getting too friendly with the media new report showed that the military allowed active duty members to service interns with the chicago tribune and c.n.n. and furthermore the newsrooms allowed it were going to determine where the military and the media should draw the line also terrorism has been dominating the headlines today the state department released its yearly foreign terrorist report you'll never guess whose names are on the list our correspondent jihad office will join us with more on that story then there's a new video game in the works it gives us insight into the minds of teenage girls we'll see how this new game teaches young girls how not to score and why the government is paying for that matter and that ugly d. word is back in the news deflation just as timothy geithner makes an optimistic statement about the economy we heard earlier this week more analysts are coming forward saying that's simply not the case so why is geithner painting a much brighter picture than economists last reasons anthony randolph so but first

today's top story. yesterday we told you all about the new taliban code of conduct now it's the latest in the escalation of the battle to win the hearts and minds of afghan people between the u.s. and nato forces and evidently the taliban the new taliban code of conduct urges fighters to avoid killing civilians it forbids them from seizing weapons and money and it aims to limit suicide bombings oh when no torture a ransom of your prisoners that's unless you get the approval of your regional commander however anyone working with international forces including the afghan government aka supporters of the infidels should be killed the taliban began giving out their new code of conduct in southern afghanistan a little over a week ago according to reports just before top nato commander general petraeus issued his guidelines urging soldiers to avoid civilian casualties as well so here to talk about this is matthew hoh former state department appointee who served in afghanistan and former marine corps captain as well matthew thanks for joining us

now first of all we've heard reports of both of these codes of conduct issue in this battle of the codes it seems at the same time that you hear reports on both sides that you know just after that after this comes up the taliban kill is killed forty three afghan civilians injured sixty five you also hear reports of the same on the u.s. side i mean a report just came out showing that thirty nine civilians were killed in an airstrike last month you have wiki leaks coming out showing that the western forces hid civilian casualties so my question is do these codes of conduct even work or mean anything what purpose do they serve in the counterinsurgency. the population of the prize so both sides are trying to show that they are the protectors of the populace both sides are trying to show that we're here to support you and we're here to protect you from the enemy now the difficult thing in southern afghanistan and there's a very good washington post or two days ago front page story on this. is that the

population does not see the taliban as a threat if anything i mean the popular people who live in southern afghanistan see them as their protectors against the occupying central government as well as foreign forces so it's then what is the bell benefit for the taliban even issuing a code of conduct like this why are they doing that like anyone anywhere else or anywhere else in the world whether it's local law enforcement or occupying armies or as a taliban like the style themselves the national liberation army they want to be welcomed in accepted by the people they want to be trusted by the people if anything happens to him and your family no matter where you are in the world you're going to be against those persons who did that to your family so the taliban by issuing this code of conduct trying to the same things we're doing i actually saw a very funny post the other day on a news article about how this is like trade morcombe fringed against betray us and his code of conduct not general petraeus is just

a continuation though of what mcchrystal is code of conduct and then it's actually what's any different when i when i read. your other day i actually recalled a lot of those lines in there verbatim from the code of conduct he issued in two thousand and seven. battle between the taliban and nato forces in the big picture in the strategic communications picture which is something that general petraeus gets and i believe the taliban get as well certainly gets it in terms of their use of internet and video and everything else to spread their message yeah it is i mean it is also at a tactical level trying not to do things to force the population against you trying to make sure the population sees you as being of benefit to them as protecting them as being on their side and so when you're struggling over and so in afghanistan is trying to get the population support so it was getting more of the support who is winning the hearts and minds of the afghan people aside from any code of conduct and what they would have us believe the taliban are nato forces doing a better job i would say that looking at afghanistan for the last five years. the

increase of troops that we've put in in our european partners have put into the south the mound of money we have spent developing in afghanistan the u.s. alone has spent over fifty billion dollars since two thousand and one building schools and bridges doing locational training and the fact that not just last month wasn't just a record high for casualties for united states it was the thirty first thirty six months of monthly record highs what is that is that where the taliban is gaining power does that say that show that the afghan people just are over u.s. forces i think it shows that the strategy of the united states and its allies or doing both eastern and southern rural afghanistan is failing who is winning the hearts and minds are you saying then that the taliban is doing a better job i think so i think all you've seen in two thousand and five intentional borno who is in charge of american forces in afghanistan time said there are only two thousand taliban left in afghanistan to support was waning last

