the heavy lights are actually from smartphones held by crowds growing along the route. i'm del walters, thank you for joining us, third rail is next, you can always check us out 24 hours a day by going to aljazeera.com. tonight in our debate, nerve gas, barrel bombs, more than 200,000 syrians dead. compared to i.s.i.l., nusra and others, is bashar al-assad the lesser evil. later - police wear body cameras when dealing with suspects. should school principals have body cams dealing with students. could a simple yes stop rape. i'm imran garda, and this is "third rail." >> bashar al-assad will go down history as one of the worst

tyrants of his era. >> if the regime goes down, there'll be caso in syria. >> you have two extremes, the government of bashar al-assad, and i.s.i.s., and nusra and other groups. >> what is the more serious group in this hell hole? >> he's killed 200,000 of his own people. >> i can avoid i.s.i.s., but not a regime barrel bomb. >> the number of syrian refugees exceeded 4 million. >> i have not seen anything like this for a quarter of a century yip. >> the only way the syria war will end is without a government of bashar al-assad. >> you will not deal with the i.s.i.l. problem until the solved. >> if bashar al-assad is toppled nightmare. >> that is true, those that seek to fill the vacuum... >> fundamentalists. >> if we want to eliminate i.s.i.s., we'll have to deal

with people we don't like we have ambassador robert ford, ambass do to syria from 2010 to 2014. and amall, a syrian political activist that supports the syrian government. thank you for joining u gentlemen. ambassador ford, in an interview with a daily paper you asked if bashar al-assad was evil. >> i recall. >> and you said yes. >> yes. >> is he the nastiest evil right now in this conflict? >> there are many evils in this conflict. there are a lot of innocent people getting killed. i certainly would not, for an significant, suggest that the islamic state has good qualities, redeeming qualities. from where a great many syrians sit, they look at a regime this

killed tens of thousands. you mentioned the nerve gas and barrel bombs, et cetera. they say they have lost 100,000, 250,000 to bashar al-assad. the islamic state killed four to 5,000, not to justify. it's to say where a great many syrians sit, the bashar al-assad danger. >> let's ask a syrian that defends the president more than 200,000 dead. due to syrian military bombing and the syrian observatory for human rights, they attribute 90% of civilian casualties to the syrian army. with all of that, 4 million fled the country, it's difficult to disagree with that. not. >> it's easy, the ones disagreeing with his excellencery are the syrian people. 4 million na fled the country --

that fled the fighting areas to neighbouring areas, there's 8 million, fleeing fighting into government controlled areas. i would like to see that, and the government in syria would like to see it as a vote of yes to the same resolution we are voting today. i'm not saying that all of these are die-hard supporters. some of them may hate supporters. there are reports that some free syrian army are sending children, women to government controlled areas. it's about syrians dealing with the syrian government, whether they like it or not. the rest of the world should take the lead. >> do you speak for syrians? >> for many, who thought by supporting the government institutions, they would be able to have the best framework possible to man a sort of most efficient defense against

anarchy, against the time unknown evils, but everyone knows about them, but it's like this. and those syrians who have government institutions. it is them who keep the government on their feet, and they basically thing the government is the best shot. >> are you comfortable with your government using chemical weapons on your people. >> no, i'm never confident with chemical weapons or killing of civilians. we need to get deeper into that. has the government used chemical weapons in august 2013. suddenly when u.n. inspectors come to suspect on the call of the syrian government, gas attacks, we have gas in damascus. a few weeks before that turkish authorities are there. >> who did that. >> a few weeks before that 2km of sarin was confiscated, and no one asks the question, whether

it's someone who is on the eve or on the day of the u.n. syria. >> i'm not saying that it didn't do it. easily. there's a lot of evil going on in the world. >> ambassador ford, is that a conspiracy theory? >> i would say this - i don't think there's any question that the bashar al-assad government used chemical weapons repeatedly. the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons based in the hague said that. they have specifically said in their last analysis given to the security council last autumn, that helicopters were dropping chemical weapons on targets inside syria. there's only one fight in this conflict, i am sure you would agree, one fight that is using it. >> let's look at some of that

