05/30/12 05/30/12 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is "democracy now!" >> the majority has concluded the swedish party was judicial authority within the many of both the free market position in the extradition act. it follows the request for mr. assange's extradition has been lawfully made in his appeal against extradition is accordingly dismissed. >> wikileaks founder julian assange loses his court battle in london as the british supreme court upholds his extradition to sweden to face questioning over alleged sex crimes.

we will speak with his lawyer helena kennedy and blogger glenn greenwald about the case in the future of wikileaks. president obama's secret kill list. new details have emerged of the president's role in targeted killings in pakistan, yemen and somalia. we look at the crisis in syria. >> we're at the tipping point. the syrian people do not want a future to be one of bloodshed in division. >> following a massacre in the village of houla, kofi annan warns the syrian peace plan is in shambles. we will speak with reporter charles glass just back from syria. all of that and more coming up. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. court hassupreme upheld the extradition of wikileaks founder julian assange to sweden after a more than yearlong legal fight. swedish authorities want to

question him over accusations of rape and a sexual assault made by two women. he has been under house arrest in britain since december 2010. his lawyers had argued the swedish public prosecutor did not have legal authority to issue the arrest warrant, but earlier today the british judge sided with sweden in a 5-2 decision. supporters of voiced fears he will wind up in the hands of the u.s. should assange be deported. he has been given 14 days to return to sweden. the u.s. and 11 other countries have formally expelled syrian diplomats following a massacre of over 100 people in the village of houla. in a coordinated action, countries including germany, france, britain, canada, and japan ordered the departure of syrian ambassadors from their capitals. in washington, state department's spokesperson victoria nuland said syria's top diplomat in the u.s. has been told to leave.

>> this morning, we call then syrian zuheir jabbour and gave him 72 hours to depart. we took this action in response to the massacre in the village of houla, absolutely indefensible, weil, despicable massacre against innocent children, women, shot at point- blank range by regime thugs, aided and abetted by the iranians who were actually bragging about it over the weekend. >> dozens of children were killed in the houla attack, which marked one of the deadliest single incidents of the 15-month uprising against bashar al-assad. it is widely believed syrian forces committed the slayings, but that remains unconfirmed. new video emerged tuesday from

survivors of the massacre, blaming syrian forces in describing the killings of their loved ones. >> they hit my husband with guns until his brains burst out before they shot and. they killed four of my daughters, sister-in-law and her two dead children. my cousin and her four children, my other sister-in-law and her daughter. >> following the killings in houla, u.n. arab league envoy kofi annan made an emergency trip to damascus to meet with al-assad. he said syria has reached a tipping point after more than a year of conflict. >> i shared with president al- assad my assessment the six- point plan is not being implemented as it must. we are at the to pinpoint. the syrian people do not want a future -- their future to be one of bloodshed and division, yet

the killings continue and the abuses are with us today. >> we will have more later in the broadcast. international tribunal has sentenced former liberian president charles taylor to 50 years in prison following his conviction on war crimes during sierra leone's civil war. taylor was found guilty last month of overseeing crimes including murder, rape, a conscripted child soldiers and sexual slavery. he is the first african head of state to be found guilty in an international court and the first head of state to be convicted since the second world war. u.s. officials confirmed earlier this year long-held suspicions taylor worked for the cia and other u.s. intelligence agencies during his emergence as a warlord in the 1980's. in bahrain, the pro-democracy activist zainab alkhawaja has been released from prison after a month behind bars. alkhawaja was jailed in april protesting the imprisonment of

his father -- her father, abdulhadi alkhawaja. zainab's release comes one day after the elder alkhawaja ended a more than three month hunger strike. the burmese pro-democracy leader aung san suu kyi has arrived in thailand for her first trip outside burma in 24 years. earlier today, aung san suu kyi that with a group of burmese migrant work is to discuss their labor conditions and mistreatment. aung san suu kyi was elected to burma's's parliament last month. the former communications director for british prime minister david cameron has been detained by police on suspicion of perjury in the latest case connected to allegations of phone hacking in rupert murdoch 's media empire. andy coulson served as editor of murdoch's now defunct news of the world tabloid before working for cameron and now being held for questioning over evidence to give as a witness and the 2010 perjury trial of the scottish politician tommy sheridan. mitt romney has officially wrapped up the republican

