tv Consider This Al Jazeera November 4, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
welcome to al jazeera america. i'm john siegenthaler. here are tonight's top story. the c.i.a. and pentagon reject a report of alleged abuse of terrorist suspects by doctors. according to a report medical people implement torture of detain es. a c.i.a. says the finings are inaccurate. secretary of state john kerry is visiting the middle east and europe. john kerry met the saudi king and said the countries have a cooperative relationship. saudi officials expressed concerns with u.s.'s stance on
syria and iran. >> mohamed morsi told the court he is the legitimate presence. it was his first public appearance since july. he is accused of inciting protesters. his trial has been adjourned until january. >> sac capital will pay $$1.2 billion. the deal with the department of justice will have to be approved by a federal judge. those are the headlines. "consider this" is up next. see you back at 11 eastern, and you can get the latest news on aljazeera.com.
an american drone strike kills the leader of the pakistani taliban and extremists vow revenge. why are regular pakistani's upset with the u.s. instead of celebrating the death of a mass murderer. why does it seem america issen my number one in pakistan? florida atlantic's football coach forced out for allegedly using drugs. as america's marijuana laws are relaxed should the sports crackdown on pot go up in smoke? are we alone in the universe? scientists found billions of reasons why we may not be. i'm antonio mora. we begin with a poisoned partnership between u.s. and pakistan. a drone strike friday killed taliban leader hakimullah mehsud, before peace talks between the pakistan government and the taliban were supposed to begin. pakistan's interior minister accused the u.s. of tarting not
the taliban, but regional piece. >> it was an ambush, not a fire from the front, an ambush. >> in washington, chairman mike rogers was all for taking out hakimullah mehsud. >> he's part of an hakani network. this was a bad guy. by the way, there's information recently that concerned us about the safety of our troops. i'm a little better for our troops today than i did before this event happened. >> for more i'm joined by washington b.c. by ambassador ak mar ahmed. professor at the university school of international service and author of "the thifle and the drone", and with us from
boston, professor of international relations at boston university. ambassador - pakistan's interior minister says the u.s. ambushed peace talks about to begin with pakistan's taliban, and the drone strike on hakimullah mehsud is an attack on the peace protest. do you think the u.s. has an interest in scuttling the peace talks? >> i don't think so. the intention of what the united states did we are not sure, because these things never come out in public quickly. the consequences we know - scuttle the peace process. the minister is using shark, undiplomatic language, unprecedented. if you saw the interview, i saw it on television, his body language is hostile. he is conveying the anger and
fury in the government towards the strike >> given those comments and the way the ambassador described them, why would the u.s. have done this - is it something where they had the chance and had to take it to take the guy out? >> i probably think it is that. it is that. it's a reflection - the pi reaction is a reflection of where pakistani-u.s. relations are. i would suggest in all international relations there's no relationship that is as messed up as the us-pakistan relationship. it's like a marriage not just gone bad, but poisonous. this is just a reflection of the poisonous relationship - the reaction you see from pakistan >> let's go down the list of hakimula, hakimullah mehsud, his forces and allies, to address how messed up the relationship
is. this is a guy who killed thousands of pakistani stillians, marines, police; planned and financed the failed 2010 times square - tried to attack the united states, organised a fate fate -- fatal attack; has coordinated with al qaeda and other groups. house intelligence group mike rogers says his death makes it safer in pakistan. shouldn't everyone welcome his death? >> it is a complicated question and has to be seen in the backdrop of relations with the united states - which are complicated, which as the professor says, like a married couple that wants to kill each other and not separate. we must remember that pakistanis would like to see this man
removed. he was paying havoc and nasty, savage attacks on civilians. at the same time doan forget the impact -- don't forget the impact on the army. they have lost soldiers, senior officers. for them, too, this man was a target. at the same time because of the antipathy to the united states it's seen in ambiguous concerns, where his death may be tacitly approved but the manner of his death is rejected. there you have a complicated relationship and how it helps us to understand the world. >> it seems almost crazy for this response to be out there. hakimullah mehsud is a hero for many, is the relationship so poisonous that even though the u.s. did something that is good for pakistan, that in the end
the u.s. is the brunt of anger? >> no and yes. no in the sense i don't think he's become a hero. yes, the relationship is so poichous, instead of problem poisonous, that instead of celebrating his death, it's a reflection on u.s.-pakistan relationships. i don't think anyone is mourning the departure of this guy. as ambassador armit said, what is happening it the manner of the death, and how osama bin laden was removed. in the pakistani anxious, is - it's difficult to understand. but at one level it is understandable. there's a pol tick here. the tabbing stanny side -- pakistani side was ready and worked hard to start talks with the taliban under hakimullah mehsud. literally the day after this incident happened. this happened a day before the talks were due to begin.
