|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Who is the Bigger Threat: bin Laden, Hussein or Kim Jong-Il?; New York's Mayor Bloomberg Adresses Security Concerns
Aired February 13, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, we'll hear from the anti-war front as six congressmen plan to sue President Bush, saying he has no right to take the country into battle against Iraq.
And if a North Korean missile can reach the U.S. west coast, who's the bigger threat now?
The talk starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Well, today is the end of the Hajj and the terror alert across the U.S. remains on high. We're waiting on a news conference with the New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and he's going to be meeting with corporate security directors about protecting key industries from an attack.
Now that meeting comes on the heels of an FBI warning that corporations should guard against potential attacks. The FBI even suggests companies check for possible infiltrators among employees.
We'll bring that news conference to you live when it happens.
In the meantime, across the country, duct tape is flying out the door, along with plastic sheets, as citizens respond to government recommendations to seal out and stock up.
CNN correspondent Mary Snow joins us in New York.
Mary, before we get to anything further, I want to tell you that we've been hearing rumors that New York, the threat level there might be moved to red. Is there anything to that?
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, Arthel, we can tell you that that rumor is not true, that the code is orange. It has been since September 11. And as you can imagine in this kind of tense atmosphere, there are often many rumors that swirl around. But no, that is not true.
NEVILLE: Well, that's good news. In the meantime, Mary, go ahead and tell us what's expecting to come out of this meeting. SNOW: Well, as you mentioned, the meeting is getting under way at this hour. Several hundred security officials meeting with the mayor and the police commissioner, other officials in New York City, including the health commissioner.
One thing we may be expecting is to hear about any kind of potential plans that -- additional preparations hospitals may be taking, in addition to what they're already doing.
Now when we heard about the heightened alert last week, there was talk of soft targets, so to speak. Targets that would be included in that category would be hotels, and there are security directors from hotels in New York City at this meeting today. And that is one of the reasons why the corporate security directors were called here today to meet with these agencies -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Mary Snow, we're definitely waiting to hear what's going to be the result of that press conference. And if it comes during the show, we'll see you then. If not, we'll talk to you later.
Mary Snow, thank you very much.
OK. Now you know what? A lot of people are stocking up on water, food and batteries. They're taking the government's warning about a possible biological or chemical attack very seriously.
Here to talk about these threats is Elisa Harris, a research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies. She's a former staff member of the National Security Council.
And Ms. Harris, I want to ask you what is the best way to prepare for chemical and biological warfare?
ELISA HARRIS, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AND SECURITY STUDIES: Well, to be honest, I think there's really very little that individuals can do to protect themselves. This is a problem that's got to be dealt with by the government, by -- not by individual citizens.
That said, there are some common sense things people can do to prepare for the possibility of any kind of incident, any kind of natural incident, as well as a terrorist incident.
NEVILLE: But how -- to do what? By doing what?
HARRIS: Well, first of all, there is a clear rationale for having on hand water, non-perishable food items, batteries, flashlights, a radio that is battery operated, in the event of any kind of disaster. Many Americans live in areas where there are hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heavy snow storms that knock out electricity.
NEVILLE: Sure. People are...
HARRIS: All these things make sense.
NEVILLE: Good. Ms. Harris, everybody is used to the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the floods, et cetera.
HARRIS: Exactly.
NEVILLE: This is something totally different. So what happens in the event of an actual attack? What happens now? I have the radios, I have the flashlights. Now what?
HARRIS: Well, the government has obviously advised people that they should purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal themselves into a safe room in their homes in the event of an incident.
Quite frankly, I think this advice is really not very valuable, because in any conceivable scenario in which chemical or biological agents are delivered from the air, a cloud will have passed over an area before the government is in a position to identify that there's been an incident, determine the path of the hazardous cloud, and inform people that they need to take shelter.
So I think this advice, while it may make people feel better that they're taking steps to protect themselves, I think quite frankly it's going to be of very limited value.
And there's a risk, in fact, that people could do things that may be more dangerous than any possible attack, which I think is actually quite remote.
NEVILLE: Well, what do you mean by that?
