it's on the. video in the middle. as is feeds now in the palm of your. question. whether or not you go through the room so i'd quite frankly don't know bin laden was then shot and killed he was not. so what exactly is the story behind of some of bin laden's killing we'll explore the foggy p.r. coming out of the white house and why officials may want to get on the same page about this. every year to send more troops to the conflict every year as we spend more money on the conflict the insurgency grows inside karzai as government gets weaker and the violence gets worse so why exactly is the u.s. still in afghanistan especially now that osama bin ladin is out of the picture. the

military targets these people because they aren't toeing the line they're not. they're not playing the game but they are just doing their jobs so why are journalists abroad getting killed at the hands of the u.s. military. that evening it's wednesday may fourth by five pm i'm laurin a stranger watching our t.v. now it's a fog of war or you may want to just call it the fog of p.r. the obama administration since announcing bin laden's death has flip flopped on the details first it was a firefight and an armed bin laden fought back listen to this he was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in and whether or not he got up in the rounds i quite frankly don't know. they later the white house

knew that an ounce bin laden wasn't armed at all they gave a different account take a look at a woman rather bin laden's wife rushed the u.s. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not to kill bin laden was then shot and killed he was not on that is just one inconsistency to come out in the last few days and now senior pakistani security officials say bin logons twelve year old daughter claims her dad was captured alive and is pakistani hideout and then shot by u.s. special forces now if this proves true it may give credence to questions critics are raising as to whether this killing was outside of the law to begin with but into this. the legal phrase for the forty minute event on sunday afternoon that resulted in the death of bin ladin is called an extrajudicial killing this means that a government killed someone who was not a soldier on a battlefield who did not pose an immediate threat to the freedom or security of any people that that government protects and the killing was not

a punishment ordered by a judge after a trial every western country except israel and the united states has condemned extrajudicial killings as all western countries including israel in the us have laws that make this criminal. now in addition earlier adam koch cache's host of the adam vs the man broadcast right here on our t.v. well he sat down for a one on one interview with republican presidential candidate ron paul and i asked him about earlier comments he made there with all this confusion coming out of the white house the government invites conspiracy theories here's what ron paul said. maybe maybe it's the sympathy i wanted and they can pop up on the answers they hey look you know we tricked into believing this is you have to believe something else but i think maybe it's more because governments like secrecy. they're not you know whether it's the federal reserve or our foreign policy just think how many times we've gone to war. distortion of the evidence you know and lie our way into war

whether it was world war with it was vietnam war or you know going into iraq i mean they have to you know deceive us. and then when the people distrust the government then any question government is called a conspiracy theory you know and they do that to say that oh you're nuts because you're a everything there is everything is a conspiracy but i think the best thing is you should only believe the conspiracies that are true now you can watch adam's full interview with a congressman and presidential candidate ron paul tonight on his show adam vs the man it seven pm which broadcast right here on our t.v. but let's backtrack let's talk about the byte house confusing message earlier i spoke with jason burma's he's a documentary filmmaker on those mixed messages coming from the administration and he told me that he doesn't believe that he can even trust the d.n.a. evidence that the u.s. claims to have proving bin laden is dead here's why. by the d.n.a.

evidence that the administration has we know that it was during the late seventies and early eighties was an open cia asset but we were posing against the soviets and working with the mujahideen from time change i mean he was fine for someone else then back in two thousand and one and it wasn't the guy had been in afghanistan against the soviets so it's a different time you can argue what would convince you when the photos convince you is that kind of what would be bound to conspiracy theory that ron paul says the white house invites with this confusion well the white house says that they have a live video feed so why can't the american public to get at least portions of that we haven't seen a video from this man in years in the videos that were put out or intended by many experts to be out right so again what can we believe from this criminal administration that did nothing to prosecute the war crimes of the previous administration has done nothing to get us out of these wars of aggression and now

