sgrfrming tonight in our debate, ukraine is still on fire. puttip's russia is strangling under sarningsdz but his anti-rhetoric is pour popular than ever. is the west to blame for starting a new cold war? later in our panel, conservatives succeed in changing the way u.s. history is taught to the country's brightest students because of claims of liberal bias. is it the patriotic thing to do? you heard the debate about assisted suicide. what if the elderly are healthy should they have a right to die

on their open terms? this is "third rail." you putin decided to send tanks inch saying come and join our political union. fortunately the west expand russia. bill clinton betrayed the promise about not expanding nato. borders. >> the mask is coming off. violence. >> there is no threat from nato

to russia. puttip has taken the gloves offga, crimea. vladimir put i hope wants to restore the old russian empire. >> tonight, we have the former u.s. ambassador to nato and the former advisor to former russian president boris yeltsin and a counc counsel on the russian fedderat. thank you for joining us. let's start. is the west to blame for start agnew cold war with russia? >> sure. >> the west started that today, not concerning ukraine long ago when soviet union collapsed instead of integrating russia into western security,

framework security nato, they betrayed their old system and they wanted to take advantage of the situation. and grab as much as possible. >> okay. ambassador, trying to grab as much as possible. is the west to blame? >> it's a beautiful story. none of its true. >> absolutely true. >> you have to look at first, we are talking about people. we are talking about countries, you know, estonia, poland, hungary. these are

packet. i was in the presidential counsel. i remember russia was against nato expansion because this was the part of the deal. unification of germany, no even inch, you know, extension of nato the. then, they deceived gorbachev, respecting. >> i don't want to get bogged into empty promises and whether promises were made or not to gorbachev or not. a lot

could be apochraphyl. >> we have evidence. we have politicians who cut the deal. and members of that deal. >> these words in black and white and not in the text of any of these deals. let's look at the contemporary right now. look at crain for the moment. 4,500, 15,000 wounded. 1.2 million displaced. effect? >> absolutely. t in kiev people organize a coup and they overthrow villages to the elected president who could, by the way, guarantee foreign ministers who were there at that time. german, french, and foreign ministers guaranteed the transition. legitimate president yanukovych promised elections, everything, transitional period.

but he was kicked out. >> who are they? >> legitimate. the result of this medicine mess and nationalist who grabbed the power over there and first act, they appealed the rule concerning russian lang. legitimate powers in crimea, they decided they don't want to live with this. who are the ghost soldiers in ukraine right now? >> in ukraine, no ghost soldiers. they are russian volunteers. on russian television, you can see. every political leader of the party doe clairing. >> do you agree there are thousands of russian soldiers no. by the way, even the head of general staff of ukraine said we

don't have any evidence that the fighting. >> soldiers. >> this is fantasy. he is in fantasy land living. >> there seems to be abundant evidence, abundant evidence that these men are there. why don't you admit to that? >> sorry. you know, nobody knows, nobody showed the images. nobody proved only two servicemen, military men whom they are blaming to be part of russian army. two. not 12,000. but even this two is under the question because nobody denies that the russian volunteers are fighting there. >> that's true. nobody denies that. but russian -- >> not from the states. >> not from the states and no regular forces are fighting. >> no evidence of russian ukraine? >> well, i think that that again has been disproven by what we

have all seen with our own eyes, that you see russian soldiers there. you have seen russian soldiers return home and killed in the fighting inside ukraine. you had equipment inside ukraine that was never in the ukrainian inventory, brought in from outside and, in fact, was from the russian inventory. you have leadership leadership, intelligence, training, several training camps. we have a ukrainian coming on the show later today. i think he can corroborate. >> you wrote last year nato needs to focus not only on defending the alliance but on crisis management and, quote, projecting power beyond nato exactly. >> that's poking the bear. that's what he is talking about. >> exactly. >> being expansionist. >> that's not the case the. look at what nato has done. when nato was on the sidelines and was leading the e. u take the lead in bosnia, we saw hundreds of thousands of people killed and the civil war spread. what nato did in 95 was put an

end to the fighting and support the process of a peace negotiation, the dayton acords were i-4 and s-4. >> that's projecting power outside of nato territory. the same thing with kosovo. we will debate about kosovo, i bet. the same in afghanistan supporting the u.n.-man date. what nato ought to be about and this is something where every agreement reached after 1989 with the soviet union and later with russia talked about sovereignty and teartorial integrity and the right of states within europe to choose their own security orientation, and that's what these countries have done whether it's nato members or non-nato members. they are trying to make choices. what we have seen however is in the case of modova and the case of georgia and ukraine, russia changing borders by force in the case of georgia recognizing breakaway territories as independent states occupying moldova in the case of ukraine territory. --

