all right coming up next we'll continue our coverage of sunshine week focusing on the bradley manning case which has been shrouded in secrecy every single step of the way and a supreme court order the rehearing of a case that we've spoken out before so we'll get more into it seems about. the. same. people calling what you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the president as you can hear behind me loud explosions. from the the. t.v.

. you know sometimes you see the story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here's some other part of it and realize that everything you. don't. charge is a big. our

guide bunch and we were doing our part to shed light on the issues in the information gets pushed under the rug now thanks to a lack of government transparency that happens to happen a lot so today we're going to focus on one of those glaring examples of government secrecy the case of p.f.c. bradley manning ever since he was taken into custody the government has been incredibly tight lipped about any information regarding his case he refused to allow the un special rapporteur on torture to talk to manning observe his conditions while he was being detained quantico and only when they held him for months without charging him with a crime and most recently they kept the court records surrounding his court martial

sealed so now media organizations are challenging that's a media. coalition consisting of organization organizations like cox c.b.s. a.b.c. n.b.c. bloomberg the new york times and p.r. just to name a few they all sent an open letter to the d.o.d.'s general counsel over at the pentagon and so in this letter the group writes to express its concern about reports that journalists covering p.f.c. bradley manning's court martial have been unable to view documents filed in the proceeding now what documents you might ask well according to josh gerstein over at politico there are approximately forty one thousand documents totaling over four hundred thousand pages which were handed over to the defense team from prosecutors like almost everything else involving manning's court martial those documents aren't for the press to see and that level of secrecy also extends to the court docket which is also under wraps the letter went on to request of the government implement reforms when it comes to court martial proceedings before his next trial date which is this coming thursday and the group argues quite reasonably the cases

against members of the military should have the same level of transparency but we apply to cases of terrorism here in the united states basic stuff here but this coalition builds on the notion that there simply is too much secrecy surrounding bradley manning period all around that's a point that we've made several times on this show over the past two years that he's been detained at quantico in fort leavenworth it was extremely hard to get information about the conditions that manning was being held it and after much international outcry the u.n. has deemed those conditions at quantico as cruel and inhumane and that's just one piece of the puzzle when its defense he was doomed from the start of his article thirty two hearing in december when his attorney david kuo was prohibited from calling thirty eight out of forty eight witnesses and the kicker the cables in question of already been released to the public at the military still treats them as classified and they've warned government workers not to look at the public documents which let's face it that's just absurd to all of us all manning awaits his fate after being charged with aiding the enemy which brings us back to the plea

from media outlets across the country they argue as we have before the prosecution of you. service member over the largest alleged leak in u.s. history belongs in the public eye they go on to say that it's a matter of intense public interest particularly where as here that person's liberty is at stake public oversight of the proceeding is a vital importance and i couldn't be more happy to hear that mainstream media organizations across the country are finally standing up and saying that after all the media's entire reason for being is to keep a check on power and letting the government fight its war on whistleblowers behind closed doors is a complete abdication of that very sacred rule. well public blowback to the supreme court's two thousand and ten citizens united decision only continues new washington post a.b.c. poll shows that nearly seven out of ten adults believe that it should be illegal for super pacs to operate and fifty two percent of those polled say they strongly supported ban a lot of this let's look at another supreme court case that we covered earlier on the show of kyogle versus petroleum this is

a case brought by twelve nigerian plaintiffs who as that shell should be held liable for human rights violations committed against them arguing they were complicit in those violations that were carried out by dictatorship and i have a question of the supreme court would have to answer was whether or not corporations who they deemed to have the same rights as persons to flood money into elections could also be held liable as persons would if they were involved in human rights abuses but it seems that the supreme court has chosen not to answer that question last week they ordered a real argument of the case based on whether or not international cases such as this even have a place in u.s. courts so we think that citizens united might have something to do with it here to discuss with me redford co-founder and u.s. office director of earth rights international ok thanks so much for joining us tonight i think so i guess so we've covered this case before for our audience but if you can first do you know if we can do a little bit of background basically what they're saying here is they want to answer a bigger question forget about the corporate immunity question let's talk about this alien torts cashew and whether we should even use it so can your mind our

