Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
America Speaks Out: Is Zacarias Moussaoui connected to the September 11 attacks?
Aired January 02, 2002 - 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was shocked that a defendant is presented in a prisoner's uniform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST, TALKBACK LIVE: Is Zacarias Moussaoui connected to the September 11 attacks? Can the prosecution prove it, and is it a trial you want to see on TV?
Also, the ACLU and Amnesty International on the case of a post 9/11 detainee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone is afraid that somebody might be making a mistake, and they will let a person go that may be needed, and that's mind boggling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: And scared to death.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The individual has no way of knowing when they're the subject of a hoax, rather or not their health and, indeed, their life has been put at risk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: What's fit punishment for anthrax hoaxes?
And welcome to TALKBACK LIVE -- AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. I am Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.
You know, the first person to be indicted in the September 11 attacks invokes Allah, and tells the judge he doesn't have anything to plead. Zacarias Moussaoui is charged with conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to murder thousands of people.
CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick is following this today. She joins us live from northern Virginia right now. Deborah, tell us what happened in court.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zacarias Moussaoui walked into the courtroom. He almost seemed defiant. His hands and feet were not shackled as they had been when he appeared briefly in a New York court. He was wearing a green prison outfit. He was carrying a manila envelope.
And really within seconds of the arraignment beginning, took to the lectern and addressed the judge, and he said, "In the name of Allah, I do not have anything to plea. I enter no plea." And the judge took that as being a not guilty. She asked the lawyer. The lawyer said, "Yes, that is how he pleads." And really, throughout the entire proceeding, he sat listening patiently, attentively, you could say. He was stroking his beard at some points. The prosecutors and defense teams were figuring exactly when they were going to hold certain motions and certain hearings.
They have set the trial date for October 14. The defense team wanted a lot more time in order to prepare their case. They said this is so complicated that in order to go through all of the evidence, in order to translate all of the Arabic documents, in order to interview witnesses in Germany and Britain and London and Spain, they're going to need more time. But the judge said, no, you have plenty of lawyers on your team, and if you need more, you just let me know.
At the end of the hearing, the judge stood, the entire courtroom stood, everyone except Zacarias Moussaoui. He just sort of sat in his chair, basically denying that the proceeding was effectively legitimate. Then, once the judge departed and everything had sort of got back to normal, that's when a federal marshal tapped him on his shoulder, basically said, let's go. They walked out of court, and the 30 minute hearing was over -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Tell us again about his demeanor, Deborah. You say he was defiant?
FEYERICK: Well, absolutely. He didn't seem to be acknowledging the legitimacy of the courtroom, and that's the way he appeared when he was in that court a little earlier. So whether he regards this as a legitimate process, he is basically saying, you know, I did not have anything to do with it, so whatever you guys are doing, it's up to you. But certainly, you know, leave me out of it, effectively.
The fact that he didn't stand when the judge stood, that was very indicative, because most defendants will stand just out of respect for the judge, showing her a bit of honor that is due to a judge. He did not stand. He just sat there, and it wasn't until the U.S. Marshal actually nudged him that he actually got up to go.
COSTELLO: Has his appearance changed? I understand he's grown a full beard.
FEYERICK: Yes, absolutely. The pictures that you see of him, where he is pretty much very clean shaven and closely-cropped hair. His hair now is much bushier. He is definitely losing his hair, and he is definitely balding. But his hair is bushier, and also his beard is much, much thicker. And even though the pictures show him as being somewhat of a large man, actually he is rather small. I would say he's about 5 foot 7, 5 foot 8, not particularly muscular, not fat either, but sort of solid -- a very sort of solid 5'8 man. He comes across as being much different than he appears in his pictures.
COSTELLO: I know the trial is taking place in northern Virginia, not far from where the Pentagon is. Tell us about the security measures taking place there.
FEYERICK: Security is very tight. There were a lot of federal marshals around the entire courtroom. There were several checkpoints within the courthouse. For example, you had to check your bags immediately upon entering, and then you were taken to a higher floor. You had to check your bags one more time. Metal detectors were in place at both spots. And you had to check your coat as well. They're not allowing any coats into the courtroom, and obviously no electronic devices, not even pagers are being allowed into the courtroom, so security definitely tight.
Having covered trials in New York, I tend to compare the two. In New York, the security that's been around terrorist trials seems to be a lot tougher. I mean, there you've got federal marshals carrying automatic rifles. So a bit different. We didn't see that kind of heavy artillery, that kind of heavy machinery.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's talk about the cost of this trial, because it's going to cost the American taxpayer quite a bit to try Zacarias Moussaoui.
FEYERICK: Well, that is the price of democracy. That's the price of justice. You can sort of look at the breakdown. Zacarias Moussaoui has three lawyers. One of them is skilled in defense. One of them is skilled in documents, getting classified documents let into trial. Another one also is skilled in the death penalty. He is a death penalty specialist. That's the way that it breaks down.
And the judge said if you need more interpreters to help you go through documents, we'll get you those interpreters. If you feel you need more lawyers, we'll get you more lawyers, but this case is going to trial October 14, so whatever you need to do to get ready, we're going to help you do that. So it is definitely going to cost upwards of millions of dollars, and that figure applied to other terrorism cases in the past.
COSTELLO: All right, Deborah Feyerick, thank you for joining us today.