>> nothing further from reality. question. >> okay. >> is ukraine an independent decisions? >> it's quite possible every nation -- we have more than 200 nations and states. >> you said it's quite possible. i am asking you now. is it an independent country? >> independent, nobody rejects that ukraine is independent country. but as far as it concerns geo po litics, you can make your decision but your partners are also free to make their own decisions. in some cases, when nato is trying to proceed joe indicate and in buck rest, they wanted to invite ukraine and georgia to george the nato, at that time, putin said, listen. this is the red line. don't cross the red line. >> poland, estonia, latvia, lithuania have asked for nato protection. 70% saw russia as a major military threat to neighborin

countries. have these countries been brainwashed by the west? >> not by the west. in poland and in baltic republics, they feel phantom pains, you know. they were several hundred years inside the czarist empire and soviet empire. they still feel these pains but these pains have nothing to do with the reality. >> what are phantom pain? >> phantom pain means that you think something, you are sick and you have some pain but it's head. ukrainians? >> this is not the ukrainians because ukraine is a special case. by the way, ukraine for a long time and until now especially was very deeply divided society. ukraine as a country, as a unified country never existed. >> that's why this is the period when this country is going through very painful process of

nation and state building and as a result, every leaks ended up in new division. eastern throughout are russian speakers. they are culturally connected with russia. they are civilizationally oerptsd towards russia and the western ukraine, especially this was a totally western oriented on to russia. >> you understand that you are using the same rational that adolph hitler used for an exing the svetan land. >> they were -- >> why not swallow them up? >> it has nothing to do with hitler and sudenlands. this was result of elections. averagely proved that this country is deeply divided. and these people wanted minimal requirement it is. if they res spelled their minimal requirements, now crimea was --

could be in ukraine, and in the donetsk republic. >> i want to go to kabulka. the russian argument justifying crimea's succession from ukraine and the annexation by russia is very similar to the kosovo argument. isn't it? we mentioned earlier the balkans. if kosovo can be allowed to break away from serbia, why not crimeea? >> they have more advantages because they organized a referendum. in kosovo no ref earnedum. >> your an al joe to 19139 was more apt. this was an outside power that instated this. before russia intervened in ukraine, before is itt intervened in, there was no fighting. there was no civil war. there had been frosts inside kiev, president yanukovych legitimately elected as he says put down those protests bodily with force.

the parliament responded to that and voted against him remaining as president. he fled the country. >> that's harder an armed coup. >> being said -- arm coup. he got the guarantees of three foreign ministers. >> it is for ukrainians to decide about ukraine look at the united states. everily shows we are a deeply divided country, almost 50/50 republican/democrat. you can slice it any other way. we are a legitimate country. >> with those deep depositions, do you believe that the west, the united states and others, nato alliance, should actively arm the ukrainian government? >> i do believe that. and the reason for that is ukraine has a right to defend itself. it is under attack from outside. it is seeing part of it's territory taken arrest. it hasphon soldiers and leader operating on its territory, training people there, still fighting going on today and ukraine could use training. it could use advisors.

it could use equipment, particularly a defensive arm so that it can attack tanks that are attacking it so it can take out the tanks. >> why would we be risking nuclear war if ukraine is defending itself? it doesn't have nuclear weapons. russia denies it's in ukraine. so what's wrong with ukraine defending itself. >> we are joined by a member of ukraine's parliament. >> more than towel soldiers ukraine. >> they are fighting against self defense forces. >> i am shocked by the level of propaganda produced to this studio by guests. missteps. >> people don't believe a full history is being told. >> in field notes, our correspondent talks to brazen who want to keep migrants out. case. >> lives have been presented as the accepted truth of the >> they believed in what they were doing but they were not scientists.

it wasn't science at all. >> there's a lot of lives at stake, a lot of innocent people. >> how many are still locked up? >> the integrity of the criminal justice system is at stake, plain and simple. >> "faultlines". >> what do we want? >> al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today the will be arrested. >> ground-breaking... >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning, investigative series. >> we have to get out of here.

