17 Burst results for "AT"

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

05:48 min | 8 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"As we approach the twenty year mark since september eleventh. Were following up with the clients and the attorney of one seminal. Aclu lawsuit on. The cia's post nine eleven torture program a program that ended in two thousand ten but that continues to haunt it's survivors and to stain the us's international human rights record the lawsuit. Selene v mitchell was filed in two thousand fifteen against james elmer mitchell and john bruce jessen two psychologists contracted by the cia to design implement and oversee the agencies. Post nine eleven torture program. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three of the programs victims. All three were kidnapped by the cia and then tortured and experimented on. According to mitchell ingesson's protocols one of the men died as a result of his treatment. The other two men continue to endure the effects of their detention in two thousand seventeen. The psychologists agreed to a settlement a first for a case involving cia torture and today. We'll speak with acl. You staff attorney. Stephen watt about what the litigation achieved. And what still needs happen to prevent any future use of torture will also have a chance to listen in. On stephen's own recent conversations with our three clients as they rebuild their lives and navigate the continued effects of torture program. Stephen welcome to the podcast exploit steven. You came to me and kendall. The show's producer months ago. With the idea for this episode in advance of the twentieth anniversary of september eleventh. Why did you want to return to this case and to follow up with our clients sulaiman mohammed and the nephew of gourock man. The behind this both cost was to tell folks by the success of one piece of litigation to address post nine eleven torture. I've been involved in litigating cases another other advocacy on behalf of many other survivors of us torture. Since two thousand four all of those cases were dismissed by us courts. These men didn't even have their day in court. The cases were dismissed on the basis of what's called state secrets. The government basically intervened in the litigation because in those cases we the us government and us government contractors and we sued them for torture but the government intervened very early on in the litigation. Shortly after the legal complaints were filed to argue that any further litigation case would be harmful to us. National security again trusts and that the case therefore should be dismissed that judges shooting way in and decide whether not these individuals were tortured..

cia Selene v mitchell james elmer mitchell john bruce jessen mitchell ingesson Stephen watt Aclu sulaiman mohammed Stephen gourock kendall steven us us government government
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

05:04 min | 9 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"During this period of time for most of american history the majority of european migrants come in families or in family groups or even You know through the classical late. Nineteenth century chain migration is surely whole towns moving family by family across the atlantic with regard to the forced migration of africans which begins very very early that trade the starts really in the fourteen forty s and then begins you know. Stretching across the atlantic by the early sixteenth century. The forced african migrants are both women and men and they're all including children. That don't generally come as families in fact the whole workup. That trade is separating people from their families an exception would be chinese immigrants in the nineteenth century is chiefly men and a lot of mexican migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth. Century is just migrant worker female migrant farm workers in other kinds of migrant workers it tends to be predominantly men. I'm glad you mentioned chinese immigrants in particular because one of the things that stands out as kind of a dark mark in our immigration histories the chinese exclusion act. And that seems so starkly. Different as of you have immigration than say just decades before when people were openly pouring in can you tell us about the period in history where immigration became such a politicized issue and yes so there's no federal law restricting immigration before age eighty one and again as i've said. Is there any possible. Conceivable federal apparatus that could have been forced such a restriction right and that law in from the eighteen eighties is the chinese exclusion act and it happens to take place at the very time that the first jim crow laws are passed the laws that are segregating black and white populations in what comes to be called the jim crow south the former confederacy but those things both follow on the development of the eighteen sixties of the reconstruction period fourteenth and fifteenth amendment and in particular the fourteenth amendment which establishes birthright citizenship. Which has the effect of meaning that. The children of chinese immigrants are american citizens. And that's one of the arguments against it. So a lot of people in congress who are opposed to chinese immigration get very worked up about the fourteenth amendment because of the birthright citizens club. Not because of of what it means for friedman women for the former slaves but because what it means for chinese immigrants and so the chinese exclusion act is is sort of backlash against the fourteenth amendment in some ways and of course so as jim crow. The whole regime of jim crow is a rejection of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in the constitutional guarantees citizens and persons due process and equal protection and the right to vote so by the eighteen eighties. You have this tremendous political Reaction to the liberal promises of period. I lo- it's not the case that that inaugurates an era of immigration restriction. I mean the inaugurates..

jim crow friedman congress
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:56 min | 9 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Is at liberty. I'm only kaplan your host. This week were diving into the at liberty archive and returning to a conversation with historian. Jill lepore we're on the brink of a once in a generation change. Congress is considering a plan to create a pathway to citizenship. For up to eight million people this september the aclu is urging congress to pass a reconciliation package which includes a path to citizenship for dreamers temporary protective status holders farm workers and other essential workers..

