CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
5G Millimeter Wave Exposure And Human Health
Most listeners, if they’re like Americans in general, are tethered to their cell phones and other devices with built-in antennas that communicate with cell towers. And most don’t give a second thought to whether these omnipresent devices are safe for humans. The telecom wireless industry tout cellphones as the greatest modern achievement, and uniformly pledges that the radiation they expose us to is safe.
Scientists, on the other hand, caution that cell phones AND the antennas that power them, expose humans and wildlife to a level of radiation that can result in brain and thyroid cancers along with a host of other diseases. The advent of 5G, the 5th generation of mobile networks, will require more cell towers within smaller distances. Researchers and health experts are worried that the public will have even greater exposure to dangerous radiation.
Powerful forces in the industry and government, however, have a stranglehold on how safety information is disseminated to the public. As sales soared worldwide–in 2019, around 1.52 billion smartphones were sold-the industry has even more incentive to ensure that scientific research is withheld from consumers. And last week AT&T and Verizon finally agreed to delay expansion of 5G service near some airports out of potentially catastrophic safety concerns repeatedly voiced by airlines and aviation regulators.
Microwave News
Guest – Barbara Koeppel is a Washington D.C.-based investigative reporter who writes for The Nation, Washington Spectator, and other outlets about social, economic, political, and foreign policy issues.
—-
Lawyers Beyond Borders: Maria Armoudian
Over the years Law & Disorder has interviewed dozens of “people’s lawyers” about the seemingly intractable social justice cases they bring to the courtrooms, nationally and abroad. These intrepid mavericks toil far from the limelight, often for little remuneration. Despite international conventions and human rights declarations designed to protect world citizens from illegal and degrading treatment, millions of people and communities suffer at the hands of ruthless government and corporate actors. Most have no remedy or recourse as they endure extreme and ongoing violence including torture, slavery, or violent deaths. They exist outside of the laws’ protections, or as scholar Maria Armoudian puts it, “below the law.”
How can these victims seek justice? Armoudian has some answers to that question. In her new book Lawyers Beyond Borders: Advancing International Human Rights Through Local Laws and Courts, she presents a 40-year examination of the movement, the cases, and their backstories. Her book reveals the struggles, impediments to justice, and the process of solving those problems. It chronicles little covered accounts about the politics of “people’s lawyering” while shares intimate accounts of how cause-related advocates craft creative strategies to propel injustices into the public arena. Lawyers Beyond Borders reveals how the process of litigation has value for many in restoring a sense of agency to survivors of psychological trauma.
Guest – Maria Armoudian has written two other books, Reporting from the Danger Zone: Frontline Journalists, Their Jobs and an Increasingly Perilous Future and Kill the Messenger: The Media’s Role in the Fate of the World. She is a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and produces and hosts the syndicated radio program, The Scholars’ Circle. Maria served as an environmental commissioner for the City of Los Angeles for five years, and on the Board of Taxi Cab Commissioners for two. She also worked for eight years on environmental protection, government oversight, poverty reduction, civil rights, and corporate reform legislation for the California State Legislature.
————————–
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America
Americans have very little understanding of their own history and the Right wants to make sure they never will. Laws are now being passed in a number of states forbidding educators from presenting an accurate portrayal of the racist past of the United States. Critical Race Theory, which is nothing more than a truthful accounting of U.S. history, is under attack.
The documentary, “Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America,” has just been released in New York City and Los Angeles and will soon be available at theaters around the country. It has been featured at several film festivals and won many awards.
This film is an important contribution to U.S. history. People will be enlightened about their roots. They will gain a deeper understanding of what was done to them and how they survived. “Who We Are” arms us with knowledge which is crucial for human progress because it informs and encourages struggle.
When people understand their own history, they are empowered. That is what accounts for the tremendous popularity of Howard Zinn‘s book, “A People’s History of United States.“ “Who We Are” interweaves lectures, personal anecdotes, interviews, and shocking revelations. Like the Zinn book, it is also empowering.
Guest – Attorney Jeffery Robinson, is the central figure, writer, and narrator of Who We Are. Jeffery Robinson was a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle for decades before becoming a Deputy Legal Director at the ACLU National Office in New York. In 2021, he left the ACLU, completed the documentary, and launched “The Who We Are Project” to widely disseminate the true history of African-Americans and anti-Black racism in the United States.
