10/16/12 10/16/12 "democracy now!" [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> it take third party gets in, he is worthy of voter attention and media attention. if he is excluded, he is dismissed as marginal, and worthy of media attention and his campaign is relegated in many ways to the test of history. >> with audience questions preselected for the debate by moderator candy crowley of cnn, we look at the debates form and content with george farah, founder of open debates, and guardian columnist glenn greenwald on the u.s. presidential debates.

then to leaders of the chilean student movement, which is the largest protests since the days of augusto pinochet a generation ago. >> we saw several riots, the biggest one of the mall last year published of them all last year, over a million people in the streets. within six months of student strikes. many students in high school lost their academic year. >> i think our biggest challenge is we don't only need the democratization education, but the democratization of the entire country. >> all of that and more coming up. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president obama and republican

challenger mitt romney are heading to long island today for their second presidential debate. tonight's debate is at hofstra university, just three weeks before the general election including both foreign and domesticy issues in a town hall setting the kids undecided voters in the audience the opportunity to question the candidates. the final debate will be next monday in florida and will focus on foreign policy issues. we will have more on the debate after the headlines. the new york times is reporting the pentagon and state department are speeding up efforts double libyan government create an elite commando force to help counter the country's militias. under the plan, a special operation forces would train about 500 libyan troops. according to a pentagon document, the libyan commando force will be designed counter and defeat terrorist and violent extremist organizations. on monday, secretary of state hillary clinton assumed responsibility for last month's deadly attack on u.s. diplomatic

mission in benghazi, libya. you an arab league envoy lakhdar brahimi has called for a ceasefire in syria during the upcoming muslim holiday. he made the call while he was in iraq after holding talks in iran. brahimi said the conflict in syria represented a threat to world peace, but denied he is seeking peacekeepers for the country. meanwhile, turkish officials have announced more than 100,000 syrian refugees are now living in the country. this is the president of the turkish disaster management agency. >> as of today, we have more than 100,000 refugees in turkey. we call them our guests because we treat them as our guests. so we do have almost 13 camps running, up and running, as of today. we do have other camps under construction. we're trying our best to get

ready for those who are in need for shelter and for humanitarian needs. >> third european union has announced sweeping new sanctions against the iranian industry, banking and energy sectors, cracking up financial pressure on tehran. the eu foreign policy chief said she hopes the new sanctions would draw iran into serious negotiations on its nuclear program. humanitarian groups are warning the sanctions could have a devastating impact on the iranian civilian population. meanwhile, the u.s. and israel are preparing to begin their largest joint air and missile defense exercise as many as 3500 u.s. personnel and 1000 members of the israeli defense forces are expected to take part in the three week exercise. britain and germany will also participate. in news from guantanamo, a u.s. military judge refused to allow

a discussion on torture in the death penalty case against five prisoners, including khalid sheikh mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the september 11 attacks. before their transfer to the guantanamo u.s. naval base in 2006, the defendants were held for years in secret cia prisons were all five have said they were tortured during interrogation is. david nevin is an attorney for khalid sheikh mohammed. >> i am talking about the united states of america, tortured my client for 3.5 years. it is a capital case. you think that is something i might want to talk to him about? of course it is. but there defined as contraband in the rules is "the detention" of any detainee. >> attorney david nevin went on to criticize the overall court proceedings at guantanamo. >> it is a court that is designed to achieve a

conviction. and to do it in such a way that the truth never comes out about what was done to our client, who did it, and why, and what it means. >> thousands of protesters gathered outside the portuguese parliament monday night to protest sweeping austerity cuts and tax hikes in the country's budget for next year. the harsh new budget draft aimed at meeting the strict conditions of a massive european bailout would see the average income tax rise by more than 3%, about 2000 protesters gathered monday night to protest the budget in demand the resignation of the government. i am here today like everyone else, protesting against the 2013 budget and against the government, which is always implementing the measures that do not make sense. >> the guarded reports a u.s. businessman has dumped about 100 metric tons of iron sulphate into the ocean off the canadian coast as part of a risky for-

