she's available in. the. cookie crumbles of. the. holiday inn. roll the radio national on the radio so sure to find this piece of the first book. but pilots are being hailed as heroes after managing to safely crash landed a passenger jet north western russia the plane encountered problems when. communication equipment failed the crew glided at the two one fifty four before landing at a disused airstrip no passengers were injured. anyone serious about solving global problems such as nuclear proliferation knew that

without russia and the united states working together little would be achieved the u.s. secretary of state says russia is a vital partner when it comes to solving global problems speaking in washington hillary clinton stressed the need for cooperation in solving the issues of nuclear disarmament and global terrorism. britain's special envoy to afghanistan has stepped down from his position amid speculation he was forced out. who advocated open dialogue with the taliban was a strong critic of the u.s. . next here on our team on the show the u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton claims that the world is counting on the u.s. to discuss whether the idea of american exceptionalism has any global backing.

welcome the ilona show where we get the real headlines and none of the mercy or could be live out of washington d.c. and today secretary of state hillary clinton addressed the council on foreign relations there she praised the obama administration's progress on foreign policy and called for a new century of u.s. global leadership but is this exceptional grade really an accurate analysis at a time when anti-american protests are happening more often we'll have a debate on the real status of u.s. foreign policy then we'll look into the extradition treaty between the u.s. and the u.k. domestic pressures have led the u.k. to rethink this treaty since many think that it gives american unfair advantage so we're going to ask why the treaty is so faulty to begin with and what the u.k. can do about it then we'll investigate the purpose behind the shield law was originally designed to protect journalists from having to reveal their sources but a new amendment might put that at risk so does this shield law really protect the

freedom of speech we'll speak with tech blogger mitch wagner and president obama is back on tour campaigning for the democrats unveiling his new economic plan but the rest of america doesn't sound as excited as obama does so could this becoming too little too late or get inside from the business insiders joe weisenthal and it's class time for the tea partiers the tea party is holding classes to help shed their amateur image in the public eye so with the tea party wising up what will the sarah palin's of the world who want bloggers serve and cost is going to weigh in on that topic but now let's move on to our top story. secretary of state hillary clinton is that a busy year for getting sanctions against iran path to the u.n. to resetting relations with russia clinton has been globe trotting trying to mend fences and the draft to the council on foreign relations today clinton praised her own work saying that it offered our best hope in

a dangerous world but how is the u.s. really doing it playing a role in global issues time it seems like every day there's a new protest over american actions of iraq archies yohan half is has a report. the united states can must and will lead in this new century it's how the u.s. is leading that has put the subject of american foreign policy in question but that wasn't part of the analysis here at the council on foreign relations and where the country's top diplomat u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton praised the obama administration's can do spirit of american engagement and its so-called progress on foreign policy today we can say with confidence that this model of american leadership which brings every tool at our disposal to be put to work on behalf of our national interest works in the middle of two wars a resurgent taliban working with the pakistani intelligence agency the same one the

us is funding and relaunching peace talks in danger of collapsing us foreign policy is beginning to look more like u.s. exceptionalism telling the banner of american democracy and diplomatic engagement clinton base excesses on the sanctions he campaigned for against iran are deep in support for global institutions such as the i.a.e.a. underscores the authority of the international system and iran on the other hand continues to single self out through its own actions drawing even criticism for its refusal to permit i.a.e.a. inspectors to visit this without mentioning the i.a.e.a. struggling to get israel america's closest ally to allow inspections into what some high ranking officials call its ambiguous nuclear. until then clinton notes funding countries and territories in need of direction will help their advancement like the west bank the united states invests hundreds of millions of dollars to build palestinian capacity because we know that progress on the ground improve security

and helps lay the foundation for a future palestinian state a move some argue is further dividing the palestinian people and making them suspicious of the palestinian authority's cozy relationship with the u.s. if the palestinian authority cannot claim legitimacy over the territory where government is going to be very hard to convince the americans the israelis or anyone else for that matter that they're going to be able to deliver clinton made it very clear in her speech that developed the developing world needs the united states for leadership and guidance advancement and the preservation of human rights but not everyone subscribes to that statements the rise in secret war tactics such as targeted assassinations and drone attacks are very much a part of the us foreign policy apparatus which clinton left out of her speech over the past year and a half the obama administration has been increasing the budget for the special operations command this is what we're seeing you know we're seeing now state

