tv Consider This Al Jazeera August 23, 2014 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
can be. and it troubles me that the president is getting advice from very well-meaning, patriotic men and women but none of them have served in iraq. that is troubling. >> now you also ask do iraqis want to live with one another? and ambassador peter galbraith, who has been adviser to the kurds talked to us the other day, and he seemed to think no. the division between shiites and kurds will split up the country and he believes the kurds will move on to have their own independent state. >> i know ambassador galbraith well. he was there advising the kurds. i think he's right generally speaking.
believe that's it's a national security interest that's why we need a modern day dwight eisenhower. this could turn into a regional confederation. if that occurs we could fundamentally destable many world powers including some of our allies. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> in the video involving the brutal killing of journalist james foley, the i.s. warn president obama that the life of another journalist depends on your next decision. nearlmany people have signed a petition to save sotloff: with us we have david rhodes who was
kidnapped while working as a journalist in 2008. his most recent column is entitled did america's policy on ransom contribute to james foley killing? thank you for being with us. the u.s. does not pay ransom but in thi other countries do. you believe there should an broader debate about what should be done in these circumstances. >> i want to say up front i don't have a simple answer. there are no simple answers in these cases. but the problem is there were french and spanish journalists held by the islamic state. they were ransomed. they are home and safe. and sotloff is facing death and james foley died in a terrible way. i'm calling for this to come out of the shadows.
they deny making payments, it was done through intermediar ies. the u.s. britain, australia, canada, saying no ransoms. >> the dilemma, of course, we want our people back desperately. but at the same time we don't want to pay ransoms that could finance further terrorist acts. we did a segment on this a couple of weeks ago with a "new york times" reporter who went deep into this. she said at least $125 million since 2008 have gone to al-qaeda and it's affiliates. spain, $11 million. france, $58.1 million. switzerland, $714 million. austria, $3.2 million. last year al-qaeda may have gotten $66 million in one year alone. and the u.s. government figures are even higher than this. it's become big business for these terrorists. >> it's a major source of funding for them. the record case appears to be the french-state owned company
paid $40 million for the release of four french hostages in nig niger. to be fair, the american policy no government payment, but if a family can pay or if an organization, you know, a news organization or oil company can pay ransom, it will go to a terrorist group which is technically support and illegal, but in that case the government looks the other way. the problem is when the governments pay it sets the market price so high. $10million. >> individuals can't do it. >> i spoke with the foley family particularly in the last few months, and they were frantic because they could not raise the money. other details came out today that the initial request for foley' release was $100 million euros is $130 million. >> i know that global post said that it spent millions of
dollars trying to figure out how to do this. they put out an e-mail today about the e-mail that was sent by i.s. to them. one of the striking things there brings up not specifically but brings up the bow bergdahl issue. they bring up, well, you negotiated before. the united states has negotiated before. it has given muslim extremists prisoners over in exchange for our people. so why doesn't your leader do that for james foley? >> one of the strange things about my captivity was how much the taliban wanted the united states to negotiate with them and recognize them as a legitimate group, organization or even a state, and there is a sense that also it was at play with the islamic state. but again, i mean, what kind of group are we talking about? what they did to jim, what stephen sotloff had to watch, and what he's feeling right now, these are unarmed journalists they're not courageous fighters.
they take unarmed people, hold them prison and then publicly murder jim foley. >> it's term. it seems that americans are going to be the greatest victims of this, and couldn't it encourage them to go after americans knowing that they can get this kind of tremendous publicity aside from the fact that they're going to be getting money from the other people, that they can get this horrible propaganda out of america? >> there was one--another journalist told me that he had heard--who knows what they think, but they heard that they view european as a source of money, and americans can be sources of publicity. >> what do you think the u.s. should do? should it not affect our policy when it comes to going after the islamic state extremists? >> if the u.s. is serious it should wonder what france is
doing. they have paid ransom and this is our ally. it's very difficult to get there, but there needs to be more public debate. and israel, israel exchange 1,000 prisoners for one soldier. this is all local--all politics is local. this is the expectation of france that the state will do something to help a french citizen who is kidnapped. in the u.s. you're more on your own as an individual if you get in trouble. not completely on your own, but again all i'm saying is we have to debate this. the problem is getting worse. they're getting huge amounts of funding. the current approach is not working at all. >> and we have our hearts go out to the foley family, the sotloff family and other journalists who are held captive by extremists. david rhodes, always good to see you. thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll be back with more of consider this.
