February 10, 2026 • 53 mins
Almost a thousand years after the reign of the original Order of Assassins, you might think assassination tactics would be universally illegal -- however, that's not the case. Assassination is a valuable tool for both corporations and nations alike. It's also a big business, a web of conspiracies with an at-times global reach, evolving in step with the world's latest technological innovations. Listen in to learn more about assassination in the modern day in the second part of this two-part series.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And we have returned. Fellow conspiracy realists, we couldn't leave
you without a dope murder to step two. I guess
this is chapter two on the hidden history of assassinations.
And I would like to confirm for all of us
listening along at home that Noel, Matt and yours truly
(00:24):
have not murdered someone in between these classic episodes. Dylan,
can you confirm that you have not committed a homicide?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well, the shadow will never tell. And how would we
confirm that the others have not done such things? That
is weird to think about.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, it's also weird per our earlier conversation that so
many global powers, including states, including corporations, including very wealth,
the individuals, they just killed people.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, yeah, scot any thing about James Earlreay again, guys,
listen to the MLK tapes.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And listen to this classic episode from UFOs to Psychic
Powers and government conspiracies. History is riddled with unexplained events.
You can turn back now or learn the stuff they
don't want you to know. A production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
My name is Matt, my name is Nola.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer Paul Mission Control decads. Most importantly, you
are you, You are here, and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. The hidden history of
Assassins Part two, The Modern Day. If you have, through
(02:02):
accident or design, not listen to the first part of
this two part series, please hold do your best not
to get assassinated. While you listen to part one, things
will make much more sense. So we'll give you a second.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Beware of the old man in the mountain as you
do so, No.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
He's bad news.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Yep, And through the magic of editing, you just listened
to that episode, so as you know. In part one
of the series, we explored the truth, the fact, the myth,
the fiction about a strange, secretive group today known as
the Assassins. We also explored, more importantly, the bloody tactics
(02:44):
that made them infamous. They were not the first people
to use assassination tactics, and they weren't the last. But
today we have to ask how much of their strategy
has informed similar operations in the modern day. Spoiler, the
answer is a lot. It's its own genre of conspiracy.
(03:06):
These are active conspiracies that have existed since before you
were alive and continued on a regular basis at most
likely as you listen to the show today. So here
are the facts.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, as we said last episode, we discussed the fact
that assassinations did not begin or end with that sect
that existed for a time just outside of Tehran. Today,
assassinations definitely still occur, and they have been occurring since
the twelve hundreds when the group known as the Assassins
(03:43):
were taken down by Mongols. So it's crazy to think
about the assassinations that were taken out by that group
were mostly, if not all, very close to all done
with daggers in close combat, uh, in secret by usually
an individual person. And you would think about all the
(04:05):
technology that exists out there today that makes killing people easier.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Oh yeah, humanity, same old Dick's, brand new toys.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
WHOA, that's a lot to unpacked there. Yeah, but what
do you talk about a couple episodes ago, fusion bombs,
you know, like the murderous wave of the future is
here boys, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The uh, it's the Christmas Elmo of the intelligence community.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
There's a really great scene in Toast of London which
we've talked. I think we're all fans of where toasts mistress,
he's cheating or she's cheating on her husband, who's toasts
Nemesis Ray purchase. She's been like she got hired like
as a subcontractor for the Department of Defense, and she's
(04:58):
controlling drones and basically taking out blocks in like some
you know, Middle Eastern country and she lets toast take
over for a minute, and she says, now, only blow
up the houses on the right side of the street.
And then he comes back. He's having a good old time.
He goes, oh, did I say the right side. I'm
at the left side.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Well, that joke, as we'll see, did not come from
whole cloth, right.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
I know it did not, because you know, not only
are the weapons of war being enhanced in their technology,
so are the the communication abilities, right, which means well,
and also you know, economic trade expands across the globe
at this point, and all kinds of other possible conflicts
(05:43):
arise from that, and resource extraction across the world. So
I mean, you really imagine that there are all of
these world leaders with competing interests, and they can see
all the other world leaders out there, they can even
talk to them if they wanted to, or maybe someone
close to them, and maybe they think, you know, what
(06:05):
would be nice if we could take out leader X
in country Y so that we could get resource Z.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
That's right, and you would assume that over the intervening centuries,
at some point during the construction of various world orders,
someone in one important room or another would have pitched
something against assassination. At some point, surely someone would have said, hey, guys,
(06:33):
you know, while I have you all here, I know
we're almost done with the meeting, but we should we
should make assassination illegal, right like, guys.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Oh, yeah, sure, let's make it illegal, which would prevent
all of those assassins from doing it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Well, and that's a hard and long well that doesn't
seem to be entirely true. According to a guy named
Michael L. Gross in a paper called Assassination and Targeted Killing,
Law Enforcement, Execution, or Self Defense, which was published in
the Journal of Applied Philosophy, assassination, it turns out, can
(07:13):
be more or less perfectly legal, right, and he writes
he's got a nuanced take on it. We thought the
best way to do this would be to give you
an excerpt from this.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Paper and he writes, quote, international law does not ban
assassination unequivocally, but instead prohibits perfidy, which is the word
of the day. I think we can agree, or those
acts that abuse the protections that the laws of armed
conflict guarantee. Common examples of perfidy include attacking from under
the protection of a white flag or harming combatants who
(07:49):
lay down their arms. These protections are integral to modern
warfare and underlie the conventions of surrender. Without them, war
would end only in extermination or the erbial fight to
the death. Assassination is perfidious only insofar as it abuses
these or similar protections really quickly. But it's what to
add like this is basically just saying, Okay, you have
(08:12):
to follow some basic rules, but the only thing governing
following those rules is our agreement to follow those rules
both sides. Once that breaks down, then it's it's it's chaos,
and that A lot of that depends on who has
the upper hand in terms of weaponry, or are we
truly gentlemen when it comes down to achieving total dominance.
(08:32):
I don't know, I think probably not.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Or escaping our own death right. Oh yeah, of course,
of course, that's a fascinating concept. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
So basically the world has agreed that assassination is it's fine.
You know what I mean, it's it's it's fine so
long as you obey certain rules.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, which is ridiculous. It's basically everyone say, look, look,
you can try and assassinate us. We're gonna try and
assassinate you. Cool, Okay, cool, Just don't just don't pretend
like you're not gonna assassinate us and then assassinate us.
Does that make sense? Cool? All right? Cool?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Right? Yeah, Being perfidious means being deceitful or untrustworthy. So
it's a very uh, it's a very difficult thing to enforce,
and that that's probably a big part of why modern
history is riddled with and to no small degree, shaped
by assassinations. Think about it, Like, in Russia alone, five
(09:40):
emperors were assassinated within less than two hundred years, and
I think in the case of Nicholas the Second his
family was assassinated too. That fundamentally altered the course of
Russian history, and therefore I would argue world history. The
most notable assassination victims in US history tend to be
(10:02):
civil rights activists, like Martin Luther King or city US presidents.
President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Three other US presidents also
died by assassins, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy.
That one is probably still the most controversial in recent history.
(10:26):
In Europe, as we mentioned in episode one, the assassination
of an archduke named Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand,
which we also mentioned triggered World War One.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Isn't the Black Hand a Serbian group, nationalist Serb insurgents,
I believe right?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, exactly exactly, And if you listen to or watch
one of our earlier episodes about the Black Hand, the
story is so amazing. History hinges on such small things.
The guy responsible for the assassination actually screwed it up
to the first time and only got to Frans Fernand
(11:09):
by accident.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Well, it's interesting we're seeing stuff like that, not not
with assassinations necessarily, but certainly in the moment. It's hard
to see what that match strike is that sets off
the series of events, but in the times that we're
living in, it could certainly be something like the killing
of George Floyd, you know, that could be looked back
on as that powder keg ignition point. You know, something
(11:31):
like that.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Exactly exactly, and it's tantalizing. And it is also tricky
to say how history would have played out if these
and other murders had not occurred. I mean, look at
World War One. The stage was already set for World
War One on multiple levels. So you could argue that
(11:53):
if Ferdinand had not been assassinated, another assassination or another
conflict could have sparked the flame. And Abraham Lincoln at
the time of his death watching my American cousin in
the Ford Theater, he had already made a lasting impact
on the United States, and so on and so on.
(12:14):
We'll never know what would have happened had these murder
victims been allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Just add one sorry before you keep going. Yeah, John F.
Kennedy's brother. I feel like his assassination is one of
those things that, on the cusp of possibly becoming president,
could have actually changed the course of history more than
any sitting president being assassinated.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
That's a really good point, Matt, because I was going
to ask Ben, what, in your opinion was the goal
in assassinating Kennedy and did we see results.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Oh jeezy, if.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
We had to simplify it to a political endgame situation
for whatever grew well again, because we probably think it
was maybe the government itself. I mean, there's so many
that's such a can of worms. But I was wondering
what you think, I don't know, or what would be
one possible reason.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Oh man, this is this is one for all of
us and for those of us listening along at home.
