tv Consider This Al Jazeera January 6, 2015 11:00am-12:01pm EST
when israel reacted by withholding more than $127 million in tax revenues owed to the palestinian authority, chief negotiator arrakat accused israel. dr. arrakat will join us shortly. criticized israel for withholding the tax money. spokesperson jen saki said where both parties were concerned. >> reducing tensions taking steps to deescalate, continues to be the only path forward. >> for more i'm joined from jericho by dr. saib ib arrakat. it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. seeing the freezing of the palestinian authority's tax revenues and the recent increase in settlement activity uf you
accused prime minister netanyahu, traiment you suggested the palestinian authority, could disoferl itself and forts israel to take care of everything from freezing security to taking control of teacher salaries. wouldn't that be something the palestinians would reject out of hand? >> actually antonio they are back. they never left. we have began a process with them to gradual withdrawal in 1993 when the palestinian authority was born to take palestinians from occupation to independence, over the years last 23 years the israel governments have continued with settlement activities and last year they introduced the so-called civil administration of the israeli forces in the west bank. of course, they continue to control jerusalem and seize gaza. so what they did last year is to withhold our tax revenues, which
means you know that we are unable to function in our hospital he. or to buy medical supplies. or to function our schools. or our social networks and we are unable to pay salaries. we were supposed to pay salaries yesterday, we could not do that. so it means that you know they are destroying the the palestinian authority. what we are telling them doing all of this we invite you to assume your responsibilities as the occupying power which by fait accompli policies they are. and they are keeping us as an authority by name to pay salaries and to coordinate with them and this cannot continue. the status quo cannot continue and palestinian authority without any authority is, in a cost free occupation is that status quo that mr. benjamin netanyahu the prime minister want to continue with. and our message to him, status
quo cannot be maintained business no more. >> are you considering the move? >> it is not dissolving the palestinian authority. mr. netanyahu nent is destroying the palestinian authority. he is material jurisdiction security jurisdiction functional jurisdiction personal jurisdiction and that's the truth. he is destroying, he's finished with destroying the oslo accords and the peace process and we are trying to tell the international community, the side that needs to be stopped is not the palestinians seeking the security council or the international criminal court or other consequence. it is the israel government that is dictating governments, that is destroying the two stated solution, continuing the
destruction of homes, to the biggest collective punishment of putting 4.5 million palestinians at the mercy of their livelihood, by destroying their revenues, 124 million a month, they collect 3% of every single dollar, that consists of 76% of our budgets. >> the palestinian authority petitioning to join the international criminal court the nuclear option, canada said it was a dangerous move. u.s. called it deeply troubling. why did you think the palestinian authority needed to take that move now? >> because we wanted to tell the international communities through peaceful means and international law avoiding violence should we attain our independence. settlement activities and
closure dilution of forms telling palestinians, through this agency that we need to get our independence through peaceful means and icc we need to defend our people. and last summer in gaza 12,000 palestinians were killed or wounded. 80,000 homes were demolished. this cannot continual with impunity. this cannot continue and then i tell the israelis, those who are worrying about international criminal courts should stop committing crimes. those who are appalled by this palestinian decision, what did you do to stop israel from continuing its occupation for the last 45 years in the west bank and in the gaza strip? why can't you stop israel even if you are at rise with israel. >> you know netanyahu's reaction was the ones who should face justice are the heads of the palestinian authority who entered an alliance with the hamas war criminals. the icc could take up charges
against hamas and the palestinian authority, as well as israel. israel is preparing to try to bring those charges. are you not concerned about the reaction of the international criminal court in general that they could continue to freeze your revenues and increase the settlement activity? >> number one, if the descrealings haveisraelishave this power to take us to court and by our doing, we've signed on the accession to the international criminal court and we put a declaration committing to article 12.3 to cover full jurisdiction and to hand any palestinian they ask for. if that is case why would you withhold our fund? why would the people threaten to cut our aid? okay, let the court decide who is the criminal. the people under occupation defending themselves or the occupiers for last 45 years who are destroying a way of life for palestinian people who want to
destroy the two state solution and this we will stop through mechanisms of international law and i said international criminal court, if netanyahu wants to take us, come on we just signed. let's settle our case in the court in a civilized manner, void of violence, so that's the challenge. why do you create a nuclear option? you don't call a nuclear option what you're doing to palestinians, you don't call a neublg nuclear option making 500,000 people homeless? no army no navy no air force? >> talking about the two state solution which you just mentioned, mahmoud abbas, the palestinian president, have u.n. back a resolution, it failed as you know in december, and of course it would face -- it is
