Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:00]
Ralph Nader
Foreign.
- [00:03]
Wes Bryant
You're tuned into pacifica radio, kpfk 90.7 fm in los angeles, 98.7 fm in santa barbara, 93.5 in san diego, 99.5 fm in ridgecrest, china lake, and streaming
- [00:19]
Ralph Nader
universally at kpfk.org radio powered by you, the people.
- [00:28]
Tom Morello
I'm Tom Morello and you're listening to
- [00:30]
Ralph Nader
the Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
- [00:32]
David Feldman
Stand up. Stand up.
- [00:34]
Wes Bryant
You've been sitting way too long.
- [00:40]
Steve Scrovan
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan along with my co host David Feldman. This is our 630th episode and pretty much our 12th year anniversary because we started in March 2014. Welcome, David. Hello, Steve. And of course, as always, our producer, Hannah Feldman.
- [00:59]
Wes Bryant
Hello, Hannah.
- [01:00]
David Feldman
Hello, Steve.
- [01:01]
Steve Scrovan
And it's not a Ralph Nader Radio Hour without the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph.
- [01:07]
David Feldman
Hello, everybody.
- [01:08]
Steve Scrovan
Our first guest on today's program will be Wes Bryant. Mr. Bryant is a retired Air Force special operations master sergeant and former analyst at the Civilian Protection center, which was a department within the Pentagon. The office was dedicated to safeguarding civilians in conflict zones, but apparently it didn't fit into Green army man Pete Hegses warrior ethos.
- [01:32]
Ralph Nader
America, regardless of what so called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. All on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives.
- [01:55]
Steve Scrovan
So that department was eliminated a little while later. Schoolgirls in Iran were slaughtered with no apology. We're going to get into all of that with him, as well as the civilian deaths in Gaza. Then we'll conclude with our resident constitutional scholar Bruce Fine, who's going to join us to discuss his article that was published in the Baltimore sun this week and entitled the power to declare War Belongs to Congress Alone. As always, we'll take some time to check in with our relentless corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhyber. But first, Pete Hegseth claims that no other military goes to the lengths we do to avoid civilian casualties. How true is that? David?
- [02:33]
Bruce Fine
Wes Bryant is a defense and national security analyst with Focus on Foreign Policy and Global Conflict, Counterterrorism and Extremism, strike and joint targeting operations and civilian harm. He retired from the U.S. air Force in 2018 at the rank of master sergeant after 20 years of active duty service. He was formerly a senior policy analyst and advisor on precision warfare and civilian harm mitigation. At the Pentagon Civilian Protection center of Excellence where he led as the first ever branch chief of civilian harm assessments. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Wes Bryant, thank you.
- [03:17]
Wes Bryant
I appreciate you having me here.
- [03:18]
David Feldman
Welcome indeed, Wes. For our listeners, this is going to be a real treat because Wes has had combat experience over there in the Middle east and he's had experience in a whole variety of roles. And now he's a major spokesman for the rule of law, international law, constitutional observance and a different kind of foreign policy. So let's get underway with the tragedy of the girls school in Iran in the southern city of Minab to illustrate where you stand on all these things. When the strike occurred on February 28, the first day of Trump's attack on Iran, it was estimated that some hundred and 50 girls between 9 and 12 were killed as well as teachers and others. And it aroused a furor in the world. And what was Trump's response? He blamed Iran and he's never apologized when it became absolutely clear that it was a US Tomahawk missile that struck that school. Give me your take on this in your long running work to mitigate civilian damages and let us know what you think Trump should have done in terms of regret and compensation to the families.
- [04:38]
Wes Bryant
Yes, absolutely. You know, I spent over 20 years being one of the individuals coordinating and controlling all of these strikes. I've been involved in really thousands of strike operations, personally controlled hundreds of strikes as the one saying, the, as we say, cleared hot. And then, you know, I've spent the last few years since retirement conducting analysis focused mainly on strike operations, specifically especially in Gaza and Israel's war in Gaza. So I've, I've analyzed really in depth dozens of various strike incidents in Gaza and hundreds in, in aggregate, as well as other conflict zones throughout the world. Myanmar, for example. And then of course in my role at the Pentagon in the civilian harm mitigation and response enterprise, which we'll get to later, that was my main role was to look at targeting operations, any, any kind of use of military force, but primarily targeting operations which involved civilian harm and civilian casualties. And so you know, what happened here with the strike on the girls school in Manob in southern Iran. I could tell immediately, even before all the amplifying information came out, which we've since assessed and analyzed in depth, that this was one likely US strike and then two, just a result of frankly pure and utter negligence, really no excuse for it whatsoever. So here are the facts as we have them now. This was in the opening hours or hour of the campaign. We used Tomahawk missile strikes to, as we say in war planning, soften the battlefield. And of course, this was at the same time as we were hitting Iranian air defenses so we could gain air superiority and then push aircraft in and do more damage internally, versus on the coast where a lot of these strikes were. So this was one of many, presumably hundreds if not more of targeted strikes by Tomahawk missiles. So somewhere between nine and 12 tomahawks, it looks like, targeted a compound which was this broader compound that the school was adjacent to, part of a Iranian IRGC missile headquarters, targeted about seven to nine buildings in that compound. And then this school, which was just off the compound and actually, you know, walled off from it, as we know, was very clearly characterized within this broader compound as a part of this naval command. Now back in 2013, we have imagery that shows the school, or what is now a school, could have been a part of this naval compound. It was not walled off from the compound. It doesn't have the hallmarks of a school, meaning what it has now is the ground and other structures. We can see it wasn't listed as a school anywhere online between 2016 and 2020. We see it being walled off from the main naval compound, additional entrances to the school. But on the other side, furthest from where the rest of the main naval bases, we see sports complex, you know, a little sports field and play areas, pink and blue walls. And then most critically, it is listed on Google maps, Iranian Google mapping and on Iranian websites. So as we call open source, listed as a school. And so what we have here very clearly is, however it happened, the US used the Task Force Central Command would be in charge of this, Regardless of where they got information, the information from initially used greater than decade old targeting intelligence and likely map data as well, and just plugged this in as a target and went with it. Against any existing targeting doctrine, let alone collateral damage methodology that we have, and our practices for civilian harm mitigation and civilian risk assessment, that was all truly thrown out the window. And we have multiple steps in the process, in the targeting process, to check in order to assess and do real time characterization, as we call it, of a target set or a target itself, to validate and vet whether or not when we go to actually target this entity, building structure, thing, person, whatever it may be, that it is still a valid military target, it's still where we think it is, and that it is void of civilian risk. None of that occurred. I mean, this strike violated standing practices and doctrine. We've had in place for two, three decades. That's aside from even the work we were doing at the Pentagon in civilian harm mitigation, to get better at this sort of thing and prevent these things from happening. And, you know, I'll close on this note. This is just one of many my colleagues at Air wars who track civilian harm incidents in conflict zones. Right now they're tracking over 130 separate incidents throughout Iran. That's between the US and Israel, you know, and that number is going to spike. And of course, we're tracking, I believe it's over 2,000 civilian casualties. That number is surely going to spike once the smoke clears.