We have we have gone back and forth in this
for years.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
The I would say, go back and listen to like
four episodes we've done on JFK's assassination, or.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
It just comes up, yeah, in episodes, or when when
we used to hang out in person there would be
there we would be talking about, you know, a film
we liked, and then twenty minutes later we're back to JFK.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Listen to the Harmon Town episode that we were on. Oh,
that's right, we have a great discussion about all that
was good.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Yeah. No, I guess I just mean in terms I'm
thinking about it more than in the framework of assassinations
as like a tool, you know, And there's obviously all
kinds of different in games. Some people might just assassinate
somebody because they don't like them, or they disagree with
their politics, or it could be more specific, like to
(14:14):
achieve something that they know is brewing in legislation. But
we also know that the president is not nearly as
powerful as one would like to think, So it's not
you know.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yeah, yeah, I mean that's an arguable thing.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
I just mean in terms of like actually pushing through
legislation if if Congress is out of balance, like right now, it's.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Yeah, but who needs legislation when you've got the executive order?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
We'll see how effective those things are as well. Just
short answer the benefit of killing President Kennedy, it's it's
multiple because you could say some groups in the US government,
I'm like using them of doing it, but some groups
(15:01):
in the US government benefited of from losing one of
the most powerful opponents to their plans for Castro in Cuba.
You could also say Lyndon Johnson benefited by becoming president.
You could also say the USSR benefited by seeing a
powerful blow to the ideology of Western democracy and capitalism.
(15:26):
I'm very careful to say putin if you're listening, he's yeah, yeah,
I still don't open the mail he sends though, which
I alway is like probably profiling handle.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It was one of those like grabber claus, you know, like.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Not polonium.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Right, Please send all complaints to our twenty four to
seven complaint department here, especially for you. That's Jonathan Strickland,
didiheartradio dot com. So we know that these we know
that these assassinations continue as a tool, as a mechanism.
It continues because it is effective. Right, We're in the
(16:09):
realm of practicality, no matter how it is sold to
a given public or a given audience. If something doesn't work,
then an intelligence apparatus, a corporation, or a government will
try to find a better method. There's not really a
better method than an assassination in certain cases. That's why
(16:30):
during the Cold War we see this massive increase in
the number of political assassinations specifically, and just like assassinations
of old, this was probably due to the stark ideological
differences between what we're called the First and second worlds.
Quick myth busting if we haven't talked about this before.
(16:53):
When you hear things like third world country or second
World country, first world that's a Cold War relic that's
not aut income or inequality. What the first world was
pitched as the world of democracy and capitalism, second world
being the world of communism, right, and the third world
(17:13):
was just a phrase that was used to describe unaligned countries,
and it transformed over time. So now when you hear
people say third world country in the West, they're not
talking about ideology, they're talking about developmental status. Anyway, These
people on either side of this ideological divide, the world's
superpowers were more than willing to not only put out
(17:38):
a successful assassination operations, they're also more than willing to
publicly justify these killings, to finance them and take care
of the people they sent out to do it. And
eventually both sides started to realize this practice may have
a diminishing return. That's why many modern countries nowadays, between
(18:01):
now and the age of the assassins, they have taken
legal steps, at least in theory, to ban this practice.
And I think this is what you're getting to met
with executive orders, right.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Well, yeah, any executive order. Really it's just a handy
tool to have there in the oval office, and so
many presidents have wielded it well tear that ways.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Not to mention this antoly glossed over when I was
talking earlier, the ability to install lifetime lawmakers on the
Supreme Court, which is a pretty pretty serious power move.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Yeah it is. But however, we are not speaking of that.
We are speaking of a nineteen seventy six executive order
put forth by Gerald Ford. Old Gerald Ford. If you
were a fan of SNL back in the day, you
probably very much like Gerald Ford. I do. That was
just the impressions. That was fair, all right, No, when
(19:00):
I was watching it, it was not fairal uh, Hartman,
those of you, those of who, those of you who know, No,
it was Executive Order one two three three three. Isn't
that fun? Or twelve three thirty three. That's a fun
way to say it. And it says, or at least
in part, says, no person employed, buy, or acting on
(19:21):
behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or
conspire to engage in assassination. They're done. Haha, we won't
do it.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Really simple language too, Like that's very explicit and it
seems somewhat definitive. But okay, So the thing about Executive
Order twelve three hundred thirty three or one, two, three, three,
three is that it's not as altruistic as it sounds.
If you just hear that part where they say, okay,
no more, no more daggers in the dark. This is
(19:52):
the same executive order that authorized the expansion of data
collection and s valance. It's been it's been cited by
the NSA, the National Security Agency, as the legal foundation
for its work in collecting unencrypted information flowing through data
(20:15):
centers like that's. This order is why the NSA says
it's totally fine to intercept information from Google, Yahoo, and
so on. So we can't mistake it for one goody
two shoes stuff. But in any case, if you still think,
oh great, go uncle Sam, the more assassination, we do
(20:36):
need to point out that under George W. Bush's administration,
this executive order was a diplomatic way to say it relaxed.
When we say relaxed, you know, it's it's a situation
where they said, look, there are different kinds of good.
(20:57):
You know, there's the day to day good. No, yeah,
there's the individual good. Yeah, there's some things that are great,
and a greater good sometimes requires things that seem like
small evils. Anyway, guys, Remember we're doing this for you, you
know what I mean. That's how it went, and that's
(21:17):
the question for today. Has the world moved on from
this grizzly, perfidious, insidious practice. With so many countries officially
banning these activities to one degree or another, how do
we respond to those who allege assassinations continue in the
(21:38):
modern day. We'll tell you after word from our sponsors.
Here's where it gets crazy. Okay, if we're responding to
someone who says, hey, I think assassinations continue in the
(21:58):
modern day, and if we're responding objectively and honestly, the
only thing we can do is agree, we can only
agree one percent. In fact, assassinations don't just continue apace.
They're a huge business. They are a vital piece of geopolitical, corporate,
and sometimes even religious networks. And they come in several
(22:20):
different types. But you'll you'll recognize these if you've listened
to episode one of this series.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, the stuff we talked about in episode one, all
of the motivations, the reasoning behind using assassination tactics, it
all applies to modern assassinations, all of it. There are
generally a few reasons. Let's let's outline them here of
why assassinations occur in the modern day. One, you're gonna
(22:46):
eliminate some kind of military commander from an opposing threat,
an opposing army, right, You're doing that to destabilize that military.
They lop the head off so that other generals or
whoever else exist there has to move up. And maybe
they don't know the strategies as well as that person
that you killed does. And yeah, we talked about the
(23:08):
assassination of the Iranian general rather recently, the United States
assassination of the Iranian general, and how even the use
of the term assassination was contentious at the time. Was
it just an active war, was it, you know, an
extra judicial killing. It's interesting it.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Sort of fizzled a little bit because there was a
while when that happened where an ambassador from Iran was
being very vocal about how this was an outright act
of war, an outright act of aggression, an assassination of
a beloved official, you know, And there were people interviews
on NPR and stuff, or people in the streets just
saying that America was overstepped and that it was absolutely,
(23:51):
you know, an outright active aggression. And then that story
kind of disappeared because I remember hearing it. It seemed
so intense. I was like, Oh God, have we done
a thing that we cannot go back from? Like have
we really let the badger out of the bag.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
At this point?
Speaker 3 (24:04):
Right?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Well, well, you know, you know what it could have
been instead of you know, anything else. It could have
been the US military sending a good old fashioned message.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Ah, yes, that's a that's another type of modern assassination.
This is the one, uh and Vlad, if you're listening,
I think you'll enjoy this. This is the one I
like to call from Russia with love, think of think
of the polonium murders. The Russian intelligence apparatus knew this
(24:38):
substance would be a clear indication of their involvement at
some level, or the involvement of someone who was involved
with them. But they also knew it would occur in
a way that was difficult to trace and very difficult
to publicly prosecute. Right, It's kind of a finger along
the nose wink, Right, Yeah, good luck with your journalism degree.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Buddy, don't do that.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, So, okay, we could be more conspiratorial talking about
sending a message. Did everybody else forget I only knew
about this from doing Strange news daily. Did everybody else
forget that time a few months ago when Russian doctors
just kept falling out of windows?
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Oh yeah, oh, during the coronavirus scientist.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
A new defenestration of Prague almost.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Yeah, yeah, I mean scientists around the globe for the
past couple of decades have been dropping.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Off, which we still haven't done an episode on. That's right,
we should do that. A third type of modern assassination
is to eliminate internal competition. Tale as old as time.
Think of violent regimes that are inherently unstable, some pretty
often family led. North Korean leadership has assassinated internal competitors
(25:58):
that might have later proven to be challengers to the
throne or challengers to the line of secession in the
days of the Ottoman Empire, which I know is a
little old for this example, but in the days of
the Ottoman Empire was also common for people to kill
their siblings. There can only be one sultan, you know
what I mean? And we have to think about coups
(26:22):
so common in recent history don't get reported near as
often as they should. Definitely don't get reported as they're occurring.
