younger 96-year-old man. going strong. >> that will do it for this hour. thank you for joining us. i'm thomas drayton in new york. "consider this" is next. be safe. a stain on our values, the senate report on c.i.a. and torture parks debate and a -- splashes debate -- sparks passionate debate. bernie had of's secretary of 25 years -- madoff's secretary of 25 years joins us and elephants threatened with extinction. how terrorist groups may be benefitting. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this", those stories and more straight ahead. . >> this particular relief serve no purpose.

>> i think it's a terrible piece of work. seems it's deeply flawed. >> we did things violeting who we are. >> my name is eleanor, for the last 25 years i was bernie madoff's secretary. >> people look crime. >> 20% of people buying ivory elephants. >> we begin with an intelligence . >> the report released examines the c.i.a.'s secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals. and the use of coercive interrogation techniques. torture. >> the report says the c.i.a. misled the public about the enhanced interrogation techniques, which were more

brutal than previously believed. one detainee who was chained in a frigid cell died of hypothermia. some were starved of food. others kept away for seven days at a time. the report argues that the methods did not lead to life-saving intelligence. new information shows the 9/11 mastermind was waterboarded 183 times, and he and top leader nearly drowned to death. zubaydah lost his left eye whilst in custody. the report says the c.i.a. repeatedly provided false information to congress and the president. integrators in the field that tried to stop the brutal investigations were overruled. the c.i.a. issued a statement rebutting some of the report, saying the interrogation methods were legal, and they did lead to important intelligence.

meanwhile the fbi and the department of homeland security issued a bulletin, urge, law enforcement to stay on alert. >> john mccain acknowledged the release of the information, saying it's worth it. >> it is used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. but the american people are nonetheless. >> you must know, when the values that define our nation are 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, a former director of the c.i.a. counter-terrorism center and mission manager for the agency from 2002 to 2004. just jip is a national -- justine is a national security

and human rights editor, was a whistleblower in the john walker lyndon interrogation and has been an advocate for other whistleblowers, including edward snowden, and an ethics advisor to the u.s. justice department. robert, you were at the c.i.a. for part of the time that - the whole time that this report looks at in different capacities. you were offered the change to read the report before it was published. you declined to do that. the report needed to come out regardless of the risk. what is your response to him. >> first of all, to correct the record, i was briefly invited to read the report and before - and i was not interested because i had seep enough, and the cost to seeing it would be that i could not comment on it publicly. it was not a good bargain as far

as i was concerned. within 24 hours or so of the invitation to view the report, it was rescinded by senator dianne fienstein, she did not want me to see or be prepared for that report. >> what do you say to john mccain, and the fact that he said it could have come out. you wrote in hoept that you -- "huffington overwrote. >> absolutely. reasons to protect information, providing that you take appropriate steps to redact and otherwise protect the information that needs to be protected - absolutely. the information should come out. my problem is that it should be accurate. report. >> how do you respond to robert, and to a lot of other critics who stay that this report has gone too far in saying that the

c.i.a. lied and misled not only government? >> this report is 6700 pages long. and although we only have the 500 page executive summary, it is very heavily footnoted and very 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 enemas were used as a form of torture, and that torture was understated to the public, and that the c.i.a. misled the white house at times, but also congress, the justice department, and deliberately mislead the media by releasing classified information that amounted to propaganda. >> as all this was happening... >> as all this happened - my answer so each of those charges is false, false, false and false. let's back up on that just a little bit.

>> go ahead. >> okay. well, forgive me, i haven't seen all the details in this report. i saw a reference to enemas. good god, someone needs to explain to me what that was all about. was it a medical treatment. it wasn't one of the techniques used in interrogation. >> but 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 were employs in certain of these interrogations. there was some 119 in the programme. a minority of those. a significant number. a minority were subjected to any enhanced interrogation techniques. the majority, once they found themselves in c.i.a. hands decided the best course open was

