this is "al jazeera live from new york city." i'm tony harris. it's three days before the u.s. defaults on its debt. the lawmakers in the senate picked up the ball from the stalled house negotiations. a meeting has been postponed today as lawmakers continue to hammer out a detail. new details in the deadly stampede near a temple in india. 111 people were killed caught in the chaos. there are now reports that police may have been involved. 17 sailors have been rescued off the coast of india. their ship sank during cyclone

phail phailin. now the strongest storm to hit india in more than a decade killed at least 23 people. in the meantime there are reports that four of the six workers kidnapped have been released. red cross officials say the aid workers were released near the turkish border. bay area rapid transit is up and running this morning as negotiations continue between the fifth largest ram system and workers. a midnight deadline was pushed back by 24 hours. those are the headlines. i'm tony harris in new york city. ""inside story"" is next on al jazeera america. can the u.s. maintain a military presence in afghanistan after the 2014 drawdown? not without hard-fought negotiations. we'll look ahead tonight. you're watching "inside story"

from washington. hello. i'm sheila macvicar. secretary of state john kerry made a pitch to karzai this weekend in an effort to reach a long-term agreement on security. the war is by no means over, and while afghan forces are increasingly on the front lines, the goal to hand over security responsibilities remains difficult over issues like how many international troops remain after 2014 and concerns over afghan sovereignty. there are time pressures tied to the end of the leadership, and a new presidential election that the taliban have pledged to disrupt with violence. we'll talk about all this tonight, but first, some background. >> what we have achieved in this

agreement addresses the fundamental questions the president has raised about aggression, about support, about most importantly the protection of afghan people in their homes, in their lives. >> on saturday secretary of state john kerry revealed a partial agreement had been reached with afghanistan on the bilateral security accord, or the bsa. he spoke during his surprise trip to kabul. one matter lingered, however. the potentially deal-breaking issue of trial jurisdiction for american forces in afghanistan. >> we need to say that if the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved, then, unfortunately, there cannot be a bilateral security agreement. >> afghan president hamid karzai asserted the decision should be left up to his country's nation bodies. >> the issue of jurisdiction is

one such issue that is beyond the authority of the afghan governme government. it is only and entirely up to the afghan people to decide upon through two mechanisms. one is the traditional lawyer court in afghanistan. the second is the constitutional mechanism, which is the afghan parliament. >> that's as ma meeting of tribal leaders where major decisions are made. karzai wants to consult them before going forward with negotiations. the question of jurisdiction is still fresh nearly two years after the kandahar massacre when an american soldier, staff sergeant robert bales killed 16 people in two villages in southern afghanistan. bales was convicted in august by a u.s. military court and sentenced to life in prison with

no chance of release. the verdict angered many afghans, who called for the death penalty. the security agreement talks also come with an undertone of internal coalition distrust. on sunday an afghan man wearing an army uniform shot at u.s. forces. at least one american soldier was confirmed dead, raising the death toll to insider attacks to 10 this year. this is a decrease from last year that claimed 52 lives. the bsa is a long-term agreement covering u.s. military roles after the planned 2014 nato pull-out. other topics in the bsa include the leasing of afghan bases ach 2014 and the role of u.s. troops. the protection of afghanistan from a foreign invasion, and the issue of afghan sovereignty in the context of u.s. counterterrorism missions. such missions on afghan soil have long bothered president

karzai. days prior to secretary kerry's appearance he expressed the annoyance. >> they conduct raids against our people, air-raids and other attacks in the name of the fight on terrorism and in the name of resolutions of the united nations. this is against our wishes. >> in saturday's talks the two sides agreed on a set of limitations for u.s. counterterrorism units when working within the nation. the pressure to sign off on a final bsa this month is compounded by afghanistan's upcoming election in april. after working with karzai since 2001, washington now fears a new leader will be harder to negotiate with. without a conclusive deal, american troops plan to leave the country after the nato-led military mission ends in december 2014. >> joining me now from kabul is

al jazeera's jennifer glass. i know you weren't in the room with secretary kerry and president karzai, and discussions with president karzai have often been very difficult from the u.s. perspective. how were these talks? can you set the stage for us? >> reporter: well, sheila, they went on for far longer than anyone thought they would. secretary kerry arrived here on friday evening expecting to have a brief meeting with president karzai. that meeting turned into dinner, which turned into a second round of talks all day saturday, and then a third round of talks saturday evening. so really the sense that it was a very, very long negotiation, a lot of things for the two men to discuss, they do have a very cordial relationship. though president karzai can have a reputation for being sometimes a very difficult negotiator, sometimes a very stubborn man, he and john kerry have a long history that goes back to 2001 when president karzai, not even president then, visited washington. secretary kerry has been here a number of times, and most

