>> hundreds of days in detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release. >> thousands calling for their freedom. >> it's a clear violation of their human rights. >> we have strongly urged the government to release those journalists. >> journalism is not a crime. a supreme setback for president obama - america's highest court rules several key unconstitutional. i.s.i.l. becomes one of the most feared terror groups. could mistakes spell their doom? plus, we are joined by a "new york times" reporter facing gaol time for refusing to disclose a source lots of drones coming to a city near you - are we flying

into all sorts of problems. hello, i'm antonio mora, and welcome to "consider this". here is more of who is ahead. >> the supreme court delivered a unanimous rebuke to president obama, saying he succeeded his constitutional authority when he made three appointments. >> the supreme court unanimously agreed with us. >> the new iraqi parliament is scheduled to meet next week. >> the ournt inquiry must be to inform an inclusive government. >> the hope is a unified government will stop the advance levant. >> nouri al-maliki says he's the only man that can lead iraq out of the crisis. >> the supreme court turned down reporter. >> he could go to prison for doing his job. >> this is the worst time for press freedom. >> we have transferred ourselves

based on fear. we begin with two big supreme court rulings, one a victory if the u.s. senate in a struggle with president obama over presidential power. the other a win for anti-abortion protestors. the court ruled unanimously in favour of limiting a president's authority to feel availablingansies with temporary recess appointments. president obama's claim that he acted within his powers was rejected. that was in january 2012. at the time the senate was taking a 20 day break. going into session every three days. the supreme court justice said the president cannot exercise his power when the senate declares that it is in session and ppss the capacity to conduct business. in in a ruling the court struck down a massachusetts law when it

put a buffer zone around abortion entrance, and smaller buffer zones in other states might be okay. i'm joined by scott us blog editor amy howell who argued cases before the court. joining me from washington is bill sh-schneider, an al jazeera contributor, senior fellow and professor at george mason university. amy, every president since george washington used the recess power to make appointments. thursday's ruling is described has a blow to the president's power. is it. >> it is in one sense, and it will depend on basically the balance of power, who controls the white house, and who controls the senate, and whether they are the same party. it was a decision by justice steven brier, a lawyer for the senate, before he became a judge.

in the opinion he gave the president fairly interoed powers to make recess appointments. basically the president can do it if there's a vacancy that needs to get filled, and the recess is long enough. the caveat was that the senate can start the clock over on the length of a recess by sending someone in every couple of days to gabble the senate into a session and then closing in a few minutes later without doing any work. so if right now it doesn't have a lot of significance in the sense that the president is a department, the democrats control the senate. this could be a different story as soon as november if the ub cannes retake the senate. they'd be able to block appointees and prevent him making appointments by having the pro forma sessions where no work gets down. >> it limits the power of the

presidency, but not the power of this president right now, because she controls - his party controls the senate. that could change in the future. >> yes, there's an election in november, and the expectation is the republicans have a good chance of winning the majority in the senate. it takes a majority to confirm the presidential appointment. he won't have a majority any more. republicans will be in a position to block appointments, and he will not be able to make recess appointments as he and others have done in the part. >> the court was split 5 to 4 on how broad the ruling should be. the most conservative fashion, justice anthony scolya accused the authority of adventurism, adding the majority bends over,

ensuring that recess appoints are a powerful convention. it was said they'd render thousand of recess appointments illegitimate going back to george washington, if they had their ways. >> everyone agreed the three appointments, the national labour relations board violated the constitution, then they parted ways saying there was five led by justice brier, who was reading the constitution. one thing that should - the supreme court never determined the recess clause before, but it is what is the practice been, and presidents have been doing this for hundreds of years. the senate never acted to block it. we are not going to upset the apple cart. the concurring opinion - justice scolya read from the bench, which is

