:00:09. > :00:15.It's already likely to be the most controversial television programme
:00:16. > :00:20.of 2014, is Benefits Street the truth about welfare or just poverty
:00:21. > :00:24.porn. You see this street here, James Turner Street was one of the
:00:25. > :00:31.best streets. Unemployed, unemployed. Now, one of the worst.
:00:32. > :00:34.Has the broadcaster, Channel 4, stitched up the residents of James
:00:35. > :00:39.Turner Street in Birmingham. The executive who commissioned the
:00:40. > :00:43.programme is here. Nick and Ed, the relationship everyone is talking
:00:44. > :00:52.about. A less likely preferrer of an olive
:00:53. > :00:58.branch is to be imagined one Lib Dem candidate told me. We will find out
:00:59. > :01:06.what is really behind this political love-in. Newsnight talks to the top
:01:07. > :01:09.CIA counsel w sought legal cover for waterboarding, Alan Dershowitz will
:01:10. > :01:14.tell us why he thinks he was right, and Shami Chakrabrti why she's sure
:01:15. > :01:18.he's wrong. Martin Scorsese's new film, The Wolf of Wall Street,
:01:19. > :01:32.opened tonight in London, but there is already controversy over its
:01:33. > :01:42.portrayal of bankers backlash. There was a backlash against Goodfellas
:01:43. > :01:45.too. James Turner Street is one of the
:01:46. > :01:51.most infault puss streets in Britain, after Benefits Street hit
:01:52. > :01:58.the screens this week. Introducing a cast of a scammer and benefit
:01:59. > :02:01.cheats. The reaction has been immense, from
:02:02. > :02:05.accusation that is the channel sold the residents a false prospectus
:02:06. > :02:10.about the programme, to get them to take part, to commentators who say
:02:11. > :02:21.the series shows exactly why benefit reform is critical. Unemployed,
:02:22. > :02:27.unemployed, unemployed. Most of the residents... . Penny for the poor.
:02:28. > :02:32.Are claiming benefits. Probably a 5% of people on this road are working.
:02:33. > :02:36.Is Benefits Street an honest observational documentary about life
:02:37. > :02:40.in a deprived part of Birmingham or a manipulative stitch-up. On James
:02:41. > :02:46.Turner Street today there were very few residents who wanted to go on
:02:47. > :02:51.camera who would talk about the programme. There was anger here.
:02:52. > :02:54.This man who didn't want to be identified has lived on the street
:02:55. > :02:57.for two years and not on benefits. How do you feel the way the
:02:58. > :03:02.programme has streeted the street and residents here? Very let down.
:03:03. > :03:08.The production company have lied through their teeth to us. They have
:03:09. > :03:15.done exactly what they said they weren't going to do. They haven't
:03:16. > :03:26.shown a true representation of the street. Even though they have said
:03:27. > :03:30.it is fair representation. It is not. A lot of people on the street
:03:31. > :03:33.work, and nothing has been put on the show about the people who work
:03:34. > :03:37.on the street. We have spoken to a number of residents about their
:03:38. > :03:40.interactions with the producers of the programme. They have told us
:03:41. > :03:44.they feel misled, and that producers weren't clear about how the street
:03:45. > :03:47.was going to be portrayed. One woman who was asked to take part in the
:03:48. > :03:52.documentary told me that she thought it was meant to be about community
:03:53. > :03:57.spirit and at no point was she told it was about benefits. So what is
:03:58. > :04:02.life really like here? Ray Bennett has been helping to cross James
:04:03. > :04:07.Turner Street for the last eight years. What do you think it has done
:04:08. > :04:11.in terms of the way the street is seen by everybody else? It has made
:04:12. > :04:16.the street look bad. It is not that bad. You can't class everybody the
:04:17. > :04:18.same can you. You shouldn't tar everybody with the same brush, that
:04:19. > :04:22.is what I think. The programme claims that almost all of the
:04:23. > :04:28.residents are on benefits. But that doesn't ring true, says George, who
:04:29. > :04:32.has lived here since 1961. They are looking at some people who are
:04:33. > :04:39.benefit and targeting the whole street. That is wrong. Why? I'm not
:04:40. > :04:43.on benefits. Some of those who appeared on the programme have been
:04:44. > :04:52.vilified on Twitter, branded benefits scroungers. But not Smoggy.
:04:53. > :05:00.Sugar, coffee, hot chocolate, teabags, everything's 50p. Smoggy's
:05:01. > :05:04.entrepeneurialism has made him a celebrity in Birmingham. It is
:05:05. > :05:07.overwhelming, everything is happening overnight. What kind of
:05:08. > :05:12.reaction are you getting? A lot of people stopping me in the street,
:05:13. > :05:15.people saying I'm an inspiration and saying their children had seen what
:05:16. > :05:18.I'm doing and wanting to do something positive themself. How
:05:19. > :05:24.does that make you feel? Money couldn't buy that, that is special
:05:25. > :05:29.that is. Channel 4's Big Fat Gypsy Wedding was also criticised for
:05:30. > :05:34.voyeurism, so should these kinds of programmes be shown at all. In so
:05:35. > :05:39.far as it is true, in so far as it is accurate and in that sense fairly
:05:40. > :05:45.portrayed, it is hard to say we shouldn't be shown it. What did
:05:46. > :05:49.become clear today is that the relentless media attention of the
:05:50. > :05:55.last few days has been too much for some residents of James Turner
:05:56. > :05:59.Street. I'm joined now by Lee lead of
:06:00. > :06:04.factual programmes of Channel 4, Owen Jones, a columnist, and Fraser
:06:05. > :06:09.Nelson editor of the Spectator magazine. Can we nail the issue of
:06:10. > :06:14.the title. Were the participants told that the title of the show was
:06:15. > :06:18.going to be Benefits Street? No, they weren't told that but not
:06:19. > :06:20.something else either. The producers had been working with the residents
:06:21. > :06:23.of James Turner Street for nearly two years now. It has been a
:06:24. > :06:27.consultation with them, long before we started filming. We were there
:06:28. > :06:29.filming for a year. They were very clear and transparent with everyone
:06:30. > :06:32.on the street about what the nature of the programme was. Why they were
:06:33. > :06:36.there and what the nature of the end product was. They were clear that we
:06:37. > :06:38.were there. They were told it was going to be about benefits
:06:39. > :06:43.primarily? We were there because it is a part of Britain that is heavily
:06:44. > :06:47.reliant on benefits and James Turner Street sits within an area which has
:06:48. > :06:50.a long-term problem with unemployment. The thrust of the
:06:51. > :06:53.programme is, what's life like in Britain in a year when benefits are
:06:54. > :06:57.being cut by the Government. Over a long period of time for a community.