- [09:28]
David Feldman
Let me ask you this question just to get down to basics. I think in analyzing the historic engagement of the US and the Middle east going back to Post World War I, when the mandate systems were set up by the British and French, it's always good to start by asking the question, who started the fighting and who's in whose backyard? The people over there are not in our backyard. We're in their backyard. Relentlessly supporting dictatorships, overthrowing regimes, backing Israel to the hilt. All kinds of civilians slaughtered. It was Israel in the US who took a small Islamic group offshoot from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt called Hamas in the early 80s and built it up and funded it to counteract the secular Palestine Liberation Organization with a religious group. Well, that obviously backfired. And the rise of ISIS can be attributed to the Bush Cheney criminal invasion of Iraq. And even Hezbollah arose because we backed Israel's 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon, killing a lot of Shiites who had no real stake in the Palestinian issue in the process. And the Lebanese army was too small to protect them. And so Hezbollah arose to protect them. So even including the Muhajideen in Afghanistan, after the Soviets invaded that country, we were behind, bolstering and weaponizing them. So why are we creating our own enemies here? The bungling is staggering. And it's staggering into, I think, a clear description of the United States as a state terrorist and Israel as a state terrorist. Yet we only call resistance or other violent groups in the Middle east terrorists. Where would you put the US under the rubric of state terrorism? And the same thing with Israel. Before we get deeper into the Israel genocide, would you call them state terrorists? Would you call the presidents such as Biden and Trump war criminals? Certainly international law experts have little trouble doing that.
- [11:42]
Wes Bryant
Yes. You know, and thank you for that background. I frankly, completely agree. I believe that right now, with the way we are conducting ourselves as A nation on the international stage and most importantly, the way we're using or abusing our military and the use of lethal military force, we are carrying out state terrorism. Israel assuredly has been for years. If you look at the death and destruction, the human toll across the Middle East, I mean, of course we know Iran has been our adversary for years. For decades it has been very savvy at carrying out asymmetric warfare for all of its various proxy groups. And you know, you named that the in depth history where we can call ourselves as a nation complicit in some of this development, of course. But let's look at what nation of any across the Middle east has caused the most death and destruction and human toll in recent history is absolutely Israel in its genocide in Gaza and then its other really illegal operations throughout the rest of the Middle east these past few years. And I'll say you're exactly right. It's thrown out as kind of the blanket term for our enemies. And we don't often or at all take a look at ourselves and do an honest assessment of our own actions.
- [12:57]
David Feldman
Give us your definition of terrorism.
- [12:59]
Wes Bryant
I'll give you the definition from the DoD's Joint Combating Terrorism Doctrine. It's the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political or ideological beliefs, other ideological beliefs to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political. Terrorism is a long standing, illegal and violent tactic, specifically targeting innocent population to further terrorist objectives through violence, fear and intimidation. That's from our own Joint Combating Terrorism Doctrine in the Department of Defense and I refuse to call it the Department of War.
- [13:36]
David Feldman
Well, you highlighted Israeli genocide in many of your speeches and writings and interviews. And the culpability of the United States as a co belligerent under international law is quite clear. The abandonment of its constitutional duties in Congress has been. It's hard to describe the level of abdication and transfer of its constitutional duties, declare war authority to the whims and discretion of whoever is president. Over the years we have had guests in this program, Wes, where we marvel at the inadequate reporting of what's going on in Gaza with US weapons, diplomatic, political backing, intelligence material services as well for the Israeli war machine. And we focused on something which I want to ask you about because with your answer you will tell me a lot about where you stand here. A Professor Rogers retired in England in April 2025 was interviewed and he is an expert on violent impacts of bombs and missiles. And he estimated that the TNT equivalent of What Israel dropped on Gaza, the geographical size of Philadelphia corporate, crammed with 2.3 million people, was the equivalent of six Hiroshima bombs. It would be much more now because it's been almost a year later. He also said that the Israeli bombs create more damage because they're more targeted than the Hiroshima bomb on the civilian population. So before we discuss the estimates of civilian death, which are reported in the mainstream press almost exclusively the Hamas Ministry of Health, which now is up to 73,000, and they just attribute that to the violent impacts of missiles and bombs, not to the secondary effects of no water, medicine, starvation, infectious disease, no shelter, no electricity, no fuel. So here's the generic question. What is your range of civilian deaths in Gaza since October 7th?
