More Charges Of Forced Drugging At Guantanamo

By: Jeff Kaye

On February 21, attorneys for six former Guantanamo prisoners took their civil case against Donald Rumsfeld and a number of U.S. military officials to federal appeals court. Rumsfeld and the others are being sued “for the torture, religious abuse and other mistreatment of plaintiffs,” according to a press release from Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

Unremarked in the otherwise thin press coverage of this case was the fact that four of the six former prisoners charge the U.S. with forced drugging, via pills or injections. In one case, a special riot squad known as the “Extreme Reaction Force” entered the cell of one of the prisoners to restrain him and force medications upon him.

The former prisoners were from Turkey, Uzbekistan and Algeria. According to an Agence France-Presse account published at The Raw Story the day of the hearing, “the judges will make their ruling in several weeks, but one of them, Judge David Tatel, said military and civilian officials at the Pentagon had failed in their duty.

“‘Their job is to protect the detainees from abuse, they failed to do so,’ he said.”

A year ago, the case had been dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, despite the fact that three of the plaintiffs were held prisoner at Guantanamo and subjected to torture and other cruel treatment even after a Pentagon-initiated review process had found them not to be “enemy combatants.”

According to CCR’s press release, the current appeal is based in part on the fact that immunity doctrines used to shield “the actions of government officials who abused Guantánamo detainees” were based on the fact these prisoners “were suspected of being enemy combatants.” The fact that the U.S. military tortured men who were not under the category of “enemy combatant” may undermine the government’s immunity argument, or perhaps allow for a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Drugging Led To Inspector General Investigation

The forced use of drugs at Guantanamo and other U.S. military sites is not a minor issue, for such use of drugs is both medically unethical and illegal according to both domestic and international law. Back in Spring 2008, the controversy over reports of such forced drugging was a front-page story in the American press, leading three U.S. senators — two of whom, Joseph Biden and Chuck Hagel, are now the Vice-President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense, respectively — to task the inspector generals (IG) of both the CIA and the Department of Defense to investigate the issue.

While the CIA report is still classified, DoD released a redacted copy of their IG report to me, and Jason Leopold and I published a thorough review of that report at Truthout in July 2012. Leopold and I found that the government admitted to interrogating prisoners while they were being medicated. The government maintained such prisoners were not specifically drugged for interrogation, but for other reasons. Indeed, the military admitted to forcibly drugging prisoners who they wished to be “chemically restrained.”

In a follow-up story at Truthout in September 2012, I noted various ways in which the DoD IG report was a cover-up regarding the extent of the drugging of the prisoners.

“But while the IG report was spurred by a June 2008 Washington Post article reporting a number of former detainees’ complaints of drugging and a subsequent letter to the IG from three US senators,” I wrote, “the IG report never interviewed any of the detainees mentioned in the Post story.

“The IG interviewed only three detainees, all of whom were still held at Guantanamo. ‘We did not attempt to interview detainees who had been repatriated,’ the IG stated, which would include any of the detainees who had previously made public statements to the press that they had been forcibly drugged.”

Indeed, many former detainees have charged Guantanamo officials with forced drugging. 

For instance, a military prosecutor admitted to former detainee David Hicks’s attorney that prison authorities put drugs in Hicks’s food, as they “periodically sedated [Hicks] for non-therapeutic reasons.”

In another example, after he was forcibly repatriated to Algeria from his cell at Guantanamo, Abdul Aziz Naji, who was sentenced to prison in Algeria after his release from U.S. custody, told an Algerian newspaper that some prisoners at Guantanamo were forced “to take some medicines for three months to drive them crazy, loosing [sic] memory and committing suicide.”

New Charges About “Unspecified Pills and Injections”

Four of the six men suing Rumsfeld and the others in the CCR case charge that they were forcibly drugged at Guantanamo.

According to court documents, Yuksel Celikgogus, a 39 year old Turkish citizen, “was repeatedly forced to take unspecified pills and injections. Mr. Celikgogus asked what type of medicine he was receiving, but the guards would neither let him refuse the medication nor tell him what they were giving him.”

