19/09/2016 Newsnight


Emily is live in New York after the terror attack. Plus a look at the latest on Labour, deporting homeless EU migrants and Brian Cox on the post-fact age.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Now that we have this suspect in custody, the investigation can


focus on whether this individual acted


alone and what his motivations may have been.


The New York bombing suspect is caught after a shoot-out.


He was originally from Afghanistan, and he's put Islam back


...change the minds of the voters about Trump or Clinton?


Terror and the response to it has become acutely, quickly political.


How will it affect this presidential race?


These attacks and many others were made possible because of our


Also tonight: Therapeutic use exemptions.


Get to know the phrase, as we may hear a lot more


This sports scientist worries they're open to abuse


And Brian Cox on science in an age of unenlightenment.


There's something required of citizens, I think.


And what's required is that they understand, as


What it means for science to offer a view, how to weigh that.


Many New Yorkers woke this morning to the sound of an emergency alert


The accompanying message told them to look out for a particular man


suspected of involvement in planting bombs yesterday


By lunchtime in New York, they had him.


Thanks. Americans awoke this morning to an active manhunt after those


four Terror attempts over the course of the weekend. And by lunchtime


news of a shoot out and I suspect now in custody. That man was a


28-year-old Afghan born US citizen. His name is Ahmad Khan Rahami, and


police believe he may be critical in helping them piece together what


happened seven blocks from here in the Chelsea district of Manhattan


where, on Saturday night an IED exploded with 29 people injured.


There were several other attempted explosions around New Jersey, too.


And at this critical juncture in the electoral cycle, many are wondering


what terror and the response to it will do to the presidential race. We


heard from Donald Trump first thing this morning suggesting that the


police's hands could be tied by political correctness, and then


emerged Hillary Clinton. She tried to remind the American people of the


part she played in the capture of Osama bin Laden and called on them


not to demonise an entire race or religion. So how will their rhetoric


affects the presidential race? Have a look at this report.


Three attempted terror attacks on the same day on US soil. An


explosion. Pipe bombs and pressure cookers. Crude devices and last


night they found several more stuffed into a backpack in a bin.


The speculation from the Elizabeth police Department is that they were


not timed to go off, therefore whether they are being investigated


or followed that they were disposed of in a garbage can in a hasty


manner. This is a city on high alert, awaiting the arrival of world


leaders for a UN summit. And after a morning manhunt and shoot out, this


is the man being held in custody, Mr Rahami, an Afghan born US national


whose picture has been splashed across TV networks all morning. So


far nothing to be said with any certainty except this, that 15 weeks


before an election, it becomes political. We are going to have to


be tough, I think this is something that will happen perhaps more and


more over the country. You mean more terrorist strikes? Yeah, because we


are weak, our country has been weak, we are letting people in by the tens


of thousands, you've got to stop it. And from Clinton, this. We going


after the bad guys and we are going to get them, but we are not going to


go after an entire religion and give Isis exactly what it wants in order


for them to their position. The Manhattan device went off just as


the president was on his way here. His last speech to the Congressional


Black Caucus board where he begged African-Americans to continue his


legacy by voting for her. Any threat to national-security can be a major


Game Changers, and this at a time when the Clinton campaign no longer


seems so sure footed. The White House is just a mile or so up the


road from here and over the course of the summer Hillary Clinton's path


to it looked clear. She was far enough ahead in crucial swing states


for the team to feel quite confident. Over the last week or so


polls have narrowed dramatically and now the team is wondering if they


have to change, too. Donna Brazil chairs the Democratic National


committee. Is she concerned about the current state of the race? Are


you worried about the polls narrow win? We knew all along that the


polls would be tight going into the final spread to the campaign. But we


are very confident that we have a great campaign, extraordinary


leadership across the country, looking forward to the first debate


and the countdown to election day. Does the fact the polls have


tightened me in the campaign will have to change, you will have to


change? We expect the polls to tighten. What happens in a


presidential year is that the American people decide at the last


minute. Some days they are with Hillary, some days they are not. At


guess what? Overall they are looking for the kind of leadership that will


lead this country forward. Outside the DC Beltway they are not social.


