Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Supreme Court Allows Seizures of Private Property; Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing On Iraq Military Operations; Killen Sentenced to 20 Years on Each Count
Aired June 23, 2005 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: And will Tim Duncan hoist the trophy tonight or will Ben Wallace cut down the net? The San Antonio Spurs hoists the Detroit Pistons. Game seven, last and final game of series for the NBA Finals. The Pistons are trying to repeat as champs after starting this series in an 0-2 hold.
And now there's a whole new way to get your news on the Web, with free video at CNN.com. Just logon to our Web site and click on "watch" to check out the most popular stories. It's free video under your command, now at CNN.com.
This is the day we're standing by, waiting for a number of decisions to come down from the Supreme Court. The first of those has come down. It is on eminent domain. If you are a homeowner, you will be interested in this decision.
Let's go to our Kim Osias standing by in Washington, D.C. -- Kim.
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, of course, all these big decisions waiting until the end. And the Supreme Court has issued a decision on eminent domain, siding basically with big business. In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled in favor of the business.
Basically at issue was whether property rights, specifically whether the government can seize private homes, land and the like for private, and I note, private economic development. Again, that was a 5-4 decision that just came down. Traditionally, of course, property has been condemned and commandeered by the state in order to eliminate slums, to build highways or schools.
Now, this is a unique decision, of course, citing that private business, basically, that New London could win. This case came out of Connecticut in 1998. It was basically a land dispute over a pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. In fact, agreed to build a $270 million global research facility in that area and then at Fort Trumbull. The city council, in order to accommodate Pfizer, asked people to leave the area in a couple of months.
So this is, of course, a landmark decision. Basically what happens here, Daryn, of course, at the end of the session, many of those big, eagerly anticipated decisions come down.
We are still waiting to hear about the big one, of course, being the ten commandments. And, of course, still a lot of speculation about the chief justice, William Rehnquist, whether in fact he will step down. No decision -- nothing on that. However, that did not stop discussion today on the Senate floor. Senators basically just wanting to go on the record about their feelings about that before they take a July 4th recess -- Daryn?
KAGAN: All right. Kimberly Osias. We'll keep you on standby if any of those other big decisions come up there in Washington, D.C. Thank you.
Meanwhile, we want to talk a little bit more about eminent domain. As I was saying, this one is of key interest to property owners everywhere. At issue, whether a local government has the absolute right to seize private property for public projects.
CNN's Alina Cho takes a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When Suzette Kilo (ph) moved into her charming home in New London, Connecticut, seven years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was like I'd been here all my life. It was just a warm and inviting feeling.
CHO: A little slice ever heaven on water, the best house she could find for her money. Seven months after moving in, though, Kilo was told she had to move out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was thinking I had a really big problem.
CHO: She learned the city of New London wanted to buy her home, tear it down and then redevelop the land. Connecticut's highest court agreed with this city, citing a statute called eminent domain, which allows local governments to confiscate private property for public use.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether it be an office park, whether it be retail, whether it be some housing, all these potential uses are there in the plans.
CHO: City attorney Tom Landrigan (ph) says that kind of development would give New London a big economic boost. That is not how Matt Derry (ph) man sees it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The property went to my father and now it's come full circle to me.
CHO: Derry's family has owned property here for more than a century. It is where he grew up, where he now shares a home with his wife. The Derrys call this a seven-year nightmare that has even affected decisions like painting their house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We went like two years and said, you know, the heck with this. We had the house painted, but we only put one coat on it. Because... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because we never...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't know whether if we're going to be here or not.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've been living a life of not knowing.
CHO: Ninety other homeowners have taken the city's offer to sell their homes at market value, but seven, including the Derrys and Kilo, say they won't walk away without a fight.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think walk will be the word. They'll have to drag me.
Alina Cho, CNN, New London, Connecticut.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAGAN: And once again, the breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court. They have ruled in favor of the city in that case. A 5-4, very close decision, but basically saying the city can go ahead and seize private property in the interest of economic development, considering it public good.
To understand more about this decision, let's bring in our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who is on the phone. Jeff, good morning.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Daryn.
KAGAN: Let's talk about this next step of eminent domain. It had already been established that a city could do that or a government could do that for the public good, but this is stretching the definition, it would appear, of what public good is.
TOOBIN: Well, and politicians have been saying for years that, you know, part of our job is to bring jobs to our communities, to engage in economic development. And they say, look, we need eminent domain tools to do that. We need to be able to take property, to build -- to have factories built, to have hotels and other kinds of economic development. That's what the city of New London did, very proudly, very openly, and the Supreme Court now says it's OK for them to do it.
