Podcasts about isil

In this powerful episode, Eoin sits down with Ryan Ahlgren — a wilderness and humanitarian medicine practitioner whose career spans some of the most challenging environments on the planet.From frontline trauma care during the ISIL occupation in Iraq, to medevac operations in Ukraine, to six-week stints deep in the jungles of Papua New Guinea, Ryan shares what it's really like to provide medical care in the face of heat, hardship, and uncertainty. He also discusses his recent role in Antarctica and how diverse experiences have shaped his approach to both emergency and primary care.This episode explores:The realities of conflict and humanitarian medicineLessons in leadership, flexibility, and riskThe importance of ultrasound and sonography in remote settingsAspirations for the future – including medicine in spaceWhether you're a clinician, adventurer, or just fascinated by global health, this one's for you.You can connect with Ryan on LinkedIn here.

El mes del libro no podía pasar desapercibido en Estación ISIL: Como un acercamiento a la lectura en los jóvenes y como un homenaje (sin saberlo) a nuestro Nobel de literatura don Mario Vargas Llosa quien nos dejó recientemente. Este programa fue grabado semanas antes, pero igual, nuestro gran invitado Pierre Castro, escritor contemporáneo y profesor de ISIL, nos cuenta algunas divertidas anécdotas que nacieron leyendo sus inolvidables historias que perdurarán por siempre. ¡Imposible perderse este programa! 

Sabemos que puede ser difícil trabajar en grupo, así que en este podcast te compartiremos experiencias sobre el trabajo en clase y cómo podemos sobrevivir en el proceso con tips que, estamos seguros, te serán útiles para gestionar tus equipos, proyectándonos a nuestra próxima vida laboral.

