trial and error from closing get out to the international case of collegiate shaikh mohammad president obama has done an about face on campaign promises so didn't cave to political pressure soon. in. iraq. it's so important it was. just the way he reviewed. so given libya is it possible the u.s. would intervene in syria next. and from foe to friend of washington how does this happen well it may all start with a one stop p.r.

shop make over and pastry. as russia rockets into space the west chooses the home front over the final frontier we'll take a look at what happened then and the consequences now. with the announcement yesterday that the obama administration will bring alleged nine eleven plodder colleagues shaikh mohammed to trial in a military commission at guantanamo bay it is a total about face from last year's announcement that k.s. them would be tried in civilian court in new york city not only a reminder that obama's campaign promise to close gitmo stands one broken but a defeat for the president who made that case that federal courts are really the best place to try these terror suspects now my next guest argues the president caved to politics and her to make her case as daphne of the atar senior associate

of human rights first law and security program jaffe thanks for joining us now holder blamed congress for the obama administration's complete turnaround on this issue do you buy that and if not what do you think is behind a decision. well you know it's partly true that congress has made this difficult for the administration but on the other hand if you're going to ration had over two years during which they could have brought collude sheikh mohammad and his coconspirators to the united states for trial and they didn't and that's two years before congress put in place a ban on transferring any point on the detainees to the united states for trial but i want to ality disingenuous to turn around and say i'm sorry that it was just congress is right i didn't mean to interrupt you but i just do you think it's really politically possible that it just would have been that simple that the obama administration could have transferred those suspects to the u.s. i mean already we've seen obama not be able to deliver on his campaign pledge to close gitmo and even he said it just proved to be too politically difficult so with

the opposition that is beyond just the restrictions from congress we've seen more recently do you think it really could have happened is that a little optimistic to believe that it happened. no i mean and in fact this was a cornerstone of his campaign was closing guantanamo bay and bringing these people to justice and yes closing guantanamo bay is challenging because there are still one hundred seventy two detainees there but we're talking about five people being brought to the united states for trial that could have been done without the approval of congress we have a no a system in place that can handle federal court trials that can handle terrorism trials we have another going to mo detainee who was transferred here to new york for trial was tried was convicted has been sentenced to life in prison without parole but all happened perfectly smoothly perfectly quietly the new york federal court system is actually the most experienced set of courts to handle terrorism cases in the country so they could have done that quite easily would they face some

republican opposition absolutely but that opposition was purely about trying to undermine undermine president obama wasn't that the u.s. justice system couldn't handle or had some real problems came times with these detainees at the same time there's been opposition from new york lawmakers from democratic lawmakers from mayor bloomberg they did not want this trial so there's more it's more complicated than just opposition from republicans you know that are doing that based mainly on political moves like you said so i would have really been possible given that. you know i mean that's another area where unfortunately i think the administration box that initiation should have talked to those new york politicians first before they announced that they were going to bring police check muhammad and the coconspirators to new york for a trial they should have smooth the way there was really no reason not to bring them to new york for trial and yes political opposition grew out of a bunch of local concerns and local opposition mostly from business groups who were concerned about traffic tying up lower manhattan that didn't have to happen the

administration could have handled that much more carefully talked through with the mayor with this new york senators kind of smooth away before making that announcement what if the u.s. couldn't have one and we couldn't convict them and civilian court what if advents was thrown out because it's you know why they believe that he was tortured what about that issue. you know again that's really a red herring i mean eric holder himself the attorney general in two thousand and nine stood up and said we have a ton of evidence against these guys none of which comes from their statements now if they were tortured which we know that they were mistreated in prison and some of them were tortured those statements made under torture cannot be used in u.s. federal court but as eric holder said they didn't need to use any of those statements and if you look at the indictment that was unsealed yesterday it lists so much evidence against them reams and reams of evidence against them you have prosecutor spending and years spending their whole careers putting together this

