Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interview With Michael Farrell; Interview With Rick Sanford

Aired December 19, 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)

MAUREEN FAULKNER, VICTIM'S WIFE: And a jury of 12 sentence Mumia Abu-Jamal to the death penalty. I just want what the jury of 12 has carried out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, a federal judge overturns the death sentence of convicted cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Was it a fair decision? And is it safe to fly home for the holidays?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE, in Los Angeles, president of the Death Penalty Focus, Michael Farrell; and in Houston, Rick Sanford, co-founder of the victim's rights association, Justice For All. And later, former secretary of transportation, Rodney Slater; and in Denver, Colorado, aviation analyst Michael Boyd.

PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Twenty years ago, he was convicted of killing a policeman and condemned to die. Today, he may live after all, thanks to a federal judge. He is former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal, America's most famous death row inmate. The judge says Jamal's guilty but was sentenced unfairly. So he's ordered a new sentencing trial within 180 days. Otherwise, Abu-Jamal will automatically get life in prison.

That decision has blown open an already controversial case. Police officers are outraged and disgusted at the very idea Abu-Jamal will get another chance. Death penalty opponents are pleased that one more death row inmate may be spared. That's our debate, the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Justice served or justice denied?

Larry Elder with us again tonight. He's a talk show host on KABC Radio in Los Angeles and author of, "Ten Things You Can't Say in America" -- Larry.

LARRY ELDER, GUEST CO-HOST: Bill, thank you.

Mr. Farrell, no matter how people try to spin this, this has got to be a major defeat for the crowd that believes Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent. The judge upheld the conviction. The judge simply overturned the sentence. And even in that case, the judge said, "Look, some of those jurors might have given him the death penalty because they thought if they gave him life, some day, he might walk." Turns out it's not true; he never would have walked. But the bottom line is they wanted him at the very least to be behind bars for the rest of his life. This is not a victory.

MICHAEL FARRELL, PRESIDENT, DEATH PENALTY FOCUS: I don't know anyone who's claiming it is, Larry. And I'm not one of those who claims that Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man. I don't know that. I don't know how anybody can know that. He was convicted in a trial that I believe falls well short of what we would hope to be representative of our justice system. And I believe he deserves a new trial.

The judge obviously didn't agree. But the judge did find that the death sentence was inappropriate for the reasons cited, and he actually left open the seven or eight other counts which could, I understand, still be adjudicated. So people aren't happy, I guess, because a man that they want dead isn't -- or may not be killed by the state. Those of us who believe that killing by the state is inappropriate in a civilized society are pleased at least that he may not be killed.

ELDER: I've read a very persuasive book, Mr. Farrell, called, "Cop Killer." You can get it from Accuracy in Academia here in Washington, D.C. But I want to read you an article that was in "Time" magazine back in July of last year entitled, "Wrong Guy, Good Cause." And here's what "Time" magazine said: "I didn't know much about the case," says the writer, Steve Lopez, "when I moved to Philadelphia in 1985 to work for the 'Enquirer,' but I began to educate myself. And the things Abu-Jamal's supporters didn't know was shocking. In Mumia Abu-Jamal, they picked the wrong guy to carry the flag." What's your reaction to that, Mike?

FARRELL: Well, I think a lot of people who claim, for example, as I said before, that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent might be carrying the flag for the wrong guy. Those of us who believe that justice in this society is one of the bedrock principles in that every trial, particularly a trial where a man's life is in the balance, should be scrupulously maintained -- fairness should be scrupulously maintained. And when trials don't meet those standards, they should be cast aside and a new trial should be ordered-- weren't addressed in that comment.

You probably know of Stuart Taylor, Jr., who wrote in the "American Lawyer" magazine, he called Mumia Abu-Jamal guilty but framed. He talked about the inefficiency of the trial, the inappropriate performance of the prosecution and the police and the fact that there was the possible subornation of perjury. These are the kinds of things that we can't countenance in our justice system. Guilty or innocent, a man deserves a fair trial.

