welcome to the lower show we'll get the real headlines with none of them are saying we're going to live in washington d.c. now so i will take a look at the legal debate surrounding the war in libya and members of congress are suing the white house has released its own guidelines saying that they don't need no stinking congressional approval so who is right then we'll speak to an activist whose home was raided by the f.b.i. last year that's fighting back but first let's take a look at what the mainstream media is covering all missing the bigger stories.

well it seems like there is no happy ending for wiener gate see this morning all knew it was interrupted on every single channel for a breaking news announcement. if you future as the question of the ocean liner i won't be answering any i have made this statement so i'm going to make my understanding of that later in the day he will be having a press conference and after that i will have a statement available and just tell you that up front are we go back to that what let's just say the breaking news this morning was the fact that congressman anthony weiner was going out to resign and that was the culmination of everything of the media had been hoping for dr incessantly pounding the war drums about a text message of a congressman's underwear after slaving away for weeks to bring the story of amends and moral and ethical. portions to the spotlight they have been redeemed so you can

only imagine their disappointment when nancy pelosi were to go back to her she was scheduled to hold a press conference this morning and she refused to vindicate all their hard work here's a piece of a great compilation the talking points memo put together today. if you hear the question of congressman weiner i won't be answering and i made this statement so i'm going to make my understanding that later in the day he will be having a press conference and after that i will have a statement and they'll just tell you that up front i did stage one sixty three one hundred sixty three days since a republican and a bash i actually saw john king sort of grinning maybe because he sort of expected it all right so nancy pelosi saying she is not going to have any comments on anthony weiner's resignation changing medicaid while they give tax breaks to businesses that send jobs overseas so the answer posted nothing pretty well either

but i have to think this is the reporters get a shot here when she's done with their statement that will call baubles. if you see that they actually just cut off one of the most powerful female politicians in this country which she announced that she would be speaking about the jobs crisis as planned rather than winner gate the jobs crisis the fact the nearly twenty million people in this country are unemployed the topic that americans care about if you look at the polls but hey it's only the end of the middle class in america why would the media possibly want to cover that why are they we want to hear a politician who's supposed to be creating jobs when she has to say about it you know this is probably one of those blatant examples you could possibly find of the other worthlessness that mindlessness of the mainstream media but oh wait there's actually one more this morning congressman dennis kucinich went on and that's n.b.c. to talk about the fact that he and nine other lawmakers have all the lawsuit against the obama administration for illegally waging war in libya without congressional approval then by mark i want to bring in ohio congressman dennis kucinich it's good

to see you congressman it's always obviously anthony wiener was a very forceful voice i am a liberal and of a party your reaction and indeed me that are you. get out of the business of congress. you know whole thing is very. light really lord leader gave me this is absurd listen to what happened when the congressman did actually get in a few words about the war. if we do i think we can win this state because it's true congressman dennis kucinich of ohio thanks so much for taking the time today we appreciate it and we're going to have much more on the resignation of a congressman anthony weiner just now that's right he gave him a vow to meet it and then just cut him off just like nancy pelosi but it's really mind boggling there were an economic crisis the illegal wars are being waged on behalf of the american people but the media doesn't want to talk about any of that i guess maybe that's what happens when you're a corporate owned you know what to anger the corporate overlords by pointing out

the fact that it's corporations those military contractors the benefit for waging on stop wars or maybe the fact that corporate profits are soaring all the rest of america suffers you see if you just don't say it maybe the american people will never know those problems and all that corruption exists to just show taking the wiener and everything else will go away. yes emory here in the same thing that you are if you can just see a little bit of this room i mean you're seeing a small slice of what's happening here this is a media frenzy to rival any that i've ever seen so today i'm announcing my resignation from congress. so my colleagues can get back to work i want to thank my colleagues in the house of representatives democrats and republicans alike they come from different places around the country but fundamentally we all agree there and. i will miss them all. while keeping it kill lassie there's your core professional journalists yelling and