He soccer mums are here to cheer, but sometimes their hearts aren't in


it. Kind of sad to think that we have two candidates that nobody can


really get their arms around. I think that they've both made


mistakes, and America is watching, and we are not stupid. A game in


many ways is Hillary's to lose. The changing demographics of America


mean Democrats have fundamental advantages in the electoral map with


more routes to win. Right now she needs them.


Clinton's campaign is understood to be quietly pessimistic


about both Ohio and Iowa, which Obama took twice.


Florida, the largest prize, will remain competitive


It is possible for her to lose the big three, they say,


But she'll have to fight twice as hard for all


And of course finding electoral maths is one thing, finding


electoral viagra is quite another, particularly among this crowd,


millennial 's, who bring idealism to eight backdrop of jaded politics.


But perhaps Hillary's problem is less tangible, her campaign has


stamina but she lacks momentum. She does not energise the way Obama did


with his message of hope, or the way Donald Trump does with a message of


anger. Americans feel they have known have 25 years, and even


amongst some Democrats there is a sense of enthusiasm gap as they call


it. As Obama said at the weekend, hope is on the ballot, but fear is,


too. The remark may yet backfire. If terror moves centre stage at this


critical point of the cycle, just one week before the presidential


debates, Americans may be looking for reassurance in whatever form


that takes. And that's the point, really. These


attacks or attempted attacks, mercifully not fatal, but they have


reminded Americans of their vulnerability and make them question


who of those presidential choices would make them feel more secure.


Let's pull that apart with my guests. I just learned that Kurt


Volker was a CIA analyst for many years.


If I said that people are looking for the candidate that says


security, what would you say to that? I think people are scared and


the rhetoric we are hearing from some of the candidates, especially


Trump is meant to play on that paranoia. As far as a person who


spells security, it is very vague. That could go either way. They could


be looking for somebody who is strong and a leader with experience,


and Hillary Clinton is certainly trying to draw on that and build on


that assumption. But they could be looking for somebody who is from the


outside of the foreign policy establishment, and going to shake


things up, and that is what Donald Trump is counting on. It was very


noticeable on Saturday night that Donald Trump was first up,


immediately called it, there is a bomb in New York. Hillary Clinton


emerged later and urged caution and the need for patience. She seems to


have changed slightly, as he pushed her into a place where she has to


come out sounding a little bit stronger? She does. There are two


competing narratives going on. The Donald Trump narrative is that the


administration, the US government, the Obama Clinton foreign policy,


they don't get it, they are not keeping us safe, the terrorists are


out there. So that's one narrative. On the other side you have this


narrative, dynamic spearing is, I've been in the Senate, I'm in the


situation room, I understand these issues, trying to project a serious,


confident image, as Hillary Clinton is trying to do. The problem is that


the public feels they don't get it, and is inclined to swing toward


somebody like Donald Trump promising, even on a lack of


experience, that he can do better. Hillary Clinton made reference to


Trump obliquely saying we must not demonise a race or a nation. Do


people here from her, somebody, there were all the questions about


whether Obama would ever call out Islamist fanaticism, do people still


watch her language in that way? Sure, people on the right certainly


do, and a lot of Trump 's supporters or people leaning that way are


certainly looking at that. But on the other side a lot of people are


looking for her to make even more of a campaign issue of Trump's racism.


The deplorables in another word, did that work or not? No, that was not a


good choice, that was her elitism coming out which never helps. But I


think there is segment of the electorate, racial minorities,


people on the left who voted for Bernie, for whom Hillary Clinton's


main selling point is that she is not a demagogue racist. So for her


to emphasise that is a good choice for those voters, but it's tricky


because there are also other voters. And for those on the left, they are


now looking essentially at two pretty hawkish candidates. If you


had to ask what foreign policy would be like under Clinton or under


Trump, you don't know who would be more actively involved, right?


