tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 8, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." good evening. we begin the program with wikileaks, the anti-secrecy released thousands of c.i.a. documents and files today. exposeded information tools the agency uses to hack evenphones, computers, and internet connected televisions. it's believed to be among the classifiedks of information in recent history. the authenticity of the documents has yet to be determined. wikileaks has indicated the a currentthe files is
or former c.i.a. contractor. joining me now from washington greg miller of "the washington post." welcome, greg. greg: thank you. roger: hi. how do you assess the importance this wikileaks disclosure right now? because's a good caveat i actually think it might takes weeks, if not longer, to get the full measure of the impact here. for now, i mean, it looks of cyberc.i.a.'s sort weapons arsenal has, to a large bare., been laid we haven't seen wikileaks posting actual code that of aim anduld sort shoot to carry out an actual hack. likead, it looks blueprints and documents that describe its capabilities and extensive, including, as you mentioned, the ability to everyday devices that millions and millions of people phones,rtphones, apple
sets,d phones, and tv into collection tools for the agency. i might be using -- app or a samsung unbeknownsts to us, the c.i.a. might be listening in? that, and were doing the agency were monitoring inmunications, it would be trouble hopefully. but yes, that's what these files illuminate. so the c.i.a. has a distinct cyber espionage. it's built up its capabilities in this realm for years and years. it is more of a black bag shop than is the national security agency which we read about a of years ago amid the snowden revelations which is scooping up mountains and mountains of data every day from the internet. this is more narrow, more targeted. yeah, the capabilities that
are revealed here are enormous. ther: what do you make of timing of this, greg. why now? why do you think wikileaks chose this moment, six weeks into the administration, a lot of tensions with the intelligence services, a lot of unresolved issues. why now? do you think it was -- do you think there was a specific purpose in the timing? greg: you know, that's a really talked toion and i've people who were also curious about that. it's hard to know. think that it certainly will please wikileaks to be able to poke the c.i.a. in the eye with this revelation right now. it's an awkward, in some ways, administration, because president trump has declared himself to be such a of wikileaks, you know, sited the email, the hillary
emails during his campaign, said at one point, i withwikileaks, sided wikileaks over the c.i.a., in terms of whether russia was theft of those democratic emails. roger: do you think he'll still wikileaks after this? do you think he'll say anything? greg: well, he hasn't so far and secretary has been utterly silent on this which i think tells you that the u.s. trying to is really sort out what's happened here, was really caught off guard by this. i don't see any indication yet that the c.i.a. saw this coming had prepared the white house or anyone else. you expect president trump to react? i know he's unpredictable. greg: it's almost in his nature to react to something like this, right? think i do., i how he will react to this is hard to know. is -- the c.i.a. is trump'sby mike pompeo,
pick for that job. will trump enjoy seeing the of itssquirm as some most sensitive and valuable espionage tools are exposed? i don't know. roger: how damaging is this to our national security? greg: you know, that's a question we're really trying to sort out. i think that it's -- i think is -- it is significantly damaging but not will, youent that it know, make the agency go dark in target.on any important right? this reveals how the c.i.a. information ons a lot of legitimate adversaries, including a terrorist group like state whose members use cell phones, cameras, video equipment, computers. these documents can help you sort out how the agency might go about penetrating those networks and getting intelligence. roger: this could be useful to enemies, right? beg: right, this could
highly useful to enemies thatding snippets of code amount to signatures that russia could use to search its system see if there are embedded devices.heir roger: who do you think the source may be? and do you think the president after the source? greg: wikileaks said that its source is a current or former intelligence contractor who obtained these files through some sort of unauthorized disclosure. there was a lot of suspicion among u.s. officials, of course, russia may be involved here. u.s. intelligence officials believe that russia and work hand inen hand. although there is a counter argument here. sensitivitye -- the of these files as such that you would expect russia perhaps to them, take advantage of this knowledge, without only the united embarrass