presidential nomination following his primary win in texas. bronner's opponents had already conceded the race, but his texas victory formally gives him the more than 1100 delegates needed for the nomination. he will be formally nominated at the republican convention in florida in august. a group of roughly two dozen african american pilots have sued united airlines saying they have been passed over for promotions because of their ethnicity. filed in san francisco federal court, pilots said united continental holdings, the parent of united airlines, discriminates against persons of color. the complete says almost all african american employees of the company are in non management roles. new figures show the u.s. is one of the highest child poverty rates in the so-called developed world. according to unicef, a 35 wealthy countries, only romania has a high your child poverty rate than the u.s.'s 23%.

death row prisoner convicted in 1979 for the murder of a teenage boy has hanged themselves. the body of james lee crummel was found hanging in his cell in san quentin prison. it comes months before voters are to vote on whether to abolish the death penalty. u.s. appeals court has given shell the go-ahead to pursue drilling in the alaskan arctic this year. alaska native groups oppose the efforts in the federal government had failed to properly consider the risks of arctic drilling. environmental groups delivered over 1 million signatures to the white house this month, asking obama to stop shell's plans. president obama awarded 13 people on tuesday with the nation's highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom. recipients included the folk legend bob dylan, the author toni morrison and united farm workers co-founder dolores huerta. >> honorees are blessed with an

extraordinary amount of talent, all of them are driven, but we could fill this role many times over with people who are talented and driven. what sets these men and women apart is the incredible impact they have had on so many people, not in short, blinding bursts, but steadily. it is over the course of a lifetime. >> those are some of the headlines. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> welcome to all our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. britain's supreme court has upheld the extradition of wikileaks founder julian assange to sweden to face questioning over alleged sex crimes. swedish authorities want to question assange over accusations of rape and sexual assault made by two women. assange has been under house arrest in britain since december 2010. his lawyers had argued the

swedish public prosecutor did not have the legal authority to issue the arrest warrant. earlier this morning, the british supreme court handed down a split decision. five judges supported extradition, two judges opposed it. nicholas phillips, the president of the supreme court, said the decision came down to the definition of judicial authority under the terms of the european extradition treaty. >> the point of law is simply, what do the words judicial authority mean? mr. assange has argued they mean a court or judge. sweden's request has been issued by a public prosecutor who is not a court or judge, so mr. assange argument request is invalid and he does not have to go back to sweden. the point of law is simple to state, but it has not been simple to resolve. indeed, we have only reached our decision by a majority of 5-2. there was discussion in parliament about the words judicial authority when the bill

which became the extradition act was being spaded. the bill use the words judicial authority because those words were in the framework decision and the act was designed to give a fit to the framework decision. it is clear some members of parliament believe the words judicial authority and a framework decision meant a court or judge. one minister specifically stated to a parliamentary committee that this was the case. but he was mistaken. judicial authority is the english translation of the french words -- the framework decision in both english and french, so it is necessary that regard also to what the french phrase means. it has a wider meaning and the english phrase for it in french, the words judicial authority can be used as a public prosecutor. for these reasons, the majority has concluded the swedish public prosecutor was a judicial authority within the meaning of both the framework decision and

the extradition act. it follows the request that mr. assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is accordingly dismissed. >> nicholas phillips, president of the british supreme court. moments later, dinah rose, an attorney for julian assange, address the court. >> there is one matter that causes us considerable concern on our initial breeding of the decision, and that is it would appear a majority of the members of this court had decided to appoint either presently or solely on the basis of the interpretation of the vienna convention on the law of treaties, a point with respect which was not argued during the appeal, and which we were given no opportunity to address obviously, this court will have in mind its recent decision in the case holding article 6 to extradition proceedings in the united kingdom. we therefore our current

considering our position on whether or not it will be necessary with great regret to make an application to this court that this matter should be reopened so we have an opportunity to argue this point. >> in response to the legal concerns raised, the supreme court gave assange a stay of 40 days and the extradition order so that the ruling to the challenge. to talk more about the case, we're joined by helena kennedy from oxford in england, a british attorney on the legal team representing julian assange. she will be joining us in a moment. joining us by videostream is glenn greenwald, blogger for salon.com, constitutional lawyer as well. he has been closely following the wikileaks story. glenn greenwald, can you respond to the decision of the british high court that julian assange will be extradited to sweden? >> i think it is difficult to have expected iany other outcom.

