enjoy your free. is not required to watch it all it's all you need is your mobile device more. today in our tear us district judge is blocking in diff indefinite military detention for american citizens judge katherine forest says the end the a violates the us constitution and journalistic freedoms we'll bring you the latest on this case. and without further ado chairman ben bernanke he announces another round of quantitative easing this time the plan is to buy mortgage backed bonds to lower interest rates is this a last ditch attempt or a serious solution our financial guru will break it all down for us. and fifteen years ago this week the u.s. army of knowledge and had

a serious problem with sexual harassment within the ranks today a culture of ignoring or silencing harassment. it's thursday september thirteenth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching arts. well a victory today for reporters and activists fighting the controversial indefinite detention law a federal judge has ruled that the government cannot enforce a provision that allows the military to detain those who support terrorists and associated forces and those two words associated forces are key that's because the plaintiffs in the case against the government a group of seven reporters and activists say they believe they may fall under this category by reporting on the middle east they say under the n.c.a.a. they could be indefinitely detained because their job sometimes required them to

interact with terrorists that the judge granted a temporary injunction back in may that put a temporary block on that law but federal judge catherine forrest has now made that order permanent i'm joined now by tangerine bolton the founder and director of revolution truth tangerine welcome so first want to ask you the significance of this ruling you know not just for you in the plaintiffs but for the american people . well it's significant for all of us and actually for anyone on this planet because no one anywhere at this point can be indefinitely detained in the n.d.a. our rights i mean i just sums it up there i do want to read a quote from judge catherine forrester ruling it states quote due deference does not eliminate the judicial obligation to rule on the properly presented constitutional questions courts must safeguard core constitutional rights a long line of supreme court precedent here so that fundamental principle in an

equivocal language so tangerine i want to ask you to talk more about what parts of this law raise questions of constitutionality. well you know she addressed that pretty strongly with a couple of points yesterday actually a lot of points if you have them are firstly that some of the terms you mention one of them associated for us that is material support independent journalism which was newly introduced a remain and the government either could not or would not define those for us that actually unconstitutional according to judge for us ruling yesterday runs counter to do the due process clause of the first amendment so they have to define their terms and you told them told them that you guys are gay in no uncertain terms and that ruling and secondly the government has tried to claim that the court should only intervene with a b.s. review not judicial review what that means is you are going to lost your rights to due process if the government gets its way and the best you can hope for if you're

indefinitely detained is that someone somewhere down there somewhere down the line demands and he views review and demands that you're brought before the courts so she said no absolutely not it's my duty it's our duty to step in and say due process is guaranteed by the constitution so a big victory for you we also had one of the plaintiffs chris hedges on the show to talk about what you were just discussing let's take a listen to what he had to say. it removes due process for anybody who is deemed not much as to terrorist but to have contact with these associated forces that's not a term that's defined it's nebulous it's quite a frightening piece of legislation. ok so now that the judge. has ruled put in this is permanent injunction and has made it so that part of the law cannot be enforced are you now comfortable with the n.b.a. and the n.b.a. the law as it stands now well i was thrilled for the last twenty four hours just

before we got on this call today they actually appeal the ruling so in twenty four hours the government appeal the ruling that occurred yesterday so i would save a few so you know measure because we obviously have a battle ahead of us we're going into the second circuit now which very likely means according to the supreme court that's where it is and obviously we want and need a way for all of us so it's fair rollercoaster rollercoaster of the last twenty four hours and that of course is the latest development in this story a lot of twists and turns that the temporary injunction said the judge ruled that it's now permanent huge victory for you now that the government has is trying to repeal that i mean how confident are you now that you will ultimately be able to prevail in this. well you know i really have a lot of confidence that we have

