on the alone a show where you get the real headlines with none of them or see me live in washington d.c. now today will ask what is going on between the u.s. and pakistan and nato chopper opened fire on pakistani troops and a five percent prime minister said that china is their dearest bestest friend so is this an indicator that u.s. relations with pakistan have completely gone down the drain that it's a magical world where all of the information on the internet is factually correct

that's an idea that former president bill clinton wants to make a reality by setting up a government agency to do it we'll see if this might be his worst idea to date that his supreme court made a surprising ruling the police can ensure your home without a warrant if they smell marijuana and if they hear of you destroying that evidence so should we be concerned that justice is now given that kind of power to local law enforcement and more importantly is this the end of the fourth amendment as we know it then us manufacturing isn't just a thing of the past we'll take a look at how the era of american industries die and will determine what it will take to bring it back all those stories plus happy hour on tonight's show but first let's move on to our top story. now if you thought the relations between the u.s. and pakistan could only move up after the osama bin laden raid then think again this a day after senator john kerry made a trip to his law about to mend ties and negotiated for the tale of the stealth

copter to be given back to the u.s. a firefight broke out between nato and the pakistani military now the details are still fuzzy with a nato helicopter which many say have crossed into pakistan's territory opened fire on a pakistani army post killing two pakistani soldiers meanwhile over in china back stabbing prime minister. in line excuse me described china as their best and most trusted friend so are things only getting worse and obvious seeing a cold war type standoff emerge here to discuss this with me is jim hansen retired special operations master sergeant and military blogger for black. jim thanks so much for being here tonight so what do you think is really going on here you know like i said after the osama bin laden raid it seemed like things really had soured especially after the raymond davis case to the lowest point that they could get but now are we going to be we're already frenemies but it's becoming more of an adversarial relationship now with this man wanting to say that china is their best friend we now have more concerns about pakistan's nuclear weapons you know what's

going on there i think do the best for him five billion dollars a year could buy i don't think you can buy friends and that's the problem i mean people talk about pakistan like it's a coherent entity there are different factions within the pakistani government they're different from the pakistani military and within their intel services all of which are competing against each other and all of which like to play against the middle so everybody's trying to get their cash are really looking at our best interests so i don't think it's a real change but it is definitely heading downhill all out of the satchels of cash actually right now between the u.s. state department and pakistan the state department is it wanting to pay back certain loans because it turns out that pakistan was using american money for choppers that the u.n. is supposed to cover i mean it's really becoming an incredibly messy situation but if we look at china specifically china does there the top weapons tired of pakistan they now have huge trade deals between the two countries but the best friend kind

of statement i mean can a country like china and pakistan can be to be best friends i mean i don't think you can china's biggest worry with pakistan is an unstable pakistan they've got a border and they have muslims on their western border with pakistan the last thing they need is the same thing afghanistan has which is safe havens in pakistan for the folks who want to break away from china. their western provinces so they really don't want pakistan to go downhill and given a choice they'd rather we pay the freight than they do so the idea of china taking over as the banker and supporter of pakistan going to happen and china interesting also saying that they completely support the fight against against terrorism with pakistan but not throwing the us into that window but how important is it that we've got at least that stealth copter tailback because a lot of people were afraid after that we know that china expressed interest in it in the days after the raid so it was that a big victory for john kerry if there was any victory in his trip i mean if john kerry is where he is on a diplomatic mission the best we can hope for is he doesn't see anything done to

make us a new enemy they were going to give us that back where they were going to have bigger problems you know that having another visit from not a big deal and we also of course firefly all the details are now between nato and pakistani the pakistani military there so we aren't supposed to cross over into pakistani territory this is something that actually happened in october as well and after that we saw massive protests in pakistan we even saw them shut down our supply route into afghanistan do you think that it's going to go that far again i think it absolutely will i mean that's there's two things that happen first the pakistanis can shut it down themselves which they don't or the pakistani until services can just go to insurgents and let them blow up the takers you know they're going to us any number of times we don't publicize how much we actually lose you know all of the gear and supplies that we send through pakistan to the insurgents and to sabotage it's not a good thing so we get some of it through and they use that against the so that will happen again and there are going to be more border skirmishes probably more

