Civil Liberties, Death Penalty, Human Rights, Political Prisoner, Supreme Court, Truth to Power, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
White Lives Matter Most And Other “Little” White Lies
In a society in which entrenched racism persists, is it possible for white activists to meaningfully engage in anti-racist movements such as the movement for black lives?
Longtime peace activist, educator and author Matt Meyer examines that question in his new book White Lives Matter Most And Other “Little” White Lies. As we honor the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. we talk with Matt Meyer of whom Cornell West says “this legendary freedom fighter brings together the best of the peace movement and the best of the anti-racism movement. “
Guest – Matt Meyer is the International Peace Research Association representative at the United Nations, the national co-chair of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the War Resisters’ International Africa Support Network Coordinator. A noted educator, author, and organizer, Meyer focuses on an extensive range of human rights issues including support for political prisoners; solidarity with Puerto Rico, the Black Liberation movement and all decolonization movements; and bringing an end to patriarchy, militarism, and imperialism.
—-
Attorney Angela Davis: Arbitrary Justice
“In the halls of justice”, it has been quipped, “the only justice you find is in the halls.” H. Rap Brown, a leader of SNCC, the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, said that justice in America means “just us”. There are 2.3 million people in American prisons today. A great proportion of them are African-Americans. If you assume Europe has the same social situation that we do in America, it is a telling fact that we have seven times as many prisoners. Part of the explanation for this phenomenon, In addition to the racist nature of the United States of America, is the power that the American prosecutor has. It is the power to choose whom to prosecute and for what crime. It is the power to obtain convictions, not to seek justice. It is a power that is discretionary and open to abuse. This abuse is rarely reviewable or punished.
Guest – Attorney and Professor Angela J. Davis author of Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. Her most recent book “Policing the Black Man” covers the key issues of the Black Lives Matter movement. Angela J. Davis, professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, is an expert in criminal law and procedure with a specific focus on prosecutorial power and racism in the criminal justice system. Davis previously served as director of the D.C. Public Defender Service, where she began as a staff attorney representing indigent juveniles and adults. She also served as executive director of the National Rainbow Coalition and is a former law clerk of the Honorable Theodore R. Newman, the former Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. Davis is the author of Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor
———
———
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, FBI Intrusion, Gaza, Human Rights, NSA Spying, Political Prisoner, Surveillance, Targeting Muslims, Torture, Truth to Power, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Ray McGovern: Clinton Email Wikileaks Valid
The prevailing Russia-gate narrative is that Russia colluded with Donald Trump to swing the 2016 election his way.
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller has led a nearly 2 year investigation in search of proving this. Under American law when a crime is committed prosecutors search for the culprit . In this case, critics say, the search is for the crime.
The investigation seems to be winding down with the expectation that he will soon issue his report. The major news media, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the intelligence community have conducted a drum beat with a nearly fact free assertion that the Russians helped steal the 2016 election.
Is this story true? Is there more to it? Donald Trump after all ran his campaign on a position of easing tensions with Russia.
Is it really in our interest to perpetuate a cold war with a nuclear armed power?
Did Russia use Wikileaks and it’s editor Julian Assange to reveal secrets about the Democratic party? What were the secrets? What danger to free journalism and to truth tellers and whistle blowers does the acceptance of the allegation of Russian interference in the US elections are we facing?
Guest – Ray McGovern former CIA intelligence analyst, Ray briefed President George H. W. Bush every morning on intelligence matters, particularly with respect to Russia. He is a founder of VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and a contributor to the blog Common Dreams.
—-
Defund Islamophobia Campaign
Fear and hatred of Arabs and Muslims existed in the United States especially after the first Gulf war, started by President George H. W. Bush a decade before the attacks on September 11, 2001.
This fear and hatred increased tremendously in the aftermath of those terrorist attacks. How could it be otherwise? It was used to stir up the American public in the ensuing devastating war against Iraq whose government was falsely linked to the attacks but wars were also fought simultaneously in six other predominately Muslim countries.
Anti-Muslim fear and hatred has been promoted in the United States by several groups and people including Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, and David Horowitz.