:06:58. > :07:01.Let me come to the final point, for a community that has, in spite of
:07:02. > :07:05.the hardship that it goes through a very strong sense of community, a
:07:06. > :07:07.very strong sense of neighbourliness, that is why that
:07:08. > :07:11.street was chosen. What about the criticism that you don't show people
:07:12. > :07:14.who work on the street and there are people who work on the street? It is
:07:15. > :07:21.true to say the majority of the people on turn turn street do --
:07:22. > :07:26.James Turner Street do claim benefits, that is clear and
:07:27. > :07:29.transparent. Why didn't you tell them, Stu didn't you know it was
:07:30. > :07:34.going to be called Benefits Street, when was that decided? Quite late in
:07:35. > :07:39.the tie Day that would be the title. That is common for department trees.
:07:40. > :07:43.Just before transmission? A couple of weeks before. At that point we
:07:44. > :07:47.were transparent with the contributors. They knew it was going
:07:48. > :07:51.to be called Benefits Street before it transmitted? Yes, yes. Are you
:07:52. > :07:55.comfortable with the idea of poverty porn as an idea? I'm deeply
:07:56. > :08:00.uncomfortable with that phrase. It is inaccurate, and it is patronising
:08:01. > :08:03.to the people who take part in the programmes and who open up their
:08:04. > :08:08.lives to it. It is offensive to the people who make them with diligence
:08:09. > :08:14.and professionalism and integrity. It is a phrase I don't like. Why
:08:15. > :08:17.have you such a problem with it? I don't think it is an honest
:08:18. > :08:22.portrayal of life in Britain, it is the medieval stocks updated for a
:08:23. > :08:26.modern format. What we have in this called debate about the welfare
:08:27. > :08:29.state is a relents almost obsessive hunting down of the most extreme
:08:30. > :08:35.dysfuntional unrepresentative people. They are adults, isn't that
:08:36. > :08:40.a bit patronising? It is not, I tell you why, because we have a situation
:08:41. > :08:43.now where according to the polls on average Britain's think 27% of
:08:44. > :08:48.social security is lost through fraud, it is 0. 7%. People think
:08:49. > :08:52.that the majority of the welfare state goes to unemployed people, it
:08:53. > :08:55.doesn't, it goes to pensioners who paid in all their lives. It is to do
:08:56. > :08:59.with these sorts of sensational programme, it is not just them, the
:09:00. > :09:06.BBC themselves are responsible for this. People like us. BBC have lots
:09:07. > :09:11.of different programmes? People Like Us which was a BBC programme did the
:09:12. > :09:15.same in Manchester, this portrayed on housing benefit and had to
:09:16. > :09:18.apologise for that. The programme didn't put words in people's mouths?
:09:19. > :09:24.This is what these programmes do, like People Like Us and Skints,
:09:25. > :09:27.which you also did, they hunt down the unrepresentative examples and
:09:28. > :09:30.portray them in the most negative way. We have on social media a
:09:31. > :09:35.response to, that people calling for them and people on benefits to be
:09:36. > :09:44.gassed and hanged and shot. You must have a selective memory of Canon,
:09:45. > :09:49.selecting Scent and Benefits Street and forgetting about a series of How
:09:50. > :09:54.To Get A Council House, nobody accused that of poverty porn, it was
:09:55. > :09:57.looking at both sides of people relying on social housing, we going
:09:58. > :10:06.back to that series, we look at that again. We look at benefits in more
:10:07. > :10:11.situation. -- ways. What is the benefit of these programmes? If what
:10:12. > :10:16.we see is shocking shouldn't we change the system. We are good at
:10:17. > :10:20.ignoring extreme poverty and pretending these things don't
:10:21. > :10:23.happen. And say isn't it terrible and you are gawping at these people.
:10:24. > :10:26.I don't think this is a freak show, it portrays them in a positive life.
:10:27. > :10:30.A lot of the characters there are ones that I personally warmed to,
:10:31. > :10:36.the villain of the piece isn't the people it is the system that makes
:10:37. > :10:40.them lead the lives they do. The criticism is of young middle-class
:10:41. > :10:46.producers that go in and do a kind of "does he take sugar" on areas
:10:47. > :10:50.like this and retreat again and doesn't understand the lives of
:10:51. > :10:55.these people. The cameras rolled and the people spoke in their own way. I
:10:56. > :10:59.have had the advantage of seeing the second episode and portraying are
:11:00. > :11:02.you minutian immigrants in a positive light. When people see the
:11:03. > :11:07.whole series they will Israelite this is not an attempt to put people
:11:08. > :11:13.-- realise this is not an attempt to put people in the stocks but say
:11:14. > :11:18.this is what we do. The media has to be held accountable that not only is
:11:19. > :11:22.people's perceptions of the welfare system is distorted, everyone has to
:11:23. > :11:27.look at the factual figures and ask why have we ended up with the public
:11:28. > :11:31.so misinformed, we need to redress the problem. Programmes looking at
:11:32. > :11:37.low-paid workers dependant on benefits cut by the Government whose
:11:38. > :11:42.real wages are cut and they are struggling. Are you really saying
:11:43. > :11:45.that the people in James Turner Street shouldn't have their voice?
