after spending more than nine hundred days behind bars the accused wiki leaks or bradley manning will have to wait just a little bit longer to get his day and board the latest coming out of his hearing and when this trial is set to begin. in the country is composed of immigrants and is now sending out a mixed message turns out that the feds spend more money on immigration control than on any other kind of law enforcement blasket this exodus of government cash is money well spent just in the. most serious turn to a guidance counselor if they feel they're being treated unfairly in school but

a texas student went further than that actually suing her school for making her wear a badge but the tracker inside the outcome of her case coming up next. good evening it's wednesday january ninth eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine for you're watching our t.v. we begin this hour with news out of fort meade pretrial hearings for private part first class bradley manning continued today with word that the accused might have to wait a bit longer to see his day in court now yesterday army colonel denise lind ruled to reduce any sentence the private receives by one hundred twelve days all due to his treatment while being detained manning faces twenty two charges including aiding the enemy now if convicted he could face a life in prison for more on this case argue producer justin underhill joins me now and justin you spent the day in court talk to me

a little bit about your experience there and sort of how you felt the mood was so it was definitely solemne and very serious. manning has had down most of the day for the trial and even the government a little bit of flubs when the. the judge asked about certain questions the government didn't seem to know they seemed to be not really as prepared as you might expect there are definitely some. lively points where they weren't quite sure how to answer the judge's question and that's not the first time this has happened in this case alone there have been different instances in the past where the government didn't quite know. what it wanted to do next or what it wanted to say and i think that's really interesting i thought i was following the case as it unfolded on twitter today i know you were right there and what do you think thing i found was sort of the question of wiki leaks and more specifically whether or not it is a true journalistic organization talk

a little bit about that and why it came up right so this was actually one of the places where the government didn't seem to know how to answer the judge's questions so this was to consider a witness blinker whose heart grew professor and he was going to talk about wiki leaks and how it's a journalistic organization and the government said we don't want him as a witness and so the judge said are you not going to bring up the fact that wiki leaks is a journalistic organization different than the new york times and so the government wasn't quite sure how to respond to this and whether they did want to bring it up in trial was there any indication why the government didn't want him as an it was a witness well it seemed that they didn't want to as witness because of potential. as an expert witness because there might be a potential bias are interesting and we know that there are some people who are comparing this case and there are comparing bradley manning and what happened to the pentagon papers to when daniel ellsberg leaked classified sensitive information

about the vietnam war to the new york times and we all know that that case ended daniel ellsberg today is hailed as a hero he's also one of the most outspoken supporters of bradley manning so it is interesting this question of you know is this sort of an a mosque. city towards a whistle blowing web site or you know it will it be considered just like the new york times it's interesting i guess for people who haven't been following this just kind of one of the nothing boles the biggest takeaway from today's proceedings so perhaps the biggest takeaway from this is that the proceedings the trial will actually happen in june rather than in march so it's going to be delayed for several months and that means that manning will have been awaiting trial for over three years since he was arrested i mean let's talk about this because first of all the reasoning and one of the main reasons is because the defense in this case will need to talk to and perhaps interview more witnesses and for people who are saying

gosh you know he's already been behind bars for so long how can they do this it wasn't actually the prosecutor's doing this the defense wanted more time to interview witnesses and actually this actually might make the court case shorter so it might be a six month cave rather than the trial being sixteen weeks if they were interviewing people throughout and hearing witness testimony throughout the trial so i mean any indication who additional they want to interview now i mean was that revealed at all no it was not earliest and let's let's kind of go back i mean even just yesterday there's a new developments in this case. all along the supporters of bradley manning have been saying it's pretty outrageous because the first eight months bradley manning spent behind bars he was in solitary confinement. you know the government possibly trying to get information out of him he was treated not just by you know people who support him but also the un special rapporteur on torture even said this is you