Let's welcome now our other guests this afternoon. Ron Kuby is a criminal defense attorney and radio talk show host on WABC. Robert Tanenbaum is a former New York City assistant district attorney and one-time chief of the city's homicide bureau. He is also the author of "Enemy Within." Leo Terrell, an attorney for the NAACP and talk show host at 790 KABC. And Nancy Grace, a former assistant district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia. Currently, she is an anchor at "Court TV."
Thank you all for joining us this afternoon.
OK. Well let's start with this question: Can Zacarias Moussaoui get a fair trial? Nancy, let's start with you.
NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, now, a fair trial, I am sure everyone is going to thunder that no, he cannot, because there has been so much pretrial publicity. But long story short, the Constitution guarantees you a jury that says they can be impartial, not a jury that's been living in a cave for the past year. So while this jury may know some facts through the press about the case, yes, he can get a fair trial.
COSTELLO: Leo, do you agree?
LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, I'd like to answer -- let me think about that. No, he cannot get a fair trial, because he is entitled to an impartial jury, and there are no impartial jurors in this country who is going to look at this case impartially. There are people, Carol, who will lie to get on the witness -- get in the jury box. With all the publicity (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of September 11, this man will not get an impartial jury...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: You say that about every case you've ever tried, Leo.
TERRELL: He is entitled to an impartial jury. He will not get it.
GRACE: You said that about Simpson, and he got acquitted.
TERRELL: He will not get an impartial jury.
COSTELLO: OK. Well, let's interrupt you two for just a second...
TERRELL: You know it, and I know it.
COSTELLO: ... and turn to the audience. Audience members, by applause, do you think Zacarias Moussaoui can get a fair trial in this country?
(LIGHT APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: How many of you -- OK. How many of you do not think he can get a fair trial?
(HEAVY APPLAUSE)
TERRELL: I win.
COSTELLO: You win. Anyone else want to comment?
RON KUBY, FIRST AMENDMENT ATTORNEY: Yes. I think that it's a little premature to decide whether or not the trial is going to be fair, until we have the opportunity to start questioning jurors. You know, I've done a fair number of terrorist trials here in New York City. And through a careful enough jury selection process, you can find people who will do their utmost, and take their job as jurors as seriously as anything they've ever done in their life, and do their best to be fair. He will get the fairest possible trial that I think anybody can get under the circumstances.
COSTELLO: Yes, under the circumstances. We have an audience question right now from...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Diana. Go ahead, Diana.
COSTELLO: ... Diana.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Yes. I don't think he would get a fair trial. First of all, we're talking about Virginia. You have a lot of military people there. Let's remember, the Pentagon was bombed. And I think that we talk about your peers being on the jury. Who are we going to put on the jury? What type of people will be the makeup of that jury? If a lot of them are military people, or people who are military family members, then you're going to have a lot of emotions. September 11 is not that far removed from us enough that I can say that we would be emotionally fair.
COSTELLO: Diana, you bring up a lot of good points. Robert, we haven't heard from you yet -- any comments?
ROBERT TANENBAUM, ATTORNEY: Well, first, he shouldn't be tried in Virginia, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) have a trial that has anything to do with the criminal justice system, in my opinion. There are saboteurs -- individuals who are engaged in war efforts against the United States, American history do not get trials in civil courts in this country.
For example, if we had a pilot, for example, who was involved in the bombing of Pearl Harbor and somehow or other was doing spying before the fact, and was captured thereafter, we would not be giving him a trial anywhere in Virginia or anywhere else -- Minnesota. But we're doing it, I think, for the wrong reasons. And what these -- the questions with respect to fair trial, the bottom line is he's going to get a fair trial. And he's going to be entitled to all the panoply of rights constitutionally guaranteed to every defendant who is tried in America. And that's one of the reasons why in a wartime, you don't to do it.
GRACE: That's right.
TANENBAUM: He is entitled to discovery. He's entitled to all of the rights that are going to in some fashion perhaps compromise...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: Well, I agree. You know, at first, Bush was talking about the terrorists being tried by military tribunals, a secret military tribunal. Everyone threw a fit, didn't want that. You want a jury trial. You know what? You're getting a jury trial, and you're still complaining? If you're going to have a jury trial, Virginia is the proper location. Alexandria is just two miles from the Pentagon.
KUBY: Well, let's -- Nancy, Nancy, let's not be disingenuous here. The Northern District of Virginia was specifically chosen, because jurors there are more likely than most other locations...
GRACE: Because that's where the crimes happened, Ron.
KUBY: ... to impose that death penalty.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Well, the crime also happened in New York City, Nancy Grace. And you know that as well.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: I have to interject this (UNINTELLIGIBLE). There is an interesting thing too. The judge appointed to hear this case is a progressive judge. She is not conservative. Might that help?
KUBY: Help who?
GRACE: Moussaoui.
COSTELLO: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: Well, not when...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: Yes, that will help Moussaoui.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: He is 20 minutes from the Pentagon. Like that -- our viewer said.
GRACE: That's where the crime happened.
TERRELL: This guy is entitled to a fair trial. Impartial jury is not possible within that striking distance.
GRACE: Would you rather...
TERRELL: No way.
GRACE: ... have a military tribunal, Leo?
TERRELL: I would rather -- I want a fair trial. Don't you understand? I want impartial jurors. Is that impossible to ask for?
TANENAUM: Well, if this case were tried in Indianapolis, in middle America, we would have little green apples flying around.
COSTELLO: OK.
TANENBAUM: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) will be made, but...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: You guys (UNINTELLIGIBLE) complain no matter what.
