as the president will be sitting next to the president in general. we will hopefully be able to see what the commotion is all about. megyn: he appears to be walking to the podium, getting ready. bill: what a day. it continues on "happening now." . [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- jon: muammar qaddafi, considered a terrorist for many year, is now welcome to york, making this speech on the heels of a speech

by american president barack obama. we're going to listen to a moment to the speech. >> distinuished members of the general assembly of the united nations,  would like to welcome you. it is my hope that this gathering will be an historic one in the history of the world. [inaudible] in the name of 1000 traditional african kingdoms, and in your own name.

this is the first time we have been hosted by this president of the united states. we greet him, because it is his hosting country. this meeting comes at the corner of a time when the whole world should come together and unite, putting the efforts together to defeat these challenges which constitute a common enemy to all of us. challenges of climate, the challenges of the international capitalist deterioration, and the food crisis.

jon: for the moment, we have lost the hookup to the official untranslation of colonel -- thed

nations was established by countries against the germans at the time. the united nations we have today is different, but the united nations were the countries coming together against germany at the end of the second world war. we were not present at the time. and the united nations was created according to these countries, and they wanted from us to wear the clothes or the suit. this is the purpose of the united nations as it was signed

40 years ago. this happened during the absence of over 165 countries. the ratio is one of eight. one was present and eight were absent. they created or made the charter, and i have a copy of it. the preamble of the united nations is different from the articles. how this came to exist is that those who attended in 1945 all participated in the preamble, but they left the articles and the provisions -- they left that to the experts and the countries who were most interested, which are the countries who came

together to create the organization against the germans. everything that came after that is a contradiction with the preamble. this is what we are rejecting. this came to an end during the second world war. [no audio] the preamble says that nations are equal whether they are small or big. are we equal? no. the preamble says that all nations are equal whether they are small missions or they are

big nations. do we have the rights of the veto? the preamble says that we are equal in our rights. whether we are big or small. that is what we have agreed in the preamble. so the veto is against the charter. we do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it. neither do we recognize that -- it. the charter states -- the preamble, i mean -- that we shall not resort to the military force unless it is a common interest. this is the preamble, which we were happy to signed. -- to sign.

it says that armed forces are only used in the common interest of all nations. but after that, what happened? 65 wars broke out after the establishment of the united nations. 65. and of the victims are millions more than the victims of the second world war, and the aggression and forced that was used in those wars in the common interest of all of us was in the interest of the few countries, but not in the interest of all of the nation's. -- all of the nations. this is in full contradiction of the united nations charter.

we do things according to it which we agreed otherwise. we are not afraid, and we're not be nice to anybody. we're talking about the future. there is no hypocrisy, no diplomacy, because it is a decisive an important measure -- and important measure to understand the hypocrisy of 65 wars created after the united nations. if there is a use of force, the preamble states, then there must be -- it must be united nation'' force.

not one country or two countries or three countries using the force. all of the united nations will decide to go to war to maintain peace and world security. after the establishment of the united nations, if there is any country their -- if there are countries there, they should all check the aggression. if libya makes an attack against france, the whole united nations should check that aggression against france.

all of us, we have to protect the sovereignty of our own nations collectively. but 65 aggressive wars took place without any actions from the united nations to stop them and checked the aggression -- check the aggression. [unintelligible] these countries actually used aggressive force against people. we are supposed to believe these countries will help find peace and security in the world, but they participated in the worst.

-- in the wars. they initiative wars that amounted to millions of victims -- they initiated wars that amounted to millions of victims. so in this charter, there is nothing the united nations will interfere with. is the internal affairs of on certain -- it is the internal affairs of uncertain government. [unintelligible] it is the responsibility of society and the people concerned with sovereign countries.

rome -- one day, the senators of rome gave a mandate that was at the time good for rahm. no one could say to rome at the time that you give caesar of veto -- a veto. the veto was not mentioned in the charter. we joined the united nations because we thought we were equal. but there are countries that can object to all the decisions we can make. four countries -- china, we have voted to give them a member state. this was done democratically,

but we think it was a dictatorial procedure done against are well -- our will. reform is not increasing of the member states. it just makes things worse. i do not know how this will be translated, but if we add more water, it will be more money -- more muddy. this is a typical expression. to make things even worse by how? because many big countries will be added further to the big

countries we already have. from here, we reject having any more seats. the solution is not in having more seats. [unintelligible] countries are now coming together in what might be called the d-100 -- g-100. the forum of small states or f.o.s.s. these countries will be crushed by superpowers.

