Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live At Daybreak
'Coffey Talk'
Aired September 11, 2003 - 06:22 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.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: A judge and the Justice Department are bickering over the case against Zacarias Moussaoui. He's the guy charged as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks. The judge says Moussaoui should be allowed to question senior al Qaeda captives in preparation for his criminal trial. But the Justice Department is refusing to obey the judge. It says questioning those al Qaeda captives would jeopardize national security. The Moussaoui case is just one of the legal quandaries raised after September 11.
Time for some Coffey talk now about not just the legal questions being raised after 9/11, but the constitutional questions, as well.
Live on the phone with us from Miami, our legal analyst, Kendall Coffey.
Good morning, Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Good morning, Carol.
COSTELLO: You know, I'd like to start with the Moussaoui case.
What does this mean? Does this mean that his trial is in jeopardy?
COFFEY: It means that you have a classic confrontation between the rights of a criminal defendant under the constitution and the needs of national security. Where this may go, if they can't resolve the impasse, is at some point the administration could decide essentially to send Moussaoui to Guantanamo for a trial by military tribunal. And in some ways, that may be the only way this very dramatic constitutional collision can be avoided.
COSTELLO: Well, it's good you say that, because I'm sure many Americans don't want to see this guy go free. So there is a recourse for the government if this trial doesn't work out.
COFFEY: Yes, there's an option. But the judge's ruling saying that the constitution means the defendant has a right of access to witnesses who may help the defense is a ruing that in ordinary cases rests on very, very solid constitutional grounds.
COSTELLO: Let's take a look at the bigger picture after 9/11, 2001. What has been the biggest change that you see in the legal system and in the war on terrorism?
COFFEY: The really far reaching change is one of philosophy. It's a wholesale transformation from successfully prosecuting terrorists after they commit crimes to disrupting terrorism operations and preventing attacks before they happen.
COSTELLO: You want to talk about the Patriot Act on the heels of that comment?
COFFEY: Well, and that's part of the tools, because while the Patriot Act is used as shorthand for everything from military tribunals to alleged racial profiling, what it really does is update, modernize and accelerate existing tools for electronic surveillance.
One example, Carol, is that the same procedures that we've had traditionally for telephone surveillance is now being extended to e- mails.
COSTELLO: Got you. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the Patriot Act, because it's sort of like a, I don't know, it's either an extension of the Patriot Act or it's another law altogether, or another act altogether. President Bush yesterday in a speech began a push for tougher anti-terrorism laws. He did it on the eve of September 11. Of course, it has to go through Congress.
Will Congress buy it and will the American people?
COFFEY: Patriot Act One went through in warp speed, probably just a matter of weeks, despite the number of detailed procedures. And I think on the main those are procedures which will be held constitutional, although some are certainly controversial.
I think with Patriot Two, which has some very significant new provisions, you're going to see a much more careful and deliberative process by Congress and a lot, a lot of questions being asked.
COSTELLO: Yes, and just so people understand, this Patriot Act Two includes non-judicial subpoenas, expanding the death penalty for terror related crimes and making it more difficult for accused terrorists to get out on bail.
COFFEY: It has a number of ranges, some of which are almost unprecedented. For example, in the event of another attack on the U.S., there would be an ability to do almost unlimited searches for a period of 15 days, statutes to strip citizenship of U.S. citizens if they are aiding or abetting terrorists. So it has some very, very substantial provisions that are going to get talked about a lot.
COSTELLO: All right, Kendall Coffey live on the phone from Miami.
Thanks for joining DAYBREAK early.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 11, 2003 - 06:22 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: A judge and the Justice Department are bickering over the case against Zacarias Moussaoui. He's the guy charged as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks. The judge says Moussaoui should be allowed to question senior al Qaeda captives in preparation for his criminal trial. But the Justice Department is refusing to obey the judge. It says questioning those al Qaeda captives would jeopardize national security. The Moussaoui case is just one of the legal quandaries raised after September 11.
Time for some Coffey talk now about not just the legal questions being raised after 9/11, but the constitutional questions, as well.
Live on the phone with us from Miami, our legal analyst, Kendall Coffey.
Good morning, Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Good morning, Carol.
COSTELLO: You know, I'd like to start with the Moussaoui case.
What does this mean? Does this mean that his trial is in jeopardy?
COFFEY: It means that you have a classic confrontation between the rights of a criminal defendant under the constitution and the needs of national security. Where this may go, if they can't resolve the impasse, is at some point the administration could decide essentially to send Moussaoui to Guantanamo for a trial by military tribunal. And in some ways, that may be the only way this very dramatic constitutional collision can be avoided.
COSTELLO: Well, it's good you say that, because I'm sure many Americans don't want to see this guy go free. So there is a recourse for the government if this trial doesn't work out.
COFFEY: Yes, there's an option. But the judge's ruling saying that the constitution means the defendant has a right of access to witnesses who may help the defense is a ruing that in ordinary cases rests on very, very solid constitutional grounds.
COSTELLO: Let's take a look at the bigger picture after 9/11, 2001. What has been the biggest change that you see in the legal system and in the war on terrorism?
COFFEY: The really far reaching change is one of philosophy. It's a wholesale transformation from successfully prosecuting terrorists after they commit crimes to disrupting terrorism operations and preventing attacks before they happen.
COSTELLO: You want to talk about the Patriot Act on the heels of that comment?
COFFEY: Well, and that's part of the tools, because while the Patriot Act is used as shorthand for everything from military tribunals to alleged racial profiling, what it really does is update, modernize and accelerate existing tools for electronic surveillance.
One example, Carol, is that the same procedures that we've had traditionally for telephone surveillance is now being extended to e- mails.
COSTELLO: Got you. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the Patriot Act, because it's sort of like a, I don't know, it's either an extension of the Patriot Act or it's another law altogether, or another act altogether. President Bush yesterday in a speech began a push for tougher anti-terrorism laws. He did it on the eve of September 11. Of course, it has to go through Congress.
Will Congress buy it and will the American people?
COFFEY: Patriot Act One went through in warp speed, probably just a matter of weeks, despite the number of detailed procedures. And I think on the main those are procedures which will be held constitutional, although some are certainly controversial.
I think with Patriot Two, which has some very significant new provisions, you're going to see a much more careful and deliberative process by Congress and a lot, a lot of questions being asked.
COSTELLO: Yes, and just so people understand, this Patriot Act Two includes non-judicial subpoenas, expanding the death penalty for terror related crimes and making it more difficult for accused terrorists to get out on bail.
COFFEY: It has a number of ranges, some of which are almost unprecedented. For example, in the event of another attack on the U.S., there would be an ability to do almost unlimited searches for a period of 15 days, statutes to strip citizenship of U.S. citizens if they are aiding or abetting terrorists. So it has some very, very substantial provisions that are going to get talked about a lot.
COSTELLO: All right, Kendall Coffey live on the phone from Miami.
Thanks for joining DAYBREAK early.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