PRESS: Mr. Sanford, like Mike Farrell, I don't know whether Abu- Jamal is guilty or innocent. I haven't spent my lifetime studying the case. But it does seem to me that the judge gave us, at best, a half a loaf, a trial only on the -- a new trial on the sentencing and not on the basic facts of whether -- of the trial, whether he is innocent or guilty. There were some problems with the trial, as Ed Asner pointed out in an interview yesterday. Asner's been very interested in this case for a long time. Please listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED ASNER, ACTOR: Mumia was not allowed to defend himself. He was not allowed to -- he was kept out of the courtroom perhaps at trial. He was not allowed to pick a co-counsel, all of these things. The trial was a travesty. And all that I have championed for is that he be retried. And, of course, in being retried, that case will certainly be examined a lot better than the first trial was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: So if this is going to be reexamined, shouldn't it be reexamined across the board, both as to his innocence and guilty, not just the sentence he gets?

RICK SANFORD, CO-FOUNDER, JUSTICE FOR ALL: Well, the only thing that was a travesty was that we have a judicial system in America that can have 19 years of appeal after appeal after appeal. Justice doesn't get served a lot of times, it just gets denied or put on appeal. Inevitable, the bottom line is the federal judge said that he is a convicted cop killer. He was wounded with the officer's weapon. There is no doubt about the guilt or innocence. The federal judge simply said that they didn't like the way the jury was instructed. They will re-sentence this man, and maybe he will finally pay his debt to society.

You know, Mike Farrell and the Hollywood stars, they have evidently nothing better to do than to constantly stick their nose in the judicial system of America. Because of their celebrity status, they think that they should be listened to. I think it's pathetic. Let them stay on the screen and get out of America's judicial system.

FARRELL: There is something pathetic about somebody who spends his time, it seems to me, lusting after blood. What we're talking about...

SANFORD: Lusting after blood? There's no question...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Hold it, hold it. Rick Sanford, you've leveled a pretty might charge there. Please let Mr. Farrell respond. And then, Mr. Sanford, you can go. OK, one at a time.

Go ahead, Mike.

FARRELL: What we're simply talking about here is justice and the justice system that in this case, I believe, didn't work appropriately. I'm sorry if you feel it's my sticking my nose in, and because I'm a Hollywood star, that's somehow offensive to you. The fact is I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I believe in the fundamental principles of this country, one of which is equal justice under law. I believe equal justice under law was not served in this case, and unfortunately, is not served in many cases. And when you cite this appeal after appeal after appeal for 20 years, those are the appeals that have allowed 98 innocent people to be freed from death row in our country. And it seems to me that people are willing to pay that price. And, in fact, the price they may and ought to be willing to pay is to eliminate the death system so that we don't have travesties like this.

SANFORD: It's the same logic that says that if a man is convicted by his peers in a jury and has been reviewed for untold years, it's never enough for the anti-death penalty crowd. They always want a different result. We have...

PRESS: Well, what about this...

SANFORD: We have laws that say that if you are convicted of capital murder, that you get the death penalty and it should be carried out.

PRESS: What about this, Mr. Sanford? What about the fact that a man named Arnold Beverly has now said that he, in fact, killed this cop? He's made a videotape saying that. He's confessed to the crime. Don't you think that at least deserves examination and trial? Why do you laugh?

SANFORD: Well, actually, his own lawyers said this man's confession was not credible, and they did not use it in the appeal. So this is the type of Hollywood star tripe that gets thrown around that has no bearing on the original trial or case. What is sad is that the victim...

(CROSSTALK)

ELDER: Mr. Sanford, you're right.

FARRELL: Can we not do this, please? Can we not get into the name calling? You know, I don't refer to you as a -- I don't refer to you in any derogatory way.

ELDER: All right, guys, hold on. Mr. Sanford, you're right, that this confession wasn't even used by his original team because they thought it lacked credibility.

SANFORD: That's right.

PRESS: He said that. He said that.

ELDER: Mr. Farrell, isn't it the case that you are opposed to the death penalty, whether it's Mumia Abu-Jamal or Osama bin Laden? You just don't want somebody to be put to death.

SANFORD: That's right.

