tv PBS News Hour PBS July 30, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: army private bradley manning was acquited on the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy," but convicted on multiple counts for violating the espionage act. good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the newshour tonight, manning could now face up to 136 years in prison for giving classified information to wikileaks. we examine the verdict and ask, did he get a fair trial? >> brown: then, a group of top doctors and scientists want to change the definition of cancer. we look at the recommendations
on approaches to detection and treatment. >> ifill: an effort to take sexual assault cases in the military out of the chain of command is gaining support in the senate. judy woodruff talks to new york democrat kirsten gillibrand. >> we all agree that we have to do something about sexual assault and rape in the military and victims aren't democrats or republicans. they don't an ideology. victims' voices have to be heard. >> brown: parts of honduras have become overrun by violent drug gangs. we report on one city where more than 20 people are murdered each week. >> people here do whatever they want. no one believes things will change. it felt like the most dangerous city was returning. >> ifill: and life and death in assisted living centers here in the u.s., we explore a "frontline" investigation into whether some in the industry are putting seniors at risk. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour.
>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.
thank you. >> brown: the verdict was "not guilty" today on the one charge that could have sent private first class bradley manning to prison for life. after a trial at fort meade, maryland, though, he was convicted of numerous lesser crimes, involving the release of more than 700,000 classified documents to the anti-secrecy group, wikileaks. the verdicts ended manning's two-month court-martial and came more than three years after his disclosures rocked the u.s. government. the former army intelligence analyst listened attentively as the judge, colonel denice lynn, acquitted him of the most serious charge: aiding the enemy. usually reserved for direct provision of assistance of an enemy. she also found him not guilty of one other espionage charge. but the judge convicted manning of 19 other charges, including six counts under the espionage act, five counts of stealing
u.s. government property; namely, the databases that contained files he disclosed, and computer fraud. defense attorney davis comes hailed the acquittal on aiding the enemy saying "today is a good day, but bradley is by no means out of the fire. his supporters have argued manning is a whistle-blower who exposed official malfeasance for the public good. >> engage, roger! >> reporter: among the most incendiary of his disclosure, a 2007 video that wikileaks called "collateral murder." it showed the crew of a u.s. helicopter gunship in iraq as mate sheen gunned a group of men suspected of being iraqi insurgents. instead, those killed included a reuters news service cameraman and his driver. the 25-year-old manning had already pleaded guilty to several lesser charges. the sentencing phase on today's convictions begins tomorrow and the penalty could add up to 136
years in prison. and we'll have more on the manning verdict after the other news. >> ifill: still to come on the newshour, a new definition of cancer. senator gillibrand on curbing sexual assaults in the military; drug gangs turn honduras into the murder capital of the world; and life and death in assisted living. but first, with the other news of the day, here's kwame holman. >> holman: pakistan's leaders faced new questions today about their ability to safeguard the country after taliban fighters stormed a prison and freed more than 250 inmates. we have a report narrated by kylie morris of independent television news. >> reporter: the television excitedly relayed glimpses of what was a sophisticated midnight attack. so sophisticateed that booby traps were set to thwart reinforcement who came to the aid of the embattled few guarding it. an injured police sergeant,'m black mat i can of the fight who
lost what are thought to be dozens of taliban. survivors gave vivid detail of the on sought. >> ( translated ): when they started shooting, we parked up in front of the main gate in an armored vehicle to fight back. then the gate exploded. we opened fire and then we were hit by a rocket shell or a mortar. two of my men were killed on the shot. >> reporter: six policemen died in all, as well as a number of shiite muslim prisoners unfortunate enough to have been identified by the sunni fighters. rather than liberation, they faced execution, their throats slit. but behind these walls, the real objective was fellow talib fighters held prisoner. eyewitnesses spoke of some attackers with loud hailers calling out the names of those they most sought to liberate. but k.p.k. province had been warned with suggestion it is threat of a jailbreak was known to the authorities in the days before the attack. still, they had no answer when the talib fighters wearing police uniforms roared out of
the darkness on motorbikes. the pakistan jailbreaks repeat a pattern established in yemen, libya, and, most recently, iraq. only last week al qaeda claimed responsibility for an assault that led to a mass breakout of the notorious abu ghraib prison. >> holman: the leader of the pakistani province where last night's attack took place, said he'd been told this week that prison security was good. he vowed to investigate, and warned, "heads will roll. no one will be spared." israelis and palestinians have agreed to try to work out a final status peace agreement within nine months. secretary of state john kerry gave that word today, after two days of initial talks in washington. the lead negotiators for each side shook hands after the first talks in nearly three years, and kerry said he's convinced peace is possible. >> while i understand the skepticism, i don't share it and i don't think we have time for it. i firmly believe the leaders, the negotiators and citizens
invested in this effort can make peace for one simple reason: because they must. a viable two-state solution is the only way this conflict can end and there is not much time to achieve it and there is no other alternative. >> holman: the two sides will hold substantive talks again sometime in the next two weeks, either in israel or the west bank. the military group hamas, which rules in gaza, has refused to join the negotiations. in egypt, the european union's foreign policy chief was allowed to meet with ousted president mohammed morsi at an undisclosed location. catherine ashton was the first outside official to see morsi since the military forced him from power earlier this month. ashton said morsi is doing "well," and that they had an "open and very frank" discussion. >> we talked for two hours. we talked in-depth. we have access to information in terms of t.v. we've -- we've been able to talk
