Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should the United States Provide Proof to Taliban?

Aired October 02, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST, "TALKBACK LIVE": Is the war machine in gear?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF THE U.K.: There is no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is no timetable for the Taliban, just like there are no negotiations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: No time, no talk. What's left?

Also, tracking evidence along the trail of terror.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: They also found detailed plans of the American embassy in Paris, together with other evidence, linking (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with a French terror cell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: How much proof does the U.S. have tying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network to the September 11th attacks? And who has to be convinced?

Good afternoon and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." How much proof does the Bush administration have that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network are responsible for the September 11th attacks? Enough to convince NATO, according to diplomats, though perhaps not enough for Afghanistan's Taliban.

We'll be talking with a man who has met bin Laden, along with some other folks in just a moment or so. But first let's go to Islamabad, Pakistan and CNN correspondent Walter Rodgers.

Walter, how is Pakistan reacting to news of this evidence?

WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very wary at this point, Bobbie. The Pakistanis are of course Muslims, and they are very reluctant to believe the United States has enough proof to indict Osama bin Laden on the terrorist attacks -- for the terrorist attacks on the United States last month.

One of the things, of course, is that there's a great deal of anti-Americanism in this part of world. That anti-Americanism is just below the surface. It runs very deep here. Thus, there's a public reluctance, at least on the street level, to believe that bin Laden is guilty, because it's simple much easier, in a part of the world where there is all this anti-Americanism, to somehow believe the Americans are still the villains -- Bobbie.

BATTISTA: How much support is there for General Musharraf amid all of this anti-Americanism?

RODGERS: That's an excellent question, and it depends on who you ask, the answer you get. For example, General Musharraf says that the extremists are a very, very small majority of Pakistan's population. Indeed, that's probably the case. There is a silent majority here, and so far the majority of the 140, 150 million Pakistanis have remained pretty silent, despite some extremist protests.

How long that silence lasts, or how long that acquiescence with General Musharraf's policy lasts, depends probably on the extent of the American attack on Afghanistan. How long does the American assault on Afghanistan continue, how many bombs are dropped, what is the extent of the devastation, and of course, how many people are killed? That is what will shape public reaction in this part of the world more firmly than anything else, perhaps more firmly than proof.

People talk about proof here, but lawyers can argue about proof forever. I think what they'd really like to see is that this -- whatever happens, happens quickly, with a minimum amount of civilian casualties across the border in Afghanistan when attacks are launched -- Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Earlier, Walt, in Afghanistan, we heard the Taliban demand to see that evidence, and again, they said they would be willing to negotiate Osama bin Laden's release based on that evidence. But we've presented evidence to them before in the past, have we not, about bin Laden's connection to terrorist attacks, and they've rejected it. So that doesn't bode well, does it?

RODGERS: It does not. But when you heard Ambassador Abdul Salam Zaeef speak earlier today, it wasn't so much that he was looking for evidence or proof. It seemed that he was stalling for time. He was pleading, almost making a last-ditch effort, as if the dogs of war were nipping at his heels. He simply does not want a war in which the United States and its allies attack Afghanistan, hence his news conference Tuesday in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta. He seemed to be trying to buy time, to stretch this out, thus the call for negotiations again. Although he would be very foolish if he thinks the United States is suddenly going to begin negotiating now, because the Bush administration says this is not going to be an issue which is negotiated. It's nonnegotiable. The United States, Washington wants Osama bin Laden handed over, and as Ambassador Zaeef said, no, he's staying in Afghanistan --Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Couple of questions for you, Walt, from the audience. Robert, go ahead.

ROBERT: Yes, as an American, those scenes of anti-American protests are very disturbing when they come from Pakistan. My concern is, to what degree do those actually represent the feelings of the people of Pakistan?

RODGERS: Well -- and it's a good question. It's a fair question. I think the best way to gauge is, that what you're seeing is essentially extremist reaction at this point. There is a silent majority in Pakistan which is sitting this one out so far and will probably continue to sit it out, because the government does not want protests on the street. Certainly at that point, that would be an embarrassment for President Musharraf.

Nonetheless, some demonstrations, particularly far, hundred of miles from the capital, are tolerated because that's kind of a safety valve and they're letting people blow off steam.

BATTISTA: We have some very smart young people in the audience. Let me take a question from Joan. Go ahead.

JOAN: Yes, I would like to know is Pakistan accepting refugees from Afghanistan?

