can they loan a show where you'll get the real headlines with none of them are safe for live in washington d.c. now tonight we'll 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 reveal that the government really wants less of that privacy when people are concerned with the tone coming from officials so is

this the first sign of a total surveillance state that 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 i have to get a few lawmakers to agree to it first so tonight 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 there i can amik philosophy are working with your 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 the fence built one measure of publicans are trying to slip it is an update of the authorization for the use of military force or the. it was passed three days after the attacks on

september eleventh and he 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 of perpetrators directly involved with nine eleven so would some lot of 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 for quite some time 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 mes 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 but let's just take one clear cut example of what it might mean pakistan afghanistan of course we have an acute 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 it targets india and staged a big raid against mumbai no suggestion that these terrorist groups had 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 fours rushed r e tayyiba 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

that this is a very clear difference between the bush administration line of thinking and the obama administration line of thinking no matter what a violin may have said during a campaign season we have to look at the obama administration's actions so far that's 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 is also creep to give in to pakistan to places where we don't have this declared war we don't have a 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 the nobody can point fingers at them so they don't have to publicly say yes i think they're complete

good on 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 hand 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 who 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 attacks 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 what happened. well i think i think in the lead in you were appointed to a 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 that 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 well i think that at this authorization of military force also as an example of that i found president to have had anything like this and you know tell me he 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 that goes 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 a me. all right troubled and and rightly so over going to get into more of that in our show tonight scott 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 then presidential candidate barack obama but these days the city holds another title for the most surveyance cameras in the united states r.t.s. you know determines what this level of surveillance means for the future of our privacy. welcome to chicago the most watched city in the u.s. from all blue lights cameras to cameras with state of the our technical capabilities watchful lenses through 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 twelve 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 of thirty seven page report from a renowned civil rights group the a.c.l.u. calls the network pervasive and unregulated things like here most have shown up on the internet you know the cameras have been pointed been used in a particular way you know to women or to engage in some other sort of intrusive activity took a car drove to many today's watch over chicago was reminiscent of a very dark chapter in its history when the red squad special police units why don't citizens and rescue. hundreds and. hundreds of thousands of. direct. personal moment to 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 g. schaffner socialist felt. victims of the units back in the sixty's i was riding

around by the roads as a high school student 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 germs that act as agent provocateur or not just spying and participate in. political movements today with the use of technology you can. do the same thing without the director of undercover police operatives i believe the whole framework of your role is to journalist saleem what keil the concept of privacy in the us is long gone and become inured to this sort of the surveillance added to the bad law enforcement has taken some 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 a rather disobedient state. and. the only thing that's missing are the microphones that advise us on how to live our lives while the structure of surveillance grows so do the fears of americans who feel they 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 oppressive regime it could be incredibly interesting. kristie was an artist arrested for selling one dollar prints on the streets he filmed his arrest and as a result class won for only one step the role of come to murder and that's fifteen years that's up to fifteen years in the state prison this is totally crazy as officials power to record people's movements expand. 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 telling us that we can't even gather the information we need to go to court well represents a thorough and complete police state another worry a taboo on questioning surveillance methods post nine eleven. orientation. and a terrorist concerns trump any other value so there's not even a discussion leaving many wondering if the means designed to fight external terrors could end up terrorizing the people at home but the notion that you act by police presence is. with military presence it's not the problem and it doesn't address the problem because it 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 especially if you're going to 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 were also addicted and one of the most recent disclosures came weeks ago when researchers reported that i phones and droids traktor every location and story that material so in what seemed like a step in the right direction a congressional hearing was held i patiently titled protecting mobile privacy your smartphones tablets cell phones and your privacy i kept hearing felf theme 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 as in less privacy i do 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 joint thanks so much for being here tonight thank you for starters i don't know if that is that ironic is that just tragic already hearing about privacy and then here it comes you know this official who