- [15:52]
Wes Bryant
You know, I don't know if you're tracking, but after years of denial, Israeli military finally, only recently, a couple months ago, now acknowledged that the Gaza Health Ministry, that the figures they're putting out are largely correct. And you know, at the time, they acknowledged that that would be around 75,000 Palestinians dead. And as you mentioned, that's not including what we call second and third order effects of conflict, which caused additional deaths and sometimes even more for years lasting after a conflict. But this is from direct action, usually typically strikes, both air and artillery strikes. And we know that from assessments, from assessing hundreds, thousands of strikes over these last few years, as well as from internal IDF whistleblowers and inadvertent, likely inadvertent statements from certain IDF officials, that the civilian toll of that number is, is at least somewhere around 83%. Now, the LANSA just did a pretty exhaustive study where they are estimating that percentage to be even higher. And they're also estimating that the civilian toll, the direct civilian toll from the strike campaign is likely more somewhere over a hundred thousand. And so, you know, with that, we're looking at Netanyahu and his supporters and he's got a few analysts out there, even, you know, one in the US that runs the sound of the guns for him and puts out basically falsities in the name of supporting Israel's campaign. You know, they like to throw out these civilian to combatant ratios and say that the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza is lower than any urban warfare in history. I mean, that's just complete nonsense. And what we're looking at now on a conservative, just based on the numbers and scale I've kind of thrown out on the conservative side is three civilians to one combatant. That's if they've even killed the number of combatants that they state they have now and likely more like somewhere around 5 to 1. And again, that's not including these second and third order effects. We have people starving. We have all the complete loss of medical infrastructure. I mean, 80 to 90%, between 80 and 90% of the entire infrastructure in Gaza is decimated. And you nailed it. You know, we hear all these, especially Hegseth most recently talking about precision, precision, precision strikes, and no one's more precise and precision warfare. Well, I was an expert in precision warfare. I helped. I was one of the people helping develop our standards for precision warfare and try to make us get to the point where we're actually carrying out precision warfare consistently. Precision warfare really means the minimal use of resources, the minimal use of, as he says, lethality in order to accomplish strategic objectives and the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure. We have in Gaza simply the use of precision weapons to decimate an entire urban infrastructure and decimate parts of the population. So what I say, and not flippantly, you know, unfortunately, I say it somberly, the only thing being applied here in terms of precision is that civilians and civilian infrastructure are being killed and destroyed. More precisely, that's all that's happening here.
- [19:01]
David Feldman
We've surveyed some of the projections and the estimates by outside groups, UN groups, universities, University of Edinburgh, for example, at Lancet Medical Journal, international relief groups, people who've been in Gaza as physicians. And we are convinced that over 600,000 have been killed since October 7th. That would leave an improbable 75% of the population still alive under the most intense and regularly recurring bombing in world history. I don't think any area that size has received that kind of intensive bombing month after month after month. There's nothing In World War II or subsequent wars, Vietnam or anything that compares with that. So even with that, the media resists it. The Washington Post foreign policy editor Karen DeYoung sent me an email saying we go with the Hamas figures because that's all we have. And that was over a year and a half ago, by the way. But she said, no doubt the real toll is much greater. Well, even the State Department Assistant Secretary in December 2025, testifying in Congress, said that their own estimates were higher than Hamas. Hamas admits, you know, they're not counting second order effects, but they have an interest in lowballing, undercounting, because they don't want to make their own people more. More angry at them for not protecting them, providing shelter, or even what they recklessly did on October 7th against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. And so would you agree that the estimate could easily be over 600,000?
- [20:46]
Wes Bryant
I absolutely agree. You know, as you said, as an analyst myself, you know, and a voice and a subject matter expert on this on strike campaigns, civilian harm mitigation, I do try to use what figures we have verified to at least a reasonable degree. But yes, I will not be surprised. And that's fitting with other look backs in conflicts in past and even modern history. I mean, when we looked back, for example, as the US Military on the campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa, Mosul, Iraq and Raqqaqa, Syria against isis, which were, were really two of, of our own cautionary tales for civilian harm mitigation, you know, we transgressed as far as best practices in both those operations and the, those, the lookbacks on those operations were part of what led to the civilian harm mitigation and response enterprise. But you know, it took really a couple of years to gain the data, like more correct data on the true civilian toll. And those were much smaller operations in comparison to Gaza. And so I think here it will take a few years for us to really, as we say, the smoke to clear and for us to really get a true sense of the toll, both from direct effects of strikes and the second and third order effects of the population.
- [21:58]
David Feldman
Now what this tells us about our government and the mainstream press is that they're not interested in the real toll. The real toll would intensify political, diplomatic and civic drive and energy to end this conflict. It does make a difference. Nobody would ever tolerate an estimate of 600,000 Jews killed by the Nazis in World War II instead of 6 million. So it's either indifference, ignorance, lassitude, or bigotry on the part of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV in the US and this has astonished us month after month. There are 5,000 babies born in Gaza into the rubble month after month. The water is contaminated and leads to deadly dysentery which has a horrific toll on infants, very young children. You have infectious diseases, you don't have any medicine for diabetics, for cancer. You don't last very long as a diabetic without medicine. And then of course there's a destruction of hospitals, clinics, schools. Do you have any idea what is motivating the Netanyahu genocidal regime other than a desire to have Netanyahu stay in office?
