tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 18, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT
you see this in international fishing stocks where there's -- since no one owns that familiar fishing area, it will get fished to extinction. there's no price for that. there's no price for carbon. so we do all these things that cause long-term damage. >> "all in" for this evening. the "rachel maddow show" begins right now. good evening, rachel. good evening, chris. thank you. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. the conservative medium and conservative movement in this country have a single, undisputed home on the internet. there's one low-tech mostly black-and-white website which is basically the home page online for the whole american right wing. and it has been the same website, it has been the same place for more than a decade now. yeah, there have been others that have tried to topple it, but nobody's been able to. no offense to our friends at the fox news channel, but the fox news website is terrible.
even the new fox news website is terrible. and when they got a new new fox news website recently, that, too, was terrible. nobody really uses the fox news website as their home page unless they're paid to do so because they work at the fox news channel. other well-funded entrepreneurial efforts have been made on the right to try to take over that sector. new right-wing media hubs have been popping up on the right over the last few years. tucker carlson did one. i think that one still exists. the people who did the fake pimp video about a.c.o.r.n., those people they tried to set up a website that would become the new right wing home page for american conservatives. there's been lots of efforts to try to take over this territory, but nobody has been able to succeed in toppling the king of them all. which has been that way for a very long time now. the website that is more influential on the american right than any other by a factor of "n" is, of course, the "drudge report."
as dominant as we think of the fox news channel in terms of defining the conservative mindset in republican politics on television, in the online sphere, the "drudge report" is way more dominant than fox is on tv. there's nothing like it on the right. it is absolutely the home page for american conservatism. and it has been for more than a decade. and you can just watch american conservatism unfold there. the front page banner headlines at the "drudge report" over the last year and a half have been one way of sort of peek in the window there to see how obsessed the right has been with the issue of benghazi. just looking at that one website, right, "drudge report," benghazi headline. "drudge report," benghazi headline. "drudge report," benghazi headline. "drudge report," benghazi headline. "drudge report," this is a good one, he knew. didn't even have to say, you knew that was a benghazi headline. "drudge report" with a siren, benghazi headline. this website which is the hard wired brain of the conservative movement and conservative media in the republican party, this
singular website which is basically the wizard behind america's right wing oz, the "drudge report" has been absolutely obsessed with the attacks on the american diplomatic facility in benghazi almost two years ago. well, today the united states government announced that the mastermind of that benghazi attack, alleged mastermind, he was arrested in libya. taken into custody by u.s. special forces and the fbi. can you imagine how something like that is going to play on the "drudge report"? right? i mean, for more than a year and a half now, the "drudge report" has been burning out its sirens and having to get new ones. freaking out about everything benghazi related. hyping things that are not even about benghazi in case they might have implications. any time anything breaks in the news, it's a distraction from benghazi. well today they caught the guy who allegedly did benghazi. can you imagine how "drudge" is going to deal with this news today? this was the headline for most of the day today on the "drudge
report." "price of meat, chicken, and fish soaring to an all-time high." after a year and a half of wall-to wall three-inch headlines about benghazi, today is the day the "drudge report" chooses to lead with the fact that chicken prices are rising. as an aside, i should let you know that i don't actually know if chicken prices are rising. the other main source for this information seems to be "world net daily" which has also been the source the breaking news that president obama is not only muslim but gay but also secretly muslim gay married. also blood moons. but today, what may or may not be high chicken prices, that was the "drudge report" lead story today. later in the day i should tell you the "drudge report" did change up their main headline to this one which concerns mexican troops on the u.s. border. the dollar bill icon there on the right, though, that is still about the high price of chicken.