These assassination attempts are It's kind of like what we
talked about earlier with who owns the motivation for an action,
(26:42):
Who in their mind is pulling the trigger and turning
the assassin into just a tool. These assassination attempts in
kus they're often incited by a foreign power, and I
know that makes most of us think of the US
in South America or something. That's true. That's a great example,
but we need to also think of corporations, especially in
(27:04):
the great game of resource extraction. They're seeking to they
don't really care about the motivation of the individual assassin
or the people doing the coup. They just want a
government or a regime that is more appliable to their goals.
You see this in South America, you see it all
over the African continent, you see it in Central Asia.
The list goes on.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What was the banana company that we talking about, fruit fruit.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Man, nineteen fifty four, And that's I mean, it's a business.
I don't think it's unfair to refer to this as
the as an industry. So when we look at the
modern assassination industry, we see we see examples that clearly
prove assassination is ongoing. It exists on multiple levels in
(27:57):
the world, and a lot of people are involved. A
ton of people are involved.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yeah, and we have to caveat this a little bit
and use some swishy air quotes around the word terrorism
here because, as we know, it's a term of majorative term.
Oftentimes it's used in political rhetoric to brand an opposing
force as somehow like, you know, the bad guys. When
you know, one person's terrorists, another person's freedom fighter or
(28:22):
what have You've We've said this many times in the past.
It's all about which side of the conflict that you're ought.
But those referred to as terrorists, regardless of any ideology,
clearly and on a regular basis, deploy these kinds of tactics.
The date as far back as the Hashishim clan of
ancient times that we talked about in the first part
(28:44):
of this series. They have to elevate a powerful individual
leader again by merit insane idea, infiltrated network or attack
without regard to personal safety, be willing to die for
their cause, for their mark, disregard any possible collateral damage civilians,
(29:06):
non military structures, you know, infrastructure, gatherings, events all in
service of the target, and the attacks are often motivated
by strong personal beliefs. So this is a little bit
different than our idea of a hired gun.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
You know.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
These are very personal, personally motivated attacks based on ideology
a lot of oftentimes.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Even if they're just personally motivated by that leader what
whoever that powerful individual leader is, and then those beliefs
are in part.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
It is almost in a cult like fashion at times,
you know what I mean, if someone has this magnetism.
We often see this with suicide bombers who perhaps aren't
really invested personally, but they've been either I don't know,
I hate that term brainwashed. It seems so divisive, but
you know, you often hear stories of women who have
been forced to become suicide bombers by their husbands or
(30:00):
you know, because of this hierarchy of like an individual
wielding this kind of authority over people's very minds and actions.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Yeah, if you want to say indoctrinated or radicalize, those
those are similar terms, you know. But with that, with
that list of commonalities that you gave us here, let's
all pause for a second and think back on just
how many international murders of notable journalists, activists, politicians, criminals,
(30:33):
and business tycoons fit the bill here, like this stuff is.
This stuff is happening, and it probably will happen again.
One quick example close to home here in Fort Benning, Georgia,
there's something that was once upon a time called the
School of the Americas. Its opponents called it the School
(30:57):
of Assassins, and they did so for a reason. It
was established in nineteen forty six in the US Control
Panama Canal Zone as the Latin American Center Ground Division.
Pretty innocuous name, but it's called the School of Assassins
in reference to their specific training programs which appear to
(31:18):
and we're being overly fair here, they appear to advocate
actions that are in direct violation of that executive order
we mentioned earlier one, two, three, three.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Three, Yeah, and again established in nineteen forty six. That
executive order went through in seventy six, So it's forty
six to seventy six, right, thirty years. It's really it's
really interesting stuff. We did a whole I can't remember
we did a whole podcast episode on it. I know
we did a video on this, and we've done quite
a bit of research on the place. But School of
(31:52):
the America's fascinating. So let's go to Major Joseph Blair,
who was a former instructor at the school. He said,
quote the author of SOA, the School of Americas and
CIA torture manuals drew from intelligence materials used during the
Vietnam War that advocated assassination, torture, extortion, and other techniques.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Techniques.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Yeah, yeah, interesting stuff. How is that not illegal even
in forty six?
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Oh yeah, that's oh man, that's the thing. So, so,
to put a fine point on it, the School of
America is taking people from other countries and training them
to be insurgents, right, to be direct action operatives.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
To be coup makers, to be.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Coup makers, yeah, or cookings. So the bunch of cooks, yeah, right,
a bunch of coups. So data aside, there is internal
reasoning here. And the internal reasoning on Uncle Sam's side
and for proponents of the School of Americas was something like, well, yeah, oversight,
(33:08):
regulations and prohibitions, those things are important. I get it,
you get it right. Those things are important for US personnel.
They don't apply to foreign officers. They're not part of
our government. We can't really tell them what to do
under US law. What that means is we are not
(33:30):
actually committing assassinations. Instead, we're just helping some friendly forces
from foreign lands figure out how to do the right thing,
you know, the right murders if something happens, right, if
something happens, or if something needs to happen. And so
(33:53):
that's the idea. It's kind of like five Eyes gets
around the laws against domestic surveillance. Right of your own
postulation because now it's not Uncle Sam telling on its citizens.
Now it's the UK. So now we're just getting mail
from some friends, you know what I mean. This also
gives us possible deniability in case one of those graduates
(34:15):
of the School of Americas goes rogue and commits human
rights atrocities. During his time as president, Jimmy Carter temporarily
suspended the use of those training manuals because the administration
was concerned over what they called, again, possible human rights violations.
(34:36):
And again we see the specter of the greater good.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
No, not that, not that again. But yeah, you know
our Georgia boy, Jimmy Carter, he believed that the international
military education and training that was being provided there at
the School of the Americas and several other institutions, by
the way, several other places that were for training like that.
(35:02):
He thought it was critical to furthering quote, the national
interests of the United States, which in a way it
was and is. Having that kind of tool at your
disposal kind of is integral to national interests.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Right, Uh, Like with the US actions in Libya leading
to the fall of Gaddafi, it was national interest, right.
So those training manuals which explicitly tell you how to
torture people, how to assassinate people, and so on.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
I think I've got them on my computer somewhere.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Yeah, from yeah, oh gosh, our search histories.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
I'm telling you.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yes. So those manuals, by the way, were reintroduced. That's
why I said they were temporarily suspended. They were reintroduced
to the School's training curriculum by the Reagan administration in
nineteen eighty two. Currently, the School of America still exists.
It just changed its name. It's win SEC under the
William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. Don't worry though, everybody,
(36:12):
they say, they have a much more rigorous element of
human rights training in the program. So good on us,
you know, good hustle team.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Yeah, yep, good on us. And we have to point
out that there are a number of graduates from the
School of the Americas back in the day and now
win SEC that have been accused of doing things, really
bad things that they were trained to do in those places,
(36:44):
and they have even been sentenced for human rights violations
and criminal activity in their home countries. So come on
over and get some training. It'll be really fun. Here's
your manuals, and then go back.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
To there's going to be we're gonna have craft services.
You guys will be all well taken care.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Of, sure, and then they're gonna do these crimes. And
you can even you can find online a couple of
places where there are lists of people who have graduated
from these schools and these training programs who you know,
who then did later crimes. You could see the crimes
that they're accused of later, both alleged by the way
(37:21):
and some proved, and they're they're even Yeah, there are
numerous databases where you can find this information.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Actually, yeah, check out the School of America's watch if
you want to see the prize. Bad Apples of this program.
And again, you know, this is not to say I
feel like we have to say this, not to say
that every graduate of the School of America's instantly went
off and became warlord, but several did, and to say
(37:52):
otherwise is equally disingenuous. So we have not only in
this nation, we have not only taken lessons learned from
that ancient sect of assassins and from earlier assassin training
programs in Vietnam, in the USSR and so on, we
(38:12):
have built was often called a training program for this
sort of behavior, not too different from Alama Castle itself
all those years ago. And so that's just a very
high level look at the modern state of assassinations today.
We're going to pause for a word from our sponsors,
(38:34):
and when we come back, we're going to talk about
the future of assassination, and we're back drones, baby.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yo, yo, Look, we're going to talk about drones, and
drones are the scariest part of this assassination business that
exists out there. But I think we should just quickly
mention that militaries across the world have elite soldiers and operators.
Oh yeah, and I'm thinking of something like the Navy
(39:14):
seals or exactly so, people who are teams that go
out early, right, and if there's going to be a
conflict or if there's something perhaps going to arise somewhere,
teams will go out there and that have the ability,
or at least are trained, I would say, with the
(39:35):
ability to take out someone the way an assassin would.
