We have formatted some of the questions and answers from Thursday's Q&A with Glenn Greenwald. In some cases the questions have been paraphrased. Click the link through to the question to join the discussion, or jump into the comments below...

On torture

In your research, have you ever come across a single instance of torture working to avoid a terrorist attack or secure an actual conviction? Have you been able to find good information comparing the number of (actual) militants we kill with drones versus how many new fighters AQ-linked groups have been able to attract because of drone strikes? – Macroman

I personally don't know of any instances in which torture has elicted valuable information, but - for 2 reasons - I have never been one to say that torture can "never" work: (1) I don't believe it's true, as "never" is a very big word in this context, and I can imagine a situation in which it is effective; (2) I think it's irrelevant, since torture - like murder - is wrong no matter the benefits it produces. But I do think the efficacy of torture is a vital part of the torture debate. Many people will support it if they think it's valuable in stopping terrorism and keeping them safe, which is why I think ZDT is so harmful. From everything I've read, even when torture works, traditional (legal) interrogation methods are more effective. These things are really hard to measure with exactitude, but what is clear is that, in Yemen for instance, Al Qaeda is much stronger, and has many more members now, as compared to three years ago when the drone campaign really intensified. That doesn't prove drones increase terrorism, but it is evidence for that proposition.

On US politics

Would be terrific to hear your view on the recently reported selection of Mary Jo White as next SEC chief – OliverBudde

In general, I've stopped trying to read meaning into appointments. Everyone who watches the Obama WH knows that policy is made out of the WH more than was true for most administrations, and so appointees simply carry out policy, not make it. They are usually used for political and symbolic value. That said, one can look at the White appointment two different ways. It's true she had a reputation as a no-nonsense prosecutor, suggesting potentially greater enforcement action against Wall Street. But she also has a long career of protecting and defending Wall Street. Both Matt Taibbi (here) & David Sirota (here) add some overlooked facts about the new SEC Chief.

For someone who is generally sympathetic to your views, it can be hard to avoid a sense of futility about American politics. What is their weakest point? And if you had to choose just one issue to work on, an issue where real change would have a lot of good side effects, which would it be? Finally, how do you think ordinary people can best contribute to fixing things? – LinguisticsBoy

These are obviously really important questions - crucial - but not really conducive to answering in this format because they can't be answered in short spurts. I would say this: one indisputable lesson that history teaches is that any structures built by human beings - no matter how formidable or invulnerable they may seem - can be radically altered, or even torn down and replaced, by other human beings who tap into passions and find the right strategy. So resignation - defeatism - is always irrational and baseless, even when it's tempting. I think the power of ideas is often underrated. Convincing fellow citizens to see and care about the problems you see and finding ways to persuade them to act is crucial. So is a willingness to sacrifice. And to create new ways of activism, even ones that people look askance at, rather than being wedded to the approved conventional means of political change (the ballot box). For reasons I alluded to above, putting fear (back) in the heart of those who wield power in the public and private sector is, to me, the key goal. A power elite that operates without fear of those over whom power is exercised is one that will be limitlessly corrupt and abusive.

How can we open up the electoral process to more parties? – Aggrieved

I agree completely - viable third (and fourth and fifth) parties are crucial. I'm honestly not an expert in how to make them more viable, but I do want to focus on this more. I also think more social unrest is vital. That's why I was so excited about the Occupy movement and (to a lesser extent) the early iteration of the Tea Party movement (which was mostly against bailouts and corporatism/crony-capitalism before it got annexed by the GOP).

Do labels such as "conservative", "liberal" and "progressive" (the latter in particular) have any clear and objective meaning in modern political dialogue? – bujinin

I won't say they have no meaning: they can be useful in some limited sense. But for me, they obfuscate far more than clarify. It could just be my own personal experience - people have tried to apply almost every political label to me since I began writing, and it's clearly just a shorthand means of trying to dismiss my arguments without having to engage them on the merits - so I just generally dislike them.

Do you have any suggestions how the budgets devoted to the defense and intelligence industries can be significantly reduced? – owleye

Polls have long shown substantial public support for some decreases in military spending, but it really is true that the permanent National Security State in DC is - as Eisenhower warned 52 years ago - extremely powerful, in some ways more so than elected leaders, so it's very difficult to make this happen even if we had leaders devoted to it (and we don't). That said, at some point, America's debt and other forms of economic austerity will lead citizens to start looking at this more carefully.