footage, and some is disturbing, it's not for the faint of heart. don't watch this if you are going to be upset by this. let's take a little look at the after math of a sarin gas attacks. what i'm struggling to understand is how you can defend this. you are just - you are cooking up a conspiracy theory saying the rebels did it, when the ambassadors say only the syrian government had the capability to do so. >> i'm not defending the syrian government, i'm telling you how many syrians think. they think the government, the framework is the best shot. >> with the chemical weapons, you do not need the organs in place, sophisticated organs in

place. sarin gas is available, and, again, al qaeda, nusra are there you don't want to address the reality that the government did this. >> i'm saying people jump into conclusions too easily, and people need to look at the other side as a culprit. i'm not saying that the syrian government is not killing people. it obviously is. >> ambassador ford, when we speak about red lines, there was a definitive red line given to the syrian regime, and they crossed it. the united states didn't do anything. you resigned as a direct result of consequence. >> six months later. do you feel that president obama let down the people of syria. >> i think the president let down the people of syria. could be the president should never have said red line.

you should never make a statement unless you intend to back it up. i have to say in the president's defense, that there was not a lot of support in political washington, on the democratic or republican side. especially for the united states air force. even retaliatory strikes outside of damascus, on august 2013. the president was cautious given the lack of visible political support. unquestionably, people in the syrian opposition, to this day, are upset about that american decision not to use military force. they look at the agreement that was concluded with through russia and the broader system for all of syria, chemical materials and the destruction of chemicals weapons facilities. they look at that as an

incomplete agreement, repeated use of chlorine gas. would explain why they are so frustrated. i have met so many syrians, who said americans are more concerned by chemical weapons than if we are killed by starvation or by bombing or indiscriminate fire artillery. >> their multiple bell imerrens in the conflict, and nusra, who unashamedly a wing of al qaeda in syria, they have been massacring the druce, killing minorities. >> they have missiles as well by the way. >> they have been killing minorities and civilians. we have islamic state doing their thing. when we talk about evil going back to the beginning, aren't they equally as evil as bashar al-assad in the conflict. >> i would say all of

these sides have no respect for basic human dignity or human rights. >> how do you have a political settlement? a political settlement, you start with a smaller group and build out and marginalize extremists, there's a lot of extremists in syria that must be marginalized, contained and removed. the question is how do you get there. to throw your hands up and say there's lots of competing sides will not get you ever to a political solution. >> i think you are comparing an irrational player. >> irrational. >> if you compare with i.s.i.s. it's irrational. >> 200,000 dead. >> we group. >> barrel bombs, chlorine.

allah. >> it's raising the flag of syrian nationalism. what difference does it make, people are dying. >> syrians who stick with the choice. i'm one of them. i don't like the system. no one likes the system. everywhere wants a democrating syria. i lived in england for 11 years. how to reach. >> by backing a dictator killing his own people. >> why not take responsibility for his actions. >> how many bombs did the syrian government detonate. if you let the extremists do the same thing, if you don't have measures in place, how many with. >> why do the united states take the position. they have sheen civilians, support, why not deal with them.

>> why can't you deal with bashar al-assad. >> at what point did you reach the point of no return. >> let's be clear date date you have met him before. >> several times. >> we have a diplomatic interest section, sometimes messages are passed about the fate of americans that disappear in syria. it's not that we will not deal with bashar al-assad, but they are limited. we were prepared to work with a delegation in geneva, foreign minister brought them to geneva in january of 2014, and we were prepared to work with them in a negotiation that the united nations was leading. so it's not that we don't deal with them. it's a different thing to say we should ally militarily with

bashar al-assad against extremist elements in syria, because in my analysis, helping bashar al-assad will increase the recruiting of the extremist elements that we need to contain, reduce and remove. >> i want to take a short break. coming up, we'll be joined by a 2012. >> when you said those things, were you lying. >> i said the position of the syrian state. >> is jihad a traitor and later. work. >> it's a he-said, she said. both sides believe they are telling the truth. >> later in the field notes, displaced by the cold war and threatened by climate change. our can't talks to people, watching their home disappear. >> they see the evidence. it's a daily thing. >> al jazeera america, weekday mornings.

catch up on what happened overnight with a full morning brief. get a first hand look with in-depth reports and investigations. start weekday mornings with al jazeera america. open your eyes to a world in motion. ehind amer.

