at. we now and again got the odd win but this year, it was a good win. >> the 12th championship for nash. the second going to tracy tippy toe. i'm del walters. good night. later in our panel, most americans agree there's too much money in politics. is a shorter campaign season the answer. is the legal system tilted in favour of child molesters. i'm imran garda, this is rail". >> a central government is going to be fair to the rest of the its citizens it's not possible. >> thoughts that it would lead

to more peace is irresponsible. >> iraq's map has been redrawn, battle lines are new borders. >> the kurds in the north. >> sunni in the west. >> shi'a in southern iraq. >> it will be safe to be in a potential war. >> people retreating back into tribal systems that they had. [ chants ] >>. >> we need to have leadership that can unify iraq. >> splitting iraq in three would be complex and probably violent. consequences. >> if you break up iraq, you are opening the door to trouble. >> we have feisal istrabadi, former iraqi deputy ambassador to the u.n. and peter galbraith, former u.n. special representative of the u.n. for afghanistan, serving as an advisor for the kurdistan regional government. thank you for joining us. feisal istrabadi, is it time to split iraq?

>> i would say that's a question for the iraqis to answer n the first -- in the first instance, not politicians in the united states to answer. it's important to consider that if iraq breaks up, what the consequences will be for iraqis. if iraq breaks up, it will be a bloody, violent affair, and by judgment iraq would not break up into three places, or three regions. there is at least a good a chaps that iraq would end up looking like somali, and that would be a disaster for the people of iraq, a disaster in the region, and aer for american foreign policy and interests in the region. >> peter galbraith, you said that it's already split up in many ways, but name. >> first step i want to agree istrabadi. it's not for outsiders to decide the future of iraq. the reality is the country has split up. the kurds in the north have what

is in all regards an independent state. they will, in the next year, hold a referendum on independence, and nobody questions but that the vote will independence. the sunnis have left iraq, and one might notice that the islamic state declared that it is a separate state. now it is not a desirable outcome, but they are gone. if the central government doesn't exercise authority. there's no iraqi army, the so-called iraqi army turned over $23 billion worth of u.s. according to "the wall street journal". the american secretary of defence pointed out that the problem is that there's no will to fight for iraq, that is because the soldiers in the iraqi army, almost all shi'ite at this stage, are viewed by the population in the areas as an enemy, an occupied force and are

not interested in fighting in occupied territory. >> okay. feisal istrabadi, it seems as if the government only cares about shia. there's a lot of credibility to that. amnesty international came out and said the shia militia, ethnically cleansing sunnis in revenge attacks for what i.s.i.l. is doing, is basically allowed to do what they want to do. them. >> i don't think that's correct. i think, again, going to peter galbraith's statement just now, i think that the american secretary of state's comments about the iraqi army were, first, disingenuous, and second, intended to cover up failed policy in iraq. the iraqi army had been fighting i.s.i.l. in ramadi for a year and a half. the administration's own department of state, the american department of state put - had to put out a clarifying statement acknowledging that fact.

as for the existence, or lack of existence of iraq, for what is a foreign occupation of iraq, many foreign fighters, that constitutes i.s.i.l., that's like saying when germany occupies france, france ceases to exist. we should acknowledge that france is part of germany - that is simply not the case. furthermore, if you want to look at what the sunni of iraq, where their views are, i suggest to you that the fact that there have been millions of refugees out of an area housing iraq's second largest city, and out of ramadi, and mosul, and anbar, millions of sunni refugees to erbil, in the kurdistan region and other places suggests to me that the islamic state of iraq

and levant, so-called, does not, in fact, enjoy that. >> for those sunnis fizzed with the existential question of die or join or live under i.s.i.l. - you can't disagree that many chances. >> well, once again, if you are being put under the gun, if you are - if i put a gun to yourself and i acquiesced to the fact that i have a gun to yourself. you cannot, mr peter galbraith, argue that you chose to put yourself under it. >> there's no iraqi state to protect them. that's the problem. >> the iraqi state is weak. in part, that's a part of the problem of american policy in iraq. the previous prime minister spent four years, so-called core proofing the iraqi army, weakening the army, something the administration is aware of. the iraqi stage was week, french state was week.

