that the u.s.-mexico border represents a threat to national security, leading many to worry he will escalate the militarization of the border and u.s. immigration policy overall. he's one of three generals trump has nominated for cabinet and cabinet-level positions.
that includes retired general james "mad dog" mattis as defense secretary. he is likely to face questions about his actions in may 2004, when he ordered an attack on a small iraqi village that ended up killing more than 42 people attending a wedding ceremony. mattis went on to lead united states central command from 2010 to 2013, but the obama administration cut short his tour over concerns mattis was too hawkish on iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. he only retired from the military in 2013, meaning he will need congress to waive rules requiring defense secretaries to be civilians are seven or more years after leaving the military. the rules are in place to ensure civilian control over the u.s. armed forces. trump's third general is retired army lt. general michael flynn, whose been appointed national security adviser. flynn is well known for his anti-muslim worldview, having called islam a "cancer" and
saying "fear of muslims is rational." his position does not require senate confirmation. despite the fact that during trump's campaign he railed against generals -- mr. trump: i know more about .sis than the generals to believe me. amy: if generals kelly and mattis are both confirmed trump , will have more generals in his cabinet than any administration since world war ii. well, for more on donald trump and his generals, we're joined by gordon adams, professor emeritus at the school of international service at american university. he just wrote a piece for the "new york times" headlined "donald trump's military government." he is also coeditor of "mission creep: the militarization of u.s. foreign policy." welcome. talk about trump's picks, these military generals and what they mean to you. >> the first went to recognize in the cabinet as a whole, which is not normal, we're not dealing with a normal situation
anywhere. if you appointed cabinet officers that are basically highly will become relatively inexperienced in government, very rich, largely white males, that doesn't look like 21st century america. and many of them simply oppose the agenda of the agencies they are in charge of. the particular abnormality that we're talking about here is the appointment of three generals. the secretary defense come the secretary department of homeland sickening, the office of the director of national intelligence, the secretary state, those are the five positions. don't said four because they perpetrate was rumored to be a candidate. that is quite in usual. people will say barack obama had three generals in his cabinet, too, cabinet levels, and indeed, he did. one was the director of office of -- director of national intelligence, the early version of james clapper. mostly that job which is
advisory, not policymaking, has been filled by a military officer. for a while, yet james jones, who was a retired marine general . the third was actually in charge of the department of veterans affairs, which is not a crucial foreign-policy making department. top of thehe architecture and right at the center of foreign-policy and national security policy, we have generals flynn, mattis, and kelly in the key advisory positions to the president and two of the biggest departments involved with american security. that is an usual. what this will mean, the militarization of u.s. foreign-policy, as you put it. >> what i mean by that term is not what is traditionally thought. this is not a coup. but it is not normal. if this happen in a latin american country over the past 20 years or so, we were visibly say to the government of that country, generals should be in the barracks, they should not be running civilian departments of government and engaged in this kind of mission creep across the
american government. that here we have more what i call the velvet militarization of american foreign-policy. the gradual assumption that the right tool to use is a military tool, the tool they know is the military tool. gradual sense that only the military capacity is capable in the american government of executing and implementing american foreign-policy and national security policy. generals grow up in a particular culture. it is order driven. it tends to see connecticut's as a useful and the most useful tool for dealing with america's foreign and national security challenges. now around him, the president has three generals advising him about how to proceed in foreign-policy. but he does not have what i call a balanced tool kit of statecraft. he does not have a diplomat. he has a businessman at the secretary of state position with no government agency experience,
certainly, no diplomacy experience. and he has a relatively ineffectual new appointee announced at the office of the director of national intelligence, who is likely to be basically wiped off the face of the earth in intelligence matters by mike pompeo, a fight that we on panetta and any blair had eight years ago in which leon panetta one as the head of the cia. so we don't have balanced statecraft. the advice is biased as it were toward the connecticut's treatment. amy: explain that. >> that means going to war. the conga and deterrence missions of the military. that orients the for policy in a particular way toward combat operations toward giving the military capability to undertake tasks. that is the velvet militarization, is who does the job. amy: i want to talk specifically about who is about to be -- though before the senate. as head of u.s. seven command, general kelly was responsible
for guantanamo prison. he differed with obama on many key policy positions, including whether to close guantanamo. in an interview with defense one kelly disputed the argument that , guantanamo serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists, saying -- "bombing the living [bleep] out of isis in iraq and afghanistan, syria, that would maybe irritate them more than the fact we have guantanamo open." this is general kelly talking earlier this year. >> the dod has to continue guarding them, but i do think it is a place we will definitely need to hold detainees at least until one of the conflict is is over. whether it is guantanamo were a place in the states, conical united states, but i do think we need a place. amy: that is general kelly. theeneral kelly is probably mildest of the three in terms of the militarization i am talking
about. mild is a relative term here because i'm a clearly, his orientation is toward greater militarization of the american border. as maintaining of guantanamo a base, he has been outspoken about defense operations in the caribbean and at the border with respected drugs and criminal organizations. general kelly has that particular can do organized hierarchical, essentially kinetic militarized view of how we should approach our national security. there is no balance there. he is unusual and big the first general that is head of the department of homeland security, which has its own, as it were, border patrol say my military capability. amy: mattis, who would be event secretary, having to get that waiver. >> mattis, i think of a what should be the focus. what is interesting to me is the democratic party has targeted eight of trump's cabinet nominees as her principal focus. none of them are mattis. they seem prepared to give
mattis a bye. this he prepared to honor the rise -- authorize the waiver that is required from the surf. there's only been one general ever the head of the defense department and that was george marshall. that was back in 1950. he was secretary of defense for one year. in the waiver law was written with language in the statute that basically said, this is intended to be a one-time exception because those who wrote the original national knew it state origin was ill advised it was a question of civilian control, to have somebody as the civilian secretary in the department of defense. the military side of the department of defense is ushered by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the service chiefs. frankly, since 1986, the president wants military advice, he need only to turn to a statute called his prison will military advisor, who's the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he has military advice.
puttingquestion of unnecessary professional the formation toward military and kinetic operations in charge of the civilian control in the department. as i say, and the latin american country, we would say, this is ill-advised. amy: i think general flynn will be with trump today as he gets briefed. he does not need approval. he is one of the ones who pushed the idea of the child sex trafficking ring that he's of hillary clinton was involved with and that she declared war on the catholic church. had colin powell. not unusual to have military person. he just seems to permit only bill suited to a -- temperamentally ill-suited to a job which is to rang arranged to give a neutral choice. amy: we believe it there, gordon fellow at thet
♪ [announcer] p allen smith's garden to table is brought to you by the berry family of nurseries - growers of edibles, hardy trees and shrubs, and fresh holiday greenery. and by the makers of jobe's organic fertilizer now in spikes, granular and water soluble formulas - easy gardener.com. > have you ever looked in a cookbook and tried to find recipes for only two people? well it's a lot more difficult than you might think. not everyone has an army of kids in the household or a lot of room in their freezers to store food, so what i thought we would do is take a look at recipes for two that are big on flavor. we're even going to take an ordinary recipe and whittle it down and make it perfect for a duo.