as video on demand tease mine gold comes in the registry it's now in the palm of your. machine legs on the com. welcome to the lower show where we get the real headlines with none of the mercy me live out of washington d.c. now tonight we'll take a look at figures that show us that we're spending more on our nuclear arsenal today than we did at the height of the cold war also take a look at new arms sales in the works as part of the effort heated up effort to surround iran adam weinstein is going to join us for that one then yesterday there were two deaths at different occupy camps one suicide one violent shooting which had nothing to do with occupiers but police in oakland are already using the tragedy to signal they'll be kicking the protesters out so will the occupy movement

be lost under the shadow of violence and a federal judge ruled yesterday that twitter will have to hand over personal account information on three people associated with wiki leaks so we can talk about what that means for waking leaks but even more importantly what it means for everyone's privacy on the web we'll have all that and more if you tonight including a dose of happy hour but first take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. well today is veterans day a day to remember and honor those that have served this country and so today the mainstream media did just that in between of course stories about herman cain and joe paterno. as we celebrate as a country veteran's day president obama is expected to arrive at the two of you are veterans day many americans are focused on remembering the troops who have lost their lives in war but one woman is spending her energy helping the widow pass

their grief a gold star mother are vowing never to forget honoring the son she lost in two thousand and two while he was serving in the u.s. navy hundreds of thousands of veterans are out of work and you look at the unemployment rate for veterans u.s. military after two thousand and one that rate is at twelve point one percent that's more than. i know let me start with saying that i think it's wonderful and it's about damn time with the mainstream media remember the people are losing their lives every day fighting in wars waged by our politicians and paid for by our tax dollars and their families and friends that suffer along side those that have made the greatest sacrifices and also thrilled that they remember the veterans returning from wars abroad have a higher unemployment rate than the general population is of course aside from the fact that many are injured or psychologically traumatized but it really just kills me how the mainstream media plays this game but on this one day it matters not the rest of the time and yeah you've heard me rail about this before the fact that last year only four percent of coverage was devoted to the war in afghanistan and if you

think that's bad we know that better unemployment better in suicides p.t.s.d. drug addictions cancers lung conditions those probably don't even make a blip on the graph but worst of all of the mainstream media has given up a one of its primary for sponsibility and in my mind that's asking why we're at war asking why we have a hundred thousand troops in afghanistan why we have an uncountable mount of military bases around the world and why are divided congress can always come together when it comes to approving more war spending what happens to our veterans are consequences of actions actions decided on by the government and the media is supposed to be the government watchdog is supposed to analyze ask questions bring to light lies in consistencies and hypocrisy there's a lot of that to be found in our foreign policy so good for them for talking to mothers and wives of fallen soldiers proposing figures on the consequences the unemployment rate the casualties the traumatic brain injuries on this one veteran's day but shame on them for missing it all on any day but this.

and since the i.a.e.a. released its report on iran's nuclear ambitions this week for rhetoric for a response in the form of sanctions or even a military attack. he has now sources are saying that as part of the u.s. plan to expand its military operations in the persian gulf being kicked out post being kicked out of iraq the government may soon announce plans for a large scale large sale of precision guided bomb scheme the united arab emirates so are we seeing a reawakened arms race form let's not forget the earlier this week we brought you report from mother jones exposing at the u.s. currently spends more on its nuclear arsenal than it did at the height of the cold war was during the cold war the u.s. spends on average thirty five billion a year that number today is estimated to be at fifty five billion a year so why on earth do we still need to spend so much money on nukes and in time of economic uncertainty and during a global push for nonproliferation and what are the iran war hawks have to do with

