affected. >> people need to demand reform... >> we're here to provide the analysis... the context... and the reporting that allows you to make sense of your world. >> ali velshi on target. unlocking the shooter's iphone. i will talk to a security expert who thinks apple should give in. in our panel fears over donald trump presidency. and my final thought on america's double standard when it comes to double rights. i'm ali velshi . this is third rail apple computer resisting a court order to open an iphone attack.

>> there's no limit to what the government could require apple to do if it succeeds this way. this is a pandora's box when it comes to terror, some tech leaders say apple cannot demand absolute privacy for its users >> i do believe there are sets of safeguards where the government shouldn't have to be completely blind joining me now is the vice president of intelligence at stratfor a global security and intelligence consulting form. good to talk to you. the headline of the financial times said that bill gates supports the f.b.i. in its battle with apple. bill gatess told bloomberg that's not how he feels about it. he was just making the point that in this specific thin slice of what the f.b.i. wants apple to do, apple can do that without compromising its principles and the privacy of its users in general. what's your take?

>> well, i agree with bill gates on that point. i think when you look at this from a counter terrorism perspective, it's critical for the f.b.i. to be able to look at that iphone because you literally don't know what you don't know and there could be leads on that which would help the f.b.i. identify additional suspects the compromise from the f.b.i.'s perspective is that we are asking for something very narrow. there's a poll that came out showing 46% agree with apple position, 55% agree that f.b.i. will get its way the government will use this precedent to spy on iphone users. so how do we square this? >> as a former counter terrorism agent, i certainly agree with the f.b.i.'s point here that you do need access to that data. i know that the way that the

f.b.i. has micro managed and the degree of over sight in these complex counter terrorism investigations, that the likelihood of any additional abuse coming out of that is highly remote. i think when you look at this from the standpoint of the case, the f.b.i. needs the details from the case the remoteness of abuse may be the case, but one of the things we've learned, particularly from edward snowden is that the government was collecting information we didn't know they were collecting and? cases it wasn't specific to individuals, but abuse is a question down the line from the fact of information being collected. i guess to some degree the government and tech companies got a black eye because they were usingsing information or collecting information. the public wasn't sure they were collecting. how do we determine that you can collect information and not abuse it. it. >> i think it's important for

your viewers to understand that there's really a specific criminal investigation here. this is not an intelligence case, meaning this is not in an effort to try and go fishing to identify other parties associated with in any manner. this is a very narrow criminal investigation that's very tightly controlled by an assistant u.s. attorney and the department of justice for the purposes of the ongoing counter terrorism case. in essence this is not an intelligence case where that data would be shared with the c.i.a. and n.s.a. and dod and all the other alphabet soup agencies. this is going to be used solely for the purposes of this criminal counter terrorism investigation that is an interestings distinction that my viewers might not have. the distinction you've made between having apple or any one participate in providing information that leads to more information in a criminal

investigation or convictions in a criminal investigation versus intelligence gathering. let's bit. >> in essence this is not a general umbrella of national security investigation to look at every potential iphone user, for example, where its operating system. this is a very narrow scoped investigation that the assistant u.s. attorney would be supervising with a tremendous amount of over sight. the average person has no understanding of the degree of over sight when it comes to domestic counter terrorism, criminal investigations. they really are very micro managed and leads are only pursued to help with that criminal approximate is-- prosecution is there any basis in which you can say, as i think comey the head of the f.b.i. said, there are reasonable fears to be

had on the part of the people, that privacy in this world of safety versus privacy, we're going to have to give up something on the privacy side. >> well, certainly. i think director comey is right. i think everybody is fearful in light of what has happened with the snowden revelations that there will be some degree of potential leak or abuse, but i can tell you in this specific case, especially with the media and the notoriety surrounding this, this might be the most micro managed investigation ongoing that would result in a tremendous amount of over sight. so i think the public's fear of a degree of abuse here is just not realistic let's turn our attention to guantanamo bay. the president announced another at the to close the prison.

there was widespread support of this. he said of the 91 prisoners still being held, ten are considered unreleasable. is the president correct when he says keeping guantanamo open threaten is national security. is he right? >> i don't think i.s.i.s. or al-qaeda whether we keep it open or not they will hate us more. i've always not liked it. going back to many people it has been there, but it was a mistake i want to talk to you - we have talked about cyber stuff.