:11:46. > :11:48.No, I'm saying that it should be balanced. This is the point about
:11:49. > :11:51.the television programme, you balance them out. Most working age
:11:52. > :11:54.people dependant on benefits are people who are in work. That is
:11:55. > :12:00.because we are subsidising bosses who are charging, who are paying
:12:01. > :12:04.poverty wages, it is the same in another part of the welfare debate
:12:05. > :12:08.which is not shown on television, which is housing benefit is lining
:12:09. > :12:12.the pockets of landlords, most people on benefits are in work, that
:12:13. > :12:16.is not shown on the BBC or Channel 4. Does it give you pause when you
:12:17. > :12:21.look at some of the reactions for people talking part in the programme
:12:22. > :12:24.is so negative? We take our responsibility to contributors and
:12:25. > :12:27.people who take part in the programmes very seriousliment as a
:12:28. > :12:31.result the producers who worked with them over such a long period of time
:12:32. > :12:34.are still on James Turner Street trying to help them deal with the
:12:35. > :12:38.issues of having that attention brought to them. Why are people so
:12:39. > :12:43.unhappy? Benefits has touched a nerve as an issue, it is an issue of
:12:44. > :12:48.major concern. Can I ask you a direct question, when you see on
:12:49. > :12:51.social media, you kept flashes up the hashtag for it, you saw people
:12:52. > :12:55.calling for those people to be gassed, hanged and shot, and people
:12:56. > :12:58.on benefits to go through that as well. Did you look at that and
:12:59. > :13:02.think, hang on a minute, maybe we could have been a bit more balanced
:13:03. > :13:08.here and not so sensationalist? When I see that I find it deeply
:13:09. > :13:13.distasteful. Do you take responsibility? Hanging on. You do
:13:14. > :13:15.take responsibility? I don't think you should judge the programme by
:13:16. > :13:19.the reaction to the programme, I don't think you should judge the
:13:20. > :13:24.reaction to the programme by the extreme n to the programme, that was
:13:25. > :13:28.a handful of intemperate tweets. As someone there want to go show the
:13:29. > :13:34.reality of modern Britain, do you think of the fact that people think
:13:35. > :13:38.27% of people think fraud in the benefits system when it is actually
:13:39. > :13:42.0. 7%, do you not think as a person making documentaries that it is your
:13:43. > :13:46.job to educate people. You are distorting the issue, this is not a
:13:47. > :13:49.programme about benefits. I'm talking about output, what
:13:50. > :13:54.responsibility as someone informing the public by taking on the myth,
:13:55. > :14:01.isn't the media about challenging the myth As well as exposing real
:14:02. > :14:04.problems which this is it. There is nowhere enough outrage from people
:14:05. > :14:08.about what we are doing in our society. Do you think it will make a
:14:09. > :14:11.difference to the debate? The more people realise how broken the system
:14:12. > :14:15.is and what life is like in the system the more attempt there will
:14:16. > :14:22.be to reform and save the people caught in this issue. And it is the
:14:23. > :14:29.people at the top who will do that as ever.
:14:30. > :14:36.Who is behind me? I'm Sicilian, we don't sit with our backs with the
:14:37. > :14:41.door we never sit with the back to the door, who has my back!
:14:42. > :14:45.Interrupting Scorsese is never a good idea. When Ed Balls was writing
:14:46. > :14:49.his new year's resolutions it appeared that one of them was "must
:14:50. > :14:53.be nice to Nick Clegg". After the last election the Shadow Chancellor
:14:54. > :14:55.said any accord between Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be
:14:56. > :15:01.conditional on Nick Clegg's departure. But in this week's New
:15:02. > :15:04.Statesman, Ed Balls was positively loved up, referring to a friendly
:15:05. > :15:09.chat between the two at Westminster, the first for a long time, perhaps
:15:10. > :15:14.ever. He disregarded the party line and didn't rule out a coalition
:15:15. > :15:18.between the two parties. Here is Emily Maitlis's assessment of a new
:15:19. > :15:23.special relationship. Now it is not every day that you get called a
:15:24. > :15:35."prove fall lack particular protection device -- a prophaylatic
:15:36. > :15:38.protection item" it was from Boris Johnson, while it was unhe
:15:39. > :15:42.hadifying, Nick Clegg's reply was revealing. I'm for once with Ed
:15:43. > :15:53.Balls on this I think name calling is all very passe, very 2013. You
:15:54. > :16:01.see messers Ball and Clegg have had a reproachment, a little warmth. He
:16:02. > :16:04.said he had a friendly chat with them, he was not saying where but
:16:05. > :16:14.the kind of place where people pass in the House.
:16:15. > :16:21.It is very interesting, because in the past Ed Balls, of all senior
:16:22. > :16:26.figures on the Labour side, has probably been one of the most openly
:16:27. > :16:30.derisive of Nick Clegg and contemptuous about the Liberal
:16:31. > :16:36.Democrats, for him to be saying nice things about the Lib Demes and their
:16:37. > :16:48.leader, even to hint at a budding brow mans -- bromance is very
:16:49. > :16:54.interesting. They were even tweeting each other, and teasing about a
:16:55. > :16:58.cock-up, and Ed Balls responded in kind. I know there is much chat
:16:59. > :17:01.about the tweet, I suggest everybody tweets Ed Balls it is always good
:17:02. > :17:04.for your health! . But there is a lot of discussion as to whether it
:17:05. > :17:11.was deliberate or whether it was a joke. Who knows? Before Ed Balls's
:17:12. > :17:15.very public overture, I spoke to one senior Labour election strategist
:17:16. > :17:18.who told me you will never hear us admit publicly or privately that we
:17:19. > :17:23.are talking to the Liberal Democrats. The last thing we want is
:17:24. > :17:26.to make them sit up in their coffin. That memorable phrase that stuck in
:17:27. > :17:33.my head. The point he was trying to make was that Labour has done well
:17:34. > :17:43.from ex-Lib Dem voters. Any hint of a pact, formal or informal, would,
:17:44. > :17:46.he fears, send them ask theling -- scuttling back. The polls suggest
:17:47. > :17:49.that next time round it will be a lot closer and the situation may be
:17:50. > :17:53.different, that is important for the Lib Demes, they are loser,
:17:54. > :17:56.ideolgically and historically to the Labour Party. Their supporters would
:17:57. > :18:00.choose, by a majority of 2-1 to go with Labour if given a choice. The
:18:01. > :18:04.last thing the Liberal Democrats want to do is go too close to one.
