men are drastically underpaid and especially in cities like chicago where most of them have to work in survival economies and continuously see themselves criminalized and placed in jail instead of their communities and this includes black trans communities and their communities getting the resources that they need completely completely marginalized surely we were your thoughts on this couple of about a minute i have two minutes left. so it serves none of us to tell a single story about the impact of the violence or any kind of violence in the black community right so a story that says that yes black men and boys are disproportionately victims of violence in this city we should say that we have a duty to make sure that the story of police violence is about them killing us and it is also about them raping us it is about them harassing us it's the policing that black women and girls experience when they go to the public aid office when they go to the hospital to the abortion clinic it's all of those things that are

reflected in those numbers of killings and in all reality the killing of the physical body is absolutely a killing and the killing of the spirit is another type of killing and that all matters so we got to tell a more complete story about what's happening to black people in chicago and across this country and frankly around the world from chicago to south africa where women are fighting right now it's in sexual violence and as long as we tell an incomplete story we're going to have incomplete solutions so once we start telling the full story of what's happening to our people we can have much better solutions i that's so well both of you thank you so much i mean this is a lot of work and i think honestly it's interesting that it's three women having this conversation that ultimately it kind of does fall to us to sort of take up that mantle and be those community leaders thank you so much charlene carruthers the national director of the y.p. one hundred and co's at hampton community organizer with us here one hundred thank you both so much for so. thank you for having us thank you as we go to break hop

watchers don't forget to let us know what you think of our topics we've covered on facebook and twitter at r.t. dot com coming up tyrol ventura my co-host joins us from new york city where he spoke with award winning journalist matt to tell you about the drone wars stay tuned to watching the. join me every socially on the all excited i'm sure and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics. i'm sure. i'll see you. manufacture consent to step into the public well. when the ruling class is to protect themselves. with the final merry go round

listen to the one percent. we can all middle of the room sick. room.

one of the fundamental pillars of the u.s. judicial system is the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty and you have a right to due process to face your accusers and make them prove your guilt in the court of law and while the system is filled with imperfections and injustices these basic tenets are what we fundamentally try to adhere to unless it's the us drone assassination program then apparently all bets are off started under the bush admin . horrifically escalated during the obama administration and then put into overdrive now with trump in the white house the u.s. drone assassination program is the judge jury and executioner in the u.s. war on terror even even if you're

a us citizen yes the united states government has on purpose not by accident actively killed its own citizens overseas by drone strike so what is a citizen to do if they suddenly find themselves on a u.s. kill list after having already been targeted at least one at least five different occasions that is the question posed in a recent rolling stone article by award winning journalist matt tyee be who i sat down with earlier today here in new york city to talk about the important case of bailout karim an american citizen and controversial journalist in syria who believes he is on the u.s. drone assassination kill list and is now suing the u.s. government i started by asking matt what drew him to this incredible story. you know i've been following drone stories for a while i've been looking for a way to write about this because i think it's kind of and unexamined issue in american life we sort of briefly after nine eleven there was this moment where we

decided kind of collectively that we're going to start assassinating people around the world a week after nine eleven we passed a law allowing ourselves to do that and then the public kind of forgot about it and suddenly i saw that there was this lawsuit last year that involved an american citizen who was going to court because he said he had been bombed five times and the implications of this lawsuit are enormous there's already been one drone assassination that we know of involving an american that's on mar a lock e. but this case if it were to either be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds or if you were to lose it would essentially sanctify state assassination of an american citizen without due process which i thought was an extraordinary story about. where the constitution is where our relationship to due process is and you know in this age of us only thinking about one thing about. this was an incredible story that i

think was getting under cover and other because it's one of those stories the in this case is going to have a deep impact on the car on that part of the country far longer than donald trump and all that because this is the these drone assassination programs were going on now for three straight presidencies it's not just one guy or one you know administration what is the u.s. government's argument in the case how do they justify or you know how do they justify you know that we're targeting this guy or if they even admit that so that was the fascinating thing for me i went to the hearing the court hearing and what they argued in court was we're not saying one way or the other if he is on a kill list but if he is on a kill list he does not have standing. to come to this court and ask to be removed from it so they essentially acknowledge in court that we do have

