Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Warrantless Wiretapping; Life After Work

Aired August 18, 2006 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to the program. I'm Miles O'Brien.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Carol Costello in for Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Alina Cho in the newsroom today looking at some of today's headlines.

Hello, -- Alina.

ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Miles, and good morning to you.

The suspect in the murder of JonBenet Ramsay is still in Thailand today, but he could be transferred to Boulder, Colorado within a week. In a stunning admission yesterday, John Mark Karr said he killed the 6-year-old nearly 10 years ago, but his ex-wife says he was in Alabama, not in Colorado, during the entire Christmas season in 1996.

President Bush is meeting with his top economic advisers at Camp David this morning. Among the items on the agenda, high energy prices, a slowing economy and upcoming congressional elections.

Cuba's acting President Raul Castro says he mobilized thousands of forces after his brother's illness just in case the U.S. invaded. In an interview with the country's communist newspaper, Raul said he was worried someone in the U.S. government might go -- quote -- "crazy" -- end quote. Meanwhile, Raul says his brother, Cuban leader Fidel Castro, is gradually recovering from intestinal surgery.

A federal judge has ruled the nation's top cigarette makers have violated racketeering laws for years deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. But under the ruling, tobacco companies are not required to pay billions in penalties. Still, the government is calling the ruling a victory.

Firefighters in New Jersey pretty much have a four-alarm fire under control now. The fire burning through a bowling alley in New Brunswick earlier this morning. The blaze also spread to a nearby house. Some streets were shut down so firefighters could contain the flames. Thankfully, no injuries are reported.

And with the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina right around the corner, are we more prepared for the next big storm? FEMA Director David Paulison is holding a news conference this hour. You're looking at a live picture there at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Sorry, that's a tape. Paulison, by the way, will be talking about the lessons learned from Katrina. A nonprofit agency is also expected to release a report on just how well the media covered the storm and its aftermath.

Someone who always gets it right, Chad Myers. He's at the CNN Center watching our weekend weather.

We can officially talk about the weekend now, can we, -- Chad?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: We can, sure.

CHO: OK, good.

MYERS: Now, finally, right.

You know they asked me, you know how often are you right? And I go you know I'm going to predict eight inches of snow in Michigan and on any winter day, somebody's going to get eight inches of snow. So I guess that's why we're always so right here.

(WEATHER REPORT)

Back to you guys.

O'BRIEN: Thanks a lot, Chad, all right.

The fight to listen in on your phone calls without a warrant is going to a new level today. Yesterday a federal judge said the Bush administration's campaign to listen in on phone calls without a warrant is illegal, unconstitutional on a couple of fronts, but the program goes on for now as the judicial system deals with all this.

Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit, this is what -- part of what she said in her ruling, "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights." Strong words.

Tom Ridge was the Secretary of Homeland Security when the idea was hatched, a proponent of the plan.

Mr. Ridge, good to have you with us.

TOM RIDGE, FMR. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Miles, good morning.

O'BRIEN: When this idea was being cooked up, I assume there was some discussion about going to Congress and getting them to change the law to make it possible to be more nimble in order to listen in on these phone calls. Why didn't the Bush administration do that?

RIDGE: I believe they've said on several occasions that they went up and briefed Congress. And I think part of the debate today is not only about the application of the Fourth Amendment but the separation of powers because there's a lot of people up on the Hill, Republicans and Democrats included, that didn't think the White House went quite far enough to brief them in all the details that have come out publicly since that date. That's one of the reasons that Senator Specter and others in a bipartisan effort are trying to ensure that this kind of program has appropriate oversight in the future.

O'BRIEN: Well would you agree, though? Is it possible that the Bush administration didn't handle this properly?

RIDGE: Well I think they clearly have -- I know there's differences of opinion, that's why it's going to go to a higher court. First of all, I don't believe this kind of technology existed when they passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's not as if there are people sitting outside people's home, residences, businesses, actually wiretapping.

