Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Disqualification Clause In Trump v. Anderson
On February 8, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. The Colorado Supreme Court had held that Donald Trump’s participation in the January 6 insurrection makes him ineligible to be president, under the Disqualification Clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. At issue is whether the Colorado court erred in holding that Donald Trump is disqualified from the office of the presidency.
During the arguments, with the exception of Sonia Sotomayor, all of the members of the Supreme Court – many of whom identify as originalists — signaled that they are prepared to ignore the command of the Disqualification Clause and refuse to allow Colorado to exclude Trump from the ballot.
Section 3 was enacted by Congress in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify people from holding office who had served in government prior to the war, but then supported the Confederacy. Nevertheless, during the Trump v. Anderson oral arguments, the Supreme Court members all but ignored the January 6 insurrection, the greatest threat to the survival of the Republic since the Civil War.
Guest – Marjorie Cohn is Professor of Law Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Marjorie is also Dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and a member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She writes frequent articles about the Supreme Court for Truthout.
—-
Pro-Israel Media Bias in US Newspapers
Analysis of the coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza by three major newspapers—The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times—reveals consistent bias against Palestinians, according to a recent report by the Intercept. The analysis, which examined more than 1,000 articles from these publications during the first six weeks of Israel’s assault, focused on usage of key terms and their contextual framing.
The study uncovered significant disparities in the reporting of casualties and the emotional language used. Terms like “slaughter” and “massacre” were disproportionately applied when describing the killing of Israelis compared to Palestinians. For instance, editors and reporters used the word “slaughter” 60 times to describe the killing of Israelis, but only used it once when referring to Palestinians. The word “massacre” was used 125 times to describe the killing of Israelis but only used twice for Palestinians. The term “horrific” was used 36 times in the context of Israeli casualties compared to just 4 times for Palestinians.
Despite the fact that Israel’s genocide in Gaza has caused an unprecedented loss of life among children—with more than 10,000 reported fatalities as of the present—only two headlines out of more than 1,100 news articles in the study mentioned the word “children” in connection with Gazan victims. Similarly, the plight of journalists, with more than 100 Palestinian reporters killed due to the Israeli bombardment, received scant attention. The word “journalists” and its iterations, such as “reporters” and “photojournalists,” appeared in only 9 headlines in over 1,100 articles.
Guest – Mischa Geracoulis is a journalist and critical media literacy expert. Mischa is the Curriculum Development Coordinator at Project Censored, and serves on the editorial board of the Censored Press and The Markaz Review. She writes about journalistic ethics and standards, press and academic freedoms, identity and culture, and the protracted disinformation campaign against the Armenian Genocide.
Hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian and Marjorie Cohn.
—————————————
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Unflagging Support For The Military Siege Against Palestinians In Gaza
Several months ago, various Palestinian human rights groups and individuals in Gaza and in the U.S., filed a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court, against President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin, for their failure to prevent, and their complicity in, the Israeli government’s unfolding genocide against them, their families, and the 2.2 million Palestinians living in Gaza. They were represented by the attorneys at the famed Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.
After a hearing that included testimony from seven Palestinian plaintiffs and witnesses as to the scale of destruction in Gaza and its impact on them and their families, the court found that Israel’s assault and siege on the Palestinian people in Gaza did, “plausibly” constitute genocide, and the court “implored” the Biden Administration to examine its “unflagging support” for Israel. This constituted a profoundly important finding. But the court nevertheless dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the administration’s conduct of foreign affairs.
What was the testimony of the plaintiffs in this case? What were the legal arguments put forth by their attorneys? Why did the court rule as it did? And what is the significance of the judge’s finding that it was “plausible” that genocide was, indeed, taking place in Gaza and its urging of the Biden Administration to examine what the judge termed, its “unflagging support” for Israel in its war on the Palestinian people? CCR Case
Guest – Attorney Katherine Gallagher is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights . Her areas of legal expertise include matters of torture, war crimes and militarism. Among her many major cases is the case titled, Situation of Afghanistan at the International Criminal Court; and the case titled, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests-v-Vatican. Prior to her work at the CCR, she worked at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She is a visiting professor of law at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law.
—-
2024 Could Be The Year America Fends Off Dictatorship Or Invites It In
Some years ago, Michael Ratner, the president of the Center For Constitutional Rights and a co-founder of Law And Disorder interviewed our returning guest attorney Benjamin Carter Hett. Hett is a historian, a professor at Hunter College and a lawyer. He wrote a stellar biography of the great German leftist attorney Hans Litten, who cross-examined Hitler, almost stopping him from coming to power by exposing Hitler’s hypocrisy on using violence.
