Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 9/11 Suspects to be Tried in New York
Aired November 13, 2009 - 10:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. It is Friday the 13th, and here are the faces of the stories driving today's headlines in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of 9/11, will face justice on American soil. The announcement live this hour.
Major Nidal Hasan, the man accused in the Fort Hood attack, is paralyzed. That, according to his attorney.
And Army Specialist Mohamed Amiri, an Afghan refugee, returns to fight the Taliban. Now he's an American soldier and citizen.
Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Attorney General Eric Holder is about to make the announcement. The man the U.S. government calls the mastermind of 9/11 will stand trial in a courtroom in lower Manhattan just blocks from the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.
Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve is on the story for us and she joins us now from the Justice Department.
A couple of questions before the news conference begins here, Jeanne.
My understanding is that the administration had until Monday to make a decision on where these men would be tried after stopping the military trials. Did you expect this decision, that these men would be tried in civilian court?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Certainly, the administration has said repeatedly that it would do what it could to bring as many as possible to trial in civilian courts. What's interesting here is that they've split the difference.
They are sending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to courts in Manhattan, as you've mentioned, but there are some others who they said they are going to be trying in military commissions. So, a bit of a split decision.
I should say, however, that the firestorm over this has begun even before the official decision has been made. Senator John Cornyn -- sorry, we're just getting a warning this is about to begin. Senator John Cornyn issuing a statement this morning, saying that, "Treating these mass murderers like common criminals is unconscionable," saying that, "A compromises is the safety of all Americans."
Deborah Burlingame (ph), who's a victim family member from 9/11, called it a travesty, a sham. She predicts that the trial will give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others a platform to spew jihadi rhetoric.
This morning, President Obama was asked about this in Japan. Here's a bit of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people insist on it. My administration will insist on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: The decision that's going to be announced today may not please people on either side of this argument. Civil libertarians will be unhappy that some of these people will be going to military commissions. People on the other side, who've been worried about the disclosure of classified evidence in a civilian courtroom, will be unhappy at the decision to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to New York.
Back to you, Tony.
HARRIS: And Jeanne, let me try to slip another quick one in here. Why the southern district of New York? Do we know? Just blocks from the World Trade Center towers once stood.
MESERVE: Well, part of it is because of their history and their skill, the fact that they have tried other terrorism cases right there in New York. They have the experience to deal with this.
HARRIS: Yes. Jeanne, I'm going to try to slip one more in. Or do you have to sit down? You let me know.
MESERVE: Well, I'm getting a little nervous that the Attorney General is going to walk in over my shoulder here, but go ahead, Tony. Try it.
HARRIS: OK. I'm just sort of curious, would we expect any of the testimony about torture, enhanced torture techniques, to be a part of this upcoming trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
MESERVE: Well, you can bet that the defense attorneys are going to bring that up. I mean, according to Justice Department memos, he was waterboarded repeatedly, more than 100 times.
And I'm going to have to sit now, I'm afraid. This is about to begin.
HARRIS: OK, Jeanne. All right.
And let's do this -- let's squeeze this picture while we check a couple of the other stories that we're following for you in the CNN NEWSROOM. And at the very moment we see the Attorney General, we will, of course, get you back to this news conference.
Let's do that, let's check the wire now and get you caught up on a couple of the other big stories we're following today.
And again, just this morning, the attorney for suspected Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan revealed his client is paralyzed from the waist down. Hasan was shot several times when confronted by police. We will get more at the half-hour from our correspondent at Fort Hood.
Let's take you back to the briefing in Washington.
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning.
Just over eight years ago, on a morning that our nation will never forget, 19 hijackers working with a network of al Qaeda conspirators around the world, launched the deadliest terrorist attacks our country has ever seen. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives in those attacks. And in the years since, our nation has had no higher priority than bringing those who planned and plotted the attacks to justice.
One year before, in October of 2000, a terrorist attack on the United States Cole killed 17 American sailors. Today, we announce a step forward in bringing those we believe were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole to justice.
Five detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before military commissions with participation in the 9/11 plot. They are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Waleed Mohammed Salim Mubarak bin Atash (ph), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul al-Aziz, and Mustafa Ahmad al Hawasawi.
