Skip navigation

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, April 22, 2013

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

April 22, 2013


Guests: Don Borelli, Vince Warren, Gaby Pacheco, Steve Cohen, Jeremy Scahill, Emma Gilligan

CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
Thank you for joining us tonight.

All right. This right here, these 10 pages represent the biggest news
in the country today. This is the criminal complaint filed today against
19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston marathon

And this 10-page criminal complaint is big news for two reasons. It`s
news for the incredible details of the allegations contained within it, and
it is news because of the simple fact that it exists.

Let`s start with the news within. The complaint describes in heart
stopping detail exactly what authorities uncovered by scouring surveillance
footage of the bombing itself.

Quote, "Approximately 30 seconds before the first explosion, Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev lifts his phone to his ear as if he is speaking on his cell phone
and keeps it there for approximately 18 seconds. A few seconds after he
finishes the call, the large crowd of people around him can be seen
reacting to the first explosion. Virtually every head turns to the east
towards the finish line and stares in that direction in apparent
bewilderment and alarm.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev virtually alone among the individuals in front of
the restaurant appears calm. He glanced to the east and calmly but rapidly
begins moving to the west, away from the direction of the finish line. He
walks away without his knapsack, having left it on the ground where he had
been standing. Approximately 10 seconds later, an explosion occurs in the
location where he had placed his knapsack."

The criminal complaint today also adds terrifying new texture about
what we knew about the events leading up to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev`s capture and
his brother`s death. We knew the brothers were accused Friday night of
carjacking man driving a black Mercedes SUV after their photos had been
released by the FBI. And the carjacking victim was ultimately able to call
police from a nearby gas station where Dzhokhar was captured on a security

Here is what we did not know about that victim`s ordeal until today.
According to the complaint, here is how the carjacking went down. One of
the suspects pointed a firearm at the victim and stated, "Did you hear
about the Boston explosion? I did that."

Then, again, according to the complaint, after stopping at an ATM to
try to withdraw money from the victim`s bank account, the two men and the
victim then drove to a gas station convenience store where the two men got
out of the car at which point the victim managed to escape.

So, the carjacking victim was not released. He escaped, and he was
able to do that, because according to the authorities, both brothers left
him alone in the car at the gas station after telling him they were the
Boston marathon bombers.

We also learned through today`s court filing that in a search of
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev`s dorm room yesterday, authorities found, quote, "a black
jacket and a white hat of the same general appearance as those worn by
bomber two at the Boston marathon during the bombing."

So the 19-year-old surviving Boston marathon bombing suspect is not
just an alleged criminal bomber/murderer, he is an alleged extremely sloppy
criminal bomber murderer.

For all that incredible detail, this criminal complaint filed in
federal court today against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is big news, but it is also
big news simply for existing as a criminal complaint filed in federal court

Now, this should not be contested terrain in American political life.
But the fact is, it is contested terrain. There should be no question that
an American citizen accused of committing a heinous crime on American soil
would be charged as a criminal in American civilian court.

But there are political forces trying to make that a question. As we
watch this all unfold last week, it looked to me like we were headed toward
a fork in the road where particularly if the suspects turned out to be
foreign nationals, we might very well skid off into a legal netherworld
into indefinite detention or military tribunals.

Even after we knew the one surviving suspect was an American citizen,
a cadre of U.S. senators, people sworn to uphold the Constitution were
calling for him to be tried not as an American citizen suspected of a
heinous crime, but as an enemy combatant. And so this complaint being
filed in federal court today was a victory. It was a victory against the
demagogues who sought to de-normalize what should be normal and expected.
It was the victory over these forces of hysteria and panic that have tried
to destabilize what should be stable, routine, expected.

Because today in moving forward in civilian court, the Obama
administration treated the efforts of certain vocal Republicans to troll
the president into engaging in a lawless departure from established process
and precedent as exactly that, as trolling, as trolling on and a half of a
ridiculous and illegal proposition.


JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He will not be treated as an
enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian
system of justice. Under U.S. law, a United States citizens cannot be
trialled -- tried, rather, in military commissions. This is absolutely the
right way to go and the appropriate way to go. And when it comes to United
States citizens, it is against the law to try them in military commissions.


HAYES: And it matters that the White House is treating the idea of
holding an American citizen outside of the American legal system as what it
is, which is crazy and unacceptable. And it matters that appears to be
where Americans stand on the issue, too.

When asked just last week, right, in the midst of the aftermath of the
Boston bombing, with the images and videos of the horror there, the top of
everyone`s mind, which worries you more, the government will not go far
enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional
rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in
order to investigate terrorism.

More people answered they e more worried about the government going
too far.