a kill list which we call the disposition matrix. and they do target people for what they call lethal action. but that the government argues in court that even an american citizen does not have standing to come to court and ask to be removed if they are in a list their argument is essentially this is it's like a wartime decision. it's outside where they call it the ship will which is outside the purview of court so they're essentially creating a whole second legal system which would exist in a gray area outside of what we typically think of is the law and and it's a subtle and difficult thing for i think for ordinary people to understand what they're doing they're not saying we want to make this legal we want to what they're saying is. we want to make this a place that we can't talk about in court oh that's frightening it's very it's orwellian and it's crazy and i and i think reporters are kind of dropping the ball

on it just because they don't they don't really get what the government is doing it's right it's of it's there's a very extreme thing well it's also interesting too is how u.s. judges and courts before this case kind of essential just acquiesced whatever the government you know argument the pentagon or the government would give in terms of the drone kill list i remember that even came up with a walkie and then his sixteen year old son was also you know shot or. you know why is that the you think the judges are kind of stepping in i mean they are one of the branches that supposed to counteract the other two branches and you know in the legal sense why aren't they stepping in why are they kind of saying ok we do need to make this you can't just have this out of bounds in some mysterious place that i think until this case and this is an interesting case because they have a living petitioner who is an american citizen with constitutional rights the judge

actually called below the karim the one with rights in in the colloquy. the other cases all involve foreigners who has legal standing was questionable in an american court and the government makes this very aggressive if not persuasive argument that we're the only people who are really qualified to do to make the determination that we need to do this because because counterterrorism is such a difficult and immediate business where you have to make split second decisions we're the only ones who can make that call and judges over and over again have said yes and that in the doctrine here is called political question. essentially they're saying that this is this is a political question it's not the purview of the courts to look at. but now this judge recently made the decision they are going to look at this judge for the first time in what was a very big victory for civil libertarians said at the very least we're going to

hear the case. is that they said we don't mean we're not saying the ball of the cream is not to kill us and should be removed we want to hear this out we're going to go to court about this we can't just kick out this case involving an american citizen which was a huge victory. and a really interesting moment in american legal history i think what did where do you the other you know actually it strikes me too is of the interesting thing about the leo was is that. you know he's controversial you know journalist but norton max blumenthal you know basically the he's an al qaeda propagandist in syria but yet he's worked with c.n.n. he's worked with these other you know major news organizations of covered syria you know i think a lot of people would kind of like hearing the weird world that this guy inhabits would be like well so wide it or if he's on the kill list is on the kill us to must have done something to deserve it and that kind of argument that you hear over and over again. but you know why is that important not to dismiss him regardless of who

you know we have to pay attention to his case. regardless of who you think think of the ramifications of of that. thought process if you have then there are a lot of people who are who will say i mean i talked to a lot of people about global korean and that and there is a wide spectrum of opinions if you watch him on t.v. he's got this incredibly charming engaging manner but he holds some beliefs that a lot of people would find it extremely repugnant. and he has sympathy for a lot of you know known terrorists. but is the question the question becomes is he just doing coverage that paints you know isis or al qaida sympathetic figures in a positive light or is he actively part of some kind of process that is plotting a terrorist act and that's a massive distinction right because if it's just the journalism and we're killing

people for that then think about what precedent that sets that's why it's important or stand and how did they come to this conclusion because there is from what we know about this program it could be for a variety of reasons they kill by metadata now they have algorithmic processes that say essentially like if this person's phone number is in the wrong place too many times we might be on the list because of that so that's what we need to know we need to know one way or the other and they say that's the reason that's what he and his legal team believe is the reason that he's being targeted as a it's literally them out of data that he thinks it's because he's talked to the wrong people too many times he for instance both interviewed and visited a character name for us all story who was drawn to death in two thousand and sixteen. and so he you know bill al said to me you know they can definitely save you in my cell phone was and in proximity to a cell phone so you know there's that on on is this. as

a check mark against him but is that the reason like that's what we need to know that's where we have the fifth amendment is to find out how did you get to the point of accusing me of this crime and we were it's all supposed to be done in the open well it's due process rights you know there was this archaic thing what was going to zero innocent until proven great that had to go down through the area if you do believe the man is a terrorist and you do believe that what he's doing is is you know. potentially bringing a threat to american people or whatever then you bring him to trial he's a us citizen arrest him ship him back here we're going to trial rather than just drone killing him i mean that's the thing that really frightens me about this and the incredibly scary thing about this is that yes we're i'm looking at this case now a lot of people are looking at this case now but the he's just one of thousands of people that we've made calls on about this this program's been going on for a while now and the people who've been following this you know we make decisions