to cooperate, and they did so freely. that said, for those individuals subject to harsh interrogations, i can assure you it was no picnic. i'm not going to sugar coat it. there are differences of opinion as to whether water boarding constitutes torture. there were three individuals worst. >> the report argues more than just the three were. >> they cite circumstantial evidence and one case suggests that it may have been done an additional time. i'm not aware of that. i know what the facts were. there were three people who were water boarded. only three people authorised to be water boarded. the larger issue is that people legitimately can disagree about whether certain techniques constitute torture. in the case of waterboarding

many hundreds of u.s. pilots training. >> being water boarded as part of seal training is it different to being waterboarded under interrogation circumstances. you know that. there were more than three people waterboarded. >> not true. >> according to this well documented report. and three is too many. >> no. >> what water boarding an a legitimate technique, the president of the united states called water boarding torture, has has attorney general eric holder called water boarding torture. most of the planet agrees that water board something a form of torture, and when we did it to torture. >> you are a lawyer, you know it was authorised by the justice department and c.i.a. lawyers. >> it was authorised years after it happened. the techniques were deployed in 2002. authorisation memos were not written in 2004, serving as retro active.

>> false. >> my colleague john yu wrote them. i knew about them as an ethics justice. >> listen, we had clear authorisation from the department. the office of legal counsel before any techniques were used. that is simply incorrect. one of the big criticisms of the report is the enhanced interrogation techniques did not provide intelligence. there has been a lot of push back from the lead republican on the senate intelligence committee. you were there. did you get serious information from enhanced interrogations that led to osama bin laden or to, you know, disrupt serious terrorist plots. >> the short answer to that is yes. absolutely.

and you point out the fact that there is another report - we were talking about the report. this is not a senate intelligence committee report. this is a report that was done exclusively by the democrats and staffers on the committee. there's a competing report released, of over 100 pages length, which is a very serious rebuttal of the democrats report, and i encourage people to read both reports along with the c.i.a. rebuttal. with regard to the issue of was this effective or not. frankly, as i read the findings in the democratic report, i was literally laughing out loud. frankly, their conception. way this works is almost cartoonish. they think that c.i.a. interrogations are like what you see in the movies, you integrate someone, finally they say yes,

they are planted. you rush to the place, and you managed to diffuse it before the thing goes off in a few hours. this is not the way it, would. it assumes that you would be able to know in advance what is in these people's heads. we couldn't be sure what was in the head of khalid sheikh mohammed. he was responsible for 9/11, he had the blood of many on his hands. we feared at the time that there may have been greater plots in train at the time. what we found was, in fact, al qaeda is a very desorganised and practices good compartmentalizition of information. many did not know about plots that they could give us 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 the these cases what was critical to learn about was the individuals in al qaeda,

charged with organising the plots, and so those bits of information concerning individuals gave us the leads that we were able to follow up on ug all man -- on using all man are of other intelligence. you were confronted with a jigsaw puzzle. you put the whole thing together and point out what we regard as a key piece of information coming from sheikh mohammed. and among those were bits of information that led to abu akmed al-cue wady, leading to osama bin laden. they are saying, well look, this was not actionable information. no, but the information we got was critical to ultimately finding the individuals and blocking them. >> a final quick word from you on the dangers of getting - i know you believe the report needed to come out, as i know

senator mccain and dianne fienstein believed it should. now we have warnings to domestic law enforcement, across the world to american facilities, risk? >> i'm not. they should have thought about national security and the harm in the middle east back to when they architected and carried out, justified and destroyed evidence of and defended these programs, number one. number two, the report has been out and we have seen no disruptive plots in the middle east, and all the fear-mongering that went on preceding the release of the report. finally i urge mr grenier to read the report and the footnotes, which meticulously documented contraried pretty much everything he said on the programme about torture creating accessible intelligence. the opposite. it created a lot of false intelligence, for example, by curve ball and others who gave us information that was

uphelpful, and torturing people helped to recruit more terrorists by engendering the antipathy of people. >> seems to be strong positions on both sides of the issue. appreciate you both being with us. thank you turning to the angry response from three former c.i.a. directors to the senate intelligence committee's report. in an op ed piece in "the wall street journal", the three called the report poorly done and partisan attack on the agency. former directors insisted while the c.i.a. did things in the interrogation programme that should not have happened, they argued the programme led to the capture of center al qaeda operatives, disrupted terror plots, prevents mass casualty attacks, and played an important role in the hunt for osama bin laden. all points rejected in the committee report, but supported by current c.i.a. director john brennan.

