License to Kill: Trump’s Extrajudicial Executions

License to Kill: Trump’s Extrajudicial Executions

The United States has executed 21 people over the last month in targeted drone strikes off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has so far authorized at least four strikes against people it claims are suspected “narco-terrorists.”

The strikes mark a dark shift in the administration’s approach to what it’s framing as an international drug war — one it’s waging without congressional oversight.

“There actually could be more strikes,” says Intercept senior reporter Nick Turse. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Turse joins host Akela Lacy and investigative journalist Radley Balko to discuss how the administration is laying the groundwork to justify extrajudicial killings abroad and possibly at home.

The Trump administration’s claims that it’s going after high-level drug kingpins don’t hold water, Turse says. “Trump is killing civilians because he 'suspects' that they're smuggling drugs. Experts that I talk to say this is illegal. Former government lawyers, experts on the laws of war, they say it's outright murder.”

Trump has repeated claims, without evidence, that a combination of immigration and drug trafficking is driving crime in the United States. It’s part of a story Trump has crafted: The U.S. and the international community are under siege, and it’s his job to stop it — whether by executing fishermen or deploying the National Guard on his own people. And while the latest turn toward extrajudicial killings is cause for alarm, it’s also more of the same, says Radley Balko, an investigative journalist who has covered the drug war for two decades and host of the new Intercept podcast, Collateral Damage.

“The notion of collateral damage is just that: this very idea that, when you're in war, there are some who can be sacrificed because we have this greater cause that we have to win or this threat we have to overcome. And these people that are being killed in these incidents, they're collateral damage from the perspective of the U.S. government because Trump clearly doesn't care,” Balko says.

“There are a lot of parallels between what Trump is doing with immigration now and what we saw during the 1980s with the drug war. There was an effort to bring the military in,” Balko says. “This idea that Reagan declared illicit drugs a national security threat — just like Trump has done with immigration, with migrants — this idea that we're facing this threat that is so existential and so dangerous that we have to take these extraconstitutional measures, this is a playbook that we've seen before.”

Correction: In the episode, it is erroneously stated that the conversation took place on Wednesday, October 10; it was recorded on Wednesday, October 8.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jaksot(370)

The Many Lives and Deaths of Iraq, as Witnessed by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad

The Many Lives and Deaths of Iraq, as Witnessed by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad

Amidst massive protests around the United States and the world, on March 19, 2003, the U.S. began its invasion of Iraq. This week on Intercepted, Jeremy Scahill, Murtaza Hussain, and Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad discuss the long-lasting impact of the war on Iraq and its people. Throughout the 20 years since the invasion, Iraq was torn to shreds by a gratuitous American occupation and a U.S.-fueled sectarian civil war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died as U.S. policy gave rise to Al Qaeda — and ultimately the Islamic State in Iraq.While many commemorations of this bloody anniversary focus on the 2003 invasion, the plans to destroy Iraq were launched much earlier and were supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. Scahill, Hussain, and Abdul-Ahad discuss life under Saddam Hussein, the lead-up to the U.S. invasion, the brutality of the occupation, and the systematic refusal to bring any accountability for those responsible.“Of course, the Iraqis could not believe that their new colonial masters had no clue, had done no planning and made no preparations for what was going to happen after they invaded the country,” Abdul-Ahad writes in his new book, “A Stranger in Your Own City: Travels in the Middle East’s Long War.” “When the myth of an American-generated prosperity clashed with the realities of occupation, chaos and destruction followed. Resentment and anger swept the country and all the suppressed rage of the previous decades exploded.”Abdul-Ahad shares stories from his deeply human reporting on his personal journey from an architect living in Baghdad to a celebrated international journalist documenting the rise and fall of ISIS.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

22 Maalis 20231h 12min

Dissent Episode Six: The Clean Water Act Comes Under Attack

Dissent Episode Six: The Clean Water Act Comes Under Attack

Which wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act? That’s the question before the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. Back in 2004, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a residential lot near the idyllic and popular Priest Lake in Idaho. In preparation of construction, the Sacketts started filling the lot with gravel and sand. But after an anonymous complaint about the dredging and filling, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Sacketts to stop construction until the proper permits and assessments were sorted out. The EPA argued that the Sacketts were building on a wetland protected by the Clean Water Act. Instead of securing federal permits, the Sacketts took their case to the Supreme Court for a second time.This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Sam Sankar, the senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, a leading environmental law organization. Smith and Sankar discuss the Clean Water Act, wetlands and “navigable waters,” and the powerful interests backing the Sacketts. The outcome of the case, Smith and Sankar warn, could further gut the EPA’s ability to prevent pollution of the nation’s waters and combat climate change.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

