tonight in our debate, does america need to spy on its own people? and later in our panel, is congress broken because politicians care more about their own ambitions than passing bills that actually help the country. and indicted by the international criminal court but still free, what does it take to get arrested for crimes against humanity? this is third rail.

>> even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and records. >> there is no reasonable expectation of privacy over this. >> it's hard to determine where national security ends and personal privacy begins. >> nsa is getting all of our digital communication. >> we fought the revolution over. >> the realm of privacy is critical. >> i'm a lawyer. i didn't do anything. and if somebody like me could be surveiled. >> i worry very much about the united states moving into society. >> it is much more important that we defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program resulting in this nation being attacked. we've disrupted plots that have saved american lives. >> 9/11 could have been prevented. >> a terrorist plot is not that

difficult to stop if you know about it. >> tonight we have former nsa technical director and nsa whistle blower william benny and robert deitz. thanks for joining us. benny, does america need to spy on its citizens? >> no. we had a program in the 90s that made it very clear that we did a focused attack on data flowing through the network without pulling in all the data data of u.s. citizens. >> let's be clear. you believe that this is spying right now on all its citizens. >> yes. >> i totally disagree. the program that i think you're talking about is the collection of meta data. to, from, so forth. length of all.

often the root of calls passed the route. >> he's referring to the whole system. >> the whole system. then he's simply wrong. nsa doesn't do all that. >> they do it under a program called fairview and it's collecting right off the fiber lines inside the united states. they have about 80 taps on it. mark klein exposed one of them in san francisco at&t facility. about 80 to 100 other taps inside the united states collecting content as well as meta data. that's why they're planning on another 2.8 million square foot facility on fort meade. >> there are a couple of problems with mr. benny's argument. first of all, the development of a storage center has nothing to do with quantity. what it had to do with was following 9/11, what's called continuity of government. and the location for the new

facility was in the western electric grid not on the east coast electric grid. the centers he was speaking about on the coast is picking up foreign communications and that's why they're at the lines that come into this country. >> i don't want to get into semantics of the tick here. let's look at the track record so far. bob deitz, general keith alexander and other officials said at least 53 threats were avenue -- avoided because of prism. but let's look inside the meta data program that is only known to have helped in one case related to terror financing. do you find that a success? is that impressive to you? >> i don't have any reason that statement is true. >> who is they?

modern intelligence collection and analysis uses an mosaic where you put pieces together. i suspect it's successful in that and i think general alexander has so testified. >> president obama's group said exactly zero terrorist attacks have been foiled. >> his review group did not have a single expert on sigut. how you measure this i suspect is where it matters. >> is bill benny an expert here on the nsa. he worked there. he's a whistle blower. >> i worked there and i'm not a whistle blower. >> but i'm the one who designed these programs and i know exactly what they do and how they operate. and in fact i've said from the beginning i started the thin

thread program in the 90s because even before they were able to collect this data, they were overburdening their analysts and they couldn't function properly. that's why i did thin thread to do a focused attack and a selected information that created a rich environment for analysts to succeed. since 2011 analysts in nsa have been complaining they're overburdened with data and can't see the forest for the trees. >> i was the chief lawyer and i made sure that nsa obeyed the law. >> you also said that you had sleepless nights when you were given the order to change things. why would you have sleepless nights if it was not -- >> i had a sleepless night. >> one night. >> why one night? >> because this was a very challenging program. >> morally or otherwise? >> not morally. legally. it was a challenging program. it was edgy and i needed to give serious thought to determine in my own mind whether i thought it

was lawful. general hayden asked me to make that determination. >> that's why the judge quit the court when the "new york times" published it. that was also when the secret interpretation was illegal and that's why senator beener who helped write that said they were violating the intent of congress in that process. >> the fbi and other officials are constantly warning us of lone wolf attacks of isil prop gaiting online and privately messaging sleeper cells. you would agree that there are threats in the united states. >> yes. and there's none of them that have happened to far that could not have gotten by the targeted approach set in place in (1)999-2000 because it didn't target them just socially in terms of graphing relationships but also looked at other properties like cellphones or