Of course, I've never been in either of those, and
correct me if I'm completely wrong. I just feel like
that would be a very smart thing to have in,
you know, in the tool belt of anyone who is
you know, a seal or a Green Beret or one
of those elite and maybe even a ranger. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Yeah, that's a great point. That's a great point. Multiple
the US gets beat up on for this lot or
singled out for it, because the US has multiple versions
of this.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
These operators are highly trained professionals, and it is openly
admitted that they use they use their training in what
are called targeted killings or extraction missions as well from
unfriendly territory. But a ton of other nations have them too,
(40:27):
you know what I mean. It's the kind of thing
where if you're a superpower and someone has that capacity
and you do not, then there is a defense gap.
You have to have something like this. That's why there's
that's not that's why MASAD exists. I mean pretty much
any Yeah, any any country that has international reach or
(40:50):
global interest is going to have some sort of analog
to those things, and they're maybe we should do an
episode on those because they are fascinating.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Yeah, I'd love to just to pause here for what
I'd love to hear from anyone out there who can
talk to us who has experience as essentially an elite
military operator, just to know, even if that's maybe that's
a completely wrong thing to say, just a unit within
a team that would be considered elite.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Yeah, and they do a lot of we know, of
course it's not all cloak and dagger assassination. As we said,
they are extraction missions, they're also protection and escort missions.
But yeah, there's a wealth of stuff out there. We
need to do this episode, and we would love to
hear from you if you have firsthand experience in this
regard a lot of those special forces also, I'm so
(41:44):
glad you're pointing that out, Matt. A lot of special
forces also collaborate with drawn technology. Yeah, sure, which is
the Skynet elephant in the room. And again, Matt, thank
you for putting in that important piece we missed because
as you can tell, both Nolan and I are always
(42:05):
excited to talk drones. Modern governments are super into the
strategy of changing names and terms to avoid controversial language
and public statements. That's why Blackwater became Academi or whatever.
That's why Comcast became Exfinity.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
That's why clear Channel became iHeart, That's why George Carlin
was such a successful comedian because of euphemisms.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
It's true.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
And so we see a name change there with assassination,
targeted killing, named killing.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Even drones they refer to more as UAVs now right,
because that's a little more innocuous than drones. Drones sounds
very futury and sinister. When I think of a drone,
I think of something scary coming to kill me. Right.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
You can hide a lot a lot of evil behind
some acronyms or initialisms. UAV just means on mandarial vehicle.
A kite is a UAV, that's right, yes, kind of
is it?
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (43:08):
There's no one driving, it's unmanned.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
You're right. The string is the same thing. It's just
a physical version of the connection between the drone and
the controller. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:17):
Yeah, that's the argument I would make. But let's so
targeted killing is euphemism. Is a form of assassination carried
out by governments against their perceived enemies. So it's important
here to note that this is seen as a subgenre
of assassination applicable only to governments. So you can't go
(43:40):
into court as an individual, or you shouldn't be able
to go into court as like an individual or a
representative of a religious institution or corporation and say, you know, yes,
I am the in and out Burger assassin and this
was a targeted kill at an Arbi's and that was
(44:03):
for the greater good. They are enemies of in and
out Burger. You can't say stuff like that. You can
only do it if you're a government, because then you
can argue there's a greater good. I mean, think of
weaponized drones as the robo version of those ancient assassins.
They have a lot in common. The two big things
they have in common they're relentless and they don't care
(44:24):
about self preservation.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Ooh, and there's an old man in a mountain controlling
them somewhere and now yeah, it's.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Not really no, but yeah, I love that. Like, they're
also very effective at killing, but they're probably less so weird,
they're probably less precise. Oh, the assassins of Old.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Yeah, the assassin of Old used a blade up close
to take someone out. This sends a missile generally a
missile that causes collateral damage almost every time it's used.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
Well, uh, not in a frequent number of times. I mean
the scary thing about the toast of London, uh scene
that you alluded to earlier in no is Again, it's
not it doesn't come out a whole cloth, or there
wasn't just some clever person in the writer's room. According
to statistical analyzes by some nonprofits, including nonprofit organization called Reprieve,
(45:26):
which is composed of international lawyers and investigators, uh nine children.
Nine children have been killed for every targeted adult the
United States has tried to assassinate since programs like this began.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Oh cool, I'm okay with that. No, I'm not okay
with that, and say it's unforgivable. That's but it's what.
There's a there's a there's a non offensive sounding term
for that. It's collateral damage. It takes the humanity out
of the equation. When you're not actually having to wield
the knife yourself, you know, you're doing it from such
(46:01):
a remove.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Mistakes were made, Right, what's the what's the common complaint
for people in online gaming? It's not me, you messed up.
It's the lag time, it's the lag action.
Speaker 3 (46:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
So maybe as someone who's blamed collateral damage on that
in the past, but it doesn't make these people, it
doesn't make these civilians magically resurrected, you know. Like Reprieve
also found that in the course of attempting to kill
one Iman al Zawahiri, the US specifically, the CIA is
(46:35):
believed to have killed seventy six children and twenty nine
adult bystanders and ben.
Speaker 3 (46:40):
You know, this would have been under the Obama administration,
wouldn't it correct. That's I mean, you know, he gets
such a he's so lauded and held up as this
like shining example of like a great president. There's obviously
a lot of great things about it. First of all,
he could speak in complete sentences, which was pretty dope.
But he was oversaw massive amounts of these kinds of attacks,
(47:02):
that resulted in this sort of collateral damage, and people
don't gloss over that entirely, but it certainly doesn't seem
to be the first bullet point in his resume.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Right, Well, it increased the use of UAVs and drones
increased so much under under President Obama. It's really disturbing
considering we entered what was called the War on Terror
from the previous administration when we were actively you know,
(47:32):
starting wars, and then it only increased. And it's likely
a function of the technology improving, right, I mean, and
it has by leaps and bounds, and even now as
they have been for gosh two decades now, scholars and
military officials, politicians people like you and me, everyone else
(47:56):
were divided on the use of drones, ins and targeted killings,
named killings whatever you want to refer to them as,
because I mean, it is complicated, right, Some supporters of
using drones would say that it's actually more humane to
do this. It's safer for military personnel on whichever side
(48:20):
is doing the killing or attacking. And you know, you're
not just sending in a bunch of troops, let's say,
to try and kill a group of people or even
a team of people. Then where you're going to have
multiple people firing, you've got maybe one, maybe two a
maximum a handful of drones that are going in to
(48:41):
kill someone. Generally it's one that is literally going in
to kill someone, you know. The other thing that would
be stated, I think by someone who supports this, is
that these drone attacks aren't going to be done in
a time of peace against any nation that we're not
at war with.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
Right See, that's the thing. It's true. Supporters do say that,
but recent events have conclusively proven this not to be
the case. That's where we come up with another euphemism
for assassinations, extra judicial killings right outside of the law,
which are technically banned by the US Military Code. This
(49:19):
leads us to this leads us to a troubling conclusion.
We have to explore the future of assassination. What we've
sadly proven here is the following. It appears it does
not matter what laws are written. Write as many as
you want, say whatever you want, as explicitly or as
obliquely as you please. These laws do not matter if
(49:43):
they are not continually enforced. And the truth of the
matter is that they are not continually enforced assassination is effective.
It may not be effective in terms of counter terrorism,
it's arguably terrible pr but it works for what people
want it to do. And in the future, we're only
going to see more increasingly sophisticated uses of these tactics, newer,
(50:08):
more advanced drones, increasingly effective poisoning delivery systems and substances. Importantly,
and this is what we should all think about, They're
also going to be increasingly sophisticated, nuanced rationalizations for assassination,
increasingly sophisticated ways of hiding the hand that ultimately triggered
(50:32):
the thing. Right, So the front organizations are going to
be tough. The war of information and narrative will only
continue to evolve, and as always, one thing will remain
the same. Both the assassins and their masters will argue
this is necessary for you guessed it the greater good.
(50:55):
And so today we end our episode with questions for you,
what do you think the future of assassination holds?
Speaker 2 (51:05):
Yeah, Well, the killings continue, specifically in any of the
ways we've described.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
Will they increase?
Speaker 1 (51:13):
Well, Corporate, political, and religious actors be held accountable for
their actions.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
And if so, by whom some international group, Yeah, maybe corp.
Speaker 3 (51:26):
Let us know, are you one of these puppeteers, you know,
pulling the strings of all of these you know, hidden
assassins in our midst Let us know you can. We'll
keep your secrets, buddy, that we promise right to us.
You can reach us on the social media channels of note, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
all that stuff. Our preferred means is our Facebook group.
(51:48):
Here's where it gets crazy, where you can be part
of the conversation with your fellow conspiracy realists.
Speaker 2 (51:54):
That's right. If you don't want to do that, you
can find us on Twitter and Facebook the other side
at conspiracy stuff and on Instagram. We are conspiracy Stuff show.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Of course, visit us on YouTube, YouTube dot com slash
conspiracy stuff. If you are not given to sip the
social needs no worries. We have a phone number for you.
You can call us at one eight three three STDWYTK.
You'll have three minutes on your call. Let us know
(52:25):
what's on your mind, let us know your experience, give
us your feedback on this series or suggestions for topics
you think you are fellow listeners will find of interest.