something that is rare for a dissenting justice, much less when you agree to the result in the case. justice scolya says this is riddic u lourks the fact that you've been doing this for a long time. and it can affect the interpretation of the words of the constitution, and he would have read it narrowly. >> if you look at the words of the constitution, there's an argument that you could have made it tougher than what was decided. could we see a signal here about where the court stands on the division of parliament, given that the speaker of the house says congress is going to sue the president for overusing any orders. he announced that this week. >> he announced that. it's not likely to go far. it would be unprecedented for the house to sue the president successfully in court. i think i know what john boehner

is up to. he's trying to invade the issue of impeachment. if the senate goes under republican authority, there'll be pressure from grassroots conservatives for the house to vote to impeach president obama. they imbeached andrew johnson on trumped up charges. there'll be pressure for them to do that if the senate is controlled by republicans. this is john boehner's way of saying "don't talk about impeachment", knowing that it would be damaging to republicans, as it was in 1998. he's saying "we're suing the president, let's see what happens there." >> and the abortion clinic buffer zone, chief justice roberts wrote a 35 foot zone burdens speech more than it needed to and he said the states should consider what new york city was, making it a crime to

harass a person within 15 feet of a medical facility. pro-choice advocates say it is needed for safety. >> exactly. this is brought by a massachusetts grandmother who says "i don't want to process, i want to counsel women considering an abortion", this law prevent them doing it. some of the plaintiffs wanted to counsel women, and he said you can't take away their right to do this on a public side walk or roadway when you haven't tried something else. there are other laws in effect right now that you can try. they are targeted at abortion clin e, and tress -- clinics, and trespassing. >> what does it mean. we see buffer zones for political conventions, world trade organizations, meetings

that have turned ugly. >> it's hard to say. this was a decision, an interesting line-up. the chief justice wrote for a majority. what we think of this, the liberal justices voted to strike down the massachusetts buffer zone. the thinking is this was a ruling. the other four justices, scolya and kennedy and thomas would have voted to reverse a 2,000 decision by the supreme court, that upheld another buffer zone out in colorado, drawing a line 100 feet around abortion clinics, saying you can't go within eight feet of anyone, within that clinic, that buffer zone. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. the elephant in the room is a buffer zone around. >> i want to end with someone i

am sure you knew well. regan chief of staff, howard baker of tennessee, he died, may be remembered for his role on the committee of watergate asking what did the president know and when. it seemed lick capitol hill could use a howard baker. could a sent rift like him have a shot. >> it would be tough. howard baker was a pro, a politician that makes the government work. he knew the art of making, compromise. president regan believes in that too. nowadays politics in washington is tribal. candidates, the officials with the most attention are people like ted crews. and of course the grass roots are more militant.

i think politicians like powered baker are becoming extremely rare in washington. >> that's a sad thing. >> pleasure to have you both on the show. >> thanks for having me. turning to iraq where fighting continued on thursday as government forces launched an assault on rebel held positions if tikrit. risk by helicopter iraqi special forces engaged militants in clashes in and around the city's university. iraq's parliament announced it would meet to elect a new government, coming as members of nouri al-maliki's party suggested he may not be a viable candidate. in a day after syria launched air strikes targetting i.s.i.l., maliki said there'd been no coordination between the two support. >> translation: we welcome the action and any serious fight against i.s.i.s. the group target iraq and syria.

joining us from boston is colonel, a veteran of 23 years in the army, including service in vietnam. he's professor of history and international relations at boston university, and is an author. great to have you with us, col them, good to see you again. i.s.i.l. moves through iraq seemingly with impunity. nouri al-maliki, the prime minister, yesterday rejected calls for a unity government, despite pressure from the u.s. and others. many are calling this a civil war leading to a split of iraq into three countries, sunni, kurd and shia. the u.s. committed a group of the military advisors, and is trying to replace nouri al-maliki. you think both attempts at work. >> i think we have limited leverage in the situation.

