tv France 24 News PBS August 30, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT
>> the u.s. government inches closer to military action in syria. the obama administration pushes forward, the international community is urging caution and restraint. more on the growing tensions ahead. the water of the santa barbara coast hide a secret. it has been offshore fracking even though there are no regulations and the coast was once trashed by an oil spill. pay raises and bonuses are usually reserved for rewards for doing good work that is not the
case for many of the nations top ceo's, especially at a time of rowing wealth inequality. more on that later. it is friday, august 30. i am megan la paz and washington, d.c.. president obama and his cabinet are still delivering on whether or not the u.s. should become militarily involved in syria and to what extent. six jerry of state john kerry addressed the public reiterating administration rhetoric against bashar all assad. >> our concern is not just about some far off land oceans away. that is not what this is about.
are concerned with the cause of the defenseless people of syria is about choices that will direct the effect our role in the world and our interest in the world. it is also profoundly about who we are. we are the united states of america. we are the country that has tried not always successfully but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. >> he went on to say the president said in syria will dictate how future regimes treat their people. as of right now president obama says no final decision has been made. >> i have said before and i meant what i said. the world has a nomination to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons.
i have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. >> a new poll says 80% of americans believe that president obama should seek congressional approval before making decisions on whether or not to enter been. dennis kucinich tweeted -- also the obama administration released document supporting allegations that the regime was responsible for the chemical attack that killed 1400 29 civilians including 426 children. that same attack sickened over 3600 people. i spoke with the director of the new internationalism project at the ends to for policy studies
and started off by asking her whether the impassioned speeches by kerry and obama earlier this afternoon constituted a declaration of war. >> actually not. i was afraid it might be. they're being cautious sing the public opposition which is between 50 or 60 or even 70% opposition. congressional unease because he is not consulting with congress and and the international opposition. this is making the administration more cautious. the report is not nearly as definitive as secretary kerry's passion might have indicated. they have high confidence the syrian government carried out the attack. the possibility that it was the opposition is highly likely. that is a vast difference been saying is actually and the slamdunk.
they're being very cautious. the memory of 10 years ago when barack obama was one of of summoning people who said this was a dumb war, a war based on lies. that has to be sitting very heavily on them right now. >> they are not the only ones who have expressed type of caution. the u.k. parliament has expressed this type of caution saying they do not want to get involved with a very narrow vote and nato has said it will not take part. talk about how this changes the dynamic. >> it does not change the legal reality. whether it -- with or without the brits or nato or the french, a u.s. strike would be illegal under international law. international law which is big about all kinds of things is clear on one question. when is the use of force legal? it is legal only in an two in stances. the u.s. has not been attacke.d
d. the other is if the security council endorses the use of force. russia and china have made clear they would veto. in this situation any other use of force would be illegal. we hear discussion of the so- called kosovo model of 1999. they could use that. they could reference that in say we will do what we did in kosovo. what they did in kosovo was illegal. they said we cannot get security council permission because we now that russia will veto so we will not ask the security council. we will ask nato high command. the nato high command is not authorized to make that decision. nato is a military institution. you ask them and they say sure. that is like a hammer and the nail. if you're a hammer, everything look at nal. if you're nato, everything looks like it requires military
intervention. international law does not say enough to get permission from the security council unless you do not and that you can get permission from london or nato or somebody else. you cannot do that. >> we're hearing that same rhetoric from former president jimmy carter. he said, "unitive military response without a mandate or broad support from nato and the arab league would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. it would harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. what do you make of that analysis rest of our >> it is a very important analysis. i agree except when he said he would be illegal unless they had either the security council or widespread popular support and the arab league. that does not cut it. it is only the security council that is authorized to give that permission and president carter
knows that. i am guessing that is a slip. his assessment of the impact is important. it will not protect syrians from any kind of future attack. what we need now is not more militarization but less and more talking. we've seen that russia fullback. our site is losing so we do not want to talk right now. that led to the collapse of the first effort. the u.s. is saying our site is losing so we do not want to talk. both sides need to talk. we need russia and the u.s. talking to each other and both need to bring their junior partners along. russia needs to be with iran and syria and iraq. the u.s. needs to be there with saudi arabia and qatar and say we expect both sides to come together. there are five wars being waged