As Jeffery Robinson observes, his documentary was made with the goal which was underscored by George Orwell, that “Those who control the present control the past, those who control the past control the future.” We talk with Jeffery about the movie and his collaboration with directors Sarah Kunstler and Emily Kunstler. They previously made the widely-acclaimed documentary about their father, the great civil rights attorney William Kunstler. That film is called “William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe.”
—-
The Escalating Crisis in Ukraine Poses an Imminent Threat to World Peace
By way of introducing our discussion on the escalating crisis in Ukraine, and the imminent threat to world peace that it poses, I can think of no better way to do so than to read the short, opening two paragraphs of the January 2nd statement on the crisis issued by
The U.S. Peace Council. It reads, in part, as follows: “ For weeks, the US corporate media have been shrill in declaring that Russia, having positioned tens of thousands of Russian troops on the border, may be about to invade Ukraine. US State Department spokesmen have been threatening Russia with punishing economic sanctions if there is an invasion.” And a bit later it goes on to say: “The cold war with Russia, festering since 2014 and the US backed coup in Ukraine, may be potentially even more menacing than the new cold war with China. If the armed standoff between the Ukrainian military and the Russian supported separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, becomes—by miscalculation or design—a conventional war between Russia and NATO, it could escalate into nuclear war.”
This week the two sides have been meeting to see if a peaceful resolution can be found. But this Thursday morning, as our show is being recorded, both Russia and the US announced the talks were at an impasse. What is causing this impasse? What are Russia’s key demands and what are those of the United States. And what is the likelihood of war breaking out?
Well, I can think of no one any better to discuss this topic with than our guest today, who is one of the authors of the US Peace Council’s statement.
Guest – Joseph Jamison is a long-time peace activist and a member of the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council. He is also the Coordinator of the Peace Council’s Move the Money to Human Needs Campaign, and very active in his local Move the Money Campaign in New York City.
———————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Crony Capitalism, Human Rights, Supreme Court, Truth to Power, Violations of U.S. and International Law
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Dark Money, Corporate Corruption And Right Wing Networks
We are at a pivotal moment in this country and the coming year may will decide whether we can right the course of history. Nancy MacLean’s important book Democracy in Chains revealed the Rights‘ decades long stealth campaign to reverse engineer America back to the days when the robber barons reigned supreme and rigged the legal and constitutional rules to work in their favor.
Professor MacLean wrote that “Trump and the forces of the right are actively trying to rig the conducting and counting of elections, state by state, as they create a frightening autocratic, post truth society few would have ever thought possible in America.”
The January 6th insurrection was a dress rehearsal for a Trump coup attempt in 2024. If he loses the election Trump and his far right supporters are laying the groundwork in state legislatures to take control of the electoral process to reverse the loss and claim a victory.
The alliances between the corporate state, Trump, and white nationalists have seen a flood of dark money to subvert free and fair elections, block climate and economic justice legislation, push for a constitutional convention to permanently guarantee the rule of the rich, and the crippling of the federal government’s ability to protect working families, the environment, and promote equity for all.
The investigative journalism published by the Center for Media and Democracy has exposed groups on the far right like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Heritage Action, and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) which are working hard to suppress the vote, tear down the firewall to protected our democracy in 2020 and put Trump acolytes in positions of power where they can subvert future elections.
ALECExposed.org
Guest – David Armiak who is Research Director with the Center for Media and Democracy. He has conducted extensive investigations on dark money, corporate corruption, and right wing networks, and is responsible for filing and analyzing hundreds of public records request every year.
—-
The US Supreme Court And US Democracy Going Forward
The Supreme Court as presently constituted has six reactionary judges and three liberal minded ones. Progressive people are alarmed by its recent decisions and fearful of what it will do in the future.
One of the liberals on the court is Steven Breyer. He’s 83 years old. Should he retire, it would give the Democrats the opportunity to try to appoint a replacement who is not a reactionary. This will be an uphill battle, but it is a fight well worth it.
