tv Consider This Al Jazeera November 20, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
welcome to al jazeera america, i'm john siegenthaler, here are the top stories. senators are debating how to handle cases of sexual assault in the military. kirsten gilla brand is pushing for legislation to take it outside the military chain of command. others are fighting to keep them in the process. >> there's an agreement about troops in afghanistan, allowing them to stay behind after 2014. the deal with afghan president hamid karzai calls for soldiers to assist in training, but not take on combat roles. the u.s. and other world powers are in geneva discussing the nuclear program.
both sides say an agreement on limiting nuclear capability in exchange for easing sanctions it possible. >> former president bill clinton is one of 16 given the medal of freedom. others include loreta lynn, ernie banks and television legend oprah winn free. the award was created by john f kennedy. "consider this" is next. i'll be back later. and you can get the latest on aljazeera.com.
>> al qaeda in kentucky. explosive details of bomb makers that made their way to the u.s. consider this - how could the american government let them resettle in america? and paul ryan predict an end to the theatrical budget. will they produce one? >> a rod storms out of an appeals hearing. was it a stunt? welcome to "consider this". we begin with an f.b.i. investigation into the possibility reported by a.b.c. news that several dozen iraqi or african bomb -- iraqi or afghanistan bomb makers could be living in the u.s. f.b.i. agents are working through a warehouse stacked with remains of 100,000. >> -- 100,000.
>> eds that could connect the bomb makers with homes in the u.s. it was sparked by the 2009 arrests and convictions of two men living in bowling green, both admitting they had attacked u.s. soldiers as members of al-qaeda and pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism as they shipped various arms to iraqi inurge ents. they vi have been a threat to the homeland, caught on tape about plans to assassinate an army captain that fought in iraq. one said, and i quote, "many things should take place, it should be huge." >> i'm joined by tim clemente, a former f.b.i. agent who vetted the u.s. african embassies and
uss "coal" bombings and served three tours in iraq as an i.e.d. investigator. two al qaeda bombers admitted to the country as refugees - is it a surprise they could get in? >> it's not a surprise. to have the lee way of people seeking refugee status means there's openings for someone to lie, cheat and steel their way in. they were not properly vetted. apparently there was an arrest or something in 2005/2006 after conducting an attack. there should have been biometrics in the system. i don't know how they got through the hole. i'm grateful the f.b.i. did the job they did to find prints on i.e.d.s and link them to the bombs. >> how did it happen, given there did seem to be notification about at least one
of them - with fingerprints in the system. >> you know, someone has to look in the right place at the right way. it's possible fingerprints taken at the time may not have been the full prints. we in the f.b.i. do major case prints. we print all the fingertips, bottom parts of the finger, the palm, the thumb. every part of the hand with a print - we keep that in the database. when incarcerated in iraq in 2006, they may have had partial prints and it may not have led to leading to this i.e.d. part, it may not have been the same partial print. i don't know as far as the database that homeland security was using. i don't know to what extent they researched the backgrounds. it may have been they plead their case, said they were refugees, coming from a village
or clan. >> the first suspect, waad ramadan alwan was admitted to the u.s. after he claimed he faced persecution at home. after the f.b.i. found out he confessed on video to being an insurgent it started the investigation that tied fingerprints to a remote controlled bomb trigger, used in a 2005 attack that killed four americans. it seems like a tough investigation, if not a needle in a haystack. >>. >> literally a needle in a haystack. when i was in iraq in 2004 - i spent four months there - i was doing post-blast investigations. we go to the scene of a bombing, an i.e.d. attack, we scour the scene for make, type, design and signature of the bomb make e.
