why don't what's really happening to the global economy with. no holds barred look at the global financial headlines. kaiser report on our. welcome to the lone a show where you get the real headlines with none of the mercy for a lot of washington d.c. now tonight we're going to speak to a representative from the a.c.l.u. which just filed a lawsuit against the government for targeted killings of three u.s. citizens abroad then a suicide bombers kill high level syrian officials but is the west weary of calling it an act of terrorism and how much is the u.s. already participating there and then everybody including a federal reserve chief ben bernanke is fear mongering over the fiscal cliff so we'll go through all the details of what could actually happen in january with dean baker we'll have all of that are more fit and i including

a dose of happy hour but first take a look at the mainstream media decided to miss. so is it a is once again filled with nonstop election coverage and the continued focus of the mainstream media today is mitt romney's refusal thus far to submit his tax returns. mitt romney is aggressively trying to shift the spotlight off his bain background and unreleased tax returns mitt romney just can't shake calls to release more tax returns or taking aim at mitt romney over his refusal to release a bunch of past tax returns rick perry suggested romney be quote as transparent as he can be mitt romney is the most secretive candidate we've seen since richard nixon mitt romney's own father when he ran for president released twelve years worth of tax returns growing calls from fellow republicans to release his tax returns plenty of conservatives think that mitt romney's being too secretive and

it's going to hurt him conservative voices like bill kristol george will are all calling on romney to release his taxes does it look like romney has something to hide by being so obstinate if romney doesn't release more taxes i mean the american people will see it will really start to see that this is a cloak and dagger operation it's more than just are you being transparent with mitt romney this is a question about is mitt romney willing to show us the money be as transparent as you can be. with your tax returns you know they're saying mitt romney who has released a year and will release another year's worth of tax returns not transparent. now personally i think that mitt romney should release all those tax returns and i think the fact that he's fighting it tooth and nail now is really leaves us all to believe that he has something to hide but the thing is that he might not but that's why transparency is so important if you put the truth out there in the speculation can end and the people will be informed and that's why we talk about the need for

transparency all the time on this show so forgive me if i think that it's kind of fun. that said leave the mainstream media acts like they give a damn the truth is they don't they're going big on it because it's an election story they can provide hours and hours of mindless coverage when you just unleashed your army of smooth talking points to go back and forth on it and of course only talk about which campaign it will affect and how but hey at least the word transparency finally made it into the rundown but this is also a moment where they deserve to be called on their bluff see if the mainstream media really cared about transparency they'd call out the obama administration for completely failing to be the most transparent administration ever as the president promised that includes aggressive criticizing includes criticizing the aggressive war as a way to on whistleblowers and the fact that this president is prosecuting more people under the espionage act than any other in history they would make a big deal out of the news today that the a.c.l.u. joined with the c.c.r.

is suing the cia and military officials for killing u.s. citizens abroad without due process that lawsuit is over three people on are a lucky his sixteen year old son and samir khan and we're going to more of the details of that lawsuit in our first interview tonight but they would think maybe that it's ludicrous that this president actually receive the transparency award one which he accepted in a meeting where the press was no lout they would be talking about the fact of the european court of human rights wants poland to hand over any information relating to u.s. black site prisons that were there during the bush administration as part of our global war on terror and they probably actually cover the substance of disclosures that come from wiki leaks rather than just the tabloid style coverage the you get about you innocent they would want more transparency in the core proceedings for bradley manning's trial and they would think that the massive overclassification of our system is worthy of hours and hours of discussion they would think it is hard to kill a so the obama campaign has veto power over quotes that are given to reporters now

i could actually just keep going for days with more stories and examples but i think that you're getting. the point the mainstream media does not care at all about transparency do all think that it's great they're devoting a little bit of time to calling out mitt romney over his tax returns i would love to see them tackle any of the stories and issues that i just mentioned but they won't because a push for actual transparency well that's something that the mainstream media chooses to miss. so let's talk about the lawsuit that's been filed by the a.c.l.u. and the center for constitutional rights on behalf of nasra locky and the family of samir khan announcer a lockie is the father of the locky who was killed by a u.s. drone strike in yemen on september thirtieth of two thousand and eleven so near khan was killed in that same drone strike and abdul rauf on a lockie on where a sixteen year old son was killed in a u.s.

