Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

What Is Proper Punishment for John Walker?; Who Is Responsible For Economic Stimulus Stalemate?

Aired December 20, 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)

GEORGE W. BUSH. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unfortunately, that particular piece of legislation was declared dead before it even got the Senate floor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Lawmakers head home for the holidays without passing an economic stimulus plan. Who's to blame? And...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I'd like to see the first thing done with Mr. Walker is to take him to ground zero and show him ground zero and see how he feels after that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: What's the proper punishment for American Taliban John Walker?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Tucker Carlson. In the crossfire, Senate Republican conference chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. And later in New York, criminal defense attorney Stanley Cohen and Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia.

PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Well, one thing you won't find under your Christmas tree, an economic stimulus package. Not because Santa didn't want to deliver, but because most Democrats in the Senate didn't want to pass it. They accuse Republicans of caring more about tax cuts for the rich than healthcare for workers who lost their jobs after 9/11.

Republicans accuse them of refusing to compromise, in order to rebuild the nation after 9/11. Meanwhile, the economy continues to recover on its own. So maybe we didn't need an economic stimulus bill after all.

Tucker Carlson is back -- Tucker.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Or maybe we did need it.

Senator Reed, this is all about 2002, isn't it? Democrats have no issues to run on. They'll be running against the most popular president in 100 years. And so, they take this bill. They kill it, in order to use health insurance as an issue in 2002, totally irresponsible, doing it on the backs of the people who are suffering. True?

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI), CO-CHAIR JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE: Not at all Tucker. By November 14, we brought a stimulus package to the United States Senate that had significant contributions for healthcare for working people who are laid off, significant extensions of unemployment benefits. 51 votes to pass it. And it was killed on a point of order by the Republicans.

No, this is about trying to help working families and also trying to ensure that we have an economic recovery. We don't want to do the wrong thing. We do need, as Bill said I believe, that we do need a stimulus package, but we need the right package. This was the wrong package.

Really, it was phase two of the Bush tax cuts. We all heard, back in the summer when they passed the first round, first income tax cuts, that the next round was going to be repealed the alternate minimum tax, other benefits of business. And that's exactly what came on the House. And that's exactly what was being proposed until very recently.

And unfortunately, there wasn't the type of chain bipartisan, pragmatic approach that saw results in airline passenger legislation, in educational legislation, all those things.

PRESS: Right. Let me get Senator Santorum in here. Senator, because the thing that's bothering me most about this debate are the personal attacks on the part of many leading Republicans, directed against Senator Tom Daschle.

The Vice President led the charge by calling Daschle an obstructionist. You know, I checked today, since September 11, under Senate Daschle's leadership, the Senate has passed, of course, the use of force resolution, the $40 billion bailout bill, the $15 billion bailout for the airline industry, the victims compensation legislation, the airport security legislation, and the anti-terrorism package. I mean, now doesn't that prove he is anything but an obstructionist and he is willing to come to the table when you guys are reasonable?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), GOP CONFERENCE CHAIR: It proves that the memo that James Carville sent Tom Daschle a few weeks is being followed to the tee. All the things you mentioned were that you embraced the President on the war. Anything having to do with terrorism or the war, you pass and you embrace the President you support. But when it comes to domestic policy, you stab him in the back. You obstruct, you obstruct, you obstruct.

Economic stimulus package. Bipartisan package on there, $21 billion. $21 billion for health insurance. Unprecedented commitment of the federal government to provide health insurance to uninsured, unemployed workers. They said not even a vote.

Extension of unemployment benefits, 13 weeks. And why did he say no? He said no because they didn't want to provide a 2 percent reduction in personal income taxes to people making $28,000 a year, because that's a tax cut for the rich. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're a couple making $47,000 a year, or if you make $28,000 a year as a single person, Jack Reed, sorry Jack, and Tom Daschle believe you're rich and you don't deserve a tax cut.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: No, what we'd like to do is provide rebates to people who didn't get the cut the same time.

SANTORUM: It's in the bill.

REED: That was in the bill because we were promoting that back in the November 14...

SANTORUM: But we compromised it.

REED: When you voted against the same bill.

