Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Anger Over TSA Move on Ban List; U.S. Possible Drone Strikes in U.S.; Macy's versus Martha Stewart; Murder Prank Goes Viral; Celebs Ask for Paparazzi Law

Aired March 06, 2013 - 11:30   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Not sure if you can see a monitor, but the blue bat that's plastic and weighs about an ounce. Yet, I still can't bring more than this amount of shampoo on board. Do you have an issue as well with the liquids and restrictions staying in place? Are you happy about that or do they seem foolish?

LESLIE MAYO, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS: There are reasons for all of the bans. We are in full support of shampoo and toothpaste returning to the aircraft cabin.

BANFIELD: Full size?

MAYO: Sure, full size, as long as it's safe and the proper review takes place. As the first responders on the aircraft, we need to be involved in the review process and, in this case, we were not.

BANFIELD: You were not consulted at all?

MAYO: We were not.

BANFIELD: Did you find out about it along with the rest of us, or did you have a heads up before I knew?

MAYO: No, we found out about it yesterday morning, bright and early.

BANFIELD: OK. Listen, I do want to read something from the former administrator of the TSA. "The TSA's mission is to prevent a catastrophic attack on the transportation system, not to ensure every single passenger can avoid harm while traveling. Much of the friction in the system today results from rules that are direct responses to how we were attacked on 9/11. But it's simply no longer the case that killing a few people on board a plane could lead to a hijacking."

Last comment from you, Leslie. Isn't there some reason -- isn't that a rational thought given who we are today, what we've become and now locked cockpits and vigilant passengers who wouldn't let someone take down their plane?

MAYO: I think that once you get to the point where you're allowing knives and relaxing the rules such as was announced yesterday, it's -- it becomes an opening. We aren't always able to anticipate the next threat. And --

(CROSSTALK) BANFIELD: OK, Leslie Mayo -- sorry. I didn't want to cut you off. I'm just running short on time.

I appreciate you taking time to speak with us.

MAYO: Thanks for having me.

BANFIELD: We appreciate your information, too.

Using drones on Americans to kill them right here in America. It doesn't sound real, but could it happen? Should it even be considered? And if the attorney general speaks about it, I'm sure you're listening. It's very controversial, and you might not believe what he has to say, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Mount Etna letting out fire and lava and spectacular pictures. The eruptions from the tallest active volcano in Europe. I want to repeat, no threat to anyone who lives nearby. Very important. This is Sicily where Etna's neighbors do have to live hardened chunks of lava on the streets on a regular basis and the occasional cloud of ash. But, so far, pretty pictures. Nothing else threatening.

Valerie Harper has been diagnosed with brain cancer. The 73-year-old actress who played Mary Tyler Moore's friend, Rhoda, tells "People" magazine that she may only have three months to live.

A quick response by a public safety officer saved a life. A suicidal man standing on the railing of a Michigan overpass. The officer approaches him and grabs him and able to pull him off. Look at that rescue. That's wonderful. Thank god.

In the government's effort to protect Americans from terrorists overseas, one of the most deadly and effective weapons is unmanned, armed drones, but should they be used to attack Americans on American soil? The attorney general, Eric Holder, has made a surprising statement, yes, only under extraordinary circumstances. He's responding to a question from Republican Senator Rand Paul. Paul said Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes entirely is "more than frightening. It is an affront to the due process rights of all Americans." But, is it?

Chris Lawrence joins us from the Pentagon and CNN's legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, is live in New York.

Chris, first the details of al of this, it's never as simple as it seems as face value. Was the layer beneath the headline?

CHRIS LAWRENCE, PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The layer beneath the headline, Ashleigh, is Holder was asked a hypothetical question. He says the U.S. government has no plans to strike any Americans here on U.S. soil. But hypothetically, he hopes that no president would ever have to deal with this, but he leaves the door open. He says there may be an imminent attack that could be so catastrophic, akin to 9/11, that the president would have to authorize a lethal strike on an American on U.S. soil.