the store should be closed -- this door should be closed. we reject it strongly. and you open the door to have more seats in the security council -- this will add more poverty, more injustice at the world level, and more competition. there will be high competition between certain countries between italy, germany, indonesia, india, pakistan, the philippines, japan, brazil, argentina, algeria, libya, egypt, congo, turkey, greece, or

kenya. all of these countries will ask to have their own terms. it will be impractical. what is the solution? the solution provided by the general assembly, binding resolutions taken by the general assembly -- it is that we should close the admission of member states, and we do not have any more member states. in place of that will be the achievement of democracy based

on equality between member states. there should be equality between member states. membership will be for the associations, not for the countries. if we open the door for more members and more memberships for the country's -- countries, this will give a right to have a member seat in the country. [unintelligible] if a seat is given to germany, italy might say they were an aggressive country. if we give in bse -- if we give

india a seat, pakistan will be a danger. if we give it to japan, we should give it to the biggest moslem country and the world. -- the biggest muslim country in the world. libya has discarded their wmd program, south africa will do the same, tanzania will do the same. all of these countries are important. this door should be -- this is a falsehood and an exposed trek -- trick. we need to add more to the

superpowers that have hurt us? the goal is to achieve democracy at a level of the general congress, the transformation of the security council power to the general assembly. the security council will need an extra minute to implement the decisions taken by the general assembly. it will be the legislative assembly. this is democracy, and the security council should respond before the general assembly and we should not accept it. these are the religious leaders, the members of the general assembly, and the resolution should be binding. it is said that they should do a recommendation. the security council should do this and that according to the

rules and ordinances. these are the united nations, not the security council. it includes all the countries of the world, not just 10. how can we be happy if 10 countries controlled the whole world? [unintelligible] you are like high bark. you are without any real substance. no more, no less. you just make a speech and then disappear. this is who you are right now.

the security council is an executive body for the resolutions taken by the general assembly only. in this case, there will be no competition for the security council member states. once they amend a resolution by the general assembly, there will be no need for competition. it is a representative for all nations, but not by the state. this is what was submitted by the general assembly. a permanent seat for all states, for all the union, i mean.

27 countries in the european union should have permanent seats. 53 african countries should have permanent seats. the russian federation should have permanent seats. the united states of america, it already has permanent seats on the council. [unintelligible] the islamic conference should have a member see -- seat.

then we have the g-100, the forum of small countries. perhaps they would have a permanent seat, also. if there are countries outside the ones i mentioned, may be a seat will be given to them by rotation every six months, outside the union, or australia, or another country. perhaps the russian federation or another member in the european union or the latin american union. perhaps this is the solution. no, this is meant for a vote, for the general assembly. this is a very important issue, and i want to mention that the

general assembly is the master of the world. we are the nations. anyone outside, we do not recognize. we need to set up the necessary committees. [unintelligible] this is justice. this is democracy. the security council will be occupied by the country's -- the countries with nuclear weapons. this is terrorism.

if you want a peaceful, united world, we should do that. it is up to you. [unintelligible] or we can fight until the end of the world. these members should have the right of the veto. or we should cancel the whole veto with the new formation. anyhow, the new security council that has submitted the new proposals to the general assembly for voting will be an executive council which will be under the control of the general assembly, which will have the real power for making rules. all countries will be equal in the same way that they are equal

in the general assembly. in the general assembly, we have equal votes. we should also be equals next door, at the security council. a country has a veto, a country does not have a veto, a country has a member seat, a country should not have a member seat. we should not accept it. we should not be subjected to that. we should not accept any resolution like that. we are independent, and we are here to decide the future of the world in a democratic way. all people, small and big, are equal. this is terrorism. terrorism can be in different

forms. we should resort to the majority of the votes of the general assembly alone. if the general assembly takes a vote, it should be implemented. nobody should say they are higher than the general assembly. anybody who says that should leave the united nations and be alone. democracy is not for the rich or for the one who is poorer than us. all nations should have equal footing. now the security council is political feudalism for those with permanent seats protected by them and used against us. they should not be called the security council. they should be called the terror council.

you see, my brothers, in our political life, if the security council is used against us, then you go to the security council. they resort to the security council. if they have no need to use it against us, they ignore the security council. in the charter, they have -- they respect the charter. they look for the seventh chapter, against insubordination. but if they violated the

charter, they would ignore it as if it did not exist at all. if the veto and the permanent seat are given to the ones who have the power, it is injustice and terrorism that should not be excepted by us. we should not live under the shadow of the injustice. superpowers have interests, complicated interests, and they use the power they have to protect their interests. the third world is terrified and being terrorized.

ever since the security council was established in 1949, it did not provide security. on the contrary, it provided terror and sanctions. it is used against us only. for this reason, we are not committed to it here to security council resolutions after this speech on the 40th anniversary. 64 wars took place, breaking out against the world. [unielligible] big countries were against us, and the united states did not take action to stop these wars and depressions -- aggressions.

the general assembly will vote for these historic resolutions. we continue to get one nation, or we break into two. each nation will have its own general assembly, its own security council along into it where they have equal footing, standing on equal footing, or the big countries with the permanent seats and the rights will stay in their own councils. they should exercise a veto. if they want to stay in permanent seats, that is ok, but it is a threat for our neighbors.

