Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

What Should The American Taliban Jon Walker be Charged with?; Has John Ashcroft Stepped on Civil Liberties?

Aired December 05, 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.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight American-turned-Taliban fighter Jon Walker - is he a traitor, a terrorist, or just misguided? Plus, the federal government is sued for not revealing who it has detained since September 11th. Should the government have to name names? This is CROSSFIRE.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Traitor. Terrorist. Latter-day patty Hearst. Spiritual pilgrim on the wrong side of history. Jonathan Walker is being called all of these things. The former San Francisco Bay area student turned Taliban soldier was captured last week. He is now in American custody. What next? Should walker face a military tribunal? A treason trial? Or, as his father suggests, should he be sent to Saudi Arabia for more study? That's our debate tonight.

Joining us, former Justice Department official, Victoria Toensing. And in New York, Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

And joining me tonight on the left for the book-touring Bill Press, back for a one time only return to CROSSFIRE Democratic strategist Bob Beckel.

But first, to San Francisco, we go to Abdullah Nana, who is a friend of John Walker's.

Good evening. Thanks for joining us. I'm wondering was there anything about John Walker in the years that you knew him in the United States that would lead you to suspect he would go join the Taliban and take up arms against his own country?

ABDULLAH NANA, FRIEND OF JOHN WALKER: I actually do not (unintelligible) -- I didn't notice anything that would have indicated that he would have ended up in Afghanistan. Initially actually when he left the country when he left the United States he actually left to seek knowledge and that was basically his goal in going to Yemen and thereafter going to Pakistan.

CARLSON: Now, when he was interviewed by "Newsweek" when he was still in the fort in Afghanistan he told the "Newsweek" reporter he supported the September 11th attacks on the United States. Did you ever hear him say anything anti-American or support violence in any way?

NANA: I didn't actually hear him say anything against the United States, but I do remember that he found it difficult to practice Islam in the United States, so because of that he wanted to leave the country and go to a place where it would be easier for him to practice Islam. So that's actually the reason why he decided to go to Yemen.

BOB BECKEL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Mr. Nana, thank you for being with us. Let me ask you, most Muslim clerics have been asked this question will say that the interpretation of the Koran by bin Laden is absolutely wrong, particularly when it comes to jihad. That, for example, Mohammed said that you should not attack women or children, non-combatants, et cetera, et cetera, So if we accept that as mainstream view of the Koran where did John Walker go wrong? Where did he learn and accept the bin Laden view of the Koran, as opposed to -- I assume what's taught in your mosque?

NANA: OK. As you mentioned there are different interpretations of Islam and actually the case with new Muslims people who have converted to Islam they tend to be influenced by those - by the people who are - have already accepted Islam by the older muslins and they tend to lean towards the views of the people they meet. So and Jon actually he spent a lot of - some time outside the country. He met a lot of people in Yemen too and also when he went to Pakistan. So i just believe he met different groups of people who had certain views and then he ended up being influenced by those people.

BECKEL: Abdullah, if you take -- Tucker gave this quote from Walker about how he said, "yes, I supported it," September 11, as usual conservatives even with bow ties take things out of the context. I'd like to read you the entire quote . . .

NANA: OK.

BECKEL: . . . That Mr. Walker said. And he said this, "Yes, I supported it," that's true, but he said -- his whole quote was this, "I haven't eaten for two or three and my mind is not really in shape to give you a coherent answer." When pressed by the press -- by the press he said, "Yes, I supported it," about September 11. Now, I'm not here defending Mr. Walker's actions.

NANA: OK.

BECKEL: As much as Tucker will try to put me in that corner. But let me ask you - what do you think ought to happen to Mr. Walker under our laws? He's now been arrested, will probably be charged with treason. The ultimate penalty is death for that under our laws.

NANA: OK.

BECKEL: What's your view of what should happen to him?

NANA: Well, my view, actually he's my friend and as far as i know, he is a good person. And I knew him to be a good person. So, I mean, I would like to see him again and I would like to see that he comes back home to his family and friends safely.