MeteoMauri amb el doctor Josep del Hoyo, un dels metges m

Rescue and patchwork relationship.B Book 3 in 18 parts, y FinalStand. Listen to the ► Podcast at Explicit Novels.Loving your enemy is easy, you know precisely where both of you stand(Right where we left off)The closest Marine had been waiting for me to finish my bonding moment with Menner before speaking. He walked and talked like an officer."You are certainly Mr. Cáel Nyilas," he nodded. "I'm Lt. Robeson, United States Marine Corps. I would like to take you and your party home. What is the situation?""Lieutenant, this young lady is Aya Ruger. She was kidnapped along-side me and managed to kill over twenty of our enemies, so be careful around her." I was deadly serious about what I said. Aya should get proper credit for all the people she sedated then drowned. Dead was dead, even if it was accidental."These two," I pointed to Zhen and Mu, "are Lúsìla ninda and Amar, Taiwanese nationals suffering some shock from the abrupt crash landing of the aircraft. They don't seem to know why they were kidnapped, but they were instrumental in aiding Aya and me making it to shore during the typhoon.""If you say so, Sir," he nodded. He did believe me, yet a soldier was taught to be skeptical of anything a civilian told him about a military situation. "The bodies?""Those are the corpses we found after the storm. I decided we should attempt to place them in your custody so you can figure out who they are," I suggested."Sir, I don't think we can let civilians keep their weapons aboard the flight," the Marine Lt. stated since I had both a pistol and submachine gun, Aya had her pistol and Zhen had her and Mu's blades. A Marine NCO sent a party to gather the dead."Marine, I am Cáel Nyilas, Irish diplomat, freebooter and Champion of the worst possible causes," I began my spiel."You probably have some orders concerning bringing me in alive. I am not so constrained and am more than willing to steal this aircraft and fly back to Hawaii without you. My team keeps their weapons, or you give me your best shot, right now," I met his gaze. He mulled over his options. Two Romanians and two Marines were starting to load the ad hoc body bags aboard the C-37B."Normally I don't take that kind of crap from a civilian and I don't want you to think I'm making an exception because of your Security Clearance. I'll let your people keep your weapons, but if something goes wrong, I'm shooting you first," he assured me."Done deal," I offered my hand and he shook it."Oh and Happy Tibetan Independence Day," he congratulated me."What?" I gasped. Rescue and patchwork relationships{6 pm, Sunday, August 17th ~ 22 Days to go}{11 pm Sunday, Aug. 17th (Havenstone Time)}{And just this once, 11am Monday, Aug. 18th Beijing Time}"Oh and Happy Tibetan Independence Day;, nice work.," the Marine congratulated me."What?""How is that possible?" muttered Mu."Yippee!! No more burning monks," Aya fist-pumped. Personally, I think she did that for the enjoyment of our guardians and to piss off Zhen and Mu just a tiny bit more.(Mandarin) "Brother," Zhen studied her brother's pained expression. "What has gone wrong?"(Mandarin) "The province of Tibet apparently has broken away," he groused. In English, to the Marine Lieutenant he repeated, "How is this possible?""I take it you didn't know Peace Talks had broken out?" he grinned. I doubted the Lt. bought my 'these are my two Taiwanese cobelligerents' story, but belief was above his pay grade, so he didn't give a shit."Yes," Mu mumbled, "we knew of the proposed cease-fire.""Yes, you mean both sides actually honored it?" I added. I really had been out things for a while."Nearly two days ago, noon, Peking Time, the People's Republic of China and the Khanate put a six month cease-fire into effect which has remained intact for forty-one," he looked at his watch, "forty-one and a half hours." He was being a cock to the petulant Mu. No one called Beijing 'Peking' anymore. I had even ordered Beijing Duck on several menus. Peking was the height of Western Imperialist thinking, or so it looked to Mu.(Mandarin) "He is yanking your chain, Mu," I explained. "You are looking pissed off at being rescued, which isn't doing my alibi for you much good.""My apology," Mu nodded to the lieutenant. "Is there any news from the Republic of China? Are they free as well?" That was nice of Mu to call Taiwan by its pet name, the ROC."Not yet," he patted Mu's unwounded leg, "but with the utter shellacking the Khanate put on the People's Navy (really the People's Liberation Army Navy, but the Marine was getting his shots in) it is only a matter of time."I had been translating in a low voice to the V nători de munte in order for them to keep up with the conversation. They all started laughing. The Marines joined in. There was a huge joke here that we had missed out on while stranded.(Romanian) "So, ask them if they know where their aircraft carrier is," Menner chuckled. Most Romanians had grown up knowing of only one China.Me: (Romanian) "What!"A Naval Corpsman who didn't know Romanian, but knew 'aircraft carrier' just fine jumped in: "Oh yeah, the missing Chinese Aircraft carrier," she chortled.Mu: "What!"I'd only been gone two and a half days. What the hell had been going on?(What had transpired in my absence and the subsequent consequences)(Notes:P R C = People's Republic of China; PLA = People's Liberation Army;P L A N = People's Liberation Army Navy;P L A A F = People's Liberation Army Air Force;R O C = the Republic of China {aka Taiwan, aka Chinese Taipei, aka the "other China"};The First Unification War {aka what the Khanate did to China in 2014};Truce lasts from August 16th 2014 until February 15th, 2015 = 183 days)There are several classic blunders grownups should know to avoid: never fight a land war in Asia, never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and, if you are going to cross a master thief, first make sure you have nothing of value. For the land war in Asia, check with my partner, the Khanate. Substituting Black Hand for Sicilian ~ check with Ajax, use an Ouija board. So far, destiny was batting .500.The last blunder I created entirely on my own, but I felt it was the true and right response for the circumstances. So witness the Six Families of the Ninja and the greatest theft in all of recorded history.In the closing hours of the First Unification War, as in many wars, some serious theft was going on; mainly it was the People's Republic getting fleeced.The most obvious and immediate blows came in the Spratlys and Parcel Islands where Khanate forces (actually, elements from all the JIKIT players) seized the key island in the Parcel chain, Woody Island, and secured the P L A N base the Chinese had created there, including the 2,700 meter runway built there in the 1990's. The 1,443 Chinese civilians and 600 military inhabitants in the area were incidental complications and the survivors were about to be 'repatriated' to the mainland anyway; the Khanate didn't want them hanging around as they prepared for the inevitable end of the six-month truce.Yes, the Khanate had stolen the most important island airfield ~ an unsinkable carrier really ~ in the South China Sea. It was also the northern end of the potential People's Republic of China's stranglehold on the east-west sea lanes between East Asia and the rest of the World, i.e., roughly 25% of all global trade.The southern end? That would be the Spratlys. There are few 'real' islands in that 'island group' and only two worth having: the artificial one the P L A N was building and the one the ROC has a 1200 meter airfield on. That artificial island and every other PRC/P L A N outpost in the region was also stolen by the Khanate between 4 a.m. and noon of that final day of active conflict.Every geological feature that had been the basis for the PRC's claims to all of the South China Sea was now in Khanate hands. Considering how much the P L A N had bullied everyone else in that portion of the globe, the Khanate taking over their geopolitical position was incredibly awkward. It was going to get worse.Technically, the Khanate hadn't stolen the P L A N 'South Sea Fleet' (SSF); they'd blown the fuck out of it, including sinking the sole fully-functioning P L A N carrier Liaoning as well as five of the nine destroyers and six of the nineteen frigates in her battle group. The Liaoning and one destroyer had died in those last few hours as the SSF was racing for the relative safety of Philippine waters ~ so close, but no cigar.So the Khanate had stolen the ability of the P L A N to project power in the South China Sea until February 15th, 2015 when the U N brokered truce ended. But that was not the epic theft, though. That distinction went to the Ninja. What did they steal? A semi-functional Chinese nuclear powered super-aircraft carrier still under construction.The beast had no official name yet, but she was a 75,000 ton engine of Global Domination laid down in 2011 and clearly complete enough to float and to be steered under her own power. (To be on the safe side, the Ninja included stealing four tugboats to help in their getaway.) So, you may be asking yourself, how does one 'steal' a nuclear-powered, 1000 foot long, 275 foot wide and ten-story tall vessel?For starters, you need a plan to get on board the sucker. We had begun with the Black Lotus. They wanted to sneak onboard, exit the dockyard the ship was being built in, then sink it off the coast so it couldn't be easily salvaged. That was plan A.Enter the Khanate and their plans; they too wanted to sink this vessel, and destroy the dry docks while they were at it. That was plan B. Actually, the Khanate desire was to contaminate that whole section of the port city with fallout from shattered reactors. They knew they would have to apply overkill when they smashed that bitch of a ship because the PLAN had hurriedly put on board its defensive weaponry ~ ensuring that the Khanate couldn't easily destroy it. For their approach, Temujin's people wanted the Black Lotus' help with the on-the-ground intelligence work. But the Black Lotus didn't want to help anyone irradiate Chinese soil.Enter JIKIT as referee. All those islands the 'Khanate' was busy stealing were actually part of a larger JIKIT mission called Operation Prism. Another object that was a part of the overall plan was Operation Wo Fat, the sinking of the Liaoning ~ again GPS direction and distance to be courtesy of the Black Lotus.JIKIT absolutely needed the Black Lotus. The Black Lotus wouldn't help anyone planning on poisoning any part of China for the next thousand years. Sinking the unnamed and incomplete vessel off the coast in deep waters meant no nuclear leakage and plenty of post-war time to salvage the wreck before it did start to hemorrhage. The Khanate wanted to kill this potential strategic nightmare no matter what it cost the Chinese ecology.JIKIT went to the Ninja to help them adjudicate the issue. All the lights flared brightly in Ninja-Town when they heard of that delicate dilemma. They could make everybody happy and send a clear message to the Seven Pillars expressing how unhappy the six surviving families were about the 7P's trying to annihilate them when all of this 'unpleasantness' began.The Khanate was already going to blast the shipyards and docks, the Black Lotus was already going to sail the ship into deep waters, so why not take it one step further, sail the ship into Japanese waters and declare it Khanate property as a colossal Fuck You! to the PRC, PLAN and specifically the Seven Pillars, all at the same time?Now normally, you can't steal a ship that big. The owners will notice it is missing and come looking for it. And you can't sell or hide the damn thing. So, you steal it at the tail end of a war before the players can capture, or sink it. It just so happened the Ninja had access to a war and such a time table.The next problem: where do you put it? The Khanate's closest safe haven was 8,000 km away at the Eastern Mediterranean Seaport of Izmir.But wait!The Khanate was about to steal an island airbase with its own (albeit small) harbor. The Khanate was confident that a few weeks after the truce, an alternate port, or two, would become available for the two-to-three year process it would require to prepare the vessel so it could be commissioned as the true warship it was meant to be.So, how do you steal a well-guarded, humongous ship with its skeleton crew of 500? You need a distraction ~ a big one. Remember those Khanate airstrikes? They intended to destroy the dockyards anyway. Now all they had to do was 'miss' the carrier.They could do that. If you recall, to dissuade the Khanate from sinking the ship in the final days of the war, the PLAN had hastily put teeth on the thing by giving it all its pre-designed defensive weaponry and added jury-rigged radar and sonar systems. The carrier could defend itself if needed. With the new plan (C), the airstrikes could avoid those teeth, thus reducing the risk of losing their precious planes and pilots.A series of bombing runs and missile hits near the carrier would convince the PLAN admiral in charge to hurriedly put some distance between the ship and shore, Not out to sea. That would be stupid. Within the harbor, his weaponry could adequately defend his ship. And if she took serious damage, he could run her aground, so the vessel wouldn't really sink.The only problem was that out in the harbor, with everything exploding, he was away from the only ground security support available. That was when the Amazons, Black Lotus, Ninja and JIKIT mercenaries would make their move. How could they sneak up on such a big, important ship? By using the submarines the US Navy, the British Royal Navy and Japanese Defense Force were providing, of course.Note: As I stated earlier, Lady Fathom, Addison and Riki had wandered way off the reservation . By this time, if you were a Japanese, British, or American submarine commander in the Yellow Sea and you weren't part of this madness, you were insanely jealous of those who were.The missions JIKIT was sending them on were:-definitely Acts of War if they were ever discovered,-far more dangerous than any war game exercise they'd ever been part of, and-the ultimate test of their crews and equipment.These people weren't suicidal. They believed they were the best sneaks under the Seven Seas and now they could prove it ~ in 50 years when this stuff was declassified (if it ever was).For the one American, two