so. welcome to the lower show we'll get the real headlines with none of the mersey making a lot out of washington d.c. now tonight we'll talk about the somali man that's being brought to new york to be tried on terrorism charges and you'll never guess where he was held for two months while being interrogated well if you get another obama broken promises the white house makes plans to keep up to ten thousand troops in iraq after the withdrawal deadline the end of this year and we'll see what it would cost us to adequately invest in green technology but first let's take

a look at what the mainstream media has missed. you know i thought that yesterday was ridiculous when the so-called news was going every over every single little detail of every single juror that was deliberating on casey anthony's case what happened after that verdict was read that's a really takes the cake i mean what do you do when a verdict has been agreed to you well instead of moving on to something more interesting if you work for a corporate media channel then you get responses all the way down to of course what the celebrities have to say about it. i mean. some people watching the case are now gathering at the site where caylee's remains were found many are shocked at the verdict watch casey anthony found not guilty i am speechless ashton kutcher reach we do this o.j. simpson finds this verdict outrageous maybe more for the jury to watch. now for

starters why would kim carr daschle and ashton kutcher make of this is somehow worthy to be played on the so-called most trusted name in news less is beyond me but letting it all these people how they're responding i will say confused i'm not sure who is worse here the people that become so emotionally attached to this case while not holding vigils or fainting when i don't know a soldier dies or numerous children are killed in a drone strike or the people that make americans this way and i'm talking about the woman that singlehandedly worked america into a frenzy over this case that would be nancy grace. to literally cannot believe they can there has gone on and there in the last hours. alone. just there's probably leaves the courthouse and those two. at a local bar

a let me just say. the devil. and dance tonight. the devil is dancing tonight yes that devil is nancy grace because she. feeding you this crap making you absorbed by it making a mess where i think retires like a bunch of freaking zombies that's what feeds her so wake up america you know casey anthony isn't taking away your civil liberties casey anthony isn't spending your taxpayer dollars they aren't funding countless wars bailing out wall street and giving the largest corporations tax breaks while doing nothing to help you in return no that would be the government the same government the media is supposed to be the watchdog and you know what i honestly don't expect anything different from nancy grace and h l n they don't claim to be a real true fair and balanced most trusted name forward leading news network but the rest the rest have no excuse and here's something if i may that might interest

you that actually affects what this country stands for the represents the way that we conduct ourselves we reported to you numerous times on this show about the protect ip act it's that piece of legislation that thankfully for now has been stalled in congress but that would allow the government to shut down websites censor search engine sewage or net publishers if they think that you're engaging in infringing activities i believe me what counts as infringing activities is so groggily worded in this bill that it could open an entire pandora's box and of course it has the backing of the entertainment industry which has congress and it's that we see the biggest issue here is that our government would take it upon themselves to block websites based in other countries as if they have jurisdiction over the entire world. aren't we supposed to be the arbiters of freedom and democracy since when did we start promoting censorship and about the exactly the point of a number of intellectual property law professors of mate and a letter that they've written to congress warning not only that this would threaten the security of the internet at large undoubtedly lead to

a campaign that over extends its reach with no independent body to look over and decide whether site should really be taken down but mostly the this would align u.s. policy with oppressive regimes but of course the made free media would rather not cover our government's oppressive policies especially critter and kim carr dashing aren't tweeting about them so tomorrow we're going to speak with one of those legal professors all the mainstream media continues to miss. so if you're the obama administration and you still want to capture people abroad interrogate them but you can't take them to guantanamo bay seeing it has your first order of business when you became president it was decided to have order to close it but what do you do apparently to scatter people and hold them interrogate them on navy vessels in international waters that's we've now learned after the obama administration announced yesterday they'll be prosecuting