it joining me to discuss it and weinstein national security reporter for mother jones adam thanks so much for joining us tonight as i mentioned earlier this week we highlighted your report on the show and we had a lot of questions from viewers when it came to the finding the fact that we used to spend thirty five billion now it's fifty five billion is that inflation adjusted yes that is inflation adjusted a lot about the question that we've got as well and those are actually i believe one thousand nine hundred dollars there are. arms control association reports. just being able to track down these budgets is so difficult because it's spread out across a number of agencies and also a lot of really good information is classified so there's a lot of guesswork in some of these are this is our best guess just based on what we can find it's transparent and open source right to tell me this we just signed a new start treaty with russia agreed to bring nuclear arsenal down fifteen hundred

warheads there is a global push global zero right for nonproliferation around the world why on earth are we still spending so much money on this arsenal. well the interesting thing alone is that it doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with strategy and it's got to do a lot with stakeholders domestically in the united states people who have a lot to gain from keeping the nuclear weapons program large and we have several national laboratories that are kind of the beneficiaries of us large jess and they have political benefactors on capitol hill there's a couple of mostly conservative senators who are congressmen who are kind of make this a pet project that there's nuclear weapons the bases the. submarines the silos the planes they're all over the united states and they're a very poor project to have so you're saying much in the same way that we see defense contractors try to place from our weapons systems they're also people that are profiting off of keeping our nuclear arsenal large it does seem like there's

there's a lot of financial tail wagging the dog involved in this situation absolutely alone and the interesting thing is there's also been a give and take care part of the reason he administration could move forward with new start and with its goals towards disarmament was by basically giving congressman some agreements to modernize quote unquote the arsenal that does exist and of course a lot of modernization measures that they're looking after changing the ranges of these weapons changing the. nuclear explosive force of these weapons could fundamentally alter the weapons and the technology that we need in order to do that stuff could be used to build more russians i first tried to look at this from a from a war hawks perspective right they say that we need to modernize our nuclear arsenal because you never know what might happen in the future but is this i mean is it an iran that comes into play here in the meantime they're still working on a bomb they don't have one or is it more of a cold war type of way to look at it in terms of russia's arsenal or perhaps even

you know now looking ahead over to china. oh like i said a lot i think a lot of it isn't even sort of strategic i think a lot of the interest that you see that actually make the nuclear weapons complex run our very monday in a never local level they're very financially oriented now having said that we will hear a lot of rhetoric emanating from the house and from the senate again mostly from conservative hall under jon karl was one o'clockne here and the chairman of the house armed services committee is another who are sort of courting thing to the pacific rim pointing to china as a major threat and the interesting thing i do want to mention is just last week a british american security information council released another report that said most of these nuclear powers china russia even france are kind of digging in their heels and slowing down their own disarmament efforts largely out of concern about the u.s. nuclear weapons complex and what we're doing so if you're really concerned about china you might want to ask why are we kind of reconstituting these these abilities

to build on bombs now you know just like you said it's really hard to even go out and find a figures as to how much is being spent every single year so this is something that in my mind goes pretty much under the radar how do you think that americans would feel right now when they're being told that their costs are just going to have to come to certain social programs that they depend on if they were to hear that we're still spending so much money on our nuclear weapons. well you know i think the american people generally are feeling very confused about a lot of these issues right now it's just there are so many numbers flying back and forth a lot of congressmen are trying to off the scale and throw different numbers back and say well nuclear weapons on cost this much they cost that much they're also trying to sort of protect the defense budget in general from cuts and making a hawkish argument for that and i think the american people just sort of left feeling well you've told us for so long something needs to be cut and we're actually pulling out of iraq we're drawing down in afghanistan why is there a military budget build up how do you justify that and i think that it's

a dialogue it's just really starting in the united states we're going to see it sort of lead up now i'm curious to hear what your take is on this post a rock military buildup where military expansion every want to call attention they were being kicked out of iraq so now it's been reported that we're going to continue to try to spread our wings when it comes to other nations not an area that we're going to send more troops to kuwait now there's this truck perhaps another weapon sales to the united arab emirates but what's your take on how that. well there is there's a lot going on there alone on many different things that want to first thing full disclosure i used to be a contractor in iraq sort of turned away from that business after seeing some of the things that i saw over there and you can our presence in iraq is increasing and militarily but a lot of that military presence is being replaced by contractors just recently reported by the washington post now the arms transfers the u.s. needs this is something that we've always sort of done in the region to sort of our proxy partners that are saudi arabia was one for the longest time and u.a.e.

