CIA Sponsored Terror, Human Rights, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Russia, Deescalation And War Crimes
The Nuremberg tribunal called aggression “the supreme international crime” because it contains within it all other crimes. German Nazi leaders were tried, convicted, and hung at Nuremberg for the German war of aggression they began in September of 1939 when they invaded Poland and started World War II.
The guilty verdicts at Nuremberg were not merely “victors’ justice.” Its precepts were incorporated into the UN Charter. The Charter, which is a treaty ratified by the countries of the world, established a process for keeping the peace and “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” War is outlawed with the only exception being self-defense after an armed attack or with the permission of the Security Council.
Russia is guilty of aggression against Ukraine. But that being said, the United States has baited the Russian bear repeatedly, starting in 1990 with the breakup of the Soviet Union. At that time, US Secretary of State James Baker promised the Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev that the US-led NATO organization would not move “one inch” east towards Russia. This promise was broken.
The Russians were betrayed.
Since then, NATO has recruited 11 former Soviet bloc and Warsaw Pact countries into its military organization. Led by the United States, NATO is an organization has played an aggressive role, having carried out the bombings of Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Libya.
NATO has placed missiles in Poland within 100 miles of the Russian border. Missiles on the long border between Ukraine and Russia could hit Moscow in 10 minutes making it impossible for Russia to defend itself. Russia’s attempts to make United States understand that they have crossed a red line has been consistently rejected.
This is not to defend Russia’s actions but to place them in historical context. The world now has come to the edge of an abyss. A nuclear war could easily be started, annihilating all of humanity. The rule of law must be restored.
Russia must honor a cease-fire and withdraw. The United States must forswear arming Ukraine and recruiting the Ukraine into NATO. Ukraine must go forward as a neutral country like Austria or Finland.
Guest – Peter Kuznick is a professor of history at American University and directs the Nuclear Studies Program. at that institution. Peter and Oliver Stone wrote The Untold History of the United States and also produced a showtime documentary series based on the book.
—-
Ukraine Invasion Economic Analysis
Horrific images of the war in Ukraine and the now more than 2 million displaced persons streaming over Ukraine’s border continue to emerge. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is calling for a no-fly-zone over Ukraine and the corporate media is hyping more punishing sanctions against Russia.
So far, Joe Biden has resisted calls for a no-fly-zone, apparently mindful that enforcing a no-fly-zone would mean the US Air Force shooting down Russian planes and bombing Russian ground installations that provide Russian forces with anti-aircraft support. That could well devolve into a nuclear confrontation.
The United States and other Western countries have imposed sanctions against Russia, including expelling some Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, essentially barring them from international transactions and effectively blocking Russian exports and imports, as well as banning imports of Russian oil and gas. But these sanctions harm not the Russian oligarchs, but the Russian people while raising gas prices for people in the United States.
The prospect of cyberwarfare lurks in the background, which could redound to the detriment of people around the world, including those of us in the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its allies continue to send massive armaments to Ukraine, to the delight of the huge military contractors.
While Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine constitutes illegal aggression prohibited by the UN Charter, it is necessary to analyze the history and geopolitics as well as the role NATO has played in the region, in order to understand both the context for the conflict and how it could have been prevented.
Guest – Corinna Mullin, an organizer and professor of political science and political economy at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Brooklyn College-CUNY in New York. Corinna is also a member of the steering committee of the International People’s Tribunal on U.S. Imperialism: Sanctions, Blockades, and Economic Coercive Measures.
——————————
Censorship, Civil Liberties, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Uncategorized, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Russian Invasion of Ukraine Analysis
We turn to the on-going war between Russia and Ukraine. Let me introduce this topic by sharing, briefly, a few of my own thoughts on the matter. I believe the Russian invasion and its on-going deadly and destructive military assault in Ukraine is, of course, just plain wrong. I believe it mirrors, albeit to a much lesser extent, America’s deadly and destructive military assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of Vietnam, Central America and too many other places to recount here. I believe Russia should end its war before its impact spreads far beyond the current conflict; before it provides an even greater opportunity than it already has to the capitalist war profiteers in America, and further emboldens the imperial designs of America, thereby radically changing the future in ways too dire to contemplate.