COSTELLO: On that note, we've got to take a quick break. Lots more to talk about right after this when TALKBACK LIVE returns -- we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Oh, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're talking about Zacarias Moussaoui, and if he can get a fair trial in this country. He is alleged to be associated to the September 11 attacks.
We have Don from California on the phone right now. Do you think, Don, that he can get a fair trial?
CALLER: Absolutely. I think that the jurists will base their decision on the facts that is presented on the case, and thus, make a verdict that is -- would correlate to that information they have received.
COSTELLO: Nancy does agree with you. I have a question for you, because I've never heard of this before, Nancy, and maybe you can help us with this. To select a jury, they are sending out a questionnaire to a potential jury pool, and then they fill out this questionnaire and send it back, and they pick out the people to come into to court then. Have you ever heard of that?
GRACE: I'm sure all of the lawyers today are familiar with that, especially in high-profile cases. If you get people that answer that questionnaire contrary to what the Constitution requires, you can cull them out immediately. And you've got to remember again, when we say impartial jurors, a fair trial, you don't mean a jury of 12 that has never heard of the case. You never get that. What you need is a jury that says they can have an open mind until the end of the evidence, and that is entirely possible. Moussaoui is lucky. He's not being tried by a secret military tribunal.
COSTELLO: Well, let me ask our panel that, then. Why isn't he being tried by a military tribunal?
TANENBAUM: I think...
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Well, I think that -- go ahead, Bob.
TANENBAUM: Well, I think that in fairness what has happened here is the government caved in through public pressure to various critics who are concerned about a Chicken Little effect, if you will, of...
GRACE: He is right. He is right. TANENBAUM: ... we're very concerned about the protection of civil liberties. But the bottom line is, in this war setting we're in, we have a fifth column here in America.
KUBY: Well, you know, the...
BOB: And the fifth column -- the fifth column is a sleeper cells.
GRACE: He's right!
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: ... homicidal zombies waiting...
GRACE: The government...
TANENBAUM: ... to be turned on and inflict terrible damage.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? I mean, the trouble with your formulation, Bob, and yours too, Nancy, you're assuming Zacarias Moussaoui is guilty. One of the reasons we have a trial...
GRACE: Have you read the indictment?
KUBY: ... one of the reasons...
GRACE: If any of that is true, then he's guilty.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: That's right, if the indictment is true.
GRACE: If any of that's true (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on what we've been told.
KUBY: Nancy, you know full well, one of the reasons that we have a trial in this country is to ascertain whether or not somebody committed the acts for which they are charged.
GRACE: That's right, Ron. That's right.
KUBY: To short circuit that process and say he is guilty, he did this...
GRACE: Ron, I said that the allegations...
KUBY: ... therefore, he is not entitled to a fair trial...
GRACE: ... in the indictment...
KUBY: ... is ridiculous.
TANENBAUM: No, Ron, well, that's not the point...
GRACE: Ron, if the allegations in the indictment are true, then he is guilty. I've got to wait and see what unfolds in the courtroom.
TANENBAUM: No, I think...
KUBY: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: Well, let me jump in...
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: ... a full and fair trial in front of the civilian courts that have served this country well for over two centuries.
GRACE: We're all arguing this point.
TANENBAUM: Well, let me suggest another point of view.
COSTELLO: Let me interrupt...
TANENBAUM: Let me just suggest -- all right...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Oh, go ahead.
TANENBAUM: Let me just suggest another point of view. And, Ron, you're quite right. In the ordinary course, where you don't have a wartime situation, one respects and honors the presumption of innocence. But that presupposes a condition that doesn't exist. And that is under your formulation, we would never have military tribunals, and that would be wrong, given the nature of the war effort that's going on right now. And the fact is, we have to rely upon the executive branch to determine -- and the military, to determine which individuals are going to be tried in military tribunals.
KUBY: Well, all during...
TANENBAUM: If we see...
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: ... we had not a single military tribunal. We lost 50,000 Americans. We killed a million Vietnamese. We had not a single military tribunal...
TANENBAUM: There were no...
KUBY: ... during the entire Vietnam.
TANENBAUM: Ron, there were no saboteurs. I was working in the D.A.'s office for a period of that time in the '70s, as you well know, and I tried terrorists who were not involved with any foreign intervention who murdered police officers. They received a fair trial.
GRACE: Robert?
TANENBAUM: And by the way, with respect to wartime, we have had in America military tribunals.
GRACE: That's true.
TANENBAUM: Abe Lincoln presided over those...
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Right. We also had the suspension of habeas corpus.
COSTELLO: Well, Robert, let me interrupt you there. I want to ask...
KUBY: We've had the internment of Japanese and Japanese- Americans.
TANENBAUM: That's right.
COSTELLO: ... Robert a question. Hold on a minute.
KUBY: But these are not great precedents (ph).
COSTELLO: Hold on -- hold on. Robert, I want to ask you this question. All those detainees in Afghanistan, should they be tried by military tribunal, or should some of them be brought back to the United States and tried in our courts?
TANENBAUM: Any of the detainees, I will tell, caught across the board. That's a perfect example where we have between 3,000 and 6,000 detainees right now who we're trying to process. Does it offend common sense to suggest that none of those people should be brought here for a trial? We're talking about people who may be involved in war efforts against the United States of America. And, Ron, unlike the Vietnam War, there was no saboteurs around who were bombing buildings in New York, and who are here...
KUBY: Well -- right.
TANENBAUM: ... waiting to bomb other buildings and kill innocent civilians.
