I have zero law degrees. I admit to simply opposing kidnapping people and sticking them in distant foreign prisons.

But I feel perfectly qualified — as I think we all should — to reject Trump’s “legal” defenses of his outrages out of hand.

In one AP report, we can read that Trump and/or his lawyers have claimed several things that don’t meet an individual or collective smell test.

First, Trump claimed he could violate a judge’s order to turn around airplanes read more

There is nothing new about Democrats assisting the Republican agenda, forgoing opportunities to block disastrous legislation on procedural votes, and then making a show of “opposing” bills on a final vote, or openly supporting them while claiming to nonetheless be “against the bill” but afraid of something worse.

There is nothing new about lying, scheming warmongers and Zionists parroting Israeli propaganda long after its thorough debunking, as a sort of pseudo-excuse for read more

Trump says anything the Houthis in Yemen do, he will hold Iran accountable for. Not through the rule of law, of course. Not through restrictions on weapons sales, of course. Through starting another goddamned war, this one with Iran.

If you believe this is a 12-D chess move on the way to banning nukes and slicing military spending in half, have I got a deal for you! You trade in your Tesla and I provide you with a peace bicycle reading on the side “I buy whatever Trump is pedaling.” read more

I know, I know, foreign military bases are spreading like a disease, and governments are openly mocking the rule of law.

But it’s hard to aim without a target. So, I’ve drafted a target.

This is a quick initial draft of something that, if it ever comes to be, will no doubt be improved and worsened by many voices. Please start that process, especially the improving part, by adding comments ​here.
 

Treaty on the Prohibition of Foreign Military Bases and Forces

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Determined to contribute to the realization of the purposes read more

Allies in Europe asked me for a few words from the United States on challenges for peace in these trumpy times. Here they are.

The challenges in working for peace in the United States and the world, during Trump times, are mostly what they already were: overcoming a corrupt communications and education system to inform people of the necessity and possibility of peace, and overcoming corrupt governments to shut down the war machine. But the war machine is growing rapidly, and with it the risk of read more

According to Columbia Magazine, published by Columbia University’s Office of Alumni and Development, but ultimately named for a brutal imperialist mercenary, in 1933 while Nazis in Germany were burning books by Jews, Columbia’s president — and 1931 Nobel Peace Prize recipient — Nicholas Murray Butler “welcomed Hans Luther, the German ambassador to the United States, to Morningside Heights, read more

It’s with a very heavy heart that I watch Europe imitate the militarism of the United States, moving massive resources from human and environmental needs to weapons, celebrating proposals from good liberal civic groups to steal money from Russia and dump it into more weapons, cutting deals to have the ingredients for more weapons dug out of your soil by a distant empire that routinely spits on your head, moving nuclear weapons around and across borders like toys, discarding the rule of law and read more

We need a lot more rallies, bigger, more frequent, and more in-the-way.

On Monday I interviewed a member of the Executive Committee of AIPAC. I asked him how he could defend and promote apartheid and genocide. He was not a legal witness; I could not order him not to change the subject. Still, he provided pretty clear (if very weak) excuses for genocide, which I think can be broken up into five types.

1. Others have done it.

The U.S. killed Native Americans, he pointed out. The U.S. starved Germans and Japanese. Israel labels half the people it kills as Hamas, and a ratio of 1 proper person killed to 1 improper person killed is well within the norms of recent wars and massacres.

Of course, horrific outrages committed by the U.S. government or anyone else do not justify or legalize them from Israel. Murdering tens of thousands of people “accidentally” but in proper proportion to murdering tends of thousands of other people “intentionally” isn’t legal or moral. Neither half of that sick calculation is legal or moral.

2. Israel isn’t doing it.

Hamas is causing Israel’s actions, over which Israel has no power or responsibility, and any non-Hamas people could survive just fine by living underground.

Others will claim that Israel causes Hamas’s actions, but in fact everyone causes their own actions. Israel’s atrocities in the West Bank where there is no Hamas are no more or less Israel’s responsibility than Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Blaming a population for not living underground while you bomb their homes flat won’t convince people who haven’t been paid to be convinced.

3. Those aren’t people.

They’re savages.

Dehumanizing, labeling certain people “savages,” is the oldest propagandistic nonsense in the book.

