Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Will Bush Go to Iraq Next?; Passenger Sued for Security Breach at Airport

Aired November 27, 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.
JOIE CHEN, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out," is President Bush warning that Iraq may actually being next? Also today, the Feds want to question thousands of Middle Eastern men living in the United States. What's on line here, civil liberties or national security?

And a passenger is sued after a security breach shuts down a national airport. It was closed down for us. Before you make a move on your next flight, you want to hear about this case.

TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out," your chance to talk to us is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOIE CHEN: On the war front...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's quite clear that this murderous regime does not belong in Baghdad anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: A warning or a threat? Is the stage being set for the next campaign in the war on terror?

On the investigation...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The persons who will be interviewed are foreign visitors in Michigan on non-immigrant visas, with passports from countries where the al Qaeda terrorist network is active.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CHEN: Hundreds of middle eastern men are called for questioning. Is it good police work or a violation of civil liberties?

And on the home front, watch what you do at the airport.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL LASSETER, VIOLATED AIRPORT SECURITY: I deeply regret the inconvenience that was caused to a number of people, all arising from the concern for my son that was waiting at gate for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Could the wrong move get you sued?

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: Now, that's a good crowd, all ready to talk about the subjects we have on TALKBACK LIVE this afternoon. Thank you, all, for being with us. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Joie Chen.

The airlines sue a passenger to get even for an airport security breach. And the Feds move to interrogate Middle Eastern men living in the United States. First, tough, we're going to talk this hour -- tough talk from President Bush to Iraq's President Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush wants Hussein to open his country to weapons inspectors. And if Hussein doesn't, well, then what? Is the president making a case against Iraq?

Our guests today are retired Colonel Robert Maginnis. He is now the vice president for policy at the Family Research Council. Welcome again. Also with us today, Rob Sobhani, professor at Georgetown University and a specialist in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly about terrorism.

We want to talk to you both today about this notion of going after Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Talk to us why, Colonel Bob, about now. Why is this coming up now?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET): Well, obviously we have to focus on where the next major contributor to global terrorism happens to be. We knew that Saddam Hussein, in the early '90s, had about 400,000 leaders of anthrax. He has a history of firing missiles and using biological agents at its neighbors, Iran, the Kurds, his own people, obviously.

We know that he continued after December of '98, when the UNSCOM people were kicked out of there, who were there to inspect and enforce the agreed-to program that was put together in the shadow of Desert Storm in '91. He has continued to do those.

He's met with terrorists. He in fact has a terrorist camp, that he trained people how to hijack airplanes with knives, south of Baghdad. So this gentleman, interestingly, in many, many areas, has laid the -- I suppose, the pathway to his own door, in terms of being the next target, I think, for the U.S. to go after, for global terrorism.

CHEN: All right, Colonel. Rob Sobhani, I don't think you would disagree that Saddam Hussein has at least the potential of playing a major bad guy in the future yet again. But is the right thing to do for the United States to take some military action there?

ROB SOBHANI, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: I think, Joie, as you said, there is consensus as to the fact that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed. But let me emphasize -- not just Saddam Hussein. His sons, his entire organization needs to be rooted out of Iraq, because the people of Iraq have suffered enormously under Saddam Hussein.

However, I don't think this is necessarily the best time for a military strike. It is the best time to start a program of psychological warfare against Saddam Hussein. It is very important that we lay the groundwork first, in the north of the country, in the south of the country, with the Iraqi opposition. Then, after the right time and after the right moment, we strike militarily. Not yet.

MAGINNIS: Joie, I think we're doing that, precisely. If you look at the support we've given the opposition over the last few years, we've just sent some more first cave people to Kuwait. We've been bombing, just the last day or so, in southern Iraq. And of course, north we have our F-16s going from Incirlik, Turkey.

And by the way, we just started to negotiate, in Azerbaijan, the use of an old Soviet Air Force base that could used for incursions into Iraq. So, all of that put together, with the demonstrated resolve that we have in the midst of Afghanistan, with actual Marines south of Kandahar, Saddam Hussein knows something is up. And I think he is listening to what President Bush is saying.