SANTORUM: But that was in this bill. We compromised and compromised.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Wait. No, you forgot something about this issue of bipartisanship, domestic policy. We just passed last week, and you and I worked both on it, an education reform bill that was absolutely bipartisan.

PRESS: That is...

SANTORUM: That passed originally when Republicans controlled the chamber, if you recall.

REED: No, let me just say, the conference passed by...

SANTORUM: It took six months to get this done.

REED: Took six months of work. The number one domestic priority of the President of the United States, correct?

SANTORUM: Number one priority for you folks.

REED: Well, listen, that's good.

SANTORUM: So we compromised on that.

REED: But I think that...

SANTORUM: What about on energy? REED: Undercut, every domestic policy we oppose. We in principle have to oppose things we disagree with.

SANTORUM: How about the terrorism insurance bill?

CARLSON: Wait. Senator, I want to ask you a question, Senator. That's exactly right.

I want to throw a quote from you from Tom Daschle, your leader, he said. And you're aware he said this, a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. Maybe for Tom Daschle it is. Maybe for senators who make more than $100,000 a year.

Listen to Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary, sort of puts that line of thinking in perspective. Here's Paul O'Neill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL O'NEILL, TREASURY SECRETARY: Because it seems to me so incredible that the Senate of the United States Congress would go home with a happy face for the holidays, leaving hundreds of thousands and millions of people in doubt about whether they were going to ever receive the benefits that we've agreed to be provided to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now if you're running for re-election, I guess no package is better than the package Republicans supported. But if you're an unemployed worker, is no package really better?

REED: No, that's why months ago...

CARLSON: Then why did Daschle kill it?

REED: That's -- Daschle didn't kill it. That's why months ago we proposed, November 14, more than a month ago, extending unemployment benefits, extending healthcare benefits to workers. And Republicans in the Senate said...

SANTORUM: Senator Reed, now Senator Daschle admits Democrats run the Senate. And he said no dice. This will not pass. He's the Senate Majority Leader. Is that helping working families when no package gets through?

REED: We've been trying to help working families over the opposition of Republicans. Let's look what the Republican proposals were for their stimulus package, repealing alternative minimum tax to...

SANTORUM: Bottom of the bill.

REED: ...hundreds of million. It was in the bill until the last evening.

SANTORUM: But it wasn't in the bill that was one the floor. REED: Let me tell you what the last bill was on the floor tonight. That was the request by Senator Daschle for the Dems' consent to take up the unemployment extension benefits, which objected to.

SANTORUM: Jack, this was stimulus package.

REED: Well...

SANTORUM: What Tom has always objected to is anything other than giving benefits to unemployed workers. He's never agreed to anything. He wants to give them an unemployment check, he just doesn't want to give them a paycheck.

REED: That's wrong.

SANTORUM: What we want to do is give them the paycheck. People want a paycheck. They don't want an unemployment check. And there was nothing in your bill that came out a couple of months ago, and there was nothing in what Tom Daschle suggested on the floor of the Senate today...

REED: Right.

SANTORUM: ...that gave anybody a chance to get a paycheck in the future.

REED: Wait, let me just say -- I have to respond, because frankly, I think Tucker said there's not a lot of stimulus in the package you proposed. Long-term tax cuts, which would exacerbate the deficit. Remember, in one year, we've gone from a surplus to a deficit. And the biggest economic -- to develop in the interim was the tax cut.

PRESS: Let me jump in here real quick. And I would agree with you on one thing, Senator. You did drop the proposal to eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax...

SANTORUM: Right, we did.

PRESS: Only because it's so shameless and so indefensible.

SANTORUM: It was a compromise.

PRESS: You had to drop it. You were shamed into dropping it. I congratulate you for doing.

But now you're trying to sell, just like you were a couple of minutes ago, this phony insurance plan. So instead, I just want to explain so everybody understands what you're proposing. Instead of allowing the workers to get their health insurance benefits from the company, like they always have, those who are out of work, you say, "We'll give you a tax credit so you can go out there and fight with the insurance companies." And you know when they do so, number one, they may be able...

SANTORUM: Yes, but they...

