Glenn Greenwald's second reader Q&A: the highlights

On Friday afternoon, Glenn Greenwald took questions from his readers in a live Q&A. Here are some of the highlights

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

On Iraq

There is a lot of discussion in alternative news media regarding holding those in power accountable for everything from the Iraq War to extrajudicial detentions and assassinations. Are there any legal grounds that could be used to hold mainstream talking heads, or the outlets they work for, accountable for duping the American public? justinpw

Depending on what you mean, it's likely that whatever they do to serve political power and the lies they tels would be protected by free speech and free press guarantees, so I'd have to say no. Holding accountable the people who actually perpetrate the crimes would be a good start. Those who support and advocate for them them should probably face shame, disgrace, and a loss of credibility and standing.

I'm surprised to have seen you run the simplistic Iraq oil narrative when a much deeper reading of the conflict which clearly had a multi faceted approach within American politics is clearly warranted. cbarr

I expressly said on several occasions that I do not believe oil was the only factor driving the war. Indeed, I dismissed such a claim as overly-simplistic.

Oil is always one major factor of several when the west engages in military action in oil-rich countries, and that was certainly true of Iraq. But it was far from the only significant factor.

On drones and US foreign policy

The Obama administration (CIA, DOD, etc) is perfectly aware that drone strikes (a) kill many civilians, (b) incite extraordinary hatred towards the U.S., yet they continue and in fact are expanding usage. Why do you think they continue knowing full well drones are doing anything but keeping-us-safe? ChicagoDaveM

Four main reasons:

(1) It's by far the politically safer course. Launching drone strikes carries almost no political cost: Americans don't care how many people the US Government kills as long as they're Others and it's mostly kept hidden. But if there were a new Terrorist attack, or even if there isn't, Obama's failure to use drones would be perceived as a political liability.

(2) Cowardly presidents don't stand up to the National Security State and the intelligence community. Many of them insists drones are necessary, so it's easy to capitulate.

(3) At this point, I think there are many perceived benefits for power factions from the ongoing War on Terror - I wrote about them here - and I think that the way drones extend that war by ensuring more and more people hate the US is, at this point, a feature for many, not a bug.

(4) On some level, I assume that Obama believes that killing people with drones is justifiable and wise.

Also, Netanyahu allegedly apologized to Erdogan over the IDF attacking and raiding the Mari-Marvara. But, Obama didn't seek an apology for the deaths of US citizens Furkan Doğan who was also killed in that raid or the brutal death of US citizen Rachel Corrie. What do you think Israel would have to do to get the US to cut it loose? ASNYC621

That was a very revealing incident for me. The fact that the Israelis killed Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara was a major source of acrimony and tension with Turkey, as it would be with most countries: normal, healthy governments object when a foreign army kills their citizens.

But the US never uttered a peep of objection over the fact that Israelis killed Americans. In fact, Hillary Clinton