tv Consider This Al Jazeera November 26, 2013 9:00am-10:01am EST
administration and the iranian president. with the two countries not on the same page, what is a deal >> a supreme court decision obamacare. >> last time we saw watson it cleaned up on "jeopardy", what is the computer doing >> and pope. >> we begin with an historic accord with iran. is it a good deal? the u.s. says it's a first step to kur - to curtail iran's nuclear program. within hours of the deal the parties contradicted each other on a clean issue. >> there is no right to enrich. everywhere in the agreement it states they can only do that by mutural agreement and nothing is
agreed on until everything is agreed on. >> >> translation: it has been written clearly in the text of this agreement that iran will continue its enrichment and, therefore, i announce to the people of iran enrichment will before. >> joining me to make sense of the agreement are ambassador thomas pickering former u.s. ambassador to russia and israel and j matthew mcinnize a resident fellow from an american enterprise institute. they are both here. there's clear disagreement. us-u.n. resolution said enrichment was illegal bay iran. what is going on with this total contradiction between hassan rouhani and kerry? >> let me explain. kerry rightly says there's no right to enrich. it's not written in the agreement. the present arrangements which
is temporary for six months limits the production of enrichment so that there'll be no increase in stockpile. it allows the iranians to enrich as long as they convert the material to something that can't be further upgraded at the end of the 6-month period. we have to look at that carefully. that's essentially where we are. matthew. >> thank you. it's a matter that has made progress. my concern is that we have actually allowed a certain implicit agreement that enrichment will be part of a comprehensive deal and that is my biggest concern. the u.s. has not explicitly but implicitly shifted the bar for the end of the six months, if we get to that point.
you know the israelis agree with matthew. the prime minister said that iran has enough uranium for five bombs, whether that's true. most agree that it's close to being able to put a bomb together. >> quite the contrary. if i can interrupt you. first, the president agreement sets back the time at which it will take further to produce any fiscal material for a nuclear weapon. secondly, obviously, the first call material is not the weapon. to get a device ticks time. to get a bomb takes more time. to get a deliberate war head on a missile takes time. there's various estimates. the present arrangement gets rid of the material that is most easily upgraded by the iranians. the 20% enriched material.
>> it limits future enrichment to 5% under the deal. as i said is moment ago, it keeps the stockpile of low and enriched uranium below 5%, at the same level at the end as it goes in. >> why don't we start on the positive side. let's look at strengths of the deal. the most intrusive inspections, it stalls. the march towards nuclear capability with all the restrictions, and we are giving away small concessions on sanctions because it's really in the grand scheme of the sanction, it's really not that much that we are giving up. do you think it's a good deal? >> this was the final deal, it would not be a good deal. mr pickering said we are in an interim stage. my concern is we get the intruce i-in possessions which is a -- intrusive inspections by is a
good thing. there's nothing about the military aspects of the nuclear program, and the ability to visit the parcheen site north west of tehran, which is a major concern. that's part of the challenge, that there has been parallel activity ongoing that has been concerning the western powers for some time in addition to the enrichment that was spoken about. that's my concern that during the six-month deal they may be able to cap the 20% enrichment efforts and neutralize it to some degree. but there's no guarantee that that's the case, and also there may be parallel aspects of the program that we won't be able to check into. we are giving some degree of sanctions relief but my concern is there's a larger sanctions regime that has been put together. and releasing some of that is
hard to predict how that may turn out, and we may end up with a weaker regime that is hard to put back together. . >> i want to correct matthew. there's a look into the possible military dimensions which the left over questions of 2003, including the penalty of the visits to parcheen. it's not completely excluded. now, i want to - sorry, go ahead with your question. >> are you comfort that the a. >> a will be able to do the -- that the aia will be able to do the inspections it needs and the everything. >> i have confidence and they'll have daily inspections available of the