chile and assange is most headed by western governments because of the transparency he brought -- remember, julian assange is one of the most hated people by western governments because of the transparency he brought. how to punish and deprive the rights of those who are most scorn. i would have been shocked at the court ruled in favor of assange, even though as the two dissenting judges on the high court pointed out, the argument of sweden and those advocating extradition is directly and the medical to what the statute says. no one thinks the prosecutor is a judicial authority. he has not been charged with a crime, therefore, there is no court or judge seeking his extradition. but the law in these cases typically is not what governs. what governs is political considerations and views of the party. absence of some unexpected event

at some point in the near future, it is likely he will be extradited to sweden. >> apparently, of course, the punishment he is likely to face in sweden, even if is charged, are much less than or is much less than what is likely to face if he is extradited to the u.s. where the punishment he faces for possible espionage and conspiracy charges would be much greater. can you say a little about that? >> i think there are two issues of concern with being extradited to sweden. one, although we do not think about it this way, they have a very oppressive -- i would even say borderline barbaric system -- of 312 detention. when someone is charged with a crime, especially not a citizen, automatically, or less, confined to prison and not released on bail. even though he is proven that his appearances can be

secured. oppressive conditions, he could be held without communication or contact of the outside world. the pretrial hearings in sweden are not public. they are entirely private. given how sensitive this case is, the idea judicial decisions in sweden will be made secretly and probably is very alarming. i think the broader concern is the one you just raised, which is clearly in the u.s., there are efforts underway not just to investigate but to convene a grand jury and there are reports that he had already been indicted with the sealed indictment. there are efforts by the u.s. government to do so. the real concern is sweden in the past has demonstrated with rendition, will hand him over without much of a fight and he will face life in prison under

the espionage statute for doing no more than what newspapers do every day, which is publishing information in the public interest. >> could you talk about the significance of hillary clinton going to sweden? it is the first time in a very long time a u.s. secretary of state is going to sweden. first, it was announced the high court would be making its decision today. then, sweden tweeted hillary clinton would be coming there on sunday. >> right. i mean, one of the causes for concern is there has been a flurry of activity recently with fbi agents harassing people who are alleged to have communication or contact or association with wikileaks. a french citizen and icelandic citizens in the past couple of weeks have been aggressively accosted by fbi agents on foreign soil. now it looks to be high-level meetings between the state department, secretary of state, and swedish officials occurring.

there really is not much of a secret the obama administration is busting at the seams to punish julian assange. remember, this administration has more aggressively than in the prior president has punished people who are government employees who have been whistleblowers, yet here is a man who is not a government employee, no duty to safeguard that affirmation, and it looks very much like the u.s. government is eager to get their hands on julian assange. that is in the concern all along going to sweden. he has never been worried about facing these charges. he feels confident he will be vindicated. he has always been willing to face these accusations. the issue has been because he is not charged, there is in this unusual effort to get him onto swedish soil. the fear has been that is just a pretext for turning them over to the united states, something

britain would have a hard time doing for many reasons. but sweden, to be coerced and bullied and pressured into doing it fairly easily. once he's in the grip of the u.s., it is hard to imagine how he will ever secure his freedom or liberty again, given what the u.s. has demonstrated it is willing to do when it comes to people accused of harming national security. >> why is that? why would sweden be more amenable to extradition to the u.s. and not the u.k., which is a very close ally of the u.s.? >> for one thing, just a matter of basic international relations it is much easier for a country like the u.s. to pressure and gore's smaller countries that larger countries. i think there would be a big outcry -- [no audio] >> you were saying? >> sweet it is a small country,