case these prosecutors are extremely experienced they track all sorts of things from every stone call to every communication to purchase of weapons and of weapons materials you didn't need to use their statements in order to convict them so what's really lost care what's really lost internationally you know get more has been used by al qaeda for example to continue to fuel support for that cause an outcast them who already may be considered a martyr i almost becomes one does this make this worse. i think it makes it much worse and i think that is one really big issue is that now has them kind of gets what he wants if he gets to be martyred he gets to keep the health keep the guantanamo bay prison open and have that continue to harm the reputation of the united states and at the same time i think the american public loses out we don't get a public trial of the worst atrocity that courage that i've ever occurred on u.s. soil this is the worst terrorist attack that ever occurred thousands and thousands

of victims and relatives and family members of people who died in those attacks now we don't get a public trial we get this trial in a remote island in. one tunnel bay in cuba which is a country we don't even have relations with people cannot travel there to see the trial a handful of reporters will be allowed in but will be highly restricted that's not the way to try the most important terrorism case in this country's history is in secret and under special rules the lockdown according to our normal u.s. and word system well along those lines it was more of a public trial when that had made them even more of a martyr maybe fueled more opposition from more support for them. i don't think so i mean again federal court judges here are extremely experienced and how to handle difficult cases we've had a lot of terrorism cases in new york in the past and they're very good at knowing how to handle that they don't invited to senate you just stand up and make the statements in fact i've been to many of the military commission hearings in kuantan

i'm ok and it's easier to do that in the military system in the military system the defendant is allowed to stand up and make an unsworn statement in federal court that doesn't happen in federal court it's much more controlled and in fact a federal judge could have taken serious control of the case and not allow the detainee to make long statements or into a media circus there's no reason to think that that should have happened and that's a really interesting point i want to ask what you think i know you've written that you think that this will affect obama's supporters in his about based on a campaign pledge but how much do you think of the average american really cares about these issues that seems like much more pressing to them are issues that hit home domestic issues the economy. i think you're right i think the economy is certainly the most one of the most pressing issues here in the united states on the other hand i think that increasingly i'm hearing people who were big supporters of president obama and his administration being increasingly disillusioned that

doesn't mean that they're going to maybe vote for the republican opposition but it might mean that they just don't vote it might mean that they sit out the next vote a lot of people who felt you know here is the guy talking about change we can believe in and people felt so desperate for a change and they really believed in him and this is one of his big one of the cornerstones of his campaign was to really restore american integrity and national security to close guantanamo bay and his unwillingness to put some political capital behind that and really push for that that's really dissolutions a lot of people so i think it's disappointing and i think that he's it the loss of support just mean that might mean that not so many people go out to vote next time and that was daphne every guitar senior associate at the law and security program at human rights first and when it comes to the war on terror as you can see things can change course pretty quickly pretty easily and it wasn't long ago in fact two thousand and eight that the u.s. welcome to unlikely ally to the u.s.

fight against terrorism libya's leader colonel moammar gadhafi now over the libyan leader paints of its third week of u.s. coalition air strikes so what is behind a change well our chief guy entergy can looks at the u.s. interests at play and also what could be next. as waves of public rage sweep through north africa and the middle east what cowards jump on as many analysts say in an attempt to direct the waves of unrest in a way that's most favorable for them in libya forging relationship with the opposition so that it could not be goals there are people there to do business with as syria partly will raf gather steam some experts say western powers might see the advantages of getting involved there to these three countries iran and syria are the main countries that will not align themselves or that magically to the global car elites or the western powers interested objectives in north africa in the east

as for example egypt will do or used to do with hosni mubarak and definitely kuwait and saudi arabia syria is iran's closest ally in the region and the cost to support the revolving syria affan khan was mentions of you ran syria is obviously a strategic ally for iran in the in the region and without syria iran loses their their bridge their land bridge to lebanon and they're hit hezbollah and forces so of course hezbollah will suffer if the syrian regime was to fall and that would destabilize iran and weaken its power in the region which would be an obvious benefit to being called american forces some expert even believe that destabilize ation is part of the strategy of the west in the region you're seeing reflect a strategy which includes amongst other points the generalized weakening of the sovereign nation states of the sovereign genes in the arab world in order to try to isolate iran. very few perhaps no friendly countries in the region