a somali man accused of having ties to al shabaab and al qaeda in civilian court in new york that a bill could hear what are some eight was captured on april nineteenth he was held on a navy vessel for two months where he was interrogated heavily without being right in iran to warning and reportedly those sessions were very very productive then after a short break from interrogation a separate group of law enforcement terry gaiters came in and then delivered a miranda warning after which are some he continued to cooperate and give more statements so this raises a lot of new questions about the administration's take on civilian trials versus military commissions on detention policies and of course on guantanamo bay so joining me from our studio in new york to discuss this is scott who. contributing editor on legal and national security matters for harper's magazine scott thanks so much it's a pleasure to have you back on the show so apparently the obama administration now is decided that instead of taking people to get mail they want to interrogate us keep them on a navy vessel in international waters and do that but is that actually legal. well

i think there's still some question about that in fact we have to know a lot more facts to have a clear answer and the administration itself has been saying to congress that it feels it does need a clear legislative detention authority which suggests that they're concerned right now that they don't have the legislative basis they would have it simply under the laws of war if they were engaged in war with a foreign power or with a foreign power or with a terrorist group and one of the questions coming out of this case which was army is who's a somali it was active in the horn of africa is is this inside of the authorization for the use of military force in the view of the administration no completely clear answers on that but we do see now that the department of defense is actually the department of the tensions and they're using naval naval vessels in the indian ocean to hold prisoners and probably have been doing this for some time do you

think if this is a little odd for the obama administration are first of all there are a lot of conflicting reports out there as to whether he's just some low level person that had a lot of information or whether he's not about leader that's at least the justice department is saying but typically their strategy has been shoot to kill not necessarily detain to interrogate. well i think what's going on here well i think first of all the strategy really is if they can do it feasibly to capture someone to gather intelligence from them and this this individual evidently was seized at sea so under circumstances where probably would have been pretty easy to grab him but we've got a lot of other big questions coming out of this about miranda for instance and it also fits into the ongoing war between republicans in congress and the bush and the obama administration about guantanamo itself very very clear that that the obama

administration views guantanamo as the brier patch as. as a glue strip as soon as they deliver someone to guantanamo their track their options are limited so they don't want to do it they're looking for alternatives we had to you think that the obama administration kind of pulled a fast one on congress in this regard because there are a a lot of republican lawmakers that are very angry very upset about this mitch mcconnell is one of them and i don't have a quote here from representative buck mckeon who said the transfer of this charisse detainee directly contradicts congressional intent and the will of the american people congress has spoken clearly maltman multiple times of the perils of bringing terrorists onto u.s. soil what do you say. i think he tricked him but i think it's very clear that he has a different view of this matter but i think to be completely fair you'd have to say barack obama is approaching this question exactly the same way his predecessor

george w. bush did because george w. bush captured a number of people overseas brought them back and put them on trial in federal court after interrogation overseas e. there are a handful that were sent to guantanamo most went through the federal court system and when that was going on the republicans in congress thought this was just great it was the way it should be in fact they kept arguing that the executive should have full of forty and as many options as he needed it's only when a democrat comes into the white house that suddenly the republicans in congress decide they know better than the executive and they're going to micromanage the entire situation by tying the executives hands and i think what you see here is an effort by barack obama to escape the legal traps they've set for him or now on the obama administration at first also was in support of trying. of course on u.s. soil in civilian courts instead of in these military commissions but the new york times made it interesting regarding this case which is that they don't think there

was somebody here would even have been able to have been tried in a military commission because they are legally they would have a lot more to establish is that true. i think that's correct in fact i've talked to a number of. military justice people today who told me they're not sure they look at the indictment and they're not sure that these same charges could be brought and the military commission system it will be difficult for them that's another thing i think a lot of people loose either that really the military commissions are intended for a different sort of. criminal charges and the charges that have been raised here so far are fairly vague it's material support he's accused for instance of having conspired to get some education about how to wage war fare having conspired to learn how to make bombs and to teach people how to make them there's not an awful lot of meat in the indictment as it's presented so far on the other hand i would