at the white house. josh ernst suggested that the issue whether the programme produce actionable intelligence was besides the point. >> if this information did yield important national security are information, the damage that it did to our moral authority in the mind of this president means that those interrogation techniques should not have been implemented in the first place. >> for more on the senate intelligence committee report i'm joined by former g.i. a director wallsie, serving from 1993 to 1995. ambassador, a pleasure to have you. your colleagues, three former c.i.a. directives say a balanced study was important, but the committee report was everything but. it was a partisan attack. do you agree with them? >> basically, yes.

what is indicative here is that they interview viewed and dealt with no one, such as the three directors of central intelligence, who had been responsible for making decisions about the programme, and correcting early mistakes that were made. they didn't talk to a soul. they took thousands of pages of text and edited it in whatever way they wand. and you can make it say most anything with those kinds of numbers. then they call that a report. this is just about a distorted a job as i have seen come out of capitol hi capitol hill in 35 to 40 years isle been looking at reports. >> you have been complimentary of dianne fienstein, and the top republican on the intelligence

committee who was critical of the report, and its release. if you had been the director, measures. >> i would have gone to the justice department and had a decision made for a recommendation to the wt. i don't know that the methods would be the same. thousands of americans had been lost to a terror attack. we knew that others were planned. a major win. we knew that the terrorists talked about nuclear weapons s they were frighten and understandably

so. as it is defined in american war. some of these enhanced interrogation techniques strike me as reasonable. >> putting aside brutal things that the report mentions. things like waterboarding and sleep depravation, you don't see it as torture, something appropriate in the 9/11. >> water boarding is torture. if you compare it to pulling someone's unless out. water boarding is used as a training device for special forces and the navy seals and the rest. few are waterboarded. they also the other thing that happens is journalists and

authors in the united states, after this first came to light volunteered to be waterboarded. >> view volunteer to have their thinker nails pulled out. >> true. >> at the same time, if you are waterboarded as part of training, when compared to being at a black site prisoner. >> if you are a prisoner who has information about a subsequent attack on the united states that might have involved the deaths of thousands of americans, i would think that the differences are ones that one can deal with. >> a lot of the backlash has been to say that the report is wrong and the enhanced interrogation techniques do work. that. >> i don't

have a separate measure but this is not a committee report, it's democratic members, and it's partisanship. i have never seen anything like this. i was general counsel of the senate armed committee. i've been involved at the congress. i've never seen a congressional report as by as as this. >> on the issues of effectiveness, critics say it could be argued that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective because it's the only way to justify extreme methods, do they have a point. the point is to get information, through mind games and trickery and interrogation.

there are different approaches. i think if you want to call waterboarding torture, which some do, and some do not there's no direct law. if you want to call waterboarding torture, you have to admit it's a different kind to what most people think of as damage. >> the former directors wrote about how in the months after 9/11 is something you talked about. they feared another attack would be eminent. it felt like a ticking time bomb. general haden had more to say about that, let's listen. >> we thought we were doing the nation well. having lived in the period and looking bag on it now, we thought it was about the

nation's will, and in all these activities, the president authorised them. the congress was briefed and we carried them out. the programme ran until december 2007. i was one of the people that had to be tested for anthrax exposure. should the programme have been stopped once the panic was over, and we learnt a lot about al qaeda, and made progress in the fight against them. >> you have to take the issues one at a time. one of the so-called interrogation thords is that an individual was pushed. the door was designed so it would break. he was thrown against the door. it is

designed to break. how is that something that under no circumstances on moral grounds could be considered. it does not strike me as anything other than a trick. i think so many people have latched on to the whole idea of torture, and used the word without having it - have any content. thinking that that wins the argument for them. it is complicated. i do not thing over the long run the country should be engaged in waterboarding. i think it was understandable at the time and in the circumstances. i frankly have been inclined to think it was all right to continue it. i'm influenced in my fews by john mccain, who has been a

