the u.s. is facing some serious heat from leaders in the middle east their call of action to halt all drone strikes but u.s. officials are not quite ready to put down the trigger so why is america flying past the resistance. and we live now in a social media society which is sites like twitter be forced to reveal the names of people who set up fake accounts will dive into the topic of internet freedom versus user privacy. and millions of homeowners across the nation continue to drown in their underwater mortgages luckily there is a relief program which could save owners up to a billion dollars so why is the federal government refusing to throw this much needed a lifeline. a

good evening it's wednesday august first eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching our t.v. . one of the most essential components to modern day warfare is of course the use of drones the industry is growing so fast they have hundreds fewer drone pilots than they need and they're even lowering standards to make it easier to get a job in the drone industry the drone strikes have been responsible for the deaths of several high level members of al qaeda but additionally have killed countless civilians women and children included in turn the drone strikes have served as one of the top recruiting tools for militants pakistan's ambassador to the united states said her country will continue to demand that the cia and its drone strikes . the whole drone program is seen as does the relationship at every juncture and we honestly feel that there are better ways now of eliminating guy though which

has been done with our heads and we have been doing that consistently with a heavy lifter than the situation shit so will this pressure on top u.s. officials change anything to talk more about this i was joined earlier by scott horton contributing editor for harper's magazine. the big question is how serious is this process going to force is this issue's come out many times before i think we now know through some wonders that came out the course of the last two years that present evidence for injured into a secret agreement with the united states back when he was in power under which he gave a force for the use of drones polluting setting up a room they. care for and this agreement included sort of protocols for harald strikes could be carried out of the pocket from the government but it also stated. that the u.s.

had the approval secret and noted that the pakistanis would deny that they ever approved it so we know that that arrangement existed for many years and we know with existed they continued under the civilian government what's changed since approximately a year and three or four months since the attack on the bob is that the government of pakistan is now really turned against the use of drones and to be much more serious in its opposition to it and we see this coming out of the civilian leadership as well as the military leadership not changes the dynamics entirely of course the u.s. drone base in pakistan was shut down that much more difficult for the u.s. carry out the aeration but also the legal product the legal authority for these drone strikes to occur when practiced withdraw it but i think still most observers would measure of skepticism about denial because it is clearly the case that some

of the drone strikes are occurring with the authority of the pakistani government or others are not well let's put aside just for a moment some of the criticism coming from pakistan and look simply at the drone programs we have all. on one hand drones are really being responsible oh ok well let me go back i don't want to put these numbers up quite yet we have drones being responsible for the deaths as i mentioned earlier of some high level al qaeda officials so and it really comes at a minimal price to the life of u.s. boots on the ground so that's one of the things that people behind these programs really cite as a good thing on the other hand we have heard time and time again including from some of our you know friends and allies in places like pakistan and elsewhere that when these strikes happen as this is the number one recruiting tool to get more people to come onboard against the u.s.

talk about how these two things balance out in terms of the drone policy here in the u.s. even within the u.s. intelligence community struggles are very far so we have a number critics there that these are in search of a strategy that each district individually may be successful they may get their appropriate targets they may produce but you have to consider this in the broader context so i was affecting the political situation on the ground in arkansas power is affecting the perception of the united states and i think what we've seen over the last few years is that this is was to a demonization that the united states and we can now work across the political spectrum and pockets. from the from the people's party to the to the clarabelle groups and one thing that unites fire spectrum this congregation of the drone program and the u.s. the way the u.s. is using the number of civilian casualties and also the mistaken

strike this is this is really i just say that the country and its wars are what the u.s. relations with the pakistani intelligence and military so there may be practical to reference that midnight is saved. but right now it does not look strategically like that. so a lot of people are. world where's your national security adviser of obama. years in office. for you for this drone program and pakistan was not successful and ease one version of them publicly about the number of others behind the scenes weapons. and let's broaden this a little bit because it's not just of course the drone program in pakistan it's not just the cia drone program the drone drone use overall is growing and i want to put those numbers currently the u.s. military actually has a seventy five hundred drones drones make up about one third of air force aircraft

and the average drone for those of you don't know it convenient and read a milk carton from sixty thousand feet away so it's got real quick let's just talk about numbers like this and what they tell us. well i mean you know it's affected the way for the u.s. to find the truth and difficult for rain like the border zone between afghanistan and pakistan it was the while the u.s. to be active there was a very very modest what friends and personalities very few people on the ground who made it to maintain and service the ground so i think it's highly valued by smoldering intelligence community for those reasons but you know we're still going to come back to the question the power used in the effects as and you know we talked about we don't want to look at the way grounds have been used in afghanistan across the frontier where a number of the strike you know wedding party other than billion gatherings farmers

