Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Using bin Laden's 9/11 Defense: Erasing the “Civilian” Category. PLUS: Reckless Abuse of the “pro-Hamas” Label to Justify Censorship & Stigmatize Criticism of Israel
Video Transcript
October 17, 2023
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Monday, October 16. 

Tonight: in the aftermath of 9/11, the leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, adamantly denied having planned the attack or played any role in it. He did, however, offer theories as to why it was morally and legally justified to target American civilians with violence. Because American citizens choose their leaders, he argued, and then choose them again, when deciding to reelect them, Americans are directly responsible for those leaders' actions, including when they bomb civilians, impose sanctions regimes that starve and otherwise kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including children; when they destabilize other countries or work to engineer coups in other countries and when they invade and attack other countries as they did with Iraq. 

Indeed, after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded Iraq and then bombed multiple other countries and tortured detainees, and implemented a program of kidnaping called “renditions,” Americans reelected them in 2004 – knowing that – and ratified all of that violence, including violence that ended up killing innocent people. Under bin Laden's theory, American civilians are not really civilians. By ratifying the violence carried out by their government, they became actively complicit in it and thus became legitimate military targets for those seeking to bring reprisals for violence by the United States against innocent people. 

Bin Laden's theory at the time provoked worldwide indignation and revulsion. After all, the category of civilian that he sought to erase was central to the entire post-World War II framework that was implemented by numerous international bodies to prevent the Holocaust or to prevent other civilian targeting atrocities that came to define that war. One reason that the 9/11 attack provoked so much anger and unity around the world was due to the consensus that civilians are civilians in all cases and can never be justifiably targeted by violence. That's called terrorism. Civilian lives are sacrosanct and they can never be deliberately targeted. This has been the consensus, the legal framework in Western morality since at least the end of World War II. 

While bin Laden's theory was widely and vehemently denounced, it has become popularized over the years and all with the same goal that he had: to find a way to justify killing civilians in large numbers, either by deliberately targeting them or dropping bombs and using violence in reckless disregard for their lives. In all wars, especially with the way they're now fought, civilian deaths are inevitable in large numbers, and we all learn the name in order to dismiss that: “collateral damage.” But what bin Laden did – as well as many others who have since followed in his footsteps – is something entirely different: it's a way of justifying either the failure to safeguard those innocent lives or to justify their targeting. If a theory can be offered as to why civilians are actually part of the military or a legitimate military target that one can legitimately destroy, then the responsibility to avoid killing civilians disappears. 

When Hamas launched its horrific attack on Israeli civilians last Saturday, they did so based on the premise that there's no such thing as an innocent Israeli civilian because they elect their governments, which then occupy or blockade Palestinian land, or because they support the killing of innocent people in Gaza, or because they serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. The category of civilian is blurred or even erased when it comes to Israel under the worldview of Hamas. That's what drove what they did in Israel on Saturday. But it's not only Hamas that has embraced this view to justify their targeting of civilians and other atrocities. Over the last week, there have been explicit statements from Israeli officials and their American supporters that promulgate a quite similar theory, namely that because the people in Gaza elected Hamas – they did so the last time an election was permitted – 16 years ago – back in 2007 when most of the population either hadn't been born yet or were far too young to vote – then it means, however, that those so-called “Palestinian civilians” are not quite civilians since they either implicitly or even expertly endorse the violence of their Hamas leaders. The growing invocation of this theory to erode and erase the concept of civilian is quite dangerous and alarming, and we think it merits a good deal of thought and analysis. 