it took time to re gain stature, sense of purpose, rejoin the allies and fight for france. i believe it is happening in iran. you have sunnis, christians, the kurds in the kurdish region volunteering to fight the islamic state, the so-called islamic state. >> let look at this. as the ambassador said, a million and a half iraqis fled to the kurdistan region. most are sunni. the iraqi government, the sfral government is not providing -- central government is not providing money to take care of them. it's not meeting constitutionaling obligations or following agreement even though the kurds is doing its part, why, because it doesn't consider kurdistan to be part of iraq, not kurds, arabs.

one can blame maliki, the previous prime minister - he wasn't inclusive. he may have had a point. the sunni basically never accepted the fact that after 2003, the shi'ite majority, through democratic elections run... >> he didn't choose sectarianism. >> the people that chose the result first, was the sunni, you had the fighting against the american troops. when the americans were too hard, you had out of the sunni territories, attacks on shi'ite civilians, bus stations in the south, killing tens of thousands of people, and the sunni leaders, establishment, tribal chiefs, they didn't do anything about this in 2006, 2006, until al qaeda, the predecessor to i.s.i.l. began to assess. then they turned.

but they fundamentally rejected the idea that iraq should be funded by pro-iranian shiites. >> when you say the sunnis de facto broke away. you lump the sunnis in the same basket as i.s.i.l. does abu bakr al-baghdadi represent the sunnis, 10 million plus of that. >> clearly he doesn't. there's a large part of the sunni population that rejects the islamic state. it's hard to measure that because there's no possibility of doing public opinion polls in the territory. they didn't stand with iraq. in mosul, the population did not stand with the iraqi army, and they fundamentally reject the idea of iraq run by the people who were democratically elected to run iraq. >> i don't know how peter galbraith knows any of that. if he talks about opinion polls, elections. there has been democratic

elections in which the sunni population of iraq participated. they in - from the sunni areas, participating in the government of iraq, an until sunni leader, not one sunni elected leader in iraq. not one elected shia leader in iraq called for that in the country, why is peter galbraith sitting here, a state senator sitting here. he knows what the sunnis want. how does he know what the sunni population, how they view d.a.e.s.h. or i.s.i.l. the fact of the matter is you have a terrorist organization which does have an impressive military ability that has occupied the territory, the degradation of the iraqi army under maliki, the american administration looked the other way, is an act bordering on the

criminal. >> i'm not claiming to speak or represent the sunnis in mosul, what they might feel... >> you shouldn't have said to. >> my point is important, that 30,000 iraqi army soldiers in mosul did not put up a fight against 2,000, at most, i.s.i.l. attackers. they had 2300 humvees that they basically turned over without a fight to i.s.i.l., and they were used to attack kurdistan. and the population did not... >> look at history. >> the population did not stand with the people, the iraqis. >> you have no idea where the pop uulation did or didn't stand. they were not armed. you can make the same argument with the army against the germans, a humiliating defeat in north africa. if there were american units

over a span of four years, had degraded their draining, degraded the equipment that they had, had competent officers, had incompetent officers put in their place with no training over that period of time, there's not an american unit that would have stood and fought. that's a fact. >> moving to the army in a second, i want to go - this is bound to come up, your support for the kurds, i think we need to add the knowledge of your state in an oilwell or deal in the oil fields. british coward awarded you $55 million to $75 million for that oil deal. you advised the kurds, you got rich, you made the case for their autonomy, for them to breakaway - is there not a conflict of interest here? >> no. my views have calls been the same, and some of this press reporting is exaggerated.

