welcome to the low nischelle where i'll get the real headlines with none of the mersey come alive in washington d.c. now it's not going to take a look at new reports that say the israeli officials don't plan on telling the u.s. if they choose to strike against iran so how's that going to play the week before netanyahu comes to washington then yet another death row case where guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt we'll speak to radley balko about the case of thomas arthur and the u.s. supreme court is soon going to side if corporations who let's not forget they consider people if they can be held liable for human rights abuses are going to

look into all the details as well as the hypocrisy if the conservative justices get their way all that and more fair not including a dose of happy hour but first take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. well it's another big tuesday in this election year and it's an especially big night for mitt romney and the will of your won't he win michigan sense as his home state let's face it will be a pretty big kick in the face if he lost but anyway as usual the mainstream media is covering the primary tuesday obsessive. holes are now open in arizona and michigan for front runners rick santorum and mitt romney the stakes they are pretty high a total of fifty nine delegates are up for grabs today in two states the good news for romney is no matter what happens tonight he will win more delegates arizona with twenty nine delegates at stake romney's comfortably ahead it's

a winner take all state in michigan and it is mitt romney's home state and winning there could put him over the top that's right but a loss of santorum could send the whole race into kerry os real clear politics puts the spread of the most recent polls at one and a half points the new york times numbers cruncher projects that romney will get thirty eight point seven percent of the vote north of detroit is oakland county a lot of votes in this county romney won it over mccain by twenty points four years ago look at that thirty six percent for santorum thirty five percent for romney if mitt romney loses michigan it could turn this already to mulch or was race into reset mode by calling into question his electability. now this point we've seen this entire campaign coverage monster in action for long enough i would not blame people if they haven't already but have just decided to now turn off their t.v.'s until november because seriously this is are going to get but that doesn't make it all right and so guess what i'm not going to stop calling them out for it obviously

a presidential election is a big deal this is an incredibly important year for this country providing nonstop while the wall coverage of the campaign is if nothing else is happening in the world just ludicrous so today i just wanted to rector eyes to an issue that we cover all the time here on this show you know the wars that we're fighting and that are people are losing their lives in and because of them while mitt romney and rick santorum travel around in tour buses talking about god guns gays i first civically like to highlight two reports out there that have tried to take comprehensive looks that gathering evidence of the civilian casualties that result marred from war in pakistan don't forget the cia's drone program is a secret they like to claim that there are no civil. casualties and the military's drone program isn't much for giving us real stats either well the associated press and they deserve praise for this they deployed a field reporter to his ear a stamp who questioned more than eighty locals about ten fifteen cia attacks not only did he confirm the accuracy of previous media reports that usually nobody else out there compiles into one he also found two cases of previously unrecorded

civilian deaths and the report found that since two thousand and ten of one hundred ninety four people killed in drone strikes hundred thirty eight were militants and meaning that fifty six i there's others were either civilians or tribal police and funny because those aren't the figures that our government likes to put out there also reprieve charity organization that we've spoken about before here on the show they filed a lawsuit with the u.n. human rights council where they detailed a dozen strikes in pakistan during president obama's time in office now these are things we brought up before but the point is that somewhere you get as asians are out there trying to get the real story compiling the figures people are putting their lives in jeopardy to actually bring the truth to believe that we can do is to pay attention to the information that they get because this is a major element of the last ten years of u.s. foreign policy this matters when it comes to our record perceptions of our country abroad and it sure is all matters when we talk about another presidential election the mainstream media well like to stick to the campaign cycle the battleground states what campaign events with their reporters to the point there are even more

media there than there are actual people or supporters and obviously a far away from the real battleground where our government's actions are causing harm that they choose to miss. wells really prime minister binyamin netanyahu is scheduled to meet with president obama here in washington next monday right after apac powerful pro israel lobby holds its annual policy conference over the weekend so it tensions building over iran it was already expected to be maybe a contentious meeting but new. reports might make the situation even worse associated press has reported that israeli officials say that they won't warn the u.s. if they decide to launch a preemptive strike against iranian nuclear facilities supposedly the logic here is that keeping americans in the dark will decrease the likelihood that the u.s. would be held responsible but if that were the truth when it really work and how

