Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Ninth Court Allows Ignorance Defense in Terrorism Law Case
Aired December 04, 2003 - 14:21 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: California's Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down part of a sweeping law that makes it a crime to provide training or personnel to a terror group. Is the ruling a major blow to President Bush's war on terror? To help us sort out what it means, we're joined by former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey.
Kendall, good to have you back with us.
KENDALL COFFEY, FRM. U.S. ATTORNEY: Great to be with you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Give us the specifics on this case, first of all.
COFFEY: Well, the case arises out of the 1996 legislation, passed in the Clinton administration. And that has really on several of the cases we heard about in recent times been what prosecutors have used either with respect to the Buffalo Six or even with respect to charges brought against so-called American Taliban John Walker Lindh.
But several portions of that law have been controversial. The decision that just came out of the Ninth Circuit is now a major step that could ultimately take this legislation up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
O'BRIEN: What is the Ninth Circuit concerned about? People who might unwittingly and innocently provide some support, perhaps, to terrorist organizations?
COFFEY: That's exactly the concern because the two designated terrorist organizations, in 1997 the secretary of state designated these two organizations as terrorist organizations also supposedly deal with human rights abuses, human rights abuses directed against the Kurds in turkey, human rights abuses directed against the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
So they have to some extent a dual purpose and the court was concerned that someone that was concerned about the humanitarian agenda of one of these groups might not actually know that they were designated as a foreign terrorist organization and might not know that they're actually involved at the same time that they're trying to help people in addressing human rights abuses.
But they're also involved in military action, terrorism, killing and other acts that obviously are illegal and have to be stamped out.
O'BRIEN: So in other words, ignorance of the fact that these groups might be suspect could be a defense according to the Ninth Circuit.
COFFEY: That's right. The other side of it is from a prosecution standpoint. Look, the secretary of state designates these groups as foreign terrorist organizations, and they don't want to, in order make a prosecution case, have to reach inside of the mind of the defendant to show what that defendant actually knew because it can get very tough to prove that somebody actually knew, for example, that the Kurdistan Workers Party was a terrorist organization.
If you put the burden on the prosecution of having to prove that element along with all the other issues of the crime, it can be a very difficult case to successfully prosecute.
O'BRIEN: All right. The Ninth Circuit is the famous or infamous depending where you stand Pledge of Allegiance circuit, heavily overturned, very liberal court. Is it likely this will be overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court?
COFFEY: It is a controversial court. And in fact it appears that two of the three judges on this decision were also involved in the original court decision that struck down the California recall. As we all know that original three-judge decision was later vacated by the entire Ninth Circuit. The recall election proceeded.
This case, though, I think raises some serious issues that have concerned courts before. I think the issues are going to have to get to the Supreme Court in the relatively near future.
O'BRIEN: Kendall Coffey taking a break from of his busy day. Coming right out of court for us. We appreciate your time, sir, as always.
COFFEY: Thanks for including me, Miles.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Case>
Aired December 4, 2003 - 14:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: California's Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down part of a sweeping law that makes it a crime to provide training or personnel to a terror group. Is the ruling a major blow to President Bush's war on terror? To help us sort out what it means, we're joined by former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey.
Kendall, good to have you back with us.
KENDALL COFFEY, FRM. U.S. ATTORNEY: Great to be with you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Give us the specifics on this case, first of all.
COFFEY: Well, the case arises out of the 1996 legislation, passed in the Clinton administration. And that has really on several of the cases we heard about in recent times been what prosecutors have used either with respect to the Buffalo Six or even with respect to charges brought against so-called American Taliban John Walker Lindh.
But several portions of that law have been controversial. The decision that just came out of the Ninth Circuit is now a major step that could ultimately take this legislation up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
O'BRIEN: What is the Ninth Circuit concerned about? People who might unwittingly and innocently provide some support, perhaps, to terrorist organizations?
COFFEY: That's exactly the concern because the two designated terrorist organizations, in 1997 the secretary of state designated these two organizations as terrorist organizations also supposedly deal with human rights abuses, human rights abuses directed against the Kurds in turkey, human rights abuses directed against the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
So they have to some extent a dual purpose and the court was concerned that someone that was concerned about the humanitarian agenda of one of these groups might not actually know that they were designated as a foreign terrorist organization and might not know that they're actually involved at the same time that they're trying to help people in addressing human rights abuses.
But they're also involved in military action, terrorism, killing and other acts that obviously are illegal and have to be stamped out.
O'BRIEN: So in other words, ignorance of the fact that these groups might be suspect could be a defense according to the Ninth Circuit.
COFFEY: That's right. The other side of it is from a prosecution standpoint. Look, the secretary of state designates these groups as foreign terrorist organizations, and they don't want to, in order make a prosecution case, have to reach inside of the mind of the defendant to show what that defendant actually knew because it can get very tough to prove that somebody actually knew, for example, that the Kurdistan Workers Party was a terrorist organization.
If you put the burden on the prosecution of having to prove that element along with all the other issues of the crime, it can be a very difficult case to successfully prosecute.
O'BRIEN: All right. The Ninth Circuit is the famous or infamous depending where you stand Pledge of Allegiance circuit, heavily overturned, very liberal court. Is it likely this will be overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court?
COFFEY: It is a controversial court. And in fact it appears that two of the three judges on this decision were also involved in the original court decision that struck down the California recall. As we all know that original three-judge decision was later vacated by the entire Ninth Circuit. The recall election proceeded.
This case, though, I think raises some serious issues that have concerned courts before. I think the issues are going to have to get to the Supreme Court in the relatively near future.
O'BRIEN: Kendall Coffey taking a break from of his busy day. Coming right out of court for us. We appreciate your time, sir, as always.
COFFEY: Thanks for including me, Miles.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Case>