there was combined explosive sell, sexy, and they were bringing the pieces together, cataloguing them, looking for physical evidence that may be attached to them, including fingerprints, dna and otherwise. that's been catalogued in a 100,000 device warehouse. outside washington is where the repository is held. it's where the devices are. they go back in to look for additional evidence. they had a fingerprint, went back to the period in time, to the physical locations and proximity and linked a fingerprint to this. >> it has to be a massive investigation. why weren't these guys arrested. why did the f.b.i. leave them out there. they had gotten the video tape tying them together a year into the investigation. why not arrest them, instead of having al-qaeda bombers on the
loose in the united states. >> sometimes it's better to have them on a leash and tight surveillance. it enables us to continue the investigation to watch them and figure out who the support mechanisms are, who they are dealing with. the greater threat is not the individuals. once identified and once there's enough physical odamning evidence in the form of confessions or bragging on video tape - once we it have that, we have enough to practices cute them. there can be dozens out there. there may be. we want to find them and use the individuals to lead us in that direction. >> talking about that, according to the a.b.c. story, the f.b.i. is looking for several dozen expectant members. mike mccaul said:
on the other hand, realistically if there were many here, and they'd been here for years, why haven't they launched an attack. >> if you look back, look at the group that did the 9/11 attacks. the initial attack was planned for better than five years, multiple runs on the aircraft. they flew 19-20 times on the same flights to develop patterns and see what kind of personnel were on board, what the security apparatus was. a lot of attacks - every attack is proceeded by what is called preattack surveillance. that may be looking at the target or doing a great deal of reporting on what they are doing and finding patterns that you can then use to infiltrate and do an attack. the individuals that may be hiding may be doing that. it's not that they are sleeping, they may be in the preattack
planning stages. it could be a period of weeks or years. >> after the case broke, the state department stopped admitting iraqi refugees for six months. we have been following the cases of afghan and iraqi translators and others that help the united states in the war effort. it's understandable to have stiff requirements to figure out who the people are that are trying to come to the united states, at the same time don't we need to also make an effort to make sure people who helped us and may be facing persecution can come to the united states. >> i'm a believer in the special immigrant visa program, bringing the individuals who act as translator will supply support. those people literally risked their lives every minute of every day to help us. what they have done is saved american lives and the lives of coalition forces working alongside us. by doing that they deserved the
opportunity to come and live a better life. individuals like this take away the spot for a deserving refugee. one guy was unemployed, living in public housing. he was literally sapping the system for everything he could get, while he's providing support to al qaeda in iraq. doesn't get more despicable than that. the exact opposite of deserving refugees of those coming here seeking the american dream, helping to build a greater america. >> great to have you with us, tim clemente. >> thank you. >> switching topics to the plight of a russian political prisoner we have been following. a week ago i spoke with pyotr verzilov, the husband of nadya tolokonnikova. she's one of two members. pussy riot punk group serving two years in russian prisons for a protest against vladimir putin in moscow sth cathedral of
christ the saviour. when i spoke with pyotr verzilov he had just located his wife when she had been missing for two or three weeks. pyotr verzilov had a chance to speak to nadya tolokonnikova via video. thank you for joining us. i know that nadya tolokonnikova disappeared after going on a hunger strike to protest horrible conditions at the prison where she was. you had to travel to siberia to find her. when did you speak to her and how is she doing? >> basically she disappeared for 26 days, the amount of time for her to go from central russia to siberia. given the great attention to nadya tolokonnikova's case domestically and internationally, this super long transfer was the only way the government could somehow put
isolation on her case and, well, not allow her lawyers and family to keep constant communication. i did speak with her, and yesterday we had a 3-hour meeting in person inside the prison hospital facility in the downtown of capital regional city in eastern siberia. i found out that she feels okay, she's in good condition, and is satisfied by the conditions of her hospital, her prison hospital, which are really different than what we saw months ago >> that's great. i didn't realise you got to see her she's in a tuberculosis hospital. why is she there? >> this is the old name for the facility, she's not in the tb
department and it does not treat only tb patients. nadya tolokonnikova does not have a specific sickness. she has a lot of small complications dating back to the first hunger strike and the period before her arrest. obviously all these conditions worsened in the situation of one and a half years spent in prison. now she's in a facility which has the ability and desire to treat all the medical problems. this is what she's undergoing >> how long has it been since you have been with her in person? >> basically 10 hours. 10 hours ago. >> before you saw her, what was the last time you had seen her before then? >> before then, we did not see each other for two months.
