>> welcome to aljazeera, and here are tonight's top stories. aljazeera has secured documents about benghazi, an earthquake hit the center of japan. the trem senior located 400 miles south of tokyo. there were no reports of irregularities in the fukushima nuclear plant or any casualties. john kerry and chuck hagel answered questions today for the senate relations committee. and they reached agreement on

the draft authorization of military force in syria that would ban any use of u.s. forces on the ground. most of yosemite park is opened now that the stubborn rim fire is contained. humid weather today allowed them to make progress. >> . >> thousands have taken to the streets in egypt again. the march outside of cairo, the demonstrations marched since the ouster of president morsy. consider this comes up next.

>> an conclusive aljazeera report on failures in diplomatic security in the taj of benghazi. we check in with an investigative unit. and terrifying concerns in north korea and terrifying things come to light about the arsenal. consider this, how serious the nortnorthkorea threat is. who are they and are they making the products you buy more expensive some and it's well-known that whites are not permitted to say the "n" word, but how about blacks? whether it's okay to say the word even in private. we begin with breaking news and an exclusive report. aljazeera's investigative unit has obtained an investigative report on the benghazi diplomatic post that cost the

lives of americans, including chris stevens, it details 30 years of failures that caused problems around the world. for more, i'm joined from washington by investigative correspondent, josh bernstein. and thank you for joining us. what you found in this report raises alarming concerns around the world. specifically with the tragedy in benghazi. >> it certainly does. it's a 29-page report that highlights critical failures at the state department. the report was put together by a five member panel of high level intelligence officials. they traveled the world to evaluate security, 24t they visd kenya and beirut and they covered how the security department has been ignoring recommendations for decades, recommendation that's date back almost 30 years ago to the attacks in beirut, where both the embassy and the marine

barracks and one of the things that they really hone in on is they have been recommending for years that there be a position created for the undersecretary of dip attic security. this is recommended by bobby enman, and they have failed to do that. and they say that might be one of the root causes of confusion, a lack of communication, and accountability, the report highlights that there are no clear line of authorities, no minimum security standards, no formal risk manage:. >> is there a sense of outrage in the report? you mentioned the inman report back in 1983, after the embassy bombing and the barrack bombings in beirut. and then came kenya and tanzania, those bombings in 1998.

more recommendations, and any sense of outrage that nothing had been fixed? >> well, i wouldn't say outrage. the report is very careful not to focus blame on any one individual, but it does highlight all of the shortcomings. it raises points about waivers for security standards. one of the things that came out of the beirut bombings are the inman standards, and those are to increase security at diplomatic posts all over the world. bobby inman had recommended they rebuild several embassies and make them more secure. set them back farther from the road so they're not vulnerable to truck bombs, similar to what we saw in beirut. one of the things that you get out of this, 13 years later, after those recommendations, many of them were ignored. and approximately 15 diplomatic

posts around the world met those standards, and many of them still don't meet the standards. i wouldn't say outrage, but concern. >> and as a result, what happened in tanzania and kenya, two of those didn't meet the requirements. when you look at the report, there are all sorts of security issues, people were aware that there were different problems there. the british ambassador had almost been assassinated and the red cross said there were bombs at the mission. to address the security issues, and not to address them, but even identify them? >> it says that they failed to recognize the surrounding threats. there have been several reports on this issue. there was th the accountability review board. and lieberman's review. and they said that in both

swayings, they ignored the surroundings, and they would only act if there was a specific intelligence threat against that facility. now in benghazi, that facility was a temporary mission, and that's important, the report does cite that it allowed the department of state to avoid the inman standards. and the report really hones in on that. i want to read the quote. it said that it allowed them to -- they opened up these temporary facilities, they called them temporary missions, and it allowed them to avoid or circumvent security like they did in benghazi. >> i hate to put new the position of an analyst, but tomorrow night, we have the authors of the book, under fire, which goes into what happened in benghazi in terrible detail. do you think that between this

