i. know. that. he. did them at the next c.d.u. potch convention and i will not run for the chair of the party this fourth time is the last one for me. says she will not be running for a fifth term as german chancellor and will stand down as party leader after eighteen years in charge. french military operatives were aware that from the

afternoon of twenty seventh of june on words civilians were being killed rights groups urged the french government to relaunch a probe into the one thousand nine hundred. s. video emerges appearing to show france knew more about the slaughter than it claimed at the time before you only to you it's a story given to you but goes on the only people you deal with the image can go to the machine for the show all. for broadcast live direct from our studios malcolm this is our team international and sean thomas truly glad to have you with us now is stepping down as leader of the christian democratic union party after eighteen years at the helm she will stay on as german chancellor but says she will not run for

a fifth term in two thousand and twenty one. if you will get them at the next cd you party convention in december i will not run for the chair of the party this fourth term is the last one for me. the decision follows her party's disappointing election performance this time in a state of hesse where the cd suffered a double digit loss the chancellor admitted the result was hard to take. the inside the thinkers that came in overnight from her selection a wholly disappointing and bitter but it is politically it can no longer be business as usual process after this result has after the result and the area after the conflict between c.d.u. and the c.s.u. in the summer and after all the difficulties in forming a government coalition as the previous attempts to form one between the c.d.u. c.s.u. f.t.p. and the green party fell through. it's been about soaked in this and i believe we

should pause for a moment and think i hope we see yesterday's election is a turning point that we put to the task we have sat and done from the last federal election and until this moment there in lies the opportunity for us. exact time and i'm glad merkel says she will remain as chancellor but is stepping down as the leader of the christian democratic union she had in the past said to jobs being the party leader and being chancellor they went hand in hand and you shouldn't separate one of the other this does come as something of a surprise the city you were in well diarist of dire straits has been in for a while but i'm glad merkel's been at the helm for eighteen years she's such a big part of the the d.n.a. of the c.d.u. today so for her to say that she's stepping down and somebody else is going to be shaping that party that's a that's big news perhaps worth noting that this was probably the most relaxed we've seen angle of a speaking to the press in months that she lists off the troubles that they faced

it's no wonder they find. themselves in such a situation in fact as the results started coming in on sunday evening we saw both those within the c.d.u. her own party and her coalition partners already starting to turn on angola merkel and suggesting that there needed to be a change solution to the state of the government isn't acceptable we therefore expect the c.d.u. to take appropriate action wrong with us this evening there was a very mixed message as it wants the christian democratic union to continue leading this state many people have shown during this election that it must be different not in hester but in berlin. or with the social democrats and the c.d.u. haemorrhaging votes in has said those votes to go somewhere the beneficiaries word the green party who put it at the strong showing after previously doing well in bavaria and also alternative for germany. and to the parliament and has said for the first time and now it means that they have representation in all sixteen states

in germany as well as be represented in the national parliament the bundestag party leadership of the f.d.a. well they were ecstatic at the results with the people's party the f.t. is now represented in every german region after the great success it has. but when it comes to angela merkel the christian democratic union in the coalition it's well held together with sticky tape and popsicle sticks at the moment it comes down to popularity and angela merkel's party has been hemorrhaging popularity since she made the decision to welcome with open arms refugees and migrants into germany it was a huge issue in the election in twenty seventeen and well it caused problems for them there it caused problems with trying to cobble together a coalition it took a while the best part of seven months to do that and since the coalition government has been in place since march it's never really looked stable it almost fell apart

completely this summer. with horses they offered the interior minister threatening to walk out of the cabinet and walk out of the coalition with his christie and social union party he was put catered eventually with promises of of limits on refugees and migrants but it hasn't gone away and the problems that as i said started out in the lead up to the twenty seventeen election they then followed through coalition talks they've now started to impact on local government and the overall impression of the c.d.u. party in that is why until americans deem that time to go is the head of the party she says she's going to hang on until twenty twenty one as chancellor be looking to see how she well how she gets on to do that depending on who takes over the job she's vacating as head of her party i'm going merkel enjoyed it consistently high approval ratings during the first ten years of her leadership but since two thousand and fifteen her open door policy on refugees has turned many voters

against her. in the old days he mystery who oppression political oppression we have a responsibility to help them based on the geneva convention for refugees based on our sign policy and article one of our constitutional whether we want to.