we had a month of incommune cardo when a legal team did not have access and we could not speak or realise where she is. i had a date with her at the end of september. >> how much longer will she be in prison. march is when the sentence should end. are you concerned about her being in siberia during the winter. >> well, obviously our pain concern is the quality of the facility she's in and the treatment of the personnel towards nadya tolokonnikova. so far it's okay. the russian prison authority has the desire to end the huge internation international scandal by placing her in conditions which were better. this is what they did, and so far we are satisfied with the conditions and with the facility and we hope this will be the
situation until nadya tolokonnikova is free in 2014. >> it's eastern siberia, a long way from where you live. will you be able to see her at all until she gets out of prison. >> it's a four hour flight from moscow. this is the regional city. obviously there is a chance to fly down from time to time, and for various legal procedures that have to be done, me and the team will be visiting this regional city from time to time. >> things sound better than last week. i'm glad for you and nadya tolokonnikova, and your daughter, knowing that things are better and we wish you the best. please keep us posted on how things go. we'll stay on top of the story. >> coming up - paul ryan says there's no chance of another government shutdown. with no deal in place and time
>> remember the dark days of the government shutdown and the historic agreement that prevented a debt ceiling crisis? the fiscal dealings were not postponed. they continue. paul ryan says there'll not be another shutdown. >> whether or not we come to an agreement or we have a continuing resolution that keeps going, we will not have a government shutdown. i do not believe you'll have the kind of theatrics surrounding
that as well. >> joining me to talk about the budget dead linings is stan collender, a partier at qorvis communications, who consults for al jazeera america, he is founder of a block "capital gains and game." great to have you here. the patty that paul ryan referred to is patty murray, his counterpart informant senate, negotiating for the democrats. all reports are that positions have not changed. patty murray and the democrats are insisting on more revenue, taxes and no entitle reform, and ryan and the republicans are pushing for no new taxes and entitlement reforms. are they closer to a deal? >> no. the answer is very, very simply no. if they were, they wouldn't announce it three weeks before the deadline. washington is a place where nothing happens before it has to. on top of that someone like paul ryan can't get out in front of the discussions. if he negotiates too early and
looks like he's compromising too early, he'll be accused by members of his party as capitulating, cooperating with the enemy. if there's a deal, it will go down to the last minute. >> do you think - do you agree that at this point the conditions are such that there'll not be a government shutdown in january. >> i realise he's chairman of the budget committee. i'm not sure that we won't have another shutdown. i urge everyone - i tell my client don't dismiss the possibility because there was political damage before. it doesn't mean it won't be tried again. if some members, like a marco rubio or ted cruz isn't the best time to go after it january, when the president's popularity will be low, when the approval ratings will be low. why not get rid of it at this
moment. i think there's a 33% chance of a shutdown. it could go up higher as we get closer to the january deadline. >> congressman ryan gave a concise answer as to why he doesn't think there'll be a re-run. >> why do you think it it will be different this time, within your own conference, because the speaker didn't want the crisis that happened last time, and correct me if i'm wrong i don't think that you did. >> that's correct. >> yet you couldn't control your own members. how can you prevent it happening again? >> obamacare is here now. >> in the end that's the big answer. it seems that politics are moving in favour of the republicans, so why create a situation where you end up getting the american puck lick on the democrats side again. >> remember the fact that obamacare is here, and it was in
october when it started, when there was the other shutdown. it plays both ways. some of the more mainstream republica republicans, the non-tea party - they say let's not change the story, let's keep it on obamacare. the anti-obamacare say, "this is the best time to kill or delay it." there are a lot of people, because it's here as paul ryan said, not happy. use the continuing resolution of the debt ceiling to force the issue now before the website works and people realise they are getting benefits. before the situation becomes worse from a political perspective. the other thing i need to remind you is your question is based on a reality, rationality. this is not a rational debate. it wasn't when the government shut down and may not be when there's a shutdown in january. it's political and emotional and
not rational. >> do the republicans, aside from obamacare have the upper hand. we heard the death and destruction predicted on the sequester, drak ownian cuts that kicked in. some are vulnerable. the enormous majority of americans haven't felt the consequences. if republicans say, as paul ryan said, the spending cuts and the physical discipline - we may stick to that, it's not that bad. we'll keep the levels and we have seen the levels falling. >> the next sequester is different. if current spending stays in place it will be a $20 billion cut in defense and domestic spending. $20 billion cut in defense, the defense department says it will be difficult and devastating.