about non americans all the time and it's completely unclear what what the rationale is for how we decide who is a terrorist and it's very clear abundantly clear that we make a lot of mistakes you know one study showed that targeting just forty one men in pakistan afghanistan and that we ended up killing one thousand one hundred forty seven people so it's essentially a twenty to one ratio of mistakes which makes you wonder a lot about the program. you know i see something like that it's either the gross incompetence and just not caring about foreign lives and now u.s. lives or it's hade you know we've got to keep the terrorism machine feeding because everybody that you kill with a u.s. drone is going to probably blame the u.s. for it but yeah i mean it's and it's an endless vicious cycle blowing himself makes this case that you know every time you do this you're creating a new batch of people that you have to then target and so. that that is why this

program i think went from being you know the original authorization only gave the government permission to target people who were actually involved with planning nine eleven and the first drone attacks were after people who had been involved in the cole bombing but it's expanded since then to to this whole galaxy of characters in countries that had nothing to do with nine eleven and. two were targeting people who weren't even born on nine eleven so it's mission creep when there's no oversight that's what happens you know the people of this just start to push the edge of the envelope a little bit and things get bigger. did you know that over ninety percent of sea turtle eggs are at risk of poaching and considering a scant one percent of eggs will even reach maturity the future of sea turtles is kind of high risk but a group of researchers with a common conservation group possible pacific will have come up with a way to take down poachers once and for all fake turtle eggs equipped with g.p.s.

trackers that's right the group works hard with three d. printers even with the help of a hollywood makeup artist to make the eggs so we'll leave a ball amongst realize that poachers would take them then once the poacher steals the egg the groups can literally track the poachers and hopefully and the poaching for good so let's shelob re the hard work being done around the world to save the oceans most important residents are right that's our show for you today remember every one of my costar of and for a fight said in this world when i overlapped and not until i tell you i love you take care of each other out there i'm top of the wallace keep on watching those shots and have a great day and night everyone. the

americans are still in shock they're still dealing with the psychological damage of nine eleven they still need enemies they still unjustified they still are having trouble walking through it meanwhile the rest of the world is all in prague ahead. a church secret indeed priests accused of sexually abusing children can get away with it literally i like to call this the do graphic solution so what the bishop needs to do then he finds out that the priest is is a perpetrator is simply moves him to a different spot were the previous standards not the highest ranks of the catholic

church conceal the accused priests from the police and justice sussan to that end of that's known as the i and then i think you'll get it tuesdays out in. this. case both. the.

headline. a conservative activist in the united states by twitter after tweets targeting whites posted by a new york times journalist. it's one of the most popular controversial alternative news sites. across several social media platforms. in the u.s. to reimpose the sanctions on iraq after quitting the nuclear deal. to take protective measures for european firms working with tehran on the program we look back at how successful u.s. sanctions have been in the past. also in the program we speak to the son of

a jailed bahraini opposition figure who's gone on a hunger strike because he claims his father is being denied a life saving treatment. they thought. they could. get from medical people. to visit the likes of the book even if the. news headlines live from moscow this is our future national welcome to the program . change the word white to black and you could find yourself in trouble on twitter that's what one conservative activist in the u.s. confirmed if you try to highlight the platforms alleged double standards and explain. candace she's from turning points usa conservative organization in the usa what she did was she took tweets from new york times journalist sarah job and

simply replaced the words white with the words black or the word jewish the response of twitter was to shut down her account candace owens says that twitter was right to take down her posts and ban her for making hateful comments regarding black and jewish people she says however the outrage is that sarah johnson was not banned for making these comments about white people on the surface i actually agree with twitter's assessment i believe that what i said what i tweeted was wrong you should not be able to tweet about any race or any group that you want them canceled that they should live underground i don't know why suddenly people think that white people are excluded from that scenario that people can't be racist towards white people when in fact they often are the problem with the new york times essentially saying shinning her behavior is that they are signaling to the rest of the world that racism actually is ok as long as you pick the right race this was candace

