The Trial of the Millennium: A Prescript

This is a piece of futurist, speculative fiction, mixed in with the concerns and events of the present day. The real life personages in this piece are my great heroes. My admiration for their work is part of the reason for why I chose to write this. Okay, not all of them are my heroes. There is one name that doesn't excite me when I hear it. (Hint: his name is Ben Bernanke). I have taken the liberty to use their names without permission, for what I perceive to be as artistic purposes. Apart from a very few instances, these are not their words, but of mine. If anyone of them happens to see this piece at any time whatsoever and expresses any discomfort about the use of their name, and requests to be taken out, then I will happily comply and take down the piece immediately. Except for Bernanke.

I am an angry optimist and believe that America can be redeemed if her Citizens are willing to unite and take the mantle of Justice upon their back. I will do all I can to assist Americans in their quest for the Truth. By bringing Justice to those found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against the Constitution, Crimes Against the Truth, and Crimes Against the Peace and General Welfare of Mankind, America will prove to the world, and to herself, that her dream of Liberty and Justice is for real. I, for one, will not accept any other reality.

"You have to have fiction to raise the imaginative capability, what is feasible to fulfill life’s possibilities for people in this country and abroad. And that’s why fiction is so important." - Ralph Nader

---------------------------------------------------

"The idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits crimes, is a fiction. Crimes always are committed only by persons . . . It is quite intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity." - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

The following is a transcript of the much anticipated exchange between former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Congressman Ron Paul, which took place before Bernanke's preliminary hearing in court. Bernanke is facing life imprisonment for committing Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against the Constitution, Crimes Against the Truth, and Crimes Against the Peace and General Welfare of Mankind. His defense, that the Federal Reserve Act permitted the Federal Reserve to act independently of the Congress, is gaining very little support. But Dr. Paul urged prudence and moderation in his final remarks to Congress and the newly established body, the Citizen Councils. Below is Democracy Now's coverage of this breaking world event.

Amy Goodman: Hello, and welcome to this special edition of Democracy Now! Today is the first day of the preliminary hearings of former and current high government officials, which will determine whether or not they will be brought to a public trial in the coming weeks, organized by the Citizen Councils. Soon, we will broadcast live from Congress, but first, we're joined by award-winning investigative journalist, and Democracy Now! Correspondent, Jeremy Scahill. He is the author of two best-selling books, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, and D.C Confidential: The Secret History of the Obama Administration. Jeremy is in congress covering this story for us.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jeremy.

Jeremy Scahill: Hi Amy. Nice to be here.

Amy Goodman: Jeremy, can you briefly describe what the atmosphere is like inside the halls of Congress?

Jeremy Scahill: Well, Amy, the pulse here is electrifying. It has a circus atmosphere, there a lot of happy people. I have reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran before this, but the excitement here surpasses anything I've been involved with. I'm sure Glenn would agree, he and I talked a little bit earlier, and we both thought that the enthusiasm about these hearings are like nothing we ever imagined.

Juan Gonzalez: Jeremy, I understand you and the Citizen Press corps were briefed by Congress, and then by these Citizen Councils. They told us they were very determined not to get sidetracked by the media mayhem. Much of the talk in Washington has been about the upcoming Congressional elections, and because of the new arrangement in Washington, with states like California and Texas getting more seats, people are worried that the electoral campaign is going to interrupt these criminal hearings and prosecutions. Can you confirm this?

Jeremy Scahill: Yes, Juan, the temptation to do these hearings quickly is very much in the minds of prosecutors, but they are professional and they realize that a lot is riding on this. They are approaching these hearings and the subsequent trial as the sequel to the Nuremberg trials.

Amy Goodman: Jeremy, explain to us what is happening right now.

Jeremy Scahill: All of us are just waiting for former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to arrive. It was a little hectic at the beginning but now all the media watchdogs are taking their seats, including the traditional press corps and the citizen press corps. Also, most of the Congressmen who are not protesting outside are also beginning to sit down.

Amy Goodman: Jeremy, we're going to a break, and return with the footage you taped earlier today.

This is Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Democracy Now.org, the War and Peace Report. We'll return in a minute.

Amy Goodman: That was Johnny Cash - When the Man Comes Around. And now we head to Congress, where we sent Jeremy Scahill this morning to take the pulse of Washington.

Sen. Rand Paul: Thank you very much. It is great to be here. I have here top-secret, fresh off the press news, the Democratic leadership has decided not to challenge me this fall.

Jeremy Scahill: Senator Rand Paul energized the min-convention outside the Congress today, cheered on by his enthusiastic supporters. He was one of the original senators to back the Citizen Council's call for criminal prosecutions of former high government officials, from the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Protestor: No one thought this would take place. For a long time, the people of this country had no idea what justice felt like. But we're finally getting a piece of it today, and it's exciting to be part of it.

Jeremy Scahill: What part of the country did you came from?

Protestor: I flew from Hawaii to be here, and it's amazing. I'm just sad that my son who served in the Iraq is not here with me.

Jeremy Scahill: The people inside the Congress were even more surprised that this day is here.

Member of Citizen Council: We're just happy that all the hard work has finally paid off. The last year has been a rollercoaster, we have been busy with the truth and reconciliation commission, and the subsequent fallout of that event. So, it's all very surreal, and still feels like it is out of a movie.

Member of Citizen Council: Many Americans support our action we are representative of the larger public, who recognize that this is a long procedure, and that the law takes time. This is not a 21st century McCarthyism, we have no intention of persecuting the defendants, we just want to see justice because of their involvement and complicity in Crimes against peace and mankind. If they are found innocent, then they should be forgiven, but if they're found guilty then they should be sent to Cuba, because I don't want these people living in my country.

Jeremy Scahill: With the exception of a few senators and congressmen, much of the lawmakers on Washington are behind these Citizen Councils, perhaps it's because of the elections coming up in November. I asked one of the organizers of the main Citizen Council what would happen if some of these former Bush and Obama officials didn't show up for their hearing.

Member of Citizen Council: We are going to hunt them down like they were the last pieces of Bin Laden. Maybe we should reassemble the CIA for this special occasion to do the job. (laughs).

Jeremy Scahill: How crucial was the dismantling of the CIA to making these proceedings a success? Do you think that Leon Panetta's defense was legitimate?

Member of Citizen Council: I can't see how their secret actions against the wishes of the people were legitimate. They claim they were acting in the best interest of the country, that they are patriots, but why is it patriotic to kill foreign democratic presidents, or shipping in drugs to America's most impoverished communities to fund their operations in Latin America. I mean, their excuse that the CIA was essential to the country's survival in the Cold War is flat out not true. No country, no people, should resort to monstrous means to ensure it's survival. I would rather die than break the law.

Jeremy Scahill: Although members of Citizen Councils have been criticized for their radicalism, the councils are not as monolithic as they've been portrayed.

Member of Citizen Council: I come from a Christian background, I voted for Bush and McCain, but this goes beyond parties. These hearings and the trials next month are fundamental to restoring the rule of law in this country. The fabric of the constitution was ripped apart, and uh, I'm still pissed off that I was lied to all my life by the government and the fictitious press. I'm 58 years old, and I was brought up to believe that America was good and fought for justice and liberty around the world. Today, we are making that promise happen, at home. Today is our nation’s reckoning day.

Jeremy Scahill: The leaders of the councils have told me that these preliminary hearings will go into the body of record, and that the evidence will be looked at seriously before any decision is made about filing charges against them. For the defendants, who have been kept in federal custody for the last few weeks, today is their chance to be heard by their countrymen.

For Democracy Now!, this is Jeremy Scahill, with Jacquie Soohen, in Washington.

