nd very difficult to hit militarily. going back at under ground facilities that are very hard to reach militarily accelerating advanced centrifuges that shorten the time span in which they can achieve breakout capacity. and they would be able to maintain that the reason that they ended negotiations was because the united states was operating in bad faith. [changing captioners] potentially fray because imposing these sanctions are a hardship on a number of countries around the world. they would love to be able to buy iranian oil, and the reason they have hung in there is because we have shown that we are credibly trying to solve this problem, and avert some

sort of military showdown in that context, there is no good argument for us to try to undercut undermine the negotiations until they have played themselves out. if iran ends up ultimately not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide the assurances that would leave myself and david cameron and others to conclude that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon then we will have to explore our options. and by the way that's not the only options that will be available. i have consistently said we should leave all options on the table. but congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails, at some point the military confrontation is

heightened and congress will have to consider that as well. and we may not be able to rebuild the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes that we were not serious about negotiations. so i take this very seriously, and -- and i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful, but it's my team that is at the table. we are steeped in this stuff day in and day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on this for five, six, seven years, we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making these assessments, and i'm asking congress to hold off, because our negotiators, our partners, those most intimately involved in this assess that it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving -- providing a diplomatic solution to one of

the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems that we have faced in a very long time and -- and congress needs to show patience so i -- with respect to the veto i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk and i will make this argument to the american people as to why i'm doing so and i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. and i think that's worth -- worth doing. we'll see if -- how persuasive i am but if i'm not persuading congress i promise you, i'm going to be taking my case to

the american public on this. >> the sanctions that america and the european union put in place have had an effect. in that has led to pressure that pressure has lead to talks, and those talks have the prospect of leading to success. and how much better is that than other potential outcomes. i have contacted a number of senators this morning and i may speak to one or more this afternoon, not to tell the american senate what it should or shouldn't do. that wouldn't be right, but simply to make the point as a country that stands alongside america, that it's the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion, and they could fracture the international unity that there has been which has been so valuable. i say this as someone who played

quite, i think, a strong role in getting europe to signup to the very tough sanctions including oil sanctions in the first place. and i would just simply make this point, those sanctions have had an effect and to those who said if you do an interim deal if you even start discussing anything the sanctions will fall apart, the pressure will dissipate, no one will be able to stick at it that has shown not to be true. so the pressure is still there, and as the president says if the iranians say no and there is no deal then be all means let's sit down and work out what extra sanctions to put in place, because we are absolutely united in a single thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than iran having a nuclear weapon reaction to prevent it. so i'll do what i can to help as one of the countries

negotiating, sure i will. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]? >> i'm -- it's -- i think the way the president put it i wouldn't disagree with. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british prime minister in 35 years, i think to meet with an iranian president, and it's very hard to know what their thinking is but there is a very clear offer there, which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and to conclude an agreement with them which would be mutually beneficial. that's what should happen. i think we have a question from nick robinson bbc. >> reporter: prime minister with extra security being put in place for the jewish community and also police officers would people be right to conclude that the threat of an attack on the streets of britain is all but imminent? and you have spoken of the threat posed by fighters coming back from syria, do you ever

worry this is a, legacy of the united states and the united kingdom to in effect stand on then sidelines during the bloody civil war. and if i may briefly, on the economy, you said you agree. it he right? is it time to stick to the plan? >> first of all, look we do face a very serious islamist extremist terror threat across the world, and we have to incredibly vigilant in terms of that effect. we have to strengthen police and security. we have to make sure we do everything we can to keep our country safe. and that involves an incredibly long-term patient, disciplined approach. there is no single simple thing that needs to be done. it means closing down the ungoverned spaces it means working against isil in iraq and syria, it means poisoning this death cult of a narrative, it

means working together with our oldest and best partners so that we share intelligence and security and try to prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place. it means all of these things and it is going to be a long patient and hard struggle. i'm quite convinced we will overcome it because in the end the values that we hold to of freedom of democracy, of having open and tolerant societies, these are the strongest values there can be. but like some of the challenges our countries have faced together in the past it will take great discipline patience and hard work you asked about imminence. we have a system in the united kingdom where threat levels are set by the center not by politicians. they have judged the threat we face is severe. if ever there is an im-- imminent