Today is the first day of a big, important test for us as a country.
A test of whether we will as a society demonstrate courage and resilience
and thoughtfulness and compassion and a resolute commitment to justice with
all that word entails, or whether we will succumb to the cause of
demagogues who will have us react with self suspicion and lawlessness and

And when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged with this criminal complaint
today, at his hospital bedside and read his Miranda rights, that was an
important moment in this test, because while there is more to this test
than this moment, we did learn in this moment that we`re going to try this
guy according to our laws and values, as a sloppy criminal he is alleged to

Joining me at the table is Donald Borelli, former FBI special agent
and CEO of the Soufan Group, a security consultancy. And Vince Warren,
executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

It`s great to have you both here.

So I refer to unnamed troll, Republican senators who were calling for
enemy combatant to be applied to this 19-year-old suspect. I want to play
a little bit of sound from Senator Lindsey Graham who was probably the most
outspoken about this. Take a listen.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I believe our nation is at
war. The enemy is radical Islam defined as the Taliban, al Qaeda, and
affiliated groups. The question I have regarding this case is there any
association between these two individuals and the groups I just named to
allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in Boston.


HAYES: Don, you and I were talking about this a lot last week as the
investigation was unfolding.


HAYES: What is your reaction to that?

BORELLI: I -- it seems to be that there`s a notion among certain
people in Congress that having a criminal justice system that is effective
is incompatible with gathering intelligence. We`ve seen so many cases
where they both can work together. For example, the David Headley case,
Bryant Vinas, Faisal Shahzad, Najibullah Zazi -- all of these guys have
been convicted in federal criminal court, and all of these guys have been
intelligence bonanzas to the intelligence community.

I mean, the -- and the list goes on. So, if done smartly, you can
have your cake and eat it too. And this is why I don`t understand
sometimes about -- you know, I think sometimes there is a misconception
it`s either all intelligence or all criminal, and never the two shall meet,
and that`s wrong.

HAYES: The Center for Constitutional rights has been working for
years since 9/11 in the wake of the nether region of law created by
Guantanamo, et cetera, to try to wrench our system back squarely on the
legal footing.

Were you worried last week about what would happen if and when we
caught the suspects? And what was your reaction today to the charges being
filed and to Lindsey Graham`s calls of this nature being largely I think
marginalized and ignored?

really shocked. I don`t know why Lindsey graham hates the Constitution as
much as he does, but he does. But I think getting back to last week, I was
deeply worried. And I think folks on my staff at CCR were deeply worried
this was going to go in a very different way than it ended up going. There
was a lot of discussion around Miranda, a lot of discussion about enemy

And I think that given the heinous crime that happened in Boston, that
folks like Lindsey Graham, and frankly I think the political sideshow that
developed around the calls for this and calls for that really did not do
justice to the people that are suffering in Boston right now. The best
solution is the Constitution. The Constitution is not the enemy. It`s the
people that commit these crimes.

And the last piece is it`s deeply important the trial and the
mechanism we have is full and fair. That`s the only way that we can as
society get out of this.

HAYES: I don`t want to give this more credence than it deserves. But
just one follow-up question. I mean, can you just dub someone an enemy
combatant? Like, I mean, what --

WARREN: George Bush did.

HAYES: Right, exactly. I mean, that`s the question, right? Is that
a legal maneuver that Graham was advocating? What Carney said today at the
back and forth in the presser was it is simply not legal to try an American
civilian for a crime committed on our soil in a military commission.

WARREN: And it`s not for lack of trying with the Bush administration.
But I think that that`s absolutely correct. It is absolutely separate and
apart and not connected to our Constitution that we try people that are
American citizens that have committed crimes in anything other --

HAYES: Accused of committing crimes.

WARREN: Exactly. Accused of committing crimes in anything other than
U.S. courts for that purpose.

HAYES: So you just mentioned Miranda. So the other thing, the big
thing that happened today there are two remarkable events today. There was
the filing of the criminal complaint, which I was waving around, and they
released a suspect of a procedural hearing that happened actually at the
bedside in the hospital with a federal magistrate who was brought in. That
federal magistrate inform Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect, of
his rights to counsel, and there was actually defense counsel present.

My question to you is, he was apprehended Friday night. He has been
in and out of consciousness as far as we can tell. He has a throat wound
it appears. So, he is writing things down.

The administration has made use of a public safety exception in not
reading him his rights. And I want to read from a memo in 2010 that went
out to the FBI from the Justice Department that says there may be
exceptional cases in which although all relevant public safety questions
have been asked, are there other plots, other bombs, et cetera, agents
nonetheless conclude continued, unwarranted investigation is necessary to
collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate
threat, in the government`s interest in obtaining this intelligence
outweighs the disadvantage of proceeding with unwarranted interrogation.

Don, do you think this was an -- a judicious use of this asserted
authority in this case?

BORELLI: I think it is. I think this was appropriate in this case,
because it`s not just what is the immediate threat around Boston. It`s
also the larger threat that this person may have access to that type of
information. Other people involved in the plot overseas, other areas that
could have co-conspirators, other cells, if you will.