RODGERS: Are they accepting refugees? Yes and no. There are two million Afghan refugees already in this country. That places an enormous burden on Pakistan economically, because this country is desperate for finances. It has an extraordinarily low standard of living, and of course every day hundreds and hundreds of refugees slip across a border from Afghanistan, a border that Pakistan has closed. But there seems no way of stanching the flow, particularly when Afghans are terrified of what might happen in their country. So, yes, Pakistan is accepting refugees, but only because it can't keep its border completely sealed -- Bobbie.

BATTISTA: All right, Walter Rodgers, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it, as always.

We are expecting to hear soon from Attorney General John Ashcroft, along with Canadian Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay. There is lots ahead, so stay right there. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: With us now are Eric Margolis, a frequent visitor to Pakistan. He met Osama bin Laden in 1992. He is a former Army strategy and tactics instructor and was a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and the Institute of Regional Studies in Islamabad. Eric, also, is author of "War at the Top of the World."

Eric, good to see you again.

ERIC MARGOLIS, JOURNALIST: Nice to be back.

BATTISTA: Also with us is Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief fro "As-Safir," a leading Lebanese newspaper. Good to see you.

HISHAM MELHEM, "As-Safir" NEWSPAPER: Thank you.

BATTISTA: And Carl Limbaucher is with us, a writer and editor at newsmax.com. Carl, good to see you.

CARL LIMBAUCHER, NEWSMAX.COM: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Eric, let me ask you this. We don't know what evidence the United States has at this point. We've heard that it's compelling, that it's significant or substantial. How much evidence do we need to have to convince the Taliban?

MARGOLIS: I don't think we're going to convince the Taliban one way or the other, though they've been asking for evidence for two years. But who will convince the Taliban is Pakistan.

And the United States has failed in one important thing. Washington should have put together what is known in diplomacy as a white paper, and put out their evidence and share it with Pakistan -- not even with General Musharraf who, by the way, said the other day that he has yet seen nothing that convinced him that there was adequate evidence -- but particularly, primarily with Pakistan's crack intelligence service, in ISI, whose leader, General Mahmood, I interviewed last year.

Mahmood is the man to whom the Taliban listens. And if Mahmood were to go to them and say, look, here is the evidence, I have it, that -- because Mahmood is from the same ethnic group as the Taliban. And I believe that that would satisfy the Taliban because, let's remember, they are holding bin Laden as a point of honor because he is a guest. And this would allow them to assuage their honor and hand him over.

BATTISTA: Do you they could actually really do that? Do you think they have that much -- they say they do -- have that kind of control over him?

MARGOLIS: I believe they do, though it's hard to tell with the Taliban, because they keep changing their story. And this is a reflection of the fact that Afghan tribal society, everything is done by consensus and everything is done by long discussions and no one is really in charge. And I think we're hearing this from the Taliban, so they're particularly difficult to deal with.

But one thing is for certain, that they are frightened that the wrath of Uncle Sam is going to come down on them, and they are looking for a way out. And the way out is through Pakistan, the only country whom they trust. BATTISTA: Hisham, maybe the bigger question here is how much evidence do the Arab nations need? How much proof do they need to join in with this coalition?

MELHEM: I'm not sure whether they'll be asking for the kind of proof that would stand in an American court of law. But definitely, they would need some conclusive evidence to help them testify to their own people, particularly to the Islamic opposition, that exists throughout the region, that going along with the campaign against bin Laden is justified because there is proof that he and the Al Qaeda group were behind the attacks on New York and Washington on the 11th of September.

There is a great deal of ferment the in the region. There is a great deal of opposition, in principle, for an American attack on Afghanistan, even from those people who are opposed to the Taliban. So -- and everybody was watching carefully what Secretary Powell said more than a week ago about evidence that's going to be presented in a so-called white paper. So far, most people in the region did not see that white paper.

And the fact that the Arab visitors who came to Washington and met with President Bush and Secretary Powell, the Egyptian foreign minister, the Saud foreign ministers, the king of Jordan, others, were asking -- and these are allies of the United States -- they were asking for evidence to help them justify their participation.

BATTISTA: So are you saying then that most Arabs, or a good percentage of Arabs, are not convinced that Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect?

MELHEM: Bobbie, if I tell you about the range of theories that exist in the region, that are being expressed by columnists, who are otherwise intelligent columnists, you would be surprised. Few people are convinced, or would like to believe that Osama bin Laden did it, but there are a lot of people who are in a state of denial. They don't want to believe, for one reason or another, that Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda or a Muslim group could do such a heinous crime. And some of them are clinging to some outlandish, outrageous, surreal conspiracy theories, that range from Serbs behind this to people trying to avenge the execution of Timothy McVeigh to...