notably their relationship became strong in 2009. it was then senator kerry who helped persuade president karzai to go to a run-off election in the last presidential election. the two are no stranger to marathon negotiations, and that happened over the weekend here in kabul. >> president karzai has to step down next april when his turn ends. how important is it to the u.s. that this deal be done while he is still president? >> reporter: it's not so much while he's still president. it's really the time frame. the united states has set a year for these negotiations to be completed. that year ends at the end of this month, october 31st. it's not really just about president karzai. it's really about the logistics of it all. sheila, they have to get right now about 60,000 u.s. troops out of the country by the end of 2014. military officials want to know what a follow-on force is going to look like after 2014 so they can figure out where to position troops, what kind of troops will be here and what equipment they

need. in the meantime by the end of 2014, they have to get all of that equipment out of afghanistan. it is no small feat. this is a land-locked country. you can only use the pakistani route or northern route. both have problems. otherwise it's very expensive flying it out by air. the deadline is as much about logistics and about the nato allies. they're waiting to see what happens with this bilateral security agreement. if there's no security agreement between afghanistan and the united states, then nato allies are also very unlikely to stay past 2014. >> what do afghans tell you about what they think about this agreement and the prospect for u.s. troops remaining in afghanistan and nato troops post-2014? >> reporter: afghans are very divided about the foreign troop presence here. some believe that it helps stabilize the very new afghan security forces who have only really come up to strength and only took over full security responsibilities for the country in june. so many afghans believe that

those security forces need the kind of support that western troops are giving them. the afghan air force, for example, won't even be able to stand on its own two feet before 2017. there are also afghans who believe that most of the violence is because there are western forces here, and that if western forces leave, you'll siavii lens levels drop. case in point, we hear from a taliban leader about the security agreement. he says if afghanistan signs the security agreement with the united states, the taliban will continue their attacks in afghanistan. >> how significant is it for hamid karzai and the future of this agreement that karzai has asked to call a lawyer jurga, a meeting of the elders to talk about a contentious issue, and that's the question of jurisdiction for trying any u.s. troops that are found to have acted inappropriately in afghanistan? >> reporter: well, it gives

hamid karzai political cover, if you will. if he signs this agreement approved by a grand assembly of representatives from all over the country, he called that meeting for early in november. he wants this security agreement approved by the lawyer jurga. he can then say that the afghan people approved this agreement, this very, very contentious agreement that is key that would mean foreign forces would stay here beyond 2014. president karzai's decision to call it itself has been controversial, because there are those who believe it should be the afghan parliament that ratifying this agreement. by no means is this a done deal. i think a surprise to u.s. officials i've spoken to, they thought the jurisdiction issue was solved already, and all of a sudden it's back on the table. this is a key issue, sheila. it basically talks about who has jurisdiction if an american soldier or service member here commits a crime in afghanistan.

afghanistan has said it wants jurisdiction, but virtually in every country in the world, if there's an american serviceman, his punishment would fall under u.s. law, and that is what the americans want. john kerry was very cat goral about this in his joint press conference with president karzai on saturday night saying if that jurisdiction issue is not settled, there will be no bilateral security agreement with the united states. in speaking to senior nato officials here this weekend, and they say if there's no security agreement with the united states, there will be no security agreement with nato and all forces will leave at the end of 2014. >> we saw the example of iraq in 2007 where the u.s. was unable to get a similar agreement with the iraqi government. all u.s. forces ended up departing from iraq. this is not an idle threat or negotiating point. why did people think this issue was resolved and why is it proven to not be resolved, do you think? >> it's unclear. a lot of this security

agreement -- negotiations have went on for 11 months, sheila. the u.s. officials told us they hammered out 95% of it, and u.s. officials had told me in confidence that they believed that the jurisdiction issue was already agreed upon and not an issue that had to still be discussed. so i think it may have come as a bit of a surprise it's back on the table and that it goes to the laura jurga. president karzai said the question of jurisdiction is really not one for his government. that it really is about the afghan people, and he wants the lawyer jurga to decide. it throws everything very much up in the air as you said. we saw in iraq this issue forced a quick withdrawal of u.s. forces. that's why they want this agreement signed as soon as possible, because unlike iraq, it's going to take a lot longer and it's a lot more difficult to get troops out, to get really all of the equipment out. tons of equipment -- hundreds of tons of equipment, 93,000

