oh. big. bank. robbery so. so. welcome the lower show we'll get the real headlines with none of the mercy for me live in washington d.c. now and i will take a closer look at the expanding creeping war on terror although enemy number one has been killed we'll tell you how the u.s. military agenda is in fact growing to possibly wage war on the world and then are we taking a cue from the classic novel nineteen eighty-four after a capitol hill hearing on privacy revealed that the government really wants less of that privacy many people are concerned with the tone coming from officials so is

this the first sign of a total surveillance state then a new poll shows that more than half of americans think it's time for our troops fighting abroad in afghanistan to come home but in order for that to happen we'll have to get a few lawmakers to agree to it so it's and i will determine the likelihood of seeing an end to our war in afghanistan with congressman dennis kucinich and then are the koch brothers infiltrating the university system we'll tell you how they're working with one college to make sure the professors who teach their economic philosophy are working with their children and well as if that's the end of academic freedom all these stories on our course are wednesday dose of happy hour on tonight's show but first let's move on to our top story. is the u.s. congress about to declare war on the world that's what many experts and groups like the a.c.l.u. are saying as congress firms up its fiscal two thousand and twelve defense built one measure republicans are trying to slip it is an update of the authorization for the use of military force or the aid you have that it was passed three days after

the attacks on september eleventh and gave the president authorization to use all necessary and appropriate force against those involved in the nine eleven attacks the problem is ten years later after the killing of osama bin laden the world is running out. perpetrators directly involved with nine eleven so what some love lawmakers out there are calling for is dropping the reference to nine eleven and affirming a state of armed conflict with al qaeda the taliban and associated forces keyword there so what would the replications be of this creeping war on terror joining me to discuss this from our studio in new york is scott horton contributing editor on legal and national security matters for harper's magazine scott thanks so much for joining us tonight now from everything that i've been reading and researching here at this just seems like a mind boggling absolutely crazy insane expansion of this war on terror and let's go back to those words that i mentioned right it's taliban al qaeda and

associated forces that's very broad it's very vague is that essentially you know if this went through and if it passed without allow us to go after anyone that we that we felt like. yeah maybe it's a war against the bad guys whoever they are undefined but in this goes to the core of a sort of ideological struggle between the obama administration and the republicans that goes back to upright some time i remember in the bush era we had a global war on terror gee what that was going on all over the world and against groups that were not really very clearly defined and obama during this campaign and after he became president insisted that this really wasn't a very smart way to go about fighting a war that was better to clearly define who you're in the knees were and to try to isolate them to split off other groups are just the opposite of the republican

strategy and here we see the republicans coming in through the back door trying to push this expansion expansionist agenda let's just take one clear cut example of what it might mean pakistan afghanistan of course we have in a situation right now we know that pakistani intelligence as i discussed with you before has tight relations with a number of terrorist groups the terrorist groups operating in kashmir for instance or lashkar e tayyiba which targets india and staged a big raid against mumbai no suggestion that these terrorist groups have any designs on the united states or view the united states with hostility but there probably is a basis to link them to the taliban and al qaida so under this revised version of the authorization for the use of military for force. and the kashmiri groups could be enemies and could be targeted as part of an expanded agenda this is terrorism

creep. but you know to be fair here you say this is a very clear difference between the bush administration line of thinking and the obama administration line of thinking and matter what obama may have said during campaign season we have to look at the obama administration's actions so far thus far he has greatly expanded the role of the executive branch he's placed american citizens on assassination lists he in fact tried to take out. in yemen the other week with a drone strike and he has also create to yemen to pakistan to places where we don't have this declared war we haven't necessarily made our guidelines very clear and it's interesting because the obama administration hasn't yet taken a stance or they haven't been public of what they think of this use of authorization of military force being expanded so do you really think that they would be opposed to it or are they just trying to back off of that nobody can point fingers at them so they don't have to publicly say yes i think they're completely

