Latest / The Oath and The Office / Trump’s Imperial Presidency: Bogus Charges and Foreign Wars

Transcript

Trump’s Imperial Presidency: Bogus Charges and Foreign Wars · The Oath and The Office

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of The Oath in the Office
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: podcast starring Professor Corey Bretschneider. I am his obedient henchman,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: John Feugelsang, and it's a pleasure to have you with
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: us today on the show. A fascinating conversation with filmmaker
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Andrew Glazer, and folks, for one brief shining moment. This week,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the Constitution briefly cleared its throat and reminded all of
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: us it is still technically employed. A federal judge looked
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: at the Trump DOJ's treatment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: basically said, you idiots can't deport a guy my mistake
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: and then lie about it in court and then reopen
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: a dead case to punish the guy for noticing. And
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: while all this is happening, courts are still wrestling with
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: whether non citizens possessed the radical socialist luxury known as
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: free speech, which used to be one of America's bigger
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: selling points. Folks, please welcome the star of our show,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: so constitutional law professor and author of The Oath and
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: the Office, Professor Corey Breschneider.
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: Hello, sir, Thanks so much, John, And that's such a
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: great frame I mean, we're talking every week about the
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: ongoing struggle between the attempt to protect our rights, to
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: protect our democracy and the assault on those rights by
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: the Trump administration. We'll talk about what's happening here in
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: the United States, and we have a special treat too
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: in that Andrew Glazer is going to talk about his
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: film about the drug war and about America's complicity and
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: the violation of human rights abroad, particularly in Mexico. So
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: it's an amazing episode both about our rights at home
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: and our abuses abroad. And of course those two things
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: are tied together through the office that we're focused on
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: in this podcast, the office of the President of the
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: United States. There's extreme deference paid to the president when
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: he or she is acting abroad, and that's why you
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: often see the kind of human rights abuses, especially tied
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: to the war power or tied to the war on
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: drugs and this. But unfortunately, you know, those abuses abroad
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: are not just limited outside our borders. And so we'll
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: talk about the assaults too on not just free speech,
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: but as our first story will make clear, on due
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: process itself.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about it because we actually have a few
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: tiny signs of life from due process this week, and
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: from judicial independence, and from the old fashioned idea that
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: rights aren't supposed to depend on whether the president's having
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: a cranky day. Kill mar Abrego Garcia. We talked about
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: him a lot last year. The judiciary is calling out
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: these bogus charges after the Trump DOJ stopped claiming they
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: could just evade due process. Our listeners will remember, this
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: guy's twenty nine years old from Maryland. He's a citizen
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: of bel Salvador, and the US government mistakenly deported him
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: there and lied about it. So, I mean, Corey, Judge
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Crenshaw found the prosecution of Garcia for human trafficking was tainted, vindictive, selective,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: and in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: Professor how rare is that language coming from a federal judge.
• 3:02
  Speaker 3: Oh, it was starting to get real pushback, you know.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: The just to kind of back up a bit and
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: remind listeners, because, as you said, we have been this
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: is one of those stories that we've been covering and
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: it's so important. The administration is claiming that under the
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: Alien Enemies Act, this was what they originally claimed that
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: they didn't even have to present their case in court
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: that it was really beyond the law and that he
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: could be deported to a gulag in El Salvador and
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: was sent there even though there had been court orders
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: saying do.
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: Not send this guy, that he was in danger for.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: His life if you send him to El Salvador. Now,
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: you know, over time there was pushback by courts, thankfully,
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: that said, you know, we have a right of everyone,
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: of all people to do process and the administration can't
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: just scrap that and treat people however they want.
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: So what did they do.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: They backed up and tried to say, well, he's involved
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: in human trafficking and to bring a case to use
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: the courts. And you know, anybody with common sense see
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: that what was going on was that they were, you know,
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: having failed to deny the constitutional rights that are afforded everyone,
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: the rights of due process that having been stopped there,
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: that they were just trying to make something up and
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: to use a normal legal process. But you know, in
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: the service of something that was just a lie. And
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: now they're being called out for that. You can't just
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: make something up, and in particular, I mean just to
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: get into the nitty gritty please, you know, they had
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: a sort of sham case against him for human trafficking.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: He had been pulled over, for instance, in the car
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: that had a lot of people, that's not evidence of
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: human trafficking, and had decided not to move forward on
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: those grounds.
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: That's why they had to deny due process.
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: So now that they've been blocked off from simply denying
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: his rights, well they're raising this case again, and it
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: looks like the courts are saying, I don't think so,
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: we know what you're up to. This is a kind
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: of selective prosecution. You're sort of manipulating the facts to
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: meet your goal of seeing this guy in prison. Let's
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: get down to brass taxstration is embarrassed and they're trying
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: to cover this up with a.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: Lot exactly exactly so, so I mean, I also want
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: to get to just be honest here. I think the
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: bar is so low at this point. Corey in twenty
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: twenty six that the government may not retaliate against you
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: for asserting your constitutional rights now counts as uplifting good news.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: You realize that, like we're accelerating us as great news
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: that the government can't punish you for asserting your rights.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: But the court pretty much found that the government reopened
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: this closed case only after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: illegal deportation. So I guess my question is constitutionally, how
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: dangerous is it if the White House appears to just
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: punish people for asserting their legal rights.
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, the whole thing is so frightening, the
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: idea that you're using this seventeen ninety eight law to
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: deny somebody the rights of due process, a law that
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: dates back to John Adams assault on democracy, and you're
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: seeing it again here. Now that to begin with is
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: way out there. There was pushback against that by Judge
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Bosberg and others saying, you know, I don't think so
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: that the lower courts here, you know, and part of
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: this episode will be a celebration of the lower courts
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: pushing back, saying, you know, you need to charge him
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: with a crime. You need to show even if he's
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: not guilty of a crime, you know, you can't just
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: deny him any.
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: Legal process exactly. So what do they do?
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: They try to come up with this alternative lie, And yeah,
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: my worry is that, you know, there really is a
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: question about how much of the rule of law, if any,
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: is left that that might have worked in some world
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: that the courts might have, you know, said, well, okay,
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: now at least you're pretending to.
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: Abide by the rule of law.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: And I think it is a real victory that they're
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: you know, calling this out and saying, I don't think
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: so this isn't this isn't legitimate. It's a make believe
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: way of trying to avoid the fact that you're embarrassed.
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: You said something too that I just want to pull
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: forward for listeners. What the court is calling out is
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: what's happening here, which is that the administration is embarrassed
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: because he asserted his rights, as you said, and now
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: what are they trying to do? Deny his rights with
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: a lie? And it looks like that's not working.
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: So that is you know, I don't.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: Want to say democracy saved. You know, we made it,
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: but it's one of these many instances, and this is
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: such an important case because it's really a test case
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: for the wholesale denial of rights. And so as he's
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: starting to win here, you know, I wouldn't say I'm
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: feeling amazing about American democracy, but I'm feeling good.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: About I mean, we still live a bit of time
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: when the government can deport somebody in error, and then
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: if you challenge that error publicly, they will aggressively prosecute you.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, the judge did say that there's an absence
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: of evidence of actual vindictiveness the government failed to rebut
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: the presumption of vindictiveness. And I had never heard that
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: expression before, but wow, presumption of vindictiveness sums up my
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: entire feelings towards this administration at this point, professor, I
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: do want to ask you about Mahmoud Khalil, because this was,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: I mean great, this guy we talked about a ton
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: on our showan born pro Palestinian activist. He was a
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: student at Columbia University at an expectant father. He just
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: opened the door for the government to detain and deport him,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: and the Court of Appeals also sided with the federal government,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: determining that immigration court was the best place for him
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: to argue his case rather than federal court, and he
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: appealed that. So, I mean, his attorneys are saying, essentially,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: tell me if I'm following this, professor, that the government
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: is claiming non citizens don't have meaningful First Amendment of protections. Right,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: that's what this is. I mean, has the Supreme Court
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: recognized free speech protection for non citizens who are here legally.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: I kind of thought you taught me a while back
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: that this is about what governments can't do to you,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: not what you can't do.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the same way.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: I'll just tie the two cases together, and they're both
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: cases that we've talked extensively about, and that's why we'll
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: continue to update people on what's happening. There really are
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: test cases for the strength of our democracy. In the
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: first case, in the Bregio Garcia case, the question is
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: whether or not, using this obscure eighteenth century statute, the
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: government can just take away your doe process rights altogether.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: And there was pushback, and you know, we're rightly I
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: don't know about celebrating, but certainly giving kudos to the
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: courts for pushing back on the administration here. Now here's
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: another story, you know, and it's why this push and
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: pull is going on. A district court judge did heroically say,
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: look just what you said, John, that the First Amendment
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: applies here, not just to citizens. It's not what the
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: text says. It talks about Congress shall make no law
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: abridging the freedom of speech, and that isn't a limit
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: on the protection just of the rights of citizens. It's
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: a limit on government, regardless of who is being attacked.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: And so you know, that was a good moment. Now
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: you know, these cases are subject to appeal. The government
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: this time fought back, and so far it looks like
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: they're winning.