>> it's a ticking time bomb. >> uncovering shocking working conditions. >> do you know what chemicals have been in that tank? >> and the deadly human cost. >> my big brother didn't wake up the next day. >> "faultlines". al jazeera america's hard-hitting...

>> today they will be arrested. >> ground-breaking... >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning investigative series. "faultlines": death on the bakken shale. only on al jazeera america. syrian president's death will change relations in the middle east. al-assad. >> we are pleased with the reassurances from the president. >> meeting with president bashar al-assad leaves me confident. >> many believe he's a reformer. >> demonstrations escalate. explosives. executed. >> chemical weapons were used. >> he has committed crimes. >> bashar al-assad needs to go

welcome back. joining us, a diplomat and spokesman on the ministry of foreign affairs. currently jihad is an independent politician and member of the cairo group. you worked for the syrian government, bashar al-assad was your boss. >> everyone's boss. >> why did you defect? >> i resigned. the word defection is used for the military, not a civil servant. i feel no longer as a diplomat i am act be useful for my country. i serve the state, not the regime. when i felt there was no room for diplomacy, i left and practised my fright to take up possession this way. >> i'm working independently to help syria. >> during your time as spokesman, you said that chemical weapons will be used against syria or the people in

any circumstances. later you said that there wouldn't be unless threatened by an outside aggression. when you were saying those things, were you lying or did you believe in the nonsense that you were saying. >> there was a huge difference between a diplomat and a politician. at that time i was a diplomat. i made a statement approved by my foreign minister that was not jihad's position. i was a spokesperson, and said the position of the syrian state. that this - to tell you more about this, the main reason we issued that statement at that time is not to talk about the enemy, just to make sure, send the message that the place of the facilities that we had the wnd is well secured and will not be used unless there is external aggression against syria. >> do you believe you have blood on your hand. >> i'm a civil servant. i go back in time. my minister said you have to read the statement. i will do it.

i was not the member, a deputy in the parliament. that was the syrian state, i served my state in a loyal way. >> following orders. >> absolutely, and when i felt that there is no way for reconciliation in syria, with this government, so i simply resigned and left the country. >> is ji a traitor. >> no, i don't think it is seen as a traitor. i think everybody and i wouldn't say everybody, but a few people who support the government were disappointed. they saw him as an example of us being able to deliver our that. >> are you saying it was a pack of lies? lies. >> you were saying what you were told to. syrian government. i'm a diplomat. this is my job. spokesperson. >> let me tell you something, i need to set this once and for all. a lot of syrians, if they felt

that it is the prerogative or the intention of the government to kill civilians per se. nobody would stand by the government. we understand that the collateral damage is big, that the weaponry used is big. the chemical weapons attack, no one on the syrian government supporters side believes it was delivered. >> with all due respect, you had in your news clip bodies brought out of syria in 2013 by a person that worked for syrian military intelligence, one of four secret police services - i like a country with four secret servic services, syria is that one. brought out by a detector. those images had been checked by international forensic experts - both in europe and the united states. the fbi has looked

at them for example, to determine they are not fake, or phoney. to suggest there's an ability to protest in areas under government control that you can go and argue with the government not to kill civilians, that you can rally against government policy is ridiculous. the syrian regime is holding tens of thousands of people without any judicial process. we know from people who have come out of those facilities, barbaric. underestimating... >> and, therefore, to say all syrians living in areas under government control, supporting what the government is doing, is not accurate. some unquestionably do. i think a larger majority want the fighting to end. they want security, and they dignity. >> i totally agree. but you are underestimating the syrian people who stood by the government, or who thought the

government is their best chance, ability to protest. i think some do, in some points they do. >> if you can show me a single instance where government supporters have gone out into the streets and bitterly complained about government policy, i would find your argument more convincing. i have to tell you in homs they complained about the governor who did not provide security. >> you were saying that... >> they did - they do want security, who wouldn't want security in a situation like this. had the same people said down, the president's cousin family - very corrupt. had they said down with bashar al-assad, you and i know the secret police would have been in there in 3-5 minutes. >> why don't you acknowledge that there are priorities, so the mcleaves are not the one sending car booms. >> the mc-l,