British and four Japanese submarines inserting the assault teams, this whole mission had a surreal feel to it. They were transporting a packed assortment of women of Indian, Malaysian and Indonesian descent along with some very lithe Japanese ladies and gents, none of who talked a whole lot.There was a third group with the spooky women and spookier Japanese teams, and that group was scared shitless about the sudden turn their lives had taken. They were all former American and British servicewomen (to not tick off the Amazons too much) with carrier and/or nuclear reactor experience who had been RIFed (Reduction in Force, aka fired) in the past five years from their respective national navies.Around a week ago, they had all answered an advertisement by a logistics support corporation that was going to do a 'force modernization' in an unnamed country. They all knew that mean the Khanate. The job had been laid out as 'basically your old job with the addition of training the natives' and it included the promise of no combat.It was a guaranteed five year contract with an option for a year-to-year extensions for another five years if you desired to stick around. For that, you received your 'pay grade upon retirement + 20%', free room and board, private security, judicial protections and a $10,000 to $10,900 signing bonus. For many struggling military families, it was manna from Heaven and thousands were signing up.Then 72 hours ago, a different group from the same company came knocking on the women's doors. If you could come with them right then and there, they had a satchel of money, $100,000 to $109,000, tax free, and a Non-disclosure Agreement for you to sign. Sure, the deal sounded shady, but the money was very real.Twenty-four hours later those who accepted the money found themselves in a small fishing village on Ko Island, Japan. There some rather fiercely intense people outlined the job they were needed for. From a submarine, the assault teams would sneak aboard the carrier, neutralize the crew and then the new crew (them) would sail it to Jeju, Jeju Island, South Korea.At that point they would be allowed to stay with the vessel (preferred), or depart for a non-war zone of their choice. Both options came with another $100,000 to $109,000 payment. Anyone who declined this particular job would remain incognito on Ko Island for another 48 hours then be allowed to leave without the need to return their initial payment.Of the 312 job applicants, 293 volunteered for both the first and second parts of the assignment. With the technical and linguistic expertise of the Amazons and 9 Clan members that would be enough to get their prize to Jeju Island's temporary safety and then make the last leg to Woody Island and a more permanent anchorage.Besides the airstrikes to goad the carrier away from the wharves, all the Khanate had to do with the carrier was put three or four clearly Mongolian faces onboard when the various nations of the world came calling. After all, what was the public going to believe:, the Khanate had pulled off yet another daring (i.e., mostly JIKIT) Special Forces coup, just as they'd managed to do throughout this short war, or that 'Ninjas stole my Battleship, umm, carrier' stuff some PRC leaders were claiming? Forty-eight hours later the whole globe was able to watch the newly named Khanate supercarrier, the  z Beg Khan, passing through Japanese territorial waters while being escorted by South Korean and Japanese warships.The PRC did complain to the United Nations over the 'theft' of both the carrier and 'their' islands, but the Security Council, led by the UK, could and would do nothing about the 'latest round of injustices heaped upon the People of China'. By the time the UN got around to doing nothing, the next round of JIKIT diplomacy was causing the PRC even greater headaches.That greatest theft, while remarkable in its own right, was really a sideshow to the reordering of the political order in Southeast Asia. The big winner wasn't the Khanate. And it certainly wasn't the mainland Chinese. No, the nations to immediately prosper were an unlikely pair, the Republic of India and the People's Republic of Vietnam (PRV). The Republic of China (R O C) was also getting its own small boost as well.By gambling their precious navy, India had become the largest power broker in the South China Sea's resource bonanza. She went from a minimal presence to being the critical ally of the Khanate and the 'big stick' (naval-wise) of Asia's new dynamic duo. The Indians had the only two functional aircraft carriers in the region and the Khanate had Woody Island with a mega-carrier number of planes sitting on it.Their combined naval aviation was not something any of the others powers wanted to mess with. The duo then sealed their supremacy by making the duo a trio. That third member was the PRV. Vietnam was the land-based logistical anchor of the three regional powers.Not only did Vietnam gain the prestige denied it for over two centuries, it redressed the P L A N humiliating treatment of their own navy for the past thirty years. The Khanate's naval aviation would shield Vietnam's economic exploitation of the Parcel Islands. The Indian Navy could counter anything the P L A N South China fleet could come at them with.Yes, the P L A N had two other fleets, the Northern and Eastern, but both had been put through their own 1001 levels of Hell by the Khanate's air power, plus they had to protect the Chinese heartland from Russia and North Korean ambitions. The South Koreans and Japanese were suddenly a very real threat from the East too. But for the time being, the Indians had the decisive edge.The final location for the  z Beg Khan was an old familiar haunt for some Americans, Da Nang, PRV. It had the facilities, courtesy of the US military from the 1960's and 70's, to be the new base for the Khanate's Eastern Fleet and logistical hub for their naval aviation forces in the Parcel Islands.The Vietnamese were thinking with more than their testicles, as were the Indians. Sure, geopolitical clout was nice, yet that was only the icing on the economic cake that was the Parcel Island Accords. That hasty bit of JIKIT backroom dealings gave a 50% stake in the Parcels to the PRV.India got 20% of something she had 0% in a month ago. The Khanate gained a 20% stake for their audacity and the ROC gained 10% because the other three would protect its share from the PRC. Something was better than nothing and the three legitimate powers agreed to the deal because in less than six months, the PRC would be back in the game.The Indians and Vietnamese wanted the Khanate to stay interested in the region and the Taiwanese wanted to forge closer ties to the Khanate. That treaty was a 'no-brainer'. Within one week, the Vietnamese were strutting like peacocks and internal political opposition to the Indian intervention into the South China Sea in the Indian parliament was silent.The Spratly Islands was a tougher deal to work out within the six month timetable. There were more players ~ the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Thailand (who had a non-functional carrier). The JIKIT deal gave everyone but the Indians a 10% piece of the huge natural gas, oil and fisheries pie and the Indians got 20% once more.The Philippines and Malaysia were both very opposed to this treaty; they believed they deserved a far larger portion of those regional resources. Indonesia and Thailand also felt they could hold out for a bigger slice and weren't happy with India getting so much for basically having a double handful of ships (34 actually) sailing about.That 'handful of ships' was the point JIKIT was trying to make. If the PRC beat the Khanate next year, did any of the players think the PRC would give them anything, even if they promised them more right now? Really? When the PLAN had the biggest guns, they hadn't respected any other claims to the region. Why would that change in the future?The reality was this: India would only stick around if they had the economic incentive to remain. Vietnam, the Khanate and the ROC were watching the clock and realized this was the best deal they would get. Brunei and the Philippines were also coming to that understanding. Brunei was tiny (thus easy to defend), very rich already and a good ally of the British.The Philippines had a very weak navy and a non-existent naval air force. They couldn't even enforce their current claims versus Brunei, much less confront the PLAN, or any other nation's current military. The Philippines was, sadly, relatively big and very poor. Its big traditional ally was the United States, and the US was currently busy doing 'not much' about the South China Sea situation.The world's biggest navy was partially taking up its traditional (and treaty bound) role of interposing itself between the North Koreans, PLAN/PLAAF and Russians arrayed near Japan and South Korea, or busily not 'ratcheting up tensions' in the region by sending more forces into the front lines.President Obama was urging dialogue and 'stepping back from the brink' even though every country in Southeast Asia felt the brink had already dissipated the moment the PRC was forced to accept the cease-fire. In this context, the Philippines had good reason to be feeling lonely at the moment.Bizarrely, both New Delhi and Hanoi were singing the praises of US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Rt. Honorable Phillip Hammond, Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the UK, for their deft handling of the crisis, thank you, Riki Martin and Lady Yum-Yum.Riki wasn't expecting any thanks. She was certain she'd be fired and imprisoned for the rest of her life. Lady Fathom Worthington-Burke was sure she'd get two additional knighthoods out of the deal, which would look very nice engraved on her tombstone. Javiera had long ago decided to face the music and go down with the ship, so to speak.The CIA's Addison Stuart already had her exit strategy. She was going to go work for the Khanate, building up their clandestine service when this whole mad scheme collapsed into recriminations and 'extreme sanctions'. Mehmet, Air Force Sr. Master Sgt. Billings and Agent-86 had all decided to go with her. Katrina had their escape plane on standby. Mehmet's family was already 'vacationing' in Canada.Anyway, the Republic of India, the Khanate, the Republic of China, the People's Republic of Vietnam (the Vietnamese were happy to already be getting half of the Parcel Island windfall), the Sultanate Brunei (Lady Fathom 'knew' some people and the Sultan was an autocratic Muslim ruler, just like the Great Khan) and the Philippines (because they had no other true choice) were all coming around to signing the Spratly Accords.Indonesia and Thailand were kind of waiting for a better deal. Malaysia was downright hostile, having gravitated toward the PRC over the past decade and been assured by the PRC a better apportionment would be their reward for upsetting the treaty process.The Great Khan's answer was simple. He publically threatened the Malaysian Federation in general and both the King (Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah) and Prime Minister of Malay (Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak) in particular with military action if they kept dragging their feet.He even told them how he'd do it. He'd butcher or expel every living thing in the states of Perlis and Kedah (~ 2.1 million people) and give those empty lands to Thailand to settle along with the added sweetener of Malaysia's 10% of the Spratlys. He would also invade Eastern Malaysia, taking the island state of Labuan for himself while giving Sarawak to Indonesia and Sabah to the Philippines if those to states agreed to the split.He'd also decimate their navy & air force before devastating every port city, just like he'd done to China. He'd already killed more than two million Chinese. What was another two million Malays to him? Also, Indonesia wanted Sarawak and the Philippines had claims on Sabah. While they were openly and publically defying the Great Khan's plan, could Malaysia really take the chance?What would India and Thailand do while this was going on? Thailand stated that it would protect its territorial integrity, whatever that meant. India wasn't returning Malaysia's phone calls while showing their populace re-runs of Malaysian violence against their Hindu minority, the bastards!To the world, the Indian Navy proclaimed it would 'defend itself and its supply lines' which was a subtle hint that they would shepherd any Khanate invasion force to their destination. Why would the Indians be so insensitive? The Malaysians were screwing up their deal to get 20% of both the Parcel and Spratlys wealth, that's why.If the Khanate went down, there was no way India could defend their claims (which they'd won by doing nothing up until now). Oh yeah, Vietnam began gathering up warplanes, warships, transport ships and troops for the quick (710 km) jaunt across the Gulf of Thailand to north-eastern Malaysia to kill Malaysians because Vietnam needed the Khanate to ensure their own economic future as well.That military prospect had a cascade effect, especially among the Indonesian military. If the Indian Navy remained active, the vastly more populous Western Malaysia couldn't reinforce the state of Sarawak. Sure, the Philippines was unlikely to conquer Sabah on their own, but all the Indonesians needed was for Sabah to be kept pre-occupied while their army took their promised territory, fulfilling a fifty year old dream of conquest/unification.The United Nations blustered. It wasn't that they didn't care, they did. They also cared about the deteriorating situations in Libya, Nigeria, Syria and Ukraine. The situation was complicated by the unwillingness of the permanent members of the Security Council, namely the PRC and Russia, to recognize the Khanate.In reverse, when those two tried to stick it to the Khanate, the UK stoically vetoed them. Why? Well, more on that later. Let's just say the Khanate was good for business in the European Union in general and the United Kingdom in particular because the Khanate was prepared to economically befriend the British. Ireland was being treated in a promising manner too. The United States,the United Nations?Let's just say that in the two months following the cease-fire, the Khanate bloodily and brutally solved the ISIS conundrum and the Donbass Crisis. When the smoke cleared, the Khanate had