large parts in ruin. >> the ukraine security forces. institution. >> president and prime primary. finances are in freefall. >> anything could break at any single moment. bulling back. an invest given as journalist, thank you for joining us you heard no russian soldiers in your country. >> that's not true. there are thousands of russian silts in the territory of ukraine.

these people kill ukraine citizenship. i am shocked by the level of propagandaa presented to this studio by russian guests. all mentions and our counterpart. this is not cool. at the time ukraine happened last year, mr. yanukovych left ukraine after he killed more than 10 oil ukrainian citizens. the question is i don't know how this agreement to keep nato in its border was fixed but i know ukrainianss were guaranteed in budapest. one of the signs is a sign of shan president. this was broken. >> a ukrainian is telling you he wants self determination. he wants you to but out of his

business. there are a lot of ukrainians there are millions. you know how many i know from ukraine. yesterday, the other members of parliament didn't know him. they didn't care about him. the others were there. others were ruling. now, they are ruling. there will be another parliament because this regime is very fragile and going to be. >> fragile russian occupation. >> any sober person -- and i hope some people in nato know that several politicians mention that many times f several,000 russian soldiers were there in ukraine, long ago, it was finished and they will be in kiev. poroshenko and this guy will be here asking for asylum.

i guess not an army. it's a kind of unorganized mets. >> sergey? >> some nationalist groups are fighting over there, grabbing here and fighting there. >> okay. sergei. talking about the nationalist groups. mr. magrania might be on to something here because we have seventies of neo nazi groups. >> absolutely. >> do you force? >> this is a small group of volunteers this is a part of so-called battalions. we are talking about official army, regular, the army, there is no, you know, such evidence. of course if we are talking about messages of our representative of russia, more than 2000 ukrainian soldiers sacrificed their life to protect ukraine on the east. >> that's why russian did not come to kiev because the people

ukraine. >> they are fighting against self defense forces. there. >> everything will be finished. where did this self defense forces bought scald books, destroyed, you know. >> the supermarket. they are the market? >> they are taking those terms and artillery from the ukrainian army which is in disarray. >> disorders, you know, this is just not true. there is a much more plausible explanation for why russia has not run all the way to kiev, which is it didn't want to invade all the way to kiev. it wants to break away these russians partially russian speaking territories. not even all russians. >> it's up to them. >> what it is doing, what it is doing is trying to cranedfluence

inside ukraine, disruption and eventually the change of the government to have a more malleable government friendly to russia. this has backfired because with the invasion, i think contrary to president putin's expectations, ukrainians have rallied and become more anti-russian than anyone expected. and so this is why i think it's now frozen in this area of eastern ukraine, crimea. we may see some attempts to take more territory this summer or this winter around marioupol and odessa. we have to be vigilant to try to keep the war where it is and unwind it again. i think what we all should want is for ukraine to have sovereignty inside its own territory. >> only -- the only possible way to stop mr. putin is to provide ukrai them. >> are you prepared to have a full-blown war with russia? >> i think it will limit aggression of putin.

it will stop him in the beginning. and another problem is that putin does not want -- >> if he doubles down, are you prepared to have full-blown war with russia? >> i think from cold war to hot war. in ukrainian society, foods are didn't and people are ready for the real war. i am not in this camp but i want to say that in this situation, when we see russian aggression on a permanent basis, only supply can stop putin. when mr. magranian says things like those who are against russia influence feel phantom pains and when you hear people talking about ukraine, they say this is russia's sphere of influence. >> kissinger said that. >> will me finish the question. when he hear scat russian sphere of inflewens" how does that make

you feel in? >> ukraine is an independent state since year 1991. and it has its own right to decide where to be, in nato or customs union. by the way, ukraine hasn't made a choice you said puttip wants to make ukraine a failed state. when we look at dondon, when we look at crimea, when we look at the fact that these places hav mr. mcgranian admits to that or not. we look at the level of chaos and the legal of corruption right now in the ukrainian government, you have written about it about the oligarchs where the corruption doesn't seem to be any different to the corruption under mr. yanukovych. isn't it already a failed state? putin has won? hasn't he?

let him answer first. in the international arena when you ask me about something and russia a starts talking stephanie. corruption is one of the biggest problems with ukraine like in russia as well. wiadopt anti-corruption law and established bureau. the investigation in september this year. readopt a lot of draft laws to provide more information for journalists to stop corruption on the budget procurement and, of course, it's not -- >> good intentions but as things stand, your country is split. the russian soldiers in country. >> our country is not split. >> partially occupied.