Most importantly, let us know If it's okay to use
your voice and your name on air, that's right.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
If you don't want to do any of those things,
you can still write to us. You can contact us
Ben nol and I and Paul.
Speaker 3 (52:48):
We'll see you.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
And we have returned. Fellow conspiracy realists, we couldn't leave
you without a dope murder to step two. I guess
this is chapter two on the hidden history of assassinations.
And I would like to confirm for all of us
listening along at home that Noel, Matt and yours truly
(00:24):
have not murdered someone in between these classic episodes. Dylan,
can you confirm that you have not committed a homicide?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well, the shadow will never tell. And how would we
confirm that the others have not done such things? That
is weird to think about.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, it's also weird per our earlier conversation that so
many global powers, including states, including corporations, including very wealth,
the individuals, they just killed people.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, yeah, scot any thing about James Earlreay again, guys,
listen to the MLK tapes.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And listen to this classic episode from UFOs to Psychic
Powers and government conspiracies. History is riddled with unexplained events.
You can turn back now or learn the stuff they
don't want you to know. A production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
My name is Matt, my name is Nola.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer Paul Mission Control decads. Most importantly, you
are you, You are here, and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. The hidden history of
Assassins Part two, The Modern Day. If you have, through
(02:02):
accident or design, not listen to the first part of
this two part series, please hold do your best not
to get assassinated. While you listen to part one, things
will make much more sense. So we'll give you a second.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Beware of the old man in the mountain as you
do so, No.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
He's bad news.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Yep, And through the magic of editing, you just listened
to that episode, so as you know. In part one
of the series, we explored the truth, the fact, the myth,
the fiction about a strange, secretive group today known as
the Assassins. We also explored, more importantly, the bloody tactics
(02:44):
that made them infamous. They were not the first people
to use assassination tactics, and they weren't the last. But
today we have to ask how much of their strategy
has informed similar operations in the modern day. Spoiler, the
answer is a lot. It's its own genre of conspiracy.
(03:06):
These are active conspiracies that have existed since before you
were alive and continued on a regular basis at most
likely as you listen to the show today. So here
are the facts.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, as we said last episode, we discussed the fact
that assassinations did not begin or end with that sect
that existed for a time just outside of Tehran. Today,
assassinations definitely still occur, and they have been occurring since
the twelve hundreds when the group known as the Assassins
(03:43):
were taken down by Mongols. So it's crazy to think
about the assassinations that were taken out by that group
were mostly, if not all, very close to all done
with daggers in close combat, uh, in secret by usually
an individual person. And you would think about all the
(04:05):
technology that exists out there today that makes killing people easier.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Oh yeah, humanity, same old Dick's, brand new toys.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
WHOA, that's a lot to unpacked there. Yeah, but what
do you talk about a couple episodes ago, fusion bombs,
you know, like the murderous wave of the future is
here boys, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The uh, it's the Christmas Elmo of the intelligence community.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
There's a really great scene in Toast of London which
we've talked. I think we're all fans of where toasts mistress,
he's cheating or she's cheating on her husband, who's toasts
Nemesis Ray purchase. She's been like she got hired like
as a subcontractor for the Department of Defense, and she's
(04:58):
controlling drones and basically taking out blocks in like some
you know, Middle Eastern country and she lets toast take
over for a minute, and she says, now, only blow
up the houses on the right side of the street.
And then he comes back. He's having a good old time.
He goes, oh, did I say the right side. I'm
at the left side.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Well, that joke, as we'll see, did not come from
whole cloth, right.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
I know it did not, because you know, not only
are the weapons of war being enhanced in their technology,
so are the the communication abilities, right, which means well,
and also you know, economic trade expands across the globe
at this point, and all kinds of other possible conflicts
(05:43):
arise from that, and resource extraction across the world. So
I mean, you really imagine that there are all of
these world leaders with competing interests, and they can see
all the other world leaders out there, they can even
talk to them if they wanted to, or maybe someone
close to them, and maybe they think, you know, what
(06:05):
would be nice if we could take out leader X
in country Y so that we could get resource Z.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
That's right, and you would assume that over the intervening centuries,
at some point during the construction of various world orders,
someone in one important room or another would have pitched
something against assassination. At some point, surely someone would have said, hey, guys,
(06:33):
you know, while I have you all here, I know
we're almost done with the meeting, but we should we
should make assassination illegal, right like, guys.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Oh, yeah, sure, let's make it illegal, which would prevent
all of those assassins from doing it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Well, and that's a hard and long well that doesn't
seem to be entirely true. According to a guy named
Michael L. Gross in a paper called Assassination and Targeted Killing,
Law Enforcement, Execution, or Self Defense, which was published in
the Journal of Applied Philosophy, assassination, it turns out, can
(07:13):
be more or less perfectly legal, right, and he writes
he's got a nuanced take on it. We thought the
best way to do this would be to give you
an excerpt from this.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Paper and he writes, quote, international law does not ban
assassination unequivocally, but instead prohibits perfidy, which is the word
of the day. I think we can agree, or those
acts that abuse the protections that the laws of armed
conflict guarantee. Common examples of perfidy include attacking from under
the protection of a white flag or harming combatants who
(07:49):
lay down their arms. These protections are integral to modern
warfare and underlie the conventions of surrender. Without them, war
would end only in extermination or the erbial fight to
the death. Assassination is perfidious only insofar as it abuses
these or similar protections really quickly. But it's what to
add like this is basically just saying, Okay, you have
(08:12):
to follow some basic rules, but the only thing governing
following those rules is our agreement to follow those rules
both sides. Once that breaks down, then it's it's it's chaos,
and that A lot of that depends on who has
the upper hand in terms of weaponry, or are we
truly gentlemen when it comes down to achieving total dominance.
(08:32):
I don't know, I think probably not.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Or escaping our own death right. Oh yeah, of course,
of course, that's a fascinating concept. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
So basically the world has agreed that assassination is it's fine.
You know what I mean, it's it's it's fine so
long as you obey certain rules.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, which is ridiculous. It's basically everyone say, look, look,
you can try and assassinate us. We're gonna try and
assassinate you. Cool, Okay, cool, Just don't just don't pretend
like you're not gonna assassinate us and then assassinate us.
Does that make sense? Cool? All right? Cool?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Right? Yeah, Being perfidious means being deceitful or untrustworthy. So
it's a very uh, it's a very difficult thing to enforce,
and that that's probably a big part of why modern
history is riddled with and to no small degree, shaped
by assassinations. Think about it, Like, in Russia alone, five
(09:40):
emperors were assassinated within less than two hundred years, and
I think in the case of Nicholas the Second his
family was assassinated too. That fundamentally altered the course of
Russian history, and therefore I would argue world history. The
most notable assassination victims in US history tend to be
(10:02):
civil rights activists, like Martin Luther King or city US presidents.
President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Three other US presidents also
died by assassins, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy.
That one is probably still the most controversial in recent history.
(10:26):
In Europe, as we mentioned in episode one, the assassination
of an archduke named Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand,
which we also mentioned triggered World War One.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Isn't the Black Hand a Serbian group, nationalist Serb insurgents,
I believe right?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, exactly exactly, And if you listen to or watch
one of our earlier episodes about the Black Hand, the
story is so amazing. History hinges on such small things.
The guy responsible for the assassination actually screwed it up
to the first time and only got to Frans Fernand
(11:09):
by accident.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Well, it's interesting we're seeing stuff like that, not not
with assassinations necessarily, but certainly in the moment. It's hard
to see what that match strike is that sets off
the series of events, but in the times that we're
living in, it could certainly be something like the killing
of George Floyd, you know, that could be looked back
on as that powder keg ignition point. You know, something
(11:31):
like that.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Exactly exactly, and it's tantalizing. And it is also tricky
to say how history would have played out if these
and other murders had not occurred. I mean, look at
World War One. The stage was already set for World
War One on multiple levels. So you could argue that
(11:53):
if Ferdinand had not been assassinated, another assassination or another
conflict could have sparked the flame. And Abraham Lincoln at
the time of his death watching my American cousin in
the Ford Theater, he had already made a lasting impact
on the United States, and so on and so on.
(12:14):
We'll never know what would have happened had these murder
victims been allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Just add one sorry before you keep going. Yeah, John F.
Kennedy's brother. I feel like his assassination is one of
those things that, on the cusp of possibly becoming president,
could have actually changed the course of history more than
any sitting president being assassinated.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
That's a really good point, Matt, because I was going
to ask Ben, what, in your opinion was the goal
in assassinating Kennedy and did we see results.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Oh jeezy, if.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
We had to simplify it to a political endgame situation
for whatever grew well again, because we probably think it
was maybe the government itself. I mean, there's so many
that's such a can of worms. But I was wondering
what you think, I don't know, or what would be
one possible reason.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Oh man, this is this is one for all of
us and for those of us listening along at home.
