Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
SCOTUS Oral Arguments Social Media Platforms
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about two different state laws that would regulate how large tech companies control what content can appear on their sites. The laws would compel companies to carry all users’ viewpoints and would preclude them from de-platforming political candidates. The Florida law at issue in Moody v. NetChoice and its Texas counterpart in NetChoice v. Paxton represent challenges by tech lobbying groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Information Association. The plaintiffs claim the laws violate their First Amendment rights to make editorial choices about what content to permit or prohibit.
Most members of the Supreme Court seemed to indicate that, in some contexts, the Florida and Texas laws likely violate the First Amendment rights of the social media firms. They also expressed concern that blocking the laws entirely might go too far.
Republican legislators in the two states passed the laws aimed at what they say are efforts to stifle conservative voices on platforms like Facebook and YouTube. In part, the laws came about after platforms banned Donald Trump for violating their rules against inciting violence in his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
The plaintiffs assert that it will be virtually impossible for platforms to monitor and prevent hate speech, pro-terrorism advocacy and content that could harm children.
Potentially pivotal members of the court included conservative Amy Coney Barrett and her liberal counterpart Ketanji Brown Jackson. They said the correct course for the court was murky because large social media platforms play many different roles. While the platforms primarily curate speech crafted by users and enjoy broad First Amendment protection for doing so, the sites also provide services, like private messaging, that don’t involve much, if any, editorial supervision by the sites. Barrett and Jackson suggested that such services are similar to telephone or internet providers and can be subject to more government regulation.
Guest – Attorney and Professor Zachary Wolfe at George Washington University in Washington D.C.
—-
Robin Anderson on US-Israel Media Genocide Complicity
International humanitarian aid organizations have been documenting and warning that Israel was committing crimes of war after bombing Gaza after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. Yet major media outlets and social media platforms have consistently ignored their on-the-ground reports.
As Israel’s attacks escalated into acts of genocide, corporate media coverage has largely framed such violence as defensive and justified. Glaringly absent has been reporting on Israel’s long-established use of violence and deprivation against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Back and Occupied East Jerusalem. As we’ve been covering on Law and Disorder, 50 years after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it has systematically repressed and abused the rights of the Palestinian population. It is long recognized by most state and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Israeli violence has long been aggressive, a fact well documented but rarely discussed is establishment media.
What factors have contributed to Israel avoiding moral and legal culpability for its acts of genocide? As it turns out, there are many, from Israel employing propaganda, falsifying evidence, to the censorship and silencing of US journalists and commentators as well as repression of dissident voices online and off. And powerful Israeli lobbying forces have effectively silenced any criticism of Israel.
Guest – Robin Andersen is Professor Emerita of Media Studies at Fordham University. She writes media criticism for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and other outlets, and works with Project Censored as a contributor to the annual State of the Free Press book. Her work 0n the current Israeli bombing of Gaza has appeared in numerous publications. She is a guest columnist for Al Jazeera Arabic. Her book, A Century of Media, A Century of War, won the Alpha Sigma Nu book award in 2007. Robin’s Substack Page
Hosted by attorneys Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian
——————————–
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Criminalizing Dissent, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why There Is So Little Anti-War Protest in the United States
As the notion of perpetual war and a militarized society are normalized, notably absent are antiwar protests by faith-based organizations, civil rights groups, academics, and others. The Trillion Dollar Silencer details this absence while laying bare the devastation wrought in the United States and abroad by the military industrial complex.
Author Joan Roelofs delves into the pervasive role of military contractors and bases that have come to be economic hubs of their regions. She discusses how state and local governments are intertwined with the Department of Defense (DoD), including economic development commissions at all levels. Contracts and grants to universities, colleges, and faculty come from the DoD and its agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Minerva Initiative funds social scientists for military research. Civilian jobs in the DoD provide opportunities for scientists, engineers, policy analysts, and others. The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) programs are subsidized by the DoD.
In addition to businesses large and small, nonprofits receive DoD contracts and grants, including environmental and charitable organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and Goodwill Industries. Individuals, arts institutions, charities, churches, and universities share in the profitability of military-related investments. Pension funds for public and private employees and unions are replete with military stocks. In other words, the military industrial complex is so embedded in our political economy that it has become virtually impossible to find any sector of our society that is not intertwined with militarism.
Guest – Joan Roelofs, Professor Emerita of Political Science at Keene State College. She teaches in the Cheshire Academy for Lifelong Learning and writes for scholarly and political publications. Joan is the author of “Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism,” and “Greening Cities: Building Just and Sustainable Communities.” She has been an anti-war activist ever since she protested the Korean War.
Hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian and Julie Hurwitz
————————-
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
———————————–