know what he what he went through is torture so yesterday there was an interesting development the judge to an extent agreed with that sentiment talk a little bit about that yes so the judge reduce the sentence by hundred twenty two hundred twelve days excuse me which the future sent. right but we don't know what that is you could still face life in prison without parole so what would that mean his life in prison minus one hundred twelve days what that looks a lot and when i entered twelve days before he died. that's crazy i guess the thing just kind of give me your take on how you think this is going to play out in the future i know it was very hard to tell because people were so serious in court and sort of hard to to gain a read on people who were not expressing emotion right it was hard especially the judge she was asking hard questions on both sides so whenever the government would come up and give a reason for why they didn't want to certain that she would push back and same for

the process for the defense interesting so it was it was definitely hard to get a read on the judge even especially that she she acknowledged there was were circumstances that broadly manning was under and relieved him of one hundred twelve days i think it seems to me that a lot of people are actually surprised. that she's she decided this and you said the just last question for you just you know i mean what obviously we have a new trial date it's going to be in june now instead of march is there anything left sort of in this problem in every hearing phase or is today it so there's still they're going to be more prepared to our trial hearings one of them is going to be a speedy trial hearing that's going to go on next week ok and then there are several other dates set in between that ok we appreciate you heading on down to fort meade today sitting in court taking notes diligently so that we can report back to our viewers as you know a whole lot of our viewers follow this case very closely important to kind of get all the details right here argue producer justin under helping so much thank you.

well let's talk now about the way the government spends your money a new report out this week found that just last year nearly eighteen billion dollars was spent on enforcing immigration laws now this is according to a report called immigration enforcement formidable machinery but i do want to put these numbers into a little bit of perspective here that's more than the government spends on the f.b.i. the d.a. the u.s. secret service u.s. marshals and the a.t.f. combined and spending has gone up dramatically in the last decades now in terms of immigration enforcement two of the main and titties that get this money is the customs and border and ice and back in two thousand and five the budget for customs and border protection was about six point three billion dollars last year eleven point seven billion dollars that is an eighty five percent increase a similar spike in the budget for u.s. immigration and customs enforcement they spent more little more than three billion

back in two thousand and five and last year spent nearly six billion dollars so why the massive increase and how does this fit with the notion that many in this country have that the president is not doing enough to deal with the quote immigration problem actually coming out it was the founder of the organization quentin may and he joined me earlier on the program i asked him you know what these numbers say about immigration under the obama administration take a listen. thank you what has happened is the criminalization of migration of immigration and what do i mean by that that there's been over emphasis on enforcement capacities many on securing the border particularly militarizing the border the use of technology the use of a lot of money to patrol the border which is customs and border patrol c.b.p. who takes about twelve billion dollars and then we have internal controls or ice which means the detention and removal again also partly to focus on what we're

calling criminalization of migration because this ends up in our judicial system through immigration procedures and criminal procedures immigration is a civil matter it has always been treated as a civil matter and would always be a civil matter but this focus this change this shift over the last decade into what is effectively a criminalization area cost money why because it's treated as a crime by train that's a crime we have to protect and force and increase the numbers and what that cost is a huge humanitarian crisis that is just growing and growing by the day i want to play something after the president obama said i criticize the republicans for being a little over the top about immigration said we needed to triple the border patrol or now they're going to say we need to quadruple the border patrol or they'll want to hire fence maybe they'll need a moat. maybe they want to alligators in the my so the president is sort of chiding

republicans here but in fact he has taken in force an absence of real notches deportations according to this report have skyrocketed talk a little bit about this. yeah absolutely we're seeing a deportation number in the vein of four hundred thousand approximately a year this has increased tremendously over the last taken this is partly again because of the shift into the conversation but it's not only under this administration because this comes prior to this administration is through operation operation streamline which means that upon the detention of an immigrant they will be put forward into the criminal procedures and then either put on detention or put on deportation both areas are heavily funded right now so that means that we're going to see a rise in deportation to four hundred thousand which is an astounding number of particularly of immigrants that leave behind a lot of families here a lot of relatives a lot of folks that have been here for decades they will be deported to sometimes

