Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Target Terrorism: Forcing Suspects to Talk

Aired October 25, 2001 - 19:30   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: History's judgment will be harsh and the people's judgment will be sure if we fail to use every available resource to prevent future terrorism attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: But are authorities going too far when it comes to detaining suspects? Hundreds have been taken into custody. Is it getting out of hand, or should the rules be changed during times of war? This is CROSSFIRE.

Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. In the wake of September 11th, federal authorities pledged to cast a wide net for suspected terrorists in the United States. They have. Snared so far, nearly a thousand people; most of them Middle Eastern.

Hundreds have been released, but more than a hundred remain in custody, some awaiting deportation, others charged with various relatively minor offenses. All of this is legal. Tomorrow the president is expected to sign legislation that allows authorities to hold foreigners for up to seven days without charging them at all. But is it discrimination, and is it necessary to fight terrorism? That's our debate tonight.

Joining us: Hussein Ibish, Communications Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and from New York, Maurice Sonnenberg, former Vice Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism. Bill?

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Mr. Sonnenberg, you will have to excuse me, but I'm a philosophy major from the University of Niagara, so I like to start with a basic principle, if we may. And this one articulated by Georgetown University Professor Jonathan Turley -- a frequent guest on this show -- who says, quote -- I'm sorry, it's George Washington University. In this town you can't confuse the two. Quote...

MAURICE SONNENBERG, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM: No, you can't.

PRESS: Here's his quote: "The government does not have a license to violate Constitutional rights because there is a national emergency." Pretty basic. After September 11th, do you still agree with that statement?

SONNENBERG: Well, first of all, the premise is, is it a violation of Constitutional rights? I mean, Constitutional rights depend on situations and time. I'm not sure that the legislation -- in fact, I have a feeling when -- if and when it goes to court -- is going to probably be sustained. So I disagree the premise that they're violating Constitutional rights if it has yet to be determined.

Now, if the question is do they have a right to put through this kind of legislation that makes it easier to find probable terrorists? Well, the answer probably is yes.

PRESS: Well, let's talk about the legislation just a little bit later and talk about some of the things that are being considered now. And by the way, I have never thought that Constitutional rights were a question of situational ethics.

But the "Washington Post" earlier this week reported that the FBI is getting frustrated with some of these people that have been detained because they won't talk. And so, according the "Post," the FBI is talking about perhaps going the use of drugs to make them talk, going to the use of pressure tactics -- not defined -- to make them talk, or even exporting some of these people to other countries that will use threats against them or even physical torture to make them talk. Do you think those things are over the line?

SONNENBERG: I would think so. You know, you get to the point where if you -- go look at early films from the '30s, '40s and '50s -- you remember, the black and films where they take the fellow in the back room...

PRESS: Right.

SONNENBERG: ...and they punch him out a bit they and put lights him for seven, eight hours until he drops and he talks. I think in these situations you haven't got that problem here. First of all, the ones who are probably guilty are highly unlikely to agree to anything with that kind of tactic anyway.

Now, the last one, that's the more interesting one. Are these people wanted? Are there -- in those countries that may want them, have them extradited for crimes -- possible crimes -- they may have committed there?

In point of fact that tactic has been used in European countries. I know for a fact that in one country in Western Europe they told the suspect, "Look, if you don't talk we are going to hand you over to another country and they won't be so easy with you." So I'm not sure we are ready for that tactic.

PRESS: All right, sir.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Ibish, in the last six weeks you've heard a lot of self-appointed civil libertarians talk as if the federal government is rounding up everybody with a turban. But of course, that's not even close to what's happening. There have been fewer than a thousand people detained, and a lot of them have been detained for good reason. Let me just give you two example. Two guys -- Ayub Khan, Mohammed Azmath yanked off the train in Texas the day after the attacks.

They have got a large amount of cash, they've got box cutters. They've got hair dye. They're using false names, They won't explain where they're going or what they are doing. A search of their apartment turns up information, stories on biological weapons and warfare. Why shouldn't the FBI detain people like this?

HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COUNCIL: Well, really, in that case I think that they probably should. And they have to determine at some point -- quickly -- whether to charge them with a crime or not, unless they can come up with some other rationalization to hold them. Obviously, the circumstantial evidence suggesting that these people might have been up to no good quite strong, and there's no objection to this element of the investigation from civil libertarians, in my opinion.

