to washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight the big picture. you down of the c.p.p. you shouldn't be because it means giving transnational corporations on pleura so that power and control over the american government and the american people are going to disastrous effects with this so-called free trade deal have on our national sovereignty also just when you thought getting caught sexting was bad enough police agencies across america want to keep all of your texts on file for the world to see what's the rationale behind this latest proposed invasion of your privacy is a seventy chance becoming a law and if you browse the libertarian blogosphere you're likely to see dozens of

stories touting the success of railway privatisation in japan if you dig a little deeper all is not what it seems so what's the real story behind the poster child for privatization. you need to know this americans used to care a lot about national sovereignty that includes the right of our nation to do things that are on our own best interest in the right of our country to not be forced to do things that hurt us for generations conservatives ranted about how the league of nations in the us are dangers to our national sovereignty because the treaties that make up our un membership forbid us from going to war unless we're either attacked have proof of imminent attack or get approval of the un in a vote of its members there right that we gave up a small bit of sovereignty but it was to guarantee world peace every country that's a u.n. member has to abide by the same rules of world peace frankly is

a pretty big deal but what about squandered our national sovereignty just so a few thousand transnational corporations and their billionaire c.e.o.'s. can make more money that sounds nuts but it may be on its way back in the one nine hundred thirty s. when f.d.r. put push through the through congress the buy american act which requires the federal government to look for american manufacturers first when buying things for government use nobody ever imagined that a german or japanese or mexican or chinese corporation could force our congress to kill the bill f.d.r.'s law passed and still part of our laws at least for now but if the big transactional corporations get their way in the trans-pacific partnership talks to t p p most by american laws here could be neutered or killed outright we used to think we could regulate our banks toure's since the reagan era we haven't done a particularly good job of it but at least we still have some regulations on the books was loaded with war on the banking committee in the senate hopefully will be more on the way but the t p p and the eleven nations of make up that partnership

good and that to. we used to think that we could require corporations to not pollute our air and water or poison our food transactional corporations don't like rules like that because they reduce profits and so they're working to do away with many of them in the t p p this is a far bigger deal than the us ever was if we're to exist as a sovereign nation we have to be able to set the standards for trade food air water and other essentials that our citizens not only want but need but a group of giant corporations many of them actually state owned corporations openly operating in the interests of other nations don't want us to be the masters of our own destiny they want that power for themselves now for more on the war and wallace joins me from auckland new zealand for the d.p.p. talks are underway she's the director of public citizens global trade watch laurie welcome back. thank you very much thanks for joining us first off what exactly is

taking place in awkward. this is the fifteenth round of negotiations on the trans-pacific partnership that ironically thing how then it casino which is where the convention center is and behind closed doors and go shares in eleven countries that are rushing to try and finish the agreement before the public in any of the countries where they get to know what's at stake. why why auckland new zealand i've noticed a lot of the libertarians who come on our shows or. seem to think that new zealand has turned into some kind of libertarian paradise the last time i looked they had a national health care system in one but is there some particular rationale for talking to. the negotiation if you rotate between the different countries who are a party and this particular round new zealand volunteer to host so it's just there there one of the pacific nations that will be involved. that's right though it

certainly is the case that this country. i would say agribusiness and foreign relations establishment is very much. in the us with respect to these kind of it if. you've talked about this isn't exactly a trade deal it's a corporate power grab can you explain. well look the most compelling evidence of that is that there are twenty nine chapters to this agreement and only five of them actually have to do with anything with a traditional trade for instance cutting tariffs and goods the other chapters to all its new guaranteed standards for investing or rights for pharmaceutical companies to have longer patent terms that jack up medicine. limits on the imported food and product safety limits on financial services regulation regulation of banks and investment firms.