what's called lateral deportation which is areas that they don't don't know and they're very vulnerable to drug enterprises and criminal enterprises because they're going to want to come back and so that's one area and the. and that's a huge amount there has been an increase in detention funding to thirty four thousand bed spaces a lot of them for for profit facilities as well as the industry which is which is ice now adays the contracts so combined those detention deportation that's the bulk of it you're seeing of the eighteen billion dollars that are being spent and we're spending that at a time where the push and the pull factors for migration the all time low that programs like alternative to the tension. level of efficiency so we have to move into that direction in order to provide

a better alternatives for immigration as we're talking right now about immigration reform what do you what do you mean as of these alternatives to deportation well there are some programs that the administration particularly is testing out a tedious called which are programs that place individuals who have been considered low risk individuals or medium risk individuals individuals that have demonstrated that they don't have convictions that they don't have particularly negative records they're placed with their families and in their home. and their homes with their environments and they just have to show certain thresholds to you know attend the proceedings that have been imposed now we're seeing ninety four percent of these folks ten continue attending and participate effectively in this program and continue attending to this program that's in this down to a mallet and it shows that treating folks in the civil manner in

a civil manner is much more efficient than treating treating folks in the criminal manner i want to talk about sort of the last two elections that we've seen two thousand a direction we had you know a republican running from arizona so this was a huge issue and of course barack obama immigration was a hot topic we saw obama promised an immigration bill within the first year of his term now as we know the first term is over about to start the second term. we didn't hear much about immigration this time around in this campaign is that because there was nothing that for the other side as he in fact has been extremely tough on it i mean talk a little bit about the direction that we're going and also about what some of the people that you speak to want to happen think should happen here. yeah well i mean certainly was a hot topic particularly with our community in particular the latino community that

was a strong driving force and we saw latinos coming out in droves after this during this election to participate in a large quantity in a large amount particular send a message to immigration should be a priority in this agenda and it should be a project a priority right after inauguration what happened during the campaign and what has happened during the last couple of campaigns is that there has been no solutions proposed there has been no sensible policy proposed not not one that actually makes sense on the ground to the folks that really impact what we're saying and what we're hearing from individuals from families from young students from folks on the ground is that this is urgent people see it particularly on the right and folks on the left and democrats and republicans and both parties see this as an experience as a political issue or something about numbers and jobs and border security and fiscal

issues and blah blah blah but what we're seeing is folks every single day struggle they get separated from their families they get deported they can't go to school where they have attended they put in detention facilities their children are put in foster centers for adoption this is a humanitarian crisis well i think if the government rights issue it's a good point you raise too because this is something i think that a lot of people on the right were very shocked to learn you know just how many latinos mexican americans are immigrants from other countries as well in this country that are citizens that came out to vote this time around and want something to get done do you think you know that that will propel something to happen now that both sides realize hey. these are this is a huge block of people who are representing here. oh absolutely in fact one of the statistics that we saw that one in three of our community of latino's knows someone

or is related to someone who isn't currently in documents in this country this is why it's personal and this is why it's a daily issue that it's an urgent your goods we call it now that this must happen right now this is why the push from the latino community is to get it done right now because every day that passes by without sensible immigration reform that tackles the issues about deportation the importation and detention that we're talking about the military stationed at the border and to him in many terror and crisis every day that passes by impacts someone and it impacts the latino community as a whole and it gives rise to all these elements in these anti immigrant groups that continue pushing and pushing this certain notion of what immigrants are and what the latino community is about certainly this is certainly a priority yes certainly an important topic as well and really just some astounding numbers when you when you look at this eighteen billion being spent just last year alone on immigration enforcement actually called i had

a founder of quantum a thanks so much thank you we want to bring you an update to a story we've been following for the last several months about a high school student who was suspended from her school for refusing to wear her student identification card around her neck fifteen year old andrea hernandez said she objected to wearing the i.d. implanted with a radio frequency identification chips on religious grounds calling it quote the mark of the beast the school agreed to take the microchip out of the id card but would still require her to wear the badge and she refused and sued the school well yesterday a judge sided with the school now she lost her battle and the ruling could teach us much more on the war being fought in this country against breaches on privacy and civil liberties let's speak now with john whitehead who represented hernandez in the case and is a constitutional attorney for the rutherford institute hey there john talk to me these are if id tags there are a way for the school to try to keep attendance up to say you know if you're not in class we still know where you are the funding they received from the state is

directly tied to attendance so give us the legal reasons here first that your client took issue with this. well first of all she had a religious objection. she's an avid of a christian and they feel this is the mark of the beast of the adding christ and to where it would be worshipping a false god since it's a complicated view but as the supreme court has held the views don't have to be totally irrational forever by them believe it or not you're actually said in its decision yesterday that she did this for our so-called secular concerns not religious concerns of the supreme court has been very clear the courts cannot second guess people's religious views ingo to whether or not it's in cyrano and. obviously here she's been very very sincere about of the lease am. the school we got on the case it caused a lot of uproar press releases those things so they said here's a little bit if you will where the bags indorsing the program. we will take

the chip out and you can stay in school and she refused to do that she says i cannot endorse a program that while it's my religiously this is for speech the springboards been very clear that students can't be forced to do these kind of things in these cases go back and kill the liking for these also there's a very important equal protection claim here because she wouldn't wear the badge in the chip she couldn't go to the homecoming king and queen she as well as in the library service is actually correct blackberries and she's been placed in a segregated lunch line we get away with a word segregated in our schools today but it still exists but i think on appeal we are appealing to the filter of the builder got a good case because these cases usually go through the courts i think that the supreme court might even want to take a look at this and the key issue in the case is whether or not if people have concerns about their products see about being tracked everywhere can they opt out of these programs and that's all she's asking here so i want to take apart

a little bit about you know what happened here and take a look really quick at the ruling itself judge orlando garcia ruled that quote the accommodation offered by the district is not only reasonable it removes plaintiffs religious objection from legal scrutiny altogether so basically they're saying removing the are fighting chap hernandez can no longer make a religious argument because that's what that's what the judge said so let me get your response he can't say that though i said the supreme court's been very clear that courts cannot second guess people's religious see if it's sincere it's a religious issue this protected by the constitution i think that's a really good issue on appeal so i think we've got really good issues all appeal he did a really carefully look at the equal protection argument was that she's been treated like a second class citizen in our schools so. i've been practicing in this area for many many years and the cases that we wanted the supreme court we lost every place else this is going to take more carefully refined judges of the fifth circuit but i

think in the fifth circuit court of appeals got a much better yeah that's what i was going to ask and we do have quite a few of your viewers who have been really interested in this case have been following it and you said that you're going to appeal it so how long does this process work that's going to take it takes a while but i think the key to this case is these chips are going to spread around the country the large corporations are making a lot of money from them so they're only influenced in school history so use them in fact some of the palm reading devices are already in schools as well where kids have to have their palms read before they can even see what these are money making schemes so i think the issue in this case is if you have an objection either constitutional or religious or otherwise can you just use a regular id let's ninety nine percent of students in the in the united states you why can't she do that why does she restricted well obviously here in the school wants the money yeah it's interesting i mean but i've got to say that a lot of critics are looking at this case and saying you know what some schools have uniforms and most jobs have id cards that you need to keep with you sure don't

students especially those under eighteen invariably give up lots of rights when they step on school property not really their rights are more limited because they're not adults but she was using the idea again like every school in the country ninety nine percent of schools a country have id cards she just was a regular id card to silence her rights and the question is in america. state school are you forced to become a second class citizen because you won't use it r.f.i. the chip why can't you use a card like you're really feeling that you then can again this is not for safety the schools been very clear they get money from the state and it's not classroom attendance by the way it's attendance in the school he can be in the bathroom outside slope a cigarette doing a dance out of the football field it's not classroom and him mr calculate year so it's a money making scheme that's what it is but the question here is it is her right to opt out of this program constitutionally protected if not close it's all over your

you will have no privacy well that's what i wanted to ask i mean your last this round but what are you hoping the discussion becomes that one of the bigger implications of this case here the bigger the case in this case is that you object to a program like this on religious grounds crossers or grounds can you opt out of the program just have a regular id card and still be treated like a citizen an equal citizen here she was treated unequally as she did a segregated lunch line she's watch like she's a criminal is that labor will treat our kids in school if they stand up for the principle. it's a really important question long we'll keep our eye on john whitehead who represent hernandez in this case he's also a constitutional attorney for the rutherford institute. well we want to bring attention now to a movement called i don't do no more that's taking place in canada was started by four women and calls on people to protect the land and the water by protecting the rights of canada's indigenous people it's a movement that's gaining steam and has even inspired protests across the country.

this one here was in manitoba's capital of winnipeg and is drawing public attention to canada's bill c. forty five which critics say will challenge indigenous sovereignty and could even lead to extreme harm being done to the land and water in this area now across the united states asia europe and new zealand large groups of people are showing support for the idle no more movement some of those involved say it's directly connected to others around the world including the occupy movement the arab spring and other recent uprisings orrible gonna writes about racial justice native rights and immigration for the nation and i was joined by her earlier and i asked her what is at the heart of this legislation for the budget bill c forty five as you mentioned you know for nine months last year canada's parliament debated bill c. forty five this is four hundred fifty page budget implement on the bus bill and

among some of what it contains are real challenges to indigenous sovereignty in canada some of what's at stake includes willing down federal protection for nearly one hundred percent of the rivers in canada as a way to pave way for the pipelines and the environment there are gradations that may come with them are limited. that's something that really stuck out to me when i was looking at some of the numbers. the number of protected lakes streams and coastal areas a correct me if i'm wrong but i read that would go down those protected areas from two point six million to just eighty seven is that possible yes yes that is possible under this bill and as something that is going to imminently be implemented. something else that's at stake are also key changes to the

indian act canada's indian act and this is something that really has no business being in in a budget implementation bill or you talk about the indigenous people their sovereignty really at stake here talk about other losers in this case and also who are the winners who would dislodge a solution benefit. well the this would definitely benefit corporations that definitely is you know comes from the right wing. supporters prime minister harper of course and the losers are not just first nations people in canada the losers are people even outside of canada period going back to the indian act in and of itself this is going to make changes to this agreement that first nations people and canada's government made quite a long time ago and canada's government made quite a long time ago responsibilities that the canadian government holds to first nations people and by making these sweeping changes in these in this bill it.

really negates the responsibility of the federal government to negotiate with first nations people you talk a lot of a little bit about are corporations sort of benefiting from that of what's happening in canada right now that this is so timely in terms of what the future of the country might look like. i mean at the xcel pipeline definitely comes to mind i'm definitely more for me. we are with what's going on in the united states in terms of native rights but in canada there definitely are a lot of corporations that would benefit not only from the navigable waters act that's part of this on of the spill but also the environmental assessment act as it stands right now if somebody has effects a corporation has a large project that could possibly have environmental. environmentally devastating consequences there is

a route through which that needs to be assessed and approved this omnibus bill essentially takes that away or you wrote about this for the nation and you wrote about someone at the center of this movement chief theresa spence of the ottawa hiscock cream band plan saying that right chief spence began a hundred hunger strike about thirty days ago what's her role in this. has so you know during these nine months through which parliament was debating this budget implementation bill and including the changes to the indian actor they didn't consult with first nations leaders they didn't have any representation during this time it somehow didn't occur to them or if it did no one was brought to the table and so around the time that this bill ascended about a month ago. as you mentioned chief spence decided to go on a hunger strike because she felt like this was one way that she wanted to bring attention for her people in particular in the article that i wrote.