in the field and seven errors so you know successful strikes that actually a correct argot don't really guard that problem. but the mistaken strike certainly and real quick i want to put up something i found because a good strategy or bad strategy it seems to me at least the drones are here to stay there for us has about thirteen hundred drone pilots or is about thirty three hundred less than it needs and this is a web site or rather i found a website that shows a bunch of job recruiting tools and on the job web site it shows how just how many job openings there are for aerial you know unmanned aerial vehicle pilots or instruction instructors so i mean what do you think this mean that this is here to stay oh i think in a huge way i think we're where are they really just at the restaurant now is a very dramatic expansion in this growing industry we're going to see this

domestically in the united states and probably in europe as well dealing with things like crack bricks and roll and police support and so on so if we don't have thirty thousand rounds operated over the territory of united states and i think i'll be surprised. all right scott horton turning editor for harper's magazine always good to have you on the show thanks so much we wish you well today marks the eight hundredth day that private first class bradley manning has been behind bars manning is accused of leaking classified information to the whistle blowing web site wiki leaks and of course we've been staying on top of all the pretrial hearings he's been having spent part of today also looking at the man behind wiki leaks julian assange. has spent the last seven weeks inside the ecuadorian embassy in london he's awaiting word on whether he might be able to get asylum in ecuador now since first unveiling wiki leaks julian is songe has been somewhat of a controversial figure and now it's becoming even more clear he's even making some waves within his own community last night

a battle erupted over twitter when one of the few people who has met both assad and bradley manning started criticizing us on the comments are in reference to a fake new york times op ed and former new york times executive director bill keller now wiki leaks took credit for the hoax that fooled quite a few people across the internet so then this quick tweet from david house came along it said as long as we can leaks is controlled by a songe the shortcomings of a songes leadership will continue to put supporter at risk jake about obama responded he said david house attacking wiki leaks i think and have thought for a long time that he is probably a confidential informant snitch or worse also wrote people often ask me how i feel about david house and now it's a matter of public record i wish him luck with his legal cases and nothing more. meanwhile angelina songes mother recently told the associated press she's worried about her son's health she says her son is essentially been living in prison like circumstances for the last two years as far as the ecuadorian asylum officials

there say they will announce a decision they will not announce a decision at least until later in the month after the olympic games in london have wrapped up. let's talk now about a case this week that iraq the world of twitter involving a british journalist criticizing and b. c. so the independent guy adams was joining a chorus of others criticizing n.b.c. for the olympics coverage and adams gave out the corporate email address of an executive at n.b.c. and b c which partnered with twitter for the olympics was notified by twitter and then suspended adam's twitter account after being told he violated twitter rules the case was covered extensively by many publications including forbes magazine and i spoke earlier with one of the journalists who wrote about it forbes dot com contributor michael humphrey we first discussed the cost of being a twitter user well the coast being the user as opposed to being a customer is your have as much say when we're users of we're not paying for the

birds were voting. for the policies that twitter and so we just have to live with. you know there was a big protest and i do think that made a difference in the end of the day. but you know we have to get used to this this new model we're used to having to say about things that we are in the things that we use but when you are a user. is is basically up to the company you know it's interesting though you know when twitter first came about it seemed to me at least to be sort of an alternative to mainstream media but now we see you know it's partnering with n.b.c. becoming just as corporate as some of the other sites what do you think this impact is of its new role. well you know i mean i was looking at it from twitters you gave they've built up this huge infrastructure of the one hundred fifty million users and that's great and it does make for an incredible experience of getting getting a word out ways that we've never experienced before the way it happened in our and

the way it happened in the arab spring a lot of the other here in the question were twitter becomes how do we monetize this how do we make a business out of that and when that question starts going into the conversation that it changes the experience they have to figure out a way to make all this used to matter in terms of the business model once you ask that question then you're talking about ever does in your partnerships title of the things that we were talking about when twitter was a new platform that was very open and really wasn't worried about and then you see that a lot of companies they they build up their audience and then they ask the question you know do it. feels like the facebook model too and we should mention it's not just to these corporate partnerships twitter like social media like other social media is often beholden to a law enforcement agency said there's another case i want to bring up this is what

somebody who's twitter handle and was unsteady doric land seems to be parroting steve auckland the chief chief executive of northcliffe media and that media company said that the spoof tweets are obsessive and offensive and an e-mail by twitter to the account holder that was recently made public have a twitter is obligated to respond to lawful the lawful process and will do so on august first that's today so essentially twitter told this user that it was going to give his or her personal information to authorities and guess what twitter has now renamed on that promise and is refusing the order so i'm wondering if perhaps we're going to see a new chapter here with social media saying you know what we're not going to respond to every single request by federal. authorities you know you've seen that no other cases as well i mean google has done this as well and i think it's about setting precedence because all of this is so new and you know i think it's important to remember that there are