As Michael wrote about professor Hett’s book “it brings to life the period preceding the takeover of Germany by the Nazis. Litten’s cross examination of Hitler went to the heart of the Nazis attempt to achieve power through violence.” Trump has promised to do the same should he get elected. Professor Hett recently wrote about this in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity Trump said he wanted to be a dictator “on the first day” of his new administration.
It has been reported that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act which would allow him to deploy troops to crush protests, arrest dissidents, and shut down oppositional media. Trump is a fascist. He’s not an advocate of the rule of law or of democracy. He boasts about using violence. In the divorce papers his first wife Ivana Trump filed against him she alleged that he kept a book of Hitler’s speeches at his bed table.
Like Hitler, Trump appeals to his base and their desire for “retribution.” Trump said “we pledge to you that we will root out the Communist and radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” Hitler’s racism was shown by his antisemitism, Trump’s by his hatred of immigrants who he says, echoing Hitler, “will poison” American blood.
Guest – Benjamin Carter Hett is a former trial lawyer. He is now a professor of history at Hunter College and the author of several books, including Crossing Hitler: The Man Who Put The Nazis On The Witness Stand. Most recently he has written an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times titled 2024 Could Be The Year America Fends Off Dictatorship Or Invites It In.
Hosted by Attorneys Michael Smith and Jim Lafferty
————————————–
Gaza, genocide, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
World Court: South Africa Presents Plausible Case That Israel Committed Genocide
On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) handed down a historic, near unanimous ruling in South Africa’s case against Israel for its genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. At least 26,422 Palestinians have been killed and 65,087 injured by the Israeli Occupying Forces since Hamas’ October 7 attacks. More than 85% of the Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced.
The World Court concluded that South Africa presented a “plausible” case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The court held that the right of the Palestinians to be free from genocidal acts, and South Africa’s right (as a party to the Genocide Convention) to ensure Israel’s compliance with the convention, could be protected by six provisional measures (an injunction), which the court ordered Israel to take.
South Africa’s ministry of foreign affairs described the court’s decision as “a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.” The Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights called the ICJ’s decision “a much-needed light in the darkness,” adding, “It is a historic day for clearly recognizing the fundamental human rights of Palestinians, including their fundamental right to life, and an important vindication of the vital resort to law to uphold fundamental rights.”
Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the ICJ’s ruling “marks the greatest moment in the history of the [court]” because “it strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states?—?not just some.” This is particularly significant in light of the recent ruling here in the United States in which the federal district court on January 31 dismissed a lawsuit against Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin for their failure to prevent genocide and complicity in genocide by Israel.
Guest – Marjorie Cohn is Dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and a member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Marjorie is also professor of law emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She has written several articles about Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza for Truthout.
—-
Judge Dismisses Genocide Case On Behalf Of Palestinian Human Rights Groups
On January 26, just hours after the International Court of Justice found a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a historic 4-1/2 hour hearing took place in a federal courtroom in Oakland, California. Palestinians who are suing President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for failure to prevent genocide and complicity in genocide testified before district court Judge Jeffrey White in a live-streamed session. 1,000 people watched the hearing via Zoom. There were also hundreds of people outside the courthouse during the hearing, standing in solidarity with the Palestinian plaintiffs.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Palestinian human rights organizations Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq, three Palestinian individuals who live in Gaza, and five Palestinian Americans who have family in Gaza.
The plaintiffs petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White to declare that the United States has violated international law and to issue a preliminary injunction to immediately force Biden, Blinken and Austin to stop providing additional money, weapons, and military and diplomatic support to Israel for its genocide in Gaza.
The defendants have asked Congress to appropriate $14.1 billion in military assistance to Israel — in addition to the $3.8 billion the U.S. already provides to Israel each year. Blinken authorized a $320 million transfer of military equipment to an Israeli manufacturer of precision bomb kits.
On January 31, Judge White dismissed the case because it involved a “political question” which is reserved to the executive and legislative branches. He wrote that “the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.” But he concluded this case was a “rare” instance where “the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the court.” He also wrote that the “Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Guest – Maria LaHood, one of the attorneys who presented the case for the Palestinian plaintiffs, Maria is Deputy Legal Director at CCR, with expertise in constitutional rights and international human rights. Maria works closely with Palestine Legal to support students and others whose speech is being suppressed for their Palestine advocacy around the country. She graduated from the University of Michigan Law School and was named a 2010 Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist.
Hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Marjorie Cohn and Julie Hurwitz
———————————–
Climate Change, Gaza, genocide, Targeting Muslims
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Israel’s War As A Catalyst For World War
One issue flowing from the Israeli-Palestinian war, at first pretty much ignored, is the danger of the war widening. And as Israel’s war in Gaza drags on, with no end yet in sight, the threat of a much wider war grows stronger. Already the war has resulted in military action in Syria and Iraq, by forces loyal to Iran; U.S. military facilities have been targeted in Iraq by Iranian backed forces; the United States and Great Britain are now regularly bombing Houthi military installations in response to the Houthis militarily disrupting the free flow of shipping in the Gulf region, on behalf of their support for Palestine; and, there are now daily clashes between Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Israel, across their shared border.
