Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Judge Issues Split Decision on Government's Motion in Moussaoui Case; Operation Swarmer; Target Iran?

Aired March 17, 2006 - 13:59   ET

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

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news at the top of the hour now as we continue here on LIVE FROM.
We're getting word that that government lawyer, Carla Martin, who has been facing just a storm of criticism over possible criminal penalties from handling witnesses in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial -- Kelli Arena.

OK. Kelli Arena, justice correspondent -- I've got a lot of people talking in my ear, Kelli, so I'm going with my gut here this has something to do with Zacarias Moussaoui and Carla Martin.

Forgive me.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: There you go. We're good, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Are we on the right track?

ARENA: We're good, babe. We're good. All right.

PHILLIPS: OK.

ARENA: Here's what we have. First of all, we have a ruling from Judge Brinkema. And basically, she has decided to allow testimony from aviation experts during this trial.

She had ruled previously that that testimony would not be allowed. The prosecution argued that without it, it gets about half its case.

All of this has to do with the TSA lawyer who allegedly tried to coach witnesses that were supposed to testify. What the judge has decided today, the bottom line here is she says, look, I'm not going to allow any of those witnesses who got e-mails from this attorney to testify. But the prosecution says the can present another witness who had nothing to do with this TSA lawyer -- let's talk about that, that I'll admit.

So it's a compromised decision here. The government was afraid that its whole case would be gutted, that they couldn't -- you know, they couldn't argue for the death penalty without it.

The defense probably not going to be very happy about this because they feel that the government behaved improperly, Kyra. And all of this, of course, has to do with Carla Martin. PHILLIPS: All right. Now -- so, just sort of two separate issues here. You've got this issue of Carla Martin. But then when you look at the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only individual being held accountable for 9/11 right now, his situation isn't going to change, correct, with regard to the death penalty, life in prison?

Is that still going to remain the same?

ARENA: That's right. Basically, he's pled guilty. So the jury has one of two choices, either he serves life or he's put to death.

The government, of course, has to prove that Moussaoui was directly responsible for the death of all those people during the September 11 attacks. Their argument is, because he didn't tell investigators the truth about what he and his al Qaeda brothers were up to, you know, planning to fly airplanes into buildings and to hijack planes by using small knives, because he didn't provide any of that information, well, you know, 3,000 people died that day.

A lot of legal experts have said that's a very, very difficult argument to prove. The judge herself has said that the government is on questionable legal ground here. But that does remain the same, Kyra. No change there.

Of course, you know, the -- everything else that Ms. Martin is involved in is still very tenuous.

PHILLIPS: Right, two separate. OK, good. All right.

So we've -- have we hit all the angles, all the new stuff to this point, Kelli?

ARENA: I think so. You know...

PHILLIPS: Just want to double-check.

ARENA: ... it's interesting, though, to talk about -- about Carla Martin. I mean, first, she's accused of coaching witnesses who were going to testify for the government. And she's also accused of telling prosecutors that other witnesses did not want to talk to the defense, when, in fact, they didn't have a problem with that.

And she hasn't commented on any of this. But we did, Kyra, get an exclusive interview with her lawyer yesterday. I think it is worth listening to him again.

He argues that we've only heard one side of the story. I believe we do have some sound from Roscoe Howard. If we do, let's hear it now.

We don't have the sound. OK. Well, unfortunately...

PHILLIPS: Well, why don't -- yes, tell me -- I remember when we got this interview yesterday, Kelli, I think is the first time that we saw it. So give me a little bit of what he said. And also, how did she get -- come into the picture? I mean, just to back up for a bit...

ARENA: Right.

PHILLIPS: ... how was she chosen? How did she get to be the one involved in this case? And now she's the one causing a lot of trouble.

ARENA: Right. She is not part of the original prosecution team. What she was doing was serving as a liaison between the TSA and the prosecution team.

So she was basically supposed to, you know, help with communication between the prosecution and lawyers who were going to testify. And what -- what she has done was to send some e-mails that looked like she was trying to coach the witnesses, and that was in direct violation of the judge's order.