say it's common in these cases that we see amid indictments and more detail emerging later so this man after being interrogated for two months then reportedly was read his miranda rights and continued to cooperate and waived his right to remain silent how many notches now does this make of people that prove the you can read somebody their miranda rights and they'll cooperate you don't have to torture them. well i think they they followed the rule book according to their statement of how it happened they thought of the long standing department of justice guidelines precisely that is they conducted their intelligence interrogation when that was over there were them their miranda rights and then they engaged in the criminal interrogation and i think that the trial will be the test of how that works but you know obviously it puts some burden on the prosecution they've got to show that the evidence they put together was not the right from the earlier intelligence interrogation but it looks to me from their description that they put down the

proper barriers also appears that using. confidence building techniques the traditional f.b.i. techniques they've gotten the evidence that they needed just as happened with the shoe bomber now lastly it does seem like probably the obama administration has been doing you know even in testimony last week the former case aka commander basically admitted that yes we've done this we've kept people on navy vessels but have you ever heard of any other administration keeping people in international waters. well in wartime of course it's been done prisoners of war been held on ships until they can be transported to an on site here it seems that there's a conscious effort to hold people in an area beat on any court writs and access to any law and it's interesting that this occurs in the indian ocean because suspicion for a long time has focused on diego garcia and in fact there's some materials in the

wiki leaks that point to diego garcia being used as a newer station for these prison ships and is the u.s. will say of course but it has no prisoners on diego garcia that's because they're more great offshore and the ago garcia has been used as a stationing and provisioning area for these prison operations but in the event the shows of broadening the defense department's detentions operation that's something a lot of brass in the pentagon really don't like and something they struggled to to avoid for decades now unbelievable i guess no matter how many legal restrictions they'll put on something they're still going to do what they want. doesn't matter how many borders they have to cross and now they'll just do it in the middle of the ocean stopping so much for joining us tonight. to be with you. well there still much more to come tonight show obama's war leaders has a blatant double standard toward michelle you another example of how the government

can't really seem to get their message straight when it comes to good leaks and bad points and that is the u.s. planning on keeping it ten thousand troops in iraq reportedly the white house has already drawn up those plants to get into the details and as a return. ensure that only military mechanisms do the work to bring justice or accountability. i have every right to know what my government should do if you want to know why i paid taxes. but i would characterize obama as a charismatic version of american exceptionalism. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so please you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and here's some other part of it and realize that everything is ok.

i'm trying hard luck is a big issue. let's not forget that we had an apartheid regime right here. i think. he'd done well. we have the government says the keep him safe get ready because of the freedom.

now a few weeks ago we first told you about james rising new york times reporter has been subpoenaed to appear in a case against a former cia worker who leaked information to the times risin broke the n.s.a. warrantless wiretapping he's a pulitzer prize winning journalist he's disclose a lot of information that's informing the public and now it basically being asked to out whether or not this man was his source arrises attempts to aquash the subpoena citing the public interest in newsgathering that's been denied by the government and here's where it gets interesting so the government gave this firm reply to rice's request they said explicitly recognizing good leaks of classified information would effectively destroy the system through which the country protects that information so in other words good leaks as they're being called going to exist that attorneys for the government went on to argue that a goodly would encourage government employees who are provided access to classified information to be trade their commitment to safeguard it by suggesting that they too should undertake their own independent analysis of the effects of their

disclosure of that information should they desire to do so but i've got a few problems with this argument let's start with the obvious the fact that obama was originally pro leaking what it's good for the public in fact we've found a statement on then president elect obama's page where he's a friend of the actions of leaders he set off to the best source of information about waste fraud and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out such acts of courage and patriotism which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars should be encouraged rather than stifled we need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance obama will strength that was a lower laws to protect better workers who expose waste fraud and abuse of all already in government. well so much for that how we all know that team obama has been adamant about going after whistleblowers nonstop and what suddenly