>> if you see who are fighting, this is russian speaking ukrainian people, some of them are nationalists. a new phone call non-when putin after his aggression, you know part from the janian nationalists on the ukrainian side against russia. this will have, you know, a dramatic effect. >> no matter how many difficulties sdprainsz, it is not a reason for russia to invade. >> there is a ukrainian nationalism rising up against russian influence in their country. an np telling this to you. >> it was very severe anti-russian sentenceiments and feelings. there is ukrainian nationalists. they wanted to create

republicanian state because they don't have any other identity. their identity is anti-russian sentiment. i would like to think about more important things here? >> go ahead. >> they are asking and poroshenko is begging for defense and arms to ukraine. >> if the east bought it from russia, why not? >> i would like to focus your attention to several sober, responsible on our list. they were in many publications that the supply of legitimathal to ukraine is going to escalate the connell conflict over there it can forces russia openly to say we warped you it is fighting here it will

end up. very high and russia is ready to pay every price to dpeeft ney this protection war sdmrfrp it. >> we are thinking that if thil do that, there is going to be absolutely counterproductive because there is no price russia is not ready to pay. enough is enough. enough in afghanistan n iraq, in libya, in other places of east. >> let me asking if you will something. you jogged my memory there about the middle east. with regard, the sir i can't believe civil war right now. we look at the iran deal president obama said recently that russia was helpful with regard to the iran deal. i wonder: does president obama need vladimir put inmore than putin needs obama?

>> why there is no overt help for the ukrainians maybe? >> i don't believe that president obama really does need vladimir putnip many of these things. i think the things we have done together have not been a favor that russia has done for the united states. they have been -- because they are in russia's own interest. giving ab agreement with iran is something russia wanted to do. doing the sanctions against iran earlier when we were trying to get to the negotiation, it was something we all agreed on, the transits from afghanistan is another thing that's been pointed to that's a result of a policy. also in russia's interest for the u.s. to try to deal with the taliban inside afghanistan. things. reset? >> i don't think it's possible at this point. there is absolutely no trust whatsoever from the white house or from putin towards the united states at this point. moreover, i think putin showed his hand that despite the efforts of the obama administration, many which i

disagreed with by the way. despite their efforts, russia has shown we are going to take it even further, invade our nabors who are going to an exterritory and crack down on democracy at home. sell arms to the iranians. >> it has been a pleasure. thank you for joining us. and sergei, thank you so much. . >> if somebody wants to kill themselves, i think it's hard to prevent them from doing that. >> you assumed someone who is healthy doesn't want toented their own life. you have to be depressed in order kill yourself. >> your entire life has brought you up to this point right now. >> american teens making a difference. >> we want to fight for our education. >> choosing a path. >> if i'm not sharing the gospel, then i feel empty inside because that's the gift that god has given me. >> deciding their own future. >> i'm pretty burnt out... if i said that i'm perfectly fine, i would be lying.

>> oscar winner alex gibney's "edge of eighteen". the powerful conclusion.

know with ad vice and news. >> mike sachs for the national law journal. thank you for joining us. ahmed, let's start with you. jimmie carter said america is an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president. russia is. is america an oligarchy? overstatement. that said, when you look at where things are headed in this

country as you compare it to a mayortarian, it is headed that way. campaign finance and the reforms that haven't taken place in citizens united. it's the fact that there seems to be a very insignificant amount of influence that the actual leaktorate, the population can have on an election. >> you say hitseding in that direction. then? >> it's obviously daft assess. en though you have, you know, individuals like adelsan, the koch brothers spending $900 million in thisly cycle. they are not over-stepping the entire electoral system. you still have the facade of anally, but i think it's a really troubling thing to see that the elite are in control not just of the elections but of all policy decisions whether in an election cycle or not. genevieve? >> i don't think the problem is the money. i think the bigger problem is

what i would call croney capitalism. i wouldn't call it an oligarchy. businesses for conservatives and republicans, big business likes big government. why? because they can squeeze out the little guy. big businesses can afford all of the accountants and attorneys and all of the folks you need to deal with red tape and regulation and i think that's what -- to me, that's the biggest problem we have that keeps the average person from having more say. >> is jimmie carter wrong? yeah. >> you largely agreed with him. >> no, because i think what he is referring to was that the money that's given to political campaigns, and i don't think that's a big issue. i think you have to look at perspective. if you look at 2000, i think it was 2012, 2014, we spent about $140,000,000,000 in this country in advertising. 7 billion was spent for the presidential election of the state and the federal level. >> that's a very small percentage even compared to what we spent in advertising candy in this country. we spend more than --