two big enrichment facilities, as well as for the first time opportunities to visit the plants assembling and doing rotor works o centrifuges. something new, important or useful. there are covert areas that you producing things over, above and aside what they see. the question is best answered in two ways. the iranians in that situation will have to be careful not to comingle anything from the covert facilities with the overt facilities that we see, and, secondly, the iranians, we discovered a secret facility a number of years before they were revealed. so very have to contend with a view that the intelligence communities of the world will supplement the i.a.e.a. in their
work of making sure things don't happen in iran. these are not supposed to happen. the envelope of ambiguity and uncertainty lies in our direction. >> we are talking about the uncertainty and what critics are saying. they say the weakness of the agreement says it barely shortens iran's time to develop a nuclear wapan, they can maintain the centrifuge. if they keep the 19,000 sentry fudges, if they dilute the 26%, can they ramp up quickly enough so this doesn't curtail the program much? >> yes, part of the big concern it
if the deal is reneged upon, they'll reconstitute quickly. it won't be instant anious. the capacity will remain. that's in the biggest fear i have, that we are no longer looking at a dismantlement of the program. given that they are not exporting the currently enriched uranium, we are not taking apart sentry centrifug centrifuges, these are things we may be able to get to, but the fact that it took a bit to get pessimistic. >> the iranians are giving ground because the anxiouses are hurting them. some of president obama's biggest allies and many other people an capitol hill are involved in a bipartisan push to get tougher sanctions into
place. let's listen to bob corker. >> in iran they have consolidated the gains, they have seen what happened in north korea, they have nuclear weapons, i don't want to see if in iran. >> how do you react to corker. if the iranians are happy, what does that tell us? >> if the iranians are happy it's because they are told it's a good deal. i'm not sure that i would look at it and thing it was a good deal. i would tell you if we took a poll of experts on iran and said a deal like this could be worked out in six weeks, we would probably have had about 90% skeptical of being able to get as far as we have gotten already. i agree with matthew that it's important to look down the road
bus down the road the approach to the comprehensive agreement is certainly one that links a civil program justified by iran on the basis of real needs with what is going to be in my view permitted at the end of the day. that certainly is going to be pretty. short of where we are now. i would also point out to you that while you mention 19,000 centrifuges, half of those will be permitted to operate. only a third of the centrifuges will be permitted. as i keep telling you they are not allowed to have more stockpile at the end of the six months than they started out with. all of these fears that this agreement is somehow a stepping stone to moving rapidly to a nuclear weapon, which is a concern that the israelis have is a false premise. the israelis would like zero enrichment.
i would like to have zero enrichment. i don't think it's feasible. the real question is is it sufficient to be able to curtail iranian capability to move rapidly to a nuclear weapon to find an agreement we can live with, rather than permit the iranians to continue to go on to expand their capacity as rapidly as they can, creating a greater capability to create a nuclear weapon. yes, it is a good agreement, it comes to that result. >> matthew, this is the closest we've gotten to a relationship with the iranians in decade. is it not worth doing? >> i agree, we have not had a signed public agreements with iran in 34 years. this is intriguing in how it
will play inside the regime. given that it's intrinsic, having to negotiate with the u.s., i think it has interesting repercussions. in addition to that, with our allies in the region, they are nervous about what that may mean relationships. >> thank you both very much for the insights. tonight. >> coming up - the supreme court has decided corporations are people. can corporations bereligious people. harmeli aregawi is tracking the stories on the web. what is trending? >> a store owner in miami installed 16 cameras - not because of crime, but local police. join the conversation on twitter and facebook and google+ pages.
can corporations pray. supreme court justices will decide tuesday whether to take up the issue whether a business can back out of obamacare on business grounds. in a case before the court. a company, hobby lobby objects to a part of the obamacare. a federal appeals court ruled it violates the company's rite to free exercise religion. to what extent should people have the same rights. >> i'm joined by david ganz. he is in our washington d.c. studio. luke is the deputy general council, which represented parties which represented parties in the affordable care act. he joins us. great to have you with us. i want to start with you.
