Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
UAE's Mixed Record on Helping Fight Terror; Long History of Foreign Companies Operating U.S. Ports; Analyzing Port Security
Aired February 20, 2006 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much Lou.
To our viewers, you are now in THE SITUATION ROOM where new pictures and information are arriving all the time.
Happening now, a CNN security watch. It's 7:00 p.m. in Baltimore. Will an Arab firm's management of key U.S. ports put Americans at risk?
Also, the United Arab Emirates, ally or a threat? It's 4:00 a.m. Tuesday in Dubai now under scrutiny because of that port deal.
And he monitored the Palestinian election, and now he is watching the fallout from the Hamas victory. The former President Jimmy Carter is warning the Bush administration against taking too tough a line. Our exclusive interview with Jimmy Carter, that's coming up.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
And we'll get to that exclusive interview with Jimmy Carter shortly. But first, we start with a CNN "Security Watch" and questions over an international business deal that leaves an Arab company poised to take over six major U.S. ports.
We have complete coverage for you tonight beginning with CNN's Brian Todd. He's joining us now live from the Port of Baltimore -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, these terminals behind me are only about 45 miles from the nation's capital. That's one of several components to this deal that has security experts so very concerned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice over): A massive container ship pulls into the Dundalk Terminal at the Port of Baltimore, one of more than 2,000 vessels that will likely pass through the facility this year.
Baltimore's mayor now believes his port is entering a new period of vulnerability.
MAYOR MARTIN O'MALLEY (D), BALTIMORE: At a time of terrorist threat, when for years we've been saying that our ports are vulnerable. We should not be surrendering any American port to a foreign government, let alone to the United Arab Emirates with their background.
TODD: Baltimore, along with the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans, may soon have much of their operations taken over by a company called Dubai Ports World, a firm essentially under the control of the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates.
The deal was approved by a committee of 12 federal agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice And defense. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke to Wolf Blitzer on the feasibility of having six major American ports outsourced to an Arab company.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: You can be sure that any transaction that goes forward is going to be carefully reviewed and is also going to be carefully subject to the expertise of Coast Guard and customs and border protections.
TODD: The Department of Homeland Security will screen cargo at the ports and handle other security measures, but physical protection of the terminals themselves will be handled by the operator, a company based in a country that according to the 9/11 Commission was home to two 9/11 hijackers and was a major financial base for al Qaeda.
CNN security analyst Clark Kent Irvin worries about that connection to a port system where only a small percentage of cargo is opened and physically inspected.
CLARK KENT IRVIN, SECURITY ANALYST: All of the experts agree that probably the easiest and therefore the likeliest way for a weapon of mass destruction to make its way into the United States would be through a port.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: Now as for the company that is about to take over parts of this port, they're trying to reduce those security concerns. Contacted by CNN, an official with Dubai Ports World said, quote, "we intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements."
The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates stressed to another news agency that his country has worked very hard with the United States to combat terrorism both before and after 9/11 -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Brian Todd in the Port of Baltimore.
Brian, thanks very much.
And, as Brian just showed us, the company in question is based in the United Arab Emirates.
Our Kelli Arena from our CNN American Bureau is watching this story for us and has a closer look at this country and its record in fighting terror -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it may sound cliche to say that the world has changed since the September 11th attacks, but it has, especially when you are looking at relationships in the war on terror.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice over): The hijacker who steered a United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center South Tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was one of two 9/11 hijackers born in the United Arab Emirates. In fact, most of the hijackers travelled to the United States through the UAE to carry out their deadly plan.
The FBI has said the money for 9/11 was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system. Even after the attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department complained about a lack of cooperation in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.
REP. PETER KING (R), HOMELAND SECURITY CHMN.: The United Arab Emirates, they are one of only three countries in the world that prides September 11th and recognizes the Taliban. In the days after 9/11, they were not overly supportive as we were trying to track down terrorist financial transactions.
ARENA: What's more, U.S. officials have said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by the Pakistani scientist, A.Q. Khan.
Nonetheless, the Bush administration calls the UAE an ally in the war on terror. And counter-terrorism officials say it's cooperating more and consistently since 9/11.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It's rare to find a country that has been cooperative in three different arenas, the pursuit of terrorism, the pursuit of their money and helpful also on proliferation of weapons.