much can we believe these statements considering that the administration has used its increased intelligence gathering with israel as the main talking point of their strong cooperation of this crisis with me is raising mirage research director at the national iranian american council president much for joining us tonight so first starters i guess what do you think of this statement here me to fishel say things all the time there's a lot of back and forth. officials that are countering one another when you have reports that say that israeli officials say they won't warn the u.s. if they choose to strike preemptively so a big deal i think is a big deal in one sense because you haven't really heard that kind of rhetoric coming from the israeli government any time in the recent past and probably at all but i think in reality it's more rhetoric and bluster than anything else the israelis the united states government and most of the world is well aware of the deleterious impact that an israeli strike on iranian nuclear facilities would have it would drive energy prices through the roof it would destabilize the most

unstable region in the world countless countless countless disastrous effects and not warning the united states government your primary benefactor in advance of taking that kind of action would be. unwelcome to say the least by my former colleagues in the obama administration yeah i can imagine that they wouldn't be too happy with and so they're i mean when we also believe it you know might they just be using this is something to try to sell because like i mentioned. working together when it comes to intelligence sharing is something that they constantly tout as progress right as a sign of strength of the relationship between the obama administration and the israeli leadership so you know then we get into this argument that they. it might trick people or you know make it seem like the u.s. isn't involved and then we will look at that and i think that i think you're hitting the nail on the head on the one hand i don't think anybody in the obama administration believes that israelis will take this kind of action without letting us know in advance but more importantly you're right that the israeli statements don't match with what's actually happening which is the fact that president obama

there is no greater friend of israel than president obama no were american president has been a greater friend of israel than president obama they themselves this is their own talking point in the administration beyond that and i think something that's not often discussed is that the iranian government will not believe that the israelis are striking without letting the americans know in advance right or wrong they're going to perceive an israeli strike as an american strike they don't differentiate between the two and i think that you know it's probably not just the iranian government right it's probably a lot of countries a lot organizations out there that aren't happy with u.s. and israeli foreign policy with the relationship between the two that won't really buy it right i would be inclined to agree i don't think the better part of the world will believe that the israelis would be willing to take that kind of action without letting the americans know in advance at the same time conversing i guess you could say so president obama is going to be giving a speech at apac as well as all the g.o.p. candidates this weekend and we're also seeing reports that say that maybe they're going to change their message a little bit that's coming from the white house that they're going to outline these red lines that iran isn't supposed to cross so in your mind what would be

a red line it's a cross is important to know what we're seeing here is the israeli prime minister is playing politics and barack obama's back door because he realizes that the president is up for reelection and no president wants to look weak on national security never mind national security issues that pertain to israel in the run up to trying to get reelected and then not only is the president trying to protect himself he's also trying to protect the democratic brand because there are going to be congressmen and senators that are up for reelection as well so the israelis are very smart and understanding that and when they smell blood they have a propensity to strike accordingly that being said the administration is seriously considering ways to potentially. reconfigured the talking points to demonstrate to the israelis that they are serious about the concerns surrounding iran's nuclear program and how to address them in a way that doesn't involve military strikes that's going to be a tough nut to crack you know i don't know if that's going to be possible but i know my former colleagues are working very hard to try and figure out how they can square that circle but it seems i mean when you say when you start using words like

the red line that kind of rhetoric. and you know i mean we've always heard consistently from president obama that's far that all options are still on the table they're not taking any options off the table and so you know are they really doing enough to try to get it to the point where we could use maybe diplomacy or we could wait it out use a little bit of patience rather than immediately go to a military strike or change your message and say here it is a red line that if you cross you know are you heating up the tensions. that's what makes it such a tough nut to crack for the obama administration is they've stated repeatedly that while all options are on the table they have a preference to solve this issue diplomatically the israelis are much more forward leaning much more hawkish on the issue and from the outset of the obama administration and never truly believe that this issue could be solved diplomatically and they in concert with the british and the french and our own congress here in the united states have taken steps to try and ensure the diplomacy would be successful so you know i don't envy my former colleagues i don't know how they're going to square this circle but that's the challenge in an election year is

