from washington, "the mclaughlin group." the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one, policing the police. >> the sense that in a country where one of our basic principles, perhaps the most important principle, is equality under the law, that too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel as if they are being treated fairly. >> in missouri, a grand jury has decided not to indict ferguson police officer darren wilson. in the shooting death of michael brown. and in new york city, a grand

jury has decided not to indict officer daniel panteleo in the choking death of eric garner, a loiterer selling cigarettes who police said resisted arrest. unlike in missouri, the death in new york was recorded on a cell phone, with garner resisting the chokehold with a repeated cry of "i can't breathe, a can't breathe". >> i can't breathe, i can't breathe. >> the scene appeared to have lasted at least four minutes, with protests across the nation, president obama is now proposing new steps to improve the relationships between police forces and those they serve. earlier this week, the president announced the creation of a task force to consider what reforms could be pursued to address the emerging trust deficit in america's police communities. the president also reaffirmed

that he will introduce greater controls on military weapons for police forces. and that's not all. the president is also looking to new technologies. >> i'm going to be proposing some new community policing initiatives that will significantly expand funding and training for local law enforcement, including up to 50 50,000 additional body-worn cameras to law enforcement agencies. >> police body cameras have already spread around the nation, and the results are encouraging. in 2012, police in california issued body cameras to their officers. that year, complaints against officers fell by 88%. officer use of force incidents declined by 60%. question, what will be the impact for american society as more and more police officers wear body cameras? pat cue canon? >> -- buchanan? >> i'm in favor of body cameras for cops. but i'm telling you what's

developing here is a social, cultural, political collision between police, charged with being racist white calls all over the country come -- cops all over the country who come down hard on young black males. demonstrations shutting down great cities like new york, grand central station, times square, the west side highway. what's happening, john, i think is a real, coming war on the cops being pushed by the left wing of the democratic party. it's going to backfire on them, it's going to bite them. it's going to divide this country. it reminds me, frankly, of what i saw in grant park in chicago in 1968. >> police unions generally endorse these cameras, but -- >> i think the track record on these cameras is good. new york was already on record accepting the cameras. they're just now moving them up by a couple of weeks. i think this is the age we live in.

everything is recorded. i think if there's any danger, maybe cops will feel overscrutinized and back away from the communities where they're needed the most. but i don't think there's any evidence of that happening either. and this isn't the left wing of the democratic party pushing against the cops. we have seen this before. in the '90s, president clinton ordered a task force. eric holder was in the justice department then. you saw the same kind of disparity in how communities of color were being treated. president clinton called for 100,000 cops on the streets, that was for all communities, very popular. i think the tape in staten island has jolted not only black america but white america. what happened there was inexcusable. and there is a pattern of this excessive force, the 12-year- old kid in cleveland killed in two seconds. the justice department probe which started a long time ago has now gone in and taken over the cleveland police department. this is happening.

we can't ignore it. and a lot of the change has to happen at the level of police departments themselves. they have to represent the community, they have to go into the community. >> yeah. cameras on police officers will have a chilling effect on free speech. do you understand? >> i understand, but -- >> do you believe it? >> no, i don't believe it. now in today's society we have a lot of people who carry cameras on themselves. cyclists as a good example, reporting their interactions. in the public arena there is a compelling state interest and it's reflected by the statistics for police officers to record their interactions both to back themselves up as evidence in court if they eventually bring someone to a process of a charge but also to protect the individuals in question who are interacting with the police to give them confidence if they feel they are abused they have a legal recourse forensic in nature. >> eric garner is a man who died because of throat constriction. would a camera on police officer have made a difference

there on the person who was wrestling him to the ground, all of them? >> you can't really know. the fact is that it may have and, on the other hand, it all depends on what the direct, physical interaction was on the scene. and the the one thing that you know, it will be two effects. one is the police will be a lot more cautious because these cameras and these pictures will be made public and they'll be, therefore, in a position to be, shall we say, degraded on many levels. we have a huge issue because in most american cities you have difference in the sense it is highly occupied by minority populations. the police are not highly represented in terms of minority population. and you have that being a part of this whole mix between the police and the people who are -- >> people are complaining about google glass or overhead drones with cameras being intrusive. wait until every police officer