BATTISTA: Yikes.

MELHEM: ... to disgruntled American intelligence operatives.

BATTISTA: We're not going to sort all those out, for sure.

MELHEM: I know.

BATTISTA: Let me get Carl in here quickly.

Carl, all of this proof, is it necessary? Should it be made public?

LIMBAUCHER: Well, that's the problem. It's just outlined. There are certain elements within, I think, even Pakistan and certainly some of the other Arab countries, that will never be convinced, no matter what level of evidence is presented, that bin Laden is behind this. And I think President Bush had it right initially when he corrected Colin Powell, suggesting that we're not going to betray any of our intelligence gathering methods in an attempt to prove our case to people who may be sitting on the fence.

I think it's proper to go as far as we have to to convince our allies in this effort, in this war on terrorism, that any and all actions are justified, so long as it doesn't compromise, again, or intelligence gathering methods. Short of that, I don't think any future action against bin Laden, Taliban, or whoever else may be connected to these terrorist attacks should be health hostage to a dissident elements in the region that are just not going to be persuadable.

BATTISTA: Here's an interesting e-mail I just got, which I'd like -- Eric, let me start with you to comment on. Bill in Florida says: "The Taliban is not a legitimate government," which is true. Pakistan is the only one who recognizes them now. "They need to see nothing."

MARGOLIS: Well, they are -- they're a legitimate de facto government. They control 95 percent of Afghanistan's territory. They're not necessarily legitimate de jure government. We have to make a difference. But in reality, they are the current government. And if America overthrows Taliban and tries to put the Northern Alliance in power, the Tajik ethnic group, it's going to have the same problem as in Iraq, and that is how does it keep an unpopular minority government in power. The United States could get sucked into Afghan affairs like the Russians did.

Let me go back to this point again about the evidence, because it's important. We do need to show the Arab and Muslim world some kind of evidence. The reason is this: that if the United States gets involved militarily in Afghanistan in anything more than a commando raid, and starts killing large numbers of people there, what will happen is that American businesses and American citizens will become targets of violence, from Morocco to Indonesia.

LIMBAUCHER: American citizens have become targets already. Seven thousand of them lay dead not far from where I sit right now.

MARGOLIS: But excuse me. But you will have this renewed by a factor of 10.

LIMBAUCHER: Seven thousand Americans...

MARGOLIS: May I finish, please? You don't have to repeat that as a mantra. We're aware of that.

LIMBAUCHER: We don't want to forget it, either.

MARGOLIS: The point is that you are going to make things worse by doing it, so you want to be cautious in how you react to this. What is wrong with showing people proof that the criminals were... BATTISTA: I'm sorry, I've got to interrupt here, because Attorney General Ashcroft is about to speak with reporters, so we'll go there.

(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF A LIVE EVENT)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. We are talking with Eric Margolis, Karl Limbaucher, and Hishan Melhem. Let me get you gentlemen going again here. Eric, a few moments ago you were pretty much making the case of negotiating with the Taliban -- we just lost the shot of Eric in Toronto. We will try to get that back -- Hisham, let me get you back into this conversation.

If we were to take military strikes against Afghanistan, what would be the ripple effect for the Arab community?

MELHEM: I think people are not going to be happy, of course, with the civilian casualties or what is called sometimes collateral damage, but I think many people, definitely the ruling elite throughout the region, will not feel sorry for the collapse of the Taliban regime.

I would even argue that some people will welcome this development in Afghanistan. Again, if it is not violent, and it doesn't lead to civilian casualties and if there is an American commitment and a Western commitment, to put it bluntly, that after the collapse of the Taliban regime, the United States will not abandon Afghanistan as the United States and other allies who fought the Soviets in the 1980s abandoned Afghanistan and left Afghans to their own devices when they were armed to the teeth after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces.

So there has to be a political component. That is the problem when you combat terrorism. You cannot combat it only by military means, you cannot combat it alone. So you have to have a combination of factors. But definitely the political one is important.

BATTISTA: Carl, how does the U.S. and other countries navigated that dance, though? I mean at what point in time does the Taliban run out of time?

LIMBAUCHER: It is not going to be easy. I think Prime Minister Blair made it quite clear that the Taliban is out of time. That action, certain reports have it, covert action is already under way and more evident action may be in the offing relatively soon. But I think we have to resist the tendency to, I hear lot of rhetoric suggesting that we don't want to rattle the dishes too much. We need to preserve the status quo and not upset some of our allies, or our erstwhile allies in the region.

