it shows the best of what art can be. charlie with al jazeera. art for the masses, quick reminder you can always keep up to date with the latest news and analysis on our website at al jazeera.com. >> i'm david schuster in for ali velshi. "on target" tonight. dangerous distraction, how fear gets in the way, and how to make america safer. the fear in america now is clear. in the wake of last week's attack in san bernardino and the slaughter in paris last month, there are growing fears that more terrorism is coming at home and abroad. what is not clear is what to do about the threat posed by groups like i.s.i.l. which direct or at least inspire such horrific acts

of violence. it is a conversation that quickly turns political and passionate and tonight we're going to examine multiparts of thi multiple partsof this equation. whether america is giving away to fear and making things worse not better. but first, can more be done to combat i.s.i.l. on the ground in syria and iraq? last night, president obama defended his approach and insisted, u.s. air strikes are taking out i.s.i.l. leaders, along with their heavy weapons tanks and infrastructure. ground fighting i.s.i.l. he hinted at ceasefires and a political resolution to syria's civil war that would allow all involved including russia to focus on the common goal of destroying i.s.i.l. the president though ruled out sending in full u.s. combat forces. watch. >> the strategy that we are

using now, air strikes, special forces and working with local forces, who are fighting to regain control of their own country, that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. and it won't require us sending a new generation of americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil. >> that kind of rhetoric invoking the fatigue americans feel after all the lives and treasure spent on inconclusive wars in afghanistan and iraq, invited an litany of objection from the right. lindsay graham said i.s.i.l. would be destroyed if u.s. has a ground strike against it. hillary clinton, is still hesitant to send u.s. combat forces. but policy versus politics matters here. if i.s.i.l. is primarily viewed as a terrorist group, cutting

off its ability to operate makes sense. but if i.s.i.l. is more a rogue islamic state that controls a land mass equal to the size of greatly britain it might take a full ground force operation to defeat it. senior washington correspondent mike viqueria joins us. is the president's strategy one that if you leave i.s.i.l. alone, people are terrified, fleeing the region where i.s.i.l. operates, eventually i.s.i.l. will implode on its own and the best thing is to insist assist in that inevitable process? >> i don't think that's correct david. they said almost a thousand times it's become almost a cliche at this point. that's exactly what's going on. the air campaign led by the united states, the coalition, has gone on for a year and four months. i went to a briefing in the roosevelt

room, in the white house, and it showed areas that i.s.i.l. had held a year ago or two years ago, compared to now, it had shrunk significantly, in their estimation but there were areas that i.s.i.l. had gained in that time. but in the absence of any u.s. or other western ground troops, those fighters already on the ground there. we have seen how difficult it is to recruit. not only is it difficult to identify those that will go only after sief i.s.i.l. and after te assad regime, but into areas that are not traditionally held in their ethnic or sectarian groups. what you've heard time and time again you cannot send kurds into sunni territory and expect them to hold it, it just won't work. that is the problem as the united states continues to lead

the campaign, to atrit, to attack their command and control. who exactly is going to stay the fight on the ground. >> in terms of taking the fight to the ground the republicans say oh isdz it's easy, the president should organize some allies in the region to provide those particular troops sunni in order to go to i.s.i.l. stron strongholds and take the fight to them. is it that simple? >> probably not, game of three level chess as it is always in that region. david you talked about the possibility of a ceasefire. that is the goal of secretary of state kerry. just after the new year, they want to snoouf institute a cease between now and then. here is part of the problem. the turks, the qataris acknowledge they feel their

groups are making progress and so they don't necessarily want a ceasefire. also the question of who exactly is going to represent many of these groups, who is going to represent the opposition at the table in vienna. while the president says the best option is this diplomatic push this diplomatic path now through these attacks led by secretary of state kerry or the iranians have even been at the table, they're still at the shape of the table stage here. they can't agree on the most fundamental parts to get these talks started in earnest david. >> mike how much of the president's speech was an effort to get his side heard and related to that his own effort to make sure that at least it's not as bad in terms of the american people's perceptions as they think right now? because the worst thing for him all of this is if a republican takes office and all of his policies essentially stop. >> from a communications standpoint david as you well know, the way the washington pr