Listen to the testy change between Ted Cruz and Eric Holder talking about the ways in which this could potentially happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The way in which you have described, this person sitting at the cafe, not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate, would not be something --

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R), TEXAS: I find it remarkable that you still will not give an opinion on the constitutionality. Let me move onto the next topic. We've gone round and round.

HOLDER: Let me be clear. Translate my appropriate to no. I thought I was saying no, all right? No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE: No, no. No attack unless there was some sort of imminent danger is what he kept going back to, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Imminent, I remember that word. It was the subject of much ado when we talked about overseas targeting of U.S. citizens, like Anwar al Awlaki.

Sunny, I want you to weigh in. Do we need take definition because the government kills people all the time? If someone is holding a knife to my throat, the sniper can take them out. It happens a lot. These are targeted killings of American citizens by the government. What would be different if you used a drone?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The government has provided somewhat of a definition, because we now have the white paper, which I think the legal opinions that are being espoused by our attorney general are based upon. In that white paper, it describes what I believe is a pretty elastic definition of what this imminent threat. It says, "It is not necessary for a specific attack to be in process when a target is found, if the target is generally engaged in terrorist activities aimed at the U.S." It doesn't describe the thresholds of evidence necessary to determine what an imminent threat is. I think most importantly, it almost advises that courts should not be involved in that determination. And I think that is why constitutional legal experts and lawyers and legal geeks, like myself, are sort of saying, hey, wait a minute here, is this constitutionally permissible? Is this an overreach by the executive branch, because now we don't have checks and balances of the judicial branch we're used to having here in the United States.

BANFIELD: The definition of imminent, I want to know as a lot of people want to know.

Sunny Hostin and Chris Lawrence thank you. Tune in tonight, too, because we have a closer look at the battle over drone strikes. Erin Burnett is treating this especially tonight, "Our Front," at 7:00 eastern.

Coming up next, retailers fighting it out in the courtroom. Is that boring to you? Well, if you add a little touch of Martha Stewart, does that spice it up? Hear what she had to say in the courtroom. And it's not at her first time at that king of rodeo.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: "It just boggles my mind that we're sitting here" -- that is a quote directly from the queen, Martha Stewart, from the witness stand in a big-money trial that pits Macy's, which has sold Martha's merchandise for years, against both Martha Stewart and JCPenney, who has now signed a deal behind Macy's back. In a New York court room yesterday, Stewart said she's, quote, "flabbergasted that the Penney deal is causing such a fuss." My colleague,

Christine Romans was there and got to speak with Martha moments after she got off the witness stand. We're also joined by our CNN legal panel, our legal analyst and former prosecutor, Sunny Hostin, and criminal defense attorney and law professor, Joey Jackson.

Christine Romans, let me start with you. Contract law is boring to me, maybe to some other people too, why it doesn't make the news a whole lot. But when you add Martha to the mix, does something in the courtroom change? Is there a dynamic that changed when you watched that proceeding? She walks in and everything goes real quiet.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: These are three household names. Contract law isn't boring if you're a contract law billing a big company for your contract law work, I'm sure.

Look, there was a tenacious Macy's attorney who tried to show this was a woman who went behind the back of her partner in Macy's to deal with JCPenney. She kind of hit back. She said, we thought business would be bigger at Macy's but Macy's kept us static. A bit of a dig at Macy's. She said $300 million was not enough to sustain a company of her size, and went out and did another piece of business there. The Macy's attorney, very tenacious, going after her saying, do you really think you have -- you have an exclusivity agreement with Macy's, do you think the same customer will buy one of your enamel cast iron pieces of cookware and walk to the other end and buy another one, and she said, people could have two houses. They might have two kitchens?

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Good answer.

ROMANS: Like Martha.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: Sunny, this is a bench trial. There was no jury there to impress. You're just speaking to the man, the judge. And he seemed to agree with Martha on at least one point and that was that this did not need to be a full blown trial. What was that a reference to?

