tv Third Rail Al Jazeera September 14, 2015 4:00pm-5:01pm EDT
from the people who are affected. >> people need to demand reform... >> ali velshi on target weeknights 10:30p et tonight - 14 years since 9/11, after two wars n.s.a. spying and aggressive surveillance on american muslims, is the u.s. powerless to stop the next attack, later in the panel an imaged of a drowned syrian toddler moved millions, should heart-breaking pictures dictate a nation adds policy on taking in refugees. plus to the border to join i.s.i.l., and turning back at the last minute. should he be gaoled for 30 years. i'm imran garda, and
this is "third rail". >> the nature of the threats are more complicated and serious than today than on september 12, 2001. >> there is actually less threat history. >> they are safer, smarter, more aware of the 9/11 environment. >> with regard to osama bin laden, there has been no attacks on the american soil. >> the fbi and others have a bust presence internationally. >> is america part of the target before 9/11. >> i.s.i.s. wants what the 9/11 al qaeda used to be. >> iran is building intercontain antile issues to build the united states. >> there is a new generation of terrorists sophisticated on the internet. what you have is metastasized movement. next p.
>> next time it may involve something more deadly we have mike german, a former fbi special agent currently a gelo at n.y.u.'s brennan center for justice, and an author for thinking like a terrorist. insights of a former fbi agent and ambassador james woolsey, former director of central intelligence, now the foundation of the chairman of democracies. thanks for joining us. ambassador, let's start with you. 14 years after 9/11. is the u.s. safe from another attack? >> no. on some aspect of things we are a bit safer, i suppose, than we were before 9/11. safe - i would never claim that in any universal sense. >> what worries you? >> well, probably more than anything, the spread of nuclear weapons. i'm afraid what happens with the treaty in the senate agreement
is being looked at by the congress now. within a very few years, it not already. iran will have a nuclear weapon, that means that the other nations in that part of the world will go nuclear very quickly. the next time you have an international crisis, perhaps caused by terrorism or something else involving three, four, five, seven nations in that part of the world, you can well have deli or four of them with -- three or four of them with nuclear weapons, that danger, as top. >> when we talk about threats, we talk about al qaeda, and the islamic state, i.s.i.l. dangerous? >> iran is closer and conceivably could have nuclear weapons, i would say i.s.i.s. is hideous in terms of the massacring of people, it's crucifixion of people, the
large-scale executions, all of the things that are - they have put out themselves that are on the - in the media. but in terms of threat to international stability, i would put iran's days, such as first. >> mike german, nuclear proliferation and the next 9/11 could be something nuclear, god forbid. that's the fear. do you agree with that. >> well, certainly that's a fear. i think one of the things that we have to be clear of is there are many threats we face, and terrorism is one of them. i think the remark that you had by secretary of state kerry was right. if you look throughout history, levels of violence are lower than they were. terrorists in particular, far more americans were killed by terrorists in the 1970s, than
over the last 10 years. while we are talking about safety, we have to make sure that we are covering all the issues. one of the problems we had in the last 15 years is we focused overwhelmingly on a threat that exists, it's persistent but low level. there's an idea that globally violence is on the decline, talking about real threats, the security committee estimates over 250 americans have gone, or attempted to travel to syria to join i.s.i.l.ful several dozens fighting with the islamic state. the assessment said terrorism in the u.s. is at its highest level. is that not a problem? it's real isn't it? >> terrorism in the u.s., and people travelling to a conflict zone are two things, right. americans have long been problems.
>> the committee says as of the end of august i.s.i.l. inspired 57 terror attack plots. 15 in the u.s., two times as many plots against the u.s. 37 as there were in 2014. >> this is a huge part of the problem is, you know, we are not talking about the types of threats that the 9/11 operatives, al qaeda operatives are involved in. what we are doing is looking at the problem, and rather than quantifying it with other threats, if any muslim bad actor at any time viewed anything on the internet that somebody could say was tied to an i.s.i.s. tweet, we act as if it's a global conspiracy. when, in fact, that's the way the far right has been acting and more americans were killed in violence from the far right yet we don't react the same way. problem.