Amy Goodman: Thank you Jeremy for your report. Before we leave you, can you explain the altercations between some of the members of the Citizen Councils and a congressman? We're getting reports via twitter that one of the members of the Citizen Councils has attacked Congressman Joe Wilson.

Jeremy Scahill: Amy, I think that was a little overblown. I was in the room when it happened, and congressman Wilson, who famously shouted You Lie! to former president Obama in his speech on health care reform, and who is supposed to stand in for the accused on the Congressional panel, was unhappy about the seating arrangement, and the speaking time given to some Congressmen. And Steve Cubick, who is one of the spokesperson for the most influential of the Citizen Councils, said "how much time do you need to finish talking out of your ass" (laughs) and Wilson got infuriated after rhearing this, and there was a little scuffle, but Alex Jones stepped in quickly and broke it up. He then said, "as long as it takes, especially for these republican assholes." It was a very funny moment, Amy, it relieved the tension. Van quickly added "you stole my line."

Amy Goodman: (Laughing) Did you get a chance to sit down with either Alex Jones or Van Jones?

Jeremy Scahill: Well, I haven't been able to reach Van yet, he's been mostly outside, but Alex did give a private conference to all the independent citizen journalists inside. I asked him about the suicide of Dick Cheney last week, by, uh, hitting himself over the head with a hardcover version of the King James Bible, and the impact that will have on these proceedings, and also, what would happen in the event of a military coup by Erik Prince's buddies. He said Cheney's death would have no immediate consequences on the proceedings of the law, but that special criminal inmates are going to be looked after more carefully now, so that they are present in their upcoming trials. He called Cheney's suicide the last cowardly act of a cowardly life, and that Cheney's fear to plead his case to his contemporaries proves he is guilty. He joked that Bush is less likely to commit suicide because he wouldn't be caught dead beside a book.

Amy Goodman: (laughs) And what about the fears of an extremist coup?

Jeremy Scahill: He said the majority of the public is behind these Citizen Councils, and that the remaining bandits of the Guilted Age have very little support. A citizen journalist, Matthew Blake, asked him if the Middle East Invasion Veterans will be put in place to protect the capital if such a scenario takes place, and Jones responded, "A protocol is being followed, many of the citizen militias will also participate to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." One citizen journalist mentioned that some of these former Blackwater guys may decide to go through with their rescue operation, and there was some dear air for a few seconds, then Jones yelled "bring it on, we're ready for it." Jones concluded his brief address by saying such fears will disappear as more troops come back from Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran to a more comfortable living, a new G.I bill, and a new green house. He regards these private military contractors as paid bullies who are not fighting for any dear cause, and that because the State Department is no longer subsidizing any of these military corporations, their influence will weaken within the next year.

Amy Goodman: Can you describe more specifically what this Blackwater's rescue operation is all about? There have been reports by some citizen journalists in Iraq that Blackwater is trying to hire Al Qaeda members to come over to America and besiege the capital. Can you explain any of these claims? Are they true?

Jeremy Scahill: Well, from what I know Amy, there have been discussions going around in some of these citizen militias that America needs to protect its airspace more forcefully, in case these private militaries bring over suspicious baggage, they say. Securing the skies still falls under the traditional US state military, and they have not yet addressed this concern. I've also talked to a few former Blackwater men, and they've told me that back in 04, 05, their senior commanders were handing over key information to Al Qaeda about the location of America's military supplies. Much of the corruption in the State Department, they said, stemmed from these private militaries and intelligence corporations sharing secret information with the other side. I was dumbfoundead, I thought I knew everything about Blackwater, but they had pictures of Al Qaeda members buying weapons from guards in Blackwater gear. So it is very plausible that these same senior commanders could be in touch with high ranking Al Qaeda members, and lure them away from the war zones in Iraq. The likelihood of the attempt to bring down the transitory government in Washington, though, is very small, but it hasn't crossed the minds of the military people I've talked to.

Juan Gonzalez: Jeremy, what is the security in Washington been like on the ground for a journalist in these last couple of days?

Jeremy Scahill: Well, it's been tight, but there are no armed guards. One of the new promises from the Citizen Councils was the disarming of the police, so that the protestors would be less intimidated to approach the Capital and voice their displeasure about these hearings. Alex Jones has said that every one's democratic rights will be top priority, even for the guys who want to see him and others dead.

Amy Goodman: Jeremy. do you have any idea when the hearings will begin?

Jeremy Scahill: I was told they are going to begin a little after 1 pm, Amy. The former Fed Chairman just arrived, who will have an exchange with Congressman Paul separately, before the official hearings start.

Amy Goodman: Thank you, Jeremy.

Jeremy Scahill: Thank you.

Amy Goodman: That was Jeremy Scahill, award-winning investigative journalist, and Democracy Now! correspondent. His writing can be found at RebelReports.com. When we come back, we'll we be joined by columnist Glenn Greenwald, who is also serving as one of the lawyers in the Citizen Councils.

Amy Goodman: K'naan - Wavin flag. And now, we're joined by Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney, and political and legal columnist for Salon.com. He's the author of six best selling books. His latest are Not The Last Collapse: The Breakdown of Law, and Why It Could Happen Again, and Judgment at Washington, published yesterday. Glenn joins us via his cell phone webcam outside Capitol Hill.

Glenn, welcome to Democracy Now!

Glenn Greenwald: Good to be here, Amy.

Amy Goodman: Can you tell us how many people are outside the Congress?

Glenn Greenwald: There are almost five million people here, Amy. A lot of them have come from other countries to be part of this. Most of them are glued to the big led screens put up around every corner street last night, waiting for the hearings to begin.

Amy Goodman: And what is the mood like?

Gleen Greenwald: Well, it's very animated, but also very orderly. Everybody is energetic, and there have been very few disturbances. The officers I've talked to say that security is their number one priority, but they are also mindful of people's civil liberties. The surveillance is huge, they've planned for any criminal attack or suicide bombing, and there are teams of lawyers working with police officers to make sure everyone's democratic rights of free expression is allowed.

Amy Goodman: Explain the reaction outside to Dick Cheney's suicide last week. Jeremy reported that his suicide will not halt the prosecution's case.

Glenn Greenwald: Yeah, I mean the prosecution's case is still very strong, and is targeted strictly at the top individuals who wrote the secret memos, orchestrated the cover up, and committed the higest crimes. There are still many high government officials who have to defend their views and their actions. Hiding behind Cheney, as Nazi officials hid behind Hitler, will not work. The people I've spoken with have told me that Cheney robbed them from a sense of closure, and that he proved his guilt by not facing up to the charges brought against him. But it's not unique. Hermann Goering also committed suicide the night before he was to be executed. There are rumours going around that Rumsfeld might sip some cyanide.

Juan Gonzalez: Glenn Greenwald, talk about the people who make up the Citizen Councils and what they're role is in these hearings.

Glenn Greenwald: Well, Thomas Tamm, who chairs one of the councils, has told me that the Citizen Councils serve as an advisory role to Congress, and to the prosecution's lawyers. They have no executive power, they are only meant to provide oversight, and exercise due diligence. Many of the members of the council are government whistleblowers, ACLU lawyers, federal and state attorneys who got fired by the Republican administration under Bush, or experienced prosecutors with a background in human rights organizations. Some have served on the UN Human Rights Council, in the US Military, US intelligence services, and private companies. They are, in some ways, becoming the fifth estate, and if the hearings and trials are successful and they remain popular, they could become a permanent body in American politics. The biggest misconception some people have, which has been put forth by the old media, is that they are mostly ordinary citizens with no expertise of the law, who are acting like 21st century McCarthyists. Also, a few of these Citizen Councils have lawyers are from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, who are here representing their respective countries.