to try and figure out how can we move forward with a diplomatic process that is predicated on a path towards peace also letting the israelis know that we understand and take into consideration their psychological and security concerns but even if it was an election year do you think that they've been focusing enough on trying to use some kind of you know outlets of communication and trying to use diplomacy enough you've heard about this before that are out of your knowledge and that we forget about the importance of i think there's been a total shortage of diplomacy on the part of the obama administration i think there's enough blame to go around but i think that the obama administration does deserve its fair share diplomacy is a process that you need to invest in over a sustained period of time. you don't stop and call it a failure if you don't succeed the first one and we've met with the iranians twice in almost four years and i can't think of an issue that we could solve with the french or the british meeting twice in that and that amount of time so we do need to invest in the process consider this think about how many times we've talked with the russians the chinese the british the french and the israelis never mind other

countries about iran imagine if we spent that much time talking directly to the iranians and what kind of progress we might have been able to achieve what a different what a different world that would be. at the same time that we now have some information that apparently the pentagon february seventh decided to go to congress and ask for one hundred million dollars more so that they could reposition fill in certain gaps that they feel they have in the persian gulf and in that area so do you think that that is a smart move or how do you see that i think it's a double edged sword because on the one hand it's the military's job to try and be prepared to respond to any potential threat real or perceived the flip side in the or the dangerous part is that when you do that you're assuming that the iranian government is going to understand the signal that you're sending them which is we understand what your military capabilities are and we're trying to develop our military capabilities to counter and or supersede yours but if you talk to military officials privately they acknowledge that the iranians oftentimes don't pick up the proper signal they don't properly understand the signal that we're trying to send

and when you don't have channels of communication then increases the likelihood of misperceptions miscalculations and the cycle of conflict continues to escalate towards a conflict that i think all parties would independently seek to avoid but that makes sense that right they would see it in a much more hostile manner if they're not actually talk to the people and just realize that you're beginning to be surrounded by their military might reza thanks so much for joining us tonight. it's time for our first break even though we come back to glimmers of hope are coming your way the feds turn off thousands of u.k.'s truckers and a judge rules in favor of the fifth amendment they're going want to hear about those and then as another innocent man on the road to execution give the details on the case of thomas arthur from the. same. people calling what you said for

free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the. 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 here sees some other part of it and realized everything you thought you don't

know i'm sorry is a big issue. is . the mike will come down. so must you choir's will be saying. well tonight we have not one but two

glimmers of hope about your rights being up held by the court which let's face it seems to be rare move these days you might remember when we reported on the supreme court's recent decision in g.p.s. tracking which essentially ruled that the way the feds were using the trackers in one particular case was for an extended period of time after the war had expired and that was violating the law of the moment looks of law enforcement is actually taking the justices decision to heart wall street journal's reporting that the f.b.i. is working on new guidelines to determine when. these devices can and cannot be used now to be clear here these are just new guidelines assigned the feds plan on continuing to use g.p.s. with new guidelines on the need for warrants so it's a sign of change and want to hopefully means we won't see any more incidents like that of yasser fifi he alleges the feds are keeping tabs on him really because of his religion makes me feel like they're treating me like a terrorist or criminal and there are giving me my my rights as an american citizen

i was born and raised here so i feel different and star a nice feeling. and now the government was fighting for their right to continue tracking people without a warrant until sco just waited and the ruling is finally forced the feds to act in fact that says that they've already turned off three thousand g.p.s. devices that were currently in use to talk about scary i mean the feds had three thousand of those trackers keeping tabs on people for what may be must have been long periods of time now this sea change as the f.b.i. has described it is a step in the right direction we're going to make sure to keep tabs on these new guidelines while they're in the works. now the second story which makes up our doubleheader glimmer of hope tonight has to do with information that's on your laptop you see we're living in an era where anybody who serves the web could be the victim of identity theft so your banking information your shopping history even your personal documents could all be a serious problem if they got in the hands of a hacker so lots of people have found ways to encrypt their data the store on their