Jill lepore kaplan Congress aclu congress
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

05:56 min | 9 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"And that's where government comes from and that all government must follow that model and that's why the framers writer constitution that the people will ratify but for lock that was old men and women men endure civil society with other men. They erected government but in their families. Men remain the rulers. So man is over his wife and his children and his servants in his slaves. What king is to a subject and that is essentially a despot and has completed arbitrary authority and for lock that is the law of nature and civil law is what happens between men and so no at the framing although there are plenty of women who are writing essays in some. You didn't giving speeches saying okay. That's nuts that make any sense. How do women only exist in the family but not in public like. That's just a weird artificial idea and that lock was wrong and but that is the idea that the framers hold right so when they talk about almond are created equal and they have this right to govern themselves. They really mean all men that within the family men over women and children and slaves and servant who are all dependent on them and cannot be trusted with the vote because of their economic dependence on men. It's it's not that women are less intelligent. Although there plenty of writers who would have said that it said women's very life depends on men and so they if they were to vote they would only vote the way their husbands told them to vote voter their fathers told them to vote because they would have no capacity for choice. Why did the drafters leave all the specifics of the right to vote to the states. And what if the repercussions of that decision. Ben well they leave a lot to the states. I mean they also there's a whole lot of litigation going on right now over for instance the right to education which every state constitution actually has within it a right to education. Massachusetts has one of the most beautiful of these statements. It is a right of citizenship in a republic to have an education and that is an obligation of the states to provide it but the constitution doesn't talk specifically about a right to education which is a problem for these litigants. It can be inferred right. You can say like well. It's the same with the right to vote. We have all this fine phrasing in the preamble about our domestic tranquility et cetera et cetera. We can't have these things in a self-governing nation without the right to vote and the right to education because you can't vote well unless you have an education and their core four can participate as an informed citizen. Why these are implied. Not elaborated really just has to do with the framers interest in differing to the states. For practical matters there are other explanations that other historians would give but how people are voting in seventeen. Eighty seven is actually on a practical level really complicated in some places youth rabin in a box like us. There are white bean or a black bean. And that's how you know in some places you go to one side of town comment or the other side of the town..

Ben Massachusetts rabin
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

05:46 min | 9 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Play out and things like the bikini bottoms which just feel so arbitrary even to most people and we immediately understand. There's no good reason for this. Disparity men wear women where i think. Many people had this reaction to the ban on naomi. asaka from the french open for refusing to speak to reporters again. Is it really necessary for tennis. Stars to speak to reporters as a condition of the game. You know and if we think about this any other kind of job if you imagine the only asaka working in an office or working anywhere else and having some component. That's really not essential to getting business done. Which in this case is the business of playing tennis right. We would find a way to accommodate her and in fact we likely would have to find a way to accommodate her under the americans with disabilities act. But instead there's expectation that somehow we can put demands on athletes that are totally unrelated to the sport that they're planning and fine them and ban them altogether when they refused to To comply to sort of to dance for us on request you know another form of discrimation that we haven't talked about yet but have alluded to in passing is around this to saucer on testing and you know you had mentioned earlier. Two black teenagers christina mboma and betrays messolongi from namibia subjected to testing before they were allowed to run in the four hundred meters and much of the controversy around to saucer. Thrown testing stems from the news. About caster semenya. The two time olympic runner from south africa being forced to modify her natural testosterone levels because of new rules around to saas thrown from the world sporting organizations kink. You explain what these rules are. And where they come from and why they're discriminatory sure. Well i'm so glad you started at caster. Semenya molly because it's impossible to understand what happened to christina beaumont and beatrice without understanding where these rules came from caster. Semenya is south african runner and sort of similar. Just moan byles. She had the problem of being too good. She was too fast and she was subjected to all kinds of humiliating criticism including questions about whether she was really a woman or whether she was one hundred percent of woman she was subjected to invasive gender verification testing and one of the things she was subjected to was blood test to determine her natural testosterone levels. Now the idea of Athletes should conform to average testosterone level in order to compete sort of antithetical to everything that we know about the olympics which by definition are not about people who are average there about people who are exceptional. Their bugaboo are extreme. Olympic competition celebrates right the extreme extreme levels of human achievement and yet when it comes to black women this notion of somehow. She really wasn't woman enough. One way in which caster semenya was different. was not only weaponized against your but actually used a ban her from the competition altogether and understand why this is racist and sexist is just so useful to compare it to how other athletes exceptionalism has been treated and a terrific example of. This is michael phelps. Michael phelps much like caster. Semenya is an exceptional athlete. He has a genetic mutation that means his body produces half the lactic acid of other athletes which means his muscles don't fatigue as lear. They're able to recover more quickly. He's also double jointed in his ankles. And of course he's six foot four which is well above average high for a man in this country and yet there never was there a call for michael phelps to take a pill to force his body to produce lactic acid or bring his lactic acid up to a quote average level or michael phelps to have surgery to correct his ankles. They were no longer double jointed. All things that undoubtedly contributed to his phenomenal success. But when it came to caster semenya. She was forced to make a decision to actually take medication..

asaka christina mboma messolongi tennis caster semenya Semenya molly christina beaumont moan byles Semenya naomi namibia michael phelps beatrice olympic south africa olympics Olympic
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