satellite phones in the mountains of afghanistan or the jungles or peru or other people. >> you're talking about 1999. 9/11 happened in 2001. >> yes. i know. because they didn't -- we said we would have caught them if they'd have implemented that program when we wanted them to in january of 2001. >> you've called the nsa the starting. isn't that a -- >> they're fundamentally destroying the founding principles of this country. >> i have to jump in here. mr. benny and others who are self-proclaimed whistle blowers the end to have a view that

somehow if nsa continues doing what it's doing it's the end of western civilization as we know it. nonsense. nsa programs are tightly controlled and it's probably the most investigated agency in the federal government. it just is not true that it's a bunch of lawless cowboys. >> do you believe the freedom act was adequately formed? >> i think it was reasonable reform. >> you're shaking your head. it basically did nothing. it did very little. the upstream program is the major program whether when collecting data directly off the fiber networks including content and meta data giving them data they would get from the business records bulk acquisition which they set up issuing general warrants. my problem is not so much with nsa analysts looking at the data as it is with fbi and dea and other law enforcement people looking into that same data

without oversight. they also have been issued national security levels. this is under executive order 12333. >> you think the court is useless? >> they don't know about it. they don't investigate fbi interrogations. >> upstream is directly hacking into the cables. >> it's not hacking in. it is obtaining information off the cables of international communications. >> and that's fine? >> it is not controlled at all by fiza. >> it is legal. it is legal. the court knows about it and it is perfectly lawful. the fourth amendment does not apply to citizens of foreign countries when they are in their foreign countries. >> my problem with that is they're collecting all this u.s. data too.

when alexander was asked how many u.s. citizens he had in his database he couldn't answer and later on he said that would be a violation of privacy rights of u.s. citizens. my estimate is they're collecting at least 270 million data on 270 million. >> and that knows no borders. >> no. we would not have been having this conversation if it wasn't for edward snowden. is he a traitor in your eyes? >> i don't know. that's a technical legal term of art. i totally oppose what he did and i don't need to drag out the word traitor. i took and still take the promise i made to the government when i joined it that i would not release classified information. i took that promise seriously. snowden unfortunately did not. >> he preferred to have his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution to override his

nondisclosure agreement with the government. is he a hero? >> he did a great public service because he's made it impossible for the government to deny what they've been doing by exposing all this material. >> with all respect i think that argument is ridiculous. the fact is that what snoweden did was release exively announce -- effectively announce that segment of it that's interested in this how nsa conducts its work. and that's enormously damaging. i've used this -- you still have to get through that armor. when you leak intelligence gathering techniques, immediately that form of communication ends up being dropped by the bad guys. and that's enormously dangerous. >> the only dangerous part i see is when he talkses about

specific targets. the only surprise was to the united states public. they didn't know they were being collected. >> okay. i want to take a break. coming up, we'll be joined by an american citizen who says he did nothing wrong but was a target of american spying. >> one of the questions i'm trying to find out is why me. >> could the nsa be spying. >> i don't know the answer of that. >> they should not be spying on folks like me. >> and later on, i think congress is a dleliberative bod.

>> shot dead and the government does nothing. >> they teach you how to

eliminate people? >> ya. >> we've done it and that is why we are there. >> my life is in danger. >> anyone who talks about the islamic religion is killed. >> don't miss the exclusive al jazeera investigation. >> i can't allow you not to go into that because that is your job. >> only on al jazeera america. when i feel i'm being surveilled, i don't feel free. >> you just wonder what else. >> it doesn't matter if you have something to hide or nothing to hide. >> i've been put on a list that i don't know how i got on it or how to get off it. >> you need to remember that the gathering occurs for a purpose. >> there are check and balances in place. >> when they have suspicions, they ping the data. >> welcome back. joining us now is a former department of homeland security

senior policy advisor who was secretly monitored by the nsa from 2006 to 2008. you were on the same list as people from al quaeda. why you? >> i have no idea and that's a question i've been trying to find out. why me. but nobody is going to say anything and the only thing the government says is that we had an adequate cause but there's absolutely nothing in my background, anything that i've done. i held a security clearance. ts/sci until i left the government. there is nothing that i have done. pure speculation on my part was i worked for the american muslim council as a public official and through that i came in contact with numerous other officials including president bush at the time, congressman moran.