believed to face a u.s. veto. why do you feel going back to the security council is the way to go if you face that veto from the united states? >> because we urge the united states to rethink its position. we go to the security council to call for the preservation and the maintenance of the two-state solution. we want to keep hope in the minds of palestinians. those who say that they're fighting terrorism and extremism in this region against that in a just war must understand that defeating extremism in this region is not going to be done by guns only. you need to drive the swamp of the israeli occupation and for the last 23 years we have done nothing but to negotiate with israelis who have proved to be nonnegotiators who want to employ fate acome reply policies, how many times the united states government have condemned israeli settlement
activities how many times the u.s. policy makers said that this is destroying, destructive to the peace process and yet they continue settlement activities they continue their occupation with impunity and this what we need to stop. and we will try tower best through the civilized means, peaceful means of international law to hold israel accountable to its actions. >> and while you're right that the u.s. has condemned those things dennis ross who used to be the middle east envoy for the united states has written about how palestinians have not been willing to make enough concessions in these negotiations. have you concerned that moving to join the international criminal court going back to the security council and this increased tension will mark an end to bilateral negotiations about a two state solution? >> i have seen dennis ross's article today and i'm planning a response to it because ignoring
facts and trying to finger point at us as palestinians doesn't mean the facts don't exist. dennis ross knows to all people on earth that he did not say the truth in his article and i'll respond to him demanding him the facts of life and the facts of negotiation. secondly what's wrong of palestinians saying to their people that through peaceful means void of vinyls we will seek the help of the international community to void the two state solution. dennis ross, irrespective of what israel does right or wrong, i'm telling him, the world is not divided between those who are proisrael, and those who are propalestinian, those who are prowar and propeace. by not saying the truth you are in the camp of those who don't
want or are against peace and that is the truth. >> how is the truth twisted? >> because dennis ross knows, we have accepted the council, we have accepted to have limited arms, we have accepted a third party in our country palestine, did israel recognize the state of palestine, did israel stop the settlement activities? they say they want to make a palestinian state in the west bank. why have there been settlements in my neighborhood in jericho, why in the heart of the west bank and mr. ross isn't blind to these facts but if he wants to become a master to twisting facts in the service of blindly supporting israel you belong to the camp of those who want to destroy the two state solution and destroy peace. that's what i say that many of these envoys were part of the problem and not part of the solution. >> very quickly are you hopeful that there will be bilateral
negotiations and a two state solution? >> yes, if we can find a solution, the two states the state of palestine, to live side by side the state of israel on peace and security on the 1967 line, providing a time line for these negotiations and a time ceiling for the end of this occupation why not? this is the only way, the israeli government have yet to stay they recognize the state of palestine. they have not done so. they continue being the occupiers, and building settlements which is really the biggest hurdle of the two state solution. >> doctor dr. sy verakat, it's good to have you with us, thank you very much. troubling rift against police, the anger threatening to boil over is coming from police officers across the country who feel demoralsed and betrayed by local officials whom they see
siding with the protesters. in new york a large group of officers turned their backs on new york city mayor bill deblasio. on monday deblasio struck back. >> rather than get lost in the daily back-and-forth by the loudest and most disrespectful voices let's talk about a positive vision. let's talk about what the people together. >> new york police commissioner bill bratton went further. >> the selfishness of that action, the selfishness of it, a funeral is not a place for that. come demonstrate outside city hall. come demonstrate outside police headquarters but don't put on your uniform and go to a funeral and engage in a political action. >> meanwhile fears that this political spat could lead to something worse, a slow down in policing are increasing. commissioner bratton said monday
he will investigate a staggering drop in arrests in new york in the last few weeks. joining us is sergeant del roy burnett, chairman of the d.c. police union. sergeant, good to have you with us. i want to start in new york mayor deblasio came out praising the low crime statistics, and he addressed the mounting tension with police and warned we can't get lost in the loudest and most disrespectful voices. seemingly reference to the large group of police officers who have turned their backs on him on a number of occasions including sunday, as he eulogized the police officers who were executed in brooklyn. do you think police have been disrespectful and defiant by ignoring not only deblasio but their boss police commissioner bratton who made a point to say