only continued in the middle east and south africa with this libya situation so no i won't be buying a photograph in fact the press ran with an openly photoshop photograph it was so bad i'm a graphic designer myself i do a lot of my own graphics if i were to see it would take a lot from photographic evidence but actually when they face a massive room the head to prove that this isn't rod wood anything could be what it can would have video if you that convince you. or a video of a dead body would prove that he doesn't say that he was the sole person responsible for nine eleven let's not forget what a let's let's not get off topic here let's stay on topic let me ask you this let's making a video there was a video that was once used to paint a heroic story behind the rescue of jessica lynch during the iraq war it comes to mind here because back then the pentagon said she was taken prisoner held by vicious iraqi guards abused and then ultimately rescued valiantly by the rats but in reality later the story comes out the iraqi guards had fled there was no

resistance there was no valiant rescue do you see similar similarities here is this the death jessica lynch style fable in your eyes. absolutely just people in my same exact things happening what did i see that they have the story about was the front page of the new york post the washington prose the washington times everybody was going with this all-american won pretty girl who had the there you know the role of lead and now we're being accused by the evil of evil and it was it was absolutely ridiculous they even brought in jerry bruckheimer to stage her rescue in a hospital that had contacted them days earlier and said they had been treating her and just wanted to give her a go this was absolutely another one of those type of operation and i think we're going to see that come to light in the next weeks and months and i think the story is going to change and change again just like the jessica lynch situation and i would assume that following that logic you would also believe that the death of pat

tillman which was first said that he was killed in a patriotic fight against the enemy but then it turns out he was killed by friendly fire was covered up by the military i would assume you agree that that's a similar this is a similar situation with that if there. i would be. the only you don't have to play for months and years just to get that story on this route and again that was just conspiracy theory he was he was shot by the evil taliban and al qaida not his own man it did end up being fracture sites a lot of people don't understand that story or it's significant but it shows the line culture in our military industrial complex and one thing i want to ask about that because in both of those cases it did come out that the truth had been covered up or that the truth was not revealed at first it eventually came out and lies were told but it didn't really seem that anybody paid for those lies if the story of us on the bin laden continues to move further away from that dramatic tale that

president obama told sunday night in his speech this is an international case this was an international terrorist number one in the eyes of the u.s. will the u.s. pay and suffer any consequences if more inconsistency is come out in this case. or anything else and remember this isn't the united states of america we have full backing from most of the european nations military support from other nations around the world this is bigger than just united states government and their actions this is about localization and the globalists moving the tape over the area of your regime and put it under their control ok let me ask you about this because we heard just now politan earlier calling this an extrajudicial killing already we've heard news that osama bin laden's daughter is saying her dad was essentially executed this kind of gives credence to nepal the tone of the argument that this is an extrajudicial killing do you think that the white house is fumbling of the

message kind of makes claims like her more plausible more believable and ultimately undermine the u.s. account of things. i think it's going to get so many accounts right now it's going to be hard to get out of the hole fog of war but what i can say about this is that why haven't we had the trials why can't we bring the man in alive and put him in front of. a world court we did that with the nazis and that's who everybody's comparing osama to he was the next hitler we had to get him we had to kill him he didn't deserve a trial but we gave all those other about his trial and we put that in the public record we're not even going to do that with police shaikh mohammad and his cronies after they've been waterboarding hundreds of times and that's how they got the confession that i know they're going to be dilatory tribunal also so why doesn't the public see the transparency of what these evil men have done the lady with that question that was documentary filmmaker jason governments now while the united

states is touting the killing of osama bin ladin as justice served and talk arises if a turning point in the war on terror as a result archie correspondent marina foreign i ask what difference this will really make in the war on the ground going on right now in afghanistan. now i know that half years on the war in afghanistan has grown visibly worse while u.s. rhetoric surrounding it has consistently gone in search of we are making progress that is what has enabled us to make the progress that we have made i think it's possible that by the end of this year. since two thousand and three washington has repeatedly claimed turning points for a conflict that critics call a failing admire the reality is that things are still made that things are worse than they were this time last year every year they send more troops there every year as we spend more money on the conflict the insurgency grows in size cars