FARRELL: Well, that's quite correct. I think a civilized society ought to be doing better things with its time, energy and money. But I also think that in this case and in many other cases, we have instances wherein we see that our criminal justice system is rampant with racism, is rampant with mal-prosecution, is rampant with police subornation of perjury, as is I think at least alleged in this case. And I think that what we have to do is figure out how we operate as a society in a system that chooses -- despite the opinion of the rest of the world -- chooses to continue to put people's lives at risk when, in fact, we don't have to do that because we have an option of life in prison without possibility of parole.

PRESS: Gentlemen, I'm sorry, that has to be the last word.

Mike Farrell, thank you so much for joining us.

Rick Sanford, good to have you here with us on CROSSFIRE.

SANFORD: Thank you.

PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.

And when we come back, we'll be shifting gears. Are you ready for takeoff? Fasten your seatbelts. Is it now safe to fly home for the holidays? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ELDER: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Larry Elder. Many Americans were shocked to learn that not every piece of luggage goes through a bomb detector. Congress mandated the airlines install equipment and begin screening all bags within one month. But the airlines say that isn't possible to accomplish that soon and argue that this may even take years.

During this holiday season, many of us are asking: Is it safe to fly? Joining us tonight are former secretary of transportation, Rodney Slater; and in Denver, Colorado, aviation analyst, Michael Boyd -- Bill.

PRESS: Mr. Boyd, I thought the best part of that airline security bill passed by Congress was the fact that, in fact, all checked luggage would be screened for bombs. So now the airlines are saying they can't do it. They want more time. They want to do profiling of passengers instead. My question to you is: Aren't the airlines just trying to get out of something that they should have done a long time ago? And why should we let them?

MICHAEL BOYD, CO-FOUNDER, THE BOYD GROUP: There's two questions here, two issues here. It's also the secretary of transportation who said it couldn't be done. It's not just the airline industry.

PRESS: All right, throw him in, too.

BOYD: Oh, no, absolutely. I mean, he stood behind President Bush when he signed the bill, and then a week later, he said, "Oh, George, we can't do this." The point of the matter is, let's be honest with the American public. There is no hard way and no totally effective way of checking all the checked luggage for explosives. There is things we could do in -- that Europe does. For example, they X-ray all checked luggage, and we should do that. They also then, with exceptions, put them through these computer tomography machines -- that's a tongue twister -- and they check those on a random basis.

What Congress has mandated to do -- I think Congress thought all we need to do is bless something and say, "We legislate it," it'll take place. It can't. Secretary of transportation came out last week and said -- a week before last and said, "Dogs? They can only sniff for 30 minutes. No one told us that." Now that's outrageous. We knew this was an unattainable thing. And secondly, he machinery they're picking to do it doesn't work very well. We have ample evidence of that.

The problem is we need to deter this, not play hide and seek. But don't lie to the American public by saying, "We can check every bag with any kind of certainty." The equipment doesn't exist.

PRESS: But my point is: What about the role of the airlines here? I mean, we didn't need 9-11 to tell us there's a problem with airline luggage. What about Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, right? I mean, the airlines -- why didn't the airlines get the machinery then? They didn't do it then now, why should we let them off the hook again?

BOYD: Because you can't put them on the hook now. Let's go through this again. We need to X-ray all luggage and do what Europe does. Take the exceptions and put them through a machine. But remember, it's been the FAA and the DOT that's overseen this for 30 years. They're part of this, too. So the real reality here is, let's stop saying, "Well, they can do it. We'll make them do it." You can't make them do something that's totally impossible. We can if we addressed it properly, which Congress didn't do, would be to X-ray every bag that goes onto an airplane, and those that come off from the X-ray looking funny, then you put them through the CT machines.

What Congress has mandated to do would take Chicago O'Hare literally to have a football field of these ineffective CTX machines, and even they don't work. I was in Minneapolis last week, and I watched about six people put their bags through it, and half of them had to have it hand searched.

ELDER: Mr. Slater, speaking of Europe, in Europe in the '90s, there were four planes that were hijacked. London Heathrow airport is privately owned. Gatwick is privately owned. Virtually all the European airlines use privatized security. Isn't that the direction we ought to be going in?