measure it along political or russian ality this move by going to merkel is not surprising at all because. he was losing. confidence among the electorate and the reason and so to speak the burden of this party was on herself so it was quite rational for her to leave office as party chairman but they were the less whenever something important happened you usually are surprised by it happening right now and this is why there was rain this uprising that are so quickly strong the consequences out of the disaster still a electorate defeats during the last eight elections and if they aren't and it has . merkel's announcement that she will no longer lead the christian democratic union comes after decades at the forefront of german politics she began her political career after the fall of the berlin wall joining the c.d.u. in one nine hundred eighty nine ten years later she became the party secretary general and it leader in two thousand in two thousand and five. became germany's

first female chancellor since then she has been reelected another three times. the time i remember she was always there i mean i can't remember a time she wasn't like the chancellor and i don't even know who came before her and i miss knew until i met us as only met on us that the longer the mac ever said i think she was elected in two thousand and five for the rest time i was like seven she's just been around forever she's always been an image she's been in power a long time i think there's some piece of it is yochanan cunt don't have those

lines also. i've never seen an adult without governing. in two thousand and five she was elected for the first time i was only thirteen. i.p.s. my ear lobes a boy from my school died in a traffic accident. in fukushima the core mounted people died. i went to mississippi for a year as an exchange student. blacks voted obama whites mccain barack obama became the first black president. studied. back and i'm a. french human rights groups are calling for a probe into the one thousand nine hundred four rwandan genocide to be reopened this comes after news a website media part released a video appearing to show

a senior french military officer discussing an ongoing massacre several days before the army chose to intervene france has denied any culpability. before you are the only two you could push you to do you but you could use all the you don't equal you know if you don't comply with the one who makes one body you do make sure to push it all three of. the genocide in rwanda lasted for about one hundred days and left more than half a million people dead or he's doubled quarter comments now on the case from paris. leading french human rights groups called for a reopening of the case on friday trying to get answers from top french military officials about the government's involvement in the nine hundred ninety four massacre in the east african country of rwanda now human rights activists are demanding answers one leader of the organization survey is a plaintiff in the case she says it was too premature to close the case while other

lawyers are accusing france were in direct complicity in the genocide lines of inquiry were not sufficiently followed. up to allow investigators to determine france's military and political responsibility french military authorities were aware that from the afternoon of twenty seventh of june on words civilians were being killed the survivors open the case thirteen years ago although back in july it was scrapped due to lack of evidence and lack of convictions but survivors of the massacre claim they asked the french military for help on june twenty seventh one thousand nine hundred ninety four but the military only came three days later already after hundreds of people were killed in the massacre and the allegation now is that the french government actually knew what was going on and specifically decided not to intervene the genocide was committed mainly by the hutu government and its backers against the ethnic minority tutsi tribe and allegations of the

french government supports for the hutus who carried out most of the slaughter in the genocide have been rough on the french government's relations with the rwandan government for years but the french although they admit that they have made mistakes they say they have no complicity in the genocide that took place there. are we managed to speak with one of the massacre survivors. i do not need that here it didn't surprise me i was very happy that the media part of the truth we as the

survivors have known this for a long time but it's important that the french people know what happened back in one thousand nine hundred ninety four when the military was there i only know that france are and promised to declassify the ark ifs but it didn't work out everything had published was already known the only thing i have to add is that the french people have to know the truth the context of the one in genocide was a poor year war is argument between france and rwanda has been going on since one thousand nine hundred four did the french have a mandate to french have a mandate to intervene if the french are to sears observe this and they had a mandate to intervene when they did something wrong. soldiers typically. do not do not take action without a mandate. all right join a songe as a lawsuit against ecuador has been rejected astore much more after

a short break this is our country. obama really was very european in his approach he would be very well suited to.