part of the reaction is they have set the stable, it's not an easy task getting to these people. they have done all the leg work to try to give the talks a chance, and then this happens at the 11th hour. that is where some of the conspiracy comes from. that is we're part of the anxious emerges from. i would dispute the argument that he's a hero, i don't think he's a hero in any sense. the u.s. is seen as a bill of right. >> let's talk about imran khan, a big star, cricket player in the old day, now a leading politician. he is threatening to cut off nato supply lines to afghanistan through pakistan if the drone campaign is not stopped. any chance that the government will go for that? >> very difficult situation. if he does that, he'll put the central government in a difficult situation. it will precipitate the crisis and accelerate it until we don't know what directions, and
pakistan and the united states, whatever the present condition of the relationship - both need each other in the short-term relationship and a long-term relationship. for all different reasons, meaning both leaders in pakistan and the united states have to be careful where this is moving. imran khan could be the tail that was the dog, meaning he does something and creates a crisis which drags the rest of pakistan in, at this moment in time he is in charge, through his party, of what is happening in the old frontier province, which is, in fact, where the land routes of afghanistan into pakistan, and where the tribal areas are situated. the problem is, of course, is that imran khan has passionately, paceately announced -- passionately announced the day he is prime minister he'll order the pakistan airports to shoot down the drones. they are so unpopular. critics are asking him - you are
in power now, what have you down. here we have a drone strike again, after all the pronouncements from america that if you are going to be more understanding, and the central government saying, "we have prevented drones", what have you down to prevent it. he has to live up to his promises. >> what he spoke b. >> be seen to be doing something. >> let's talk about the drones and another element as to how messed up their. >> pakistan complained about the drones, but according to a story in the "the washington post," pakistan give tas et approval. strikes were shared and briefings were a matter of diplomatic routines, pakistani officials had a direct role in selecting some targets, the c.i.a. offering to share credit with pakistan for some of the strikes. a lot of americans in and out of washington think that pakistan is playing a double game when it
comes to drone strikes, complaining about it in public but approving them in private. >> both believe the other is playing a double game. that is why it's messed up. what you described is a central part of the problem? a. there was a tacit agreement, when the general was in charge, president bush was in charge. two civilian governments came in pakistan, the unpopularity of the drones kept going up and up. the unpopularity of the u.s. increased and increased and increased and the political space for the government in pakistan to be seen to have anything to do with the drone has become very, very difficult. their ability, however, to have america stop them is also zero. that is the conundrum that the
government is in. part of the reaction also is that a few weeks ago when the pakistani prime minister was in washington, he went in his mind at least with the sense that the u.s. would give him and pakistan breathing space on the drones. that was the general sense of pakistan. >> this happened very quickly after the prime minister was here. >> yes. >> also, again, this schizophrenic situation. there were numbers talked about that u.s. drone strikes killed 2,160 islamist militants, but 67 civilians. the united nations says u.s. drones killed 400 civilians. the bureau of investigative journalists puts the number at 300, pakistan is downplaying it. make me understand why it is
happening? >> i was in charge of waziristan. all the figures are estimates at best. those areas are off limits to everyone. today it's like being on the moon or mars. secondly, you have different agencies with their own interests. thirdly a lot of interest and distrust among the agencies. pakistani's i ask for my book, "the thistle and the drone", i ask pakistanis, who do you blame for the creation and activities of the taliban, they say, "the americans", talk to the americans, and as i did they say, "pakistanis", we don't though who is responsible for what. there is a triangle in play. it's not just islamabad and washington. there's the third point of the triangle which is the tribal areas, tribal society, that society is driven. the rift is between the taliban, who are also plays havoc in the
society, and the mainstream tribunalsman who is going through hell. one day the drones killed him. the next day the pakistani army looks for terrorists. we need to remember it's more complicated than a relationship between the u.s. and pakistan. >> talking about tribal issues and the taliban, the young girl was shot at the age of 15. support in the west turned some in pakistan against her. she's accused of being a puppet for western interest. does the rejection of a young girl, thought to be a favourite for the nobel peace prize illustrate the toxic relationship between pakistan and the west? >> yes, it does. it exactly does. this is a relationship that needs therapy, i go back to the aknoll any of the marriage gone
