they've become america's weapon of choice when fighting terrorism now a new report looks at where the u.s. is housing drones overseas so what does this say about the future of warfare in the region our team will question more. and are they our friend or our flow the u.s. has a complicated relationship with china to say the very least but are we headed for

the new red scare no matter who wins the white house next month. and it's the latest issue washington is trying to tackle cyber security we hear politicians sound the alarm that the u.s. is in danger of a major cyber attack is this hype or just an attempt to pass a new legislation taking away our rights online. it's friday october twenty sixth five pm in washington d.c. i'm not going lopez and you're watching r t. all right starting off this hour and new report by the washington post is shining a spotlight on the u.s. drone program in north africa under a cloud of secrecy the u.s. military and the cia are expanding one base in particular right here this is the camp lemond a five hundred acre u.s.

military base in the capital of the impoverished former french colony djibouti it started off as a temporary staging area for marines trying to get a foothold on the volatile region back in two thousand and two but has quickly become a major asset in u.s. counterterrorism operations and as you can see this camp's location is part of its allure djibouti shares a sea border with yemen and a land border with somalia now just to quickly go over some numbers for you thirty two hundred u.s. troops contractors and civilians work there three hundred of them are dedicated solely to the drone program and the u.s. pays to thirty eight million dollars a year to lease the camp and it's in the midst of a one point four billion dollar expansion and this country certainly isn't the only one seeing an influx an unmanned aerial vehicles in its skies for more on the changing face of war i was joined by scott horton contributing editor at harper's magazine take a look. well i think you did

a very good job and believed in presenting the strategic element here so in fact if you look at recent briefing that's been provided by senior figures in the intelligence community we see something of a pivot going on away from iraq and afghanistan to north africa broadly as an area of concern an arc that runs from mali all the way across the sahara sail region and winds up in the horn of africa and somali these are areas of focused attention and of course just across the red sea there in that narrow strait is yemen which may be maybe emerging after pakistan is the next major focal area for drone activities and we know that the drones in fact are operated from facilities largely from tinsel he's back in the united states in fact there's an air force base and nevada where

a lot of this is going on that langley we see a lot of direction but you have to maintain and operate them locally so that's the reason for the bases and the contractors and the uniformed professionals on the ground there in djibouti who will do this maintenance and guidance action may they may also step in and handle operations of the drones at some time at some points to and scott i know that the military installation here in djibouti is the only one of its kind is this just the first of many to come or is this a place as a military to get away with in a country because it is so small so impoverished that many times too many flies under the radar so to speak. well i think it's clear the united states is in talks with several different countries with respect to siting some of these installations to booty is one that surfaced there are actually several island nations in the indian ocean that have. in fact housed drone operations and have been in

discussions with the united states for longer term drone operations and we've seen signals are hence that something like this may be going on in several other african countries as well so they'll need that sort of infrastructure of support and they're building it and i think you know if this raises the normal spectrum of base sizing issues with the host nation so usually having a foreign military force on your soil is not a popular thing it's in fact there usually is political strong political opposition to it on the other hand you know djibouti here. i mean that's almost juba the xrays on d'être it's been the most for foreign forces for a long long time the french have been there for more than a century and this is the backbone of the economy and to the fact these military forces and the u.s. is usually prepared to pay serious money to have the support and have the basically

says no other countries particularly in this part of the world that are eager to have that money and thirty eight million dollars a year to lease that land is quite a bit of money for an impoverished nation but scott one of the major criticisms of the drone program is the malfunctions and the crashes i mean there are no pilot crews in these aircraft meaning no american lives are in danger and these planes do cost one fifth of the price of the f.a. fifteen so replacing them isn't all that expensive if they do crash but i mean on the other hand there have been numerous crashes sung by providing potential intelligence to enemies and some endangering civilians and what's more important is that there are reports of technical malfunctions of these machines i mean in march of two thousand and eleven for instance there is a documented instance of a predator drone starting its engine by itself through us although the ignition was off and the fuel line was closed so i mean this technology is far from perfect