Then: we have heard many accusations over the last week of people who are said to be “pro-Hamas,” namely, people who are said to have justified the massacres carried out against Israeli civilians or who, even worse, in general, are people who are calling for and cheering and advocating the murder of Jews. This rather pernicious label, “pro-Hamas” is often used to vilify anyone questioning, let alone opposing the actions of the Israeli and American governments – close your ears to all of that, we're told because those people are “pro-Hamas” – it's not just used to smear people's character, but it also justifies all sorts of cancel culture campaigns and even the kinds of censorship we have been reporting are now pervading the West in the wake of this new war. Echoing the left-liberal theory to justify censorship, we are told by those supporting such measures of repression: “Now about this war, we're not talking here about free speech. This is different. This is hate speech. This is incitement to violence. These people are calling for the murder of Jews.”

 Are there some people who have justified the attack by Hamas and generally endorse the killing of all Israelis? Yes, of course, there are. You can find people advocating literally any idea if you look hard enough, but as we documented last week at length, the reason it was necessary to highlight people whose names nobody knew until last week – a stray speaker at a DSA rally or some local chapter of a Black Lives Matter group or a non-tenured assistant professor no one had ever heard of – is precisely because this “pro-Hamas” view was actually quite marginalized, really reserved only to the outermost fringes Very few people – almost none with any position of power or influence – did anything other than act with disgust at what Hamas did.

The reason this phrase “pro-Hamas” is being used so indiscriminately – applied to everyone who expresses any criticism about or opposition to the acts of the Israeli and U.S. governments in response, or who insists that the lives of Palestinian civilians have the same value and worth as anybody else's – is the same reason that the people who questioned the Bush-Cheney War on Terror were called “pro-terrorist” and those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were “pro-Saddam,” those who opposed the regime change wars of the CIA in Syria and Libya stood accused of being “pro-Assad” and “pro-Gaddafi” and those who now oppose the U.S. war in Ukraine are vilified as “pro-Putin” or “pro-Kremlin.” It's all designed to create a simple-minded dichotomy – in the words of George W. Bush: “You are either with us or you're with the terrorists.” 

Exactly as it was done back in 2001 and 2002, this rancid propaganda framework is used to justify the imposition of authoritarian powers. As long as you can successfully pin the label “pro-Hamas” to the foreheads of those who dissent from the current war policies, who cares if they're censored, put on a blacklist, fired, made unemployable or worse? After all, they're “pro-Hamas,” who would possibly care what happens to such people? 

The Biden administration announced just a few hours ago – as The Wall Street Journal reported – that “The U.S. military has selected roughly 2,000 troops to prepare for a potential deployment to support Israel, U.S. defense officials said." Don't worry, though they “are not intended to serve in a combat role,” the official said. This war is already more dangerous than the war in Ukraine, and that's a very dangerous war. It's between the U.S. and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers on the planet. In this new war, regional escalation is highly possible, if not likely. The U.S. is already heavily involved, deploying aircraft carriers, providing bombs and money, deploying more aircraft carriers, and now designating troops that might be deployed. Any tactics that are designed to vilify aid, vilify good faith dissent, or worse ones that are designed to justify official state censorship – such as France's banning of all pro-Palestinian protests while still allowing all pro-Israel protests because those are aligned with the government policy – any such tactics like that deserve our scorn and our attention. So that's what we're going to give it tonight as we explore the latest developments in this war between Israel and Gaza and how it is being discussed and exploited in the United States and the West more broadly. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
15
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

Another day, another revelation of Israeli war crimes.

"However, S. testified that aside from one person found with a knife and a single encounter with armed fighters, the scores of others killed — an average of one per day in his battalion’s combat zone — were unarmed. According to him, the drone strikes were carried out with the intent to kill, despite the majority of victims being located at such a distance from the soldiers that they could not have posed any threat.

