Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With David Rivkin, David Cole
Aired February 15, 2004 - 11:13 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.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: The fate of some 650 detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be subject to a new annual review. It will be headed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will have the final say on their release. Human rights groups say that the detainees have been held unfairly, without the access to legal representation. Rumsfeld responded to criticism of the detention, calling it "a special case."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: They're not common criminals. They're enemy combatants and terrorists who are being detained for acts of war against our country, and that is why different rules have to apply.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: With more on the legal loopholes involving the detainees, we are joined by professor David Cole and attorney David Rivkin.
DAVID COLE, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
DAVID RIVKIN, ATTORNEY: Nice to be with you.
ARENA: Professor, let's start with you. I know you have been somewhat critical about the ways the detainees have been held without representation. Does this ease some of your concerns?
COLE: Well, I still have very serious concerns. The government has asserted this authority, which is really unprecedented. That the president can go around the country -- around the world, pick up anyone he wants, call them a bad guy and then lock them up without any kind of procedure whatsoever, and here they've been held without any procedure whatsoever for two years.
Donald Rumsfeld says, well, they're enemy combatants, different rules apply. But the whole question is, are they enemy combatants, or are they innocent people who got picked up on the battlefield in exchange for a reward that we were offering? And the problem is that we have provided absolutely no hearing whatsoever to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.
ARENA: Although there have been, though, several hundred people who have been released from Guantanamo, so there hasn't been sort of a perpetual state that has remained the same. I mean, they've let people go. COLE: Right, not several hundred, but 87 who've been released. But that only underscores the need for hearings, because when the government brought these people to Guantanamo, it said, these people are the worst of the worst. We've gone through extensive internal reviews, and we've determined these people are all the worst of the worst. They're the kind of people who would chew the cables...
ARENA: OK. I'm...
COLE: ... but now we know that 87 of them have been released, meaning that they weren't the worst of the worst...
ARENA: But there was a review of some sort going on, though. That's the point I'm trying to make.
David Rivkin, I want you to chime in here. The secretary of defense says, look, these are people who still pose a threat. We remain at war, we are gathering intelligence. It is vital that they remain in custody in this way.
RIVKIN: That's true. Let's just review the facts briefly. Approximately 10,000 people were seized in and around Afghanistan in connection with participating hostilities against United States and coalition forces. Approximately 650, 670 eventually were sent to Guantanamo. They've gone through four layers of review by screening teams on the most rigorous criteria, one at the battlefield, one in the rear, one in Bagram, one more time when they got back to Guantanamo. Out of 87 people released, by the way, I disagree with my good friend David. It's not a question they were innocent. They were released because there was a belief they did not pose a threat.
Very important to note, by the way, four people out of those 87 went back and started fighting against coalition forces again, one in a very senior capacity. As a matter of international law the rule is simple. If you're an enemy combatant, you can be held for the entire duration of hostilities, for the very simple reason, because you don't want people to go back and start fighting you again. It's not fair to have your soldiers continue to risk their life and limb to keep capturing the same people.
ARENA: David, of course that raises another issue, though, the length of hostilities. And if is defined as a war on terror, there is no end in sight to that war, at least according to any expert that I've ever spoken to. Professor?
COLE: That's right, and Donald Rumsfeld has said the end of the war will be when there are no longer any terrorist organizations of global reach left in the world, which means it will never end. So, they're taking an authority created for limited extraordinary wartime situations and they've defined the war so it's a permanent condition, and then they've asserted the authority to lock up anybody they want, including 13-year-olds, including 80 and 90-year-olds held in Guantanamo, and provide them with no process whatsoever.
And it's not just me who's complaining about this. This is -- the international community considers Guantanamo one of the most shameful episodes in America's history. And, you know, maybe they're all wrong, but we've got to respond to that concern, because it's undermining our credibility in the war on terrorism.
ARENA: David, why don't you respond? David Rivkin, respond to that.
RIVKIN: Thank you. Two observations, first of all, it is not -- what's legally relevant here is a war against two specific organizations, Al Qaeda and Taliban, and not war against terror. I'll be the first one to say, once the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban are brought to successful conclusion, as distinct from conflict with Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Irish IRA, or something like that, those people we'd have to let go. It hasn't happened yet. Ask yourself a question. Can anybody seriously say that today that war is still not going on? We're losing people in Afghanistan, perhaps not as many as in Iraq, but quite often. So the fact that it may go on for a number of years, again, that's not unusual. World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam have gone on for a number of years.
ARENA: All right. You know what, gentlemen? I'm so sorry to have to cut you both off. Thank you both for joining us this morning. Obviously this is an issue we'll hear a lot more about.