Amy Goodman: And Glenn, you have an advisory position in one of these Councils. Describe what your role is.

Glenn Greenwald: Yes, I've lend my background and training in constitutional law to help in the prosecution's case. The main reason I was approached by the Citizen Councils was my expertise in the torture memos, and the torture programs. What I basically do is try to list the documentable evidence that be used in court, and advise on the intricacies of the law from a Constitutional perspective. Some people suggest new constitutional amendments be established, which would have to be ratified by over seventy percent of the Congress.

Amy Goodman: Is there any support behind adding any new amendments?

Glenn Greenwald: Well, according to the new Draken poll, over eighty percent of the American are behind adding new amendments that would essentially strip the Executive from making national security claims to withhold information, or establishing any secret agency outside of the law.

Amy Goodman: Glenn, explain for us the war crimes charges, and specifically, the charges brought against the authors of the Torture memos.

Glenn Greenwald: Sure. The main charge, Crimes Against Humanity, is made against the truly guilty parties, the high-level Bush and Obama officials in the White House, including President Bush, and Vice President Biden. The illegal torture program was systematic, and continual. There’s ample evidence to show that the OLC memos were designed to be legal cover to enable the President and other officials to do what they knew was illegal. So the mere fact that these memos exist and say that these techniques, these torture techniques, are legal does not in any way mean that what was done was in good faith. In fact, there’s evidence that demonstrates repeatedly that many of these decisions were made before these memos were issued and these memos were issued retroactively to provide legal cover—the very definition of bad faith. And these memos lay out tactics that not only redefine torture, to put it in a better light, but explicitly authorize the tactics that are very clearly war crimes.

Juan Gonzalez: Can you tell us the gist of the argument the prosecution is making against former government officials who were involved to a high degree in these illegal actions.

Glenn Greenwald: Well, the former Bush and Obama administration claimed they had sovereign immunity, that secret provisions in the PATRIOT Act protected government officials from being sued, and allowed them to conduct illegal eavesdropping of Americans. These provisions, which repealed the FISA and the Wiretap Act, provided immunity, and they could decide whether or not they want to disclose to the public the information they gathered. All this illegality was done under the cover of terrorism, and the pretense of national security, and this was so outrageous because it wasn't the Bush administration that claimed government officials are protected from any consequences, but the former Obama administration.

Juan Gonzalez: And what is the defendants' argument?

Glenn Greenwald: Well, the torture question posed by the old media and the political class was always around saving American lives. The evidence they always to point was the Mohammed Atta case, where they say he was broken by these torture techniques in March of 2003, but we now know that torture didn't produce valuable intelligence. And that claim is dishonorable because it points to its effectiveness, overlooking the fact that it is illegal and a war crime. Former US Attorney General Eric Holder famously backed down in the fall of 2009 from his original decision to ask a special prosecutor to investigate torture abuses by CIA operatives, because of the argument that secrecy is important for national security. Former directors and members of the CIA sent a letter to Holder in September 2009, signed by Michael Hayden, George Tenet, and others, making the claim that disclosure about CIA operations would severely risk the security of the nation.

The low level intelligence officers who used torture most extensively in the field, and lawyers from the Justice department have pleaded that the safety of the country was at stake, but we know that security fears were hyped by the Bush administration leading up to the 2004 elections, and for much of the time after. The claim that torture was essential for national security is simply not true. Virtually every single war criminal in history can recite good reasons for undertaking "excessive" measures. Other than psychopaths who do it exclusively for sadistic entertainment, every torturer can point to actual fears, or genuine threats, or legitimate grievances that led them to sanction violence and brutality. The crimes are inexcusable, under any circumstance.

Amy Goodman: Glenn, there has been a considerable amount of international scrutiny around these hearings. The main objective by the United Nations is that the Citizen Councils are claiming jurisdiction from the sovereignty of the International Criminal Court. Explain the controversy.

Glenn Greenwald: From what I understand, Amy, the Citizen Councils have decided to not include the offences against international law, and claim that the jurisdiction to exercise legal authority falls under America's military and criminal courts. The War Crimes Tribunal is, however, represented by judges from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, and there are judicial watchdogs from Spain, Germany, and Brazil.

Amy Goodman: A number of influential American judges are voicing their concerns that the United Nations is not more involved. What kind of legal precedent will this set for international law?

Glenn Greenwald: This trial is being treated as a special case, because if the United Nations brings American presidents to the ICC, they will also have to decide about Vladimir Puttin in Russia, who has been charged by lawyers in Russia, as well as leaders of other states. So it is becoming a political decision for the United Nations.

Amy Goodman: Glenn, Explain what preliminary hearings are. How do they operate and why are they are important?

Glenn Greenwald: A preliminary hearing is a procedure in felony cases that puts pressure on the prosecution to establish probable cause to detain the individual. It has fewer formalities then a regular trial. It is sort of works like a safety mechanism, making sure the charges stick, so that only the truly guilty are brought to trial. If the charges are dismissed, then the detained individual can be set free.

Amy Goodman: Explain the criticism about these hearings and the trial. What are some of the key objections?

Glenn Greenwald: For months now, rumors have spread that this is going to become a political trial. A few Supreme Court judges, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor, have warned that the Citizen Councils are not independent. Alex Jones has been criticized for being too involved, some view his presence as a dangerous influence.

Amy Goodman: Are any of these rumors true?

Glenn Greenwald: Well, first off, it is hard to orchestrate a political witch hunt because these Citizen Councils are hardly ever on the same page, and are chaired by over 100 individuals, unlike Senator McCarthy who used subpoenas on American citizens indiscriminately. Also, the presence of Congress, international watchdogs, plus the public interest, all contribute to a fair atmosphere. Usually, political trials are based on allegations and rumors, where the minds of the judges are already made up. In this case, the prosecution's evidence rests on declassified government documents, which is undisputable in a court of law, and the words that came out directly from the government officials. Similar to Nazi Germany, no one questions the atrocities committed by the American government. The initial crime of starting an aggressive war based on lies is provable, and so are the criminal offenses committed in the war zones. The public statements of Iraq Veterans Against the War about the rule of engagements not being followed attest to the level of illegality by the American government policy in the Middle East wars.

Juan Gonzalez: And what about non-government officials, like Erik Prince, and the other war profiteers?

Glenn Greenwald: Well, they fall under US Criminal law as well, and they can't be classified as strictly non-government officials, because of the ties between the intelligence services, the State Department, and private contractors. The most famous is of course the connection between the CIA and Blackwater. I think the bigger question is how well non-Americans will be tried, because these private contractors employed soldiers from all over the world. It is probably the first time where something like this has happened, so the United Nations, the Citizen Councils in America, and the home countries of the mercenaries, will have to settle this question in the weeks to come.

And on top of that, this trial will set new legal precedents, because the perpetrators of war crimes are not being tried by the State, but by outraged citizens who have established their own courts. From the legal aspect, this is an unparallel situation.

Amy Goodman: Glenn, explain very briefly the concept of the defense of superior orders.

Glenn Greenwald: Well, the grey area is the extent to which each government official and soldier participated in the war crimes, because the prosecution's case is not against the government or any private contractors, but against individuals. The question of the defense of superior orders was brought up in the Nuremberg trials. The defense is that soldiers and government employees must obey orders, and that it counts as severe punishment to try these individuals under the same laws simply because these orders cause them to commit illegal actions. But the point the Citizen Councils are attempting to make is that soldiers in the US military took an oath to protection the constitution, so the appeal of superior orders is not a supreme defense, there are various interpretations that apply for different individuals. One example is private contractors who didn't take an oath, and sometimes didn't even take orders. Also, soldiers of the US military often killed civilians from their own instincts, without consulting their superiors. You can look at the example provided by the Nuremberg trials. In article 8 of the Nuremberg Charter, it says that the fact that the defendant acted pursuant to orders of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, really pinned down the flaws in the argument when he said "those in lower ranks were protected against liability by the orders of their superiors. The superiors were protected because their orders were called acts of state."

