CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, FBI Intrusion, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The World Supports Julian Assange
In the past few days, the case of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, who published the truth about the multitude of war crimes committed by United States and its allies, in the course of their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was back in court in London, where Assange is fighting extradition back to the United States. He is charged in the U.S. under an obscure section of the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act. As Megan Specia, writing in the New York Times put it, the two-day hearing “will determine whether he has exhausted his right to appeal within the U.K. and whether he could be one step closer to being sent back to the United States.” And she added, “and whether or not the people of the United States are one step closer to losing what is left of a free press in America, and with it what is left of our democracy.”
Assange has been effectively incarcerated for years now, the last five of which in solitary confinement in a notoriously horrid British prison in London, where both his physical and mental health have been steadily deteriorating. Indeed, a lower court judge in his extradition case had ruled against extraditing him because of the strong likelihood he would die in an equally horrid U.S. prison.
A nationwide and world-wide movement to free Julian Assange has been fighting for Assange’s freedom for years now. Virtually all of the world’s leading associations of journalists, and human rights organizations have called for an end to the U.S. government’s prosecution and persecution of Assange. As have major U.S. and foreign newspapers. Assange is an Australian citizen, and the Australian government has called for his release; Australian Prime minister Albanese says he did so when he recently met with President Biden.
Well, why did the Trump Administration decide to prosecute Assange in the first place, and as we now know, at one point plot to murder him? Why did the Obama Administration decide not to continue with the prosecution, and why has the Biden Administration nevertheless continued to do so?
And if Julian Assange loses this his last appeal within the British courts, does he have any remaining legal remedy?
Guest – Chris Hedges, award-winning journalist and political writer. Chris Hedges reported for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005 and served as the Times’ Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. In 2001 Hedges was one of the Times’ writers on an entry that received the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. Prior to his work for the Times, he worked as a freelance war correspondent in Central America for the Christian Science Monitor, NPR and the Dallas Morning News. His books include “Death of the Liberal Class”, “War on America”, “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt”, and his book “War Is a Force That Gives US Meaning”, which was a finalist for the national Book Critics Circle Award for Non-Fiction.
—-
Flint Taylor Representing Malcom X’s Family In Reinvestigation Case
An assassination is a political murder. Malcolm X was assassinated on February 22, 1965 when he was speaking in the afternoon at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City. The New York Police Department and the FBI were involved. J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, said “. . . we must stop the rise of a new black messiah.”
Days before the murder the NYPD arrested two of Malcolm’s bodyguards who would’ve protected him that afternoon. Two of the men who were convicted of the murder and who each served over 20 years in prison have been exonerated and released. One person, the trigger man, was convicted and served 45 years. But others involved have gone free as a result of withholding information by the police and the FBI.
Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who represented the family of George Floyd, has been retained by Malcolm X’s daughters to pursue the matter. On his team are attorneys Flint Taylor, Ben Elson, and Roy Hamlin. The function of the FBI and police departments nationwide is to protect the status quo. Hoover and the NYPD recognized the threat Malcolm posed with his newly formed Organization of African -American Unity.
Malcolm X was rapidly evolving into a socialist revolutionary. He had said with respect to the capitalist order that it could not produce social justice, that a chicken cannot lay a duck egg and if it ever did, it would be a pretty revolutionary chicken. Malcolm was killed on February 22, 1965. The FBI had opened a file on him in 1953. Thereafter he was under constant surveillance. In 1964 the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, commanded “do something about Malcolm X.“ Malcolm was assassinated the next year.
Malcolm X stood for Black consciousness, unity in action, solidarity with those struggling against imperialism worldwide, independence from the two capitalist political parties, and a deep sense of love for people.
Guest – Flint Taylor of the Peoples Law Office. Taylor is a nationally recognized civil rights attorney. He represented the family of Fred Hampton demonstrating that the Chicago Police Department and the FBI were responsible for the assassination of the young Black Panther leader. He’s written the book “The Killing Machine: Racism and Police Violence in Chicago”. He is one of the editors of the “Police Misconduct Law Reporter. He’s the author of The Torture Machine: Racism And Police Violence In Chicago.
Hosted by attorneys Michael Smith, Maria Hall and Jim Lafferty
——————————–
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
———————————–
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Israel Is Terrified The World Court Will Decide Its Committing Genocide
Since Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis on October 7, Israel has launched a full-scale genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. As of this broadcast, Israeli forces have killed at least 22,100 Gazans, about 9,100 of whom are children. At least 57,000 persons have been wounded and at least 7,000 are reported missing. Untold numbers of people are trapped beneath the rubble. Israel has expelled and forcibly displaced more than 85% of Gaza’s population from their homes, and has cut off their access to food, water, fuel and electricity.
Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been investigating what it refers to as the “Situation in the State of Palestine” for nearly three years, calls for prosecution of Israeli officials have been ignored. This blind eye comes as the chief prosecutor of the ICC demonstrates blatant bias in favor of Israel.