a good lead doesn't exist anymore now they realize they have a lot of secrets to hide let's move on to my next point just yesterday we told you about how senior staff members within the white house leaked information about the pakistani intelligence agency the i.s.i. to the new york times i despite the president's new stance against leaking classified information for some reason staffers were given the green light when it comes to this topic check out what georgetown professor christopher chambers had to say about the white house's double standard rule here and it's been the rule probably for the last fifty sixty seventy years is the only person in the world believe. we're. true it is a tool of policy it is a work that anybody else is not allowed to use it. but these are senior. you know he's right as long as that information is considered a productive leak of information then suddenly ok is not a blatant contradiction of the argument the government attorneys make against risin

it's an obvious double standard as long as obama approves of the information that's being released and suddenly it's ok you know at this point i just want to know how obama sleeps at night knowing that his flip flop on leakers are frankly because they are saying. now before president obama became president when he was still campaigning one promise that he made among many was to end the war in iraq. i'm going to call them a joint chiefs of staff and i'm going to tell them we need to find a way to bring this war in iraq to a close and we want to do it safely and protect our troops but we're going to get it done because we can't keep spending ten billion dollars a month in iraq when iraq is themselves are taking responsibility and we have to reform. passports and we still have a fifty thousand troops in the country despite combat operations technically ending in september of last year and under the bilateral agreements signed by the bush administration they're all supposed to be out by the end of two thousand and eleven

but in the last few months we've heard of numerous u.s. officials former secretary of defense robert gates being the most prominent if iraq asks us well at some troops today as of yet iraq has now asked despite repeated warnings from the u.s. the time is running out but according to a report by the associated press yesterday the white house has already worked out some options to keep between eight thousand five hundred and ten thousand active duty troops to quote continue training iraqi security forces during two thousand and twelve so if iraq asks them of course so it's another promise that's been broken and a huge question needs to be asked as to why we still need troops there when violence towards americans is picked up as june was the deadliest month there for troops since two thousand and eight so here to discuss this with me is michael o'brien author of america's failure in iraq michael thanks so much for being here tonight thanks for having me all right if you have to take a wild guess what do you say is iraq going to ask us to stay oh i really don't think it matters we'll stay one way or the other what you've ministrations trying

to do is really twister rocks arm prime minister or prime minister maliki's army to get him to ask us to make it official to ask us to stay but you said just a second ago why do senior officials american officials why former secretary gates why do they feel it's so important that we stay logic tells me that they feel we're not ready to pull out entirely because the reaction already to defend itself. isn't part of the problem here is that we wanted to be if they had ministers and officials will look to iraq and they say look this is the shining beacon of a fledgling democracy that we've created but within this democracy of iraq there is a lot of domestic politics with them bob there are a lot of people that want out and don't want us to stay and that's part of maliki's problem right now absolutely many iraqis there everybody's saddam

hussein is gone he was a bad actor everybody. but we created that insurgency paul bremer did when he fired the dishpan of the iraqi army in the iraqi national police and i was over there as an advisor to the minister of defense in two thousand and six and two thousand and seven and anybody that's that said back then certainly it's been a few years that iraq was able to defend itself you know i don't know what they were smoking because nothing could have been further from the truth that the situation in iraq was. a shambles and it may have improved i'm sure it's improved over time but you know this whole thing about we have a good advise and assist brigades over there we're not in combat although the one thousand soldiers that died last month who killed they die was a training accident when soldiers are in a combat environment and they die they die in combat are they going to receive a purple posthumous purple heart i'm sure they will because they died in combat so

the whole thing about it is that you know when when the obama administration says that things are going great in iraq and then it not and then on the flip side says we need to really say and then obama's promise that was just a campaign promise anything that was needed to win the election. because it was soon as he he had no basis to basis to anything any facts to base that on the soon as he became the president his his the joint chiefs of the corps and the secretary defense. i'm sure told him mr president there is no way we can pull our promise or not so you know all this hairsplitting in all this other kind of stuff but i really personally believe that some troops will stay whether the us was to or not ten thousand is not a lot by any stretch if that's not a lot but it's not sound change considering the fact that we are supposed to be out of this war that will still have one hundred thousand troops at least until next