- [23:16]
Wes Bryant
I absolutely believe on part of the Netanyahu government, the idf at least leadership, culture and many within the idf, and then on part of this administration and even some within the previous, there is this massive level of dehumanization against Arabs and Muslims. And then, of course, now we have white nationalism baked into our current national defense strategy. So, of course, as you said, if these were white Christians or white Jews, Even, not even 600,000, as you mentioned, just the 70, 80,000 figure that we have, it would have been stopped a long time ago. And that's an absolute fact.
- [23:52]
David Feldman
We're talking to Wes Bryant. I wrote a column recently on the retired military, which is populated by generals and admirals who despised Trump. Some served in his first administration, like retired General Kelly, retired General Mattis, and they clearly despise Hegseth for whole assorted reasons. And they've done very little. They have great moral authority to speak out before the American people other than people like Larry Wilkerson and a few others. They're not stepping up in this very, very dangerous period of American history. You're retired military. You know about Veterans for Peace, but they're small. And there are some very prominent high ranking officers in this country who have their own circle of influence who would get immediate media, but they don't seem to be mobilized. Could you give us some of your reflections on this?
- [24:50]
Wes Bryant
I agree. This is something I've been lamenting about to my wife and close friends over the past two weeks, frankly, and even before that, just like I'm dismayed and really ashamed and taken aback that we seem to have no senior active duty, senior military leadership right now that's doing anything except for taking a knee to Hexeth and Trump and carrying out any and everything they direct them to do, illegal, unethical, nonsensical or not. We also have, as you mentioned, a whole lot of very influential former flag officers, generals and admirals that could be speaking out and that are just not. And if they do, it's neutral. It's. It's this. Oh, I'm going to assess the strategic aspects of the war in Iran. Well, we're beyond that. And then I think here I am, retired master sergeant, not a big name, and I'm out here, well, for the past two weeks, every day, all day, from interview to interview, speaking out, doing what I can to say this is wrong, and here's why. Because I have a background to show you why this is wrong and to fight what's happening. And I just, I just think it has to be for some of them. Maybe some of them are aligned. Of course we know others are not aligned. Is there fear of retribution? Is there this worry about whatever company they're attached to whatever position they have in their firm, the think tank that they're running, because some of them run think tanks. Right. That's all I can think. And I hate to project these character attacks on these individuals. I don't know why, but it is just wholly disheartening and disappointing. It shouldn't just be people like me coming out and speaking out. I would love to have a general by my side so that we're both giving our perspective on it. But I don't. I don't see any of them.
- [26:28]
David Feldman
Their careers have reflected physical courage. They have yet to reflect moral courage. And as Aristotle taught us, courage is the primary virtue which makes all other virtues possible. Would you align yourself with the six members of Congress, all of them former veterans, who urged soldiers to disobey illegal orders as the military justice law requires them to do, in addition to other federal and international laws? Would you urge the soldiers now over there to disobey illegal orders?
- [27:03]
Wes Bryant
I absolutely would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with those statements because we're at the point where they're needed. And we should have had. We should have someone, and preferably senior military leader, a general officer that's refusing, you know, our, I don't want to say lower level, but our operational level troops are being used and abused as pawns here. And, you know, they're being told from their leadership all the way up up to the SecDef, up to the president, this is legal. This is what you have to do. And guess what? If you don't, UCMJ violation, we're going to punish you or put you in jail. And they like to play in a gray area. We'll take the narcos boat strikes, for example, summary execution. These are at the most, if not fully civilians, just drug smugglers, not actual combatants. They don't even fit the DoD's definition of terrorism that I read earlier. But, you know, for that person that's sitting there in a. At a task force charged with coordinating and planning a strike, you're being told, this is vetted, these are legal targets. This is narco terrorism. It's not a woman or a child that you're staring at. You're like, okay, well, I guess this is a bad guy. It's a drug runner. And they're telling me that this is all legal. See, so this is the gray area they play in their manipulating our forces and really subjecting them to potential liability down the line. And so I'd say, yes, I absolutely agree. I think that that commentary, that public statement should have applied mainly to senior military leadership, all of whom should have known better throughout this past year than what's been carried out.
- [28:34]
David Feldman
Your main experience in civilian government was, was in reducing civilian harm. Tell our listeners how Trump has destroyed this program since he took office in January 2025.