authorized so lector assassinations i mean it was a policy created during the bush administration but it's a policy that's been continued and reinforced during the obama administration so it's really just a question of u.s. state policy. policy not so hidden from the public eye but definitely not part of what clinton will light the world to know about enforcing u.s. foreign policy and global cooperation we are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny and the destiny of others no matter what the future repercussions may be john hoffa's r. t. washington d.c. . so if we look at hillary's speech today we have to wonder if shane obama can deliver. for all the promises that were made she's spoke of this as an american moment spoke of openness innovation devotion to core values bringing people together she said that those are the core principles that make america what it is as a nation and make it a global leader and she said that the world is counting on us but is that the truth

or does the idea of american exceptionalism only sound good to american ears perhaps there's too much on this one country's plate to put it all together we're discussing with me is brad woodhouse the columnist for the hill brant thanks for being here tonight now tell me you know after listening to hillary's speech did you feel all warm and fuzzy inside were there a few things that the made you shake her head because you know i definitely hear that a little shit head shaking my thought now there's nothing about the world scene right now that makes me feel warm and fuzzy number one obviously it's a challenging world obviously president bush was in office for eight years and president obama came in and is making or trying to make dramatic and substantial changes one can criticize certain aspects of it as they did in the in this segment but these are dramatic changes major changes i would avoid words like exceptionalism if the idea is to understand what's happened here larry clinton

herself you know spoke of that today so i do have to go with what she's saying because you know you have to what she's what she's really saying is that we're trying to exercise leadership to get middle east peace for example now the good news is she's way ahead of the schedule as is president obama and george w. bush the bad news is if it was such an easy problem to solve we would have been fighting for so many years decades generations centuries so it's going to take some tough action the answer is it's too early to tell whether the obama policies will work but the point is that they are trying will president obama be able to get the concessions from the israelis on the settlements and from the palestinians on recognition time will tell he's going to have to be real. tough but the fact of the matter is it's a tough world but he is trying and it's a tremendous strain certainly from my point of view for the eight years that came before under george bush and dick cheney well it's deviling i mean they're trying and it's one thing to acknowledge this is a difficult world it's a complex world there are a lot of issues out there but when you give

a speech like this should you also at least then admit perhaps some of your mistakes admit you know remind people that we are still in fact fighting two wars remind if you're giving people a speech on american global leadership that you're thankful that you're nato allies also lost a lives with you in these two wars that you started well these speeches. leaders don't do that in these speeches even if you're right that maybe maybe they should that maybe raise or maybe that's what's missing here on this speech and that was you know what will get people to agree with it more well what i think would have you know would have been better if i were secretary of state is to do what you said to be blunt but also to say that's why it's so important to be doing what president obama is trying to do these are tough choices we have to decide what to do in afghanistan we have problems right now with the corruption of president karzai that are no secret we have to stabilize the population and lift up the people give a better life to the people in afghanistan what

a tremendous amount of their gross domestic product is going to corruption we have to get the israelis to make concessions that they don't want and then get the palestinians to make concessions that they don't want we have to get the start agreement through the senate which will not be easy but i believe that will and then get us russian relations going even further towards bigger arms control these are tough issues that were long before president obama the important point is yes you're right i think there's nothing wrong with that meeting our imperfections that's part of what i would call our exception i was thinking that's part of what americans want to hear not only americans but the rest of the world wants to hear from politicians these days is a little bit of honesty i think that they have come a long way especially in like you said. resetting relations with russia but at the same time we do have american citizens on assassination lists now which that's never happened before you know and while. i don't know i don't want to read an article in the public you. know what has happened before unfortunately but i will

tell you this there is a dramatic earth shaking difference between barack obama and joe biden versus george bush and dick cheney it is a dramatic and earthshaking difference and it's hard and it's tough but the difference is real very quickly we just have one more minute left this kind of speech is this given only for international audiences because americans that are struggling with the recession right now they're not happy with the way that their country is going do they want to hear hillary talking about how we offer everything up to the rest of the world but they can't give americans jobs well they want to hear how we're going to get jobs it's a different show we could do for four hours but i will say in american politics barack obama is being criticized by republicans and the right wing for actually saying that america is not always right i mean remember he's on the attack at home because he is trying to be more honest the point is these are tough brutal issues and he is trying and to some degree succeeding and to some degree he has a lot more work to go but it took george bush eight years to never really tried to

get middle east peace it took barack obama two years and at least they are talking with a deadline in a year and we'll see what happens ari brown thank you very much for being here we will see what happens hillary is going to be on her way for a second round of talks soon all right still to come later in the show i am plugged moment tonight over the planned burning of the koran in florida this weekend i'm asking where all the outrage is from the right on this issue and it's trouble brewing between the u.s. the u.k. u.k. is looking at changing its extradition process in america so we'll have a report on the plan changes only come back. if.