a chance of prevailing in this i really believe in the power of the people to come forward and restore justice and due process and our fundamental rights all around so i think it's critical that we fight and we don't we don't give up and so i'm hopeful i'm worried about the. the judge's ruling yesterday was an incredibly strong going and hopefully future attorneys will also agree with you and you had mentioned how this is a very important case for for everybody for all americans particularly the plaintiffs in this case they were reporters and out of activists over what does this mean for people like you for reporters for journalists that are worried that their freedom of speech. was at risk because of this law. well i have two points to respond to that actually when i want to dispel the myth that this applies more to us than it does to other citizens it's not just applying to journalists and activists it applies to everybody so let's be critically critically about that

because that's great news secondly however my work and the work of the other journalists and activists in our group it does bring us in contact with i don't you know people that have been identified as terrorists by the united states government and that's a huge concern when when the government attorneys actually in court stated on the record that you can work correspondents and journalists could be inducting we detained for exercising first amendment rights it's hugely worrisome we need to be able to do our jobs. and of course this is a lot of new developments in this case it's a very important case with very significant ramifications do you think that it is getting enough attention in the media. i think after yesterday we've got we've gotten more attention in the last twenty four hours than we have this entire five or six months so that's a great program or i would also saying yes we need a lot more attention we need the national media to really take up this story and

you know bring it to the public to the public knows what we're up against and. you know we're working so hard to restore our rights well it looks like your hard work is paying off because you are it looks like you're getting the support of of the judge there a and the district judge judge forest tendering really great to have you on the show that was tender involved in the founder and director of the revolution truth. well here at r.s.c. america we've been on the front lines of the so-called war on whistleblowers however the government treatment of one leaker has forced us to rename it as the war on some little blowers artie's own christine for example delve deep into the case of bradley versus bradley and brings us more about the government's complicated relationship with whistleblowers. during the last three and a half years an old law has been dusted off and taken off the shelf time and time again i'm talking about the espionage act and in the days of mccarthyism in the

so-called red scare it was used to charge julius and ethel rosenberg they were convicted and executed back in the one nine hundred fifty s. other than them the law has been used only twice and that is until president obama came into office he has used it a total of six times so if you're doing the math that's three times in history before two thousand and six additional time after is a move that's prompted many people both inside and outside the legal community to say that president obama has launched a war on whistleblowers. the obama administration as you pointed out has doubled the number of prosecutions against its own employees using the espionage act for whistle blowing in addition the government has also gone out of its way to use a number of extra legal tools against whistleblowers whose cases don't rise to the level of the espionage act or in cases where there's not enough evidence or the government doesn't want to make a big deal out of it this is something that it's created

a war in washington it's going on just below our noses but it is indeed a struggle well it turns out that struggle may be diminishing at least for some this week a banker named bradley burke unfelt who worked at the swiss bank u.b.s. was awarded one hundred four million dollars for blowing the whistle on a scandal that involved the financial giant helping thousands of the wealthiest people in america hide their fortunes and secrets with bank accounts why on earth with these americans want to hide their money well to avoid paying taxes of course now let me backtrack a moment before this award broken feld was actually serving time in prison he's still on house arrest charged with conspiracy to defraud the united states for his role and u.b.s. actions but he came forward and told the justice department what he knew hoping to get protection under the whistleblowers act protection he wasn't granted until now today i want to take a look at the case of two bradley bradley broken valves and bradley manning

a bradley work involved story has a happy ending because he's part of the i.r.s. is whistleblower program he's one of several people who are starting to collect large sums of money because their secrets have brought millions of dollars in lost tax revenue to the government his account alone brought forth more than seven hundred eighty million dollars in fines paid by u.b.s. not to mention all those other people who are starting to come forward to wait for it pay those taxes they owed in the first place in fact many of the united states financial investigations depend on whistleblowers to make their case that bradley. manning well he's a different story the trove of documents he shared with wiki leaks did not bring money to the u.s. government's bank account instead it exposed embarrassing secrets and allowed the entire world to see the way to u.s. military pilots treated war like a video game instead of cold hard cash manning gets a cold hard prison cell for more than eight hundred days manning has been awaiting

