me rephrase that how they should conduct themselves how they should protect themselves their own safety and the safety of their pupils and i think that's what the university was trying to do for to get a balance in terms of security and in terms of safety peter it is a university it's not a government it's not a human rights organization it's not any of those groups that would ordinarily be trying to push boundaries change laws or or whatever or have that kind of in influence why should the university be held to account over this if it's going to a different country to try to expand learning in whichever faculty it's trying to expand that. well the university of birmingham has a very clear and very good equal opportunities policy a very strong policy around human rights diversity and inclusion and by going to dubai it is violating its very own rules and principles it is jesson to them just as them in order to make more money and i think that that is the fundamental red line in this case in this in this particular issue it's about money making not

about stand by principles and you know if the birmingham university has a set of values which are the spouses in this country it should ensure that those values are also spiles wherever it's chooses to put up campuses outside of this country it can't have one law for people in britain and then a different law for people in dubai that smacks of our ignorance it's next of western privilege it smacks of disrespecting the human rights of the people of dubai and i want to say that this is not just about the human rights of the lecturers and staff of the university it's also about the human rights of the people in dubai itself live under a very very oppressive regime ok we have to leave it there for now mohammed if we can peter tatchell thanks very much for joining us on r.t. . so we look from moscow for this hour your next update from us follows watching the hawks.

greetings and salutation now that we are in full holiday season mode here in the united states of america many of us are taking the ubiquitous trip home or abroad to see the relatives well we're watching the hawks thought it would be a good time to bring you the latest in travel news concerning our good friends with department of homeland security yes it seems like the little elves working feverishly at the d.h. asses to supposedly protect our friendly skies from terrorists and those evil doers looking to smuggle regular sized bottles of shampoo on to the airplane yes they have decided 5 that facial recognition technology should not just be for foreign

nationals visiting the u.s. shores anymore you know in a new filing the da just proposes that quote to priscilla tate the implementation of a seamless biometric entry exit system that uses spatial recognition and to help prevent persons attempting to progeny use u.s. travel documents and identify criminals and known or suspected terrorists the d.h.s.s. is proposing to amend the regulations to provide that all travelers including u.s. citizens may be required to be photographed upon entry or departure. i yes because remember kiddies in a surveillance based police state every one is a suspect and needless to say the american civil liberties union has a few issues with the idea that u.s. citizens could soon be forced into facial recognition programs just for visiting on hell good new nick j. stanley a senior policy analyst at the american civil liberties union told tech crunch

quote time and again the government told the public and members of congress that united states citizens would not be required to submit to this intrusive surveillance technology as a condition of traveling this new notice suggests that the government is reneging on what was already in sufficient promise which is not surprising given that the u.s. government's history of making promises to respect our privacy is about is it's about as trustworthy as your boyfriends but delany while vacationing in vegas over super bowl weekend and we all know we cheated and that my friends is why we must always be watching the whole us. to see. what it's like you know that i got.

to. welcome everybody to watching the hawks i am and i wrote them for and joining us today to discuss homeland security his new love affair with facial recognition technology is legal journalist and contributor contributor to america's lawyer with might happen tony of the fantastic molly boyle's molly always a pleasure thank you. thank you all right so is this new push by the d h s to implement the usual recognition technology and u.s. citizens entering an exit in the country was it do you think it was ultimately inevitable i mean were we always going to end up in this direction because that's just seems where our government wants to go. i think that's exactly right this department is for pres facial recognition checks for all people now traveling in and out of the united states including as you said u.s. citizens not just foreigners not just visitors and this is new but as you said it

probably was something they've been wanting to do all along you've seen other law enforcement agencies already attempting to do it there's a $1000000000.00 in fact set aside for the f.b.i. to build a data system and we'll talk about that in a 2nd but before this particular proposal citizens had been exempt from those mandatory checks no no no we're not going to scan your face but now they want to scan your face home is security as you know responsible protecting our borders controlling immigration and they say this is needed and they've already been using it more and more to catch visitors travelers who are leaving the country who have overstayed their visas and now they want to expand it to u.s. citizens coming and or going so we'll see you know if this is going to get a lot of public support there are already quite a few people that are concerned about the violation of civil rights but he wants to have facial recognition scanners at the 20 largest airports in the u.s. by 2021 so this is part of that plan to implement those scanners and how they want to implement this plan is to basically cast

