what is the cause what's the cause of the crisis of the artificial crisis the real goal is the united states government has embarked on a course of extreme economic aggression against iran with the hope that by creating economic suffering economic isolation economic misery that part of the population will rise up or become disenfranchised with the government so that the u.s. can do as it has in history carry out regime change. tech crunch relations with the u.k. have been further strain this week over london's decision to take iranian english language news channel press t.v. british air iran called the move a clear example of censorship british officials say the channel broke broadcasting rules of editorial control and failed to pay a fine imposed last year press t.v. believes it's being silenced for dissenting views filreis so you can't based author and media analyst believes the channel is another victim of an ongoing campaign and can start around thanks so much for being with us if this had been separated from

geopolitics this would not have happened some kind of sanction would have been would have been made and the deal would have been struck so i think the press t.v. has been viewed through geo political terms so that is the breakdown of relations between britain and iran at the end of the day i think that most of the criticisms of press t.v. been due to its coverage because you know it sees the middle east very differently for example than the mainstream media in britain this repeatedly comes up probably is really groups repeatedly complain about it we know very well that the british government at the very highest level was discussing with the american ambassador here how to limit press t.v.'s output in britain so now what we've got is we've got a real limiting of dialogue in the me in the british media and i think that's a tragedy and certainly a tragedy at a time when british relations are at their lowest ebb for a long long period. and there are plenty of more stories to be found on our website

our home including attack downs the french president's website in retaliation for his backing of the closure of file sharing load plus. if you've been following ukraine's famine movement check out their latest show of naked anger in front of the indian embassy you'll find that story and much much more at our home. while across the atlantic a freedom of speech battle of a different kind is underway the u.s. congress buckled to pressure and recalled to anti-piracy bills this week after a massive internet blackout and hacker attacks on government web websites millions of net users and web giants such as wikipedia and google joined together to stand against the proposed legislation if passed the sopa and people laws would have allowed top media conglomerates and copyright holders to shut down large portions of the web without involving the courts at the same time the anonymous hacker group

retaliated against the shutdown of the file sharing site load claiming to have brought down the f.b.i. i'm white house websites barrett brown who's worked with anonymous on various operations believes the mega upload shut down shows the government will take action even without new laws in place. the problem. it is such that giving them power to do one thing is almost always interpreted by themselves as a means of giving them power for many other things so and the way that you know the rate on make up low tides in this opens it showed that even without help already in place here they are already arresting and arresting the owners of mega upload and shutting it down and in the future the very near future as you'll see there will be a number of other groups that will pop up using more more military methods and situation gets worse and they will actually and felt that's point at the notable

civil war in the us occurs. now look at what else is making news around the world this hour yemen's president. left his nation after a farewell speech in which he apologized for his mistakes and said it's time to hand over power he's leaving the country to have medical treatment in the new west after which he's expected to return as head of the general people's congress party yemen's parliament recently approved immunity from prosecution force who's been accused of suppressing protests and ordering the killing of demonstrators. another brawling on saturday night in the north nigerian state of which he has killed eleven people including several police and army personnel patrolling a check point two churches in the area were also attacked meanwhile the death toll from a series of bombings and can know on friday now exceeds one seventy and continues to rise islamised sect boko haram has claimed responsibility for the majority of

the violence that's plagued northern nigeria since christmas. at least sixteen people have died and one remains missing after an iranian passenger boat sank in the persian gulf off of the country's southern coast the ship set sail despite a travel ban imposed on light bustles ahead of a storm the captain who survived the accident is now being questioned by police. beijing rings in the chinese new year in spectacular fashion from a bell tower in an ancient part of the capital it's tradition to sound the bell one hundred eight times to herald the start of the lunar calendar year the night sky was also lit up by fireworks displays across the country as more than a billion people celebrated the year of the water dragon. this week a former british official admitted the case spies had been called red handed by russia but it took six years from when the kremlin first made the allegations over

