but can they learn to show us the real headlines with none of the mersey are going to live in washington d.c. confusion in the libya conflict there's nobody seems to want to step forward and take command of this mission so what's really going on here almost a debate on the issue and you know the obama administration made new rules all miranda rights for terrorism suspects they did it in secret but now those documents have 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 if 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 his forces but seven days later it seems the less and less clear what the goals of this mission really are very 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. 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 or. exit strategy for libya it is u.s. policy that gadhafi needs to go not so insists coalition partner britain. gold which will. do the u.n. resolution sold as a humanitarian intervention to protect libyan civilians from gadhafi is firepower allied airstrikes are now being blamed for mounting casualties. and we have no choices only victory on this we have no other reason to live there to months to analyze our children we will not give up on the only funding the killing told us we will secure the american and. there is also little sign of anti gadhafi 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 cut or put up a handful of warplanes prohibited 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 they have already said all they want is a no fly zone nothing more than that the germans are now stating that they are removing their navy from nato control so it seems like this is quite a model job 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 leaves us to believe that he doesn't know play and b.

we would have put it would that just last month u.s. defense secretary robert gates publicly opposed american military intervention in libya but third u.s. war he's now forced to defend those commanding control because this is complicated i mean do we have a gun something like this. kind of on the slide before. and some sort of smart surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sure but also hard to sort out is us senator john mccain's position on libya the republican repeatedly called for gadhafi as removal is the blood of americans on his hands because he was responsible for the bombing of pan am one o 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 can to code words relations between our countries. that right now the

rift couldn't be further apart as khadafi vows 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. backed mission finally be accomplished hurried up or not artsy new york. there's no denying now that this humanitarian intervention is being escalated by the day and 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 and still no one wants to be in command no one can agree on a goal so somebody please tell me what's going on join me to discuss it as jake

illiterate so co-founder of veterans for rethinking afghanistan dr robert farley assistant professor at the university of kentucky and blogger at lawyers guns and money john miller thank you both for joining me tonight and taking the start with you real quick i mean can we just call this a war already have you noticed that the obama. 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 well they don't have the political strength to the definition of war is when you drop bombs if it is a war 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 and also doesn't have control of his is part of his parliament if you will the congress he also doesn't have it on his cabinet the one the reason that we got in this war was 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 he's actually a weakling left secretary he thought it was his national security security adviser

told him specifically do not get involved with this we do not have the military sort of apparatus of the mode because we're too far stretch to get involved but he looked at the polling numbers and he looked at whether it is 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 humanitarian intervention by the way it's not somalia or sudan or any of the something that's 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 at the out at this point could we even do it if nobody else wants to take control but 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 the jury is mostly correct in saying that for example this record of france do not want to be involved in this conflict. but

no one else really has the capability to do the kind of stuff needs to be done to make that war happen and also create this is a war there's no intervention without a cold war. and so it can be very hard crust passed over control of the french were through the british because this war needs. certain things that happen in order to move forward and only the united states can make those things happen well let's talk about what those things 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 there is backup for operations but there's ease on what does that mean and how those who are really into those four thousand marines are standing up and active ready reserve means they're going to 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 the reason india 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 that it already exists there and there's going to be a need for international relief the united states will be the first one called by the international community to go in the reason why as a gentleman said you were right the the french and the british and everybody 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 want 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 that's true for about how the pressure tempted but i also think it's true your vomit administration. the marines that are there are there on the marines on the ground troops in the area that could be utilized in an emergency. only those are there for