Twenty-six year old Turkish citizen Ibrahim Sen “was forcibly given unspecified pills and injections. The guards would neither let him resist the medication nor respond to his inquiries as to its substance.”

Nuri Mert, who is a 35 year old Turkish citizen, released, like Ceilikgogus and Sen to Turkey some years ago, suffered physical attack when he tried to resist the forced drugging.

According to the court document, “Throughout his detention at Guantánamo, Mr. Mert was forcibly given unspecified pills and injections. The guards would neither let him resist the medication nor respond to his inquiries as to its substance. In multiple instances, when Mr. Mert refused the medication, he was forcibly medicated by an Extreme Reaction Force (“ERF”) team. As is typical in such instances, a group of soldiers in riot gear burst into his cell, threw him to the ground and restrained him, carried him out of the cell, and forced him to either take pills or an injection. During his time in Camp Delta, Mr. Mert became extremely ill; he experienced severe stomach and chest pains and regular vomiting. When Mr. Mert wanted medical care, he was often deprived of such care despite frequent requests.”

Zakirjan Hasam was the fourth of the former detainees who claimed he was “forcibly medicated with pills and injections repeatedly while in Guantánamo.” Hasam is an Uzbek refugee who transferred to Albania in 2006. Along with Abu Muhammad, the other Uzbek in the case, he currently lives in a refugee camp in Tirana.

All the former detainees are said to suffer terribly from their torture at the hands of the American armed forces. According to Shayana Kadidal, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, “These men’s lives were irreparably damaged at Guantánamo. The U.S. government acknowledges they were wrongly imprisoned for years yet refuses to compensate them and help them rebuild their lives.”

Besides Rumsfeld, the other defendants in the suit include former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers and General Peter Pace, former commanders of Joint Task Force-GTMO Major General Michael Dunlavey, Major General Geoffrey Miller and Brigadier General Jay Hood, as well as the former director of the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantanamo, Esteban Rodriguez, among many others.

Besides forced drugging with “unknown substances,” the former prisoners’ suit describes a panoply of tortuous treatment, including “beatings, short-shackling, sleep deprivation… subjection to extremes of cold or heat and light and dark, hooding, stress positions, isolation, forced shaving, forced nakedness, forced sexual contact and intimidation with vicious dogs and threats, many in concert with each other.”

Drugs and The Army Field Manual

While some of these “techniques” have now been banned by the military — such as hooding — others continue in use as official parts of the Army Field Manual, whose interrogation procedures have been propounded by President Obama’s January 22, 2009 executive order on “lawful interrogations.” These include sleep deprivation, manipulation of temperatures, isolation, and other so-called interrogation “approaches” and “techniques.”

While it is not commonly known, the Army Field Manual does allow use of drugs on detainees, so long as they do not “induce lasting or permanent mental alteration or damage.” This makes military use of drugs on prisoners even more permissive than John Yoo’s allowance to the CIA in his famous 2002 memos. Yoo had told the CIA it could not use on prisoners “mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.” While Yoo’s stricture had a lot of room for possible abuse, the current version of the Army Field Manual allows almost any kind of drug to be used, lacking proof of “lasting or permanent mental alteration or damage.”

This is all a far cry from how the military once considered the issue of drugging prisoners. 

According to areport by the Congressional Research Service [CRS], earlier military doctrine “prohibited the use of any drugs on prisoners unless required for medical purposes.” The CRS report describes a 1961 opinion by the Army’s Judge Advocate General which stated, “’the suggested use of a chemical “truth serum” during the questioning of prisoners of war would be in violation of the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.’ From this opinion it seems clear that any attempt to extract information from an unwilling prisoner of war by the use of chemicals, drugs, physiological or psychological devices, which impair or deprive the prisoner of his free will without being in his interest, such as a bonafide medical treatment, will be deemed a violation of Articles 13 and 17 of the [Geneva] Convention.” [p. CRS-14]

Moreover, according to CRS, the 1987 version of the Army Field Manual on interrogation “suggested that the use of any drugs for interrogation purposes amounted to mental coercion.”