The ICC’s Rome Statute provides for the prosecution of individuals who commit, or aid and abet the commission of genocide. By contrast, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or “World Court”) — the judicial arm of the UN system — resolves disputes between countries.All the 153 countries that have ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention have a duty to prevent and punish genocide and they can submit the issue of Israel’s genocide to the ICJ.
On December 29, South Africa launched a well-documented case at the ICJ, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide. South Africa is asking the court to order provisional measures to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention.” It also asks the court “to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide.”
A hearing in the ICJ on South Africa’s application is scheduled for January 11 and 12. Other parties to the Genocide Convention are being approached to join South Africa’s petition.
Marjorie’s recent article : Israel Is Terrified The World Court Will Decide Its Committing Genocide
Guest – Marjorie Cohn – Law and Disorder co-host Marjorie Cohn, who is Dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and a member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is Professor of Law Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild and she has written extensively about the Israeli genocide in Gaza for Truthout.
—-
Remembering Australian Journalist John Pilger
Today we re-broadcast a recent interview we did with the great Australian journalist John Pilger about his film titled The Coming War On China. With the exception of a short break at the conclusion in 1975 of the Vietnamese war, the United States has been at war continually. The momentum of what President Eisenhower warned us against and described as being led by, “the military industrial complex” has been going on with successive wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now the American proxy war in Ukraine. The military industrial complex has been augmented by support from the CIA, Congress, and the corporate media.
As Pilger demonstrates, the United States, is building up for a war against China. This build up is both military and ideological and shaped by hostile propaganda. In this respect, an alarming full page New York Times article, 11 weeks in the making, and written by seven reporters, appeared on August 5, 2023. The article targeted the American peace organization CODEPINK as well as one of its financial backers. It is a hit piece that has alarmed many of us in the movement. John Pilger gives us the background to it.
Guest – John Pilger covered that war as a young reporter and understood that it was based on the lie that Lyndon Johnson told falsely stating that the North Vietnamese had attacked an American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. Another 1 million people died in the Iraq war That war was based on the now well known lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use against us and that he was responsible for 911. A similar campaign of fear mongering is going on now about China. The major news media parrot the government’s fact free line that China is our enemy. In his article “The Coming War With China” John Pilger wrote “a US war against China beckons and we have a responsibility to speak out. We know what is coming. Silence must be broken.”
Hosted by attorneys Michael Smith, Maria Hall, Heidi Boghosian and Marjorie Cohn
—————————————-
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Prison Industry, Truth to Power, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
What Kind Of Nation?
What kind of nation cuts off of food, water, medicine, electricity, and fuel to 2 1/3 million Palestinians and then bombs them as they sit trapped in the open air prison which is the Gaza Strip? What kind of national leader in his capacity as Israeli Minister of Defense, says “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.“ Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu promised that “We will turn Gaza into a deserted island.”
What kind of a nation vetoes a cease-fire as the US did in a 13 to 1 vote when it was proposed at the United Nations Security Council? The Israeli and American nations finds themselves morally isolated on the world stage.
The American government supplies the weapons of war to a nation that has so far annihilated at least 20,000 people, including 8000 children. The Israelis use weapons made in the US and paid for by our tax dollars.
American foreign policy is driven by the military industrial complex. It’s a country whose weapons industry is closely allied with the weapons industry of Israel and a country whose government is heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby, a lobby that should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign country.
Guest – Aaron Maté about the continuing genocide in Gaza, which is now approaching 100 days. He is a journalist with The Gray Zone where he hosts “Pushback“. He is the co-host of Useful Idiots. In 2019 Aaron Maté won the Izzy award for outstanding achievement in independent media for his Russiagate coverage in The Nation.
—-
Unilateral Sanity Could Save The World: Nothing Can Be Changed Until Its Faced
As we begin 2024, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just reset its nuclear doomsday clock for the 24th time in its 76-year history. They created the doomsday clock just after WW2 to visually represent the threat of global nuclear annihilation. Although the precise time won’t be announced until later this month, the most recent change was just one year ago: in January 2023, when the clock was moved forward to 90 seconds til midnight – the closest to midnight ever.
What will 2024 bring? Will we get swept up in momentum and fervor toward global catastrophe? Or can we muster the will and courage to act … and try to save one another – other animals, the earth, and ourselves?
In his article, Unilateral Sanity Could Save the World, our guest: author and political analyst Norman Solomon, invokes Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of keeping a “pessimism of the intellect,” but “an optimism of the will.”
Guest – Norman Solomon is a long-time associate of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the national director of RootsAction.org, and the Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death; and his latest book, War Made Invisible: How American Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine which was published by the New Press in June 2023.
Hosted by attorneys Michael Smith and Maria Hall
—————————–