So I think, you know, the government was given this tool, the Quarles
exemption which seems to be appropriately named given all the discussion
about this.

So the government should use every tool available in the tool box in
this, as long as it`s used smartly and, you know, with caution.

HAYES: And you think it was in this case?

BORELLI: I think it was in this case.

WARREN: There is a huge danger here. I think, you know, I`ll give
the government all the credit for using federal courts instead of military
courts. But the important piece that we have to remember is that the
Quarles exemption, the Supreme Court case, was about giving law enforcement
some latitude in the immediate area around public safety to ask some

HAYES: Like right now, where is the gun is actually --

WARREN: Exactly. In the Quarles case is a rape case, somebody has a
gun without -- a holster without a gun, where is the gun? That makes a lot
of sense.

But it was not designed to have a full and broad questioning of
everything that ever happened. But the important piece to remember is that
the government can ask a suspect anything that they want. But the Miranda
and the Fifth Amendment limits what is admissible in court.

HAYES: And the admissibility. And so the risk you`re running here,
right, the risk you`re running is a risk of inadmissibility, because this
part of the law, this -- a public safety exception of this magnitude is as
yet untested before the courts.

WARREN: Absolutely.

HAYES: And so, the risk you`re running, you`re taking on some risk
that what he wrote down on a pad as far as reporting is not admissible,
although my sense, Don, the government is fairly confident they can

BORELLI: I would think even if somehow they lost some of his
statement. I mean, there is so much other evidence. And, you know, if you
look back to the Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomb, as I
understand it, the agents went to his bedside. They asked his questions
without Miranda, under the public safety exception, and those would have
been admissible had he not plead guilty.

HAYES: The surprising tweet of the weekend, Glenn Beck tweeted, "I
despise this terrorist and all he has done, but we must not lose who we
are. He is an American. Read him his rights. We are not Russia."

Glenn Beck has a very narrow interpretation of the Quarles exception.

Don Borelli of the Soufan Group and Vince Warren for the Center for
Constitutional Rights, thank you both. It`s great to have you here.

BORELLI: Thank you.

WARREN: Thank you.

HAYES: On September 5th, 2001, September 5th, 2001, President George
Bush stood side by side with Mexican President Vicente Fox and talked about
reform as a goal worthy of our two great nations. A week later,
immigration was a distant memory in the wake of the terror attacks on
American soil.

Now, one week after terrifying mass casualty event, will immigration
reform suffer the same fate once again? That`s coming up.


HAYES: We have a new update we can report on the Boston marathon
bombing case. Several officials familiar with the initial interrogation of
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the hospital, which we were just talking about,
describe him as cooperative.

A senior government official says he has told them by writing answers
or by nodding yes or shaking his head, no to others, that he and his
brothers were not in touch with any overseas terrorists or groups, that
they conceived the bombing attack on their own, motivated, he told them, by
religious fervor. They got their instructions on how to make bombs from
the Internet, he said, according to these officials.

Once again, we just got that reporting in and wanted to update you on

Now, earlier today, this was the scene at the United States Senate.


SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: I say that particularly to those
who are pointing to what happened, the terrible tragedy in Boston as, I
would say, an excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months or

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R). IOWA: I never said that. I never said

SCHUMER: I didn`t say you did. I didn`t say you did, sir.


HAYES: That was today`s hearing on the immigration reform bill on
which some Republican senators did in fact suggest the bill be seen through
the prism of the Boston marathon bombings. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
among them.

Today, Republican congressman and former vice presidential candidate,
Paul Ryan, and Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez campaigned in Chicago
for immigration reform. And Ryan told reporters the Boston marathon
bombings should not slow reform.

I would say for the sake of our national security, "We want to
modernize our immigration laws. We do not know how to even track people
who overstay their visas. If anything I would say this is an argument for
modernizing out immigration laws."

Joining me from Washington, Gaby Pacheco, immigration rights leader
who testified at today`s hearing. And here at the table, Congressman Steve
Cohen, Democrat from Tennessee.

It`s great to have you back here, Congressman.

Gaby, I want to begin with you. You gave very moving testimony today
before the committee. I guess my first question to you is what was the
atmosphere in that room like? What sense did you get of what effect last
week`s events have had on the conversation? And as an activist who has
been working on this before, is there some part you that is dreading that
what you have worked on for may possibly be endangered by what happened
last week?

GABY PACHECO, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS LEADER: Actually, I think a lot of us
were holding our breath and trying to see what was happening. At first we
were praying and making sure that people were OK.

But, secondly, that they didn`t try to correlate this with
immigration. Unfortunately, they have started. But we`re in a different
time. We`re a different world.

And I think that the paradigm has shifted on immigrants and
immigration as a whole in the country. And so, even though there was
intention at the beginning there on the panel, I think that there is a lot
more acceptance, and I think that this bill is moving forward, regardless
of what happened in Boston.