PRESS: Let me finish. They may not be able to get it. Number two, if they get it, they're going to have to pay a higher price because they're individual not a group. And number three, they're going to get less. The Senate committee today, Democratic Senate Committee, took that money that you provide and went out there and tried to shop for an insurance company. The best they could get was a policy that had a $2,500 deductible. Why are you treating the out of work, people who were out of work after September 11 so mercilessly?

SANTORUM: As you know, under the Democrat bill and the Republican bill, neither bill paid for 100 percent of their insurance. What we did was pay for 60 percent of their Cobra payments.

As you probably know, when you leave the job, you have an opportunity to continue to participate with the employer's plan. They don't have to shop for anything. They can continue to buy the existing plan that they have. And we give the tax credit directly to the individual so they can do so.

What we also allow, which the Democratic bill did not do, was say that somebody who did not have employer-provided insurance, that they would, even thought they didn't have insurance at work, we would still give them the tax credit. So uninsured workers who didn't have it at the time, would have it when they were insured.

PRESS: I want to ask you, how long has it been since you went out on your own and tried to buy a life -- or a health insurance policy from an insurance company? You have no idea what these insurance companies do. Pre-existing benefits, you're too old, you got too many kids. It's not that easy. It's not automatic.

SANTORUM: Bill, the bottom line is the differences between the two plans were one thing, whether the tax credit went to the employer or went to the employee. The employee would have to do the same thing under their bill as under ours. You're making a false argument.

The argument was whether you had employer...

CARLSON: Well, that's not the first time, Senator Santorum.

PRESS: You say false argument. It is not a false argument.

CARLSON: If we responded to every false argument that Bill Press made, we'd be here all night, but unfortunately, we have to go to break. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum, Senator Reed. Thank you.

Coming up, John Walker, pity him or fry him. The Bush administration, we'll find out which they'll take. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. John Walker, the American Taliban. His parents say he was on a spiritual mission gone astray. In a newly released interview with CNN, however, Walker admits he was in it for the jihad all along. He fought alongside Osama bin Laden, and he's proud of it.

Appalling behavior. But is it treason? By a huge margin, the public says yes. The Bush administration may disagree. What then, should Walker be charged with? Or should he go free? That's our CROSSFIRE tonight.

Joining us, Defense Attorney Stanley Cohen, as a Walker defender, if not excuser. And here in Washington, Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who has never been more in favor of capital punishment. Good for you, Bob Barr -- Bill Press.

PRESS: So Bob Barr, you defend civil liberties, but you're hot for the death penalty. Some day you'll explain that contradiction to me.

REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: We can start tonight with this case. How about that?

PRESS: All right, let's start with John Walker. If you're going to get convicted of the death penalty, you have to convince -- first of all convict him of treason. This was a young man, when he was 16- years-old, converted to Islam, went to Afghanistan and started to fight with the Taliban. This is four years ago, Bob Barr. Four years ago, the United States was supporting the Taliban. He was on our side, Bob Barr. How can it possibly be treason?

BARR: Well, things changed, in case you didn't notice, Bill, rather dramatically three months ago on September 11, after the terrorist attacks orchestrated by the Taliban and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who are apparently bosom buddies of Mr. Walker.

The United States declared that these were rogue regimes. We are at war with them. They took thousands of American lives. The American troops that were over there, Mr. Walker knew exactly what they were. He was fighting them. We don't know whether he killed any directly, but there's probably reason why he was wounded. And that is, he was probably firing at somebody else. He was fighting against the United States of America.

PRESS: He was fighting against the Northern Alliance, who were other Muslims, as he has said in his statements. But you know, there is -- you know, I know, there's one crime defined in the Constitution. And it is treason.

And you have to take up arms against your country. And there have to be two witnesses that said they saw you taking up arms against your country. In this case, Bob Barr, the only two witnesses you could possibly get are two members of the Taliban. Do you mean to tell me, you're going to bring him back here in a civil trial in the United States and have two Taliban guys stand up and finger him and get the death penalty? You're kidding yourself. BARR: Well, I may not be kidding myself, but let me tell you something, Bill. I think it would be relatively easy, much easier say than in the Rosenberg case, to get those witnesses. Again, he was found...

PRESS: Credible witnesses?