Those proceedings have been stayed since February, as have the proceedings pending in military commissions against four other detainees accused of different crimes. A case in military commissions against the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing, Abdul al-Rahim al- Nashiri, was withdrawn in February. For the past several months, prosecutors at the Department of Justice have been working diligently with prosecutors from the Pentagon's Office of Military Commissions to review the case of each detainee at Guantanamo who has been referred for prosecution.
Over the past few weeks, I have personally reviewed these cases and, in consultation with the secretary of defense, have made determinations about the prosecution of 10 detainees now held at Guantanamo, including those charged in the 9/11 plot and the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing.
Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. Further, I have decided to refer back to the Department of Defense five defendants to face military commission trials, including the detainee who was previously charged in the USS Cole bombing.
The 9/11 cases that will be pursued in federal court have been jointly assigned to prosecutors from the southern district of New York and the eastern district of Virginia, and will be brought in Manhattan, in the southern district of New York. After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York -- to New York to answer to their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.
I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures.
I also want to assure the American people that we will prosecute these cases vigorously and we will pursue the maximum punishment available. These were extraordinary crimes, and so we will seek maximum penalties.
Federal rules allow us to seek the death penalty for capital offenses. And while we will review the evidence and circumstances following established protocols, I fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty against each of the alleged 9/11 conspirators.
In a speech at the National Archives in May, the president called for the reform of military commissions to ensure that they are lawful, fair and effective prosecution. The reforms Congress recently adopted to the Military Commissions Act ensure that military commissions trials will be fair and that convictions obtained will be secure. I know that the Department of Defense is absolutely committed to ensuring that military commission trials will be consistent with our highest standards as a nation, and our civilian prosecutors will continue to work closely with military prosecutors to support them in that effort.
In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced publicly in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors, including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated. All of these things must be considered. In consultation, again with the secretary of defense, I looked at all of the relevant factors and made case-by-case decisions for each detainee.
It is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions. Just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires a combination of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations, so must our legal efforts to bring terrorists to justice involve both federal courts and reformed military commissions.
I want to thank the members of Congress, including Senators Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin, and John McCain, who worked so hard to strengthen our national security by helping us pass legislation to reform the military commission system. We will continue to draw on the Pentagon's support as we bring cases against the alleged 9/11 conspirators in federal court.
The Justice Department has a long and a successful history of prosecuting terrorists for their crimes against our nation, particularly in New York. Although these cases can often be complex and challenging, federal prosecutors have successfully met these challenges and have convicted a number of terrorists who are now serving lengthy sentences in our prisons. And although the security issues presented by terrorism cases should never be minimized, our marshals, our court security officers and our prison officials have extensive experience and training dealing with dangerous defendants, and I am quite confident that they can meet the security challenges posed by this case.
These detainees will not be transferred to the United States for prosecution until all legal requirements are satisfied, including those in recent legislation requiring a 45-day notice and report to the Congress. I have already spoken this morning to Governor Paterson and to Mayor Bloomberg, and am committed to working closely with them to ensure that all security and related concerns are properly addressed. I have every confidence that we can safely hold these trials in New York, as we have so many previous terrorist trials.
For the many Americans who lost friends and relatives in the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and on the USS Cole, nothing can bring back those loved ones. But they deserve the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in open court, an opportunity that has too long been delayed. Today's announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantanamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad.
For over 200 years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims. Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to rise to that challenge. I'm confident it will answer the call with fairness and with justice.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, what do you say to those who say you have a $400 million facility down in Cuba that's been secure? Why couldn't the terrorists be prosecuted there?
HOLDER: Well, we looked at, as I said, the protocol that we worked out with the Department of Defense, and on an individualized basis made the determination that we can, I think, be most successful in bringing the cases involving the 9/11 detainees in federal court in New York.
QUESTION: How much of a factor for you was it that in the cases of the five 9/11 detainees, you're returning them basically to the scene of the crime?
HOLDER: Well, that is something that typically happens in criminal law. The cases are typically tried in the place where the offense occurred. And so that was one of the factors.
There are a number of other factors that went into making that determination, including the nature of the people who were victims, largely civilians, in New York. And in addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country, as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions. But that is a fundamental tenant of American injure jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.