in syria. the others are regional and global and religious. they're all being fought to the last syrian. it is crucial we keep in mind what is happening to the people of serious. more bombing from the u.s. is not going to make it better. it will make it worse. >> it might be interesting -- interesting things that came out last year, general martin dempsey saying that libya and syria are two fundamentally different. ui want to play a clip from one year ago and we will talk about that in terms of today. >> you believe you could militarily intervene in syria in the same way you did in libya? >> not the same way we did in libya. syria is a different challenge as you described it geographically. it is a different challenge in terms of the capability of the military. they are very capable. they have a very sophisticated
integrated air defense system. they have chemical and biological weapons. they have not demonstrated any interest or intent to use those but it is a different military problem. >> that fact still stands. the other fact that stands today that did not stand a year ago is 100,000 people are dead. can you talk about this and what he said and whether the u.s. is taking these differences between -- the differences into context? >> i am afraid of the notion of 100,000 dead syrians is not the primary question on the agenda. the primary question seems to bleed -- it be political. what we're looking at is as fine for president obama or anyone else to say this is not about regime change. libya was not about regime
change until it was. this is not about a major intervention. this is a narrow set of surgical strikes until they retaliate. and then what happens? if syria retaliates against the u.s. base in one of the neighboring countries or israel or against the u.s. plane or who knows what. do we think the u.s. is going to sit back and say we said this was only a one off, we will not respond. that pulls the u.s. when the u.n. is being excluded. that pulls the u.s. into a civil war with great danger for the region and the world. x we have so many things coming out, information that we are starting to put this bigger picture together and i appreciate you coming in and helping us build that narrative. in you. >> thank you.
>> one official comes out to speak against the syrian government, america's greatest ally great britain is not onboard with with the idea of using military force in syria. the british parliament narrowly voted down a measure to support action. this despite his foreign minister william hague pushing for intervention. on the other hand, francois hollande spoke out in strong support of international military action. let's take a quick look at where the global community stacks up when it comes to the question of intervention. the u.s., saudi arabia, turkey, and france have shown strong support for military action. on the other hand, china, russia, germany, and there ran are against -- iran are against intervention. for broader aspect on how the
international community is responding to the crisis, our colleagues and moscow spoke with lauren allen west. >> i was very concerned when i found we are on a course to go straight down the track of military action. the danger in saying we are using a surgical strike, is to find that you have a law of unintended consequences. you think you're going to do one little thing or things happened and expand. they need to be careful about what action they take. we need to be clear what we need to achieve and what is the end state we want. we need to have in place mechanisms to ensure that things do not go beyond a certain degree. i am not at all convinced that an attack would help the condition of the people within
syria. we have seen what happened in iraq. we have seen what happened in afghanistan. i have no doubt that the al qaeda group will be delighted if america and britain and turkey and france attacked assad. they would need delighted. that does not mean they like us and they want -- they oppose us and would like to do is harm. they need to be very careful how we act, that is certainly true. >> that was lord allen west. guantanamo they is not logistically any closer to shattering but we are seeing some movement in the facility. we are learning that two detainees have him transferred out of the cuban detention facility to algeria. the pentagon announced that both
were approved for transfer by the guantanamo review task force leaving 164 detainees still in custody. one was captured in december 20, 2000 one and transferred to u.s. custody 90s later. according to his guantanamo bay dials at were leaked by wikileaks, he was believed to be a member of al qaeda with your ties to the algerian armed islamic group. the other was aimed to medium risk prisoner who was thought to pose some threat to u.s. troops. he was recommended to be transferred out in 2006. according to his guantanamo based files he was trained in bomb marking. he was deemed to be a medium risk threat to u.s. interests with high intelligence value but
was recommended for release also in 2006. we could be seeing the start of the closure of guantanamo bay that president obama promised all the way since his first election. fracking offshore and out of sight does exactly -- is what big oil companies have been doing off the coast of one california and city. fracking is the axis of drilling into the shale formation and injecting fluids into the round and a high-pressure to cause that rock to cracker fracture. natural gas will then be released. the hyatt -- use of this message -- method has been contentious and drilling for oil has been under versatile in california where in 19 69, spill off the scenic coast -- santa barbara coastline led to reach. -- repeated bands.