i was a lawyer on a case where the government of sudan was being sued in civil court and i was one of many lawyers working under a treasury license. besides that, there is absolutely nothing that i can even speculate on as to why i would be on such a list. >> if glenn greenwald had not have published this, you would not have known. they moved on after two years. >> we think. >> presumably your life is terribly uncomfortable now but you wouldn't have known. no harm done. do you resent the fact your name was put out there? >> i'm certainly not happy my name was out there. >> he would have asked for your permission. >> not really. when he came out and informed me i was being monitored he said we're going to run the story. we would like your cooperation. but since you've run for office, we're going to run it without

you anyway. and i said if that's the case i would want to cooperate and put my side out. i have done nothing wrong and i'm not going to hide as if i do. >> bob, you had security clearance, worked for homeland security. you're a republican. right? >> right. was at that time. >> okay. at that time. adds to the narrative. does the nsa need to apologize to him? >> i don't know. you know, i'm not familiar with his case and i'm certainly not in this program to defend everything that happened. >> what you've heard right now. >> it seems like a very unfortunate event. as you pointed out, the event was precipitated by the greenwald event? >> should they participate? >> absolutely should not be spying on folks like me. anyone holding a security clearance unless you have a

reasonable suspicion, probable cause, you're a lawyer as well. that's a high standard. there is less of a standard to get a warrant on me, a tap on me than there would be if i committed a robbery, assault, anything elsewhere you'd have to go to a local court and prove to a judge that there is probable cause to suspect that i committed that crime. >> look, i'm not attacking you at all. i don't know the facts. you're a lawyer an you understand that facts matter. >> sure. >> i'm simply saying that in if absence of knowing that circumstance or set of facts, i can't make a judgment. there's no question that from time to time people are investigated or looked out who turn out for no good reason. there's nothing unusual about that. >> you would certainly agree with me that the standards that exist for the nsa and through the courts are a lot less that exist for any other court out there. >> i think that's generally true, yes. >> bill, how many others are

there like gill in the united states? >> probably several million but they're taking in data on everybody so they had the opportunity to retroactively analyze anybody so it's not a matter of -- it's just whether or not they're targeting you for some reason. >> this myth -- i have to go to burst this myth that somehow nsa is collecting all the content of all communications taking place in this country. >> only about 80%. >> that's nonsense. it's not true. >> okay. so he put in 80% on it. what figure would you put on it? >> very low. i don't know the percentage. i've been in nsa as you know for nine years or so. but the numbers are actually quite small as a percentage of the communications taking place >> and what they're scooping up you feel is entirely necessary? >> i can't answer that. it's literally everyone scooped up. >> you're defending it. >> i am. because what you're trying to do

in intelligence is understand what's going on. it's not a criminal inquiry. >> but it bleeds into that. it's not just purely intelligence inquiry. if it's just intelligence, i agree with you. it's an intelligence operation. you're gathering information and doing what you need to do with it in an intelligence framework. but what's happening now is you're gathering intelligence leading into criminal because what we're saying is there are lone wolfs out there trying to harm the united states. how do you do that? i admit are there american citizens who are trying to do harm to the united states? absolutely. are there american terrorists? without question. but what we're trying to do is use an intelligent solution to stop that and unfortunately what happens is you've got to fourth amendment, the constitution. and those folks have rights. >> let's ask about recourse. what have you been able to do ever since? >> there is absolutely no

recourse for me. basically and it's actually worse because what happens is the government will say there's four criteria that we have in order to grant a warrant and one of them is if they suspect you of terrorist acts, if you're under the influence of a foreign government and there's two others. and they basically say we feel one of those four criterias we had adequate reason to believe one of them was met so you're left out there saying okay wait a second you've got the government which most people think wants to do the right thing and is for the most part saying that we had reasonable suspicion to believe this person was under foreign influence. the issue is that it's no longer an intelligence operation. it's bleeding from intelligence to criminal law and those two things as you know sometimes don't go together and i think the nsa is in an interesting situation. >> and by doing that what they