a genuine emergency and you would not want them there is something had to happen but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to mention is it committed to keeping troops on the ground i think is going to suggest that this is already a civil war where you 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 you know what i think went and went to one thing and if you look at the history of war of the united states one elements of battle within our history leads up to the next so for instance we won it we essentially won a counterinsurgency war in iraq we're taking that same battle implement into afghanistan which is fixing a civil war and what we see libya is a civil war it is prime real estate for the coin interventionists the guys over at the center for new american security and elsewhere to jump involved in i is the 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 it ourselves. well you know i just i would have to disagree with a bit with jenny craig because i don't think there's any indication at this point that the people who are the strongest advocates of corn in the government this is a program get into the soup and i don't really all that interested in the libyan being part of the ground operations in libya i think the navy was interested in quotas i think going to air force was interested in part of this but they are to the ground associated with the counterinsurgency faction within the army instructor 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 an actual conflict in the cabinet in the united states right now that's true i think one of the reasons i feel generally convinced that coin is likely and u.s. ground troops is likely is because over in derm 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 states being involved in pakistan yemen other areas where al qaeda cells are growing i mean this is this is exactly where counterterrorist and counterinsurgency guys will want to go but their lives 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 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 and we're taking a short break and we're going to watch and 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 posed no direct military threat to the u.s. or its allies so what is it about this time of year which makes the last minute of war art even if they say it's what can never parts. in march seasons change

sunshine invites americans onto the streets american politicians invite themselves to form. in countries. march nine hundred ninety nine the u.s. and its nato allies bomb yugoslavia armed forces joined our nato allies in airstrikes against serbian 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 u.n. security council passed a strong resolution that demands and so the violence against its. 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 greenlights in one thousand nine hundred ninety one means one led by nido the first time the military alliance atop the sovereign means that a non nato member posing 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 sluggard on the loss of each job the new hitler the enemy of today the eccentric one market and power for forty years as what you describe afi is does jungle yanno trash freak show he modernized lead be a for a while now similarly villainize by the us colonel qadhafi he's just stepped down from power and leaf the goal now and back then getting rid of a leader no longer favored by the west taking sides with a questionable opposition and what started as a civil war what we're seeing is a full fledged war including attempting to don't lead to kill the head of state of the targeted country and other leaders of the government that again is you know a page from the yugoslav bloc of twelve years ago. what is the world learned evidently not much the official reason for western involvement and so-called humanitarian mission a term coined amid the bombings of nine hundred ninety nine you know it's who you

say believe it because it's going to save its people. essentially that was a surprise for. all of us out here russia announced still daylight upon what widely questioned you do know it was a great series of surveyors with all those businesses. that it is of killing us he. says that he will here's. the engine of that machine both then and now a no fly zone code for aerial by. 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 it did in yugoslavia with thousands of people killed and close to one million displaced after the war when they took account they found that us nato bombs had destroyed fourteen tanks and serbia fourteen tanks but they had also four hundred thirty seven

schools a similar scenario is now predicted in libya obama vows the anti could offer you war will last days 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 gambled for twelve years on serbia still remembers the losses inflicted by u.s. nato bombings the u.s. is now involved in its fourth attack of a foreign nation in the same twelve years and is there some. new york. so we take a look back in 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 it was

a 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 actually think that because of a war was a mismanaged war i think it was an unnecessary war and in terms of humanitarian interventions as we've seen over history that only three percent of the time within ten years of an intervention is an actual democratic change and more than likely there's there is the letter. from harvard studies and all sorts of other studies that there is less likely to actually bring peace and stability to the area so i think right. 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 my opinion robert what do you say is it really moral the humanitarian intervention if it's not your own conflict and if it might cause more damage than good at least in the short term. i

think there are a lot of definitional problems and there are sort of want to do what. you can going back under kosovo war. i guess one big problem i have with this particular today 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 germany really want to move out so it's not simply to pick some hundreds. and it's unclear i mean we supposed to be the humanitarian justification for the war but it's unclear how the war itself is supposed to achieve humanitarian effect going to create a partition in libya or to throw it off or you work to do something else you know that my biggest problem in terms of 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 are 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 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 there's only difference is that new conservatives don't like foreign institutions because they think foreign institutions don't 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 the 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 are 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 because on around. well i mean i think that there are you know liberal internationalists and neo conservatives come to the same conclusions