reintroduced the practice of impalement to the modern battlefield, driven the separatists from the Ukraine and was on the border with Israel and Jordan.Sure, the Ukrainians were stun-fucked by the Khanate's 'peace-keepers' going on a bloody rampage through the eastern rebellious regions, but they had delivered up peace by mid-September. Yes, the Russians were in an uproar about the impalements.As the Khanate spokesperson said, 'if they aren't your people, then it is not your problem' and 'there are no more Russians left alive in the Ukraine'. In fact, fewer than a thousand people, all armed insurgents, were executed in such a manner, but the terror created by the highly publicized killings had the effect of sending a hundred thousand people stampeding over the frontier into Russia proper.Next, the Khanate said it wanted to 'reexamine' the Crimean situation. There were Turcoman in that area and they weren't being treated well, or so it was claimed.Even as Russia and the Khanate were posturing in the Donbass, the Khanate struck in the Middle East. By the end of September, Syria and Lebanon had ceased to exist as organized entities. Most of those two countries as well as portions of western Iraq became Turkish provinces in the Khanate infrastructure. Northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq became the Khanate state of Kurdistan.It was a campaign reminiscent of the 13th century Mongol conquest, not a modern military struggle. Whole villages were eradicated. The entire Arab population of Mosul was exiled to the new territories in the East. The city was repopulated with Kurds from Turkey. Back in Turkey, those Kurds were replaced by Armenians from Azerbaijan, cauterizing another internal issue within the Khanate.Jordan was cautiously hopeful. Israel? "We don't seem to be having problems with Hezbollah anymore," with a shrug and "it could be worse." As for ISIS; there really was an Islamic State controlling more than half of Iraq and all of Syria now and it allowed no other pretenders to that distinction. By the time the world woke up to that reality though, the Great Hunt had happened and I was dealing with the consequences of that.A larger ideological and political matter was occurring in the United States, the United Kingdom (and to a limited extent Australia and Canada). The Ramshackle Empire (aka the Khanate) was just that ~ a Frankenstein nation fueled more by nationalistic pride and nostalgia for a Super-State (that only two living people had firsthand experience with) than an integrated armed forces and infrastructure.It may have been built upon more than a 13th century creation and two hundred years of real and imagined oppression. It did have long term planning and real genius driving it forward. Having throttled the PRC into giving them six precious months of peace to 'tidy up the backyard' (aka the Middle East and Russia) and forge a true nation, the Khanate was now hiring experts to aid them in the task.First and foremost, Temujin and the Earth & Sky had envisioned an armed state built upon military principles and discipline. Fate had delivered to them the means of their own salvation in the form of NATO's policy of disarmament and 'Reduction-In-Force' levels (RIFed).The US and UK had trained tens of thousands of male and female volunteers in their Armed Forces in infrastructure creation and management for the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. From 2010, those militaries had informed those experts that their services were no longer required. Unlike the shrinking militaries of the 1990's, there was no private sector to 'soak up' the majority of those personnel.The Earth & Sky had been working on the problem of nation-building on a time table and they kept coming up short. They had to fight to create their state first, so the all-important after-battle had been something their leaders dreaded. Temujin had been understanding about not everything being 100% ready. Few wars were fought that way.Then a young male Amazon of mixed Magyar ancestry talked history with the Earth & Sky representative to a seemingly inconsequential personage's funeral. A few critical E&S leaders (a minority, to be sure) immediately sought ways to cultivate this man into what was a ten year plan to open doors to the Amazons. Then that man saved the Great Khan's life and everything changed.Before the E&S had even remotely considered directly approaching the Amazons for help, the Amazons came knocking on their door. The Seven Pillars of Heaven had tried to kidnap a camp full of Amazon children ~ an assault on their future. The two secret societies were bound by one unique, fortunate idiot and a mutual thirst for vengeance.They were also directed by two incredibly foresighted, ambitious and brilliant people. In Katrina of Epona, the E&S elders found someone who equaled their hope to see the Seven Pillars humbled and humbled immediately. Moreover, these were the Amazons they were dealing with. Amazons always sought both lightning decisions and long term solutions.From the moment Iskender left his third meeting with Cáel Nyilas, Katrina put the fruits of the First Directive (the Amazons efforts to recruit militant outsider women) into overdrive. Havenstone had the apparatus in place to screen potential inductees. All they had to do was add a "can you suggest any other people who might be interested in this line of work" box to their employment forms.That brought men into the process in surprising numbers. The market was flush with military veterans having trouble readjusting to the civilian community. The Khanate wasn't hiring killers. They wanted ex-military and civilian police officers to create a national police force.They also wanted engineers and builders, cadres for their cadet corps and a whole range of specialist in jobs most of the Western World took for granted. The money came from off-shore accounts funded by Havenstone International. The employment opportunities came from Earth & Sky front companies operating in the UK and the US (and Israel, but that was another matter).They had already started hiring scores of civilian English-speaking experts to help build their newborn nation's infrastructure before the first blow landed. English hadn't been chosen out of any cultural bias. Relying on Russian and Chinese sources wasn't feasible, the Khanate wasn't overly linguistically gifted where distant tongues were concerned and, as pointed out, the English-speaking world had a glut of applicants.Now to the problem, there were people in the US and UK who weren't happy with their citizenry going to the Khanate and helping them to survive and thrive. These power groups wanted the Mongol-Turkish Empire to keep the resources flowing to the West, without any reciprocal commitment on their part.Imagine their surprise when some wonks at the State Department and Foreign Ministries found bundles of expedited passport requests to the (former) nations of Turkmenistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Mongolia (and later Afghanistan and Iraq). The Department of Defense  Ministry of Defense were discovering their former military personnel and civilian contractors with Security Clearances were heading the same way.Of all those destinations, only Mongolia and Kazakhstan were under any kind of 'Restricted Travel' advisories. Barring any coherent anti-Khanate strategy from their administrations, the bureaucracies were doing their jobs, with Havenstone exerting just enough influence to get the job done while flying beneath the radar.After JIKIT was created, the group had a US Senator greasing the wheels to get the requests expedited. In England, Lady Worthington-Burke shamelessly used the people at the other end of the O'Shea hotline to get the job done overseas. She did have to sell out a teammate, but that was what good boys were for ~ taking one for the team. (That would be me, if there was any misunderstanding.)When Cáel Nyilas was kidnapped under the watchful eye of the FBI (I wasn't sure how they got that bum-wrap), the whole situation exploded. The PRC didn't have me, yet promised they might produce me if certain concessions were made. According to Addison, I was worth 5,000 barrels a day of refined fuel oil and 50 tons of coal a month, and the Great Khan agreed to pay! Woot! I was loved by somebody who was a somebody.All that attention drove home some salient points. I was a noble scion of Ireland, Romania, Georgia and Armenia (in no particular order) and they all wanted to know why the US had let me be kidnapped. Didn't my president know I was a sacred national treasure? After JIKIT tracked down the bribes and clandestine activities to Chinese shell corporations, those powers wanted to know what sanctions would be applied.'But wait, wasn't I a private citizen?' my national leaders pleaded. Then the PRC made a case which boiled down to 'I had it coming for being a fiancé to Hana Sulkanen and a brother to the Great Khan', while ignoring me being snatched in the territorial US of A. Of course, they didn't claim to have actually done the kidnapping.Javiera was waiting on that one; 'What was their excuse for kidnapping a little US girl to force my compliance?' The furious Federal authorities even found two dead adult bodies and two digits from said child to add to the media frenzy. To prove I had migrated to fantasy land, the CNN journalist got it right ~ they had tortured the girl and I had killed two of them for it. Just ask the Romanian Army how lethal I could be.In a rare comment, Temujin informed the international press that he believed I was still alive. Why did he believe that? If I wasn't, they would have been able to spot the pile of dead enemy around me and my 'boon companion' (go Aya!) from orbit. Until they discovered this carnal pit from Hell, I was surely still alive.Just at the cusp of turning publically against the Mongol barbarians, the world suddenly got angry with their enemy, the PRC. The principal two Western regimes were paralyzed with indecision until my miraculous cry for help from the middle of the Pacific showed the world I was alive, had punished my enemies and rescued others from under the opponent's cruel thumb.Clearly if I started ranting against the People's Republic of China, my government would be rather peeved with me. I hadn't screwed a dozen poli-sci majors to miss out on that obvious situation. I behaved and hoped they wouldn't make me die from an embolism, or some other equally implausible cause.(DC is a marvel. 9 pm, Monday, August 18th. 21 days)I'd been dragged to DC, to honor promises made in Rome a week ago. I had another choice; I could have justifiably said I was still getting over my kidnapping ordeal. But that choice fucked over Javiera Castello, my boss at JIKIT (Joint International Khanate Interim Task force).That was how I ended up in a 'secret and secure' meeting with Tony Blinken, Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA) and his experts. He was someone I didn't know. The rest, I'd had a verbal run-in with them after the Romanian bloodbath. I'd been cranky. I would hardly consider us to be on good terms now.All four experts were from the US State Department. They were foregoing their usual group of flunkies because this meeting wasn't really happening. All the participants were officially somewhere else, mostly not even in D.C. Had this soiree 'really happened', the Congressional sub-committees would have been able to request the minutes of Tony's meeting with members of JIKIT and:·         Victoria Nuland, Ass. Sec. of State for European & Eurasian Affairs (ASSEEA)·         Robert O. Blake Jr., Ass. Sec. of State for S & C Asian Affairs (ASSCAA)·         Daniel R. Russel, Ass. Sec. of State for E. Asian and Pacific Affairs (ASSEAP)·         Bill A. Miller, Director of the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) (aka Big Willy)We made stiff, formal introductions (which signaled the utter lack of trust in the room.) Javiera hadn't wanted to put me through an interrogation this soon after my near-death experience, considering my snarky nature when stressed. The White House was putting the squeeze on her. The main player was Tony, who talked with the Leader of the Free World on a weekly, if not daily, basis.The Diplomatic Security Service people had successfully peeled off Pamela and my SD Amazons only after they agreed I could keep Aya. They tolerated me keeping the nine-year old girl despite the obvious fact she had gone through worse hardships than I had endured and was still packing her Chinese QSW-06 suppressed pistol.I had already fabricated and submitted my report on how I'd overcome a plane-full of rogue delinquents from the Forumi i Rinis  Eurosocialiste t  Shqip ris  (Euro-socialist Youth Forum of Albania) bent on recruiting impressionable European socialites by accessing my Twitter account.That's right, the Albanians had it out for me. I reiterated that critical bit of data to the Department of Homeland Security when they questioned me on the veracity of my memories. The two ethnic Chinese I was found with? I thought they were from Taiwan, and they both appeared to be suffering from amnesia.I was already suffering repercussions from my pathological refusal to take life seriously. Javiera believed I was about to get a formal apology from Ferit Hoxha, Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations. Damn it! Now I had to do something nice for the Albanians. Maybe I'd offer them membership in the Khanate, full-statehood with an economic package to sweeten the deal.Yes, that was how Albania and Kosovo joined the Khanate, a product of my love for exaggeration and a little post-Ottoman solidarity over Tarator (cold soup made of yoghurt, garlic, parsley, cucumber, salt and olive oil with a side of fried squids), Tav  Kosi (lamb meatballs) and Flia & Kaymak (a dessert I highly recommend).We had toasted the Pillars of Kanun (Albanian oral law and tradition): ~ Nderi (honor), Mikpritja (hospitality), Sjellja (Right Conduct) and Fis (Kin Loyalty), ~ and he promised to tell his people that I had Besa which was an Albanian-ism for being a man who would honor his word of honor (despite us being brought together by my lie). The shit-ton of financial and military aid I asked the Great Khan to sweeten the pot with might have helped as well.Later, Lady Yum-Yum told me that the military leaders of NATO called it a 'master-stroke' in neutralizing Comrade Putin's Russian-backed 'Greek threat

