Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law; Alleged Mastermind of Bombings in Saudi Arabia in Custody
Aired June 26, 2003 - 17:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: In the war on terror. Saudi Arabia has arrested the alleged mastermind of those bombing raids in Riyadh only a month or so ago. We are going to have complete details this hour.
Also, he was in hiding. He isn't any longer. One of Saddam Hussein's most loyal servants speaks out. Why is the man known as Comical Ali and Baghdad Bob coming forward right now. Find out on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS, which starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): The Supreme Court locks the bedroom door.
RUTH HARLOW: What the court has recognized is gay people's basic humanity.
REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: But it demoralizes the culture.
BLITZER: A hit-and-run victim left to die in the driver's windshield. Is it murder?
CHRISTY JACK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: She guaranteed his death.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is not one scintilla of proof.
BLITZER: A jury decides.
Albuquerque ablaze. Hundreds of homes in harm's way.
A new wave of deadly attacks in Iraq. U.S. soldiers go missing.
He's back from Iraq, and wants America to know how the troops are doing. I'll speak with the always-cocky Kid Rock.
And could a single pill prevent most heart attacks and strokes?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
It's Thursday, June 26, 2003. Hello from New York City. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting.
We have breaking news just in to CNN. The suspected mastermind of the Saudi bombing of a western housing complex has turned himself in. Our David Ensor is standing by. We'll have complete details in just a few moments.
But first another hugely important story developing today. A giant leap forward, or is it a lamentable mistake? Just some of the emotional reaction to a major Supreme Court ruling -- an historic ruling -- striking down a Texas law that banned gay sex.
In the nation's highest court, a bold move on the issues of personal liberty and privacy. By a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down a Texas law banning gay sex, just as Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion stated, quote: "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Ruth Harlow, who argued against the law before the Supreme Court spoke to CNN's Bob Franken.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: It's a historic day for gay Americans and for all Americans who believe in basic liberty. Because as you said, what the court said is that all of us as adults have the liberty to choose how we're going to express our love for one another in the privacy of our own bedroom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: At the heart of the case, two Houston men, jailed briefly in 1998 after police entered an apartment investigating a false report of a disturbance. They found the two engaged in homosexual sex then banned in Texas as, quote: "Deviate sexual intercourse". For those justices against overturning that law, Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned statement. Quote: "Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia added he has nothing against homosexuals or any other group promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.
But other supporters of the law said the court failed morally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHENCK: The court has said today that morality, matters of right and wrong behavior, do not matter in the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Analysts say this ruling has wider implications.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENDAL COFFEY, LEGAL ANALYST: But the key thing goes beyond the Texas sodomy law or even the laws in a couple of other states. And that is to analyze to what extent does this opinion revise the landscape not only with respect to privacy rights of all adults, but specifically recognizing the evolution in our culture with respect to same-sex couples. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Laws against homosexual sex, once on the books in every state are now rare and even more rarely enforced. Only 13 states currently have anti-sodomy laws affecting homosexuals and/or heterosexuals. And experts say today's ruling appears to invalidate those statutes as well.
A very, very emotionally charged issue. We'll hear more -- much more from both sides in a few minutes when I'm join by Congressman Barney Frank as well as Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. And here's your turn to weigh in on this story. Our web question of the day is, do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down anti-sodomy laws? We'll have the results later in this broadcast. You can vote at cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, I'd love to hear from you. Send me your comments. I'll try to read some of them on the air each day at the end of this program. That's also, of course, where you can read my daily online column, cnn.com/wolf.
Let's get back to that other breaking story unfolding now. U.S. and Saudi officials say the alleged mastermind of the May bombings at that housing complex in Riyadh is now in custody. For that let's bring in our national security correspondent David Ensor -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, both U.S. and Saudi officials say that this man was involved in the planning and the execution the of the bloody May 12 attacks in Saudi Arabia, which killed 26 people, including nine Americans. The man's name is Ali Abd Al-Rachman Al-Faq Asi al-Gamdi (ph), otherwise known as Abdu Bakr Azdi. And officials say that they have evidence.
U.S. Officials say they have evidence he is linked to other senior al Qaeda figures. One U.S. Official calling it just now, a significant get by the Saudis. Now Saudi officials are telling my colleague, Andrea Koppel, that in fact the man turned himself in to the Saudis, but they are saying that no deals were made and he will be tried under Islamic law. Wolf?