[unintelligible] we are treated as second-class nations. these are big nations, sacred nations, respected nations of the world which represent 190 countries. we know that they can use this against us. if it is not used for big countries with currencies -- those countries do not have the right for vetoes. and resolutions taken against us have become a travesty of the united nations, and there have been worse -- wars, war crimes,

and genocide, all in violation of the security council. nobody cares about the security council. [unintelligible] the security council has become isolated. [unintelligible] the european union has already established the security council.

they have not provided us with security. that is why we want to create regional security council's -- councils. we're not committed to the rules of the security council because it is not democratic and no one can force us to be a member and to obey the resolution is given by the security council's -- the resolutions given by the security councils. now, brothers, there is no respect to the united nations, and no regard for the general assembly. they have no decisions that are binding. it is a judicial, international body, and countries are

rejected. court orders have been refused to be implemented. the iaea is important in the united nations. countries are not responsible for it or under control. we have discovered that this is only used against us. if it is international, all the countries of the world should be under the jurisdiction of this one.

if not, from this speech, we should close the door and not accepted -- accept it. [unintelligible] we will ask if they inspect all the nuclear supplies. if they say yes, then ok, we accept it. but if they say they will not go to countries with nuclear power and have jurisdiction, we should close the door and not accept it.

[unintelligible] i made a call about the agreement to increase nuclear supplies. i was told that they were not aware of it. these big powers -- i cannot ask them. i said that this is not an international organization. [unintelligible] this is rejected totally. as regards africa, if you want reform to the issues, you take

up a vote and now you have a permanent member seat in the security council. even if we're not talking about the united nations. [unintelligible] the african union deserves a permanent seat, and it has nothing to do with the united nations reforms. this is a priority that is high on the agenda for the general assembly, and no one can say that the african union does not deserve of permanency. -- a permanent seats -- a

permanent seat. no one can argue or no one can refuse what i am saying. -- no one can refute what i am saying. it is also for voting. [unintelligible] why do africans go to europe? why do issues go to europe? why do latin american people go to europe? because europe -- they took the

minds, the wealth, the resources, the oil, the fruit, the vegetables, the stock, the people, and they used them. now, the new generations are looking for these ones which have been usurped and stolen. [unintelligible] these nations are trying to bring back their wealth. make a decision to bring these resources all at once, so there is no more immigration. let us have the wealth looted

from us. africa deserves compensation. $7.7 trillion. $7.77 trillion. that is the compensation africa deserves from the countries that colonized africa. if you do not give them this amount, they have the right to burn the money backed -- bring the money back. no immigration to italy, because italy -- [unintelligible]

reaching an agreement with the italians, italy accepted that colonization was wrong and we should not do it again, and if there is an attack by air or sea against the libyan people, libya will pay it a quarter of a billion dollars for people who lost fingers or hands because of mines during the second world war. they were sorry and they said they would never occupy another country. this was italy during the fascist regime. italy has done the glorified

thing and civilized thing and should be commended under burlesque on a -- under berlusconi. they made their contribution, and this is the result. they found a cause for compensation. why? so we do not have more colonization. so we do not have a repeat of colonization. so no country will be big and try to colonize another country, so this country will know that there will be compensation. colonization should be incriminated, and country should pay compensation who have done damage to the people in that area. they should be compensated for the damage and suffering that they have inflicted during their colonial power.

