how can they alone show up at the real headlines with none of the mersey are going to live in washington d.c. now just days after the killing of osama bin laden the white house is struggling to get their details straight when it comes to this attack on top of that many are also questioning the legality of in-laws stats so we'll look into that issue with reasons jacob sullum them to death of all as leaders also raising questions about the u.s. relationship with pakistan as pakistan complicit are they incompetent and at the

end of the day do we have no other option except for to be allies then julian a son speaks out and this time he's talking about facebook so could the popular site really be the most valuable tool intelligence agencies can use and more importantly what facebook ever agree to share user information with the government then the department of justice seems to have done a complete one eighty when it comes to mint medicinal marijuana reports are saying that the government sent letters to state employees who run state legal medical marijuana facilities threatening them with prosecution so we'll find out what this change means for the future of the industry and grab a cocktail because we're celebrating happy hour artie's lauren lyster and lucy confidential join me to hash out all the details especially about the white house's decision against releasing pictures of bin laden's body and of course all of you a little bit of railing on sarah palin's idiocy as well but i have to wait until the end of the show right now let's move on to our top story. and the days since

osama bin laden's death was announced by president obama the rest of his team has had a little bit of trouble keeping all the details straight as in the story of how the raid went down keeps changing by the day if not even by every few hours. after a firefight they killed osama bin laden and took custody of his body here is bin laden who has been calling for these attacks living in this million dollar plus compound living in an area that is four removed from the front hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield in a room with bin laden a woman in law who's one of a woman rather bin laden's wife rushed the u.s. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed bin laden was then shot and killed he was not on. outside of the obvious questions surrounding the lack of visual proof of bin laden's death it was ministration is still having trouble explaining why it was that he was killed rather than capture the wife as

a human shield theory has been flown out the window now that we know that bin laden also was in art did they have to shoot and how much wiggle room did obama given orders to the navy seals as to what would constitute resistance targeted killing is surrounded by legal concerns both within the u.s. and internationally so was what happened at it would obama have ever even planned it to be you and me to discuss it is jacob sullum senior other reason magazine and reason dot com take a thanks so much for joining us tonight first starters let's just let's start with the fact that the story keeps changing all the time right i mean this is something that's come that's very typical of government and i guess in some respects you could have expected the story to change but if we know that obama had found out about this compound last august you thought that there would have been some type of a contingency plan that they would have started mapping this out that he would at least have sat down with the people in his administration to make sure that everybody has the same story so what do you think is going on. well i'll give you

credit for being genuinely confuse making making honest mistakes i think one of the important questions is whether they try to do this legally. but according to their view anybody who's a member of al qaeda. is a legitimate military target and only combatant and that means that they can be killed that well. just based on the president so i find that policy troubling but that's their interpretation of the law but even under that interpretation you're not supposed to kill somebody who's surrendering you're not supposed to kill somebody after he's been incapacitated or captured so it is important legally whether in fact they needed to kill him or he could have been taken alive whether he did resist and if he did resist how he resisted that's not there since he wasn't armed all of those are important questions in judging whether this was in fact legal but at this point do you think there's any chance they will actually get an answer whether we'll ever really know if we can even get a picture to prove that he's dead how we really know what happened in that room or

inside that compound to know whether he was resisting or not we now know that he was unarmed are as to you know what may have constituted resistance according to obama's orders i'm just wondering sure i think it's an important question that a lot of internationally to a lot of people are asking if whether or not it was legal but how will we ever really know. i'm not sure we're going to have it if you need nasa to that especially if it's news on the perceptions of the seals who were reading the hours if it was not so much whether he actually resisted henri showed any violence at all it will be feared that there would be violence without a legitimate reason for shooting him and you could argue that it is then we're not going to know what went on and so there are there at the time so acquitted asking the shooting might very well believe it i mean there is it is an interesting question as to whether their orders said you know try to take him alive or whether the order said kill i mean that's an interesting question because it raises this whole issue of probably killings and it's sort of odd actually that it is