you tweeted out an article that quoted c.i.a. deputy director that they face issues from al-qaeda, syria, russia and china. give me some sense of how you ranked those threats. >> well, i certainly feel his pain when you look at this from a threats stream matrix, meaning i've never seen so many potential threats around the globe, but as you start looking at those from a ranked perspective as it pertains to u.s. domestic threat, i certainly would put the islamic state at the top of that list. exactly what we've seen in san bernardino or paris, or god forbid an example of the boston bombing. that's what the f.b.i. has at the top of the radar list to try and stop are there things we can do to stop those

types of attacks? i guess paris is the one that sounds most likely to have been stoppable because there were more people involved and you could monitor security. can you ever convince ourselves that we are secure against those types of smaller group, smaller paracel attack. >> i think we have expectations that they're going to be successful at stopping all these attacks. that's simply not the case. when you look at this from a 30,000 foot perspective, the f.b.i. joint terrorism task forces around the country have been very successful in thwarting significant strategic strikes on u.s. soil and that is the number one mandate for the f.b.i., to stop a weapon of mass destruction on u.s. soil in light of what we saw in 9/11 good to talk to you.

the third rail panel is next >> people are worried about donald trump who is never going house. >> for months they have said he will drop out. every time we have been wrong. table.

welcome back to third rail. donald trump's presidential front runner status on the republican side has many worried.

some even fearful, but are their concerns about president donald trump overblown? >> if you believe the polls it is going to be hard to stop donald trump. >> full-on pink in the establishment to stop donald trump at this point >> i think it's the end of the republican party >> i think he is frankly dangerous for the u.s. >> donald trump is a bully, a pathological liar appeared a dangerous people. >> he is sending out a message not good a strategist and a partner in the november team of political form. a congressman and my next guest. you know him donald trump well. you were on celebrity apprentice. i

confronted him at an event. he is very charming. should we be fearful of a donald trump presidency as much as you don't like the guy? >> let me start by saying i'm not going to vote for him. i don't want him to be president, but i am in the very small minority of people who is not quite as afraid of donald trump as president as i am of him actually being able to win it. because i don't agree with ted cruz on anything except for that i don't think donald trump is as far right wing and crazy as he wants people to believe. the truth is, i used to say he was like pt barnam but more like barns in the sense that he is saying what he needs to say to get people to help him better his own position.

i don't think he necessarily believes that all mexicans are rapists, or we should ban muslims, but he you know he has tapped into an audience that will get him into the white house it is a rich vein, particularly of a certain age who have watched two terms of a george w bush presidency and obama presidency and say that's better. >> i think people are falling tore it. i'm going to make america great again. he goes out there and a lot of people are believing that. i think he is totally reckless and i think he could destroy the republican party. here is a guy who has said he can going to torture foreign combatants, gotten into fights with world leaders like the pope >> he has talking about getting

money out of politics, not letting people die on the street which is code for continuing some sort of universal-- >> healthed care. >>-- health care >> >> they all say what we want to hear. should we be afraid? i'm tired of this. i don't think this guy has-- wetters. >> right. they're worried about donald trump who is not getting anywhere near the white house. i think the media plays this up. we take him far too seriously what do you make of these wins, primary an caucus >> tell me what states he is going to win the obama one. tell me what he is going to take away from the most likely democratic nominee hillary clinton? if donald trump is a republican nominee, do the people in this country who are

browner, gayer and more women, do they line-up to vote for hours and hours to make sure that he didn't become president? >> if he was running against obama i think he would have been blown out of the water. he is running against hillary clinton in 2016, probably. >> you're the expert. do people come out to vote more because they're inspired or because they're afraid. >> i think in this cycle people are coming out to make a statement and they're looking to do a referendum, a basic under the chin to washington and you could end up with a donald trump as president which worries me the question is that the republicans went into this race debate after debate, not making the mistake of putting somebody into the job that doesn't have experience, no freshman senator who has governed anything. the three top guys in the race, two of them are freshman senators and one has never held elected office. >> you're talking about the republican establishment.

the truth is the republican party is run by the kon severtive right wing media complex. the top radio guys run the republican party. whatever they say is what is sadly a whole bunch of american rubes believe >> i don't disagree with you >> you better not >> it is working. >> it's definitely working >> it's working on the left too. a lot of the people who are coming out for bernie sanders are coming out because they want the establishment gone. i disagree with you because i think that donald trump does have a chance for that very reason because i think we looked at new hampshire. how many were interviewed there saying they were making up their mind between bernie sanders and donald trump you have to pull a lever for somebody who is going to be the president of the u.s. >> i hope you're right, but for months people have discounted donald trump.