This is a new kind of technology. I think there's a body of law that suggests that the president has an inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches when it comes with gathering information from foreign sources. And I think there's some opinions, not only from the FISA court itself, but in the Clinton, as well as the President Carter's administration.

And then finally I think at the end of day, I think it's rather revealing that most Americans want the president to do everything he can and the country to do everything it can to protect and defend ourselves. I mean clearly do we need a warrant to do -- to conduct this kind of intelligence gathering?

And I think at the end of the day a higher court will say the president is certainly within his constitutional authority. But also at the end of the day I think the president has recognized and the White House has recognized they have got to go to the Hill and make sure that there's legitimate oversight on a program of this nature.

O'BRIEN: All right. Well, some would say, more than oversight, the law should have been changed. And that comes from some, the Republican side of the aisle. Let's listen -- I have a quote here from Congressman Jeff Flake, he's a Republican out of Arizona. I just want to share this with you briefly.

"Many in Congress, myself included, would support giving the administration greater domestic surveillance flexibility but they don't have the authority to disregard the FISA court," which is the spy court, if you will.

It's a Republican Congress. They would have given you this law in a heartbeat if you asked for it. Why didn't the Bush administration do that?

RIDGE: Sure. Well first of all, it's pretty clear the technology moves a heck of a lot quicker than Congress does. And if we had to wait for Congress -- again, we've been waiting...

O'BRIEN: Do you think they would -- no, do you think they would have dragged their feet on this thing?

RIDGE: Well one never knows. I mean they've been talking since September 11 about creating a national network for interoperable communications. And five years later, Congress is still holding special orders on the need to have interoperable communications, and we still don't have a national network. So the notion that you can go to Congress and get expedited review and expedited passage of a program that's critically important really remains to be seen.

At the other end of the -- at the end of the day, think about the technology that we're -- that's at play here. There's a real practical reason I think that the courts will also -- may actually look at to decide that not only is it legitimate to get this information without a warrant, but, you know, going to get a warrant when somebody in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia is talking on a cell phone to somebody in the United States and throw the cell phone away like a disposable camera,...

O'BRIEN: No, no, no, we...

RIDGE: ... well how are you going to go and get the warrant?

O'BRIEN: Well we all understand that...

RIDGE: Exactly.

O'BRIEN: ... you have to respond to terrorism somehow. The question is, is it a nation of laws built on laws by...

RIDGE: That -- the real question...

O'BRIEN: The Bill of Rights is an important thing that we should all cherish.

RIDGE: Correct.

O'BRIEN: And to -- the allegation is that it has been ignored here because of the urgencies of war. And while the urgencies of war are wonderful, why are we in this war after all? We're there to protect the rights that we hold so dear, right?

RIDGE: Well I think you're on to something there. I mean it's rather remarkable that in a democracy and in the United States as we're trying to combat an enemy that is sworn to our destruction, we are having a legitimate public debate as to whether or not the president needs a warrant and another piece of legislation in order to protect America by gathering foreign information.

That's very much a part of who we are, and we are and have conducted this work consistent with our Constitution and the rule of law. But by the way, this has been out in the public domain and a matter of public debate now for several months. And you just talked about the expedited review of Congress and giving the president the authority, they went home.

O'BRIEN: Well but don't...

RIDGE: They've been on recess.

O'BRIEN: Yes.

RIDGE: And so...

O'BRIEN: But don't you think...

RIDGE: ... if we were trying to gather information.

O'BRIEN: Don't you think...

RIDGE: So I think they'll get to it when they get back. But I think...

O'BRIEN: But going back to when this program first began, if you or other people in the administration went to Congress and said, look, this is really important, this is a national security issue, we have a set of laws that were built and created with the rotary phone in mind and snail mail, and we've got to move quickly or truly lives will be lost. You think Congress would have really rope-a-doped that one?

RIDGE: Well I don't know if they rope-a-doped it. I think they would have taken their time to get it. But by and large there's an earlier decision that was made internally that is now legitimate being -- legitimately being challenged, and that decision was in these instances, there's a special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment. There are other -- there's a body of law, again there's disagreement, that the president...