BLITZER: David, is there any guarantee the Saudis are going to make this individual available to FBI and other U.S. law enforcement authorities for questioning? The last time around, you remember, at the barracks bombing, the Saudis went ahead and executed some of the suspects right away without U.S. officials allowing them to be questioned.
ENSOR: That's very true, and that's still a sensitive point between the two countries. However cooperation since the Riyadh bombings and somewhat before it, basically since 9/11, has been much improved. U.S. officials have said they've had access to some of the suspects held in this particular crime. They are certainly hoping they'll have access to this man too, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. We'll continue to follow this story. An important story potentially in the war on terror. Thanks very much, David Ensor. Now to warfare. U.S. troops today facing gunfire, grenades, and a bombing. There was hostile fire on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. Special Operations forces were especially hard hit. Let's go live to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. Jamie?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it appears that anti American forces in Iraq have struck at some of the very commandos who are searching for Saddam Hussein and other senior leaders in Iraq. According to Pentagon sources, a member of Task Force 20, that special commando team, was killed and eight others wounded when a truck laden with explosives was detonated, apparently as the Special Operations forces were passing nearby. Again, one Special Operation soldier killed, eight others wounded.
In Afghanistan, a case where a U.S. Special Operation forces were on a manhunt for what they called high value targets, looking for some of those remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A U.S. Navy Seal, we are told by sources, received a gunshot wound in the face, and died of his wounds. Two other Special Operations forces were wounded in that incident last night in Afghanistan.
And then there's the mysterious case of two missing U.S. Army soldiers in Baghdad, last seen at a checkpoint having some sort of interaction with some local Iraqis, and then they disappeared. U.S. has a manhunt out for them. They followed some leads to one location where they found some blood and some civilian clothes but they are not at all sure that was connected to the disappearance of these two soldiers. So what happened to them, still a mystery. Wolf?
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Jamie, thanks very much.
He insisted victory was right around the corner, even when American troops were right around the corner. Is wild claims won him the nicknames Comical Ali and Baghdad Bob. Now get this, the former Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has resurfaced. For that let's go to Baghdad. That's where our bureau chief, Jane Arraf, is standing by. Jane?
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. He was last seen more than two months ago, essentially denying that there were troops or tanks in Baghdad. Now, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has re-emerged. He's older, a lot grayer, maybe a little bit wiser. Now, people who work with him say up until the very last they had to convince him that Baghdad was indeed falling and to drag him away. But in two interviews tonight, he explains that he wasn't in on the leadership. He was just doing his job working with the information that he got. He concedes that maybe he was a little bit misled.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED SAEED AL-SAHAF (through translator): I knew exactly there were a few tanks and our military sources were saying there was an infiltration. But, yes, it was under control. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): From where did you get your information? It is the defense minister who usually gives these statements.
AL-SAHAF (through translator): Not necessarily, every country has got its own procedures. The information was accurate, but maybe the interpretation was inaccurate. The interpretation was that this was under control, and this is the main -- this is not the main war front. The situation is under control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARRAF: Now, for someone who really had no sense of humor, he did spawn an endless series of amusements. Web sites, dolls in his honor. Still in Baghdad, you can buy t-shirts with his -- one of his greatest sayings, I triple guarantee you there are no American tanks in Baghdad. But he was, for many years, the apologist, the spokesman for Saddam Hussein, a former foreign minister.
He became information minister, and up until really the very last, he defended the regime, and not only defended the regime, continued to say that lying in Iraq was forbidden. Absolutely remarkable. He has now emerged, in the words of one of the people from Al-Arabia who interviewed him, very depressed, looking like a broken man. He said, clearly he is someone who has an amazing past to look back on, but perhaps not much of a future. Wolf?
BLITZER: All right, Jane Arraf, with the latest on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf making a comeback -- I guess a comeback of sorts. Thanks very much, Jane.
We have much more news coming up. Some are in fact, calling this potentially, at least, a magic bullet against heart attacks. Find out why researchers say it might add years to your life.
She let a man bleed to death in the windshield of her car. She was being high on drugs. That was her defense. But it was -- was it good enough to clear her of murder? We'll go live to the courthouse for the verdict.
And Kid Rock rocks Iraq. He'll join me live.
First today's news quiz. According to the recording industry, what's the best selling type of music in the United States? Rock 'n' roll, rap/hip-hop, country, urban R&B? The answer coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A super pill some doctors say could add 11 years to your life.
