Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Still Safe to Fly?; Russia Firing Into Ukraine?; Civilian Deaths Mount in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Video Emerges of NYPD Using Chokehold

Aired July 24, 2014 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

Seriously, is it safe to fly? A passenger jet carrying more than 100 people crashes, this time in West Africa, and there are no survivors, this as the Dutch prime minister says it's likely that more bodies remain at the Flight 17 crash site. But rebels who control that site have banned recovery workers from searching. We will have the very latest for you from Ukraine.

So are you worried about flying now? We want to make what you think. Make sure you tweet us using #AskDon. We have got an expert team standing by to answer your questions for you.

The Obama administration calling out Russia. It says it has proof that Russian forces are firing into Ukraine. Does Vladimir Putin simply not give a damn what the West thinks of his actions?

On a day of explosive violence between Israel and Hamas, is there any movement on a possible cease-fire?

And with growing allegations of excessive force by police officers in this country, we're going to ask our CNN TONIGHT's task force, former cops, what is going so wrong on the beat.

We're going to begin with breaking news tonight in the Middle East. An Israeli newspaper is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry has presented the outlines of a cease-fire agreement to Israel and Hamas.

Let's go right to CNN national correspondent John Vause live for us in Jerusalem.

John, Secretary of State Kerry is in Cairo working on a cease-fire agreement. Is he making any progress? And what would an agreement look like?

JOHN VAUSE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, at this stage, what we're being told is that there is a draft proposal out there. It's been given to both sides. But that draft proposal continues to be worked on. Those talks are continuing throughout the night right now.

One of the problems they're having is that the Egyptians under the new leadership of the military leader, or the former military man, General al-Sisi, is refusing to deal with Hamas because the Egyptians view Hamas as one step removed from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Right now, they're trying to bring the Palestinian Authority into the cease-fire arrangements. And the Palestinian Authority would then, if it works out, have some kind of control over the Rafah border crossing which separates Gaza and Egypt. This is a key demand by Hamas.

What is not known at this stage is how the political leadership of Hamas will accept this cease-fire proposal which in some reports says there will be a week of no fighting while the sides continue to work out the larger issues of demilitarization of Gaza, which is what Israel wants, and reopening the border crossings, which is what Hamas wants.

We know the Israeli cabinet will be meeting here in a couple of hours to discuss this. One of the things which has come out is that, according to this report in "Haaretz" is that if Hamas does not accept this cease-fire, then the Israelis could very well expand their military operation currently under way in Gaza.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: OK. And all of that has to be worked out. So there is a timeline of what they want. But getting to all of this, it is going to take quite a while.

Can we just talk about the fighting that is actually going on now? It's not just Gaza where there is bloodshed. I'm hearing there is trouble in the West Bank tonight. Can you tell me what is going on there?

VAUSE: This is one of the biggest protests which has happened in the West Bank in years. Some reports say up to 15,000 Palestinians took part in a protest march from Ramallah to the Kalandia checkpoint. Those numbers are not certain, but it was certainly many thousands of people taking part in this protest.

And during the clashes which followed with the Israeli forces, one Palestinian protester was shot dead. Initially, it was reported that two were killed. That's now been revised downwards to just one. But hundreds of people were in fact wounded.

And Don, as we head towards Friday prayers here, which also coincide with the end of the holy month of Ramadan, we're expecting the possibility that there will be more violence here in East Jerusalem and also in the West Bank.

LEMON: Goodness. John, let's talk about that FAA ban. It lifted a flight ban, allowing U.S. airlines to resume flying to Tel Aviv. But the rockets continue to fly. What is the latest?

VAUSE: Yes, if you look at the rocket fire that has happened over the last 24 hours, it does continue, but at a much reduced rate. And there is some speculation within the Israeli sector that maybe Hamas is preserving its firepower to maybe draw out the fighting, so that it can continue on. There are some estimates that Hamas started this conflict with maybe

around 10,000 rockets. They have fired off just over 2,000. The Israelis say they may have destroyed about 3,000. So the estimate is Hamas may have somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 rockets still left in its arsenal.

And it's continuing to fire those rockets, but, as we say, at a much reduced rate. Meantime, inside the Gaza Strip, the Israelis continue on, looking for those tunnels, destroying those tunnels. We understand that 11 tunnels have now been destroyed. They have found 31 tunnels in all -- Don.

LEMON: John Vause in Jerusalem for us this evening, thank you, John Vause. Appreciate that.

It was one week ago today that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot right out of the sky over Eastern Ukraine. All 298 people on board were killed. Most of them were Dutch citizens. Well, today, more coffins arrived in the Netherlands, where they were taken for forensic examination.