profit venture that appears to violate two international resolutions. california businessman russ george dumped the iron to spark an artificial plankton bloom that now appears to stretch up to 10,000 square kilometers. the plantain is supposed to absorb carbon dioxide as part of a controversial tactic called ocean fertilization that could produce profitable carbon credits. but scientists have raised concerns the process could irreparably damage ocean life and might even worsen global warming. george has previously failed to conduct similar dumps near the galapagos and canary islands, prompting the spanish and ecuadorean governments to bar his vessels. the recent dump happened in ju off the west coast of canada, where the head of the local nation said it was touted as the salmon enhancement project. the nation president said the local people would have rejected the project if they had known of any potential negative

consequences to the ocean. the national oceanic a graphic and emma's werke administration has announced september 2012 was tied for the warmest september on record worldwide. september marked the 331st month in a row with global temperature above the 20th century average. the last below average temperature for any month was february 1985. the american civil liberties union has filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit against morgan stanley for pedaling predatory subprime loans to african-american borrowers in detroit. the lawsuit alleges morgan stanley lent billions of dollars to new century, a now-defunct subprime lender, and pressured it to make loans to borrowers who cannot afford them. morgan stanley later packaged the loans and sold to pension funds and other large investors. cuba has announced it will scrao make it easier for cubans to travel abroad. for the first time in 50 years,

cubans will no longer need to obtain an exit visa and letter of invitation order to leave the island. beginning in january, cubans will be allowed to simply show a passport and visa from the country they're traveling to if needed. the head of a soup kitchen in ohio has accused republican vice presidential candidate paul ryan and campaign staffers of ramrodding their way into the soup kitchen so that ryan can get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall. according to news accounts, ryan arrived at the soup kitchen after the food had been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned. photos show ryan washing dishes that had already been cleaned. brian antal, president of the society, criticized the ryan team for using the soup kitchen for a staged photo op. he said --

in new york, two police officers are under investigation after a video emerged showing the brutally beating a young man inside a jewish community center in brooklyn. the officers claimed the 21- attack themd a last week. surveillance video appears to contradict that claim. instead, it shows one officer punching him in the head, then delivering repeated blows while a second officer appears to be holding him down. the second officer also be the 21-year-old with her baton for more than two minutes. police reportedly have been called the alternative learning institute for young adults when he refused to leave after a center volunteer found him sleeping on a couch. is it to directors said he had permission to sleep there.

-- the center director said he had permission to sit there. since the video emerged, the new york police department and brooklyn district attorney's office have both opened investigations. of the officers has been placed on modified duty. new york state assemblyman condemned the beating. >> this behavior is unconscionable. in the video camera records what happened but if it were not for that, we might believe that the young man attack the police officers and never did. he is charged with felonies, charged with all kinds of crimes. now i wonder how many other crimes are new yorkers charged with and there is no video camera to tell the story. >> those are some of the headlines. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> welcome to all our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world.

president obama and republican challenger mitt romney will hold their second debate tonight at new york's hofstra university. president obama faces increasing pressure after what many deemed a lackluster performance during the first debate in denver, colorado earlier this month. the romney campaign has since received a boost in the polls and raised a record $170 million in september. recent polls show the rivals are tied -- and abc news/washington post survey released monday suggests 49% of voters are for the democratic president while 46% support his republican rival. on the campaign trail over the last week, obama slammed romney for recanting on many of his previous positions. >> these days, mitt romney is for what ever you are for. suddenly, he loves the middle- class british cannot stop talking enough about them. he loves medicare. he lets teachers. he even loves the most important

