Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Air Traffic Controller Blows Whistle; Ron Paul Defines Liberty; Radical Muslim Group Plans to Disrupt Royal Wedding
Aired April 26, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Thanks for joining us IN THE ARENA.
Here are the big questions I'm drilling down on tonight. Ron Paul says he wants to run for president, but there's one competitor he thinks may be too tough, the one who lives in the White House.
Just how tough? I'll have an exclusive interview with the congressman.
Then a radical Muslim protest at the royal wedding? A British cleric Anjem Choudary plans to disrupt the wedding of the century and says there could be a real threat to the royal couple.
Has he finally gone just too far?
Plus, who's talked to more presidents and presidential candidates than just about anyone? The one and only Larry King. He joins us tonight.
And finally, what if they gave an election and nobody came? Why are possible candidates shying away from the Republican presidential race? We'll talk to CNN senior analyst Gloria Borger who has some ideas.
But first, air traffic controller asleep on the job. At least five incidents have been reported in the past month. And when it happened in Miami, two pilots were left to fend for themselves in one of the busiest air spaces until a fellow controller blew the whistle.
Controller Carrie DeLeon immediately reported her sleeping colleague, a move that may have saved lives but cost her co-worker his job. She currently has a gender discrimination suit pending against the FAA.
Tonight, as part of CNN's in depth look at the air traffic control crisis, an exclusive interview with that whistleblower. Carrie DeLeon is a 20-year veteran of the air traffic control center in Miami. She joins us now along with her attorney Randy Fleischer.
Carrie and Randy, thanks so much for being with us.
I want to go back to that night of April 15th, just a week and a half ago. Tell us, Carrie, what happened in the control tower?
CARRIE DELEON, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: It was a midnight shift. It was my third midnight shift. I'm very tired. Since the incident in D.C., we were all no longer allowed to sleep on our breaks so all of us were very exhausted. And I more so because it was my third midnight shift.
At 10 until 5:00 a.m., I go back to work, another check-in from my break, and I'm brought to the attention that he is fast asleep, he's got a wheelie board blocking his view from anybody look into the area, but you could clearly see his feet were up on the counter and very relaxed like he was asleep.
As I walked out in the control room, I just looked over at the ops manager. After previously having to turn him in for sleeping, I just pointed that, shook my head, and got out of there because I really didn't want to be there when they woke him up. And I heard that they literally had to shake him to wake him up.
SPITZER: Now let me drill down on this just a little bit. When he was asleep, was he at that moment responsible for looking at the screen and giving instructions to planes about where to go, when to land or how to move their location?
DELEON: I went over, and observed his scope. He had two airplanes that were clearly a good 30 miles inside his air space, still at high altitude. Both of them apparently were landing. And my co-worker said they're going to be asking for lower soon. I look over to the ocean and I go, who is that? And he goes, Ken Martin. And I go, you've got to be kidding me.
SPITZER: Do you know what happened? You said there were two planes that were soon going to ask for permission to land or to change altitude. What happened when they radioed in, if you know?
DELEON: I have no clue. Like I said, I was kind of shocked at what was happening, and me being involved in it that when I walked past the front desk and shook my head in disbelief, I left the control room until I came back in to sign out and go home. And I had not been back to work since. So I have no other details.
SPITZER: Carrie, you also mentioned that there were prior incidents with Ken Martin. Tell us about those.
DELEON: He let United 846 and Spirit 374 come together at the same altitude, 36,000 feet, both doing over 450, 425 knots and he did not climb the United 1,000 feet to ensure separation until conflict alert had gone off and they were at or less than 23 miles from being in the same place at the same spot of air.
SPITZER: OK. Just so I understand, you used a lot of --
DELEON: And I reported --
SPITZER: Carrie, let me just stop you so we understand the setting here.
DELEON: Go ahead.
SPITZER: Because you're used to using all these numbers and vectors and all the other jargon real quick. Just so we understand. Were these two planes heading towards each on a collision course or were they going in the same direction but too close to each other?
DELEON: No, sir, they were converging at 36,000 feet.
SPITZER: And what should Ken Martin have done the moment he saw that?
DELEON: Well, prior to the conflict alert going off, I had called him -- when I saw the conflict with my equipment and called him and requested the Spirit to be descended to 50340, just requesting that so I wouldn't have to point out to him that maybe he didn't see it.
And then just before conflict alert went off, I called him on the override and I said, you do see those two at 36. And he curtly responded, I will separate my own airplanes, and then he let the conflict alert go off. He climbed the United only 1,000 feet.
