can they load a show for real headlines with none of the mersey are going to live in washington d.c. still confusion in the libyan conflict is nobody seems to want to step forward and take command of this mission so what's really going on here will host a debate on the issue then did you know that the obama administration made new rules on miranda rights for terrorism suspects they did it in secret but now those documents of come out so will look into yet another obama flip flop and you want to

be president well then don't forget to visit israel we'll tell you why this country might be just as important for presidential candidates as say iowa or even new hampshire and speaking of presidential candidates where are they it's only a little over a year away from elections and needless to say the g.o.p. has yet to produce any clear front runner so we'll go over the politicians who have officially entered the race and will say which ones we wish would stay far far away all this and much more in tonight's show but first let's move on to our top story. last week the u.n. security council adopted resolution one nine hundred seventy three which established a no fly zone over libya and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians from cut off and his forces but seven days later it seems that less and less clear what the goals of this mission really are artie's marine important i reports. operation odyssey dawn struck with quick minds. france and britain campaigned for

the military offensive into libya but it was america that led the way by. firing hundreds of tomahawk missiles against moammar gadhafi stakes compounds and libyan air defenses. nearly one week after waging war no country has been able to clarify a clear goal. exit strategy for libya it is u.s. policy that gadhafi needs to go and not so insists coalition partner britain. and do you a great solution sold as a humanitarian intervention to protect libyan civilians from could duffy's firepower allied airstrikes are now being blamed for mounting casualties. and we have no choices only be. we have no other reason to live there boom us children we will not give up on police. killing a lot of people simply american. there is also little sign of anti-pot off the

forces gaining much traction with only a few government forces switching sides as for the twenty two arab countries that push for the no fly zone their military is nowhere to be found only cutter put up a handful of warplanes per hit from flying too close to libya meanwhile obama says the u.s. will hand over control of the mission but to whom nato countries are mired in disagreement from the brits and french to the turks have already said that all they want is a no fly zone nothing more than that and the germans are now stating that they are removing their navy from nato control so it seems like this is quite a model with the cost of this odyssey at a reported one hundred million dollars per day u.s. lawmakers want some answers we would have as what is the intelligence that we had would secretary gates who leaves us the believe that he doesn't know play and be we

would have put that just last month u.s. defense secretary robert gates publicly opposed american military intervention in libya a third u.s. war he's now forced to defend the command and control business is complicated i mean we haven't done something like this. kind of on the slide before. and sort of smart surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sort of also hard to sort out is us senator john mccain's position on libya the republican repeatedly called for gadhafi is removal is the blood of american society his hands to because he was responsible for the bombing of pan am one hundred three yet just eighteen months ago mccain was in tripoli peddling american military equipment and shaking hands with the libyan leader and his son to do everything we. were relations between our countries.

right now the rift couldn't be further apart as khadafi thouse to fight fire with fire. in the short term we will be in the long term we will be nearly one week after spearheading a military intervention into another arab country the u.s. u.k. and france are coming under increasing pressure to explain the endgame of this scenario what is happening in libya who is in charge what does victory mean and when will this new and third u.s. that mission finally be accomplished or not artsy new york. there's no denying now that this humanitarian intervention is being escalated by the day and it is a war on sunday the u.s. led coalition flew sixty sorties over libya on monday nearly eighty on wednesday one hundred and seventy five i have still no one wants to be in command no one can agree on

a goal so somebody please tell me what's going on joining me to discuss it is jake you were there so co-founder of veterans for rethinking afghanistan dr robert barley assistant professor at the university of kentucky and blogger at lawyers guns and money in our thank you both for joining me tonight and taking the start with you real quick i mean chris call this a war already have you noticed the. administration not in their language to congress not in their language to the public they keep calling this a limited humanitarian intervention but guess what bombs are flying people are dying it's a war why can't they say it they don't have the political strength to the definition of war is when you drop bombs that isn't going to work if people are dying that's a war the reason that obama doesn't want to call it a war is because obama doesn't have control number one of the pentagon he also doesn't have control of this is his part of his parliament if you will the congress he also doesn't have it of his cabinet the one the reason that we got in this war was the secretary clinton susan rice strong armed him pushed him compelled him to be a part of this war he looked at so i don't think