:18:05. > :18:07.They don't want to jump into bed with someone and on the wedding
:18:08. > :18:14.night find it should be someone else. It wouldn't be the first
:18:15. > :18:20.attempt with Lib-Lab love, remember the Blair and Ashdown attempt many
:18:21. > :18:23.years ago. Most have spent their political lives fighting the
:18:24. > :18:36.Conservatives, over two thirds of our seats are held against
:18:37. > :18:41.Conservative opposition It is not our natural home. The Liberal
:18:42. > :18:44.Democrats are seen as the insurgents, gatecrashing in these
:18:45. > :18:50.halls of power. But there is more effort these days to strike a
:18:51. > :18:55.different stone. For Ed Balls there was this calculation, he is one of
:18:56. > :18:58.the more partisan figures in politician politics. Perhaps he
:18:59. > :19:05.thinks it doesn't do his own reputation any harm if he can sound
:19:06. > :19:08.a more reckon sillry tone. It is more of a personal crusade, the
:19:09. > :19:14.Liberal Democrats, the smallest party with the least poll ratings
:19:15. > :19:21.could hold all the cards, or even, some suggest the keys to the
:19:22. > :19:25.Treasury. The CIA's use of waterboarding on terror suspects
:19:26. > :19:31.still arouses furious debate in the US. Now the former top CIA lawyer,
:19:32. > :19:36.John Rizzo, in position in the years after 9/11 has written a book in
:19:37. > :19:41.which he details the way he and others in the Bush administration
:19:42. > :19:44.provided legal cover for torture and reveals he could have stopped the
:19:45. > :19:48.programme before it began. He said some of the techniques sound
:19:49. > :19:53.sadistic and terrifying, like something out of Edgar Allan Poe,
:19:54. > :19:57.and yet were legally and morally justified. In the wake of drone
:19:58. > :19:59.strikes he tells our BBC correspondent that capturing and
:20:00. > :20:04.interrogating suspects is better than killing them. It was one of the
:20:05. > :20:09.most controversial decisions taken in the CIA's history, to subject
:20:10. > :20:14.terrorist suspects to what the agency called "enhanced
:20:15. > :20:18.interrogation techniques". What nearly everyone else calls torture.
:20:19. > :20:23.At secret locations around the world, known as black site, America
:20:24. > :20:29.took the gloves off. Interrogators used things like waterboarding,
:20:30. > :20:32.simulated drowning to get America's enemies to spill their secrets. This
:20:33. > :20:38.man says he could have stopped it before it all began. John Rizzo was
:20:39. > :20:42.the CIA's top lawyer who signed off on the programme. If I had said this
:20:43. > :20:45.is crazy and it will get us in huge trouble and it is a huge risk we
:20:46. > :20:48.shouldn't do it, we should just kill this right now before it gets
:20:49. > :20:53.started, that would have held. I'm sure of that. Why didn't you stop
:20:54. > :20:59.it, why did you sign off on those techniques? The country and the
:21:00. > :21:05.agency was just consumed with the fear and the dread that another
:21:06. > :21:10.attack was coming on the homeland. John Rizzo joined the CIA as a young
:21:11. > :21:14.lawyer in 1975. Here's photographed by a foreign Intelligence Service on
:21:15. > :21:18.an overseas mission. He was the go-to man for spies, who wanted to
:21:19. > :21:24.know if their most controversial operations were legal or not. He
:21:25. > :21:28.rose to become general counsel, the CIA's most senior lawyer in the
:21:29. > :21:31.years after 9/11. Now retired, he's defending the decisions he and
:21:32. > :21:37.America's leaders took in their fight against Al-Qaeda. After the
:21:38. > :21:44.September 11th attack, the US began to round up high-value suspect, the
:21:45. > :21:53.first major catch in March 2002 was A AbuZubatda. Under questioning by
:21:54. > :21:57.the FBI, he identified the architect of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI Special
:21:58. > :22:02.Agent who got than I tell begins told Newsnight it was done without
:22:03. > :22:05.mistreatment. We were getting actionable intelligence, this
:22:06. > :22:12.actionable intelligence had the possibility of saving lives. But the
:22:13. > :22:16.CAI believed Zabada knew more, particularly about possible planned
:22:17. > :22:19.attacks. They devised a new highly secret interrogation programme. John
:22:20. > :22:26.Rizzo was given a list of new techniques his colleagues wanted to
:22:27. > :22:31.use on Zubada. They methodically described all of the technique,
:22:32. > :22:34.sometimes using visual demonstrations of, for instance a
:22:35. > :22:40.facial grasp and that was the first time in my life I ever heard the
:22:41. > :22:44.word "waterboarding". I had no idea what thawas What was your reaction?