QUESTION: Are you confident that they will actually be able to stand trial, that they'll be found mentally competent, and their harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, that they will still be able go to trial despite that?
HOLDER: I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that in the outcome we could ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, can you say where you expect these military commissions to be held? And can you give some approximation of how many more cases you plan to bring to civilian trial in the United States?
HOLDER: We have not made any determinations yet as to where the military commissions will actually take place. We are in the process of reviewing other cases to decide whether they will be brought in federal court or in military commissions, and I expect that we'll be making additional announcements in the very near future.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, some critics have already spoken out saying this is a very bad decision. Congressman Peter King has been quoted as saying this makes New York more of a target.
How do you respond to that?
HOLDER: New York has a long history of trying these kinds of cases. The person who bombed the World Trade Center back in 1993 was tried there. The (INAUDIBLE) was tried there.
New York has a hardened system. We have talked to the Marshal Service there. An analysis was done about the capabilities that exist in New York, and I'm quite confident that we can safely hold people there, that we can protect the people who surround the courthouse area, and bring these cases successfully. So I don't think that criticism is factually based.
One 9/11 family member spoke up and said they're afraid that this trial in a civilian court would give the defendants a platform to spew their jihadic rhetoric and ridicule the U.S. Justice system. QUESTION: At least one 9/11 family member has spoken up and said they're afraid that this trial in a civilian court will give the defendants a platform to spew their jihadi rhetoric and to ridicule the U.S. justice system.
Are you at all concerned about giving them that opportunity, or do you think that won't happen?
HOLDER: Well, I'm confident that whatever judge is assigned to this case will maintain the dignity of the proceedings and make sure that the only thing that gets on the record is that which is relevant. And that is the focus on whether or not the focus should be on guilt or innocence. So I'm confident, as I am -- I'm confident with regard to that particular judge, whoever he or she might be, as I'm confident in all federal judges who have that capacity.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, can you tell us -- if you can't ensure, obviously, an outcome, you can't assure that these people will be convicted, what happens if they're not convicted? Will there be indefinite detention for those that are not convicted?
HOLDER: I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.
QUESTION: General Holder, sir, to follow up on that, a lot of 9/11 family members, relatives of the victims, have said consistently whether it's a military commission or this thing, or a civilian court, as my colleague pointed out, they're concerned that some judge could decide that somebody had done something wrong in the prosecution and spring these guys, or one of them, and that KSM could be wandering the streets of anywhere.
How do you assure the family members that that's not going to happen, that these guys aren't going to be let go or exonerated somehow through a technicality and be set free?
HOLDER: I looked at the great work that was done by lawyers from the Department of Defense, the Office of Military Commissions, the Department of Justice. I'm a prosecutor myself. I've looked at the evidence. I've considered the problems that these cases present, and I'm quite confident that we're going to be successful in the prosecution effort.
If I was concerned about the forum not leading to a positive result, or if I had a concern, a different concern, you know, we would perhaps be in a different place. But the reality is -- and I want to be as assuring as I can -- that based on all of my experience, and based on all of the recommendations and the great work and the research that has been done, that I am quite confident that the outcomes in these cases will be successful ones.
QUESTION: If you're saying you're doing this to uphold the rule of law and for the fairness of justice, if you're picking different forums for different defendants based on where you can be sure that the outcome will be a conviction, and using military commissions on those where you're less sure, evidently, how is that fair? How is that the rule of law?
HOLDER: It's not a question of looking at outcome. It's a question of trying to decide exactly where a case is more appropriately brought.
If one looks at what has happened in federal court, we have certainly done and have a great deal of experience with bringing terrorist cases when it comes to cases that violate the wars (ph) of law. There's a greater experience, I think, with regard to military commissions. And so those are among the factors that we take into consideration.
We're not looking for outcomes, trying to decide where we can get a better outcome in one case or the other. We look at a whole variety of factors that are contained, as I said, in that protocol that is publicly available, and make a case-by-case determination.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, all five of the ones that are going to military commissions that were decided today, is that because those were military targets like the Cole, and the 9/11 attacks were primarily civilian attacks? Is that the defining characteristic?