let me focus on the military question. i think there specifically the issue is whether or not the problems of the iraqi army reflect the lack of skill or a lack of will. 300 advisors can, to some degree, make up a deficit of skill. i don't believe any number of americans can make up for a deficit in will. at the end of the day ricky soldiers are willing to fight and die for their country or they are not, based on the performance against the i.s.i.l. forces offer the past couple of weeks, many seem not to be willing to fight and die for their country. i think it's a huge problem. with regard to the politics, we have limited leverage, and we shouldn't deceive ourselves. and a further point there - if the united states were able to arrange for nouri al-maliki's departure from the scene, the big question then becomes who

replaces him, and i'm not sure that we have the wisdom and the wit to choose a leader for iraq who would be more effective. >> i know you wrote that you don't thing the u.s. should be drawn back into iraq, but what happens then? if we don't get involved, we could see a failed state. we could see ungoverned territory. aren't you concerned it would become a haven for terrorists? >> you bet. i mean, there are multiple outcomes here, very few of them are desirable, but when you are confronted with a problem, one of the first questions you have to ask yourself - is this a problem that we can solve, and despite the chest thumping about america being a great superpower, there are a few problems that we cannot solve. my judgment is this is one of them.

to attempt to do now what we don't do over 8.5 years after 2003 would arguably be a waste of resources. >> you are concerned that not only will sending military advisors in not solve the problem that we could see mission creep, we may go down a slippery slope that would require us to be drawn back in. >> yes, that is a concern. the president and secretary of state john kerry said "boy, this is a big problem, these are important stakes." so the president is the laying down a modest military marker. the advisors and the threat to use air strikes to turn things around on the battlefield - if this limited effort doesn't succeed, the president is faced with the problem of either acknowledging failure for which he will be held politically

accountable or upping the ante and that's the slippery slope to greater escalation. he's put himself in a fix if the advisors don't turn the tables and if the i.s.i.l. forces continue to do well in the battlefield. >> you compared what's doing on in iraq to vietnam and you talked about how president nixon got out after johnson went in, and vietnam fell apart and became a full communist state. you say nixon used the exit to open relations with china. we won't get a strategic advantage out of what's happening in iraq, unless president obama can figure out how to improve relations in iran. what i'm suggesting is the iraq war, compared to the vietnam

war, in the sense that both were unnecessary and produced catastrophic failure. nixon, to some extent. redeemed that failure through his opening to china, which had fast centraled eegeic benefits for the united states. by putting the soviet union at an advantage. what i'm suggesting is we need similar creativity and boldness on the part of the obama administration. my own sense is trying harder to fix iraq is not likely to produce a positive outcome. maybe we can examine this longstanding isolation of iran as something that should be revisited and perhaps there to there's a chance to make a strategic gain that war. >> you are critical of the bush administration and the obama administration. you talk about bush being

reckless in iraq, and obama being naive, listless. do you think he will be able to do what nixon did. >> no, the president is obviously a very intelligent man. he is not a reckless man, but he's not particularly creative in the sense that whatever else you're thinking of nixon. nor, unfortunately has our president been created by advisors. my sense is the inner circle consists of people who are very conventional thinkers, and not particularly able, therefore, to provide him with the new ideas. the larger point here is so much of the chatter tries to fasten the blame on obama as if everything that happened before obama was hunky-dory.

what we have is mistakes made by prior administrations, compounded by mistakes made by this administration, and, therefore the deb bait over what -- debate over what ought to be done ought to be one this avoids partisan overtones. >> really interesting perspectives. we are grateful this you brought them to us. >> thank you for having me now for more stories around the world. we begin in washington d.c. where the washington announced it's seeking 500, to aid moderate rebels in syria. the aid will be used to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the armed opposition. this represents the most significant action by the u.s. in the syrian conflict, and the first time the u.s. committed to arming and training the opposition using the public budget.

