and causing conflict and chaos in the region. that's why i've said to them let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our inter diction capacity so fewer of those armed shipments are getting through the net. but the legal authorities we'll still posse. obviously we have our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah and those remain in place. in terms of the larger issues in the middle east, that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the next president is that we are on

track to defeat isil, that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there. that we have jump started a process to resolve the civil war in syria, which is like an open sore in the region. and is giving refuge to terrorist organization who is are taking advantage of that chaos. to make sure in iraq not only have we pushed back isil, but we've created an environment in which sunni shia and kurd are starting to operate function more effectively together. and to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region

of how we've strengthened our security partnerships so they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from iran. that included providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel, building on the work we've done, and if we've done those things. then the problems will be solved. it's not up to the president of the united states to solve the problems in the middle east. the people of the middle east will have to solve some of these problems themselves. but we'll provided at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas.

but the last thing i would say and this is a longer-term issue is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the anile listic violent dead-end that organizations like isil offer. we can't do that by ourselves but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations states ngos religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right michael.

>> thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria. let's just focus on that for a moment. other analysts brief that the political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran and giving iran an important role. do you agree and is that a dialogue that you'll actively be seeking, and what will isis, what will it take in complicit cooperation with united states and iran? >> i do believe that we will not solve the problems of syria unless there is buy-in from russia iranians, the turks our gulf partners. it's too chaotic. there are too many factions. there is too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and gee and

geopolitical jockeying. in order for us to resolve it there has to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. iran is one of those players. i think its important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not and i don't anticipate any time in the near future restored normal diplomatic relations with iran. and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counter-isil campaign. but clearly iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shia

population. some are we expect president al abadi to meet with, negogogotiate and work withh iran as it's neighbor. we see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers, when we move in to sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we appropriately at least deacon de- de-conflict and where we can work with prime minister abady over an over all strategy

in which iraq retains it's sovereignty. we can decide what iran is doing there is a problem and we can cooperate unless you get those folks out there have because we're not going to have our troops even in advising and training situation looking over their shoulders because of what might happen to them. those conversations are going on going, and they'll continue. any work that the u.s. government or u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government, and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abady is directing those soldiers, then it's tough

for us to have any kind of direct relationship. >> thank you mr. president. as you well know there are four americans in iran. three on charges and one unknown. where do you lead the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four americans, and last week the chairman of the joint chief of staff said under no circumstances should there any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or convention weapons. it was conceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. many in the pentagon feel that you've left the chief of staff high and dry. >> i have to give you credit how

you craft those questions. the notion that i'm content while americans languish in iranian jails major that--that's nonsense. you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody is content. our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release think about the logic that that creates. suddenly iran realizes, you know what make we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran some how

thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. if we had walked away from the nuclear deal we would still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected, but we're working every single day to try to get them out. we won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony to some degree i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles, as i just explained not only did we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution, but we have a host of other multi lateral and unilateral

authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those activities whether it's six years from now or ten years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and, in fact, part of my pitch to the gcc countries as well as to prime minister netanyahu, we should do a better job making sure that iran is not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. as i just indicated that means improving our intelligence capacity and our inter diction capacity with our partners. okay. april ryan. >> thank you mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year on the flight--how does criminal

justice reform fit into that equation, and what gaps remain, and also what does it mean to travel to kenya your father's homeland in the next couple of weeks as president of the united states, and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? >> you stepped right in there april. >> i learned from-- >> who did you learn from, jonathan cause? is that who you learned from? our criminal justice reform, i gave a lengthy speech yesterday but i've been thinking about it a lot i've been working first with eric holder and now loretta lynch we've been working on along with other prosecutors in the u.s. attorney's office, it's an outgrowth of the task force

that we put together post ferguson and the garner case in new york. i don't think that the criminal justice system is is obviously the sole source of racial tension in this country or the key institution to resolveing the opportunity gap, but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. the good news is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interest as well as federal, state and local interest in solving the problem. i think people recognize that there are violent criminals out

there, and they've got to be locked up. we've got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials, police are in a tough job and they are helping to keep us safe. we're grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by non-violent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. that cost tax payers enormous amounts of money. it is debilitating communities who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record, render rendering them oftentimes unemployable. it compounds problems that that's communities already have.