CHEN: Let's get a comment from Mike, who's on the telephone line with us from California. Mike?

MIKE: Hi. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and as much as it hurts my Democratic gut to say this, Representative Bob Barr. I don't believe that we should go after nations where we have a status of understanding, in terms of the rules of engagement. For example, with Iraq, we've talked -- I mean, I've heard news about Yemen, and I've heard news about possibly confronting North Korea.

Are we going to go after the Israeli Mossad, which is a terrorist organization? Where is this going to stop? And under what circumstances would we engage these countries in a military confrontation? I think we need to understand how difficult it is. I mean, in the '50s and '60s, we tried to get rid of the network of organized crime in this country, and we lost a president, in part over that, President Kennedy.

CHEN: All right. A lot of topics that might cover there. Rob?

SOBHANI: I think, Joie, first of all, the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, is not a terrorist organization. But that aside, what's important for the United States, and for the people in your studios and Americans at large, is this: Iraq is at the heart of the world's largest reserves of petroleum.

If there is to be a strike against Iraq, it needs to be done carefully, because the price of oil could skyrocket, which could mean the price of gasoline at the pump could go up as well. The flip side of that, though, is if we are successful, and there is a participatory democracy in Iraq, then we will have, for once in a long, long time, been able to create for ourselves a secure supply of energy, not only for the people of Iraq, but for ourselves.

CHEN: All right. I want to get a couple thoughts in here from the audience, Colonel, before we get to you again. This is Paul, who is from New Mexico, and is a veteran, himself.

PAUL: Well, like I said, earlier when we were talking, we definitely need to be careful of what we do. Because if we go in, we'd better be prepared, because I don't think a lot of people in the United States know what's going to happen.

CHEN: Colonel, you hear the concern that Paul is expressing here. Is there a full understanding of this in the American public? The situation isn't quite what it is in Afghanistan in Iraq. It is a very different government, organization, and so forth.

MAGINNIS: Well, as you heard your military commentator saying earlier, Joie, you have many ethnic groups, you have 35 different languages. You have a country that's been in disarray for many decades, over in Afghanistan. In Iraq, though, you have Saddam Hussein, who has ruled that nation with an iron fist for a number of decades, has fought a number of wars. He's a survivalist, and he also has an infrastructure that's relatively loyal to him, even though the people themselves aren't.

But don't believe that this is going to be like 1991, when we invaded Iraq and we defeated him and his nation in 100 hours. We aren't going to be able to put 500,000 troops on the ground. I think, quite frankly, given the shadow of what he was in '91, we today can use many of the same operations that we have been using in Afghanistan.

Yeah, his Republican Guard is as powerful as it was in 1991. That would be different. But I agree with what Rob said earlier. We've got to exhaust diplomatic, financial, every other alternative, before we resort to force. But at the same time, I think Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and the president are beginning to make a case that says look, Saddam Hussein, let the inspectors in.

If you'll allow us in and we destroy what we find, in terms of weapons of mass destruction, then we're probably going to leave you alone. If you don't do that, and by chance, they might even know that some of that anthrax that has ended up in this country -- if it, by chance, came from his inventories in Baghdad, all of that...

CHEN: That seems to in some question. That does seem to be of some question, though. MAGINNIS: It is.

CHEN: And you do say that they may be building a case against Iraq, but apparently there's also not exactly unanimity among the administration about what should be done about Iraq. Let's get some comments from out here in the audience. This is Carolyn from Alabama, here with us today.

CAROLYN: Yes, I agree that we should use diplomatic -- all diplomatic relations that we can with Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein. But I think Saddam Hussein, we will find that he is a known terrorist, and he has probably provided the monetary support for a very, very well-connected terrorist network. So I feel like we probably, in the long run, need to come back and finish something that we should have completed many, many years ago.

