welcome below to show we'll get the real headlines with none of the mersey regular live out of washington d.c. now we've covered the transition of power the revolution in egypt from day one but now the other countries are attempting to do the same the question is will they be successful or really see or violent crackdowns regimes that won't be quite as quick to give in to us from the center for american progress will join me to discuss how other countries might not see the same results then hillary clinton gave a speech on internet rights and wrongs today pledging the need for an open single internet to which everyone has access and condemning moves by countries who restrict that access and censor but are we really the ones to talk haters join sanchez will join us for that discussion and then what exactly are they saying new

legislation out of south dakota has pro-choice activists up in arms today meanwhile the politician responsible for the bill says the public is taking this proposal out of proportion so jill filipovic will join me to talk about the legislation that some people say will allow people to kill abortion providers then concerns are raised worldwide as food prices start to spike many fear that the rising prices will be passed on to the consumers say ones who are already struggling to make ends meet and these tough financial times so how will the public react to rising costs and food or will they react at all and it seems as if ron paul has made a new enemy the conservative group young americans for freedom has announced the paul is going to be expelled from their group because of his disturbing alliance with anti-war groups but with a new poll showing that sixty percent of republicans are against the current war efforts is ron paul really making friends with the wrong. we're going to speak with

someone who used to be a part of young americans for freedom at the end of the show but now let's move on to our top story. in the wake of successful revolutions in tunisia and egypt we see the energy continuing but demonstrators in bahrain yemen libya algeria and iran before we start saying the democracy is spreading through the middle east and north africa like wildfire we have to realize that the responses by other governments might look a lot different a lot more violent than what we saw in egypt and iran a crackdown has already begun members of parliament are calling for the execution of opposition leaders whom they've already placed under house arrest security forces have attacked protesters were tear gas and electric prods so could many people be giving a very rude awakening a successful revolution in egypt doesn't mean successful revolutions everywhere else joining me to discuss it is matthew does national security advisor at the center for american progress thanks so much for being here and now you know everybody has been watching of course of the events unfold in egypt in tunisia

before that but do you think the egypt perhaps has given some people a bit of a false sense of optimism that you know when we see protests everywhere else that one thinks that democracy is spreading through the middle east is a really that cut and dry well it certainly it's not it's not even that couldn't drive for egypt itself which still has a very long protracted transition a negotiation period to go through mubarak is gone it's true there's a council of military leaders now running the country but still very much according to the system the military dominated system that obtained during mubarak's rule and for the twenty years before him so we'll see i mean things right now look like with mubarak gone things look like they're moving in a positive direction it's a very sensitive phase right now as the different political parties begin to organize in a system where they haven't been able to organize before as for these other countries algeria we've already seen a pretty severe crackdown yamin not as severe but still the there were protests going. i think they're still going on now but they're starting to weigh in iran as

you mention it's particularly violent we know that this regime is not afraid of going to the gun very quickly and significantly they put a green movement leader many who say most of the under house arrest that's extremely significant given that this is someone even though he's been an opposition leader he's still very much a member of the revolutionary elite so i think this this represents a new stage of repression although it's encouraging to me personally to still see that there is this this pro-democracy movement alive and kicking in the wrong do you think that we did mubarak make it a little too easy to get rid of him do you think that now other leaders the middle east north africa are looking at mubarak as the example obviously of who not to be if they think well as long as perhaps that you know we release our goods now that means that that will be the only way we can stay in power like who do we expect to be the worst here well i don't know if thirty years in power is making it too easy you know i think they tried this but you know well you know in the wake of eighteen days right say i probably there have been protests before and he held on but right

i understand your question i think different leaders are going to respond in different ways we saw jordanian king abdullah respond by a ceding to some demands by replacing his cabinet and announcing he was moving toward new reforms we'll see what the response to that is but i think we've already seen that leaders like algeria. are taking a listen you know you need to cut these things down at the very start and not let them get out of hand let's talk about the u.s. response because the u.s. seemed like they were completely caught off guard completely surprised what was going on in egypt and so then they very clumsily tried to piece together what kind of a coordinated message they might eventually have whereas in iran immediately right we see our officials coming out and saying that they support the people at the same time we see our administration being very careful in the way that they're you know talking about the protests in yemen right now to us i mean again it's really pointing out the way that our foreign policy seems to work here well i think you're right i mean no one expected this. and the administration the step