parts of obamacare. what happened? what's been law, republican vice-presidential candidate paul ryan campaigned in his home state of wisconsin, and attack the president for his handling of the national debt. >> the president hamid office saying he would cut the deficit in half in his first term. he has given us for years trillion dollar deficits.@ he has added almost more public debt and almost all three previous presidents combined. >> as the republican and democratic candidates square off in the official debates, "democracy now!" has broken the sound barrier by expanding the debates to include the voices of third party presidential contenders who were shut out, giving them equal time to respond. tonight's debate is the first this election to use the town hall format, featuring questions moderator candy crowley of cnn selects from the audience -- a

detail revealed when time magazine published the contract secretly negotiated by the obama and romney campaigns that dictates the terms of the 2012 presidential debates. tonight, "democracy now!" will continue our expanded coverage, this time from hofstra university where the debate is being held. we will pose a community roundtable with guests from long island, then air the full, uninterrupted debate between president obama and mitt romney. from 10:30-11:00, we will broadcast post debate analysis. tomorrow we will play excerpts from the town hall meeting today and include third-party candidates also in addition to mitt romney and president obama, answering the questions. our guests in studio will be jill stein, the green party presidential candidate, as well we will be joined by rocky anderson, the justice party presidential candidate, and virgil goode of the constitution

party. to talk more about the debates themselves, we're joined by george farah, founder and executive director of open debates. he is also author of, "no debate: how the republican and democratic parties secretly control the presidential debates." and we're joined by glenn greenwald, columnist and blogger for the guardian newspaper, author of, "with liberty and justice for some: how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful." we welcome you both back to "democracy now!" george, last night the contract between the campaigns was released for this debate. talk about it. how long is it? >> this is a 21-page contract negotiated by the obama campaign and the romney campaign. it dictates the terms of the presidential debates. this contract was not made public in 2008, but was in three prior election seasons only because we got copies from whistleblowers. this is a fantastic document to

see just how much the campaigns manipulate the process. there are fascinating provisions that are harmful to the process. the contract actually says the candidates cannot participate in any other debate with any other candidate and in the other sponsor. with 27 republican primary debates. we're only having three presidential debates, precisely because the candidates have contractually prohibited themselves from participating in any other form. it gives the commission a monopoly. instead of allowing other organizations to most exciting debates that might include possible third card in poises, the commission is in total control the last third-party -- third-party choice is, the commission is in total control. >> can you explain how this contract was revealed if in the previous instances it was only through whistleblowers?

>> time magazine managed to get a copy. >> mark helprin. >> the commission survives on a lack of transparency. the commission would deny this contract even exists. repeatedly it has been denied the very existence of this contract. when confronting jenna brown, she said there is no such contract and the mission is not a party to it. once some of the features started coming out, the commission said, well, the contract is only about podium heights and temperatures in the auditorium. they deny the was any substance. now that we see the contract, there are extraordinary restrictions that are preventing them from -- there from the more predictable questions, the exclusion of all third party voices, and the prohibition on

additional debates. we're facing conflicts and poor policies and unemployment debates, why don't have the best antidote to money in our political process by additional debates? >> you have been talking about the commission on presidential debates. if you could once again review how we came to this point in its electoral politics, how the league of women voters had control of these debates wrested from them? >> the league of women voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976-1984, a very courageous and nonpartisan sponsor. whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the debates behind closed doors, you to exclude a viable independent candidate or sanitize the format, they had the courage to challenge the republican and democratic nominees and if this is there, go public. the leak insisted that anderson be allowed to participate

because the vast majority of people wanted to see him, but jimmy carter refused to debate him. the league went forward anyway and held a debate without jimmy carter. four years later when the republican and democratic nominees tried to get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators they have proposed a host the debate, the league said it was unacceptable. they held a press conference and attacked the campaigns. in 1988, the first attempt by the republican and democratic campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. 12 pages they talked about who could be in the audience now the format would be structured, but the leak found that kind of transparency and that kind of canada control to be fundamentally outrageous. they released the contract and stated the refused to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the american people and refuse to implement it. what do we have today? a private corporation credit by the republican and democratic