demands answers >> what do we want? >> justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> faul lines, al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> there blocking the door... >> ground breaking... >> truth seeking... >> we have to get out of here... award winning investigative documentary series... special episode ferguson: city under siege only on al jazeera america
>> national guard troops began withdrawing from the city of ferguson. a day after touring the community attorney general eric holder called for patience into the inquiry and said the unrest in ferguson is emblematic of problems across the nation. >> the outcry we see speaks to mistrust and mutual suspicion that can take hold between law enforcement and certain communities. i wanted the people of ferguson to know that i personally understood that mistrust. i wanted them to know that while so much may be uncertain this attorney general and this department of justice stands with the people of ferguson. >> while holder said he wants the case to proceed through the grand jury as expeditiously and thoroughly as possible st. louis
count prosecuting attorney said the grand jury investigation could go through mid-october. outside of mccal mccullough 's office, many called for his recusal from the case. with us is former attorney general alberattorney general alberto. gonzalez. how unusual is it for a federal government to get involve in a case so quickly? >> it's a little unusual but this is a case that has unusual facts and circumstances. we have to remember that the justice department was invited by the governor to come in and participate in the investigation. obviously there's been serious civil unrest and i think those reasons all contributed to the
decision by the attorney general to make the federal presence known at a much earlier stage. >> but does this intense attention the attorney general brings by going there and making it personal. he talked about his own experiences as a black man with racism does that come with risk? it seems that he has helped to calm things down a bit, but what happens if there is no indictment or if there is and it takes a long time for the case to move forward, are there risk there is? >> so there is a risk. it may raise expectations that there is going to be swift action and you're absolutely right given the complexity of this case, the wildly differing accounts of what happened. i don't think we're going to know anything definitive for quite some time in terms of the evidence. we obviously need to look at the forensics. we need to look at the occupations. there is a number of things that have to be examined before we have a better picture of what's going on there. in making a calculation in on
there this can be done in a way that doesn't raise false expectations. it can be done in a way that doesn't seem like he's putting his thumb on the scales. obviously that would be--that would be improper to do. >> so what should the department of justices role be? >> well, in this particular case i think that the department's role is very clear. they are doing a parallel investigation because there are federal civil rights laws that may be implicated here, and so the department of justice is looking at the evidence i'm assuming they're communicating with state and local officials, understanding what they have in place to see whether or not those federal and civil rights laws have been violated. you'll have separate investigations, you may have separate prosecutions or maybe the state and local may not decide to move forward. the feds may decide to move forward. a lot of unanswered questions still remain. >> are you concerned about the case being prejudged? there have been a lot of calls
to expedite the case. we've seen the missouri governor say he hopes that officer dinner williams receives a vigorous prosecution in the michael brown shooting death. in order to keep the calm in all the noise that surrounds it has the case been damaged? >> i think in the case of governor's comments, i think they're troublesome. i think he misspoke. i hope what he intended to say was he hopes there is a vigorous investigation, and if it warrants, then a vigorous prosecution. public officials like the governor and the attorney general need to be very careful about the comments they make. this should not be a rush to judgment. and unfortunately there seems to have been a rush to judgment by many people related to this case. that's heightened the attentio
attention--heightened the tension in the community. we need to guard against rushing to judgment. we are far from knowing publicly what happened to mr. brown. >> i would like to get your perspective on police tactics. they've come under intense scrutiny from the police to the arrest. we even saw a police officer with a semiautomatic assault rifle threatening to kill a protes protesters. governor nixon has ordered them to leave ferguson. what do we need to fix some of those problems? >> first, you learn. to the extent you make mistakes and you don't get a reaction that you anticipate with respect to certain kinds of force you reevaluate for the next time. and you know, in heightened situations like this you're going to make decisions very quickly and sometimes those decisions are wrong.