on tv, of course, the fox news channel has been benghazi central to the point where it's sometimes even been weird and hard to follow. you may remember just a couple weeks ago that a dayside fox news channel show, dayside is apparently supposed to be their straight news, no opinion format. a dayside fox news channel show cut away from an official president obama presidential press conference and the host at the time explained that fox was only planning to go back to the president's live press conference if the president took a question about benghazi. but if he wasn't talking about benghazi, fox had no plans to cover the press conference. see, because they had benghazi stuff to talk about. why would you cover a presidential press conference if it wasn't about benghazi? today as the "washington post" first broke the news that the alleged leader of the benghazi attack was in u.s. custody, that a successful special operations raid had gone off in libya without a hitch and the alleged perpetrator of the benghazi attack was on his way back to
the united states to face justice, one might reasonably expect at the all benghazi all the time fox news channel they would be excited about this big breakthrough news, right? instead, though, at the fox news channel they seemed kind of just a little let down. and they quickly turned from the news of this guy being arrested to their own suspicions about the timing. maybe this is all just a trick to help hillary clinton's book sales. seriously. >> you have the former secretary of state who's in the middle of a really high-profile book tour and i think this is convenient for her to shift the talking points from some of the things she's been discussing. >> i think this thing needs to be tied in a bow for certain individuals to have a clean break from an incident that has become and will continue to be a scandal and anchor around a certain individual's neck who may want to run for president and so -- >> having an interview today. fox news with greta van susteren. >> what a great thing to announce on fox news that the perpetrators have been brought
to justice. it's all too neat and it's too cute. i want to give -- i want to be grateful. i want to give the benefit of the doubt to our authorities. in this case, it feels too neat on the timing. >> it's too neat on the timeline. it's too cute. after a year and a half of covering benghazi wall to wall as if it were a year and a half long o.j. simpson white bronco car chase, on the day that the alleged perpetrator of the benghazi attack is arrested and brought into u.s. custody after a special forces raid, the take on fox news is that that's not actually news. that is just designed to distract you from the hillary clinton book tour. it's all too convenient, people. sheeple. it's been amazing, amazing, amazing on the right today. conservative media is having a very, very hard time with this news today about the alleged leader of the benghazi attack being arrested. they have to make it into bad news.
they have to make it into maybe even a scandal, itself, that the administration has captured the alleged perpetrator of the attack. and republicans in congress are doing the exact same thing. it's not just on the media. senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire put out a statement as soon as she heard the news today which, again, you think would be -- this would be greeted as good news, but senator ayotte instead said this. "rather that rushing to read him his miranda rights and telling him he has the right to remain silent, i hope the administration will focus on collecting the intelligence necessary to prevent future attacks and to find the other terrorists responsible for the benghazi attacks." oh, so you guys arrested the guy who did it. well, i bet you arrested him wrong. and i can't believe he's the only one you arrested. wow. in february, senator ayotte joined with senator lindsey graham and senator john mccain to write this letter to the white house expressing their outrage that no one had been arrested and brought to justice for the benghazi attack. now that someone has been arrested and being brought to
justice for the attack, senator ayotte decided today she's still outraged. senators mccain and graham today also stayed outraged. both of them insisting to the reporters today that the president was still doing it wrong. unless he brings this guy to guantanamo. >> i'd bring him to guantanamo. where else can you take him to? >> has the administration indicated where they're going to hold him? >> no, no. >> what they're going to do with him? >> no, not that i know of. >> what do you think of the -- >> what's that? >> guantanamo. where we put terrorists when we apprehend them. >> actually, no, in this case, and in every other case like this since president obama has been the president, nobody new goes to guantanamo. people go back to the united states and go on trial in a regular court. john mccain and lindsey graham and marco rubio and kelly ayotte and all the other republicans in congress who commented on this today say they have to come up with a way to turn this into bad news. they have to turn, figure out a
way to turn it into bad news that the guy who allegedly led the benghazi attack has been arrested. the way they decided to make it into bad news is that that guy is not going straight to guantanamo. so they're all lining up behind john mccain on this and saying, yeah, the guy's got to go to guantanamo, good thing we've still got a guantanamo, right, senator mccain? good thing we and the republican party still have your leadership to follow on issues of foreign policy and terrorism and what ought to happen at a place called guantanamo. >> i believe we should close guantanamo. i'm for closing guantanamo bay. we need to close guantanamo. i think guantanamo should be closed. i think it's become a symbol and i would move those detainees to ft. leavenworth, kansas, where we have a federal prison. >> john mccain ran for president of the united states in 2008 saying he would close guantanamo and prisoners who might otherwise have been handled that guantanamo should be sent to federal prison.