CHEN: Carolyn, thank you. I also want to read a comment that we got from our message board today. This is Brian, who wrote: "Unfortunately, any resumed aggression towards Iraq under the guise of the war on terrorism smacks of George Jr. trying to finish his daddy's business."

And this just really does raise a point for us here, Colonel.

MAGINNIS: It does. In fact, Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy years ago. But, yes, we were 20 miles outside of Baghdad, Joie. The 101st, as I recall, and we could have gone in. But we were told stop, no further. And I think in hindsight, we made a mistake.

CHEN: Yeah. Rob Sobhani, another word from you, on the problems ahead and the internal politics of the administration, in trying to come to a decision about this.

SOBHANI: I think within the administration there is consensus that Saddam Hussein needs to go. I think the hard part is for the various bureaucracies to agree on the methodology. But that being said, at the end of the day, it is -- there is a cost not to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And the cost is, a nuclear Saddam.

A nuclear Saddam would be the biggest blow to U.S. national interests, not only in the region, but worldwide. We have to keep that in mind. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction.

CHEN: Quick word here, from Georgia here in our audience.

GEORGIA: I think most people here have a very bad memory. Because if you remember, it's the U.S. government who sponsored Qadhafi with military and monetary aid. They've sponsored al Qaeda, they've helped to sponsor Saddam Hussein. So the question needs to be raised: Who is worse, Frankenstein, or the doctor who helped make these Frankensteins of the world?

CHEN: Interesting point.

(CROSSTALK) CHEN: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to break it off there, because we're going to have to take a break. But we appreciate both of you being with us and adding your voice to the conversation today. Rob Sobhani and Colonel Maginnis, thank you both for joining us, and we'll see you both again.

Take a break here. Safety first, or civil rights above all? What do you think when the Feds come knocking?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: Welcome back. Folks in our audiences bring their own newspaper and read. They would like to know more about the news of the day.

Here's another story we want to talk about today. Originally, federal officials planned to knock on doors. Instead, they're sending off letters to hundreds of Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 33, now living in Michigan. They may not just be Middle Eastern, by the way. They may be of other nationalities, as well.

The men are asked to voluntarily show up for questioning, as investigators probe the country for terrorist cells. This probe pits national security against concerns about civil liberties. Joining us now to talk about all this, former federal prosecutor and Justice Department official, Victoria Toensing.

Also with us today, Geoffrey Fieger, a Detroit attorney whose more well-known clients have included Dr. Jack Kevorkian. You'll probably never get away from that name, Geoffrey. But in any case...

Probably not.

CHEN: We'll talk first. Let's ask Victoria Toensing about this whole notion of sending out letters to folks and saying, look, you might have information that Justice Department official might need, can you come in and just tell me what you know? Is there any problem in your mind with identifying these people, and sending them this sort of letter?

VICTORIA TOENSING, FMR. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, I have no problem whatsoever, Joie. And one additional important factor is, in deciding that this is the least intrusive method, is, not only is it just to several hundred people out of a community of 300,000, but it's for temporary visa people who are from countries who support or advocate or finance terrorism.

So, it's a very carefully crafted letter, asking for them to come in voluntarily, but to specific people, not just, you know, a dragnet, as we did in World War II.

CHEN: But hang on. You know, isn't there sort of an element like, look, if my local police department wants to run say, an insurance card check. Isn't there some rule that they have to pick every 10th car? They can't just decide on the cars driven only by woman... TOENSING: Oh, no, Joie, that's not -- I've done federal prosecutions, but I also was in charge of all the terrorism cases when I was at the Justice Department. No, this is absolutely -- you have to go where the evidence takes you.

And let me just say one additional thing, because this is so important. These people are not U.S. citizens. Why should we be saying that they have less responsibility to our government than U.S. citizens? Because, Joie, if you and I are at the scene of a crime or have knowledge about a crime, we must give the information to a court. And if we don't, we'll be held in contempt.

CHEN: Audience, do you like that?