a lot of social media sites and the big search sites were were created by idealists who are sort of it's i think having fights within within themselves about these questions i mean i think twitter wanted to be a place for expression and doesn't necessarily want to be a place where law enforcement goes in and starts looking for information and so you know i've wouldn't i wouldn't compare these companies to the classic sense of the corporation on the other hand you know all of those pressures are going to be there and you know twitter is known for its data if twitter is shown anything it's the power of data was just talking about our lives and our opinions about things there's going to be a lot of pressures on that data for years because i think it's a really good point and it seems to me that we sort of reach some some unchartered waters that pretty soon some things are going to have you know have to be navigated through that don't have precedent and part of that is speech i guess i'm wondering

what you think and some of the research that you've done they've done that. do you think we will start to see more rules about what free speech on twitter actually is you know this is a part of the story that i just don't envy i don't envy these companies in this regard when you think about the question of speech you're talking about a global question here in the united states we had this out our own way over a couple of centuries but of around the world this question is evolved in many many different ways and these companies sort of have to know these answers everywhere so yeah that that that question is going to be is going to be for many years a critical around the world in. it could be interesting it could start a debate about what speech means globally in a way we've never had it before and in that way i'm almost i'm almost an optimist in this regard but when you add those two elements together you know the question

of governmental pressures on that speech and the question of corporate pressures of that speech you know that's a rock and a hard place and it's going to be it's going to be really tough for these companies to keep their integrity through it is really interesting as you mentioned twitter does sort of span the globe we saw the role it played in places like egypt and the arab spring but i just want to push a little harder because yes twitter is dealing with countries with very different rules about speech but i would argue you know the us has some of the most lax rules about free speech and yet it seems to me that that could change with things like facebook and twitter we use the term protected speech but how is it protected when twitter is then giving it to you know giving your personal information to law enforcement agencies you know and the u.s. government well and you know you could ask that of a spirit verisign right after nine eleven as well things that we absolutely

expected to be private conversations were being wiretapped you know and and and so back question is isn't the new word even in where expectation of privacy is really and truly expected one thing i would say about this for the user going back to there is don't expect privacy on twitter i mean you know we've learned that rule over and over and over that that when you expect that what you're saying is being protected me anyway you know you're going to make a mistake twitter is a public square and as long as people misunderstand that you know they're going to they're going to run in the expectation they're going to their expectations are going to run into reality. that will always make us feel like there's. that here and you know a lot of that i think is about the misunderstanding of user her so you know what twitter is just one example. even though the way we you know those are other

questions where expectations are different and those those are you know that's where the activists really rise up and say our speech is meaningful you know the freedom of the speech is as meaningful to us on these forums as it ever was in our living room or in the square and we just have to keep fighting. yeah not only is it not one hundred percent correct but protected there's also a chance it could be around forever you know it when you tweet something that just doesn't go away thanks for being on the show michael humphrey forbes dot com contributor thank you. still ahead here on our team underwater and drowning quickly millions of americans are facing a prospect when it comes to their mortgages so why isn't the federal government helping to look into that issue in just a moment. a part of american power continues.

things that are. might actually be time revolution. and it turns out that a killer drinker starbucks has a surprising him greedier. bump into the capital account i'm lauren mr. what drives the world is the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break

through it's already been made who can you trust no one who is you you know with the billboard mission we see where we had a state controlled capital is called fashion when nobody dares to ask we do ours he questioned more. well since the financial collapse four years ago one of the biggest issues in this country has been the bursting of the housing bubble and the large number of foreclosures that have happened as a result depending on where you look for information nearly one third or one fourth of all homeowners in the u.s. are underwater on their mortgages take a look at this map from june of this year the dark reddish color represents the area hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis that's parts of the south the midwest and the west so what's the solution well those are calling for the federal housing finance agency which oversees fannie mae and freddie mac.

to give the green light for principal reductions to be offered to people who have been laid on their payments as a part of the home affordable refinance program a way to cut the principal and therefore monthly mortgage payments for struggling homeowners well the f. eighteen s a has just given their response they will not in fact take part which means many struggling homeowners could drown by this that i want to talk more about this with anthony rendez o. director of economic research at the reason foundation and anthony just want to first ask you your take on this decision. well this was an incredibly surprising. the average if a has talked about whether or not they want to participate in this program over the past several years been debated back and forth they have thus far said they don't think that participating in it is going to be good for taxpayers who are bailing out fannie mae freddie mac's losses and this would involve losses so it was an incredibly surprising i think the things that remember the his principal reduction is well they're a great solution are not