friend and underwent torture. and is sort of my authority on torture, in a sense. i think it's a close call, a difficult call. but to portray it as if it were something like pulling people's fingernails out is extraordinarily deceptive. >> final question - one of the big parts of the report was accusing the c.i.a. of misleading congress and civilians. the c.i.a. by nature is clandestine. it needs to hide things that are going on. but does it need to hide things public? >> i take at their word the three former directors who assigned - who signed the letter to "the wall street journal", along with other senior colleagues. that they have fully informed the congress, and i think that it would be ridiculous of them not to inform the congress of some major step like this.

i could not conceive of their not having done so. but only the people who spoke, and the people who were spoken to know again that it is really extraordinary that the people who put this democratic majority report together for the congress did not talk to a single person inside the government or the c.i.a. or anywhere else involved in pulling the programme together. they decided to edit the way they wanted, so they could say what they wanted it to say. deceptive. >> the directors were emphatic on the fact that they briefed congressional leaders fully. ambassador, it is good to have your perspective and good to have you back on the show. >> good to be with you again. >> "consider this" will be right >> my name is elenor and for the last 25 years i was bernie madoff's secretary.

>> an unimaginable story of betrayal. >> they lived this incredible life. it just never occurred to me that they were living on the dime of the clients. >> greed... >> bernie was stealing every nickel but he wasn't trading anything. >> ... and entitlement. >> you took my grandchildren's future away from them.

bernie madof's victims are expressing disgust over surprising leniency for some of his co-conspirators. four of his ex-employs were given shorter sentences that what was recommended. a lawyer said: madoff is serving 150 years for the largest single fraud leading to tens of billions in losses. he was arrested six years ago, his secretary looks back in the documentary "in god we trust." >> phones were crazy, and the fax machines, a woman called in, she was sobbing, she didn't know how she was going to pay her bills, or what to do. there was so many people. they all left feeling victimized and

ashamed, especially older people. all they wanted to know what is what to do. you do what you could. it pretty much was not much. >> the second and final part of in god we trust premieres here. eleanor joins us now, it is a powerful story. you have been through hell and back. and that began on december the 11th. when fbi agents came into your office. just what was it like on that day. not only were you a victim, but you were invested in him, and you had to deal with the victims who called you to say what is going on. >> six years later i could still feel what i felt then, because it led up to that day, he was acting differently to weeks, and that morning things were not what it was.

the routines were different. you felt something was wrong. >> you couldn't macquarie bank it was as bad as that. >> i thought it was something when the fbi came in, and someone in his family was kidnapped. it was the furthest thing from my mind. >> what do you say to people. you worked with him for 25 years, how could people not on? >> that's a good question. people who would ask you that question would be the people that didn't work at the office. bernie had a way of segregating everything. i worked upstairs in the executive offices, with the trading floor where the legitimate side of the business was. people who have been convicted were working in the advisory side of the business. they were separate. >> on a separate floor.

we have four coconspirators, they have been given sentences that are shorter than what prosecutors arrived gore. and bon gosho - she worked with him for a long time. >> from the beginning. >> she said she didn't really know what was going onnism. >> that's not a defense. being stupid is not a defense. >> is being stupid enough. here you had to - they had to create statements not only for their clients, the f.c.c. and everyone else. >> themselves. >> it was a massive in vention that needed some soldiers to do work here. >> if you were stupid you would not drive a beptly, you won't -- bentley, you wouldn't have a mansion. how i felt was i thought they'd get more than they did. >> i testified at the trial. i worked with the f.b.i. they did a fabulous job. they worked for the prosecution.