likely as they jockey for position and they obviously don't publicize that to congress who's approving the funding for our wars abroad either or the american people but that's why you know i think it's really interesting now that we talked about their report saying that the obama administration has been in negotiations with the taliban apparently for months now they've been happening in germany they've been happening in. tarr for starters do we hope that this time they actually have a real taliban member and not her who is an imposter and has a really big man that you know is it was a mistake those who want as you mentioned for probably more than a year all right what obama wants is he wants a deal with whatever taliban he can peel off so that he's got a way to start make that strategy cards i want the same thing he wants it could be his taliban and the pakistani it intil services want to be there taliban so they've been picking up guys like mullah omar who's number two and letting them know what their bargaining lines should be and i think the idea that there's going to be some sort of a deal in the next year is pretty likely as you think of that's actually a better way for the u.s. to go about which first of all we have always publicly stated what the obama

administration at least was stating that they refuse to negotiate with the taliban meanwhile we find out that's been going on for about the last year but is that a better way to get around having to deal with pakistan or with karzai both of whom have proven to be difficult partners to say the least you know absolutely i think the second that we got involved with by our own leaders as opposed to brokering deals through karzai we're better off you know i don't know that it's the best answer but anybody who says they've got a great answer for afghanistan is a fool but then are we trying to buy taliban leaders as well as us the exact same strategy i mean it's the most common way for in that area to be subtle is you either beat the guy down or you buy him off and we're doing a combination of both we've beat some of them down and in some areas helmand province and other areas we've actually run the taliban mostly out of town but in the areas where we haven't when we can find some who are at least amenable to not attacking the federal or the national government directly or us then i think that's

what we're going to do. that's the best answer there's no good answer that's for sure but i'm definitely here just to see how public they're going to make those disclosures and especially now they're waiting for president obama to make an announcement of troop withdrawal which the truth but you're always supposed to begin in july now he's not making an announcement a lie it seems like that deadline might. pushed back you know it looks very flexible legit thanks so much for being here tonight. now still to come tonight former president bill clinton says that all information on the internet needs to be factually correct sounds like kind of a big demand story you know explaining how he wants to make that happen and then the supreme court has ruled that if a police officer smells marijuana they can break in your home without a warrant so is this the end of the fourth amendment as we know it will discuss it after the first. week.

repairing a broken leg. construction and humanitarian aid. causes shady officials look at the spoils of war it's the people who pay the price. profiteering here is no longer just a drug trafficking. afghanistan the dollars. per

. download the official policy on placation. called touch from the i.q. sounds to. life. video on demand g.'s mine comes and says feed now in the palm of your. question. today violence is once again flared up. these are the images. from the streets of canada. today please her.

emission free printing free. for chargers free. arrangement

free risk free. free. will and free lunch a slim video for your media project a free media and on to our teeth dot com. page on our own here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the make a choice. so the very same time that obama was promising a review new changes in america he was using those exact same state secrets excuses

which he claims he thought were abused their human rights groups then urged these men to take their case to the supreme court to challenge the obama administration's continuous use of the state secrets line is a privilege but what are you calling for that case to be heard before the supreme court they run into yet another state secrets while in fact u.s. solicitor general neal argued in court papers the government's interest in national security must be deemed paramount to the interests of private litigants in pursuing civil actions so in other words protecting national security is a much bigger priority for the government than an individual's personal rights and that's where the problem lies even though we'll never know what these state secrets are we're willing to throw away individual liberty in their name just another example of obama invoking the exact same principles arguments used by the bush administration all while pretending to be different now i'm going to take a quick moment to explain why this is so infuriating not only has obama sided with

