they thought what you were about to purchase was genetically modified or that what you were about to eat was even safe for human consumption if your answer is no it's probably because you live in the united states where food sellers and producers are not required to label foods that have been genetically modified not only that but testing of g.m.o. foods isn't required either now when discussing jimbo's it was always one main that gets dropped monsanto monsanto is the principal player against the push to require label that part of the labeling for g.m.o. foods in the u.s. and despite countless international lawsuits against the agro giant it seems that the playing field is always shaped in favor of the big corporations. so to try to highlight so to try to highlight why you should care about the comfortable attitude this government has on g.m.o. foods and just how much influence monsanto really has over washington i'm going to revisit a few segments that highlight just that starting with an interview with jeffrey smith author of the book seeds of deception where we first asked him just how much

legal resources left to fight for the labeling of g.m.o. foods check it out. the governor of vermont and the leaders in both in connecticut as well both refused to let the bills for labeling go through because of their fear of an expensive lawsuit three months and and we've been tracking their influence all around the world i visited thirty four countries and the big space if we capture regulatory agencies and capture government ministrations in fact they captured the food and drug administration it was their former attorney michael taylor who was in charge of policy at the f.d.a. when the g m a policy create was created and he said no safety testing is needed no labeling is needed companies like monsanto who told us that these agent orange and d.d.t. were safe can determine on their own if g m o's are safe and put it on the market without telling the f.d.a. or consumers and then michael taylor became months and as vice president and now

he's back at the f.d.a. as u.s. food safety czar and the justification for not regulating g m o's was based on a sentence in the policy that was entirely false claiming that the agency wasn't aware of information showing that g m o's were different when in fact their own scientists uniformly agreed that g m o's were dangerous and needed testing this was the first level of deception and the they've been layering the deception since then that it will feed the world lower the use of agricultural chemicals and now in california they're layering deception on prop thirty seven. deception all right so what are we learning so far a we're learning that monsanto has a hell of a lot of influence be scientists from both sides of the aisle agree that some g m o's are dangerous and require testing and we're learning that the whole campaign against labeling these foods is based entirely on false foods yet a majority of americans want their food to be labeled before they purchase it and

of course the reason food doesn't get labeled is due to a revolving door between washington and big agribusiness see for yourself. look at who obama has appointed to the very regulatory bodies that are supposed to be responsible for our food safety roger beachy director at the u.s.d.a. is a former director of the month santo danforth center michael taylor yakked is food safety is our is the former vice president of monsanto ramona romero a u.s.d.a. counsel was previously on du pont's corporate counsel and the secretary of agriculture tom vilsack was awarded governor of the year by the biotechnology industry organization whose members include monsanto and lastly islams the dickey the u.s. agriculture trade representative who pushes g.m. exports and other countries is a former nun santo lobbyist. now some of you might be thinking all just go to the

healthier grocery store where i know all my food is one hundred percent organic well you might want to think again as alexis bade my explains even the most healthy sounding options like whole foods can still be pumped full of g m o's check it out . this is actually certified as aggression under the u.s.d.a. national program and they've got the big u.s.d.a. feel right when you walk in so i think that most consumers would assume that there isn't anything to that if they modify it at whole foods but it's not all or cannick and so if you pick up for instance a kashi cereal they have a cereal of that that is almost all soy and also is genetically modified in the united states so if it's not organic which it is that they go lean cereal then you're eating a product that's almost entirely. and that's something that's sold in health is stores that sold in whole foods and they had the big u.s.d.a. feel over the doorway and let the consumers can thinking everything's fine. look at

the bottom line is that we're all unknowingly consuming g.m.o. foods in many instances even when we think we're not consuming them so next time you're at a grocery store really think about the substances that are in your food wouldn't you rather know exactly what you're putting into your body after all you are what you eat. i i. last week you may remember is covering the fatal shooting of sixteen year old kamandi great he's the young teen who was killed at the hands of two undercover police officers who say kamandi had pulled a gun on them of course we know now that that story isn't so black and white in fact multiple eyewitnesses have come forward disputing the police narrative many maintaining the young teen didn't even have a gun. it's a dispute in fact that's pushed a small community in brooklyn to the edge hundreds of people pouring into the streets over the course of last week all demanding an independent investigation

