the the, the news ahead of the 911 unable reality has been looking at the lasting impact of the us led war on terror. today we'll be hearing from a british army veteran on the devastating toll of the 20 year afghan conflict. we've lost too many people, the situation which we just gave appointment. so to come, the tele bonneville, this new government for afghan is done including a terrorist on the f. b i most wanted list washington left with no option to cooperate with the incoming leadership. the surly and high court rules that media companies can be held liable for defamatory 3rd party comments posted on the

facebook pages. decision didn't go down well, vote with news outlets. we'll be discussing the ruling with a panel of guess. awe . thanks so much for joining us, midnight here in moscow. this is our to almost 2 decades of passes, the horrors of 911, the event that triggered america's war on terror. we're continuing to investigate the lasting impact those complex have had on the lives of millions in our special project on heard voices. the will use all tools at our disposal. killed our children for united states will bring people to your site. it was a pointless exercise. among those who paid the highest price for the

afghan invasion, worthy, $457.00 british personnel killed in action. but for those looking up to make it how many it was still left with lasting trauma and see in the account of trevor colt, he served in the british army for 20 years, including 4 tours of africa, this done and to receive one of the highest honors for his service, i take my life last year and i was in a wheel by the way, my mind and i nearly lost my son. i didn't know what to do. a lot of the guys and i was with don't really talk to each other any more. i mean, they're going try to delete it and move away. so we'll put, put quite a few people lives in the law spot for 5 years. most recent is only a few months ago. i

few been through hell and you're still living it. you just get a feeling of fear. somebody wouldn't understand, you know, and given the order to kill someone, still few people get upset about things today that don't need a lot satellite i want so i can my coffee. i really just drink the coffee when i 1st went to go on, we were told that we were going to burn the poppy fields to the promised work and do not, not plan change them. and we landed in a scar on our troops in a way that they haven't for many years are going to be fighting alongside other countries and situations of great danger. solis are very good at taking orders and

just getting on with it. i'm not questioning orders, but as you go through the years and you mature and you start to sort of have to bring in the things yourself and realize why we here. what are we doing? we're not looking at the style. i think there was a pointless exercise. what's happening in the south of afghanistan, that is the residence about the taliban trying to get back power. ah, we want our way back. and the taliban had already got in the grind that we'd already cleared. my friend, my really was just a couple, stood on one and died instantly, lost his arms and legs. i believe it's 17 casualties all from, from our group out of each of those casualties. you've got quite a few guys affected by what they've seen. it's trauma on top of trauma as a constant heights about, over a weeks and weeks and most ah

u. k. troops and officials would run the plot to a more serious deadline. it, thanks to that colossal exertions this country has not been processed, check vetted, and ended more than 15000 people to safety in less than 2 weeks. i mean, it's been a complete mess. had binds in ministration, worked with the rest of his allies. it would've been, we were going to leave anyway, but we could have done it in a systematic approach. for instance, you don't even need to have a middle mindset. you understand that if you're going to extract from a country, you bring back all your citizens from the embassy, put them into secure b. s and then fly them. what you don't doing is flyers your military and angle. what about the, what about the civilians? and i got tional home be 600 version m, 16 weapon systems,

3 stars and bombs left behind. so last, munitions that can use for id. like, last night i was watching. last night i watch a video of telephone draft as us special forces moving in behind her to take control of fortune x, which, you know, it's just unbelievable. we don't have too many people for situation which we just gave upon highly decorated, the former british army officer trevor colts throughout the week will be hearing from all people, both soldiers and civilians whose lives were irrevocably altered by america's longest war in our special coverage on heard voices 9 days after the us pull out from afghanistan, the country has a new government in waiting. it consist mostly of hard line taliban militants. and the u. s. as it's in no rush to recognise that new regime that said white house, i did it as little option,

