s. secretary of state claiming that we were a non state or sal actors. worthy was us nation on the streets of london that, that president has already been said and could be extradited. that, that's all fine. it's just the suicide risk. well, you know, think about the murder of george floyd, which was recorded on video and only because of that video check that that clip. we had the evidence that george floyd was actually murdered and there was no, you know, that was not a medical crisis. there was not a trace of self defense or something. it was just notice that the cache and, but in that case, the public protests against santa police police brutality which, you know, the authority is not being able to avoid prosecuting those officials. unfortunately, in the case of collateral murder, there are simply has been a completely different narrative of the us going out there and you know, fighting terrorism and so on. and it's very, very difficult for an average citizen who doesn't have privileged access to, you know, what actually happens behind the curtains of policy making. they actually believ

and all his journalism, as it were, does not protect him from the u. s. espionage act. that's what judgment as a breakthrough said, that's why it's only as help. that's a consideration. i'm really glad you mentioned that because that's the scandal in this case. if you look at that 1st instance judgement, that was, that's not a victory for the julian of sanji. you know, campbell for during the suns himself or for press freedom, one for that matter. it is a truck because in a little preceding prejudicial, always goes through 2 or 3 instance by not extra riding him in the 1st madison court level. what that did legally speaking, is that he puts the us in the position to appeal. otherwise, have you been extradited? then julia sans would have appealed and he would have brought all those questions of press freedom of political offence, political motivation in that prosecution. the attentive fascination of kidnapping all those things, he would have brought to the high court level, maria f judges, which much stronger independence and expertise. but it was quite smart. i the u. s

they're defeated in well i think what the u. s. so was there was no way forward for, for actual that they were bunk down in a stalemate. the united states is known this since 2015 for the soviet union when they went in, realized very quickly and determined to move out 3 years in the wall of the united states. as a much much longer spent, terinio seeing the get so tens of thousands of, of grand citizens loss on their own people, not that many. it has to be said and they had no alternative left. so politically and ideologically, it's been a huge setback as they know perfectly well. will it stop them containing a crime shows? no, it won't. they're an imperial odd this to behave in their own interests as a b, as i want to do. and setbacks can be. i shrugged off, especially in a large unipolar world, there is no big goal, tentative state life of soviet union in a different way used to be. so there's no global restraint and all the a european union and britain are totally locked in. so japan and australia in asia, and so the united state

before eric smith in particular has a lot of influence within the u. s. government right now. he created this national a i kind of committee or something like that. and so he's a very, he is this, we view that we have a cold war with china. there's an a, i race, etc. so i think that where we're going with this can be very, very dangerous. so if you are voices or the whistle blowers voices are not heard. it's these people at the top who are having a lot of influence right now. and i think that it would make a huge difference for more people to speak up. at the same time. we have to protect that, so i can go ask people to speak up without making sure that the society at large will also protect, protect them. well, we invite to hold as google board members, people who left people in the government. now the come on dr to meet, give, thank you. thank you. that's it for the show will be back on wednesday, 10 years to the day since the leader of africa, which is because of the country, libya was killed with the back. and you can usa in france until then, you can judge, why will i soc

and we've seen u. s. policy as regards a. iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria. we've seen what nato thinks of relations with russia. if those are the london alliance, nato remains the defense of alliance. and i would just say, and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast, i think rushes greater security wise and moving west, not moving east. i just got to find the us then, obviously about the cove it pandemic. i don't know what you think the mistakes were by the trump administration, with your writing a day, maybe a sequel to this book about that element. but of course, criticism came for you. why did you abolish the national security council's pandemic response unit? just ahead of the coven virus that killed hundreds of 1000 of americans in the well, i didn't abolish it. i did something really bureaucratically quite responsible. i merged it with the biological weapons unit of the national security council. and in fact, if you look both the bob woodward's book, if you look at reporting in the new york times, the national