threat of attack it goes to the next level. but it's their decision not mine. on the jewish community, i think it's good that the metropolitan police have announced they will be stepping up patrols. i met with the council earlier this week we already provide through the community security trust, we ordered by government money to help protect jewish schools, but in fighting terrorism as we found in britain before you cannot simply rely on policing and security this is a role that we're all going to have to play in the vigilance in making sure we keep our communities safe. >> with respect to syria, and the connection to foreign fighters there is no doubt in the chaos and the vacuum that has been created in big chunks of syria, that that has given an

opportunity for foreign fighters to both come in and come back out. and i chaired a u.n. security council meeting and we are now busy working with our partners to implement a series of actions to identify who may be traveling to syria in order to get trained to fight or to hatch -- hatch plots that would be activated upon return to their home countries. so it's a very serious problem. the notion that this is occurring because the united states or great britain or other countries stood on the sidelines, i think is -- first of all, mischaracterizes our position. we haven't been standing on the sidelines. it's true we did not invade

syria. if the insertion is that had we invaded syria, we would be less prone to terrorist attacks, you know i'll leave it to you to -- to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate. we have been very active in trying to resolve a tragic situation in syria. diplomatically, through humanitarian efforts, through the removal of chemical weapons from syria that -- you know, had been so deadly. and now as isil has moved forward, we have been very active in degrading their capabilities inside of syria, even as we're working with partners to make sure the foreign fighter situation is resolved. but i think david's point is -- is the key one. this -- this phenomenon of violent extremism, the ideology

networks, the capacity to recruit young people this has metastasized, and it is widespread, and it has penetrated communities around the world. i do not consider it an existential threat. as david said this is one that we will resolved. we are stronger. we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in in tolerance and in working together to build, rather than to destroy, and so, you know this is a problem that causes great heart ache and tragedy and destruction, but it is one that ultimately we're

going to defeat. but we can't just defeat it through weapons, and one of the things that we spoke about is how do we lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the muslim world so that that counter narrative against this nihilism is put out there as nimbly as the messages coming from these fanatics. how do we make sure we're working with local communities, and faith leaders, and families whether in a neighborhood in london or a neighborhood in detroit, michigan so that we are -- you know we're inoculating ourselves against this kind of -- this kind of ideology? and that's going to be a slow plotting systemic work.

but it's work that i'm confident we're going to be able to accomplish particularly when we have strong partners like the united kingdom doing it. on the economy, i would note that great britain and the united states are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems so we must be doing something right. major garrett. >> thank you mr. president, good afternoon, mr. prime minister good afternoon to you, sir. questions for all -- both of you. i want to make sure we heard what you were trying to say. clearly directing your message to congress. were yulesou also sending a message to iran that if sanctions fail

that war alternative is the most likely consequence. and atrocities in paris, and raids and threats, do you believe europe is at a turns point in its recognition of what it's threats are and its own mobilization in terms of new laws security footing, larger budgets. you both talked about cyber security there is a crucial issue for both countries. encryption to protect people and also privacy. i would like your comments on that, thank you. >> i am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are in immediate war footing should negotiations with iran fail. but as david put it very simply if in fact our view is that we have to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon then we have to recognize the

possibility that should diplomacy fail we have to look at other options to achieve that goal. and if you listen sometimes to the rhetoric surrounding this issue, i think there is sometimes the view that this regime cannot be trusted; that effectively negotiations with iran are pointless, and since these claims are being made by individuals who see iran as a mortal threat and want as badly as we do to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon the question becomes what other alternatives exactly, are

available? that is part of what we have to consider as to why it's so important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. now it has got to be a good deal not a bad deal. i have already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal and the p5-plus-1 walked away with us and so nobody is interested in some, you know document that undermines our sanctions and gives iran the possibility of whether covertly or gradually building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we're not going to allow that and anything that we do any deal that we arrive at if we were to arrive at one would be subject to scrutiny across the board. not just by members of congress

but more importantly by people who actually know how the technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance, it -- and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous way possible that -- that the terms of the deal are being met. so the bottom line is this we may not get there, but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and i should point out also by the way, that even if we get a nuclear deal and we are sure that iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons, we still have a whole bunch of problems with iran on state-sponsored terrorism, their rhetoric towards israel their financing of hezbollah. we have differences with respect to syria. it's not as if suddenly we have a great relationship with iran.