right. that's right i mean it's a technology that's being developed over time but even sophisticated technologies misfunction and of course these are being guided remotely and one of the big concerns about drones is that if you can guy that remotely so can someone else another power may be able to tap and manipulate your drone ends and seize control of it so you know that's an issue but i'd say the bigger issue is not so much for this part of the world i mean north africa sea we don't have an awful lot of air traffic there but now it's a match and twenty or thirty thousand drones operating in the united states or over western europe areas that are extremely congested with air traffic and you know we don't have the resources right now to track or monitor them the risk of collisions and damage resulting from collisions will be astronomically larger over these highly populated areas specially north america and western europe really because of

course it mentioned that all of this information this newest information is coming out in a three part series in the washington post now we also know that the united nations is getting ready to start investigating the use of drones by the u.s. in the middle east i mean they're asking the u.s. to quote clarify the procedures in place to ensure that any target killing complies with international humanitarian law and humanitarian rights and indicate the measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties as well as the measures in place to provide a prompt thorough effective and independent public investigations of the alleged violations now the u.n. special repertoire ben emmerson did go on to say that if the relevant states are not willing to establish effective independent monitoring mechanisms then the un may have to finally resort to the last resort for the u.n. might be that it needs to take action but i mean scott can we really expect anything out of the u.n. at this point what is their responsibility i mean i think this is one area. where

the un is acting entirely within their conscience and you know what's going on here essentially is we're seeing a new form of where work there develop and there are very serious questions as to how this checks against existing standards of international humanitarian law and the law of war itself and the u.s. is own position about this it's been extremely a big us are going to be a couple of important speeches given by officials of the obama administration where they've set out some guidelines and they've also left an enormous number of questions unanswered and scholars are going to have to leave it there i really appreciate your time sir the fact is that there's a lot of things that we do know about this drone program and a lot more things that we don't know about the strong program scott horton contributing editor at harper's magazine thank you for your time great to be with you all right well drones might not have been a hot topic for president obama or mitt romney in their foreign policy square off but they did drive the conversation in the third party of the bait but many people

might not know that there even was a third party debate at all let alone what the issues were or who the candidates are laurie harshness of the resident dot net had the streets of new york to find out what people thought of the third party debate. this week third party candidates for the u.s. presidency how to debate do americans even know that this week let's talk about that did you watch the third party debate year who do you think did best. obama did this no that's not the third party divan who do you think did a good job in the third party debate i think barack obama did a little bit better job than mitt romney i know that's not the third party to that was the main candidates debate but the third parties are we have actually other candidates that are running did you know that no i didn't there's jill stein she's the green party is gary johnson and libertarian. none of these names ring

a bell and i think it's unfortunate that americans don't know they have more than two main options but you know we're stuck with democrats or republicans we don't go over for that so why do you think that is. a tradition. tradition. we do we used to i don't think either one of the third party had other ideas other than democratic somewhere sure they do they're against the n.c.a.a. they're against the war on junk they're against drone strikes there's a lot of other ideas. you don't agree with any about no drone strikes no why not protecting us and saving our soldiers from being killed even when they have a very low actually percentage rate unfortunate collateral damage as part of war you know who else is running besides the two main ones don't i don't so do you feel informed enough to make a vote. no. for to go get it right i think the

media has pretty much walked to that whole aspect. why do they do that they're supposed to be impartial the supposed to be saying the news the poor are so you know i mean. you got democrats you got republicans two heads of the same snake and they're both supporting big business big corporations to me they want to make it look like you have a choice you know which puts us two shades of the same coin so it seems like most americans don't know that there are more than two candidates running for president and with only a few days left of voting day chances are obama or romney is going to be elected. and of course our team is hosting yet another third party presidential debate still side and gary johnson will square off next tuesday here in our studio the debate begins at nine pm eastern right here on r.t. . well who says you can't recycle old political ads the koch brothers found.