4. You are an anti-Semite.

If you haven’t objected exactly as strongly to every other murderous outrage in world history as you do to this one, you’re an anti-Semite.

My interviewee may have actually believed that the only war I’ve ever objected to is the one he’s currently shilling for. But correcting him couldn’t sway his belief that the world in general, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and various human rights groups — including Israeli ones — are all simply prejudiced against Jews / Israel (the two being the same apparently). And yet, what if the entire world including me were actually anti-Semitic and for that reason objecting only to this particular incident of mass murder? Wouldn’t it still be mass murder? Wouldn’t we be right, not wrong, to object at least this one time?

5. Israel kills people for the benefit of the United States.

It doesn’t even ask for U.S. troops to die.

And yet the people of the United States do not benefit from the killing and ought to object to anyone dying.

There are variations on these five themes, but I think you’ll find that supporters of the genocide in Gaza generally switch from one of them to a different one when challenged, rather than producing any actually substantive or convincing case for the horrific destruction, torture, and murder.

I asked this AIPAC Executive Committee member other questions too, such as why AIPAC spends so many millions of dollars on the U.S. electoral bribery system. He replied by claiming that the money doesn’t impact the elections. I’m sure AIPAC’s donors will be delighted to hear that.

I asked him whether he supported the denial of freedom of speech and assembly on college campuses — he being on boards at Yale and Columbia — and he replied that he pays for the education of one Palestinian student (presumably a good savage). You can probably tell (without even getting an education from Yale or Columbia) that this response does not even attempt to answer the question.

You voted for Trump and are being deported, or losing your job, or paying more for eggs. Now you’re the subject of so-called journalism about your “buyer’s remorse.” This is an extremely weak version of the sort of transformation that is needed — the sort of Saul-to-Paul awakening, forehead-slapping, I’ve-been-an-idiot, redemption-seeking metamorphosizing needed from millions of people, Trump voters and otherwise. For one thing it’s all still selfish and short-sighted. For another thing, you weren’t offered a decent alternative. You picked the sociopath who was worse in many ways than the other sociopath. You didn’t fail to pick someone good, as that option wasn’t offered — not on many ballots, not in the corporate media that you rely on probably far more than you realize. Plus you were right to pick the person proposing to change things. Unfortunately, he wanted to change most things for the worse. Regretting your Trump vote is like the captain of the Titanic regretting he’s put on dirty underwear and socks. It’s gross, but it misses the point.

How many years have you spent claiming that the collapse of our ecosystems and climate isn’t real, or is real but perfectly fine, or is real but is in the hands of a magical being who lives in the sky, or is real but not as important as “the economy,” or is real but not more important than NIMBYism (windmills would be ugly where you might spot them with a telescope, whereas wildfires, hurricanes, desertification, and starvation won’t be so bad)?

How long have you spent accepting that organized mass murder, nuclear weapons, mass incarceration, border walls, and surveillance are meant to — and are likely to — keep you safe, or that some moderate amount of them will be just right, or that such institutions are necessary evils to fend off the dangers of foreigners and monsters, whereas nuclear apocalypse, environmental destruction, and disease pandemics are more minor worries?

For what portion of your life — be honest — have you maintained that some people in the world matter a bit more than others, and that even in that blessed corner of the world certain people matter so much that it’s admirable for them to hoard wealth on a scale that would shame medieval lords or ancient emperors — wealth that could save the lives and ease the suffering of millions of people if partially shared?

And for how long have you noticed some of the troubles in the United States, the record-setting inequality, poverty, homelessness, gun violence, environmental destruction, etc., but believed the system would handle it, or that you’d fix everything in three and three-quarters years when you get to vote for Dracula over Frankenstein? How often have you watched the people of South Korea or Bolivia or Tunisia or Bangladesh or Niger rise up in mass nonviolent action and take power from would-be tyrants, and thought to yourself in a back corner of your brain: “What a shame people in the rest of the world have to do such things”?

We don’t need your Trumpremorse. We need your spectatoremorse. We need you to regret and drop the “politics is not my thing” and “I don’t do activism and protesting” BS — and we need it soon. No elected U.S. official should go anywhere in peace. They should be hearing from us day and night in every place they show their faces:

Tax the rich or find another line of work, guys. Move the money back from the war machine — put it into education and environmental protection . . . or see how “efficient” your job is in buildings whose doors you cannot open. 

