Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Jay Carney Talks Shutdown, Debt Ceiling; Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger Talks Two U.S. Raids; Rep Charlie Dent Talks Government Shutdown, Debt Ceiling; Boy, 9, Hops Plane to Vegas; Obama Fuels Redskins Name Change.

Aired October 07, 2013 - 13:30   ET

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

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And that would be regardless of party. That would be true if a Republican were sitting in the Oval Office and the roles were reversed. It's a precedent that should not and must not be set.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: With the raid this weekend, can you say who is questioning the suspect that was picked up in Libya, and what the benefits are of questioning him in international waters?

CARNEY: Well, I can obviously confirm that Mr. Abu Anas Al Libi was arrested and that he is in U.S. custody. I don't have more details for you about where he is. The operations were conducted, as you know, by the U.S. military under the authority conferred by the authorization to use military force from 2001, which authorizes the use of military force against al Qaeda and associated forces.

You know, this operation was made possible by the superb work and coordination across our national security agencies and the intelligence community. The fact of the matter is that Abu Anas al Libi has been indicted in the Southern District of New York in connection with his alleged role in al Qaeda's conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals and to conduct attacks against U.S. interests worldwide, which included al Qaeda plots to attack U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia, as well as the U.S. embassies in Dara Salom (ph), Tanzania, Nairobi and Kenya. And so that indictment has been pending. And we believe in a system that brings people to justice through indictment and that's what -- you know, we're witnessing now.

Yeah?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Jay, thank you --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, answering questions on two subjects right there. You heard about the government shutdown, raising the debt ceiling. Also about those two raids.

And new details are emerging today about those two raids by U.S. Special Forces over the weekend, in Africa. In Tripoli, Libya, commandos with the U.S. Army's Delta Force captured a man wanted in connection with the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. He's identifies as Abu Anas al Libi. The U.S. had mad a $5 million bounty available on his head. The Pentagon says he has been removed from Libya to what they describe as a secure location where he will be interrogated. Eventually, officials say, he will be sent to New York City for a trial. 3,000 miles away, a second raid in Somalia did not necessarily go as fully planned. The Navy's elite SEAL Team Six was after a leader of the al Shabaab terrorist group which claimed responsibility for the slaughter two weeks ago at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The U.S. Special Forces team came under heavy fire during the raid. They had to withdraw. They did not suffer any casualties.

Democratic Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He's been briefed on these operations.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, (D-MD), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBER: Sure, it's good to be here, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's talk about al Libi, first of all. This was obviously a snatch operation, rendition, whatever you want to call it. Are you OK with his being aboard a U.S. warship right now, being interrogated by U.S. military and intelligence personnel?

RUPPERSBERGER: Without any question. We know that there are terrorists out there that are plotting to attack and kill us and our allies every day. Al Libi was involved in the attack in 1998 against our two embassies, one in Tanzania, the other in Kenya, where American lives were lost.

And by the way, there's a lot of issues about if he's in our custody or where he's going to go. He was indicted, and by the United States of America, for killing Americans. Four of his cohorts have already been tried and convicted by a jury. And they're all serving life sentences right now.

We have to send a message to terrorists throughout the world. You can hide, but we will find you. And we have to let them know we will come after them in order for us to protect us from terrorist acts in the future.

BLITZER: You want them to be brought to New York and tried in New York?

RUPPERSBERGER: I'm not sure where it's going to be because I'm not sure of that process but I think the criminal justice system of the United States is a good system. I happen to be a former prosecutor. And it's a system that we follow. And the facts are there. You're prove -- you're considered to be innocent. And the state or the government must prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty. I'm sure with the evidence we have right now that we hopefully will be able to win that case also.

But we have to send a message to terrorists throughout the world who want to kill us. We're going to stand up to you and we're going to do whatever we can do legally to stop you. And we will bring you to justice. And that's what we're doing here today. BLITZER: He's in U.S. custody. He's on a ship, a warship, right now, presumably in the Mediterranean some place. Does he have any legal rights? In other words, does he have a right to an attorney? Does he have a right to remain silent or is that all thrown out and he can be questioned at will by U.S. authorities?

RUPPERSBERGER: Well, there's certain rights that he would have --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: What about right now?

RUPPERSBERGER: -- our custody.

BLITZER: Does he have any rights right now?

RUPPERSBERGER: It depends on what they want to do.