gone the issue i mean i think it just in terms of ideology and warfare they think it's not a smart move on the other v.m. the bottom line of this measure is to expand the authority and power of the presidency and i think there are a lot of people around barack obama you say to me again now you would think that after getting osama bin laden after looking at the two wars that we're fighting in now and not including of course the shadow wars that i just mentioned we would take a step back and we would look at our reaction to the attack on nine eleven instead of just immediately pass through legislation to just keep broadening this whole thing but somehow our lawmakers aren't willing to do that they just want to keep broadening the whole thing without taking a step back and looking at what this country has turned into so we'll have it. so i think i think in the lead in you were appointed to public opinion poll out

there and it were the point right now when there couldn't be a larger gap between public opinion which believes that essentially we've come to the end of the road with the afghanistan conflict the death of bin laden marks the end and the majority in congress especially the republicans in the house who want to push back against that and want to actually try to expand the war but i think we're going to be seeing in the next few months. much more substantial political push within congress and in the public generally to wind up the conflict in afghanistan and i think that this authorization of military force also is an example of that as i am precedented and anything like this and you know tell me if you agree with the statement made by certain a.c.l.u. representatives that this is essentially waging war on the world this is congress declaring war on the world is anything like i just been slipped into

a defense budget bill before that's a big deal. no it should obviously i think they're correct saying it needs to be debated and discussed on its own merits and not allowed to hide inside the defense budget bill but it's a problem because back to the original authorization for the use of military force which is basically the for ever war there's very very little definition in terms either of who the enemies are what the space of the war is or the amount of time it's going to take so it's wide open and i think there are a lot of people not just in the civil liberties community who are very troubled by that i mean certainly this is different from the historical approach which is focused on a clearly defined clearly identified in the me. i troubled and and rightly still we're going to get into more of that on our show tonight because i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight great to be with you. let's go to

chicago illinois it's one of the largest cities in the country and it's also the home to them presidential candidate barack obama but these days the city holds another title for the most surveyance cameras in the united states r.t.s. this year sure thing that determines what this level of surveillance means for the future of our privacy. welcome to chicago the most watched city in the u.s. all school blue lights cameras to cameras with speed of the our technical capabilities watchful lenses fill the streets in what has been dubbed operation virtual shield thousands of public and privately owned security cameras have been put in place and linked together creating a capsule of surveillance over the entire city more extensive than anywhere else in the united states the number is estimated at up to ten thousand the networks cost around sixty million dollars officials say it's worth the price of privacy concerns are at a peak for much one hundred security cameras located throughout the city are said

to be powerful enough to be able to zoom in to a text of a book or even a text message this is the age a thirty seven page report from a renowned civil rights group and a.c.l.u. calls the network pervasive and unregulated things like heroes have shown up on the internet you know the cameras have been pointed being used in a particular way to women or to engage in some other sort of intrusive activity. to many to these watch over chicago was reminiscent of a very dark chapter in its history when the red squad special police units spied on citizens and. hundreds and. hundreds of thousands of. person a member of the united states constitution from the one nine hundred twenty s. to the one nine hundred seventy s. communists civil rights groups anti-war movements and many more were tracked just shaffner socialist found. victims of the units back in the sixty's i was around red

square out of high schools not much has changed says j. just the techniques used are different in the one nine hundred sixty s. . undercover f.b.i. agents red squad agents that acted as agent provocateur were or not just spying on participants in. political movements. today with the use of technology you can. do the same thing with our direct involvement of undercover police operatives i believe the whole framework of iranians to journalists in what keil the concept of privacy in the us is long gone we've become inured to this sort of surveillance attitude bad law enforcement has taken so many says chicago increasingly resembles the chilling and tell you to be a described in george orwell's legendary novel one nine hundred eighty four. where

every word action and even thought was monitored by big brother disobedience. and. the only thing is missing a microphone that advise us on how to live our lives while the structure of surveillance grows so do the fears of americans it gets me out i don't like it when you fully appreciate the scale of what is being put in place in chicago and then imagine a. more repressive city government or more repressive regime it could be incredibly interesting. christian was an artist arrested for selling one dollar prints on the streets he filmed his arrest and as a result class one felony one step below attempted murder. and that's fifteen years that's up to fifteen years in the state prison this is totally crazy as officials cower to record people's movements expands the power of the people to do this thing