Plus, airport screening concern. Why one Congressman feels insecure about those back-door entrances.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: More now on our top story. Gay rights supporters and backers of state sodomy laws are reacting passionately to today's Supreme Court ruling. An historic ruling by all accounts. Lets here from both sides.
Representative Barney Frank is a Massachusetts democrat, the first openly gay member of Congress. Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Family Institute. Thanks to both of you for joining us. Congressman Frank, let me begin with you. You've been a champion of gay rights for many, many years. In the scheme of things, how big is this Supreme Court decision today for the homosexual community?
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, it's very big, but it's not just for the homosexual community. The five-member majority of the court said that you could not have laws that interfere with anybody's right to private intimate conduct. Most of the states that had laws of this sort banned both heterosexual and homosexual conduct.
Texas was in the minority that deals only with gay rights. But the five-member majority said what I wouldn't have thought was controversial today, if two adults, mutually consenting adults, are having sexual relations in their own home, behind closed doors, we don't want the police breaking in, arresting them and charging them. And the Supreme Court said, that's really not what the government is supposed to do.
I think it's a great step forward for liberty in general, and since these laws have often been used particularly against gay people I was very pleased by that. And I noticed, by the way, that even Clarence Thomas, who is one of the three who said it was constitutional, made a point of saying that he thought the law was very silly, and that if he was a member of the legislature he would have voted against it.
So you had 7 of the 9 justices, including some of the more conservative ones, saying that it really isn't the business of government to regulating private sexual conduct in the privacy of people's homes.
BLITZER: Clearly Robert Knight, there's been a sea change in public attitudes toward gay rights over the years, certainly reflected in today's Supreme Court decision.
ROBERT KNIGHT, CULTURE AND FAMILY INSTITUTE: There's been a relentless pounding of gay propaganda on television. It's practically ceaseless. But really, this case wasn't about the police invading bedrooms. That's not what was happening out there. It's as if the court never heard of the fourth amendment, in which we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. You have to have reasonable cause before you go into a home.
And the court admitted, in Justice Kennedy's opinion, that it really wasn't happening. Police weren't going into homes. So it was about imposing the justice's vision of morality or immorality, as you will, on the people of Texas, saying, you have no right to regulate morality in your communities anymore. And I think Congressman Frank was correct in saying that you know, any two consenting adults. Well, what about a prostitute and her client? What about incest participants? Eventually this will challenge all sex laws, and, you know ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: All right ...
KNIGHT: If you take it even further, it is ...
BLITZER: ... let me let Congressman ...
KNIGHT: ... going to go after the marriage law, and that ...
FRANK: Well, there are just two -- I'm impressed at how many inaccuracies he gets into one short statement. As a matter of fact, this was about the police going into the bedrooms. I don't understand how he can set that.
KNIGHT: Yes, it was a set-up case, and you know it.
FRANK: May I continue, please? The fact is that you were simply wrong. The police went into the bedroom, arrested those people, charged them, and they were convicted. You say it was a set-up. The police could have walked in and backed out and said, hey, mistake. The police, here, entered the bedroom and arrested the people. George Bush said that was fine. They were convicted. So this was a case of police coming in and not just coming in but arresting these people.
KNIGHT: Yes, and how often does that happen, Congressman, around the United States?
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: I hope it will happen never, thanks to the Supreme ...
KNIGHT: Well, it doesn't happen. That's why ...
FRANKS: Excuse me ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second.
FRANKS: I am not going to be heckled and filibustered by this bigot.
KNIGHT: Oh ...
FRANK: If I get a chance to talk ...
KNIGHT: That's what we can expect ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: One at a time ...
FRANK: You try to override me when I'm talking. That's exactly what you can expect. The days of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are over ...
KNIGHT: I hope you listen carefully, America. That's what -- the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is on the march here, and ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Wait a minute. Bob. Robert Knight ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second. Hold on. Robert Knight, lets -- listen, this was a case. Congressman Frank is absolutely right. The police did invade the bedroom of these two men. They happened to have been engaged in homosexual sex, and they arrested them. How can you dispute that?
KNIGHT: Yeah, and they continued engaging in the sex even after the officers entered, which makes me suspect this was a set-up to just to challenge the law. And it doesn't really have any relation to reality out there. Even Justice Kennedy said this isn't how the law has been enforced normally. OK? So it was really about getting rid of the whole idea.
