a stain on our values - the senate report on the c.i.a. and torture sparks passionate debate and a new alert to law enforce. in the u.s. an obama care architect apologises to congress, and elephants threatened with extinction because of the ivory trade. how terror groups may be benefitting i'm antonio mora, welcome to

"consider this", those stories and more ahead. >> coercive interrogation techniques did not produce vital intelligence. >> not only is torture wrong, it doesn't work. >> the numerous interrogations resulted in 766 disseminated reports. >> disgraced advisor jonathan gruber offering an apology. >> i made uninformed and glib promises. >> i made mean and insulting comments uncalled for. >> one in five women are assaulted in college. it's a staggering statistic. she's moving forward with a serious of changes. >> 70% of chinese people do not realise that ivory is coming from poached elephants. they think it's teeth that had fallen out. >> a man walked into a synagogue stabbing a student in the head.

>> the suspect yelled "i want to kill the jew." we begin with an explosive senate intelligence report on the c.i.a. >> the report released today examines the c.i.a.'s secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals, and the use of coercive interrogation techniques. in some cases amounting to torture. >> the report cess the c.i.a. misled the public about the enhanced interrogation techniques that were more brutal than believed. one detainee chained in a freezing sell died of hypothermia. some deprived of food, sorts kept awake. those methods did not leave to life-saving intelligence. new information on high profile leaders shoes khalid sheikh mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind,

was water boarded 183 times, and he and top al qaeda leader abu alzab ada nearly drowned to death. zab ada also lost a left high wills in custody. integrators in the field that tried to stop the brutal interrogations were overruled. the c.i.a. issued an extensive statement rebutting some of the senate report saying the interrogation methods were legal and led to important intelligence. the fbi and the department of homeland security issued a bulletin after the report's release, urging law enforcement to stay on alert. republican senator john mccain acknowledged the risk of releasing the information, saying it was worth it. >> it was sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. the american people are entitled to it nonetheless. they must know when the values

that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret, whether they served a greater good or whether, as i believe, they stained our national honour. >> let's bring in al jazeera english contributor, robert grenier, a former director of the counterterrorism center and was iraq mission manager from 2002 to 2004. justin raddick is a security and human rights director for the human rights project and was a whistleblower in the john walker lynch investigation, and has been an important advocate for other whistleblowers, including edward snowden. it is good to have you both on the show. robert, you were at the c.i.a. for part of the time - the whole time that the report looks at in different capacities, and you were offered the chance to read the report before it was

published you declined to do that. >> jonathan gainsaid the report needed to come out. what is your response to them and those that say it was important. >> to correct the record, i was briefly invited to read the report and before. i was not interested and the cost of agreeing to see the report in advance would have been that i could not have commented on it until after today's release. that was not a good bargain so far as i was concerned. in any case, within 24 hours of the invitation to view the report, it was rescinded by senator dianne fienstein. she did not want me to see the report or be prepared for what is happening today. >> what do you say to john mccain. and the fact that the report should have come out. i know you wrote in the most about how you think the report

overstates its criticism of the c.i.a. . >> no question about that. with regard to whether the american people have the right to be informed with what has been done in their name, absolutely. reasons to protect the information, provided you take appropriate steps to adapt and protect the information which needs to be protected, absolutely. i think the information should come out. my only problem is it should be accurate information, and that is not what you find in this report. >> how do you respond to robert and others who say that the report has gone too far, in saying that the c.i.a. lied, and misled not only the american people, but the government. >> this report is 6700 pages long, and although we have the 500 page executive summary, it is heavily footnoted and well documented what happened. i mean, i don't know what the inaccuracies are. i don't think the report is making up the fact that enemmas were used as a form of torture,

and that torture was vastly under stated to the public, and the c.i.a. deliberately misled not only the white house at times, but also congress, the justice department and deliberately misled the media by releasing classified information that amounted to propaganda. >> as all this was happening, you must have known... >> as all this was happening, my answer to each of the charges is false, false, false, false and false. let's maybe back up on that just a little bit. >> go ahead. >> okay, well, forgive me, i have not seen all the details in the report. i saw a reference to enemmas. good god. someone needs to explain to me what that was all about. was it a medical treatment. it wasn't a technique used in the interrogation. there is a long list of very extreme techniques. most people who would look at it