now president obama is proposing to prosecute the alleged leader of the benghazi attacks and send him to federal prison so now john mccain is lighting his hair on fire and saying, no, the guy has to go to guantanamo. why do people keep asking john mccain what he thinks about these things? it's obviously not his strong suit. he doesn't even remember if he likes guantanamo or not. which is fine. i mean, we all have our weak spots. i can never remember if i like garbanzo beans or not. i know that about myself. i'd never try to open up a mediterranean restaurant. i don't know. it's not my strong suit. john mccain is the king of foreign policy in the republican party but doesn't know what his own position is on guantanamo or whether terrorists should be instead in federal prisons. his own position. >> i'd bring him to guantanamo. where else can you take him to? i would move those detainees to ft. leavenworth, kansas, where we have a federal prison. >> asked and answered. he can handle both sides of the
debate. today after the "washington post" broke the story of this arrest and the white house confirmed it and the president made preliminary remarks about it at an event he was doing in pennsylvania, the attorney general eric holder and fbi director james comey both spoke about the federal criminal charges that have been unsealed against the alleged leader of the benghazi attack who's just been picked up. these charges were first filed last july. they were unsealed today. the three charges that were unsealed today that he'll be facing, they could, if he's convicted, lead to life in prison or technically even the death penalty but the justice department says they may add yet more charges. it's going to be interesting to watch how republicans handle this and whether they continue to try to turn it into a bad news story. i mean, this does come immediately on the heels of republicans trying to return -- republicans trying to turn the return of an american prisoner of war into a bad news story. you remember all the republican
members of congress putting out initially congratulatory celebratory tweets and statements saying how excited and happy they were like most americans were when we learned bowe bergdahl was being returned to the u.s. after five years in taliban custody. right? all of those statements and tweets from republican elected officials then had to be retracted because it became the republican party line that actually the return of this last american prisoner of war was supposed to be bad news. not good news like you might have first thought. so it's going to be very interesting right after the bowe bergdahl political fiasco on the right to see if republicans try to do that on this story, too, about the alleged ringleader of the benghazi attacks. after screaming from the rooftops for a year and a half that the perpetrators in benghazi had to be brought to justice. will republicans in the conservative media be able to try to turn this into a scandal? will they be able to make it part of their broader conspiracy theory? that someone is actually being brought to justice for the attack.
and this is all happening at the same time as washington is trying to figure out how to process the legitimately bad news, the legitimately terrible news out of iraq. i mean, as frustrating as it is to see somebody like john mccain cited as an authority on guantanamo when john mccain isn't even a authority on john mccain's own position on guantanamo. the reason that john mccain has been ubiquitous in the media for the past week is because he is also supposedly the republican party's greatest expert on iraq. and specifically on war in iraq. and john mccain, let the record show, john mccain was wrong about iraq and the war in iraq. in almost every way that a person can be wrong about something like that. he was wrong about saddam having weapons. he was wrong about how long the war would take. he was wrong about how big the war would be. he famously said that as far as he was concerned, he thought that maybe saddam sent the anthrax attacks. john mccain was wrong about whether there might ever be any trouble between sunnis and shias in iraq.
because john mccain was so wrong about iraq, it is frustrating to see him everywhere, right? on the sunday shows, on the cable news shows, in the paper with reporters following him around the capitol now. as if his previous abject and consequential failures on this subject maybe him worthy about listening to the exact same subject right now. there's a lot of this going on right now. iraq war architects like kenneth pollack, robert kagan are getting quoted in "the new york times" again advocating for another iraq war even though the last one they designed was such a disaster. "politico" quoting doug fife. bill kristol on abc. paul bremer in the "wall street journal" and cnn and msnbc. paul wolfowitz. judy miller, disgraced "new york times" reporter the newspaper had to apologize for after they ran her bogus pro-iraq war stories over and over and over again on the front page helping make a national case for that war that was false. judith miller, literally her.