FRANK: May I respond to his second mistake.
BLITZER: Let's let Congressman Franks respond. Go ahead, Congressman Frank.
FRANK: His second mistake, and of course, it is what Santorum said, and what Scalia said. Let's hold these people to their prediction. They really would like it to be illegal for people to engage in sex of which they don't approve. But they are afraid to say that, because they know it is politically unpopular. So they say, if this is allowed it will lead to all these other terrible things.
Well, as a matter of fact, since 1980, 10 state Supreme Courts have ruled exactly as the U.S. Supreme Court did today, and in none of those states since 1980, has it led to legalizing bigamy, bestiality, incest, et cetera. There are an ability by people to make distinctions. And I would -- let's test him at his word. He says this is going to lead to the courts then mandating that all these other sexual practices have to be allowed. I'm predicting that that's not true. Wolf, have us back on the show a year from now because I want him to have to admit how wrong he was.
KNIGHT: I hope you are right, Congressman. But I fear you are wrong because ...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Well, for 23 years I've been right.
KNIGHT: Wait a minute. You have got to let me speak, too. If the concept that limits the government in this case, is merely consent and privacy, really you can't have any laws standing up against prostitution and things like that because you're just talking about privacy and consent. So I don't see why they wouldn't ...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Well, I'll tell you why.
KNIGHT: ... come under a challenge.
FRANK: In the first place, you're just factually wrong and don't know what the facts are. Since 1980, as I said, 10 state Supreme Courts have said this. Courts have often said that where there is money involved it's different than if it's purely consent. You may not agree with that, but the notion that transactions where no money change hands are exactly the same as transactions where money changes hands, people can play gin rummy and it's not illegal. If they play for $5,000, it might be illegal. So, the presence of money can make a difference. The notion that ...
(CROSSTALK)
KNIGHT: It makes a difference, but in terms of ...
FRANK: Well, but the fact is, in 20 years -- 23 years, not one state Supreme Court which decided that there was privacy, has followed the path that you've predicted.
KNIGHT: Well, just don't hold your breath. It will happen because there really is no holding it back.
FRANK: Well, why hasn't it happened in 23 years in any state?
KNIGHT: Well, there hasn't been time yet. Why didn't ...
FRANK: Twenty-three years isn't enough time?
KNIGHT: Why didn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fall until today?
FRANK: Because you needed new justices. Because you need to have people ...
(CROSSTALK)
KNIGHT: Yes. You need justices that don't care about the rule of law any more and want to impose their views on the rest of the country.
BLITZER: Let me interrupt both of you, and get your reaction to this question. Barney Frank, to you first. Will this open the door potentially for gay marriages in the United States?
FRANK: No, I think that we ought to be recognizing the relationships of gay and lesbian people, but this decision isn't going to lead to that. I will make this very simple prediction. We can come back in a year and see. There will not be any federal court with this decision saying marriage is allowed. Marriage is a different thing than private consenting sex.
And the courts -- and again, in 1980, 10 -- let's be clear about this. Ten state Supreme Courts made this essentially this decision beginning in 1980. None of them have gone farther. I would like to go farther into other areas like marriage, but it's going to take affirmative legislative action to do it.
KNIGHT: I'm sure they're waiting for the Supreme Court to do something this radical. Marriage is protected in the law because it's a unique institution. It's fundamental to society. It is the union of men and women, okay? But if the only premise is that it's consensual sex, then even distinctions between marital and nonmarital sex are not going to hold up for long. And you know that, Congressman. The plaintiff in this case himself said that that this morning.
FRANK: I know that in 23 years you've been proven wrong by 10 state Supreme Courts.
BLITZER: Unfortunately ...
KNIGHT: Well, I hope they continue to refrain from judicial activism as the court has done today.
BLITZER: Unfortunately we have to leave it right there. Robert Knight, Congressman Barney Frank. To you, Congressman Frank, I know you've been a champion on this issue for many years. Congratulations to you. Thanks very much to both of you for joining us.
Of course we would love to hear directly from you. Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down antisodomy laws? Log on to cnn.com/wolf, and we'll get those results later.
Take off your shoes and open your bags. You better do it. That's what passengers, of course, go through at the airport. But how about employees? Are they getting under the security radar? We'll take a closer look.
And fire along the Rio Grande. We'll go live to Albuquerque.
