Skip to main content

tv   Third Rail  Al Jazeera  February 21, 2016 5:30pm-6:01pm EST

5:30 pm
humanitarian crisis more on all the stories that we have been covering on the program on the website. the address on your screens right now tonight polls show a plurality that the americans agree with the libatarian point of view. should apple be forced to hack the iphone of a terrorist. my theory over supreme court justice antonin scalalia they thought they had a
5:31 pm
chance to capture the g.o.p., but it is donald trump who is wrecking the republican party establishment >> you are probably worse than jeb bush. >> when you point to his own record he screams liar liar liar. >> this is a man who insults everyone has the rise of trump' clipsd the movement whose movement may have come and gone? now is david bowes the executive price president and author of the liberatarian mind. good to you have you with us. you said the poll that show they're the largest political group right now in america sitting at 27%. let's suppose this poll is true. why aren't they candidates more successful especially in this current election cycle? >> that's a good question. you have to remember this is a poll that asks two questions. do you want the government to do more stuff and to promote
5:32 pm
traditional values and they're the ones who say no, keep governments smaller in both these areas. it is a very broad definition of libertarian. by that definition there are candidates who might appeal to some of those instincts, but, yes, it is frustrating with that kind of market available, remand paul didn't do-- rand paul didn't do as well. the media don't talk about them so voters who hold the views don't think of themselves as libertarian. they don't know the word and they're not looking for it amongst candidates the media may not speak about that word, but they talked about rand paul until a few weeks ago. do you think he suffered from a case of bush syndrome, they're tired of hearing the name paul. >> no. i don't think that's it. after all the bushes were
5:33 pm
president. rand paul was a congress man. i think two big things happened to rand paul. one was the rise of i.s.i.s., which made it much harder to talk about noninterventionism in foreign policy and the other was the rise of donald trump who just sucked all the air out of a serious policy debate and also picked up a lot of the anti establishment vote that might otherwise have gone to an libertarian leading candidate i was in a rally in south carolina a couple of days ago and people were expressing ideals that did mirror some sort of liberatarianism. who should voters choose in this election? >> i work in a think tank and we don't endorse candidates but i'm happy to not to have to endorse a candidate because i don't find them attractive. there are republican voters and some democrats who think government is too big and
5:34 pm
powerful and too intrusive. they want taxes lower, they want the government out of their cell phones, like rand paul used to say. if you look at the candidates it is hard to find one who shares those views what about ted cruz. in south carolina almost every single one of the supporters that i spoke to just a couple of days ago said they were backing him because they thought he would be true to the constitution which was a term i heard over and over again. would he be the best choice for an libertarian voter? >> yes, there may well be. he talks a good line about economics, about constitutional issues. let's remember his view of the constitution is that it allows states to discriminate in handing out manner licences. he is most upset right now about the fact that gay people can now get married. that's not a very libertarian
5:35 pm
attitude. are neither is his threat to carpet bomb the middle east where are the voters getting it wrong, then? if they believe their constitutionalists yet they're supporting ted cruz. do we have some uneducated electorate right now? >> we're all uneducated and all be that as it may boozel-- bam boozled. he talks about the government and there is a limit for that in the u.s. i think his actual way of applying it is not as libertarian as it ought to be. i understand why voters listening to a ted cruz speech and they like it people are also listening to donald trump right now. i know you were involved in a cover story. donald trump was are compared to
5:36 pm
mosul eni. what point were you trying to make here? >> i think that the editor summed it up in their editorial stating he is a philosophically unmoored opportunist with man tendencys. yes. his whole plot kal message is "put me in power and i will fix everything", and that is reminiscent of a strong man, even a dictator. what i think voters are hearing is that the politicians are stupid, i'm not a politician, i'm a businessman. i know how to get things done. put me in there and i will kick outlet politicians and i will fix the problems. i get why that message appeals to people who are fed up with politicians. i just think that i want to hear what his policies are. you say you're going to fix the problem. he said he would on a tariff on
5:37 pm
imported goods. that's not going to solve any problems is that dangerous, all the support he has right now and your assertion that he is an meglomaniac, and we don't know where he stands on these issues? is that dangerous? >> yes what makes it dangerous? >> we have short of leading in one party, a socialist leading in another party a nationalist protectionist who says i will save you. it is a big problem you recently wrote bernie sanders wants a system where the government would run the entire economy and society. after all of these years in washington, is bernie sanders really a socialist? >> that's a good question. what does socialism mean. to a lot of people my age, we drew up think socialism is the soef yat union-- soviet union. there are people who call themselves democratic socialists
5:38 pm
and they say they want the government to own the means of production and share everything equally. then there are people like those who run the scandanavian countries who want a lot of free stuff for people, health care education and that sort of thing. that's what bernie sanders is offering. if you look at his proposals, the criticism is not that they're pure socialism, is that they're completely unaffordable. he says he will make what you want free and somebody else will pay for it. that's what happened in greece i want to turn to the supreme court. picking a new justice is too important to be left to a lame duck president it was said. do you agree with that? >> i think it is a matter of politics. the constitution says the president shall nominate and with the advice and consent of
5:39 pm
senate shall appoint. if the senate chooses not to consent to this president's nomination, that's their constitutional power. if they choose not to consent until they present a nominee that they think belongs on the supreme court and if that takes all year, that is within constitutional bounds. what we're talking about here ask politics. democrats understandably want a democratic justice appointed now. republicans would rather take their chances on a justice with a different view of the constitution next year, and it will play out in the political realm. both parties are within their constitutional power, the president to nominate, the senate to consider it for more than a year if they choose isn't the republican stance on blocking donald trump's nomination another example of a bloated political battle ride now something that the institute rallied against in the early
5:40 pm
2000s? >> no. absolutely not. a large government means the government taking our money, running our lives, giving us orders. when congress is grid locked that means fewer laws, fewer mandates and prohibitions. it doesn't matter to me if they're grid locked or appoint people to the supreme court. i would like to see a good libertarian justice appointed and the senate vote for him. but it will probably not happen. if the senate dhooss not to accept-- chooses not to accept his nominee, it won't be the first and it won't be the last time you speak for the largest political group of americans right now who don't have a voice in this current cycle. thank you very much for your time >> thank you our panel is coming up next. >> i am wondering if i am ceo of appear emand there is another
5:41 pm
domestic terrorist and we find out that the information on that terrorist's telephone could have saved hundreds of lives, how do you look in the camera to the american public and say your rights are violated.