BARR: Well, probably -- perhaps U.S. troops, perhaps U.S. personnel that were over there. Who was one of the last persons who saw him alive? That CIA operative Mr. Spann. The fact of the matter is...

PRESS: He's dead.

BARR: .. he was captured. Yes, and might have been killed, if not by Mr. Walker, by his cohorts over there. Mr. Walker had arms. He was in the presence of U.S. troops. He was in the other side of that fighting. And I think it will be relatively easy, should we choose to do so. And I don't know all of the facts at this point, to get witnesses against him. Probably a lot more than two.

CARLSON: OK, Stanley Cohen, from the beginning, you and other John Walker apologists have had pretty much the same line of argument. He's young, he didn't know what he was doing, he had a tough childhood, he was doped up on morphine, he was out of his mind, essentially.

Lo and behold and embarrassing for you, I must say, this tape, the CNN interview, arises last night. I want to you watch this clip from it and maybe reassess your position on John Walker. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT PELTON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Did you enjoy the jihad, was it a good cause for you?

JOHN WALKER, AMERICAN TALIBAN FIGHTER: Definitely.

PELTON: Is this what you thought it would be? Was this the right cause or the right place?

WALKER: It's exactly what I thought it would be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Definitely, I enjoyed the jihad. Did you enjoy your jihad? And jihad in this case is a very specific meaning. It's not self-improvement. It's Osama bin Laden jihad, which is defined narrowly as attacks against Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the West. He participated in it, he enjoyed it, he knew he was doing it. There's no defense, is there?

STANLEY COHEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think you should've play the tape a little bit longer when they gave him his happy juice. And I think he would have probably said he knew where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. You're talking about someone who two years ago, made believe for a year he was a black rapper on the web.

There's one issue which the Congressman, and I'm not an apologist for John Walker. I believe, as the Congressman does, in the rule of law. There's one condition which has not been satisfied, which everyone blinks. That is, you can't have a treason prosecution in the absence of a formal declaration of war by the Congress.

Moreover, even if you have that something which you don't have here, I know we've elevated the Northern Alliance to almost sainthood. But the fact of the matter is, unless the government is lying to us, he was not involved in any fight against U.S. ground troops. Perhaps he was shooting in the air 30,000 feet off of jet bombers. He was fighting against that group, that great group that raped and slaughtered their way across northern Afghanistan for five years.

CARLSON: Wait a second. Slow down, Stanley Cohen, slow down. First of all, you are an apologist because you're apologizing for him.

COHEN: I'm not apologizing at all. I'm being a lawyer.

CARLSON: But second, hold on, he was absolutely, by definition at war with the United States. He was fully aware. He said in his interview on CNN that he saw bombers going over every day, fully aware they were American bombers. And as he said in that tape, he signed up with Osama bin Laden for the jihad against the West, including the United States. He admitted it.

COHEN: I hate to confuse all the emotion and the political rhetoric with the law and its requirements. The fact that he may have seen bombers flying overhead, and the fact that he had a gun, doesn't satisfy the requirement that he undertook any specific overt acts against the United States military during the course of a declared war. You might be able...

BARR: It does not require a declared war.

COHEN: I disagree.

BARR: No, well, you may disagree, but there is no case law precedent or in the statute or in the Constitution that it requires that. You may argue that as a lawyer, but that is not the case.

COHEN: Well, there are appellate decisions which go the other way. I would point out, the last treason prosecution was in World War II. And while people wanted to go after Jane Fonda for her support of North Vietnam, the reason why everyone said they couldn't do it was because there wasn't a declared state of war.

But moreover, the fact of the matter is, while the congressman's correct, and I agree with him on this point, we don't know what he did or did not do. Let's not confuse picking up arms against the Northern Alliance. And let's not confuse with him even saying it was a good jihad with proof that he did anything directly against the United States. PRESS: OK, Congressman Barr, you have been, and I've congratulated you for that, pretty outspoken in some of the things that Attorney John Ashcroft has had to do with regard to...

BARR: I've had a tough time living those things down when you said nice things about me, too, back home.