they got all their ducks in a row. they said it would take years. the taxpayers were paid millions for the trial. it wept on for five months and the jury convicted them. they were there for five months and convicted them. so i'm very confused about why they got light sentences. and you worked with them closely for all that time. we talked to a coe director of the documentary and talked to him about who madoff was, was he a sociopath. some of the stories he told about how he reacted in inch. ignoring it, though it was clear that some of his friend had to have been killed at the world trade center. talking about what he said about one of his sons, making fun of one of his sons saying he nearly soiled himself when he heard about what had gone on. was he a sociopath? >> i believe it's complicated and i believe yes, he had no

conscience and was a sociopath. i had this discussion with his second, actually, a couple of years ago, his son andy who passed away, because this was his father, and we were trying to figure out how to put it in our head and justify, you know, how do you feel. and he believed his father was a sociopath to see all this. >> it destroyed his family. >> and recently died. >> and mash committed suicide. >> they were wonderful people. i knew them from college. >> it is sad and what do you think was going through madoff's mind after this happened. then he pleaded guilty and he goes off. do you thing of. >> i wondered what his exit plan would be. >> things would be going on if the recession hadn't happened, do you think. >> absolutely.

money. >> we had the f.c.c. in our offices, auditing all the time. bernie was - it's keep your friends close and enemies closer. bernie was involved with the regulatory firms, he was on the boards and open to helping out. >> that is something that the documentary makes clear, that the f.c.c. is all over the place, he was open to them coming in. >> they didn't do their job. it's a government agency, they should have done their job. >> how devastating has this been for you. i know a lot of what you did to get over this or through it was to help prosecutors. >> it was very therapeutic. >> you had made something of yourself. and then this happened. >> thank you. >> i realised now that they are people, who they seemed to be. and you have to accept them. the way they are, and if anything, like with bernie, it took me so long to get over the

fact that, you know, he did this. my feelings had stopped because i said to myself. that you - if you cared about a person that didn't exist, and i have moved on. i don't think about him - i think about his children, the people that he worked with. victims. but i don't think anything could happen to me that would surprise or shock me. >> so many victims around the country, around the world, and they are not getting much of what they had invested. >> people look at white collar crime and they don't see it as a violent crime. you know, people committed suicide. not just mark. you had other people, and you have the elderly that can't recoup in the last years of their life will be spent in misery. white collar crime is a viability crime. >> pleasure to have you with us, it's a

fascinating story. second and final part "in god we trust" premieres here on al jazeera america. we'll be back with more of "consider this". >> beyond the verdict and on the streets >> there's been another teenager shot and killed by the police >> a fault lines special investigation >> there's a general distrust of this prosecutor >> courageous and in depth... >> it's a target you can't get rid of... >> the untold story... >> who do you protect? >> ...of what's really going on in ferguson >> they were so angry because it could have been them >> fault lines, ferguson: race and justice in the u.s. one hour special only on al jazeera america

fighting rages in eastern ukraine and in a widely violated ceasefire that lead to a ukranian government and the worst stand off between russia and the west since the cold war. conventional wisdom has been that the crisis is entirely because of blazen aggression of

vladimir putin. a seemingly growing chorus of western foreign policy analysts are putting blame for the mess on u.s., europe and n.a.t.o. to debate the issue we are joined by the international editor of npr.org, serving as the associated press's newsed tore in the moscow bureau, and from hart field connecticut, writer and commentator patrick smith. a columnist. he wrote his latest piece entitled "new york times propaganda exposed - the truth about ukraine and vladimir putin." good to have you both with us. a provocative title. it's a provocative article. you said that there's an open acknowledgment in high places that washington is responsible for this mess. really, an open acknowledgment because you quote a handful of foreign policy experts, some of whom we had on the show.

how responsible can the u.s. and the west be for annexing crimea and sending troops into the sovereign nation? >> the venue of the various acts - i'm talking about foreign affairs magazine, the washington post, henry kissinger giving an interview. it counts. there are divisions within the policy circles. it's serious. there has been a critical ove overestimation of how much of the crisis can be hidden. all you need to do is provide the one thing the state department is allergic to - historical selection. it goes back to 1991, the collapse. soviet union, and what unfolded in the years after.