KAGAN: They said it, but said it in a 5-4 decision. Anything could be read into that, Jeff?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think it's an example of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who may be leaving the court shortly, not having had his way on several important issues. And this is an issue he has believed in for a long time, limiting the power of government, limiting eminent domain. But he's in the minority. He never persuaded his colleagues.
And 5-4 is the same as unanimous. It's the law of the land. So this gives local politicians, local government authorities, more or less carte blanche to condemn property and give it to other private people if they believe it's in larger term interests of the community. KAGAN: And you bring up the chief justice that we were hearing Kimberly Osias talk about how on the floor of the Senate, lawmakers already bringing up, well, it hasn't happened yet. But when it does, I just want you to know how I'm going to feel about. Do you think that's premature or do really think we are just days away from hearing from the chief justice saying he's ready to retire?
TOOBIN: My rule on Supreme Court resignations is, those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know. I mean, I -- you know, he's 80 years old. He's been sick with apparently a very serious form of cancer. He is a loyal Republican who by all indications wants to turn the seat over to president George W. Bush. But we still don't know. It's a very personal decision. He may not know whether he's quitting or not. It's -- if I had to bet, I would say I think he's quitting, but no one knows for sure.
KAGAN: There you go. And one thing I would bet on, that you are going to be close by.
TOOBIN: I will be in court next week.
KAGAN: OK. Very good. Meanwhile, if anything else breaks today, we're going to give you a call. Jeffrey Toobin.
TOOBIN: All righty, Daryn.
KAGAN: Thank you.
Some of the other decisions possibly today, a decision on whether or not governments can post the ten commandments in public and government buildings. Also file sharing. How much are you allowed to take and download and share with friends on your computer and on the Internet? Those are two big decisions still expected from the Supreme Court. We're going to watch those.
Also, a lot more news ahead, including more on the Senate Iraq hearings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers. That all is ahead. Right now, we fit in a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Live picture now from Capitol Hill. The Senate Armed Services Committee. That's General George Casey, multinational force Iraq commanding officer testifying from the Senate panel right now.
While we monitor what General Casey has to say, let's go back and bring in Jamie McIntyre, who is at the Pentagon, talk a little bit more about what we heard Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld say earlier to this panel.
Good morning.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
What we heard from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is a spirited argument that it would be a huge mistake to set any sort of deadline or timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. He said that that would sent, quote, "a lifeline to the terrorists," who he argued are losing popular support, being denied safe haven, and they are suffering heavy casualties. And as for the question of whether the United States is winning or losing, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came down firmly on the side that the U.S. is winning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECY. OF DEFENSE: Timing in war is never predictable. There are no guarantees. And any who say that we've lost this war or that we're losing this war are wrong. We are not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: Now, General George Casey, the head of the U.S. troops multinational forces, actually in Iraq, testifying now. What he is saying is that the insurgency is less than 0.1 of one percent of the Iraqi population. He says it's localized.
He says while it is a battle of wills, he is arguing that the momentum, he says, is in favor of democracy, and that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government are committed to defeating the terrorists and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in his testimony, again, wanted to pay tribute to the more than 130,000 U.S. troops that are currently serving in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUMSFELD: To all U.S. military personnel and their families who sacrifice while Guardsmen and Reservists are deployed in battle, I offer my fullest appreciation. And one day all of those who have made sacrifices on behalf of this cause and the American people who support their important work, will find a place of honor in our country's history, and they will have won the appreciation and respect that they've richly earned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: Now, the hearing opened with a statement from Democratic Senator Carl Levin, calling the statements from the administration, quote, "hollow rhetoric." He complained what he said was a repetitious bugle, that things were going well and to stay the course. Staying the course, he said, was not a good policy.
While he agreed with Secretary Rumsfeld that there should be no withdrawal of a deadline of U.S. troops now, he did call for the United States to put more pressure on the Iraqi government to ratify that constitution and stay on the timeline for a transition to a popularly elected government, and he said if that doesn't happen, then the U.S. should consider its options, including setting a timeline for the withdrawal of troops sometime in the future -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Jamie McIntyre at Pentagon. You'll continue to monitor those hearings for us. Thank you. MCINTYRE: A lot going on on Capitol Hill all the way to Philadelphia, Mississippi. In the next hour we expect Edgar Ray Killen to be sentenced to the three manslaughter charges he was convicted of earlier this week. He could receive up to 60 years in prison. He has just arrived at the courthouse there in Philadelphia, Mississippi. And we're going to have those pictures for you and the story as CNN LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: And let's show you some pictures we're just getting in to us here at CNN. That is Edgar Ray Killen. He is just arriving at the courthouse in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Two days ago convicted on three manslaughter charges for the killing 41 years ago of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman. They were civil rights workers there in Mississippi. He faces up to 60 years in prison. He's 80 years old and currently in bad health.