jumping over each other to be the first one on the scene to capture the moment when somebody asks a leader if he's bigger seven inches and then they have the audacity to report on the media frenzy that they're all a part of you know it's funny how divided the media is over political lines on a usual basis and then they can all get along when it comes to mind numbing non news now we move on to what actually matters in this world has taken a moment to reflect on what your media missed today over the last remnants of all your gate. well there's a legal debate that's raging over the war in libya just yesterday bipartisan members of congress filed a lawsuit in federal court against president obama for taking military action in libya without congressional approval by the obama administration meanwhile has released a thirty two page report to congress are going by the almost three month long

military involvement doesn't require that congressional approval they argue that the u.s. is playing a supporting role there but this is a nato led operation and of a military operations are distinct from the kinds of hostilities contemplated within the war powers resolution because we're not engaged in sustained fighting because there's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces because we don't have ground. troops on the ground and because we don't risk casualties to those troops but who's actually right here in the skies this need for its fine chairman of the american freedom agenda and lawrence korb senior fellow at the center for american progress gentlemen thank you both for being on the show tonight now larry i'm going to start with you because bruce you've been on the program before already nowhere in your head i know that prepares a sixty day window you think is this is beyond illegal from the get go a lot of i want to know what this think of the obama administration the explanation here that this isn't really that much of a war is that legit well i think they're talking about the original intent of the

war powers act of what they went remember this was passed to vietnam where we had five hundred forty thousand people on the ground and basically they did make the point i would also make the point the u.n. approved a nato approved and if you remember if we're going we're joining there you go senator robert chaffed mr republican from ohio did not want us to join a date of course he felt that that would take away congruences the war powers role because under article five this is an attack a wanted becomes of the talk talk so i think they're making a case would be and it's i think it's good they filed the suit will see what the court court says whether in fact a the war powers act is constitutional and b. whether it applies here because one could make the argument when you're patrolling in the persian gulf when you could look shocks you know for example from norway and whether you ought to have the work hours but those assets happening now is that what nato wants is superseding our own us now it is now it it's nonsense on stilts

thirty two pages there's one paragraph that's devoted to what might use mystically be called legal reasoning. the war powers that defines what hostilities are putting troops in circumstances where hostilities and what would be understood in international law terms is war is indicated by the circumstance. think of this paradox if we're not at war what we're doing is committing murder because it's war that makes homicide not murder so we're committing murder if we're not at war and also think about the absurdity of the secretary of defense who himself when he was testifying for congress mr gates said course if you fire a missile in new york city you're at war we would incinerate any country that did what we are doing to live with regard to the idea that a treaty can supersede the constitution no case by the supreme court over fifty years ago read versus covert a treaty may not supersede the constitution the think of the ramifications of it could you could have

a treaty say that's wipe out freedom of speech let's wipe out freedom of religion let's like about freedom of association the u.s. supreme court is quite clear a treaty is subordinate to the constitution of the united states requires that congress authorized any office if use of the military and this is how it was understood at the outset when thomas jefferson used the military against the barbary pirates in the early a ten inch he got ten congressional statutes authorizing what was used doing instead even if it's not war if the oftens if use of the military i need congressional authorization every single member of the constitution convention every single participant in the ratification debates all of the federalist papers all of the first president washington jefferson and madison were uniform only congress to get us into war and that was not an academic argument they understood the executive branch concocted excuses for war because they get all the power the secrecy the appointments the money the footprints in the land in the sands of time that's why everyone said we cannot have one person take us to war and we have this

president announcing as a general rule the president go to war any time you want for regional stability the security council's credibility or any other interest that the united states in the president's eyes is advancing which means the president can invade any country anytime anyplace anywhere what he wants to do and there's one additional element there there is no money that congress has appropriated for this. t.q. toward the money that is being expended is specifically designated in the appropriations measures as counterterrorism operations now the president himself has said this is the same civilian life having nothing to do with terrorist training or counterterrorism has not been brought up once there is there any question in your mind lawrence whether this is a war or not i mean i think you make a great point if anybody were to ever file a fire a missile anywhere on american soil then it hell yes that would be considered an act of war and we would retaliate and here we are just because we are a part of nato but nato is leading the operation but hello we played a leading role in nato so it's really i think it's

