Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Jail Attack in Iraq Killed More Than 21 Detainees; Lawmakers Look For Answers in Iraq Hearing; Guantanamo Prisoners
Aired April 20, 2004 - 11:00 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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: So far, 18 people have been charged in the March 11 bombings. Nearly 200 people died in the attacks.
President Bush campaigns in support of the Patriot Act during a stop in Buffalo. He's calling on Congress to renew and strengthen the anti-terror law before it expires next year. Mr. Bush used the example of the Lackawanna Six to make his case. Six men living near Buffalo were convicted of providing support to terrorists.
Democrat John Kerry challenges President Bush's environmental record. Kerry is in Tampa, starting a three-day campaign swing. It's focusing on the environment. He says President Bush has presided over a devastating deterioration of the nation's air and water quality. The Bush administration rejects those claims.
It is 11:00 a.m. on the East Coast and 8:00 a.m. on the West Coast. From CNN center in Atlanta, good morning once again. I'm Daryn Kagan.
Live this hour, the war in Iraq is the focus on Capitol Hill. A live picture there from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are concerned about the growing violence and the impending deadline to hand over power. They are looking for answers. The hearing is before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's the first in the series this week on the military operation and plans for handing over political power.
The fight for Iraq is up first this hour. Violence flared again today in the form of a deadly attack on a Baghdad jail. The attack comes as U.S. officials try to end the bloodshed in Fallujah, and that's where we find our Jim Clancy, who actually is in Baghdad, with the latest.
Jim -- hello.
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Daryn, a mortar barrage on a prison at Abu Ghraib about a dozen miles out of downtown Baghdad has now killed 21 detainees there and wounded more than 100. No U.S. troops were reported hurt in that attack, but certainly April has been a bloody month for U.S. soldiers and Marines serving in this country.
And many of your American viewers really want to know why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLANCY (voice-over): America's casualty count surged past the century mark in a hail of fire from assault rifles and rocket- propelled grenades. Eleven months after declaring the major combat over, U.S. troops are fighting for their lives against an insurgency on multiple fronts.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY: Part of the increase is due to the fact that we have picked up our pace of offensive operations, and clearly the recent spike in violence has brought about some of those casualties.
CLANCY: The coalition is under pressure to respond to the shocking killing of four U.S. security contractors and scenes of their bodies being dragged and desecrated in the streets of Fallujah. The Iraqi police in the town utterly failed to control or confront the threat.
Shia Muslim militant Moqtada al-Sadr saw the shutdown of his newspaper and the arrest of a trusted aide as evidence the coalition was taking action that would deprive him of any hold on power as Iraq moved toward sovereignty. Al-Sadr, who had been setting up a parallel government of his own for the last year, counterattack, sent his paid militia to take over police stations and ambush U.S. troops in his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.
In the first week of April, U.S. troops were fully engaged on multiple fronts. Fallujah, Ramadi, and the suburb of Abu Ghraib saw battles with Sunni insurgents. After killing eight U.S. soldiers in Baghdad, Sadr's militia would be badly mauled and forced to retreat south. His Meddih (ph) army attacked coalition forces and Iraqi police in the Shia Muslim cities of Najaf, Karbala, Kut and Nasiriyah.
U.S. casualties weren't rising only due to the widespread nature of the fighting, but also the tactics employed by insurgents. Near Fallujah and Ramadi, as in the south, Iraqi fighters attacked in much larger numbers, using rocket-propelled grenades that set fuel tankers alight and rammed through U.S. armor. Employing tactics seen in Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents hit U.S. patrols, then set up ambushes for troops coming to their aid.
KIMMITT: We're going to find the solution. We're going to get the right intelligence. We're going to turn that intelligence into action, and we're going to take the fight to the enemy.
CLANCY: Often overlooked amid concern over U.S. casualties is the heavy price insurgents have paid. While more than 100 U.S. troops have been killed, the insurgents may have lost 10 times that number.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Both sides have paid dearly in this bloody month of April. Iraqi civilians, too, are paying a price. Military commanders warning, though, the talks have paused, the violence. They have not solved the underlying problems. Military options and more risks remain very real -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And so, Jim, an excellent piece there explaining what has happened to U.S. troops and the challenge they have faced over the last month. You also mentioned the insurgents and briefly mentioned Iraqi civilians. Is there any way to know what kind of numbers we're looking at there?
CLANCY: Well, we have an idea from some of the reports that would indicate that there are hundreds of civilian casualties, but putting a precise number on that, impossible. Human Rights Watch has said it is ready, it is willing to come when it is safe and try to investigate the situation on the ground. There is so much propaganda really that's out there, it is very difficult for us as independent journalists to be able to tell. A thorough investigation is needed about the situation in Fallujah.