much more susceptible to that pressure -- sweden is a small country, much more susceptible to that pressure. the u.n. commission town they violated law on oppressive treatment in the way they allowed cia agents to basically a duck egyptian nationals on their soil and render them to egypt. there's a real concern when you add on to that secrecy behind the-behind the pre- trial secrecy. >> we will continue with when greenwald. first, helena kennedy who is in oxford, england, a member of julian assange's legal team. we will go to charles glass to talk about his latest trip to syria and the latest carnage there. we will be back in a moment. ♪ [music break] ♪ [music break]

>> bob dylan on the presidential medal of freedom yesterday at the white house. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. we are joined in britain by one of the attorneys for julian assange, helena kennedy. when the judge announced the supreme court's decision to uphold the extradition of assange, he invoked the 1957 european convention on extradition. i want to ask helena kennedy about the significance of that convention and why it was put into effect. we will go to a clip of the ruling first. this is for nicholas phillips. >> the swedish public prosecutor has requested the extradition of mr. assange on charges of serious sexual offenses. that request has raised a point of lot of general public importance.

it is not a point in respect of the particular facts of mr. assange's case had any relevance. this summary is about that point of law. it used to be the case this country would not extradite a person to another european country until a court to consider the evidence against that person. the court would not approve the extradition unless the evidence justified his being subjected to a criminal trial. all that changed in 2001 when we gave effect to the 1957 european convention on extradition. >> that is lord nicholas phillips, president of the supreme court in britain, explaining the decision to extradite julian assange, the founder of wikileaks, to sweden. helena kennedy, you're one of the members of julian assange's legal team. can you respond to this decision just handed down hours before this broadcast? >> i am a consultant to the

team. extradition is one of the areas of law i had some practice and knowledge of it. it is right, it is comparatively recently we have become much more closely involved in legal arrangements with the rest of europe about the handing over of persons for questioning or for proceeding on criminal trial. on a much more sort of familiar basis so we do it with little examination of evidence and the idea is we respect the legal systems of these other countries to be just and fair, even if they're different from ours. the problem of that is, in other parts of europe we do not have the common law system. the civil law system, or the

whole arrangement are rather different. one of the concerns raised in this case was a really important point of law, which was this request having been made by prosecutor who wanted to question assange. there is still an issue of whether he would even be charged. there is no doubt if the old processes had been relied on, the evidence would not have been enough to justify the prosecution here in britain. but they are invoking the new arrangement. the new arrangement in the last decade or so has been awarded to be issued and it does not involve a close examination of evidence. the request had been made by a judicial authority. that is how it is always been presented and how it was introduced into law in britain. two of the judges, interestingly, did not go along with this decision. it was a 5-2 decision. but another two of the five say

had parliament known the judicial authority by mean a prosecutor and not a judge, it may be the arrangement would not been accepted by parliament. but now that it has been and has been going on for the last years, this practice should be accepted as one that is respectful of other jurisdictions. the idea of a prosecutor demanding someone is brought by force to their country in order to the question, and that is not a decision been made by a judge or court, is alarming. we believe in judicial independence. the state sometimes does things that has to be called into question recently have oversight by an independent judge. that has not happened here. that is why this was a very

important issue with the supreme court. the court by a majority has come down saying they have to be respectful of the fact and other systems, this is what happens, the prosecutor can make these decisions without judicial oversight. i think that has left many of us feeling unhappy about the arrangement and to whether it really complies with our respect for the rule of law and independence of the judiciary to overview what decisions are made by prosecutors. it is not a happy situation that prosecutors can decide who they will have brought by warrant and by force back for questioning without any judicial intervention. >> helena kennedy, isn't it relevant at all that julian assange has not in fact been charged with any offense in sweden that? doesn't that have any bearing on the european arrest warrant? >> well, the european arrest