and that will erode pretty much alone at least in the arab world and will facilitate further turmoil inside iran although the u.s. secretary of state has ruled out america's involvement in syria for now the country's defense secretary caught with the syrian army to quote empower and grab aleutian and follow the example of egypt's military syria. wait. to see what. many say you ran though would be a tough call and no matter how much washington you want the regime there to stall for now it's seen as a mission impossible i'm sure that there are some in the u.s. who would love to attack iran and there are others who would like to take over the iranian opposition i think they know that the iranian opposition is not so fond of the united states they have a long memory in iran people remember the role of the united states in overthrowing

the the precursor to the shah of iran overthrowing the democratically elected government of most of their back in one hundred fifty three so i don't think the u.s. would be welcomed and i think many in washington know that libya being torn apart by the war and anti-government protests gaining momentum in syria the question on everyone's mind is who might be next i'm going to check our reporting from washington. and who might be next a lot of geopolitical strategic interests aptly in the region earlier i was joined by stephens yunus professor of politics and chair of middle eastern studies at the university of san francisco and i asked him what the motives were behind u.s. military involvement in libya and what it means for syria here's what he had to say . this is an effort that least initially the west thought they could win in a pretty easily and hopefully get a government that over itself though its power to us intervention is very different

than say to nisha in egypt and the exciting thing about that was uprisings was not just that they were nonviolent but bad it rains were in genuinely indigenous movements by the people themselves but it was without foreign intervention it was a challenge both the al qaida insistence that you need to have that kind of terrorism and islamic extremism to overthrow dictators also challenge the whole new conservative law and then only through your sister vention candlebox he comes in at least right so in many ways they're trying to really hijack this cement so that people can do it themselves nonviolently by saying oh no we need to come to your rescue we need to help you to get you to college also the big difference between the repression it's going on now in syria which is real. but it's not massive today to what the senator was referring to in terms of the hala massacre nine eighty two that was an armed uprising by islamic extremists where where the regime fell they

could get away with that kind of severe impression by contrast this is a nonviolent movement similar to what we've seen elsewhere and while they you know we're willing to certainly. meet and and attack and in some cases even shoot protesters it's not going to get to the point of the kind of massacres that the west has been used as as intervention the other big difference is that despite many problems the assad regime has much more of a social base and then he does at this point and the people of syria even those who oppose assad would resist any kind of the western intervention but i doubt that the balanced ration would go that far certainly they would not get support from the arab league and from most european countries to follow. issues with assad is not considered he's not out there the way the has been alienated everybody well clearly we want to get rid of gadhafi. so we're in the side of those who would like to see

more progress turn government in power well he is indeed a brutal dictator. creatures very nasty and and one could indeed make the case perhaps that this intervention and then the massacre that's not the actual reason that when you look at the united states britain france i mean all three countries that have led this effort have supported governments that have also been to killed hundreds if not thousands of those innocent civilians those professor stephen buenas professor of politics and chair of middle eastern studies at the university of san francisco and as you pointed out when it comes to african dictators and their relationship with washington while some have their assets frozen faced embargoes even air strikes others do enjoy a warm and fuzzy relationship with u.s. diplomats so how does this happen well arty's kalen for took

a look at the role of washington's p.r. machine k. street lobbyists and their part in a cover. part of. their country may have turned against them but several autocratic leaders have friends where it counts in washington. well several of them have been swept away by popular revolutions across the middle east and north africa for decades they clung to power with u.s. support and the help of disease k street home to the biggest and most powerful lobbying firms in the world capable of transforming libyan leader moammar gadhafi from this mad dog of the middle east as a. revolution to a partner in talks ties between. take over our current regime perhaps the best cinderella tale i'm k.-street is that of oil rich equitorial getting denounced as one of the most repressive regimes in the world for

