was applied that night? the lawsuit, what we challenge as a matter of law is the notion which did exist -- let me say this. in the proper context, what we say is that 396 remoed the duty to retreat when one is not in his or her home. we're not suggesting, by any stretch of the imagination, that stand your ground existed or no duty to retreat existed inside one's home. there was a certain duty to escape from committing a crime of harming someone or defending yourself by using deadly force. if we're going to have a conversation about whether or

not stand your ground is appropriate, whether we like it or not, stand your ground was applied at night to george zimmerman. >> let me get back to the point you e making. another provision of this statute, and we touched on it and number of times, but to get to the point of what the rev. is pointing out, under the florida statute, any person who claims they are acting in self-defense is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. the police may not arrest a person for using forcenless they determined there was probable cause that the force was used and was unlawful. is that an unusual provision under these statutes? it is not just a defense.

>> that is exactly right. a number of jurisdictions have passed the immunity of language. georgette has that same -- georgia has that same community language betrayed because self- defense gets transferred from being an affirmative the event into being an immunity from prosecion some courts have said that all along the way, all alonghat criminal prosecution wrapped, starting with the police, prosecutor, and then the judge, at every point, everybody is supposed to be making sure that the use of force by the defendant was on lawful and did not fall within the stand your ground or self-defense. for instan, in florida, not only did the police have an obligation to assess t

strength of georgeimmerman's self-defense claim, if his lawyer asks the judge for a pretrial hearing, the judge has to decide whether the use of force by george zimmerman was unlawful or not or whether it was self-defense. usually, that goes to the jury if there is a dispute. because of the way these laws are structured, it gets revisited call lot more times along the way. -- revisited a lot more times along the way. you have the police trying to make these determinations as to whether this was all muffled force or not. >> professor, i want to direct this to you one of the things that is different about the florida statute that in georgia,

fortunately, is the florida statute goes a step beyond community. if, in fact, one is charged with a crime that should have been covered understand your ground, they he certain civil possibilities in terms of being able to sue law enforcement, prosecutors, and the like. are you familiar with that? >> i am not quite as familiar with that. my reading of some of the civil acti provision is that what they primarily relate to come to forgive me if i'wrong on this, what they protect is george zimmerman from a civil lawsuit been brought by the family of trayvon martin to the extent that he prevails on the stand your ground claim. even though there is a different standard of proof in civil

action, if he prevails in the criminal case, at that point, there would be no civil action against them -- him by the ma rtins. >> >> is there any justification under the "stand your ground" law of focusing on florida, barring prosecution or eliminating civil liability? why is it not sufficient for a person to use "stand your ground" as an ordinary defense o criminal prosecuti? >> a first of all, i am not as familiar with the georgia law. there is a criminal and civil community provision in georgia's law which existed prior to the

2006 bill. they were there before. the idea is if you were justified, which is different from being excused, if you are justified in doing what you did, you should not have to go to the expense, the emotional trauma, perhaps the incarceration while waiting for trial of having a trial when you were justified in what you did in the first place. the ia behind the immunity statute is to give you the protection that professor hasimoto was describing where you can bring a motion to claim.iiss the you are entitled to a hearing long before you get to trial. you can testify as to the fact pertaining to your use of the defense and your testimony is in while subjects to cross-

examination isot subject to being used against you at your trial if you are eventually tried. the idea is to get a judicial determination of whether or not your actions were justified. >> i would like to turn to you because you have talked about the "stand your ground" being bad public policy. in 2010, john loch published the third edition of his study. he determined that in states where "stand your ground" laws have been passed, murder rates have declined by 9% and the viole crime rates have declined by 11%. in florida, the sponsor of that stake "stand your ground" law claims the crime rates in florida dropped significantly in 2005e bill's passage until today.

in line with these fdings, is it not correct to conclude that the "stand your ground" laws reduce crime and save lives when it is being applied by prosecutors -- not by prosecutors but prosecutors have to contend with that in their various states? >> there are two responses. one is that there is the presumption is that the end justifies the means. that is number one. secondly, i do not know, i have not studied or read that study. i am not sure i would agree with it. in my lawsuit we cite a different study that says the opposite and that is the states that have "stand your ground" laws have not seen significant reduction in violent crimes. the ovall issue is this something are related to earlier, referred to earlier, and that is we are living in a time where people seem to in some way believe that the way to

protect ourselves, the way to become more ve society is to arm everyone with not only the physical but also the legal ability to use a deadly force. one of the things that was encouraging to me, with no georgia,ect to when i filed a lawsuit challenging georgia's "stand your ground," and by the way my attorney is here. he is a candidate for office in georgia. the thing that was most encouraging is that not one crime organization challenged our lawsuit. not one anti-violence, not one domestic violence prevention organization, and there are some great ones in georgia and across the nation, none of them challenged the basis for which we filed the lawsuit against the state of georgia's "stand your ground."

it was only the pro-gun lobby. that says that those who are practitioners in these anti- crime, anti-violent movements do not believe that "stand your ground" is good public policy. >> for the record, george carey is anti-crime. >> i imagine it would be hard to be otherwise. >> you think. >> turning to you, a 2010 national district attorne symposium noted concerns that "stand your ground" laws have been used by criminals as a defense to their cmes and result in a misinterpretation of clues that could result in the use of deadly force by an individual and that individual was not in fact in danger. in florida, when the "stand your ground" law was being considered, the miami to the police stated -- whether it is

trick or treat or kids playing in the yard or someone who does not want to be some drunk guy struggling into the wrong house you are encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical ld not ben-issued it shouuld n t used." what is the present opportunity for individuals to manipulate the criminal justice system by making use of this purported defense? >> i do not think it is true that that laws such as that encourage people to use deadly force when it otherwise should not be used, because the premise of start-up laws or the common law and the absence of such statutes is to ensure that people can use it if it ought to be used. as to the subject of criminal defendants ms. using it as a defense or manipulating the

system, i think the bottom line is criminal defense will use of whatever defenses appear to be viable in the defense and that includes not just "stand your ground" laws but any defenses that might be available. i do not think that is unique to any particular kind of defense. >> professor, there was mention made earlier of various studies. are you aware of any studies that definitively speak to the kind of issues w have been talking about as to whether reverend hutchins says that he has mention of a study in his lawsuit that says the opposite of what i was pointing out. >> i think it would be difficult to draw causal connection between the passage of a "stand your ground" law or the elimination of a duty to

retreat and violent crime rates. there are so many things that affect violent crime rates. and we have nationwide then seen a drop in violent crime rates and generally speaking. there are all kinds of things that could be contributing to those falling crime rates. it would be difficult, particularly given that these laws are not -- they're not used that often. until trayvon marn was killed, i imagine that most people even in jurisdictions that have "stand your ground" laws, of a lot of people did not know about them. i would be somewhat skeptical of a study that could say definitively tre is a causal connection between the passage of a "stand your ground" law and a drop in violent crime rates. >> reverend, do you have a

comment? >> i think what professor says -- hashimoto, i'm sorry -- is something that i say to people all the time. you can make a study or a poll say ever is you wanted to say. if you polled my family are did a study of my family, they would tell you that i am the best looking thing since sliced bread. i happen to agree. i think we should deal with this. there ia partisan aspect as well as a racial aspect to these "stand your ground" laws. if you look around the country at these states that pass "stand your ground" laws following florida and texas, almost all of them are red states. there is a reason why even in those red states like florida where there are a number of well-known and well-respected

republican police chiefs, not once in a police chief and florida or 1 cent a police chief and georgia supported the passage of these start"stand yor ground" laws. these are the persons with the most responsible for the provision of law and order and municipalities across the nation. because the police chief to not support these laws, it should cause them to look at it. finally, i want to deal with this issue of the racial element of this because that is something we have not talked about in this conversation. i know we are drawn to a close. one of the reasons why -- one of the bas upon which we filed our lawsuit is that courts around the country have held that race can be used as a measure of one's f voteear. what is reasonable to a 90-year- old jewish woman in south

carolina may not necessarily be reasonable to a 17-year-old african america male in southwest atlanta. because what is reasonable to that elderly jewish woman may not necessarily be reasonable to that young african-amican man, and because the law is so gue with regard to what is reasonable. the georgia statute gives no definition at all to what exactly is reasonable fear and leaves its objective. it creates an unfairnd unbalanced protection on the law. when believe because of that, there a certain racial element. when there is such vagueness in the law, historically, we see that african-americans and minorities get the short end of the stick. ed said in his opening speech

that we need to let the system work. we tried that. the nightrayvon martin was killed we tried it to let the system work. the system let george zimmerman go. it is only one we did what we had to do so many times over the last 100 yea, when we cry out loud and said no justice, no peace, and marched in the streets did the system work. it only works because we made it work. the idea that those of us in the african-american community should remain idle and passively let the system work is just not a reality for us because we know historically, and even to this day, it works when we make it rk. >> on that point you made earlier and that is that we are drawn to a close, we wanted to make sure there was an opportunity for audience participation and any questions you might have. before we run out of time, we would like to offer the audience the opportunity to ask our panelists questions. yes, please?

>> professor, if reverend hutchins it did get what he was asking for, it would not chan anything since the law existed before hand. am i misunderstanding? if that 2006 law got repealed, it would not have any bearing on anything? >> i think that is right. assuming that it is just challenging the absence the duty to retreat part of the tand your ground" law. because georgia case law has been clear there has not been a duty to retreat since 1898. >> i want to make a comment. i agree with everything that reverend hutchinson said. and being a mother who has lost a son that was murdered and the young man that murdered my son received a 30-year sentence.

with the "stand your ground" law, it does need to be revisited, or amendment or done away with because when you really look at the perpetrators who are committing these crimes, they can use that. if you do not do something about it, there is going to be a vigilante-type crime in the community, where they feel they can take a lot into theiown hands. and who suffers? the community suffers. so you have to include race in this. and that is something nobody wants to discuss. >> this gentleman, please, and then you, ma'am? >> my question to the panel would be, the way the law is structured with that are reasonable standard as far as

the invocation of "stand your ground" with there be any harm in recrafting the law that sets out criteria were it should apply? if the other person produces a weapon or if you are or any other criteria for when it should apply instead of applying the vague and broad reasonable person standard? >> let me try to answer that. thank you very much. in reference to your question, ma'am, what my lawsuit does is exacy what robert alluded to, what is a misnomer and amiss definition of what my law seeks. we do not seek to do away with it as the preme of our lawsuit. we seek to provide some reasonable and legal language

and parameters for that which is "reasonable." . if our lawsuit is successful, we believe there will come forth a law that protects people's right to defend themselves without presenting this on reasonable "reasonable fear"language and defense. >> do you have comments? >> the fact that you described their reasonable standard as on reasonable is itself a judgment call you are making. the reasonable man standard is something that exists there out the law. we use it in torts and in other areas. to suggest the topic or the notion of are reasonable man is unconstitutionally vague as to condemn the entire legal structure that we have today. just as the lawsuit seeks to declare the common law to be

unconstitutional wh the common law is the basis for the constitution. it is a circular argument that will not go anywhere. >> yes, ma'am. >> i have a question for reverend hutchins. without taking sides, under the reasonable standard, which is used fairly often in civil- rights cases, it is not an objective. it should be an objective standard as opposed to subject it. how would you like to see it? >> i think that, first of all, i think that certain situations would give us an opportunity like what happened in florida to provide some definition to what is reasonable. what is on reasonable as when a person like trayvon martin is walking through a neighborhood and is pursued by george

zimmerman. we know or at least we believe that is entirely on risible, and yet, and the situation in florida, the "reasonable stanrd" could apply. what i think needs to happen is there needs to be some of proper parameters put arouand the language, some definition given to what situations ought to be quantified und these "stand your ground" laws. in a nutshell. i want to relate back to a point mr. monroe raised. the notion that we are in some way challenging all common law if flatly ridiculous. we are talking about a specific set of circumstances, a specific public policy. and how it leads or had led to the loss of life.

