Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh : Troops Complicit in Genocide

Episode Date: June 19, 2024

Matt Hoh : Troops Complicit in GenocideSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2024. Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, a pleasure as always, my dear friend. Thank you for your time. I want to talk to you about the far-reaching implications of genocide and war crimes down to the actual troops who are perpetrating this, both Israeli and American. But before we do, let's talk about the hot topic of the day, which remain in our area here, which remains President Putin's peace offer and the summary rejection of it by the West. I'm going to guess that you were not surprised at that. I mean, if it had been in writing, you would say the ink wasn't even dry. It wasn't in writing. It was stated, but it had barely been translated. When the West rejected it, Chancellor Schultz said nobody could take

it seriously. And the Secretary General of NATO said, forget about it. Correct. Correct. Correct, Judge. And thanks for having me back on. You know, I think it's just basically the case that America, America's, the Brits, NATO's political leaders, they have no interest. There's no benefit to them to pursue peace. They don't represent the interests of their people. They don't have a constituency other than their own romantic imperial ideologies and the profits of the weapons companies. So for them, there is no benefit in terms of signing on to peace or even just attempting peace. And we've seen this continually, right? I mean, this was a calculated decision in 2014 to stage a coup in Ukraine, knowing what the consequences would be.

And for eight years, you had what would be called a low intensity conflict. Only 15,000 people died. It's only 15,000 people died if you're not one of them or their families, of course. But so for many years, American British NATO leaders were able to skirt any of the risks. They were able to only reap benefits from it. And then, of course, the Russian invasion in 2022 should have changed their calculation. It should have said to them, OK, we've now gone into an area where the risk here is severe. The consequences of this war getting out of hand, of escalation overtaking our ability to manage it, which is what anyone who understands escalation theory will tell you will happen. This is the risks are too great. But again, we have leaders who see no value in peace. There's no interest. I mean, if you just look at the American leadership in the White House now within the Democratic Party, right, for almost a decade, they have had as one of the pillars of their domestic political narrative that their opponents, the Republicans, are in bed with the Russians, that they are treasonous tools of a foreign nation, essentially. They are not going to abandon

that narrative now, not five months from a general election in which their candidate is trailing. So for them, the risks of a potential nuclear war, say, however real they are, are by no means as imperative as the risks of a certain loss in November if they don't fulfill their political objectives. Don't the Western leaders see as one of their prime obligations the avoidance of war? I mean, look at you and Ritter. You're both Marines. You're former warriors.

You carried weapons in wartime. You now are the most prominent fighters for peace in the United States. Don't these Western leaders, doesn't Chancellor Scholz know the history of Germany? Doesn't President Macron know the history of Germany? Doesn't President Macron know the history of France? Don't they understand the primacy of peace and how even that war monger Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than wah wah, meaning it's better to talk before you fight. Right. Again, I think, Judge, it just comes back to this idea that their real constituencies, their real interests, those they are they are supporting in this. There's no value in peace. They don't represent the American people. They don't represent the European people. They represent their own institutions.

They represent their parties and they represent their own interests. I mean, we've talked about this a lot, this idea that the means are the ends to these people. The seats that they're in, that is the end. It's not about doing good for something. It's not about achieving something. It's not about setting into place some type of, whether it's a reform or a rollback, none of that matters. It means for most of them keeping the power they have. And so their calculations are all based upon what is best for me and then that which I'm loyal to, which is their parties and their institutions. Cameron, I think I've talked to you about this before, Judge, but when I briefed Tony Blinken in 2009, after I got back from Afghanistan, after I resigned, Blinken understood

everything I was saying. The people in the room with him understood everything I was saying. These were Joe Biden, Joe Biden at that point, the Vice President of the United States. These were his senior NASA security people. The things I was saying about escalating the war in Afghanistan would only fuel the insurgency, about how corrupt the Karzai government was, how Afghanistan, our allies were warlords and drug lords, all those things, these people completely understood. But to them, the calculation that was most important, which is what is best for President Obama's domestic political success. And surging the war in Afghanistan was the greatest political, what was the best thing they could do politically for the sitting