i government gets weaker and the violence gets worse nearly fifteen hundred u.s. soldiers and ten thousand afghan civilians have been killed in a war costing america two billion dollars per week meanwhile after assassinating a man it's been hunting since two thousand and one the united states has conducted an operation that killed osama bin laden i disconnect between what the us says and what the world sees may have the defining moments in war against al qaida the war on terrorism by decapitating the head of the snape effectively you have is aging sickly old man you really haven't done anything of real political significance for a long time and the great kind of triumph against evil that the western leaders are really kind of sucking the trumpets at the moment a bomb a bush before and so i found bin ladin this kind of symbol of evil following the nine eleven attacks he that's the more a creation of the west than he is

a real political kind of terrorist threats in himself u.s. officials branded bin laden's killing as a success and strategic blow to al qaeda and it is going to have i think very important reverberation. throughout the area on the other kind of network in that area i think you're going to see them start eating themselves from within more and more this as some see the u.s. turning and spinning fiction into fact in afghanistan itself it's not going to have that much of a role we're fighting taliban from the afghan taliban in afghanistan we're not fighting al qaeda you have a new generation of young radicals who have grown up watching these wars over the past ten years that are far more radical than their predecessors osama bin laden claimed responsibility for the nine eleven attacks that killed nearly three thousand people and devastated new york city nearly ten years later his death is

being reported as a victory for the u.s. war the war that america waged to get him still struggles to find a conclusion. artsy new york or a struggle to find some mark inclusions here with me to do just that and talk about what should happen with the afghan war strategy is jay cutler barito he's an afghan war veteran himself and now an outspoken critic of co-founder of veterans for rethink afghanistan thanks for being with us how do you think the united states should alter its course and afghanistan should they get out now because osama bin laden's dead it would be a good excuse to if they want to significantly draw down in july you know listen it's a critical question that we need to engage with right now basically we need to look at this in the short term and the long term i spoke with robert gibbs former press secretary the white house just just a few weeks ago he told me that he bets his last dollar that the president will begin to make serious troop withdrawals by the summer pressure by senate republican senator dick lugar as well as. population is opposed the war it looks like there

will be good through withdrawals by this by this summer and to some extent but that's not the important question ok really quickly before we get to that important question do you really buy that because we've on the same token those senators you mentioned and administration officials on the. other token you have hillary clinton coming out secretary of state saying the u.s. is still committed to afghanistan in the same way this is time to renew our efforts yesterday at the same hearing that senator lugar made those statements also the head of that committee as john kerry senator kerry said in his statements that the u.s. can't just pull out of afghanistan even the right people will be asking why right now so it seems like there's a very strong counter to those with those in this important to understand how the washington political circles work this it's a big circus it's a lot of political posturing but in terms of actually making serious serious policy decisions i would bet my last dollar that there will be some degree of withdrawal

by the summer we don't know whether it's one hundred troops or ten thousand or twenty thousand to the degree we don't know but there will be some withdrawals even if it's just political posturing because remember that's what they promised with the stick up there on their promise that's another problem not that bad and stopped this administration in the path of broken promises but you believe the withdrawal will be significant i no i don't i don't know i don't be significant but i think there will be some troop withdrawal notice some withdrawal but not significant but this is not the important question what is the important question important question or to the the important question is the long term what is the long term policy and what it what should the long term policy or the we should be the long term policy is bringing the insurgency into a negotiated settlement as tom pickering and myself and matthew hoh and everybody else has this involved in this on a serious level has advised for the needs of the insurgency brought to the table the need to be some sort of political reconciliation and a strategic drawdown to leave somewhere between in my opinion seventeen to nineteen

thousand troops to train and mentor the afghan army and government but i don't think is what's going to happen i think my sources tell me that there is serious negotiations being made right now with the karzai government to leave somewhere between seventy five and eighty thousand and seventy five thousand eighty thousand troops. for another seventy five years as sort of a strategic military arms agreement is one of the could possibly be considered that right now is the most favored this is the not the right policy so you don't believe there will be a political reconciliation one thing that would require i would imagine if the united states to negotiate with the taliban right with people it now considers an uneven terrorists right you don't think the u.s. will do that would ever do that no i don't know and one of the one of the tough problems is because the insurgency that rests inside of pakistan i know many people don't really understand it because there's basically seven different major aspects of the insurgency and they all have different political cultural regional interests with an insurgency can't deal with them science singlehandedly and you also can't