We're going to monitor that, that sentencing. There are cameras in the courtroom, expected to happen in the next hour. You'll see it live here on CNN as it develops.
Meanwhile, what's happening live is on Capitol Hill as we go north back to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John Warner is questioning Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECY. OF DEFENSE: ... to the Iraqi security forces so they know where the terrorists are hiding and the extremists are so that they can capture or kill them. They're going to have to take responsibility for all of the Iraqi detainees, and build prison facilities and establish a criminal justice system to see that people are dealt with in a proper manner.
They got all of things they have to do, but one of the first and foremost, clearly is to see that they move forward on the political side and that the Iraqi people feel they have a stake in the future of that country.
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Abizaid, you've had a very long and distinguished career in our military, and much of that career of service has been in this region of the world. And your understanding of the people, and the culture, and their capabilities and the history, there's a lot to be said that we should have examined with greater care the history of this culture as we proceeded with this military mission. What are your assessments as to the ability of the Iraqi people to succeed in the goals that are outlined very clearly by Secretary Rumsfeld just now and other testimony?
GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Mr. Chairman, I think both General Casey and I would tell you that we spent a lot of time working very closely with Iraqis, on the political and on the military side, and have known Iraqis that have been killed by the terrorists that have succumbed to the insurgents.
And it's interesting how many times when one of them is killed another one will stand up and take their place. The desire to be free, the desire to develop a society within their own cultural norms that allows them freedom and opportunity for a better future for their families is not only an Iraqi desire, I think it's a desire of most human beings everywhere on this planet. That the United States Armed Forces helps to give them that is absolutely one of the most important things I think we've ever been engaged in.
We often do talk past one another culturally. We do have barriers of understanding that get in the way of efficient business sometimes. But as we go down this road, both in Afghanistan and Iraq and in other places in the region, the cultural gap is closing. And it needs to close faster. There's nothing about Islam that says Iraq can't move in the direction it's moving. There's nothing about the Arab culture that says that people can't participate in their future in a free and participatory manner.
The opportunity for a new beginning is clearly there. I believe that people throughout the region, not only in Iraq but elsewhere, in Lebanon and Syria, in Saudi Arabia, you name the country in the Middle East -- but they're all looking for the opportunities for reform and better future, and for accountability from their governments.
WARNER: Let me ask the second part of this question. Should there be a delay in adopting the Constitution or the invoking of the six-month extension? And a perception that this new permanent government, the formation, is being delayed for whatever reason, what is likely to be the reaction of the insurgents and others who want to stop this process in Iraq? Do they redouble their efforts? Will there likely be more participants from other nations that are flowing into Iraq daily? What would be the consequences, from a military standpoint, should that eventuality become a reality?
ABIZAID: My view is that if there's a delay, it gives the insurgents an opportunity to get better organized. It increases the number of deaths in the temple of action. It would be a bad thing, but not fatal.
WARNER: Thank you. General Casey, the committee received an extensive briefing...
GEN. GEORGE CASEY, CMDR., MULTINATL FORCES IN IRAQ: I'm sorry, sir. Before we go, could I just add something...
WARNER: Yes, of course.
CASEY: To your first question about the Iraqis' will and ability to succeed in accomplishing their goals. And I alluded to it in my testimony. But we should not underestimate the impact of having lived under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: ... Mr. Chairman, please speak louder or into the mike.
WARNER: Yes, thank you, Senator Byrd, thank you. The mikes in this room are very directional.
CASEY: I do. This time I do, Senator.
WARNER: Bring it up very close, if you would, just a few inches.
CASEY: How's that?
WARNER: Thank you.
CASEY: As I was saying, Senator, and I alluded to in my opening statement, we should not underestimate the impact of having lived under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for three decades. We should not underestimate the impact that that has had on the psyche of the Iraqi people and the desire for something better. They are very, very resilient. And, as I -- again, as I said in my opening statement, they want something better.
WARNER: They manifested that in their election period.
General, in terms of the IEDs and other weapons that are being directed at the coalition forces and, indeed, these insidious type weapons are taking a very high toll of life and limb. Our committee received, I think, an excellent briefing from those in the department yesterday who have the responsibility of developing the technology and getting it in to the field to counteract this problem.