And in my opinion, he did not use the proper phraseology where my 7110.65 bible tell us that if conflict alert activates, you shall use the word immediately. And I'm pretty sure he didn't because the United only climbed 100 feet a hit until I think he was at like 36,400. And then I would assume that he got -- alert on the traffic and expedited his climb to 50370.
SPITZER: How long did he wait between your first contacting him to say, you know you have these two planes that are converging and the time that he actually instructed them to separate and to move to different altitudes?
DELEON: I would -- I remotely recall that I waited until United crossed into our air space out of Cuban air space and called and asked for the Spirit to be descended to 50340. Then I let them run probably another 20 more miles before I called and said, you do see those two at 36. And then it was maybe a minute after I called that the conflict alert went off.
SPITZER: So your clear recollection is he waited at least over a minute between the time you first alerted him to the fact that these two planes were on a dead collision course until he did anything about it?
DELEON: Yes, sir. That's my opinion.
SPITZER: Are these facts detailed and set out in the complaint that you have now pending with the FAA?
RANDY FLEISCHER, ATTORNEY FOR CARRIE DELEON: Eliot, I don't think that that's part of her complaint because that happened after she filed the charges. And one of the problems that we have with the agency is they're really trying to narrow the scope of what her complaint is. And they don't want to investigate everything that happened.
In fact, they're trying to whitewash everything. And the FAA is not concerned about other air controllers stacking up planes and handing them off to Carrie in violation of procedures and safety.
SPITZER: Have you brought this allegation to the FAA's complaint, even if it isn't in the document relating to your specific litigation with them?
DELEON: Yes, sir. On December 12th, I was called into a meeting with my ops manager at the time and the vice president union rep of our facility, and I was told that they could not do anything to Ken Martin because an error had not occurred, and that I had to allow a systems deviation or a deal to happen before they could do anything to him.
So it was like they were wanting me to use the flying public so that they could get him in trouble, and I'm not about that at all.
FLEISCHER: Ken Martin was actually surfing the Internet when he was supposed to be watching planes on his radar scope.
SPITZER: OK.
FLEISCHER: And the FAA did nothing about it.
SPITZER: Randy, this is now November 25, 2010 you're saying that this incident occurred. The question I then had is, are there any electronic records of any sort that would document and prove what you have just said?
If he was surfing the Internet, are there searches, Web searches, online searches that could be documented. Is there an e-mail that you sent, is there a recording of the air traffic space that would let us see the planes on these converging paths at this moment? Anything that would prove beyond any doubt that what you're saying actually took place?
DELEON: Yes, sir, the actual surfing the Internet incident was on December 9th, 2010. And the supervisor on duty, I called him back to the area. So he physically himself saw Ken Martin sitting there surfing the Internet when he should have been 20 feet over at his sector watching his airplanes.
And I've been informed by the AF technicians in the building that they record everything that's kept forever. So all they'd have to do is pull up the history of the computer at that time of the night and see, because it was American 984 that was driving into my air space without a handoff.
That I was just sitting there watch coming into my air space. And I was like, this is crazy. So I called the sup at the front desk and I said, would you please come down here. So I showed him the American driving into my air space, Ken Martin sitting at the sup's desk surfing the Internet.
SPITZER: Did you include these facts in the complaint that you filed with the FAA?
DELEON: From the very first day that I went to human resources and file my complaint, that was in the package. It's also in the formal package I filed when I filed my EEO complaint in June of 2009.
SPITZER: Carrie, I want to ask also this important question. Are -- was this part of a pattern that you saw? Was Ken Martin the only one who was playing games of this sort? Or did you see other air traffic controllers who were your colleagues doing the same sorts of thing? Either sleeping, not handling the handoffs properly, not responding when planes were converging? Was it Ken Martin only or were there others?
DELEON: No, sir. It's been years of this practice of harassment.
FLEISCHER: Part of the larger problem here, Eliot, is that you're dealing with an all-boys kind of network. And you know the boys don't like a good solid strong woman in the middle of their work environment. And you see the same problem with firefighters, with women coming in, as you do with air traffic controllers.
And the boys ganged up on Carrie and they put the planes together on her and they're doing this without any thought to the safety of the people up in these airplanes. And they're doing it just to get her. They've been doing it for a long time and the FAA turns a blind eye to it.
And -- so again, just like every other federal agency, they don't want to hear about discrimination in their workplace and they do whatever they can to whitewash it.
SPITZER: Look, I obviously appreciate all the detail you've given us. We're going to use that to go back to the FAA and see what their responses to this. And also then ask for the documents if they exist that might corroborate this.
All right. Carrie and Randy, thanks so much for joining us tonight.
FLEISCHER: Thank you, Eliot.
DELEON: Thank you, Eliot.