“'It was clear that they were trying to return to their homes — there’s no question,' he explained. 'None of them were armed, and nothing was ever found near their bodies. We never fired warning shots. Not at any point.'”
https://www.972mag.com/drones-grenades-gaza-chinese-autel/

I just watched this speech. Holy!
Literally gave me chills all over. Usually that sensation is reserved for music or literature that really touches me. Not from someone speaking.
I agree with everything Tucker Carlson says here. Check it out, if you haven't yet. You won't be sorry.

placeholder
post photo preview
Game of Thrones Actor Liam Cunningham on Gaza Activism and UK Censorship; Journalist Zaid Jilani on Mamdani, Epstein, the State of the Dems and More
System Update #484

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdqj3PgQpk8vYLh-ut4u7e6VaTgC8MjNdW-_qgEq1br3RI3zuTY6hiIxjyGR_qss2YBBiwl9ha80koSvut2g9APY6el5t3Cq7r6OuBdv1PpnKK8hzLYhAv8b23rgjdrylVJxsHcpYORJw7f2R_oErk?key=VlIHstP5tnI3rCSEFk6TqQ

There are times when we cannot cover everything that is going on that we think deserves attention, and one of the ways we try to rectify that is to bring on guests who we believe are highly informed, engaging and provocative. We have two guests tonight for you who are most certainly all of those things. 

The first is Liam Cunningham, who is the long-time working Irish actor likely best known for his central role as Davod Seaworth in the HBO hit series, Game of Thrones; but for our purposes he is also a very passionate political activist and analyst who has spent decades involved in political activism, in the last two years focused like many people, on the Israeli destruction of Gaza. 

Right after that, we’ll talk to the very independent, heterodox and cantankerous journalist – which I mean in the most flattering way – Zaid Jilani. He was my colleague for years at the Intercept until he left for all the right reasons. We're going to talk about a wide range of topics with him, including the fallout from the DOJ's announcement that it's closing the Epstein investigation with no further disclosures, the state of the race for New York City mayor, where Zohran Mamdani's primary win has sent a lot of people, especially the city's richest, into full meltdown mode. 

AD_4nXdqj3PgQpk8vYLh-ut4u7e6VaTgC8MjNdW-_qgEq1br3RI3zuTY6hiIxjyGR_qss2YBBiwl9ha80koSvut2g9APY6el5t3Cq7r6OuBdv1PpnKK8hzLYhAv8b23rgjdrylVJxsHcpYORJw7f2R_oErk?key=VlIHstP5tnI3rCSEFk6TqQ

The Interview: Liam Cunningham 

Liam Cunningham is an award-winning Irish actor, as I said, best known for his role in HBO's series Game of Thrones. Various outlets, including The Irish Times, have called him one of Ireland's greatest actors. He's been a political activist for decades, but recently he helped to organize and became a spokesperson for the "Freedom Flotilla,” in which Greta Thunberg and other colleagues were arrested and deported by the Israeli government for attempting to deliver aid to the people of Gaza when the IDF was blockading it. I've followed his work for some time, especially his political work and we are delighted to have him for his debut appearance. Hope it's not the last on the show. 

G. Greenwald: Liam, it's great to see you. I know it's so late in Dublin. I really appreciate your staying up to talk with us. 

Liam Cunningham: No, that's fine. It's way past my bedtime, but an absolute yes. For you, sir, anything. 

G. Greenwald: I appreciate that. All right. So, let's begin with what I just mentioned, which is the role that you played in kind of helping to organize and becoming a very well-known spokesperson for the boat that was intended to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza as a way of circumventing the IDF's blockade of food, water, medicine and the like.

I think a lot of people didn't realize at the time what an actually dangerous and courageous mission it was. I remember in 2011, a very similar flotilla attempted essentially the same thing to deliver food to the people of Gaza when there was a blockade there and the IDF actually attacked that ship and killed 10 people on board. You had Nobel Prize winners, holocaust survivors and the IDF just didn't care. They violently attacked it. What was the impetus for your involvement in this particular action, even knowing how dangerous and provocative it might be?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Mocks Concerns About Epstein; Trump Continues Biden's Policy of Arming Ukraine; Trump and Lula Exchange Barbs Over Brazil
System Update #483

