welcome the loner show with the real headlines with none of the mercy let me live out of 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 of pakistan's prime minister said that china is their dearest bestest friend so is this an indicator the 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 the 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 high 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 it us manufacturing is it just a thing of the past we'll take a look at how the era of american industry is dying 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 that relations between the u.s. and pakistan could only move up after the osama bin laden raid and think again there's a day after senator john kerry made a trip to islam about to mend ties and negotiated for the tale of the stealth copter to be. back to the u.s.

a firefight broke out between nato and the pakistani military and the details are still fuzzy but the 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 standing prime minister gilani excuse me describe china as their best and most trusted friend so are things only getting worse and are we seeing a cold war type standoff begin to emerge here to discuss this with me is jim hansen retired special operations master sergeant and military blogger for black dot net 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 fretting me but it's becoming more of an adversarial relationship now with pakistan wanting to say that china is that 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 them five billion dollars a year i don't think you can be 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. 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 circles of cache of them are really looking at our best interest so i don't think it's a real change but it is definitely heading downhill all out of the satchels of cash actually for just you right now between the u.s. state department and pakistan the state department isn't going 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 to stand they now have huge trade deals between the two countries but the best friend kind of statement i mean kick. like china and pakistan can be to be best friends as i mean

no i don't think they 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 on their western provinces so they really don't want 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 could happen and china interesting also saying that they completely support the fight against against terrorism with pakistan but not now throwing the us into that but how important is it that we got at least that stealth cop there 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 anything during his trip i mean john kerry is when he is on a diplomatic mission the best we can hope for is he doesn't say anything don't 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 a fire fight 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 acted out we saw massive protests in pakistan we even saw them shut down a supply route into afghanistan do you think that that is 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 and so which they have done or the pakistani intelligence services can just go to insurgents and let them blow up the takers and they've done that to us any number of times we don't publicize how much we actually lose 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 so that will happen again and there are going to be more border skirmishes probably more likely . they jockey for position and they obviously don't publicize that to congress who

is 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 talk 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 tar for starters do we hope that this time they actually have a real taliban member and. heard it was an imposter has a really big man or you know it was it was a mistake those are going on 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 an exit strategy cars i want to see him thing he wants it could be his taliban and the pakistani intelligence 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 years pretty likely as you think of that's actually a better way for us to go about it which first of all we have always publicly

stated or the obama administration at least was stating that they refuse to negotiate with the taliban meanwhile we find out that's probably 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 beef skin that area to be settled 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 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. maybe that's the best answer there's no good answer that's for

sure why i'm different here is to see how cub like they're going to make us disclosures and especially now they're waiting for president obama to make an announcement of troop withdrawal which the truth but they're always supposed to begin in july now is not making an announcement a lie it seems like that deadline might be pushed back who knows what's a very flexible object thanks so much for being here tonight absolutely now still to come tonight former president bill clinton says that all the information on the internet needs to be the factually correct sounds like kind of a big demand story no explain how he wants to make that happen and then the supreme court has ruled that if a police officer smells marijuana they can break into your home without a warrant so is this the end of the fourth amendment as we know it or discuss it after the break. repairing a broken. highway construction and humanitarian aid. buses shady officials spoke at the spoils of war it's the people who pay the price.

profiteering here is no longer just down to drug trafficking. afghanistan and the dollar. wealthy british style. let's play let's go. to. market find out. why not what's really happening to the global economy with my stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to cause the report . is.

free. free. free. free. free. free. free blog. for your drug free we are to com. in on this program we spend a lot of time talking about how politicians the obama administration in particular how they've all decided to turn a blind eye when it comes to rectifying the torture record that the u.s. now house but we can now include the supreme court not category c. the supreme court justices have said that they would not hear the case of muhammad

versus jefferson data plant and the case was originally brought before a san francisco court in two thousand and seven rules on in two thousand and nine the five men alleged that the cia had them shipped to foreign countries or they were tortured which could have been part of what the cia practice most commonly known is extraordinary rendition which has been dubbed torture by proxy and many circles and we also to point out that this wasn't brought against the u.s. government or the cia now rather it was brought against the bowling arm that actually transported these men to other countries or the torture was reportedly conveyed it and the five men in this case. binyam mohamed bashir al-rawi and muhammad for. all claimed they were captured in one country and then shipped to another two of them later to get mo using those boeing planes and in two thousand and nine the san francisco court chose not to hear the lawsuit because the hearing would expose quote state secrets as was argued by the obama justice

department which is really interesting because that very same here obama said this . the doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. has been used by many past presidents republican and democrat for many decades. and while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security i am concerned that it has been overused. and is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits. so the very same time that obama was promising to 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 continued use of the state secrets line is a privilege but what are you paying for that case to be heard before the supreme

