as people around the world count down the days to the new year party is counting down the list of the most influential people of the twenty twelve but this won't be your run of the mill memorandum no pop stars or you tube sensations made this list we'll tell you who did straight ahead. looking beyond twenty fourteen while the u.s. military prepares to pack up and ship out of afghanistan several big franchises are looking at the country as an investment opportunity we'll tell you about the efforts to commercialize kabul. and gun owners across the country are cheering a major court ruling the right to bear arms in public has been up held in illinois this locked and loaded issue always brings out the heated debate on both sides will show you what the media has to say about it.

good evening it's thursday december thirteenth eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine for is now and watching our team. well we are winding down two thousand and twelve and you know about means lots of looks back at the last twelve months best of the worst of and most significant events and people of the year we're at r.t. america decided to put together a list of our own of the most influential people of the year our intrepid producers put together a longer list of twenty three people and every member of our news team chose their top five so our final list was compiled from the winners so here is our top five most influential people of the year number five german chancellor angela merkel not only is she the first woman to hold the top german political post she's also consider the defacto leader of the e.u. an organization that holds the economic fate of many countries and if so call him

number four is seventeen year old trayvon martin who was shot and killed back in february of two thousand and twelve in sanford florida his death sparked a nationwide discussion about guns stereotypes and about a law called stand your ground number three private first class bradley manning manning was arrested in may of two thousand and ten and believed to be responsible for leaking classified information to the whistle blowing website wiki leaks but he spent much of this year preparing for hearings and court martial and the nature of both his crime and his punishment has been at the forefront of discussion in this country for most of the year. number two now is the person who shot that famed forty seven percent video that showed presidential candidate mitt romney speaking to his donors this video is believed to steer what was a very close race in a different new direction and the number one most influential person of twenty twelve according to our two america staff is the hacktivist group anonymous they've been around for nearly a decade but really became much more well known this year for various things just

to name one after the file hosting service mega upload was taken down anonymous went in and took down the justice department website the f.b.i. website they've done a whole lot more to talk more about these pics we brought in our two producer adrienne it was that hour earlier today and i first asked her what was anonymous biggest movie of the year. i mean what's interesting if you look at it long term i mean people would point out the you know the stratfor hack which is as we all know when anonymous went in and a hack to the intelligence firm known as stratfor however that happened in december exactly but there was the release was actually of documents was actually in twenty twelve even now when they first came out it wasn't really that you know media organizations didn't find it as important but they are still learning a lot of interesting things through that information however many people here cited other things like. israel which is where anonymous took down many of the servers of

the israeli government many of the officials what official web sites and also syria where they tried to keep the internet line for many even though it was virtually shut down for a couple of days or when gaza as well i think during the crisis and i know a lot of us sort of went on to i think it was the i don't know if it was a prime minister or somebody in israel his facebook page was was hacked into by anonymous and there was a free palestine put up and just sort of the wallpaper of his face absolutely was so really people were you know when they were talking about it on this they would really just put all these all these together and just see this as a sign of the growing influence on the internet so i think that's a big takeaway from this isn't just you know sort of a group of computer savvy people these are people who definitely have strong opinions about certain things and make that known and i think sort of the bigger picture here is that they're able to do this the fact that they're able to hack

into the f.b.i. web site kind of shows you a lot about their influence and their power i want to talk now about the person who shot the forty seven percent video i was surprised by it by this one at first because it's not like after it aired president obama sailed to victory in a presidency there was still sort of a roller coaster for both campaigns in the polls but i think. the bigger aspect of this is you know sort of the issues of technology and privacy and so i mean you just said it yourself perfectly it wasn't like it was just you know smooth sailing after that was released it was talking to a lot of people around here in the office they save the same thing that say that this was an example of politicians realizing that they're always on their own you know no matter what you say when you say when you're speaking at a private event to a group you don't know exactly you who will be held accountable for what you say and you know the politics and technology are you know coming together in very strange ways i mean he obviously wasn't the first wasn't the only person to suffer

some sort of setback due to a mishap or quote i mean we all remember todd akin to we all remember all these other republicans that said some things on camera that i'm sure they wish they hadn't said they were speaking to me mean exactly but now you can even even before maybe twenty or so years ago you could still get away with that but things nowadays they go viral and this is a great example of that want to talk now about bradley manning the alleged source for really the largest intelligence leak in u.s. history he now faces twenty two counts for his court martial and could land in prison for the rest of his life i know that for the first time just in the last few weeks we actually heard bradley manning speak in his pretrial hearing. it's been going on for a long time and i think you know his lawyer has said this case should be thrown out over all based on you know his lawful pretrial punishment so i think his case is bringing up a whole lot about you know classified information about really trying to report

