sweet it means denied those allegations from day one he learned about the charges after he left the country and a lower swedish court approved an extradition request made by a swedish prosecutor since the song was already out of the country he turned himself into british author already and he's been living on bail in a friend's mansion in england ever since the week of expounder as appeal the extradition request repeatedly and it's finally won permission to have his argument heard by the british supreme court so fast forward to this week or saw it and his defense team of had two days of testimony yesterday was the first day of arguments and the focus is around the european arrest warrant system now songes attorneys are concentrating on the judicial officer already of the prosecutor and the lower court who initially approve the request warrant now keep in mind the european judicial system is different than how the american and british courts operate those charges lawyers argue that anybody who's tied to law enforcement in this case the swedish prosecutor is too familiar with the situation to make an unbiased decision about what his next move should be legal adviser jennifer robinson explains it pretty

well. it seems like a rather simple point into a string you know british lawyer it seems very straightforward of course the prosecutor cannot be a traditional authority by the potus and a member of the executive and cannot be independent or impartial particularly when in this case the prosecutor is in fact a party to the proceedings. now robinson echoes the same argument the defense attorney diana rose made she also went on to explain how the arrest warrant system is built on trust and streamlining of those types of proceedings could mean that a songe won't get the trial that he deserves day two of this hearing was filled with more arguments regarding judicial off already and the european arrest warrant system while the defense team used several examples to argue their point of the unfair conditions facing us on according to reports the prosecution on the side of sweden seemed to have trouble making their case according to the guardian and tweets of those watching the proceedings clear montgomery was having trouble making an argument stumbling over answers to the lords of the supreme court and at one point even labeled the hearing as legal fun and games so we could make supporters

share their disgust on twitter saying things like this is the moment in the cartoon where the grand piano falls from the ceiling and squashes the troll referring to claremont crime rate some tweeters simply refer to the prosecutor as monte saying this day with monty is so embarrassing and everything points to monte doing her damnedest to lose today in a big way now those thoughts are according to supporters of a song but the question now remains where the swerve the swedes wrong to approve this european arrest warrant will take anywhere between a month to three to find out what the lord's decide but meanwhile jennifer robinson explains what's at stake in this hearing. if he doesn't win it means that anyone can be extradited from the u.k. be arrested chremes attention at the behest of any prosecutor anywhere in europe we don't having to show any evidence without being charged and without proper judicial oversight. so if assad is extradited to sweden he may also have to temporarily temporarily surrender to the u.s. to face charges stemming from his organization wiki leaks sharing thousands of

diplomatic cables and war with the world so for now it's a waiting game until we find out the fate of julian assaut. all right so let's get back to secretary of defense leon panetta as announcement yesterday by mid two thousand and thirteen u.s. and nato troops will be ending their combat role in afghanistan now this is more than a year before the scheduled withdrawal the end of two thousand and fourteen and according to reports they doubts what took the afghan army and government by surprise just because the combat role is over does not mean the troops will be there or that they won't be in harm's way and as of yet no exact figures have been given for how many troops will be heading out by the middle of next year but how should we look at it are we finally admitting that the best we can really do is to pack our bags and leave joining me to discuss this is robert farley sr professor of the university of kentucky and blogger lawyers guns and money robert thanks so much for joining us tonight i guess first i just want to get your reaction were you surprised at this announcement by panetta i feel like up until this point twenty fourteen is seem like a pretty solid deadline. but you know

a lot of it was surprised and one of the reasons i was surprised that there's so much talk about it when so much shock especially in the military has been about the possibility of expanding the timeline beyond two thousand and fourteen and so it was interesting right away to see sort of earlier today from spencer ackerman that they might accelerate the timeline and then without it coming out and confirming to us actually that nato was going to be leaving its combat mission in two thousand and thirteen i thought you got a very surprising all right so what do we make of this movie now how do we really read into it if they finally decided or suddenly decided to accelerate it does that mean that they're giving up they decide is better to leave. you know it's really hard to say you know on the one hand the administration may have seen that there was a significant enough process of progress and that also there's been some progress in terms of negotiations with the taliban and that they could move it up but you know this is also a wonderful political announcement for them to have because nobody really likes the

afghan war anymore but on the other hand they basically have decided that there is nothing left to be done and that there's there's just not much point to try to a try the way the taliban in eastern afghanistan for another year and that we might as well things over to the afghans sooner or later do you believe the reports that say the afghan officials were taken by surprise you think that they would come up with this kind of decision without telling them. i doubt that they would completely come up and i completely try to surprise that the afghans on this but i think that the afghan government is also just a bit dysfunctional and by a bit i think i mean a lot dysfunctional and so it's certainly possible that they talked to some people in the afghan government and other people in the afghan government were completely out of the loop and us were completely surprised by the you know what so i would be surprised if the afghans depiction of surprise was entirely genuine from the officials that they talk to are and then i guess maybe you could say that it's part of the game that they're playing right. so much of that we've heard about