>> not the main problem. even the far right, there's more fatalities on an annual basis. it's a tiny number compared to the number of homicides in this country. it's a violent society, and 14,000 a year, only two-thirds of those murders are sold. >> you talk about 4500 murderers a year going free. >> looking at the massive security since 9/11, the wars, the two major wars - afghanistan and iraq counts for the strikes, and civilnessance spying on americans. enhanced torture. by saying that merge is not safe 14 years after 9/11, aren't you admitting that none of that stuff worked. >> no, there are a number much things that have worked.
we, for example have kept things from expanding beyond time scare, and the individual was caught, boston marathon, two people tying in a number. a number were injured. police work limited some of these developments. but the main thing is that the social media and technology generally have changed the nature of this. >> so there are a number of things i want to touch on. the most important thing is a major part of the problem is in 2001, the american public had no way of knowing how dysfunctional become. and we know less about the intelligence community, what they were doing today. part of the problem is rather than transforming the system to an accountable system where you
could measure whether we are safer, whether the techniques are using it. going into the hyper secrecy road, the only way we know leaks. >> and the reason i see it very differently. is that the technology creates a situation in which there's just no way that one can avoid having and needing effective oversight. when i was a general counsellor in the committee in the early '70s, there were two staffers and members of the senate who oversaw the entire intelligence operation at the united states government. that was it. there was - there were no intelligence committees, there was no oversight.
organisations, overseeing the intelligence community. there was inspectors general. none of that. that has all been brought in effect within the last 28 years or so. the united states has the most overseen in detail, and overseen intelligence operation in the world. no country that starts cit sighing the united states for not having enough oversight has anything approaching it. >> i want to talk more about oversight. and the report on enhanced interrogation februarying neecks -- techniques. to many, torture, oversight. >> talk about it now. >> let's talk about it. >> okay. >> you have pushed back. right. the set comes, studies this, and says it was not effective. torture was not effective. waterboarding was not effective. parties. >> people freezing to death in a
place called the salt pit in afghanistan. right. rectal hydration. these were not effective, according to the senate torture report. yet in the days after its release, you told b.b.c. radio that you would opt for waterboarding. the senate report said it didn't work, and it's illegal. is this the stuff to justify? >> it depends on the circumstances. waterboarding is, i think, an ad sort of halfway house between something that can under some circumstances be called torture, and other circumstances not. khaled sheikh mohammed was the only person waterboarded once or twice. others once or twice, khalid a lot of times. important information was gleaned from him. some applied to finding osama bin laden.
others made a contrary argument. to say that there was no information that helped forstall kind. >> this is not me saying this, to be clear. >> it's not the senate - the work. they are quoting from c.i.a. documents so it was the c.i.a. documents that were saying the programs didn't work. that's what the senate report talked about, how - what they were briefed, which goes to the point ambassador woolsey was making about oversight. you know, this started immediately after 9/11. or quickly after 9/11. and congress and even the president, according to the report, were being told this works. this is very effective, we are getting good information. what was happening inside the c.i.a. was the people doing it was producing records saying it was not working. >> would you agree with waterboarding if it meant catching abu bakr al-baghdadi?
>> no, and the question is never whether it could produce a piece of useful information, we know it produces false information. you put the investigator back where he was, and, in fact, if you look at khalid sheikh mohammed's analysis of his torture, it's called precious truths surrounded by a body guard of lives. that's the title of the report. that's the problem, is that we know torture produces false confessions and false information. if you end up not knowing what is true and not true, you end up chasing false leads. >> this is great. i want to take a shard broke. >> we are joined by a muslim mayor, believing the government is taking the wrong approach to staping attacks. >> the muslim community, if you marginalize the community, they society. >> later on...
>> i'm pleased that the united states will ramp up the numbers taken in. bucket. >> what made it different with the image of the 3-year-old on the beach. response. >> and we met the first wife. her response and feeling towards the trial is that she feels her husband has been stabbed in the back by people that supported united states.
this country. >> one of the dangers that we individuals. >> we have a home-grown terrorism problem. >> we uncovered plots that never game came to light. by doing so i saved the lives of many new yorkers. >> the right thing to do was groups. >> we need to be looked at as partners, not suspects welcome back, the mayor of south windsor connecticut joins us. he's the first muslim mayor, and a consultant for the multicultural advisory committee. thank you for joining us. there's a problem with home-grown radicalism. young men going to fight for i.s.i.l. we saw what happened in texas. is there some connection, f not direct, with the radicalism. what are you going to stop
it? >> this is a big issue door all of us to be concerned about. all the conversation we are having, we are on the same team. we want america to be safe, the world to be safe. there's small parts to the solution. if we marginalise the community, if we attack the community, we are going to feel not a part of the society. when the young boys and girls were born in the country, told that you don't belong to the country, told various messages that you are not a part of the society, they are vulnerable to the messages from other parts of the world, and the internet is a threat, where they have found a way to send sophisticated messages to attract the young mind. >> james woolsey, you accused the president of buying too scared to use the ward islamic to describe terrorists. terrorists.