drone strike in yemen on october fourteenth of two thousand and eleven all three were u.s. citizens none ever saw a courtroom in the u.s. and were not granted due process and we've never been given evidence by the government asked to operational role in which they claim so may or may have been a propagandist working on english language man magazine inspire but did he deserve to be killed and adore mom was a sixteen year old boy at the administration is never publicly spoken about his death so let's find out more about this legal challenge and what we might expect to be the government's response joining me now to discuss it is nathan fried wessler fellow at the a.c.l.u. national security project and nathan thanks for joining us tonight and i guess first just you know start by telling us why it is that the a.c.l.u. is filing this lawsuit. well this lawsuit is about basic principles it's about the principle that the united states government cannot kill its own citizens or any people that matter without due process and without following the strictures of

international law we're representing the families of these three united states citizens killed by their own government in yemen in drone strikes with no jupe due process and no no judicial process whatsoever so we are asking a court to look into these killings to determine whether they were legal or whether they violated the constitution and international law and to holds top officials accountable if in fact as we believe they were illegal well let's talk about that and you know when you say hold top officials accountable say you you directly go after leon panetta who was the director of the cia now the depart as secretary of defense you talk about military officials but what about the president you know if the reports out there are true that the president is the one that signs off on this kill list you know what about holding him accountable. and the kind of suit that we brought under united states law that the u.s. president while he's the sitting president is immune from suit so suing him is not an option it's absolutely correct that the president according to many press

reports is quite involved in the targeted killing program but this is not a program run by one person alone and the people we see who are top level officials in the united states military and in the central intelligence agency who themselves authorized and directed these two drone strikes that killed the american citizens in yemen last year i realistically what do you think the results are going to be like because they feel you know help nasra locky file a lawsuit before just when he found out that his son was on this kill list and and that didn't work right it was shut down by the courts because the government said it was a matter of national security and therefore had to remain secret so now the damage is actually been done do you think the result will change. well we think it's a very different legal posture now the court in the first lawsuit before he was killed dismissed the case for two reasons first because the judge said that there was no standing that his father did not have the legal standing to bring the suit

on his son's behalf and also under what's called the political question dr an essentially saying that the question at that point was for the executive branch to the side and was a political question for the courts. was before anyone was killed now under our law can these two other citizens have been killed and we are asking the court simply to look at the evidence that the government used to conduct those killings and to decide whether it was lawful so this doesn't raise the same kind of concerns about meddling with ongoing operations by the government or are similar concerns that the government raised the pursuit so we think it's a very different legal situation now and in that sense to you look at the way that courts have been ruling the way they've been acting and during this entire war on terrorism and we saw the bush administration use the state secrets privilege many times you've seen the obama administration do the same thing would you say that they've been complicit you know and just letting this over the top government

secrecy go they really made it extreme and sometimes unbelievable secrecy arguments a.c.l.u. currently has two lawsuits under the freedom of information act seeking information about the cia's use of drones to targeted killings and out these three killings of u.s. citizens issue in this other lawsuit and the government claims that it can either confirm or deny whether the cia even has a targeted killing program or whether the government was responsible for. the public statements the president and leon panetta and others have made acknowledging this program. well i mean we've been covering all those stories here on the show you know and so if you ask me it's always crazy the way that the courts actually side with the how do you think of us applies to you know not only are we looking at constitutional violations because all of these people were american citizens but can you manage to make an argument here about international law you know about what our use of drone strikes abroad what counts as a war zone anymore really isn't in this particular legal battle. yes absolutely

we're representing the families of three u.s. citizens and really the only legal relevance that citizenship of the united states has in this case is that it provides under the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution a clear right to go into u.s. courts but the principles the basic underlying principles that were applying here are relevant to people of any nationality who are targeted by the u.s. government or really any government by that matter. with lethal force so under international law it will be arguing this in court there are very narrow circumstances where our government can use lethal force outside of an armed conflict and at the time that these killings occurred in yemen the united states was not engaged in armed conflict in or with yemen outside of armed conflict lethal force can only be used against people who pose a concrete specific imminent threat of the lives or safety of other people that's a very narrow standard and one which the united states government didn't follow and

even in the u.s. in an armed conflict assuming that the u.s. government's argument is correct which we don't accept. lethal force can only be used against people who are directly participating in hostilities that's also an evidentiary burden that the government bears in any of those situations there's a very strict set of protections. to avoid harm to civilians to the people who died in the drone strikes we're talking about a summer sixteen year old a lucky we're not according to press reports at least specifically targeted by the government but the government's failure to avoid harming harming them civilian bystanders resulted in their deaths and that's a violation serious violation of international law. and you know unfortunately they're not the only ones when it comes to the civilian bystanders be having these attacks but so i guess a you know if you had to take a wild guess as to how this thing really will turn out if you think they're going

to have to appeal what the government is going to argue here we're going to be. well we it's impossible to know right now how this case will end up but we think we have a very strong argument it's the role of the courts to take a look at what the government has done and to decide whether officials acted within the law and there is no no power no action more chilling are more important than the government decision to take take human life so if there is any case in which the courts have a role to play in reviewing the government's actions this is the one a so we are hopeful that the court will carefully review our arguments will look at the government's attempts to avoid it have ability and will side with us and our clients. well i wish you the best of luck because i think that we all deserve a lot of answers because it's a really dangerous president this being said here nathan thanks so much for joining us tonight. thank you. hardest time for our first break of the evening but when we