We don’t need your Trumpremorse. Organize everyone you can to demand change — in-person, and not leaving — of your local governments and media outlets. Stop letting things go on. Throw a wrench in it. Stop burning any fuel you don’t have to. Stop buying anything you don’t have to. Stop eating meat. Stop waving flags. Stop cheering for wars and oligarchs. Free the prisoners. Love your neighbors. Relax about your stupid sexual identity bigotry. Rome is burning. Pick up a firehose. Only then tell me you are remorseful.

By Pacifist Barricade, February 22, 2025

The political scene in the United States has become a crucible of radical transformations. Each day brings forth inflammatory statements and shifting landscapes. Donald Trump’s presidency is nothing short of unconventional, keeping activists and journalists on edge with his declarations and actions. What does Trump’s presidency mean for the pacifist movement? We sat down with David Swanson, Executive Director of World BEYOND War, to discuss the volatile political climate and how the pacifist movement should—or perhaps shouldn’t—engage with the current presidential administration. Additionally, we explored the potential implications of this administration’s new policies in Europe and rational approaches to navigating cuts in USAID funding.

David Swanson is Co-Founder, Executive Director, and a Board Member of World BEYOND War. He is based in Virginia in the United States. David is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and was awarded the 2018 Peace Prize by the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation.

By The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, February 19, 2025

David Swanson is Campaign Coordinator for RootsAction.org and is co-founder of World BEYOND War. He recently returned from the 6th Annual Conference for World Balance, which promotes peace and solidarity, global dialogue, and an end to runaway materialism. We discussed the conference, global activism, the need to build stronger coalitions—and much more.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the war in Ukraine were entirely one side’s fault, if the U.S. had one political party that did everything perfectly, if USAID had only ever caused either benefit or harm, and if all the self-contradictory gibberish coming out of Trump’s pie hole were either lies or holy gospel? A lot of people sure seem to think so.

Here in the real world, things are ever so slightly more complex than in a cartoon. A war can develop through evil actions by two — count ’em — sides. And that’s not all. Those evil actions can be — gasp! — very different and unequal to each other. I know. I know. It makes the brain just throb, right?

An agency can both feed the hungry and help overthrow governments for imperialist thugs. It seems impossible, if only because costume designers will have no idea how to dress such an agency. And yet.

A president can demand that governments spend vastly more on wars and propose cutting war spending in half. The same skills that once made the holy Trinity both single and triple can make sense of this. The threats and demands are brilliant negotiating, or the proposed reductions are a brilliant distraction. But you cannot actually take enlarging and shrinking military spending at face value and proclaim them both right.

Of course, loyal Democrats can hear Trump back cutting military spending and decide that military spending must be maximized, but this requires ignoring the fact that Trump is also demanding vast increases to military spending around the world and through the work of his disciples in the United States Congress.

Of course, burnt out, frustrated peace activists can celebrate Trump’s cut-spending comment as a ray of glorious hope, if not the coming of the Savior, but that requires ignoring the same pieces of reality.

I suggest three simple steps.

First, accept that contradictory positions cannot both be right and that you will have to determine which, if either, you agree with based on something other than the identity of the fascist jackass who said them.

Second, once you’ve decided, for example, that reducing military spending is the way to go, feel free to indulge in only criticizing Trump, but criticize the Trump who wants more military spending, who is moving more nukes into Europe, whose DOGE charade is avoiding military spending, and whose Congressional court jesters are pushing legislation to move vast piles of what remains of non-military spending into the golden toilet of the Pentagon. Or feel free to indulge in only praising Trump, but praise the Trump who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, make peace, end wars, and cut the Pentagon in half. Or do both the criticizing and praising as merited.

Third, demand action to back up the words you agree with. If a U.S. president who is in the midst of a mad power grab bending the federal government to his will wants to get rid of nukes, he doesn’t have to wait for other countries. He can begin a reverse arms race by halting the production of new weapons and taking a first step in reducing them, before waiting for that move to be matched in Moscow. If he wants to reduce military spending, he can send in the DOGE brownshirts to eliminate hoards of military officers as if they were hungry children in need of food. He can put a halt to efforts in the Congress to pass legislation vastly increasing military spending, and instead order the introduction of legislation to cut the beast in half.

