today on r t one week after a deadly attack in libya details are beginning to reveal what actually took place that night and the more information the u.s. state department releases the murkier the case gets so why isn't the mainstream media separating fact from fiction in the attacks. and another twist in the controversial indefinite detention law the battle over indefinite detention is playing out now in the court of appeals an update on the showdown straight ahead. plus the obama administration admits there has been yet another leak this time of an executive order on cyber security and it has internet and privacy activists

alarmed the details coming up. it's tuesday september eighteenth here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our t.v. well it was one week ago today that a raid in benghazi left four americans dead new details continue to come to light as the story of all of us and many questions remain and what was reported in various news reports is that u.s. ambassador to libya chris stevens was killed after the consulate was stormed and then burned down by extremists this after an amateur anti muslim film produced privately in the u.s. went viral on the internet here's a look at some of the reports. we know he was a big ozzie of the u.s. consulate there we know that there are three other three other people who were killed united states marines who guard all of our facilities this consulate and the

embassy had no actionable intelligence foreshadowing the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya there are important divisions between the united states and libya on the investigation of what exactly happened at the consulate and the safe house. yeah you heard that right a safe house but there's a very big difference between an embassy a consulate and especially a safe house but here's an interesting and puzzling detail if you take a look at the u.s. state department's website which we did it provides a list of all u.s. embassies consulates and diplomatic missions strangely not listed the diplomatic mission in benghazi but a quick search on the same site will turn up numerous other diplomatic missions the u.s. is taking part in so what is the saying about the coverage of libya and did the mainstream media miss some important details for this i was joined earlier by georgetown university professor christopher chambers. you have to understand there's many

levels there was things had just broken apart with this on and on the reporting level on the news media level you have. missions you know foreign bureaus everywhere closing down you're relying on stringers on the ground that are highly unreliable in war situation i mean this is this is a country that is basically a kid into what the united states was an eight hundred sixty five when the civil war was over i mean in ruins so you can't rely on them and you can't rely on a bank of information of reporters on the ground who are nosing around and trying to get into the militia groups that were actually helping. you know after the ambassador was killed the extremists who are they i mean you know there are been arrests now we don't have those eyes on the ground now they have the you have the other level of breakdown that is in that what is the state department supposed to do and the state department isn't saying anything now because the whole place is

a crime scene now what is the place is it an embassy it's the consulate i mean because we have those those dual breakdowns we just don't know and i mean the details can be an important one because the pentagon whether or not it is an embassy or consulate or a diplomatic mission could be of play if as has depending on what happened back there a different implication right well the here's here's where you know that both breakdowns merge before the event i mean this is a country that's been in ferment for a long time and we had to do with that obviously and because of the lawlessness because this is a you know of government if you want to call it that that's just been born i mean it's hard to say what exactly our presence is there i mean yes ok it's an embassy but i mean you know our mission or or just a group of people gathered together i mean stevens was was ambassador or the. it was his title but you know you have the special situation where this this place is

plopped down in benghazi the staff is put there but it's almost an off the books operation i mean and secretary of state basically said that and to the point where you have a security firms that we usually use we usually farm that out outsource that british security firm that they were just using for that group for that building for that mission because it is such a unique weird off the books kind of a situation that maybe you might say what's new the government's new the country's new we created it after khadafi was killed along the british french and italians however i mean it has more of an off the books quality than a newness quality and i think the state department really the american people and the media and esplin ation of this in the media itself and the american people traditional journalism traditional reporting out of the story which they do not do very well when it comes to foreign. issues and tragedies such as this i think that

are saying that you call this off the books operation obviously a very chaotic situation there are many questions today and a question that we're hearing asked time and time again in the media in the mainstream media today as what is it why do they hate us so much why do they hate us over there in the middle east so much. but i mean it and it's all being penned and the big focus right now is on this this anti muslim innocence of muslims right and yes i mean this is being used as justification but this anti american sentiment that not just happen overnight i mean but another thing we don't do well is is nuance the problem here is there's no nuance here this is nationalism plain and simple these are these are people who have many many dogs in many many fights and we are a very convincing. rallying point for people who are both sly and insane or or

sane you know it doesn't have to be one or the other so you know this is this stuff is going to happen over there because you have these these societies that are basically breaking apart and coming back together again that's nothing new in world history it's just that the intensity and you know you have the influence of technology and social media magnifying this movie you know and the people who made the movie have an agenda too you have these clashing agendas that have nothing to do with common sense and some of them have everything to do with being strategic and being political so you have that all that thrown into a part and just set a fire to it this is going to happen now the question is were was everybody on alert for nine eleven i mean you know you have the right wing press if you want to call it that i put that in quotation marks coming up with all kinds of conspiracy theories some plausible some aluminum foil on the head about preparedness successor

