good morning from new york i'm steve kornacki. a day after congress voted to end furloughs for air traffic controllers that were causing massive flight delays president obama reiterated his calls to replace the automaticed spending cuts with a more balanced reduction plans. syria is calling for action after the obama administration said president assad's regime likely used chemical weapons. right now i'm joined by associate professor at the city

university of new york law school and lawyer for several detainees at guantanamo bay. lisa miller. the author of "talking to the enemy." and nan heyworth a former republican congresswoman from new york. a government document obtained by nbc news shows the bomb makers aligned with instructions in an article of "how to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom." boston marathon bombing suspect dzhokhar tsarnaev was moved to a federal detention center. there are still 30 victims in boston area hospitals this morning with one in critical condition. richard donohue the officer injured last week also remains hospitalized.

tsarnaev's transfer came as investigators revealed more details about dzhokhar and his brother tamerlan and what they planned to do. dzhokhar began communicating with investigators in writing on sunday from his hospital bed where he was being treated for gunshot wounds. details from those interviews were still trickling out days later. on thursday, for example, we learned the suspects next destination was new york city where officials said tsarnaev brothers planned to detonate their remaining explosives in times square. new york mayor michael bloomberg says it underscores the city to expand their counterterrorism operation noopgs the attacks in boston and news that new york city was next on the terrorist list shows just how critical it is for the federal government to devote resources to high risk areas. it also shows just how crucial it is for the nypd to continue to gather and expand its

counterterrorism capabilities and intelligence gathering activities. >> investigators and the media spent the past week scouring the brother's past. they put together a picture of the suspects as two brothers motivated by extremist islamic beliefs but acted with no connection to a terrorist group. on sunday a former neighbor told "60 minutes" tamerlan grew more radical in recent years. >> he was explaining how the bible is a cheap copy of the koran. and how it's used for the american government to, as an excuse to invade other countries. and i remember he said that america is a colonial power trying to colonize the middle east and africa. he also said that most casualties in afghanistan and iraq are innocent by standers

gunned down by american soldiers. >> on tuesday we learned more about federal officials contacts with tamerlan before the bombings. he had been on two different u.s. government watch lists and was the subject of at least four conversations with russian spy services. "the washington post" was told the bureau did everything legally that we can do with a little bit of information that we had. however that statement was not enough to assuage some republicans who said the boston bombings remains at war with radical islam. here's lindsey graham. >> our systems are failing and we're going backwards. we need to understand that bin laden may be dead but the war against radical islam is very much alive, radical islam is on the march, and we need to up our game. >> so there it is. radical islam that's it. we're at war with them. thank you senator graham.

i want seems to me there's -- this has been a particularly complex picture to kind of piece together because there's so many different elements and lot of red herrings in the background. i know when the news first broke last week a lot of attention was paid to the fact that they are chechen. i'm not seeing anything that was any part of this. we had all of these different component pieces some have been aired like senator graham with islamic ties. there's some other pieces. lisa, you were writing about one, the fact that they are young men. >> right. in the history of these kinds of acts they are almost always angry young men. when i saw their pictures initially the first people i thought of was not islamic terrorists but the guys who shot all of their classmates at columbine high school. young, disaffected, people were calling them bros online, kids.

the columbine killers had bombs that didn't go off. if they detonated those bombs would they have been terrorists instead of mad losers? >> it is striking. all the social media stuff that comes out now. we can go back and look at their lives as they portrayed them and lived them online. when you look at dzhokhar and his twitter stream and you see a few tweets there that maybe are suggestive there. we look at it now, oh, maybe this is radical islam. maybe it's an 18-year-old kid who was feeling alienated. >> he knew the songs from "rent." he was nothing on his twitter feed was a red flag that said islamic terrorist.

>> scott, you've written about this a little bit. there is a component here of sort of radicalization, islamic radicalization. maybe it's disaffected young men and in this case for some reason his diesaffection takes in radical islam. >> 7% support of islam supports what happened on 9/11. very few go on a path of violence. mostly young guys. students. immigrants. between girlfriends, between jobs. they left their family. they are born again. they are in their late teens and early 20s. they are sort of disaffected and looking for a great cause.

looking for glory and adventure. out there on the internet this is one of the most adventurous things you can imagine. look these guys with box cutters changed the history of the world. you can do tight. it's fairly attractive. but the thing is it's almost always small networks of family and friends, about 10 to 15% family, 60% friends, the rest some disciples, there's no recruitment. almost all self-seekers who do this themselves. they may find someone on the internet or hook up with someone but that's pretty rare. they sort of withdraw from the counter culture that's protesting things that are going wrong in the world. then then hunker down in a cocoon. take an apartment together. close themselves off from the friends. get expelled from the mosque. they come out, want to do sorry don't know what to do. they come up with some hair

brain scheme. pressure cooker, which was taken by the "inspire" magazine from the anarchist cookbook. they make a bomb. no contingency plan for what comes afterwards. since they are small groups in small networks, almost always the only way they can achieve their ambitions is by publicity which is the oxygen of terrorism and that's what terrorizes. >> you've written -- you had a great piece this week that got into that which is basically our reaction in terms of, you know, the city of boston was shut down for a day, some of the towns outside of boston were shut down. obviously this has dominanted the news. it happened more than a week ago. we're still talking about it today. i think we should. there's that balancing act if we just not that we ever would if we pretend it didn't happen the terrorist wouldn't be getting what they want but how can we pretend it didn't happen how can

we not respond to it? >> as lisa said and scott you just described the scenario, these are young men who want to show they are powerful and, unfortunately, we exist in a world in which someone can use, create and use a hideous weapon, whatever that may be. of course we were talking about guns just a couple of weeks ago here on this program. to create mayhem. so the question is -- here we have two disaffected young men, one of whom though among the thousands we could follow as you said, lisa, how many of us have encountered young people, typically young men who have said something that could be taken as a portent of something awful. so we do know that the older tsarnaev brother did, tamerlan

did come to the presence, to the attention of the u.s. government and was interviewed at least for a time. so how can we better -- obviously there was something there. it did turn into an act of awful violence. how do we identify and solve that lesion so we could have thwarted this. >> it seems there are two issues here. scott one of them you write about how the media handles it and the other is the official government response and i want to talk about official government response if there has been one, if there should be one, what form it will take after this. you hurt my feelings, todd.