brussels for example he doesn't represent america is america for better or worse and i think what we're trying to do here is to let the world see. our welcome back this is our t. international court trials have begun in the us for a shooter who killed eleven people in a pittsburgh synagogue and a man in florida accused of a series of mail bombings there is no direct connection between the two cases but much of the media coverage has focused on the political context and the rise of hate speech. we live now in a very very toxic environment that includes incivility in our political discourse

among our leaders the attack yesterday and the attempted pipe bombings over the course of last week should be a wake up call to all americans to demand change and in both cases the suspects were active on social media the alleged pittsburgh gunman robert gregory. bowers wrote a series of anti-semitic posts on the website of gabaa dot com he described jewish people as an infestation and claimed the holocaust never actually happened in the wake of the massacre the site which is popular with the so-called right was taken down and. the man believed to have sent a series of mail bombs was active on twitter he is believed to have sent death threats to politicians including vice president joe biden from a twitter account his account has been removed by twitter to discuss this further we can now bring in legal analyst and counterterrorism expert jennifer breeden and also dave lindorff who's the founder of the news web site this can't be happening dot net both of you thank you for being with us here on our international. there's

so much we can discuss and so many ways we can go with this so let's start with the media response to these atrocities a common to commentator that we just heard from spoke about toxic political discourse among our leaders being partly to blame dave lindorff i want to start with you if we could. get your opinion our politicians in any way to blame for this mess that the u.s. is in right now. well yeah i think so i mean it's irresponsible to. promote you know if you're if you're an efficient a leader to promote hatred among different groups within the country i mean if you're pitting you know blacks against y. or hispanics against whites. as a national leader who's supposed to be leading all those people and you know this

would be true of a president particularly but also you know probably senators it's irresponsible. i would say you know but the penalty for that is. losing elections i suppose i mean it's not something you make rules against. jennifer do you think that the miami bombing suspect and the pittsburgh mass murderer were in any way motivated by politics or is this just a red herring or is there something deeper involved here. i think in every situation there's always going to be something deeper and that's not you know out of some kind of crazy theory that's just basic national security protocol and provisions where we can't obviously we can't know everything we're not going to know every single person this this individual time to we're not going to know every facet of the vest a geisha into the person now that being said you know of course there's some political ties within this we're seeing a lot of dissension amongst american citizens especially in the last few years but really it's been ongoing over the last ten years many studies have shown that it's

just growing in this political dissent and this animosity between political parties so i think anything that's coming out now with some kind of political motivation is because of what they are seen in the media so as from our leaders well as we mentioned both cases there were warning signs both men posted hate speech on social media before they committed their actual crimes they want to go do you want this first why did the authorities fail to pick up on these warning signs i mean we know that free speech is protected but. i mean if that speech is posted i mean is there a way to to monitor that somehow. we may reason they don't pick up on it is because they mainly pick up their spending all their time looking for islamic terrorists and. you know. korean plots and you know every kind of foreign plot. and. a lot of the terrorism is homegrown. terrorism and we've seen plenty of it

so you know if the focus is somewhere else and it is you're going to miss the ones like these two so jennifer again with the freeze. being protected side of things is it legally possible to take action against people who write such things. well again that's of really it's a difficult question with a difficult answer because you know the internet exploded so much and that goes the same for social media so we have the communications decency act of one thousand nine hundred six which actually says that that social media platforms that these social media whether it's facebook twitter you tube someone else they can't be held responsible for whoever post anything on their on their websites and that was so that you know we can continue to thrive in tech expansion but but i mean that's really the only law in the book case case law in the united states is having a really hard time catching up with this now of course hate speech speech is

protected in america even though hate speech is horrible and abysmal it is a protected right of speech and so it what's not protected under law and what can be come against what you can come against with criminal charges is speech that directly incites violence against somebody speech directly incites violence is not protected by the first amendment and so you know lawyers would have to be making a case on that but again we're talking about we're talking about investigative authorities in law enforcement that haven't gone after homegrown united states domestic islamic terrorism from the past that we've seen when they have had reason to believe even from other muslim sources that somebody might be more radical because they want to have more evidence and so just finding opinions on social media websites that might amount to the same things as other people isn't going to be enough for for that we can't arrest somebody for for an opinion that they might have no matter how egregious or or ugly that opinion seems kind of on point jennifer and david i want to get your thoughts on this. just because you can see