its torture extrajudicial killings and political prisoners teodoro obiang brought to power in a military coup thirty years ago and claiming to have been elected by ninety seven percent of voters in two thousand and nine recently dropped one million dollars to hire lobbyists many david davis was former president bill clinton's lawyer during his impeachment proceedings and enjoys close ties with secretary of state hillary clinton says david kay here for years and finally. to you know i'm paula went from despise the oppressor to a smiling snapshot with president obama himself and while lobbyists are autocrats salesman to the state department the pitch is a very specific one the u.s. withdrew its ambassador in the lab in one thousand nine hundred four but as exxon mobil and chevron texaco billions did really equitorial guinea's oil washington warmed up but the old beings aren't just dropping dollars in d.c. . over being son little teodoro is living the sweet life in hollywood dating pop

stars and purchasing this thirty five million dollar. malibu mansion which he paid for by why we hear from him. to the us yes cruelly and commission plans for a three hundred eighty million dollar yacht three times with the oil rich country it spends on public health and education per year. to. go. well most of the population survives i'm less than a dollar a day like his predecessors of both republican and democrat before him president obama loves the united states of the fender human rights around the world intervening in libya so-called humanitarian grounds but critics say he's just as pragmatic as his predecessors as well when it comes to turning a blind eye to repression and places like equitorial guinea as long as the oil keeps flowing through and ford r. t. washington d.c.

. so payoffs for equitorial getting as well as the united states in a case like that but joining me for more in our studio is correspondent kalen ford to give us a broader scope of this issue which does go on beyond equitorial guinea so what exactly are these case three firms capable of well you know when we talk about lobbying in the united states it's not something that people are really aware of or really kind of in tune to but yet it plays such a huge role in not only our foreign policy but our domestic policy i mean lobbyists on any given issue are making millions hundreds of millions of dollars to influence our lawmakers when we talk about democracy and voting and going to the ballot box well that's just one part of what makes decisions here in washington here in the united states but what these k. street firms are capable of are using their connections like we see with clinton family friend lanny davis who was of course bill clinton's lawyer during his impeachment hearings as i mentioned the peace using his connections with now

secretary of state hillary clinton to sort of make over to tutor over who is of course denounced as one of the most repressive. dictators or authoritarian leaders in africa you know lenny davis actually quipped to him that i've kidded to him he'd do better to win by fifty one percent than ninety eight percent ok but you know let's let's be serious here you know on a deeper level which is that what would this be affective without us interests at play for example whatever tauriel guinea they have oil the u.s. benefits something country like saudi arabia major geo strategic interest for the united states to counter iran and for other reasons so if there isn't a vested interest for the us does this work does that need to be there you know i think vested interest is an interesting term because there are so many different strategic interests for the united states in editorial getting its oil as economics oil boil but then we look at a country like this which is the second poorest country in the western hemisphere after haiti has no oil to speak of but you know it has quite

a large military base called palmyra let's sort of that has been operating there since the one nine hundred eighty s. which was used for the contra war in nicaragua and to train rebels in el salvador the cheap source of labor for the united states for making things like closing. banana plantation so openly talking about when we think of strategic interest sometimes we think libya has to be something that's so big that has so many resources the united states is willing to intervene and the liveliest are willing to sort of push the agenda of governments that don't seem to have that much interest for the united states but they do because the united states is looking for influence all over all over the world and who loses out with case well you know who loses out in the end are the people who are fighting for actual reform or democratic change or human rights the things that the united states says that we are fighting for in those countries the people who are actually doing that work on the ground are the ones who are losing out because they can't afford to pay any

davis a million dollars a year to defend human rights and equitorial giddy but the dictator of that. it does have that money and i guess if you're a dictator of a country where there are human tarion issues as well as strategic resource and other issues maybe you do with kayla and i want to thank you for being here and there was a time when americans boldly went when no where no man had gone before but fast forward to two thousand and eleven and the u.s. has effectively shuttered its manned spaceflight program it's invested in a f. twenty two is putting those in the air in the past but not shuttles headed for the final frontier but decades after the space race russia has not done the same and as artie's tests are sylvia witnessed firsthand the exciting blastoff are still blazing trails of space exploration. well here's a lot of excitement definitely especially among the spectators for that we're going to see the takeoff of the crew two russian cosmonauts of onyx on the sun which they