A right-winger will certainly get the job if a Republican president and a Republican controlled Senate in the year 2024 choose a successor to Breyer if he dies or retires
When Barack Obama was president, he hinted to the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was 80 years old and a two-time cancer patient, to step down but she declined. Ginsburg died while still serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Republicans in the Senate would not allow a vote for Judge Merrick Garland, whom Obama had nominated for the Supreme Court seat. Ginsburg was then replaced by the young right-winger Brett Kavanaugh who joined two other young right-wing Trump judges.
The Trump-dominated Republican party is well aware that to topple democracy they must take over the courts. The current Roberts Court has for more than a decade consistently leveled this attack on democracy by eviscerating the Voting Right Act, unleashing unlimited corporate monies into elections, allowed clearly partisan gerrymandering of elections, and is now training its sights against reproductive choice by severely restricting abortion rights.
Yale historian Jason Stanley has recently written, “There is every reason to believe that the court will allow even the simplest of democracy to crumble as long as laws are passed by gerrymandered republican state houses that make anti-democratic practices, including stealing elections, legal.”
Guest – attorney Martin Garbus, a constitutional litigator who has represented Steven Donziger, Nelson Mandela, Daniel Ellsberg, and Lenny Bruce.
———————————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Code Pink: U.S. Military’s Unwarranted Influence
In 1961, President Eisenhower warned America of the “unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. Later in the ‘60’s Senator J. William Fulbright spoke of what he named the “military-industrial-academic complex.” And he was both prescient and wise to do so, for today colleges and universities in America receive nearly 200 Billion dollars annually from the Department of Defense to do research and development for the military. And this money plays an oversized role in how our colleges and universities are funded today.
Indeed, as you will hear in a few moments from today’s guest on this topic, the influence of this DoD money on what is researched and taught at America’s colleges and university is profound. And it contributes greatly to our pro-war politics while denying money and research for addressing problems like climate change, and curing new diseases, or finding new ways to fight poverty, or better educate our children. And with this year’s Pentagon budget topping $768 billion, this should concern all who seek a more peaceful world and a world where economic and social justice prevail.
Currently, 2,500 of the main institutions of higher learning in America receive this DoD’s blood money for military related research. And often little is known by way of just what is being researched and developed for the military on our campuses; of knowing what new ways to kill people are on the drawing board. For example, I must confess that in preparing for today’s show I learned, to my utter disgust, that the University of Michigan, my undergraduate alma matter, ranks 2 or 3 among the American universities receiving money from the Department of Defense.
Guest – Marcy Winograd is the Coordinator of CODE PINK CONGRESS, Co-Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America’s End Wars and Occupations Team, and herself a former candidate for Congress. She is an expert on the military-industrial-academic complex, as well as a long-time activist for peace and social justice.
—-
The U.S. Military And Climate Change
Although the U.S. military has called climate change an “existential” threat to national security, its actions belie its words. The U.S. military is the largest institutional source of greenhouse gases in the world. But due to a loophole in the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the Kyoto Protocol, it is not required to disclose the extent of its pollution. Moreover, the 2021 budget calls for the Pentagon to report on the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for the past 10 years. But the Pentagon missed its July deadline.
In 2020, the U.S. military emitted 51 million tons of carbon dioxide, primarily from fuel and the maintenance of over a half million buildings, according to the Cost of War Project at Brown University. Significantly, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan emitted 1.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases between 2001 and 2017. Those wars cost U.S. taxpayers $8 trillion and killed 900,000 people.
But the U.S. government’s commitment to reduce emissions falls short of the goals of the Paris agreement. The U.S. efforts were rated “insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker. If other countries follow suit, the temperature would rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, which would prove disastrous.
In November, more than 100,000 people participated in demonstrations at the United Nations Climate Change Convention (COP 26) in Glasgow, Scotland. Upwards of 500 delegates to the convention had ties to the fossil fuel industry. The watered-down statement that came out of COP 26 called for a “phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” rather than the “phase-out of fossil fuels.”
En-ROADS
Dr. Jim Rine is an adjunct professor of geology at Wayne State University, who for decades has published his research on marine geology, environmental geology, and the potential interactions of the U.S. petroleum industry to climate change. In 2019, he helped form the Veterans for Peace Climate Crisis and Militarism National Project. The project helped draft H. Res. 767, which Rep. Barbara Lee (California) introduced in the House of Representatives in November.