this is a place for grieving and not grievances. >> thank you for having me. dwrongi don't think the mayor or commissioner bratton who i respect, were out in force making derogatory statements about police officers specifically new york police officers, when the phrase what do we want dead cops, when do we want them now. when they weren't out there telling those people to not be disrespectful. just like those protesters have the right to express their displeasure with policing, i don't see why they are asking the police officers to clamp down on their first amendment rights. >> that seems to be prevalent across the country with a lot of officers who say there is a profound lack of respect for what police are doing especially as we see these nationwide protests against police.
you believe public officials are a part of the problem? >> i believe public officials and their discourse oar part of the problem. because words matter and the way you communicate with people matters. and if you continue to repeat a narrative that is false, for example, hands up don't shoot or that my son is in danger from the nypd even though he's being protected by the nypd on a daily basis, that narrative gets repeated over and over and folks start to believe it. if you hear it enough you wonder if there's truth to it. as a result, the public pronouncements and acts of public figures, people give voice to a very vocal minority support the police understand the risk we take and that they generally need to be given benefit of the doubt in any controversial situation unless the evidence says otherwise. >> wep well inwell in the context
of words mattering, you sai say, we should respect, what the police officers say, mayor deblasio says it's the world's best police department. what kind of criticism is acceptable from police officials to the rank and file? >> criticism is always i think acceptable and necessary if you are going to improve in whatever your profession is. particularly in policing because we have so much authority. but this is not simply about criticism. this is about the vilification of the entire profession. that's why it's being felt nationwide. you know that police officers routinely go out and look to harm or kill young black males and that's just not true. that's the kind of narrative that we need leadership to step out there and say yes we will accept criticism because the buck stops with me but that
rhetoric has no basis in fact has no place in the conversation. >> police chief cameron mcclay held up a placard that is very controversial. it says i resolve to end racism and work to end white silence. the head of the local association went on tv and said the chief was calling police racists. whom do you agree with here? >> i saw that sign and i saw the photograph of the chief and i think what -- everyone needs to take a step back and understand that racism and discrimination and bigotry are societal probes and simply because we are in the profession of policing that we're immune to it. we're not immune to it but the fact of the matter is, i don't think the vast majority of men and women in policing go out there and discriminate against anyone or mistreat people on purpose. i think sometimes those individuals do those things and
when that occurs we need to hold those people accountable. but in general i don't think anybody goes outs there with the intent to discriminate against someone because of who they are what they look like who they associate with lifestyle or any of those things. >> there is a fear that if it goes on there could be consequences, arguably there could be consequences in new york because in the week after the two officers were killed we saw summonses for minor crimes decreasing more than 90% less than the same week in 2013 arrests for felonies were down nearly 40%. the nypd is looking into all of this. if this was, if this were to be a work stoppage or slow down is that an acceptable way for police to respond here or anywhere else? >> work stoppages and work slow downs are illegal in most places, illegal here in washington, d.c, we can't strike and as a police professional i would not encourage any of my
comrades to be involved in that. having said that your original question is how do we resolve this? i think communications have to be had and like i said words matter. and we on both sides, the union, the mayor, the police department, and the public, on all three sides, need to communicate. the argument has been framed unfortunately in a negative way for police officers and that has to be undone. because police officers aren't out there violating people's rights routinely. 99% of the time they are doing right thing. we need to have a communication with all parties but particularly with the public to explain what we did, why we do it, accept their criticisms improve in areas they are concerned about. but i think our biggest failure as police officers is that we haven't communicated what we do very well and it has been framed by somebody for us. >> sergeant delray
urntd burnett, good us. >> thank you for having me. >> schaeffer joe and the film's director will join us and our social media producer, hermela aregawi is tracking the top stories on the web. what's trending hermella? >> the growing influence of islam but a mass itch countermovement has emerged and has the support of chancellor merkel. what do you think? you can join the conversation on
i'm joined by gordon chang writing on nuclear proliferation as well as other topics. gordon, pleasure to see you. the president promised he would act as a result of this hack against north korea. you believe these sanctions are ineffective. >> they are certainly ineffective. we know what sanctions look like. those are the sanctions bush placed in 2005. not one or two entities but the whole country. those worked. these are supposed to be a shot across the bow to get north korea to cease and desist. all north korean activists who are going to put these divesdz dvds into balloons and north korea is livid about that. >> why the charade?