i'm glad you raised the oil question, because... ..from the day that iraq - i.s.i.l. was discovered in iraq, how was it used when controlled by the central government? it was used to build palaces, hussein. >> we are not talking about saddam hussein. >> it was used to build an army that attacked iran, kuwait. and it was used in kurdistan to destroy 5,000 villages in kurdistan and to use chemical weapons. in 2004 - i'm coming to this - the kurds decided that they were not going to agree to central control, even though that's what the americans want. they decided the way to go is to control their own resource, and, yes, i helped to bring in the first company, and in these - normal arrangements, there was

a - you know, i got a significant financial benefit, nothing like the amounts that you are describing there. >> thousands of millions. >> not even that. i will not go into it. it's a confidential settlement. the point is i've been open about that. the point is though, that this was a decision that has enabled kurdistan to not be dependent on baghdad so that - because baghdad is not paying the budget. kurdistan can export 50,000 barrels, it doesn't need baghdad. it is a way to take care of million and a half sunnis that are in kurdistan now. it is a pipeline to what every kurd wants, which is independence. i don't think anybody doubt that if there's a referendum in kurdistan, that the vote will be 90 plus% for independence, the vote will take place in the next year.

i think the president will be prudent, there'll be a period of reconciliation, but we'll have to accept the democratic choice of the people of kurdistan. >> do you want to go in? >> i do. i think ambassador knows my view, there was an advisor in 2005 who had a stake in the out come of constitutional negotiations. my view was mr peter galbraith should have been more forthcoming. at the time he said he was an unpaid consult ant, when, in fact, he had an interest resulting in financial gain. he should have disclosed that. >> to be clear, it was disclosed, i represented the company on a joint committee with the iraqi ministry of oil. >> not at the time. advising. >> in 2005.

>> on the constitution, you said you were an unpaid consultant. >> an informal advisor to the kurds at their request. >> we'll take a break. coming up, what is an iraqi who experienced a 2003 invasion, think about proposals to split up his country. >> it's a typical discussion by the americans. they have been pushing to divide iraq, some for two decades, some for more later on... >> if we had had a short campaign season, we could have possibly elected john edwards as the united states. >> part is a journalist problem. >> learning about the candidates is taking a picture of hillary clinton at chipotle and migrants making a journey across the u.s.-mexican border. >> they approached us looking for the water. on one hand we didn't want to aid and abet laws. but these people were dying of

thirst.

>> al jazeera america, weekday mornings. catch up on what happened overnight with a full morning brief. get a first hand look with in-depth reports and investigations. start weekday mornings with al jazeera america. open your eyes to a world in motion. .

>> air attacks are under way. >> we are extending the zone. >> iraq has weapons of mass destruction. forces. >> combat in iraq has ended. >> iraq - we have seen a fraction of all our chaos. intensified. >> we will degrade and destroy i.s.i.l. >> we created this mess in the first place. >> we still have chaos in roir. >> joining us is got ayres manager raed jarrar, current affairs manager, thank you for joining us. you heard the first half of the debate, what do you think the notion of breaking up iraq. here. >> it's a typical american discussion about a foreign matter. i agree with points earlier, about not asking iraqis what they want to do with their

country. more importantly, the question of what iraqis want versus what is going op - these are different matters. the powers to be have been pushing to divide iraq, some of them for two decades, some for more. if you ask iraqi public opinion, that's a different story. by the powers to be. parties in the u.s., in fact, iraq, or foreign - regions in the region, and the united states policy regarding iraq. >> we are talking about the mess that is iraq now. >> both the gentlemen supported the 2003 invasion of iraq. you did not. was that at the heart of the current mess? >> definitely, that's a point that came up when i watched the different opinions coming from the panel. was that i did not support the invasion, to start with, and