a few different ways will finally arriving at what i think is the right place but you know you have to first of all they were careful in egypt as in the run to make it clear that this is not an american protest this was self generated it was not america's place to be at the front of this parade and i think that also seem like they weren't quite sure if democracy or you know a movement by the people pushing for democracy was necessarily in their best intentions if you think about egypt as an ally of the u.s. as an ally of israel the fact that we've worked with hosting a barn for so long you know i think that's true i mean it's not so much that we would be opposed to democracy it's just that when things like this happen it's easier for them to get out of and it's easier for groups that are very opposed to us policy to take control. we've seen revolutions in the past that started off with the best and most optimistic intentions be hijacked iran is is a perfect example but i think they had a very tough negotiation a tough decision a tough line to walk and i think they actually given the nature of american

leverage specifically with the military i think obama was very good at making clear that the u.s. did not want to see violence and given the various relations that existed various levels between the u.s. and the egyptian military i think we saw this come to what i think is a good result for now well this has definitely egypt had a good result it was nonviolent and a lot of people easily started making the argument that this proves that we don't need to necessarily interfere and we don't need to go to other nations we don't need to invade countries because of the people want to democracy will come on its own but now you have you know looking at what's going on in iran a lot of people are going well so don hussein would never have allowed people to come out and protest on the street in iraq wouldn't be what it is today unless we had intervened if iran does become very violent you think we'll start hearing the same arguments i don't know i think as far as iraq i think should be told how many made a very interesting argument politico a few weeks ago saying that the question we need to ask about iraq at the u.n. is did the invasion and occupation of iraq. we delay things like egypt because if

you remember in the wake of the occupation there was a massive rise in anti-americanism the bush administration after kind of promulgating its freedom agenda was forced to step back from that as a response to a lot of the radical forces that run at least in encouraged by the occupation. so it's very hard to say what effect iraq had or didn't have but i think what i would say is that the events that drove the egyptian uprising that are driving uprisings in all these countries including iran these are trends that have to do with an enormous youth bubble in the educated cohort of views that are coming through because of globalization they're aware of the opportunities that exist in other societies that they don't have in their own and they have just because they're able to see all this they're just not satisfied so these are trends again they're indigenous to the middle east and they're really not about the united states per se so i think it's important for the president to continue to support these principles of nonviolence and the freedom to protest but as i said earlier it's not the u.s. it's place to kind of run to the head of the parade very quickly i want to ask you

i know that you just returned from israel at a conference there how are they responding to everything that's going on while they're incredibly nervous about egypt i mean egypt the peace accord signed by begun set out in jimmy carter in one hundred seventy nine is a cornerstone of israel's strategic concept first for over thirty years they haven't had to worry about their western border and now all of a sudden that's in play it's not to say that i think the new egypt is going to reject that treaty but just it's something israel hasn't had to really worry about for the last three decades and so it's really created a bit of cognitive dissonance i mean they take pride in being a democracy but at the same time they're very very nervous about the prospect of democracy breaking out all around them right now and thank you very much for joining us and of course. who knows how long it will take until the transition until democracy in egypt does take collagen what it's going to look like no different keep following it thanks so much. and there's still much more to come on tonight still internet. freedom for everyone maybe maybe with just

a few conditions and no one surprise an extension of several key parts of the patriot act passed in congress on those stories with julian sanchez a research fellow at the cato institute and then there's a bill in south dakota that's raising a few eyebrows tonight is a lawmaker actually proposing a bill would make killing an abortion doctor a justifiable homicide and the hash out the details just. bringing you the latest. from the realm. of the future of harvard. wealthy british style it's time to. go. to. market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy is