mind works, you and i we live and breathe this stuff, we're on cable television all day listening to briefers, we are listening to the arguments that are made. a sunday night prime time audience isn't the same audience. whatever they were doing over the course of yesterday, i think that's part of the logic. the problem is that when you set the bar that high when the medium is the message or the setting is the message you're in the oval office for only the third time in your presidency, you're in prime time on sunday night, people sit up and take notice. they expect policy change or initiatives. there was not there. it was the president trying to assure the american public in the wake of san bernardino and the wake of paris, that his policy is incremental, that i.s.i.l. is all of which you have heard the president

explicitly reject david. >> al jazeera's mike viqueria, we appreciate it. coming up the debate over making it harder for potential terrorists to buy guns. conservatives are not only group who oppose president obama's proposals. the real problem is the terror watch list itself and later the politics of fear. >> i want surveillance of certain mosques, okay, if that's okay. >> the only live national news show at 11:00 eastern. >> we start with breaking news. >> let's take a closer look.

>> last week's deadly shooting rampage in san bernardino left 14 people dead and reignited this country's debate about gun control. in the weeks since the shootings we've heard a range of

responses like jerry fallwell president of liberty university in virginia. >> if more people had concealed carry permits then we could end those muslims before they could walk in and kill us. >> groups representing muslim americans condemned those remarks and polls say most groups favor stricter gun laws. more is a perception of guns are driving a spike in homicides but that turns out to be wrong. data from pew research center shows between 1993 and 2000 the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half from seven homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. since then the gun homicide rate has remind relatively flat. from 2010 to 2013 the number of gun homicides has hovered from

11,000 to 12,000 a year. here is what the president said last night: >> to begin with congress should act to make sure that no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. what could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect from buying a semi automatic weapon? this is a matter of national security. >> a day after the san bernardino attacks the senate voted down a proposal by democratic senator dianne feinstein that would let the government bar gun sales to persons september as terrorists. expanding background checks for more gun purchases. some civil libertarians, qu those americans could be deprived of their constitutional right to buy a gun or so the argument goes. but there are other reasons to avoid actions associated with the no fly list as well.

kathy gellis, says the real problems are the list themselves themselves. kathy joins us in studio. what is the problem of the list? >> it is a list. we don't know which people, why they are on it and we are going to use that list to affect their lives and we don't know how. >> we use lists like that all the time. you say never mind the inability to not let them purchase guns. you have a problem with the no fly list. >> yes i would have a problem with the no-fly list. for one reason, we don't know who is on it or why. as a result of something you have done now you deserve to be on it and it is a punishment because it is affecting their ability to live their lives freely. >> lest suppose, we're talking only about american citizens, i don't think you have a problem with fortune nationalists linked with terrorism. >> we don't know who is on the list and don't know whose rights

are affected. those will affect americans and nonamericans. >> if we have a list of 19 people who might want to attack the united states on 9/11 and we see them boarding airplanes, and the ability to pull them off wouldn't we want to pull them off? >> the starn brother tsarnaev brothers were already on lists, the government wasn't doing anything with that even with the list that they have. >> ineffective in terms of what the overall goal is, the goal is that the united states government has developed an identity, of terrorists that are trying to come to the united states and frying t fliek to thd states, shouldn't we have some ability to make sure they can't enter the united states or can't buy guns if they enter the united states?

