fox news is on the hunt their prey obama adviser david plant and his connections to iran about all of this foreign policy double speak is enough to make your head spin we will sort out the details. and say psion are to your privacy the u.s. appeals court ruled that government has the right to spy on all your communications without warrants or worry so be careful what you say because big brother could be listening. and be careful where you point that thing secretly recording police officers could land you behind bars for decades we'll tell you about one journalist who's paying the price for doing his job.

good evening it's wednesday august eighth eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching our t.v. . let's begin by taking a look at the leaks good leaks and badly extend all the other kinds and we'll go to a story we told you about earlier in the week which fox news is also now reporting on it involves the m.t.n. group this is the firm with ties to iran that reportedly paid white house adviser david plouffe one hundred thousand dollars in speaking fees in two thousand and ten and fox news says it has even deeper ties with the iranian government the firm has been alleged was behind quote a premeditated program of corruption that included bribery and influence and corrupt and control officials well this type of in-depth reporting brings about some very interesting questions to light some of which fox news is more than happy to bring to the fray at the expense of the obama administration however this type of coverage is also scarce and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find out the actual facts when it comes to politics and our foreign policy well let's bring in

wiki leaks an organization without which we would not know many aspects of how our foreign governments work cable gave unearthed a troll of information a lot of which served as the basis for dozens of stories yet after that it was criticized and persecuted for doing just that and just last night the wiki leaks site was a victim of a distributed denial of service attack throwing the site offline and making it unusable so the question is this when are leaks ok and what constitutes a leak when it involves the government and government actions and partnerships with other countries to talk more about the double standard on leaks and more i was joined by kevin blogger with firedoglake take a look. well i don't know that this case we actually have a leak although i though the point would be that fox news is engaging are things that gauge investigative journalism and as they're carrying it out right now

this is a form of journalism that they called into question in the past and i think that there's another point to be raised about this particular story which is it's unclear what material fox news actually got so i think that they might be reaching onto material that was published by the washington post and that they've been covering the story for the fact that. you know their gender and certainly every news network os included we choose what to cover and what not to cover and you know it's a story that seemed to serve the purpose especially with yours fox news but it just is interesting to me kevin i mean what distinguishes when it's investigative journalism and when it's too much information that the public should not. yeah and i think to an extent that's really ideological and i think that this story hits a nerve for viewers of fox news because it's

a way to focus attention on iran which i'd say most viewers of fox news probably despise utterly and feel that iran is going to do something and credibly terrible tomorrow against the united states in the united states turns its back in and lets it go about its business but on the other hand with wiki leaks with all the stories that they were able to allow journalists to put together by just closing previously classified documents those are stories i think fox news for a large extent of their reporting they spent time casting doubt on the reports and also aligning those reports by saying that this was terrorism that the wiki leaks organization was engaged in that it was information terrorism believe as he was on the show and january twentieth i'm going to so-called atheist or likes to think she isn't and along with peter king these other individuals congressman peter king have

tried to go after we get a terrorist organization and sort of you know turn things around and that this sort of reporting that's being possible made possible by wiki leaks is something that we like shut down you brought down are you brought up as a congressman at peter king's i want to play something that he recently said when it comes to you know the media the evil fourth estate tired of his critics the civil liberties types that the york times the washington post i think what the media is probably looking for is they don't want these restrictions being put on they don't want to use a polygraph outside of the intelligence community basically as i see it they are afraid that they're going to lose their sources in the intelligence community so basically you have these people putting their own parochial interests into what the media head of the national interest. far be it for the media to think it's important to report upon and the u.s. government aiding one side of a foreign war. kevin this is an elected lawmaker essentially telling the media not

to do its job how does he get away with it. but i think and to add to you know that comment i would just say that what he's essentially suggesting is that the free speech rights of low level intelligence employees be shut down and in fact he's promoting the perception that the well to backtrack by making this statement he's not acknowledging the fact that the intelligence community is one of the last places you would find a leak actually you're more likely to find a leak out of peter king's office probably than the. come some agent and see in the intelligence community and i think you know what he's really saying just sort of makes me feel like in a perfect world if peter king can make it possible he would like to take away the right publisher of the new york times or where other organizations that he would think have overstepped their approval just and gone beyond and started to do actual national security journalism which i think is what in effect is trying to suppress