SPITZER: We want to reiterate, Carrie DeLeon has an administrative claim pending against the FAA, alleging gender discrimination in her work as an air trafficker controller in Miami. She alleges that male controllers manipulated planes in an effort to harass her. She is currently on leave from her job.
We contacted the FAA for response to Miss DeLeon's charges. A spokesman said the matter is still being investigated. In regard to specific safety allegations made by Miss DeLeon, the agency says it takes all allegations regarding safety very seriously.
We've also attempted to locate the fired controller, Ken Martin, to get comment from him regarding Miss DeLeon's other charges but we have been unable to contact him. We would welcome his appearance on our program to answer the charges.
Up next, he's one of the most independent voices in Congress, and he's making the first moves to run for president. My exclusive interview with Ron Paul.
And Gloria Borger is here. She's been looking into what's going on with the Republicans who would be president -- Gloria.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you -- yes, you and I are going to be talking about why Rand Paul seems to be one of the only Republicans who's willing to jump in openly and say he wants to run for president, Eliot.
If this is such an important election for Republicans, why are so many of them running away from the presidential race? So we'll talk about that.
SPITZER: Can't wait to it, Gloria. You know Ron Paul is not shy. He's going to be into this race fighting hard.
BORGER: No.
SPITZER: It's going to be a fun conversation. Looking forward to it. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Republican Congressman Ron Paul has built a diehard following as a champion for libertarianism. He's run for president twice and today he announced he's headed down that road again.
Just hours ago, Congressman Paul formally declared he's forming a presidential exploratory committee.
I talked to him this afternoon about his run and about his new book "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom." Surprisingly, he told me Republicans are wary of running against President Obama because of his popularity.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Why are so many Republicans apparently hesitant to get into this race from Haley Barbour to Senator Thune to Mike Pence. Strong candidates with ideologies that are well defined. A president who is below 50 in the approval ratings, which is sort of the normal threshold for vulnerability. Why aren't more Republicans getting in?
REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Well, I don't know. They may be thinking they have to cautious and maybe they believe the president is stronger than some of the polls show. And then president is liked a lot. And you know in politics being liked is very important. And so maybe they don't think he's as vulnerable as the polls indicate he might be. So I think they're just being cautious.
SPITZER: Look, let me switch gears on you. You have said in a fair number of interviews that one of the reasons that you voted against so many of the programs that are funded by government is that they're unconstitutional.
And I don't want to do a seminar on constitutional law now, but I want to check off a couple of these programs and say look, are these the ones you're talking about? Is Social Security unconstitutional?
PAUL: Yes.
SPITZER: You think it is unconstitutional?
PAUL: Oh, yes, sure. Where is the authority?
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: The question is where is the authority?
SPITZER: Well, I think, look, I actually -- you know, you'll be happy to know --
PAUL: Where does it say --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Well, this a copy of the constitution given to me by Cato Institute, you know, which is more ideologically aligned with you.
I mean there are -- the necessary and proper clause which talks about Congress will make all laws necessary and proper for -- to pursue the general welfare.
PAUL: No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: It's right here in -- I mean --
PAUL: But where is it? It's at the end of the Article 1, Section 8. In Article 1, Section 8 lists 22 things that you can do and anything necessary and proper to fulfill those authorities, you're allowed to do it.
SPITZER: Right.
PAUL: So it's there. And the General Welfare clause is a gross distortion. I mean you can do any --
SPITZER: Why?
PAUL: Why did they have the 9th and 10th amendment if the General Welfare says you can set up social --
SPITZER: Wait, wait, wait. I actually want my glasses on to read the constitution. At least the Cato Institute --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: OK.
SPITZER: The print is too small. Boy, you're not saying the 9th and 10th Amendment make Social Security unconstitutional, are you?
PAUL: No, I'm saying it's unconstitutional because we didn't have an authority. And anything you don't have authority to, you're not allowed to do. That's what the 9th --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: And it also has to do with states rights. But I don't understand here. I mean it says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties and post excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
PAUL: I think the General Welfare is saying maybe having an honest currency, maybe having a -- you know, free markets and property rights. That's general -- but what you're talking about on general welfare is specific welfare. If you take care of the elderly at the expense of the poor, that's not general. That's specific. It's a transfer of --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Transfer of wealth.
SPITZER: Look, that's a little metaphysical for me.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: It's realism, though.
SPITZER: The entirety of our senior citizens. OK, look --
PAUL: But it doesn't work either.
SPITZER: Social security you think -- OK, separate conversation. Social Security you think is unconstitutional.
PAUL: Absolutely.
SPITZER: OK. Medicare?
PAUL: Sure.
SPITZER: Same argument. There's nothing in here that provides --
PAUL: You don't have an explicit authority otherwise you're not allowed to do it. That's what it says.