that is the basis upon which we are challenging this law. none the notion that we do not have the ability as people to make reasonable and sound judgment calls. it is based on this particular statute. >> yes, ma'am? in the back here, please. >> i would like to ask mr. munro of question. i would be curious to hear how you believe race does apply or has an impact in the application of the general "stand your ground" statute. so one, to you think it has an impact, race? assuming you do, how do you deal with that in interpreting these reasonable man standards which is due out the law? >> i guess i do not agree with

the premise. i did not know why race would have anything to do with it. either a person is justified in using force or he is not. race does not enter into it. i do not know that there is not a disparate impact on rates because of the application of the law. i do not think the law itself is concerned with color when it comes to application. >> let me follow-up on that. i think the senator started off with a hypothetical. slight go back to the fligh woman who is walking down the street and is a white woman and is approached by a group of young black men who walk up san on say something that is toward and should not have been said, and her reasonable -- i am

not familiar with the language of the law -- but her, the standard for her as a reasonable person or if you take that same situaon and you have another down, black man walking down the street and his approach to the same way. if you are applying the same law and the reasonable person standard, the thing she would get the same result in each situation? >> that is what the end of my comment was. i do not know if there has been at disparate impact. but i do not think the law draws a distinction in the two situation to are describing. if the young woman is surrounded by several black men or several white man does not make a difference. either the circutances were justified her use of force or they did not. and i do not think the race of either of the putitive victims

or aggressors has anything to do with it. >> over here, sir. >> i have a question. do you belve that --provision requires a pole officer to perform a different function? if so, why do you believe that? [inaudible] >> no, i do not think it imposes any additional duty on a police officer. the same standard applies if the police officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime and he can make an arrest. if he does not have probable cause, he cannot make an arrest. that standard has not changed. the potential for a civil rights action against the police officer for arresting somebody who it turns out was immune from prosecution is not heightened. the same standard is still going

to apply in the aempted to sue the officer for wrongful arrest. probable cause standard is the standard. under qualified immunity principles and the civil-rights action against a police officer, it is not probable cause. it is arguable probable cause. the standard is low. immunity from prosecution. there is no immunity from arrest. >> professor, do agree with that assessment of the statute? >> it's true to say in the general the police have to have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the person committed before the person can be arrested. the gray area is whether, assuming that the defendant asserts some sort of an affirmative defense, whether the police then have to have probable cause to believe that

the defense does not apply. i think that is a little bit of a gray area. and that is what the laws made clear with respect to "stand your ground", and that the police have to have probable cause to belve that the use of a little bit of a change. " ma'am? >> there is a citizens task force and florida. there have been two hearings. they have been pretty interesting because the audiences seem to be fairly representative of independent grass-roots action. there does not seem to be a lot of artificial audience of building. a couple of things have been

interesting. one in particular is that folks across the races have expressed support for people to be able to carry guns in this country and have guns and use guns, but people are very confused with the t number of "stand your ground" laws and what it all means. i have been looking at the 26 states that have start-up laws, some of them are incredly complex. you can use it here and maybe you can use it there or there. then it it kind of gets distilled into "stand your ground,"which people can interpret any way they want to. i am just curious about whether, why did we need in georgia to change georgia's law, to do anything different other than what had been done in the last 100 years? perhaps we need to think about going back to that language versus a continuing to spread this out.

i look at the georgia code and it is on 10-12 pages. this page has exemptions. i am not a lawyer but if i were carrying a gun, i am not sure if i can shoot somebody or could not. but i do think there is tremendous confusion about that. people sincerely have come to the task force to say, what does it all mean? >> i cannot agree with you more. i think we had in georgia pre- 2006 was more than sufficient. those that disagree is the pro- gun lobby w wanted to have this legislation passed in multiple states like texas, and florida and georgia. this was nra, pro-gun lobby legislation. one of the thing you raise is that people in the african american community and in all communities basically agree that we ought to be able to protect

ourselves and our homes, but this idea that some seem to have that well, there is nothing wrong with the law itself. there may be some problems with how the law is applied. there may be some racial disparity with how it is applied. if there is racial injustice and how the law is applied, then there is a problem with the law itself. ho can you separate the application of the law from the law itself? which is where ihink mr. munroe and i disagree. that is the basis for our lawsuit. if you look at the application of the standour ground laws, in high-profile cases, african-americans and minorities get the short end of the stick. for anybody to sugge otherwise is not living in the world that we live in. >> that might be. the speeding law is applied

desperately against blacks but that does not mean we should repe the speeding law. should change how we are applying the law. >> we should put some parameters about how the law is applied. i hope our legislation will do just apple. >> this gentleman here. >> first, a quick comment. mr. munro makes a good point. just because a lot is misapplied does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the law. if it is misapplied because there is ambiguous language, then yes, there could be a problem with the law. but there may not be vague language and somebody might be choong to apply the law poorly. who knows? there could be different reasons. the question is, enough trayvon martin case, reverend, i appreciate what you were saying about the factor that it was

applied by the police. i was not aware of the immunity provision and how that was involved. so i'm glad that case has race discussions about the "stand your ground" law. now that he has been arrested and charged th the crime and has said that hewas pinned to the ground and this was the only way to defend himself and there was obviously no outlet of escape, if you believe that, is the "stand your ground" now implicated now that that is the defense? >> as opposed to like regular self-defense? >> i think the immunity provision is separate from the "stand your ground" law. the no duty to retreat harvest is still implicated, because

until the law go passed, a defendant who wanted to raise an affirmative defense would do so at trial. or if the government concluded they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not acting in self-defens they would dismiss the case. now because of the "stand your ground" law, and this is what commentators have been talking about, you get a chance if you are the defendant to put this on before a judge and have the judge make a determination as to whether by a preponderant of the evidence the defendant was acting in self-defense. if the judge concludes, based on a disputed backshore record or whatever, -- a disputed factural record, the case is dismissed. that is one of the big ways in

which it could still be implicated in the trayvon martin case. >> the other point is on the comparison with the speeding laws, what is a asonable speed to travel is not what the law is in georgia. if there was a definition, like 55 or 75 miles per hour, if it's a speeding law. with regarto the "stand your ground" law, if it had that kind of subjective language, then we may not be having this conversation because george zimmerman would of been arrested that night. >> and georgia has something on the order of traveling and an unreasonable speed, something on that order. driving too fast for conditions. >> you get my point. >> one more, please. >> professor, is there a review

of the judge's decision you just described? >> i think there is a provision for appeal. i am not entirely certain about that, but i think there could be one more court that would look at it. >> jeopardy hasot attached so the state canppeal if immunity is granted. >> [inaudible] >> they do not have the opportunity on the finding of more evidence to come back and look at the case again. that is coming from prosecutors in florida when they are testifying before the task force. >> thank you, all, for your audience participation. we are drawing to an end.

x the u.s. conference of mayors talks about how to combat gun violence in cities. in an hour and a half, mitt romney in iowa and president obama and colorado. >> when the u.s. conference of mayors met in orlando, they talked about how to combat gun violence in cities by treating it as a public health issue. this is led by the mayor of phi.

the one thing we know, given the subject matter this morning and the anticipation of a special guest -- everyone here is safe, secure, and nonviolent. we're here this morning to discuss -- this is a forum on effective approaches to reducing violence in our cities all across america. we have a great panel. i will be introducing the members shortly. this particular panel is about discussing unique and effective ways of addressing what i personally believe is one of the most serious problems facing the cities all across the united states america. that is, unfortunately, the issue of violence. as many of you already know, reducing violence a top party for me personally. i'll be talking about that

tomorrow. as mayor of philadelphia and as the vice-president of the u.s. conference of mayors, i've had a particular focus on the issue of violence in my city and cities across the united states. to give you a picture of the country -- in 2010, there were nearly 13,000 murder victims across the united states of america. on average, each day 16 young people between the ages of 10 and 24 armored. -- are murdered. 86% of them are male. african americans account for 50% of the total homicide victims. 85% of those victims are black men. the offenders caught committing ben, 16% are black men under the age of 24.

it is clear that, unfortunately, we are watching an entire generation of african-american men falling behind. we're watching the next generation of our children grow up without fathers, uncles, and positive male role models. we're watching our communities crumble under the weight of incarceration, drugs, illiteracy, and, most of all, violence. we are watching. many are asking the question, what are we doing? at the national level, in addition to my work with the conference of mayors, i have been working with many to establish an entity and organization called the city's united. this is a diverse coalition of mayors. they are working in partnership with a variety of stakeholder organizations to reduce violent deaths among black men and boys.

we want to encourage all of our mayors across the conference, and i'll be talking about this tomorrow to some extent, to join us in this effort. we will be speaking about what cities united is trying to do and what we expect to do in the weeks and years to come. in several cities, officials are implementing was often referred to as a cease-fire model. that is what we will discuss. cs-fire offers a unique, interdisciplinary, public health approach to preventing violence. this began in chicago. it has been implemented in baltimore, new orleans, and philadelphia. it has been the subject of a rigorous evaluation. it has been demonstrated to show the it is working. in philadelphia, cs-fire is one of our tools to reduce violence. working with local partners like

temple university, we have applied for a federal grant to enhance our model and expand our strategy. we're grateful to the robert wood johnson foundation for sponsoring this form and making a possible for mayors across the country to learn about a ceasefire and how that works. we want all of you to go home and be able to go home with disinformation about ceasefire and how it works in cities across america. the conference of mayors looks forward to continuing to work with the robert wood johnson foundation to provide information on this issue and other issues affecting our city's most vulnerable residents. let me talk about our panelists. i am pleased to have with us the founder of cease-fire, -- it was his pioneering work in chicago that led to the application of public health principals, treating violence is an infectious disease -- as an

infectious disease to reduce killings. he is a professor of epidemiology at the university of illinois at chicago. he would describe the ceasefire model for us in this forum. we will hear from mayor stephanie rollins blake. the city has the longest-running application of the model outside of illinois. chairerves as the vice pray for gangs and use development in our social justice committee. afterwards will be jennifer whitehill, who is at the university of washington but has maintained a connection with the bloomberg school of public health, where she recently completed evaluations of baltimore's ceasefire replication. she will discuss that. we will hear from new orleans mayor about his city's most

recent efforts to implement the cease-fire model. the fresno mayor will provide the perspective of a mayor whose city has not yet implemented the ceasefire model. she will discuss the replica ability -- replica ability -- who wrote these remarks? [laughter] how her efforts are under way in her city to reduce violence. finally, the director of the vulnerable populations portfolio. she will discuss the robert wood johnson foundation effort to end form -- to inform cities in implementing this model. we ask for a palace to be brief. that always happens in the u.s. conference of mayors.