HOSTIN: Is that for me?

BANFIELD: Yes, you, Sunny, go ahead.

HOSTIN: I think that it's always better in some sense to have a trial just in front of a judge because it's a legal issue. It's a contract issue. It's not the sensationalism like in the Jodi Arias trial and these criminal issues. When you have contract issue, it's pretty black-letter law. It's better for a judge to decide that sort of thing. You don't need a full blown trial. The issue is was the contract breached. Martha is a saying, no, there was a little exclusion, no loophole in the contract and my stuff is being sold in these Martha Stewart stores inside of JCPenney. It's not really in JCPenney. It's like in my store --

BANFIELD: A store within a store.

HOSTIN: -- which I think is pretty slick.

Joey, I want to play what Martha said on the "Today" show and ask you about it in a second. Have a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA STEWART, ENTREPRENEUR: I think our product is so strong at Macy's it will not hurt that at all. We are there for the Macy's consumer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Joey, does it matter what she says to the "Today" show about what she thinks in terms of who's business is going to be harmed or is that all about the contract and what everybody thought when they signed?

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & LAW PROFESSOR: It's about a contract and what you thought. Is it exclusive or not exclusive? And she's arguing, of course, wait a second, it may be exclusive but I'm designing different products for JCPenney, they weren't contemplated in the contract at the time. She knows what she's doing, very business savvy, so who knows whether she can convince a judge that the language "exclusive" means something a little different than we ultimately thought or originally thought.

BANFIELD: I love those pots, and I would buy two.

ROMANS: Me too.

BANFIELD: Christine, Joey, Sunny, thank you all. Appreciate it.

If you think it is a little bit awkward to stand in an elevator with a stranger for 30 seconds, how would you feel if you saw this in an elevator? Oh, my lord, a murder in progress. At least that's what it appears to be. And look at the reactions. We're going to show why we're showing you this and explain what it is about the law that tells you what you need to do or not do.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: What would you do if you came across a murder in progress? Would you run? Maybe try and help stop the murder? Would you stop and take a picture so you could post it online? These are some serious questions after some unwitting people were put on the spot. It was all part of a promotional film, so it was fake, but really, what would you do if you were in that spot?

Take a look at the video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Tackle, right? I like the guy who tackles, right? I'm not going to let this guy get away with murder.

Ryan Smith is back. We have Vinnie Politan back with me as well.

OK, where does the law step in? If I'm a bystander and I see that, could I be prosecuted if I walk away and let him die?

RYAN SMITH, HLN HOST: Not so much as you let him die. I want to tell the flip side of that, though, is if you help, you can help as long as you provide reasonable help. Somebody's trying attack somebody, you can't pull out a gun and try to shoot them. That might be unreasonable unless that's necessary in the situation. But in terms of walking away, a lot of states don't have laws that say you have to sit there and defend --

BANFIELD: Am I supposed to figure out commensurate force in my head while I'm watching this go on --

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: It's a common-sense thing. It's a common-sense thing. Jump in, do what you can. You see the people grabbing somebody if they can, but you don't try to kill somebody if you think they're trying to push somebody around.

BANFIELD: Do I have a duty to respond?

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST: No. You don't. You don't.

BANFIELD: That's it. Plain and simple.

POLITAN: But here's the part of the video that shocked me is that what if someone and this is with the prank. This, this scenario they set up. You know, these people that were coming upon that, they didn't know how they were going to react to this.

BANFIELD: What is somebody did bring out -- there was somebody who commented on this video --

POLITAN: Yes.

BANFIELD: -- some day, someone is going to shoot an actor.

POLITAN: Yes. Exactly.

SMITH: Yes. Yes.

POLITAN: That's what shocked me about this, that this isn't stage, this is a real prank with real people being fooled here, I can't believe someone gave them the thumb's up to do it. You see the one guy with the fire hydrant or something.

BANFIELD: Sure.

POLITAN: It just seems so incredibly dangerous.

