..

[applause] thank you for that warm reception and for coming this afternoon in a particular thanks to the professor. it is gratifying to write a book then attend an event to talk about with the nation's bravest and most accomplished public intellectual am flight two -- political activists. i went to begin by making a couple of points with this discussion will have nicely another couple of points that i anticipate will help to highlight that i think i could briefly describe. the book makes the argument their rule of law at as we have always understood it has been degraded in the way that was not previously

true. the interesting thing is that the rule of law has a pretty clear meaning by consensus in means nothing more than in a society where all bound on equal terms by of commons that the liberals look to contemporary legal scholars to define it that way and were interestingly to the 1980s in 1997 when stern institutions began demanding lindane countries comport with the rule of law and what they were required to comport in good article from foreign affairs that countries that don't live under the rule of law they can use the superior financial power for political institutions and the critical requirement has been put a call in financial those seven are on an equal

terms and if you go back to the founders what you continuously find his dahan emphasis that is central that the american and found dain to be legitimate and just with their rule of law and almost across the border the levying and in all sorts of robbery at continuously of the size and in the time you make the argument and met with the objection that to is dan soleil is far as it goes that the founders five in the breach those principles in all sorts of

ways and the concept of equality under law has not been the predominant theme to describe america of political realities. although that is true the important part of that rating and history is a principle has always been firm as central the time we've violated radically. and there is an aspect to the behavior that is critical but if it is sincere and consistent, then the principles all you do not comport are not aspiration no. although they violated that principle it was enshrined

throughout the next two centuries men most of the events considered to we progress of american history lourdes driven by the reverence of the concept equality under the law is how we perfect the union. and a and the rule of law is not being put to sign and express the repudiation it begins with the four parted of nixon and she'll lead the

criminals and to the obama administration to shield called bush crimes of torture and obstruction of justice and the decision now not to prosecute criminals from the 2008 crisis and all of these acts in tail very explicit arguments the most powerful russian not be subject to the rule of law because it is too disruptive public to divisive we find ways of repeating the problem. use the cons been argument for that if the bill you stop being program it is not that mcorp tenth of a value in the longer. he said of course, i believe in the rule of law.

and the law is the center of reality meaning if it is too disruptive and it is within our common good to exempt the most powerful from the consequences of their criminal acts committed is a template for each instance a and radically is different then how things were in the past. but the other difference is if we had a society that just decided we would be very lenient and merciful when people committed crimes as i just described, you can have baja a debated that was advisable or produce good results but if it was a crime across the board it

would not implicate rule of law. there are countries that take that approach and even fewer apply the leniency to ordinary americans than reapplied to believe there would not be an issue. if you broke into someone's house and hit the owner and the head with a baseball bat than one week later you were caught by the police and you said you got me. i did it but isn't it more important to look to the future? why focus on the past. [laughter] would that work for you or those who sold drugs then there would not be a rule of law issue. but the fact that it only applies is too political and financial's is a reason why there is that ruled law. and the name of law and

order, one of the harshest and most merciless systems of punishment. the irony that richard nixon is the one that receives a parted in the 1960's he culminated his political career from the king of cold water branding iron corruption in the '60s demanding harsh sentences come a lesser opportunities come a parole, this drug war was accelerated first under him but he built a career based on the harsh law and order mentality than suddenly when he was caught completely shielded from the real consequences which is the personification of what i read about. the war on terror has brought a whole new tier of justice for people who are

accused of terrorism that have every right to including the right to live without any sort of legal right or more process. it is the persona non grata where the government could do anything without any legal constraints. it is that contrasts between the shielding and immunity and the investors themselves first is the extraordinary and unprecedented harsh system imposed on everyone else that is the real menace to the rule of law that is the most responsible factor and for that widespread actor believe you see motivating the occupied movement the political and institutions have lost all remnants of legitimacy so it is one of the most menacing problems.

[applause] >> let me just pick up to pick up for with the rule of law median the current journal of america and society relations come a diplomatic history and the devoted to the nuremberg tribunal and the lead article points out one of the most honorable and

admired elements of the american historical bagel tradition is the visible of presumption of innocence a person is presumed innocent until brought to a fair trial and convicted with proper procedural guarantees. that is the proudest achievement of the american legal and ethical tradition and of course, it was recognized at nuremberg that the british wanted to kill the nazi war criminals but the justice jackson, the chief prosecutor insisted even though they are the worst criminals and history, they should be brought to trial it could

not happen if they were proven guilty and furthermore, he added that we give these defendants a poisoned chalice and if we step from it to do the things they are accused of we must suffer the same consequences otherwise these proceedings are a complete farce. the main crime of which the nazi criminals were condemned and haying to is what was called the supreme international crime to be clearly defined which is the worst of all war crimes because it encompasses all of the evil that it follows.