ARENA: In 2002, it was the UAE who caught and extradited al Qaeda's leader in the Gulf described as the mastermind of the attack on the USS Coal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Counter-terrorism officials say that relatively speaking the UAE has a very realistic understanding of the terrorism problem and has made a commitment to help deal with it, more so than some of its neighbors in the region -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Kelli Arena thanks very much.
Coming up, we are going to have much more on this story.
I'm also going to ask Jimmy Carter what he thinks of this port deal. To our viewers, please stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Zain Verjee is back with us. She is joining us now live from the CNN center with a closer look at other stories making news.
Welcome back, Zain.
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks Wolf.
We start with a developing story. Rescue workers in Mexico think that they may have edged closer to finding 65 Mexican coal miners trapped about a mile and a half underground. They were trapped yesterday after a gas explosion at the mine southwest of the U.S. border at Eagle Pass in Texas.
The oxygen tanks the miners were wearing had only six hours worth of air. Officials say that they have little hope that they'll be found alive.
They found bodies but not yet a single survivor in that devastating mudslide in the southern Philippines three days ago. International rescue teams, including some 200 Marines, are searching for signs of life.
Today, crews pulled five bodies from a school that has been buried under the mud. Before the landslide, the village's population was just over 1,800. Right now about 1,000 of them are still missing.
In Austria, a denier of the Holocaust gets three years in jail. British historian David Irving had admitted in an Austrian court that he publicly denied that German Nazis killed six million Jews during World War II.
The outspoken skeptic admits that he broke Austrian law 17 years ago with that denial. But the chief judge says that Irving's assertion that he's changed his mind about the Holocaust is just lip service. Irving's lawyers say that they're going to appeal the sentence.
And in New York State about 18,000 homes and businesses are still without power. This after high winds knocked down trees and knocked out power three days ago to over 3,000 people. Officials say that most of the outages are in Saratoga, Warren and Essex counties. Power officials say that some customers could be in the dark until Wednesday.
Back to Wolf in THE SITUATION ROOM and my new best friend, Jacki.
BLITZER: That would be Jack Cafferty. He's joining us now from New York with "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Wolf and thank you, Zain.
Since 9/11, priority one has been to protect this country from another terrorist attack. President Bush wrote our fear to that very thing to a second term in office. The war in Iraq is advertised as part of the war on terror.
A half of a trillion dollars and 2,300 dead American soldiers, so that we can, quote, "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."
Well, what about over here? In the last week, we've learned that the federal government has approved a plan to sell control of six American ports to interests in the United Arab Emirates, this a country that provided safe haven to the 9/11 terrorists.
Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, who was attending bird flu meetings in Atlanta during Hurricane Katrina, thinks this is a fine idea, so does the White House, the Treasury Department, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
A total of 12 federal departments or agencies supposedly think there is nothing wrong with this. There is clear evidence here that the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Here's the question, is it hypocritical to talk about homeland security while advocating the sale of American ports to Arab companies? E-mail us at caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to CNN.com/caffertyfile.
BLITZER: A good provocative question, Jack. Thanks very much.
Coming up, the former President Jimmy Carter joins me for an exclusive interview. Why does President Carter say U.S. taxpayers should give Palestinians millions of dollars even if their new government is led by a terrorist group?
Also, an Arab country in charge of those six major U.S. ports. Was it a colossal political mistake? James Carville, J.C. Watts, they are ready to face off here in our strategy session.
Plus, my conversation with the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. He will respond to former FEMA Director Michael Brown, who gave Chertoff a C minus for his handling of the Katrina disaster.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In today's "Strategy Session," a deal giving a Dubai- based company management of six major U.S. ports has set off a political firestorm. Is it an issue of security or more of a political blunder?
Plus, is there any lasting fallout from Dick Cheney's hunting accident? Joining us now, our CNN political analyst, Democratic strategist James Carville, former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.
Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina, he was on TV yesterday. He said this of this port deal. He said, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the United Arab Emirates."
Is he right, J.C.? J.C. WATTS (R), FMR. U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Well, Wolf, he's got a good point. I think the administration -- you know, this week it's port security, last week it was Dick Cheney. You know, I don't know if it's a good decision or a bad decision, but it just kills the administration when they're not out there defining these things, letting the American people know what's going on.