GRACE: Good point.
KUBY: As to the thousands of detainees, this may come as a shock to many Americans, but it's not a crime, either under American domestic law or against international law, to resist an invading occupying force. Even though we're the good guys and they're the bad guys, the mere fact that they took up arms against America, a country to which they hold no allegiance...
GRACE: Well, Ron, that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is true. But under the... KUBY: ... a country which invaded them doesn't make them criminals.
GRACE: That's true. But under the state's theory, certain al Qaeda members planned to attack Americans on American soil.
KUBY: Right. And if that's the case...
GRACE: That is a different animal.
KUBY: If that's the case, if we have evidence that al Qaeda members have been participating in conspiracies to attack Americans on American soil, or to go outside of the rules of war and commit terrorist acts...
GRACE: Right.
KUBY: ... then we bring them to trial in the same way we have tried al Qaeda terrorists right here in the United States before September 11 and convicted every single one.
COSTELLO: OK. On that note -- on that note...
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: Before and after September 11 is a substantial difference of what has occurred and what may occur.
COSTELLO: On that note, I want to read this email from one of our viewers -- from Melanie in Atlanta, Georgia. She said: "We should not allow one of the results of 9/11 to be the destruction of the justice of our justice system. This country guarantees a fair trial to all."
So following this comment, I want to ask you all this, because there's a lot of talk about this trial being televised. Should it be televised by "Court TV" -- Nancy?
GRACE: Well, first of all...
TERRELL: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
GRACE: First of all...
TERRELL: Yes.
GRACE: ... Bush gave...
TERRELL: Yes.
GRACE: ... the initial opinion that these will be military tribunals for very -- for several legitimate reasons. If he is going to reverse himself and have this tried in open court, then the country should know what's going on. If they decided not to have a military tribunal, I personally believe military tribunal will protect this country. But if it's going to be in a federal court... TERRELL: But that's not the issue here.
GRACE: ... then the country should be able to find out about what goes on in their own courtrooms.
COSTELLO: Leo -- Leo, go ahead.
TERRELL: This is historic. Nancy and I are in agreement for the first time in our lives, because for the first time, I agree with her on this issue of open court. You and I can walk in that courtroom and watch the proceeding. There are 290 million Americans who may not have the ability to go in that small courtroom. We have the right to observe that process, and a public hearing is a necessity.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: The government (UNINTELLIGIBLE) anyone to uphold -- well, good. I'm glad we're right.
TANENBAUM: Actually, Carol...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: ... guarantees in open trial, and in this global community, an open trial means you can watch the trial. You don't have to be one block away from the courthouse and go in and watch it at lunch.
COSTELLO: OK...
GRACE: You can turn on TV and watch it.
COSTELLO: Let's hear from Robert -- Robert, go ahead.
TANENBAUM: Well, again, as spoken as a true advocate of "Court TV" I happen to agree with the notion that there is no trial in America that should not be televised, in my opinion, if you can make accommodation for it. So that's not the issue that we're really talking about it seems to me.
COSTELLO: OK. We've got to take a break now. When we come back, we'll talk about the detainees right here in the United States -- stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RHONDA SCHAFFLER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS: I am Rhonda Schaffler on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, where stocks are struggling to make any sort of headway on this first trading day of the New Year.
The Dow Jones industrial average well off its worst levels of the session. At one point today, the Dow was down more than 80 points. Right now, the Dow is only off 9, and some of the technology stocks are actually performing pretty well, chips in particular. Intel on the Dow is up about better than $1. That also helps the Nasdaq composite. The Nasdaq is up 5 points. That's the latest from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange -- TALKBACK LIVE continues now.
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE on a snowy afternoon for much of the country. You know, no one is getting much information about hundreds of immigrants detained in the United States after the 9/11 attacks; 77 are being held on criminal charges -- we know that. But most are not identified, and what exactly is happening to them remains a mystery.
Canada is formally protesting its lack of access to Shakir Ali Baloch, a Canadian living illegally in the United States. Other foreign diplomats are also complaining, along with the ACLU. You all know about the detainees, right? You all know. How many of you, by applause, think that they're being held unfairly?
(LIGHT APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Not very many, huh? Hey, let's join Juan from Illinois to see what he has to say about the subject. What do you think about the detainees? Are they being held fairly?
CALLER: No, I don't think they are. As a matter of fact, I think that it's outright shameful for our country to hold these people without giving them a chance to speak to their attorneys and get information. We have to remember what happened during Japan and how shameful it was after Pearl Harbor, and we had the Japanese detainees held in prison. I think as Americans, we dropped the ball on this whole subject about terrorism. It should have been dealt with long before it ever happened, and it wasn't. And it's partly the fault of those who are in charge of America.
COSTELLO: Leo, I saw you clapping when Juan began to speak.
TERRELL: Yes.
COSTELLO: Your thoughts.
TERRELL: Right. Well, let me sit here and tell you, Carol, this is a situation -- let me just say clear and simple. This is racial profiling. These people are being held because they are Middle Easterners. If they are being held on INS violations, then let's round up all of the blonde, blue-haired (sic) individuals who have had INS violations in this country right now. They are singling out Middle Easterners, and that is wrong. It is sickening. There is no basis for these people to be held. There is no nexus to -- with them as far as terrorist acts. They are being held simply because of their ethnicity, and as a civil rights attorney, it makes me sick.
COSTELLO: Ron, you're a first amendment attorney. I am sure you agree with Leo. Tell me some thoughts, and how they can detain people when they are not charged with anything for such a long time. Some have been detained now for four months.