computers and their servers for the sake of protecting themselves what if a judge says that you've got to cut the lock like decrypt your computer for the government we've already told you about one incident where this happened and a colorado federal court the judge ordered a woman to decrypt her computer for federal investigators that's not the only ruling on the matter a california federal appeals court heard a similar case where encrypted data was wanted by the prosecution and the eleventh circuit court of appeals ruled in favor of the fifth amendment you know that's the law and preserves your right against incriminating yourself and they say that requiring a person to fork over all of their encrypted information is a violation of the fit so be would be like giving away the combination to a safe or forcing testimony an idea of the founding fathers obviously held here that's why they included it in the bill of rights so it's kind of worth protecting and that ruling is also important because for the first time judges say that it's ok to invoke the fifth when it comes to physical acts and in this case they recognize the activist decryption as more than

a physical act but also an extension of the person's mind i mean if our courts have never force the defendant to speak then why start now through intimate details from someone's personal computer now we just mention two out of several recent court decisions on forced computer decryption so i think you can bet that this issue will reach the higher court's docket sometime within the next two years but in the meantime efforts by the supreme court and federal appeals courts to up hold two crucial elements of our constitution are a glimmer of hope. well it's rare that death row cases get the national even international attention that we saw which one day this last year but unfortunately davis' case was far from the only questionable conviction and planned execution in this country so tonight let's take a look at the case of thomas arthur others but on death row since one nine hundred eighty two convicted in the murder of choi wicker despite there being no physical evidence linking our third of the murder no murder weapon that was found and the confession of another man to committing the crime arthur said to be executed on

march twenty ninth of this here in alabama so once again there is a possibility that the convicted and is innocent and was perhaps most troubling in arthur's case is that a d.n.a. test on a wig worn by the killer which is defense has offered to pay for which could be completed before the execution date that's been refused by the authorities in the state so joining me to discuss this is rather balco senior writer and investigative reporter for the huffington post rather thanks so much for joining us tonight and i guess if you could first just give us a little bit more background here as to this case because of course the wife is also involved the second man that confessed to the murder that allegedly was having an affair with the wife was involved and so when arthur really get into it. from what i've read about the case it's actually not clear why. she rested why he was a suspect. but the you know the really sort of only thing about this is that not only will the state not test the d.n.a.

from the wig but there's actually a rape kit and actually the wife claims that they are at the red rate on the night which they committed the murder and then this other guy has now come forward or came forward i guess it was years ago and said that he and the wife had consensual sex that night and then he killed it he killed the victim and so there was a rape kit there on the life issue she claims she was should been raped and. you know that kid probably would more than anything you know show whether or not arthur did it i mean to give it came back to him that would be pretty clear that he had raped her which probably many also in that murder it came back to this this guy who had confessed it was pretty clear that arthur didn't do it the state lost the rape kit conveniently enough so they can't do anything else and rape it's a lot of they have is this week which. you know that the killer allegedly wore that night and you know the state's claiming that that's not good enough that that that

would not provide the sort of certainty that you need in these cases that it's you know you know i talked about it in skinner case it's. there's a remarkable remarkable resemblance to that case where you have a person who's about to be executed and you have a state that just refuses to to provide biological evidence for d.n.a. testing even though it could confirm this guy's innocence or there's really i mean there's no excuse for it at all well i mean i wonder if sometimes they would try to use a financial element as an excuse as jane and twisted as that is you know to talk about putting someone to death and how much money it cost i mean if he's been on death row for thirty years right they tried this case a number of times and different ways it's probably cost them a lot of money here the defense is saying that they'll pay for this d.n.a. testing themselves i mean can you imagine comparatively how much it'll cost the d.n.a. testing versus all the years he's been on death row. when i was through the skinner case as well you know i mean a d.n.a. d.n.a. test is a few thousand dollars it's not a it's

a proof that will prove it or that all especially when you consider the state what's at stake here so yeah there's no. and i actually i don't even think the state is argue that the cost is a factor here the argument that they're made with the state makes and that they make regularly these cases is want to find out who that person is exhausted as appeals and you know we can't go back and do these tests or go back allow these tests because you know there's no there's no legal through avenue to get there anymore and you know it is a it's a strategy or it's a philosophy that quits for now with the certainty and when you talk about executing someone that's just not a an appropriate way to to one of your priorities now unfortunately we know that alabama isn't the only state in the country you know where we've seen executions go through where there was still a reasonable doubt as to whether the person was killed here or not but are they particularly bad i know that like the u.n. human rights council has singled out alabama in the past and specifically said that