but if that point* is correct the presumption of innocence with the anglo-american law of our by now it is simply totally dismissed and with praise. with osama bin laden the prime suspect four 9/11 the fact is good government has yet to provide that undoubtedly is the prime suspect a couple months ago obama invaded another country and apprehended and murdered him and dispose the body without autopsy. this was praised as a great

achievement of the obama administration and prepare a couple months later it was extended in a matter that where one american citizen, a cleric who was accused of some involvement with crimes but no evidence was presented the main charge was a fluid to speaker of english transmitting and offering support for the richie hottie operations. he was killed a couple weeks ago and is the general reaction was illustrated in "the new york times" headline that said the west

celebrates the death of radical clerics. it was not death but murder along with another american citizen. while it is true, almost all criticize because he was an american citizen which makes it distinct from those who may look like persons but are not. that is the core principle of current american in law which has a interesting interpretation but he was a natural person and some people suspected of inciting terrorist acts. there were some critics

those that said we should believe in the presumption of innocence and their reaction was quite interesting. most of it was the shrieking and disregard the some of it two was interesting in the most interesting was the column but i will the and respected liberal commentator who wrote to as he put it amazingly 92 criticize the united states for violation of international law or other crimes because the international order is established precisely too legitimate the use of violence so that is then nature of the international order to legitimate the

criminal resort to violence and therefore amazingly nine p to raise criticisms about this. he goes on to say it is silly to raise these questions. happy to except gilts on that charge. [laughter] but if you look beyond and ask what does it mean? what is a striking example? he points out the first child soldier in american history to be brought to trial for crime is worth looking at. that is the 15 year-old boy who was apprehended in afghanistan and the charge against him is when american

soldiers invaded afghanistan attacking the village he picked up the gun to defend his village and so that makes him a terrorist nonperson. and in interesting concept of terrorism per probe he was then first sent to the secret prison and afghanistan then sent to guantanamo eight years in prison. after that, he was going to be brought forward for a trial with the military commissions within pleaded guilty and had a plea bargain that was given the eight year sentence in addition to the eight years that he sat from the torture chambers.

he is the canadian citizen and kennebec could to extradite but they are courageously refusing to step on the toes of the master, of concept of the presumption of innocence that is so far gone and nobody bothers to discuss it. but not for us. the fact that it has been filed they did in the past change the fact that now they have changed the principal and abandon that was forcefully rejected even to the extent to say the international order is established precisely of moral principles and goes beyond to have one last example.

there was an article recently from the a law professor that is cited a couple times in the book who argues that obama's it could be breaking the record of the u.s. president for violation of civil rights laws. you could make a case one example involves the harvard law school is obama's latest supreme court appointee elena kagan argued a case in front of the justice department against the humanitarian law project with the support of the far right to justices. obama won the case but the charges is one that may implicate many people here

that the charges and they provide material assistance that is on the terrorist list in this case come of legal advice to the pkk and group, one of the kurdish groups -- kurdish groups expanded the concept from providing guns are something like that to providing the legal advice and even advice >> extends a very broadly and shortly after the supreme court decision dozens of fbi agents but to

destroy the documents for when they break your home but the charges they are trying to find evidence of those of been indicted by the grand jury or supporting the palestinian group for pro but the idea of expressing support for the troops on the terrorist list is material assistance to move that is novel in the justice department position was explained that if you provide legal a vice but to

legitimize him free of the resources come with the cow broadly that could apply. that most of these are under way and to you, may have to look in the united states as a legitimate category. why? how was it established? it was established from the executives the justification from the executive said i don't like you and we will prosecute anyone who would 56 owe been lucky back at the history that is very straight king. one person who was just

removed was nelson mandela. the recent is a national congress was characterized by the reagan did fenestration 19882 in the apartheid ashley notorious character of their for the u.s. was entitled to support apartheid south africa not only the atrocities internally but the attacks on neighboring countries which king 1.5 million people but that is the cake is that is the part of the war on terror and we have to love defend the apartheid mishima against the terrorist groups of nelson mandela by today's standards, the humanitarian law project almost anybody involved with any apartheid

activity could be regarded as a terrorist and as i said mandela was removed two years ago and now come to united states. there are equally dramatic others. 1982, a state on the list with the reagan administration wanted to provide assistance of their four they remove iraq from the terrorist list and proceeded to provide assistance to do nine the crimes -- deny the crimes and crimes of which sadam hussain was tried was from 1982 that was pretty minor excluding the major crimes i guess because those were supported by the united

states. there was the gap that had to be felled in cuba was added partly in order to give some justification of the outlandish claims of why we were entitled to support murderous terrorist regimes which left a couple hundred thousand corpses so the argument was being supported however, iq but it is said good choice, it had been the target of four international terrorism and the rest of the world combined. said he was taken up to support the major crimes.