come back we'll show you what people on the streets had to say about the controversial criminal justice policy and then scott horton will be joining us to be talking about violence in syria today and what role the u.s. might already be playing that. more news today violence was once again flared up. and these are the images the

world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations rule the day oh. oh . he weeks ago when christine for his guest hosting the show she told you about a very disturbing private prison plan of virginia basically virginia wants to work with the prison company geo to keep certain offenders detained even after their sentence has ended so the company's working to acquire a contract with the state to run the virginia center for behavioral rehabilitation or receive we are for short facilities specializing in civil commitment that's what

they are it's a fancy term for involuntary detention for violent sex offenders now these offenders have served their time but they've been deemed not ready to reenter the general population and it's a story that keeps coming up in our team discussions so we sent out to see what the people on the streets thought about it. yes i think they should be held against a person that has had to act before and no male will never ever forget what's happened to them i think they should be in this event. going to you know not in concert i think once can begin to live with mom we thank you sir tom very much thank you for me even though i think it's a little scary when they start doing these things where it's like what you might do you were going to incarcerate you somebody is a sexual predator well they can lock them up if they feel they're going to committed to get even if they've already served their time even if they serve their time to be their chronic. offender then i wouldn't see any problem with that i do

see something wrong i think we in the you. you tell someone what to but sometimes what will be in the new hold him longer beyond that some punishment i think i would be for it just because even my back if i wasn't a mother maybe my answer would be different but thinking about my daughter and not wanting anything to happen to her there should be a statute of limitations to all crimes including that i mean the consensus is that it's a crime or that can't or tendency that can't be corrected but i'm not sure about that now they're talking about having it privatized so private companies will control these a little bit difficult because private companies tend to want to go ahead and make money so that to me would be a little bit of a counter kind of balance that you really don't want somebody who's going to say i can make more money by keeping people rather than releasing them on their way to be with just the incentive to make more money to lock people up that's just it seems like you're going to have more and more excuses to put people in jail i don't think i'd be for private thing because they're all for money right it's profit and. i'm

not sure that they would do things properly yeah i don't believe in privatizing i think that that that's definitely rife with potential for abuse. so it's a toss up some people like the idea of civil commitment of you sexually violent predators while others think it's a really bad idea because it's. leslie considering these people already served their time in prison and when you throw in the idea of this being thomas and companies making a profit off of these individuals most people don't like that idea. now we didn't just leave it to the people on the street we asked you guys on twitter as well and the question was what do you guys think should a court be able to decide that a sex offender who has served their time isn't ready to be released so here's some responses tretton ray said no sympathy for those types but it's a slippery slope and the government could apply to all sorts of less heinous criminals say hell no to eat it yes courts should be able to make that decision time served doesn't cure someone. said no time served is time served it will be

registered nationally and have stigma for life as a slippery slope if allowed now then we followed up and asked another question we said do you think that there's a problem if the facility where they're held is run by a private for profit company and threaten ray said for profit prisons should be banned unilaterally amounts to slave labor as many of these prisons contract with the state craig thomson tweeted to us yes private companies answer only to their shareholders they're less accountable than public sector institutions and finally responded yes private run jails are an affront to the penal system no one should profit the state should house all inmates regardless so it seems like on this line of people are very divided on indefinitely detaining sex offenders that have served their time but when it comes to private prisons involvement seems like everyone's a little concerned we think this is a really interesting topic so we're working on doing an interview on it on the show so stay tuned for that. well the situation in syria only continues to deteriorate

the red cross is officially now labeled the conflict a civil war and today a suicide bombing in damascus led to the death of syria's defense minister daoud raja and the syrian military deputy chief of staff said shock what he also was the brother in law of president bashar al assad and the free syrian army took response . for the tac but does it raise new questions in terms of u.s. support in light of the tactics that were used and just how much is the cia already doing there joining me to discuss this is scott horton contributing editor on legal and national security matters for harper's magazine scott thanks for joining us tonight and i guess first just tell me you know how you think this changes things does it change anything if now you have the key members of the inner assad circle been killed in the suicide bombing. well you know i think this is certainly a powerful blow against the assad government the information that's come out of damascus this evening suggests that the perpetrator was a bodyguard of one of the senior government officials and that means that that

someone aligned with the rebels had demonstrated to be in the most circles around the president and they decided to strike this important five level government national security meeting. you know i think that you know there's a lot of discussion right now about it whether this is a terrorist bombing or not i think what's going on in syria right now is a civil war and there's no doubt about it that you know this far that that was struck is a legitimate target but these are people who were involved for dating the syrian government's war effort so i think this points to a continued deterioration of the situation in syria weakening of the position of the government but the opposition also is not in a position to really quickly win that so i think what we're setting ourselves up for now is a long and very bloody struggle in this country and a sort of is probably going to produce tens of thousands of deaths and casualties i