are bloody sankoh as well as nasa astronauts ron garan over the last a few hours leading up to this point right here we have been following the you go here three flights traditions if you will very interesting indeed especially for a first timers and even those who have been here several times say it's never quite the same the whole process that we saw them getting out of the forty percent of the first they left the signatures on their doors as had their feet assessors and then do you want to be out to the crowd when they we saw them in their space is very interesting to see them in their gear say quite an emotional farewell to the people what we think there are devices of them but this is a very special mission if you will because this is happening close to the fiftieth anniversary of you to get god it's a first space flight happening right here in what they call the current start this is where it all began the nasa astronaut on board one garand in his words he has said that fifty years ago on that day mankind became

a different species that's raible to go beyond the boundaries of their. to. everything you believe you could hear the ground here now you guys well it will take about less than ten minutes to get into it to orbit it's a zero gravity and better a couple of days to reach the international space station where they will join three are their colleagues and ron garrett who's a very tech savvy astronaut he did say he will try his very best to keep us updated using twitter that is sending us tweets as well as blogs and we do look forward to reading about their experiences up there in space. it's amazing they can twitter

and stay here because there's no there's no limit to twitter but joining me now to talk about the space issue is deaf man versus a entrepreneur and as we were just talking about june is the last shuttle launch in the united states and then after that it's just depend on the russian just the russians are doing that now and the u.s. though has continued to finance over the years to a great extent and other very expensive venture its military budget you know accounting for fifty percent of the world's military expenditures walsh you know shuttering its state programs now if we want to you know continue on the russia comparison russia cut much of the funding for its army back in the ninety's but they continue to fund a space program to now look at that so what is being not in the u.s. priorities is i'm thinking a lot of great series of questions there there's one less thing but what is it anything wrong with the u.s. where it is i think losing out the russians were first term breaks capitalism and commercial and they've kept their program going in large part because of their

customers the united states master and the european space agency so when they face cutbacks and they have their serious economic interests dislocation they said wait a second we want to continue space but we'll go commercial and we'll take customers and their launch vehicle safe which robust it's operational and they were able to continue by embracing a more commercial program we made a i think foolish strategic decision twenty years ago you can blame it on democrats republicans it's the way we are in america twenty years ago we should have said you know we need a new vehicle after the shuttle but we don't think that way we wait until emergencies then we had the tragedy of columbia and the crew that was was killed on the return of columbia and then a committee came along the augustine commission and said we can't continue the show and so as usual we're going to have this last minute situation we have a gap of maybe six years before the americans get back involved just how does the u.s. lose out by not. investing in space anymore well we lose out because we have

to keep workers here who are doing cutting edge technology what's the payoff the payoff could be supersonic jets that take us from new york to moscow in two hours the payoff could be having transportation through national labs and space you never know we could take off years and speaking of jet let's talk about jets because for example that twenty two fighter jet engine has found it recently cutting the funding but that was one of the most expensive fighter jets in american history hundreds of millions of dollars so how does it compare building is that two buildings they are space shuttle with a different will you don't want to get into a cave everyone always plays their game invest in my program with me for a girlfriend well i can say what we should do in terms of the pentagon i will say that we need a commercial space program we're moving in a direction we can't rely on government funding we need customers we should be taking the saudis and the israelis and and everyone else to space commercially we

should be taking the germans to space commercially larnaca geostrategic frontier right while we live in korea if you believe that your space not your premier partner capitalist what is really the payoff because with the customers just the country because there really is no no we have a lot by turning it into being a big one must be co-creator of paper was going commercial has a u.s. government contract has a satellite contract that he's going to go public at some point there's another publicly traded company and for junior orbital sciences they have a contract to go commercial to send our crews commercial in the future for us and space is commercial if we don't go commercial and we continue to go on these big budgets that tea party people or killers the people who are fiscal deficit reduction will kill the space program we've gotta go commercial in order to maintain law and also to marshal doesn't look like we'll have any state program but that member i want to thank you for coming and your character everything is going to go up right now but for more on the story covered go to our t.v. .