says we want less of it. not very surprising though in fact when she also testified a month or two ago. at a previous hearing that was about data retention. problem justice and law enforcement really would like to use laws 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. 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 and run around the for the money because it 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 you know mr this information from you directly without a full blown search warrant but they can say well first of third party has to collect it and that was the third parties has collected it your fourth amendment privacy interests. and then they can get it with lesser process i think you're

seeing his in the f.c.c. advocating for the exact opposite saying that companies shouldn't be forced to store any of this data and we have q government agencies you're essentially going head to head 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 one gets information from the phone companies and you had testimony from cameron kerry was drunk there is your brother the commerce department and james baker from the department 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 stricter consumer privacy rules but was badly outdated it didn't really protect a very well you know the expectations of privacy people actually have when they when they use these services and the d.o.j. saying no no everything's fine as it is because they like being going to run

because they want their job to be made easier i guess right first i reasoned 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 they have you know the thing about i should start 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 kind of an open secret among that of forensics people for quite a while but it's really only when i think the released piece of software. that lets

you 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 such a 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 eighteen t. or horizon also has about you and that you know in previous years was not necessarily stored indefinitely any kind of detailed way but as data storage gets cheaper and cheaper and so carriers find ways to use that location information to improve their own networks which is the same motivating and he gave. you know it's more and more the case that there are other minorities have there's an essentially we should really be worried about and not i guess when it comes to not not i phones or not apple necessarily got more of this telecoms who of course asked them to help them spy on things too and they cover all of that because they don't want to ruin business for them as disclosed and if you think documents received by the a.c.l.u.

lately but just a quick question did apple 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 they 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 say sion you know what information and theory researchers have. found in you know through through inquiries they've been down the last couple years is that nominally anonymized data is very often pretty easy to identify if you have not enough other databases so you have the right tools that perhaps law enforcement has at their disposal but is there any kind of ray of light here and i mean are there at least some members of congress that are introducing bills that might be protecting our privacy senator senator ron wyden is actually already in for do. i

think it's called the location privacy act which we establish uniform standards and this is again not covering why private entities key 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 enormous discretion to with law enforcement and 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 that judge who is willing to buy your theory i also this is something that i found interesting to you is that. some 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 that might actually hurt i don't know that that makes the streets more 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 doing it 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 that apple and google are help putting out information that's already out there available to the public also i mean i hate to i mean i don't want to anger senator schumer but if you search and you are checkpoint on twitter you will find people saying i just saw a checkpoint at this point you don't mean for that that's just of the most you know i mean there's really effectively no way to stop people from speaking about thing is that they see it's not like the existence of these things is secret so the idea that cracking down on apps is somehow going to prevent people from speaking 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 get they can film you 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 a lot can 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 speaking 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 getting from congress in terms of what direction it's going to go are more people pushing for this permanent extension. 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 or the other signs and offering them moderately john conyers just introduced a bill that would make some of the sting from modification is that senator patrick leahy has proposed that would you know essentially make changes to parts of the law that courts have already decided are unconstitutional tata fi some practices that have to do with internal oversight and i'm going to say should 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 and 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 so she's arresting lee he pledged to end it in the campaign so he's is also susceptible to change well 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 and more patriot act surveillance state there you go julie i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight it was a pleasure biggio located here thank you. now a deal made back in two thousand and eight is now in the spotlight after to just run full professors from a public florida state university wrote an op ed to cry. good 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 if they're not happy with the faculty's choice or if 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 the academic freedom was the last bastion where money wasn't so can this be stopped or is that 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 lobbying campaign spending. that universities at least maintain a bit of freedom from those outside influence and 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 it can be bought and i really want people to focus on this is because it's a vicious cycle the koch brothers elect republican 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 that 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 that are willing to in dr. willing to spread

their type of propaganda or their type of beliefs to the students it will really indoctrinate them i was going to say he go ahead and say call it indoctrination if the wife of the thing is here with her talking about florida state university is it's a public university 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 cutting 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 oh 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 say 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 in 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 you should be getting then 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 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 want 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 but 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 if there's any way to actually stop those or we just 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 accountability and.