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
welcome back to third rail. the republican primary has been impacted by a donald trump lawsuit challenging ted cruz's eligibility to run for president. he was born in canada but considered a natural born citizen, but should america's top office be restricted to people who are not born here? >> donald trump is ready to sue
5:44 pm
top rival ted cruz. >> he doesn't have the right to serve as president or even run as president. he was born in canada >> as you know, if you're over 40 you grew up learning that if you were not born in this country you cannot be president. >> they don't want someone who might have an allegiance to the country. >> can we have a clause that excludes some of our most talented americans we have a lawyer author and president and ceo of bernard city for women, a co-director of the liberty and national security program at the ny of u and the president and ceo of the vonn agency. let's set aside this talk about these natural born citizens and talk about people like andrew carnegie, all of these were foreign born citizens,
5:45 pm
influential americans. why shouldn't a foreign born citizen be eligible to be president >> here is what i think is interesting. what is good for the goose is good for the gander and one of the arguments against any of these amazing people, even albert einstein, for example, who was not born in the u.s., if we go back and look at the analysis that republicans give us, which we should look at the plain meaning of the constitution, natural born citizen does not mean foreign born citizen. it doesn't mean how bright or smart you are >> there is one question which the constitution says which is very clear. i don't interpret natural born narrowly as you do >> >> it is not mine. >> pretty much the vast majority of legal circulars who have-- sko lars who have looked at this-- scholars who have looked at this, they would be allowed
5:46 pm
to run as president, but is that rule right. does that rule make sense in the 21 st century. i think we should think about it because it is, after all, a country of immigrants and it is a country where we do have increasing interactions with the rest of the world. a friend said he adopted his daughter from china when she was two years old. he told her you can be anything but not president. why should that be the case? ted cruz moved here at about four. he is as american you can get. he doesn't remember being 2 and living in canada. >> there is a rule. it is a good line. it says what it says. i think that we need to make sure that people who are governing their citizens understand how it is, what it is to live as an american, have love for the country and are true patriots.
5:47 pm
people who are naturalized and become citizens you need some new americans and they are the one with american flag. >> my parents are immigrants. they came to the u.s. in the 1960s. they love this country. they are patriotic. i do not doubt senator ted cruz's allegiance to the u.s. is he going to use his philosophical beliefs in terms of how we interpret the constitution in the way when they benefit him and another way when they don't benefit him. the senator wants to propose an amendment that would eliminate the term natural born citizen from the constitution what do you make of that? >> i don't agree with you. i don't believe the term clearly means somebody who is born on the soil of the u.s. that has never been an accepted
5:48 pm
interpretation of that term >> it hasn't been litigated can you imagine if in actually is filed as a lawsuit >> do we want to have a lawsuit filed when you've just elected a president who is not able to serve that's a can of worms. let's move on. appear emis fighting a court order to give the government access to the iphone of one of the san bernardino shooters. apple says that would set a dangerous precedent >> reporter: the department of justice has filed a motion now forcing apple to help the f.b.i. hack into a terrorist's phone. >> this is bordering on un-american and unpatriotic. >> we will have the blood of dead americans on our hands is apple putting lives at
5:49 pm
risk by not providing access to this phone? >> everybody talks about this as if this phone is the magic silver bullet and all the information about the san bernardino shooter is on this actual device. the reality is we leave digital bred crumbs all the time. we know from the newspaper stories that that iphone was backed up to the cloud until fairly recently before the attack and the government mass access to all of that data there are missing moments within the timeline that investigator s are have said that they haven't been able to fill in the blanks. if i pulled out my phone t would show me all the places i have been >> unless you deleted it yes. we don't know in this case. doesn't apple have some sort of a responsibility to public safety here? >> i think public safety means a lot of different things. there is one piece of public safety which says perhaps this iphone has some information that might help the f.b.i. figure out
5:50 pm
what happened three months ago in san bernardino and that is an important piece of public safety. the other part of the public safety is ensuring the security of the internet which all - hundreds of millions of americans use as do people all around the world. the argument here is that when you breach security in one instance, you actually allow for breaches in every instance. >> if you take a look at the open letter that the ceo of apple wrote to the american public to understand - to explain their stance, and i say this with the caveat being i believe national security outweighs the right to privacy in this case. however, after you read the letter and you understand that apple has turned over - appear emstates they have turned over everything that they can to the f.b.i., that they have ofrtd help of their engineers to help the f.b.i. figure out how to get into this telephone and that appear emis not just being asked
