coming up on r t today president obama spoke at the national defense university the speech centered around counterterrorism tactics around the globe we'll have an update on the speech and what it means when it comes to drones at guantanamo bay straight ahead. a man suspected of being connected to the boston bombers was fatally shot by f.b.i. agents law enforcement claims that the suspect attacked them during questioning more on the shooting and the suspects relationship with the boston bombers. u.s. marine veteran brad brandon robb was thrown into a psychiatric facility by the authorities after he posted critical comments about the government's on facebook now the veteran is facing a are filing a civil suit for what he claims was a wrongful detention will speak with his lawyer.

is thursday may twenty third five pm in washington d.c. lopez and you are watching r.t. president obama delivered an important counterterrorism speech at the national defense university in washington d.c. today the speech comes at a time when the public as well as lawmakers are questioning the tactics the obama administration has continually used during the ongoing war on terror those tactics include the president's drone policy as well as indefinite detention so did we learn anything new from today's speech tell me break it all down i was joined earlier by political commentator sam sex and human rights lawyer david remes david began by talking about what we learned from today's speech. well i can't speak as an expert to everything he spoke on but i don't think that we got very much new from him on guantanamo it was disappointing that he endorsed indefinite detention it was disappointing that he said he'd go back and rework you the yemenis to send

home and most of all it's disappointing that he can see to news to blame congress for his inability to transfer detainees back to their home countries or third countries he simply isn't willing to show the kind of political leadership that's required president obama addressed several issues through this hour long speech that he gave today let's play a part of what he said about guantanamo bay since we're talking about it and given my administration's relentless pursuit of al qaeda leadership there is no justification beyond politics for congress to prevent us from closing a facility that it should should have never been opened. today. so sam he laid out several plans of action when it comes to guantanamo bay what did we learn what are his plans moving forward i think you're right i don't think we

learn much new heat he basically brought everything back to square one he made up the ground that he had lost over the last few years as far as lifting the transfer ban to yemen he put that transfer ban on you know in two thousand and ten. as far as bringing you know setting up military tribunals in the united states this is stuff he's already proposed he's backtracked from his promise in two thousand and seven rallies in two thousand he was running for president and now he seems to be trying to make up some of the lost ground he's made in the last few years but nothing really significantly new to move it forward to close the facility and the president is not being truthful when he says that congress is preventing him from doing it congress gave him an out with the national security waiver to do that to start releasing some of these guantanamo. prisoners and he's chosen not to do that whether it's because of the he's afraid of the political consequences of that or whatever he's chosen not to do it in our congress now at the same time david the president did make it seem like his will is that the whim of congress he really

made it seem as if his hands are tied when it kwan comes to guantanamo bay what do you make of this i believe that he's justifying his lack of action on guantanamo he does have the authority under a national security waiver provision of the relevant law to transfer detainees when he believes that it serves the national security interests of the united states to do so clearly it does with respect to these detainees including the yemenis one only has to look at the effect that it has on our international standing and the goodwill or lack of it in the muslim and arab world to see why it would be in our interest to send them home and he did say that under president bush some five hundred ninety people were actually transferred but when it comes to his administration he started with i think sixty seven before congress are reined in on him and actually stop that from happening so sam what about the idea of the people that he says we cannot prosecute he talked about the people who we just don't have

evidence against people who the evidence against him has been compromised or is inadmissible in court today saying we actually planned on addressing that no not at all i mean he basically alluded to this military tribunal process and of course a lot of these people the evidence against them was was obtained. through either torture or enhanced interrogation or whatever sort of coercion that would be permissible in court i believe he said something vague like once we begin the process then all these other things will be worked out as far as these other other prisoners go but i mean really this is a giant question mark of what to do with these individuals and it's a mess that you know has been created out of creating guantanamo i mean it was supposed to be this kind of legal nether world and in cuba there in guantanamo. and now it's coming back to bite as eleven years later we still don't have any idea what to do with these individuals and the problem is that oftentimes it seems these days that we are weighing the idea of putting people indefinitely in detention

