tv Breaking the Set RT May 24, 2013 4:29am-5:01am EDT
well today obama gave a foreign policy speech where he addressed concerns of drones targeted assassinations gone toward a moment just like his predecessor reminded us that freedom isn't free take a look. there are deeply ambivalent about war but having fought for our independence we know all a prize must be paid for freedom. a price for freedom well let's just break down how costly this so-called freedom has just been in the last twelve years over six thousand six hundred u.s. servicemen and women have been killed in iraq and afghanistan but the civilian death count is much more grave in iraq alone over one million people have died as a result of the u.s. occupation according to a two thousand and seven opinion research poll countless thousands more have died in afghanistan and that's not even counting the covert wars in yemen and pakistan
drone strikes have killed almost three thousand four hundred people going to the new america foundation and those are just the death tolls we know of so that's a really heavy human cost for that so-called freedom and i'm not even talking about the six trillion dollar price tag of the afghanistan and iraq wars according to a new harvard study so has the war on terror really been keeping us free what other well ian constructs that obama outlined in his foreign policy speech today joining me now to break it down political commentator sam sacks hello hello so sam i couldn't help but reckon back to bush's rhetoric you know freedom ain't free i mean how sad of a commentary is this that we're still being treated like five year old now well it's a pretty sad commentary and for the most part the president has continued to present obama has continued to former president bush's policies when it comes to counter-terror but i think there's something to be said about him trying to talk about it a little bit differently you know he's he seems has to say terrorism in the speech
today he thinks that war on terror is way too expansive way too open ended that he wants to start narrowing that even address the authorization for use of military force explicitly saying that he'd like to work with congress to start narrowing that kind of removing some of those powers that have been given to the white house to conduct this war on terrorism now of course the ironic thing here is that this broad definition of the authorization of use of military force which is given way to this global war on terror. it was given by the obama administration this broad interpretation it was john brennan who said that the a u m f gives the obama administration authority to launch drone strikes all over the world including countries who are not at war with and he's taken that interpretation and broadened it of course we know that it has exacerbated a lot of the bush administration policies under the u.n. you imagine you can argue that the n.d.a. provision that he signed into law in two thousand and twelve did expand the indefinite detention clause and all seriousness though let's hear what he had to say precisely about this very subject. we must define our effort not as
a boundless global war on terror but rather as a series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america so that maybe you can break this down because to me everything he's done has been boundless so he's kind of saying you know the war on terror can't be balanced i mean right well it's going to be interesting to see how is department of defense react you know to a lot of this because just last week the department of defense was saying look this is. the a u m f gives us authority to put boots on the ground in congo and yemen and boston as long as it's against al qaeda associated forces and then it might last ten to twenty years so when the president talks about reining it in or or changing from war on terror to more strategic against specific targets. you know doesn't quite jive well with what's been coming out of the administration's defense department and one of the biggest issues of course on this drone war has been the
assassination of american citizens a very controversial policy i wanted to also play what he had to say about that. i'd only did congress authorize the use of force it is briefed on every strike that america takes for every strike that includes the one instance where we target targeted american cities. so there he is saying that we've targeted one american citizen to die however we know that holder just confirmed that there was four american citizens who died under drones why do you think that he only referred to one because a still when we targeted as far as what happened the other three including the one the one we targeted in walkie his sixteen year old son is one of those of the three that were targeted and killed so actually now targeted start two weeks later they were just here just killed outright and nobody's really answered this question robert just did he said bad father but about a bad father look this could this question was was kind of raised this morning to
the white house in a brief in a press briefing called phone call and they basically said look we don't want to address case by case what happened. the president will talk in detail about anwar i'll walk you the process you went to win through to target and we're a lucky as far as these other cases of these other three americans who've been killed you know maybe they were hanging out of an al qaeda training camp or an al qaeda affiliated vehicle when they were struck down or you know the white house said that. you know accidents happen in war tragic accidents happen and maybe this was just an accident but really i don't think the administration wants to even go down that road and really it only took a protester medea benjamin of code pink to try and raise this issue of anwar al to the president while he was speaking today well let's talk about another thing that he mentioned which is the million death counts of course and brennan famously said there were no civilian death counts in the war but i find it hard to believe that three thousand four hundred people have all been millett tens especially when they have said new york times investigation comprehensive investigation speaking to
three dozen current and former administration advisers about what they gauge as militants and suspected terrorists and really it's every military age male but you've said that this rhetoric has actually changed now a little bit yeah the president did acknowledge that there were civilian deaths right there that's different from what john brennan. has this new presidential policy guidelines that seem to be like. they want to be a little bit more stringent what they choose their targets and you just sign this guideline yesterday so it's conceivable that there were drone strikes in the past that are no longer permissible under this new guideline of course we have to be skeptics about this given the last five years but the president did say that non-governmental organizations there count of facilities civilian deaths is too high that there's a wide gap between what i'm going to have lawyers and government or house in order to say that in the white house was very specific to say that they don't consider all military age males. combat and so they could be possibly noncombatants but
again a lot of this is talk right and of course that i can't help but think of that and why you stand for a whole month poll in pakistan on the ground that found that there was a two percent success rate at even getting these quote high level targets and you have to ask yourself the ninety eight percent failure rate who else is it telling you you've heard the president talk a lot it's going to be a matter of whether or not he acts moving forward of the next well let's hope he does because you know too little too late he only has a year and change left so we'll see thank you for breaking it down sam sax political commentator. thanks to america's overactive military industrial complex the u.s. now has a military presence spanning across almost every continent and the few locations where there are no u.s. military bases american special operations forces are implementing their influence by training and providing equipment to the militaries of third world countries case
in point congo africa two thousand and ten the state department in the u.s. africa command but an eight month project called operation the limbic chase where they train seven hundred fifty soldiers to form a kong leads battalion to suppose that purpose of this operation was to clean up and professionalize parts of the congo military hold on this alone makes zero sense why would it be our responsibility to professionalize a foreign military at the expense of u.s. taxpayers particularly at a time when the u.s. is drowning in its own debt that being said let's take a look at how this professional training has turned out on surprisingly it's completely backfired you see this battalion was later chased out of the country by opposition rebel forces and during that ousting these u.s. trained soldiers went completely rogue brutally raping one hundred thirty women and young girls according to a recent u.n. investigation now of course the state department quickly condemned these actions
but that's not good enough because this is far from an isolated incident just in recent years other u.s. trained african forces of also committed serious atrocities last year mali solve violent qubits democratically elected president which was followed by heinous crimes and a bloody civil war the coup was spearheaded by a modern sanogo and u.s. trained infantry officer who actually credited the u.s. for the mission success he said quote america is a great country with a fantastic army i try to put in all the things i learned of their into practice is here yikes scary to think that brutal military leaders worldwide are nodding their heads in appreciation to this country for their great military. rain now according to the us serious precautions are taken to make sure that this doesn't happen claiming that the vetting process to train foreign troops is extensive and it avoids assisting countries with records of human rights abuses but interestingly enough this important step was overlooked in the case of congo a senior u.s.
official admitted to the washington post that the obama administration was fully aware that the congolese military had anything but a clean history however they were under political pressure to invest in the country so without appropriate oversight they went forward with the special operations training anyway and here we are today with a damning report that leaves the u.s. in part responsible for these crimes against humanity you know you would think considering all of this that the u.s. would want to really evaluate its potential role in these conflicts and better its foreign policy image moving forward but instead of doing that the head of u.s. special ops admiral william or raven wants to ease restrictions on helping train human rights violators yep make ravens actually arguing that we should be funding training in our main even more troops like the congolese soldiers who raped thirty females briefly i find it shocking that there isn't more outrage over this the u.s.
military industrial complex has gotten so out a hand that ranking officers are blatantly asking us to turn a blind eye to rape and murder only for the sake of just to find more boots on the ground and that of course means more control so what is this country going to learn that more control comes at a very heavy price human life. all right guys don't go anywhere i want to take a quick break but stick around here about an activist named jailed for being filing next. to the. out of sight but still on our minds from the still exceeds the norm let's try to live smarter with smartphones you never know what some people are hiding things can be sure to 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 world. moment we've got the future covered. i mean speak your language. programs in documentaries in arabic it's all here almost all t.v. reporting from the world talks about six of the yard p. interviews intriguing stories for you to. see them trying. to find out more visit our big teeth dog called. some of these traditional chili lines they've been bred and developed and passed down from generation to. this is a total destruction of the culture in mexico by telling them i mean this this is not going to impact asylum in mexico whatever happens here it's about the whole world how we're eating at about six in the in the local in the a in all the war and
in the early hours of march sixth two thousand and eight a bomb exploded outside an army recruiting station in new york city's times where were no injuries reported in a. orders were never able to apprehend a suspect in relation to the bombing in fast forward five years later or now gerry an anarchist and political activist has been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury in the ongoing investigation his silence could land him over a year in federal custody without charges or conviction for a crime now coaches cases raising questions among activists about the penalties against political dissenters who choose silence over who operation or to correspond associate churkin has been following the case unfold joins us from our new york studio to give us the latest honest as far as we know there have never been any suspects named in connection with the bombing so why is jerry koch coach sorry connected to the case well according to gerry coach himself and his supporters he's basically not i mean he was brought in for questioning to face the federal grand
jury as a witness. the prosecution basically believes that he was present at a bar at one point around the time when the two thousand and eight times square bicycle bombing took place where he might have heard a name of a possible suspect and they believe he's not telling them that name so basically that is all that this quote the reason basically that he was brought in for questioning twice back in two thousand and nine and now in two thousand and thirteen and he said this entire time that he basically has no knowledge and or does not remember any kind of conversation that took place five years ago so according to him he doesn't even understand why he is being brought in. to talk about why jerry being an anarchist is actually central to the case and what was the court's response when he refused to speak well you know abbie him being an anarchist is key in two senses basically jerry is known as someone who has lots of connections in the political radical community he's known to have been very active
during the times of the peak times of the occupy wall street movement to have you know helped people by gathering money to get those arrest. bailed out and it's these connections that supporters believe are is what is of interest to the prosecution and also you know just his believes that he stands against the system including the judiciary judiciary system being an anarchist that is making him not testify so both of these elements are basically impacting the way he's behaving inside the courtroom and what the court did was found him in contempt of court and put him in jail for not speaking up and are they saying that he's going to remain there until the case is closed. well yes he's basically going to be in jail for months now he either has the option to testify which he does not look like he plans on doing or basically wait until the term of the federal grand jury expires which is typically an entire eighteen months and i spoke to his attorney during after the
hearing outside the courtroom who basically told us that jerry looks very set on sticking to his position and not speaking to the courtroom and testifying you know thus it looks like he's going to be serving that term until the term expires well you know i guess i was under the impression that pleading the fifth is something that was constitutional so i mean is this is this one precedent and or does a set a new precedent for him being kept in federal custody simply for doing just that well abbie it's not unprecedented you know it's certainly a curious story for many people for a person to just not speaking in court he's not even a suspect in this case by any means but it's not unprecedented we've seen cases like this take place in seattle in new york before several cases in the northwest where people were in fact imprisoned for refusing to testify and you know just in terms of the precedent the it's really two fold as well because for the radical community this is a behavior that's been shown to courts before and the reason that these people are going to be behind bars is because officials try to kind of pressure them into
deciding to speak up but by not doing so they're basically you know just it becomes a. an empty point because the courts are sending them to jail so they would speak they don't speak and these are just you know basically innocent people in jail kind of sort of coerced into testifying when they don't want to do so you know do you think the case is more of trying to pin someone on and say you know we never really found a suspect or we're just going to kind of hold this person accountable or is it more about actually set an example out of jury to other activists i mean do you get the sense of course talking other activists as you've been covering this story basically warning them not you know this is what's going to happen if you do not comply with authorities you know i'll be most of the activist we spoke to about this see well it's actually an amazing thing that he's doing an example for other activists because they believe that the way that jerry was treated in prison for not speaking up as a misuse of the law we spoke to has a long long term partner who says it's just
a disgusting misuse of the legal system and that it's very reminiscent of the red scare the green scare and most of the activists believe that what he is doing should make the courts realize that it's pointless to try to according to what they see coal worse these witnesses into what they think is snitching on the radical political community but certainly he's receiving a lot of support he's very well known in the radical community in new york city and people are saying way to go jerry hopefully the system will learn something i mean it's unlikely because we've seen previous cases like this but the radical community believes this is a good way to go well hopefully it'll kind of backfire and maybe make more people stand their ground and not comply and where does the case stand right now i know that you said it's looking like he's going to stay the entirety of the eighteen months well be he's planning to appeal but you know if that appeal doesn't work out basically jerry is looking at the full eighteen months term until the until the grand jury expires thank you so much for an. article responder near zero.