summer the estimate was forty thousand in two thousand two thousand and five we had about thirty thousand foreign troops here last year less than one hundred thousand foreign troops this summer with one hundred fifty thousand foreign troops how big is the taliban so all we've seen with this strategy is an increase in support for the taliban and a decrease in support for the afghan central government in those rural eastern and southern afghanistan where the combat security let that brings me to another point looking at the deteriorating situation for u.s. forces in afghanistan i want to bring up the picture of the time cover that now has become quite calm and contentious yet it's not out of date about you know the woman with her nose in the hot off the afghan woman whose nose was cut off by her taliban fighter husband there it is up there with the headline what happens if we leave afghanistan i mean matthew come on is this disingenuous is this i feel very sorry for that woman that is very sad but is this some kind of economic or some kind of you know emotional blackmail for the american people that this is what happens if

we leave afghanistan it's a. rationally it's the same as if you put up photos of the twin towers smoking again you remember about this poor girl this happened while u.s. troops were there didn't happen we weren't there would happen while u.s. troops are there and while there have been gains in made in parts of afghanistan and taliban were terrible and very repressive but people up there stand most of the pashtuns don't want the taliban back there is a point of taliban now because they are occupied by foreign forces and there is a corrupt in representative government the karzai government is really a kleptocratic click basically that they're outside of that they're excluded from but southern eastern afghanistan the rural areas. it's not so much the taliban way as the rule pashtoon way it's the culture this so if the us stays in afghanistan and doesn't leave afghanistan cause they don't want that to happen what would they need to do kill every afghan man that had that train of thought yeah i mean the sad

thing about this was that it was her family that brought her to that judge who administered this justice and it's not just the pashtoon there's a story for alissa rubin from new york times or an article couple months ago should look at the bit i apologize for not being better prepared but. she talks about how this type of thing we're going girl who is married to a family runs away and gets a log you know she's found guilty and it's the culture and you're not going to change of culture through occupying them with an army you change it through information and education but the first thing is to stop the conflict there because as matter as bad off as women's rights are as bad off as human rights or as bad off or as we don't agree with that culture right now the problem is if you're a real pashtoon you're more concerned about a bomb getting dropped in your house or getting blown up by an i.e.d. than you or about anything else that's a really great point matthew i want to thank you for giving us your insight you've been on the ground there are you you know from the inside and we really appreciate

that and you have to wonder why you don't see a magazine cover that has the bodies of a thousand u.s. troops who have been killed in afghanistan or the afghan civilians that the u.s. has killed it's not a black and white it's a great war still and that's why you only go to war when it's an absolute interest to your national security and you have to wonder if this is the case anymore so to come on the show some are questioning what a pennsylvania church was thinking after they offered a game that allowed people to shoot at a likeness of president obama the disturbing details when we come back and one day after a judge ruled prop eight in california was unconstitutional will ask can a judge overturn the will of the voters stick around for my discussion with j.p. fare from the washington examiner on that. one of the key elements of democracy which is so unconfrontable for me

a foreigner. who pays for the news. how dependent is this independent media. and who is behind the t.v. star in. charge of media fiction and reality on t. welcome back turchin pennsylvania is facing criticism for a game at a carnival it was called alien attack and in it people shot foam darts at an african-american man in a suit with a presidential seal on his belt and holding a health care bill in his hand that was alien attack notice the targets placed on the heart and the head as you can imagine some patrons at the carnival were outraged that a church would offer a game that included shooting an alien that had a likeness to president obama now the pastor of the church said he didn't see the

gay man would have ordered it taken down if he had but the owner of good time amusement said in a ploy he came up with with the game a few months ago and no one had complained he didn't believe the image looked like president obama and after the complaints he did toss the game into the trash to be fair. we used thought it was ok you know with everyone we are was that you know we . weren't and i can't do more than. now the other went on to say he voted for obama himself and thinks he's doing a great job now several people told media outlets in the area that they complained about the game at our lady of mt carmel church and one was told it was not obama and promptly dismissed her complaint but you have to stop and ask did no one at the church question this game in the first place what church has a game that involves shooting. people in the heart and head anyway. now the