I believe the severe sanctions imposed on Russia will have little impact on Putin and the Russian oligarchs but will have a devastating impact on the working-class people of Russia, and of the entire world. I believe that the United States bears at least as much blame for the war as does Russia, and probably more. That may, at first blush, seem an odd thing to believe. But if you stay tuned, today’s guest on the war will explain why he and I believe this to be true. Lastly, I am personally saddened, beyond adequate description, over the fact of this new war. It, like America’s illegal and devastating wars in other countries, tells me that since the days of the cave man wielding his club, while the weapons used by warring sides to resolve their differences have advanced and become far more deadly and sophisticated, we humans have not, ourselves, found the way we resolve our disputes beyond that of the cave man with his hand-wielding club.
Guest – Richard Becker is the Western Region Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition; that is Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Richard Becker is a regular contributor to The Liberation newspaper, a publication of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, of which he is a member. And Mr. Becker is the author of Palestine, Israel and the US Empire, as well as of the book, The Myth of Democracy and the Rule of the Banks.
—-
A New Wave Of Book Banning
Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States. It’s when government officials, private individuals, or organizations remove books from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstores because they object to the content or themes contained therein. Children’s books are the main targets.
Often, complaints are that the book contains is sexually explicit, contains graphic violence, has offensive language, or shows disrespect for parents and family. Censors claim they’re afraid the contents are dangerous for kids, or that they’ll cause young people to raise questions, and incite critical inquiry among children that parents, political groups, or religious organizations deem inappropriate or aren’t ready to address.
Before the 1970s book bans typically focused on obscenity. Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence and Ulysses by James Joyce were often banned. From the late 1970s on, attacks focused on ideologies. To Kill A Mockingbird, The Color Purple, The Catcher in the Rye, and Harry Potter are among the 50 of the top banned books in this country.
A new wave of book banning in public and school libraries is sweeping the nation in 2022. It’s been under way since debates have percolated over critical race theory and what students should learn in the classroom. Several states are cutting funding for books written by authors in specific communities.
Guest – Christopher Finan, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship. He previously served as president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the bookseller’s voice in the fight against censorship. Before that, he was executive director of Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of producers and distributors of media. Christopher is the author of From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act: A History of the Fight for Free Speech in America by Beacon Press, which won the 2008 Eli Oboler Award of the American Library Association. His forthcoming book is How Free Speech Saved Democracy.
———————————
Civil Liberties, Human Rights, Right To Dissent, U.S. Militarism, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
The United States of America was the first, and has since been the only, country to use nuclear weapons. In 1945, at the end of World War II, the US bombed Hiroshima and days later bombed Nagasaki, exterminating several hundred thousand people. The bomb was used twice to intimidate the Russians even as the United States knew that Japan wanted peace.
The United States has embarked on a one and a half trillion-dollar project to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. It has developed the capacity to fire these weapons so that they are delivered across oceans in a matter of minutes with all of the frightening implications. The prestigious Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has a “Doomsday Clock.” The minute hand on the clock has been steadily advancing and is now only 100 seconds to midnight.
Because of their devastating civilian killing capacity, the use of or threat to use these weapons is unlawful.
Unlike the Paris climate agreement, which set goals for the reduction of fossil fuels, there are no targets for the express reduction of nuclear weapons. Nor have countries’ efforts to reach such targets been assessed. We have no global process for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Guest – Attorney John Burroughs, is the former Executive Director, now Senior Analyst, of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. LCNP was founded in 1981 as an association of lawyers and legal scholars who engage in research and advocacy in support of the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy serves as the United Nations office of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms. John has represented LCNP in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review proceedings and in negotiations on the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons.
—-
Ukraine Crisis and Parallels To The Cuban Missile Crisis
As tensions between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and other NATO countries escalate, the corporate media is portraying the conflict as aggression by Russia and US-NATO’s position as purely defensive. But even though the Biden administration is rattling its economic, political and military sabers at Russia, Ukrainian President Zelensky says a Russian invasion of Ukraine is not imminent and warns that “panic” by U.S. and other NATO leaders is causing economic destabilization in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the U.S. is sending massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine, boosting the profits of military contractors.
In 1990, as the Soviet Union was disbanding, then US Secretary of State James Baker assured the Soviets that NATO would not expand “one inch to the East.” Nevertheless, since the late 1990s, NATO has expanded to include many countries including some that border Russia, which Russia sees as a real threat. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia considers that an “existential threat.”
Since the US-supported 2014 coup in Ukraine that led to the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovich, the US has delivered $2 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
Although Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists signed a 12-point ceasefire deal in 2014, known as the Minsk agreements, Ukraine has not implemented the constitutional changes required by the Minsk agreements. The unconditional US military assistance to Ukraine has encouraged the Ukrainian government to ignore the Minsk agreements and reassert sovereignty over Russian Crimea.
