he's america's top diplomat will john kerry stick to his word or will he change his mind and flip flop as he's known for doing a look at his record and what it might say about his future actions ahead. and boiled terror plots might be the f.b.i.'s claims of fame in the post nine eleven era when the f.b.i. becomes a player in these plots we want to know if their targets are really photos or are being entrapped party questions more. and if you thought the doctor patient privilege was the rule of the law rule of law think again drug enforcement officials are getting up close and personal with patient records in oregon this time without a warrant i had a critical look at the pulse of this privacy issue. it's

wednesday january thirtieth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our team we begin today with news from syria reports from the region confirmed that israel has launched an attack reuters and other media groups reported that warplanes struck the convoy of weapons allegedly destined for husband a political group in lebanon allied with the assad regime and iran the attack occurred on the syrian side of the country's border with lebanon a statement by the syrian military disputed this claim saying instead that israel struck a scientific research facility in the suburbs of damascus killing two and while an international efforts have failed to stop the bloodshed in syria one member of the syrian opposition is offering an olive branch through facebook to top syrian leader

sheik ahmed al-khateeb posted an offer on his facebook to meet with representatives of the assad regime previously al-khateeb was firmly opposed to talks. with the government. the following term the release of one hundred sixty thousand prisoners and the renewal of expired syrian passports was facebook post was sharply rebuked by other members of the syrian opposition who remained steadfast in their refusal to talk to the assad government because he clarified in a later post that he was voicing his personal opinion not the opinion of the entire opposition however al-khateeb described other members of the opposition as sitting on their couches while saying quote attack don't negotiate because a conflict that has resulted in the deaths the reported deaths of more than seventy thousand syrians remains filled with different factions who are not always on the

same page. now take a look at the u.s. is new top diplomat yesterday the senate confirmed john kerry's nomination as secretary of state welcoming him with open arms but we want to take a look back now at his past a past where the former presidential candidate gained a reputation as a flip flopper back then his critics were quick to point that out now there's an opening to literally decision as long as your job doesn't. change his mind turn. to. well here are just some of the reasons why he's been labeled a flip flopper kerry joined ninety seven other senators in october of two thousand and one for voting for the patriot act during a speech he made on the campaign trail in new hampshire back in two thousand and three he said this about the patriot act quote it has to do with things that really

were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on september eleventh but five years later at a speech in iowa in two thousand and eight he was a proponent of quote replacing the patriot act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time well that's not all when it comes to going to war in this case war with iraq it seems like he was for it before he was against it here is defending his stance during his senate run after losing the two thousand and four presidential race i voted the way i voted because i thought it meant the national security interests of our country that would have been the power i wanted as president but i would have used the power joe and wisely something george bush did not do which is why i opposed it since day one even when it comes to spilling government secrets he's changed his stance when wiki leaks first dump its top secret government documents he was quoted as saying however even legally documents came to light they raise serious questions

about the reality of america's policy toward pakistan and afghanistan those policies are at a critical stage in these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent but later it appears he doesn't think so highly of the whistle blowing web site yes there is real damage. social security numbers of individuals have been made public. technology about roadside bombs has been made public the relationship of the president. who was involved with us and helping to fight the best actor in yemen has been exposed for parts of his relationship with the united states that could be very damaging to our efforts there there are many similar kinds of efforts germany's now kerry is known for taking antiwar stances he was after all the spokes person for a peace group of vietnam veterans against the war even before testifying before

congress the worry for a like minded antiwar advocates is how easily he may flip flop from his previous anti-war stance which turned out somalia where french forces are declaring victory as after they intervened in the country three weeks ago their aim is to stop islamist militants from seizing control of the country french in mali and troops really took the major towns of gallon timbuktu over the weekend right now the u.s. is helping france by providing intelligence and aiding with the transport and refueling missions well at this point u.s. officials say there are no plans to put soldiers on the ground and mali but there are some that fear this is the lead up to another war among those former presidential republican presidential candidate ron paul who has gained many followers for his answer interventionist views he says many questions about the extent of u.s.