states. roger: how would you compare this, greg, to the snowden revelation? snowden is in russia, of course, now. what sort of -- there are different things going on here but u.s. intelligence is being compromised in various ways. you -- what comparison would you make? greg: right. so there are similarities and differences, if we take wikileaks at its word, it appears to have another snowden-type contractor out there, providing lots of secret information to wikileaks. are some differences. so the snowden revelations had immediate political repercussions and fallout in large part because they were surveillanceive programs in which millions of americans' communications were swept up. so that was -- there was an immediate reaction, a visceral thation from the public, may not come here because these of much more narrow kind
operations that the agency is conducting and there's nothing that we've seen in these files indicate thatuld any of it is being used against u.s. citizens. roger: aren't these revelations more gratuitous? in the case of snowden, you can argue and many have, that this, in the end, produced effects for u.s. society and the debate between freedom and security. case, it seems on the face of it, more gratuitous. the c.i.a.t the way goes about gathering information. and clearly these secrets are useful to our enemies. revealld anyone want to that who didn't want to hurt the united states? greg: yeah, i think you're it's harderperhaps to see a meaningful public debate emerge from this leak, we saw after the snowden revelations. argue that could silicon valley companies, including apple, google, and
others, they will be implicated here. are already very nervous about perception overseas, that work with u.s. intelligence agencies, that they design flaws into their devices that enable n.s.a. to and the monitor others overseas and perhaps there will be some sort of reaction in countries like germany. one of the disclosures, one of the documents suggests that the hackingas a massive fort,prise based in frank germany, but it's hard to compare these to the snowden revelations in terms of the propriety of the collection described. roger: we've gone in a short period of time from no-drama, obama, to relentless-drama donald trump, and an administration that really didn't leak to an administration that seems to be leaking all over the place.
what's it like washington where kinds prettyous much an everyday occurrence? mean, it's really say.ienting, i have to i've covered national security in washington for quite a long time now and i've never seen this where every day there is a prospect of an enormous revelation. this one may not fall into the same category of all those that seemed aimed at exposing what the trump administration is doing in its yeah, it's not how washington has worked for years and years. that might sound odd. of course, leaks have been forever in washington. but the volume, the nature, i mean, they reflect a level of tension and distrust between the levels of the white house
and other areas of government that is just in some ways unprecedented. roger: particularly the intelligence services in some cases, no? greg: exactly. trump has repeatedly disparaged the c.i.a. and other intelligence services, dismissed russia, an about incredibly important subject, seemingly surprised that leaks that would undermine his position or authority. how do you think mike pompeo will respond to the today?ks revelation do you expect a response of some kind? greg: i don't expect necessarily a public response from mike pompeo. the c.i.a. so far is declining to comment on this, the white house is declining to comment on this. we are monitoring closely to see of investigation takes
shape now, like it's clear the have to mount a really big counter intelligence probe to figure out what happened here and probably will have to relay a crimes report to f.b.i., which will also have to investigate. but i think right now i have to my impression is that they are still in the sorting-out what just happened. roger: will the c.i.a. have to change its methods? greg: undoubtedly, i think that's clear. although experts i've talked to said that that is weirdly manageable. you would expect a revelation ake this to be such catastrophic setback that they would send them back to square one but the reality is that for things like on thisne are developed basis over and over again. every time there's a new update that patches a security flaw, there's a counter effort by spy agencies to find
get theirnew they can hooks into. there was some confusion initially on these wikileaks whether the c.i.a. had managed to crack the encryption used in very popular like what's app or signal. that doesn't appear to be the case here. agency'slike the ability to work around those depends onprograms their ability to manipulate the devices themselves, not the apps to them.loaded on fixable? it's greg: i do think so. i think it will require some significant regrouping but we've this over and over again. they certainly regrouped after the snowden revelations. roger: greg, thank you very much. greg: thank you. ♪