KAGAN: Jim Clancy in Baghdad.
And we're going to get to hear more on the war in Iraq during a Pentagon briefing today. It is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific. You'll see it live right here on CNN.
Let's move on now to Capitol Hill. The war in Iraq and the deadline for handing over political power are the focus of a Senate committee hearing today.
Our Congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, is tracking that story for us as that hearing is taking place right now.
Joe -- good morning.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is hearing today from a number of top officials from the Department of Defense, while over in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a number of other top officials testifying. The Republican chairman of that committee has been extremely critical of the administration, as he asks, what is the plan for transition of power in Iraq? Also critical, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who gave an impassioned statement today, focusing on the dead U.S. armed services personnel who returned to the U.S. by way of an airbase in his home state.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Acknowledge what's not working. Acknowledge that we went with too little power and too little legitimacy. And the only way to get this right for their sake is to give them enough power and enough legitimacy, because we don't do that. Those flights home to the only mortuary on the East Coast are going to be places where there are going to be a lot of not just sullen people, but sullen, angry people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Now, these hearings continue for most of this week on Capitol Hill. There will be another one before the Armed Services Committee in the House tomorrow. The administration continues to try to defend its actions in Iraq -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Joe Johns on Capitol Hill. Thank you, Joe.
Let's turn our attention now to the continued fallout from "Plan of Attack," the newly-published book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward. The book has been received mostly well by the Bush administration. There are some key points, though, that the White House takes some issue with. And that is causing some controversy and some concerns. Exactly when President Bush made up his mind to go to war and when Saudi Arabia learned of that decision. That was part of a major discussion on CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE BANDAR BIN SULTAN, SAUDI AMBASSADOR: What he said is accurate. However, there was one sentence that was left out.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: And that is?
BIN SULTAN: Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan. And then the rest is accurate.
BOB WOODWARD, "THE WASHINGTON POST": KING: Then why would they say you can take this to the bank, it's going to happen, and then, as I understand it, the vice president said when this starts, Saddam is toast? Is that correct?
BIN SULTAN: That is absolutely correct, but underline when. Because my response was, the last time we tried this, we left Saddam in place. And I don't think anybody in the Middle East would like to try this again if Saddam would stay in place.
WOODWARD: OK.
BIN SULTAN: And that's the rest of the story, so...
KING: So, do we have Semantics...
BIN SULTAN: What Bob said was accurate, except that I was informed that the president has not made a decision yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: Earlier, Prince Bandar said that he found out about the decision to launch military action the night right before the invasion began.
President Bush is continuing to defend the Iraq war, as well as the Patriot Act that was passed after the 9/11 attacks.
Our White House correspondent, Dana Bash, joins us. She's in New York City today. That is a place where Mr. Bush will be making at least one stop later today. Earlier today, we saw him live from Buffalo.
Good morning.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
And that speech in Buffalo was part of the administration's push this week to highlight that Patriot Act. And as you mentioned, it is one of the major pieces of legislation signed into law that was born directly out of the 9/11 attacks.
Essentially, it would give -- or does give law enforcement agencies more authority, more power, to go after suspected terrorists, and also allows agencies like the FBI and the CIA to better coordinate information that they were not able to coordinate before September 11.
Now, this issue has become a hot topic on the campaign trail and a lightning rod among Democrats, civil liberties groups, and even some Republicans, who say that it really infringes on people's civil liberties and on the rights of privacy.
Today in Buffalo, the president tried to hit back at those critics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A threat overseas now must be taken seriously here at home. It's one thing to protect our embassies, and we work hard to do so. But now, a threat overseas could end up being a threat to the homeland. In order to protect the homeland, these good people have got to be able to share information. Those who criticize the Patriot Act must listen to those folks on the front lines of defending America. The Patriot Act defends our liberty is what it does, under the Constitution of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, what the president's critics are saying is that he is simply raising this issue, not because the key provisions are going to expire, which why the White House says that he is pushing this week. The provisions aren't going to expire actually until the end of 2005, more than a year and a half from now. And Congress isn't going to take this up this year, at least they don't have any plans to.
So, what critics are saying, including the ACLU, is that what the White House is trying to do is take away from the criticism they have gotten in the 9/11 Commission hearings about their actions leading up to that attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems that the president is using this issue as a distraction from some of the findings of the 9/11 Commission that show that under their existing powers and existing law, the government did not do enough to protect us from the attacks of September 11. And that helps him change the subject.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, what the president's political aides at the campaign do admit is that they are pushing this at this time to try to get out ahead of some of that criticism, and also because they think this is a very important issue to highlight, the differences between President Bush and his probable opponent, Senator John Kerry -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Dana Bash, in New York City. Thank you, Dana.