We have we have gone back and forth in this
for years.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
The I would say, go back and listen to like
four episodes we've done on JFK's assassination, or.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
It just comes up, yeah, in episodes, or when when
we used to hang out in person there would be
there we would be talking about, you know, a film
we liked, and then twenty minutes later we're back to JFK.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Listen to the Harmon Town episode that we were on. Oh,
that's right, we have a great discussion about all that
was good.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Yeah. No, I guess I just mean in terms I'm
thinking about it more than in the framework of assassinations
as like a tool, you know, And there's obviously all
kinds of different in games. Some people might just assassinate
somebody because they don't like them, or they disagree with
their politics, or it could be more specific, like to
(14:14):
achieve something that they know is brewing in legislation. But
we also know that the president is not nearly as
powerful as one would like to think, So it's not
you know.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yeah, yeah, I mean that's an arguable thing.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
I just mean in terms of like actually pushing through
legislation if if Congress is out of balance, like right now, it's.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Yeah, but who needs legislation when you've got the executive order?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
We'll see how effective those things are as well. Just
short answer the benefit of killing President Kennedy, it's it's
multiple because you could say some groups in the US government,
I'm like using them of doing it, but some groups
(15:01):
in the US government benefited of from losing one of
the most powerful opponents to their plans for Castro in Cuba.
You could also say Lyndon Johnson benefited by becoming president.
You could also say the USSR benefited by seeing a
powerful blow to the ideology of Western democracy and capitalism.
(15:26):
I'm very careful to say putin if you're listening, he's yeah, yeah,
I still don't open the mail he sends though, which
I alway is like probably profiling handle.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It was one of those like grabber claus, you know, like.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Not polonium.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Right, Please send all complaints to our twenty four to
seven complaint department here, especially for you. That's Jonathan Strickland,
didiheartradio dot com. So we know that these we know
that these assassinations continue as a tool, as a mechanism.
It continues because it is effective. Right, We're in the
(16:09):
realm of practicality, no matter how it is sold to
a given public or a given audience. If something doesn't work,
then an intelligence apparatus, a corporation, or a government will
try to find a better method. There's not really a
better method than an assassination in certain cases. That's why
(16:30):
during the Cold War we see this massive increase in
the number of political assassinations specifically, and just like assassinations
of old, this was probably due to the stark ideological
differences between what we're called the First and second worlds.
Quick myth busting if we haven't talked about this before.
(16:53):
When you hear things like third world country or second
World country, first world that's a Cold War relic that's
not aut income or inequality. What the first world was
pitched as the world of democracy and capitalism, second world
being the world of communism, right, and the third world
(17:13):
was just a phrase that was used to describe unaligned countries,
and it transformed over time. So now when you hear
people say third world country in the West, they're not
talking about ideology, they're talking about developmental status. Anyway, These
people on either side of this ideological divide, the world's
superpowers were more than willing to not only put out
(17:38):
a successful assassination operations, they're also more than willing to
publicly justify these killings, to finance them and take care
of the people they sent out to do it. And
eventually both sides started to realize this practice may have
a diminishing return. That's why many modern countries nowadays, between
(18:01):
now and the age of the assassins, they have taken
legal steps, at least in theory, to ban this practice.
And I think this is what you're getting to met
with executive orders, right.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Well, yeah, any executive order. Really it's just a handy
tool to have there in the oval office, and so
many presidents have wielded it well tear that ways.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Not to mention this antoly glossed over when I was
talking earlier, the ability to install lifetime lawmakers on the
Supreme Court, which is a pretty pretty serious power move.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Yeah it is. But however, we are not speaking of that.
We are speaking of a nineteen seventy six executive order
put forth by Gerald Ford. Old Gerald Ford. If you
were a fan of SNL back in the day, you
probably very much like Gerald Ford. I do. That was
just the impressions. That was fair, all right, No, when
(19:00):
I was watching it, it was not fairal uh, Hartman,
those of you, those of who, those of you who know, No,
it was Executive Order one two three three three. Isn't
that fun? Or twelve three thirty three. That's a fun
way to say it. And it says, or at least
in part, says, no person employed, buy, or acting on
(19:21):
behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or
conspire to engage in assassination. They're done. Haha, we won't
do it.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Really simple language too, Like that's very explicit and it
seems somewhat definitive. But okay, So the thing about Executive
Order twelve three hundred thirty three or one, two, three, three,
three is that it's not as altruistic as it sounds.
If you just hear that part where they say, okay,
no more, no more daggers in the dark. This is
(19:52):
the same executive order that authorized the expansion of data
collection and s valance. It's been it's been cited by
the NSA, the National Security Agency, as the legal foundation
for its work in collecting unencrypted information flowing through data
(20:15):
centers like that's. This order is why the NSA says
it's totally fine to intercept information from Google, Yahoo, and
so on. So we can't mistake it for one goody
two shoes stuff. But in any case, if you still think,
oh great, go uncle Sam, the more assassination, we do
(20:36):
need to point out that under George W. Bush's administration,
this executive order was a diplomatic way to say it relaxed.
When we say relaxed, you know, it's it's a situation
where they said, look, there are different kinds of good.
(20:57):
You know, there's the day to day good. No, yeah,
there's the individual good. Yeah, there's some things that are great,
and a greater good sometimes requires things that seem like
small evils. Anyway, guys, Remember we're doing this for you, you
know what I mean. That's how it went, and that's
(21:17):
the question for today. Has the world moved on from
this grizzly, perfidious, insidious practice. With so many countries officially
banning these activities to one degree or another, how do
we respond to those who allege assassinations continue in the
(21:38):
modern day. We'll tell you after word from our sponsors.
Here's where it gets crazy. Okay, if we're responding to
someone who says, hey, I think assassinations continue in the
(21:58):
modern day, and if we're responding objectively and honestly, the
only thing we can do is agree, we can only
agree one percent. In fact, assassinations don't just continue apace.
They're a huge business. They are a vital piece of geopolitical, corporate,
and sometimes even religious networks. And they come in several
(22:20):
different types. But you'll you'll recognize these if you've listened
to episode one of this series.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, the stuff we talked about in episode one, all
of the motivations, the reasoning behind using assassination tactics, it
all applies to modern assassinations, all of it. There are
generally a few reasons. Let's let's outline them here of
why assassinations occur in the modern day. One, you're gonna
(22:46):
eliminate some kind of military commander from an opposing threat,
an opposing army, right, You're doing that to destabilize that military.
They lop the head off so that other generals or
whoever else exist there has to move up. And maybe
they don't know the strategies as well as that person
that you killed does. And yeah, we talked about the
(23:08):
assassination of the Iranian general rather recently, the United States
assassination of the Iranian general, and how even the use
of the term assassination was contentious at the time. Was
it just an active war, was it, you know, an
extra judicial killing. It's interesting it.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Sort of fizzled a little bit because there was a
while when that happened where an ambassador from Iran was
being very vocal about how this was an outright act
of war, an outright act of aggression, an assassination of
a beloved official, you know, And there were people interviews
on NPR and stuff, or people in the streets just
saying that America was overstepped and that it was absolutely,
(23:51):
you know, an outright active aggression. And then that story
kind of disappeared because I remember hearing it. It seemed
so intense. I was like, Oh God, have we done
a thing that we cannot go back from? Like have
we really let the badger out of the bag.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
At this point?
Speaker 3 (24:04):
Right?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Well, well, you know, you know what it could have
been instead of you know, anything else. It could have
been the US military sending a good old fashioned message.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Ah, yes, that's a that's another type of modern assassination.
This is the one, uh and Vlad, if you're listening,
I think you'll enjoy this. This is the one I
like to call from Russia with love, think of think
of the polonium murders. The Russian intelligence apparatus knew this
(24:38):
substance would be a clear indication of their involvement at
some level, or the involvement of someone who was involved
with them. But they also knew it would occur in
a way that was difficult to trace and very difficult
to publicly prosecute. Right, It's kind of a finger along
the nose wink, Right, Yeah, good luck with your journalism degree.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Buddy, don't do that.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, So, okay, we could be more conspiratorial talking about
sending a message. Did everybody else forget I only knew
about this from doing Strange news daily. Did everybody else
forget that time a few months ago when Russian doctors
just kept falling out of windows?
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Oh yeah, oh, during the coronavirus scientist.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
A new defenestration of Prague almost.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Yeah, yeah, I mean scientists around the globe for the
past couple of decades have been dropping.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Off, which we still haven't done an episode on. That's right,
we should do that. A third type of modern assassination
is to eliminate internal competition. Tale as old as time.
Think of violent regimes that are inherently unstable, some pretty
often family led. North Korean leadership has assassinated internal competitors
(25:58):
that might have later proven to be challengers to the
throne or challengers to the line of secession in the
days of the Ottoman Empire, which I know is a
little old for this example, but in the days of
the Ottoman Empire was also common for people to kill
their siblings. There can only be one sultan, you know
what I mean? And we have to think about coups
(26:22):
so common in recent history don't get reported near as
often as they should. Definitely don't get reported as they're occurring.
