tonight on r t is it legal or just racist the n.y.p.d. has been secretly monitoring muslim communities in new york for years that much we know but it may violate the constitution and a group of muslims is now suing to states. suing the us state to prove their point we'll tell you all about it. and stopping n.c.a.a. and its tracks a group of lawyers activists and authors are suing president obama over the national defense authorization act and now they've got a u.s. district judge on their side so is this the end to the controversial legislation we'll ask one of the plaintiffs. plus the people of taiwan have some serious beef with the u.s. more specifically our meet standards and it's driving a rift between the two nations we'll tell you what the dangerous ingredient is and

what it means for your dinner plate. it's thursday june seventh seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching our t.v. . well spying on people based on their religion may not be legal after all a group of muslims now suing the n.y.p.d. for singling out and surveilling them simply based on their religion this after reports came out that the n.y.p.d. spied on muslim businesses mosques and students in new jersey and built up secret files of them the complaint filed in federal court in newark asked the judge to deem the spying unconstitutional and stop targeting people of a single religion top government and police officials maintain that the surveillance program is legal so what does this all mean for the muslim community i'm joined now by a political comedian dean obeidallah welcome dean nice to see you so the media is

now being sued over this surveillance problem the program and it certainly doesn't seem to target people based on their religion but is it legal. well you know i'll muslim and i could tell you on some level i like the attention it's kind of nice know there's a police officer always looking out for me making sure our life is going nice and smooth to leave anyone to try to mug me i guess the party jump out and hopefully save me but in addition to the community used to be a practicing attorney and i can tell you know it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment our constitution you cannot treat americans differently because of their race their religion or their ethnicity and this case it's clearly their religion which is the reason they're targeting the muslim group so i think it is unconstitutional it's morally wrong and it's counterproductive because the best allies against terrorism or any kind of crime within a community is that community but when you treat them like adversaries they're not going to work with you there's not to be any trust in the police in the muslim community and you treat everyone in our community as potential suspects or

terrorists so it's counterproductive as well as unconstitutional now dana i want to talk about this report that police came up where there was more of a guide more a guidebook to newark muslims i think we have a shot of it you take a look at it has a bunch of maps detail and where muslim people lab photographs of their homes and of businesses but it had no evidence of terrorism or criminal behavior this is according to the a.p. so what do you think that says about this surveillance program. well if they had caught anybody they would be touting that and saying look at this we spend this money and we do because we and we have some results so everyone feel it's ok but they have nothing they have no results for it was a waste of money you know it were eleven years mine eleven this was done a little bit in the past and last year or even two or three years is unclear from the a.p. documents i think times are changing right now the top ten people in the most wanted list not one or most of them you know last year fourteen thousand americans

were killed were murdered to zero by islamic terrorists america is changing the police have to change and evolve with it work with the muslim community there your greatest ally work with the black community on issues where there are there are issues for them latino community same thing and you know by the way the n.y.p.d. is not just doing this to muslims their racial profiling also extends to blacks and latinos and the right now there's a press event just today in washington d.c. with leaders of lawmakers from new york protesting their stop and frisk of black latino's of the seventy thousand people they stopped last year and first the n.y.p.d. eighty six percent were minorities common sense would say there's a racial component with the n.y.p.d. is doing with blacks latinos and muslims believe you will not suspicious white people is according to commissioner ray kelly and speaking of ray kelly you know government officials and the new york city police commissioner ray kelly and their bloomberg the attorney general they're all standing behind this program and they're saying that this is all being done to keep people safe and to take preventative measures what do you think about that. you know you can use it for justifying

anything you could say let's just a police state in suspend the fourth amendment and just do surveillance of everybody and that would be right at all the fact that there are a teeny tiny percentage of muslims who happen to be involved in criminal activity or terrorist islamic the rest of us guilty that's not the american system we're not treated less than american because of our faith that's not a very same reason you're not treated less than american because of your religion your faith i mean your your race or your ethnicity that's all wrong that's not the basis if there is evidence of a crime or probable cause of a potential crime against a muslim please investigate them because they make our community look horrible when someone from our community does something wrong but have not surveillance of our entire community again is counterproductive and you know as we see these officials standing behind us and even the polls show that even the citizens do support this surveillance program i mean does this show that racial profiling has become acceptable in america. i think when people are afraid they will say sure things are