Investigators at the crash scene say men they call lunatics are preventing them from having complete access to the wreckage.

More on the investigation tonight from CNN's international correspondent, Phil Black.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the biggest international presence seen at MH17's crash site, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe traveling with investigators and diplomats from Malaysia and Australia. For the first time, the observer mission looked beyond the grassy fields and pushed in to a dense forest.

They found small, scattered pieces and this. So far, it's the largest single piece of MH17's fuselage to be discovered. Its impact was cushioned by the forest. Some of the windows are still intact.

(on camera): According to the European monitors, the investigators from Australia and Malaysia are surprised by two things, firstly, the sheer size of the debris field and the fact that one week since the disaster, there is still no exclusion zone surrounding it.

(voice-over): And, at this site, the observers and experts closely study the front end of the cockpit. This is where emergency workers caused significant damage a few days ago, cutting into the wreckage with a high-powered saw.

And it's also where the metal debris is marked by numerous puncture marks, possible signs of shrapnel damage from a midair explosion. Apart from this small group moving in convoy across the crash zone, and its sometimes unfriendly militant escort, there is no one examining or securing evidence. This, the site of a major recent air disaster, is quiet. It looks abandoned, and there is no ongoing operation to find victims'

bodies among surrounding fields and farmland. That's a concern, because the monitors have found yet more evidence the original search effort was less than thorough.

MICHAEL BOCIURKIW, OSCE SPOKESMAN: On human remains, for the second day in a row, we did spot some human remains.

BLACK (on camera): Again today as well?

BOCIURKIW: Yes, we did. Yes.

BLACK (voice-over): One week on, international experts are on the ground in small, but growing numbers. But the wreckage of MH17 is still not being treated with the care it deserves.

Phil Black, CNN, near Grabovo, Eastern Ukraine.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Phil, appreciate that.

You have been tweeting us your questions tonight about the safety of flying. And we have a team of experts here to answer them for you.

Joining me is David Soucie, CNN safety analyst and author of "Why Planes Crash," Patrick Smith, author of "Cockpit Confidential: Everything You Need to Know About Air Travel." He is also an airline pilot and the host of AskThePilot.com. And also Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, a CNN military analyst.

David, to you first. Let's talk today about that Air Algerie flight with at least 160 people in board. It dropped off radar and it has crashed in a remote area of Mali. What do we know about this incident?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: All we know is that the aircraft had taken off its original location in Bagram (ph). I think it was Bagram (ph).

And from there, it took off and it had to change direction due to the weather patterns. This is a very severe weather area. These are where the spawn of the major hurricanes that we experience in the United States start is right in this area.

So there is a lot of weather that caused the aircraft to divert. Now, something else to note is the fact it was flying over what we talked about before with MH17, which is a prohibited or restricted area. So, although that was at 24,000 feet -- so we don't think that has anything to do with it at this point. But, of course, it's too early to tell.

All indications right now show that it may have been a weather-related event.

LEMON: OK. I'm going to talk to Patrick about that.

Patrick, Armstrong has a question about who decides the route. He said: "Who ultimately decides the flight route? It is the airline pilot, the flight controller or someone else?"

I'm just wondering if -- and who would put the signal in to change course?

PATRICK SMITH, AUTHOR, "COCKPIT CONFIDENTIAL": Well, initially, it's the people backstage so to speak who plan the route, the flight planners, the dispatchers, the meteorologists getting weather information, information about route closures, traffic information, putting together a route and giving to it the crew.

We as the crew often don't know the exact route until very shortly before departure time. Once airborne, of course, it's crew's discretion to change the routing, change the altitude, whatever need be for weather or traffic or some other consideration.

LEMON: So pilots are aware of war zones, correct, and if they should be flying, what are the procedures? We should be flying at 33,000 feet or avoiding them altogether. They're aware of that, I'm sure?

SMITH: Yes.

And I think a lot of people don't realize that there are thousands of commercial planes ever day that fly over restive areas, unstable parts of the world. And there are certain routes that crews have to fly certain altitudes. And, meanwhile, certain sectors of airspace will be off limits entirely.

And compliance with these restrictions is important, obviously, but it's not difficult. And I think the press has kind of gotten wind of this. And we're hearing over and over, oh, my God, all these planes are flying over these dangerous areas. It's just a matter of time before they get shot down.

No. I think you have to look at each area independently, subjectively, and evaluate them separately. You know, what happened in Ukraine was horrible. And it's possible that maybe that airspace should not have been open in the first place.

LEMON: Right. Right.

SMITH: But that's not to suggest that all of these other areas are disasters waiting to happen. That's simply not the case.