considered more legitimate in a sense to drop a bomb on the guy's house which is something the obama considered even though that presents more of a risk you are asking others that would be more legitimate because you drop bombs on the looking at targets all of the right but if you have the guy in your sights in the same room with them so no shooting him on site is less legitimate that is the way the law is a little bit puzzling but you know that's the authority that i'm displaying you can drop a bomb in anybody anywhere if you don't close and as an enemy i'm happy you brought that up actually to how do we moralize a situation like that who came up with those rules to say that it's acceptable you know within the laws of war to drop bombs and. then of result in massive civilian casualties but you can't balance out and assassinate one foreign leader or a one terrorist kind of leader you know inside of a compound. it doesn't make a lot of sense morally and you can see the reason why you wouldn't want to shoot people whose regular would discourage them from surrendering that's a practical concern but in terms of the morality of it it certainly seems worse to

to actually kill a whole bunch of people who are in the area just to kill one particular person who are in terms of the ban on assassinations of public officials which obama agrees is still in force and so did the bush administration but does it really make any sense morally you know it means you can't kill khadafi for example on purpose by accident would be ok you know if you got like they did over the weekend in fact right before this raid on bin laden's house the nato forces bombed of a residence which they said was also a command post and they killed several of the screenshot. that were of course was quite a very much it was an accident and they may be insisting they did not intend to kill him or she is also somebody who's got a lot of is and quite understands and morally would say you know we didn't kill bin ladin by dropping a bomb on him what will conduct somehow is different because one guy claims to run a country that makes it different i don't think it makes it morally but under the law the reason it's i'm curious as to what you think and you already brought us brought up this question yourself as to whether the obama administration ever

actually wanted to capture osama bin laden or whether the plan all along was to kill him if we look back at some of obama's policies thus far since he's taken over it seems like there has been. a lot more effort to kill out in the field rather than have to detain anybody interrogate them deal with the legal mess that comes afterwards and even the cia director leon panetta said that the u.s. always assumed in some way that he probably would end up being killed so do you think that obama ever even thought of capturing him. well eric holder said pretty much the same thing he said when he was asked last year what happens if you capture the star he said oh he's not going to be dead you know either it will kill him or his people will kill him so it's never going to be a problem so that suggests that they don't really seriously until you capture him i think it's interesting that obama came into office promising that he was going to treat terrorism more as a criminal justice issue and bring suspected terrorists to trial in federal courts which is something that bush had also done but not in the so sense and instead he

was saying he was going to change the policy as it was under bush and he was going to emphasize a cruel justice system more but actually what is under the car being in use he's been killing people warm for taking them into custody because once they're in custody then their criminal suspects process rights well up until that point you can kill them will also lose all of that seems to have been it has actually increased the number of particles not seems to be has been that he's increased in the reported killings of bush even though supposedly he was going to take a more i'm going to approach that had respect for due process yeah definitely quite a change from the obama administration and you know personally i think i would have loved to have seen osama bin ladin then tattered brought to u.s. soil put on trial to me that would have felt as you know more of a sense of the fact that justice maybe in some respects has been achieved rather than just finding out that he was taken out and then buried at sea and i don't even get a chance to look at him and by the way the obama administration did announce today that they will not be releasing those pictures jake i want to thank you very much

for joining us tonight sure thanks. now coming up a closer look at the real status on the war in afghanistan from the mob makers are questioning how much pakistan knew about bin laden's whereabouts also a closer look at the relationship between the u.s. and its suppose an ally in the war on terror or maalik will join me to hash it all out is facebook really just a spying machine let's tell you who made that claim and we're looking to the way of the social media mega site could be a great tool for u.s. intelligence services. but then we head in the dark part of the world. i think. either one. will be the be safe get ready because the freedom.