i have always ignored that in any panel i have been on. we expect the same to be true this morning. but we certainly do want to leave a good amount of time for q&a at the end. therefore, you are up. >> thank you very much. can everyone hear me? good arm -- good morning, everyone. thank you everyone for coming. i will talk today about ceasefire, a public health model, the theory behind it, how it works, the results we have been getting, and the way ahead. the way that i like to start is by thinking about this problem in the context of other problems in the history of man that obstructed our progress. this is a painting of plague. i bring this up, because leggett, which we know as an infectious disease now,

centuries ago we were stuck with a situation where people were dying in neighborhoods. people did not want to go into those neighborhoods. the people themselves were blamed. we frequently have solutions such as this -- and the reason he went to solution such as this is that we did not know what was going on. we did not know what was going on because they were invisible processes which we had not scientifically not gotten to figure out. in this case, it was a microorganism inside a flea inside iraq. who knew? with respect to this problem of violence, we have not or maybe are just now beginning to understand the invisible brain processes that are going on underneath us that allow us to move on to a better scientific position and for developing a

more scientific approach to the possibility of putting this problem behind us. in the absence of that, we're still working with the same type of solutions. however, if we begin to look of this new scientific way and look at these maps and say, wait a second, here we see geographic clustering in space -- this is absolutely typical. likewise, if we look at graphs of violence or vicious killings over time, we see not linear waves, but waves on top of waves. that is also typical of infectious or epidemic processes. one of the reason why criminologists and economists have difficulty saying that violence and up or went down, it is because they are looking for in your -- linear responses when this is a more transmissible process. of course, we all know that violence begets violence, but

what does that really mean? that means there is transmits ability, being exposed to violence as a young person or further on, as a victim or even observing it -- you are more likely to do violence. not everything is transmissible. cold lead to -- cold crack leads into "s. but diabetes does not lead to more diabetes. being exposed to somebody with a stroke does not mean you are more likely to have one. this is a transmissible infectious process. if we think about that as a scientific issue in order to develop a scientific approach, we would not only look at epidemiology, but also behavior, because violence is a behavior. what else could it be? we would then be wondering -- where do behavior's come from? does anybody want to know? it turns out a lot of behaviors

are modeled, or copied. this is called social learning. what is really going on in the brain is not thinking about it, but unconscious mirror neuron circuits that cause us to do what we observe to certain extent. what keeps these behaviors in place is what other people think, or what we think other people think -- what we call social expectation. these kids know it is expected of them to fight, just like it is expected of me to wear this or for you to not smoke today. these are social expectations of others. they unscientific pathways in the brain that allow this -- our scientific pathways in the brain that allow this. dopamine pathways that are as powerful as those used for food and sex -- they are also used

for social belonging. social isolation feels like a pain in the brain. it is important to belong. the escalation capability of violence -- all of this. when you put these together, you get the impactivity of behavior. epidemic process, escalation -- there is good news. we know how to reverse epidemics. there are only three things you need to do -- one, interrupt transmission, secondly, find out who is likely to transmit and provide what is needed, in this case behavior change, and then shift the underlying norms. this is how world health reverses epidemics, especially epidemics that are contagious such as this. to interrupt transmission, you need to find somebody who can detect and interrupt the process. we use violence interrupters for this stage of the sick --

system. second, you have to find out who is likely to do violence. you can do that through the neighborhood with certain characteristics, and then you need to begin to apply behavior change with professional standards to cool them down so they are less likely to transmit. last, work on the underlying social norms that drive the whole thing so that it is acceptable for violence and it becomes less acceptable. this is what it looks like on the street -- interruption, which is two steps -- detection from sources of information in the community, sources elsewhere, including in the hospital, they then are trained to persuade and interrupt, changing the thinking. changing the underlying norman

three in number of methods that community managers put into place, including responses to every shooting, using multiple messengers, the clergy has a role, public education campaigns, so on. if he put this into place, shootings over time -- d.c. rapid reduction. when the program got doubled, and even further drop. this is a community when from odor -- over 30 shootings to 3. some have gone from 220. one from over 426. -- from 40 to 6. eight more communities -- three sets of results. we looked at shooting densities, before and after. these are the results of a steady -- a set of four studies at the department of justice supported. seven years of work, 10-year

base line. these are not one-year results. this is not before and after. this is not self-reported. this is independently funded evaluation. dan network analysis -- gang network analysts showed 100% reduction in retaliation. there is a spread of the behavior change showing and a relationship between interruption and homicide production. this was the program that was in the film "of the interrupters." this theory has been explored by the "new york times" magazine as a cover story. the world addition of "the economist" thought the approach would come to prominence. at the institute of the madison, we reviewed the literature and

research confirming the theoretical basis of this work. we are now working in 15 cities around the country, including some of these on the panel -- we are working in five other countries because of the state department and the pentagon and others are interested in this, in particular in latin america and elsewhere. this is a scientific approach the looks of the problem from a different angle. it comes in a different angle, it is synergistic. it performs behavior changed and is validated not only by research but by very detailed independent studies. it allows us to begin to think about these problems differently than punishing people. this is turning in medieval script into a new way of thinking about this -- it is acquired behavior. we need to do a different set of actions. using an effective approach, adding to law enforcement --

what law enforcement does. and, i want to highlight, changing the norm, which is the long-term solution we want. these are our challenges. the biggest challenge is sticking with fidelity to the model. if you do the model the way it is, it works. if you are doing something else or saying you are, good luck. we can help in these ways. myself others can take your information -- we can help on the identification of the model. whether your city is in the right place and has the right hot spots -- i am changing norms. the intervention, which i did not have time to talk about, and educating on the theory. you also have information at your seats. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. we're now going to hear from stephanie rawlins-blake. >> i would like to thank you for convening this forum on the critical topic. after hearing that, i thought, let's just go into question and answer. given its unique approach and demonstrated a fact, since baltimore had the state street's model back in 2007 -- state street baltimore is overseen based on the model by the city health department and implemented by a community-based organization in an area with a high level of violence. the role of the health department in combating any public health issues such as aids, heart disease, or cancer, is to identify interventions and

work with the community to implement them with fidelity. as such, the city health department has approached the same approach -- has implemented the same approach under the safe streets baltimore program. the health department is responsible for maintaining a vigorous vendor and site selection process, as well as providing technical assistance and monitoring for the model. additionally, the health department implements a city- wide public education campaign and develop plans for expansion and sustainability. the program currently operates in two of the most violent neighborhoods, with two additional neighborhoods to be launched over the next year. eligible areas are predominantly in the top 25% of statistical areas with the highest levels of violence, and organizations have a history of proven success with the targeted areas.

community-based organizations in be eligible areas are encouraged to apply through a rp process. criteria for new site selections included demonstrated understanding for -- of the model, the organization capacity to implement the program, reputation and credibility in the target area, and experience providing services to the targeted population. the doctor will curve -- will present on the violation, so i will not go into the specifics. we will briefly discuss what we think contributed to our success for results. as an e-evidenced -- as any evidence-base program, it is important to follow the model. having staff separate from the site level, as you do with the health department, to monitor

and provide technical assistance has been critical to our success. we piloted an adaptation of the model with the modified -- modified staffing plan to serve two police post trade we determined this model did not have the same effectiveness as the standard model. evaluation identified conflict mediation or key to the reduction in violent incidents and sides with production had three times as many conflict mediation per month as sites without significant reduction. having the right outreach staff with that right skills is the most critical element to conducting high-risk conflict mediations and it is essential to the initiative. finally, as i know this is a challenging time for mayors all over the country when it comes to funding, i will share some information related to the program.

baltimore has the distinction of operating the longest running cease-fire replication. since the program inception, we never needed to suspend operations because of lack of funding. we attribute the program, the success of that to be housed within an agency that has the capacity to obtain funding from a broad range of sources, federal and state grants as well as federal agencies, and other agencies. the annual cost of implementing the -- and by deterring safe streets is $500,000 per site. it pales in comparison to the cost, both financial and emotional of shooting incidents. the cease-fire model has saved many lives in baltimore. last year were down to the lowest homicide rate since 1977. i am pleased with the results and hopes to be able to spread

it in more areas. thank you. >> thank you, mayor. [applause] >> i would not be a researcher iraq could not get my powerpoint slides of their. -- if i could not get my powerpoint slides up there. i am jennifer whitehill. can you hear me ok? i am here on behalf of my colleagues at johns hopkins. we completed the independent scientific evaluation of baltimore 6 streets program. it is free to be here today to discuss our findings with all of you. what we found in a nutshell is safe streets had great success in reducing serious violence in the neighborhoods where it was implemented with the most of

fidelity to the cease-fire model. our study focused on the four neighborhoods where six streets operated between 2007 and 2010. they appear on the map in green. the first site was in east baltimore and it was expanded to two other neighborhoods. there was another site in cherry hill in south baltimore. the other areas that -- were in the top 25% for homicides and shootings. we use that as a comparison group. we looked at the border of the neighborhoods to see if there was a spillover in this results to those neighboring areas. that is on the map by and blue. the measure of the effective program -- to measure the effect of the program on gun violence, we measured changes in the time

before and after the program was amended and compare the difference to the same time period in the similar hybla neighborhood and we made a comparison to the border neighborhoods. we control for the baseline level of violence in the neighborhoods, seasonal variations, a drug arrests, weapon arrests, and policing activities that were focused at the same time on reducing violent crime. this table shows what we found in terms of the percent change in shootings relative to the comparison neighborhoods. the results are indicated by * byat were cigna release -- v asterisks if they were statistically significant.

things were complicated in east baltimore. initially the first ones saw excellent results but the three sides did share a management team, the three baltimore sides and by the time the program got going in that neighborhood, it happened that a very long running gang feud erupted at the same month the program that started and that was before the -- that was before the outreach workers had an opportunity to get into the community and influence. an additional complication was some of the staff resources from the park were directed away towards that situation in madison east end. but we did find the park had a 53% reduction in homicide during the month when the staff was occupied in another area. we did not see a reduction in homicides but a 34% reduction in non fatal shooting. while those results with the primary outcome for an evaluation, we wanted to see at

the program did anything to change the social norms about using gun violence to settle a dispute. that is the theory behind this program. we undertook an anonymous street survey of young men in the park, a dented the 18-24 age group and a similar neighborhood that did not get the program. on our survey, the young men indicated how likely they would be to use a gun in different scenarios that are considered, and sparks for gun incident. in mcelderry, the young men were likely to express little or nor -- or no support. be found this model can be replicated affectively and can lead to impress the reductions in shootings. it is important model be implemented with high fidelity. there is evidence to support the fact that cease fire changes

social mores about violence. that is the short and sweet of it. i am happy to take any questions later. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for your leadership on this issue. i enjoy working with you on the city's united. we tend to get into these meetings in language gets a antiseptic. i will change that. i will walk you through some national statistics. 13,000 people were killed on the streets of america last year. let's stop on that for a second. 13,000 people were killed on the streets of america last year. what you have to compare that to determine whether or not that is okay. how many people were killed in the first or second iraq war or in afghanistan?