Are you surprised by the reactions of the American media establishment to Obama's inaugural speech? – HLB Engineering

I found the reactions to that Inaugural ritual creepy and depressing for two reasons: (1) I can't believe how reflexively and reliably many progressives cheer for Obama's speeches and pretend that they signify anything substantive given how many times he's said things that had no bearing on what he does. I do agree speeches on their own can be important - that's the power of ideas I referenced above - but viewing one of Obama's speeches as reflective of his actual intent is the consummate case of Lucy and the football. (2) This has been the case for a couple decades now, but everything about the inaugural festivities reeks of empire and royalty. It's pure Versailles - so gaudy and overwrought. It's particularly gross when the country is suffering so much financially. But that's precisely when people love their monarchs and royal families - it gives them a fantastical escape. But the police state created in DC, and the marching and dancing troupes that parade before the waving Leader, and the ecstasy over his presence, are really unhealthy. The one exception was the 2008 inauguration - electing the first black president was something really worth celebrating given the country's history with race - but everything else is wretched. I had to ignore it. Political leaders really aren't meant to be revered. It's unhealthy and dangerous.

Yesterday at the senate hearing on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton said that "the United States is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known". When US officials make such comments do they believe it themselves or are they simply propagandizing? – Sutherlands

One of the things every good litigator will tell you they have to learn to do is first themselves believe what they want to convince others of. So yes, I think most of these government officials believe in their own virtue and that of the government they serve, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (and their own bad acts). Most people don't want to believe that they are evil - they want to believe they're good - and so that desire can easily trump truth when it comes to shaping perceptions.

Her husband's secretary of state is on record as having said that the slaughter of a million Iraqi children as a result of US policy was "worth it" in terms of US objectives in the region.

The administration she serves in has its own abundant record of horrible acts. But they believe they are Good people, and therefore their acts are for the Good.

On gun control

Do you find it at all disturbing, or at least noteworthy that anti-gun proponents include people like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman who are very pro-violence when it's waged by the state? – SimonMcc

Like most policies, gun control can be motivated by some noble sentiments and some ignominious ones. I do think there is an authoritarian faction that wants to restrict guns for the same reason they want to have government control the lives of people in so many other realms, and I'd definitely include Feinstein and Lieberman in that group. But the fact that some people support Policy X with bad motives doesn't mean Policy X is wrong.

Glenn what is your view on the current gun debate in the US. I know from previous blogs that you were in favor of gun ownership in Brazil, does that hold for the US? – gregmcinerney

I wasn't exactly against gun control in Brazil. That was a post I wrote really early on after I began blogging, and I was really writing because of how impressed I was with the quality of the public debate that took place over that public referendum. When it began, large majorities favored gun control. After they were told that the police were failing to protect them (which they already knew) and that their banning guns would leave them defenseless, huge numbers changed their mind. I was just writing to comment the rationality and substantive nature of that debate. I don't write about or opine on every issue because I'm often ambivalent, or I don't feel I know enough to take up readers' time by writing about it, or because I think others have more valuable things to say. Gun control is one of those issues for me. I definitely see the reasons for wanting to ban especially the most menacing firearms, but it's a bit like the War on Drugs to me: I just can't imagine the government successfully taking guns out of the hands of criminals or even deranged people without very, very invasive and abusive measures, and even then, I'm not so sure it could work.

On drones and international conflict

You write a lot about our loss of liberties, the growing surveillance state, and our perpetual warfare. Given the nature of this conflict, and the increasing abilities of technology, where do you see this leading in the next few decades? – 024601

I really believe at this point that the most important trend in civil liberties assault is the importation of War on Terror tactics onto US soil and their application domestically (indefinite detention, citizen assassinations, massive surveillance expansions, para-militarization of police forces, drones, etc). I think government planners expect unrest in the future due to economic distress and these measures are mostly about keeping the domestic population pacified, as we saw with the Occupy movement. I wrote about that last year - here - when I discussed the Aaron Swartz case.

How do you think nuclear proliferation should be managed, something which seems particularly relevant considering North Korea's announcement today? Can this process be better managed so as to create greater stability, rather than instability? – HarryThomp

I'm not sure it can be managed. Efforts to stop the spread of technology and knowledge are notoriously difficult. It's very hard to detect, and even harder to stop - and that will only get worse as the technology becomes more accessible. I also don't believe that countries will voluntarily give up their nuclear arsenals. Ultimately, efforts are more important to manage a world with nuclear weapons.