a scan blank if you will and scan all of our faces as we come and go catch a new potential criminals and to me this is one of those like classic triple trickle down effect things you know it's like oh it's just for you know people you know foreigners entering the country and foreign travelers oh now it's just u.s. citizens entering and exiting the country from overseas and soon you know at the rate they go it'll be 0 if you're crossing state to state you know if you're traveling from wichita to minneapolis guess what. where does the u.s. citizens right to privacy now larry when it comes to patient recognition technology does our constitution protect us from a or have they moved past the constitution to this point. i think that they want to debate the constitution is what it boils down to so in order to really answer your question i got to talk a little bit about how this all works and essentially they use what you talked about those bio metrics and they want to compare a fair picture that they like they say they scan your face if you're leaving or

coming from an airport they want to compare it to a picture they've already got on hand like a social media picture or government issued id a state driver's license a mug shot something like that and then they use specific memory measurements like the distance between your eyes the width of your nose your jaw and things you might not nestle want to know about yourself but they want to know because they take that they compare it to known picture and to find a possible match so are you who you say you are do you have the right documentation is there anything that they need to know about you it's basically how social media companies tag people in photos so when it's used scientifically with these standards they get a pretty good accuracy rate in 2001 police in tampa used it for the super bowl but guess what they found is that you know if they can control it to a photo that also previously existing photo that also had those same sort of controlled environmental measures if you will then then it works out pretty good but if they're comparing it to an older photo that maybe didn't use those same metrics either not so sure and that's what they found in the super bowl in tampa

they did find people that maybe had some outstanding warrants but they were petty criminals and they also had some mistaken identity so there are some issues with the technology which also plays into concerns about your constitution and it's just one of many concerns when it comes to civil liberties as you mentioned the american civil liberties not at all happy about this. you know they they basically said that people have a right to privacy you know you're talking about the 4th amendment at that point if you walk into a public place you expect that you know you don't necessarily want the government knowing all of your business you have a right to privacy but there is some case law that says that faces are public that when you're out and about put in. face out there it's public however you know it goes back more there's also some concerns about the 1st amendment you know is this going to be violating people's rights from that perspective as well so while the technology is not available for public use that's another reason that they're saying this could potentially have some. constitutional concern so again simply

have a live civil liberties union saying the government has reneged on its promise not to target citizens they say that they are going back and violating their constitutional rights again talking about their privacy and and concerns again that it's a violation of the 1st amendment you have a reasonable expectation of privacy but can you expect that to be applied. especially if the if there is still some bugs in the technology that's being worked out exactly where you bring up so many great point small you know i want to ask this too is one of the dangers we a little bit time with one of the dangers of using facial recognition and other biometrics beyond just the legal and constitutional implications you know and i'm thinking specifically of like how many times have we seen government agencies like the dia just get hacked mail and then suddenly about information becomes in hackers hands. yes that's a very real concern and you've got everyone from the american bar association to the american civil liberties union raising these exact same questions and concerns

you know it's interesting when you had the freddie gray death in baltimore there was a lot of controversy around that roland because he was a black man that died in police custody and there were riots in the streets so police used facial techniques facial recognition technology during those riots and they managed to identify a number of people with outstanding warrants but would they have necessarily been arrested if they hadn't used that technology and you know law enforcement will come in and say it's an effective tool we're getting better with technology all the time we're working out the bugs the f.b.i. is getting a 1000000000 dollars to create a database so they can make these comparisons more accurately but the bottom line is they're still getting your business it's the same is like running a red light they take a picture of your tag you know sure you might have run the red light or come close to it but there's a there's this. is it really breaking the law for no one was there to see it not to say that people are it's important to be safe it's important to recognize potential terrorists or criminals that are coming or entering coming into or leaving our country but the average citizen being subjected to this sort of invasion of privacy