HAYES: Do you really think that? You really think -- I mean, we`ve
been trying to game out in the wake of finding out that people who are
alleged to have done this were born abroad, which obviously I think bears
no logical bearing on how comprehensive immigration reform should go
forward, but might have a kind of political track.

And you really came away from the hearing today reassured that it is
on track?

PACHECO: Well, I think the first thing is that they had another
undocumented person speaking at it. This is the third time they have an
undocumented person testify in front of the Senate. And so, that says a
lot. And I think things are changing.

I think also the narratives of people like Carlos Arredondo, who is
also an immigrant, who, you know, without any regards to his life went in
there and started pinching and grabbing people and taking them out and
throwing fences that were there to save people. And not only that, his son
had also gone to Iraq and died in Iraq fighting for this country.

So, I think that the stories, the pictures that we`re putting the
faces of immigrants that are coming out and saying, we love this country.
We want to serve, have really been able to balance out --

HAYES: That`s fascinating.

PACHECO: -- what we hear with the fear-mongering.

HAYES: Congressman, you understand the politics here. We`re seeing
now there has been a group working on trying to get to a bipartisan place
in the House to match the "gang of eight" on the Senate. We saw Gutierrez
and Paul Ryan today.

What are you hearing from your colleagues about the direction of this?
And what effect, if any do you think last week has?

REP. STEVE COHEN (D), TENNESSEE: I think we have a "gang of eight" in
the House too. And I think they`ve been doing a lot of very intense work.
And I think they`re going to have a bill soon.

The issue is whether Speaker Boehner will take their bill as a whole,
or whether they`ll break it up into parts and let Mike McCaul have part of
it in Homeland Security, and to let Goodlatte have part of it in Judiciary,
in which case it may go and --

HAYES: What would that mean if it was broken up for the bill`s

COHEN: Well, it would mean that probably border security would get
passed, and maybe STEM would get passed, but some other areas would not.
And the DREAM Act would probably be in limbo and probably have a problem.
And that would be unfortunate. Very unfortunate.

HAYES: Well, that would mean it wouldn`t be comprehensive immigration

COHEN: It would be piecemeal. It would be piecemeal.

HAYES: Gaby, what is your response to that? I should note for folks
that you were born in Ecuador. You came here as a child. You are subject
to the deferred action that was announced last year, meaning that you have
a normalized status now, even though you don`t have citizenship.

What is your sense of the state of play of the House? You`ve been an
incredible activist on this issue. And what would it mean if it did get
broken up as the congressman just noted?

PACHECO: Well, I think that that`s something that we`re expecting.
The House is a totally different -- the temperature of it is a little bit
different. But I think that what is going to happen is that it`s going to
allow for different people to vote on different issues and different bills.
And what they mostly feel comfortable with.

I think that with agricultural workers and DREAM Act, it`s two pieces
that we have come along way. For Eric Cantor and other, John Boehner, to
talk in favor of the DREAM Act, I think we`ve seen that we`re going to have
support of it.

So, we`re going to see it in the a piecemeal in the House. I think
we`re going get a lot of legislations out of the House. And once they come
into conference, you know, we`re going to get a bill that will be

HAYES: How much have things changed in terms of the tenor of this,
particularly in House part? The House Republican Caucus is probably the
most conservative legislative caucus we`ve seen in many, many years,
generations, possibly.

Have you -- what is the tenor of the rhetoric amongst your Republican
colleague there? And it is moving in a direction where you can actually
see something getting done?

COHEN: I think we`re going to have something accomplished. And I
think it`s because -- Stephen Colbert said until the scientists can create
a way for a Hispanic woman to give birth to an old white man, the
Republicans for politics are going to have to be for immigration reform.
And they are.

And they realize that they`re going to be dragged into the 21st
century as they have been on other issues. They`re being dragged on health
care. They`re being dragged on minimum wage. They`re being dragged for
the last 20, 30 years they`ve been dragged. And that`s what is happening.

But they know politically they have to pass a bill. DREAM Act
probably got a better chance than path to citizenship if it`s broken up.
But -- and Speaker Boehner is going to try to do it. He is going to ease
along some.

This incident in Boston is not going to help it. It shouldn`t make a
difference. But for people who want to stop it or slow it down, it will be
slowed --


AYES: It`s going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

Gaby, I trust your judgment on this. And I too after watching the
opening fireworks was actually fairly happy with the general tenor of the
debate today.

Gaby Pacheco, director of the Bridge Project, which has been doing the
dragging that Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee was talking about. We
will see you again later in the program.

All right. Up next, the major news story from last week that was
overshadowed by the events in Boston but contains just as many, if not more
troubling unanswered questions. That`s coming up.