oove, are financing car bombs. >> syrians want nothing to do with the revolution. they are there. more than 50%. >> you know, we had a lot of syrians want this or that. who speaks for syria? >> i want to say one thing. after almost five years of a syrian uprising, it's no longer about who is ruling syria. no one cares among the majority of syrians. we happy hearing what they want. >> this idea, what we care about is to help syria, it's on the brink of collapse. it's no longer - it's bigger than the president. it's a war of attrition, and i think the current government in syria has lost legitimacy in the sense of society, and, therefore, they can never win a

war of attrition on our soil. that's why fame. love? >> this president has no place conflict. >> is that the first thing that needs to happen? >> the departure of a government, especially in the case of syria should be structured. and that's where communique. >> how do you do that. >> forming a body governing syria. and the governing body will be jointry restructuring the regime. this regime has no future. not through military means. it has to go through a structure with guarantees if from backers. >> syrians would need to own the process. this is the important thing. >> which syrians. >> all syrians. look, president bashar al-assad

is not the issue, he was never the issue. >> i don't think basically this revolution was about democratical things. >> there is a responsibility. >> i'm not saying it's accountability. he's the strongest man in syria. >> he's in control. >> very much. >> of the country. >> no, not of the country, on the government he's in control. >> you think control of geography... >> and he's in control of attacks on civilians tilling tens of thousands. >> there was a ba'ath party conference in which the whole command was changed. that tells you he's in control. the end of the story is he's not the issue, in terms of how they want to rebuild the country. people on the outside are too focused on him as a person. if you want a transition because of the fears of the people who support the government and fears of chaos and so on, probably he

needs to be in place. what happens in the future should be left to the syrian people to survive. if you ask me if the president would be happy to leave syria, if he pull it is off. who decides it will not be in riyadh or washington or london. it has to be the syrians, this will go on and on forever. >> who takes over if baz goes? >> -- bashar al-assad goes. >> first of all, i doubt the regime will collapse. some news clip said there would be chaos... >> there is already chaos. >>..if he departs is ridiculous. they are already in chaos. 4 million refugees, 8 million internally displaced. what other definition of chaos. >> if the regime changes bashar al-assad or withdraws from the

capital city, the answer is there would be a competition to power among the factions. thing about what the route looks like. think about what mogadishu looked like. think about what yemen and senna looked like. the answer is it's not a big improvement. which is why all of us agree on one thing. there needs to be a political negotiation to solve what is essentially a political problem. you'll have the extremists, the islamic state. you'll still have al nusra. >> do you concede territory to i.s.i.l., the islamic state, and saying what you have you keep. >> speaking as an american worried about american national can. iraq. >> my opinion is they must be removed out of syria and iraq.

for america national security. not with american soldiers. it needs to be iraqis. the problem is that bashar al-assad's government will never be able to rally enough syrians to go and success li fight the extremists. there has to be a new government that is able to rally the that. >> i think syrians have taken the lead. those that - whether the die hard supporters, who are not huge, but there are a lot of people who are de facto supporters, chose that this is the best job they have. if they deal with the syrian government. the entire world should do so. >> it's not about dealing with the president or the syrian government. it's about authority in their hands. >> this constitution, 23 authorities in the hands.

hopefully they convince the opposition to come and deal with it. >> they need a dictator. >> they have the power. >> they'll have a double dictator. there is a situation stopping at nothing and everything. >> i have to wrap ambassador. thank you all for joining us. >> the third rail panel is next. . >> i spoke to my high school interns, one said absolutely, level. >> i don't know what is in place. like. >> a sense that this could provide a sense of protection. >> are you saying no to the protection. i thought so. >> you have to taste chocolate all day long. >> how one man's passion... >> you take a piece of chocolate and you break it and you listen. >> led to a lifelong obsession... >> i owe my life to chocolate. >> and a dark warning.

>> the world will run out of chocolate by 2020. >> i lived that character. >> we will be able to see change.

