Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Patriot Act Debates; Bombing Investigation Extends Far Beyond London

Aired July 22, 2005 - 13:32   ET

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

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: We've got an Amber Alert to tell you about right now. It's Louisiana authorities actually that put this alert out for three missing kids from Texas. Deputies in East Texas issued the Amber Alert for these three kids allegedly abducted from the home of their guardian.
We do have a picture of one of the young girls, Brittany Nicole Graham. We do not have pictures of the other two kids, but this is Brittany Nicole Graham. Police say the children might be in the company of a registered sex offender. Deputies have been alerted in Shreveport, Louisiana. Police are worried the children might be in northwest Louisiana at this point. Texas deputies did receive the information that relatives heard from various friends that alerted them to the fact that these three kids may be in the hands of a sex offender.

So right now an Amber Alert for three missing children. Louisiana authorities coming forward and asking for your help if you have any information.

Once again, Brittany Nicole Graham is who you're seeing here, in addition to two other children. We'll keep you updated and give you as much information as we can.

Well, more than nine hours of debate, and at the end of it all, the U.S. House voted to extend the Patriot Act. The final vote was 257 to 171.

Now a similar bill works its way through the Senate, proponents say it's a vital tool in the ongoing war against terrorism, but those opposed cite concerns over a loss of civil liberties. We want to look a little closer now at some of the most hotly contested aspects of this act and how they might affect you. We're going to lay it out with our guests. Joining me here in Washington Paul Rosenzweig with Heritage Foundation, and CNN contributor Bob Barr, holding down the fort in Atlanta today.

Gentlemen, nice to have you both.

Bob, let's start with you. Pleasure to have you.

Bob, what's your beef with the Patriot Act?

BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The beef with the Patriot Act is not the Patriot Act itself. Many of the provisions, most of the provisions are fine. They represent tools that our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies need to fight acts of terrorism. The beef is that there are some provisions in them that we're not asking be taken away, and that's important for this debate. All we're saying is they need to be limited so that they are used by the government for the extraordinary type of cases -- that is, terrorism cases -- that were the basis, the justification for the act in the first place.

PHILLIPS: Give me an example, Bob. Give me a specific of what you don't like about the Patriot Act.

Specifically, Kyra, I think you, and I and Paul, as law-abiding citizens of this country have a right to know that our government cannot go to a pawnshop, or a medical office or any sort of other business and get personal, private records on you and I without us knowing about it, without some basis, some suspicion that the government thinks we've done something wrong or that we have a connection with terrorism. The Patriot Act as it stands now and as passed again by the House last night allows the government to do that, and that's wrong, and it's not necessary.

PHILLIPS: And, Paul, you wonder, I mean, are you really going to find a terrorist looking through library records? And Bob actually brings up an interesting point. I actually got to know an attorney pretty well in San Francisco not too long ago. She told me 754 cases of individuals that have been basically ridiculed, in their words, because of the Patriot Act. And it's been investigated, these various cases. You know, the FBI coming and questioning them because somebody called in and said they looked suspicious, because they were Iranian and standing on the Golden Gate Bridge. I mean, she read me case after case after case, and you think, gosh, is this being abused?

PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, first off, we've got to talk about a couple of different things. With a you're talking about isn't the Patriot Act, but the FBI conducting investigations. That's people reporting because they're feel aggrieved because they've been asked questions. The FBI has had authority to do that about 75 years since it started, and yes, whether or not they're wrong being questioned or not...

PHILLIPS: What about individuals being detained, and detained and detained?

ROSENZWEIG: Well, again, that's also not part of the Patriot Act. The part that Bob mentioned, the library records, you asked, is it reasonable to find out -- the actual truth is, yes. We know, for example, that Mohammed Junaid Babar, who's been convicted in New York of providing material support for terrorists used the New York public library's Internet system precisely because he was aware of the controversy about it, and he considered a safe haven through which he could communicate to people back in Waziristan.

I agree completely that we need to have a relevant standard, that is, that the government shouldn't get books or records about you, medical records, unless they're relevant to an ongoing terrorist investigation. And this House bill actually adds that provision. I think it was there beforehand. I think it was implicit. The House bill with the concurrence of the government makes it clear that is part of the law.

PHILLIPS: Any evidence to this point that it's truly been abused? Has any...