HOLDER: Well, there are a variety of factors that go into it, certainly with regard to the Cole bombing. That was an attack on a United States warship, and that, I think, is appropriately placed into the military commission setting. At least one of the others involves an attack on one of our soldiers. So, that is among the factors that we considered in making determinations as to whether they go into civilian federal courts or the military commissions.
QUESTION: There's been some concern among victims and family members of people in the 9/11 attacks that the five being sent to New York for civilian court would not be charged square on with 9/11-type offenses. In other words, material support or some lesser offense. Also wondering if you expect all five of those men to go on trial together or whether they would have separate trials.
HOLDER: Well, we are charging them with the most serious offenses that are appropriate, and we are, as I indicated, seeking the most serious punishment. As I said, I expect to ask for the death penalty when it comes to the prosecution of those five individuals. That is, I think, an indication of how serious I view these cases, how negatively consequential their actions were, and how ultimately they must face the ultimate justice.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Attorney General Holder, coincidentally, the Canadian Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the transfer of Omar Khadr to Canada. The lawyer for Khadr suggested today that Khadr will be transferred to the United States to be tried.
Will Khadr be transferred here for trial? And if the Canadian courts direct the government of Canada to request Khadr to be transferred to Canada, would you consider that request or would the commission trials here trump that? HOLDER: Well, we'll look at the Khadr matter. At this point, it is one of the cases designated for a commission proceeding. And we will, as that case proceeds, see how it should be ultimately treated.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... harsh interrogation techniques. Inevitably, defense lawyers are going to seek full disclosure about the circumstances of how these detainees were treated while they were in U.S. custody, and want to get as much of that before the jury as they can.
What is the department's position going to be on whether the defense will be entitled to know the full story of how these detainees were treated while they were in U.S. custody?
HOLDER: Well, I think the question among the questions that have to be asked in that regard is relevance. How relevant were those statements? Will those statements be used?
I don't know what the defense will try to do. It's hard to speculate at this point, so it's hard to know exactly what our response will be. But I'm quite confident, on the basis of the evidence, that we will be able to present some of which, as I said, has not been even publicly discussed before, that we will be successful in our attempts to convict those men.
QUESTION: You (ph) are entitled to that evidence, entitled to know the full story of how they were treated.
HOLDER: Well, we'll see what motions they file and we'll see what responses we make, and a judge will ultimately make that determination.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... departure as White House counsel and whether or not that surprised you?
HOLDER: Yes, it was a surprise. Greg Craig is a great lawyer. He has been a great friend to the Justice Department. We're had a good relationship with him. He has, I think, contributed in a significant way to the success of this administration, and I think to the success of the effort to close Guantanamo.
Greg is a friend of mine. And those who have tried to place on him I think an unfair proportion of the blame as to why things have not proceeded perhaps as we have wanted with regard to Guantanamo, that's simply unfair.
He is a great lawyer. He's been a great White House counsel. He was an early supporter of this president. And I know he leaves with the thanks of the president and certainly with my gratitude.
(CROSSTALK) QUESTION: .. part of an effort to close Guantanamo Bay? Can you talk about how, with this announcement, how far off you think that day is?
HOLDER: Well, as I've said before, I think it's going to be difficult to close the facility by January the 22nd. And one of the things that I think is most problematic in that regard is trying to relocate the people who are going to be approved for transfer, finding places where they can be safely placed both for the nation that will host them and for American citizens. I'm not sure we're going to be able to complete that process by January the 22nd, though we are constantly in the process of trying to do exactly that.
QUESTION: For the detainees that will be brought to U.S. soil, can you give us a sense of, are they going to be distributed through federal prisons throughout the country? Will there be one central location? Can you give us a sense of how that will play out?
HOLDER: My expectation is that they will be housed, as all defendants are, near the places where the trials will occur.
QUESTION: How soon do you think charges will be filed against these five?
HOLDER: I think that's hard to say. We will seek to bring these indictments as quickly as we can. We'll obviously have to follow the laws that have been passed by Congress with regard to notifications, the 45-day waiting period. But I would expect that we will have indictments returned relatively soon.
QUESTION: You said that you're charging them with the most serious offenses that are appropriate. You didn't come out and say specifically that they're going to be charged with 9/11 attacks. Can you elaborate on that? I mean, are they going to be charged with that conspiracy, specifically, or with something less than that or related to that?