Hillary Clinton comes off as a very traditional national-security


leader, following on Obama, somebody described her campaign has a Obama


heavy. Trump sometimes comes off as isolationist, sometimes very


aggressive. So it is much harder to know what you are going to get. I


think that Trump is trying to portray that he understands it and


will deal with it. That is what he is pitching to them. What do you


make of the race more widely? We have definitely seen a tightening of


the polls, we know that there are supplies as every week at this


stage, but would Clinton's team be worried by this and would baby


changing? They are absolutely worried about this. They would be


crazy not to be and be crazy not to try to change more. They need to do


more to appeal to minority groups. She is spending a lot of time,


curiously enough, at fundraisers. He's at these big rallies which look


very public and cheese at fundraisers, does she need funds?


It's a strange choice, she has a lot of funds already and she has the


elite behind her, I mean, where else are they going to go? I don't think


that the establishment needs to be convinced she is the right


candidate. I think she needs to get out and talk to people.


Mathematically it is harder for Trump? It is much harder, looking at


the electoral college, the big states have always gone Democrat,


California biggest among them. At the same time he is having a real


run for some swing states that have not gone Republican for a while,


Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Nevada. He's trying to rack


up the real path to the presidency here. One thing I would say as


regards to where we are in this election, I would say it is dead


even and we don't know who will come out ahead and it will probably be


decided by something we don't know yet. Sounds like an extraordinary


few weeks still to go. Obama has congratulated the police for


catching the suspect, the man they believe may have a connection to


these bombs, at he urged supporters on Saturday to choose hope over


fear, returning to his message, very important if people wanted to


consider his legacy, to vote for her -- continue his legacy. The


president really coming into the race at this point to back Hillary


Clinton, too. The hackers known as the Fancy


Bears, have been releasing more data today on the medical conditions


of selected international Society generally frowns


upon the leaking of But is it possible that people


will at some point say these hackers have done us favour by alerting us


to a grey area in relation What is being leaked are details


of therapeutic use exemptions - TUEs - licences for athletes to take


drugs for good medicinal reasons. Today, it emerged that Mo Farah had


two TUEs over the years; golfer Justin Rose and Rafal Nadal also


had details leaked. A lot of attention has focussed


on Sir Bradley Wiggins, who had exemptions to take


a powerful steroid called triam-cinolone on several occasions,


just days ahead of major races, one of which was the 2012


Tour De France, which he won. World Anti-Doping Agency say there


is no problem. Now - there's no suggestion


Sir Bradley, or any of the other A little earlier, I spoke


to Dr Jeroen Swart from Cape Town. Dr Swart is much published sport


scientist who last year defended Chris Froome against charges of drug


cheating, having carried out He explained why he's less happy


with what he's heard It is not one single point,


it is a cluster of points and when you look at them


in isolation, it might seem fine, but we take them all together


in context, it leaves The first of those is simply


the statements that were made by Bradley Wiggins himself


in his autobiography in 2012 where he specifically stated


that he had only ever used a needle or an injection for immunisations


and for a drip when he was ill. And the team's policy,


which was publicly stated, If one of the riders were sick


they would rather send them home rather than use


a prohibited substance These details that were leaked


contradict both of those statements. It is simply that they


contradict the statements The other aspects are that


the substance that was used is quite a strong, long acting


corticosteroid. It is not used frequently


in the control of asthma and allergic conditions,


it is used as a last resort. The other problem with that


substance is it is the same substance that has been used


by athletes specifically in cycling With a lot of testimonials


from ex-professional cyclists, some who have been caught


using prohibited substances and they all happen to have views


coincidently on the exact same drug. And some of them have reported


to have abused it in You have been a defender


of Chris Froome, haven't you? And last year, you helped


carry out tests on him, which you indicated were,


if you like, helpful for Froome, against those saying


he was cheating with drugs. And there have been details linked