SPITZER: How explicit? OK. The Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, I gather then you're saying all of them are unconstitutional.
PAUL: I do.
SPITZER: I think most of the public is going to be rather astonished to hear you think that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all constitutional.
PAUL: Technically speaking they're unconstitutional.
SPITZER: So if you were president, you would not put them in your budget?
PAUL: Well, I think what I would do is propose a transition time. I would give the young people, and they're overwhelmingly in support of my suggestion, that if you're young and you're getting out of college and starting your workforce, opt out. They want to opt out of the Obamacare. I'd let them opt out and not have to pay any of the tax.
SPITZER: OK, free choices.
PAUL: And I want to see people over 50.
SPITZER: OK.
PAUL: I think we should work very hard to try to fulfill our promises, which means we have to cut elsewhere. We spend $1.2 trillion overseas. We can save a lot of money there. We don't have to put any foreign currencies that you're against Medicare and Medicaid, you're going to throw them out on the street.
SPITZER: No, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: But there is a transition that you can work on --
SPITZER: I'm trying not to create a caricature of your view. Trust me. I understand there are many changes that have to be made and understand the subtlety of your view which is there are alternatives that can be provided us.
Let's move on. Again, I disagree with you, but I just want to understand the intellectual parameters. And I've always said you have an intellectually coherent view that deserves to be respected and heard.
Your book -- your new book, "Liberty Defined." Fascinating. You begin your book -- it's on the very first page. I read beyond this, but I just want to quote this because it's the sort of the intellectual foundation for your world view. You say, "Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others," which is sort of a classical liberal view -- liberal philosophy, John Stuart Mill, the notion of self-regarding acts.
PAUL: Right.
SPITZER: That's what he called them. But here's the question I've got for you. The reason this has fallen out of the favor is because people have said conceptually, of course, that's right. But do they exist? In other words, if somebody builds a coal driven energy plant two miles away from the property you own, right? And spews out all sorts of pollution, do they have the right to do that or does that infringe on your liberty?
PAUL: Absolutely no right to do it.
SPITZER: So --
PAUL: You know freedom and property rights will take care of the environmental problems because your neighbor can't come and dump his garbage in your yard. He can't destroy your water coming into your land. He can't dump sewer in your air. So you don't have a right to do that under --
SPITZER: OK.
PAUL: -- property rights and free market.
SPITZER: So you're right. So you agree that there are interactions between what people do on their own property and other surrounding them limit this notion of liberty as you acknowledge it.
PAUL: Well, I don't think your limiting liberty. You're limiting people who are destroying your property.
SPITZER: OK. OK.
PAUL: You know, destroying liberty doesn't mean I can't hurt you.
SPITZER: OK.
PAUL: So this is limiting their ability to hurt people --
SPITZER: So people when they get together to define the rules by which the other person can hurt you, to use your phrase, isn't that what government does?
PAUL: Yes, and very poorly because in an economic sense, what they do is they act with prior restraint. You're not allowed -- we're not allowed to use prior restraint to restrain you on what you do on your TV programs, but people think --
SPITZER: First Amendment is different. PAUL: But the people think on economics, it's different. And I say economics and personal liberty are one in the same.
SPITZER: Let me continue this analogy. Let's say we know that the coal plant is going to spew up all that pollution, it's going to make the air here in New York City dirty and foul, cause asthma, all sorts of diseases.
So we pass a (INAUDIBLE) and we call it the Clean Air act that says power plants in the Midwest or down in North Carolina have to put in a certain type of technology to limit that pollution. Good or bad under your theory?
PAUL: Well, that's through a bureaucracy and --
SPITZER: Conceptually, good or bad?
PAUL: The method is bad because --
SPITZER: The concept -- is the concept bad?
PAUL: You can achieve it with free markets.
SPITZER: No, you can't.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: I was raised --
SPITZER: How? Lawsuits?
PAUL: I was raised in --
SPITZER: How do you achieve it through free markets?
PAUL: Because you go to court. And you say --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: So you're saying you (INAUDIBLE) to do it.
PAUL: And there's tort law. And when you find out that you're liable for putting garbage in somebody else's yard, they don't do it.
SPITZER: But that -- wait a minute. What you're saying is the -- the notion of having the people here in New York sue the power plants in North Carolina, wherever it may be, because of that -- the pollution here causes asthma and all that stuff. You like that notion, what you quibble with is having the EPA do it or having private lawyers.
PAUL: Yes.
SPITZER: And you'd rather have private lawyers.
PAUL: No, not really -- SPITZER: You just said that. You said that's how the private market does it.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Let me get a word in. I was raised in Pittsburgh.
