Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Bin Laden Son-in-Law Pleads Not Guilty; February Jobs Report Showed 236,000 Jobs Created; Clinton Urges Supreme Court to Overturn DOMA; North Korea Tosses Armistice

Aired March 08, 2013 - 11:00   ET

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


ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: More skilled than just about anyone else you've ever met.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

BANFIELD: It's fascinating. Especially when they face 12 people.

LEMON: Yes.

BANFIELD: And insist that they saved their lives with their lies.

LEMON: I'm going to get out of here. I'm on your watch now. Have a great show.

BANFIELD: Love to see. Bye, Don. Thank you.

LEMON: Bye-bye.

BANFIELD: He was close to Osama bin Laden. Real close. And right now he's close to us. He's in a New York courtroom, but many people wonder why this former al Qaeda mouthpiece isn't in Guantanamo Bay instead.

The president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law now says it's time to put DOMA asunder.

And jurors in the ex-rated murder trial of Jodi Arias let the defendant know exactly what they think of her. And this is long before they reach a verdict on her life or death.

We begin this hour with the first step on a very long road to justice for a man named Suleiman Abu Ghaith. American federal civilian justice for a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, whom the United States is accusing of conspiracy to kill us. Kill Americans. Anywhere you can find us.

Abu Ghaith was an al Qaeda mouthpiece. The spokesman who've been out of sight for years only to surface last week in the Middle East and then wind up in the hands of the CIA. And at that point, it was really easy. He could have had a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay. And some people on Capitol Hill think that is exactly where that man belongs. But instead, he just appeared like any other accused criminal in a federal court in Manhattan facing a one count indictment that could send him to prison for the rest of his life. What do you think he pled? Probably not surprising, not guilty. And he's due back in court on April 8th.

Our Susan Candiotti from CNN was at that hearing. Lucky for her to listen in live. We're going to join Susan in just a moment with the details on what that hearing was like. Because it's all come at us so fast. But first her fascinating report on Abu Ghaith, his past, his present and potential future.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This photo put Suleiman Abu Ghaith squarely in al Qaeda's inner circle. He's sitting to the left of his father-in-law, Osama bin Laden, along with top lieutenants Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohamed Atef.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Abu Ghaith was out front as a spokesman for the terror organization, appearing in videos and making ominous statements. Quote, "We have the right to kill four million Americans with chemical and biological weapons."

Abu Ghaith is also believed to have been in Osama bin Laden's final stand at Tora Bora in December 2001, before escaping into Pakistan. He had lived in Iran since 2002, mostly under house arrest, and is said to have arrived in the Turkish capital Ankara early last month, traveling on a forged Saudi passport.

He checked into a luxury hotel and was detained. Iran refused to take him back according to Turkish sources. After several weeks in limbo, Turkey decided to deport Abu Ghaith to the country of his birth, Kuwait, but Kuwait didn't want him back either.

Eventually Abu Ghaith was transferred to U.S. custody and secretly flown to New York to face trial. Some Republicans argue that makes him an enemy combatant who should be tried by a military commission at Guantanamo.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We're putting the administration on notice. We think that sneaking this guy into the country, clearly going around the intent of Congress when it comes to enemy combatants, will be challenged.

CANDIOTTI: But the Obama administration says it's trying to close Gitmo, not add to its prisoners. And that trying Abu Ghaith in New York won't jeopardize national security.

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It's the sort of case that would be relatively easy to try in New York. I mean, New York federal court has 100 percent conviction rate for people who are accused of al Qaeda crimes.

CANDIOTTI: His indictment unsealed, Abu Ghaith now stands accused of one count of conspiring to kill Americans and allegedly recruiting others to do the same. In court documents, prosecutors quote him saying this after 9/11. "The storms will not stop especially the airplane storms," warning Americans not to board any aircraft and not to live in high rises.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: And Susan joins me now live from outside the courthouse in Manhattan.

What else happened in this first appearance? This must have been absolutely fascinating for you to see. But did we learn anything?