we're says the idea of killing them with drones it really seems like it's one or the other and the way that president obama and others have put it out so let's talk about drones president obama says that he uses them as a last resort and that congress agrees to each and every single attack that he has used against drugs that they're just a necessary tool of war let's take a listen to what he had to say in further detail for the record i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen with a drone or with a shotgun without due process nor should any president deploy armed drones over u.s. soil. now sam at the same time he was speaking about anwar al hakim before he said that he said yes once somebody leaves the u.s. and they become an imminent threat then yes it's ok do you see a dichotomy here it will not come it was a clear swipe at rand paul and other conservatives who kind of made

a bit of an absurd issue that drones are going to start shreiking people and that's it's going to but he really believes that's going to happen but it's distracting from the major issue and that is that drones are killing innocent people around the world and also radicalizing populations all around the world and he mentioned an oral aki and he devoted significant amount of time in his speech to talking about wonder what circumstances he was targeted the process he went to to target and where a lot here which shows that you know the white house is listening to a lot of people who are bringing up these concerns especially about anwar oh archey and you had mentioned civilian deaths of the obviously this is a huge part of it but he did say that civilian deaths come with any part of a war and that if you compare it to history he says that drones cause a much fewer deaths than say what saw in afghanistan and iraq and in vietnam a significantly fewer david can you talk about yes i'm against drones for the reason that many people are for them it makes it easier to engage in war it makes

it cheaper it surely decreases civilian deaths over what they would otherwise be if we were dropping bombs on them as we didn't viet nam that's the appeal of drones it still raises the moral question of whether or not we should be targeting people with drones. and i mean the president did lay out this new presidential policy guideline in his speech something he said he signed yesterday and it's unclear whether or not this is a real policy shift from the last few years to moving forward and we do know that drone strikes are down around the world since two thousand and ten. whether that's because we've taken out a bunch of targets and don't have as many targets is that we need to. better whether it's a result of sort of a new policy that wants to take kind of greater care not of inflicting civilian casualties that remains to be seen but you know that could be news moving forward if that's the case if they are going to try and strengthen these guidelines over

over drone strikes and finally president obama was heckled a couple of times during his speech let's take a listen here he when he went on to. we went all. about. the voice of that woman. is worth paying attention to. obviously obviously. obviously i do not agree with much of what she said and obviously she wasn't listening to me in much of what i fit but these are tough issues and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong. so that was medea benjamin she's a code pink founder a vocal advocate against drones really protesting it there do you think that

because of the fact that american polls one after another have shown that americans do support drones do you think people are listening to president obama over protests or sam will start with you will with the president says that we should listen to be a benjamin is right she's been in pakistan and she's been in these regions of where these drone strikes have taken place she knows the consequences of them so you know and when it when he says that she wasn't listening to him while she was talking about sixteen year old son which he wasn't talking about it all that's why she brought it up david your overall just final word here my final word is that i fear that this speech will lead people to conclude that these problems have been solved and will put the issues out of their mind and it'll be another five years before we hear about guantanamo once again fascinating discussion thank you guys for coming in and weighing in political commentator sam sax and david remes he's a human rights lawyer on out of the story of a chechen immigrant who was shot to death in florida by the f.b.i.

twenty seven year old. of was being questioned by the f.b.i. and local authorities about a triple homicide that happened back in september of two thousand and eleven it is this same triple homicide that authorities believe may have been connected to the boston bomber marathon bomber tom a federal law enforcement agents say the man attacked and then stabbed an f.b.i. agent during the questioning that's when officers opened fire killing him. and the older brother were friends from mixed martial arts training authorities say that todashev was not a suspect accomplice in the boston bombings for more on this case and the law enforcement actions in the moments that led up to the suspects death i was joined earlier by shahar osses she's a associate law professor at texas was leon university she provided more insight into who. is. well he seems to have been to sociate it's unclear whether he was