a factual weakling lab secretary he thought a good leader gave his national security guy security advisor told him specifically do not get involved with this we do not have the military sort of apparatus of him or because we're too far stretch to get involved but he looked at the polling numbers and he looked at whether there's lawyers and said it was legal and as a result he got involved because he was stronger by his cabinet that's why we got in this war this this humanitarian intervention by the way it's not somalia or sudan or any of this is going to about eight thousand libyans have been killed as a result of this war was a minor very minor small interaction did not need the united states interventions now robert obviously obama keeps saying that he wants to hand this op at the same time nato can't agree on anyone who's going to take command so i'm just curious even if we wanted to get out of out at this point could we even do it if nobody else wants to take control. i think it's a really good question and the problem is that we're not that interested in being part of this war right now and i think. it's mostly correct in saying for example

the sectarian transfer you don't want to be involved in this conflict. but no one else really has the capability to do the kinds of stuff that needs to be done to make it war happen and also create this is a war that's not intervention or cold war. and so it can be very hard for us to pass over control of the french word to the british because this war need certain things to happen in order to move forward and only the united states can make those things happen well let's talk about what those things that would even mean and you know there are reports that four thousand marines have now left off the coast of virginia and are making their way towards the mediterranean and they haven't really said anything they just said there is backup for operations on what is i mean we are all sorted into those four thousand marines are standing up and active ready reserve means that they can be doing grid squares are going to be on a boat actually just going around in circles in the med waiting for the call to get uplifted i would i would call to go go boots on the ground immediately yeah yeah it is because i mean if you look at every single intervention by a foreign country so going back to eight hundred sixteen within ten years of the

intervention there is a high likelihood triple the time of a civil war likelihood and with our intervention is more than likely there's going to be a civil war some degree and it already exists there and there's going to be a need for in for international relief the united states will be the first one called by the international community to go in the reason are as a gentleman said you were right that the french and the british and everyone else is going to argue within europe well who's going to take the lead who's going to take the lead and because we haven't challenged them to take over their own security needs for the last hundred years they are going to rely on us and we will get bogged down in another war but do you think that nobody also wants to take the lead because of the example of looking at america that is fighting to current wars in muslim countries that it can't. i mean i think it's fair to say we're a cautionary tale right now and i think that's true for how the french are attempting this but i also think that the truth the obama administration. the marines that are there there are the marines on the ground troops in the areas that could be utilized in an emergency. only those are there for

a genuine emergency and you would not want them there if something had happened but that doesn't necessarily mean that the administration isn't committed to keeping troops on the ground no i think to take suggested is already a civil war we have basically already intervened in a civil war and it's unclear what france and the united kingdom are prepared to do in order to bring this civil war to a conclusion i think and when one thing add on with this if you look at the history of warfare united states one element of battle within our history leads up to the next so so for instance we won it we essentially won a counterinsurgency war in iraq we're taking that same battle implement the into afghanistan which is fixing a civil war in it and what we see libya is a civil war and it's prime real estate for the coin interventionists the guys over at center for new american security elsewhere to jump in bob i'll try is it prime real estate for this why is it even in our interest to put ourselves intervene in

the middle of a civil war i mean could it have been a better idea to actually help by arming the rebels rather than intervening and killing ourselves. but i just i would have to disagree with a bit with jake right there because i don't think there's any indication at this point that the people who are the strongest advocates of coin within the government this is run again so this is we're going to kind of not really all that interested in invading libya and being part of ground operations in libya i think that the navy was interested in being part of this i think the air force was interested in being part of this but they have typically not associated with the counterinsurgency faction within the army in fact they're sort of at all odds with it and so i think it would be better to say that there is factional conflict in the military just as there is content factual. good macavity in the united states right now that's true i think one of the one of my reasons i feel generally convinced that coin is likely in u.s. ground troops is likely is because over and burma libya there's a strong al qaeda cell the libyan islamic fighting front and we know from documents