HOLDER: They'll be charged for what we believe they did, and that is to mastermind and carry out the 9/11 attacks.
QUESTION: General Holder, how close a call was your decision to send this to civilian court given the gravity of the issues that you face on security, on classified evidence, the torture issue that's been discussed. How close a call was it?
HOLDER: I've only been attorney general for eight or nine months, and I think this is about the toughest decision that I've had to make as attorney General, trying to balance the need to ensure that we maximize our chances of success and hold accountable the people who committed these heinous offenses, while at the same time adhering to what I think has been a guide for this administration, adherence to the rule of law.
Balancing all those factors, taking into account the desires of the victims, trying to protect classified information, taking all of these things into account, it has been a very difficult decision. But I'm comfortable with the decisions that we've made with regard to placement of people both in civilian courts, as well as the military commissions.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, you said you're comfortable with the legal reasons for these decisions and how you expect this to play out legally. How concerned are you about how this will play out politically? Because obviously there is public opinion, which some polls suggest aren't really a fan of this idea of bringing people to trial.
HOLDER: My job as attorney general is to look at the law, apply the facts to the law, and ultimately do what I think is in the best interest of this country and our system of justice. Those are my guides.
To the extent that there are political consequences, well, you know, I'll just have to take my lumps to the extent that those are sent my way. But I think if people will in a neutral and detached way look at the decision that I have made today understand the reasons why I made those decisions, and try to do something that's rare in Washington, leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country, I think the criticism will be relatively muted. Having said that, I'm sure we'll hear a lot of criticism.
QUESTION: Attorney General Holder, will you address some of your concerns about the speedy trial act of these cases? And also, how much of these trials can we expect would be open to the public given some of the classified information?
HOLDER: Well, I don't want to speculate about any particular motions that might be filed. With regard to the openness of the trials, I think we get a sense of that from other significant terrorist trials that have occurred where they were largely open. Portions of them will likely be closed so that classified information sources and methods are not revealed, but I would expect that these trials will be open to the public, open to the world, and open to the survivors and victims of these heinous acts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Last question.
QUESTION: General Holder, will you try the suspects together and/or separately? And do you think they can get a fair trial in New York?
HOLDER: I expect that we will try them together, and I expect that through a really searching, complete voir dire process, we can come up with a jury that will ensure that the defendants will get a fair trial in New York.
QUESTION: How many criminal trials do you expect? How many criminal trials and how many military commissions in all?
HOLDER: Thank you. Thank you very much.
HARRIS: OK. The U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, announcing some of the 9/11 suspects will be tried in New York City.
The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in an American courtroom is a wholesale policy shift from the Bush administration. It is sure to bring legal and political fallout for the Obama team.
Let's talk about all of this with CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey, good to see you.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Tony.
HARRIS: Yes, it's good to see you, Jeffrey.
My understanding is that the administration really had until Monday to make a decision on where these men would be tried. Are you surprised that, specifically, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, will be tried in a civilian court in New York City?
TOOBIN: I wasn't very surprised, but this is a bold and risky move for the Department of Justice, because it will be far from a simple thing. To bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to trial for the evidence against him to be disclosed, for him to be allowed access to the kind of information that criminal defendants in the United States are entitled to see.
For the victims to be allowed to watch a trial that will not be televised because we don't televise cases in federal court and to deal with in an American criminal setting the question of torture and waterboarding, which the defense will certainly make front and center a part of this trial.
HARRIS: Are you clear -- I'm not. Are you clear on why some of the suspects will be tried in civilian court and others will go through the military system?
TOOBIN: Well, the attorney general suggested one of the distinctions that he's drawing although the full reasons are not clear. He said that the attacks of 9/11 were in the United States on civilians. He suggested that the Military Commission case that they have announced so far involves the attack on the "USS Cole" we took place in Yemen, far from the US, a military target.
So, we seem to be drawing a distinction between attacks outside of the United States on military targets, which could be dealt within a military court and civilian targets in a civilian court.
HARRIS: Yes, why the southern district of New York? I know that question will be asked several times just blocks from site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.
TOOBIN: Well, as Eric Holder said, it is the tradition in American courts and it's the law in many circumstances that trials takes place where the crime took place.
HARRIS: Yes.