It has been five years since the Columbine massacre. How the town and the students have recovered since the horrors of that day.
Plus, election 2004, what issues really matter? We ask the players of the Miami heat. A tall order for our Carlos Watson. He'll be along.
And does eating less help you live longer? The details ahead on CNN's LIVE TODAY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BUSINESS NEWS UPDATE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: This time exactly five years ago students at Colorado's Columbine High School were settling in for what probably seemed like a typical day. Later, it became one of infamy, terror and disbelief.
Today, Columbine is closed, so that members of the Littleton community can observe the five-year anniversary of the nation's worst- ever school shooting.
Twelve students and a teacher were killed when seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold methodically began opening fire on their classmates before killing themselves.
Principal Frank DeAngelis was there when it happened, and he remains at the school.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK DEANGELIS, PRINCIPAL, COLUMBINE H.S.: Now, many times people will say what is the school going to do to prevent another tragedy from happening? And I think what I would say is what are we going to do? It's a societal problem.
I think we need to come together as parents. We need to come together as educators. We need to come together as law enforcement agents. Part of the judicial system, we need to come together and share information. And until we do that, as a team -- and we're much better at doing that now -- we have a chance of possibly preventing another Columbine tragedy from occurring.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: "GQ" magazine's Michael Pat___ has written extensively about the Columbine tragedy. In fact, he recently went back to Littleton, and he wrote a "where are they now" piece for this month's edition of "GQ." He is with us now from Portland, Maine.
Good morning. Thank you for being here with us.
MICHAEL PATERNITI, "GQ" MAGAZINE: Good morning. Thank you.
KAGAN: Let's go through a list of some of the people that you followed up on. First of all, Patrick Ireland. The name might not ring a bell, but the image will. He was the boy who was hanging out of the window after having been shot at the high school. Where is he today?
PATERNITI: Right. The boy in the window was shot in the head. He spent the summer teaching himself to walk, write, read. He graduated as valedictorian at Columbine High School, and today he is on the verge of graduating college and will be entering into business in the next few months.
KAGAN: That's an inspiring story of how he put his life together. What about Brooks Brown? He was the kid who was kind of an associate or a friend of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who at one point some people thought had something to do with the scheme.
PATERNITI: Right. He was thought of as the third suspect in the shootings, and he was named actually at the time by the sheriff as a suspect. It turned out that Brooks Brown really had nothing to do with it. He was just friends with them. He was at the top of their hit list, actually.
And Brooks' struggle, Brooks has suffered from depression. His mother feels that, you know, he was verging on some suicidal tendencies. And today he very much lives back and sort of focuses his life on that day, April 20, 1999. He's stuck in time, really.
KAGAN: What about the Harris and Klebold families? Do they stay in the community?
PATERNITI: They live in the community, and this is a real sore spot for a lot of people in the Columbine community. They feel that the Klebolds and the Harrises owe the community an explanation for what happened. A year after the shootings, both families issued apologies. But since then, they have not publicly discussed anything having to do with the shootings or their sons. And part of the reason for that is that there have been lawsuits or impending lawsuits. But the community at this point is very frustrated by the fact that both families refuse to speak.
KAGAN: And what about the town of Littleton five years later? How has it progressed?
PATERNITI: You know, Littleton, I think the people in the community would like to forget this. I think the people involved that day can't forget it. I think the memory of that day is as vivid today as the errands that many people ran yesterday. I mean, it is a very deep, raw wound and probably will never be forgotten. And I think it's a very important thing for many in the community they feel to keep it alive, so that something like this doesn't happen again. KAGAN: As we mentioned, you've covered this story for a long time. Are there any questions that have yet to be answered about what happened and how this happened?
PATERNITI: I think there's some questions about law enforcement's role in the build-up to the tragedy. They planned for 18 months to do this, and there were many different moments along the way where they might have been stopped, and those moments passed by without any intervention from law enforcement or parents or administrators at the school.
KAGAN: We were only able to touch on a few of the people who were involved and where are they now, and many more are covered in your piece in "GQ." Michael, thanks for joining us today.
PATERNITI: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
KAGAN: The Supreme Court looks at Guantanamo Bay. The families of several terror suspects held there want the nation's highest court to get involved. We will go live to the Supreme Court.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: The government calls them enemy combatants. Critics say, though, that they're stuck in legal limbo with no formal charges and no guarantee of a trial. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Our national correspondent, Bob Franken, is at the high court today with more on that -- Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, this, of course, is the first of three cases that has to do with the conduct of the Bush administration in this war on terror and the limitations of the administration, which the administration claims are almost none when it comes to the president during wartime.
But this was specifically about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the detainees there. Guantanamo Bay being a part of the sovereign nation of Cuba, even though it has been held by the United States for such a long time.
