Their lowest level in three years by christmas. Right now the average price is 3. 66 a ga gallon. The Falling Crude could drop the price to 3. 16. The irs is delaying the start of next years filing filing set by two weeks they will need to update their computers due to the government shutdown. [ theme ] the blowback from drone strikes. Human Rights Groups say they are killing more civilians than the Obama Administration admits. That could cause problems abroad. Consider this is the u. S. Becoming more feared in some countries than al qaeda. Would not using drones backfire. Also the fascinating storey of a teen turn extremist who turned again as an adult to fight out against jihadist. And why america should be in a errors. A look at anticonspiracy buildings with brad meltzer did Bobby Kennedy take his brother. How long was the federal bureau of investigation tracking Lee Harvey Oswald before the asass nation. Im antonio mora. We begin with drones, an important tool on the war on terror, without putting american soldiers in danger. Two reports say the Unmanned Aircraft unleashed missiles and often kill civilians, not just terrorists. We report on the battle over this modern warfare weapon. We found in some cases it killed civilians. Human rights watch, and Amnesty Internationals joint report demand the u. S. End its secrecy surrounding drone strikes. In pakistans north waz earise stan Amnesty International investigated 45 strokes from january 2012 to august 2013. It cited cases like that of a 68yearold grandmother. Her grandchildren recounted the moment she was blown into pieces in front of their eyes. Her granddaughter was filmed by the group as an eyewitness. Human rights watch also carried out research on six specific air strikes in yemen inns 2009. The u. S. s only publicly acknowledged two of the three strikes those that have killed americans. Its as if the hundreds of yemenies killed in the attacks simple never existed. Tuesdays report comes after two recent u. N. Reports on drones, one of which indicated that as many as 450 civilians may have been killed in u. S. Decade. U. S. Counterterrorism operations are precise, lawful and effective. White house spokesman jay carney said the it administration disagreed with the claims and cited a speech by president obama made last may. He addressed why the United States may choose to under take strikes used by loans. He said conventional airpour or missiles are less precise. Nawaz sharif is in the in u. S. Scheduled to meet with president obama on wednesday. A vocal critic of the drone program, he called for the u. S. To end the drone strikes, saying they imposed a major impediment to relations with the u. S. Joining me now for more on the reports on drones are letta taylor, the senior counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch. She authored the report entitled between the drone and alqaeda, and michael lewis, a navy pilot who testified before congress on drones and is a professor at the ohio northern university, pettit college of law. He is in the colombus ohio studio. Thank you both for joining us. Letta, in your report you write some in yemen fear the u. S. More than alqaeda. You say when the u. S. Government is considered more of a demon than a notorious terror group theres a problem. Has it got that bad . Yes, i think so. In yemen many feel that the u. S. Is then my because drone strikes are in some cases killing civilians. Whereas al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is careful to not kill civilians. Id like to emphasise that im not saying this is an endorsement of al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, we consider the group a serious threat. We do understand that the United States needs to do all it can to protect america from strikes by this group. So that is not our issue at all. Our issue is that in some cases the u. S. Is unlawfully killing civilians in the strikes, and when it does so, it needs to acknowledge and take killings. Lets have a look at the numbers. Last year, in 2012, the bureau of Investigative Journalism found 132 to 153 total drone strikes in pakistan and yemen this year. So far there has been 47 in those countries. As for casualties in pakistan and yemen, last year, between 431 and 1102, this year 2010, 313, a big difference this year. The issue has never been the volume of strikes, but the legalitiy of strikes. So the fact that the numbers are going down may indicate that its a lull, its a new trend. Its too soon to know. We dont take issue with the number of strike, as long as they are lawful. We do not consider drones to be unlawful in and of themselves, its how they are used. We would be making the same kind of statements were it any other form of weapon, if the afacts in some cases were unlawfully killing civilians. Lets address the legality. What is the issue, these are people who are the drones are going after people that the United States believes are intending to kill americans. Is it not selfdefence to go after them . Well, theres the defense argument in part, and the other thing is theres a war in yemen between the Yemeni Government and al qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula. They have chromed controlled up to a quarter of the country, 1. 