HAYES: The city of Boston fell silent today at 2:50 p.m., exactly one
week after the first of two explosions ripped through the Boston marathon,
killing three people and wounding more than 170 near the finish line.


HAYES: And trading stopped on the floor of the New York Stock

Krystle Campbell, one of the people who died in the bombing, had her
funeral today. Campbell, Sean Collier, Martin Richard and Lu Lingzi
tragically lost their lives in the Boston bombings and the aftermath.

Meanwhile, some 1,500 miles away, in West, Texas, residents continue
to grieve for, as of now, the 14 people killed after the West Chemical and
Fertilizer Company plant exploded and destroyed part of the town. The "New
York Times" described a small memorial for the first responders this way:
"they faced each other in two lines in the parking lot of a school, forming
two walls of blue, as the body of a fellow firefighter was escorted between
them in the night. The scale of the disaster could be measured by the
length of the ceremony. The firefighters and responders stood in the cold
for about two hours, forming an honor guard 12 times for 12 bodies."

Among the firefighters who died was 52-year-old Kenny Harris, captain
with Dallas Fire-Rescue, who lived in West and had reportedly been off-duty
when he learned of the fire at the plant. Jerry Chapman, a member of the
Abbott Volunteer Fire Department, and 41-year-old Morris Bridges of the
West Volunteer Fire Department. There may not be a nobler civic
undertaking than being a volunteer firefighter. It is mutual aid at its
most praiseworthy.

There is no individual upside and no pay, and no perks, other than
getting to ride the engine down Main Street on July 4th. All there is, is
risk. In almost any other week, the explosion in West, Texas, would have
been a huge national news story, but it was overshadowed guide the
horrifying and incredibly compelling events coming out of Boston. I think
one of the things that all of us have wrestled with this week, or even in
the last few months in the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, is how do
we collectively respond to tragedy, think about its causes and aftermath,
and formulate policies and motivate politics in response.

The Sandy Hook shooting quickly segued into a policy debate about guns
and gun safety. We`re already seeing it in the aftermath of Boston with
talk about enemy combatants and whether the marathon bombing should delay
immigration reform since both suspects were foreign-born. But West, Texas,
has not yet captured our national political attention the same way. Part
of this has to do with the specific intense focus we give terrorism since

And there is something about accidents that seem more random and
somehow less menacing than the malevolent actions of individuals. But the
way we process as tragedy and its aftermath has huge implications on the
way our society acts. Last week, the night after the fertilizer plant
exploded, we showed you a chart that deserves to be highlighted again.
From 2000 to 2010, 3,033 Americans died from terror attacks. During that
same time, more than 335,000 Americans died at the hands of a gun, while
there were over 60,000 workplace deaths.

Around this time last year in a speech to commemorate workers`
Memorial Day, Former Labor Secretary Whiled Solis said "every day in
America, 12 people go to work and never come home. Every year in America,
nearly four million people suffer a workplace injury from which some may
never recover. These are preventable tragedies that disable our workers,
devastate our families, and damage our economy."

Now it looks increasingly like the fertilizer plant that exploded last
Wednesday may have been a preventable tragedy. According to Reuters, the
plant had been storing more than 1,300 times the amount of ammonium nitrate
fertilizer that would normally alert the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security to a possible safety oversight. That`s 100 times more than the
amount of ammonium nitrate used in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Representative Benny Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and the ranking
member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, released a statement on
Friday calling the plant safety measures into question. He said, quote,
"it seems this manufacturer was willfully off the grid. Yet we understand
the Department of Homeland Security did not even know the plant existed
until it blew up. I strongly believe if the proper safeguards were in
place, the loss of life and destruction could have been far less

While many of the initial mysteries of Boston quickly appeared to come
into focus, in Texas, we`re left mostly with unanswered questions. First
and foremost, what caused the catastrophic explosion at the plant? What
responsibility does Donald Adair, owner of the West Fertilizer Corporation,
have for the death, injuries, and mayhem that ensued? What regulations
were in effect that were not applied? And what regulations do we need in
the future to prevent something like this from happening again?

And which federal agencies are best equipped to inspect and supervise
plants like this. The Department of Homeland Security didn`t know about
West Fertilizer Plant. What other plants does it not know about? All of
these questions demand an answer. And through this week on ALL IN, we`re
going to be tracking those answers down.

We`ll be right back with Click Three.


HAYES: Before there was Boston, there was Major Nidal Malik Hassan,
accused of killing 13 people in a 2009 terror attack at Ft. Hood in Texas.
It`s one link in the chain of events leading to the assassination of a
radical clerk and American citizen named Anwar al Awlaki in a targeted
killing by unmanned U.S. aircraft. War reporter Jeremy Scahill tells us
what it means in the aftermath of Boston. That`s next.