found in iraq that a large part of the insurgency in iraq came to libya there's a strong al qaeda cell we've already seeing the united states being involved in pakistan yemen other areas where cells are growing i mean this is this is exactly where counterterrorist and counterinsurgency guys will want to go but they're allies of course the contradiction in our approach here is that we're calling this a humanitarian intervention but really we do have interests of our own and you know those interests might be for now helping the rebels and then later going against the rebels because there are going to be factions within them who we feel are dangerous to ourselves john and we're taking a short break and we're going to watch a report here as we talk about the current war in libya let's take a little trip down memory lane twelve years ago today nato started bombing former yugoslavia and both conflicts were billed as humanitarian missions against a country which poses no direct military threat to the u.s. or its allies so what is it about this time of year which makes the west want to go to war parties and if they see a choice in their works. in march seasons change sunshine invites americans

onto the streets american politicians invite themselves to foreign countries. march nine hundred ninety nine the u.s. and its nato allies bomb yugoslavia our own forces joined our nato allies and air strikes against serbia and forces responsible for the brutality in kosovo march two thousand and eleven america's next democratic president and a new coalition of the willing attack libya the un security council passed a strong resolution that demands and to the violence against others. it authorizes the use of force if it was sanctioned by the one security council in contrast to the bombings of the slavia there was no such greenlighted in one thousand nine hundred ninety one means one led by nido the first time a military alliance atop a sovereign nation a non nato member causing no threat to the group similarly libya poses no external threat and there are other striking parallels between the conduct of these wars the

enemy then slobbered on the loss of each job the new hitler the enemy of today the eccentric moammar qaddafi and power for over forty years as much as kathy is does john galliano trashed freak show he modernized leave us for a while now similarly villainize to pry the us colonel qadhafi base to step down from power and leave the goal now and back then getting rid of a leader no longer favored by the west taking sides with a questionable opposition in what started as a civil war what we're seeing is a poor fledged war including attempting to the only to kill. state of the targeted country and other leaders of a government that again is you know a page from the yugoslav book of twelve years ago. what is the world learned only not much the official reason for western involvement a so-called humanitarian mission

a term coined amid the bombings of nine hundred ninety nine you know it's who you say really because of all that because of the purpose of having to save its people . the same street that was. all you can start a russian and still relied upon put widely questioned. the greatest syrian of civilians with all this is a very. particular scene. this is real here is. the engine of that machine both dead and now the no fly zone code for aerial borrow. fueled in libya by the additional all necessary measures called for war where the line between the enemy in a foreign land and its civilians often gets blurred they did it in yugoslavia with thousands of people killed and close to one million displaced after the war when they did a count they found that us nato bombs had just fourteen tanks and serbia fourteen

tanks. they had also by four hundred thirty seven schools a similar scenario is now predicted in libya obama vows the anti you could argue war will last these are not weeks that was the field plan in yugoslavia bombings lasted two and a half months they think that a quick bit of bombing will sort the matter out but in fact i think they will find that it will last far longer than they have gone before twelve years on serbia still remembers the losses inflicted by u.s. nato bombings the u.s. is now involved in its fourth attack before a nation in the same twelve years and states in turkey are fourteen new york. so we take a look back at history and compare our actions in libya to those in former yugoslavia we have to ask if we've learned anything now jake i just wondered you is there really such a thing as a good humanitarian intervention right people look back because of and they say

that that's something the work but at the same time before we went in there before we started bombing maybe there were hundreds of deaths after we started bombing there were thousands of civilians that go i really think that because of the war was a mismanaged war i think it was unnecessary war and in terms of humanitarian interventions as we've seen over history there are only three percent of the time within ten years of an intervention is there actual democratic change and more than likely there's there's less as we go we're from harvard studies and all sorts of other studies that there is less likely to actually bring peace and stability to areas so i think. think of practicality stance it's not good intervene it doesn't help the interest of a nation and secondly most importantly i think that wars only have any moral purpose if it's done out of defensive purposes and are a last resort they're not going to do that there's no point in my opinion robert what do you say is it really moral that humanitarian intervention if it's not your own conflict and if it might cause more damage than good at least in the short term