do is force themselves to do a parallel construction where they go out into normal policing techniques and find the same data they got from the nsa databases and substitute that in the court of law. i call that perjury. >> is it? >> i don't accept that proposition. i do not accept that proposition. nsa's sole interest is in gathering intelligence. it's not interested in criminal -- >> this is the fbi and dea. >> i'm sorry, you seem to know about all these groups. i only know about nsa. >> you spoke about a totaltarian state. who are those people coming out of the woodworks? >> senator feinstein said hundreds of people every year are put in jail because of this program. this is violating their rights

to challenge discovery in the court of law. >> everything bill is speaking about is the apocalypse. that's just a nonsense view. >> it feels like the apocalypse for gil. >> as i said, had the story not been broken, he'd have been in a better position than he is today. so, in other words, where are you going to pin this tail? >> and then the issue comes down to you're absolutely right that had the story not been broken i would not be out there in public and that in one sense is better but the underlying issue is that i was still spied on and monitor monitored. >> i agree with you about the opposite apocalypsic view.

we need to figure out where we feel comfortable. even the terminology you're using i think is incredibly biased. >> which one in particular >> >> the gathering of meta data constitutes spying. it does not. i have given my fingerprints -- >> i think when we talk of taking information from a cable i consider that spying. >> it's spying if it's used. i don't know how many times you've begin up fingerprints. when i gave the prints i didn't say you're spying on me. >> that's voluntary. >> actually i was -- >> you know what you're doing. >> i was drafted and it was not voluntary. but i take your point. but it isn't the gathering of the information in my view that constitutes the spying. it's the use of it. >> okay.

>> okay. i want to give bill the final word. >> in the dea there's a special operations division that includes a number of people and now that gives the irs direct access into all of the networks being constructed and social networks being constructed at nsa so they can tell exactly who is in the tea party and i'm suspicious of them using it to do that. >> i don't believe that. >> but that's happened fins time immemorial. that's nothing new. >> with all respect that's just wrong. that just isn't true. >> that's nonsense. >> i'm sorry. we have run out of time, gentlemen. william benny, robert deitz, thank you so much for joining us. the third rail panel is next if the

welcome back to third rail. you've just heard about government surveillance impacting one person. let's broaden it to the general public's access to your information online. richard is an attorney who served as a senior advisor to president clinton and now contributes to new yorker.com. as well as hugh hewitt. hugh, let's start with you. france wants to expand european's right to be forgotten so you can basically appeal and say, hey, i would like some

stuff about me when you google me and can you take it down. does that sound reasonable to you? >> no. it makes every historian in the audience say what a horrible idea. martha washington burned george washington's letters. we're poorer for it. whenever anything is lost from history's record, we are poorer for it. france can't dictate the united states's rules and online something is going to live forever and you have to expect that. >> i just wonder if you have someone like feisel gill as we just heard, caught up in this drag net. someone acquitted of rape and convicted of rape both have that association of rape on their name. is that fair? >> yes. everything is online. it's not necessarily going to do you justice but it's fair. but if you're online it's to be expected that your expectation is that everything will remain forever. once you empower a censor, you begin to have the soviet style of erasing people from the top

of lenin's tomb. >> it applies to everything anybody would put online about anybody else. so i really like issues that we can agree on because there's a lot of stuff we don't agree on but we do agree on this. i think the internet has expanded so quickly, privacy has been lost. there's no privacy for public figures at all and there's little privacy if you're not a public figure. so you have to sympathize with those who want to protect some privacy. >> are we just going to accept this? >> but this french solution to their war with google is completely unworkable. you could ask them to remove search results but not the underlying information about something and it doesn't have to be untrue. just out of date. it's a totally unworkable situation. >> the information is not going to disappear.