about the situation. and we were able to talk about the need to move forward. >> holman: ashton also met with the country's interim leaders, including the army chief, as well as officials of morsi's muslim brotherhood. also today, france called for morsi to be released from custody. the driver of the train in last week's deadly crash in spain was talking on the phone when the train derailed, killing 79 people. investigators said today he had taken a call from a railroad controller, and apparently was consulting a document. they also reported the train was doing 95 miles an hour, nearly twice the speed limit. the findings were taken from the train's black box recorders. president obama today tried to rally support for a plan to cut corporate tax rates if republicans agree to spend more on job creation. it was his latest bid to get action on his economic policy >> i came here to offer a framework that might help break through some of the political
logjam in washington. president >> the backdrop was a smalling distribution facility for amazon.com in chattanooga, tennessee. the company announced monday it's adding 7,000 jobs. the president said it's time to create even more jobs by cutting corporate tax rates to 28% from the current 35%. at the same time, he'd spend more on public works and other jobs programs paid for by one-time changes in the tax laws. >> i'm willing to work with republicans on reforming our corporate tax code as long as we use the money from transitioning to a simpler tax system for a significant investment in creating middle-class jobs. (cheers and applause) that's the deal. now it's time for republicans to lay out their ideas. if they have a better plan to bring back more manufacturing jobs to tennessee and around the country, then let me know!
i want to hear them! >> reporter: but not? republicans claim mr. obama has given up on the idea of overhauling corporate and individual tax rates. >> sometimes it just seems this administration never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to grow this economy. >> reporter: pennsylvania senator pat toomey said he's hoped for an agreement to simplify the overall tax code. >> i thought we might be able to make progress on that. i'm losing confidence that we can when senator reid insists the tax reform has to start at a trillion dollars of tax increases and the president says today that even corporate tax reforms-- a part where i thought we were close to a consensus-- has to be another opportunity to raise taxes on the american people. hole hole the opening bids on tax action come as congress makes ready to start a five-week summer recess on friday. there was strong new evidence today of a recovering housing market. the standard & poor's/case- schiller index showed home prices in may surged more than 12% from the same month last year.
it's the largest gain since march of 2006. but on wall street, stocks mostly marked time, ahead of tomorrow's policy statement from the federal reserve. the dow jones industrial average lost one point to close at 15,520. the nasdaq rose 17 points to close at 3,616. and on capitol hill, the senate moved to confirm five presidential nominations to the national labor relations board. the series of votes on the three democrats and two republicans comes after months of negotiations between both parties to end republican delays on executive branch nominees. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: we come back to the court-martial of bradley manning and get reaction from jeffrey
smith, former counsel for c.i.a. and the senate arms services committee. he's currently in private practice and serves on the department of defense legal advisory board and michael ratner, president emeritus, the he's currently in private practice and serves on the department of defense legal advisory board. and michael ratner, president emeritus of the center for constitutional rights. his organization represents wikileaks and julian assange in the u.s., and filed a suit to gain access to documents and court briefs in the manning trial. let me get a response from both of you and we'll walk through some of the issues. mr. ratner, you first, was justice served? >> i think it's probably one of the greatest injustices of our decade. here off man who who's revealed very important information about war crimes, whose information sparked the arab spring and you have him being convicted of 20 charges. and you have to people who were engaged in the criminal atty he revealed not being investigated at all. bradley manning is a whistle-blower, he should not be prosecuted. the people who committed the crimes ought to be prosecuted. >> brown: jeffrey smith, your response? >> i see it very differently. he betrayed a trust. he had a trust to the united states when he made an open to
serve his country and to not disclose classified information. but more fundamentally he had a trust in his fellow soldiers. the information that he released involved a lot of detail about our activities and iraq and afghanistan. to be sure, some of it was terrible, the machine gunning of civilians, that should never have happened. but he betrayed his trust and put their lives at risk and i think it was a fair trial and i believe he deserves to be punished. >> brown: mr. ratner, pick up on the trial itself. was it your sense as much as you could tell that he received a fair trial? >> well, i wouldn't really call it a fair trial. we had a year until we could getting access to the information. i sat there in plato's cave. you couldn't tell what was going on. it took us a year of litigation to get that out. i think he was overcharged tremendously. aiding the enemy which, of course, he was acquitted on which was the one good part of the trial. but the charge of whistle-blower with espionage -- to charge a
whistle blow we are espionage, that's nonsensical. it's the obama administration hitting truth tellers with a sledgehammer. i don't think that's fair. as far as the oath issue when you see something with a greater crime, vietnam in the my lai massacre or what bradley manning saw, you have a higher duty to disclose criminality when you see it. >> brown: since many of the facts weren't in dispute here, it became how one sees bradley manning, right? >> i think it -- not quite. i think the judge handled it well. he was a soldier. he had promised not to disclose classified information. there were 700,000 documents, not all of those were crimes. the vast majority of them were routine reports, diplomatic exchanges, details about u.s. operations. i think what he did put american soldiers at risk. it caused great harm and this is not the my lai massacre.