She sent transcripts of the testimony, which was also directly against the judge's order. And then when the defense team had said that they wanted to speak to certain aviation experts that work for the TSA, she told the prosecution that those individuals didn't want to deal with the defense. And then when those individuals were asked in court whether or not they would have spoken to the defense, they said, well, yes, we would have.

So the judge said that was a bold-faced lie.

All of this threw the entire case into a complete tizzy, Kyra. You know, this has been going on, you know, for more than four years. And these lawyers have been -- have been working relentlessly on this case.

So the judge at that point said, well, then, forget it. You know, if all of this aviation testimony has been tainted by this woman, well, then, we're not even going to listen to it in court because, you know, that just unfair. It's violating Moussaoui's constitutional rights.

Today with her order, she's backed up from that a little bit and said, OK, you know what? If you say you can show me an untainted witness so that you can present some of the aviation testimony, then let's go ahead.

And the reason that aviation testimony is so important, Kyra, is because the government is trying to prove that if the FAA and other aviation -- you know, the industry, in general, had gotten that information about small knives and about hijackings, that they would have put in place some preventative measures that maybe could have stopped September 11.

PHILLIPS: Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena.

Thanks, Kelli.

ARENA: You're welcome. PHILLIPS: Operation Swarmer, almost 48 hours of sweeping, searching and seizing near a reputed insurgent refuge -- refuge in Iraq. It's the area around Samarra that we're talking about, 75 miles from Baghdad, where the U.S. military believes insurgents move freely, hide their weapons and plan their attacks.

CNN's Nic Robertson spent the past day embedded with the American troops and the Iraqi troops. He's now live from Baghdad.

You know, Nic, bring us up to date on what happened today and what the military is saying it has accomplished so far.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's an area that contains about 150 farms, we're told. By about midday, we were told 50 of those 150 had been searched, that six weapons caches had been found, that they contained AK-47s, bomb-making equipment, explosives. They'd been buried in the ground.

We're told that about 1,500 people live in that area. And according to Iraqi intelligence sources, there could have been as many as 100 insurgents in that area, moving through that area.

Those people have been the target for the search. So far, we're told at least 48 people taken into detention; 17 of those now, however, have been declared not of interest and released -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Now, and let me ask you a question about this, because this has been a big topic of discussion here this morning. The Pentagon has pumped this up, Nic, as the biggest air assault operation in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion three years ago. But how does this operation compare to others, such as the massive assault on Falluja in the fall of 2004? I mean, in Falluja, there was F-18s, there was an AC-130 gun ship, there were a number of helicopters, Marine helicopters.

So I guess what I'm asking, is this a P.R. campaign?

ROBERTSON: Well, the two operations are completely different. Falluja was surrounded by thousands of troops. When those troops, many of them Marines, infantrymen went in, they went in either in armored vehicles or on foot.

Now, what has happened here north of Samarra is the 101st Airborne doing an air assault. And they went in, in helicopters.

Now, the statistics are that about 60 helicopters were used, and that is the biggest air assault since the invasion three years ago. But again, the Falluja and this operation, Operation Swarmer now, two completely different things.

Falluja, there was air strikes, there were massive aerial shell bursts illuminating the area. Completely different. But this one statistically is correct.

We're told -- and we did ask that of the commanders today -- and they said that is correct. It is the -- it is the biggest air assault. But don't confuse air assault with air campaign, with thousands of infantry troops going into a combat situation. We're told here there that hasn't been an exchange of fire, so far.

PHILLIPS: All right. Nic Robertson live from Baghdad.

Thanks so much.

Let's get reaction now from CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.

Barbara, lots of concern about the timing of this operation.

What's the Pentagon saying?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Kyra, a lot of questions from the news media about the timing of the operation, but the military continues to say what they've said for the last two days, that this operation had been in the works for some time, it was being planned for some time on the basis of intelligence developed by Iraqis.