of his use of these TUEs as well. It is not just Chris Froome,


I think I have been a fairly firm I have been involved in cycling


for a long time. I have raced professionally


as a cyclist in the mountain I have a strong


passion for the sport. And during the time that


I participated and I have been involved in the sport in other ways,


I have obviously seen all of these scandals and we always


want to be optimistic and hope that we have reached


a new era where the sport is going to be cleaner and it


certainly looks as though we are in better times than we have


been in the past. And so, when a team such as Sky


comes along and presents an image of being squeaky clean and certainly


in terms of their stated intentions to do things by the book,


and as transparently as possible and then does well in terms


of their performances. That gives one hope and optimism


and my approach has been to wait for evidence that that is not


the case and rather than speculate and go on hearsay, and up


until recently and specifically these TUE leaks, my position


was more in support of them We have no evidence


that they have cheated at all. This is a perfectly


legal way of getting Last one, if I might,


corticosteroids, are these really drugs now that you think needs extra


regulation and extra care? If you look at one of the scientific


studies into them and their performance from a French


university, the colleagues published the study where they took


recreationally competitive cyclists, they exposed them to a week


of intense training and before that training week and after that


training week they asked them to ride at 75% of their peak power


output and they then give them another drug during a week


of training as well. During the week of training


without the corticosteroids, they improved their time by about,


approximately ten minutes. The corticosteroid week


when they trained with the exact same training, together


with the dose of the corticosteroids daily, they improved their time


by approximately 50 minutes. They almost doubled the time


they could hold 75% That is quite


a dramatic performance. The use of corticosteroids together


with strenuous training resulted in a far greater improvement


in performance after one week So there is evidence


that corticosteroids enhance endurance and


athletic performance. They are therefore prohibited


in competition, but at the moment, there is no regulation


of corticosteroids out of competition and that means that


athletes can go and train and consume corticosteroids to


whatever extent they like and then And if you look at the results


of that study, that certainly indicates that they could


have a performance enhancement by using corticosteroids


as an aid to train. And lots of anecdotal


evidence from former professionals who have been


caught using prohibited We spoke to Team Sky and to


Sir Bradley Wiggins office today. They both referred us to earlier


statements they've made, emphasising that all TUEs


were applied with the approval So Bradley Wiggins has said that


when he wrote in his autobiography about never having had an injection


he was referring to the historical practice of intravenous jacks --


injections of performance enhancers, not the intramuscular 1-person --


reference. Teams get it was wrong to say it did not allow riders compete


under TUEs. At around midday on Saturday,


Jeremy Corbyn is very likely to be re-elected as Labour leader


and the recalcitrant parliamentary party


will have to live with him, notwithstanding its


obvious misgivings. The great debate among senior Corbyn


opponents is whether to re-join A choice described as


whether to serve or sulk. Meanwhile we can tell


you what Team Corbyn's plan is, for what to do the the moment it


wins the leadership again - it'll start preparing


for a general election. Our political editor Nick Watt


is with me. What can you tell us? What we have


learned is that Jeremy Corbyn is planning to put the Labour Party on


a General Election fitting if he wins that leadership contest as


seems likely on Saturday. He accepts that Theresa May has said no to a


snap election but he thinks she might hold an election next year for


two possible reasons, one, she may need a mandate for her Brexit


negotiations as a way of overcoming divisions in her party and the


second reason is she may possibly look at the splits in the Labour


Party. We might see a number of appointments,


some reorganisation and an acceleration of the policy-making


process to make sure that the Labour Party is ready for that. At the


front of his mind is the hope that the prospect of an election will


instil some discipline in his party. I also found out that Jeremy Corbyn


is actually prepared to facilitate an early General Election, if


Theresa May table a Commons motion calling for such an early election,