bad and poisonous. when that happens in a household, in an institution, anywhere, it doesn't make sense. the level of trust is so low that if you don't do anything, you are doubted. if you do anything you are doubted. the biggest wrong that someone can do in pakistan today is to be seen to be pro-west. i would wager in washington the schizophrenia is similar. this - for two countries that are supposed to be allies, two countries supposed to fight against the same side. these countries seem to be bickering far more amongst themselves than they are over what they are fighting over. that's the problem with the war. >> it's a huge problem, something we have to be concerned about, it's an essential relationship. pakistan ambassador, a final word - how do weighbridge the divide that is -- how do we bridge the divide. >> people like me are working
hard to do that, to close the gap. for me the situation is like this: the anti-men sentiment in pakistan is wide, not deep. i think initiatives by both governments can overcome this. we need to remember there was a time, not long ago in the 1960, in the history of the nation is in the blink of an eye, when an american president's wife jackie kennedy visited. she's seen standing alongside the president of pakistan in an open car, throwing flower petals at her. there was that time. now there's a time when literally if an american is out there without escort or protection, he may be physically attacked in pakistan. we need to remember that it is not very deep, and we need to move ahead. if we don't pakistan and america will both suffer in terms of the
development that is imminent in that region. a lot of changes will take place, unpredictable events in that part of the world, and both countries need to restore the relationship and create a sense of sanity and balance in the relationship. >> let's hope we can. thank you ambassador and professor, thank you for joining us and talking about the important topic. coming up president obama takes to the blogs to express his support for the employment non-discrimination act. our next guest blasts the president for penning his response in a blog instead of taking action. >> and the top stories on the web. >> there's a lot of men sporting excess facial hair. it's part of something called movember. it's for a good cause. i'll tell you more coming up. what do you think, join the conversation on. .
can you be fired from your job for being gay in this country? the answer in most cases is yes. there are no laws to protect gay workers in 29 states. every attempt at an antidiscrimination law failed. the the enda act has advanced in the senate after mark kirk made a dramatic return to the floor to support a new push for the law. >> i have been silent to the last two years due to a stroke - a little under two years ago. i have risen to speak because i believe so passionately in enacting the enda statue. it is appropriate for illinois republicans to speak on behalf of this measure. in the true decision of abraham
lincoln and dirkon, the men who gave us the civil rights act >> good to see the senator doing better. we have founder and president of an organization dedicated to ending workplace scrim nation, and a military veteran who sued the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms based on her gender identity. you were hired by the atf pending a background check. what happened? >> good evening, thanks for having me on. originally i was a police detective. i was recruited - my last assignment i worked hand to hand with apf. i was recruited for a civilian position, doing the same job i was doing, but in their san francisco field office. during that time i left the
department, went through my background and i was supposed to start work. as soon as i finished the background the investigator said, "you're down", i contacted the contractor and told him, "i'm ready to start." within about 72 hours the job was no longer there. there was a budget cut supposedly and all this stuff that they had made up. subsequently, though, when i took the complaint to the eoc they said, "you might actually have grounds of discrimination, but unfortunately in the united states being transgender is not covered." we had to go through the appellate process and appeals process to just even get an investigation, which concluded finally last year april 2012, i amended the 1964 civil rights act under sex discrimination gender identity,
gender stereotyping and does not conform to gender stereotypes. and in the summer, since they had an investigation, i won the bigger part of it was i won proving that they did discriminate. a couple of weeks ago i won the contractor was in on the discrimination. >> again, you won because they - the ruling was based on the civil rights act that bans employers discrimination based on on employees sex. it has been used in some court decisions over the years. the question now though is if you look at that, at the civil rights act interpreted that way, why do we need enda? >> the importance of enda - and i think in its current state there is an exclusionary - religious exclusionary stuff that needs to be looked at. for transgender since april 2012
in all 50 states - anyone that's transgender and work for an employer in the u.s. with 15 or more employees has been covered under the discrimination part. title 7 applies as of april 2012 to say change of sex, change of gender does not conform to gender stereotyping, which is funny, because it hasn't hit big in the media, but employment attorneys have seen this for the last 18 months and understood the interpretation. i think that is the bigger question we need to ask ourselves. >> continuing to play devil's advocate the reality is 88% of fortune 500 companies and small businesses have nondiscrimination policies protecting sexual discrimination, 56 protecting gender identity. what is the urge need for enda. >> you are right that business leaders led the way.