warrant says you can be arrested in order to be questioned, but it is interesting assange volunteered to be questioned here the swedish embassy or scotland yard. he did not see why it was required he should go all the way to sweden. what he suspects and is concerned about is once he is on swedish soil, he becomes much more vulnerable to perhaps the intentions of the u.s. have been extradited from their to the united states to stand trial on much more worrying charges, from his perspective. the sort of american sentences that go along with espionage. >> anjali assange did not address the news media after today's supreme court decision, the news reports said was caught in heavy traffic. i want to play free would be set

in november after he lost his initial appeal. >> i have not been charged with any crime in any country. despite this, the european arrest warrants is so restrictive that it presents -- prevents u.k. courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today. we will be considering our next step in the days ahead. the full judgments will be available on sweden versus assange.com. no doubt, throw the many attempts made to try and spin these proceedings as they occurred today, but they aren't merely technical. please go to swedenvsassange.com if you really want to know what is going on in this case. >> that was julian assange, not this time, but in november when

he lost his initial appeal helena kennedy is a consultant to assange's legal team. i want you to respond to that and the decision of the judges when raised by his attorney dinah rose, that they allow her to argue on this point that she says she had not gotten a chance to argue on, the decision they had made that he can stay for another two weeks. what are the japanese assange has right now? >> what came up in court was the vienna convention was invoked by the judge's, basically, the words they looked at which is judicial authority. that that has been translated into judicial authority that the british common law listeners took to be a judge in court and the discipline with the british parliament thought. whereas in fact, to europeans

who of a different system, it would be interesinterpreted as a prosecutor. they are endorsing the vienna convention on extradition, then we committed ourselves to the french interpretation. i think, i know that china rose wants to be able to have a look at that and see whether that is a proper interpretation -- i know that dinah rose wants to be of a have a look at that and see whether that is a proper interpretation. i spoke to julian assange since his hearing of the judgment. we will all look at what this means and whether we think is likely to make any difference. it is rare for the supreme court to give an opportunity to revisit an argument. the last time i remember it was in the pinochet case.

the sense one is getting is even in this court, there is argument as to whether this is an acceptable thing within the common law tradition that you just hand someone over on the say so over prosecutor, and there is definite and knees and two of the judges. the sole woman we have and another judge both took a different position and did not go along with the majority. the serious argument -- and may have to be revisited by parliament. it might not be good for julian assange. the decision, as it stands at the moment. it is a matter of concern. i listened to glenn talking about the implications if his return to sweden. if his return to sweden, sweden does not let people out on bail. it is very rare that would allow anyone, particularly some as a foreign national, to be in

any position other than in secure custody. it means he will be returning there. even if a decision is made which is favorable to assange in sweden, one wonders if he will be slapped with a warrant from the united states wanting him to be extradited to the u.s. that has to be a concern for us and those advising them legally. >> if the legal team has to seek recourse with the european court of human rights in strasbourg, which is the last court of appeal what is the likely outcome of that? is it possible the european court could stay his extradition? >> you have to understand the european court is not quite like the last court of appeals. it is an open avenue. if it is an issue which the european court with a matter that needed to be resolved -- it is very rare for a case like

this on this kind of point to go to the european court. we will take a look at that and put that argument in writing to the european court. they can either say yea or nay and that will open up whether or not we have recourse. i think we will probably have to make decisions over the next 48 hours as to what happens next. >> helena kennedy, you said you spoke to julian assange. he is caught in traffic. he usually makes a statement after a decision is handed down. what was his response to the high court ruling he should be extradited to sweden? >> in many ways, julian is skeptical about any judicial decision making in this field, and is very aware that british

court is part of europe and has made agreements and a sort of arrangements to different systems to work together. so there is a general unwillingness not to respond to a call from another country for someone to be taken there on a warrant it is right that this has political implications. he was actually hardened there was so much argument, clearly, -- heartened that there is a much argument between the judges that some should not to be handed over for questioning. and also that to the judges who remained who went along with the judge's still had reservations about whether parliament would have agreed with this, but basically, ended up going with