02:59 min | 10 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"It's what they need to know to be informed citizens in a country that is still on a pathway to become a more perfect union. You can't be a more perfect union. If you never learned what its imperfections. Where i i wanted to ask where critical race theory came from. I mean it didn't come out of thin air. What were you and others responding to or against that. Birth the idea of critical race theory. Well those of us who are the first generation are so critical race. Theorists are students who were the post civil rights generation. We grew up as kids. While the civil rights movement was unfolding and many of us went to colleges and ultimately law school with the intention of joining the civil rights movement kicking up the baton and running our lap of around the race and when some of us got to harvard law school. There were active plan to integrate the curriculum to bring into the teaching of law in that elite institution the implications of the transformative revolution law. That had occurred. After brown versus board of education it was as though that was an afterthought so our goal was to learn what we needed to learn about the relationship between law and ratio of liberation. Which meant we had to know about the relationship of law to racial subordination. And there were no courses. That were offered to teach us that so we began to share insights and drass with each other and ultimately became part of intellectual tradition of asking questions about our history. So if i understand correctly you were fighting against the idea that the law was this neutral body and if you just peeled away individual prejudice or discrimination that we would then have at the core this perfect neutral law and what you were saying is that there is no such thing. As neutral laws are written by people an embedded in them is all the bias and discrimination that they have brought to it. Yes and what's also embedded is modes of of thinking and accepting the status quo as just the way it has to be so our goal was to disrupt the believe that the status quo was in and of itself Racially benign or just the product of individual level capacity and talents or lack thereof..

harvard law school brown
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:21 min | 10 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"When you're in your home and an intruder comes in you have the right to self-defense. But less think. About the case of kathryn johnston who was the ninety two year old black grandmother here atlanta and she hears her burglar bars being removed in the middle of the night and so she grabs her rusty revolver to defend herself because somebody's coming into her house and asked the door breaches open she fires and then a fuselage of bullets hit her. It was the cops and and they said well she fired first so it was justifiable. Now they didn't announce themselves they were there on a on a no knock warrant the same kind of warrant that got brianna taylor kill exactly and you think about the language with brianna taylor again. Somebody banging on the door and she's hollering. Who is it. who is it not getting on response. And all of the officers have their camcorders off her boyfriend. Kenneth walker gets his licensed gun to defend that house to defend where they live to defend that castle and win that door bangs open. He shoots and over thirty bullets into that apartment and five of them. Plus a projectile hit taylor in killed her and the ag says he shot. I this was justifiable. I mean that's what happens and that's what we have to pay attention to the role of anti blackness in this society in this narrative of thug defying black people in criminalizing kirk blah black people. It's seeing black people the threat so you also think about that. Insurrection on january. Six juxtaposed that with the early your black lives matter march and the massive deployment of federal officers are heavily armed. Full riot gear for a peaceful protest march juxtaposed to white storming. The capital hollering wears. See in hang. Mike pence basically with their hit list of the government officials that they're going to kill to stop the certification of the electoral college votes. To overturn a free and fair election. But we know if black folks stormed that capital. It would've been a slaughter. I think another piece of this is is really hard to reconcile. Is that in the context of the conversation about gun regulation and addressing the mass shootings of this country. Struggles with there is conversation about gun. Laws that make sense. Laws that are not backed. Unopposed the nra. But you know what i found. Is that those gun laws. Also disproportionately incarcerate black people. So you know just one. Statistic is two thousand eighteen. Fifty six percent of those convicted of federal firearms violations. Were black and ninety. Six percent were men in the context of trying to figure out how to regulate how to have the discussion about what we do about mass shootings and the problems around guns. What is the solution. If every solution seems inherently tinged with racism. I firmly believe that after all of these mass shootings you think about sandy hook right and you think about pulse and you think about sutherland. Texas and las vegas. What stops this nation from being able to have viable god's safety loss and i really believe it is the power of anti blackness. It is the same thing that you heard. Patrick henry saying and george mason. In seventeen eighty eight. We will be left defenceless. If you take away our guns the black folks will come up and they will kill us. You hear that from jonathan mezzo. Who wrote dying for whiteness. Did a fabulous study where he looked at whiteson and missouri..

brianna taylor kathryn johnston Kenneth walker kirk blah atlanta Mike pence ag taylor nra sutherland las vegas Patrick henry Texas george mason jonathan mezzo whiteson missouri
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:48 min | 11 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Just two months ago brooklyn center. A suburb of minneapolis was the backdrop of yet. Another incident of police brutality. When twenty year old dante right was fatally shot by an officer during a traffic stop. The incident happened just ten miles from the courthouse. Were derek chauvin was on trial for the death of george. Floyd outreach community members gathered in front of the brooklyn center police department for consecutive days demanding change and this time their calls were answered. One month after dante right was killed. The city council passed a resolution that created an alternative to police response for both mental health calls and some traffic stops. The resolution is called the dante right and kobe. Dynamic heisler community safety and violence prevention resolution named after the two people killed by local police in the last two years one of the driving forces behind the resolution was brooklyn center mayor. Mike elliott mayor elliott came to the us at the age of eleven fleeing from civil war in liberia before running for mayor. He had started a mentoring program working with brooklyn center schools to serve low income students. He joins us today. Along with taylor. Pendergrast the deputy director of campaigns for the aclu smart justice program to talk about what other communities can learn from the example of brooklyn center. Mayor elliott and taylor. Thank you so much for joining us. You thanks molly. I wanted to start with you mayo elliot. Can you take us through the evolution that led to this resolution. Resoundingly passing in brooklyn center so sort of what started the momentum. And what role did you personally play. So what started. The momentum obviously started with them momentus event of the brooklyn center police officer shooting and killing the unarmed young black man dante. Right and what ensued was our community at once grappling with that tragedy. That we've all seen over and over and over and over. All too often sark community mobilized came out and won it accountability. They demanded accountability. They demanded now only accountability but transformation they wanted once and for raw a change. We listened to the community really early on. I had reached out to the aclu to help us. Imagine what the change would look like obviously aclu. You has a lot of expertise in a long history in.