What the problem is, when it comes to the investigation, is that we really don't know. We don't know how many people have been arrested. We don't know how many people are being detained and under what circumstances and according to what criteria, and we don't know how many of them really have been released. So we don't know exactly what if government is doing.

My organization has received numerous cases of people who have been detained under much more dubious circumstances, just because of the way they looked, and then were denied counsel for hours and days on end, and other irregularities. We understand mistakes are going to be made, that there's a crisis, confusion in an emergency. But what we need to avoid is systemizing those mistakes or codifying them into law.

CARLSON: But let's just be clear. When you say irregularities you're not saying that they are hung by their thumbs, you're saying that they did not have access to a lawyer quickly.

IBISH: No. Right.

CARLSON: Well, hold on.

IBISH: What I'm saying -- what I'm saying is that the government did not follow the law in all of these cases, that the government had behaved in fact illegally in some of these cases. And that's a concern for their civil liberties.

CARLSON: Hold on. We do know that the -- that the -- at least according to the government -- and I think we can believe the government in this case...

IBISH: Oh, sure.

CARLSON: ...that the vast majority of people who are still being held are being held because they committed crimes. Immigration crimes...

IBISH: No. Well, hold on. Hold on.

CARLSON: Or various other crimes. What's wrong with that?

IBISH: What's wrong with it is that when there's a minor visa violation that typically, traditionally, would be resolved with an exchange of letters if someone is slightly out of status for some reason, just because of their ethnicity to hold them in jail...

CARLSON: What do you mean, slightly out of status?

IBISH: Slightly out of status would be having a work permit to permit you to work for one company and having exchange jobs and end up working for another company without altering your visa. And that's a minor violation. Being here on a student visa and taking some credits but not the requisite number of credits. These are minor matters, and traditionally, typically, they would be, you know, resolved with an exchange of letters.

There are people who are being detained under such circumstances, and they wouldn't be if they weren't Arabs and they wouldn't be if September the 11th hadn't happened. Those are questionable. We need to resolve some of those issues.

PRESS: Mr. Sonnenberg, I'd like to get your -- go ahead. You were getting ready to say something. I heard you wanted to jump in.

SONNENBERG: Yeah. I'm not a hundred percent sure that Mr. Ibish is quite correct there. I really believe that the government has an intention to take these people and question them, and eventually those people within the seven-day period -- as you know this new law is going to have a seven-day period. England, for example wanted to have -- hello?

PRESS: Go ahead, finish.

SONNENBERG: England wanted to have an indefinite period. They, because of the human rights and European Commission reduced it to seven. Now, the use of a crime -- let's say false identification -- if there's a necessity to hold someone beyond that, there's nothing wrong with that if they suspect -- suspect -- they may be involved in terrorist actions.

IBISH: There is -- actually there is something wrong with that. What's wrong with it is that we need judicial review. You can't just lock someone up based on the attorney general's say so.

And one of the problems with the seven-day period is that the attorney general can either charge you with a crime or he can schedule you for deportation. If he schedules you for deportation -- for any reason whatever, having nothing to do with terrorism or any other criminality of that kind -- you can -- you still have to be -- not you can be -- you have to be detained indefinitely. And that period can last for up to seven, eight years. And then if you can't be deported, you'll be detained for six-months periods of time until the attorney general wants to let you go.

Now, that's giving too much power to one man in the federal government, to just say, "I don't like you. You're locked up and we're throwing away the key." That's wrong, I think.

SONNENBERG: I'm not a legal expert on this. But you realize the vote was 98-1?

IBISH: Yeah.

SONNENBERG: Among the people who voted for it were, for example, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, a known civil libertarian, a supporter of...

IBISH: But that doesn't make it right.

SONNENBERG: No, no.

IBISH: But that doesn't make it right.

SONNENBERG: I think what you're doing here is...

IBISH: The fact that Russ Feingold is the only one with the guts to vote against it doesn't mean everybody else is right.

SONNENBERG: Well, you may have a point. But on the other hand, I think when you look through the litany of those arguments that went back and forth, they're trying awfully hard to look at both the civil liberties of the very people you're talking about. For example, on my commission we made a point of saying secret evidence in these trials was not the way to go. You'll -- you know what I'm talking about for the Iraqis in Kansas.

IBISH: Yes, I do.