you learn from what you're doing. and again hopefully things will be better the next time. >> you know, there have been calls for st. louis prosecutor robert mccullough to step down for a whole variety of reasons. do you think he should step down? do they need a special prosecutor because of the circumstances of this case? >> ultimately that's a decision that the prosecutor in this particular case will have to make himself. you know, you can have--he's in that position to prosecute these kinds of cases. whether or not he should or not, ultimately that's the decision for him to make. i will say this, with a case with this scrutiny you don't want there to be any kind of doubt of bias in any way. i would sort of make the argument that even though he might be someone who has a strict moral code and can do the job, nonetheless, the appearance of a bias might be at play here,
and you want to be very, very careful about that with respect to the raw feelings that exist in the plaque community in--the black community in ferguson. >> you've been outspoken about the immigration crisis. you know they're suing the president for overusing executive powers. you think the president should take action while congress is away. how far should he go? support the children who have gone here? >> that's a very difficult question. what i had written was that the president should use whatever executive power he has. the president should be utilizing all of his constitutional authority. where that lies is a very difficult question. the more the president does the more he'll be challenged by the congress, i believe. quite frankly i think it's appropriate for the congress to
check the exercise of executive power if they believe that that is it is infringing. >> what about amnestier i know you want comprehensive immigration reform, but what--there are rumors that the president might go as far as declaring amnesty or creating some kind of legal pathway for people who are here? >> well, i think that's going to--that's going to result in a legal challenge. but i would put it to you this way, you know the executive branch clearly has the discretion to take a single individual and make a determination if that person should be deported based on priority and budget constraints. let's say it's ten people. i would say that the president has that authority. if it's 100 people, i think you can argue that the president still has that authority. maybe he has the authority to make that decision for a group
because of emergencies or things of that nature. the question is at some point where does it go too far? where are the numbers so large that he really gets frustrated with the laws passed by congress. these are very difficult questions. >> yes, they are, and obviously being hotly debated. former attorney general alberto gonzalez. thank you for taking the time. >> good to be with. >> you turning to ferguson where peaceful demonstrations turned to rioting and looting over the past few weeks. people were left wondering how much more should officials have done to make sure that the protest he is didn' protests didn't become violent in the first place. bernard, good to have you with us. the triggering incident is the
august 9th shooting of michael brown. when go back to disturbances like this one and the protests that struck cincinnati after a similar shooting in 201 2001, the triggering is anger that was already there, always smoldering. based on what protesters have said that seems to be the case in ferguson. should authorities have been aware of what was going on beneath the surface of their community? >> well, first of all, thank you for having me on. secondly, i think in hindsight i think these things are quite clear. often anything that present itself are too often ignored. and in this case the death of mr. brown gam became the flash point, particular in issues of
race and economic disparity, they need to pay closer attention. >> authorities did not release information early, and when they finally released the name of the officer who shot brown they did it together with a video allegedly of brown robbing a store and intimidating a store work. thomas striker said that ferguson officials are concerned, quote, they have to engage the entire community and make them a part of this resolution process. if they don't do that, they will fail. do you agree? >> i absolutely agree. the reality--the reality of this is that it would appear, and i've watched it from a distance, as have others, that there were--there was a period of time at the beginning of this when it might have been possible to get control of this in a peaceful fashion. once order is restored, and i have no doubt that it will be, once order is restored, that dialogue that community dialogue between the city leaders and the
community leaders and law enforcement will be absolutely critical. for the success of thing that comes after this. there will be other flash points that they will be prepared for. >> will the violence continue until people get tired and we've seen that happen in past disturbances like the watts riots in los angeles in 1965. >> i think there are two pieces that have to be looked at. one is what is the role of people from outside ferguson in furthering this violence and unrest? it would appear from news reports and from sources that i've talked to inside law enforcement that there is a tension between the people who live in ferguson and the people who have come from outside of it. that's going to need to be
resolved very quickly. i think if, in fact, the people of ferguson can get the upper hand on this with the assistance of police and other authorities, then that dialogue and that healing can start. but that healing is going to have to be linked to the second part, which is planning for future milestones as this thing unfolds. >> are you concerne concerned about future flash points as the funeral for michael brown is set for monday? >> i would be concerned about that. i would be concerned when the jury convened. the involved officer needs to make a public appearance and i think all of those things need to be anticipated an planned for for. combined with that is the need to make sure there is a steady flow of information to the public. >> do you think as the grand jury convenes and eric holder
speak up, that they reserve the right to protest but violence won't be condoned. do you think that will cool things rather than be a flash point? >> i think erik holder's presence in ferguson can't do anything but help. it certainly conveys the message that the top law enforcement official in this country is paying personal attention to what's going on there, and people, i think, need to realize that the real issue here is the death of michael brown and the circumstances under which it occurred. as long as we're dealing with civil unrest and violence in the streets that underlying issue, that critical in my opinion most important issue is not going to get it's appropriate attention. >> now, i want to play you something that ferguson mayor james knowles iii had to say and get your reaction.