>> the other point i would hope that we have to face patiently -- but before i say this point, the circumstances are rather sensitive. there are two things i would like to shed some light upon and mention. africans are happy, proud. this is an historic event. one day that the black does not go with the white goes -- where the white goes.

now, the american people, the black, african, kenyan president. you voted for him and he is part of that. you want a change. obama is a glimpse into the dark for the next four or eight years, and i am afraid we might go back to square one. we are content and happy if obama can stay forever as president of the united states of america. this speech made by obama just before me -- it is completely

different from any american president we have witnessed. the former americans used to say, they say, "we shall send you the -- all the weapons. we shall send you the sandstorms and the rolling thunder, and we shall send the president's roses to the libyan

children. we shall send you the rolling thunder like the one sent to vietnam. the same way it was sent to vietnam, and the sandstorm like it was sent to iran. the sandstorm to iran. and we shall send you the poisonous rose that reasgan sent t -- reagan sent to the libyan children." we thought that america would

protect us and send us peace. [unintelligible] this was the logical thing. whether you like it or not, we should punish anyone who is against this. it is completely different today. america cannot solve the problem alone of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. that was said in the deposition. we should not continue. we accept it and applaud it. we have come to the united nations to talk against this other. it is true that we come here, we should have equal footing, and

she says that democracy -- he says that democracy should not be important. he did say that this is an internal affair of everybody. what we hear right now is a true sense of the word when he said that democracy can be imposed -- cannot be imposed from outside. and so we have to be cautious. the whole world has so many problems. should it be like that?

can we be nations on equal footing? let's have an answer. anyone have an answer that it is better to have a world of so many polarities -- why can't we have people standing? should we have bombs? should we have guns? why should we have a world of so many polarities? we reject that. we do not accept that world living not equal, big and small. the other point that is sensitive is the quarters of the united nations. wheatley's can have your attention? please, can i have your attention?

all of you came, crossing the atlantic ocean to reach this place. why? is this jerusalem? is this the vatican? is this mecca? all of you are tired, having jet lag, suffering from jet lag, tired, sleepless nights, very tired. physically speaking, you are very low. one person just arrived now, flying 20 hours, and you want him to make a speech. all of you are asleep. all of you are tired. you are lacking energy because of having to travel long journey. why do we do that? some of our country's --

countries are asleep, and you should be asleep because your biological mind is accustomed to being asleep at this time. in libya, it is 11:00 in the morning. when i wake up at 11:00, i am supposed to be awake. at 4:00, i am awake. think about it. why do we think about a place, america, looking after the headquarters and looking after

the peace and security of heads of state who come here, they spend a lot of money in new york and all of america. i want to relieve america from this hardship. america, thank you for all of the trouble that you have put on yourself. we want everyone to make america secure and europe's secure, and we should not have the responsibility of looking after the security. perhaps a terrorist will make a bomb or an explosion in a market and then this place is a target by al qaeda, this same place. this very same place. this same building. and why? because it was beyond their power. and the next target will be -- and i am not saying this out of

a sense that we have members of al qaeda and detained -- members of al qaeda detained -- you never know what will happen. perhaps america will be targeted again by a rocket or perhaps -- we want to relieve america from this worry. we want to take it to a place where it is not targeted. after 50 years, we should be taken to another part of the hemisphere. [unintelligible]

this is not an insult to america. we should thank america. this was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now. of course, this is also put for a vote in the general assembly. only in the general assembly. article 23 of the agreement 64, it says that -- [inaudible] jane: libyan leader muammar

qaddafi they're addressing the united nations. it seems like we have momentarily lost the translation. do we have it back? not yet. this is his first visit to the united states since coming to power years ago. let's take a listen. >> america is targeted by the terrorists and by al qaeda. america has the right to protect security measures. we are not blaming america for about -- for that. but we do not have to tolerate these measures. we do not have to come to new york and submit. how can i crossed the atlantic without a co-pilot? -- how can i cross the atlantic

without a co-pilot? when another president claims that his honor guard can not come because of a misunderstanding, or he cannot come to america because he was not granted an entry visa. you see these security measures, very strict, and if there is a problem that the country has, they will put restrictions for the movement of the member so they cannot allow free movement. this is what is submitted for voting for the general

assembly's decision. it's 51% say, we will come to the second votes -- if 51% say, we will come to the second vote. [unintelligible] why don't we go to 1000 with this? no one can blame us. [unintelligible] we are not one to restrict you to 100500 visas -- 100 or 500 visas. [unintelligible] it will be in beijing, in china,

or in the capital city of india. i do not think there will be an objection to that. and then you will say to you think before this proposal -- you will say you thank me for this proposal of eliminating suffering. no one can blame america. no one can say that -- nobody should have that thought. america, i am sure, will be committed to international obligations. they will not be angry and they will thank you for alleviating hardship of america. they will be happy that you have taken away the hardship and the restrictions. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- then we come to the issues that

will be taken by the general assembly. either we do the right thing, whether we have anything, this is not a normal meeting. this is not a normal gathering. obama has said this is an historical meeting, not a normal one. now, why did the wars happen after the second world war? where was the united nations? they should be investigations and court orders. if there were massacres, we should start with the korean war. this was taken up after the establishment of the united nations. how war broke out and millions of people fell victims, and perhaps there was even a nuclear -- the war was about a nuclear

war, and those who are responsible for causing the war should be tried and pay the consequences. the files should be open. three countries enjoyed the right, the veto of the security council. the army was destroyed, thousands were killed, towns and beaches were destroyed. how such things happened during the era of the united nations? how can we guarantee that such a thing will be defeated unless we review the past? this is a dangerous thing, the korean war. we should open the files print then we come to the vietnam war.