Would such actions get more push-back from Congress Members than those targeting useful and humanitarian projects? Of course! But without any actions at all — in fact with actions to the contrary — why take the rare good Trumpism seriously at all?

Don’t want to demand action from Trump because that would involve communicating with Trump and he’s just too odious? OK. Go to Congress and tell your misrepresentatives and lords of the upper chamber to cut military spending in half, either because Trump said so or because your Congress critters themselves said so in the past (depending on your district) or because military spending deprives us of so much, impoverishes us, and is an immoral act that threatens our existence and that of all living things.

Santita Jackson speaks with Medea Benjamin, Mike Ferner, and David Swanson about people who don’t want nuclear disarmament if Trump is involved in it.

By World BEYOND War

We are heartened to learn that the U.S. government is communicating with the Russian government, and are only sorry that such a basic step seemingly required a presidential election, when a glance at the Doomsday Clock ought to have been sufficient.

Having set the bar so low that speaking at all seems a tremendous accomplishment, we must nonetheless insist that the proper things be said, and be heard, and that they be followed with verifiable actions.

The popular demand in Western media that Ukraine be listened to in, and be part of, any negotiations should be applauded, but radically expanded. The president of Ukraine is severely violating the rights of the people of Ukraine to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, conscientious objection, and the right to form political parties that represent their interests. He is preventing elections through the imposition of martial law. The nation of Ukraine is deeply divided in opinions, and those divisions often correspond with geographic locations. A majority of Ukrainians, according to polls — and despite crackdowns on speech that opposes warmaking — say they are open to peace negotiations that remove territory from Ukraine, something the President of Ukraine sides with a minority in opposing in the name of “democracy.” More Ukrainian voices than one should be at the negotiating table.

In fact, not everything should be decided at a single negotiating table. Disputed territories should be permitted to determine their own fates through public referenda, to be overseen by authorities acceptable to all interested parties. The options available to them should include limited or complete independence from any existing nation. Such autonomy is critical to achieving a lasting and sustainable peace, as well as for diminishing the risk of world-engulfing nuclear war, as well as to restore some dignity to a vocabulary that it has been rendered disreputable around the world through a gargantuan feat of hypocrisy — the vocabulary of “democracy,” “nonviolence,” and “rule of law.”

Also critical will be disarmament by all parties. And central to that must be restricting, if not scaling back, if not eliminating the reach of the world’s leading arms-dealing institution, NATO, which exists in gross violation of the United Nations Charter, and whose own rules forbid adding members without the uncoerced approval of all existing members. The acceptance of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO would have prevented the war in the first place, according to countless authorities, including the then-Secretary General of NATO.

Peace negotiations in Ukraine would also be aided by, and in turn be of aid to, negotiations to take the steps recently promoted by the U.S. President, to cut military spending in half and get rid of nuclear weapons. These would be accomplishments worthy of the gratitude of all humanity.

Nuclear  disarmament is required by law, and is readily available to negotiate or to begin unilaterally. When the United States engaged in unilateral disarmament under Presidents John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, Russia quickly reciprocated. Negotiated multi-party disarmament has worked in the past and can work now — even more easily, given the extent to which surveillance technology has made cheating more difficult.

Of course, this agenda is at odds with President Trump’s demand for dramatically increased military spending, with the reconciliation legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress to dramatically increase military spending, with the ongoing U.S.-led nuclear arms race, with the new nuclear bombs being deployed by the United States in Europe, and with Trump’s penchant for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. We support the peace agenda and condemn the war agenda, regardless of them both coming out of the same mouth.

We also support the frequent expression of care for the lives of those being senselessly slaughtered in Ukraine and would like to see it acted on in Ukraine and applied equally to the rest of the world.

We also support the frequent expression of concern for not wasting money, yet — thus far — denounce the actions that have been defended by that rhetoric, as they have mostly been unlawful, immoral, destructive, and hypocritical. Trump was elected speaking against wars and corruption. We would like to cheer for the ending of wars and the targeting of corruption in its headquarters in the Pentagon — and we will do so the minute we see those things happen.