RODNEY SLATER, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: No. We actually had privatized security. We believe that with the federalization of security that you'll have more standardization, you have the possibility of really investing in the work force, giving them the kind of training they need. That's the challenge that Norm Mineta now has along with his new chief of security, who will be on board hopefully very, very soon. He'll actually be an undersecretary with more enhanced powers and the resources to do the job that has to be done.

ELDER: You obviously have a lot of confidence in the government...

SLATER: I do.

ELDER: ... and in the ability of the government to promulgate the appropriate regulations.

SLATER: But the government is working the private sector.

ELDER: What regulation was broken on September the 11th? What FAA rule was broken on September the 11th? The answer is none.

SLATER: Well, that's true, that's true.

ELDER: Therefore, why should we have confidence that they're going have federal regulation now?

SLATER: But the investigation is still ongoing. And the other thing that we did not have on September the 11th was the sharing of intelligence information. Now you have the FBI sharing that information with the FAA so that you can make a determination as to whether a person trying to get on a plane is actually on a terrorist list.

PRESS: Michael Boyd, you say it's not true. What do you mean?

BOYD: Let's get away from the pabulum here. Let's recognize that, number one, the FAA was tasked in 1996 to develop training programs for screeners. They never did it. The FAA was tasked in 1996 to have a federal security manager at every airport. If they've been there, they've been on a coffee break. After this went through -- I mean, remember what these terrorists wanted to do. They wanted to shut down our system and instill fear. We've given them their wish by taking tweezers from little old ladies, number one. Then we go out and we tell a captain he can't take a pair of nail clippers on an airplane, then he gets in a cockpit with an axe. Let's be real blunt. We have not had privatized security. These things we have out there today isn't privatized companies, they're Kelly Girl companies and they're just time servers. We need professional security.

SLATER: They're private companies, one of which was actually fined $1.5 million by administration when I was secretary.

BOYD: And indeed private...

ELDER: Operating under the FAA regulations.

SLATER: That's exactly right. But we started to crack down on the industry and we started to...

BOYD: Wait a minute, hold it. They're private companies that you, as the secretary of transportation, allowed knowing full well they were bad, Argenbright. No one took them out of the picture; they know they were bad. You, as secretary of transportation, and the FAA administrator didn't follow through and develop training programs like you were tasked to do in 1996.

SLATER: That is not true, Michael.

BOYD: It is.

SLATER: That's not true. We fined the company. We put them on probation. The Justice Department just brought action against the company again.

BOYD: After years of this. And you're the one...

SLATER: That's not true. That started last year.

BOYD: No, it did not.

SLATER: That started last year.

BOYD: They've been in there for years with these kinds of failures.

SLATER: Yes, it did.

BOYD: No, that is not true.

PRESS: All right, he said, yes...

BOYD: Don't give them this pabulum, sir.

PRESS: Wait, he said, yes, he said, no. Michael Boyd. I want to ask you the bottom line then, the topic of this segment. All these changes since 9/11 we see at the airport, lot of National Guard guys running around, a lot of long lines. What you're saying is, bottom line: Airports -- flying is no safer than it was before 9/11, right?

BOYD: Absolutely. And I'll tell you why.

SLATER: And I disagree with Michael on that.

BOYD: Take a look at the...

PRESS: Let him finish first.

BOYD: You mentioned National Guard. Did you see what they did with the National Guard? Instead of putting them monitoring perimeters, which still are sieves, or looking for identification, which something the FAA has failed to do, failed to do for months, they've stuck them like scarecrows at security checkpoints. Airports know that -- what standing there, a 21-year-old kid with an M-16 at a place where there isn't a security threat rather than putting them with a security threat. Chicago O'Hare had 12,000 missing IDs. Denver had 3,000. The FAA is terribly remiss in this, and not one person has asked the FAA why. Not one person.

PRESS: Secretary, need your rebuttal time here.

SLATER: Well, first of all, we've seen a lot of beefing up of security in the last few months. We've got the air marshals on board. We've got the fortification of the doors. We've got the presence of the National Guard. We've got the FBI sharing information with the FAA. And we have other technologies that are coming online, the kind of technology that will actually allow you to determine the contents of an item, whether...