En ISIL nunca estás solo, menos con el nuevo programa de apoyo denominado: "Mentores ISIL". Te invitamos a enterarte de este maravilloso programa al que fácilmente puedes acceder para pedir orientación de tus cursos, acompañamiento constante, y mucho más, con el testimonio de Glendy Chamorro estudiante y mentora. 

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Factual misinformation is spread in conflict zones around the world, often with dire consequences. But when is this misinformation actually believed, and when is it not?  Seeing is Disbelieving: Why People Believe Misinformation in War, and When They Know Better (Cambridge University Press, 2024) by Dr. Daniel Silverman examines the appeal and limits of dangerous misinformation in war, and is the go-to text for understanding false beliefs and their impact in modern armed conflict. Dr. Silverman extends the burgeoning study of factual misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news in social and political life into a crucial new domain, while providing a powerful new argument about the limits of misinformation in high-stakes situations. Rich evidence from the US drone campaign in Pakistan, the counterinsurgency against ISIL in Iraq, and the Syrian civil war provide the backdrop for practical lessons in promoting peace, fighting wars, managing conflict, and countering misinformation more effectively. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

ISIL’s detention camps in northeast Syria remain packed with thousands, with al-Hol alone holding 40,000—mostly wives and children of suspected fighters. Recent Al Jazeera reporting offers a rare inside look at their reality. As Syria enters a post-Assad era, what will become of them? In this episode: Nils Adler (@nilsadler1), Al Jazeera Journalist Episode credits: This episode was produced by Amy Walters, Sonia Bhagat, Ashish Malhotra with Sarí el-Khalili, Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Melanie Marich, Hanah Shokeir, Marcos Bartolomé, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Kylene Kiang. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editor is Hisham Abu Salah. Alexandra Locke is the Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

Muchas veces nos hemos convencido de que los demás no se equivocan como nosotros, que ellos sí son perfectos... ¡Falso! ¿Quieres saber qué hacer cuando sientas eso?  Escucha lo que tienen para ti Mili, Ceci, el profe Julio García y una gran invitada: Melissa Rivadeneyra, Sub-directora de Vida y Cultura Estudiantil de ISIL.