>> i think there are a couple of things. the united states is a wired society and north korea is not. people are worried about a cycle of retaliation. we would be more vulnerable than north koreans. the idea is maybe through leaning on china we can lean on north korea. there are all sorts of calculations, but i don't think it's going to work though. >> is the administration being consistency here? we've got 50 years of sanctions against north korea. we've just heard the president has relaxed sanctions against cuba because those sanctions haven't worked. is there any hope? >> i don't think so, i don't think we will see those powerful sarchtions thatsarchtions thatsanctions that they talked about. putting north korea on the list of state sponsored terrorism they're going to have to respond again and it is a cycle this
will last quite some time. >> you mentioned china? what about china's role if we are advantaging north korea if china were involved in all of this certainly there is north korean presence and training inside china of hackers. >> well there certainly are. more than half of north korea's cyber warriers are based in the people's republic of china. >> physically based there? >> physically based there. also these attacks on sony went through chinese ip addresses. the fire walls, we know for instance the chinese saw these attacks going out to sony pictures over a long period of time. we saw the ex filtration of 100 terabytes, we have to deal with the chinese because the chinese are the enablers. >> what has to be done then? >> first of all we need call out
the chinese in public to show we are not afraid of them. we need cut the north koreans off from the financial system, and probably go after north korea's missile sales and sales of nuclear weapons technology to the iranians and others. if we do that the north koreans will flow because they really will then be cut off from the rest of the world. >> as i mentioned they really reacted angrily to the not very relevant sanctions. are you worried that there will be some sort ever escalation? >> there will be because there are reasons for north korea to korea. this is going to hurt both of us but at some point we have to deal with these issues because we have been allowing these cyber attacks to go on for decades basically against american companies losing hundreds of
billions of fing being complers commerce to be lost. >> what has this got to say about kim jong-un and his administration? >> clearly his regime is unstable. we have seen all sorts of behaviors that are not consistent with the dominant narrative that he's in control. he's got to react to this, he can't take it lying down because the rest of the regime is not going to let him. >> he just talked about being korea. do you think that will happen or do you think this is again posturing? >> i think this is posturing. he wants those are activists to not, he is willing to say to park jong he k he means a number of things, including the activists don't goat start those balloon drops over the dmz.