i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instead of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgraded experience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

marco rubio was asked on fox news earlier this week about a comment one of the fox news personalities made suggesting in the wake of bomb we taught

revisit the idea of giving student visas to muslims. marco rubio seemed to be open to that. then he was asked in a followup. are you really open to that idea. here's what he said. >> you opened the door to perhaps not allowing muslim students to receive student visas in this country. did you mean that 24 hours late center >> yeah. there are indicators that people are coming from parts of the world where there are dangerous people living and plotting against us. that should be a factor in determining whether we allow them to come here from there or not. >> i've been trying to interpret this. the thing with rubio we've seen this a little bit, he's trying to push through this immigration overhaul. every few weeks he makes a gesture to the hard core right of his party that sort of i'm still with you, i'm still one of you so that he has the political room to get immigration through. he's done this on the immigration bill where the deal was close to being struck and

then he said no wait i don't think there's a deal and there was panic. i'm kind of interpreting this as he's not going to join a formal push to suspend student via sass for muslims he's doing this to cater to his base but still the fact that there's an appetite sort of on the right for that sort of thing is kind of telling. >> absolutely. i think the rhetoric is damaging in and of itself whether or not there's any political will behind it and in a time of tragedy and a time of crisis i think the priorities should be to maintain unity. and we should be very careful about policy making and legislating in a rush. we should take the time to let the facts emerge to get a clear picture of what happened before rushing to judgment and passing laws or policies that will have, you know, more long term effects. so i think that goes as far as addressing the government response but in terms of the media discourse and public discourse around the boston

bombings it's important and it ties in not to exceptionalize these acts of violence, to c conte context contexturalize them. we have to keep an open mind to understand the phenomenon rather than allow ourselves exceptionalize. it might take on an islamic color in this instance. >> you know, that's one of our biggest problems when we look at any of these events that clearly we want to see never happen again and, you know, never again another newtown, never again another marathon bombing, never again another 9/11. how do we calmly dispassionately objectively analyze and see where and not make it political

and not make it part of a political process. it behooves the american public to be better informed about all these things and our voters have to understand so that political figures aren't tempted to go that route. but i was fascinated by what scott said when we were on the break one way to approach someone like a tamerlan tsarnaev situation would have been to talk with his family because that actually can be quite effective. now that's something that we could do differently. that's not a political item. >> yeah. i was struck by that too in the break you were telling us we have all these stories about the russians called and said look out for this guy and the fbi went and interviewed him and his family. you think that was maybe a counter productive move. >> the saudis, the turks, the israelis -- look we don't want

to know where you guys were. we don't want any trouble. what can we do. let's sit down with families. let's talk about them. let them monitor them. let their friends because that's where they come from. let their families monitor what they are doing and that's pretty much the most effective control. you need police work and good intelligence but that certainly a much better approach. but, you know, the approach we have is sort of crazy. here lindsey graham is calling this guy an enemy combatant. they are accusing this guys of weapons of mass destruction. nuclear weapons. those of us that lived through the cuban missile crisis know the fear of nuclear weapons and a pressure cooker isn't a nuclear weapon. it's got to be put into context. it's not different from all these other events that's been described and just the fact that you have a mention of jihad, it also happened in california. someone robbed a gas station,

500 fbi agents pulled from st. louis to california. and there is zero tolerance. you ask the heads of the fbi or law enforcement, this is crazy and they say to you we know that's crazy but i'm with senior fbi official in parliament in britain and i said you know this is crazy. he says if i ever advocate anything more than zero tolerance they would be hanging me from my balls from the develop congress. >> that's exactly right. if you can quantify the let's to life that's out there and things we don't apply to things over the last 10, 12 years that killed far more people and yet it's politically acceptable in some way to let that happen. i want to talk about why that is and if there's any way to change that equation and we'll do that after this. you brought the flex in... as soon as i met fiona and i was describing the problem we were having with our rear brakes, she immediately triaged the situation,

knew exactly what was wrong with it, the car was diagnosed properly, it was fixed correctly i have confidence knowing that if i take to ford it's going to be done correctly with the right parts and the right people. get a free brake inspection and brake pads installed for just 49.95 after rebates when you use the ford service credit card. did you tell him to say all of that? no, he's right though... but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day.

advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. it shows. we don't run like that. we build john deere equipment the way we always have: the right way. times change. our principles don't. you don't just have our word on it. you've got our name on it. that's how we run. nothing runs like a deere. discover the full line of riding lawn equipment

at johndeere.com/howwerun or your local dealer. by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. we were just talk about how in politics it seems the only

acceptable position when it comes to terrorism is obviously a zero tolerance policy and everything and anything that's possible for the government to do has to be done at all times to prevent terrorism and something that's not applied to other areas. do you see a way, a plausible way for that equation to change a little bit so that that kind of focus isn't only on terrorism? >> i think it's a dual approach within our society which has the potential to solve these problems far more effectively. and you can apply it to almost any great issue we face but i think -- it's almost like two halves of the coin, the response to newtown, the response to the marathon bombing. in both cases we've had, in one case it was the left saying we have to -- you saw the new york safe act that was passed quite quickly. we got to do something. you can understand the impetus.

we all can. there's an emotional wave there. there's a response because it is a horrible thing. we want to do something about it. from the right now on the marathon bombing in a sense what we're seeing some of this response we got to do everything. in both cases in all these cases we have to step back as a public, we have to embrace and seek an approach that says these are things that we have to address in a disciplined way that really gets the facts straight from all sides and that applies to any of our great problems, political figures have to then come in on their side and not feed whatever frenzy there may be and say yes these are important, yes we are all aggrieved by what's happened let's make sure we're doing -- let's make sure we're doing this right. >> lisa, i guess it's tough to -- we focus on these conversations where we want to categorize it as this and only this and here's the prescription

for this but there's so much nuance. >> it help us as americans as citizens to say that was a gun nut. that was a crazy gun nut so that's not like me or like any of the people i know or that was an islamic terrorist so that's the bad guy and that's not like me or any of the people i know. what's so interesting about this particular case is that these brothers really are hybrids. very i ddiosyncratic. they were drawn to islam but not in a recognizable pattern. we have to be careful when we tell these stories and tell all of these facts because that paints a picture of actual people in actual situations and doesn't allow us to alienate ourselves from what the real problem is. >> what lisa is saying is highlighting the risk real risk of allowing ourselves to be

blinded by these labels we project on the culprits and these various acts of random and senseless violence. we're ascribing islamic motives to them without fully knowing the facts and i think maybe the real risk there is it blinds us to what actually happens and prevent us from understanding what led these two young men to commit these crimes. >> actually if i may just add it gives the public more empathy if you know all of the facts. then you can say, as unanimous is saying, this is the problem, this is how we get here instead of just, you know, labeling people as crazy gun nuts or islamic terrorists. >> we talk about empathy, when you start having a discussion like that, people in the media say how dare you treat these people as anything other than monsters and to a certain degree it's justified. their act was monstrous but if you want to understand it you have to talk about them as human

beings. >> as a public we have to reject those kind of approaches. why do figures in the media do that? because it sells. publicly we have to say it's not going sell wit me. >> there's also an incentive to be sort of counter productive i guess in the political marketplace. anyway i want to thank scott atran. lisa miller. guantanamo bay detainees are starving themselves to death. will anybody care. that's next. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. and be good for your face? [ female announcer ] now there's new neutrogena® naturals acne cleanser. acne medicine from the wintergreen leaf treats breakouts. no parabens or harsh sulfates. for naturally clear skin. [ female announcer ] neutrogena® naturals.

♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. and with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did.

her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ very soon they could start dying of starvation, one by one, dozens in all unless something changes at guantanamo bay. the detainees there are in the 80th dave their hunger strike, 97, more than half of those imprisoned taking part in the protest. five of those participating have been hospitalized. 19 are being forced fed. if that sounds benign to you consider one former detainee

describing on this program what that's like. >> translator: when the nurse they try to come for five to ten minutes on this side of the nose and then they hit the bone and you tell me was this torture or not? >> more than a decade after the bush administration began using the military base for indefinite detention of individuals they dubbed enemy combatants the peaceful protest of the hunger strike is trying to remind the world 160 detainees are being held at guantanamo. there's an op-ed in "new york times" one explained his refusal to eat in stark terms. he says i've been on a hunger strike since february 10th and have lost well 30 pounds. i'll not eat until they restore my dig any ti. i've been detained at guantanamo for 11 years and three months. i've not received a trial. on thursday senator dine feinstein called on the obama

administration to consider repatriating the 56 yemenese who have been approved for transfer. president obama halted the transfer. obama's hold on transferring these detainees is one of the steps the president has taken in recent years that make transferring detainees out of the prison more difficult. he tried to close the facility at the beginning of his presidency but rebuffed by congress. a long history and uncertain future of guantanamo was unscored in testimony last month to congress by general john kelly who oversees guantanamo. >> i'm assuming guantanamo will be closed some day. but if we look into the past 11 years it was supposed to be temporary. who knows where it's going. >> to help that question i want to bring in the chief of campaign amnesty and co-host of

radio dispatch and contributor of nation magazine and rolling stone.com. to set this up we have a pie chart that looks at who those 166 detainees are, how they are classified by the government. i know amnesty doesn't recognize this classification. according to the government you've got 86 who are approved for transfer and they are stuck there right now. 46 who are in indefinite detention basically it's been deemed that they need to be held but can't be tried in a military tribunal, can't be tried in courts. that's the determination of the government. others you see there subject to active investigations and three are convicted. so we're sort of in this stalemate and, you know, i think the question that comes to my mind is and we talked about this a little bit in the last segment we were talking about empathy the idea of having empathy for people who commit acts of terrorism or suspected of it,

you know it seems to me if you're going to have any movement on this there needs to be empathy on the part of the public for people detained there. the public's ining stingt when they hear about guantanamo these are terrorist, these are dangerous people, i don't want them getting out. i wonder how you get around that politically? >> i think one thing you really have to do is imagine you're just walking down the street and then suddenly you're grabbed by a foreign government or in many cases by perhaps a bounty hunter. then you end up far from home with no access to lawyers, with no ability to try your case in a fairway. and what you're looking at is what we've done with guantanamo it's been 11 years. many of these men haven't been charged or received fair trials. we're in a place where we own it. i know that i don't want to have to explain to my 6-year-old son why he sees images of men in

orange jump suits and black head bags because amnesty often goes out and we try to make sure we show people the images and visuals of what it looks like to have these prisoners. but it's a real stark reminder as you try to explain what we're doing. these are conditions that people associate with north korea, or china and people have to recognize this is something the u.s. government is doing. and we have to resolve it now. >> so what is the solution? because you have -- to be clear on the terminology. we talk about detainees being approved for transfer. we're not always talking about them being released, we're talking about going into custody into another country or is going to another country where they are monitored by the government, their activities are being monitored where there's some degree of suspicion or some degree of, you know, we think these people are a risk going forward. some, you know, the government is detaining is basically saying we're convinced these people had

leadership roles in al qaeda and taliban. we don't have evidence that we can present at trial to prove this but we're convinced of it. what is the solution to this? is it putting everybody on trial in the criminal court in the united states. is that what we should be doing here? >> we have to go back to first principles. innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. if the u.s. government has been holding on to someone for 11 years and still can't make a case then that person should be released. when you look at guantanamo and the fact that in 2003800 prisoners there and now we're down to 166 that tells the rhetoric put out there by the bush administration that these men are the worst of the worst was false and the obama administration has done a very poor job of undoing that rhetorical harm, undoing this myth of the threatening guantanamo prisoner and the obama administration has not had the political back bone to deliver on the promise that

president obama made when he was still a candidate to shut down that prison. it's not the national defense authorization act. program simply has not made that priority. he can close that prison if he wanted to. >> he can but you mention the political back bone to do it and the reason i would say he doesn't have the political back bone is even members of his own party haven't had his back. when he tried it in 2009 when he first took office and tried to get funding to shut down guantanamo republicans were outraged but harry reid the democratic leader in the senate who helped block that request for money and i have the line here harry reid said firmly we will never allow terrorists to be released into the u.s. and it just seems, it crosses party lines the fear of outrage in the public by releasing terrorists. >> the 76 that have been cleared, with some of them there's a conditional aspect to

that clearance but what that means is that they are cleared, they have been evaluated to no longer be a national security risk to the united states. if transferred. that's very important to be. and as far as democrats and obama being on the hook for that i absolutely agree. it was diane feinstein who was very instrumental in getting the moratorium on transfers to yemen in place. now to her credit i think she has reversed that position but this is something that you see over the course of guantanamo bay's life as it gets more and more of a bipartisan glean, the public polls incredibly high and disturbingly high. there's a 2012 poll that said 70% of those poll approved of president obama's decision to deep prison open. in terms of explaining things to the next generation that poll will be a very unpleasant follow

explain. >> a lot of it depends how the question is framed. we go back to tissue that's enormous. we have been for decades, more than a century most powerful nation on earth. we need have the best informed public on earth. if the question is framed as, and i think in most people's minds it would be should we have this guantanamo bay in place to protect our nation, the great bastion of liberty and defender of all other free nations from harm people would say yes we should because that's really the way it's been framed. there was some purpose that was served by its establishment. clearly 11 years is a very long time to detain people with no trials. that sounds unfair. 86 people are being detained apparently for no reason at this point? >> you remember congress, i'm

curious, you were confronted this and former member of congress you're asking about it, what was your thinking? what would you like to see done in your mind? >> well, there's a protective element that comes into play. so what we don't want to happen, obviously, if there's some -- if there's some doubt about the potential dangerous nature of the remaining detainees at guantanamo, then obviously the safety position is to say we're not going to change anything here until we're absolutely certain what we're doing. so that was a big part of the decision-making on behalf of congress. >> john wants to get in and he's going to right after this. every two weeks. now our plants get the food they need while we water. so they're bigger, healthier, and more beautiful. guaranteed. when you feed your plants, everyone grows with miracle-gro.

