health issues nine hundred eighty billion we should take this private for six billion dollars from the year get ready for a broke down house numbers debate internet security and the news this book proposal and now president obama is threatening to veto the bill altogether we'll bring you the latest in the great cyber debate. plus american and philippine forces are flexing their muscles in the pacific joint military exercises as troop troops march in lockstep we'll tell you who they are arming themselves against and what it could mean for the region. and in the windswept deserts of arizona a storm is brewing span a community and civil rights activists are protesting the crackdown on illegal immigrants all this while thousands of miles away the fate of arizona's tough

immigration law is being decided by the supreme court the why of course tougher restrictions now would be illegal immigration raids are actually dropping all explore. it's thursday april twenty sixth four pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching r t. well congress today set to debate a highly controversial cybersecurity bill known as sis but critics say the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act allows companies to give private customer information to the government and this includes the national security agency the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security and massachusetts congressman became worked up today over the proposed law. now let's talk about what this bill would do could companies share personal information about consumers with other companies even if

information had nothing to do with cybersecurity yes would companies be free from liability if they share that personal information of every american you know could the government use personal information despoja on americans yes and while supporters say the legislation is needed to stop economic espionage the online community is outraged over what the bill could do to citizens online freedoms even the obama administration is now speaking out against it here's part of the official statement states quote without clear legal protections and independent oversight information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the government as well as in the internet by undermining fundamental privacy confidentiality civil liberties and consumer protections for the reason stated here and if h.r. three two three were presented to the president his senior advisers would recommend that he vetoed the bill. now this bill is set ups for

a vote tomorrow so where is it headed and what exactly does it mean for your online privacy to discuss all this i'm joined now by trevor ten activist for the electronic frontier foundation and i trevor so i just talk about what this bill means for citizens online privacy. well this base this bill is basically written so broadly that it creates a huge cyber security exception for all existing privacy laws so right now there are many laws in place that say the government needs a war or some sort of judicial review before it gets your communications and companies can only reach your communications in very specific situations they have to keep your privacy in mind so this bill destroys all that so companies will be able to read your communications like the representative markey was saying it or intro reacher communications and pass them along to the government voluntarily the government can read them without a warrant and then they can go ahead and use them for other purposes well these

communications can be passed on to intelligence agencies and the military which are usually barred from spying on americans so the bills provisions are extremely broad and go well beyond cyber security needs and now what this bell trump existing laws that aim to protect citizens privacy exactly so there are there are many laws like the wiretap act electronic you can communications privacy act that say specifically the government needs judicial review to get communications of of citizens and what this bill does it says there's a phrase that says notwithstanding any other law which means it overrides all existing laws that are already on the books just with one little phrase of the congressional research service a nonpartisan research arm of congress even warned congress in a report against ever using this phrase in the bill because it could have such extreme consequences now all these things are being debated on the floor today

backers want to come up with a way to make it more acceptable tom line privacy advocates like yourself as their way to tweak our fix the belt to make it more reasonable. oh there are many ways to tweak the bill to make it more reasonable unfortunately the authors of the bill are doing none of these mike rogers who is republicans from michigan. and. also this bill and he and he submitted a handful of amendments that would do just that unfortunately he's being misleading at best lying and worse because none of his amendments address any of these problems that we that we've mentioned here tonight and worse there are amendments on the table that would do a really good job of kind of narrow focus to it would force the companies to anonymize information is one that a lot says the government would get a warrant to get individual information or there's one that says the n.s.a. couldn't get ahold of this information ever and have we have to stay domestically

but mike rogers isn't allowing any of these substantial numbers to come up for a vote so on the one hand he's saying that he is concerned about privacy but on the other he's not allowing substantial and them and come to the house floor tiles are there are major companies that are supporting this bill corporations like google and facebook these companies oppose so but they are backing cispa why is that what i have today. well i first of all google actually isn't supporting this bill this is another misleading statement i have by mike rogers they've been talking to him about it trying to narrow the civil liberties are trying to help with civil liberties concerns but they haven't supported it facebook did support the bill but again they have also expressed expressed civil liberties concerns and the parts of the bill that we are worried about facebook actually came out and said that they don't want and they don't either and they won't use them if the bill comes to fruition and they said that they weren't even the reason they signed up for the bill in the first place they just want information to come from the government they