roger: the importance of civic education has perhaps never been more crucial to our democracy. politicians often accuse one another of violating the constitution, but surveys show that americans have little the founding of document. an annenberg public policy conducted last year found that only a quarter of americans could name all three branches of government. joining me now are two people who are determined to change statistic. kathleen hall jameson joins from washington. theis the director of annenberg public policy center of the university of pennsylvania. robert new york is
chief judge on the second circuit court of appeals. two years ago, he launched a circuit-wide civic education initiative, justice for all, courts and the community. i am pleased to have both on them on this program. welcome. thank you. roger: judge, of late, i think a lot of people have won't up and thought, gosh, the constitution, the supreme law of the country, that's really important. however, that knowledge of it seems to be so slight in many cases? guest: when i was growing up in schools of newc york, civic education was so important. understood that our democracy is fragile and that to thatan understanding of democracy, we needed to know about government. line from john dewey that, for every generation, be borna, new
its midwife.n as and i think that what's happened that education, civic education, has had less priority across the country than it should. roger: why is that? surely it's basic. guest: it is basically, it is basic. knowledgenly without of our governmental institutions, how can we expect democracy to thrive? roger: kathleen, how dangerous is this situation? 1777,in franklin in famously said, when asked what beenof government had created, "a republic, madam, if you can keep it." to keepoing to be able it without the kind of civic engagement that sustains a democracy?
there are times that are more critical than others this time it's particularly important to understand that we have three whathes of government and their roles are, especially of an independent judiciary. when we do surveys, thee who don't understand checks and balances, don't understand why veto power is why a veto cand be overridden and more understand anon't independent judiciary, when you it predicts the theensity to say, when court issues an unpopular we should get rid of the court. part of what's important is the public's understanding of the judicial system.
roger: are you saying that most americans don't understand checks and balances? fundamental. how can that be? i read somewhere that 10% of thatge graduates think judge judy is a member of the supreme court. 10%. how is this possible? we're seeing right now just how important it is to know subjects.about these kathleen: i don't worry if name justices on the supreme court. roger: but judge judy? kathleen: i worry if they don't understand what the supreme court is supposed to do so when ask people what happens when there's a 4-4 ruling, which is possible right now without the justice in place, there's a sizable percent of the population that thinks the the federals to court of appeals. another part of the population thinks they keep voting until the tie and in a survey we did two or three years back, we actually said, what is other alternative and we put in place, it goes back to congress and congress gets to than 20% of the
public said, you know, that's right. why is that important? when president trump puts forward his immigration ban the court issues a ruling and the president defers to the ruling, the public needs to understand why the president does that and needs to understand that that is part of checks and balances of our system actually working. judge,the president, only deferred to the ruling so-calledking about judges. in six short weeks, we've had ontty much frontal attacks the first amendment, on the press, enemies of the people. we don't know exactly what orpened, whether any aid nowort was given by president trump's couture e in the election. i have to ask you, the kind of civics lessons in the basics trying toe been
forest, -- foster, would the president himself be a good for that course? guest: as you know, roger, i get -- as a judge, i can't get involved in the politics of the moment. can say is, and this civicst that i've had in education is long-standing, is a collectiveus has responsibility to understand how of governmentns work so that we can be those institutions and that's why i think it's so critical to have these programs of civic education, which try to to bringhe public communities closer to the institutions that we serve and that's what we're doing in the projectircuit in this that began a couple of years ago. roger: what are the main encountered toe
that? why hasn't more of this been happening? think it's spreading. i think it's spreading. i think that there is an awareness. court system, second circuit of the courts of new connecticut, and vermont, the federal courts, at every of appeals, the district court, the magistrate court --e bankruptcy the judges are all engaged. we have a tremendous co-chair, victor romero, district of new york. and there are an extraordinary range of activities. we are working with boards of on civics materials for textbooks and textbook revisions. have teachers institutes oure teachers come into courthouses and they are paired with judges and scholars. program -- roger: you're finding an enthusiastic response? guest: very enthusiastic.