HARRIS: Well, first of all, if people are going out and purchasing these items and sealing up their homes now, they're running a risk of creating a carbon monoxide problem. And so they need to realize they should not act precipitously and do anything with these materials.
Beyond that, they need to understand that if they are in a situation where they seal themselves in to a room, they can only stay in for a limited period of time. And they've got to be able to be informed by the government when the hazard has passed and when the area outside of this sort of sealed room is no longer hazardous.
And I'm very skeptical that the government has that capacity to do that kind of analysis and inform people real time. And the risk is they could find themselves in a sealed environment in which the contamination level is higher than it is actually outside because the cloud has passed.
NEVILLE: Right, right. Interesting.
I have Deshawn (ph) here in the audience with a question.
DESHAWN: What do you suggest that we do? What's your actions or measures? You say that duct tape, you don't feel that that's going to be very useful. What do you suggest we do?
HARRIS: I think in terms of preparing for a chemical or biological incident, we need to expect the government to take the necessary steps to prevent these things from happening.
And individual citizens should take the common sense, emergency preparedness steps that they would do in an event of a natural disaster, the things I mentioned earlier, water, food, et cetera.
NEVILLE: Right. Sure.
HARRIS: Again, I don't believe the duct tape and plastic sheeting is going to be useful in a scenario such as a terrorist attack with chemical or biological agents.
I think it's also important to point out there is no evidence that's been presented by the Bush Administration that al Qaeda actually has the capability to -- one, that they actually have chemical or biological agents. And two, that they have the capacity to deliver them from the air.
So I think people should be more relaxed, quite frankly, much less panicky about this situation.
I think the possibility of a conventional attack is real. The possibility of an attack against a civilian target, a chemical facility, is real. But again, duct tape and plastic sheeting aren't going to help in those situations.
NEVILLE: OK. Elisa Harris, thank you very much for joining us.
HARRIS: My pleasure.
NEVILLE: OK. And we're going to bring in now Bo Dietl, who is a former New York City detective and chairman of a security firm, Bo Dietl and Associates. And also with us, David Kaplan, the chief investigative reporter for "U.S. News and World Report." He is the author of "The Cult at the End of the World" about the terrorist group that attacked the Tokyo subway with nerve gas.
I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to TALKBACK LIVE.
And Bo, if I can start with you today. You know, in your career, you've handled so many crisis situations. And given the fact that we're in a high alert status, what should people do? I mean, you heard the young lady in the audience. Everybody keeps -- I don't think they can get enough information.
BO DIETL, DIETL AND ASSOC.: You know, we have a lot of corporate clients and the big thing is they've been having these emergency meetings, what we can do.
There are some things that they could do in some of these highrise buildings here in New York. We let them have these escape hoods they can buy. This is what they call an NBC, nuclear chemical and biological, where they can put the escape hood on if there is an infiltration of these gases.
A lot of people don't understand cyanide gas. Cyanide gas is useful in an enclosed area, a subway, a building, into a ventilation system. But once it hits the outside, once it gets into the atmosphere, it starts to diminish into the air.
The whole thing with this thing with duct tape and plastic, I do agree with that lady when she said that's really something that you're just panicking people more than anything. What you have to do is ease the panic.
My 12-year-old daughter said, Dad, bring home five masks for the house. I'm saying, "Calm down. This thing is not that bad yet."
But there are things people can do.
Also, people can be aware. We have a program for people to identify possible terrorists and to look for things, characteristics, look how do you identify a description of a person and who to report it to. These are important things where people become eyes and ears and we're all policemen out there reporting it to the police and tell them what we're seeing.
And in New York, I heard there was four panel trucks that were stolen that the police department's looking very vigorously for right now.
NEVILLE: But then...
DIETL: There are certain situations that are going on. The most important thing is we can't have a panic. If something occurs, the worst thing in the world is for the panic to occur.
NEVILLE: Now, Bo, you know the New York City terror hotline is getting a hundred calls a day, that's up from 33 calls a day last month. So are people panicking a little bit and getting too anxious, or can they not be too anxious?
DIETL: Well, you know what? We do security assessments for our corporate clients. We go into a building. Now all of a sudden, we do an evaluation, we see there's a parking garage under a building that's a possible target. What do you do?