a report on our. we hear the words internet privacy being thrown around constantly everywhere from the silicon valley to the state department but all technology tastemakers of assured consumers that they care all about your privacy it really seems to be slipping further and further away from average americans so there's one lawmaker out there that's finally decided to attempt to tackle at least a little part of this issue california democrat jackie speier has introduced an online privacy measure that would allow web users to have an opt out option preventing advertisers from x. accessing their online history as far defends her measure called h.r. six fifty four by saying that consumers have a right to determine what information is shared with the corporations and a failure to do so would be considered unfair or deceptive act punishable by law now the congresswoman also introduced a charter. six fifty three allowing consumers to have greater control over personal

financial information that's usually collected by banks spiers labeled her proposed legislation as a means to up hold privacy over profits which seems to have every other level of government under their spell these days. have been endorsed by groups like consumers you get consumer federation of america and the a.c.l.u. and i can tell you that she has one more endorsement from me people are constantly worried about social media is being is just about everything else online having too much access to your personal information and yet we haven't seen any really action real action coming from our government and the direction of actually protecting your privacy until now so i say kudos to spiers legislation and even of this one does get knocked down and at least make a statement that consumers are sick of giving up our privacy for internet access so well done representative speier. now this afternoon secretary of state hillary clinton gave a second nod to her internet freedom agenda in the form of

a lottery speech at george washington university she gave praise on to the use of a free and open internet to bring the world together and give every day the voice she also pledged twenty five million dollars to internet freedom fighters. our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people and we are matching that with our actions. now clinton spent as much of the speech praising the use of a free and open internet during the revolution in egypt as she did criticizing iran and china for their censorship while the us is a spouse of a free and open internet abroad are we backing up those actions here at home here to discuss with me as julian sanchez a research fellow at the cato institute julian thanks for coming on the show tonight what did you gather from the speech from hillary today after admit at first i was kind of it was i was a little reminiscent of her speech last year didn't seem all that different to me except for with a few updates. of course revolutions in tunisia and egypt

a little nod to weiqi leaks but what's the basic plan here that they want rules for the internet that apply to everybody but you know there's a lot of goldilocks language in this in this speech so it's hard to know exactly what they have in mind this talk about well we need enough freedom the support civil society but enough security you know enable that freedom also and but it's not clear exactly a lot of a lot of back in. the balance she wants to strike is. one the big thing of course is this idea that we're going to start funding at the circumvention technology i think that is a potentially dangerous thing for the government to get involved in if you look at what happened just back in the. green revolution in iran after the iranian elections you had a well intentioned official statement calling up twitter and saying would you mind moving a scheduled maintenance so that it wouldn't fall during these protests and they said they decided really for reasons of their own that they were going to do that but that was a kind of hook that allow known

a lot of not just iran but the chinese a lot of other countries that are more resistant to opening up the internet to say hi you see twitter is just a tool of american foreign policy so i think involvement there in particular involvement with certain circumvention technologies that as opposed to distributed open source energy tools like tor the onion router as it's called there are other circumvention technologies that are closed source centralized involve filtering circumventing traffic through u.s. servers controlled by. entities that would be in theory funded by the u.s. government i think that creates a situation where a lot less ability of distance to be secure in the privacy of their rage and makes it a lot easier for oppressive regimes to paint people who are using those technologies as somehow tools of the u.s. well you know we say that we're giving twenty five million dollars to these people to be able to circumvent who. who is it exactly that gets these twenty five million

dollars that's the question and this is what some of the fighting has been about again there are these distributed open source projects like tor there's also a very popular especially in china tool called free gave an alter service that's associated with basically expatriate chinese members of fallen gong. so there is i mean again a kind of question of a group that one may say may be seen as specifically opposed to the regime in china that may be you know extending maybe a bigger middle finger than necessary and then again there are questions about what's what's happening to traffic that's flowing through those servers so i i have reservations about the u.s. getting involved when there's you know so many different projects so many different technologies and i worry about the state department trying to pick winners now what the state department also has just said that there is one internet and we want everybody to have access to this open and free internet around the world but let's say if they do try to come up with some global way of looking at the internet and