CANDIOTTI: Yes, we did actually learn a couple of interesting things. First of all, we have confirmation from prosecutors during this 15- minute long proceeding in which he -- a not guilty plea was entered on his behalf, that Abu Ghaith was arrested overseas on February 28th.

Now they didn't specifically say in what country. We know that he had been in Turkey and eventually was flown to the United States from Jordan. And that he arrived in the United States on March 1st.

Now here's what else we learned, Ashleigh. We learned from prosecutors that he made a 22-page long statement after his arrest. Now there were no details provided about the contents of that statement, but that's one of the things of course they said they will be turning over to defense attorneys, lawyers who would be appointed on his behalf -- Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Wow. Wow. That's fascinating. Because that says it could be a confession and if it was taken anywhere where there was perhaps interrogation, that might be something we can't see in a civilian court.

Susan Candiotti, thank you for that.

I want to talk just exactly about that. Civilian versus military justice. World of difference especially when you're talking about those commissions in Guantanamo Bay.

Now Suleiman Abu Ghaith is going to be fitting into the civilian system. Out senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins me now to talk about this, along with CNN's national security analyst, Peter Bergen, and CNN contributor and retired U.S. Army general, James "Spider" Marks.

Jeffrey Toobin, let me begin with you. What Susan Candiotti just said, there is a 22-page long statement. If this a confession, if it was achieved through any kind of interrogation, inadmissible?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we don't know that. Certainly confessions are admissible in American courtrooms all the time, but there are certain rules that have to be followed. Did he receive his Miranda warnings? One of the major differences between a criminal court and a military tribunal relates potentially at least to Miranda warnings.

In a criminal court, the statement would only be admissible if he had already received his Miranda warnings. There are ways in military tribunals to admit those kind of statements even if Miranda warnings were not given. So that's --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: And even if you're interrogated --

TOOBIN: That's a clear difference.

BANFIELD: And you get that information via the waterboard, you can use that in Guantanamo. You can't use that here.

TOOBIN: Well, I don't think that's true in Guantanamo. You cannot use information obtained by torture in Guantanamo. That's one of the rules of the military tribunal.

BANFIELD: But that's not torture. That's enhanced interrogation and those -- that's fair game.

TOOBIN: Well, no, I'm -- I think the government has said they will not attempt even against major figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to use information in military tribunals that was obtained through waterboarding.

BANFIELD: So before we get so excited about who this guy is and how he might see justice, Peter Bergen, you said he's a small fish. I mean, yes, he's a relation of Osama bin Laden and he's pictured to the left hand and right hand of big father in -- in many different photograph. Why do you think he's a small fish?

BERGEN: Well, you know, he made a kind of poor marital choice with his marrying one of bin Laden's daughters.

BANFIELD: I'll say.

BERGEN: That doesn't necessarily make him a key player in al Qaeda. And in fact, you look at the indictment. The indictment is a conspiracy charge, basically about statements he's made and efforts he made to recruit other people into al Qaeda. There's nothing in there about any particular plot. And to me, that was, Ashleigh, going to be, you know, before the indictment came down.

And to me that was going to be what was likely to be in there. There's no record of this guy knowing about -- the 9/11 attacks. He was informed about them after they happened. He's really been a sort of bit player, not to say that it isn't important that he, you know, this just goes on trial. But let's not confuse it with --

BANFIELD: Peter, Peter, you've -- you've written about the evidence that actually might substantiate that he was a bit player. A private al Qaeda video that we obtained, this was -- this was something that we obtained luckily. This was not handed over to us in a bid to somehow assuage his involvement in any of this, it was something where bin Laden actually made gestures that showed this guy was a nothing. What -- what was that?

BERGEN: This was a tape that you may recall the U.S. government found in Kandahar and Afghanistan about a couple of months after 9/11 and then basically released it. And bin Laden's kicking back with some sort of supporters chuckling about 9/11 and at one point he points -- he says this was so secret with out organization, and he points to Abu Ghaith, the spokesman, and says, you know, we didn't include him in. So surely a defense lawyer will be using that in the future case.