You put security people there, you start checking on trunks and you start checking the people coming in and out of the garage. You could have some people on the outside perimeter of the building in nice, warm winter coats who are walking around, looking for people that look suspect.
There are things we all can do to band together.
But to just panic people with this duct tape. This guy from Homeland, I think, is way off base to start telling people to do that, because as far as I'm concerned, the carbon monoxide factor with the heat in that house could be more dangerous than any chemicals that anybody can do.
NEVILLE: That's what Elisa Harris just said.
Hang on for me, David, I'm going to jump in here with Jamila (ph). JAMILA: Hi. I wanted to know what specifically would be a nuclear panic room or safety room in any type of home, if a nuclear disaster did strike?
DIETL: The thing with nuclear -- If it's a conventional nuclear bomb, with that comes the radiation, comes the...
NEVILLE: OK. We're going to go to a break right now, but I definitely want to hear from you. I know you have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns.
Are you preparing for a possible biological or chemical attack? That's our question of the day, so go ahead and give me a call now at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about how prepared cities are for a possible terrorist attack and David, want to go to you now. Are you preparing? Are you scared at all?
DAVID KAPLAN, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT:" Well, we're concerned, but I think there's way too much hype and hysteria involved.
You know, I've been covering terrorism for eight years. When I was based in Tokyo, my commute was nerve gassed by this crazy cult and I saw what so-called weapons of mass destruction can do up close. There was a lot more hysteria than there was hurt.
You know, are we right to get prepared? Absolutely.
But as the other speaker said, we should be prepared anyway for floods, for earthquakes, for, you know, man made disasters. You need the water, you need a radio with batteries. I don't know about the duct tape.
But frankly, after covering this for years, I'm more concerned about terrorists going into a big mall with explosives strapped to their waist or machine-gunning a supermarket than I am about them successfully using a radiological device, which is very hard to do successfully.
You know, Saddam Hussein tried to develop one of those and they abandoned it in Iraq.
NEVILLE: We were just looking at pictures of the president arriving to the White House, coming back from Jacksonville, Florida, where he was addressing the troops.
And David, you mentioned something about the duct tape. It doesn't work. We have a sound bite now that I want to share from Senator Robert Byrd, who says the government is not doing enough. Let's take a listen.
OK. Basically, Byrd is saying the government is not doing enough, he needs to advise the people further. And Bo Dietl, I think you were mentioning that earlier.
People -- You hear people kind of asking the same questions over and over just because they just don't know. They're afraid and what do you think the government should be doing? Elisa Harris alluded to the fact they're not doing enough.
DIETL: You know, I come from the law enforcement background. And the only thing I don't like is that no one is telling anyone anything.
We have St. Vincent Hospital in New York is a center for any kind of chemical or biological needs. They should have command centers set up on each -- at each borough in New York, let people know what to do with their children in school.
NEVILLE: That's right. You said -- a lot of mothers -- Exactly.
DIETL: This is the...
NEVILLE: What happens if something happens, you're at work, your child's at school, what do you do?
DIETL: Well, I would like to see my mayor come on, my police commissioner, my health commissioner at 6 o'clock with a major announcement, telling people what to do. Let parents know what to do with the children.
Remember when we were young -- probably when I was young, civil defense -- about that. What emergency procedures? (inaudible) there's a conventional exposure or disaster happens, what do we do with our kids?
NEVILLE: OK, Bo, sorry, we're having a little bit of trouble with your satellite feed.
In the meantime, Tanya (ph) here from California, I think you wanted to say something.
TANYA: Yes. I'm a scientist and I think the best advice for anybody is that if we're in a biological warfare situation, that everybody practice their normal good cleanliness. Wash your hands, wash your children's hands when they come in, when you prepare food, make sure everything is clean.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for sharing that.
And David Kaplan, you were telling us that you were on a Tokyo subway when that Saren gas attack occurred. And you were saying, basically, you know, when it happens, there's not much you can do. There you are in the subway, in a crowded subway, the doors are locked, you know, until they open them and the train stops, you know.
So again, how prepared can people be for...?
KAPLAN: Well, there's a limit to how much you can do, certainly. I wasn't on the subway, but that was my commute. Fortunately, I get up later.