we ought to think about why we even end tala made the concept. the government says period. and of discussion that now you say bagel advice to somebody that day designate? you are a criminal and if you are the 15 year-old trial picking up the gun to defend a village comment you have 16 years of prison and torture. that is what the rule of law has come to. it is a sad situation. [applause] >> do we have the few minutes to get some questions?

surprisingly what we just heard has provoked a lot of thoughts for pro but one of the interesting aspects of the justice system and believes could impose standards on everybody else that they do not accept the salsa is obviously mirrored in the constants of foreign relations and even pioneer there that the united states imposes standards on everybody else except itself is the template that was imported domestic say. and one of the fascinating things to do is look at current political leaders for the accountability and with they should do.

president obama who promulgated with the slogan that we as good citizens -- citizens try to justify shielding the bush era crimes from accountability gave an interview last year in indonesia the obama administration has been pushing the government to prosecute certain war criminals and what he told the indonesians is that it is impossible to move forward into our prosperous future until you resolve the past. the secretary of state when tin visited kenya and cambodia where the united states is urging war crimes investigations to proceed and has told them the same thing you cannot be among the nation's well you continue to harbor and shoot war criminals for

accountability at the time she said that is when the george bush book was released he was on every major television station being heralded as a great statesman. i would recommend that you read we opening and closing statements of the nuremberg tribunals. it is enlightening because i was to be the expression of modern justice. not only did they point* out aggressive for was the kingpin crime but also of the nuremberg tribunals would have bill you only if applied to all nations here assembled like cnn states and its allies period if you were to cite that and argue that george bush and donald rumsfeld should be prosecuted as war criminals

there's almost nothing that you could do it even people sympathetic to the ada to be investigated criminally ; real at the idea they should be held criminally accountable for the 100 dead because there look at the act of congress and the large majorities that something that shows how with those nuremberg principles without becoming self marginalized in a quick point* of the fascination i know from a moral and ethical perspective there is zero difference between spending -- is sending a sky9 robot and eradicating the lives of non-citizens as

opposed to doing that to citizens with your suspicion or lack of just with the desire to kill them but there is a practical difference there is a greater enhanced danger on several levels when the guarantee against do murder its own citizens as opposed to those of other countries on foreign soil but the supreme court has said the constitution applies to borders and its u.s. cereal and also american citizens to a more important when the give mr. is stacked against its own citizens it is a climate of fear that leads to political suppression and that is something you see the united states one of the most striking experience this is the first time ever wrote about wikileaks was back early 2010 this was the

floor almost nobody what it was at the time before they release their disclosures about the united states releasing several important documents and wrongdoing in other parts of the rope and nobody knew much about them but the pentagon and classified a top-secret report that declares the wikileaks to be an enemy of the state and describe the ways they could destroy a wikileaks and it is incredible the way in which the way the pentagon laid out in a report by its list of secret report ironically was leaked to wikileaks which i publish janvier times road about it. [laughter] and the pentagon records it

is an enemy of this day and talks about ways to destroy and i did not know much at the time but i assume to any organization that was targeted that way by the pentagon that merited a lot more attention and encouragement and support. i interviewed julianna signage for the article that i roche it did the and night encourage people to donate two wikileaks because they had budgetary constraints that prevented them to go public with disclosures it takes time and energy to authenticate so when they published it would forever destroy their credibility in future disclosures. in response to my recommendation people donate to them and i provided the link, dozens of people literally told me in many different venues at events like this that although they agreed wholeheartedly with

by a had written about the potential they were afraid of donating money especially electronically because they would end up on a government list or could even be subjected to criminal liability under their broad material support for terrorism that the professor just talked about. of these were very sober americans new-line have interaction in the past and i could tell they were very rational people and affairs with your well-founded. it highlighted how this claim climate wikileaks has never been charged with the crime from a near times and "the washington post" for

what they do is publicists leaks there given to them buy other people that it these were american citizens who were petrified of exercising core first amendment rights donating money to an organization and basically intimidated from what we have seen in terms of the lawlessness of what the devil and has done for you can offer all the rights in the borough but a piece of paper you have to make those of you could intimidate employ the population into refraining from exercising them. this occurred more when i wrote for the first time about extremely harsh and oppressive conditions in which bradley manning was detained. i know i even wondered why with the obama administration and basically eight turn him into a martyr