parties, the commission on presidential debates this seized control of the debates precisely because the league was independent and this woman's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates of@ major parties and instead of making public these contracts and resisting the major party candidates manipulation, the commission allows them to negotiate a 21-page contract. >> who runs the commission and who finds it? >> it is cochaired by two people. one is the former chair of the republican party and the nation's leading gambling lobbyist, and the other is the former press secretary to bill clinton. he is also lobbying on behalf of the telecommunications. the commission is largely financed by private corporations. the entity that has given the

most amount of money is anheuser-busch, so the debates are brought to you by bud light. >> what to these corporations stand to gain? >> advertising, of course. philip morris got to pay $250,000 and hang its banner. more important, they get access and to show support for both major parties. >> do they have but light on the podiums? [laughter] >> not yet, but we're getting there. they get to show support for both major parties. how often can corporations make a single donation and get a tax deduction for that kind of the nation while showing support for both parties? it also gives them access. they get to rub shoulders. >> like the international

blackwater. >> it seems like liquids are the main sponsors. >> after the contract was revealed, a member of the commission and the former chairman of the federal communications commission defended the criteria at least for the exclusion of the vast majority of candidates saying, there are 410 candidates for president registered with the federalion commission did do you really want to have 410 candidates in the debate? is there that many? if inclusion were not restricted in the way the commission has restricted it, with all of these candidates have to participate in the debate? >> absolutely not. the commission like to say hundreds of candidates run for president every four years, including joe crustacean the ones lobsters to colonize the moon. but these candidates are not on in the state ballots to come close to having a mathematical

chance of winning the white house. if he said, let's include all the candidates in the cycle that are on enough stay balanced have a chance to win the white house, we would have four or maybe five candidates including obama and romney. we had seven, eight candidates in the republican primary. even having the most liberal criteria would only result in five candidates. if we're going to use poland to decide who gets to participate, which is what the commission does, and if you apply that criteria historically, excludes every third party for the last 100 years. but if we're going to use that criteria, why not simply as the american people who they want included in the presidential debates? >> mark helprin said on monday both the obama and romney campaigns had expressed concerns about the role of the moderator in tonight's town hall session. >> candy crowley, moderating the town hall on tuesday, she has

got a unique challenge as compared to the other moderators'. the commission and the campaigns want this to be driven by the questions that come from the people chosen by gallup staff questions, citizens who are likely voters. both campaigns have been struck, as has the commission, by some of the interviews candy has done, talking about her role and what she envisions her role to be. they envision a much more limited role than what they've heard heard described. it is clear the campaigns have asked the commission to check with candy to say, do you get the fact we think should be a limited role? very few follow-ups, basically just traffic cop after an audience question. it remains a little unclear if she envisions this role with the commission in the campaigns to, or whether she wants to play a more active role in following up after they have answered the questions from the citizens. >> that is mark helprin who released the contract between the obama and romney campaigns.

george farah, talking about the candidates' concerns about the role candy crowley will play? >> the townhall debate tonight will be the most constrained and regulated townhall debate in presidential history. the first town hall was introduced in 1992 and no one knew what was one to be asked. the moderator could ask follow- up questions. president george h.w. bush stumbled in a question and the candidates panic. in 1996, they abolished follow- up questions. in 2004, they began requiring every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance and an index card to the moderator, who then throw out@ the ones he or she did not like. the moderator of families still asking the questions. in this election cycle, the first on the moderator herself is prohibited from asking

follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. she essentially is a lady with a microphone and keeping time. >> carol simpson was just on from abc, talking about what the role of women in these debates. you had marked erratics, the questioner of the vice presidential candidates. not the -- she had martha raddatz, the questioner of the vice-presidential candidates. the person called on, i suppose, does that have to ask the question. >> there is something ugly about having the league of women voters losing control of the presidential debates to the commission, cochaired by two men who then reduced all female moderators to kind of sign to those. >> we will take a break and come back to this discussion, talking to george farah. we will be joined by glenn greenwald when we come back. ♪ [music break]

>> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. our guests are george farah and glenn greenwald, who just wrote a very interesting piece about who gets to ask the questions. his father of the book, "with liberty and justice for some: how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful." his piece in the guardian is the one we want to talk about. let's turn to a question by moderator martha raddatz in the vice-presidential debate when she asked the two candidates, paul ryan and the vice-president joe biden, this question. what's talk about medicare and entitlements medicare and social

security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. will benefits for americans under these programs have to change for the programs to surv >> glenn greenwald, can you comment on the question? what's the question is grounded on an assumption that is not just dubious, but debated among the nation [indiscernible] the idea that social security and medicare are going broke. is almost impossible to make that case in social security that is going broke. social security makes money to the extent it is burdened with that because other government programs, whether it be military spending or corporate hernias. all kinds of deaths that social security and up -- deficits the social security and up funding. medicare was a few minor alterations would be economically sound for many decades. this notion is going broke is

something lots of right wing billionaires' have promulgated as a way of pressuring americans to think they have to give up their basic entitlements. martha raddatz embracing what is an extremely controversial promise in her question, then watcoth candidates except that assumption is a microcosm of how these debates were. they pose as neutral moderator's design with this wide range debate when reality it takes place in a very suffocating, small onfine of ideas. >> i want to turn to another question that was raised during the debate, this one on foreign policy. this is moderator martha raddatz asking the candidates about iran. >> let's move to iran. there is really no bigger national security this country is facing. both obama and governor romney

have said they will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. lastly, former defense secretary bob gates said a strike on iran's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." can you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike be? >> glenn gre, your comments on the iran question? >> there again you see the core assumption of the question, the idea there is no greater national-security issue or a threat, i think she just left out the word, but what she was asserting was in terms of the array of national security challenges america faces, iran is the most important, at the top of the list. this idea is laughable. iran has a minuscule military budget when compared to the

u.s., surrounded militarily, encircled by the u.s. for a decade. it has no capability to attack the u.s. and has demonstrated no attempt to do so. as hillary clinton once said, it would be obliterated if it tried. this idea they pose any kind of national security threat to the u.s. is one of those myths that keep the used to kee military spending high. here is the neutral moderator increasing the premise ss not even debatable as what will shape the entire iran discussion. moreover, the questions she asked was more about the efficacy of military. will the military strike on iran to advance american interests? whether the u.s. has the legal and moral right to attack iran, whether it will create all kinds

of havoc in the world, whether this will cause millions and millions and millions of muslim state the u.s. even more is something that is just never considered because the assumption the u.s. has a legal and moral right to attack iran is something both republican and democratic parties agree on and do not even debate by excluding third party candidates, ensuring that is not even in question. the same is true for the sanctions regime. both candidates [indiscernible] causing extreme suffering [indiscernible] that is debate. you just do not have third-party candidates been excluded, but what you have is the vast bulk of political opinion being excluded because these moderators are chosen very specifically to ensure they will

embrace only the orthodoxy shared by both parties while posing as a neutral. >> we will reconnect with the. we will drop our "democracy now!" video connection with you and go for a moment to the clip of third-party candidates. "democracy now!" broke the sound barrier with the first presidential debate when we expanded the debate live, in real time, to include responses from third-party presidential contenders who were shut out of the offical event. the first debate was at university of denver. we were in littleton at a comcast studio with similar podiums, with a blue backdrop just like the presidential candidates had. after jim lehrer asked the question to president obama, gave him two minutes, then to mitt romney with 2 minutes, we would stop the tape and ask dr. jill stein and put the same

question to rocky anderson. i want to play an excerpt of jill stein's response to moderator jim lehrer's questioned about so-called entitlement programs and social security. >> it is very important to point out that while we hear a very different narrative from barack obama and the democrats than we do from mitt romney, with mitt romney's narrative being, usually harsh, scary, selfishness on steroids, and the democratic narrative being warm and fuzzy and we're all in this together let's just wait for things to get better, it is really important to look beyond the talk, to look at the walk, to look at what is being proposed. geoffrey sax at the university of columbia has pointed out in his analysis of the budget proposal to both obama and romney-ryan, points out they are both aiming for essentially the same targets. they're both aiming for social

