Entered the debate, but the spotlight for now is still on the nfl, where the symbolic protests first began. I dont know why any president could use that kind of language on any subject, but weve just got to be positive about it. I think hes given us an opportunity. Hes given us eyeballs to talk on the issues that colin and i started protesting about. I think its helped us. Its helped people get past the fact that were protesting during the anthem, and its giving us an ear to why were doing it. Some fans say they wish football teams would simply stick to sports but the latest string of protests is being called historic for the intercession of politics and sports. Scott shafer takes it from here. Joining me now are San Francisco chronicle Sports Writer ann killian and Sports Reporter kevin lynch. Well, this is an issue that americans are paying very close attention to. There was an espn poll that showed it kind of split down the middle more or less. What is it, ann, about this issue that strikes such a chord in people, do you think . Well, i think it goes to the fabric of our country, which is, you know, we like football. Football is this american thing. Weve got the flag, the anthem, Football Players representativing which they dont really represent communities. They really represent corporations, branches of this Big Corporation called the nfl. But, you know, it goes back to some of the things of our childhood, what it means. And i think right now for a lot of people who do support this, they see this as an opportunity for these guys who have a huge spotlight to use it. And why not . But then, you know, theres in enormous backlash too. Kevin, of course we saw this in some ways begin with Colin Kaepernick although there were other things that well get to later that happened before it. But the issue seems to have morphed from when he started the focus on Police Brutality and racial injustice. Do you see it . It seems to be changing almost every game day, including last night in green bay. Yeah, i think it really does. I think one of the disappointments, i think Colin Kaepernick has and many of the athlete whos are protesting is when donald trump enters the fray, then we talk about him, and were not talking about the issues that they really want to talk about and that they want to address. And a lot of those things are, you know, when we say social justice or were representing injustice, you know, what does that mean . I think for them it means getting more things involved with community of color and more resources to community of color. You say that they wanted to talk about it, and they do now. But it was really a little bit below the radar. I mean it was really a relatively small protest, quiet protest until the president weighed in. So why . Why did they hold back, do you think . Any thoughts about that . Well, i think there is guys like eric reid, who you just had on, who is continuing a protest from last year. But the climate has changed, you know. When colin started doing this, donald trump was a candidate. There was an expectation he would not be president. It was a different kind of climate. Now to continue it on this season, its a very charged climate. Charlottesville, you know. So i think theres been while there might be more reason to protest, its also the stakes are higher. The volatility is higher. The noise is higher. And while the message is diluted and getting lost, i do think because now people are saying unity isnt protesting, a show of unity. But i think that a lot of these players are saying, we support our maybe we didnt take a knee, but we support the guys who did take a knee, and dont come at our teammates like that because we while we might, you know tom brady might not take a knee, he doesnt want anyone telling his teammate what to do. So i think there is a power to this how its morphed. I think whats happened last sunday was one of the most interesting and powerful days weve seen in sports. What do you make of the fact that the owners almost to a person decided to join with players in one way or another, locking arms, kneeling, staying you know, a couple teams stayed out altogether of the field until the anthem was over. Whats the significance, do you think, of that unity between the players and the owners who, you know, often dont see eye to eye on things . Well, i think they were criticized too. I think they were involved in what donald trump said. So i think they took it personally. I think thats why they joined with everybody else. But they were criticized in part for lightning up on making it harder to have hard hits and maybe worrying too much about concussions. Kind of all these things got mixed up together. Well, he attacked their business, and theyre businessmen first and foremost. He attacked their bottom line, and that makes them angry. I think that they also feel that he they are businessmen, but why is he involved in their affairs that way . So its really just a dont mess with us . I think very much so. Dont mess with us, yeah. They were trying to back him off. So where is Colin Kaepernick in all of this . Hes been relatively quiet. Very quiet. There was a Sports Illustrated indication cover with steph curry and lebron james. Colin kaepernick wasnt part of that. That was a joke that he wasnt on it. He did really he was the lone figure for a long time, and really hes lost his job because of it. Hes given away a Million Dollars of his own money to and i think thats another thing that the owners and everyone involved in the nfl really resent is you cant call these guys s. O. B. S. I mean j. J. Watt and he wasnt one taking a knee, but he just raised all that money for hurricane relief. These guys are out in their community. They are doing so much in their community on a daily basis. Sure, theres some bad apples in the nfl, but come on. You cant broad brush these guys, and i