to jeopardize his credibility by race injecting him to this extremely severe torture and humane treatment with prolonged solitary confinement despite being convicted of nothing is close was taken and forced to stand naked for many days in complete the punitive measures and is some point* i realize the reason that was done was the same reason the bush and administration to of people who were completely innocent by the hundreds and shipped them thousands of miles in its caribbean island and show the world as a way to signal to the world and to would-be challengers of american power domestic and international we are not constrained by law in rehab no limits if you think about challenging what we can do take a look at these pictures of people at guantanamo who will be there as long as you want to keep

them there or if you discover wrongdoing and illegality of the highest levels of our government and want to expose it to the world look at what we have done to bradley manning or wikileaks without any pretense to legal authority and no constraint whatsoever it is the use of law as a means of coercion was -- the exact antithesis using it as the oil weapon to shield the ill-gotten gains the factory could call terrorism whenever we want and the fact that we could take up arms are that we've just indicted someone nine months ago for raising plans to kill american troops in iraq , the i iraqi to raise money to defend his homeland from the invading army. also on military base from a country spend 10 years claiming we are at war he is a terrorist as well but yet to the allies directly

targeted and killed civilians in enormous numbers recklessly or deliberately it is a radical act it is all designed to criminalize whomever the united states once namely those who challenged in any meaningful way that is the use of law coercive the to entrench those to equalize the playing field. the final point* is professors chomsky references a byproduct of what we're talking and also works for center for american progress which is an organization run by a the former clinton white house official jawed the best of founded to defend whatever the obama's lighthouse does the basically that is the

function. the fact people who writes for them do things and say things to mitigate or defend to assassinate american and citizen with new due process the most radical act underscores the important point* the way the obama legacy is being defined. fifth three years ago i say this to somebody if you go to an event like this and fill the room with a 2% republicans and democrats and talk about a wild assertions of executive authority and the idea the president has no constraints seven excluding total secrecy no transparency and of course, the two weeks later i drone attack kills his son in his son and

cousin in the u.s. government refuses to account for what it did describe the principles of utah about those in the bush to administration 50% of the room identified as republicans affording cheering in justifying and being happy with 50% of the room would be feigning anger and objecting as shredding the constitution and rates wing radicalism if you take that same group of people to put them in their room now to talk about that same exact thing you would now have 90% of the room cheering for it and supporting it or justify the way or maybe acquiescence and the rest of the room pretends to be angry because they were angry the first time around and not pretend

king the floor and this has changed the way these issues are discussed that now not just the republican party standing for this but that it has become under obama bipartisan which means it is removed from political debates hardly controversial and entrenched as orthodoxy or at least for a generation as a yale law professor talks about when one party of the other opposes are supposed said what happens and if a party gets into office and continues it is a longer controversial policy but american consensus in then does not enter a challenge for a generation of that is what has happened to the policies of lawlessness and executive power the writer the president to target anyone for violence or incarceration without any oversight now has taken on the face of both parties

therefore likely normalized for a very long time and you'll see that legacy of the obama presidency. with that it is time to take questions the mechanics were described at the start. >> [applause] citic we have 50 near 20 minutes for questions try to keep the questions brave. >> how do feel after all these years in all that you have done to see what has happened to our country? to the professor first in. >> actually, it is pretty

bad but we should recognize it is not that new. go back to the modern perception of international law was pretty well-founded for the second world war was a nuremberg tribunals with united nations and so on is what was the position of a united states the end? was instrumental to set up the world court the international court to justice but to ones the united states declared it is not subject to any charges based on international treaties meaning the u.n. charter the charter of the

organization of american states and the fact that came to the courts during the reagan years when the chairman of nicaragua voted churches against united states for essentially the war against nicaragua for international terrorism the nicaraguan case was presented by a distinguished harvard law school professor most of it was thrown out because the case appealed to the core principles of honoring international law. some of the case was finally could and restricted and very narrow grounds bilateral treaty from common international law and even on that basis accused of

unlawful use of force against terrorism and ordered to pay substantial reparations how did that bipartisan congress react? by increasing aid to the contras now those actions to condemn the criminal made while "the new york times" dismiss the court prove it is hostile and insignificant form because of charges against the u.s. but earlier commentators are praising the court for the support against iran. united states went on to be to go to security council resolutions that called on all states to observe international law and that passed with virtually no comment almost nobody knows about this except specialist and then in 1948 united