president. And so I think that is what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with very narrow political interests that are dominating decision-making in terms of these much larger, grander, and as we talk about, apocalyptic decisions that could be made here. And so we really are being played. It's not just the Ukrainian people who are being utilized as pawns here, but the entire world has this sword of Damocles hanging over its head because the White House is trailing Donald Trump by three or four points. And so they can't do anything other than fall back on their anti-Russia hysterical narrative that they believe has been successful for the last 10 years. So I have a dream that Joe Biden goes to the Oval Office one night and says, there's too much on my plate for me to run for re-election and handle the job as president at the same time. I'm not running for re-election. No more arms to the

Israelis, no more arms to the Ukrainians. I've ordered them all here in separate rooms in the White House, and they're not leaving until they complete a negotiation. Is that a nightmare or is that a fantasy? Yeah. It's unfortunate that that's where that has to lay, right? That's the realm it lays in. Dreamland. Dreamland, exactly. Things that should be achievable, things that are wise, things that are practical, things that are rooted in historical necessity are those that have to inhabit our dreams because we do not have men

and women in power who are interested. It's not even a question about political will, right? It's not a question about how much political capital they have or what's actually possible. It's a question of whether or not they're interested in it, and they simply aren't. Wow. All right, switching gears. I've wanted to talk to you about this for a while, and I think you may have mentioned it in one of your tweets. What do American soldiers do when they are assigned to assemble and arm military equipment that they know is going to be used to perpetrate genocide and commit war crimes? Well, what they're supposed to do, Judge, of course, is to not- I know they're not all mad hoes. Right, yeah.

I mean, we know what they're supposed to do. But, and I was, you know, I mean, I went along with it for, you know, years before I did anything about it. You know, it took me to the point of being intellectually and morally broken, suicidal, you know, to actually act upon what I knew was right, to follow principles I believed in, as well as to just go along with the harsh and very clear reality of the war in Afghanistan. It took me having to go through Iraq a couple of times to have even that level of moral courage and intellectual honesty.

So, you know, we know what people are supposed to do. But what we see over and over again is just a willful following of orders that are clearly illegal. But we do have a handful of men and women who are resigning from both civilian and military posts within the American government, within the U.S. military. I believe he had 16 years. The Interceptus reported on this this week. I believe he had 16 years in the Air Force. So someone who was just a few years away from retirement, giving that all up because he can no longer be complicit in the genocide for which the American military is wholeheartedly involved. The only thing the U.S. military is not doing, the only thing the U.S. diplomatic corps,

the only thing the U.S. intelligence agencies, political establishment, media, so forth, is not doing is pulling the triggers in Gaza. We're doing everything else. So we are as much, the genocide in Gaza is as much America's genocide of the Palestinian people as it is Israel's. So what is, go ahead, go ahead. Oh, no, please. What does a Marine captain do when his sergeant comes to you, comes to him and says, Captain, the boys won't assemble this equipment because they know it's going to be used to commit slaughter of civilians. I mean, do things like that happen? Do conversations like that happen in the modern American military?

Or is everybody in lockstep with command, which in this case is the White House. I think everyone is people either are in agreement with it, which constitute most of the senior corps or senior cadre of American military leadership. You're not going to get to be a two, three, four star general without already having exhibited that you are going to go along with the American empire. Right. So you don't become a two or three or four star general or admiral in the United States military without already believing in an Israel first policy for American foreign policy. You're just not going to get there. It's self-selecting,

you know, right? So the people who are populating the top ranks in the American military, just as the top ranks of the diplomatic corps, the intelligence services, so forth, are a self-selected group by the institutions. It's very circular in terms of who goes into those seats. This is why you also see on the other side of that, when these men and women leave their positions, we know that 80 to 90 percent of American generals and admirals go into the American military industrial complex. They go directly to somebody who is taking billions of dollars from the Pentagon. So, I mean, the whole the whole thing is set up to ensure the success of the military industrial