CARLSON: But even good people, as we know, Mr. Nana, can do bad things. Here's a man who took up arms against his country who was fighting with the Taliban - of course, this totalitarian regime. I wonder how he's seen in the Muslim community in the Bay area or in your mosque. Is he seen as someone who did the right thing -- following his spiritual path? Or is he seen as a traitor to his country?

NANA: Actually, the people in our mosque actually we don't discuss politics at all actually.

CARLSON: What about John Walker? What do they think of him?

NANA: And we, actually people haven't really - I wouldn't really know exactly what their opinions are. I'm actually just one person so I wouldn't know what opinions are. And actually because of this war situation I don't think it's appropriate answer - question to for muslims to discuss.

BECKEL: Mr. Abdullah, a question from us . . .

NANA: Sure.

BECKEL: . . . and thank you again for being on. Realistically you're not going to see your friend come back to the mosque and enjoy his company.

NANA: OK.

BECKEL: The fact is that he probably will never see the light of day or the light of life for that matter. So you must accept the fact that this is not something that the American public opinion, nor the American courts are going to dismiss lightly and more than likely he will be gone from your view for the rest of your life.

Sorry to lay that one on you, but I thought I'd do a realism test here.

NANA: OK. But I - also I think the government officials have also mentioned they don't see it right now as something that is high priority.

CARLSON: Now I know Mr. Beckel said that was the final question I just I'm curious about one thing. What do you think of what your friend John Walker did? Do you think it was a legitimate expression of Islamic faith or was it traitorist and wrong?

NANA: I would say he was following what he thought was the correct version of Islam. There are many Islamic groups and all of them claim that they believe they're following the correct version of Islam. So I think he was following what they thought was the correct version of Islam.

BECKEL: Mr. Abdullah I want to thank you for being on CROSSFIRE. I'm sorry to do that twice I didn't know that Tucker was going to sneak another question in but we come to expect that over time. thank you very much.

NANA: OK.

BECKEL: We appreciate it.

Victoria Toensing let me - many, many times I've been with you on this show and I will say this I admire you as a very good lawyer. The...

VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You're softening me up, here?

BECKEL: Do you think so? No, I wouldn't do that. This boy qualifies under section III?

TOENSING: Article III.

BECKEL: Article III of the constitution as a traitor. I think that's the direction we're going here. The punishment for which is death or something quite severe. Do you think this boy ought to be put to death?

TOENSING: Well, you're asking me to be - to decide the prosecution and the sentence at the same time. I don't want to do that.

BECKEL: That is, of course, what's happening around this country now.

TOENSING: Well, I don't think so. The first decision that has to be made by the government is whether to charge him with treason. And so he fits the legal definition and that is he picked up arms against the United States.

It wasn't Jane Fonda in Vietnam. We all got upset because she criticized the troops. This was - and the legal definition of treason which is to go against your country with arms. So he fits it legally.

Now as a matter of policy, I say a message should be sent to anyone else who might even be considering to go over there and join the Taliban that this is unacceptable conduct.

How could he join a group that murders women in the public square, that denies women education, health care, the ability to work, they're beaten if they show some ankle and they can't go out of houses without a male escort. This is a higher calling? No.

BECKEL: No, well, I want to rely on our system of justice not the Rush Limbaugh, "Let's hang him right now." But if . . .

TOENSING: No, I'm not hanging - I'm charging.

BECKEL: If he is convicted of what you suggest for treason for picking up arms then I take it you say that he should be put to death?

TOENSING: No, I don't. I would have to know more facts than I know tonight.

BECKEL: OK.

TOENSING: I am telling you that with the fact I have tonight unless refuted I, if I were attorney general, would want - I would have a presumption to charge him with treason.

BECKEL: Boy, I wish you were attorney general.

CARLSON: Nadine Strossen, thanks for joining us. I want you to listen to John Walker's father who was on "LARRY KING" the other night. I think he expressed a view that I know Bob Beckel would agree with. I want to see what you think of it. Here's John Walker's father on "LARRY KING."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANK LINDH, JOHN WALKER'S FATHER: It reminded me, frankly, of a lot of conversations I used to have with my own father during the Vietnam war where I had an opinion and he had an opinion and our opinions weren't perfectly matched up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, in other words, you support George Bush, I support the Taliban. Hey, they're just two political points of view. But isn't the truth here that this guy took up arms against his own country, and that's treason? Isn't it?