>> putting loved ones in a nursing home... hoping for the best. >> my father died because of the neglect. >> are they betraying your trust? >> it's a for-profit business. welcome back to "third rail," we discussed whether bashar al-assad is the lesser evil plaguing the country, let's

stay with syria, but broaden the conversation of refugees, with our panel. thank you all of you for joining us. let's start with you, the u.n. reported that the number of syrian refugees tops 4 million, the big number everyone is talking about. our research, and it took a while to get to the number shows that 7,000 have come to the u.s. in the past two years. does the united states have a moral obligation to help syrian refugees. >> help them there or bring them here and turn them into voters, there's a deterrence. >> bring them here. >> are we talking temporary fix or humanitarian aid with the

sense of returning to the homeland or becoming men's. we are told we have to bring in everywhere from central america coming to the border. we are not putting the responsibility on mexico. we are told on one side we shouldn't be the world police or should be. police. >> it is humanitarian. >> it is being world police. if you take responsibility for the action of people from other country, if you solve your problems and push back and take the refugees, is that part of being the world police. >> you are the one that politicizes it by saying if they come here, they'll turn into voters. you know political. >> it's not. >> it is highly charged. >> it's not. >> rev bees are not saying oh, my god, here is my opportunity to go to the united states and become a citizen and vote. help me save my life here, they are saying.

here? >> not necessarily. they are coming to america. america is two things, one a member of the world community and a leader. >> and blamed for every problem in the world. >> as a member of the community, every country in the world should have an obligation to help our people in the world who are going through a terrible stress as these people are. >> the fact that america wants to be and is a leader among the world communities puts an additional impact on our country to take a bigger role in that, that's why we are leaders. >> that number, 7,000, is that too little for you. >> of course it is. that goes back to 2013. it's hard. right now, what do we know. few are getting in. even those that want to be here. the system is not working as well. that's partially because the united nations. it's not as efficient as they would be, and because of

limitations we put on it. it would take 18 months to two years to process those, because they are doing background checks. >> are we talking immigration or check. what about the rest of the security council. how many are going to china. >> i don't see that happening. >> the question was really a moral question. someone who was not born in this country, right. i was born in mexico, and became on american citizen. the notion of what the country represents, what it represents for those of us who are not born into it but raises our hand say i swear to my heart, god, that i will put my life on the line. that comes with certain understandings of what they represent. for me, it is a moral humanitarian responsibility. for us as a country, it's who are we.

and let me top it off with there are other people who are savvy business people saying yes, this is a tragedy, it's a crisis. when people come and settle with good intentions, they are good consumers. we though this. >> and the command side... >> i'm saying let's recognise that no way, no how, we must put up the boarders. i'm saying there are multiple ways it look at it. what is your biggest fear? >> it's not a fear, but the united states can't be the life boat to the world. >> it's not uninvolved in the middle east or politically. >> to say the government will make a decision, and impose the burden on the taxpayers. >> does it mean anything to you when you consider lebanon, next door. the population increased by 25%. maths...

>> where are the neighbours. >> it's the equivalent of 80 million flooding the border into the united states, if 25% of the population was interposed. when you look at what other countries are going to absorb the shock waves of the chaos, it's a no-brainer to say the united states should do more. >> you say the life boat. you write that you don't need to be the life boat. but we need to be a life boat. if we leave... >> what does it cost. >> we have been leading all this time. it's our military. lectures. >> are you unfair on him when you look at the united states settles 70,000 people. it's the number one in the world. more than all the 28 other countries resettling combined. >>

aid. >> you can click on and see where the money is going. if we are going to lead in the world, you can't lead in military, you have to leave humanitarian things also. >> i want to quote from what the united nations said about lebanon. i wish they were saying it about us. the generosity of the government and people of lebanon remains high. this people understanding we are >> i don't know that we have an >> why do we train their how do we fix the country if all

the people leave. >> i think they could be dead, the people turned into refugees, there's a huge group out there. >> i'm talking about humanitarian keeping people alive put in an opposition... >> i'll move on. new york state passed a law intended to cut down on rape on college campus, but could have wider implications for the general public, not positive. >> the new law, yes means yes. >> it's not about a woman saying no. >> you have to show the other person con sented to having sex. >> this is a process where the woman can say no at any point. why not have her say yes at every poison. >> it's difficult to let the government micromanage relationships in the management. >> it doesn't create sexual assaults, it creates problem. >> the shift from no means no to safer. >> i cannot for the life imagine how this will work. i can't. it's coming from a good place,

it's a nice throughout. i do not want to see a woman sexually assaulted. it's hardible. >> coming from the right place, but ludicrous. >> there'll be a he said, she said. both believe they are telling the truth. i speak to high school in-turns. they were on the side of it's okay. it was a little surprising. one said absolutely there should be cone sent at every level. >> that formalised concept. >> i'll raise it. >> i don't know what is looked like. the fact that there was a notion of yes, i feel like i need this. it's interesting. again, i'm of two minds, the mother of a 19-year-old man. for both, i'm kind of like i would like there to be protection for both.