How far we have come since those days can be traced by how the U.S. treats the drugging of prisoners today. The full story of how the U.S. used drugs on prisoners at Guantanamo, if in fact such use is still not happening, remains to be uncovered. The military’s IG investigation was a whitewash. Meanwhile both Congress and the mainstream press have appeared to wash their hands of the matter. But the suffering of the prisoners remains, and their testimony may not be left lingering in limbo forever. Sooner or later these crimes will have their day in a court of law or other duly constituted tribunal.

The Most Dangerous Drug In The World

'Devil's Breath' Chemical From Colombia Can Block Free Will, Wipe Memory and Even Kill

• Scopolamine often blown into faces of victims or added to drinks
• Within minutes, victims are like 'zombies' - coherent, but with no free will
• Some victims report emptying bank accounts to robbers or helping them pillage own house
• Drug is made from borrachero tree, which is common in Colombia
• 
  

By BETH STEBNER
Courtesy Of "The Daily Mail Online"

A hazardous drug that eliminates free will and can wipe the memory of its victims is currently being dealt on the streets of Colombia.

The drug is called scopolamine, but is colloquially known as ‘The Devil’s Breath,' and is derived from a particular type of tree common to South America.

Stories surrounding the drug are the stuff of urban legends, with some telling horror stories of how people were raped, forced to empty their bank accounts, and even coerced into giving up an organ.

VICE’s Ryan Duffy travelled to the country to find out more about the powerful drug. In two segments, he revealed the shocking culture of another Colombian drug world, interviewing those who deal the drug and those who have fallen victim to it.

Demencia Black, a drug dealer in the capital of Bogota, said the drug is frightening for the simplicity in which it can be administered.

He told Vice that Scopolamine can be blown in the face of a passer-by on the street, and within minutes, that person is under the drug’s effect - scopolamine is odourless and tasteless.

‘You can guide them wherever you want,’ he explained. ‘It’s like they’re a child.’

Black said that one gram of Scopolamine is similar to a gram of cocaine, but later called it ‘worse than anthrax.’

In high doses, it is lethal.

It only takes a moment: One drug dealer in Bogota explained how victims are drugged within minutes of exposure

Victims: One Colombian woman said that under the influence of scopolamine, she led a man to her house and helped him ransack it

The drug, he said, turns people into complete zombies and blocks memories from forming. So even after the drug wears off, victims have no recollection as to what happened.

One victim told Vice that a man approached her on the street asking her for directions. Since it was close by, she helped take the man to his destination, and they drank juice together.

'You can guide them wherever you want. It’s like they’re a child.' 

She took the man to her house and helped him gather all of her belongings, including her boyfriend’s cameras and savings.

‘It is painful to have lost money,’ the woman said,’ but I was actually quite lucky.’

According to the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, the drug - also known as hyoscine - causes the same level of memory loss as diazepam.

In ancient times, the drug was given to the mistresses of dead Colombian leaders – they were told to enter their master’s grave, where they were buried alive.

In modern times, the CIA used the drug as part of Cold War interrogations, with the hope of using it like a truth serum.

However, because of the drug’s chemical makeup, it also induces powerful hallucinations. 

The tree common around Colombia, and is called the ‘borrachero’ tree – loosely translated as the 'get-you-drunk' tree.

It is said that Colombian mothers warn their children not to fall asleep under the tree, though the leafy green canopies and large yellow and white flowers seem appealing.

Experts are baffled as to why Colombia is riddled with scopolamine-related crimes, but wager much of it has to do with the country’s torn drug-culture past, and on-going civil war.

Watch video here: WARNING: CONTENT MAY BE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME READERS

US Use Of Truth Drug On Detainees Revealed

By Natalie O'Brien
Courtesy Of "The Sydney Morning Herald"

New evidence has emerged that all Guantanamo Bay detainees, including David Hicks, were drugged involuntarily with a substance that has a long history as a truth serum.

Recently declassified US documents revealing medical procedures have shown that scopolamine was administered to all detainees taken to the Cuban detention centre.