hey guys welcome to show intel on the obama show which parts are just tough to say on the topic now i want to hear from our audience just go on to you tube the video response i want to twitter first part of the questions that we've posted on you tube every monday and on thursday the show long response is going to leave your voice.

you know some good to see a story that seems so poorly sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here's some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture. many are saying of the death of bin laden marks a major milestone for the war in afghanistan but once this initial celebre tory mood dies down are we really going to see a change in policy or just the continuation of a never ending struggle are very important i have finds out. nine and a half years on the war in afghanistan has grown visibly worse while u.s.

rhetoric surrounding it has consistently spun in circles we are making progress that is what does that leave us to make the progress that we have made and i think it's possible that by the end of this year a year. since two thousand and three washington has repeatedly proclaimed turning points for a conflict that critics call a failing quagmire the reality is that things are still made that things are worse than they were. every year we send more troops there every year as we spend more money on the insurgency grows in size karzai 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 the 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

u.s. says and what the world sees may have deepened a defining moment in the war against al qaeda the world and terrorism by decapitating the head of the snake effectively you have this aging sickly old man who really hasn'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 proud of something the trumpets of the moments. before him turned into this kind of symbol of evil following the nine eleven attacks he is actually 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. throughout the area on the kind of network you know the area and i think you can we just 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 powerband for 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. well the war that america waged to get him still struggles to find a conclusion. r.t. new york. well there's at least one thing that's become pain staking really clear after the death of osama bin laden it's the no one can really decide what to think of pakistan despite billions in aid given by the u.s.

this by a behind the scenes cooperation between the i.s.i. and the cia at the end of the day and by that i mean almost ten years later osama bin laden was found in a mansion size compound in abbottabad a small town that's home to pakistan's top military academy as well as a long list of retired military officers so how could they possibly not know that bin laden was there cia director leon panetta says that they're either involved or incompetent and so far pakistan seems to be favoring the incompetence option members of congress are already discussing suspending one point five billion dollars in annual assistance to pakistan but will these two countries were forced to work together and yet never understand each other to be front of these as we say joining me to discuss this is how to moloch fellow the u.s. joint special operations university at a thanks so much for joining us tonight. there's a lot to discuss here but let's start with the obvious clearly pakistanis are the top officials in pakistan are denying that they had any idea that bin laden

happened to be in a bar about in this mansion sized compound and they're saying this is according to the pakistani ambassador to the u.s. that he was either incompetence or over confidence of the security services but to me i don't know incompetence is seems like a very odd excuse to use especially for an intelligence service that is so proud of the work they do is it does that sound fishy to you. yeah not not exactly fishy i mean if. i didn't get along one of the hardest man and in the world and it wasn't just the pakistani intelligence agency it was also the cia results or you know you opinion intelligence they knew but he could find out i don't remember all the time you and dr army leaders coming on t.v. in two thousand war and saying he's in kumar's somebody said no response and they said to them then that by july or which is up in the north i mean if i was the sama and i knew that i'd be i and i i and at its in all the major cities like the hard

core bad luck rajiv i mean this is where osama lost a lot of his bodie gauge d'agostini i.s.i. caught close to six hundred archives are created they did catch a lie the brains behind the nine eleven attacks you know ok and sam khalid shaikh mohammad so i think we're being a little too tough on these guys but it is very very shocking that he wished pounding and i'm going to help you with this when you repeat that to me at the bod . thank you very much. the first one you're the first one the first one thank you for everybody the guys i got to not to think that we're being a little too hard on them i'm sorry if osama bin ladin was about you know five hundred feet away or half a mile away from the west point naval academy i don't really think people would be very easy on them i think that the us would get a lot of flak for that type of decision and so i just don't understand why you