i don't want my son to be in a situation where he's accused or feel like she's victimized. >> what happens when someone wakes up, has too many drinks and says i was incapable of law... >> you create a libber teen environment on the college campus, it's anything goes. now the way to deal with it is to have a formulaic agreed upon system of i'm going to do this, you're going to do that. i don't know how this will work. >> what about same sex couples. >> you have to concept. >> this is 2015. consent. >> is this the death of subtext. >> it's a response of men. it was like, oh, my god. in there kill. it's interesting that i'm mostly hearing that from men. this was said about condoms, that they'll spoil the moment. it will be ridiculous.

>> i feel compelled to ask you, who said that about condoms. slot. >> i works i never said it. accurate. >> i'm too young. >> back to the he said/she said. young people do thing when they are partying that don't make sense after the fact, the next morning, to their peer, >> and themselves. >> and to the justice system. >> and themselves. >> this could be used as a weapon to damage people. >> no doubtedly. >> can a man consent. >> when it's a legal standard. are we seeing the united states regulating sex, like iran. >> contemporary marriage. >> this is where it gets a little strange, right. in terms of the women's movement in this country, it's all about privacy, we decide what we want to do with our bodies, and when. and somehow - and, of course,

the argument you hear, which is don't come into my bedroom, and hear the government is coming into your bed room. i think it's complicated. i thought about it a lot. it's probably motivated by the best of intentions. maybe we are nuts, because your high school students are saying okay. >> what is the official language, the court approved, you know, i said this, and she applied. this. >> if you are a high school student that said this, have they had the experience. how do they know. >> i don't know where they are in their lives. >> i don't know either. i didn't get that far. >> if i asked my five-year-old grand-daughter and she said yes, i think it's a good idea. she better know what she's talking about. protection. >> are you saying no protection. stop. >> that is so strange. something... >> what happens in the silent moments, in the uncomfortable

moments when you are young. >> good and bad. >> silent momentsment. >> good and bod. >> do i have your concept to move on? . body cameras are a focal point in a debate on how police deal with the public, a use of body cameras spread to schools. >> the use of body cameras moved from police officers to school officials. >> the iowa school district is putting body cameras on some principals. >> the scale says the cameras will make all sides accountable. administrators. >> do principals need to wear body cameras. >> i agree with the sentiment we behave better on tape. the advantage is on the body camera wearer, you are aware of it. when police officers wear body cameras, they turn it on.

if we sat in the studio, we'd forget the camera was on. that's how you get outtakes. the advantage is on the person wearing the camera, that's why we have wire tapping laws. if you try to bait someone into saying something, and you record it, you're in a different spot to the person unaware. there's something to the behaviour, but you have to remember the body camera wearer has the advantage. >> it's a loss of balance. i'm supportive of police officers wearing them. when something goes wrong in an interaction, there's a good results. >> when something goes wrong, and if students are falsely accusing the principal of a violent act. i don't think the students died, so far as i go. if we apply that logic, we need to put cameras on everyone. why principals, why not teachers. they have the same sway over kids.

i guess we want to start protecting kids. everybody else is in a position of authority, physicians. >> it's a local decision. it's a schoolboard decision. it's a lack of balance. it spreads to people that work for me. them. >> we have cameras. where we interact. >> i never knew that. >> is anyone looking at me. >> if anyone worked in the suppose of our office, it would be on security camera. >> does it change behaviour? >> no. >> you are loud on and off camera, it ends the he started it or she started it. if there's a fight between two students and a classroom. or violence against a student. if there is surveillance, it should exxon rate. >> how long until the n.s.a. has access. feeling. >> is this violence, is it done.