But first, I want to share the three awesomest things on the Internet
today, beginning with a recommendation from our Twitter fan Kathleen Elder,
who points us to Robert Crolwitch`s (ph) NPR science blog. The blog
features the latest video dispatch from Commander Chris Hadfield of the
International Space Station. Hadfield enjoys informing the good people of
Earth with these highly educational, entertaining videos, demonstrating
everything from how to stay fit in space, which is actually quite
difficult, to how to cook spinach in space.

In his latest video submission, Hadfield answers a question from two
high school students: what happens when you dip a wash cloth in water and
then try to wring it out? As you can see, the answer is something truly
bizarre and amazing.


all over my hands. In fact, it rings out of the cloth into my hands. If I
let go of the cloth carefully, the water sort of sticks to my hands.


HAYES: As the blog News Junkie put it, "that was way more fascinating
than it probably should be."

The second awesomest thing on the Internet today is this exquisitely
rendered, captivating, interactive feature from the "New York Times" about
the Boston Marathon bombings. The paper interviewed over a dozen people
who were near the finish line when the first bomb went off. You can click
on a runner or spectator from this image, taken at 2:50 PM, or four hours,
nine minutes and 43 seconds into the race. The Times will then direct you
to a photo of that person. You can read about that person`s background and
listen to them give a firsthand account of where they were when the bomb
went off.

It`s a really graceful oral history of that particular moment in time.
Definitely make some time to click around on it.

And the third awesomest thing on the Internet today, an apparent and
welcome change in policy from the Federal Communications Commission, or at
the very least, a temporary departure. Over the weekend, the Boston Red
Sox held their first home game since the marathon bombings. Fans poured
into Fenway Park to witness a rousing pregame ceremony, which included
words of encouragement from Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz.




ORTIZ: And nobody going to -- stay strong.


HAYES: Oh, Big Papi. Now we bleeped out the expletive there, but it
aired Saturday on live television, just as Big Papi said it live and
unbleeped. But instead of slapping Mr. Ortiz and the network that have
aired his speech with a hefty fine, the FCC has decided to let this one
slide. FCC Chair Julius Genachowski Tweeting this reaction, "David Ortiz
spoke from the heart at today`s Red Sox Game. I stand with Big Papi and
the people of Boston," which I might add is really F-ing great.

You can find all the links for tonight`s Click Three on our website, We`ll be right back.


HAYES: Right now, at this very moment in the aftermath of the Boston
Marathon bombings, the United States finds itself at a critical juncture in
the still unfolding story of how the Obama administration combats threats
to American civilians and wages what it no longer calls the global war on
terror. From the very beginning after September 11th, American policy in
this area has been constructed through a series of often ad hoc decisions
made during the intense moments following acts of violence against the
United States.

Those decisions have then gone on to have tremendous ripple effects
and unintended consequences. Today as we find ourselves in one of those
intense, freighted and momentous post-attack moments, the question of how
the Obama administration reacts is one we should all be paying attention
to. And there is no journalist in America, in the world, who has reported
on what the war on terror actually looks like under the Obama better than
my next guest, Jeremy Scahill.

His amazing, comprehensive chronicle of the Obama war on terror, the
new book "Dirty Wars," publishes tomorrow. A film, which is incredible and
a must see, the same name, will be in theaters in early June. "Dirty Wars"
is probably the most comprehensive account to date of what America`s global
battlefield looks like, a battlefield that was constructed with each new
mission and the deployment of special forces, and each new drone strike and
each new frontier, the product of hundreds of individual decisions made
under duress in reaction to an uncertain world that now add up to a global
battlefield without front lines or clearly marked boundaries.

Jeremy Scahill joins me tonight. He is the national security
correspondent for "the Nation" magazine, author of the book "Dirty Wars."
producer of the movie of the same name. It`s such an amazing thing to have
you here. I just want to say, this book is an unbelievable accomplishment.
The movie is an incredible accomplishment. And anyone watching this,
people that know your work from "The Nation," what I want to emphasize
about this book is that, whatever your politics, you should read this book.
It is just an incredibly carefully report. People who come to this book
expecting a polemic I think will be surprised to find a book that really,
in many ways, lets a lot of the facts speak for themselves. I mean, what
this book does is shows a side of our unending wars that we haven`t seen.

JEREMY SCAHILL, AUTHOR "DIRTY WARS": One of the things that was
really fascinating to me about this process is that I met a lot of guys
from the special ops community and the CIA community because of my work on
Blackwater. And I got numerous calls, emails, met people at events who
would come up to me and say, you know, I don`t particularly like your
politics, but you were right about Blackwater. And there are a lot of guys
in that community didn`t like Blackwater.

So I developed these relationships with a number of sources from that
world. And they changed the way that I viewed my own politics. And I feel
like I came to have a much better understanding of what those guys do on a
daily basis around the world. So part of this book tells the story of JSOC

I don`t mingle with the powerful, Chris. My sources are guys that are
doing the operation, are mid level guys to lower level guys, that are a
part of this apparatus. And I think there are books that are published
that are based on these leaks from the White House. My book tells the
story of the foot soldiers in these wars, and also tells the story of the
civilians who live on the other side of our missiles or the other side of
the night raids.