so while i mean that all sounds like treaty territory. i'm sorry a binding provision dream on trees shallow or. shall ensure the conformity of their laws and rules and in their in force i tried sanctions are fine yeah i missed part of what you said in there laurie we were up through the pharmaceutical patents in additional that. the rules require they basically impose limits on government activity so there are limits on regulation to banks and investment for limits on imported food and product safety there are limits on how you can regulate services transportation it such energy as well you are banned from giving domestic cricket. has so no by america or by new zealand and then you write

for it in the past stores to basically operate as they will they will without any safeguards these are all traditionally things governments decided for themselves and historically the american government would decide these things on the length of our patents and. you know how we how we regulate business. laurie. laurie can you guess i'm sorry there's a delay oh i can yes these things were indeed regulated by governments and that's what's so dangerous about the p.p.p. which is unlike legislation which you make a mistake you can change it there is no end a disagreement once it's in a fact it is a permanent corporate governance system that strongly enforceable and interestingly one of the main parties ostrich bradley has announced it will not be subject to the

private corporate imports. which sadly the us is pushing here why are we pushing. well best i can tell. i suggest the six hundred corporate official trade advisors representing the u.s. trade agency who is the lead negotiator for the us here the. congress has objected to this the national conference of state legislatures and passed a resolution against this it's a system that formalizes corporate rule in that. individual corporations are given equal status with a whole nation state signatory of an agreement to privately enforce the agreements by suing governments world bank and u.n. tribunal's to get our taxpayer dollars in compensation for any domestic policy or government action they think undermines their expected the future profits couldn't make that up that's what the agreement actually would require you know my read of

the constitution is that the only thing that can supercede national law is a treaty it's pretty clearly laid out in the us constitution and for treaties to pass in the united states my recollection is they require a two thirds approval in the senate. why are these kinds of things not being negotiated as treaties. unfortunately they're international executive agreements with approval and if congress delegate this authority they actually are allowed to submit the you out of the jurisdiction of these tribunals now would be an interesting case if there is is what we call a boomerang case where a u.s. companies property rights rottenly adjudicated to this system as compared to the appropriate u.s. court. would they have to challenge the constitutionality it's an interesting question. if you know conservative in my sub i talked about how for for all of my lifetime conservatives have been freaking out about the u.n.

as a loss of american sovereignty isn't this a genuine loss of american sovereignty and if so why are the you know where are the traditional conservative voices who speak of sovereignty. well it's interesting actually congressman walter jones who is a leader in that movement in congress and is that why the guys who's really been a very strict constitutionalist has introduced a resolution about p.p.p. as if right to sovereignty and it's being unconstitutional he's seeking others on theories about. so many of the tea party young members younger newer members of congress are so beholden to the big corporate interests that though they talk about sovereignty they haven't been willing to join congressman jones or for that matter tea party nation leader judson phillips has spoken out against the t.p.n. secret tribunals but for i would say to date i don't know how go in the

future a lot of tea party organizations seem to be quiet maybe because the corporations who are funding part of the tea party movement don't like this amazing lori wallach thank you so much for reporting for being up so late for sharing the story with a small community. and i'm sorry about the poor sound quality i'm right here live through five lines because we've been physically thrown out of the venue and so i'm across the way they stocking the theme what's going on through the literally closed door. but laura thank you thank you so much for sharing with us thank you bye bye. now on to news from capitol hill democrats in the house led by minority leader nancy pelosi are trying to force a vote on middle class tax cuts legislation already passed by the senate to extend the bush tax cuts for ninety eight percent of americans but not for the top two percent is stalled in the house of representatives the republican leadership is refusing to hold a vote on it out of fear a by pass and raise taxes on the top two percent that

a policy and democrats began circulating what's called a discharge petition to all members of congress if democrats can get two hundred eighteen signatures on that petition then automatically john boehner has anything to say about it any more the legislation gets brought to the floor of the house for a full vote as pelosi said quote the clock is ticking the year is ending it's really important for it to happen now currently there are two hundred one democrats in the house meaning they'll need to get seventeen republicans to sign that discharge petition and then keep at least those. seventeen republicans on board with the middle class tax cuts for the water adds that might sound tough but when it comes down to it actual vote to extend tax cuts for ninety eight percent of working americans some republicans may just cave to the political pressure stage and. it might be twenty twelve but america is starting a local lot like one nine hundred eighty four what are police groups around the country urging congress to do and what does that mean for your privacy.