want to give it to the government so it really goes to show that these provisions actually aren't at all facebook with would like this bill just as much of that if these provisions were just removed completely so well companies may support it in general because they're worried about cyber threats which is a legitimate concern that they're not on board with these privacy invasive provisions that would essentially all the government unfettered access to a lot of our communications so trevor and this bill it is up for a vote tomorrow what are the chances of it passing and if it does pass what can we expect the obama administration to do with that well mike rogers has been stating for a week that he's very confident it will pass but in the last few days we've seen an extraordinary amount of increase in opposition to this bill not just civil liberties for the whole host of actors from their own security experts to even free market groups conservative free market groups you know the obama administration is

on the same side as ron paul is in this issue and so hopefully when the vote comes out tomorrow they will vote it down if these concerns aren't substantially addressed but even if it is hopefully. it won't become law either because obama did come out in a veto threat to his credit and said this bill wasn't a cyber security bill is actually an intelligence bill and he's essentially bring with us in that statement that this information would be going to places that never should and so hopefully no matter what happens on friday that this will never become law now even if says but doesn't pass i guess the question now is what's coming next when we saw they were both shot down after that fire starman opposition to these bills and now we see says by some people say it's worse than both of those bells is it is this the beginning of more bills like this that we can look forward to that that. could curtail our freedoms online

well i think congress has definitely had its eye on regular or for the last few years and we will see more bills come to the forefront they try to do that in different ways this is different and so as because it was about copyright censorship this is more about privacy and surveillance still very serious issues more serious perhaps. but we do see that people are starting to pay more attention which is great news and there are cocked contacting their congressmen early and the congress is now force forced to listen after the so debates before the start of the base congress didn't want to go shade they didn't want to listen to users but now they're realizing they have to and so despite the fact that congress may try to continue to pass these bills at least we know we have voice now and we can keep fighting and it actually can work i will be keeping a close eye on the developments there on the house floor on this bill that was a ten activists with the electronic frontier foundation. thanks

all new developments in the pacific to join us philippine military drills are underway in the south china sea and it's leaving china on edge the u.s. and the philippines maintains that this is all simply an exercise but china sees it as a provocation this has tension mounts between the philippines and china over disputed territory at the drills are happening here on the western philippine island of palauan there is a standoff between the philippines and china over who has the rights to the nearby waters the philippines says the area lies within their territory china claims it's theirs and there's a lot at stake the island said on what some estimate to be around fifty billion dollars worth of oil china also and territorial disputes with area in the area with indonesia taiwan and vietnam so are the military drills a sign of what's to come and will they be a step toward pushing china to

a breaking point to discuss this dr paul craig roberts former reagan administration official joins us joins us now welcome paula so the u.s. and the philippines say these are only drills nothing to be alarmed over but is there more to it. of course there is. the military security conflicts it is putting in motion another conflict they need a conflict to replace the the war on terror. the war on terror you know it's been going on now for term eleven years and it's true to be an embarrassment the problem with the war on terror is that the mighty military american should be there. if it can defeat a few ragtag insurgents. so in order to keep the war going with iraq is they did for seven eight years and now in afghanistan for now ten or eleven years it's sort

of embarrassing i mean they don't really want the war to end they're not trying to win they're just trying to spend money so the profits flow into the military security complex and comes back in political contributions but the problem with this type of conflict is it makes the americans look impotent military me that the notion that the united states military can't defeat a few thousand taliban is embarrassing so what they need is that they need a new cold war like they had in the soviet. now won't she come into conflict but which they can prove they can keep going for decades and so china is the obvious candidate so they're provoking channon they're trying to start you know a military buildup in china and one that we can point to for more alarm and more build up here so they can keep profits flowing into the military security complex that's what it's all about it's not about who's who's olens they are or any of that it's it's about we've got to keep the money in the power flowing to the military

security complex but overall at the center of all of this tension and it's been going on for years now as oil and money the island of the spratly islands that they're now being disputed that they're estimated to be sitting on billions of dollars worth of oil the philippines as a belongs to them but china still plans on drilling so in this case could china be seen as the aggressor you know look all of these extol of these excuses are just what they have to concoct they can't say oh we need a long term conflict to replace the soviet conflict. so we've decided to do that with china they can't say that so they create make believe things lying or alone on islands and who the islands by. i'm too and that sort of thing but that's not the purpose of this that's not the purpose of starting