from many iraqis with a key on the point of view that the root causes for what is going on now, and the - many of the divisions that we are seeing now. were introduced in 2003. it's not really about i.s.i.s. or al qaeda per se. they are manifestations of deeper problems. they were installed in the new foundations when the political system was created in 2003. i'm half sunni, half shi'ite and from my knowledge i never thought of sunnis and shi'ites as distinct identities before 2003, i lived in the country and was born there. after 2003 it became - now they identities. >> 12 years on from 2003. >> correct. >> if saddam hussein was still in power, what would iraq look like right now. >> i don't like to link iraq's

unity of sovereignty to a person of saddam. it's a question of iraqis own. >> are they not right now? >> they are not on their own. if you think about the political end. or the united states or other regional international powers. iraq's government is reliant on foreign interventions and support. at this stage the former iraqi government between the 1920s, and 2003. they had more of the nationalist tendency, and more function and institutions that did not require foreign intervention and support as much as this one iraq is in the hands of iran, the united states, and others. >> right now, the government in baghdad, which includes all - representatives of all iraqi,

that is to say all of iraq's constituents, and we have not just three groups in iraq, we have 27 separate ethnic and confessional groups in iraq, and most participate in the counter government, recognise that they need foreign support to fight the common enemy, that is d.a.e.s.h. and i.s.i.l. >> we are not seeing that, we are seeing a substantial number of iraqis choosing to go with d.a.e.s.h. or i.s.i.l. >> i don't think you have basis for that. what you have is a substantial number of iraq that is occupied. i will keep using the analogy. >> tribal leaders in anbar said we need to go with i.s.i.l. >> it's not clear if they were speaking of their own free volition or... >> will we psycho analyse them or take them at their word. >> no count i could have paid french many in 1940, you had vichy

france, the government, that paid for the german occupation under threat, but typical, and average frenchman resisted the occupation. and anticipate - i am making it a few times, and you take it back, making the same arguments. forcing me to respond. >> you say iraq has been broken, and i have quotes from you, in harvard, 2005. you said a federalist programme might be the best thing. you said fundamentally you had the state falling apart recollects and an inability to put it back together. in 2014, you said none of my aspirations for the country came to past, and your worst forwards and my worst nightmares have been exceeded. where do you have optimism from. >> i don't have optimism, it is not a matter whether i'm optimistic or pessimistic, i try to be a realist.

no one sitting around the table presented evidence that outside of kurdistan. arabs of iraq want to divide the country. what we have is evidence that some parts of the predominantly sunni parts of the country have been occupied. i want a chance to respond to what was said about the state of iraq up to 2003. up until 2003, the state of iraq was ruled by a genocidal maniac, responsible for the deaths of no less than 1 million iraqis from 1968 to 2003. during the entire period of time when saddam hussein was president of iraq, beginning in july 1979, starting in september 1980, until march 2003, that entire time iraq was in a state of war with at least one country. >> did you think ride was apologising for saddam hussein?

>> it seemed as if a listener could take it as an apology. we ought to have a realistic assessment. he did not invade iraq. but he destroyed iraq. >> that might be one of the reasons why iraq was destroyed. recognising the point that i was making, and i don't shy away from making factual statements, even if they are taken as pro sad an statement by someone, it's the fact of the matter that before 2003 iraq's identity was not as sectarian as now. i think many of your points i agree with them. before 19 # -- 1979 iraqis existed. it's not as destructive. >> let's be a little clear. iraq was founded - putting together three ottomans that

didn't have a lot in common. >> that's not true. >> and ruled from the start by the sunnis, whose strategy was to keep the kurds in, shi'ites down. and if you want to talk about when the ideas began to develop as they have, really i think you go to the 1991 uprising, where the shi'ite areas rose up, the united states did nothing to help, which was a scandal. the shi'ites were targeted as that uprising - as that uprising was put down. let's not forget the kurds. the kurd basically never wanted to be part of the country, they were in rebellion for a long period of time. do either of you question but that the democratic referendum in kurdistan should be a vote for independence. >> no. >> therefore, shouldn't we allow people who want to make a choice, who persis tently want