When the opening comments were made by somebody, the lawyer who was representing 16 families of people who were detainees in Guantanamo, he start by saying what's at stake is the authority of the federal courts to uphold the rule of law. By which, he meant the habeas corpus rules, where somebody who is being held has the right under the Constitution to a quick presentation of an explanation for why he is being held. The administration claims that the normal rules don't apply, because it is out of the reach of the court.
And as a matter of fact, after the first couple of words from Gibbons, Justice Scalia interrupted, saying we're not talking about the merits. We're talking about jurisdiction. In other words, do the courts have the authority to decide what happens in another nation? Chief Justice William Rehnquist chimed in, all we're talking about is jurisdiction. And they continued to deflect Gibbons as he continued to make his argument that the prisoners have a right to habeas corpus.
They argued over a 1950 precedent, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the boundaries of the United States were the boundaries of their jurisdiction. Gibbons called Cuban sovereignty, however, a mythical sovereignty, artificial, that the president claims can be made no laws on. That, of course, is because the U.S. has held complete control of Guantanamo Bay for over 100 years.
But then it was time for the solicitor general of the United States, Ted Olson, to make his arguments. And he got the same kind of very, very tough questioning from the justices. He started by saying the United States war -- he was quickly interrupted by Justice Stevens, who said, that's irrelevant. The question is jurisdiction. In fact, Olson under questioning acknowledged that if those were American citizens who would be held, they would be covered by the U.S. law. And many of the justices said that undercut his argument that there was no jurisdiction.
Justice Steven Breyer continued to make the argument over and over again, the claim, the concern, that the United States and the president believed that it could have unchecked, uncheckable power. That is the fundamental question, but the one that applies in this case is whether the courts have jurisdiction that extended beyond U.S. borders -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Bob Franken with the latest from the steps of the Supreme Court. Thank you.
We want to get a closer look now at the legal issues in this Guantanamo prisoner case. For that, let's bring in former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey joining us from Miami with some insight.
Kendall -- good morning.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN ANALYST: Hey, good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: The word we heard over and over again in Bob's report, and coming out of the Supreme Court, jurisdiction. How does it apply here and why is it the issue?
COFFEY: Well, jurisdiction is critical, because, like being a little bit pregnant, if the U.S. courts have jurisdiction, then there is a very, very different set of rules that are going to apply. And in fact, that would then require that you consider, do these detainees in Guantanamo have a right to counsel? Do they get Miranda rights before they're questioned? Because once there's jurisdiction and if the Constitution applies, then the basic underpinnings of the administration's very aggressive strategies with respect to interrogating and detaining al Qaeda suspects is suddenly standing on a totally transformed landscape.
KAGAN: And speaking of landscape, the most basic question of Guantanamo itself: Is this U.S. territory, or is this just a place the U.S. is renting from Cuba?
COFFEY: Well, I think that the administration is going to win on that issue, and indeed, Daryn, I think they're likely to prevail on the appeal today. The lease itself provides that it is sovereign Cuban soil.
And let's look at bases, military stations around the world, where there may also be leases. For the U.S. to claim that that particular property because U.S. sovereign's territory is something that not only would turn on its head some very basic constitutional principles, I think it's something that some of the other countries would find troubling as well.
So, I think that we're going to see that the administration can continue with its tough interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (ph) at some unknown location elsewhere in the world just as they're going to be able to continue, I think, for the foreseeable future with the detentions as they're structured at Guantanamo.
KAGAN: So, if you can't make the case that they're being held on U.S. soil, then that right there answers the question of jurisdiction?
COFFEY: That seems to be the basic premise. And, again, as was pointed out by Bob, in 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court said with respect to 25 German prisoners, who were originally captured in Japan and tried overseas, transported for incarceration in German itself, that as foreign nationals who never stepped on U.S. soil, they never came within the arms of the United States Constitution or the reach of U.S. courts.
KAGAN: One more point that Bob was making. This is just the first case of a few others coming before this high court. What kind of impact are you looking at, as we look ahead?
COFFEY: I think this case in a way, Daryn, could give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity for a split decision. I think they're going to rule for the administration with respect to foreign nationals being detained on foreign soil.
But coming up next week, something much closer call, much more challenging to many, and that is the administration's decision to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, hold them on U.S. territory, without any of the rights that are in the Bill of Right. No right to a lawyer, no Miranda rights, none of the basic constitutional guarantees.
That is a very, very different proposition. And to some extent, I think what you may see is a balance outcome for the Supreme Court, saying we're going to protect the administration's right to deal with foreign nationals overseas. But when it comes to our own country, our own citizens, the United States Constitution is alive and well.
KAGAN: Kendall Coffey in Miami, thanks for your expertise this morning. Appreciate it.