we have the chairman of the aappropriations committee saying don't do it, and the public chairman of the house on services committee saying it's terrible. the republicans support military spending. i'm not sure that it will be as easy for them as paul ryan indicated. i believe he's right in the sense that the default is it let the sequester happen. we don't have to agree to higher taxes or revenues. we'll get spending cuts if we don't to anything. republicans show they are willing to throw the democrats under the bus. i'm not sure it's as easy for the republicans as ryan is saying or as hard for democrats as he's indicating. a lot will be hoping the sequester never happened. that's if patty murray and paul ryan can come up with a deal, a small deal substituting for the
sequester. >> here we are years away from the last budget. stan collender, appreciate you joining us to talk about this. >> speaking of long simmering disputes a fight over judicial nominees may be ugly. democrats are thinking of using the nuclear option, changing the rules to stop fila busters. for more on this i'm joined by bill schneider. a contributor for al jazeera english and jim warren, joining us from washington d.c. >> is palmresident obama treate differently to any other president. we saw senate democrats using phil busters to stop george
bush's nominees, and delaying by years confirmations by others. >> it is a difference. he is being treated in a different way. the republicans virtually every day that they are here, and they are not here all that many days given the meagre workload of the united states congress, seem to be bent on blocking president barack obama at virtually every turn. here on an issue most constituent don't know about and if they knew wouldn't care. it's a simply politics, trying to block barack obama. it's not to say the republicans are laying down and being a rubber-stamp. what played out is the opposite. as an example, during the term of gw bush, he had six nominees to the same important court. four got through with considerable democratic support.
barack obama had five nominees to the court, and four up to this point have been blocked. >> that happened after there was a major deal between democrats and republicans and after substantial phil busters. it wasn't as if the democrats laid down. there were a lot of negotiations that got them there. back then things were just as bad as they were now because talk of the nuclear option. in fact, the nuclear option was a popular term in 2005 when a majority leader threatened to change the rules in the senate not allowing phil busters to have president obama's nominees get through. >> it was narrowly averted by a deal talked about. they made a deal there could be phil busters in extraordinary circumstances - when a judge - there were questions about qualifications, or their views may be extreme. >> republicans are saying everything is extraordinary.
every nominee that barack obama hands down is extraordinary because he named them. barack obama is on the ropes. republicans are taking advantage. if they are nominated though everything, we'll block it, not since obamacare became an issue. >> there was a warning of a backlash if the democrats used the nuclear option. he called on senators to stop a stampede they may regret. let's listen to that. >> if the democrats proceed to use the nuclear option it will be obamacare ii the raw exercise of political power to say we can do what we want to do. >> jim, would there be a downside if the democrats pulled the trigger on the nuclear option. >> it's hard to predict how an election will go. will the republicans regain
control of the senate - i don't necessarily think so. then, two years after that, 2016, a presidential year, by any at the republicans will have time to regain control of the southboundate or keep it because of 34 seats up in 2016. an unusual majority. 24 of those will be republican seats. and a fair number in states that obama did well in the last two elections. the use of the terms, hyperbollic term nuclear, and what are we talking about here. we are talking about a majority of 51, winning out on major matters - the sacred number which, you know, whether it's a town council or the county board or the city council of chicago, it's sort of... >> it's washington tradition. it goes back to the days of
mr smith goes to washington. it's something that people care about. let's talk about the court, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. second only to the supreme court because it rules on all sorts of federal regulations and agencies. it looks at important issues of government. chuck grassley wants to slash the seats that obama's nominees would fill. right now the political make up is half and half. >> there are 11 full-time positions and three availablingan sis for four of the eight folks, for democrat and republican. this assumes that they are all driven by ideology in making decisions on the law. the republican argument forgets the fact that there's something like five or six so-called senior judges, part-time judges coming from the judicial ball pen to decide case, the majority
of those in this case happen to be republican judges. grassly makes the wonderful argument, i think highly dubious that you need not fill the availablingan sis because there's not enough work. it's less than an empierical assessment. i would argue, the skeptical journalist i am, hypocritical for a bunch of guys who don't suffer from exhaustion given their duties. >> their level of productions. >> i'm not sure about what the work situation is at al jazeera, but i know at the new york "daily news" i won't have the next two weeks off as will be the case for the u.s. senate and the house of representatives. >> why do we have serious political infighting over these issues. judges should be impartial.
