well there. all right coming up next we'll continue our coverage of sunshine we focusing on the bradley manning case which has been shrouded in secrecy every single step of the way and a supreme court order the retiring of the case now before us that will get more insights into combat. headlines turned thirty pm moscow time a stolen truck was called fire after being driven inside a british base in afghanistan near the plain of the rest of fence secretary who was unharmed this comes as barack obama is hosting david cameron in washington with their afghan policy will remain the same. journalist who resigned from al-jazeera accuse the station bosses of fabricating reports about syria some have left the broadcast to represent what's really happening. and china warns its rampant economic growth in a slowdown of reforms that are needed to avoid political and financial disaster it comes while europe looks to paging for help with its massive debts. i'm kevin owen

your moscow tonight news in full with me in half an hour but next back to washington d.c. in the next part of the alona show tonight. well . it's technology innovations all the developments around. the future for. our guys it's sunshine week and we're 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 and talk to manning observe his conditions while he was being detained want to go and they held him for months without charging him with a crime and most recently they kept the court records surrounding his martial sealed so now media organizations are challenging that's a media coalition consisting of warriors and 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 council over 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 john what documents you might ask according to josh gerstein over politico there are approximately forty one thousand documents totaling over four hundred thousand pages which were handed over to manning's defense team from prosecutors like almost everything else involving manning's court martial those documents aren't for the press to see at that level 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 of poor his next trial date which is this coming thursday and the group argues quite reasonable . cases against members of the military should have the same level of transparency that 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 why we've made several times on this show over the past few years back when he was being 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 u.n. has deemed those conditions conoco as cruel and inhumane but that's just one piece of the puzzle manning's defense team was doomed from the start of this article thirty two hearing in december when his attorney david coombs was prohibited from calling thirty eight out of forty eight witnesses and 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 a u.s. service member over the largest allegedly in u.s. history belongs in the public eye i 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 of 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 letting the government fight its war on whistleblowers behind closed doors is a complete abdication of that very sacred rule. a public blowback to the supreme court's two thousand and ten citizens united decision only continues the 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 take the two percent of those polled say they strongly support a ban on light of this let's look at another supreme court case that we covered earlier on the show that of kyogle versus petroleum is a case brought by twelve nigerian plaintiffs who allege that shell should be held liable for human rights violations committed against them arguing that they were complicit in those violations were carried out by dictatorship in nigeria and the 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 the supreme court has chosen not to answer that question last week they ordered a real argument a 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 about something to do with it here to discuss with me as katie redford co-founder and us office director of earth rights international ok thanks so much for joining us tonight. so i guess 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 tort statute and whether we should even he was it so in your mind our viewers what that is statute is a 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 heman rights violations and 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 fixed two hundred years old right if it's since the one nine hundred eighty s. i guess you could say seen a resurgence when people rediscovered it and you know how did they ruled on it before and of 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 how 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. uses should not be able to see 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 that doesn't grant justice it just gives people a chance to come to court to tell their story and make their allegations heard the fact that corporations like shell and the many corporations that intervened in this case argue that corporations should enjoy

a special immunity that nobody else enjoys that they aside alone should not be able to be able to operate above human rights law. to me is not what this law is about and certainly is not what our court system should be allowing to happen ok so be honest with me do you think that there is some 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. to a lot of people are saying well it is 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't 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 but whether whatever you think of citizens united whether corporations are persons or

not they are subject to human rights law they cannot be simplistic and torture genocide slavery and killing so the corporate personhood issue isn't an issue for the 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 tort statute is again set up to do to deal with human rights violations and. 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 courts 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 or not is not you don't you got a very often right is a pretty rare move if they offer or if they order a real argument it's quite unusual however shell raised and it's briefs

and many of his priests 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 the much broader issue beyond corporate accountability but on this issue of extraterritorial application of u.s. laws and the court seems to be concerned about it and so you know it wasn't really fair for our side who read the issues 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 all right so 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 international criminal court right or something i guess you could say knows no no national boundaries in the sense well the i.c.c. doesn't. have jurisdiction over over corporations so it couldn't be brought before

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 doing business here they need to be aware and subject to our laws and our laws and international law is very clear but. for every child labor killing genocide this is illegal and for corporations or anyone to argue that well it's illegal for everyone else but not us because we're a corporation is it's really i mean it's a right we all keep using the products 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 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 as 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 a punishment actually look like for show here right i mean it wouldn't even be a criminal offense where they just have to pay a fine let's lock on the receipt 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. often where it goes to just issues of money katie thank you so much for joining us tonight thank you. i'm going to take our last break that evening but when we come back

should we just sell off all of our national parks as one congressman solutions to america's fiscal was more tied full time and on happy hour single c.e.o.'s i'm more likely to take risks in their married counterparts and there are times columnist suggests a central blogging off already on the. nearly a billion people in the world who are going on. in the united states even our trash cans or food that. you just have to go get it all of these perfectly good eggs because one was crap i didn't even get all over the other ones just threw them away but she's from the german know if we really like to up with. the dumpster at one am this morning three pm this afternoon on the grill the cake

is made from one dozen dumpster egg whites. delicious breakfast for the family make some toast for about a week every year in america we throw away ninety six billion pounds of. her.