federal judge judge's decision to overturn california's gay marriage ban is likely headed for another heated legal battle which may ultimately end at the supreme court fifty two percent of california voters decided they didn't want same sex couples to be married but the ballot measure was overruled by a federal judge who said that violated the u.s. constitution and was discriminatory now regardless of where you fall on the issue of gay marriage another interesting debate has come out of this prop eight ruling what role is it to decide this case anyway decide this issue the popular vote of the people or the legal ruling of a judge well joining me is j.p. farah from the washington examiner to hash out with me j.p. thanks for being here it's always nice to see you do you think that this is the role of the federal judge to overturn the will of the people in this case well the problem the problem with looking at the macro level is that when you have a judge determine what the policy is and there was clearly

a vote that was held when you have when you have a judge overturning a very popular vote what that creates is even more conflicts because at that point people don't feel like they've been able to weigh in on the issue should people be able to weigh in on an issue like that an issue of civil rights and limit the liberties of people well it's an interesting question right i mean the reason that we have government involved in the marriage business in the first place is a matter of it's not just it's not just you know do you want to get married to your partner it's rather you know what is the nature of marriage what is the thing that we're trying to produce by having state sponsorship of this institution and you know what it is however you fall down on this issue however you feel about gay marriage whether or however you feel about homosexuality in general the idea that the state that the state being involved in marriage is important means that we're looking for some kind of outcome that we're looking for something in particular which involves looking at social science involves looking at the evidence which is this judge did the judge sided evidence that children that grow up in families couples are just fine. so obviously those issues are looked at by

a federal judge so what's the problem with that is judges roll right interpret the law that's the point of the judicial system but actually you just you just sort of nailed it right there because if the judge is looking at the social science as opposed to just looking at the law i mean we need to look at what the law laws are on the books he needs to say ok this is what the president is in this is how we move forward but it's a matter of looking at what the current facts are and what all the social science of saying that's something for of the public to debate and eventually vote on and that's why it's important that when you have a percent in a property when you have a ballot initiative like that that the people be able to vote on it the ballot initiatives in california i mean you can name a lot that have been huge problems three strikes which is led to the overpopulation overcrowding crowding of california's prisons which is a huge issue the fact that prop was what made it so that two thirds of the legislature has to vote to approve a budget that's why california has to issue ious to pay its bills and can't ever pass a budget so clearly it's broken that doesn't work well it's it may be broken but

that's still what the process is that they have in place now if we want to fix that problem that's something that we can discuss but the way you go about fixing it is then saying ok so every time the props system does not work we should have a judge come in and weigh the evidence and make a decision for himself and for the rest of the state as to what they're what they're expected to do what about a prop that's unconstitutional the judge ruled that this is unconstitutional yes but as you said yourself you look at the social you look at the social science data which which is like well that's not the law that's not that's not looking at the constitution what he supposedly goes to the constitution and cited a number of places where this law is unconstitutional under the u.s. constitution well he he actually the problem with a lot of this case was that he turned it into sort of a media circus where he wanted to turn it into a media circus at various points wanted to turn it into a media circus they've always gotten any better because this is the big deal we're talking the talk is everyone's lives another big deal absolutely of course it's a big deal but but i mean either way it was good it was going to be like this but he he wanted to have cameras in the courtroom from the very good. go as opposed to

having the discussion you know occurring as it normally would he wanted to do this great grand investigation into the backers of the people who were pushing prop eight which is now how does that not matter because you could argue that this is a state issue but national money from across the country millions on both sides when behind either backing or opposing prop eight well sure i mean but i don't see what the problem is with that i don't know why why you would have to look at who is backing it if people voted for it if people really if people wanted four and they click click the button that they wanted wanted or they didn't want it that's all we really need to know the fact that there are people you know should people be able to vote whether or not i can have an abortion in california i mean that's really not what we're talking about right here what we're going to be ok race marriage or race laws about marriage that was something that was decided in the court system but that was because right well that was because nobody does nobody disagreed about whether or not that was actually marriage and people just just disagreed as to