why are politics an issue. >> politics is an issue in everything these days, because the division between the parties is more intense. what is going on is sheer partisan malas on the part of republicans in blacking president obama's nominees and democrats in attempting to change the rules. what is causing the democrats to hesitate to get rid of the filibuster is that they are worried that son the republicans will have a majority in the senate. they believe if they are the minority they'll - chuck grassly warned the saying there's for scolea or thomas that we would like to put on the court. neither were stopped by a
filibuster. >> if there's the majority in the senate democrats want to block. the republicans will do what the democrats threaten to do. they'll change the rules saying they'll have a majority vote for judicial nominations. they will do it easily and pack the court with their nominees, assuming the president is acquired by a republican. >> and people wonder why mernals are fed up with congress. president obama voted against the nomination of john roberts as chief justice. they play the game. bill, jim, great to have you guys. time to see what is trending on the website. let's check in with harmeli aregawi. >> today's digital stories. in a quest for justice "anonymous" took on moroccan authorities over a kissing case. three teens from a north-eastern city were arrested for violating
public decensies after posting a photo of two kissing. the third took the photo. they have spent six days in juvenile detention and face two years in prison. "anonymous" launched a protest asking people to tweet to the moroccan account, demanding they stop tweeting. leon did tweeting: >> i agree with the view irs. straight ahead - why is congress struggling to overhaul the treatment of sexual all the in the military. did the tragic death of a college basketball star close to 30 years ago have a major impact on america's drug policy? the
sexual assault according to the pentagon. what can we do to protect them and ensure victims are given justice they are deserve. two proposals are coming to the senate. one from kirsten gillibrand, and one from claire mccaskill. both have bipart stan support, but not enough to beat a filibuster. >> amy iering, the producer of "the invisible war" joins u and from san francisco, ceristine pelosi. the chair. women's party. >> why is it divisive to remove the charges from the military and put in an independent arena? >> the conduct of the rapist - let's me clear where the
decision is coming from. people are committing crimes, we have to do something about it. kirsten gillibrand's amendment is the one that would put merc on a par with allies, including great britain, australia and israel saying for felony crimes and nonmilitary, put it in the hands of what we americans would consider to be a police department's internal affairs bureau and let the commanders continue the good for discipline, knowing that the crime will be prosecuted by specialists in the field of sexual assault. >> on the other hand claire mccaskill's plan gives the decision to prosecute within the chain of command but adds a review board. is that enough? >> no, it's not. we had a system in place for 40 years. crimes are adjudicated by the commanding officers. it failed. we have 49 rapes a day and 0 to 1 prosecution, if that.