LEMON: All right. Before I get to Lieutenant Colonel Francona, I want to get to David in here one more time.

David, a lot of conversation today about the possible restatement of the flight ban to Israel. "How could it be a good thing to fly planes into a war zone? Kudos to the FAA for banning flights to Israel."

That's what ClickToLearn says. Do you think should it have been reinstated?

SOUCIE: First of all, I think that it should have been closed. I think it does now also have to be reinstated. But what I don't know is why. What it does say in the regulations as far as closing the airport is that if there is a significant risk, it must be closed.

The FAA had really no options as far as saying it didn't have to be. So, let's get that off the table. It did have to be closed and it did have to be closed for 24 hours. After the 24 hours, what they have to prove is that there is significant and new information, significant or new information about the safety.

And evidently they did that. That's what they said they did. So they're following it by the book right now, Don. They're doing what they need to do.

LEMON: OK, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, we have got some questions about Michael Bloomberg's flight to Israel in protest of the FAA ban that was lifted last night. It says: "Who cares that Bloomberg flew to Israel? It proves nothing. If he jumped off a bridge, would you?"

So is it a good idea for these decisions to become politicized? That's from someone named True Talk.

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes. And that's what I think it was. I think it was political decision on the part of the former mayor to do that.

You know, I really don't think it proved anything. El-Al is going the fly that route no matter what. So I'm hoping that his actions had no bearing on what the FAA does. And I think from what David and Patrick tell us, it didn't.

LEMON: OK. Here is a question, Rick Francona, about securing the MH17 crash site. It says: "Where is NATO? And why have they been reluctant to send in forces to secure the crash site?"

That's from Cheyenne Miranda.

FRANCONA: Yes. That is an excellent question. A lot of people have brought up, why don't we get NATO on the ground there? This is a very, very sensitive subject for the Russians.

You remember two years ago and before when we were talking about bringing some of these former Soviet republics into NATO, we brought many of them in. We talked about Georgia, and we talked about Ukraine.

LEMON: Right.

FRANCONA: And there has been real pushback from the Russians. The Russians are -- it looks like they're ready to take a stand against Ukraine even talking about being part of NATO. If you want to really ratchet up tensions with the Russians, talk

about bringing NATO in, and that will do it. So I think NATO is off the table. Now, you may be able to get some sort of a U.N. task force in there, but I don't think you're going to see it under the NATO umbrella.

LEMON: Patrick, will people now have to wonder when they get on a plane if their route that they're taking them over, if it's war-torn, or what is going on? Is it any less safe to fly today than it has been in the past?

SMITH: That's a great question, Don.

We have had three relatively high-profile accidents in the past week basically, Malaysia Airlines, the crash in Taiwan and then the crash in Mali last night. And there is a tendency to want to link these accidents together and wring some meaning out of them. What does this mean in the greater context of air safety?

And my answer to that is probably not a whole lot. You know, last year, Don, 2013, was the safest year in the entire history of commercial aviation globally, at least going back to the dawn of the jet age. Now, not every year is going to be the safest year. There are going to be spikes and then peaks and valleys.

But overall the trend over the past several years, 20 years, 30 years, has been one of ever increasing safety globally. For a point of comparison, take a look at the year 1985, for example. That one year, over a 12-month span, we had 27 major air accidents killing almost 2,500 people.

You had the Air India bombing. You had the JAL crash outside Tokyo that killed 520 people. The Arrow Air disaster in Newfoundland that killed 240 U.S. servicemen. You had the second and the fifth deadliest air disaster ever happening within two months of each other.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Yes, but go ahead. Just finish your point.

SMITH: So that's a bad year. And now the trend, like I was just saying, is a positive one and has been. And these disasters notwithstanding, I don't foresee that changing.

LEMON: Right.

SMITH: That's not to say we should just rest on our laurels and let everything play out. Obviously, we need to be preemptive and proactive and keep things moving in this direction.

LEMON: Patrick Smith, Rick Francona, David Soucie, I appreciate all of you.

This just into now to CNN. I want to show President Obama just landing at Joint Base Andrews. He is returning from his three-day fund-raising swing out on the West Coast. You know, critics have been talking about the president a lot, saying that he should not have been out of Washington due to the tense situation in Eastern Ukraine and the deadly battle between Israel and Hamas.

You see Air Force One landing at Joint Base Andrews, soon to get on Marine One and then head over to the White House, President Barack Obama arriving this evening.

Up next: U.S. officials say Russia's firing across the Ukrainian border. What are Western leaders to do about Vladimir Putin? How deadly does the violence have to get before Israel and Hamas lay down their weapons? And allegations of excessive force by police. What needs to change on the beat? We're going to ask our CNN TONIGHT task force, four former cops.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back.