SPITZER: Yes.
PAUL: And it was black skies during the '40s.
SPITZER: Right.
PAUL: And it was all cleaned up before the EPA because of local property rights and city ordinance. They said you can't do it anymore. The rivers were polluted. They were cleaned up before the federal government ever got involved.
SPITZER: No, no. First of all, that's not the case. And I can tell you that because if you look at the history of the Clean Air Act, and I'm the one who brought the lawsuits. But here's the problem.
Do you know how it was cleaned up? By building smokestacks that were 1,000 feet tall. So what did that do? It sent the pollution not down into Pittsburgh, but over to New Jersey and New York. And so you shifted the burden.
And the reason that the EPA was created, the reason the Clean Air Act was passed was to deal with the very issue of liberty --
PAUL: OK. But why should --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Therefore you support it.
PAUL: Why should you have two sets of rules, one prior restraint on every economic matter, but I'm not allowed to have prior restraint on your TV program. It's not the same principle.
SPITZER: Because -- no, no, no. Congressman, look, the First Amendment is different. We all appreciate that. Speech is something sacrosanct.
PAUL: We as freedom lovers don't see the difference. We believe that individual property rights are the same as speech rights. You can't have two kinds of rights. That's just what happened.
But you endorse a status quo of all the conservative and liberal arguments today because you think there's economic rights that were here and political rights over here.
SPITZER: Anyway, let's switch gears. Why are you running? I want you to have your fair shot explaining to the public why you should be the president of the United States.
PAUL: I am determined to counteract many of the fallacies that you have just stated.
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: That is my goal in life.
SPITZER: All right.
PAUL: Because you speak for the status quo so clearly that you motivate me.
SPITZER: You know what?
PAUL: I said there is our problem.
SPITZER: The notion that I'm viewed as the status quo, the folks out there think I'm anything but.
Anyway, Congressman, it is always a joy to have you here. An intellectual sparring session. Thank so much and congratulations.
PAUL: All right. There we go.
SPITZER: Thank you. Thank you.
You know, I've got to say it's always fun to talk to Congressman Paul. And if you'd like to read an excerpt of Congressman Paul's new book, go to our blog CNN.com/inthearena.
Next, meet the Muslim extremist planning to disrupt Friday's royal wedding. You've got to see this guy to believe him. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Tonight, warnings of a terror attack against the royal wedding. That's the word from a radical Muslim activist Anjem Choudary. Choudary is part of a group called Muslims Against Crusades, a group planning to wreak havoc at the royal celebration, and warning other Muslims to stay away.
The Web site calls for, and I quote, "an overthrow of the tyranny of Queen Elizabeth II," end quote. And he compares Prince William to a Nazi.
Anjem Choudary also wants to bring Sharia law to Britain. He joins us now from London.
Mr. Choudary, I just wanted to be perfectly clear that your views are absolutely abhorrent to me and to everybody here. And you're on the show simply because I want to ask you a simple question. Are you actually planning to bring violence to this wedding?
ANJEM CHOUDARY, RADICAL MUSLIM ACTIVIST: Well, you know, I'm not surprised that my views are abhorrent to you because obviously you support your government and the atrocities that they are committing against Muslims. We are going to use the platform on the 29th of April to show the world that the Muslims will never remain silent when the British and the American governments are committing atrocities against them.
If we can use this platform to withdraw the troops from Muslim countries to stop atrocities being committed against our brethren around the world, then we will do so no matter if it's a wedding or a funeral. We will take every opportunity to support our brothers and sisters around the world and to save innocent lives.
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, I just have got to interrupt you here for just a second. You said "use this platform." And I want you to answer the question specifically -- are you going to bring violence to this wedding, or are you going to live within the parameters of the law of the west and the law of the tolerant world and state your views, whatever they may be, no matter how abhorrent they may be, but do so peacefully with respect to the freedom and liberty of other people?
CHOUDARY: Well, in answer to that question, I would say that as a Muslim, I do believe that Muslims who live among the non-Muslims in Britain, for example, and America, have a covenant of security. They cannot target the life and the wealth of the people whom they live in return for their life and wealth being protected.
But I also have a duty to warn the people that not everyone shares this opinion, and, in fact, many people believe that it's open season to attack those people who are attacking them. So we saw this on 9/11. We saw it on 7/7. And I think a warning needs to go out that despite a wedding takes place there's in fact a war taking place. And unless we live in the real world, this could be a complete nightmare.
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, have you spoken directly to anybody who has said to you that they plan to execute any type of violence at the wedding on the 29th?