security to be about 5% of gdp some years down the line whether it is four or eight years. and on medicare, there are both aiming for medicare to be reduced to about 3.2% of gdp. the point is while they have different scenarios, they both have the same targets. >> that was green party presidential candidate jill stein. this is rocky anderson of the justice party responding to a question about health care reform. >> about obamacare and romneycare, i would call it insurance companycare because they are the ones who wrote it. they came up with a conservative foundation years ago to develop this plan, to make the american people buy this perverse product. we're the only country in the world that depends upon for- profit insurance companies for the majority of our coverage

for health care, for those or lucky enough to have it. there are now over 50 million people without basic health-care coverage in this country. the latest report indicates there will be over 30 million people without essential healthcare coverage and obamacare -- when obamacare is fully implemented. that means misery, extended disease, extended illness and injuries, and in means the loss of lives. >> that was rocky anderson of the justice party. both jill stein of the green party and rocky anderson of the justice party and virgil goode of the constitution party will be joining in the debate at the town hall, not tonight at hofstra, but when we expand the debate tomorrow on "democracy now!" in a special two-hour broadcast called "expanding the debate." we're hoping stations will take it around the country or you can

go to democracynow.org. glenn greenwald is on the phone. when ycandidates giving their responses, third-party candidates, your thoughts? >> i think you see why this candidates have been excluded. i think what you're doing and have in these debates is quite innovative. it is important and brilliant. it illustrates two things. number one, when you have these candidates on the stage to are credible, as george said, represent parties with ballot access and have been funded and recognized by lots of people, it illustrates just how mythological this idea is that the democrats and republicans in universe are a part. in reality, they share all kinds of policy crises and shared interests. only by excluding those candidates and having the two party spoke as on the tiny differences they have in this

mythology be maintained that we have massive and real choice in this country. the other aspect of it is, if you have, for example, gary johnson, the libertarian party candidate in even a couple of other candidates on the right who oftentimes are far more or far greater advocates of what progressives have loimed to be their values, what then begins to happen as well as the ideological and partisan spectrum begins to blur a great deal. cultural identities can be subverted. that more than anything is what the two parties do not want. they want both of their followers to think the only way these views can be represented is by clinging to either one of the to the political parties and introducing these third parties into the debate shows that actually, the ideological spectrum is far less rigid and lanier than these two parties insist on perpetuating.

that is why there joined together at the hip and have a common interest in keeping this process as it is and what is collusion exists so smoothly because they both want to keep these candidates out for the same reasons. >> george farah, do think form determines content? >> in many ways, yes. the exclusion of these viable third-party candidates from the process has the consequence of certain ideological content he is describing. they're responsible for the abolition of slavery, child labor laws, social security, direct election of senators, public schools -- the list goes on and on. when you exclude them in the debate, you are preventing third parties from actually breaking the bipartisan silence on critical issues in doing exactly what glenn greenwald is saying, presenting a narrow band with in a wide manner, presenting the illusion there's extraordinary difference between the parties.

>> ralph nader was almost arrested when he went to one of these presidential debates when was running for president. >> in 2000, 64% of the american people wanted to see ralph nader on thin the debate. he was escorted by police out of the presidential debate arena. he filed a lawsuit and the commission had to issue a formal apology, the $25,000 donation to a pro-democracy organization. >> glenn greenwald, you have talked about the vast majority facing the united states todaye@ will not be addressed during this debate process. can you talk about some of those issues that will be and have them excluded? >> the list of consequential issues that will be completely ignored by these debates because the two parties agree is vastly longer than the list of issues they disagree on and will be talked about.

