if. russia. which writes and if you zoom from funds to. install top team. six. ft. five. in.

a diplomatic row at the u.n. security council between russia and france i believe me i would also say in french arming the rebels breaches the un's resolution on the country. also new eurozone crisis as portugal's credit status is downgraded to junk by moody's raising agency which says there's been a need a new bailout just two months after getting a nation build a euro one shock waves have been felt across europe with the shares forming and the cost of government boring and surging and indebted countries from ireland to me. despite a need disaster recovery budget of twenty five billion dollars japanese people remain in desperate need not only of presidential assistance but also emotional support in areas devastated by the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami. up next and it discusses the need formula of the obama administration to avoid using dawn

time in the bay prison camp looks at other news ignored by the mainstream means you . welcome to the ilona show where you'll get the real headlines with none of the mersey are going to live in 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 at 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 knew it 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 when started 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 so personally that. one 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 finds this verdict outrageous maybe more thought the jury might 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 last is beyond me

but looking at all these people how they're responding i almost get 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 single handedly worked america into a frenzy over this case that with the nancy grace to live we cannot believe they kill you there has gone on a van if you aren't ours a jury delivers a. blow. just the first probably leaves the courthouse and goes to toast champagne i ever heard of a window at a local bar let me just say. the devil and damn cream tonight. the devil is dancing tonight yes the

devil is nancy grace because she reportedly got her highest ratings ever last night feeding you this crap making you absorbed by it making you 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 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 leaning news network but the rest the rest have no excuse and here's something if i may the 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 a 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 suit internet publishers if they think that you're engaging in infringing activities i believe me what counts as infringing activities is so broadly 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 in its pocket 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 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 whether sites really be taken down but mostly that this would align u.s.

policy with oppressive regimes but of course the mainstream media would rather not cover our government's oppressive policies especially which are 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 miss it. so if you're the obama administration you still want to capture people abroad interrogate them but you can't take them to guantanamo bay seeing it how's your first order of business when you became president was deciding the executive order to close it all the what do you do apparently you just capture 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 an al qaeda and civilian court in new york achmed 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 read a miranda warning under portably 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 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 horn. 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 mo 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 in gauged in war with a foreign power with a foreign power or with a terrorist group and one of the questions coming out of this case with war us 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 a 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 their 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 on going war between republicans in congress and the bush and the obama administration about want on the mo itself very very clear that that the obama administration views one time the mo 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 to 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 of representative buck mckeon who said the transfer of this terrorist detainee directly contradicts congressional intent and the will of the american people congress has spoken clearly molton multiple times of the perils of bringing terrorists onto u.s. soil what do you say he will take them. 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 in federal court after interrogation overseas e 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 or now the obama administration at first also was in support of trying detainees of course on u.s. soil in civilian courts instead of in these military commissions but the new york times made it interesting note 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 illegally 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 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 military commissions are intended for a different sort of 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 amended indictments in 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 that. well i think they they followed the rule book according to their statement of how it happened they followed the longstanding department of justice guidelines precisely that is they conducted their intelligence interrogation when that was over there rather than the miranda rights and then they engaged in the criminal interrogation and i think 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 derived 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 the former commander basically admitted that yes we've done this week kept people on navy vessels but have you ever heard of any other administration keeping people in international waters. well in war time of course it's been done prisoners of war 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 beyond any court writs and access to in the 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 moorings station for these prison ships of his the u.s.

will say of course that has no prisoners on diego garcia that's because they're more dried off shore and diego garcia has been used as a stationing and provisioning area for these prison operations but in the event this shows a 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 you'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 scott thanks so much for joining us tonight. great to be with you. well there's still much more to come tonight show obama's war leaders has a blatant double standard but we're going to show you another example of how the government can't really seem to get their message straight when it comes to goodly and badly and then is the u.s. planning on keeping it ten thousand troops in iraq reportedly the white house has

already drawn up those plans will get into the details on his return. twenty years ago or just country. where did it take.

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 rhizome broke the n.s.a. warrantless wiretapping he's a pulitzer prize winning journalist he has disclosed a lot of information that's informing the public and now is basically being asked to out whether or not this man was his source or rises 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 part. techs that information so in other words good leaks as they're being called don't exist that 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 effect of

their disclosure of that information should they desire to do so well i've got a few problems with this argument let's start with the obvious the fact that obama was originally pro leaking when it's good for the public in fact we found this statement on then president elect obama's page where he defended the actions of leakers he said often 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 it was a lower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste fraud and abuse of authority in government well so much for that how we all know the team obama has been adamant about going after whistleblowers nonstop and what suddenly

a good leak doesn't exist anymore now they've realized 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 and 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 really here it's been the rule probably for the last fifty sixty seventy years is the one person in the world. who we're going to. it is a tool of policy it is a weapon anybody else is not allowed to use it i mean that's the bottom line but these are. you know what he's right as long as that information is considered a productive leak of information then suddenly ok is that a blatant contradiction to the argument the government attorneys make against rise

and 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 obama sleeps at night knowing that his flip flop on leakers has quite frankly become embarrassing. 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 in the 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 the iraqis themselves aren't taking responsibility and we have to refocus now you fast forward to that 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 agreement 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 but if iraq asks us well at some troops stay as a viet iraq has amassed despite repeated warnings from the u.s. that 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 what violence towards americans has picked up as june was the deadliest month there for our troops since two thousand and eight so here this gustus 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 had to take a wild guess what do you say is iraq going to ask us to stay are i really don't think it matters will stay one way or the other what the administration is trying

to do is really twister iraq's arm prime minister or prime minister maliki's arm 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 watching. tells me that they feel we're not ready to pull out entirely because iraq is not ready to defend itself. isn't part of the problem here though right is that we wanted to be face 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 that's involved there are a lot of people that want us 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 glad

saddam hussein is gone he was a bad actor everybody is glad 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 ministry 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 well 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 were not in combat well then the one thousand soldiers that died last month who killed them how 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 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 and now 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 secretary defense i'm sure told him mr president there is no way we can pull out 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 regardless of whether they 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 say that we have 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 end up costing 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 we're not we have most serious the united states employs 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. does anybody ask you how many american contractors are in iraq right now i'll bet 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 and 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 the last mother's 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 it's absolutely not safe and that was and i think a lot of i don't know i say anymore not as if it really ever was but it's not to say 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 they're not combat troops they're advise and assist brigade. advise and assist brigade troops what does that

mean it means nothing it's just a name change that they say means they use those pretty words a lot and i want to ask you one thing you do with with the mainstream media they just nobody calls them on i'm very happy you brought that up that was going to be my next question you know 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 a parent 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 tells me that sounds like somebody is really spinning some serious pentagon propaganda that absolutely it's all politics he said obama made the promise that he would get us that he would end the war there would i believe it was a quote 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 what do you have saying that is what i'm 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 and i just think i completely disagree with it and i also do think that americans are going to carry i don't think that america think i'm very i that is not a forgotten war he's comparing iraq to korea the cold the korean the korea the forgotten war iraq is not a forgotten war is it is that the forefront of everything today not like it was three four five years ago but how could it be forgotten when you'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.