:22:45. > :22:50.Well some of the techniques, they have all been declassified now. Some
:22:51. > :22:56.of them, frankly the facial grasp, maybe the belly slap struck me as
:22:57. > :23:02.almost out of the three stoodges routine, but others, especially
:23:03. > :23:05.waterboarding, and also you know the sleep deprivation technique they
:23:06. > :23:11.were decribing which would involve extended periods of time without
:23:12. > :23:16.sleep. Frankly, they struck me as something terrifying. President
:23:17. > :23:20.Obama has described the enhanced interrogation programme as torture,
:23:21. > :23:25.do you agree with him? If it was torture the CIA would not have done
:23:26. > :23:31.it. Isn't that because you have defined it not to be torture as the
:23:32. > :23:38.lawyer? Well yeah, I have interpreted it and more importantly
:23:39. > :23:42.the highest legal representative in the elective branch has said it is
:23:43. > :23:46.not the legal definition of torture. Now almost everybody else seems to
:23:47. > :23:49.think it is? There seems to be a substantial opinion in that
:23:50. > :23:52.direction. In taking office, President Obama's new team shut down
:23:53. > :23:57.the enhanced interrogation programme. When Rizzo met Obama's
:23:58. > :24:01.key aides, he discovered they wanted the CIA to do something else,
:24:02. > :24:06.accelerate massively the programme of drone strikes, the new President
:24:07. > :24:10.wasn't going to take any prisoners, a mistake says John Rizzo. Killing a
:24:11. > :24:14.source of information should be the last resort, not the first resort.
:24:15. > :24:17.The whole programme, you know, the whole enhanced interrogation
:24:18. > :24:22.programme, the whole secret prison programme was designed to Ellis
:24:23. > :24:32.incompetent information from high-level terrorists, that could
:24:33. > :24:38.not be acquired by -- other means. That is why great pains were made to
:24:39. > :24:43.aperture these people to get them to talk, they won't talk blown out of
:24:44. > :24:48.the sky. The eliciting of information through waterboarding
:24:49. > :24:53.imagined America's reputation abroad and damaged some at home. It was too
:24:54. > :24:59.much for many to stomach, immoral some thought and illegal. The lawyer
:25:00. > :25:03.who had to authorise that decision is unrepentant. It is not an easy
:25:04. > :25:10.job to be a lawyer for an intelligence agency. It involves
:25:11. > :25:14.moral conundrums? Yeah. Were there moral issues or a practical and
:25:15. > :25:19.legal issue? It was more issues, you know, that walk I took around the
:25:20. > :25:28.building after the techniques were first described to me in early 2002,
:25:29. > :25:45.I can't believe I'm even considering this. But you said yes? I did say
:25:46. > :25:50.yes, and it wasn't easy. But I mean I don't think I had another choice.
:25:51. > :25:53.Here in the studio is Shami Chakrabrti the director of Liberty,
:25:54. > :25:57.and joining us from Miami is Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of
:25:58. > :26:01.America's most prominent civil liberty lawyers, who in his latest
:26:02. > :26:04.book, Taking Stand, discusses his controversial support for
:26:05. > :26:13.state-sanctioned torture. Alan Dershowitz, first of all, Riese reds
:26:14. > :26:18.John Rizzo was adamant that waterboarding was not torture, in
:26:19. > :26:23.your book is it torture? Yes it is, it ranges from one extreme to lethal
:26:24. > :26:26.torture on the other in my book, but it is all torture. I think it is
:26:27. > :26:30.illegal. I don't agree with the lawyer that thinks it should be
:26:31. > :26:33.legal. My point is if it is going to be done, and I think it should not
:26:34. > :26:37.be done. If it is going to be done it ought to be done visibly and with
:26:38. > :26:42.accountability, which is why I have called for a torture warrant. I
:26:43. > :26:45.don't favour torture but I favour accountability for torture. Just
:26:46. > :26:48.like I don't favour the death penalty but I favour accountability
:26:49. > :26:54.and visibility when we execute people, there is no inconsistency
:26:55. > :26:56.between those two positions. Then inconsistency isn't surely that you
:26:57. > :27:00.don't believe in torture, but even by suggesting a torture warrant
:27:01. > :27:05.would give cover for people who want to torture and it also then
:27:06. > :27:12.presumably contravenes the Geneva Convention? No, I think the fact of
:27:13. > :27:16.torture contravenes the convention, I'm saying it shouldn't be done. But
:27:17. > :27:20.if it is going to be done, if a ticking bomb exists and for example
:27:21. > :27:24.if the Prime Minister of England had known that there was a terrorist
:27:25. > :27:28.planning to blow up the subways of London and he could have stopped
:27:29. > :27:31.that by using enhanced interrogation I believe he would have done it. If
:27:32. > :27:35.he's going to do it I think there should be a warrant requirement. He
:27:36. > :27:39.shouldn't be able to do it below the surface, not visibly and without
:27:40. > :27:44.accountability. So I'm against torture but for accountability. What
:27:45. > :27:47.do you make of that? I think that Professor Dershowitz is far too
:27:48. > :27:52.clever a lawyer for me, I'm a little lost with we shouldn't do it but if
:27:53. > :27:56.we're going to do it let's do it by making the judiciary complicit in
:27:57. > :28:00.something that we all know is fundamentally immoral and wrong,
:28:01. > :28:05.bottom line for me, very simple for me. Tyrants and terrorists torture
:28:06. > :28:08.people, that is what makes them the bad guy, democrats, people who are
:28:09. > :28:11.human rights lawyers like the eminent professor there and me, we
:28:12. > :28:15.don't do torture, that is the difference between us, that's it.