the majority decision on the basis it had been a practice for a number of years and indebted. that is how they came to that majority opinion. he is heartened that it points to just how complicated this whole issue is. >> helena kennedy, thank you for joining us from oxford, england, a consultant to the assange legal team. glenn greenwald is still on with us. this week is the second anniversary, would be two years ago yesterday that bradley manning, the young u.s. soldier in iraq, was taken into custody. he has been charged with releasing the documents, getting a hold of and releasing the documents -- millions of them -- to wikileaks from iraq,

afghanistan. can you talk about the significance of this in light of what we're seeing develop with julian assange today, the wikileaks founder? >> i think it is so important to remember that would bradley manning is alleged to have done, what wikileaks did was an act of incredible mobility, bringing its immense amounts of transparency to the u.s. government and its war actions, ones that are usually shrouded in complete secrecy. in the course of doing so, there is no suggestion they're harming national security, but their callous stories of importance that they enable to be written about what the u.s. government, but other governments are doing. i think it is important to keep in mind there's a lot of support for wikileaks a couple of years ago, for bradley manning and julian assange. what the u.s. government does in cases like this when someone poses a threat to their power and secrecy regime, which has

been going on for years, which is what richard nixon tried to do with daniel ellsberg, has been done with julian assange. his personality has been demonized. it is imported see how grave of a threat is -- it is in poor to see how great of a threat is. it is incumbent upon everyone who believes in transparency to put aside whatever personal feelings you may have about julian assange or bradley manning and stand for this critical cause and not allow the obama administration to do this. i think a lot of people have been worn away by the feeling that julian assange is not someone you may want to be associated with. it is critical to keep an eye and the much larger issues at stake. a >> i want ask about another

subject riyadh on tuesday, "new york times" published an explosive exposé on how president obama personally oversees a secret kill list containing the names and daughters of individuals targeted for assassination in the u.s. drone war. according to "times," obama signs off on every targeted killing in yemen and somalia and the more complex or risky strikes in pakistan. individuals on the list include u.s. citizens as well as teenage girls as young as 17 years old. can you comment? >> the president of the u.n. is states believes he has the power to order people to kill -- the president of the united states believes he has the power to order people to be killed. i really do believe is literally the most radical power a government and president can seize, yet the obama administration has seized this power and exercised it aggressively with little

controversy. "times" has disturbing details. probably of which is one of the reasons why the obama administration claims the casualties of civilians are solo from their drone attacks, which everyone knows is false, is because they have redefined what a militant is. a militant in the eyes of the obama administration formally means an email of fighting age presumably 18 to 40, who is in a strike zone of a missile. if the u.s. shoots a missile or debt and it's a bomb by drone or aircraft and kills a dozen or two dozen people without knowing whom they have killed or anything about them, they will immediately labeled a man of a certain age with the proximity to that scene. with the article says, the rationale is they believe anyone

who is even nearer a terrorist or any terrorist activity is "probably up to no good." ironically, that is the exact phrase george zimmerman use when describing trayvon martin to the nine-1-1 call, that he must be up to no good. the suspicion, the mere happenstance of what someone is doing the tunnels as not just to harbor a suspicion, but to kill them. it is amazing american media outlets use militant to describe people killed by drones without knowing their identity, even though we know the obama demonstration uses it in a propagandistic way. issuing death sentences without transparency or oversight, really should be provoking widespread outrage.

with the exception of a few factions and circles, it really isn't. >> in your response to william daley, the white house chief of staffs and the obama administration called the strike against anwar awlaki and easy one? >> i think one of the things the article did would shed light on president obama's character. we can talk a lot about his policies, and that is what is usually must and. he has been embracing these radical theories of executive power even george bush's chief and former cia has lavishly praised another bush officials are over the moon about in terms of president obama and forcing them, so we know his policies have been a radical, but you have one of the most controversial things a president can do -- ordering an american citizen assassinated by the cia and total secrecy without any due process, never been charged with a crime.

they could have charged him if they really had evidence. they simply secretly ordered his assassination. it turns out there was no straggling in terms of the difficult constitutional and ethical issues it presents. he has declared this was a "easy" decision, something he made quite easily. we find out not only is exercising his radical power, he is not even having any struggles with conscience or legal or intellectual quandaries about it. it is something his national- security adviser bragged about. it shows how "comfortable clothes but he is using force, even against american citizens. i think reflects on the type of person that occupies the oval office.