Basically, he's in our custody, and he's going to be treated like anyone else. There's certain issues in the world that we have and certain laws, too. But eventually, hopefully, he will give us the information. If he doesn't want to talk, he will grow through our system. But he's in our custody. And just like any other arrest in the United States, he will go through the process and procedures and be given the rights to a trial.

BLITZER: The operation in Libya was clearly successful but not necessarily the operation in Somalia. What happened there?

RUPPERSBERGER: Well, look, Somalia is like the Wild West. They're terrorists. And the government is not very strong. There are people there being trained to kill as terrorists. Al Shabaab is the group that really did the unspeakable, killing of innocent people in Kenya. And they are trained, and they have ammunition, and they know what they're doing.

But we, again, to protect the United States and to bring people to justice who have targeted us and killed Americans, we attempted to do -- and to capture or really bring to justice people in Somalia. But we had to come back. We didn't want any of our Navy members who put their lives on the line for us to be hurt. They had gunfire, they had resistance, and they decided to come back.

BLITZER: Was it a coincidence or deliberate that both of these operations in Libya and Somalia were taking place at the same time?

RUPPERSBERGER: You know, when you get intelligence, what you have to do in the military, to find out where your targets are, to make sure men and women -- men really in this situation, our Special Ops, did not put their lives on the line you, try to do as much as you can to protect them. You go when you think the timing is right. From what I understand, based on the information I received, is that they didn't happen to occur at the same time. But the timing was right pursuant to the intelligence to do both of these raids close to almost -- it was on the same day.

BLITZER: That's what I was hearing as well. But you know a lot more about this stuff than I do.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

RUPPERSBERGER: OK, Wolf. Take care.

BLITZER: Dutch Ruppersberger is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Still ahead, much more on the government shutdown. Tea Party Republicans, are they driving the fight on the crisis and the debt limit? Some moderate Republicans are caught in the middle. I'll speak to one of those GOP moderates about what he thinks will happen next. Representative Charlie Dent is standing by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Moments ago, President Obama was over at FEMA headquarters here in Washington speaking about the government shutdown and the need to raise the debt ceiling by October 17th. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're not going to negotiate under the threat of further harm to our economy and middle class families. We're not going to negotiate under the threat of a prolonged shutdown until Republicans get 100 percent of what they want. We're not going to negotiate under the threat of economic catastrophe that economists and CEOs increasingly warned would result if Congress chose to default on America's obligations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The partial government shutdown and the debate over raising the debt ceiling certainly have some moderate Republicans caught in the middle. Republicans backed by the Tea Party have been in the driver's seat, at least so far, using the debate to take on Obamacare. House Speaker John Boehner says he doesn't have the votes to pass a resolution with no conditions attached to end the shutdown.

Let's bring in one of those more moderate Republicans. Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania is joining us.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. CHARLIE DENT, (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Wolf, for having me. I appreciate it.

BLITZER: Would you be of those members in the House to vote on what's called a clean continuing resolution with no strings attached to get the government up and running?

DENT: Yes, I said that repeatedly. In fact, I was one of the folks who insisted that we vote on a clean resolution on September 30th so the government wouldn't be shut down. I've been very outspoken on that. Pete King and I and others have been clear. I think there are votes to pass the clean C.R. BLITZER: What about the procedural vote that would allow such a resolution, a motion to discharge, whatever it's called. You don't seem ready to vote for that, which would force the speaker's hand and allow this clean resolution to come up? Why won't you support that, or will you?

DENT: First, let's be clear about a discharge petition. It's something that would have to be signed. The bill that would be discharged is not the clean C.R. It's some other bill introduced by Congressman --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But it would set the stage for -- it would set the stage for that kind of vote to come up?

DENT: The issue with the discharge petition is this. You would not be able to deal with that until the second or fourth Mondays of the month. That would be Columbus Day, observed on the 14th. I'm not even sure that the discharge petition would be ripened by that time.

My hope is that we will be able to resolve this situation prior to October 14th, which I believe would be the earliest you could deal with that discharge petition. But I believe you couldn't deal with it until October 28th for all practical purposes.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I hate to get into the weeds of Washington -- real inside Washington legislative talk right now. But if it were to come up, that motion to discharge which would force the speaker's hand and allow a continuing resolution to come up for a yea or nay vote on the House floor, would you vote in favor of that procedural move?

DENT: No, I will not sign a discharge petition. I'm not going to sign a discharge petition on the Langford Bill, which is really what is being asked.

BLITZER: And the reason being?