The documents, which were standard operating procedures for nursing staff, were obtained by the independent US news outlet Truthout, and reveal that the rationale for the drug's use on all detainees was to prevent motion sickness.

However, US military experts have said that scopolamine is not recommended for motion sickness because of its severe side effects.

The US government has not responded to questions by The Sun-Herald about drugs given involuntarily to detainees.

The Sun-Herald revealed this month that Mr Hicks and other detainees were drugged against their will with unknown substances and that detainees' medical records were incomplete, with the names and dosages of drugs removed.

Details of the mistreatment of Mr Hicks were about to emerge publicly for the first time in legal action, by the federal government, to stop him receiving revenue from his book Guantanamo: My Journey, until the government abandoned the case.

Witnesses and previously secret documents were to have backed up Mr Hicks's long-held claims of abuse. 

Mr Hicks has told The Sun-Herald he was given a drug during his journey to Guantanamo Bay that left him drowsy and disoriented.

He said it was administered by injection, not a patch behind his ear as is described in the standard operating procedures.

Information released by the US spy agency, the CIA, has revealed that because of its many undesirable side effects, scopolamine had been disqualified as a truth drug.

It listed its most disabling side effects as hallucinations, disturbed perception, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and blurred vision.

U.S. Army Secretly Sprayed St Louis With Radioactive Particles During Cold War To Test Chemical Warfare Technology

By EMILY ANNE EPSTEIN
Courtesy Of "The Daily Mail Online"

The United States Military conducted top secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing them to radioactive compounds, a researcher has claimed.

While it was known that the government sprayed 'harmless' zinc cadmium silfide particles over the general population in St Louis, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College, claims that a radioactive additive was also mixed with the compound.

She has accrued detailed descriptions as well as photographs of the spraying which exposed the unwitting public, predominantly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles.

Test: Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor, right, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College, has spent years tracking down declassified documents to uncover the lengths which the US experimented on people without their knowing. At left, cadmium sulfide, the 'harmless' chemical sprayed on the public is pictured

Spray: She has accrued detailed descriptions as well as photographs of the spraying, which took place as part of Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, which was an operation that dispersed zinc cadmium silfide particles over the general population, a compound that was presented as completely safe

'The study was secretive for reason. They didn't have volunteers stepping up and saying yeah, I'll breathe zinc cadmium sulfide with radioactive particles,' said Professor Martino-Taylor to KSDK.

Through her research, she found photographs of how the particles were distributed from 1953-1954 and 1963-1965.

In Corpus Christi, the chemical was dropped from airplanes over large swathes of city.  In St Louis, the Army put chemical sprayers on buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted them in station wagons for mobile use.

Despite the extent of the experiment, local politicians were not notified about the content of the testing. The people of St Louis were told that the Army was testing smoke screens to protect cities from a Russian attack.

'It was pretty shocking. The level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people,' Professor Martino-Taylor said. 

Controversial: But Professor Martino-Taylor says that it wasn't just the 'harmless' compound, radioactive particles were also sprayed on the unwitting public. A woman refills the spray canisters in this archive picture

Scope: In St Louis, the Army put chemical sprayers on buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted them in station wagons for mobile use

She accrued hundreds of pages of declassified information, which she has made available online.

In her research, she found that the greatest concentration of spraying in St Louis was at the Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, which was home to 10,000 low income residents.  She said that 70 per cent of those residents were children under the age of 12.

Professor Martino-Taylor became interested in the topic after hearing independent reports of cancers among city residents living in those areas at the time.

'This was a violation of all medical ethics, all international codes, and the military's own policy at that time,' said Professor Martino-Taylor.

How To: Despite the extent of the experiment, local politicians were not notified about the content of the testing. In this picture, a man demonstrates how to spray the canisters

School: The people of St Louis were told that the Army was testing smoke screens to protect cities from a Russian attack. A canister is positioned on top of a school in this photo

'There is a lot of evidence that shows people in St. Louis and the city, in particular minority communities, were subjected to military testing that was connected to a larger radiological weapons testing project.'