BANFIELD: Spider Marks, you know, we have this thing called discovery in civilian justice here in the United States. And you have to, as a prosecutor tip, your hand so that the defense can prepare and the client can get a best defense. And some of that discovery might end up being, you know, really important information that's classified. What does that do to the people who are trying to use the classified information to continue this war on terror or whatever iteration it's in?

GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, clearly the key thing that needs to be done now that we have him under control is that there needs to be a really deep and what I would call a dive into what he knows, when he knew it, and how he got the information.

Now clearly, as Peter has indicated, he may have been designated a bit player and we might come to that conclusion. But it's important for us to really spend time with him. We've been at war for 10 years. The fact that he didn't know about 9/11 is incidental at this point. What has he gathered over the course of the last decade and frankly this isn't a horizon in terms of our combat against al Qaeda that we're going to reach any time soon.

So I think it's important that we've got a conviction on this guy, that's great. I think it's really important that we dig in to what he knows, when did he know it and we can validate that against other information and intelligence that we have.

BANFIELD: The all-important questions, aren't they? What did he know and when did he know it. I have to cut it off there, gentleman. But this conversation is going to get even better.

Jeffrey Toobin, Peter Bergen and General Spider Marks, thank you to all three of you.

Before the break great recession, we wouldn't have gotten too worked up about a jobs report that quoted 236,000 new jobs. But that figure blew past the experts' expectations for job growth last month in February and there is no one better than Christine Romans to explain the who's it and the why's it.

So what's the who's it and why's it of that report?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're right, I mean, there was day when you would never cheer a 7.7 percent unemployment rate and here we are, the unemployment at the lowest since December 2008.

You know how I love my charts, Ashleigh. So we've taken the whole employment report, all of its tables, all of its chart, and we boiled it into this info graphic. And this is what I can show you about where the jobs have been created. It's the private sector, 36 months in a row, the private sector, private companies have been creating jobs. Look at this big red down 10,000. Those are government jobs. We're losing government jobs. And economists telling us they think some of those were probably school related jobs because of state budget cuts. You're still seeing people working at schools who are losing their -- losing their jobs.

Not necessarily all teachers. Some of them are contract workers and the like. But still that's been a troubling part of the -- of the market.

I want to show you where we've seen some jobs growth that's been good. OK? I've been telling you about the housing market. Take a look here at construction, 48,000 construction jobs. That's a good sign. Those jobs tend to pay a little bit more. They show the housing market is working. And they're showing you that people are getting jobs, building houses.

Manufacturing, some of that, is probably housing related because, you know, we're building gear, building equipment to help with the construction boom or the construction recovery, I should say.

Retail jobs, leisure hospitality, and look up there at healthcare jobs, hospitals, offices, definitely have been hiring a lot of jobs. Hospitals, offices, and construction sites. That's where we've been seeing the jobs grown -- Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: I could have sworn I just saw a 7.7 unemployment rate, which is a huge difference. If that is right, and all of those other numbers we've just been quoting are right, what is that -- is that fuel for this rally, this amazing rally we've been watching?

ROMANS: It is. You know, I'm surprised actually the stock market isn't taking it in much bigger stride. I think earlier this week we were seeing highs in the stock market in part because people thought the jobs market was show something recovery. Also you have this number to contend with. A 14.3, 14.3 percent is something they call the real unemployment rate. The underemployment rate.

Some people like to quote that number better than the 7.7 percent because, frankly, you're seeing people drop out of labor market or you're seeing some people work part-time, but they'd love to work full time, Ash, but they're just not getting that job that they had before the recession. So that's one of the reasons this number still too high.

And don't you feel like a lot of people are talking about highs in the stock market for investors, but 7.7 percent unemployment, why aren't those numbers moving together? That's still -- that's still been confounding if you're a worker looking for a job in this economy.

BANFIELD: That's been the mystery we've been talking about as we achieve that great high on Wall Street.

ROMANS: Yes.

BANFIELD: All right. Well, you know, I knew you were the person to talk to.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you. Thanks, Christine Romans.

ROMANS: Have a nice weekend.

BANFIELD: You too. Take care.

Checking some other top stories now that we're following.