NEVILLE: OK.
KAPLAN: They hit at 8 in the morning. But this is a group that had millions of dollars, Ph.D. scientists and years to work on a successful delivery device. They ended up killing only 12 people. Now what does that tell you?
Yes, we should be prepared. We've got to take al Qaeda absolutely seriously, and I think law enforcement and our intelligence agencies are.
But beyond that, you know, you should get on with your lives. This is not Superman that we're confronting here. We have the entire national security apparatus of the United States at work on this.
And what we know is that chemical, biological and radiological weapons are pretty hard to deliver.
NEVILLE: All right. One last question from Ryan.
RYAN: I just was wondering, isn't the government causing more terror problems when people in small town America are rushing out and buying duct tape and stuff like this, and there's no real, you know, the threat might be in the bigger cities, but what about the rural communities?
NEVILLE: Yes, but I think it -- it can happen anywhere, right? Do you believe that?
RYAN: I do, but the threat, I think, is greater in a big city, whereas when people in a small town are rushing out and, you know, a panic is created and people in a town of 1,000...
NEVILLE: Bo Dietl, I think I have you back. You want to respond to that?
DIETL: Well, you know, the threat, you know -- that would be something that I would think about if I was a terrorist. Everyone's watching New York City, why wouldn't I go into a small town and do some damage? Everyone, I think, can be affected.
If the terrorists want to hit our homeland and if they hit one of our homeland towns and wipe out a town, that would be as serious to us as if it happened in New York, as far as I'm concerned.
The most important thing that I do agree with that other gentleman is we have to really face the fact that there could be people with bombs on them, exploding suicide bombers, and people that want to shoot up areas with high populations, into train stations and all that.
That's why a lot of our corporate clients are asking to us beef up the security with armed retired cops so they can face that first frontal assault if it happens into a business that's going to be attacked.
NEVILLE: OK, Bo Dietl, that is the final word on this segment.
Bo Dietl and David Kaplan, thanks so much for being here.
I want to remind everybody, we're waiting for that news conference to start. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is going to be speaking with Commissioner Raymond Kelly as well as some corporate security law enforcers to go ahead and see how corporations should handle any sort of major attack.
We're waiting for that. We'll bring it to you live when it happens.
In the meantime, coming up next, who is the biggest threat to your security? Bin Laden and his terrorists, Hussein and his weapons, or Kim and a missile that can hit the west coast? We'll talk about that after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the U.S. is facing its greatest peril in history and these are the faces of that danger: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il. But who do you fear most is the question?
As the country gears up for possible terrorist attack, President Bush is giving pep talks to troops headed for Iraq. And Rumsfeld is warning the nation about North Korea's missiles.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: They are clearly capable in missile technology. They sell it all over the world. And there isn't a doubt in my mind but that by now, they have a capability to reach portions of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now, put all that together with a new tape from Osama bin Laden and the picture is pretty grim.
So who is enemy No. 1? Here to talk about it, Steven Simon, co- author of "The Age of Sacred Terror." During the Clinton Administration, he served as the senior director of counter-terrorism on the National Security Council.
John Hulsman is a research fellow at the heritage Foundation. His areas of expertise includes Europe, European NATO and the global war on terrorism.
I want to welcome both of you.
Steve, I'm going to start with you today. Just get right to it. Who is the biggest threat? I mean, in fact, who should the U.S. be focusing on?
STEVEN SIMON, COAUTHOR, "THE AGE OF SACRED TERROR:" Well, both these guys are threats to the United States. They're both severe threats. The question is, really, who is the more immediate threat?
Probably Osama bin Laden. He's already gone at us once, in a very major way. He's looking for weapons of mass destruction. And if he had them, he'd use them.
NEVILLE: And now he's saying he wants to die this year a martyr in the belly of the enemy, meaning the United States.
SIMON: Yes, well, they want to strike us in our own territory. That's the key goal for the organization. They have said -- well, the spokesman for the organization has said that they want to kill four million Americans.
That's their immediate goal. And after that, they'll discuss the possibility of conversion for the rest of Americans to Islam.
So these are pretty extreme goals and he can only accomplish them here on our soil.