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: Now how are they winning.
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: They're saying that this judge really wasn't the right place,
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: the district court judge in New Jersey wasn't the right venue,
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: the right place to consider this question at this time,
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: and instead we've got to wait until the matter gets
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: worked through immigration courts.
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: Let me just break this down a little.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: Least, because this is this is really, this is shady, right,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: this is really.
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: Say, immigration courts are you know, guests who controls the
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: immigration courts? They are not that I hesitate to even
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: call them courts because we think of a court as
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: a judge. Immigration judges are within the executive branch. Who
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: is the executive branch controlled by the within the Department
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: of Justice. There's the Department of Justice controlled by we
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: know that's Donald Trump. So what unfortunately has happened here
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: is that a court of appeals, not within the administration,
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: within the court court system. The Article three court system
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: has pushed this back, at least for now, into the
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: hands of the administration. And you know, good luck getting
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: your rights of indicated with this administration. It's not the
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: end of the story. Eventually we might get to the
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: And that's what Khalil's lawyers are saying.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know the question you asked is eventually,
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: I think going to be answered by the Supreme Court.
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: Does the First Amendment apply only to citizens or is
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: it a limit on government? As plain as day, I
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: think it says it's just a limit on government. But
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: you know, once you get to that level, for all
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: the heroism of the lower courts, including the district court
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: judge here, this Supreme Court, well, you know, it doesn't
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: do fantastically when it comes to the production.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Oh really, when it comes to human rights and individual liberties,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: this particular Supreme Court. So Corey, let me just get
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: this right because I want to get off of this
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: topic because it hurts my brain. But they're both arguing
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: that the government of the United States under the Constitution
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: can crush free speech if you're not a citizen. But
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: it seems like they're also saying that immigration law can
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: override the Constitution.
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: You know, I'm getting this right.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, my brain is brain small here, but is that?
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Is that roughly right?
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: For now?
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: That's you know, we're we're tracing these cases, We're following
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: them closely. And one of the great things about this
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: podcast is that we can go in depth, you know,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: on these specific cases that really are again test cases
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: for democracies. So right, so, right now, where things stand,
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court of the United States hasn't definitively said
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: no to the administration. This district Court judge did try
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: to say no, But the administration is saying, if you're
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: not a citizen, no free speech rights.
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: It's that simple.
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: And they're claiming essentially that his protest activity, and of
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: course they're lying about things that he said. They're accusing
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: him of anti Semitism. I have been looking. I have
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: not seen any evidence of Khalil's anti Semitism.
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: But the bottom publicly antisemitism at no place in his movement.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: He said it more than once. Mark Rubio lied about
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: this guy.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this administration cannot be trusted. Really on anything. And
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: you know, but here's what they're saying in open court
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: that if you're not a citizen, no free speech rights,
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: and we have the right if we don't like we
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: think that his views, essentially, his opinions, his speech is
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: adverse to the public policy interests of this administration, that
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: we can throw him out of the country, even though
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: he's a permanent resident and you know, has been living here.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: He was a leader of the protest movement in Colombia
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: negotiating with the administration. They're saying, we don't like your views,
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: you're out of here. Now, what's the state status of
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: the law? You know, I've said very strongly what I
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: think the law says. But so far the judge who's
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: agreed with me in this matter, has his opinion is
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: for now been pushed aside. This has been thrown back
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: into quote unquote immigration courts, which are really within the
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: executive branch, and they haven't said definitively that's it. He's
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: going to be thrown out of the country. There's a
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: possibility that that could happen, that he's going to be deported.
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: And really what we're going to wait, I think for
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: is in the final analysis for the Supreme Court to
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: get involved, and that that's where the appeals going now.
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: From Khalil and his lawyers.
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: And you know, they're to have to answer that question
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: once and for all, because you know, it's not that
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to review this.
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: They can, and I think there's a good chance they will,
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: and they've got to answer that question. Is the administration
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: right when they say non citizens have no free speech rights?
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: You know on the law. No, but you know, we've
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: got to be honest. This court can do all sorts
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: of things.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Well, Corey, before the break, we also, as we are
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: all sitting here in shock from what has happened to
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, and it seems to have just
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: been reduced to a I don't know what a coaster
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: for billionaires. Democracy actually punched back a couple of times
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: this week. We just saw a federal court telling Alabama
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: their congressional map was totally racially discriminatory and illegal. And
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: then South Carolina Republicans, I think, just realized, wait a second,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: we already controlled the state. Why are we trying so hard?
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: And they shocked the world by choosing not to pass
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: the new map designed to vaporize the state's lone majority
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: black district that was Jim Cliburn seat. They were going
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: to just get rid of his entire district, and to
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: their credit, they realized, wow, even we don't need to
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: be that dickish.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, I don't know in the end, if
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: this goes to the Supreme Court what they'll say. I
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: don't want to take away from what they did in
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: this Louisiana case.
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: They really did avis rate the Voting Rights Act.
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: They made it very hard to show that the attempt
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: to resist the dilution of black voting power through districts
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: in which there are a majority of minority voters. It
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: largely eliminated the ability to do that. Now, they left
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: a way open, which is that if you could show
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: that what you know, what you're doing is resisting intentional discrimination,
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: then okay. And it seems like in this Alabama case
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: that the lower court here, this isn't the Supreme Court yet,
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: of course, but the Court is said, yeah, that there
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: is intentional discrimination. So you know, they're trying to work
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: within the very narrow limits that the Supreme Court is set.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: In the end, what's going to happen you know, it's
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: anybody's guest, but you know it took a theme or
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: that we're working, which is that you know there is
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: a give and take, there is a pushback. The Supreme
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Court often disappoints us, sometimes they don't. But into the
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: void is stepped intermediate courts and district courts and courts
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: of appeals.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court didn't go out and say you
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: can discriminate. They said, just don't discriminate by don't gerrymander
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: by race, do it by ideology. Feel the free to
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: cheat as much as you want that way. And yet
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: a lower court is now saying, well, you did cheat then,
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: because the Supreme Court never gave you license to discriminate.
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, that's a great way to put it.
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: I'll say it again, just to clarify, the Supreme Court
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: didn't get rid of the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act.
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: It preserved it, but in a particular way and said,
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: you know, if you want to invoke the nineteen sixty
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: five Voting Rights Act, if you want to show that
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: people are being denied the right to vote based on race,
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: it has to be intentional discrimination that we're talking about.
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: So that doesn't you know, that's not nothing. It's very
• 16:57
  Speaker 3: hard to show.
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: But when you have actions as blatant as what's happening
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: in so many of these states, actions of intentional discrimination,
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: courts can call it out. They can say, you know,
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: we're not blind, and you can call it, you know,
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: party partisan jerrymandering, say this isn't about race.
• 17:15
  Speaker 3: All you want that you're colorblind.
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: If you're really engaged in discrimination, we can identify and
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: call it out.
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: And the Supreme Court did leave that open. And so
• 17:24
  Speaker 3: you know, I don't want.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: To get too rosy about this. With the Voting Rights
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: case Louisiana case, the Supreme Court really did avis errate
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: the Voting Rights Tact, but they left a little bit
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: and maybe that's a little bit something to work with,
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: especially in the face of well, let's call it, you know,
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: maga's overt and disgusting form of intentional discrimination.