Mike elliott taylor two people minneapolis liberia today ten miles george Mayor dante right mayo elliot molly both two months ago twenty year old derek chauvin elliott civil war mayor Pendergrast
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:05 min | 11 months ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"How you there were people who thought we had lost our way in the one thousand nine hundred seventy s What happened in the aclu is that we had an influx of membership during the nixon years and many people joined because they were anti mexican and then When we took the skokie case even though stookey was a similar in terms of the facts of the case Too many other cases we have taken. They weren't aware of that and they had seen us as a broadly liberal organization and was somewhat shocked to see how we defended free speech for people who called themselves american nazis. And so i think people we lawsuit over the thirty thousand. Do talk about they Were shocked by skokie. Because it departed from what they knew. People who had been longer term members knew that we defended free speech for everyone and they were not shocked by skokie case. When we defended the free speech for the nazis who wanted to march skokie ultimately never march bear. Once we had One the case may were probably frightened that if they went there there would be many thousands of people are opposed to them and they would be a handful off demonstrators and so they chose not to go to sochi. they continue to demonstrate for short period. in a park in chicago that divided a predominantly african american neighborhood from a neighborhood populated by east europeans. Because they wanted to exploit racial animosity in that area. And then the little group of nazis disappeared. No one ever heard of them again and so we had successfully defended the first amendment in terms of their right to march. But we did no favor to the the group of nazis themselves based simply vanished. I wanna talk about a few more comparisons between then and now but one thing that strikes me is that the he seal you at that time. This sort of internal dialogues around these issues. Whether to take a case like have become really interested in how we talk about our internal discussions around these cases. There's a fundamental issue of how we understand the first amendment. There's this sort of more strategic question. Around which cases each organization does and does not take independent of their legal merits. And i'm reminded of I actually spoke with one of your former colleagues. Eleanor holmes norton about what it was like to decide to take these cases. And she recounts a story where you came to her asking how she would like to represent. George wallace was alabama governor. She said sure fifty cents. You're i was only joking. And she says. I wasn't and of course the this sort of codes of that story. She did represent george wallace. He s end. She wants she. She represented him in his right to hold a rally at shea stadium. But this sort of back and forth between you. A jewish man who was born in germany and eleanor holmes norton at that time a young black woman in the late sixties. Working for the aclu deciding whether or not you were going to take on. A case representing the arch racist george wallace and his right to hold a rally. So hundred your recollection of that of that discussion and that decision was well I recall the discussion. Eleanor was then the assistant legal director for the national organization. And i was the director of the new york's liberties union and when wallace's manager called and about representation. I went looking for one of our staff.

George wallace george wallace Eleanor Eleanor holmes norton fifty cents chicago germany eleanor holmes norton wallace sochi jewish nixon years skokie One late sixties one first amendment east europeans one thousand thousands of people
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:59 min | 1 year ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"From the aclu. This is at liberty. I'm molly kaplan your host in the us. It's easy to think. In the final chapter of this global pandemic baseball stadiums have replaced cardboard cutouts with screaming fans and the aroma of fresh. Popcorn is wafting once again from movie theaters open doors as of this recording more than sixty percent of us adults have now received at least one dose of the vaccine and unused doses are available to anyone over the age of twelve but the us is in many ways and outlaw fire the entire continent of africa accounts for one percent of the world's vaccine administrations and countries in asia and south america still lack meaningful access to vaccines added to this very inclusive. Made covid nineteen more contagious. And in some cases more deadly this is the global vaccine gap the global vaccine gap is both a human rights and a racial justice issue many of the communities left vulnerable or communities of color the scale of the problem has united activists and organisations were around the world including the aclu to identify solutions and fast for many of the human rights activists and experts. The urgency is part of their lived experience on the ground. This episode will. Here's some of their stories and learn from one of the aco us. Human rights experts. What needs to be done. We'll start with the situation.