O'BRIEN: Fourth Amendment is search and seizure for folks who forgot their civics lesson. I just wanted to remind them.

RIDGE: Well, but that's right.

O'BRIEN: Yes.

RIDGE: That's -- I'm sorry about that.

O'BRIEN: That's all right.

RIDGE: But, you're right, there are exceptions to that rule. And one of the exceptions, the Justice Department appropriately believed and it based its interpretation on these exceptions that in time of war, the president does not need a warrant to gather information from foreign sources. Now, that theory has been applied to opening letters from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Now the question becomes, in a democracy, once this kind of practice has been revealed, there's a difference of opinion, legitimate on both sides, how are we going to resolve it? One branch of government cannot operate independently of another. The president believes he's done the right thing, as well as giving the Congress the appropriate oversight.

We're at loggerheads, not only on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, but the separation of powers. And only in a democracy, in a very civil, responsible civic way, do we argue these things at the same time we're trying to combat and defeat an enemy.

O'BRIEN: And you know it's great that we're even having this discussion about it.

RIDGE: That's exactly right.

O'BRIEN: But it -- looking back on it, do you think it was a mistake? Should the Bush administration early on...

RIDGE: Well everybody has the -- you know 20/20 hindsight is a perfect science. And I think if it could have -- if we had of known it could have been done quickly, we could have expedited the process and...

O'BRIEN: Well how would you know if you didn't try?

RIDGE: And if the president...

O'BRIEN: How would you know if you didn't try?

RIDGE: No, but if the -- but if -- but you don't try unless you think you've got a legal reason to do it. And it was their legitimate interpretation within justice that they were comfortable with the predicate that under these circumstances as they interpreted the Fourth Amendment, they did not need a warrant with to gather this information from foreign sources.

And there's also a practical argument against the need for that warrant with the disposable technology that we have today, they did not need the warrant because this kind of technology did not exist at the time the FISA law was interpreted -- enacted. Look, the technology moves quicker than Congress.

O'BRIEN: Well you know the truth is, though, the truth is technology is always ahead of the law, no mater what realm you're in.

RIDGE: That's exactly right.

O'BRIEN: And in the urgencies of war, I think some would suggest we shouldn't throw the laws out.

RIDGE: Well that's true. That's true. And I think at the end of the day, we've just had a very interesting and very animated discussion. We go back to the time that the Justice Department told the president you can do it lawfully, Mr. President. That information made its way into the public domain. There were people that disagreed with the Justice Department's interpretation.

You and I are having this discussion. That judge rendered her opinion. This extraordinary circumstances in the United States of America while we're trying to fight an enemy, we also challenge ourselves and look at our civil liberties and look at our Constitution to make sure that we fight it the American way and that's consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. It's rather remarkable when you think about it.

O'BRIEN: That it is. Good to have you with us.

RIDGE: Nice being with you, too. Thanks, -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, thanks for spending a little time with us.

Let's get the other side in now. Jonathan Turley has spoke early and often in opposition of wiretapping without warrants.

You heard what he said. This -- we've talked about this before, Jonathan, this whole notion of technology versus the law. The law is just by its nature is slow to react to new things. Does that in any way -- it's sort of an -- you know there's a bit of an end justifies the means kind of argument here. Does that justify it?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GWU LAW SCHOOL: No, it doesn't. And I'm perplexed by what Secretary Ridge said. Under FISA, the example he gave of an intercept that's ongoing of having to get a warrant, that problem doesn't exist. It is continually referred to by the White House. They can go ahead and do expedited interceptions without a warrant. The federal law does not require that.

O'BRIEN: And then they get the warrant retroactive.

TURLEY: That's right. And when Secretary Ridge says you know it's great that we're having this debate and it's great that the judge is looking at this, and that's what we all want, that's not what the White House wants. The White House has been trying to prevent judges from looking at their so-called legal authority.