it's 700,000 documents that caused great harm. >> brown: and what is your sense of the aiding the enemy charge, which was much in dispute, of course. >> again, i think judge handled that well. the government may have overreached a little bit in its charge but she let the evidence be presented at trial and she then found him not guilty. i think she handled it very well. >> brown: you're saying not only was that overreach bug you think using the espionage act was as well? >> two points i want to make. mr. smith talked about harm. there was no evidence of harm that came out at the trial. they never proved that. the state department or others have said there was no genuine harm here so let's get rid of that. clearly aiding the enemy was a ridiculous charge. but charging whistle-blowers with espionage is also nonsensical. it's a world war i statute, it makes no sense. i thought -- i don't think he should have been charged at all but hitting them with six charges of espionage, five of
which he was convicted when he's a whistle-blower is really overreaching and it's what i call sledge hammer that the obama administration seems to be taking to whistle-blowers and journalists as well. >> brown: you want to -- a number of things to pick up on here but one was the facts of the impact. >> the impact, i think, was real. i began life as an infantry officer and the idea that details, reports, of combat operations that the enemy was able to pick up and change their tactics on i can only imagine the reaction of young officers out there trying to accomplish their mission and protect their soldiers' lives when this information was out there. and the fact that there was no harm the government did, i think establish in the course of the trial certainly enough harm to justify a conviction. he is charged with espionage because that's the one statute we have in the federal system that that punishes the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including too the press. it's not classical espionage in the sense that you're selling secrets to another government for money but it's the unauthorized disclosure. so it's a bit of a misnomer to complain that he was charged with espionage. >> brown: well, mr. ratner, where does this leave things, do you think, vis-a-vis impact on future leakers or potential whistle-blowers. impact on journalists investigating stories like this? >> well, two things. one is in terms of my client, julian assange and wikileaks, that was spread throughout the trial. they were trying to really say that wikileaks and julian assange were co-conspirators with bradley manning, he was taking orders from them, they tried to drag him through the mud on it. none of it was proven. what i think it tells us is that not only are whistle-blowers but journalists in jeopardy as well as the case with the case of rosen at fox news when they charged him -- or at least had an affidavit and a search warrant saying he was a co-conspirator in a espionage
case. similarly, recently, with the "new york times" reporter james rison when the court said the he's -- a crime couldn't have happened without him working with the whistle-blower. so i think we're seeing an assault that bradley manning's trial represents. when you charge one swho's giving the truth out to us with six counts of espionage, convict him of 5 and keep everything in this government secret that they can and don't actually look at their own criminal alty. the number of cases i brought to try to get responsibility for torture, all this mist on secrecy. we need whistle blowers right now more than ever. i think the government is trying to chill whistle-blowers, that's clear, but it doesn't seem to be working because even after bradley manning was indicted you saw ed snowden come out with his revelations. >> brown: what do you think, jeffrey smith, will be the impact of this verdict? >> it's hard to know. mr. ratner suggests that the government seems to have no legitimate secrets to keep. it clearly does. and i've seen in my own personal
life direct harm from leaks of classified information. there are a number of issues will come out. one is both with respect to private manning and mr. snowden. the government now is constraining the amount of information that's shared within the government. so prior to 9/11 -- or after 9/11 the government was criticized for not being able to connect the dots because we didn't share information within the government. when we share information, we find that irresponsible young men for whatever bizarre purposes disclose it so now i there's going to be some shutdown in the sharing of information which will also have adverse consequences to our national security. >> brown: all right. jeffrey smith, michael ratner, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> ifill: we turn to changes in how we think about cancer, and how we choose to treat it. it comes from a panel of doctors advising the national cancer institute.