>> the vast majority of my community and i'll put that number in the 95th percentile is what we've been doing. >> do you think that's true given the pictures we've been seeing and the duration of the process so far? >> no, i don't. i suspect that 95% of the people that the mayor talked to may kneel way. i think the vast majority, i suspect the vast majority of the people in this community don't want violence. they don't want protests in the streets. but clearly things are--people are not satisfied with the status quo. >> now, there does seem to be a tremendous black-white disconnect where the events of ferguson are concerned. there is a new pew research poll that came out and said that four out of five blacks think the brown shooting raises serious
racial issues and only two-thirds of whites do, and 65% of backs feel that the police have gone too far and only 33% of whites do, and this shows a disconnect, do you think it's part of the issue here that explains some of the anger and frustration that we've seen? >> i think it is. i think there is a tendency, those of us who hav have--i've spend the last 40 years in local law enforcement. i've seen changes in law enforcement and changes in society, and they are profound. the reality of america today is vastly different from the reality of america 30 and 40 years ago. on one side of that divide while things are much better than they were 40 or 50 years ago, so everything is okay. on the african-american side of
the divide things are better, but we are a long way from where to use martin luther king's phrase where we're judging people on the content of their character. >> in 40 years of policing if the police chief of ferguson gave you a call, what would you tell him to do? >> well, first of all i would convey i sat to where he sits, but not to this degree. many police chiefs have faced similar challenges. the need for openness and transparency about the policing process which some ways runs counter to the culture is absolutely critical. i think inviting in key members of the communities, developing a system to make sure that information is put out in a timely and rapid fashion. if you don't control the narrative, and if that narrative is not jointly arrived at, there
meets humanity. >> this is some of the best driving i've ever done... even though i can't see! >> "tech know". >> we're here in the vortex. >> tonight, 7:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> imagine a world where a car gets 84 miles to the gallon, can go to 0 to 60 in 9.6 seconds and cost $9,600. the car is about to arrive. it's called the elio and 26,000 people have reserved one. if it looks strange that's because it only has three wheels. joining us from hartford, connecticut, author and contributor, jim, thank you for joining us. this car looks peculiar and it's
classified as a motorcycle but the company said it's really a car and has all the safety features of a car, anti-lock brakes and everything else. you've driven one, does it feel like a car or motorcycle. >> it doesn't have the production engine yet. it has a motor from a geo metro. you get the sense of how it's going to be, and unfortunately they have to--the car is supposed to come out around the end of the year. they've had some delays. and end of next year, i should say. what they're trying to do i is--they're trying to get a very low cost commuter car that cost $6,800. and it's theoretical now because they have to get the motor in. but i drove it around new york city with the current configuration with the geo metro motor, and people just went
absolutely nuts over it. they're so excited to see it. they don't know what it is. they think it's something that would cost a whole lot more. when they hear that the target is $6,800 they want to have one. >> it does look pretty cool. they say it can go 100 mph an hour, 84-mile on the highway per gallon of gas. but after driving it, it looks a little flimsy. is it something that you would want to go even 75 mph in? it doesn't look that sturdy. >> again, it's hard to tell. i only drove it around new york on city streets. it might be a handful on the highway. i wouldn't be surprised. but i didn't have that experience. again, the motor in it is not the one that it's eventually going to have, and a whole lot of engineering has to happen before this car is in any kind of ready to go condition.