a close friend or just. a far. rather between we were involved in boxing or martial arts movies and use the boss noone. had moved to florida for reasons that are unclear so the we had that in common then the news reported that. he was a suspect and appeared to be about to sign a confession about a triple slaying they're going to burn in boston may appear to be perhaps gone wrong it's unclear details are other than will be people were killed and they were found the way of marijuana going on and why it's so also have a few incidents where interactions with law enforcement are a month before he was told he had an altercation in a parking lot where the father and son will be and he thought their son in be

unconscious in. a minute going to the hospital so. mystery was a bit checker in terms of use of force so let's talk about what happened after that once they f.b.i. officers got into that house and started questioning him first of all as you said he had a history of violence has been arrested before second of all he's a professional mixed martial arts expert do you think that enough precautions were taken in order to question this man or could there have been some more precautions that could have avoided violent outcome like this. well we know very little about what happened. as the only source of information is the f.b.i. and presumably it's not in their self-interest more of you know too much information you can sense there is now investigating into it's not because this would possibly be a case of excessive force in violation of things prosecution rights so the question

is why did the officer use their orders reach general re something of last resort and principle. whether they action was reasonable or that it was necessary so for example in self-defense or defense of a third person if he had for example. brought a gun and was about to be officer of a gun the officer if you was about to be sealed or shot you could shoot back out or necessity that would be considered a reasonable use of force as opposed to an excessive use of force but it's unclear whether he in fact had never really know once of the people the gun but there was some. talk about whether he will knife but when the f.b.i. retracted that incident we want more exactly what happened so there is certainly question as to whether shooting him was the use of excessive force because even if

it were an example if he had punched the officer it's not common or it could possibly be reasonable in unnecessary to shoot someone if you in defense of being punched hughes who are supposed to mince words so hard as we really don't have that much time left there was a few people that actually came out and said that he might have stabbed that officer that that officer might have a sustained injuries and and the hospital but none of them were life threatening but now that the suspect is dead what what happens now what can we possibly learn that he could have revealed in the future. well to the extent that you knew about the boston bombings. an intelligence source. even if you didn't recognize the boston bombings he may have known about other associates of the older brother or possibly even younger brother so i think he's certainly a lot of the new knowledge and sort of students that there. were even knew about people who knew him but also there's just

a concern as to whether or not. in whether or not this is it's not the notwithstanding if you've been charged with someone else that doesn't need some our . associate law professor at texas wesleyan university thank you so much for that analysis very much well a few months ago we told you about the case of brad and rob he's a twenty six year old decorated marine veteran who served both in iraq as well as afghanistan he was arrested and put into a psychiatric institution in august last year for some incendiary facebook posts. like my right. here's video of brandon rob's arrest he was detained without charges and was order to spend up to thirty days in a psych ward well that court order was later dismissed now brandon robb is suing the government for infringing on his first amendment rights yesterday i spoke with his lawyer john whitehead he's a constitutional attorney at the rutherford institute and i asked him to go into

more detail about rob and arrest and what has happened in the your sense. well he was arrested for facebook was. then taken into custody and then eventually put the mill ospital. and so the facebook posts were basically his complaining about where the government is operating he was again arrested and cuffed behind his back he actually called the police and said one of the charges they said oh he's not charged really in cross. so we obviously got him out of the mental hospital about a week and we had a judge actually ruled release team that there was no credible evidence whatsoever to hold him and so within this last about eight or nine months that we've been preparing for this lawsuit so what legal team and we file the first amendment fourth amendment case today in the federal district court in richmond and a false imprisonment case so he was arrested for his first amid activities and he was searched in c. . without probable cause the government did not even have

a search warrant because they did not have enough evidence to get it there is no evidence him ever owning a gun in fact he doesn't own a weapon so obviously he wasn't dangerous and so i see this case basically as a shot across the bow to in the government before you do this you need to follow the constitution and you need to do your work your homework don't go around the harassing veterans and we'll get to your alonso in just a second as you had mentioned u.s. circuit court judge alan sharratt eg knowledge of the fact that the authorities had broken brandon robb's first fourth fifth and fourteenth amendment rights was there any sort of apology issued. on that fact i had better troops of call me around the country this is happening to other veterans that i've been taken into custody but the f.b.i. is actually showing up their doorstep saying we're investigating text messages e-mails the national security agency contacted one veteran said it read as e-mails they were concerned so this is a national phenomenon given the rob cases basically saying if you don't do this