It turned out that these people and the groups through which they operate were massively funded to the tune of millions of dollars by the United Jewish Appeal in New York City and other Jewish charities in Chicago and San Francisco.
Guest – Donna Nevel is a community psychologist, educator, and co-director of PARCO. She is a long time organizer for justice and is a founding member of Jews Against Anti-Muslim Racism, Jews Say No!, and the Nakba Project.
Guest – Asaf Calderon is an Israel-American organizer and member of Jewish Voice for peace – New York City. He was born in Tel Aviv in 1991 and moved to New York in 2016. Asaf has a degree in history of the Middle East and Africa from the University of Tel Aviv, and he currently studies for his Masters of Social Work at Hunter College.
Islamophobia Report
BDSmovement.net / Endtheoccupation.org / JewishVoiceForPeace.org
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Human Rights, Iraq War, Military Tribunal, Political Prisoner, Prison Industry, Prosecution of the Bush Administration, Supreme Court, Targeting Muslims, Torture, Truth to Power, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Guantanamo Diary: Mohamedou Ould Slahi
The American offshore prison camp in Guantánamo, Cuba is still operating. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, it was set up as a place where neither American or international law would apply and where prisoners could be brought, tortured, detained forever, and never charged with a crime. Ten years ago, former President Obama promised to close the offshore prison when he ran for office. It remains up and running to this day. Mohamedou Ould Slahi spent 18 years of his life there. He was an electrical engineer from Mauritania in Africa and educated in Germany. He was 32 years old when he was apprehended in his home, taken to Jordan where he was tortured, then to Afghanistan, then to Guantanamo and 16 years later at age 48, he was released. He walked out of Guantanamo Bay Prison in October 2016 without being charged with a crime and returned to his native Mauritania.
While in prison in 2005 he wrote a memoir, in English, one of his four languages. His attorney Nancy Hollander had asked him to do it and she finally got it declassified in 2012 but with heavy redactions. It was made into a book, titled Guantánamo Diary, and published in 2015 and became an international bestseller.
In it, he describes how he was tortured in ways personally approved by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Torture is a criminal act under both US and international law. As many know, Rumsfeld has yet to be prosecuted.
Guest – Mohamedou Ould Slahi joins hosts from his native country of Mauritania where he is a writer. He is the author of Guantanamo Diary.
Guest – Attorney Nancy Hollander has been a member of the firm Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan, P.A. since 1980 and a partner since 1983. Her practice is largely devoted to criminal cases, including those involving national security issues. She has also been counsel in numerous civil cases, forfeitures and administrative hearings, and has argued and won a case involving religious freedom in the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Hollander also served as a consultant to the defense in a high profile terrorism case in Ireland, has assisted counsel in other international cases and represents two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Nancy is co-author of WestGroup’s Everytrial Criminal Defense Resource Book, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 15th Edition, and Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, 14th Edition. She has appeared on national television programs as PBS Now, Burden of Proof, the Today Show, Oprah Winfrey, CourtTV, and the MacNeill/Lehrer News Hour.
—-
Manhattan Neighborhood Network Supreme Court Case
Is a public-access TV channel run by private nonprofit corporation subject to the First Amendment? The Supreme Court will consider that question in a case involving the Manhattan Neighborhood Network or MNN. In 1991 MNN was designated to operate as a public-access channel in New York City. The Manhattan Borough President has no control over MNN but does pick two of its thirteen board members.
In 2012 Jesus Melendez, an occasional contributor to MNN, was suspended for trying to attend a board meeting. His associate Deedee Halleck then videoed him outside talking about the situation. MNN banned the video from airing. Melendez and Deedee brought a First Amendment claim against MNN asking if the network is a state actor for purposes of their First Amendment rights. The district court said no, noting that, while it was a close call, other circuits had concluded that privately run public-access networks were not state actors.
The Supreme Court hasn’t directly weighed in on this question although Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 1996 concurrence in a case dealing with laws regulating content on public-access channels, wrote they should be considered state actors who run public fora and thus be subject to the First Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed in his concurrence, writing that “franchising authorities require cable operators to create public access channels, but nothing in the record suggests that local franchising authorities take any formal easement or other property interest in those channels that would permit the government to designate that property as a public forum.”