looking at internet access do you think that also raises problems for the u.s. in terms of what we often support all kinds of international laws and then we are often the ones that are the first to break them well i wish she would give her her very inspiring speech at the department of homeland security which has been seizing domains that they believe are involved in selling counterfeit goods or otherwise pirating intellectual property without due process that is basically a seizure of the domain based on their claim not not some kind of adversarial process that has a judicial they're going to be and yesterday they just see it eighteen more and it's not right that you have to this question to me as to why it's ice that's in charge of seizing we don't means what immigrations and customs enforcement has to do with a well customs is traditionally have the brief intercepting counterfeit goods that come into the country so this is seen as falling into that are really a lot of these states are for example selling knockoff gucci bags or whatever that that are ending up getting shipped into the country so that's. it falls under their

brief she could you give the same speech at the department of justice which on thursday general counsel the f.b.i. is going to capitol hill to try and convince house judiciary committee to amend the communications is for law enforcement act to essentially require internet companies to architect their systems for surveillance you know one of the reasons foreign governments have an easy time often trying to monitor and filter internet communications is that we have laws that require switches and routers used at those be headquarters to be built for wiretapping so you know they're wiretap ready when we ship them when american companies ship them overseas the filtering tools that egypt was using before they actually just pulled the plug on the internet totally or from a company called narrative which is the same company that makes the analyzers the n.s.a. had installed in eighteen t. when bush authorized his warrantless wiretapping program so it sounds like we definitely to be careful with what we say here very quickly she actually brought in wiki leaks today she couldn't leave it out but said that you know the u.s.

government's problem with weiqi leaks is not that this information is being dispelled through the internet but that this entire episode started we have a theft and that it's not hypocritical to say that you support an open and transparent internet where everyone has access to information and at the same time oppose you by that well look i mean the problem is that you can say bradley manning you know signed a note saying he would respect lies about information he broke the law he can be prosecuted for that legally that's true but they've been trying their damndest to prove the case that somehow julian of songs was involved not just in the publication of these documents but in the theft itself and they've been coming up empty so the question now is are they going to try and prosecute a song not as coconspirator in the theft which under the law would be fine but as the near publisher which the congressional research service in a report they put out a couple months back said would raise grave constitutional questions after the precedent set by the pentagon papers case that said. it's

a really incredibly high bar to going after a publisher even one who publishes a class of properly classified information i want to thank you very much for joining us well we didn't get to it unfortunately but the house did approve the patriot act last night last week and it is voting as we speak last week we we thought maybe we saw a breath of fresh air for a moment when that vote failed maybe a vote for libertarians for some liberals to get together on the issue of civil liberties but. this is voted on very short extension so maybe it'll be short enough that they'll have to get in there hold some hearings and try and fix the problems with it well you seem to be a little more hopeful than i am let's hope about those who have and thanks so much for being here you know now the story that has everyone talking today is a move by the south dakota legislators to amend their law on justifiable homicide they want to change the language of what justifiable to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus but doesn't open the door to killing abortion providers that's the big

debate state representative phil jensen defended the bill today saying that it doesn't target abortion providers because what they do is legal and it gave the following scenario of what would count as justifiable in this case say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be the father of a baby who doesn't want to pay child support for the next eighteen years and he beats on his ex-girlfriends abdomen in trying to abort her baby if she did kill him it would be justified she is resisting in efforts to murder her unborn child ok so that seems clear enough right well maybe not although may not be the intention of the bill the legal language is vague enough so that some crazy may think that he has the right to kill a doctor and here's the proposed amended legal language says homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person or of his husband wife parent child master and mistress or servant or the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend decision.

commit a felony or to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished so is everybody making something out of nothing with this story or is this a very dangerous legal path to go down well joining me from our studio in new york to discuss it is joel phillips of the emmys jill thanks so much for joining us. you know this really set off quite a firestorm today when it was originally reported by kate sheppard of mother jones . everybody started passing around the legal language asking questions and speaking to representative but what do you think here does this open the door for people to think that it's justifiable to go after and kill an abortion provider. i think it does and i think especially in the context of south dakota where there has been an incredible encroachments into abortion rights there are any abortion doctors that currently reside and practice in south dakota last i heard there were

