the. how can they load a show at the real headlines with none of them or say if you 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 been so we'll look into the issue with the reasons jacob sullum of the death of al qaeda leaders also raising questions about the u.s. relationship with pakistan was pakistan complicit are they incompetent and at the

end of the day do we have no other option except for to be allies and 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 when 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 mit 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 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 surveillance 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 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 more removed from the front. 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 late but not killed in nod and was then shot and killed he was not on. now aside from the obvious questions surrounding the lack of visual proof of bin laden's death the obama administration is still having trouble explaining why it was that he was killed rather than captured the wife as

a human shield theory has been flown out the window now that we know that bin laden also was unarmed 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 will obama have ever even planned it to be you and me to discuss it as you saw him saying your other reason magazine and reason to 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 governments 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. oh i'll give you

credit for being genuinely confused and 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 is a member of al qaeda or supported al qaeda is a legitimate military target is an only combatant and that means that they can be killed at all or just based on the president say 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 we're not supposed to kill somebody after he's been incapacitated or captured so it is important legally whether in fact be 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 the 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 of whether or not it was legal but how will we ever really know. i'm not sure we're going to have a nasty doubt especially in years on the perceptions of the seals from reading the hours because it was not so much whether he actually resisted corey showed any violence at all but will be feared that there will be violence if that's a legitimate reason for shooting him and you could argue that it is then we are not going to know what went on inside a very near exit so according to that standard the shooting might very well been i mean that is it is an interesting question as to whether it would he said you know try to take him alive or whether he ordered state kill i mean that's an interesting question because it raises this whole issue of targeted 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 they're presents more of a risk bystanders that would be more legitimate because you drop bombs on military targets all right but if you have the guy in your sights there's no room with them so no shooting him on sight is less legitimate that is the way the law is it's a little bit. but you know that's the authority that obama has claimed you can drop a bomb in anybody anywhere close and as an enemy i'm happy you brought it 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 you know and then a result in massive civilian casualties but you can't go inside and assassinate one foreign leader or one terrorist group leader you know inside of a compound. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense more than you can see the reason why you want to shoot people who surround you disprove them that's a practical concern and in terms of the reality of it it's certainly seems worse to to actually kill

a whole bunch of people who are in the area but it is to kill one particular person . in terms of being on assassinations of public officials which obama agrees the storm force and so to the bush administration but doesn't really make any sense morally it means you can't kill gadhafi for example on purpose by accident would be ok if you drove like they did over the weekend in fact right before this raid on bin laden's house the nato forces bombed of a residence recently so it's also a command post and they killed several of. battle of course was quite a very much it was an accident and they need to insist that they do not intend to kill him or she is also somebody who's got a lot of innocent blood on his hands and morally would say you know what you can kill bin ladin by grabbing your conduct but somehow it's different because one guy claims to run a country that makes it different i don't think it makes a good morally under the law there is a difference and 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 that are 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 was 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 always not really going to get you know either will kill him or his people will kill him so there's never going to be a problem so that suggests that he never really seriously intended to 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 we should also done but not emphasized he was

a bomber was saying he was going to change that policy as it was under bush and it was an exercise a cruel justice system more but actually what is under the care of being is he's been killing people or him for taking them into custody because once you're in custody then they're a little suspect review process rights but up until that point you can kill them at will the result of that seems to have been that he's actually increased the number of targeted killings not seems to be has been that he's increased the number of targeted killings. even though supposedly he was going to take a more enlightened 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 laden then captured or brought to us 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 had 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 taken and i thank you very much for

joining us tonight. now coming up a closer look at the real status on the war in afghanistan from lawmakers are questioning how much pakistan knew about bin laden's whereabouts let's take a closer look at the relationship between the u.s. and its suppose that allied to the war on terror or maalik will join me to hash it all out is facebook really just a spying machine or tell you who made that claim and i will look into the way of the social media mega site could be a great tool for u.s. intelligence services. and the far right. i think. we haven't got the case to be safe get ready for freedom.