or perhaps inconsistent technology that is what civil liberties folks are up in arms about they say this essentially reneging on the government's promise to you know uphold their constitutional rights and they're just basically moving towards a police state and that they're concerned exactly about going to say thank you thank you so much smaller boroughs will come when you are absolutely from past a good job that you do down there and keep up the great work and always a pleasure and we come back again. thank you. all right hawk watchers i bet you cannot guess what is so important that the united states government just butt 22000000000 dollars on it take a guess student loan forgiveness. public housing construction come on how about how some approved highway or high speed rail projects $22000000000.00 so really the answer is no do all of the above instead we spent $22000000000.00. to clear

powered submarines yes 9 with an option to buy a temp for just the paltry price of $1800000000.00. money well spent here is our to the american side of the story. general dynamics has received a $22000000000.00 contract from the u.s. navy to build 9 nuclear powered submarines over the next decade making and the largest contract in the services history now the actual deliveries of the submarines are scheduled to start in 2025 with an option for a 10th submarine for an additional $1800000000.00 now wood said steve clouse submarines apart is that they're designed to a tag of land and sea targets with tomahawk cruise missiles and other weapons they're also known for their speed stealth maneuverability and advanced technologies used for intelligence gathering these submarines can event generate

their own water and oxygen and can stay submerged for months at a time the submarines are replacing the los angeles class of submarines which were deteriorating to replace retired versions of the cold war era submarine already 18 of the attack submarines have been delivered to date including a $700000000000.00 for the prior installment which at the time was the navy's largest contract these massive contract also comes just months after the head of the u.s. . the navy in the pacific warned of a massive chinese naval buildup and is troubling getting enough submarines to counter it in fact call schuster a former director of operations at the u.s. pacific command joint intelligence center said clode this deal marks a u.s. navy's latest respond to china's growing military power and aggressive actions in the western pacific experts say the u.s.

is facing unprecedented pressure in the press if it largely from the chinese navy that has been making huge leaps in the numbers and quality of its submarine fleet beijing's force is also expected to grow with china in the next 5 years expected to roll out their version of the advanced nuclear powered submarine now the u.s. navy told congress earlier this year that the submarine activity by the 3 u.s. adversaries in the pacific would you call china russia and north korea have increased threefold since 2008 congress however announce that only half of the submarines that the u.s. navy demanded would be authorized in washington side having your r.t. . all right as we go to break or watchers don't forget to let us know what you think of the topics your coverage of our social media be sure to check out watching the hawks the podcast which is now available on spotify apple juice because everywhere you listen to your favorite or not so paper products coming up this week

leaders are beating the market to get them for their 70th anniversary of nato but many around the world are asking if the organization is even relevant to today's world of politics you're almost the institute for public accuracy sam safety of our t.v. producer the bush up biology joins me to discuss you don't want to miss that state to watch. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. ok in the special something we can thank you susan it's

a minute of. yeah but is it also in the gulf where. you thought the whole doping can russia think was over forget it. the full meal for all time about truly a complete pressure we have the last day of some of the muscles and that is. russian athletes eligibility for the international competition says it stake this includes events like the tokyo olympics and the fee for world cup and qatar if i am a daddy as last showing old chestnut you know when you're coming out there just as it was 4 years ago in moscow anti-doping plavix at the center of the scandal so who tampered with the doping samples database and one does greegor you want she could have to do with it and you know she still has reached out to paul does it mean you know. that come with the spokesman that he's the push on the show he will ship might expose me in the ocean that's a little bit to the pollution and then there's nothing.