involvement there have gone on answered. media questions as to whether the u.s. has special operations forces drowns or cia paramilitary military units of actors in mali are unanswered by the administration congress is ask you questions and demanded two answers from the president as usual it was not even consulted but where does the president get the authority to become a coke come in for a job or asians in mali even if u.s. troops are not yet overtly in the attack of a texas congressman goes on to compare the french intervention in mali to what transpired in libya he said quote when gadhafi was overthrown in libya many fighters from mali let bin who had lived in libya and been trained by gadhafi as military returned to their home country with sophisticated weapons and a new determination to continue their fight for independence for northern mali bust the france initiated action against libya and two thousand and eleven led to

a new lie in lands and instability in mali that france decided it must also address. well with media access restricted in mali the war there is virtually invisible with photographs inaccuracy to states almost impossible to obtain now many questions remain as to what exactly is going on there. bro overseas interventions a case of entrapment here at home we all know that the government has been relentless in its mission to find and catch potential terrorists one tactic the federal bureau of investigation uses is hiring informants to infiltrate communities where suspects live and catch them in the act or at least talk about possibly committing an act in the future the problem with this approach critics say is that the criminal activity would never have taken place if it weren't for the f.b.i. informants egging them on some examples. mohammed mahmoud was arrested on november

twenty sixth two thousand and ten after he attempted to detonate a bomb at the portland christmas tree lighting ceremony this now next suspect was detained on october seventeenth back in two thousand and twelve for attempting to use a car bomb to blow up the new york federal reserve building and then there's the cleveland five that they were arrested on april thirty first two thousand and twelve after they attempted to blow up a one way to two bridge over the hoga valley national park so could the f.b.i. be creating terrorists and set of catching them for that or more i was joined by trevor aaronson who has done extensive research on this topic and details it all in the book you see there terror factory he first explain what inspired him to write this book. beginning in two thousand and six i began to see these cases that the bureau and the and the department justice was putting forward as a dangerous plot that they had foiled a terrorist who was about to attack a large building a terrorist that was about to attack

a public square and what i began to see was that none of these people actually had the capability it was the informant or the undercover agent who found people who were on the fringes of society and at times offered them inducements but then provided all of the means necessary to move forward with their crime you know for example these men never had access to weapons but through these elaborate sting operations the f.b.i. provided these weapons and so this book documents the the five hundred cases the terrorism cases the f.b.i. the d.o.j. have brought this on eleven how many of the involved real terrorists and and so many more were actually these sting operations actually hundred fifty defendants assigned eleven were involved in sting operations that where they never had the capacity to make crimes on their own so you're saying that the f.b.i. without the help of the f.b.i. they didn't have the resources they didn't have a lot and they could have done it without the help of the f.b.i. absolutely you know there are examples where some of these some of these men didn't even have enough money to pay their rent and in other cases they were mentally ill there was a man caught in a sting operation in seattle for example it's good so effective this order which

which means that he has trouble distinguishing between route reality and fantasy with someone like that is obviously very susceptible to an informant who says hey we should move forward the terrorism plot you know i can make this happen this is what we should do and what's happening is that through these sting operations the f.b.i. is drawing in people on the fringes who are very susceptible who for whatever reason hate the united states but on their own have no capacity to commit a crime to commit an act of terrorism and in the meantime real terrorist such as five chicago came close to bombing times or times square they aren't being caught in the sting operations all ten of these sting operations are drawing in people who are odious who are hateful but on their own have no capacity for terrorism interesting so you're saying about these people these examples that you point out are these kind of out of the norm or are or is this thing alarmed that these are the people that are targeted. this is the new normal i mean in a sense when you know you mentioned clots in office for example the man who tried to detonate a bomb at the federal reserve building you know here was a guy who had nothing his father had spent all his money to bring them over to