is being squashed when they hook all these things up and are able to follow people all around the city and at the same calendar calling us that we can't even gather the information we need to go to court where represents a thorough and complete police state another worry a taboo one questioning surveillance methods post nine eleven. orientation. and a terrorist concerns. trumped any other value so there's not even a discussion leaving many wondering if the means designed to fight external terrorists could end up terrorizing the people at home of the notion that you are a city by police presence as is flawed as it is globally with the military presence it's not the problem and it doesn't address the problem it doesn't make us safer caught in the cameras i mean ricans are beginning to question its real focus and wonder how to shutter their privacy and space to churkin r.t. chicago illinois. these days our surveillance state isn't only growing because of

the government but also thanks to the tech giants out there the rule the internet they make those smartphones that we're also addicted to and one of the most recent disclosures came weeks ago when researchers reported that i phones and droids traktor every location and story material so in what seemed like a step in the right direction a congressional hearing was held by fishel he titled protecting mobile privacy your smartphones tablets cell phones and your privacy i think that the hearing itself seemed to turn for the worse when jason weinstein from the d.o.j. called for new laws that would require mobile providers to collect and store information about their customers have been less privacy out of hearing about privacy this really does not look like a good sign so your discuss this with me is julian sanchez a research fellow at the cato institute thanks so much for being here tonight. starters i don't know if that is that ironic is that just tragic already hearing

about privacy and then hearing you know this official who says we want less of it it's. not very surprising though in fact one see also testified in a month or two ago. at a previous hearing that was about data retention. from justice and law enforcement really would like to use the law to require not just phone companies but all sorts of electronic communications providers to retain more and more data because they find it so useful but are now becoming frustrated because not all. phone companies keep the same amount of data for the same amount of time and it's actually an interesting kind of way of doing a little weird end run around the fourth amendment because the doesn't protect in the same way information that is stored by a third party like a telecom so they have this kind of clever two step they couldn't get these information from you directly without a full blown search warrant but they can say well first a third party has to collect it and i want some third party has collected it your

fourth amendment privacy interests. anish and then they can get it with process i think you're seeing isn't the f.t.c. advocating for the exact opposite saying that companies shouldn't be forced to store any of this data and we have two government agencies here essentially going head to head and yeah there you go in there was again yet another hearing they do a lot of them here. a few weeks ago about reforms to the electronic ignition communications privacy act is a badly badly outdated statute that governs how long gets information from the phone companies and you had testimony from can carry john kerry's your brother the commerce department and james baker from the heart of justice and you saw a really kind of radical disconnect between those two it's a testimony you saw kerry acknowledging kind of consistent with the commerce department interested in forcing stripper consumer privacy rules but was badly outdated it didn't really protect you very well you know to that speculations of privacy people actually have when they when they use these services and the d.o.j.

saying oh everything's fine as it is because they like being going because they want their job to be made easier i guess right personal reason they think that they have a right to access all of our information when conversing it should be the opposite right we should have a right to our privacy to keep that information away from them so let's just really quickly break down what they're asking for now compared to what they already demand or how much information a lot of telecoms out there already collect on us i mean so part of the problem here i will admit is that is that in general these companies are not back transparent about how much data base of. the things that i transfer with that so they're not transparent with the government and that is part of the problem is that we don't know how much data is being kept about us you know this became a big controversy after those researchers revealed the i phone stores in a way all this location data that's been kind of an open secret among that forensics people for quite a while but it's really only when i think they released that piece of software.