in the country is a walking drone photographing and archiving your every move. would you like that? >> no, i wouldn't. then you'd have a different kind of situation. where you want it to be if there's a conflict between the police and citizenry -- just to walk around photographing everybody living a normal life -- >> the main issue, second issue, i think ferguson and darren wilson, ferguson was slandered and smeared and it turns out the cop was in the right. he was not indicted. this is a much tougher case with garner. the guy had asthma, 350 pounds. diabetes. a heart disease. he was not choked to death. he was not strangled. they sat on his chest. but those officers did not go there to injure or kill him. they went there to arrest him. but the idea that this is a murder of some kind or they're

racist cops, there's not a scintilla of evidence to back that. >> how does this address the question of cameras on cops? >> they had a camera on the whole scene. >> he was apparently selling loose cigarettes. that is not the kind of act that warrants four policemen landing on you and choking you. besides, a choke hold is illegal in new york. if that policeman had been wearing a camera, maybe he wouldn't have done a chokehold. >> it's not illegal. it's against police -- it's not illegal. >> there were real issues, though, in the sense there are police community trust developments that need to be addressed. but at the same time one of the big issues here is the vast majority of crime that is concerning here is young black men killing other young black men and we need to face up to that. there's a problem that people don't want to touch those people. racists are obvious, but that needs to be addressed. >> suppose a police officer

makes a prudential judgment and goes up here and turns off the camera and then he proceeds to act according to -- >> then why did you turn off your camera? that would be a prima facie facie case. >> what we need, john and what we don't have is reliable statistics on how many folks are killed by cops each year, were they minorities, how much crime is done by african- americans each year. how much interracial crime. the justice department should report the figures every year. >> we don't have them because the police departments don't want to report those figures. the number of killings of black men -- i've been looking for those. >> i suspect when the cameras spread, the police will gain a reputation -- second question, is obama turning america into a -- what's the word we want to use here -- a surveillance state? >> obama is not doing it but it is happening. it's happening because of the

technology, the drones, cameras. they captured the scene in staten island. >> drones are just apple pie compared to what we're talking about now. policemen with these cameras on. >> what are you talking about? >> there are cameras everywhere. the cops upset are not -- the cops themselves are not upset about getting cameras. they see it as a way to vindicate themselves. cameras are a positive, and excessive force against unarmed black men has yielded a number of really egregious incidents. even in ferguson, michael brown did not deserve to be killed. >> michael brown tried to grab darren wilson's gun out of the car. that often happens to people if you grab a cop's gun. >> you're defending this? >> i defend darren wilson. he was smeared. the guy can't live. he didn't do anything really wrong unless somebody finds out -- >> how about a shot to the leg

or arm instead of the head? change the teaching. >> it's too much trouble to focus on -- john poindexter. total information awareness. remember all of that? >> he's a good friend of mine. he was national security advisor for ronald reagan. >> you saw how far that went. >> he had a lot of brilliant ideas. he was over at dartmouth. >> he went to jail didn't he, poindexter? >> i don't think we're turning into a surveillance state. >> too many people talking here and i'm inspiring it unfortunately. >> american surveillance state is not an issue here as much as in europe. we don't have domestic intelligence -- protections under the law. europe is much more stringent on that. police body cameras is a good thing. i think it will vindicate the police. it will push out bad police officers and give people more confidence, which in american society is crucial. >> i actually welcome the idea of having the police photographed have cameras on them. then we'll see what happens.

but the real issues here are , frankly, what seems to be a natural hostility between certain communities and the police. and that's been going on for a long time. we have to be candid about that. >> and minority communities don't hate the police. they hate the way the police treat them, this us versus them attitude. and i think that's going to take time to change. the president is on the right track. >> limited usage, okay, otherwise, no. issue two, afghanistan forever? >> 2014, therefore, is a pivotal year. together with our allies and the afghan government, we have agreed this is the year we will conclude our combat mission in afghanistan. >> the number of americans that have been killed in afghanistan is over 2,200, and the number of americans wounded in afghanistan is more than 19,900.