deal with afghanistan singlehandedly good for instance the the violence that's occurring in helmand has nothing to do with the kabul government it has everything to do with heroin ok that's that's really interesting the multifaceted nature of war and you thirteen afghanistan so i want to know when you were there did you feel that you were fighting an enemy or building a better afghanistan right what is your sense of your own well i when i was here when i was there it was in two thousand and one so it was it was a totally different game it was i was also in iraq in two thousand and three so again what's taking place now and was then is totally different but let me explain why when i was there nine months ago what exactly i observed when i was with the u.s. troops i was with the afghans i met with former taliban leaders and met with with afghan officials as well part of the karzai administration basically what we see is a stand off cultural civil war amongst rural people in the south and the urban elites inside of kabul there are people inside of kabul the karzai government is stealing american dollars they are building corruption and building

a big mansions and the people in the rural areas are basically farmers who are getting anything or any services provided from the government and it's because of that the insurgency is fueling and growing ok i want to go back to that is taking a civil war i want to backtrack a little bit and get the history to. about a situation one last question which is back after the soviets pulled out of afghanistan someone that was a leader that they had been fighting against fighting opposition with in afghanistan during that soviet occupation later during the ninety's the soviets got together and were fighting with against people like osama bin laden right warning to a reporter to cover this during that era and was there on the ground right so essentially the enemies of my enemies or my friends kind of mentality and it worked together there didn't seem to be a lot of animosity do you think that the united states would ever do that in pulling out of afghanistan and begin working with people that it once perceived to be an enemy in you know short and projecting a better future for everybody right let me let me make it quick to make it simple

the situation was going on with the soviets the one nine hundred eighty s. up until one thousand nine hundred two was a significantly different we're dealing with today was trying to run a communist dictatorship that was supported through the academic systems ok today what's going on is there is a there is an attempt i'm not saying it's very good but there's an attempt to bring democracy to afghanistan and that's not why the united states isn't in afghanistan let's make that clear we're not there to bring human rights nuts or stuff that's a good idea but really we're there because we're afraid we're there trying to figure out what's taking place inside of pakistan and india that is the big double that's the big government of dust so. understanding that you really have to look at second place of pakistan not look at what's taking place in kabul that's the wrong place to look so i hope that that makes things clear it's about pakistan it's about nuclear weapons out of pakistan has nothing to do with afghanistan so yes or no

question in dealing with the threats that the u.s. may perceive in pakistan would it work with element that it now considers to be terrorists and afghanistan it has to the united states has and has to deal with the corruption inside iowa side that the corruptions of the military with it have. to bring these pieces together in order to fix the situation so will the united states be talking and cooperating with militants yes all right all right i have to leave it at that i was r.t. blogger and co-founder of veterans for rethink afghanistan jake della barito now moving forward yesterday we brought you the story of numerous journalists who've been arrested at the hands of the u.s. government today we take the story further and look into several deaths that have occurred journalists who are not killed because they're caught in the crossfire but because they were targeted by u.s. forces r.t. correspondent we're stand for that how has that story. and i could say it was the latest back to the shots from ground the world brought to the world by which he and

millions watched in horror as the pilots here treated the cause as a game. among those killed in this july two thousand and seven clash to reuters employees talk referred to near north and his assistant and driver . and even someone who will stay on the ground. looking for an excuse to kill. but this is far from an isolated incident since the war with iraq and afghanistan started more than three hundred journalists have been killed many by the actions of u.s. forces as the war continues to rage this is british journalist terry lloyd a veteran correspondent with britain's independent television news fifteen hundred iraqi prisoners of war he was wounded in the crossfire of a battle in basra iraq then put in a makeshift ambulance by iraqis an investigation revealed that u.s. forces then shot at the vehicle hitting lloyd in the head and killing him the

following month on april eighth two thousand and three u.s. forces targeted three media outlets in iraq first abu dhabi television. al-jazeera his office in baghdad you can see the bombs being dropped here correspondent tariq i you. was killed in the middle of a live report and this is the palestine hotel. where nearly all journalists from around the world worked a u.s. army tank intentionally fired into the building killing reuters cameraman thrust forward through and jose couso of tell a single spanish television in all of these incidents u.s. forces behind the tactics were let off the hook the rules of engagement often cited as the reason family has continued to press for justice their hope renewed with the release of this document on wiki leaks a transcript written by a former us ambassador saying quote well we are careful to show our respect for the