TOOBIN: The World Trade Center was in the southern district of New York. The courthouse in the southern district of New York happens to be a few blocks away. That's the logical place to have the trial. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 by the blind Sheik, Abdul Roman, his trial was in the southern district of New York so it makes a certain amount of sense.
And that was the biggest part of the attack certainly the attack on the plane that hit the Pentagon, the one that went down in Pennsylvania, those will presumably be part of this case, but since the main attack was in New York City, the trial is going to be in New York City.
HARRIS: I'm going try to squeeze in a couple more here, Jeffrey. Would you --you touched on this just a moment ago. Would you expect a much of the "torture testimony" from defense to be admitted in this trial?
TOOBIN: Well, interesting, Eric Holder made a glancing reference that I thought was significant. Clearly, the Department of Justice strategy is not going to be to introduce things that Mohammad said while he was being tortured. There is no courtroom in the United States that a federal judge will allow the subject of torture too be admitted as evidence against the person who was tortured.
But, what Holder said was, there is other evidence and there are other statements that Mohammad made that may accomplish the same thing. So, that's the evidence that the government will seek to introduce.
Now, I think it's important to say that any defense attorney would certainly be doing his or her job to say, look, any defendant who has been tortured like our client has been tortured, waterboarded 183 times, this case has to be thrown out of court altogether. We are asking for a dismissal of the case. I don't expect the federal judge will actually dismiss the case, but it's not a frivolous issue, it's not a frivolous motion.
Tony, the big overarching question here which didn't really come up in Eric Holder's press conference is, what happens if he's acquitted? Does he just walk the chair, walk the down the front steps in Foley Square where the courthouse is, and just go on about his business? I don't expect that's going to happen, but that is certainly the risk the government is taking and it's a big risk.
HARRIS: Well, Jeffrey, look, give us your analysis on this. Are these cases solid against these men?
TOOBIN: Well, I don't know all of the evidence. I just read the 9/11 Commission report, which certainly, it lays out a very impressive case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But that wasn't compiled using the federal rules of evidence, which strictly limit which can be introduced in a courtroom and trials are weird. You never know what's going to happen. You never know, if you're going to get some jurors who are peculiar in one way or another. By the way, another legal issue that's hanging out there. What about a change of venue? I could see the defendant say, how can you try this case just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center? How can you get a fair jury from the jury pool that lives around here? That's another legal issue. Do I think the chances of acquittal here are high? No, I think they're very, very low, but they're not zero. The fact that they're not zero is a big risk for the government.
HARRIS: Our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin for us. Jeffrey, good to see you. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Something else we're watching here. There's a huge storm right now pounding the eastern seaboard and our Rob Marciano is tracking it. We'll have the latest in just a bit here in the "CNN Newsroom," but let's do this. A quick market check right now. The DOW, let's see, up 81 points. Trying to rebound a bit on this Friday. Our Alison Kosik is up at the New York stock exchange and will join us later in the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
President Obama is in Tokyo right now on the first leg of his Asia trip. He is discussing a wide range of topics with Japan's prime minister including the issue that matters most to Americans, the economy. CNN senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley, joining me. Good to see you, Candy. Thanks for--
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Tony.
HARRIS: A couple of questions for you. What is the president trying to get from these really powerful Asian nations? Let's be frank about it. I keep reading the president wants to deepen ties with Asia.
CROWLEY: Well, there's always the inaugural trip to an area and this is certainly is one for President Obama. In all of these trips and by the way, he's the most traveled first year president ever. In all of these trips, they've use the word reset, an idea that, look, what we need to have a new kind of relationship with Japan or China or Singapore or whatever it happens to be, South Korea.
So, there is a kind of getting to know you deeper relations, but as you point out, the economy is huge and this is especially vibrant right now on the president's mind because of joblessness. The problem is as he goes to China two-fold. First of all, what would the president like? The president would like to do something about the huge trade deficit that the U.S. has with China. China is selling enormously more goods here than they are buying American goods.
So, the president wants two things. Fewer goods coming from China and more American goods going into china. Why? Because that trade deficit is costing jobs here in the U.S. So, there is real business to be done here. There is foreign policy business to bedone here. There is North Korea and with China which shares a border with Afghanistan, which is an ally of Pakistan, those are a key foreign policy issues that are going to be brought up in that.