>> not just that, it's political sworn 27 march as a whole. you can't understand something unless you can talk about strait. >> and this notion that we talk about only radical extremism, or in the case of a major hasan killing 14, workplace violence, it's so stupid as to be really a saturday night live skit or something. i mean, how in the world could you deny, as they did for a long time, purple hearts and medical benefits to the families, the people that major hasan killed, and not refer to it as jihad. >> al qaeda kill more muslims that oppose them than westerners. ... >> is it the right thing to do, to maybe suggest to those young people that we are at war with islam... >> you don't have to say you are at war with islam, because you
call it strait. jihad is jihad. to dance around the way many members of the administration do and talk about radical extremism, but not about jihad. >> jihad is jihad. >> well i don't agree with you. if you look at it, we are giving more credibility to the crazy people who are hurting the muslims more than anyone else. we want to take the oxygen away from the people, trying to use the faith to recruit people to put the political agendas first to ham society. >> it's an important objective and is worth talking about different ways to go at it. it seems to me to be so scared to call it straight. that you call something that happened with major hasan, workplace violence. >> from the president all the way down, is the united states afraid of calling things strait.
>> i have a problem with using the term radical extremism, but from the other ankle. if you look at studies of terrorism, there is not a simple connection between radical ideas and violence. in fact, there are for more people that have radical ideas than those that become violence, and many who become involved in the violent conflict don't have a history or deep involvement in the ideology. that's what i found out. a lot of people engaged in illegal activity, bomb making, involved. driver? >> there's all kinds of drivers. that's the problem. we are not looking at at problem in context. i.s.i.l. is a horrible despicable group of people doing great harm in the region, and it's a threat to the region, so is the bashar al-assad government.
you have to understand it as a conflict in context with all the violence in that region. terrorism is a tactic. >> i have a problem. when someone is going to say that k.k.k. is a christian terrorist organization, i have a problem when some of christian faith are attacking churches, and i'm not going to call that christian terrorism. they don't represent christianity. i don't think the people that are attacking the groups of people, muslim or christians, they are terrorists. >> it is a free country. most people will think you are goofy calling the k.k.k. a christian organization. >> they call themselves a christian organization. >> it's up to you whether you call them that. what we can not do is having a national policy filtering through the white house, that we don't call things straight. >> that is the problem, right. you have a group of people who
are calling themselves christians, saying they are engaging in this violence for the christian faith. any real christian would be christian. >> and would dealt the k.k.k. they are crazy, it's a free country, say what you want. >> on the other side, when you call the same type of people who are taking extreme interpretation of the muslim faith islamic extremism, you are lumping everyone in together. where you can understand how they would be offended. >> i don't think you are. i don't think you are lumping everyone together to use an accurate adjective. >> another expect is the world changed a lot. what we are seeing here today will be heard in other parts of the world at the same time potentially. as a result, the words and actions are looked at in other parts of the world in a manner that can be harmful. i think the president's position is short, it's a deeper position
to look at the global perspective. when we use wrong words we put people at risk. >> we have belabored the point of words here. i want to talk again - go back to the beginning about the possibility of tankible threats right now. the homeland security secretary says lone wolf terrorists could moment." is he lying, exaggerating? >> of course not. there's all kinds of bad people intending to do bad things, and law enforcement normally does a good job. unfortunately some of these slip through the cracks. we started the conversation around nuclear terrorism, and a fear early on after 9/11 was the use of weapons of mass destruction. raid logical bombs, chemical bombs, biological bombs. if you look at the terrorist groups in the united states that attempted to use those, there
are far right groups, a radio logical bomb was built in maine before the subject's wife shot him in the head before he could put the bomb together, that he planned to bring to the obama inauguration. doesn't get in the news often... >> so neo-nazis are more potentially. >> i think they are crazy too. no more frightening. it's crazy to make decisions about frightening, it's the wrong way to go at this at all. people shouldn't weigh the sensitivities and the emotions and feelings and so forth and try to make decisions on that basis, do it on the basis of reason, understanding, getting inside the head of the person who is going to do something awful. figuring out how to outwit it. that's what it's about. it's not about feelings. i want to ask you about profiling and targetting the muslim community, taking a closer look for those that support it.