i'm between you guys in the sense that it is a tool. it's grown very quickly and we have to learn how to deal with this in a real manner. and maybe we should be thinking about who is affected. right. if you were under 25, you're frontal lobe is not yet closed and you're posting things you should automatically be able to have things removed on that. >> how could you enforce that? administer that kind of thing? >> i think having processes that we actually do support in this country like libel processes. >> how about that kid, the 21-year-old in south carolina. he posted racist stuff online. >> he'll be in jail for a very long time so his work will be on that. >> the collective consciousness, the defense against this is the collective consciousness is that not everything you see online is true and that people are beginning to disassociate with

things showing up online. >> i actually wish that some of that principle could apply to public figures. i think we're invading their privacy and people will not want to run for office. >> it worked for the indian prime minister who found that when people googled for top criminals or top ten criminals or whatever he was one of the first people to appear on a google image search and the indian government lobbied and google took it down. so if it can work for a public figure, why not me? >> that's when you don't want it to work. >> right. >> you don't want it to work for corporations. >> when you google rick santorum, you come up with that. >> i think he's got to live with what he's created. >> he didn't create it.

that was a purposeful attack. >> his actions created an environment in which that took place. >> his comment elicited a huge -- he said it's not like dog on dog sex and so the gay and lesbian community made that the first thing that comes up and that is the abuse of the internet. >> as a way to mock him. >> yes. and that's an abuse of the internet which is powerful but get used to it and over it. >> let's shift years. lindsey graham has reintroduced a bill that has critics crying foul. is it the latest example of a partisan bill with no chance of passage gumming up the system? >> presidential contender lindsey graham introduced a bill banning abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. >> when do you become who you are. >> this is the senator using abortion to try to gain political advantage in a republican primary. >> we have a lot of folks shouting from the sidelines who don't appear to want to govern.

>> the priority of the senate is going to be whatever this week's presidential candidate decides to make it. >> okay. i've got some other bills here by way of precedent. you know, you look at keith ell ellison, the freedom of choice act, the interracial profiling act of 2015. so you have democrats and republicans just gumming up the system. aren't they pointless because they're never going to be passed. people say that. so all this time and effort and money goes into these potential bills that never go anywhere as an outsider i find this ludicrous. >> use of the legislative process. i don't even know. look, i think they are message driven in trying to tap into the broader public narrative. but with something like the abortion bill, there are increasingly measures that

throughout the state that are taking on 20-week bans and people who are putting up things like six-week bans. 99% of abortions actually do not happen after 20 weeks but well before and the idea that they're using these extreme examples to make a point about their political process i think is -- >> so talking about making a point. richard, as of february, congress voted 56 times to repeal obamacare. talk about clogging the system. >> well, i actually debated this issue with marshall blackburn who is in the black republican leadership and she said we're going to do this until we win it. and i think congress is a deliberative body and inherent in that, we have to allow them to look silly. congress has a very low regard perhaps historic low numbers now and if they want to continue to pursue these things that they're just doing for show, and look

silly, we should let them do it. >> the outsider i should note. this is what we call the constitution and this is what the constitution was designed for. democracy in action and the legislature proposes and it will propose often. >> i think that if you look historically, you know, there were actually highly functioning congresses in our past and important congressional leaders who were actually really moving

this country forward with good bipartisan compromises on very difficult issues. i think what we have is three congresses in a row who have decided we're not going to pass anything that we can against this president and i think that is gumming up the system. >> they just passed medicare reform. >> but they've put it out there publicly. that that is not their role. so i disagree that the -- >> this president cannot be trusted to go through with which he says. >> they're not going to pass laws to give him any authority because they then abuses them. >> from a philosophical

perspective, like, what is congress supposed to be doing, right, i think they are supposed to be legislating. when they can't get their act together they have to be talking about ideas and i disagree with a lot of the ideas they're talking about now but they certainly have the right to raise these ideas and there were certainly some farfetched ideas raised in the past that because they get raised and talked about they gain support. >> i want to turn to torture for a second because we had the united states approving the national defense authorization act. 78-21. now, of course, overwhelming majority that have approved to ban torture. what's most fascinating to me is that 21 congressmen said, you know, senators, they said, hey, torture is okay. >> they did not. oh, my god. they did not say that. they said enhanced interrogation

techniques of the sorts the united states has used for years are legal. that is al jazeera nonsense. they did not say torture. that is absolutely -- i won't use that word. that is absolutely not right. they did not say torture is okay. tom cotton cotton served his time in iraq as a ranger. >> 21 people said water boarding is okay. >> they did. >> and science has proven that there are far more effective torturish or ways to elicit information. >> enhanced interrogation techniques. >> i love that the two of you are answering this question. i haven't said what it is. but obviously you have strong views on it. i would agree with you that you could vote against this and not think torture is a good idea. >> do they actually believe?