So, there are things to be discussed even if there aren't major things expected to come out of any of these visits.
HARRIS: Got to ask you this. How much of this trip really do you expect to be overshadowed by -- you mentioned foreign policy -- by Afghanistan. I am thinking the president will get Afghanistan questions at every reporter opportunity.
CROWLEY: Of course, because that's foremost and upper most with the U.S. economy certainly Afghanistan is next, possibly second, but certainly upper most in the minds of Americans. We have this huge pending decision. When more troops go to Afghanistan now seems likely under what conditions, where, is there a strategy to get out and what is the strategy and how will they deal with the Karzai government? China is a nice opening for these sort of questions.
But these trips all have that kind of (inaudible) a lot of presidential trips and generally, you go thinking, well they're going to talk about climate change and they're going to talk about, you know, US dollar, and something happens. And then they talk about something else and at the very least reporters talk about something else. So, I do expect that Afghanistan follows this president as does joblessness every place he goes. You can't get that far from home on those two issues.
HARRIS: Absolutely, CNN senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley for us. Candy, great to talk to you. Thanks. Let's go to our top stories now.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks will face a civilian trial in New York. The attorney general announced just minutes ago that four others will come to New York for trial as well.
The parents of the infamous balloon boy pleaded guilty a short time ago to charges stemming from the incident. Richard Heene and his wife reported their son missing aboard a runaway balloon, but the boy was hiding at home. Authorities say, the elaborate hoax was all a publicity stunt.
This may be an unlucky Friday the 13th for some people, but not for a retired truck driver from Great bend, Kansas. Kansas lottery officials are introducing the winner of Wednesday's $96 million powerball drawing. No name yet, but we know he's in his 70s. Also, his daughter recently lost her job and she and her son live with him. The neighbors are ecstatic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Real surprising. You just didn't know whether to believe it or not. Yeah. I'm happy for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: How good is that? In two weeks, we will know who will be CNN's Hero of the year. Today, you'll meet one nominee who works for free every night making sure the homeless have at least one hot meal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: In January, we asked you to nominate CNN Heroes for 2009. We received more than 9,000 nominations. An independent blue- ribbon panel selected the top ten and we would like to introduce you to one of them.
JEWEL: Hi, I'm Jewel. Two years ago, I had the honor of serving on the blue ribbon panel that helped select the top ten CNN heroes of 2007. As founder of Project Clean Water, which works to improve the quality of life for millions of people by helping to provide clean water around the world, I'm thrilled to help CNN introduce one of this year's top ten nominees. Now more than ever the world needs heroes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I live on the street.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're hungry, that's it. Four years ago, I saw those guys standing there. They're desperate. They need to eat. My name is Jorge Munoz (ph) and every night, I bring food to the hungry in Queens, New York.
I'm born in Colombia. I'm a school bus driver. When I come back around 5:15, my second job starts. Prepare the meal, pack them up. It's like a family project seven days a week. I go to same corner every night around 9:30. They're waiting for me. I help anyone who needs to eat just line up. The best part is when you see their smile. I want them to eat every night. For me it's easy. Compared to them, I'm rich.
HARRIS: You can go to cnn.com/heroes right now to vote for the top ten CNN hero that inspires you the most. They'll be honored at an all star tribute hosted by Anderson Cooper from the Kodak Theater in Hollywood on Thanksgiving night and you'll see it here only on CNN.
Estrogen, obesity, cancer. Dr. Sanjay Gupta explains it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Here's a good reason to get out and get some exercise. A new study by the American Institute for cancer research pinpoints the impact of obesity and cancer. Our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta has details.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I would like to tell you we've known for some time that there's an association between cancer and obesity or excess body weight. What we haven't known and hard to sort of pinpoint is exactly how much of an impact is there? That's been the focus of research for some time by the American Institute for Cancer Research trying to find the link, trying to sort of quantify the link as well.
Let's get right down to it. They think that every year, there's over 100,000 cases of cancer that are directly linked to obesity and being overweight. Let me be more clear on that. When you reduce all the other potential factors like smoking, like age, like gender, it seems that it comes down to simply carrying too much body weight that increases your likelihood of cancer and they even specify how much of an increase there was between obesity and specific cancers.