negotiations with the taliban and the taliban setting up an office and guitar and the u.s. negotiate with them there but without afghanistan being involved and then we had karzai now saying that he's going to personally go to saudi arabia to meet with the taliban to negotiate there how do you really see what's going on there. i mean i think that we are through this sending a message that not only the taliban but also to our client state in afghanistan there's a tremendous amount of frustration with the progress of status making and all sorts of governance. and you know we've seen this recently in terms of the goal of attacks against against french soldiers against american soldiers and against other westerners in afghanistan and this is a way of indicating to the government that there are multiple tracks that we can approach with regards to how we're going to leave and what we're planning to leave behind it ok so as you mentioned too that there have been whispers here that perhaps part of the deal if there are going to be negotiations with the taliban is

that five prisoners or detainees are going to be taken out of guantanamo bay and josh rogin over at the cable foreign policy was reporting that parallel yesterday senior obama administration officials are meeting with eight senior senators to discuss this but from what he took from it at least from speaking to john mccain a few others outside was that this is only going to happen if these detainees are still. then going to be held in qatar so the idea is not that they're just going to be released and go free but what do you think the chances are of that right i mean why would the taliban want these guys transferred to qatar if they don't think that there's a chance that they might let them go. to certainly if the guitar there's a greater chance that they'll eventually be let go that if they're in the united states the second thing is i think that going to move has become as we all know a very important element. not just how about probably going to sort of wider american propaganda and so being able to argue that we have rescued people from this facility and then move them to qatar even if they remain under lock and key

and could talk i think you could paint that as a significant as a significant victory you know i know that republicans in congress are going to paint it as a major defeat for the administration even if the people who made it to target can keep right so there are some political value to having them into talk which is something that would get well not to mention of course we already have them playing up yesterday when james clapper was testifying or earlier this week they were asking him if these five people as assessed before were some of the worst some of the most dangerous there should not be released and he basically reiterated that statement but i also want to bring up something that came out yesterday which was this in a leaked reports from the u.s. military that was given to nato that basically said that the taliban that the pakistanis are very intimately involved with the taliban and that the taliban is assuming that they're going to take over control again as soon as the u.s. leaves those things really i mean is it really shocking when you hear that the

taliban in pakistan are working other closely if you like those are things that we can hear thrown around all the time now right i think that you know everybody. or reveals anything it's that we have very clear evidence that. supporting the taliban. you know that it was really great out to a nato. during a nato meeting is sort of an interesting message that the united states is trying to send to the rest of nato right now and it may be that either it's time to get up and go or the nato needs to reaffirm its commitment for at least one more year are so quickly to clearly just because a combat role is going to be ending does not mean that u.s. troops will be leaving they'll still be advising assisting what do you think if you had to make a guess that timeline is going to be like that how many troops are going to be left after mid two thousand and thirteen. well sixty thousand are going to be there at the beginning of two thousand and thirteen my wager would be that would mean we may

see that fall as far as by half by by middle of two thousand and thirteen in the maybe a little bit more after that and into the twenty's and teens by two thousand and fourteen i mean we went down very fast in iraq when we finally began what drawing troops ok and then any comments on the air strike that was a u.s. assisted airstrike today in the philippines they say took out their number one terrorist target i mean i mention this is the top of our show to the we've had special ops forces about hundreds of them since two thousand and two but do you think we're just going to start seeing more of these. really i mean a little bit from what it was fantastic news because these were terrorists who were involved with the bali bombing apparently but it also means that countries that are friendly with the united states can have drones flying over that are not necessarily going to fire the missiles themselves but are going to help the host country fire the missiles against the rebels and the terrorists that they have a very interesting development from the point of your military technology are

rubber ball and i thank you so much for joining us tonight and i guess we'll have to wait and see until we finally do get some numbers but all in all you know i think it's good news at least that u.s. troops will be coming home soon i thanks thanks for having me. coming up tonight we have thursday's edition of show in tell ben bernanke he is warning that the u.s. my faith following in greece his footsteps comes from a deficit this is just trying to scare us when asked professor and author william black the for. the same. people calling what you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the summer as you can hear behind me loud explosions.

i mean. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so poorly sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else to some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying hard welcome is a big issue. our

guys it's time for show and tell and i program last time we spoke about a connection between outsourcing and the u.s. education system and we asked you what if anything you think we should be doing to stop the outsourcing of american jobs to other countries let's go to producer for treason essentially to find out what you have to say. about the world's most valuable company currently employs forty three thousand people in the u.s.