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: Folks, the guardrails of democracy are hanging on by duct
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: tape and caffeine launay. They wave, all right, we got
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: to know it's something. Yes, it could be worse at
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: it just might well be. We got to take a
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: quick break back in just a moment, and let's talk
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: about the fact that Congress suddenly remembered they have power
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: over war. This is the Oath in the Office. Welcome
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John Fugel,
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: Sang Professor Britch Nighter. I am very excited to welcome
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: Andrew Glazer in the next act, the director of the
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: very powerful drug war documentary Spring of the Vanishing. I'm
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: equally excited to tell the folks that you are such
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: a professional. Because I had to fly today. Corey Bretschneider
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: is joining us to record live from Italy. At what
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: time is it there? It's three in the morning, right,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: it's three am?
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: No, No, not that bad little past midnight.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: Wow, thank you very much.
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: You know I'm not going to miss this show.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: John. Talking to you every week gives me hope, gives
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: the lessoner's hope, and I'm happy to do this show
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: at midnight or anytime.
• 18:50
  Speaker 3: Really.
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: Well, Hey, if you enjoy doing this show with me,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: then my work as a charming sociopath is complete. Okay,
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: I want to talk about I think this is good news.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: I don't know anymore. What is but after twenty years
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: of Congress treating the Constitution like the terms and conditions
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: over the iPhone update that they're never going to read.
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: The Senate seems to have finally remembered they technically have
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: authority over war.
• 19:15
  Speaker 4: Corey.
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: Democrats have unsuccessfully been reintroducing all these measures since the
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: assault on Iran began in the end of February, and
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: the Senate, in a vote of fifty to forty seven,
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: has now taken up a measure that could end the
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: war in Iran. That would be the same war where
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: we keep bombing them during cease fires. A few Republican
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: senators have now joined Democrats to try to stop the escalation,
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: including Senator Bill Cassidy, who apparently Corey discovered separation of
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: powers the moment he discovered that voters separated him from
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: his job. I mean, it is amazing how this constitutional
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: courage shows up once the donors can't primary anymore, isn't.
• 19:52
  Speaker 4: It, Corey.
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: Well, it's like, you know, you're not running for reelection anymore,
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: and the decency just starts popping it out. And I
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: think when you have a president, if you've been part
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: of Congress and you're watching a president just walk all
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: over your powers, really declare war. And just to return
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: to the theme, for listeners. The Congress has the power
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: to declare war according to the Constitution. It says it
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: in Article one, which creates the Congress gives it its power.
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: The president under Article two is commander in chief, but
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: that doesn't include the power to initiate a war. And
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: in fact, the British King had the ability under the
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: unwritten British Constitution, as they talk about it, to both
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: initiate and carry out wars. And the Framers looked at
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: that and they're like, that is way too powerful. We're
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: going to divide these powers up, give the initiation power
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: to Congress and give the power to carry out war
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: to the president once Congress has acted. Now, you know,
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: presidents for a long time, of course ignored that. But
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: in the nineteen seventies and the early nineteen seventies, at
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, as he was getting
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: close to step down.
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: The Congress start to reassert that power.
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: Realize that the bombing of Camp, the incursions that were illegal,
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: and arguably the whole war. There's an argument, of course
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: about the Gulf of Tompkin, but arguably the whole war
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: that was really an example of what Arthur's Lessener called
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: the imperial presidency using basically the power of the president
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: as a kind of dictator, initiating war, carrying it out,
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: violating civil liberties abroad, violating them at home.
• 21:20
  Speaker 3: That's really the theme of today's show.
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: We're going to talk about with Andrew Glazer, the violation
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: of civil liberties abroad with the encouragement of the American government.
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: But you know, the war power is really the core
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: of all this. So to see at least a discussion
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: and a recognition of members of the president's own party
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: that this is dangerous, that this is how you walk
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: right into dictatorship. It's not the end of the story,
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: but it's at least something. And you know, I'm glad
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: that the Democrats keep pushing back on this idea that
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: this war is somehow legally it's not.
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: No Somewhere the founders are screaming from their crypts. We
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: wrote this down very clearly.
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: This is one of the facility is clear.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: It's astonishing. But I guess I have to ask, then,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: since they're getting away with this, what constitutional mechanisms still exists, Professor,
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: to stop a very determined president doing military escalation. If
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: the executive branch really wants it. What guardrails do we
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: still have.
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: Well, we have this law in place, the War Powers Act,
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: and it's pretty clear that the President of the United States,
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: if he wants to engage in a legal war, has
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: to within thirty or at most sixty days, then can
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: get an extension, go to Congress and say declare war. Now,
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: they can do it in a variety of ways through resolution.
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be necessarily a formal declaration. But
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: nothing like that has occurred here. There's been no debate,
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: and so what members of Congress are doing is saying,
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: you know, pull it back. There's another provision of the
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: War Powers Act that talks about the ability of a
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: vote to just simply legally demand the return of any
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: forces outside of the theater of war. And you know,
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: that's what they're doing here. I think that they would
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: have the ability, even if they have declared war to
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: pull back. That's a complicated issue, but to me, the
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: straightforward thing that they're saying is very clearly, we did
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: not declare war, and there is no authority in the
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: first place to go out and carry out this war.
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: And you know, they're not at fifty one votes yet.
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: In the Senate, but hopefully they will be. You know, realistically,
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: we're going to talk about the next Congress. I think
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: that should be the first vote that we see in
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: the next Congress is a vote to make it very
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: clear that there's been no authorization of war, and yeah,
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: that the president has to cease all operations. Of course,
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: he's going to make all sorts of arguments, including the
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: fact that there's a ceasefire now so the sixty days
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: doesn't matter, and well, courts get involved now. But a
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: first step to reigning in a president is that Congress
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: starts to assert itself.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: Okay, but let me asky. I know it's almost one
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: in the morning in Italy and getting ready to go
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: out now, but I got to ask you. I mean,
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: this makes me think of this curse on America. Ever
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: since Bush Senior had a really quick, easy war to
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: restore the dictator of Kuwait, right a thirty five years ago,
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: we had Operation Desert Storm, and ever since then, except
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: for the two major conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: seems like we've had so much low level warfare from
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: democratic and Republican presidents alike that it sort of normalized
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: this whole emergency executive power in the American psyche. I mean,
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: we're just really used to presidents having their little wars
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: that don't have tons of ground troops.
• 24:43
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: One thing you know that we've talked a lot about
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: on this podcast with Sheldon Whitehouse with Ted lu is
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: what once the Democratic Party retakes the Congress, how do
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: you rain things back in? And one thing that I'm
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: just insistent on, We've had a couple of moments like
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: this the quarter presidents.
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: He was one of them where presidents really acknowledged that.
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: The power of the executive branch had gotten out of control,
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: that it had to be rained in. And it really
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: is both parties I think that have contributed to this
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: imperial presidency.
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: And that isn't just a.
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: Matter of illegal action abroad, illegal war, but the civil
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: liberties abuses that can come from him. And so you know,
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: I think we've got to look at both parties, look
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: at what presidents of both parties have done, and start
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: to acknowledge that, you know, there's something wrong with the
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: setup that enables at least beyond our borders.
• 25:35
  Speaker 5: We haven't legally ever, hear she wants, we haven't legally
• 25:39
  Speaker 5: declared war in eighty five years, correct, I believe it
• 25:42
  Speaker 5: was December eighth, nineteen forty one, was the last time
• 25:44
  Speaker 5: this country legally declared war?
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: Again, I mean, I think you could probably argue that
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: authorizations of force themselves don't have to formally be declarations
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: of war.
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: But we don't have anything like that here. We don't
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: even I'm just.
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: You keep talking about it. Yeah, yeah, tells us Congress
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: to Claire's war.
• 26:02
  Speaker 3: Yeah. I guess.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: You know, ideally we'd return to a moment in which
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: there was a formal declaration of war or not.
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: And that's the idea.
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: There are exceptions, you know, you could have defensive actions,
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: for instance, that presidents engage in. And there's a famous
• 26:14
  Speaker 2: case involving Lincoln where there was an accusation that the
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: Union's involvement in the Civil War itself was illegal, and
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: Lincoln said, look, this is a defensive war.