download the official up location to cell phone choose your language stream quality

and enjoy your favorites from outside t.v. is not required to watch on t.v. all you need is your mobile device to watch r.t. any time.

in screwed news this week the text message turned twenty years old and today the police want to read all of your texts c.n.n. seems that is reporting that several law enforcement groups about the senate to consider measures that will require telecom companies to store their consumers text messages for up to two years in some case cops may need to look at them down the road as groups are hoping they can attach this provision to a new law the senate is considering that updates decades old privacy provisions in the new cloud computing era. roughly two trillion text messages were sent in america and each telecom company has their own policy regarding how long those

texts are stored for example while cingular does not store text messages at all rise and hold onto them for as many as five days this latest proposal by law enforcement groups who counteract several amendments approved last week by the senate that require law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants to read e-mails and other electronic communications several civil liberties groups like the a.c.l.u. have already come out opposing any provision requiring text messages be stored joining me for now for more on this is declan mccullagh chief political correspondent and senior writer at scene at a welcome time ensuring me on thanks for joining us you know reading the fourth amendment there's a very clear statement in there that unless somebody swears under oath that they believe that there's probable cause to believe that you're committing a crime your papers are both both cannot be seized and cannot be inspected without the order of

a court having gone through the you know jump through those hoops isn't this a i forget the latin word for in advance there is a law in the phrase in the law in latin for that isn't this a seizure. in advance of a crime even happening well the e.u. has a similar requirement and one was approved by a house judiciary committee for internet service provider internet address logs and so if you ask the folks supporting these they'll say no but but it will actually do a sort of bifurcate this into two different points the first is what if anything are providers and you know email providers internet providers wireless providers required to store and the second is under what circumstances and can the cops or other government agencies get access to that and so that both sides of the debate are important but i think that's how i kind of think about them right so what is lay out the story and each of those two sides but what's happening in terms of the

first segment which is the what providers are required to store right now there's no law saying that google yahoo etc have to keep email that you've deleted or searches that you've done and by the way searches like typing and typing in a murder kill things like that in google have been used in the past to murder trials and lead to successfully convictions so these can be important to the companies tend to keep those for their own business purposes and get rid of them after six months nine months something like that because they want to keep it forever it's not what you did nine months ago going up be all that relevant to improving the services today and that's what police would like to up the like to a t. and t. doesn't keep text messages at all arising for a few days if they what they like to do is change it from a few days to a few years and the justice department the obama administration and bush administration d.o.j. have supported that kind of requirement for internet service provider addresses and

that they're the house judiciary committee but has not gone to the floor of the house and i don't know that's just the storage point you know what the access point is well right now but just speaking of the storage isn't it i'm surprised that there's not a lot of pushback from the libertarian right as well as the you know pro. oh you type left although it will be added there and i it's i mean the business proposal is still very new it's still in i mean that i don't i don't even know of police know exactly what they want but the york and we've been this way for the last fifteen years you've seen groups like grover norquist americans for tax reform dick army's freedom works before he left freedom works. the cato institute the competitive enterprise institute drama all these groups on the right joining me and libertarian groups heritage included joining with the a.c.l.u. and the electronic frontier foundation for privacy is not really a partisan issue. ok so part two of this what the police will do it well this is

what the effort in the senate which is it which is a bipartisan effort in the senate and the house is designed to address right now our electronic privacy is governed by a law and acted in one thousand nine hundred six it was a while ago and we're using math and black and white macintosh computers and twelve hundred baud modems to access bulletin board systems if we access. more systems at all. and so the tragedies of the launch an eighty six and then congress through no fault of their is never anticipated the rise of. g.-mail historic megabytes gigabytes there are flicker because google drive facebook and so they didn't say that under all the circumstances cops should it must get a search warrant and courts have a split on this in some areas of the country most areas of the country the police can access your e-mail without a search warrant in a few states because of one decision that affects ohio and tennessee and