Ao marcar a data, Nações Unidas ressaltam preocupação com impacto de grupos como Isil, Al-Qaeda e Boko Haram; crimes atrozes e intolerância têm consequências drásticas para muitas regiões do mundo.

Assistência dada pela ONU à região aumentou 16% num ano; área geográfica é agora o epicentro do terrorismo global; antigo Isil, grupo Daesh, pode ter cerca de US$ 10 milhões em reservas somente no Iraque e na Síria.

Seguro que cada quien tiene un "ideal" de pareja, esa persona que cumple con todas nuestras espectativas... ¡Pero cuidado! Es muy probable que nunca la encuentres, que sea tal y como te la imaginas; para ello es necesario tomar en cuenta otros factores. Acompaña a Mili, Ceci y el profe Julio García, a compartir este interesante tema de verano.

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

A UN-led mass vaccination campaign in underway in northeast Syria's notorious Al Hol camp complex to protect the nearly 40,000 people being detained there from a cholera outbreak.For years, Al Hol has housed Syrians, Iraqis and other third country nationals linked to – or impacted by – the country's long civil war, which ended with the ousting of President Bashar al Assad in late November.Among those being held are hundreds of family members of alleged terrorist fighters from ISIL and other groups.With more on the campaign, which has been happening with the blessing of Damascus's caretaker authorities and local administrators in northeast Syria, Khourchid Hassan – a health and nutrition officer with the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) – has been speaking to UN News's Daniel Johnson.

Jason gives you a quick overview of Fall of the Assad Regime, Part 4.Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts268  Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcasts The Show: @HistorySzilagyi. Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia.  Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.History with the Szilagyis is supported by our patrons: PatiSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckLaura DullKris HillBetty LarsenVince LockeJoin these wonderful supporters by visiting patreon.com/historywiththeszilagyis. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! You can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN

Secretário-geral da ONU aborda riscos como presença do grupo terrorista Isil e ataques israelenses que podem fazer “desmoronar o progresso”; ele afirmou que o povo sírio está diante de oportunidade histórica e precisa de apoio da comunidade internacional para acabar com anos de sofrimento.

Membro da Comissão Internacional de Inquérito da ONU diz ser momento oportuno para restaurar e recuperar o país do abismo; Conselho de Segurança defende combate ao terrorismo e necessidade de travar o Isil, também conhecido por Daesh.

Membro da Comissão Internacional de Inquérito da ONU diz ser momento oportuno para restaurar e recuperar o país do abismo; Conselho de Segurança defende combate ao terrorismo e necessidade de travar o Isil, também conhecido por Daesh.

A defence and security expert says the Kiwi 'bumbling jihadi' is New Zealand's problem, but it's difficult to get him. Mark John Taylor is believed to still be in Syria - but has been charged in Wellington today under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Massey University security expert John Battersby says the ISIL supporter has no travel documents and New Zealand has no representation in Syria. "The possibility of us being connected back with him is actually pretty remote." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

¿Cometiste un error?... ¿Te equivocaste?... ¡Qué bueno!, no vale desanimarse porque sería como ignorar todo lo que aprendimos hasta ahora. Mejor escucha las experiencias de Mili, Ceci, y el profe Julio García, ellos sí que han vivido estas experiencias y las comparten con nosotros.

This episode of Embrace the Squiggle Kim Isil gets coached LIVE! Kim reached out to us on TikTok and we are so happy to dig into her career squiggle with you live. Kim shares her unconventional career journey from aspiring veterinarian to becoming a flight attendant for the military, and later moving into HR and recruiting, Kim's story is filled with unexpected twists and turns. The discussion delves deep into career transformations, exploring the importance of finding passion, building connections, and being open to new industries. This episode is full of practical advice on how to approach career change with curiosity and strategy.Connect with Kim: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-isil-780b845/Connect and learn more from Colleen at www.maxady.com and on Linkedin at www.linkedin.com/in/comaraConnect and learn more from Kristine at https://www.kristinethody.com and on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristinethodySubscribe to the podcast Embrace the Squiggle and listen every week for a new career adventure!And please leave us a rating on your podcast app, it really helps us out.

¿Que te parece si en este podcast empezamos por romper el mito del "hijo único"?... Con las vivencias de nuestras conductoras Mili y Ceci y la experiencia del profe Julio García, ponemos en el tapete un tema que siempre hemos escuchado y que está envuelto de prejuicios y pésimos conceptos. Además, escucharemos la recomendación de nuestro sensei de este programa Julius Silva, coordinador del Servicio de Psicología de ISIL.

¡Que levante la mano quien se considere un vecino ejemplar!... cri, cri, cri...En este episodio, Mili, Ceci y el profe Julio García pondrán en evidencia a esos vecinos molestos, chismosos y poco empáticos; pero también los que son todo lo contrario... ¡Te invitamos a descubrir qué clase de vecino eres!

Radyo 3 Kafasi'nin yeni sezonunun ilk bolumunde Isil'in yaz boyu yaptirdigi dogmeleri ve insanin kendini neden dovdurmek istedigi uzerine konusuyoruz. Can soruyor, Isil yanitliyor. Kafamiza gore konusuyoruz.

¡El primer concurso de podcast de RADIO ISIL fue un éxito! En este episodio invitamos a los ganadores de ambas categorías (individual y grupal), para escuchar sus experiencias y sus excelentes demos... ¡Felicitaciones a todos los que participaron!

¿Tienes en mente algún proyecto profesional y no te animas a concretarlo porque piensas que no es tan bueno?... ¡Pues te equivocas!, todas las ideas pueden ser creativas, solo debes saber el camino para que sean innovadoras. En este episodio, Mili, Ceci y el profe Julio García, tienen una reveladora conversación con Giuliano López Burga, Director de Investigación Aplicada y Comunicación Educativa de ISIL. Estamos seguros que cuando termines de escuchar este podcast vas a correr a iniciar tu proyecto.

Welcome back to Mining Media where we turn your binging into better TTRPG experiences by using every monitoring drone we have access to to analyze every last bit of information and set our performance stability to 98% efficiency.   This week we're talking about The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells, a far future dystopian sci-fi series that follows Murderbot, the Sec-Unit with freedom from its governor module as it explores the universe with free will for the first time and protects humans from being stupid and hurting themselves while just trying to watch its media.   It's an incredible series and inspired my character ISIL-8 in my NOTORIOUS Trilogy Mode series.   The take home points are: Go smaller with your adventure arcs and keep them contained to small 1-2 location scenarios which build on the bigger world and campaign / story you're weaving at the table Consider how perspectives would flavor interactions between characters based on the major player factions of the world (governments, corporations, guilds) and the people who operate within them (humans, non-humans, family units, etc.) Homework: take one of your favorite books, episodes, etc. and plot it out like a pointcrawl with different types of encounters to be undertaken in a small, contained arc.   In case you're reading this and are feeling incredibly generous, I started a Ko-Fi page to cover the cost of podcast hosting, video conferencing, and transcription software subscriptions. No pressure, but if you donate I'll virtually hug and/or hi-five you, your call.   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: LinkTree | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter/X | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Let's Stay In by Braden Deal from Uppbeat | https://uppbeat.io/t/braden-deal/lets-stay-in 

En este episodio comprobamos que eres capaz de asumir retos, comprometerte, y demostrar que tienes mucho talento. Conoceremos a los protagonistas del programa "Grupo de Emergencia", segundo puesto del Concurso de Podcast de ISIL. Ellos se atrevieron y emprendieron el camino de su propia expresión. ¡Felicitaciones Isilianos!