>> you write in this article, glenn greenwald, you recommend "new york times coast reporter who does the piece on foreign policy called "barack oromney" fighting about the broad, democratic republican consensus between republicans and the democrats, even as they fight about what is going on in washington, people talk about no consensus at all. in fact, there's a serious consensus. unanimity, in dealing with foreign policy, glenn. >> one of the things progressives and democrat partisan slant to say is republicans will never give president obama credit for anything. this is a complete falsehood. you can go back over the last three years and fined instance after instance -- not just republicans, the furthest right neocons and national security state officials of the bush administration have been lavished -- have lavished

president obama with his praise. [dog barking] that is the bipartisan -- he was talking about critics i think you better go. i do not wait to get it by the dog. >> sorry about that. someone just came in >> thank you for being with this, glenn greenwald, speaking to us from brazil. this is "democracy now!" when we come back, we will go back to britain to speak with former abc reporter charles glass, who has just returned from damascus and syria. stay with us. ♪ [music break] ♪ [music break]

>> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and

peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> the u.s. and 11 other countries have formally expelled syrian diplomats following a massacre of over one of the people in the village of -- who live. it was one of the deadliest single incidents of the 15 month uprising against bashar al- assad. an accord ended action, countries including germany, france, britain, canada and japan ordered the departure of syrian ambassadors from their capitals. in washington, state to permit spokesperson victoria nuland said a top diplomat in the u.s. has been told to leave within three days and also blamed iran for the massacre. >> this morning, we call thein zuheir jabbour and informed him he is no longer welcome in the u.s. and gave him 72 hours to depart. we took this action in response to the massacre in the village of houla, absolutely indefensible, vile, despicable

massacre against innocent children, women, shot at point- blank range by regime thugs, aided and abetted by the iranians who were actually bragging about it over the weekend. >> that was state department spokeswoman victoria nuland. meanwhile, kofi annan has said the country has reached a tipping point of to more than a year of conflict. on tuesday, he made an emergency trip to damascus and met with syrian president bashar al- assad. >> i shared my assessment the six-point plan is not being implemented as it must. we are at the tipping point. the syrian people do not want their future to be one of bloodshed and division, yet the

killings continue and the abusers are still with us today. >> earlier, u.n. human rights spokesman rupert colville said initial investigations suggested most of those killed in the village of taldou were summarily executed. for more, we go to charles glass, award winning journalist, author, a broadcaster specializing the middle east. he joins us from london. his most recent piece is called, "syria: the citadel and the war." welcome to "democracy now!" can you respond to the latest in syria and then talk about what people were saying in damascus we have just returned from? >> i think the massacre at houla and taldou are clear indications of how urgent it is to find or to force both sides in the conflict, the opposition and the regime, to negotiate a

settlement of which would ultimately probably meant a change of regime, but certainly a transition. in the absence of that, yet the russians earning the government, you have the saudis, possibly the u.s., are in the opposition, which can only exacerbate the war. as remember in iraq and lebanon, or massacres will take place. this was the biggest fear among some people i spoke to in both damascus and aleppo. it is a fear that most of the minorities, christians, kurds, armenians and others, those minorities are terribly afraid of massacres that might take place if the conflict escalates. >> charles glass, who are the militiamen who were allegedly responsible for this massacre? >> it is an arabic term that means roughly "ghost."

it also means someone who disguises themselves. initially, there were small-time gangsters. they are occasionally called upon to do favors for the regime. some of the favors involving at checkpoints with soldiers the police. they will go into people's houses as they did in homs and commit murders. they will intimidate people. they are above the law. if they were, indeed, as ever on as suspects, involved in the massacres in houla and taldou, then they should be held responsible. one of the things that happen in the uprising in syria that began with demonstrations by students in the southern town was the governor of daraa was

responsible for the torture of children who were arrested in the demonstration and after the demonstration. because bashar al-assad did not arrest the governor, a lot of people who believed bashar al- assad could be reformed lost their faith in him. there are still many people in syria who support the regime, but if he does not do something about this and bring those responsible to account, he will lose even more support. >> a russian foreign minister spoke yesterday saying certain countries were using this massacre, the houla massacre as "pretext for voicing demands relating to the need for military measures to be taken." one of the things you point out in your article is a majority of people you spoke to in aleppo in damascus are opposed to any kind of military intervention in the conflict. >> well, they all remember when the u.s. invaded iraq and they do not want that kind of chaos.