and so i am very appreciative of folks like dick durbin and cory booker along side mike lee and rand paul other folks in the house who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around non-violent drug offenses. again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crimes, but when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we're preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce. on the back end are we diagnose

doing more to help them be more effective. this is an area where we could have significant bipartisan legislation. the most important goal is to keep people from being involved in the criminal justice in its first place which means early childhood education good jobs, making sure that we're not segregateing folks in impoverish impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. what was remarkable was how they turned this he's life around. these are folks who have been pretty tough criminals. one had served ten years. another was a repeat offender who served a lot of time. and in each instance somebody

enter interveneed at some tonight in theirs lives and said, i think you can live a different way and i'm willing to help you. that one person, an art teacher or ged teacher or somebody who was willing to offer a guy a job. i want to give a shout out to five guys because one of the guys was an ex-felon, and five guys gave him a job. he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point was somebody reached out to that person and gave him a chance. so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're ten or 11 or 12 or 8 as opposed to waiting until they've gone through a criminal justice

program. that's part of why we're diagnosedoing "my brother's keeper." this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. in the meantime we have to keep the crime rate down. violent crime has significantly dropped. last year we saw incarcerations and the crime rate drop. this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there are parts of the country where violent crime is still a problem, including my hometown of chicago and in baltimore, and part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a passage of criminal justice reforms. part of it will be having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard, and haven't seen some of the drops in

violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to visits to kenya it's obviously something i'm looking forward to. i'll be honest with you visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president because i can actually get outside of the hotel room or conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place is tough as president, but it's obviously symbolically important. my hope is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner not just for kenya but sub-sahara africa generally, build issues of health education focus on counter terrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al-shabab and some

of the issues that are continuing and the continuing democracy and reduce corruption in that country that has sometimes held back this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom. there is no precedent for revoking a medal. we don't have that mechanism. and as you know i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of case where is there might still be if not criminal then civil issues involved. i'll say this if you give a woman or a man for that matter,

without his or her knowledge a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent that's rape. and i think this country any civilized country should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted our iran questions here? i think there is a helicopter coming but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you heard that i did not answer? i just--go ahead, go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned. >> i'll be brief. the argument today that iran now

has a cash windfall, billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident that they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, bashar al-assad etc.? >> i think that's a great question, and i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and roads and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that because rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or forces i think runs contrary to

all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood, that they've got additional resources. do i think that it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. there is a ceiling of of a pace of which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly of the chaos occurring in syria. could they potentially try to get more assistance there?

yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize a region or send to their proxies is that more important than preventing iran from getting nuclear weapon? no. so i think again this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. the other problem with the argument that folks have been making that this is a windfall, and suddenly iran is flush with cash and they're going to take over the world i say that not tongue-in-cheek because if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that iran, in fact is going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal, which i think would be news to the iranians.

that argument is premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if congress votes down this deal then we're able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness that we have right now. that, i can promise you is not true. that is absolutely not true. i want to repeat. we're not writing iran a check. this is iran's money that we're able to block from them having access to. that required the cooperation of countries all around the world many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran the imposition of sanctions their cooperation with us has cost them billions of dollars made it harder for them. they've been willing to do that

because they believe we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully, and they consider that a priority. a high enough priority that they would cooperate with us on sanctions. if they saw us walking away or more specifically if they saw the u.s. congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99% of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian weapons program nuclear weapons program in an equitable way the sanction system unravels. we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions but it would be far less effective as it was before we put together these multi lateral sanctions. maybe they don't get $100 billion.