the concept of corporate personhood or corporation has been long-established in american law. if a corporation is a person, why shouldn't the person have some religious rights. corporations have rights but the free exercise of reliageons is not one of them. at its core it's about conscience, conviction and human dignity. they are attributes that don't apply to a corporation. they can't pray. conscience. >> the supreme court allowed them under citizens united to express themselves under the first amendment by contributing to campaigns. >> it doesn't recognise that corporations have interest in human dignity. we have to look carefully at the right that's at issue in this case. corporations have never in over 200 years had the right to the free exercise
of religion. >> there are limits to corporation hood. they can't vote. what do you say in response to what david does. >> i'm surprised david would say corporations don't have rights for 200 years. the vast majority of churches, synagogues, mosques are organised as corporations. the last three supreme court decisions involving the right of free exercise involved corporations and all three turned out unanimously in favour of the corporate right of free enterprise. houses of worship can gather together to pray and worship. those are corporations that are clearly structured for a religious purpose. >> so corporations - the point is the corporate form has nothing to do with the limitation on the right of free
exercise. free exercise is not just an individual right, but a right to gather in search of higher good. churches do that all the time. david's point it not that corporations can't exercise religion, once a corporation starts to make money it restricts it's ability to exercise restriction. the court never held that. >> there's a fundamental difference between churches which are understood as a voluntary association of individuals gathering for the purpose of exercising religions and business corporations like hobby lobby and others. you know, that simply can't be described that way. that are not religious and employ people of different faiths. that's the issue, whether business corporations and whether owners of those corporations can impose their own religious beliefs on their
employees and deny to them important federal rights, and the issue is can the owners of hobby lobby, for example, to site the case make it to the court. can they invoke religious views to deny access to the full range of employs. >> let's look at the hobby lobby case. it's a big company with over 20,000 employees. the owners threaten with the obamacare maternity component. it's a christian company. let's listen to what the founder and ceo had to say. >> in every area that we feel like it would be something contrary to god's word. that becomes a conviction for us. just caring about our people is a conviction. we want to love people, and we
want to be employees. >> it's a company he built from the ground up. why should he be forced to - one of the examples is to pay and do the obamacare for the employees to have access to morning after birth control. >> the fundamental idea at the route of this law is that it's important to provide access to the full range of contra-septemberives. the background is that insurance companies were discriminating against women and denying coverage. the point of the law is to provide this to ensure that the rights of the employees are respected. and you know the fundamental point, and this is - goes the difference between a church and a business corporation, is that a church - in a church we expect a catholic church
to hire and associate your own. the purpose is to hire a person of all faiths, and they may be employees. >> it is a business. people need to work, it's not a voluntary association. not as voluntary as joining a church. >> david tries to draw a distinction between a church and full-profit business. hobby lobby is organised with an expressly religious business. it engages in exercises of religion, closing every sunday, losing millions, providing every employees with free access to christian spiritual encounters, taking out advertisements in
newspapers, urging people to accept jesus christ as their lord and saviour. when a business as an expressly religious statement and takes out advertisements if that's not app exercise of religion, what is it? >> i mean, i think there's a fundamental threat that goes all the way back to the founding of a difference between chufference and other corporation, and the law recognises this throughout federal law that religious corporations have certain rights that have never been extended to business corporations. i think the way this - there's a challenge to that aspect of law, that says business corporations should
be able to impose religious beliefs on employees. it makes it interesting for employers of which hobby lobby is one, to discriminate against employees that don't share the views of the owners. >> wouldn't it have arguably detrimental consequences if people could use religion to fire employees. is that something we would want? >> david talks about hobby lobby imposing its views on its employees. that's the opposite of what is happening. hobby lobby provide free access to 14 different kinds of contraception. free access. for the four types of contraception that the federal government says can destroy a fertilised egg. they are saying please don't make us pay for that.
what the government is saying is we don't like your moral view, we'll force you, hobby lobby to pay for the drugs that can cause an abortion in violation of your religious beliefs. the government is imposing its moral view on hobby lobby. >> will it make a difference if hobby lobby were a small corporation that had a dozen employees. that wouldn't be covered by this provision and question, which applies to larger employees. >> 50 then. law. >> i think that's the line. it makes sense to target largest employers who have health insurance programs. it's recognising this is a critical coverage and important to provide access to the range of contra-septemberives. this was designed to remedy gender discrimination.