you are going to be like. oh. it's been a difficult week for the obama administration from everything from and gazi to the iris scandal to the a.p. hack the corporate media was an uproar over the a.p. hack but now news is coming out over another d.o.j. related news hack it all started when the washington post reported on classified information about north korea in two thousand and ten now while investigating that leak the department of justice issued a secret subpoena to access the private e-mails of james rosen of fox news reporter so what's going on here what does this latest hack signify and what it's greater implications well earlier i was joined by david seaman journalist host of the david seaman hour and i asked him why this leak is different and here's what he had to say. in this case is different because instead of focusing on the potential leakers
of the government they focused on a reporter a mainstream journalists and not only just him they broadened their their access hard bines going into the news channels of various bureaus potentially were also monitoring fox news executives who have no connection to this guy potentially monitoring this reporter's parents this is the kind of stuff that america condemns this is like silliness you know it's just total government overreach and in direct violation of the first amendment if you're going to be you know introducing this sort of stuff it's extremely intimidating all this guy was doing based on the information available now is he was asking a source for you know a good scoop on a story which is a journalist's job is to ask your sources you know can you give me some more information on this that's certainly not a crime and the government was pursuing him as quote a coconspirator which is pretty serious stuff right and let's talk about you know the f.b.i. agent in court documents. claim that james rosen broke the law at the very least
either as an aid or a better and or a coconspirator a very serious charge david i mean and i looked at the documents i mean he is you know he he's signing off hugs and kisses or whatever i mean he's saying things to get the source to give information that's where reporters do how dangerous is it to use this language when referring to porters who are simply doing their job i think it's extremely dangerous there's another case right now potential case where a couple of reporters all they did was made a google search and now they might be charged under the c.f.a. which is a serious law that's supposed to be used against computer hackers and all these reporters did was just search for something on google no actual hacking so you have a situation where the government is really creating a climate of fear for journalists independent journalists and even if the guys at fox news like mr establishment back i was the washington correspondent for fox news channel if he's not safe from this kind of a timid ation then who is right and i love the executive president of fox in saying
this is unacceptable it's like you know why do you think the corporate media all of a sudden cares about hacking spying surveillance now where was their outrage when the patriot act was passed that legalized all this activity. yeah well the past couple nights on fox news there panel has sounded like an r t segment they're talking about america is turning into a surveillance state where you had sean hannity and anchor there saying i don't want my phones to be tapped by the government and these are things they have never seriously considered before but now we know that it's not only a possibility it actually is happening and you know on another note. there's a lot of debate over how much should obama know or not know and you know if he knows about this that and certainly that's troubling if he doesn't know i think that's equally troubling because then it's like who is really controlling the operation here who is deciding these things when you start to attack journalism that's one of the last guards against tyranny is the first amendment it's supposed to be a tool for people to out information and for people to discuss the facts and have
conversations of debates with those in power and that is seriously being called into question i mean the new york times editorial board two days ago came out with a piece supporting fox news here and that's pretty rare when the new york times defends fox news it's a really strange situation yeah i mean it's amazing to see the corporate media kind of all up in arms i mean yeah of course you don't care until it happens to you it's not a whole phrase you know first they came for the socialists i didn't speak up it's like well now they're coming for you you know it is about time you've come on board welcome to the welcome to the club and you know chris hedges had this to say about it recently is that all these measures to shut down the freedom of information are symptomatic of a reconfiguration of our society and to and to and to tell of terri and security and surveillance state one where anyone who challenges the official narrative is going to be ruthlessly silenced i mean i thought that was really poignant how much of a chilling effect is this going to cause for reporters and sources if they think they're
going to go to jail now for simply doing their job. it has a huge chilling effect because now every journalist out there knows that this is happening and so the next time they get launch with a government official they're going to think twice before pressing them for any kind of important information which is so messed up with government officials that just you and me they just happen to be it should be regarded as a privilege that they're in power not as some kind of you know they're not gods or kings we shouldn't have you know at what point is going to be a law that you can't make if you're a journalist you can't make eye contact with a government official unless they first say you can you know it's getting to the point of absurdity you can even send an e-mail to somebody and ask them a couple of questions without falling into the potential that you're holding an organization that you work for could come under department of justice scrutiny i mean this is really scary stuff and just the broad nature of this that they had twenty different phone lines they were looking into i believe the a.p. was at least twenty different phone lines this is really crazy it's almost as if
they're using this is a way to get in to justify it and they're just doing kind of a fishing expedition to see what everybody is up to certainly there doesn't seem to be much meaningful law enforcement need to find out what fox news executives are talking about on their personal calls and yet if that was the scope of this investigation makes anything that nixon did appear to be fairly benign by comparison right i mean now that this is going out of the mainstream and really. uncovering so many things in the in stablish print press hopefully it'll seep in the mainstream consciousness as well david seaman journalist host of the david seaman our always also having on thanks. that's it for tonight everyone thanks for watching as always before i go i want to remind all of you out there that this saturday in the world wide margin against one and zero will be rallies taking place everywhere all around the world probably in a city near you go to our facebook page at facebook dot com slash reagan said to find out more about how you can participate get out there get involved now as always break the set.
the investigation into the murder in london sees two more arrests while the alleged motive behind what's considered a terror attack controversy among the british public and politicians. buildings ablaze from windows. unprecedented violence continues for a fifth night in the suburbs. or the question is whether it's time to stop being so tolerant. progress the u.s. war on terror rebranded striving to show that winding down president obama announces steps to speed up the guantanamo base closure but defends targeted killings would.