Defenders of MNN claim, that while it’s possible that some public-access channels could be rightly called state actors, the Court should take the case to clarify the state-actor test and to review the Second Circuit’s unnecessarily broad opinion.
Guest – Deedee Halleck one of the plaintiffs in this case and among the top media activists. She’s co-founder of Paper Tiger Television and also the Deep Dish Satellite Network, the first grass roots community television network. She is Professor Emerita in the Department of Communication at the University of California at San Diego.
Guest – Attorney Paul W. Hughes, a partner in the law firm Mayer Brown’s appellate and Supreme Court practice. Paul has handled more than 200 appellate matters, more than 125 of which were in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2017The American Lawyer named Hughes “Litigator of the Week” in connection with his immigration work.
Civil Liberties, Criminalizing Dissent, Human Rights, Political Prisoner, Prison Industry, Truth to Power
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Impeaching the President: Past, Present and Future
Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1998. Richard Nixon would have been impeached but he resigned in 1974. Rumblings of impeaching the winner of the 2016 president elections even took place before the votes were in. Opponents of Hillary Clinton cited her use of a private e-mail server as Secretary of State as reason. Opponents of Donald Trump cited his business interests disqualified him. Possible criminal activities involving the Trump campaign added fuel to those calls.
Restraints on executive power exist because he greatest risk of tyranny comes from the executive branch. That’s partly because the president is a single person. In contrast, Congress and the Supreme Court must persuade a majority of their colleagues in order to act. As well, presidential authority as commander in chief includes the power to deploy weaponry as the head of the military and law enforcement.
The nation’s founding fathers value checks on tyranny. in part because of oppression by the British monarchy. At the Constitutional Convention some delegates opposed making one person responsible for executing the nation”s laws. While it decided in favor of a one-person executive, it adopted provisions aimed at preventing the president from becoming king-like.
Limits including four-year terms and voter approval to stay in office. The founders knew that even in four years the president could do much damage. So they created a mechanism for quicker replacement of the President if needed. The House of Representatives could “impeach” him, an accusation of wrongdoing that would prompt a trial in the Senate. If the Senate voted by two-thirds vote to convict the president, it would automatically result in removal from office. Impeachment can also be used to remove all federal officers.
Guest – Alan Hirsh, author of Impeaching the President: Past, Present and Future. Alan is a Lecturer in Humanities and Chair of Justice and Law Studies at Williams College. He’s also the author of For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights and A Citizen’s Guide to Impeachment.
—-
Remembering Mujahid Farid, Lead Organizer of Release Aging Persons in Prison
Today we remember and celebrate the life of Mujahid Farid who passed away last week in New York. Listeners will recall that Farid had been on Law and Disorder several times in the last few years, along with Laura Whitehorn and Dave George from his organization Release Aging Persons in Prison. In 1978, Farid was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He was 28 years old. He first became eligible for parole in 1993. He had earned four college degrees including two masters degrees while incarcerated. He was denied parole nine times. As we’ve discussed in prior segments, New York state parole commissioners denied his requests as with many others based on the nature of his crime rather than he many accomplishments he made while in prison.
In an article in the Village Voice, Farid noted that he asked the commissioners: “Is there anything I can do to make myself eligible for release?” He didn’t get a response but said he saw disapproving changes in the body language and facial expressions of the commissioners that his question wasn’t welcome. He was denied again. These denials added 18 years to his incarceration.
In 2011, Farid appeared before the parole boar for the tenth time. He stood before two new commissioners who had high rates of granting parole and that year, Farid was released. Farid became a 2013 Soros Justice Fellow. During his confinement, in 1987 Farid was part of a trio that created and proposed the first HIV/AIDS peer education program in New York State prisons, that later developed into the widely acclaimed state-wide program called PACE (Prisoners AIDS Counseling & Education). Farid participated in the creation of a college certificate program sponsored by New York Theological Seminary, and he taught introduction to sociology courses for people training for Alcohol and Substance Abuse (ASAT) counseling certification.