Amy Goodman: The rest of that quote was, "Modern civilization puts unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of men. It cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal irresponsibility."

Glenn Greenwald: Yeah. But we should also keep in mind that the life or death choice in war, the kill or be killed situation that war creates makes it hard to try convincingly the people on the ground. And so, the legal aspect is intermixed with questions of morality, human sympathy, and the idea of forgiveness. Ultimately, I think the blame falls on the policy makers, high officials, war profiteers and the top insiders, who are privileged to hide their motives behind the secrecy of the state.

Amy Goodman: Glenn Greenwald, we’re going to leave it there. Thanks so much for being with us.

Glenn Greenwald: Thanks, Amy.

Amy Goodman: We'll be right back with our special broadcast of Democracy Now!, live in Congress, for the first installment of the preliminary hearings.

Amy Goodman: That was All Along the Watchtower, by the late, great Bob Dylan. And now, we go live to Congress. Congressman Paul is addressing former Fed Chairman Bernanke, whose preliminary hearing is set for tomorrow.

Ron Paul: Good afternoon, Chairman Bernanke. I address you today with extreme displeasure, and a great deal of sadness. The political turmoil and suffering we have all witnessed in the past 50 months have been very painful to me personally, because I have dedicated my life and my time in Congress to stopping what occurred. My entire objective has been to End the Fed, not you personally, Mr. Chairman. It is not my wish or intention to make you look foolish, or immoral.

The concerns I have are for the well being my country, my grandchildren, and their productive future. We ended up where we are because of our prolonged indifference to what makes moral societies function properly, that is, following the law, maintaining a sound currency, averting aggressive wars, or any wars, and keeping our traditions alive, which made this country so prosperous and great. What we lost, I believe, was our intuitive and personal sense of justice, that the government should be held accountable at every turn to the Constitution, regardless of the threats against our common defense, or any fears that an elevated boogeyman may or may not attack us. That type of fear mongering is always unacceptable in a free society.

But, We the People, also lived beyond our means in our individual lives, we also bear some of the responsibility. While it is true that the media establishment worked to keep the people unaware and uninformed, the ultimate blame lies with us. We did not uphold our spiritual duty to privately educate ourselves, in the corners of libraries, and in our daily conversations. For a long period of time, the Truth about our circumstance was in plain sight for those willing to look. To keep freedom alive, it is required of us to look at the disquieting facts, without any reservations or fear. In the end, none of us can escape what we have done or condoned, not in the name of the law, or any other name. American educator and author, Edith Hamilton, remarked in her book, The Greek Way: "When an authority, no matter how traditionally sacrosanct, came into conflict with a fact, the Greeks preferred the fact. They had no inclination to protect 'sound doctrine taught of old.' A new force had come into the world with Greece, the idea of Truth to which personal bias and prejudice must yield." I used that quote, while still mindful that at our country's inception, it was the Romans, whom the Founding Fathers looked back to for an early guide in America's beginnings. Today, I advise that we go back even further then those brilliant men, back to Greek thought, and keep that Civilization in mind as we mature as a Republic and a People throughout the course of this century.

Before I begin my questioning, Mr. Chairman, I like to inform you that you are not on trial, and you are not under oath. You will be heard in your own defense. This is not a criminal prosecution, but a preliminary hearing that will go into the public record for further critical evaluation by the War Crimes Tribunal, to be convened in the middle of July and who will decide judicially your innocence or guilt. All I am interested in at this hour is the truth, and your views of the events that have transpired, Mr. Chairman. Think of this as a conversation and nothing more. As I've stated before, I have no personal vendetta against you or any other Fed Chairman. My remarks may sometimes seem hostile, but that's because these are emotional times.

Very quickly, I want to draw every American's attention to a quote by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. "The ultimate principle," he said, "is that you must put no man on trial under the form of judicial proceedings, if you are not willing to see him freed if not proven guilty." With that said, I want to start off by asking you, Mr Chairman, what is your job and how do you see yourself?

Ben Bernanke: I am an economist and policymaker, Congressman. I have plenty of experience in trying to foretell the future, because policy decisions inevitably involve projections of how alternative policy choices will influence the future course of the economy. The Federal Reserve, therefore, devotes substantial resources to economic forecasting.

Ron Paul: So you're saying you can predict the economic weather?

Ben Bernanke: Not perfectly, the Fed's economic models can give a forecast, but of course there are always variables to consider, such as a terrorist attack, that may disrupt the market and we have no capabilities of making that kind of exact prediction.

Ron Paul: It's interesting you should say that, because what you're saying is that you are like a meteorologist, but the weatherman can't make the weather, and what you seem to be doing is artificially changing the weather…

Ben Bernanke: I would have to disagree with that, Congressman, what I said was that the Fed, using various economic projections and data, can influence the economic path so that the market avoids any roadblocks to growth. Our job is mainly to clear the trees, and allow the course of the economy to take its place.

Ron Paul: But what you are saying, and this is the way I understand it, you can help clarify my thoughts for me, is that you see your role as fortune teller, that the economy can be managed according to a set of rules, the Fed's rules. In my experience as a medical doctor, you very rarily intervene forcefully into the patient's health, only in the case of an emergency do you risk that type of action. In the majority of the cases, you naturally allow the child to come out, because the human body is an intelligent organ and we practitioners provide our expertise and our knowledge, but the birth has to be spontaneous and natural. I can't imagine intervening every time I’m in a delivery room, not only is it unprofessional but I am risking the mother's life and the baby's life that way. One of the things I have a trouble with is….

Ben Bernanke: May I intervene here, Congressman?

Ron Paul: If you please.

Ben Bernanke: Let's say, as an illustration, that I had a sonogram of the new economy, and the old economy was still in labor, and based on statistical and modeling tools I can see tremendous difficulties and challenges in this new economy's life. Now, would not any good human being intervene right away and use his knowledge and his training to push that economy out a little earlier, if it meant its future deformities would be less severe?

Ron Paul: I can see how you came to your conclusion, and I sympathize with it, but what if that economic sonogram is not reliable in this case? Or in any case for that matter. If it is suspected that this new economy is going to be a big baby, then that puts even more pressure on the old economy and in that instance, we must encourage even more than in other times, the principle of non-intervention, and admit to ourselves our limits and recognize that a spontaneous birth is safer. In other words, to bring this back to economics, we must concede to the markets, and listen to the signals it is sending off. When consumers in the electronic market buy things, the prices go down, and is not that these prices are artificially low so everybody can buy a plasma screen, but because the demand is there, and the makers of that particular product observe that development and act accordingly.

But the government's approach is to deliberately hype up that market, let's say as a hypothetical that there is a television set that people like, and the consumers in this market have a disproportionate weight in the decision making of society. Now, because they are buying television and the politicians want influential people to have this new television so they can air their ads during election time and get those consumer votes, they'll encourage reducing the price in an artificial way. But the market doesn't work like that. You can't supernaturally shift the demands of people.