owens first statement to her followers after the ban twitter not only reinstated her account but actually apologized and said that it was a mistake for her to be banned now immediately there was a firestorm with people pointing to what they see as a double standard by the way as you go. tweets i'm replacing wants with blank i'm in tweets of bones that i was double standard every time i see one of these i can't help substitute black for white can do so in stupid i will never understand the double standard to why it's acceptable to so many now the wikipedia page of the new york times journalist is also in question now the page simply describes her as a journalist and has minimal contact regarding the controversy surrounding her tweets it appears that has there. has now been added a small reference to it but sarah jiang there on these tweets the controversy surrounding them seems to be quite a big issue we could pedia seems to make efforts to minimize that so

a lot of debate yet another example of how in the united states when it comes to issues of race and free speech americans just don't see eye to eye the new york times issued a statement defending its decision to hire sarah jong they say she just used the very same language as online whore russel's did to respond to them following news of a twitter suspension activist kindness owens was confronted on the street by anti fascist protesters. originally having breakfast with another conservative activist colleague when they were harassed by protesters and demonstrators could be syrian shouting abuse as they crowded around the police were quick on the scene. now investigative journalist dave lindorff says attempts to ban hate speech appear to have backfired

. they didn't then one thing it banned another that was just the substitution of words and they look really stupid for doing it so maybe they made a hash of it this instead trained so all the problem that made it worse they really need to think this through and. jump in when there's a screaming match from one side or the other and they'll jump to try to stop it quickly with a stupid decision they need to really sit back think through policy and then operate according to a policy that is rational coherent and consistent and that hardly what they're doing right now. one of the most popular alternative news channels info wars to seen a major crackdown with facebook you tube apple and spotify unlocking its accounts and taking down its content all on the same day facebook explained about as

following we have taken it down for glory find violence and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender muslim said immigrants which violates our hate speech policies in for wars was launched by alex jones and then a nine hundred ninety s. his you tube videos have been watched more than one point six billion times which is comparable to many popular western media outlets and many have deemed him a peddler of conspiracy theories in a twenty fifteen interview to his channel donald trump praised his work people on social media though have certainly clashed over the bat. i don't support alex jones or what in four wars produces he's not a conservative however banning him in his outlets is wrong is not just a slippery slope it's a dangerous cliff to pull removing alex jones on in for wars isn't some terrible form of censorship against conservatives he said sandy hook wasn't real he's seeing

parents from the school he said the holocaust wasn't real his not just a conservative his a conspiracy theorist herds people. influence has been brands both facebook for unspecified hate speech regardless of the facts in this case the ability to facebook to censor rival publishers is a global anti-trust problem. political commentary believes the station could prove damaging for social media giants whether or not you agree with alex jones i would be just the same amount of adamant that i think it's bad policy to ban people no matter what i mean it really no matter what i mean in the united states we have a concept of free speech that we love very much it means a lot to us now these are private companies they can do what they want to do i'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this and i'm certainly not saying that government should regulate whether or not private companies can make decisions like this but i am saying i think it's

a bad decision and i think that in the long run it will not pay off for these companies it is it extremely slippery slope i do believe ultimately that probably some conservative it t. will come up with competitive platforms for the ones that are doing the banning and the censoring and ultimately they will have stiff competition that may even relegate them to relative obscurity because of things like this especially if they remain so one sided. warfare took over the streets of chicago this week and with numerous bystanders caught up in the crossfire twelve people killed sixty six injured including several children police say the gangsters in the city no longer fear the law not even bothering immediately to fleece crime scenes in chicago of course famous as the windy city is now earning a new reputation for bloodshed. the

fighting killed in chicago skin and bones combine locals have taken to calling their hometown shy rock. for one of the biggest street games i was selling drugs are my only option so bad for my check out at the time. how easy is it going to go there is. we need to create a culture of accountability picking up a gun and using it. one democratic lawmaker is now appealing to president donald trump directly to intervene in the city's mayor has long been firmly and to trump. i think what he's

doing is wrong for the direction the city is not how i wanted the election to turn out and so we've declared chicago's going to try to be a trump free zone we have to make sure that prison from work and that is that not everyone believes that chicago is a free zone t.v. series about helping the people in chicago especially on the west side of chicago except to say. the out at least gang fighting took place right after an violent protest on thursday people are claiming the bloodshed as a consequence of corrupt authorities in chicago we spoke to gregory livingston who organized the protest much toggle was intentionally segregated segregated in terms of geography. segregated in terms of educational assets health care assets capital investment clones has been segregated for quite a long time matter of fact we martin king said all throughout the soft he had large chicago was the most segregated south.