it solves one particular problem that is urgent and it solves it better than the other alternatives that might present themselves. so -- so i -- my mine message to congress at this point is just hold your fire. nobody around the world, least of all the iranians doubt my ability to get some additional sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. so the notion that we need additional sanctions or the possibility of sanctions hanging over their head to force them to a better deal i think the iranians know that that is certainly in our back pocket if the negotiations fail. with respect to violent

extremism, my -- my impression is that europe has consistently taken this seriously during the course of my presidency we have worked collaborative and with great urgency and -- and a recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe but that given large immigrant populations, it's important to -- to reach out to and work with local communities, and to have a very effective intelligence and counter terrorism cooperation between countries and between the united states and europe. there's no doubt that the most recent events has amplified those concerns. i think one of the things that i have learned over the last six

years is that there's always more that we can do. we can always do it better. we learn from mistakes each incident that occurs teaches our professionals how we might be able to prevent these the next time. and, you know, i'm confident that the very strong cooperation that already exists with europe will get that much better in the months and years to come. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]? >> here -- here's where i actually think that europe has some particular challenges and i said this to david. i -- the united states has one big advantage in this whole process, and it's not that our law enforcement or our intelligence services et cetera, are so much better

although ours are very very good, and i think europeans could recognize we have capabilities others don't have. our biggest advantage, is that our muslim populations, they feel themselves to be americans, and there is -- you know this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that -- that is probably our greatest strength. it doesn't mean we aren't subject to the kinds of tragedies we saw at the boston marathon. but there are parts in europe which that is not the case and that is probably the greatest danger that europe faces, which is why as they respond -- as they work with us to respond to these circumstances, it's important for europe not to

simply respond with a hammer and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems but there also has to be a recognition that the stronger the ties of a north african -- or a frenchman of north african decent to french values, a sense of opportunity, that is going to be as important if not more important in over time solving this problem. and i think that's a recognition across europe. and it's important that we don't lose that. the last point i'll make and then i'll turn it over to david is with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering, encryptions, this is a challenge that we have been working on since i have been president. obviously it was amplified

when -- when mr. snowden did what he did. it's -- it's gone off of the front pages of the news but we haven't stopped working on it and we have been in dialogue with companies and have systematically worked through ways in which we can meet legitimate privacy concerns but also meet the very real concerns that david has identified and my fbi director identified. social media and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorists organizations are communicating. that's no different than anybody else, but they are good at it and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process, rule of law, and

presents oversight. then that's a capability that we have to preserve and the biggest damage that was done as a consequence of the snowden disclosures was, i think in some cases a complete undermining of trust. some would they was justified. i would argue that -- that although there are some legitimate concerns there, overall the united states government and from what i have seen, the british government have operated in a scrupulous and lawful way to try to balance the security and privacy concerns and we can do better and that's what we're doing, but we're still going to have to find ways to -- to make sure that if an al-qaeda affiliate is

operating in great britain or the united states that we can try to prevent real tragedy. and i think the companies want to see that as well. they are patriots, they have families that they want to see protected. we just have to work through in many cases what are technical issues so it's not so much that there is a difference in intent but how to square the circle on these issues is -- is difficult, and we're working with partners like great britain and the united kingdom but we're also going to be in dialogue with the companies to try to make that work. >> on the iran -- iranian issue, i won't add much. but even if there is a deal the collie be transparency and a very -- verification and make

sure they aren't making a nuclear weapon. and recognizing in so many other ways we have major disagreements with what the iranians are doing. britain has suffered particularly with the appalling way our embassy and staff were treated in that country. so we approach this with a huge amount of scepticism and concern, but the goal makes these talks worthwhile. on the issue of your question of is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism, i would argue that we turned sometime ago. maybe britain in particular because of the appalling attacks that took place in 2005 but there have been attacks elsewhere in europe. since i have been prime minister there has been at least one

major plot every year of quite a significant nature that we have managed to intercept, stop and, you know, and prevent. so the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is absolutely there across government, parliament the different parties in the police and intelligence services. i think there is an opportunity for countries in europe who happens up to now have been less affected to work with them and make sure we share knowledge and skills. because when you say, the turning point is making sure your legislation is up to date making sure your police security services have the capabilities they need. making sure that you are better integrating your communities. it means doing all of those things. i -- i very much agree with what barack says about the importance of building strong and integrated societies. i made pint about this in munich

saying it has been a mistake in the past when people treated different groups as blocks rather than trying to build a strong home together. and that's what our policy is directed to. and you need to have a multi-racial multi-ethnic society, where in one generation or two generations you can come to our country and be in the cabinet, serve at the highest level of the armed forces you can sit on the bench as a judge. i have in my cabinet someone just like that. who in two generations -- that is vitally important. but here is i think the really determining point. you can have tragically people who have had all of the advantages of integration, and all of the economic opportunities that our countries can offer, who still get seduced

