Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Since September 11, Justice Department Has Waged an Increasingly Aggressive Campaign Against Terror

Aired November 30, 2001 - 07:20   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They say the best defense is a good offense. Well, since September 11, the Justice Department has waged an increasingly aggressive campaign against terror. Attorney General Ashcroft has taken plenty of heat for the broad steps he's taken in fighting terrorism. And just yesterday President Bush offered his most forceful defense of the administration's tactics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will act with fairness and we will deliver justice, which is far more than the terrorists ever grant to their innocent victims.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Joining us now from London is Buck Revell, a former FBI counter-terrorism office. And from Washington this morning, Larry Johnson, former CIA agent and deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter-Terrorism.

Welcome back, gentlemen. Good to have the two of you with us this morning.

LARRY JOHNSON, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Hi, Paula.

BUCK REVELL, FORMER FBI AGENT: Good morning.

ZAHN: Hi. I know we can agree on one thing. The attorney general's policies are certainly controversial. But the question is are they effective. And I'd like to put up on the screen a simple reminder of some of the policies that have most recently gone into effect for review.

Among them, deploying local police to conduct voluntary interviews with 5,000 Middle Eastern men living in the United States, arresting and jailing suspected terrorists on minor charges, shifting control of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force to the U.S. attorney's office and the whole issue of military tribunals.

Buck, in your experience -- let's move back to the issue of voluntary interviews -- do they work? Do they yield anything?

REVELL: Well, during the Gulf War we did go out and interview a lot of people in the Middle Eastern communities, trying to do two things. One, to elicit information about individuals who might be supporting Saddam Hussein and who might have a tendency towards violent activities. And secondly, to ensure that there was a knowledge that in the United States they could, in fact, turn to the law enforcement agencies responsible for counter-terrorism. It was not coercive. It was not aggressive. But it did produce results.

My concern over this 5,000 is that by essentially panning it off to state and local authorities, they won't have the background or the knowledge to be able to elicit that sort of information and cooperation.

ZAHN: Is that a legitimate concern, Larry?

JOHNSON: No. I think that's the legitimate concern. But that -- and Buck may have mentioned that the other day when he was quoted in the "Washington Post" but they didn't get that point out there. They left another impression. I think that is actually a very valid point, that you want to make sure you have people who know what they're doing to get information because unfortunately in the past the FBI has spent too much time on investigation, which it does very well, and they've not been allowed to do the intelligence collection which they're capable of doing but really for some legal reasons they've been prevented from collecting information that might have been useful in preventing attacks.

ZAHN: The former director of the FBI, William Webster, made a point that sort of touches on a little of what you just said, Larry. And he said, "Ashcroft's policy of preemptive arrests carries a lot of risk with it. You may be able to interrupt something. You may not be able to bring it down."

What about that, Buck? You know, the fear is by arresting some of these suspects on minor charges you're not allowing their operation to progress to a point where you fully understand the scale of what they're attempting to do and be able to roll up the whole operation. Is that a fair charge?

REVELL: Yes, that's precisely the problem. Over the years that I was involved -- and I directed the FBI's counter-terrorism program for 12 years -- we had as our very first and foremost responsibility the preemption and prevention of acts of terrorism. And we prevented many, many more acts of terrorism than actually occurred in the United States.

And you do that by first identifying the target, what they're involved in, and then determining the network that they're part of and essentially rolling up the entire organization. If you run out the very first time you get any information and make an arrest, then what you're preempting is your own investigation.

Now, it may have been misconveyed in their intent, and certainly Bob Mueller knows that strategy worked in the past. And hopefully that was just misconveyed, because that would be, I think, a very self-defeating purpose to go out and roll up arrests strictly to get them off the street and not to exploit the potential of the networks that they are involved in.

And let me make it clear, there is an infrastructure of terrorist organizations, including the al Qaeda organization in the United States. And the FBI and the associated, particularly INS law enforcement agencies, have got to be given the latitude to go out and break up these networks.

ZAHN: Larry, do you share that same concern?

JOHNSON: Well, no. I'm not as concerned about the fact that they've rounded these folks up and have incarcerated them right now. I think the events of September 11 put it into a different scale. It's one thing when if you go back in the first World Trade Center bombing before that when Buck was running things, they did have an informant, Emad Salem, and he was providing some information. He decided not to wear a wire, bailed out and that bombing plot went forward.

When you don't have the immediate threat, it's OK to let some of the investigations develop. But I think frankly the proof's in the pudding right now. Despite the repeated threats of these folks who wanted to carry out attacks, they've not been able to carry out a successful attack in the United States since September 11 and I think a major reason for that is a lot of those folks who would have been involved are cooling their heels in the slammer.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about some of those statistics, Buck. And the attorney general was a guest on the show yesterday and he wouldn't confirm what the exact numbers are, but reports in the "Washington Post," in the "New York Times" and here suggest that perhaps maybe just a dozen of the more than 500 men detained have any kind of connection to al Qaeda. Do you have a problem with those numbers?

REVELL: Well, several things are going on. First, the arrests that are being made are being made on three different basis. One are those that are being held as material witnesses and those would, by the very nature, have some connection, some knowledge or involvement with perhaps not al Qaeda, but other terrorist organizations, or perhaps al Qaeda. Then those that have been involved in violations of the law for other types of crimes. And then third, those that are in violation of the immigration laws.

And in each case there is a process, a due process that goes forward. And I've had no indication they're not following those due process requirements. But I think Larry is correct in that this has probably preempted some acts of terrorism.

I do disagree, though. I think that in certain instances when there is evidence or information that they're connected with a larger group that you essentially preempt yourself if you don't pursue that through the use of other investigative techniques -- surveillance, wiretaps and other proven and tried methods.

ZAHN: What about that, Larry? JOHNSON: Well, I think the other parts of the investigation are still going on because when those folks are in jail, they're still trying to make some contacts with people as well as you've got some of the forensic evidence that they left behind.

I'm not as concerned about that because the other dimension we have to remember, these folks who have been operating against us, they're not protected under either really conventional constitutional protections or even international rules of law because under the Geneva Convention, if you're going to be a combatant and treated as a combatant, you've got to do several things and they didn't do any of them.

You have to have an insignia, rescued military leadership, carry the weapons openly. These people were operating as spies and when you're dealing with the potential of spies who are carrying out violent attacks, it requires a different level. And I think the Bush administration has been pursuing it appropriately and in an aggressive manner.

Now, listen, if Buck was back here he'd be in there helping lead the charge and, you know, the FBI, we have to remember, they're not out there violating people's rights. I think the FBI has come in for a lot of unfair criticism.

ZAHN: You get the final word, Buck, in about 10 seconds or less.

REVELL: Well, I think they're doing an excellent job and I think the proof is that there have been no further terrorist acts. I do think it's responsible to debate perhaps some of the tactics and to make sure that two, three, four years in the future we don't have congressional hearings bringing FBI officials in and castigating them for activities that occurred during the heat of battle.

JOHNSON: That's exactly right.

ZAHN: Got to leave it there this morning, gentlemen.

Buck Revell, Larry Johnson, thank you for both of your insights.

JOHNSON: Thanks, Paula.

REVELL: You're welcome.

ZAHN: Glad to have you with us.

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