book coming out and the report that you're reporting on now, that this is going to give more fire to the benghazi story, and there's going to have to be more accountability at the department of state. >> certainly, there should be accountability and certainly they need to address the concerns. these have been addressed over and over and over in reports dating back almost 30 years. this is obviously a developing story. and we areertin we are effortint from the department of state. and the members of congress to see what action they're going to take. >> we turn now to north korea. while the world has been focused on syria, dictator, kim jong un, the south korea defense ministry said there was a high possibility that the north could put a nuke on a short range

ballistic missile. the poison gas attack in a suburb. and kim jong un, in the prison camps, it according to the committee for mum rights in north korea, this we're showing you here is a satellite picture of a tower at camp 22. it once housed as many as 30,000 people. after two years of a food shortage, the population dropped to 8,000 survivors, and now the tower is gone, and the camp closed. and no one knows what happened to those who may have survived. joining me, with the committee for human rights in north korea, and gordon chang, a journalist, showdown, north korea takes on the world. gordon, i would like to start with you, an alarming report out

of accident sant south korea, ah korea getting closer and closer to nuclearizing missiles, and how concerned should we be? >> we should be see concerned. robert gates said that it would take north korea less than five years to hit the continental united states with a ballistic missile. and though he didn't say so, he was talking about a nuclear tipped missile. we're down the road from that. the north koreans have been making a lot of progress, and i'm not surprised by this, and the north koreans were going to get this some time. and we have to face this because the establishment in washington has not wanted to. >> the obama administration is asking congress to approve a military strike on syria for allegedly using nerve gas on civil wraps, and on friday, secretary kerry made this connection.

>> it's about hezbollah, and every dictator that might contemplate weapons of mass destruction. >> do you think that the regime would back off of its threats if the u.s. followed through with its threat to attack syria? because the reality is that north korea has kept doing all sorts of things, and may be involved in helping syria develop its weapons of mass destruction. and no threats to the north koreas have ever been followed through on. >> the north korea regime is in possession of chemical weapons, and this is a regime that has committed countless acts of unspeakable brutality against a large number of its own people. in order to ensure it's own survival, the regime has to use chemical weapons inside it's borders, outside of its borders,

and against its own people. it will do it regardless of what happens in syria. >> we have turned a blind eye to syria's chemical weapons, and we have turned a blind eye to syria, and we have let the north koreans get away with things, and if they have generated it in syria. >> the one question we have not heard, where syria got it's chemical weapons, and north korea has been the major supplier of those. they have built at least two factories for the syrians, they supply expertise all the time. and they supply parts, and this includes military officers in the front lines of the syrian civil war, presumably to help

get the weapons. they were spotted near aleppo, the site of one of the first chemical attacks this year. we don't talk about it. this affects the united states. whether chemical or biological, it affects us. >> greg, your group goes into, let's switch gears, and the massive atrocity we referred to today, there are a series of camps throughout north korea that have even generations of camps for all sorts of cripes, correct? >> -- crimes, correct? >> absolutely correct. camp 22 is one of six known political prison camps in north korea, and there are up to 200,000 political prisoners being held at these camps,

sometimes up to three generations of the same family. these are those perceived as disloyal to the reg seem. regime, and those perceived to be wrong thinkers, and have wrong associations. the prisoners are subjected to forced labor, torture, induced malnutritionmalnutrition. >> is it possible that 30,000 people could have lost their lives? >> we know that there were 30,000 prisoners at camp 22. and between the summer of this year, the remaining 3,000 to 8,000 prisoners were relocated to the other detention facilities. with he don't know what happened to between 22,000 and 27,000 prisoners in the process. we have a duty and a mission to make sure that the north korea regime does not engage in attempts to erase the evidence

and eliminate the witnesses. >> that's a significant genocide. and when people look back at world war ii, many times the most critical thing that's said of politicians in the allied countries was that they turned a blind eye to knowledge that there were nazi death camps where so many were being held. and is this the scale that the west needs to pay attention to in. >> i'm afraid that we have barely scratched the ouches is. surface. we have a fairly good idea of what's happening, through accounts by former prisoners and guards, and sources inside of north korea that we can contact on smuggled chinese cellphones, but however, we might not yet be aware of the full-scale of the