Since his release Farid initiated two programs designed to have an impact on dismantling mass incarceration: The RAPP Campaign and the Rise & Shine Small Business Coalition, the latter providing support for the creation and start-up of community businesses operating on principles of social entrepreneurship. In 2013 Farid was awarded a joint New York State legislative commendation for his community work and a Citizens Against Recidivism, Inc. award for social activism.
As listeners may recall, the number of people aged 50 and older in New York State, where RAPP was founded, has doubled since 2000; it now exceeds 10,000— which is about 20% of the total incarcerated population. This reflects a national crisis in the prison system and the extension of a culture of revenge and punishment into all areas of our society.
RAPP focuses on aging people in prison, many of whom are long-termers convicted of serious crimes. Many of these human beings have transformed their lives and developed skills and abilities they lacked before incarceration. They could be released from prison with little or no threat to public safety. Yet many are denied release, often for political reasons, and they needlessly remain imprisoned into old age. These elders could return to their communities if current mechanisms such as parole and compassionate release were correctly utilized.
Farid, you are in our thoughts and we send you our love.
Guest – Laura Whitehorn is a former political prisoner and native New Yorker, who was active in supporting groups such as the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Movement and was active with Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. Laura worked to help expose the FBI’s Counter Intelligence programs.
Guest – Mujahid Farid co-founded the Prisoners AIDS Counseling and Education program and helped design prison-based sociology and theology courses that allowed others to earn college-credited in prison. He also earned four college degrees and other certifications while incarcerated, including his paralegal certificate, NYS Department of Labor Certificate in Human Development Counseling, and NYC Department of Health Certificate in HIV/AIDS Counseling.
—————————-
—————————-
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, Human Rights, Iraq War, Political Prisoner, Torture, Truth to Power, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Crash Course : From the Good War to the Forever War
US Army Ranger turned conscientious objector Rory Fanning recently wrote in this in The Guardian newspaper: “Last week Sunday ,November 11, we celebrated Veterans Day. It used to be called Armistice Day and was a celebration of peace after the slaughter of World War One. Now it is called Veterans Day. The United States has 668 military bases around the globe. The United States has conducted military operations in 2/3 of the world’s countries since September 11, 2001. It has spent 3/4 of $1 trillion each year on it’s military – more than the next 13 countries combined. The US has taken hundreds of thousands of lives around the world these past 14 years and shows no signs of slowing down.“
Guest – H. Bruce Franklin, is one of America’s leading cultural historians, H. Bruce Franklin is the author or editor of nineteen books and more than 300 articles on culture and history published in more than a hundred major magazines and newspapers, academic journals, and reference works. He has given over five hundred addresses on college campuses, on radio and TV shows, and at academic conferences, museums, and libraries, and he has participated in making four films. He has taught at Stanford University, Johns Hopkins, Wesleyan, and Yale and currently is the John Cotton Dana Professor of English and American Studies at Rutgers University in Newark. Before becoming an academic, Franklin worked in factories, was a tugboat mate and deckhand, and flew for three years in the United States Air Force as a Strategic Air Command navigator and intelligence officer. Professor Franklin is touring the country to speak about his just publish book Crash Course : From the Good War to the Forever War.
—————————
—————————
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Criminalizing Dissent, Guantanamo, Military Tribunal, Political Prisoner, Prison Industry, Targeting Muslims, Torture
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Mumia Abu-Jamal Update October 2018
Last week, attorneys for Mumia Abu Jamal argued in court that conflicts of interest led to unfair rulings against him in his longstanding case. As many know, Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. The case was riddled with constitutional violations, and his sentence was later commuted to life in prison without parole.
Recently, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Pennsylvania, Mumia’s attorneys argued that his rights were violated after former district attorney Ron Castille failed to recuse himself in an appeals decision. At the time Castille was a state Supreme Court judge.
Judge Leon Tucker had asked the Philadelphia district attorney’s office to produce an internal memo that might show Castille— back when he was city district attorney — had direct involvement in pursuing Abu-Jamal’s death sentence. If he did, his later denial as Supreme Court justice of Abu-Jamal’s appeal, could be deemed biased.
Defense attorney Judy Ritter said: “Justice Castille has shown himself to be involved in this case, to be biased against a certain class of cases that our client falls into.” The Commonwealth argued that as district attorney, Castille was simply doing his job.