in a paper in the journal of the american medical association, the doctors recommended changing the very definition of what's often seen as the earliest signs of cancer. for example, a diagnosis of noninvasive abnormal cells in the breast would be renamed so that the words "cancer" or "carcinoma" are not part of the description. the idea is to avoid unnecessary treatment. the recommendations were published on the same day another medical panel recommended annual catscans for people at higher risk of developing lung cancer. for more on these findings, we turn to dr. barnett kramer of the national cancer institute. and dr. larry norton of the memorial sloan kettering cancer center. welcome to you both, gentlemen. why change definitions, dr. cramer? >> the meeting that you mentioned achieved a strong consensus. i should point out that it was not an official advisory panel to the federal government or to the national cancer institute. but it was one of the workshops that the national cancer
institute often convenes to gather the opinions of outside experts. at that meeting there was a consensus that it's time to bring the terminology related to cannes inter21st century and that is to identify cancer by how it acts and not to restrict ourselves to how it simply looks like under a microscope to a pathologist. >> ifill: let me follow up on that. how do you know how it acts if it's in the early stages? how can you tell? >> in some cases we have the luxury of following cancerss. for example, there's a growing recognition that not all prostate cancers need to be treated immediately and we're able to follow them with periodic x-rays and biopsies and get an idea of the pace of the progression of the disease. in many other cases, we unfortunately don't have that luxury so we have to rely on molecular studies that identify the underlying behavior. >> ifill: dr. norton, do you
think it's a good idea to change the way we look at these early cancers? >> dr. kramer said there's something very important which is there's an expanding knowledge of the molecules that make cancers cancerous and if we really understood that and if we're all doing research at the national cancer institute, memorial sloan-kettering to figure out how, by measuring those molecules, we can dhel molecular changes are going to lead to problems and which are not. but we're not quite there yet. and i'm totally in favor of changing terminology once we can be absolutely sure that when we tell a patient this is not going to cause any trouble that we can have great can confidence that we're telling them theru until that time, we have to be very, very careful that we're not giving people false confidence that what they have in their breast or prostate is totally benign and won't cause trouble because if we don't treat it and it does cause trouble, that won't be a good result. >> ifill: let me ask you this, dr. norton: say somebody comes to you and you discover a lesion that could be cancerous, could be very early. in this case what would you do
about that? how would you treat it? >> >> mostly we're talking about things that we don't call cancer but predispose to development of true cancer. some have the word carcinoma in them and it is a source of confusion so you have to explain very carefully that something, let's say ductal carcinoma insitu is like a criminal before the criminal has done a crime. it hasn't actually done anything bad yet but it has the signs it very well might. now, in some cases we can tell relative odds that it's going to cause trouble like turn into a real cancer that can spread and threaten life. in some cases we can really specify that this is very likely to do that or less likely to do it. but in no case yet can we say that it's not going to do that. so then the patient has to make a choice of what they can do to try to minimize their risks if they wish to minimize their risks. it's a very individual decision. a lot of explanation has to go into it so what we really need
now is good communication. i'm not so sure just changing terminology will accomplish that. >> ifill: dr. kramer, is this a question of overdiagnosis, overtreatment, or is it that improved technology tells us more than we ever used to know? >> it's a little bit of both. overdiagnosis is the term we apply the the the dex of tumors that have loma leg nant poe potential or very little chance of causing a patients' death and there are two criteria for overdiagnosis. one, there needs to be a large reservoir of tumors that have a very wide spectrum of behavior and the more we learn about the biology of cancer the more we know it's virtually always there. and the only other criterion is a -- a sensitive screening test that can dip into that reservoir and as we focus on more and more sensitive screening tests we are tapping into that very, very large reservoir detecting tumors whose natural history we don't
understand because traditionally we haven't observed it. >> ifill: it sounds like both of these cases-- the next one i'm going to ask you about-- are about risks versus benefits. you have this recommendation that cat scans be performed on an annual basis of heavy smokers to detect lung cancers. what's the risk/benefit ratio there, dr. kramer? >> there that's a very important point. i want to put the national lung screening trial into context. it was the first trial that ever showed that we could decrease the risk of dying of lung cancer in people who are very high risk of dying of lung cancer by virtue of their smoking. on the other hand, stopping smoking has a much, much larger and faster effect so no matter what we need to encourage people who smoke to stop smoking. nevertheless, about half of all lung cancers in our country are in people who already stopped smoking. >> ifill: so dr. norton is this a matter of relative risk of