. and i think there are a lot of definitional problems and there are sort of want to debate about things. you're going back to the present war. i just wondered chroma how this particular intervention is that it's being sold as a humanitarian intervention but at the same time it appears that we some of the coalition partners are interested in regime change and really want to get out so it's not simply to protect civilians you know. and it's unclear and i mean we're supposed to be the humanitarian just creation for the war but it's unclear how the war is supposed to be achieved that humanitarian effect we're going to create a partition in libya or to throw it off or you work to do something else. but my biggest problem in terms are referring to this as a humanitarian intervention by now i think we should honor to take everything with a grain of salt however they try to label it for us right we found out there were no w m d's in iraq you find out that there wasn't necessarily genocide there was a civil war going on in kosovo and here also you have to question yeah quick point

i mean there is a great lie within the american political tradition that neoconservatives bush cheney rumsfeld are really different from liberal interventionists like clinton susan rice and these others in fact they are the same only difference is that new conservatives don't like foreign institutions because they think foreign institutions are going to advance american power and liberals say oh no advance or power because we just use their institutions but they still want to intervene the only people in american political debate that don't want to intervene are strict isolationists noninterventionist than those that are moderates who say that we don't gain anything from it but as far as liberals in new conservatives and foreign policy they're the same which is why barack. obama does not qualify in this regard but that's why i get so frustrated with this entire situation is because everybody paints is as if it's so black and white as if you're either for humanitarian intervention and for saving people and you know you have morals or you're not it's much much more complicated than that and i really you know i'm frustrated with this entire political rhetoric that goes on around it. well i mean i think that there

are you know it is right. you can sort of come to the same conclusions on some questions but there is a there is a difference right if you're going to conduct is going to intervention sometimes there's a reason why you might want to you want to institution and sometimes and we may see this in the next few weeks there are reasons why unilateral operation might make more sense. so i think he's correct to say that there are wide swaths of agreement between these liberal interventionists on the one side and what we refer to as your conservatives are another side looking out very quickly we have to wrap up but both of you so at the moment we don't know is the mission to bring gadhafi down is the mission to let him say stay no one really say it but what happens if a there is either more support for gadhafi in libya than we imagine or being he doesn't leave and then you know who we can excuse is going to be another guy like you we have in kosovo that happens to be selling organs you know this is this this is the real problem here because barack obama is because he said publicly that he wants gadhafi to leave you know step down we are permanently entrenched in this we

may not be the sole leader in terms of intervening we could be a no fly zones like without iraq it could be a direct intervention could be a number of different things but what we see is that now we are permanently tied to this crisis this nonsense going on in libya i predict that cut off he will gain power he will not be pushed out of power if you poll civilians in the cities and he will stay there which means that we've got this we're going to be talking about libya for a long time because our examiner thank you both very much for joining robert i'm sorry we're out of time thank you both for joining us and i think you're right we are now permanently entrenched and stuck in a situation for which and reality you know it really asked if we want to be stuck here now it's time for a short break when we're out with the old in with the new out with candidate obama expressed faith in our justice system to fight terrorism and in with president obama's plans to withhold iran the right from suspected terrorists or any longer for a time. let's

not forget that we are in a park right here right. i think. one well. we haven't got the shows there can safely get ready because of the air freedom. which are in here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

new web site with twenty four seven live streaming news tells us what to do about the ongoing financial hard unlimited high quality videos for download. and stories you may never find on mainstream news. media so. the political. posts aren't just stand. by guys welcome michel ancel on the ellen show part of our guest stop to sound the topic now i want to hear audio system watching you tube video on our twitter for part of the question that we've hostile you feel bad for a monday and on thursday the show long response is really.