trial in conditions the united nations torture chief called cruel and unusual if he ever gets beyond those prison walls it's unlikely he'll see a payout of any kind despite providing the public with valuable information about their government meanwhile work involved who actually took part in the scheme he blew the whistle on we'll be able to buy new homes or islands or any sort of therapy he needs it just goes to show that the war on whistleblowers has a convience it's not whether you blow the whistle but who you blow the whistle on that determines if you're an asset or an adversary in washington christine for south r.t. look out over there of today announced its plan to help stimulate the economy the plan is to buy forty billion dollars worth of mortgage bonds a month until further notice this whole idea has been dubbed q e three the hope is that this will bolster the economy and generate jobs this after fed watchers have been ramping up pressure for the central bank to take more aggressive steps to

strengthen the economy but will that's not the work to weigh in our financial guru lauren lyster host of capital account joins us now lauren great to have you here q e three it's called this because it's the third time around or they're trying to do this what makes this time different there are a few things that make this different so you're calling this q.e. three for good reason but you might want to call this q.e. infinity or q.e. and till further notice because unlike what the fed has done in the past where it said ok we're going to buy this amount of treasuries or mortgage backed securities it. we're going to start on this date and we're going to end on this date what's different this time is the fed saying we're going to buy forty billion dollars in mortgage backed securities a month and we're going to do this and till we decide not to and ben bernanke in his statements today and in the fed's press release said that this is going to continue until the labor market gets to where they want it and improve significantly but there's no set timeline so that's what really makes it different

this time also the fed is targeting mortgage backed securities so it's obviously trying to target the mortgage market in the housing market thereby by directing it specifically to mortgage backed securities as opposed to treasuries in government bonds which have monetize the debt so those are a couple differences in terms of what exactly the fed's program is also the fed some changes that said that it will keep a very accommodative monetary policy until even after the economy approves so that improves excuse me so that even when things get better they're still going to keep this accommodative policy and they're going to keep they gave forward guidance for interest rates which have been kept near zero for a year as they said that's likely to continue until mid two thousand and fifteen so they extended that to laze which basically kills the price mechanism in this country and destroys. the the ability of the market to understand the price of money and the price of risk because the fed is distorting it interesting.

let's take a listen to what he had to say today about this the purchase additional agency mortgage backed securities or any progress at a fair use of a forty billion dollars for months the new m.b.'s purchases combined with the existing maturity extension program and the continued reinvestment of principal payments regency debt agency m.b.'s already on our balance sheet will result in increase in our holdings of long term securities of about eighty five billion dollars each month for the remainder of the year. the program of a.b.s. purchases should increase the downward pressure of long term interest rates more generally but also on mortgage rates specifically which would provide further support for the housing sector by encouraging home purchases and refinancing so there is a ben bernanke himself almost describing as a last resort touting the possible benefits of this program what do you think about his remarks what i think well that was a fancy way of saying kind of what i was saying the thing about this q.e.

is that not a lot of people think that it's going to work to help the real economy so he was talking about expanding the fed's balance sheet about eighty five billion dollars on the long end per month the fed has expanded its balance sheet more than two trillion dollars since the financial crisis it's news that balance sheet in order to try to stimulate the economy and where was unemployment liz above eight percent whereas unemployment after these measures it's still above eight percent so what is doing more of the same going to do to bring down the unemployment rate which is what this is targeting so what ben bernanke is hoping there is that he's going to go out and he's going to prop up asset prices and maybe that'll be in housing maybe that will be in stocks and that people will feel richer so when they feel richer they'll go out and they'll spend their money so there will be more demand for products and for services and that this will amount to growth and that this will create jobs now that is the thinking maybe someone call it wishful thinking because