into the shooting and perhaps it's a valid request considering the latest news that the two n.y.p.d. officers who shot the money have already been the targets of five federal lawsuits with plaintiffs alleging civil rights violations so what does this say about the latest development in the case as a whole and could come on the story just one more peg in a trend of police brutality this year to talk about all that more i'm joined by our correspondent margaret howell thank you so much for coming on the show was there so you know you've been you've actually been following this story for a while and i'm wondering with skis is like these it seems like public opinion always kind of turns toward toward the police you know they always kind of favor the police narrative on this how how widespread it is how widespread is this we actually know how often this sort of thing happens in the u.s. it is a pandemic i'm telling you we're taught as a society to trust cops not to question them not to question their motives and you know unfortunately that's an old thing and we're seeing this more often than not

you know cops are policing themselves so maybe it's time to get a new narrative in this country because obviously leading cops up to you know police themselves just isn't working. do we even know how often this happens so it seems to be rapidly every other year i hear i hear about it a new shooting but what i really don't understand how often does this really happen do we have those statistics you know the university of chicago in one thousand nine hundred twenty years ago said that probably three hundred thirty people are killed each year by cops innocently they don't actually specify in that study twenty years ago how many of those people are intentional cop kills unfortunately there is no check in place to make sure that cops are reporting these numbers and a lot of times we're saying you know because police operations it's internal they're able to confirm. or hide these numbers from the public you know and it's just it's par for the course it just seems shocking to me that we do that we wouldn't have those kind of statistics but i want to move on i want to get back to

the case of kamandi great it seems like like i mentioned earlier though these officers that are involved in the shooting actually have five lawsuits five like almost a history of violence with these cops do you think because i know that maybe the protests have died down in recent days but do you think this is going to add a new kind of fuel to the fire knowing that these cops have a kind of history of violence behind them you know manning absolutely and one thing i want to know why were these guys walking the streets you know their departments knew that they had five disciplinary type court actions against them between the two of them they shoot this kid seven times one of them hit you know hits him in the head these guys have a documented history of violence against citizens yet they were armed walking the streets which i find appalling you know and we're seeing that more often than not you know cops with these extend you with disciplinary behavioral issues are actually the ones caught up in these violent actions it's unbelievable it really it really is and i know that you've been following this case specifically but you've also been kind of looking into police brutality and some of your own investigative

reporting this years found so far this year alone seven different cases where we know police brutality resulting in injury or or even death can you break down some of the stories that were serious bodily injury or death is not remarkable and the seven that i found were just seven that had enough publicity attached to them to actually gain recognition can you imagine all the cases that don't that are actually covered up you know but specifically two that were most memorable to me out of out of just the research i'd like to talk to you about them if i can use one of them in particular sammy davis he was pan handling in a kroger parking lot sometime after christmas you know a seemingly minor offense the cop who was assigned to make him stop essentially went to the parking lot shoots this man in cold blood this police officer had a history of documented violence. against citizens he should not have had a gun he should not have been on patrol that night you know all in perfect storm we're saying it just seems so shocking to me that not only are we not getting the

statistics on how often this happens with these stories i just feel like there's not the same amount of and we saw a lot of public support come out for free come on his family after the shooting in brooklyn did these other stories that you will look into they did they get that similar sort of i would absolutely not you know if we weren't talking about them now i don't even think that they would have hit national news. specifically with sammy davis you make in georgia local media of course we're covering it the outcry of this family and people who just you know it's so shocking people who wanted to actually comment on this story were able to twitter has been a place that was facebook. forums on line certainly but national media no why is that why is it so hard for the mainstream to go on these kind of story i think it goes back to that systematic issue of cops have the legal right to kill and we saw that in a specific case brandon bradshaw who's from my hometown a small town in kentucky this man was actually shot you know by an off duty