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdQ7dlWcVsr6gxA7vqLq-1A7mWjxjCfmkfW_idQ9AUuXFgbpYHaApRU0dHG1K-go6WP1EuQHkZ0TcaDhxBsLpBdDAN1Xt3U3Nh4bCNCrJAW6mSVm7ZY4a80mI9TZNNPvyHV75EmE75jxNEG2gV41zA?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

 Much of the MAGA world was in turmoil, confusion and anger yesterday –understandably so – after the Trump DOJ announced it was closing the Epstein files and its investigation with no further disclosures of any kind. After all this happened, some attempt was made to try and pin the blame or isolate the blame for all of this on Attorney General Pam Bondi. Yet, Donald Trump himself, today, when asked about all of this, went much further than anyone else when meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House again: President Trump actually mocked and angrily dismissed any concerns over the Epstein matter and how it was handled. 

On our second segment, one of the uniting views of Trump supporters over the last four years has been opposition to the Biden administration's policy of arming, funding, and fueling Ukraine in its war against Russia. Yesterday, however, at the same meeting with Netanyahu, Trump announced that he would continue the Biden policy that he had spent so many years criticizing by now providing defensive arms at least to Ukraine, and he did so based on the longstanding neocon/liberal view that Putin is completely untrustworthy and therefore Russia must be thought because of Putin. That's what Trump himself said. 

Then, we’ll comment on Trump’s lengthy tweet attacking Brazil for its ongoing prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, during the BRICS Summit being held in Rio de Janeiro. This was something we were going to cover last night and didn't have time to, but we will tonight. Brazil's President Lula da Silva quickly responded, very defiantly, by basically telling Trump to mind his own business. 

AD_4nXdQ7dlWcVsr6gxA7vqLq-1A7mWjxjCfmkfW_idQ9AUuXFgbpYHaApRU0dHG1K-go6WP1EuQHkZ0TcaDhxBsLpBdDAN1Xt3U3Nh4bCNCrJAW6mSVm7ZY4a80mI9TZNNPvyHV75EmE75jxNEG2gV41zA?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

AD_4nXdFPqAU_UAlxnVl4bAGguNJXNdZxNBG5GYQRQ4rQ0s9nbGI3hy31ARaIkofh9-MnqDExEgQJwprJhlZCLFqt5TQ1AMEZL4dZuVcwfkWAUE9s8HKeccp7h8P74Smsa9IfJxGBCcOeBSZBRmO9vG3uQ?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

Last night, we covered quite extensively the decision by the Trump Justice Department, not even six months into the administration, to completely shut down and close and stop all investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, as well as announcing that there will be no further disclosures of any documents of any kind, that whatever they've released so far, which has basically been nothing – not basically, has been nothing – is all you're going to get. 

This is a blatant betrayal of multiple promises made by key Trump officials over the last four years, before they were in the White House, but was also a complete 180 in terms of what key Trump influencers and pundits had been saying, including several pundits who are now running the FBI, such as Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, as well as the Justice Department, including Pam Bondi. 

We even showed you an interview that Alina Habba, the Trump attorney who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, appointed by Donald Trump, did with Pierce Morgan while she was in the government, just in February, where she claimed they have a whole bunch of very incriminating lists with shocking names. She said there's video and there are all kinds of documents that are shocking, in her words, and she said they're going to be released over time because we've gone long enough where people who do these sorts of things, including are involved in the Epstein scandal, have no accountability. She said that is ending with the Trump administration. There's going to be accountability. 