next to brazil where the u.s. advance to the next round despite a 1-0 loss to germany. luis suarez was kicked out of world cup. five's disciplinary committee decided that he did bite an opponent. he was fined more than $100,000 and banned from soccer-related activity. >> we enter spain, fossils found, a 150,000-year-old speaksman. teeth and animal -- speaksman. earlier studies suggested that neanderthals were carnivores. now it's shown that they ate vegetables. 50,000 years ago they knew about a balanced diet. that's some of what is happening around the world. coming up

i.s.i.l. has thrown iraq into turmoil for ignoring the writings of osama bin laden. is this justice. a "new york times" columnist risking gaol time to protect a source. harmeli aregawi is tracking the stop stories, what is trending. >> we are not showing our true face on facebook. that may be hurting us more than we know. >> while you are watching we invite you to join the conversation. you can share your thoughts with the stream is uniquely interactive television. we depend on you, >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> so join the conversation and make it your own. >> the stream. next on al jazeera america and join the conversation online @ajamstream.

the performance review. that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

in a few weeks i.s.i.l. has become the world's most feared terrorist group. after taking over a big chunk of syria, they moved to iraq. they claimed victory after victory, threatening baghdad. i.s.i.l. successes may be short lived according to my nest guest who believes the group is making mistakes that osama bin laden warned against. joining us to explain how i.s.i.l.'s tactics in syria and iraq may lead it down the path

to self destruction is the national correspondent for slate.com. william, great to have you was. you viewed letters and journalists in osama bin laden's compound when he was caught, as to the best ways to run a terrorist organization. wrote at the end of his life - some of which he practised, and some he learnt through bitter experience, failures. >> let's go through the directives you compiled. the first you mentioned is don't fight civil wars. battling for territory against local governments will have negative consequences for an insurgent group. >> basically, if you want a theo accuratic state the long drawn out battle doesn't favour you. osama bin laden says there are real people living in these

place and the way to solve it is a deal. >> another rule is don't kill civilians, ironic coming from a mass murdering. basically he's saying don't kill muslims, because you can alienate your constituency. >> muslim is not a great guys, i'm not saying that, he didn't consider christ christians, jews or shiites fundamentalist. me made the point that they have ended up, al qaeda offshoots killed everybody and eventually the wrong people, members of a sunni tribe, for example, and them. country. >> it's happening in iraq. >> it's happening in iraq just as everywhere else. that's why he was trying to warn his followers about that. >> another rule is don't rule harshly.

it seems i.s.i.l. is violating that. you point mosul, i.s.i.l. banned drinking and cigarettes, and instructed women to stay at home. they can't come out. they announced government employees would be put to death. you brought this up a couple of minutes ago. is imposing sharia law part of the whole point. >> that's the framework. what osama bin laden was saying. he is saying al-shabab is too strict, harsh with people. find ways to be a little gentler. what i.s.i.l. has done, is, as you said to rule so harshly and strictly that people turn against them. people don't want to live under that theocracy. >> another rule

broken is don't flaunt your loss. they put together video showing gunmen executing soldiers, taunting she items. osama bin laden seemed to be relations. >> he was saying people say we are savages and brutal. we have to do that. osama bin laden was about pr. i.s.i.l. was about pr. they have a media operation. they send out a message, but it's that we are scary, bad and will kill everybody. there's not a lot of ways to make that message effective in terms of winning people to your side, and scaring everybody turns them on you. >> another directive is not to claim territory. they bring up the sample with fallujah. the red cross reported that

there's shortages of food, water and health care. they are having trouble governing - they have expanded their territory. i don't under about the reaction for i.s.i.l. people talk about it as though it's a brave new idea in terrorism. it's an old idea. osama bin laden's idea is you don't have to take a lot of territory. you hide in the mount answers and attack who you feel like attacking, when and where. for i.s.i.l. to go out and take territory with 5,000 to 10,000 guys, and hold it. it's crazy. what you do is you end up governing fallujah. the people are not good. >> it's crazy if they hold the territory and alienate sunnis and bathurst. destruct. >> they are in the process.