all right you'd be hard pressed to find a more controversial politically charged birthday gallow than the 70th anniversary celebration of the north atlantic treaty organization or nato that is currently taking place in london this week as the new york times reports the events for nato 70th birthday which was actually celebrated back on april 4th have been considerably to. down the times writes normally the 70th anniversary like the 50th would have been held in washington where the alliances founding treaty was signed with 3 days of pomp substance and white house dinners however the times goes on the right that given mr trump some predictability in his doubts about the alliance nato countries decided to have only a foreign ministers meeting in washington on the actual anniversary in april in fact talk watchers were around the campfires that this week's london get together was really only added because apparently britain wanted to show it still mattered

in transatlantic security affairs what with the whole breck's of affair. talk about high school style intrigue going to global political level but where does nato stand today with the soviet union long gone the very reason nato was even created many historians and political experts around the world are starting to wonder if the world actually needs a nato including at times our own u.s. president donald trump as wonder this joining me today to discuss nato is past present and future is senior analyst for the institute for public accuracy sam husseini and our producer producer in the bush of knowledge thank you both for coming on very a pleasure as always. i want to start off with this and safe i want to get your initial reactions when i when i bring up medo what is your 1st initial reaction was your 1st thought would you forgive nato pretext pretext it's a pretext for intervention it's an alliance that can be utilized to go after libya . sort of go after syria it wasn't officially

a nato operation but it was the us britain and france on the false pretext of chemical weapons as documents are actually increasingly coming from the o.p.c. w. . and the pretext of legalism in the world order when the un when the us doesn't want to or can't use the united nations for an operation interesting interested in the bit about you 1st of all when you're bored middle bombs but. i was i was actually thinking on the lines of fig leaf because what sam just said is all true i regard nato as more of a fig leaf of legitimacy for all of these naked imperialist projects that are basically nato is being so use anonymously as the so-called international community which means nothing and it is not defined at all but hey you get one or 2 or 3 or $28.00 countries to follow the us lead and all of

a sudden it's international community nato it must be a legit nato something that should have ceased to exist 30 years ago well well if. it stated goals work to actual goals of security and all of those allegedly good things i think looking at the current situation going forward trump has really done an incredible con i think by portraying himself in his campaign as a populist and as an interventionist and so on his critique of nato which rang half true when he said it. that you know it's obsolete and so on and so forth but the way that he framed it and the way that it's panned out done is juice it up because he's in effect saying to the other nato members pony up you got to spend more money buying more of our weapons to strengthen the alliance so that he can maintain this false brand of an isolationist and america 1st or while actually

doing the bidding of the empire i'm never going to. he didn't dismantle the american empire i mean this is much has served it up in some different ways than any other president could have done could venezuela look at cuba look at the coup in bolivia look at all of the soldiers you know get their jerusalem look exactly so many things that no one else could have done he did what it's kind of like the nixon going to china only here in reverse. only in reverse the thing with the thing with nato though is that on a certain level a certain cynical level the p more by request to pay more from european allies makes a certain perverse kind of sense because what the nato bombing what the nato war against yugoslavia in 1009 proved is that only to us and maybe to other countries have actually independent military capability and everybody else is just a hanger on everybody else is just a fig leaf everybody else is just there for show and you know sent

a couple of planes and a couple of troops show solidarity but they don't actually have any military capabilities now obviously from the sample. war and peace this is a good thing and you know people not not being able to commit aggression is a good thing but from the standpoint of having an empire and having this weapon of war and seeing everywhere as nails for that hammer to hit no it's terrible and obviously everybody needs a new look back at the original kind of idea of nato it was obviously number one was to prevent the expansion of the soviet union i mean that's what was kind of sold the bill of goods it was going to be a pretext you know we have to join all these going to use regional in 12 countries have to join us to stop the soviet union the spread of communism blah blah blah. today many kind of argue that nato needs to be there to you know handle modern geopolitical threats like a russia or a china but would also but it's also there to prevent you know tensions rising between the countries in its charter and all of the kind of extra countries that

have come along over the years is that a valid argument for nato's messes in a cessna the today i mean should should we be looking at keeping their doors is something that really the world should look at and say we don't really need it it's an archaic thing from a bygone era i think that certain people need it but for again the state purposes that they don't want to state it's a military alliance so it's not a diplomatic alliance it's not intended to further international law or anything of that sort so i don't think that any of those arguments really hold up now it has been used as we said in libya which is now when we're situated it become more of a breeding ground for terrorist operations than a bulwark against terrorism which is how mccrone in trump tower and others are selling it afghanistan and so on and so forth so it's become a way of selling. in effect aggression or at least to germany on the part of the