The Pentagon not actually hyping this, being very cautious with reporters, saying, yes, it is technically, as Nic just pointed out, statistically the largest air assault, helicopter operation in the last three years, but that it is another one of many operations. The senior commander in Baghdad speaking to reporters earlier today made clear there were no political overtones, in his view.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GEN. PETER CHIARELLI, U.S. ARMY: There was no attempt on anybody's part back here to tie in this to anything other than the intelligence that was coming in. It was an operation that we had been working for a couple of months. And quite frankly, one of the biggest problems I have over here sometimes is all the days seem the same, is remembering what day of the week it is and also the actual date.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: A little personal note from General Chiarelli there, but he did go on to emphasize again that one of the benefits he felt of this operation was indeed that Iraqi security forces were performing very well, in his view, going through the area, conducting much of the operation in the lead themselves, backed up by U.S. forces -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right. Barbara Starr live from the Pentagon.

Thanks so much.

I'm getting word of a developing story now. Fredricka Whitfield working that for us in the newsroom -- Fred.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Kyra, I want to take you straight to Santa Fe, New Mexico where somehow an SUV crashed into a medical center there. We've got some aerial pictures of the scene where police and fire have responded to the scene. And we're hearing reportedly six people were injured and have been transferred to another medical facility. Of course, when we learn the extent of their injuries or the circumstances of this SUV crashing into the Concentra medical building, we'll be able to bring that along to you.

And then, still out West, out in Arizona, in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, a search is on for a 22-year-old climber who apparently fell into a cave maybe 90 feet down. Apparently, he's been missing since about 6:00 Eastern Time yesterday. And now rescue crews are trying to locate him.

Apparently no one has heard from him since about that time. And that's what is presumed to have happened, that he fell into a cave very far down. And now rescue crews are on their way to try to locate this 22-year-old man in fort Huachuca, Arizona -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Fred. We'll follow up with you. Thanks so much.

Well, are the United States and Iran on a collision course? The prospects of a U.S. strike and how it might happen when LIVE FROM continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Just moments ago, Kelli Arena brought us the latest information about the judge issuing a split decision in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, the only man right now on trial with any connection to 9/11. The judge is actually retreating on her ruling that she was going to bar a number of witnesses from testifying after a lawyer was accused of coaching those witnesses.

Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, on the phone talking a little bit more about these developments.

And Jeffrey, you called in because you believe this decision is extremely crucial to this trial at this point?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Very much so. If the original order by the judge had stood, this case would be over and the government would lose. And Moussaoui would have gotten life in prison and not the death penalty. What this decision does is it gives the government a fighting chance to put its case back on track.

There's still problems. This is still not anywhere near a victory for the government (INAUDIBLE). The other order earlier this week simply didn't.

PHILLIPS: Jeffrey, we're having a little trouble there on the cell phone. Kind of coming in and out. But I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

Are you -- it sounds like you are at a solid point now.

TOOBIN: I am. PHILLIPS: OK.

TOOBIN: I am. Just, the point is, the government now has a fighting chance of winning the death penalty. Whereas, if the judge's original order stuck, basically, they would have had to give up because an entire area of their case, not just the witnesses, would have been off limits.

PHILLIPS: And I had asked this -- you and I talked about this when this first came out, before we even knew that this lawyer's name was Carla Martin. And I even said to you, how could this type of mishandling even take place with a case so big and so important in the United States? And now that we know more about her, her name, her background, what's your take, Jeffrey? I mean, you would think that there would be no gaps in something as huge as this.

TOOBIN: Let me start by saying I'm basically as baffled as you are, because this never should have happened in any case, much less a case of this magnitude. But having been around cases like this, I think the most likely possibility is that an outside lawyer, a lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security, as Martin was, people want to be part of the action. They want to be close to a big case. They want to feel like they have an important role.

So they inject themselves. And what Carla Martin did was, she was coaching witnesses that she was responsible for, which was totally improper, but what it was doing was basically getting her into the center of the case. And I think, you know, we need to hear her side of the story, at least from her lawyer, or from somebody. But I think what was happening here is more than just someone intentionally defying the judge.

It was -- it was an attempt to feel important. And I think that's really what was going on here, unless she has some better explanation which we haven't heard yet.

PHILLIPS: Hopefully, we'll get a chance to hear from her and not just her attorney.

Jeffrey Toobin, our senior legal analyst.

Thanks, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: All right, Kyra. See you.