bangladesh he never had access to any weapons he never had any contact with al qaeda or a terrorist organization it was actually an undercover agent who who posed as an al qaeda operative operative provided everything he needed provided the bomb provided the transportation provided the money and that allowed him to commit this crime we're seeing more and more of these big operations as people who are on the fringes who are desperate sometimes mentally ill and they're the ones being being caught in the sting operations what we aren't seeing are people like that people who are desperate who want to do something commit an act of terrorism and them finding on their own and al qaida operative who provides the means that all of these cases it's only the f.b.i. that's providing the means and opportunity for these crimes now your book looks into who exactly these informants are these people that the government and higher rating to be these and for men who do they usually pick to carry out these jobs you know what i point out is that there's a real question of whether the government is using criminals who are worse than the ones they're targeting you know for example in some cases they've used in one case there was

a child molester in seattle and another case they use that accused murderer from from pakistan who had committed who had declared bankruptcy didn't tell the court that he had five hundred thousand dollars overseas in many cases they've used drug dealers they use people with criminal records who ultimately target people who do not have criminal records but who say they want to commit an act of terrorism in these informants who at times have a financial incentive you know informants can make one hundred thousand dollars or more in a terrorism case you know even financial incentive to find someone to commit a crime and ultimate that's what they're able to do and i think this raises a real question about justice and that is this is much a story about terrorism as it is about justice because how fair is it that ultimately the top of the informants that are targeting these men have this great financial incentive to find people who want to commit acts of terrorism and as a result of that they're ultimately finding people. who are on the fringes of society who either said are economically desperate or are mentally ill how common are these cases of entrapment you know of the five hundred prosecutions that the

government has brought since nine eleven the majority are actually minor crimes they are you know someone wanted for immigration violations that later accused of terrorism or lying to the f.b.i. what we can say is that of the five five hundred one hundred fifty or actually sting operations and then you know we can only count across a handful such as five or knowledgeable as you came close to bombing the new york city subway system as actual true real terror suppose a direct threat and you're saying you know the these example they're part of this terrorism prevention program as it's called if these people pose serious threats is the government justified in carrying out these missions to stop then before they carry out an attack i know you had mentioned a lot of them are not but in some cases is it justified that the government's view is that they want to stop the terrorists of tomorrow today so they want to find them just before they act what to criticize in the book is that there's little evidence is just that were it not for the f.b.i. coming in and. providing the means and opportunity and they never could have on

their own receive the means and the opportunity you know for example there's been more people killed since nine eleven by lone gunman that there have been by so-called lone wolf terrorist with al qaeda sympathies and so what that suggests is that they're actually to crew to commit a horrific act of terrorism united states isn't difficult it doesn't require a large amount of means but we're not seeing terrorists with al qaeda sympathies commit these crimes instead it's lone gunman for example so that either suggest that the f.b.i. is perfect in its mission and pulling off terrorists of tomorrow today or that the threat that they prose is not what the government has portrayed them to be. interesting you know your book has sparked a good deal of controversy though is that really commend you for your research and what you've revealed others really do defend these f.b.i. sting operations why do you think. so as i said i think that what this has brought forward is a divide within the f.b.i. there is there is a lot of disagreement within the bureau about whether these programs are the most effective whether the efficacy of these programs is worth the effort and expense

involved you know critics of these programs. criticize them for the same reasons i do that there is a question of whether these people are would have committed terror acts of terrorism on their own whether the f.b.i. through these elaborate sting operations is ultimately getting them involved in crimes that on their own they never had any opportunity to get involved with that said the people who defend this this policy they believe that this is a way of getting terrorists off the street now. where i criticize that argument is ultimately they ultimately they ultimately cite as the defense of this program real terrified knowledgeable as ozzy and none of these men are actually caught in sting operations you know none of the real terror of those threats were ever aware of by the f.b.i. through sting operation sold when the sting operations are in catching people who likely would have committed an act of terrorism tomorrow now why do you think the government has resorted to using this tactic and using it more often i think this is a bureaucratic problem every year congress gets three billion dollars to fight counterterrorism