insurance companies were not providing preventative services including for contraception and discriminating against the female employees of the company. i don't think it's - it's not casting aspersion on moral view, it's recognising a need for providing access to the services. under mr goodrich's view women lose access to the critical services. for me the fundamental point is that, you know, it's not part of remageous freedom for a party owner -- religious freedom for a company owner to impose views who are not required to share the views. >> the courts have been split on this. it boils down to if you have a bunch of companies that can use religion as an excuse to make choices with respect to their employees. does that
limit the ability of individuals to choose where they want to work. is it a slippery slope. >> this is about diversity and whether the government will permit business owners to have a diverse range of views. no employee has been stopped from getting contraception coverage. hobby lobby provide free actions to 14 different contraceptions. if an employee does not want to use them, they can use whatever they want with their own money. what is happening is the green family built a business from the ground up over the course of decades and run it in accordance with christian principles. the government is telling them "if you run it with your christian principals, we'll fine you $1.3 million per day", david
would say it's perfectly fine for the government to drive a business like this completely out of business. solely because of the owner's religious beliefs. that. >> i don't think that's what i'm saying. there's a critical need fulfilled through the law and i don't think you can say women can get contra-septemberive elsewhere. problem contra-septemberive elsewhere. the point was to make sure the service was available. >> if you work for me, you have to follow my religious view, i don't know that you can say that >> what do you think the supreme court will do? >> i think hobby lobby will win 7-2 or 9-0. >> david. i think it's dangerous to make predictions.
i am sure it will be hotly contested. it is one of the most important cases, because if the court rules in the way that mr goodridge hopes, it will open a large area where employers will have a much greater freedom to discriminate against employees who don't follow their religious retense. >> we'll keep on top of the story, thank you both for coming in to talk about in. >> time to see what is a website. >> a convenience store owner said local police are harassing his place and customers. alex saleh said it was so bad that he installed security cameras to prove his point. he's preparing to file a lawsuit against the police department. >> other police abuse other people in the community. they are
betraying the people. in the four years that earl sampson has been working at the store, he's been stopped 286 times. he's been arrested for trespassing 62 times. >> i've been stopped two or three times a day. i feel like i can't be in the neighbourhood. >> he walks inside and is arrested for trespassing. when an officer walks in and arrests him, chief of police matthew boyd elmailed al jazeera saying: >> what do you think of the story? tweet us. you can read more of the website at aljazeera.com. >> 62 arrests. >> it's crazy. >> it is.
>> start with one issue education... gun control... the gap between rich and poor... job creation... climate change... tax policy... the economy... iran... healthcare... ad guests on all sides of the debate. >> this is a right we should all have... >> it's just the way it is... >> there's something seriously wrong... >> there's been acrimony... >> the conservative ideal... >> it's an urgent need... and a host willing to ask the tough questions >> how do you explain it to yourself? and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5 eastern only on al jazeera america
>> would you have thought we'd see the day when computers were smarter than the people who created them. we saw it happen when ibm's artificially created computer watson won a game against two champions. ibm is offering its services to software developers to create an era of cognitive applications. how soon will watson's artificial intelligence help in our lives. >> joining us is eric brown director of the ibm watson team. his research and work is part of a book called, "smart machines." and our editor at large. i haven't gotten over how watson destroyed them.
you said you didn't have fun the whole time. outcome. >> you were nervous. >> we were a little nervous. >> it works by using cognitive computing, what is it? >> cognitive is a new era of computing with a few key elements to it. it's a collaborative approach to computing. it relies on a couple of key things - one is machine learning, where the system can get better with use, and also the leveraging of big data. making the data available to people to help them make decisions. understanding languages. watson is the best example. it was the focus, how to leverage knowledge the way people communicate and record it, which is natural language and text. >> where do we
stand with something like watson - understanding language, making cognitive choices, when people look at the future, the an androids that are human like. can we get there. >> ultimately we are a bit away. artificial intelligence is a huge field, and the difference between a car that drives itself. they are different fields of approach and different challenges that you need to tackle. we are talking about watson with natural language processing. we are talking about understanding a question in a natural way. and taking the question and looking into the massive sense of data and find the answer quickly. which watson would be good at. it's a different problem to driving a car. >> the massive supercomputers or interfere connected computers with an enormous amount of computing power. it's different to watson.