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: It wasn't denying that it was a war, and the
• 26:27
  Speaker 3: court there made an exception.
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: So I would say, you know, there are instances in
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: which you can engage in military action defensively. There are
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: some actions that I think don't amount to war. I
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: think that's true, But we're at the point now where
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: we're so far beyond that we're engaged in a certainly
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: an Iran case, in what has to be understood as
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: a war, an aggressive war that was initiated by one
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: person that that's clearly illegal. So don't you know, I
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: don't demand that we go back to a time in
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: which there are formal declarations of war that was true,
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: I think close to the founding and you know where
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: Congress had to debate that they could debate something short
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: of it. We could also acknowledge that there are instances
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: of defensive action short of war. But what we can't
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: allow anymore are the kind of extensive involvements of the
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: kind that we're having in Iran without any debate, without
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: any Congressional action.
• 27:17
  Speaker 3: And so you know, I'm not actually I don't feel
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: like I'm asking even.
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: For what you know, what you're talking about, which is
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: probably what the Framers meant, just something.
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: Well, you know, I'm an originalist, Corey. I don't know
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: if you know that about being Okay, So before we
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: hit the break and I talk about what might be
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: the wackiest story of the week, except for the fact
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: that it might be completely related to the President's ability
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: to declare little wars when he feels like it. I
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: want to laugh at this story, except I'm too terrified
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: because I know what might be behind it.
• 27:48
  Speaker 4: Corey.
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: Nothing says rule of law to me like indicting a
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: ninety four year old former dictator thirty years later while
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: half of this country is terrified, we're going to have
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: to sell bone marrow for gas money. Can we talk
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: about Raul Castro. Man's ninety four years old and the
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: DOJ has now charged him over the nineteen ninety six
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: shooting down of civilian planes, which is evil and horrific.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: But boy, this timing scares me for very Cold War reasons,
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: because I can already visualize Marco Rubio dusting off a
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: bay of pigs power point and saying, gentlemen, this time
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: it'll work. I mean, this seems like pretext for some
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: kind of military involvement. And I noticed the same people
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: who always think international law is tyranny it if applies
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: to us, they're huge fans of military accountability when it
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: involves a communist. What do you make of this? How
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: significant and strange Jesus indictment thirty years later?
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: Like?
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: How weird is this to you?
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: I think Marco Rubio really does have his eyes set
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: on regime change in Cuba. Of course, we saw them
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: in Venezuela swoop in and take out a sitting president
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: and bring him to the United States, so we know
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: that they're willing to do it. I think part of
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: why they're trying to wind down the war in Iran
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: is so that they can turn their attention to Cuba.
• 29:11
  Speaker 2: And you know, this is part of how they did
• 29:14
  Speaker 2: it in Venezuela two they indicted Maduro, they went in
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: and grabbed him. Raul Castro, it's on the same thing.
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: He's not the current president of Cuba. But the fact
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: that they're using this as a way of starting to.
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: Put pressure on Cuba. Who knows what's in their plan.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: But because the timing does seem that might.
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: Be generated to his arrest, they might use as a
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: pretext to jump in something like that. And you know,
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: this all goes to We've been talking about the rule
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: of law at home and its relationship to human rights
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: abuses and abuses of the rule of law abroad, and
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: that's what's going on here, a kind of ability of
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: the American state to do whatever it wants.
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: I've got it.
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: I'm going to go to history a little bit, because,
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: as you know, I've been spending time in the Nixon
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: Library and the archives and reading about those who are
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: arrested and the Watergate breaking. They're reach involvement with the CIA.
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: Some of them was involvement in the Bay of Pigs,
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: and the organizer of the Bay of Pigs, one of
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: the organizers was also the organizer of the plumbers unit
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: the break ins in the United States, and that's Howard Hunt.
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: And you know, all of it just feels eerie, this
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: sort of a kind of obsession with doing whatever you want,
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: both at home and attacking your enemies at home, and
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: then also yes, the Bay of Pigs.
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: You know, let's just go and invade a foreign state.
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: And of course this won't come to tie to the
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: last topic with any kind of declaration of war.
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: They'll just do it.
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: And it really is an example of why we are
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: again talking about that imperial presidency that we're stuck with
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: at this moment.
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: Okay, first of all, I just want to say, you
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: are the only man living in Italy right now who
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: has spoken fondly of his time at the Nixon Library.
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: Good god man, you're in Italy and you're talking about
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: the Nixon Library that I'm stuck on that. But this
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: is this is really keeping me up at night, Corey,
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: because I mean, I think that we can balance accountability
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: for genuine human rights abuses without turning prosecutions into like
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: ideological theater or pretense for war. I mean, actions like
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: this really seem to strengthen all the claims of other
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: governments that our institutions are jokes and just instruments of
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: political pressure for one guy, Like how does this make
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: us look in the rest of the world that we
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: waited till this guy was ninety four because we want
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: to appoint Marco Rubio as viceroy to Cuba.
• 31:32
  Speaker 3: Well, we're getting really deep in this conversation.
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, professor. We have even mentioned how we've been
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: starving the island. I mean, we had a blockade on
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: the island. They don't have gasoline, Like, things are really
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: dire there. And this is another example of the pressure
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: we're putting on this island that our media is not
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: really dwelling on too much.
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: You know, I couldn't agree more.
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: And as we talked to Andrew Glazer in the next discussion,
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: we're going to go so much more in depth into
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: the ways that America claims to be supporting abroad the
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: rule of law law, and at the same time is
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: literally undermining it, really undermining human rights, being complicit and
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: encouraging human rights violations. That's what our discussion will be about.
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: And you see it here too, that you know, this
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: is an indictment. It's about the rule of law, supposedly,
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: you know, specifically, it's about these planes that were shot
• 32:19
  Speaker 2: down during a conflict between the Cuban government and exiles
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: in the United States, and the Cuban government's argument.
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: Was that their airspace was being violated. This was essentially,
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: you know, a military decision.
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: Now the idea that was being framed simply as a
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: kind of crime. You know, it looks like it's an
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: assertion of the rule of law. But what's really going on,
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: if we just pull back from all these details, is
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: it's an attempt to use the rule of law as
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: a subterfuge to engage in yet another attack on a
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: foreign government, an illegal one if they invade. Because there
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: is no congressional debate about this. And you know, again,
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: the rule of law is the subterfuge. That's the rhetoric,
• 32:58
  Speaker 2: and what's really going on is a kind of lawlessness
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: and disregard for international laws certainly, and as we'll talk
• 33:04
  Speaker 2: about in the next discussion, for human rights more.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: Generally, and of course, what always happens, Professor, when law
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: and order talk becomes deeply entangled with nationalism and militarism.
• 33:15
  Speaker 4: We already know.
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break at when we come back,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: I am so excited to bring you our conversation with
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: Andrew Glazer and talk about the amazing essential documentary Spring
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: of the Vanishing. Don't go away. Welcome back to the
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: Oath in the office. I'm John Fugel, saying Professor Bretschneider,
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: I am very excited to welcome this next guest to
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: talk about a really important film that every American deserves
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: to know about and the members of Congress should be
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: forced to know about. Spring of the Vanishing is an
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: incredible new documentary from Emmy winning filmmaker Andrew Glazer, and
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: it follows the family so forty nine people who disappeared
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, after a US trained Mexican military
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: unit launched a really brutal anti cartel operation and at
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: the center is an eighteen year old young man, a
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: US born teenager, Jorge Dominguez, and his disappearance exposes the
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: human cost of this militarized, never ending war on drugs.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: What a pleasure to welcome Andrew Glazer to the podcast.
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: Hello sir, Thanks so much for having me. Thank you
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: for making this film, Corey. This is a devastating movie,
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: and it follows this young man's mother, as you know,
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: and other relatives of missing people and their search for
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: justice and accountability from both the US and Mexico. And
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: I think that's the most powerful part of this film,
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: mister Glazer, is that our American government is very much
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: at the center of this atrocity that leads to a
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: missing American teenager.
