tonight an 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 the state to prove that point i'll tell you all about it. and stopping in the n.b.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 last one man who is representing the plaintiffs. and it looks like the occupy movement might be losing its momentum many expected a spring resurgence but it seems these protesters are at

a crossroad we'll tell you why the banners may be fading but the occupying message remains as resilient as ever. it's thursday june seventh eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching are. spying on people based on their religion may not be illegal 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 the complaint filed in federal court in newark asks a judge to deem the spying unconstitutional and stop targeting people of a single religion top government and police officials maintain the surveillance program is legal so what does this all mean for the muslim community and could

spying really be legal to talk about that i was joined by political comedian dean obeidallah take a look. 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 leave anyone to try to mug me i guess they probably jump out and hopefully save me but in addition to the commune i used to be a practicing attorney and i can tell you know it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of 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 when you treat everyone in our community as potential suspects or terrorists so it's counterproductive as well as unconstitutional now do you 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 and 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 it because we and we have some results so everyone feels 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 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 what the n.y.p.d. is doing with blacks latinos and muslims believe you will not suspicious white people is according to the commissioner ray kelly and speaking of ray cali 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 it's a preventative measure it's a what do you think about that. you know you can use it for justifying anything you can say let's just in a police state and suspend the fourth amendment and just do surveillance of

everybody and that wouldn't 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 right 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 it's 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 more and more we're going to see less people

supporting 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 it 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 that and more and more people in the muslim community are getting involved in the media in the police force i know 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 we all 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. well i mean it was a time of fear i mean 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 american see because i think sadly the next terrorist attack could come from a domestic terrorist who's not muslim was an american against our government and pleasure to have you on the show as always when i salute a comedian dean obeidallah. another victory today for critics of the controversial definite 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 and feared 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 weeks ago to apply only to the 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 as carl mayer he's the attorney for mayor a law group policy representing the plaintiffs and joins me now live from new jersey hi correlates to have you on the show. disagrees with this just want to get your reaction to the judge's ruling well we're honored to stand sentinel in these cases to ensure that journalists such as yourself are not held indefinitely without a trial without benefit of tyranny and it will quote the device to you. the very important ruling that judge forrest issued in order yesterday stated in no

one certain terms that her order and her injunction applies everywhere in the united states of america and to all persons any journalist any activist not just the plaintiffs that we represent in this case we represent christopher hedges whose appeals are prize winning new york times reporter daniel ellsberg of pentagon papers fame and several other activists from other communities like occupy wall street occupy london it cetera but the import of what judge forrest has done and this is consistent with the gentleman you just had on prior the import of what judge force has done is to strike a ball of blow for civil liberties for the first amendment for the due process clause and for freedom in america because it consistent with what you were just discussing all of this is gone too far in this country our civil liberties are increasingly under attack not just from drones that are being sent over american

cities not just from the police or now or paramilitary garb not just from wiretapping of citizens phones but the the ultimate attack on our civil liberties was in this case the homeland battlefield act or otherwise known as the national defense authorization act the n.d.a. which threatened to put in a military prison indefinitely without benefit a trial lawyer anyone who quote substantially supported allocator or quote associated forces so judge force ruled that the language was so vague and so broad as to be unconstitutional under the first amendment and the fifth amendment due process clause and so this was another historic and important victory for civil rights in this country because the government had gone ahead and argued. really judge who we're scared of very limited really it really plowing through here

full of individuals and the car we do i just want to put up we do have that statement a part of that statement from the judge in that ruling. tends to clarify exactly what this ruling means quote the supreme court has made it clear they want to plaintive claims that allies facially vague and violates his or her constitutional right to due process that party seeks to vindicate not only his or her own right but those of others who may be all may also be adversely impacted by the statue in question so coral she's clearly the judge is clearing things up in this what do you make of the government trying to make this just very narrow to only apply to your plaintiffs. i'm very surprised that the obama administration would seek to limit this order this injunction we have called on them from the beginning to drop

any appeal to agree to a permanent injunction that would protect every journalist every activist every citizen in this country they have not so far we renew our call it is clear from judge for us to opinions now into orders that well established supreme court precedent protects the citizens of this country and her opinion was written in this vein there was nothing precipitous about this opinion there was nothing far flung judge forces a very mainstream judge she came from a powerhouse corporate law firm of her vast weighted more just yesterday usa today in an editorial editorialize that indefinite detention is un-american and is un-american and for president obama to continue to try to indefinitely detain u.s. citizens who are exercising their for their freedom of speech rights is contrary to everything that a constitutional law professor says just themself ought to stand for and we call on