Kid Rock rocks the troops. He joins me live. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Mastermind of Bombings in Saudi Arabia in Custody>
Aired June 26, 2003 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: In the war on terror. Saudi Arabia has arrested the alleged mastermind of those bombing raids in Riyadh only a month or so ago. We are going to have complete details this hour.
Also, he was in hiding. He isn't any longer. One of Saddam Hussein's most loyal servants speaks out. Why is the man known as Comical Ali and Baghdad Bob coming forward right now. Find out on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS, which starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): The Supreme Court locks the bedroom door.
RUTH HARLOW: What the court has recognized is gay people's basic humanity.
REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: But it demoralizes the culture.
BLITZER: A hit-and-run victim left to die in the driver's windshield. Is it murder?
CHRISTY JACK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: She guaranteed his death.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is not one scintilla of proof.
BLITZER: A jury decides.
Albuquerque ablaze. Hundreds of homes in harm's way.
A new wave of deadly attacks in Iraq. U.S. soldiers go missing.
He's back from Iraq, and wants America to know how the troops are doing. I'll speak with the always-cocky Kid Rock.
And could a single pill prevent most heart attacks and strokes?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
It's Thursday, June 26, 2003. Hello from New York City. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting.
We have breaking news just in to CNN. The suspected mastermind of the Saudi bombing of a western housing complex has turned himself in. Our David Ensor is standing by. We'll have complete details in just a few moments.
But first another hugely important story developing today. A giant leap forward, or is it a lamentable mistake? Just some of the emotional reaction to a major Supreme Court ruling -- an historic ruling -- striking down a Texas law that banned gay sex.
In the nation's highest court, a bold move on the issues of personal liberty and privacy. By a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down a Texas law banning gay sex, just as Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion stated, quote: "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Ruth Harlow, who argued against the law before the Supreme Court spoke to CNN's Bob Franken.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: It's a historic day for gay Americans and for all Americans who believe in basic liberty. Because as you said, what the court said is that all of us as adults have the liberty to choose how we're going to express our love for one another in the privacy of our own bedroom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: At the heart of the case, two Houston men, jailed briefly in 1998 after police entered an apartment investigating a false report of a disturbance. They found the two engaged in homosexual sex then banned in Texas as, quote: "Deviate sexual intercourse". For those justices against overturning that law, Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned statement. Quote: "Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia added he has nothing against homosexuals or any other group promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.
But other supporters of the law said the court failed morally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHENCK: The court has said today that morality, matters of right and wrong behavior, do not matter in the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Analysts say this ruling has wider implications.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENDAL COFFEY, LEGAL ANALYST: But the key thing goes beyond the Texas sodomy law or even the laws in a couple of other states. And that is to analyze to what extent does this opinion revise the landscape not only with respect to privacy rights of all adults, but specifically recognizing the evolution in our culture with respect to same-sex couples. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Laws against homosexual sex, once on the books in every state are now rare and even more rarely enforced. Only 13 states currently have anti-sodomy laws affecting homosexuals and/or heterosexuals. And experts say today's ruling appears to invalidate those statutes as well.
A very, very emotionally charged issue. We'll hear more -- much more from both sides in a few minutes when I'm join by Congressman Barney Frank as well as Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. And here's your turn to weigh in on this story. Our web question of the day is, do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down anti-sodomy laws? We'll have the results later in this broadcast. You can vote at cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, I'd love to hear from you. Send me your comments. I'll try to read some of them on the air each day at the end of this program. That's also, of course, where you can read my daily online column, cnn.com/wolf.
Let's get back to that other breaking story unfolding now. U.S. and Saudi officials say the alleged mastermind of the May bombings at that housing complex in Riyadh is now in custody. For that let's bring in our national security correspondent David Ensor -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, both U.S. and Saudi officials say that this man was involved in the planning and the execution the of the bloody May 12 attacks in Saudi Arabia, which killed 26 people, including nine Americans. The man's name is Ali Abd Al-Rachman Al-Faq Asi al-Gamdi (ph), otherwise known as Abdu Bakr Azdi. And officials say that they have evidence.
U.S. Officials say they have evidence he is linked to other senior al Qaeda figures. One U.S. Official calling it just now, a significant get by the Saudis. Now Saudi officials are telling my colleague, Andrea Koppel, that in fact the man turned himself in to the Saudis, but they are saying that no deals were made and he will be tried under Islamic law. Wolf?