An undercover TSA inspector doing his job as an undercover inspector just happened to slip right through two security checkpoints at Newark airport. Two of them. And he had a fake bomb stuffed in his pants. "New York Post" is reporting this whole thing went down last month. A source tells "The Post" that the incident demonstrates how Newark airport is ground zero of TSA failures. There is no word, by the way, of any response from the TSA so far.

Residents in the northeast still battling the latest blast of winter weather from New York to New England. Snow, however, is expected to start turning to rain as the temperatures go up. And finally rain should clear out by tomorrow, but the wind is still a problem. Gusts are up to 40 miles per hour. And they're likely to continue.

There is word from the Vatican that the cardinals will vote today, not on a Pope, on a date, a date for the secret election of the Pope. They call it the conclave. That conclave involves 115 cardinals. It's not expected to begin before Monday, but only those cardinals who are younger than 80 are eligible to vote for their new Pope.

Coming up next, a pretty stunning change of position for one of our former presidents. Why Mr. Clinton, the president of the United States, signed the Defense of Marriage Act but now says that just never should have happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Bill Clinton is trying to undo something he did while in the White House. He's asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act which by the way, as president, he sign into law. DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman, but it also does something controversial now a days. It keeps same-sex couples from getting the same benefits that traditional couples get even in states where they've determined same-sex marriage is legal. Feds don't recognize that when it comes to a lot of the rights.

In an op-ed in the" Washington Post" President Clinton said this "the justices [of the Supreme Court] must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all else and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our constitution."

Let's bring in Jeffrey Toobin who is the author of "The Oath and" senior CNN legal analyst and also Evan Wolfson, who is the founder and president of Freedom to Marry.

So my first question is this, Jeff, and I want to be clear to our viewers because it can be very confusing. What President Clinton is writing about is not the freedom to get married to a same sex spouse. This is about recognizing the same sex laws that are in place. What is the significant of writing an op-ed like this? Because this is not an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, is it?

TOOBIN: Right. I think it's more political significance than legal. But I do think it's politically significant. I can't think of any law where a president said I signed it and I now think it's unconstitutional. That's a big change. And it's indicative as to how much attitudes have changed towards same-sex marriage over the past two decades.

Legally, the Supreme Court is going to decide this case based on the briefs, based on the arguments. But the justices are real people in the real world and they see how much public opinion has changed as reflected in part by this op-ed. So I think this is a straw in the wind indicating how much attitudes have changed.

BANFIELD: I want to -- we dug back to 1996 when DOMA was signed just because I had a feeling you were going to refer to that, I want to be clear that when Gallup asked its question, they did not use the word "same sex," they didn't even use the word "gay." They requested people using the word homosexual. So that could change. People have different views about different words. So when people were asked whether homosexual marriage should be considered valid back in 1996, only 27 percent said yes. So that's 1996. And I want to fast-forward to just February when CBS news asked the question should it be legal for same-sex couples to get married, and the number is 54. So it's a bit apples and oranges, but kind of apples and apples, 27 percent to 54 percent. Evan Wolfson, the culture has changed, but the culture has been changing a lot. Is this too late?

EVAN WOLFSON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, FREEDOM TO MARRY: Not at all. I think President Clinton's journey to understanding why marriage matters to gay people and how wrong exclusion is very much mirrors the journey that the majority of Americans have taken as you've just shown. We've literally doubled the number of Americans who support the freedom to marry and who understand that creating a gay exception to the normal way in which the government treats married couples has no place under our on constitution. And of course President Clinton is joined by not just Democrats, but Republicans, not just labor leaders are but business leaders, all which have filed brief after brief after brief in front of the Supreme Court saying this needs to be struck down.

BANFIELD: Can I name some of those since you brought up the amicus brief that have been added to the - there are like 130 or some odd prominent Republicans who've joined just recently. Last week it went from 70 to about 130 have joined the amicus brief --

WOLFSON: And counting.

BANFIELD: And counting. Here are just some of the names that we highlighted off a very long list of prominent Republicans: Clint Eastwood, Ileana Ros-Ledtinen, Jon Huntsman, Ken Mehlman, Tom Ridge, you can see the level of their involvement in the Republican party right there on your screen.