To touch on a different point, what I find most interesting about you, Mr. Chairman, is a statement you made in your address to the graduating class of 2009 at Boston College. I've read the transcript, and at one point, you describe your unpredictable journey as a young man, going your way through college, finding your profession, and finally coming to Washington. You say: "In planning our own individual lives, we all have a strong psychological need to believe that we can control, or at least anticipate, much of what will happen to us. But the social and physical environments in which we live, and indeed, we ourselves, are complex systems, if you will, subject to diverse and unforeseen influences." I completely agree with that statement, that there are many unforeseeable events in our lives. But what I find fascinating is that you don't seem to hold to the same lesson in your role as a Fed Chairman.

Did you use that young man's knowledge to guide you in your role as an economic forecaster? I'm trying to get to the point, uh, Mr. Chairman, what I really want to ask you is where do you get the authority? Is your job all that necessary? Can any single man or institution be given that much power, when the laws of nature and our daily experiences suggest against it? The task you have been given is impossible to fulfill, not even God would want to carry that mantle, to be honest. So how can you be so sure that what you are doing is correct? To me, and I say this with a little bit of hesitation, but to me, your certainty is almost to the point of suicide.

Ben Bernanke: (smiles) Well, I can't say I agree with that last statement, Congressman, but I agree on the previous point you made, we cannot be sure of anything, however, there is a need for macroeconomic stability. One has to try to balance the markets when they are in turbulence, as they were from early 2007, and I will not concede to the argument that doing nothing is better than doing something. Obviously, no one could have predicted the bailout collapse, but, umm..

Ron Paul: Mr. Chariman, I, and several other people, uh, Mr. Roubini, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Taleb, and of course, the great Austrian economists, predicted that this disaster would occur. The Fed socialized the losses, provided stimulus after stimulus to the big banks, manipulated the economic data, and resorted to inflation to fix a crisis cause by too much inflation, which eventually devalued the dollar completely.

Ben Bernanke: .As to our authority, umm, of course the Constitution permits us the right to coin money and regulate they money thereof..

Ron Paul: (loudly) Coins..

Ben Bernanke: (Continues from original point, with an amusing look on his face), and that has been delegated to the Federal Reserve Act, and everything we've done is directly based on that act. You can disagree with the act..the Congress could have repealed it..

Ron Paul: Oh I've disagreed with the Act for my entire time in Congress, Mr. Chairman. I noticed you smiled a bit when I said 'coins', because you know just as well as I know, that money that is not redeemable in gold is not money at all. So let's stop kidding around. And regarding the Federal Reserve Act, I don't know if you realize, but, do you know what year that was passed?

Ben Bernanke: I believe it was 1914.

Ron Paul: 1913. I'm puzzled that you don't know the founding of the institution you work for, but anyways, that’s beside the point. The more revealing thing is that the Act was passed in the dead of night on Christmas eve in 1913, when most congressmen were absent. And, of course, cell phones and tweeting were not available then so most of the lawmakers didn't receive any word, they were essentially kept in the dark about the progress and meaning of the Act. Many, in fact, never knew it was passed until they returned to session and by then the newspapers lauded the move by Congress as extremely popular so they had no incentive to remove the Act. But I find the fact that the Act was passed during the time of least scrutiny incredibly suspicious, Mr. Chairman. In our time, things are not too different; the trick is to make the bill as large as possible. Do you have anything to add about what I said, Mr. Chairman?

Ben Bernanke: About what, congressman?

Ron Paul: About the creation of the Fed. I thought that since you are so familiar with the principles of creation, you would be interested with the creation of the system that you operated in for over eight years.

Ben Bernanke: What do you want me to say congressman? I was born in 1953, and had little to do with the creation of the Fed. I was given this hand, I didn't make it, so uhh, I was simply following procedure and the law on the books. From my understanding, Congressman, for most of Fed's existence, the US economy has grown, consumer productivity reached historical heights in that time, and the wealth our country produced rebuilt half of Europe after WWII.

Ron Paul: Yes, but printing money can only take you so far. After WWII, when the dollar essentially became the world reserve currency, replacing gold, its value dropped tremendously. And of course after 2009, it was completely destroyed. But my question is, where do you get the authority to make dramatic economic decisions out of thin air? When the economic weather is thick, that is, when things are generally stable, and the markets are up, the Fed falsely advertises itself as an umbrella in a storm, but when the storm comes you come to the rescue of the storm makers, and not the people out in the rain. And even in sunny days you stand in the wind, trying to stimulate the economy, which shows that you're original guarantee, was false. And you are not here to save the day. Some claim you save those who've paid, but the taxpayers who put up all of the money in 2008 and 2009 were thrown to the woods, so it's truer to say that you save only those who have their way. I am just completely dumbfoundead, Mr. Chairman, how can still you justify the Fed's response?

Ben Bernanke: It was the American government policy to stabilize the banks, twist the numbers to keep from paying its debt and bringing back price fixing to rehabilitate the domestic markets, and all this was done in the effort of keeping the country from going bankrupt.

Ron Paul: I have trouble buying that, because even if the Fed had noble intentions, it still failed, so as an institution it's a failure. It didn't offer the required correction, the problem of debt wasn't addressed. It continued loose monetary policy instead of doing what I and other prominent economists suggest, which was to bascially liquate the debt.

But it's interesting that you should say that because I personally think you don't bear much of the responsibility since it is the entire system that I and others have had a problem with and not any particular person, but, to look at it from a different perspective, any system wouldn't be maintainable if not for minds like yours who are willing to provide their prestige and background, and the system you lend your hand to was predicated on a very destructive monetary philosophy. Actually, it's not even a philosophy, it's a junk science, backed by military might, and that is why it so irresponsible. But I am a little reluctant to say you are totally innocent, and weren't aware of the massive damage your policies were having on people. But I must submit my reservations to that higher law, and abstain from any over the top judgment, because responsibility as not a cut and dry thing. I can no more blame you then I can blame Greenspan, because you were both played the hand you were given, it's true. Granted, though, you share some of the guilt, especially since the system failed so dramatically, and didn't live up to any of its promises.

My personal feeling on this matter is that, I'd like you to be forgiven. Of course, that is up to the independent citizen tribunal to decide in the weeks to come, but I don't see why judgment day and forgiveness day cannot both fall on the same day. It would be miraculous, I know, given the destruction your house of paper has caused, and the angry backlash from the people. Anyways, I like to know what you have to say about this, and also to answer what Napoleon once said, about how politics is your destiny. From my perspective, to follow on what Napoleon said, you supported the course that has put this country in such a catastrophic situation, and it seems you were locked into that course the day you took that job, as was the former chairman, and you weren't able to retreat from your position, to come to the right side of history, so to speak, so I sometimes wonder if you deserve any sympathy.

As a doctor, the first rule I am obliged to is do no harm, and it was very clear the Fed Reserve was doing harm by creating money endlessly, not liquating the debt, so on and so on. And that whole cyclone of debt financing created the hyperinflation that has left this country so incredibly miserable. We were spinning in a cyclone of debt and the Fed said, well, if we keep spinning ourselves we won't reach the bottom, but you can't spin your way out of debt, and when you do finally hit the bottom you are way too dizzy to think and react rationally. All central banks end up creating these cyclones of debt, and to get back to my original point, individuals are powerless in this type of system, so it was nothing you could do to reverse the madness of debt financing. It was clear all the way through that without the force of the military, the Federal Reserve couldn't acted so irresponsibly

Ben Bernanke: You're right about the no harm principle, but the economy was not in the most pristine condition when I got to the Fed. The harm was already there in the economy and we had to something to stop the bleeding.

Ron Paul: And what was that bleeding?

Ben Bernanke: The tremendous burden of debt and future obligations on the system, Congressman.

Ron Paul: But the Fed created that bleeding, it created that debt. It created the bubbles in the 90's, and the housing bubble in the last decade. You can't get rid of debt by creating more debt. Spending had to be cut, and that was the biggest problem.