but to work with the very tired group. it went to war against 20 years ago. there are new acting, interior minister is her carrying network terrorists. these wanted for bombing the kill, think people including an american, he believed to have participated in cross border attack against us troops. there's a $10000000.00 bounty on his head. why are we engaging? should we not, should we not talk to the people who are overseeing ganeth stan and just leave it and not get the rest of the american citizens out with the international community is watching. the united states is watching. its whether they let people depart the country who want to depart, whether they treat women across the country as they have committed to treat them and how they behave and operate. and therefore we're not moving toward recognition . at the same time, we're dealing with a reality world here we have to engage in order to get american citizens and others out of the country. the taliban unveiled is all male interim government. on wednesday the military will be led by the sun. the telephone founder,

the interior administer is a militant wanted in the u. s. for deadly bombings. they included 2017 truck blasting cobble, the killed 150 people. the taliban leadership will also include members of the us designated tara group who had former guantanamo inmates. the prison has been operating in the us military base in cuba for 19 years and not time, almost 800 people have been. however, without charge or trial, many subjected water boarding stress positions and sleep deprivation. for miss c, i a officer john kitty k who lifted the lid on a piece of interrogations at guantanamo, still stands by his decision to speak out. i have 0 regrets. i will never have any regrets. somebody had to tell the american people that the government was committing crimes in their name. you know, when we try to convince the world that we are a shining beacon of human rights and respect for civil rights and civil liberties. and then they see us carrying out

a torture program at secret prisons around the world. it just makes us look so hypocritical. i can understand why any country would want to emulate the united states in a situation like that. the end of this 20 year military campaign by the united states in afghanistan. did you ever imagine that it would and so quickly, so frantically. no, i didn't imagine so, and i don't think any americans did just like know, americans assumed in september or october of 2001 that 20 years later we would be having this conversation. you know, president biden said just about a month ago that he believed that the african government could hold out for 6 more months. in fact, they held out for 6 days. and i think that that he gave that 6 month time because that's what he was told by the cia. and it just goes to show you that this was another intelligence failure in

a long line of intelligence failures. i think the asked at the afghan people rightly resent the united states for 20 years of occupation and then in the end, nothing to show for it, but death and destruction. we made this terrible, terrible mistake called nation building, where we decided that it was, it was incumbent upon us to impose a western style democracy on a country that never had any history of western style democracy. and then we couldn't understand why it didn't stick. what we have to have is true and robust, congressional oversight, which we have not had in decades. what you see general is a group of congressional cheerleaders for the cia, the f, b i, the defense department, and the state department. and that has to stop. there has to be legitimate, true oversight, where members of congress tell the government to stock crimes are being committed

and then we have to see those crime prosecuted and see the people who carried out those crimes punished. we haven't seen that in many, many years. meanwhile, the united nations human rights body, his world, the afghan is done, is facing a total collapse of basic services with food and life. saving a to bounce, run out. it estimates at least $600000000.00 in aid will be needed by the end of the year to prevent a catastrophe. you and also reports nearly half of afghanistan's population. the 38000000 needs humanitarian aid among them. 3 and a half 1000000 people internally displaced by conflict. red cross president pizza. myra, traveled to the country. if it's to medical facilities that before meeting with the new african government, he also spoke to anti the on the one side, you will see all that these are the remnants of war. you see these camps, these vehicles, military vehicles,

you'll see distraction where fighting has taken place, including in some of the cities like glasgow and others. and on the other hand, you see a normality of life and normal life. you see that this country is and has been affected by 40 years of war and by poverty. and the 2 together create enormous human period meet we had a long conversation with one of the deputy of the. now we're now in government, a very substantive conversation with him self and with some of his closer age and collaborators in order to ensure that the humanitarian space, which is needed for a good, impactful, and usually humanitarian assistance are guaranteed. i think we got

a lot of understanding and also good sense that we need further dialogues as we move forward the messaging service, what's up prides itself on advanced encryption technology that supposedly keeps your message is private. but it turns out most uses the hunting of a fall, more data to the parent company facebook than thought to meet you. panic has more everyone likes their privacy. and when you use a messenger like whatsapp that keeps hammering on and on about how secure it is, you're inclined to believe that your private data stays well private. well, shocker, that's apparently not the case. what's up turns out to be, well, not that private and it's owner. facebook keeps paying hundreds of millions in fines for privacy violations. and that's after numerous promises from zocker berg about insuring a truly secure experience on their platforms. i believe the future of communication