>> i actually think that you got over two-thirds of the u.s. senate to agree to anything in this political environment is actually progress and in some ways shows how far we've come since 9/11 because you remember the country was very deeply divided then as to whether or not these techniques were a good idea. i think now led by john mccaine, i mean, he knows better than anybody else in the u.s. senate or the world whether or not tactics like this work because they were used against them. he lived them. and he led the battle against these. and he got a lot of people to go along with him. i think it shows huge progress. >> but if you put a bill that says we will not burn people in cages you'll get 100 votes. but enhanced interrogation techniques are much more

complicated. you can use whatever word. >> if water boarding was illegal until now why is there a law necessary? >> i think there's not a law necessary. >> and that's probably why some people didn't vote for it because they said there's probably no law necessary. >> i move on. >> i don't think you're for torture. >> of course you're not. >> did the torture report -- was that torture or enhanced interrogation? >> enhanced interrogation. >> okay. i'm going to move on. sudan's president who is charged with war crimes escaped justice this week and has prompted many to wonder whether international law is a joke.

>> hundreds of thousands of victims who have not had justice >> the ability to up hold its rulings. >> never again is not yet. the perception is out there that you get away with it. >> okay. richard, this time i'll let you answer the question that i asked you and not answer it myself. >> is it a joke, international law is a joke. but some of it may be on display in this case some of it may not be on display in this case. we have to i think as a civilization in this moment figure out how to balance issues of sovereignty and issues of how do we create an environment in which people have greater respect for global human rights standards. we have not found the right approach yet. our very own country here has

raised some very important due process objections around the court. so i think that this case demonstrates how much work we have to be done but it's hard to really i think pick winners and bad guys and good guys in this particular situation. >> let's look at the charges. five counts of crimes against humanity. two counts of war crimes three counts of genocide against al bashir. yet, south africa lets him go. is the lesson that you can literally get away with mass murder? >> absolutely. i think that these international bodies are incredibly important especially for us having these conversations about human rights but the reality is that unless the world is going to get on board to enforce this, then it's meaningless.

>> the africans say all indictments so far have been africans either african leaders, military leaders and the like. and, hey, america, who are you to lecture us? you didn't sign up to the rome statute. >> we are signatories to the international convention of genocide. bashir is a genocidal maniac. he's responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 americans. he's a war criminal. >> why did they let him in? >> it's an aspirational society. i took it in 1993. international law is aspirational. that's all it is. the international criminal court we are not a signatory to but so long as south africa is letting people go to the ideal that -- it's racist. milosivich was tried in the hague under international law. >> there's a technicality

because that was a precursor to the icc. >> we go after them in the west. and the west is ahead of the east in that way. >> some might want donald rumsfeld. >> that's propaganda to say that bashir has anything to do with any american. what you've just suggested that rumsfeld is in the same category of bashir, that's extreme. >> i'm not making it up. >> to say that any american has anything to do with bashir. he's a killer on a monumental scale. many americans have gone to the sudan and documented what he did in darfur. we should never confuse western actors with the killers of the worst sort. it's wrong. it's propaganda. >> i agree with you that rumsfeld is not a war criminal but i would say that we need to

certainly now put an additional safeguards so that we don't create the kind of environment that rumsfeld was an actor in creating leaving him open to charges in other countries. >> they are -- >> i think we can probably agree -- i think even you would agree that during that period where we were every day scared about our people being attacked we came about as close to the line as we want to come to and maybe on occasion or two went over it where we weren't really living up to the ideals that we 'em grace as a country. >> -- embrace as a country. >> mike morell wrote the great war of our time and talks about that period of time and he documents that everyone left right and center the congress came together to vote the authority to use military force. barbara boxer supported it. so we have to go back in time

and not call out individuals for political purposes. >> i'm sure there are some people who have some regret. >> absolutely. >> every single candidate in the gop side is distancing themselves from the actions in this. >> no they're not. they're saying that we didn't know. >> they're saying if they knew now. >> she's right. >> i've interviewed all republican candidates.