SONNENBERG: And I was very strong on that. However, we are in a crisis. We are in a war mode. And unfortunately, there are people -- unfortunately -- who are brought into a net that perhaps shouldn't be. Now, what are we supposed to do? We are supposed to look at it in the very best way to try and give these people the benefit of the doubt.

IBISH: Well, there are two things...

SONNENBERG: Now, if there's a benefit of the doubt against them, I'm afraid you're going to have to live with that.

PRESS: All right. Let me jump in here, because I want to pick on that very point. Because, you know, Tucker started with an anecdote. I want to give you an anecdote too. About five men in New York City -- I'm sure you know about them.

They were found to have box cutters and they looked Middle Eastern. They were arrested. They were held for over a month. They were blindfolded in their cells. They were kept in handcuffs in their cells. And it turned out that they worked for a moving company in New York which is why they had box cutters. And they were Middle Eastern. They were Israelis -- they were Jews. Isn't that the problem with this massive profiling that we are doing right now, and excusing it because the terrorists were all Middle Eastern?

SONNENBERG: Look. Nobody -- nobody condones that. I mean, you would have to be absurd to. On the other hand, look. We've had a terrible tragedy here. 6,000 people have been killed. If you want to look at the source of it, the source of it unfortunately has come from radical -- and I emphasize radical -- I've spent time in Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, I've got friends all over that community here and there so I'm very sympathetic to Mr. Ibish and your view on taking people who shouldn't be brought in. But on the other hand there is that element, and unless we are prepared to deal with that element in strong -- in a strong way, we may suffer the consequences as a whole.

PRESS: Here's the -- OK. Here's the problem, dealing with that element. I'm going to remind you of Timothy McVeigh.

IBISH: Exactly.

PRESS: I'm going to remind you of Oklahoma City and I'm going to remind you what of what a response was not after that bombing, except in one case that I can recall. I'd like you to listen, please, to just a little sound bite here from the attorney for some of the detainees, Mr. Randall Hamud. He was on CNN with Greta Van Susteren just this Monday evening.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDALL HAMUD, ATTORNEY: When Timothy McVeigh was identified as the culprit in the Oklahoma City bombing, I didn't see mass arrests of Irish Catholic or blonde, blue-eyed people who might have interacted with McVeigh or prayed at his church.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Right. I mean, so we are doing this profiling just because it's easy to identify these people and because they're Arabs, right?

SONNENBERG: No, not necessarily so at all. I mean, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, I can take an argument that you would perhaps agree with -- and I agree with -- and that is the first reaction to Timothy McVeigh was it must have been Arabs who did that Oklahoma bombing. You remember that.

I, on the other hand have always taken the position that, wait a minute. Let's go find out exactly who it is. In point of fact, unfortunately, in terms of these other incidents -- by the way, whether they're here, whether it's in -- at the USS Cole, whether it's the Khobar bombing of the tower there -- you go through every one of these incidents. Unfortunately -- and this is no reflection on our fine Arab-American community -- unfortunately, they are coming from that group of fanatics, what I call fundamentalist Muslims. Most Muslims, by the way, don't even agree with it.

IBISH: I agree with you that there is a crisis situation. I agree with you that there's an emergency. The problem is that what we've gotten in this legislation is a vast laundry list. I mean, I'm not even sure everyone in Congress who voted for this -- particularly in the House or even in the Senate -- read the whole thing thoroughly, because it's so is vast.

And what it is, is a laundry list of wants that the federal government has been after -- has been asking for, for ages and that have been turned down time and again. Now there is an emergency -- the whole country agrees there's an emergency -- we are getting all kinds of transfer of power and arbitrary authority to the federal government without judicial review, without appropriate oversight or checks and balances. And this is -- this is, I think, a mistake.

PRESS: Let me stop you both right there, if I can, because we are getting into that legislation. We will take a break and we'll pick up with the anti-terrorism legislation that passed the Senate today. Does it go too far, or does it not go far enough?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: We've been hurt terribly as a nation. We do have to improve our security, and we will do that. If we give up our liberties in improving our security, the terrorists win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. One day after the House, the Senate today passed anti-terrorism legislation, giving the Department of Justice broad new authority to track down suspected terrorists; new police powers that some fear could be used against innocent citizens. Does the war on terrorism justify limits on civil liberties? Maurice Sonnenberg, former Vice Chair of the National Commission on Terrorism votes in the affirmative. Hussein Ibish, Communications Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee votes in the negative. Tucker.