- [28:48]
Wes Bryant
Yes, you know, I think I mentioned earlier, this program was stood up in the wake of the war on terror winding down, where both senior military leadership and lawmakers on both sides of the House, both sides of the fence, were mandating look backs on the war on terror and basically looking at what could the military have done better? And what did we do? Well, what do we want to sustain and what do we want to improve? And one of the big sore points was, hey, we could have done a lot better. Though we have had some successes, for sure, we could have done a lot better, especially in certain instances like the battles of Mosul and Raqqa. I named earlier, for example, at protecting civilians. This initiative, which ended up being called the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Initiative, was actually first incepted, first initiated under Secretary Esper under the first Trump administration, ironically, and then it was codified into law by Secretary Austin under Biden, and it stood up, and it began standing up in 2023. And that included what was called a Civilian Protection center of Excellence Pentagon, which would be the fulcrum of all of this. And then from there, we put out staff members across all of the combatant commands across the entire DoD. I was recruited in early 2024 based largely on my background in the military and then the years of analysis work I'd done, and then the public analysis and advocacy I've done regarding the war in Gaza. I worked for Senator Van Hollen on a task force conducting analysis of the strike campaign. I briefed that to Congress, and what I did was compared Israeli practices to US Best practices and said, this is why they're wrong. This is why all of their excuses for why civilians are being killed don't line up. There are better ways to do this. And so I was actually reached out to by the man who had become my boss. I was told it was Secretary Austin's number one priority. They had a direct higher authority. And I was subsequently directly hired right into the Pentagon. I mean, took a couple months to get processed in. And frankly, on a personal note, for me, it was simply an extension of everything I had done my whole career. Anyway, part of my job as a, what was called a jtac, the guys calling in and coordinating strikes, is to protect civilians and mitigate collateral damage. And I had learned over the years that post retirement that we could have done a lot better. When you kind of get out of the seat and you look back at yourself honestly. And then part of that initiative kind of under the table was that we would likely be able to have some influence in affecting policy toward Israel and what was going on in Gaza. And so absolutely I jumped right on board with that. And from there kicked off the better part of a year of working pretty tirelessly doing kind of each of us doing the job of four because we were severely undermanned. We were still standing up, this is through 2024, early 2025. And we were working directly with combatant commands, with their senior staff, with the combatant commanders, training, collaborating, war gaming, figuring out how we were all going to collectively, you know, without kind of going into mundane details, how are we going to collectively be better in planning and carrying out operations to mitigate civilian harm and then when it did happen, be better at responding to it, assessing it, investigating it, providing proper both military and political response and redress. It was truly a momentous undertaking. We had a whole lot of momentum. But I'll say this was going to be a years long effort at change management. So in fact, the center wasn't even supposed to be fully operationally capable until August of 2025. But by March it was already effectively at that point pretty much shut down. That's what I got pushed out and removed. That's when I whistleblow to the Washington Post and New York Times.
- [32:23]
David Feldman
As you know, this Civilian Protection center cannot be closed without congressional approval. But it now just exists mostly on paper as no mission, no mandate, no budget. As you said, that happened, you know,
- [32:36]
Wes Bryant
as soon as before Hegseth even got formally in the seat, his transition teams came in and they're combing through the Pentagon figuring out what do we want to cut. Mostly that's woke if they didn't say it outright, that was the intent. And of course civilian protection. That's right in the first two words of the name that was going to be slashed. You know, on paper their reasoning was, well, this is redundant because we already do it. We already have civilian harm mitigation integrated into our doctrine and our policies. And so, you know, it's almost laughable because, you know, as I've said very often, you know, I would argue that, well, if we, if we already do it and we're already so good at it, how did for example, a strike like the strike in Manob happens and many other examples recently and throughout even the war on terror.
- [33:21]
David Feldman
Well, Wes, is there anything else you'd like to say? And say it. And give the website slowly twice so people can communicate with you and, and see what you have been saying and doing as a prime example of moral courage.
- [33:36]
Wes Bryant
I appreciate that. You know, I appreciate you giving me a voice on the platform. And I'll say that the speaking out that I've done, the whistleblowing that I've done, but even the speaking out since, you know, as a private citizen, for me and a whole lot of others, it comes with a lot of sacrifice, you know, personally and professionally. But if you offered me, if someone offered me all the money in the world to quiet my voice this past year and going forward, I wouldn't take it at all. And I feel like that's the conviction that all of us need to have and find the weapon that you can use, hopefully peaceful and non violent, fitting with our ideal, our democratic ideals as a nation. Right. The weapon that you can use to fight this. You know, I'm using the weapons that I have right now in this moment and I, I believe that every one of us has something, has an angle, has an ability, whether it's down to even just, you know, showing up to as many protests as you can or town halls. So I would offer that and let's all keep fighting and until we take this back and build our country to what it, we believe it can be and should be.
- [34:36]
David Feldman
And I certainly hope you'll connect more with the activists at the Veterans for peace. They have 100 chapters around the country. They're demonstrating, they're protesting even at manufacturing weapons sites. They're not getting media in the Washington Post and New York Times. So all good people should band together because the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. Give your website slowly twice.
- [35:02]
Wes Bryant
Yes, well, pretty easy. It's just. Wesj Bryant W-E S J B R Y N T.com Wesj Bryant.com I hope
- [35:11]
David Feldman
listeners have gotten energized by what Wes Bryant is doing and others and we hope that their ranks will swell and grow as more people take the conscientious objection option out of these illegal wars that we're pursuing with Israel and against Iran and Lebanon at the current time, which seems to be even more perilous by the week with Trump. It's only going to get worse, much worse both here and abroad unless the people recover their sovereign power, impeach and remove them from office. Majority of the American people want that done. They just have to organize focus on 535 members of Congress in this election year. Thank you very much. Wes bryant, thank you.
- [36:00]
Steve Scrovan
We've been speaking with Wes Bryant. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com when we come back. Our resident constitutional scholar Bruce Fine joins us to argue that the power to declare war belongs to Congress alone and how that has been, as he says, airbrushed out of the Constitution. Now let's check in with our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhiber from the National
- [36:21]
Tom Morello
Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your Corporate Crime Reporter Morning minute for Friday, March 27, 2020. Russell Mokhyber, a New Mexico jury last week found that Meta platforms, which runs Facebook and Instagram, was liable for failing to protect young people from online dangers, including sexually explicit content, solicitation and human trafficking. The jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and endangering children under the state's consumer protection laws. The jury ordered a maximum penalty for each violation, totaling 374 million in civil penalties. Meta made 160 times that amount of revenue in its most recent quarter. The case was among the first to test questions about whether social media companies should be held responsible for the content posted on their platforms. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torres said that this is the first time a state had prevailed at trial against a major tech company for harming young people. For the corporate Crime Reporter, I'm Russell Mokiver.