a valid excuse to try to say that they're leading the way and we just happen to be on the sidelines again but we go back you know to the question go back to the debate about us joining nato. would disagree with bruce that's why he did not want to join nato because he argued that if you do this one now we're not going to get anywhere so we think at that point the supreme court is articulate senator sapp said the supreme court has held a treaty is suborned is the constitution the end of the question well you know it is have because the united states since the end of world war two was pretty gauge of military operations continuously the korean war for example was not approved by congress now going back to bruce's point congress if they don't want this could easily say no wonder you can be spend after this data unless you call for that's the power of the purse that they could have and they usually are using the power of the purse which i whisper is mentioned is the fact that it has been asked for in that sense because congress hasn't had to approve no i have to say i know you're

going to put band-aids on any expenditure bill that they pass they can say nobody and this could be used for this or that about they're not really going to give them a lot of it is because it was limited veto the president can veto those things so it suggests that you know you need two thirds of congress right and war rather than simple majority to notice not if i do not really do anything. and that's not what the constitution is about the the war powers resolution treaties cannot override article one section eight clause eleven you only need simple majority you need simple majority to get us into what is the point here is the fact that congress hasn't really done anything about it right we saw congressman dennis kucinich bring up a resolution to actually stop the war in libya and nobody went along with it that we saw john boehner get a resolution passed that basically was like a slap on the wrist and just said that need to show us the report and try to explain the entire situation is there even a need for this to go to the courts i mean my courts just push it aside and say congress this is on hue you have the power to approve for us to fund wars and

you're not empowered each president if you feel like they're acting you know not in accordance with the law in the most parallel case my friend tom campbell who is a member of the house of representatives clinton over the war in bosnia actually tried to get a declaration from congress that said no and the courts basically said what you've repeat the remedy is within congress i don't plan i was trying to read and hear the answers. because not make it legal just because there's no sanction we commit torture and we don't prosecute that doesn't make torture legal when the president violates the fourth as i would say limited war was illegal and a little different. lately illegal and justice robert jackson said so in youngstown sheet and tube the stories well i get inspiration from your parts and. before you know it we have two good questions you know the war powers wouldn't have been necessary if people were follow we were proved but congress recognized that the power to declare war in this day and age is different from the world water world

war two and so therefore they came up with a remedy i think it's the court i would like to see the court decide whether in fact the war powers act is constitutional they have been afraid to touch that particular very interesting thing is that the obama administration in this report they released they actually saturday do you think the war powers act is every president of the world. you know that's not true larry that there as it has ever said it should not be you shouldn't be told it what is the does that make it ok just because everyone else has done it well i think this is what you know our system the way you think of it because that you should those are enough ambiguity that i think they're calling me on the no ambiguity with regard to this guy larry i . would challenge you to cite a single syllable of anybody who was there writing the clause that suggested the president killed about a rich there's a lot of the original and we're talking about the real world there were that really well it was a get out even though i have to this is that i know this really bad time period i know you want to get rid of your words and we're out of time i want to thank you

both for joining me and this is the problem right you could say the legal language it's very clear what's going on but in the meantime everyone's going to try to have their own interpretation and the war goes on thank you so much for me here. now still to come tonight a secret grand jury looking into the case on a frequent guest of ours to testify we're going to hear what david household a grand jury in just a moment and it's a growing trend among anti-war activists their homes being raided by the f.b.i. tonight in minnesota woman tells the story of her home ransacked by f.b.i. agents last september and just. you know sometimes you see the story. you think you understand it and then you blame something else here's the part of it and realize. i'm sorry because if.

you're really. and you know. fuck fuck fuck. fuck. let's not forget that we live in apartheid.