But there's a certain realism here that our technology has been, I think, reasonably successful in overcoming the complicated electronics and the variety of electronics being employed in these IEDs. But now, the insurgents seem to be departing from burying them and putting in static positions and going more to the mobile platform, namely, stealing a car and then utilizing that car and the armaments in it to bring about death and destruction.
Much of the technology that we put into effect does not have the same level of deterrence in overcoming those systems once you go into that mode of platform. How are we going to address this situation?
CASEY: Senator, I just -- two points I'd make here. First of all, I thank the committee up front for their great support. I think you might be interested to know that as a result of the additional protective gear and vehicles that are been sent over there, what we've seen over the last several months is that our return to duty rate -- someone who is wounded but not seriously enough to be evacuated from the theater -- has gone up by over 10 percent. And so now over 70 percent of our young men and women who are wounded are only wounded slightly. So that's a huge step forward.
On the car bomb, or the shift to car bomb, I think it is not so much a shift as an increase in the use of car bombs to create terror. And it's -- I think it's interesting that while the overall numbers of attacks have gone down, the casualties of those attacks have gone way up, because they are driving car bombs into crowds of civilians for the sole purpose of terror.
Now, how do you deal with that? And this is part of the nature of the war that we're in, and, really, any war. Action, reaction, counteraction. And our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to outthink the enemy and get ahead him.
And so as we work against the car bombs, there, while the technological solutions will not -- are not a silver bullet, as you suggested, the adaptation of a more holistic strategy. One, to conduct operations along the borders, to disrupt the flow of the suicide bombers and foreign fighters that drive those suicide car bombs.
KAGAN: We've been listening in. This is the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have a number of defense officials before them, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking questions. Basically, do the Iraqis and Iraqi military officials and troops have the will and ability to achieve their goals when it comes to defending themselves? That's the topic. We're going to monitor it and bring you the highlights. This in live.
Also, a lot of news coming up in the next hour, including the sentencing of Edgar Ray Killen, who was convicted two days ago of the manslaughter deaths of three civil rights workers back in 1964. All that's ahead. Right now, we fit in a quick break. I'll see you at the top of the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: We are tracking two major stories this hour. First in Iraq, the focus on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the military's top brass are facing some tough questions. One thing lawmakers want to know, when will American troops be able to come home? We are monitoring testimony. We will be with it in just a second.
Also want you to know we are watching the picture in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where former Klansman Edgar Ray Killen is expected to be sentenced for his role in the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers. We are live in Mississippi in a moment.
First, though, let's go back to the question-and-answer back and forth on Capitol Hill.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
CASEY: I'm not sure what you mean by beyond...
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: We have a timetable of August 15 for a constitution.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
LEVIN: And then they've allowed themselves under their own law one six-month extension. That's it.
CASEY: Right. And what I'm saying is, I don't even believe that they ought to have the six-month extension. LEVIN: I agree with that fully. But if they don't meet their own timetable, what you're saying is that it could have severe negative consequences on our troops and on the outcome.
CASEY: It certainly has the potential for that, Senator.
LEVIN: All right. Well, I agree with that.
Give that position -- and I think everybody wants them to meet that timetable. The president has flat out said that they should meet the timetable, our secretary of defense has said again, this morning, how important it is, how essential it is that they meet their timetable and, again, earlier this week said that the -- it's absolutely important that they meet their timetable.
It seems to me that it's important that the administration say publicly that there will be consequences or might be consequences in terms of our policies and actions if they don't meet that timetable. And I very much welcome the statements here this morning as to how essential it is that they meet it. But unless we do more than just say the words, that it's important or essential or critical, unless we also give a message that we're going to have to review our situation if they don't meet their own timetable, it seems to me those words become hollow.
The secretary of defense -- excuse me, the secretary of state made a statement, which is that we're going to keep our forces there as long as they are needed. That has the opposite effect of telling them that if they don't meet their timetable for a political agreement, which is essential to ending the insurgency, according to all your testimony, if they don't meet their own timetable, that we're going to need to assess our situation.
Not -- we're not going to decide in advance we're setting a deadline. We're not going to say what the consequences would be. But we're going to look at all options, including the possibility of setting a timetable.
That, it seems to me, is a critically important thing for the administration to do. And what troubles me is that the only public statement that really we've had on that so far, that I think is relevant, is the opposite, which is the secretary of state saying, we'll be there as long as we are needed. That's open-ended. If they don't agree to a constitution, if they don't agree to a political settlement, we're going to be needed for a much longer time than if they do.