atrocities committed in the north korea prison camp system. >> how do we engage with north korea? there have been talks in the past and they have grown down, and throats don't work. and now south korea has offered in food aid. which is a small amount, but given how poor north korea is, will that help? >> i think that it will help the north korea people, but only if it's monitored. the problem in the past, the rice given to the north korea regime, and then it ends up in the army's hands, and it doesn't do the people of north korea any good. it's important that the stuff be monitored. and if we can monitor it, we can undermine the regime. then the north korea people know that the rest of the world cares, and the north korea officials who are supposed to be minding the aid workers, they go out and see how bad conditions

are in their own country. they insist on monitoring, and the u.n. has been bad on monitoring as well. >> we could conceivably undermine the regime, the family reconciliation program, which had been suspended by north korea, and now it's restarting. i assume you think that's a good thing. >> i wouldn't say that would necessarily undermine the regime. the program took place previously. and i think it's the opportunity for the north korea regime to build some credibility. currently, it has zero credibility on the international scene. it has broken all the international promises it has made. generally, the north korea regime has tried to ex exact maximum benefits with exchanges. and this is part of the process that the president of south korea has put in place.

trust building has to be a two-way road, as gordon mentioned, if humanitarian assistance is to be dispersed in north korea, he has to make sure that those who need it most get it. and the industrial zone have been resumed, north korea has to ensure that national labor standards are observed inside of the zone. if the family reunions resume, then that has to happen, having in mind the wellbeing of those families. >> two more things i want to address, with you, greg. north korea holding a christian missionary, kenneth bay, he's in a hospital. because of illness issues, he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, and any chance they're going to let him go soon? they seem to keep taking american prisoners and using them as negotiating tips all the time. >> we remember in 2009,

president bill clinton traveled to north korea to rescue the two journalists, and jimmy carter traveled to north korea to rescue gomez, a native bostonian taken by the north koreans, and in this particular case, kenneth bay, it's obvious that the north korea an regime is trying to use him as leverage. north korea committed a great breach, with robert king, on human rights. it had been widely reported in the press that ambassador king would have traveled to north korea to secure the rescue of kenect bates. >> the massiveness of this regime, reports that kim jong un ordered an ex-girlfriend executed and made their families

look on while these people were murdered. can we possibly negotiate with people who do things like this? >> i don't think so. we tried to negotiate with the north koreans, bilateral, in neutral zones, in the united states, and we have never been able to do that. i think it's because the north korea an regime is not willing to deal with the international community in good faith. it goes to show that the regime has turned to the dark side. and this regime needs to be destroyed in one way or another. >> we appreciate you both being with us today. scary situation in north korea. up next, israel tests its defense system as an attack in syria comes close to reality. and how are they prepared for the future? and what do you think? fielding your questions questios

>> high anxiety remains in the air as the u.s. debates military intervention in syria. they detected objects headed in syria's direction, ask israel confirmed they had tested a new air defense system over the mediterranean sea. they posted a 33 second video of a jet releasing an upgraded version of the sparrow intercepter missile, which simulates the long-range missiles of syria and iran. it was a long-range test.

but it was a sign of the times. joining me to talk about syria, former chief correspondent for the washington post. she's now at stanford urt. and chuck, a senior fellow at harvard university and former national security adviser in israel. and he joins us from his home in israel. jeanine, i want to start with you, on tuesday, israel coming up when they were discussing the strike on syria. were you surprised by the reaction in israel this past weekend, when president obama said he was going to seek congressional approval before he attacked and intervened in syria? >> well, prime minister netanyahu cracked down and ordered them not to respond because israel does not want to make this about israel. they want to give syria no

reason to attack israel. and will they want to at least limit the chances that they're going to attack israel. and meanwhile, as you pointed out on capitol hill, secretary kerry and others were making is very much about israel for different reasons because they wanted to garner support. >> chucker you're in israel, and how is it there? >> there was initial concern when the president announced that he was turning to congress, and people were concerned that this might reflect a lack of american resolve. about you i think this the last day or two, people have come to respond that super powers respond differently when it comes to small countries like israel. the u.s. opinion is very close to israel. we both share a sense of deep moral outrage over what has happened. and the repeated use of chemical weapons, and we both have very deep strategic interests at