will increasingly shift to private encrypted services where people can be confident, what they say to which others stay secure. this is the future i hope will help bring about that was back in 2019 and what was supposed to be the messenger to bring about a part of that private future. but come on, this is facebook we're talking about, according to a recent investigation by the pro public a platform, it turns out facebook actively undermined its security assurances. though an encrypted data available for scrutiny is extensive. it includes the names and profile images of the uses. what's up groups, as well as the phone number, profile, photo status, message phone, but your level language and time zone unique mobile phone id and ip address. and that's not all. other unencrypted data reportedly includes access to the user's entire list of electronic devices. any related facebook or instagram accounts the last time they use the app and even a history of any previous violations,

not exactly what you would call complete privacy, although a spokesperson for what i did reiterate that users messages are still encrypted and are only seen when they are forwarded to the user submitted report system, the decisions we make around how we build out app. our focus around the privacy of our users maintaining a high degree of reliability and prevention abuse. but the company doesn't just stop at batting accounts, which have been reported by users. they've also allegedly share all the information they have with the justice department. apparently, what's ab metadata played important role in the arrest of a former senior advisory at the us treasury? natalie may edwards, who had been sent to prison for leaking sensitive information to the media, describing how dirty money flows through us. banks edwards has maintained. she leaked the documents in a bid to expose corruption. notice was accountability and the american people had the right to know what was occurring with the treasury. and that just was a national security issue. and the american lives were in jeopardy instead of the

government doing their job, they decided to come after a whistleblower with the increasing rate at which the u. s. government requests information from all facebook affiliated platforms. it's plausible to assume there will be more arrests based on may the data in the near future. and while facebook promises but it cares about security and privacy, if it's users at the end of the day, it doesn't seem to have an issue collecting and giving out information to those who ask for it seems the company is more concerned with stopping the spread of what they call disinformation, and with trying to assert their influence in politics, instead of actually remembering that they started as a social media site, it's true to say that nothing is really private nowadays, but that doesn't change the fact that when a company assures and promises its users that something will be encrypted and they, they will not be able to review the content of their messages. when that trust is broke. i think that they should be entitled to, at least, frankly, at this point,

some sort of compensation. there are different protections for consumers in every industry, but for some reason, tech companies seem to be the only ones out there that can, once again, regular, on terms of service and for their customers trust with no consequences, largely. and i think it's about time that the actual elected officials in the world start asserting their power against these tech james and reminding the silicon valley billionaires that know they are not our rulers, and that nobody elected them. they are not above the law. a hi caught in australia has ruled that some of the country's largest media companies can now be held liable for defamatory 3rd party comments posted on the social media pages. the case was triggered by dylan for the a former detainee and an australian youth detention center. he claimed negative comments posted on an image of him, shackled in a spits hood on, social media were defamatory. now major news outlets that included sky news and the

sydney morning herald. they appealed that ruling claiming that they couldn't be held responsible for 3rd party comments made on their social media post. the decision though, was upheld by the high court the acts of the parents in facilitating encouraging and by assisting the posting of comment spot a 3rd party facebook uses rendered them publishes of those comments. the appellants attempts to portray themselves as passive on unwitting victims of facebook's functionality has an air of unreality. having take an action to secure the commercial benefits of the facebook functionality, the appellants bear the legal consequences. facebook has yet to comment on that court decision, but it looks likely that the strictly news outlets may now disable the comments feature or post few stories on social media, something they say restricts freedom of speech. this decision was time. the exchange of ideas encourage and facebook uses to turn off opportunities for comment

. i call on australia is attorneys general to address this normally and bring australian law into line with comparable western democracies. well, let's discuss the ruling now with a panel of guests joined by chadwick, more journalist and compensated jennifer to master legal analyst and build new privacy activist and technology expert. thank you to you all. i'm sure you'll have strong opinions on this bit between you 1st each other as a, as a journalist, how do you feel about this? is it right the media being held responsible for 3rd party posts? it is interesting. it does appear. you know that it's going to staple speech, it's interesting that the media would be held accountable for a facebook page which, you know, they don't, they may post content, they don't actually own it. facebook owns everything that goes onto their platform . that's very clear. this is very different than a media company being held accountable for comments on their own articles on their own websites. so here facebook is once again, sort of reading the lie that they're

a neutral platform and that the owner is all on people post page because obviously not a neutral platform. they're a company with an editorial voice. they're a publisher. they just get free content from news organization. so it's interesting that it almost says that these pages are owned by the news organizations in which they're not. another thing is that it's supposed is that people actually say, comment section, seriously, it kind of speaks very lowly of the court opinion of the public that people are reading common as though they have gone through an editorial process through the publication which these people are commenting when you know most people read comments we entertain, they know it maybe a bunch of yahoo's and most people are basically able to do their own research and looking into things that people are claiming. and the section, it's kind of a stretch to hold a publisher accountable for defamation or what have you, based on just what someone on the internet wants to say on their facebook feed,

jennifer, it seems like this could have huge ramifications. you tell me, does this, don't with facebook, does this go to all social media companies at the end of the, the, the monitoring of comments on all websites, everywhere around the world. oh, i think it will, you know, anytime there is a round, great breaking chief like this, you know, other, other courts and other, other potential litigants are going to start to see that sort of opportunity to afford. so i think it could be, in essence, it could maybe fred for other companies. i agree completely. what, what, what can i saying about how these tech giant, the social media companies like facebook and twitter other are able to sort around their own liability for setting up the platform as publishers themselves. because we all know that they absolutely have the ability to go to take our comment. and so we're all on the, on the actual users, the liability and the user that i think that again,

allows for the liability. but it also could open the door up to, to more responsibility, more responsibility for the social media giant. because we all know now that the communications decency act in the us, which you're the tech companies cart blash to allow whatever they want and to take off and remove whatever they want, doesn't make them public church. and you know, these, some of these news outlets, i mean, they have, have lots of troubling articles. there is a lack of trust and faith in the news. and the major news corporation, especially in the year and people are afraid to be that the comments that continue to perpetuate that or that might cause some kind of defamation of need to be at least look at. especially when these are the people that have a lot more of a platform, but again, that is a platform that was provided by facebook, twitter, and others. it gets out to a much bigger audience and the news, really the information channels that we change. that's why we're going to be continuing litigation in the field because people are going to address this. and i

think even in coming months in years, we're going to continue to the backlash against not only news outlets, but also social media companies that have allowed some of the stuff to perpetuate, which is for people and also very good, a kind of a double edged sword seems like the companies enjoy them. maybe they kind of create more interest. they generate a buzz around an article or a particular topic, but the, but also they come with that dangerous side that people will say, hey, a lot of hateful, potentially defamatory stuff. is this the best solution now, but what's being proposed or is there a better way to go? there are a lot number of responsible publishers who are reporting the news in a very responsible manner. but there are also the other under the spectrum, a member of tabloid, like publications, but publishing rabble rousing content in sort of click white format, which is designed to get a drive attention. and i was much goldman. and he's like lighting the rabble,

rousing extremism and defamation. so they just stand back and watch with glee because they're driving up british driving up advertising clicks and they start to gain from it. and they see to wash their hands by standing back and claiming what we're just publish it. but you need to differentiate between the publishers that are actually doing a thoroughly professional job. a bose that are publishing this soldier rabble rousing quickly. and i think we need some accountability that needs to be accountability directly on those posting the comments. and if you want to pursue those people, you can put at the same time if the media companies are encouraging the doing what they publish on facebook or other platforms to generate interest, to have those little rabble rousing plate bite, then they need to share some of the blame it and i want to bring it back to