last december the obama administration secretly created a new policy on miranda rights for terrorism suspects which they did not release despite promising to be the most transparent administration ever now the wall street journal's got its hands on it and according to their report the new rules allow investigators to hold domestic terror suspects longer than others without giving them a miranda warning now the move not only significantly expand the exceptions to miranda which were made in a supreme court decision in one thousand nine hundred four that allows the questioning of suspects for a limited time before the warning but only in cases where public safety was at issue but also to represent yet another major flip flopper from candidate obama who criticized the bush administration for an ad hoc legal approach to fighting terrorism and said that we must fight terrorism with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process so where do the former constitutional law professors confidence in our legal system go well here disgusted with me is ryan reilly reporter and blogger for talking points memo ryan thanks so much for being here

tonight as well for starters i mean there are quite a few things you could point out here as to where obama flip flopped but they made this change in december and they made the secret and they were supposed to be the most transparent administration do you think they're too scared to stand behind their policies i don't know if that's quite right i mean this is something that was really it was first revealed an interview with charlie savage of the new york times and evan perez was the first to get. a copy i guess this week and it's really it seems to be more of a really a proxy to be not so much over miranda rights but this is still a go really to the debate over whether military or civilian system is the best way to handle terrorists but what do you make of the fact that the obama administration tried to get congress on board last year congress was not on board so they decided well you know we want to do it anyway so i'm just going to create my own administrative order here you know they didn't really seem to have too much excess and you know something that eric holder first voted on meet the press but it really didn't seem to go anywhere i talked to us senator. office i guess last month it was

and they said that they had not really heard from the administration on proposals for how to. do something it was dead in the water. but. you know this was just something that they saw as a fix that was taken. back in back in december as well that's funny because you know i could name two suspects how about the new york times square bomber and the christmas day bomber who both were of mirandized obama was really highly criticized for that by the republicans and obama defended that and said that we still got all the information that we needed to from these men and said that he believes in the miranda system so how quickly things change very good that's funny also because you didn't hear the same sort of course was in during the bush administration when the . i guess it was the shoe bomber was put into the civilian court system that wasn't something that we really had too much of a debate on and i mean miranda rights are pretty pretty widely known and you know anyone with watches an episode of law and order can figure out what they are exactly so it's not really so much of it could be about whether or not he was when

we were i guess when we should tell our suspects about all of it it's more that's what some of the debate is and directional republicans i think a lot of them don't think that they should have rights to begin with so that's not really a by they i mean we're talking about terrorism suspects these are obviously people on u.s. soil and i'm going to be mirandized so you can either be a u.s. citizen or a foreigner as long as they're caught here and it's also it's not about you also hear about some other nontraditional terrorism suspects the bomber. the man who tried to target and locate hurried in washington state i guess it was last month the month before you never really heard to date about when was he given his miranda rights it was just sort of the that was i think that's where he used to call people like a terrorist let's just say that seems to be separate categories for there is al qaeda and then there's other terrorist wandering so i mean apparently the rules still apply whatever evidence that they may gain before they mirandized the suspect . it will be inadmissible in court but then if it doesn't pose an immediate danger

which is what these rules have done is expanded to something that does not pose an immediate danger then really what's the point here just so you can abuse the person or beat the mob or you know how does it work i think that's what some people would like to do just you know take them off to a containment center you know somewhere else and not really have this discussion but for all purposes you're really only hurting yourself if you don't tell them about their miranda rights because you can't use evidence is inadmissible in court so it really a lot of these suspects have been caught there's i think there's some feeling that there is and they know enough about it already that they don't need that additional confession and they just want to there's an argument that they want to extrapolate information regarding the network and finding out more to sort of shut down these more worldwide these networks of terrorists worldwide but it's not really so much of an issue according to some of the experts what do you think happened i mean i could name a very long list of issues including civil liberties issues here that he's flip

flopped on like i mentioned he was a constitutional law professor he has so many times as spoken about our legal system our justice system how it's something that works that needs to be upheld i mean is there something did he never really mean it or is there something about you know assuming this role as the commander in chief is the president of the united states that you get these reports on your desk every day and suddenly you know all of your old principles fly out the window i think i think there is a little bit of the administration being worried about being seen perhaps as not taking a hard line position on any terrorism issues they're already facing internal criticism over the handling the grinder handling most would say about the. trial in new york city as well as a variety of other terrorism issues you know the patriot act they seem to support the continuance of the bush administration but again who are they getting these criticisms from the right and i feel like they're just appeasing every step of the way right thank you so much for joining us tonight. now when we return.