when you feed your plants, the math of retirement is different today.ek. money has to last longer. i don't want to pour over pie charts all day. i want to travel, and i want the income to do it. ishares incomes etfs. low cost and diversified. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

just seem to fade away...? now start vibrant, stay vibrant! new vidal sassoon pro series has an exclusive hydrablock system that helps fight fade out -- for up to 8 weeks. vidal sassoon pro series. salon genius. affordable for all.

john, you were about to say? >> i just wanted to respond to a point that you made, nan, that when guantanamo bay was established it was established

for a reason. the reason was to get around constitution. that's more the history we see, the clearer that picture becomes. as far as the other point of whether like you were talking about a security standpoint, maybe if we don't know if these people are dangerous or not we should hold them. that's essentially the reverse of one of the fundamental principles of justice which we all sort of learn at a young age which it's better for ten people to go free than one to be impry second and guantanamo bay is that in reverse essentially. and if we want to accept that and acknowledge that as a country then we have to recognize that our concept of justice has been completely turned into a photo negative of what we're told it is and what most people would prefer to it be. >> have to agree. indefinite detention is a straight up violation of an individual's human reits and what we're looking at right now,

if you cannot bring your self to have compassion for these 166 men and no one is saying we should have a wholesale release, they should be charged or go through a transition process those that have been cleared so they can be repatriated into another country where they get the services they need. >> when we hear, okay, there's a choke of this 166, a big group of them, the government is convinced were, you know, high value, you know, suspect, but they cannot try them. the government cannot try them in the federal courts. we don't have evidence that would be admissible. what does that mean? what are they sitting on. what's the reason for suspicion? >> this isn't a problem that's unique to guantanamo. there's many situations in the united states that the government has evidence that's inadmissible. when you look at guantanamo what's most likely at issue the government was holding evidence that was extracted under questionable circumstances.

torture, coercion. that evidence is unreliable and inadmissible. the really important thing to remember here we've been talking about justice and i think if the obama administration is going to allow itself to be led by the polls that's putting politics over justice but putting politics over sound policy. every single relevant national security stakeholder in the united states government agrees that closing guantanamo is in the national security interest of the united states and we're still not doing it. that's a clear example. the clearest example i've ever seen of putting politics over sound policy. >> john, your contention that guantanamo was an effort to evade the constitution. we're not talking about dealing with u.s. citizens, though, which is not to say we should deal with citizens of other nations that violate our ethics, but this is not -- these are

people who are not entitled to the protection of the constitution, presumably. >> right. that's true. i think maybe -- >> that's very much an open question. that's an issue my students and i litigate day in and day out in federal court. >> doesn't mean they should be treated unethically by any means. >> i would actually question that premise. i think it is very much an open question, it's something that's being litigated right now. where does the constitution extend. does the constitution always follow the flag? in one instance we've prevailed and the gentleman, the former prisoner that was shown in your segment earlier, there was case under his name that was issued by the supreme court and in that case the supreme court held that the constitution does follow the flag as far as habeas corpus reits. >> if the detainees are in the u.s. facility then they are extended constitutional

protection? >> at guantanamo. we're still litigating that. >> obviously the whole rationale is we're at war an unusual war. >> this is the global war. >> there's validity to that argument. war still has to be -- we have the geneva conventions. we don't want to be a nation -- we want to do what is right morally. >> right. we can derive the decision oh, it's politically. the reality for better or worse is political leaders are guided by the political pressure whether it's coming from the public, whether it's coming from key groups and there's a statistic here that i think might explain really drive home where the reluctance is coming from and i want to talk about it, show it and see if there's ways to get around it next. we've all had those moments.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership.

we're talk about why it's so politically difficult or why political leaders treat it as politically difficult to address

the issue of guantanamo and not just leave it alone. here's a statistic that i think puts it in a little bit of perspective. 603 detainees transferred from guantanamo. their statistics they say 72% of them have gone on, not suspected engaging in any kind of terrorism. gone on with their lives. 16% are confirmed, though, of going back to terrorism. maybe for first time. maybe their imprisonment radicalized them. and then 16% who are confirmed. so a quarter suspected or confirmed going back into terrorism. we have an anecdote. there was a story from a detainee released in 2005 who was suspected of being high up with the taliban and released. in march of 2008 he drove a truck on to a base and killing

several soldiers. i think about the boston bombing. it was these two kids without connection to anything. but what would happen, theear here that animates president obama and lots of lawmakers, if we allow any of these detainees out and then something like boston happens and oh, wow it's a former guantanamo detainee the political price for that is incalcuable. >> that's behind the paralysis we've seen. you understand it. the reality guantanamo this is a failure of guantanamo. this just shows it's a terrible place to adjudicate indicate these things. the federal court system is the place where these things need to be tried. you can't hold people with the suspicion they might do things bad in the future, particularly in these cases where individuals what was been cleared through our own process, our own task force and court system have declared it's 56 individuals

cleared for transfer, another 30 if certain conditions are met. this is easy. this is not the hard stuff. we need to immediately make sure there's public pressure on our elected representatives to make sure this happens because it is unacceptable for the u.s. i think most of us would agree the u.s. is at its best when we are upholding these values that we hold sacred and we're serving as a model for the rest of the world. guantanamo is a terrible stain not just on our reputation but our legacy and we have to get past this period. >> i think, you know, with that statistic, with that chart doesn't reflect is sort of the full cost of guantanamo. not just in terms of that small proportion of individuals who have been confirmed to go back and that's by the dod statistics and we're unable to verify that but even if it's true that chart doesn't reflect the full cost of guantanamo. in terms of, you know, recruitment value it has for people who do have angst the

against the united states. i think that's really, that should be a primary consideration. when you have over 50% of the prisoners at guantanamo who have been cleared for release by the u.s. government's own standards, every security national agency have signed off. i'm not conceding everybody is properly detained. you tart there and work your way through. it's manageable and feasible to close down guantanamo. that's where we expect president obama to put downed policy over politics and do what our president did during the civil rights act so just press through. it's the just thing to do and it's good policy. >> there's 25 human rights and civil liberty groups signed on to recently that called for two steps that obama can take. one would be to direct secretary

of defense hagel to certify the transfer of detainees which the latest ndaa does allow for. everyone can decide for themselves whether they think that's the boston ideal way to move forward but that's something congress did allow obama to have as a way around some of the restrictions. and then the other thing is to re-establish a task force on how to shut guantanamo down. what happened instead the office and state department that's responsible for attempting to shut down guantanamo that office itself was shut down. so you have things moving in many ways in the impact wrong direction within the administration and that falls squarely and i think reallily unforgivably at the white house's door step. >> again this all starts there's a very basic human question we talked about at the beginning,

there are detainees who are basically trying to starve themselves to death. there's a military trying to keep them alive and we're going to ask what happens if they do start dying we'll talk about the consequence of that after this. i'm here at my house on thanksgiving day, and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] this is a reason to look twice. this is a stunning work of technology. the 2013 lexus es and the first-ever es hybrid. this is the pursuit of perfection. even the inside of your dishwasher sparkles. whoa! kitchen counselor. see, new cascade platinum is unlike finish gel. it not only cleans your dishes, it helps keep your dishwasher sparkling. [ female announcer ] new cascade platinum. it helps keep your dishwasher sparkling. until i had the shingles. i have never encountered such a burning sensation... it was like a red rash.