So far, the adversaries have been careful to not go beyond an unspoken, but generally recognized “tipping point,” so as not to bring about open nation-on-nation warfare throughout the region. But a “slippery slope” has now been created that many fear could bring about what would amount to a “world war”, even if confined only to that part of the world. And if that happens, who knows how many other nations in the Middle East would end up drawn into such a wider war.
Guest – Richard Becker is the Western Regional Coordinator of the “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism” coalition, or ANSWER. He is the author of the highly praised book, Palestine, Israel, and the U.S. Empire, published in 2013, with an up-dated edition of the book about to be released, as well. He is also the author of the book entitled, The Myth of Democracy and the Rule of the Banks. Richard Becker is also a national leader in the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
—-
Climate Change And Legal Analysis
While it has been all too slowly, the reality of climate change and what it means for life on our planet, for human lives and the lives of the multitude of other life forms we share this planet with, has become clearer to all who’ve not buried their heads in the sand and closed their eyes and minds to this deadly reality.
For a few decades now we humans have been paying more and more attention to the issue, and have actually instituted some measures aimed at holding climate change in check, but so far with pitifully little effect. In fact, despite these more recent efforts, those greenhouse gases just keep reaching for the sky in greater and greater amounts every year. Is it hopeless? That is, are we humans hopelessly unwilling and unable to do what the science on the matter makes clear must be done if we are not to find ourselves, rather soon, on our way to extinction? Are there, in fact, things we could and should be doing that would actually work?
Guest – Professor Eleanor Stein is a climate change, environmental justice and human rights activist and advocate. She teaches climate change and human rights at the State University of New York, at Albany, and has just recorded a Continuing Legal Education session on this subject for the CUNY Law School. In addition, she facilitates international forums on climate change and energy. And for years, Professor Stein was an Administrative Law Judge at the NY state agency that regulates the energy industry. She guided state policy on recovery from Superstorm Sandy ten years ago. In this regard, her work centered on mediating processes to bring solar and wind energy to the state at scale, at speed, and with justice.
Hosted by attorneys Jim Lafferty and Maria Hall
——————————–
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, Violations of U.S. and International Law
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
South Africa Brings Israel To World Court
On January 11 and 12, South Africa and Israel appeared in a historic case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, in The Hague. South Africa’s legal team made a strong and persuasive argument that Israel is engaging in genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. South Africa asked the court to impose nine emergency “provisional measures” aimed at putting an end to the slaughter.
South Africa’s application to the ICJ places Israel’s genocidal acts and omissions in the broader context of Israel’s 75-year apartheid policy, 56-year occupation, and 16-year blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip. This siege was described by the Director of UNRWA Affairs in Gaza as “a silent killer of people.”
South Africa told the court that it “unequivocally condemned the targeting of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups and the taking of hostages on 7 October.” But, it continued, “no armed attack on a State’s territory no matter how serious — even an attack involving atrocity crimes — can provide any justification for, or defence to” genocide. Israel “has crossed this line.”
Israel responded by placing responsibility on Hamas for the situation in Gaza. It accused South Africa of an “attempt to weaponize the term genocide.” Israel argued that international humanitarian law is the relevant framework — that Hamas committed war crimes. In Israel’s view, this is not a genocide case; if anyone was the victim of genocide, Israel claims IT was on October 7 when Palestinian resistance forces killed what Israel claims were 1,200 people. However, Hamas is not part of this case, because it is not a state party to the Genocide Convention.
Guest – co-host Marjorie Cohn is Dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and a member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Marjorie is also professor of law emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. She writes prolifically about Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.
—-
Honoring the Legacy Of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
We hear part of an hour long program honoring the life and legacy of the Rev. Dr.Martin Luther King. Our listeners know all too well that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was shot on April 4, 1968. Not so well known is the radical Dr. King, who said in the last months of his life that:
“Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world, declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo.”
Joining us are special guests Ruby Sales, a colleague of Dr. King’s and co-founder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and Rev. Dr. Emma Jordan-Simpson, Executive Director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (F.O.R.). We’re also joined by author and activist Matt Meyer, a board member of the AJMI.
Dr. King began close ties with A.J. Muste and with the F.O.R. during the Montgomery bus boycott, when FOR staff members Bayard Rustin and Glenn Smiley came to Alabama to support local efforts nonviolently challenging racial segregation. Dr. King developed a special relationship with former FOR chairman A.J. Muste, whose absolute pacifism King had, as a theological seminary student, questioned.