:28:16. > :28:20.And what Alan Dershowitz is saying, the ticking bomb, if the Prime
:28:21. > :28:24.Minister knew that somebody had information about a bomb, about to
:28:25. > :28:28.go off on the London Underground and whatever, and could find out that
:28:29. > :28:30.information by enhanced interrogation techniques would you
:28:31. > :28:34.say no? I don't think he should do that. If he wants to do that needs
:28:35. > :28:38.to know he's behaving illegally. The responsibility is political. You
:28:39. > :28:43.don't believe in it. I wouldn't do it. If push came to shove and there
:28:44. > :28:47.was this ticking bomb, are you saying you wouldn't do everything in
:28:48. > :28:50.your power to get the information to save people's lives? My problem is I
:28:51. > :28:55.have a low pain threshold, I couldn't give birth without a great
:28:56. > :29:00.deal of pharmaceutical and surgical assistance, I think if you tortured
:29:01. > :29:04.me I would tell you whatever I thought you wanted me to say. I'm
:29:05. > :29:10.not convinced about reliability, sometimes it is not reliable and it
:29:11. > :29:13.is just wrong, it is just wrong. It is clearly sometimes reliable, you
:29:14. > :29:17.don't rely on the word, you tell the terrorist, the person, to take you
:29:18. > :29:21.to where the bomb is. It has to be self-proving. I'm not justifying
:29:22. > :29:25.there. I'm saying I'm opposed to the death penalty I think it is wrong
:29:26. > :29:29.and in violation of international law, but as long as we are executing
:29:30. > :29:33.people we have to do with it due process and visibility and
:29:34. > :29:37.accountability. As long as there is torture being used and every single
:29:38. > :29:39.country in the world would use it in a ticking bomb place, let's make
:29:40. > :29:43.sure there is accountability and visibility and not done underneath
:29:44. > :29:49.the table and beneath the radar screen the way most countries do it
:29:50. > :29:56.today. The waterboarding of three terror suspects, let as look at but
:29:57. > :30:01.on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, apparently sleep deprivation for 180
:30:02. > :30:07.hours, he informed about a future plot. In your view was that
:30:08. > :30:10.justifiable? I don't think it is justifiable, I understand why people
:30:11. > :30:15.in the security business would want to do it. I think it would happen,
:30:16. > :30:19.I'm making a descriptive statement. It will happen, if it is going to
:30:20. > :30:23.happen I make enormive suggestion, let's make sure we do it with
:30:24. > :30:28.accountability and visibility so the people knows about it and we can
:30:29. > :30:32.have a debate and the public can decide whether there is a ticking
:30:33. > :30:41.bomb case we want the bomb to go off or the people stopped. The problem
:30:42. > :30:46.with the enormative suggestion -- the normative suggestion is the
:30:47. > :30:50.eminent professor will normise it with bells and whistling. This is
:30:51. > :30:53.what we did with internment and stucking people in Belmarsh Prison
:30:54. > :30:57.for a few years, this is what they do with military commissions in
:30:58. > :31:01.Guantanamo, you make it look legal and it is fundamentally wrong. Then
:31:02. > :31:05.we abolish it and once we know about it. We are right out of time. Thank
:31:06. > :31:09.you very much. The Oscar-winning director, Martin Scorsese, is well
:31:10. > :31:16.known for his darkly comic films about gangsters including Goodfellas
:31:17. > :31:19.and The Departmented, now he has taken the obvious next step and made
:31:20. > :31:23.a film about bankers and brokers. The Wolf of Wall Street had its UK
:31:24. > :31:30.pramer in Earler this evening in London. It is also had criticism of
:31:31. > :31:37.revelling in the abilityics of the two real-life protagonists. Stephen
:31:38. > :31:41.Smith spoke to Martin Scorsese about letting the bankers off lightly and
:31:42. > :31:46.why he's afraid to go out in New York. In an interview the lighting
:31:47. > :31:50.is so important, the ambience, the reassurance that nobody it about to
:31:51. > :31:54.whack you! Who is behind me, I'm Sicilian, we don't sit with our
:31:55. > :32:01.backs to the door, we never do, who has my back. With this script I'm
:32:02. > :32:07.going to teach each and every one of you to be the best. This is the
:32:08. > :32:11.greatest company in the world. Martin Scorsese's new film is the
:32:12. > :32:15.rollicking true story of a New York broker who made a fortune selling
:32:16. > :32:19.worthless stock. I was making so much money I didn't know what to do
:32:20. > :32:24.with it. And lived high on the proceeds. Some have called this
:32:25. > :32:29.black farce the director's best film in years, for others it is a little
:32:30. > :32:36.too rollicking. We didn't try to judge their world and the people, we
:32:37. > :32:43.think, I have seen that so often, that very often a story like that a
:32:44. > :32:47.play, a novel a film, where you know the author is commenting on the
:32:48. > :32:50.action and condemning it, or criticising it, I don't know,
:32:51. > :32:56.sometimes especially particularly certain films, I think it makes the
:32:57. > :33:00.audience feel they have done their job. So it is over to us in the
:33:01. > :33:04.stalls to do the moral heavy lifting. And to make it more
:33:05. > :33:13.complicated in that sense. This will take 50 trips. Money laundering old
:33:14. > :33:17.school, broker Jordan Belfort, played by Leonardo di Caproi, took
:33:18. > :33:20.his loot to Swiss banks in person. All right, not his person. America
:33:21. > :33:24.is always represented as place of opportunity, which it still is, I
:33:25. > :33:28.think. I was able to take advantage of that. I don't ever recall it
:33:29. > :33:36.being a place where the main thing was to get rich, only to get rich,
:33:37. > :33:40.only. I have a couple of million coming in a couple of weeks I give
:33:41. > :33:45.you a call and you can come and pick it up. You will give me a call. When
:33:46. > :33:52.it gets here I will give you a call and you can come and pick it up. We
:33:53. > :33:55.don't work for you man. You have my money taped to your boob,
:33:56. > :33:59.technically you do work for me. It was an opportunity to take
:34:00. > :34:04.characters like that and confront the audience with it, but in a very
:34:05. > :34:08.strong way, a very almost provocative way, I think. I think
:34:09. > :34:12.very provocative. Have you been surprised or disappointed by a
:34:13. > :34:19.certain amount of critical backlash to it. There was a backlash against
:34:20. > :34:26.Goodfellas when it was made in 1990, they felt I glorified the
:34:27. > :34:31.underworld. Ignoring the fact that everybody in the film is either
:34:32. > :34:35.killed or goes to jail. As far back as I remember I want #D to be a