by this poisonous radical death cult. we have seen people who have had every opportunity and advantage in life in terms of integration, so let's never lose sight of the real enemy which is the poisonous narrative that is hurting islam. recognizing we help ourselves if we societies of genuine opportunity, but let's never lose sight of the real heart of the matter. as for the issue on the techniques necessary for intelligence services to help keep us safe all i would say, and the president and i had a good discussion about this earlier, i don't think either of us are trying to enunciate some new doctrine -- >> reporter: [ inaudible ]? >> well i'm sorry to disappoint

you. ever since we have been contacting each other, it has been possible in both our countries in extremists in my country, by signed warrant by the home secretary to potentially listen to a call between two terrorists to stop them in their activity. in your country -- we're not asking for back doors, we believe in very clear front doors through legal processes that should help keep our country safe. but as technology develops and the world moves on we should try to avoid the safe havens that could be created for terrorists to talk to each other. that's the goal i think is so important. i'm in no doubt having seen our intelligence services work i know that some of these plots that get prevented the lives that get saved, there is a very real connection between that and

the capabilities that our intelligence services within the law used to defend our people. i think the final question is from robert moore. >> reporter: yes, prime minister it is clear there is a security alert around the jewish community around britain. can i be clear is that based on specific intelligence? do you regard a terrorist attack on british soil as almost inevitable? mr. president you say there is a dialogue underway with big american tech companies, but do you share the prime minister's view that the current threat environment is so severe that there does need to be a swing of the pendulum a little bit? and that this area of private encrypted communications is a very dangerous one potentially in terms of facilitating dialogue between terrorist groups. >> on the issue of the threat

that we face as i say, the level has been set at severe. that is set by an independent organization so people can have full confidence these things are never done other than to look at the level of threat and set the level accordingly. the authorities believe an attack is highly likely. if we believed it was imminent then you would move to the next level, which is critical and we clearly do says a very real threat in your country. in recent months we have had a number of potential attacks averted averted for instance of british police officers. in terms of the protection to the jewish community, and indeed

other communities, and indeed to police officers themselves this is based on what has happened in france on the whole picture that we see, and it is sensible precautionary pre -- measures to make sure we do what we can to reassure those communities. this is a biggest challenge for us. i think one of the most moving sites in paris was to see so many people holding up signs saying i'm a cop, i'm a jew, and i thought that was incredibly moving that people wanted to stand together with one community that had been singled out, and singled out for no other reason other than they were jewish. so i think it's very important to stand up for those communities and give them the protection they deserve. >> obviously in the wake of paris, our attention is heightened but i have to tell

you over the last six years, threat streams are fairly constant. david deals with them every day. i deal with them every day, our ct our counter terrorism professionals deal with them every day. so i don't think this is a situation in which because things are so much more dangerous the pendulum needs to swing. i think what we need to find is a consistent framework whereby our publics have confidence that their government can both protect them but not abuse our capacity to operate in cyberspace. and because this is a whole new world, has david said the laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. how we do that needs to be

debated, both here in the united states and in the u.k. i think we're getting better at it. i think we're striking the balance better. i think that the companies here in the united states at least recognize that they have a responsibility to the public but also want to make sure that they are meeting their responsibilities to their customers that -- that are using their products and so the dialogue that we're engaged in is designed to make sure that -- that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement, and our intelligence officers can identify that threat and track that threat at the same time

that our governments are not going around fishing into whatever text you might be sending, you know, on your smartphone. and -- and i think that's something that can be achieved. there are going to be situations where there are hard cases, but for the most part those who are worried about big brother, sometimes obscure or deliberately ignore all of the legal safeguards that have been put in place to assure people's privacy, and to make sure that government is not abusing these powers and on the other hand there are times where law enforcement, and those of us who's job it is to protect the public aren't thinking about those problems because we're trying to track and prevent a

particular terrorist event from happening, and it's useful to have civil libertarians, and others tapping us on the shoulder in the midst of the process and reminding us that there are values at stake as well. the technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. if we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we're confident is a terrorist, if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the middle east that traces directly back to london or new york we have specific information, we are confident that this individual or this network is about to activate a

plot and despite knowing that information, despite having a phone number or despite having a -- social media address, or -- or email address that -- that we -- we can't penetrate that that's a problem. and -- and so so that's the kind of dialogue that we're having to have with these companies. part of it is a legal issue. part of it is a technical question but overall, i'm actually confident that -- that we can balance these imperatives, and -- and we shouldn't feel as if because we have seen such a horrific attack in paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. unfortunately, this has been a constant backdrop and i think will continue to be for any