So I would hope, Secretary Rumsfeld, that you would take back at least this suggestion to the administration, to the president, even though you don't want to tell us or don't know, perhaps, what your own advice would be on this key issue as to what public statement should be made if they do not keep their own timetable. I would hope that you would take back the suggestion that in order for those important words, that they must keep it, have some kind of oomph behind it, some kind of impact that there's got to be a suggestion which is explicit. Folks, political settlement is essential to ending the insurgency. Our experts all here say that. A political settlement requires a constitution, and if you don't meet the deadline for settling your political differences and adopting a constitution, then we are in a deeper soup than we're in now, relative to the insurgency. That's the testimony here this morning.
And so I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you would pass along this suggestion that there be an explicit statement to the Iraqis that not only do we expect them to meet -- to keep their timetable for adopting a constitution, but that if they don't, that we would have to assess our position, not prejudging what we would do, but looking at all options, including, but not limited to, setting a timetable for withdrawal. And are you willing to at least consider that and take that suggestion back?
RUMSFELD: I'll be happy to take that back. And do I know what I think. And I would like to clarify one thing.
You seem to include in their timetable the possibility of a six- month delay. I want it very clear that I don't favor a six-month delay, even though that may be permitted under the transitional administrative law.
LEVIN: Well, good for you. I hope that that -- that the words, then, are followed by actions as to what will be the effect if they extend it. That's fine with me.
RUMSFELD: Fair enough. Let me make one other comment, Senator Levin.
You raised the question of the vice president's remarks about the last throes. You, yourself and I both have emphasized the importance of progress on the political side. The enemy knows that as well. And they know that if a democracy is established with a permanent government, under a constitution, in Iraq, that they have lost a great deal.
And I don't doubt for a minute that they will respond to that challenge and recognize how important it is for them not to lose. And in these final months between now and that constitution drafting and the election, they may very well be in their last throes by their own view because they recognize how important it will be if they lose, and, in fact, if a democracy's established.
So I think those words, while I didn't use them and I might not use them, I think it's understandable that we can expect that kind of a response from the enemy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator McCain.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses and General Casey and General Abizaid. Thank you for your outstanding leadership to the men and women who are serving. Also, my appreciation to others, like General Petraeus and others who are doing such an outstanding job.
I share your view that there are some signs of progress that should be encouraging to us. And I share your view that we have to stay the course. And the worst thing that we could do would be to set a time or date of withdrawal of U.S. troops until the Iraqi military is able to take over those responsibilities of ensuring the security and safety of the Iraqi people as they transition to democracy.
I also must tell you, I'm very worried. My concerns range from overstressing our Guard and Reservists, some of whom are going back to Iraq for the second and third time. I'm worried about our recruiting shortfalls. And I'm not satisfied yet with the plans that you may have to address that issue.
General Casey, I may have gotten the wrong briefing yesterday, but I understand the attacks are up. And casualties are up, not down, over a year ago.
Go ahead, please.
CASEY: I was specifically speaking about attacks against civilians.
MCCAIN: I see. Thank you. I guess...
CASEY: I'm sorry. And just to be clear, attacks now, currently, as compared to a year ago, are actually about the same. If they're up, it's only slightly. It's not -- it's not significant.
MCCAIN: Thank you. But the fact that it's not significantly down isn't encouraging to me.
CASEY: As it should not be.
MCCAIN: Could I -- General Casey, could we talk a little bit about the training of the Iraqi military? We went back and forth, perhaps for too long in this committee about how many were trained and equipped. And then I think all of us agreed and I think that we now grade by units rather than individuals.
What percentage of the Iraqi units would you judge now are combat ready?
CASEY: Senator, let me...
MCCAIN: And I'm saying, using the same criteria that we use for the United States Army. Go ahead.
CASEY: Let me give you some generalities here. First of all, let me tell you what we've done over the past months.
We have developed a readiness assessment very similar to our own readiness assessment process. And we have established four readiness categories. MCCAIN: Yes.
CASEY: I think General Petraeus may have talked to you about that. It's a classified assessment, just like our own is a classified assessment.
We categorize the units by those who are ready for independent counterinsurgency operations. That's a very high standard, and we do not expect many of those to make them for some -- make that date (ph) for some time.
The second category is those that are capable of counterinsurgency operations with enabling support from us, with our transition teams and with intelligence and medevac, those kind of supports from us. That number is increasing daily, and we will get a good number of units there over -- probably before the end of the year.