they don't really seem to have an appreciation for not necessarily an appreciation but they don't have a respect for international standards of human rights in the sense. well i am not familiar with that study i do know there was a study that came out years ago alabama is actually one of the few states that lets a judge. overrule the jury and impose a harsher sentence and then done that what the jury recommends and there was a study done in alabama death penalty cases and actually found i think it was either in every case or every case but one or two when the judge exercised his authority to change the recommended sentence in a death penalty case and in every case but one or two at the most the judge intervened to impose the death penalty over the wishes of the jury so there does seem to be a very strong inclination toward executing people and tell them unfortunately i do think there's any chance that this case my kept intention that and try davis case

you know there are still about a month left until the execution date which has been set because there were time for a last minute change. yeah i mean i you know and skinner came within about twenty four hours actually you know the one playing forty five minutes of being executed and you know it was sort of the international attention that what caused the court to intervene at the last minute so yeah i mean i think that you know it's one thing to say in the troy davis case that you know that you have the sort of inflicting eye witness testimony you have these eyewitnesses were canting you know years and years later. but when you have d.n.a. that can be tested and the state is arguing that we shouldn't test the d.n.a. that could prove this person's innocence before we execute him i mean there is no. moral sort of foundation to that argument no moral justification for that argument and i think anybody's even death penalty supporters who see that argument realize you know just how absurd and appalling it is on its face so yeah i mean i think

there is hope that this this test will happen eventually why does carry on you know this might be a bit of a technical question but the last time they tested this way was in two thousand and eight when the other guy confessed and so there really been these dramatic changes and developments in some of the technology that they have for d.n.a. testing i think would give a different result this time around that's what the defense is arguing i'm actually i'm not familiar enough with the specific sort of test that they're requesting this time around and you know why it wasn't available four years ago you know there is if you have cases from say the early to mid ninety's that use the mitochondrial d.n.a. testing that is you know we have much more specific tests now and it's much you can find profiles in biological evidence that you couldn't find in those early earlier sorts of d.n.a. tests i don't know what i'm not familiar enough with that that's you know what specific scientific argument the defense is making here but it still seems to me i

mean if there is a more specific test available and it you know it doesn't cost the state anything it's not going to delay anything there's just no there's no reason not to do it other than you know the state being afraid of what the results might be now argue against it i rather well thanks so much for joining us tonight and i guess you know we'll see if anything else happens in the next month before this execution date. our guys well it's time for show and tell on tonight's program and last week we discussed cnn's g.o.p. presidential debate and a possible alliance between ron paul and mitt romney we want to know if you would be supportive of ron paul if he were to officially endorse another g.o.p. candidate so our producer patrice in a sense took to the streets of d.c. to find out what you had to say.

on the streets of d.c. to tell people at the nation's capital what our viewers on twitter facebook and youtube had to say and we're going to find out if we should keep or delete your comments so what would you think of ron paul if he threw his endorsement to another candidate now we had andrew on facebook he said he would not be disappointed if we're on paul endorsed romney keep it or delete it keep it going if there was to be an old move to barack obama right support then it would be romney andrew on facebook he said he would not be disappointed if ron paul endorsed mitt romney do you agree with that disagree totally disagree i think mitt romney and both rick santorum are horrible for this country i think it's absolutely horrible to have either one of them force their religious opinions on us when that's not what this country is about we ask your viewers what would you think of ron paul if he threw his endorsement to another candidate now wait on facebook said he would be ridiculous considering he would lose all credibility with his supporters of gay

marriage who advocate peace and are against aggression do you want to keep it or delete it that they have the trust the other candidate enough to go behind him i think some of his supporters will trust that candidate to i disagree i believe that he should already leave the race and endorse someone at least the person that's closest to his beliefs so alan said if he does he should be urine tested keep the but. i think he should urine test newt gingrich if you're going to do any one the way things are headed in the primary there may be no way for ron paul to gracefully bow out and still save face with supporters. but. well thanks for your responses as usual and here's our next question for you coming up in the show we're going to discuss in a case heard by the supreme court today which will decide whether or not royal dutch petroleum can be held accountable for human rights abuses in niger.