3 million having sharia law imposed upon them. Fighting comes to a standstill. What about the legality of drone strikes . We are inviting another countrys sovereignty by dropping bombs in pakistan and yemen. Is that legal . The Yemeni Government asked us to be in there. They are involved in a civil war, its not an invasion of their sovereignty to be invited in to do that. The strikes in yemen are largely they are legal because you are talking about targetting al qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula members. All the strikes mentioned in this report killed al qaeda and the arabian pieninsula members, in bigger numbers. The drones in pakistan, where the pakistani government in many case, if not most, have not wanted us to use drones. That is true. What is the legality there. Is there a legal argument to drop missiles in pakistan . Yes. If pakistan is unable or unwilling to prevent the forces in the Border Regions of pakistan to come across the region and attack u. S. Troops and afghan troops, we are within our rights to do something about that. As you said, you said selfdefense. That, or using the unable or unwilling standard. They were unwilling to do anything about Osama Bin Laden, so we were within our rights to ourselves. Ill let you. Yes, if i may jump in for a moment first. Yes, absolutely the Yemeni Government, the counter president embraces the program. Theres question about whether he has the authority to allow the u. S. In, because hes a transitional figure, a transitional president. Nevertheless, we dont take issue with that. We have not stated that we believe that yemens sovereignty is being violated. Our issue is not whether the u. S. Has the right to carry out the attacks in yemen. Our issue is is the u. S. Following the law in the strikes, and in cases when civilians are killed, we want to see recognition, we want to see people prosecuted if wrongdoing was found in investigations, and we want to see compensation. In terms of the six cases we investigated one in particular did there were two that indiscrim nantly killed civilians. In one case a u. S. Droneassisted strike hit a Passenger Van killing 12 of the 14 people inside. All of them were villagers coming home from market, including a pregnant woman and three children. The bodies were dusted with sugar and flower that they were bringing home. Their charred bodies were found on the roadside, dusted in the fashion. The target of the strike was nowhere in sight or even on that stretch of road at the moment. This is the kind of strike that we think should be investigated, and we feel strikes like that, this particular one wiped out bread winners for 50 villages in a poor part of one of the poorest countries in the world. Those families are entitled to know why the u. S. Killed their loved ones and are entitled to some kind of compensation. The u. S. Is not open enough, do you think, about what its transparent. Absolutely. We think that the u. S. Says trust us, we are not breaking the law in these strikes. What we say is, great, if you have nothing to hide, show us the evidence so that we not just have nongovernmental organization, but the public as a hole and the relatives of those killed can judge what happened, and help determine were some of these strikes unlawful. If they were people should be held accountable and the u. S. Taking steps to ensure that it civilians. Michael, do you think the u. S. Should be more open and there should be prosecution if the intention was good and they were trying to kill a terrorist and made a mistake . Well, the Legal Standard is that you would have to show that they knew civilians were going to be killed or failed to take feasible precautions to prevent strikes. And if they failed to take such precautions or knew that civilians were going to be at risk, then conceivably prosecutions would be warranted. I think that its incumbent its important to know what exactly was known by the people that were ordering the strikes at the time the strikes were carried out. So the question then becomes whether we should be more open. I want to get to another question two questions. One is that using drones can kill civilians, and obviously something we want to avoid at all possible costs. On the other hand, is there not the danger that if we went after the terrorists with american troops, that we might have more civilians killed . Casualty figures can vary with any kind of war situation. I dont think we can go into the hypotheticals. Our issue is not the drones. We do not have an issue with drones at all. It may be that in fact, we favour drones over many other kinds of weapons, such as cluster ammunition, which were used in one strike in yemen by the u. S. , which are which are cannot distinguish by definition between one target and a target and civilians. We dont have an issue at all with drones. We are not saying it should be boots on the ground or drones. We say follow the laws of war if this is a legitimate armed conflict. If so that means the u. S. Under the laws of war has a legal obligation to investigate potentially unlawful strikes and hold those accountable. Let me let michael have the last word. You have referred to drones as being a human type of warfare and are concerned about american boots on the ground in somalia where navy seals were in danger as opposed to using drone strikes against those involved attack. Im concerned about the american boots on the ground and civilians. If you look at the numbers from Human Rights Watch or other organizations that study this the percentage of civilians killed by drones is in the low single dig its. Compared to countersurge sis, israel hezbollah, israelhamas and others, 50, 60 killed were civilians. The fact that the United States can bring the numbers into the low Single Digits by using drops, by anybodys numbers is a remarkable feat, considering you are fighting an enemy that doesnt wear yun forms, hides amongst the civilian population and uses human shields. Yes, i think that drones are the cause of many civilian casualtyise than other warfare. Its a difficult issue. I have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us to discuss this. Coming up another School Shooting shocks america. Why is the shooter almost always a boy and why almost always in Public Schools. And harmeli aregawi is tracking our stop stories on the web. What is trending. It is incredible what people will do for money. An underground network of