stake. >> net an yo netanyahu is no shg violet. and is it that strong, the feeling there, that he doesn't want to be seen as israel pushing the u.s. to any action, and they want to back off? >> yes, they don't want to be seen as pushing the u.s. into action. and at the same time, there is the sense of moral outrage that we all share. and in israel's case, it is heightened by the fact that the jewish people have a feeling about chemical weapons. millions of jews were gassed in the hall coist. anholocaust. and we're very sensitive to that. and syria has a huge chemical and biological arsenal as well. and of course the really big

issue in the background is the iranian nuclear program. and how the united states deals with syria at the moment might be an indication of how it will deal with iran in the future. >> let's address that right now. there's a lot of back and forth in the hearings of what it means for israel. and let's lesson. >> we need to consider the consequences of not acting. our silence will be a message to the ayatollah about requiring nuclear weapons. israel would no longer feel we have their back and they would be hard pressed to restrain themselves. >> we know that they have not been restrained itself. and they have hit syria several teams this year without syria taking any retaliatory action, and what are the lessons there? >> i think that's one of the reasons that israelis are far more concerned about u.s.

inaction than action. netanyahu believes that he is handle any scud missile attack, and they don't believe that syria will respond even if there is a u.s. strike. because they didn't in any of the four that you mentioned. in july, israel took out a stormy facility for anti-ship missiles, because it's fill facilitating this strike. and the u.s. and israel are very much aligned here. they are much more concerned about the signaled inaction sent to iran about what red lines mean than any potential danger to the strike. so that's the main thing on israeli's minds, he's concerned about the gas attacks and things like that, but much more about iran. if anything, israel will fear the congressmen against this. they will fear that the u.s. will get bogged down in syria

and get distracted by iran, which is the real threat. >> the gas masks and the fear. i was in israel covering the middle east in the late 90s. and there was a fear, people were getting the gas masks and i was assigned a hazmat suit. and there's a lot of fear in the streets. is there that feeling there today, chuck? >> no, i don't think there's that kind of fear. i don't know of a single observer in israel who believes that the syrians will respond against israel in this case, and less of a chance that they will retaliate against the u.s. i think that the syrian interest is to get through it as quickly as they can. because the last thing they want to do is turn a highly limited american operation into a larger one, and they know if they

respond against israel, they risk both an israeli response and an american one. >> let's go to our associate producer, hermella for that. >> on twitter, they want to know, does u.s. action on syria make an iranian attack on israel more or less likely. >> it makes it more likely. but the iranians, and israel are looking at this most closely. the united states president declared that the use of chemical weapons is a red line. and they have now been used a few times. if the united states does not respond, people will take notice of that, and certainly the iranians. >> at the hearings today, senator rand paul wondered if a strike would boomerang on israel. stability in the middle east is

of national interest for our country, and will it be more or less stable. and i think there will be arguments on both sides. this is what senatorkery responded to senator paul. >> i can make it crystal clear to you that israel will be less safe unless the united states takes this action. iran and hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad. and iran and hezbollah are the two biggest enemies of israel. >> jeanine, who do you agree with? >> secretary kerry is echoing what they're saying. that israel is much more afraid of iran, but you have to remember, while the israelis are not expecting retaliation, chuck

night disagree with me, but they're not prepared for the attack on the home front that hezbollah did in 2006. that war really showed israel's vulnerability from the kind of attacks from hezbollah that could happen here. though i agree it's very unlikely. and the other point, that the united states aligns, and they deliver these kinds of chemical weapons. they are divided at the highest security levels and some see it as an opportunity to break that iran-hezbollah access, and others are much more afraid, including net inyahoo on the opposition. so we have to agree with the strike, but we'll have to see if the united states is in line with the views on of this. >> all right, jeanine and chuck,

hope you'll be back with us. coming up, what are patrols.