With more evidence tonight that Russia is arming rebels in Ukraine and shooting artillery across the Ukrainian border, what should President Obama do about Vladimir Putin?

Let's ask the experts now. I'm joined by Robert Legvold. He's a Marshall D. Shulman professor emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, and also Matthew Rojansky, the director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Robert, first, today, the State Department says they have proof that Russia is firing artillery into Ukraine from inside Russia and intends to keep delivering rockets to those separatists. What should the U.S. do about it?

ROBERT LEGVOLD, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, not only continue to supply, but probably send even more advanced equipment into the area. That was the report of the briefer today from the State Department.

The president has already indicated that there are tougher sanctions being prepared, and they will apply those sanctions. But above all else, the question is what further the Europeans will do in this context. There is very little beyond punishing the Russians for this kind of thing that the U.S. can do in these circumstances.

LEMON: You know, Matthew, I may have asked you this question before, but we weren't to the point where we are now. And that is a Cold War question, because Secretary of State Kerry said that the plane's disasters a -- quote -- "moment of truth for Putin." Will this moment push the U.S.-Russian relations back to a Cold War era level?

MATTHEW ROJANSKY, DIRECTOR, KENNAN INSTITUTE, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: Look, there are so many differences between where we were during the Cold War, Don, and where we are now, the metaphor, it's convenient, it's emotionally understandable, given where both sides are coming from historically.

Obviously, we're still dealing with a generation of leaders that came up during the Cold War. But, fundamentally, it's not where we are and it's not where we're headed. One of the big differences between the situation now and the situation then is that clearly we know that the future of Ukraine is going to depend on some kind of engagement between Russia and the West. Russia is not going away. It's still in the neighborhood.

As one of guests earlier mentioned, Ukraine is probably realistically not going to be joining NATO, maybe not even the E.U. any time soon. That means we have got to have a dialogue. And, actually, the silver lining that I see in the disaster of the airliner is that Putin's nominal position is we need a cease-fire, we need to be able to do a credible investigation, and we need to negotiate.

Now, obviously, if it's true that the Russians are shelling across the border now, of all times, then he needs to be called out on that. And I would think given that the casualties were largely European, the Europeans are in a perfect position to do that. And they should be doing that.

LEMON: Yes, and this does change the game.

Robert, listen, Stephen Cohen is a Russian studies professor at Princeton and NYU. And he had this to say about Putin on this show earlier this week. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COHEN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: People are telling him that we're spitting distance from an actual war between the United States and Russia, and he has to act cautiously. We're close to war. And we're missing that picture. We're close to war with Russia. This could happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Do you believe that we are, as Stephen Cohen says, on the crest of war with Russia?

LEGVOLD: No, I'm somewhere between Steve Cohen and Matthew on this issue.

I do believe it is a serious adversarial relationship now that has many of the original characteristics of the original Cold War, for all the fundamental differences. And we ought to be focusing on what those implications are for other areas where we need to be cooperating and dealing with a world of nuclear weapons, nonproliferation issues, cyber-warfare, problems of climate change and a host of other things.

If the U.S. and Russia are now treating one another fundamentally as adversaries, no ambiguity about it, and I believe that is the case, then it's going to have enormous implications for both the foreign policies of the U.S. and Russia, but for international politics in general. So while it's being driven by the Ukrainian crisis, we need to step

back and take a larger perspective on what is happening. But I don't believe, as Steve suggests, that we are on the cusp of war with Russia. The problem is that, if the conflict continues to escalate within Central Europe, not just around Ukraine, but other parts of this area, then indeed we do begin to raise the specter of military confrontation between the two sides. But I don't think we're there now.

LEMON: I just want to tell our viewers that little box that you saw earlier on your screen and squeezed to the side, that was President Barack Obama at Joint Base Andrews coming back from the West Coast, where he is on a -- Air Force One just landed. He was on a fund- raising trip. He is now on Marine One, the president just coming back.

And he is getting lots of criticism for this. And speaking of the president, Matthew, when you think how much -- the power of these two countries, of the U.S. and Russia, how much -- what -- how high does the hostility level have to raise in order for people to be concerned about a possible war?

ROJANSKY: I think the biggest reason for high levels of hostility right now is frankly that no one, and I include in this, by the way, the Europeans, but also the Russians, has a long-term strategic game plan.

We backed into this crisis over Ukraine. Ukraine was marching steadily towards European integration at the same time that it hasn't really dealt with the kind of aftereffects of the chaos of the post- Soviet clasp. It hasn't reformed its economy. It hasn't established really stable, balanced relations with Russia.