young people are lending their bodies and minds to science in exchange for dollar bills. Ill share that with you. What do you think . Join the conversation the nightmare of bullets flying at a school terrorise the another school on monday. The shooting at Sparks Middle School is the 10th. All but one of the shooters were boys, and all but one in Public Schools none in a big city. This is a recurring pattern among School Shootings in america. Why . We are joined by Ron Avi Astor from los angeles, a professor of social work and education at the university of southern california, and dr casey jordan joins us in the studio. Shes a criminalologist and law professor at western connecticut state university. Thank you both for joining us. The shooter in mondays School Shooting in nevada was a young boy. We are seeing in just the overwhelming amount of cases why . It has a lot to do with the way we socialise young men in the culture. Girls are raised to be seen and not heard. If they are in main they internalise it. They tend to be cutters and prone to promise cuous sex or drinking or alcohol abuse. In boys we tend to have this act out in violence and say, boys will be boys. They model their before. While boys and girls play violent video games, its the boys that tend to be socialised to act out on their frustration, where girls are supposed to swallow it and take it out on themselves its rare to see girls and Mass Shootings where a lot of people are shot. Ron, police said the shooter in this case was it 12 years old. In the past, the bigger ones, columbine, sandy hook, shooters are older. Are we seeing a worrisome trend about School Shooters and younger ages . No, they are happening more recently with younger, as you mentioned. Historically we had situations where kids as young as 6 or 7 shot other classmates. In kentucky or petucca and oregon happened with younger and older ones. I dont think its a trend, but it is a concern at any age something that seems to be a trend or the rule is that shootings seem not to happen in urban areas where you expect there to be more crime. Its not new york city or los angeles or chicago where the shootings happen in schools. Its happening in suburban areas in small towns. Why is that. Understand in the urban areas, theres a code of the streets. If theres a beef you get it out on the streets. The fist fight without gun, where people work out their differences in real time. Its more common in an urban basketball court. When you go to the small town you are talking about kids that are isolated and in the social norm. They are on the web. They know that the rest of the world is out there. For kids who dont fit into that, who dont want to grow up in maybury usa and feel this is not who they are and want to get out they are bullied, ostracised and alienated. They dont know what to do or have coping mekanise ms. In a small town what do they do with a feeling, i need to get out and find people like me. They dont know what to do with the anger and frustration and look at the students around them and dont have the ability to escape. It results in a violent out instead of working it out on a daily basis. Its tragic to hear that story, leaning to the horors we are seeing. Ron, a pattern they happen in Public Schools, at a public school. Is there a reason the private schools seem to be less vulnerable to the tragedies or is it the law of averages at work with 10 of american schools . Its a good questions. The vast majority of private schools have a strong election process of letting children in. Behaviour is a large piece of that selection process. Is that totally true . You have a lot of private schools that will take anybody whoa pays. Par okayial schools are open with admission policies. Not if they come in with a history of violence or weapon use or history of acting out behaviour. Those kids are weeded out before they are let in. If any kind of slight behaviour that shows that they are showing any externalalising most of the schools do not keep the child and have the prerogative to do that. Public schools do not. That is a major issue. The other thing is that Public Schools because they are public and open to everybody, they cant control as well what is happening in the community. Unfortunately, we do know from state surveys, and from interviews and research with kids and teachers, that in these Public Schools, the kids are actually telling us in the surveys, they are telling their peers and parents that they are bringing in weapons, and that is an area where we could have a prevention down the line, and so there is hope in the Public Schools to do something. Talking about prevention, it seems like its always after the fact, we hear the stories about the warning signs that the kids showed. In some cases they threatened to kill kids. And somehow the information is not getting out. Its happening with older people with Mass Shootings, if you go to aurora and tucson. Why is the is the system not set up to react to the warning signs . Well, its a difficult cost benefit analysis between prevention and the rights of the person with the suspicious behaviour. We call it leakage, the clues some conscious, some subconscious, about their ideas on fantasy, violence and so on. In aurora they were clear. The psychiatrist was bound by doctorpatient privilege. So often there are protocols where all they can do is refer the student to the counsellor. The signs were there with the navy shooting. Theres protocol on how to protect the rights of the potentially ill or violent. Until they do something, theres nothing you can do. You can physically remove them. Its not illegal to have fantasies, but the best you can do is get a fantastic social workers and try to run an intervention. To the credit of the people on the front lines, we have no idea how many School Shootings have been averted. Tea