3 million victims of the vietnam war. during 11 days, bombs were used more than the bombs used during the second world war. the bombs used in 12 days were more than that. this fierce work took place after the establishment of the united nations, and we decided there would be no more. this is the future of mankind, and we cannot keep quiet. how can we be safe? how can we feel accomplished? this is the future of the world, and we have to make sure that such wars will not be created in the future.

[unintelligible] 4000 people were killed, and the president of this country was taken as a prisoner and put in prison. noriega should be released, and we should open the file on how we give the rights to a country that is a member state of the united nations to wage a war against a country and take the president of the country as a victim in prison. who would except that -- accept that? we should make investigations, and each one of us could face the same destiny. especially if this aggression is made by a member state that is in possession of a member seat

in the security council. this country was attacked and invaded, even though it was a member state. it is the smallest country in the world. after the establishment of the security council, after the resolutions, the president of this country, more special, was assassinated -- morris bishop was assassinated. how can we guarantee that the united nations is good or not? can we be safe and happy about our future, or not? can we trust the security council, or not? we have to check and investigate the bombing of the somalis. they were a member state of the united nations. [unintelligible]

who give the green light for such a country to be attacked -- who gave the green light for such a country to be attacked? it was built step-by-step, piece by piece after being destroyed by hitler. we destroyed it. hitler built this country step- by-step and brick by brick and we come and dismember it for imperious personal interests. how can we be happy? the general assembly should make investigations and to decide who should be tried for the icc. then we come to the iraq war, the mother of all evils.

the invasion of iraq itself should be investigated by the general assembly. it was in violation of the united nations charter. iraq is an independent country, a member in the general assembly. how this can -- we have already read in the charter that it should stop. we've come to the general assembly and resorted to the general assembly, saying that we should go there and start up for the checking. we go after this investigation,

but our countries fought with foreign countries. [unintelligible] the un charter was respected the first time, and the second time, we wanted to use it to stop the war against iraq, and nobody uses the u.n. charter. it was discarded in the dustbin. why? the general assembly should investigate why there is any reason to invade iraq, because it is mysterious, ambiguous. it was a serious violation of the charter. the invasion itself is wrong.

we want the icc. we want to take this file, and those who have committed against the people for genocide should be tried. [unintelligible] for noriega to be tried, that is an easy job to be done. either it is meant for all of us, big or small, or we should not accept it. if anybody who commits a crime can be tried -- we are not animals. [unintelligible]

we have the right. we're ready to fight. they have already tested us, and we can put up the test. the other thing -- how come the prisoners of war in iraq can be sentenced to death? when iraq was invaded, it was made as a prisoner of war. he should have not been tried and hanged. we want to know why? who sentenced the death of the president of iraq? is there an answer to that? we know who tried him.

we know the identity of the judge to put on -- who on the sacrifice day put the rope around the neck of the president and hanged him. this is a civilized war. these are permanent -- prisoners of war in civilized countries. and how the president of the country should be sentenced to death and hanged, do they have the right? are the legal people? are the members of the judicial -- are they legal people? are they members of the judicial system? the american president and the british president are wearing masks, and they have already put to death the president of iraq.

why don't they uncover their face? why don't we know their rank? who is he? how come the president of a member state is sentenced to death and killed? we do not know the identity. those countries have the duty to answer these questions. they should have legal status. even for a layman, let alone the

president of the country to be sentenced and put to death in such a way. this is the iraq war. point no. 3 in the iraqi war is the [inaudible] which is a disgrace to mankind. the united nations also should not forget it. the united nations should -- the general assembly of the united nations should investigate and look into these murders. the abu ghraib prisons -- the prisoners of war who were abused their, dogs were used on them and men were made love to.

there are soldiers there, and they are raped in prison. this is against civilization. we should not keep quiet. we should know the facts. up until now, a quarter of a million prisoners are being badly treated. we should open an investigation for that. then we have the afghan war. there should also be an investigation.