>> everyone who has done nothing has no intention to do anything, who are law abiding people and they are being affected by these replies. they are not transparent. they are pooun tifer in what their consequences and -- punitive in their consequences and. >> most people would suggest that there is a line between american citizens who might be entitled to due process and people who come from battlefields in syria or iran who have indicated their intent to kill americans. >> there -- we see this with the communications that the nsa has been sweeping up. they say they're just looking nonamericans. this is not true. this inherently catches americans' communications. we know americans are being affected by this essentially suspicion-less ability to live their lives freely. >> there is an argument in the senate last week, one of the republican senators suggested in

order to protect due process, which is a due concern for civil li libertarians,. >> i would agree. >> if their name is associated with a do not fly list, let's give them 72 hours to take a look at whether their due process has been violated, we can address that but trerve possibility that after three days -- but reserve the possibility that after three days, their due process claim is insufficient. >> there is still the question of why are they on the list? what is that being used for? is it people we think we have probable cause to be concerned with? >> that may be it. >> but we are not doling out the consequence based on the charge the due process is testing before the consequence of the government saying you're on the list and now there's a consequence of you being on the list. >> don't we use probable cause in law every day? somebody is

suspected of robbing a bank, due process having their house searched because the government suspects them of doing something wrong. >> the warrant is part of the process, part of the police saying i think john doe has just robbed a bank let's throw him in jail. the fifth amended rights, sixth amendment rights, this is part of due process. before this is a consequence the government has to jump through hoops to show that the consequence is warranted. >> let's make sure the senator is able to get his due process, and come up with a judicial proceeding or some sort of proceeding that assures somebody's due process during that 72 hours would you still be opposed to the list? >> we still don't know who is on that list what that list is being used for and that is not giving me confidence that the 72 hour period has not already

caused a consequence for the person. it's supposed to kick in proactively to make sure there is not a problem before the person loses a lost of liberty. >> but what if they get shot to death? how can we as americans prerequisiteagainst people who want to kill as many people as possible? >> holding fast for how the government needs to behave, we put these limits on the government action and this ensures everyone'sibilty liberty. we can only protect the good people when we assure the rights of the bad. that's the only way to happen. >> but we may not give them to american citizens who are law abiding. we keep lists all the time. >> we can handle this we have handled it before. due process exists not for the times that are good but the times that are tough as well. this is how we make sure we stay as a free society because presumably that is how we are worried about terrorists affecting. why surrender it

now. >> let's take one more crack of it, we have identified the following ten people who have communicated with i.s.i.l, saying yes, i'm going to kill as many americans as possible, they are on that kind of list, here is that evidence. would you then support the government saying these people cannot buy a weapon in the united states? >> it would be a really significant change if that was a conversation that was actually taking forth because a lot of the government is saying trust me keep myme in the dark, nobody is able to audit whether it's judgment is affected or not. >> kathy, thank you for coming. we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> the politics of fear and how it's making some americans in a quord word, stupid. fmsz sure, tv has evolved over the years.

it's gotten squarer. brighter. bigger. it's gotten thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. tand that's what we're doings to chat xfinity.rself, we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible.

because we should fit into your life. not the other way around. >> last week's attack, in san bernardino, growing fear over the threat of i.s.i.l. and the home grown terrorist the group inspires. but that's pretty much where the similarities end. and the question of how american leaders should address those fears is quickly becoming a major feature of presidential politics. mary snow has more. >> in the fight against i.s.i.l. one thing the president is targeting is fear. >> let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. >> one political observer says the rare sunday night address from the oval office underscores the role of fear and the

president's role as comforter in chief. >> i think that the white house probably recognized that there was some -- there was some worry that the president wasn't connecting with the public on some of these issues of terrorism, maybe as much as the white house would have liked. >> republican presidential candidates pounced on the president's plans to fight i.s.i.l. as not being aggressive enough to keep the country safe. and some who were vying for the president's job are stoking fears of another kind. >> i want surveillance of certain mosques, okay? if that's okay. i want surveillance. and you know what? we've had it before and we'll have it again. >> i would not advocate that we put a muslim in charge of this nation. i absolutely would not agree with that. >> that kind of rhetoric has drawn widespread criticism but it also has an audience. >> i think particularly in states like iowa and south carolina where you have a lot of white evangelical christians, i think a lot of those voters are likely to be among the voters

