he's america's top diplomat will john kerry stick to his word or will you change his mind implode flop as he's known for doing a look at his past record and what it might say about his future actions ahead. to boil terror plots might be the f.b.i.'s claim to 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 being entrapped are two questions more. and if you the doctor patient privilege was the rule of law and 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 the privacy issue. it's wednesday january thirtieth a.p.m. here in washington d.c.

i'm liz wall and you're watching our t.v. . libyan today with news from syria reports from the region confirm that israel has launched an attack reuters and other media groups reported that warplanes struck a convoy of weapons allegedly destined for hezbollah 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 while 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 sheikh ahmed mole as 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 al-khateeb said the following terms the release of one hundred sixty thousand prisoners and they were newell of expired syrian passport

his facebook post was sharply buke by other members of the syrian opposition who remain steadfast in their refusal to talk to the assad government al-khateeb clarified in a later post that he was voicing his personal opinion not the opinion of the entire office issued however he described other members of the opposition as sitting on their couches while saying quote attack don't negotiate well this is a conflict that has resulted in the reported deaths of more than seventy thousand syrians or means filled with different factions who are not always on the same page and i think you look at the us 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 its critics were quick to point that out. now there's

nothing wrong with a little even decision as long as your job doesn't it was a responsible. job kerry has changed his mind turn him. on. 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 there in 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 john why is really something george bush did not do and which is why opposed it since day one even when it comes to spilling government secrets he's changed his stance when wiki leaks first dumped its top secret government documents he was quoted as saying however illegally documents came to light they raise serious questions about the reality of america's policy toward pakistan and afghanistan though its 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 domestic terror 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. 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 like minded antiwar advocates is how easily he may flip flop from his previous antiwar stance. we turned out to mali where french forces are declaring victory is 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 to retake the major towns of gallon timbuktu over the weekend right now the u.s. is helping france by providing intelligence and aiding with transporting refueling missions like this point u.s. officials say there are no plans to put soldiers on the ground there in mali but some fear that this is the lead up to another war among those former republican presidential candidate ron paul who has gained many followers for his 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 have been active in mali are unanswered by the administration congress has asked 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 combatant in french operations in mali even if u.s.

troops are not yet overtly involved in the attack. the 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 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 that's the france initiated action against libya in two thousand and eleven led to a new violence and instability in mali there france decided it must also address shortly after the french attack on mali rebels in algeria attacked a b.p. gas facility in retaliation for their government's decision to allow foreign military to fly over algerian territory on route to mali thus the action in mali to solve the crisis created by the prior action in libya is turning into a new crisis in algeria this is the danger of interventionism and as we saw in

vietnam more than four decades ago at the ends to drag the u.s. further into the conflict and congress is a wall well the media access restricted and molly the war there is virtually impossible but photographs and accurate statistics almost impossible to obtain now many questions remain as to what exactly is going on there. from overseas intervention to cases 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 f.b.i. uses is hiring informants to infiltrate community is or is suspects live in 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 back in

november two thousand and ten after he attempted to detonate a bomb at the portland christmas tree lighting ceremony. the neck and neck suspect there was detained on october seventeenth of two thousand and twelve for attempting to use a car bomb to blow up the new york federal reserve building and then there was the cleveland five who were arrested in april thirty first two thousand and twelve after they had tempted to blow up ohio eighty two bridge over cuyahoga valley national park so come the f.b.i. be creating terrorists instead of catching them for more on that i was joined by trevor aaronson who has done extensive research on this topic and details it all in his book you see there the terror factory he first explained what inspired him to write his 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 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 of the five hundred cases the terrorism cases the f.b.i. d.o.j. have brought this on eleven how many of the involved real terrorist and and so many more were actually these sting operations actually hundred fifty defendants is that eleven were involved in sting operations that where they never had the capacity commit 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 don't have the black and they couldn't 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 rents and in other cases they were mentally ill there was a man the caught in a sting operation in seattle for example at schizoaffective disorder which are

which means that he has trouble distinguishing between route reality and fantasy or 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 terror such as five came close to bombing times or times square they aren't being caught in the sting operations all two 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 is this thing the arm that these are the people that are targeted this is the new normal i mean in a sense when you mention quazi nafis for example the man who tried to detonate a bomb at the federal reserve building you know here was a guy who had nothing. to bring him 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 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 well what we're seeing more and more of these three operations is people who are on the fringes who are desperate sometimes mentally ill and they're the ones being being caught in these 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 then finding on their own an al qaeda 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 is 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 they used a child molester in seattle in another case they used it accused murderer from from

pakistan who had committed to 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've used people with criminal records who ultimately target people who don't 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 going to 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 you know if this is this is as much a story about terrorism as it is about justice because how fair is it that all to 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 have a set or economically desperate or are mentally ill how common are these cases of entrapment you know of the five hundred prosecutions that the 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 not people 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 that these examples they're part of this terrorism prevention program as it's called if these people post serious threats is the government justified in carrying out these missions to stop them 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 i criticize in the book is that there's little evidence is just that we're not for the f.b.i. coming in and. providing the means and opportunity that they never could have on

their own receive the means and the opportunity you know for example there been more people killed since nine eleven by lone gunman than there have been by so-called lone wolf terrorist with al qaeda sympathies and so what that suggests is that there are 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 in 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 those that really commend you for your research and what you revealed others really do defend these f.b.i. sting operations why do you think it so divisive i think that what this is brought forward is a divide within the f.b.i. there's 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 the