>> michael: about comfort. it has only two seats. one right behind the other. four and a half feet tall and it's dwarfed by the suvs out there. >> it was fairly comfortable once you're inside it. it's like a low riding car. you have to climb into it. i would say the real challenge is for the second passenger who sits directly behind the driver, and that's a little claustrophob claustrophobic. it's not a large space. i'm 6'0", and i fit back there, but it's not a place i would want to be for a long time. time. >> the price, $6,800 and a lot less than the average cost of a car in the u.s. which is $32,000, and a lot less than the least expensive car which is $14,000. how are they managing to sell it to so little? >> well, if you look at their projections they say they're only going to make $1,000 profit per car. that's a pretty slim margin,
definitely. it's going to take them awhile to get their investment back. but also they're also talking about very high involves. they want to produce 250,000 of them in a year. which maybe with the public excitement that's possible, but to really get the profitability they're going to need fairly high volumes especially with such a slim margin. >> it only has three wheels, one door. that keeps the price down. one final answer, do you think it will succeed? >> if they do what they say they're going to do, achieve their targets 84-mile per gallon, sell it for $6,800. it has a quality-feeling car and not something that feels flimsy, if they can do all that, then i think they would have a success. but there are a lot of things that have to happen first. they have to raise the money not only to get it through the engineering phase, through production. they have to build a dealer
network and service network. there is a reason that tesla is the only successful auto maker launch since the 20's. it's really hard to do. i've met the owner. he's a really enthusiastic guy. i hope he can make it work. he certainly is putting his heart and soul into it, let's see if it works. >> let's see what happens. jim, thank you for joining us. thank you very much. we'll be back with more of "consider this."
>> for most people around the world, people take vacations. but not if you're an american. americans take fewer vacations than they used to, and when they do, they take shorter ones. they don't want to look like they're replaceable. they're worried about losing their jobs. joining us from san francisco, a
leadership professor where he teaches organizational behavior and organizational change. mitchell, great to have you with us. let's start with job security. 22% of american workers who are surveyed say that they're not taking vacations because they don't want others to think that they're replaceable. is that something that should be concern? >> whether it should be or shouldn't it be doesn't matter because it is a concern for these people. they're afraid out of sight out of mind. if i'm away from the workplace and the work gets done, then maybe, indeed, i am expendable. >> there have been surveys that have found some managers that say people who didn't take all their vacation time earned more than employees who did. >> well, there are different corporations with different cultures. some organizations do justifybly
say you have to take vacation. by the way, antonio, there is science, there is research that shows depending on the job, if you work in a creative kind of job taking a break, getting away for a week or two recharges you. you know, i do a lot of writing in my work and i get writer's block sometimes. if i go to the grocery store and to the gym, poof, things will jump in my mind because i take a break. i don't want all it to be considered pro vacation or anti-vacation but some organizations encourage people to do it for good reasons. other organizations have a very macho culture, if you need a vacation, maybe you need a long one. >> there are studies as you say that show creatives, people who do take vacations do end up being more productive. >> it's just healthy. you get away from the routine.
little things that may have upset you about the wor workplace seem to float away because you come back with a different perspective. there is in what i would regard the post down sizing era. there was a day when people could feel in control of their work situation. if i work and someone next to me worked also at the same job who didn't carry their weight, who came in late and got fired, i can rationalize that because i can control that by doing good work. but in down sizing i sit next to somebody who was down sized, who didn't do anything badly, who worked as hard as i do, they couldn't control this and they got laid off. that's the concern. >> according to the survey 40% of american workers do not plan to use all their paid time off. they dread the pile of work they'll have weighing for them when they get back and they
believe nobody else in their job can do their job while they're away. this has a new name, the work martyr complex. >> i would call it ego. who can do my job as well as i can do it? so that's valid. look, there is a sense of importance and that sense of if i can't do it no one else can do it. the first thing you mentioned was very important. the work does pile up. we are 24/7 with all the technology. this is nothing new. you've heard this before. but what really matters here is people don't look at the qualitative side of the quinn. thecoin. they look at the pile piling up. but if they can come back with a fresh perspective they're going to pile through that pile. >> and too a lot of us are taking shorter vacations or whenever we do take vacations, most of us, the majority of
those who work with e-mail at our jobs are using e-mail while on vacation. we're also--the problem has gotten worse. if you look at the numbers back in 1970 80% of workers took an annual week long vacation. since that the numbers have declined that. the bigger issue is the united states and it's policy. they're the only industrialize country who does not have mandatory vacation. france gives 30 days. you know, there are only 13 countries in the world who don't have mandated vacation. why is this all about the american work ethic? >> not entirely. substantially there is a macho culture here in the united states. i don't mean that in the sexist male-female. i've seen men and women who say, i don't need no vacation around here. i can get by without.