13,000 people every year for the last 10 years dwarfs that number. we spent $1 trillion prosecuting those wars but the amount of money be spent on protecting american citizens on the streets of america is the minimus in comparison. of those 13,000 people killed on the streets, 50% of them were young african-american men between 16 and 24. the african-american population is around 12%. run those numbers in your head and ask yourself what it means. young black men are being slaughtered on the streets of america. that is what that means. some people will think that is a little too harsh so let me prove my point to you. my city, new orleans, has about 360,000 people.

we had 199 murders last year. which puts our per capita murder rate at 10 times the national average. we have the worst problem as it relates to murder. there is a distinction between violence and murder. from a public health perspective, we ought to see it that way but the statistics in new orleans are similar to those we have seen in philadelphia, new york, baltimore, everywhere else. in certain neighborhoods in our cities, you have young man being killed at sometimes 100 times the rate of the national average. this is a national epidemic. it is not ok. we have to state that. the lives of young african- american men are really important. we have to do something to stop the carnage on the streets of america. there is a school in new orleans where five young men

that coincidently went to the school got killed within four or five months of each other. they were not related from what we could tell but they were in the same area. it was more likely for a kit that would to this high school to get killed then a soldier in afghanistan protecting our freedom. those are catastrophic numbers. they cry out to us as a nation to fix. the first thing we have to do is recognize that. one of the things that the mayor and i have struggled about is what makes people stand up? what makes people stop? i will say two things that might upset you but that is what we are here to do. mayor mike has said a number of times that if the ku klux klan killed 200 african-american men on the streets of america, they would have hell to pay. my wife heard a report on the radio.

a man was talking about chicago. this guy who was a caucasian said it 53 white people got shot in chicago over the weekend, the president would stop what he's doing, call out the national guard. basically what you have is a little racial discontent with the african-american community is saying if he did not pay attention, we will not pay attention and the white community says if you are not paying attention, we will not pay attention. it all goes down to is not my fault. here is the other thing we have to get our hands around. not everybody is to blame but we are all responsible. if we focus on the problem and put the right resources behind it and analyze the right way, i think we can solve the problem

but if it is something we do not think is a major problem, if we do not think it is important, we will not put the resources, the time and the organization behind try to understand it. this is a very deep problem. in new orleans, 10 times the national average, we went back and looked at it. people said you are not doing a good enough job. there is something wrong with your police chief. there is something about the way you comb your hair. [laughter] i agree with that. so we went back and look at the data and we found -- 1979-1980. ronald reagan, alice cooper, larry bird. we had an average of two and 41 murders every year on and on. some years got better, some

years got worse. when you went back and looked at the average, this tells you this is a very deeply rooted problem, that can only be dealt with from seeing it as a public health epidemic. the cease-fire model is built on an idea that is exactly right. it is one of many tools that we have to use but unless we recognize that it is deeply rooted in a lot of serious things, we are not going to get there. the doctor used the word transmissible. i want to tell you a brief story. last week in new orleans, there was a birthday party for a nine-year old boy taking place about 30 seconds from city hall in a residential neighborhood. three young men were driving down the street and saw somebody they had been looking for on this porch. they got out of their car and one of them took an ak47 and sprayed the neighborhood. when he finished spring the neighborhood, the cousin of the

nine-year old at her guts blown out on that porch. the nine-year old got clipped. a bullet traveled three blocks down the road and hit a mother of three young boys right in the head and killed her instantly. as you can imagine, a very traumatic event for everybody that's all that, everybody that went through that. the funeral was held and then we had in new orleans a repass. everybody comes back to the house and the sit on neutral ground. we were just having a fellowship with the family. walking towards me were two people that i recognized. one of them was about a 40- year-old african-american male and next to him was an african- american female. as i walked up to him, i recognized him. this man was the father of a

young african-american boy who witnessed the death of a two- year old three months earlier. she was gunned down in the courtyard of her home for 20 other kids were. the lady next to him says you do not remember me, do you? she said i am jeremy's mother, a two-year old who had been shot months before that got caught in a drive-by. these two people work together and the son of young african- american man knew brianna. this little boy himself saw and knew three people who were 5 or younger that got killed. the transmission of that and the complexity of that over a long period of time is something we all ought to stop about and say we have to find a way to get into that and to stop that.

we will not be able to do this if the nation is not called to purpose on this issue. i do not want to hear from congress that they do not have enough money to do this. the new york times reported last week that the united states of america spent $8 billion nation-building in standing up police department in iraq and afghanistan. that may have been unnecessary expenditure but it is hard for me to believe and understand as a mayor of a major american city that the point of that is to secure our homeland by helping their security forces be secure, that we cannot find a way to bring that money full circle in partnership with federal, state, and local governments so we do not have to rely on people like that robert wood johnson foundation to do for the people of america what we should do ourselves.

if the identify it, and recall the nation to purpose on it and say it is important to save the lives of young african- american, we can. we know that it is fixable. it takes time, resources, money. we have a cease-fire in new orleans. i think it is a great model. these are bright lights. it is one of many things. we have to start with saying is a national epidemic, we will not tolerate it. thank you very much. [applause] >> now you know why he is my partner. mayor ashley swearengin. >> thank you very much. i am ready to go now. mayor, well done. i want to share a few things

with you from our experience in fresno. we are not implementing this cease-fire program that has been presented this morning in its entirety but there are elements that we have been able to incorporate from a law enforcement perspective. i want to say that i am very compelled by the other elements that were we did we are missing in fresno. i am eager to see how we can raise those pieces up the in our community. i am extremely encouraged by what i see happening in our community. people standing up and saying enough is enough. it is coming from moms and dads and grandparents. we have an organization called the fresno st. states. it was brought together by seven african-american pastors who knew each other. this gets to the point of the epidemic -- at a particular family event, one of the pastors lost his grandson in an incident of violence.

a similar situation as to that which mayor mitch described. they were gathered for the funeral. the family was there. they were grieving, going through the normal processes and they realized they were running out of some ice and milk. so they sent two other grand kids down the street to the neighborhood store to get a few items. as those children were walking to the corner store, one of them was gunned down as the result of gang violence and unintentional crossfire that this particular child caught. needless to say, this series of events sparked what it's become a community revolution and transformation with many of these african-american grandfathers' coming together

saying we cannot live like this anymore. i had a mother in my office whose son was going through a criminal justice process and was involved in gang activity. she relayed to me that all the moms were friends in this particular rival gang situation. she could name all of these kids moms and said we were friends in high school and our sons are now killing each other. i certainly share the passion that you see from the other terrific leaders and other communities and understanding the importance of addressing this. what has been going on in fresno from law enforcement perspective, this is an important element and i certainly appreciate that it is not the fall sick -- the focus in systemic solution but it is extremely important that our law enforcement agencies are working in coordination with one another.

sometimes the tools we do have are not as strategically deployed as they can be. we have to fix that problem. we have them working with david kennedy out of the boston area of cease-fire and have begun to line every level of law- enforcement to target the 10% -- those who are committing 90% of the violence in fresno. the signature feature of this particular program is the call in. you invite these 10% people to come in. they hear from law enforcement at the local, state, federal level and from former game members and a trauma nurse or and e.r. doctor.

people listen the same message which is the violence must stop. the combined message of you have to stop. if you do not, he will be locked away for many years. if you choose to stop, there are a range of resources available to get you out of the lifestyle you are in now. after the law enforcement panel, there is a group of service providers to meet with the individuals and connects them with services in an attempt to help them begin the process of exiting the gang activity they are involved in. so far, we have been doing this for the last two years and we had 315 call in. of those, only five have recommitted a federal violent act. there has been a tremendous impact on jarring people's attention and we have seen a tremendous reduction in violence. what i am inspired by this morning is the idea of raising up the interrupters.

this probably sounds like the hardest thing to implement and i'm curious to hear from others on the panel how you go about finding people to be effective in that capacity. what we have experienced in fresno is that -- it is difficult to find those with the credibility needed to fill that function. those who are willing almost upon admitting they are willing to do it, they become less effective. it is difficult to get the credibility they need. i am anxious to learn more about that and see that added in. i am also really curious about working with hospitals and finding out -- that is so clearly the right spot to intervene. we typically have police officers all over the place when these violence -- violent acts happen but we do not necessarily have the community response that goes along with

that. i am anxious to learn more about that. thank you. >> mayor ashley swearengin, thank you very much. we will hear now from jane lowe. >> thank you very much. i want to thank both mayor nutter and rawlings-blake who are replicating the replication of the day who are replicating the cease-fire model. and the new insight that reminds us there are many different pathways here that we need to take to come together and solve this problem. i want to put forward the importance of using effective solutions to solve this problem of gun violence in american cities. you might wonder why the largest health care system in the united states -- why we have an interest in reducing gun violence.

it seems like this might be better left with law enforcement and criminal justice. but for us, we regard violence as a pressing public health issue that strikes at the heart of the community and well-being of individual families and whole communities. it disproportionately affects low income communities and vulnerable populations and as you have heard from everyone here, the young men of our cities. these are areas where the foundation has always placed very special emphasis. it goes without saying that gun violence, the toll of gun violence, is very clear. we should back kid ourselves about this happening just in one neighborhood -- we should not kid ourselves about this happening just in one

neighborhood. what is happening all across america affect all of us and we need to remember that whether we like it or not, we are all very deeply interconnected. clearly you have heard from gary and others about the contagion of violence. we know from other work of their doing around behavior and neuroscience and the evidence that is rapidly emerging around brains and brain science, that this is an important issue. it is no exaggeration to say that gun violence is an epidemic. i assume that nothing commands a retention more than a need as homicide as the lead story in your morning paper when you go to read it.