mortality and which is better? this annual screen? that may not be covered by insurance? >> well, we -- you're bringing up a lot of topics vis-a-vis insurance but i want to concentrate on the biology here. i think what we're seeing with the lung cancer screening is what we've seen with mammography screening. many, many studies have shown that if you do mammographic screening and you pick up small changes you can pick up these d.c.i.f. that i mentioned and prevent the cancer in the first place or pick up small cancers with a very high cure rate with breast conservation as an option for patient. so that's kind of where we are. i mean, i see in the lung cancer screening the very early days of mammographic screening of the breasts. now, it's possible, of course, that some of these cancers we're picking up on lung screening are also not going to grow and if we can understand the biology of that and understand the molecules we may be able to just do a needle biopsy for example
and say "we found the cancer but it won't cause you trouble." when that day comes we can call it indolent. we're not there yet. >> ifill: when you say "we're not there yet" does that mean both of the things we're talking about are some ways down the road? >> absolutely. there's no definitive test that we can do now through d.c.i.s. or lung cancer or anything else that will tell us with certainty this won't turn into a dangerous disease that could be life threatening. we're moving that direction. it's a very, very important area of research and i would applaud the day when we could actually say this is early changes and it's never going to cause you a problem and you can ignore it. that would be wonderful. i think that day will come but we're not there yet. >> ifill: dr. kramer, how far away? >> so how far down the road we are depends very heavily on our understanding of the underlying biology of each tumor. and the better we understand it, the better we can make individualized decisions that help patients choose the best therapy. in the case of prostate cancer there is a very large reservoir,
we already know, of tumors that are so slow growing that at least many of them are best left observed and not treated. in the case of lung cancer, on average the tumors grow much faster and so we're not there. we need to learn more about the baby and in the meantime i want to emphasize the national lung screening trial showed that the net benefits outweigh the harms in this case. >> ifill: okay, dr. barnett kramer of the national cancer institute and dr. larry norton of the memorial sloan-kettering cancer center, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> brown: now, how the military handles cases of sexual assault. judy woodruff updates the debate in congress. >> the numbers are grim: a female soldier is more likely to be raped by a fellow officer than she is to die in combat.
it's one of many statistics that have fixed new attention on the problem of sexual assault in the arnold forces. pentagon findings last may estimated 26,000 troops were sexually assaulted last year, but only 3,400 attacks were reported. democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york is leading an effort to change the way the military handles these cases. >> so today we're standing in a united front to take on these issues with new legislation that will fundamentally remove the decision-making from the change of command and give that discretion to an experienced military prosecutor. where have it belongs. >> woodruff: gillibrand points to victims who say that too often commanders ignore their allegations or their careers suffer. but her proposal was defeated by the senate arms services committee in june in favor of an alternative by committee chair
carl levin, democrat of michigan. it requires automatic review ofive in commander's decision not to prosecute a sexual assault case. last week, levin released two letters from senior military officials supporting his argument that prosecution should remain within the chain of command. missouri democratic senator claire mccaskill agrees with him. >> we believe there will be more prosecutions and the numbers support that. we believe that the only way to hold command accountable is to make them responsible, not to completely remove their responsibilities. we believe that's a recipe for disaster. >> woodruff: still, gillibrand is undaunted. she says she hopes to take her measure to the full senate. already she has 44 supporters from both parties. but legislation could be brought to the floor as early as september. joining us from capitol hill to talk about her proposal and its
prospects going forward is new york senator kirsten gillibrand. welcome to the newshour, senator. first of all, tell us why it's so important to you that the prosecution of sexual assault charges be taken out of the chain of military command? >> because it's exactly what the victims have asked for. they've said over and over again that they don't trust the chain of command to deliver justice in their cases. for those victims who have been courageous enough to report these cases 62% said they've been retaliated against. of the thousands who didn't report incidents of sexual assault, rape, and unwanted sexual assault contact, the reason they give us is they don't trust the chain of command. they think nothing will be done or that they fear retaliation or they've seen someone else be retaliated against. so what we're looking for is a way to address these cases in a more objective way where a trained military prosecutor
takes the case as to whether or not these cases should gol to trial. hopefully more victims will feel confident in coming forward. >> woodruff: the chairman of the arms services committee, your fellow democrat carl levin, is arguing something very different. he says it could take responsibility away from the commanders, relieve them of the kind of incentive they should feel. he argues that you should leave it with them and when they don't prosecute a case it should go to a superior officer. >> my response is quite simple: they are still responsible for these cases. they're 100% responsible to make sure no one is raped or sexually assaulted within the military. they are still responsible that no one is retaliated against. and that they can set a command climate that's consistent with victims being able to come forward and report these cases. the chain of command is entirely on the hook for good order and discipline and, frankly, judy, if you're having 26,000 sexual assaults, rapes,