we have to realize in certain countries especially in central europe there are strong worker councils who look out for their people to the extent that maybe unions don't do here. that's not just bad americans but it's institutionalized in europe. there is this macho, i can get by, i can do it, and again it goes back to taking control. if i can show my boss i'm taking control by not taking vacation that feels right in the short run but it is not healthy in the long run. >> it's a pleasure to have you with us. thank you. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> consider this will be right back.
>> most of us have been duped by an online article from a fake news source. we've all gotten stories from friends that are not remotely true. if you're like me you may find that a mild annoyance. now facebook has decided to come to the rescue whether we need it or not. a new feature, a satire tag to let people know which articles are from fake news currents. facebook may save you from buying fooled but will that stop the fun of satire. the "washington post" was duped by a news siting that sarah palin was going to join al jazeera. and kim jong-un was chosen as
the world's sexist man. people are fooled by these fake news stories and urban legends. do we need facebook to save us? >> well, i was fooled by the sarah palin, and i needed a tag, no, dummy, this is not happening. but this feels like an engineer's view of the world where facebook is trying to sort out and categorize stuff that you'll be addicted to it, come back and it's seen through an engineer's mindset. that's who facebook employs. this is a helpful label, we need to make people understand that this is satire and in this world there would be a sign that points to me, commentary. this is super orderly thinking and that's what a lot of people feel is going to ruin the fun. >> on the other hand people do most these things on facebook and we're going through facebook
and we look at the headline. people end up believing that some of these things that aren't true, they go out and share them with other people and really believe them. it could conceivably lead to real issues when stories are substantive. >> that's absolutely right. it really is a reflection of how we're consuming media now. once an upon time people who owned the means of direction were the only people who would send the message out. now that it's this interactive stream and we're standing in a river with stories rolling past us all the time, i think the way people are beginning to share news in this viral way is hoping for--that creates--you become a pathogen when you put out something fake. you look at sites like mashible, they once issued a report that they are something like 80% of the people who were sharing the
headline in social media had not read the article. and many pulling the outlets are based on this idea. people would skim it quick and share it as fast as possible. you're right. fake information can get out there really fast if it looks just real enough. >> right, and as you're saying we're bombarded by so much of it who has time to check everything other than news organizations who should be checking these things. we see surveys and the most recent number that check facebook every day. that's a lot more than read a newspaper. is facebook giving us a public service by warning us what might be satire and what's not? >> i think if you look at it from a publisher like the an one, i think you can put yourself in their shoes. you mention it's a public
service. that's a really good point. when you talk about a media outlet that reaches 3 billion people. tiny stuff means a very great deal to an enterprise like that. they worry about load times on their pages. load times on their images. when they tweet so that images pop up faster they're getting millions more people tuning in and sticking with them than they would otherwise. so i think a little thing like this feels very, very big. >> one argument against all this is that it ruins the joke. if you tell people that it's satire in advance, it won't be funny. i don't get that, people have been enjoying satirical books and movies even though they knew it was satire in advance. and many will go and watch stephen col stephen colbert
knowing that it's funny. >> when you pre-categorize the form of expression it takes the edge off the knife. there is a quality to it. this is not a funny conversation that you and i are having. there is just something about it that trying to pre-categorize and mediate it for an audience has a very humorless quality to it. and it does in a way sap the vivaciousness and unpredictability that makes the web so addictive and amazing. >> it will save me from getting e-mails of the nonsensical things that i would happy for them to put that satire on there. >> that's right, that's right. >> good to see you. thank you very much for doing this for us. >> thank you for having yes. >> that's all for new but the conversation continues on our website at
www.aljazeera.com/consider this and our google plus pages and facebook and twitter and amora tv. we'll see you next time. kit killing of an unarmed african-american teenager. 18-year-old michael brown was gunned down by a white police officer. in the days that followed police responded to the demonstrations with massive force. %