not just somebody who looks like her. there she is back on fox news in this case making the case for iraq war again. it is very frustrating to see that this is the way that we handle debates about foreign policy in this country. we take people who were so provably, terribly wrong and bring them back and treat them like experts on the very subject they have been so wrong about. it is maddening. their argument for taking them seriously is to ignore everything they've said up to this point. for neoconservative pundits it's a guaranteed job security. pushed for armed conflict and if it descends into chaos, that's reason to push for more armed conflict. there are no consequences for being so wrong all the time. it is frustrating. if you have been feeling frustrated about seeing all these iraq war architects and cheerleaders back out there doing it again with no accountability, you are not alone in your frustration. you know what? we did learn something in the last ten years.
we did learn something from how we went to war the last time. that last quote that i just read that you saw on screen, that's from this article at salon.com today. look at the very satisfying headline. "stop treating war-crazy buffoons as experts! they got it wrong, remember?" i think it matters for our national discourse that there are a lot of headlines out there like this right now. right? on iran, "let's ignore those who got it all wrong." "iraq war boosters get second chance in media spotlight." "media should stop boosting people who got iraq wrong." "how many times do the neocons get to be wrong before we stop asking them what to do in iraq?" here's james fallows from "the atlantic" tweeting a couple days ago. "working hypothesis. no one who stumped for the original iraq invasion gets to give advice about disaster now nor should they be listened to." liberal website, daily kos, has this petition posted right now. sign this. tell iraq war cheerleaders to shut up. as frustrating as it has been for you at home to see all of
the iraq war cheerleaders being quoted again cheerleading for yet more war in iraq, i have to say, it is also satisfying, and also feels like we've gone through some measure of growth as a nation that you are not alone in that frustration. and that there are so many other even very outspoken people who are frustrated by that and the pushback is strong. the pushback is strong now. i mean, yeah, it's happening, but hey sunday shows, hey op-ped pages, hey cable news, hey, everybody. you're attempted to keep booking these yahoos on these subjects but if you keep turning to the people who were famously wrong about iraq to ask them to do about iraq, you at least will be laughed at and you will be embarrassed that you did this and you will eventually have to apologize or at least explain yourself for why you thought bill kristol should be explaining what to do now. we can see what you're doing and it's funny and not in a good way. but for all of the calling the question that is sort of happening in washington and the media right now, for all of the
truly red meat right and left fighting and humiliation that is happening right now on our politics, on foreign policy issues, there is a real test for how we handle these questions in our nation that has nothing to do with short-term partisan gain and score settling and pointing and laughing at people who need to be pointed at and laughed at. there is something real that we can do here to sort of cut through both the funny stuff and also the bull. it is the genius of the founding fathers and the way they structured our constitution that when questions of war and peace arise, as they do right now with the terrible situation in iraq 2 1/2 years after american troops left there, when questions of war and peace arise, for us as a nation, it really is very clearly supposed to be the congress who explicitly makes the decision about what our country should do in terms of military intervention or not. it is not the congress' place just to go in front of tv cameras and to tweet and to send grandstanding open letters.
article 1 section 8 of constitution gives congress the job of making the actual decisions about real bombs instead of just throwing rhetorical bombs without consequence. and as much noise as we hear right now about the always wrong peanut gallery yelling that president obama needs to reinvade iraq, there was just as much of that noise yelling that president obama needed to invade syria last year. you may remember. while it seemed for a moment like president obama maybe was going to do that and he was threatening to use air strikes in syria, he threatened that all military force options were on the table in syria. when it came time to maybe exercise those options last august, president obama went to the rose garden and made a speech. he acknowledged the congressional clamor for u.s. military intervention in syria and called the question. he said, yes, he was open to the prospect of military intervention in syria and if our country wanted to do it, congress should vote to do so. congress should take a vote and say that's what we should do because that is congress' congressional prerogative. and you know what?