and i mean, everyone knows the u. s. history and the history of the major dean. isn't this another case of a terrible blow back that isis k is actually a kind of descendant of british and u. s. policy in syria since 2011? well, i don't think so. i mean, i think what happened in to take it back to the iraq serious theater. is that after barack obama withdrew american forces from iraq in 2011. because really what could go wrong everything. everything was taken care of best plan isis arose in western iraq and, and eastern syria. and we had to go back in to counter this new threat or more virulent form of al qaeda. so i hardly think that it was in reaction to our withdrawal that we saw isis arise. i think it was the spread of this terrorist mentality which, which was a courtesy thing to read. of course one can say that then it's still a descendant of u. s. u. k. policy because of the invasion of iraq. i mean, i, the, i the way with them i, well, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in the 1900. everything does a mazda. huh. no, this is more recent over the,

that actually would the u. s. s. number one or preparedness to face the economist? i mean, let's face it, we, we were going to see our youtube video, but the economist, historically, even the intelligence unit. and we knew that they don't have a universal health care system. that health system is completely inefficient because it spends the us taxpayer spends way more on health care and they don't get the provision showing me what to expect us to be hit was my bad demick. obviously. you know, it seems obvious, but it didn't seem obvious that and we, i think we're definitely surprised by the extent when it was recent compared to the u. s. b during the civil war and vietnam war and so on. so you can, as i said, you can compare it to the culture of the lucian, which of course, that adjustment for the population size. and if you would go, there is no doubt about that. and i think lots of would be a bit about that. especially the fact that the crisis is not over. so we are really at some point we don't know if we have 2 thirds of the best or maybe 60 percent or maybe one

s. military budget, the pentagon budget, it's all secret. how much are they contribute to fossil fuel emissions? your work on the 1991, a good persian gulf war. they were trying to work out when the burning of the co 8 oil fields in terms of fluid dynamics. what impacted that have on carbon dioxide emissions. here is not going to pay, but not tom remove pointing out the impact to scurrying new oil sales and so forth . and just to point out that it was in interaction between the source of actions and, and climate, british almost already of all very much in network. i wrote, i wrote a claims in wasn't actually significant, as it turned out in, in that paper at all. um, i suppose a while you've been doing all of this work, you know that there been fossil fuel companies, rubbishing your research, and the research of others. what was it like doing all that work on stochastic modeling, knowing that it's called a global climate coalition, sponsored by exxon chevron and others, were trying to make out the your research was nonsense. one, always some

and i think the amazon company did initially fight against a criticism of u. s. law and yes. and then they to present me so well, you know, no one wants that. i don't, i don't think they saw the lights. i think what happened is that there were a worldwide like lives matter protests. and so it looks bad for them to continue using it amid this world wide protest. so they said that they were going to have a moratorium of using this technology until there was a federal law. i think you all right, yeah, i have a statement here, lou said quote this research paper and i'm assuming you were cool that article or misleading and drill false conclusions. i mean, why the thing the research is huge, an outdated version of amazon recognition. we made the significance other improvements. i mean, what do you think, why, why do they fight back so strong lives against dis, interested, scholarly research, yolanda. i mean, this isn't you being an activist for blacklist rather this is you analyzing the algorithms. yes. so this was actually my colleagues, so joyful, i me and i wrote a paper that pr

but in recent years, we've heard bernie sanders use the word socialism on prime time u. s. t v. we've heard joe biden, all the, it's a, is a capitalist talking about the stimulus. and there he is talking about inequality again and again in the game. do you detect a huge see change in the civil discourse of the united states where inequality is now center stage? absolutely, i mean, i know to me last year, but you know, well no i as somebody who, you know, i mean i co edit a website called inequality dot org. i've been following these issues for decades. this is a really powerful moment because people are waking up to the ways in which these grotesque concentrations of wealth and power are really wrecking our society and wrecking our lives and wrecking our economy. so, as you know, for the 1st time in a long time, a majority of people, 6070 percent of people want to tax the very wealthy and sure the wealthy pay their fair share. so these are positive trends. and yet when this i'm is he, we're hearing rhetoric from by been and the so called squad and so on. when there was a valid s