Last week, federal officials arrested Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old airman in the Massachusetts Air National Guard, accusing him of having leaked hundreds of pages of classified Pentagon documents on a Discord server. The documents offer rare insights into the war in Ukraine and the extent of military casualties and reveal the presence of U.S. and other NATO nations' special forces clandestinely operating in the war zone. They also document how the conflict is spilling over into the Middle East and shed light on U.S. penetration of Russian military plans and U.S. spy efforts, including against American allies and the United Nations secretary general. This week on Intercepted, Jeremy Scahill, Murtaza Hussain, and national security editor Vanessa Gezari discuss the document leak and analyze what we know and don’t know about the young airman accused of distributing the documents, initially to a small group of gamers and gun enthusiasts in a private internet chatroom. They also discuss the media's role in identifying the suspect using open source clues left by Texeira and his friends in the months leading up to his arrest as well as what the accused 21 year old might face in an Espionage Act trial.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.

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

Vice President Kamala Harris wrapped a historic tour of Africa last week, where she positioned the U.S. as a reliable and trustworthy security and economic partner. This week on Intercepted, host Murtaza Hussain is joined by investigative reporter, Nick Turse, to discuss his latest reporting on U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Africa. Since the war on terror was launched, the U.S. government’s ventures in Africa have been more focused on military aid than economic support. Harris’s trip comes after a decade of China investing in infrastructure and critical resource mining throughout the continent and the administration’s concerns over the growing influence of the Russian mercenary Wagner Group. But America’s 20-plus years of counterterrorism support in the region hasn’t resulted in better security. In that time, terrorist groups have risen and U.S.-trained African officers have attempted at least nine coups, eight of which were successful. Hussain and Turse discuss the impact of U.S. military involvement and the influence of other foreign powers.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.

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

Despite China warning “serious confrontation in the U.S.-China relationship,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy confirmed plans to meet with Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen when she visits California on Wednesday. This week on Intercepted, Elbridge Colby, former defense strategist during the Trump administration, joins Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain to discuss and debate the emerging bipartisan consensus that China threatens U.S. economic and military dominance. They discuss the impact of the U.S. war machine globally, China’s military build-up, as well as China’s rapidly expanding international prominence and economic might. As Beijing celebrates its diplomatic efforts to broker a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and makes moves aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine, they debate whether Beijing poses a real threat to the U.S. and if a non-hegemonic world is possible.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.

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

This week marked the 20th anniversary of the launch of the War in Iraq. But the U.S. government’s involvement in the country tracks back decades prior. Jeremy Scahill retraces the U.S. government's long history of meddling, destabilizing, and bombing Iraq — and how major players have faced no accountability for their crimes.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.

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

Amidst massive protests around the United States and the world, on March 19, 2003, the U.S. began its invasion of Iraq. This week on Intercepted, Jeremy Scahill, Murtaza Hussain, and Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad discuss the long-lasting impact of the war on Iraq and its people. Throughout the 20 years since the invasion, Iraq was torn to shreds by a gratuitous American occupation and a U.S.-fueled sectarian civil war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died as U.S. policy gave rise to Al Qaeda — and ultimately the Islamic State in Iraq.

While many commemorations of this bloody anniversary focus on the 2003 invasion, the plans to destroy Iraq were launched much earlier and were supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. Scahill, Hussain, and Abdul-Ahad discuss life under Saddam Hussein, the lead-up to the U.S. invasion, the brutality of the occupation, and the systematic refusal to bring any accountability for those responsible.

“Of course, the Iraqis could not believe that their new colonial masters had no clue, had done no planning and made no preparations for what was going to happen after they invaded the country,” Abdul-Ahad writes in his new book, “A Stranger in Your Own City: Travels in the Middle East’s Long War.” “When the myth of an American-generated prosperity clashed with the realities of occupation, chaos and destruction followed. Resentment and anger swept the country and all the suppressed rage of the previous decades exploded.”

Abdul-Ahad shares stories from his deeply human reporting on his personal journey from an architect living in Baghdad to a celebrated international journalist documenting the rise and fall of ISIS.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.

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

Which wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act? That’s the question before the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. Back in 2004, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a residential lot near the idyllic and popular Priest Lake in Idaho. In preparation of construction, the Sacketts started filling the lot with gravel and sand. But after an anonymous complaint about the dredging and filling, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Sacketts to stop construction until the proper permits and assessments were sorted out. The EPA argued that the Sacketts were building on a wetland protected by the Clean Water Act. Instead of securing federal permits, the Sacketts took their case to the Supreme Court for a second time.

This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Sam Sankar, the senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, a leading environmental law organization. Smith and Sankar discuss the Clean Water Act, wetlands and “navigable waters,” and the powerful interests backing the Sacketts. The outcome of the case, Smith and Sankar warn, could further gut the EPA’s ability to prevent pollution of the nation’s waters and combat climate change.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

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

Rodney Reed has been on death row since 1998 for the killing of a 19-year-old woman named Stacey Stites. Although Texas prosecutors said the case was open and shut, Reed has consistently maintained his innocence. Over the years, dozens of witnesses have come forward with evidence that undermines the state’s case, casting serious doubt on whether Reed is actually guilty. But Texas has refused to conduct DNA testing that could put lingering questions to rest. This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Intercept senior writer Liliana Segura to discuss the Supreme Court’s review of the case. Segura was in Washington, D.C., for the oral arguments, which focused on whether the statute of limitations for DNA testing has run out. Although it may seem like a straightforward question, it’s anything but — and the court’s decision could have life-or-death consequences for defendants seeking to prove their innocence. 

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

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

Back in 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case involving a cake shop owner who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In a 7-2 decision, the court found that the state had violated the cake maker’s religious objections. Now the court is considering another case out of Colorado that could expand the right to discriminate under the guise of free speech. In the fourth episode of Dissent, Jordan Smith and law professor Hila Keren discuss 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a challenge to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to refuse wedding design services to same-sex couples. Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, the 303 Creative case has no injured parties; it is a preemptive attempt to allow businesses to practice unfettered discrimination.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

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

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act, also known as ICWA. The law was passed in 1978 to combat a history of forced family separation in the United States and prevent the removal of Native children from their communities. But now, in Haaland v. Brackeen, ICWA could be completely overturned. In the third episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a journalist, citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and host of the podcast “This Land.” Smith and Nagle break down the case and its broad implications for laws based on tribes’ political relationship with the U.S. government.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

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

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected a partisan gerrymandered congressional map drawn to heavily favor Republicans last year. The map violated the state’s constitution. The North Carolina legislature is now arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court whether the state legislature has the authority to override the court and ignore its own constitution. The case, Moore v. Harper, raises the prospect of the independent state legislature theory — a fringe theory that, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of, would give state legislatures unfettered authority, remove checks and balances, and undermine future elections. In the second episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith and Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center closely examine oral arguments and unpack how a favorable or even a middle-ground ruling would radically change elections.

If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

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