bennett explains how moscow left no stone unturned. it's not exactly the most glamorous of james bond gadgets but hidden in this fake stone was a high tech transmitted british spooks used to spy on russia yella geishas from moscow have always been dismissed but six years on there's a rock solid evidence the u.k. can no longer deny tony blair's former chief of staff come clean admitting british spies were caught red handed the spy rock was embarrassing they had us bang to rights clearly they had known about it for some time and had been saving it up for a political purpose. the embarrassing revelations confirmed the findings of a russian television report in two thousand and six it showed this video of a man slowing down and looking at the rock as he passed apparently an agent beaming top secret intelligence from a mobile computer to

a digital drop point concealed in the stone another man was filmed picking up the rock and collecting the data out of the moment was the one behind the exposé and left no stone unturned but much more at first i had to be dealt i thought it might be a fake story or political game but we cross checked everything with multiple sources and it turned out to be true and some footage we didn't include in the film was particularly convincing for example there was a video of a british spy unit in front of the camera that camera was hidden under a tree in the songs lying nearby the guy wanted it to look natural so we pretended that he needed to take a leak n.e.p. right in front of the camera before picking up a stone and leaving. but it was his word against theirs britain fiercely denied the allegations with tony blair laughing them off as russian propaganda the truth was buried inside the u.k. secret service headquarters supposedly never to be seen again so after six years of

dodging the bullet why admit it now they're very embarrassing but i think that the british government has decided. to have bygones are bygones and say ok we made a mistake. up and we want better relations from now on so i would see this as a first step on the road to improve relations with russia this is the home of britain's spooks m i six the government is a broad their job may not be secret but how they do it is or at least should be so the embarrassment of these revelations is not so much the spying itself but the fact they were caught doing it opposed. world war agreement supposedly forbids britain and russia from spying on each other no doubt they'll be more careful from now on on the bennetts london. i'll be back with a recap of this week's main headlines in just a few minutes stay with our team. culture

is that so much money in which of course you might want to give them severe it is the biggest and most expensive elections money can buy this is how many american

see what are called political action committees or super pacs. move. to do.

wealthy british style holds sometimes life. target. markets why not scandals. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the kinds of reports on r g.

thanks for being with us around the week's top stories in today's headlines the arab league calls on syrian president bashar al assad to surrender some of his powers to his vice president and form a national unity government with the opposition. early results show croatia has voted in favor of joining the european union this comes as yet another member of the financially stricken union rumania rises up against its governments and tile certain measures. and other stories that shape this week tension over iran's

nuclear program reaches new highs as the e.u. debates an oil embargo and the u.s. hopes its military presence in the region. up next join peter lavelle and his guests for crosstalk. please. continue. to. follow me and welcome to cross our computor look out the biggest and most expensive elections money can buy this is how many americans see what are called political action committees or super pacs are the super pacs good for democracy do they really inform and voters and are elections now only about money.

and you can. cross talk political action committees i'm joined by seton motley in washington he is the president and editor in chief of the less government also in washington we have greg coleman he is a government affairs lobbyist for public citizen and in los angeles we crossed a room he is the founding editor of the independent newspaper are gentlemen crosstalk rules and if that means you can jump in anytime you want and i really very much encourage a room in los angeles i go to you first and in researching this program i came across i thought it was a very interesting and if not funny statement everyone loves to hate super pacs one critic said that they were quote a new political animal that is ugly loud and anti-democratic would you agree or disagree with that statement. well it's certainly is fundamentally anti-democratic sensually have extremely wealthy people who can come in

corporations that can come in with no disclosure they can coordinate with campaigns spend huge amounts of money distorting the political process they can basically broadcast whatever propaganda they like would ever time and we live in an age the second gilded age in america where there's just enormous concentration of wealth and we know that there billionaires are running around whether it's someone like george soros or the koch brothers who have a vested interest and tried to game the political system and we have to see this also in the larger context of how money is used in politics in the united states or something like seventeen thousand registered lobbyists in washington d.c. the vast majority of them controlled by corporations or trade groups and they exist essential. a influence the process to write laws and regulations so that money