think that was also part of the protectiveness. But colin is one of those guys who is out there doing Amazing Things with underserved communities and kind of sitting at home. And i think, you know, he just decided i dont need to make kevin, does he stand to benefit from this in some way . No, i dont think he stands to benefit at all. I think there was a possibility that he would play this year. Now i think thats not going to happen because of everything that is happening. Hed just bring more attention to exactly. The owners want to control this now. Theres already rumors that the owners are going to the players and saying, this needs to end now. So i think Colin Kaepernick is the face of this, and hes the one who started it. And hes done, as ann mentioned, i mean heres a guy who got a plane to somalia to help starving people. Yeah. If theres anybody in the nfl who actually saves lives, its Colin Kaepernick. He might have been able to get a plane to puerto rico. Who knows . Exactly. But i kind of disagree with you because i think this is now widespread enough that its not just about Colin Kaepernick, and i think an owner could take a chance on him because theres a lot of guys who are kneeling and are problemably going to keep kneeling. So if your quarterback goes down and you think you might need someone hes got cover. Hes got cover, but i think also the nfl owners are in a position now where they dont want this to tfn. I think theyre employing a divide and conquer strategy. There was a call between roger goodell, the commissioner of the nfl, and many players just last night. Eric reid wasnt even included in that call because i think hes very close to Colin Kaepernick. And hes also said, this is more important than my job. The nfl doesnt want players who say, this is so important to me, its more important than my own employment. Lets not forget that this latest chapter sort of began with a tweet about steph curry, and the team was going to decide the next day, saturday a comment by steph curry on friday, saying, i dont want to go. To the white house. Were going to talk about it as a team, but personally i dont want to go. What effect do you think thats had on the warriors because there was some sense that, you know, it shortcircuited a conversation that the team was going to have about whether they should go to the white house or not. That was going to be a short conversation. I think it hasnt had an effect on the warriors really at all except for them to, you know, band together to roll their eyes that the president is attacking steph curry, another guy who does so much in the community. And they werent going to go the way it played out hurt the president s feelings apparently. When you think about the nba and the nfl and how race has played out either historically or now, what are the differences . Well, i think one of the differences is and i think the nfl has always been a very hubristic organization. They believe what they do, that they can overcome anything. And theyre patriotic also, more infusing patriotism. Right. Although you could argue what eric reid and Colin Kaepernick are doing is much more patriotic. Theyre believing, hey, this union isnt perfect. There are large segments of our population who are being left out, and its not justice for all. But then its tried to intertwine itself with patriotism and the flag and military in a way that no other sport and organization the other thing i think should be pointed out about this is when Colin Kaepernick first did this, there was a big meeting with his team. And he confronted a lot of white players, saying, do you stand with me against discrimination, violence, and racism . And a lot of people who didnt want to stand for the National Anthem or or wanted to stand for the National Anthem said, yes, i stand with you. I will still stand for the National Anthem, but i will stand with you against these elements. Thats missing now. A lot of these teams dont have a kaepernick to say, heres what this movement is all about. But a lot of them do. A lot of them do, but there are still i mean certainly the eagles do with malcolm jek h ins, but there are a lot of let me ask because were a little short on time. When there have been historic protests in the past, the montgomery busboy cot, sitting in at the counters, it was clear what they wanted, what the protesters wanted. Whats the ultimatum here . Where is this going . What would be enough to stop these protests . When would they be satisfied . In other words, can they really effect the kind of change theyre talking about . Im not sure about that. I think, you know, what they want is a conversation. What they want is recognition that theres an issue that would then help heal the conversation and make it be a real thing. I think leaders in the africanamerican to get involved and they want their voices to be heard. And they dont want the president of the United States to shut them down or fans to boo them. You know, they do have a platform, and theyre going to use it. Real short on time. Is this have we seen the peak of this . Weve got another weekend of games coming up, and a warriors game as well coming up on saturday night. Has it peaked, and its going to start subsiding . It could peak, yeah, and it could start to subside. I think that might be a good thing because i think then you maybe do put focus on what theyre asking for, and thats more resources in community of color. All right. Another weekend of games coming up. Well see what happens. It will be interesting. Thank you both so much. Turning now to an international conflict. North koreas foreign minister has warned that his country is ready to shoot down American Military planes even if theyre not in north korean airspace. Tensions have been escalating as both countries have threatened the other with military action. We talk next with uc berkeleys john