DENT: That is out not the clean C.R. and the idea would be that we want to resolve this problem prior to the time you could consider that particular bill, which would be at the very earliest, I believe, October 14th, probably not until the 28th.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But what if the government's still shut down October 14th?

DENT: I'm going to insist that the speaker try to bring out a clean continuing resolution, the one I said I would support. Also I said that -- you know, I believe that Representative Ron Kind and I, of Wisconsin, have presented a reasonable, a reasonable alternative, for many members. Let's do the clean C.R. for six months, at the Republican number of $986 billion. Let's repeal the medical device tax and pay for it in a way that the Democrats would agree to. Ron Kind and I have a whole group of Democrats and Republicans on board with this. The far left is not going to like that proposal because it does make a change to the health care law. The far right is not going to like it because, at the end of the day, it does not defund the health care law. I believe there's a lot of space there for folks to get behind a compromise like that. It's bipartisan. If you can't do that, let's do the clean C.R. As I said, I would vote for it. I will urge the speaker to bring it out for a vote.

DENT: I know you and Peter King and a few other Republicans would vote for a clean C.R. But how many, according to your count, would there be. Let's say the speaker were to relent and say go ahead, an up-or-down vote, clean C.R., how many Republicans would vote in favor of it?

DENT: I believe I read in "The Washington Post" -- they were keeping track of the number of Republican members who said they would support a clean C.R. The last I checked, there were a little over 20 who said publicly. I think there are many privately who would vote for a clean C.R. They have just not stated so public. I believe the votes are there to do it. I suspect it's not being brought out because it might violate the Hastert Rule, as you're aware. I think that may be the reason why it's not being brought out. Or perhaps the speaker wants to conflate both the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution. I would prefer we not do that, but as time wears on, I suspect the conflation of these two issues will become inevitable.

BLITZER: From your perspective, who's more to blame right now, the speaker or the president, for this government shutdown?

DENT: Well, look, there's a lot of blame to go around. I believe the tactic that was deployed trying to defunding the health care law at part of the continuing resolution was never a good tactic. And that was Senator Cruz's issue. I believe he has to bear a lot of responsibility for this. I also believe the president -- the president has to get in the game. He seems more like a spectator. He doesn't seem to want to negotiate. He's been very clear about that. He just said -- I just heard on the previous segment that he said he's not going to give the Republicans 100 percent of what they want. Nobody's asking for 100 percent. The president needs to get in this game. The president needs to sit down and negotiate, too.

So there's a lot of blame going around. And if I had to cast blame, I would say it was Senator Cruz and those who insisted upon this tactic that we all knew was not going to succeed. What he did essentially, Senator Cruz, basically, he took a lot of folks in the ditch. Now that we're in the ditch, you can't get out of the ditch, the Senator has no plan to get out of the ditch. Those of us who do a plan to get out of the ditch, and we'll vote to get out of the ditch, will then be criticized by those who put in the ditch in the first place.

BLITZER: As much as you could blame Senator Cruz, the speaker of the House, as you well know, Congressman, he bought on to that strategy, for good or bad. It became his strategy in the House of Representatives. It may have been Senator Cruz's idea but your leadership in the House bought it? DENT: Well, over my objections. I insisted that -- look, here's my position. OK, we can vote to defund the law that was sent back from the Senate. Now, let's prepared to do a second launch which was to delay the law by a year and repeal the medical device tax, which is a big issue where I live. OK, that was unsuccessful. But at that point, approaching September 30th, I said well now's the time to do the clean C.R. And I voted accordingly at that time. I wished more of my colleagues had joined me. That's what I felt we should have done, on the 30th, put this thing to bed once and for all.

It was never the plan in the leadership in the House to shut down. In fact, the plan was to pass a clean C.R. all along. That was the plan. I want to stick to that plan, I believe, inevitably, that's where we will end up.

BLITZER: Charlie Dent is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

Congressman, always good to have you here on the show.

DENT: Thank you, Wolf. Great to be with you.

BLITZER: Thank you.

It's creating a lot of buzz today, the other story we're watching. How did a 9-year-old get past security, get on a plane to Las Vegas without even having a boarding pass?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: A 9-year-old boy hops a plane to Las Vegas. Only thing is he had no boarding pass and no parents nearby.

George Howell has more on this bizarre story from Minnesota.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is where it all started. A 9-year-old boy walked off a light railcar Thursday and into the Minneapolis Airport with plans to travel, but no ticket. He passed through the security checkpoints of TSA screening with no problem.