fine i think as time goes on new more and more we're going to see less people supporting it against muslims i don't think people would say they're in favor of racial profiling of african-americans because it's not acceptable anymore in our society to say that i don't think you should be racially profiled like people don't get me wrong it's not acceptable for muslims that is you can tell a stranger calls you for a pole sure thing muslims are all trouble and and they should be checked out and under surveillance in time i'm hopeful that all of all that and more and more people in the muslim community are getting involved in the media in the police force are no numerous n.y.p.d. officers who are muslim you know in law enforcement and i think will change it by example they'll be role models in the police department self will evolve just like america evolves you know i think america the great thing about it we evolve for the better it takes time but we do evolve for the better and speaking of evolving i guess what does this all have to say the fact that this goes on with the n.y.p.d. and new jersey about what has happened to america after after nine eleven. i mean

it was a time of fear and man but now we're eleven years past it and you know at some point reason has to come back in to take control here i mean the last two major arrests in america potential terrorist were white people guys in ohio and guys in chicago i mean i have no idea what the next terrorist attack is going to come i hope it's not from the muslim community hope there's no attack at all but i would say the mystic terrorists and if you go to the southern poverty law center which monitors hate groups where the record level right now the same amount is right before the oklahoma city bombing by domestic terrorists so i think just look at the muslim community isn't the right thing to do to keep americans safe because i think sadly the next terrorist attack could come from a domestic terrorist who's not a muslim was an american against our government and pleasure to have you on the show as always when it's a little comedian dean obeidallah. well another victory today for critics of the controversial indefinite detention law a federal judge has ruled that the government cannot use that law to hold people in

military prisons indefinitely the ruling comes after a group of journalists and activists sued the government over the provision they say it's unconstitutional in fear that they could they could be indefinitely detained under the law because their jobs sometimes require them to interact with terrorists while the government interpreted an injunction put in place by the judge a couple of weeks ago to apply only to a handful of plaintiffs in the suit but now the judge says no this is to be applied broadly to all americans to discuss what this all means for your rights one of the plaintiffs standring bolton the founder and director of revolution truth joining me to discuss this case she shared her reaction to the judge's late decision take a look i'm grateful for that reaction to that i very. much. ok and this is andrea an interesting argument of the that the government tried to make they request that this injunction only applied to you when your fellow plaintiffs

but the judge just made it clear that this ruling is to be applied broadly and we have a little quote from that ruling it states quote the supreme court has made it clear that when a plaintiff claims that a law is facially vague and violate violates his or her constitutional rights to due process that party seeks to vindicate not only his or her own right but those of others who may also be adversely impacted by the statue in question. so standard what do you think about that the judge is saying you know this isn't just going to apply to you and your point of but this is going to be applied across the board in the u.s. . well obviously that's what we were aiming for we're not just fighting for our own first in fact amendment rights we feel that we represent thousands if not tens of thousands of people across the country who are also similarly concerned so that really clarifying or make sense to me of course we didn't come for

a just for ourselves i'll go we demonstrate harm in her opinion these plaintiffs are going to what do you think about the government trying to shape it that way that this is going to only apply to that few people. it seems to me and i'm just guessing but they are trying to maintain the operates you have a very broad interpretation of the statute and that's precisely the issue here we are questioning got incredibly broad the potential interpretation and the judge is saying no that's not how we're going to look at so far so. you're right so let's talk about what this bill is all about as started a lot of controversy the greater implications of the n.d.a. and why americans should be concerned about the card of a controversial excuse me provisions in this law. well i should only speak from my