GRACE: With charges.
KUBY: Well -- OK. First of all, I have to say...
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: INS charges.
KUBY: I don't mean to sound like a moderate here between the right and the left, but the reality is, non-citizens can be regulated in a fashion that American citizens cannot. We're all familiar with the fact that non-citizens can be forced to report their address, restrictions can be placed on their travel. So there is no evidence that the rights of these non-citizens, primarily tourist visa holders and visitors' visa holders, are being violated.
What we would like to know -- what those of us in the civil liberties community would like to know is why they are being held, what it is they are being charged with, when their court dates are, so we can have more than Attorney General Ashcroft say so, that everything is...
GRACE: You know what?
KUBY: ... basically in order.
GRACE: You know what? We all need a reality check. These are not people being held illegally. These people have been charged with legitimate INS violations.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: ... all the people...
GRACE: Some of them have been -- I'd like to finish.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: ... all the people, blonde (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
COSTELLO: How do we know that?
GRACE: Some of them have been charged...
TERRELL: OK -- go ahead and finish.
GRACE: ... with felony crimes. Some of them have been charged with trying to get fake hazmat licenses, to carry...
TERRELL: They were arrested for terrorist allegations...
GRACE: ... hazardous materials.
TERRELL: ... and there is none of that. They were arrested for terrorist allegations.
GRACE: They have been arrested for legitimate offenses.
TERRELL: How many -- how many blonde -- how many blonde-eyed (sic), white, blue-eyed individuals are detained for the same reason as these Middle Easterners?
GRACE: And let me ask you a question, Leo.
TERRELL: All I can ask, Nancy, is racial profiling...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: How many of them are being held...
TERRELL: ... Middle Easterner?
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: How many of them are being held on charges that are not legitimate? Not one of them. They're all being held on legitimate charges.
TERRELL: We don't know!
KUBY: And look, speaking of reality checks...
TERRELL: We don't know!
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: That's true.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: ... those people are being held because they are Middle Eastern.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: OK. Let me interrupt -- let me interrupt you guys for just a second, because we have some comments from our audience. Sean (ph), you had a comment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sean (ph) is a native Egyptian -- go ahead, Sean (ph).
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Yes, this is a good time to mention that, because I think a lot of people from the Middle East tend to stretch out their hands and want to explain that. They feel that they're being, you know, focused on and singled out. And I think it's really sad, because my parents were away over in the Middle East, and I was very concerned about them, because I knew they had no special protection. If people are being detained based on how they look, then we'd have millions and millions of people detained, and I think that's unreasonable to think that.
COSTELLO: And, Sean (ph), on that note, I want to say this: 208 citizens of Pakistan are being detained right now. The Pakistani vice (ph) consul said, and this is a quote from him: "It's helping to sow the seeds of hatred in Pakistan towards the United States government."
Do we really need this at this time -- Robert?
TANENBAUM: Well, the question is, to put it as simply as possible, what efforts are our government making to root out the fifth column that exists here? We know we have sleeper cells. What is it that we can do within the constraints of not denying and destroying the rights of certain classes of citizens, willy nilly, and root out these people who are homicidal, who are going to inflict terrible damage and injury on innocent Americans?
KUBY: One of the problems I'm having with this formulation of sleeper cells -- and fifth column, I've heard over and over again -- we have now had four months of the most extensive and intensive investigation in this country's history.
Thousand of noncitizens and immigrants have been detained, checked out, vetted out. Every contact the hijackers made has been traced back as far as it can be traced back. And in all of this, in this giant investigation, a total of one person, one Arab who happens to be a Muslim, has been charged.
It appears that this vast network, this vast fifth column of Arabs and Muslims that we were so concerned about after September 11 simply doesn't exist. And our Islamic and Arab brothers and sisters are every bit as grateful to this country as everybody else who is in this country.
TANENBAUM: Well, that's your opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Well, that's what the evidence shows so far. Where are the sleeper cells? What, they are so hidden, Ashcroft hasn't been able to find them yet?
TANENBAUM: No, it's not a question of that. It's a question of, we don't really know what in fact our government is in fact doing with respect to it. I hope they are doing enough. And that's a major issue.
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: Well, Ron, you are making value judgments, but not based upon any evidence or fact. We don't know how many sleeper cells exist in America.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: One person has been charged based on the evidence.
TANENBAUM: Maybe it's because we have been ineffectual. And think of the downside risk if we've been ineffectual. We slept. We had our eyes shut. And we had two major buildings blown up in Manhattan, with thousands of people killed.
KUBY: Right, but you admit we have been awake since September 11, right? We have been totally awake since September 11. We have indicted one person.
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: The question is, how effective have we been? That's what the concern of all of us ought to be.
GRACE: Well, there's another concern, Robert.
As effective as it has been, as on alert as our country has been, we just saw yet another person get on a plane with an explosive, a highly sophisticated explosive, in his shoe. So, long story short: If the government doesn't go forward with these procedures and another catastrophe takes place, you will point the finger at the government.
Now, here the government is trying to detain people and you're complaining about that, too.
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: The shoe bomber has nothing do with these people being detained for INS violations at all. You know that as well as I do.
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: No matter what the government does, Leo, you are going to scream.
TERRELL: No, no, no. It is wrong.
GRACE: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Let me interrupt right now. We have another phone call from a viewer. And we want to get Jay from Michigan in.
Jay, what are your thoughts?