tragic death of kosovo and for the independence of the spanish judicial system behind the scenes we have fought tooth and nail to make the charges disappear in addition to being killed that many journalists have been arrested by u.s. forces simply for doing their job bringing the details of war to the public many have had their materials confiscated some have been interrogated and others tamed indefinitely bhangra airbase a detention facility called by some the guantanamo bay of afghanistan became home to a job with a correspondent for canada's c.t.v. for eleven months he was later released without charge for al-jazeera correspondent sami al-haj as it was six years ago when tony mowbray his crime crossing the border from pakistan into afghanistan he too was released without charge it's clear that the u.s. military targets these people because they aren't toeing the line they're not.

they're not playing the game journalist dave lindorff says it's been a common pattern for u.s. authorities especially when international journalists report on subjects like election corruption or talk to the taliban as well as u.s. forces they're so used to these people being just. still not prefers that whatever they say that when a reporter goes and goes what american reporters used to do go out and really get the story which includes getting the other side they see them as the enemy they rest their stories not often told messages often lost in translation in a world where the fight for democracy can sometimes lead to it's a radical. christine for zero r.t. . joining me now for more is danny schechter he's a filmmaker and blogger also former c.n.n. pretty there jenny thanks for joining us from new york right there i want to ask you you know one of the issues that that reporter brought up is that the united

states is not always or often or nearly as are held culpable for some of these killings because of the rules of engagement i'm curious in the reverse if these were american journalists being killed if this would be by other countries if this would be the same case do you think. well i think there would be a lot more indignation you know in the american media if american journalists were killed overseas by other governments but you know in this particular case for example the palestine hotel which i covered in my film weapons of mass deception reuters the news agency pressed for a full investigation they were rebuffed by the united states government they want to know what happened to their journalists and nobody would get back to them so they alone stood up other news organizations did not show and she american government on these issues even when they're journalists were harassed or were not allowed to do their job so you know the embedding was a form of muzzling also integrating journalists into the narrative that the united

states wanted to put forward you'll notice that no journalists were embedded with seal four six zero which took out osama bin laden yeah they certainly weren't i want to compare it though to daniel pearl the american journalist who was murdered and you know later a day really pressed to find his killers here with any scale or with ultimately our british national of pakistani origin who was killed or for killing pearl so that was the case of an american journalist and there was a lot of attention paid to getting justice in that case so is there a double standard. well i don't know if that's true actually learned because the person that was charged or accused in this particular case was sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out by pakistani officials he himself was very tied into the i.s.i. in pakistan and this was one of the frustrations of the pearl family that no

justice was ever you know delivered and then khalid sheikh mohammad claim credit for this although it's not clear what his role is in that whole connection it's not really been fully investigated as far as i know either but is. it an excuse my mess happened the issue of the double standard at the bigger question here is that one. i'm sure there is you know you know we sort of quote take care of our own or we think we do and in many cases the american journalists are totally frustrated too by their inability to do their job because they're being managed by a pentagon bureaucracy that's interested in prague perception management managing the audience's perception and therefore either allowing or not allowing journalists to do their job thoroughly it's not exactly a very free environment to cover this war and many times journalists who applied to

serve with units or want to cover things if they're presumed to be critical don't get the job but don't get the access and get it do you think that at though i just want to know you know if this was an american journalist that was being killed in another country there would be a more of a push for just our culpability being held by those country. well you know we've seen as the american journalist killed in libya i mean united states is involved and military action against libya and the case of the journalists was sort of a one day story and kind of forgotten and this is you know a problem that's why we have organizations like reporters without borders and the committee to protect journalists are trying to keep alive the claims of the need to protect journalists who are covering these very dangerous conflicts and that was danny and i was going to check their filmmaker and blog are weighing in with that i want to make it so much danny that's going to do it for now for more on the stories we covered that are teed up usa.