Previous investigations of the compound were rebuffed by the military, which insisted it was safe.  

However, Professor Martino-Taylor believes the documents she's uncovered, prove the zinc cadmium silfide was also mixed with radioactive particles.

She has linked the St Louis testing to a now-defunct company called US Radium. The controversial company came under fire, and numerous lawsuits, after several of its workers were exposed to dangerous levels of radioactive materials in its fluorescent paint.

Contaminated: The Army has admitted that it added a fluorescent substance to the 'harmless' compound, but whether or not the additive was radioactive remains classified

Exposed: In her research, she found that the greatest concentration of spraying in St Louis was at the Pruit-Igoe public housing complex, which was home to 10,000 low income residents. She said that 70 per cent of those residents were children under the age of 12

'US Radium had this reputation where they had been found legally liable for producing a radioactive powdered paint that killed many young women who painted fluorescent watch tiles,' said Professor Martino-Taylor. 

In her findings, one of the compounds that was sprayed upon the public was called 'FP2266', according to the army's documents, and was manufactured by US Radium. The compound, also known as Radium 226, was the same one that killed and sickened many of the US Radium workers.

The Army has admitted that it added a fluorescent substance to the 'harmless' compound, but whether or not the additive was radioactive remains classified.

Professor Martino-Taylor has not been able to find if the Army ever followed up on the long term health of the residents exposed to the compound. In 1972, the government destroyed the Pruitt-Igoe houses.

Upon learning of the professor's findings, Missouri lawmakers called on the Army to detail the tests.

'I share and understand the renewed anxiety of members of the St. Louis communities that were exposed to the spraying of (the chemicals) as part of Army tests during the Cold War,' Senator Claire McCaskill wrote to Army Secretary John McHugh.

'The impacted communities were not informed of the tests at the time and are reasonably anxious about the long term health impacts the tests may have had on those exposed to the airborne chemicals.'

Senator Roy Blunt called the findings 'absolutely shocking.'

'The idea that thousands of Missourians were unwillingly exposed to harmful materials in order to determine their health effects is absolutely shocking. It should come as no surprise that these individuals and their families are demanding answers of government officials,' Senator Blunt said.

New Drugs Can Be Tested On Detainees & Prisoners

Madison Ruppert writes,

A recently revealed document entitled “Medical Support to Detainee Operations,” originally published in November 2007 by the United States Army, reveals some quite disturbing realities of what goes on in detainee operations run by the U.S. military.

Some of the newly released manual made public by Public Intelligence on August 16, 2012 seems to be positive such as some of the prohibited acts, which include “killing, torture, medical/scientific experimentation, physical mutilation, removal of tissues/organs for transplantation, and causing serious injury, pain, and suffering.”

Interestingly, it appears that this document would incriminate some individuals who have participated in past interrogations, including the health care personnel responsible for forcibly injecting detainees at Guantanamo Bay with “mind altering drugs.”

“Health care personnel, who administer drugs to facilitate interrogation or advise interrogators on the ability of an individual to withstand torture, can be considered complicit in that torture,” states the document.

Then again, they will undoubtedly claim that the interrogations just happened to take place while the detainees were under the influence of the drugs. Therefore, they can claim that the drugs were not administered to facilitate interrogation.

The seemingly positive prohibitions against torture and medical/scientific experimentation outlined above crumble completely when one realizes that this can indeed be done in a roundabout manner.

For instance, one paragraph reads, “Under current DOD policy, health care personnel cannot certify a detainee for torture but they can provide consultation to interrogators so long as they are not also detainee treatment providers.”

That seems to clearly indicate that torture does occur, despite the claims otherwise. This is hardly surprising given that three detainees in Guantanamo Bay turned up dead in 2006, supposedly from committing suicide.

The suicide claim is dubious at best, since according to one of the fathers of the dead inmates the bodies bore “all the traces of torture” and upon further medical examination he discovered that “his son’s esophagus had been ripped out and his body bore signs of torture, including several injection marks on his hands.”