CHOUDARY: Now, I haven't, but, you know, the CIA, the mi-5, you know, the wills of people who have carried out operations before on British and American homeland spell out the fact that this is an ideal opportunity really for --
SPITZER: So Mr. Choudary, let me interrupt for a minute. In that case either you're lying in your most recent statement or else your other glam claims are just bloviating and a bunch of hot air. So let's put that aside for minute and we will find out of the 29th and one way or another the truth will come to be known.
I want to talk about the dynamic in Egypt where there are for the first time in many years there are going to be free elections, and every poll, every expert about the public sentiment in Egypt having overthrown the tyranny of President Mubarak says that the Islamic Brotherhood has only a small minority of public support.
Your ideology of fundamentalist Islam has been rejected by the Egyptian public. Isn't this a complete and fundamental reversal of everything you would claim would happen if there was freedom in Egypt? CHOUDARY: In fact, what is taking place in Egypt and the rest of the northern Africa is a step towards the Sharia. The fact that people can now express themselves and propagate Islam is a step towards Sharia being implementing.
The views are Islamic that they spread and that they hold dear to themselves. And every Muslim in the world who believes in the Sharia, who believes in the final messenger of Mohammed must believe that Sharia needs to be implemented and it's a matter of time before they go back to their own roots.
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, I apologize for interrupting, but I want to deal with the reality of what's going on in Egypt right now, where a dictatorship, a military dictatorship was overthrown by an organic uprising of an educated population that says we want tolerance, we want secular freedom.
Yes, most of the population is Islamic, but not the fundamentalist Islam that you espouse and certainly not the violence and certainly not the intolerant view of the world that you espouse and you claim would be imposed upon them through Sharia law. Time and time again every leader of that revolution said we believe in freedom, tolerance, and respecting other religions.
You're making this up. I don't know if you're completely out of touch with what's going on in Egypt or not. When was the last time you were there?
CHOUDARY: Let me just say one thing to you. When the people called for freedom in Egypt or in Tunisia, they're not talking about the freedom that you have in America, the freedom of pornography, of alcohol or gambling, et cetera. They want freedom of dictators in Muslim countries --
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, they want the freedom of innocent lives being thrown out by suicide bombers? That's what you're saying? Is that your vision of freedom?
CHOUDARY: They want liberation of their land from American occupation. So don't make the mistake of saying you have a model that Muslims want to adhere and aspire to --
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, we will get to Libya in a moment, but let's just stick with Egypt where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked through Tahrir Square a few weeks ago, was greeted as a heroine, a hero. The American forces that helped sustain that revolution in many different ways were greeted as heroes.
What are you talking about? You simply seem to be distant from the reality that the entire world is seeing. When was the last time -- you didn't answer the question. When were you last in Egypt, sir?
CHOUDARY: I haven't been to Egypt for a long time. But that does not mean my eyes and ears are not on the ground in Egypt as to what is taking place. And incidentally, you can bring many people to support even Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. And Hillary Clinton is no surprise that people will come out and show some kind of affection. But the vast majority of the Muslims, not in Egypt, in the whole of the Muslim world, find the American foreign policy to be anathema to Muslims.
Don't make the mistake of thinking they love you. You supported the dictator in Egypt for 30 years. I don't think they love the American foreign policy over that.
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, just so it's clear, what they love is the freedom the United States stands for. And what they love is the notion that they can worship their religion as they want.
Let me ask you this question, yes or no. We're going to take a break and we'll keep you on for another moment or two, but answer this question. When I said only a very small minority of the Egyptian population was going to vote for the Islamic brotherhood, is that correct or not? Yes or no, sir?
CHOUDARY: I agree that may be the case. They don't want peace in Islam. The majority of the Muslims want complete Islam and they're not standing that for the current time.
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, stay right there. For reasons I'm not quite sure, we're going to keep you on this TV program for another few minutes, and I want to talk about Libya with you. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: We're back now with radical Muslim activist Anjem Choudary. Mr. Choudary, I want to talk about Libya for a minute, because it seems to me if there is any place in the world that refuses everything you believe in and stand for, that is it. The opposition forces there are begging for NATO to come in and give them the military support to get rid of a despot who hides behind the cloak of Islam. They want freedom. The opposition wants freedom. They want the west, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Egypt and Saudi Arabia to rescue them. How do you square that with what you say?
CHOUDARY: Colonel Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak and the others are a bunch of terrorists and we want them removed. But don't be fooled by thinking the Muslims want to be bombed and helped out. How is it whenever the American administration want to help Muslims, they bomb them? They bomb them in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Now they bomb them in Libya.
They're helping them a lot in Palestine, by the way, by helping the Israelis bomb them in Gaza. How is it when you want to help Muslims you kill them? How can't you removing the regime and not bombing them?