a magic bullet and that's what the market is trying to weigh here but taxpayers bailed out the banks they bailed out the people who didn't actually really need it and an addition anthony i mean nearly all the economic institutions from the u.s. treasury to the federal reserve and even the i.m.f. have backed principal reduction. i guess you know what's the discrepancy here. i mean the taxpayers don't have to keep bailing out fannie mae and freddie mac. i think i think that's the first point is we've bailed out a lot of institutions that shouldn't have to get it that doesn't mean we need to keep it with fannie mae and freddie mac. but more to the point with principle reductions they work in some cases that's why some people back them but look at the results of the program that we're talking about the home affordable modification program champ fifty percent minimum of people who have gone into that program i wound up redefault thing on their mortgage the point of this point of modification is to in theory help families that would otherwise be able to make payments on their homes and they they just got behind

only to lower the payments but when we've done that through this program already at least half of them have read the bulk of it so when the market looks at the numbers and they look at what the outcome could have been and what the minimum benefits the taxpayers would have been any assumed about a fifty percent success rate if you look at the numbers just don't add up that this would be beneficial for taxpayers but i wonder if you know if all the numbers are being included in the equation here certainly you can look at figures like that fifty percent which you know is frankly really sad. but there is other numbers that are out there i mean between the upkeep of the increased safety needs and the lowering of property values around foreclosed homes there is an estimate event put the cost of each foreclosed home at about thirty thousand dollars to the community and to the government so talk a little bit about this and how a you know these kind of numbers also factor in those are very important numbers and that's why some banks have begun doing principal reductions in certain cases

now some people some banks or works best to just they're aware of those costs very aware of those costs and they put that into their calculation and ultimately it is this was beneficial for the stakeholders in a particular president for different investors' money out they say we actually think that if this home went into default and given all the costs as we sold in the market we would get more money back if we lower the mortgage payment the analysis i mean i can't sit here and determine for the mortgage investors or for fannie mae freddie mac. what that calculation should be because we don't have that right in front of us what we do know is that f.h.a. is very aware of what you're talking about and and i for one. like to consider more principal reduction considering those costs if the calculations show that that's what would be good for the taxpayers we don't have those books to be able to go through all this and so i think if you say the principal reduction is the only

solution is a little bit of sort of idealism coming in or even sort of a political persuasion that is don't think it's appropriate or talk about the housing market i guess i'm just wondering then for yourself and for others who don't see principal reduction as the best choice here how do you or any options that are better than you think would work and perhaps benefit the taxpayers and still benefit those who need it. well once again i think actions are the solution for some families and not for all and that has to be made on an individual basis so i think that step one for those who are not i think that really the answer is for people who are underwater that you continue to make your payments keep making your payments the cost of your house will probably come back up at some point that doesn't mean that you have the ball and for families who are underwater and can't make your payments. or walk away from a home or have to declare bankruptcy. to figure out ways to step away from renting

i think we need to shift mentally in the country to not criticize renters and not say that because you're renting you're less of an american or you're not achieving the american dream that's not a easy solution it's not a silver bullet and it's not something that is linked absolute in a political soundbite but i think that most high level pro-choice shifting the way that we think about homeownership in america and be willing to accept some loss is the only way we're going to be able to move forward but as we know anthony the government and especially and a political season as we are now in a presidential race and a few months the government likes to come up with solutions and likes to put forth strategies so that people in this country living on the streets with you know their neighbors' homes foreclosed. i get what you're saying that there is there's not a sweeping solution for everyone but the government sure likes to give them anyway i mean what do you say for this you know is there

a possibility that there could be some more that the government does. you know i think that backing away from restricting foreclosures i think that one stepping back and not giving a helping hands to banks and say actually banks you're actually going to have to think along. with the taxpayers are going to take the loss of those programs i would like to see the government step into place but really i mean the idea that we keep coming up with such a thing eminent domain to forcibly take mortgages and mortgage investors that they were really risking rule of law i think that we're damaging the housing market going forward which should because that's the calculation that needs to come into play if principal reduction let's say that. we do that is a good way to handle this problem well that's going to be very problematic for investors in the future knowing that the government can just come in and forcibly modify down mortgages so it's going to be the worst housing market in the future that's a calculation that f.a.

jabez putting into place i don't think that fixing the housing market is something that the government needs to do or should have to do right. certainly it's very difficult because there's no black or white response here and there's a lot of numbers not adding up but certainly everybody trying to put forth what they think is best a lot of different answers here anthony was as a director of economic research at the reason foundation and fairfax virginia thanks so much. and that's going to do it for now but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash our team america or go to our website it's our team. usa they of course cover a lot of the stories that we do a lot more that we haven't had a chance to get to and of course you can find me on twitter follow me at christine .