ROSENZWEIG: Actually, the evidence is all against that. The Department of Justice's inspector general, who is, by the way a holdover from the Clinton administration, so he's not predisposed to be kind to this administration, is charged with reporting to Congress every six months on his determination of whether or not any of the Patriot Act powers have been abused. His last report was in May of this year. And it will again in six months from now. Total number in the four years since September 11th: zero, zero verified instances.

PHILLIPS: Bob, it's a pretty strong point, and considering what we're seeing happening in London, I think a lot of people are saying, let's do whatever it takes to protect Americans and protect others around the world.

BARR: Well, thankfully, we live in a society with a Bill of Rights that stops the government from doing whatever it feels that it takes. We have a bill of rights that limits the government. They don't have that in London, and that's what makes us better.

First of all, Kyra, your point, you were correct; Paul is wrong. The provisions, the problems that you're talking about in many instances can be traced directly to the Patriot Act. We have people who are being questioned because of the Patriot Act. We have people whose bank accounts are being closed because of the Patriot Act, and these are law-abiding citizens, not terrorists and not criminals.

Also, the so-called relevant standard -- and I know this might get sort of boring to our listeners, but the relevant standard that Paul thinks is so great is absolutely meaningless. Saying that the government can do these things, can gather private records on somebody without any suspicion that they've done anything wrong simply because it might be relevant to the government's investigation doesn't afford us any protection at all.

What we really ought to have -- and I'm surprised that Paul, as a strong, proven conservative does not share this concern -- is requiring that the government have at least some suspicion that the person, whether it's Paul, you or me, has done something wrong before they can invade our privacy and gather records against us. I'm still baffled why a conservative like Paul thinks that it's OK for the government to invade our privacy for no reason whatsoever.

PHILLIPS: Go ahead, Paul. Respond, Paul.

ROSENZWEIG: Well, a couple of points. The relevant standard that Representative Barr derides was approved by the Supreme Court 9-0 in a case called the Inray R.N. Enterprise (ph). Actually, I'm sorry, it was 8-1. And it's the one that we've been using to collect records involving investigations of drug dealers, murderers, rapists, robbers throughout America for the last 50 years. So I remain kind of confused as to why there should be a higher standard for the government to be able to take action in terrorist investigations than in drug lord or Mafia investigations.

And as a good conservative, what I understand, I think, is that we need both checks and balances, that the genius of the founders is, as Alexander Hamilton said in "The Federalist Paper Number 81," to put energy in the executive. The whole point of federal government was to empower to do important things like protect national security, say. The very first part of the preamble of the constitution says to provide for the common defense. And that's precisely what's at issue here.

I yield to nobody in my belief in the necessity for us to have appropriate oversight checks and balances, judges, that sort of thing. And that's exactly what the house bill does. It adds back in -- I think they were already there, but it adds back in judicial review of these subpoenas that Bob doesn't like. So, you know, there's an outside check and we can be sure that the executive branch isn't going overboard. Seems to me that's exactly what the genius of the founders is all about.

PHILLIPS: Paul Rosenzweig, Bob Barr. Gentleman, thank you.

ROSENZWEIG: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Next on LIVE FROM, more on the U.S. links to the London bombings on July 7th. We're back right after a quick break. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: We're live from Washington, D.C., and we're talking about the London bombing investigation extending far from London, to South Asia and the Northwestern United States.

CNN's Rusty Dornin has been tracing a possible link here.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There are a web of connections between the London attacks, the Dar-es Salaam Mosque in Seattle and this desolate ranch in Bly, Oregon.

We start with this man. He was born in Seattle, as James Ernest Thompson. When he quest converted to Islam he changed his name to James Ujaama. He attended the mosque on Union Street, which has since been torn down.

But in July, 2002, he was arrested for terrorist activities and later pleaded guilty to conspiring to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. authorities say he didn't work alone. That he had, in the technical jargon of court papers, three "unindicted coconspirators."

Of the three men, who were not named in the documents, investigators say it is coconspirator number three who is now getting attention from British authorities in connection with the London attacks. (on camera): Officials familiar with both the London investigation and the Ujaama case say his name is Haroon Rashid Aswat and that he provided some type of support to the now-dead London bombers and left Britain just days before the attacks.

(voice-over): What is he alleged to have done in the U.S.? The court documents say he traveled here to Bly, Oregon, to help set up a terrorist training camp. In 1999, while visiting the potential camp along with Ujaama and others to work up a security plan, according to the court documents, Aswat interviewed potential candidates for jihad training and participated in firearms training. All of this allegedly went on right under the nose of their neighbors.

