After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists.

Most of them were never criminally charged and eventually let go.

Some spent years in inhumane conditions, even though they had no connection to the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many of those prisoners were being held, and described them using this term.

And one of the most important aspects of the Geneva Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.

By labeling them unlawful combatants, the U.S. said it was justified in holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them international legal protections.

The Trump administration is now applying the same term to people onboard boats it's blowing up because it says they're transporting drugs from South America.

The language here matters.

It underpins the legal arguments presidents make to justify their actions.

Here's current Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth, referring to the cartels that ship drugs from the Southern Hemisphere to the United States.

So our message to these foreign terrorist organizations is we will treat you like we have treated

al-Qaeda.

Consider this.

President Trump is now applying the post-9-11 term unlawful enemy combatant to very

different circumstances.

What are the wider legal implications of that language?

From the wider legal implications of that language. From NPR, I'm Sasha Fyfer.

This message comes from the Financial Times.

Lead poisoning is a hidden epidemic in the UK.

On the Untold podcast, hear from people who have been affected.

Where is the national strategy to address this?

Listen to Untold, Toxic Legacy, wherever you get your podcasts.

...