the united states did not start a war in syria. even after all those members of congress were screaming that we ought to. we did not get involved militarily in syria because congress not only didn't vote to do it, they never took it up. they don't want to actually put their money where their mouths are. they just want to carp about it. when it came time in syria, they did not want to take a binding vote on what to do, they preferred to just yell about it on tv. when president obama called the question, it was over. under the constitution, congress is actually required to get out of the armchair and make binding decisions on military matters. we are seeing the worst of the armchair quarterbacking right now on bowe bergdahl and on the benghazi arrest and on iraq. but if you want to see this debate get much better really fast, if you want to see our foreign policy politics in washington get much less petty, not tv talking points, not self-contradictory chicken price partisan diversions. right? if you want to see this become real, real decision-making with real accountability, then as was
whatever residual force was discussed to be left in iraq would have been, had the iraqis accepted the terms by which we leave troops anywhere in the world, which they refused to do. but that force would have been noncombat. it would have been not involved in combat. so it was not a combatant force that was being contemplated.
it was train, advise, assist, so forth. >> secretary of state john kerry yesterday discussing the decision to withdraw u.s. troops from iraq. joining us now, carne ross, former british diplomat who resigned over the war in iraq. he's head of a non-profit, nonpartisan diplomatic advisory group called independent diplomatic. mr. ross, thank you for being here. >> thanks for having any. >> having been there in the middle of the initial international debate over the war in iraq in 2002 and 2003, how do you feel like the international debate is going right now? in terms of the quality of the debate about the very critical security situation in iraq? >> it's very confused. in a way what we're seeing is the epic playing out of the final neocon project in iraq. in a sense what's happening is post-invasion order established by the u.s. after the invasion is collapsing. president maliki was appointed essentially by the u.s. he was chosen by the then-u.s.
ambassador who was, himself, a bush appointee. and it's a function of his government the way he's conducted himself that we face this disastrous situation we see in iraq today. it's a confusing situation. it's not at all clear what is the right thing to do. >> in terms of the american side of this debate, obviously this is not an american issue. this is an iraq issue and an international issue. but we have got very difficult and hard to traverse politics around talking about iraq at all in this country because of the disaster of the failed and false case for the war in 2002. you went through a similar situation in britain. as the united states considers its option, i think there is a real as to what the u.s. congress has to decide. president obama has announced that 275 u.s. troops are going to iraq under the war powers resolution on his say-so alone. equipped for combat but basically there to preserve and protect american life and property.
is that an important strategic development? >> i don't think it's that significant as far as i understand it. the troops are being sent there to secure the u.s. embassy with militants quite near baghdad. it makes sense. the u.s. embassy is a very large installation. i imagine it needs a lot of security people to protect it. obama has been very clear that he doesn't want u.s. boots on the ground in any kind of sort of interventionist sense. it still seems to be an open question whether there might be some kind of air strikes or drone attacks, whether he would need to seek congressional approval for that. i don't know. elsewhere in the world, of course, he has not. >> in terms of the -- if there is going to be a sort of unilateral or multilateral, the alliances are awkward. the shiite government in iraq led by prime minister maliki is supported very strongly by the government in iran. also to a lesser extent by the government, the shiite-led government in syria which has i own distractions and, of course, by the u.s. which sees the
maliki government not only essentially as its progeny but also its project. is the united states capable of working constructively with allies who are that complicated for us? on any sort of action? >> it's extraordinarily difficult. obviously the preferable outcome here is some kind of political solution both to the government crisis in iraq and also to the regional crisis because this is a war. these battles transcend borders. they involve syria, to an extend lebanon and elsewhere. this is a regional war is spreading. it needs to be dealt with. that would require the u.s. to engage with iran. there's no way maliki can be asked to step down as people now seem to be talking about here in the u.s. without the iranians consenting to that. he's a tough guy. he would, himself, object. he is to an extent a creature of iranian power and also to an extent he's his own man. getting some kind of new inclusive political settlement that would include sunnis and
kurds as well as the dominant shia ethnicity would require the iranians to be engaged. yes. >> obviously they know that their interests are primary in the region in terms of their direct connection to this conflict. if there did need to be significant discussions about the fate of the kurds, about potential partition in iraq about not just political settlement but perhaps total political reorientation in the region along sectarian lines or otherwise. who else besides iran has credibility and diplomatic capability to be constructively involved there? >> well, the truth is only the u.s. can pull this together. at the ends of the day it remains the global power. only the u.s. would have the inclination. it would need to include the saudis, gulf countries which of course have been sympathetic to the sunni side, supporting sunni rebels. to some support, there's been gulf support for isis, itself. they would have to be included in the regional discussion.