there is a difference in people that believe that the problem with unemployment is cyclical meaning what bernanke he said that growth is weak and that if the economy is better and demand is spurred than the jobs will come but there's another camp that believe that these problems are structural meaning people have the wrong skills for the jobs that are available or that the jobs have been a lot that have been lost aren't coming back and people need to be retrained which is a totally different issue so that's just one of the concerns that comes up for me meanwhile there are many unintended consequences from printing money from expanding the fed's balance. we don't know how the fed is going to unwind that these policies are unprecedented their measures are inflationary their measures debase the dollar they debase the currency that you and i use to buy things that affects our purchasing power and for savers for people on fixed income they just totally get hosed because interest rates are at zero they keep things suppressed there already are record lows so that means you're not making any money on your money people can't save and

so essentially as you're saying basically what this does is it floods the economy with new money and if this is the third time around i mean why keep doing something if and hope for new results well that's a definition of insanity i believe someone very famous once said but you ask a really good question you bring up a really good point i want to bring up a chart that might help illustrate why the fed keeps doing this because there is an argument to be made liz that the stock market is addicted to easy money take a look at this so here you can see the little boxes that denote essentially when q.e. programs were announced and begun and then when they ended and what you can see is when they're announced and begin the stock market rises reacts positively and then the market knows when those programs are ending and when they do the stock market falls again until another program is hinted at or begins so the market own lives easy money it's become addicted and so the fed gave the markets what it wanted the

drug that it wanted so much but what it did this time that's slightly different is it said we're not going to tell you when the drug is going to run out we're just going to keep giving you monthly doses until we decide not to so you can't front run us and you can't discount the fed so that's a little different but the markets are addicted so there's an argument to be made that it was more of a short term solution than a long term one i mean you could argue it's not any kind of solution which is the argument that i would make this is supposed to be a free market economy in the united states and you have the fed the decides the price of. money keeping interest rates at zero making money that cheap and that distorts things liz that distorts the prices people pay the investments people make and the signals are all off and the credit that it's trying to create isn't getting out to the real economy which is trying to help if mortgage rates are so low what does that do for someone if they can't afford a monthly payment for a house because they don't have a job or they don't make enough money or their credit is shot from the last housing

bust so these are all issues that no amount of easy money can dispel really interesting and last i want to ask you earlier you said that there is no timeline i mean how long can they keep this up so great question i don't know list your guess is as good as mine you won't tell us so so we don't know that but we do know that one effect of this ok in this q. we the fed is buying mortgage backed securities so it's not directly monetizing government debt which is what it would be doing by buying treasuries which it has in past quantitative easing episodes but interest rates are at record lows and so what who pays that interest will who gets to borrow at that rate the u.s. government so there's an argument to be made and david stockman reagan's former budget director has made this very clearly saying that this is actually enables the government to not have to address spending to not have to address these big moneyed interests in washington that are dependent on government spending to the tune of so

much money like the military industrial complex because the government can borrow at these record low rates so they don't have to pay the piper yet because once those interest rates go up once the government has to get serious about won't now our interest payments on the debt have exploded and we have to cut from other programs it's enabling them to continue this spending i think we have a sound bite where he was making that exact case if we want to play for the audience. you'll never do it if you can keep borrowing you free money forever right because of these lunatics who are running and i used my usability are basically telling the whole world on truth about the cost of money above the cost of risk about how you allocate you wonder why we so you're saying they'll never do it they'll never take on these issues with spending the never take on the moneyed interests while the fed has interest rates in the price of money so distorted really interesting learned it created it coming coming here into the studio that was lauren lyster post capital account thanks liz well it

was fifteen years ago this week that the u.s. army knowledge that sexual harassment was a problem running rampant in the military and today sexual assault and rape are maine's a big problem but critics say the military isn't doing enough to combat this problem that a partner defense still doesn't keep a sex offender registry victims both men and women remain reluctant to report the crimes because they feel victimized in the process to discuss what's described in the guardian as a culture of cover up we are joined now by appending bert's guest the rector executive director of the military rape crisis center and a united states coast guard veteran welcome to the show there so here we are fifteen years later why it's the problem of sexual abuse and rape remain pervasive in the military well thanks for having me i feel that the military has not done enough to prevent sexual assault. in the military i know are of survival rate in