if you look at the map, you add up the number of entities. you have the syrians bombing them, the shiites marshalling their forces and iran moving and the united states plotting with the ke cognisance, and the kurds fighting them in the north. i am sure the turks will be in soon. it's too big a list of entities. >> a pleasure to have you with us, william from slate.com. the plight of three al jazeera journalists sentenced to prison prompted world-wide protests and us to look at threats to journalists around the world. journalism is not only assault in other countries, it's here at home in the birthplace of freedom of the press. we are joined by james ricen, author of "state of war, the secret history of c.i.a. and the

bush administration", the government allegation jeffrey stirling indicted under the espionage act served as a source for the book. ricen refused to testify in his trial. the u.s. rejected an appeal confirming a lower court decision that riesen could not ignore a spoken to test vi. he could face gaol time. james riesen joins us from washington. good to have you with us. you spoke at the sources and secrets commence in march, and you had this to say about the president obama association. >> they are perceived widely been the journalistic industry as the greatest enemy of press freedom that we encountered as an industry in a generation. others echoed your comments.

president obama promised transperpsy. you said that the disagrees doubled down on bush administration tactics, doing things the bush administration barely considered. >> i think there's not much doubt about it any more. the track record is clear. they have had more leak investigations and more leak prosecutions and have gaoled more people in connection with stories that have appeared in the media, than any other administration ever has. they have cracked down on reporters in various ways over the last few years, as well as whistle blowers. they tried to shut off the flow of information from the government to the people. it's the whole point of the first amendment. >> you said the administration is trying to create a de facto

officials act, trying to control reporting so only the facts that the government wants to be heard how? >> one way they have done it is by prosecuting and going after - conducting criminal investigations of stories they don't like. if you - the people write stories, in my case in a book. in other cases in the newspapers or other media, broadcasting. if there's a story that is embarrassing to the obama administration, or raises questions about u.s. policies, it's a good chance that they will conduct a leak investigation if they are involved in their mind that it involves some expect of national security. they will be happy to provide information officially leaked through the white house, and

officially sanctioned that makes the obama security problems look good. but stories that raised questions that investigate u.s. policy are more likely to be subjected to a criminal leak investigation. the justice department is being used by the obama administration, much like president nixon used an enemies' list, it's a more officially sanctioned version of an enemies' list. >> the white house called for a pardon or a clemency for the al jazeera journalists. what message does it send to the rest of the world when the administration is facing criticism from journalists? >> that is what i think is the most important thing we should think about here. what is the - what is the message that the obama administration is sending to the rest of the world in the way

that it's handling press freedom or cracking down. it's providing, in my opinion, the word - the message is going out from washington to the rest of the world that it's okay to crack down on reporters, is so countries like egypt are getting the message. the way in which the obama administration administration has cracked down on press freedom sent a green light to countries like egypt. reporters. >> because of the crackdowns you are talking about, the reporters without freedom. wowed borders, press freedom index had the u.s. plummeting when it comes to press freedom. do you think we'll see a shield law. there are some different proposals that made some senate. if anything becomes law, it would likely have to have a

national security exception. >> right, yes. it's difficult to tell right now which way the legislative process is going to go. put, you know, the problem today - i believe that we need a shield law, so i'm not sure which way congress will go, but i think the problem that the obama administration brought on itself is that it has performed, you know, done all the crackdown at the same time it says that it supports shield legislation. and so it's got a mixed message that they are sending. as i said, they are sending the message to the rest of the world that is very dangerous, which is the home of the first amendment is blacking down on journalism. so everywhere else you can do the same thing. >> at a time when journalists are being persecuted on every continent of the earth.