that would be the ideal. one hope i have is that this crisis will push for a much, much more invigorated political effort to solve both the crisis in iraq and the related crisis in syria which is -- which as long as that war continues, we will continue to have isis, we will continue to have rampant extremist groups getting weapons, large resources. this problem will not be solved. >> your point about america having the capability to do something that maybe nobody else can have, can do, but it not being military capability but rather diplomatic weight i think has been lost thus far and i think is the next most important thing for people to start debating. in this country. thank you for explaining it. carne ross of independent diplomat. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. mary has atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. that puts her at a greater risk of stroke. rome? sure! before xarelto®, mary took warfarin,
which required monthly trips to get her blood tested. but that's history. back to the museum? not this time! now that her doctor switched her to once-a-day xarelto®, mary can leave those monthly trips behind. domestic flight? not today! like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce afib-related stroke risk. but xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem that doesn't require regular blood monitoring. so mary is free of that monitoring routine. for patients currently well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. xarelto® is just one pill a day taken with the evening meal. spinach? grazie! plus, with no known dietary restrictions, mary can eat the healthy foods she likes. don't stop taking xarelto®, rivaroxaban, unless your doctor tells you to. while taking xarelto®, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding
if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious bleeding, and in rare cases, may be fatal. get help right away if you develop unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. switching to xarelto® was the right move for mary. ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. no regular blood monitoring; no known dietary restrictions. for information and savings options download the xarelto® patient center app, call 1-888-xarelto, or visit goxarelto.com
the state of oklahoma's terribly botched execution back in late april, that had a sort of surprising effect of starting basically a moratorium on killing prisoners in this country. well, that moratorium appears to be set to end tonight, but there's a lot of drama and turns out a lot of suspense about whether or not that's going to happen. and that story is coming up. stay with us. i think the biggest value of truecar...
was that it gave me... confidence to buy my very first car... and to walk out of that dealership... and know that i got a good deal. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com at the end of april, the state of oklahoma made international news when they tried to stop doing an execution that they had already started. since then, nine straight planned executions have been put off or canceled in this country. there hasn't been one since what happened in oklahoma. what happened in oklahoma went so wrong it basically shocked the whole country out of doing any more executions.
this is how oklahoma officials explained that night what they thought went wrong, but we now know that this isn't actually what happened at all. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to make a short statement. i will not be taking any questions. so please don't scream and holler at me. but i'm going to let you know what i know at this point in time. as those that were inside witnessed, it was determined that he was sedated approximately seven minutes into the execution. at that time, we began pushing the second and third drugs in the protocol. there was some concern at that time that the drugs were not having the effect, so the doctor observed the line and determined that the line had blown. after conferring with the warden, and unknown how much drugs had went into him, it was
my decision at that time to stop the execution. at approximately 7:06 hours, inmate suffered what appears to be a massive heart attack and passed away. that is it. that is all my statement. that's all the information i have at this time. >> sir, can i ask you one quick question? oklahoma city -- [ inaudible ] we'd like to ask you at what point what drugs were being administered that this -- >> as i said, we pushed all three drugs and determined it was not having the side effect and we checked and the line had blown. >> why did you decide to lower the curtain? >> so that a physician could check the vein. that's for the privacy -- >> when did he pass away? >> 7:06 hours. >> what does line is blown mean? >> the vein blew. >> the vein. >> what does that mean? >> the vein exploded. >> his vein exploded.