i think also seen a more politically stable and more agreeable to us at the moment is there is no doubt that whoever is in the white house today tomorrow next year five years from now or a republican or democrat they have a strong interest in seeing u.s. president bring us objectives achieved in the middle east and certainly in sort of a proxy deal over and maintaining a presence of business and some there are very is in their interest. now i have to ask you because so much of the rhetoric as i mentioned at the beginning of this interview has been heating up in regards to iran and a lot of this posturing in terms of spreading out post iraq is to surround iran at the same time after that i report came out we heard a lot of people calling for a military attack even mitt romney stepping in on this and to somebody who's been in our war zones you know we even have secretary of defense leon panetta former secretary. robert gates commenting and this is dangerous this could have

a lot of consequences for somebody who's been in war zones how does that make you feel when you hear these people talking about. well i think a lot of good will not occur over when you look at a certain other what secretary gates said most recently. what the are really the international community is doing with respect to iran right now this is just state craft kind of taking its course i think you're going to see sort of a concerted effort and i think what we've already seen out of the obama administration is an unwillingness to go to no matter what happens with iran and a military strike rescission strike or some kind of forceful sanctions may be on the cards there whatever happens i think there is a general will among the u.s. public and among this administration the u.s. is not going to do this alone which also sort of explains those arms transfers that you're talking about we like to have some allies in the region but you know i think that this is a huge political football we're going into an election year or you've got a couple of republicans and let's face it mitt romney is always being criticized

for not being conservative now if he's going to make his bones somehow and picking on iran is a great way to do it but it just baffles me because i from my perspective it seems like the best way to really honor veterans and those that have fought for this country is to try to keep them out of war rather than have that kind of tough talk . well it's certainly interesting now that you mention a lot of that we don't see any real better ends with a great deal of military experience kind of emerging in the republican field for president you know you don't see a whole lot of people who are speaking from experience there you see a lot of people who we might have referred to you were a few years ago is true canards you're seeing a whole lot of people who are claiming to speak for the veteran but not really a whole lot of people who have a great deal of empathy or understanding what better and really it was to me and it's definitely an important thing to bring out and i want to thank you so much for joining us tonight on this. thanks

a lot of happy veterans there thank you. so to contact the white house delays a decision on the history i find projects like this in front of the times when environmental votes and then green light the project after the election and there's violence i possibly protest across the country being used to smear him with his image that will cover interest and. could. look at least the reaction. was. nobody seems to know. i never appropriate to face the argument that they're being overly dramatic.

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then something else and you hear see some other part of it and realize that everything is ok. i'm sorry welcome to the big picture.

mr. after tens of thousands fled into washington d.c. over the past several months in protest the obama administration has delayed its decision regarding the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline and ultimately viewed ministrations decision regarding the seven billion

dollar trans canada projects came down to environmental concerns about its route specifically going through parts of nebraska or ask one of the states that would host the seven hundred mile pipeline richard go through the sandhills treasured region of the cornhusker state and national environmental organizations alarmed about the carbon footprint of oil from the tar sands and joined with nebraska from nebraska farmers who worried how possible oil spill would affect their land crops and livestock so the obama administration delayed their decision and the president released this saying he said because of this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the american people we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood now yes delaying the decision is a step in the right direction but is this actually going to kill the pipeline project altogether depends on who you ask out there something to visit a lake and force trans canada to scrap the idea completely and farmar for