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 February 15, 2004 - 11:13 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: The fate of some 650 detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be subject to a new annual review. It will be headed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will have the final say on their release. Human rights groups say that the detainees have been held unfairly, without the access to legal representation. Rumsfeld responded to criticism of the detention, calling it "a special case."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: They're not common criminals. They're enemy combatants and terrorists who are being detained for acts of war against our country, and that is why different rules have to apply.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: With more on the legal loopholes involving the detainees, we are joined by professor David Cole and attorney David Rivkin.
DAVID COLE, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
DAVID RIVKIN, ATTORNEY: Nice to be with you.
ARENA: Professor, let's start with you. I know you have been somewhat critical about the ways the detainees have been held without representation. Does this ease some of your concerns?
COLE: Well, I still have very serious concerns. The government has asserted this authority, which is really unprecedented. That the president can go around the country -- around the world, pick up anyone he wants, call them a bad guy and then lock them up without any kind of procedure whatsoever, and here they've been held without any procedure whatsoever for two years.
Donald Rumsfeld says, well, they're enemy combatants, different rules apply. But the whole question is, are they enemy combatants, or are they innocent people who got picked up on the battlefield in exchange for a reward that we were offering? And the problem is that we have provided absolutely no hearing whatsoever to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.
ARENA: Although there have been, though, several hundred people who have been released from Guantanamo, so there hasn't been sort of a perpetual state that has remained the same. I mean, they've let people go. COLE: Right, not several hundred, but 87 who've been released. But that only underscores the need for hearings, because when the government brought these people to Guantanamo, it said, these people are the worst of the worst. We've gone through extensive internal reviews, and we've determined these people are all the worst of the worst. They're the kind of people who would chew the cables...
ARENA: OK. I'm...
COLE: ... but now we know that 87 of them have been released, meaning that they weren't the worst of the worst...
ARENA: But there was a review of some sort going on, though. That's the point I'm trying to make.
David Rivkin, I want you to chime in here. The secretary of defense says, look, these are people who still pose a threat. We remain at war, we are gathering intelligence. It is vital that they remain in custody in this way.
RIVKIN: That's true. Let's just review the facts briefly. Approximately 10,000 people were seized in and around Afghanistan in connection with participating hostilities against United States and coalition forces. Approximately 650, 670 eventually were sent to Guantanamo. They've gone through four layers of review by screening teams on the most rigorous criteria, one at the battlefield, one in the rear, one in Bagram, one more time when they got back to Guantanamo. Out of 87 people released, by the way, I disagree with my good friend David. It's not a question they were innocent. They were released because there was a belief they did not pose a threat.
Very important to note, by the way, four people out of those 87 went back and started fighting against coalition forces again, one in a very senior capacity. As a matter of international law the rule is simple. If you're an enemy combatant, you can be held for the entire duration of hostilities, for the very simple reason, because you don't want people to go back and start fighting you again. It's not fair to have your soldiers continue to risk their life and limb to keep capturing the same people.
ARENA: David, of course that raises another issue, though, the length of hostilities. And if is defined as a war on terror, there is no end in sight to that war, at least according to any expert that I've ever spoken to. Professor?
COLE: That's right, and Donald Rumsfeld has said the end of the war will be when there are no longer any terrorist organizations of global reach left in the world, which means it will never end. So, they're taking an authority created for limited extraordinary wartime situations and they've defined the war so it's a permanent condition, and then they've asserted the authority to lock up anybody they want, including 13-year-olds, including 80 and 90-year-olds held in Guantanamo, and provide them with no process whatsoever.
And it's not just me who's complaining about this. This is -- the international community considers Guantanamo one of the most shameful episodes in America's history. And, you know, maybe they're all wrong, but we've got to respond to that concern, because it's undermining our credibility in the war on terrorism.
ARENA: David, why don't you respond? David Rivkin, respond to that.
RIVKIN: Thank you. Two observations, first of all, it is not -- what's legally relevant here is a war against two specific organizations, Al Qaeda and Taliban, and not war against terror. I'll be the first one to say, once the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban are brought to successful conclusion, as distinct from conflict with Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Irish IRA, or something like that, those people we'd have to let go. It hasn't happened yet. Ask yourself a question. Can anybody seriously say that today that war is still not going on? We're losing people in Afghanistan, perhaps not as many as in Iraq, but quite often. So the fact that it may go on for a number of years, again, that's not unusual. World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam have gone on for a number of years.
ARENA: All right. You know what, gentlemen? I'm so sorry to have to cut you both off. Thank you both for joining us this morning. Obviously this is an issue we'll hear a lot more about.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