Audience is thinking, yes, they think so. Although, bearing in mind, even the prosecutor's letter does say we don't think these people have any association, and may not even have information they think is important. But the Justice Department wants to ask.

Tracking terrorists in heartland.

People interviewed are not suspected of any criminal activity. Also, process is completely voluntary.

TOENSING: But you don't know.

CHEN: Geoffrey Fieger, you are in the Detroit area where these letters are going out. Have you heard from anybody on this, anybody with concerns?

GEOFFREY FIEGER, ATTORNEY: No, not yet, because they haven't received the letters. But what was just said is absolutely wrong. There is no compulsion of American citizens, if they see a crime, to go to the police, or tell the police anything. I don't know what your guest is talking about.

You can be subpoenaed into court under very limited circumstances, ground juries, primarily, and be compelled to testify. But those are very limited. But what is your guest talking about, in terms of where these people are from?

This isn't about visas. And she says these are people only from countries that support terrorism? Saudi Arabia doesn't support terrorism. In fact, most countries of the Middle East don't support it. Why don't we start bringing in Irish people, because we've got the Irish Republican Army operating, and blowing up people in England. We're not bringing in the Irish.

TOENSING: Well, I'm Irish. And we have had those kinds of investigations.

FIEGER: We have never brought Irish people in, in the United States, and started to question Irish people!

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: Wait a second. You're not kidding the people if you say that.

TOENSING: When we investigate I.R.A. terrorism, we certainly do talk to Irish people. Geoff, you've never been in the Justice Department. You have no idea...

FIEGER: When is the last time that Attorney General...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: Excuse me.

TOENSING: If I could finish something.

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: When was the last time an attorney general of the United States sent out letters to American-Irish people, to come in and talk to the FBI about what they know about terrorism.

CHEN: Let her answer that, Geoff.

TOENSING: We don't do investigations in the way that we're doing it today, because it was such a massive crime. But let me tell you that when it's an I.R.A. terrorist, Irish people are questioned.

(CROSSTALK)

TOENSING: Geoffrey, you're absolutely wrong. Legally, if the police believe somebody has evidence of a crime, and the grand jury subpoena is used, which is always in the federal case, there is a grand jury. And if the person refuses to testify, the person can either say I'm doing it because I have a Fifth Amendment right not to, or the person has to testify, or the person is held in court...

FIEGER: That's very limited.

TOENSING: It's not limited.

FIEGER: That's very limited! Hardly anybody ever gets subpoenaed into the ground jury. Hardly anybody. We don't have enough grand juries.

TOENSING: Well, you've never done it, Geoff. You don't know.

FIEGER: Of course I've done it. What do you mean, I haven't done it?

CHEN: We're not talking about subpoena, either. But let's get -- this is Steve on the telephone line. He is in Michigan. Steve?

CALLER: Yes, right here.

CHEN: Go ahead.

CALLER: First off, I think we have to be very careful about what we start doing. We've been systematically gutting the Constitution since September 11, and this is just one more step. There is no functional difference between rounding up Japanese citizens and putting them in internment camps and offering the Middle Eastern citizens a nice letter saying please show up to our concentration camp.

JOIE CHEN, HOST: Well, I don't think they're planning on locking them up, Steve, but let's...

FIEGER: How do you know? They've locked up over 1,000 people right now and Mr. Ashcroft won't tell us their identity.

CHEN: All right. This is Dimitrios in our audience. He is from Greece and he has a question or comment.

DIMITRIOS: I have got to say that it's very thin and fine line we are walking through right now. Obviously the government has to do whatever it takes to look after the security of the country, but at the same point we do have to look everybody civil rights the same way, whether -- whether it's American citizens or non-American citizens.

TOENSING: I would agree with that. And so should we give people who are here on temporary visa less responsibility than U.S. citizens have...

FIEGER: That is...

TOENSING: ...who have to answer questions when the police ask them?

FIEGER: Let them form a grand jury and to call people in to testify in front of a grand jury. This is not a grand jury proceeding. To sort of liken it to that is just disingenuousous.