their own country... >> that is a fair question. the way you make the question makes it as if we are operating in a void. the fact we choose separation, because billions were spent to destroy the country. millions of iraqis were moved out in the last 13 years, displaced out of their homes to create new democratic realities allowing for separation. if there is a newer generation saying i'm okay with separation, that's a result of a series of war crimes and disasters. the points i'm trying to make is that policies, that parties that both of you are affiliated with, the iraqi government led to what happened today. you can't push people to separation for two decades and make is sound as if it's for. >> sorry. i have been going to iraqi kurdistan since 1984.

i have never in my life met an iraqi group that said he would prefer to be an iraqi to having his own independence state. >> i have a rebuttal for this. >> more important, 1991, kurdistan has been separate. >> an anything point. number one, the people you talk to are not necessarily representative of the population, but a public opinion falls from inside kurdistan, showing that there was a majority of kurds who want to separating. >> this is 2005, 98% voted for independence in a referendum held at the same time in every polling place, and virtually every person that voted voted in this informal referendum. it was a representative sample. >> i need to wrap. we have run out of time, it's been a pleasure. peter galbraith, feisal

istrabadi, and raed jarrar, thank you. the "third rail" is next. >> as a nation we take the side of pedophiles. >> the lasting psychological >> he was electro-shocked and tortured. >> decades of corruption abuse, and torture, by chicago police... >> you think people make a distinction between cia, black ops sites, verses torturing a thirteen year old kid from the south-side? >> people realize that torture is torture. >> lisa fletcher brings you an in depth report chicago torture only on al jazeera america

be split up. let's broaden the conversation to i.s.i.l. recruitment and break-in in the panel. david serosa, "new york times" author and investigator with the international business times, michelle bernard is a lawyer, author in president of the bernard center for women,

politics and public policy, and the cofounder and chairman of a counterterrorism think tank and an author of "my journey out of religious extremism." a u.n. security council report found 25,000 foreign fighters joined i.s.i.l. from more than 100 member states, in the east and west. particularly in western countries. are the policies of the western governments leading the young i.s.i.l.? >> i think it would be absurd to deny the original - i say the original - george w. bush would be anything to do with an invasion of i.s.i.s. like wise, it's simplistic to pinpoint that as the only cause. human being, i say, is not like water, we don't all boil at 100 degrees celsius, we react differently to different

stimuli. for some people, in the counter-extremism policy, you can't say there's one path into radicalization or one path out. grievance is a factor. they can be domestic or foreign policy. i add to that the role of charismatic recruiters, and the role of ideology. unfortunately liberals are comfortable talking about grievances, identity politics. we don't feel comfortable about talking about ideology, we add that there. deliberately. we have to have that. a desire to impose a version of islam over society. >> i feel strongly about it. it's a mistake, and too easy to blame what is happening with i.s.i.l. and the recruitment of westerners into the fold. on the policies of george bush, it's like saying we would have

been better off if you left saddam hussein in iraq, and no one would be better off. i disagree with the reasons why we went into i will tell you, it's something i worked on. when colin powell was secretary of state, worked with 200 iraqi women that we trained in jordan, talked about liberal principles of democracy, and people say to the iraqi women that you were better off when saddam hussein was in office, you had more right. and the women say we have rights in saddam hussein, not because of him. i want to go to the grievances in the policies, whether real or perceived, it's an interesting difference, when you look at the foiled underwear bomber and the first trade center bomber, they cited western policies when it came to doing or trying to do what he

wanted to do. >> you can't necessarily take the grievances of individual terrorists and say it represents population. terrorists are people on the margins, susceptible for all sorts of reasons to radical idea ollie. the bigger -- ideology. the bigger point is - you are right, it's a part of it. grievance is a part of it, but a predictable part. it's a part that we, as a world, theoretically have control over. the c.i.a. is the agency that says the notion of blow back. the notion of there'll be an equal and opposite reaction when you do things to other countries, and we have power over it. >> may i suggest, because i face racism, you face racism. doesn't mean we'll blow ourselves up. there's half stories in that. half the story is true. there's another half they add on there, the ball on the christmas tree and turning it into something else.