a conflict with janet that they can keep going for years without actually having to fight. and the problem with the war on terror is they've been fighting and yet they don't win and so that's embarrassing and it hurts the military his reputation and hurts their self-image in the morale so they need a cold war and that's what this is all about it's not about who's all it is or who's the aggressor it's about the need to keep money flowing into the military security complex i mean what if you had peace what would happen to all these companies and their profits and homeland security and the cia and all the rest so that's really what it's about we really shouldn't let them program us into franking that china's trying to claim something that's not theirs or that the philippines are or that they are i mean the philip ange wouldn't be a match for china any now and the real question is why does the united states think it has any business being in the south china sea i mean what if china was saying

that its business was the gulf of mexico i mean we would be incensed so why shouldn't china be upset when we say that their home waters is our national interest all of this is to provoke conflict it's nothing to do with oil or who owns islands but paul there is a treaty back in the one nine hundred fifty of bad blood that states that if a country or something was the price the philippines that the us would provide some kind of aid. yes but china hasn't threaten the philippines they're not threatening anybody. they're not bombing any countries they're not inviting them. they're not doing anything and they're trying to trading people economically with trade and and but they're not you know look at africa china is their business terms house united states they're they're there with the africa command militarily. so

china has warned that these military exercises what raise the risk of an arm come for a confrontation and tension has been mounting between these two countries for quite some time is that more likely now i don't think the united states actually wants it to come to an armed conflict as i said already i think what they want is another cold war they had one with the soviets kept the profits flowing for decades now they want another war like that not a hot war. general the hot or is you might not win but in the cold war you can keep everybody worries you can keep homeland security going you can keep all the profits flowing into the military complex with new weapons systems and all of that sort of thing and so that's really what it's about we shouldn't be fooled by what they tell us it's about it's never about what they tell us about remember there was

no weapons of mass destruction in iraq there are no rain in nukes. the taliban had nothing to do with nine eleven so everything they tell us is wrong so don't we shouldn't let them get away with it again now paul there's over seven thousand american and philippine troops now taking part in this exercise so it's pretty extensive so of course this is causing a lot of money taxpayer money and not too long ago the pentagon announced a big defense cuts is there a kind of a disconnect here that well they're trying to they're trying to overcome the fence cuts by having a new threat. and so they are turning china into the threat and yes there is a conflict but they don't want to defense cuts i mean what the look president eisenhower war in the american people in his last public address in one thousand nine hundred

to two about the military industrial complex is now called the military security complex about how it would take all the money that the country had and all the liberty the country had and that people should wake up to the fact that they never did it and that's precisely what it's been doing and it's what it's doing now and so china is the new conflict to replace the war on terror i mean it's counter running out isn't it they claim they've killed bin ladin they claim the taleban is defeated and dispersed. and that is kind of hard to say that iran is is a terrorist conducting terrorist in the world so they've got to have a new conflict so i guess paula this is just another sign of the u.s. changing their focus from the middle east to the asia pacific region and you can look at it that way it's a more promising conflict for the military security complex paul pleasure to have you on as always that was dr paul craig roberts former reagan administration

official. well the supreme court has heard arguments in the case of arizona's immigration law the way it plays out in the supreme court could set the tone for immigration laws in several other states now amid all this we want to take a moment to look at the consequences of this controversial law what's happening on the border because of it especially after new footage brings a notorious case back into the limelight footage that shows a police tasing an immigrant to death take a look at it. really here you can see a crowded crowd a crowd of agents swarmed around on a stasio hernandez you can see that he's on the ground as the officer continues to tase him hernandez obviously an agonizing pain and police earlier said there hernandez's behavior justified the use of force but this video now brings that all into question. and joining us now to talk more about this is pedro rios director

for the american friends service committee pedro so as all of these provisions are being debated in supreme court how has this law impacted the lives of people living in this region. well the lawn especially for the border region continues to create a lot of tension precisely when there has been an increase in the border patrol agents throughout the southwest we've seen quite dribbling over the past ten years many of whom do not have the training they should have plenty of whom operate without much supervision and the climate that s.b. ten seven these and other like they just station create allows for for parole agents to get out of hand because there is the belief that they are emboldened to do so as a result of these types of legislation that are passed on