5:51 pm
to hand over information, but they're being asked to create a new computer program that will allow the government to get into this telephone. i think there is a very good argument to be made by apple that the reason people buy the apple telephone is because of security and once apple creates this back door, if anyone is able to get in through that back door, why buy an apple telephone. >> if people want to do harm to this country are going to use encryption whether they use an iphone or not. they're not relying on apple's default encryption. there are lots of tools out there. you are going to use them. two things you've really got to keep in mind is that the f.b.i. tried to get legislation for a back door. they have been trying to do this for at least the last two years. the administration and congress
5:52 pm
listened to every tech person on the planet who says if you build a back door for the f.b.i., you build one for everybody. they listened to americans saying they didn't want these and didn't want insecure inter nets >> if i'm the ceo of apple and there is another domestic spate of terrorism like we saw in san bernardino and we ultimately find out that the information on that terrorist's telephone could have saved hundreds of lives, how do you look in the camera so the american public and say you could have found out we don't know what's on that phone >> you cannot-- >> there was intelligence saying that things were planned, but what's speculative is to say that being able to get into the phone would have prevented an attack because the fact is if
5:53 pm
you were looking at a particular phone, you had already identified the individual who you were suspecting. you had your eyes on that person. >> they got the judge to agree with apple should work with f.b.i. to get done. we're not speculating on terrorism. it is happening every day and everywhere and it has happened on our soil in three different places >> terrorism is a serious threat and we need to take serious action, but what we shouldn't do in responding to one threat is to create a whole sket of other-- set of other threats over here. that's what we're doing. because what we have seep so far is encryption has not prevented law enforcement from detecting imminent or to be terrorist plot. there is no evidence that it is encryption that has stopped the f.b.i. from knowing about the san bernardino plot. that's not what was the problem. these people were not on their radar. within there minutes of being an
5:54 pm
attack, there are people who have a vested interest who get rid of encryption who say that encryption was the problem. we need to have the facts to see whether it is a problem before we start saying let's make everybody's internet unsafe >> i don't think that's what the judge said. the judge asked apple to cooperate with the f.b.i. >> they have offered their engineers to get the f.b.i. to get the information without being a computer program this is a pr disaster for apple right now. people are wraig in on this-- weighing on this and talking about it all on social media. >> they're not a marketing firm >> it is a start or the most genius pr move thank you. i thank my guests. straight ahead from 9/11 to the
5:55 pm
jfk assassination, conspiracy theories have always appealed to a certain segment of the american population, but that should not include a leading candidate for the highest office in the land. my final thought it next. >> what do we want? >> al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today the will be arrested. >> ground-breaking... >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning, investigative series.
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
before we go i want to leave
5:58 pm
you with this final thought. the sudden death of the supreme court justice this week shook the legal commune. the court he served for 30 years and the movement that he championed. it shook some of america's leading conspiracy theoryists. donald trump former leader of the obama wasn't born in america. he told right wing radio quote alex jones: maybe trump was channelling a scene from francis's god father two but he wasn't telling the truth because the owner of that luxury ranch where he died told reporters that when he was found. conspiracy theoryists like alex
5:59 pm
jones that they killed scalia, they're the worms of body politics. they feast on accusations that only appeal to a paranoid fringe. all it takes now is a keyboard and a bizarre dream for anyone to find these. the case in point are the awful people who hide behind a computer scene and claim that the sandy hook massacre was staged, a twisted effort to push gun control laws. these truthers not only revictimize the victims, but they also fuel mistrust of the government and society, especially at a time when we don't need any more of that. regarding this trumped up controversy, the justice own son said this week that our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes and we ask others to accept that and pray for him. accepting the truth for what it is rather than blowing it up with self-serving lies, that
6:00 pm
would be really third rail. announcer: this is al jazeera. hello, welcome to the newshour here with the world news from doha. coming up in the next 60 minutes, bombings kill more than 120 in hamas and homs as the u.s. claims process on a potential ceasefire voting to prolong his stay in power, the bid by bolivia's president to run for a fourth term. thousands of troops are sent in to calm protests of


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on