wrongdoing i mean certainly that video of the apache helicopter pilots kind of treating war as a video game just killing anyone and that got in their past sort of i mean this was a video of bradley manning didn't do that he just released the video and yeah absolutely and as you said it certainly made waves however you know that information did come out two years ago so you might be asking so why is it twenty twelve. influential now well you you put it yourself you put a beautifully which is right now we heard him speak for the first time and him describing that punishment and describing punishment for essentially you know disseminating information has brought effects and that's essentially what people picked him i think to just to expand the discussion a slight bit and that is the subject of torture a lot of people say that you know when he was first brought in that he was he was kept in solitary confinement for nine months this is before any charges were filed against him he still has not had an actual court martial but his treatment once he

was arrested. is something that's really raise a lot of red flags and really raise a lot of questions about torture and about the effectiveness of torture both on u.s. citizens like bradley manning and brought on prisoners in guantanamo bay is it so i think sort of as a symbol. with the whistle blowing web site wiki leaks and of this punishment that he received for this alleged crime it's really raised a lot of question absolutely and also it's sort of brought back the question of what is newsworthy and what isn't the new york times as we you know we know got a lot of flack for not sending someone to that pretrial hearing that we're talking about where we first heard him speak and it brought up a lot of a lot of criticisms of what is news what is not news and it's sort of brought that back to say like hey so if things you think are important aren't being covered speak out because you have a voice in this our number four pick your was trayvon martin this one was pretty

understandable to me i think there's a lot to say about this and like most of our picks his shooting death did not result in the changing of laws it didn't result really in the changing of policy but it did spark a nationwide discussion about race about you know stereotypes that people have about you know a young kid where. in a hoodie and about guns and also about these laws which by the way some version of which you know the stand your ground laws are in more than half of the states in this country and you know what is stand your ground and when can it be used and i think the accused you know killer of trayvon martin george zimmerman is trying to say well it should be able to be used whatever and again i think that you you had a great point at the beginning when you were saying that it opened a conversation and trayvon is sort of like bradley manning is this is a symbol i mean when the president united states comes out and says you know my son could look like trayvon that has repercussions and in in

a country where you know we do have conversations we you know we some might argue that we don't have them openly we don't have them candidly and you know this was a an opportunity to be able to go and examine real quick because we're almost out of time let's go to. someone self-explanatory sort of wears the pants in the euro family why do you think she made the list you said yourself right there i mean she essentially has the feel of the euro zone in her hand so very easy pick of course this was not a you know widespread poll but we did want to poll people in our newsroom we consider to be you know experienced and intelligent and that's what we came up with appreciate you coming on air to break it down with with me producer adrienne it was that. i want to take now a look at another example of the close relationship that often exists between public and private interest as urns out the u.s. department of commerce the u.s. agency for international development and the international franchise association

are in the process of bringing a couple of american franchises to afghanistan so far the main ones are radio shack and hertz in a project statement from the us afghanistan franchising trade conference in states quote franchising has proven to be an ideal market vehicle for both employment and economic growth because of this experience coupled with the high demand for u.s. franchise brands in afghanistan the task force is confident that focusing its pilot sector focused trade conference on franchising will prove successful for both us france franchise pioneers and successful ask afghan entrepreneurs to talk more about what this public private partnership means i was joined earlier by michael brooks the producer for the majority report you know i think that there is a certain type of. goal associated with global brands and that's really that there's a certain type of employment there's a certain way of doing things there's a certain kind of almost monoculture that can be replicated and done anywhere and i

think you know we think about radio shack university in the suburbs of america or maybe even a more stable developing country and make some sense obviously in the context of afghanistan it seems kind of funny and out of place. you know i don't know what type of specific modifications those afghans might have in their training program. radio shack university in terms of how to deal with potential bomb beings or terrorist attacks or things like that so yeah that would be interesting to take a look at i think just bigger picture here that i mean let's take the international franchise association this is a somewhat powerful wealthy group are given. the numbers the i.f.a. contributions in the twenty twelve election more than four hundred eighty six thousand dollars now this franchising project is being done in the name of economic development and the government is helping to coordinate on behalf of these companies connect some dots for me here michael well you know foreign aid and

foreign development is very connected in the united states with campaign contributions with different corporate interests one example that i think is really good for illustrating this is actually in egypt which is the second largest recipient of u.s. aid and most of that is military aid and when we think of that we think ok that money is sent to egypt well no in fact the money is allocated for arms to cure mintz that go to the egyptian military but there are actually paid to military contractors in the united states who make the arms that are in fact ship to egypt so in this sense it doesn't surprise me at all i think the link between foreign aid foreign policy development and the interests of the business community in the united states is always very connected i think this story sort of leads to