>> santa barbara is a quiet city with spanish influence and west coast. . miles from the historic fences can mission, oil rigs dot the coastline. these waters could become the next frontier for fracking. >> if companies are experimenting with it right now. >> government documents show that fracking has been used to prospect in federal waters off santa barbara. >> regulators approved another fracking job for a company called the order. also in the channel, and -- government documents show it has happened 11 other time since the 1990's. >> is ris the california indepet petroleum association says fracking has been used onshore and has a strong safety record. environmentalists disagree. >> fracking fracking is an inherently dangerous technology. what we're talking about has
existed for for 10 to 15 years and it is a new generation of oil. >> oil companies set their sights on the santa barbara channel which was also the site of a catastrophic oil spill in 1969. 200,000 gallons of crude spread across the channel and onto the nearby beaches. the black mask killed dozens of animals and sparked the modern environmental movement. walking down this pair dies it is typical to believe that this is to be covered in black sludge in this beach was littered with dying and oily birds. decades after the infamous spill, this piece of coastline is once again the focus of some controversial extraction methods. fracking involves pumping water, sand, and chemicals into underwater shale and sand formations. >> we do not know what those chemicals are because of what is called trade secrets which is
they are secret sauce, confidential business information. >> he worries that short-term memories will lead to repeated disasters. >> with the deepwater horizon spill two years ago, a similar situation where the federal government gave exemptions for environmental analysis. we are concerned that this is history repeating itself. >> restaurant activists had been successful in pushing for bands in several municipalities across california. oil and natural gas companies are anxious to tap into what may be a massive amount of shale oil . >> that extends into the ocean and it is possible that if fracking prove successful, more companies want to use the technology to get this oil in the monterey shale that is not accessible modern
technology. >> energy insiders believe they could contain the lands of barrels of oil. >> even if we frack all the natural gas and oil we have, we're talking about 30 to 40 years, we will be really frack. >> the industry argues the areas could benefit from the jobs. environmentalists will keep telling them to frack off this tiny stretch of paradise. >> clear the people -- they are the people who were booted off their jobs or busted for fraud. ceo's are among the highest earning people in america. 40% of the top earning ceo's in the past 20 years have had serious performance issues.
14% of all top earners were fired or forced to retire. the average severance package was about 47.7 million dollars. to break down some of these numbers i was joined earlier by a reporter at the nation, zoe carpenter. i asked her about the concept of mediocrity. >> part of the american dream is this idea that everyone they -- can work hard and succeed and the corollary is that if you have succeeded and you're at the upper echelons, we would expect that you would be among the best and the brightest or that you would be good at your job. i think what this new report shows is that that is not always the case. >> there's is an argument that is often called the trickle-down economics affect. it suggests no class and the poor of it are off when the wealthy are doing well. this chart shows the ceo
compensation has jumped 876% since 1978 while worker compensation has grown by about 5.4%. given this latest report as well as the chart we just showed you, you think that argument still works? >> i think it is ready clearly debunked by now. we have seen xa -- executive pay has gone back up to record levels as the crisis. wages have not picked up. we still have americans living in poverty and that number is rising. levels of extreme poverty is rising. this game has not trickled down. >> something also to mention. hourly wages fell 3.8% during the first quarter of 2013. that is the lowest drop since the labor bureau started collecting this data in 1947.