like former new york mayor, who said the controversial programme was sent into communities to gather intel, saving lives. it saved lives, uncovered plots that never came to light. he said he believed it was a mistake to withdraw the patrols. we have to take him at his word. >> this is a knee jerk reflex. policies are knee jerk. you have to look at the long-term consequences. with respect to the extremism within the muslim world and community, you cannot do it with a number one ally, the muslims, if you alienate the number one ally in the challenge, you are losing the whole longer protective opportunity. so i think that's where we have to try and make use of these policies and opportunities to bring the muslim, to be a part of the conversation. >> let's move to the battlefield. there's dirty games taking place. we have the former c.i.a.
director david petraeus, suggesting that some al nusra fighters, al qaeda, they pledge agreement, they are al qaeda. they should be used in the battle to defeat i.s.i.l. in syria. the united states - when it suits the united states - wants to use jihadis to defeat the bigger enemies. >> from three years and eight months from 1941 to 1945 they were a close ally of history, a greater murderer. we needed him in order to defeat him. it was the right decision. sometimes you have to work with really awful people in order to prevent a greater terrible thing from happening. >> i think it's called reality. >> this is a perfect example of how this is not theological. if this was ideology driving this. al qaeda and i.s.i.s.'s ideology is not different. and saudi arabia's ideology is not different. yet they are fighting with one
another. this is a political struggle about territory. this is about who controls these pieces of land. and we don't talk about the problem in that context nearly enough. and understand it in the context of the violence brought by the regimes over there. regimes. >> are you worried about blow back by supporting - potentially supporting al nusra, supporting them now, empowering them now. >> it depends what works. what you have to do is defeat the people that are the most dangerous, and sometimes it means you have to alive yourself, briefly, with sallin, in against the hitler. >> these are knee jerk policies. you have to have a long-term strategy. if we spend the money on books impact. >> it's better to read and go to
school than to be involved in terrorism. some are involved in terrorism. >> we are not doing preventative aspects. we are putting all of our military, industrial complex to the business of killing people across the world or different parts of world. >> mainly putting efforts into cutting the self-defence budget. it is way, way down. >> it needs to be down further. if we put similar money into education and institution benefit. >> i want to give mike german the final word. >> what are the things we have to look at - it is the big problem is we don't test our counterterrorism methods. we don't know what works. one of the few methods that has been tested is military intervention, and it has been found to raise the level of terrorism. we have to be very careful because that seems to be the first solution. we'll go in militarily and change the situation for the better.
and what we find is it leaves a trail of chaos in its wake, and extremist groups can exploit it. >> if president obama followed what he said he would do in syria, when the syrian government used chemical weapons against its people, we would have gone in and would have knocked him out and bashar al-assad - and have a much better situation in syria today than we have when we pulled ourselves back and did not help with military force. >> and that is a popular opinion now. and the red line is we have run out of time here. thank you gentlemen. mike german, james wallsie and mr anwar. the "third rail" panel is next. >> we have to look at real problems that the whole reflects. >> i think you need to make a distinction between the microaggressions. people have to no words and actions
a welcome back to "third rail." we'll shift the conversation from how the u.s. is protecting its homelands to how it's dealing with those that may do harm to the country. let's brings in the panel. research fellow at new america and former military analyst at the c.i.a. and greg the digital editor and correspondent with the "new york times" and the a.p. for 20 years. amy goodman is the host and executive producer of "democracy now", on more than 1300 public tvs and radio stations. thank you for joining us. let's look at this one kid's story, a 19-year-old from texas that wanted to join i.s.i.l.