that lets you you know plug your phone in and see this detailed map of your of your movements stretching back for a year which you know might have been cool but it was sort of striking evidence of how much tracking is being done that people got excited about it when if you think about it you know i mean this is information that you're you know whether or not you have an i phone that a.t.m. tea or horizon also has about you and that you know in previous years was not necessarily stored indefinitely any kind of details way but as the data storage gets cheaper and cheaper and sell carriers find ways to use that location information to improve their own networks which is the same motivating him t.j. with. you know it's more and more the case that there are other more you have there's an essentially we should really be worried about and not i guess when it comes to not not that i phones or not apple necessarily but more of these telecoms who of course can ask them to help them spy on things too that may cover all that because they want to ruin business for them as was disclosed in an interesting

document received by the a.c.l.u. lately but just a quick question did our phil or google have anything to say for themselves when they were at this hearing well they gave some. ambiguous interesting will they were saying is that the store this information in an anonymised aggregated way that is not intended to individually track people but just for sort of their own maintenance purposes yeah well even if that's true of course there's anonymization and i want to station you know what information theory researchers of have. found and you know through through inquiries and on the last couple years that nominally anonymized data is very often pretty easy to identify if you have i not enough other databases so you have the right tools that perhaps law enforcement has at their disposal then is there any kind of ray of light here in maine are there at least some members of congress that are introducing good bills that might be protecting our privacy senator senator ron wyden is actually already in for good. i

mean look asian privacy act which we establish uniform standards and this is again not covering why private entities keep but rather what law enforcement must do to get it law is actually phenomenally unclear about exactly what the standard is supposed to be to get location information from a telecom provider or another kind of electronic communication service provider and so that's actually given an enormous amount of discretion to with law enforcement on the department of justice to essentially make up interesting new theories about what the legal standard might be and essentially shop around until they find and i just judge who is willing to buy your theory i also this is something that i found interesting too is that. one of the schumer requested that apple and google remove all of those apps that they have to tell people where police checkpoints might be because i actually heard i don't know that that makes the streets are dangerous or something don't actually put out a lot of this information ahead of time in terms of warning people where the

checkpoints are going to be often they do in california in fact i think the courts have found that as a sort of fourth amendment requirement that they announce in advance you know roughly where they're going to set up these checkpoints so it's not a kind of surprising security service to apple and google or help putting out information that's already out there available to the public also you know i mean i don't want to anger senator schumer but if you search dui checkpoint on twitter you will find people saying i just saw a checkpoint at this point you don't even ask for that that's just of the most you there's really effectively no way to stop people from speaking about things that b. c it's not like the existence of these things is secret so the idea that cracking down on this is somehow going to prevent people from speaking about what about the government wants to do it right they don't want you to be able to film police ever if they're arresting you yet they can tell me everywhere that they feel like doing it right we just showed a picture of a story from chicago which is now the city in the country that has the most cameras observing it watching you at all times and yet it really is. so it seems so wrong

that you can't turn the tables and you know monitor law enforcement for your own purposes as well i want to ask you to i know that the patriot act united spoken about this many times obviously there are those three provisions that were extended for three months and now that's coming up this month in order to have to vote for it again what science are you getting from congress in terms of what direction it's going to go are more people pushing for this permanent extension. was it jim jim sensenbrenner the judiciary committee chair has introduced a bill that would permanently reauthorize the lone wolf provision and give a six year extension to the other elements that are going to expire someone disappointingly even the of the other scientists offering that moderately john conyers just introduced a bill that would make some of the same kind of a vacation is that senator patrick leahy has proposed that would be centrally make changes to parts of the law that courts have already decided are unconstitutional codified some practices that have to do with internal oversight and there's

a shit innocent people's data but the truth is there's really not a lot of signs that we are going to see a significant change and it's badly needed we also just have. the latest report on these are national security letters obama has broken bush's record it's very impressive for the most americans citizens and permanent residents whose records were seized pursuant to national security letters which interestingly he pledged to end in the campaign so he's is also susceptible to change wow looks like we're just full of all kinds of good news there and that means that the f.b.i. wants more data collection from where we are on our cell phones that more patriot act surveillance state there you go julie i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight it was a pleasure did you located your i think you're. now a deal made back in two thousand and eight is now in the spotlight after two disgruntled professors from the public florida state university wrote an op ed to