COFFEY: Thank you, Daryn. 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 April 20, 2004 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: So far, 18 people have been charged in the March 11 bombings. Nearly 200 people died in the attacks.
President Bush campaigns in support of the Patriot Act during a stop in Buffalo. He's calling on Congress to renew and strengthen the anti-terror law before it expires next year. Mr. Bush used the example of the Lackawanna Six to make his case. Six men living near Buffalo were convicted of providing support to terrorists.
Democrat John Kerry challenges President Bush's environmental record. Kerry is in Tampa, starting a three-day campaign swing. It's focusing on the environment. He says President Bush has presided over a devastating deterioration of the nation's air and water quality. The Bush administration rejects those claims.
It is 11:00 a.m. on the East Coast and 8:00 a.m. on the West Coast. From CNN center in Atlanta, good morning once again. I'm Daryn Kagan.
Live this hour, the war in Iraq is the focus on Capitol Hill. A live picture there from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are concerned about the growing violence and the impending deadline to hand over power. They are looking for answers. The hearing is before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's the first in the series this week on the military operation and plans for handing over political power.
The fight for Iraq is up first this hour. Violence flared again today in the form of a deadly attack on a Baghdad jail. The attack comes as U.S. officials try to end the bloodshed in Fallujah, and that's where we find our Jim Clancy, who actually is in Baghdad, with the latest.
Jim -- hello.
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Daryn, a mortar barrage on a prison at Abu Ghraib about a dozen miles out of downtown Baghdad has now killed 21 detainees there and wounded more than 100. No U.S. troops were reported hurt in that attack, but certainly April has been a bloody month for U.S. soldiers and Marines serving in this country.
And many of your American viewers really want to know why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLANCY (voice-over): America's casualty count surged past the century mark in a hail of fire from assault rifles and rocket- propelled grenades. Eleven months after declaring the major combat over, U.S. troops are fighting for their lives against an insurgency on multiple fronts.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY: Part of the increase is due to the fact that we have picked up our pace of offensive operations, and clearly the recent spike in violence has brought about some of those casualties.
CLANCY: The coalition is under pressure to respond to the shocking killing of four U.S. security contractors and scenes of their bodies being dragged and desecrated in the streets of Fallujah. The Iraqi police in the town utterly failed to control or confront the threat.
Shia Muslim militant Moqtada al-Sadr saw the shutdown of his newspaper and the arrest of a trusted aide as evidence the coalition was taking action that would deprive him of any hold on power as Iraq moved toward sovereignty. Al-Sadr, who had been setting up a parallel government of his own for the last year, counterattack, sent his paid militia to take over police stations and ambush U.S. troops in his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.
In the first week of April, U.S. troops were fully engaged on multiple fronts. Fallujah, Ramadi, and the suburb of Abu Ghraib saw battles with Sunni insurgents. After killing eight U.S. soldiers in Baghdad, Sadr's militia would be badly mauled and forced to retreat south. His Meddih (ph) army attacked coalition forces and Iraqi police in the Shia Muslim cities of Najaf, Karbala, Kut and Nasiriyah.
U.S. casualties weren't rising only due to the widespread nature of the fighting, but also the tactics employed by insurgents. Near Fallujah and Ramadi, as in the south, Iraqi fighters attacked in much larger numbers, using rocket-propelled grenades that set fuel tankers alight and rammed through U.S. armor. Employing tactics seen in Vietnam, Iraqi insurgents hit U.S. patrols, then set up ambushes for troops coming to their aid.
KIMMITT: We're going to find the solution. We're going to get the right intelligence. We're going to turn that intelligence into action, and we're going to take the fight to the enemy.
CLANCY: Often overlooked amid concern over U.S. casualties is the heavy price insurgents have paid. While more than 100 U.S. troops have been killed, the insurgents may have lost 10 times that number.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Both sides have paid dearly in this bloody month of April. Iraqi civilians, too, are paying a price. Military commanders warning, though, the talks have paused, the violence. They have not solved the underlying problems. Military options and more risks remain very real -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And so, Jim, an excellent piece there explaining what has happened to U.S. troops and the challenge they have faced over the last month. You also mentioned the insurgents and briefly mentioned Iraqi civilians. Is there any way to know what kind of numbers we're looking at there?
CLANCY: Well, we have an idea from some of the reports that would indicate that there are hundreds of civilian casualties, but putting a precise number on that, impossible. Human Rights Watch has said it is ready, it is willing to come when it is safe and try to investigate the situation on the ground. There is so much propaganda really that's out there, it is very difficult for us as independent journalists to be able to tell. A thorough investigation is needed about the situation in Fallujah.
KAGAN: Jim Clancy in Baghdad.