he would instruct his Labour MPs to vote for it because under the fixed


term Parliament act, that can only happen if two thirds of MPs vote for


it. A lot of this is around an attempt to unify the party but you


have news on his mission to do that as well. Jeremy Corbyn has been


involved in an exercise to try and woo back former frontbenchers. I


spoke to two former members of the Shadow Cabinet who said they would


accept an invitation, the former Shadow Welsh Secretary said that if


he wins it will be a time for everyone to be positive and another


former frontbencher who was very critical of Jeremy Corbyn at the


time of those resignations, said it would be time to pull together. A


much larger group of former frontbencher say they regularly come


back if the national executive would consider to rival proposals, one


table by Tom Watson is to restore the old system, the second, a system


favoured by Jeremy Corbyn is to give party members are far greater say.


The Tom Watson proposal is favoured by most of the former frontbenchers,


the Jeremy Corbyn proposal is favoured by a few. The election next


year, the idea of an election next year, it is not only Jeremy Corbyn


who is saying that is one to watch. I have been speaking to Paddy


Ashdown, and he says that if Theresa May goes for a soft Brexit, when she


triggers the process to take us out early next year, he believes that


would lead to a civil war, which could bounce her into holding an


early election. This is what he told me.


If she chooses as I think she will, something that's in the best


interests of Britain, if it has to be Brexit, i.e.


continued access to the single market, she has 100 MPs


who are going to say, up with this we will not put.


She then loses the majority in the House of Commons.


Sooner or later she has to bring that back to the house.


She will find herself in that conundrum.


Labour will say no for opportunistic reasons, they won't support her.


If she wants to get that through, she


So she doesn't think she wants an election,


I think she's honest in saying she won't get one.


But I'm not sure that the civil war in the Tory party, not


yet visible but will become increasingly visible as she


identifies that, will make that the only way


Paddy Ashdown's theory there. Thank you very much.


There is freedom of movement across Britain and the EU


at the moment, but back in May the Home Office qualified the right


of Europeans to reside here, by saying that those who have no


where to live, can be sent back to their own country.


Now, this means EU citizens who are found living on the street


for whatever reason can be forcibly repatriated.


It is a way of reducing the number of street sleepers -


which have been boosted by foreigners struggling


Katie Inman has been looking at how the policy is working.


I would say that we would have around 50 to 60 people sleeping


rough and many of them would move out, only for the summertime,


because they are happy to live in these conditions


But some people have to stay all the time because they do not


Do they know anyone who has been removed or sent


They know some people who have been removed by immigration


TRANSLATION: If you're working, it is not a problem


but if you cannot find work to support yourself, it is hard.


If you're not paid, they will throw you out.


They are earning around ?50 a day and around ?35 is spent for food


and ?15 they then send back to their families in Romania.


We are looked down on and seen as bad as if we are here


When you came here from Latvia five years ago, what did you hope for?


It sort of was arranged but it did not work out.


I do not shoplift, I do not rob people,


I simply try to survive and someone is basically making a wrong


And so, I am being brushed with the same brush of other


homeless people, drug addicts and stuff.


The issue around whether or not somebody should be removed


is invariably nothing to do with economic inactivity,


but has always traditionally been associated with some sort


of criminalisation process, having been imprisoned, etc...


and one of the things that is clear is that you cannot remove someone


simply on the basis of poverty, but rather


Over at the Royal Society this evening, the Insight Investment


Brian Cox has been hosting the event, and the winner


is Andrea Wulf for a biography of the German explorer and


If you want to know one thing about Humboldt, it should be that


more things have been named after him than anyone else.


Well, this year's science book prize comes at a time of apprehension


for many in the science community, over funding and collaboration post


Brexit, and over the place of science in a world


in which there is diminishing deference to expert opinion.


I went down to the Royal Society earlier, to meet Andrea


Looking down the slopes and the mountain ranges in the distance,


everything Humboldt had seen in the previous years came together.