a bigger discussion and a bigger question one that i know i've had a few times here on our team and that is afghanistan post twenty fourteen certainly these troops are scheduled to leave there have been there's been some really good reporting not really widespread about the fact that a whole lot of people tribes within afghanistan are just sort of you know hanging out and waiting and once the rest of the nato troops leave they're preparing for what could be an all out civil war i know even bloomberg businessweek wrote an article last year and according to them last year two point three billion dollars in cash left the kabul airport this is a sign economists say points to a fear by afghans that you know once those troops leave that war will escalate the capital will flee and that the future of this country is very unstable. absolutely i mean money is fleeing the country steadily and there is a really significant fear in afghanistan that things could deteriorate even worse

when troops leave in two thousand and fourteen want to hear that we're doing this i think two things one i think there's always the possibility of. perhaps some residual forces staying there from the united states or nato allies and i also think that a story like this might be very. specific so if you could have one radio shack that sort of successfully operates in a very secure and specific neighborhood in kabul that kind of makes a nice p.r. story and a kind of nice gesture about the type of situation that we're leaving on the ground there because obviously as we get ready to leave we're going to be thinking a lot about really the public relations implications of how we leave what type of shape we leave afghanistan in yeah one of the questions i had you know when i first read about this was you know who is this actually geared to i know according to the cia thirty six percent of the afghan population lives below the poverty line so who

would be you know the intended customer base. well i think there's obviously there's a very small and certain you know urban customer base probably mostly centered around kabul wherever you go there are you know some people that have some means and some money and this is who would speak to i mean ironically you know there's there's reporting back during you know in the eighty's and late seventy's during the soviet occupation of afghanistan that there were shops where you could get much better consumer goods and you know who had who had access to it at the time were a leader afghans and also certain higher level soviet troops so potentially will we will be replicating a situation which is you know somewhat similar to that yes certainly just an interesting story one we sort of wanted to bring out to the forefront connects them dots make people aware of it michael brooks producer for the majority report thanks

so much thank you so adding your own are sticking to their guns the illinois seventh district court has upheld the right for citizens to bear arms in public and gun owners across the country are rejoicing are rejoicing that smoking gun next.

please. the worst you're going to. find out six of the little radio guys and club alex minestrone. i want you to watch closely to go because you've never seen anything

like that i'm selling. books. now to a story of a gun ban that is no longer illinois was the only state that completely banned carrying concealed weapons that is until tuesday when the ban was struck down by a court of appeals in a two to one decision the seventh circuit court of appeals gave legislators in springfield six months to tweak the state law and settle the court's concerns gun rights activists are pleased by the decision they found the court affirmed their constitutional right to bear arms by offering them an opportunity for self defense and say leave their doorstep they're going to is not shared by all politicians in chicago a city plagued with gun violence has vowed to fight the court decision in the name of public safety illinois attorney general lisa madigan has yet to say whether she

will appeal to the supreme court to discuss his van i was joined earlier by brian doherty senior editor at reason dot com brian is also the author of the book gun control on trial inside the supreme court battle over the second amendment and i asked him what exactly was banned in illinois and what it means to carry a concealed weapon. it just means that you have the legal right to your weapon. concealed meets all the fleas it's not the full of people watching t.v. with your. regulation about open carry carry some areas where you know perfectly legal to have a gun visible longer even though the law and for a lot of people but it wouldn't be legal it went away however if you said with only faith they've given allow you to your weapon on your first and at all and the seventh circuit court order that that's not constitutional under the standard set in the parlor case which. it's interesting if you take

a look at the state of illinois and particularly its major city chicago there were some major major crime problems i'm wondering what you think i mean without a law allowing concealed weapons these crime problems existed do you think this new law will make things better or worse. the best criminological data says that you can't really say for sure whether in the current system carrying a gun either makes from work or it makes the left run you can sort of look at certain data flings like you for example before the heller case guns were legal after that were they were legal the mayor of these the it was really that when the law got overturned predicted that there would be a horrible increase and gun violence concedes the latest data which came out showed that absolutely not true in fact it's probably going to have its first year under three bigger murders that it's not a game but i think just as an addendum to that my story brian i mean i think it's important to point out that d.c.

as a whole has changed quite a bit not only with its gun laws but with the people that live here and also has i think six of the top ten most wealthy cities or towns are around this area so so i think that. you know a lot of the makeup of the people here has changed as well no comment on that point i do want to say that the united states has seen the number of states that allow for pretty much free carry of weapons that creature just around twenty five to nearly all of them now and both why they went crime and gun murders have fallen by nearly from the early ninety's till now there's absolutely no evidence that more guns equals more gun violence no more i want to say is there necessarily evidence that it will be less criminologists right not because it's the people who are afraid that oh my gosh more people are going to carry guns they're going to be more violent they don't have any doubt about well clearly gun rights advocates are pleased with this decision but it doesn't take much to get them defensive i want to play