>> to spend almost a billion dollars on the next election? that doesn't trouble you. >> no t doesn't trouble me in the sense that this is free speech. anybody can contribute. the average candidate gets more money from individual contributions than they do from the koch brothers or from planned parenthood. >> quickly, the parties aren't spending because you raised advertising, aren't spending money on advertising 8% in the last election was spent from political parties. you have these super p.a.c. did spending on these campaigns and the e licktrate doesn't know even if it's in fine print. >> it included those super-pacs in there. look at the folks running for president now. some are millionaires. some aren't. >> that's because people like myself, people like you, can give money to candidates and that's called free speech. >> 10 million or $11 million check to ted cruz. >> nobody can. >> there are people who have to million.

>> what we are seeing is the money that's coming in from the big donors is going to colleges who are believed in by the individual voters who are going to the polls to vote than then how much can we say something is oligarchical if the elite share priorities with the spreerm they are spending money to reach? >> jimmie carter is wrong? >> yes, in terms of our being a russian-style oligarchy. agreement? >> analysis is right. he talks about bribery, the fwraf effects it has on democracy but. >> when the person they are throwing money to believes everything on, say, the koch brothers' agenda down to the criminal justice reform agenda, how much of that is bribery? >> what's the motivation to believe that? the motivation to believe that, their own political vieability? >> that's not new. that. >> just because there are people

who are for sale doesn't mean that everybody is for sale. i think, you know, part of our job -- >> should anybody be for sale? >> no. but there are a lot of good people. if somebody beliefs in something and somebody else also believes something and this person wants to help that person, that's freedom of association, which we believe in in addition country and that goes back to the first amendment. and i think it also goes to why we have to be careful about people, we want to make everybody disclose names. that would remind me of the soviet union. >> freedom of association, when i look at the dictionary did he have next, oligarchy a country controlled by a small group of people and usually, it's connected to rich people getting their interests pushed by politicians. sounds like an oligarchy. >> big business isn't the same individuals. >> but who owns the businesses? rich people. >> sometimes, it's rich people but i mean, you know, if you want to look at, say, ge, that's

not owned by one or two people. >> that's a lot of people that are involved in that. >> okay. i want to move on. college board recently unveiled changes toot ap history classes after conservative crit sthaichl events. >> the new ap history curriculum promotes a liberal agenda. >> with references to ronald reagan as a bellicose tyrant. >> room to talk about the black king. beat. >> most people when they finished that course would be ready to sign up for isis. >> i am looking at some of these here genevieves were mad about over emphasis on slavery, internment camps, native american slaughter and not enough on world war ii and other positives. revisions were made. should ap history classes deemphasize these nect events? this is history. history. >> that's what the debate is, is that people don't believe full history is being told.

there is a tendency to wants to emphasize the aspects of american history. >> makes they will feel bad? >> they want to cause disunity. america is a country that more than almost probably any country in the world needs to have a sense of patriotism and unity because we do all come from differently backgrounds was don't have shared 10,000 years of history the way some countries do. so, i think it's important that what we are teaching our children, were it's 1st grade or all the way up to high school is the full american history and we have a good history. america has done a lot of good in this world, and to suggest that we haven't and encourage students to dwell on those things, i don't think it's a good thing. >> mike, you know, the ap history course was criticized by conservatives for the liberal bias. right? we saw been carson in that little set-up piece saithe most people when they finish that course, they had be ready to sign up for isis. is this what it has come down to?

anything negative is this kind of liberal -- seen as a liberal self flagellation and anything that's positive is conservative and nation-building and history has been polit sized in the united states. >> who controls the past controls the future. is that a machine lirric which you kidsly listen to which is a lot of like what my teacher said, talking points correctives for over conservative education? come on. i was an ap student in 19198 and 99. yes chon isis. i didn't get a 5. yes totally learn everything. this idea of what america is, whether it's a force for good or ill in the world, is part of the american experience. constitution. you guys at heritage are constantly locking horns with those guys across the way at brookings or whatever is even more liberal view now. this is