Ben Bernanke: The spending balloon was in no way the Fed's fault, Congressman Paul. We at the Fed followed the guidelines set out by Congress and the White House. It was the Congress that failed to bring down both domestic and foreign spending.

Ron Paul: But you're not getting my point. You provided the alcohol to the party and then complained because you also got busted when the cops showed up. Without the Fed's ability to perpetually create money, our government could not have started wars that seemed to last forever. So your excuse, in my honest judgment, is unsound. That's like the black cat of debt calling the kettle broke.

Ben Bernanke: umm, I don't like to think of my role as having anything to do with politics, Congressman. I am an economist and a policy maker, as I've said, not a politician. And..

Ron Paul: But you make political decisions, do you not, Mr. Chairman? And your appointment and reappointment are based on a political decision. You are given incentives to use the Fed's power to administer capital, which is really the monopolistic power of usury, to various special interests, and to government policy favored by the elite. Believe me, if you had raised interest rates in 2007 when the first signs of the housing bubbles were visible, back before we reached the point of no return, you would not have been reappointed by any President, republican or democrat, believe me, you would've been shortchanged in no time. So I think that argument belongs in the ditch.

Ben Bernanke: I disagree with that, Mr. Paul. There are occasions when it is appropriate to raise interests rates, as Chairman Volcker did in the 1980's under the Reagan administration, but back in late 2009 inflation was still low, unemployment numbers weren't that drastic, and we did not want to make any quick decision to spike the federal funds rate, knowing for certain that would have caused even more disastrous consequences....

Ron Paul: (infuriated) Worse than hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar? Worse than 35% unemployment?

Ben Bernanke: Well, the dollar was still strong in 2009, but we had to adjust to keep the banks from going down under. And at that time, if I remember correctly, when changing to a new currency was still a political problem at the time, I, uh..

Ron Paul: (in a harsh voice) Now, wait a minute, are you implying that the destruction of the dollar was Fed policy, to bring in a world currency?

Ben Bernanke: No. What I said was, the viability of the dollar was not our most important concern, and no one could have foreseen the tremendous fallout of the attack on Iran on the dollar, so, our main focus was on keeping the banks stable, maintaining the inflationary rates, and preparing for the future.

Ron Paul: I find it a little hard believing the fall of the dollar wasn't foreseeable, Mr. Chairman. You may have turned a blind eye to the dollar, but so many people, me in particular, warned you about the disaster looming and offered the prescription. My bill HR 1207 was shot down in late 2009, and we know what happened after that, so, and I know not your fault, I know. The dollar crisis was inevitable once it was taken off the gold standard by Roosevelt in 1933, and then later by Nixon in August of 7'1. So that argument of yours might hold in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, it's a different matter. And it's funny you should mention former chairman Paul Volcker, because he criticized the direction the Fed took back in 2008, after it gave a loan of twenty-nine billion to Bear Sterns in April of that year. I have the quote here, he said: "The Federal Reserve has judged it necessary to take actions that extend to the very edge of its lawful and implied powers, transcending in the process certain long-embedded central banking principles and practices." So he understood that the unprecedented power given to the Fed to mediate the crisis was not necessary, even in those circumstances, and he was the former chairman!

Ben Bernanke: To be fair, Congressman, when Congress passed the bailout bail in 2008, we thought it would be a passing phase, but it became a way of life. And that is not the Fed's fault. We intervened to save the banks because it was necessary.

Ron Paul: Describe exactly, what were the options?

Ben Bernanke: Let the system fail, or provide capital to the banks.

Ron Paul: So, in your estimation, if the Fed allowed the system to fail, the American people would have suffered even more.

Ben Bernanke: Yes.

Ron Paul: But, the system failed anyway, and if it had failed sooner, people would have suffered a lot less.

Ben Bernanke: Well, we believed at the time that the Fed was indispensable to the economic structure of the country. Ever since the Great Depression, there was a need to intervene into the markets and maintain long term stability.

Ron Paul: But you failed in carrying out those almighty objectives. You were not on the ball. In September 2009 you declared the recession over, when it was clearly not the case. Unemployment numbers were above fifteen percent, the dollar's value was falling every day.

Ben Bernanke: Congressman, the Fed's success rate proves it was an invaluable institution. The Fed forecasted economic downturns..

Ron Paul: That It created.

Ben Bernanke: Not exactly, Congressman,

Ron Paul: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, you lie!

Ben Bernanke: That's not true, Congressman.

Ron Paul: Then what are you saying? That you didn't declare the recession over in 2009? Your defense is completely out of the water. How is not the Fed's fault?Are you reading off a script? Please explain your actions to me, so I can understand.

Ben Bernanke: Well, we weren't reading off a physical script. But don't you feel, Congressmen, that there is a spiritual script that we are all playing out?

Ron Paul: Well, I'm a Christian, and according to Christianity, Mr. Chairman, we choose what course we want to take in the end. But your words reminds me of an exchange I once had with former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan shortly after my reelection in 1996, and I presented him with a copy of an article he wrote in 1966, called Gold and Economic Freedom, where he espouses the virtues of a gold-based system, against the dangers of a paper money system. One of my favorite quotes from the piece is where he says, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." And he was very proud of the piece, not expressing any regrets when he signed my copy. But surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, he changed his tune when I brought up the same article in the House Banking Committee. I guess contradictory statements just go with your profession, Mr. Chairman, or your script, as you suggested.

Ben Bernanke: Congressman, you asked me earlier what my job was, and one way you can view me, is as a dealer who has to work a hand he's be given by the House.

Ron Paul: But what role did you play? Remember, a casino is not a casino without its dealers, so to assume innocence because it was your job strikes me of the most murderous kind of immaturity.

Ben Bernanke: silent

Ben Bernanke: (in a somber voice) Congressman, there are things that can be said for public discussion, and things that are best left under the table.

Ron Paul: (chuckles a little) That explains it all, doesn't it? I mean, what else is there to say? The Fed needles its own thread.

(shakes head disapprovingly ) The problem is with any central authority that thinks it can decide what is best for the rest of society. Central banks are dead institutions. In our exchanges, Mr. Chairman, I sometimes felt like you were the Pope of the economy, and I was Bruno. The critics called me crazy because I said you can't create credit out of the sky, which is like me saying I can create a baby out of the womb. It is preposterous. I am simply the deliverer. I deliver the baby, and then my job is done. In the economy, only the market can correctly dictate how much credit there should be in the society. And there must be some type of standard, the supply of credit must be based on a physical substance with weight, which gold has historically been, and it has to be recognizable throughout the world. But before I conclude my remarks, do you have anything else to add, Mr. Chairman.

Ben Bernanke: No, Mr. Paul.

Ron Paul: Very well, then. I am not at liberty to discuss your innocence or guilt, but I can honestly say that you showed ill judgment. Your assessment of the origin of the crisis, and the Fed's manipulation which escalated the crisis to a much higher degree, were ethically and empirically wrong. The dilemma facing all of us is how do we attribute responsibility to certain individuals, in light of all that has happened in the past couple of years, and even, much farther back, back to the time when the Fed was established, and when the CIA was established. It is my view that we should act with compassion and strive for prudence and moderation in the times ahead. But we should not tolerate excuses.