• 34:48
  Speaker 6: Absolutely, I mean, I think one of the things that
• 34:50
  Speaker 6: we were trying to make clear, both with the subjects
• 34:53
  Speaker 6: of our film and people we were sharing it with,
• 34:57
  Speaker 6: was that this is not another story about what was
• 34:59
  Speaker 6: mexi Ago. This is very much a story that implicates
• 35:03
  Speaker 6: US policy in Mexico and in Latin America that's very
• 35:06
  Speaker 6: much alive right now in the news to some degree
• 35:09
  Speaker 6: in recent weeks and months with our current President Donald Trump.
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: One thing Andrew that I want to ask you about,
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: you know, because it really leaps out at you as
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: you watch this powerful film, and we were talking about
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: this with our producer Wendy as well. Is the parallels
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: with what's happening in the United States. You have an
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: example of what should be law enforcement issues that are
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: being handled by a military and what that results in
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: the film shows us very closely and clearly is a
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: total disregard for human rights, for civil liberties because the
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: military is trained in war, not in policing. And the
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: parallels anyway, they jumped out at me, and I'm just
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: wondering if you have any thoughts about this as sort
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: of a way in especially for the themes of this podcast,
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: are the parallels between what happened in Minnesota with Ice
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: and the killing of Alex Pretty and the total disregard
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: for his civil liberties, including of course the immediate reaction
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: that you know, this was of course justified that this
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: was some sort of terrorists without any kind of information,
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: and the kind of defensiveness that you see of the
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: military intervention and the militaries, Mexican militaries as the film
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: shows and argues, disregard of civil liberties and even basic
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: rights against murder. So do you see those parallels and
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: tell us about them.
• 36:26
  Speaker 6: Absolutely, both, you know, in the way you described it,
• 36:29
  Speaker 6: but also just in sort of the practicalities. The Mexican military,
• 36:34
  Speaker 6: like the US military, is not trained to do police activity.
• 36:38
  Speaker 6: What is the difference between what police and military do.
• 36:41
  Speaker 6: A good cop knows who the good guys or bad
• 36:44
  Speaker 6: guys are. They are part of the community, they're on
• 36:47
  Speaker 6: the street, they might be from the area. This particular
• 36:50
  Speaker 6: unit of the Mexican military was the kind of shock troops,
• 36:54
  Speaker 6: special forces, guys who were trained to kill and they're
• 36:58
  Speaker 6: armed and trained and provided intelligence by the US to
• 37:03
  Speaker 6: do that. So when they came in to Novl Laredo,
• 37:06
  Speaker 6: very few, if any of them, were from the area.
• 37:09
  Speaker 6: It's an extremely dangerous part of Mexico, and Mexico has
• 37:13
  Speaker 6: some very dangerous places, but at times Novl Laredo has
• 37:16
  Speaker 6: been one of the most dangerous places on the planet.
• 37:19
  Speaker 6: And that was during the kind of peak of the
• 37:22
  Speaker 6: Afghanistan and Iraq wars in twenty two thousand and six
• 37:25
  Speaker 6: thousand and seven, So that gives you some perspective. So
• 37:28
  Speaker 6: it is a dangerous place, and they dropped these heavily armed,
• 37:32
  Speaker 6: heavily trained, highly trained, lethal forces into Nova Laredo to
• 37:37
  Speaker 6: pacify the cartel. And they didn't investigate, they didn't arrest,
• 37:42
  Speaker 6: they didn't do stings and buy and bus.
• 37:44
  Speaker 4: They went in and killed.
• 37:46
  Speaker 6: And to put a highlight on it, John, you mentioned
• 37:49
  Speaker 6: forty nine people. That's actually the low end of the
• 37:52
  Speaker 6: cases that we know about. We documented forty nine, but
• 37:56
  Speaker 6: there were probably at least three times as many as
• 37:58
  Speaker 6: that people who didn't dare to come forward and make complaints,
• 38:02
  Speaker 6: So that's a very real problem. People were all innocent.
• 38:05
  Speaker 6: These were not extra judicially killed criminals. These were people
• 38:10
  Speaker 6: who were in the wrong place at the wrong time,
• 38:12
  Speaker 6: maybe looked the wrong way. And the kid, Jorge Domingos,
• 38:15
  Speaker 6: who's sort of central to our film was from Texas,
• 38:18
  Speaker 6: and we suspect he was picked up because his mom
• 38:22
  Speaker 6: lived in a fairly nice neighborhood in NorVa Laredo, and
• 38:25
  Speaker 6: as a Mexican American kid from Texas, he kind of
• 38:28
  Speaker 6: dressed with baggy jeans and a shaved head that kind
• 38:32
  Speaker 6: of suggested cholo and gangbanger.
• 38:35
  Speaker 4: He was not. He was a good kid.
• 38:36
  Speaker 6: And there were two other twelve year old kids who
• 38:38
  Speaker 6: were killed, who were clearly not sophisticated gangsters, so innocent
• 38:42
  Speaker 6: people were killed.
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: The film opens with Porge's mother describing the moment her
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: son vanished, and one of the most haunting aspects of
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: the film really is how ordinary these families were. These
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: people were not activists. These were ordinary people who became
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: activists because the state gave them no choice. And it
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: really captures this unbearable uncertainty, these families searching for years
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: without answers. I'm curious and your experience making the film,
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: how do people psychologically begin to survive that kind of disappearance.
• 39:15
  Speaker 6: So interestingly enough, the mother of Jorge do Mingez vacillates
• 39:20
  Speaker 6: between speaking of him and the present and past tense,
• 39:23
  Speaker 6: so sometimes she doesn't even acknowledge that he is dead,
• 39:27
  Speaker 6: although all.
• 39:27
  Speaker 4: Evidence points to that.
• 39:28
  Speaker 6: Part of the evil of making people disappear is that
• 39:31
  Speaker 6: there's not that closure and burial.
• 39:34
  Speaker 4: Site that the families get to visit or experience.
• 39:38
  Speaker 6: So it really to answer your question, what would you
• 39:42
  Speaker 6: do if your child went missing? I mean, it's the
• 39:44
  Speaker 6: only thing you can do. And these were people who
• 39:46
  Speaker 6: are sort of jostled out of their day to day
• 39:48
  Speaker 6: existence of you know, These aren't wealthy people. These are
• 39:52
  Speaker 6: working people, and they have, particularly the women, the wives
• 39:56
  Speaker 6: and the mothers of the missing, have taken a real
• 40:00
  Speaker 6: huge role in finding justice, and in this case they did.
• 40:04
  Speaker 6: But there's you know, even in the New York Times
• 40:06
  Speaker 6: this week, there's been stories about mothers elsewhere in the
• 40:10
  Speaker 6: country in Mexico who were seeking their children's remains, and
• 40:14
  Speaker 6: they're very they're very active part of it. There's an
• 40:16
  Speaker 6: interesting law in Mexico where the federal prosecutors actually enable
• 40:23
  Speaker 6: and bring the women out to look to be part
• 40:25
  Speaker 6: of the search for the bodies. So it's really it's
• 40:30
  Speaker 6: really an emotionally wrenching experience. And on top of that,
• 40:35
  Speaker 6: it is so commonplace the disappearance of people that often
• 40:40
  Speaker 6: these women will find remains that are not their child,
• 40:43
  Speaker 6: just randomly fine remains of other people who were buried
• 40:46
  Speaker 6: in these.
• 40:47
  Speaker 4: These mass graves and locations outside of town.
• 40:49
  Speaker 6: So it's really a horrible experience that these these mothers
• 40:52
  Speaker 6: and wives have to have to go through.
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: I'm really curious. I'm sorry, Corea. I mean, to the
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: making of the film, did talking to these family members,
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: did you hear anything that fundamentally changed your understanding of
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: what we call the war on drugs.
• 41:09
  Speaker 6: Absolutely, I mean there is lots of collateral damage, and
• 41:13
  Speaker 6: that it involves ordinary people who you know, this Jr.
• 41:17
  Speaker 6: Hi Dominguez, the kid who was featured in our film,
• 41:20
  Speaker 6: was helping his mom get some water for their construction
• 41:24
  Speaker 6: crew and he left the house and disappeared and was
• 41:27
  Speaker 6: never seen again. So these aren't people who are sort
• 41:30
  Speaker 6: of flirting with criminal lives.