(on camera): Then he continued on to the "G" concourse, specifically here at gate G-4. But it's still unclear how he got past the ticket agent who was collecting tickets here.

(voice-over): What we do know is this minor did board flight 261 and traveled 1300 miles to Las Vegas. Officials say it wasn't until the flight crew became suspicious because he was traveling alone and contacted Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, who took the child into custody upon landing.

TERRY TRIPPLER, THEPLANERULES.COM: I think they should taken him to the table and let him play a little because his luck was doing well, you know, once he got to Vegas. HOWELL: Air transportation expert, Terry Tripler, says the whole thing highlights big gaps in security, especially when it comes to children.

TRIPPLER: That 9-year-old child does not need identification, anyone under 18, so I can understand, standing behind a family, or whatever, the family is checking in and they're not aware that he's standing behind them, I can understand that. I cannot understand the Delta gate agent. This is where I put the major problem. It happened there.

HOWELL: While no one would talk on camera, we did get a lot of statements, first from the TSA, essentially saying they did their jobs. Quote, "The child was screened along with all other passengers to ensure that he was not a threat to the aircraft." And then Delta. Quote, "Delta is taking this incident very seriously and working with authorities in the investigation. Due to the fact that it involves a minor, we are not commenting any further at this time."

For the traveling public, we know the rigorous routine of the airport screening.

ROSE MANFREOI, AIRLINE PASSENGER: We have to go through taking out shoes, putting them in the belts, go through the thing.

HOWELL: It's a mystery how a child could have slipped through the cracks.

GORDON SELINGER, AIRLINE PASSENGER: I'm quite surprised that he got through security that we, as adults, have to go through.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOWELL: So days after this happened, there are a lot of questions. The big one now, did this young child come here the day before to scope the place out? CNN can now confirm through airport officials that he did arrive here Wednesday. He was caught on surveillance cameras. And they saw him go to a baggage carousel, take someone's luggage, take that to a restaurant, get some food, leave the baggage there, dine and dash, only to return the next day for his fantastic voyage. At this point, Wolf, it's still unclear whether he is in Nevada or if he's been transferred back here to Minneapolis.

BLITZER: The mystery continues.

George, thank you very much.

Here's a question, could a name change be a game changer? The word Redskins, is it offensive? Are people making too much of a fuss? A lot of people say the answer is yes. Even the president of the United States has something to say about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Now a fresh push behind a movement to change the name of the Washington Redskins. Now we even have the president weighing in. Here's what President Obama told the Associated Press -- and I'll quote him -- "I've got to say if I were the owner of that team and I knew there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I would think about changing it."

Brian Todd has more on what's going on.

I know the Oneida Indian nation has just spoken out about what's going on here in Washington.

TODD: That's right.

BLITZER: What did they say?

TODD: Well, Wolf, we'll show you what they said right away. This is Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Indian nation. They're here in town to draw more attention to it, bouncing off the president's statement. Here is what Ray Halbritter said just a few hours ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAY HALBRITTER, ONEIDA INDIAN NATION REPRESENTATIVE: If it's offending people, then it's time to change it. And this is a great time to do it. Regardless of the history, regardless of its legacy, it's offensive. It's a dictionary defined offensive term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Now, the Redskins, Wolf, have responded to all this by saying basically this is an expression of honor, not disparagement. They issued a statement after Obama spoke on Saturday about this. They're citing polling. One is a 9-year-old poll that says most Native Americans are not offended by the name and also a recent poll this year saying most Americans do not want the name changed.

But again, there's more momentum now with President Obama saying what he did. And Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, saying not too long ago that if people are offended, we should at least listen. That's a big step for the NFL commissioner to say that. But, again, you have Dan Snider, the owner of the Redskins, saying in May, "You can put this in capitol letters, we will never, never change the name."

BLITZER: And his lawyer, Lanny Davis, the former special counsel to President Clinton, issued a statement saying, "If you change the Redskins, you have to change the name of the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks."

TODD: Right.

BLITZER: What are people saying about that?

TODD: Lanny Davis says their fans don't find that offensive and that that's also a kind of a sign of respect and honor for those names.

But if you look at -- a lot Native Americans are offended by the logos of the Braves, the logos of the Indians, so that's kind of a different issue.

BLITZER: We'll have more in "The Situation Room" later.

Brian, thanks very much.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. 5:00 p.m. eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM," I'll see you then.

NEWSROOM continues right now with John Berman.