>> he will never go this far, he will drop out before august, before he has to release his financials. every time we have been wrong. i don't want him to win and i would be blind to underestimate it >> voters want to flip over the table and that is a dangerous emotion we have to know where it stops. let's see what happens. moving on. two years in obamacare has provided health care to millions of people who didn't have it before the bill passed. has it made the rest of our health care worse? >> bomb care is a disaster. rates are going up 25 to 5 a% >> how do you make it affordable when the cost is going up through the roof-- 55%. >> driving oun uninsured rate to its lowest level ever >> we keep hearing about the moral obligations to provide people with health that will

cost of the society more expense canada had this debate 40/50 years ago. it was probably gut wrenching back then with all the sorts of debates happening now. once through two generations, nobody cares. you accept it and you get it fair and everybody gets it. it is fundamentally a truth that if our health care system paid for a small number of people and now millions more are in it, something is going to suffer and give. is it worth it? >> yes. i think what we're looking at happening with obamacare is the law of unintended consequences is coming through. the effects aon small businesses, insurance companies, many threatening to about pull out next year. people having their hours cut as a result of it. people losing doctors, prices going up. yes, you're insuring more people but is that trade-off worth it. i think not

>> people knew that would happen and they weighed that against the benefit of having people insured. at the end of the day when you put private companies in charge of health care and health insurance companies are making so many decisions, you're going to have rates go up >> you sound like a guy who has never gone a day without health insurance. i went a few days and i was making good money and i couldn't afford it. >> i don't know if i have it now to be honest with you >> the affordable care act is far from perfect. it's not what experts would like to design, but it doesn't bring down affordablity. the price goes up but is it better than people dying, is it people-- >> people go to emergency rooms. >> people were dying >> yes. there were things in it so basic like i can break my leg and sign up to obamacare when i get to hospital.

it's silly. there are really poorly thought out things. mandate. >> you can wait until you get sick and then go to obamacare. that's why insurers are pulling out now. >> they're threat enning to pull out. they are getting a windfall >> they just got a bail out from obama 7.7 million dollars to hold them up. that's why they're not complaining because they're still getting money under the table. the insurance companies are losing money hand over fists. they're losing. >> most people have health insurance and always have. those people didn't necessarily see the problem with it, but we live in a nation that do we believe it's a right or not >> people didn't see a problem with it until obamacare came and flans had to be switched

>> people that didn't have health care didn't see a-- had health care didn't know what they were facing people in africa didn't see a problem with education streets. >> they're not dying. >> a lot of people didn't want to pay for health insurance the first day of the presidency for a new president is going to be businessy because they are going to do many things and they are going to rip up obamacare which republican have tried to do 50 times already. is that still be a priority or should it change. the goal of insuring everybody is noble and exists. he didn't do it right >> it's not a republican goal should it be?

>> i think it depends on what the make up of the congress is. if it's not going to happen, drop it and find a way to make it work. >> i don't think it has ever been their goal, but they have ril episode up their base so much do they have an option to not repeal it. >> the republican party repealing obamacare will because they will tear health care away from people who don't know that they're on health care. they won't even do it. >> the insurers want out. they will find a way out. >> then they won't have any business i will host you three in a year. we will have this discussion. thank you to my guests. straight ahead the state department has taken a strong

stance on human rights, except when it comes to america's allies my final thought is next. >> that harmony, that politeness and that equilibrium that japanese people call "wa". at the other side of history, fukushima's heroes were not enough. people have lost their trust, especially in the authorities. the myth of nuclear energy, of it being economic, safe and clean has been swept away. >> "fukushima: a nuclear story," narrated by willem dafoe.

before we go, i want to share this final thought. some time when you're at your computer and have a minute to spare, go to the state department website and look up human rights.

you will see some wonderful rhetoric promoting respect for human rights a central goal of u.s. policy. human rights helps secure the peace, combat crime appeared corruption and prevent humanitarian crisis it goes on. human rights are important and if you follow the news you know u.s. is quick to condemn against human right. we don't hear about the abuses committed by our friends. we should. they're important too. we've done that. we've talked about america's shared values with saudi arabia which don't include human rights. this week the new york times reported on human rights violations in thailand, a key u.s. security ally in asia. the times reporter watched is as a general opposing a military coup was gunned down. no-one was charged for the crime. another general who helped lead the coup, well he is thailand's prime minister.

the u.s. is urging a return to rule. the partnership with bangkok goes on. the state department calls the u.a.e. human rights record problematic. the washington post reported on two u.s. citizens being held in the emrates. they say they were tortured in follows confessions that they were terrorists the u the u.n. backs them up. the state department says it raised it with authorities. human rights are too important to pick favorites. holding our friends up to the same standards we use for our enemies. when it comes to seeing people >> the family is always in debt. >> they'd be on the oversight of government. >> it's almost impossible to separate slave caught fish from fish that are being caught through legitimate means.

>> what do we want? >> al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today they 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. afghanistan's future grows increasingly uncertain, as years of foreign aid and intervention come to an end. in the jostling for money and power, competing forces are fighting for the wealth buried deep in the hindu kush mountains. that wealth is precious rubies, which fetch a handsome sum, especially when smuggled across the border. i'm steve chow. on this edition of 101 east, we look at the lives of afghan ruby miners who are risking it all chasing crystal dreams.