want to go back to what you just said you know as a lot of discussion right now as to whether or not it counts as a terrorism terrorist attack drag associated with a tactic if it's a suicide bombing would definitely lead one to say that but so what you know what do you think of the way that the u.s. media has been covering it too with everyone's been very careful and five syrian state t.v. called it a terrorist attack on the new york times reporter and put it in quotes you know how do you think the people should actually look at it what should they call it. well the problem is that this term of terrorism and terrorist suicide bombing gets tossed around just to leave it in fact if the term terrorism as in the meeting and there have been a number of important defense to define it in international law terms then this would not count as a terrorist attack a terrorist attack would attack civilians not legitimate targets and the major

purpose of it would be to strike fear in the heart of the general population but this was an attack against the the military and political leadership of the country in a in the context of a security meeting it's an absolutely legitimate target so it really doesn't count as terrorists and so in that sense how do you think that you know the u.s. officials or u.n. officials should handle and that's something of patience and for a lot of people out there you know and on twitter today talking about how this is one of those awkward moments where the u.n. doesn't necessarily know whether they should say that they support this you know this kind of tactic or this kind of attack or it or not merely absolutely shouldn't support it but i think they have to recognize that what's going on is a civil war and this is a hostile act by one side in the civil war the major focus of our attention right now should be on violations of international humanitarian law that is where has the government or words of the rebels strike innocent civilians and this wasn't such

a violation but in fact if we look back over the last couple of weeks we see no shortage of violations by both governments empire the rebels they both have targeted civilians journalists and others and there been bombardments by the government of civilian population centers about the violation of the war i think one of the reasons the red cross stepped up over the weekend to press this point about civil war was to make clear that these acts now ask to be used as war crimes and there is a possibility. of an accounting for them before an international. backed up vote for the government of syria and for the rebels. so in that sense what does u.s. or cia involvement really mean if now these can be considered international war crimes and people are calling it a civil war because what we know from reports as far is that the cia is definitely involved they're gathering information and getting intel right trying to figure out

who exactly is who on the ground some reports out there would say that they're helping to facilitate some of the weapons shipments that are making their way into syria that might be coming through turkey via saudi arabia or architect are by that the u.s. is also involved there and do we know anything else how much how much more involvement do you think there might be with the same rules applied to the u.s. and others to become involved i think actually right now there's a great risk of escalation of the problems in syria as a result of the involvement of too many actors from the international stage and certainly russia is been emboldened historically has been the ball in syria for many many decades turkey has taken a strong interest and is offering a shoulder to the to the new rebel syrian military leadership uranium is clearly i've been able. to surprise we can see european powers becoming

involved as occurred previously with libya so i think there's there's a great risk of escalation and that really needs to be avoided i mean we already saw today the american enterprise institute putting out statements attacking president obama and pressing for u.s. military intervention in the more direct way you pointed to some of the efforts that may be going on there i think that pressure is going to mount and i think it will be a mistake. well how do you think that we should use libya as perhaps an example here we have this question on the show on monday because there is an op ed in the boston globe looking at what's going on in mali right now and saying the intervention in libya inadvertently created a safe haven basically in mali you know starting with with the two rags moving back and now al qaeda being there do you think that that is just a very specific situation that can only be applied to libya or should there be some some lessons learned somehow looked you know compare syria to that as well well i

think libya winds up regarding a very negative example in this regard because the united nations asked a resolution for the protection of civilians in their country and i think the nato operation started out as just there are but what we sort of into within the matter of a couple of months was basically the nato powers sorry being with one of the combatants with the rebels and overthrowing. libya's so responsible to protect turned into regime change and i think it's because of our experience that there's a reluctance to permit this sort of u.n. resolution or u.n. sponsored intervention in syria or in mali for that record and i guess in that sense to. you know rightly so because you never really know how a situation like this is going to turn out and what the results of that will be scott thanks so much for joining us tonight great to be with you. all right time

for another short break but we come back with the latest details about wiki leaks and bradley manning's at pretrial hearings and then dean baker is going to join us to talk stimulus the fiscal cliff and the possibility of a double dip recession i'll be all over the economic news like investigators on jamie diamond again no actually we're going to try to do a better job they can't. get on sometimes you see a story and it seems so for like you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know what i'm charging welcome to the big picture. of the cold those stores are here. for going global

and it's cooling myrow. you. choose your place to take your stuff. to. make your statement. for the world. coupons through the month. on. the news today violence is once again flared up. and these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. china.