environmentalists that is the ultimate goal but and labor unions are feeling quite differently a lot of large unions showed support for this project and are upset because any delay obviously means they won't be hiring now despite arguments on both sides of the issue this delay couldn't be better news for president obama himself let's not forget the state department found himself in trouble when word got out during the department's review and it hired a contractor who was buddy buddy with trans canada so as you can imagine that prompted a conflict of interest accusations and he was also stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to keep it as a wealthy environmental supporters and. pain donors on his side while still trying to appease those who want jobs and the oil industry that wants this pipeline real that so a lot of people are wondering which base he would bandage and i guess with his delay he conveniently isn't going to have to worry about it at least until after the next presidential election so stuck in a bind just sweep it under the rug slick move obama and the environment just have to luck out this time too. and yesterday two people were killed at or near

occupy camps in unrelated incidents the first was an occupied burlington or thirty five year old veteran shot himself a psych it happened outside of a bart station exit frank ogawa plaza where the victim was shot in the head now and neither of these cases did the occupation have anything to do with the deaths that is going to stop the media and even more so city officials from painting it that way open police officers association and oakland mayor jean quan have already signaled they think that it's time for the occupiers to leave so what exactly needs to happen to keep the message afloat instead of in the shadows of the violence joining me to discuss it is john joshua holland editor and senior writer at alternate or joshua thanks for coming back on the show tonight now if you can start by just telling us a little bit more about this shooting near the edge of my oakland camp yesterday as i understand everybody said that they've never seen the guy before that this wasn't related to camp at all. yeah it's a tragic nether one hundred first murder no but in this year three eyewitnesses

told me that the fight started on the street there were multiple assailants and they chased the eventual victim through the camp. and after they got to the far side of the camp they they killed him there were a number of members of occupy oakland that reportedly gathered around and tried to minister c.p.r. but unfortunately the young man died you know there were a number of people out there last night who were saying that if this were not close in proximity to the camp it would have got any media attention one man said that there had been another young victim of the shooting death just catty corner to this incident and he said quote there were no news vans there were no helicopters overhead so i think that you know it's unfortunate that these incidents are being used as a premise to call for the dismantling of these camps when in fact these are social

problems that exist and you know linda or the incident that you mention in burlington of course you know veterans have a very high suicide rate these are tragedies that would happen with or without the occupation and tragedies that deserve a lot more media attention and not just an instance that's right this but this i think when we talk about bill clinton you've been covering. for a long time now since its beginning he thinks this is an attempt or perhaps you know a good place for the police to try to deflect some of the attention and turn it back onto the protesters because they've definitely been getting a lot of flak we've seen a lot of police brutality and violent incidents over the last couple weeks. well i think that it is there's a lot of politics at play here in oakland of course it's a very progressive community there jean-claude of the city and the police have taken a lot of criticism for. from progressives and people who are sympathetic to the movement for the violence in these police actions but they've also been getting a lot of resistance from the community from members of the community local

businesses for letting the occupiers move back and frankly go a plaza all signs are that another crackdown imminent. yesterday for members of the local city council joined with the local chamber of commerce to demand that the protesters be removed posthaste and they threatened jean harlow the vote of no confidence if she didn't if she didn't go ahead and do just that so i do think that that's exactly what it is it's again a very useful premise for you know for those who seek to dismantle this. you know one of the arguments that they use here too is that i think i can should go so that police officers can get that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing right and that stopping crime around the community and this tragic incident from yesterday is a perfect example for them but has anyone bothered to ask why they think that they need to come out in mass force and and use some of the tactics and really worry

about the protesters rather than continuing on with their daily duties. but it's an interesting question i spoke with a police officer yesterday over the crime scene tape and he was saying that you know i asked him is there ever a sense that some lesser amount of force can be used to achieve these goals and so he was talking about deployment of about two hundred fifty riot police to forty. for an abandoned building in the middle of the night and i said you know is there is there any thought that those those forty people could have been approached the next day in the light of day and negotiating with it didn't seem to occur to him what i've seen in oakland is a sense that you know the old saying is that if all you have is a hammer every thing in the world looks like a nail we've only seen massive deployments very heavily armored riot police or a minimal police presence last night this happened during rush hour there were no