While those are valid concerns, things are different now than they were before September 11. The dishes have already been rattled. I don't think they can be rearranged in the same way they were before that day. I don't think that the United States has any choice but to persevere in that direction.

BATTISTA: I think Eric is back. Eric, we were talking about the timing of a possible military strike. You, a few moments ago before the news conference were making the argument for negotiating with the Taliban. MARGOLIS: It is the Afghan, particularly Pashtun tradition to negotiate very slowly, through tortuous processes. I don't think the United States has the patience to go along with it, but the alternative is also problematical. As I said earlier, a quick raid -- if Osama bin Laden can been snatched out of Afghanistan with minimum casualties and brought to the United States, or even better, to the Hague court in my view, would be fine.

But what it looks like is that the U.S. will spend a lot of troops and time running around in Afghanistan. There will be heavy casualties, with totally unpredictable results. Remember, you are doing this in between nuclear armed India, nuclear armed Pakistan, you are on the Chinese border. You have got all of Central Asia which is probably going to go up in smoke, it is a dangerous situation.

BATTISTA: Eric, I am going to lose your satellite again and I know you have to move on to another network here. Eric Margolis, thanks very much.

MARGOLIS: Thank you.

BATTISTA: Thank you for joining us. We will see you again. Let me go up to the audience up to Michael.

MICHAEL: Yes, the question I have is, don't we have lot more to lose as far as alienating the people in the Middle East? Wouldn't it be better to put the evidence on the table? Put it out there for the people to scrutinize for themselves. Leaving it to media speculation I think does a lot more damage. Put the evidence out there where we can all see it, where we can all benefit from that and feel good about what we are doing.

LIMBAUCHER: I don't think we need to do that for a couple of reasons. First of all, I don't see any leaders, for instance, in positions, in nations that are working in concert with us, Blair, even Vladimir Putin, you might expect some dissonance there if there was any question of bin Laden's involvement in these attacks.

As far as running the risk of alienating some folks in the Middle East, some power centers, some elements, they have alienated the U.S. This is different than taking the initiative ourselves and launching a war against terrorism without any provocation. The United States has provocation, in spades, and we ignore that at our peril.

BATTISTA: Bob, in the audience, you have a question for, I think Melhem, usually.

BOB: Just for any of the gentleman there. What role do you think, once this is over with, as far as Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, will the moderate Islamic regimes in that area, enter in to support of the United States position and especially what do you think about Turkey because it is unique. It is a NATO ally and it is Islamic. What role will they play?

MELHEM: Is this for me?

BATTISTA: Yeah, go ahead.

MELHEM: The Turks as you said, are a member of NATO and I think the Turks told the United States that they will allow the American forces and other forces to use their facilities. I am not surprised. They have done that in 1991, during the war against Iraq. Turkey, although the majority of Turks are Muslim, it is a secular state that is a division between church and state there.

It is a unique arrangement in any Muslim country, that is the only Muslim country in the world that you have a situation like that. Look, the Muslim countries and the Arab countries would have to, of course, face later on this problem of extremism that exists there. Some of them may have been responsible by pursuing repressive policies against any kind of political decent even if it is Islamic peaceful political dissent.

Of course you have to make a distinction between those who pursue this kind of political dissent and those who shoot at tourists and those who shoot at civilians and the terrorists in general. Sometimes you don't find the governments making that distinction. Other governments, including the Saudis for instance, they produce thousands and thousands of religious students. From schools they are indoctrinated and there is a great deal of intolerance there and it is from that group that Osama bin Laden recruited some of those people.

Some of those people who participated on the attacks in New York and Washington were from Southern Saudi Arabia, from poor regions in Saudi Arabia. So you have a climate, that the likes of bin Laden and his soul mates in the region can explore to the fullest. So yes, the local countries have the responsibility. But again, to go back to alienating people, let me tell you, many people in the Arab world and the Muslim world have been alienated by certain American policies in the region: The Americans unqualified support for Israel, the American...

BATTISTA: How about the fact then that we heard British Prime Minister Blair today dangling the carrot of backing and establishing a Palestinian state and we are hearing more of that from the Bush Administration as well.