a fox news clip from today this was talking about the tragic shooting in an oregon mall. less than seventy two hours after the deadly shooting at a mall in oregon some gun control advocates are making a new case for limiting certain gun sales police say the suspect jacob tyler roberts used a stolen a ar fifteen assault weapon we've entered this area where we want to ban them and people see these situations like this as opportunities to try to ban guns that for the most part the people who want to ban guns don't understand the difference between. let me ask you this how how much of this is an attempt by you know well meaning americans to make themselves feel better about something we cannot control which is the deranged actions of a madman you know we get that we can't plan against that we can't control against so we turn to something like ok well guns that we can regulate. i mean brian i guess i want to ask you i mean what do you think about this back and forth discussion that we seem to have in the us every time there's some sort of gnashing

. cannot control asked that which was mentioned in that clip is very important most of those laws that people imagine that they want to put in place to restrict gun rights if you look at the horrible instances that they think they're going to prevent those laws working prevented them at all for example there is no law against area of weapons let's go with the prevent someone who has a engine if you go in public and murder people from carrying a weapon just because oh my gosh you'll be breaking the law now even when people say oh my oh my gosh people who are crazy and obviously the judge after the fact that anyone waters people in public at the shouldn't be allowed to get weapons while in almost all cases the person who did it didn't do anything to mark them as read the in any way we could impose that limitation on them so it really is a sad fact that they left you think a lot to make going to disappear from the face of the earth which we all know they and that there is very little about along the hill rare i know there been a lot of them this year is the mass public you was talking about i mean i know for

your book you researched sort of the the legal the judicial aspect of this question i mean what did you find that was most surprising because this is something that you know there's always the threat that it will be reheard by the supreme court that you know a case can come along that change things you know because the n.r.a. as we know cannot lobby the members of the supreme court but what do you think about sort of the legal aspect of this. the book interesting thing i learned about writing that book is just that there's the n.r.a. and one side in the brady campaign on the other side a certain subset of americans for a very one way or the other about this i found that for most intents and purposes the debate about gun control as a legal view has been pretty much over in america since the ninety's after the brady bill with after the assault weapon ban which was then later when it went out not even the democrats who were reputed to be very anti-gun have done much if

anything at all to restrict going to write. their recall about the obama administration if they thought obama keeps older gone i think it's probably true that obama and holder do hate guns but they're politically savvy enough to understand that when put forward not a winning issue for democrats there are many democrats who actually blame both the loss of congress in ninety four and al gore's loss in two thousand on the fact that democrats are so upset so pretty much i don't think there's going to be a lot changing without going along the united states postal or there's going to be more and more that they just like illinois that lightly increase people's ability to carry their weapons public and there's not going to be very much counter attack even though groups like the n.r.a. are going to try to scare everyone by thing obama that you're going to i don't think that well i tell you what that ferry has certainly voted well for many people who sell guns because i know you know i did a story last year i haven't seen this year's numbers yet but last year on black friday

a couple of years ago on black friday the number of guns sold or licenses applied for to get a gun was you know double what it had been in years past because a lot of people did worry that once president obama came into office that he would take your guns so whether or not that theory is true it's been a good one for gun sellers i guess you could say always an interesting discussion we think it's important to have every once in awhile not so much that back and forth that we see on the mainstream media but just some of the other aspects of this i want to thank you for coming on the show today brian doherty author of gun control on trial inside the supreme court battle over the second amendment he's also a senior editor at reason dot com. and now a critical look at the notion that defense spending creates jobs it's an argument what politicians repeat on a regular basis to justify high levels of defense spending in the united states take a listen to randy forbes a virginia congressman explaining to us that it's going to be devastating to the economy of virginia it's going to be devastating to the economy the country but

more importantly it's going to put us in a situation we believe we're dismantling the greatest military the world's ever night we're probably lose as many as two hundred thousand jobs in virginia because of these enormous cuts across the country will be about one point five to two point one million now those numbers haven't been fact checked and there's a new factory from defect defense from raytheon that shows that some of those arguments at least at times are flawed last month raytheon opened a manufacturing plant in huntsville alabama it makes missile interceptors used to shoot down ballistic missiles the people of huntsville aren't seeing a bevy of new jobs though according to bloomberg businessweek this fifty five thousand square foot factory only employs thirty five people so then who is doing all the work this factory after all is making around thirty missiles per month each of them between four and five tons while raging on it turns out is using robots all the robots are doing all or most of the dangerous work they're not leaving much

room for their human counterparts to find employment and the people that are hired need a much higher level of education to operate those robots and other automated systems this is another twist to an argument the politicians would rather keep cut and dry well that is going to do it for this evening but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r t america or check out our website it's r t dot com slash usa you can also follow me on twitter i'm at christine for i want to thank you so much for watching i hope you have a great. oob . through you.