>> gordon chang, glad to hear your perspective. >> thank you. >> now from some more stories from around the world. we begin in massachusetts, where jury selection began in the trial of boston marathon bombing suspect, dzhokhartsarnaev. some 100 jurors are supposed to be vetted in the coming days. the trial is on track to begin on january 26th. the 21-year-old is charged with 30 federal counts in the april 2013 bombings that killed three people and injured more than 260. next we head to the new york stock exchange where stocks suffered their biggest drop in months as the dow jones industrials fell almost 2%. the dow's first losing run since 2013. the nasdaq fell 1.6 per. the drastic drop in the price of
crude oil which dipped at one point below $50 a barrel on monday together with the euro hitting a nine year low are blamed for monday's plunge. and we end in gambia, a week after a failed coup, two americans accused of being behind it all. papa faal claims he bought semi automatic weapons and shipped them to gambia. chemo njie, arrested sunday when he flew into the united states from gambia. president yahya jammeh was out of the country, who himself seized power after a bloodless coup in 1994. some of what's happening around
>> this is another significant development... >> we have an exclusive story tonight, and we go live... >> is sheriff joe arpaio the toughest and most famous sheriff in america or a power hungry local law man who has manipulated the media. >> the joe show says both. >> i'm getting tougher and tougher and tougher. >> the whole world was intimidated by him. >> i want jail to be punishment. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says just because you haven't been convicted, you can't wear pink underwear
and eat baloney sandwiches. >> they engaged and killed a human being and yet they're promoted? >> but they died in the most cruel way. >> shaifers sheriff joe arpaio joins us from phoenix. randy murray is director of the joe show and also from phoenix. he followed the sheriff around for eight years. sheriff it's good to have you back on the show, last time it was to talk about a documentary that's critical of you, now you're here to talk about another one that doesn't pull any punches. why would you give him unlimited access? >> i'm the elected sheriff i report to the people i don't run a cia secret operation so i have nothing to hide. they can follow me around for 50 years. doesn't bother me at all. >> randy you talk about how you
became friends with the sheriff. but you wrote a statement about he doesn't believe in bad publicity. can democracy survive when entertaining the public becomes more important than protecting them? >> yeah, it's a tough thing when you have law enforcement running for office. and his first obligation to the voters is to reach out to them and be active in television when then. it i and an important story that really to date has not been told. >> sheriff how do you respond to that? at the time randy started following you around eight years ago, you started rounding up immigrants. you saw great response times to emergencies and that evaporated when you started pouring resources into immigration. >> i'll be here for 20 hours trying to defend myself.
i'm not criticizing randy but i'm not going to get into the illegal immigration. i do have pending cases in federal court. department of justice still after me in the days after obama took office. let's leave it that i was enforcing the law that's what i took an oath of office to do. i think i do a pretty good job with the dedicated employees i have, been in law enforcement 57 years including director in new mexico texas, and arizona. i speak out, if something is wrong with me speaking out not because i'm strictly a politician, i'm not afraid of the media and randy knows that. he had complete access i'm not stupid i don't think. you think i would let somebody follow me around and blast me if i wasn't able to defend myself? >> let's talk about some of the things you had to defend irs
yourself for. that you were arresting people for looking mexican. and randy's documentary shows you going into a small town for immigration enforcement and the mayor there didn't even want you there but you dismissed her. do you believe that at any point that your department went too far? >> nope. my people did not -- they're not racist and that's a decision now in the federal court. i'm not going to talk about it but if you forgot to say that, we do the law enforcement, they hire us we're still there by the way so we're evidently doing a great job. >> go ahead randy. >> i was going to say i don't think it's a in question that he's doing a great job. he is a great law enforcement officer but he's probably a greater promoter of law enforcement in america. and it's serving the two masters that causes the problem.
as you've been pointing out there are lots of cases that are questionable things that happened. are they happening because of law enforcement or are they happening that to compete in that media market you have to raise the bar every single time you have to be more controversial. >> the film clearly doubts the sincerity of his fight against illegal immigration. the way he has to gain political and financial support. you say his desire for fame corrupts everything he does. those are strong charges. >> you know the sheriff has accused me of doing a hit piece i told him no i am not doing a hit piece but i'm afraid you are. i think the case, the truth that when you put all this together what bubbled up, as we made this film, was the fact that there's a -- with the new media there's a danger in america that we're not seeing that's happening that's corruptings the democracy
that we love and trust. and we need to have a discussion about this. we need to start to say, do we want law officers running for office every two years? >> right, that's the question. because obviously you need -- >> you need to start two years out about. >> you need simplicity and to start, sheriff because of the issues in the process that you're dealing with you're in the process of disbanding your immigration squad. are you going to back off in the fight against illegal immigration? >> let me tell you something. i've been the sheriff 22 years i'll be the longest serving sheriff, in six months. evidently do people like what i'm doing? i didn't take on this immigration when i first took office. i've done a lot of other things for 15 years. so when you say the immigration is the focal point that's wrong. i've been reelected six times and expect to be again in two years.