would say, you know, this is torture, and, you know, how much of it were you aware of when you were there. >> listen. if you are talking about the authorised techniques that we are employs in certain interrogations. mind you, there was 119 apparently in the programme. a minority. a significant number, but a minority were subjected to any of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. the majority decided the best course open was to cooperate and did so freely. that said, for those individuals subject to harsh ci interrogation, it was no picnic. i'm not going to sugar coat it. there are differences of opinion as to whether, for instance, waterboarding constitutes torture. there are only three individuals who water boarded. they were the worst of the worse. >> the report argues more than

three were. >> they sight circumstantial evidence and one case suggested it may have been done an additional time. i'm not aware of that. i know what the facts are, there were three people water boarded. the only three people that authorised is to be water boarded. the larger issue is people can disagree whether certain techniques constitution torture. in the case of waterboarding, there are many hundreds of u.s. pilots who were water boarded by the u.s. air force as part of their training. >> being waterboarded as part of seal training is different being water boarded under interrogation circumstances. and you know that. there were more than three people waurd boarded according to this well documented... >> not true. >>..and even three is way too many. whether water boarding is considered a legitimate

technique, both the president of the united states called waterboarding torture, as has attorney general eric holder called waterboarding torture. most of the planet agrees that water boarding is a form of torture, and certain when we did it to the japanese we considered it torture. >> you are a lawyer and know it was authorised by the justice department and c.i.a. >> it was authorised years after it happened. they were employed in 2002. the authorisation memos were not written until 2004 to serve as retroactive. >> false. >> my colleague, john, you, wrote them. i knew about them as an ethics attorney at the department of justice. >> listen, we had clear authorisation from the justice department. the office of legal counsel before any of these were used, and they were employed in august 2002. that is simply incorrect. >> one of big critics... >> maybe you need to read the

report. >> one of the issues in the report is that the techniques did not provide intelligence. i know there's a lot of push back, the lead republican on the senate intelligence committee. you were there. did you get serious investigations from enhanced interrogations leading to osama bin laden or to disrupt serious terrorist plots? >> the short answer to that is yes, absolutely. you point out that there is another report. we are talking about the report. this is not a senate intelligence committee report. this is a report done by the democrats and the staffers on the committee. there was a competing report released of over 100 pages, which is a very serious rebuttal

of the democrats report. i encourage people to read the reports along with the c.i.a. rebuttal. with regard to the issue of was this effective or not - frankly, as i head the findings in the democratic report, i was literally laughing ot loud. frankly, the conception of the way this works is almost cart onish. they think that c.i.a. entergackss are like what you see in the movies. you integrate someone and commigly you say yes, the bomb is planted, you rush to the place, and you diffuse it before it goes off in two hours. that's not the way that it works. this report seems to assume that you would know in advance what is in these people's heads. we couldn't be sure what was in the head of mohammed. this man had the blood of more than 3,000 americans on his

hands, and we thought there may have been other plots in trains, and he would have details in his head. we found over time that al qaeda is very disciplined and practices compartmentation of information. many of these people did not know about whole plots that they could give us all the details on. what they did know, however, was their colleagues who would be charged with planning and carrying out the plots. in most of these cases what was critical to learn about was the individuals in al qaeda who were charged with organising the plots. so those bits of information concerning individuals gave us the leads that we could follow up on, using all manner of other intelligence. at the end of the day what you are confronted with is like a jigsaw puzzle. a mosaic. you put the whole thing together and point out what we would regard as a key piece of information from mohammed or

others, and among those are bits of information leading to others and osama bin laden. you know, they are saying look, this wasn't actionable information. no, but the information we got was critical to ultimately finding the individuals and blocking those bloplots. >> i know you believe the report needed to come out, as i know senator mccain and dianne fienstein believed it should. we have warnings to domestic law enforcements, and across the world to american facilities, are you not concerned about the risk? >> no, i'm not. they should have thought about national security and the harm that could have erupted in the middle east, back when they arc tected and engineered and carried out and retroactively justified and destroyed evidence