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, let me interrupt, I apologize for interrupting. But at a certain point we have to deal with fact and reality and not the fiction that you want to espouse. The bombing is to prevent the wholesale massacres that Moammar Gadhafi wanted to perpetrate in Benghazi, that he's continuing to perpetrate. We are saving lives at the request of the opposition, the Libyan population. Is that not an objective fact?
CHOUDARY: That is a dream world in which you live. You are bombing Libya because of the interests of the American establishment in the area. You want your oil, you want your resources. Otherwise, where was the help for the Muslims for the last 40 years? You propped up Gadhafi and Mubarak and you armed them and you didn't care about atrocities. You sent people over there to be tortured. So how come suddenly you have --
SPITZER: Sir, look. Sir, with all due respect, time runs short, but I think it's been patently clear for 40 years the United States has been the enemy of Moammar Gadhafi. He's a terrorist and abhorrent to us.
One last question, sir, and I just have to ask this -- for all your chatter about how I want Sharia law, you want to go back to the rule of Islam, why do you live in London?
CHOUDARY: We will implement Sharia in Britain and America. Why should I leave the land? If you don't like it, why don't you leave America and go somewhere else. I want to stay here.
SPITZER: All right, Mr. Choudary, we put you on this show. You live in a dream world, buddy. I don't know what to tell you.
CHOUDARY: You live in a nightmare there.
SPITZER: If there's violence there, it's going to be prosecution and conviction, and I sure as heck hope you're not going to do what you talked about.
All right, up next, the one and only Larry King joins us. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: There is nobody I would rather talk politics with than Larry King. He has spoken to everybody, every president, every presidential candidate. And Larry, I've got to tell you, this is an honor to ask you some questions.
So I want to begin with the presidential race. Donald Trump, a friend of yours, on your show over and over. What's going on? Is he going to run, and this this birther stuff smart or not?
LARRY KING, FORMER CNN HOST: I can't get into his head. I love Donald. He's really a great guy and a good friend. But he is what he is. But if you can explain it to me -- I'll probably call him tomorrow. I have no idea where that came from, because essentially what we're saying -- or what he's saying and those who believe that is that the state of Hawaii is lying to us, that the governor of Hawaii, the secretary of state, that those people in charge or births and certificates of Hawaii are liars and are saying to the rest of the states that we're lying.
So it makes no sense. It's a bad issue for him, I think. It might get him an element, but it won't get him a majority.
SPITZER: As always, Larry, I think you're exactly right. It gives him a little base but not an opportunity to talk about the issues. When we talked the other night on this show he wasn't ready to crystallize or tell the world his view on fundamental issues. He's a very, very, very smart guy. So I'm surprised he didn't come out of the box with articulate views on this stuff.
KING: I'm a little surprised. But he said as he said on your show last night that he will come forward with them. I'm not sure that Donald is going to run. I think -- I think it may lead to him saying -- this is purely a guess -- he'll probably say I've created the issues, I've formulated the issues. But I don't want the race to be about me. I think the issues are more important than me so I will support the candidate that best expresses my viewpoints.
He doesn't have to face the possibility of a defeat. Why get into that war? I just don't think it's Donald.
SPITZER: This Sunday night 8:00 p.m. here on CNN you' got an incredibly important special about Alzheimer's. How did you get into this, and what is the conclusion you've reached?
KING: The conclusion is difficult, Eliot, as you know. This is a tough subject. I met a wonderful gentleman who is one of the largest liquor distributors in America. His father died of Alzheimer's and he became kind of obsessed with the topic.
And Frank Gerry designed a building in Las Vegas. It's part of the Cleveland Clinic. It's shaped like a brain. If you're like Las Vegas, the building takes you inside the brain when you go in. It's probably the number one research and treatment center in the world now for this most puzzling and maybe worst of all diseases.
We investigated from celebrities and doctors. And Ron Reagan and I go to the clinic. And one of us will take an Alzheimer's test to see if we're preconditioned to it. And what you're seeing is me and Larry going through part of the inside of the center. It's on Sunday night at 8:00.
SPITZER: You mentioned, you spoke to Ron Reagan Jr. I want you to hear what he said. It was a powerful interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What was life like when you would visit?
RON REAGAN, SON OF RONALD REAGAN: Well, fortunately, I have to say my father -- the disease does what it us does, but he did escape a lot of the worst symptoms.
KING: He didn't get angry. REAGAN: Didn't get angry, didn't get paranoid and things like that. Some, you know, the disease attacks the brain. And it's not the patient's fault if they begin behaving in odd ways because you can't predict how the disease will affect any specific brain. He escaped most of that, and his personality remained till the end.
KING: He didn't speak for a long time.