In October, Ukraine launched attacks in Donbass, Russia, and Russia responded with troop movements and military exercises. The US is framing Russia’s troop movements as a threat to invade Ukraine without provocation.
Professor H. Bruce Franklin, author of the 2018 book, Crash Course: From the Good War to the Forever War, has drawn parallels between today’s standoff at Ukraine’s border and the Cuban missile crisis, although the great power roles were reversed.
Guest – Bruce Franklin is a former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer, a progressive activist, and the John Cotton Dana Professor of English and American Studies, emeritus at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. He has authored or edited 19 books and has received lifetime achievement awards from the American Studies Association and other major academic organizations.
—————————————
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America
Americans have very little understanding of their own history and the Right wants to make sure they never will. Laws are now being passed in a number of states forbidding educators from presenting an accurate portrayal of the racist past of the United States. Critical Race Theory, which is nothing more than a truthful accounting of U.S. history, is under attack.
The documentary, “Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America,” has just been released in New York City and Los Angeles and will soon be available at theaters around the country. It has been featured at several film festivals and won many awards.
This film is an important contribution to U.S. history. People will be enlightened about their roots. They will gain a deeper understanding of what was done to them and how they survived. “Who We Are” arms us with knowledge which is crucial for human progress because it informs and encourages struggle.
When people understand their own history, they are empowered. That is what accounts for the tremendous popularity of Howard Zinn‘s book, “A People’s History of United States.“ “Who We Are” interweaves lectures, personal anecdotes, interviews, and shocking revelations. Like the Zinn book, it is also empowering.
Guest – Attorney Jeffery Robinson, is the central figure, writer, and narrator of Who We Are. Jeffery Robinson was a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle for decades before becoming a Deputy Legal Director at the ACLU National Office in New York. In 2021, he left the ACLU, completed the documentary, and launched “The Who We Are Project” to widely disseminate the true history of African-Americans and anti-Black racism in the United States.
As Jeffery Robinson observes, his documentary was made with the goal which was underscored by George Orwell, that “Those who control the present control the past, those who control the past control the future.” We talk with Jeffery about the movie and his collaboration with directors Sarah Kunstler and Emily Kunstler. They previously made the widely-acclaimed documentary about their father, the great civil rights attorney William Kunstler. That film is called “William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe.”
—-
The Escalating Crisis in Ukraine Poses an Imminent Threat to World Peace
By way of introducing our discussion on the escalating crisis in Ukraine, and the imminent threat to world peace that it poses, I can think of no better way to do so than to read the short, opening two paragraphs of the January 2nd statement on the crisis issued by
The U.S. Peace Council. It reads, in part, as follows: “ For weeks, the US corporate media have been shrill in declaring that Russia, having positioned tens of thousands of Russian troops on the border, may be about to invade Ukraine. US State Department spokesmen have been threatening Russia with punishing economic sanctions if there is an invasion.” And a bit later it goes on to say: “The cold war with Russia, festering since 2014 and the US backed coup in Ukraine, may be potentially even more menacing than the new cold war with China. If the armed standoff between the Ukrainian military and the Russian supported separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, becomes—by miscalculation or design—a conventional war between Russia and NATO, it could escalate into nuclear war.”
This week the two sides have been meeting to see if a peaceful resolution can be found. But this Thursday morning, as our show is being recorded, both Russia and the US announced the talks were at an impasse. What is causing this impasse? What are Russia’s key demands and what are those of the United States. And what is the likelihood of war breaking out?
Well, I can think of no one any better to discuss this topic with than our guest today, who is one of the authors of the US Peace Council’s statement.
Guest – Joseph Jamison is a long-time peace activist and a member of the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council. He is also the Coordinator of the Peace Council’s Move the Money to Human Needs Campaign, and very active in his local Move the Money Campaign in New York City.
———————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Iraq War, Truth to Power, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Recalling San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin
Chesa Boudin has been serving San Franciscans as their district attorney for nearly 2 years. He is a leading progressive in what has been called the progressive prosecutors’ movement. Other progressive district attorneys in that small cohort are George Gascon in Los Angeles and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia.
In Berger v. United States, the Supreme Court said that the duty of a prosecutor “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Yet all too many prosecutors are more concerned with winning cases than doing justice, which includes the protection of constitutional rights.