why are we against taliban? if they want to make a religious state, it can be like the vatican. afghanistan is a religious country. [unintelligible] those terrorist to hit new york city -- those terrorists who hit new york city, are they taliban? why afghanistan? i encourage my friends of

britain and america to send more troops and continue this bloodbath, but they will never come to a fruitful results in iraq or afghanistan. look what happened to them in iraq, even though it is a desert, let alone afghanistan. it is a mountainous area. if i want to deceive them, i will say to them, ok, carry on your war in iraq and afghanistan. but i want to see the people from america and britain and other countries fighting in iraq and pakistan -- and afghanistan, i tell them, leave the countries alone and let them govern themselves. there was a civil war in america, there was a civil war in spain and china and everywhere.

let there be a civil war in iraq. let everyone have a civil war. who said that if taliban becomes in government that would have a nuclear weapon or missiles? those airplanes that hit new york, this very same place, did they take off from afghanistan or iraq? no. these planes were in jfk airport. how can they go and hit afghanistan? they are not afghan. they're not taliban. they're not iraqis. how come we keep that quiet? we should never be different. we are committed to peace, world

peace and security. we want to save mankind and humanity. we should also open investigations of the assassinations. we want to know how and african liberator -- hal and african liberator and leader was assassinated -- we want to know how and african liberator and leader was assassinated. he was assassinated, he was killed. we want to know the facts about

that. this should be reopened again. who bombed the airplane in 1962, 1961? [unintelligible] the secretary-general of the united nations had his airplane bomb. and the killing of kennedy and 63 -- 1963 or 1962 -- we want to know why. who killed him? somebody by the name of lee harvey. why did he kill him? why did it this is really kill the killer of kennedy -- why did

this is really -- why did this israeli kill the killer of kennedy? we have to open the files. we know when we read it that kennedy wanted to investigate the nuclear reactor. then it has to do with the security council. we should open this file. and the killing of martin luther king. this black human rights activist, his killing was a plot, and we should know why he was killed and who killed him. [unintelligible]

the independence of this country was not respected. submarines and ships came across the shores of tunisia, and no one is blamed just for that. [unintelligible] three palestinians were killed in a country that is a sovereign member state of the security council and general assembly. they were living peacefully. they were attacked. we should know who killed them.

these violations of mankind should not be repeated. [unintelligible] these are crimes. we cannot keep them quiet. otherwise, we shall make sacrifices. we are not animals, and year after year we are attacked.

we have the right to live, and the global order is meant for all of us. we can never live humiliated on this earth. 3000 people were killed in a massacre. this area was under the israeli protection, and sirius massacres happened there. children were killed. lebanon is an independent state. it is a member of the general

assembly, and a member of the general assembly was occupying and controlling it. then the massacre took place. the 2008 massacre, 3200 victims, between children and women, were killed and massacred in the year of 2008. 50 clinics were destroyed. 40 doctors were killed while

they were exercising their humane activity. the commanders -- commiters are still alive and should be tried. protected people are not supposed to be tried. if there under the control of international law, they should be tried and faced the crimes they committed. otherwise, we should never accept the rules of the icc. the rules and orders are not respected and are not implemented, and the general assembly is nothing.

what is the united nations? it is nothing. it is insignificant. what is it? we do not have united nations. piracy may be a phenomenon along the high seas. we're talking about piracy of somalia. somalis are not pirates. we are the pirates. we went there, we took their economy, we took their fish, we took their wealth, and we all are pirates. we all went their -- there. the somalis are protecting their own fish, their food. they have become pirates because

they are defending the food of their children, the food of their people. now we want to address this matter wrongly? should we send more ships? we should send warships to the pirates who have attacked and usurp the economic zones and the world of the somalis, the food of their children. i have seen the pirates, and i have told them that i should make a convincing agreement that the world will respect their economic zone, 200 miles, according to the original law. they should be protected because their wealth belongs to the somali people, and all countries will stop disposing of poisonous waste along the shores of somalia. and in return, somali's will not attack the ships anymore. we should oppose and draft of

this international treaty and give the general assembly solutions. not sending more military ships to fight. no. that is not the solution. [unintelligible] the way we addressed piracy and terror is wrong -- the way that we address piracy and terror is wrong. we do make control over them. it is a commission, it is business. the capitalist countries will have a vaccination -- they will create the vaccinations. this is merely a shame and bad ethics.