congress is decades behind. before today there hadn't been a vote in the united states senate for 17 years. in that time, lag the time between senate votes, businesses have charged ahead. the policies are voluntary. there are bad apple managers at some branch offices that can't follow corporate policy. when sun is called epithets, when they are denight promotion, they -- denied promotion, they deserve a recourse, like the lat jeanos and women can go to the eoc, and federal court. lgdp americans deserve the right. >> according to the gao, the number of lawsuits filed in the state is low. how big of a problem is this? >> the argument that you've raised, and the gao report is one of our best tools in
lobbying. freed to work has this meetings with the overwhelming majority of public senator offices. we use the report commissioned by the spop sore, the senators who gave the wonderful marks for the first time since his stroke. we used the gao report - it won't create a floodgate of litigation - it's a modest measure, having appropriate remedies when people face harassment. it's in line with 50 years of civil rights legislation history, and actions that people have brought in court when they do face harassment, discrimination, but it is - it is a very modest and passable bill. that's why we have a great result in the u.s. senate, with more than 60 senators joining to move the bill forward.
we think a final passage by the end of the week. >> we have a viewer question. >> viewer christy says, "i wonder how many thought it was a law." why do you think that is? >> sha sadly true. -- that is sadly true. 80 or 90% of americans believe that congress has acted when it has not. i think there has been a lot of attention, right fully on the successes of freedom to marry, they are compelling when, you know, couples who are fighting for their relationships to be recognised, that provide compelling news. there is oftentimes less coverage of workplace issues, less shows that have folks like me who did a tremendous thing. mia's case is historic, creating
a legal precedent that will and has been relied on many people. mia makes a wonderful point - we need more coverage of workplace issues that she brought about. it was a unanimous 5-0 decision with republicans and democratic commissioners that transgender people are protected. we need to do more public education, and the vote will help with that. >> polling shows support among the public for enda. a republican polster asking for support found 68% of regular voters support, with only 21% opposing it. as both of you know it's unlikely to get past the house of representatives, and john boehner's office released this statement saying: mia, what do you say to someone
like speaker john boehner who argues that this makes lgtp people more equal than the rest of us and give them more rights? >> the two main points with what he was speaking today is - first of all, why are we debating. i believe this is the rocking chair moment in your life that senators and congress men and women get a chance to be actively part of a group of - we are debating who not to pick on. we are making a law - the reason, you know, what did you say 80% of the people or 68% of people thought it was law - yes, because this is so - it seems childish that we are sitting here debating passing a law not picking on people. his sense of small business - it's funny, because businesses have been the first and foremost. and unions around the country and people stepped up in the workplace to own businesses.