thank you for your time, thanks. >> i want to say i want to support the al jazeera reporters and hope they are freed soon. >> thank you very much. >> time to see what is trending on the web. aregawi. >> if we look at people's facebook payments we'd thing they were having the time of their lives. a short film illustrates the gap between our real life and online life is going vigil. in this a young man is going through a tough time. you wouldn't know it after what he posts on facebook. he's devastated after his girlfriend cheats on him. he says on facebook finally single. he rights he's clubbing, and he really drinking by himself. he is fired, and writes quit my job. all the while his facebook

friend are liking his far from true to life statuses much the point is no one is as happy as they seem on facebook. last year a university of michigan study found the more time people spent on facebook, the sadder they were. researchers think it's probably because people are comparing their lives to everyone else's edited versions. keep that in mind the next time you log in. >> basically we are all lying to each other on facebook. >> i don't know. i think too much is being made oust of the whole thing. doses. >> thank you. straight ahead - drones are taking off in popularity. thousands could fly above you. could they lead to a wild west in the skies. alarming numbers on the risks of excessive drinking, why you may want to cut back at the bar. and n.a.s.a. plays cowboys and asteroids.

>> al jazeera america presents the system with joe berlinger >> new york city has stop and frisk >> some say these laws help serve and protect... >> we created the atmosphere that the policeman's the bad guy... >> others say these tactics are racist >> discrimination is wrong >> 99 percent of those arrested in drug free school zones... we're not near a school at all! >> are they working? >> this time i'm gonna fight it. >> the system with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america

>> these protestors have decided that today they will be arrested >> these people have chased a president from power, they've torn down a state... >> what's clear is that people don't just need protection, they need assistance.

military drones have changed the american way of war. from flying long surveillance megses to locating and blasting taliban and al-qaeda terrorists and remote hideouts with he'll fire missiles. while the military operates, 10,000 drones worldwide, civilian drones in the u.s. have been limited to small models flown by hobbyists under strict limitations that are not always followed. we are likely to see an explosion next year, when the federal association announced rules, mandated by a 2010 war allowing drones to share the domestic air space. with the increase and drone flights on the way, the question is - are they safe? i'm joined

by an author of an investigative series on drone safety. great to have you with us. you report that the u.s. military, that has more experience than anyone else had 400 major accidents since 2001, including 47 inside the u.s. that caused $2 million in damage. so far nobody has been killed. have we been lucky. >> there has been close calls, as we reported in april. there was an army drone that crashed in a schoolyard, in elementary school in jones town, not far from harris burg. the drone fell out of the sky and landed near the playground 30 minutes after kids went home for the day. you can imagine the potential for disaster in an incident such as that. >> there was one in afghanistan where a drone crashed into one of our bases there. what are the chief causes of military drone faylures, and how do those problems apply to the

coming age of civilian flights. they fall into three categories, each of which is analogous to civilian drones. the three causes are pilot error, people making a mistake, mechanical area, a prob in flight or landing, and a third area are the wireless control links, the satellite links that control the drone, tell it where it's going. usually they are reliable. when they are not or they go on the fritz it flies out of control. >> there's no pilot that sits there with real eyes looking around and being able to acknowledge the space the drone is in. >> that's right. the f.a.a. calls it seen-o-void

or tech-no-void, in a real plane the pilot can look out and see what is around them. with a drone you have a camera which is powerful, but they have a limited field of vision, and the operator on the ground doesn't have a good vision as to what is going on outside. >> many civilian drones are so small they can't be seen on radar. talk about detect and avoid. counter drones don't have this technology to avoid other aircrafts. if we see thousands of these drones, do we face a danger, skies. >> there is a wild west in the skies in that the f.a.a. has or says that its guidelines inhibit use, except for up in alaska, up in the tundra where nobody is, and hobby yists who fly drones.