And I think the United States hasn't played a particularly productive or helpful role in this. We have just wade in politically. We have sent our leaders down to Kiev to give big speeches, and we have occasionally thrown a few million dollars, an assistance program here or there, a joint exercise with NATO. We have never really had a sustained commitment to Ukraine.

The one thing that would be a game-changer in this region, I wish I would see it. I'm very skeptical that I will. That's a long-term, sustained American commitment to the development and the success of Ukraine. But I think this is going to be short-lived. And it's going to be a bunch of fireworks where mostly Putin is the bad guy and we're in a confrontational posture. But, ultimately, we're going to pull out.

LEMON: All right, Matthew Rojansky, Robert Legvold, thank you very much. Appreciate both of you, your expertise.

Hundreds are dying as battle rages between Israel and Hamas. Up next, two people who lost their lives, one Israeli, one Palestinian.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back, everyone.

At least 16 people were killed and many more wounded in an explosion at a U.N. shelter in Northern Gaza. News tonight that a cease-fire deal may be in the works, a deal that could stop the civilian casualties on both sides.

Here is Paula Hancocks with the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two men, age 25 and 37, complete strangers, brought together by forces more powerful than they could imagine.

Khaled Reyadh Hamad, 25, a Palestinian cameraman is filming a documentary on the dangers of being a medic in Gaza. Covering a story that he would become a part of. Recently married, his wife six months' pregnant with their first child.

July 20, Hamad accompanies an ambulance in Shershaier (ph), one of the neighborhoods near Gaza City hit hardest by Israeli fire. On that day less than a week ago, much like any other in this bloody conflict, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hamad and one of the medics were killed by an Israeli shell.

Several days earlier, Dror Hanin, 37, is visiting Israeli troops on the border. A volunteer firefighter for the past three years, Hanin decides to distribute food and gifts to the military waiting to go into Gaza.

But this day, Hanin would become the victim of one of the almost 2,000 rockets fired by Hamas in recent weeks.

Hit by the shell, Hanin is rushed to a hospital in Ashkelon but dies of his injuries. He becomes Israel's first casualty of the most recent fighting. He leaves behind a wife and three children.

Hanin and Hamad are just two of the more than 800 casualties, the majority in Gaza, the majority civilians. It's unlikely their paths would have crossed had they lived, but in death they represent so many fathers, brothers, mothers, children killed in this ongoing battle.

Paula Hancocks, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Paula, thank you very much for that.

Joining me now is Lanny Davis. He's a White House special counsel during the Clinton administration and author of "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crisis in Business, Politics, and Life."

Lanny, good to see you. Always a pleasure to speak with you.

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL: Thank you. LEMON: You know, heartbreaking stories. We just saw two of them there, and it's really too many more when you include their families. You wrote an impassioned article for "People Nation" after seeing a news report about civilian casualties in Gaza. I read it. It's amazing. It's heartfelt. Tell us what prompted you to write that.

DAVIS: I watched a network news broadcast of a young Palestinian girl in a hospital, paralyzed from the neck down. And I got sick. I literally felt nausea. And I had to turn away in pain.

And I was equally outraged that the broadcast didn't mention the human shields, that Hamas has decided to use little girls like this in order to hide behind children while they shoot missiles intentionally aimed at Israeli populations, intentionally aimed, not accidentally, but intentionally. They brag about that.

And so the issue for me is the tragedy of these children, these innocent children and the Israeli children hiding from missiles aimed at them, where Hamas brags that they're aiming at killing civilians. The Israelis warn before they bomb.

LEMON: And Lanny...

DAVIS: They call people, and they warn people. So the difference between the two on intent is why I wrote my piece.

LEMON: Here's what you write. And I want to repeat what you said, "There is no disputing that it is Hamas's intent, it is Hamas's policy to destroy the state of Israel and to use terrorism to achieve that goal. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Hamas houses the rockets set to be launched into Israel within civilian facilities such as hospitals, schools, and residential complexes. And reportedly, blocks many of those civilians from fleeing. That is a double war crime."

And then you go on and you talk about how many other war crimes. I think you said it is a triple -- triple war crimes in a sense.

But how would you -- there are -- on this network and others, I see many representatives on the Israeli side. Not as many on the Palestinian side. And everyone who comes on has the opportunity to say that. And to put that in context. You don't find that in the media coverage?

DAVIS: Generally, no, I don't, Don. I thought the previous piece describing the equal tragedy on both sides was a good piece, but my headline of the article I wrote is "False Equivalence." Secretary General Ban Ki-moon yesterday described the placement of these Hamas missiles in a U.N.-administered school as an outrage and laid responsibility for the deaths of the children on Hamas committing that war crime. Because it is a war crime to use human shields.