i think. one hundred twelve. whenever the government says here keep you safe get ready because of her freedom. as we first told you yesterday david house a supporter of bradley manning was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in alexandria virginia he was amongst a handful of individuals from the boston area who were all instructed to come to her during and testify about various elements involving bradley manning and the whistle blowing web site wiki leaks as a whole now while hells did in fact show up he didn't give out any information

other than his name and his address to the grand jury his attorney peter crop explains why. the house we're going to hear some questions over. there he invoked his right to remain silent under the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution. so while house didn't have much to say inside the courtroom he did exercises right to free speech outside during a press conference and there he fully expressed his opinions on this entire court case saying his legal proceeding is nothing but a means by which the government wants to put fear into americans and keep them from standing up to the wrongdoings of the government tells also compare the grand jury to a historic incident that happened forty years ago today not today susan forty grand jury has been convened to target supporters and journalists in the boston area talk to children first minute associational rights of individuals working for his defense. in my mind this is another step it's ongoing investigation either hand this investigation since really came to us are serious and it reeks of the pentagon

papers decision for years. and he's right the pentagon papers criminal investigation was a scandal in and of itself back in one nine hundred seventy want or leaker daniel ellsberg shared information from the department of defense with the new york times and although the pentagon papers have been made public that actually happened this monday which was when the forty year anniversary was and i ultimately serve a positive purpose in u.s. history at the time a government back against the leak with everything they had so much so that they had to throw out the case because the government misconduct when they illegally tapped. well daniel ellsberg phones and broke into his psychiatrist office but let's go back to it's twenty a lot of people like david house are following our experts footsteps to show this grand jury is just using scare tactics to keep citizens silent. and i feel that is trying to use the investigation to establish policies which will give the government broad censorship powers in determining how source information actually

makes it to the head of the media i think every american citizen who hears about this we could be stranger in alexandria should be concerned because i for one don't want to wake up every morning and read only held glorious u.s. government is i want a media in this country that has a free press is healthy for the state and it's next to me is chilling the prospect every day it's going to be. you know i could not set a better myself on the government has worked hard to keep this grand jury secret there are those individuals like david house who will continue to exercise their first amendment rights to tell the rest of the country or the government is actually doing now the fact that our mainstream media is too obsessed with politicians who engage in sexting to cover the real issues all that's just makes house a statement that much more correct will keep updating you on this case as more information does come out. now in september twenty fourth two thousand and ten the f.b.i. raided homes in chicago and minneapolis of peace activists and labor organizers all part of a nationwide terrorism investigation twenty three subpoenas were issued for activists

to appear at a grand jury in chicago and investigators reportedly were examining possible material support to colombian and palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations by the u.s. government something which the supreme court ruled illegal last year in the case of holder to humanitarian law but i do as an activist being targeted soley for their political beliefs it's a practice that seems to be becoming more widespread as human rights organizations take note and perhaps all the more important to highlight as the f.b.i. is issuing new guidelines that loosen the rules on who and how they conduct investigations so activists are fighting back earlier i caught up with meredith abbey with the committee to stop f.b.i. repression her home was raided by the f.b.i. in september of two thousand and ten so i first asked her to recall the radar on her home that morning. one september twenty fourth i was already up i was ironically home with claire and i said a radically because i've got to do like

a lot of public speaking about this afterwards but is that home up there and my diaries asleep upstairs she was eighteen months and her crib and i was nervous as loud banging on the door and you know i opened up the door and it was shoved in my . agent came with me the seven other f.b.i. agents and one minneapolis police are there and she said we're looking for evidence of material support for terrorism in your house will you help us find it if my response is no and then they ransacked my house i did negotiate with the. f.b.i. they wouldn't wake up my daughter was still asleep because they wanted to be simply hold me in my own living room and now allow me to leave and i was like well this isn't going to work out very well after i was your wakes up she's not really going to read the whole being held in one room you know when you're eighteen months you learn how to watch. and the whole idea of not being able to watch it you know play