CALLER: Yes, hi. Good day. Thank you for the opportunity.
First off, I'm really amazed we're even having this discussion in America here at the beginning of the 21st century. I'm a former Air Force officer. And I have served for quite a while. And I understand, I think, as much as any veteran the importance of the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the laws in this country, the obligations and the duties of all citizens in this country to support her.
These individuals that are being detained, whether it's illegal or not, that's really not the point at this point in time. Let's stop and think about this. Realize it, whether you want to admit it or not, whether you want to accept it or not, we are in a state of war, plain and simple. I would be more concerned about these individuals that are being detained as far as knowing who they are and why they are really in this country, if in fact they are here legitimately. If they are here illegally, we need to get them out. (CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: Let's round up everyone who is guilty of INS violations.
COSTELLO: Well, Leo, I was going to say, maybe some might feel that we don't know when this war is going to be over. It could go on for a very long time. So some might say, how long are we going to hold these detainees, throughout the whole thing? Nobody really knows, because the government really isn't telling us that.
Can you can address that, Nancy?
GRACE: Well, I would like to know when the media thought it became entitled to classified government information while we are at war. I agree with the caller. This is a time of hardship. Everybody is having hardship. People here in New York are still suffering. We have got 93 detainees that are legitimately being held on INS violations and other violations, and everybody is complaining?
Tell that to the family of the 3,000 dead people. See what they have got to say, OK.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: All right, well, let's round up another 5,000 people and put them in prison. Will that make...
TERRELL: Another 5,000, another 10,000, another 20,000, and make sure they are white, blue-eyed and...
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Nancy, when did the information about the people detained on INS charges become classified? Have you been privy to something the rest of us haven't been? They just haven't released it.
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: No, that's not what I said. And Ashcroft did release the information on November 27.
KUBY: No, no, he released the names of the people who had been indicted and charged with federal crimes. There are still at least 600 detainees being held on INS charges, not criminal charges, but INS charges, awaiting deportation, whose names we don't know, whose names Congress doesn't know. And there's a natural concern...
GRACE: Are you sayings the charges are not legitimate? You know darn well those are legitimate charges on which they are being held.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Nancy, without knowing who these individuals are, and having some opportunity to talk with them, then we have no idea whether they are legitimate or not. So I say, let's reveal their identities. Let's have a full, open hearing. Let's attend the hearings in these cases. Maybe they are all totally legitimate detentions and I will shut up about it. But let's find out.
GRACE: You promise?
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: Yes, and maybe we should televise those on Court TV, too. I'm just joking.
Hey, we have to go into a break, but before we do, I want to read two e-mails from our viewers.
One is from Tom in New Mexico, Tom in New Mexico. He says: "The ACLU all the time is concerned about people's rights, even for those accused of the most heinous crimes. We're a country of laws. And I believe these detainees are being treated fairly and their rights upheld."
Let me read another one, this one from Marge in Prince George, British Columbia. She says: "I would say that Ashcroft has gone overboard in detaining so many people. I hope they are not all men from the Middle East. How many detainees were in jail after the Oklahoma City bombing?"
And with that, we go to a break. Up next: Is threatening people with anthrax as bad as actually contaminating them? We will explore that topic when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're having fun today, big debate.
Well, there are real terrorist threats and then there are the hoaxes. We heard a lot about hoaxes in connection with the anthrax scare, which broke shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The question is: How much do you punish people who perpetrate hoaxes, who say, "Oh, I was just joking"?
I turn to our audience right now. By applause, do you think they should be punished severely or should they be not? Let's do that first.
Should they be punished severely?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: And those who think they how should be slapped on the wrist to be told they have done something wrong, but, hey, it was just a joke? One lone person back there. I hear we have some good comments from the audience, all prepared and ready. So let's go there right now.
STAFF: This is Diane.
Go ahead.
DIANE: My uncle works for Planned Parenthood in Ohio. He's actually received three threats. And his perception basically, is, he kind of expects them. It's not something that he is especially concerned with. He reports them to the police and things like that.
But while it is serious, he doesn't necessarily think that it should be as strongly punished as maybe someone who has done something that has caused death. They didn't hurt somebody, but they did cause a scare, so somewhere in between.
COSTELLO: Gotcha. Does anyone have an opposing viewpoint?
STAFF: Yes, as a matter of fact.
COSTELLO: OK, we're going. We're going.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think to have to clean out your home to search if there was anthrax is a severe threat. It's extremely inconvenient. I think it should be more firmly punished. It is, like a friend of mine said earlier, like yelling "Bomb" in an airplane. It really is a severe offense.
COSTELLO: Well, let's turn to our panel of experts right now.
What could happen to a person who sends fake anthrax through the mail and then says, "Oh, it was just a joke?" Does anyone know the answer to that question?
GRACE: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
It carries a maximum penalty of five years behind bars and up to $250,000 in fines. And another interesting, though, I agree with your last studio audience participant, because, not only is the victim inconvenienced greatly, and they go through so much pain and fear, but think about this.
Police answered about 16,000 calls on anthrax. They get about 500 a day at the height. And they actually went out on 16,000 cases. Now, what about the real crimes that are going down and police are out chasing anthrax hoaxes? Plus, these hoaxsters are just capitalizing on the fears that were sewn by the actual terrorists.
COSTELLO: I think we have a caller now who will echo your opinion.
Laurie, from South Carolina, tell me your thoughts.
LAURIE: Yes, ma'am.