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 would have had any opportunity to get involved with that said the people who defend this policy they believe that this is a way of getting terrorists off the street now. where i criticize that argument is that ultimately they all to me they ultimately cite. the defense of this program real terrorists knowledgeable as ozzy and none of these men are actually caught in sting operations you know none of the real terror of the post threats were ever aware of by the f.b.i. through sting operations all to sting operations aren't 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 i mean if you 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 terrorist these sting operations write a very convenient mechanism for the f.b.i. to show the congress and the people and 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 plots how horrific they would have been but he never fully disclosed 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 trevor great to have you on and shed some light on this issue that was trevor aaron said author of the terror factory. well still ahead here on our team at the next time you go to the doctor be careful what information you disclose enforcement officials are trying to get their hands on and that a cold records without a warrant well examine what this means for patients rights.

smith let me let me i want to know what all let me ask you a point. here on this network is what we have in the bank we have our knives out. but if you get this right with the banks saying they're getting married at the rate we're being i'd like to talk about your mail and.

worse if you are going to. my house to give it to the radio guy and put him in a. cloak we're about to go good you've never seen anything like this i'm telling. well your medical records are for your and your doctor's eyes only right not of the drug enforcement administration gets its way and 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 of prescription pills

but the a.c.l.u. is challenging this practice and they say this is a violation of our fourth amendment rights to discuss this and while i'm 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 oregon like every other state has taken steps to address what's being called a prescription pill epidemic and in oregon did so by creating a secure database where doctors would be able to report on you know trouble 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 had developed problems. and the oregon legislature said we're going to

you know we're going to create this law are going to create 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 they should have a warrant or any probable cause to be able to write for the files contained in oregon database so it is suing to be able to get access to organs for scription database without a warrant so you know in a lot of cases law enforcement agencies want to find out what 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's a database with this information in it that it should automatically be available and. the state of oregon they're fighting this to 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 you know the fourth member protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. oddly enough this is and this is the argument that the v.a. is using and i should i should correct your 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've 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 it's 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 or issued and like once the trash isn't put out the curb it becomes publicly available information which is kind of ridiculous and they feel you as is working really hard to point out that you know this is totally an abuse of language in the law by the da so. they went. the da of course is defending this they're saying that this is all 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 and the truth is these sort of abuses in the being you know they they moscow's over then 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 up 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 and we know this because the fourth amendment is being abused kinds of ways so you're saying that this is setting a dangerous precedent if the state of oregon loses that absolutely one. so

this is all going on and on and why should you know the average american be worried about this. well because it's you know the biggest case right now is in oregon and it's being it's sort of being depicted by some people as a case about federalism but the truth is the strategy being used by the office of national drug control policy and state and local law enforcement groups across the country is a strategy designed specifically to thwart regulations in place to protect patient privacy and two thousand and eleven the obama administration released a document sort of a strategy document and publicly available strategy document i might add for combat in the prescription pill epidemic and some of the language and i don't have it in front of me right now but it essentially said let's come up with ways to get around laws and regulations governing privacy that serve no other policy purpose so you know if you are a drug warrior and you see these laws you're like well i don't understand what this

does for me if you're patient you see those laws a lot differently. and that that's been a signal to local law enforcement groups across the country saying like you know what be inventive trying find ways to get around the fourth amendment i think that's a really really horrifying thing for our government to be encouraging. and it's even if you don't live in oregon you don't know what your local police department you know what sort of scheme they're coming up with to be able to access not just the patient records of people who are maybe trafficking and not actually gotten but also your records because when they go after a doctor's office or a pharmacy they don't just take the records of people who they think they're going bad things they take everybody's records. we don't have too much time but i want to ask you i noted oregon is not alone and dealing with this problem and with the government trying to get increased power and trying to tackle this problem i understand that florida has had some similar concerns what is the government over there done to tackle this problem of prescription drug abuse. well in different

parts of the states you've seen police groups do different things in southwest florida the sheriff's department wrote essentially a waiver. they then asked doctors to slip into forms that patients sign and they come in for appointments and a waiver saying your sign if you sign this we resign over your medical rights except that waiver did not say that it had been written by the sheriff's department in central florida the. anti-drug task force composed of local law enforcement groups ended up getting a warrant for some patient records from a doctor's office but then when they did the search they ended up taking patient records for every patient at the doctor's office who were supposed to be for something like twenty and it up being for i think given the hundreds or maybe over a thousand so in both both of those examples i mean obviously they want to southwest florida didn't really work out for the cops which i think is for the best buy in central florida you know here was a guise of we're going to do this and up taking information on people that they don't have warrants for. a lot of implications here you know you think of your

doctor patient relationship that's supposed to be a very you know confidentiality is top priority there so out this is a very eye opening here and appreciate you coming on the show and talking about it that was mike reg's associate editor for reason magazine. well the problem of prosecutors abusing power has come to the forefront after the death of internet activist aaron swartz swartz's family and his supporters blame this woman u.s. attorney carmen ortiz for pursue pursuing a penalty that didn't fit the crime swartz was accused of hacking a college network in an effort to make academic journals public for that he faced three decades behind bars now we're teachers coming under fire for abusing her prosecutorial power again this time it's the prosecution's attempt to seize a man's motel the government wanted to take the property in tewkesbury massachusetts because people chose to deal drugs there the judge however didn't agree with ortiz the judge ruled it wasn't it wasn't his fault for having

a business in a rough neighborhood u.s. magistrate judge judith gale dean said quote the government's resolution of the crime problem should not to be not to simply take his property or to his actions have infuriated people that feel there's a trend of prosecutors overstepping their boundaries calling for charges and sentences that are irresponsible and unfair and we are going to leave it off there but for more on the stories we covered you can always check out our you tube channel we post all of our interviews on line there in full that's you you tube dot com slash artsy america and our website or t. dot com slash usa our web producers are busy working on stories keeping it updated there are some stories we have time to get to some stories we don't have time to get to on the air you can also follow me on twitter at liz wall for now have a great night.