BANFIELD: Full disclosure. The guy who took the pictures, a lot of people acted very negatively to him, calling him a scumbag, calling him for his head on a platter, et cetera.

POLITAN: Yes.

BANFIELD: That was an actor. It was not part of the real reaction.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Because I saw some people walking away, too.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: And we don't know if that was true or not, a real reaction or not. There were some actors sprinkled in there for the reasons the production company revealed. But listen, if that guy took picture, what's to say he wasn't doing that if somebody got away with murder, too.

You can't answer that. You can't answer because we could go on forever on this.

But pushing back on the paparazzi -- I want you guys to weigh in on this after the break.

SMITH: Sure.

BANFIELD: I love this one. A rock star, a rock star getting protection for some very unflattering photographs.

And then before we go to break, I got something I need to show you. I don't' know if you heard of the Miami Heat doing the Harlem Shake and everybody watching. It's been really big and viral and crazy. The Minnesota Timberwolves have had enough and this is their version of the Harlem Shake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: That's what I think of your viral things. Some things get old fast. Not that tune though.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALLE BERRY, ACTRESS: (INAUDIBLE) respect. And that is because of your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) videos. You choose to do something (INAUDIBLE). I'm doing something honorable. I'm not harassing people. Get a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Wow. Do you remember that video? Halle Berry going off on a photographer because they are outside of her children's school in Los Angeles. Her child's school. One of the things that absolutely drives celebrities crazy, when their space is invaded on a level like that, children and other things.

Hawaii is now considering some legislation that would allow famous people to sue photographers for invading their privacy. It's called the Steven Tyler Act, after the front man for Aerosmith. The paparazzi captured some really unflattering pictures of him in a little bathing suit outside of Maui home. Tyler was not amused and he got into it. Big action. He asked the Hawaiian legislature to make that sort of voyeurism illegal, and the state Senate has given this a thumb's up.

Our CNN legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, is back, and criminal defense attorney, "In Session" contributor and law professor, Joey Jackson, too.

So, first thing is, and a lot of the professional photographers who are associated have reacted to this, saying there's a little thing called the First Amendment. How is this not a breach of that?

Let me start with you, Joey.

JACKSON: First of all, it's tough to be famous. I couldn't imagine what you go through every day, OK.

(LAUGHTER)

But the bottom line, the bottom line is that it's about privacy and, ultimately, what happens is if you're in a public place, people can take a photograph of you. That's one of the costs of doing business. If you're famous and you're public and you're exposed to the public, they can photo you. If you're in a private place where you have an expectation of privacy, it's another matter. So I do expect, if this passes the House, for there to be a constitutional challenge.

BANFIELD: So, Sunny, one of the things, and looking at the bill right here they highlight is, when photographers use visual or auditory enhancing devices, that if they weren't used, they would have to trespass to get that money shot, so is that what this issue about? They're just trying to keep up with technology.

HOSTIN: Yes, I think that's right. California's anti paparazzi law is probably the gold standard because, yes, you want to have freedom of the press, but you need to balance that against someone's right to privacy. And if you're talking about someone who is in their home or on grounds where they believe themselves to be private and, you know, you have these telephoto lenses that, but for them, you wouldn't be able to see them, I think that's reasonable.

Wouldn't you agree, Joey?

I mean, if you're sunbathing, like Kate Middleton, the duchess, was --

JACKSON: I do.

HOSTIN: -- you know, there shouldn't be pictures of her tatas all over the press.

BANFIELD: You hit the nail on the head.

HOSTIN: It's inappropriate.

BANFIELD: Sunny, you hit the nail on the head with reasonable. That's part of the bill as well.

HOSTIN: Sure.

BANFIELD: What people would find -- what reasonable people would find in an expectation of privacy and how they would deem your privacy.

Sunny Hostin, Joe Jackson, I have to leave it there. And thank you both. Do appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And thank you, everyone, for watching. Do appreciate having you here with us today.

AROUND THE WORLD is next.