complex at whatever level you're talking about. What you would have happen if you did have something happen like that in the Marines, the Army, Air Force, et cetera, well, that sergeant will be replaced. Essentially, that sergeant would just be replaced. Another sergeant or a corporal will be bumped up to take that spot. And that's essentially what happens. You've seen this recently, Major Harrison Mann,

who was the 13 years inS. Army, an intelligence officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency covering the Middle East. He resigned a lot of attention the last couple of weeks to him. And what he talks about, I think, is something that those of us who have resigned talked about, is that we hear afterwards from how many people agreed with us, but who were for a variety of reasons, unwilling to speak up in the moment, either because they felt that they would get in trouble, either because they felt that they would be alone, that they'd be chastised, that they'd be doing themselves no service. What difference does it make? I've got the golden handcuffs on. I mean, the lists of reasons are quite long and they're all quite,

quite true. They all exist. These are all real reasons why people, but the thing of back it up a step though, judge, and bring it to something where maybe there's some positive in all of this. It's programs like what you're doing, right? That, that give these men and women information that they don't have. Does the military get to see what you and I and McGregor and Ritter and Johnson and McGovern and the others say? Are they allowed to watch this? Yeah, I mean, certainly that's one of the things you hear Harrison Mann talking about was that Al Jazeera was on in his office space. Certainly a lot of, you know, let me just say, every one of these men and women in the US military intelligence service, diplomatic corps, they all have laptops, they all have cell phones, they're all able to access everything that you and I are able to access. And then some of them, of course, because of the positions they're in, maybe they have

access to intelligence that may or may not provide a better perspective. I'll tell you a lot of intelligence officers will say their greatest source of intelligence is often what they find, you know, what they find available to them on the internet. You know, I mean, it's just because that's the case because so much of intelligence within the American system and then by extension, the NATO system. And as we're seeing the Israeli system as well is manufactured, it's meant to please the boss.

So there's a narrative that drives the intelligence. Right. There's a narrative that informs what the intelligence is allowed to say. And very often what you find is you find men and women who are working in intelligence who, when they are able to break away from their own work, they realize how much of a bubble they are in. They realize how much they're looking at the world through the proverbial soda straw, if you will. And when they're able to watch other sources, we're able to read other sources, we're able to hear other opinions. So when they're able to watch other sources, we're able to read other sources, we're able to hear other opinions. So when they're able to hear people like Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer, when they're able to hear Colonel McGregor, Colonel Wilkerson, Major Ritter,

et cetera, when they're able to hear these voices, men and women who have considerable experience, incredible education, backgrounds that are unparalleled, who are offering the type of commentary, critiques, analysis that is in many ways forbidden within the American system, within the American military intelligence diplomatic establishment. It is a breath of fresh air. It is an awakening. It is that your head pops above the water. In many ways, you're exposed to new thoughts, other ideas. And most of the time, though, it's a validation. It's a thing that you're already thinking, why this doesn't make sense. The lies that we're saying, they just don't add up. I know I've heard

this before, but it just doesn't work out in reality. And then you hear a guy like Sachs or Ritter or McGregor or Mearsheimer, Wilkerson, McGovern, saying these things, you say, my God, that's what I'm thinking. That's what I'm experiencing. That's what I'm seeing. And of course, then that validation allows, gives people the confidence and the courage to move forward. So this is all to say that the type of work that you're doing, Judge, that others are doing, you know, whether it's on YouTube, on podcasts, whether it's through Twitter, whatever the platform is, the forum is, it has an effect. And we could see that the old way and change people, the old way keeps people and their ability to understand the world crippled.

And the Intercept did a study a month or two ago where they found that the only people in the US, the only people who believe that Israel was not committing a genocide against the Palestinian people, were the people who got their news from cable news. If you got your news from shows like yours, Judge, if you got your news from podcasts, YouTube, from social media, from print, you understood that a genocide is underway in Gaza.