we're doing this with the justice resource center. ofhave programs re-enactments where we re-enact classic trials. roger: perhaps you have a little freedom to express yourself, the question i just thed the judge, has president been showing insufficient respect for even contempt for the constitution in some of his actions and statements since he took office? kathleen: you have to remember, the president has all the constitutional protections and we live in a country in which expression is something we value. we have to remember, also, that that's there to hold the president accountable and the government accountable. roger: we're doing our best. kathleen: and in the process understand that what the first does is says government isn't supposed to interfere with that right of the itss to exercise responsibilities. at the beginning of the administration, i don't think we to judge too early what larger questions such as the the constitution
will be as a result of this president, this congress, this judiciary and this moment but we can say this is a difficult moment in the nation's history because we're confronting are verythat difficult. we've got an anxiety-ridden an electorate that doesn't have the civics knowledge that it needs to really understand the checks and system and how they're supposed to function and we have some rhetoric that has norms, that have been long-lived and well and that's potentially problematic. ther: how dangerous is -- the repetitive "fake news" accusation? even today, the fake news tweet from the president. this is very disorienting. if people are disoriented, they no longer know their rights. they no longer know where they stand. how troubling do you find these fake news accusations emanating
almost daily from the oval office toward "the new york times," "the washington post," and other institutions that, let's face it, we make a stakes, but they are killers of the republic? mistakes, but are they killers of the republic? kathleen: i'm proud of the journalism that has been developed over the course of the last two to three months. the congress has been doing its job. the president has been doing his job. the judiciary has been doing its job. the press has been doing its job as well. to the extent that the press is vigilantly watching those boundaries and calling those instances out where it thinks there are potential deception or misinformation, we have to be standing up and cheering and remembering that's why the first amendment is there. the press lost job is to hold government accountable and government's job is to stay out of the press's way. roger: the blurring of the lines
between what is true and false -- does that bother you? a lot of people are just unable in the cacophony to distinguish the two? robert: i'm reminded of what a great mentor of mine once said, daniel patrick moynihan. , "you'reo say that entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." i think what was at the core of that was a sense that there are things that are discernible and that there are data that are discernible -- roger: facts exist. robert: and i think it's important that we keep sight of the importance -- roger: isn't it troubling that we even have to say that fax -- facts exist in
2017 in the united states of america? hand, wen the other deal with this all the time in court. they weigh the facts and the evidence. this is not a new enterprise for many of us. kathleen: one of the important things that a court system does for us as a country and as a citizenry is model standards of evidence and argument. it models the process by which one can draw inferences from available, contested evidence, and come up with good judgments carefully reasoned. what we need now more than ever in the body politic is more of that kind of evidence driven careful argument where we ask, what's the link between the evidence and the assertion and where is the evidence. what institution has protected that most diligently? it is the judiciary. when the press is doing its job, it is a close second. when you think about the
grand experiment that is the constitution, what is it that the framers envisioned? they envision the interaction of diverse institutions, congress, the executive, the courts. they envisioned the interaction ondiverse elements acting those institutions, and there was a sense that although each institution would act according to its own interests and incentives, together, they would create a deliberative system without -- with outcomes that would be in the public interest. that is the model that we aspire to. i think that we shouldn't lose sight of what it is the founders had in mind. that's why civics education is so important, because if we need to change things or tweak things, having that sense of what is that constitutional document, what is that framework is all the more important. roger: it's very moving, i