the extradition process where one person accused of a crime can be surrendered to another country now most countries use treaties to work out the details of extraditions but the u.k. worries that their current treaty especially the one between the u.k. and the us isn't enough to protect the british people from other countries r.t. correspondent laura and that has the story. reclaiming some of its lost power britain set to review controversial extradition treaties with the us and european union under the current laws countries that want to extradite british citizens don't have to provide any evidence that they're guilty if the crime they're wanted for if you stand in that cost used of something which might be totally absurd there is nothing that a british court can do to stop you being extradited i have a very very limited powers to stop you being extorted and we've seen this in a number of cases now where there's no real evidence against somebody and if the

court was allowed to look at the evidence they would say sorry but it doesn't justify tradition we're not going to allow it after years of fighting it's a small victory for john this shop her son is gary mckinnon who's wanted in the u.s. for hacking into the pentagon's computers he's been granted a stay of extradition and if the review gives persons legal system more power to protect its citizens he may not have to face decades in an american jail the we really really difficult because every second i hate and stress and it's very difficult. of prepared that it may be a longer way he agrees as long as the oakum is good and also if the treaty is changed and helps everybody then at least something's been achieved and you feel that it wasn't over nothing that we went through the hill with some good outcome the treaty with the us was put into place following nine eleven to make it easier to extradite terrorists critics say it's one sided because britain can't extradite

u.s. citizens without proving the. individual has probably committed the crime and so far only one person is believed to have been handed over on suspicion of terror the treaty has been mainly used against businessmen accused of fraud and minor offenders karren told is one of the u.k.'s top extradition lawyers involved in most recent high profile cases i think it has been appears that the i mean the irony of it is that the one type of people we do not terrorists i do believe that america takes advantage of the very weak position the u.k. is in is in relation to this extradition treaty more than a thousand people were seized by u.k. police last year on orders from the e.u. or united states fifty percent from the year before british lawyers say many european states have imposed conditions on extradition to protect their citizens whereas the u.k. has no star job touts a large proportion of extradition is to the e.u. often minor offenses which aren't necessarily considered crimes in the u.k.

cools for a review of the situation intensified last year after germany refused to extradite a doctor who had accidentally killed a patient whilst working in the u.k. they're reviewing panel made up of lawyers and international relations experts is due to report next summer but until the situation changes british citizens will still be at risk of being extradited with no evidence under a law that even the man who signed it former home secretary david blunkett now admits gives too much away your abit r.t. . so do we consider this a bold move by britain to stand up for its citizens and tell america to back off or is american operator culprit here to understand the push to change extradition powers we have to ask how the u.k. got into this position in the first place and where should go from here on to make sure the terrorists and serious offenders are the ones being extradited and set of

business men who commit petty. crimes well you're discussing with me is dr ted brahman senior research fellow at the margaret thatcher center for freedom thank you so much for being here i know you're saying that you know. basically what we're seeing is that a lot of people lining winter upset because they think that this is america's fault that they put a lot of pressure on the brits to pass this treaty to begin with in two thousand and three but you think that the perhaps they got themselves into this mess well it's not simply i who think this this is what the house is out on that we do know that he said but yes i do think that people in britain who believe in this treaty are being very misguided we should bear in mind that the genesis of this treaty began before nine eleven it had nothing to do with nine eleven when it started out the labor government under twenty blair wanted to make it easier to extradite people from the u.k. they wanted to do that because of their long experience with the extradition attempts on general pinochet the former leader of chile and after that was also

named on the blair government looked at this and decided they wanted to make it simpler for other countries to extradite people from britain so they crafted their own law they negotiated treaty with the united states specifically to achieve that aim now people are unhappy because surprise it's easier to extradite people from the u.k. well it does look like a bad deal because essentially you know from other countries twenty three other countries and in fact they don't need that they can just you know have probable cause to ask for these people to be extradited they don't need to add extra evidence but then why is it that the us is the one that's getting blamed for all of it if twenty three other countries have the exact same right because it's popular to believe in the united states for things that are it's fault but as you correctly point out the us under british law is placed on exactly the same status as twenty three other countries including russia might i point out and many other countries around the world the reason the standard that the us gets is higher in the treaty is because the us has a constitution and insisted on it the british wanted

a lower standard of extraditions from britain and that. exactly with their god now the thing is this treaty doesn't contain a list of extraditable offense is it only defines them as things that are punishable under the laws in both states by deprivation of liberty of one period of one year period or more now if it's punishable in both states then you know why couldn't they charge this person in the u.k. instead of having them to bring them all the way to the us you know is this faulty . it's a basic principle not simply in this treaty but in international law and extradition treaties generally that people should be tried in the jurisdiction where they are accused of committing a crime now the question of where you would try people who commit crimes or accused of committing crimes over the internet is a very good question for law school students but generally and this has nothing to do with this treaty this is an old principle if someone commits a crime in the united states and flees to another country that person should be extradited to stand trial in the us and the same is true if someone commits