and twenty thousand overseas now apple's contractors employ and i dish in zero seven hundred thousand almost all of which work outside the u.s. now this equation present a clear and present danger for american workers so we want to know what is there anything the u.s. should be doing to bring jobs back. also eades said we don't need to stop outsourcing we need to start educating and he said it has nothing to do with education people from all over the world come to the us for college and has to do with corporate greed and some of you believe that some sort of government intervention is needed to reverse the trend like ricky believes we should give corporations financial incentives to keep the jobs here such as tax incentives it has to do it has to be a win win otherwise they will continue to take the money and run overseas with it out of korea told us raise import taxes that would solve most of the issue right there now others think that free global trade will work things out maybe by reducing wages in america who said quit teaching american youth they are more

exceptional than the rest of the people on planet and actually teach them to do something useful for a normal wage so when it comes to better us education versus working cheap labor a lot of us seem divided while some believe that a free global economy will work out its own problems without government intervention a lot of other people just don't like the way it's worked out so far and the big question for unemployed americans is how much longer must they wait to find out. our now as always we appreciate your responses and here's our next question for you wrote on the show we spoke about the planned troop drawdown in afghanistan so why do you think that the u.s. chose to announce at the combat mission in afghanistan would and a full year or more before it was planned to assume you think on facebook twitter and you tube and it was your response just might make it on it. now did you know that there's a long place to protect your video rental information call the video privacy protection act of one thousand nine hundred eight and was passed after supreme

court nominee robert bork video rental records were disclosed in a newspaper so important place it was put in place to prevent such records from ever being revealed to the public and even though the language doesn't specifically extend to d.v.d.'s and newer forms of video rentals it's assumed that this legislation could be broadened to include those other formats now obviously this law might seem a little outdated but it is considered one of the strongest consumer privacy protection laws on the books you see the d.p.p. act has been recently debated at a senate hearing of the judiciary subcommittee on privacy technology and the law after netflix and a few other internet based companies started calling for that logic change so that your video history can be shared now why would they want that information shared well it's all about the money of course so netflix would like to share your video history with a third party site and social media sites just like websites that you use every day which are logging tons of information about you to share with advertisers take for example facebook everybody and their mother has a profile which is their favorite music movies if your favorite styles your

favorite happy hour hang out and guess what the social networking site is learning everything if there is to know about you so it's all for the sake of gathering that information to sell to third parties so let's say that you announce on facebook they are engaged well expect to see advertisements for wedding dresses and photographers are pregnant well discounted baby clothes will also be just a click away the wildly popular website filed papers yesterday for an initial public offering looking to raise five billion dollars and their wealth of personal data is a large. of the reason that the company could be making the largest u.s. stock market debut in yearly for years now for years facebook has been tracking your every move on their website and just trying to think about how much information they actually have on you that's considered a gold mine for third party sites to disperse to advertisers facebook is just one example but of course they join the ranks of many others that are all dancing around that user privacy line all for the sake of getting larger profits and looks like netflix is no exception however we should note the netflix is pleased to change the video privacy protection act have been met with concern from the

a.c.l.u. that's arguing in favor of consumer privacy we're not yet sure if the senate judiciary committee is going to be willing to modify the language of that bill from the eighty's or not so in the meantime make sure you remember that everything you're doing online is being monitored closely and until the government attempts to stop advertisers to learning all that information about you stories like this are just going to be the norm. well federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testified on capitol hill today defending the fed keeping interest rates low and calling at the pace of the u.s. recovery frustratingly slow he also had some dire warnings about the u.s. deficit hinting that we should look to greece as the example of the worst that could happen here is direct words so even the prospects of unsustainable deficits house have costs including an increased possibility of a sudden fiscal crisis as we've seen a number of countries recently interest rates can soar quickly if investors lose confidence in the ability of a government to manage its fiscal policy just this week congressional budget

analyst said the deficit is going to drop one trillion dollars this year high but actually the lowest it has been since two thousand and nine so what do we think of the fed chairman's warnings well joining me to discuss it is william black associate professor of law and economics at the university of missouri kansas city and author of the book the best way to rob a bank is to own one of corporate executives and politicians loot it the s. and l. industry thanks so much for coming back on the show tonight let me think of where we should start let's start with deficits and let's start by comparing this to what ben bernanke has said in the past three said that too much austerity right too much fiscal tightening is something that's going to slow economic growth and yet here at the same time he's warning of the dangers of too big of deficit so is it contradicting himself or is he just trying to play both sides. always wrong never in doubt is the bernanke you slogan i think he was closer to right in the