would say that people are being a little too hard on pakistan i think this is a situation where they deserve a lot of critique. yeah i mean you know they deserve because you have to be very careful where they departed you deserve it where they deserve it when. they harbor and they give sanctuary to afghans are absolutely on the first person to agree with you on that they have given sanctuary to not going to work and these two terrorist organizations last insurgent groups are killing our troops in afghanistan when it comes to al qaeda it is a very mixed record i'm i'm not saying that any kind of incompetence or collusion or complacency on the i.s.i. or but i can find it again frankly a pakistani government we've got it we have to be very clear everybody was there it's a big city there's got an administration has got a police board intelligence military everybody's trying to find a guy and then the kind of two hundred yards away from the west point of course that boils down the americans but it makes perfect sense around the world to

criticize them but i just think at the same time you have to see them in the context of the ten years where they've done from done some bad and then they've also done something really ugly and frankly we don't know all the facts on the ground and unravel the refined out bad perhaps i might try to redeem itself by working very closely it's august of last year and provided critical human events we don't know enough about that but i absolutely agree it is ludicrous that he was right there in this huge comes out many million dollars you're definitely right we don't know all the details yet especially even if you look at the obama administration the fact that their story changes every day as well and the thing i do want to ask though is you know presidents are very said that he is going to set up a commission to investigate how it was just found a lot and was there undetected but they don't want the u.s. to interfere with a commission that is only going to be run by pakistan itself so if you're trying to

convince the world that you didn't actually know the guy was here when she wants a lot of people to help you with the investigation rather than keep internal. i mean first not all let's be clear president ari it's a race he had nothing to do with the military and barely any control of the military or the outside so i think this is going to be symbolic to begin with the mission of right and interior ministry not in iraq was never involved in going after so he had no control over the military or the i paid anything very in the pocket military right and you know why this was huge intelligent but at least at least that would be somewhat credible and when you're even talking about the next level we're to have an international commission looking into it so yeah it's bad let's quickly talk about what politicians are talking about here in the u.s. which is cutting off aid to pakistan of course not everybody's on board you know senator dianne feinstein is saying that pakistan especially still needs maybe not the military aid but humanitarian assistance how would that hurt pakistan if they

didn't get the one point five billion dollars they're supposed to get this year does any of that money ever trickle down or does it only say the top. not a lot of it trickles down but right now pakistan is running on life support we are providing them with a critical security. funding an apparatus against their war against multiple insurgent the most notable pocket money carbine we have bankrolling their budget only ten percent of the population and congress actually pays taxes there's very little buying in american taxpayers are paying a huge amount and then you see a huge intelligence lapse i understand the emotions of senator feinstein and bernie brann but you have to see that this is a country we cannot afford to let fail i mean other words talk it's time to not become a failed nuclear weapon state they have more than two hundred nuclear warheads you

don't want country to break you don't want to militate to splinter so we're kind of stuck in a room with suicidal panic a teenage kid with a drug problem we want to send him away and we're going to back down that way but you know you've got to do it very carefully well frenemies like i said i can't live with them can't live without them head i want to thank you very much for joining us and i thank you. now enjoying the sun still founder of wiki leaks sat down with r.t. for an interview in london recently when our correspondent laura i miss most about a lot of government transparency legal battles uprisings the middle east and facebook that's right when asked about whether he thought uprisings in the middle east are genuine or whether there was some room for manipulation and social networks santagati falling for say. facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people their relationships and names their

addresses their locations their communications minister their relatives all seen within the united states all acceptable to u.s. intelligence facebook google yahoo all the information he was organizations have built into things and fought u.s. intelligence. facebook is approaching seven hundred million users worldwide so yeah i would say that is the largest data base imaginable i don't much pressure do they get from the u.s. intelligence services to hand over private information and are they even the worst offender of this process with me is julian sanchez research fellow at the cato institute thanks so much for being here tonight it's always a pleasure first of all are you with me here right seven hundred million users worldwide these are pictures addresses names entire networks that you build depending on who your friends are and who are connected to you is that the biggest