asia south america one percent more than sixty percent nineteen africa at least one dose age of twelve kaplan both over one
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:42 min | 1 year ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"From the aclu. This is at liberty. I'm ali kaplan your host. There were only eighteen days last year. That did not see. A police officer killed civilian in this country. George floyd brianna taylor. Walter wallace junior daniel prude and rayshard brooks were among the one thousand one hundred twenty seven people killed by police last year and we know that black people are more than three times as likely to be killed during a police encounter as their white peers a year after the murder of george floyd systemic transformative change is still desperately needed at every level of government but too often police unions and their lobbying efforts obstruc that change joining today to talk about. This is dr. William p jones a history professor at the university of minnesota and the president of the labor and working class history association whose work focuses on the relationship between race and class as well as on the history of unions and organizing in the. Us will welcome to the podcast. Thanks for him to be. You know before speaking broadly about police unions and their lobby. I wanted to begin by talking about a really specific example. That i think illustrates how powerful the police unions and their lobby are. And that is the example of brianna taylor. So here we are louisville kentucky. The police shoot eight times in her home. During a drug raid. That found no drugs at all. And the city's mayor warned in the aftermath that disciplining the responsible officers would be a drawn out process because of an agreement with the union and that proved completely true reports also claimed that the police union was negotiating a new contract behind closed doors while less. Summer's protests were happening and the contracts in the end did not respond to the accountability and transparency protesters bird demanding all summer long. Instead a provision in the contract set limits on how disciplinary records could be kept in used. So how does this example illustrate. How police unions and their lobby can be an obstacle to change. Yeah that's a great question and a great example. And i think there are a couple of things that i think are come out in this example that are important to keep in mind. One is the point that the mayor made in pointing to the drawn out process being a product of the contract the agreement with the union. A couple of things. That i think are important. Just pay attention to that one. It's an agreement with the union so it's not a contract that the union road up imposed on the city. It's a contract that the city entered into a more powerful partner. So one thing. I think we need to keep in mind is that these agreements are created through a process of collective bargaining in which both sides both parties the city and the union. Sit down and negotiate rules for employment. These have to do with you know wages and working conditions. They also have a particularly with police and public sector unions and important part of these contracts disciplined. So i think it's important to really understand the way collective bargaining works. What collective bargaining agreements are what power they have and approach this in a way that you know it addresses those problems. Know just staying on the collective bargaining point some of the provisions that you mentioned were about discipline and accountability..

george floyd George floyd daniel prude Walter wallace ali kaplan last year one thousand rayshard brooks dr. eight times eighteen days today both parties more than three times university of minnesota William p jones both sides One one hundred twenty seven peopl one
"at" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:52 min | 2 years ago

"at" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Didn't make any sense with Monty his team knew that AT and T. was lobbying the Federal Communications Commission which regulates the airwaves in the U. S. to give it exclusive rights to the radio spectrum it would need to put phones into millions of cars using cellular technology most read in you that if eighteen team won the monopoly then they at Motorola would lose all chance of using the network for new portable phone AT&T was the biggest company in the world by every measure they have to the lobbyist in Washington to sign to every single federal communications commissioner we have a total staff of three people AT&T had two hundred was David versus Goliath if Motorola was going to stand a chance of persuading the communications commission has multi decided they'd need something spectacular they'd have to show them the future and actually make a mobile phone there were twenty people working on the phone itself if we keep in mind loses we dated to build the radio stations in the cells as well so there were another twenty or thirty people building these stations were additional people that have to set up the demonstrations in New York and the people who made the phone worked day and night because you had just three months to do it in did you and the management of Motorola Bakshi they put a lot of money into it and what was the biggest challenges to think up until that time radio usually have one channel one radio station and we have to put hundreds of stations into a single hand held device and we have to allow this device to talk and listen at the same time up until then people push a button to talk and listen we have to be able to talk and listen at the same time we used a brand new radio frequency that had never been used before a thousand records and we have to put all of them into a package that was small enough to be able to be held in your hand the Finnish phone contains thirty circuit boards and wave the equivalent of a big bag of sugar and when he revealed it to the press in a in nineteen seventy three you had at C. two prototypes in you in case we want the broke but you didn't have many journalists turning on fifteen twenty researchers certainly didn't get the a huge amount of attention once we made the demonstration there were stories about this phone where you could talk everywhere all over the world one of the reporters there was Australia and she said can I call my mother in Australia and we still of course we have our fingers crossed and she called her mother and woke her up in the middle of the night and she was thrilled it took the federal regulators however a few more years and the intervention of president Ronald Reagan to guarantee Motorola access to the radio frequencies it needed it was only in nineteen eighty three the Motorola launched the first commercially available cellular phone book most people thought that they would never be able to afford something like this the phone costs over four thousand dollars and the service was extraordinarily expensive though at the beginning it really was a rich man's toys a big became because Michael didn't it it was I think in the film Wall Street it was so huge compared to today's phones and did to get the nickname the shoe for him well you're right at the beginning that we call the tissue full but you will know that I am an engineer what I name the phone the Donatella Donatella stood for Brits yourself a dynamic adaptive total area coverage with the other tech represented was my dream of what the ultimate phone would be that you could use a matter were you worried that what a day after the environment and they would let you talk to somebody else is though there was nothing between you and we haven't quite achieved but we're getting very close though so there are some advantages to being a dreamer when did you realize just how huge this phenomenon was going to be only after the first several years when they were competitive phones on the market when they were lines of people ordering phones when you found out that in third world countries there were more cellular phones more mobile phones than there were wired phones that's when we knew that we were right that's Marty Cooper who's still inventing he was talking to Louis C. digo and you can see Monty circa nineteen seventy three with his admittedly bulky but none the less groundbreaking mobile phone on our website search for BBC witnesses street finally it's fifty years since a group of rebel nuns broke away from the Catholic authorities and set up their own independent lake community in California the sound like something of a minor event but the move threw a spotlight on the role of religion in the modern world and the position of Catholic orthodoxy Lucy Ben's been speaking to Lucy of an written formally sister Lucia who was one of the rebels.