So I try to tell a story that was multidimensional and had both the
CIA JSOC perspective, as well as the civilians who are caught in this in
Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere.

HAYES: JSOC is the Joint Special Operations Command. It is a huge
conduit for pursuing the policy of the Obama global battlefield. I want to
start in 2009. Because Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tries to blow up a plane.
The attack isn`t successful. He ends up setting himself on fire, being
subdued by passengers. But in a series of interviews with authorities in
early 2010, he details his relationship with the American born Yemeni
cleric Anwar al Awlaki, including a trip to Yemen and supposed plotting.

Awlaki becomes the first American citizen put on the kill list. Tell
us about Anwar Awlaki. He figures large in this book.

SCAHILL: Right. I mean, Anwar Awlaki`s family gave me complete
access to their family archives and their family history and their photos.
And I was allowed to interview multiple members of the Awlaki family, which
no journalist has done before. I talked to Anwar Al-Awlaki`s mother. I
talked to his sister. I talked to all of Anwar al-Awlaki`s siblings. So I
was able to put together a comprehensive history of this family.

And Awlaki, interestingly, was a guy who after 9/11 was an imam at a
big mosque in Virginia, the Dar al Hidra Mosque, and was a go-to imam, and
was profiled by "the Washington Post." Exactly, he would probably have
been on your show if you were on at the time, NPR, PBS, across the board,
and was a guy that really seemed to be struggling with how Muslims should
respond to 9/11, but said the U.S. has a right to hunt down those
responsible for 9/11, condemned the attacks, said that al Qaeda had
perverted Islam.

But you saw a radicalization that happened with Anwar al-Awlaki,
particularly when the Bush administration invaded Iraq and we saw what
happened at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Fast forward, al-Awlaki decides to
sort of hightail it out of the United States. He starts preaching more and
more radically against the U.S. wars and talking about a global war on
Islam. So you saw the rhetoric from Bush people escalating, al-Awlaki`s
radicalization increased.

And al-Awlaki bounces around. He`s in London and eventually goes back
to Yemen where he then is arrested on orders from Washington and put in a
Yemeni prison in the mid-2000s for 18 months, 17 of them in solitary
confinement. I reviewed all of his prison writings. You see a serious
shift in his political outlook.

He comes out of prison and starts a blog. And he is answering
questions on anything from, you know, it is it acceptable for Muslims to
eat cheese that are bought in the supermarkets to questions about is
suicide bombing acceptable under Islam. And he develops this huge
community. When he first started to really hit on the U.S. radar in a
major way was when Nidal Hassan shot up many of his fellow soldiers at Ft.
Hood, Texas, in that horrid massacre. And we learned that al-Awlaki had
been in e-mail contact with Nidal Hassan.

Those e-mails have been declassified and show that Hassan was
basically like a stalker. He was asking al-Awlaki to find him a wife. al-
Awlaki wasn`t responding to him. Nidal Hassan tried to offer him a 5,000
dollar prize and all these things. And al-Awlaki is kind of ignoring him
and saying yeah, brother, if I find you a wife, I`ll let you know.

And then Nidal Hassan commits this heinous crime and kills all of
these soldiers,. And al-Awlaki responds by printing a blog that says Nidal
Hassan is a hero, and essentially calls on other soldiers, if they`re
Muslim, to do the same thing that Nidal Hassan did. And that really I
think was when most Americans heard about Anwar al-Awlaki.

HAYES: So al-Awlaki is added to the list. Not only is he killed in a
drone strike, his son, an American citizen, the 16-year-old Abdulrachman
(ph) al-Awlaki is killed. There had been a lot of debate about what
exactly went down, and was it a mistake and how was it a mistake. You have
some new reporting in the book about the reaction of the president when he
finds out about the death of Abdulrachman al-Awlaki.

SCAHILL: Just to clarify, Abdulrachman al-Awlaki was born in Denver,
Colorado in 1995. He was the eldest son of Anwar al-Awlaki, had not seen
his father for two years. The last time he saw his father was in 2009. He
was living with his grandparents, upstanding citizens in Yemen. He ran
away from home, tried to find his father. His father gets killed.

Two weeks later, Abdulrachman is sitting outside with his teenaged
cousins when a drone enters Yemeni airspace and kills him and his cousins.
There has never been an official accounting of what happened from the Obama
administration, only through leaks. And they say that -- the ultimate
conclusion is that it was an outrageous mistake and they were trying to
kill this terrorist named Ibrahim al Bana (ph). Ibrahim al Bana, to our
knowledge, is still alive. We don`t know who the intended target was.