These assassination attempts are It's kind of like what we
talked about earlier with who owns the motivation for an action,
(26:42):
Who in their mind is pulling the trigger and turning
the assassin into just a tool. These assassination attempts in
kus they're often incited by a foreign power, and I
know that makes most of us think of the US
in South America or something. That's true. That's a great example,
but we need to also think of corporations, especially in
(27:04):
the great game of resource extraction. They're seeking to they
don't really care about the motivation of the individual assassin
or the people doing the coup. They just want a
government or a regime that is more appliable to their goals.
You see this in South America, you see it all
over the African continent, you see it in Central Asia.
The list goes on.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What was the banana company that we talking about, fruit fruit.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Man, nineteen fifty four, And that's I mean, it's a business.
I don't think it's unfair to refer to this as
the as an industry. So when we look at the
modern assassination industry, we see we see examples that clearly
prove assassination is ongoing. It exists on multiple levels in
(27:57):
the world, and a lot of people are involved. A
ton of people are involved.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yeah, and we have to caveat this a little bit
and use some swishy air quotes around the word terrorism
here because, as we know, it's a term of majorative term.
Oftentimes it's used in political rhetoric to brand an opposing
force as somehow like, you know, the bad guys. When
you know, one person's terrorists, another person's freedom fighter or
(28:22):
what have You've We've said this many times in the past.
It's all about which side of the conflict that you're ought.
But those referred to as terrorists, regardless of any ideology,
clearly and on a regular basis, deploy these kinds of tactics.
The date as far back as the Hashishim clan of
ancient times that we talked about in the first part
(28:44):
of this series. They have to elevate a powerful individual
leader again by merit insane idea, infiltrated network or attack
without regard to personal safety, be willing to die for
their cause, for their mark, disregard any possible collateral damage civilians,
(29:06):
non military structures, you know, infrastructure, gatherings, events all in
service of the target, and the attacks are often motivated
by strong personal beliefs. So this is a little bit
different than our idea of a hired gun.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
You know.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
These are very personal, personally motivated attacks based on ideology
a lot of oftentimes.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Even if they're just personally motivated by that leader what
whoever that powerful individual leader is, and then those beliefs
are in part.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
It is almost in a cult like fashion at times,
you know what I mean, if someone has this magnetism.
We often see this with suicide bombers who perhaps aren't
really invested personally, but they've been either I don't know,
I hate that term brainwashed. It seems so divisive, but
you know, you often hear stories of women who have
been forced to become suicide bombers by their husbands or
(30:00):
you know, because of this hierarchy of like an individual
wielding this kind of authority over people's very minds and actions.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Yeah, if you want to say indoctrinated or radicalize, those
those are similar terms, you know. But with that, with
that list of commonalities that you gave us here, let's
all pause for a second and think back on just
how many international murders of notable journalists, activists, politicians, criminals,
(30:33):
and business tycoons fit the bill here, like this stuff is.
This stuff is happening, and it probably will happen again.
One quick example close to home here in Fort Benning, Georgia,
there's something that was once upon a time called the
School of the Americas. Its opponents called it the School
(30:57):
of Assassins, and they did so for a reason. It
was established in nineteen forty six in the US Control
Panama Canal Zone as the Latin American Center Ground Division.
Pretty innocuous name, but it's called the School of Assassins
in reference to their specific training programs which appear to
(31:18):
and we're being overly fair here, they appear to advocate
actions that are in direct violation of that executive order
we mentioned earlier one, two, three, three.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Three, Yeah, and again established in nineteen forty six. That
executive order went through in seventy six, So it's forty
six to seventy six, right, thirty years. It's really it's
really interesting stuff. We did a whole I can't remember
we did a whole podcast episode on it. I know
we did a video on this, and we've done quite
a bit of research on the place. But School of
(31:52):
the America's fascinating. So let's go to Major Joseph Blair,
who was a former instructor at the school. He said,
quote the author of SOA, the School of Americas and
CIA torture manuals drew from intelligence materials used during the
Vietnam War that advocated assassination, torture, extortion, and other techniques.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Techniques.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Yeah, yeah, interesting stuff. How is that not illegal even
in forty six?
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Oh yeah, that's oh man, that's the thing. So, so,
to put a fine point on it, the School of
America is taking people from other countries and training them
to be insurgents, right, to be direct action operatives.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
To be coup makers, to be.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Coup makers, yeah, or cookings. So the bunch of cooks, yeah, right,
a bunch of coups. So data aside, there is internal
reasoning here. And the internal reasoning on Uncle Sam's side
and for proponents of the School of Americas was something like, well, yeah, oversight,
(33:08):
regulations and prohibitions, those things are important. I get it,
you get it right. Those things are important for US personnel.
They don't apply to foreign officers. They're not part of
our government. We can't really tell them what to do
under US law. What that means is we are not
(33:30):
actually committing assassinations. Instead, we're just helping some friendly forces
from foreign lands figure out how to do the right thing,
you know, the right murders if something happens, right, if
something happens, or if something needs to happen. And so
(33:53):
that's the idea. It's kind of like five Eyes gets
around the laws against domestic surveillance. Right of your own
postulation because now it's not Uncle Sam telling on its citizens.
Now it's the UK. So now we're just getting mail
from some friends, you know what I mean. This also
gives us possible deniability in case one of those graduates
(34:15):
of the School of Americas goes rogue and commits human
rights atrocities. During his time as president, Jimmy Carter temporarily
suspended the use of those training manuals because the administration
was concerned over what they called, again, possible human rights violations.
(34:36):
And again we see the specter of the greater good.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
No, not that, not that again. But yeah, you know
our Georgia boy, Jimmy Carter, he believed that the international
military education and training that was being provided there at
the School of the Americas and several other institutions, by
the way, several other places that were for training like that.
(35:02):
He thought it was critical to furthering quote, the national
interests of the United States, which in a way it
was and is. Having that kind of tool at your
disposal kind of is integral to national interests.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Right, Uh, Like with the US actions in Libya leading
to the fall of Gaddafi, it was national interest, right.
So those training manuals which explicitly tell you how to
torture people, how to assassinate people, and so on.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
I think I've got them on my computer somewhere.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Yeah, from yeah, oh gosh, our search histories.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
I'm telling you.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yes. So those manuals, by the way, were reintroduced. That's
why I said they were temporarily suspended. They were reintroduced
to the School's training curriculum by the Reagan administration in
nineteen eighty two. Currently, the School of America still exists.
It just changed its name. It's win SEC under the
William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. Don't worry though, everybody,
(36:12):
they say, they have a much more rigorous element of
human rights training in the program. So good on us,
you know, good hustle team.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Yeah, yep, good on us. And we have to point
out that there are a number of graduates from the
School of the Americas back in the day and now
win SEC that have been accused of doing things, really
bad things that they were trained to do in those places,
(36:44):
and they have even been sentenced for human rights violations
and criminal activity in their home countries. So come on
over and get some training. It'll be really fun. Here's
your manuals, and then go back.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
To there's going to be we're gonna have craft services.
You guys will be all well taken care.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Of, sure, and then they're gonna do these crimes. And
you can even you can find online a couple of
places where there are lists of people who have graduated
from these schools and these training programs who you know,
who then did later crimes. You could see the crimes
that they're accused of later, both alleged by the way
(37:21):
and some proved, and they're they're even Yeah, there are
numerous databases where you can find this information.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Actually, yeah, check out the School of America's watch if
you want to see the prize. Bad Apples of this program.
And again, you know, this is not to say I
feel like we have to say this, not to say
that every graduate of the School of America's instantly went
off and became warlord, but several did, and to say
(37:52):
otherwise is equally disingenuous. So we have not only in
this nation, we have not only taken lessons learned from
that ancient sect of assassins and from earlier assassin training
programs in Vietnam, in the USSR and so on, we
(38:12):
have built was often called a training program for this
sort of behavior, not too different from Alama Castle itself
all those years ago. And so that's just a very
high level look at the modern state of assassinations today.
We're going to pause for a word from our sponsors,
(38:34):
and when we come back, we're going to talk about
the future of assassination, and we're back drones, baby.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yo, yo, Look, we're going to talk about drones, and
drones are the scariest part of this assassination business that
exists out there. But I think we should just quickly
mention that militaries across the world have elite soldiers and operators.
Oh yeah, and I'm thinking of something like the Navy
(39:14):
seals or exactly so, people who are teams that go
out early, right, and if there's going to be a
conflict or if there's something perhaps going to arise somewhere,
teams will go out there and that have the ability,
or at least are trained, I would say, with the
(39:35):
ability to take out someone the way an assassin would.
Of course, I've never been in either of those, and
correct me if I'm completely wrong. I just feel like
that would be a very smart thing to have in,
you know, in the tool belt of anyone who is
you know, a seal or a Green Beret or one
of those elite and maybe even a ranger. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Yeah, that's a great point. That's a great point. Multiple
the US gets beat up on for this lot or
singled out for it, because the US has multiple versions
of this.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
These operators are highly trained professionals, and it is openly
admitted that they use they use their training in what
are called targeted killings or extraction missions as well from
unfriendly territory. But a ton of other nations have them too,
(40:27):
you know what I mean. It's the kind of thing
where if you're a superpower and someone has that capacity
and you do not, then there is a defense gap.