president of prime minister for some time to come and we have to make sure that we don't overreact, but we are serious about our responsibilities there. thank you very much everybody. thank you. >> president obama and british prime minister david cameron talking to the press, and there was a lot there. and we'll start with the concern developing in london at this hour. we heard a number of british reporters ask about stepped up security today at jewish schools and synagogues asking if there is an imminent threat of terrorism. and the prime minister says the threat is severe but has not been raised to imminent. but said in general, britain is facing serious threats. president obama described it as a phenomenon of violent extremism that has ma taste

sized, but the president said these are threats that we will solve. there were also news on iran. the british prime minister admitted that yes, he is lobbying senators to try to stop congress from passing a bill that would essentially say if the iranian nuclear negotiations stop, there will automatically be a round of new sanctions. president obama said that threat themselves could undermine the negotiations. the two leaders talked about efforts to deal with cyber security to map and trace where some of the terrorists have been operating. the president saying the main way they are communicating is through the net. let's go to mike viqueira who is in the east room of the white house. what jumped out at you? >> well first of all the iran issue, this has been gurgling

now in washington. there has been talks about a new extension that was just agreed to recently the president coming out very forcefully against that. asking at one point for congress to just hold your fire saying that if congress were to pass that it could scuttle the talks with iran and repeated the phrase we have heard, all options are on the table, not just economic sanctions, but spoke openly of a potential for military action as well. and the security in europe is going to come up. the controversial issue of encryption. what the governments, how much visibility they have into the internet and social media

communications the president saying if law enforcement and intelligence services can't see those communications that is a problem. the president also said something very interesting, comparing the threat in the united states and europe as well. talking about the unique situation in his view in this country, the assimilation of muslims, because of the melting pot tradition in this country are, assimilation of muslims in mourn society far greater perhaps than that of europe. there are going to be people that will disagree. let's listen to what the president said on that score. >> the united states has one big advantage in this whole process, and it's not that our law enforce or our intelligence services et cetera are so much better although ours are very

very good and i think europeans would recognize that we have capabilities others don't have our biggest advantage is that our muslim populations, they -- they feel themselves to be americans, and there is, you know this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition. >> reporter: you also saw the president react very strongly to a british reporters suggestion in the question if the united states and its allies had done more in syria, perhaps this foreign fighter problem wouldn't be what it is now. the president dismissed that in his mind and we have heard him say this several times before that probably would have exacerbated the problem and certainly not solved it. >> mike thank you very much. given that the president has essential i will upped the anti-politically with congress

over this resolution that would impose new sanctions in iran. let's go to michael shure who has been watching this in los angeles. obviously congress wants to do its part to try to hold iran's feet to the fire and make sure they know there will be consequences. but how effective was the president when he said just give us another 60 or 90 days hold off? >> we saw the president make that -- that plea basically that appeal to the gathered press and to the people here and -- and in the united states. but he also made it privately in baltimore at a democratic senate caucus retreat, and he and robert menendez got into a bit of a heated exchange over that themselves. so to hear him come before the press and say he will veto that bill should it get to his desk

until the time passes these months pass is really forceful language from the president. and i think that in combination with what he is saying david cameron, the prime minister has been doing on his own, probably means that i would guess that his caucus is going to back down and not fight that and give the president the months that he wants. he has a little bit of time to make that work and if it doesn't work then you are going to see a lot of people even within his caucus going after him. >> the british prime minister faces electshuns this spring. what is david cameron's political precariousness now? >> i do think it's interesting, because i think -- on a couple of scores. first of all we just had elections here in november and

president obama could not get a democrat, you know to enlist -- to run with him. but david cameron comes to the united states as he has elections just about four months from now, and it will serve -- he thinks that that will help him to be seen with president obama. so two very different dynamics happening in elections. i think what he is saying is that we're all part of a community. there was a lot of flax that president obama got for not going to paris for the unity rally there. and the president didn't go to that. we didn't have a high-ranking as you remember u.s. official at those rallies. this cases in tandem the oldest allies the special relationship they can work together even within the other person's country. he is saying listen if you do

not block what the president is doing, it will help the world community, and the european community. we need this. so that is important. it is a little bit of medaling but it is probably done with great care and diplomacy as well. >> we're going to take a break, and on the other side of the break, we'll talk about what tame out of the speech on tech security. ♪