PRESS: Pretty critical of him. OK, now John Ashcroft has said that he's planning, what he would like to do is bring charges against John Walker that would carry the maximum of 10 years in prison. This is John Ashcroft. Ken Starr has said that clearly John Walker is no Benedict Arnold. Are you saying that Ken Starr and John Ashcroft are soft on terrorism?

BARR: Well, what amazes me is that Bill Press is citing them for legal precedence in his behalf. That amazes me.

PRESS: They know a lot more about the case, at least John Ashcroft, than you do, Congressman.

BARR: I think there perhaps is a little bit of a rush to judgment here. Now one thing that the Attorney General may -- that the Attorney General may have in mind is one thing that we don't know about. And that is the extent of the cooperation by Mr. Walker. That may be something that has influenced it. But I don't believe that we know nearly enough to say that we ought to prosecute him for jay walking or treason at this point.

All I'm saying is, from what I know about the case, and if it can be shown he took up arms, which I think he did, then treason would be an appropriate charge.

PRESS: OK, Stanley, that's got to be the last word. I'm sorry. That's Stanley Cohen up in New York. Thank you so much for joining us.

COHEN: Thank you.

PRESS: Congressman Bob Barr, always good to have you back on CROSSFIRE.

BARR: Thank you.

And when we come back, our most outrageous quotes of the day. They said what? And who said what about Gary Condit? Remember him? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: They said what? It's time for a review of today's most amazing quotes. Mine from Nancy Pelosi, incoming Democratic House Minority Whip, congresswoman from California. She has withdrawn her endorsement of Gary Condit. "I've informed Congressman Condit I'll be neutral in this primary race." She went to explain that you know, races ought to be judged by the voters, not by endorsements. This is like saying to Charles Manson, regretfully informing him, you can't be godparent to his child. She's running away from the guy. It's political suicide. And I think it's cowardice on her part to run away. Stand by him. He's a Democrat. He's a type of Democrat and she's running away from him.

PRESS: Whoa!

CARLSON: She is. He's perfect in every since.

PRESS: Please, I heard you, OK.

CARLSON: I just can't say it enough.

PRESS: Just want to point out, the total hypocrisy. If Nancy Pelosi had endorsed Gary Condit, you would be the first to attack her. If Gephardt had done it...

CARLSON: Oh, she did endorse Gary Condit. And then, she withdrew it. You see, that's the beauty of it. She's wrong on all counts.

PRESS: What I'm saying is you would attack her no matter what she did, Tucker. Look, you know what the honest truth is? Let's just be honest here, right? The Baby Jesus could endorse Gary Condit and he's still going to lose this election.

CARLSON: But she...

PRESS: So it doesn't matter whether...

CARLSON: ...on principal.

PRESS: No, it doesn't matter.

CARLSON: She ought to stand by him.

PRESS: No.

CARLSON: He embodies everything the Democratic party stands for. And she ought to admit that and stand by him.

PRESS: In principle, when a guy disgraces himself and his party, you don't wrap your arms around him.

CARLSON: You can't disgrace the party. It's not possible.

PRESS: Here's my quote of the day. I love it. This happened late last night, early this morning. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was leaving the Senate. The reporter spotted him with a pack of Christmas wrapping paper under his arm. And they asked him, "Senator, does this mean the economic stimulus plan is dead?" Here's Tom Daschle's great quote. He said, "Yeah." I love it.

You know what, Tucker? It's no BS, no defensive apology, no spin. CARLSON: It's really...no, you know what it is, Bill? It's almost Churchillian in it's eloquence. Yeah. This is all the guy can muster, yeah, you know, a monosyllabic response?" That's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

PRESS: I know you don't recognize.

CARLSON: No justification about yeah, yeah...

PRESS: ...the strength of their cause...

CARLSON: Can you crush a beer can against his head too?

PRESS: ...because you never speak the truth, you guys.

CARLSON: Give me a break.

PRESS: I wish that George Bush...

CARLSON: Well said, well said, Senator, yes.

PRESS: When they say, for example.

CARLSON: Yes, duh!

PRESS: When they say, for example, you prefer tax cuts...

CARLSON: Yes! Give me a break!

PRESS: Yeah! From the left, I'm Bill Press. Yeah!

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

PRESS: Yeah!

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