viewers what that is the statute is the law that has been around in the united states for over two hundred years and it gives federal courts the ability to hear claims committed in violation of the law of nations which courts have interpreted to mean among other things human rights violations violations such as torture genocide slavery extrajudicial killing. so is it odd that the supreme court has suddenly decided to question whether this law should even be used at all if it's two hundred years old right if it's since the one nine hundred eighty s. i guess you can say seen a resurgence when people rediscovered it and you know how they ruled on it before in a two thousand and four case yes they did they the supreme court ruled that the a.t.f. statute definitely has a place in u.s. jurisprudence and so that's that's clear and the question before the court in this case was whether corporations somehow enjoyed some special immunity from liability

for human rights abuses and that's what shell argued that corporations should be immune from suit and that they're victims and survivors of human rights abuses abuses should not be able to seek justice in u.s. courts. what's your take my take is that they should be able to see justice in the u.s. courts that's precisely what the statute is is that science should do to provide a remedy and access to justice it doesn't grant justice it just gives people a chance to come to court to tell their story and make their allegations heard that the corporations like shell and the many corporations that intervened in this case argued that corporations should enjoy a special immunity that nobody else enjoys that they decide alone should not be able to be able to operate above human rights law. to me it's not what this

law is the ground and certainly is not what our court system should be allowing to happen ok so be honest with me do you think of. political motivation behind the supreme court's decision here you know why do you think that they would have chosen not to answer this exact question because obviously they've gotten a lot of criticism for the citizens united decision and when they originally announced that they would be hearing this case. through a lot of people are saying well it's going to make them look like really big hypocrites if they say that corporations are considered persons and can influence our elections but they can also have to be held accountable for i guess you could say some of the uglier parts of being a person right it's great and i mean i think it's important to recognize that whether whatever you think of citizens united whether corporations are persons or not they are subject to human rights law they cannot be simplistic in torture genocide slavery and killings so the corporate personhood issue isn't an

issue for the purposes of human rights law corporations must be held to account for these kinds of egregious human rights violations and that's what the alien court statute is again set up to do to deal with human rights violations. and people who have who have suffered from them and so sure there was a lot of discussion and certainly it would be really inconsistent for this court or any anyone to say well yes you can have rights but you don't have to have responsibilities as for why they were hearing this case i mean obviously only the court knows why they chose to regard as not they don't you got very often a pretty rare move if they offer a order every argument yes it's it's quite unusual however shell raised in its briefs and many amicus briefs were filed on their side. issues that were actually not presented before the court but the court was not actually supposed to be

hearing but they raised issues on a much broader issue beyond corporate accountability but on this issue of extraterritorial application of u.s. laws and the court seemed to be concerned about that and so you know it wasn't really fair for our side who brief the issues that were that were properly before the court to not be able to answer that so we feel like actually this is an opportunity to answer those issues and you think you actually might have a good chance when it comes to really arguing the case i'm just curious though you know why do you think that sure there is this law that's on the books but why shouldn't this be handled in the international criminal court right or something i guess you could say knows no no national boundaries and since well the i.c.c. doesn't. have jurisdiction over over corporations so it couldn't be proper for the international criminal court but i think more importantly is the fact that corporations that are here in the united states that are enjoying the benefits of

being in here in this country are financially benefiting are making money here are advertising here are doing business here they need to be aware and subject to our laws and ours was and international law is very clear that. for you very child labor killing genocide this is illegal and for corporations or anyone to argue that well it's illegal for everyone else but but not us because we're a corporation is it's really going to be it's a right we all keep using the product so you know if you want to make arguments about child labor then we still want to buy the cheapest goods that are made in china everybody clearly goes crazy if gas prices start to rise and so how do you get the public to be more conscious of what they're doing it would you do you think there's a way to do it or at the end of the day for them it's about having cheap goods as well well i think you know consumers obviously have to look into the kinds of products that they buy and the services that they use and certainly if u.s.