- [37:20]
Steve Scrovan
Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman, Hannah and Ralph. What has happened to Congress's power to declare war?
- [37:29]
Bruce Fine
David Bruce Fine is a constitutional scholar and an expert on International Law. Mr. Fine was associate deputy attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional the Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy and American Empire before the Fall. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Bruce fine, thank you.
- [37:53]
David Feldman
Welcome indeed, Bruce. The American empire and its aggressive wars over the years has been made possible because Congress has abdicated its declare war power, which is exclusive to it under the Constitution, and handed it to the president, whoever the president may be. And at the present time, the Congress under the Republican majority has handed unbridled discretion to Trump to declare wars. He's militarily attacked 10 countries already and he's deep into the Iran war of aggression. I don't think people fully realize the frivolous and deadly nature of what Congress has abdicated. And you have tried to educate the public by showing how enormously Important. The Founding Fathers saw in their installation in the Constitution that the power to declare war belongs to Congress alone and no one else. Can you give us a more granular rendition of what they deliberated in those early days of establishing a constitutional republic?
- [39:04]
Ralph Nader
Yes. Thank you, Ralph. I've done this most recently in a column in the Baltimore Sun. It was published hard copy Tuesday, electronic version on Monday. But one of the things that's very remarkable about the origination of the declare war clause in Article 1 is that it was universally supported. Every member of the Constitutional Convention, every participant in the ratification debates, all agreed that you could never trust the executive with the war power because all experience shows that the executive, because they get virtually infinite power in times of war, falsify danger in order to usurp and aggrandize power to themselves. From day one, you go back even to the kings in the Old Testament, inventing excuses for war and then becoming limitless in the exercise of power, suppressing dissent. So with that understanding, it was universally recognized when the declare war clause was supported and placed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, that Congress was the only branch that could take us from a state of peace to war, peace being the natural condition. I recognized, however, that there may be instances where we're attacked immediately, we're the victim of aggression that had already broken the peace and says, of course, when we've already been attacked and the peace has already been broken, a president may respond in self defense, but can't go beyond self defense. And that was the understanding of Madison, of George Washington, of Thomas Jefferson, of Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, across the waterfront. So it wasn't a clause that was debated at length because everybody understood a president couldn't go to war on his own, maybe respond in self defense. And when you had early examples of aggression where for example, the North African beys under the Ottoman Empire were declaring war on the United States and plundering our maritime commerce in order to trade in the Mediterranean. Thomas Jefferson, then president, he had to go to Congress 11 times for statutes saying that he could go beyond self defense and protecting our maritime commerce. When we had our first declared war, this was in 1812, James Madison, the president asked Congress for a declaration of war because Britain was impressing tens of thousands of our seamen, namely saying that they couldn't lose British citizenship and without any due process would be seizing our seamen on our vessels and they are already flagrantly violating our rights as neutrals in the Napoleonic Wars. He went to Congress, said, only you can decide whether to go to war. And Congress voted appropriately. I think that one of the reasons why this understanding, which is about as clear as you can get, the only thing that I think is clear is you got to be 35 years old to be a candidate for President of the United States, is that we began to move away culturally and intellectually from a republic where our glory was liberty, the march of the mind and the rule of law, to becoming an empire, which first began with Manifest destiny in the Mexican American War where President James K. Polk lied about Mexicans killing an American soldier on American soil in order to dupe Congress to declaring war. And the reason why I mentioned that particular inflection point is that if you're going to run an empire, you need a Caesar. You know, you can't have a collective at the top running empires. You need a Caesar. And so once we went down that road towards empire with the Mexican American War, which by the way, Ulysses S. Grant, our Union army general, characterized as one of the worst instances of warfare that reminded him of European wars initiated by dictators in his war memoirs. Once we went down that path had been a slow accretion of power in the presidency. We went from the Mexican American War to Continental empire, destroying Indian tribes and crossing across the entire continent, and then moved into global empire with the Spanish American War, the annexation of Hawaii, the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, using the Spanish American War to conquer the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico. We denied them self determination. And again that was a war again that was fueled by this falsity that the Spanish had blown up the USS Maine in Havana harbor, which wasn't true either. So when we decided in the culture that we would rather be an empire, that got an adrenaline high from being a colossus and surrendering our republican virtues of rule of law. Everyone gets to march to their own drummer, find fulfillment as long as they're not harming anyone else. You then find this repeated disrespect for the declare war clause. The last time that it was really seriously Defended was in 1920, when part of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson was supporting would have empowered the President to go to war on his own to defend any border in the entire world. Henry Cabot Lodge, Senator Lodge then opposed that says we can't surrender our war power, we can't trust the President. And one of the reasons why the Versailles Treaty was not ratified. But since then, that's over 100 years. Congress has simply walked away from its power to declare war and to rebuke and control presidents for the same reason.
- [44:41]
David Feldman
Bruce, you said since 9 11, any remaining restraints on presidents have been eradicated by these presidents in terms of what they now are claiming they can do. You want to elaborate that.