MELHEM: That is the right tone, Bobbie. If you have a resolution, a peaceful, lasting resolution, of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you will reduce terrorism in that part of the world considerably. I would not claim that this will be a panacea in and of itself, in the sense that it would produce all kind of political violence. Terrorism is ubiquitous. And it is going to exist in certain countries. European countries witness terrorism and the anarchists movement of the 19th century, early 20th century, even in this country. But if you settle the outstanding grinding political problems in the region, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and to a lesser extent, Iraq, then you will have a different atmosphere. Then it will be easier for the moderates in the region -- I am not talking about government, I am talking about the mainstream, to contain the extremist in their midst, because... LIMBAUCHER: Bobbie, can I respond?

BATTISTA: Go ahead.

MELHEM: It is threatening the existing orders.

BATTISTA: Carl?

LIMBAUCHER: This notion that somehow, and I hear it time and again, at the root of all our problems and let's not forget, we are dealing with an attack on American soil, is the ongoing Palestinian- Israeli conflict.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked less than a year after Yasser Arafat turned his nose up on what everybody agrees were the most-generous terms that he is ever going to get. Terms that President Clinton pushed him to the edge and pushed Israeli Prime Minister Mubarak, to the edge to give him.

Arafat walked away from that table, yet that didn't seem to help anything in terms of smoothing out the tensions when it comes to these terrorist attacks. They are ongoing. They continue today. We have the attack in Kashmir. I think Prime Minister Blair had it right: We either defeat terrorism or it defeats us.

BATTISTA: Let me take a quick break here and we will be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me get some audience back in here. Edwardo has been hanging on the phone for the entire show. I'm sorry, Edwardo, go ahead.

EDWARDO: Hi, I am calling from Sacramento. The United States would not hand over, allow extradition of anyone from the United States without another country showing evidence. Nor could the United States, with its more sophisticated law enforcement network, be able to deliver every suspected terrorist in the United States.

So on one hand, we are asking the Taliban to do something we wouldn't do on the other that we couldn't do and for a lot of people around the world this is an example of the kind of American arrogance that has contributed to the ocean of animosity that allows people like Osama bin Laden to operate and will only exacerbate the situation and ultimately may result in more terrorist attacks.

And if I could make one more point, what was laid on the table for Palestinians was not great. I provided for a continuing military presence in Palestine, Israeli troops on the Jordan River which would have effectively surrounded the independent nation of Palestine. They knew it was unacceptable when they put in on the table. Stop blaming the Palestinians for that.

BATTISTA: Go ahead, Carl. LIMBAUCHER: The mind boggles. This is not a crime that needs prosecution or investigation. This was an act of war. The attempts to constantly diminish it down to a court case are laughable. The United States had nothing to do with driving those two planes into the World Trade Center and a third plane into the Pentagon and the fourth into the Pennsylvania ground.

BATTISTA: But his question is, if an American committed a terrorist act on foreign soil and we were asked to extradite him or turn him over, would we do that without proof?

LIMBAUCHER: I think if you had a similar event that what took place on September 11, and there was substantial evidence already on the record linking that American to that attack, yes, I think we would.

BATTISTA: Robert, question or comment.

ROBERT: Yes, I feel convinced that Osama bin Laden is responsible. But in order to gather all of the world's organizations on our side we need to gather as much evidence as possible to make our case strong. We are not in this alone and we need all those other organizations on our side. Don't you agree that we need to gather as much evidence as possible as we proceed?

MELHEM: Bobbie, can I say something?

BATTISTA: Go ahead.

MELHEM: Look, nobody can deny the right of United States for self-defense. States act like that and states are required to defend themselves. Nobody would give you an argument there. The problem is we are asking to define the enemy, to define the objective, and to give some proof.

I am not asking for the kind of proof that would stand in American law. And there is a case to be made here that the United States would never deliver any American to any outside jurisdiction if there are no proofs. Now this is of course is somewhat different, but I don't think this United States will hurt its case if it provides some proof, not everything that they have, without endangering their sources and methods to tell the whole world, we are country that is ruled by law and we are not going to act like those terrorists.

LIMBAUCHER: Can I ask, is there any doubt in your mind that Osama bin Laden is behind this, in your mind?

MELHEM: No, no, from what I know, I think the man has already declared a jihad on the United States. And probably was responsible for the attacks on the embassies in East Africa. He is man that I consider as the incarnation of evil too, but at the same time states should act in a responsible way and we are not asking much from the United States to...

(CROSSTALK) BATTISTA: I have to jump, in you guys. We are running out of time completely. Carl Limbaucher and Hisham Melhem, thanks very much. Appreciate your insights. Thanks to our audience. We will see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE. See you then.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com