live. bringing you the latest in science and technology from around the world. the future of coverage. welcome to the ilona show real get the real headlines with none of the mercy we're going to live in washington d.c. now tonight we'll talk about a 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 with the with for all deadlines the end of this year and we'll see what a real 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 but instead of moving on to something more interesting if you work for a corporate media channel and you get responses all the way down to of course what the celebrities have to say about it socially. would be. ok. 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 could do this o.j. simpson this verdict outrageous maybe more thought the jury right 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 plus just beyond me but looking at all these people how they are responding i was to confused i'm not sure who is worse here the people that become so emotionally attached to this case but i'm 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. the literally cannot believe they can only gas has gone on are there in the last hours the live earth thing. just. cried leave the courthouse and. economy at

a local gar a let me just say. and dance tonight. the devil is dancing tonight yes that devil is nancy grace because she reportedly got her highest ratings ever last night heating you this crime making you absorbed by it making mesmerized hypnotized 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 you know that would be the government the same government the media is supposed to be the. 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 leaning news network but the rest the rest have no excuse and here's something if i may might interest you

actually a facts 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 and some piece of legislation the banks believe for now has been stalled in congress but it would allow the government to shut down websites censor search engine suit internet publishers if they think that you're engaging in infringing activities i believe me what counts as infringing activities is so broadly worth 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 its pocket p.c. 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. are we supposed to be the arbiters of freedom and democracy since when did we start promoting censorship you know that's 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 what their sites are they'd be taken down but mostly the business would align u.s. policy with oppressive regimes but of course the mainstream media would rather not cover our government's oppressive policies especially and kim carr dashin aren't tweeting about them so tomorrow we're going to speak with one of those legal professors all the mainstream media continues to mix. 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 how was your first order of business when you became president it was decided the executive order to close it or what do you do apparently you just got to people and hold them interrogate them on navy vessels in international waters that's we've now learned after the obama administration announced yesterday that they'll be prosecuting

a somali man accused of having ties to al shabaab and al qaeda and civilian court in new york ahmed abdul qadeer wife sami was captured on april nineteenth he was held on a navy vessel for two months where he was interrogated heavily without being right a miranda warning and reportedly those sessions were very very productive that 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 joining me from our studio in new york to discuss this is scott. 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 the congress that it feels it does need a clear legislated the tension 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 in gauged 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 with course 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 of 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 they 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 one on the mo as the wire patch as. as a glue strip as soon as they deliver someone to guantanamo they're trapped their options are limited so they don't want to do it they're looking for alternatives we had do you think that the obama administration kind of pulled a fast one on congress in this regard because there are eighty a lot of republican lawmakers that are very angry very upset about this mitch mcconnell is one of them and i even have a quote here from representative buck mckeon who said the transfer of this characteristic taney directly contradicts congressional intent and the will of the american people congress has spoken clearly molten multiple times of the perils of bringing terrorists onto u.s. soil what do you say. i think he tricked them 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 and federal court after interrogation over c.z. there are a handful that were sent to guantanamo most went to 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 a 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 oh now you're gonna get his ration at first also was in support of trying time and i detainees 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 that

was sobbing here would even have been able to have been tried in a military commission because they're legally they would have a lot more to establish is that your ear. 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 in the military commission system it would be difficult for them that's another thing i think a lot of people lose sight of that really the notary commissions are intended for a different sort of of criminal charges and the charges that have been raised here so far are fairly big 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 a minute 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 that you can read somebody their miranda rights and they'll cooperate you don't have to torture them. well i think they followed the rule book according to their statement of how it happened they fall of the longstanding department of justice guidelines precisely that is they conducted their intelligence interrogation when that was over there were the miranda rights and then they engaged in the criminal interrogation and i think the truth 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 this you know even in testimony last week a former chase aka commander basically admitted that yes we've done this and kept people on navy vessels but have you ever heard of any other administration keeping people in international law. well in war time of course it's been done prisoners of war have been held on ships until they can be transported to an on site but here it seems that there's a conscious effort to hold people in the area based on any court writs and access to any law and that'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 moring station for these prison ships that is the u.s. will say of course it has no prisoners on diego garcia that's because they're moored right off shore and the ago garcia has been used as a stationing and provisioning area for these prison operations within the event the shows of broadening of 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 not all just do it in the middle of the bank so much for joining us tonight pretty to be with you. well there's still much more to come tonight show obama's war leaders has a blatant devil's battery powered michel you another example of how the government

can't really seem to get their message straight when it comes to goodly and bad points and that is the u.s. planning on keeping it ten thousand troops in iraq purportedly the white house has already drawn up those plants so get into the details and there's a return. into that only under which a mechanism if you go to bring justice or accountability. i have every right to know what my government should truly get want to know why i pay taxes. but i would characterize obama as a charismatic version of american exceptionalism. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so full of sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here's some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry for the big picture.