hey guys welcome to show and tell on the obama show we've heard are just stuff to say on the topic now i want to hear our audience just go on to you tube the video response or to twitter first part of a question that we've posted on you tube every monday and on thursday the show is gone the sponsors leave. the.

you know somebody should see the story and it seems so poorly pleat you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some of the part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry it's a big shock. many are saying of the death of bin ladin 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 artie's bring a portnoy of things 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 it was unable to make the progress that we had made and i think it's possible that by the end of this year he will have. since two thousand and three washington has repeatedly per cleaned turning points for a conflict that critics call failing but the reality is that things are still mean that things are worse than they were. every year we send more troops every year as we spend more money and the insurgency grows and size karzai government gets weaker and the bios 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 sasson aiding the man it's been hunting since two thousand and one the united states has conducted an operation that killed osama bin laden by 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 war on 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 kind of starting to trumpet at the moment. before him turns into this kind of symbol of evil following the nine eleven attacks he is actually more creation of the west than he is you know a real political kind of terrorist threats in himself u.s. officials branded good lodgings killing as a success as a strategic blow to al qaeda but it is going to have i think very important. throughout the area on the al qaeda network in that area and 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 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 ladin 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. while the war that america waged to get him still struggles to find a conclusion. r.t. new york. oh there's at least one thing that's become pain staking really clear after the death of osama bin laden if that no one can really decide what to think of pakistan despite billions in aid given by the u.s.

despite 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 sized compound 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 the bin laden was there cia director leon panetta said that they're either involved or incompetent and so far has been seems to be favoring the incompetence option members of congress are already discussing suspending one point five billion dollars in annual systems to pakistan but will these two countries were forced to work together and yet never understand each other to be front and as we say joining me to discuss this is head of moloch fellow at the u.s. joint special operations university either 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 pot about in this mansion size 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 that does that sound fishy to you. yes or not not exactly fishy i mean in this book. i think a long one of the hardest man hand in the world and it wasn't just the pakistani intelligence agency it was also the cia result so you know european intelligence knew that he could find out i don't remember all the time you and thank you leaders coming on t.v. in two thousand or in saying he's including are going to be said no respond and they said and then they but by july or which is up in the north i mean if i was a sound and i knew that i'd cia and i.s.i. had assets in all the major cities like the hard core that's lubbock raji i mean

this is where osama lost a lot of his bodie days august carney i.s.i. closed six hundred our qaeda operatives they did catch a lie the brain behind the nine eleven attack you know came at them to shake my mind so i think we're being a little too talk on these guys but it is very very shocking that he was found in and i'm going to help you with this when you repeat after me act by. thank you very much. the first one you're the first one the first that i know because i got to know if you think we're being a little too hard on them i'm sorry if osama bin ladin was found 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 u.s. would get a lot of flak for that type of decision and so i just don't understand why you

would say that those 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 do sir you have to be very careful where they departed they deserve it where they deserve it when. they harbor and they give thank you to afghans out of are absolutely on the first person to be with you on that they have given sanctuary to the hawkeye network and these two terrorist organizations that's insurgent groups are killing our troops in afghanistan when it comes to al qaida 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 the pakistani military and frankly the pakistani government we've got it we need very clear everybody was there it's a big city they've got an administration has got a police board intelligence military everybody's trying to find a guy and then they find him two hundred yards away from the west point of course that boils down americans but it makes perfect sense around the world to criticize