and defended the programs. the report has been out for a fuel day. there has been no interruptive plaques in the middle east. and all the fear-mongering that goes on. finally i urge mr grenier to read the reports and the footnotes that document contrary pretty much to everything said on the programme about torture creating actionable intelligence. it created a lot of false intelligence by curve ball and other people who gave us information that was unhelp. and torturing people helped to recruit more terrorists by engendering the antipathy of the middle east. >> seems to be strong positions on both sides. appreciate you both being with us. thank you. >> turning to political implications of the report, i'm joined by bill schneider, a resident scholar at think tank,

and joining us from los angeles is political correspondent michael shure. good to she you. we saw the passionate reaction from both sides to the report. we saw it play out on capitol hill. most republicans are upset the report was released. how much of this is politics, the demonstrates putting out the report before the g.o.p. takes control of the senate. >> yes, and most specifically you have to look at the politics. you have to know that richard burr the republican from north carolina will take over the chairmanship. a lot of timing of this has to do with that, with the change over. there would be a great reluctance and avoidance of releasing the report come to january and republican control. it is politics. this was a report submissioned. a lot of money was spent on the report. people on both sides think it's important not share the results of the report, in light of the

fact that money and time was spent. >> republicans have counter reports which was substantial on its own. at first, secretary of state john kerry expressed concern about the release, and then president obama c.i.a. director criticized a significant amount of findings. is there a split within the administration on this? >> there appears to be. those responsible for intelligence services, including the secretary of state expressed caution about what the implications might be, and the repercussions. american troops overseas are standing on alert. this is partisan. welcome to washington. everything is partisan. the one thing going for the democrats is they have an ally. that is senator john mccain, subject to the torture during the vietnam war. he defended the report, and said the details need to be brought to light. >> let's move on. the torture report was not the

only thing happening on capitol hill. multiple times it was said that the administration purply misled -- purposely mislead americans to get obama care passed, especially when it came to taxes, and they took advantage of the voter. he testified today and got a grilling by darren issa. >> i'm a tax payer, people are not paying less, people are paying more because taxes are a cost that's paid. total cost did not go down. cost shifting occurred in your model, isn't that true? >> the amount that individuals have to pay for health care in my model fell. >> it didn't fall in reality. >> gruber was conciliatory, apologised for his arrow gaps, but how much has the episode

hurt what was already an unpopular law? >> it's popularity we could debate at another time. it's popular in some places, less in others. not in chairman issa's office. his now portrait is there. groousher was looking at the new chairman and his portrait, intimidating. here is what happened. you talked about partisanship being everywhere in washington. you know, it is really front and the center with obama care. jonathan gruber apologised. he equifo kated a little -- equifo kated. issa's committee wanted to know more about why things happened and why they weren't shared. gruber was talking about

transparency. it was not about transparency, it was about the money. gruber for an m.i.t. professor struggled to answer questions about the economist of the bill. >> in the past. the administration knew that some people wouldn't be able to keep the plans, and said if all the states didn't set up exchanges, obama care would fail, and dozens of states haven't. very little of that was addressed, as you said. a lot of it was focussed on all torts of money. this all led democratic strategists to write that republicans blew the hearings by overly focussing not just on the economics, but on how much money gruber got paid and not on the bigger issues that might have been important in the obama care debate. >> republicans treated that as

kingsley's definition of a gav. a gav is when a poll fish in washington accidently speaks the truth. that's what republicans say gruber did. he spoke the truth without them intending to. in the video tapes, it's like a nerd addressing the convention of nerds and talking about how cruel and potent he is for putting something over the american people. republicans will never let that go. and it credits obama care as some kind of float. will republicans move forward, trying to bring the law down? >> yes. >> as mitch mcconnell said, he'll try to bring it down root and branch. i don't think he'll do it root and branch, they'll have to do it root by root, and that they are going to take little pieces of it and take it apart. some people are wondering about what it does to people, you

know, the number of upinsured has been way down. they don't want the onus of taking that away from people, but they want to take away some of those mandates and the taxation out of it. that will happen, they'll bring it up, fix it and tweak it. as the president arrived for. he said over and over, bring me a plan that is better. the republicans have both houses of congress and maybe they'll come up with a plan. >> the other big story on capitol hill, they need to pass a spending bill by midnight thursday night. if not there'll be another government shutdown. it seems how's speaker john boehner managed to upset conservatives because they say the republicans are not extracting a big enough price on the president's inaction on immigration. do you think the bill will pass and will democrats need something to do so. >> the open is yes, and yes.