Chesa campaigned by proposing solutions to the disaster of mass incarceration, the civil rights issue of our time. He introduced policies of diversion and no cash bail. He put fewer juveniles behind bars. He opposed the death penalty and focused his efforts on helping victims of crimes. Chesa Boudin said that the recall effort is about criminal justice reform, that it is “a question of whether we are going to go forward and continue to implement data driven policies that center on crime victims, that invest in communities impacted by crime, and that use empirical evidence to address root causes of crime in our communities or if we are going to go back to the failed policies of Reagan and Trump.”
Chesa’s efforts are now being challenged. A claimed 83,000 signatures were gathered in San Francisco by paid workers to put a recall Boudin question on the San Francisco county ballot in June. Even Donald Trump has injected himself into the campaign in what has become a national well-funded Republican putsch.
ChesaBoudin.org
Fear mongering is employed to create a false conception that crime in San Francisco is rising. Today, my co-host Marjorie Cohn, a former criminal defense attorney and law professor, and I talk with Chesa Boudin about his philosophy and successful efforts as a progressive prosecutor.
—-
Decision To Not Extradite Julian Assange To U.S. Reversed
A devastating decision, the worst decision against free journalism in modern U.S. history came down on December 10th from a British appellate court against Julian Assange. It will abolish “National security“ journalism everywhere giving United States the power to reach across oceans and indict journalists and publishers who publish stories exposing and embarrassing the U.S. government. This is what Julian did.
The horrible but not unexpected decision reversed the decision of Vanessa Baraitser, the lower court judge who had refused a U.S. Government request to extradite Julian and send him to the Eastern District of Virginia where he will be put on trial for 17 counts under the 1917 Espionage Act. The charges stem from WikiLeaks’ 2010 revelations of U.S. war crimes. It is unlikely he could receive a fair trial in that most conservative district where most of the so-called War on Terror cases have been tried.
The lower court judge had ruled that the conditions of imprisonment in a U.S. prison are so egregious that Assange, who is in very frail mental health, would likely take his own life. He had already tried to do so in the wretched London Belmarsh prison where he is now being held in torturous solitary confinement.
When Baraitser’s decision came down, the United States was quick to offer so-called “assurances“ to the appellate court that Assange would not be sent to the maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado and would not be subjected to special administrative measures which would cut him off from human contact. It was these assurances on which the appellate court relied in overturning the lower court’s decision.
Julian Assange was a young computer genius, an Australian citizen, who figured out a way to receive information from whistle blowers and publish that truth telling material anonymously in order to protect them.
When he began publishing WikiLeaks, Assange won awards for his journalism. He exposed U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo. He embarrassed the Democratic Party by showing how Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
When Mike Pompeo was Trump’s CIA director, he called WikiLeaks “a hostile non-state intelligence agency” and CIA officials suggested that Assange be kidnapped from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had received political asylum, and assassinated.
It was to the United States that the British High Court had no hesitation in sending Julian. So can the U.S. government’s assurances be trusted? Probably not, as they have reneged on nearly identical assurances in the past.
Meanwhile Julian Assange sits in isolation in Belmarsh prison in failing physical and mental health. His lawyers will appeal the decision to the British Supreme Court. But in the meantime, the United States has Julian exactly where they want him in the upcoming months or years that an appeal would take.
U.S. smearing, persecution, and isolation of Julian Assange has been going on now for 10 years. The sordid story began a decade ago when the US Department of Defense took the position that Julian should be discredited and slandered. He was falsely blamed for sexual misconduct in Sweden involving two women who never wanted Julian targeted. But the United States was able to get a prosecutor who did. A warrant was sent from Sweden to England requesting that Julian be sent to Sweden for questioning.
Our own Michael Ratner was representing Julian at the time. In an attempt to avoid being sent to Sweden, which would have extradited Julian to the United States for trial under the Espionage Act, Julian was granted political asylum in the tiny apartment that serves as the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He remained there for seven years under the direct video surveillance 24 hours a day by the CIA
Then the U.S. bribed and bullied its way to reverse the grant of asylum after a U.S.-friendly president assumed the helm of the Ecuadorian government. The British police brutally extracted him from the embassy and put him in solitary confinement in the notorious London Belmarsh prison, where he has remained for nearly 3 years.
Then the Trump administration brought the Espionage Act charges against him. Biden had referred to Julian as “a high-tech terrorist,” and his administration continued Trump’s historically unprecedented pursuit of Assange.
AssangeDefense.org
Guest – Chris Hedges whose many books and brilliant journalism have caused him to be respected as a moral philosopher. He is a regular columnist for Scheerpost” and is host of the show On Contact. Chris’ most recent article on the decision to extradite Julian Assange.