whether it should be allowed but it was you know i would disagree about that i know you should probably read the history and you should probably read all of this you know how is that non-analogous issue it's not analogous because there are people there and they don't mean people but there there are people who genuinely do not believe that marriage between two between a same sex couple is actually marriage people don't believe that whereas nobody disagreed about whether whether in marriage between a black woman and a white man was marriage he just felt that it was wrong that it was a bad thing but they never said that it wasn't marriage or you know if it came out there wouldn't be any of it thinking i'm some people disagree that an african-american at one point would actually rule this is a two way you know a white person but this is but this is also right so this is also total but this is also a total red herring i mean we're not talking about this as a nation of laws this is not this is not what this ballot initiative was about it was about whether people wanted to employ public policy towards toward supporting

gay marriage. and if they were offered an opportunity to vote on it and it was put on the ballot as though we're an actual actual thing that they could debate no one questioned whether or not if there were some people that question whether or not it was something that could be constitutionally put up to put up the question but you still had a public debate about the question which meant that people were willing to buy into it enough to say ok this would be valid no matter what the results the results came out some people didn't like it and they put brought it to the courts and that's because they were examples of a result as i mean come on that's that's why we have laws and a legal system and a judicial system that is why we have checks and balances in this country that's how it works that's a system where you're arguing that the system is flawed and needs to be changed well i mean you're noting that the ballot system itself is problematic and it would probably be better just to have federal judges make these decisions but what i'm saying is that what we're going to see is that this federal judge's decision will probably be overturned on appeal and it'll you know again it'll it'll look more into the actual constitutional issues as opposed to just looking at the social

science and weigh more than on the side of it all is not very fair to say that this federal judge didn't look at the constitutional issues are trying to do what you're implying but i do agree that it only is lariam to go you know up to higher court only and the only at the very end here actually start to address the real constitutional issues in his ruling and that's the that's the thing that's sort of problematic he said let's make this thing about looking at the facts let's look at all the facts of the case and that doesn't mean that he was looking at the constitutional stuff that stuff only took place at the very end of the ruling so it was sort of a surprise to see it so now we're taking pieces of what happened when and where it and what was said in what order but but the reality is that he deemed it unconstitutional based on the u.s. constitution but i want to thank you for going head to head with me on this one and whose right this is to choose over marriage in california coming up next the state department has released its annual foreign terrorism report our chief correspondent to hand hospice will tell us who is on the list and some of the names might surprise you will be that.

it's been quite a day for foreign terrorism the department of justice charge fourteen u.s. citizens linked to what they call a somali terrorist group and the state department released its annual foreign terrorism report listing some familiar names but also names of groups that the rest of the world and the u.s. do not see eye to eye on r.t. corresponded to hand hoppus has more. it's a foreign terrorism one o one at the state department the list has been revised and debated but finally militant groups around the world and countries the u.s. designates as rogue can see what the u.s. has been compiling on them although at the department of defense the cia conducting

the physical attack on drone operations but intelligence and coordinating with different government agencies on counterterrorism activities at the state department that designates individuals and organizations that either link to terrorism part of a terrorist organization or aided by state sponsors of terrorism it all comes out of the state department and you will terrorism reports welcome to the briefing where they deliver their findings and we ask the questions do dick have you have any evidence of him as has been involved internationally in terrorism or would you count only the israeli civilians that's been targeted by hummus and this is the only. kind of just sit statistics say hamas has been responsible for the killings of americans although those are some. quotes from us right now is actually. something of the sea so our most recent victims have been israelis but hamas does

have american blood on its hands as well so what designates a group as a terrorist organization according to the state department the legal criteria for designating foreign terrorist organizations is the organization must be foreign based the organization engaged in terrorist activities or terrorism or teams are capable. intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism and last but not least the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organizations threatens the security of u.s. nationals or the national security of the united states as for the state sponsors of terrorism iran top the list but how concrete are the claims against iran also negate give me the names of the iraqi shia militant groups that iran is apparently continuing to provide legal support including weapons training and funding and guidance to these groups and also work and find evidence that iran's oil could forces were bought had been providing training to taliban afghanistan.

which. rest was not speaking up we have no one cause to fight information that we can provide. in the setting for which opens the question what defines terrorism u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton was recently asked the question relation to other drone attacks killing innocent civilians constitute terrorism clinton responded she didn't think so jan hoffa's r. t. washington d.c. . here with more on her story is jan hopkins jan it was interesting to see you get that response from the state department when you asked for evidence on some of these issues and one of the iran was really a country that there was a lot more focus on in this list that the u.s. issued and you asked you know what evidence is there that iran is funding the taliban with the answer you got no unfortunately that's sort of how the state department responds every year it's the exact same question for the past almost now for the past decade the u.s.