:34:36. > :34:44.gangster -- I wanted to be a gangster. Bankers, some of them,
:34:45. > :34:49.brokers, are they the new gangsters? It seems easy to say politicians and
:34:50. > :34:57.bankers are all gangsters, how should I put it? Power, it is about
:34:58. > :35:07.power. And one can utilise power in a more compassionate way, and others
:35:08. > :35:13.the power will corrupt, absolutely. Where are the ones who were culpable
:35:14. > :35:18.for what happened in September 2008? Billions of dollars have been spent
:35:19. > :35:22.on fines, and I think you know those billions seem to be so easily given
:35:23. > :35:29.that maybe they don't mean that much. Who is responsible? I don't
:35:30. > :35:33.know. I just came out of a sense of frustration, it came out of that
:35:34. > :35:37.sense, let's really show everybody enjoying themselves and destroying
:35:38. > :35:44.everything that way. I think, to put you in that mind set, to put you in
:35:45. > :35:51.that world. I go all over, I take people to the Bronx, Brooklyn,
:35:52. > :35:55.Harlem, I don't care, makes no difference to me. Martin Scorsese
:35:56. > :36:01.grew up in New York, and his films amount to a hymn to the city, or
:36:02. > :36:07.perhaps a Bronx cheer. Even since some of your classic movies, Taxi
:36:08. > :36:11.Driver, Mean Street, the place has cleaned itself up? That is what they
:36:12. > :36:17.tell me. I won't test it out. I still feel I won't go into Central
:36:18. > :36:23.Park, I try not to go below, I used to try not go below, well I don't go
:36:24. > :36:26.below 57th street now. It is funny you say this, because a lot of
:36:27. > :36:31.people would see you as, amongst other things, a Poet Laureate of the
:36:32. > :36:42.American underbelly, over the long span of your career, and if anyone's
:36:43. > :36:47.confident in that mill milure is you, but the perception of it seems
:36:48. > :36:51.scary even for you? It doesn't mean I don't spend the time down in those
:36:52. > :36:54.areas when I have to. Doing the leg work? Doing the leg work, hanging
:36:55. > :36:58.out, doing what I have to do, shooting there, visiting. Again as
:36:59. > :37:02.you get older there is less, people are no longer around, you don't see
:37:03. > :37:10.that many people any more that you knew. There is no need to go down
:37:11. > :37:16.there. ?26,000, for one dinner. This could be explained, we had clients,
:37:17. > :37:23.the Pfizer clients. We had to buy champagne. And you ordered all the
:37:24. > :37:28.sides. I or theed the sides. $26,000 of side, what were they, the sides
:37:29. > :37:33.that cure cancer. That is the problem, that is why they were
:37:34. > :37:42.expensive. Stop. As Scorsese's new picture opens, is the director's
:37:43. > :37:48.chosen medium threatened. The film to challenge buttocks and attention
:37:49. > :37:53.spans and the like. People are watching six-second films, vines.
:37:54. > :37:56.Does that appeal to you? All the BS, as they say here that you wouldn't
:37:57. > :38:02.have to put up with if you were just working across a six-second span?
:38:03. > :38:07.What would you do, a high coup! I can't do high coup. Half a high
:38:08. > :38:14.coup. They don't have the attention man for that. A coup or a high!
:38:15. > :38:18.Back in October Newsnight broke the story that an internal audit by the
:38:19. > :38:23.Department of Education into one of the Government's flagship free
:38:24. > :38:27.schools had unearthed evidence of serious financial irregularities and
:38:28. > :38:30.possible fraud. Today the West Yorkshire Police arrested a
:38:31. > :38:34.41-year-old man in relation to their investigation into the school.
:38:35. > :38:38.Richard Watson who reported on the original story joins me with the
:38:39. > :38:41.latest. What has been happening? The police won't confirm the identity of
:38:42. > :38:46.the man they have arrested. We understand very surely that this is
:38:47. > :38:52.the principal, Mr Raza, who has been arrested. This story really began
:38:53. > :39:02.back in October with our investigation into alleged financial
:39:03. > :39:06.im ro-primity at the -- impriority at the axe cad me. We were leaked a
:39:07. > :39:11.report carried out in March/April last year, the report contained
:39:12. > :39:15.stark criticisms of financial mismanagement, alleged machines
:39:16. > :39:20.mismanagement and even allegations of some fraud there. There was talk
:39:21. > :39:27.in the report that some invoices had been fabricated, there was talk in
:39:28. > :39:32.the report that ?86,000 had been misappropriated in some way. The
:39:33. > :39:37.Government told us they would make sure ?76,000 was repaid to the
:39:38. > :39:40.Government. There was serious talk, and talk of the school being run
:39:41. > :39:45.like a family business. With many close relations of the principal
:39:46. > :39:49.being employed. Some people told us without due process. The report was
:39:50. > :39:53.carried out back in April, on the day of our investigation when it was
:39:54. > :39:59.broadcast, they actually published a report on their website, some might
:40:00. > :40:02.say that the two events were linked. That was that. And so the police
:40:03. > :40:09.investigation continues from now on. Thank you very much. The Syrian
:40:10. > :40:14.refugee crisis will not let up, two million have fled the country, many
:40:15. > :40:18.to camps on the Terekish border, in Syria itself it is said 6. 5 million
:40:19. > :40:21.people, including three million children have been displaced. The
:40:22. > :40:25.western side effort into Syria was to combine two things, aid and
:40:26. > :40:30.politics, supporting the rebel movements while supplying food, and
:40:31. > :40:34.shelter. The screening for delivering the -- the vehicle for
:40:35. > :40:37.delivering the relief, is mired in controversy over the allegations of
:40:38. > :40:46.squandering of aid money and organisational chaos. They are
:40:47. > :40:51.homeless, hungry, and freezing cold. In did you zero temperatures, Syrian
:40:52. > :41:08.refugees in southern Turkey must might for hand-outs of winter
:41:09. > :41:12.clothes. This some fled bombing and two families are sharing one room
:41:13. > :41:18.and one blanket. At least aid is distributed here. Most relief
:41:19. > :41:21.supplies must head into the chaos of Syria itself. Routes are blocked by
:41:22. > :41:24.fighting and aid workers kidnapped or killed. It has become an
:41:25. > :41:32.ever-greater challenge to ensure that help gets where it is needed
:41:33. > :41:37.most. The solution western powers came up with has its name stamped on
:41:38. > :41:41.hundreds of thousands of clothes and food packages, the ACU, an arm of
:41:42. > :41:48.the Syrian opposition that could advise the world on relief efforts.