even today a bunch of companies came out. i think he's flawed. i think it's fear. i don't know in it helps to raise money. america is going forward. america has moved forward. they need to get with the times. america has already - they are dealing with marriage equality, and it's so funny that his ideal or argument was on the business front, conservative, we worry about business first. no, the businesses worry about us first, and it's interesting that government has to now catch up to that point. but the american people are on board, and in our corner. >> talking about government catching up. president obama took to support and by blogging in "the huffington post," you were not happy with that, you weren't happy with the way the president led on the issue. >> we are disappointed that the president didn't keep the campaign promise from five years
ago, when he was in the primary competing against hillary clinton. he signed a questionnaire from a group promising to take executive action to ban lgbd applications from companies that profit from federal contracts. that's billions that we should ensure does not get wasted on workplace harassment and discrimination. he stalled for five years. the president has a tremendous record of acomplishment for lgd americans. his administration has said that the recipients of federal funds can't discriminate in housing. the logical step is to do the same with federal funding and workplace discrimination. we are disappointed he hasn't done it. we'll push him to do it. the best thing he can do in terms of our campaign to fight lgdp workplace discrimination is
lead by example. that's the most value he can add to the movements. >> we'll stay on top of what's. thank you both for your time tonight. time to see what is trending on the website. let's check in with harmeli aregawi again. >> according to the provtate cancer cancer foundation one in six men will be diagnosed. there's 2.5 million american men living with the cancer. and the digital story by a digital produce - you may notice men in your office walking around with odd facial hair. it's part of movember, men grow out their moustaches for november to raise awareness for prostate cancer. it started in 2003, a couple of
guys were in a bar in australia chatting about recurring trends - one of which was moustaches. it evolved into a conversation about men's health and the following year the movember foundation was established. bringing the practice of growing creepy moustaches to north america in 2006. that's a mo tracker an app allowing you to take photographs of yourself. send us a photo of your movember stache and we'll feature them on the website. a good cause and now we know moustaches are creepy. ahead - a college football coach is let go for using marijuana. with the majority of americans in favour of legalizing the
it comes to marijuana use. florida fired a coach for violations of university rules. reports say carl and his defensive coordinator pete resigned when confronted with proof they were caught using cocaine and marijuana. the school said they were let go for other issues. florida atlantic refused further comments saying it was a human resources matter. the school faced backlash, especially as more states relaxed their laws on marijuana use. patrick ruby covered the coaching change for sportsonearth.com and wrote an article. >> there's proof that the coach and defensive coach used drugs - including marijuana and cocaine. why should they not have been forced out. these are guys responsible for young student athletes. >> first of all, we should draw a distinction between marijuana and cocaine. the column i wrote about was
focused on marijuana. which is a different drug to cocaine. >> it is. >> to get to the question - why should the guys be forced out. whatever the drug we are talking about, it may be a good idea to consider a suspension, rehab, treat it as a medical issue, not an issue of moral turpy tube. >> is marijuana the only drug that should be okay? where do we draw the line? you bring up cocaine. where should we draw the line. >> marijuana can be placed in a different category. the other harder, highly addictive drugs of abuse. marijuana now is classified the same way by the government and many states, it's been that way for a while. if you look at the science, the
history, marijuana is a drug with meddiesinal -- medicinal value. it was in the pharmacopeia in the 1940s. there's arguments that it is unfairly lugged in with other more abusive drugs. marijuana would provide benefits to society and the sports world. >> the arguments have been made, you mention the medical benefits of marijuana, and indicate that you think it's not a bad idea to use marijuana instead of pain-killers or help with anxiety, you think it's a good idea? >> there's a lot of medical science behind this. i mean, we have medical marijuana in 18 states and columbia. in all 10 americans support medical marijuana period. also recreationally for the first time ever last year, a majority of americans support legalizing marge warna, in terms