maybe they get 60 or 70 instead. the price for that that we've paid is now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. we have no inspectors on the ground. we don't know what's going on. they're still getting some cash windfall. we've lost credibility in the eyes of the world. we'll effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. a terrible position to be in. i'm just going to look--i made some notes about the arguments that i've heard here. okay that's a good one the notion--right, so let's address this issue of--because that's the other big argument that's been made. let's assume that the deal holds

for ten years. iran does not cheat. now at the end of ten years some of the restrictions have been lifted although remember others have stayed in place for 15 years. for example, they still have to keep their stock piles at a minimum level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away. those are still in place. 15, 20 years from now their commitment under the nonproliferation treaty does not go away. that's still in place. the additional protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal, which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism that stays in place. so there is no scenario in which

an u.s. president is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now. if, in fact, iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. keep in mind we'll have maintained a one-year break out of time. we'll have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities kept them under severe restrictions, had observers. they'll have made international commitments supported by countries around the world and hold on a second, and if at that point they decided you know what we're going to cheat. or not even cheat. at that point they decide openly we're now pursuing a nuclear weapon. they are still in violation of this deal and the commitments they've made internationally. so we are still in a position to

mobileize the world's community to say no, you can't have a nuclear weapon. they're not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon. they're in a weaker position than they are today. and, by the way we haven't given away any of our military capabilityies. we're not in a weaker position to respond. so even if everything the critics were saying was true that at the end of ten years or 12 years or 15 years, iran now is in position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon that they're at a break-out point they won't be at a break out point that is more dangerous than the break out point that they're in right now. they won't be at a break out

point that is shorter than the one that exists today. so why wouldn't he at least make sure that for the next 10, 15 years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it and afterwards if they decide--if they've changed their mind we're then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are much more knowledgeable about what their program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today. [ inaudible question ] >> i'm always hopeful that the behavior will change for the sake of the iranian people as well as people in the region. there are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of

secretary tyrianism, because of poor governance, oppression terrorism, and i remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that and it should be part of u.s. policy to do something about that. but i'm not bank on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do. it's incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how the world is in a worse position 12, 13 14, 15 years from now if at that point iran says we're going to pull out of the mpt kick out inspectors, and go for a nuclear bomb. if that happens that president will be in a better position than if iran as a consequence of congress rejecting this deal decides that that's it, we're done negotiating we're going after a bomb right now.

the choices would be tougher today than they would be for that president 15 years from now. and i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. all right, i really have to go, and i think we've hit the big themes, but i promise you i will address this again. i suspect this is not the last we've heard of this debate. >> president obama in a 70- 70-minute news conference in the east room of the white house encouraging reporters to bring up criticism of the iran deal. the president said that this is a deal that meets the national security obligations of the united states and our allies and this is the best means of insuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. the president said that he welcomes the robust congressional hear that's are coming and hopes that everyone evaluatings this on facts not at politics posturing or based on

lobbying but based on the interest of the united states. a lot to chew over with what the president said, but we want to bring you up-to-date on some news in a has happened while the president has been speaking. first of all in greece the greece parliament is taking up the us feherty bail out measure and there have been some violent protests outside of parliament. you're looking at a live picture right now in athens where you see some people throwing debris at riot police. a few moments ago there were people throwing molotov cocktails and fires have started. it seems to be getting confrontation hall outside of the greek parliament. this comes at a time when the vote in the greek parliament over the e.u. agreement reached over a few days ago that seems perhaps to be in doubt. furthermore there was some news involving u.s. politics, we heard president obama in his news conference talk about criminal justice reform, sensing

reform former president bill clinton told the audience at naacp that the crime bill that he signed, that it was a mistake for president clinton to sign that bill and to life prison tenses contained in there. let's go back to the news conference that focused mostly on iran. michael shure joins us from the white house. what due make of the president and his encouraging of the criticism of this deal? >> it seems that is all he wanted to talk about. i would qualify this as an unusual press conference. first he didn't have the questioners, then he opened it up to the floor but basically asked the press to talk to him about iran. he was there to talk about iran. he came in right away saying, hey, listen, israel can complain about this, congress can complain about this, but show me something better than this. it's a tactic that worked for him on the affordable care act. something that he's familiar talking about. in the end he said i defy to say