- [44:53]
Ralph Nader
Yes, in two respects. One, 911 really placed us on a permanent war footing. That is there'll never be a time of peace ever again in the United States. Why? Because the declaration of war by the president was against a tactic, international terrorism. Right. You can't negotiate, you know, at Tokyo Bay, a peace treaty with a tactic. So it means, as we're living now, and it's now, ever since 911 in 2001, 25 years, we've always been a state of war in terms of legal architecture. The second thing that 911 brought in was this amazing authority that presidents have asserted and exercised to play prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner, to kill anybody they believe on the planet or could become a national security risk. One of those was the teenage son of Anwar al Awlaki having dinner in Yemen, and he got vaporized and that was the end of it. That's Barack Obama. And so there's been no limit.
- [45:49]
David Feldman
U.S. citizen.
- [45:50]
Ralph Nader
A U.S. citizen. Right. U.S. citizen vaporized him. He's disappeared from history. Right. No one knows who he was. But this is just one example because all of the granular evidence is typically concealed in classified information. And the courts are not going to break state secrets. We don't know how often it's been done, but it's probably a staggering level because we know that there's no more oversight of Congress, and it comes out occasionally when there's a leak. And one thing, remember that this power does not require any substantiation by anyone. It just says, I think your national security risk. I'm going to kill you. No judicial review. And we see that finding expression even more prominently under President Trump when he has said unilaterally with an executive order, anybody who's trafficking in drugs in places I don't like, they are an enemy at war with the United States. And because I'm declaring they're at war with the United States, even though they're unarmed and not creating an imminent danger or anything, I'm sending the military out and murdering them. It's probably approaching 200 now. But there's no limit. He said on his own. President Trump, Venezuela is attacking the United States. We're being invaded. You know, they're shooting rockets and dropping bombs on us, even though it's obviously absurd. He then uses that alleged war power and he go kidnaps President Maduro and Caracas and again, what is frightening here, Ralph, there is no limiting principle. All it is is just as President Trump says, the only thing that constrains me, not the Constitution, is my own conscience, if he has one. And something like those words themselves, in my mind, are impeachable offenses. You know, presidents basically said, I'm asserting the powers of a king.
- [47:42]
David Feldman
Let's not exonerate Clinton and Obama and Biden. I mean, Biden was a war criminal. For example, when he locked arms with Netanyahu and the genocide in Gaza. Clinton blew up civilian building to cover a problem he had back home. He killed innocent civilians in Iraq, including one of the leading artists. And Obama invented the signature strike, which killed over 3,000 people in Yemen and elsewhere. Explain what, what is the signature strike?
- [48:16]
Ralph Nader
Well, it's just you take characteristics of your certain age. If you wear a beard, you're in places that you think ISIS might feel is one of their training fields, and they put in the algorithm and poof, you, you're done. Right. They don't have any corroboration. And you can imagine, especially if you're younger than 21 and you're Muslim and wear a beard, you become an immediate target. And they never actually, after the fact, try to confirm that any of these persons were, in fact, terrorists. But I do want to take the lead that you've offered to underscore. This is not a Trump phenomenon. As I pointed out, this has been growing since the Mexican American War.
- [48:50]
David Feldman
Let's go to Steve Bruce.
- [48:53]
Steve Scrovan
Given the history of the declare war clause being disrespected not only in the 20th century, but also in the 19th century, it seems this gentleman's agreement we call the United States Constitution has been subverted so much that don't we need a new Constitution? Because how can we keep pointing to this thing and say, hey, but guys, it says it right here? And then they have lawyers and Supreme Courts that find loopholes and legalese that make them able to subvert it every time they want to. Don't we need to codify this in a different, stronger way?
- [49:32]
Ralph Nader
It's hard to imagine, given the clarity with which, you know, the framers spoke in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. How can you write the language any clearer? That's why. And all the framers understood that these were not dumb people. They all looked at it. And 100% consensus, only Congress can take us from peace to war. And remember also that you can rewrite it. In my view, if the culture does not change in understanding our mission as a country, why we were born to have the rule of law, to celebrate these unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If that isn't the mission, and the mission is to dominate the world. No matter what you write down, it's going to be interpreted and applied to create a Caesar in the White House because it's the only way you can have an empire. Doesn't matter what the words are. That's why even in the, in the British system, if you think about World War II, does anyone even think anything Britain existed other than the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. Even though it's technically parliamentary supremacy, they're an empire. It didn't matter what the Parliament could do. Everything was done by the Prime Minister. And that's why we need to create. In addition, I don't think we need to rewrite the Constitution, just need to follow it. But we need to re establish ourselves. A new birth of the idea of the United States being a place where our glory is liberty and the rule of law and the march of the mind as opposed to the march of the foot soldier. If that doesn't change, I can guarantee you no matter what words you write down, they're going to be interpreted to crown the President with limitless power.
- [51:04]
David Feldman
I think Steve was pointing to a self enforcing mechanism where you can take the clarity of the declare war, file a suit in court, not be told that they have no standing as citizens to do so. Not being told that it's a political question for Congress and the White House, not for the courts. I think maybe that's what Steve might be pointing to. And you've made very clear that you would like enforcing mechanisms to constitutional provisions.
- [51:33]
Ralph Nader
Well, that's true enough. And I think that first of all you would have to amend Article 3 as it currently interpreted to give standing to citizens, which I think this probably should be there anyway. But let's put that aside. How would a court enforce its judgment? Well, you know that the International Court of Justice issues rulings on genocide, but they're just paper because they're not enforced. And that's where you come back and this is a good idea. I believe Steve and I've drafted these resolutions. There should be congressional resolutions warning the President if you go to war without our authorization, it's an impeachable offense and we will remove you from office. Nobody can interfere with Congress on impeachment power. The judiciary stays away, the Executive has no role and I've drafted resolutions so the President has fair warning. That's what we're going to do. I think that would be a wonderful improvement if you could get Congress to pass that resolution. That would be, I think, a great advance from where we are now.