You know, when you think security, you think Saudi Arabia. You know, what, 11 of the 19 terrorists, they were from Saudi Arabia.
BLITZER: Fourteen.
WATTS: Fourteen, and we're saying, OK, they're handling security. Now, that may be unfair, but the American people, they've got security on their mind. And again, I'm just not so sure that the administration is handling this the right way.
BLITZER: Two of the 9/11 hijackers, I believe, were from the United Arab Emirates, which is, in this particular case, 14 from Saudi Arabia.
Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, said this. I want you to listen, James.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, FMR. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I think the anxiety and concern that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate. The optics at this point don't look very good.
But I've also sat in on that similar process when we reviewed some other potential sales that could have an impact on America's security. And I do think that at some point in time you have to say to yourself, would Secretary Rumsfeld and Snow and Chertoff and Rice compromise American security? I don't think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What do you think?
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think this is an excellent political opportunity for everybody. This is a political pinata. The Republicans -- it gives the Republicans a chance to say, look, we stood up to the president on this; the Democrats say the whole thing is sort of out of control, we're selling our ports off to boom, boom, boom.
So, the politics of this are pretty simple. And I suspect that the administration, in the end, are probably going to have to -- I don't know how you pull the deal down, because it was a British company that was doing it, and they sold it to a company based in Dubai, as I understand it. And they've been cooperating with us on some things in the war on terror, although the money transferred came through there and there's allegations, and I think pretty factual, that nuclear technology was transferred out of their port to Iran. It's not a clear-cut thing. But the politics of this are clear and down the line.
BLITZER: Well, does the president need to step in right now and sort of reverse -- he can reverse this decision, I assume.
WATTS: Well, Wolf, again, I don't know if it's a good decision or a bad decision. I don't think any of us have seen a lot of the details about what's going on.
I saw the Homeland Security secretary say that, you know, he's going to be talking to the appropriate people, and he has made some comments. But the American people don't know a whole lot about it. And when you allow James Carville and J.C. Watts and Wolf Blitzer to define this thing, as opposed to the administration being out there and talking about this, defining it, you know, we're going to use our imagination and we're going to say, OK, did they sell the ports, as James said? And I don't think that happened.
But those types of things happen when you leave it to the imagination of politicians and activists.
CARVILLE: But Wolf -- but, you know, a guy sitting there is saying, you know, we've got six ports, these are the most vulnerable places that we have. Jeez, Americans can't run our own ports?
BLITZER: Well, apparently, the British company was doing it for years.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Now it's on people's radar screen big time. I'm just saying, the politics of this are simple, and the politics of this are really good for the Republicans. It gives them a chance to say, look, you know, I vehemently disagreed with President Bush. And you can see it coming down the line.
This is going to be a hard one to sustain.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, James and J.C., see you soon.
And still to come, why does President Carter say U.S. taxpayers should be giving Palestinians millions of dollars, even if their new government is led by a terrorist group? My exclusive interview with President Carter. That's coming up.
And next, the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff fires right back to Michael Brown. A follow-up to that exclusive interview with the former FEMA director, first shown right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We showed it to you first here in THE SITUATION ROOM. A documentary filmmaker's exclusive interview with the former FEMA Director Michael Brown. Brown slammed his ex-boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and his response to Hurricane Katrina. I gave Chertoff the chance to respond on CNN's "LATE EDITION."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: In an interview with a documentary filmmaker, he gives you this grade for the work he says you did or didn't do during that disaster.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Secretary Chertoff?
BROWN: You know, a C-minus. The secretary is a judge by training. And you can't do things like tell your disaster guy to go back to Baton Rouge and stay in Baton Rouge and never leave. That's not how you do operations. He just doesn't get it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He says you just don't get it.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Well, first of all, you know, Mike Brown has given a lot of different versions of events. And I'm not going to get into the specifics of, you know, which version we're happening to hear right now. But I do want to make a point.
First of all, I lived through 9/11. I had perhaps the best on- the-job training for dealing with a huge crisis when I was running the response to 9/11 on the law-enforcement side during those weeks after the terrorist attacks.