he goes to turkey on his way to syria, gets cold feet and changes his mind. never gets to the battlefield, leaves and comes home. the fbi says he recruited a friend that died in syria. he didn't kill anyone or do anything. they charged him, he faces 30 years in prison. should the i.s.i.l. recruiters that change their minds before going to syria be prosecuted? >> i mean, this young man in the airport decides he is not going to do it. parents, family frantically calling him again and again. they have an effect. he turns around and comes back to the united states and goes home. if they go after people like this young man, what message does it send to others in the airport deciding whether to go into europe. if they say i'll end up for the rest of my life in prison. there's no reason to come home. you have to ask the larger questions and we have to go
broader. what caused young people to do this, trying to stop it from happening at the route. why people feel so alienated. 30 years, facing 30 years in prison. when he came back home and chose not to go. there are many young people, yes, in the united states and britain and other places doing this this message saying regardless we are sending people to prison for decades, for the rest of your life is not going to bode well. >> material support can include a lot of different thirches, negative statements online in terms of coordinating and can include going to syria and participating with a radical terrorist group, radicalizing others, and being involved in the planned foreign attacks. that may or may not happen. one of the problems that you say
in all of these cases, if you offer redemption, it's not a deterrent policy, and will not people on the margins of borderline terrorism. activity where you don't know the intent and you can only go on the actions. it's case by days. there's parallels in the criminal justice system. we cut deals when someone is willing to give information. we have to treat the cases in the same way. >> the question becomes how good are you at predicting the kid that will do something serious, and how good are you at picking out the kids that are just confused. we tried to quantify this. there's 60-some people in the u.s. who have been detained or charged, looking to go join i.s.i.s. and the kind of case we are talking about, the kid in texas is very typical. there's a lot that do fall into that category that raises the
question, are you going to be right every time when you predict. this is the tricky part of it. >> in this case where they are called terrorism cases, we don't know a lot. i mean in the public, about what is going on. we have to look at sting operations, how young people are pulled into something. you'll often have - you may have an fbi sting where you don't know what all of the facts are, and i don't think we can form conclusions. when i see just conspiracy, i wonder if they don't have the evidence needed to charge him for a particular crime. >> there has been a lot of sting operations where they've - i mean, if you want to be accuracy, they foil it. with this one... >> where they insnared vulnerable people that would never do this. >> the facebook posts and communication with friends, and it was the friends family that got the fbi involved, because he was missing for a time. this was a case of him not being
involved. >> one of the things that was interesting. is that they have announced a programme to try to de-radicalize and talk with the kids. that's been a particular city of interest because of the somali population, and a number of kids that have gone from minneapolis to the middle east. >> out of the cases for individuals, where they go on to go to syria or do something nefarious, these are lone wolves that start plotting attacks, it doesn't look much different to the beginning of some of these distinguish. >> let's more on, i want to talk syria. the the plight of syrian refugees grabbed headlines. should emotional support dictate the policy. >> millions of syrian are fleeing and the united states
has been criticized for not doing more. . >> the president is to scale up 10,000. >> so many questions in terms of what china and russia was doing. >> insofar as providing military, should be taking responsibility for refugees. >> tara, looking at the numbers of refugees, they are mined boggling. 4 million. hundreds of thousands on the moffatt any given time. germany is seen as a leading light, taking in 800,000, pledging to take in half a million annually for the next several years to their country, should others do the same. is it not their responsibility no matter how situation. more. others should do the same. the numbers may look different, but the international community and the united states should take more of a lead to make a coordinated comprehensive plan,
pleas that will be ramped up. taking in 10,000. i think that is a drop in the bucket when you look at the number of refugees, which is multiple millions within syria. >> i'm not asking you to psychoanalyse us, more than four years of civil war, barrel bombs, mangled bodies, heads blown off. we see pictures of not only 3-year-olds, but 3-month-old children. whether killed by i.s.i.l., asaad, nusra, whoever, we saw the images, this is nothing new to us. what made it different with the beach. what made it so different for all of us. >> i think what you see a lot of times historically is there are pivotal moments, whether it's a media image, or the media's response to covering an issue, helping to change public opinion. i don't think it should always be the driver, the united states should have done more on this before the image came across the tv screens, and the public had outcry about it.