you're going to get sued so talk about the lawsuit what is the law saying they are currently filing an. who are you suing what type of reparations are you hoping for in this case we're showing. the police officers the f.b.i. the secret service a psychotic to shoot a short examination of the mob he was in jail and some other employees of the so-called commission that had him. arrested basically and taken into custody. again we're hoping they have a railroad with you some compensation they could improve health in a mental hospital and the his whole family was traumatized and also we're asking that the go government be enjoined and the kids not harass him anymore so that's the basis of our lawsuit i do hope i think we have a case here but hope it puts these fellows on notice their wealth or is a lot of places taken over the poll the constitution all they need to do that now

as i understand it brandon rog's our facebook postings that were so controversial were actually spotted by operation vigilant eagle what is not and how was your client actually spotted from it well basically operation vision eagle is a program that was put into effect by the part of homeland security right after dinner conall issued to memo the right wing extremism left wing extremism and the right wing extremism memo that veterans are actually mention returning veterans as being people who need to be watched you know their government when i read those memos a person i thought was oh my gosh i'm guilty of it to anybody would be an extremist if you if you disagree with the obama administration so best but operation a visual illegally as it's a way to say that they want to do surveillance or returning veterans to watch them if they get out of control basically anti-government sentiment they can be investigated and possibly civil to commit a militia so are you saying that the u.s.

government is targeting veterans as possible extremists. oh yeah they say if you read the right wing extremism memoir is commentary on our website relevant dot or you can read that but you know it's very clear vessels are actually mentioned as possible extremists and are as a minimal actually the word extremists and terrorists are using a change of lately to come to the conclusion that you could be a terrace of the returning veteran like right or wrong and he's very vocal about how he disagrees with the government your extremist may be a terrorist now as you have mentioned earlier sense come to brandon to the fence i understand that you've had a lot of other veterans come in and reach out to your organization and speak about some of our experiences when you say that this is a common occurrence or just a few exceptions most common occurrence in fact we recently had a fellow who e-mailed us. about the things going on in secret training exercises and the next day the national security agency showed up and threatened to deport me he came into my office weeping so this is very intimidating. and it makes me angry

. we don't go around to many for go send people overseas to fight these wars we don't want pretty much criminals and women return and that's the purpose of this lawsuit basically to help brandon but also to help us get a government off their backs john hope my viewers understand why the target veterans what could this have possibly done what were they going for in your client's case. i think years ago the paranoia the question is why is the whole of security of our military bodies one hundred fifty million rounds all point well if we don't know there is a paranoia with this they think maybe could actually really resist it but most of this i talk to the little. resist safest they've been they've been overseas they've seen certainly don't like a lot of the looks the drone strikes and all things you say they come back and they're very upset and they want to get very very vocal if restaurant happens to be one of those a bit well please keep us updated on this case of file as well as the future cases

that come up john whitehead constitutional attorney at the rutherford institute thank you for joining us. well it's thursday and that means it's time for our weekly tech report on the docket for today our t. is taking on twitter yesterday the social networking site announced a two factor authentication authentication system and hours of bolster security in the wake of numerous high profile account hacks and that fact has angered the founder of mega upload ten dot com he claims he invented the technique and patented it back in two thousand nine hundred ninety nine dot com now alleges that twitter google facebook and other sites use this technique and are actually infringing on his creation here to give me his one hundred forty characters is john breaux ten he's a senior i.t. reporter for hours technica hi there john thank you so much for joining us let's start off with the technology itself how does this two factor authentication system work. it's two factor authentication and so typically when you log into website