it's important to recognise. how we deal with it. let's take the case study. it was a grievance for the jihadists in syria, we follow the propaganda. there was a grievance when there wasn't intervention, no one cares for muslim lives, and when there was, colonialists are coming back to syria, killing muslims. the way out of that is to control the narrative. he who controls the narrative sets the discourse, and we are losing that question. >> someone like andram - he's made fun on you and called you name - there was a piece tracing rad illegalisation of a young belgium that went to fight for i.s.i.l. it seemed anjam radicalized the shi'a that radicalized the kid. when interviewed he said "i love being on tv", saying the hills

and mountains were for the prophets, and the hills and mountains today are cnn, sky news, bbc and al jazeera and others. how much of blame should be directed towards us in the media, because we want a nice sexy story a guy come up and say in flamentry things. >> in the days of osama bin laden, he used to have his speeches aired live on jazeera. there's a role this the media place. not shying away. there's up to 2,000 brits have gone to join i.s.i.s. you need to have the conversation and have someone saying that they are right to go and debate it. putting on the clowns, giving it over-exposure, or i'm releasing propaganda videos, it can lubricate the i.s.i.s. propaganda machine. we need a bit more of an approach.

>> a "new york times" poll found an overmajority of the use finds the u.s. campaign system has to be rebuilt or undergo changes, has the american democratic process become un-democratic. >> we are 500 plus days... >> 2016 election. >> on the republican side there are nine candidates. early. >> to the super pacts, it is about money. >> they can afford to do 2-3 years. >> it's june. we have a long way to go michelle, that is collapsed the whole time line, let's better. >> i disagree with that. look at the polls, the majority of the americans don't believe the time loip is the problem -- time line is the problem, is it maddening, is it irrigating we talk about who will run in 2016 the day after president obama was elected.

>> it's the contributions. >> it is the money that is the problem. if you are middle class, poor, low income, you don't have the ability to write a 10 million check to a campaign and people wonder if their voice matters, it's the money in the process. >> yes, i think the amounts of money have two different effect. one, the campaign is a $2 billion campaign, $3 billion campaign, there's only so much you can spend in the old calendar of six months, amounts need to be spent on something, and the money chased. if i don't raise money 16-18 months before the election. by the time i do, on the old calendar, i'll never raise the money i need. un-democratic? >> i think that we are sitting

in a country that has fundamental democracy issues. we are barely a democracy or a republic. the u.s. senate has the same amount of votes for 500,000 in wyoming as it does for 16 million in california. you have a supreme court with a lifetime of appointees. all sorts of un-democratic institutions, and layered on top of that is an election system in which money is what dominates the election. >> can i - one of the things i think is important to talk about is the other problems made worse by this. for example, you have people that have the ability to give millions of dollars to any candidate that they want, and their voice can be used to dismantle part of the voting rights act. which has a negative impact on people that look like me. they have the ability to make sure violence against women in the united states - people ignore it or let it go or you hear stupid things.

one can argue by a state legislator, that money is more important to me than women. how many women write a check to get a politician elected who gloves in women's -- believes in women's rights and equality. >> i think if democracy is to mean anything at all, it has to mean that in a society minorities have an ability to empower themselves and have a voice. what i mean by that in this conversation is a minority ethnic communities, on top of that, economic minor dis, those without the economic means. >> you guys have a six week election season, which i just lost. maybe it would be better if you had longer. >> six weeks. i spend £10,000, which is here. it was the subject of a satire