that's not the immigration let's tawj about pawk about the overall performance that gets me elected constantly. >> you did spend a lot of time on immigration. final question to both of you, are you guys still friends? >> yes, i am. and the sheriff is not a big fan of the film because, you know, it's a hard thing to watch for him i'm sure. there's no sharper blade than the truth. and -- but that doesn't mean we still can't appreciate each other's. >> it doesn't mean the truth is there either because i can defend myself on everything in that movie. but why waste my time on your show? but randy did a great job. i wish him success and he has a job, i have mine. and that's the way it is. >> it is very good of both of you to join us, appreciate your time, thank you. the joe show is available online and through video on demand.
it's time to see what's trending on the webb. checking back with hermella. >> antiislam protests in germany grew on monday. in support of the organization known as pegida, an acronym of the patriotic germans against islamization of the west. many of whom are fleeing wars in the middle east and africa. on the other side nearly 30,000 people across the country rallied against pegida. the brandenburg gate and the tower went dark in silent condemn inflation of what a lot of people feel are the group's hateful group. chancellor angela merkel says that the group has even hatred in their hearts, against those who abuse the system. they say in recent years
economic refugees have increasingly threatening jobs and are moving off of germany's economic welfare programs. jirm any receives more refugees and asylum seekers than any other european country. antonio in a recent poll nearly a third of germans said pegida's rallies are justified. >> the nra has virtually shut down the anti-gun movement. but first of all why gyms >> hundreds of days in detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release.
>> the stream, >> your digital community >> you pick the hot topics and express your thoughts the stream it's your chance to join the conversation only on al jazeera america >> americans top new year's resolution is weight loss but research shows more than one-third of us will give up on our pledges by february 1st. today's data dive shows that's a great business model for gyms.
about 60% of people with gym memberships never go. fitness clubs bank on you not showing up. many gyms cannot fit all the people they recruit. for example planet fitness averages 6500 per location, but reports its gyms can handle only 300 people at a time. active gyms recruit people who haven't gone to the gym in the past, they move challenging equipment to the back so they don't intimidate potential members. that's why many gym lobbies look more like hotels or coffee shops to attract the casual gym goer. stanford reports casual gym goers go to gyms less than five times month. gyms are able to charge less to all members because the ones who never work out subsidize the costs for people who do. coming up.
[[vo]] an america tonight in-depth series. >>my first column was, “hey, where are the weed-smoking moms at?” [[vo]] one year legal. >>i'd try chem 4, alien dog, and girl scout cookies. [[vo]] and it's become big business. >>the state of colorado is profiting immensely off of this. [[vo]] now, we cut through the smoke and find out what's really going on. >>we can show marijuana is leaving colorado. [[vo]] the highs and lows of a year on pot.