BLITZER: David, is there any guarantee the Saudis are going to make this individual available to FBI and other U.S. law enforcement authorities for questioning? The last time around, you remember, at the barracks bombing, the Saudis went ahead and executed some of the suspects right away without U.S. officials allowing them to be questioned.
ENSOR: That's very true, and that's still a sensitive point between the two countries. However cooperation since the Riyadh bombings and somewhat before it, basically since 9/11, has been much improved. U.S. officials have said they've had access to some of the suspects held in this particular crime. They are certainly hoping they'll have access to this man too, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. We'll continue to follow this story. An important story potentially in the war on terror. Thanks very much, David Ensor. Now to warfare. U.S. troops today facing gunfire, grenades, and a bombing. There was hostile fire on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. Special Operations forces were especially hard hit. Let's go live to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. Jamie?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it appears that anti American forces in Iraq have struck at some of the very commandos who are searching for Saddam Hussein and other senior leaders in Iraq. According to Pentagon sources, a member of Task Force 20, that special commando team, was killed and eight others wounded when a truck laden with explosives was detonated, apparently as the Special Operations forces were passing nearby. Again, one Special Operation soldier killed, eight others wounded.
In Afghanistan, a case where a U.S. Special Operation forces were on a manhunt for what they called high value targets, looking for some of those remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A U.S. Navy Seal, we are told by sources, received a gunshot wound in the face, and died of his wounds. Two other Special Operations forces were wounded in that incident last night in Afghanistan.
And then there's the mysterious case of two missing U.S. Army soldiers in Baghdad, last seen at a checkpoint having some sort of interaction with some local Iraqis, and then they disappeared. U.S. has a manhunt out for them. They followed some leads to one location where they found some blood and some civilian clothes but they are not at all sure that was connected to the disappearance of these two soldiers. So what happened to them, still a mystery. Wolf?
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Jamie, thanks very much.
He insisted victory was right around the corner, even when American troops were right around the corner. Is wild claims won him the nicknames Comical Ali and Baghdad Bob. Now get this, the former Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has resurfaced. For that let's go to Baghdad. That's where our bureau chief, Jane Arraf, is standing by. Jane?
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. He was last seen more than two months ago, essentially denying that there were troops or tanks in Baghdad. Now, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has re-emerged. He's older, a lot grayer, maybe a little bit wiser. Now, people who work with him say up until the very last they had to convince him that Baghdad was indeed falling and to drag him away. But in two interviews tonight, he explains that he wasn't in on the leadership. He was just doing his job working with the information that he got. He concedes that maybe he was a little bit misled.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED SAEED AL-SAHAF (through translator): I knew exactly there were a few tanks and our military sources were saying there was an infiltration. But, yes, it was under control. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): From where did you get your information? It is the defense minister who usually gives these statements.
AL-SAHAF (through translator): Not necessarily, every country has got its own procedures. The information was accurate, but maybe the interpretation was inaccurate. The interpretation was that this was under control, and this is the main -- this is not the main war front. The situation is under control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARRAF: Now, for someone who really had no sense of humor, he did spawn an endless series of amusements. Web sites, dolls in his honor. Still in Baghdad, you can buy t-shirts with his -- one of his greatest sayings, I triple guarantee you there are no American tanks in Baghdad. But he was, for many years, the apologist, the spokesman for Saddam Hussein, a former foreign minister.
He became information minister, and up until really the very last, he defended the regime, and not only defended the regime, continued to say that lying in Iraq was forbidden. Absolutely remarkable. He has now emerged, in the words of one of the people from Al-Arabia who interviewed him, very depressed, looking like a broken man. He said, clearly he is someone who has an amazing past to look back on, but perhaps not much of a future. Wolf?
BLITZER: All right, Jane Arraf, with the latest on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf making a comeback -- I guess a comeback of sorts. Thanks very much, Jane.
We have much more news coming up. Some are in fact, calling this potentially, at least, a magic bullet against heart attacks. Find out why researchers say it might add years to your life.
She let a man bleed to death in the windshield of her car. She was being high on drugs. That was her defense. But it was -- was it good enough to clear her of murder? We'll go live to the courthouse for the verdict.
And Kid Rock rocks Iraq. He'll join me live.
First today's news quiz. According to the recording industry, what's the best selling type of music in the United States? Rock 'n' roll, rap/hip-hop, country, urban R&B? The answer coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A super pill some doctors say could add 11 years to your life.