>> watson is a high-powered computer. ranking in the top 100s. it judges the responses coming back. it picks the one that this thinks will be true, which is jeopardy. >> it has started to look into cancer, and been involved in a project that anderson - where it's found to diagnose lung cancer at a better rate than regular doctors. 90% versus 50%. much as we enjoyed jeopardy, we business. >> clearly it was a stepping stone to driving technology and applying it. medicine is a great domain to look at. not only is it important to address the problems in providing better health care.
when you look at what it takes to diagnose a complex medical problem, come up with a correct diagnosis and evidence to support it and come up with treatments, the problem-solving pattern plies. when you look at md anderson, there it's about leveraging information and language scattered throughout the source, patients, health records or clinical trials and studies, making it available. >> is it a different problem-solving that we think of computers doing? >> it goes beyond the traditional programmable error computer where we typically write software programs. here to deal with this information and huge volumes of information we have to introduce learning into the process so the machine adopts and improves. it's a reason it is so important
because no doctor can read the literature out there. everything can be fed into watson. as a result, is there a hope that watson can find a cure. at the moment it's focused on making better decisions. the medical literature is doubling. physicians had little time to keep up with it. watson can do that, read the literature, pull out pieces of legislation that can help with the current treatment. >> watson has been used to create apps. explain this to me. what is watson going to do that's different to what is out there now. >> ultimately watson is good at searching through the massive amounts of data. developers will tap into that, using the processing power. it is smart to look into that data. it's up to developers to figure
out what it can do. >> what kinds of things do you think will come of it. >> a lot of people will throw stock market people at it to see if watson can bring out trends. we'll see a lot of financial stuff. we may see sports predictions. it's hard to make too many predictions based in the past. it can be a good indicator. watson is good at finding information. eric nodded his agreement. we have seen a few demonstrations already where they are using the watson developer cloud to build on application around wellness and coming up with a health iteminery. the exciting thing about making the technology available in the eco system is you don't know what will happen. you can leverage into a larger
audience to use the technology in a disruptive way. it has led to watson getting smaller than it used to be. when it competed on jeopardy. you needed a size, a whole room to fit it in. now it will hang out with us. developers will access this remotely. you won't need a wing dedicated to watson. in theory. >> will we see it get smaller and smaller. >> it will be available over time, in a variety of devices. when we look at the medical applications, watson is deployed in the cloud where we leverage the heavy computer power. whether it's a tab the form, in the future you'll see what we call cognitive environments where this capability is embedded in the room and available on demand. >> will you make enough money given the huge invest.
? for people to use it you will charge money. >> there's potential in the technology. we are at the tip of the iceberg road. >> what do you see next from artificial intelligence? >> self-driving cars will be huge. this is a problem that watson was designed for. it will be a predictive matter. predictive surgery - if you have appointments, your phone will give you directions. that's a form of artificial intelligence. this is the kind of thing your iphone can do. many would disagree with that statement. siree can figure out your habits, and where you need to two, without you doing anything. they are the things we are seeing now that is exciting, with a participation that watson brings to the table. maybe they could advanced. >> do we have to worry about
robots taking over the world? >> they'll help you do your job better. no matter what it is, we'll information. >> fascinating, thank you both for joining us. great to see you tim in person, rather than remote. >> straight ahead the pope meets with vladimir putin. why hasn't the pope had a bigger impact an catholics in america. disappointment in the space world as hopes for a space project don't fly.
be the come et of the century, i'm joined by derrick pitts from franklin institute science museum. had it succeeded the fall cop 9 was set to put a satellite in space to provide cable broadband services to countries in asia. it was labelled a game changer because of what happened to what was going on. challenger. >> it was supposed to be and will be because of the fact that this is a private company that in the u.s. that's now taking on this work launching big satellites up to high erth orbit. taking a satellite up for a big client, up to 22,000-23,000 miles up. it opens the door for commercial businesses for companies to make them successful in the market of launch suppliers.