they are allowed to do that as long as they keep it under 400 feet and away from air force or populated areas. drones are so cheap for people to get their hands on, people are buying them. they don't get training and take them places they shouldn't. we found there has been sa reports by pilots. whether private or airline, of close calls or encounters with drones over major airports. that gets to the heart of the wild west, that people are shouldn't. >> so you have close calls. you report that there's about 200 unsafe incidents in general in the united states including 23 civilian drone crashes since 2009. one thing that comes to mind as we look at the smaller drones that are accessible - you know, are these things a terrorists

dream. >> well, i don't know that i would go that far. i think it was something that somebody who is looking to - has malicious intent. they would have tried that in the past. there has been reports of a couple of incidents where there was talk or discussion of taking a drone and crashing it. you have to understand they are the larger ones carrying weapons like the military, that's not something a guy will cook up in his base. they are bigger, taking a lot more skill and capabilities behind a terrorist group. the thing that you could use drones for, with cameras, or to crash into another plane, we isn't seen any evidence of that getting very far. i think, you know, whether the f.a.a. puts rules into place or not. it will not dissuade anyone that wants to cause problems. >> you can quote them, we have

to be convinced that they can do so safely. only 22% of americans think opening drones is a change for the better. 63% say it's a change for the worse. drones. >> no question. what we have seen is that there has been a revolution in warfare. with the military ruse. what's going to happen is there's going to be a revolution in civil aviation with drone. drones can stay aloft for a long period of time. up to 20 hours, 30 hours for some military models. if you have a person in the cockpit, they can't fly for that long. they need to come through. they can go places, they have a harder time doing. there's a lot of business participation for this, but also

for search and rescue, for law enforcement. other uses for the common good. there are safety issues, and the f.a.a. says they are going to move steadily and slowly to make sure that these things will be introduced safely into the air space, we were trying to show there was a lot of broader systematic concerns. then, of course, there are the privacy issues brought back to light this week when we saw a woman who had a drone outside the apartment window. we'll leave that discussion for another day. it's an interesting series in "the washington post." us. coming up, n.a.s.a. gets a soft landing with a test for parachutes. why the high tech space programme is using an old school technique to bring astronauts home safely

alcohol abuse is costing >> saturday, retired senator george mitchell. >> not every problem in the world is an american problem. >> shares his unique perspective on the future of america, home and abroad. >> people everywhere have certain things in common that are actually much greater than their differences. >> every saturday, join us for exclusive, revealing and surprising talks with the most interesting people of our time. talk to al jazeera, saturday, 5 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

>> now inroducing, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for suvivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting.

the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now you today's data dive may have you thinking twice about having 1 for the road. a c.d.c. study found alcohol accounts for one in 10 deaths among working age americans. that's right, one in 10. researchers found alcohol leads to 54 separate causes of death in people aged 20 to 64, including the obvious. alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis, and drinking and driving. drinking contributes to high blood pressure, breast cancer, heart attack and streaks. every year americans lose 2.5 million years of life because of alcohol. 71% of those that died are male. more than all of deaths are

related to bingeing. five drinks for men and four our women is bin jing. heavy drinking is 15 a week for me. only eight for women. >> new jersey had the lotest deaths. in the first year of the study, excessive drinking cost the u.s. $224 billion, for everything from lost productivity to reduced earnings and death. each drink is costing our economy $1.90. incredible. as alarming as the numbers are, the number of fatal car crashes alcohol related dropped. it dropped 35% over the past couple of decades. the decrease is bigger for underage drivers, a 60% drop. that means one person dies in an alcohol-related crash every hour and 10 minutes.

coming up, n.a.s.a.'s plan to so many money stories sound complicated. but don't worry. i'm here to take the fear out of finance. every night on my show i break down confusing financial speak and make it real. real reportinge

world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.

they are two booms that are having a big impact on america, we'll tell you how the energy boom and the bay boom are shaping the economy and much more. also the truth about overdraft fees, why the banks love them and you should watch out for them. plus growing america's next big restaurant chain. we'll tell you to where the seeds are being mra-- planted right now. i'm jen rogers in for ali velshi. and this is "real money." ♪