NEVILLE: Steve -- I mean, John, your take on this?
JOHN HULSMAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I mean, I think it isn't so much -- I mean, they're all bad guys and all threats. But I mean, how do they link together?
And I agree with Steve. I mean, I think the problem with dealing with Osama bin Laden is it's not an interest-based kind of problem. He hates what we are and there's nothing I can negotiate away about what I am as a culture, as a society.
He has certain kind of geopolitical goals about trying to remove the Pakistani rulers and the Saudi rulers and to establish a Kahlafait (ph).
But his immediate goal is to really rack up a horrendous body count in the United States. I think we will continue to fight unremitting war about that.
I do think Iraq and North Korea, though, are related and linked in a pretty basic way. The argument that you deal with North Korea because it's more of a threat I think actually kind of tends to work the other way.
You want to deal with these countries in an age where we have a nexus of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction, you want to deal with people before they have a smoking gun. Because if they, indeed, have nuclear weapons as we fear the North Koreans do or 30 miles from the capital of South Korea have established a chem-bio program, and appropriate a lot of these weapons abroad, you've got yourself a problem of mammoth proportion.
You want to stop people before they fire the smoking gun. So in other words, you want to deal with Iraq before it has nuclear weapons, while its chemical and boy biological program is less developed than, say, the North Korean program.
And then, after having dealt with that, there's nothing that succeeds like success. Then I think you turn and deal with North Korea from much more of a position of strength.
NEVILLE: You know, John, as you know, Russia and China are saying that they think it could be a mistake letting the U.N. Security Council address the dispute with North Korea's nuclear weapons program. In fact, this might incite a war. I just want to know if you agree with that position?
HULSMAN: No. I mean, their position is, as I always say in policy, well, then what would you have me do? And there's eloquent silence there.
I think the thing is that regarding North Korea at the moment, diplomacy still has time to work. For instance, China furnishes over half the heating oil for the people of North Korea.
And the Chinese are in a bad spot. They don't want a nuclear North Korea kind of threatening their region, but on the other hand, they don't want that state to collapse because it is, to some extent, a client state of China and have to deal with a South Korea that dominates a reunified Korea.
And -- But there still are some levers out there to deal with.
But he idea that we can somehow not deal with the North Korean nuclear program is simply wishful thinking.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have to take a break. Ayisha, I know I want to get you. I have a lot of e-mails coming in. I want to share with you those e-mails when we come back.
And later this hour, I'm going to tell you about a lawsuit filed against President Bush to try to stop a war against Iraq.
Also, talk to actor Mike Farrell about why celebrities' opinions about war are important or not to some people. We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. We are talking about who is the biggest threat to the United States, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il. And I have e-mails coming in. I promised I would share those with you.
Coming in from Vermont, Chuck is saying, "North Korea has a ballistic missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States and the terror alert is only at code orange? My terror alert is at code red -- severe." OK, Chuck.
Now Mary in North Carolina says, "Iraq is a bigger threat to the world than North Korea. Saddam Hussein has already shown his true colors and is willing to do anything to remain in power." Thank you for those e-mails.
And Ayisha (ph), you say what?
AYISHA: Well what I was saying during the commercial break is that we actually should consider Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as a joint threat, because Osama will work with Saddam Hussein to get those weapons of mass destruction that he needs in order to attack us.
NEVILLE: Well that's what the administration is saying. John, do you agree with that?
HULSMAN: Well what I'd say is that the really frightening thing is if you get someone like Osama, who has millennial goals, i.e. we can't negotiate with him, that's what makes rogue States with nuclear weapons terrifying. Not just the threat that they pose, but the fact that either North Korea, which has a huge history of giving, you know, chemical, biological, nuclear kind of missiles or (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as Secretary Rumsfeld put it, and Saddam, who in the last extremity -- although ideologically far opposed from Osama -- you know in the Middle East the enemy of my enemy is often my friend, that kind of approach, in either case the facts say there's a one chance in five that he gives these to Osama bin Laden, who doubtless will use them, is the real terror that we face. But I think, actually, it works both ways.
NEVILLE: Yes. Steven, in the meantime, we're talking about the North Korea point in this equation here. And they have a missile that could reach the West Coast of the United States. Shouldn't that -- isn't that alarming?