>> no, his vein didn't explode. even if that were a thing which it's not. it is apparently not what happened in that case in oklahoma. an independent autopsy of the prisoner who oklahoma tried to kill that night and then tried to stop killing and then ended up killing anyway, that independent autopsy reportedly found that it was just medical error that screwed up that execution. the execution team failed to properly place the iv. the autopsy found skin punctures that suggested that the execution team had repeatedly tried to stick the iv into other places including the prisoner's arms. his veins reportedly had excellent integrity. they should not have had a tough time placing the iv into this man, but for whatever reason, the execution team couldn't figure out how to do it and that's how they ended up trying to put the iv into his groin which is hard to do and a very painful thing. they failed to do it properly and that's why the execution was botched and who knows how that
man ultimately ended up dying after they pulled the shades. after that experience six weeks ago, see how if you were facing execution you might want to know who was on the team designed to stick the iv into you, to start the process of killing you with the deliberately misused pharmaceuticals. that information, the members of the team, that's being kept secret in the state of georgia tonight as they prepare to carry out the first execution in the country after that oklahoma experience in april. that execution was scheduled to start at 7:00 p.m. tonight, but it's past 7:00 now and last we knew, it was still pending at the supreme court. also tonight in missouri, after a series of last-minute stays of execution in that state, it also looks like missouri is going to go ahead with its next execution tonight. it's planned for 12:01 a.m. local time. an appeal in that case is pending before the u.s. supreme court as well. and then a third in 24 hours. another execution is scheduled for tomorrow in florida. there's been nine straight stays
or delays of executions since what happened in oklahoma. now we're scheduled for 3 in 24 hours and this issue of secrecy around the medical personnel involved and also the drugs used in these look like but aren't quite medical procedures, that secrecy is at the center of the fight by the states to start killing prisoners again and by these prisoners' lawyers to try to stop the states from going ahead. having doctors participate in executions is a controversial thing. medical professionals broadly. i mean, obviously do no harm is the literal hippocratic oath, but to be more specific, the country's largest association of doctors, the american medical association, they've got on explicit position on capital punishment. their position is no member of the medical profession should participate in any way in authorizing an execution. the american board of anesthesiology concurs. they say that anesthesiologists should not participate in execution by lethal injection. they're particularly important since anesthesia is one of the drugs they try to kill people with.
they've gone a step further. they have a policy that would essentially revoke the board certification of any anesthesiologists who are found to be involved in executions. so from that professional association's perspective, you want to kill people, we can't necessarily stop you, but then we can say that you can no longer be an anesthesiologist anymore. not one who can practice anywhere in the u.s., at least. last month the "journal of the american medical association" published an editorial basically calling for the rest of the medical community to follow the lead of the anesthesiologists. "unless the profession is willing to stand up in defense of its own ethical principles, it will lose the authority to call itself a profession." tonight the lawyers for the man scheduled to be killed in georgia arranged for an anesthesiologist to be there but just as a witness. maybe to help explain what he sees if the execution goes forward even though he will not be participating in the execution, himself. as america struggles to figure
out if this pseudo medical approach to killing people is still going to be considered both constitutional and logistically feasible, could the medical profession, itself, play potentially a crucial role in deciding whether or not we can go through with this at all as a country? anywhere in the country? joining us now is one of the authors of that editorial in the "journal of the american medical association," glenn cohen, specializing in medical ethics. professor cohen, thank you for being with us. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> i want to read and ask you to elaborate or explain for our lay audience. board certification is not required to practice medicine but many fields a de facto requirement for physicians to practice within their specialties. the american board has taken a courageous step on a policy, they are subject to having their board certification revoked. the boards of other specialties should consider taking the same action. why did you recommend that, and
what do you think the practical effect of such a step would be? >> so we think it's totally incompatible of the role of the doctor. a doctor is about healing. a doctor is about soothing pain. a doctor is not meant to be conscripted by the state to make what is the involuntary killing of another person look as though it's a medical procedure like getting your teeth pulled or putting your dog to sleep. it's kabuki theater, rachel. we think doctors should stand up. whatever your position is on capital punishment. it's wrong to make this procedure look like medicine. that's not what it is. if doctors were to begin to refuse this, many states actually require that a doctor be present and participate. we're of the view that if the board certification started withdrawing board certification from those who participated, this would be a serious blow to those who wanted to go through this procedure. i should note there are other ways of killing people. there are plenty ways of killing people that are lawful under the eighth amendment that don't look like medicine. all we're saying is not let's pretend this medicine as usually practiced. this is execution. this is something totally
different. >> do you think that states that currently have lethal injection as their protocol, if this happened, would continue going ahead with this as their protocol and just use corrections officials or anybody else with no medical training whatsoever to go ahead with this? how do you think that would affect the ethics of what they're doing and the political practicality of that form of policy? >> i think given what happened in oklahoma, botching which was incorrectly performed, if doctors could no longer participate -- i should be clear that i believe the corrections physicians association has also come out against capital punishment and against participating in executions. i think that this particular protocol would go by the wayside and be forced to kind of wrestle with what we're actually doing. hanging, firing squads. there are plenty of ways of killing people painlessly that don't require doctors to be involved, but the horror of that is what i think we have to internalize if these particular protocols went away. >> thanks very much, dr. glenn cohen, harvard law school professor specializing in medical ethics.