What is really happening here is racial profiling. pure and simple. And the question is -- because people who are here legally in this country have as much constitutional rights as people who are citizens of the country, and they are entitled to due process of law -- and we are racially profiling them in the name of protecting our citizenry.

CHEN: Let me just read...

FIEGER: Is that what we are going to do in times of trouble? We're going to give away a little of our freedom?

CHEN: Let me just read a little of the original letter from the U.S. Attorney's office there in Michigan. "Your name was brought to attention because, among other things, you came to Michigan on a visa from a country where groups that support, advocate or finance international terrorism."

So that goes to your point earlier, Geoffrey, that it does not say you have to be from a country that sponsors terrorism, but you are from a country where there are groups.

FIEGER: That would include people from Israel, because there are Palestinians and your former -- your guest just a minute ago. Israelis could be called in, but of course they're not calling in Israelis. They might be calling in Palestinians, but Israelis they are not calling in.

TOENSING: Well, remember there are 50 -- there are 50 people under detention who are Israelis.

CHEN: And that's...

TOENSING: You better get your facts...

FIEGER: No, no.

TOENSING: ...and Saudi Arabia.

CHEN: There have been Israelis.

FIGER: They are -- they are Israelis -- they are residents of Israel who are of Arab descent, not Jewish descent. There aren't any Jews being held by John Ashcroft.

CHEN: The other thing is that you -- that we have no reason to believe that you are any way associated with terrorist activities. I want to continue to talk about this letter and continue this conversation.

We have to take a break. We will return here just a moment. And later in this hour, we will tell you how AirTrans to make passenger Michael Lasseter pay for shutting down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport earlier in this month. You may remember him, that guy running the wrong way down an up escalator. Do you think that he should be held financially responsible for the shutdown?

Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. Stay right there. We will be back with the answers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TANYA, STUDENT: I'm Tanya from Stony Brook university. By inviting instead of ordering these Middle Eastern men to be interviewed, officials are hiding behind the fact that they are profiling these men. What was the criteria for letting them in the country in the first place?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Interesting point. But after all, Victoria, as this -- as this young woman from Stony Brook was saying, what was the criterion for letting them into the country in the first place? To get a visa there is no particular requirement that you explain your relationship to anybody in your home country or anything else.

TOENSING: Well, I think it's been a pretty lackadaisical situation and I hope that we improve the situation in -- in the future.

And let me talk something about what is going on here. Because in all of my years in law enforcement, whenever a crime has been perpetrated, we have looked at how do you punish and catch the perpetrators.

Here we have not only an equal but even more important goal and that is prevention, and it's something that really hasn't been talked about. And to even call this a crime is beyond what, you know, our criminal code was ever designed for. This -- what happened on September 11 is not just an act of war, it is an illegal act of war.

And which one of us, not having -- or having possession of evidence that might help find the perpetrators or preventing another attack would not want to come forward and tell our government?

CHEN: But there is a perspective of the part of the people receiving these letters. It may not mean the same thing to them as it might mean to those of us who are citizens of the United States.

TOENSING: But it should, though. It should.

BILL: One of the problems.

TOENSING: That's what I'm talking about.

CHEN: Let Bill in. Let Bill in here.

BILL: I think you have to understand that these people come from a culture that when you are invited to come to the local police department it's probably something pretty bad. You know, I think it's kind of naive of us to think that these people are going to volunteer quite a bit of information. Perhaps it would have been easier if we'd just put a box at the bottom that said: Check yes or no, are you a terrorist?

CHEN: Interesting point. Thanks. Geoffrey?

FIEGER: Well, I -- I just think your guest is willing to -- in the name of law enforcement and in the name of attempting to protect us all -- to give away freedoms that I am not willing to give up. I thought we're -- that is what we fought a revolution for.

You know, every one of our founding fathers could have been brought in by the king of England under the precepts that you're suggesting as terrorists.