The third category are those that are good enough to operate with us but not operate by themselves, even with our help.
And then the last category are those that are forming...
MCCAIN: I understand.
CASEY: ... or not ready at all. And so that's how we lay that out.
MCCAIN: Well, I think we need to know that information, General Casey. I don't know why it's classified.
We need to know how things are progressing in Iraq. That is the key element to success in Iraq.
And maybe, Mr. Chairman, we can somehow elicit that. We seem to have great difficulty, including redacting of information in the Boeing thing, including failure to get other information that I find very frustrating.
General Casey, I don't think it's an illegitimate, nor should it be a classified answer, what percentage of those 170,000 are combat ready.
CASEY: OK. And I'm not...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can proceed to a closed hearing following this.
MCCAIN: Well, then we'll proceed to a closed hearing. I think the American people need to know, Mr. Chairman. They are the ones who are paying for this conflict. But I'll drop the question for now.
General Abizaid, obviously one of the major -- one of the major problems that we have is this new influx of foreigners into Iraq across Syrian borders. Isn't that correct?
ABIZAID: That's correct, Senator McCain.
MCCAIN: And a larger and larger percentage of these suicide bombers come from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, other countries. Isn't that correct?
ABIZAID: That's correct. We've also seen an influx of suicide bombers from North Africa, specifically Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
MCCAIN: And Syria is facilitating this passage through money, training and other -- and equipment and other means, is that correct?
ABIZAID: I think I would put it somewhat differently. I would say that there is a clear node inside Syria which facilitates it. Whether or not the Syrian government is facilitating it or ignoring it is probably a debatable question. But the key node is Damascus.
MCCAIN: It's a growing problem.
ABIZAID: It is.
MCCAIN: If Syria doesn't enforce its borders, should we reach a point where we may not want to respect those borders?
ABIZAID: I think that question is best put to the policymakers. But I would tell you -- I would tell you that the Syrians have not done enough.
MCCAIN: Thank you.
General Abizaid, my other comment is that I believe that too often we're seeing that we are going into the same places we've been in before. And that means that we're not staying in, clearing, as opposed to coming in and striking and leaving. And I hope that we can spend -- maybe it's the training of the Iraqi military that would help us, because clearly we don't have enough troops to do all that.
Maybe it's the training of the Iraqi troops that would do that. But do you see any improvement in that scenario? For example, I hear in Falluja now we're having firefights again, after one of the toughest battles in, really, American military history, much less in the Iraqi war. So I'd be interested in your comments about that.
CASEY: If I could, Senator, it's probably more appropriate for me to take that question than it is for General Abizaid.
MCCAIN: Go ahead, General. I'm sorry. Go ahead -- yes.
CASEY: As I mentioned, we're fighting a thinking enemy here. This conflict ebbs and flows, action, reaction, counteraction. We're constantly moving forces around, trying to take advantage of vulnerabilities that we see in him, and sometimes we move forces to react.
These Marine operations that we've just seen out west are intelligence-based operations designed to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters through the Euphrates River Valley into Baghdad. The operations that we're doing up north, in the northwest, with our 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment and the 3rd Iraqi Army Division, same thing.
KAGAN: We've been listening in to the Senate Armed Services Committee as the top military brass talk about what's happening in Iraq.
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the sentencing hearing for former Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen is getting under way.
Let's go ahead and listen in to those proceedings.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
JUDGE MARCUS GORDON, NESHOBA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI: ... for some time. And if you question their decision, then you are voiding the belief in the jury system. The persons who served on that jury did not volunteer for that service. They were commanded by an order of the court to be here to serve as jurors.
They were summoned here from the four corners of Neshoba County, and they qualified as jurors because I asked of them the questions I was required by law to ask. And upon the completion of that, the 12 jurors who were selected qualified as proper citizens of this county and legally competent to serve as jurors.
You also have to remember that the 12 jurors were chosen by these parties. They had preemptive challenges, and they did challenge, the jurors. And the 12 who served was not challenged by either Mr. Killen or by the state of Mississippi, but were seated and impaneled and given an oath to make a true verdict upon the evidence and the law regarding the case of the state of Mississippi versus Edgar Ray Killen.
Now, they must live with this decision. No doubt they have -- they may be subjected to some criticism. They may be subjected to some abuse and some ridicule.