him and we call on candidate romney to immediately agree and abide not just by judge force and injunction but to permanently make sure that this never occurs in this land so. what is happening there so this injunction this is a victory for you what exactly does it mean how long does it stand plaintiff and what's next and ensuring that this prevents. repealed well this is it stays in place indefinitely there will probably be further proceedings in a couple of months we be happy to keep you and your listeners and viewers updated but until until then it stays in place we expect it to stay in place unless until the government decides to appeal at that time it was still is to. stay in place but a higher court could review it congress has shown as been feckless on this it is shown no inclination to act. unfortunately neither congress nor the executive

branch if he did they were very wise ancient words of benjamin franklin who who said those who would sack or sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and fortunately that's the situation we're in but i think the judge for us gets enormous credit for standing up for the constitution and doing what the founders envisioned which is to protect not just the first and the fifth amendment but also to exercise her separation of powers function to examine laws their own constitutional and she will she would be regarded the way that john witherspoon who is a signer the declaration was regarded by a by the american thinker john adams he said that john witherspoon in his case there was no higher son of liberty in the land i think they will say of judge for us that there is no higher daughter of liberty in the land because of her important

critical opinion and i think she will be remembered in the future for what she has done well carl and a lot of activists are right there with you handling the judge for the stuff and thank you so much for coming on the show that was carl mayer attorney for the mayer law group representing the plaintiffs in this case thank you both will. occupy activists around the nation have continued their efforts month after their encampments were broken and while conservatives have tried to demonize the movement other groups seem to be benefiting from occupy the message are these are among the lindo shows us the effect occupy is having on this year's political landscape and why efforts to co-opt the movement may backfire. occupy wall street's mass demonstrations are less visible in public however their message of wealth inequality continues to ring in mainstream politics i'm saying you're bringing in a million bucks or more are you. then what the rule says is you should pay the same

percentage of your income in taxes as middle class families do president obama and other democratic leaders have pushed to easley's taxes on the rich while the carriage by the message some activists believe has been told and weighed this language does not match their true efforts have we seen a millionaire tax no we haven't seen a millionaire tax cut we've seen the bailing out of main street no we've seen the bailing out of wall street over and over and over again this is beginning conservatives have tried to link occupy to the president picture i think the whole occupy wall street movement was orchestrated to provide president obama with a major campaign theme while occupy groups have rallied in solidarity with other liberal out of it gets the movement has questioned the entire electoral system and may actually lead to a lower voter turnout for the democrats a lot of people who would have voted on the lesser of two evils. were

democrat well completely and now i'm not i will never vote for obama again as far as i'm concerned president obama has sold us out occupy has also encouraged unions and community groups to become more militant in their acts of civil disobedience the unions in los angeles commonly protest against the one percent zero is that which was made popular by occupy wall street the power of the union has also helped them mobilize thousands of people to take to the streets to the missing people bored out of this one party or the other party to make them both parties jointly. unions have bolstered street demonstrations but concerning our keep i remain that labor groups start to branch in mainstream politics to office co-optation you cannot both be part of occupy and supporting president obama or mitt romney romney . large marches on banks making news but members of occupy still feel more radical

action is needed. thing to change the way things work right now is. at the end of the day it doesn't can see how it doesn't ask for permission to be in the streets as occupy progress is there is still debate over how you use it the ninety nine percent movement should be if we're going to set their core selves the ninety nine percent crowd doesn't make sense to exclude about sixty million obama voters and organize as asians like move on dot org are using our language that means we're winning and that's good as the fear of the movement and its message being taken over or diluted persist they're designed to be co-opted and they have a role in the role they've chosen for themselves which i respect is to push the issues to do their own experimentation with direct democracy occupy starching issue based fights activists believe their message will win now just by the huge corporate power structures they feel are in their way.