and criminalize when he's actively participating in activities where he's putting together sort of. policy proposals that crack down on so-called leaks well speaking of publications being accused of you know overstepping their privileges wiki leaks of course continues to be attacked but it wasn't always that way for a while when we can sort of came out you know especially with the collateral murder murder video and the trove of documents released initially this was the basis for countless stories published by the new york times by several different media outlets print television and then it sort of changed course and started to sort of become vilified what do you think happened. i think that it stayed true to what it wanted to do in fact you know it maintained its independence it didn't assimilate and start to behave like in the stablish media organization it stated

that state was a news organization that it that it wants to be and then in doing so it really showed the division here because i believe that the media in this country especially the ones that have access to the white house pride themselves on having a position and they feel like they have this duty the servant duty that they have to protect secrets from being released which is why the new york times and even the washington post if they would get any materials now and they were leaked documents they would go to the white house and say look i have this material i want to publish it and then the white house would understandably have an issue with them publishing but would work with them because they know that they can't really take away that right but at the same time they would have this ability to work against this leak before or they would be able to work against those publications and that would pose

a problem because now they can't you know they won't be caught off guard what change is going to happen if front organizations are giving them a heads up well if you believe the government or any government in the world that has done they just go to publish yeah i it certainly is going to be interesting to watch kevin and see sort of what happened is another you know wiki leaks two point zero pops up you know if people start to get angry about the site being taken down constantly certainly an interesting discussion kevin gust ola blogger with firedoglake. so when it comes to leaks and of classified information it's still not entirely clear where the lines are drawn and whose information is indeed classified several provisions within the patriot act passed after the attacks of nine eleven gave the government overarching power in terms of who could be surveilled but you might remember one case in which a couple of men lawyers with the all her i mean islamic foundation and wendell bellew and a fine go for they were spied on and they actually found out because the government

accidentally sent information to them those two men sued and were awarded twenty thousand dollars each in damages plus two point five million in lawyers fees after challenging the t.s.a. well that is now all changed yesterday the ninth u.s. circuit court ruled the government was not in the wrong it's a case josh gerstein white house reporter for politico has been covering and i guess what starr just by breaking down this ruling for me. well you know i wouldn't say that the ruling necessarily found that this terrorist surveillance program was legal or constitutional but basically the court said that there's no way that these two lawyers who claim that they were surveilled under it could get any sort of money damages and that the court wasn't inclined to go beyond that the other part that's a little complicated here is that when they were surveilled this is back in two thousand and six the program was basically f.b.i. of president george w.

bush it had no statutory legal backing and in two thousand and eight congress gave its stamp to this program and actually set up a structured legal structure under which it would operate so the program that's in effect now might have a little more law behind it than the program president bush was using five or six years ago and i know part of the ruling had to do with something called a sovereign immunity the legal doctrine the ninth circuit circuit court used to overrule the lower court i know it's welcome to give a breakdown the sovereign immunity for a while sovereign immunity is a presumption that i think goes way back beyond u.s. law into british law talking about the fact that you can't sue the king basically unless the king says it's ok and in the u.s. legal system you can't bring suit for money damages against the federal government unless the federal government has set up a procedure for you to do that and there was a dispute in this case about the terrorist surveillance program and the surveillance of these lawyers about whether there is a provision in the law that allows for damages in a case like this or whether there isn't and the ninth circuit said there's no clear