conversation. >> i want to have a place where students can write in anonymously. principal blah, blah, blah, is doing this. everyone feels like they can say there's an issue coming up. >> there may be issues of whistle blowing and trust. there may be times when in a norm circumstance they may go office, or this teacher is abusive. they are not doing it now if the principal is wearing a body camera, are they? >> i don't think they are. what you were saying about the dynamics, immigration, there's a lot of fear of parents coming undocumented. i'm thinking wow, if they knew they'd be on camera when they came to school to talk to the principle. -- principal. they'd never come to school. >> you want to create an

atmosphere of unity. >> 2050, someone is running for president. the video of them, 13 years old, throwing a tantrum. >> this is the new... >> i'll write the novel. >> this is the world of iphone. >> you have police interactions caught on tape. >> whether or not they are wearing body cameras, there are videos taken by students. there is an abusive teacher abusing someone on politics or religion, unacceptable in the classroom. someone says here is the tape. i think the tale of the tape, you know, eliminates the grey area of he said, she said. thank you so much. straight ahead. the u.s. government took homes decades ago. climate change is sinking them into the sea.

>> it's on the front lines, an island is becoming increasingly and rapidly uninhabitable. >> [crowd chanting] hell no gmo. >> they're slamming a technology that could be used to solve problems for people who desperately need it. >> they get exited about technology whether it's in their phone or in their car, so why is it so weird on their plate? >> something's going into food that shouldn't really be there. >> techknow investigates. >> you could not pay me to fake data.

>> we're here to fully get into

imagine you once lost nearly everything, home, country, way of life - only to find you are losing it again. that's what it's like to be a bikini islander. they were relocated in 1946 when the u.s. government used bikini to test nuclear bombs. they were forced to move from place to place in the marshalls where they face a new threat, climate change. sheila macvicar, host of "compass", went to the marshall islands in and saw the

challenges facing the bikinians. >> when you met the people and heard their stories, did they feel like a defeated people? >> i don't think defeated is quite the right word. betrayed, certain. they feel very strongly that promises that the u.s. government made to them, and the initial relocation in 1946 were not kept. that in their understanding, and perhaps in the undsing of american officials at the time, they thought they'd be off the island for a short period of time, when the americas were done with nuclear testing, they'd be able to return. >> that has not been possible. there's a disconnect when they talk to the current generation of american political leadership, and congress, where at an earlier point in time there was a clear awareness of what the bikinians had given up for the united states, for the united states to do its testing. there's a sense now, when they come to washington that people have forgotten and say too often

we are sitting in a congressman's office, and he is busy looking at a watch. >> let's look at the excerpt of the report you filed for "america tonight". >> movie reel: in the middle of the vast pacific ocean lies the atoll of bikini. >> reporter: 23 times from 1946 to 1958 the u.s. tested nuclear weapons here, turning the atoll into a radioactive uninhabitable waste land. her memory is fading. she recalls her home on bikini. she left. >> in america say we will take you, not for long. bring you back. >> reporter: the bikinians say they kept their part of the deal, surrendering their homeland. the americans have not kept theirs, they say you mention the generational

divide between lawmakers on capitol hill. you spoke to bikini islanders young and old. was there a generational divide there as well? >> well, we are now three and if some cases four generations into those who have still called themselves bike eebyans -- bikiniians and have never lived in the bikini atoll. it's a strong part of their identity. and when you - what you see when you talk to the people, there's a split. but the split is more about what happens next. the groups are living essentially on two different islands in. one is increasingly and rapidly uninhabitable. because of yearly inunstations that come with the spring tides. for the bikinians, they are thinking we may have to leave, and leave now. the other group of bikinians say okay, we think we have a little

bit of time. we need to plan for this. there was a disparity in terms of if you will, urgency. >> a lot of times as journalists when we cover anything related to climate change, it's abstract and political. you were there on ground zero, you got to experience it. what was it like covering the climate change you. >> it's on the front lines of climate change. the islands in, not just the marshalls and other islands in and they watch it happen. it's not an abstract, it's a daily thing. it's a part of people's every day conversation. >> you can't say more about the reports much. >> you can see more of the reports on "compass". thank you sheila macvicar for joining the show. >> the conversation continues on

♪ >> we've come a long way. but a couple of big issues still are open. >> a night at the round table. talks of a third bail-out for greece drag on as a possible deadline looms. hello. i am darren jordan. also on the head, on the version of breakthrough. iran and u.s.a. close to signing a historic deal. >> the search is on for mexico's drug pin after he escapes from prison again through a tubal