I do want to respond to Mr. Brown's statement that I was wrong in making him go back to Baton Rouge. On Tuesday, he was flying around with politicians. He was doing interview shows. And the basic planning, which was getting buses to come into the Superdome and pick people up, had not been done.
And it seemed to me correct then, and I think it's correct now, that job one is get the planning done, make sure the buses are there. When that's done, it's completely appropriate to go around and tour around and look at the damage. And that's what Admiral Allen did when I made him the PFO. But Admiral Allen always knew what was the most important thing to get done first, and he got it done.
BLITZER: The hurricane came in on a Monday morning. That was August 29. And the levees broke, basically, that day. But you went to sleep that night, you didn't even know that the levees had broken.
CHERTOFF: Well, that's right. One of the things that was the most disturbing to me about the entire week of what happened was the fact that on Monday around 7:00, I got a situation report that specifically said, there hasn't been any demonstration of a substantial breech of the levees.
It was one of the things I was, frankly, concerned about during Monday. So I breathed a sigh of relief. I thought, well, we have avoided at least one really bad outcome.
And of course, I was very disturbed to learn early Tuesday morning that there had been a substantial and irreparable breech.
That really boils down again to the fact that all decisions have to flow from proper and comprehensive information. And we didn't have that information.
And so our first job right now, as we get ready for next season, is training the people and building the capabilities to get information in real time.
BLITZER: Your critics have suggested you were disengaged, you were detached. On that Tuesday, it was August 30th, and you knew then that the levees had broken, water was coming in, the city was being flooded, tens of thousands of people were being made homeless -- you went to a bird flu conference in Atlanta.
CHERTOFF: And I'm glad to be able to correct that, because this is one of those urban legends that continues to persist.
I did two things on Tuesday. I did go, not to a bird flu conference. I did go to meet with the Health and Human Services secretary and the critical leadership of CDC on a plan for avian flu, which I think is a very serious issue.
But I also linked to the emergency operations regional center in Atlanta, which was responsible for running the hurricane response in Mississippi and Alabama. And I went to Atlanta specifically to be able to get an on-the-ground assessment of the hurricane from the people who were responsible for managing at the region.
So in fact, one of the reasons I went through with the trip was because I knew it would give me an opportunity to talk to the real operators who were watching the situation up close.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, speaking with me earlier.
Coming up on this president's day, former president Jimmy Carter joining me here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We'll speak about new tension in the Middle East, Iran's nuclear program, Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Lots more. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. New moves forward today for Hamas as the Islamic militant group prepares to take the helm of the Palestinian government. Hamas announced its choice for prime minister. That would be Ismail Haniya. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to present Haniya with an official letter of appointment tomorrow. I'll speak with former president Jimmy Carter about the Hamas takeover, the ramifications for the United States shortly. But first, CNN's John Vause reports from Jerusalem with more. John. JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the president of the Palestinian Authority has met with the man likely to be his next prime minister, Hamas Gaza leader Ismail Haniya. Abbas has asked Haniya to choose a cabinet and form the next government. This comes after Hamas won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections last month which was supervised by former president Jimmy Carter and a team of observers.
President Carter personally certified that the election results were both free and fair and in his words, by the book. The new cabinet must be formed in the next five weeks and when it happens, the Islamic militants will face a choice. Disarm and recognize Israel's right to exist, or face the prospect of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid from both the United States and the European Union.
Hamas for now is saying no deal. In the past branding U.S. aid satanic money. So Hamas leaders have been touring the Islamic world asking for financial support, today meeting with the Iranian president in Tehran.
Already, Israel has put a freeze on hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. As far as Israel is concerned, the moment lawmakers were sworn into the parliament over the weekend, Hamas effectively took over the Palestinian Authority. Wolf?
BLITZER: John Vause reporting. John thank you very much. Former president Jimmy Carter is warning that the United States and Israel should not punish the Palestinian people for electing Hamas. The former president makes the appeal in an important article he wrote today in The Washington Post. Former President Carter joins us from Plains, Georgia with this exclusive interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Mr. President, thanks for joining us, especially on this President's Day.
JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Wolf, very much.