they do not want a total destruction of the state and a prolonged civil war that they saw in iraq. they received over 2 million refugees from iraq who were fleeing the chaos that can after the american invasion. they do not want to be subject to that themselves. surely, those who use the massacre as justification to call for western airstrikes or western invasion should think this massacre should be a reminder of what could happen not only without an invasion, but because of invasion. that makes it all the more urgent for pressure to come from russia on the government and from the west in saudi arabia on the opposition to sit down and hammer out binding agreements fell in this conflict before it destroys the country. >> martin dempsey to discuss the possible military intervention in syria during an interview on fox. >> there's always a military

option. but the military option should always be wielded carefully because one thing we've learned about war, i have personally learned, is it has a dynamic all its own. it takes a life of its own. you always find military leaders to be somewhat cautious about the use of force because whenever -- we're never entirely sure what comes out of the other side. that said, and they come to a point with syria because of the tragedies. >> that was u.s. general dempsey. charles glass, your response? >> the general made a good point. you cannot predict the outcome of an invasion one of the outcomes, it might --syria has a long history of fighting foreigners when the kim in. in 1921 invaded by the french and kept the country under french mandate from 1920-1945, they rebuild almost every year. large sections of damascus and

other cities in syria were destroyed by french artillery in order to keep french rule. they have not forgotten. they still feel very strongly arab, very strongly syrian and want to preserve their solvency. a western invasion is very much geared. even more than that, the turkish invasions are feared. i spoke to many armenians in aleppo. they remember armenian massacres as the first world war and do now to see armenian troops, nor to the kurds of northeast syria want to see the turks because the turkish record of treatment of kurds is appalling. >> "democracy now!" spoke to karam nachar, a cyber activist. he has advocated for international intervention. >> i realize liberals around the world in particular are very wary of the replication of the

iraq scenario. i think the world should know this is not iraq, but a society that has been mobilizing against the regime for the past year. there is a humanitarian disaster unfolding on the ground. there is a moral responsibility to protect the syrian people. this is not a perfect situation. it is complicated. it will require a lot of money and courage and involvement on the part of the international community. a >> charles glass, your comment on what karam nachar had to say? >> he has every right to call for help from any corner he can because people are being killed in syria. but those are contemplating it should think about the consequences of their actions but as the general said, you cannot predict what that outcome will see. be. it is not an entirely demoralized army as the iraqi

army was. the syrian army is well armed, was supported by the russians. it could lead to very serious disputes between the u.s. and russia along the lines of the cold war. i do not know anyone wants to go back to that, especially now when there is the chance with so much leverage from the west and from russia on the two sides, the chance to force them to talk about a way of solving this peacefully. >> and what do you envision that pressure to look like question particularly, talk about the role of russia that has sided with syria, but also cited constantly how it felt betrayed around the u.s. nato intervention in libya. >> russia has its own interest in the region. it also fears an uprising in

syria as much as it did in chechnya, with a that is a pretext for genuine is difficult to say. the russians -- because they are in the syrian regime and the only ones arming them with weapons they need, they could cut that supply or a threat to cut the supply of the regime does not come to the table. similarly, the west and syria a threat to cut off -- the west and saudia that threaten to cut off aid to the upon the >> the u.s. is blaming iran for what is going on in syria. >> i think iran complained the u.s. for what is going on in the sense most of the outside powers turned against the regime not because of human-rights violations that the u.s. tolerated for years when the cia used to render suspects to there, but they do not like the regime because of his relationship with iran. >> charles glass, a former abc

news chief, middle east correspondent, spent 10 days in syria. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]