• 41:32
  Speaker 4: These are ordinary people.
• 41:34
  Speaker 6: And the drug war which is very focused by the
• 41:38
  Speaker 6: US and incentivizing military involvement in Latin America and the
• 41:43
  Speaker 6: drug war, and that includes Mexico of course, but we've
• 41:46
  Speaker 6: seen what's been going on in Ecuador and the bombing
• 41:49
  Speaker 6: of the so called drug boats and in Colombia off
• 41:51
  Speaker 6: the coast of Columbia, and this goes back. It's almost
• 41:56
  Speaker 6: as if the kind of lessons that we thought we
• 41:59
  Speaker 6: would have learned and in the Cold War massacres and
• 42:02
  Speaker 6: the support of right wing militaries and does you would
• 42:07
  Speaker 6: have thought that we would have learned the lessons of
• 42:10
  Speaker 6: that and that kind of blunt instrument and support and
• 42:12
  Speaker 6: the unintended consequences of giving arms and training, lethal training
• 42:17
  Speaker 6: to militaries in places where.
• 42:19
  Speaker 4: The militaries don't have a lot of constraints. Yep.
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: I did want to follow up on that Andrew to
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: ask about the complicity of the US, and that's of
• 42:28
  Speaker 2: course a big part of the film. This isn't just
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: a story about a tragedy that happened in Mexico or
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: an abusive government or an overly militaristic response by the
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: Mexican government. It's about the US involvement. So tell us
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: how is the United States involved in this story and
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: what are the details there?
• 42:46
  Speaker 6: So to start with kind of the involvement on the ground.
• 42:50
  Speaker 6: When the mother of Jorge Domingez went to the US
• 42:54
  Speaker 6: consulate in Nuevo Laredo, which is what you're supposed to
• 42:57
  Speaker 6: do when an American goes missing, and her son was
• 43:00
  Speaker 6: an American teenager, and they told her they couldn't help.
• 43:04
  Speaker 6: And when she asked why, she didn't get a clear answer.
• 43:07
  Speaker 6: She met with the FBI, which has a presence there.
• 43:10
  Speaker 6: She crossed the border one day to meet with them,
• 43:13
  Speaker 6: and they told her the same thing. They blamed it
• 43:15
  Speaker 6: on the cartel, and that includes the consul general at
• 43:18
  Speaker 6: the time, a guy.
• 43:19
  Speaker 4: Named Philip Linderman.
• 43:21
  Speaker 6: He constantly was blaming it on the cartel and the
• 43:24
  Speaker 6: local human rights defender who organized these wives and mothers.
• 43:29
  Speaker 6: He said that the human rights defender was in the
• 43:32
  Speaker 6: pocket of the cartel and that these wives and mothers
• 43:35
  Speaker 6: who were missing loved ones were.
• 43:38
  Speaker 4: Paid crisis actors.
• 43:39
  Speaker 6: And that actually culminated in the day that my film
• 43:43
  Speaker 6: was released, the US Treasury sanctioned this human rights defender,
• 43:47
  Speaker 6: Drummond Ramos, who's featured in our film, for alleged ties
• 43:51
  Speaker 6: to the cartel and for allegedly hiring these crisis actors.
• 43:55
  Speaker 6: So it wasn't just a suspicion on their part. They
• 43:57
  Speaker 6: actually leveraged that suspicion to something that will really affect
• 44:02
  Speaker 6: his life and the credibility of his case, which he's
• 44:06
  Speaker 6: been deemed very credible by international human rights organizations including
• 44:10
  Speaker 6: Amnesty International, the United Nations, and ultimately, in the case
• 44:15
  Speaker 6: that we looked at the military, the Mexican military, for
• 44:18
  Speaker 6: the first time I think in Mexico's history, apologized for
• 44:22
  Speaker 6: these human rights abuses. So there was no question ultimately
• 44:26
  Speaker 6: that this guy, this human rights defender, and the case
• 44:29
  Speaker 6: he was building was accurate. It was just a lot
• 44:33
  Speaker 6: of attempts to discredit him. Of course, I'm sorry of
• 44:36
  Speaker 6: dancing on your question, Corey, But to get to it,
• 44:39
  Speaker 6: this unit, they're called no Base. They're the special forces
• 44:42
  Speaker 6: of the Mexican Navy, at least their commanders, and some
• 44:45
  Speaker 6: of them got training at a place in Fort Benning
• 44:49
  Speaker 6: called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and that
• 44:54
  Speaker 6: used to be called the School of the Americas. And
• 44:56
  Speaker 6: during the Cold War.
• 44:59
  Speaker 4: During the Cold.
• 44:59
  Speaker 6: War, School the Americas trained some of Latin America's worst despots,
• 45:04
  Speaker 6: see guys who were leading the right wing militias or
• 45:09
  Speaker 6: military death squads in Central America and El Salvador in Guatemala.
• 45:14
  Speaker 6: Manuel Noriega famously trained there. Pinochet his apparatus got training there.
• 45:20
  Speaker 6: So it has a long dark history. And when I
• 45:22
  Speaker 6: draw the line between the lessons that we didn't learn
• 45:25
  Speaker 6: from Cold War interventions in Latin America and to the
• 45:28
  Speaker 6: drug war, it's not a dotted line. It's a pretty
• 45:31
  Speaker 6: continuous line. And that's what's something we wanted to point
• 45:33
  Speaker 6: out in the film.
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: But I mean, this is why the film is so important,
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: because Americans hear things like fight the cartels, and we
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: are groomed to assume that more military force equels more safety,
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: right we don't think about what happens when soldiers trained
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: for combat are used for domestic policing. And your film
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: suggests these killings weren't just corruption, it wasn't just rogue violence.
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: But this was the very predictable result of militarizing policing.
• 46:02
  Speaker 4: Absolutely, and to this day.
• 46:05
  Speaker 6: I mean, given the sanctions that were dropped on April fifteenth,
• 46:08
  Speaker 6: the day my film was released. They're officials in the
• 46:10
  Speaker 6: US government who.
• 46:11
  Speaker 4: Don't want to believe Raymondo Ramos or want to.
• 46:15
  Speaker 6: Discredit him because there are things that could be done
• 46:19
  Speaker 6: to stop the funding of this lethal military unit. And
• 46:23
  Speaker 6: I should mention this military unit in Mexico that was
• 46:27
  Speaker 6: implicated in the massacre in Nuevo Loreedo that's the subject
• 46:30
  Speaker 6: of my film.
• 46:31
  Speaker 4: They're the guys who.
• 46:32
  Speaker 6: Caught al Chopo, So they're really loved by the DEA.
• 46:35
  Speaker 6: They're effective at healing bad guys or capturing bad guys.
• 46:39
  Speaker 6: What they're not so effective at is what you said, John,
• 46:42
  Speaker 6: that they're not great. In fact, they're very bad police
• 46:45
  Speaker 6: because they kill a lot of innocent people. And there
• 46:48
  Speaker 6: are laws in place that have been in place since
• 46:51
  Speaker 6: I think nineteen ninety seven. The Leahy Laws. There were
• 46:54
  Speaker 6: laws sponsored by former Senator Patrick Lahey that give the
• 46:59
  Speaker 6: State Department and Department of Defense the ability to cut
• 47:03
  Speaker 6: off funding for militaries that are implicated in human rights abuses,
• 47:08
  Speaker 6: which this one clearly was. But that hasn't happened here
• 47:11
  Speaker 6: and why. We talked to the former administrator of the
• 47:15
  Speaker 6: Layy Laws for the State Department, and he says that
• 47:18
  Speaker 6: it depends on the information they get. They're not on
• 47:21
  Speaker 6: the ground investigating these claims, but they rely on the
• 47:25
  Speaker 6: consul that they rely on local intelligence services and quote
• 47:29
  Speaker 6: unquote credible human rights workers and press. Well, there's no
• 47:33
  Speaker 6: press critically covering nobilarity anymore. They were killed into silence
• 47:38
  Speaker 6: in the bad days of the early days of the
• 47:41
  Speaker 6: drug war. The human rights defender that had compiled reports
• 47:45
  Speaker 6: that were good enough for the UN and ultimately for
• 47:47
  Speaker 6: the Mexican military itself to concede that they had done
• 47:50
  Speaker 6: something awful, they did not deem him credible because the
• 47:56
  Speaker 6: Consul General had accused him of being a fraud a
• 48:00
  Speaker 6: leader of its disinformation campaign. And I believe those accusations
• 48:03
  Speaker 6: are what ultimately led to the sanctions that were dropped
• 48:06
  Speaker 6: last month.