Plus, airport screening concern. Why one Congressman feels insecure about those back-door entrances.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: More now on our top story. Gay rights supporters and backers of state sodomy laws are reacting passionately to today's Supreme Court ruling. An historic ruling by all accounts. Lets here from both sides.
Representative Barney Frank is a Massachusetts democrat, the first openly gay member of Congress. Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Family Institute. Thanks to both of you for joining us. Congressman Frank, let me begin with you. You've been a champion of gay rights for many, many years. In the scheme of things, how big is this Supreme Court decision today for the homosexual community?
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, it's very big, but it's not just for the homosexual community. The five-member majority of the court said that you could not have laws that interfere with anybody's right to private intimate conduct. Most of the states that had laws of this sort banned both heterosexual and homosexual conduct.
Texas was in the minority that deals only with gay rights. But the five-member majority said what I wouldn't have thought was controversial today, if two adults, mutually consenting adults, are having sexual relations in their own home, behind closed doors, we don't want the police breaking in, arresting them and charging them. And the Supreme Court said, that's really not what the government is supposed to do.
I think it's a great step forward for liberty in general, and since these laws have often been used particularly against gay people I was very pleased by that. And I noticed, by the way, that even Clarence Thomas, who is one of the three who said it was constitutional, made a point of saying that he thought the law was very silly, and that if he was a member of the legislature he would have voted against it.
So you had 7 of the 9 justices, including some of the more conservative ones, saying that it really isn't the business of government to regulating private sexual conduct in the privacy of people's homes.
BLITZER: Clearly Robert Knight, there's been a sea change in public attitudes toward gay rights over the years, certainly reflected in today's Supreme Court decision.
ROBERT KNIGHT, CULTURE AND FAMILY INSTITUTE: There's been a relentless pounding of gay propaganda on television. It's practically ceaseless. But really, this case wasn't about the police invading bedrooms. That's not what was happening out there. It's as if the court never heard of the fourth amendment, in which we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. You have to have reasonable cause before you go into a home.
And the court admitted, in Justice Kennedy's opinion, that it really wasn't happening. Police weren't going into homes. So it was about imposing the justice's vision of morality or immorality, as you will, on the people of Texas, saying, you have no right to regulate morality in your communities anymore. And I think Congressman Frank was correct in saying that you know, any two consenting adults. Well, what about a prostitute and her client? What about incest participants? Eventually this will challenge all sex laws, and, you know ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: All right ...
KNIGHT: If you take it even further, it is ...
BLITZER: ... let me let Congressman ...
KNIGHT: ... going to go after the marriage law, and that ...
FRANK: Well, there are just two -- I'm impressed at how many inaccuracies he gets into one short statement. As a matter of fact, this was about the police going into the bedrooms. I don't understand how he can set that.
KNIGHT: Yes, it was a set-up case, and you know it.
FRANK: May I continue, please? The fact is that you were simply wrong. The police went into the bedroom, arrested those people, charged them, and they were convicted. You say it was a set-up. The police could have walked in and backed out and said, hey, mistake. The police, here, entered the bedroom and arrested the people. George Bush said that was fine. They were convicted. So this was a case of police coming in and not just coming in but arresting these people.
KNIGHT: Yes, and how often does that happen, Congressman, around the United States?
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: I hope it will happen never, thanks to the Supreme ...
KNIGHT: Well, it doesn't happen. That's why ...
FRANKS: Excuse me ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second.
FRANKS: I am not going to be heckled and filibustered by this bigot.
KNIGHT: Oh ...
FRANK: If I get a chance to talk ...
KNIGHT: That's what we can expect ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: One at a time ...
FRANK: You try to override me when I'm talking. That's exactly what you can expect. The days of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are over ...
KNIGHT: I hope you listen carefully, America. That's what -- the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is on the march here, and ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Wait a minute. Bob. Robert Knight ...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on one second. Hold on. Robert Knight, lets -- listen, this was a case. Congressman Frank is absolutely right. The police did invade the bedroom of these two men. They happened to have been engaged in homosexual sex, and they arrested them. How can you dispute that?
KNIGHT: Yeah, and they continued engaging in the sex even after the officers entered, which makes me suspect this was a set-up to just to challenge the law. And it doesn't really have any relation to reality out there. Even Justice Kennedy said this isn't how the law has been enforced normally. OK? So it was really about getting rid of the whole idea.
FRANK: May I respond to his second mistake.