anyone from an u.s. president 10 to 15 years down the road that this puts them in a worse position. this is a chance at getting something that he thinks is something good. he's demeanor was different than most people expected today. >> michael shure at the white house. let's go to lisa stark at capitol hill to get your reaction. he said that he wants this debate--he wants the debate over the deal to be evaluated on the facts, and the president said that he's not getting on g.o.p. support. live to this, and i want your reaction on the other side. >> this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. >> again, here's what the

president said specifically about republicans. >> i'm not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation. and that i welcome. >> he said reasonable expectation on capitol hill? >> well, he said he welcomed a robust debate. you can see as he went through all the objections, many of them raised here on capitol hill, he was in a sense answering the criticism we have heard from lawmakers over the past 24 hours or so. the president in a sense threw down the gauntlet to congress. he said come up with an alternative. is the alternative war? is that what we want to do? if so, say it and debate that.

he's saying to congress, you have these objections, i'm going to answer them, but you need to be telling me what else we should be doing. a lot of members of congress want to impose tougher sanctions on iran. you may remember they were debating that while these negotiations were going on. and the white house pressed very hard for them to wait, hold off let's wait until negotiations finish. there are still some support here for putting tough sanctions, even tougher sanctions on iran. but the president said that is not going to hold water. even if we do that, he said, our allies, those who negotiated this deal with us, they're not going to go down that road again. we're going to be isolated from our ahigh schools--allies and it's not going to be effective. he's essentially telling congress that the way you're looking at this is not going to work. if you don't have an alternative, you better look at

mine very carefully and find a reason to reject it because according to the president there isn't one. >> the president seemed to go out of his way to try to concern all the concerns and criticisms out there, is there anything out there that jumps out at you that we might have missed that you heard that the president did not address today? >> well, i think he addressed most of what we've heard up here. he talked about the money the windfall that iran is going to get. speaker boehner talked about that. he said yes some of this money is going to go to terrorist groups, to areas we don't support, but we have ways to counter that. even if the u.s. backed out of the deal or allies are still going to go forward and iran will still get a lot of money. the other big concern up here is this arms deal. the fact that in five years the ban on arms sales in iran gets lifted and in eight years the ban on about a his if i can

missiles. that's a big concern on capitol hill. the president said we have other ways to reign that in, and he seemed to indicate that he thought he got a better deal than he might have otherwise on that, that he pushed really hard on that because he said, look, normally when you make a deal like this, you have to give up those embargoes right away. we refused to do that, and we got them--we got those embargoes to stay in place for a number of years. those are two of the big criticisms on capitol hill, and he tried to address that. >> michael shure, one of the most interesting moments in are a presidential conference where major garrett suggested that the president was content to celebrate while some americans are still languishing. the president called that absolute nonsense. what did you think of that

exchange? >> it was an awkward exchange. did he not like the question asked by major garrett. when you peel away the tone of the question it is an issue that you were asking lisa about it's an issue that the president may not have spoken about as much but something that the americans want to know about those four americans in prison in iran right now. there are people we've spoken to who said that this is an opportunity for iran to show the world community that they're serious about this, and perhaps releasing some of those prisoners would be a good start. so in fact, it was a really important subject, but it was clouded a little bit by that awkward exchange between the president and major garrett. >> one of the topics brought out are the concerns that israel has, is it's existential security threatened by iran. here's how the president addressed that. >> i think there are very good reasons why the israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. i've said this to prime minister netanyahu, and i've said it

directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. >> the executive director of the american iran council here on set. what did you think of how the president handled concerns not only by israel but saudi arabia and others in the region? >> i think he has shown the obama administration throughout the years of presidency has given unprecedented support to israel and to their allies. we've seen in camp david the security agreements that the u.s. gave and provided to gcc. but we have to make one thing very clear. i think president obama is on point. iran without a nuclear weapon is a less threat to everybody including israel. but what has been agreed upon is the non-stringent

non-proliferation advancement that we have. if done well, it could be served as a model not just for the iranian case but regional pursuit of eradication of all weapons of mass production. including those that are in the arsenal of israelis. we need to address these issues, that once iran has done its implement emptytation how do we stop the pro proliferation of other wmds. >> there is a clearcut choice that the united states could resolve this diplomatically or without a war. the critics say that that's not fair, and that some how sanctions regimes would have collapsed, a lot of people said no, maybe they wouldn't have, and maybe the sanctions regime could have been strengthened against iran if it was clear that iran was blocking a deal or blocking u.s. demands. >> this deal is a win-win. if the iranian president and

supreme leader and other administrations are selling as quickly good, and we've seen what has been done by president obama trying to give the perspective that this deal is good for u.s. interests and also allies because the sanctions would not last. the sustainability of the sanctions are based on one important underpinning reason: iran does not seek nuclear weapons. not as president obama mentioned a peaceful nuclear program. >> iran has lied about that in the past. >> that's why these negotiations have feign so long. more than 12 years. iran has been engaging with not just the p 5 plus 1 but also the iaea to address what you're touching upon, the possible military issues that pre-dated these negotiations. but the good news is within this deal we're going to address those. we're going to come down and make sure that from a to z from procurement, lining, and iran is

under a watchful eye. >> the president went out of the way to say that it's only about the nearly program. it's not about terrorism or the expectation that iran is going to stop floating hezbollah. that it's going to lead to better diplomatic relations or coordination of in terms of going after isil. is it your expectation though, that how the president phrased things today does it leave open the opportunity for some sort of dialogue between the united states and iran? or the folks in the administration are saying, this is it. it's only about the nukes. there is nothing else that is going to come out of this. >> president obama had a very interesting word in his statement. he said while this is very focused on the nuclear fronts and the nuclear file moving forward there are many topics and areas of common interests and concern that the u.s. and iran have. as mentioned it's not going to be resolved overnight, but he

said that iran has to be participant in these regional challenges. and by saying that i have a sense that president obama is indicating that this conversation that has been focused on a nuclear front will expand and include these other issues. i assure you this is a step forward to then address issues of u.s. personnel held in iran, the issue of iran's support for non-state actors, the regional security, iraq afghanistan all of these things that obviously we need the iranians to be engaged in. and this deal strengthens the people in iran for diplomacy pragmatism and peace. >> the executive director we'll take a quick break. we want to remind everyone that there are developments in greece. we're looking at the greek parliament and they're meeting

about the proposal that the break prime minister agreed to a few days ago. the pressure on lawmakers has been enormous as evidenced when demonstrators were throwing molotov cocktails at police. it has started fires. we'll get to some of the news that has come out on criminal justice reform from president clinton, and how that effects things politically. all that ahead right here on al jazeera america.

>> the fda isn't testing enough. >> now science is pursuing an organic alternative. >> these companies are trying out new technologies. >> no hormones are ever added into our tanks. >> mmm! >> techknow's team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> i'm standing in a tropical windstorm. >> can affect and surprise us. >> wow, some of these are amazing. >> techknow - where technology meets humanity. >> ali veslshi brings you a rare firsthand glimpse inside iran. >> i'm trying to get a sense of what iranians are feeling. >> the effects of international sanctions. >> rampant inflation. this is workth $100. three years ago this was worth $250. >> what the nuclear deal means for the country, the region and the world. >> iran doesn't want the agreement to be blown apart by the next u.s. president. >> a real look at life in iran. >> the galleries and the art and the parties... everything, it's getting better.