think, seeing the ingenious this and foresight -- the ingenious foresight of the founders pitted against such a contemporary situation. thert: they were so young, 20's, 30's, 40's -- it's remarkable, the wisdom in their years. there couldu think be a new enthusiasm for ?ducation in civics the country is very divided, red state, blue state. people think completely differently. i was a foreign correspondent a lot of my career. when i do -- go to new york, indiana -- it's a foreign correspondent type experience. do you think this could bring the country together in some way, if everybody reacquainted himself -- themselves with these basic rules? kathleen: i wish we could find a way to increase the likelihood that those who are in charge of a country and those who
constitute the citizenry would look back at the kind of content that good cynics education has -- civics education has and learn the lessons of the past. we learn from the korematsu case of the country can make serious mistakes when it's trying to balance security and liberty. we learned from the cherokee nation's case that when the president does not enforce an order of the court we can have really consequential, hurtful times for a whole segment of our population. that gave us the trail of tears. we have learned that the country can make mistakes and it needs to learn from the mistakes and when we give up on civics and understanding how we came to where we are as a nation, we may forget some of those lessons. as a result, movie may have to -- we may have to repeat them. that would be tragic. roger: judge? robert: i couldn't agree more. i think that civic education is a force that can provide the ties that bind. they can provide us with a sense of what is it that brings us together, whatever our
.ifferences might be it's no accident the george washington envisioned the national university, that james madison thought that there should be a seminary of knowledge and of ideas. processhat educational comes better understanding whatever our differences, because then we will be talking to one another with a common language and will will be better able to appreciate what is in this little book. roger: thank you very much. robert: thank you. ♪
roger: cries from syria is a new documentary from an oscar-nominated director. recounts the horror of the syrian war, featuring interviews with journalists, activists, and children who have experienced the brutality firsthand. here is a look at the trailer. >> ♪ >> syria is a very ancient and beautiful country. it is called the cradle of civilization. but we have been living under dictatorship for 14 years. but we were so optimistic that this revolution would -- >> anyone who talks about him,
he will just disappear or he will die. >> it started the revolution. more than half a million people joined it. >> our job is to save their lives through destroying the terrorists. >> we created -- he called us terrorists. >> this regime -- they are supposed to protect us, but they are not protecting us. they are shooting us. > >> things are getting worse every day.
"cries from syria" will debut march 13 on hbo. i'm pleased to have the film's director and a journalist at this table for the first time. welcome. an unconscionable .bomination this war has now been going on for almost six years. half a million people dead, 5 million refugees, other millions displaced. in a lot of people -- a lot of people's eyes just glaze over at this point. they say syria and they drop their hands. why did you make this movie? why did you decide this was a film you had to make? >> i think a lot of people have a lack of knowledge about syria in the beginning of the revolution, about what goes into such a huge refugee crisis that we have not experienced since world war ii.
inlowing the european crisis 2015, i found that the answers were there. they fear this people because of some misconception through the isia, because the media starting to cover these events through the major waves of refugees in 2015, when a lot of immigrants from different -- refugees from different parts of the world -- again, i'm emphasizing that we are not all syrian refugees. 30% of syrian refugees are among the people trying to reach -- roger: how did you go about making the movie? did you go yourself to syria? how did you do that? it is very tough for journalists to get into syria. there are direct threats from isis. it is a very tough environment, yet you produced extraordinary footage in this movie.
thanks to thel, journalists and activists who have been documenting every step of the revolution. from the beginning, the camera became something that was their witness and document the atrocities. thanks to them and today's technology, it was able to make it happen. your: what does it mean to now, today, living in turkey, to have this opportunity in this movie to express your experiences? you are often in tears in the movie. this is absolutely heart wrenching. this is the loss of your country, the loss of yorktown, the loss of everything, and you have to sit and watch bashar they are allng terrorists, there was no genuine uprising. these are very painful things. what does it mean to you to be able to speak in this way to the camera?