etcetera and hidden agendas you know and then the state department is mum now you know if they are stonewalling the one thing about the right wing press is accurate as they are zipping what they're saying look we've got the cia over there the marines and the justice department f.b.i. the crime scene so they're they can hide behind that pretty effectively but we shouldn't be surprised that you know they hate us but i mean if we disappeared tomorrow there would be something else to hate because these are nations that are trying to rebuild themselves and not try to put a positive spin on it it's just that when you have that that aspect to it i mean there's going to be death there's going to be chaos there's going to be hatred there's going to be things set on fire and loss of life and that that's how human politics and human history goes so we're just a convenient scapegoat and here we are thing a lot of we have can carry. in fables. duration over there are unstable excuse me and what is stress is that this is not this is this is

a extremists on my priority of extremist they by no means represent the sentiment of the entire country but i mean i guess what can be pointed out is that the situation there is very volatile and very complicated and. we don't do complicated well there and maybe it was should we should be examined is why what is leading up to this and that of oversimplifying the situation it's one that is very very complex and we see that in. more. focused media outlets on with regard to cable and satellite networks i mean r.t. for example you have focused and now assists with certain websites certain magazines even ones that are fairly have a conservative bent to them you don't see that in the cable giants for obvious reasons this is the least common denominator programming some times though you don't even really see that consistently in some of our major. look tronic

outlets like say the new york times or the post it's kind of a of value in a trough kind of coverage i mean sometimes it gets. as sin and as broad as the t.v. networks and sometimes it does get kind of deep but there's no consistency here so you're really going to have to look kind of at these more specific outlets to find your news that you have to be careful about again the ideological bend or angle or approach that these more specific outlets have but that's really going to have to go for the analysis not c.n.n. m s n b c definitely not fox overly interesting press they have pleasure to have you on as always you christopher chambers a journalism professor for georgetown university. not back for critics of the indefinite detention law better known as the and the a federal appeals court has halted the ruling that. block the provision that allows the government to indefinitely detain u.s.

citizens as reported last week a federal judge judge ruled that the government cannot use the law to hold people and military prisons indefinitely but it looks like this is being put on hold by the second u.s. circuit court of appeal this after the obama administration filed an emergency petition to overturn district judge katherine forest ruling if you can recall a group of journalists and activists sued the government arguing the n.p.a. is unconstitutional and fear they could be indefinitely detained under it for more carl mayer attorney for the merilahti group who has representing the plaintiffs in this case joins me now carl nice to see you so first off thanks as well thanks for having me back first off want to get your reaction to the move made up by the court of appeal yesterday sure well actually it's more of a minor blip in a road in the road a minor bump in the road rather than a major development what happened was the court issued in the ministry of stay

which just means that they are protecting the status quo ante prior to a full hearing on whether there should be a stay pending appeal so and that will occur next week sometime and the full merits of this case will be decided probably in the next couple months after both sides have an opportunity to brief the second circuit court of appeals which is the last stop before the u.s. supreme court so bottom line is it wasn't a real ruling on the merits so it's not it's not a huge development we obviously would have preferred if the court didn't put a stay on judge for its ruling and we're going to be right back in court next week after asking that they lift the stay and that there be no state during the course of the appeal so the fight goes on i find it interesting that the obama administration is fighting for. all out they work late friday night and over the weekend to file these emergency papers to appeal this decision and judge for it so

right now the obama administration is all in in their in their nonstop effort to retain the a power to retain the power to send u.s. citizens to military prisons and why do you think it is that the obama administration and so adamant about keeping this controversial provision in place. i really i really can't speak to the motivation all i can say is that on civil liberties issues this president has been even more restive in eroding american civil liberties then george w. bush and it's really an unfortunate turn in our democracy this has been occurring since nine eleven but the obama administration has gone full in for a drones they've gone full in for targeted assassinations including of american citizens they've gone full in for warrantless wiretapping and now they've gone full

in for their right to detain american citizens and military prisons thus circumventing our democracy and our judicial system why the president is doing it when he ought to know better as a constitutional law professor i can't speculate the only the only reason that comes to mind is pure politics and he wants to be seen as tough on terror and because of that he's willing to throw american civil liberties out the window but i think that's one principle and i don't think i don't think the voters are interested in that stance because they know that the government has so many tools available to fight terrorists this is not a conventional war against between nation states therefore it doesn't require extraordinary measures and dating back to the civil war it's just been a bedrock principle of our country that the military doesn't patrol our streets the military can put u.s. citizens in one of their detention centers without due process of law i don't know