on the "jon stewart show", they were incredulous how cheap it was. we have a short campaign, and we likewise raise funds before that period. there's no restriction before the one month. it kicks in for how much you can campaign. >> in the two election cycles as soon as, if we had a short campaign season we could have possibly elected john edwards as president of the united states and after the election and inauguration found out the horrible things found out about his fill andering and character. there's something about the american process. >> test of character. >> i believe there is something to be said for giving the american - americans a very long period of time if they choose to pay attention to get to know the candidates, and get to know what the candidates stand for. we have a question going on and on and on and i suspect in 2015

we'll hear what people are saying, who is the real hoyne, when will we gipd it out. she's -- find that out. she's been a public official for decades. >> part of it is a journalism problem. i agree there needs to be a strong vetting process, and in this country i think the vetting process - we have a long campaign season, but we have a lot of stenography, winning, knowing about the candidates is taking a picture of hillary clinton eating a bur eato at chibokly. we need different journalism. >> is it time to change it all for egregious crimes. high profile allegation of child molestation hit dennis hastert and josh dugger, statute of limitations protect them from the possibility of prosecution. >>

allegations of past sexual abuse is surfacing years later. >> can be be prosecuted. >> children bury it for a long period of time. >> we have statute of limitations for a long appeared. -- period. >> they can have all the statute of limitations in the world, but my brain has no statute of limitations it happened a long time ago, some get away with it seemingly. system? >> the premise is that people will forget, memories hazy. the longer there is from a crime or an alleged crime. i think that the argument is that you have to have a statute of limitations to make sure wrong evidence or fuzzy evidence prosecution. the problem with that assumption is that assumption is focussing on the wrong problem. if the problem is that the

justice system will not know how to discern between evidence that is not solid and solid evidence. you have a justice system problem. you'll use the problem to say there's a statute of limitations, and a child abuser, a day after he gets 35 years, all of a sudden it's wiped clean - that seems a solution to a problem that really a problem of the justice system to discern what is good evidence. >> there's a darn reduced to the gravity of the prime. there's a danger again na it reduces the gravity. we had certain states introduce decriminalization of marijuana. it decreases smoking marijuana for other. who look at it in some states it's okay. child molestation shouldn't be in that category. there should be a unified penalty.

men and women's lives have been rue jind. media has a role to be responsible that when an allegation is made, it's an allegation, and people must be innocent until proven guilty. >> media to be a partner in crime in all three topics so far. let's look at the josh douger case, his sister said when the statute of limitations ran out, their brother was a cheaped person. he was 14 years -- changed person. he was 14 years old back then. this is a couple of decades later. can a child molester be ? >> i think the proper way to look at it is from the view point of a victim or potential victim. the question is what are my rights as a victim. josh douger, what he did, was reprehensible and the way his family chose to deal with it. they'll have to deal with. it will be interesting to see long term what the impact is on

his sisters and anyone else that is a victim. we have no statute of molestation. you can bring charges when you believe you have the proper evidence. taking away the statute of limitations basically says we are taking the side of pedophiles. >> it's important to remember that it's relevant that he was a teenager, and people can challenge. it's not relevant for the purposes of the victim. they are two different questions. a judge considering this would consider if he changes now, that would change the security or parole companies, but it doesn't mean he gets away with crimes. >> you were part of his career, i'm not comparing you to a child molester, people that join radical groups or... >> neo-nazis cijed at that, but i get what you -- cringed at that. but i get what you say.

change. >> even child molesters. >> i think it can change. it's not relevant to the punishment. they can change in prison and beg forgiveness from their victims, doesn't mean they don't get punished. >> statute of limitations is a limitation on prosecutors to bring things into a court of law for the court to deal with it. it seems like a blunt instrument. if we talk about should they get less sentencing should they get more leniency, the statute of limitations said justice can't consider anything other are than doing nothing. >> can you think have you victims feel watching catholic bishops visible and washington and every state, states wanting to abolish statute of limitations watching bishops bishops, how hard they are lobbying.

it's unfair to everywhere victimized and the laws can't work if we don't have the ability to know the institutions and abuses that are allowing them to do what they do. >> the last quote we had in the introduction is for me the most important. that is that the victim's mind doesn't have a statute of limitations. the damn, lasting psychological damage it can do we can't comprehend. >> strong points, thank you all so much for your time. ahead, our correspondent's unexpected encounter with three migrants on a desperate and illegal journey. >> when they see us pull over, a need draws them close. they beg us for water. after the interview the question became now what do we do, are we supposed to call border patrol and turn them in?