>> first, it was so difficult to remember these days. living these events for six years, it took everything from us. my home, my family members, my .riends, all the dreams to go remember all these events -- we kept -- we tried to keep our psychology, kind of -- >> together. we are all traumatized, but we are bracing up to face things and continue. but it was so difficult to remember things from the past, because i think that these were nightmares roger:. -- nightmares. roger: remembering is so important. >> remembering is so important. we thank him for this step. it is so difficult for us, these things that we lived --
now i'm pushing them to the back of my memories. i don't want to remember them. but when i have to speak about them, they all come out. after five years, there is someone who came to put the story all together from the beginning till the end. roger: what's it like for you when you watch president assad essentiallye, dismissing everything that has happened in your country over andlast six years explaining that anybody who thought like you, who wanted freedom, who wanted a more open society, who wanted an end to the decades of brutal rule, the agoacre of hama decades and the same family is still there, and he is calling you and people who think like you terrorists -- what's it like for you to watch that? likemetimes it happened
it's funny. it is soak sarcastic to listen to him saying -- so sarcastic to listen to him saying that. unfortunately, i hate no one in this world. roger: but you hate him? >> i hate no one but him. the hatred in my heart goes to that -- i don't know what to say. to see him safe and sound in the palace just reciting and lecturing people that this is what happened -- this makes me feel so depressed because of the whole international community. roger: some people think he could be part of the solution. president putin thinks he could be part of the solution. what do you say to that? kholoud: he is the problem. >> more than isis? kholoud: yes.
roger: why? by and isis was created supported by assad. think about being a syrian and living those events for six years. activiststracing us to silence us. the free syrian army started to liberate some parts of syria, almost 90% of syria was free. this is the end of 2012-2013. then we started have isis. those people who fled damascus, the capital, or any capital where the regime exists, they fled to the opposition-held areas and now they are killed by isis. activists who were lucky to flee a sod were killed -- fully -- flee assad were killed by isis.
isis is taking over from the free syrian army, handing it over to the regime, and the regime taking it over, back and forth, like what happened in palmyra. it's very obvious that this is a filthy game. roger: "a filthy game"? evgeny: -- dholoud: between a sod -- assa and his partners. evgeny, you have some amazing footage involving children. i found some of the most powerful images in the movie involve children. perhaps we could roll a segment about a child describing the war in syria, and then we could talk about that?
despite if you hate or like the regime, nobody allows the regime to torture kids. since the beginning of the revolution, we witnessed that it started with the kids being tortured and then being killed. i think using these images and allowing these kids to be vocal in the movie, allowing them, instead of having a childhood, i am calling them the lost generation, who still have hope, doing activities grown ups do -- you can see how optimistic they are in creating -- whor: i remember the kids said president assad turned off the electricity, so now we have to bring the water up by ourselves. they put together a pulley system to bring the water to the top floor. these were kids who were like eight or nine. you watch that and you think for a moment maybe, perhaps that's a source of hope. evgeny: they are optimistic.
they have a hope. -- thef the reasons why well-known clips of the kids -- we witnessed this footage in september, 2015. withs fleeing the country his family and found dead on the shores of turkey, three years old. simplifiesice -- he -- he symbolizes the death of the young kids. year,rom december of last symbolizing hope. through these kids, through their stories, through the kids that i interview, and i interviewed a lot of kids -- altogether i interviewed over 100 people through my movie. for the first time i'm putting them in the context of the story, through their faces, through their stories, i'm tried to tell about the uprising, the civil war, about all the interventions, about hope that
these kids still have, because they believe one day they will be able to go back to syria and rebuild the country. it was important for me to keep the camera on the labor of their eyes. they are the witnesses, the heroes. they are struggling. but they are also my heroes at the end of the day. oloud, kholoud there -- kh there is a cycle. the boy found head down on the beach and all the world and reps -- world erupts and says we cannot tolerate this any longer, this is terrible, unacceptable. then the weeks go by and people ignore syria again. it must be quite desperate for you watching this. kholoud: it is. actually, i lost hope in government. i believe that governments are not going to do anything for syria.