For example, take a look 49 percent of endometrial cancers linked to obesity, 35 percent of esophageal cancers, 28 percent of pancreatic cancers, 24 percent of kidney cancers. What's worth pointing out, they only studied seven cancers. It's quite possible, quite likely, that there are other cancers that also have this association. That's what we know. That's what's come out of this most recent study.
I think, the larger question that a lot of people are sort of trying to figure out is why and what you can do about it. As far as why obesity increases your likelihood of cancer, it's not entirely clear, although there are probably a few reasons. One is that when you someone is obese, men and women alike, they're carrying around more estrogen, which is a hormone that often is also a fuel for cancers.
Also, when someone is overweight or obese, they tend to suppress their immune system a little bit so it's harder for them to fight off things including potential cancer-causing cells. And also this idea that when you have obesity, you have this oxidative stress going on in your body that sort of rusting process that can cause DNA mutations. That's the bad news. The good news just doing 30 to 40 minutes on a treadmill or a stationary bike every single day can start to dramatically reduce your risk of cancer. We always say stay fit, here's another good reason.
HARRIS: All right, Sanjay, thank you.
Again, a huge storm is slamming the northeast and rob is tracking it for us. We'll talk to Rob in just a couple of minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OK, here is what we're working on for the next hour of "CNN Newsroom." The fight over health care reform picks up in the Senate next week. We will examine what's ahead and talk about the major hurdles and sticking point the Senate bill faces.
And the Fed's moving to seize four mosques and a Manhattan skyscraper. The government says they belong to groups with ties to terrorism and Iran's nuclear program. We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Rob, I apologize, I wanted to get to you a little earlier in the show, but we had a little bit of breaking news and the attorney general as well, but you're tracking this storm that is just sitting there along the east coast here and just spinning and causing all kinds of problems. ROB MARCIANO, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yes, the good news. It's winding down just a little bit. So, not quite as pressing as it was this time yesterday. Nonetheless, check out some of the video that we're getting in from some of our I-reporters, this is George Boniyelo, he's out of Norfolk, Virginia, or close to it, and this is his street during what he claims to be a low tide yesterday.
And so, it's probably shot yesterday morning and the high tide was clearly worse. So, this kind of scene certainly echoed throughout the Delmarva and the Hampton Rhodes area for sure with that storm surge.
Why such an excessive storm surge? You mentioned that constant pounding and the storm just sitting there and these kind of wind gusts, 75-mile-an-hour wind gusts at the naval base and 75 miles an hour at Norfolk, that's hurricane force, my friends.
Where is the storm right now? It's right about here. The forecast track is for it to go this way. It's not going to get a whole lot stronger, but it will be strong enough to where Long Island, the Cape, New England will see some gusty winds, maybe 40, 50 miles an hour and maybe some rain as we go towards the weekend. The other thing I wanted to mention, the usual airports are pretty bad right now, Tony, with delays in excess of two hours. So, be patient if you're traveling before the weekend.
All right, Rob, have a great weekend.
Defense Secretary, Robert Gates is angry over news leaks in both the Fort Hood shooting investigation and the Afghan war deliberations. Gates said, if someone is found leaking from the Pentagon, it would probably be a career ender. Gates discussed some of his strategy for winning in Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GATES, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I want to make sure that we have -- that we have replicated in Afghanistan all the capabilities we've built up in Iraq, the analysis, the access to the procedures, and then do new what we need to do. What different kinds of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance do we need in Afghanistan because it is a different kind of target than in -- than in Iraq. We have people working all of these different pieces.
What I worry about is that all the pieces aren't fully integrated. That's the primary task of the task force, really to make sure we've integrated all the capabilities that we have to go after this challenge, and if there's a -- if they identify a need for something new, then so we can go get it in the hands of the troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: All right. And we want to hear from you on the issue of Afghanistan.
There are two ways you can help us out here. Get on camera. Jump in front of your camera here and tell us your thoughts, and just go to CNN.com/ireport, and you upload it, download it, I don't know which. But you know because you do this all the time. And we will show some of your i-Reports coming up.
And you can also still phone in your comments. Here's the phone number: 1-877-742-5760. Here's the question again -- let us know what you think the U.S. should do next in Afghanistan.
