in this town for these chertoff x. ray porno scanners how can we stop people like chertoff from moving so seamlessly from government industry particularly an industry that's destroying our rights. well i think bringing the issue to live like you do and i don't think you can stop it i think what we've seen is a wedding of the corporation of them and the government so you have a corporate state right now and what they're conditioning i go back and say this is really clearly i've been i've been studying this for years this is what i do on a daily basis there conditioning of the american people to adjust to a police state and the way it's going with swat team raisers up to fifty thousand swat team raids across the united states on a daily basis now well through doors without search warrants for such as such things as an ounce of pot we're being conditioned to accept this as the normal state of affairs and it shouldn't be so the wealthy who do is fight about it educate about it write about it yell about it and programs like

michael chertoff was with the justice department. and then he became the number two at homeland security. and after being there for only two years, he took not only his chief of staff, but many people in the top ranks of what was then and still is now a fairytale and come and experience, not very good department, he took them and went into private practice, consulting with companies who wanted to invest. and guess what? same technologies and products that are being bought in the same secret world. so insider-trading we are all familiar with. to me this is another kind of insider trading because you cannot get into the circle of people unless you have a security clearance. and once you have that clearance and you have to trust the people inside, you know, you're in for life unless he really screw something up. and you and i cannot cna. it's not like building the next generation of military fighter plane, where we can actually hear that debate and decide how many we really need. all of this is classified. and so you've got contractors

ugly the good the broward county commission today the flora county will take on the issue of the chertoff x. ray porno scanners in airports and consider banning the use of those scanners at their primary airport for fort lauderdale international if passed broward county's ban on the porno scanners will be in place until further scientific studies are done to ensure that they're safe according to a p.b.s. report earlier this year between six and one hundred airline passengers who contract cancer every year just from the church x. ray porno scanners if broward county succeeds than fort lauderdale international airport will be the first major airport in the u.s. to ban the porno scanners that have been banned now all across europe let's hope other american airports follow suit the bad mitt romney badly trailing in the polls to new gingrich romney is now using his secret weapon outright lies at a campaign stop in new hampshire romney made the absurd claim that government regulations of increased under president obama. the rate of regulatory burden has increased four fold since obama has becom

joined by chad sweet, former cia agent and co-founder of the chertoff group.o see you. >> thank you. martha: what do you make of this former pentagon official who thinks that there's a possibility that the drone might be a fake? >> i think his assessment, at least we at the chertoff group, think it's wrong, and here's why. first of all, the color argument doesn't hold water. these planes have multiple colors. as you can imagine, they operate in different environments, and we try to match the color to the environment. so there's not one color. two, the landing argument doesn't hold water either. it's entirely possible the gear was damaged upon -- martha: let me just stop you because we're showing a picture right now. so the landing gear -- now our lower third is covering it, but if we can take the full shot, the argument is the landing gear -- in a second you'll see it -- was covered in this shot. the person at the pentagon said it was covered because it wasn't there, and it's fake, and it's nonexistent. what do you think? >> i don't buy the argument, and here'

i worked at main justice, i worked in the criminal division with assistant attorney general chertoff. i am stan the paper that comes across your desk and that time -- i understand the paper that comes across your desk and that time is limited and you have to do the best you can to process information. but i think ms. adams raises a good point, and that is, at what point do you believe the assistant attorney general or someone else had it or has an obligation to, particularly in your case with lanny breuer, because you have a close relationship or a longstanding relationship with him -- at what point is there an obligation for one of these senior officials to raise something like this to your level? i am the stand you cannot read all the briefings -- i understand you cannot read all the briefings. my staff knows that if there is something really urgent, they do not stick it in might in box. they call me, come in my office, get in my face and say this is something really important. this is not just an operation, it is in fact an international operation. if looked at wrongly because of t

a few moments ago, i spoke with the co-founder of the chertoff group, and asked him if it could be trued into the drone and brought it down. >> well, i think the proof in the pudding will be in whether they can put up or shut up. we'll see. secretary panetta stated we'll continue to operate the program along the afghan/iranian border. so they'll have to be able to demonstrate they can do this. >> don't we have the ability, this these things lose touch with us, to just automatically destroy them and why might we not have done that if we have that ability? is it so expensive we didn't want to take the risk? >> this is something that many at the pentagon and frankly up on the hill are going to be looking into. it is an expensive piece of equipment, so the destroy it is a costly decision, but it's possible that there was a malfunction in the protocol. that they lost signal and instead what kicked in was the emergency landing protocol. when you look at the way the iranians have displayed the aircraft, you notice that they hide the underbelly, which does indicate if they were so good at getti

joining me from washington is chad sweet co-founder and managing partner at the chertoff group.t do you think? >> we think, number one, if you look at this move, if it is true he did, in fact, order the cessation of all exercises in the country, it's a smart move and the beginning of his consolidation of power. number one, it prevents any miscues with the united states for the south koreans that those exercises could be a provocation. number two, by pulling the forces back to the garrisons, he's able to have his political officers there to begin the indoctrine nation of the new regime. three, he can monitor if there's any movement of military force that he hasn't authorized, lit be evident if someone is moving against him. it's a wise move. he appears to be in the initial stages in control. again, this is very early. it's a watershed moment. >> chad, what is a better outcome for the united states purely pragmatically, forgetting all humanitarian concerns? is stability and consolidating power better for the u.s. or would we wish for him not to be able to succeed and there to be u

joining me from washington is chad sweet, co-founder and managing partner at the chertoff group a globaladvisory firm. what do you think? >> we think, number one, if you look at this move, if it is true he did, in fact, order the cessation of all exercises in the country, it's a smart move and the beginning of his consolidation of power. number one, it prevents any miscues with the united states for the south koreans that those exercises could be a provocation. number two, by pulling the forces back to the garrisons, he's able to have his political officers there to begin the indoctrination of the new regime. three, he can monitor if there's any movement of military force that he hasn't authorized, it will be evident if someone is moving against him. it's a wise move. he appears to be in the initial stages in control. again, this is very early. it's a watershed moment. >> chad, what is a better outcome for the united states purely pragmatically, forgetting all humanitarian concerns of which they are serious, is stability and consolidating power better for the u.s. or would we wish for hi

a few moments ago, i spoke with chad suite, cofounder of the chertoff group, a global advisory firm, and i asked him if it could possibly be true that iran had hacked into the drone and brought it down. >> well, i think the proof of the pudding will be in whether they can put up or shut up. we'll see. secretary panetta has stated clearly that we'll continue to operate the program along the afghan/iranian border, so they'll have to be able to demonstrate that they can replicate this. >> but here's a key question. >> yep. >> do we have the ability, if these things lose touch with us, to just automatically destroy them and why might we not have done that if we, indeed, had that ability? it would have been so expensive and so fancy, we didn't want to take the risk if it wasn't in iranian hands? >> that's a great question. and believe me, this is something that many at the pentagon and, frankly, up on the hill, are going to be looking into. it is an expensive piece of equipment, as you noted, and so to destroy it is a costly decision. however, it's entirely possible that there was a malfu

a few moments ago, i spoke with chad suite, cofounder of the chertoff group, a global advisory firm,ould possibly be true that iran had hacked into the drone and brought it down. >> well, i think the proof of the pudding will be in whether they can put up or shut up. we'll see. secretary panetta has stated clearly that we'll continue to operate the program along the afghan/iranian border, so they'll have to be able to demonstrate that they can replicate this. >> but here's a key question. >> yep. >> do we have the ability, if these things lose touch with us, to just automatically destroy them and why might we not have done that if we, indeed, had that ability? it would have been so expensive and so fancy, we didn't want to take the risk if it wasn't in iranian hands? >> that's a great question. and believe me, this is something that many at the pentagon and, frankly, up on the hill, are going to be looking into. it is an expensive piece of equipment, as you noted, and so to destroy it is a costly decision. however, it's entirely possible that there was a malfunction in the protocol,