PHILLIPS: Well, it seemed to come out of the blue, the U.S. and Iran both confirming they'll hold direct high-level talks on Iraq. It comes at the very time that President Bush warns Iran poses possibly the single greatest threat to the United States. Just (INAUDIBLE) or a single -- or a signal, rather, from a president who hasn't ruled out a first strike?

CNN's Brian Todd spoke to military experts about how such a strike might happen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With the White House chorus against Iran growing...

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.

RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

TODD: ... and with the administration reinforcing its preemptive strike option, the question now: How would Iran be targeted?

Retired war planner Colonel Sam Gardner developed a war gentlemen for the "Atlantic Monthly" magazine in 2004. He presented three options. A conventional attack on Iran's revolutionary guard, using primarily air strikes. A so-called regime change option targeting the leadership.

COL. SAM GARDNER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET): Special operations would probably come from Afghanistan, maybe come from Azerbaijan. And then the bulk of the ground force would come from Iraq in this option.

TODD: And what Gardner says is the most commonly discussed option, striking some of Iran's nuclear facilities.

GARDNER: There would probably be about a three-day air campaign with aircraft like the B-2, cruise missiles fired from ships and aircraft. And we would go after the facilities we know about.

TODD: If those hits were successful, Gardner says, Iran's nuclear capabilities would be set back a few years. Military analysts we spoke to believe a conventional attack using ground forces would be difficult because of mountainous terrain in southern and western Iran. American bases, now in neighboring Iraq, provide shorter striking distances, but any response by Iran might tax already-thin U.S. combat units.

KEN ROBINSON, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: The Iranians can do the math. They see that we're tied down in Iraq, they see that we're tied down in Afghanistan, they see that we're tied down in North Korea.

TODD: Analysts say Iran's retaliation could be devastating, with a standing army with hundreds of thousands of troops, and an already sophisticated chemical and biological warfare program.

(on camera): And that's just the immediate military response. Analysts say Iran could then wreak havoc on the world's oil supply, minding the Persian Gulf, attacking tankers, all but cutting off the supply not only to U.S. and its allies, but also to countries like China, which could then bring about its own economic retaliation against the United States.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE) PHILLIPS: International security analyst and frequent visitor to Iran, Jim Walsh, and Hooshang Amirahmadi, president of the American Iranian Council both join us now.

Great to see you both

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN IRANIAN COUNCIL: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Jim, I want to start with you -- my pleasure.

Jim, you just got back from Iran. Tell us just quickly the purpose of that trip. And did this come up while you were there?

You and I talk about the nuclear threat, but this is very different. It's a separate issue.

JIM WALSH, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It is a separate issue. But let me begin, Kyra, by wishing you a happy St. Patty's Day.

PHILLIPS: And you've got your green. Very good. And I'm proud of you.

WALSH: Exactly.

More to the point on this, I was in Iran to talk about the nuclear issue and to talk about U.S.-Iranian relations with Iranian think tanks, some of them official organs of the government, others more private. And, you know, every time I gave a speech in Iran, I always got a question, is the U.S. going to attack Iran? And my answer was that it's possible, but unlikely, and that, frankly, I think that if we did that, that would be the one thing that would guarantee that Iran would become a nuclear weapons state, because then they would focus on it like a laser.

And even if the government in Iran changed, whoever came into power would feel out of national pride like they had to continue the nuclear program. So I hope this doesn't happen.

PHILLIPS: Well, so is it possible for the U.S. and Iran to have conversations about Iraq without having to worry -- I mean, can -- can this be separate?

WALSH: Well, I think it can be useful, even if it's just one issue. I think Iran and the U.S. have a common interest.

If Iraq descends into chaos, that is bad for the U.S. That's a nightmare scenario for the U.S., but it's also bad for Iran. Iran suffers if Iraq suddenly descends into chaos or to civil war.

So that -- that's a useful conversation. And perhaps if that is successful, that will create opportunities for discussions on other issues.

But the bottom line is, if Iran and the U.S. are going to settle up the nuclear issue or these other issues, they have to start talking to one another. And so far they are not.

PHILLIPS: , what do you think? Your relatives, your friends, fellow Iranians, what's your take on Iran-Iraq?