medicine should not be sold. it should not be a commission business. you should make a declaration that medicine should be free of charge, that vaccinations should be given free to children so that the capitalist countries make the viruses and make the vaccinations and want to make a profit. why don't we make it free of charge? why don't we give it free? we should give it free, not sell it. we should create and manufacture vaccinations and protect our own people. jane: are their time limits at united nations? that is libyan leader muammar

qaddafi there. he is still going. he has pushed the entire schedule back today. if i were polite, i would say this is a wide-ranging speech. not so much. it is just rambling. he called the security council the terror council, among other things. jon: back in the 1980's, the cia concluded he was borderline crazy, and what he has just done has perhaps enhanced the reputation determined by the cia. eric has more. jane: president obama spoke before qaddafi. has the secretary of state stuck around? how about the president? >> the president left after the speech. he could have heard qaddafi endorse him. clinton and rice also left,

leaving what they call a low- level note taker behind the desk of united states. that is the ultimate snub. that anyone is left in the room is astounding. let me start with a top issue he raised. he kept calling barack obama "our son." he called the president of the united states "my son." he said that because of the president's african heritage, with his father having been going in kenya. qaddafi is chairman of the african union and take that very seriously. what a rambling diatribes this speech has been, even as a competition to what fidel castro used to say here at the united stations -- united nations. qaddafi touch on everything, from nuclear weapons to the assassination of president

kennedy. he did not talk about his actions in the past dealing with pan am 1 03. just an outstanding speech. jane: while qaddafi has been speaking, we have numerous stories breaking.

jane: a whole lot is happening

now. lydia's president is not the only one at the united nations today. president obama preceded him, addressing the national assembly -- addressing the general assembly and asking for a new era of negotiation. jon: in florida, waterlogged homes. will those folks catch a break soon? jane: have you seen this video? a little girl is smashed by that car there. she survived and is ok. how in the world did that happen? we will show you. jon: there is plenty of breaking news to tell you about, including a bus accident in phoenix and the search for a killer in illinois. harris faulkner has details for us from the breaking news desk. >> let's start with the bus accident, because people want to know right away. a school bus involved in an accident in the northern part of

phoenix. one person has died. when you see these pictures, they are chilling. a compact car sliding into the side of a school bus and getting pinned underneath. as you guys were covering what was happening at the united nations, they were trying to extract two people out of that car, which has just been crushed from this bus that has fallen on it in northern phoenix. here is the fortunate part. there were no children on the bus. the driver was hurt, but not too badly. one person died in the car, and another, 18 years old, is seriously injured and in the hospital. in illinois, there's a manhunt for somebody who killed an entire family there. i think we have pictures of the mother and the kids. the children ranged in age from 16 all the way to sri. the only survivor in this

massacre at a house was a 3- year-old girl. she is an a peoria hospital under heavy guard at this point. the sheriff in that area is saying he wants to see everybody keeping their doors and windows locked, especially on -- at night, and keep track of their children and neighbors. they think that the killer is driving an s-10 pickup with chrome exhaust pipes. i will stay on this story and update you as it warrants. jon: the police department and fbi are shooting down reports that a sweeping terror investigation might have been compromised. it is the investigation that led to the arrest of najibullah

zazi, a colorado bus driver. his father was picked up with the investigation, as well as a religious leader in new york. that is zazi on the left, his father in the center, and imam on the opposite side. afzali, the imam, was reportedly caught on a wiretap tipping off zazi that he was being investigated. collaboration is an essential part of what helps protect new york city from a terror attack. let's bring in steve pomerantz, a former chief of counter- terrorism. are these agencies having an internal ego clash? >> it is hard to tell.

i think the way you start this conversation is recognizing the great work that they are doing. it would appear that this is a serious plot they thwarted, they interdicted, and they are conducting a sweeping investigation. could there be internal differences in the way they approach the case? of course. that is always possible within any single agency that there are differences of opinion, and when you get into the interagency process, there's always that possibility. you are dealing with teterboro proud organizations with their own cultures and their own way of doing things -- two proud organizations with their own culture and their own way of doing things. but what you are looking at is a fast-moving, well-coordinated, well-handled investigation. jon: what court documents indicate is that somebody from

the new york police department's intelligence department showed the imam a picture of zazi and asked if he knew him. van as the -- then, the imam got on the phone to warn zazi. let's talk about the net effect. does that look the investigation? >> not necessarily. certainly not. if that was true, if it was done in that uncoordinated fashion, that is not a good thing, certainly. but there are lots of other explanations as to why that investigative step may have been taken, and it is certainly possible that it was vented -- vetted through the task force, even though the interview was conducted by other police officers. so we should not pass judgment that quickly until we have more facts. certainly one misstep like that

will not blow the investigation. it may cause you to have to take a different tactics you did not want to take, it may cause the expenditure of additional resources or change the complexion of things, but given what we're seeing is this case unfolds, with additional suspects, additional actions being taken by the fbi and nypd, it does not appear to me that this investigation was -- is in trouble in any significant way. jon: all indications are that a serious plot has been averted here, and hats off to the investigators who did that. jane: we have been looking at these incredible pictures four days of the devastating and deadly flooding in the southeast for georgia. also, this car veers out of control and heads for a little girl. she escaped.