why you're doing it i'm calling this little litigation. says harold and kumar back to kuantan i'm ok litigation because that's that's what the white house is trying is fighting to do it was it was a satirical film but the characters in that film were u.s. citizens and it was it was very. but it's no less ironic to have this legislation that allows and under the terms of the legislation as judge force pointed out that would allow the government to send journalists and activists into a military detention system is just incredible to me and that's why i think we're going to prevail in the second circuit i think we're going to prevail in front of the the supreme court if it goes there ok it's an interesting comparison that you make to have a moving harold and kumar. go to white castle or something that's an interesting comparison that you make i do want to ask them just to clarify exactly what is

going on if we can kind of go through a timeline the judge had issued this temporary injunction and then last week a huge victory for you and your plaintiffs where the judge made that temporary injunction permanent now what exactly is the status of this controversial part of the law the part that allows for the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens. do you miss well for asking the question because in fact all the media outlets that have covered this issue today have gotten this wrong so you are getting this correct by asking the precise question all the media outlets have incorrectly reported that the second circuit is going to hear the merits of this case next week on september twenty eighth that's not correct what the second circuit will consider next week is simply whether to actually keep a stay in place during the course of the appeal before the second circuit where we

will fully brief and argue the issues ok until yesterday a judge force injunction had been in place and that injunction and that has been in place since may sixteenth and that injunction meant that the n.d.a. provisions were null and void and that the united states government could not place us. citizens journalists activists who said in a military detention situation so it's been a huge victory in a hard fought victory that we won in may we kept it in place judge force extended the victory by making the injunction permanent on the twelfth and now judge for a permanent injunction is going to be ruled on by the second circuit and maybe even the supreme court of the united states so it'll probably take another couple of months for this to play out within the second circuit and then who knows this might get a pretty expedited hearing before the supreme court maybe by next spring but what we're going to be asking the second circuit to do starting next week is take that

stay off and let judge force injunction stand meaning the n.b.a. cannot be used to detain american citizens as american as u.s. u.s. and anywhere in the world u.s. citizens have constitutional rights is this administration that are trying to strength undermine the very interesting and karl thanks so much for keeping us updated on this very important case but as a changing by the day than by the week that was a karl mayor attorney with the mayor laudrup facing this well. all this week marks the one year anniversary since the birth of the occupy wall street movement and occupiers commemorated the day with hundreds taking to the streets in new york city protesting corporate influence on politics plays a part of the arrested one hundred eighty one protesters artes on a saucy a chair going to give a wrap up of how the day played out. after the occupy wall street movement is here after its inception. takes the big apple by storm in

full force i think i think that it was loose on more spac and behind barricades from the wee hours of the morning. marches and acts of civil disobedience all day long images that have become all too familiar throughout the past year reoccurring protesters thrown to the ground people there to document the action knock down. activists attempting to help others wrestled by police. arms twisted and cops left and right over one hundred eighty people of reston one day when there's no place for people to come outside and to meet each other and talk about issues when that is so dangerous that you get such severe violence and police repression then we don't really have a democracy for a year now occupy has fought for eradicating wealth inequality and social and

economic injustice and give people jobs give people education if you will help you you have to help the mess. no accountability for wall street bankers here is after become a collapse. that. still has people outraged expecting it may be naive but demanding it is and it starts with making a statement and that's what the people here are doing skeptics had hoped that occupy camps which once flourished all over the west but now have cleared out would put an end to the movement after months of camping out here in the financial district the party party for what seems to be the peak of occupy hundreds of protesters are back here on the first anniversary of the movement to show that it's very much alive. the lack of encampments protesters say has not been an obstacle weaver. we've been able to focus on the issues that are important to us and that brought us out here in the first place of economic disparity and political system

that no wrong longer represents people who don't have the money to compete one of occupies key achievement so far triggering a national dialogue about what matters to the majority of americans the occupy movement has kept a dialogue around fairness and equality and access to the good things that we all want that should be available to everyone and that dialogue is now in the public the occupiers intend to do their best to keep this dialogue alive like the civil rights movement and i would say that you know it still has a long way to go. and it's been you know since before i was born i think occupy will have a similar history i think there's so much that has to be done that change is not going to be handed to us with a bow on it with no miracles just around the corner of patience and perseverance to see our what will bring tangible change to the us. r t.