but i'm just saying at the same time you have to see them in the context of the ten years we've begun good it's something bad and then they've also done something really ugly that and frankly we don't know all the other acts from the ground and unraveled we will find out that perhaps i if i try to redeem itself by working very closely since august of last year and provided critical you many times we don't know enough about that but i absolutely agree it is ludicrous that he was right there in this huge compound 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 or die said that he is going to set up a commission to investigate how it was some of the law did was there undetected but they don't want the u.s. to interfere with the commission that it's 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 him other people to help you with the investigation rather than a keep internal. i mean first of all let's be very clear president zardari it's a leader he had nothing to do with the military barely any control of the military or the iraq so i think this is going to be symbolic to begin with a mission of right and be interior ministry not in iraq were never involved in going after so he has no control over the military or the i think anything and a very real. military guys have to come out and you know right this was a huge intelligence but at least at least there would be somewhat credible and you are even talking about the next level or two and an international commission looking into it so yeah it's that 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 have senator dianne feinstein who's saying that pakistan especially still needs maybe not the military aid but humanitarian assistance well 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 critical security. funding an apparatus against their war against multiple insurgent the most notable pocket money part of the time we are bankrolling their budget only ten percent of the population. actually pays taxes there's very little buying in american taxpayers are paying a huge amount and then you see a huge intelligence lab so i understand the emotions of senator feinstein and bernie brann but you have to see that this is a country that we cannot afford to let fail i mean other words doctors can not become a failed nuclear weapons they have more than one hundred real clear warheads you don't want a country to break you don't want

a military so we're kind of stuck in where it's suicidal kind of a teenage kid with a drug problem we want to send him away and we're going to take that away but you know you've got to do it very carefully frenemies like i said i can't live with them can't live without them her i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight thank you. now enjoying the sun still founder of wiki leaks sat down with r.t. for an interview in london recently he and our correspondent laura i met folks about a lot of government transparency legal battles uprisings in the middle east and facebook that's right when asked about whether he thought uprising in the middle east for genuine or whether there was some room for manipulation in social networks i saw a child the following to say. facebook in particular is the most appalling spy wishing that has ever been invented here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people their relationships and names their interests and their

location and that communication is going to turn up their relatives all feelings within the united states all excessive world to u.s. intelligence facebook and google yahoo always making with organizations how bilstein perfect since thought u.s. intelligence. facebook is approaching seven hundred million users worldwide so yeah i would say that is the largest data base imaginable but how much pressure do they get from the u.s. intelligence services to hand over private information and are they even the worst offender here to discuss this with me is julian sanchez a research fellow at the cato institute thanks so much for being here tonight it was 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 your connected to is that the biggest known data base in the

world well i think actually i get a same take your take for that but we already knew they were a slime 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 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 we talk about things like google analytics that are built into lots of other pages and google ads that are tracking ip addresses that are serving and i think they may have principle the bigger reach but they're both 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 rise and they're just collecting without your knowledge usually 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 would and i

should watch him too but he's in generally through there before they go by and you know that he's right general through that right that was facebook most of the information that something was information that you were 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 story there i mean one of the things these four for example is i. this is that can be incredibly revealing can reveal when you access direct count and from where that 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 researchers are going to point out with a tween two thousand and seven and 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 law enforcement is 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 separate number than i do you have no idea how much pressure is being put on them because the thing i thought was interesting to facebook actually responded here and they said we don't respond to pressure response to compulsory legal process sees there's never been a time that we've been pressured to turn over data without really be possible if we really believe that here i believe that you and i do even spoken about. you know national security letters that come with a gag orders that we wouldn't even know if they got and approached well there including out as a legal process i'm technically also one of the legitimate legal processes includes them police coming to facebook and saying this is an emergency we don't have time for a legal process right now and the law creates an exception for cases like bad how can we. 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 they 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 has about you like you know photos where you're going to party or photos 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 they essentially just after a search of a judge that it's relevant to an investigation. in some way but that's where i guess you have to put a little strain 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 they're there that's here falls the last thing i want to bring up to is julian assange just said the facebook has an interface essentially that allows all intelligence services to access this information is that actually correct yeah i hate to disagree with a fellow julian but i don't believe that's the case facebook certainly has denied it and you can find on line if you want two thousand and ten edition of their

manual for law enforcement conceivable they have something separate allergies 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 the records that are sought there are other service providers that you 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 the space book claims facebook is one of the out well for all we know there are 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 thought of being spied on julia thank you so much for being here. now just ahead tonight what infamous defense contracting firm hired john ashcroft to be there i think the visor it's a nice tool time segments and then the justice department takes on medicinal marijuana laws across the country so why does the government on a one eighty on this contentious issue.