Welcome back for the explosive finale of our trilogy following the bot-human construct Nomad ISIL-8 in NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing.   The Admiral's Fleet has taken over Nos and set up Chedo Robay and his Ghol assistants to reverse engineer the cloning program designs stolen by ISIL-8's first lead, Ka Lirra (as Aura Day). The Trade Alliance has followed ISIL-8's ship's signature out to Nos and is rooting around for exclusive IP about the clones themselves, and ISIL-8 is just trying to put an end to the program once and for all...   In the end, our bot-human construct tracks down their target in a crystalline cavern, but is busy dealing with the Ghol as the Admiral gets away... Will ISIL-8 stop the cloning program and set those similar to them free? Or will the Old Empire continue experimenting until they have the unbeatable army they need to end the New Uprising?   Did you like all those sound effects and music?! All episodes during the month of August will be using music from Monument Studios, who is running a Kickstarter campaign for their Fantasy+ collection of TTRPG music, ambience, sound effects, and more! Click the link to sign up and be notified when the campaign goes live and get TONS of incredible, professional quality music for your tabletop games!   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands To the Stars by Monument Studios Stardust Instrumental by Monument Studios Starscape by Monument Studios Loading Screen B by Monument Studios Simple Pulse by Monument Studios Pre Battle by Monument Studios Call to Arms by Monument Studios Hollow by Monument Studios Alice Guitar by Monument Studios Foreshadow B by Monument Studios Aggressive Maneuvers by Monument Studios Eleventh Hour by Monument Studios Paragon by Monument Studios At the End of All Things by Monument Studios

Welcome back to the developing trilogy of the bot-human construct Nomad ISIL-8 in NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing.   ISIL-8 has narrowly avoided the Trade Alliance and escaped through FTL travel to a remote corner of the galaxy. Through interrogating the mystic-marked assassin nomad and covert communications to ally nomads and other contacts throughout the galaxy, the bot-construct narrows down their answers to a small section of space on their star chart. But, as they close in, a terrifyingly well-encrypted message from an Old Empire base goads ISIL-8 to a crystalline planet known as Nos, where the mystic-marked have been living in refuge for years.   The assassin warns ISIL-8 that it's a trap, but the allure of answers and freedom for their clone batch siblings is too great... On Nos, ISIL-8 finds that Ka Lirra's efforts to deprive the Old Empire of the bot-construct army did not end their efforts, as a new species known as Ghol have taken over the program with incomplete notes, which has led to unfortunate results.   Will ISIL-8 be able to stop the cloning facilities and free their kind? The trilogy nears its conclusion...   Did you like all those sound effects and music?! All episodes during the month of August will be using music from Monument Studios, who is running a Kickstarter campaign for their Fantasy+ collection of TTRPG music, ambience, sound effects, and more! Click the link to sign up and be notified when the campaign goes live and get TONS of incredible, professional quality music for your tabletop games!   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Dying Light B by Monument Studios Slow Burn A by Monument Studios Odyssey by Monument Studios Sci Fi Idle Ambience by Monument Studios Friends by Monument Studios Idle Synths by Monument Studios Boss Fight B by Monument Studios Out of Time Atmos by Monument Studios Chase by Monument Studios Weak Blaster A by Monument Studios The Moment Before by Monument Studios Explosion in Distance by Monument Studios Explosion A by Monument Studios Explosion C by Monument Studios Get Out Atmos by Monument Studios Intervention by Monument Studios Simple Hybrid Combat by Monument Studios Deception by Monument Studios Alice Theme A by Monument Studios Eleventh Hour by Monument Studios Reload A by Monument Studios Blaster A by Monument Studios Laser by Monument Studios

In this weeks Security Sprint, Dave and Andy covered the following topics: Warm Start:   ·       FB-ISAO Releases an All-Faiths Analysis of Attacks on U.S. Houses of Worship in 2023. ·       New Cyware Survey Reveals Critical Gaps in Cybersecurity Threat Intelligence Sharing and Collaboration. ·       Private-public partnership releases new bank resources for cloud computing adoption. o   Financial Sector Cloud Outsourcing Issues and Considerations.   Main Topics:   CrowdStrike Outage: ·       CISA: Widespread IT Outage Due to CrowdStrike Update (being updated; update 9:45 a.m., EDT, July 21, 2024) ·       Canadian Centre for Cyber Security - Alert - Issue impacting CrowdStrike Falcon EDR ·       UK NCSC: Statement on major IT outage ·       NZ-NCSC: NCSC statement on global IT outage ·       CrowdStrike says significant number of devices back online after global outage. o   Technical Details: Falcon Content Update for Windows Hosts, 20 Jul ·       Microsoft: New Recovery Tool to help with CrowdStrike issue impacting Windows endpoints ·       CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz speaks out after failed tech update causes worldwide chaos at airports and banks ·       Microsoft says 8.5M Windows devices were affected by CrowdStrike outage ·       Brian Krebs: Global Microsoft Meltdown Tied to Bad Crowdstrike Update ·       Blue Screens Everywhere Are Latest Tech Woe for Microsoft ·       Don't Fall for CrowdStrike Outage Scams   Donald Trump Assassination Attempt & Associated Physical Security: ·       FBI, DHS warn of possible retaliation for attack on Trump. ·       Trump's would-be assassin researched previous mass shooter Ethan Crumbley and his family before attack. ·       Gunman Might Have Scoped Out Site Six Days Before Trump Rally. ·       Secret Service Arrests Florida Man Threatening to Kill Joe Biden. ·       Roswell Man Indicted for Threatening FBI Director Christopher Wray. ·       Secretary Mayorkas Delivers Remarks at White House Press Briefing. ·       TIME: What We Know—and Don't Know—So Far About the Trump Rally Gunman ·       Militias Are Recruiting Off of the Trump Shooting Misinfo: o   Conspiracy theories spread wildly after the first assassination attempt on a US president in the social media age o   One in Three Biden Supporters Think Trump Shooting Might Have Been Staged o   4chan post claiming Secret Service told not to fire on Trump shooter explodes into full-on TikTok conspiracy o   Top Conspiracy Theories Around Trump Assassination Attempt Debunked   Health: ·       CDC Confirms Human Cases of H5 Bird Flu Among Colorado Poultry Workers. ·       In 2 years since the launch of 988, 10 million contacts have been answered ·       Global childhood vaccination hits plateau, with 35 million not fully protected from measles ·       UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Resilience and preparedness (Module 1)   Ransomware:  ·       CDK hack shows SEC disclosure standards are unsettled ·       ReliaQuest: Ransomware and Cyber Extortion in Q2 2024 ·       California officials say largest trial court in US victim of ransomware attack. ·       Two Foreign Nationals Plead Guilty to Participating in LockBit Ransomware Group   Quick Hits: ·       China seeks space supremacy and to exploit it ‘to our detriment': US intelligence head ·       US to issue proposed rules limiting Chinese vehicle software in August ·       Fragmented and multiplied cybercriminal landscape, warns new Europol report ·       Europol: Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2024. ·       Patagonia invaded privacy by using AI to analyze customer service interactions, lawsuit alleges ·       CISA Releases Playbook for Infrastructure Resilience Planning. ·       Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) FAQ Resource. ·       Why the Pentagon Is Warning That ISIS Attacks Could Double This Year ·       US says ISIL trying ‘to reconstitute' amid uptick in Syria, Iraq attacks ·       Neo-Nazi group demonstrates on Tennessee overpass  

Welcome back to the developing trilogy of the bot-human construct Nomad ISIL-8 in NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing.   ISIL-8 finds themselves wanted on the planet of Arro after their run-in with the hostile hunting down a rogue hacker. Bounties go up through the Guild to bring the missing Bot-Construct in however possible, but ISIL-8 still has a job through Huska's Corsairs and questions of their own to answer about the Company that created them.   Tracking down leads including the target Xed Gron's hacker ally, being confronted by a hired assassin, and meeting other discarded victim's of Arro's corporate experiments, ISIL-8 finally finds the loudmouth Quadoi, but their answers about the cloning program will have to wait, as they're ambushed on the way off planet... Luckily, they've taken a hostage.   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Cyberpunk City from TabletopAudio.com Docking Bay from TabletopAudio.com Dungeon Collapse from TabletopAudio.com Mega City Slums from TabletopAudio.com Robot Scrapyard from TabletopAudio.com Sand Raiders from TabletopAudio.com Stakeout from TabletopAudio.com Starforged: Planetside from TabletopAudio.com Weirder Things 2 from TabletopAudio.com