bush era tactics but he's encouraging the highest level of justice in our country to dismiss instances where people sustain torture when clearly the government knows how to keep any defense contractors on their side just throw out any case that involves them but the most disappointing part as if the supreme court went along with it you would think that the highest court in this country which is supposed to be completely independent of politics would uphold justice over two administrations in a completely stomped on it but if the supreme court justices won't even stand up to the executive branch is anyone else a little bit scared about the rule of law in our government's willingness to throw it out and when it comes to putting defense before individual liberty this is just more blatant evidence that obama stands firmly on the side of defense so while obama promised voters that he was against the use of extraordinary rendition of of torture. throwing out our constitution for the war on terror turns out it's much easier for him to simply ignore the pleas from people who were victims of what he claimed he was so very much against so like i said everyone turns

a blind eye because that's the easier thing to do why don't we start doing the right thing. and how's this for an idea former us president bill clinton thinks that an internet agency needs to be created by the us government or the united nations to fix all of the rumors and all the misinformation we can spread online he said this in an interview that set to air friday on c n b c and according to clinton it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand so that you know it doesn't look like censorship it also would have to be totally transparent about where its funding came from and finally clinton said it would quote be like i don't know and p.r. b.b.c. or something like that except for it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors and also have to have citations so they could

be checked in case they made a mistake does this sound like a bad idea or what do i need to discuss it is aaron swartz executive director of demand progress dot org and thanks so much for joining us tonight first starters i mean come on it's a little funny right that bill clinton is the one that's actually proposing this do you think he's kind of bitter about all the stories that are out there about all of a sexual escapades that he's had all of in his life. you know i mean there's not a lot of equipment but it is pretty surprisingly propose a ministry of truth. but i think it for common. sense which is there's all this disagreement on the internet we need to get back to the old fashioned way where we said what was true and that was the end of the story. i mean it can you also think about you know he wants to make this a government agency or something that's run by the u.n. but also wants it to look independent do you know any government agencies or any international organizations that anyone really looks on as truly independent

there's always somebody who has to be funding those agencies right. yeah i mean i think that's what's so great about the internet is you don't rely on one person to be perfect or independent or totally told the truth instead the truth comes out of this process of disagreement and debate you know people are able to weigh in on all sides of the issues and it's just what makes the internet so exciting and so i think people who suggest all we need to tamp down on just one person decide what the answers are kind of missing the whole point you know the reason the internet works is because of the competitive marketplace of ideas and that's how you get the truth for i have a you know sort of top down model of someone saying ok we've decided this is the end of story i'm just wondering you know let's say that they did put some kind of a and c. like this in a place where that be you know that i think that would be a big danger to journalism to the first amendment in general you know is that the government then is going to go around and start censoring every little story that's put out there and what about opinion what about satire what about classified

government documents that an organization like ricky leaks might put out there are they just going to somehow suck them off the internet is that even possible. but also i mean this is all totally impractical you know google has a hard enough time making it so you can just search the internet and the idea that there would be some huge international agency that would read through all these articles and decide which ones were true and which ones were it wasn't of research in this is just ridiculous i mean i know we have a serious unemployment problem in this country but i don't think the government is about ready to invest in turning everyone in a fraction. but i just wonder you know like you mentioned there is a larger problem at hand here which is that there are a lot of politicians out there they do want to rein in the internet and we see these bills being proposed all the time do you think you know how long is the internet going to stay the way it is now how long can it really maintain itself and continue to be this free marketplace of ideas but i think it's up for us to fight for them in progress the almost four hundred thousand people who so much for joining us to keep the internet three but it's