>> consider this.

conventional wisdom tells us that a pack is a source of protection when the common man has a great idea. but is it being abused? we have seen patent trolls, to the point where google and yahoo spent more on litigation. going after the patent trolls. >> imagine that you start the business of your dreams, and that one store turns to ten, and then you get a letter from a patent troll. they came to hold a patent on a common business practice. store locater on your website. >> and says. >> either you pay us $100,000 or we'll sue you for everything you've got. >> many of these lawsuits deal with software and new zealand abolished all software patents.

is that the direction that the u.s. should be going as well? he sold to google in 2007 and then went on to cofound find the best.com, which is in litigation with a so add patent troll. and thank you for joining us. >> good to be here. >> i would like to distinguish what we're talking about. what is the difference between the patent troll related lawsuits and what we think about with patents. john smith down the street sues a big company because his great patented idea was stolen. >> a patent is a shell company. and they buy the rights to a patent and they start suing people. they start companies to build up the warchest of money, and keep moving up the food chain, and eventually they go after google or apple where the big store

comes. >> the patents they have bought up are things that have not been fully developed. you think patent, somebody came up with an idea and why should somebody else take advantage of that idea if they have a patent on it? >> so i come up with 500 ideas a day. ideas are cheap. building a company and market shares, that's what it's all about. the problem is with patents, there are 250,000 patents issued every year, it's a government monopoly, and there are a lot of mistakes made. especially when it comes to software. somebody had the incredibly bad idea to allow business method patents, which are obvious things, and the internet came along and the patent officers are obvious to the rest of us. a lot of them are obtained by dubious means. >> so it's a problem in the

patent office, and they can't figure out these things, and aren't asking for enough in the patent applications to make them valid patents as they should be? >> personally, i don't think that software should be patentable. especially business methods. i can't speak to the boyo medical area, but in the software area, there should be none, new zealand got it perfectly right. got rid of it. if you look at how much money is spent, it's all going to the lawyers. >> it's more important, the execution of an idea than the idea itself. >> absolutely. that's 99.9% of the value. they come up with lots of ideas that never went anywhere. >> so is buying the patents and suing the companies becoming an industry on its own? >> . >> it's going to become one of the largest extortion rackets.

we have to pay a tax. >> they're saying, we're going to sue you because we have this patent. and the reality is that it's cheaper for most people to settle than to fight, but you're fighting back. >> it makes perfect business sense. they say, we're going to license you this patent, and whether you're infringed or not, a lot of them send out due diligence, and they say, you can settle for $50,000. rational business would say, i'm going to do that, because i don't want to spend 200, 300, $400,000 fighting you, i'll pay the $50,000 and go on my way. that's why i separated it from a business issue. it's not a find the best issue. but i'm going to put my money where my mouth is, and spend over $1 million defending it. these guys are wrong, and we don't infringe on their patent.

so i'm going to take it out of the rational economic and make it personal. if you get shapiro and others on the show, they won't come. >> we did try to get some of them to come on the show. and i know a lot of them are making a lot of money. i don't specifically know miss shapiro. but this is not just a corporate issue. patents are costing the u.s. $30 billion a year in direct costs. so i would assume that those direct costs are getting down to you and me. >> the consumer is always the one that pays, right? so if you assume that they're attacking everybody. every form of business, it's almost random. more on the technology side to the consumer. they're lining the pockets of lawyers, and a few select patent

roles. but this is big business. there are a lot of companies, amassing tens of thousands of patents. >> and making millions and millions of dollars. we have a viewer question. let's go to hermela for that. >> how do we protect intellectual property without stifling competition? >> so how do you protect intellectual property? it runs the whole gamut. and an idea should not be protected. we all have ideas and we build on top of ideas. innovation, that's just one small part of innovation. and turning that into a product and successfully marketing to businesses, that's where the real innovation is. people have it completely wrong. >> so aside from the costs to the consumer, are the lawsuits slowing down innovation and slowing down products from getting advances in technology