if it takes that to get the community mobilized. that's fine. physically. >> the united states has been giving a lot of money, billions of assistance to, you know, jordan and neighbouring countries that are absorbing refugees, but not much in terms of taking in refugees. while we have acted mill tierly in syria, we are waiting by the - for a plan by the presidential candidates on what our policy is wholistically. that is a factor into the crisis. it's not going away. numbers will go up. >> what about the countries involved in syria, russia. giving arms to bashar al-assad, sending soldiers, we are seeing sell fizz, iran, the gulf nation sending arms and weapons and money to the myriad factions, refugees. >> it is striking. russia and syria had the relationship going back decades,
and russia provides assistance, but not significant humanitarian assistance. large numbers. >> zero. >> they argue they have hundreds of thousands of syrians working there. they were there before the war. not since the war. >> you have to use your heart and head. we see the pictures. they are terrible. it begs a moral response. you have to use your head. in the last year or so as the syrian refugees hits around 4 million, have the syrian refugees surpassed the afghan refugees as the largest refugee population in the world. for more than 30 years, afghans had millions of refugees, and they are out there. this is a 30 year problem in afghanistan. we can't predict the syrian law, but you look at sac like this for a decade, two or longer. >> it's not just a humanitarian obligation because you see people suffering. that's the case.
we have to open our arms. the grassroots response is amazing. germany, austria, britain and france. we cannot let people drown at sea. arms that kim. i was speaking with a german parliamentarian saying we have to look at the countries providing weapons, weapons that are used to destroy countries, people are fleeing to the countries like germany, the united states, where the weapons are made that inflict pain. we are connected to the crisis, it's not at matter that we should look and welcome people to the sure. you see what happened. these are destroying countries, look at libya, why was it destroyed. this is where people are coming through. that is why we have an obligation, not only to care for
the effects of our own actions, but to stop the actions from the beginning. we are exploding the middle east. that has no stop. >> i make a second argument. people say in terms of a moral imperative, versus security and interests. i argue that taking in refugees, not having them in the refugee camps, you radicalize where people have nowhere to go. no right. signing a documents saying i will not work. >> there are chicks on the individuals, there's a process in -- checks on the individuals, and there's a check in place to screen individuals, i can't speak for everyone in that process. i'd argue that in the longer term the united states and other countries taking in the refugees as opposed to not taking in the refugees, to the process where they could be radicalized. it may be in a longer term security interest, not opposed to it, if people frame it as
doing good. >> i would add the economic argument europe has an ageing population, they lack workers. if this is managed by europe, and there's nothing to suggest it will be. >> freaking out. they are saying we are being invaded by the hordes. >> exactly. >> all the countries have the same demographic issues, the one country taking a longer term view saying we need young educated professionals to provide, re vitalize the labour solution. >> threats move on to political sworn 27 march on college camp in. >> microaggressions are on the rise. mad. >> there are genuine victims. victims culturalism, gaining the treatment. >> people are going overboard. >> there are more that let you know if they thing you went over the line.
>> they keep moving it in. they don't know the impact it has on me. >> jerry sign field. they move the line. we see widespread outage, particularly on the internet and college campuses. mining principles are codified under the term microprofessions. is it drowning out oppression, because everyone is a victim. everyone has a grievance. >> i think the term microaggressions, we have to look at real problems on college campuses that i think the whole microaggression movement is reincorrecting. i mean, there's an epidemic of rape on college campus us. we take seriously what happens to women on college campuses in the united states. sometimes it starts with disrespect in a classroom, and referring to what a young woman looks like when trying to address a serious subject in class, and it may sound silly if
in some way someone says something to them. but it is - we are looking at the context within which this is happening. that is serious violence. not only against women, but the issue of police brutality, racism, we see what is happening all over the country, the black lives matter movement. i think if we don't take the smaller aggression seriously, it fester. >> if i am offended that somebody asks me where are you fro or where are you really from and consider myself as oppressed as someone who has been sexual assaulted, surely there's something wrong with me? >> i think you have to make a distinction between microaggressions that provide an unscientific survey of college students, and the important issues that amy brought up, like sexual assaults on campus, the police cases that seem prominent. college is a place you have -
that's the perfect venue to be discussing these issues. but if it is you must adopt an ideological position, and this is what you can and can't say, and everyone is easily offended about routine stuff you see in a newspaper, it seems it has gone a bit far. >> asking a black kid or telling a black kid you speak so well. is that in your mind a slippery slope to racism, if not checked yourself. >> i think you have to wear a reasonable standard. this goes on. there are rules about making derogatory comments towards women and ethnicities, this is the same standard we should apply. it's not a matter of sheltering people from discourse and freedom of speech, but having the norms in classrooms and in the work place. people have to know that their words, actions can have a consequence.