BOYD: Sir, that is pabulum, that is pabulum. That's not true.

SLATER: ... an item is a bottle of wine or a bottle of explosives. That kind of technology is on the way.

BOYD: That is not true.

SLATER: We don't have an answer just in putting more people on the front. We have to use technology as well. And Norm Mineta is going to do that. The Congress is giving him the resources. He's got the support of the administration.

BOYD: Norman Mineta has failed.

SLATER: And he's going to do a good job.

BOYD: Norman Mineta has failed. Let's give you an example.

SLATER: It's easier for someone to stand on the sideline and talk about failures when you don't have to get in there, mix it up with the industry and get the job done.

BOYD: Well, let me tell you something.

SLATER: Norm Mineta is doing that.

BOYD: Hold on a second. Yeah, right. Like last -- just this past week, an FAA test grenade, they lost control of it. It ended up on an American Airlines airplane. How did that happen? Or they forget to plug in machines. This is under...

SLATER: It wasn't a grenade.

BOYD: This is under the enhanced...

SLATER: It wasn't a grenade. It was a test item that had been used to test the system.

BOYD: And how did you lose track of it, sir?

SLATER: We didn't lose track of it.

BOYD: They did lose track of it.

SLATER: The passenger actually picked up the wrong bag.

BOYD: No, they didn't.

PRESS: All right, gentlemen, gentlemen...

SLATER: Yes, they did.

BOYD: I talked to the captain. Did you?

PRESS: Mr. Boyd, I'm going to jump in, please, here. And I want to say, we clearly have the answer as to whether the airlines are safer or not. The answer is yes and no.

BOYD: They're not.

PRESS: Thank you, Michael Boyd, for coming in.

SLATER: They're safe and getting safer.

PRESS: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us.

BOYD: I've got to fly tomorrow. I've got to fly tomorrow, Bill.

PRESS: When we come back, all right, it is fire back. Time again for fire back. Larry Elder's only been here two days, but some of you want to jump all over him. And now it is your chance. And don't forget, folks, we'd like to get your e-mails at crossfire@cnn.com. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: OK, now your favorite part of the show when you get to fire back at us.

Larry, I understand a couple of scud missiles already headed your way.

ELDER: That's right. Only been here two days, I'm already getting hammered.

PRESS: Go for it.

ELDER: "Larry would love Afghanistan. No government, no taxes, no unfunded mandates. Only way to do anything individually through faith-based or community organizations, and of course, through your right to carry arms." Signed, Walter.

Walter, you forget the other advantage in Afghanistan: those egalitarian burkas. Think about it. If you're dating somebody unattractive, nobody's going to know. You won't even know. There's some real benefits here.

Walter, really, there is a distinction between limited government built on a foundation of rule of law and anarchy, which is what we have, my friend, in Afghanistan.

PRESS: All right, my turn. You may remember last night, we gave grades to people in the administration. I gave President Bush a B- minus. I said he's done OK on the war but not so good on the domestic front. This one from Mary, probably not Mary Matalin. "There is no way GWB deserves a B-minus. How difficult can it be to handle a war where the opposition is using 20-year-old Russian weapons and the soldiers wear sandals and rags to keep them warm?"

You know what, Mary? You've got a point. I'll give him an F instead. Thank you. And I'm always happy when somebody thinks that I'm too soft on George W. Bush. ELDER: "America's own civil war more than suggests Mr. Walker should be dealt with leniently. Even General Lee was treated with remarkable grace." Signed, Mike.

Well, Mike, I don't know. Was that the Civil War that we fought?

PRESS: Don't you remember?

ELDER: I don't think so. There was a war against terrorism in Afghanistan. John Walker took up arms against our people, you and me. A little different, don't you think?

PRESS: Here's a quick one, real quick one from Bill. "Joyeux Noel. You're as a great a political commentator as Catherine Harris is a public servant."

ELDER: What's wrong with Catherine Harris?

PRESS: I don't know whether that was intended as an insult or a compliment. I take it as an insult.

From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night from CROSSFIRE.

ELDER: I'm Larry Elder. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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