of sport application, it's a good idea. in terms of things you can do, you are talking about reducing anxiety, dealing with pain, stress, it's definitely something i think that could and should be in the therapeutic toolbox in sport, particularly when you compare it to the kinds of pain-killers that are also currently in use in sport. we are talking about. >> and often abused in sport. as you make arguments about marijuana, one thing i have to take an issue with you on is you talk about the impact on children and say, "but, sure, role models, the kids, clean sport with integrity, blah, pla, blah, sports depends on kids carry on and becoming athletes. they need role models, is that not a big part of it. that we allow too much flexibility for bad behaviour or breaking rules. what would sports be without
kids? >> you talk about breaking rules. i think that's what we have to focus on. the sports world - you know, maybe 20, 30 years ago, as a society, we were more in the stage of lever madness and having a moral panic over marijuana use. we are not there. attitudes are changing, changing rapidly for the first time ever the majority of americans support decriminalisation and legalisation. a lot of states allow medical marijuana. >> let's talk about it. if you look at the polls on whether marijuana should be legalized, it's gone from 12% in 1959 - still, medical marijuana is only allowed in two states. where do you draw the line? should sports be ahead of the
country, shouldn't sports follow the law? >> i think there's a way that sports can follow the law, but not act as an extension of the law, which is what you see a lot of. sports drug tests - they are drug testing for steroids, hdh, things that make you stronger, bigger, faster. mor marijuana is not going to do anything. it may be a dehancer if you have it before going on the field. i don't think many guys will do if they value keeping their jobs in sport. a lot of the teams that are doing that are drug testing for marijuana, we are drug testing college athletes and handing out suspensions and fines if players test positive. sometimes players on the houston texans. three players reportedly were cut for smoking marijuana - they weren't doing if in the locker
room. >> more than 60 players have received suspensions since roger took over in the nfl. we have a viewer question for you. viewer says, "banning marijuana makes no sense, unless they ban alcohol", what do you think? >> it opens a can of worms. it gets to the question about role models. the sports world is in a profitable embrace with the alcohol industry. i mean beer and sports kind of go together. there's tonnes of advertising and sponsorship. also in the sports world we see a double standard. i mean when players and even front office executives are busted for dui, which is arguably more dangerous than smoking a joint in your free time - thousands of americans die every year of drunk driving. it's a dangerous activity.
like this summer, we saw two den very broncos executives with duis, they were suspended, went through the process and were reinstated. >> it's worse when you look at the hypocrisy involved in duis. you have leonard little. people died in dui accidents when they were driving, but were able to keep plays football later on. >> right. if you compare that to people losing their jobs over having a positive marijuana test. it's a very disturbing double standard. we saw socially and culturally we have a double standard. i don't think we need to get into the business of trying to act as a junior dea. they don't need to test athletes for marijuana, enforcing suspensions on players for testing positive. it's a don't ask don't tell approach right now. what actually works, and it
today's data dive goes shopping at yard sales - even oprah had one. the queen of talk's yard was far from the garden variety event you would see in your neighbourhood. oprah unloaded some of her favourite things from homes in hawaii, indiana and california. the yard sale on the online auction fetched more than $750,000 for her girl's academy. there was good deals - an autographed electric scooter went for $5250. this share, $1,100 - six times its worth. this signed but unframed tv guide cover print estimated to be worth $200-$400, but sold for
$3,000. for a picture unframed you can get on the internet for free. her autograph must have made a difference. oprah is not the only sell ebb to hold a sale. pam anderson emptied her home. teri hatcher with revenue going to family. tory spelling - proceeds going to - tory speaking. lance, insync fan created a site for celebrities to put their stuff up for sale. how big are the numbers? most people are not keeping track and reporting how much they made to the irs. the statistic brain research center statement that 165,000 americans hold sales, figuring americans sell more than
4.9 million items - most for less than a dollar. and weekly sales reach 4.2 million. with the numbers, if the yard sales took place from may through september there's be an $84 million - big but not smart. if sold on ebay they'd fetch an estimated four times more. >> coming up - what is surprising that there could be billions of places like earth, or that india is sending a probe to mars?
india is set to launch a mission to mars. china will attempt to land a rover on the mood. as space is more crowded will nasa remain competitive with space-faring nations of the world. a report says billions ever earth-like planets could be in the milky way galaxy. what does it mean for the search for life in the universe.
