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 and 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 is 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 aren't 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 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 that's so

well both of you thank you so much i mean this is a there's a lot of work and i think honestly it's interesting that it's three women having this conversation was ultimately it coming 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 that hampton community organizer with the one hundred thank you both so much for sitting down with us today thank you for having us. as we go to break don't forget to let us know what you think for topics we've covered on facebook and twitter sarah full shows at archie dot com coming up tyrell ventura my co-host joins us from new york city where he spoke with award winning journalist not to tell you about the drone war stay tuned to watching the. learn.

we have no idea what safe he's doing on vacation but she will be back on air in september first. of all those doubts are moving toward a show's don't go till so document on the first day. past. the student eleven to tell you. the person. who. will vote eight to eighteen to leave it to most bridget does. some of the sheen young girl.

was not very. good the weirdo's blitzer. but they were. fortunate in that one of the most bruising us to her. school to thomas was remembering a little triangle that. joined me every thursday on the elec simon short and i was speaking to get off of the world of politics small business i'm show business i'll see you there.

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 administration 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 i'm at least five different occasions that is the question posed in a recent rolling stone article by award winning journalist mattei eby who i sat down with earlier today here in new york city to talk about the important case of the lao abdul 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 anwar a lockie 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 donald trump this was an incredible story that i think was getting under cover and

other goods 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 grown assassination programs were going on now for three straight presidencies it's not just one guy or one ministration what is the u.s. government's argument in the case of how do they justify or you know how do they justify say 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 they the government argues in court that even an american citizen does not have standing to come to court and asked 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. i 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 a very extreme thing and while it's also interesting too is us judges and courts before this case kind of essential just acquiesced whatever the government you know argument the pentagon of 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 bombed you know why is that the you think the judges are kind of stepping in i mean they are one of the branches that's 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 with 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 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 where the only ones you 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 but they are going to look at it 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 what were to you the other you know actually it strikes me too is that 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 killers 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 like 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 it on t.v. he's got this incredibly charming engaging manner but he holds some beliefs that a lot of people would find 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 did 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 why we need to know we need to know one way or the other and they say that's the reason that's what human is 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 boyle said to me you know they can definitely save you in my cell phone was and in proximity to his cell phone so you know there's that on his on 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 you 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 to go down to that 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 that 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 the 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 no u.s. lives or it's hade you know we 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 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 this whole galaxy of characters in countries that had nothing to do with nine eleven. two we're targeting people who were born on nine eleven so it's mission creep when there's no oversight that's what happens you know the people 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 cop conservation group possible pacific 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 in with the help of a hollywood makeup artist to make the eggs so believable 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 shell of 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 everyone as michael was tired and for a fight said in this world we're not overlapped enough and so i tell you i love you take care of each other out there i'm tabitha wallace shawn watching those shots and have a great day and night everyone. by . the. church

secret indeed catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children can get away with it quite literally i like to call this the do a 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 where the previous standard is not the highest ranks of the catholic church help conceal the accused priests from the police and justice system do that and that's not as the i intend then i can fly out to do this yet and. this. is felt. i've been saying the numbers mean something they matter to us is over one trillion dollars in debt more than ten bicolor find happiness each day. eighty five percent

of global wealth you want to the ultra rich eight point six percent market saw thirty percent rise last year some with four hundred to five hundred three per circuit first check in and get one rose to twenty thousand dollars. china's building two point one billion dollars a i industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only numbers you need to remember in one one business shows you can't afford to miss the one and only boom bust. five i.

twitter is accused of double standards. for offensive comments against blacks even the. most popular controversial. social media. speech and ahead of a visit by the international chemical weapons. next week the media continues to speculate on the poisoning case claiming. to extradite suspects. over the mistreatment of his father. and.

the. international this she's. gone six o'clock. change the word white to black or jewish and you could find yourself in trouble on twitter that's what one conservative activist in the u.s. confirmed as she tried to highlight the. double standards. 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 jiang was not banned for making these comments about white people on the surface i actually agree with tweeter twitter is 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 the right race this was candice 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 and replace the points with blank i'm in tweets of bones the twelve hours double standard every time i see one of these i can't help substitute black for white counters so i will never understand the double standards 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. it's now been added a small reference to it but 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 kalam open their well the new york times is this you just statement are you defending its decision to hire sarah jones said she had simply used the same language as online harasses did to respond to them or sarah self said that they were meant to be satirical following use of her twitter suspension meanwhile activists was confronted on the street by anti fact she's protesters. i was having breakfast with another conservative activist colleague when they were harassed by protesters demonstrators could be seen chanting a priest they crowded around although police were quickly on the same. investigative journalist a window of police and this is the way twitter does tackle hate speech it's not what. 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 of trying to solve 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. they are one of the most popular online alternative news channels in fi war scene a major crime and without facebook you tube apple and spotify plucking its accounts and taking down its content all on the same day his have facebook explained to me

we've taken it down for glorifying violence and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender muslims and immigrants which violates our hate speech policies. if i was was launched by alex jones back in the late ninety's his you tube videos have been watched more than one point six billion times too although many have deemed him a peddler of conspiracy theories and twenty fifteen trump also appeared on the channel and praised jones's work while people on social media have clashed over the bat i don't support alex jones or what in four was produces he's not a conservative however banning him in his outlets is wrong it's not just a slippery slope it's a dangerous cliff our poor moving alexander own son in for worse 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 he's a conspiracy theorist herds people in four wars it has been banned by facebook for

and specified hate speech regardless of the facts in this case they're willing to facebook to censor viable publishers is a global anti trust problem political commentators you know live in believe that the decision could prove to be 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 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. took over the streets of chicago this weekend with numerous bystanders getting caught up in the crossfire twelve people were killed and sixty six were injured including several children police say that armed gangs to use in the city no longer fear the law not even bothering to flee some of the crime scenes chicago famous as the windy city is now winning a new reputation for bloodshed.

meanwhile the being killed in chicago's invincibles come by locals have taken to calling their hometown shy rock. one of the biggest street gangs. so bad for my town at the time. how easy is it that a guy who's you want. we need to create a culture of accountability a picking up a gun and using it. while local politicians are now paling to the president to intervene directly even though the city's mayor once declared chicago a trump free zone and i think what he's doing is wrong for the direction of the city i think 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 the president from recognize that not everyone believes that chicago is a trump free zone give these series about helping the people and chicago is close on the west side of chicago except hisself. well the study getting fighting took place right after ninety violent crime test some people claim the bloodshed is a consequence of the corrupt authorities in chicago we spoke to gregory livingston . kabul was intentionally segregated segregated in terms of geography. segregated in terms of educational assets health care assets capital investment plans it's been segregated for quite a long time matter of fact we martin king said all throughout the south he had march to chicago was the most segregated city he had ever been in and we're still facing the the. via product.