My father-in-law works for the post office and came home with powder one day and was exposed to, they thought, anthrax, brought that home to my children. And that scared me to death thinking my children may die from anthrax. And it was a hoax. For that, I think there ought to be very serious punishments. There is no such thing as joking with somebody's life, joking about, well, I am going to kill you with anthrax. Where is the joke in death?
COSTELLO: Well, let me tell this and specifically what the law states. And I don't know this for sure, so maybe I should address this to Ron. From what I understand, there has to be an actual threat. You have to say, "I am going to kill you because there is anthrax in this envelope" to be convicted of this crime and spend five years in jail and be fined $250,000.
Is that the way you understand it?
KUBY: Well, there is federal law, which is the law you are referring to. There is also law in virtually state of the Union, if not every state, barring these types of terroristic threats. Some require a specific threat of death. Others simply require conduct under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life and safety.
Still others add as aggravating factors additional harm that is caused. If people stampede out of a room because of an anthrax hoax and one of them is seriously injured, obviously that is a much more serious sort of situation than if somebody walks into a cafeteria, sees some sugar, and somebody casually says: "Oh, it's anthrax. You better not sit here. Hah, hah, hah." It may not be very funny, but it's probably not worth five years in prison.
GRACE: Though's right, Ron. There are also those federal charges that make it illegal to send any type of threat through the federal mail. Then you have got the threat of a weapon of mass destruction, that being anthrax. So there are all type of different laws the state or the federal government could go forward on. But all of them, basically, call for five years, a $250,000 fine.
COSTELLO: Well, let me put this scenario past you, because this actually happened in Oregon. There was a woman in Oregon who often participated in practical jokes with a woman who was in a senior center there. She put talcum powder in an envelope, didn't write anthrax on the outside. But, of course, when it got to the post office, some of that powder leaked out. The post office was shut down, etcetera. She is charged and she could spend five years in jail.
Does someone like that deserve that harsh of a punishment?
GRACE: Oh, she gets a break because she's old? No.
TERRELL: No, they do not deserve jail time. They may be responsible for the cost, restitution. But you're going to sit there and describe that situation, Carol, and say five years of jail time? Absolutely not. And I would challenge any of my colleagues to say, oh, no, no, that's five years. Come on.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: Oh, come. Five years in prison for a crazy old granny with talcum powder? That's a little harsh.
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: No, I disagree. We are at war and you send an anthrax hoax through the mail, you're asking for trouble.
TERRELL: Oh, will you please drop that war stuff? Nancy is using this war fear to justify these ridiculous types of
(CROSSTALK)
TERRELL: Everything is war!
GRACE: You need to tell the people of the families that died...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: I think this is a good time for me to step in. And we have some comments from our audience members.
STAFF: Crystal?
CRYSTAL: Well, what I wanted to say was, this is very similar to what happened back when the school bombing and terrorism in school from the children. It's basically -- it should be punished severely or it is going to keep happening as more jokes and more jokes.
And people are going to be living in fear every day. Those children had to live in fear to go to school every day, as people fear to go to work every day, post office workers, people in government buildings. If this just keeps happening, people are going to live in fear. And we can't live that way. So it has to be punished seriously.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Before you guys start up again, we have another comment from an audience member.
John from Michigan, go ahead.
JOHN: Well, I think we all know 9/11 has changed everything. And we're trying to find out what is inside people's hearts and minds and how they function. And if this kind of a hoax -- to me, it's a perfect indication of how this person is thinking. And the mentality and attitude inside that person is no different than one sending actual anthrax. And the whole thing has changed since 9/11.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Do you think so? Might someone not just be guilty of a bad joke?
GRACE: A bad joke that causes someone's home to be cleaned out, to cause the police to come, to strike fear in somebody's heart? That's worse than a joke. That's a crime.
TERRELL: Five years in jail? Come on, Nancy, please. KUBY: Right, somewhere between putting them on "America's Funniest Home Videos" and five years in prison, there should be a little line there.
GRACE: I don't think there is anything funny about it. Maybe some of you should talk to some of these victims.
(CROSSTALK)
KUBY: You know, Nancy, you don't happen to speak for any of these victims, Nancy Grace. And you don't happen to speak for anybody except yourself. So for you constantly to invoke the names of the victims to trade off their pain and suffering in order to justify the depravation of civil rights and liberties to other Americans is getting a little outrageous.
COSTELLO: OK. I think we should calm these people down and go to our audience once again.
John from Georgia, thanks for rescuing us. What do you have to say?
JOHN: Well, I think it is not a joke that people are doing this. And it reminds me a little bit about the situation with the wife, where the guy said on the plane his wife was a terrorist and how that was treated. And I think this is the same kind of situation, that people shouldn't be fooling around. And this is a very serious situation.
COSTELLO: And the punishment for that ought to be harsh, then, you're saying?
JOHN: I don't think that the jail time needs to be as harsh. But I do feel that people need to taken as an example that this is not something we should be messing around with.
COSTELLO: Well, let me go to my statistics for just a second. The FBI has now charged 40 people with false anthrax threats. And the Postal Service has arrested 58 people. That's a lot of people. And that's a lot of time in the court system. And that's a lot of time for investigators.
Is it really worth it, Nancy?
GRACE: Well, again, speaking as a victim of violent crime...
TERRELL: What?
GRACE: ... I think it is very important that we take into account how these victims feel. You just heard a women call in who was a victim of a hoax through her relative. The pain and the anguish that someone caused from a joke was unparalleled. And I think a lot of people are taking it too lightly.