waiver of sovereign immunity therefore they have no lawsuit and you know it was so interesting because the alamein attorneys only discovered they were being wiretapped because the government accidentally mailed the lawyers a classified document but josh other than these you know kind of careless mistakes how else will citizens be able to recognize if they're being wiretapped. well it's really next to impossible to know you know unless you think that every click on the phone is somebody tapping you as some paranoid people think it's very hard to know that you're being wiretapped unless you see one of these documents there are a few other cases where people find out that they were wiretapped but it mostly involves people that are in very serious trouble of which the wiretapping is probably the least of their problems if the u.s. government thinks you're a spy are engaged in some sort of terrorist activity and they actually charge you in court there's a chance your lawyer might get a hint that you were under some sort of surveillance like this but for the average

person whose work or communications might be covered by the terrorist surveillance program there's really no way to know except through the kind of fluke that these two lawyers ran into here well in terms of the current laws that are in place for wiretapping you know kind of what are they and how far can they go. well congress passed this law in two thousand and eight that president barack obama initially as a candidate said he was very concerned about but then after he won the presidential nomination he voted in favor of it this congressional procedure statute you'd call it that apparently codified this terrorist surveillance program but we actually don't know a lot on the public record about how precisely it works it supposedly has something to do with calls from suspected terrorists outside the u.s. into the united states but most of the operation of it is secret the government claims that if they revealed the details of it it would allow people to work the

system we should say that there is a case headed for the u.s. supreme court in the coming term that will address the issue of under the current program can people who have reason to think that they probably would be the type of people that might be surveilled by the government folks that maybe have contact with those affiliated with terrorist organizations journalists and others are suing to say that they want to challenge the program in the supreme court will basically decide if they can and i know josh you were on the show last week talking about the feinstein legislation which attempts to limit journalist knowledge of the inner workings of government i'm wondering if you see any kind of doublespeak going on here in the way the government has handled these issues while the government is perfectly justified in you know this wiretapping you know journalists like you and me were not able to get intelligence as easy as we were before. well there is a real question there also what they would do if they want to come after journalists in terms of could they use this program or similar kinds of orders to

try to figure out who journalists are having contact with there's a similar provision called national security letters that a lot of reporters are worried that all the discussion about subpoenas and whether the courts might up hold them is kind of moot because behind the scenes it could be that a lot of journalist contacts either on phone or via the internet even like their frequent flyer records can be obtained by the government and used to try to ferret out who their sources are yeah certainly we talk about this a lot when we talk about the national defense authorization act or n.d.a. and still a lot of questions surrounding that exact provision in terms of you know who journalist can talk to and whether they would then be considered you know an associated force with terrorist organizations even if they're just trying to get a story i guess i'm wondering it just kind of back to our original case here with the allen line attorneys do they have another appeal option or is this the end of the line for them well they can try to go from this ninth circuit panel either to the full bench of the ninth circuit that would be probably an eleven or fifteen

judge panel or to the supreme court but it seems like if the supreme court wants to wrestle with this issue they're probably more likely to wrestle with the question of the law as it is now in the program as it is now and whether americans can challenge that program rather than trying to delve into the ancient history of you know under the previous system under the previous president was what was going on back in two thousand and five or two thousand and six legal often judges and justices are would prefer to sort of let bygones be bygones and if they're going to confront the current issue they may as well deal with that one head on and put this one in the past certainly a lot of different aspects of these types of discussions going on i'm sure we're going to see them continue josh gerstein white house reporter for politico good to have you on the show hey great to be back with you. let's talk now about a young man in new hampshire who is facing twenty one years in prison simply for reporting on police brutality adam or adamle mueller was unable to talk to us today

since he's in prison now awaiting trial and a case that all started after he posted video on his website cop block dot org see this is mark taking us right here so it's really a smart thing to do you know. this video was shot at a manchester new hampshire high school and shows a seventeen year old boy being lifted from his seat in the school cafeteria by a school police officer and then slammed face first into a table it was recorded by a fellow student and then given to mueller through them apparently interview police and to school officials and recorded those interviews without the parties consent he then posted part of those interviews on his web site along with this video and has now been charged with three felony counts of wiretapping. pierre from cop walked out or joined us earlier and give us the latest developments surrounding a day most case take a listen. jury selection this past monday in manchester and he is slated to begin

trial next monday august thirteenth those borough secure courts we're all going to have a full court there packed with a lot of supporters who don't do not receive journalist cation and just to get a lot of good media so hopefully at least one of the twelve on this jury will act on their conscience or with logic and make the right decision and then with facing twenty one years for three felony counts of wiretapping i know new hampshire is one of twelve states that require two party consent the law is the law of course and it's supposed to serve the best interest of the public i'm wondering pete if you think that's the case here. i sure don't see me this is a dame oh he's a journalist any thoughts to hold accountable this public official down murphy the west high school liaison officer who slammed the student on the table he sought to hold him accountable because after the incident the student was suspended and later expelled they banned cop locked out or from the school they denied students the

ability to pass out literature and they essentially try to cover cover for their colleague instead of if they really looked out for the students best interest as they purport to do they would've held murphy accountable as he was the aggressor in the situation so damore did what any good journalist would do attend to the follow up and ask questions and make the situation more transparent to everybody else i know because blocked out or has created an online outlet to release information about police that you know doesn't usually make it to the mainstream media we've seen many cases as of late of police brutality from anaheim to appalachian however the aware of the line between you know being a concerned citizen and being a vigilante or is there. i personally don't actually like the fraser's term citizen it to me it denotes that you're a you know sort of a subject or a slave to somebody else i've never signed a contract with anybody giving them the authority to dictate my life but for me

comp like is it's a decentralized project has a lot of people involved as you mention but it's it's a knowledge sue for me too and so do inject the idea of self ownership and so it's not i don't see the line between being a citizen or a vigilante i just think we should own ourselves and if we conduct ourselves as we want to be treated in relationships then you know that's the best sort of safest most prosperous society to live in and right now some folks have badges act as if they have extra rights and they're those individuals are getting away with it because people allow them to do that so what today was doing what folks of all complex try to do is just point out how you don't have exercise because you have a badge and using a chamar as a as an objective tool to document those actions and share them with others very powerful. i guess i'm wondering what made you guys that decide to start this website was it just seeing case after case of police brutality was there a case in particular that sort of sparked to you to do this. it dave and i both

came from slightly different backgrounds he himself was harassed by some local police up in a small town in jackson was concert where he grew up and he was in find any recourse through their official channels and started posting some ex some of his interactions online to again when in the court of public opinion i actually went to school for law enforcement and saw that. initially wanted to change things for the better from the inside but saw that you know that really wasn't possible and now to the point where i think every good or service including policing could better be provided through consensual interactions so it's just a form for us to share ideas again about self self ownership and to really strike the root as the real would say instead of just dealing with issues as they come up just really try to nail down and figure out why they do happen and it to me it comes down to incentives currently police suffer from perverse incentives and it's not to say there's not good officers but i would say those individuals that do

provide a service that people would voluntarily pay for that would be facilitated through consensual or actions not through this top down one size fits all system where terminus it's really interesting to me because this is a situation that really differs a straight to state to state we put up a map of the twelve states where you need to party consent but i know we just saw an boston for example the city of boston agreed to pay a man there one hundred seventy thousand dollars in damages in legal fees that to settle a civil rights lawsuit from a two thousand and seven felony arrest for videotaping police he was watching these police on camera out roughing up a suspect i guess i'm wondering kate i mean what is it going to take for police to simply say you know instead of trying to make more strict laws why don't we just try not to be so brutal in the wrong circumstances. well i agree it's a good it's a good goal to have but i would say what is the best means to get there and it's it's not through the internal review board or a citizen supplants or even filing

a complaint with the department itself is just for each individual to realize that nobody else has the right to dictate or regulate their lives as long as they're not negatively infringing on somebody else's rights and so that really speaks to the issue of again policing today and how it's the perverse incentives on which it's actors operates and the difference is in the one or two party consent you mentioned that to me just shows how arbitrary some i differentiate between long legislation loving natural commoner god's law and legislation being man made an arbitrary so here in new hampshire in the shire myself on a day when number of others have had our cameras and other so many devices taken from us whereas you see in other departments for example oakland p.d. has a video with their p.r. person that says we never dream of taking someone's property we encourage them to film us and so it's just like you and i know murder is wrong we don't not murder someone because someone put it on a piece of paper we just generally people know how to treat each other and for the