a statewide level now with this infamous case now infamous case of trayvon martin the teenager shot dead by a neighborhood watchman and florida has put this issue of racial profiling back in the spotlight but does this lot make racial profiling profiling legal. so it certainly does and it's interesting that the supreme court in their discussion on the questions that were being posed to the federal government tended to push aside the idea that racial profiling will take much higher. on communities and that's precisely the argument that we have coming from a community based approach we've seen the impact of local law officers who will stop individuals based soley on their appearance and question them about their status and that's something that has been a true phenomenon across the border states especially with the increase of corporal

agents and with this idea that local law enforcement have the inherent authority to enforce immigration laws it's a huge problem in our communities and we showed that video disturbing video of the man being behaves to that but he is just one of several people killed on the border to what extent are agents held accountable for their actions actions that sometimes turned out they were looking at a picture of them that. we don't have any cases where the department of justice has held the agents accountable in this particular case we don't even know the names of the agents who were involved we just know that there were two ice agents six border patrol agents and a host of other agents from the larger detests matrix of agencies and this is a problem that we have to confront are our federal government needs to be transparent in ensuring that the agents are held accountable especially if it be

wrongdoing or misconduct on their part and scenes from this video that those questions need to be asked and better why are these cases prosecuted and. you know traditionally the border patrol has been an agency that has gone rogue for lack of a better word they are a cowboy agency that operate on many instances without any sort accountability without any sort of real cool provision and it's time now that the that the agency is held accountable for its actions over the past couple of years since two thousand and ten we've documented about eight cases where people have lost their lives but over the poor system of history the border patrol has always been known as a nick get out of its own rules without any real regulations or responsibility held over the agents their conduct themselves professionally or that engage in misconduct. now people like republican presidential candidate mitt romney they're

going to argue that something needs to be done about immigration and the immigration problem in america it's a very hot topic and the u.s. today what do you say is that believe that this may be the only way to deter people from evil illegally entering the u.s. i think that every single person needs to be held are treated with respect and dignity and it's obvious that in this case that did not happen the policies that we have along the border really depend on a policy of death to try that this way people thought from coming across pushing migrants into much more treacherous and dangerous areas having people cross deserts for seven or eight year old student days at a time is a recipe for disaster when we are facing a human rights nightmare across order and these policies need to change and we need to address them head on now as this case is being debated in the supreme court what

are you hoping the outcome is. stationary at this point would be that the outcome would be four and four it seems from what we heard yesterday that the federal government wasn't necessarily prepared to answer the questions and really they i believe have set themselves up where they're trying to say that the state of arizona does not have the authority to engage in enforcing immigration laws which is a federal. direction yet they are poles the same types of collaborative programs throughout the country with operations secure communities and other operations that allow for local law enforcement agents to enforce immigration law so it's really up and from both sides of the mouth of that it doesn't help its own argument and making a case for itself. thank you very much for coming on the show that was pandering reacts to reactor for american friends service committee. well coming up next on

our t. is the capital account with laura lister let's check in with lauren to see what's on today's agenda lauren what can we look forward to hi liz well i know you probably saw that president obama has announced that they're kicking off his campaign announced the official date of the beginning of may we ask if this whole election season which will also culminate with another debt ceiling debate if this fiscal rack in the snus combined with the loose monetary policy is posing the biggest tail risk to investors right now that they're bracing for we have the honor of interviewing james grant who is editor of grant's interest rate observers he is an expert on all things interest rate related so we're going to go to we're really going to go deep into the federal reserve and talk about everything that people are so eager to hear about a lot's look forward to and that's all coming up next on the capital account with laura listserver that's going to do it for the news for more on the stories we covered you can head on over to youtube dot com slash r t america you can also

check out our website is r t v dot com slash usa and you can also follow me on twitter liz wall we'll see you right back here in a half hour next to the capital account with loyalists are. i'm lauren lyster. there hasn't been a thing yet. it is to get the maximum political impact. before source material is what helps keep journalism on

us we. we want to present. something else. wealthy british style. that's not on the title.

markets finance scandals find out what's really happening to the global economy with max kaiser for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report on our.