:41:49. > :41:52.What foreign donors, particularly western donors wanted was a network
:41:53. > :41:56.of eyes and ears inside Syria who could provide reliable information
:41:57. > :42:01.about where aid like this was most needed and who could be trusted to
:42:02. > :42:07.deliver it. That is why just over a year ago Britain, the United States
:42:08. > :42:13.and France put intense diplomatic efforts to setting up the Assistance
:42:14. > :42:18.Co-Ordination Unit, a body that could channel aid. But it is a body
:42:19. > :42:26.many say hasn't delivered, despite those efforts. At its headquarters
:42:27. > :42:30.in the Terekish cities, Britain paid to install the front door, it helped
:42:31. > :42:36.equip the offices and train staff. With its allies, it also helped
:42:37. > :42:44.install the most prominent female opposition leader, the called lady
:42:45. > :42:48.of the revolution, Zahera Tassi to run it. She is a woman under siege,
:42:49. > :42:52.European states worried about lack of accountability have put off plans
:42:53. > :42:57.to pay the unit's salaries, after a year of infighting, many staff went
:42:58. > :43:08.on strike last month, complaining of waste and mismanagement. Internal
:43:09. > :43:12.ACU documents I have been looking at, and conversations with staff
:43:13. > :43:18.reveal widespread concerns about the alleged squandering of aid money,
:43:19. > :43:24.extravagant salaries, incompetence and cronyism. Those criticisms have
:43:25. > :43:28.blackened the name of the ACU among Syrians and made European
:43:29. > :43:31.Governments wary of giving cash to an institution they worked so hard
:43:32. > :43:36.themselves to setting up. This man is one of a number of former key ACU
:43:37. > :43:42.staff that Newsnight has talked to who have left the organisation,
:43:43. > :43:46.shocked at how it was being run. The mind set was basically we don't need
:43:47. > :43:49.exports, we know what to do, we can do everything, at the same time we
:43:50. > :43:56.look at the daily work and how everything was done was very chaotic
:43:57. > :44:00.and unorganised, it was done by people who have no clue what they
:44:01. > :44:04.are doing. What is the result of that been for Syria? A lot doesn't
:44:05. > :44:11.go through, things go late and not to the right place, they get
:44:12. > :44:17.distributed the wrong way. This is the British Department of
:44:18. > :44:21.Development and also this. Former staff have told us large bunkedles
:44:22. > :44:27.of cash were handed over to Syrian groups in plastic bags, no questions
:44:28. > :44:31.asked. In her first western interview, the manager denies any
:44:32. > :44:35.waste. That wouldn't happen that a council comes to you to ask for
:44:36. > :44:42.money and you go give them money? Not at all. Never? TRANSLATION: We
:44:43. > :44:47.only fund projects that are complete ideas. So there is no easy money,
:44:48. > :44:51.otherwise we wouldn't be properly accountable or transparent. But
:44:52. > :45:00.there are also questions about what it is funding? Mona was a councillor
:45:01. > :45:04.in Syria, where mainstream rebels are fighting an Al-Qaeda group,
:45:05. > :45:12.extremists gained power, she says, because the ACU failed to fund
:45:13. > :45:15.public services. TRANSLATION: With so little financial support our
:45:16. > :45:19.local council and other political forces are much weaker, so extremist
:45:20. > :45:27.groups emerged. We needed that support to prove our power. The west
:45:28. > :45:31.wanted the ACU to fund islands of moderation in Syria. But as gulf
:45:32. > :45:35.money has poured in, a plan to support civil courts against Islamic
:45:36. > :45:44.ones also appears to have been dropped. People like me and other
:45:45. > :45:49.people out there wanted the revolution to be inclusive, for
:45:50. > :45:55.everybody, maintaining civil law and maintaining peculiarity, this is
:45:56. > :46:01.being undermined over -- plurality, and this has been undermined every
:46:02. > :46:09.year. The head of the ACU says she is unfairly attacked, she has had
:46:10. > :46:13.successes, an early warning system and Syrian doctors detecting the
:46:14. > :46:16.emergence of polio. TRANSLATION: I have faced so much criticism I have
:46:17. > :46:20.lost a big part of my reputation. I'm still OK even though I have been
:46:21. > :46:27.burnt in this job, we have managed to build an institution and protect
:46:28. > :46:31.it from political disputes. In the unfoe significance capital of the
:46:32. > :46:36.Syrian opposition, the ACU strike is now over, the unit is planning
:46:37. > :46:40.reforms. Back at the border ever more refugees are flooding in. On
:46:41. > :46:44.the other side, aid agencies will continue to deliver as best they
:46:45. > :46:50.can. But hopes that the Syrian opposition might lead those efforts
:46:51. > :46:56.now look niave. The west's attempt to mix aid and politics has proved
:46:57. > :46:59.deeply frustrating. That's all from us tonight, Emily is back with you
:47:00. > :47:04.tomorrow, before we go, the floods haven't been all bad, it seems, not
:47:05. > :47:13.if you are a wake skater. Here is Nick Hedley taking full advantage of
:47:14. > :47:15.the torrent on the outskirts of Godalming. This can be dangerous, so
:47:16. > :47:52.don't try this at home. Good night. Good evening, a frosty start for
:47:53. > :47:53.many parts of the UK in the morning, it means there is the