By the way, we say Cuba is a country that foments and sponsors terrorism. Why are we not going to South Florida and start pulling in Cubans? That's because this is clearly racial profiling. Clearly, unabashedly racial profiling.

CHEN: Although, actually, the Justice Department hasn't said specifically which nations would or wouldn't be included in that list.

FIEGER: Oh, come on. We know... CHEN: But they haven't. They haven't.

TOENSING: The Philippines are our friends. And they are going into the Philippines with the aid of...

FIEGER: Yes, because it's racial -- this is religious profiling also. This is targeted. Mr. Bush says we have nothing against people of the Muslim faith, but this is really targeting Muslims. And that is unconstitutional and abhorrent to our beliefs.

TOENSING: Well, of course you're aware, Geoff. We have gone in and -- and our boys and girls have died in fighting in Bosnia where we came in on the side of Muslims.

FIEGER: We are not talking about Bosnia. We are targeting Muslims.

CHEN: We are moving into another field here. But I want to get Bill on the telephone line for us. He is from Missouri -- Bill.

BILL: Hello.

CHEN: Yes, sir.

BILL: My comment is, with the war situation that we have, if you are not an American citizen, I don't believe you should be worried about the civil rights afforded to the American people. I would just -- I would like to know where they think they even have any call to this country.

FIEGER: They do.

CHEN: Geoffrey?

TOENSING: And -- and Geoffrey and I don't disagree on that.

FIEGER: They have an absolute right to be protected under our laws. That's the wonderment. That is the wonderful part about our country. We protect everyone within our boundaries and we give everybody the same protection. We don't protect people disparately.

TOENSING: Absolutely. Absolutely. And then they should have the same responsibility to uphold.

CHEN: All right. Here is -- here is Michelle in our audience today. Michelle one of the young people in our audience today but with a smart comment. Come on, Michelle.

MICHELLE: I feel sorry for the Middle Eastern people in the United States because when it comes to safety we take all kinds of precautions. But it still kind of means that if you want to be really safe we should interview some of those people and see what kind of background they have.

CHEN: And see if they are willing to talk. All right. Thank you both for being with us. Victoria Toensing, Geoffrey Fieger, thank you for being with us.

FIEGER: Thanks.

CHEN: Up next here, a story you won't want to miss. It's certainly a subject of great interest to our audience. It may be familiar to you as well. Stand by for more.

Next here:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL LASSETER, CREATOR OF ATLANTA AIRPORT DISTURBANCE: I just wanted to say that I deeply regret the inconvenience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Atlanta's wrongway man. The downs and ups of Michael Lasseter and why it's not just the delayed passengers he's got to deal with now. The airline that wants him to pay up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: This is a subject our audience really wants to talk about today. And you might remember from a couple of weeks ago when a passenger at Atlanta's Hartsfield International airport took off going the wrong way down the up escalator. So the airport shut down for several hours, the place was evacuated, all kinds of other flight delays occurred as well.

Well, the airlines lost millions of dollars in the shutdown, and now AirTran Airlines is suing Michael Lasseter, the guy who started it all, for $100,000 at least. Now let's lay all this at the feet of CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack. Roger, you have to have the wisdom of Solomon today because our audience is very interested in this one. What kind of...

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And who better than me to have the wisdom of Solomon?

CHEN: Who could -- who could have better answers than our friend Roger Cossack? What lawsuit is this? I mean, what is AirTran accusing Michael Lasseter of?

COSSACK: Well, you want -- in a nutshell, I think they're accusing him of being a moron. And I think if that's what they're accusing him of...

CHEN: Is that illegal?

COSSACK: I think if that's what they're accusing him of, they've got an open-and-shut case.

CHEN: Does that become -- is that a federal charge?

COSSACK: Here's basically -- we all know what happened. And gee, you people in Atlanta suffered the most from this. But I guess people all over the -- in the air industry and the airlines suffered too. But as you know, you know the facts of what happened.

He didn't -- faced with idea of going through security again, he decided he would run down the up escalator and go retrieve, I guess, a camera bag that he left.