They go to the Hill and people like Alberto Gonzales say our authority is clear and we look forward to presenting this type of authority in court. But in every one of these cases, they've tried to use the military and state's secrets privilege to prevent the judge from determining whether this is lawful.

So what Secretary Ridge is talking about of how wonderful it is that we can all debate the law, the president is trying to stop that. He's trying to keep judges, including this judge, from actually rendering a legal decision. She didn't stand for that. And she said, look, I'm not going to dismiss this case because you say there's secret things in your safe. Unless you've got a federal statute in your safe then you don't have legal authority and you can't have this program.

O'BRIEN: All right. But let's get this final point here. "The Wall Street Journal" with an editorial this morning said in part this, "Monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It's a matter of life and death." If it's a matter of life and death, if people will die, in fact, because the Bush administration does not have the power to do this, what do you say to that?

TURLEY: The only thing the Bush administration does not have the power to do is to violate the Constitution. And when people like President Bush or Secretary Ridge come forward and say, you know, look, we have got to do this to protect your lives, every abuse in history has been based on that type of rationale.

We're trying to protect a legacy. We're trying to protect the thing that defines us that rule of law. And if we start to allow our leaders to say just look the other way because we've got good motivations, then well we've already lost the war.

But the important thing for the viewers to understand is they can do an enormous amount of surveillance, and they've never asked Congress for this power. Secretary Ridge says, well, we didn't ask it because we think they take too long. How do you know that? Congress has given the administration virtually every demand, in my view too many of the demands that they have made.

And the reason they did this is because long before 9/11, there were people in this administration that wanted to expand presidential authority. That was before 9/11. And they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to reinvent the presidency. And so they wanted to go it alone because they wanted to increase the power of that office.

O'BRIEN: Jonathan Turley, thank you for your words as well.

TURLEY: Thanks.

O'BRIEN: Carol.

COSTELLO: Fascinating.

This weekend on CNN, it's "CNN SATURDAY" and "SUNDAY MORNING" with Betty and Tony, so what are you guys working on?

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: There you go.

BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

HARRIS: Carol, good morning to you.

COSTELLO: Morning.

NGUYEN: Good morning.

Here's what we have coming up.

A surprise arrest and stunning remarks.

HARRIS: So what's next in the JonBenet Ramsey case? The suspect may be innocent until proven guilty, but has he already been convicted in the court of public opinion? We'll put that question to our legal ladies.

Also,...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's got lots of teeth and he's very mean, so I've got to hold him by the head in case he bites me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NGUYEN: "Snakes on a Plane."

HARRIS: Yikes!

NGUYEN: The Internet sensation slithers into movie theaters today. We are going to talk with the famous animal trainer who charmed all those serpents you see on the big screen.

Plus...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THE BEATLES: All you need is love. All you need is love.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: John Lennon once said The Beatles are more popular than Jesus. Well we'll take a look at how the search for meaning shaped the music of the Fab 4. Get ready for the gospel according to The Beatles.

NGUYEN: Also, we have all the top stories, in-depth coverage and any breaking news starting at 7:00 a.m. Eastern right here on "CNN SATURDAY" and "SUNDAY MORNING." It's going to be great shows.

COSTELLO: Can't wait to hear that snake charmer.

NGUYEN: Yes.

HARRIS: Yes.

COSTELLO: Because you know that's Miles' favorite move now, "Snakes on a Plane."

NGUYEN: "Snakes on a Plane."

COSTELLO: Thanks.

HARRIS: OK.

COSTELLO: See you later.

HARRIS: OK, take care.

COSTELLO: Coming up on "AM Pop," actor Matt Dillon is in the house. The former teen idol turned Oscar nominee talks about his new movie "Factotum" and what it's like to have a career with such staying power. Stay with us on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: A little dough and some word of mouth have combined to make a former teacher's retirement sweet.

Andy Serwer has more on this week's edition of "Life After Work." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time to make the doughnuts.