COSTELLO: Leo? TERRELL: No, we're not going to go overboard. She should not, as Ron said, play on the victims who lost their lives in New York and say war, war, war. That scenario, Carol, that you pointed out about the talcum powder being sent, five years in jail, two years in jail, one year in jail is too long. Make her pay the cost of the investigators. But you don't take away someone's liberties at all.
TANENBAUM: You know, Nancy, most respectfully -- look, Nancy is raising an important point here. It's not a question of just simply making restitution. It's a serious issue. It has to be addressed precedentially. And it's not the issue of how much time you spend in jail. It's a question of having to answer in a courtroom for what you did, which was wrong.
COSTELLO: And might this be a deterrent? Some might feel bad, but the more harsh the punishment, the less likely it is that somebody will perpetrate such a hoax again.
TANENBAUM: Well, hopefully it is going to deter. We're not simply throwing the book at people. If you look at homicide, the conviction rate on homicide in major cities in America and the kinds of sentences that are meted out, on the average like zero to seven years on committing homicides because of plea-bargaining and everything that goes on in urban America in the criminal justice system, how can we justify, in this kind of a case, five years, for example?
But that doesn't mean -- and I think that is the point Nancy is trying to make -- that we simply say, OK, if we are not giving them five years, we don't do anything. We make restitution. What we are talking about here is creating a deterrent effect from people who think it is cute, funny, or clever to get involved in hoaxes. And it's not funny, clever, and it causes a lot of people some very serious anguish.
COSTELLO: Gotcha. OK.
We have another audience participant right now, which we love.
Deanna from California, what do you have to say?
DEANNA: Well, my point was the same as yours, that, obviously, what we want is for this to stop. And the only way you stop it is to have severe punishment so you deter people before they do it. If you have simple punishment, then nobody is afraid and they just do it.
(CROSSTALK)
TANENBAUM: Well, people getting arrested and being charged and being hauled into court as a defendant, it is very serious. It's no longer a fun game anymore. Hiring a lawyer and having to pay lawyers is not fun.
KUBY: That is right. I agree with Bob. There clearly needs to be a message sent that this activity is improper. It is illegal. It has to be deterred. And I think, depending on the harm that an individual caused, the penalty should be assessed accordingly. And it's not a sort of one-size-fits-all situation.
COSTELLO: Understood. OK, thank you all for joining us this afternoon. I would like to thank you, Ron Kuby, Robert Tanenbaum, Leo Terrell and Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us and for being so heated today.
We enjoyed it, didn't we, studio audience?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Coming up next, we will go outside, where a little bit of white stuff has the South on the run. We are talking about snow here, almost 2 inches in Atlanta. We'll talk all about it when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
It's cold outside here in Atlanta, so let's cool off with a snow break. It's time now. For those of you live in the snow belt, a couple of inches can't compare to what you go through each and every year. Buffalo is still digging out from under 7 feet of snow delivered with the Christmas rush. And the stuff is still falling there. Wow, that looks bad. It looks like the Arctic, doesn't it?
Here in the South, though, where snow doesn't happen every winter, snow is pretty special.
CNN meteorologist Orelon Sidney is outside of our studios.
Is it still coming down out there, Orelon?
ORELON SIDNEY, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Carol, I hope you can hear me. I can't hear you too good, because I think I am standing in a dead spot here in the snow.
This is fantastic. This reminds me of the ninth grade. I was taking a physics test, starting snowing like this. I was failing miserably and only answered the questions I knew. So when they graded it, I got a 97. It was fantastic.
I will tell you what is happening. We do have some snow flurries now. This is pretty light stuff. But we have accumulated up to 3 inches of snow around the Atlanta area, especially to the south. Now, as we go through the evening, I want to take a look at the radar. I will show you where this system is headed. This is one big low- pressure system in the Gulf of Mexico.
And it's going to work its way up through Georgia into South Carolina, into North Carolina by Thursday. We already have winter storm warnings in effect from Atlanta to Charlotte. Those areas north of us in the Piedmont could see up to 6-8 inches of snow. I think you're probably going to see more about 6-7 inches in most locations. And it's expected to continue to snow here in the Atlanta area throughout the evening. This is big bust, though. In Birmingham, they thought they would get quite a bit of snowfall. It just didn't happen. They do have some sleet on the ground at Mobile, about an inch-and-a-half. And, as we go through the night, some much colder air is coming in. So you might see some snow flurries back towards Birmingham. Other than that, it looks fantastic. We're just going to enjoy it.
And, Carol, I'm looking for a victim. I might come in and get you.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: That is a pathetic snowball. A lot of our audience members are just laughing, because we are expecting 2 inches of snow here in Atlanta and we are dying here. Give us the story.
STAFF: This is Andrew from Australia.
Andrew, what do you think about all this snow?
ANDREW. I think it's fantastic. It never snows from where I come from. It's just wonderful to go outside and walking and see it on buildings.
COSTELLO: OK, we have got to talk to Diane over here. She is from Northeast Ohio from Youngstown. And she was laughing at us.
Tell us your story.
DIANE: Well, we're on vacation. And we drove all the way through Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky. We're going through 13 states. We were on our way from here to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Guess what? We're turning around and we're heading back home tomorrow.
COSTELLO: Where there is going to be more snow, from Youngstown, Ohio.
Thank you, Diana.
Hey, that is all the time we have. We are out of time. Thanks to all of our guests, our studio audience, and, of course, to you at home.
Join us again tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