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: Yes, I wanted to ask about that through line that
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: you interesting through line and disturbing one that you drew
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: from America's support for right wing dictators in Latin America,
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: for instance, for Pinochet, and the story that you're telling
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: here and the militarization of Latin American societies at the
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: behest in part.
• 48:26
  Speaker 3: At least of the US.
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: I mean, how much of this is a Trump story
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: and aside from going back to the nineteen seventies, and
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: how much of it is a story of the American
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: government's militarization of Latin America generally. You know, I just
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: don't know, So I was interested in that, given the
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: through line that you're drawing, is it a Trump story
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: or is it a story of militarization and the United
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: States more generally.
• 48:52
  Speaker 6: It's a good question because it's both and Trump in
• 48:56
  Speaker 6: recent weeks. I don't know that it was as much
• 48:58
  Speaker 6: of a fixation of his in his first administration. The
• 49:01
  Speaker 6: border certainly was, and I think he animated a lot
• 49:05
  Speaker 6: of voters by evoking this threat of spillover from the
• 49:10
  Speaker 6: chaotic northern Mexican border, which is not true Laredo, Texas,
• 49:15
  Speaker 6: which is directly across the Rio Grande from noither. Laredo
• 49:19
  Speaker 6: is one of the safest cities in America.
• 49:22
  Speaker 4: Same with al Paso.
• 49:23
  Speaker 6: It's you know, this kind of spillover threat is manufactured,
• 49:26
  Speaker 6: but it is very much a story that begins in
• 49:30
  Speaker 6: the Cold War, which preceded Trump by decades. But he's
• 49:34
  Speaker 6: been fixated on the quote unquote don Roe doctrine in
• 49:39
  Speaker 6: recent months. And I think because of what you said, John,
• 49:42
  Speaker 6: I mean, it sounds it sounds like it makes a
• 49:44
  Speaker 6: lot of sense. There's a lot of bad guys, heavily
• 49:47
  Speaker 6: armed bad guys right across the border. It's scary. The
• 49:50
  Speaker 6: cops are corrupt, so let's get the military there.
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and sure, let's flood it with guns, unless it's
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: Sarah Calder doing it.
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 49:57
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 49:58
  Speaker 6: And ironically, of course, the cart are armed by our
• 50:01
  Speaker 6: guns as well, that come from straw purchases right across
• 50:04
  Speaker 6: the border where it's very easy to buy guns. And
• 50:07
  Speaker 6: you know, to circle back to something even more ironic
• 50:10
  Speaker 6: is it's been reported, and I can't confirm this, that
• 50:15
  Speaker 6: the cartel that is based in neuivl Loredo, which is
• 50:18
  Speaker 6: an offshoot of the Zetas, has its roots at the
• 50:21
  Speaker 6: School of the America slash wind sech It started. The
• 50:24
  Speaker 6: Zetas cartel started with highly trained Mexican military forces that
• 50:29
  Speaker 6: were trained for counter narcotics operations, and then they defected
• 50:34
  Speaker 6: to the Gulf cartel where they were the sort of
• 50:36
  Speaker 6: shock troops and security for them, and then they splintered
• 50:39
  Speaker 6: off and became one of the most deadly cartels in
• 50:43
  Speaker 6: Mexican history and in noibl Loredo and the state of Tamilipas.
• 50:46
  Speaker 6: So there's a lot of muddiness and irony kind of
• 50:49
  Speaker 6: mixed into it.
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: Well, I just want to ask, I mean, my ultimate
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: question is, after all the years you spent on this story,
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: these stories, I mean, what do you now believe gov
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: men' sphere most cartels or citizens demanding accountability? What is
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: scarier to political leaders?
• 51:08
  Speaker 6: That's a great question, and it's we're seeing this play
• 51:11
  Speaker 6: out right now with the current President of Mexico because
• 51:15
  Speaker 6: some of her close friends were just indicted, including the
• 51:19
  Speaker 6: governor of Sinaloa, and that is unprecedented, and he was
• 51:23
  Speaker 6: indicted for ties to the Sineloa cartel. So that is
• 51:28
  Speaker 6: what's happening right now is kind of at the crux
• 51:30
  Speaker 6: of that. And she's also been very much in denial
• 51:33
  Speaker 6: and belittling and countering the numbers have disappeared in Mexico
• 51:38
  Speaker 6: and the activists who have been trying to get accountability.
• 51:41
  Speaker 6: I think the toll of the unaccounted for disappearances is
• 51:45
  Speaker 6: one hundred and eighty thousands from two thousand and seven.
• 51:48
  Speaker 4: That's a huge number of people.
• 51:50
  Speaker 6: And the UN, a UN committee came out with that
• 51:53
  Speaker 6: number and said it's probably even higher, and she said,
• 51:55
  Speaker 6: oh no, no, no, that's people who have been moved,
• 51:58
  Speaker 6: who moved to another zip. And you know that numbers inflated.
• 52:02
  Speaker 6: So I'm sure her survival, our political survival, because politics
• 52:07
  Speaker 6: are very much intertwined with the cartels there, but also
• 52:10
  Speaker 6: our physical survival, and this physical survival of a lot
• 52:13
  Speaker 6: of politicians there is dependent on not being killed by
• 52:17
  Speaker 6: the cartels. But these women, primarily the wives and the
• 52:23
  Speaker 6: mothers of the missing, have the courage. I face the
• 52:25
  Speaker 6: same risks for more, many more risks, and they go
• 52:29
  Speaker 6: out there every day and are protesting and going right
• 52:31
  Speaker 6: to the presidential palace in Mexico City, and they're out
• 52:34
  Speaker 6: on the street, and they're out in the ranches where
• 52:37
  Speaker 6: a lot of these bodies are buried.
• 52:38
  Speaker 4: That are owned by the cartels.
• 52:40
  Speaker 6: So I think the fear is coming from all angles
• 52:42
  Speaker 6: and everyone is kind of feeling it acutely in Mexico.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: So Mexican politicians fear the cartels, but American politicians, I
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: think more fear citizens demanding accountability.
• 52:52
  Speaker 6: Yes, and they know that. I think Americans fear the cartels,
• 52:55
  Speaker 6: and they can leverage that for I mean, we have
• 52:58
  Speaker 6: spent huge amounts of money both in the Plan Colombia,
• 53:01
  Speaker 6: in Colombia arming Colombian military to fight the cartels, and
• 53:04
  Speaker 6: in Mexico there was kind of a sequel to that
• 53:07
  Speaker 6: called the Merida Initiative, which in part led to a
• 53:09
  Speaker 6: lot of these troops that are implicated in my film
• 53:13
  Speaker 6: to the human rights violations they committed.
• 53:15
  Speaker 4: They were trained and armed at the same place.
• 53:17
  Speaker 6: So I think there is a legitimate fear of the cartels,
• 53:22
  Speaker 6: maybe somewhat in the United States, but that's also used,
• 53:25
  Speaker 6: I think well to get people to support arms and
• 53:29
  Speaker 6: training for these militaries and border enforcement, and also to
• 53:33
  Speaker 6: vote for someone who stokes that fear, which is Trump
• 53:36
  Speaker 6: and a lot of other people in office right now
• 53:38
  Speaker 6: who you know, have made the immigration concern and conflating
• 53:42
  Speaker 6: it with the drug cartels, that's a big thing, and
• 53:46
  Speaker 6: they're not really that conflated at all.
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: Indeed, that's why this film is just so important. And
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it would have come at the
• 53:52
  Speaker 1: right time anytime in the last couple of decades, but
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: it feels so prescient with all we're facing right now.
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Andy, Before we sign on off on this
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: amazing and extremely important discussion, to ask you about the
• 54:04
  Speaker 2: connections to broaden out also by asking you about some of.