it's simply this. for a lot of people in washington, cold war never ended. it proceeded by other means. >> what do you say to that? is some of the responsibility on our shoulders. did the u.s.,al lies and n.a.t.o.s get closer to the republics of georgia, should we have known that vladimir putin would react, afraid that n.a.t.o. would have a strong borders. >> i would agree with patrick in the sense that historical importance is important here. look at the united states, the west and europe, what they have done since the end of the cold war to bring russia in. they have created a counsel with n.a.t.o., to allow the russians to have discussions. they brought them into the g8, the world trade organization. what the u.s. and the west has been doing is bringing russia into the system.

if the premise is that n.a.t.o. is a threat, and europe wants to take aggressive action against russia, this argument may make sense. n.a.t.o. has never started a war in europe. to think that n.a.t.o. or the west has aggressive intent towards russia, the historical record doesn't support that. >> patrick, to greg's point - we did try to include russia in a hot of these meetings, in the g8 and a lot of other things. there was a reset during the president obama administration, where there was improving relationships seemingly. >> okay, the word we are stabbing around for - it was on offer after the soviet union collapse. fair enough. within a few years it was plain that moscow and washington were talking past one another on this point. what moscow meant is what

vladimir putin looks for now - a partnership between equals, cooperation, interdependence. what washington meant was something closer to justice. meaning we won the cold war, debatable in itself, and now you may come in, but you will conform. you will conform as we require. not russia's ball game from the first. vladimir putin has used the term betrayal. dismissed. >> greg, 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 pretty much whatever we want, and the rest of the world should be like us, more democratic, capitalist.

do we have the right to push the world to be more like us? >> well, we can try that policy. we need to debate the wisdom of whether it's working. with eastern europe and ukraine, i think - i would make the distinction between, i think, working towards greater economic cooperation is a good thing, and that's difficult for russia or anyone else to opposed that on solid ground. expanding militarily into eastern europe with the n.a.t.o. expansion that we have seen, you could argue that this is wise or not wise. these countries have wanted it, and with ukraine - they have requested n.a.t.o. membership in twitt, and europe was very much opposed to that. it did not go forward. ukranian membership in n.a.t.o. has been off the table for the last six years or so, basically out of sensitivity to russia.

the u.s. has been, i think, sensitive in some ways. obviously russia, vladimir putin in particular doesn't feel it's been enough. but this has been part of the debate. you can argue whether it's wise or not. discussion. >> to greg's point about some countries wanting more economic discussion with the west, you argue how vladimir putin stands for the rights of nonwestern rights to be nonwestern. what if they do want to be western. do they have a right to align themselves with russia. >> 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's a cock eyed debate. i'm not on it. as to the rest of - as to the eastern european nations, of

course. they can democratize, determine their futures. certainly. if they don't care to, that's another matter. that's another matter entirely. >> what about the question you raise. you raise it and have been quoting dr kissinger. you talk about power politics, but you can't ignore them. should they not be passed on a focus of influence. there can't be n.a.t.o. expansion towards the east, that russia somehow should control its neighbours and america could control it. are we emphatically, we are not. the cold war was spheres of influence is a 19th century technology. it reached its extreme during

the cold war. that was the transformation of planet earth into spheres of influence. are we past that now. come on. you never find in the media a discussion of the cuban miss ill crisis, or our behaviour in central and latin america. over many decades. this is the equivalence. >> that was 50 years ago. a quick final word. have we not changed. have we not learnt lesson from some of those interventions? >> well, yes. exactly. world war i and two came out of central and eastern europe when there was as far as of influence holding sway, this idea. i think since the end of the cold war, we have seen a great evolution. countries have changed. baltics, poland, other countries

want a different way of - different arrangement, securitiedy arrangement, economic arrangement. there has been an evolution. vladimir putin is looking back towards a soviet union that no longer exists and wants to recreate that world. >> good to have you both with us. i urmg you both to read patrick's articles, they are thought provoking. "consider this" will be right back.

>> it's a chilling and draconian sentence... it simply cannot stand.