Do you believe that Obama's role in the imprisonment of Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye relates simply to his secret drone war or do you feel there are broader implications here? – Odzer Chenma

I think they view anyone who threatens their ability to operate without constraints as an enemy who deserves punishment. They're not dumb. If you and I know that their drones and bombs and invasions cause anti-American sentiment and then terrorism, they know it, too. I think the only conclusion at this point that is persuasive is that some people in government continue these policies out of political inertia (not worth the cost of stopping them) and some because they War on Terror generates lots of profit and power that they don't want to end. I laid out my arguments on that a couple weeks ago

When (not if) other countries get hold of drones, do you see the situation getting extremely worrisome at borders, with regard to terrorism, and targeted assassinations? How can we step back from this scenario? – Logitalk

I do think this is worrisome - and inevitable. I'm not sure the US doing it first necessarily causes this to happen - if Al Qaeda or other "terrorists" obtained drones and the ability to use them inside the US (a *very* unlikely scenario), I think they'd do so whether or not the US has done it first. But I think it makes it very, very hard for the US to object or for there to be international standards against it. Again, like the nuclear weapons question above: I think technologies are very hard to stop. There needs to be a international taboo on it, and it'll probably be good when other countries, including those hostile to the US, develop a real drone capability as that will provide some deterrence to US abuse of them.

What do you think in US and Britain nobody is discussing the fake child vaccination programme in Pakistan during the search for Bin Laden and why do you think Kathryn Bigelow doesn't mention this. – RedMangos

Because talking about that poops on the party that people are still having in celebrating the fact that the US managed to hunt down an old, infirmed Terrorist and pumped bullets into his skull and then dumped his corpse into the ocean.Talking about fake vaccination programs for children is so dreary and ruins the fun and the ability to feel vicarious power and purpose from that. The film mentions that in passing in about 2 seconds - if you blinked during the film, that probably explains why you missed it. If you didn't already know everything about it, you'd barely know what the film was talking about.

Are there any circumstances in which you would support a particular military intervention? – craigjameswilly

For me, this is a bit like the "ticking time bomb" torture question (though much more reasonable). There are interventions I'd support in the abstract: if the humanitarian suffering were truly extreme and widespread; there was widespread international support and involvement; the authorization was extremely limited (to end the acute humanitarian suffering); the harms could be minimized; the benefits of the intervention outweighed both the short-and long-term harms; and there was no reason to doubt that humanitarianism was the goal of the intervening actors. I just don't think those circumstances prevail often at all. Very, very rarely, in fact. Add to that the unanticipated consequences - such as how the Libyan intervention worsened instability and suffering in Mali - and that usually tips the scales for me.

I am typically skeptical or opposed myself, however, I note the Mali intervention (for example) is small-scale, is supported by numerous authorities (not just the Western usual suspects, but Russia, China, the African Union, neighboring countries) and aims at regime stability rather than subversion as in Iraq or Libya.

The problem with interventions is they rarely stayed confined to their original structure or goal. Remember that Obama swore Libya would only be about a no-fly zone over Benghazi and wouldn't be about regime change. None of that was true.

On Mali

When you opted to oppose the French intervention in Mali was it a deliberate decision to support the Islamist invasion of Mali? – cbarr

Yes - in exactly the same way that those who opposed the attack on Iraq loved Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms and mass graves -- and, as Mona said above, the same way that opponents of the Vietnam War loved-loved-loved The Communists.. If you support that intervention, does that mean you support these atrocities committed by the undemocratic government of Mali? Do you actually think these tactics intimidate or work on anybody? They just make me yawn.

Could you explain why intervention in Mali is a negative event? What would you propose as an alternative to intervention and prevention of allowing a UN member state from falling in to the hands of Islamic fundamentalists pending their govt's request for assistance? – LDoherty

I wrote at length what my concerns were about this intervention and intervention generally in that column I wrote that I presume you're referencing. My primary problem with the argument of interventionists is that I do not believe that countries deploy their military and start bombing for humanitarian reasons, and even if they did: the military is an instrument of destruction and very, very rarely achieves more good than bad for the places where the bombing occurs. In sum, the claim by aggressors that the people in the country crave and love the aggression has a long and ugly history, as I documented here. Relatedly, I gave a 20-minute speech at the Univ of Chicago last year about why the term "humanitarian intervention" was a fiction - namely, because every war nation, even the most aggressive, claims that people want the bombing and invasions and it will help them (see here). I don't think NATO should be trying to control which governments rule in other nations. Why is the desire of the (undemocratic) Mali government re: intervention so vital, but the desire of the Libyan or Syrian governments re: intervention to be disregarded? I don't think the west can solve every problem in other parts of the world. I think it often makes it worse.