the official g.o.p. case. called touch from the cue. ball she. smiled. for. our guys aside for tonight's hold on a warden's night that's a representative of cliff stearns and reason town hall florida stern's mansion and

he was recently attacked for not supporting a new national park and this was his response. to us. sorry that you hear that stern think 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 kind of interesting with sterns and points of 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 and twenty percent all that same year that offense department of the defense budget was six hundred eighty billion dollars the us turns really focusing in on the big drains to our tax dollars there but i get to him the national parks which provide an affordable way for americans all over the country to see the country's national treasures are just not all that important and will sterns it 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 national park service the parks brought in thirty one billion and supply two hundred and fifty eight thousand jobs in two thousand and ten alone and it states like new mexico national parks are a big boon with the national parks and monuments they're bringing in sixty seven million dollars and providing more than a thousand jobs to the state i mean do you really expect somebody who makes comments like this to think rationally. oh. yeah turns out that stern's is also a burger which means will pretty much say whatever to score cheap political points like that 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 how serious is exactly

clear on whether he thinks the park should be sold the highest bidder for whatever purpose they desire or if he thinks of the running of the parks to just be privatized either way i'm kind of disturbed 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 we're thinking that selling off our national parks is going to help get our budget in check representative cliff stearns is tonight's tools i'm aware. our guys it's time for happy hour and joining me this evening lauren lyster host of the capital account here on r.g.p. 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 that 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 trying to answer that right now but most of us thinking about what happens to our stuff after we've put in the internet age not taking care of our digital assets could be a big mistake things like financial records e-mail accounts time critical passwords 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 reitman wanted to introduce a law that allowed the executor of a 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 i don't know

where you are going to go to the swirly you know what i mean you know exactly you brother executing him through social you know you know so be it and i'll be there forever and i can like people in their lives and it could be really 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 that'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 don't know what it is already you know you don't know if it's its initial question for our generation you know i know a few people that have passed away that 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 with their friends choose to write on and all the time it is i'm just thinking of you and. i think they're kind of the same somebody 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. it's really weird they. wouldn't be responding. i don't think that's right big you know there's 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 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 tools ruins him police. in the bahamas tasted the local delicacies. and partied with the local school. parties with the locals was everyone you know didn't dancer and i know i saw that video and it made me think it was hot as well yeah well. there was definitely no party or of the family i mean like. so he's

in the british army and so british army source this is a tabloid and it's we have to i guess question it told the sun that prince harry who is currently 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 he wants to go to war he can't go to. 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. but you know i'm not going to you know me well well look i mean clearly you don't want to go to before he goes into the apache to fly again at the same time you know what you can do to make it more like it was a little release but if you know to make a more real problem is a real life really is. potentially you know he's done this through i don't believe that under the wing the army ranger is partying under wraps because he's also

brought a lot of sheen 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 willing to take riskier. make risky 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 associate 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 it's not our problem with this so the c.d.o. that are married are boring and they don't do anything exciting or really justice rezai i don't think they're being hard on anybody here they're just saying. the single guys versus the married guys they happen to notice a trend yeah well i just think it's a big ass just because you just saying they usually do it ok i don't know. how they would give somebody the biggest dork you can who've no one would ever sleep with and that's where you put some money that we can all learn by because i don't like those that crashes when he started facebook and you know has me have you girl or any. college or thirty's of the same thing i did probably mean marry. if you're

a having a i also of course you're going to find a bunch of because if you consider the entire crash it's not like jamie dimon and all those guys get them together or do you know i think you 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 it's. called the national bureau of economic research and tell them. ok. what do you think of cloning especially cloning. from the past. i think it's rushing in south korean scientists have signed on a deal to joint research intended to recreate. a woolly mammoth cave only mammoth i don't want the earth for ten thousand years this is all based on they basically global warming thought of siberia's permafrost and so they i'm covered some remains will be mammoth and so now they want to clone this thing and so we were talking about in our editorial meeting this morning and the wise words of jenny churchill is simply to learn anything from jurassic park right. now we have to go to put

korea. on the. story. and come. why green i don't want. to say jeff goldblum with his black daughter like. there's a lot of the. bear population and you go like mammals i got explain why do you look you can be. allowed to do with i guess i'm with you cloning is weird enough to clone a prehistoric animal is just getting to into weird. land asking for real trouble you know what they do is going to be like people are going to try to bury me i like martin luther king but he's like not going to be saying working on some days they live there never was or never the same that's always the right yeah yeah anyway but

hey i don't really think it's a matter of personality we just talk about the massive bs that doesn't exist anymore that's going to run all over the deadlock jurassic park in reality show the documentary bravo are there someone to make money off it. thanks for joining me tonight i got to wrap it up as if i'm right so thanks for tuning in to make sure they come back tomorrow politico's josh gerstein is going to be on to take a look at how this administration handling freedom of information act requests in the meantime don't forget to become a fan of you 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 in you tube dot com slash fuel and shell and we have next is the news. thanks.

to. the book. the best. close up. to me. to let me. know. where. develops from

a craft into an industry. where rough logs turn into words of beauty. village called newspaper. russia closer. to the sun from. his friends.