me animal enterprise terrorism act and there is this lawsuit that right now is going on for the center of the center for constitutional rights it's not going anywhere do you have any updates on it i think it's a really positive exciting development i mean the basis for this lawsuit is that the head of the enterprise terrorism act has to expressly outlawed first amendment activity but it's chilled it through examples like this and there are many many more that are much worse than anything that i've experienced personally it's made people worry about their personal safety and their right to express themselves and do things like undercover investigations which have been labeled by the f.b.i. as terrorism so the center for constitutional rights to say this is unconstitutional because it's make people afraid of using their rights you know it remains to be seen in this but the national defense authorization act with f.b.i. documents like this with the crackdown on the around the country it's hard to know where it will go but we'll have to start finding that now it's really scary and the absurdity too of this and a lot of ha

simple and thankfully the animal rights community isn't taking this one laying down the center for constitutional rights as representing five animal rights activists who filed a lawsuit in massachusetts challenging this law as unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment the five activists argue that they can no longer freely engage in activism for example one defended the spent years of her life documenting the process of making and posting those pictures online and elsewhere those pictures can be grotesque and yes even discourage people from maybe eating but that's the point it's also their right which she feels she no longer is free to exercise for fear that she will be deemed a terrorist now for all i know i could be prosecuted under the a.t.a.i. now for showing these pictures which could discourage people from buying which would hurt company profits it's really not all that far fetched now in the past the law was used against a group of protesters who picketed the houses of researchers they were labeled by the government not as activists but they are terrorists for picketing that case wa

vince, center for constitutional rights where you work has been representing inmates at guantanamo sinceg. >> right. >> i want to play one more clip, because i want to show the political terrain this is all operating on. these are democrat senators reacting to the president trying to close guantanamo the first time he tried to do it. >> we will never allow terrorists to be released into the united states. this is what this is all about. this is the best way to approach this. i think the president will come up with a plan. once that is given to us, we will debate that. >> we ought be very, very careful about releasing anybody right now. >> well, i think right now until we sort this out, the answer is yes. >> individuals who are charged with international terrorism should be classified as enemy combatants and i have stated many times i do not believe they belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts. they do not belong in our prisons. >> that was -- vince warren, the question i have for you, who is to blame for the fact that guantanamo is still open? >> all three branches of gov

and the national lawyers guild the center for constitutional rights filed a complaint saying that basically the barricades were violating the rules the public private ownership rules for this park that's legally required be open twenty four hours. they were saying that the barricades were restrictive that the security guards which is absolutely true were conducting arbitrary searches of anybody who wanted to come into the park and that legally they're required to post any rules for the park in writing when i was down there today they were still trying to prevent people from coming in with different items apparently there were some people who wanted to come in and knit in the park with chairs and they were threatened with arrest if they brought chairs into the park so they're still working with arbitrary rules that definitely aren't posted anywhere that they legally have to be posted out there but they did back down on the barricades at least without a court fight so we'll see i guess what happens next from there what what the legal battles become who gets arrested for what so kristen what i

the center for constitutional rights obtained documents, and what they found at the time fbi officialsthese animal rights activists. so the fbi agent said these activists have violated something known as the animal enterprise terrorism act. >> and it wasn't have anything to do with hurting people or animals, it would, quote, cause economic loss to business. so now if you cause economic loss to business, you are a terrorist. the fbi noted it was in fact what these guys did, an act of non-violent civil disobedience. >> now does non-violent civil d disobedience fall under terrorists. >> if animal rights are terrorist, wait until they get aload of the occupy guys. >> and this is extremely brood. there were a lot of protesting about it, because it was so brood, and you can basically apply this to anyone. >> do you like your dog? >> i love my dog. >> terrorist. >> terrorist. if you are saving chickens, you better watch out. >> the only guy who might not be a terrorist is mitt romney. >> i can't wait. the university of bridge port is being sued by a former muslim student for being sexually ha