it will pass. democrats will do it. it will be embarrassing for everyone. this is a coming attraction. this is a coming attraction for what will happen in the next two years, with republican control of congress, democratic president. we'll see it played out again and again. >> republicans are upset because john boehner was trying to push through the spending bill without giving anyone time to look at it. republicans accused nancy pelosi of doing the same thing when she said republicans had to pass obama care to find out what was in it. >> it's almost at the point where it's not ironic or funny, it's almost routine. it happens with every bill and the close of congress, one side plays the other. they know about the date and this is a forecast of what would happen, funding the government through september. you'll visit it again at the end of next summer. the same wrangling will happen.

>> good to see you as always. back to the lead story, the senate story on c.i.a.'s enhanced interrogations garnered a lot of intention. let's go to harmeli aregawi. >> there's a lot of response, from anger to shock and scared that it might provoke violence here and abroad. hashtag was trending on tuesday, you could almost here the voices appalled by the details. don said: some were not surprised. others said this doesn't define the u.s. larry says: many were scared.

some like taylor questioned the document: and: in anticipation of this report, former c.i.a. officials created the c.i.a. saves lives.com, a website claiming that tactics were legal, necessary and effective. let us know what you think on twitter @ajconsiderthis. >> this is the most talked about story on twitter now. >> coming up, blaming n.a.t.o. and the u.s. for russian aggression in the ukraine. a provocative take sparking debate. >> dispute rape allegations at the juste of virginia. the consequences of sexual assault allegations on our

campuses. and what do you think, join the conversation. a difference? >> why are we sending them teachers with 5 weeks of training?

fighting rages on in eastern ukraine in a wide by violated ceasefire, a year after demonstrations leading to a new ukranian government. and there were standoffs between russia and the west. the conventional wisdom is that the crisis is entirely because of brazen aggression of vladimir putin. a growing chorus of western foreign policy analysts is putting blame in the u.s., europe and n.a.t.o. to debate the issue we are joined by greg myer, editor of npy.org and served as the news editor from 1996 to 1999. we are joined by writer and commentators patrick aerial smith. he wrote his latest piece entitled "new york times"

propaganda exposed. the truth about ukraine and vladimir putin emerges. patrick, i'll start with you. a provocative title. it's a provocative article. you said in there that there's now an open acknowledgment in high places that washington is, indeed, responsible for this mess. really, an open acknowledgment. you quote a handful of foreign policy experts, some of whom we have had on the show. how responsible can the u.s. and the west be for vladimir putin annexing crimea, and sending troops into a sovereign nation? >> look, the venue of the various acknowledgements, foreign affairs magazine, washington post, henry kissinger giving an interview - this counts there are decisions within policy circles. they are serious, there has been

a critical overestimation of how much of this crisis can be hidden, and all you need to do is apply that one thing the state department is allergic to - historical perspective. if you look at this historically, it goes back to 1991, and the collapse of the soviet union, and what unfolded in the years after. it's simply there - for a lot of people in washington, the cold war never ended. it preceded by other means. >> well, what do you say to that. is some of the responsibility on our shoulders, did the u.s., allies and neighbours provoke in by getting closer to ukraine, to balt ig republics and georgia. should we have known that vladimir putin would react, afraid n.a.t.o. would have a strong hold on his borders. >> i would agree with patrick in the sense that the historical

stronghold is importance. look at what the united states and the west has done to bring russia in. they created a council with n.a.t.o. to allow the russians to take part in discussions. they brought russia into the ga, into the world trade organization. the u.s. and the west has been trying to bring russia into the system, the premise - if the premise is that n.a.t.o. is a threat, to the u.s. and europe, if they want to take aggressive action against russia, this argument may make sense. but n.a.t.o. never started a war in europe. and to think that somehow n.a.t.o. or the west is - has aggressive intent towards russia, historical record, doesn't support that for the past 20 years. >> to greg's point. we did try to include russia in a lot of these meetings and then there was a reset during the