flows towards them and this is what citizens united and the super pacs are all about it's arrived at the point that we have the best democracy that money can buy ok craig what do you think about that in washington d.c. that's run as a pretty strong opinion but do you think about it. you know i've got to take that opinion even stronger or super pacs are perhaps the most dangerous trend we've seen in the financing of american elections recently you know this. supreme court five justices on the supreme court opened an absolutely disastrous floodgate unlimited in largely undisclosed money in american elections when they ruled just two years ago this is the anniversary by the way of the citizens united decision in which five justices ruled that corporations are to be treated as people under the u.s. constitution and therefore can make unlimited expenditures now that's bad enough that we're having this flood of unlimited corporate money flowing into elections

and it which is largely going undisclosed but then to make it even worse we've got this new phenomenon called super pacs that are directly and very closely aligned with each of the presidential candidates he's our candidate specific groups that are receiving unlimited corporate money on limited union money unlimited wealth from individuals specifically to support a candidate either romney gingrich or bamma is setting up his own as a result we're going back to the pre watergate era in which the very wealthy get to buy these election if i got a seat in here and i have to point out to our viewers here is that i was a small boy during watergate and i can remember afterwards a lot of people say that at least the the positive outcome of this scandal called watergate was election campaigning reform and it is that all gone now with the with the decision in two thousand and ten because it looks like we've just seen you for

a few decades go ahead. unfortunately know it's not all gone i'm sorry you guys are so in effect a cult of free speech. money is speech in our society money money is groceries in society you can argue that it's not but try leaving the grocery store with some groceries without money money is speech in this country and i'm sorry you guys are so obtusely offended by all this free speech going on the reason super pacs and this is because we still have stupid anti first amendment campaign finance laws on the books you want to complain about lobbyist lobbyists is one of the few jobs it's actually mention the comp constitution petition congress. grievances the problem is government is so incredibly huge that it requires so many lobbyist to try to hurt it and beat it back off people's particular industries if you want to work campaign finance reform were do says size scope and sphere of influence of

government and then won't be any needed to bribe all these politicians ok what do you think about that i mean. if it's a free speech issue here i mean but it gets down to you can those that have free speech doesn't have the money if you have money you can have free speech well of course this is based on the absurd notion that corporations are people and as justice stevens. is sure that this is you know in a way in a way you know who are already since our asian a lot away allow them to run for office why don't we allow them to vote you know i think i would be more on this why don't we have president exxon mobil i mean i think a good example of this is just to please our and it is just a bigger terms of the corrupting influence of money in our society is that over the last few years julie the energy industry and its allies have been pouring about three to four billion dollars a year i was working with kids to like this story there's

a. change. they're basically interested in. trying to distort what is. proven science that the climate is shifting now it's honestly believe that species that are because you know their habitat unless you do you remember the climate unless you believe. that the planet itself is this fraud where spring is coming earlier where ecosystems are are shifting you want your story joining me like you would be if you know this is going to drag. craig it's. money let's talk about the money issue right let's talk about the money issue as opposed to the policy you know you talk about i mean it's money if you want to see it first. ever says watergate ever since watergate we recognize that

when you have any individual or corporation or any entity that can throw in too much money to a candidate you can potentially corrupt that candidate so now that we have and so with the watergate era we set up it was amazing we're going to hear romney's one how much money can go into politics we've lost those reasonable limits and now can and that all groups corporations anyone can throw in five million ten million to support a presidential candidate specifically that candidate and that candidate is going to know who who feathered his or her bed to get elected president that is a very very easy to use a little upset that the free market people can now spend as much as the unions always could these were ok seating can i ask you a question here i mean it's well known it's common knowledge that most of these super pacs that are supporting candidates which is pointed out they're former staffers from the candidate there's no sure i nice chinese wall there now but i