Veterans For Peace Climate Crisis Take Action
H. Res. 767, which has 31 co-sponsors, calls on the Defense Department to report on its emissions, to set “clear” annual emissions reductions targets, and to pledge to conduct “strict, transparent, and independently verified reporting” on emissions. The resolution also incorporates the House version of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act that says, “DoD should lower its emissions to prevent exceeding an increase in global temperature by 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
—————————-
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Truth to Power, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, 58 years ago. Assassination is a political murder. His murder was a turning point in American history. The first question needed to be ask in a murder case is why. The second question is who.
Today we discuss this catastrophic turn in American history with filmmaker Oliver Stone who directed his just released new documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Stone uses evidence from the “Assassination Record Review Board“ to bolster our understanding that the assassination was not accomplished by a lone individual, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Kennedy was killed because he was pushing for the detente. He wanted to end the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. He wanted to get American troops out of Vietnam and end its counterrevolutionary involvement.
President Kennedy wanted to re-establish relations with Castro and revolutionary Cuba. He wanted to support the independent former colonial countries like the Congo. It was for this that he was murdered and the course of American history was changed.
One of the first things the new president Lyndon Johnson did – he had been Kennedy‘s Vice President – after he was installed, was to reverse Kennedy‘s order initiating the withdrawal of American troops in Vietnam. Instead Johnson escalated the war, eventually putting a half million American soldiers on the ground in that tragically ravished country, killing some 3 million Vietnamese people, including 53,000 American soldiers.
Guest – Oliver Stone, filmmaker, author, his 1991 movie “JFK“ was nominated for four Oscars, winning two of them. His new documentary JFK Revisited : Through the Looking Glass has been pretty much ignored by the mainstream American media.
—-
The Trend Toward Water And Waste Privatization
By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will be out of fresh drinking water, according to the World Bank. Fortune magazine recently called water “the oil of the 21st century.”
This situation has private companies flocking to privatize water delivery in areas parched for water. Rather than helping to protect existing water supplies, increase conservation measures, stem pollution, and assist needy populations, pressure mounts to commodify and profit from this natural resource and most fundamental human need.
Similarly, the National Waste and Recycling Association supports privatizing waste and recycling collection services at all levels of government. And Americans produce a lot of waste: on average at least 4.4 pounds each a day, or at least 728,000 tons total per day.
Private water companies have existed in the US for more than 200 years; today there are thousands serving more than 73 million Americans. And as of 1995, half of the nation used private waste management companies. But that’s one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation, with often lax job safety: in NYC private sanitation trucks killed 7 people in 2017; city municipal sanitation trucks haven’t killed anyone since 2014.
Privatization often brings rate hikes, decreased water quality, less reliability, and poor customer service. The average US community with privatized water paid 59 percent more than those with government supplied water. New Jersey has more private water systems than most states, and they charged 79% more. In Illinois, they charged 95% more.
Private water corporations have also been implicated in environmental disasters. The French multinational, Veolia, issued a report in 2015 certifying that Flint, Michigan’s water system met EPA standards, but neglected to mention high lead concentrations.
Guest – Attorney Terry Lodge is from Toledo where he specializes in environmental and energy issues. He is associated with the nonprofit Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which offers free and affordable legal services.
Guest – Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin an attorney at Shearwater Law PLLC also affiliated with Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund since 2013, He serves as a city councilor in Port Angeles, Washington, and is a member of the International Parliamentary Alliance for the Recognition of Ecocide.
——————————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Iraq War, Truth to Power, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Recalling San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin
Chesa Boudin has been serving San Franciscans as their district attorney for nearly 2 years. He is a leading progressive in what has been called the progressive prosecutors’ movement. Other progressive district attorneys in that small cohort are George Gascon in Los Angeles and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia.
In Berger v. United States, the Supreme Court said that the duty of a prosecutor “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Yet all too many prosecutors are more concerned with winning cases than doing justice, which includes the protection of constitutional rights.
Chesa campaigned by proposing solutions to the disaster of mass incarceration, the civil rights issue of our time. He introduced policies of diversion and no cash bail. He put fewer juveniles behind bars. He opposed the death penalty and focused his efforts on helping victims of crimes. Chesa Boudin said that the recall effort is about criminal justice reform, that it is “a question of whether we are going to go forward and continue to implement data driven policies that center on crime victims, that invest in communities impacted by crime, and that use empirical evidence to address root causes of crime in our communities or if we are going to go back to the failed policies of Reagan and Trump.”