united states i'll go a step further and say that nato really never was a shield it's always been a war hammer and now did. the war or regional the original war it was designed for ended it's all it's been in perpetual search of nails to hammer down ever since for the past 30 years in fact he was the 1st secretary general of the alliance a british general who said that the purpose of the alliance is to keep the americans in the russians out of the germans down well the americans have stayed in way longer than necessary the russians have stayed out without any reason and the germans are doing a fine job of keeping themselves down so really the whole point of nato is simply don't exist and the best thing you could possibly say is that it might prevent rivalry between the united states and germany or something like another right but. you know there's i mean there are there are jobs out there that's very obscure and are going to see that but that's but it's a pretty you know you want to do so that's really obscure thing of happening and there's a point you had a thing on earlier on the missile you know and so on and i want to mean nato was

the bulwark of the vote against the nuclear weapons been treaty a couple of years ago which was you know 122 countries wanted it and it's passing through all of them i just came from a ploughshares trial in georgia where these people want to know we're pushing this they're facing decades in prison. sentencing is coming up they were declared guilty . for entering the main us facility for trident missiles and nato members were the bulwark of the votes against it at the united states it was the us russia. some nuclear powers actually voted for it nuclear north korea voted for it china abstained but virtually all of the nato countries i think one exception of in the netherlands voted against it so there is a bulwark of keeping in place the u.s. dominance and threat to the world peace of its nuclear weapons that's what things i want to ask you guys is what would what would a 21st century europe look like without nato you know we kind of talk about what it

was we talk about what it is today and what it's doing now what isn't go to only a little bit of time. but what would that look like without nato i mean it could be dystopian if you got into you know you know rivalries and that alone and so forth or it could be incredibly placid and it could wake in a sense that ok let's really genuinely move towards disarmament let's you know put in place you know international also just not it's not just a fig leaf to go after africans to actually in a legitimate way apply international law demilitarization me to europe definitely wouldn't be wouldn't revert to its imperial colonial past it would probably in one of my visions anyway would would could be a bridge between the east and the west with you know the u.s. and russia instead of being locked in the disc i'm pleased sensical great power battle over what over nothing basically having europe as a common ground cooperating but again it's what could have been and what might have

been in had history taken a different turn in circa 1909 history can still take different terms we all keep our fingers crossed the pieces ultimately work finds its way and enough of these military alliances from the 20th century mid to late and sam i want to thank you both for coming on an absolute pleasure to have a great conversation i still think you. are let's push things off today with a little body art watchers i know i'm no i mean from the simplest of world you know x. and ajman tattoos on a ring fingers to hold macneil but have a mix of a back tattoo we love our tattoos and apparently so did our ancient egyptian ancestors and thanks to some cutting edge new technology we are discovering that ancient egyptians were much more prevalent on our mummies than we previously thought at the annual meeting of american schools of oriental research and austin revealed that infrared technology recently helped to identify the previously long hidden tattoos on 7 different by individuals dating back to at least 3000 years ago to the ancient egyptian village of beano el but it was actually home to the

artisans who worked on the tombs of the value. and apparently had some pretty amazing in work to boot my friends. love our tattoos all right everybody that is our show for you today remember going in this world we are not for real love to tell you all. i wrote but keep on watching those folks out there that were great. seemed wrong. to me. to see

power just become active. and engaged equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. germany expels to russian embassy staffers in berlin saying there is a quote sufficient evidence to link russia or chechnya to the murder of a georgian national bosco denies any state involvement. nato celebrations come to an end for its 70th birthday in the u.k. member states in the alliance struggle to find common ground. and donald trump labels the new house intelligence committee report on his impeachment a joke as u.s. democrats hang their hopes on the document being enough to pin the president's.