now two views of where things stand: vincent warren is executive director of the center for constitutional rightsich has defended detainees at guantanamo and helped coordinate hundreds of lawyers providing pro-bono legal work there. david rivkin is an attorney who served in the reagan and first bush administrations. he's filed supreme court and appellate amicus briefs in several leading national security cases since 9/11. i'll try to keep my throat clear. cold coming on. welcome to both of you. vincent warren, what's your chief concern here with the new legislation? specifically when you look at the issue of indefinite detention of suspects. >> you have to look at guantanamo. here we are ten years later. there are only three ways you get off the island of guantanamo one is going to trial, two is by being transferred to another country and the third way is a body bag. and the new legislation which codifies indefinite detention restricts the ability to be tried in federal courts and it also restricts the ability for people to be transferred off the island. that's a huge problem. >> brown: do you se

he is a correspondent for a magazine and a staff for the center for constitutional rights. our call is banned. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to point out that this is a terrible example of political pandering at its worst. anytime you have a president that makes a promise and has three years, essentially, to follow through with that and has failed -- this president did have two years of a democrat-controlled congress that he could pass a health-care bill and a cash bill. we are not able to close guantanamo. guest: excellent point. it was the democratically controlled congress that initially blocked president obama's efforts to close guantanamo. it is a kind of -- is not partisan politics. it is not that the republicans are blocking president obama, it is republicans and democratic congressman are blocking president obama because they do not want to be responsible for having any guantanamo detainee, even when was the determined by the military to be no threat, to be in their jurisdiction. they do not want an even if they are in a maximum-security facility from

he is a correspondent for a magazine and a staff for the center for constitutional rights. call is banned. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to point out that this is a terrible example of political pandering at its worst. anytime you have a president that makes a promise and has three years, essentially, to follow through with that and has failed -- this president did have two years of a democrat-controlled congress that he could pass a health-care bill and a cash bill. we are not able to close guantanamo. guest: excellent point. it was the democratically controlled congress that initially blocked president obama's efforts to close guantanamo. it is a kind of -- is not partisan politics. it is not that the republicans are blocking president obama, it is republicans and democratic congressman are blocking president obama because they do not want to be responsible for having any guantanamo detainee, even when was the determined by the military to be no threat, to be in their jurisdiction. they do not want an even if they are in a maximum-security facility from whi

he is a legal affairs correspondent for "the nation," and a staff attorney for at the center for constitutional rights. the next call is then, from lynchburg, virginia. good morning. caller: this is a terrible example of political pandering at its worst. a president that makes a promise and has three years, essentially, to follow through with a promise and fails. the of professor has been mentioning a lot about the congressional influence over the matter. however, at the same time, this president had two years of a democratically controlled house. he passed a health care bill and a caucus bill for tax for -- cap and trade, but we were not able to close guantanamo. guest: excellent point. there was a bat -- democratically controlled congress that initially blocked the president's efforts to close guantanamo. it is not partisan politics. it is more -- not in my backyard politics. it is not the the republicans are blocking president obama, it is that they have blocked president obama because they do not want to be responsible for having any guantanamo detainee, even one determined by the military and int

for record quarterly profits as the galaxy outsells the iphone. hungary's center-right government is continuing to defend the new constitution which critics say theoad to democracy. alarms have also been expressed internationally. the european union is examining whether the changes brought in this very week break eu law, but there are signs the government in budapest may be prepared to negotiate some or all of the changes. >> we found a little cheer on the number 49 tram across the danube. no wonder. hungary's economy is in a slump and some accuse the government of turning back democracy. >> there you go. >> ministers, though, are not shy of showing off their new constitution. as for the idea is anti- democratic -- >> it is an absence charge -- even the question is bizarre. in the hearts of europe, finally we are able to get back on track to the democracy tradition, that was disrupted by communism. >> that is not how they see it. tens of thousands turned out to protest the new laws this week, claiming the independence of the judiciary and the central bank are threatened. at budapest that a food banks there is concern over what it might mean for h