BLITZER: The article that you wrote suggests that the United States has to find a way to make sure that the money continues to go to the Palestinians. How do you do that if the government of the Palestinians is controlled by a group that the U.S government, The State Department identifies as a terrorist organization?
CARTER: Well, there are several ways to do it. The first thing I'd like to say is that the money that the Israelis are withholding is actually Palestinian money. It doesn't belong to the Israelis, it belongs to the Palestinians. And this money was destined to be use by the government, who ever is in control of it, for teacher's salaries, for health care, for welfare workers and so forth, and also to pay policemen. And to withhold the Palestinians money, I think, is going to be a very damaging thing as far as the entire population of Palestine is concerned. They're going to resent it very...
BLITZER: These aren't taxes...
CARTER: ... deeply.
BLITZER: Excuse me for interrupting. These are -- just to explain to our viewers, these are taxes that the Israelis have collected on the Palestinians, which since the Oslo Accords, have gone back to the Palestinian Authority.
CARTER: Well, the Israelis have withheld it briefly on occasion just to just punish the Palestinians for something they didn't like. But these are customs, funds and tax moneys that are collected by the Israelis, but they legally belong to the Palestinians. And to withhold it is just withholding Palestinian money. And as I said, this money would be used of necessity to pay the people who are employed by the government, no matter who is there.
President Abbas explained this to me very thoroughly two days after the election, when he realized that Hamas would be taking over some reigns of the government.
Secondly, you know, the United States could very well make it clear, along with Israel and others, that although we are not going to channel U.S. money through the Hamas government, we will channel I would hope the same amount of money for humanitarian purposes through the United Nations agencies. Over half the people that live in Gaza, for instance, are refugees. So the refugee fund, UNICEF, education funds and others can be given to the Palestinian people.
My concern is that in order to try, on behalf of the United States and Israel, to punish Hamas, we'll actually going to be punishing the Palestinian people who are already living in deprivation. And it's going to turn the Palestinian people even more against the West and against Israel, against us and make Hamas seem to be, you know, their only friend. So this will strengthen Hamas and weaken the Palestinian people. I think it's a counterproductive ploy to try to punish Hamas.
BLITZER: Here is the U.S. law of the land, which we looked up, in terms of direct and even indirect funding of a group the U.S. regards as a terrorist organization.
The law currently states this, and I'll read it to you, Mr. President: "It is unlawful for a person in the United States or a subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide 'material support or resources' to a designated foreign terrorist organization," an FTO. And Hamas is listed as an FTO, a foreign terrorist organization.
So how do you work around the law in the United States right now, which is that the U.S. taxpayer dollars cannot go to Hamas?
CARTER: Well that's what I think I just said. That we don't have to give it to the Hamas government or even the Palestinian Authority. What we have to do, if we want to, is to give it to the United Nations, with it designated for health, education, the relief of refugees and other matters of that kind. So we can bypass the Hamas government completely if the United States decides to give humanitarian aid.
BLITZER: So let me just be precise...
CARTER: I don't have any doubt...
BLITZER: Let me be precise on this. What you're recommending is that U.S. tax payer money go to some United Nations organization or a non-governmental organization and they could then give it directly to Palestinians, but not through the Palestinian Authority?
CARTER: Exactly, yes. Exactly. That's what I've been recommending. And I think that's a very feasible thing and a reasonable thing to do. Otherwise, we're going to have -- indirectly or directly, there are about a million people in the West Bank and Gaza who are dependent on salaries from the government. And these include schoolteachers and so forth, as I've described.
And I think that the Palestinian Authority, as a government, could then go to other sources, to the rich Arab countries, Egypt and others, to make up for what the United States withholds. But I don't think we ought to punish the Palestinian people.
BLITZER: Here is what the vice president, Dick Cheney, said the other day on this issue. He said, "Their" -- referring to Hamas -- "Their objective, part of their platform, is the destruction of Israel. They are a terrorist organization. They need to give up their objective of the destruction of Israel. They need to foreswear violence, and I think close down their military wing before anybody is going to treat them seriously as a legitimate interlocutor."
Basically, the European Union, the United Nations, the so-called quartet, they have a similar stance right now as the United States does. How do you get around this, though, in terms of -- this is the new Palestinian authority. There will be a prime minister, Mr. Haniyeh, who is a top member of Hamas. How does the United States or these European countries deal with the Palestinians now?