Welcome back to the developing trilogy of the bot-human construct Nomad ISIL-8 in NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing.   ISIL-8 has failed The Guild and failed to complete a bounty, leaving the frozen planet of Utov without their target Aura Day, a.k.a. Ka Lirra, one of the masterminds behind the bot-construct clone army ISIL-8 was created for. However, Ka Lirra left a message and coordinates for ISIL-8 to follow if they survived which lead out to the far edges of the galaxy, to a corporate planet named Arro where crimelords rule, and businesses can experiment with sketchy funding.   Before they can dock at a spaceport and begin their search for answers about themself, ISIL-8 is cornered by space pirates known as Huska's Corsairs, rich raiders of the edges of the galaxy who operate out of Arro. In order to get planetside, ISIL-8 has to take a job for them to hunt down a loudmouth Quadoi (4-armed alien) who has a habit of leaking information and ruining profitable raids.   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Endless Voyage from TabletopAudio.com Goblin Ambush from TabletopAudio.com Mega City Slums from TabletopAudio.com Orbital Prison Break from TabletopAudio.com Stakeout from TabletopAudio.com Starbase Omega from TabletopAudio.com

Welcome back to the developing trilogy of the bot-human construct Nomad ISIL-8 in NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing.   After wandering the frozen planet of Utov hunting for the whereabouts of a blueprint thief named Aura Day, a charming Pellucid, or crystalline species, member of the New Uprising, ISIL-8 was turned away and eventually outgunned by one of their potential leads. Luckily, they had saved a New Uprising mystic doctor - Ka Lirra - when they arrived on planet, and were brought in for treatment.   Now the hunt is back on, because the Guild never always fulfills a bounty and remains neutral in the war between the Old Empire & the New Uprising, the Trade Alliance profiting from the entire thing, and all the other factions tied up in the conflict.   However, when ISIL-8 begins making some progress, all signs point backwards...   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Laser Blaster sounds from Zapsplat.com Dark City from TabletopAudio.com Mech War from TabletopAudio.com Robot Scrapyard from TabletopAudio.com Solemn Vow from TabletopAudio.com Starforged Fray from TabletopAudio.com Survivors' Bivouac from TabletopAudio.com Weirder Things 2 from TabletopAudio.com

Send us a Text Message.In this episode, CII General Counsel Jeff Mahoney interviews three professors from Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business:  Isil Erel, the David A. Rismiller Chair in Finance and the academic director of the Risk Institute; Thomas Flanagan, assistant professor; and Michael S. Weisbach, the Ralph Kurtz Chair in Finance and professor of finance.  Erel, Flanagan and Weisbach are co-authors of a recent research paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research entitled “Risk-Adjusting the Returns to Private Debt Funds.”

A brand new beginning! For the first time since the podcast started I'm starting a brand new series, and I'm super excited to be playing "Trilogy Mode" combining NOTORIOUS and OUTSIDERS by Jason Price, a.k.a. Always Checkers Publishing. These games recreate the solo bounty hunter vibes of Star Wars (especially the Mandalorian), Cowboy Bebop, and westerns/space operas so well. Also, Jason has a Kickstarter running for another week at the time of this episode publishing for Revolt!, a fantasy TTRPG of overthrowing a monarchy with card based mechanics for solo to 4 players, so check it out!   In our new series, we create our Nomad, the Bot-Human Construct known as ISIL-8, one of many identical bots created by the Trade Alliance for use in war, but who has gained individual sentience through a malfunction, damage, or clever hacking. They are employed as a bounty hunter as they live on the run from the corporation that still considers them property, and they've taken a bounty for Aura Day, a Pellucid (crystalline humanoid) hiding out on the frozen planet Utov, wanted for stealing and sharing blueprints of The Old Empire's with the New Uprising (oh yea, we're going there). This may end up being more than 3 episodes, because this first one doesn't go super well, but it certainly was full of awesome events!   Where to Follow Rene Plays Games: Instagram | Facebook | X/Twitter | Threads | DMs After Dark email: RenePlaysGamesPod@gmail.com   Music in the Episode: Theme Song written & produced by Dan Pomfret | @danfrombothbands Warriyo - Mortals (feat. Laura Brehm) [NCS Release] Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds Free Download/Stream: http://ncs.io/mortals Watch: http://youtu.be/yJg-Y5byMMw Docking Bay from TabletopAudio.com Gravity from TabletopAudio.com Lonesome West from TabletopAudio.com Robot Scrapyard from TabletopAudio.com Solemn Vow from TabletopAudio.com

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

Writer Colum McCann with the story of Diane Foley, whose son James was murdered by the Islamic State (CW: this episode contains descriptions of violent acts and terrorism)

Christian Ritscher's work brings him into contact with some of humanity's worst outrages. As head of the United Nations investigative team to promote accountability for the crimes committed by ISIL in Iraq, he seeks justice for victims of the notoriously violent terror group. “Justice gives relief not only to the victims, but to a prosecutor as well. That is what keeps you upright and keeps you going on and says it is meaningful what you're doing.” Islamic State, or ISIL, stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Iraq's Yazidi community were among those worst hit, with thousands killed or enslaved by the group. In this episode, Christian Ritscher reflects on the impact on survivors, the difficulty of gathering testimony and on keeping faith in humanity when faced with its darkest acts. “When you're an investigator, you'll see pretty clearly that ISIL did not hesitate at all to commit these crimes, while terrorizing the population and trying to establish their own caliphate or regime.”

See JL Cauvin and I co Headlining City Winery In Pittsburgh PA on Oct 11 Spend Money on Kevin's Honey!  Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Ali Velshi is an MSNBC Anchor and Business Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC. Velshi has covered a wide range of breaking news events and global affairs throughout his career, including U.S. presidential elections, ISIL and the Syrian refugee crisis, the Iran nuclear deal from Tehran, the tensions between Russia and NATO from Eastern Europe and the High Arctic, the debt crisis in Greece, the funeral of Nelson Mandela, and the global financial crisis. Before joining NBC News and MSNBC, Velshi hosted “Ali Velshi On Target,” a nightly primetime show on Al Jazeera America. Before that, he served as CNN's Chief Business Correspondent, anchor of CNN International's “World Business Today” and host of CNN's weekly business roundtable “Your Money.” Velshi also co-hosted CNN's morning show, “American Morning.” An award-winning journalist, Velshi was honored with a National Headliner Award for Business & Consumer Reporting for “How the Wheels Came Off,” a special on the near collapse of the American auto industry. His work on disabled workers and Chicago's red-light camera scandal in 2016 earned him two News and Documentary Emmy Award nominations, adding to a nomination in 2010 for his terrorism coverage. Additionally, Velshi has taken his economic analysis to “Oprah,” “The View,” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Velshi is the author of Gimme My Money Back (Sterling and Ross, 2008) and co-author with CNN's Christine Romans of How to Speak Money (Wiley, 2010). Born in Kenya and raised in Canada, Velshi graduated from Queen's University in Canada, which bestowed an honorary Doctorate of Laws upon him in 2016. Velshi splits his time between New York City and Philadelphia. Active in the community, Velshi serves on the Board of Trustees of the Chicago History Museum, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also volunteers with New York's Center for Urban Community Services homeless outreach program Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe

The three-hundred-fifty-third episode of the DSR Daily Brief Stories Cited in the Episode: G20: Putin tells India PM Modi he will not attend Delhi summit Mark Meadows testifies in bid to move Georgia election case to federal court Iraq executes three for 2016 ISIL blast that killed hundreds Europe's largest fire on record sparks hunt for scapegoats in Greece Imran Khan's graft conviction suspended by Pakistan court, lawyer says The Kremlin says Putin is not planning to attend Wagner chief Prigozhin's burial Idaho restaurant assembles world's longest Philly cheesesteak Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices