tv Watching the Hawks RT November 28, 2018 8:30pm-9:00pm EST
they are full public willing to trade their liberty for imagine security and today tragically i bring you yet another example of all of the above last february in brooklyn new york f.b.i. agents arrested thirty seven year old victor kingsley for a bombing committed back in two thousand and seventeen that took the life of a seventy three year old landlord in queens new york times reported that according to an unsealed federal criminal complaint mr kingsley had intended to kill a police officer who arrested him three years prior and delivered a bomb to the duplex he believed the cop lived at but no officer actually lived there the complaint said the bomb made with materials mr kingsley purchased online exploded three days later when the landlord george re-opened it while visiting the property and while the f.b.i. apparently has plenty of evidence from kingsley's own computers that reveal searches many on youtube for bomb making materials and instructions including evidence of on line purchases of items used for making explosives all of that. well
all of that apparently didn't stop the f.b.i. from requesting a rather than we say law our blanket search warrant that doesn't just focused on kingsley but everyone who watched the same youtube videos that the suspect did as tim cushing of tech dirt observes the obvious problem is these videos could have been viewed by thousands of viewers completely unrelated to the case and yet the f.b.i. agent thinks it's ok to demand a long list of identifying info along with location cell tower data on each of these viewers from google supposedly this is being done to sort the righteous from the wicked. you know what else it's doing and it's also in the process shredding our fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure which is why my friends we must remain vigilant and always be watching the hawks.
to. get the. real deal with. the blood of. what they like you know that i got. with. this. well we're going to watching the hawks i am tyrrel for her and i'm to have. the n.s.a. and the f.b.i. already know that they probably do believe now that iran is that what they probably do but i think it's pretty crazy and that crazy and just seems like a total waste of resources you would think you would they i mean this this war and it's truly truly insane i mean they did it the f.b.i. search one essential he defends its request for metadata on all the viewers of all
these. i mean there's like a list of like you tube channel for you tube channel for you joe they're digging into to see you know why this you know what this guy was looking at and how he would then have to do with every anybody else who may have looked at and that's what i'm trying to figure out to a melody annoyed by the fact that i get reminded that google literally have us our cell phone data information location data everything whenever we go online that's creepy creepy a little bit just a little bit but check this out so they defend this more how do i say i know this information is stored in connection with the you tube video and google may provide crucial evidence of the who what why when where and how of the criminal conduct under investigation bus and they believe in the united states to establish and prove each element or alternatively to to exclude the innocent from further suspicion this is essentially it's like demanding that amazon like turn over you
know them in the great point in the article is really that it's like demanding that amazon turn over account information location data and such or to anyone who's ever viewed like fertilizer because it might be used in a bomb you know i mean it's literally ludicrous you know who your suspect is why are you just looking at what your suspect did why do you need everyone else's. you know it's not that all these people it's not that i'm worried that all these people are doing something nefarious i'm just saying like most of them probably are if not all of them except for your suspect right and that's i think we're trying to find the who what where then you're just getting it for the suspect not everyone who watched that video and i'm sure there are i think feel like there's a technology. in our government where they think somehow in there is someone who colluded with them and if they can somehow put them together that they bought two people watch it same time near the same area that is not how it works right to quote a famous commercial that's literally not how i mean what are the back end of the videos to have was this and to give you an idea like we're like you know.
anarchist's cookbook videos like one of them is. a pen business is that michelle kaku yes describing what goes into potentially building a future spaceship and it has two hundred thousand plus views like now what they want google to hand them over the info on like the potential two hundred thousand people that may have viewed this thing who are so they're going to go through two hundred thousand people background check two hundred thousand people check their location data their cell phone tower data all of this all because they watch a physicist talk about building a spaceship. with a right to a star and apparently the writers are people who don't watch videos on your chair which is probably right but so detectors to mention before called up the f.b.i.'s tactics actually saying that this isn't a fishing expedition this is dynamite tossed into a stock pond with the f.b.i. promising to kick any surviving fish back into the water following the explosion wars are supposed to be
a. force and i'm going to prove it's way into what would otherwise be considered an unreasonable search and seizure but there's a limit to how unreasonable searches can be even with a warrant and this to me is one reason they're not so through use to separate the guilty from the innocent that's that's not probable cause of we think there might be someone bad you know there's probably some of the bad walking around within a hundred feet of you at any one time doesn't give you the right to go through people's pockets though it does love but we always get so caught up in the thing that allows the f.b.i. to do things like this that's how it works. but a manmade or a natural progression of our planet's life there's no doubt that something must be done about rising temperatures but is turning down the sun the answer scientists at harvard university seem to think so and they want to test it but some aren't so sure that solar geo engineering is the right answer to what sailing our planet are to the americas treaded each of us has more. and that's
a. exactly what critics are saying and the thing is we don't even know if it would actually work as of now it's still unproven but the fact is the world can't seem to agree on reducing c o two emissions and the severity of global warming is driving scientists to think outside the box according to the new research scientists out of harvard and yale university want to do a technique called stratosphere aerosol injection this technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as twelve miles the scientists suggest a liver in the sulfates with specifically designed high altitude aircraft balloons or large naval style guns and they say by doing this technique it would dim out the sun limiting the rising temperatures that are causing global warming in fact they say it could cut the rate by half however the report does acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical the researcher said in a statement we hear make no judgment about the desire billet of us ai we simply
show that a hypothetical deployment program commencing fifteen years hence while both highly uncertain and ambitious would indeed be technically possible from an engineering perspective it would also be remarkably inexpensive they estimate the total cost of launching a hypothetical system in fifteen years time out of around three point five billion dollars was running cost of two point two five billion dollars a year over the next fifteen year period but again this is purely hypothetical and there are risks associated with the unproven potential technologies like these scientists have said that say i could result in negative consequences such as causing droughts or extreme weather in parts of the world harm crop fields as well as potential health and governance issues reporting in new york trinity chavez r t . turning down the fan who doesn't want. you know the good geo engineering this smells like
a really old. labrat band on a gushing wound just because it's like well we can kind of do this now let's spend some money on it and with no concept of what happens down the road when you continue spraying glitter right airplane with small reflective surface to me it sounds like the letter hi mike i'm just going to go with generally spraying glitter into our end of the cloud that's probably not going to fix the problem and the thing that gets me ultimately to is the climate change that's a big deal that has like yeah there's major issues that need to be done to fix this in order to have a habitable planet in the future this is a band-aid it doesn't actually fix the problem which to me is so indicative of what human beings like this is what we always do it's like ok the can down the road some more and put some robitussin on it but it's so cost effective title no no i mean you know to the two point five billion dollars a year project before it is in years as
a lot of small potatoes the total development costs are estimated less than two billion for the airframe and for the three hundred fifty million for modifying existing low bypass engines while. well you know and there's other crazy ideas too from what i understand you know this or that are some that i mean things i've brought up there are the i won a few years ago about ten years ago they talked about building a dam across the bering straits so they could block arctic water from going down and making the north pacific the middle latitudes dumping blacks so it onto the arctic ice caps to get them to me to get them to promote them and then add a c o two to the atmosphere to raise global temperatures because it's gotten so call in two thousand and fourteen a very similar idea was floated around and an environmental reporter at the washington post by the name of brad palmer wrote i think it's the sangley one so little starts geoengineering we can't ever really stop especially if everyone keeps pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the same time why because
a soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere the earth will heat up very very very rapidly and sudden climate change is even worse than the kind we are now you know about so the deal is if you keep doing this then once you stop doing it it's all going to come rushing back because we won't be you could literally kill us all off because none of us will have adapted to whatever that temperature is and as it so we've all got to agree to do this it has to re worldwide and i don't know i've had enough time trying to convince people that cantrell's are real because of the plane like we don't have planes that do that correctly yeah it's a little tough now they're like let's literally board character i don't think they care because that's going to work for what i do or maybe just get off the oil spigot and go to green energy that's a good idea solves the problem without having to spray more dust in the litter or glitter in the air all right as we go to break our watches though for good to let
us know what you've got to solve the problems there's a twitter. dot com coming up with press freedom and facebook urgent and i mean more were thought to be all. we celebrate two disobedient women are. they to. us producing a lot of oil and gas now or energy. as big as the russia and saudi arabia but as you're making there is that they're actually losing money on the other.
a major international crisis to a cheap campaign trick as ukraine interest in election cycle take your pick but one thing is for sure russia is deemed aggressive by the west even when do. sending it solvent. desponding could be miss out of. your mother. but all right i'll do barbara but by you're going to get out your guns are jolly. yes this time i didn't have park to do it today i'm told they're going to break. and we're trying to bring your brother their job outside almost almost the whole cd i mean look if you get them for you the law has a funny but you don't love me or you. get out of order. and write down the bank call for the work on the base walk or chemical lights and that's our just is going to go the way of the doubt then you teach them in their international mascherano that these industries out of polluting your dissembling
ignore the one that most of them love even though. and maybe all of them other than like we all do you know that. from the corporate news media's outrage over jim acosta losing his white house press credentials to alternative media is outrage over facebook's recent purge of hundreds of alternative news sites under the auspices of combating political spam and fake news to last week's revelation of an actual secret indictment against wiki leaks editor and founder julian assange by the u.s.
justice department one could argue that in the past few years months and even days we've seen some of the greatest changes challenges and outright attacks on the freedom of the press in the fourth estate since the earliest beginnings of the. red white and blue but rather than across the board concern an unyielding support for the same to be of our first amendment right to freedom of the press instead we've seen some of the biggest political influencers journalists and politicians of our time cheerleading some of these very dangerous attacks on our press freedoms most likely due to their political or financial affiliations and fact probably both thankfully journalist and author matt isn't one of them and he joins us now from new york city to discuss his recent articles for rolling stone on the facebook purge and the justice department secret indictment against julian assange to thank you so much for joining us today matt. thank you for having me on but you know what i want to start. let's look at the recent revelations of the secret indictment
against julian assange what makes these indictments so dangerous to press freedom regardless of one's personal feelings about assad his character. well it depends a lot on what the indictment is we obviously don't know. my sources have told me that it's likely not connected to the two thousand and sixteen election. it's probably has something to do with pre two thousand and sixteen behavior but. it could have something to do with the vault seven disclosures we don't know but the bit the big thing is is that the government for some time has been attempting to describe the publication of stolen or leaked secrets as a criminal conspiracy itself and they've never gone there before if there is evil to do that or for a bill to define that as a criminal act that would have profound implications for all journalism not just
the site like wiki leaks it would it would affect the business on a fundamental level you know most of the right is so when you leave you so we don't we don't know what he's being indicted for and at the ideas it's pretty twenty six which we're talking about everything. from the torture report the man a man there's a lot of. yeah i'm like there's so much to go at any number of countries also. what do you think the best what's your best guess or what's the best guess of what your your sources of talk to about what the u.s. government actually would be indicting him on what's the crime if it's pretty twenty sixty and it's not election. well there there was a search warrant in connection with with wiki leaks in two thousand and fourteen that was served to google that suggested that they were looking at crimes like espionage computer fraud. conspiracy to commit espionage computer theft so it could be any one of
a number of those charges the but the core accusation i would imagine would be this idea. in publishing something that has been stolen or leaked or that is illegally. obtained that you are you as the publisher are part of the conspiracy to commit that act that is we've never had that definition in american law before it's actually explicitly permitted there is a case called. that a letter in which a phone conversation was intercepted illegally in a radio station put it on the air and the supreme court ruled that was legal so this would be a radical change if they if they went there and were able to have that kind of a case that it was i mean conspiracy thing very strange because i feel like we as journalists or anybody even remotely committing acts of journalism what we do is ask people to talk you know that's their job sure yeah that's terrifying because
it's literally i could say i entice them by having this show and saying i wish someone would talk about. that fair and that right i mean this is something that i think people really need to understand is that journalists routinely publish hacked leaked stolen illegally obtain materials sometimes it's from a government source that shouldn't of disclose the material but that behavior that publication has always been protected but there's obviously a greer gray area there in terms of your communications with sources are if you're saying you know i heard you to disclose information that. mation is that conspiracy well we've never called it that before but maybe they're going to in the future that would have devastating consequences because this this is this do these are not small penalties we're talking about forty and fifty years in jail right there that i don't care about curator or to resign or anything on and then i'm elected out of the chair i don't want it i want to move to the other piece that we've been talking
about which is also the facebook of the great facebook purge of twenty eighteen you know what's interesting is we and you actually talked about this the last summer in august and the dangers of relying on you know facebook and their new affiliations with groups like the atlantic council to kind of police news on social media and this is what you had said actually back in early august let's take a listen. like seventy plus percent of the distribution of news in this country is either facebook or google so if you have a government. group meeting with facebook to decide what news to distribute and what not that's essentially like a you know a government run censorship program and we've never had anything even close to that except in wartime in this country and this is this is it's an extraordinary development and so mad i got to ask you know that was an august before this you know eight hundred plus i purged took place did the reality of what we feared and
what we were talking about in august live up to the expectation. yeah i think so i think it's i think that's starting we've already seen sort of across the board. the deletions of sites the completely span the political spectrum you've seen far right people removed you seen libertarian sites like police the police copwatch. the freethought projects then you've seen pro-democratic sites like reverb press and liberal america. and blue state daily. they've they've all been removed from facebook so this is not a right versus left thing this is really a small versus big thing as far as i can tell and again the there's a lack of alarm about it in press circles that frankly is mystifying to me i don't really understand it all out a lot of people argue that the facebook and twitter are private businesses and they