SIMON: Well they don't have a missile that can reach the West Coast of the United States with any meaningful payload. So I wouldn't think it's a really urgent threat. I'm not panic-stricken about the Korean problem.
It's absolutely true that they're going to reprocess their spent fuel at Pyongyang, and they're going to come up with more nuclear weapons. The question is, what are the circumstances in which they would be likely to use them? And it's difficult to identify those circumstances. They really don't have an incentive.
NEVILLE: Well they claim they would -- it's virtually -- will be effectively a declaration of war if, in fact, the U.N. Security Council gets too involved in this dispute.
SIMON: Well, you know, North Korean rhetoric is often extreme and sometimes hilariously so. This doesn't mean that it's not to be taken seriously, but one takes it with a grain of salt. They're trying to get the attention of the West, and in particular the United States. And they'd like to push the United States into a direct negotiations with it.
Right now, Washington is reluctant to do that because they don't want to be seen as rewarding this North Korean push for additional nuclear weapons. But I don't see them nuclear bombing South Korea or Japan right now. I think both Saddam and Osama bin Laden are much more immediate and severe threats.
NEVILLE: So then, Steve, what happens if the weapons inspectors come back with or don't come back with a negative report?
SIMON: Well if they don't come back with a negative report, there's going to be quite possibly a crisis in the Security Council. And a very decisive split. I would think that the U.S. and the U.K. and the other members of the coalition are going to go ahead with military operations, regardless.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me -- go ahead.
HULSMAN: I'd agree with what Steve just said. I think that's right. I think the U.N. has to decide if its reached it's Abyssinian moment. If it's going to be the league of nations, as when it didn't do anything when Italy invaded Abyssinia and simply didn't matter anymore. There's no doubt in my mind that, given the military imperatives, that the United States will go ahead with quite a broad coalition of the willing.
For instance, in Europe, yes, indeed, France and Germany are blocking this. But in the last two weeks, 18 European countries have said that broadly their governments support the pro-American position and from that there will be enough allies to go ahead with this. The question is, is the institution going to matter, not are we going to deal with Saddam, because I think the answer is almost undoubtedly, yes.
SIMON: And the implications are quite far-reaching, because we're actually looking at a split within Europe.
HULSMAN: It's Europe versus Europe. That's exactly right.
SIMON: It's Europe versus Europe, just as it is a split within the Security Council. You have Germany and France on the one hand, and just about every other country in Europe on the other supporting the U.S. approach to Iraq. So European politics are going to be very interesting to watch over the next couple of years.
HULSMAN: Indeed, it's the revenge of the middle-ranking powers. Spain, Italy, Poland, saying we don't want France and Germany to speak for Europe after a bottle of Chablis at some nice chateau, where they (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what the Europeans do. And, in fact, the rest of Europe is saying we're not going to let them speak for us anymore.
NEVILLE: OK. Got go to break, guys. Steven Simon and John Hulsman, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
I want to remind you that we're waiting on the press conference from New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg on how New York City is preparing for a possible terrorist attack. The talk continues after this break. Stay right where you are.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, we're talking about war jitters and the threat of terrorism. Are you preparing for a chemical or biological attack? It's our "Question of the Day." Give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com. The talk continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We've been talking about threats to the United States. Today, President Bush told troops at the Mayport Naval Station in Florida the U.S. is ready to win any war with Iraq. He suggested that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, has had more than enough time to do what he has to do to avoid conflict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: At any moment during the last 97 days and during the last 12 years, Saddam Hussein could have completely and immediately disarmed himself. Instead, he's used all this time to build and to hide weapons. He must be hoping that by stalling he'll buy himself another 12 years. He's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. But not everyone is convinced war is the answer in Iraq. Among them is actor, producer and writer Mike Farrell. He is the co-founder of Artists United to Win Without War.
Also with us is Terry Jeffrey, editor of the weekly newspaper "Human Events."
I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show today.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Good to be here, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. Nice to see you. Mike, is war a foregone conclusion?