>> i've interviewed every republican candidate. they do not. >> they do not distance themselves. >> when i've seen them interrogated perhaps not using enhanced interrogation techniques on other shows they have definitely begun to distance themselves because they understand that is where the public is. that's where the public knowledge is. >> the person has to distance themselves from what has happened there is hillary clinton. we left iraq after peace was won and it fell apart. she has to distance herself from 2011. we don't have to. >> i would say she's done a good job of evaluating the mistakes made and been pretty candid about them. i would disagree with that. it's in the book, richard. you'll have to read the queen. >> i knew you would get that in there. >> thank you so much for joining us. straight ahead, a bloody

election on the border. we talk to our correspondent in mexico. >>reporter: the people we spoke to think our politicians either accommodate themselves with criminal organizations or they're bought off with criminal organizations or they're members themselves. ese are amazing...

>> techknow, where technology meets humanity! only on al jazeera america would you go out and vote in an election where 17 candidates for congress had been murdered? that was the backdrop for mexicans who voted in the country's midterm elections earlier this week. adam rainy covered the election where two candidates were murdered and many have disappeared. he joins us now from mexico city. it's the same place and the same state as where those 43 students went missing last year. political candidates have been murdered. young men have disappeared from

the streets. it sounds like a war zone. i wonder what sort of precautions did you take? did you have to prepare for it as if it was a war zone? >>reporter: we do in some ways because mexico is extremely violent but it's a paradox too because these towns we go to look and feel safe. they have people out doing their daily business. it's not a war zone in the sense of you see the violence happening all the time. so when we go to these towns, we have protocols. don't travel at night. try to rent a low profile vehicle. but despite that we're always very aware that things could get out of hand. things could happen very fast. and just to illustrate that in another state that's extremely violent i've traveled to several times, vera cruz state. this is controlled by a violent criminal gang. once there i was looking for a place to file a story the big

suv we were driving in clearly grabbed the attention of somebody, police pulled us over, tried to take us into custody. this is a police force in that community that is known to be infiltrated by the gang. known to be bought off at times and they were saying that we had to join them. we did everything we could to stall. i called the embassy. we called our editorial staff in washington. and we were able to stall because we're foreign journalists and that carries weight here. they said we were suspects in a kidnapping case and that raised serious red flags for us thinking if we got in their vehicle we may have to pay a very large bribe or never see our loved ones again. that's what we're up against here reporting in this country. >> let's look at an excerpt of a report you filed about the fear and violence you spoke about and that fear and violence that real real really covered daily life. >>reporter: relatives of the missings.

families rarely find them or justice. they come every day to this restaurant across from city hall waiting for authorities to tell them where their loved ones are. on may 9th, armed men entered the city searching for a rival drug lord. during that week 17 young men disappeared. bernardo has little left to lose. >> they've already taken my three sons. they can come for me too. we're not afraid of anyone. >> you spoke to these people and saw their struggle and fear and this was in the run up to an election. is it an election that they believed in that they trust the system or trust the government against the backdrop of all of this violence and fear? >>reporter: well, the people we spoke to who have been impacted by this violence, the people that you just showed, no, they didn't have any faith in this

election. they quite openly told us, look, it's not going to change anything. we're just going to have a different corrupt poll situation run by criminals running the show after this election. that's how they feel because they think all politicians either accommodate themselves with criminal organizations or they're bought off by the organizations or are members of the organizations themselves. that's what many people openly say. >> adam, that was really great. thank you so much for joining us. well, that does it for this week's show. but the conference continues at aljazeera.com/thirdrail. good night.

>> this is aljazeera america from w york, here are today's top stories. >> the outpouring of love is just overwhelming. it's, i mean nine people died and it brought a whole nation together. >> a time to heal, a community comes together to mourn the victims of last week's tragic shooting in south carolina. >> i had myself convinced that there was a conspiracy against the white race. >> our