and unwanted sexual contacts a year you're not maintaining good order and discipline and if those few victims that do come forward, 62% are being retaliated against, you're not setting a command climate that's conducive for victims receiving justice. so i don't believe commanders are off the hook. i think they're entirely on the hook to do a better job than they're doing today and to have that legal decision which is just a legal decision where evidence is weighed being made by someone trained to do that. commanders are still 100% responsible for making sure these crimes don't happen and making sure there's no retaliation for a victim when they come forward. >> woodruff: chairman levin, his argument is what what he wants to do is make it a crime if there's a retaliation against a victim. >> and i agree. and we've already voted on that. we are 100% in agreement and consensus has already been reached on that. we've passed that measure out of the arms services committee unanimously. so now retaliation is going to
be a crime and it is a crime under the jurisdiction of commanders and they are 100% responsible for making sure it doesn't happen and if it does that it can be reported and justice can be done. >> woodruff: what do you think it says about this issue that in order to put together a coalition of support you've had to reach beyond your own party, you've reached into the republican party to people who you would typically disagree with politically, senator ted cruz, senator rand paul, and meanwhile you are fighting opposing fellow democrats like senator levin, senator mccaskell and a number of others. >> we all agree that we have to do something about sexual assault and rape within the military and victims aren't democrats or republicans. they don't have an ideology. victims' voices have to be heard and that's why you're hearing from senators across the political spectrum who say the status quo is unacceptable, we have to do something, and they're listening to those victims when they say they don't trust the chain of command to bring justice in these cases and
that the current command climate is untenable for them. the secretaries of defense, since dick cheney was secretary of defense some 20 odd years ago have said judy over and over again zero tolerance for sexual assaults and rape. this has been within the chain of command every one of those years since. the commanders have had every bit of authority they need to tack this will problem and solve this problem but it's not being solved. so i think that measure of transparency and accountability and objectivity makes sense. and i don't think as they say it will undermine good order and discipline because we have allies that we fight side by side with, the u.k., israel, canada, who have done this already and they still have good order and discipline within their ranks. >> woodruff: two other quick questions. defense secretary chag has not gone along with your approach. where does president obama stand? have you talked to him about this? >> i've not been able to speak to him directly although i have asked for that conversation. i'm hopeful president obama will
support this reform, this common sense reform that creates that transparnes and accountability. i also hope secretary hagel will. secretary hagel has already made the bold decision that taking the decision of whether or not to overturn a jury correct out of the chain of command. now, he's already changed and recommended a change to the uniform code of military justice to say this one legal decision should be taken out of the chain of command, i think we should add a second legal decision whether or not to go to trial and also take that out of the chain of command. >> woodruff: so just quickly. right now you have 44 supporters among your fellow senators. do you think you will get a majority? >> i do. and i think the more time that we have so that my allies and colleagues -- we have so many senators who support this reform. the more time we have to talk to our colleagues, to explain the facts, what's actually happening, the fact that there's 26,000 cases but only 3,300 being reported, the fact that only one in ten go to trial
those statistics are highly concerning and when they hear that and hear what the victims tell us it causes them very grave concern and that's how we've slowly won the support that we have. >> woodruff: senator kirsten gillibrand, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: online we examen the culture of sexual violence against women in the military and ask what can be done to quell the trend. >> brown: we hope to have another view on how to handle sexual assaults in the military in the coming days. >> ifill: next, outside of a war zone, this is the most dangerous place on earth, san pedro sula, the second largest city in honduras, at the crossroads of drug shipments from south america to the united states. more than 1,200 people were killed in the city last year, more than 7,000 in the country. thanks to ongoing drug wars, it has the highest per capita murder rate in the world.
our story comes from filmmaker guillermo galdos, who spent a week in honduras on assignment for britain's channel four news. a warning: the images and the details in his report are disturbing. >> friday night at the main hospital in san pedro sula, the casualties are coming in: shot in the groin; attacked with a machete; hit with an iron bar; and this man, barely alive, shot twice in the head. the hospital is so busy that even a dying man has to wait 24 hours for an operation. >> i never thought it would happen to me. i used to see it on the news all the time. i never thought it would happen to me because my kids are clean. >> in the last two years, violence in this country has increased tremendously.