MIKE FARRELL, ACTOR: Well, it depends on who you listen to, I suppose. The administration gives every indication that they have been pulling the trigger for some time, and it's just a function of when they can find enough rationale, enough justification to go in and kill a lot of people that the problem will be solved.
NEVILLE: OK. Mike, I do apologize. I do have to interrupt you, though, because we're going to go now live to that news conference in New York with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY: I came over today to address the area police private sector liaison or APPL group to review security arrangements in New York City.
APPL is made up of some 500 security directors from major corporations around the city. And the police commissioner felt that it was important to reach out to these trained and experienced security executives, meet with them, tell them what we're doing, and more importantly, tell them what they could do. The business community is our partner, and we will need to work together to get through these challenging times.
We believe it's very important that they and their employees be particularly vigilant. We want to keep them informed and we want them to keep us informed too. We are relying on their cooperation and assistance to help us protect the city. And I've asked them, as I've asked all New Yorkers, to report any suspected terrorist activity to our hotline.
The terrorist hotline is 1-888-NYC-SAFE. That's 1-888-692-7233.
I think we are all acutely aware the sad reality of today's world requires us to live with the threat of terrorism. For us here in the United States that is a new reality. For people that live in cities throughout Europe and Asia and Latin America and Africa, that's not the case. They've been living with it for a long time.
But New York City is the capital of the world, and we will always, unfortunately, be a target for those who hate our way of life and those who are threatened by everything that we hold dear and everything that we have fought for, for the last 225-odd years. And unfortunately, it would appear that, for the near future, we certainly cannot expect these threats to subside.
It's certainly OK for us to talk about it. It's OK for us to understand the threats. It's OK for us to talk to our children and to our friends. But, at the same time, we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear.
We can't allow everything we've fought for and hold dear to be destroyed by the threats of terrorism. That would destroy us without firing a shot. And as Americans, and as New Yorkers, we're just not going to allow that to happen.
I wanted to take a few seconds to go over with you some of the steps that we've taken in recent days. The police commissioner leads the best police force in the world. Just to give you a feeling for the magnitude of the NYPD and their preparedness, we have over 16,000 police officers trained to combat terrorism and to deal with the kinds of threats that terrorists keep generating. That is more than the entire FBI and the state police added together.
We are spending all of our resources to make sure that we continue to keep this the safest large city in the world. The police commanders have extensive backgrounds in intelligence and in counterterrorism. They are in constant communication with state and federal officials. I can tell you that the federal government and the state government have provided us with everything that we have asked for.
We continue to ask them for any new equipment, for personnel, for information, for training. And under the direction of the president and under the direction of Governor Pataki, they've been forthcoming with everything that we have asked.
I can also tell you that the coordination and cooperation and communication among the city agencies is exemplary. I don't know that there's any way it could be any better. All of the gentlemen behind me, all of their staffs, and all the other agencies are in constant communications. They not only work well together, they respect each other, they share information, and I don't have to tell them when one briefs me to make sure that they've briefed the others. It's already been done by the time it gets to me as it appropriately should, at all levels going down the chain.
The police department, as some of you have seen, have deployed specially-equipped offices where people gather. Whether it's in the subways, the financial district, or landmarks. Sometimes you'll see a sweep of an entire subway car. That's OK. We've been sweeping cars for a long time.
Sometimes you'll see police or fire officers with radiation detectors or chemical detectors. We've been doing that for an awful long time. Certainly, for the last 17 months, and some even -- some things even beyond that.
We constantly are changing what we're doing so that nobody can predict where we'll show up, who will show up, what equipment they will have, or what they'll be looking for. One of the things that we started just recently, you'll see, is diverting all truck traffic away from the Williamsburg Bridge to the Manhattan Bridge. It's just easier at the Manhattan Bridge, where they go down to a single lane, to take a look at who wants to get across the bridge into Manhattan.
There's no specific threat of a truck carrying something that's dangerous into the city. It's just the kind of prudence that you would expect, and you should expect us to change those procedures without notice and reasonably frequently.
We've deployed special detection equipment to look for chemical weapons, biological weapons, and radioactive agents. In addition, the joint police department, fire department hammer (ph) teams that were deployed during the anthrax attacks have been bolstered and deployed throughout the city. They are trained and equipped to deal with hazardous material. Our Health Department is in close and constant communications with all area hospitals; monitoring, while providing information and support wherever possible.
