READINGS FROM OUR CIVIL SERVANT HEROES:
Beginning today, at the start of our show, we will be reading portions of the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, one of several U.S. government military and civil servants who have stepped forward to tell Congress the truth about illegal and improper abuses of power by Pres. Trump. This testimony puts Vindman and the other witnesses at great risk (to themselves and their families), because their agency superiors and the President himself have explicitly instructed them to refuse to comply with the Congressional subpoenas.
Part One:
CAN WE RELY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TO PREVENT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION?
Our first guest is Rebecca Davis Gibbons, who does research on nuclear non-proliferation at the Belfer Center and an assistant professor at the Univ. of Southern Maine. She recounts the history of international agreements to limit the development and deployment of nuclear weapons, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). These resulted in a global nuclear order in which only 5 countries are permitted to develop/maintain nuclear weapons, and the rest had agreed not to and instead were promised that they could rely on the nuclear powers to protect them from falling victim to nuclear aggression.
History has evolved. At least 5 other countries have, in fact, built nuclear weapons and eeven more countries are threatening to do so all the time. Moreover, global leaders are now discussing whether to abandon or amend some of the international nuclear agreements, either by the documents’ own terms or by the country withdrawing from a treaty it had previously signed. And, of course, technology and costs have evolved to a point where it may become feasible for new entrants to join the nuclear arms race.
What is the new world nuclear order likely to look like? Can anything be done to reduce the chances of nuclear catastrophe? Who will be at the negotiating table as these questions are being discussed and answered?
Part Two:
SHOULD WE “REPURPOSE” JAILS AND USE THEM FOR REHABILITATING SUBSTANCE ABUSERS?
We speak with Jessica Pishko, attorney at the Deason Criminal Justice Center at SMU Law School. Her article in The Atlantic describes two local sheriffs, in New York and Massachusetts, who have reluctantly agreed to consider using parts of their jails as drug treatment and rehabilitation centers. These would provide a space for substance abusers to obtain qualified treatment (and would, at the same time, enable the prisons to use their increasing number of unoccupied beds).
On the other hand, while giving vulnerable and desperate populations access to treatment for their addictions, the proposals would provide that access *only* in the context of an authoritarian regime behind prison walls. Many people who have not been convicted of crimes would — if they wanted to get treatment — have to submit to living in a jail.
How much would their liberty be limited while they were participating in the programs? Would they feel like “criminals” and “worthless failures”? When they complete the program, would potential employers view them as “criminals” or (as hoped) see them as someone who had a health problem and did the hard work necessary to get themselves cured?