>> reporter:the gun violence even reaches in here. armed guards are needed to protect patients. >> i have faith in god that everything will be fine. but he has two bullets in his head. i have to be realistic. >> reporter: her son david died later that night. i wanted to see what it was like out on the streets. everyone is terrified of the gangs, but this man agreed to tell me how it works if we hid his identity. >> all businesses, from the smallest to the biggest, are paying the famous rent to the gangs. >> reporter: he runs a transport company. he says he has to pay $1,000 a month to the gangs. >> in my business, since the extortion started, the gangs have killed about 80 of my colleagues.
if you want to survive, you need to pay. if you don't pay, you die. >> reporter: eduardo vega was a bus driver. most likely, it was his boss who refused to pay protection money to the gangs. >> are you the mother? >> yes, i'm the mother. >> reporter: he was executed here, at 9:00 in the morning, in front of dozens of witnesses. and even his mother is careful what she says about his killers. >> god should be the judge of those people who took his life. i'll forgive them for what they did to my son. >> reporter: these guys are members of one of the deadliest gangs in the world. they have killed hundreds of people, and here in this barrio they control everything from the shops to the police. the 18 street gang, one of the two main gangs in honduras. in the '90s, thousands of
honduran gang members were deported from l.a. they found fertile territory back home. if i come here alone tonight and go inside the barrio alone, what would happen? >> i'm more than 100% sure they would shoot you. they would kill you. there are so many tombs, they can even bury you alive. >> reporter: douglas is a veteran gang member. the stars on his arm mean he has killed two police officers. i have seen many dead people in the streets, but many have also disappeared? >> those that disappear are the ones we bury alive. >> you bury them alive? >> yes. you only shoot them once, then bury them. then they will drown in their own blood in the ground. >> reporter: why do you do that? >> because we need to respect the territories.
>> reporter: the gangs are run from here. it's a jail, but not as we know it. pizza deliveries to the prisoner; inmates in charge of security. it looks easy to get out. in fact, it's like a fortified headquarters for the gang bosses. marcus is head of the salvatrucha gang. >> this is where we sleep. >> reporter: he's been in jail for 13 years for murder. >> my organization is my family. the people who live in our barrios know how it is. they know what we do. they know we take care of people at night. that's normal. it's as if you put private security in your neighborhood.
>> reporter: the gangs are trying to rehabilitate their image, and the authorities seem keen to help them. they allow marcus out of jail for the day. he's come to an old peoples home to deliver a gift of 50 beds. in the past, they've hurt society. now they know they need to change. >> reporter: the media treats the convicted murderer like a politician. >> we have the will. we have changed, and we have taken the first step. that's what we want to show to society. >> reporter: they may be talking about peace, but there is no sign of it out on the street.
they arrest a man on suspicion of aiding a gang member. >> we are fighting an asymmetric war. they know who we are, but we don't know who they are. >> reporter: and this means that accidents happen. >> help! help my mom! >> reporter: this video was taken immediately after the military shot almost an entire family by mistake. even the president doesn't hold out much hope that the violence will stop. >> we know that 70% of the violence is related to drugs. if there was less consumption, there would be less demand, because what we can't change is our geographic location. we could never change that.
>> reporter: at the city morgue in san pedro sula, families wait for the bodies of their loved ones. people here are trapped in a society where the gangs do whatever they want, and no one believes things will change. it felt like the most dangerous city on earth was resigned to its fate. >> ifill: one more detail: according to the u.s. state department, honduras is the first stop for 79% of all cocaine arriving here from south america. >> brown: finally, troubling cases of elderly care-- or lack of it-- at some assisted living centers. nearly three-quarters of a million americans reside in more than 30,000 facilities. that's the subject of an investigation on tonight's "frontline," done in partnership with propublica. a.c. thompson is the correspondent and co-author of the series on propublica.