it is also clear and this is where the neuroscience comes in, that the physical and mental toll that takes place for people is not just among those who are directly affected or involved in acts of violence. in these neighborhoods, the mayor provided examples of where people have been exposed to violence and how the chronic instability affect people's lives. we know that when a child is exposed to violence, it has very lasting impact on their lives. this is what in the parlance of the science is called toxic strikes -- toxic stress. it can rewire a child's brain so that they are less likely to succeed in school or be physically and emotionally

healthy. that creates greater risk for disease and disadvantaged. the evidence for how and why to prevent the epidemic of violence. a cease-fire is a public health approach that seeks to interrupt the spread of violence much as the same way as gary described the spread of infectious diseases. the foundation supports the cease-fire model to combat environments because it works. that was our hypothesis 10 years ago when we began our investment and since then, the foundation has committed nearly $10 million to develop tests and

spread the model and tell the stories you're hearing today. our most recent investment was to begin to develop a business plan and strengthen the organizational capacity for replication and provide the technical assistance that is available to all of you across the country to help replicate this model. we know that the technical assistance is there in truth because of mayors like those who are with us today. people were open to different solutions. one that would sometimes have to be explained to a skeptical public but this idea may to bottom line economic sense because gun violence undermines the very fabric of life and opportunity in a community. it is a cost strain through lost wages, no job creating investment, and exceptionally high use of police and emergency room services.

as dr. gary slutkin, if you can stem the violence, it makes communities healthy and strengthens them in ways that are fundamental to health and vitality. investments in schools, housing, and so on. while we have committed significant amounts of the cease-fire model, the reality is that any philanthropic resources can tackle such a vast problem are entirely insufficient. it is not realistic to think we will support this work indefinitely. other partners, including u.s. mayors, need to come on board based on the evidence and the track record of success, and helps spread a novel model that works. we can do this together. we do not want to wait any longer. we cannot afford to watch any longer because the payouts are enormous. fewer shootings and killings, revitalize neighborhoods, and fundamentally healthier future for the people and communities you lead is division and is the

goal. thank you very much. [applause] >> with a great panel. we want to thank all of our panelists for their presentations on this very important topic. we want to open the floor to the mayor's in the room. we have in philadelphia shown a movie called "the interrupters"" we have had a number of showings of this film. it is very powerful, very compelling, but also very clearly tells a story about what is really going on on the street. it was made in chicago. you could watch the movie, close your eyes for a few minutes and you can be in any

city in the united states. we have shown in a number of times and planned to show its during the course of the next school year in a variety of places across philadelphia. with that, mayors in the room, if there are questions, comments, concerns, raise your hands and we will get you. >> thank you. quick question. i appreciate this model. my name is michael hancock from colorado. we were just talking here. this model makes sense. we have seen it work in a lot of ways. someone live up a cigarette in this room, we would freak out. that is the model you have talked about. we have changed the norm. one of the things i have trouble with regarding this by the behavior is the psychological long-term damage

that has been done, particularly with african-american males. the question is how do we begin to reverse that? want to get beyond making this an unacceptable norm to carry guns, have it in your possession, -- the question i want to know is what is the next step? there is something psychological and challenging when an african-american boy or any young man can point a gun at another young boy that looks like them and say it is ok to take their life. i'm wondering if some of the experts that dealt with the program can comment on that because i think that has to be the next logical step in combat in this challenge and disease that pervades our neighborhoods.

>> before you answer, but to give you another statistic. in new orleans, 88% of the young men actually know each other. >> we can add to that. not only do they know each other more often than not, but on any given week, on a monday, you can have a person who is a perpetrator encased in some criminal activity and by friday, that same person is a victim. most of the folks involved in criminal activity, violent crime, in the 70%-80% percentile range have criminal records, multiple arrests. they are all in the game. the overwhelming majority of violent crime in most cities in america is committed by a relatively small group of people chasing each other around. in many instances, some of them have been shot multiple times

and are survivors. you get a sense that there is all this criminal activity going on and it is not random. these folks all know each other. this week's shooting is about something that happened to weeks ago with somebody else. brother, cousin, and that you, friend, my man, my boy, whatever the case may be. and they are chasing each other around. >> let me remind anyone that myself and candace, will be here after the session. i will be here all day today if anyone wants to contact me. the business of transmissible with the mayor has correctly led -- it is not a metaphor

anymore. the science of this is really solid. it really is infectious. we really have fundamentally misdiagnosed this problem. it is a very important and central concept that we have been mistreating because we had misdiagnosed it. we need more funds but my original diagnosis which was people deny care enough or that there was not enough money in it is not the whole thing. it is really that we have not been applying the right approach is.

malaria was blocked for ever. until we came up with these. this problem has been fundamentally misdiagnosed and with respect to the issue of the business of trauma, it is an effect and cause of this. it is important to realize that severe punishment, and threats of punishment, as if everyone had not had enough of that already. you think the african-american male population has not been threatened enough? it has negative consequences on the brain and cause of war trauma. and more deregulation. besides all that, the adolescent brain as we now understand it, is not a consequence driven.

the frontal lobe is not yet prone. they are not worrying about the consequences. when we said they do not care, they are wired not to care. adolescents are wired to go out into the world because there are supposed to protect things and do things and change the world. what they care about is what their friends think. that is the way we are evolutionary wired. furthermore, they need risk. they need risks to be normal, to feel normal. that is the normal adolescence. the way that we see this in terms of using the science is that this is three steps. to reduce the trauma, we have to begin to reduce the trauma that is happening which means

that we have to reduce the shootings as fast as we can which is what the interruption part does. this method its results when you use the model in the first six to 12 months. point two shifts the norm. then we have to put into place some kind of treatment. professionalized mental-health care for people who have been repeated the traumatized. we are training the workers themselves to help others managed. there are methods for that that we did not talk about.

but there are new interventions that we need to put into place to scale. we are not being honest if we are just treating the trauma and not stopping the cause which is the shootings. and the aggressive other stuff going on. >> i want to say one word about this, peace and for the mayor of denver. there is a physician in philadelphia at the drexel school named john rich who is also a public health doctor who is working very hard on these issues of the impact of trauma on young men. i would discourage you to take a look at his work. -- encourage you. it is focused on trauma enforced care.

ho do you engage with these young men on issues of trauma? i will also say that on the philanthropic community now, there is a surge of interest and activity happening around address in the heat -- the needs of young men of color in this country. robert wood johnson foundation we at johnson will launch a program this fall that focuses on young men of color in high school. it has to not only deal with this terrible issue of violence but goes back upstream. where are the structural barriers? we're focused very much on the issue of violence. it is big and it is powerful. we also have to remember that the solutions lie upstream as

well. it is very important that have public health, education, employment, the business community, all of us have a stake in making the lives of our young people, whether they are young men of color, young women, better. so we have to think about this in -- as big intersecting circles and work with in our community to gather up all the organizations that are one way or another coming at this problem from different points of view. >> to follow up on interruption and transmission.

when you get upstream on this thing, let me bring this home to you. this little five-year old girl was killed was buried at the same place where a 16-year-old boy was killed three months earlier. two days after her funeral, i hosted a free lunch program in that same church. we are now serving more meles but we bought those kids in for breakfast. i had a table, 23 5-year-olds. i could not help but look at them and think where you going to be? we talked about these kids knowing each other and killing each other. one of the great dangers is you

hear people say i cannot touch that, that is not me. let me tell you something, they were not always thugs. one day they were that five- year old eating that free breakfast. on the issue of interruption, if we cannot change what happens between those ages, they will be doing the same thing. what are the conditions that have to be changed so we do not keep producing the same outcome that we have now. ceasefire is like putting a plug in the problem and taking the kids that are there and sing stop what you're doing. yet it way down and change the conditions of we cannot have that problem for those same kids tenures from now. >> mayor henderson from fort myers, florida. is this power point available? a in our city, we're having some challenges with witnesses getting a lot of stock.

-- getting lockjaw. can you share with us -- >> witnesses getting what? >> lockjaw. silence. that is a crude term, i'm sorry. but you get it. can you help us understand how you are dealing with it in your respective cities? thank you. >> there has been this -- on the first question, i am sure that dr. gary slutkin will make his power point available to everyone. in philadelphia, we combat no snitching. and witness intimidation. we have had a couple of bad situations but in many instances, folks -- everybody knows everybody. friends of friends, associates

and the rest that goes with it. somebody shoots them, the folks in the neighborhood know who did what. there is no big mystery here. because all these folks because they cannot keep their mouth shut of their lives depended on it. unfortunately in many instances, they will not call the police. they did not want to deal with that system. we will deal with this ourselves. so when you go back to dr. gary slutkin's work, you have to cool that down immediately. often starting at the hospital where the one who got in and the boys show up and say we are

going to get so and so. there's all kind of inappropriate language not for a writ -- not appropriate for c-span3 you have to kill that out immediately. that is where boots on the ground really do make a difference and having people in the neighborhood who are prepared to stand up and stepped-up is what this is really all about. so we do have in many instances folks stepping forward. we put in philadelphia a couple of months ago the 100 most wanted folks up on the city's cable access channel and website. within two weeks, 21 of those folks have either been arrested, turned themselves in or we got information on where they were three people really do want -- everybody was a safe community

ultimately. we have some folks out there or not and aged in -- not engaged in the common things we might be but we have to provide them an opportunity. using social media, texting, anonymous opportunities to give information and get that stuff out so that we can do our job. i think the no snitching attitude continues to be a major challenge but we have to give people a sense of hope that it will be protected and not be subject to retaliation. >> good morning. i am mayor of hempstead, new york.

we are trying to implement a cease-fire. how do you determine interrupters? how do you screen them for that? >> the people that work with you on the cease-fire? >> in baltimore, it is people who have been in the game. when i was talking about it earlier, choosing the right individuals -- that is out of my lane. i know the work of it. i can explain it but i would not be speaking with any credibility on the streets in some of these neighborhoods. they need people who have been where they have been.

the benefit of that is when you get the right person, you are able to get the results. the challenge is making sure that person is out of the game. >> i want to add to this because there are so many mayors here. our experience in watching cities try to do this on their own is that ordinarily, it is not so exactly likely that people are going to be selecting the right people on their own. we have a lot of experience in helping in this. there are criteria for this and there's research to be done in the neighborhood on this is because you need to determine what is actually going on a debt of this neighborhood right now? are there five groups, three groups? is it random stuff? what is going on here? and then who do we need to hire to interact with these various groups or whatever who knows them?

that point by point, you have to go through a systematic process of determining who has that rolodex, and who was both of his or her feet on this side of the line now. not a toenail over there. and they are hungry to do the work and they can do the work. so there -- and they are not random. they have to be part of a disease control system being supervised with monitoring and support and training. there is a whole training program i did i get into for interrupters so they can do persuasion, and behavior training and norman chains. we are -- and norm change. they need to be the right person and properly trained. >> he should get in touch with you. >> right.