And we're going to get to hear more on the war in Iraq during a Pentagon briefing today. It is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific. You'll see it live right here on CNN.
Let's move on now to Capitol Hill. The war in Iraq and the deadline for handing over political power are the focus of a Senate committee hearing today.
Our Congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, is tracking that story for us as that hearing is taking place right now.
Joe -- good morning.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is hearing today from a number of top officials from the Department of Defense, while over in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a number of other top officials testifying. The Republican chairman of that committee has been extremely critical of the administration, as he asks, what is the plan for transition of power in Iraq? Also critical, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who gave an impassioned statement today, focusing on the dead U.S. armed services personnel who returned to the U.S. by way of an airbase in his home state.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Acknowledge what's not working. Acknowledge that we went with too little power and too little legitimacy. And the only way to get this right for their sake is to give them enough power and enough legitimacy, because we don't do that. Those flights home to the only mortuary on the East Coast are going to be places where there are going to be a lot of not just sullen people, but sullen, angry people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Now, these hearings continue for most of this week on Capitol Hill. There will be another one before the Armed Services Committee in the House tomorrow. The administration continues to try to defend its actions in Iraq -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Joe Johns on Capitol Hill. Thank you, Joe.
Let's turn our attention now to the continued fallout from "Plan of Attack," the newly-published book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward. The book has been received mostly well by the Bush administration. There are some key points, though, that the White House takes some issue with. And that is causing some controversy and some concerns. Exactly when President Bush made up his mind to go to war and when Saudi Arabia learned of that decision. That was part of a major discussion on CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE BANDAR BIN SULTAN, SAUDI AMBASSADOR: What he said is accurate. However, there was one sentence that was left out.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: And that is?
BIN SULTAN: Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan. And then the rest is accurate.
BOB WOODWARD, "THE WASHINGTON POST": KING: Then why would they say you can take this to the bank, it's going to happen, and then, as I understand it, the vice president said when this starts, Saddam is toast? Is that correct?
BIN SULTAN: That is absolutely correct, but underline when. Because my response was, the last time we tried this, we left Saddam in place. And I don't think anybody in the Middle East would like to try this again if Saddam would stay in place.
WOODWARD: OK.
BIN SULTAN: And that's the rest of the story, so...
KING: So, do we have Semantics...
BIN SULTAN: What Bob said was accurate, except that I was informed that the president has not made a decision yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: Earlier, Prince Bandar said that he found out about the decision to launch military action the night right before the invasion began.
President Bush is continuing to defend the Iraq war, as well as the Patriot Act that was passed after the 9/11 attacks.
Our White House correspondent, Dana Bash, joins us. She's in New York City today. That is a place where Mr. Bush will be making at least one stop later today. Earlier today, we saw him live from Buffalo.
Good morning.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
And that speech in Buffalo was part of the administration's push this week to highlight that Patriot Act. And as you mentioned, it is one of the major pieces of legislation signed into law that was born directly out of the 9/11 attacks.
Essentially, it would give -- or does give law enforcement agencies more authority, more power, to go after suspected terrorists, and also allows agencies like the FBI and the CIA to better coordinate information that they were not able to coordinate before September 11.
Now, this issue has become a hot topic on the campaign trail and a lightning rod among Democrats, civil liberties groups, and even some Republicans, who say that it really infringes on people's civil liberties and on the rights of privacy.
Today in Buffalo, the president tried to hit back at those critics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A threat overseas now must be taken seriously here at home. It's one thing to protect our embassies, and we work hard to do so. But now, a threat overseas could end up being a threat to the homeland. In order to protect the homeland, these good people have got to be able to share information. Those who criticize the Patriot Act must listen to those folks on the front lines of defending America. The Patriot Act defends our liberty is what it does, under the Constitution of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, what the president's critics are saying is that he is simply raising this issue, not because the key provisions are going to expire, which why the White House says that he is pushing this week. The provisions aren't going to expire actually until the end of 2005, more than a year and a half from now. And Congress isn't going to take this up this year, at least they don't have any plans to.
So, what critics are saying, including the ACLU, is that what the White House is trying to do is take away from the criticism they have gotten in the 9/11 Commission hearings about their actions leading up to that attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems that the president is using this issue as a distraction from some of the findings of the 9/11 Commission that show that under their existing powers and existing law, the government did not do enough to protect us from the attacks of September 11. And that helps him change the subject.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, what the president's political aides at the campaign do admit is that they are pushing this at this time to try to get out ahead of some of that criticism, and also because they think this is a very important issue to highlight, the differences between President Bush and his probable opponent, Senator John Kerry -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Dana Bash, in New York City. Thank you, Dana.
It has been five years since the Columbine massacre. How the town and the students have recovered since the horrors of that day.