>> after the terrible school shooting at sandy hook elementary school where 26 children and adults were gunned down the vast majority of americans wanted gun laws tightened. the reason they weren't and likely won't be in years to come are at the heart of a documentary, gunned down and the power of the nra. >> the nra's main anxiety at the smoment not losing -- moment is not losing, not looking soft to their own membership and to the substantial number of americans who probably number in the millions who think the nra is not tough enough. >> for more i'm joined from newton, massachusetts by pbs
film maker michael kirk whose gunned down the power of the nra debuts on tuesday. i want to play oclip of charlton hesston. then the president of the nra. >> tyranny of any form cannot find footing of a society of law abiding armed ethical people. >> that is one of the things that has led to the power of the nra, to the appeal to its hard core membership. as a former nra spokesman said in your film it's about freedom not guns. >> it is a very interesting evolution of a group. they are now as we sit and talk right now, the most powerful lobby in washington according to lots of people we talked to. the national gun control debate is essentially at an end and
that end has been signaled by the power of the national rifle association in washington at least. that's a long march from where they were 20 or 30 years ago when what they were were a gun safety group and firearm lovers in another way than they are now. >> you talk about how it's become the third rail of american politics now as much as social security to go after guns. but the thing is and the reason that's happened is that this does go beyond nra members. there is a pew poll that found 52% of americans believe it's more important to protect owning of guns than gun ownership,. >> trends in society now which is partly why we played this film, we decided after the newtown tragedy after what
happened at the sandy hook school, after we all sat and watched the tragedy that december day and said to ourselves at least i did, said i'm going to remember this for a long time. we all thought, something going to happen in congress, i know the gun debate has been dead for a while but even if it's a token, and when nothing did i realized we had to do something about making a film that would get at the heart of how the nra always wins. and what i think antonio is at the heart of why the nra always wins is a membership that is absolutely positively dedicated to their gun, their right to own it, their right to use it, in sporting terms and in other ways for protection and absolute solid uniquely american iconic item, the american ownership and possession of guns is at the
heart of how the nra uses the power, has the power, exercises it and has virtually closed off i think the national antigun movement. >> i want to get to a couple of points you made there but i first want to talk about another event that we'll all remember congresswoman gabby giffords nearly killed at a tucson mall a few years ago. something you bring up in the documentary and you bring up president obama in a speech about the gun control debate. let's look at that. >> this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should. let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. >> people who wanted to do something about guns, listen carefully. >> the president was enormously passionate, enormously eloquent but he did everything in his power to avoid using the word
"gun" in the wake of that shooting. >> an important point there about the nra's ability to control the dialogue. >> i think that's right. you mentioned and we talked about it in the film about it being the sort of third rail of american politics. something you don't want to touch if you oar politician. it can -- you are a politician. even barack obama who was the president of the united states didn't feel that at that moment he could raise it in any significant way, speaks volumes about the power of the nra to be able to win. and it's getting at that. how do they do it? that was the challenge of this film. and i think something i learned an awful lot about, about the way american politics works. and now adays it has for last decade or so. >> one way it works is it certainly spends a lot more money than gun control opponents. but you mention columbine and
sandy hook seared into our consciousness. congress did pass closed gun show loophole after columbine but couldn't pass any stricter gun control collection. despite the polls that showed 91% of americans including 80% who had an nra member in their household wanted that law passed. what exactly has changed since the days after columbine in 1999 and the legislator horror we saw at sandy hook years later? >> the descendants of wayne lapiere the executive director of the national rifle association, became tougher and tougher with the debate he had with bill clinton in the 1990s. these crises, columbine
gabby giffords , sandy hook, the stronger the nra is at the point of maximum peril where it seems like gun owners may lose their guns or legislation may be enacted that diminishes their ability to access their guns suddenly the membership goes up, checks come in, gun sales are up, am mo, and guns literally flew off the shelf, he knows that, the national rifle association knows that at the moments of peril, if he gets tough the national coalition toughens up and they win. >> larry pratt the executive director of gun owners of america says we can't ever afford to lose one. if they see this as a slippery slope thatfully compromise on gun laws is impossible has had the gun lobby and if you can
have a quick answer to this one, including the nra do you think they have won the battle? >> yes they have won the battle nationally, antonio, fundamentally. so the battle ground now will be states, where they'll go toe to toe, state by state, and the nra will fight the way it always fights and the film tomorrow night explains how that is. >> yeah and in the past year more states expand he gun rights than controlled gun rights michael kirk from front line thank you for joining us. check your local listings and that's all for now. coming up tuesday on "consider this," an article called the tragedy of the american military, is the u.s. consistently getting into endless wars it can't win. the conversation continues @ajconsiderthis,
we are on a suicide bomber blows herself up in a police station in istanbul's tourist district. ♪ hello, you are watching the al jazeera. i'm jane dutton is doha. a palestinian man convicted of the kidnap and murder of three israelis are sentenced to life in prison. the wife of a shamed mayor is charged with organized crime. and driving developments at the dakar rally. one car