AT
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:59 min | 3 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"What note to end you're talking about the fact that you're trying to blend some genres there's tragedy there's comedy there's drama you played with the idea of film ending in a few different ways. But I wanna just to hear a bit about how you decided what note to end on and how to close out the film. Well, there's one thing I could probably say not giving anything away is that there's a camera speech from Cheney at the end of the movie where we basically use a lot of snippets of dialogue that he himself has said to defend themselves. And finally after the entire movie turns to camera and looks as dead in the eye, and I really wanted that in there. I really felt like you've watched this whole movie you've seen this whole story. And his argument of I kept you save. I just felt like an audience. Is needed to be hit with that. After that whole movie like g still by this. I've heard people who've seen this speech, and they say they're more horrified than ever heard other people say he does kind of raise a good point. We just felt like we had to lay him out in the end. Like, this is the guy we're looking at. This is his best argument. You've seen all of this. How do you react to it? And it's been fascinating. I've heard almost a dozen different reactions to many different interpretations to it. Then there's another little thing we do after our end credits where we do almost like a little doodle like a living political cartoon that comes way later in the credits. And that was just you know, it's crushing story. It's very tragic story, and I didn't want an audience to slink out at the theater feeling completely demoralized. And I think sometimes when we're able to laugh or we're able to have some perspective. It does give us some strength. So there's a lot of discussion about the tone of the ending of the movie, and is obviously a lot of tragedy with it. But I also wanted to remind us. Stay buoyant with it. So there's a little joke in the end just about the split times. We live in the Trump people versus the what they would call the liberals kind of endlessly fighting, and then some other people going God him so tired of this. Let's just go watch a movie, which you know, in some ways is a self indictment of me and the movie you've just watched and at the same time just a light little. Bittermann after a very very heavy meal. So yeah, there's like three different endings. I also liked the idea that, you know, with our form of our movie, we don't hear any traditional form things are very open ended, and I kind of liked the ending of the movie feels like it almost bleeds into reality. As you walk out of the theater that was the intention, anyway, it's up to every viewer to decide how they feel about it. But that's what we were trying to do you mentioned that the opening that reading the news may telling this story, he'll more urgent what exactly about this story. Do you think resonates today, and what lessons beyond, you know, the tonal note on what to end on what sort of lessons? Did you want the audience to come away with? Well, there's one that I feel is pretty pressing and urgent. And while we were making the movie got louder and louder and you with the you would know much more about it that I would. Although it did do a fair amount of research on it. And that's the unitary executive theory. And I do think there's a slow quiet kind of fifth level chess game going on where the reason they wanted Cavanaugh so badly in the supreme court was because he's a huge believer in strong interpretation of the unitary executive theory. And now they're seeing Ruth Bader Ginsburg her health start to fail if they get a person on there because they have four right now with varying degrees of belief in radical interpretation of the executive theory. They get a fifth on there. That's majority. And that means there could be a case that comes before the supreme court where the president is flagrantly guilty of criminal behavior. And if that court hands down a majority decision citing the unitary executive theory mean that president can't be charged. That could be a death blow to our democracy. I mean, my theory is legally the way democracy ends in this country is through the unitary executive theory..

Cheney executive Ruth Bader Ginsburg president Cavanaugh Trump chess
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:56 min | 3 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"And pretty quickly we discovered with Cheney having two parents that were strong strong democrat. Pat's and actually by all accounts Cheney not really being interested in politics, when he was younger, not really having a strong point of view, the turning point for Cheney really became meeting Donald Rumsfeld who was probably one of the most ambitious people in Washington DC at that point. So at that point the story became about Lynn and dick getting a taste for power and liking power. And I couldn't find a consistent ideology, they were willing to be just lightly against the Vietnam war with Rumsfeld because serve their purposes to counteract Kissinger. But then when they're in the forty ministration they were willing to be very hawkish on Russia because that served a way to expand their power. So the perfect manifestation of that is the unitary executive theory strong interpretation of the unitary executive theory because that is all about expanded unchecked powers, and for those who aren't familiar the unitary executive theory is basically the idea that the president has almost unchecked power to direct the executive branch. Particularly during crisis to even call it. A theory is probably giving it a little too much credit. And it's no mistake that Dick Cheney was drawn to it like a mosquito to alight. And it became one of the driving forces of his career. It's what brought him together with David Addington, his lawyer or some people call them Cheney's brain, and you see constantly throughout his career attempts to expand executive reach expand executive theory to operate without transparency to operate with impunity. So that really became the kind of center of the legal side for us when it came to Dick Cheney, that's really helpful framework who was in the come from how do the rise so fast, and then what was the role of ideology versus career is maybe like to take those intern. And and unpack them a bit in terms of where he came from one thing that I noted about this is that you actually don't go much into his background. And you mentioned that his parents were strong Democrats. But that is not actually in the film. It's an interesting tidbit. But how did you decide when to start his story which is? After he's already dropped out of college is very little about his family or his upbringing. Well, that was one of the hardest parts of the movie we originally had filmed the whole section about him meeting. Lynn falling in love. We did mention the parents. But it just we test screen the movie, and it kinda just lay there. And the reason it lays there is just a it's goes back to basic storytelling the Canucks it's not really an active choice by Dick Cheney. He's not the protagonist of his first act. And it's really Lynn Vincent story. The first act because you look at Dick Cheney's, brother and sister, they had very very normal lives. I think the brother was a plumber it's hard to find much about them. But I'm convinced if Cheney hadn't met Lynn, he would have spent the rest of his life in Wyoming, probably would have been alignment, maybe gone to community college. And it was just not an active beginning to the story. The real active beginning is when he's screwing up, and she says get it together or I'm gone. And in that moment, you see her Embiid, and you see that she's an unusual forceful strong woman for those times. And you see that he really does rob her and he's going to do this for her. So yeah, there's a lot of discussion lot of different cuts about it. But instead we ended up rest in on that scene and making that scene kind of do a lot of that work for us. Believe me, I would have loved to have done a two hour forty five minute version of the movie, but we felt like that moment kind of crystallize a lot of what I just said. And the idea of him being a democrat is parents were Democrats. I don't think he really cared. He was pretty ambivalent. I mean, he did a little bit of internship work when he was university of Wisconsin for like, a Republican governor. But for the most part didn't seem driven by any kind of ideology, and by all accounts, and I think he's even said it it was when he saw Donald Rumsfeld that he's like whatever that guy is..