jennifer just because of the legal element of this journey for i can think of certain tabloids websites such as was referring to that he will cover an article perhaps pertaining to a celebrity. and i can think in particular a couple of recent professional football, a scam was one of whom the football was, it was suggested they've been involved in a child sex abuse case. now they weren't their identity wasn't revealed because of the, the fear that it would reveal the victims identity. but then you go in the comment section and the identity very quickly becomes apparent because they get docked by the commenters. and this is wald west where anything will go on there. so would this be a good thing if you can shut down that kind of thing happening? you know, it is the double edge sword, the, the top issue because you know, in one way we should, we should take personal responsibility. we should be able, we should be allowed to have the freedom of speech regardless of what that is. and

i hope that people have the wherewithal to know what to follow, what was more. but on the other hand, i think what the really important we see here is that is that social media has become so large. the audience is so large. whereas before facebook, maybe a tabloid or any kind of news outlet that was going to publish a story about somebody on particular football player, anybody else or publish any kind of story. whether true or false would maybe have whoever their subscribers were, maybe a couple 100010108 couple, a couple 100. now with a book this outlook does not matter. has an audience of millions and millions of people. 1.2000000000 people around the world, and so the i is, is much, much larger. you're looking at a lot more chances for damages or onto one reputation. and so that's why i think, i think at the very least, based with that we should have been mentioned or, or look at in part of that is having these large audiences because we know that they can also choose what is that and what goes in,

especially but what the court was saying here was that when an article published, even if they try not mention the name there, still, it's still be a part of that article that happy comments because you chose to put it, you're encouraging people to comment purging people to say things, whatever that might cause to a 3rd party or somebody else. and that is what they're looking at is that people a lot more people are going to read comments from, say a john, go with 10 follower. if it's on some major tabloid article or even any major new organization subway, do you think me to do take, need to take some responsibility in the sense that in this you know, that there is a fight now for the attention by major organizations and they didn't use the comment section as a way of whipping up interest in a story, and they must be fully aware of the inflammatory things that they said the money them very, very hateful and very defamatory on many subjects. but it serves that purpose. do they need to take more responsibility for this?

media organizations already had held groups truly high standards out various obviously in which country are in. it's much more lax here in the united states in terms of getting sued for defamation. and you know, if they do not do their due diligence, if they're not careful in their words and how they present facts and of course they can and will get sued and they will suffer greatly for that. so the meal resistance recovering there and you know we're come to tabloid installation of things. i mean, like when does that ever not been the case? that's been the way journal of the know what, what about the home and section the child that's a bit and talking about. the journalists may be quite careful, but the anything goes in the comments section. and that's what a lot of people now will will if you just go on, for example, e mail online people will go in just for the salacious comments rather than the article. well, most news organizations do monitor their comments, especially on their own website, well, full time people to get rid of extremely hateful language. maybe you know somebody using like racial slurs or something, they will get rid of that. so, you know,

they do have some employee can do that. i think the difference here is that you're talking about facebook and you're holding, it's a facebook property. you know, we always have our social media, new, public square. obviously the social media companies like look at it both ways. so what's really, this is a new world. we live in this, in the digital world. we put information out there and it's spread faster. obviously, it's read more more widely than, than just if your, you know, yelling from a soap box in a local post office. but if this is a new town where this is what we have to get used to and we have to start training, people believe we smarter about how they take information and what they read online . most intelligent, rational people. busy know when they're being misled, they know when putting a quick page they know what's going to comment section and maybe pull of it or the need to look into something more deeply, you know, as a pre speech. absolutely. i think that if you want to go down this route, the owner needs to go on the owner of the property, which is facebook, you know, in new york times, or someone has a facebook page is going to come and take your time to the own, their page facebook and that's very clear, the 3rd

a service that basically owns everything you put on their site. so it's, does it seem suspicious that this comes down onto the publisher and not the publisher being the news organization and not facebook itself? and i would still say that let people talk because the truth is going to get out there. of course, there's certain things that people that we can, but most people agree you don't want to see online, even common section things like i really need reg is just a little bit shorter. tom, this is gonna get bill in the chance to come and bill, i just want to talk about the cost of moderating, you know, for a job like facebook that might not be such a big deal to hard people to moderate. but is this going to possibly the cost of it cause some media organizations to shut down the comment? i think maybe organizations crying when.