from getting to consumers? >> you mentioned -- i didn't know that fact, that apple and google spent more on that than r&d. that's horrific. i like to create solutions to problems, and here i am having to defend against a frivolous lawsuit, and it's taking a lot of time and money. >> it seems that president obama agrees with you. let's see what he says about the lawsuits from patton trolls. >> they don't produce anything themselves, but they're trying to leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them. >> in june, the white house called for reforms for these issues, and they said it's essential, the patents, innovators need to be protected

from frivolous litigation, it forces consumers to pay higher costs to cover the litigation, and i assume that you support that. >> that and a lot more. i would like to get rid of all of the patents. >> the shell companies, you can't go after them. they have zero assets, other than the patent. so it's difficult to countersue them and collect damages. it's kind of rare when president obama and i agree, but we definitely agree on this point. it has to be done. >> it's a tough point that hasn't gotten much attention, and we thank you for joining us. up next, we'll take a data dive into the taller and short of men's height. why are european men shooting up in stature and how are americans comparing. and what's it saying about your dating life?

>> on today's data dive, european men are growing in stature. the average european man is 4 inches taller than he was. men born between 1870 and 1980 in 15 european countries. the bigger height is a wild variety of causes. fewer illnesses, better sanitary conditions, and services. the tallest, dutch men, and the shortest. portuguese, 5-8. average men in america are 5-9, 195 pounds, and women are 5-4, 166 pounds. it seems we're getting bigger in height and weight.

but how big a factor is height in relationships? a 2012 study from the netherlands, the tallest country, looked at 50,000 men and women. average is 5-3 for a female, and 5-9 for a man. with stats like those, how in the world did dudley moore become such a lady's man? and kids, if you don't know who he is, and your parents. 14 had the 5% of all american men are 6 feet or taller, but among ceos, that number jumps to 58%. that does indeed leave a tall order for shorter americans to overcome. >> the "n" word is forbidden for whites, but what about blacks? a judge is fueling the debate on whether it's okay to say it

behind closed doors.

>> rob carmona, an african-american, who founded the company, stride, in east harlem, new york, and helped companies get back into the workforce, is paying the price for using the "n" word on on an

employee. >> [ expletive ], i'm not saying [ expletive ], but sometimes its good. >> a new york federal jury found that rant to be hostile and discriminatory, and has awarded the victim $280,000 in compensatory and communetive damages. he argued that it was okay because they were both black, and it was a different meaning in his mind. the question tonight, where do we draw the line? joining me is neil lester, the director of the university's project humanities initiative, and professor lester teaches a class on the "n" word, called anatomy lesson, and joining me is kelly and edward williams, a

contributor to aljazeera america. we listened to carmona justifying himself in court. and he justified himself in court saying that the "n" word tirade he had was appropriate, arguing that it can be used as a term of love and endearment when aimed at a black person, and he will sometimes put his arm around a friend. and give them a hug, and say this is my n word friend for 40 years, and he's any boy. and do you think it's okay as long as he's doing it with an african-american? >> i don't know if i can assess his truthfulness, but this context at this particular moment does not seem to be a context where his employee is being friendly with him. so context is everything. and he may be able to do that

behind closed doors with his buddies, but i'm not sure that the person who raised the concern is one of his buddies. >> but is there a context where the word should be used at all. >> i don't think so, and i think that this case settled it once and for all. my own family disagree on this, and say that we can privately used as a term of endearment, you don't have the right to make that choice for me. i don't consider it a term of endearment and the fact that it's so nuanced and still matters to the individual. but my biggest concern, we have so many problems facing the community, the aids epidemic and poverty, and the education system. and i don't understand why we spend resources on a word that has been used to harm and degrade us, and people fighting that it's so important to keep this word alive, like we have so

much to fight for. >> i agree with much of what kelly said. i disagree from the perspective for the right to free speech that it's okay for people to use that word in private. particularly when it's a consensual use of the word. particularly for african-americans, because they have could opted that word as a term of endearment. but in the workplace, i would agree, it has noplace at all and i think that the jury decision was spot on. to that end. >> once you accept the word in any context, it becomes a very slippery slope there, doesn't it? as to when it can be used and cannot be. >> i don't know, it's about what kelly said, it's about nuance and context, if for example, i'm talking about slave or classroom, i teach the last poets, and some performance of the word is part of the lesson,

that doesn't mean that we're teaching anybody to say it. when we're talking about farms in the 1800s, a lot of people claim that we can take it back, look back at some of those early documents, and they say changing the spelling doesn't change the history that's associated with that world. >> but $280,000 for using the word in that context, do you think that's an appropriate punishment? >> if the person were white, we wouldn't be having a segment on it, because everyone is having a problem with it. that's why i'm glad this happened, for anyone who said it really is okay, because we're both black, and you don't get to make the choice for me. >> and this was actual harassment. this was an employer harassing an employee, and that was not a term of endearment. that's a distinction. >> but being the devil's advocate here. he was also a guy, 61 years old

and he has worked very hard and apparently helped 50,000 people have troubled backgrounds to get jobs, and this is a guy who has walked the walk. is that context relevant? >> no, it's not an excuse, and it's not a past because he was harassing this person, and there's a gender dynamic, we're talking about the power dynamic between the employee and the employer, so aside from the word itself. this is a work mace workplace as the person who has the power to hire and fire and determine their livelihood. as i read the account, the person felt offended and embarrassed and hurt. and that's not colorized. >> why is this such an issue in the african-american community? you have other ethnic communities that are also slurs, but nobody uses those slurs as terms of endearment. >> they don't have the same history. >> i am not the professor,

there's no other word in our language that shares this history. >> the decision in the federal court. >> why do you defend the use of the word in the context. >> i'm not necessarily defending it, i understand it, and from a personal context, people have to decide for themselves. like kelly said, you can't make this choice for me. >> but let me say this, i have family members who feel this way. children can't make that distinction, and the reason i know is because i was walking down the street in my neighborhood a couple of weeks ago and i heard kids tossing the word around. and i'm sure that they heard it from people who feels like it's okay. the kids don't know that it's okay if my uncle says it. >> i want you to listen to a

young boy, jonathan mccoy, an 11-year-old advocate who believes that everybody should stop using the word. >> i'm sending a message to everyone who uses this word to describe our people. whether it's gangsta rap, or someone who looks down on us and doesn't have a college education. whatever the case, discontinue the use of this word. so i'm petitioning you to join me in deleting this word from our vocabulary, as a people, as a nation and the world. >> edward? >> how powerful is that, right? it's like the bible says, the young shall lead us, and to that end, it's important to highlight kelly's point, we're teaching younger generations a derogatory term that was used against us hundreds of years ago. >> and still is. >> and still is. exactly. in ways that are not progressive, and to that end, i

applaud the young boy. >> i hope it's gone in ten years, and i think we're on the road. >> it really is about choice in this case, not about ignorance, but choice. >> what some of our viewers are saying online. hermela. >> we asked our viewers this question. should we eliminate the "n" word from our vocabulary, no matter our race? 82% said yes, and 18% said no. so neil, viewers responded to the poll, whether we decide yes or no, it should be across the board. so what do you think about making the rules on the n word the same, no matter their race or who they're talking to? >> i don't know how you would legislate that. because the word is not just about the word, but the word is about how we treat each other and how we think about ourselves and each other. so you would have to legislate

behavior, and i'm not sure how you would do that. it has to be about choice, and the way we know and understand our history. the history that can not be relegated to the past, but the history that's in the present. and once once you know, it's impossible to unknow that. >> we have about 20 seconds left. and what about its use in the artistic world? it's so incredible in hiphop music. >> oprah winfrey says you cannot be her personal friend if you use that word around her, period. but we have to take it further than oprah says, to her friends, artists that she knows, you have a responsibility to not use it. >> the most important thing, it has been settled in the workplace, and that's a great start. >> we have to go, and appreciate you being on to discuss the port topic. the show may be over, but the topic continues on the website. aljazeera.com.

and twitter. see you next time. >> neither our country nor our silence can afford it. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror, now we must stand up and act. ♪[music]