Jeffrey Toobin, President Clinton back in '96 when he signed DOMA, he said these words, I'm going to quote him. "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position." So this is the biggest about face for a president I've ever seen. Maybe I'm speaking too quickly. Does this matter to justices who are supposed to look at statute and decide on statute alone?

TOOBIN: Well, as a technical legal matter, public opinion doesn't matter, what people who are not part of litigation doesn't matter. But in the real world where the justices to be sure live, all of this stuff matters. Now, is it enough to get five votes? I think there are clearly four votes, the four Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court, to overturn DOMA, but will Anthony Kennedy join them, will John Roberts join them? I don't know, but I'm sure public opinion while technically irrelevant will play a part in the deliberations.

BANFIELD: Who is the fifth vote?

TOOBIN: Most likely to be Anthony Kennedy since he has been a supporter of gay rights in previous cases.

BANFIELD: We said that about Obamacare, too.

TOOBIN: And I was wrong.

BANFIELD: I wasn't going to bring that up.

TOOBIN: I was so wrong.

BANFIELD: Jeffrey Toobin, you are so right so often. Thank you. And Evan Wolfson, nice to see you again.

WOLFSON: Good to be with you.

BANFIELD: I have some breaking news that I want to jump away to and that is secretary of defense, he's brand new, his name is Chuck Hagel, and boy he got busy fast. This is him in Afghanistan already. This is his first visit obviously as secretary of defense and he firmly stated this, we're still at war in Afghanistan, but that it was never the intention of the United States to stay indefinitely and there comes a time for transition. So there you go, breaking news. They keep it very secret when a top level American administration leader makes a trip to a war zone and that's why we didn't know at least publicly until right now that he's there. It's official, he's there.

So a show of love for their leader has North Korea's president launching his brand new you ugly threats at the United States. And just look at the exuberance that all of these officials have for one guy on a boat. We're going to show you these pictures again. They get even better.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Want to take to you North Korea. Nothing short of amazing video of an apparently real emotional response to that country's leader Kim Jong-un. Feast your eyes. This played out as Mr. Kim was visiting his troops near the border with South Korea. The troops raising their arms in jubilation, but the really good stuff, all the great pictures, actually came as President Kim was leaving. Now watch.

Oh, my lord. Looks like the reverse Normandy. This is crazy. Troops, people in civilian clothes, swarming down the beach. Waving their arms, running through the sand and the water. Some rushing the boat. Look at this. This is insane.

The boat was pulling away and the troops and his followers of their beloved leader just couldn't get enough of him. And the backdrop is this. A very defiant response to extremely tough United Nations sanctions. The North says it is scrapping all non-aggression agreements with South Korea. So you know that armistice we had? No more. This comes a day after North Korea threatened a preemptive nuclear strike against South Korea and us as well, the United States. For its part, the White House is doubting the North Korean ability to actually launch a nuclear strike, but in the end it says the United States is prepared just in case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The United States is fully capable of defending against any North Korean ballistic missile attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So I've always wondered just how prepared and how is our gear. Joining us again is retired U.S. Army general and CNN contributor Spider Marks. So, Spider, when Jay Carney says we have what it takes, I'm guessing he mean as defensive weapon system. How is that system these days?

GEN. SPIDER MARKS, RETIRED, U.S. ARMY: Well, it's in great shape. We've been looking at this problem that North Korea poses in terms of its ballistic missile challenge primarily for decades. And it's a combination of capabilities that really starts with an incredibly aggressive system to pick up anomalies in terms of when they'll launch their missiles. And bear in mind they've only successfully put one missile into -- one essentially into orbit, just a pod. But they to have a very aggressive missile system but it only reaches in to Asia. It certainly can't reach the United States. But it starts with the warning system that allows us to see that. It's connected to our naval vessels, and it also brings in some fixed locations that are in South Korea, as well. So there is a great robust very redundant anti- missile system that exists, but clearly what we've seen with the North is the irrational behavior and this fault of personality (ph).

BANFIELD: And it's just strangeness.