CARTER: Well, first of all, you have to remember that Mahmoud Abbas, who they call Abu Mazen, is still the president. He is the one that represents the Palestinian Liberation Organization. That's the only organization that has ever negotiated peace agreements or tentative peace agreements with Israelis.
And he's there. He's not associated with the Palestinian government under Hamas. And if the Israelis want to have direct peace talks still of any kind, exploratory or seek a definitive answer, which would be unlikely, then Abbas is available for that purpose without involving Hamas at all. That's one thing.
I don't have any doubt that Hamas has, in the past and maybe even now, still pledges itself to resort to violence. When I was there recently talking to the prime minister of Israel and to his aides, they told me that Hamas was a very disciplined group. Since August of 2004, Hamas has participated in a cease fire, which I think in Arab is called a hadna (ph). And they have not violated this cease fire all. There have been no terrorist activities attributed to Hamas for the last year and a half, 18 months.
When I met with one of the Hamas leaders after the election, whom I had also met with ten years ago and hadn't seen him since, he told me what the Hamas people want is a peaceful unity government. Whether he's telling the truth, I have no way of knowing.
But my belief is that Hamas now wants to have a stable, domestically oriented policies in their government to deal with the problems of the Palestinian people. And in my belief is if they're treated fairly, they might very well be less likely to resort to violence than if a Palestinian people are mistreated.
BLITZER: I interviewed...
CARTER: By the way, let me add that eventually, Wolf, they are going to have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and resolve to their problems with Israel in a peaceful way. There's no doubt about that. They cannot escape that international mandate which they have to fulfill.
BLITZER: So far they've indicated they're going to resist that. In fact, I spoke with Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the co-founders of Hamas, a few weeks ago right after the election on January 29th. And I asked him what kind of Palestinian state he would like to see emerge, whether there should be a secular state. And he was very firm. Listen to his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AL-ZAHAR, HAMAS CO-FOUNDER: Do you think the secular system is serving any nation? Secular system allows homosexuality, allows corruption, allows the spread of -- the loss of natural immunity like AIDS. We are here living under Islamic control. Nothing will change. Islam is our constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He's very firm. "Islam is our constitution." He wants an Islamic state in Palestine, beginning with the West Bank and Gaza, but then, of course, including all of Israel. Is there any reason that you have to doubt that's what he wants?
CARTER: I don't have any doubt that's what he wants. I do doubt that that's what the Palestinian people want. It was very interesting in the election, Wolf. There is a small state in the West Bank north of Jerusalem -- I've forgotten the name right now -- where the Hamas had tried to discourage dancing and singing as part of their Islamic restrictions.
And Hamas actually did very poorly in that area, although they did much better in the rest of the country. So I know the Palestinian people very well. They're not going to permit the imposition of shirreal (ph) law on themselves.
And of course, the dream of some ridiculous Hamas leaders and other countries to take over Israel is obviously fallacious and incomprehensible. So I think what's going to happen now is that the more pragmatic leaders of Hamas, including Haniyeh, who is the new prime minister, I think will prevail and the Palestinian people will prevail.
There's no doubt that they expressed their will clearly in the election. And I don't have any desire to speak for Hamas, which I think has been horrible in the past in terrorist activities. But I think we ought to give a chance to the Palestinian people to establish a kind of government that can be constructive and peaceful if the Palestinian people's rights are honored.
BLITZER: Mr. President, I'm going to ask you, if you don't mind, to stand by. I want to take a quick commercial break. There are so many more questions I want to go through with you on this President's Day. More of my interview with former President Jimmy Carter, that's coming up.
Among other things, I'll also ask him what the United States can or should be doing to try to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Much more of this interview coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We want to get back to my exclusive interview with the former President Jimmy Carter. He's joining us from Plains, Georgia.
Mr. President, do you believe that Iran is secretly trying to build a nuclear bomb?
CARTER: I don't think they are yet, but I believe that Iran has that in mind, yes. I think that's their intention. Wolf, can I make one other comment about the Palestinian issue?
BLITZER: Please.
CARTER: Well, I've been involved with the Palestinians and with Israel for 30 years. And I've seen dramatic and unanticipated changes take place in that region.