Every report on CNN should address the issue of human shields by cowards who use children while they're shooting missiles at other children intentionally. LEMON: But Lanny, Lanny, we do that every single night. I hate to

disagree with you, but we do that every single night. And every single night here on CNN, at least for this broadcast. I think last night I may have maybe -- I'm not sure, I'm not going to count.

But I'm just -- I'm just being honest here. I see many more representatives and much more representation in the news of the Israeli side than I do the Palestinian side. And you're right: there should not be a false equivalency here. I completely understand what you're saying.

But I disagree with you when you're saying that we're not telling the full story. Yes, we can do better. But that's simply not true, Lanny.

DAVIS: Well, I usually end up on your program agreeing with you, and I do agree with you. We should have more Palestinians on who will say, "We don't want our children used as human shields for terrorism."

LEMON: Right.

DAVIS: And by the way, the latest poll before this began in Gaza was 80 percent disapproval for Hamas. And this is an organization that wants to destroy the state of Israel against the Palestinian Authority that wanted to make peace and have a two-state solution, which I have long favored.

So I do think that CNN should have more Palestinians on to talk about whether they support using children, the cowards who use children as shields who are aiming missiles at killing Israeli citizens.

LEMON: And people ask can the two sides, and I said this on the program last night, can the two sides live together?

DAVIS: Yes.

LEMON: And I wonder how tough it is to live with someone whose mission is your extinction. I'm not sure that I would want to be able to live with someone.

But Lanny, I really want to be able to talk with you about this, because I think this is really important. I think a lot of people at home will find it important, as well.

You talk about honoring the peace agreement and why you wrote it, and you said, "I mention this, because I am about to write -- what I am about to write is not to push through the prism of those who assume that all pro-Israel Jewish Americans are insensitive to the plight of the Palestinians and the suffering of the children during this terrible tragedy in the Gaza crisis." Many people may believe that. I thought that was very important for you to point out.

DAVIS: Well, especially since I'm a young boy, my father was startled to hear me say, "Why don't the Palestinians have their own state, Dad?" And he was a very hard-liner who didn't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace. And may his soul rest in peace, if he were alive today, he'd still be saying that.

So I've long supported a two-state solution. And I pray that President Clinton, who came so close by personally engaging at Camp David and had an Israeli prime minister willing to give up parts of Jerusalem, a two-state solution is really the answer here, Don.

LEMON: Thank you. And just for time purposes, I have to run. I really appreciate you coming on. Thank you, Lanny Davis. Thank you.

When we come right back, just one week after the apparent chokehold death of Eric Garner, the NYPD on camera again. We're show you what was caught on tape this time. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We're back, everyone. The day after the funeral of Eric Garner, a New York man who died in police custody after allegedly being put in a chokehold, there is yet another video of the NYPD allegedly using an illegal chokehold.

And joining me now is Brett Klein. He's a civil rights attorney who won a lawsuit against the New York police and specifically against Officer Daniel Pantaleo, the officer involved in Eric Garner's case.

Thank you so much. I'm not sure if you've seen that new video. Are you surprised by it?

BRETT KLEIN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I did see it, and again, Don, I'm not surprised by it. It's something that happens day in and day out. The video makes it hard for them to deny it happened. But it happened.

LEMON: There are people who watch that and say he must have done something. This kid, listen, I don't know the specifics. He was just jumping a turnstile. Have you jumped a turnstile when you were a kid?

KLEIN: I may have.

LEMON: Anybody in this room jump a turnstile when they were a kid? Yes? Yes. That's what kids do. But you know, just because -- and I'm not excusing what he did. But do you deserve to be beat like that?

KLEIN: No. And one of the factors you have to consider is the severity of the crime that you're arresting someone for. And you take that into account in the level of force that officers use.

LEMON: OK. You won a lawsuit against Officer Pantaleo, right?

KLEIN: Yes.

LEMON: In that same precinct?

KLEIN: Yes.

LEMON: Tell me about it. KLEIN: We represent two men who were subject to a car stop by Officer

Pantaleo and his plainclothes -- team of plainclothes officers. They were violently taken out of the car for no reason, subjected to humiliating public strip searches where their pants were down to their ankles in public, something we have seen on video from the same team in another case.

LEMON: So it was a civil rights case. And so far at this case they paid out $30,000 for that case of taxpayer money.

KLEIN: That's right.

LEMON: You're also working on another case in the same precinct as Daniel Pantaleo's. Do you think the NYPC -- NYPD or that precinct -- obviously, there is an issue somewhere. And there's an issue in that precinct. Is it system-wide?

KLEIN: It's system-wide.

LEMON: Why particularly that precinct?