if you look at a foreign policy, ec president obama engaging in endless war, attacking various countries which runs, killing innocent people, claiming the right to assassinate american citizens without a whiff of transparency or to process, waging war on whistleblowers, prosecuting more than all previous presidents together. we have a policy of punishing people for drug usage that is racist in its application and design. there is massive poverty in the u.s., huge exploding income gap between rich and poor, the test in many decades. none of these issues will be remotely addressed because there's nothing for the two parties to say on them other than the fact that "we agree." those issues,inexcluding

including things like human rights and climate change, only by ignoring them can this myth be maintained that the two parties have some basseley different philosophical approach grid the third party candidates would insist on talking about those free. >> i want to turn to another foreign policy issue confronting the u.s. which is the aclu is at guantanamo bay to attend pre- trial hearings before u.s. military commission in the case of khalid sheikh mohammed and ms. four co-defendants. but there charged with conspiring in the attacks of the september 11, 2001, and may face the death penalty if convicted. the aclu hopes to block a so- called protective order that will prevent the revelation of classified details gathered during the defendants' cia interrogations. aclu attorney told the associated press --

glenn greenwald, can you talk about some of the concerns around this pretrial hearing? >> first of all, let me just say this story perfectly illustrates everything we were just talking about because for years ago, issues like military commissions and the way in which the government cheated in these cases by denying due process and planning to insure guilt through these tribunals were widely debated. they're constantly talked about because the democrats pretended that a different view than the republicans. therefore, there were included in the debate. four years later, you had the democrats fully on board with all the injustices that president obama and his party pretended to find so objectionable, therefore, have disappeared completely from the realm of public debate. that is what happens when you're full consensus between the two

political parties. what is happening at guantanamo with these commissions is quite extraordinary because it is an attack on every single precept of western justice that we of long considered to be the hallmark of any decent society. things like allowing lawyers to have access to their clients, access to evidence, to be able to have that aired in open court. what you really have is a process designed to ensure guilt, the matter what the evidence is, and more important, to suppress evidence that is embarrassing to the united states. so these tickets are not permitted to introduce evidence concerning the extraordinarily repressive torturous treatment to which they were subjected that impacts the statements that they gave it were to be used against them, impacts the entire notion of justice surrounding the trial. yes secret evidence, evidence that is from witnesses that cannot be confronted. it is an extraordinary travesty of everything we claim to

believe in but because it is the democrats do it and republicans fully on board, it has disappeared from public discourse. >> i want to ask about wikileaks founder julian assange who spoke by video link to a side meeting at the u.n. general assembly from inside the ecuadorean embassy in london where he is taking refuge. ecuador has granted him diplomatic asylum to prevent him from being extradited to sweden. he is concerned about being sent to sweden to answer questions about two women who have said he sexually abused them because he is concerned sweden will then extradite him to the united states, where he is concerned he potentially face charges relating to wikileaks. this is an excerpt of his address at the un >> the u.s. administration is trying to correct a national regime of secrecy, a national regime where any government

employee revealing sensitive information to a media organization can be sentenced to death. like imprisonment or espionage. and journalists from the media organization with them. we should not underestimate the scale of the investigation which has happened into wikileaks. >> that was julian assange from wikileaks. glenn greenwald, your final comment? these kinds of issues from guantanamo to join in assange, we don't know, in a town hall meeting, i guess they could be asked. what do you think? >> i cannot imagine candy crowley of choosing a question that relates to the war on whistleblowers were julian assange or secrecy. just think about that contrast. when daniel ellsberg was prosecuted by the nixon administration, a huge story, he became a symbol of heroism and

bravery. here you have wikileaks and bradley manning facing exactly the same treatment and it has completely disappeared from public discourse. progressives could not care less, even though every investigative journalist will tell you this is all created incredible climate of fear not only deters and intimidates the resources out of whistleblowing, but a lot of journalists as well that is what it is designed to do. you have this attack on transparency, bolstering of secrecy, undermining of investigative journalism all concentrated within the wikileaks case, specifically the broader war on whistleblowers. this also will be ignored because both parties could not be more fully on board with it than if they tried. >> thank you, glenn greenwald, for being with this from the guardian newspaper, author of, "with liberty and justice for some: how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful." we will have a link to your latest piece at the guardian. and, george farah, it thank you