past he's certainly correct that europe has been sent hurdling back into recession by an austerity program and bernanke used testimony was mixed but it certainly could be read and probably will be read as favoring austerity increases in the united states which is exactly the wrong thing to do right now i had of course that's what a lot of lawmakers are calling for clipping the republican party but one argument to be made to you is that you know interest rates are going to soar quickly if investors start to lose confidence in the government's ability to manage this policy and does that really applied to the united states because we have our central bank that controls the interest rates not only that but we're nothing like greece we have a sovereign currency greece does not and as a result greece has a real risk of default we have no real risk of default unless you know the morons

in congress decide not to pay our debts and if they do they'll cause a crisis and they'll be out of office within days and we'll fix the problem then so you know this is complete nonsense and it is only austerity that has to great risk of putting us like europe back into the great recession if it's not greece then what would you say would be a better example where the u.s. might be heading in terms of our soaring deficit right in terms of our fiscal policy some people out there said that perhaps japan is a better example to. well japan would be the example if we followed bernanke use advice and then japan is now into the second last decade and so we don't want to follow bernanke use advice the united states actually of course as people said from the beginning and insufficient stimulus but we had greater stimulus by far

than europe and we continued it longer and as a result we are not going back into recession we in fact are having and continued recovery but a weak recovery because the stimulus was too small or painfully slow right was i would call that frustratingly slow recovery i want to switch gears really quickly to you and talk about a recent piece that you wrote when you put up on credit write downs basically looking at the obama administration the way that they've been trying to make it seem like they have been aggressive in investigating mortgage fraud lately and you basically said that that's propaganda tell us why. this is up on our economic site new economic perspective university of missouri kansas city. i showed the numbers of what it took to get a success. of the delete fraud in the savings and loan crisis that crisis was

one seven via its lar crisis and we had a thousand f.b.i. each and at peak in the current crisis this propaganda the president's state of the in a draft they announce that they're going to create a world with twenty five agents to investigate again twenty five versus the crouton for a crisis that stephanie times larger and fraud roughly that much of the savings and loan crisis this is. definitely doesn't sound like like nearly enough i other having audio troubles there can you still hear me william again ok great so that and i want to look at somebody who he's on the cover of time magazine right now we have prepared and he's somebody that is being flouted he is

the u.s. district attorney from the southern district of new york and he's been part of this this man that really can has won the first successful criminal prosecution against some of what's being happened in terms of credit suisse but there are some sketchy tactics that he used like wiretapping a phone call where with ninety people involved do you think about what i've come to the you have to resort to those kinds of tactics or is he a good example to look to even i think that what you found when you did electronic surveillance was incredibly important for people in world because when you look at the insider trading case sample what you found was people talk you know destroy thumb drives in other words white collar criminals look a whole lot like blue collar criminals and don't deserve any respect any additional consideration beyond which any defendant should get and so i think that if they had

sent f.b.i. agents undercover into places like washington mutual back in two thousand and four there would have been no crisis but so at this point is it too late or could somebody like. should he be used in other cases or is he just going after the little guys. not after the little guys but certainly after the intermediate folks you know most of what the f.b.i. has gone after is the minnows at this point there hasn't been a single conviction of a c.e.o. of a new the leak firm that caused this crisis and there's nothing in the credit suisse investigation at this point that suggest that's going to change again that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to convict people who lie about the price of assets so that they can

maximize their bonuses and that's what two of the individuals to the traders have confessed to doing i want to thank you for joining us so much tonight and you know we'll see though i guess we all wish that it would have been done a couple years ago but we'll see if only thing gets on why do you think bank thank you. are just ahead of the show one alabama lawmaker thinks that he's entitled to a larger salary than teachers with the bible so. explain that untold lives an unhappy hour of the no fly list is growing at an alarming rate and the mainstream media just cannot get enough of dollars from. people calling what you said for free and fair elections.

and we're still reporting from the summit as you can hear behind me loud explosions . you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry is

a big. car guys it's time for tonight's tool time award and we're going to get to somebody who thinks that he's more important than teachers alabama state senator should rock mcgill was speaking at

a prayer breakfast this week when he was questioned about some evidence of corruption amongst a few members of the state legislature now he explained that there would be less corruption and a smaller chance of lawmakers taking bribes if only they had bigger salaries somewhere along the way mcgill went off at a tangent during this discussion about lawmaker salaries and said the other career paths like teachers don't follow the same line of reasoning does get a lot of this mcgill said that he may have to make enough so that he can say no in regards to temptation teachers need to make the money that. they need to make and if you double what you're paying education you know what's going to happen i've heard this comment many times well the quality of education is going to go up that never proved that's never proven to happen guys it was all his words so this guy's that line of reasoning is that if you pay lawmakers more that they will not be bought and therefore will perform better because they have no restraint moral character but don't even think about paying people like teachers a good salary because they won't do jack and what's worse here as he tries to defend that stance by invoking god.