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: The connections to other things that you've seen in the
• 54:09
  Speaker 3: rest of the world.
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: Of course, we've been friends for a very long time,
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: and I followed your work for a very long time.
• 54:15
  Speaker 3: And one of the things.
• 54:15
  Speaker 2: That struck me as a parallel to this film is
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: when you work for The New York Times. Of course,
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: you covered Toque Turte and in the name of cracking
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: down on drugs and crime, the violence, really political violence
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: at the behest of the state that went on there.
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: So can you talk a little bit about that work
• 54:34
  Speaker 2: and any parallels that you see with what's happening here.
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: Our podcast, of course is focused on authoritarianism at home
• 54:40
  Speaker 2: but also abroad, and that seems to me to connect
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: this story and other really important stories about authoritarian violence.
• 54:49
  Speaker 6: Yeah, so President Utte in the Philippines, it's a huge parallel,
• 54:53
  Speaker 6: and he's someone who at the time was somewhat fetishized
• 54:56
  Speaker 6: by President Trump as.
• 54:58
  Speaker 4: Someone you could get the job done.
• 55:00
  Speaker 6: Job in his case was death squads of suspected drug
• 55:04
  Speaker 6: traffickers and suspected in quotes, because anyone who had a
• 55:09
  Speaker 6: dispute with their neighbor over a woman, over property, or noise,
• 55:14
  Speaker 6: you could say, hey, he's dealing math out of his basement,
• 55:19
  Speaker 6: and it wouldn't take much for these death squads, who
• 55:22
  Speaker 6: were either police or Filipino military or sort of neighborhood
• 55:27
  Speaker 6: villagilantes who had a license, could come in and kill
• 55:31
  Speaker 6: them and they would leave them in the streets. So
• 55:34
  Speaker 6: it was very similar in that ordinary people were inevitably
• 55:38
  Speaker 6: getting swept up, and there was this culture and fog
• 55:41
  Speaker 6: of complete fear in Manila and across the country where
• 55:46
  Speaker 6: neighborhoods would just have bodies turn up and the cops
• 55:50
  Speaker 6: would almost make fun of them by saying they were
• 55:53
  Speaker 6: trying to flee, and the bodies were wrapped in duct tapes,
• 55:57
  Speaker 6: so clearly they had been already captured and killed and
• 56:01
  Speaker 6: wrapped in duct tape before they were fleeing, but no
• 56:04
  Speaker 6: one had the power to say anything. And fortunately, right
• 56:07
  Speaker 6: now Turte's facing war crimes or crimes in the international courts.
• 56:13
  Speaker 6: But Mexico, I don't know if they're going to have
• 56:16
  Speaker 6: the same accountability. In the case of our film, as
• 56:19
  Speaker 6: I mentioned, the military actually apologized for this massacre. They
• 56:24
  Speaker 6: came to the public square and spoke to the wives
• 56:26
  Speaker 6: and the mothers of the missing and admitted culpability. And
• 56:31
  Speaker 6: they arrested thirty of the Marines who were allegedly implicated,
• 56:35
  Speaker 6: and then a few days later all but seven were released.
• 56:37
  Speaker 6: And I got winned that a few weeks ago the
• 56:40
  Speaker 6: other seven were released and none are going to face
• 56:42
  Speaker 6: any kind of justice at all.
• 56:43
  Speaker 4: So that's the.
• 56:45
  Speaker 6: Parallel, I guess, is the impunity, the lack of justice,
• 56:48
  Speaker 6: and the ordinary people who were swept up in this
• 56:51
  Speaker 6: authoritarian furor. And what's also interesting is these people, at
• 56:56
  Speaker 6: least in the Philippines, they elected du Tertue on the
• 57:00
  Speaker 6: platform of him taking on this drug war.
• 57:03
  Speaker 4: So there's this, I would argue, a parallel to.
• 57:06
  Speaker 6: The current administration in America, where the people who are
• 57:09
  Speaker 6: most unlikely to be served and most likely to be
• 57:13
  Speaker 6: hurt by the authoritarian are initially seduced by their pronouncements
• 57:20
  Speaker 6: of easy problem solving with always brutality, and it makes
• 57:25
  Speaker 6: sense when your life is chaotic to want some sort
• 57:28
  Speaker 6: of easy resolution.
• 57:30
  Speaker 2: Well, I'll say you know, this podcast is all about accountability.
• 57:34
  Speaker 3: Accountability for Donald Trump.
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: Accountability for his minions, and accountability for authoritarians around the
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: world who abuse human rights. And although accountability sometimes feels
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: far off, I feel like the first step to accountability
• 57:47
  Speaker 2: is transparency and that's what this film does so well.
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: It tells a story that wouldn't have been told, it
• 57:53
  Speaker 2: tells it in graphic detail with evidence, and you can
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: watch what we're hearing about.
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: So I urge listeners to check it out.
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: And I really want to thank you Andrew Glazer for
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: making Spring of the Vanishing and for joining us on
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: the Oath in the Office.
• 58:09
  Speaker 4: Thanks so much for having me. It was really fun
• 58:11
  Speaker 4: talking to you guys.
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: Mister Glazier. I want to thank you as well for
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: making the film and for joining us. What's the best
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: way for our listeners to follow you and keep up
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: with your work and Spring of the Vanishing.
• 58:21
  Speaker 6: Thanks so Spring of the Vanishing can be rented, streamed
• 58:24
  Speaker 6: on Prime Video and Apple TV. My Twitter handle is
• 58:30
  Speaker 6: at Andrew Glazer g Lazer. I'm not super active on
• 58:34
  Speaker 6: social media, but I will try to be more and
• 58:36
  Speaker 6: fill people in on developments in this story which is ongoing.
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: And of course we'll also link to the video in
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: the show notes.
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being so generous with your time.
• 58:46
  Speaker 6: No, thank you for your interest. I really appreciate it.
• 58:48
  Speaker 6: This is a huge help, and thank you both.
• 58:50
  Speaker 4: Thank you.
• 58:51
  Speaker 3: Thanks Andy, we got to go.
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: Professor Brett Sneider, what is the best way for our
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: listeners to follow you and keep up with your brilliance
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: together lonely six days of the week.
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: Say, if you enjoyed this discussion, you should subscribe, of course,
• 59:04
  Speaker 2: and you can watch us on YouTube or listen to
• 59:06
  Speaker 2: us wherever you get your podcasts. You can find me
• 59:08
  Speaker 2: on Blue Sky as Democracy prof and we have a substack,
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: the Oath and the Office substack. And I'll just say
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: a final word about the whole episode, which was you know,
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: one thing that we're doing every week is talking about
• 59:21
  Speaker 2: the danger to democracy that this president is posing, and
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: today I think we really dug into that idea of
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: the Imperial Presidency, that there is a connection between our
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: human rights abuses abroad of the kind that we had
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: in this amazing discussion with Andrew Glazer and the abuses
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: that we're seeing at home in the Braio Garcia case
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: and the other cases as well that we're talking about
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: that are both threatening free speech for non citizens but
• 59:46
  Speaker 2: also attacking voting rights at home. It's really part of
• 59:49
  Speaker 2: a piece, and you know, it's worrying, it's upsetting, but
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: it's such a pleasure John to be able to unpack
• 59:56
  Speaker 2: all of this with you every week, and I think
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: it gives usome the our listeners some sanity to get
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 2: a grasp on what's happening, to be honest about it.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: But also that's part of the process of seeing hope
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: in protecting our democracy.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: Corey, I want to thank you, and more importantly, my
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: prole officer wants to thank you. This has been a
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: very good experience for me overall and has kept me
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: from relapsing in many ways. I also want to thank
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: Wendy and Beowulf Fit all the brilliant people who put
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: this podcast together. My God, the ratings for this thing, Corey.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 1: People love it.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 4: Folks.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: Please keep giving us reviews and sharing it and talking
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: it up. We are so glad to be here. You
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: can hear me five nights a week on Serious XM
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: Progress one twenty seven. If you don't have Serious XM,
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: it's called the John FUGELSINGH Podcast five days a week.
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: And my book is called Separation of Church and Hate.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: Professor Breschneider thank you once again. We'll see you guys
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: next time on the oath on the office