for joining us. final question, the organizations that are trying to open these debates and wrest control away from this private corporation, which is the commission on presidential debates? >> we are making some ground. for the first time we have convinced three of the 10 corporate sponsors financing corcommission to peel off. they pull their support from the commission on presidential debates. this is edented. we're in the process of making secret contracts public. the media is beginning to understand this is a bipartisan corporation that does not serve the interests of the electorate in which 40% is independent. it is just a matter of time. >> we will leave it there. thank you for being with us, george farah, from open debates, author of, "no debate: how the republican and democratic parties secretly control the presidential debates."

"democracy now!" will be broadcasting live from hofstra with their own community forum as well as broadcasting the townhall debate. you can start turning in at 8:00 p.m. at democracynow.org, eastern standard time. tomorrow morning, a special two- hour broadcast at "democracy now!" or we will be joined by three third-party candidates. they will answer the same questions put to the major party presidential candidates at hofstra. you will hear all. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. back in a moment. ♪ [music break]

>> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh.

>> two leaders of the chilean student movement are in the u.s. this week or there will be awarded the 2012 the chilly air moffett award. they're named after orlando letelier and ronni karpen moffitt who are murdered by the regime of augusto pinochet in september 1976. over the past year, the student movement has led some of the largest protest in chile since the days of opposition marches to augusto pinochet a generation ago. it is rallied hundreds of thousands into the streets of santiago and other major cities to demand greater access to affordable university education as well as deeper structural changes in chile. the country has the highest per capita income in the region, but also one of the most unequal distributions of wealth. >> joining us are noam titelman, the current president of the

catholic university student federation. he is one of the main leaders of the chilean student protests and a student in commercial engineering and spanish literature at the catholic university of chile in santiago. we're also joined by camila vallejo, vice-president of the university of chile student federation from late 2010 through 2011, she is president of the organization and has been a main spokesperson for the national student federation, the confederation of chilean students. camila vallejo is also a member of the central committee of the chilean communist youth and a geography student at the university of chile in santiago. her interpreter is marcial godoy. we welcome you all to "democracy now!" noam titelman, talk about the significance of the movement and what is taking place in chile and the u.s., it is hard enough to get protests covered in the u.s., let alone in chile, no

matter how significant they are. >> the first thing understand is we have a very special educational system which was imposed during the 1980's during the augusto pinochet dictatorship, which has one basic principle. the market always works. we found out, it is not that way -- always. what we have seen is, for example, while our public education is dying, we have only 36% of students going to public schools but in the states, it is almost 90%. it is a special example of how privatized a state can become. all of this started accumulating a lot of problems, a lot of inequalities. this exploded many occasions during the last decade. during the 2011, there's a special mummification of this

issue when we saw almost all the schools and universities of the country paralyzed for almost six months with over 1 million people in the streets. we even saw some students willingly losing their academic year. @obviously this is because something is not working with the extremely privatized educational system. >> camila vallejo, can you talk about how does the movement was able to mobilize such large numbers of people? >> first, i want to remark in

light of the letelier-moffit prize, orlando letelier was one of the first to warn about what would come with implantation of neoliberal policies during the dictatorship. he warned that through violence in chile, there would not only the sort of a market society put in place, but actually all many things that were previously considered basic rights would be turned into neoliberal -- >> orlando letelier was the former chilean ambassador to the u.s. that was blown up in a car bomb in 1976 in washington, d.c. >> in these circumstances would

end in the privatization of basic rights and basic goods and become indebted to procure these basic things and that is what led really chile to these massive protests. >> camila vallejo and noam titelman, we have to end it there, but we will havcontinue e discussion of after the show and posted on democracynow.org. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013.