KLEIN: You know, I think -- I think there is a lack of oversight in many precincts. I think in a precinct such as this particular precinct, there is, you know, a disconnect between the police and the area of that community that they're responsible for.

The case I'm working on involves another 37-year-old man, father of two, whose face was mashed in the ground, and he died in police custody. And turned it over, he was covered in dirt. And they're denying that they did something wrong there.

LEMON: When you look at what happened with Mr. Garner, and I think the issue is -- and I've heard many people say it -- is it's because these things escalate. There was a way to calm that situation that an experienced officer or an officer who had different training may have done. And at the end of the day, you to remember he was selling loose cigarettes that you can buy in most bodegas in the city.

KLEIN: And that's right. That's a key point here. The severity of the crime, it's an absolutely a factor they have to consider. And they don't de-escalate. I don't believe it's a focus of the training. And it has to be a focus of the training.

LEMON: Yes. And listen, this isn't a casting all officers as bad officers.

KLEIN: No.

LEMON: But these are the officers who make the good officers look bad.

KLEIN: Yet.

LEMON: Thank you, Brett. Appreciate you very much.

When we come right back, the CNN TONIGHT task force weighs in on the allegations of excessive force and what can be done to end it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back, everyone. Could Eric Garner's death have been avoided?

Videos alleging excessive force like the one in Garner's takedown are getting attention, really gaining a lot of attention all across this country. This one showing a suspect who allegedly tried to skip paying New York's $2.50 subway fare.

In Oklahoma, a man pepper sprayed as five officers piled on after police say he refuses to show an I.D. and gets combative.

And who better to give us the police officer's perspective on all of this as my two -- are my two following guests here. Joining me right now on our CNN TONIGHT task force, we're calling them, Bernard Kerik, former commissioner of the NYPD and CEO of the Kerik Group now, and also Lou Palumbo, retired law enforcement agent for the Nassau County Police Department. Good to see you.

So let me have it. You heard my last conversation when we talked about Eric Garner. Could that situation have been de-escalated? Did those officers handle it in the proper way?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE NYPD: Yes, if he didn't resist arrest. That's the first and foremost thing. If he complied with the arrest, whether it was a cigarette, whether he took that pen. Once the officer says, "You're under arrest," whether it was a mass murder, once he says, "You're under arrest," you have to comply with the arrest. If you don't do that, it's considered resisting, and then the officers have to use the force necessary to effect the arrest.

And I can tell you, Don, watching the video, you can take all the guys in this room right now. If I don't want you to put handcuffs on me, you're going to have a really, really hard time.

LEMON: What the attorney said is that the department doesn't distinguish between passive resistance and active resistance.

LOU PALUMBO, FORMER NASSAU COUNTY POLICE OFFICER: That's a very vague and ambiguous concept. If you resist, you resist. We don't sit there and go, like, "Jeez, he's resisting a little. Oh, no, he's resisting a lot."

The exercise is quite simple. When the police place you under arrest, you're required to comply and not precipitate the contact with the police. That's what people are missing here.

As unfortunate as this incident is with Mr. Garner, if Mr. Garner had simply complied, there wouldn't have been any form of contact, excessive or other. However the public wants to categorize it.

But Don, there's a much bigger issue here. And it has to do with the way we scrutinize these cops. They don't -- the public doesn't live in the street with these kids. They don't deal with the underbelly. They don't deal with the psychological aftermath of doing the dirty work for everyone.

LEMON: I understand that, and I don't think people will deny, I think most people understand that police work is tough work. And that they face situations that you and I -- well, that I cannot imagine.

PALUMBO: Or Mr. Klein.

LEMON: But everyone has scrutiny. I have scrutiny on my job. I'm sure tonight when I get off the air, I will have three or four e-mails from somebody, a boss or more. I'm scrutinized on my job. And many more from viewers. And so if -- if I am held to account, why aren't police officers held to account?

PALUMBO: I believe -- I believe constructive criticism, I believe an attempt every day to refine yourself and make yourself better is key. But that doesn't seem to be what the agenda is here.

It appears to me that every opportunity we get to take a shot at the police, because people inherently resent authority, Don. We see it every day in the streets in this city. They fail to yield to our emergency vehicles. They fail to comply with lawful orders. They are dismissive of our police. I live in this city. I've lived here pretty much my whole life in this borough. I'm a Bed-Stuy kid, by the way.

Do you think police hold any responsibility for that because of the way they carry themselves and because of their tactics?

KERIK: Well, that's going to be -- First of all, what did he die from? We still don't know.

LEMON: Yes.

KERIK: You know, people are saying he was choked to death over a cigarette. Well, we don't know if he choked to death.