courts say we're not going to hear these cases anymore that's going to silence these issues even more i mean we need to keep our courts open and have a forum for people to face the corporations or whoever it is that they allege have violated their rights what would a punishment actually look like for show here right i mean would it even be a criminal offense where they just have to pay a fine let's lock on the receipts kind of deal this is a civil law and so this is a liability issue no one is going to go to jail this is an issue of money damages and compensation for the harms that have occurred and of course that's always often where it goes to just issues of money katie thank you so much for joining us tonight thank you. are going to take our last break of the evening but when we come back we just sell off all of our national parks that's one congressman solutions to america's fiscal woes more of night school time and on happy hour single c.e.o.'s

are more likely to take risks than their married counterparts and there are times columnist suggests a central of blogging authority for. people calling like you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the clinton if you can hear behind me loud explosions. good it gave her a. you

know sometimes you see a story and it seems so sleep you think you understand it and then he lives something else here's some other part of it and realize that everything is ok you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture.

our guys are five replied solheim awarded tonight because a representative cliff stearns had a reason townhall delegate florida stern's mansion and he was rightly attacked for not supporting a new national park and this was his response. the year that stern thinks that we should sell off our national treasures and his reasoning is that the government needs to tighten its belt and make cuts just like any american family would find interesting with sterns of points or national parks or something that needs to be cut for the good of the budget since the parts received two point two billion in government money in two thousand and ten all that

same year defense department of the defense budget was six hundred eighty billion dollars so yes turns really focusing in on the big drains to our tax dollars there i guess to him the national parks which provide an affordable way for americans all over the country to see the country's national treasures and they're just not all that important now all sterns that might think but setting aside land for our children and their children to enjoy a developed beautiful land he's also missing the larger economic picture according to the national park service the parks brought in thirty one billion and supplied two hundred and fifty eight thousand jobs in two thousand and ten alone and it states like new mexico national parks are big blue with the national parks and monuments there were he and sixty seven million dollars i am providing more than a thousand jobs to the state i mean if you really expect somebody who makes comments like this to think rationally. oh oh

. yeah turns out that stearns is also a burger which means pretty much say whatever to score cheap political points like the pretending that selling off national parks is actually going to fix this country's finances he also supports subsidies to oil companies that are making huge profits doesn't sound like a winning tactic for balancing the budget if you ask me a story that is exactly clear on whether he thinks the park should be sold the highest bidder for whatever purpose they desire or if we think that the running of the park should just be privatized but either way i'm kind of a stir that he would think that we should put places like the grand canyon yellowstone into the hands of c.e.o.'s whose only real goal is to make a profit and a crusade for under the banner of a balanced budget so for thinking that selling off our national parks is going to help get our budget in check representative cliff stearns is tonight's tools on where.

our guys it's time for happy hour and joining me this evening lauren lyster host of the capital account here on r.t.e. and comedian lafayette right. i don't know. there's a really kind of i think this is a really interesting question to bring up we now live in this internet age you do a lot of stuff online we were just talking about earlier in the show whether cash is going to become obsolete at a certain point but you know there's a lot of other information that you put on the internet if you have a facebook profile or some other kind of social media and so what happens with that stuff when you die there's a state that's right answer that right now. thinking about what happens to our stuff after we put in the internet age not taking care of our digital assets could be a big mistake he's like financial records e-mail accounts and critical pownce words what's the best way to protect them and who should have the virtual key. good

question well there's one here in nebraska state senator john weightman wanted to introduce a law that allows the executor of the will to access the deceased social media accounts and all the other stuff online so they can decide to close the door keep this memorial what do you think i've already given all the man over to my little brother so he can like oh then it's. going to go to the swirly you know what i mean you know exactly you brother executing him through social media and i'll be there forever and they can like whenever they get an e-mail like you know what. i do think it's a really interesting question i think the fact that we're bringing it out means people should start writing it into their will because i'm not comfortable with anybody else it's not someone i have decided on to be in charge of my social media when i die i mean it's just the weirdest creepiest thing what if you go out later now it is hard you know don't know if it's

a question for our generation you know i know people that have passed away they were really young they were right there as the facebook generation as it started growing and i guess you could say their facebook profile really has become a memorial right where friends choose to write on it all the time and rest isn't just a theory of you and. i think that's kind of the same time it is kind of the weirdest thing because same thing when you when you have young people that die and it's tragic and then it's just so weird that their facebook is just kind of this like a living remnant of this creepy it's really weird they. want to respond. i don't believe that's what i think you know there is a problem but in general i think it's nice that people have a place to go to if they want to you know. read and i think it let's move on to something that is much less serious prince harry has a reputation for being a bit of a party boy. prince harry's told ruins in police driven but in the bahamas tasted