perspective and i'm not going to hurt you but what i can say is that i approached prison as a lawyer because out of someone as an activist working on civil liberties and someone who has how we defended wiki leaks and bradley manning i have very serious concerns about the vague language and not particular statute so the implication going forward if the united states government wins this case then i don't know what can happen but what i'm afraid could happen is that people who are advocating for civil liberties like myself could end up getting swept under the n.b.a. and indefinitely detained with no access to counsel which is very un-american that's not the american way it's not how we do things here and i want to protect our constitution so hopefully we win the case and that won't happen. speaking of the un-american is the word you just use that critics say that this law is also unconstitutional what rights do you say it puts in jeopardy. farce and fifth amendment definitely our freedom of expression and speech and due process in my

i get i'm not attorney but to me that's a statute roll back a hundred years supreme and a car today we had due process for quite a long time to put forth a statute that says we can accuse you provide no evidence and then indefinitely detain you with no access to counsel i just it's on top removal i can't i can't imagine with the congress an executive or thinking that i want to bring attention now to something that happened just yesterday this happened in colorado police reportedly responded to a bank robbery by arresting dozens of people and reports suggest that the cops trapped as many as forty cars and handcuffed at least nineteen people most of them or all of them presumably it is said they were held at gunpoint as they searched for a suspect let's take a look at some of the coverage of this. police painted this group of cars drivers

are ordered to get their hands up and they got one shield at the m four shot themselves there was no trace of them so that we didn't know what the heck was going on we didn't know if we're in the line of fire one by one drivers are pulled out at gunpoint and handcuffed they're told not to their cars or sir. so some of those detained say they were held without charges for hours so is this an example of what can happen under the n.d.a. . you know i don't know about might have been a stretch because it's a bank robbery situation but i don't know that the herald certainly and yes in the future if the government was the case and all kinds of things could happen i mean they don't have to or of evidence for common you in the course of a carrot and i just think i can credibly dangerous which is why i brought the suit for for. i'm not sure about the bank robbery curation. all right well you know as a journalist do you feel better do you have more peace of mind knowing that this order has been put in place. yes i don't really grateful for

a judge conference or very firm stance on this and her clarifying order yesterday what i just made over and the government attorneys are still doing two things one offering no evidence no witnesses no documentation. seemed to be insisting on maintaining that right after no evidence into their motion for reconsideration they issued a few weeks ago asking her to reverse a ruling they described independent activities independent journalist activity independent advocacy but they don't define independent what is in the funded independent if i talk directly with you the staff is that considered independent or not i mean it's such a gray area and it looks like the government is really trying to do its best to maintain this gray area and there are already over how they wish to interpret that greater area and that's of great concern to me and others who seem the war on terror becomes more and more surreal over the last decade and the definition of

terrorism to be expanding while we can see that from the court you seem so we want to just kind of stand up and say wait a minute let's examine this event this doesn't go well this is scary so i favor the government's response i'm surprised now what. at least this is a victory another victory for you and critics of the n.d.a. in your and your fellow plaint that's ultimately what would you like to see happen and courts oh yes i started off with a permanent injunction on section ten twenty one b. that's what we're aiming for and that's what we'd like to see that would be a win for all of us part of a u.s. citizen that people around the world who are innocent people are finding their rights so that we'd like a right hander and thank you so much for coming on the show that was tendering volin founder and director of revolution truth meanwhile syria has erupted into

violence once again and i'm doing my. editors came under fire today as they attempted to reach the site of the latest mass killing. syrian activists said government forces killed over eighty people today many of whom were women and children this comes just one day after one hundred people were reportedly killed and other villages while all this has been going on the united nations has been slow to respond to the increasing violence with many of its members divided over what to do about syria this has caused the us to consider taking matters into its own hands and go beyond the u.n. sanctions on the country but this won't be the first time the u.s. has gone beyond the international law to make a decision that impacts the world arts a correspondent arena part and i gives us a look back at the instances in which the u.s. has undermined you once authority. the united nations is the only diplomatic forum where every country is supposed to be governed by the same rules united

nations have been sure that at their best to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security a founding member and biggest financial contributor america ratified inside the u.n. treaty in one nine hundred forty five which prohibits unprovoked attacks or military interventions in sovereign countries unless authorized by the un security council but. my fellow americans today our own forces joined our nato allies in airstrikes against serbian forces responsible for the brutality in kosovo in recent decades the us has been seen violating the very international laws it helped create we have acted with resolve the u.s. and its allies also acted without authorization from the un security council when it launched a seventy eight day aerial attack on yugoslavia in one thousand nine hundred nine nato starshine war against the federal republic of yugoslavia serbian montenegro.