>> welcome back to al jazeera america. the demonstrateors were violent just a few minutes ago with some monthlitive cocktails and police trying to break it up. patricia s abga has had the ability to see it from a different camera angle. >> the police have dispersed many of the protesters. a few thousand around the parliament to register their protests against austerity

measures which are much harsher than the proposals from a week ago in the referendum. tensions have started to rise. we've seen some of the protesters were throwing molotov cocktails and there is a core group of protesters outside of the greek parliament inside lawmakers are debating these austerity measures. it is unsure that it should pass. the deadline is midnight tonight to agree to these measures as a prerequisite to start negotiations with that bail out package that is worth $90 billion. >> the police were chasing protesters. how long did these squirm michigansskirmishes go on? >> it went on for about a half

hour. many of the protesters were peaceful and they dispersed in an orderly manner, but there were those who were angry and those throwing monthlitive cocktails, obviously. these are punishing measures that will put people who are already living on the economic edge. people who simply have no more--can't take any more pain. now we're starting to see that boil over into anger. >> patty what happens if that greek parliament rejects this agreement today? >> if it rejects them then we're back where we were before. this is the problem. this is what prime minister tsipras is facing. he was promising to end austerity measures, but there is sympathy for tsipras in greece. many feel that he had no choice. when the choice is banks going under or more austerity many feel that he had absolutely no

choice. they feel that the european creditors blackmailed their prime minister into accepting this deal. >> this is a story for us we're following all afternoon. we'll take one more break. and on the other side we'll get you back to the white house. the thousand from the white house, and the major news made by former president bill clinton that will help a number of people in the effort to reform prison sentences for non-violent offenders. we'll get to that on the other side of this break.

>> there has been a major development in the debate of justice reform in the 1990s former president bill clinton

signed a bill on offenders of all kind violent and non-violent. the former president admitted he was wrong in being in favor of longer prison terms when he was in office. >> because i signed a bill that made the problem worse. you shouldn't lose your life for selling three illegal cigarettes on the streets. >> bill clinton admitting that he made the situation worse. michael, how significant is this admission from former president bill clinton? >> well, he was in front of an audience who wanted to hear the same thing from president obama yet about changing the way sentences are handed down. it's a big big admission for a president to look back and, what he's talking about is the 1994 violent crime control and law enforcement act. what that did and what president obama president clinton is saying, he defended parts of that bill. he said it was great for gun control.

it brought crime rates down but it left too many people in jail too long for crimes sentenced disproportionately. one part of that bill is the federal government would give money to states as long as they would have sort of truth in sentencing there. which would mean that they would have uniform sentences, bring down the eligibility for parole and keeping people in jail for longer. president clinton looks back now and said that was a bad part of that piece of legislation. >> to parallel in terms of political battles to come, there is the criminal justice reform effort that the president may get support on and of course the big story today the reason why the president had his press conference, that is iran where the president is asking people to judge the facts and not the politics. you covered politics for a long time is that a reasonable expectation to ask give the tensions between republicans on can capitol hill and this democratic president? >> well, it's hard to ask the american public and the american

media to say only over the law and not the politics especially going into the election year where it's all about politics. but part of that politics is seeing republicans and democrats sort of getting behind this crime bill even at the same time that they're fighting the iran bill. the president does have to play politics. he is out there in front of a press today in the east room, that's politics. he's not ignoring that, but he's saying he wants to get the facts as well. >> thanks to lisa stark who is on capitol hill. and the others who have joined us. again the headline today president obama defend the iran deal the united states and western powers reached with iran over its nuclear program. the president said that it meets the national security obligation of our allies and the united states. we'll have more coverage on this throughout the day on al jazeera america and tonight. i'm david skies.

thank you for watching. you can always get the latest news on our website www.aljazeera.com.

>> here in athens as greece's parliament plans to vote on greece's austerity program to save it i'm lauren taylor. this is al jazeera live from london. also coming up. >> this deal is our best means of assuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. >> president obama's warning to congress to back him on the iran nuclear deal. saudi-backed forces in yemen in the battle for the control of aden.