the stock exchange reached an all-time high. how can we account for this disparity of all-time highs versus these unaccounted for lowe's? >> there are a lot of pressures to increase corporate paid -- [aupay. there are not enough pressures to increase hourly benefits. one of the incentives that is driving compensation rates is a tax loophole that allows companies to deduct an unlimited amount for performance east pay and that often comes in the form of stock options. copies pay lower taxes if they compensate their ceo's at a higher level. meanwhile they had -- they are having a discussion about cutting the social and safety net. those things do not square with each other. >> we often hear the argument on wall street that executive pays to be high to attract top talent.
do you think that this report that just came out complicates that narrative? >> it certainly does create this so-called top talent is not performing well so what are we paying for? it is shocking to see how many of the names that are on this list of the top 25 highest-paid executives were also involved and partly responsible for the financial crisis. >> what do you think the take away lesson is from here? it is not a bank ceo's they're doing this, it is is a lot of different corporate ceo's. what should the average american make of these numbers? >> i think they should take away the message that we need to have some checks on excessive pay. at the same time support for living wages. there are checks out there, the dodd frank act has a few measures that are lost, the need
to be -- that our law, they need to be enforced. the pay ratios between ceo's and with their average employees make and that would make this problem more transparent. i do not think it is always in the news. >> that is something -- dodd frank was signed three years ago. tank you for breaking down the numbers. >> thanks for having me. >> a committee has been formed to make a bid for d.c. to host the games. they're claiming that d.c. would be the best lace to host the olympics because of the heightened security status meaning that there would be no need to worry about public safety.
what hosting the olympics help the local economy? for more, liz wahl. >> the u.s. capital attracts millions of tourists each year. >> d.c. is known for its politics, monument, and museums but there is one thing one washington-based group says is missing. >> washington, d.c. is the only world cap below to never host the olympic games. of all the major capitals, we feel this is the right time for d.c. >> the district is among the cities busy -- bidding to host the 2024 olympic games. hosting the games has historically been a wonderful pride. the hope is that it will generate big bucks. >> it would entice people to come here. >> he would boost the economy. -- it would boost the economy. it would ring a different kind
of tourism here. >> hosting comes with a big rice. the group taking on the says it will cost $3 billion to $6 billion. the host city usually spends much more than planned. >> i do not know if the economics will work out. that is more difficult to know. >> it may be a day mayor -- da ymare because of the congestion we have already. security would be her rent this. >> people have taken to the streets in brazil in protest of the investment into the 2016 games. social programs suffer and poverty runs rampant. for those skeptical that host cities reap economic fortunes point to the past. aging spent $40 billion to put on the games in 2008. with will pay off.
the 2004 athens games is believed to have led to the ongoing debt crisis. many buildings construction -- constructed for the games now abandoned and decaying. pasked if this could be a previw for d.c., organizers say -- >> i do not worry about it. i know what you're talking about but that is not what we are planning on doing. if you look at something someplace like beijing, they build all new facilities. in order to host the games. the cost was astronomical. >> the plan is to use existing sports venues in washington as much as possible. like the verizon center near downtown. venues like the national's ballpark would be used and arenas in baltimore and northern virginia. financially rewarding or not, d.c. faces a lot of competition. with cities from coast to coast, bidding for the worry to host
the games. >> do you know the saying men are from mars and women are from venus? it turns out we all might be from the red planet. newly search -- new research supports the idea that billions of years ago, mars was a better place to form the building blocks of life than earth was. scientists have questions how -- questioned how adams came together to form the three components of life, rna, dna, and proteins. rna is created by templating adams at the crystalline surfaces of minerals. according to a florida professor stephen benner, earth did not have enough oxygen to support the formation of rna.
once rna was transported to mars, it was transported on meteorites eventually leading to the creation of life. thanks for watching. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- welcome to "newsline." i'm keiko kitagawa in tokyo. u.n. inspectors are packing up their equipment and preparing to fly out of syria. they've finished gathering evidence on the use of chemical weapons. the experts have spent four days collecting samples and interviewing hospital staff. they were looking into allegations president bashar al assad's troops used chemical weapons last week. several hundred people are believed dead from the attack. the inspectors will now send material for laboratory