funded americans for prosperity super pac along with citizens against the government waste is bringing back one of those scary ads from the two thousand and ten election just in time for a week but instead of ghosts and goblins china is the scary monster lurking in the shadows in the year two thousand and thirty the spot shows what seems to be a professor in a classroom teaching his students about why great nations fail comparing the united states to the greek and roman empires you might remember it but here's a piece of it. maybe. she said. that is only. once. once and. she don't think you want to go. now this

ad started running over the weekend and will run through the november eleventh on cable networks across the country china is often the go to fear monger nation and this was no exception during the presidential primaries even coming from the romney camp and this china rhetoric is creeping up again into the presidential debates. with respect to china china is both an at the surface but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules so by attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist the china plays by the same rules as everybody else we can be a partner with china we don't have to be an adversary in any way shape or form we can work with them we can collaborate with them if they're willing to be responsible now given the fact that the u.s. borrow so much money from china and imports so many goods from the country is china

really a friend or a foe it's a question that really seems to resonate in the states with widespread manufacturing jobs where workers have been laid off and have seen their jobs go to low wage workers in china well to talk about this resurgence of the new red scare melinda st louis is the international campaign's director with public citizen and she joins me now hi there so let's first talk about who is behind these ads and what they stand to gain from them well. i am here to talk about the transpacific partnership ok so that's ok you know who's behind is that one of the big points to talk about is the fact that the transpacific partnership that you see the u.s. teaming up with china with the transpacific partnership but then at the same time there's this rhetoric that we just saw with with mitt romney with barack obama so what's going on here well the the transpacific partnership is this the trade talks

with pacific rim nations and it's an example of how corporate money really does influence politics and policies in our country what we've seen it with particularly with the discussion around china on one hand you hear president obama talking about the transpacific partnership as a way to contain china and that they're talking with other pacific rim nations so that they can contain china while on the other hand to actually the u.s. trade representative says they would actually love nothing more than for china to be a part of these negotiations so what you're actually saying is it's a way for corporate corporate america to try to get through the back door through so-called trade talks a way to get policies that they can't get through a democratic process and if they need to scapegoat china as a way to try to convince congress and the public to do that that's what they're trying to do and yet we do know that the transpacific partnership the shrouded in so much secrecy there are so many things that we just don't know about this bill

about this partnership about what it could possibly do and offer for americans can you talk a little bit about what we don't know and what we do know more specifically what what's very concerning is the transpacific partnership has been going on the negotiations be going on for more than two and a half years and yet the people in the united states barely even know that it exists it's happening completely behind closed doors but there are six nearly six hundred corporate advisers who have access to the techs who know what's happening and yet the public congress. and the media are completely left out of knowing what's happening but given a few leaks that we have seen through the process we're very concerned about what's actually in side these negotiations we've seen that it's an attempt for big pharma soup suitable corporations to try to extend their monopoly is to block out generic competition to keep drug prices high which is basically the antithesis of free trade we see it as

a way for large copyright owners to try to police the internet to reduce internet freedom for people and we're seeing it as ways for foreign investors both in the united states and other countries to try to attack our public interest our public health our environmental laws that they think that are going to affect their future profits and so what we see is that it's actually very not very much about trade at all but much more about this one percent corporate agenda to try to get through in the backdoor much more about preserving that right to keep the money flowing between the countries but not necessarily what the rest of the country possibly needs so let's also talk about the fact that this is happening under president obama as i said it's been happening for the last few years what a mitt romney administration changes are would it make it worse while we have we've basically what we're seeing through both candidates is that they both are committed to this corporate led so-called free trade agenda basically expanding of the failed nafta model and we don't see much difference between between what they're actually

pushing for what we saw president obama in his two thousand and eight campaign said that he actually did intend to try to fix the problems of the nafta model but what we're seeing through the tepee unfortunately is just an extension of those failed policies that actually offshore jobs that actually encourage more of the loss of more u.s. manufacturing jobs and then we also see all these other very concerning policies that attack our public interest regulations and regulating wall street all types of of regular. that we believe are very important in order to protect the public interest and yet what we have here today is like we showed that we're showing this harsh criticism of china which is one of the partners in the agreement they are they're pretty instrumental from what i understand but we're actually at this point they are they are not part of the agreement at this point about it but if it's intended to be a docking agreement that perhaps china at some point in the future could join right