22 Helmi 202356min

Dissent Episode Five: The Death Penalty, Deadlines, and DNA

Dissent Episode Five: The Death Penalty, Deadlines, and DNA

Rodney Reed has been on death row since 1998 for the killing of a 19-year-old woman named Stacey Stites. Although Texas prosecutors said the case was open and shut, Reed has consistently maintained his innocence. Over the years, dozens of witnesses have come forward with evidence that undermines the state’s case, casting serious doubt on whether Reed is actually guilty. But Texas has refused to conduct DNA testing that could put lingering questions to rest. This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Intercept senior writer Liliana Segura to discuss the Supreme Court’s review of the case. Segura was in Washington, D.C., for the oral arguments, which focused on whether the statute of limitations for DNA testing has run out. Although it may seem like a straightforward question, it’s anything but — and the court’s decision could have life-or-death consequences for defendants seeking to prove their innocence. If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

15 Helmi 202338min

Dissent Episode Four: The Right to Discriminate

Dissent Episode Four: The Right to Discriminate

Back in 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case involving a cake shop owner who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In a 7-2 decision, the court found that the state had violated the cake maker’s religious objections. Now the court is considering another case out of Colorado that could expand the right to discriminate under the guise of free speech. In the fourth episode of Dissent, Jordan Smith and law professor Hila Keren discuss 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a challenge to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to refuse wedding design services to same-sex couples. Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, the 303 Creative case has no injured parties; it is a preemptive attempt to allow businesses to practice unfettered discrimination. If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

8 Helmi 202346min

Dissent Episode Three: How an Adoption Case Could Unravel Tribal Sovereignty

Dissent Episode Three: How an Adoption Case Could Unravel Tribal Sovereignty

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act, also known as ICWA. The law was passed in 1978 to combat a history of forced family separation in the United States and prevent the removal of Native children from their communities. But now, in Haaland v. Brackeen, ICWA could be completely overturned. In the third episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a journalist, citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and host of the podcast “This Land.” Smith and Nagle break down the case and its broad implications for laws based on tribes’ political relationship with the U.S. government.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

1 Helmi 202348min

Dissent Episode Two: Judicial Adventurism

Dissent Episode Two: Judicial Adventurism

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected a partisan gerrymandered congressional map drawn to heavily favor Republicans last year. The map violated the state’s constitution. The North Carolina legislature is now arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court whether the state legislature has the authority to override the court and ignore its own constitution. The case, Moore v. Harper, raises the prospect of the independent state legislature theory — a fringe theory that, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of, would give state legislatures unfettered authority, remove checks and balances, and undermine future elections. In the second episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith and Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center closely examine oral arguments and unpack how a favorable or even a middle-ground ruling would radically change elections.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

25 Tammi 202354min

Dissent Episode One: Tipping the Balance

Dissent Episode One: Tipping the Balance

Last year, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and demolish nearly half a century of abortion rights put to rest any remaining questions as to how far the 6-3 supermajority was willing to go to realize its extreme right-wing vision. With the court’s 2022-2023 term in full force, what rights are at stake this year? On the first episode of Dissent, an Intercepted miniseries, host and senior Intercept reporter Jordan Smith is joined by Jordan Rubin, a legal analyst with MSNBC and former prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Smith and Rubin outline the Supreme Court’s term and discuss the major implications of the decisions ahead.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

18 Tammi 202347min

Borderland Residents Shut Down Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s Illegal Wall

Borderland Residents Shut Down Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s Illegal Wall

Last week, the Justice Department sued the state of Arizona and its governor, Doug Ducey, for installing a shipping container wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This week on Intercepted: Ryan Devereaux, an investigative reporter with The Intercept, breaks down Ducey’s makeshift, multimillion-dollar container wall. Devereaux tells the story of everyday people and community members who live along the border, and how they stood up to the governor and won. join.theintercept.com/donate/nowUpdate: December 21, 2022The state of Arizona has agreed to remove Gov. Doug Ducey’s container wall along the border, in response to the lawsuit filed by the federal government.Read the full story and watch the video here: HOW NEIGHBORS IN THE BORDERLANDS FOUGHT BACK AGAINST ARIZONA GOV. DOUG DUCEY’S ILLEGAL WALL — AND WON Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

21 Joulu 202236min

Suosittua kategoriassa Politiikka ja uutiset

rss-ootsa-kuullut-tasta
aikalisa
tervo-halme
ootsa-kuullut-tasta-2
politiikan-puskaradio
rss-podme-livebox
otetaan-yhdet
rss-vaalirankkurit-podcast
the-ulkopolitist
rikosmyytit
et-sa-noin-voi-sanoo-esittaa
rss-suomen-lehdiston-podcast
rss-polikulaari-humanisti-vastaa-ja-muut-ts-podcastit
rss-raha-talous-ja-politiikka
linda-maria
rss-pallo-keskelle-2
rss-kaikki-uusiksi
rss-hyvaa-huomenta-bryssel
rss-50100-podcast
rss-tasta-on-kyse-ivan-puopolo-verkkouutiset