the coast guard that they haven't been don't have enough programs in place to prevent sexual sold as well as to hopes of all of us the military sexual trauma to get the help that they need. now earlier this year the secretary of defense leon panetta he said three thousand one hundred ninety one cases of sexual assault were reported in the military it last year but he believes that the real number is much much higher closer to nineteen thousand and that is a staggering difference there so i want to ask you why do so many victims fail to come forward. i know through my work with the military presence a lot of those do not want to come forward they want treatment they want the help they need the counseling but they don't want to be for the. you know

a lot of what i was do not want to talk about being raised these don't want to lose their career right now looking at ninety two percent level i was doing very involuntarily destroyed servers and was why would they fear losing their career i mean in this case you have a victim and a perpetrator why is that something that they fear is a risk it's what they have been doing throughout the years so when the person is a sexual assault why was who does come forward and the gang reprimands up for we pointing a rape and not getting any justice out of those when they you know when one of them want to just witness then they're. you know if they have a full sum of sexual assault they're not going to come forward it's just a long history of intimidation against anyone to come forward to report a sexual well and what do you think it is what do you think it is about the setting

of the of the military of course it is higher our girls higher our goal here can pronounce that word today but what is it about the contacts that makes it hard for victims to come forward. it's difficult because you're not supposed to how long you know and you don't want to be known telling you that you don't want to be known that the person who's been raped is just i guess the good old boy club so you don't want to be as weak or whatever reason even though i personally feel anyone who does conform with sexual assault is not strictly brave and strong individual. but just the culture of a sense the military is a does not tolerate. them and what is that what happens to the perpetrators of these crimes these sex crimes oftentimes what happens to them and lessen tempus of all cases they would be

a court martial and worse than that even less of found guilty so right now we have ninety percent of all sexual assault a geisha is pretty much going nowhere a lot of times we. choose rapists with to continue serving like well and even a mark on their workers. a lot of times we get promoted. for that and this is this is astounding i mean that they can be that they can perpetrate sex crimes of rape and some cases and you just said that they can get promoted how can this happen. the military works and that's what we were trying to change hoping to see changes and have a higher prosecution rates. because right now less than ten percent of all allegations ending up in court martial is. loosely low and we need to have higher prosecutions of people who come forward. and trying to do it just to just

show system. a lot of survivors don't translate why the you know why should i report is neck and go anywhere i know my rapist or hand on the full discharge and sent out on the community to be a friend of the police's. nest of the problem i mean in this problem is seems to be systematic it seems to be very deeply rooted in the culture of the military how do we were reversed that mindset how do we were verse that culture to make it so that these sex crimes don't keep penetrating. the military and build the only solution is to get that we absolutely pointing away from the chain of command. and. i support the stop act which would have a private independent investigation on all sexual assault cases i was doing some reading on this and i thought it was interesting that apartment offense does not

keep a sex offender registry why are they held to the same standards as civilians when it comes to sex crimes and do you think in stating a sex registry was to help with the problem. that's going to help with the problem we consult the majority of people who serve in the military are doing so on the ball the ones who are committing the sex crimes they're doing it multiple time to help their entire career so having a sex offender offender registry. is going to help no only those within the military so you can know who was a sex offender and well once you leave the service open carry on because right now once you leave the service the military records of close even if you are been accused of a sex crime you don't have to go just so sex offender in your community. and you know a lot of money is spent on the military expanding the military and with all those

resources at their disposal in your opinion why isn't more being spent to devoted to this problem to try to protect members that serve from being a victim of sex crimes. the money that is. being spent used you know it's not being productive you know they have put those out there in the states you know wait until she's so that's not going to change the military culture we victimizing in preventing sexual assault we need a prosecution that we need and independent investigation such as what the stop act is hoping to do. and bill that's the only solution right really appreciate you coming on the show and talking about this and and poor and topic that was a penny out of burt's cass she is the executive director of the military rape crisis center and a united.