Yet you just have to remember that they are citizens who were here to perform an unpleasant duty. And they did so. And I respect those persons, and you -- all of you who are critical of the judgment of the jury, those of you who believe that the jury should have found Mr. Killen not guilty, and those of you who believe that the finding of verdicts of manslaughter was wrong, and they should have found the persons guilty of murder, you have to remember that, no doubt -- and there's no question about it -- these persons attempted to follow the evidence to the best of their ability.
They're not trained persons. You know, I dare say that if they had been polled, there's not a single one of the 12 who has ever before served as a juror.
I watched "Court TV" the other day, and I saw where the people of Neshoba County and the jury, and even the state of Mississippi, was demeaned because the verdict was manslaughter and not that of murder. And that was wrong.
And that was, again, attacking the integrity of the jury system. And certainly, you must believe that that's the one thing that we must have, so that innocent people, people who have no purpose in mind but to be fair and impartial and make a judgment upon evidence -- and after all is said and done, there's not a single person in this courtroom who drove here today fearful for their life or afraid that they would suffer some physical harm. And the reason for that is because someone in Neshoba County, as jurors, appeared here on other criminal cases and followed the law and enforced the laws so that all of you could be protected.
You leave here today protected and secure that you're not going to be harmed. And it's because the laws have been followed and enforced by the people of Neshoba County.
I have been the judge for 23 years. I've made a lot of decisions. I've made a lot of decisions that affected the lives and liberty of persons. And that's my job.
And this morning, just a few moments ago in chambers there, I offered to the lawyers here, "Would you like to go in there now and take a seat and make a judgment on Mr. Killen and what -- and on the evidence of this case and what should be the penalty?" And there's not a taker of my offer.
Now, you have to remember that I have a job to do. And I have to pass upon a sentence to a person who's 80 years old, a person who has suffered a serious injury, a person that could receive the maximum sentence of 60 years.
There are those of you in the courtroom who would say that a sentence of 10 years is a life sentence. There's those of you in the courtroom, no doubt, are of the opinion that Edgar Ray Killen should be sentenced to serve 60 years.
Now, if this case occurred and there was only one person -- this is a homicide case where three persons was killed. The distinction is that of murder and manslaughter, really and truly only in the eyes of punishment. Because the facts are more or less the same. The difference is, 20 years or life in prisonment.
If there had only been one person killed, and Edgar Ray Killen was sentenced to serve 20 years in 1964, I don't think there would be one person who would say that that was an excessive sentence. But now today, 40 years later, when Mr. Killen is 80 years old, and we would consider the fact that three persons were killed, is 60 years an excessive sentence?
Now, the law does not make a distinction in the crime. The sentence -- should a person 20 years old receive a more severe sentence than a person 80 years old? If so, why?
Why should there be a recognition of punishment? Does not the law recognize -- it does not recognize the distinction of age. It does not say that a person who is 80 years old should receive a lesser sentence than a person who is 20 years old. And I believe Mr. Killen to have been in the year of 1964 something like 62 years old. So I have made a decision and I know that the decision of courts, of course, may be criticized because a lot of people really don't understand. But if you give it and understand it, that all we're trying to do is do what's right under the law and the facts of the case, so it's my responsibility to make that decision. And I have done it, because it's my job.
Before I announce the sentence of Mr. Killen, I do want to say that I want to express my public opinion in appreciation to law enforcement who have provided the security and have assisted the court in handling this case. My clerk, Patty Lee (ph), who has been most helpful, my law clerk, the attorneys in this case, for the defense and the state, they've been courteous, they've been professional, and they performed their job.
Edgar Ray Killen, come around.
Bring Mr. Killen around in front of the bench.
No one has talked to me attempting to persuade me of what sentence to pronounce, because I think that they understand that I would not tolerate that. I would not tolerate any person to come to me and offer that Mr. Killen should be placed on house arrest or should receive 60 years.
That's something that -- I've heard the evidence of this case, and I'm just the kind of guy that will butt with my own head. And I take no pleasure in pronouncing sentencing.
The three gentlemen who were killed, each life has value and each life is equally as valuable as the other life. And I have taken that into consideration, that there are three lives involved in this case and the three lives should absolutely be respected and treated equally.
Therefore, Edgar Ray Killen, in count one, it's the sentence of this court that you serve 20 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
In count two, it is the sentence of this court that you serve 20 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with this sentence to run consecutive to the sentence pronounced upon you in count one.
In count three, it is the sentence of this court that you serve 20 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with this sentence to run consecutive to the sentences pronounced upon you in counts one and two.
Gentlemen, do you have any comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, your honor.