like somebody had set a bag of hot charcoal on my neck. i had no idea it came from chickenpox. it's something you never want to encounter. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com for sein a whole new way. for seeing what cash is coming in and going out... so you can understand every angle of your cash flow- last week, this month, and even next year. for seeing your business's cash flow like never before, introducing cash flow insight powered by pnc cfo. a suite of online tools that lets you turn insight into action.

hello from new york, i'm steve kornacki. so, we were talking before the break about there are bruise nears who are trying to starve themselves to death. one of them is your client and you were in contact with him this week. tell us about that. >> yeah. the sad reality is that every single prisoner at guantanamo right now is on hunger strike. the u.s. government has a different perspective. they began by denying the hunger

strike now they are at a point where they are admitting the majority of prisoners are on a hunger strike. by my client's account every single one is on a hunger strike even if it doesn't match to the mr. sure the department of defense uses. one client is a yemeni national. he's been on a hunger strike since february 6th. he stopped drinking water two weeks ago. what he said to me yesterday on the phone gives insight to his motivations. this is a direct quote. i'll remain on hunger strike until i leave this place. i've not lost hope. my protest is not driven by despair but i'll maintain my protest until i remain dignity and freedom. i think when he says that he speaks for a majority of the prisoners who are on a hunger strike at guantanamo who don't view this hunger strike as a gesture of desperation but a life-affirming gesture. it's to the world that 11 years is enough and people should be

charged or released. >> there have been hunger strikes at guantanamo before. john you mentioned the poll earlier, you ask people are you okay with indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists at guantanamo and you said 70% said last year in a poll on this. do you think this hunger strike is going to get through and it has a chance to change public poll or activate leaders in a way we haven't seen before? >> that question remains open. to the extent it can it's through the power of personalizing people, and we've been talking about empathy on this show. that's one of the reasons why the "new york times" op-ed was so important because a lot of times people to the extent they think about guantanamo detainees at all they think of this sort of monolithic 166 people. i've seen numerous letters from

detainees, one detainee sent his attorney letters about how he loves ben harper and reads "rolling stone" then these other more heartbreaking letters from prisoners who died in september. he was the ninth detainee to die. he had attempted suicide many times. and his letters paint just a horrifying picture of despair and when you actually think of individuals instead of a group that's been more demonized than any single group you can think of that's when you start to -- that's when you can see opinions start to shift both among the base and among potentially elected officials. >> we're seeing that. senator feinstein wrote a letter to president obama yesterday or earlier this week asking the president to take concrete steps towards closing the prison and that's a commendable reversal on

her part and i think she references the hunger strike in that letter. i think we're already seeing it impacting the political landscape. >> and i think that -- i don't think that stories of hardship alone will move necessarily the public unless they understand -- because if they think these are people who would do us harm, who are bringing this upon themselves. i don't think that would engender sympathy for understandable reasons. again if we have that evidence, look most of these men who remain there or at least half of them really shouldn't be there at all at this point, this becomes an inhumane thing and they've drawn attention that. so that's an effective way for them to bring to it the attention of the american public. the appropriate understanding has to be put in place.

and yes 11 years, bring the evidence out. if it was evidence that was obtain using interrogation techniques that were approved, they underwent -- obviously we know they underwent a lot of vetting by the u.s. government, whatever they want, be honest about it. yes we used water boarding to obtain this evidence. >> do you think if that happens, if it's not up to the standards of the court would you be okay with releasing? >> i think the public has to have confidence. i as a member of the public and i as a representative of the people i serve have to have confidence when we say those 80 some prisoners who are being held, whose release it would seem would be appropriate have been -- that has been approved by all the people in our

government whom we trust to do that. i think that's the way you start it. if we trust our defenses, if we trust people we've put in charge of this process and they've had appropriate advocacy, the detainees had appropriate advocacy and been found 80 of them should be released let's get that started and let's get the trials going for the others. >> conversations like this are so important because guantanamo remains this inconvenient fact. it's like the element of war on terror everyone wants to forget. people have to know this is being done in our name and i don't want this done in our name. so i want to make sure we're putting the pressure on them right now. ate mix of things. when you hear the individual stories like your client who has such a compelling story, he's a saudi man. the british parliament this week alone were standing on the floor arguing for his release.

he has a wife and child. >> she's talking about one of my clients who has been approved for release not by the obama administration but the bush administration. the foreign minister of the united kingdom said the united kingdom wants him back. he's approved for release by two different presidents. he's on hunger strike today to protest that injustice he has four kids in the united kingdom including his youngest son who he never met. >> we talk about it, the obama administration their position on this. they say they want to close it, the case that's been made is not the moral case. the case that's been made this is a recruitment tool for the enemy. i kind of look at it and i wonder if we're worried about sort of anti-american radicalization you do have to wonder, you have people who have been detained basically by the

american government for all these years. i think there's -- it's very complicated to understand who is down there. but, you know, to the extent there are people there who a being held for no reason, if they've been held by the american government for years that crates anti-american sentiment too that we're trying combat. i want to thank you all. george w. bush's supporters trying rewrite history. that's next. raises it to a more meaningful place. makes us live what we do, love what we do and fills our work with rewarding possibility. aarp connects you to a community of experienced workers and has tools to help you find what you're good at. an ally for real possibilities. aarp. go to aarp.org/possibilities.

find out with venus embrace. every five-bladed stroke gives you 360 degrees of smooth for goddess skin you can feel and feel. ♪ i'm your venus only from venus embrace.

bikes and balloons, wholesome noodles on spoons. a kite, a breeze, a dunk of grilled cheese. catches and throws, and spaghettio's. that's what happy kids are made of. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. that's what happy kids are made of. i've always kept my eye on her... but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still going to give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

so i want to talk for a minute about the other great richard nixon come back. i mean there's the come back you probably know about, the one where he lost the 1960 presidential election to jfk. then he made an ill-advised bid for governor of california in

'62. lost that. told the press they wouldn't have him to kick around any more. somehow he re-emerged and won the white house in 1968. that was quite a come back. i'm talking about the other great nixon come back. he resigned the presidency instead of being impeached, he left office in disgrace, where he spent a few years in seclusion but then somehow he redeems himself and became a respected elder statesman. if that story line doesn't ring any bells here's a referber. former president richard nixon beaming in triumph, cover of "newsweek." he's back. that's when "newsweek" was a big deal. that's when it existed. the cover is from 1986, 12 years after nixon left office. 1992 when a nixon video tribute played at the republican national convention. first time since nixon's resignation that republicans made him part of their

convention. they were cheering. it was safe to celebrate nixon again. if you've forgotten about that period in the richard nixon stories those two decades between his resignation and death, those two decades when he put watergate behind him you're not alone because if you take a survey now just about all people remember when they think about nixon is the scandal and resign acceleration. couple of years ago gallup polled people. all of that work he did in the last 20 years of his life, the nine books, world tour, tv interviews, white house visit, magazine covers celebrating his supposed redemption it's like none of it ever happened. the legacy repair crew sid of richard milhouse nixon. another one was launched this time by george w. bush who left office a few years ago with poll numbers as bad as nixon. he opened his presidential

library in dallas on thursday. he wants history to be kind to his administration. but he has got a long, long way to go if he's going to get history on his side and that may be just an impossible task. but remember this. presidential legacies are not always locked in place. they can change over time. they can be changed over time. richard nixon showed a little bit how that worked. ronald reagan is even a more dramatic example. just 20 years ago, four years after he left office ronald reagan was less popular than jimmy carter. that was the finding of an "l.a. times" poll in the summer of '92. today he's a celebrated figure by democrats and republicans alike. when you look at tumbers for ex-president, reagan has a 74% approval rating. jfk is higher. no sign his popularity will be waning any time soon. how did this happen? how did re legacy change so much in that time?

there's probably a lot of reasons but one stands out. the conservative movement dedicated itself to making it happen. invoke his name constantly. they replay famous moments fro his presidency over and over. they celebrate his successes and forget his failures. the mission is to eventually see a ue, park or road named after reagan in all 3140 counties of the united states. that's how presidential legacies are remade. george w. bush the library opening this week is a first step. it's not a complete whitewashing of history but puts the best spin possible on his most controversial and disastrous decisions. what bush really needs is help. the kind of help reagan got. conservatives may just end up having no choice but to give him that help. i'll explain why right after this.

but when i started losing y and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor. we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel). the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy, increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breastfeeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs.

tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. so...what do men do when a number's too low? turn it up! [ male announcer ] in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

i want to bring in our panel. so, you know, bush has been, george w. bush has been very quiet, remarkably quiet compared to past former presidents in his four years in office. this was his coming out as an ex-president. i want to set thunder by playing just a little bit of the centerpiece of the museum that opened called decision points theater. george w. bush likes to think of himself as decider, his book is called "the decider." you're to see choice that were presented to bush during his presidency. there's some dispute already these choices are framed the way they should have been framed. let's take a look what visitors are seeing.

>> george w. bush made many tough decisions as president. now you'll get a flavor for what that's like. president bush had to make a choice. one seek a u.n. coalition. take no action. times up. it's time to make a decision. people in the theater could not come to a decision. the president did not have that choice. >> so, i think that kind of to me that sort of sums this up. this is the history of the administration right now presented with a little bit of a slant towards, you know, hey try to see it my way, maybe your opinion of me will change. >> it seems really, it's towards

him being under a lot of pressure. the time limit is what they are emphasizing. he would be able to make the right decision if he wasn't so hard pressed to make the decision right away. >> that's just one part of this museum. and that's what the bush foundation want us to focus on. i want to see the rest of the museum. i want to see how balanced the rest of the museum is and the extent to which the real cont t contextualization of this library is. these libraries are publicly financed. they are built with private money. once the national archives take them over they become a public utility and have to meet certain standards. >> the bush foundation or any sort of president has a foundation. bush foundation came in and paid for this and there's a role -- there's tension between the private, you know fundraising.

>> you saw in that exhibit and i was there at the opening of the library, as you know, trisha represented her father, there were four former presidents, the president and four presidential families that were represented there all together in the same room and walked around the exhibits together for about an hour and a half. it was quite interesting to see the interaction. but if one watched w. bush's speech and what he said and he choked up at the end talking about his own freedom agenda then you know why he made the decision that he made with respect to iraq. he really believed that freedom and democracy would free people like the iraqi people to be, to be stable force in the mideast and in the world. that legacy whether it works out or not is yet to be determined and determined in part on whether the shi'ites stick together or the iranian people and arabs split and that in part

will determine what his legacy is. >> i think what's interesting in the video we just showed the set up presumes that he had to make a choice about iraq and i think, you know, sort of critics of that administration and maybe of that exhibit would say well how did it get to the point that iraq was on the table and the president had to decide because the president didn't have to make a decision about iraq. >> it was a war of choice. he could have continued the way it was, work with the cia to get rid of saddam hussein, the military could have remained in power. the shi'ites a majority in the country. different course of history. he chose a different course based on his freedom agenda. >> that's why the context matters. that's why if you pull it out of history and present it the way it's presented you have no sense that you still have a war in

afghanistan and you still have n lan and that's your 't found main target because those are the people that attacked you not saddam hussein. >> iraq the being torn by sectarian strife and it's not clear that war of choice most us would say and i've said it that if i had known then what we know today i would have voted no to pursuing that action. >> there is a part of this, when they talk about there is acknowledged in the museum that no weapons of mass destruction were found but there's also an added line after that but we know that saddam hussein had the capacity -- >> it did change the course of american political history though. because of that war, mrs. clinton then a senator decided that she could go the middle, had no threat from her left and voted for the war. because of that barack obama came up on her left, made speeches he was against the war,

she was for it, the base of the democratic party is anti-war going back to vietnam, he got the nomination, she didn't, he was elected president she wasn't. so it changed the course of american politics. >> the bush library should explain the iraq war gave us barack obama? >> not the library but that decision certainly did. >> that's why barack obama -- >> that's why they are so happy. >> that's interesting because that -- it's how the conservative movement has understood the barack obama presidency. understood the rise of barack obama. i watched this transition play out in 2008 and 2009 and we're still living with it today where basically the conservative movement lost to obama in 2008 and the tea. the tea party was saying george w. bush as president violated conservative principles, spent too much money, big government conservatism and confused voters and gave rise to obama and the only way to defeat obama is to

purify ourselves. conservatives have had no interest in the last four or five years. >> i would disagree with your interpretation. nan, they are just real fiscal conservatives. this is a silent majority that's very upset by trillion dollar deficits. >> but, okay. fiscal conservatives. that's the knock on george w. bush after his administration. the key is the cries of george w. bush was not a fiscal conservative and didn't intensify until after he left. the conservative movement reinterfretd bush presidency after he was president. i'm wondering -- go ahead. >> but the events of 2008 made that sort of a crisis in his legacy, if you will, inevitable. of course the biggest motivator for the tea party was actually

the passage of the affordable care act because that was seen as massive invasion. but yes many did make ties to both parties and said look president bush was a big government conservative. >> did not veto any budget presented to congress or items presented for six or seven years. >> right. >> medicare part d. >> i'm hearing reinterpretation of the tea party. your father-in-law, when he wrote that ise silent majority speech. silent center. what he was doing was talking to the center. the center has changed in our country. i don't think anybody, tea party anybody believes the tea party is the center of the united states political spectrum. >> from the point of view of debt and deficits, the center -- a lot of them are very centrist

in believing we shouldn't spend beyond our means. >> they balance their own budgets. why will government raise taxes on me. >> what we can stipulate here they are a region component of the republican party right now and in the last four years their assessment of the bush presidency especially on fiscal matters has not been favorable. we're talking about bush trying to recast his legacy and i think there might be an incentive for conservatives to move back towards him. in teased it before, i'll tease it again, we'll talk about it next. you hurt my feelings, todd.

i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instead of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgraded experience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

couple of blocks ago i talked about the example of ronald reagan and how the conservative movement adopted his legacy as one of their projects and they have been very successful. so the conservative movement right now is not too attached to george w. bush and his legacy. here's what i'll wonder. if his brother jeb bush decides

to run for president in 2016 does that give the conservative movement the kind of incentive it had with ronald reagan, the kind of incentive to say we have to revisit the bush legacy, it's a lot better than we thought because we got another one coming along. >> the legacy of bush 41, daddy bush was enhanced by the fact his son became president and was not as good at national security policy as the father had been. a lot of people restriftd legacy of george herbert walker bush because of the son. >> i watched the ceremony this week and there's the father and he's had some health problems and i'm glad he's still alive but the reception he got, one term president voted out of office with the lowest share of the vote since taft -- >> he won't get exactly what truman had. but i suspect like truman george

herbert walker bush's reputation will grow with time because he managed the end of the cold war. you need ad partner in the united states and he managed it extremely well. >> he showed restraint with regard to his treatment of iraq in particular. >> and finally he broke his tax pledge because he realized for the sake of the country you had to raise taxes and that want sometimes being ideologically pure is not in the interest of the united states. >> we remember the days of balanced budget in the late '90s. they were the legacy of president clinton and george bush sr. >> and president reagan. but there are many reasons that republicans in particular and conservatives harken back to president reagan, but one of them is that he so inspiringly articulated the cause for even though it was imperfectly

observed as everything is in politics but he articulated the cause of restraining government, of respecting the taxpayer, of respecting the citizen in that way. that was a powerful message. >> i want to talk a little bit here about the role that these libraries play, these museums play in the legacy of all ex-presidents. you did this piece for american life which was just great. you went to the reagan librarian you watched school kids try to re-enact the 1983 grenada invasion from the perspective of the oval office. >> it's similar to the decision point to bush's thing where the kids, they have a part, a really thorough re-enactment where young children go and flay role, they either play the role of the press or go to the war room or go to the oval office. they have to decide whether or not to invade.

there's all this emphasis on it being their choice and this is about how democracy works and how you can make your decisions. i watched as one of these kids decided to not invade grenada because there's all these different -- because what happens there's a leak to the press and they decide to invade and they are telling him that's okay he picks up the phone there's a huge buzzer going off telling him he's wrong and you actually -- but it's definitely wrong and the kid's face falls. then in the press room they then tell them that it's the press's fault that this all has happened and the kids start attacking the kids playing the press and playing them for 19 people who died and the blood is on their hands. it's under the guise saying it's up to you. >> what a traumatic experience for school kids. >> these kids their faces and the press kids did not know

because they were given lines to read to the camera. the thing about reagan library is also because there's so much goodwill there you feel -- you can feel how much like this is the one we're going bank everything on. we feel so good about him. so grenada is something, i feel it doesn't come up very often and a strange one for them to choose to re-enact. >> if you're a visitor at one of these library, museums, i was 14 years old and driving through iowa with my father and we saw west branch, iowa, herbert hoover presidential museum. what do i know about 14-year-old he's the guy that caused the depression. i learned about herbert hoover the human, all the things that toledo the depression. at the end there's the kiosk now that you've seen all this has your kmangd? hell yes. great guy. it's amazing the impact it can

have. >> our not the only 2001 feel that way. when lbj went through that museum and i know this from some archivists. he said i just visited the herbert hoover museum and they made him out to be a great president. that's what i want to you do for me here. >> they tried. >> the former presidents themselves and their libraries. i know my father-in-law did not really want to focus on his library. he wanted to focus on having an impact and w. bush actually in the speech he gave said he was focused on his institute and what his institute could do with respect to the freedom agenda and having an impact now, and i was in the white house then and we left that final speech the president gave, got on marine one, going by the washington monument, i'm sitting opposite of the president and he was still president then. i said sir in ten years you'll

be back. he wanted to have an impact. 12 years later he was on the cover of "newsweek" because people recognized the publisher, catherine graham of "newsweek" said put him on the cover. he's back. it was a great speech she heard him give to the publisher's association about where the country was, where it should go and president clinton acknowledged fully the input that president nixon had to president clinton's foreign policy particularly with respect to russia because he felt passionately. communism was dead in russia but democracy had not yet won and we had to fight. he was traveling back and forth to moscow to try to be, to have a difference. he did make a difference. >> the last 20 years of his life are fascinating to me because a lot of people -- history now almost forgets. when you were living in them he was a prominent figure. almost 40 years since his resignation. his legacy is being litigated

where two of our panelists have a personal interest in. we'll talk about that next. meet the 5-passenger ford c-mc-max one. c-max two. that's a super fuel- efficient hybrid for me. and a long range plug-in hybrid for you. now, let's review. introducing the ford c-max hybrid and the ford c-max energi plug-in hybrid. say hi to the c-max hybrids.

the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ it only matters that it shows up and makes things better. in that spirit, verizon is proud to announce the powerful answers award. 10 million dollars in prizes for the best ideas. ideas so big, they have the power to change everything. whether it's our inspiration, or yours, the world's biggest challenges deserve even bigger solutions. the powerful answers award from verizon.

so, we're talking about the role these libraries play in shaping legacy and, tim, you have a very personal experience in this. we set this up earlier saying there's this tension where libraries are funded by the president's backers, by his supporters. you were brought in from when the federal government -- when the archives took over which they had to do for an official presidential library. so you were brought in to be historian and put together an unsparing exhibit on watergate and the nixon foundation revolted and what happened? >> well, let me back track a bit, steve. it's important. the federal government didn't take -- this wasn't a take over. >> right. >> the nixon family decided they wanted their private library to be part of the national archives

system. the private library wasn't part of the system because of watergate. richard nixon was the first president to lose control over his papers. they were seized because the u.s. government thought that he was actually the supreme court ultimately decided that he wasn't a trustworthy custodian of these tapes and papers. so they stayed in washington. well, in the first term of the bush administration congress altered that law to permit the papers to go to california. however, if they went to california the library had to come under federal control and that meant there had to be a federal library director. i was asked to be the first one. so the issue was, given the contentious relationship between the nixon estate and the federal government over the papers and the tapes, how could we establish the credibility of this as a research center. and that meant removing some parts of the museum which the

most famous was the watergate exhibit. the nixon foundation understood that. because when they negotiated with the federal government about the hand over it was understood that the watergate exhibit had to change. now, initially this is before my time, the u.s. government, the national archives said to the nixon family and foundation you change it. and as they told me they couldn't. they couldn't agree amongst themselves. at least that's what the represent of the nixon foundation told me. that may not be what happened. but that's what i was told. so they asked me, both the head of the nixon foundation then reverend john taylor, and the national archives said you do it as part of your job and establishing the federal library we would like to you do the watergate exhibit and that led to some controversy. >> as president clinton said at the opening of the bush library

two days ago, he looked at this monumental library behind him and said this is the latest attempt of former presidents to rewrite history in essence saying libraries do present the view of history from the president's point of view, and the exhibit that was torn down was president nixon's view of watergate. this was his view. in doing that history was destroyed which was contrary to what his purpose was. and he did a double standard with respect to libraries and doing it. >> on the instructions from the archives. >> the original exhibit says basically watergate was the demonstrate's plot to overturn nixon's election. >> that wasn't quite what it was. it was complicated but it's the

way the president saw it and it was history, very important history. this is the way the president from all the problems he was dealing with at that time and watergate was a very small part of what he felt. that this is the way he solved watergate through his eyes. >> that was important history. >> but did the exhibit actually say this is only richard nixon's perspective? >> you could have done that rather than tearing it down. >> help do that? >> two things. one, i didn't tear it down. the exhibit came down when john taylor and the nixon foundation were in charge of the library. it comes down in the spring of 2007 and we the national archives, then i was the national archives didn't take over until july. first of all the nixon administrator it down. >> you were responsible for it. >> i wanted that to happen. the second thing i preserved it.

we digitized it. you can see it online. it's on the website of the nixon library. i understood the importance to public history that the public get a chance to see what was there. but let me step back for a moment and ask you this. it's a very important question. there's a difference between history with a capital h which we all can debate, and the president's perspective. i know for a fact that that exhibit was not presented as if it were one perspective. it was presented as history with a capital h. you can say now that it was his perspective but it was actually presented as history. >> if you go to other presidential libraries would you see the same thing at those other presidential libraries with respect to the way those presidents saw him? >> ed, i was not running other presidential libraries. >> in essence, it's a double standard. >> it was very important -- it was extremely important for the

national archives to have -- the national archives which holds the records of the watergate hearings and the records of the abuse of power, it was very important that the exhibit about watergate not contradict the materials the archives holds for the american people. >> double standard. >> look what i started here. i wish we could keep going because i'm somebody who is fascinated by richard nixon. i'm fascinated by the dispute that's still going on 20 years after his death. anyway, what do we know now that we didn't know last week. my answer is after this.

i'm going to be a superhero. mighty mother nature. and each day. i'm going to do something kind to help the earth like recycling and turning off the water when i brush my teeth. you can help save the planet, too. the more you know. so what do we know now that we didn't know last week? gay couples in both paris france and cranston, rhode island, will soon be able to get married. after massive protests in france, occasionally turned

violence they passed on wednesday by a large margin. we know that rhode island will become the tenth state to do the same. this week nearly 20 years after gay marriage legislation was introduced, the state senate voted to pass the bill with all five republican state senators voting in favor of the legislation. and we know delaware may kb the next state to follow suit. after 340 died after a collapse in bangladesh, we now know other examples came in the other end of the supply chain. the clothes for american retailers were produced in this territory. government officials said it wasn't tank. we know the building collapsed

an hour later. they are working on conditions across the country. this comes five months after a fire in another factory killed 112 people. we know it shouldn't take tragedies like to to make this aware of the human element. we turn a blind eye behind what we pay on the shirts. we know nothing gets better for people as long as they remain invisible. want to find out what my guests know now that they didn't know when the week began. we'll start with you. >> i've been really obsessed with zach braff's kick starter campaign. he asked for $2 million to fund his follow-up. he admitted he had financing. but he decided he wanted to try

it, too. so now we know that people will give money to a millionaire who already has it and they'll do it really happily. >> i had dinner with mitch mcconnell. we won 63 seats in congress. historically large number. that is an issue. ea we went into remission last november of 2012. but the problems that are implemented, the train wreck that it is that senator baucus who offered it called the implementation is going to kbk a major issue in the 2014 elections and the republicans will take back the senate and gain seats in the house. >> i was struck by the story of danny, one of the many heros in

the boston mastz massacre story. i was reminded how each of us has the ability to see it. >> i'm reminding for our discussion of how important it is to have representatives from swing districts across the country. there are only 35 swing districts left in the united states. we need the voices that really help bring people together across the spectrum. and former congresswoman, thanks for getting up. thank you for joining us for "up." next sunday morning at 8:00, drug testing for the needy. we'll have news on the fight to stop it. coming up next is melissa harris-perry. daily papers around the country set to go to the highest bidder.

possibly none than the billionaire broke coke brothers. melissa harris perry is coming up next. we'll see you tomorrow morning at 8:00. thanks for getting up. thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. to ask tough questions and get the truth. unfortunately, my hair and all i do to make it broadcast ready can't take the heat. good thing i uncovered head & shoulders damage rescue. it rescued my scalp, and saved my hair. with seven benefits, damage rescue relieves dry scalp and removes flakes, while helping to repair damaged hair.

now i use it every day, because the camera never blinks. no flakes, no scalp or hair worries. the proof? see it tonight, at eleven. head & shoulders damage rescue. live flake free.

that owns that aquarium store. he's not gonna sell you some labradoodle, he's gonna sell you tropical fish! he's got salt water tanks, fresh water tanks, brackish tanks, tanks you can't even fathom. that fish?! no you're not ready for that fish. precision aquatic manipulation.

he boils his water perfectly for his velveeta shells & cheese. advantage. this guy. liquid gold. eat like that guy you know. this morning my question. what happens if congress holds a hearing and no one comes? plus, this week in voter suppression. tarheel envision part two. and selling the news to billionaire ideologues? but first the decider is back. just as we make the legacy all too clear. good morning. i'm melissa harris perry. it was a beautiful day thursday in dallas, texas. all five living u.s. presidents and first ladies