a constant struggle because as you say politicians want to tear down on that they want to be in control they don't like the idea that there's a wild west that they can't regulate but it's the power of the internet that makes us able to organize and play back against us and so far we've been urged to keep it free we've got to keep. the cloud last is no longer the wild west i mean give me an honest assessment how possible do you think it is for the internet to stay the way it is let's say think three years from now what's it going to look like. you know i mean it's really hard to say i think the major advantage we have is that it's the technology keeps innovating you know if even faster than the regulations train we have new technologies like peer to peer like toral and it tore at all of these things that allowed us to keep talking for free you know and i imagine if the government starts cracking down technology innovators will start ramping up you know we're going to start seeing things like wireless networks that are not of the control of biggest user things like that to ensure that we have an internet that no one person can check and. i think we also have to examine what seems like

a bit of hypocrisy here we have bill clinton wanting to create a internet fact checking body that regulates everything at the same time his wife hillary clinton who is the secretary of state is you know has been working on a free and open internet initiative when it comes to the rest of the world when it comes to you know that allowing suppressed uncensored thoughts to prevail in other countries. yeah i mean it's part of this whole duality the u.s. government in hillary clinton's office in particular on the one hand the state department has to cried wiki leaks and people publishing things on the internet or taken steps to get them taken off. and one of the biggest funders of internet promotion and this notion that the internet will bring democracy to all these regions suffering from censorship and government control i think it's part of the. local officials that oh look it's ok we do it you know what other countries censor the internet that's a big problem but when the u.s. government does it since we're so noble you know our intent is always for the best

there is no problem. do you think that bill clinton made a full in every hasn't been released yet but i think he may have made a gaffe here too because he was asked about waking leaks and asked about the diplomatic cables that were released specifically and he kind of said oh it's fine i think will recover from all the information that came out i mean that wasn't information that was you know that was true information that wasn't some kind of a lie that was put on the internet these are actual diplomatic cables if he thinks that all of that can be forgiven what's the point in fact checking. yeah i mean i think it's funny how different priorities are held by the different agencies i think most americans agree it's really important to have this information out there and that what we need to be focusing on is getting more information about our government more accessibility more discussion more debate but instead it seems like the congress is focused on the shutting things down you know campaign down increasing restrictions and making sure that people can only say approved things or fact check that is that. i def i think that's going to be

a battle that we will be watching for a long time for years to come aaron thanks so much for joining us tonight. plagues . the supreme court may have just destroyed the fourth amendment in eight to one ruling the court held that police can enter her home without a warrant if they smell marijuana and if when knocking on the door they hear what sounds like the destruction of evidence now according to justice alito who wrote the majority opinion if they break into your house it's your own fault you know that the defendant in this case coming from kentucky could have used his constitutional rights by not responding to the knocking he could have come to the door and declined to let the officers in without a warrant but apparently by making sounds that sounded like the destruction of evidence maybe something like flushing the toilets and the defendant created an accident circumstance where the police just had to come in and alone dissenting opinion on this court justice ginsburg posed the perfect question how secure do our

homes remain if police armed with no warrant can pound on doors at will and on hearing sound indicative of things moving forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity and i was wondering the exact same thing joining me to discuss this is erin houston executive director of students for sensible track policy erin thanks so much for being here tonight thanks for having me i think this supreme court ruling is personally just the most ludicrous thing i have ever heard of or seen in my life what's your take i mean do you think a fourth amendment really has just been crushed to nothing after this well this certainly is viscerally it's or seems to have this rates of what we thought were meeting force member protections certainly those of us who are concerned with civil liberties have seen the erosion concerning erosion of civil civil liberties particularly the bill of rights over the last decade or so and this seems to affirm that i think what this case was borne of was discrepancies between certain circuits i think the circuit had a different standard than other circuits did but you point up an interesting point