AMIRAHMADI: Well, first, I agree with Mr. Walsh that U.S.-Iran problems do not have a military solution. It does have solutions, but it's not military.

I think the fact that Iran now, after 25 years, have accepted to negotiate directly with the United States is a great opportunity, both for Iran and the United States. And more importantly, the man behind this move, Dr. Ali Alajani (ph), is very close to the leadership and the leader of the revolution, that is, and he can actually deliver now for the first time in the last 25 years.

So I think the United States must take this opportunity as seriously as you can. But at the same time, we should not raise the expectations too high because, after all, U.S. and Iran have serious problems in a number of very difficult issues -- the nonproliferation issue, terrorism issue, the Israeli issue -- that is the peace issue -- and human rights and so on.

But I think this is the first good step that they have taken. And I think this first step could gradually move in the direction of opening up to a broader discussion over serious issues that stand between them.

Let me say, also, that the Iranian people would not support a military strike against Iran. Not only -- not because only they are nationalistic and they don't want their country destroyed, but also because they know that would not solve their problem either with the regime or their own problems with their own daily life.

Iranians need more economy, they need social justice, they need work, they need housing, education, health care. And I think the United States could provide them with this.

But at the same time, I think the U.S. is right. Iran does represent a strategic challenge and a strategic problem to the United States. And that problem must get resolved before the United States gets going.

I think at the same time, we must also realize that Iran does also represent an asset to the United States, particularly now that we are in trouble in Iraq. And Iran does have the tools, the levers to help us there significantly. So I think...

PHILLIPS: Well, let me -- let me ask you about those tools, Hooshang. I want to get you and Jim both to respond to this.

Jim, why don't you start since you just recently got back from there.

It was just last week we were talking about Iran allegedly bringing in revolutionary guards and weapons into Iraq. Jim, do you think that's true? WALSH: Well, my friends in the intelligence community tell me that it's true. So I think it is probably true.

But -- and this is a gigantic "but" here -- it's a big mistake to think that because there's some elements in the Iranian government that may have an alliance or that may be helping some elements in Iraq, that, therefore, this is government policy. Believe me, again, I say that there's a common interest here.

Iran does not want Iraq to go down the tubes into violent chaos. And Iran is a country in which there are lots of different centers of power. So it wouldn't be surprising to me if some are causing some mischief, but it would be a mistake on our part to think, first of all, that that's official government policy and that they're pursuing this, you know, in a dedicated way. Or second, to blame the problems of Iraq on Iran.

We don't do ourselves any favors by pointing fingers and saying it's someone else's problem. If Iran disappeared tomorrow, we would still have a big insurgency in Iraq. And we've got to deal with that. That's the most important thing.

PHILLIPS: So, Hooshang, obviously we're pointing out the fact that Iran is definitely a liability and an asset. So how do you find the balance?

AMIRAHMADI: Well, the fact is that, first, let's really face the reality. U.S. and Iran are on hostile terms. And as long as this hostility exists, Iran is going to find every opportunity to occupy the United States in some other areas. And Iraqi is one place.

I would not be surprised to find out that Iraq is actually creating trouble for the U.S. in Iraq. And it could. It has been. It could.

But, at the same time, Iran has tremendous leverage over the Shia leadership in Iraq, as well as the Kurdish leadership. Both of these groups have worked with Iran for a long time. And the biggest problem we now face in Iraq is the trouble between the Shia and Sunni.

PHILLIPS: Sure, the sectarian violence. We've been talking about it.

AMIRAHMADI: Iran can help negotiate that.

PHILLIPS: Very good point.

AMIRAHMADI: I think what Iran can do is to negotiate the Shia- Sunni problems, and that will resolve a lot of the problems that we face now in Iraq.

PHILLIPS: Hooshang Amirahmadi and Jim Walsh, thanks, gentlemen. I know we'll be talking a lot in the next week -- and two and three.

WALSH: Thank you, Kyra.

AMIRAHMADI: And thank you. And thank you.

PHILLIPS: Thank you.

AMIRAHMADI: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Does your job make you a better driver? One insurance company thinks it can. We're gong to tell you about it next.

The news keeps coming. We'll keep bringing it to you.

More LIVE FROM right after this.

(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