part of american existence, and if you scrub out the dread scott or the kamatsu case or the and drew jackson's indian case from the 1830s, they learn it in college, law school. >> or they might find when they learn those things, those besmirch their view of america and they will george heritage or feel betrayed and join kap or what-have-you. this is the american tradition. >> that's my concern if it were no teaching the political tradition, not teaching the constitution of principles that allow us to have these debates, i think you are referring to. >> i don't know that teaching sensualism or teaching the focusing more on the positives than american has done in the world considering how young this country is something that we should focus on any more so than we should focus on the fact, the mistakes that america has made domestically and abroad. because it's such a young country, i think on the

individual level when you want to grow and evolve and learn which i think we all want for america, you have to focus on, you know, your missteps and where with yent wrong >> we are beings. >> we have made a lot of mistakes. we have done good things. if you look at the critical thinking questions they have in there, they are ones that would have you question, well, you know, was george washington really a good man or just rich people that came from europe and those rich people stayed in power in the u.s.? i mean they are slanted. look, who puts this together? it is college history professors and some high school professors. those 10, if you look at the numbers, would be quite liberal in their academic and political viewpoints. troth there is anything about focusing on america as an exception. we are a people where people come from all over the world. we are not all here because we look the same or have the same religious background or same ethnic background. you know, as i have said before, when we don't believe in certain principles, that's un-american.

unfrench? >> what is un-american? >> when you think of equality under the law, when you think of individual freedom. i mean our constitution wasnique for a reason. the rest of the involved didn't express those principles and to the extent we uphold them and other people, other countries good. i think we should hold that up? >> i agree. i don't think we uphold them. i think it's aspirational and is. >> i want to move on. the debate over assisted suicide has raged for years. a new case led to some provacative questions. >> there is a campaign to allow euphanasia for those tired of life. >> lethal injection. she wasn't desperately ill. >> they wa old. >> a lot of people don't want to go into nursing homes. to. it's okay when someone is disabled. agree. >> the debate is usually about

people who are really ill, terminally ill. should they be allowed to have the choice? what about healthy people? a healthy personat rationally saying, i want to die. it? >> if somebody wants to kill themselves, i think it's hard to prevent them from doing that. the question here i think is whether or not we should be invoking the state and others to endorse it by actually helping them. i don't think it's a good thing for society. you can look and come at this from a number of different reasons, including the woman you just profiled. not only did she not want to get old personally herself, she didn't want to be aged and have to be somebody that others took care of. i understand that. >> she didn't want to be a burden on society? >> she didn't want to be a burden but she questioned and she was a nurse. she questioned herself, why we gave certain medications to others who were burdens in her view on society. and i think that starts -- because all sides of that view is not just about you. it starts translating into these other people are burdens and at certain point, society starts saying that person is not going

to make the decision. decision. >> so this is wrong? >> yes. >> okay. how do you begin to tackle that, mike? >> several states have the death with dignity life because the supreme court in '97 said there was no federal right under the constitution under assisted suicide. several such as organizeon have death with dignity with meet one with several criteria. doctors, six months from dying with a terminal illness and get a prescription to self administer or perhaps have someone help you administer a lethal drug. >> that's not touching on the woman that we were talking about in the u.k. who went abroad to have her healthy self killed. how do you address that? what's the state's interest? the state's interest is in preserving life and preventing bad actors from ex turninging. >> people if they want to kill themselves, we see it as wrong. we want to intervene. >> do you have to be depressed in order to kill yourself? if you are 75 years old and you want to end your life because

you are scared of falling or because you had a few surgeries or, you know, there are so many different an totally things that -- anecdotal things. it's about your dignity, not wanting to be a burden on society or your loved ones. >> that's why i wonder: which do you determine who is healthy and what the rational is? >> once you decide you are going to start qualifying life based upon quality of life, how would c contribute to society or how much they can't contribute to society. once you start qualifying life, it starts getting scary. you know, i will say from a religious perspective, one reason people get concerned about this is because, you know, yes, it's your life, but, you know, many people believe god gave you life and is it your decision to say, i am going take it away. >> is that the squeamishness? you are going go to help if you kill yourself? >> well, i think for -- i think for a lot of people, not just a matter of are you going to go to hell but they think there is