Of course in the middle of all of these terrible times and the high security at the airport, what this guy was thinking about, who only knows. But now comes AirTran -- and lot of airlines, I suppose -- who -- who look around and say, you know what? It's maybe -- it's not so darn funny. We lost millions of dollars. The airport lost, you know, a great deal of money. People were highly inconvenienced. And, you know, at the very least this guy should have known better.

Now, he's already gotten a break, I believe, because I think the feds have decided not to file federal charges against him. I can only hope that this was just a momentary lapse in good judgment on his part, but I think that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But yes, the answer, is can they sue him? They sure can. And I think what they're really upset at him about is not so much that he did what he did but apparently he was one of those thousands that were standing around outside the airport in Atlanta, you know, looking around, saying, "gee, what happened here?" when in fact they claim that he knew what happened there and he was the one that shut down that airport and he should have at the very least come forward and said, "Look, I was the guy that did this. I made a mistake. I'm not a terrorist. I just did a dumb thing. Everybody can go back and start to fly again. You have -- have nothing to be frightened of from me, other than I am an idiot." But other than that...

CHEN: Although he did say when he came out and made his public statement, he did say he didn't know, he didn't realize -- he didn't know he was the cause of all of this. But Janis isn't buying it and says he's got to pay.

JANIS: Right. I certainly think he should accept responsibility for his action even though he's just trying to say, "I apologize for the inconvenience." I think he certainly should have to pay up in more than just trying us to accept that apology.

CHEN: $100,000, though? That's a bunch of money.

JANIS: That is a lot of money. Perhaps less, but I don't think he should just get a slap on the wrist and nothing more.

CHEN: What is the logic, though Roger, when you -- when you create a tort lawsuit, I mean isn't there some sort of dollar amount that you try to apply? And the other part of this thing, it's pretty weird, isn't it, for a corporation to sue an individual in this sort of action? I understand it the other way. But for a company to sue an individual, I don't know that I've heard of that before.

COSSACK: Well, no, that's happened before. Corporations have sued individuals. Look.

Look at the facts in this case. The facts in this case are what we have said. You know, this is man by his actions brought that airline and that airport to a dead stop.

That corporation -- who has shareholders, who has people who invested their savings in it -- you know, have an absolute right to go about and say, "Look, because of your intentional -- or negligent, at the very least negligent -- activity, you cost us a great deal of money."

I suspect that AirTran lost more than $100,000 that afternoon because of the airport being shut down. And I suspect $100,000 is number that they came up with which doesn't really reflect the amount of money they they lost.

Now, are they going to have a tough time proving he actually knew what -- what the damages were and what he did, that he was the cause of the closing of that airport? Well, that is going to be the interesting question. Look, if he didn't know, you can't hold him for not coming back and saying something when he should have said something. But I would suspect that there was a whole lot of conversation going on out there among those people who were standing around waiting and hoping that the...

CHEN: Yeah. There were all kinds of rumors flying around.

COSSACK: As to what happened. And for him to standing there and then suddenly somebody recognizes him and says, "you're the guy." And he says, "If I'm the guy, I'm real sorry."

CHEN: OK. Look, your wisdom of Solomon there, Roger, is getting a little longwinded.

COSSACK: OK.

CHEN: So let's work -- this is Dimitrios in our audience.

DIMITRIOS: He is obviously...

COSSACK: Solomon was not short-winded guy.

CHEN: I guess not.

DIMITRIOS: He is obviously wrong and he should be punished up to a degree. But I think it's really unfair that he is to be blamed for the whole damage and all the air companies suing him and trying to recover their losses out of a single person, I think is totally not fair.

CHEN: I don't know that $100,000 would do it. But I'm not even sure he has got $100,000 to give AirTran. I mean, he does not look like a tremendously wealthy man, Roger. Is that how you base a damage award anyway?