- [52:34]
David Feldman
You're going to get this resolution introduced in Congress and it's going to be the subject of discussion in this election year.
- [52:41]
Ralph Nader
Yeah, contingent impeachment, where what Congress does, they pass a resolution saying, Mr. Trump, it's not a personal issue. We have an obligation to insist you honor your oath of office. And if you fail to retract these illegal, unconstitutional executive orders and other actions within 30 days and redress the harm it's caused, you can stay in office. So it's contingent and making it clear it's not the personality, it's dishonoring the Constitution that we're objecting to.
- [53:12]
David Feldman
You had a follow up, Steve?
- [53:14]
Steve Scrovan
I was just going to say that we sort of had a second founding in 1865, but that took a civil war to redefine the country in a new way. So the recourse beyond, I guess, Ralph, and you kind of answered that with the resolutions, but there's got to be recourse. That doesn't make us have to come to destroy ourselves and refound ourselves out of some sort of rubble.
- [53:42]
Ralph Nader
No, I think your point is an excellent one. And I think the difference with the Civil War amendments, you know, the 14th, 13th, 14th, 15th amendment, is that you did have abolitionists, very serious numbers, and Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, things of that sort. I think the difference now is that there's a very widespread, even if it's subconscious support for our empire, I mean, people don't even ask the questions that we're talking on this program. They don't even get raised in the Congress of the United States. They're not raised in. Nobody runs for office for the House of the Senate says, hey, we got to recapture our declare war clause power. This is crazy, the president going to war on his own. And so we need a huge educational undertaking because this usurpation that we've described, Democratic presidents, Republican presidents, you know, when a Democrat does it, the Democrats are quiet in Congress. When a Republican does it, Republicans are quiet in Congress. And so there really is very little dissent on the idea that we ought to be an empire. These are the famous or infamous words of Madeleine Albright. You know, we stand taller than any country in the world. They love our intervention, you know, and want to save them been their decrepitude. And she was the one that told Leslie Stahl, yeah, 500,000 children under 5 years old who starved with our sanctions in Iraq. And. And Madeleine Albright, the Democratic Secretary of State, said it was worth it. That's Madeleine Albright, who's a Democrat Secretary of State. So it isn't just a Republican Democrat thing. It's a whole cultural degradation.
- [55:14]
Bruce Fine
David, Ralph Nader always says it's easier than you think and that America's salvation can be found in Article 1 of the Constitution. Congress, Pete Hecseth, wants $200 billion to fund this war in Iran. What are the mechanics here? What could we be looking at?
- [55:31]
Ralph Nader
It's very simple. We already have seen this rodeo before. If Congress wants to act, I go back as my reference statute enacted stating after August 15, 1973, no monies of the United States can be expended to conduct combat operations in Indochina. All you need if you put me up there in the legislative office. Give me 10 minutes. No monies of the United States can be expected to conduct combat operations over Iran or any other country when Congress has not passed a declaration of war. The money's not there. I mean, Congress still has that power of the purse. And it's a matter are they actually going to exercise it here? And they can. The American people need to phone in and say, we don't want one penny going to the Iran war. They could cut it off now. They don't have to Prevent the additional $200 billion, which I consider completely obscene. And this is the power of the purse that Madison described as an ironclad protection of the legislature against executive waywardness.
- [56:35]
David Feldman
Well, as we speak, public citizens opposing the $200 billion request by Trump for the Iran war. If you want to support that, go to citizen.org and you'll get the information and focus on your two senators and representative. Well, we're out of time. The article is the subject of this discussion with Bruce vine is in the Baltimore Sun. It's called the power to declare war Belongs to Congress alone. March 23, 2026. Thank you very much, Bruce.
- [57:05]
Ralph Nader
Thank you, Ralph.
- [57:07]
Steve Scrovan
We've been speaking with Bruce Fine. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com I want to thank our guests again, Wes Bryant and Bruce Fine. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show for you podcast listeners. Stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with In Case youe Haven't Heard and a lot more with Wes Bryant. Transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site. Soon after the episode is posted.
- [57:33]
Bruce Fine
The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.
- [57:42]
Steve Scrovan
Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon.
- [57:48]
Bruce Fine
Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.
- [57:53]
David Feldman
Thank you and thank you, listeners. Support this profile of courage that you heard on this show.
- [58:01]
Ralph Nader
Stand up, step up you ought to step up rise up, arise up I know you want to rise up Stand up, stand up, Rise up.
- [58:26]
Steve Scrovan
Support for KPFK comes from a screening of the documentary Steal this story on Friday, April 17, 2026 as a fundraiser for KPFK. The event takes place at the Laemmle Royal in West Los Angeles with a screening at 1:10pm and 7:10pm Democracy now host Amy Goodman will be in attendance for a Q and A session alongside filmmakers Carl Diehl and Tia. Lesson information and full event details are available at kpfk.org.
- [59:10]
Ralph Nader
Kpfk 90.7 FM honors the voices that refuse to be silenced. In celebration of Women's Herstory Month, we're opening the vaults. Join us every Monday in the month of March from 1 to 2pm as we dive deep into the Pacifica Radio archives. From the radical grassroots organizers of the sixties to the poets and visionaries who reshaped our culture, we're bringing you the authentic sounds of women making history. These are the recordings that captured a movement uncensored, unfiltered and uniquely captured. KPFK. That's Mondays at 1pm Honor the past, inspire the future. KPFK 90.7 FM radio powered by the people. If you're automobile, truck, boat, motor.