In all of history powerful men have conspired to gain wealth and power, without reflecting on their injustice or cruelty towards their fellow men. The modern State, a leviathan of man's own making, must be denounced because its fruits are pure evil, whether in Nazi Germany or in our own time. The State's destructiveness lies in the citizen's refusal to take up the labor of civilization onto his individual Self. If Man is to move forward justly in this century, he must refuse the total machinery of the State, and keep the fruits of his own labor. The State, despite its intentions and the promises it makes, is always dangerous, regardless if it is in the hands of a powerful elite or crowd. That is why the Founders advised to limit the power and reach of the government. In our time, the rise of corporations would not have been possible if not for the power of government. One of biggest myth of our age has been that we live under a free market system. It is, rather, a corporatist system, where in the government is used for and by the special interests. It is my wish that we strip corporations the right of personhood. But even in the most perfect of situations, Justice does not flourish automatically; each individual must view and treat his neighbor as an original individual, and nothing besides. Without the Golden Rule, there can’t be a Golden Age.

Statists of all political stripes, claim that their leevers of power are endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the society and the market and that they magically know what the society needs. We should just trust them or their bad ideas. This is patently ridiculous. Modern markets are complex, subject to changes, innovations, and all types of cultural and social transformations. Trust is the most valuable resource we have, to place it in the hands of central bankers, religious tyrants, or any other, is the gravest of mistakes. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of a magnitude the world has never seen before to get us to understand the deeper truths about world, and ourselves. We do ourselves a great disservice by putting any authority above the truth, and it is my hope that we never make this error again.

Amy Goodman: That was Ron Paul addressing the nation and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in the first of these historical preliminary hearings, involving former high government officials. This is Democracy Now! Democracy Now.org. We'll be back in a minute.

Amy Goodman: Disconnect the Transmitter - Arcade Fire, here on Democracy Now! Democracy Now.org, the War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez, and here are some of today's headlines.

Juan Gonzalez: The nation's top military officer, a member of the Citizen Councils, advised Congress yesterday to rethink the need for the US Military. Admiral James Strickland made the comments in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Admiral James Strickland: Without a doubt, without security, freedom wouldn't exist. But I doubt if the American people are not the best protectors of their lives and fortunes. The last few years have changed the character of this nation. We are no longer fearful of veiled threats, and have rediscovered the values of citizen militias. Fifty years ago, this proposal would have been unimaginable to make, but today I can approach with you certainty that the US military is no longer needed to provide the defense of this country. There are many fine men and women in our Armed Services, whose courage and bravery have made them loyal patriots and our most valuable citizens, but possessing a State military after their misuse by powerful men behind the scenes seems incredibly stupid. If we have learned anything from these past years, it is that Men's minds are easily impassioned, and also very fragile, making the use of judgment an individual affair. Our US Military has brainwashed men to kill foreigners, or anyone who is not them. I see no value for our society to hold onto to such a killing machine.

Juan Gonzalez: The Admiral's remarks were highly lauded by Americans Veterans For Peace, calling them "the last nail into the coffins of war."

Amy Goodman: The trial of Chris Kramler, the man who murdered Glenn Beck at a protest in San Antonia last fall, came to a conclusion yesterday. Kramler, 38, was found guilty on all charges and will serve life in prison.

Juan Gonzalez: The construction of the Victims Tower at Ground Zero is near completion and set to open in the fall. The new building, dedicated to the lives lost on 9/11, has been funded by the taxpayers of New York and took two years to build. Luke Rudowski, the youngest mayor of New York City, says the Victims Towers was the idea of the family members who lost their loved ones in what is now known as the most famous state-sponsored terrorist attack in human history.

Amy Goodman: The preliminary hearings of former high government officials have begun today in Washington D.C. The hearings, organized by Citizen Councils across America, are held in the Congress, and are being watched by the whole world. For more, we're joined by blogger and activist, Truth Excavator in our firehouse studio. His writing can be found in Harpers, The Nation, The American Conservative, AntiWar.Com, The Independent, Tom Dispatch, The Guardian, and other publications. His blog is called disquietreservations.blogspot.com.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

Truth Excavator: Thank you, Amy. Hearing you say that feels like Lady Liberty herself saying welcome to Ellis Island. But, uhh, before we begin, Amy, I would just like to say that the work you, Juan and the whole team at Democracy Now! Are doing, and have been doing, is heroic. Democracy Now! was liberty's shining flame all these years, and it is an honor to be here. Your whole staff's commitment to honest reporting was an inspiration for me. So, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your work, and your integrity.

Amy Goodman: Thank you. If you don't mind me asking, why do you call yourself Truth Excavator?

Truth Excavator: No, not at all. Why do I call myself Truth Ex? Well, everybody has a second self, an alter ego. Rap artist Eminem has Slim Shady, Dominick Wickliffe has Crooked I, Ali Newman goes by Brother Ali, and really the whole Hip Hop Culture has brought back the idea that a self is made, that our character must be realized, into the popular imagination. Also, the name just fits. And I admit it, it is purely egotistical. And yes, it's a little bit corny, and unoriginal, but its playful, nothing serious. I like to think that in our time everybody needs to be a Truth Excavator, we have to be, because so much knowledge has been buried, in the educational system, and by regular propaganda in our culture, through the media and by our politicians, and of course, the propaganda industry.

And the disinformation about both the present and the past was robbing us of a happy future. We have to be constantly digging for the truth if we want to be knowledgeable about the world's as well as Man's current situation. Hegel in his Philosophy of History said that when we contemplate history the first thing we see is nothing but ruins. And so, I view my task as trying to learn about these ruins, very alertly and empirically, but also not being afraid to use my intuitive instincts to discover and understand the truth that is buried in these ruins. I intend to dedicate my intellect and will to finding as much truth as possible, and my love for humanity is linked with my love for wisdom.

Amy Goodman: Truth Ex, tell us about the significance of the exchange between Congressman Paul and Ben Bernanke today.

Truth Excavator: Well, ending the fed has been Ron Paul's crusade for almost four decades, and because of his enormous influence in our country today, it is only fitting that he should deliver the introductory remarks in this landmark criminal case against the Federal Reserve. For a while, this thing played out like political handball, with Dr. Paul and Bernanke going back and forth, but that's what made it exciting. And I think it was necessary for Bernanke to answer his biggest critic before he faces the prosecution's case tomorrow. Also, it had a poetic sting to it, that I think everyone in the country immediately recognized.

Juan Gonzalez: You've said many times that Ron Paul is your hero, and that you want to build a statue for him beside the Jefferson memorial. Why the admiration? What is it about him that makes him different from other politicians?

Truth Excavator: Well, for one thing, he doesn't lie. That helps a lot. He took a stand within himself, he withdrew into what Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega Y Gasset called the "incorruptible consciousness," which is the most important task of any individual, but especially for the politician, whose character is tested every day. Ron Paul was vigilant throughout these dark years. Emerson's spirit lived in Ron Paul in our time, and his example will never be forgotten. He led an authentic life, he was true to his convictions, and he withstood all the negativity and pettiness in the political sphere. His learning, his character, his determination to see his countrymen, and humanity free makes him unlike anyone else on Capitol Hill, or in the world. My faith in humanity was restored when I saw the success of Ron Paul's campaign in 2007. I mean, I could go on and on. He is truly the greatest hero I will ever have. I feel extremely lucky that he came to prominence during my youth.

Amy Goodman: Truth Ex, this is the first trial this massive since the Nuremberg trials. If you can, explain to us what this means for the 21st century.

Truth Excavator: At the Nuremberg trials, the German population were very reluctant to see their leaders hanged or put in jail, Germans who testified against the Nazis, who were persecuted by them when they were in power, were called traitors by a considerable amount of the country. But Americans are looking at this trial differently, they recognize that the law was broken by our leaders, and the horrendous crimes they committed, both on American soil and on foreign soil, are unforgivable. There are a few influential figures who are calling this trial a mockery, and they are mostly on the far, far right who still don’t get it. But it is nothing of the sort, this is not a de facto proceeding. Putting war criminals and obstructors of justice in prison is necessary for humanity to be free in this century.