nations passed a condemnation of genocide. 40 years later the united states ratified but with the reservation in applicable to the united states and that came to the courts a couple years later with yugoslavia in bringing charges against nato for bobbing and there was a reference to genocide the nine states appealed to the court and said they would withdraw from the proceedings because they were formerly entitled to commit genocide which is true and the court accepted that directly so the united states was excluded from the

charges then they go powers were not. if we declare we are entitled to carry out genocide. but it is true that bush broke, i take even the torture charges kumbaya if you look carefully, it is not so clear that to bush was this serious violation of u.s. law when they carried out torture in guantanamo because he never really signed a torture convention it was written by the senate to exclude certain categories of torture if you look at those, they are the categories that the cia carries out back in the '50s

based off the kgb manuals predefined torture to allow what is called mental torture that does not leave a mark a been waterboarding in the case of bradley manning and is considered torture read not by u.s. law that was signed into legislation. what is called torture here is a very narrow category and a good deal that the torture the u.s. carries out his legal by specialists of constitutional law and others settle most nobody knows about. >> 18 to ask about two implications our suggestions the first is merely the unthinkable conclusion the officials of judges our politicians hold powerful

criminal behavior accountable in the most egregious examples such as torture and the possibility of a cognizance disses since not with a constant awareness of filling their role may be driving that need to scapegoat that foldable the lead powerful for the most trivial offenses accountable to demonstrate to redo hold a lot of people accountable but just not us with the charade that passes behind it without the knowledge of imbalance and the second implication officials give up on a 10 law enforcement than the financial and

system engagingly and widespread fraud. >> law and order basically a 10 this to mean joe dealers off the corner and good drug war is incredibly racist and disproportion needed but yet at the same time, pepper spray protesters to put them into prison but at the same time the police are a tad chain the criminals on wall street who destroyed the

economy on the comprehensible scale. you are right that these petty transgress chance is a way to obscure the fact that the most significant criminals are shielded and the biggest criminals are allowed to continue to run rampant. but the other point* is one of the fascinating things of the whole idea is at the same time those who have invoked the slobodan to look up political crime has waged a harshest and most unprecedented war on the whistle-blowers. those that is evident of wrongdoing. the scandal without the

criminal law said it is acquired in the only person to suffer any consequences is somebody named thomas stanley was a mid-level department justice lawyer been to tell them this was going on in. a grand jury was convened he lost his job is serious emotional and psychological problems and all the people who broke the law was completely shielded but only the person who exposed has been subjected to any form of sanction and punishment that is about to express same power. if you expose hopes those other criminal and wrong you

will be punished while a simultaneously show themselves. >> i hope you both have time to answer the us. i came down from occupied burlington vermont today too be here. [applause] i am inspired by the number people who have risen enough to the protest or the bullying of the mayor can e leads in many respects through the occupied movement. do you think the occupy movement has the potential to revolutionize the stem to the point* to topple the power that has corrupted the rule of law? what will the movement need to achieve and overcome in order to do this? >> i think the occupied movements which are all over

the country and all over the world are a very exciting development and inspiring in a lot of ways and unprecedented. nothing quite like them in the past which makes sense this is an unprecedented period in many ways. what can they achieve? they have put things or shifted the range of discussion. at the very least say laid down a lake -- a legacy come in there are short-term things they could achieve which is quite urgent. so to take one and a couple of weeks, the deficit commission for it to reach its decision is their real

negative iger at the heart of the country if not reaching a decision the automatic trap that was set up that aim to to do exactly the opposite would americans want and if you look at the polls and even if you keep to the minor question and they have a solution taxing the super rich including the period of rapid growth even tea party supporters take the position in to protect the benefits that is crucial.

the commission it reaches decision but many will do the opposite end cut away at the limited benefits ignoring their reason end of the fiscal problem and medicare is a problem with the virtually eight unregulated health care system which is the international scandal. if the u.s. had the health care system like other industrial countries. [applause] but that cannot even be discussed but as is outlined very well in the book, that

comes right away and it is possible. it is a long shot but to if they get a 479 she our influence come and they may do something about the short-term problem. win you talk about problems, but it to has to be understood that to fix a being the civil-rights movement to perform 1936 the years of a struggle before it reached a possibility where we could discuss it. and then the other thing this and march 10 luther king was able to give a talk and some should not invade

underestimated as long as the sole rights movement as long as he began to move onto opposition of the vietnam war, remember, when he was killed he was on his way to organize for a people's movement and kill supporting the sanitation strike. then he was dismissed when you listen to the adulation of march 10 assert king. -- of martin luther king. there was a long way to go. the criminalization that basically we instituting what was done and not long

after the civil war. . .