and china makes so many so many goods they manufacture so much so what possible interest or would it hurt the u.s. and hope and maybe the trans-pacific partnership in the future to be partnering partnering with china or to be cracking down on trying to would that have any effect on what's going on with the transpacific partnership well what's what's interesting is that the u.s. position or president obama's position that they're using the transpacific partnership as a way to contain china is actually could be very detrimental to the negotiations there are people of new zealand for example in the in the negotiations and said that if it were intended to try to contain china or to be a counterweight to china they would actually reduce pull out of the negotiations so it'll be interesting to see whether they do indeed do that now that we've seen that in the election cycle the candidates are using the t p p the transpacific partnership as a way to china while again on the speaking out of the other side of their mouth

they're actually saying that they would like for china to be able to join to join eventually so. definitely the prize the market for most of the corporations that are in engaged in these in the p.p. they're looking at vietnam which is a part of the negotiations and probably eventually china japan and others as well that could join later and one of the let's quickly talk about we only have about a minute left but let's quickly talk about what other alternatives there are to nafta and to the t.p. what can what can these nations do to work together to ensure free trade but at the same time also. protect their countries their people and not like you say the one percent well what needs to happen is that the negotiations need to be made public we need to know what what what's actually being proposed for our countries we need to be able to have a true public to be to be able to put out on the table that yes we can engage in trade but we can do that in a very responsible way protecting our national sovereignty making sure that our that our regulations in the public interest protecting the environment protecting

public health are able to move forward and that they're not undermined by corporate interests already in the st louis international campaigns director for public citizen thank you so much for your time thank you for having me. and moving now to congress congress is in the middle of a recess until after the presidential elections play out but when they come back they have a laundry list of issues to deal with and how to deal with sequester ation the farm's bill what to do with bush era tax breaks those are just a few of the issues that they do have to deal with that's just the tip of the iceberg perhaps the more pressing issue is cyber legislation or at least that's what secretary defense secretary leon panetta would have you believe he says that the u.s. is it a pre nine eleven scenario so is this situation really as dire as panetta would have you believe or is it not and why isn't anybody doing about it if it is as dire as leon panetta says well our producer and your blake joins me now to discuss this

how the engine now before we before we came in here and were talking and you had mentioned that the democrats are supporting it the republicans are supporting it the president is supporting it why isn't it passed yet if everybody supports it it's dangerous it's very dangerous everyone supports religious nation it seems like prickly everyone goes ok we should be concerned we're going to be attacked we should do something but the government doesn't really know exactly how to handle it because there are so. many like ifs ands and and buts. all of that the whole thing is looking to be just too much for anyone to handle like when congress started going over it and they proposed cispa earlier this year it would have been great for cybersecurity prevention it would have been great to prevent attacks from foreign nations however it also would have been terrible for anyone who actually valued their privacy and the fact that it created such a major backlash like on the internet and in going across the world people are going to help american can you really do this this is not

a good idea you know it ended up passing but the side of the house they couldn't agree on any sort of cyber security to do. the white house to say we have an executive order we're going to put it out there when it's when it's time and now we have panetta you know he graduated it went from a cyber prepare cyber pearl harbor to a precise nine eleven so we've elevated to that level of a catastrophe that words imminent at this point so no at this point it is imminent and the reason is because we're already doing it we've been engaged in the cyber war and it's incredibly obvious but it's such like i don't want to call it a shadow war because the everyone knows we're doing it there's been stucks net there's been a flame there's been computer experts from all over the world saying hey it looks like america did this and they sent it to iran and they tried to screw up everything there looks like they did it with israel it looks like they'll do it again it looks like they are doing it again it's not happening over and over and over again and everyone is aware of it it seems except the white house didn't back