NADINE STROSSEN, PRESIDENT OF THE ACLU: There's certainly a big difference between advocacy and actual action. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to know whether he satisfies the very strict constitutional definition of treason but certainly it would have to go beyond mere expression of opinion. The constitution is very clear that you cannot be convicted except upon two witnesses in open court to overt acts.

CARLSON: OK. Now I know the ACLU has difficulty at imagining what crimes people commit but from the facts that we know - we do know that he took up arms on behalf of the Taliban which is to say, against the United States. He's admitted it. He was found in the company of the Taliban army with rifles. So knowing that fact seems to me (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the key fact. If it's not treason what is it?

STROSSEN: There are many crimes that could be satisfied by that definition -- that description -- of his actions. and all I will say is that the constitution defines only one crime, that is treason, imposes very, very strict limits upon it. We have very few precedents to go by. So my mind is open as to -- but I would say if the constitutional test is satisfied by definition the conviction would be constitutional. Now whether he should be executed is an entirely different thing and how he should be tried is an entirely different thing.

I think it's very interesting that President Bush's military order authorizing trial by secret military tribunals only applies to non-citizens. Is this case going to create pressure that he should expand that order so it applies to citizens as well?

I think all along this has been a very frightening slippery slope in which the rights of many, many people not just Osama bin Laden . . .

CARLSON: Wait just a second. Applies to -- hold on -- applies to citizens as well. Here is a guy who has taken up arms against the United States. In what sense is he a citizen?

I mean he may not gone to a consulate and renounced his citizenship but, does he really have the rights that American citizens have? How is that?

STROSSEN: Well, Bush's order applies only to non-citizens so I would think he would have to re-write his order if we were going to try this person in a military tribunal.

BECKEL: Nadine, let me just say, if you missed that shot that tucker gave the ACLU, let me just tell you I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU -- protects his rights as well as mine.

STROSSEN: And we have defend many accused criminals who are very conservative Republicans and they've been very grateful to us, including Oliver North.

CARLSON: (unintelligible) Nazis.

BECKEL: Yeah, they defended the Nazis which falls under the right category, I think. Now, Victoria, do you buy the father's assertion that he also made on "LARRY KING" that this kid was misled -- that, you know, he was misinformed? Do you buy that?

TOENSING: Oh, well of course not. The father also said that he got an e-mail from his son after the USS Cole bombing where our military was killed and his son said that he didn't -- he agreed with it, because the U.S. military was in an Islamic country. So this is not a kid -- this is a kid that can speak his mind. And before he was starving and hadn't had sleep.

BECKEL: OK -- I don't want to sneak this in here on you . . .

TOENSING: Yes?

BECKEL: ... but let me give a quote of what president Bush said about this fellow -- quote -- "This poor fellow obviously, he has been misled and that appears obvious to me." So . . .

TOENSING: Compassionate conservative.

BECKEL: ... compassionate conservative. I mean, the guy said we was misled. I mean, that's your president, mine too, I guess.

TOENSING: So does this mean he's going to insert the insanity defense?

BECKEL: I don't know.

TOENSING: Well, it's just a discussion like that, the insanity defense -- this is why we need military tribunals if you want to go there. I would not be, Nadine, for changing the executive order to apply. This guy should be tried in the United States.

BECKEL: Well, I tell you what we are going get a chance to talk about that and talk about John Ashcroft's rather irregular interpretation of the constitution -- how it deals with the over one thousand people that have detained in this country and we will talk about that when we get back. Is it legal or is it Ashcroft?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: There are reports that detainees have been denied their fundamental rights, to due process of law, including access to counsel, and have suffered serious bodily injury.

We simply cannot tell if those cases are aberrations or an indications of systemic problems but the Justice Department will not release further information about those being held in custody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECKEL: welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Bob Beckel, sitting in for Bill Press on the left. Just how much do we need to know about the hundreds of people taken into federal custody since September 11? Several civil liberties unions groups and human rights groups say a lot more than Attorney General John Ashcroft is telling us. They filed suit in federal court today demanding the government disclose names and other information about the detainees.