something doesn't mean you should say something you could argue that in the states right now this kind of hate speech is simply too commonplace to attract any attention from law enforcement what are your thoughts. well let me let me address something slightly different i mean i want to make a point that there's a distinction between you know well first of all. what's on line is considered speech you know the twitters the the the facebook posts and things are considered speech. printed matter there's they're also not licensed organizations like a broadcast organization that has comes under f.c.c. rules so there's a lot more leeway. and you don't also want to have the government telling companies what they can and can't air or allow on the site and i say that as somebody who has

a collective the revenue say we don't want people telling us what we can and can't post but you know having said that. the companies themselves have a moral obligation i think an ethical obligation you know like like facebook or twitter to prevent. incitement on their sites but that's for them to do and it ought to be something that the public pressures them to do not that government requires them to do but it should be naturally what you would do if you see somebody who classic example was in i was at a private university teaching and there were kids walking down the street past a house that had black students in it and they'd be walking out at night and you have trunk or a fully drunk yelling nigger at the house when they go by you know it's an obligation for me as a faculty member or any member of that community to put a stop to that. it they have the right to yell it but it's incitement

indeed jennifer do you think that banning people for hate speech or jevan thought on that. i do have a thought on that i have a couple thoughts i you know i obviously agree with dave we don't want the we don't want the government coming down and telling us what we can and can't do especially when it comes to social media but i think if we put the power within social media company executives then we're just saying we don't want government to regulate it but we want these powerful business to regulate it and so we're just putting the power into one other person's hand we're looking at three of four major social media platforms and much of the speech comes down and so we have to we have to consider the fact that it would be a lot more beneficial to have twenty thirty forty social media platforms rather than these top three because that's giving a lot of power to mark zuckerberg or whoever is going to come after him hoping that maybe this person is going to have the same political leading or definitions on hate speech which brings me to the last point which is that hate speech is that's

a subjective definition this is a term that we use that yes it is vague it is horrible we see speech that is very very offensive we heard that from from my colleague on the other side david was talking about what these students were yelling at another student that's obviously hate speech or racial slur but there are some people in the united states who will state that factual statements are hate speech and so we have the subjective thing where now nobody can agree on what hate speech might be and if we give the power of shutting down accounts of shutting down speech of shutting down places where somebody can voice a concern to people that are happen to own the business and we're putting a lot of power in their hands and so that's where we really i think the main thing is to accept personal responsibility really to grow up i mean the american public does need to grow up and not only accept responsibility but not engage in these things and then we can put proper public pressure well so what about the president some could argue that you know i would. now go ahead go ahead. and say something to

that though that there are solutions to the problem of the power of google or the power of facebook or the power of twitter and those are to break the damn things up it's the same problem we have with newspapers and with and in broadcasting you know we have these giant conglomerates that control all our media and they determine what gets in and what doesn't get in the new york times is notorious for this. i mean i can never again an op ed published in the new york times because my my perspective is way too far on the left they simply won't publish me noam chomsky much greater me and then i will ever be is is be and basically without anybody saying it from the pages of the new york times and the washington post that's outrageous though all these organizations should be broken up they shouldn't be allowed to have the monopolies that they have you know the times shouldn't be

owning television stations washington post shouldn't be shouldn't even be allowed to own the washington post even jennifer have to warn you that these things should be broken up and why not break up google and we're coming to the bottom how you and i were twitter. we could have this conversation for hours upon end and actually i would like to under different circumstance dave lindorff jennifer braden thanks for being with us here on our to international again wish we could go on further. by that does it for me i'll be back with more news at the top the hour you're watching international stay with us. i would prefer to say there sir the human space is must become into prana terri's wish me instead we are leaving in the solar system. and for sure we should be

expanded on other on other all this of the solar system i see this as a way all bring game and developing more technologists new technologies so that we can even. say increase in the end improve the quality of life on earth. with this manufactured and sentenced him to the public will. when the roman closes down project themselves. with the financial merry go round listen to the woman post a. drink nor middle of the room signal. going to the real news room.

when else truths seem wrong when old quotes just don't hold. any old belief yet to shape our disdain comes to advocate and engagement equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. our. hello and welcome to cross talk where all things considered i'm peter labelle as the trumpet ministration pulls out of a key arms control agreement.