summer of two thousand and twelve and afghanistan's future that we have made up fifty thousand troops in japan you could say we have troops all over europe iranian troops in iraq so how much do you think that's going to cost to zero then out. i couldn't even begin to guess because of let's not forget that's just the soldiers in uniform in my book i talk about this the contractors over there the state department what we have most of the united states employees mercenaries if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck it's a so if a civilian does the job of a soldier he's a mercenary and there are american most of them are american citizens but they are involved in military operations over there the state department is going to have thousands of them there so we have ten thousand troops and we haven't hauled over ten thousand or twenty thousand or whatever the number is is anybody asking how many american contractors are in iraq right now but you there's a couple hundred thousand. and that's all you know it's all it's not talked about

because they're not wearing uniforms and that's there's a lot going on that we don't know about over in iraq where they're going to continue to try to keep us you have the dark about of course but you know if you even mention the fact that last month those fifteen troops u.s. troops died in iraq this has become the deadliest that was the deadliest month in iraq for u.s. troops three since two thousand and eight for three years does not make the point that it's not safe for americans in iraq anymore oh it's absolutely not safe and that was an argument i don't know i think any more about is it really ever was but if it's an uptick in violence because as soon as you say we're going to start withdrawing. the future oops their main are going to be sitting ducks who knows what's going to happen if obama said he was going to pull our troops out he said i will i will in this war we didn't in the war he said there are not combat troops there advise and assist per game. assist for gay troops what does that mean it

means nothing it's just a name change means they use those pretty words a lot and i want to ask you one thing you're doing with the mainstream media they just nobody calls on i'm very happy you brought that up i was going to be my next question you know is something that really boggles my mind was over over the weekend i think it was july second actually the new york times wrote an entire piece where they had a writer that was embedded there with apparently a special operations forces in this entire piece just told you that neither the iraqis nor the american troops here want to go home that's all be that sounds like somebody is really spinning some serious pentagon propaganda but absolutely it's all politics he said obama made the promise that he would get us but he would end the war. i will in this war then he said i will have everybody out by the end of two thousand and twelve now they're trying to get us to stay broken promise broken promise broken promise but i'm a cynic ok i admit it but barack obama's going. so you anything to get elected and

then you think you get real but do you have seen that it was going to hurt him when it comes to reelection that was one of his big promises that he made that's got a lot of the anti-war left behind him or do people just not you know spencer ackerman made a great point about this that the fact that this is a war that's forgotten is that doesn't even begin to cover it i totally disagree with spencer ackerman it's statement i just think i completely disagree with it and i also do think that americans are going to carry don't think that i think that it is not a forgotten war he's comparing iraq to korea they called the korean korea the forgotten war in iraq is not a forgotten war is it is it is the forefront of everything today not like it was three four five years ago but how could it be forgotten when we're sitting here talking about it right now because i you know we actually make a point to talk about it here on this program i feel like if you watch a rest of the news then you don't see it and you know i don't know where mr

ackerman is coming from i really really don't and the other thing in that atlantic . monthly oracle was the the the writer said well and it's pretty much it's pretty much common knowledge that whenever we get into a war and always last longer than we're told it's going to really we were involved in the second world war the largest conflict on the on the planet in a more in human history for four years well irony. and recent history for it's a reason our boise state thing is the way to go on and on and on and on but i'll see if the voters actually remember it when they go to the polls and somehow i'm not so sure about that michael saying it's been my experience you change your habits all right still to come tonight we have it you set it i read it on the comments that you've left on mine about the stories that we cover here on the shelf and then going green therefore by the u.n. determines how much it would cost for the world to become and violently friendly but that's a fairly realistic way back but that just a month.