most part interact and just to have these distinctions based on our share of political boundaries to me just underscores the fact that it is you know just words on paper and in this case in a day on this case for example he didn't hurt anybody and and the real aggressor is right now being protected by the system thirdly an important discussion to have especially in the fate of a cell phone video cameras and so much out there appreciate having you on the show paid air with cock pot how flocke that are. well take a look now at the state of texas last night a mentally disabled man was executed there marvin wilson was convicted of killing a police informant twenty years ago he had an i.q. of sixty one well below the average of seventy the number considered to be the bare minimum to determine competency after months of appeals that reached all the way to the u.s. supreme court wilson lost his battle texas of course is no stranger to the death penalty and certainly is at the top when it comes to executing prisoners on death

row perhaps it's no surprise that when texas governor and former presidential candidate rick perry spoke about it he got this reaction at a recent debate xs has a. very solid for a very clear. process in place you will see the ole to much justice in the state of texas and that is you will be executed when you make your. funder of applause at the republican candidates debate a few months back and marvin wilson was the two hundred forty fifth inmate executed under governor rick perry and the entire story was largely ignored by the mainstream media now back in two thousand and two the u.s. supreme court ruled in our kids v virginia that mentally disabled people could not be executed so what was different this time i asked independent journalist ron your colleague who's been following the story take a look. that actually would have

a lot of illegal color shot in fact that yesterday the supreme court wouldn't grant a stay of execution for martin wilson even though he had been diagnosed by a court appointed. neuropsychologist as being mentally retarded and on i.q. of sixty one which is very much below the competency threshold of seventy so you know it's kind of shocking because in two thousand you like you said the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional so it came as a shock to his lawyers and it really came as a shock to a lot of people they were expecting the supreme court to side with the ruling i know right now you wrote a piece for salon in which you talked about a set of standards it seems to me some very nonscientific ones inspired by lenny in the book of mice and men to determine this characterization so i mean i'm wondering are you saying a fictional character invented by john steinback was actually used as an example of precedent. yet if that's exactly what happened. after the

in two thousand and two when it's been done constitutional right to execute people with mental disabilities they have basically left it up to the states to determine how they were going to apply that standard. so most of the death penalty is they have got use of some sort of thing that basically adopted clinical standards does seem kind of going to use an ak and determine if someone is mentally disabled that was on the other hand in it up anything so when a case came forward to the texas court of criminal appeal and two thousand and four the court of criminal appeal went ahead and invented temporary standards and they used that inspiration which you can see in their opinion this character lenny small from john steinbeck of mice and men which is a fictional character who has severely mentally handicapped. so they use this as sort of. a benchmark so that if they base these seven standards around it's

character so the standards are completely not going to go completely unscientific have not been used by any scientist clinicians whatsoever in diagnosing mental disability and running a new you reached out to john steinbeck's family in writing your article what did they what was their response to all this while they actually what they did was they released his son thomas direct released a statement basically saying that the family was disgusted that they had had it known until this particular case that the texas court of criminal appeals was using this character from his father's book as an example so but i tried to actually contact them again i contact them but they actually just said we're going to let our statement stand. and it's a pretty powerful statement and i clued in as the quotes from the article but yeah i mean this is something that is obviously john that can't say or comment on this because he's passed away but his family clearly believes that he would be disgusted

by this i think most people would have been you're using a fictional character rather than science to determine who is competent enough to be with just. that was independent journalist rania colic and that's going to do it for us here for now but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r.t. america you can also check out our website the address is r t dot com slash usa there's a bunch of stories that we talked about today and then a bunch of them other we did not have a chance to get to and of course you can follow me on twitter as well you can find me my handle is at christine for south as for watching we'll be back here in about ninety minutes.