we are joined in new york by dr derek fitz, chief avt ron omer at the science museum. good to have you in real life. >> it's a pleasure to be here in person. >> we know about the u.s. space program, the chinese. a lot of people were surprised that india is sending an orbiter to mars. they have a robust space program. >> they have launch d is before, put it in orbit and identified water in the soil of mars. they are better known for their astro nomiccal research than for space exploration. this is a good opportunity to get back into the game of space researchers. >> it's cheaper for them than the united states. they are sending the orbiter back, and the cost is $73 million. nasa is sending one up later
this year, and it will cost $670 million - what does that say about the cost effectiveness of nasa, or is it a bigger project? >> it's a bigger prospect and when you consider the risk of sending something to mars, you have to weigh all the factors of how much experience do you have, will it succeed. the u.s. had great success over decades sending craft to mars. we have experience... >> most missions to mars fail. >> that's true, and we have been fortunate sending things to mars. we've been able to get spot on, but recognising that there are serious risks involved. >> india said the mission will check the atmosphere for methane. some are curious about whether it will work. let's listen to that. >> what is curious about this is they'll send a satellite there
to sniff for methane. the satellite will be talking for is microbial flat u lens. nasa sent a rofer and hasn't been successful. >> we have the morse rove rer and hasn't detected mooeth an. how likely is it to detect it from space? >> the platform it has orbiting the planet gives it an opportunitiy to look at different places. there can be geologic sources. the exciting part it is to identify that flat u lens, to see if there's signals of life on the planet. this is an easy thing for them to do, to engage martian research. there are a few other instruments on the satellite looking at the geology and
surface, doing atmospheric analysis as well. >> with all the nations involved in this - we have private corporations too. what does it mean for nasa. funding is going down, will nasa be less relevant. >> the term i use for this is evolving, evolving from a space program of the 1960s and "70, into a program of the 21st century. the space shuttle program was done, scheduled to close when it did. nasa has to turn attention to doing the big tasks, sending people to mars, and going on to explore the rest of the solar system. it requires an infrastructure and equipment and technology change. now it looks like things are sort of quieter than they had been in the past. i think in the coming years we'll see that nasa is mounting an effort to move in that direction. having said that, nasa still needs more money than it has to
remain the undisputed leader in space exploration, no question about that. you are a scientist. i'll make you be a plate call analyst. what does india want - what message does it want to send, putting an orbiter along mars. >> india, china japan - now all of those countries have been growing. there may be a lag on the part of china. because they are major economic players, they really want to show how far they have come along. one of the best way tos do that is take a place on the stage exploration. if you have a big economy, the next thing you want to do is show what you do with that. in the case of united states and russia, that's what we have done as we said - here is how strong we are, here is what we can do.
>> india showing that it's a big player. >> it want to get into the game. >> new analysis by the space telescope - it says 40 billion - just in the milky way - that could be like the earth. how does it change analysis as to what we think could be out there.. >> it put secure footing on speculation that we have been making. there's more planets than what we thought. some may be earth like, increasing the probability that perhaps there is some other life out there. and using the numbers really helps to shape what we think of the possible population in just this one galaxy alone. >> it seems - it's huge news when they said there was one planet like the earth.
then it turned into dozens and hundreds and now billions. you think at this point that life - even in some of the way that is we know it, cannot be rare and unique here on earth. >> i think the really interesting thing that we have to be careful about is separate the difference between probability and sort of like wide speculation, if you will, about the possibility of life. when with you look at the numbers, it looks as if it makes sense that a star would have planets. if he with take a look at that, 400 billion stars, 10% is 40 billion. that just tells us what the probability is, it's not the reality. that's what we have to work with. >> why haven't we heard from them is the question. we have the huge problem, listening with the big satellite
dishes, trying to listen. some of these planets could be older than the earth, so they could have had civilisations for a long time. >> that's a great question. one thing we have to remember is the sheer scale of the universe is beyond what we have the ability to understand. sure, we throw around the big numbers about the distances from here to there as if we understand what they mean. when you step back and analyse what it means in terms of transfer of radio signals or travel time, it really settles in on you that the possibility of us contacting and talking to -- >> talking to, but receiving. why have we not received. >> it's a different ball game that we'll talk about the next time you are here. >> the show may be over, the conversation continues on the website, aljazeera.com, or facebook or google+ and on
twitter. see you next time. >> good evening, everyone, welcome to al jazeera america. i'm john siegenthaler in new york. breaking news tonight, shots fired inside the largest shopping mall in new jersey. we begin with breaking news out of par amus new jersey. an armed gunman is possibly inside the biggest shopping mall of new jersey, home to more than 300