containers have to leave here. tens of thousands of vehicles have to get out of here. it's not like iraq to push it down the road into kuwait. here it's a very complicated process across borders. >> jennifer glass in kabul. thank you very much. when we talk about we'll talk with two people that understand the larger issues surrounding a lasting security agreement with afghanistan. stay with us. al jazeera america - a new voice in american journalism - >> introduces america tonight. >> in egypt, police fired teargas at supporters of the ... >> a fresh take on the stories that connect to you. [[voiceover]] they risk never returning to the united states. >> grounded. >> real. >> unconventional. [[voiceover]] we spent time with some members of the gangster disciples. >> an escape from the expected. >> i'm a cancer survivor. not only cancer, but brain cancer. america tonight 9 eastern on al jazeera america

this is the 900-page document we call obamacare.

my staff has read the entire thing. can congress say the same? we're back talking about afghanistan and evers by the united states to reach a lasting security plan. joining now is a former afghan ambassador to france and candidate and senior central asia fellow at the new american foundation. and michael winebaum at the state department. he's a scholar at the middle east institute. marvin, let's begin with you. how badly does the u.s. want troops to remain in afghanistan? >> well, there is a strong feeling here that if we don't have a presence there that it's a question whether the afghan security forces will be able to maintain the kind of posture that's going to enable them to

survive beyond our leaving. we are concerned about the possibility here that they may not have the cohesion, and that we can make a great deal of difference in terms of particularly our training with them, monitoring them, mentoring them rather. so this is important. there's one other element here, too. that if we're not there physically, the question is, will our funds be there? because really their ability to have any security force is going to be contingent upon the funds that we and others have promised. we're talking about something in excessive of $4 billion. >> that's a lot of money. >> yes. omar, mr. ambassador, when president karzai called this loya jirga, he could, i suppose, go directly to the afghan

parliament. why going to the loya jirga, and why on this issue of jurisdiction for dealing with u.s. soldiers who may commit crimes in afghanistan? >> he has been claiming for a while that he's going to convene a jirga. it's a controversial people. many people in afghanistan believe there's no need for a jirga to be convened for this. he may go ahead with it anyway. he's going to put it in front of the parliament as well, so this issue is not going to be just addressed by the jirga, but the afghan parliament, which is a good sign. why the jurisdiction issue? the jurisdiction issue, in my opinion, and from what i hear from kabul, is to a large extent resolved, but president karzai would like to put his stamp of legitimacy on this whole affair. and with the other two contentious issues having been resolved during secretary kerry's trip to kabul over the

last 48 hours or so, one being the sovereignty issue and the other one being a definition of aggression towards afghanistan and what the u.s. might do to help the afghans, this remains the smallest item on the agenda. i think that president karzai having made a pledge ahead of time that he was going to do so has to go ahead regardless. >> so the loya jirga in a way gives him, if you will, political cover and a sharing of responsibility? >> it's going to allow him to say that at the end of the day the afghan people agreed. i don't believe it, but if they disagree, that he would have a cover by saying they disagree. most in kabul including myself believe that it's almost a done deal. that this particular issue will be resolved, and the jirga will accept it. it's a cover of sorts, but it allows them to not take full sfont responsibility if

something goes wrong down the road. >> i think so. i don't think he would convene the jirga if he didn't know what the outcome was going to be. i'm less certain as to what will happen in the parliament. i agree with omar that it's a healthy thing to involve the parliament. we like to see this kind of responsibility being shared this way in a democratic system. there are going to be strong voices in the parliament that are going to object here to any kind of deal, and we don't know the details of it. the details are being kept, you know, away from us. we won't know them until the last minute, perhaps. but there will be those who want nothing that provides any kind of immunity for american forces from afghan law. so this could be problematic. >> marvin has alluded to this, mr. ambassador, talking about