Should the government name names, or as Attorney General John Ashcroft says, do we risk sharing valuable intelligence with the enemy?

Questions for our guests tonight, former Justice Department official Victoria Toensing; and in new york, Nadine Strossen. Tucker, Nadine Strossen -- welcome back.

STROSSEN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, thank you very much. It's nice to have you. I read in part anyway the suit that the ACLU and other groups have filed against the justice department and I want to read back to you lines you probably wrote and question the sanity of them.

I'm quoting now -- "This secrecy is unprecedented, and deprives the public of information it is lawfully entitled to receive." Now the Justice Department says that the names of the people currently being held -- the 548 people being held -- that divulging them would create a national security risk. Now the ACLU has no evidence to prove otherwise, so I'm wondering, how is it that the public's so- called right to know their names supersedes the very real national security risk divulging them would pose?

STROSSEN: It is not up to the executive branch of government to make that determination, Tucker, it is for the judicial branch of government. We cannot simply depend upon assertions by the administration that various suppressions of civil liberties and this is a very serious suppression of free speech, rights of everybody in the public as well as potential violations of due process and other fundamental rights of those detained.

CARLSON: Oh, now that...

STROSSEN: We cannot -- are you going to say -- are you saying...

CARLSON: This sound like a fundraiser letter from the ACLU.

STROSSEN: Are you saying...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Come on...

STROSSEN: Are you saying...

CARLSON: Well, let me tell you what I am saying --

STROSSEN: Are you saying that the executive branch of government should be the sole determiner of what information it should dole out to the public and how much due process --

CARLSON: I'm saying that, Nadine Strossen, the due process . . .

STROSSEN: . . . it should give to the detainees.

CARLSON: Hold on. As you're fully aware the executive branch is in many cases the sole decider of that. There are many things -- the names of the United States soldiers in combat, for instance, that the executive branch chooses to withhold from the public. But...

strossen: Will we have the freedom . . .

CARLSON: ... more to the point -- hold on -- more to the point, the attorney general has released the nationalities and the crimes with which these 548 detainees have been charged. Now the names, I mean, this is very minor.

STROSSEN: They have not been charged with a crime.

CARLSON: The public doesn't...

STROSEEN: They have not been...

CARLSON: ... need to know this. STROSSEN: ... charged with crimes, Tucker. These are people being held on immigration violations.

CARLSON: For which they are being held, I beg your pardon. But everyone for a crime so why do you need some of their names? Who cares?

STROSSEN: Who cares, because we need to be able to contact them. We need to be able to be sure that they have access to counsel. We need to be able to be sure that they are aware of their legal rights. We need to be able to be sure that even they are being treated with basic humanity, being given access to telephones to their families.

The reports that have come out unfortunately are to the contrary that it's very difficult for them to even get a few minutes a week on the telephone, that it's very difficult for their lawyers, even those who have lawyers, to find them. That they have not in fact been charged within 48 hours, despite assertions by the Justice Department.

Now, as Russ Feingold -- Senator Feingold -- said maybe those reports are aberrational, but I think it's critically important for the American people to know and it's critically important to the legitimacy of our counterterrorism actions.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: Wait a second the fact of the matter is who cares? You say Who cares? Who cares? A lot of these people, 80 percent of whom Ashcroft has locked up and had to release because they were decent law abiding citizens. And who cares if they're kids if you don't know where they are.

CARLSON: Decent law? You have no evidence of that at all.

BECKEL: There's a guy that's been here 22 years -- a businessman who had three children.

CARLSON: You pick one guy out of "Time" magazine --

BECKEL: Why are they letting all of these people go, because Ashcroft has pulled a dragnet like they used to do in other parts of the world.

CARLSON: Because some of them are members of al Qaeda, and that's why...

BECKELY: Oh, get out...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... our country hasn't been attacked again.

BECKEL: Well, fine get al Qaeda and leave decent people alone. Let me ask victoria a question. Victoria, look -- you are a -- you understand the constitution. I think Attorney General John Ashcroft . . . CARLSON: (unintelligible) educate them.

BECKEL: Excuse me. Unlike John Ashcroft who I think probably had somebody else take his constitutional law class for him.