If you get your news from CNN or MSNBC or Fox, you're more than likely to think there's not a genocide going on. We had a Lieutenant Colonel by the name of Matthew Lohmeyer from the Space Force, this new branch of the military created by Trump. I didn't realize it was a legal branch of the military. I thought it was one of Trump's fantasies, but I guess Congress actually created it.

He was fired for questioning the military policy on DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Can an officer with 17, 18 years experience actually be thrown out for questioning his superior's legal interpretation of a federal statute? I don't know the specifics. It doesn't sound right. They can make your life really miserable. They can, you know, make it so that you you resign early, how miserable they'll make it. They can seek to court martial you. They can seek to as an officer to be administratively separated without cause is something that I don't think I've really heard of. So I'm not sure of the particulars here, but in general, you know, it is the military. So there is that predisposition to not, you know, to, to not go along with dissent. But the problem that you have though, is that if you have a military that does not allow discourse, that does not allow, that doesn't allow discussion, that doesn't allow disagreement or dissent in a

manner that's constructive, then you have a military that loses wars. And that's what you've seen over and over and over again with the American military. I mean, I can tell you the difference between say the Marine Corps now versus the Marine Corps in the mid to late nineties when I was a Lieutenant and just look at the reading list. So every year, Judge, there's a, the command of the Marine Corps puts out his reading list. This is what, you know, Marine officers and enlisted are supposed to read, you know, their books for their professional development. And, you know, when I was a lieutenant, the books were incredibly critical of the American military, incredibly critical of American warfare. There were,

there was very few what you call hagiographies on there. You know, and, you know, we read, you were supposed to read things from Mao, you're supposed to read things from Che Guevara. There were two books by General Giap, the Vietnamese general who defeated the American army in Vietnam, right? I mean, so there are lots of critical books on that reading list. You go back, I looked at the list about 10 years ago, I'm sure it hasn't changed. It was nothing but a list written by romantic fools about war and sycophants. This to me, it's fascinating. I want to switch over, and you're certainly not an expert in this, but you've had exposure to them. The IDF, what happens if a young lieutenant in the IDF who three months ago was a school teacher or a dentist and now is called to active duty?

I mean, he doesn't want to kill innocent civilian Gazans. What happens to him? Well, he goes to jail. I mean, there's been a few of them who've done that. There are also two. I mean, you'll find them across the country. If you in the U.S., if you are in the peace movement long enough, you will come across young Israelis who are dissenters, who will not be drafted. I've met them here in North Carolina who basically leave Israel rather than serve in the IDF because they will not take part in the occupation. And now, of course, they will

not take part in the genocide. Off the top of my head, I don't know what the numbers are looking like, but there is a community within Israel that is against this genocide, against this ethnic cleansing, against this occupation, against the apartheid. The problem is that you have a mass amount of people in Israel, the clear majority, who agree with these policies, who agree with the war crimes, who are supportive of the deliberate collective punishment of the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So there is a large majority in Israel that favors this war. And you have to realize that these are people who, through the destruction of another, are bringing about their own destruction because Israel cannot continue along this path of continual war, trying to destroy its way to security without destroying itself.

Even with the backing of the American government and its treasury, this will be a self-destructive process for Israel. And there have been Israelis who have long argued this, who have long warned of this. You hear more and more from them about how dangerous the path is for Israel right now because their decisions in terms of their destruction of the Palestinian people are setting forth events, motions. There's an inertia that's taking place that can only cause a degree of blowback

that will be existential for the Israeli people and the Israeli state. Look at what they are right now, whether it's as they are hanging on the edge of war with Hezbollah. They cannot go through a war like that and come out on the other side of it in a place that anyone would say this has been of benefit to us. It will be enough. And then that's only one potential. We see what's happening with their economy, the way their economy is bleeding out, the way that their one Red Sea port, one of four ports they have,

one completely been shut down for eight months. And even though the U.S. Navy has spent a billion dollars on missiles and bombs trying to stop the Houthis, the Houthis have essentially shut down all traffic to Israel's Red Sea port. They've shut down about 75 percent Israel's Red Sea port. They shut down about 75% of all Red Sea traffic, you know. So this path that the Israelis are on, how anyone can look at this unless they are wearing some type of rose-colored virtual reality goggles that are, you know, manufactured by Boeing or something like that, right? I don't see how rational thinking people can believe that this is a good way forward. But there are those in power in Israel and those