>> that and the thing the bottom line. if you other mayors. -- that ends up being the bottom line. a few other mayors. >> can you talk about the intimation -- implementation process -- where to start? how long it takes? >> let's get mayor stephanie rawlings-blake. >> it was really a blueprint for the way we handled it. first you have to identify those areas. we do this all the time with our cities. we identify where we have neighbors that have historic of violence. you have to identify those intense dots on the map. after you do that, you have to make sure that in those areas,

one of the areas we first talked about, mclelderry park, there was strong community groups there that wanted different. you have to have all those things. you have to have the unfortunate part, the violence, and the community group that wants to do something and that is identified with you. then you can later on the work of identifying the potential interrupters. i would encourage anyone that is interested to learn from the mistakes of other cities which is it is not something -- you cannot take the power point and do it. you need to work with the group to make sure you are sticking to the model. we are talking about a public health issue. the same way you cannot listen to a lecture from a doctor and then start diagnosing people.

you have to work with the professionals that develop the program to get the results that you want. it is only through strict adherence to the model that we're getting the results. you have to figure out in your city how you can get that strict adherence. we tried different ways. it is work with health department in the lead of the cease-fire method that was able to make sure we were sticking with the model. >> we are going to take a couple questions. we are a little over our time but this is obviously a very serious discussion. i know there are other activities going on. i want to follow up on something that mayor andrew referenced. we are looking at this from a national perspective. you might want to take this down. on september 11th, 2001, 2977 were killed.

a horrific attack on the united states of america and there was an incredible response to that. last year, there were five frigid 15 homicides in new york city. 63 in boston. 108 in washington, d.c. 324 in philly. 298 in los angeles. 199 in new orleans. 433 in chicago. 344 in detroit. 91 in newark. 147 in memphis. the top five cities in the united states and eight others. it was 2981. in 13 cities last year. even the crime has generally

been going down, if you want to know how many people in those 13 cities total were killed over the last 10 years, multiplied by 10 to read what happened as a result of 9/11? the government created a cabinet level position, as secretary of homeland security. unless you're from orlando, everyone of you in the last day or so has not experienced with the tsa, you almost have to take your clothes off to get on an airplane. as long as you do not miss your flight, it is cool. i said in a speech in tallahassee, the tsa -- on our streets what we need is the walking around security administration. we need to be safe on our cities and states, flying anywhere in the united states or around the

world. we changed security procedures for how you fly in the world as a result of that her thick incident on monday -- as a result of that horrific incident on one day. you want to be safe flying. you want to be safe walking. that is what we need to focus on. next question. >> i appreciate all of the sharing your thoughts on the issue. my question for you is -- unfortunately for all of us, violent crime is not just a big city issue. it is in every city issue.

for communities of less than 50,000, can this program work? >> we are working with some smaller communities, including other communities in illinois. it works best when there is a serious problem. that is when it is most effective and should be used. >> last question. >> good morning. i am from gary, indiana. i know that my team has been talking to dr. gary slutkin. there are a lot of similarities. i have been involved with the drug movement for about 10 years. there are a lot of similarities

in terms of changing the norm and other aspects of the ceasefire movement. my question is in terms of your colleagues and -- in the medical field, and law that the movement in the drug analysis and terms of drug addiction as a disease, came as a result of the medical world. are you having that same success among your colleagues, the physicians, to look at violence as a public health issue? i think that the more of them that do, the more success we will have in this area. my other question is how involved is the faith community in terms of getting -- of being involved in the cease-fire initiatives that are under way? i heard in fresno they actually started your program but how involved in the community in terms of what is happening with cease-fires? >> i will take the first part of this.

i am glad you're here. we hope to be working with you and would love to be. we are aware of the problems there. the health community needs to be much more involved. the health of directors, the public health departments really need to begin to step up. they have not known until this model that there was a place for them on this serious violence. by convention, they have left that to others who control the resources in this issue but -- and they have been involved in work related to younger children. so there is a place for them now. we need the health directors to help the department of your cities to begin to step up, as baltimore has, to begin to take a very active role.

not only is there a place for them by the face of this issue needs to change. to a health matters about -- so that more effective treatments can be had supplied or added to what else is there. >> it has been a key component of what we have been doing in fresno. we have got a network of churches throughout the city that have organized themselves so we can cover each geography of the city with various rate based organizations.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the old adage that elections have consequences is out of here. cabinet nominations have consequences, too. if you do not want people with disturbing connections to an anti-american organizations like the muslim brotherhood to have influences on government officials, then the point is to avoid electing and confirming politicians who are going to put such people in those positions. still, all of that said, it is congress' responsibility to scrutinize executive-branch policy, if especially when the choice endanger the nation.

since 2009, the obama administration has abandoned the federal government prior policy against dealing directly and formaly with the muslim brotherhood. the state department has not only been supportive of that dramatic shift, it has embraced a number of muslim brotherhood positions that undermine both the american constitutional rights and our alliance with israel. to name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change, the state department has an adversary in israel who trained operatives of the muslim brotherhood. the state department announced the obama administration would be satisfied with the election of a muslim brotherhood-oriented government in egypt. the state department has collaborated with the organization of the islamic cooperation, a block of government heavily influenced by the brotherhood in seeking to

restrict american free-speech rights in the clearance to examination and negative criticism of is -- islam. the state department has excluded israel from the global counterterrorism forum, a group that brings the united states together with several islamic governments, a -- prominently including the co-chair, turkey. at the global counterterrorism forum kickoff, secretary clinton decried various terrorist acts and various terrorist groups, but did not mention how moss or attacks against israel. this was in deference to the islamic government the administration has chosen to partner with. to the exclusion of israel.

those governments adhere to the muslim brotherhood position that's is not a terrorist organization, and terrorist attacks against israel are not terrorism. the state department and obama administration way congressional restriction in order to transfer $1.5 billion in aid to egypt after the muslim brotherhood victory. the state department and obama administration weighed congressional restriction in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the palestinian territories, notwithstanding that ghaza is ruled by hamas, which again is a designated terrorist organization and the brotherhood's palestinian branch. with respect to the dedicated terrorist organization, if an american citizen try to provide support, they would be guilty of a serious felony. speaking of which, the state department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from the newly elected parliament that included

not only muslim brotherhood members, but a member of the islamic group. the islamic group headed by the sheikh who was my defendant back in the early 1990's. he is currently serving a life sentence for his leading role in the terrorist plot that not only bombed the world trade center, but planned an even more ambitious campaign -- campaign of attacks on new york city landmarks. like hamas, the islamic group is a designated terrorist organization to which it is illegal to supply material support. finally, on a just-completed trip to egypt, secretary clinton pressured the ruling military junta to hand over power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the muslim brotherhood.

secretary clinton later met with him, who has also been extended the honor of an invitation to come to the white house this september. all this, despite the muslim brotherhood extensive record of hostility towards the united states and despite the fact that morsi in his first public statement after being elected president announced one of his top priorities was to exert pressure on united states to force them -- to force us to free the blind sheikh and transfer him back to egypt. one last thing. government agencies are responsible to police themselves to ensure a proper influences and conflicts of interest do not skew policy away from the public interest. inspector general are one way agencies do that internally, and it is entirely appropriate for members of congress to act

inspectors general perform this role. in fact, probably a good voice of congress can get the information it needs without interfering with the agency mission. congress has an obligation to ask questions and conduct oversight over executive agencies. after all, the people's representatives have created these agencies. it is congress that funds these agencies with taxpayer dollars. what we're paying for dramatically affect our security, so congress must examine the policies and expenditures to protect the public interest. under the circumstances, there would be something terribly wrong if they were not asking questions about islamic influence of on our government. there is something terribly wrong in the fact that these five members of congress are the only ones who seem to have the courage to step up to the plate. think you very much for your attention. appreciate it. [applause]

>> sir? >> mr. mccarthy, i am a former state prosecutor. i have always been intrigued with the chain of events that led to the seizure of the explanatory memorandum that you discussed this morning. i have been looking at the affidavit that resulted in the issuance of the search warrant for that home in virginia. i have noted that the fbi believed that there was a connection to al qaeda, and that the individuals who were caught on the chesapeake bay bridge prior to the seizure were performing reconnaissance for al qaeda. i even have the pertinent paragraphs of that affidavit with me this morning. my question is this, should we

as citizens not be concerned or even angry that since 2004 our government has not adequately investigated and prosecuted this connection with al qaeda? >> well, we do not know that they have not adequately investigated, but i think we have agents, particularly on the frontlines, that are doing what they can to investigate this pretty thoroughly. let's not forget we know the enemy is trying to hit us, and we have not suffered a reprise of 9/11 since it happened, so you do not want to undersell the energy that our agencies devote to protecting america, because they have done a pretty good job of it i would say for the past 10-12 years. that said, the relationship between al qaeda and the muslim

brotherhood is very interesting. one of the items, i guess, of conventional wisdom that seems to be being sown is that they are less wild and crazy than al qaeda who just wants to kill everybody. the interesting thing is they have a touchy relationship. the brotherhood has a good thing going here in the united states. the non-violent jihad is working very well for them. i think they believe the jihadist attacks are to be avoided, because they are doing well without them. they realize that when there are terrorist attacks in the country, there will be a

significant blowback, and that will affect their operations in a negative way. on the other hand, when you are talking about american armed forces or other american presence operating inside other countries, when al qaeda attacks americans in those countries, the muslim brotherhood supports them. in fact, the muslim brotherhood has lauded bin laden several times, so it is an interesting connection between the two. yes, ma'am? >> you said something about the training manuals. do you want me to repeat it? >> yes. >> ok. the question is can you say something about the training manuals for the fbi and other agencies to comply with muslim brethren requirements?

>> that is wrong on so many levels. first of all, why we are taking advice from organizations that do not mean us well is baffling. the thought, let's assume for argument's sake that what you are hearing is right, and there is some outrageous stuff in the training manuals, if these are the people we are training to protect our country, i think they would probably be exposed to stuff and figure out what is wacky and real. if they cannot come i do not know why they are being trained for the jobs -- if they cannot, finally, here is how much i think things have changed in 15 years. when -- after the blind sheikh -- the way that we prosecuted the blind sheikh was to prove that there were injunctions toward violence in the koran.

i am not suggesting that is all that the koran said. what was in there was in there, what the blind sheik said. what made him powerful, think about the blind sheik, blind, diabetic. probably bad ticker, probably any malady you can think of, and what was his source of influence? this is what the government was talking about back in 1993. he is a doctor of jurisprudence, a university graduate, and a renowned authority on sharia. we proved that we had a very influential jurist who you uses

these commands. they are threaded through the koran. the clinton justice department brought us down to washington and gave the prosecutor of the year award, or whatever it was. i do not mean to belittle it. we were very honored to go down and get it. flash forward 15 years later. people who suggest that there are commands to violence in the koran, this is the fuel ends up in violent extremism. they are now called islamaphobes. what we used to call evidence is now, basically, a hate crime, and if they get their way, and the first amendment cutbacks that the organization would like to see somehow find their way into our law, it would be much harder not only to prosecute terrorism cases but even to talk about them.