with this new skill or whacking i was like that's not going to go very well so but she slept for about another half hour he i called my partner left work and then we were able to get i.v. out the house within an hour of the f.b.i. coming but i was held in my living room when they searched through my home we were moving in two days so they opened up every box that we had already cracked for moving here and eventual e a lawyer from the national lawyers guild came to my house and he then asked them about was this woman being subpoenaed like the others and i hadn't even heard about the subpoena and then i was also presented with a subpoena that is supposed to show up at this secret grand jury and chicago he then proceeded to they went through my staff for hours and. carcasses and boxes of political materials and someone is still or even understand what they took because the parents i wasn't allowed to. hold in my living room and then i was told

i was on my front line. what kind of political materials you may have had in your house right talk about the type of activism that you do perhaps some of the trips to colombia that you make which i'm assuming that's exactly what made you catch their eye here. always interesting is that on the wind itself as they were searching for evidence of material support for terrorism they listed up a whole variety of groups including information about countries i've never even. heard of him but in the ancient palestine which i have traveled to in colombia as i have traveled to and i'm an anti-war activist and i have been doing work since i was in college since one thousand nine hundred ninety four so for a long time so i had years of political material in my house and they took pretty much anything related to power ticks because the what was written so they could see used anything related to political activity they took sign up sheets from the

school of the americas protests were people signed petitions that i had seen they didn't support u.s. military to colombia i don't understand how that's evidence of a crime to me there's evidence of people having an opinion i don't think the daschle sees this part of it care as an investigation and they also seized pictures from protest that side of an uncivil crime but on the search one it said that they were looking for evidence of why have political relationships where both in this country and abroad and i find that very disconcerting because your freedom of association is something that should be protected under the first amendment i also find it here they're both a search warrant as well as under subpoena they said they were interested in knowing about who had political meetings where in colombia. because in colombia i met with trade union organizers grassroots organizers women's organizers who by the very nature of the product a big question the colombian government put their lives at risk and so i met with

people frequently and limit and the grounds that i would never say but what does that tell you to me for example we've been reporting on the show this week that now the f.b.i. is loosening their requirements when it comes to launching investigations on people that now they don't even really have to make a record of it if they want. active investigation is this something that you feel like is becoming worse and it was a just a throwback to mccarthyism or is it something that we see increasingly expanding and something that becomes i guess increasingly hypocritical when it comes to u.s. foreign policy abroad in talking about spreading democracy and liberty and freedom and yet going after activists here at home that may try to work with groups to help get them union representation in a country like along. i find it very disconcerting because the fact is that you know after september eleventh when the u.s. government passed the patriot act eighty of the federal government's huge sweeping powers and the fact is that you look at american history what the f.b.i. has done when things like infiltration was illegal when you needed to get actual

like. by the government he did huge huge was of power in terms of going after martin luther king jr ewing huge investigation infiltration of the civil rights movement and some of those are the types of things that the f.b.i. did when it was illegal to do those things now looking at giving them my current line and go ahead do whatever you why i mean you need seems like a recipe for disaster very quickly just because they're running out of time just tells it about thirty seconds what you're doing to fight back with this stop the f.b.i. repression organization as we continue to air oppression and i would say to stop it . we have been working actually to try to build awareness around the f.b.i. infiltration and attacks on activists we've been trying to use our case the twenty three international anti-war i'm interested in going to war activists and the grand jury that's being used against us as a way to try to get people to question the policies of the obama administration and to try to put pressure on the obama administration to callar the f.b.i.

and a collar captured fitzgerald the u.s. attorney in charge of our case. thank you very much for joining us tonight telling us about it and so you know i hope that it does bring more attention to light because i definitely think that this recipe. for disaster is what it seems like when you look at some of the powers being granted to the f.b.i. these days thanks so much thank you. for taking a break but coming up our thursday edition of show and tell and a new poll out today points to a major jump in support for congresswoman michele bachmann what does that mean for the g.o.p. we're going to get a comedian tape on michele from our good friend at fair bet it costs a. little we're in there with three mechanisms to do that we're going to bring justice or. i have every right to know what my government should do if you want to know why i pay taxes.