Before heading F.O.R., Muste was a prominent labor leader, helping to found the militant Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). And Dr. King, of course, was killed exactly one year after taking a staunch anti-Vietnam war position and in the midst of supporting a significant strike of sanitation workers, linking—as he had been—issues of race, class, and violence as King deepened his critique of the roots of oppressive U.S. society.
Guest – Ruby Sales is the founder and director of the “SpiritHouse Project”, a national organization that uses the arts, research, education, action and spirituality to bring diverse peoples together to work for racial, economic and social justice as well as for spiritual maturity. A life-long organizer, scholar and public theologian in the areas of civil, gender and other human rights, she was a member of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee and served as national convener of the Make Every Church A Peace Church movement.
Guest – Rev. Dr. Emma Jordan-Simpson is the Executive Pastor of The Concord Baptist Church of Christ, Brooklyn, NY. She has combined pastoral ministry with the social justice community. The former Executive Director of the Children’s Defense Fund she is now the Executive Director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Guest – Matt Meyer is Secretary-General of the International Peace Research Association, Chair of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation’s Financial Advisory Committee, Africa Support Network Coordinator of the War Resisters International, and Senior Research Scholar at U-Mass Amherst. As current National co-chair of FOR and former Chair of the War Resisters League, he is second only to AJ Muste in holding the top post of those two historic US peace organizations. He is author of the recently published White Lives Matter Most And Other “Little” White Lies.
Hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian and Marjorie Cohn (also as guest)
———————————–
Civil Liberties, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Human Rights Lawyer Says UN Failed To Protect Palestinians
The Israeli air and ground war against 2.3 million Palestinians imprisoned in the Gaza Strip is in its is 98th day. Ralph Nader stated on Democracy Now that the reported 23,000 deaths of Palestinians is vastly understated. He estimated a true count to be around 100,000. Moreover, he projected, that because of disease and starvation 500,000 people in Gaza will likely die this year.
International human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber resigned from the United Nations on October 28, 2023.
He had worked for the UN for more than three decades, and was the director of its human rights agency in New York. In his resignation letter he wrote that the UN had failed in its duty to protect Palestinians. Mokhiber accused the US, the UK, and much of Europe, of being “wholly complicit in the horrific assault” in Gaza.
Last week South Africa filed a lawsuit against the government of Israel in the International Court of Justice for the crime of genocide. The ICJ is the court of the United Nations. John Kirby, a spokesperson for the United States, called the lawsuit “counterproductive, without any basis in fact, whatsoever“.
Guest – Attorney Craig Mokhiber, graduated from the University of Buffalo Law School and has lived in the Gaza Strip. Mr. Craig Mokhiber is a Director in the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). A lawyer and specialist in international human rights law, policy and methodology, he has served the UN since 1992. As chief of the Human Rights and Development Team in the 1990s, he led the development of OHCHR’s original work on human rights-based approaches to development and human rights-sensitive definitions of poverty.
—
CIA Operations Subject To Discovery In Assange Attorneys’ Spying Case
On December 19th, a federal court in New York rendered a decision of profound importance, having to do with claims of illegal actions by the CIA, and others, brought by attorneys representing the world-renowned journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. Assange is currently imprisoned in London awaiting a final ruling in the U.S. government’s efforts to extradite him back to the United States and stand trial for violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, for having published documents exposing U.S. war crimes in connection with America’s wars in the Middle East. In their lawsuit against the CIA, former CIA head Mike Pompeo, and others, Assange’s attorneys alleged that the CIA violated the attorneys’ constitutional rights by subjecting them to illegal surveillance during their visits with Assange while he was staying in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had been granted asylum.
While the other claims of the attorneys were dismissed by the court, the CIA was not dismissed from the lawsuit. And so, the plaintiffs have won a rare opportunity for the clandestine operations of the CIA, which prides itself on secrecy, to now be subjected to public scrutiny and accountability through discovery actions in connection with the plaintiff’s claims.
The importance, the significance of this victory against the CIA cannot be overstated. And to help us understand how this victory came to pass, what the alleged abuses of the CIA were that led the judge to deny the attempt of the CIA to be dismissed from the lawsuit.
Guest – Vincent de Stefano, the chief organizer for the National Defense Committee for Julian Assange. Mr. De Stefano is a life-long social justice activist and a founding member of the Southern California Assange Defense Committee, as well as an Executive Board member of the national Assange defense committee. He is the former President of the Pasadena/Foothills Chapter of the ACLU and a board member of the Southern California ACLU Affiliate. Vince De Stefano has worked with Amnesty International for over 4 decades, and in 2019 was recognized by Amnesty as their Urgent Letter Writer of the Year.
Hosted by Attorneys Michael Smith, Maria Hall and Jim Lafferty
———————————————-