obama administration, where there was an opening tour and improving relations. >> okay. the word we are stamping around for is partnership. that was on offer after the soviet union collapsed. within a few years it was quite plain that moscow and washington talked past one another on this point. what moscow meant is what vladimir putin looks for now - a partnership between equals. cooperation, interdependence, the whole thing. let me finish. what washington meant was something closer to justice. we won the cold war, debatable in itself, and now you may come in, but you will conform. you will conform as we require. right. not russia's game from the

first. vladimir putin used the word betrayal. i don't think it can be dismissed. >> what do you say to that. how responsible are we. is there a certain american arrogance that thinks hey, we won the cold war, and we have the right to do whatever we want, and the rest of the world should be more like us, more democratic, more capitalist. do we have the right to push the world to be like us. we r with you -- we can try the policy. i would make the distinction between working towards greater economic cooperation is a good thing. it's difficult for russia to oppose that. expanding militarily, with the

nato expansion, you can argue this is wise for not wise. with ukraine, they have requested n.a.t.o. membership in 2008, and europe was very much opposed to that. it did not go forward. and so you crepian member -- ukranian membership in n.a.t.o. has been off the table for the last six years, out of sensitivity to russia. the u.s. has been, i think, sensitive in some ways. obviously russia - vladimir putin doesn't feel it's been yourself, but this has been part of the debate. you can argue whether it is wise. >> you write about how vladimir putin stand for the right of nonwestern nations to be nonwestern. what if the nonwestern nations want to be western. do they have the right to align themselves with the west and

russia. even if they are on the borders. >> of course they can. going back to greg's first point, the thought that america has the right to press its version of democracy around the world as a debatable idea - i'm sorry, that is a cock eyed debate, i'm not on it. as to the eastern european nations, of course, of course. they can democratize, determine their futures, certainly. if they don't care to, that's another matter. okay. that's another matter entirely. >> what about the question that you raise, and you raise it in - in quoting dr kissinger. you talk about balance of power politics, that you can't ignore them. should we not be passed this focus on spheres of influence, that somehow there can't be n.a.t.o., you know, expansion

towards the east or russia, that russia should control its neighbours, and north america should control its. >> should we be past spheres of influence. emphatically. are we? emphatically we are not. the cold war was - spheres of influence is a 19th century technology, right. but it reached its absolute extreme during the cold war. that was the - that was the transformation of planet earth into spheres of influence. are we passed that now? come on. what you - you never find in the media a discussion of the cuban missile crisis or behaviour in central and latin america over many decades. somehow this is an equif lens. >> that was 50 years ago. things - greg, a final word - have we not changed?

have we not learned lessons from some of those interventions? >> well, yes, exactly. world war i and world war ii came out of central and eastern europe when there was a sphere of influence holding sway, this idea. i think since the end of the cold war we saw a great evolution. the countries in central and eastern europe changed. battics and other countries want a different way, a different arrangement. different security and economic arrangement. there has been an evolution. vladimir putin is looking towards a soviet union that no longer exists and wants to recreate that world. >> good to have you both with us. i urging to read patrick's articles, they are thought provoking. pressure to have you both. >> now for more stories from around the world. we begin in new york city where man was shot and killed by

police inside a synagogue after the man stabbed an israeli student in the head. 49-year-old calvin peters stormed into the synagogue early tuesday yelling "i want to kill the jew." police arrived and peters at first complied with orders to put his knife down. things seemed to be calming down. but then he grabbed the knife again. peters was killed by a shot to the torso. the 22-year-old student is in stable condition. >> next to bag dad where secretary of defense chuck hagel may be on his last overseas trip as head of the pentagon. he met with troops and iraqi

prime minister haider al-abadi. he pressed for more u.s. involvement in the fight against i.s.i.l., saying our forces are very much advancing on the ground, but they need more air power and heavy weaponry "we need that." asked about the requests by haider al-abadi, secretary hagel responded "i appreciate his directness, but only they can bring lasting peace to their country." we end in north carolina, where cam newton sustained two fractures after his truck collided with a sedan and rode over a bridge. newton and another driver were taken to hospital with nonlife threatening injuries after the crash in charlotte. the panthers say he's in fair condition and undergoing test. the injuries did not affect newton's spine or nerves. it's not clear if he'll miss playing time. his back injury is similar to the one suffered by dallas cowboys quarterback tony romo,

and he missed one game. that is some of what is happening around the world. coming up, what impact will a contested rape allegations at the university of virginia have on the nation-wide problem of sexual assault on college campuses. could elephants go extinction in the next 20 years, staggering poaching numbers. haggling is saving americans hundreds of dollars on everything - furniture, electronics and hotel rooms. why don't nor of us do it?