Plus, election 2004, what issues really matter? We ask the players of the Miami heat. A tall order for our Carlos Watson. He'll be along.
And does eating less help you live longer? The details ahead on CNN's LIVE TODAY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BUSINESS NEWS UPDATE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: This time exactly five years ago students at Colorado's Columbine High School were settling in for what probably seemed like a typical day. Later, it became one of infamy, terror and disbelief.
Today, Columbine is closed, so that members of the Littleton community can observe the five-year anniversary of the nation's worst- ever school shooting.
Twelve students and a teacher were killed when seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold methodically began opening fire on their classmates before killing themselves.
Principal Frank DeAngelis was there when it happened, and he remains at the school.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK DEANGELIS, PRINCIPAL, COLUMBINE H.S.: Now, many times people will say what is the school going to do to prevent another tragedy from happening? And I think what I would say is what are we going to do? It's a societal problem.
I think we need to come together as parents. We need to come together as educators. We need to come together as law enforcement agents. Part of the judicial system, we need to come together and share information. And until we do that, as a team -- and we're much better at doing that now -- we have a chance of possibly preventing another Columbine tragedy from occurring.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: "GQ" magazine's Michael Pat___ has written extensively about the Columbine tragedy. In fact, he recently went back to Littleton, and he wrote a "where are they now" piece for this month's edition of "GQ." He is with us now from Portland, Maine.
Good morning. Thank you for being here with us.
MICHAEL PATERNITI, "GQ" MAGAZINE: Good morning. Thank you.
KAGAN: Let's go through a list of some of the people that you followed up on. First of all, Patrick Ireland. The name might not ring a bell, but the image will. He was the boy who was hanging out of the window after having been shot at the high school. Where is he today?
PATERNITI: Right. The boy in the window was shot in the head. He spent the summer teaching himself to walk, write, read. He graduated as valedictorian at Columbine High School, and today he is on the verge of graduating college and will be entering into business in the next few months.
KAGAN: That's an inspiring story of how he put his life together. What about Brooks Brown? He was the kid who was kind of an associate or a friend of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who at one point some people thought had something to do with the scheme.
PATERNITI: Right. He was thought of as the third suspect in the shootings, and he was named actually at the time by the sheriff as a suspect. It turned out that Brooks Brown really had nothing to do with it. He was just friends with them. He was at the top of their hit list, actually.
And Brooks' struggle, Brooks has suffered from depression. His mother feels that, you know, he was verging on some suicidal tendencies. And today he very much lives back and sort of focuses his life on that day, April 20, 1999. He's stuck in time, really.
KAGAN: What about the Harris and Klebold families? Do they stay in the community?
PATERNITI: They live in the community, and this is a real sore spot for a lot of people in the Columbine community. They feel that the Klebolds and the Harrises owe the community an explanation for what happened. A year after the shootings, both families issued apologies. But since then, they have not publicly discussed anything having to do with the shootings or their sons. And part of the reason for that is that there have been lawsuits or impending lawsuits. But the community at this point is very frustrated by the fact that both families refuse to speak.
KAGAN: And what about the town of Littleton five years later? How has it progressed?
PATERNITI: You know, Littleton, I think the people in the community would like to forget this. I think the people involved that day can't forget it. I think the memory of that day is as vivid today as the errands that many people ran yesterday. I mean, it is a very deep, raw wound and probably will never be forgotten. And I think it's a very important thing for many in the community they feel to keep it alive, so that something like this doesn't happen again. KAGAN: As we mentioned, you've covered this story for a long time. Are there any questions that have yet to be answered about what happened and how this happened?
PATERNITI: I think there's some questions about law enforcement's role in the build-up to the tragedy. They planned for 18 months to do this, and there were many different moments along the way where they might have been stopped, and those moments passed by without any intervention from law enforcement or parents or administrators at the school.
KAGAN: We were only able to touch on a few of the people who were involved and where are they now, and many more are covered in your piece in "GQ." Michael, thanks for joining us today.
PATERNITI: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
KAGAN: The Supreme Court looks at Guantanamo Bay. The families of several terror suspects held there want the nation's highest court to get involved. We will go live to the Supreme Court.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: The government calls them enemy combatants. Critics say, though, that they're stuck in legal limbo with no formal charges and no guarantee of a trial. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Our national correspondent, Bob Franken, is at the high court today with more on that -- Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, this, of course, is the first of three cases that has to do with the conduct of the Bush administration in this war on terror and the limitations of the administration, which the administration claims are almost none when it comes to the president during wartime.
But this was specifically about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the detainees there. Guantanamo Bay being a part of the sovereign nation of Cuba, even though it has been held by the United States for such a long time.