>> this trial was a sham... >> they are truth seekers... >> all they really wanna do is find out what's happening, so they can tell people... >> governments around the world all united to condemn this... >> as you can see, it's still a very much volatile situation... >> the government is prepared to carry out mass array... >> if you want free press in the new democracy, let the journalists live. today's data dive looks for a deal. amazon is open for haggling. the online retailer announced an option called make an offer for its collectible selections. customers can place a bid lower than the asking price on 150,000

its costing $100 or more. in early testing a quarter of all bids were accepted. bargaining could save you money. two-thirds of americans had tried negotiating discounts in the prior six months. more than four out of five got lower hotel rates, nearly as many had lower rates on clothing and cellphone, and 60% lowered credit card fees. nearly nine out of 10 who haggled saved money op jewellery to home economics and an observing on furniture. the most effective strategies are telling a salesperson that you will check a competitor's price. or show a store charning less. -- charging less. show knowledge about the product. ask open-ended questions like how can we work together, instead of yes or no like can you help me.

if so many are getting better deals through haing lipping, why can't -- haggling, why don't more do it - we are embarrassed, think it looks check or >> a deal went against they're own government >> egypt mismanaged it's gas industry >> taking the country to the brink of economic ruin >> this is because of a corrupt deal to an assigned to basically support two dodgy businessmen an israeli one, and an egyptian one... >> al jazeera exposes those who made a fortune betraying an entire nation >> you don't feel you owe an explanation to the egyptian people? >> no...no.. >> al jazeera investigates egypt's lost power on al jazeera america

the demand for ivory in china exploded, fuelling a trade decimating african elephant populations. a report published by save the elephant, paints a dark picture. ivory prices and the number of retailers are soaring, and that is leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of elephants. 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 is the illegal wildlife trade.

we need new efforts to drive wildlife tracking from our land, sea and skies. time is not on our side. >> joe walston for the wildlife conservation society joins us, he worked in zambia, congo and africa, and spent 15 years in asia, including china. an alarming report, clearly ivory has become bigger and bigger business in china, with 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 ever face the two species of african elephants. the last few years saw a consistent decline in elephants across the continent, driven by a demand coming primarily, although not exclusively from asia. they are facing imminent exfings in some areas. some have been

lost, and the future looks dim. >> more elephants are poached born. >> we have the last three - 120, 2011, 2012 - we know 100 thouds elephants from -- 100,000 elephants from killed, resulting in there 10,000 for each elephant. that's a billion of money that has been made out of live elephants turned into dead asia. >> you talking about it. the convention on international trade and endangered species allows some countries to export elephant i've ris. there's a convention in charge of protecting endangered species, allowing the killing of elephants. is that a problem? >> there were two one-off sales

of ivory allowed under cites. 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. it is an important mechanism in the fight. >> i have read that a live elephant is worth more to those countries than a dead elephant. >> yes. profits. >> yes, it's one thing whether it's an illegal poacher. but 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 stop the killing in africa, the trafficking between africa and internationally, and countries. >> is china doing enough. we are seeing the prices soar, the number of retailers,

factories and dealing with the ivory for sale. is china doing enough to stop the illegal trade? >> at the moment no one is doing enough. not china, nations in africa, not the international community. the report is correct in its findings and adds to the weight of the argument. >> part of the argument is the economy is growing, there's more demand for ivory. before you go, i want to show katherine bigelow who came to prominence of the director of 0.30 and "the hurt locker." she came out with a public service announce: it's very powerful. let's take a look at that.

how much of the illegal ivory trade is funding some of the world? >> the answer is we don't know. we do know some facts that the lords resistance army in d.r.c. profited from ivory coming out of the national park. it is likely that it is hunting terrorism in other sites. we have to be cautious to base that on evidence. so far it is patchy. true. >> best luck with your efforts. they are magestic animals and beloved by everyone, it would be a tragedy to think they could be extinct in 20 years if this continues. good to see you. thank you very much.

>> that's all for now. the conversation continues on the website aljazeera.com. we are on facebook and twitter @ajconsiderthis and tweet me @amoratv. see you next time. >> let us bow our heads for a word of prayer. our father and our most gracious god. as this family, the murdough family and their friends, as they gather, we ask that you send your comforter, your holy spirit, your guide, to be with them. >> queens, new york. jerome murdough's family is laying him to rest. four months ago, 56-year-old jerome was arrested for