answer be. seventy eight days occupies kosovo and this doesn't have you an authorization until the very end the u.s. again disregarded international law in two thousand and three after the security council refused to support a military strike on iraq they withdrew their new additional resolution rather than face defeat clearing it is their argument the way for a military campaign without any new u.n. approval the united nations security council has not lived up to its responsibilities so we will rise to ours is not in conformity with the u.n. charter from our point of in from the charter point of view it was in the. by circumventing international law for geo political interests experts say the u.s. has systematically damage the confidence and credibility of the un it's been used by the united states i think as a fig leaf to get multilateral proven from the policies that the u.s. wants to do but if the u.n.

doesn't agree with the united states as you know the case of iraq or kosovo the united states just disregard in the case of syria we're kofi annan fragile peace plan showed slow progress washington is prepared to once again bypass the u.n. if the security council fails to impose more pressure on damascus members of this council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take action outside of the annan plan and the authority of this council. for diplomacy they have the legions apparently the united states thinks it has no need for diplomacy it has missiles and drones the u.n. was founded at the end of the second world war as a place for countries to solve conflicts through dialogue rather than gunfire however the honorable goal of maintaining global peace and security becomes harder to attain every time a member state decides to play by its own rules. new york.

toxic be americans but taiwan is saying over my dead body while we eat that taiwanese activists fighting to make sure that american beef stays out of the country currently there's a ban on these products being imported from the u.s. to taiwan the ban applies to me pumps with topo me and an additive used to make animals leaner but this drug is banned in about one hundred countries that say it's not safe for human consumption the taiwan government is considering lifting the ban which is stirring a lot of controversy and protests but this isn't the first time u.s. beef sparked anger abroad. these images are from back in two thousand and eight tens of thousands of people in south korea took to the streets and mass protests against the government's decision to let us beef and to the country and this was after the mad cow disease outbreak and after that they simply wanted nothing to do with us beef so many countries find this be too gross to swallow but the u.s.

is one of a handful that eats it right up why to answer that question i was joined by george damager founder of survive and thrive t.v. here's his take i think american so are just uninformed and that's the problem our our media or national media focus so much what's happening locally that we really don't even understand or have the opinions of you know national community enough that we should follow everything that other countries say to do but hundreds of countries are saying that this particular you know the beef product is tainted with the tiriel is that should be just by humans and say let's err on the side of you know safety and let's show the try to produce speed in this country that's healthy in more leaning towards organic and you know the controversial chemical is called it's called rec topa mean this is that this is the chemical that is banned from several countries including china china the e.u.

many americans haven't even heard of this chemical why not. i think it's just the the lack of it's really you know the fault of the media in you know bravo to you guys for covering these types of issues i know there's this movement to kind of eat organic foods natural foods help your foods whole foods and but still most americans are kind of behind the ball they're still consuming the products products with a lot of additives a lot of different chemicals and substances g.m.o. foods and it's just this we have to be more progressive in america about eating what's natural for our bodies and getting healthier and it's definitely not chemicals products and additives it's getting back to what is natural and what exists in nature and how we can eat that food i think that's going to be i think the eunice the great health benefits for the american people they just start eating healthier and whole and you had mentioned media coverage or the lack of as to why

americans seem to be ignorant of some of the harmful chemicals in hormones and other things that are in our products and food corporations often pump a lot of money into advertising so do you think it's become taboo to target and expose these companies. well yeah i mean big media big agriculture probably beef corporations they probably have a big say in what goes on that we're television and if you're critical of them they could use that as an attack on them and i would say from a consumer's point of view you know we're not trying to attack big business we're not trying to attack the american beef industry we're saying guys you know you need to take it to consider you need to take into consideration the health of your consumers are in consumers you know everything shouldn't be skewed one way where hey let's pump up these people with hormones and a chemical and let's do the same thing with with agricultural products because sure