can't go to i'm sorry at the i get three billion dollars from congress to fight counterterrorism and the f.b.i. can spend three billion dollars and go back to congress and say hey we spent all your money and we didn't find a tax the sting operations write a very convenient mechanism for the f.b.i. to show the congress and the people in the public hey we're keeping you safe here's a here's a terrorist attack that was thwarted you know if you look at f.b.i. director robert mueller testimony before congress the last few years he consistently cites these terrorism sting operations he talks about the elaborate scope of the of the the plots how horrific they would have been but he never fully disclosed as to congress the fact that these people never on their own never would have the capacity it was an f.b.i. informant incentivized by money who ultimately provided the means and the opportunity for these crimes very interesting trends are great at how do you line and chad some light on this issue that was trevor aaron said author of the terror factory. now federal prisons are being packed with inmates like never before this according to a new report from the congressional research service according to the bureau of prisons in one thousand nine hundred twenty five thousand and mates occupied

federal prisons and tooth. thousand and twelve that number multiply to two hundred nineteen thousand so what's contributed to the skyrocketing right of the c.r.s. as changes in federal sentencing is a driving force for more what's behind the prison population explosion r.t. correspondent don gonyea joins us now hiram own so what factors have led today today huge federal prison population boom there the numbers are quite sobering as you mentioned since one thousand nine hundred eighty the federal prison population has gone up seven hundred ninety percent one hundred ninety five thousand more inmates in federal lockup in there were thirty two years ago now as you mentioned c.r.s. the congressional research service. points to three main factors to this huge explosion in the population boom as you mentioned mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal

crimes in a lot of instances judges don't really have a lot of leeway there's a mandatory sentence for each crime and they have to go with that there's also the issue of more laws falling under federal jurisdiction preview in previous years when certain gun laws are certain drug laws were handled by the state now they fall under the jurisdiction of federal prosecutors and finally one of the major factors that c.r.s. points to in this huge increase in the federal prison population is the elimination of parole which was something that congress did a few years back hi as so what offenses are most of these federal inmates what are they being convicted of. right well throughout the decades drug offenses have made up most of the crimes which federal inmates have committed in the late one nine hundred ninety s. more than forty percent of the inmates were in there for drug related charges now

that's reduced a little bit but still most federal prisoners are there for federal drug charges and a growing number of them are actually in federal lockup for immigration charges back in the late ninety's only about eighteen of the federal eighteen percent of the federal inmates were in there because of immigration violations now we're seeing that thirty percent of them are in there for federal immigration charges now you have tighter moaned that drug offenses makes up a vast majority are that a lot of what the population is in these federal prisons now we talking about you know the big drug traffickers the big drug kingpins or are we talking you know minor drug crimes minor nonviolent drug crimes right well from this report that we get from see are. the federal drug crimes are mostly classified by possession of narcotics with intent to sell it doesn't really.

distinguish how large of a drug dealer that person was and that's why a lot of people think that many of these drug cases which are tried in federal court can be tried in state court and these offenders could be sentenced to much more lenient sentences now what role does the private prison industry play in this growth of the federal prison system. sure well the amount of federal inmates in the private prison system is much smaller than federally run prisons but it's been growing a lot since one nine hundred eighty when less than two percent of federal inmates were sent to these privately contracted facilities now we're seeing that nearly twenty percent of federal inmates are being sent to federal facilities run by corporations such as the geo group and the corrections corporation of america and

now we report in the past how these corporations have benefited greatly by the department of justice pursuit of of immigrants and as we've seen they've been able to profit quite a bit from being increased lock up of immigration offenders and things like a very lucrative industry and this growing industry of private prisons ramona what can be done what kind of changes in policy can be implemented to address this issue . right well the congressional research service themselves pointed to a few policy changes which might help ease the overburden that the federal prison system is feeling right now among them are reduced sentence seen more investment in rehabilitation. but at the same time while they suggest these policy changes there is a understanding that congress really doesn't have any appetite to change these

mandatory sentences sentencing laws or to ease up on any of the sentencing that is currently in place so right now the federal government is really just looking into expanding the federal prison system and it it which includes contracting more of their services out i mean i was just going to ask your own what kind of support or consensus is there in congress to actually change these laws laws like the mandatory minimum sentences and some of these other strict federal sentences that we've seen implemented since the one nine hundred eighty s. since the prison population has expanded but ramona is there any incentive or is there any talk or or support for reforming these laws. right well people who advocate against prison overcrowding are of obviously putting the pressure on congress both as you mentioned before there is a growth in the private prison industry and with that comes