four doctors that had to fly in to provide abortions so south dakota is a state that spend a major battleground in the abortion rights fight. do i think the intent of this bill was to encourage people to kill providers know but any bill that's dealing with the rights of unborn children or unborn people. does have incredible salience in the abortion debate and is very much part of a sustained effort to create fetal personhood rights all of which you know are designed to slowly chip away. a woman's right to choose and i think this is certainly part of that larger campaign. and it's you know it's not beyond the pale that someone who would kill an abortion provider might use this is his defense in court. well some of the language that you know really got me was that you know there's reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury so perhaps you know you your wife is

getting an abortion into the doctor's office and you feel like you have to defend this baby because you feel that some great personal injury is going to be committed not necessarily a felony you know because everyone is saying that well were abortion illegal in the state then perhaps it would be legal to go after the doctor because they're committing a crime but here i think that you know it really leaves the interpretation to people to just interpret it the way that they see it. i think that's right and if you look at the first part of the bill there's a part where it talks about how homicide is justifiable if it's in defense of your own murder or if it's to prevent the harm to an unborn child so they don't actually use the term to revenge the murder of an unborn child they specifically use that harm terminology which i think is very very dangerous and which does to me imply that it could possibly apply to providers or at the very least that if somebody did kill an abortion provider who was going to be providing that

service for his wife or his child or whatever other family member relation the bill covers that this is something that he could reasonably introduce in court as a defense and given that it's on the books. you know it could lead a judge to be more inclined to allow that defense to appear before a jury which is something that we saw in the scott roeder trial the man that killed dr tiller in wichita we did see his lawyers try and bring out a similar defense saying that you know in his mind the homicide was justifiable and i believe it wasn't allowed in that case but if you the similar situation in south dakota if this law gets on the books i do wonder what the influence of that would be. and trials of people that kill abortion doctors you know to me the concept that you can actually have a justifiable cause to commit a homicide. the fact that it's actually written down in legal language like

a list of those reasons seems really crazy but is that normal do we see a lot of states in the us that have that kind of thing written on the books. that is normal justifiable homicide is not a completely out there you know legal defense of somebody trying to murder you when you kill them or they're trying to commit a felony upon you. it's. self-defense essentially or something similar to now you mentioned a few things about the state of south dakota that they don't even have an abortion doctors i know that also you know the planned parenthood does fly in a doctor once a week and before she even offers out abortion a chance to read a statement that tells this mother that she's killing a whole unique person what other moves of they made what else do we know about their history in terms of going against abortion. well south dakota has tried to outlaw abortion entirely i believe twice now. voters rejected it both times but you

know they have tried to take that to the voters and put it on the ballot that abortion should be illegal you know flying in the face of supreme court law and roe v wade. is so i think the legislators in south dakota have shown that they're not deferential to federal law they certainly are big fans of a woman's right to choose you know and will do all sorts of things to try and limit that right in every way possible and i think i mean this bill is certainly part of that i mean at the very least it's part of this effort to establish fetal personhood you know and at its worst i do think that's an effort to intimidate abortion providers you know to put this out there again that what you're doing is you know you're killing and there are people that do feel that it would be justified to kill you. so in the defense of you know what they're calling unborn children that sends a very strong and scary message to a community of people abortion providers and clinic ask courts and women who get abortions. that there's a target on their backs and especially in

a climate like we have now or abortion providers have been killed or abortion clinics are routinely terrorized and bombed and you know sent ad anthrax and set on fire and picketed every day. you know it's a to put out a law like this in a climate like that to me is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous and i think it's very disingenuous for the legislators to say that this is just about protecting the theoretical woman who's pregnant whose boyfriend is beating her in the apt. over there isn't worried about her and we got to take a break but i very much for joining us we'll be right back thank you so much.

again this is all see the headlines. on the rest continues to spread across the middle east with thousands clashing with police this time in bahrain have been demonstrations in tehran two welcomed by washington which sent a twitter messages to opposition leaders tearing up. russia's foreign minister has met his british counterpart in london with the pope before an improvement in relations which have cooled since becoming a federal security service agent that is on the brink in london in two thousand and two thousand and six. security in this cold light after pressure bonding five people died in the country's troubled northern caucasus region. and while european leaders say multiculturalism has failed an alternative it says has been tried and found guilty for saying much the same thing in her criticism of muslims and that really. the headline is now the second part of the i don't know is on the way.