Dick Cheney Lynn Vincent Donald Rumsfeld executive Washington Kissinger Pat Russia Lynn university of Wisconsin intern Wyoming David Addington president forty five minute two hour
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:57 min | 3 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"Thank you for making this. And then the other reaction has been from older people people in there when I say older keeping nine I'm fifty. So I just mean fifties sixties seventies even eighties who are just happy that were being reminded of this again that this didn't disappear that somewhere between six hundred thousand and one point two million Iraqis died and torture came back and the rule of law was challenged in a major way, and and that we're not letting it slip away. So I get a lot of people coming up to me like that as well and added pressure on a narrative, filmmaker when you take on this type of question where maybe under doc. Rented and not extremely well. Understood by the populace, but this actually really happened. And so what kind of extra responsibility? Do you have in terms of your artistic choices and making a film like that? It was very tricky. And really that extra responsibility just boiled down to one thing, which is mounds of mounds and hours and hours of research reading every article every interview every book, we even hired our own journalists to go interview about a dozen people off the record to make sure what we were doing wasn't off base. And you're right. There's whole periods of the record with Cheney that are really hard to dig into there's millions of documents that have disappeared. He's certainly won't ever say anything in an interview. So, you know, we say it at the beginning of the movie, we did our best. And when there were areas where we really really couldn't find out what happened we acknowledged it in the movie or we'll do a stylistic interpretation. And ultimately, I feel a pretty darn good about the result. I just read. A piece by Chinese biographer who if anyone was going to take out the blades on this movie. It would be him and really is complaints. When you read them pretty tiny. And they're pretty weak. Big complaint was like, well, how a burden was a really qualified company. That's why I gave them a no bid contracts. I read that. I was like really that's your defense and his defensive Cheney tweaking the intelligence just boils down to now he didn't do that. So there's always gonna be those attack dogs that come out of movie like this. And they try and insinuate that. It's not true. But it's held up quite well, let's particularly impressive because you not only chose to take on a very complicated topic. But you also chose to try to weave comedy into it. So how hard was it's choose where to insert the comedy into. What is largely quite a tragic story. Well, we felt like the world we're living in now. There's so many different tones and genres that are all intermingled. A great example is the movie get out, which I'm not sure what you call that horror film, a satire on race feels like more and more. We've slipped outside the traditional confines of John Rao. And no, greater example than the current president's who you wanna laugh at 'cause he's like a cartoon character. But then you realize the tragedy of what he's doing and a lot of this movie tracks with the rise of the Republican party in the Reagan revolution, which you know. Hey, it's a fact they did it they succeeded and some of those beats are pretty ridiculous and some of the things that Cheney and his cohorts did they're fairly obvious. And sometimes they get a little ridiculous. So we wanted to make sure we had all those tones in there that even during those grim W Bush years. We were sad. We were demoralized. We were horrified. But sometimes we laughed. Sometimes you know, we had to rally together. So there was really an attempt to the movie to reflect that in the world that we live in today and have that feeling of lots of different feelings and also it's great to 'cause it never settles in any kind of set formula. And we really wanted the audience to be on the edge of their seats. When they watch this movie, the feeling of anything can happen, whether you'd certainly see that it's a compelling story and compellingly told, but it involves a lot of decisions along the way as the greatest hits of.

Cheney John Rao Republican party president
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