on some questions but there is a there is a difference right if you're going to conduct these kind of intervention sometimes there's a reason why you might want more you want to institutions and sometimes and we may see it as an excuse there are reasons why unilateral operation might make more sense but that said i think he's correct to say that there are wide swaths of agreement between these liberal interventionists on one side and what we were conservatives on the other side ok now 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 issues 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. because barack obama is because he said publicly that he wants gadhafi to leave he must step down we are permanently entrenched in this we may not

be the sole leader in terms of intervening we could be no fly zones like with iraq it could be 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 khadafi will gain power he will not be pushed out of power is simple 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 to come our examiner thank you both very much for joining robert i'm sorry we're out of time but thank you both for joining us and i think you're right we are now terminally entrenched and stuck in a situation for which and reality you know it really asked if we want to be stuck and now it's time for a short break and when we are out with the old in with the new out with candidate obama express faith in our justice system to fight terrorism and with president obama's plans to withhold kuranda rights from suspected terrorists for a longer period of time. let's not forget that we had an apartheid regime right here.

i think the media wanted well. we have the government says the keep them safe get ready because you're going to lose your freedom. rachel martin here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

new web site which twenty four seven live streaming news towns like to tell you about the ongoing financial hardship unlimited free high quality videos for download. and stories you may never find mainstream news. so. maybe the political. posts are too dumb to say. hey guys welcome to shell and sell on the obama show which part of our guests have to say on the topic now i want to hear audio just go on to this video response part of the twitter first part of the questions that we've hosts on you tube every monday and on thursday the show long response is that we like your voice. last december the obama administration secretly created

a new policy on miranda rights for terrorism suspects which they did not release the spy 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 that represents yet another major flip flop from the 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 did the former constitutional law professors confidence in our legal system go well here to discuss it 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 really an interview with charlie savage of the new york times evan perez was the first to get his hands on 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 good really to gauge 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 you know they didn't really seem to have too much access and it was something that eric holder first floated on meet the press but it really didn't seem to go anywhere i talked to senator leahy's office i guess last. it was and they said that they had not really heard from the administration

proposals for how to change something it was dead in the water. but. you know this was just something that baseball is a fix that was taken. back in back in december so 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 mirandized. 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 straighten that's funny also because you didn't hear the same sort of person during the bush administration when the when the i guess it was the shoe bomber was put into the civilian court system that wasn't something that we really had going to debate on and i mean miranda rights are pretty pretty widely known i mean anyone with watches and it was a law in order to figure out what they are exactly so it's not really so much of it to be about whether or not he should when were i guess when we should tell our

suspects it's more you but that's what some of the debate is and directional republicans i think a lot of them don't think that they should have these rights to begin with so that's not really a by the way i mean we're talking about terrorism suspects these are obviously people on u.s. soil and they're going to be mirandized so you can either be a u.s. citizen or a foreigner as long as they're caught here correct and it's also it's not about you also hear about other nontraditional terrorism suspects the m.l.k. bomber. the i guess the man who tried to target the ok parade in washington state i guess it was last month before you never really heard a debate about when was he given his miranda rights it was just sort of a i mean that was in a sense whatever he was to call people like a terrorist let's just face it seems to be separate categories for. and then there's other terrorist wondering so i mean apparently the rules still apply whatever evidence that they may gain before they mirandized the suspect it will be innit. miscible 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 them up or you know how does it work that's what some people would like to do just you know take them off to a detainment 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 in this little 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 extract 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 for 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 spoken about our legal system

our justice system how it's something that works that needs to be upheld i mean is there something he did he never really needed or is there something about you know assuming this role as the commander in chief as 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 you know i think there is a little bit of the administration being worried about being seen perhaps as not taking a hard life position on any terrorism issues they're already facing a ton of criticism over the handling of the blunder handling most of today about the. trial in new york city as well as a variety of other charism issues you know that the patriot act they seem to support the continuance of the bush administration but again are they getting these criticisms from the right and i feel like they're just appeasing and every step of the way right thank you so much for joining us tonight and now when we return will unveil our tool of time warner for the evening please just relate.