sheriff's deputy he was the bailiff but it just unbelievable the bailiffs claiming self-defense you know clearly this beloved man iraq war veteran three small children you know no history of violence whatsoever the man is actually sitting in his car the bailiff shoots him in the had shoots him in the torso and the bailiff is claiming self-defense and something else maybe that is astounding to me this man and i hate to cut you off or unfortunate at a time but you know elements of the police state police policing themselves is never a good thing never going to you so much as margaret how correspondent thank you so much. because if you like what you see so far go to our facebook page at facebook dot com slash breaking the set and be sure to do what thousands of already done and give us a like we'll be updating our status daily there with links to past segments as well as reaching out to you for ideas on what you want to see covered on. breaking the set can also check out behind the scenes photos we take at the studios are one break in the set is reporting on the road so head to our facebook page and check all that out and more we'll take

a quick commercial break right now but stay tuned to visit a famous case of whistleblowing next. science technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've . covered. a clear image of iraq after inflation. twenty day taxi trip through the country. the road full of danger. clear evidence from north to south. the root of iraqi tragedy. after the war waiting for peace. talks e r t. little.

girl. live. let's treat. her. with a. little. bit misleading good. will. come out. very little in.

the to. the future she's going to be like. oh. last month private bradley manning pled guilty to several offenses related to leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to wiki leaks in two thousand and ten it's a plea that could land him in jail for twenty years but it pales in comparison to what he could face if found guilty of one of the most egregious of charges that of aiding the enemy and of successful the prosecution could establish a chilling precedent making leakers of classified information subject to an archaic piece of legislation known as the espionage act. but it's not just this act that's troubling it's exacerbated by the national defense authorization act indefinite

detention clause an issue we've covered heavily on the show last month during a historic n.d.a. trial taking place in new york city while there abby martin had a chance to sit down with thomas drake a former n.s.a. employee and whistleblower the first i asked him why he cares about the n.b.a. take a look at this just another step since the post nine eleven era. other step in the erosion of the u.s. constitution and the rise of not just enough security state but secret government. executed through through for yacht executive rule. when you came out as a whistleblower and you were prosecuted for it and targeted i mean how did it feel to have the same establishment that you had dedicated so much of your life working for come down on you total betrayal. is important no i took an oath four

times this one from the constitution that oath was not was not an oath to the president it was not an oath it was not an oath of secrecy it was not a security agency it was really an oath to look the other way when the government itself commits massive fraud waste and abuse and engages itself in wrongdoing illegality and that's precisely what the government did after nine eleven on a vast scale but we just came up on the fortieth anniversary of watergate and you know here we have one wiretapping scandal that brought nixon down and the supreme court rules that the president is not above the law i mean how did we stray from there to now prosecuting the messenger and where the president is now above the law . that's clear it's surreal i was a very young teenager in the one nine hundred seventy s. that was my civic awakening i actually remember a very young hillary rodham clinton day on the impeachment committee i remember

all of the machinations as watergate unfolded i also remember daniel ellsberg and the pentagon papers and all of the violations of american rights and liberties by our own government that were veals in those congressional investigations the church committee hearings and which the mare america found out just how far the government had gone to silence or dissidents journalists activists and those who become enemies of the state as defined by the government in secret now that was the one nine hundred seventy s. . and frank church had warned the nation that in particular respect to the technology of the national security agency and others. that if we ever found ourselves in a similar scenario in the future would we able be able to pull ourselves back

across the rubicon because it might be too late well speaking of too late do you think that not only the egregious erosion of our civil liberties systematically so far after an event like nine eleven but that coupled with the corporate state that actually profits off this the surveillance state all of these these military industrial complex corporations i mean have we gone too far to really repeal this now that we have this corporate marriage between government profiting off these are versions i hope not but it's an unholy alliance and it's clearly entering into a period we're not only do we lose our concerts for rights for the rise of corporate government state which some would use another word to describe that which is a form of fascism or soft tyranny you can have a government violate the constitution in secret and then forming all these alliances with corporations who themselves are ensuring the continuance of their