But what I am reporting for the first time is that a former senior
administration official who worked on the targeted killing program told me
that when President Obama found out that Abdulrachman al-Awlaki had been
killed, that he was incredibly upset about this, and that John Brennon, who
at the time was the senior counter-terrorism adviser, believed that either
JSOC or the CIA may have intentionally killed Abdulrachman a-Awlaki,
perhaps on faulty intelligence that he was 21 years old, or because he was
simply a relative of Anwar al-Awlaki.

So Brennon ordered a review of the strike of Abdulrachman al-Awlaki.
And I asked the senior official -- former senior official what happened to
the review and he said, I don`t know. I asked the national security
council spokesperson and she told me, we won`t talk about it.

HAYES: I want to talk more about this and I want talk about where
counterterrorism goes from here right after we take this break.


HAYES: Let`s bring into this conversation Emma Gilligan, author of
"Terror in Chechnya." Welcome back Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee.
And Jeremy, one of the three lines in this book we were just talking about,
the fact that American citizens have been on this kill list. The kill list
is the kind of central character of the book, this central policy tool of
going out and finding folks that the government has judged a threat, that
in getting members of this kill list, people that are on it, sometimes we
often work with rather unsavory forces.

You have some amazing footage in the movie and amazing reporting in
the book of Somalia, where we are essentially cooperating with warlords
that under any other circumstances it would be hard to imagine we would
count as an ally.

SCAHILL: Right. I mean, we`re essentially outsourcing the kill
program in Somalia to these notorious thugs that were part of the
destruction of Somalia beginning in the early `90s. Some of these people
are lined up by CIA and given 200 dollar monthly cash payments. I
discovered a CIA base at the airport in Mogadishu, Somalia, and that U.S.
interrogators are using an underground prison in Somalia`s national
security service, where they`re interrogating suspected members of al
Shabaab or other so called high value targets.

And under the Obama administration, renditions have continued. And I
tell the story of one man, in particular, who was snatched off the streets
of Nairobi and then sent to this secret prison in the basement of
Mogadishu`s airport. This should be a scandal. Obama said that he ended
these things, and yet he is continuing them but by proxy. There have been
tweaks to the machine. But in general, a lot of the policies that many
liberals were outraged about under Bush have continued under Obama, just
with a kind of rebranding.

HAYES: Let me ask this question of Emma. I want to read you this
statement from the Kremlin about the aftermath of Boston. "The Russian and
U.S. president have agreed by telephone to increase cooperation on
counterterrorism following the Boston Marathon bombings." The Kremlin said
on Saturday "both sides underlined their interest in deepening the close
cooperation of the Russian and U.S. special services in the fight against
international terrorism, but gave no details."

I think one of the reasons I wanted to have you here and Jeremy here
and the congressman is that what we have seen over the last four or five
years is an expansion of the battlefield. And in the wake of the fact that
we are dealing with, it appears, suspects who are ethnically Chechen, who
were in Dagestan -- one of whom was apparently in Dagestan, what would it
look like for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate more closely? And is that a
good or bad idea, Emma?

probably has been happening for quite a while now. And -- but I think
shared intelligence sources is a good idea generally, actually. But, you
know, the degree to which the intelligence services in Russia -- they have
improved certainly over the last five years. And that`s precisely because
they have managed to get more local communicators, local Dagestanis, local
Chechens to actually act on their behalf as intelligence gatherers.

That`s obviously, as we know, also problematic because it creates
divisions within that particular society. But it has to be said that
Russian intelligence has improved over the last five years in both regions.
And if the Russian government is prepared to continue sharing information,
as it openly said that it would also do after September 11th, 2001, then
hopefully that kind of cooperation can help them get to the core of the

I think one of the core problems, though, as we all know is a
socioeconomic one, that essentially in these regions they are highly --
they are very poor.

HAYES: It also seems like the situation in Chechnya particularly
highlights some of the downside of force as a method of counterterrorism,
in so far as we have seen that area of the world become more and more
violent the more force that has been applied to it.

GILLIGAN: Yeah. I mean, what we`re seeing is actually the results of
two Chechen wars in the 1990s, enormous disproportionate force used again
the Chechen population, and the Islamization of the region.

HAYES: Congressman, what oversight do you want to see applied to the
kinds of things that Jeremy is talking about?

COHEN: I think there needs to be some to guarantee our Constitution
is still what we live by. At the same time, the world is shrinking, and we
have to be aware of the problems that are out there. There are Dr. No`s in
the world. They used to just be on the movie screen. Now they`re in real
life, and you got to be concerned about that. I think getting together
with Russia is good, although the Bowling Green Steve Cohen who should talk
about that.

HAYES: I think every member of Congress should read this book.
Jeremy Scahill, author of "Dirty Wars," which is out tomorrow, Congressman
Steve Cohen, Emma Gilligan of the University of Connecticut, thank you.

That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now.
Good evening, Rachel.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

Sponsored links

Resource guide