>> a global climate crisis >> two feet of sea level rise is projected... >> threatening america's coastline >> you'll see water in the streets without rain... >> now fighting back with a revolutionary new technology >> there de-watering the ground... >> this is the first time anybodies done this before >> techknow's team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> i'm standing in a tropical wind storm. >> can affect and surprise us. >> wow...these are amazing! >> "techknow" where technology meets humanity. only on al jazeera america.

at allows you to make sense of your world. >> ali velshi on target only on al jazeera america

finding a better life? this is the dilemma facing thousands of migrants making a desperate journey north across the u.s.-mexican border every year. on this week's field notes heidi zhou-castro joins us from dallas texas, spending time in brooks county, a hot spot for taking migrants across the border. thousands crossed the border. hundreds lost their lives, how deeply engrained is the crisis in the border area? >> i would say this crisis defines life on the border. in the texas valley everyone has a dealing with it. most of the residents have mexican heritage - their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents crossed the border at some time - legally

tore otherwise. we went to a small town known as a hub for human smuggling, in search of a former human smuggler coyote as they call her. we tracked her down, to her home and former employer. she was at a new job. she was actually now the receptionist at a hotel. turns out she was the woman that checked us in, our camera crew, in that evening. that gives you an idea of how many people are influenced and have some dealings with it. you filed a report showing the desperate journey that many have to take. let's take a little look at an excerpt of that report. >> it's the start of summer in brooks county texas. three young men are following a highway in the direction they believe is north. they keep the distance from the road.

when they see us pull over, a need draws them close. they beg us for water. without water, and still another 18 miles ahead of them, the three risks are part of a statistic. this year the brooks county sheriff's office recovered 27 bodies, and more lost in the desert are not found in time. it's a collega faced here, give up, live another day, or walk towards a better life and risk death. the three say they'll press on. >> what was going through your mind when you saw the three men approaching you? >> we were surprised. we have been going to brooks county over the past year, many trips. we had never encountered someone in the desert. we go back a year after the crisis thinking things will be better, according to border patrol. the numbers are down, and we are

driving along the highway when we see the three young men a few feet away from us. no idea that it would happen. i was surprised they approached us, looking for the water. and the question was should we give it to them. abetters. these were people dying of thirst, and there we were with the water bottles full. it was a no-brainer, we handed the water bottles over immediately, and after the meeting the question was what are we supposed to do. are we supposed to turn over. >> we hear the terms, fixing the immigration problem, is there information from what you experienced and saw. >> the situation on the ground, it's difficult to define, it's difficult to find a solution. really, it's a dilemma for all

parties to go. if you are an immigrant, if you walk, and risk dying, if you gave up and turn yourself in, you are giving up on an american dream. the same goes for law enforcement. mean with kex can heritage, do you win a job as you are supposed to or catch these people pore feel sympathy for them. anyone involved. that does it for this week's show. the conversation continues on the website on aljazeera.com/thirdrail. i'm imran garda. goodnight.

a former senior al qaeda commander is targeted by a u.s. air strike in libya. ♪ ♪ hi there welcome to al jazerra. i am live from our headquarters for doha. also ahead. scrambling to safety. thousands of syrian cross in to turkey as a battle looms for control over isil held town. sudan's president is banned from leaving south africa until a decision is made on an i.c.c. arrest warrant. we'll tell you why