when it came out in the new york times that obama had said let's keep this it's called the olympic games program started under president bush and just a way to cyber war in iran and obama said yeah let's keep doing that and when the times went ahead and posted about it. congress kind of flipped out and said hey we can't be leaking out this kind of information you know people are going to be going away america's already attacking we're going to it's going to coming back in there's going to be copycat attacks but like yeah obviously how many years can we keep just trying to to add. the infrastructure of other countries for our own benefit before they turn it around and do it to us so it's great that tonight is actually saying hey the it's time because this point it's seems like we just be right around the corner that we're going to be hit and at that point probably obama will slide out that cybersecurity legislation the executive order that's been rumored and when that happens we'll just have to accept it because it's an

executive order and there's really not that much we can do and of course by that point it probably already way more advanced and scary and terrifying and then we're going to lose all of our computer rights but can't you just round up a bunch of points but i do want to take a step back and break them down just a little bit so one of the things you brought up as we said leon panetta said that this is a pre nine eleven kind of scenario that them were in after nine eleven happened of course we saw the report the department of homeland security buildup and we're also sort of starting to see this rhetoric or we have been seeing this rhetoric over the past month than two weeks about the libya situation the libya attack and them saying we didn't know about this before why didn't we do anything about this why didn't we do anything there's been documentaries about nine eleven like why didn't we do anything about it so my question to you is if they're saying that this is a situation they're saying that this is a huge deal for us for our national security why aren't we doing anything about it like i said before we will it's just it's going to have to wait for them to it's it'll come down to either someone striking us and we're going to have to kind of

like nine eleven you know and that worked out great for all of our civil liberties suitable who have who to use excuse me it's friday or are so it will happen sooner or later we will get hit and we'll have to push out some sort of incredibly terrifying orwellian legislation that's going to make sure the government can watch everything that you can do on a computer all for the sake of cyber security and we'll just have to sacrifice all of our personal freedoms in the meantime so i don't know it will it will happen but also keep in mind like like think about it let's go back to. nine eleven and what happened then everything was rushed at the time they went and said ok we need to do this we need to share intelligence we need we need to make sure people over here know what's happening with people over there and we have on monday we're going in three days from now the supreme court is going to have to go back and look at the foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence security act before intelligence director the face of moments of two thousand and eight for much says that the government can go ahead and watch anything that you do as long as it's being sent

to anyone else anywhere in the world anything on a phone or anything on a computer and it's been now four years since that's been on the books it was kind of drafted after nine eleven took a few years them to push it but since then we've been stuck with this legislation that ensures that the n.s.a. can monitor whatever you do for any reason at all if you don't ever have to find out about it it's been nearly five years now and on monday they're finally going to go ahead and look at that and say oh maybe we should maybe we shouldn't of let this happen so if something does get rushed it's going to be dangerous so it's kind of got some of it taken this long but i guess we can only just wait and see and i mean what we have right now is orwell on the other hand i guess what we have is a potential economic incentive we could start a technological boom with cyber security that could potentially help our economy that could help our national security so there's ways for the government and the private entities to work together that both ensure its privacy but also assures american safety is there not don't know absolutely and it's already happening if

you go outside of d.c. if you go outside the beltway there's already so many people who are contracted out by the pentagon to do things involving cyber security and that's how they make millions and billions of dollars so it's already happening it could be really really good for economy but it's really going to have to come down to finding a way to balance security and liberty and your own personal protections with the sake of the country the country's national security will that actually be done efficiently and in a way that everyone's going to be happily probably not i would say absolutely not that's never going to happen but they would be wishful thinking. and quick quickly answer is there any way that to avoid wally in situation where now everybody thinks it's one thousand nine hundred four but find that really fine line where there's security and also privacy no probably no and if you're just not going to make them . through it you know we're all screwed sorry not well we know senate majority leader harry reid said he wants to take another shot at passing the cyber legislation coming up in november we'll see if that have.