You have to have something like this. That's why there's
that's not that's why MASAD exists. I mean pretty much
any Yeah, any any country that has international reach or
(40:50):
global interest is going to have some sort of analog
to those things, and they're maybe we should do an
episode on those because they are fascinating.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Yeah, I'd love to just to pause here for what
I'd love to hear from anyone out there who can
talk to us who has experience as essentially an elite
military operator, just to know, even if that's maybe that's
a completely wrong thing to say, just a unit within
a team that would be considered elite.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Yeah, and they do a lot of we know, of
course it's not all cloak and dagger assassination. As we said,
they are extraction missions, they're also protection and escort missions.
But yeah, there's a wealth of stuff out there. We
need to do this episode, and we would love to
hear from you if you have firsthand experience in this
regard a lot of those special forces also, I'm so
(41:44):
glad you're pointing that out, Matt. A lot of special
forces also collaborate with drawn technology. Yeah, sure, which is
the Skynet elephant in the room. And again, Matt, thank
you for putting in that important piece we missed because
as you can tell, both Nolan and I are always
(42:05):
excited to talk drones. Modern governments are super into the
strategy of changing names and terms to avoid controversial language
and public statements. That's why Blackwater became Academi or whatever.
That's why Comcast became Exfinity.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
That's why clear Channel became iHeart, That's why George Carlin
was such a successful comedian because of euphemisms.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
It's true.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
And so we see a name change there with assassination,
targeted killing, named killing.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Even drones they refer to more as UAVs now right,
because that's a little more innocuous than drones. Drones sounds
very futury and sinister. When I think of a drone,
I think of something scary coming to kill me. Right.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
You can hide a lot a lot of evil behind
some acronyms or initialisms. UAV just means on mandarial vehicle.
A kite is a UAV, that's right, yes, kind of
is it?
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (43:08):
There's no one driving, it's unmanned.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
You're right. The string is the same thing. It's just
a physical version of the connection between the drone and
the controller. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:17):
Yeah, that's the argument I would make. But let's so
targeted killing is euphemism. Is a form of assassination carried
out by governments against their perceived enemies. So it's important
here to note that this is seen as a subgenre
of assassination applicable only to governments. So you can't go
(43:40):
into court as an individual, or you shouldn't be able
to go into court as like an individual or a
representative of a religious institution or corporation and say, you know, yes,
I am the in and out Burger assassin and this
was a targeted kill at an Arbi's and that was
(44:03):
for the greater good. They are enemies of in and
out Burger. You can't say stuff like that. You can
only do it if you're a government, because then you
can argue there's a greater good. I mean, think of
weaponized drones as the robo version of those ancient assassins.
They have a lot in common. The two big things
they have in common they're relentless and they don't care
(44:24):
about self preservation.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Ooh, and there's an old man in a mountain controlling
them somewhere and now yeah, it's.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Not really no, but yeah, I love that. Like, they're
also very effective at killing, but they're probably less so weird,
they're probably less precise. Oh, the assassins of Old.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Yeah, the assassin of Old used a blade up close
to take someone out. This sends a missile generally a
missile that causes collateral damage almost every time it's used.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
Well, uh, not in a frequent number of times. I mean
the scary thing about the toast of London, uh scene
that you alluded to earlier in no is Again, it's
not it doesn't come out a whole cloth, or there
wasn't just some clever person in the writer's room. According
to statistical analyzes by some nonprofits, including nonprofit organization called Reprieve,
(45:26):
which is composed of international lawyers and investigators, uh nine children.
Nine children have been killed for every targeted adult the
United States has tried to assassinate since programs like this began.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Oh cool, I'm okay with that. No, I'm not okay
with that, and say it's unforgivable. That's but it's what.
There's a there's a there's a non offensive sounding term
for that. It's collateral damage. It takes the humanity out
of the equation. When you're not actually having to wield
the knife yourself, you know, you're doing it from such
(46:01):
a remove.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Mistakes were made, Right, what's the what's the common complaint
for people in online gaming? It's not me, you messed up.
It's the lag time, it's the lag action.
Speaker 3 (46:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
So maybe as someone who's blamed collateral damage on that
in the past, but it doesn't make these people, it
doesn't make these civilians magically resurrected, you know. Like Reprieve
also found that in the course of attempting to kill
one Iman al Zawahiri, the US specifically, the CIA is
(46:35):
believed to have killed seventy six children and twenty nine
adult bystanders and ben.
Speaker 3 (46:40):
You know, this would have been under the Obama administration,
wouldn't it correct. That's I mean, you know, he gets
such a he's so lauded and held up as this
like shining example of like a great president. There's obviously
a lot of great things about it. First of all,
he could speak in complete sentences, which was pretty dope.
But he was oversaw massive amounts of these kinds of attacks,
(47:02):
that resulted in this sort of collateral damage, and people
don't gloss over that entirely, but it certainly doesn't seem
to be the first bullet point in his resume.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Right, Well, it increased the use of UAVs and drones
increased so much under under President Obama. It's really disturbing
considering we entered what was called the War on Terror
from the previous administration when we were actively you know,
(47:32):
starting wars, and then it only increased. And it's likely
a function of the technology improving, right, I mean, and
it has by leaps and bounds, and even now as
they have been for gosh two decades now, scholars and
military officials, politicians people like you and me, everyone else
(47:56):
were divided on the use of drones, ins and targeted killings,
named killings whatever you want to refer to them as,
because I mean, it is complicated, right, Some supporters of
using drones would say that it's actually more humane to
do this. It's safer for military personnel on whichever side
(48:20):
is doing the killing or attacking. And you know, you're
not just sending in a bunch of troops, let's say,
to try and kill a group of people or even
a team of people. Then where you're going to have
multiple people firing, you've got maybe one, maybe two a
maximum a handful of drones that are going in to
(48:41):
kill someone. Generally it's one that is literally going in
to kill someone, you know. The other thing that would
be stated, I think by someone who supports this, is
that these drone attacks aren't going to be done in
a time of peace against any nation that we're not
at war with.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
Right See, that's the thing. It's true. Supporters do say that,
but recent events have conclusively proven this not to be
the case. That's where we come up with another euphemism
for assassinations, extra judicial killings right outside of the law,
which are technically banned by the US Military Code. This
(49:19):
leads us to this leads us to a troubling conclusion.
We have to explore the future of assassination. What we've
sadly proven here is the following. It appears it does
not matter what laws are written. Write as many as
you want, say whatever you want, as explicitly or as
obliquely as you please. These laws do not matter if
(49:43):
they are not continually enforced. And the truth of the
matter is that they are not continually enforced assassination is effective.
It may not be effective in terms of counter terrorism,
it's arguably terrible pr but it works for what people
want it to do. And in the future, we're only
going to see more increasingly sophisticated uses of these tactics, newer,
(50:08):
more advanced drones, increasingly effective poisoning delivery systems and substances. Importantly,
and this is what we should all think about, They're
also going to be increasingly sophisticated, nuanced rationalizations for assassination,
increasingly sophisticated ways of hiding the hand that ultimately triggered
(50:32):
the thing. Right, So the front organizations are going to
be tough. The war of information and narrative will only
continue to evolve, and as always, one thing will remain
the same. Both the assassins and their masters will argue
this is necessary for you guessed it the greater good.
(50:55):
And so today we end our episode with questions for you,
what do you think the future of assassination holds?
Speaker 2 (51:05):
Yeah, Well, the killings continue, specifically in any of the
ways we've described.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
Will they increase?
Speaker 1 (51:13):
Well, Corporate, political, and religious actors be held accountable for
their actions.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
And if so, by whom some international group, Yeah, maybe corp.
Speaker 3 (51:26):
Let us know, are you one of these puppeteers, you know,
pulling the strings of all of these you know, hidden
assassins in our midst Let us know you can. We'll
keep your secrets, buddy, that we promise right to us.
You can reach us on the social media channels of note, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
all that stuff. Our preferred means is our Facebook group.
(51:48):
Here's where it gets crazy, where you can be part
of the conversation with your fellow conspiracy realists.
Speaker 2 (51:54):
That's right. If you don't want to do that, you
can find us on Twitter and Facebook the other side
at conspiracy stuff and on Instagram. We are conspiracy Stuff show.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Of course, visit us on YouTube, YouTube dot com slash
conspiracy stuff. If you are not given to sip the
social needs no worries. We have a phone number for you.
You can call us at one eight three three STDWYTK.
You'll have three minutes on your call. Let us know
(52:25):
what's on your mind, let us know your experience, give
us your feedback on this series or suggestions for topics
you think you are fellow listeners will find of interest.
Most importantly, let us know If it's okay to use
your voice and your name on air, that's right.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
If you don't want to do any of those things,
you can still write to us. You can contact us
Ben nol and I and Paul.
Speaker 3 (52:48):
We'll see you.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.