more fall out from "rolling stones" magazine missteps. u.v.a. will establish a committee to study campus social issues including sexual assault or binge drinking. the controversy may distract from dealing with the problem of sexual assaults at schools across the country. a report released by the white

house highlighted the prevalence of rape. one in five students experiences a sexual assault during college. one in eight student victims reports it to authorities. joining us from oklahoma city is professor of higher education and student affairs. he's a former assistant dean at the university of virginia, and the national president of one in four, an organization dedicated to preventing rape on camp u and is author of men's and women's programs, ending rain through peer presentation. >> this controversial rowling stone article has restarted the conversation about campus sexual assault. as i mentioned you are concerned that all the questions about the voracity of the story will take away from the seriousness of the issue and what needs to be done about it? >> absolutely. there has been a lot of noise questioning the voracity of the survivor's account. there's an absence in

understanding of how post-traumatic stress disorder unfolds and an account is not given in a linear order nor the same every time. there are always minor differences. i'm hoping that on a national scale, that we are looking at the violence on college campus, and we are able to really work towards prevention in the first place. do you think this incident will have a chilling affect. maybe the numbers are over might. >> i don't think the numbers are overhyped. but i do thing there are more. the numbers are forward, and what they are seeing is survivors, who are attacking all over again by students, criminal justice system. and even some of the medians and

bloggers attack it in ways that are unconscionable. >> as of the end of november, 90 universities were under investigations for title 9 sexual violations, a number that has grown transportationly. you wrote a book on this. what needs to be done to deal with the problem more effectively. on this show we discussed all sorts of things, the informed consent law in california, elective sexual harassment. prevention programs at colleges. most of those conversations don't get to the heart - what seems to be the heart of the problem. alcohol and to some extent fraternities, which are significant factors. >> there's a lot of significant factors. it takes a multipronged approach. we need research-based prevention, not just some that someone makes up in a committee. we need it multiple times. we need meaningful consequences

or perpetrators, so not simply write a paper, read a book or that sort of thing. they need to be expelled, and we need to explore trust in the criminal justice system and the student conduct system on colleges and universities so the issues are dealt with swiftly and substantially. >> the issue was dealt with swiftly by u.v.a., suspending all fraternities on campus. many believe the greek system amplifies students worse behaviour. do you agree with that? >> i do. i think the swift action by u.v.a. was only after the rolling stone article. indeed, this gang rape occurred two years ago. that's part of it. the research that i have done on college fraternities is they are three times more likely to commit sexual violence than men not in fraternities.

>> and women in sore otheries are more often victims. whatever happens in this u.v.a. case, it does raise the issue of the possibility that men are accused falsely, and the estimates vary tremendously. the more reliable estimates are between 2-8%. you wrote that it raises important questions about this issue. >> it razes important questions, not in the -- raises important questions not in the sense that there's false accusations out there. i think they are praccingly non-executiven. it raises the issue because people questioned her story. they have every reason to. if a woman reports a rape on campus, her status and social group and other groups goes way down, not way up. it's not something that women do

for their own personal gain or making something up. that is really an upper end because that relies on the judgment of a police officer to check an unfounded box to say he believes there may be inconsistencies, not that it didn't happen. so many concerns that this case and others bring up. appreciate you joining us. thank you very much coming up, sounding the alarm about elephants endangered by extinction. haggling - it's surprisingly effective and could save you big bucks. we'll explain in the data dive next.