Our salvation is in stating the truth, and fighting for it, whatever the horror or the pain, even if it costs us our lives. I read somewhere when I was researching the Nuremberg trials that if we do not serve justice, our actions will trouble succeeding generations. So I salute the American people for doing the right thing, although it took them a long time, their determination to see this through until the end is inspiring for the rest of the world. America's example will set the flame of liberty on fire once again, and their courage will make the 2016 Olympics in Chicago that much more fulfilling.

Juan Gonzalez: In your opinion, what is the single greatest difference between the crimes committed under Nazi Germany, and the crimes committed by America in the past decades?

Truth Excavator: The defense of the high officials in the Nazi regime was that the crimes committed, the aggression against the Soviet Union, the attack on Norway, were all voiced by one man, rather than a conspiracy of men. In Nazi Germany, they had a dictator, whose name was the law. But America didn't have a figure like Hitler, so for high officials to claim innocence is not believable. There was more freedom of expression in America to speak out against the crimes being committed. Cheney didn't have a death grip on the country, all he had a grip on was his lips and his cane. Also, we should keep in mind that Germans loved their tyranny, they voted in Hitler. In America, Bush was never voted into office by the majority, and for the most part, American tyranny was feared, challenged, or not known about, it was not embraced. But the fact that the major media, and influential media figures conspired to hide the truth proves in a lot of ways that Americans were not more cowardly then Germans, as some have said. Americans were victims of a more cruel type of propaganda. It wasn't in your face, Cheney wasn't marching down Pennsylvania Avenue with American troops banging their feet on the concrete, but the fear of being socially isolated, of being called crazy, and watching your career go into ruins, or being stripped of your position was a great threat and scare. So it was a different kind of authoritarianism. The Big Lie was more subversive, the subject of the 9/11 cover up was social taboo, and the Myths about America being a free and democratic country were mesmerizing, even surpassing the propaganda feat of the Nazis and Soviets.

Amy Goodman: Joining us in our firehouse studio is Truth Excavator, this is Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Democracy Now.org, the War and Peace Report. We'll be back in a minute.

Amy Goodman: That was Die by Iron and Wine, here on Democracy Now! Democracy Now.org, the War and Peace Report. Joining us is blogger and activist Truth Excavator.

Truth Ex, you wrote a piece on your blog back in the fall of 2009, foretelling the truth and reconciliation commissions, preliminary hearings, and the trial of American government officials and corporate insiders. Tell us, why did you write that piece in the way you did?

Truth Excavator: Well, Amy, that was around the time when Charlie Sheen wrote his letter to the President called "Twenty Minutes with the President," which appeared on Infowars.com, I remember being inspired by his faith that the truth will win out in the end, and his courage to share his opinion so convincingly with the rest of humanity. I was put back a little, because it was an act of pure bravery and intelligence. And so I tried my best imitation. But I find flaws in the piece all the time, there are grammar defects, spelling mistakes, missing links, and my thoughts were incomplete. I didn't have a wide array of knowledge about legal terms. I shouldn't have rushed it, and been more of a perfectionist. I could've made the vision clearer for the reader, by being more descriptive and clear.

But to tell the truth, I wrote it in three days, and my thoughts were hazy, and it wasn't fully thought through. I remember doing nothing but concentrating on writing that piece, I just want to get it off my chest, because I couldn't sleep. I had to instill a vision that humanity is better than it was at the time, that we all deserve better from our leaders, and better out of ourselves. We can't tolerate any systematic corruption in our political institutions. And we can't tolerate cowardly behavior from us. There will always be politicians who judge wrongly and do stupid things, criminal things, but they must be the exception. For far too long we accepted secrecy in our government, deception, fraud, lies, inhumanity, it was just unbearable, and life can't be lived under that type of injustice every single day. For me, the choices were to numb myself by entertainment, retreat to a cottage in the Swiss Alps, or do something about this world, anything, even if it didn't add up to much in the scheme of things. I had to feel that my intellect and will were being used to the benefit of my fellow human being, and what better place to start then putting war criminals, liars, and psychopaths, in prison.

Juan Gonzalez: Describe who you think the war criminals are, and touch on the topic of the now infamous 9/11 cover up.

Truth Excavator: I don't regard low infantry military men as war criminals, or sergeants, and other people in the ranks of the military, as war criminals. In my mind, it is people who made the war policies in the defense establishment, in the State Department, in the Bush Administration, who deserve most of the blame. And rightly so. Down the line, from people like Michael Chertoff to Michael Hayden, George Tenet, George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, the war profiteers, the most powerful people in the security and intelligence establishment, the bosses of the media companies who made it official policy to avoid certain facts and lie to the people. And it’s hard to say that all these people knew what they were doing, but it was a strange time, politicians were talking about a hundred year war, a generational war, and how warfare is changing in the 21st century.

And it is changing, but not in the way they expected. It is going the other away. They were dinosaurs of the past. They were the last gasp of evil in the 20th century. But I'm glad they lived, and did what they did, because without people like Cheney we, the lovers of humanity, couldn't realize our own potential and our own gifts. Without evil, there can't be good, that is basic, and is true in all ages, but it seems people always like to forget it. The horrible thing is we lost millions of humans in all these wars, in acts of state and non-state violence, so we must dedicate this golden century to those victims.

And on the 9/11 cover up, so many writers have now written about it, sociologists, psychologists, and scientists of human culture will continue to contribute their analysis and what it means to be a human in the rest of this century. I was reading Rene Girard's book Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World at the time I wrote the Trial of the Millennium piece, and in his chapter on the development of cultures and institutions, he draws from Jacques Derrida's work and Freud's book Moses and Monotheism, and describes the idea of effacements, the covering up of a murder, or any crime. And the point is that it is not hard to commit a crime like murder, but trying to remove any trace of it that is the tricky part.

And at the time, a lot of people were asking how could people in the government pull off such a crime? Well, the original deed wasn't that difficult to pull off, the trouble is covering up after the fact, and the cover up of 9/11 began on day one. And Girard uses the example of Macbeth trying to wash his bloody hands to get rid of the deed, but the deed doesn't go away. The US government was covered in blood for over nine years. And they couldn't wash the blood off. When Obama became president, he lost his appeal, because entering the White House at that point in time was akin to taking a dive in a pool of blood. And the blood smelled because it was there for longer than nine years, the blood from the criminal Vietnam War was still there, the blood from all the wrongful executions of innocent prisoners, the blood from the prison industrial complex, and so on. We have to go back to the first criminal deed, the founding murder before the founding of the nation, the genocide of the Natives, to explain the first spot of blood in that pool. And it is our duty to clean it, and we can do that by doing good works, and stopping any form of violence in our society, especially the violence committed by governments.

And for those nine years after 9/11 people felt what violence committed by the government does to the soul of man. For nine years we didn't see the true face of humanity, we saw a defaced humanity, a humanity besieged, a humanity uninspired and tired. And I remember this very clearly, as the World economy went into a depression, which was denied officially for at least two years, I came out of my own spiritual depression. For the first time in my life I knew what my purpose was, which is to increase my knowledge, and uplift humanity in any way I can.

Amy Goodman: Truth Ex, we only have thirty seconds.

Truth Excavator: I'm all out of water, that's all I have to say. Thanks for the giving me the opportunity to speak, Amy, I consider it as a gift.

Amy Goodman: Thank you for being with us, Truth Ex. Truth Excavator's blog is called Disquiet Reservations. I'm Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, the War and Peace Report. Join us tomorrow for the second day of these historical preliminary hearings. We will be covering it live from Washington D.C with Democracy Now! correspondents Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald.