he's the man that president obama has tapped to be his new chief of staff but what do we really know about dennis mcdonough we'll take a look at his time as to the iraq war and how he helped push the u.s. into the conflict that story just ahead. and the u.s. constitution calls for free for a freedom of the press but maybe the f.b.i. hasn't read the document after reports on their efforts to stop leaks the agency is accused of a data mining the personal and professional communications of suspected leakers who may have talked to the media so is the f.b.i. is now going to go after reporters to find out who is leaking this classified information will question more. and will this finally be the year that republicans

and democrats agree on immigration reform the senate released a plan today and president obama is expected to outline his reforms tomorrow so what's with this newfound effort to pass reform and will it be enough to help the eleven million suspected illegal immigrants in the u.s. . it's monday january twenty eighth five pm in washington d.c. make a lopez and you're watching r.t. all right just one week after he was inaugurated president obama's second term cabinet is finally beginning to take shape perhaps the least surprising pick was that of dennis mcdonough for white house chief of staff in his announcement president obama called mcdonough one of the hardest working men in washington he's also known for his extensive foreign policy experience expression when it came to the drawdown of troops from iraq. but dennis has played a key role in every major national security decision of my presidency from ending

the war in iraq to winding down the war in afghanistan from our response to natural disasters around the world like haiti in the tsunami in japan to the repeal of don't ask don't tell to countless crises in between day and night where president obama failed to address in that speech was the instrumental role mcdonough played in crafting legislation to authorize the use of force in iraq back when he was the top foreign policy aide to then senate majority leader tom daschle all the legislation mcdonough and others crafted essentially pave the way for a war in iraq what's more mcdonough personally called white house staffers including jason due on the night of the september eleventh terror attack to ask how the senate could help the white house to deal with this tragedy in response a process that led to the authorization for use of force against terrorists which essentially gave president bush the power to launch the afghanistan war now this is

a stark contrast to the antiwar stance president obama has taken over recent years so does this signal a shift in foreign policy by the white house well to discuss this and more i was joined earlier by retired colonel morris davis he's currently a professor at the howard university school of law we first talked about the role that denis mcdonough played in the initiation of the aggressions in iraq and afghanistan. he was at that time working with tom daschle who is the senate majority leader and as you said he was one of the leaders in the effort to get democratic support for the iraq war effort and twenty nine democrats want to long with a resolution back in october of two thousand and two and i think many of them live to regret that decision and certainly it was a time when senator daschle and senator obama had different positions on the issue and so certainly mr mcdonough played an important role in getting that resolution passed and what you said is this was

a means of kind of acting before he actually had a chance and those other twenty nine congress people had a chance to really think through what it could possibly cause i mean obviously no one was expecting a ten year war right i think for mr mcdonough he's he's been a loyal deputy at the time he was working for senator daschle and i think that he carried out his boss's intent just as he has with president obama and winding down the war in iraq ramping down the war in afghanistan and bringing it to a close which is often put him at odds with the uniformed military services who had a different point of view so i think this an indication of it more of a loyal deputy than really and i don't log on on war so it's more so following is the leader versus the leading the pack is what you're saying correct i mean if you just look at it on this face i think his efforts in getting the resolution passed back in two thousand and two you can look at that and think it was on the far right

. you know one of the warmongers where later on during the bush administration he was critical of the administration for politicizing some of the national security issues like the warrantless wiretapping program he was very critical of them trying to make a political issue out of that and penalize people that spoke up and said maybe there will be more visibility which again is an interesting contrast. as to the obama position which has been. at least as much if not more secrecy than the bush administration and certainly mr mcdonough has played a played a role in perpetuating those policies and he as you mentioned he played a role in starting wars in afghanistan and also in iraq and he's also playing a key role in ending it so does this kind of make up for the role he played it's starting it really well you know i don't know if it's really fair to keep score because again i think he was acting on behalf of the principals that he worked for at the time whether it's the president now senator daschle back then i don't know

that i would read too much into his background into his new role you know as chief of staff because if you look back president obama this will be his fourth chief of staff have all been unique personalities certainly you know rahm emanuel was you had a better temper. and it is certainly given credit for having killed the close guantanamo after you know the white house counsel greg craig who was a proponent of closing guantanamo and president obama as one of his first orders of business to sign the executive order and rahm emanuel his chief of staff you know didn't want to put political capital behind that effort failed and you know more autonomy is still growing really you know his chief of staff he's a gatekeeper you know the president's confidant i think certainly his national security and foreign policy experience is something that the president has leaned on in the past and will in the future but i think this role is more of a confidant the gate keeper than really indicating a shift in priorities from budget to foreign policy and terms of president obama's

stance what you're saying it's not necessarily a shift in his his strategy correct like you know jack lew left as chief of staff had more of a background in budget which certainly has been critical over the last year or so as we faced you know the fiscal cliff and those issues but i wouldn't read changing chief of staff from a budget person to a foreign policy person is indicating a shift in priority. i think it's still going to be domestic issues are going to be at the top of the agenda and really the role that mr mcdonough is going to play is being the gate keeper in controlling access and being you know the top lieutenant to the president now i do want to bring up an article that he actually coauthored back in two thousand and seven and part of it and in this article he really was speaking about the checks and balances that is needed between the legislative and executive branches when it comes to war he said quote to assert that congress has only one choice in how it reacts legislatively to the war in iraq profoundly understands congressional responsibilities in time of war such

a narrow reading of the constitution and the competing powers on national security granted to the congress and the executive branch is not supported by a range of constitutional scholars so spare he's saying that obviously we need to have this type of balance between congress and their powers and that your presentation just be able to launch himself into any war that he deems necessary without consulting others but he's now working for the executive branch so now the shoe the foot the shoe is on the foot i mean i shoot is so to say that and say do you think we can expect or should we expect some kind of change in this stance that he's had for the last few years or think it's certainly been indicated over the last couple of years during the bush administration which that article was written in zero seven during the bush administration it was critical of this unilateral executive authority of the president having virtually limitless authority in cutting out congress and the courts and participating in that process but

interestingly you know the last couple of years while he's been in the white house with president obama that's exactly what this administration has done as well but again i don't know that i would be as much of that to mr mcdonough as personal beliefs is the role that he's in the game he's he's not the principal he's carrying out the you know the orders of the people that he works for in this case of the president and certainly this president has followed a lot of the. bush policies is for is exercising unilateral authority as commander in chief despite all the things that he said he was going to do less was scarce the current situation in iraq this country was under mortal rice these days than it's been in inquiry years can you talk about the volatile situation that the country is and specifically the roles that the prime minister al maliki is playing in it well again you know it's it's like colin powell said you know if you if you break it you buy it you know we went into iraq under false pretenses you know based on an individual who is being tortured who gave us bad intelligence because he wanted to torture to stop we invaded

a country you know what do you like saddam hussein or not most people didn't know he did a fairly effective job of keeping order in the country and we created chaos and whether or moloch he is. you know whether we can depend on him despite our you know years of effort and billions of dollars and a lot of blood spilt is certainly doubtful there's a lot of people coming out a lot of new reports saying that the iraqi government is built on corruption and torture is not something that the u.s. . instilled in those people or is that something that they are doing on their own now because they don't have the support of the u.s. well i think it's something that certainly we have been negligent in carrying out our responsibilities you know we're a signatory to the convention against torture yet in iraq and afghanistan and other places we've either participated directly or certainly turned a blind eye when it's inconvenient to tell others that we don't condone that kind of conduct and we still see that debate going on more in afghanistan really than

iraq where we've really reduced our presence considerably but you know it really creates creates a problem i think for us to try to take the moral high ground we've had these examples of the last decade where we've either participated or kind of turned a blind eye to it so my last question to you can we really expect to see a stable and possibly democratic iraq in the future with this type. corruption that is still leaking into to the news these days well we can be hopeful i mean iraq you know certainly is. it remains to be seen what the final outcome is going to be but we invested a lot of blood. and money supposedly to create you know this model of democracy in the region but i think we can be you know optimistic skeptical and continue to kind of keep our focus on them and try to you know hold them accountable for terror colonel morris davis

a professor at howard university school of law thank you so much for your opinions there's obviously a lot of things that are still being covered in this fault of region and the situation in iraq is certainly not over yet i think we can say and one issue that has plagued the obama administration during its first term was the unprecedented number of leaks of classified information perhaps the highest profile leak was that of a joint u.s. israeli computer virus that attacked iran's nuclear power plants and more specifically is hearing in richmond facilities stocks that as it became as it came to be called has now resulted in a massive federal investigation into the source of the leaks federal investigators are tapping the e-mails and phones of all officials familiar with the case in order to find the leaker now to do that they are looking into the communications these people had with any and all journalists during that time so what does this investigation mean for the rights of journalists while kevin costello as a blogger at firedoglake and he joins me now with some answers hey there kevin so

what can we expect to come out of these investigations. well i think that we don't know but what we do know from the washington post story published over the weekend is that the f.b.i. is engaged in a fishing expedition and is able to look at the communications of just about any government official and some of these agencies that are responsible legit levy for the leaks and so what you see is that they're going around and finding if they had communications with journalists and then confronting those individuals and they may even be discovering leaks that are not you know there that are not related to the stuxnet story now kevin what will happen if they have to the people that they find actually leaked this information do we know yet. know i don't know you know if there's anything that's going to happen to these people who might be responsible

all right now one of the things that you had mentioned earlier and that's something that is that coming up in this case is that they are talking about it's not just looking into a couple of unique individuals they're putting out a blanket investigation trying to look to anybody that's talk to journalists i mean is it illegal to talk to journalists and what exactly are they looking for here. well i don't know if there would be any procedures that the employees particularly have to follow i would i would guess is there might be a culture inside the agency that said you should be talking without getting permission first but i think the all government employees enjoy their first amendment rights and so long as they're not giving up classified information there there should be any problems the other thing is that some of these people may be blowing the whistle on something i mean certainly you or i would like to know that the government is engaged in cyber warfare against iran's critical infrastructure the other story involving you know there were there were leaks that are being gone

after and they involve the kill list that obama has they could be investigating that but they're not. you and i would like to know how that is going on and how it's being carried out by the government so i think you know that's something just to be considering one something that glenn greenwald recently wrote an article he said first really every significant revelation of the bad acts of the u.s. government over the last decade came from this process he went on to say that government officials in it that americans are learning less about their government actions than ever before but kevin is something i do have to ask you is that this leak on seems to be conveniently timed to actually help president obama and the democrats in to win the election really so shivery really expect to see somebody prosecuted for this stuxnet leak. but it's true that this makes the obama administration look good it's the same thing you can say about the selective leaking mexican used to go on around the drone program i don't know if anybody will

be held it responsible but i think what is remarkable is that we have seen an investigation like this this blanket investigation happened back in two thousand and ten at the federal drug administration and they were going after critics of the medical review process and going and targeting f.d.a. scientists that were outspoken so what is clear is that the nature of this investigation is intended to clamp down on people who are talking about the government and how it is operating now one thing i do have to ask you what's going to come to about to the journalists or is there anything that can come to the journalists that actually came upon this information should we expect some type of prosecution or is it possible that a journalist would be prosecuted under the espionage act i know that's something that a lot of people are fearing right now. well there is an instance right now where james risin a new york times reporter is in the crosshairs of the government and trying to

convince somebody he does have reporter's privilege in one case i don't think that the government would go after journalists i think the bigger issue here is this chill on freedom of the press where you see a lot of the media organizations no longer have sources in these agencies of government that they can contact for important critical national security stories that's what i was going to ask you is this scaring people into silence yes actually the new york times has admitted that they are having a more difficult time i think probably if you want to the washington post and ask their lead writers they would say that it's harder to get people to talk it's much more easier now to track the communications between journalists and government officials you really have to say that it might be time to go back to meeting in the parking garage and exchanging papers because the f.b.i. is really using these tools that they have available to go after people want to not

only the tools that they have available cabinets really everything that they that the technology technological advances basically what's happening and what i read an article is that they are getting the information from anything that was government issued a government issued e-mail for instance or a government issued phone so they can go into these conversations figure out who they're talking to how long they're talking for except for a so can you talk about this a little bit talk about the privacy or should those people actually even expect privacy at all when it comes to working within the administration. the one key takeaway from the article that you realize is these employees really give up their privacy and i don't know if they signed anything when they started to work for these agencies that said they were going to be able to enjoy privacy but it actually says in the article that if they access their private accounts on a government computer that the f.b.i. these investigators would be able to go in and start to snoop around on their

private accounts which is really alarming if you consider the implications of that a lot of what is being described in the story all part of a kind of how we found out about the david petraeus scandal but i do want to ask you this president obama's administration has been criticized for being weak on the security leaks and yet his administration has prosecuted six officials which is more than all other administrations combined so is it really fair to say that he's being weak on these leaks or is there just so many leaks that it's unprecedented. well i think this whole thing of week on leaks is really something that the republicans are trying to use because they don't have a lot of issues that they can use when it comes to national security at. brock obama has essentially continued much of bush's counterterror policies and he's out george w. bush ing george w. bush when he uses drones to assassinate people abroad so one of the few things

they've had is to say well you're not protecting classified information you allowed disclosures of information to wake you leaks on your watch you allowed these instances where the new york times are publishing sensitive information about national security programs and so that's something that they have used and i don't think it's actually worked so their vantage because what you had happen is that barack obama even when he was campaigning puts on a campaign web site how proud he is that he has convicted these people how proud he is that he is gone after the whistleblowers and be a legit leakers and as clam down and has posed these safeguards of classified information that impacts freedom of the press and the mass and that they're obviously this is going to have some type of impact on freedom of the press have to say how much chemical stella blogger at firedoglake thank you for joining me thank you still ahead on our t.v. emigration reform is making progress here in washington but will this proposed

legislation do enough to help the eleven million undocumented people living in the u.s. a look at that when we come back. let me let me respond then we're going to let me ask you point. when they're still working it's one of the things we are in. this space thing there's again here it is we're the united states on the phone surveillance we.

welcome back well after years of calls for immigration reform bill looks like that reality could be in the not too distant future a bipartisan group of senators the so-called gang of eight held a press conference just hours ago detailing a four point plan to reform immigration here in the u.s. the plan includes reforming the path to legalization creating an employment verification system coming up with tough but fair a new path toward citizenship for the people that are already in the united states and helping illegal immigrants who are job seekers find legal work now all of this is contingent on one thing the one thing that republican party really has fought for most adamantly and that is tighter border security now this talk of reform is

seen as a huge victory for the minority community but how likely is it really to pass and does this reform actually go far enough when i was joined earlier by press he's the director of almost a new usa i asked him for his thoughts on the plan of reform. well my initial reaction as well as that of many of the people that i work with over the years to bring about comprehensive immigration reform is of one of guarded optimism and the reason why i say that is because we've been here before. people's talked about you know bringing about significant immigration reform back in that they saw the president c.e.o. former president george bush and he came to nothing. soul you know there's been promises in your since movement was made in different aspects of immigration

reform and that also came to nothing for example the dream act they would have legalized people that were brought us children by their own document the parents to the states and grew up in the states as united states citizens but having said that i am optimistic that this time around because of the changes in the politics of the country were latino voters have become a significant percentage of the total number of voters in presidential another important national elections i think that everybody has recognized the fact that that is a factor that will continue to grow you know the worse the number of latino voters it's likely to continue growing over the years every month you know just as an example of that point about fifty thousand u.s.

born let the nose become of voting age they reach the age of eighteen that's six hundred thousand new voters every year kind of i mean large amount of people think that's obviously going to mean a lot of people that are new voters so let me ask you this mr gutierrez does this long ago this reform bill go far enough. well. they say that their will is going to be in the details i think that the fact that this bipartisan senate committee. you know the fact that they recognize the need to have to bring about comprehensive immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship although we still don't know all the details that will get us there easing clued in the plan or in the parameters that will be the basis on there which they will be discussing all the details of the plan and you know it's a hopeful sign now from our perspective you know we've always been advocating that

meaningful immigration reform in fact has to be meaningfully has to include a path to citizenship and an approach that basically provides for an opportunity for all. hard work even law abiding tax spain undocumented workers to become incorporated into the american economy. by legalizing them and providing them with a reasonable opportunity to over time become united states citizens so i couldn't say no i couldn't say right now that they goes far enough but we certainly are going to continue working to make sure that he does call us far as possible under the circumstances now as i mentioned a moment ago the one aspect that this is all contention on is ramping up border security is something that we heard the republican lawmakers that are part of the gang of eight i reiterate today but is this really what the country needs right now

are the majority of immigrants really coming over from all over the border whether or not in fact i think republicans have recognized this since two thousand and five to now. rests by border patrol agents along the mexican us border. total numbers has dropped dramatically close to. eighty percent. so you know that's very very significant now whether they mean that significant border control means one you know one hundred percent effective border control i mean i think that that would be. just on an achievable and so we're hopeful that you know the fact that all these changes on the ground are there now for all to see you know will enhance the possibility of our finally getting significant a meaningful immigration reform you know that there is no more argument now

that nothing has happened in terms of border enforcement and the fact that the senators to they you know laid out a whole bunch of ideas about how they can still further enhance border patrol by using new technology incorporating drones into border patrol and all that sort of stuff hiring more on border patrol agents etc you know i think they really leaves very little room for argument for the enemies of immigration reform in the in the in the fringes of the republican party so we're all hopeful that the you know that we're moving in the right direction now mr was there is that i want questions over why now that's a really big question is why now and i do want to play a sound bite from senator john mccain from over the weekend and in mind shed light on why now yeah i'll give you a little straight talk look at the last election the last election we are losing dramatically the hispanic vote which we think should be ours for

a variety of reasons and we've got to understand that second. we can't go on forever with eleven million people living in this country in the shadows in an illegal status. now mr macpherson only have about ten seconds left but it is this the reason why republicans are changing their tone because they realize they cannot win this country without the minority community well that's one major reason another one would be economic i mean the united states is projected to need more workers in the future for the manufacturing and cheap sectors of the economy and lastly it wouldn't be fair to say they've you know the struggle there for years has been carried out by millions upon millions of latino person some people of good will in the united states to bring about comprehensive reform you know that's also a big fact the united states cannot go around criticizing people for violating human rights and so on and so forth when they're dividing families in the.