When I became president, every Arab nation led by Egypt was determined to destroy Israel completely and to do this, with the strongest military or balance that they could possibly muster.
When I took Sadat to Camp David, Egypt changed its mind. And they have a peace treaty that's now been effective for more than 27 years, not a word of which has been violated.
Later, when the PLO was the preeminent spokesperson organization for the Palestinians, it was determined and publicly committed to destroy Israel and resort to violence.
When Arafat was given a chance to negotiate with Rabin and with Perez under the auspices of the Norwegians, as you know, a peace agreement was worked out called the Oswald Agreement. So the PLO changed, and now Mahmoud Abbas, who is admired by the West, is the head of the PLO.
So it's not an impossibility that the fair treatment of the Palestinians, their prospect of peace and justice, along with Israel's prospect with peace, I think, can lead to improvements in the situation and perhaps to another peace agreement. That's my hope.
But I think it's a mistake to give up and to turn the people of Palestine against the West, against Israel and make violence much more prevalent. So in the past we've had good history, maybe in the future.
BLITZER: So your basic point is that you're still leaving out the hope that Hamas will change, will accept the conditions, renounce terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, is that right?
CARTER: That's my hope. I can't say that's my expectation yet. But it is certainly a possibility. I've seen it happen in the past.
BLITZER: All right. Let's get to Iran, another hot issue right now. What should the U.S. and its allies be doing right now to try to stop Iran from building a bomb?
CARTER: Well, obviously, Iran doesn't have a bomb yet. And they have not yet started processing nuclear spent fuel to any substantial degree. Although, that's what their intentions are in my opinion. And I don't think there's much doubt that eventually Iran would like to have nuclear weapons, which would be a devastating threat to peace in the Middle East and perhaps in a much broader area.
So I think the United States working with the Europeans and working with Russia, of course, ought to make sure that we do everything we can with a carrot and a stick. I would say that the stick ought to be the threat of definitive economic boycotts and pressure on Iran. Even though we have to lose the source of Iranian oil for the world's markets.
And secondly to encourage Russia to induce the Iranians -- and there are some talks still going on about that -- to let Russia be the one to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. That would be my own advice. Although I have to say quickly that I don't have any secret briefings or anything about the latest development.
BLITZER: We don't have a lot of time, but I want to go through a couple issues with you before I let you go, Mr. President. The Guantanamo Bay Prison, the U.N. is now suggesting a report at the U.N. that the U.S. should shut it down as quickly as possible. Do you agree?
CARTER: I've agreed with that since we first found out that torture and oppression was being perpetrated against the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. These are people that have been arrested, taken on the battlefield. I understand most of them in Afghanistan.
They've never been given a right to hear the charges against them. They've never had legal counsel. They've not been permitted to meet with their families. They have been held incommunicado, and all the evidence is that many have been psychologically and physically tortured.
So the best thing that the United States can do for our own reputation and for justice in the world and for the honoring of human rights is to shut down Guantanamo Bay Prison, as was recommended by the United Nations.
BLITZER: Are you concerned one of our top stories today about this Dubai-based company taking control of security at six major ports here in the United States?
CARTER: Well, I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world. I'm not knocking the ones in the United States, of course.
My presumption is and my belief is that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government or organization to manage their ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.
However, obviously, the homeland security would have to be involved directly with and under partnership with the Dubai people, as they cleared folks to work in the ports to protect the barrier. So the overall threat to the United States and security I don't think it's exists. I am sure the president has done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.
BLITZER: How do you think the vice president, the White House, did last week with the Cheney hunting accident?
CARTER: I think, obviously, now everybody in the White House, maybe not in the vice president's office, agrees that they would have been much better had the information about the hunting accident been revealed immediately. Because that's a main concern, I think.
Hunting accidents happen all over the world. I regret very much that this one did happen. And to conceal it almost for a full day, obviously and then at first to blame Mr. Whittington for the accident I think were two mistakes that were made. And I'm sure almost everyone agrees that it could have been done better. I think it's time to move on to other things.
BLITZER: I think you're probably right.
One final reflective question on this President's Day. You know, you've written a lot of books since you've left office. You've studied your own presidency. You've studied other presidencies. You've looked at a lot of important issues.