Let me close with the following thought. While we have certainly heightened security in this country and in the state, New York City has been at level orange for 17 months. And for 17 months we have not had another terrorist attack. There's nothing we can do to bring back the 2,700 brave souls who were taken from us on 9/11. But to the extent that security and common sense and hard work by the police department, the fire department, OEM, the hospitals, the Department of Health, the extent that they have been doing their job, you see the results by the lack of another event. Let us all pray that we can continue to say that.
NEVILLE: And we've been listening to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayor, talking about how law enforcement agencies, as well as government agencies, plan to keep New York City safe and secure at this particular time of a high alert status that we are under.
I do have to take a break right now. I want to ask Mike Farrell and Terry Jeffrey to hang on for me. I do want to continue to talk to you after this break. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And we're talking about antiwar efforts with actor Mike Farrell and "Human Events" editor Terry Jeffrey. And Mike, Desmond Tutu says war against Iraq is immoral. Do you agree with that?
FARRELL: Well certainly war unprovoked is immoral, and war unnecessary is immoral. And I believe that the evidence shows that if we simply were to support the continued use and work of the inspectors that are on the ground there now, and expand their force and give them some support rather than undercutting them in every turn, we could resolve the problems that -- whatever problems are presented by Iraq without the use of war.
And further, I think that if there is to be the focus of attention on a threat to the United States, it ought to be properly focused on the Islamic terrorists, the jihadists that are represented by Osama bin Laden, and possibly North Korea, rather than...
NEVILLE: So you feel that those two are the bigger threats?
FARRELL: Certainly, rather than wasting our efforts and millions of -- hundreds of millions of dollars evidently, and possibly tens of thousands of lives, in waging a war that's unnecessary.
NEVILLE: And Terry Jeffrey, you know that six congressmen are saying that Bush cannot go to war without congressional approval. And I want to ask you, do you think that Bush needs congressional approval for -- to take any action -- before taking action?
JEFFREY: Well absolutely. I would think it would be an impeachable offense for the president of the United States to start a war without congressional authorization. Like, for example, Bill Clinton did in Kosovo. That on October 10, both houses of Congress by significant bipartisan majorities approved a resolution explicitly authorizing the president to go to war, Arthel. Let me say to the moral question, which I think is key, moral theologians in the West, starting with St. Augustine and the St. Thomas Aquinas, have said there are five criteria for a just war. There must be a just cause, it must be a last resort, it must have a reasonable chance of success, it must be something that causes less harm than it averts, and it must be something that's approved by legitimate constitutional or sovereign authority. In this case, every single one of those criteria have been met.
NEVILLE: What Mike? Jump in.
FARRELL: We're faced with it is not just, it is not appropriate, it is not necessary. We can certainly win, there's no doubt about that, but there is no reason for it.
JEFFREY: Well let me ask Mr. Farrell, does he believe that the Kurds in northern Iraq, who in 1996 tried to throw off the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Saddam Hussein, and that the Shiites in southern Iraq, who tried to do it in 1991...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Give him a chance to answer, Terry.
JEFFREY: Did they have a right to overthrow this tyrant morally? Yes or no?
FARRELL: Sure they have the right to overthrow anybody.
JEFFREY: Do we have a right to help them overthrow this tyrant?
FARRELL: May I answer, please?
JEFFREY: Sure.
FARRELL: We don't have the right to provide Saddam Hussein poison gas to fight the war he fought. We don't have the right to go in arbitrarily and determine for somebody else who is the proper leader of their country.
NEVILLE: Mike Farrell, Terry Jeffrey, I'm sorry, I'm out of time here. I do apologize for that. Thanks so much for being here. We'll get you both back again.
And thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. Join me again tomorrow on a huge news day, as U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix grades Baghdad on its cooperation. Could his report to the U.N. Security Council be Iraq's final act in the prelude to war?
We'll have the fallout and see whether you think the United States has the ammunition to go to war. Don't miss that.
"INSIDE POLITICS" up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Il?; New York's Mayor Bloomberg Adresses Security Concerns>
|