right-of-way and does that constitute a general advertising sign. i think something -- i have seen signs in elevators for instance in embarcadaro center and that is truly in the interior. i guess that's a question that we're going to have to do some more work on and interpreting with the zoning administrator. >> let's look as we come to the end about historic signs. this is a historic sign and this black smith shop and on howard -- folsom and has the beautiful sign on the side of the building. get a little close up of that. tool, manufacturing, in general black smithing. do we make exceptions for historic signs and what way? >> historic signs are allowed and addressed in the planning code. we do want to preserve that and valuable remembrance of the heritage and we want to preserve this. >> i think what is lovely about these signs and what they disappear and appear and this is around for a while and when there is a demolition of a building and you frequently find an old sign for a laundry or whatever and also what is interesting and the degree to which the signs and uses disappear and they're named in the buildings in their place and foundry square and

constitutional experts like e.n. mill heiser for the center for american progression say the president made the right call this time.> there is a little bit of smoke in mirrors where one guy shows up and pretends to do his job for 30 seconds now and then. that doesn't make the senate capable of doing business. the senate has to be available to con fern someone in order for there not to be a recess. >> millhiser acknowledges that the next president will is to point back to this decision by president obama. >> shepard: critics seemed very confident in their position here. >> they do feel like they're on solid footing and arguing that the senate was always in session throughout the holidays. they are arguing that the recess appointments are just another example of the president expanding his powers in the executive branch beyond their constitutional boundaries. mark mix one of the groups now suing over these appointments the national right-to-work foundation. >> this president has said because they won't acted i must. what he is saying i don't care what the process of the constitution is here and process be damned i wi

constitution was centered around it's missing a bill of rights. while washington took the oath of office, two states -- new york and virginia -- were agitating for a new constitutional convention. in the words of james madison and george washington, they were terrified of this prospect. they believed that it would be infiltrated by enemies of the new government and that the constitution would be scrapped and done away with and that our union would be fractured, never, ever to come together again. the book then goes into the french and indian world which was a conflict in the new world and europe, perhaps the first true world war we've ever had, between the french, the english and their allies. the english expelled their opponents from continent, but aa consequence what they did was a check that kept their colonists in terror. free from the threat of the french, the american colonists were not so reliant on great britain. great britain also tried to shoulder some of the enormous costs of this onto the colonies. what followed was a rising cycle of taxation, resistance, followed by oppression where we ended up in a revolution against great britain. b

right at the center of the conversation. romney has avoided talking about social issues in an effort to push for independent voters and rick santorum has embraced social issues. we know santorum supports a constitutionalndment to ban abortions and not only is he against gay marriage but he supports a federal marriage amendment which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. there are two debates this weekend, and it seems fair to assume that these issues will come up. will it get romney into trouble is the big question? john avalon is with us. and a columnist with "the daily" and co-author of "the grand new party." let me start with you, and everyone should know who watches this show, but your background, you used to work for rudy giuliani, a pro-choice. >> ten years ago different story, but he's done a 180 on every social issue since he's started running for president. >> i want to play quickly an ad. this is from newt's pac running now in new hampshire stealing from a john mccain ad back in 2008, of course, on the day john mccain endorses mitt romney. here it is on the social issues with mitt romney. >> i believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. i will preserve

right at the center of the conversation. romney has avoided talking about social issues in an effort to push for independent voters and rick santorum has embraced social issues. we know santorum supports a constitutionalnt to ban abortions and not only is he against gay marriage but he supports a federal marriage amendment which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. there are two debates this weekend, and it seems fair to assume that these issues will come up. will it get romney into trouble is the big question? john avalon is with us. and a columnist with "the daily" and co-author of "the grand new party." let me start with you, and everyone should know who watches this show, but your background, you used to work for rudy giuliani, a pro-choice. >> ten years ago different story, but he's done a 180 on every social issue since he's started running for president. >> i want to play quickly an ad. this is from newt's pac running now in new hampshire stealing from a john mccain ad back in 2008, of course, on the day john mccain endorses mitt romney. here it is on the social issues with mitt romney. >> i believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. i will preserve and