own interests through the government that's not in the best interest of the country let alone the constitution but that's what's happening and so we've actually seen in two channels. the largest reduce or wealth i that i can even consider in terms of the u.s. history you have the distribution of wealth to the corporate side exemplified by wall street you have the redistribute wealth to the nasa curie complex military industrial complex massive billions upon billions hundreds of billions. there's only so much you can extract out of the country and the people and so were elsewhere is left to take to take away their rights. because you have to ensure the continuance of the power structure that's were facing the n.d.a. in particular section ten twenty one i find particularly pernicious because one of the above in a straight as i should been taken one step further a step that i couldn't even imagine not only do we bypass the constitution not only

to leave the constitution aside now do step outside and put ourselves in an entirely different vehicle called the now security state we're going to do so under the authorities of the commander in chief the military rule military law or more the more accurately say military authority and we're extending that authority which is clearly separated in the constitution we're going to extend that authority over those who were in the united states period and we're going to apply the same quote unquote laws of war which is a misnomer the laws of war and all the other enabling acts that we've created since nine eleven or going to apply those to those who reside within the united states and if we decide we want to take someone off the street because they might be a potential threat or a you know they're providing material support or substandard support what's substandard support mean means whatever the commander in chief wants it to mean

first syce lee and they're doing so under military authority the last thing i would want the united states ever become is a military state. because this probably is true that you can't trust the locals and you probably can't trust even the local police so who do you nationalize who do you federalize in a way to mess to clean to ensure the control and monitoring of the population but that was never in the original design of the constitution and historically we've never really ever gone there we got a few breaches here and there but they were quickly pulled back here were saying hey it doesn't matter the only authority that the prosecution could cite one questioned in the court room by the judges today was the maff the authorization to use military force so if that was the only authority which in

itself is fraught with all kinds of problems that all goes back to the early days of the post nine eleven era. why do you need section ten twenty one section ten twenty one is really a generalized provision under which the government undo itself once exercised military authority at any time anywhere including as anybody in the united states of america thomas to wrap it up i mean obviously we're living in a very agreed just two tiered justice system where people like new and other whistleblowers are prosecuted for telling the truth yet the torturers the wire tappers are going on book tours gallivanting around the globe talking about their time in government should those people be in jail yes they violated the law agree just like they were and they were enablers in the violation the constitution and here's i sit here before you as the only person prosecuted indicted.

for the surveillance program which i blew the whistle on i had nothing to do with the program i was on offer the program i was on unable the program i ever engage in secret surveillance in violation of the fourth amendment or the foreign intelligence surveillance act yet i am the one that one point as achieves the original chief prosecutor my case stated in no uncertain terms at a secret f.b.i. facility how would you like to spend the rest of your life in prison mr drake unless you start talking that's how serious they were about protecting that secret surveillance program called stellar wind john kiriakou he's the only person going to prison. because of the torture program a state sponsored program which we're now finding out is far vaster was far more expansive than it ever been revealed before at least perhaps more at least fifty

four countries he's the only one going to prison and why because he blew the whistle on it he knowledge of the former cia employee that torture was a state sponsored policy but he never engage in torture he never supported torture any actual refused the torture training and they made it crystal clear during their training at fair trial therefore space this we don't do y. because we're americans and that exceptionalism of america under the constitution we don't do what the others do i never imagined they would turn out in the torture program a vast scale that we ourselves wouldn't get in torture because we're america and we can get away with it because we're america but as i say about us. it was our country. were the only two people the two biggest scales

a bush administration and obama's ration was said we're going to look for it not backward but it looked backward long enough and far enough to actually prosecute indict the two people who blew the whistle on those two programs. to stop the stand must be taken power doesn't yield so she doesn't feel willingly it doesn't you've got to keep exposing disclosing it was going to take more when you start taking our fundamental rights the thing that makes america america for all of our faults and contradictions even those that built into the original constitution. the thing that makes america america are those precious rights that are granted to us as people not to the government and the first and fourth amendment are fundamental all along with the fifth and sixth.

fundamental as the reason why there was an american revolution well maybe it's time for another one. maybe a revolution is needed one of ideas that can empower us to make real change unfortunately that's all the time we have for today so join us tomorrow with abby martin on breaking news that. early stages of military operations.

i've. lived.

live.