court they ran 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 the state secrets are were willing to throw away individual liberty in their name just another example of obama and voting the exact same principles arguments used by the bush administration all while pretending to be different 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 and 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 going 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 that are 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 but 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 u.s. government or the united nations to fix all the rumors and all the misinformation that 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 can counterman 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 you want me to discuss it is aaron swartz executive director of demand progress dot org karen 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

you think you kind of bitter about all the stories that are out there about all of a sexual escapades that he's had all of his life. you know i mean there's not a lot of equipment but it is pretty surprising to propose a ministry of truth for the entire interview but i think it's a common. one it leads 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 if any 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 at as truly independent there's always somebody who has to be funding those agencies right. now i think that's what's so great about your that is you don't rely on the board personally perfectly or independent totally told the truth instead of 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 i think that makes the internet so exciting and so i think people who suggest oh really to tamp down on all of that and just have one person decide what the answer is or kind of missing the whole point you know the reason the internet works is because of the competitive marketplace of ideas and that's where you get the truth. you know sort of top down model of someone saying ok we've decided this is the story i'm just wondering to you know let's say that they did put some kind of agency like this into place would that be you know that i think that would be a big danger to journalism to the first amendment in general 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 with the leaks might put out there are they just going to somehow suck them off the internet is that even possible. well also i mean this is a whole totally impractical you know google has a hard enough time making it so you can just search the internet and the idea that

there'd be some huge international agency that would read through all these articles and decide which ones were true and which ones were really good research and all these questions 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 and turning everyone into fact checkers 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 the progress study were published four hundred thousand people who signed up to join us to keep the internet free but it's a constant struggle because as you say all the patients want to tamp down on it 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 payback against us and so far we've managed to keep it free

we've got to keep fighting but the wild west 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 fifty 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 and you know if you even faster than the regulations train we have new technologies like peer to peer like torrent a torrent all these things that allow us to keep talking for free you know and i imagine that the government starts cracking down phonology innovators will start you know we're going to start seeing things like wireless networks that are not of the control of biggest piece or things like that to ensure that we have an internet that no one person can shut down on 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 a 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 mistake the problem is decried wiki leaks you know publishing papers on the internet and taken steps to get them taken off. and one of the biggest funders of internet promotion of 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. u.s. political officials that oh it's ok we do it you know what other countries sense of 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 let's not have any. key thing that bill clinton made they thought every hasn't been released yet but i think you 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 we'll recover from all the information that came out i mean that wasn't information that was 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. i mean i think it's funny how different priorities are held by 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 what congress is focused on the shutting things down you know tamping down increasing restrictions and making sure that people can only say approved things or for example. i def i think of 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. briggs. supreme court may have just destroyed the fourth amendment in eighty 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 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 a destruction of evidence maybe something like flushing a toilet in the defendant created an accident circumstance where the police just had to come in avallone 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 student

sports sensible drug policy erin thanks so much for being here tonight thanks for having me i mean i think this supreme court ruling is personally just was ludicrous thing i've ever heard of or seen in my life what's your take i mean do you think of her for the moment really has just been crushed to nothing after this well this certainly is this or it's or seems to have what we thought were meeting force member protection 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 out 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 awfully interesting what i wonder whether police that are right on the spot would have to say about that but you know i think that you know the great there's 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 you're destroying in this i've been it's been how many times have we seen even when it comes to you know other laws or other rulings police they constantly use this vague 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 it 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 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 try 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 the disturbing trend that half over 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 it's amazing and that's and that's that's an exact example of the police using a search capability that they have wofully to actually expose people into criminal activity or criminal infringement now it's also worth noting that really since the beginning since the since sept. and since congress has reaction in september eleventh we saw a huge glut of federal funding coming supposedly for terrorism but

a lot of that money went to drugs and a lot about money and it going to municipalities to fight to 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 to me when you bring up the terrorism funding you know it's not even about i think just the war on drugs it's about any time 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 concert the way that we've seen you know with the war on terror we've also seen now with the war on drugs civil liberties constantly being arrested it's a do you think that she were somehow incompatible i mean if we're constantly waging war on something is there any way for civil liberties to be maintained well i don't think so i think that's a good point and i think also we can look at what this hath wrought what our

efforts and all the blood and treasure we've spent and wasted in this war. 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 a war on drugs and again responsible for policy we say the war on drugs is a war on us and that's really how we're organized so 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 one especially the way that many of the rulings have been going but it's always the conservative ideology within our government that 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 cards

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 very 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 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 are a strict constructionist 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 the republican primary and it's really going to have to answer to the tea party people whether they would come in and let their department of justice bully around states that decide to do their own thing because that's why i definitely think that we need to hear more of that debate and i hope that the five years to

actually call it into 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 are there barging in thank you right 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. times that we often hear pundits to clear the us manufacturing on the decline is that really the case for looking at the internet. reading you the latest science. from the. cover.