police in the square they took ten minutes to respond so i don't see how the presence of occupy oakland did anything to influence police response to this particular incident now you've been writing a lot about the police response and perhaps some cover ups or at least a lack of transparency when it comes to being really honest about what goes down and you also mentioned that these tactics they've been using are actually against what's written in their manuals. that's right you wouldn't believe. it was it was as part of a settlement of a two thousand and three class action suit that arose from an incident in which oakland police used wouldn't call it and chemical weapons and peaceful iraq war protesters protesters against the iraq war they had to come up with a set of guidelines and these guidelines are very specific they don't allow the use of tear gas unless of all other means of containing or crowding in exhaust it we've seen and you said you know very very readily it doesn't allow them to fire

projectiles except in certain circumstances so we have seen them i think very clearly go off the hook at the open police department is also resisting the request of public records request by the a.c.l.u. of northern california to release police records about these uses of force so it's it's difficult for us to evaluate just what's going on because of that lack of transparency and you know unfortunately once again here we are talking about police tactics and talking about violence and i feel like this is part of the problem is that all along these things take away from the message you want to and from what it's trying to achieve and especially you know the way other cities are using these tragic events to try and smear the movement so what's the movie going to have to do to have to stop that to keep it on message yeah i mean that's one of the i think we're good aspects of this whole story is that a lot of people who are open feel exactly that same way they feel that they are

small enough there is a small number of people out there who are you know seeking confrontation with police and they feel like those people are undermining the message of occupy oakland and indeed last week we saw a very clear illustration of this when there was a really dramatic day of peaceful protests that shut down the port and then that was to. in the evening by tear gas and a lot of hectic moments on the street the next day the media coverage was all about . you know the evening. craziness and not about rather inspiring. activism so you know i've spoken with activists out there who say that they are efforts to police their own we've already seen a lot of efforts. to keep their own in line and i believe we will see more of that i thank you so much for joining us letting us know what's going on over there help

and thanks for. i will looks like facebook's questionable privacy practices might be catching up with them according to the wall street journal the federal trade commission is nearing a settlement with the wildly popular social networking site that would protect users information and under the settlement facebook would face privacy audits for the next twenty years and i would keep the site from making private information public without the user's knowledge and if it did want to make any data public it would require permission first and also actually require the popular web site to create widespread opt in practices so let's say that you want to make a photo that you posted online only available for your friends to see what i deal with banned facebook from changing their settings and your photo is protected from anonymous eyes but the sound that was a long time coming two years to be exact back in two thousand and nine facebook made changes to its privacy settings letting privately label information be available to the public and they took away users options to go back and then make that data private again so the social media company said that they made the changes

to simplify settings excuse that made a lot of viewers our users excuse me angry myself being one of them because the move was clearly deceptive now as you can imagine users and consumer groups were outraged and that's when they took their anger to the f.c.c. basically got so much negative feedback from their sneaky methods that six months later they restored the ability to opt out of specific tools on the site and limited the amount of data that users had to make public but that was a small victory in the name of privacy f.t.c. is slowly been forcing the site to develop granular privacy controls where the user can pick and choose who sees what information and facebook isn't the only company that space scrutiny for its privacy practices you know google and twitter both of which work out a settlement with the f.t.c. as well so if this settlement is agreed upon would be a huge step in the right direction and we should point out we don't know yet how long it'll take to finalize a settlement but we do know that users shouldn't have to worry about what information is made public in the online world especially on

a label that data is being private and now the f.c.c. is keeping a watchful eye on the company perhaps users will feel better about posting their information and knowing who really gets to see it. now still to come tonight he's trying to york newspaper on occupy wall street time of war and a judge rules that twitter must turn over account information of three people to wiki leaks so what is not ruling say for the future of privacy just a. little more military mechanisms do not work to bring justice or accountability. i have every right to know what my government workers want to know why i pay taxes. i would characterize obama as a charismatic version of american exceptionalism.