the local delicacies. policy with the local school. so when parties would look at everyone he wouldn't answer and i know i saw that video and it made me think he was hot i was like wow he. was simply going to party or the family is very like. that so he's in the british army and so british army source and this is a tabloid and it's we have to i guess question it told the sun that prince harry has growing training to become an apache helicopter pilot has been banned from going to the pub but his whole life needs to be dedicated to the apache if he wants to go to war he can't go to the pub i mean i see the point that he needs to get serious but at the same time i just like that there's a royal that you can relate to not that i'm a big loser but just that he's normal and has fun. you know. a lot compared

to you know me well. i mean clearly you don't want to go into the pub before he goes into the apache to fly but at the same time you know what maybe it will make it more like it was a little relieved but if you never make a moral problem is a little too much really is. potentially yeah yeah i think that is do i believe that under these mother telling the army ranger is partying under wraps because he's also got a lot of shame on the royal family with all this party and you know. women. ok. let's basically there's a new study that says that c.e.o.'s that are single can bring more or are more willing to take riskier. make riskier decisions i guess you could say than those that are married but it's kind of hard to imagine how far they might let it go

because we've already seen some married guys do some pretty shady things. but last friday the married c.e.o. was forced to resign following allegations that he falsified twenty thousand dollars in expenses to conceal a relationship with business associates jodie fisher. ok that was really just a sex scandal but this comes from the national bureau of economic research and so they say the guys that are single are riskier basically they tend to spend more money on things and acquisitions investments with more rapidly increase the size of the business but also have a much higher chance of blowing up and they say it's a more volatile stock price but why do they always have to hit on the single guys ok high risk is also high reward if it goes right i don't have a problem with this so the c.e.o.'s that are married are boring and they don't do anything exciting or really just as risk id i don't think they're being hard on anybody here they're just saying. you know the single guys versus the married guys they happen to notice a trend yeah well i just think it's a b.s. just as you just saying they're usually ok i am. you know somebody you are

the biggest dork you can who no one would ever sleep with and that's where you put your money that. i think i know exactly what i did crash is that he started facebook and you know has any other girl or any. college attorneys have the same thing right they probably mean mary. having a i also think you'll find a bunch of because if you consider the entire crash the not like jamie dimon and all those. things to look at the c.e.o. relative to the power of his company and whether or not it's too big to fail and really you know the economy i think called the national bureau of economic research . ok. when you think of cloning especially cloning things from the past. i think it's rushing in south korean scientists have signed on

a deal to joint research and tended to recreate. a woolly mammoth ok willingham as i don't walk the earth for ten thousand years this is all based on they basically global warming so if they various permafrost and so they uncovered some remains of a woolly mammoth and now they want to clone this thing and so we were talking about in our editorial meeting this morning. the wise words of jenny churchill and didn't they learn anything from jurassic park. so we have to go to clip. the. story. why greene i don't want. to say you know and jeff goldblum and his daughter like this. there's a lot of to do you know that you go do their population and you go like man if i go

to explain my news this is not. allowed to do with i'm with you cloning is weird enough to clone a prehistoric animal is just getting too into weird foresight by land of asking for real trouble you know what if they do it it's going to be like people are going to try to bury like martin luther king but he's like not going to be just saying working with them guess they live there never was there never the same that's always the right yeah yeah anyway but. i don't really think it's a matter of personality we just talked about the massive doesn't exist anymore that's going to run all over them and will have drastic the reality show the documentary yeah there's someone to make money off of. things which i mean i got to wrap it up that's a good night so thanks for tuning in make sure they come back tomorrow politico's josh gerstein is going to be on it take a look at how this administration handling freedom of information act requests i mean time to forget to become a fan of the on the show on facebook don't forget to follow us on twitter if

there's anything you missed on tonight's show or any other nights you can always find it is youtube dot com slash culina show and we have next is the news. wealthy british scientists. sometimes tirelessly. market finance come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mikes concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to cause report on our cheap.

morning news today violence is once again flared up the film these are the images the world has seen from the streets in canada after the final four asians or the day.