——————————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Truth to Power, U.S. Militarism, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Attorney Jim Lafferty Commentary On Rittenhouse Case
—-
Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2021
The Vietnam War ended in 1975, but Vietnamese people today continue to suffer the effects of Agent Orange, the deadly dioxin-containing chemical weapon that the U.S. sprayed over 12 percent of South Vietnam from 1961-1971, poisoning both the people and the land. The defoliant was used to more effectively prosecute the war against the Vietnamese people, exposing their hideouts, destroying their crops and food.
Descendants of approximately 2 to 4 million Vietnamese people, hundreds of thousands of U.S. Vietnam veterans, and Vietnamese-Americans who were exposed to the toxin continue to record disproportionate rates of congenital disabilities and higher rates of many diseases.
U.S. veterans receive some compensation from the U.S. government, but very little assistance has been given to the Vietnamese people, who were the intended victims of the defoliant Agent Orange. Thus, on May 25, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) introduced H.R. 3518, the Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2021, in the House of Representatives. The Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign (for which I serve as co-coordinator) assisted Lee in drafting the bill.
Lee said, “The United States has a moral responsibility to compensate the victims of the Agent Orange campaign. In the same way we are focused on beginning to repair the damage of systemic racism in the form of reparations, and the war on drugs with restorative justice, it is also our responsibility to try and atone for this disgraceful campaign during the Vietnam War.”
Susan Schnall is co-coordinator of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign. She was an active duty Navy nurse during the conflict in Vietnam and in 1969, she was tried and found guilty by general court martial of conduct unbecoming an officer for dropping anti-war flyers over military bases in the San Francisco Bay area and an aircraft, and wearing her uniform in the GI and Veterans March for Peace demonstration in San Francisco.
Guest – Susan Schnall is a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the American Public Health Association. She is also President of the New York City Veterans for Peace chapter and a board member of national Veterans For Peace. Susan organized and led a delegation of Science/Public Health professionals to Vietnam in 2013 to survey the land that had been contaminated by the US use of Agent Orange/dioxin and visit the people who had been harmed by the chemicals. In 2006, Susan was awarded the medal for peace and friendship between peoples by the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organizations.
—-
The U.S. Role In Cuba Destabilization
First the Trump and now the Biden administration have accelerated their efforts to destabilize and overthrow the Cuban socialist government with the aim of reestablishing capitalism on the island.
This effort is 62 years old going back to 1959 when a popular revolution lead by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara succeeded in getting rid of the U. S. imposed dictator Batista. The still popular revolution has improved the lives of the Cuban people. Back in 1959 Cuba was a U S. colony. Its resources were owned by US corporations, its dictatorial government was a puppet of the United States.
The population, both urban and rural, was desperately poor. These were the people who made the revolution. The new government instituted land reform. They offered to pay the US corporations for the value of the land. The corporations refused so the Cuban government nationalized the land and re-distributed it to the peasantry, as was their legal right.
In retaliation, the US-owned oil refinery was shut down, crippling the Cuban economy. So the Cubans nationalized the oil refinery, the telephone company, the nickel mines and so on. This all came under control of the Cuban people. This is the essence of the Cuban revolution. The US Government immediately instituted its policy, which continues to this day, of isolation and aggression. It started in 1960, a year after revolution. President Dwight D Eisenhower, pursuant to a 1960 memo written by a senior state department official, the US Government instituted a financial, economic, and commercial blockade of Cuba which is enshrined in our law and continues to this day.
Trump introduced some 200 new measures to overthrow the Cuban revolution. Biden continued this effort with even more measures. The US government and its counter-revolutionary supporters in South Florida promoted the recent July 11 demonstrations in cities throughout the island. These demonstrations were joined by many Cubans who have valid criticisms about bureaucracy, mismanagement, and corruption in the Cuban government. For example, there are long lines people have to wait in to buy food and a lot of items are unavailable.
The situation of the Cuban people is one of hardship brought about by the 60 year old commercial and economic blockade set up at United States. Their suffering has been further exacerbated of course by the pandemic. Cubans suffer a shortage of food and medicine and a blow to the economy which was largely based on tourism. The US counter-revolutionary efforts involve a massive spending of money on social media and a direct role in organizing opponents of the Cuban government. After the July demonstrations a new one was planned for November 15. It was a total flop.
Guest – Attorney Art Heitzer, author and head of the Cuba subcommittee of the National Lawyers Guild.
—–