CARLSON: Mr. Ibish, you said at least once that some of the suspects have been rounded up and detained because they're Arabs, or partly because they're Arabs...

IBISH: Yes.

CARLSON: ...and by grant you that that's at least partly true and that it is rough on American sensibilities to think that this is happening. But let's step back just for one moment.

IBISH: Sure.

CARLSON: The attacks of September 11th were committed by people who don't come from across the spectrum.

IBISH: Right.

CARLSON: They come from a very specific point of view and in some cases a very specific community.

IBISH: Right.

CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from Michael Kinsley, who once occupied the Bill Press here on CROSSFIRE: not a flaming right- winger.

IBISH: No.

CARLSON: Something of a civil libertarian.

IBISH: Me too.

CARLSON: Here's his quote from "Slate" magazine: "We are at war with the terror network that just killed 6,000 innocents and has anonymous agents in our country planning more slaughter. Are we really supposed to ignore the one identifiable fact we know about them?" Question mark. "The one identifiable fact is that they're, of course, all radical Muslims." What -- we have to acknowledge that, don't we?

IBISH: Yes, of course. Sure.

CARLSON: We want to find out who their accomplices are.

IBISH: Oh, of course. That's -- everything you just read from Michael Kinsley is obviously true. What that doesn't translate into is that it's a good idea to racially profile people, that -- it doesn't mean, therefore, that ethnicity isn't still a false lead if that's the principal or the only thing that calls somebody to your attention.

I think you should listen to the words of the Vinnie Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA counterterrorism efforts, who acknowledges and says and is actually representative of a whole wing in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community that recognizes that racial profiling, ethnic stereotyping, does not translate into good police work.

CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) says it does.

IBISH: You have to recognize the fact -- hold on. You have to recognize this fact, you have to take it into consideration. But you don't charge out rounding up everybody who looks like they may or may not be an Arab and a Muslim.

CARLSON: First of all, that has not happened in the United States...

IBISH: But wait. By the way, you will never round me up...

CARLSON: That has not happened in the United States.

IBISH: I agree. Right. Right.

CARLSON: I don't know what you're talking about, but the idea that...

IBISH: I'm telling you what the conclusion is.

CARLSON: ...that you can't take that into consideration...

IBISH: I never said that.

CARLSON: ...that every time a law enforcement agency does, it's racial profiling.

IBISH: No, I didn't say that. I said that when

CARLSON: Would you admit that it's a valid...

IBISH: When that's the principle --it depends on how it's done. When it's part of the mix, it's fine. When it's the main thing that leads somebody to be a -- to be counted as suspicious, it's wrong. And by the way, it's also probably illegal as well. And I think that that's the simple standard. Taking it into consideration is fine. Making it the principal marker of suspicion is wrong.

PRESS: Mr. Sonnenberg, I was glad to hear you say at the top of the show that you are not condoning torture or drugs to make people talk. But I want to read you something that you wrote this morning, sir, in the "New York Daily News." Just a quick sentence. You do say, "To win the war against terrorism, it might unfortunately be necessary for this country to revise traditional concepts of justice, civil liberties and our rule of law." Now if not torture, if not drugs, how far are you willing to go?

SONNENBERG: No. First of all, I am referring distinctly and only to go through the whole article to the legislation.

PRESS: OK.

SONNENBERG: I am not referring to what you're talking about. And as Mr. Ibish is taking the point of view that this type of legislation might -- you take my sentence -- he would feel that what I've said is wrong in terms of this legislation. That's all I was talking about.

PRESS: All right. Well, in terms of this legislation -- and the -- I was addressing it there, too. The legislation calls for new powers.

SONNENBERG: Not torture.

PRESS: No. But new powers for roving wire taps, new powers for getting into Internet e-mail, new powers for getting into bank records of people.

IBISH: And without judicial review.

PRESS: Right. Isn't it true that all of those are powers that can be used against innocent citizens -- and will be -- against innocent citizens of the United States? SONNENBERG: Could is a better word than will be. Now, the purpose of that legislation, and the reason it is there, is for the obvious thing. Today we are in a world of Internet communication. These terrorists live by the computers. So the idea of having the ability to be able to find the user, the provider, where the messages are going, to be able to go across state lines -- remember, these fellows were in libraries is using computers around the country.