>> mr. mccarthy, i am trying to determine -- you mentioned during your dissertation here that this should become an issue, this whole thing should become an issue, in the current presidential campaign. this raises the question as to whether or not you know of or will support or will encourage or will actually take the lead in any effort. can you give me any indication of what we can look forward to in that regard? >> well, i think i just did it. what i thought needed to be said -- i have to tell you, as shocking as i think this is, i do not think the romney people get up and say, "gee, i wonder what andy thinks."

you know, look. i think it is very obvious that this is a crucially important issue, and let me explain why i think so, othethan the obvious. if you have a serious problem, and i think we do have a serious problem, it is at the very least worth investigating about influence in our country, and when you describe it to people, they think it is hair raising. "my god, this is really bad." well, the people on capitol hill knows that better than the people out in the country do, and there are five members of congress who are willing to get up and say something about it, and the remainder of them want it to go away.

that's not only bad in and of itself in this one situation. what does it say the next time some information comes up that cries out to be disclosed and investigated? you know, if you are an ambitious politician in congress, and you see what they did to michele bachmann and the rest of these characters, it is going to be very hard to stand up and do what needs to be done. that is why i think it is vitally important, and it would be a wonderful thing if governor romney did it, but it is important that we raise holy hell and the people stand up and be counted about it. yes? >> accuracy in academia. the muslim league person.

>> his grandfather was the founder of the muslim brotherhood, and sa'id ramadan was married to the daughter. the family tree there. yes, sir? >> huma abedin does not have any policy role -- >> i said she does not make policy. >> she essentially helps the secretary of state pick out her suits and get her from meeting to meeting. i wanted you to explain what mechanism she would with b using to exert on hillary clinton other than picking out her suit?

>> i do know that she managed to get mrs. clinton to appear at a college that her mother founded in egypt, of all of the places sthrecked went to. -- she could have went to. they got there. that one, by the way, has board members that are involved in terrorism funding. she did her share, too. look. somebody says she is not a family member. this is not a partisan problem. we are in a partisan setting right now. look. i was very critical of the bush administration, and i think they've bent over backwards and turned a blind eye to things i do not think they should have turned a blind eye too.

i think the obama administration has been worse and i do not know what to say about this except i thought i was clear that i thought this was a real bipartisan failing. i am proud of the five people who have stood up and are continuing to stand up despite having been really put through the wringer, but there are people who have not been heard from, or when they have been heard from, they have said the wrong things, and some of them are republicans, and some of them are democrats. stupidity does not seem to be a partisan condition. yes? >> can you be more specific on what is the danger if we give open arms to the muslim brotherhood? egypt. i am wondering if it is just peaceful, open arms.

>> i do not see it as peaceful. i think they are a committed enemy of the united states. they had a leader come to say that there should be violent jihad against the united states. i am not foolish enough, i hope, to think that you do not have to deal with your enemies. you have to deal with them. you don't pretend that they are your friends. i think that is a much more sensible place to start from. >> right now, they are the leader of the country. >> i do not like these kinds of comparisons, and i will probably be mad at myself for saying it, but hitler was a leader,

too. iran is our enemy. the muslim brotherhood is our enemy. we have to deal with them because that is the fact of life. we would be children if we did not think we have to deal with them, but you need to deal with them as they are, not as you wish they are. that will make us a lot safer. yes, ma'am? >> sticking with the hitler part, is it reasonable to look at this the way we used to look at communism? their goal was to replace us as well. there is a difference between going to war -- i am not advocating war against egypt, but to understand people who do not like the way you live. >> i think that makes sense, but we should be honest about the history of communism. there was more infiltration than we thought. that is a very good analogy, but let's make it an accurate analogy.

we are dealing with an ideology. i think in many ways, soviet communism, in particular, was easier for us to deal with, because when you inject religion, which you have, unfortunately, with islam xm premises and, because it does have some spiritual elements -- with islamic extremism, because it does have some spiritual elements, you know, i think that has made it, because of our respect for religious liberty, it has made it more difficult for us to grapple with this threat, and i think a lot of well-meaning people have gotten it wrong, but i think it is a good analogy. >> before osama bin laden was killed, you had it interview, i think, with "national review," suggesting he had outlived his usefulness to the muslim brotherhood and that it would

therefore be ok for the obama administration to kill him. do you think they killed him as a favor because he outlived his usefulness to the muslim brotherhood? >> whether they did or not, i consider it a personal favor to me so i'm grateful and i thank the president. no, osama bin laden was a threat to the united states. i do not know how it impacted the muslim brotherhood. >> i am just wondering. >> what i said is he had outlived his usefulness for muslim brotherhood, and i think that is true. >> therefore, it would be ok for the islamic -- >> there were 15 reasons to kill him. that is one of them. >> nobody else has made that argument. i have never heard it before. >> i'm a whack job. i don't know what else to tell

you. >> you can get sarcastic but you made it. i thought it was crazy, too, but then again -- >> i thought osama bin laden had outlived his usefulness to them. that is hardly the reason the president of the united states, the commander in chief in a war against al qaeda would organize an frigse kill bin laden. if it had a residual benefit or whatever impact it had on the brothers, -- president obama has been very tough on violent jihadists, and for those that mention a partisan issue, back during the 2008 campaign the idea that if they did not deal with pakistan, mccain deal with them, and mccain was

shocked. i thought obama had it right. it is a good thing for the country that president obama has been tough on violent jihadists. it is bad that they have botched it up that they sometimes killed in circumstances where we can capture and get good intelligence. i thought obama was right when he talked about pakistan, but i did not believe him. he proved me wrong. he has been very tough on pakistan and yemen, and all kinds of different pockets. that being said, this has made

it a lot easier for him to have maneuvering room in terms of dealing with the muslim brotherhood, and i do not have in front of me, you know, whatever it is you are quoting, but my recollection is that is what i was trying to get at. in other words, the fact that he has cracked down aggressively on violent jihadists, in many ways more aggressively than president bush did, has made it easier for him to embrace these muslim brotherhood groups without having a lot of political fallout. >> how does the same-sex marriage enter the whole agenda? the obama administration has islamic sympathy?

>> you are way too quick for me. i apologize. >> i'm sure i'm not, know. i think you just don't like the question. >> you know, look. there is a fair question in there someplace, and it is this. to say that obama has islamic sympathys is not the same as saying he is an islamic or supports sharia. and i will make a broader point about the hard left, in general. there are many historical incidences of leftists and islamists working together. they exist right before our eyes now, and they have gone back more than half a century.

that does not mean that the two of them agree on everything. they agree on a number of core things. they are both sympathetic to the idea of a totalitarian system. it is not the same totalitarian system, but they tend to combine with each other when they have a common enemy, but once there is not a common enemy, they have also fought with each other in history, so i do not know why there is a problem to say that obama has islamic sympathy but is not an islamic. >> the enemy of my enemy is my friend. from the middle east. the other one, if you dig into

wikileaks, obama's deputy had talked to the germans. they would not take hm out. he arranged for a -- that was compromised so he could take them out. he didn't think he was strong enough and radical enough because osama bin laden did not want to take certain weapons of mass destruction into the country just yet. he did. you can dig it up. >> ok. >> mrs. gaffnew doesn't believe that obama was born in the united states and that there are mounting claims that he is still a muslim. >> since i argue most of the time that we should avoid imposing sharia in the united states, i think the president

should get the benefit of that as well. there is some evidence that he was raised as a muslim, documentary evidence, as well. as far as i know, the president has not done anything to affirm islam. he proclaims himself to be a christian. i don't know why we would question that. that is not our way of thinking. if somebody wants to run a nutty theory that obama is a muslim becausat some point in his childhood, he was raised as one, which i do not know either, i think that is a stupid thing to do.

you're assuming that i'm going to accept your reciteation of what he says. >> there is mounting evidence. >> i would rather see the quote before i say anything. i am not going to play that game with you. i have said what i think. >> and the allegation that he is not born here? do you think it is a credible question? >> is what a credible question? >> whether he was born in the united states? >> i think that he could have done a lot more to take the question off of the table. >> you don't think birth certificate was enough? >> i am not going to do the birth certificate. i am here to talk about the muslim brother read. no. >> thank you. >> you are welcome.

>> hi. my name is anna. i would like a few examples of how the u.s. has trained the muslim brotherhood in democracy procedures that helped them to be elected? >> yes, there is a guy who is a state department official, whose name escapes me at the moment, who is the obama administration's point person for democratic transition. he has given a number of interviews. i think some of the american press but certainly in the arabic press, where he explains that they give democracy classes in the procedures of democracy. what i take that to mean is sort of organizing political

campaigns, organizing election strategies, developing platforms, and the like. this is almost a direct quote, but i remember him saying that some day, the islamists come. and some days they don't. he is also by the way, the official who said that the obama administration would be -- i don't want to misquote him but it is something along the lines of satisfied with a muslim brotherhood victory. that's what i have got on it at the moment. ok? yes, sir? >> i am with the investigative project on terrorism. i have a question for you. the center for american progress, a think tank, put out a study that says there is a phobia.

and yet, some of the people who have been making the same charges are groups that are actually much larger than ours, like the american civil liberties union, and various other groups that are very, very well connected on the political left. what is the best way to answer these kinds of charges? >> well, as i said before, this is a strategy. this is a label they have come up with themselves, and like many of their strategies, it is quite clever. to be subjected to that kind of smear. i do not know what to say except

you have to tune that out and not care about it. i do not care about it, so i have trouble identifying with people who do, but i understand the problem. i just think it is a mistake to think you need to get into a rational argument with people who are moving a movement, not actually trying to have a good-faith give and take with you. yes, ma'am? >> mr. mccarthy, it is a pleasure to be here with you today. there are some comments that secretary clinton made last summer, where she said this administration would use old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming to prevent any kind of phobia.

how much further down the rabbit hole are we going to go until there is a change, a tipping point where there is enough knowledge, enough anger, enough proof for us to stop this, kind of at what point can we turn the tables? >> i guess the first thing is i think it is inappropriate for the government to bully people. there is plenty of peer pressure but that is supposed to be a citizen on citizen thing. when it gets to be government on citizen, that is a big problem. in my office, which i was very proud to work out for almost 20 years, the rule of the road was that the government spoke when it was ready to charge somebody. before that, you were supposed to keep your mouth shut. i'm not pretending everybody followed that golden rule to the tmp every time but they should have. government has lawful procedures

in order to repress people that deserve to be repressed as a matter of law. if they have not violated the laws, just exhibiting their rights, i think the government ought to stay out of it. i don't think that is just the case with secretary clinton. we have had situations where -- remember the guy down in florida who was burning the koran, and that was creating a violent reaction in afghanistan. senator graham and general petraeus had a lot to say about the guy down in florida, but the guy had a right to do it. i think what we ought to be more focused on is people who think

it is ok to commit mass murder over the burning of a book rather than the burning of the book, so, you know, i think that is wrong. in terms of how far we are going to go, i think there is going to be movement on the o.i.c.'s resolution, which does attempt, and as i understand it, the administration has been supportive of this process, to try to do an end around the first amendment in a way that would enable it to crack down on commentary about islam. now, i do not want to get riled up about that until i see exactly what they're going to try to do. some of this may be like what they are doing just to keep the

temperature down and try to keep good relations, but some of it may be substantive and serious. i think that is the thing to keep an eye on, what happens with that resolution. yes, ma'am? >> what to do to prevent this, because what people say can be inflammatory. >> how do we prevent them from being radicalized? >> for example, the burning of mosques or killing other people. >> i made a living out of this for a long time.

when people violate the law, they ought to be prosecuted. that includes incitement. there is a difficult line between free speech and incentives. there are legal tests and they do work. those people ought to be prosecuted aggressively but i don't think we should compromise an iota because a bunch of lunatics think it is right to commit mass murder over what in our society would be slight that are so insignificant that they are not worth mentioning. >> you disagree about the connection. >> i don't think the government

always has to lead everything. if you have a lunatic somewhere who wants to bring a koran to call attention to himself, that's the sometime when the real peer pressure, we ought to trust that we have a good enough society that we can dissuade people from doing stupid things, but every now and then, that is wind of what the first amendment is about. every now and again, someone is going to do something very provocative, may be insensitive to the point of being in human, -- maybe insensitive to the point of being inhuman. the way our society is and the way i think we want it to remain is we swallow hard and accept that in order to have the free exchange of points of view that we have. yes, sir? >> i have a slightly tricky question. my name is ron thompson. it is a follow up on your

comment about the smallness of the spiritualism of islam. >> before you continue, what i meant was that component of it when you look at the totality of what sharia would deal with, i did not mean to say it was small in the sense that it would be something to be dismissed. >> ok, i am inclined to think that they are. it leads a little bit to my question. the muslims. how is it possible to be a good muslim and not be in favor of sharia law? >> there are wide interpretations of islam, and there is a courageous effort

underway in the islam count in try reinterpret the aggressive passages and put them in historical context that that was for them, but that is not for now. >> do you see any success with that? >> there is some success. there are places like indonesia is very different than the practice of islam, generally speaking, in saudi arabia. let me tell you something else from my own experience as a prosecutor, and doing terrorism cases. i think the big divide in the islamic community in america is between the rank and file muslims and the leadership of many of the mosques and many community centers. when we needed cooperation from the islamic community in conducting our investigation, we generally got it. now, it came with caveats.

most specifically that people did not want it to be known that they cooperated with us, but as long as we assured them that that did not have to be found out, they were pretty cooperative, and the reason they were worried about that was not always violence. i think there is always part of that when you are dealing with a terrorism investigation, that is sort of the nature of the beast, but what they were most concerned about was being ostracized in their communities, and the reason for that i think is that the rank and file people in the communities tended to be american people who happened to be muslim. the leadership at the mosques and community centers are very often influenced by muslim brotherhood, very often have come from overseas, and were preaching a much more fiery version of islam than the people in the community might have felt

comfortable with, even if they did not feel comfortable speaking up and objecting. i think it is a complicated situation, but first of all, i am not a muslim. i do not think it is for me to say what is authentic islam. and if we are talking about something as simple as these guys say two plus two is four, and these guys are trying to say it is really five, then, yes, i think you can say it is a black-and-white issue and that these people are wrong. as it happens, we are dealing with a community of woverl a billion people. they have many different interpretations of islam, and there are many places where it is practiced in a way where it is very benign, and the explosive parts of the scripture are seemingly irrelevant. that does not mean that they are there. we are seeing this in indonesia

right now. things are going in the wrong direction, and that is worrisome. i do not feel either confident or comfortable telling somebody who interprets islam in a way that says that i do not need to follow these injunctions, and i can, regardless of what classical sharia says, i can separate my life from society. i do not feel i should tell the person they are wrong about islam. >> i appreciate it. >> yes? >> thank you. i am curious if you can address some criticism about michele bachmann. they said they should not have

made it public. 4she posted on her web sites, and then went on a conservative radio show to talk about it, and that sort of undermines their claim -- she posted on her website. they are on your website. would you have preferred to see that? >> i know they are on her web site, but i do not know that is how they originally got publicized. if they were publicized, then it would be better to put them on the website. just so everybody saw what they actually were rather than what they were rumored to be. but i would be speculating. >> i believe they were first published on her website. >> i do not know. >> you indicated that huma abedin works with a journal.

>> journal of minority muslim affairs. >> is that available online? >> was it online? i've seen a number of passages online. frank is saying it is on line. >> can you talk more about the types of things that have appeared in that publication? >> it is very similar, from what i have seen it, and this is a journal that goes back to the late 1970's, and i have seen i do not know how representative of a sample, but five or six different editions. just an article here. an article there. there is a lot of talk in what i

have seen, muslim minority communities particularly in the west, which is interesting because it is an issue that is greatly important to a sheik. one of his priorities has been called -- i do not think this is his characterization, but it has been called voluntary apartheid, and the idea is that muslims move into western countries or countries at least that are not muslim countries, and they get a toehold in an enclave, and then the idea would be that more and more move into the enclave, and then you put pressure on the government to be allowed to conduct your affairs under sharia. if this prosess continues, you have ceded sovereignity from the

governing authority of the country to the enclave and to the muslim authority in the enclave. that is one of the big strategies for islamizing europe and it has worked frighteningly well in a number of places. there was the prime minister of turkey who said he considered assimilation that they assimilate in the west to be a crime against humanity, so it is a very big imperative to be allowed first to get it physical toehold in a place, get that to be bigger, and then establish a precedent that they have islam law, and from what i've seen in the journals, there has been some stuff about that.

>> one last question. >> thank you. would you expect people in the government might come forward as whistle blowers about the vetting proses? -- processes? >> i sort of hope they do not. you do not want to right something that is wrong with something that is worse. that again, i guess this this brings us full circle to where we started. the most appropriate way for this to be investigated is for congress to investigate it, and i think the way that these five representatives went about it, asking for inspectors general to start looking into it and report back to congress was really a good way to go, because an inspector general in an agency, especially if he or she does the job right, has the

capacity to conduct it, the investigation without bumping into the mission left, right, and center. sometimes congress just sort of decides they need to investigate something right now in some executive agency. you can compromise the effectiveness to have mission. if you go through the inspector general you might find out what you want to know without breaking too much stuff. anyway, thank you very much. [applause] >> let me just thank him for what i thought was going to be an extraordinary drill-down on the problem. i thank all of you for being here. on your way out if, you didn't get it in your pact there are two important letters that went

to john painer in the -- boehner. one from andy mccarthy and four other very influential figures in the law enforcement community. with that, we thank you again for being here. we hope you can stay tuned as more of this documentation of a very serious problem with jihad becomes available through andy's work and otherwise. thank you very much. >> this weekend on american history tv. >> we are selling george washington's personal -- the acts of congress. we will start the bidding, ladies and gentlemen, at $1 ,300,000. $1,700,000. >> sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern

and pacific. auction of act s of congress. along with the constitution, the draft of the bill of rights, the 1789 book includes washington's own hand-written notes. also more from the contenders. a look at political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. >> as it has been said in the worst of times, a great people must do the best of things and let us do it. >> this week former u.s. senator and l.b.j.'s vice president hubert humphrey. this weekend on c-span 3. >> in a few moments, john brennan . and "washington journal squts live at 7:00 eastern. one of our guests this morning is former house speaker and g.o.p presidential candidate

newt gingrich. president obama's counterterrorism advisor yesterday defended the use of drone attacks in yemen. remarks of the council on foreign relations in washington, he did not rule out u.s. involvement in syria. this is an hour. >> welcome everybody. welcome to today's council on foreign relations meeting. i think most of you are veterans of this. you know the rules. please turn off your cell phones and pagers which i am doing right this second, myself. i've been asked that you not even put it on vibrate because that can interveer with the sound system. this meeting is on the record. it is my pleasure today to introduce today's guest, john brennan . the assistant to the president for homeland security and

counterterrorism and a deputy national security advisor. that means they see chief advisor for the president on counterterrorism strategy as well as policy and implementation. and he also coordinates all the homeland security-related activities throughout the executive branch, both in preparing for and responding to things such as cyberthreats and terrorist attacks. he is going to open today with a few remarks about u.s. policy from yemen and we will have a conversation for 15 minute or so and then open it up for questions from you the audience on a wide range of topics. mr. brennan ? [applause] >> thank you very much, margaret. thank you everyone for being here today. it certainly a pleasure to see so many familiar faces both from inside and outside of government who i hope are here because of their abiding and deeply rooted interest in yemen and u.s.

yemeni relations. when the subject of yemen comes up, it is often through the prism of the terrorist threat emanating from its borders and for good reason. the peninsula is al qaeda's most active affiliate. it has assassinated yemeni leaders. targeted american interests. killed aid workers. attempted repeated attacks against u.s. aviation. likewise, discussion of yemeni and american counterterrorism efforts tend to focus on the use of one counterterrorism tool in particular. targeted strikes. at the white house, we have always take an broader view. both of yemen's challenges and u.s. policy. two months ago however a number of experts wrote an open letter to president obama arguing there is a per stheapings the united

states is -- per stheapings the united states is focused on yemen's political, economic and social ills. it is in that spirit that i join you here today. both in my official capacity and as someone who has come to know and admire yemen and its people. i want to begin with a snapshot of where yemen is today. since assuming office, the and his administration have made progress toward two key element s of the gulf cooperation council agreement that ended the rule. as part of the military reorganization, powerful commanders including some of the former president's family and supporters have been dismissed or reassigned and discussions are underway to bring the military under unified civilian

command and just two days ago, the president took the important step of issuing a decree that reassigned several brigades from under the command and leading the rival. in addition to organization the day log the president has appointed a committee from political parties, youth groups, women's organizations and that committee met for the first time this week. on the security front, government forces achieved important gains. today, their flag no longer flies. as one resident said, the departure from these areas in june, it is like darkness being lifted from our lives in a year. businesses are reopening. public services are resumed in public services are resumed in majors