in los angeles valley in the arctic. for more on the future of occupy and larger pie as founder of insight. joins us now welcome margot so how do you think occupy has shaped the political discussion or has it. i think that it definitely has shaped the discussion a lot of people point to changing the discussion even on cable news to talking about unemployment and things like that but i think that there's still a big disconnect between what is going on on capitol hill and what is happening on the streets and in these parks the message there for the occupiers is much more radical than what we're hearing and i think a lot of it is still very much ignored. as we saw in that report there margot some

concerns that groups are co-opting the movement for political gain does that concern you. i i'm not an occupier so i can't necessarily say that i'm super concerned i think for the people who are part of the movement it is a huge concern and they've the occupiers from day one have had a deep fear of being co-opted by unions by political parties even to this day they still are worried about even occupiers who decide to go and run for political office they are very clear that they won't support any political contender at all they really feel that any involvement in the political system as it is is not a solution so the co-option is a big issue for an occupier but it also is a question of you know what do you do what do you define as co-opting of movement

is it is it a fear of reaching out to all other groups that are part of the ninety nine percent or is it is it as malign as they think as as a political party taking over their their momentum and turning it into something to push another type of agenda but i mean in the long run isn't it a good thing if more people are coming on board in adopting the occupy message and sanding behind it. yeah i gree it having more people especially if you're pushing an idea of the ninety nine percent and saying that everybody from police officers firefighters to the radical who sleeps in the park because they're making their message as an occupier their full time job everybody based on the very philosophy of this is a member of this movement it just depends on what you do so that's what i mean by

you know you have to be careful how you develop defining co-opting because someone who has a slightly different way of handling the situation handling the injustices does not necessarily mean that they're trying to take away from what the more hardcore occupiers are trying to do they may just be trying to bring their own way of doing things into the mix so i think it's really important for the occupiers for the occupy movement to really take a step back and assess what's going on in who is really trying to take advantage of the situation who is really just trying to bring in a new idea now the protests they kind of died down in the winter but occupiers they vowed to come back and full force once the weather warmed up but we have really seen bad why not. you know that's a really good question i've been wondering that myself and we definitely heard

a lot of talk about the occupy this spring this sort of awakening now that things have thought out especially in wall street where you know that was the birthplace of this movement and once it gets very cold it's very difficult to retake these spaces but there is definitely i think an issue in trying to deal with what occupy originally started out as which was taking over a space of public space and staying there for good and since since the involvement of homeland security and the mayors getting involved with the crackdown on occupy they no longer really have a central base so i've seen from talking to a lot of occupiers here in los angeles but there's definitely a fracturing on the ground level they've sort of broken up into smaller groups they're taking other approaches like the occupy fights for closures here in los angeles where they actually been going into homes of people who have been

wrongfully foreclosed on and trying to take them back and well we are not necessarily seeing a massive protests the way we did before in that case they have actually were recently successful in negotiating the return of a home from bank of america to a homeowner here in los angeles which from what i can tell has never been done before. by a movement. any group in occupy and that wasn't just going out and going to the banks and protesting that was actually taking a serious and practical and making phone calls and learning legal speak and taking that initiative to take one more step and i think that occupy is really at. a point of crosswords crossroads and things where they have to decide you know is it enough to protest is that enough to just show up and set up a tent the ten is very symbolic definitely but do you solve all the problems simply

by just standing there and for one day and then leaving you know there's more that has to be done to make a change in the politics here in this country so i think that the fact that we aren't seeing a lot of protests doesn't necessarily mean that they're not doing things but i also agree that you know it is a sign that the movement itself may not be as cohesive as they'd like it to be margo thank you very much for coming on the show and weighing in that was margot high as founder of in they started our news. meanwhile syria has a rapid end to violence once again on armed u.n. monitors 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 in other villages and while all of 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 u.s. 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 international law to make a decision that impacts the world are to correspond a marina and i give us a look back at the instances in which the u.s. has undermined the you want authority. the united nations is the only diplomatic forum where every country is supposed to be governed by the same rules united nations family ensure that at the end asked 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 u.n. security council but. my fellow americans today our own forces joined our nato allies in air strikes 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 says. war against the federal republic of yugoslavia serbia and montenegro. serbia for seventy eight days occupies kosovo and this doesn't have u.n. authorization until the very end the us 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 view and from the charter point of view it was in the by circumventing international law for geo political interests experts say the us 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 to get multilateral approval 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 were kofi annan fragile peace plan has showed slow progress washington is prepared to once again bypass the un if

the security council fails to impose more pressure on damascus and 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 actions outside of the annan plan and the authority of this council romans had known for diplomacy they had 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 in a point i r.t. new york that's going to do for now from one of the stories we covered you can go to argue to channel that youtube dot com slash america you can also check out our website that's our dot com slash usa.