REAGAN: Aphasia is something that happened fairly early, which is a tragic irony for someone known as a great communicator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Larry, final thoughts. Are we making progress in understanding this horrific disease? Are we facing a crisis with a population that's going to be older over the next 20, 30 years.
KING: Well asked. They're estimating by the year 2050, 100 million people will have Alzheimer's. The progress is very slow. It's very slow in altogether learning about the brain. And I would not say I'm optimistic. We're learning more and while we've developed some drugs that help stave it off and it comes later than it should, but a cure, a long way to go. And a terrible disease, Eliot. Think of having a life of no memory. All we have is our memories. That's all we have.
SPITZER: Yes. Yes. Larry King, it's always an honor to have you on this show. Thanks so much and thank you for your time. An amazing special, watch it, 8:00 p.m. this Sunday.
KING: Thank you, Eliot.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
It is bizarre that so few Republicans are throwing their hat into the presidential ring, especially with President Obama's approval rating so low. So what's the real story? We've heard from Ron Paul. And up next Gloria Borger weighs in. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Earlier tonight, I spoke with Congressman Ron Paul who's officially exploring a presidential run. But why does it seem he's running against a very small Republican field? Probably because he is. Joining me now, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: How you doing?
SPITZER: Wonderful. Gloria, what's going on with the Republican candidates? They're dropping like flies, one flimsy excuse after another not to run. Are they cowards? Are they weak? What's going on here?
BORGER: I think, first of all, it's still early. There will be some getting in this summer and probably within the next couple of weeks. But I think, you know, this is a party that's in transition. You have the old accomplishment Republicans who are running because they're well known in the party. Take someone like Mitt Romney who ran last time. People know who he is.
And then you have a newer group of younger Republicans, many of whom have just come on the political scene, like Marco Rubio of Florida. You take governor Walker of Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, the House budget committee chairman. And lots of people believe that they're kind of just four years away from running for the presidency.
So you have one generation and another generation and who can kind of mesh the two, I think, is the real question.
SPITZER: You know, one of the fascinating thing, and I think your observation is exactly right, but if you think about the three people you mentioned as being the new generation, they are all significantly to the right, very, very conservative voices. I'm not sure any one of those three could actually win 50 plus one.
Even though, you're right, they're rising stars in the Republican party. Aren't they too conservative for this nation?
BORGER: Well, you know, there's an ideological battle going on within the Republican Party and the country. Lots of people would argue the country has moved to the right of center, that that is where most independent voters are right now.
And the interesting thing about the people I mentioned are they're setting the agenda for the presidential campaign we're used to candidates saying this is going to be the agenda for the presidential race and we'll go for it, or it gets set at a convention. What we are seeing is the Republican Party, particularly House Republicans, setting the agenda for whatever candidate is going to run.
So if you look at someone like a Mitt Romney, for example, he's got to find a way to appeal to the Paul Ryans of the world, the tea party people, the Rand Pauls of the world, for example. And he's also got to final a way to appeal to the more establishment Republicans.
It's very hard for any presidential candidate to do that. I think what we're watching is Mitt Romney trying to do it. I think we're watching Newt Gingrich trying to do it. And we'll watch Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, try and present himself as someone who could be a part of both camps.
SPITZER: I think what is happening here is also the fire in the belly is really with the next generation. They inspire people. They speak to the heart and soul of the public out there. The older generation, frankly Mitt Romney, I have never seen anyone speak passionately about being for Mitt Romney. He's an alternative to the president, but nobody is really passionate about him.
I disagree with only one thing you said there. Yes, everybody looks at polls and says the country moved to the right. I don't think anybody has given the articulate argument for those who are either in the middle or want to explain what government needs to do and why they should do it if that happens. And I think the president will do it before next November. Then the public is going to snap back and say yes, that is the agenda we believe in.
BORGER: But, you know, the president's problem right now is that the approval rating for government is at an all-time low. And so it's very hard to convince people - and he had this trouble with health care reform. It's very hard to convince people that government will do things for you and Mr. Do it well when they think government can't be trusted to take out the garbage for them, right?
SPITZER: But here's the thing.
BORGER: So that's Barack Obama's problem.
SPITZER: Gloria, here's the thing. You're right, but everything is in how you frame the question. If you say do you like government? People say we hate it. It's my taxes, everything wrong. Do you say do you believe we need a strong defense? Yes. We need health care such as Medicare? Yes. They love it.
Anyway, Gloria, you and I are going to have a lot of time to continue this. Unfortunately we're out of time tonight.
BORGER: Sure.
SPITZER: Gloria, thank you. We'll have another evening. Thank you for joining us "In the Arena." "Piers Morgan Tonight" starts right now.