a crime in the us or commits a crime in britain and flees to the united states this is a basic principle in international law and a lot older than this treaty now why is it that there seems to be said gross misuse of the treaty in the sense that we don't see perhaps terrorists we don't see people who have committed really serious offenses being extradited instead it's people who committed petty crimes or perhaps white collar crimes the idea of an extradition treaty is not to isolate terrorists or anyone in particular it's to extradite people accused of crimes i think it's not imagine though that people you know mostly of the way it plays into it is the ones you think really deserve to be extradited especially in this post nine eleven environment are you know are serious criminals i asserted i certainly agree that terrorist deserve to be extradited there's no question about that but i think it's i think it's a sort of the same way i think it's astonishing for anyone to make the argument that after world com after enron after the financial crisis that financial fraud is

not really a serious crime can anyone say that accusations serious credible accusations lodged in a u.s. court that these things are petty and on serious are not worthy of extradition we've had over a decade now of serious financial crimes but you yourself mentioned you wrote an entire piece about this where you talk about the idea of human rights and that that is now being your opinion abused and as in so that certain people can't be actor died because. staying in jail for a long period of time is considered a violation of human rights this is totally separate from the u.s. u.k. treaty it has absolutely nothing to do with it the u.k. is a member of the european union and a signatory of the european convention on human rights it is therefore subject to itself the jurisdiction of the european courts and they have attempted successfully to stop extraditions of terrorists from britain to the united states the argument being that since terrorists are accused of having committed serious crimes in the

us these might be punishable by long terms in prison and therefore they short order may be dangling from a new way to a way that is one sided way it's it's fun to joke about that but of course it's no laughing matter it's no laughing matter but i think that you can see that you know what happens is that people become cautious because of certain actions and that at the end of the day nothing is achieved thank you so much for being here but you are still to come there's been a huge debate in this country over the wiki leaks websites decisions to release the u.s. military secrets but now two u.s. senators are working on an amendment to a shield law that would not protect any website that releases those government secrets only back in a moment. for the full story we've gone to. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. in

the past few months we've asked why it is that these states whistleblowers choose websites like wiki leaks to give sensitive information to rather than typical media outlets like the new york times or the washington post and on one hand the concern may be that those mainstream outlets wouldn't publish the information to for starters but at the same time there's that fear that leakers identities would not be safe from officials who as of late have been escalating their number of subpoenas against journalists and then came a giant sigh of relief as a shield law passed both the house and a senate panel last fall that would protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources but outside relief only came to major media organizations not to congress as thousands of documents on afghanistan released by wiki leaks so this fall senators dianne feinstein and charles schumer are expected to create an

amendment that says of the law would not apply to websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents so in this internet age do we see this as the end of sites like weekly leaks and another assault on free speech well joining me to discuss that from san diego is tech blogger and social media strategist mitch wagner mitch thanks so much for joining me now before we get into this amendment and the whole discussion i want to talk about the actual shield law itself here you know it doesn't apply in matters involving terrorism and national security which is understandable but how many times have we already seen that be abused when everything gets just thrown in under this blanket term of national security. oh yes it's absolutely common trend a very troubling one anything that politicians or people in power don't want to get released they just label it as terrorism or protection from terrorism or national security you should be kept secret one of the examples of this is the copyright

treaty act or treaty. detailing with music and movies copyright laws for the quote of the future and these negotiations the politicians are attempting to keep them in secret because they claim it's a national security issue. well that's right like i said they have the start throwing everything into national security and that of brother these days but you know then we get this amendment here or there i in my opinion it seems like this was a largely in large part a response to wiki leaks that congress got a little shaken up that all these documents are being released here you know it's talks about web sites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents which sounds just like wiki leaks but wiki leaks is a foreign organization so does the men even apply to it. it's really hard to say. you can argue that the actions were taken in the united states that's often

the case when people try to claim jurisdiction. for activities that occur over the internet where they take orders and the organization is in a foreign country but in fact wiki leaks is international it doesn't really have to take orders these guys are prepared to elude capture so it really seems to be just kind of a token symbol it doesn't have much meaning to wiki leaks ok so then if we can really you know gets off free let's talk about other websites then perhaps that might have this information i mean these days it's really hard to decide who counts as being a journalist these days when anybody can have a blog online and write about it so you know i mean does this meant meant infringe upon their freedom of speech could they be important danger now. for this particular. it would depend on how the courts would decide to return true this statement mass dissemination.