Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Weapons Hunt

Aired June 24, 2003 - 08:34   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.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: A Qatari man who's suspected of being an Al Qaeda operative in the U.S. has been declared an enemy combatant by President Bush. Ali Kahlah Al Marri has been in custody since 2001. Now Al Marri could be tried by a military court. It's the second time since September 11th that a defendant has been taken out of the criminal justice system, but is it a violation of his rights? Two sides of the issue now. Victor Kamber, Democratic strategist and president of the Kamber Group, and Clifford May, former Republican National Committee spokesman.
Gentlemen, good morning, good to have you with us.

Victor, we will start with you. Enemy combatant? Is this the government stepping over the line?

VICTOR KAMBER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think it is. The law itself is very troublesome. I think if I had more confidence in Mr. Ashcroft and some of the leadership in this administration, I might be more willing to understand it.

Clearly, I want to protect our own country from the enemy. On the other hand, I do believe in the reason this count reeves founded, as great as it is, is because of the freedoms and the rights of the jurisprudence system that we have. Here is a gentleman that was indicted with nine indictments, which means there was some, obviously, evidence against him. To drop those nine and put them into a new system, to take away his rights for legal representation and all sort of things is very, very troublesome, it seems to me.

KAGAN: Cliff, I think we were about 10 seconds in when I started to see your brow begin to furrow. You're not going there. Do you think this is a legitimate weapon for the government to use?

CLIFFORD MAY, FMR. RNC SPOKESMAN: Absolutely. And, look, if our soldiers have to face the military justice system, I don't understand why Victor thinks it's okay for our soldiers to go to military justice, but not for a suspected terrorist with the kind of evidence you have against this guy, Al Qaeda documents, thousands of false credit cards, communications with Al Qaeda, a meeting with bin Laden.

Secondly, this is not something new. Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt used it in World War II. In fact, a famous case went right to the Supreme Court, where we had sabetours from Germany who came on our shores. They were tried. They were convicted. A couple of them were actually executed. The most important reason we need this is because when you're in the criminal justice system, you have the right to remain silent. We don't want these people to have a right to remain silent, even if we never prosecute them under a military court, even if we simply hold them, whichever we do. We want very much to know what they know about future terrorist attacks, about future terrorist groupings, so that we can prevent acts of terrorism. That's the most important reason.

But again, there's nothing wrong with the military justice system. I'd ask Victor, if it's OK for our soldiers, why is it not OK for terrorists.

KAMBER: I'm not sure what Cliff is talking about. A defendant that wants to remain silent will remain silent unless he's suggesting that when he's in a military situation we have certain rights to torture or to make him talk in a different way. If I'm going to remain silent under one system, I'll remain silent under another system. I just believe in the right of law, I mean, the right to -- the man was already indicted for nine counts. He had lawyers. He had a system. He is what Cliff said, a suspect. We have no evidence or proof at this point that he's guilty. This is much like justification for the internment of the Japanese during World War II; people want to justify what their doing.

MAY: Victor, that's a terrible slander. We're not pick people up...

KAMBER: Slander against who?

MAY: Slander against the U.S. government, slander, absolutely against Ashcroft, slandering against Bush, against the entire U.S. government. We are not picking people up based on their racial or ethnic background.

KAMBER: I don't know that that's true.

MAY: Take a look at the evidence they have against this guy.

By the way, he has a lawyer and his lawyer can challenge this designation court, but the right to use the designation of enemy combatant, the power to do that, goes back a long way. It goes back a long way. It was taken to the Supreme Court. Roosevelt used it. You wouldn't have been against it then.

Let me make one other point...

KAGAN: I'm sorry. Good points on both sides, but we only have one minute left, and we still have another topic to hit here, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The topic keeps coming up. A number of Democratic presidential candidates using that as their platform to criticize the Bush administration. The question still remain, where are they? Victor, do you think they will be found?

KAMBER: Well, in all truth, I hope something is found, because I don't want to see us go through a situation where we have a president that potentially lied to the American public about what he knew. So I'm hopeful that over time, we will find them.

My question to Cliff and to Republicans in general and the American public is, is if they're not found, we impeached a president for lying about sex. It didn't cost any lives; it was sex. What happens if we find this president lied about weapons? .

KAGAN: Ten seconds to answer that quick question, Cliff?

MAY: Clinton believes as well that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. He bombed Iraq for that reason. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The question is, what did he do with them? Here are the possibilities. One, they're hidden. Two, he transferred them, perhaps to Syria and Libya. Three, he destroyed them in the days running up to the war, with the idea that when the heat was off, he'd be able to build them up again.

KAMBER: Who knows? But they're not there.

MAY: Yes, but the idea that you're trying to make a scandal out of a mystery...

KAMBER: Cliff, gets the last word. Finish it up, Cliff.

MAY: Whether it's Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman or whether it's Clinton or whether it's Gore, everyone has the same intelligence analysis. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used those weapons against his enemies. One day he'll use them against us as well.

KAGAN: And the hunt will go on. Victor Kamber, Clifford May. Cliff, thank you. Victor, thank you. Appreciate your time, gentlemen.