who are most suspicious of islam not just as you know not just islamic terrorists but the religion as a whole. they think they sense this suspicion of you know an entire religion amongst a certain group of supporters and i think that they are -- they might be -- i think they're trying to exploit that. >> reporter: but in the wake of this latest attack in san bernardino there are growing questions as to how fear is playing into presidential politics. mary snow, al jazeera. >> american politicians and the media are feeding americans the constant diet of fear. that is the view of civil libertarian an john whitehead. president of the rutherford institute, a nonprofit civil liberties institution. he joins us from charlottesville, virginia.

do you think the united states is heading towards fascism? >> battlefield america i go through all the look at former regimes, we seem to be fitting right in with that. the thing is and i'm not saying people shouldn't be concerned or fearful for what's going on. but look at this. we spend $100 billion a year on surveillance, with contractors, the nsa, cia, fbi, we can't stop shooters. we have active shooter drills and it's not doing anything. the average paris attack is two minutes or less. you're not going to have a swat team coming in and saving people. fear hate and stuff i'm saying no, i'm saying we should come together and work together as a inflation and not emphasize differences. because again, if you look at the statistics, and this is what the fbi tells us, crime in this country is at a 40 year low. you're more likely to be killed

by an american policeman, eight times more likely than a terrorist. 17,000 times more likely than to die of a heart attack. this fear that we're seeing now, all this fear mongering, the statistics that the government is giving us is entirely irrelevant. fear is the wait the government keeps control of people, pushes programs that don't work. so -- >> so you think that our government therefore is deliberate ly putting fear out there across the political spectrum to serve their military complex agenda? >> i think part of it. when i see rolling out of people's mouths, wanting to do surveillance in mosques, people's homes, go back and say it again, it doesn't work.

the tsa, is a perfect example. most of the times the tsa didn't catch bombs going through. if i was president of this country or a leader, i'd say hey let's bring communities together again. let's not rely on a government where surveillance programs this don't work. let's bring all the religions together in meetings. let's have local control because obviously the people in d.c. are bum blin bling that. >> isn't that a good idea, in new york they talk about if you see something say something, as far as on public transportation, something that doesn't belong given that we know that the united states is something of a target for overseas terror organization he, seasonality it wise for americans to keep an eye out perhaps on their neighbors if need be? >> i'd say yeah, sure, i agree with that. i think that we should be, like i say, bring the communities together.

but look, this average american doesn't know the person two doors down anymore. we're not watching, not out in our communities. but until we get off our butts and in our communities i don't see anything changes. none of it is working. so what would work? what used to work in this country before we relied on the large multimillion dollar corporations to do things? and again politicians running for office, everybody knows they use whatever they can to get elected. come on folks out there, if you don't believe that then grow up! >> speak of growing up could this grow to be much worse depending on how things go over this next year in this next election? >> i agree. i think we need to keep an eye on it, be wise. as james madison who wrote our bill of rights, father of the constitution said, and when they

went in and ransacked that house out in san bernardino like a mob. listen lynch mobs lynch people and we found out in history they lynch innocent people sometimes. let's act rationally, shore up our local governments. not only training people to respond to a terrorist attack. we're not being taught that. >> john rutherford, great to have you on the show, thanks for coming on. >> thank you sir. >> that's our program for today. i'm david schuster in for ali velshi. thanks for joining us. the news continues on al jazeera america. >> we are scared. >>...have an organized right-wing movement trying to kill others.

♪ we have no choice. we have no choice. >> the politics of fear, praise, condemnation and outrage after donald trump's calls stop muslims at the border. >> it has to stop. >> muslim americas are more afraid than ever before. >> intense investigation authorities search for more clues about the san bernardino shooters and f.b.i. says they were radicalized sometime ago. >> guns sore to the highest levels in years and calls for restriction. a city under siege by smog and beijing has red alert