We've had prior terrorist situations where they've had their laptops and they've had other -- this is not something now. Now, roving wire taps. What can you do? You've got cell phones, you've got across-border situations. I don't think you can take a benign view that this is a digital as opposed to analog situation.

IBISH: Well, let me just say, you know, that everything that we are talking about comes in a context. It's extremely important to understand that we have a history in this country, and we know what the federal government has done with these kinds of powers in the past.

Throughout the 20th century, there were repeated instances of the federal government using extreme, arbitrary powers that they may or may not have had legally: in the '20s in the red scares, in the McCarthy era, in the CoIntelPro period during the 1960s and '70s, up to and including the secret evidence cases you were referring to before.

We have seen that when you give the federal government and individual bureaucrats the power over the individual of this kind, that checks and balances, without judicial review, without other kinds of inputs, this can and almost always does lead to abuse.

SONNENBERG: Can I...

CARLSON: Mr. Ibish, let me ask you a question here.

SONNENBERG: Can I ask a question?

PRESS: Yeah, sure. Go ahead, sir.

CARLSON: Go ahead.

PRESS: Quickly, please. OK?

CARLSON: Mr. Sonnenberg.

SONNENBERG: Look. I understand exactly what you're saying, but we've had periods where we are at war. In the civil war we suspended habeus corpus. In World War I, unfortunately, Germans -- German- Americans were treated terribly. In the World War II we have the situation of the Japanese.

IBISH: Surely we don't want to repeat this.

SONNENBERG: Wait a minute.

IBISH: Because we already did that, right?

SONNENBERG: Let me finish over there. You have a situation in World War II where, unfortunately, Japanese-Americans were taken and put in camps, who -- by the way, it was proposed and the biggest advocate was, funny enough, Earl Warren. And you'll all be amused to know that the person who opposed it was J. Edgar Hoover, but that's for another story.

What I'm saying is, what we're doing here -- go to England right now. England has passed an anti-terrorist bill which is much more draconian than ours is today. In point of fact, the things you're talking about, the mother of all democracies has a very stringent laws...

IBISH: But the European authority on human rights has ruled that that law, the prevention of terrorism act, brings Britain out of sync with the EU and violates human rights. We don't need that.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Ibish, really let me get in a question here. Hold on. Hold on, Mr. Sonnenberg, hold on.

SONNENBERG: The EU..

CARLSON: OK. Here's my question.

IBISH: Go ahead.

CARLSON: Truth serum.

IBISH: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: Now, federal agents want to use sodium pentathol on detainees...

IBISH: Oh...

CARLSON: Hold on. The idea is, this would wreck the court cases but it would possibly provide information that would prevent deaths. What's wrong with that?

IBISH: The reason we don't rely on threats, coercions, truth serums and the like is -- is not just our concern for the rights of the individuals. It's also that the information you get from those things -- including from truth serums and drugs -- is not reliable. When you -- so if you assault somebody so that they just start talking, you don't get reliable information. You terrify someone and threaten them, you don't get reliable information. That's the fact, so, you know...

PRESS: OK. We're going to have to -- gentlemen, no drugs, no torture.

CARLSON: No drugs, no torture, though in another show we might come out in favor or perhaps in our closing comments. You'll have to stick around to find out. Bill Press and I will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A little food for thought, Bill. 1995. Filipino authorities arrest a guy named Abdul Murad. They torture him. Under torture, he admits that he was planning to bring down 11 American airliners, blow up the CIA, kill the pope. Torture is bad. Keep in mind, some things are worse. And under certain circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils. Because some evils are pretty evil.

PRESS: Well, actually I'm only for torturing conservatives. I think there it's proper and called for. And by the way, I don't...

CARLSON: That's not a compelling case, Bill.

PRESS: I don't want the United States to become another Philippines, Tucker. Here's some food for thought for you: that the worst blots on president's records are when they went against civil liberties. John Adams' Alien Sedition Acts, Abraham Lincoln suspending habeus corpus and FDR the internment camps. We don't want to go back there.

CARLSON: At least you're honest. I must say, you do get points for this. You're honest enough to remind America that it was in fact FDR who put Japanese Americans in internment camps.

PRESS: And it was outrageous.

CARLSON: That's absolutely right.

PRESS: And I don't want to do that again.

CARLSON: And it was a blot on your party and I'm glad you admit it.

PRESS: From the left, for all of America, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.

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