last may it seemed that commander in chief obama was determined to end america's longest war. where we are now, not so fast. the charged in chief has decided to extend the u.s. combat operation in afghanistan into 2015. here's the -- an excerpt from "the new york times." quote, mr. obama's order allows american forces to carry out missions against the taliban and other militant groups threatening american troops or the afghan government. this new order also allows american jets, bombers and drones to support afghan troops on their combat mission. unquote. question, why has president obama flip-flopped on afghanistan? what changed since last may when he went to afghanistan and declared that u.s. combat operations would end at the end of the year? go. >> i think what's changed, number one, is iraq with the

withdrawal there and the consequences it's had in terms of losing influence with political relationships but also losing capability to smash groups like isis. but really in afghanistan i think what the president is seeing is military advisors are telling me, though it is holding ground and taking casualties and equipping itself in strong ways, until it develops the aviation lajest conclusion -- logistics, intelligence, and other support factors, the united states needs to be there. the president is right to do this and right to allow the united states of america to consolidate the -- >> let's hear an echo from over here. >> what happened was the collapse of the iraqi army. i think that was a cautionary tale to not let that happen in afghanistan. but this is sort of rule number one of being a president if you have troops in the field. it's called troop protection. and the generals and people on the ground there were telling the president that they need

more help in fighting off the taliban and other extremist groups. so i think he's done the responsible thing. it is notilating -- escalating the war. it's trying to get out of the war in the safest way possible for a soft landing. >> what he's doing, he's trying to prevent happening in afghanistan what happened in cambodia and vietnam and iraq and libya, and that is an interval after americans pull out before the collapse of the government. i know a lot of folks are deeply pessimistic. the taliban, whatever you say about them, tough, resourceful, brave, willing to fight and die. bombing people in kabul right now. if we pulled out immediately, i think the place would go right down. frankly, it's hard to be optimistic in the middle term. >> that was never in the cards. >> i agree with what patrick said. that whole situation is deteriorating. the taliban keep on coming after them over and over again. the government is very, very weak. without us they will just fall apart.

we cannot after all the sacrifice we have made there and all the investment, we cannot just walk away. i think -- >> it's a new government too. i mean, karzai is gone and the people in charge are very friendly with the u.s. and they're competent. >> that is a key point, eleanor. it's an opportunity, and the president is -- i get the pressure under the liberal base who want a movement out, he is consolidating. the afghan national army is hold holding ground. and the taliban, as much as pat is right about that, the taliban have alienated a lot of people, including the pashtun south. this is not going to be a jeffer sewnian -- jeffersonian democracy. >> i want to conclude this general thought and that is the leader of russia is a man by the name of putin, as we all know.

he has reignited the great game . in addition to his seizure of crimea, he has asserted the central asian countries of kazakhstan, uzbekistan, could be part of a new -- afghanistan is the central line in what could be a tug-of-war between russia and the west. >> i don't underestimate anything putin might do. he may shift some of his aggressive resources to that part of the world. after all we have been through, we can't just walk away -- >> we're not going to walk away from it. we're going to be present there in order to inhibit this acquisition of an enormous amount of property by vladimir putin. you understand that? this is a new dimension to it. >> afghanistan was a killing field for the russians. they're not going to go back in there again. >> i'm not saying they're going back in.

i'm saying afghanistan under our tutelage will serve as something of a bulwark to prevent -- >> vladimir putin isn't going into central asia. issue three, oil and -- >> why people are concerned about oil production? why you are concerned? doesn't that -- the price will come down, doesn't that will help you to fill your car? why you are concerned about this? unless you are a trader? if you are a journalist, that's good for you. opec secretary engaged with journalists at last week's organization of the petroleum-ex petroleum-exporting countries at their opec summit. opec consists of 12 oil- producing nations. they are algeria, angola, ecuador, iran, iraq, kuwait,

libya, nigeria, qatar, saudi arabia, and the united arab emirates and venezuela. opec is a 54-year-old cartel that regulates the volume of opec oil output. which in turn makes oil pricing go up and go down. the basic intent of this fluctuation is to maximize the economic interests of opec members. but last week, opec decided not to reduce oil output in response to plummeting oil prices. here's how secretary-general plains opec's -- explains opec's decision. >> i think we have to wait and see and review the market very carefully and maybe we need to wait for some time to really have the real trend. is it a blip or fundamental changes? >> question, what's behind opec's decision to keep its current oil production at the levels they now are?

>> the saudis are the man in charge. it's killing venezuela, russia, iran. iran, the saudis want to bring them down. if they let the price drop to, say, $60 a barrel, that makes shale oil in the united states, which the saudis are terrified of, that makes shale oil a noneconomic investment. and suddenly they're not going to cut production because they know the other opec countries will sneak in, and take out their market. they're riding this out. >> they don't trust each other. it's every oil baron on his own and so they're going to let the price go down. and that lower price is a huge transfer of wealth in this country at the gas pump. it's terrific. every penny that drops at the gas pump translates into disposable income for a lot of americans. terrific! >> two points. i would disagree slightly with pat. i think shale oil, especially, the u.s. produced oil, has a profitability level the

russians aren't going to be able to undercut. >> you are right on the money. shale is a terrific source and it's just becoming known. >> we need the president to get behind it. >> played a card at this big oil game. >> absolutely a huge oil game. as you say, shale oil resources in the united states have just been sloweding in terms of -- exploding in terms of our ability to translate that into energy. secondly it weakens countries like russia. it's going to be a huge transfer of wealth and therefore power. >> beautifully stated, mort. issue four, retail revolution. it was a bust. weekend sales fell from over 507 million in -- 57 million in 2013 to 51 million in 2014, a $6 million plunge. with national economy upticking, thanksgiving sales were expected to uptick also.

instead, sales down-ticked. major retailers reached for their crying towels. the stock market swooned with spurting share prices -- sputtering share prices. what's behind the apparent misery the day after thanksgiving and what does it augur for christmas sales? >> it's internet sales, john and they're growing and growing and growing. a lot of us like them because we buy our books and things like that. there's a tragedy involved here, and that's going to be the loss of neighborhood stores and shops one by one. and that's why you're seeing a drive to put sales tax on internet sales and let states do that. a real political battle in congress. this a good thing, and frankly it's a sad thing, and progress, is progress isn't always beneficial. >> who wants to see the preservation of brick and mortar? >> i think malls are on their way out. i don't think there's been a new shopping mall built in this country in the last ten years. what developers are looking at, they call them multiuse communities.

there's a big one in washington, d.c. called city center. you have office buildings, high- rises, condos, and you have shops. the shops are just about as close as your internet. you can push send on your internet or walk to the bricks and mortar store. that's the future. >> i will give you an example. the internet is a key thing in my generation. i was looking and waiting for the deals, different websites, comparing, google, yahoo! you can compare and get into the deal because there's more competition. >> beautiful, beautiful. you hear that? buy it on the internet. >> it's going to transform retail shopping in this country to a dramatic degree. it's going to reform and drastically changed the whole range of buildings. not just shopping centers but office buildings, et cetera. it's all going to change because of the role of the internet. >> are you going to try to get into this deal with all your buildings? >> going to stay brick and mortar?

>> i'm in brick and mortar for a lifetime. no question. >> can you survive? >> so far, so good. >> so far, so good, mort. so long, shopping as we knew you. >> in store change sales were done in 2014, but internet sales were up. online sales increased 14.3% on thanksgiving day. and on black friday, by 9.5%. also, staggeringly, black friday sales via cell phone were up 28%. >> americans are now choosing to shop online, as we've noted here, rather than in store. this begs the question, is the internet to big and mortar stores what the asteroid was to the dinosaurs? >> it is what walmart was also to the brick-and-mortar store. the great big things that destroy the little stores. the neighborhood -- we both lived in. >> my father had a deli and when the first supermarket opened, he said they'll never survive, people want service.

well,people want service and they want cheaper prices. >> where was the deli? >> brooklyn first and sunny side, queens. >> were they emigraters? >> they came from an island called fohr with an up umlaut over the o. it's like a trip back to a century ago. >> i have visited fohr. beautiful. >> i think one of the things that will happen here where there will be a place if they feel the neighborhood and have a connection, they'll continue to go. but for example with apple stores, with a lot of people in store with a technology product that could otherwise be sold online, people still go there because they get that experience that you always keep learning. and i think microsoft, other companies -- >> they go to the store, get the spiel and while no one is looking, they start ordering it

on their -- >> i don't do that. >> the one thing i am convinced of since i happen to be involved with the apple store in new york, it's only the single most successful retail store in the country you can think of. their sales aren't going down, they're going up. >> they rent from you, don't they, mort? >> that's one of the reasons you want sales to go up. >> on a larger scale, do you think it's good or bad phenomenon? >> it's an inevitable phenomenon. just as newspapers change and products have changed, no way of avoiding. >> malls are so good, you can meet people. prediction, yes or no, the price of gasoline will fall below $2 a gallon before july july 4th, 2015? >> dream on. >> yes, it's 2.15 in maryland. >> what is it in new york? >> two and a quarter to 2.5. >> you follow the price of gasoline? >> why not?

>> you have four different chauffeurs. but you still follow it. i think the answer is yes. bye-bye.