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






Aired June 24, 2003 - 08:34   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: A Qatari man who's suspected of being an Al Qaeda operative in the U.S. has been declared an enemy combatant by President Bush. Ali Kahlah Al Marri has been in custody since 2001. Now Al Marri could be tried by a military court. It's the second time since September 11th that a defendant has been taken out of the criminal justice system, but is it a violation of his rights? Two sides of the issue now. Victor Kamber, Democratic strategist and president of the Kamber Group, and Clifford May, former Republican National Committee spokesman.
Gentlemen, good morning, good to have you with us.

Victor, we will start with you. Enemy combatant? Is this the government stepping over the line?

VICTOR KAMBER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think it is. The law itself is very troublesome. I think if I had more confidence in Mr. Ashcroft and some of the leadership in this administration, I might be more willing to understand it.

Clearly, I want to protect our own country from the enemy. On the other hand, I do believe in the reason this count reeves founded, as great as it is, is because of the freedoms and the rights of the jurisprudence system that we have. Here is a gentleman that was indicted with nine indictments, which means there was some, obviously, evidence against him. To drop those nine and put them into a new system, to take away his rights for legal representation and all sort of things is very, very troublesome, it seems to me.

KAGAN: Cliff, I think we were about 10 seconds in when I started to see your brow begin to furrow. You're not going there. Do you think this is a legitimate weapon for the government to use?

CLIFFORD MAY, FMR. RNC SPOKESMAN: Absolutely. And, look, if our soldiers have to face the military justice system, I don't understand why Victor thinks it's okay for our soldiers to go to military justice, but not for a suspected terrorist with the kind of evidence you have against this guy, Al Qaeda documents, thousands of false credit cards, communications with Al Qaeda, a meeting with bin Laden.

Secondly, this is not something new. Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt used it in World War II. In fact, a famous case went right to the Supreme Court, where we had sabetours from Germany who came on our shores. They were tried. They were convicted. A couple of them were actually executed. The most important reason we need this is because when you're in the criminal justice system, you have the right to remain silent. We don't want these people to have a right to remain silent, even if we never prosecute them under a military court, even if we simply hold them, whichever we do. We want very much to know what they know about future terrorist attacks, about future terrorist groupings, so that we can prevent acts of terrorism. That's the most important reason.

But again, there's nothing wrong with the military justice system. I'd ask Victor, if it's OK for our soldiers, why is it not OK for terrorists.

KAMBER: I'm not sure what Cliff is talking about. A defendant that wants to remain silent will remain silent unless he's suggesting that when he's in a military situation we have certain rights to torture or to make him talk in a different way. If I'm going to remain silent under one system, I'll remain silent under another system. I just believe in the right of law, I mean, the right to -- the man was already indicted for nine counts. He had lawyers. He had a system. He is what Cliff said, a suspect. We have no evidence or proof at this point that he's guilty. This is much like justification for the internment of the Japanese during World War II; people want to justify what their doing.

MAY: Victor, that's a terrible slander. We're not pick people up...

KAMBER: Slander against who?

MAY: Slander against the U.S. government, slander, absolutely against Ashcroft, slandering against Bush, against the entire U.S. government. We are not picking people up based on their racial or ethnic background.

KAMBER: I don't know that that's true.

MAY: Take a look at the evidence they have against this guy.

By the way, he has a lawyer and his lawyer can challenge this designation court, but the right to use the designation of enemy combatant, the power to do that, goes back a long way. It goes back a long way. It was taken to the Supreme Court. Roosevelt used it. You wouldn't have been against it then.

Let me make one other point...

KAGAN: I'm sorry. Good points on both sides, but we only have one minute left, and we still have another topic to hit here, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The topic keeps coming up. A number of Democratic presidential candidates using that as their platform to criticize the Bush administration. The question still remain, where are they? Victor, do you think they will be found?

KAMBER: Well, in all truth, I hope something is found, because I don't want to see us go through a situation where we have a president that potentially lied to the American public about what he knew. So I'm hopeful that over time, we will find them.

My question to Cliff and to Republicans in general and the American public is, is if they're not found, we impeached a president for lying about sex. It didn't cost any lives; it was sex. What happens if we find this president lied about weapons? .

KAGAN: Ten seconds to answer that quick question, Cliff?

MAY: Clinton believes as well that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. He bombed Iraq for that reason. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The question is, what did he do with them? Here are the possibilities. One, they're hidden. Two, he transferred them, perhaps to Syria and Libya. Three, he destroyed them in the days running up to the war, with the idea that when the heat was off, he'd be able to build them up again.

KAMBER: Who knows? But they're not there.

MAY: Yes, but the idea that you're trying to make a scandal out of a mystery...

KAMBER: Cliff, gets the last word. Finish it up, Cliff.

MAY: Whether it's Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman or whether it's Clinton or whether it's Gore, everyone has the same intelligence analysis. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used those weapons against his enemies. One day he'll use them against us as well.

KAGAN: And the hunt will go on. Victor Kamber, Clifford May. Cliff, thank you. Victor, thank you. Appreciate your time, gentlemen.

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