roger: are you very disappointed in the united states? kholoud: yes, i am. roger: do you think president obama should have upheld the red line as he said he would when the regime used chemical weapons? kholoud: there's no redline, unfortunately. they crossed -- everyone, every president claimed rings are a redline, but president obama said that chemical weapons are a redline, but assad crossed them. roger: with no consequence. kholoud: and only recently, he hit a city with chemical weapons. people were just -- they are dead because of the chemical weapons. they are besieged for more than four years now. he used chemical weapons against them. where is the redline? no one knows. do you think about what president putin and russia have done in syria, the mark barton of aleppo, coming to the aid of president -- the
bombardment of aleppo, coming to ,he aid of president assad intervening away the president obama said could not be done -- evgeny: it is misrepresentation of the facts. he's fighting isis, who is not in aleppo. roger: putin? evgeny: yes. he is claiming one thing, but he is doing -- roger: you don't think the russians bombarded aleppo? theyy: i saw that bombarded aleppo. according to himself, he is fighting isis, who had never been in aleppo at that moment. it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. roger: by president putin. evgeny: yes. what happens when our new president trump wants to go with our soldiers into the syrian grounds, it could be the biggest mistake for us. at the end of the day, it will be another death of innocent people. roger: you mentioned president trump and he has an executive order that bars people -- syrian
refugees and, indeed, all syrians, temporarily, from coming to the united states. how do you react to that? it seems almost cruel. evgeny: i think it is a big mistake, and i will tell you why. if it was 20, 30 years ago, shutting the door to the country, i think it maybe was right. in these days when the terrorism operates on a completely different grounds through the social media, i think first of all my suggestion to president trump is to look for the roots of the terrorism and to learn more about terrorism. if you understand the roots of the terrorism, then you can fight the terrorism. i suggest to operate more with intelligence and to learn more about what's happening in our own country. if you go back to the attacks that we had here, none of these people came from syria. none of these people came from this country that we have band. shutting -- have banned.
shutting the door on people who are desperately seeking shelter is the wrong thing. at the end of the day, shelter can be provided by all these radicals and isis, and those who seek shelter become the terrorists because they are provided shelter by isis, who know how to brainwash them. we need to learn the roots of the terrorism and to fight it appropriately. this is different times than 30, 40 years ago when you just shut the borders and it help you to fight terrorism. terrorism is different today. roger: kholoud, what's your ban?ion to the travel i understand you had a hard time at the salt lake city airport. you were detained there for an hour and a half or so. what do you make of this atmosphere that seems to be intent on portraying all muslims as a potential threat? kholoud: this is racism first of all. this is discrimination. i feel angry from the bottom of my heart.
syrians,t affect us primarily, because the united states is not receiving syrian refugees since the beginning. roger: very few. kholoud: very few compared to other countries. roger: especially germany. kholoud: especially germany, yes. so, if they are not receiving ean, there arei m a few people who have been received here, but the problem is those activists, including me, who, every now and then, try to make it to the states to talk to the people, speak to the media, and meet prominent people, etl -- let's say from the congress or politicians, decision-makers, to tell them about what's going on or the lobby -- to lobby for our cause, now we are prevented to do this. roger: do you think you will go home one day? kholoud: i will, definitely. roger: when? kholoud: i don't know.
roger: and what syria will you go home to? kholoud: syria that i was dreaming about. roger: you still believe that? kholoud: yes. roger: what's the basis for your belief? just hope and faith? kholoud: and the sacrifice of my friends. we fail traitors if them, so i'll continue with this till the end. roger: till the end of time. kholoud: either see this or die. and in both cases, i will be satisfied. hard tovgeny, it's continue after that, but do you believe that your movie will help bring about the situation that kholoud just described and that she will be able to -- was that a purpose of yours, a
reason for making the movie? evgeny: there were many reasons. i as a filmmaker believe that we are responsible to learn about people and to tell their stories, to bring their voices. if i will be able through this movie to change somebody's perception, to teach somebody, and to make people to change their minds, even if you, -- to change even -- even a few, and then to save a life. roger: what would you like to see syria do? assad from bombing syrians. and a no-fly zone. if anyone started to have a no-fly zone, hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved at that time. roger: thank you very much. truth is important. facts are important.
♪ >> the asia-pacific braces for declines red by miners -- led by miners and energy. >> blowout payroll numbers on friday. a private survey this morning sees the most jobs added in three years. >> hard to swallow. her she's the comes the first american company drawn to beijing. >> the fastest-growing economy in asia to read we are alive.