usually 0. anything that keeps this system in place and expects oversight to keep the commanders in line, it's not going to work. that's not enough. we need to have service members have access to the same system of impartial justice that we citizens enjoy. >> let's listen to senator jack reed who opposes kirsten gillibrand's amendment. >> i believe commanders must be involved and be responsible and sub-ord nants recognise this responsibility and their authority. to remove this from their responsibilities will weaken his or her affectiveness in any dimension. >> what about that the argument that it defeats the military hierarchy? >> it didn't happen for the
allies. i've been a sexual assault prosecutor. i understand that it's a delicate, distinct body. a trigger warning - we are talking about rape. forced oral copulation, sod omy, horrific crimes going to the violation of men and women. they are not crimes of sex. they are crimes of power and have to be prosecuted diligently. commanders are not equipped with the training to do that. dick cheney promised us it would be different after tail hook and amy's award-winning documentary. it isn't different. if the threat of regulation was going to make a change, then they would be prosecuting one of the 49 sexual aassaults a day. they'd prosecute all 49. but they are not. the commanders had their chance. they have not led, and that responsibility needs to go to
extra prosecutors within the military who can get the job done and get justice by people they looked upon as family. >> i know you don't agree often with senator ted cruz but he supported the kirsten gillibrand bill. >> the decision to bring a prosecution to a crime like sexual assault should be made by an impartial prosecutor. not a commanding officer of maybe the victim and perpetrator of the crime. >> pointing out what is clearly a conflict of interest. >> there are too many biosis in the system. the commanders cannot be impartial adjudicators, that's why it needs to be taken outside. that's right. to amlify what christine said, when she talked about - sorry, i
lost my train of thought. >> don't worry about it. we have two democrats usually on the same side of everything, who are friendly with each other, but they are butting heads over an issue that has bipart stan support. the democrat connected to your mum who is powerful in washington - why is there a political battle over this? >> i don't think it's a political battle, i think it's generational. when you consider the appeal of don't ask, don't tell, people thought they couldn't reform that because the commanders say it would change good order and dismin -- discipline. they did a survey in 2010. when you look at what what is done in the military, two-thirds of service members say they'd hesitate to report a sexual assault within their chain of
command. the service members agree in both instances and it's taking a while for the older folk to catch up. i think this is generational. the society has changed. after the catholic church, boy scouts. penn state. this, too, will change. i'll say this: both amendments, both the claire mccaskill and kirsten gillibrand will cause a social earthquake to happen in the united states military. change is coming. if there is a phil bustier and what we get tomorrow is merely the claire mccaskill amendment until we can pass a military justice improvement act. it will belt a radical change. no perpetrator staining the yup form should think that this is a political fight that will not change his flight. one way or the other we'll rid the military. >> most politicians agree change
is necessary. kirsten gillibrand's office has 53 votes. what do you think will happen? >> i can't predict the future. we are trying to get everyone on board. i hope this passes and legislators see it. i'm less optimistic. we have energy and attention. i think the moment is now to take the action. it's 40 years of status quo and it's not working. people are suffering. i did remember my train of thought. what we have found - and i talk to commandsers. they feel like the command will be strengthened and enhanced. senator kirsten gillibrand's bill allows for 37 crimes to do with mission control or readiy innocence. soldier's preparedness that a commander needs them to do. the commander is freed from the distractions of crimes that they don't have the training, don't have the ability to properly
adjudicate. i have talked to countless generals and unit commanders saying please, take this away from us, we don't have the right tools to prosecute the crimes. it makes our commanding more efficient and effective if we are not distracted. i wanted to count what senator reed was saying. it's been disproven by countless people that i have spoken with. >> zir amy iering and cristine pelosi, thank you for joining us. >> next up a lack of sleep can cause problems. >> and alex rodriguez storms out of his grievance hearing. is there more to the suspended star's move than you think?