yu. His new book striking power, how cyber, robots, and space weapons changed the rules for war devotes a chapter to north korea. Professor, you also served in the Bush Administrations Justice Department as well. He joins us now. Welcome. Thanks for having me. So the u. S. Aproefrn h approach against north korea has been primarily relying on economic sanctions. Where would new technologies, the types youre talking about in your book, robotics, for example, cyber, where would that fit into the current strategy . The problem that our president s have had for more than 20 years is theyve been stuck between essentially appeasement, bribery, paying off north korea, and having to consider a war that would kill millions of people in south korea and 30,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of americans who live in south korea. So as you say, weve tried to fill that gap between those tragic choices with sanctions, which have not been really working. So new technologies, i think, offer ways to coerce north korea to punish it, prevent it, but to raise the costs for having a program in Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles as theyve been building. And how so . Can you explain . Yeah. So defensively where technology, i think, could be first applied, would be to build a more complete Missile Defense system in that region. Our Missile Defense system right now is relatively primitive, and its built to shoot down missiles at the hardest point, which is when theyre reentering the atmosphere and heading towards the United States. Thats the hardest time. Thats called the terminal phase for a reason of Ballistic Missile launch. What you want to do is try to shoot them at the boost phase when theyre first taking off. Weve all seen the videos when a missile is first taking off. Its really slow. Its trying to defeat gravity. This is the easiest time to see the missile and to shoot it down. So High Technology would allow us to put sea vessels, drones around north korean airspace and to shoot the missiles at that point. So more broadly speaking, if youre looking at conflicts around the world, syria, iraq, where is the future of warheaded if youre talking about all these new technologies . Interestingly about technology, we see the effects of similar technologies all around us in the economy with selfdriving cars, amazon, drones, and so on. They have similar effects in war, we think, in striking power, we argue mores could be run more precise and less destructive. Think of the drones weve already seen where they fire missiles at precise targets based on realtime intelligence using space. Future drones are going to be even smaller, cheaper, more precise. So youre going to have less harm to civilians and hopefully it will head off broader wars if nations are able to use drones and cyber against each other in lower intensity conflicts with less destruction, it might convince them to head off a pact to a major war. Critics, and there are many including human rights advocates, point out dont you run the risk of having this lead to more provocation and things getting out of control because robots, for example, lack a moral conscience. They dont have accountability. They dont have responsibility for the decision. Theres two kinds of criticism. I think theyre both valid. I dont think they should stop us from developing and deploying these weapons, but one is war is too cheap and easy now. If you can send a drone and theres no casualties that our soldiers are going to suffer, then president s are going to start sending drones to solve every problem. The second problem, this is more like elon musk signed a letter with 100 tech ceos last month calling for a ban on these kinds of weapons, is somehow were going to lose control, and its going to be like the terminator movies where the robots will take over and seize authority over war from us and might even turn the weapons against us. I think thats science fiction. Ive seen all those movies. Theyre great movies, but i think so far theres no evidence or proof that that would actually happen. Should we give up all the gains and lower death, lower destruction, more precision, to where hopefully less wars because were worried about some far off future where robots are going to take over . Let me ask you Something Else also related to asia. President trump is going to be making a trip to asia in november. You authored the socalled torture memos during the Bush Administration. Youve long advocated for largely unchecked president ial power in times of crisis. And north korea, we may be heading toward a crisis. What are your feelings about that now with President Trump in office . Do you still think that a president should have unchecked president ial power . I do. Im not a personal supporter of President Trump. I was actually quite critical of him during the campaign. I do think, though, that is why we have a president is because a legislature, 535 people, cant make decisions quickly enough, and i think correctly enough, in time of crisis. So thats why our framers created the presidency is because, yes, a president can make mistakes. Obviously we have a history of that. Every country that has histories of their individual leaders making mistakes. But in times of crisis and emergency like in north korea, our framers thought its better for there to be one person who can act quickly because emergencies are so unpredictable and the damage to our country could be so great. So would you feel comfortable applying that thought that you had during the Bush Administration to the Trump Administration, that is in times of crisis, the president should have unchecked powers that he can bypass the constitution . Well, i think its all limited by the constitution. I just think the constitution gives the president that role on behalf of the country. He is the branch or she is the branch of the