known database in the world. i think actually i got to say may take the cake for that but we already knew they were a spy machine i think if you want to sort of think about the private entity that has the amount of data that if you thought about a government having it you would think gosh that must be a police state probably google you know would take the cake on that because they cross so many domains and because they're integrated in so many other and so many other web sites and pieces of software and we talk about things like google analytics that are built into lots of other pagers and google ads that are tracking ip addresses that are serving ads to i think they may have principles the bigger reach but they're both so in that sense they're even scarier than facebook because facebook you i guess voluntarily give up all of this information right you sign up to have an account in a profile and you write their what you want when it comes to google rice because then they're just collecting without your knowledge you know i think about i think about where they just about serial killers you know it's the quiet ones you gotta

watch i mean i guess if the guy is screaming and running he was and i should watch him too but it isn't generally true that before they get the idea that he's in a general through that facebook most of the information that's out there is information that you or someone else has put up there because you intend to share it at least among your friends and you want to certainly share with the government but at least you have some sense of what information there is there are some out of control over it you don't necessarily know everything that's stored there and one of the things they store for example is ip addy. this is that can be incredibly revealing and reveal when you access to recount and from where i can give people a sense of what your emotions are and that's information that can be stored in ways that change without your knowledge so security researcher chris they're going to point it out of the tween two thousand and seven in two thousand and eight. facebook changed their retention policy they used to keep your ip logs of where you log in from for thirty days and then they move to ninety days and you know unfortunately eager to take advantage of that information i think in two thousand and nine they told press that they were getting ten to twenty requests from law

enforcement a day and intelligence who knows that's usually a separate a separate number than i did lodge it's all going to have no idea how much pressure is being put on them because the thing i thought was interesting too is facebook actually responded here and they said we don't respond to pressure response to compulsory legal processes there's never been a time that we've been pressured to turn over data cannot really be possible if we really believe them here i believe that you and i have even spoken about. you know national security letters that come with gag orders that we wouldn't even know if the government approached facebook well they're including that as a legal process and technically also a lot of the legitimate legal process is includes them police coming to facebook and saying this is an emergency we don't have time for a legal process right now and a lot creates an exception for cases like that how can we get you know the truth is they are liable if they turn over information in a non-emergency situation without proper legal process the problem is that we have these extraordinarily outdated laws written basically in the eighty's that don't cover the way people actually use technology today so anything that's not basically

the content of a private message all the other kinds of information facebook as about you like you know photos where you're going to party or photo showing your associates are and where you may have been at a particular time that is not protected in the same way that's basically treated as facebook's records about you in effect and that means that the standard the legal standard to obtain that is actually incredibly low be essentially just up to a circular judge that it's relevant to an investigation. in some way but that's where i guess you have to put a little restraint on yourself and realize that there are certain things that are smart to do and certain things that are stupid to do because these days you know everyone goes on facebook if they want to find out who you are and if there are drunken photos then well there there that's your fault the last thing i want to bring up she was julian assange said the facebook has an interface essentially that allows all intelligence services to abscess this information is that factually correct yeah i hate to disagree with a fellow julian but i don't believe that's the case or peaceful certainly has denied it and you can find online if you want the two thousand and ten edition of

the or manual for law enforcement it's conceivable they have something separate for intelligence but as far as anything that's been leaked regarding their procedures is concerned you have to submit legal process to them by e-mail or fax or postal mail and then they return in p.d.f. form or his paper records that are sought there are other service providers that because the incredible volume of requests they get have been forced to create these kind of plug in spy interfaces for law enforcement as far as i'm aware and as far as we facebook claims facebook is the only one of them well for all we know that other people already catching on to that bad weather in time it's probably only a matter of time it's a scary thought because i love the internet but i guess they don't love the art of being spied on julie thank you so much for being here. now just ahead tonight to let into this defense contracting firm hired john ashcroft to be their ethics advisor find out tonight's tool time segment and then the justice department takes on medicinal marijuana laws across the country so why is the government down a one eight on this.