today's data dive takes a nap has this has been a busy month for sleep news. the faa announced it will screen obese pilots for sleepapnoea. anyone with a body mass index of more than 40 will need to get a sleep specialist before getting a medical certificate to work. lack of sleep can have an affect similar to drinking. fat eeg was a factor in a crash. other research found that sleep helps the brain get rid of
harmful toxins. a study shows that rest helps the flow of a fluid in the brain that washes away harmful waste proteins that build up. getting enough sleep can cut the risk of alzheimer's. >> also trouble - late bedtimes for kids. berkley researchers studied students ranging in age from 7 to 12. 30% of the kids had bedtimes later than 11.30. they performed worse than those that went to bed earlier. they suffered from arrested development. the researchersed the took place were suffering from the impacts six years later. earlier bedtimes were great for younger kids. kids aged seven and younger with a consistent bedtime have fewer behavioural issues than ones who went to bet at different times. their behaviour worsened if
arbitration hearing on wednesday, learning major league baseball commissioner bud selig would not testify releasing a statement saying: dave is an al jazeera contributor and a sports reporter, dave zirin, the author of "game over", i suspect i know the answer to the first question. do you think alex rodriguez and his defense planned this? >> honestly, i think it was a combination of the two. i think there was a plan by alex rodriguez and his defense to figure out a way to scuttle the hearing and for alex rodriguez, it was a profound indignity to his ego. i don't want to stop anyone,
it's slightly larger than average. peter seligmann, did not show up and distress him. one of the things he said afterwards in his interview, and that's where he went. straight to the sports radio station, probably the only place where he's loved in new york city. that's mike frances's studio. he harped on that bud sellig was on selling bad mouthing him. >> this is what a-rod told wfan with the reaction on the street. >> people in the streets tell me, "i hate your guts, you're getting railroaded." >> do you think he's getting railed roaded.
>> i think it's amazing that alex rodriguez is someone that can live in a comcan of his own victimisation, and see himself as somebody with the world against him, and it could be a bunch of self-serving tact and can be completely true that bud selig is trying to rail road him. there's so many reasons that look like this is the case. bud selig is retiring next year. he was a commissioner where every major baseball club as come in for your steroid a go go hut. now that he's leaving, he does. this is - people said this all over baseball. he wants part of his legacy to be the person who cleaned up the
sport. there's no greater pelt in 2016 for bud to hang on his wall to show he's serious than alex rodriguez. >> the question is whether a-rod hurt his case by getting the arbitrator upset. >> basketball. this saturday would have been len bias's birthday before he decide from co-cane use that caused a heart irregularity. he was considered the most athletic player, including over michael jordan. >> you wrote a piece about the implications of his death and the war on drugs. you think it had a negative impact. it's seen as a givenment the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenses. the police department, the fact that the united states has gone from one million behind bars in 1992 to 2.5 behind bars in 2013,
the fact that the united states has more behind bars than anyone, and the fact that the statistics can be measured because of nonviolent drug arrests. the scene of it as a criminalisation issue came out of the 1980s. >> didn't his death, from what seemed to be a bad reaction to cocaine give a warning at least to kids that, you know, you can die from one time. >> there's no question about that. what do you do with the warning? in my school we had something that grew in schools around the country, which was known as the dare program. that was expanded greatly in something called the len bias law, which was pushed through after the death, of course, of len bias. using his death as a symbol. i remember being educated about
turning in my parents to the police if i saw anybody using drugs. so many things were brought out on the war on drugs. about seeing addiction in a certain way. there are people watching who agreeing that drug use and selling should be dealt with with harsh sentences. what a legacy it's left. you see republican and democratic senators trying to figure out a way to dial it down. the sheer cost of what it takes to imprison people on a year in, year out basis, and the disparities, and what we spend on gaols are so vast it hurts the united states ability to compet in the 21st century. len bias's death was a sim ball used to push through these lawyers. >> dave zirin, great to have you on, we'll have to leave it
there. the consider may be over, more on the website aljazeera.com/considerthis. >> good evening welcome to al jazeera america. i'm john siegenthaler in new york. going forward - washington's historic security agreement with afghanistan. what the long-term deal means for the mission and our troops. paying tribute - a solemn moment shared by two presidents who honoured j.f.k. and his legacy >> final dive - minutes underwater without taking a breath. inside the stream sport that ended in tragedy for an american. >> plus, "are we there yet?", the worst video but one players can't get enough of.