@

>> i am harris faulkner at the breaking news desk. we want to take you to nassau, bahamas, were john travolta and kelly preston arrive to the court room a short time ago for a tria dealing with the death of their son. he died january 2, and now a paramedic and former senator in the bahamas are allegedly trying to extort $25 million from the movie star and his wife. they say that they were suppressing -- that they were not allowed to do what they could to save the sun and that the trouble is kept them from that -- they were not allowedd to do what they could to save the son, and that the travoltas kept them from that.

travolta says that he performed cpr on his son that morning and numerous attempts were made to save his life. but these people were trying to get the travoltas to pay them money to not tell the truth about their son's death. their son died of a seizure january 22. jon: a standoff at a va hospital has ended peacefully more than seven hours after it began. cops say it began when a gunman walked in, firing a shot at the ceiling of the hospital's emergency room. cops say he was screaming for help and told the technician that he just killed his parents. no one at a hospital sir. police so far refused to identify this man, but he is a personal interest in the shooting deaths of his parents in their home last night.

jane: take a look at this video of a car which mrs. a little grow by inches. this is from a store in washington state. this car flies out of nowhere in reverse, smashing her up against the wall. but as you can see, she got out of the way. the back of the car was lifted out of the ground and stopped by metal poles in place to keep cars from hitting the building. the driver of the car is now charged with reckless driving and driving without a license. jon: he made his 18 months old -- 18-month-old niece smoke marijuana. now, an ohio man is facing 10 years behind bars. the videotape shows melvyn blevins giving her a marijuana pipe while his girlfriend holds her. he also played guilty in march

to various greg -- drug charges. girls friend, just 16 years old, was sentenced to six months in juvenile detention. jane: on the border with mexico, there was a heavy exchange of fire that shut down one of the biggest border crossings in our country, and authorities found 74 people packed in three vans trying to cross the border. we will update you. .

sqñg (announcer) your doctor knows tylenol doesn't interfere with certain high blood pressure medicines doctors recommend tylenol

jane: police have arrested two of the three drivers suspected of trying to storm passed agents at the nation's busiest border crossing. the vans were packed with suspected illegals.

there were said to be for 74 people. at least one person was shot. the third driver escaped by foot back to mexico. the people were all taken into custody. the san diego and tijuana crossing was closed. you cannot imagine what kind of traffic jam that created. jon: it was a pretty strange 90 minutes at the un just a little while ago. qaddafi took the microphone in his first big speech to the united nations. it talked about everything from -- he referred to president obama as "my son"and so on and so forth. it was a strange one.

that is qaddafi. the cia once concluded that he was borderline crazy. he may have enhanced to that reputation with his speech today. in the meantime, a major test of their political clout for president obama and russian president medvedev. they will meet face-to-face in a couple of hours. both are hoping to thaw the relationship since putin came to power. the former undersecretary of defense for policy and distinguished fellow at the csba. the russians were not happy that the u.s. intended to build this land-based missile interceptor system. mr. obama has canceled that. the russians should be rejoicing, right? >> this will be seen in russia and throughout central europe as

acquiescence in russian objections. the administration has gone to great pains to said it had nothing to do with that. unfortunately, whether or not that is true, no one in europe and no one in russia believes that. jon: would you expect the russians to turn around and offer us something of we are looking for from their side? >> russian spokesmen on this subject, both before and after the announcement, have said publicly that they do not regard this as a concession for which they need to pay anything. rather, it is just date rectification of typewriter error -- rectification of a prior error by the united states.

the united states is very worried about iran. should we expect some help from them there? >> that seems to be a true that some people had poured canceling it earlier. i do not see much sign of that either. just a few days ago, prime minister putin said he did not think there should be sanctions on iran. tomorrow, president obama will preside over a meeting of the security council that will do with the non-proliferation, and will pass a resolution on that. he mentioned iran and north korea as subjects of concern in his speech today, but i do not think there will be any mention by name in the resolution tomorrow. jon: after these two leaders made and as the relationship continues to evolve, we'll have you back on. thank you.

jane: the question has been out there since the death of ted kennedy, who will fill his seat in the senate? major garrett is now reporting that paul kirk will be named as the interim senator.