GORDON: Now, as I've announced to you, Monday of next week I'll hear any motions that you might have. Those motions will be heard at 9:00. Mr. Killen, you're submitted to the custody of the sheriff of Neshoba County.
KAGAN: And there you have it, an historic moment in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Edgar Ray Killen, the former Ku Klux Klansman, sentenced to the maximum 60 years in prison in the manslaughter deaths of three civil rights workers killed almost 40 years to the day, 1964.
The judge, Marcus Gordon, spending a lot of time talking about the jury verdict, and what he had to do with the sentencing, realizing that whether it was in Philadelphia, Mississippi or across the country, it would be controversial.
Our Ed Lavandera has been covering the trial and the sentencing.
Ed, clearly, this is a life sentence for an 80-year-old man who, as Judge Gordon was noting, is not in good health.
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, defense attorneys have been telling me for the last week or so that any kind of prison time at his age and in his physical condition they consider to be a life sentence. At the very least, the judge had the option of sentencing Mr. Killen to one year in prison for -- it was the minimum charge. And he could have been out in one year.
He had been convicted of a felony charge back in the 1970s, so the very minimum was one year per sentence. But the judge giving Edgar Ray Killen the maximum sentence here today to serve consecutively.
Also, to give you a little bit of flavor of why this story has been so difficult here in Philadelphia, Mississippi, this is a town of 7,000 people, and it's a very intertwined city. Many people have heard about this case, have seen Mr. Killen walk around town, go to the grocery store, go to the bank over the last 41 years. And it was actually this judge, Marcus Gordon, who you just heard from -- Edgar Ray Killen was one of the preachers.
Edgar Ray Killen, of course, known around here as Preacher Killen. Mr. Killen was one of the preachers at the judge's mother's funeral years ago. Kind of a sense here of why this is so raw and so close and up front to many of the people who live here in the city.
And what we've experienced over the last week is a difficulty on behalf of a lot of the people around here to want to talk about this case. They've been reluctant to speak with news media folks who have come to cover this trial, who many around here consider us to be outsiders, if you will.
But I think a little bit of flavor as to why that it's so difficult. It makes you understand the different layers of this story -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Ed Lavandera, in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Thank you.
Let's bring our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, back with us on the phone.
Jeffrey, there's an appeal that's planned in this case by defense attorneys. This was originally a murder case, and then the judge said on behalf of prosecutors that they could go for manslaughter. That is what in the end Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of.
TOOBIN: Correct. And that wasn't really that unusual of a decision by the judge. Lesser included offenses, as manslaughter is for murder, are frequently offered as a choice to the jury. So I -- like most cases, I don't expect a successful appeal in this case.
And, you know, it was -- it was a long sentence. It was also a very, very long time in coming. You know, Mr. Killen got 40 years of freedom for this monstrous crime. And that's something that can never be taken from him.
KAGAN: And that's one thing that Judge Gordon was talking about, that he had to think -- one of the things he considered is as if this had been a sentence taking place back in 1964 or the mid-'60s.
TOOBIN: That's true. And this was the maximum sentence. The judge was obviously as horrified as most civilized people are by this crime. But, you know, those 40 years of freedom, I think, will stick in the craw of a lot of people because he got away with this for a very long time.
KAGAN: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for calling in on that. And we'll be consulting with you as other legal news develops.
Let's go to our Jamie McIntyre, who's live at the Pentagon. He's been monitoring what's been happening at the Senate Armed Services Committee as we were listening in to the sentencing hearing in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
Jamie, what did we miss?
MCINTYRE: Well, while you were at that hearing, some of the sharpest exchange so far from Senator Ted Kennedy, of course a very sharp critic of the administration and of Secretary Rumsfeld in particular.
Kennedy laid out what Rumsfeld called a remarkable statement. He said that the situation in Iraq was a serious situation in which he said -- he cited mistakes by Secretary Rumsfeld.
He said it was "a quagmire with no end in sight." And he called on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign, or asked him if he shouldn't resign at some point because of that.
Rumsfeld responded that he has offered his resignation twice to the president and the president has not accepted it. And went into a spirited defense of what he said was clearly not a quagmire. And he was backed up by his commander, General George Casey, who also said it wasn't a quagmire, defending the progress that is being made and saying that it's a difficult situation.
Very pointed criticism from Senator Ted Kennedy in this exchange between him and Secretary Rumsfeld.
They went around the table then and polled the various people. General Myers also rejected the term "quagmire," said it simply wasn't accurate. And General Abizaid, the U.S. Central Commander, was probably the most circumspect.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