CHESTER BROWN, BLY, OREGON RESIDENT: If it was happening, I'd know it. I live across from that ranch. If there was any automatic fire out there. We'd have heard it right here in the center of town.

DORNIN: The court documents allege Aswat went to Seattle in 2000 where he quote, "expounded on the writings and teaching of radical British cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri." Ujaama, meanwhile, went to London to work on Abu Hamza's Web site. Abu Hamza is now jailed in London and wanted by U.S. authorities to stand trial on terrorism charges.

So where is Haroon Rashid Aswat, the man who went to Oregon to set up the terror camp? Officials with knowledge of the London investigation say before his latest visit to Britain, he was last known to be in South Africa, and now there's a worldwide manhunt for him.

Rusty Dornin, CNN, Seattle, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: It's summer and it's hot. We know that. But in certain places, the heat is proving unbearable, even dangerous. For over a week now, the Southwest has seen temperatures reach triple digits. In Phoenix, Arizona, at least 18 people have died from the unrelenting heat, most of them homeless. Well, the heat is now enveloping Chicago, where it's expected to hit 100 degrees this weekend.

Nancy Loo with our affiliate WFED is in Grand Park, where they're getting ready for a big event. Hi, Nancy.

NANCY LOO, WFED REPORTER: Hi, there. It's not too bad right now. It's a bearable 80-something degrees around here, but there is growing concern here in Chicago. It is expected to reach the triple digits by Sunday.

I'm standing next to the setup and preparation for Lollapalooza Chicago. Some hot bands are expected this weekend, including Weezer and the Killers. You can see tents are being set up and they're going to put up misting fans because 70,000 people are expected to pack into Grand Park here in Chicago over the next couple of days. And of course, city officials are warning that this weather may be a killer. So everyone is being warned. The concert-goers and everyone in Chicago, warned to take precaution. I'm standing in front of Chicago's famous Buckingham Fountain. And that, of course, will be a popular stop over the next few days as the temperature heads even higher.

PHILLIPS: All right, Nancy Loo, we'll follow up with you. Thank you so much.

Well, how hot is it going to get where you are?

(WEATHER REPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: And welcome back, live from the nation's capital, LIVE FROM, from Washington D.C. today. Thanks for being with us.

Well, the next time your kids act up in public, be thankful that they're not on national television. Normal kid behavior got the son of a Supreme Court nominee dragged offstage, and it got CNN's Jeanne Moos thinking about kids who've stolen the show.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Only 4-years-old, and already he's got a tabloid nickname on his debut on "The Daily Show."

BUSH: Good evening.

MOOS: Young Jack Roberts lasted a mere 48 seconds into the president's introduction of his dad before he started getting antsy. Next thing you know, he's fiddling with the furniture, eluding his mother's grasp. And then, gasp, crawling on the floor.

BUSH: He's an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

MOOS: But even degrees from Harvard don't help control a 4-year- old. In his shorts and saddle shoes, he took us back four decades to another kid who tended to steal the show. John John's dad may have been president, but at that age, it doesn't go to your head. And if you want to suck your thumb, even a wannabe first lady can't deter you.

All it takes is one kid in the background to upstage the leader of the free world.

BUSH: ...is with us today. You're worried about the quality -- we stand for the fair treatment of faith-based groups. They will receive federal support for their work. This will not happen on my watch!

MOOS: Oh yes. Watch this. Not the president, not the wife of a potential Supreme Court justice can establish order in this court.

JON STEWART, "THE DAILY SHOW": Jack, of course, is the one appears to be the first to lose the case of Family v. Ritalin.

MOOS: You know, controlling kids is impossible. And even a tough former prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani is powerless. When Rudy was sworn in as mayor, son Andrew was blowing kisses, talking during his dad's speech, repeating the oath of office, horning in on the hand shake. But even Andrew Giuliani has grown up into a poised, well mannered 19-year-old golfing fanatic, though occasionally even older kids like Jenna Bush regress.

Young Jack Roberts eventually had to be shuffled off stage. And though some say...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They shouldn't have brought him.

MOOS: Most were entertained.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He made it interesting and intriguing.

MOOS: Can you remember an instances when your kids have mortified or humiliated you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want like just one?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would I remember? I'm the one embarrassing her.

MOOS: This lady remembered a time in the grocery store when her three-year-old daughter demanded chocolate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I said no. She proceeded to strip down to nothing...

MOOS: She just started stripping off her clothes?

(voice-over): At least Jack didn't do that. He's no Jumping Jack Flasher.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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