cry. deal made between the university's economics department and the now infamous koch brothers it turns out that charles pledged one point five million dollars for positions in the university's economics department but on the condition that his representatives get to screen and sign off on any new hires for a new program that promotes political economy and free enterprise now the foundation can also withdraw its funding they're not happy with the faculty's choice or the hires don't meet objectives set by charles koch an annual evaluations is causing outrage in academic circles and rightly so you'd like to think that academic freedom was the last bastion where money wasn't the can this be stopped or is it the future of academic funding and hiring earlier from our studio in los angeles i caught up with an experience of the young turks university and considering that money rules politics these days through a lobbying think tank campaign spending i first asked that universities that at least maintain

a bit of freedom from those outside influence in their faculties. up until now i think that universities have been able to practice academic freedom but you know as you mentioned in your intro that academic freedom is now going to be controlled because billionaires like the koch brothers have realized that it's a system that can be bought and the reason why can be bought and i really want people to focus on this is because it's a vicious cycle the koch brothers electric public and politicians that are ready and willing to cut funding to these universities so then what happens to the universities they become desperate for funding they need donors in order to function who are their donors the koch brothers ok the koch brothers offered this money with a contract saying that if they do take the money if the universities do take the money they have to agree to hiring the type of professors and the type of staff that the koch brothers agree with you know economics professors that are in favor

of deregulate. professors are willing to in dr. willing to spread their type of propaganda or their type of beliefs to the students that will really indoctrinate them i was going to say he go ahead and say call it indoctrination if he was but the thing is here with her talking about florida state university is it's a public university and i think of this is something that maybe people would have except maybe would have expected from a private university although we do have to point out that yale in the past has turned down twenty dollars because the donor put the exact same type of restrictions on it and they said no way that goes against you know our principles of academic freedom but so what does that mean if our public universities now are are willing to accept this kind of money does that mean that there's not enough federal funds going there. well there aren't enough federal funds going there that's why students are feeling the pressure of their tuition going up that's why a lot of professors are getting fired and programs are getting cut these universities these public universities are really feeling desperate right now when

it comes to funds and i think with the florida state university system you know they're experiencing the cut in funds and they don't know what to do and they have these billionaires that are willing to donate millions of dollars to them. and they feel the pressure to take it and you know part of me feels like you can't blame them they're desperate but you know i really really want to give credit to yale for sticking to their principles and saying no we're definitely not going to take these donations under this type of contract it goes against our principles i really wish that the florida state university system would do the same but i know that they're desperate and i know that they need funds by the way david rasmussen who is the dean of the social studies college for f.s.u. he's defending the fact that they took the one point five million dollars he's saying that you know it helps them to keep professors it helps them to continue

doing what they're doing it their school system and if it wasn't for the one point five million dollars that the charles koch foundation donated to them they wouldn't be able to you know keep their economics department up and running how dangerous do you think that is when you allow that type of political influence to slip into academia right i mean you could say that these days the way that we have a corporate funded media perhaps getting your news from a corporate funded media isn't exactly the news we should be getting but that it is that necessarily is that better or is that maybe even worse than you know getting your lessons in college from a professor that has a agenda that's being funded by someone. this is beyond dangerous ok not only is our media our mainstream media not only our. politicians bod but now it turns out that slowly but surely our university system will also be bought ok so what you get is the corporate side of things ok we don't have representatives who are

representing the people we have representatives that are representing billionaires and the same thing is going to happen with our school systems we can't hire people at universities based on what the billionaires in this country locks ok we can't have people brainwash our students to believe whatever it is that they want to believe whether it's deregulation whether it's conservative ideals or beliefs and by the way i just want to say that i would believe the same thing if i found out that some liberal organization was paying f.s.u. money to hire professors that they like ok we're supposed to live in a democracy that's supposed to be representative of the people right now that democracy is being undermined by billionaires who are savvy and crafty enough to know that they can buy whatever they want and so yeah if you think that there is any way to actually stop this or we does have to depend on certain universities like yale the example that we spoke about earlier to have a conscience. there is a way to stop it it's called.