a few other states in that circuit now cops are required to get a warrant for the war shock case and so what what this effort in the in congress is designed to do is to update laws to say everyone in the country should have the privacy protect the protections of. repairing police to show that they can get a warrant based on probable cause issued by a judge just goes to just ask companies to turn this stuff over with a subpoena yeah well that actually seems like a reasonable thing so it's kind of a mixed bag of declan that's at the not obama justice to the department and i suspect the bush d.o.j. would have said the same thing as oppose this saying that it would in peril investigation so they know this is what don't eason yeah we don't need no stinking warrants right declan we're out of time thank you so much for being with us declan mccall much appreciate thank you. now for a follow up on a story from last week you may remember i debated libertarian austin peterson about the need for increased government spending to take care of america's crumbling

infrastructure course libertarians hate to acknowledge that government spending can actually be a good thing and want to hand over control of our commons and just about everything else to private corporations in our debate austin talked about the so called success at the japanese railroad system has had since it began a privatization process in one thousand nine hundred seven is what austin said. the japan national railways were privatized in one thousand nine hundred seven they were able to pay down their construction debt and make capital prove let's talk listen to their networks they reversed their stagnation and decline the japanese i mean we saw the same thing ok well last another libertarians are quick to highlight the japanese railroad system as a private privatization success story as the old saying goes if something's too good to be true it usually isn't true here here is the real story behind the privatization of the japanese railroad as a man fingleton economics journalist who has written for the financial times forbes in new york times and others and author of numerous books including clearly his most recent in the jaws of the dragon and perhaps most importantly

a regular visitor to and resident of japan since the one nine hundred eighty s. and welcome back to the show. tong great we wish you and thank you for joining us tonight what began to happen to the japanese railroad in one thousand nine hundred seven what what what what what what's the story well this is a typical quarter truth that you get from the right in america to the real story is that the maglev system in japan which he was talking bird was started in the one nine hundred seventy s. by two totally state owned companies one was japan airlines and the other was the japanese national rail is corp and both of those companies were privatized in a nominal way in nine hundred eighty seven. but the the maglev thing was going from way before then and the privatization was really not a privatization in an american sense these companies are effectively under the

thumb of the government so why do they use the word privatized when this is described. well you have to go back to the political situation and nineteen eighty seven there was a lot of pressure from the reagan administration on japan on trade issues and as a way of sort of carrying the pressure the japanese government decided to do some privatization say that well we accept reaganomics and we're moving in a direction but it really was just a political political ploy so the railroads in japan are still basically government are government run i mean is there is there some involvement here what does partial privatization mean or figley for whatever. well. they do technically have private shareholders but the regulation is very complete. basically it's

a partnership between the private sector and. this. but with the state in the driver's seat i say so the railroads are does a spinoff profit for the private investors is that you know one of the one of the small sops that they through the reagan administration. while they are germany's corporations are not like american corporations that their stakeholder organizations with them please being the principal stakeholders so they're run for the benefit principally of employees and not for for shareholders so that's point number one i'm so it is really what austin peterson said was very misleading basically because he's not taking account of the fact that japan has such a different system yeah so. that's extraordinary where where is this going in japan is i mean is it is this. is a static now is

a system stable is it moving forward. well they're pushing ahead with him for infrastructure in a very big way anybody who hasn't been to japan in simple years who notices how much new infrastructure there is that mean it's extraordinary if you take for instance the airports they're all it's super modern. they make kennedy and dulles airport in washington the make them look like third world airports so there's an enormous amount of infrastructure investment and the maglev thing is a classic example of that the trains will run at more than three hundred miles an hour. and they will be the fastest in the world. entirely japanese technology coming from specie heavy industries and this is basically government owned and run . but the. lines will be

technically private in the sense that there will be outside shareholders. to be heavily. regulated the government is deciding for instance the routes that the maglev will take so essentially it's a partnership between the government and all this other infrastructure the airports and things this is just government spend spend i absolutely yeah ok you know the airports in japan both them all the major ones certainly our government is fully one hundred percent name in fingleton thanks so much for set the record straight for us. my pleasure appreciate it after the break corporations own our parks our prisons and even some of our public schools so shouldn't come as a surprise that they want more control over your life but is wanting to own the rights to the very building blocks of life going too far and can or will our supreme court do anything to stop this it justice.

me please e-mail me to be easy easy easy easy easy easy easy to. elite.