you're using one factor and that's your password your username and password the second factor in the system is yourself so when you log in to your password the system sends you like a six digit security code that you then typed in and that proves that you are who you really are and basically in order to hack someone when you have to factor authentication set up they would need both your password and they would also need to steal your cell phone so it's very unlikely that they would be able to take over your account so you believe that this technology actually makes hacking harder oh absolutely and what about enhancing users' privacy settings. privacy settings for twitter and i'm not sure how that's related ok now kim dotcom says that he owns the path and does he have a case here well he has a patent which describes a two factor authentication system but that patent was already invalidated in

europe because there was a previous patent. and i believe others that described basically the same thing he still has this patent in the us i believe that's mainly because no it's challenge it yet but you know if you were to attempt to sue someone with this patch people would point out that this technology has actually been around for decades and there were patents that came before him as well and that's going to ask at the same time the idea of this two factor authentication system might have been ken dot coms but the actual legwork to create it was not his obviously so what makes it proprietary . well actually i don't think the idea was here's the first place i think it's actually been around for decades the only new thing is using it on cell phones instead of some other type of security device. what makes a proprietary i'm not sure there actually technology standards around this that companies like microsoft and google and facebook follow i believe so it's not

generally approach upright terry technology if he had a case which i kind of doubt he does you know at worst he could force these companies to pay him a license but so far there's no evidence that he's actually going to sue anyone and the sun the next question i was going to ask you has not sued in the past so why should we believe that he will soon now and actually follow through on threats i don't think so i think he's trying to get some attention and he is he you know as you know he's under criminal copyright investigation he claims his legal bill is going to be like fifty million dollars so one thing he said was that you know hey facebook google twitter instead of going to court mind you just you know help me fund my legal defense i kind of doubt they're going to do that unless you actually filed a lawsuit but he's kind of busy with this other case i don't really see him filing a lawsuit and just to go over some of the notable twitter hacks that we are talking about the associated press a burger king jeep financial times the onion human rights watch n.p.r. c.b.s.

on line in the guardian all say that they have been hacked so talk about this switching to this and will this eventually stop everything is this the end all all be. now there's no such thing as perfect security but you know what you want to do is create a password that is you know like a long string of numbers and letters and characters and in addition to that you know for your most important counts your twitter facebook e-mail your bank especially if they have two factor authentication you definite want to navel that the idea is that if you were to ever log in from a new computer a new computer that you never logged into the site before it web site will know that it will challenge you by sending you this offense occasion code and in most cases a hacker won't be able to get past. john broadcasting your ip reporter at ars technica thank you so much thank you. well he was the private first class who found a way to link hundreds of thousands of classified documents of wiki leaks to wiki

leaks it was the biggest document drop in american history but this high profile case has been shrouded in secrecy with military court loopholes and redacted documents keeping the details scarce and the defense silent now a group of reporters along with wiki leaks founder julian assange have filed a joint complaint over the way the government is handling the military tribunal of bradley manning they argue that the judge and prosecution are violating their first amendment rights by keeping the majority of the court proceedings secret the complaint says quote these violations are particularly egregious in the light of the first amendment mandates that even temporary defra visions of the right of public access constitute irreparable harm and given the supreme court's frequent pronouncements that openness promotes not just public confidence in the criminal process but also accuracy in fact finding an ultimate outcomes the first amendment the us demands. excuse me cohen to. cohen to provide.

access to documents and proceedings in court martial while the proceedings are taking place the plaintiffs include julian a son should guardian columnist glenn greenwald democracy now host amy goodman the nation magazine and the center for constitutional rights the group filed a similar lawsuit last year that was shot down by the u.s. court of appeals of the armed forces bradley manning's trial is slated to begin on june third he faces a possible life sentence for allegedly leaking seven hundred thousand sensitive military documents to wiki leaks and that's going to do it for now for more on the story as we cover go to youtube dot com slash r t america check out our website r t dot com slash usa and follow me on twitter underscore lopez see that. you know how sometimes you see

a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harmon welcome to the big picture. with. out of sight but still on our minds. the norm let's try to live smarter with smartphones you know or know what some people are hiding and can't be sure to you prove down to the molecular level learned that what the doctor ordered is often based on secrets under our skin let us shine the light on a kid in a world. we've got the future covered.