COSSACK: Well, no. I mean, if they got -- look, let's take the next step. If they got a judgment for $100,000 and he couldn't pay it, they'd have to work something out with him. I suppose he could go bankrupt. I mean, there's -- there are ways around these kind of things. But they have to get a judgment first. CHEN: All right. This is Carl on the telephone from Michigan. Carl?

CARL: Hi, Joie.

CHEN: Hi, Carl.

CARL: I used to work airport security back in the early '90s. And with all the heightened security these days, that man is very lucky he wasn't shot for doing what he did. And I think he is absolutely responsible and should be sued.

CHEN: Audience? Yeah, OK. They're sort of buying that, Roger. What you would the airline have to prove to make its case?

COSSACK: Well, they're surely not going to have to prove that he ran down the up escalator.

CHEN: We have enough evidence.

COSSACK: We have all kinds of pictures of that. I think they are going to have to prove one, that he -- obviously that he did it.

But second of all, I think they're more interested in the fact that he didn't come forward. I think that's where they feel that he was truly negligent, in not coming forward. And that may be -- like I said, that may be more difficult for them to prove to show that was the -- that he actually knew that he was the one that caused this whole shutdown.

CHEN: Yeah, I -- I think that is part of the point. Let's get to also in our audience here. This is Christian from Florida.

CHRISTIAN: Hi. I would like to comment from the fact that when people from a business or an organization, a company that is private, they can -- they are afforded a lot less responsibility than an individual is, and there's a lot more that an individual has to -- a lot more burden on them. A finger can be pointed on an individual but it's harder to place a finger on anyone in an organization.

And so if an -- if a business like AirTran in the engagement of a private they decide to keep somebody on -- just hold somebody out on the airways or they cancel a flight, there are no reparations paid to their customers. And it shouldn't work the other way around.

CHEN: I also wonder, Roger, though, if -- doesn't -- I mean, doesn't -- wouldn't the more logical thing be to go after the airport? I mean, the airport could have made the decision to try to stop him in some other way. The airport could, I think -- saw him on the video. The guards say they saw him going down the escalator, but they didn't actually stop him. Couldn't the -- the airport be sued for not stopping him some other way and -- and keeping, you know, the flow of traffic going elsewhere in the airport?

COSSACK: Well, I suppose the -- you know, airline security has been -- up until recently, as you know -- in the hands of the airlines. And I suppose a passenger might be able to bring lawsuit against AirTran and say, "You know, your airline security was pretty bad when this could happen and you really couldn't do anything about it."

You know, what passenger wants to get involved with a lawsuit against an airline? You know, the airlines would respond and say, you know, we did the best we could. And obviously we can't let the planes fly because we didn't know what was going on. That's why we shut down the airline. That could be long and protracted lawsuit, but I suppose they could bring that lawsuit if they wanted to.

CHEN: Here is Marsha in our audience. Marsha.

MARSHA: I think sometimes you have to set an example and that $100,000 is showing others that they cannot do this. I mean, just think of all the concern and fear of people around the country, the children that were getting on the planes to fly and -- how fearful they were after this happened.

CHEN: The parents who were at home watching what was going on at the airport on TV. Roger, I guess that people are looking for way for people to take responsibility. And I guess that's what the legal system was originally supposed to be about before we started blaming the lawyers for everything.

COSSACK: That's right, Joie. This is one time you can't blame the lawyers. I had nothing to do with it.

CHEN: At least not that -- that particular lawyer. Our friend Roger. Last word from Jerrod.

JERROD: I don't know if they will be able get $100,000 from this guy. But I think a more fitting punishment would be to make him do $100,000 of community service picking up paper at the airport.

CHEN: Yeah. Or maybe 100,000 hours keeping people from going the wrong way down the escalator. We'll find out what happens.

COSSACK: Now you're talking.

CHEN: Roger Cossack, thanks very much for joining us today. Also thanks to our studio audience and those of you at home. TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out" will speak out again tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 eastern. Right now Judy Woodruff tells us what is ahead in the next hour here on CNN -- Judy.

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