what turned out to the hot button issue of cyber security in the u.s. a draft for the white house a cyber security executive order has been leaked we've been reporting on the various cybersecurity bills making its way through congress some of them like sopa and cispa didn't get very far after facing public backlash but now it looks like the white house is taking matters into its own hands internet activists say the leaked executive order is more harsh and vague and some of the controversial legislation that we've seen so what does this mean for your internet freedoms to weigh interests him an activist at the electronic frontier foundation joins me now trevor welcome first off i want to get your reaction to the draft executive order that was leaked well that you saw in the opening it's very. you know talks a lot about critical infrastructure in the actual sectors that it's meant to protect but we don't really know if those critical infrastructure sectors are there very broad you know we can all agree that electronic or electric grid the nuclear

power plant and water treatment centers are critical infrastructure but also talks about communications so does that involve like email servers and social networks like facebook and twitter we really have no idea and it also talks about information sharing which was the real controversy over cispa in the senate bill which basically would have carved a giant hole in our privacy laws that would have allowed companies to hand over large swaths of information voluntarily to the government which they normally would have needed a warrant or a court order now and we should be executive order the president can't unilaterally change privacy laws he needs congress for that so if there is good news is that we know they're not going to be able to dramatically expand their rights to take information from companies but it's something to keep an eye on. it going along with that this is an executive order so should citizens be concerned that the white house is taking unilateral action instead of congress passing

a cyber security bill. well i think it's always important when there's an executive order that people viewed over closely and make sure the president isn't overstepping his authority here the problem is it's written very big leap so we don't really know what it will accomplish anything you know the real problem is there is and republicans are talking about how there shouldn't be an executive order but what they're saying is that actually we should have more information sharing we need a law so companies can give our private information to the government and that's the opposite of what we want you know i think this executive order kind of shows that actually cyber security bills aren't even really needed in the first place the government can go ahead and share in the information if it wants with companies and you know what they could do with these critical information critical infrastructure sectors is just unplug them from the internet there's no reason that our water treatment centers and your power plants have to be on the open internet they can be

on a closed network so i think they're looking for solutions that they don't actually need right now. so what does this mean for activists that have fought for online privacy and online freedoms we saw a pretty hard fight during tough to make sure that sopa didn't get through i mean what does it mean for for activists like that who have really tried to prevent legislation from going through and now we have this executive order that kind of bypasses all of that. well luckily the executive order doesn't touch a lot on the information sharing in the privacy law loopholes that we were primarily concerned about like i said the executive branch can't go ahead and do that by themselves they even said the news media you know we can't address information sharing like we'd like to and so that's a good thing and so at least that the executive order the worst of the worst parts of these bills we won't have to worry about coming to fruition this is

a draft executive order and with a lot of drafts we see that they do change on the how do you expect this one to evolve well hopefully it will get more specific. the language in this bill very said there's really no definition of definition of critical infrastructure so broad it could encompass anything and they should just be concentrating on the real critical parts of our infrastructure like i said before you know nuclear power plants and water treatment centers and electric grid we don't need to include all sorts of communication systems in this there should be narrowly tailored for the worst sorts of problems that we could face and as long as they don't touch on information sharing then we should be ok but even mention it like they do they should absolutely recognize in the executive order that privacy and civil liberties need to be protected i interesting and try very do want to bring up another development this has spare scale as

a russian based cyber security firm i discovered that there are different cyber threats that exist right now to have the same coding as flame if you can recall flame was that it was a state sponsored it was found to be a state sponsored virus so all the signs point to the attacks being state sponsored with this development trevor does this provide justification that there is a need to regulate the internet. i mean i think regulate the wrong word obviously many nations are developing cyber weapons capabilities and we definitely should as a government or any country want to protect our own systems and the thing is the government can do that without affecting privacy law you know they can beef up the security on their networks without having to get information for our personal information i have a company's and there's also been former f.b.i. officials and n.s.a. officials commenting that we need more authentic capabilities to actually hack more

and that's going to somehow. solve our six cyber security problem where they would be able to reach into other servers and delete information or encrypt information they claim is stolen. i think the cyber security is kind of this monster where the government is trying to ask for all these powers that they don't really need and that simple solutions are already here and they can be implemented really easily say at the white house is saying that cyber security is very serious threats poses risks as you pointed out before they're saying opposed to and for structure transportation communication all these things and and they're almost saying that this is a last resort in order to protect us from cyber threats. are portraying us as being vulnerable to these threats but you're saying that. this is not necessary. oh absolutely not i mean especially the information sharing from private

companies to the government i mean facebook originally supported this stuff and then when they were criticized they said you know we don't need this provision that's not why i was accorded this bill and we won't use it if necessary the government can share as much information with companies as they want the executive branch is the one that controls the classification system so they want to hand classified information a company that's fine they don't need a law for that and the same thing goes with critical infrastructure if they just unplug these things from the open net from open networks then that would go a long way to solve the problem so hopefully we're going to see that type of solution rather than this sort of grand you know car loopholes into every privacy law solution and i will be paying close attention to how it all plays out trevor i appreciate you coming on the show that was trevor tam an activist at the electronic frontier foundation and that's going to do it for tonight but from on the stories we covered you can check out our you tube channel that is used to.