03:56 min | 3 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"So you're sent home you have to make two trips, but not everybody can just take another day off from work, given the nature of their jobs or ensuring childcare services, for example. So that's another way in which women are obstructed from getting abortion services. So for poor women rural women, very very very challenging. And surely to get more challenging so looming over this conversation and explicitly part of it has been row and the supreme court accepting. Caveats you've given about the fact that that should not be our sole focus, but knowing that we still pay attention to this and that overturning of Roe would galvanize. I think this debate in a different way. Is it really vulnerable is row itself? Really endanger at the court. I came to the ACLU shortly after the supreme court issued a decision nineteen Ninety-two that reaffirmed Roe versus Wade. I mean, it had some change the standard and made it easier for states to pass restrictions. But this is the first time in my career here where I've said, I'm actually worried about whether the supreme court would ever issue a decision that reversed row I think it is definitely within the zone of possibility. That said I think that Justice Roberts is interested. You say interested in institutional, integrity or Justice Roberts is maybe a more political person than some I think that the court probably understands both the threat to its legitimacy as well as the political consequences of reversing Roe. I think it is much more likely that what we're going to see is a gutting. And if there's one message I want. Send today wanna send every day is watch for the gutting of of the right? Do not look only for the headline because if Roe were reversed tomorrow, the question would go back to the states as to whether or not the states would ban abortion or whether the states would leave it legal with some states, actually, do everything they can to enhance access that is the universe that we really are fighting for right now. Even while row is still there were fighting to ensure that Kentucky could still have clinic, for example in. So the question of whether there will still be clinic standing near state the question of whether you'll still be able to get an abortion after the first trimester. The question of whether all the insurance in your state must ban abortion from coverage. Those questions are coming to the court. Those questions are there now, and they will really make a material difference every day we moved to a world looks a little bit more like. What it would look like if Roe were reversed in terms of the dramatic disparities in the states in terms of access and the difficulties of securing access. So what does getting look like, I know John Roberts, for example is fond of saying he just calls balls and strikes. You know, is there way he can keep claiming to do that while overturning Roe in Albany. So I think you're absolutely right. That, you know, this the court could radically gut the right and still be in the sort of balls and strikes owns and all we have to do is look at the decision from two thousand sixteen in the United States Supreme court. So the decision to hasn't sixteen if people remember there was a lot of attention paid to restrictions on abortion new law passed in Texas that law some of it went into effect and many like I think approximately half the clinics may have shuttered as a result of that. When the case goes up to the supreme court about the restrictions. The record said that maybe three quarters of the clinics might close if the laws were upheld. So that's going from forty to ten or so a dramatic dramatic shift in terms of access just look at your map at how bang Texas is..

Supreme court Roe John Roberts Justice Roberts United States Texas ACLU Kentucky Albany three quarters
"at" Discussed on At Liberty

At Liberty

04:03 min | 3 years ago

"at" Discussed on At Liberty

"The United States Supreme court decided Roe versus Wade in nineteen seventy three and in theory established access to abortion care as a fundamental, right? But in practice state legislatures have been chipping away at that right ever. Since passing thousands of restrictions on abortion access and targeting abortion providers with burdensome rules are currently and scape reflects this backslide several states now have only one abortion clinic left standing millions of women. Have no meaningful access to abortion care and looming. Over all of this is a supreme court that many worry would outright overturn Roe if given the chance here with us to discuss the state of abortion rights in America is Louise's mailing. Louise is the deputy legal director of the new and for many years has overseen organizations. Reproductive rights work highly highly how are you? I'm great. Thank you for coming in to help us understand what's going on now. And maybe read some tea leaves for the future. Sure, I wanna start with a question about a. Recent development in the states at the end of two thousand eighteen Ohio governor, John casick signed a Bill banning the most common second trimester abortion procedure called Dini which stands for dilation evacuation. Can you tell us about that law, and what it means for women in Ohio? Sue, a high is is one of the many states. That's interested in passing restrictions on abortion. Right. It does not stand alone in any way in in that respect and Ohio is not unique in any way. Also in terms of having banned the most common method, Houston second trimester abortions. It is the method used for any outpatient procedure, and it is unquestionably a safe procedure and outpatient just means you're you're not a hospital. Okay. So, and that's where most people go because it's safe to be outside of a hospital, and it's much less expensive to be outside a hospital, and so many hospitals don't provide abortions. Right. That was one of two bills that went to the governor the governor. Was presented with that restriction as well. As basically a ban on abortion, which he vetoed. The ban on the second. Trimester procedure will be challenged as similar bands have been challenged around the country. Wednesdays pass those it is a sign of what has been happening a sign of what's to come. And then the question is how will the courts which are changing address this restriction on abortion? Thank you for outlining talk today. It's like xactly where we're gonna go. All right. So on abortion as with all things Ojo is a Bill weather. It's reflective. So what what does the landscape look like nationally? How does this oral law fit into what's happening across the states? Well, if you don't mind I'm going to go from Ohio to Kentucky, go for it. Because for me Kentucky represents a host of the issues that we're gonna see so Kentucky has at least two different kinds of abortion restrictions in play right now. These restrictions that were passed in prior sessions in which are subject. To challenge. Actually, there are three one is a ban on DNA exactly as you've said one is a restriction that would have shot. The one clinic left in Kentucky that currently has joined in one is a provision that requires that women see and have described to them and ultra sound before they can get an abortion and the required to see and hear about it, even if they're covering their eyes, and even if they're trying to cover their ears, even when the doctor thinks it's contrary to what's best for their health. The reason why pointing to those three is because I think those showcase the different kinds of restrictions one is shutting down abortion entirely by shutting down the clinic. It's important that we pay attention to that. Because the way that we can lose access isn't just about whether ROY was reversed. Please don't watch for that. Headline right? Please watch for the headlines that are really about it being gutted because our adversaries would like us not to see the gutting. They like us to kind of sleep through that. And think that we're safe unless we see. That row there in name grandpa to it and claim we have an abortion, right?.

Ohio Kentucky Louise United States Supreme court Roe America Sue director Houston Wade Bill John casick ROY