To make matters even worse, according to Sergeant Joe Hickman who was stationed in a guard tower at the time, he was told that the men had swallowed rags which is hardly a typical suicide method.

The document also states that they will only seek to gain the consent of the detainee for medical treatment when it is practical to do so.

“To the extent practicable, standards and procedures for obtaining consent will be consistent with those applicable to consent from other patients. Standard exceptions for lifesaving emergency medical care provided to a patient incapable of providing consent or for care necessary to protect public health, such as to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, will apply,” the document states.

In other words, obtaining consent is only necessary when there is not an emergency, when the person is capable of providing consent and/or when there is not a risk to public health. As I’m sure you can tell, those are a lot of exceptions.

But wait, there’s more! The exceptions get even broader when the manual deals with medical and scientific experimentation on detainees.

While the manual states, “The Detaining Power is prohibited from conducting medical and scientific experimentation on detained personnel. This prohibition arose from the experiences in World War II. Since the prisoner is in the custody of the Detaining Power, any consent to the experiment is suspect as the prisoner may feel coerced to provide consent,” there is a pretty significant exception outlined in the next sentence.

“This prohibition does not extend to the introduction of new treatment regimens and/or pharmaceuticals when there is a substantiated medical necessity and withholding the treatment would be detrimental to the health of the detainee,” states the document.

In other words, so long as they can claim it is a medical necessity, or that withholding the treatment would be in some way detrimental to the health of the individual being detained, they can feel free to try out those dangerous experimental treatments or pharmaceuticals on the detainee.

Interestingly, the document appears to say that surgeons may ignore an individual’s refusal to undergo a surgical procedure, “even if that procedure would be lifesaving and falls within existing medical standards.”

“A surgeon may feel that he is not ethically bound by a refusal in the case of a minor or of an individual whose judgment is impaired by injury or illness,” the document states. “Documenting the issue, whether it is the patient’s refusal (in writing if at all possible) or the surgeon’s decision is an essential step in ensuring that allegations of abuse are not forthcoming.”

The document also deals with assistance provided to interrogation teams by medical personnel. It may come as a surprise to some but medical personnel are “authorized to make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of detainees, including interrogation subjects and, based on such assessments, advise authorized personnel performing lawful interrogations and other lawful DO [Detainee Operations], including intelligence activities and law enforcement.”

Furthermore, medical personnel, “May provide advice concerning interrogations of detainees when the interrogations are fully in consonance with applicable law and properly issued interrogation instructions are available,” and, “May observe, but shall not conduct or direct, interrogations.”

It goes far beyond just the interrogations, however, including even advising “command authorities on the detention facility environment, organization and functions,” and medical staff can also “advise command authorities responsible for determinations of release, continued detention of detainees, or assessments concerning the likelihood that a detainee will, if released, engage in terrorist, illegal, combatant, or similar activities against the interests of the US.”

They are very careful, however, to make sure that those health care personnel who are involved in the clinical care of the detainees are not seen as assisting in the interrogations themselves.

“Behavioral science consultants will not allow themselves to be identified to detainees as health care providers. Behavioral science consultants will not provide medical care for staff or detainees (except in emergency circumstances in which no other health care providers can respond adequately to save life or prevent permanent impairment),” the document states.

The same individual is also not supposed to serve as clinical staff and as a behavioral science consultant at the same location within a three-year period unless there are “compelling circumstances requiring an exception to the rule.”

It might just be me, but it seems this document provides an exception and a way to get around just about every meager protection provided to the detainees.

Unfortunately, this is hardly surprising when one reads other manuals dealing with these types of operations, or when one looks at some of the horror stories which have emerged from prisons like Abu Ghraib, the Bagram prison (which the United States is expanding instead of closing), and of course Guantanamo Bay.

The strangest aspect of all of this, in my opinion, is just how little most people seem to care about it. Considering the fact that any American can now be indefinitely detained as confirmed by a U.S. federal judge and now being fought for by the Obama administration, I think the treatment of detainees is something everyone in the United States should be deeply concerned about.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me atadmin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

This article first appeared at End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis databaseEnd The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE.