Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Mideast Unrest Spreading; WikiLeaks New Legal Team; Mubarak's Money Mystery
Aired February 15, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to our program.
Tonight, there's another fight for freedom in the heart of the Middle East, and it's deja vu all over again.
We've just gotten these pictures in of a massive protest taking place in the center of an Arab capital city packed with thousands of protesters. We're there night and day.
They've set up tents and they're not going anywhere until their demands for democracy are met. I know we've all seen this movie before. The similarities to Egypt are astonishing. The demonstrators are gathered around a traffic circle that they're calling and I quote here, "our own Tahrir Square." Two of the protesters have been killed in confrontations with police.
Bahrain is a U.S. ally and the State Department has called on the Bahraini government to show restraint in its confrontations with the demonstrators.
Bahrain is ruled by a king who has in recent days given almost every citizen $3,000 in an attempt to quell the uprising. It looks like they cannot be bought.
PARKER: Joining us on the phone from Manama, Bahrain's capital city, is journalist Mansoor al-Jamri who's been covering the story.
Mansoor, if you can tell us what's going on there, how many people are you seeing, what are their ages, please characterize the crowd if you can.
MANSOOR AL-JAMRI, JOURNALIST: Well, all ages are available. So you will see kids with their moms going to sleep in tents. There were about 50 tents that I saw. The number of people who are lined up outside or inside the tents, around 2,000. There's about 1,000 people who are wandering around doing so many other things and enjoying the scene and following some activities, whether cleaning or cooking -- not cooking but distributing food and water and directing traffic.
The police and security, dozens became zero. So they became as a self-running atmosphere over there. There's an upbeat mood that they're going to continue doing what they're doing up until the achievement of their demands.
And I think possibly after a day or two we might find the trouble of removing -- moving them if they continue, basically, camping and consolidating their position as they were living there.
SPITZER: Mansoor, tell us if you can, tell us quickly what are their demands? What is the essence of what they want from the government?
AL-JAMRI: There are miscellaneous demands. They are copying some of the slogans. They are creating some others. And as we all know, they are -- they came from the Facebook. They're quite centralized in their activities. And they are trying now to coordinate.
But you will so many slogans, demanding the removal of the prime minister, demanding that the government must be an elected one, that we should -- we must have an elected parliament, all elected parliament with some powers. And this is how they understand the constitutional democracy or the constitutional monarchy.
Add to that some other demands relating to jobs and housing and ending discrimination against a section of the community. So you find the chanting are varying from one group of people to another as you go around there (INAUDIBLE).
PARKER: All right. Thank you, Mansoor al-Jamri for that report. And you stay safe.
Even more dangerous than Bahrain tonight is Iran. And Tehran to thousands of people are taking to the street, but we can't show it to you because there are no pictures. None. Not even one.
We hear reports that the government has cracked down violently. The fear is great. And after yesterday's daring protests, the largest since 2009, the government response was immediate. Dozens of parliament members chanted and marched, calling for the death of the two main opposition leaders. The two leaders they want executed leaders of the Green Movement.
And a disturbing note in the midst of the celebrations in Tahrir Square back in Egypt Friday night, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was covering the story for "60 Minutes" when she was separated from her crew by an out-of-control mob. Logan was sexually assaulted and beaten. She's back in the U.S. now still in the hospital. We wish her well.
Two models of government are on display in the Middle East right now. Model one, Egypt, where the military steps to the side and lets what may be a secular revolution play out peacefully for the most part.
Model two, Iran, where a theocratic ruling power uses any and all levers to crush opposition voices.
Which one will succeed in the long term? That is the question of the moment.
PARKER: Here to talk about the amazing changes happening practically overnight are two guests, each with a unique perspective on events in the Middle East, Rashid Khalidi is professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and editor of the "Journal of Palestine Studies", and Michael Vlahos is a professor of strategy at the United States Naval War College and author of "Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change."
Welcome to you both.
MICHAEL VLAHOS, PROF. OF STRATEGY, U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE: Thank you.
RASHID KHALIDI, PROF. OF MODERN ARAB STUDIES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Thanks, Kathleen.
PARKER: Michael, let's start with you.
The military is getting mixed reviews. Some say they're just going to try to sustain their entrenched interests. Others say they're good shepherds guiding this country through this transition. What's your take?
VLAHOS: Well, the military's move here is highly contingent on the larger shift that I feel has occurred. And that is that you've seen potentially a larger shift in consciousness in the Arab world, the Muslim world at large. And that shift in consciousness, if you want a very simple analogy, I would use the institution, peculiar institution of slavery in the old south.
In the 1850s, slavery was accepted throughout the United States. Twenty-five years later, it was inconceivable. And there's been a long struggle, actually a long series of struggles in the Arab world, to achieve some kind of sense of democratic liberation especially from under the thumb of colonial tyranny, but also from the tyranny of the ottomans and then the various other monarchies and post colonial successor tyrannies like one we just saw evicted in Egypt.
And what's happening in part is enabled by the technologies of social media is that you have the capacity for a larger shift in consciousness, which is quite, I think, consonant with the deeper ideals in Islam of democracy and justice.
SPITZER: OK. Now this can go in many different directions.
VLAHOS: Yes.
SPITZER: In Egypt it seems to be going in a way that is secular. Of course we don't know how it plays out. In Iran where we have a theocracy and the government is cracking down in a way that the military was not willing to in Egypt.
How will it play out there, Professor? And is -- are in fact two different models playing on the revolution that Michael just talked about of consciousness? KHALIDI: They're very different cases. I mean in Egypt, the government clearly had no legitimacy. By the time Mubarak went down, he had lost almost all his support.
In Iran, it's probably the case the government doesn't have majority support but it does have support. It's a very powerful, well entrenched regime. It's a theocracy. It is opposed to democracy and it is opposed to the ideals of most of the Iranian people. We've seen this in previous elections when they voted for democratic alternatives in the past.
Nevertheless, they are still willing to shoot. And I think that's the key thing. The Egyptian military wasn't willing to shoot. The shah's military at the end wasn't willing to shoot. In China, however, and so far in Iran, we see not just a strong regime but a regime that's ruthless enough to shoot people down, I think.
SPITZER: How does that play out then as this proclase (ph) -- the contagion of revolution, the contagion of consciousness? Which one becomes the model for the public and which one will succeed?
VLAHOS: The military institutions in Iran and Egypt are different. And each of the army has a fabled tradition going back to Mehmed Ali in the early 19th century, defeating the ottomans. So the Egyptian army, especially after the Canal Crossing in 1973, has this sense of representing Egyptian identity. And they -- they hew to this ideal of being the guardian of the nation.
In Iran, it's the Revolutionary Guard that is the ideological representation of post revolutionary Iranian identity. And it represents the revolution, not the people.
PARKER: How important is this shift in consciousness is the fact that so many in the army in all of these countries is there are so many young people? Is that a factor, the youth element of the army itself?
VLAHOS: Well, the youth issue in Egypt is critical because you can't get married as a young man if you don't have a job. And youth unemployment in the 20s --
KHALIDI: It's huge.
VLAHOS: -- is 50 percent and you have all these youth in the army, as well. So in a sense you can think of two Egyptian armies. You have the army that's military, inc., as in Pakistan, has up to 40 percent of the Egyptian economy. It's very corrupt, that's the high level, the elite, the officer corps. Then you have the other army which was kind of the representation of the people.
SPITZER: But what I hear you saying is that since there is this distinction between the military in Egypt that relates to the nation and the military in Iran that still goes back to the ayatollahs, you would bet with the ayatollahs right now, they're ruthless, they have a military that is loyal to them, and you have a public that may not be willing or able to overcome that power. KHALIDI: That would be my guess. But I wouldn't want to predict the future. We're just at the beginning in Iran. This is yet another phase. Let's see how this plays out. I think it's more interesting to see how this will bubble over into the rest of the Arab world.
Because in Iran you have a really well-entrenched regime. And as Michael said, an army that probably will -- military that will support the government. That's not the case in a number of Arab countries.
SPITZER: Let's go to Bahrain, then.
KHALIDI: Which don't have the legitimacy in other words that the Iranian government does.
PARKER: Before we leave Iran, quickly, is this an opportunity for the United States to reset its policy toward Iran?
KHALIDI: If I were an American policymaker I would keep my mouth tightly shut. The best thing you can do to help the regime in Iran is to speak in support of the opposition. The worst thing you can do -- the best thing you can do to undermine the opposition is to open your mouth.
If politicians do that, they'll be speaking to an American domestic gallery and they'll be harming the situation in Iran. That would be my view.
PARKER: What about lifting sanctions? What about, you know, flooding the country with technology investment and that sort of thing?
KHALIDI: Well, I mean, you could --
VLAHOS: Be embraced, yes.
KHALIDI: You could say that the Iranian model has failed. Iranian contagion is going nowhere. This is not a regime that people are going to imitate. In 1979 or 1980, there was a possibility of revolutionary contagion from Iran. If there's contagion, it's going to be from the Tunisian/Egyptian bottle. People are going to see that and that's what they might want to follow.
VLAHOS: In Shia, Iran, the model is -- if you want a popular model that's also universal and speaks for the Shia, not Iran, which is fatally corrupted. In fact, you can see all sorts of Revolutionary Guard, lower-level guys, really questioning things. So you're beginning to see, I think, like you saw in czarist Russia, this erosion of authority penetrating deeply into the heart of the revolution.
KHALIDI: Actually in Egypt, if there's a revolution, it will be from within. Anything we do.
VLAHOS: Yes.
KHALIDI: All the meddling we may do, in my view, only makes things worse. I don't think the United States should be pushing a situation which I think eventually will evolve towards either the fall of the regime or a change of the regime.
SPITZER: So if I hear you -- again, predictions are impossible, but the rise of the secular model of revolution, this is a fundamental shift, it's a focal moment, in the Arab world.
VLAHOS: Well, it's not simply a secular revolution. It is a -- what I like to call a Muslim renovatio (ph), it's a restoration of true Islamic principles, which are justice and overthrow tyranny.
So this notion of a restoration is deeply embedded in all the Islamist movements that you see. So part of it is secular in some ways because it's related to the post colonial impact of western --
KHALIDI: Constitutional ideas, democracy.
SPITZER: Values.
VLAHOS: Yes. But it's a -- it's a kind of syncretic. It's blend effects. And so you have a kind of Islamism in Egypt which is both has a western side and also a deeply Islamist side.
SPITZER: And do you see this reflected in what we are now beginning to see the military doing in Egypt, piecing together a commission, a committee of jurists, a very eclectic group, to begin to draft a new constitution that is really quite remarkable?
KHALIDI: Egypt has a distinguished judiciary. And I cannot imagine, even if the military tries to hinder this, I cannot imagine the Egyptians not insisting on a proper drafting of the constitution. By these imminent experts. And I think these are the people they are calling on.
And as somebody said the other day on Egyptian television, if they mess with us, we know the way back to Tahrir Square.
SPITZER: Well --
VLAHOS: The persistence of democratic expression is I think something that has been established. And that in itself is a powerful thing.
SPITZER: Before we -- we'll come back to Egypt in a second perhaps. How far does this go? Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen? It's almost more -- we're certainly learning our geography very well. Where does it stop? How many succeeds as this dominance keep going?
KHALIDI: It certainly has affected the entire Arab public sphere. Everybody who watches satellite television, everybody who listens to the same music, everybody who --
VLAHOS: Right. Right.
KHALIDI: Is in on that same wavelength is picking up on it, from Morocco to the Gulf. The interesting thing is that it spread over to Iran today. I'm not surprised by Bahrain or Jordan or Yemen. They all speak Arabic. It's amazing it's gotten as far as Iran.
VLAHOS: It's a cascade. It's a cascade. This happened in 1789 at the beginning of western modernity.
SPITZER: Right.
KHALIDI: That's right.
VLAHOS: Actually it happened a little earlier.
(CROSSTALK)
KHALIDI: In Eastern Europe in the '80s.
VLAHOS: But after the French Revolution, you couldn't stop it and it just kept going and going. Maybe it took 50, 60, 70 years or more, but it is the new dynamic.
KHALIDI: These regimes are also very brittle, many of them, in the Arab world. Very weak --
PARKER: Well, as this -- as this cascade continues, it's clear the United States has to change its diplomatic policy. And we are -- there's a lot of anti-American sentiment, obviously. We've been --
KHALIDI: But Kathleen, you actually haven't heard a lot of that in this revolution either in Tunis or in Egypt. I mean you have incidents.
PARKER: Well, we did -- OK.
KHALIDI: But there's not a lot of it. I mean this is not a death to America crowd. There's very little about Israel and what's been said. Most of it is domestic stuff, democracy, social justice.
VLAHOS: But America has to make a choice. America has to decide if it wants deep and strong relationships in the future with all these new things that are emerging or does it want to try and prop up dictators one day at a time.
SPITZER: That is the critical choice. Do we begin to understand that those contracts, those relationship, maybe they worked for 10, 20, 30 years, they're done, they're finished, those contracts have expired.
And prospectively, I still think the crowd there looks at us and says yes, that is the sort of freedom that we cherish.
(CROSSTALK)
KHALIDI: They like our ideals. They like our ideals. They don't always like our policies.
VLAHOS: That's right.
KHALIDI: And if -- we have differences on that. We cannot ram our policies down their throats. We should respect that they are listening to us at least in terms of our ideals.
SPITZER: But are not the ideals the more powerful common bond over the long run?
KHALIDI: Of course.
SPITZER: Than what we had with Mubarak.
(CROSSTALK)
KHALIDI: Maybe we should think about --
VLAHOS: We have to come through. We cannot continue on the course that we've had for the last 30, 40, 50 years. Ever since we overthrew --
(CROSSTALK)
KHALIDI: I will give a quick example, if we have the time.
SPITZER: Quick. Quick.
KHALIDI: Security Council resolution on settlements. If the United States votes against that, it will be a finger in the eye of the Egyptian revolution. A big mistake.
SPITZER: All right. That may be a conversation for another night.
KHALIDI: Another evening's discussion.
SPITZER: All right. Rashid Khalidi and Michael Vlahos, interesting conversation. Thank you so much for being with us.
VLAHOS: Thank you.
PARKER: Thanks so much.
KHALIDI: Thank you both.
SPITZER: Coming up, a member of the world's most notorious dream team lends his legal genius to the defense of WikiLeaks. We talk with Alan Dershowitz when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: The legal team for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has just announced they've enlisted the help of a First Amendment powerhouse. Alan Dershowitz joins us now from Miami, Florida.
Professor, thanks for being with us and congratulations on joining the defense team for Julian Assange.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, NEWLY-NAMED LEGAL ADVISOR TO WIKILEAKS TEAM: Well, thank you. It's going to be a very, very interesting case. SPITZER: Well, let me begin it this way. First, what is the status as best you know of the United States government's investigation, the criminal investigation to determine whether Julian Assange broke any federal laws in publishing the diplomatic files that he claims he received innocently?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, this morning in the federal magistrate's courts in Virginia, the United States government announced that they are at the preliminary stages of a criminal investigation. They didn't name the targets of the investigation. But obviously taking all precautions, we have to assume WikiLeaks and/or Julian Assange may be among the targets of that investigation.
SPITZER: Did the judge in the proceeding today force the government to articulate its theory of criminal viability?
DERSHOWITZ: Quite the opposite. The judge permitted the sealing of many of the factual allegations, and so we have no idea, A, whether they're seriously pursuing a criminal investigation, B, what the theory might be, whether it's a publication theory, whether there's something else involved.
We have to be cautious and we have to be alert and proactive at the same time as we watch developments. At the moment, I'm not his official lawyer because he doesn't need a lawyer in the United States and he has never done anything in the United States that would convey jurisdiction on an American court.
I'm an adviser to the British legal team -- of course he needs a lawyer in Britain because they're seeking extradition to Sweden, and so I'm working with the British lawyers on American aspects of the law, particularly the First and the Fourth Amendments.
SPITZER: Now just to zero in on that for a minute, is it your theory then, I presume, that Julian Assange stands in shoes no different than those of "The New York Times" or any newspaper that published these same documents? He received them, somebody gave them to him, and the mere publication of this information cannot be a criminal act.
Is that the theory that he is -- he is operating under?
DERSHOWITZ: That's certainly the theory. We argue that the cutting-edge issue of this decade really is the application of the First and Fourth Amendments to the social media, to electronic journalism, to the new media.
The United States is encouraging, of course, the new media in Iran, in Egypt, and other parts of the world and at the same time it's obviously seeking to chill the use of those media by seeking the records of people who follow on Twitter or twit or use WikiLeaks.
And so we think that a double standard is being applied, you know, rights for me but not for thee.
PARKER: As a journalist who comes out of newspapers, I guess the question for me is, is there ever a time when a publication, which is simply the conduit for information rather than, in this case the person who's taken material that doesn't belong to them, as the conduit, is there ever a reason that a publishing entity cannot -- should be legally prevented from publishing?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, that issue came up of course in the "Pentagon Papers" case that I was involved in back then 40 years ago when the United States government claimed that it was very dangerous to publish this material, and the Supreme Court said no, they would not prevent the publication, and they eventually decided not to prosecute the publication.
And in the end, it seemed to me it benefited the United States, it benefited the First Amendment to have that material spread out on the public record. So it's the strong presumption in favor of publishing that which you receive.
Now obviously, nobody is talking about publishing the names of spies, satellite codes, things that have traditionally, both the newspapers and responsible people, withhold publication.
SPITZER: Alan, I gather that in the proceeding today what the government is seeking is the Twitter account information of individuals who are close to Assange and they would argue perhaps close to Private Manning, who was the initial -- it is believed, at least, the initial source of this information.
And the government just trying to show the links and the contacts between your client Julian Assange and Private Manning. And so they're trying to gather information from Twitter and other companies.
Why do you think that that information is beyond the reach of a government subpoena?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, first of all, it's a very, very broad request. Generally the government has to either have a search warrant, which requires probable cause and specificity, or have probable cause and a reason why they don't need a warrant or a subpoena which can be challenged in court on grounds that it's too broad.
What we're worried is not only about this particular application but the precedent it will set in the electronic context where you can get thousands, millions, perhaps tens of millions of pieces of information about individuals. And so it's important so fight this battle for the Fourth Amendment and for the First Amendment at the earliest possible stage.
SPITZER: When did the courts say it might rule on this, if we know?
DERSHOWITZ: My understanding is the magistrate simply said she took it under advisement today and gave no schedule. We will wait anxiously for whatever decision comes down and look at whatever options are available vigorously disputing any claim that we believe compromises the Fourth and First Amendment. SPITZER: But you are neither conceding jurisdiction to the court and, in fact, the individuals who have received the subpoenas -- it's not Julian Assange, it's others and it is through them that the government is trying to establish the linkage I presume between Julian Assange and Private Manning.
DERSHOWITZ: That seems correct.
SPITZER: All right.
PARKER: Have you met -- Professor, have you met with Julian Assange?
DERSHOWITZ: We've spoken on the phone. If the opportunity arises and the need arises for me to take further steps in the United States, obviously I'll travel to Great Britain and meet him in person. But I'm working with a great lawyer in Great Britain, Jeffrey Robertson, who is in charge of the case, and I basically take my orders from him and I'm happy to be assisting him on the American aspects of the law.
PARKER: Well, it's a fascinating subject and I suppose this was all inevitable. We have to come to terms with how we -- how we manage our freedom and how we protect other people's rights. So thanks so much for joining us.