continues episode three: the new middle east on al jazeera america

today's data dive looks for a deal. amazon is open for haggling. they announced app auction called make an offer for collectibles. customers can place a bid on 150,000 its that cost $100 or more. a quarter of all bids were anticipated. bargaining could save you money. consumer reports found in 2009 two-thirds of americans had tried negotiating discounts in the prior six months, more than four out of five got lower hotel rates, clothing and cell phone and 60% lowered credit card fees. last month nearly nine out of 10

people who haggled saved money from everything from jewellery to home electronics and an average on furniture. effective strategies are telling a salesperson you'll check a competitor's price or show another is charging less. make a personal collection, and explain why you deserve a break. show knowledge about the product or stay slept when sales people respond, they may question their offer. and ask questions like how can we work together instead of yes or know questions like can you help me. if so many are getting better deals through haggling, why don't more do it. we are embarrassed, think we'll look cheap and afraid of regez. coming up, the massacre of elephants and a report about extinction. i'm john seigenthaler from al jazeera. the long-awaited senate report describes the c.i.a.'s actions

after 9/11. and an indepth look at torture in the c.i.a. california is about to be hit by a big storm, how will it impact the drought. and gamer-gate, impacting violence against women.

the demand for ivory in china exploded, fuelling an illegal trade. a report published by save the elephants and the aspinall foundation paints a dark picture, ivory prices and retailers is soaring in china, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of elephants. monday prince william spoke up against poaching during his visit to the u.s. >> in my view, one of the most insidious forms of corruption in the world today is the illegal wildlife trade. we need new efforts to drive wildlife trafficking from our

land, seas and skies. time is not on our side. >> joining us is joe walston, for the wildlife conservation society. he worked in zambia and spent 15 years in asia, including china. an alarming report. clearly ivory has become bigger and bigger business in china, with the prices soaring, and the number of retailers increasing dramatically. how dire a situation is this becoming for elephants? >> this is probably the largest crisis to have faced the two species of african elephants. the last few years saw a consistent decline in elephants. driven by a demand coming primarily from asia. so, yes, we are facing the two species - they are facing imminent extinction in some areas, some have been lost, and the future looks dire.

>> more elephants are poached for their ivory than are being born. >> we have 2010, 2011, 2012 - 100,000 elephants were killed illegally, resulting in 10,000 at the conservative effort for each elephant entering the illegal chain. that's a billion dollars of money that has been made out of live elephants turned into dead elephants, feeding the chain to asia. >> you talk about illegally, the convention on international trade and endangered species allows some countries to export elephant ivory. there's a convention charged and allowing the killing of some elephants. is that a problem? >> certainly the - there were two one-off sales of ivory allowed. the evidence now with many years

of hindsight led to an increase in the illegal trades. masked by the legal trade. that continues to be a problem. >> ironically, i read that a live elephant is worth more to those countries than a dead elephant. >> yes. the issue is who profits. >> of course, it's one thing if it's an illegal poster. is there no way in africa to figure out some way of protecting the animals. >> yes, there is. the key issue is not one aspect. we need to track the killing and we need to stop the demand in asia and other countries. >> is china doing enough. we see the prices or the numbers of retailers, factories involved, and dealing with the

ivory for sale. is china doing enough to stop the illegal trade. >> at the moment no one is doing enough. no one is doing enough, not china, nations in afghanistan coe nor the international -- africa, nor the international community. it is correct in its findings, adding to the watt. >> the chinese middle class is growing, economy is growing. before you go, i want to show kathryn bigelow who came to prominence, she came out with a public service announcement that is powerful. let's look at some of that.

how much of the illegal ivory trade is funding the worst terrorist groups in the world? >> the answer is we don't know the extent to which it is funding terrorism. we do know some facts, some of the lord army has profited. it is likely that it is funding terrorism in other sites. we have to be cautious to base that on evidence. that is patchy, that authority. but in some cases we know it's true. >> best luck with yourest. these are magestic animals beloved by everyone. it's a tragedy to think that they could be extinct in 20 years if this continues. thank you very much. >> that's all for now. the conversation conditions on

the website. aljazeera.com/considerthis. we are on facebook and twitter @ajconsiderthis and tweet me @amoratv. see you next time. this is al jazeera america, i'm john seigenthaler. condemning torture, brutality from the c.i.a., reaction from the new report, will anyone be held accountable. our special coverage, the senate report, torture and the c.i.a. >> we need not risk national honour to prevail in this or any war. california storms, rain and the fear of