>> consider this: the news of the day plus so much more. >> we begin with the growing controversy. >> answers to the questions no one else will ask. >> real perspective, consider this on al jazeera america and welcome back. president obama within the past hour just said that social media and the internet are the primary ways that terrorists are communicating with each other, and the ability of the government to track that in a legal way and under due process is a capability the united states and great britain have to preserve. in that was part of what the

president said in the midst of discussions with the british prime minister. jamie what did you make of this particular topic? >> when you talk about cyber security david, we're talking about a big area. there's of course the basic cyber defenses preventing bad actors from getting into your computer systems, attracts on infrastructure that sort of thing, protecting the financial and infrastructure of the country. and the other part that they don't like to talk about is the offensive capability of launching cyber attacks on other countries like in 2010 when most computer experts agree -- are convinced that the united states along with europe and perhaps some european countries came up with this virus that crippled iranian computers.

and then there is this third area that the president spent a lot of time talking about today, the ability to track what people are doing so they can identify and find dangerous people. and one thing that emerged in this area is the ability of people to go quote, dark. to go places where they can't be tracked, and even if the government has a legal way to do it and a way that has oversight, they can't get to the information, and that's one of the big concerns that is being debated on both sides of the atlantic here. here is a little bit of what president obama had to say about that. >> social media, and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. that's no different than anybody else, but they are good at it, and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is

legal, conforms with due process, rule of law, and presents oversight, then that's a capability that we have to preserve. >> now president obama said -- he mentioned in his remarks today, the fbi director who he said he has had extensive discussions about this balancing of privacy, with the need to get information when they need it and the director gave a big speech at a cyber security conference earlier this month in nigh -- new york where he says he gets it. but he made the case that law enforcement needs the ability to protect americans on the net, because he said frankly that's where a lot of the crime and terrorism is happening, because that's where increasingly people live their lives. >> jamie if there is any

awkwardness on this issue it's because these are u.s. tech companies that the brits are encouraging us to collect more information from. the president said they are having ongoing technical discussions with these companies, ongoing discussions with law enforcement to try to balance privacy and security but it seemed like they were a lot more in sync today. >> yeah i didn't detect a lot of daylight there, and it does seem of all of the contentious issues where there might be a divide the cyber security issue seems to be the one where most people are on the same page and of course the big concern is the protections of privacy and civil liberties, and how you balance that against the need for the government to get the kind of information it needs to protect people. the president laid out a nightmare scenario where they

might have information about an eminnocent attack and he said that would be a problem. >> jamie mcentire, thank you very much. let's wrap this up with michael shure. as we look to the next big political event in washington you are fears of an imminent terrorist attack in europe. and there is the sensitivity over discussions over iran's nuclear arms and then the issues of cyber security. how does this all play out leading into the state of the union? >> well it just shows that you can't write that speech -- you can't wait long enough to write that speech david, because so much of what will be discussed is going to hinge on what happened in the past couple of weeks from the sony hack to the paris bombings to what is happening daily as we speak.

so-so much of this is going to be incorporated into that speech but i don't see the president laying out plans other than to say they are sharing intelligence et cetera and the important part of what was said today in the white house was about iran as far as the way he addresses the american congress. i think he is going to talk about how important it is to put things on hold let these -- these talks work themselves out, and another thing he said today, while he did indicate david, that he is not going to sign a bill he also said if the talks don't work and if this sort of day taunt doesn't stop iran from doing this it doesn't mean the next step is war, and some people are going to think maybe the next step should be. so there will be a little bit of a conflict with the congress there. >> michael thank you very much. and also our thanks to jamie macintyre, and mike viqueira. again, the headline the

president urging congress not to pass a resolution that would force sanctions on iron if negotiations over nuclear weapons failed. the president said that would be unproductive. we'll more on that throughout the day here on al jazeera america. i'm david shuster. thanks for watching.

>> monday. the most secretive nation on earth. >> we're heading to the border between north and south korea. >> a rare glimpse inside. >> kim jong un sometimes does strange things, but he is smart. >> as tensions escalate, what will be the fallout? >> we're still at a state of war with north korea. >> we have to be ready to fight tonight. >> "faultlines".

al jazeera america's hard-hitting. >> today they will be arrested. >> ground-breaking. >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning, investigative series. new episode. "hidden state: inside north korea. monday 9:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

israel slams the international criminal court's decision to open a preliminary inquiry into possible war crimes in the palestinian territories. ♪ >> hello i'm lauren taylor this is al jazeera live from london. also coming up . . . clashes break out in pakistan during protests against the french satirical magazine charlie hebdo. west african leaders are urged to form a new military force to