well, welcome to you. and first for purposes of definition, tell us what you were looking into. how are you defining "assisted living"? >> so, assisted living is the niche of senior housing that's between living at home on your own and living in a nursing home. so these are people who need some help, they can't live independently anymore, but they don't necessarily need full-on around-the-clock medical care. so in an assisted living facility, it's more like a home, more like an apartment, and what you're getting typically is help with your medication, help with your meals, hope the get to the bathroom or dressing if you need it. >> brown: so what did your reporting show you about the general problems in many institutions. >> you know, first off, a lot of these facilities are great but what we also found was that there was a pattern of problems that spanned the country. and what we kept seeing were
allegations and citations for a lack of staffing, not enough workers workers who weren't trained enough. medication errors, people getting the wrong drugs over and over again. these were the kinds of things we saw and what worried us about the industry. >> brown: you focused on emeritus and you report on a number of horrific type stories. i want to show a clip that focuses on one issue. it's called "memory care centers." tell us briefly what those are and what you were looking at. >> the memory care facilities are places that are specially designed for people with alzheimer's, other forms of dementia. the problem that we found was they weren't always keeping those seniors safe. >> brown: let's look at that clip. >> this is our program, we call it our journey program and this is where we're caring for folks with dementia and it's really a
specialized program to meet their needs. we find out a lot about who they are as individuals and then the day is set up around what is purposeful and meaningful to them as individuals. >> 350, 330 -- >> reporter: but some question whether memory units like this one provides enough care. >> does anyone got a shovel? >> you're going to have a memory care unit. that's a marketing tool for families. a, there's demand and you're trying to keep occupancy up. and, b, you can charge more for memory care. i mean, all you've really done is created wounds around a courtyard but, still, that's nice. and it's much safer but then they say they've got staff who are trained to do memory care. and that's where it starts to kind of fall apart because the staff are generally not well trained to do dementia care. >> lay out for me if we're here
in caramel valley what your facility -- what would the typical training consist of for somebody in this facility. >> who's working particularly in memory care? >> in the memory care unit. >> for our staff that works in memory care they'll go through general orientation which everybody in the community would go through, then we have an eight-hour class that's the join their journey class. and that's where we cover everything from disease process to how we serve a male slightly differently to folks who have differently to folks who have dementia to how to engage, approach, communication. we're coming thw communication barriers at time. >> so the eight-hour intro is the minimum. >> our company standard is the eight-hour. >> eight hours! that's nothing! who's going to explain "this is what the disease is, this is the impact that it has on people's physical health and on their behaviors?" you've got to know how to interpret non-verbal cues that something's going on with this
resident because they can't tell you verbally, you know, in the same way that a two-year-old can't tell you or a one-year-old. i mean, you've got to do a lot of training for mepl. >> carroll: units! you can do great care, you just have to know how. >> brown: a.c., that goes to one question, training. you also documented some cases of very serious neglect including some deaths. what did the company at the focus here, emeritus, what was their response to your report? >> the company's perspective is that what we've highlighted are a series of isolated incidents and they say these aren't reflective of how the company does business and the care it provides. in their opinion, they are providing great care and what they say is that their violations, their state regulatory violations are declining. >> brown: well, speaking of regulations, one of the issues that you're pointing to here is the regulatory system.
explain how that works or doesn't work. >> you know, that was the thing that really surprised us in many ways. so i live in california and in california if you want to find out what's going on in these facilities-- and we have more than 7,000 of them in this state-- you can't find that out online. the state web site doesn't have that information. you can't get the inspection reports or any pertinent details. you have to set up an appointment, go to a state office, go through a bunch of paper files to figure out what's going on in these facilities, if they've been cited for neglect, abuse, any other problems. another thing that we saw a lot of-- and it was, frankly, astounding to us-- are cases like the death of george mcafee. george mcafee was an n.f.l. hall of famer, he developed dementia, he was in an emeritus facility in georgia, he drank toxic dish washing liquid, apparently he didn't realize what it was. it was supposed to be locked up but it wasn't and he died as a
result. he had chemical burns. state of georgia says, okay, we're going to fine emeritus for this death. the fine is $601 for mr. mcafee's death and an unrelated medication error. $601. the. >> brown: just in our last minute, a.c., to the extent that this is clearly a growing phenomenon as the population ages, having looked into this, what do you think people need to know that they don't know at this point. >> you know, i think that they absolutely need to research as much as possible even if it means going to a state office and digging through files, the history of the facility they're considering moving into or having a loved one move into. they need to contact the state ombudsman where they live and see if there are there have been consumer complaints that have been verified at these facilities and some states actually are technologically savvy and you can do this on line and check out these
facilities online in some states, but those steps absolutely need to be taken by consumers. >> brown: and the stories you heard, the people you talked to, your sense was they didn't know that? >> you know, people are baffled often times. the laws vary from state to state. the definitions for assisted living vary from state to state and people are paying $3 or $4 or $5 or $10,000 a month so they expect they're going to get high-quality care and that doesn't always happen. >> brown: a.c. thompson of pro-publica and "frontline," thanks so much. >> thanks for having me on. >> brown: you can watch the full story on "frontline" airing on pbs stations tonight. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. a military judge acquitted army private first class bradley manning of "aiding the enemy" by giving thousands of classified documents to wikileaks. he was convicted on 19 counts of lesser crimes. pakistani leaders faced new criticism after taliban fighters
stormed a prison and freed 250 inmates overnight. and secretary of state john kerry announced israeli and palestinian negotiators will try to reach a peace agreement in the next nine months. >> brown: online, what henry ford's prejudices can teach us about religious tolerance. kwame holman has more. >> holman: the american industrialist's anti-semitism was well-noted during his time. but it was friendship with a famous rabbi that shows another side to the auto giant, who would turn 150 years old today. read paul solman's column on "making sense." and how a group of silicon valley visionaries hope to tackle the issue of gun violence with technology. read about that on our home page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll look at the secret courts charged with approving government surveillance programs. i'm jeffrey brown. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night.
>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org