ANDY SERWER, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE (voice-over): In this well-known commercial, the baker looks less than enthused to start this day. But for 50-year-old Dick Schindel, doughnuts are making retirement that much sweeter.

DICK SCHINDEL, DICK'S MINI DONUTS: Would you like a sample of a doughnut, ma'am?

SERWER: The former teacher retired in 2004 thanks to a school pension and now runs Dick's Mini Donuts full time. Schindel sells them at fairs and markets around his hometown of Aurora, Illinois. He was drawn to the treats nearly 20 years ago at a Colorado festival.

SCHINDEL: There was a long line of people by this food booth and so we got in the line and purchased these doughnuts. Never seen anything like this before.

SERWER: Eight years later he bought the equipment and started making doughnuts. He has no employees, but hires former students to help work events. Schindel says he makes a modest profit but he does it more to keep active and meet people.

SCHINDEL: They really love the product and that's given me a lot of satisfaction. If I don't come to the farmer's market, I hear it from people. Where were you? How dare you not be here!

SERWER: And as popular as the doughnuts are, some of the appeal is just watching the machine.

SCHINDEL: Normally I have a sign up that says cheapest entertainment in town. And people will stand and watch it because it's fascinating.

Thank you very much. Enjoy them.

SERWER: Andy Serwer, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: Coming up, Uncle Sam cracks down on Hollywood. Is it time to say sayonara to those Oscar swag bags? Those poor celebrities without their swags or having to pay taxes on their swags. We're "Minding Your Business" just ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Civil rights leader Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador, hired by Wal-Mart to try to polish its image with the black community, and now he's leaving.

Carrie Lee here to explain why. CARRIE LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He's leaving. That's right. Well he was brought on by working families for Wal-Mart, an outside group supporting Wal-Mart in February. Well now he's leaving. He says some comments he made in the Los Angeles Sentinel" were misread and misinterpreted.

Now what happened there, he was asked whether he was concerned that Wal-Mart causes small mom and pop stores to close. And he said that he thinks that those small stores over time have ripped off communities long enough. He says exactly that, they have ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Korean and now it's Arabs.

He goes on to say very few black people own these stores. And he also alluded to the fact that he believed the mom and pop stores weren't well-serving those communities. So he says now he didn't want to be in the midst of all of this controversy, kind of taking the focus off of Wal-Mart, and so he is resigning.

O'BRIEN: He did apologize, but nonetheless stepping down.

LEE: He did apologize, but still -- exactly.

O'BRIEN: All right.

LEE: OK, let's go on to the IRS and those gift bags celebrities receive. We know they're worth quite a nice chunk of change. IRS- film industry reaching an agreement to pay up on taxes through 2005. Recipients of the 2006 Oscar booty basket are now going to be issued tax forms. The big question going forward what's going to happen at the Emmys next week? What's going to happen at the awards ceremonies going forward? They're not quite sure what they're going to do. The Emmy bag valued at $70,000. That was the February Grammy Awards.

O'BRIEN: So they have to do the retail value of all these things?

LEE: They have to do the retail value. And you know it's similar to the Oprah car giveaway, remember that?

O'BRIEN: I do.

LEE: Everyone got cars and then there was a big to-do...

O'BRIEN: All of a sudden they had a tax bill, yes.

LEE: Exactly. So we'll see what happens.

COSTELLO: Sad thing, these -- that's more than most people make per year.

LEE: Absolutely. Lasik eye surgery, case of whiskey and many other things people could very well...

O'BRIEN: Lasik eye surgery in a goody bag? How do they get it in there? LEE: As if celebrities don't have that done already, right?

O'BRIEN: Poor Angelina Jolie, how is she going to get by without that.

All right, thank you very much.

LEE: OK.

O'BRIEN: Back with more and Carrie in just a little bit.

A look at the day's top stories after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Atika Shubert in Bangkok, and I have a few more details on the suspect John Karr what exactly he was doing in Thailand coming up.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A legal setback for the Bush administration and its warrantless wiretap program. I'm Elaine Quijano live at the White House. I'll have

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com