Everything that he'd ever observed fell into place.


This new idea of nature was to change the way people


The most common reaction I got when I said I


was writing a book about Humboldt was a blank face because very few


The weird thing is there are more people, places and plants named


There is a Humboldt current, Humboldt Penguin,


Even the state of Nevada was almost called Humboldt


when the name was discussed in the 1860s.


We would be saying Las Vegas, Humboldt, now.


I mean, Brian, he was doing his science at a time when


science, I mean, you make it sound fun but it was much more fun in his


day because there was so much you could discover.


You could be discovering acres of the world,


We've just been discussing this actually.


You saw it in Britain with people like


Joseph Banks and on through to Darwin, and you see


There is always a sense of regret, I think, that now


Regret is probably the wrong word because we have a vast amount of


knowledge that no one human being can get across, and it is very


Perhaps this time, the 1860s to the 1870s


was the last time you could do that.


I think he is really the last polymath.


He dies in 1859, that's really the last moment that one


person can hold all the knowledge in their head.


After that science is


specialised so much, scientists crawl into their narrowing


disciplines, and this kind of holistic view


It's rather interesting because in the


book you talk about Darwin and his relationship to Humboldt.


You say Darwin was standing on Humboldt's


Do we slightly overestimate Darwin's contribution


Given that quite a lot of it was there in the


work Humboldt had been doing, and others?


mistakes we tend to do is create these geniuses, these kind of


amazing figures in history, where actually they don't act out on their


own, they are very much part of what's going on around them.


They are not just coming up with


What Humboldt is doing is, for example, inspiring


Darwin to actually go to South America.


So Darwin says he would have never boarded the Beagle


If he'd not boarded the Beagle he would never have


But he's also using Humboldt's books as


an inspiration for his own writing, so they are very similar in style,


because Humboldt combines poetic landscape descriptions with hard


scientific data, very much like Darwin does


But he also learns about, Humboldt writes about the


But other scientists are also doing this.


I think we need to see them in the context.


The scientific community, the Royal Society has been


worried about Brexit, complete change of subject


Worried about Brexit implications for collaboration


The government can sort out the funding


and say we'll make sure you are funded, is that enough


to satisfy the scientific community about some


of the nerves there have been about Brexit?


No, I think the funding, although important, is secondary to


the freedom of movement of people, the freedom of movement of ideas.


That's always been central to the scientific endeavour.


I myself, for certain, it's


At the last count there were


something like 88 countries collaborating, it increases all the


There is the European Southern Observatory which is the world's


There are big international projects.


And if it turns out that people can't move freely to


study, move freely to cooperate, then I think that's more damaging.


We've always dealt with short-term variations in funding.


Funding goes up and down and we weather the storm.


If we, as a country, cut ourselves off, if we make it


more difficult to collaborate across national borders,


then I think that is something more serious.


The Brexiteers I'm sure will say that's


Before we go, some breaking news while we have been on air, an aid


convoy carrying emergency supplies of food and medicine has been


attacked by air strike in Syria. The convoy was bound for rebel held


areas of Aleppo. It's unclear who was responsible for the attacks but


it is a clear sign that the tentative ceasefire signed a week


ago, well, it appears to be over. At least 12 aid workers are believed to


have been killed. We'll follow that up in tomorrow's programme. But that


is it for tonight. We leave you with the work


of inventor and artist John Edmark. His speciality is spinning


round sculptures at a speed carefully synchronised with a strobe


light in a design strictly dictated by fibanacci


numbers, all in order to... # Round round get around


# I get around # Get around round round


# I get around # From town to town


# I get around # I'm a real cool head


# Get around round round


# I get around # I'm makin' real good bread


# Round round get around I get around


# Get around round round I get around


# Get around round round I get around


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Emily is live in New York after the terror attack. Plus a look at the latest on Labour, deporting homeless EU migrants and Brian Cox on the post-fact age.

Download Subtitles