within constituencies of Israel that believe that so be it, this is what we are called for, this is our destiny, this is our history. And even if we means we retain our power or we destroy, destroy everything around us. Well, you know, so be it. We are still in power. And many of them believe they're actually executing God's will. So just one more. Yeah. Chris, Chris found a clip from Prime Minister Netanyahu. I don't even know if the public has seen this yet. And this is a rant and a rave today in English and a complaint that the arms are not coming fast enough. Chris, can you play what we just looked at before we started the show from the New York? When Secretary Blinken was recently here in Israel, we had a candid conversation. I said I deeply appreciated the support the U.S. has given Israel from the beginning of

the war. But I also said something else. I said it's inconceivable that in the past few months the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunition to Israel – Israel, America's closest ally, fighting for its life, fighting against Iran and our other common enemies. Secretary Blinken assured me that the administration is working day and night to remove these bottlenecks. I certainly hope that's the case. It should be the case. During World War II, Churchill told the United States, give us the tools, we'll do the job. And I say, give us the tools and we'll finish the job a lot faster.

Finish the job means slaughtering innocents and perpetrating genocide and committing war crimes. I'll let you I'll let you take it from there. He's certainly coming fast enough. It's hard for me to believe he's saying that. Right. You know, in a response, Judge, we want to say is like the chutzpah of this guy, right? The nerve of this guy. But it's all calculated. He knows exactly what he's saying. He sees himself as successful. I mean, of course, his position is tenuous. The government could collapse. He could go to jail for corruption. But he is performing in a manner that is achieving what he believes are his goals, his interests.

And he does believe in a greater Israel. So, you know, moving forward, designing this project. But you see the success. You just had two Democratic members of Congress, Gregory Meeks and Ben Corden, who dropped their holds on the $15 billion sale of F-15s to Israel. He is coming here. He will be here in about a month's time, Netanyahu, to address the United States Congress. And he will get dozens of standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans. He believes he is successful. The weapons company believe they are successful. I mean, the only thing we can do here and the only thing we must do is unite in a matter of ways to, you know, if a million people don't show up and surround the

Capitol building on July 24th, then shame on all of us. Right. Our colleague, Ryan Dawson, says the same thing. Mostly young people, all those people from the college campuses are going to the Capitol on July 24th before they go to Chicago if there is a Democratic National Convention. Ryan also told me that the Republicans have spread the word that Prime Minister Netanyahu received 55 standing ovations in a 40-minute speech. Well, that's more than one a minute, obviously. The last time he was here, and they are determined to break that record. A war criminal, a guy who runs a criminal government that commits apartheid and genocide in the American Congress what we will in years to

come look back upon and the horror of the United States. I think there's many ways you can express how the United States is a failed empire, failing empire, how we are a failed society, whether it's just the, you know, the millions of homeless we have in this country, the economic stress on what used to be a middle class in this country. I mean, there's all kinds of different ways we can define how America is failing. But this idea of a war criminal coming and receiving more, a standing ovation every minute he speaks, which is essentially what they will do. Even the Democrats, they will maybe pick and choose and not stand up for a select few of the standing ovations. But my representative here, Deborah Ross, Democrat, she will stand up 40, 50, 60 times however much she needs to.

Run against her, Matt. Actually, I do. I have a friend here who is running against her as a green. So a guy named Michael Dublin, you know, the greens used to be left that right now they make more sense than Tweedledee and Tweedledum do. That's for sure. It's meaning ovations and they're determined to break that record.

Matt, I'll let you go. Thank you very much. I know some of this stuff is a little icky to talk about, but you do it with such charm. Deeply appreciate it. Look forward to seeing you next week. Thanks, Judge. We have to talk about these things. Yes. Thank you very much. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon, Aaron Maté, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.