CARLSON: He's no Teddy Kennedy. Come on.

BECKEL: He's not much of anything, except probably the worst attorney general next to John Mitchell.

TOENSING: You know, it's a good thing you guys...

CARLSON: Will you stop this guy?

(CROSSTALK)

TOENSING: It's a good thing -- I'm glad you had women on here to calm you down.

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

BECKEL: I want to know Ashcroft's interpretation of the of the constitution, according to the great John Ashcroft. I understand a detainee has a right to contact counsel. Is that correct -- to contact counsel?

TOENSING: No -- to contact counsel it's very different. If you have 50 some criminals -- people who are charged criminally they have a right to counsel at taxpayer's expenses. on immigration charges they have a right to have counsel, but they don't have a right to have the taxpayers pay for it...

BECKEL: No -- I understand.

TOENSING: ... if they can't afford it.

BECKEL: All right -- the people who have been released who are innocent, which Ashcroft now is releasing them left and right because he has to appear before the Senate tomorrow and prove that he's really got serious people locked up, as opposed to decent folks. Ashcroft has denied these people counsel. They've paid for it themselves. Endless people have come here and said they were not allowed...

TOENSING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the law.

BECKEL: So that is against the law...

TOENSING: no, no, no that's not (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: Ashcroft is stomping on the constitution, right?

TOENSING: Please don't put words in my mouth.

BECKEL: All right -- fine. TOENSING: That is the law, in an immigration case if you're charged with an immigration violation you can have counsel, but you have to pay for it.

BECKEL: That's fine. But the point is these people have asked to call lawyers they will pay for, and they've been denied that right.

TOENSING: Bob, you don't know that any more than I know or the ACLU...

STROSSEN:: We do know that, Victoria.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: You say . . .

CARLSON: Now hold on. Let's let the president of the ACLU comment on this.

STROSSEN: Well, Victoria and I both participated in the same Senate judiciary hearing yesterday, and also the witnesses included two lawyers and one client, a former detainee -- all of whom attested to the enormous difficulty they had in making contacting with their lawyers. There was very restricted access to telephones, lawyers were given the run around. They weren't even told physically where their clients were. They were moved from one facility to another. And these are for people who have family members or corporations, employers who have hired lawyers for them. We in the legal community pro bono organization community . . .

CARLSON: In the last five second we have...

STROSSEN: ... are trying to get access to these people, simply to defend their legal rights. And I think that anybody (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

TOENSING: But in the last -- in the first two weeks after the aftermath, I think we all agreed there that mistakes were made. If it is still happening the Justice Department should correct it. But I can tell --

CARLSON: We are going to have to leave that as the last word, unfortunately, as much as I agree with every word you speak. Victoria Toensing -- Nadine Strossen in New York, thank you both, very much.

Bob Beckel and I will be back for our closing comments. Not sure what what we'll have to talk about. We agree on virtually everything, we'll find something. We'll be back with CROSSFIRE in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Let me just say, Bob, that you're wearing the ugliest necktie I've ever seen in my entire life. Second, John Ashcroft for all your whining about him, he and his Justice Department have saved this country from thousands more deaths inflicted at the hands of terrorists. He has actual terrorists in custody, when you sleep well tonight, you thank John Ashcroft. I know you won't, but you should.

BECKEL: Let me also say about your necktie, Tucker, that bow tie -- they were frozen in the 50s.

CARLSON: That's right. That's why I'm wearing it.

BECKEL: It was a long time ago when people wore those things. Let me tell you about John Ashcroft, he may go down in history as the worst attorney general that we've ever had. I don't feel safer tonight going to bed, I feel more in danger because this guy has stepped on civil liberties in this country.

CARLSON: That is total -- yeah -- right.

BECKEL: Why do you take this guy --

CARLSON: He's got terrorists in custody, man. This means nothing to you?

BECKEL: He's got a lot -- here's the thing, Tucker, he's got a lot of innocent people in custody and that's the problem.

CARLSON: The selling point is that he has terrorists there.

BECKEL: Yes -- the selling point is that he doesn't know the law. From the left, proud to be a liberal, I'm Bob Beckel. Good night from 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