Can we expect more suggested alternatives, more of "what actually should we do" for example, regarding people like Al-Alwaki, from your column? – KrawuziKapuzi

If I say that Action X is illegal, dangerous, unconstitutional, immoral and wrong, then it's pretty clear that the "alternative" I'm advocating is: don't do X. I think "terrorism" is a wildly exaggerated threat and the "solutions" are almost always far worse than the actual threat. I just wrote about that "what's the alternative" question you raise:

here. If you want to know my answer, it's worthwhile reading the whole thing, but your specific question is addressed in the second half, beginning with the paragraph that starts: "The way in which "America's soul is totally poisoned" is evident in virtually every debate over US policies of militarism. "

On free speech

I remember when you were at your previous publication, you had a great article on 'The Creepy Tyranny of Canada's Hate Speech Laws", or something to that effect. I'm wondering if you have any plans to revisit this topic, or to have any more topics on free speech in general in the future. – Shawn Eavis

You're allowed to say "Salon" - I won't tell. Thanks to a Guardian columnist's recent defense of censorship a month or so ago, I actually wrote the piece I've long been wanting to write about what I really think is behind the censorship mentality. It's here. That was actually cathartic. I've been trying to put into words for a long time why literally few things anger me more than people who want to censor the ideas of others, and for whatever reason, it all came clarified for me in that column.

On Aaron Swartz

As a lawyer, can you explain why Aaron Swartz would risk the ire of a district court judge by trying to raise money for his defense? Why would a judge even care? – tuezday

This is a really good question because I wasn't sure what Lessig meant by that. I know for me personally, raising money for Aaron's legal fees is exactly the sort of thing I'd ordinarily do, and I know my readers would have responded enthusiastically. The reason I didn't do it is because I had no idea he was struggling financially as a result of this case - I always assumed he was very rich (and he was, though I guess not as rich as I thought), and I wasn't going to ask readers to give their hard-earned and often scarce money to someone who didn't need it. I really wish I had known of this need. I suppose it's possible that some judges may resent it if a defendant is being flooded with money as a result of their status as a defendant - and believe me, judges have virtually tyrannical power in their courtroom and when you're a criminal defendant (or their lawyer) you're always petrified of angering the judge, because they can destroy you at will (that's one of the things I hated most about litigating) - but I really didn't understand this point myself. I'll probably ask Lessig about it, but I don't think he wants to talk about this case any more for now.

If MIT had clearly and unambiguously withdrawn their complaint - as JSTOR had - would that have been sufficient to weaken/end/undermine/discourage the Federal investigation out of Ortiz's office? I guess what I'm wondering is whether Ortiz had the authority to pursue charges under CFAA even if MIT and JSTOR had withdrawn their complaints? – TallyHoGazehound

It wasn't so much that they were affirmatively arguing that they wanted the case to proceed, but that they refused to say they didn't want this (the way JSTOR did). Prosecutors theoretically have the right to prosecute even if the victims of the crime don't want that to happen, but as a practical matter, it ends up ending most prosecutions - both because prosecutors don't want to prosecute if even the victims don't want this, and because it is hard to win conviction without the cooperation of the victims. MIT's cowardice gave the prosecutors the excuse to continue.

Other

For the five of us still not on Twitter: Any recent developments with the Freedom of the Press Foundation? –

AduioKinetic

Time to join the 21st Century, even if reluctantly. When I first joined Twitter, I hated it so much that I wrote about all the reasons why it was destructive and even went on C-SPAN to talk more about it. Now, I not only use it prolifically, but think it's an important and valuable medium for lots of reasons. The first leg of the fund-raising was very successful. It helped the groups a great deal. We're in the process of choosing new beneficiary groups now, as well as working on a couple projects that I think will be exciting. It's a great group, genuinely - really smart, committed, and brave activists.



Given your background in law, but after your experience and direct knowledge of the fact how the law is used to protect the powerful and eat the powerless, do you still have faith it is redeemable? – RicardoFloresMagon

I'm a lot more cynical about law now than I used to be (as is true for many things). Embedded in the nature of law is that it can and often is used as a tool of control to enable elites to pacify and control masses. But I also have seen law work for its ostensible ends - on both a macro and micro level - and I believe it can be used for positive outcomes as well.

What do you think it will take for the US media to cover all aspects of a story, do proper investigations, and not just prop up whatever administration is in the White House? – Robert Rizzuto

That's not going to happen. That's not their business model. I gave up on that goal a long time ago. Developing alternatives to that - using the internet and other forms of developing new media - is the only real way that will happen. Of course some isolated journalists even at establishment venues do this already. And it's sometimes possible to infiltrate those venues and do it. But as a general proposition, establishment media exists to support the establishment, not to challenge it.

Can you comment on any projects you have in the works? – imwetodddid2