let's not forget that we had an apartheid regime right. i think iraq. wanted well. we never government says they're going to come from safe get ready because of their freedom. now a few weeks ago we first told you about james rise of the new york times reporter

he's been subpoenaed to appear in a case against a former cia worker who leaked information to the times broke the n.s.a. warrantless wiretapping he's a pulitzer prize winning journalist he's disclose a lot of information that inform the public and now is basically being asked to out whether or not this man was his source arrises attempts to acquire 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 replied rises 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 and attorneys for the government went on to argue that a good leak would encourage government employees who were 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 found his statement on then president elect obama's page where he defended the actions of leakers he set off to the best source of information about waste fraud and abuse in government as 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 whistleblower laws to protect federal 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 leak doesn't exist anymore now they realize they have

a lot of secrets that i once knew one of 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 the rule here and it's been the rule probably for the last fifty sixty seventy years is the one person in the world believe. who we're true. to who it is a tool of policy it is the work of anybody else is not allowed to use it i mean that's the bottom line but these are senior. you know he's right as long as that information is considered a productive league of information then suddenly ok is not a blatant contradiction of the argument the government attorneys make against

arisan it's an obvious double standard as long as obama approves of the information that's being released then suddenly it's ok you know at this point i just want to know how about asleep at night knowing that his flip flop on leakers i frankly become embarrassing. now before president obama became president when he was still campaigning one promise that he made among that he 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 are 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 refocus and fast forward so they found we still have 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 that some troops stay as a viet iraq as gnats 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 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 that'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 our troops since two thousand and eight they are discussed 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 are if you have to take a wild guess what do you say is iraq going to ask us to say i really don't think it matters we'll stay one way or the other what do you ministration is 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 like former secretary of 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 a reaction already to defend itself. isn't part of the problem here is that we wanted to be this administration 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 this involved 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 iraq ease there everybody's saddam hussein is gone he was

a bad actor everybody's. but we created that insurgency paul bremer did when he fired the dishpan of the iraqi army an 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 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 had to advise and assist brigades over there were not in combat world than the one thousand soldiers that died last month who killed him how they die was it a training accident and soldiers are in a combat environment and they die they die in combat are they going to receive the 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 and then on the flip side says we need to really stay 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 you know he had no basis to basis to anything any facts to base that on as soon as he became the president his his the joint chiefs in the department of the district heard of. hence i'm sure told him mr president there is no way we can pull our promise or not so you know all this hairsplitting me and 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 it's not a lot but it's not some 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 in afghanistan knew that we have you know fifty thousand troops in japan you could say we have troops all over europe why do we need troops in iraq to how much do you think that's going to cost them oh then about oh i couldn't even begin to guess because of let's not forget that's just that 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 all over ten thousand or twenty thousand or whatever the number is. does anybody ask you 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 what they are over in iraq or 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 was fifteen troops u.s. troops died in iraq this has become the deadliest that was the deadliest month in iraq for u.s. troops in twenty since two thousand and eight for three years does not make the point that it's not safe for americans in iraq anymore it's absolutely not safe and that was an article by the way say any more about it as if it really ever was but it's nothing it's an uptick in violence because as soon as you say we're going to start withdrawing the few troops that remain 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 brigade. advise and assist brigade troops what does that mean it means nothing it's just

a name change the person means they use those pretty words a lot and i want to ask you want to do with with the mainstream media they just nobody calls him on i'm very happy you brought that up that was going to be my next question you know something that really boggled 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 the parents 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 he did that sounds like somebody is really spinning some serious panic on propaganda that absolutely it's all politics he said obama made the promise that he would get us but he would end the war but i believe 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 is going to say anything to get elected and

then anything to get real but do you see it that is going to hurt him when it comes to reelection that was one of his big promises that he made that's what 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 statement i just think i completely disagree with it and i also do think that americans are going to carry don't think that my thinking that is not a forgotten war he's comparing iraq to korea they called the korean korea the forgotten war iraq is not a forgotten war because 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 are sitting here talking about it right now all because you know we actually make a point to talk about it here on this program i feel like if you watch the rest of the news then you don't see it in 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 woodward 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 planet in america in human history for four years well irony there. and recent history for some reason i will say that 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 michel staying in the legislative change thanks for having me all right still to come tonight we have a you said it i read it on a comment that you've left on line about the stories that we cover here on the show and then going green therefore by the u.n. determines how much it would cost for the world that he come and environmentally friendly but it's really realistic only that but that is the moment.