mean that's what they're supposed to be so i don't care about its own constitution . you know wall it's an unconstitutional law you're telling people how they can spend their money. i mean isn't. that somehow corporations are people ok ok obvious here's me who forms corporations people do they don't lose their rights because they form a business or form of people who drive cars and what i mean is are just going to do things here anymore you're going to use more graduations are and i really want to and i is why down gentlemen craig if i can go to you again i'd like to go go go back to these things i mean super pacs ok they have a lot of money we've all agreed to that ok but it's also a way to deny it's an adult deniability you know we have the candidate saying well this this ad ran and well i have nothing to do with it i didn't have any involvement in it but of course it's that candidates former staffers that are going to knowing there's a force to my law to say that i'm asking craig. that that's exactly that's exactly right what we're seeing going on in the republican primaries where the republican

candidates are criticizing their own super pacs for doing these negative and false ads and it really is just a whole bunch of bluster these super pacs are doing exactly what the candidates want to do they pretend that they don't even see the ads that the super pacs are running yet every time one of these presidential candidates gives a speech they're echoing exactly what the super pacs are saying the super pacs are are the dirty mechanisms they're the ones that can do all the dirty work for the presidential candidates coming up with the lies slanders or just negative campaign ads well the candidates themselves try to distance themselves in arm's length and say i criticize what that super pac did but you know this is the message so it's really all bluster i mean all these presidential candidates therefore realize it was exceedingly beneficial ok speech and why they forced. into

a lot of those stupid law says that they can't coordinate. with the super pac and now you're criticizing them for a hearing to the stupid law that you're insisting upon but they are coordinating that's our coordination rules our coordination be aware that you're going to you're stupid. for one second to not coordinating former staffers for a candidate are not a problem with them coordinating but then you have a problem coordinating i don't have a problem with them coordinating this is free speech. the important point is that this keeps getting back to the issue of free speech and many constitutional scholars i'm going to as i do this actually the five four majority decision swept aside more than a century of precedent that this was a radical illegal. area that was overturning all sorts of precedent in terms of. the supreme court so there's such

a great. scholar and i want to buy your position there some corporation well how. are you sure tears will leave and we're going to show you here is a bad precedent. all right general i'm going to jump in here we're going to be sure we're going to show you a short duration roll we'll keep the discussion going to continue our discussion on super pacs state parties. to. discover its beauty.

communicate with the wind. and become free. see what nature can give you. more news today. again flared up. from these are the images the world. of canada. giant corporations are today.

and. welcome back to cross talk on here all about jumanji we're discussing whether super pacs are good for democracy. and. ok then i to ask you do these super pacs and these really dreadful ads are they put on television and do they actually informing people is there any information valuable information there to make decisions. sure sure and i'm like everybody else on this panel i actually trust the american people to discern and delineate what's

useful and what's not and make a rational and intelligent decision these people seem to think that the american people are sheep and eighty it's and can't figure out what's true and what's not in these ads well i mean if you're crowding out the public sphere and you're only getting certain messages it's hard to make a decision greg you want to jump in there go ahead excuse me the internet is a cornucopia you can get whatever you want or need to tell you internet these ads are not swaying people well i mean see if you would probably agree with me that then if it isn't the case then why are they spending so much money on it go ahead craig jump in more because it's part of the grass or a very negative ads these are very negative ads these are this is not useful information these are very negative as we go mitt romney mitt romney who had previously supported abortion rights reg and gingrich for supporting abortion rights which gingrich doesn't i mean it's misinformation that it's coming out here and negative advertising this is not constructive not only turns off floaters

towards the election but it also increases the cost for buying campaign ads for the candidates on the parties who have serious messages to offer no this is drowning out yet again a real battle of the serious message the d.n.c. is full of. excuse me i had a question when they went a.b.c. long and they're rewarding when n.b.c. lies in their reporting they're not they're not held to this accountability standard that you're applying to private citizens why is that. yes they are their own laws it's practice journalism no no no no look here's the thing about. the whole citizens united and super pacs we have to see this in the historical context of the destruction of the fairness doctrine in one nine hundred eighty seven by the reagan administration there with their another. public airwaves they are public in the end.