“It’s nothing remarkable that a DA would send a letter to the governor asking him to sign death warrants which the governor was required to do,” said attorney Tracey Kavanaugh. Emotions ran high, both inside and outside of the courtroom. Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Daniel Faulkner, stood up and cried in the middle of court proceedings when the judge announced that both sides would need to wait until December for any possible closure in the case. Presiding Judge Leon Tucker has indicated that he will make a ruling in the case some time after December 3, 2018.
Guest – Professor Johanna Fernandez, is a native New Yorker. She received a PhD in History from Columbia University and a BA in Literature and American Civilization from Brown University. Professor Fernández teaches 20th Century U.S. History, the history of social movements, the political economy of American cities, and African-American history. She has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg, PA and Trinity College in Hartford, CT and is, most recently, the recipient of a Fulbright Scholars grant to the Middle East and North Africa that will take her to Jordan in spring 2011, where she will teach graduate courses in American History. She is with the Campaign to Bring Mumia Home.
—-
In Response to Pittsburgh, We Must Come Together as One
Last week, acts of hatred claimed the lives of 13 innocent persons in the United States. A white supremacist killed two African American persons in Kentucky. An anti-semite killed 11 Jewish persons in a synagogue in Pittsburgh where even more were wounded, including first responders and police officers.
Not surprisingly, the slaughter of the 11 Jews brought forth calls of the need for a strong Israel; the same response that followed anti-Semitic killings in France and Brussels.
It also inflamed political and theological differences between Israelis and American Jews. Israel’s Ashkenazi chief rabbi avoided saying “synagogue” because it is not Orthodox, but Conservative, a liberal branch of Judaism — because it is not Orthodox, but Conservative, one of the liberal branches of Judaism rejected by religious authorities who define the state’s Jewishness.
The attacker’s anti-refugee, anti-Muslim rants prompted some on the Israeli left — like many American Jewish liberals — compare the views of nationalistic leaders who influence their governments.
In Israel, longstanding animosity between left and right has escalated. Orthodox parties are hoping to increase their influence and Jewish law on day to day life; disputes about who cdan serve in the military and what stores can open on the Sabbath are rampant.
Guest – Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, where she works on anti-war, US foreign policy and Palestinian rights issues. She has worked as an informal adviser to several key UN officials on Palestinian issues. Her books including Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN, and Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
—-
VICTORY: How Pennsylvania Beat Gerrymandering and How Other States Can Do the Same
An important victory against gerrymandering was recently won in the State of Pennsylvania in the case of League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The first paragraph of the complaint lays it out. “This case is about one of the greatest threats to American democracy today: partisan gerrymandering. A partisan gerrymandering occurs when the political party in control of redistricting redraws congressional or state legislative districts to entrench that party in power and prevent voters affiliated with the minority party from electing candidates of their choice. The result is that general election outcomes are rigged – they are predetermined by partisan actors sitting behind a computer, and not by the voters.“
In Pennsylvania although the Democrats have more supporters than the Republicans Republicans had 13 seats in the US Congress and the Democrats had only five.
The U. S. Supreme Court has not been willing to rule on gerrymandering taking the position that there is no clear way to determine if there has been gerrymandering and therefore it is a non-judicable issue.
To get around this in 2018 Pennsylvania activists engineered a brilliant legal effort in the the state courts of Pennsylvania to attack the lopsided redistricting, and won after fighting pitched battles all the way up to the state Supreme Court. Now activists around the country can do the same. The next congressional redistricting occurs after the 2020 census: progressive need to be ready well before then.
We speak today with constitutional litigator James R. Lieber who has provided a real time report on effective trial lawyers, working to facilitate the will of the people. He explains the strategies of counsel and the evidence presented and has provided a roadmap to social justice litigants for pursuing constitutionally protected claims in state court based on the state constitution and avoiding federal review.
Guest – Attorney James B. Lieber is the author of 3 previous books, and a lawyer who focuses on constitutional, civil rights, and discrimination cases. He has won two cases before the U. S. Supreme Court and is widely published in magazines of national stature.
—————————————–
—————————————–