a very powerful lobby in d.c. which of course is going to push for tougher laws and really historically these tough on crime legislators have shown to have a lot of success in congress so right now even the c.r.s. is doubtful that there is any appetite in congress to really pull back on these mandatory sentencing and tough sentencing guidelines that are in place right now for federal crimes and i guess for ghana that being the case it would seem that we could only presume that these numbers are going to continue to grow vermont thank you that was r.t. correspondent from on glenda you bet. well your medical records are for your and your doctor's eyes only right well not if the drug enforcement administration gets its way in the state of oregon the da is trying to get access to private prescription records of patients without a warrant this is part of an effort to crack down on abuse prescription pills but

the a.c.l.u. is challenging this practice they say this is a violation of our fourth amendment rights to discuss this and mara was joined by mike reg's associate editor for reason magazine we first discussed whether or not state law blocks the government from obtaining this information it should oregon like every other state has taken steps to address what's being called a prescription pill epidemic and oregon did so by creating a secure database where doctors would be able to report armed you know troubled patients. to the state but they would also they would report all patients not just troubled ones would be like i've described this much of this to this person and the idea being that you know a maybe a collaboration between public health officials and doctors would allow doctors to find out which of their patients were taking too much of a drug or a develop problems. and the oregon legislature said we're going to you know we're

going to create this law recently at this policy but because it does reveal so much about patients we're going to put some really strict privacy protections on this information. the v.a. doesn't like the strict privacy protections it doesn't think that it should have a warrant or any probable cause to be able to write for the files contained in organ database so it is suing to be able to get access to organs for scritching database without a warrant so you know in a lot of cases law enforcement agencies want to find out where doctors are prescribed they're going to have to prove to a judge that you know that they pulled over a patient and they had four bottles of oxy gone when they only have a prescription for one or they have no prescription at all the v.a. is arguing that it shouldn't have to prove any of that that if there is a database with this information in it that it should automatically be available to them and. the state of oregon and they're fighting this me c.l.u. is also speaking out against this i want to pull up a quote there from

a statement that they made on this issue the a.c.l.u. and its oregon affiliates are challenging this practice in a new case that raises the question of whether the fourth amendment allows federal law enforcement agents to obtain confidential prescription records without a judge's prialt prior approval it should not they say so michael what fourth amendment rights concerns does this raise. all of them i mean this is the fourth member of texas from unreasonable searches and seizures. oddly enough this is and this is the argument that the media is using and i should mention cracking earlier statements actually the state of oregon the suing the da but the argument of the d.e.a.'s using is that the you know the fourth member texans only apply to patients. it does not apply to any information they transmitted to a third party the third party being their doctor or their pharmacist which is kind of interesting because it makes it sound to the relationship is not between doctor

and patient but between patient and v.a. and that the doctor is sort of orbiting out there and that anything transmitted between patient and doctor should be available to the da and the the legal argument that the d.a. is using is that if a patient gets a prescription from a doctor. this is the same as the patient putting their trash out at the curb and that once once the prescription has been filled are issued and like once the trash isn't out the curb it becomes publicly available information which is kind of ridiculous and they feel you as is working really hard point out that you know this is totally an abuse of language in the law by the v.a. so. they went. the d.n.a. of course is defending this they're saying that this is all in an effort to crack down on the problem of prescription drug abuse if so should it be allowed in some cases what do you think. i don't i don't know how you know obviously this is well

on for some groups always say we only want to break the constitution for this purpose to small specific thing in the truth is these sort of abuses in the being you know they moscow's over them they become codify they become part of the legal landscape if. the state of oregon loses its case against a. drug enforcement administration and other law enforcement groups will be able to use this argument to not just go after the prescription pill epidemic where they could you know five years down the road maybe use it to go after somebody who. i don't know just imagine the possibilities for abuse are endless. that was my greg's associate editor for reason magazine and we're going to leave it out there for this hour but from on the stories we covered you can always check out our you tube channel that's youtube dot com slash our team america we put.