Yesterday, the Trump Justice Department said, “No, there's nothing here. We looked. There's no such thing as a client list.” We know we've been promising and that JD Vance repeatedly said, “Where's the client list?” Donald Trump Jr. said, “Anyone hiding the client lists is a scumbag.” Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi accused Biden officials of basically covering up predatory pedophilia by refusing to release the Jeffrey Epstein client list. Now, they're saying there's no client list, that thing we've been talking about and accusing Biden officials of hiding and promising to disclose, that doesn't exist. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump DOJ: There's Nothing to the Epstein Story; State Dept: Syria's Al-Qaeda are No Longer "Terrorists"
System Update #482

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXchraXAcM2XesxWhHUd_N92bq3HtZGBU0u87-_fbhgSvF_mW53lPXSclX3vc961GSDXkWZcNNf8FOPD8HtRT03BCNEDdQml65kDYVIePskT17DYTDjhr2qdoot9YMrl2ICIsDNxtoo3No9gS_87UbA?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

One of the most significant scandals among MAGA pundits and operatives within pro-Trump discourse generally over the last four years has been the one involving Jeffrey Epstein. 

Now, in less than five months, the DOJ announced today, the one under Pam Bondi, that they are closing the investigation, given the certainty that they say they have that Epstein had no client list. There's no such thing as an Epstein client list, he never tried to blackmail anyone and no powerful people were involved whatsoever with his sexual abuse of minors. They also say that he undoubtedly killed himself: there's no question about that. 

All of this is such a blatant betrayal of what was promised all of these years, such that all but the most blindly loyal Trump followers – like the real cult numbers, a lot of them almost certainly paid to be that – are reacting with understandable confusion and anger over what happened today and over the last several months. We'll delve into all of this and what this means. 

Then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced today that the group that al-Golani once led, long known as al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, is no longer officially a designated terrorist group. This is al-Qaeda. We'll explore what all of this shows about the utterly vacant and manipulated propaganda terms, terrorist and terrorism. 

As a note, we did not have enough time, so we’ll talk about President Trump’s tweet attacking Brazil and its government, on the day of the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, some other time soon.

AD_4nXchraXAcM2XesxWhHUd_N92bq3HtZGBU0u87-_fbhgSvF_mW53lPXSclX3vc961GSDXkWZcNNf8FOPD8HtRT03BCNEDdQml65kDYVIePskT17DYTDjhr2qdoot9YMrl2ICIsDNxtoo3No9gS_87UbA?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

AD_4nXf8opZ5QUDtAVaICU5qTM5Y1LjnKXrCQiFXaCgRyR0Wajit4anClkk9fzlucH9EsxtIoMf80nPijX1q2-P9anbJF2Br6tuTIhvUEcswwY_3YO8e6XnO1COADsy13uka9aFDYMs6gyeuA1ekGHkGHXo?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

Earlier today, the Justice Department issued a statement, essentially announcing that they no longer consider any of the questions surrounding what had long been the Epstein scandal to be worthwhile investigation; that essentially all of these questions have been answered, that there's really nothing to look into. 

You can read the Justice Department's statement here.

They're saying this client list that most Trump supporters, I would say, have been accusing the U.S. government, of hiding to protect all the powerful people on this list, now, that they're in power – people like Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, now they're in charge – they're saying, no, actually there is no client list at all. There's at least no incriminating client list, whatever that means. 

I don't know if there is a client list or not, but according to them, there's no incriminating client list. I don't know how you can have a client list that's not incriminating: to be a client of Jeffrey Epstein seems inherently incriminating. They seem to have said what the White House briefing said today when asked about this, because as we'll show you, Pam Bondi went on Fox News and was asked, “Are you going to release the client list?” And she said, “It's sitting on my desk for review.” 

Trump had strongly suggested he would order it released. Now they're saying, “You know what? There is no client list.” 

So, all these claims that Jeffrey Epstein had recordings of prominent individuals who he invited to his island, who had sex with minors, evidently, there's no incriminating material of any kind that would implicate any powerful person. Just not there, they checked. They checked the storage closets, they looked under the beds, just couldn't find anything. All the stuff they had been claiming was there for years, screaming and pounding the table on podcasts, making a lot of money over it, too, accusing Biden officials of hiding this all for corrupt ends, just not there. They looked, couldn't find it. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals