>>> welcome to "this week in defense news." from the farm bureau international air show southwest of london. what's next for defense corporation between france and britain now that there's a new leader in paris? the defense policy chief explains for britain. plus how they plan to help defense expossibilities, but first a new initiative to help it grow despite deep spending cuts. the move would shift the government's policy on supporting the defense industry and mirrors the commercial aerospace growth program. prime minister david cameron announced the partnership and opened the dialogue with industry on a similar defense partnership on opening the 48th farm bureau international air show at the legendary airfield in afternoon shire where the commercial aerospace and defense industry meets every two years. joining us is peter luff. britain's ministers of defense for support and technology. mr. luff, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> coming into office the government was very clear that whenever possible, britain was go

defense matters more than the deficit. defense jobs are important. these were some of the most strongly held views. then you have to look at the collins. the arguments against defense spending. they have to see that these were among the most strongly held and they were more strongly held in the pro argument. we spend more than enemies. don't feed the world policeman, and there is waste in the defense budget. these are summary. these are long full paragraphs that people have had the chance to read when they took the pole. i urge you to look at the actual language. these are summaries. i want to call attention to this viewpoint because it was the most widely held of all the viewpoints in the pole. 80% of all republicans and 86% of democrats basically said that members of congress often approve unnecessary spending for their districts or keep unneeded bases open just to benefit their own supporters. military branches by duplicates of weapons, they do a poor job of tracking where the money goes, defense contractors persuade lawmakers to approve weapons b

who so dearly pay for that defense. what this amendment does is it increases the appropriation in the sensory injury from $5 million to $10 million for core vision and important research will be paid for by redirecting funds from operations and management budgets. you heard it from the last several speakers talking about traumatic brain injury and injuries that come from that. one of the first indicators of mild traumatic brain injury is eye injury. the brave warriors that sustain these injuries, whether they're puncture jerts or from blast injuries start to manifest themselves in loss of vision and eye injuries. of all of the t.b.i.'s that happen in the war zone, 70% suffer some type of vision loss. the research to deal with this has some long-term benefits. it is one of the first indicators of brain injury. we can start to get early treatment on that. all the research seems to show that cognitive ability is affected positively the sooner we get on top of that. there are seven decisions towards research and battlefield

and now as secretary of defense, there is no way, there is no way i could accomplish our defense missionf intelligence. there's no way. whether i'm dealing with what is happening in iran, whether i'm dealing with what's happening in syria, whether we're dealing with what's happening with regard to the middle east in general, whether we're dealing with north korea, and whether we're dealing with afghanistan and the enemies we confront there. whether we're dealing with pakistan. whether we're dealing with cyber war. whether we're dealing with china. whatever challenge we are facing in today's world, it could not be done without good intelligence. and the ability to know what others are doing and what they intend to do. as someone who depends as i said every day on good intelligence and on dia's analytical work i've been very fortunate to have benefited from ron's judgment and from his service. and it is our good fortune that we have another extremely capable officer ready to assume that mantle of leadership. mike flynn brings to this position decades of experience in military intelligence.

my point is that we have cut defense. but we've done so reasonably, without impacting readiness or threatening the department's ability to protect our nation and our allies. this fiscal year 2013 budget is the first we've seen where there are identifiable and significant risks associated with the budget decisions we've made. we've talked about that a lot today. our pivot toward the asia-pacific, the growth capability of china, things on the north korean peninsula. for example, cutting ships and reducing required navy ship fleet size, retiring large numbers of aircraft, some of which have been delivered in significantly underfunding facility maintenance and modernization. we've tried to mitigate these as be we could within our given allocation. speaking of our allocation, it's essentially in line with the ryan budget as well as the defense authorization bill, both of which passed the house. . c.b.o., in their most recent analysis of the department's future year's defense program, they did their analysis and determined the

undoubtedly programs in missile defense, and there's a portfolio associated with missile defense. without question programs like latoral combat ship, excelling combat capabilities. and then an array of classified or intelligence oriented programs. all of which, as we understand the environment, would not be immune so the support service we provided the intelligence community would be adversely impacted. >> how about work force impacts? >> our best estimate, which i admit, is sufficiently crude, i am a little embarrassed to offer it, 10,000 people, but we've done it at the back of the envelope where we've made up the assumption of 120,000 people, in the neighborhood of 10,000, that number could be more or less depending upon will there be accounts that will be excluded as the chairman and ranking member said. there is still yet information to be determined. we'll shape our outcome there. i think 10,000 across the board is about the best answer i could offer. thank you, sir. >> well, sir, the three i would highlight in particular are the first and foremost, the uh-72 lakota helicopt

on defense. our european allies, who, by the way, provide health care to all of their people as a right -- our european allies, who provide in many instances college education free to their young people -- not $40,000 or $50,000 a year -- our european allies -- and i say this in all due respect to them; i respect that; that's what we should be doing, providing excellent-quality child care to their working families, they spend 2% of their g.d.p. on defense. we spend 4.8%. so, madam president, we are in the midst of an interesting moment, and i would hope that the american people become engaged in this debate, because i think, by and large the position that the republican party is taking -- tax breaks for billionaires, cuts in social security and medicare, medicaid -- i think that that is way out of touch with where the american people are today. so, madam president, i hope that we have a serious debate on these issues. i hope the american people join us, and i hope that the route we go, the road w

we always knew in fact we joked around on the defense team.r the defense. >> let the record reflect that the defendant is present along with counsel. it's to my attention the jury is ready. good afternoon. have you reached a verdict? would you hand the verdict form to the court deputy please. >> when the jury verdicts were handed to the judge, i saw the change in his expression but i didn't know what it meant. my instincts are to say something's going on here. >> when the verdict sheet was handed to judge perry, if you look at the tape and you can check me because maybe my witness testimony is the worst type of testimony. maybe i'm wrong. but i remember that he looked at it and then looked at it again as if he couldn't believe what he was seeing. so i said to myself i think there's a not guilty here. >> would the defendant rise along with counsel? madam clerk, you may publish the verdicts. >> in the circuit court -- >> then when the clerk stuttered, i know that she didn't expect it. >> as to count one, we the jury find the defendant not guilty

, secretary of defense. no disrespect to the authors but they have no expertise or experience in how the positions of -- positioning of our brigades should go for our overall national security. the -- mr. coffman has previously offer authored an amendment that was on the national act that used language of permit the reassignment or removal of brigades, but this is directive. it says theseberry grades shall be moved. it does so under the assumption that there'll be cost savings but we know when you move a brigade, there were a number of costs incurred that are greater than any savings in offset. it's been said the soviet union no longer exists. you're right. but we have commitments in the mideast, in -- our assistance in africa. in our, you know, relationship with israel. these troops are not there standing guard against the soviet union that's not there anymore. they're in active deployment under the secretary of defense with the current threats we have for our national security. and, you know, certainly as

when we spend so much money on defense and i'm a former army officer you know i'm all for national defense but the key the operative word is defense. what do we spend that is directly related to the defense of this country the united states if you want to talk about waste look at the entire department of defense budget and figure out what the percentage of every dollar is that's related to rickly related to the defense of this country two cents on the door on the dollar three cents on the dollar i'm just throwing that out yeah but certainly the message out there is when you cut money from anything even from a wasteful program it's o.-r. troops are going to be put in harm's way now and i think that's the thing that people really need to be careful of in this country is they just take that as truth and they don't question anything else and we appreciate your insight on this because you certainly were there you were on the front lines you know how this all works michael o'brien author of america's failure in iraq thanks for everything. well certainly a whole lot of attention has been focused

now we're talking about defense. armed services committee has a hearing today on defense. as we said, we agree. we don't want to see that but when faced with that simple choice, do you want to cut more tax breaks for oil companies or ask those at the very top to pay more for defense to reduce the deficit? no, can't touch that. so let's understand the underlying issue here. both on the tax issues at the end of the year, we can solve them today. if our republican colleagues will stop holding 98% of the american taxpayers hostage until they get a continuation of tax breaks for the folks at the very top and we can deal with the sequester today if our colleagues are willing to take the plansed approach recommended by every bipartisan commission. that's what is at issue. let me close, mr. speaker, with this. we have heard a lot of talk about how asking folks at the very top to pay ate ll more would hurt the economy. the reality is, we've try toad trickle down theory. it's in place right now. we tried it for eight years under the previous administration. the last time we had a ba

when i was second of defense in the '70s, the defense authorization bill was 74 pages long. when i came back, in the year 2001, if i'm not mistaken the defense authorization bill was over 500 pages some what happened in the intervening period, the staffs in congress ballooned they went up by a multiple of two or three. the continuing layering of requirements from the congress generally stimulated either by the defense community or stimulated by the bureaucracy because they want to perpetuate something, ends up with rule, requirements reports, all of these things, hundreds of reports are required by the department of defense. hundreds of letter have to be answered for all kinds of detailed things. and the movement away from legislative oversight of a broad substantive nature, which would be very constructive, if hearings were held on important things, going down not to big, broad issues but down to micromanagement of the thing, the closest thing i can think of is gulliver's, remember gulliver's travels and the lilliputians would put threads over gulliver. gulliver was big and

defense strategy we have got to develop aarergulre. thsetypeon skills sets once considered exclusive profitsf special opations cmunity will need to beui up d dmoivias t arcricalha nvest in one language training and cultural expertise throughouthe department. building tapit den st a s eorts must be more prominent. we need to work collaborati with state,ai to canodzensth a way that contributes to regional security. the ay'pl toli a onomcod w wie edt nt ea with africa command is one example of the kind of aroh, bry nte e mo miryettheapability to train and advise foreign security forces and pport stability operationsiken ao nt tett in wmo cab security partners on ourhared security interests particularly sivnttitobars like brazian di ct rity and global prosperity. last week streamlining processes. to better partner with our more capable friends and aie ire o s ern esmo cianrele as part of this effort we work with the state deptment to ensure our new andostlexie rtarlobal' cogefure their maximum advantage. these modules key programs which re

undoubtedly programs in missile defense, and there's a portfolio associated with missile defense. without question programs like latoral combat ship, excelling combat capabilities. and then an array of classified or intelligence oriented programs. all of which, as we understand the environment, would not be immune so the support service we provided the intelligence community would be adversely impacted. >> how about work force impacts? >> our best estimate, which i admit, is sufficiently crude, i am a little embarrassed to offer it, 10,000 people, but we've done it at the back of the envelope where we've made up the assumption of 120,000 people, in the neighborhood of 10,000, that number could be more or less depending upon will there be accounts that will be excluded as the chairman and ranking member said. there is still yet information to be determined. we'll shape our outcome there. i think 10,000 across the board is about the best answer i could offer. thank you, sir. >> well, sir, the three i would highlight in particular are the first and foremost, the uh-72 lakota helicopt

insanity defense and as soon as the defense inserts the defendant's mental state into the case then it becomes fair game for the prosecution to find out about the mental history and records as well. so i think it is an interesting legal question but practically i think this information is going to come in. jenna: fred what do you think about that? how big of a deal is that notebook really? >> without telling what is in it i think it will be really big deal. shows he knew what he was doing. he sent it to the woman. the fact that he rigged his apartment to blow up, if i'm the prosecutor, i'm arguing that was effort by him to conceal evidence from law enforcement of his crime. when you look at it i think it will undermined the insanity defense. we'll see what is in the book. that is evidence he sent to her. on some level that he knew something was wrong. jenna: there will be arguments about that notebook. we'll not hear anything from inside the courtroom right now. no one has a blackberry. no one has a computer. members of media there, had bags search and families of the victims. it is

you're a generallal defense company. how is that going to affect your business and what kind of global ramifications do you think it is going to have? >> i don't know if it's going to happen probably any more than you do, and i would see lots of input from around the u.s. about what the consequences are. we've done some modeling for us, what we think may be the consequence. it's not that significant an issue for us. it's going to hit everyone but i don't think we're dog to be more hit than anyone else. i don't know if it will have an effect around the world. it will just drive the companies out more and more to get into the export market. fundamentally you think hat to at some point undermine the american export market because there will be less indigenous technology, but we're years away from getting into that sort of position. >> let me take you to another -- in the few seconds we have left, the anglo french unmanned vehicle cooperation. there was supposed to be a deal that was supposed to have been signed at this airs

this is the national defense budget and inflation defensive terms. bottom line is a base budget. when you adjust for inflation, our budget has been declining for the past two years. that is this congress. even the high end of the oppressions were enacted, it is still be a nominal freeze. it would be a year three of cut. where are the two years into this. -- we are already two years into this. despite all the heartache, led this congress was the one that passed the budget control act. that includes both republicans and democrats. as you saw and the slide, the ads and flows of defense spending have crossed administrations of both parties historic plea. it was president eisenhower who cut after the korean war. nixon cut after the vietnam war. budget authority with the cold war fell under the reagan administration and continue through the bush administration and clinton administration. portraying this as a difference. it does not seem to be true. the evidence does not back it up. history is important. we do have access inflows. what we do not have this p

budget sequestration means defense and non-defense spending will be cut automatically and across the board without regard to priorities, without regard to the importance of programs. we need to avoid this. how did we get here? almost a year ago congress voted for the budget control act as a first step towards seriously addressing the national debt. we authorized in good faith the supercommittee to produce a blueprint that would reduce the national deficit by $1.5 trillion or more. our hope was and our expectation was that both political parties would come to a reasoned long-term solution to america's debt crisis. of course that hope faded quickly with the announcement of an impasse by the super committee. with the national debt nearing an unprecedented $16 trillion, reining in federal spending is imperative to our national and economic security. admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, put it simply: our debt is our number-one national security threat. and yet, severe across-the-board cuts to the department of defense are not the way to address the secur

it turns out defense companies are also defensive stocks. >> defense in the context of all the other sectors out there, doesn't look that bad. at least it has a couple of things going for it. it doesn't have any exposure to europe in any meaningful way. and it's not exposed to the overall troubles of the global economy. >> reporter: and for all the talk of budget cuts, the u.s. still spends more on defense than the next 15 biggest countries combined. darren gersh, "n.b.r.," washington. >> tom: there's a wor being fought with keystrokes and not firepower. the battles have names like dns and maraposa virus. it's about trillions of dollars done in business over the internet. we are looking at cyber security beginning with the business of protection. that's tonight's word on the street, troekz. greg, what is the opportunity here and the growth potential in terms of online security? >> well, for security software stocks, the market was about $18 billion in 2011 and that was up 7.5% from gardner from the prior year. firewall stocks companies like checkpoint and sourcefire, that market was

but somehow it's got to happen because the consequences to defense -- and not only defense but to the economy of the country's at stake here. c.b.o. says that the difference in growth if we don't -- if we do sequestration, if we don't deal with the tax issue, will go from 4.4% to .5%. so it's a 4.5% difference in economic growth. that means unemployment will be greater, that means the deficit will be greater. the whole idea of the budget control act was to get the deficit under control. so again i hope that we will all continue to think about how we can come up with a solution that's bipartisan, bicameral, will work with the administration, but from a national security and a defense perspective, there's nothing more treacherous out there than sequestration and we've got to avoid it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: all time being yielded back, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendmentings on which further proceedings were postponed. the second amendment of mr. king of iowa. fourth amendment of ms. lee of california. the fifth amendment of ms. l

or non-defense. it sounds like you are concerned about the budget deficit is so great that it from its whatever ugly issue might forecast in the way the sequestration ax is going to hit. >> i completely agree with that. i think we do need defense cuts. we need cut in domestic discretionary, and you were right, that have been increasing quite rapidly. we can find ways to do it that would be ok, but everybody knows we are not going to make serious progress until we do something about revenues and entitlement. it relieves the pressure a little bit, but that is nothing compared to what we could get. so we need to reform entitlements. we need more revenues. republicans are going to have to come to the table. they cannot continue to avoid it. so yes, i am guilty as charged. >> we don't want to be preaching just a single message. so let me press the same point with david. you summarize the different types of cuts we are seeing, first of all in it were spending. more than $100 billion a year. it is headed do

and unforced management of the department of defense.onsibility on your shoulders and expertise. we thank you for that. all of us are concerned about sequestration. we are five months from that coming into place. as i look at the statute i say the same percentage of sequestration to apply to all programs within a budget accounts up with programs, projects, and activities in the appropriation act or report for the relevant assistant -- accounts not included an appropriation acts. basically, we're talking about across the board cuts, that is what we are looking at. noting that sequestration is the current law, noting that we are five months of from when that comes into play, what will be the impact of the civilian workforce when sequestration hits? >> i wish i could give you a definitive answer but i cannot. there are some decisions that could be made relative to the military work force. if sequestration were to be a fact, the civilian work force money is in the account. other agencies could make decisions about what agencies were placed i

they don't even think defensively. they don't know what your defense is, and yet they've got to make that decision. >> s2197 would eliminate the materiality requirement as a matter of statutory law. >> reporter: alaska's senator murkowski has introduced legislation that would require that any evidence that can help the defense be turned over. but the justice department opposes that. deputy attorney general cole testifying no new laws are needed. >> because the problem was not what the rules were that were in place. the problem was that the prosecutors in the case didn't follow the rules. >> reporter: cases get reversed when prosecutors don't follow the law, but very little ever happens to the offending prosecutor. notwithstanding a finding of "reckless professional misconduct" in the stevens case, only two prosecutors were punished, one suspended for 40 days, another for 15 days. sullivan's law firm issued a written statement calling the sanctions "pathetic" and "laughable" and conclusive proof that "the department of

the defense minister is dead. i gather the information minister is critically ill after this suicide bombing. this is beginning to look like a heavy blow for the regime, is it not? >> this is a blow to the very heart of the security establishment, not just the defense minister killed, but also the president's brother-in- law, who is another i security official has been reported, but not confirmed, to be dead. certainly very injured. other top officials -- possibly the interior minister. rumors are going around. we are not getting confirmation. we're dealing with a very secretive regime. obviously, we are waiting for official word for anything. we are not going to get much apart from that. the defense ministry is about to make a press conference very shortly at which it will presumably, obviously, mourn the defense minister, but perhaps give more details of exactly how this bomb was managed -- was smuggled into this major security building where this top-level security meeting was going on. it is a huge blow to the

the defense has 1.5 million. either way you look at that, that is not a direction that we want to go. as you know, the house has passed a budget that would stop us from coming into place for national defense. so for the senate says they will not do anything in the president says he'll veto anything. >> representative "forbes," per the use of this word, change it if you want, but do you regret the sequestration process that was put into place? >> guest: ido regret it because i voted against it. i said this was where would be against it. this is not a smart thing to do and that's why he voted against it and suggested we not put ourselves in that corner. >> host: what is the alternative? >> guest: at the alternative is there's a number of different alternatives, but one has been passed by the house of representatives. they passed a series of bills that will curtail the increase in spending in some areas, but full text arbitrary cut to national incentives. he gives us time to do analysis and see where we can cut and

might be some forms that do not relate to national defense. >> is improperly classified a defense to a criminal action? >> as my friend and colleague professor pointed out, all courts rejected the notion that improper classification exxon rates one under the act. >> we had press, one of the first cases was the pentagon papers. is a reporter liable if he reports what he heard? >> congressman, we talked about this before. i think the text of the statute, i think could be used to go after a reporter not necessarily for the act of publishing this information but even for the act of holding onto it when he's not entitled to. the government has been revery, very reluktant because of the first amendment concerns they raise. in the pentagon papers mention, although the courts could not stop the "new york times" from publishing the papers, the nixon administration could prosecute them after the fact. >> so the state of the law now is what? >> you know, i think the best i can say the law is unclear. there's only been one case in the history of the act where the government has prosecuted a thir

it is about defense contractors. there is going to be this thing called sequestration where they're going to take some money away from the defense budget. why? they have to it. is part of the deal they struck in order to make sure the debt limit was increased. the tough decisions they had to make. well now the people who are on the defense contractors are in a rage cage. watch john mccain and kelly ayotte here, two senators on the republican side. >> we're going to places obviously that are most severely hit by these draconian cuts which, in the words of the secretary of defense would have a devastating impact on our national security. >> it means nearly a million jobs from the defense industrial base but as senator mccain has said, our secretary of defense has said we would be shooting ourselves in the head and hollowing out our force jeopardizing our national security. >> cenk: shooting ourselves in the head. what a ridiculous thing to say. the draconian cuts. oh, my god, we're going to lose a million jobs. the dir

an insanity defense, the first thing a criminal defense attorney has to assess is, can the client actuallytand trial? is he competent to stand trial? the attorney will be talking to him, trying to decide two things. one, does he understand the charges against him and, two, can he provide any kind of meaningful assistance in his defense? if the answer to both of those questions is, yes, he understands the proceedings and can, he can proceed to the next step which is preliminary trials, trial and maybe insanity defense. in a lot of these case as where there's severe mental illness, which sometimes does manifest itself later in life. there are forms, for instance, schizophrenia that manifest themselves in the mid-20s. so, it would not be unusual for that to happen with respect to a particular suspect. in that case, if he's incompetent to stand trial, he's sent off to a mental hospital and, in fact, there could be years before this case is resolved. but, of course, we don't know the answer to that question because we haven't seen what he said to the police and certainly we don't have the benef

no one has said the insanity defense will be raised but that's what the defense will e.

the syrian a defense minister has been killed in a suicide attack in damascus this according to state t.v. reports as fresh violence flares up in the war torn country. the games in the balance as a private security firm proves incompetent it's now u.s. agents being flown in to man the posts at british airports. and banking giant h.s.b.c. tied to terrorist cash as washington reports the lender's money laundering helped saudi arabian group finance terror. it was a pleasure to have you with us here on our t.v. today i'm live in moscow syria's defense minister has just been killed in an attack in damascus state television said that a suicide blast a targeted a security building in the capital a number of government officials were also seriously wounded the attack comes amid reports of continued and renewed fighting in various parts of the city let's not get the latest noughties are. joining us live on the line from damascus maria this is rory in the studio i know you're there in the syrian capital can you give us details of exactly what happened. but tragic news all period people have com

able to break their promise to multimillionaire lobbyist grover norquist in order to protect their defense industry donors and all across america record high temperatures and a lack of rain are causing a nightmare for our nation's farmers and our agriculture industry just how badly has the largest drought in decades hurting our food supply and is this a glimpse of things to come in the age of global warming. you need to know this when you mention these small handful of wealthy families have pretty much own to el salvador in the reagan eighty's you often think of the infamous death squads that their right wing military government supported as tom brokaw reported in one thousand nine hundred eighty three on n.b.c.'s evening news . a death squad strike could anyone they suspect of working for their gross or sympathizing with them even when friends are involved most of the victims are the sons and fathers of the poor the children and husbands of these women who marched recently against gadhafi. these people routinely used rape and murder including that of children as a way to suppress the labo

intelligence agency and a part of defense.nt general ronald o. burgess junior is retired from the united states army effect june 1 september 2012 after more than 38 years of faithful and honorable surveys. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, general dempsey will now have a certificate from commander-in-chief, which reads i extend to you my personal thanks and sincere appreciation of a grateful nation for your contribution of honorable service to our country. you can help maintain security of the nation during the critical time in its history with a devotion to duty in the spirit of sacrifice in keeping with the proud tradition of military service. your commitment and dedication have been an inspiration for those who will follow in your footsteps and for all americans to join me today in so booting you for a job extremely well done. my best wishes to you for happiness and success in the future. signed barack obama, commander-in-chief. [applause] general dempsey will now present the certificate of retirement to lieutenant general b

when we had national cuts in the 1990's to defense, we went from 50 major defense contractors down to six. we cut down on some of our platforms and ships and other things from seven manufacturers to 3. what happens is when you do it in an arbitrary basis, you don't get a planned workforce to make sure you are getting the talent and core capabilities you need in the areas you need. so you end up with an unbalanced work force that does not meet the needs we have as a nation. host: we have the numbers on the screen if you would like to participate in our conversation with representative randy forbes, republican from virginia, member of the armed services committee. we will get to calls after i ask you about this. this is from the national journal this morning, about more budget matters -- are you aware of this? guest: a lot of discussion on this. a feeling is if you punch it down the road six months, you enable a new administration, if you have and where administration, to come in. some folks on the other side of the aisle want this issue moved down the road for six months. the problem i

several times a fourth of five hundred billion billion dollars in extra cuts to the super inflated defense budget over the next ten years and while those big numbers might sell on kind of scary the c.b.l. recently concluded with a fence based budget would still of be larger than it was in two thousand and six but despite efforts to inject a little reality into the bait the hawks are still crying over the cuts likening their implementation to doomsday and in fact they're so nervous that they have a bark on crusades against this take for example setter jim inhofe who could not understand for the life of him why other programs were untouched well the defense budget was on the chopping block. everything seems to be exempt except the military food stamps exempt a hundred percent of medicaid. thirty seven percent it only ten percent of the d.o.d. budget so why is it that we are offenders serves their situation where that's that is the problem. and meanwhile severs john mccain and kelly iowa are actually setting out on a tour cross-country to try to draw attention to the january deadline and iowa

if i were the defense lawyer, that would be one witness, if i'm going to raise an insane defense, that would be the witness i would zero in, a guy that saw very strange conduct. >> sean: we'll get into this later. i was talking to peter johnson earlier, he observed once they claim not guilty by reason of insanity the prosecutors' hands are tied in a way. >> greta: let me tell you something unusual. the colorado laws i understand a quick first run on it. he raises insanity, if he does, proof of insanity and then the burden shifts to the state of colorado, according to what has been provided to me, shifts to the state of colorado. now, the state has to show she sane. what is important about that? back when john hinkley was tried for shooting president reagan, that was what the federal law, the burp shifted to the prosecutors. after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity they changed the federal law and burden of proving insanity is now on the defendant. it's curious, unless somebody has handed me the wrong colorado law. it mirrors the pre-john hinkley federal law in which congress

we're talking about both defense and non-defense jobs. sequestration impacts both elements of the budget. >> so help me understand because i've heard that argument and it makes sense. but then i look at some other numbers and it doesn't make sense. for example, the cuts, in terms of real terms, the cuts that the defense department already agreed to and then the sequestration on top of that would only be about 11%, in real terms. ronald reagan cut defense by 10% in his second term. george h.w. bush cut it. so this is right in line with those. that seems to make sense. >> yes, when you're talking about percentages, always matter where is you're starting from. i think it's more instructive to actually look at the dollars being cut. you look at the total between defense and non-defense, it would represent a reduction of over $100 billion in the coming fiscal year. and that's really the number you have to focus on that translates into the economic impact that we're talking about. so a structure today, this would be a precipitous set of cuts th

defense is something government is supposed to do but the defense department's brownie recipe is 26 pages long. why would defense be any more efficient than anything else government does? ♪ why not try someplace different every morning? get two times the points on dining in restaurants with chase sapphire preferred. [ male announcer ] aggressive styling. a more fuel-efficient turbocharged engine. and a completely redesigned interior. ♪ the 2012 c-class with over 2,000 refinements. it's amazing...inside and out. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering so, i'm walking down the street, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering just you know walking, sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering and i found myself in the middle of this paradeeet, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering honoring america's troops. sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering which is actually in tquite fitting becauseadeeet, x: sound

defense is something government is supposed to do but the defense department's brownie recipe is 26 pagesg. why would defense be any more efficient than anything else government does? >>. >> john: i complain about big government but defense is something big government is supposed to do. but what is defense and what is empire building? does america need to spend as much on our military as all the nations in the world combined? yes says former ambassador john bolton. no says congressman cue seven after. president eisenhower was right to warn about a military complex that has too much influence? >> by that i mean, i f you look at the cost of the military they are taking a greater part of our g.d.p.. we need to understand. >> john: that is not true. it's not a greater amount, not a greater amount of our g.d.p.. >> they are taking increasingly larger amount. it's 3.35% of our g.d.p. i think we need to be aware. the economic effect of that inevitablely slows employment and causes diversion of resources that would be beneficial to economy. it's not clear that it actually makes america safer. >>

undoubtedly programs in missile defense, and there's a portfolio associated with missile defense. without question programs like latoral combat ship, excelling combat capabilities. and then an array of classified or intelligence oriented programs. all of which, as we understand the environment, would not be immune so the support service we provided the intelligence community would be adversely impacted. >> how about work force impacts? >> our best estimate, which i admit, is sufficiently crude, i am a little embarrassed to offer it, 10,000 people, but we've done it at the back of the envelope where we've made up the assumption of 120,000 people, in the neighborhood of 10,000, that number could be more or less depending upon will there be accounts that will be excluded as the chairman and ranking member said. there is still yet information to be determined. we'll shape our outcome there. i think 10,000 across the board is about the best answer i could offer. thank you, sir. >> well, sir, the three i would highlight in particular are the first and foremost, the uh-72 lakota helicopt

what else is the defense working on right now?i think the defense, as they indicated, wants to take a look at some of the forensic evidence, wants to get inside the apartment, wants to look at his trail on the internet, wants to see what he's been saying and to whom he's been saying it. there was a reference with the weird phone message, that the gun person made -- >> for people who don't know, there was a gun range owner, and apparently james holmes had made a call, he was inquiring about being able to come to the range, and when the gun range owner called him back, he said the message on his answering machine was so bizarre that he advised his employees if he calls, we don't want him coming in. >> that's right. so you have to look at not only what is the person's mental state today when you're being examined, but you're trying to go back in time so you need to take a look at what was the person saying, what was he doing, what was he writing, back before this terrible tragedy occurred. >> clint, in terms of this evidence, and we