LEMON: Well, that is the truth. Whatever -- whatever happened there precipitated his death. He died either there or shortly after.

KERIK: If you don't like the fact that, you know, he was being arrested because of the cigarettes, then get the legislators to change the laws and then they wouldn't have had to arrest him in the first place.

And I want to go back to something that Lou was talking about. You know, last year, I don't know the exact number. I would bet the NYPD arrested over 120, 130,000 people. In addition to that, they probably stopped 100,000. They have probably a half a million interactions, personal interactions with the general public in New York City annually.

LEMON: OK.

KERIK: We're talking about three incidents.

LEMON: But even if it's three incidents or one or a half, what's wrong with scrutinizing this -- these videos to...

PALUMBO: I don't think there's any harm.

KERIK: There is not a problem with scrutinizing it, but don't prejudge. Don't prejudge, and let the facts come out.

LEMON: What is there to prejudge, though? Let's just be honest. Hang on. What is there to prejudge, about when you were a kid -- when you were a kid, did you jump a turnstile?

PALUMBO: No.

LEMON: Did you ever jump a turnstile?

KERIK: No.

LEMON: All right. I don't believe you, first of all.

KERIK: I didn't ride a subway.

LEMON: But that's what kids do. And I'm not saying that it's right. But kids do things that you jump a turnstile, you're chasing a friend, you're hanging out in the city. This city is your playground.

PALUMBO: Are you suggesting we selectively enforce the law?

LEMON: No, I'm just saying -- no.

PALUMBO: You can jump the turnstile, but you can't hit a person over their head.

LEMON: But if someone jumps a turnstile or if someone is carrying a gun on the street or someone is being a menace or a terror...

KERIK: Listen, this goes back...

LEMON: Hang on, then there should be a different reaction. It's not -- to beat a kid in the head because he jumped a turnstile...

KERIK: They're not beating him in the head because he jumped a turnstile.

LEMON: Because you're resisting arrest.

KERIK: Correct.

PALUMBO: We employ whatever force is necessary. And believe me, it's distasteful, Don. That's the other part of this that I think the public doesn't get.

LEMON: OK.

PALUMBO: There's nothing positive about roughing people up or frisking them or anything.

LEMON: OK. PALUMBO: I don't know where they get this idea that cops, they savor or salivate at the notion of touching people. We don't.

LEMON: Let's talk about how we fix it. Because the attorney who was in here said that cameras on uniforms and not Tasers are the answer. What's the answer? Is it training? Is it community policing? What is it?

KERIK: Training, yes.

LEMON: And even for citizens, as well.

KERIK: Training, yes. For citizens, comply with the order.

LEMON: And for officers?

KERIK: For the officers, could be training. I would disagree on the Taser. Because that I am confident they would hit that guy with a Taser, he would have went down. They would have handcuffed him, dusted him off, took him to get him checked and locked him up. It would have been over.

LEMON: So are you in agreement with what the current police commissioner is doing going across the country to other police departments to try to figure out how to train the officers better here?

KERIK: You'd have to ask him.

PALUMBO: Well, I'll give you my opinion.

LEMON: I have to run. I've got to run. I'm so sorry. You know I'll have you back. You've been here -- OK, go ahead.

PALUMBO: Don't threaten me like that.

LEMON: See, there you go, there you go! Right here.

PALUMBO: I almost unconditionally support Bill Bratton because of how good an administrator he is. He's the most talented police official in the business. He's progressive. He's insightful.

KERIK: He's one of the best P.C.'s in this entire country.

PALUMBO: He -- you know, he has been slighted, which is not a tangential issue at this point. But if there's anybody that knows how to address this problem, it's Mr. Bratton.

LEMON: And I have to say there are no charges against the officer. He's only accused now, Pantaleo, the officer in Staten Island. He's on desk duty.

PALUMBO: That's not what he's getting in the media.

LEMON: Thank you very much. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Time now for "CNN TONIGHT Tomorrow," the stories that you will be talking about tomorrow.

A check is in the mail for nearly seven million Americans. It is a health insurance rebate, thanks to Obamacare. One provision of the law requires insurers to issue refunds if they spent more than 20 percent of a customer's premium on administrative expenses. The average check will be 80 bucks.

You'll hear about this story tomorrow, as well. Porcelain dolls resembling eight little girls in San Clemente, California, have been left outside the homes of the girls who all attend the same grammar school. Police are investigating.

And 17 members of a New Jersey family will share a lottery jackpot worth $20 million. They're all siblings ranging in age from 53 to 76. They have been pooling their money for years, and it finally paid off.

I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. That's it for us tonight. I'll see you back here tomorrow night.

"AC 360" starts right now.