here and so did justice ginsburg the fact that simply moving around inside the house would suggest to police officers that evidence is. destroyed interestingly during the oral arguments in this case justice kennedy asked the solicitor arguing for the government whether smoking marijuana would count as destroying evidence of course because of the earlier supreme court case that actually does not count as destroying evidence but that's an interesting one i wonder what police that are right on the spot would have to say about that but you know i think that you know the greater is an obvious danger here because who knows what the smell of marijuana is to certain police and they could probably expand upon that i think those are powers that could be of use who knows what kind of sound actually sounds like they're destroying of this evidence mean how many times have we seen even when it comes to you know other laws or other rulings police that constantly use this big language to then abuse their power well that's exactly right and that's exactly the problem in my organization students for some simple drug policy is really organized around the idea that the war on drugs is

a war on us and that we shouldn't be sugar coating this or candy coating at that really it's a war on people it's a war on us and really all of us are drug users if you use caffeine if you use adderall if you use advil you're a drug user and and we are we exist to have an honest conversation about these about drug drugs and drug use one of those pieces of honest conversation that we tried to have is the fact that the war on drugs has been used as a bludgeon against people of color and poor people and of course what we see is the police using the excuse of drugs to search places or to search vehicles or persons we see in new york city for example a disturbing trend that half of all marijuana arrests in new york city are black and latino youth they're young people under eighteen black and latino or half of all marijuana so that's amazing and that's and that's that's an exact example of the police using a search capability that they have lawfully actually exposed people into criminal

activity or criminal infringement now it's also worth noting that really since the beginning since the census. eleventh and since congress has reaction in september eleventh we saw a huge lot of federal funding coming supposedly for terrorism but a lot of that money went to drugs and a lot of that money ended up going to municipalities to fight supposedly fight drug abuse because what we know is that not every community in america has terrorists but pretty much every community in america has drugs and people with drug problems and so what's happened is a lot of this supposed terrorism funding has actually gone to people getting their doors kicked in for minor amounts of drugs just like in this case let's talk about that you know you bring up the terrorism you know it's not even about i think just the war on drugs it's about anytime that our government chooses to declare war on anything for some reason we use the term war so loosely i mean you could make drugs a public health issue instead it's become a war and constant the way that we've seen it you know with the war on terror we've

also seen now with the war on drugs civil liberties constantly being eroded so do you think that you are somehow incompatible i mean if we're constantly waging war on something is there any way for civil liberties to be maintained so i don't think so i think that's a good point and i think also we can look at what this house wrought what our efforts and all the blood and treasure we've spent and wasted in this war in iraq and we see that it's far from success in fact it's the exact opposite we've only made the problem worse and this is as we approach on june seventeenth the fortieth anniversary of nixon declaring the war on drugs and again for some superb policy we say the war on drugs is a war on us and that's really how we're organized to spread that message to let people know that nixon's war should should end it's been far too long for too much blood and treasure spent you know i always find it interesting too because i think if you look at our supreme court right now you could say that it's a fairly conservative line especially the way that many of the rulings have been going but it's always the conservative ideology within our government to claims to

be strict constitutionalists and talks about wanting government out of their private lives. and yet when it comes to cases like this then you know it sure if you smell something and if you hear something just barge right in go ahead potts how do we put the two together well i think this is probably more an instance of the supreme court justices being in an ivory tower and not actually being out in the real world for much i don't think they have the real world experience to actually see how these cases must play out when a cop is standing at somebodies doorstep but i think you bring up a good point and i would point out there that i think the tea party movement and some of the conservatives strict constructionists constitutionalist i really started moving the republican party in a direction where they're going to have to talk about these issues honestly and the republican presidential candidates by the way are going to have to answer during this primary cycle of course they're the only ones up and we're going to be really out there. and it's really going to have to answer to the tea party people whether

they would come in and let their department just bully around states that decide to do their own thing because that's why different think that we need to hear more of that debate and i hope that the five years you actually aaron thanks so much for joining me tonight but i guess in the future if cops are knocking on your door don't move don't make a sound or or they're barging in thank you thank you. now still to come tonight couple of fox news host to blame the media for donald trump i think in the presidential race. and we often hear pundits declare that u.s. manufacturing decline is not really the case looking at the internet.