we've got we have great the ability to produce a lot of food in america but so use of shown you have fifty percent less need nutrients you know forty or fifty years ago so we may be producing more food but if you look at the common american cancer hypertension diabetes i mean is exploding health issues but yet we spend more money on health care and almost every other country it makes you question what's wrong here could it be that the food ingesting is what's making us so sick. and i do want to mention lawmakers do insist that this this chemical of a man. is not harmful and the it in the amounts that they are found and the men there are saying that critics are causing a big fuss over nothing and in the ad are hurting the u.s. economy what do you think about that argument well i mean if you look at it from a natural foods perspective i mean i mean beef today and i love it and i think

we've i think we've evolved to eat beef products meat products but if you look at it from a whole perspective this chemical didn't exist you know one hundred years ago two hundred years ago one hundred thousand years ago. why are we getting back to how we ate over time how we evolved that's what we need to get back to you find out what did you mean being consumed with the products and it sure as heck didn't have all these chemicals in it and i don't trust scientists i don't just the research community why not just start out from a basic premise that we need to get regular natural food products the american consumer and yards this kind of goes along with this this fight in america for people to know what's in their food in california they're fighting for again no foods to be labeled and once again several other countries i mean this is normal this is required that the foods are labeled if they are. but why is there such

a fight to get labels on our food here in the u.s. . well americans are a little slow on the uptick i mean we're severely obese we watch a lot of t.v. we're stuck in the nine to five growing and we're not exercising and we're a little dumbed down that can be from a lot of different reasons it's the television the propaganda could be the actual foods that we're just right now are kind of causing this kind of lol in wanting to get healthy and think about what you eat but the who we have to blame is really ourselves and i believe we're going to have to turn it around and one of the ways we have to turn around is stop the government subsidies of all the stuff i mean we're subsidizing the health care of people that have not taking care of themselves we're subsidizing the agricultural companies that are producing food that's not healthful for us in any thing part of our society government needs to get the heck

out of subsidizing unhealthy behavior that could be part of the reason why we have all these problems in america is because you have big government getting involved in areas that they shouldn't be and i think left on their own people probably start making the right decisions well we see the backlash and taiwan today too bad they don't want this kind of foot in their country and south korea a couple years ago people taking taking to the streets because you know how their health and their what they put into their bodies is so important to them what will it take for americans to to care to that degree. what will it take that's the as an angel question and that's a very difficult question i don't know i have both your there are twenty nine died of cancer and they're sneaking pizza and coke into him while he's getting chemo i mean it's like hello wake up. i don't know i think there's going to be ten twenty maybe thirty percent of us that focus on our health get healthy and it's about

dissemination of knowledge dissemination of what's actually in your food but you know i'm sad to say probably fifty to sixty percent of americans aren't just going to hear they ingest whatever's in front of them you know whatever they see on the t.v. whatever they feel like eating and they're just going to be healthy and they're going to die early hypertension fact. diabetes cancer or whatever and i all i can do is take care of myself and promote living and surviving thriving being healthy but i think you know there's people out there that you just can't help but sure as hell don't take my money to support it you know someone's going to be you know smoking cigarettes their entire life or eating bad food their entire life and they're then they want to come to me to pay for their medical costs i'm sorry it's not available and it's the same thing with. anything dealing with health concerns of people who just don't care well that all sounds terribly depressing gore and hopefully people will wake up and care more about their health that was

george hamon founder survive and thrive in t.v. land as a for now for more of the stories we covered you can go argue to the page at you tube dot com slash r t america there we oppose all of our interviews in full for your viewing pleasure so click watch and comment i want to know what you think and don't forget to check out our website at our t.v. dot com slash usa there you will find a bunch of stories we didn't have time to get to on the air today our web team wrote an interesting piece about a legal dispute going on between the website mega upload. in the f.b.i. it seems like the battle between the two was getting more volatile the f.b.i. allegedly removed evidence against them without their permission they say it's not illegal because the evidence is digital but kim dot coms legal team isn't going down without a fight want to know more just go to our top stories page on our website and you can also follow me on twitter.