I wonder if you want to give us a preliminary assessment of this current president on this President's Day. How will he be rated by historians?
CARTER: Well, I think it's too early to say how President Bush will be rated by historians. You know, he's still got three years to serve. And a lot of good things can happen in his three years.
We could have complete success in Iraq. We could a major move toward environment quality. We could have good harmony between the Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. We could heal the blue and red state divide in the United States. We could reveal everything that goes on in the government that people need to know.
So a lot of things can happen in the future that could very well change the rating of this president or me in historical times. So I'm willing to give the president every chance to build up a legacy that will make all Americans proud now and 400 years in the future.
BLITZER: On this President's Day, let me thank you very much, Mr. President, for joining us.
CARTER: It's a pleasure, Wolf, to be with you.
BLITZER: Up next, a threat or nothing new. Four known companies operating U.S. ports. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Turning back now to our top story, we're learning more about that Dubai-based foreign company that's about to own and operate six major U.S. ports. Our Internet reporter Jacki Schechner has been digging online.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Foreign companies controlling U.S. ports is nothing new. In some cases it goes back some 20 years. For example, P & O ports is a U.K.-based company. And it's been operating ports in the United States since about 2000.
These are just some of the ports they operate in 19 countries worldwide. They also operate ports, for example, in Russia and China. Now they're being acquired by BP World, who also has operations world wide. For example in Europe they operate ports in Germany and in Romania.
But all of these foreign companies, Wolf, are actually required to abide by U.S. security regulations. They work in conjunction with local authorities in order to do just that.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Jacki, for that.
Let's find out what's coming up at the top of the hour on "PAULA ZAHN NOW." Heidi Collins filling in tonight for Paula.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. Coming up at the top of our hour. Some science you may find pretty hard to swallow. What's cleaner, the ice in your drinks or the water in your toilet? We'll tell you about an interesting study on that. Plus, whether you're an Olympic swimmer or an occasional jogger, does any athlete perform better if they go without sex? Find out what the experts say at the top of the hour. That one, I know people will tune in for, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much.
Still ahead -- is it hypocritical to talk about Homeland Security while advocating the sale of American ports to Arab companies. It's our the question of the hour. Jack Cafferty standing by with your e- mail.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's head right back to Jack in New York. Jack?
CAFFERTY: Thanks, Wolf. The federal government's approved a plan to sell control of six American ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. A country that also provided safe haven to the 9/11 terrorists.
Twelve federal departments or agencies supposedly think there's nothing wrong with this, including Homeland Security. The question is, is it hypocritical to talk about homeland security while advocating the sale of American ports to Arab countries? Duh.
James in Fayetville, North Carolina. "Ask the families of our war dead if they think we should hand over security of our ports to a foreign government. The very idea of it is obscene. Mr. Chertoff, our brave troops aren't making those sacrifices to protect robust trade. You shouldn't be in charge of a neighborhood watch program if you believe half of what you say.
Tony in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. "You got it wrong, Jack. The number one priority of the Bush regime since 9/11 has been to promote the illusion of safety. The hypocrisy is so transparent, even Bush's puppets are finally seeing the treasonous sellout of our country for the crime that it is.
John in Jacksonville, Florida. "The impending sale of the ports to the Arabs is proof positive the administration is pouring water on our shoes and telling us it's raining. It's also evidence that a deal has been cut somewhere. I don't believe they are that stupid, then again I could be wrong.
Justin writes, "It's hypocritical and appalling to talk about national security and then sell off control of vital U.S. ports to any foreign country, especially a Muslim one.
Evelyn in North Carolina. "I used to think President Bush should be impeached. I think now he needs to be committed. There's no end in sight to the insanity of this administration.
And finally, Charles in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. "Isn't this port situation a little like McDonald's hiring Burger King to run their business?" Wolf?
BLITZER: Maybe. Alright Jack. I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us. Tomorrow in THE SITUATION ROOM the comedian Bill Maher. He'll weigh in on port security, Dick Cheney's hunting accident, lots more. Bill Maher, here in THE SITUATION ROOM tomorrow.
"PAULA ZAHN" getting ready to start right now. Heidi filling in for Paula. Heidi?
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