what we have to do is find a way to rise and conquer the people of assistance. we have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice in her condition that needs help and that we should help. and we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, are you on your own. we may end up taking care of those babies, but we're in the going to take care of you. we with the to have that serious discussion.
it won't next year. wrong time because it will be politically charged. one of the reasons i may never run for another elected office, some of these things may get me railroaded out of town. >> it turns out, he didn't get railroaded out of town. that's now the man who is the republican senate in north carolina against incumbent senator kate hagan. that video of him dividing and conquering the sick and poor, turning the sick against the poor, we're not taking care of you. that video is from 2011. suddenly when he bought the the senate nomination, people started digging through all his old tape. now, there's more. this old tape is from the carolina business review. it was an interview that mr. tillis taped in 2012. it has just been dug up by the muck rakers.
they dug it up. because he is running for senate. if you run for the united states senate seat, it's a matter of national curiosity if it turns out you've ever said something like this. >> when you see this shift that hispanics used to be in the republican party. now they're clearly on the other side of the aisle, when you see all of these things that have transpired, what is going on in the republican party? >> i think it has more-to-in the demographics of this country and recognizing that and having a platform that resonates the traditional population in north carolina and the united states is more or less stable. it's not growing. the african-american population is roughly growing, but the population and the other immigrant populations are growing at insignificant numbers. we bought the to resonate with those voters the traditional population is more or less stable. that's different from the african-american and the immigrant populations.
so what's the traditional population in this configuration? talking points memo sent the campaign for an explanation. they said he definitely didn't mean white people. he told tpm, traditional north carolinians refer to north carolinians who have been here a few generations. a lot of the population growth is people who move from other states to live, work and settle down in north carolina him he sees black and hispanic as north carolina residents. they can vote, technically they can still vote. a speaker, tom tillis ushered in regulation that there will be new rules in place for the 2014 regulations that will make it more difficult to vote as house speaker. north carolina has passed what have been called the most draconian rollbacks in the nation. say said the voting bill he
shuffled through the legislature was the single worst bill since voter suppression bills went through the country. provided non-traditional voters are able cast ballots, tom tillis voting back voter rights will probably always be an issue in north carolina in this senate race. now tom tillis has been dug up on tape explaining who exactly he considers to be a traditional north carolina voter, the tom tillis kate hagan race got tilted in a way. this is like george allen and his comments in the senate race. this is like a guy saying he wants to divide the can conquer both of them, since he is neither. this is not way you win a united states senate seat in the state
of north carolina. not anymore, at least. watch this race over the next days or weeks. republicans thought they pecked the perfect guy with tom tillis, these two clips have surfaced sense they picked him for this nomination. what else is out there that hasn't come out. first look is up next. good wednesday morning, everyone. right now on "first look". >> it's important for us to send a message to the world that when americans are attacked, no matter how long it takes, we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. >> the arrest of a senior terrorist leader linked to the benghazi attack that killed four americans, the latest detail this is morning. new nbc news/wall street journal polls on president obama's handling of overseas matters. and do americans to want see hillary clinton in the white house. and a late night phone call leading to a cease f