have the right and they're within their bounds to decide who does or doesn't have a voice on their site or that people like say alex jones that they're dangerous all to meet me and shouldn't be allowed to pop form what do arguments like those mess about the issue of our first amendment right. well they're right about that i mean it's not a first amendment issue if anything the companies have the first amendment rights to decide what does and does not go on their their platforms but it is a censorship issue i mean it's effect it's effectively an issue of who is controlling what we see and what we read and it's scary either way i think the one of the things that's that's really concerning about this is that we had in this country for a long time and deliberately slow but effective process of dealing with unhealthy or illegal speech that was based on litigation so somebody like alex jones would
always sooner or later be sued for something like libel or slander but. that process was deliberately took a long time now you can just have a group of platforms the siding over the course of a couple of days that they're all going to remove this person and there's no legal process there's and it's not heard before a jury you don't get to argue your case before the before the public and that is dystopia and i think that's that's that's a that's a situation that's that's very unhealthy in very you know that removes a layer of protection for legitimate journalists it does because to me in my mind it would be one thing if it was facebook and twitter and all these companies kind of on their own. but you know coming after a summer of intense pressure from washington and you know all these political groups and things like that in these new associations with things like the atlantic council that to me smells too much like there's a lot of the public government hands forcing companies to do this rather than like you know saying hey maybe the problem is you guys own too much of the marketplace
maybe the problem is that you're you know maybe we need to break you up maybe maybe that's the how we should look at this rather than hey fix this for us or you know that kind of attitude. yeah i think that's that's my main complaint about this whole thing is that rather than be concerned about the the sheer market power of a company like facebook or google the it seems like government actors and people in the senate want to use that power for the for their own ends and it's not just the atlantic council anymore they're also conferring with groups like the international republican institute the national democratic institute which are essentially like the nonprofit arms of the two major political parties so you do have a basically a nato backed group in the atlantic council and these these two institutions and they're conferring with the senate as well and you know if those are the people who are deciding what isn't is not legitimate news i think it's pretty clear what kind
of a news landscape we're going to end up with eventually it really is and it's very frightening at the end of the day in my mind because it's like you said you know facebook google these companies take up so much of our land of our apparatus of free speech that you know it's hard to go anywhere else but a minute i just want to ask you you know really quickly it's you know it's very easy and everyone wants to kind of assign fault in situations like this but you know but these kind of attacks in the press represent something a little bit deeper than just the simple ok this person is to blame or this company is to blame. yeah i think what we're going through right now is. the revolutionary period and american media and i think the journalism community is just asleep at the wheel about this they don't they're not recognizing that there are sweeping changes going on in how we regulate speech again for the longest time we've never had a system of formal formal censorship in this country have never had
a real media regulator we now basically have a series of unaccountable opaque media regulators in facebook and google and they're working in collaboration with chua's like government agencies and this is completely new and radical situation that i think the press community just hasn't been able to wrap its head around yet well matt i got us i got to say thank you so much for coming on always a pleasure and keep up the great work out there. thank you very much tyrone thank you. and that ladies and gentlemen is our show for you today remember in this world we are not told to love enough so i tell you all i love you i am tired robot and i'm capital watching those hawks never great day and night out there.
u.s. veterans who come back from war often tell the same stories. we're going out with the people who were killing civilians they were not interested in the wellbeing of their own soldiers either they're already several generations of them so i just got this memo from the star great adventures offices were going to act and destroy the government and seven countries in five years americans pay for the wars with them money those with dives if we were willing to go into harm's way and willing to risk being killed for a war. then surely we can risk some discomfort or uneasiness for peace. us producing a lot of oil and gas in our energy and abandon where you know as big as in russia and saudi arabia but the point as you're making there is that they're actually
losing money on their back. when a loved one is murder it's natural to seek the death penalty for the murder i would prefer it be known in the death penalty just because i think that's the fair thing the right thing research shows that for every nine executions one convict just found innocent the idea that we were executing innocent people is terrifying the is just no way to present in that we're even many of the dems families want the death penalty to be abolished the reason we have to keep the death penalty here is because that's what murder victims' families what that's going to give them peace that's going to give them justice and we come in and say. not quite enough we've been through this this isn't the way.
to the move move move move move move. move move. i moved up my evening up when he got to be no more to put the kid if it's a boy to be going to the plate. of. a . u.s. senator is it demanded an end to military support for saudi arabia in the long running war in yemen a. lot of reporting accuses ukraine's president of introducing martial law to boost his ratings ahead of the upcoming election and says the recent dispute in the church straight.