When the opening comments were made by somebody, the lawyer who was representing 16 families of people who were detainees in Guantanamo, he start by saying what's at stake is the authority of the federal courts to uphold the rule of law. By which, he meant the habeas corpus rules, where somebody who is being held has the right under the Constitution to a quick presentation of an explanation for why he is being held. The administration claims that the normal rules don't apply, because it is out of the reach of the court.
And as a matter of fact, after the first couple of words from Gibbons, Justice Scalia interrupted, saying we're not talking about the merits. We're talking about jurisdiction. In other words, do the courts have the authority to decide what happens in another nation? Chief Justice William Rehnquist chimed in, all we're talking about is jurisdiction. And they continued to deflect Gibbons as he continued to make his argument that the prisoners have a right to habeas corpus.
They argued over a 1950 precedent, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the boundaries of the United States were the boundaries of their jurisdiction. Gibbons called Cuban sovereignty, however, a mythical sovereignty, artificial, that the president claims can be made no laws on. That, of course, is because the U.S. has held complete control of Guantanamo Bay for over 100 years.
But then it was time for the solicitor general of the United States, Ted Olson, to make his arguments. And he got the same kind of very, very tough questioning from the justices. He started by saying the United States war -- he was quickly interrupted by Justice Stevens, who said, that's irrelevant. The question is jurisdiction. In fact, Olson under questioning acknowledged that if those were American citizens who would be held, they would be covered by the U.S. law. And many of the justices said that undercut his argument that there was no jurisdiction.
Justice Steven Breyer continued to make the argument over and over again, the claim, the concern, that the United States and the president believed that it could have unchecked, uncheckable power. That is the fundamental question, but the one that applies in this case is whether the courts have jurisdiction that extended beyond U.S. borders -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Bob Franken with the latest from the steps of the Supreme Court. Thank you.
We want to get a closer look now at the legal issues in this Guantanamo prisoner case. For that, let's bring in former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey joining us from Miami with some insight.
Kendall -- good morning.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN ANALYST: Hey, good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: The word we heard over and over again in Bob's report, and coming out of the Supreme Court, jurisdiction. How does it apply here and why is it the issue?
COFFEY: Well, jurisdiction is critical, because, like being a little bit pregnant, if the U.S. courts have jurisdiction, then there is a very, very different set of rules that are going to apply. And in fact, that would then require that you consider, do these detainees in Guantanamo have a right to counsel? Do they get Miranda rights before they're questioned? Because once there's jurisdiction and if the Constitution applies, then the basic underpinnings of the administration's very aggressive strategies with respect to interrogating and detaining al Qaeda suspects is suddenly standing on a totally transformed landscape.
KAGAN: And speaking of landscape, the most basic question of Guantanamo itself: Is this U.S. territory, or is this just a place the U.S. is renting from Cuba?
COFFEY: Well, I think that the administration is going to win on that issue, and indeed, Daryn, I think they're likely to prevail on the appeal today. The lease itself provides that it is sovereign Cuban soil.
And let's look at bases, military stations around the world, where there may also be leases. For the U.S. to claim that that particular property because U.S. sovereign's territory is something that not only would turn on its head some very basic constitutional principles, I think it's something that some of the other countries would find troubling as well.
So, I think that we're going to see that the administration can continue with its tough interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (ph) at some unknown location elsewhere in the world just as they're going to be able to continue, I think, for the foreseeable future with the detentions as they're structured at Guantanamo.
KAGAN: So, if you can't make the case that they're being held on U.S. soil, then that right there answers the question of jurisdiction?
COFFEY: That seems to be the basic premise. And, again, as was pointed out by Bob, in 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court said with respect to 25 German prisoners, who were originally captured in Japan and tried overseas, transported for incarceration in German itself, that as foreign nationals who never stepped on U.S. soil, they never came within the arms of the United States Constitution or the reach of U.S. courts.
KAGAN: One more point that Bob was making. This is just the first case of a few others coming before this high court. What kind of impact are you looking at, as we look ahead?
COFFEY: I think this case in a way, Daryn, could give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity for a split decision. I think they're going to rule for the administration with respect to foreign nationals being detained on foreign soil.
But coming up next week, something much closer call, much more challenging to many, and that is the administration's decision to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, hold them on U.S. territory, without any of the rights that are in the Bill of Right. No right to a lawyer, no Miranda rights, none of the basic constitutional guarantees.
That is a very, very different proposition. And to some extent, I think what you may see is a balance outcome for the Supreme Court, saying we're going to protect the administration's right to deal with foreign nationals overseas. But when it comes to our own country, our own citizens, the United States Constitution is alive and well.
KAGAN: Kendall Coffey in Miami, thanks for your expertise this morning. Appreciate it.
COFFEY: Thank you, Daryn. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