something sacred about human life and you are not like another animal. there is something sacred about it and the state would get involved in taking innocent human life is a very, yeah, very strange. >> you invoked individual freedom and that usually you is in other points of life, an employer wchoses to em plea, who an employee chose to see go to work for but where does individual freedom play in this? anybody one does afshthsdz someone else to some degree. >> right. >> what's the difference between, you know, say, an economic individual freedom that might plymouth to be underpaid or under served or, you know, can't feed people either who they work for, who they work with, and their families versus someone who wants go peacefully with a choice of drug that isn't so violent. >> there is nothing we can do to stop somebody usually from killing themselves. i think suicide is illegal in most states in this country. but the question is whether or

not the state is going to endorse that or whether we are going to ask society to endorse that. question. >> okay. thanks so much for joining us. straight ahead: sdpraet journeys reach the english channel. migrants find themselves unwelcome. what it says from the rank stupidity of people who assumed things about people. is the distinction has been entirely lost between economic migrants who might want to come here and refugees who have a legitimate right to come and try to seek asylum. >> [crowd chanting] hell no gmo. >> they're slamming a technology that could be used to solve problems for people who desperately need it. >> they get exited about technology whether it's in their phone or in their car, so why is it so weird on their plate? >> something's going into food that shouldn't really be there. >> techknow investigates. >> you could not pay me to fake data.

>> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's movers and shakers.

sgravrn. d shakers. >> the european migrant crisis has grown beyond the european union's borders. internal borders are coming under pressure. thousands are living in squaller camped out near calais france, the mainland entrances of the

channel tunnel hoping to cross into the u.k. the british people are having a profound reaction to the migrants trying to reach their shores. al jazeera's lawrence lee spent time in dover england. here is an excerpt of hi report. >> egged on by a british media suggestive of a billuos rage against all migrants, the political class and popular opinion here have decided by and large, the stowaways are almost all up to no good. >> they say they want to work. i don't think actually that is the cases. >> this country, its people is not for pie grants. only for the brirt. why should they cover over in the first place? >> those who try to explain almost all of those in calais are likely to be legitimate refugees have had their voices drowned out. >> the reality is they are fleeing for their lives and the u.k. and the rest of europe that. >> never mind all of that. this, says the government, is the land of milk and honey ripe

for an exploitation and the majority greeted. it's fortress mentality even if much of what has bend says a fairy tale. >> lawrence lee joins us from london. laurnsz trans is that fortress mentality in the sglub. where is that coming from? >> i think it's been created to be honest with you by the anti-european right-wing press government. this has been created. he england in particular which has taken a very sharp turn to the right in terms of political opinion recently is somehow an exception al case that's we are much better organized than the rest of the european union, come out of recession bert, the economy is doing great. the rest of the european union is a basket indicates. our benefit system is much better and that they all want to come here and that they cock a mennats. some could be terrorists.

and all of this stuff is pushed out all the time and throughout all of the of the summer, there have been frankly a load of lies and at best half truths. you hear it. it is an extraordinary situation where a load of lies what has been presented as the accepted truth of the situation. >> you say this is a load of lies and none is based on fact, but there have been some reports of migrants threatening and attacking drivers. did you see anything whatsoever in dover to support any of that? >> well, no. the thing is there aren't actually any refugees in dover because everybody knows the stowaways who manage to get on to the lories need to get to london because that's where they have to register for their asylum. you can walk around dover all day and not see a single one. here is the interesting thing. a taxi driver said to us, a street in dover where all of the

refugees are. we said let's have a look. we went up to this guy on the street and said, we are from al jazeera. he said, i'm sorry. i am not a muslim. i said, where are you from? he said slovakia. what it says from the rank stupidity of people who assume things about people is that the distinction has been entirely lost between economic migrants who might want to come here and do a poorly paid job picking fruit over the summer or something and refugees who have a right to seek asylum. >> you reported on these conflicts that these people are fleeing from. as britain and journalist, how does it make you feel to see your country or your countrymensponding in such a way to these very people? >> well, a bit cigarettes to be honest with you. on the sort of moral level, you think, how hard can it be for, you know, good ol' blighty to give home to just a few of these

people because they haven't got anything at all. there is a bit of a fight. there is a sgrurnlits in the u.k. trying to remind people of the facts. it's certainly not very much against the overriding mentality at the moment. >> lawrence, great to talk to you, lawrence lee in london. >> does it for this week's show. but the conversation continues on our website at aljazeera.com/thirdrail and on facebook and twitter

hello and welcome to the al jazeera news hour. . pro government forces for saudi arabia close in on the third biggest city. britain celebrates vj day when japan surrendered to end the second world war. and the prime minister's