state department has put iran up there as funding elements the taliban which can be seen as of their own is completely to some analysts to know that initially the tele but iran fought the taliban tooth and nail long before we were ever in the equation and in fact the u.s. state department went to iran asking the iranians for help on how to combat the taliban says it's just such a successful job just just kind of got to another point here made though you always hear you know but sides flip flop so easily when it comes to a country like afghanistan the taliban the middle east central asia so what do you say to that well that's what i was asking them i said there's lots of i mean there's plenty of information here one that says that they are providing explosive indirect fire weapons and all kinds of you know ammunition where can i see that online or where can i see that in the report that shows they found it on the state and it's concrete and it's direct from iran to the taliban and they say they can't answer that question and i've been asking this for a couple of years now so they usually just throw this information out there in a paragraph or two but there's nothing substantial that shows you there's

a direct link between iran and some of the organizations they sponsor are terrorist groups but it sounds like based on the information you have you question yeah definitely question up because as i mentioned you know before more so than we don't we hate the taliban the iranians hate the taliban in fact before we went invaded there they killed a number of different iranian they went to a village in the ransacked villages so they were very violent towards the iranian people and they haven't and you know. a deep hatred for the taliban so the fact that we think they're funding them is you know people some analysts say that that's just simply impossible which is why i question this element of that report and then another thing that came up in your report that's interesting you know there are a number of these groups that the u.s. considers terrorist or sponsors of terror that other countries don't you know an example is a mosque other countries don't call hamas a terrorist organization the u.s. does it something that came up in the press conference what about that what were

people asking about and was the press satisfied with the answers they were getting no not for the most part of when you heard one woman you know according to the criteria that you mentioned the intent to hurt american citizens and also jeopardizing u.s. national security when we know that most attacks that hamas conducted has only either you know hurt or killed israeli citizens in america and there's a follow up to that initial question where the state department person could not pinpoint which american citizens were killed by hamas and it's interesting because even though there was questioning in that press conference you never see that question in the mainstream media oh no you wouldn't because because the mainstream media goes along the line the state department must a terrorist organization they do this they do that when in fact it was the u.s. state department that sponsored their election back in two thousand and six and then refused to recognize the results because hamas won overwhelmingly so there's a very strange contradiction there runs deep in the history of the past ten years a list comes out filled with more questions than answers to and office bringing us

that report coming up we were told those body scanners that leave nothing to the imagination would not store images while it turns out that's not the case my unplugged comments about this revelation just ahead also should the military be sending active person now to the newsroom as in turns it's a topic we'll discuss next with former c.n.n. pentagon correspondent jamie mcintyre. every month we give you the future we hope you understand how we'll get there and want to know all the best in science and technology from across russia and around the world join its knowledge on r.g.p. .

thanks for being with us here on our team seven thirty in the am in the russian capital these are your headlines police in the curious capital bishkek clashed with anti-government demonstrators are accused by the country's interim leader of trying to stage a coup live ammunition has been fired while protest leaders have been placed under arrest. wildfires continue to rage across central russia during the biggest heat wave on the record leaving at least fifteen dead thousands remain homeless with whole villages turned into a ghost town. tragic tribute sixty five years after her as the world's first atomic bomb attack japan remembers the hundred forty thousand killed with the u.s. being represented at a memorial ceremony in the city for the first time. and five british citizens extradited to greece to face trial over a stabbing in crete say their government has ignored them and they claim the european arrest warrant system has sent them abroad without any proper evidence. up

to date with our news let's get back now to be alone a show stay with us. since alona is still out i'm going to give you my two cents on an issue that just doesn't seem right the x. ray body scanners that were put into airports and federal buildings rolled out on mass in the post failed underwear bomber era came under plenty of scrutiny by the public at the time several groups came forward claiming that these devices were a violation of people's privacy since they expose every inch of every individual with these scans. we had some sound i got to tell the people. you probably think this intruding on. the privacy of passengers i probably came out.