if they learn on college campuses that you can say whatever you want and nobody can take too much offense, they can fired. >> again, it's important to make distinctions here. i don't think anyone would dispute the importance when we talk about things that are assault. there's crime anywhere on college camp upses. when people can't speak at a college, a person whose voice is a prominent person but are chosen to be a graduation speaker and students decide they are in a government with a place... >> ciz. look at who -- "egypt in crisis, "-- condoleezza rice, who choses the student. a person of wealth on the board makes a decision who will be the college speaker. we want a say too. we want this to be the end, a celebration for someone that represents our point of view.
not just an individual. >> well it depends who is choosing the graduation speaker. >> the point is, i think, condoleezza rice or others were denied opportunities, not on the basis of qualifications or something said or done. they have a right to speak to college students. >> we have run out of time. thank you all of you for joining us. straight ahead ... >> he was brought in by five security men, carrying this 72-year-old man, dressed in a white tur ban, shouting and screaming, resisting the ti >> the end of aging. >> eternal youth? >> yeah, not eternal "life"... eternal "youth". >> curing death. >> we're heading from "have and have nots" to a world of "haves" and "super-haves". >> can you afford to live forever? >> what's wrong if rich people got to live longer than poor people? >> that it's no fair. >> "faultlines". >> what do we want? >> al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today the will be arrested.
for the first time ever a former african leader is held to account for his crimes by africans in a tribunal established by the african union. the former chadian leader is being tried in senegal for the deaths of 40,000, and the torture of hundreds of thousands more under his rule in the 1980s. niklas haque is in the capital covering the trial. thank you for joining us, you were there on the first day of the trial in july. what was it like to witness the historic moment? >> on the first day he was
escorted out of the court shouting that he rejected the tribunal, he rejected the lawyer, and this week, monday, when the trial started again, you know, he was nowhere to be found on the first day. he was escorted in after the judge called security forces to force him into court. he was brought in by five men carrying this 72-year-old man, dressed in a white turban, white bo-bo on a black leather chair, shouting and screaming, resisting the security force. i glanced over and looked at the witnesses. you could see sweat on the forehead. and a lot of emotion. and a moment you would never witness at the international criminal court at the hague, because they never get a chance to go to the hague or witness such an event. >> all sorts of discussion about the roll of african countries, and african leaders held to
account with international justice. this is the first time ever here that an african nation is holding the leader of another african nation accountable for their crimes. how do the people feel about that? >> overwhelmingly everyone is positive about the trial today. but just a week ago, before the trial restarted earlier this week, the senegalese press was critical. human rights watch came here with a small army of lawyers. they flew in victims from chad. and although this advocacy role was very important and instrumental in having the trial take place, for some of the press, they were kind of taken aback, seeing all these white middle class lawyers telling them about this trial. i got to talk to the presiding judge at the tribunal. and for him it's important that he gets a strong defense. here is an opportunity, he says,
to set a model so that other leaders can be tried on the continent and here in senn gam. >> that's the big picture, the politics, international justice. and just stories, raw human element connected to this. those victims, victims of terrible crimes, you spoke to them. let's take a look at a report. >> this woman says he gang raped and watched her father tortured and killed. she was 19 years old. along with other victims, they want to tell their stories. >> 25 years on, they are walking together into the extraordinary african chambers. the tribunal set up by the african union. to try crimes against humanity. >> by giving a voice to the voiceless, the trial may bring an end to crimes on the unpunished.
>> powerful stuff. you talk to the victims that survived the brutality of the era, of his rain, and you talk to his wife in their home in senegal. i'm really curious. what was she like? >> well he has two wives. we went to meet the second wife. we tried to knock on her door, and we then shot app stand up outside the house, when all of a sudden his family members and his son came out literally trying to break the camera. >> we met the first wife and were greeted with tea and cookies. her response and feeling towards the rally is she feels betrayed that her husband has been stabbed in the back by people who have supported her, notably france, the former colonial power, and the united states. and she then showed me pictures on her ipad of shaking hands
with the u.s. president ronald reagan, and with president from france and the pope, and for her - and she admitted this - this trial wouldn't have taken place without human rights watch wonderful anecdote. thank you so much for joining us from dhaka. that does it for this week's show. the conversation conditions on the website at aljazeera.com/third rail. on facebook and twitter. i'm imran garda, goodnight. a, goodnight.