Chesa’s efforts are now being challenged. A claimed 83,000 signatures were gathered in San Francisco by paid workers to put a recall Boudin question on the San Francisco county ballot in June. Even Donald Trump has injected himself into the campaign in what has become a national well-funded Republican putsch.
ChesaBoudin.org
Fear mongering is employed to create a false conception that crime in San Francisco is rising. Today, my co-host Marjorie Cohn, a former criminal defense attorney and law professor, and I talk with Chesa Boudin about his philosophy and successful efforts as a progressive prosecutor.
—-
Decision To Not Extradite Julian Assange To U.S. Reversed
A devastating decision, the worst decision against free journalism in modern U.S. history came down on December 10th from a British appellate court against Julian Assange. It will abolish “National security“ journalism everywhere giving United States the power to reach across oceans and indict journalists and publishers who publish stories exposing and embarrassing the U.S. government. This is what Julian did.
The horrible but not unexpected decision reversed the decision of Vanessa Baraitser, the lower court judge who had refused a U.S. Government request to extradite Julian and send him to the Eastern District of Virginia where he will be put on trial for 17 counts under the 1917 Espionage Act. The charges stem from WikiLeaks’ 2010 revelations of U.S. war crimes. It is unlikely he could receive a fair trial in that most conservative district where most of the so-called War on Terror cases have been tried.
The lower court judge had ruled that the conditions of imprisonment in a U.S. prison are so egregious that Assange, who is in very frail mental health, would likely take his own life. He had already tried to do so in the wretched London Belmarsh prison where he is now being held in torturous solitary confinement.
When Baraitser’s decision came down, the United States was quick to offer so-called “assurances“ to the appellate court that Assange would not be sent to the maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado and would not be subjected to special administrative measures which would cut him off from human contact. It was these assurances on which the appellate court relied in overturning the lower court’s decision.
Julian Assange was a young computer genius, an Australian citizen, who figured out a way to receive information from whistle blowers and publish that truth telling material anonymously in order to protect them.
When he began publishing WikiLeaks, Assange won awards for his journalism. He exposed U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo. He embarrassed the Democratic Party by showing how Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
When Mike Pompeo was Trump’s CIA director, he called WikiLeaks “a hostile non-state intelligence agency” and CIA officials suggested that Assange be kidnapped from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had received political asylum, and assassinated.
It was to the United States that the British High Court had no hesitation in sending Julian. So can the U.S. government’s assurances be trusted? Probably not, as they have reneged on nearly identical assurances in the past.
Meanwhile Julian Assange sits in isolation in Belmarsh prison in failing physical and mental health. His lawyers will appeal the decision to the British Supreme Court. But in the meantime, the United States has Julian exactly where they want him in the upcoming months or years that an appeal would take.
U.S. smearing, persecution, and isolation of Julian Assange has been going on now for 10 years. The sordid story began a decade ago when the US Department of Defense took the position that Julian should be discredited and slandered. He was falsely blamed for sexual misconduct in Sweden involving two women who never wanted Julian targeted. But the United States was able to get a prosecutor who did. A warrant was sent from Sweden to England requesting that Julian be sent to Sweden for questioning.
Our own Michael Ratner was representing Julian at the time. In an attempt to avoid being sent to Sweden, which would have extradited Julian to the United States for trial under the Espionage Act, Julian was granted political asylum in the tiny apartment that serves as the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He remained there for seven years under the direct video surveillance 24 hours a day by the CIA
Then the U.S. bribed and bullied its way to reverse the grant of asylum after a U.S.-friendly president assumed the helm of the Ecuadorian government. The British police brutally extracted him from the embassy and put him in solitary confinement in the notorious London Belmarsh prison, where he has remained for nearly 3 years.
Then the Trump administration brought the Espionage Act charges against him. Biden had referred to Julian as “a high-tech terrorist,” and his administration continued Trump’s historically unprecedented pursuit of Assange.
AssangeDefense.org
Guest – Chris Hedges whose many books and brilliant journalism have caused him to be respected as a moral philosopher. He is a regular columnist for Scheerpost” and is host of the show On Contact. Chris’ most recent article on the decision to extradite Julian Assange.
——————————————-