BLITZER: Let's let Congressman Franks respond. Go ahead, Congressman Frank.
FRANK: His second mistake, and of course, it is what Santorum said, and what Scalia said. Let's hold these people to their prediction. They really would like it to be illegal for people to engage in sex of which they don't approve. But they are afraid to say that, because they know it is politically unpopular. So they say, if this is allowed it will lead to all these other terrible things.
Well, as a matter of fact, since 1980, 10 state Supreme Courts have ruled exactly as the U.S. Supreme Court did today, and in none of those states since 1980, has it led to legalizing bigamy, bestiality, incest, et cetera. There are an ability by people to make distinctions. And I would -- let's test him at his word. He says this is going to lead to the courts then mandating that all these other sexual practices have to be allowed. I'm predicting that that's not true. Wolf, have us back on the show a year from now because I want him to have to admit how wrong he was.
KNIGHT: I hope you are right, Congressman. But I fear you are wrong because ...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Well, for 23 years I've been right.
KNIGHT: Wait a minute. You have got to let me speak, too. If the concept that limits the government in this case, is merely consent and privacy, really you can't have any laws standing up against prostitution and things like that because you're just talking about privacy and consent. So I don't see why they wouldn't ...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Well, I'll tell you why.
KNIGHT: ... come under a challenge.
FRANK: In the first place, you're just factually wrong and don't know what the facts are. Since 1980, as I said, 10 state Supreme Courts have said this. Courts have often said that where there is money involved it's different than if it's purely consent. You may not agree with that, but the notion that transactions where no money change hands are exactly the same as transactions where money changes hands, people can play gin rummy and it's not illegal. If they play for $5,000, it might be illegal. So, the presence of money can make a difference. The notion that ...
(CROSSTALK)
KNIGHT: It makes a difference, but in terms of ...
FRANK: Well, but the fact is, in 20 years -- 23 years, not one state Supreme Court which decided that there was privacy, has followed the path that you've predicted.
KNIGHT: Well, just don't hold your breath. It will happen because there really is no holding it back.
FRANK: Well, why hasn't it happened in 23 years in any state?
KNIGHT: Well, there hasn't been time yet. Why didn't ...
FRANK: Twenty-three years isn't enough time?
KNIGHT: Why didn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fall until today?
FRANK: Because you needed new justices. Because you need to have people ...
(CROSSTALK)
KNIGHT: Yes. You need justices that don't care about the rule of law any more and want to impose their views on the rest of the country.
BLITZER: Let me interrupt both of you, and get your reaction to this question. Barney Frank, to you first. Will this open the door potentially for gay marriages in the United States?
FRANK: No, I think that we ought to be recognizing the relationships of gay and lesbian people, but this decision isn't going to lead to that. I will make this very simple prediction. We can come back in a year and see. There will not be any federal court with this decision saying marriage is allowed. Marriage is a different thing than private consenting sex.
And the courts -- and again, in 1980, 10 -- let's be clear about this. Ten state Supreme Courts made this essentially this decision beginning in 1980. None of them have gone farther. I would like to go farther into other areas like marriage, but it's going to take affirmative legislative action to do it.
KNIGHT: I'm sure they're waiting for the Supreme Court to do something this radical. Marriage is protected in the law because it's a unique institution. It's fundamental to society. It is the union of men and women, okay? But if the only premise is that it's consensual sex, then even distinctions between marital and nonmarital sex are not going to hold up for long. And you know that, Congressman. The plaintiff in this case himself said that that this morning.
FRANK: I know that in 23 years you've been proven wrong by 10 state Supreme Courts.
BLITZER: Unfortunately ...
KNIGHT: Well, I hope they continue to refrain from judicial activism as the court has done today.
BLITZER: Unfortunately we have to leave it right there. Robert Knight, Congressman Barney Frank. To you, Congressman Frank, I know you've been a champion on this issue for many years. Congratulations to you. Thanks very much to both of you for joining us.
Of course we would love to hear directly from you. Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down antisodomy laws? Log on to cnn.com/wolf, and we'll get those results later.
Take off your shoes and open your bags. You better do it. That's what passengers, of course, go through at the airport. But how about employees? Are they getting under the security radar? We'll take a closer look.
And fire along the Rio Grande. We'll go live to Albuquerque.
Kid Rock rocks the troops. He joins me live. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Mastermind of Bombings in Saudi Arabia in Custody>