>> we hope it will happen thursday. there were three attempts to launch it - why did it fail? >> there were minor difficulties, when you look at all of them, they were small problems, there was a valve that didn't seem to work. there was tele'em otry launch problems. there were radio communications problems, and finally, as far as i can tell, the on board computers didn't fire up when they needed to, 3 minutes before launch. these details, problems, are just too much for the 66 minute lunch window. they did a fine job of resolving the other problems. when they got down to it, if they needed to make fixes to the system, it would have taken for time than they had left in the lunch window to recycle the count down clock. they'll try thursday, and
hopefully thursday they'll be successful. it's better to fix the stuff on the ground. it's difficult to fix the problems when the launch vehicle is on the fly. one thing that i was - more than one thing i was surprised bias i read about this is the satellite industry is $190 billion. the satellite the rocket was carries is a lux 'em bourg base company operating 54 satellites, the world's second largest of the this is a huge industry worldwide. >> it really is, it reflects the fact that all of us, more and more of us around the planet move to wireless systems provided via satellite so we can get information from around the world easily into our homes and hands and smartphones and other communication systems that we use.
it points out that the satellite business is a big business. it's an important business, and it's one that is a critical component in how the world works. it's important to have good satellites working. >> $190 billion, compared to hollywood. to give you perspective on how huge an industry it is. where does the u.s. fall. is it becoming more important to the industry because of all the commercial space endeaf ours or less important because of the paul back. >> the u.s. is rising. we are running about third behind two other services. there's the arian service coming out of france. they did sess first satellite launch back in 1995.
then the russians provided services for ses. america with space ex and orbital science and up and coming industries are beginning to get into the field. the reason why they came to space x is they can provide the same service the russians provided, for less. when you have an expensive satellite with expensive service, if you can cut back on the price it helps to get the contract. it's millions, a game change are for the american space industry. there's another - something that should happen on thanksgiving that people are looking forward to. it's a comet. there's a lot of debate over how big a spectacle it's going to be. it's a come et hurtling towards the sun for a million years. it will go by the sun and get somewhere where you can see it. what do you think will happen.
will it make it so you see a flash in the sky or not. >> we keep our fingers crossed that when the comic comes to its closest approach to the sun on thursday evening. right about the time we are sitting down to carve the turkey, we hope it will make it behind the sun, not break up because of the pull of sun's issues. then it will become visible in the pre-dawn sky and be visible for a couple of weeks in december. if it makes is through, hopefully the interaction between the sun's solar winds will create enough of a tail that they'll see a spectacular site in the predawn sky. comment are predictable and we'll see what happens. >> it's been coming towards us
for a million years - where d is it originate? >> there's a region in spaces that was part of the solar system, a huge difference away. the ort cloud a repository for comments. when another object disturbs the clouds of protocomets, it's a shell surrounding the solar system. they fall towards the sun. it may take a long time for them to get into the center. it's interesting. it looks as if this will be the one and only pass through the interior of our solar system and will probably never see it again. there's a slim chance that it may come around again. it's looking like it will be a one and done. >> on earth, as you said, most of us will be having thanksgiving dinner. as the comments come each way, astronauts are no different. what will they eat on the thanksgiving.
>> fortunately for them they'll have what is close to a traditional meal - turkey, potatos, a bread dressing, yams, green beans. the only problem is while it may taste okay, it won't have the same appetising purposes as what earth. >> looking at the pictures doesn't look so good. how do they prepare it up there? >> as you probably know, all the food and materials are in plastic bags, vacuum-sealed plastic bags. some is eraidiated, some vacuum packed and preserved to make sure it's fresh and edible. they'll rehydrate it using hot water, attach the bag it a waterdispenser providing hot water and get the water into the bag and mix it. for some thinks they'll need to use a straw to eat it.
others they open it, put it on a plate and eat it. materially the material is polling or clumping together. it wouldn't be good to have green peas running loose on a space station. >> looking at the food it doesn't look all that good. that must be the worst part of being in space that long. >> the other part is they need to use additional spicing because the low gravity situation regards some sensitivity on our tongue. it doesn't taste as good. >> i'm glad i will not be eating it on thanksgiving. look forward to seeing you con. >> the show may be over, the conversation may continue on the website. you can find us on twitter. see you next time.
>> announcer: this is al jazeera. ♪ er >> hello welcome to another news hour in al jazeera in doha. our top stories. tieland's prime minister reduces to quit as thousands of protesters storm government offices. france put more than double the number of soldiers it has on the ground in africa following threats of a civil war. i'm here with news in europe. ahead of a