the ability of the afghan forces to truly stand up. the afghans are in the forefront of fighting now. they are taking huge casualties. one u.s. general likened afghan casualties at this current level to the casualties that u.s. forces took in vietnam. that's a huge hit. what do you think are the abilities of the afghan forces, and what do they need? are they truly capable of operating independently? >> we need to look at what the capabilities of the afghan forces will be by the end of 2014. right now i think that with the transition, security transition having been handed over to afghans almost entirely, they have proven themselves to be able and capable of defending territory and engaging the enemy. so that is very good news, and i think that the morale is high right now. what is needed, whether we have it in an agreement or not, is for afghan forces to feel, first of all, that there's political

stability in the country. secondly, the international community is going to be committed and continue to be engaged in that policy in one way or another with residual forces or without residual forces as martin alluded to earlier especially with funding. we cannot afford to pay 4 or 5 billion a year to maintain the army. more importantly i think what is needed is good intelligence gathering techniques and coordination, and especially about everything else, air support. i think that is where we're lacking, and that is where the international community needs to do much more to help the afghan forces. >> we'll come back to talk about that. we'll have more with our guests in a moment. you're watching "inside story." please stay with us. [[voiceover]] every day, events sweep across our country. and with them, a storm of views. how can you fully understand the impact unless you've heard angles you hadn't considered?

antonio mora brings you smart conversation that challenges the status quo with unexpected opinions and a fresh outlook. including yours. millions who need assistance now. we appreciate you spending time with us tonight. up next is the golden age of hollywood going golden but elsewhere. why l.a.'s mayor has declared a state of emergency for the entertainment industry there. next. my name's nicole deford and i'm

back with our guests, the former afghan ambassador to france and candidate. marvin winebaum former pakistan and afghanistan analyst from the state department. marvin, we talked about the rise of violence, and we know that the taliban have threatened to continue to fight through the season in the leadup to the election of 2014. what are the chances of the taliban or what capacity does the taliban have to disrupt that political process, one. two, who are we likely to see emerging in 2014 as the leader of afghanistan? >> first of all, with the respect to what damage they can do to the election, they certainly in the south and in the eastern part of the country could make it very difficult for people to feel secure enough to

go to the polls. what we've seen in the past is they did not go all out to throw obstacles in the way of voters, but they could this time be much more aggressive. just yesterday omar, the leader of the largest insurgent groups, made it very clear that the election was something that the taliban wanted people to stay away from. again, it remains to be seen just to what extent they're willing to go out and prevent it. there is one issue here. if they prevent people from going to vote, one of the possibilities here is that the ethnic group of which the taliban are the largest mostly the poshtun is underrepresented in the vote. so this could -- this will also be true at the province yal levels where it's taking place

as well. this could be damaging to the very ethnic group that they want to speak for. as far as who will emerge here, it's too early. it's far too early to know. the polls -- we've just seen some polls that are very inconclusive. >> hamid karzai was the american choice to lead afghanistan, and that relationship has not proven to be smooth sailing all the way through. are there characters in the afghan political scene that would have the trust of the majority of people there? also, have the trust of the united states and its nato allies? >> hamid karzai was the choice of not just the u.s. but many others including many afghans back in 2001. you're right about this. i think there are probably too many characters right now on the -- in the field, and afghans are looking for some consolidation of these numbers within the next month or so we're going to see who actually

has been qualified to be a candidate, because they have to go through a vetting system. so in november we will know who those individuals are and who the tickets are. after that in february the official campaign season starts. so we have a long ways to go before we see how afghan politicians will be able to consolidate, to create alliances and coalitions, and there's a big question as to whether this election will see the emergence of a new leader in the first round or whether it's going to go to a second round thereafter. >> one last question before we have to leave it. the u.s. has talked about a role in mentoring and monitoring afghan troops. we've talked about the need for air cover. is the u.s. prepared to provide air cover to the afghan forces going forward, or are we talking about a military practice that's

training and black ops. >> it's doubt the u.s. will provide the kind of air cover it has done the last few years. that kind of close air cover. there's a big issue about how many pieces of equipment we're going to turn over to the afghans, and whether they're ready to operate those aircraft. so this is a real concern. i think it's very likely now that the fighting is going to have to take place without the kind of backing that it has received until now, and that puts a great burden on the security forces. >> thank you very much to mr. ambassador, marvin winebaum. that's it from the team in washington, d.c. and from me, sheila macvicar, for now.

in india, a woman's fate can take a cruel twist when her husband dies. >> they would beat me, both my daughter in law and my son would beat me. my brother in law tried to rape me but i fought back. i got him beaten up. >> ostracized and abandoned, manyow