DERSHOWITZ: And we come to terms through an adversarial proceeding, and that's why we're going to vigorously pursue whatever rights there are.
SPITZER: All right. Thank you, Professor, although you're taking orders from anybody is something that strikes me as being unlikely. But we look forward to chatting with you more as this fascinating case proceeds.
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you very much.
SPITZER: And when we return, could former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak be the richest man in the world? Rumors abound about the Mubarak family fortune. We'll try to sort them out. Coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: When the pharaohs died, their wealth was buried with them. It was meant to help them in the after-life. The Mubaraks has begun their after-life in this life after 30 years of ruling Egypt. But the mystery of their wealth has only deepened. Estimates of the family fortune differ widely. The U.S. government has suggested a figure between $2 $3 billion, not exactly chicken feed, but it's nothing compared to the $40 to $70 billion that has been claimed by others. No one, however, is providing specifics.
SPITZER: Here's how hard it is to follow the money. "The New York Times" attempted to trace just one of the Mubaraks' holdings, a town house in a well-to-do section of London. The ownership of that house is one more puzzle piece. The woman who answered the door said the Mubaraks had sold it but real estate agent said there was no bill of sale. And neighbors were sure they'd seen Mubarak's son Gamal and his family coming and going from the house recently.
Digging deeper, the house is registered to a company in Panama. But the agent for that company turns out to be a law firm. And the law firm answers to a company in Oman. A company that refuses to identify so all we're left with are more questions while the Mubaraks could be left with billions. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Until the Mideast began to erupt, the most pressing concern in international diplomatic circles was Iran's nuclear capabilities. Until recently, Iran had shown alarming progress in its nuclear program, but now a new report confirms a glitch in the system. About a year ago a mysterious attack on a key Iranian nuclear facility wiped out scores of the plant's centrifuges.
PARKER: The destruction wasn't caused by a bomb or even an international embargo, but by a worm. A computer virus called Stuxnet was released into the nuclear plant's computers, destroying at least a thousand centrifuges. And the damage didn't stop there. The new report on the incident is authored by a former U.N. weapons inspector, David Albright.
Welcome, Mr. Albright.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, FMR. UN WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be here.
PARKER: Stuxnet doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, but it's the worm that did massive damage to the Iranian centrifuges. What is it exactly and how did it happen?
ALBRIGHT: Well, it's a very sophisticated malware. It has all kinds of parts to it that basically get into the Iranian nuclear facilities and then take over computer control systems, industrial control systems of the plant and then seek to destroy the centrifuges.
PARKER: There's been a lot of speculation about who did this and the consensus without being confirmed seems to be that it was a combination of Israel and U.S. efforts. Any sense of the truth of that speculation?
ALBRIGHT: No, those are the leading suspects. I mean, it's really hard to know and that's, in fact, I think part of the attraction of Stuxnet is that you can hide your participation. And so the Israel and United States always emerge at the top of the list for the authors. But there may have been others involved, too. I mean, there's been suspicion perhaps Germany had some involvement because the equipment that was taken over, it was made in Germany.
SPITZER: I want to sort of go back to square one. What have you concluded as best you can discern about what the worm, the virus, Stuxnet, has done to the Iranian capacity to generate in these centrifuges the enriched uranium it needs?
ALBRIGHT: Well, as far as we can tell from trying to figure out things with -- from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the inspectors on the ground from the code, is that about a thousand centrifuges were destroyed out of a total of about 8,000 or 9,000. They weren't the ones that were enriching uranium, so actually the enriched uranium production has actually increased in the last year.
SPITZER: If there are 10,000 centrifuges total, which is probably I think the ballpark that I've heard.
ALBRIGHT: Nine thousand.
SPITZER: OK. And you destroy 1,000 of them. Does that mean the whole system fails because you need that whole critical mass of 9,000 for things to work? Or does it just mean that they're only going at about 85, 89 percent of their pre-existing capacity?
ALBRIGHT: It's a little more complicated because they've had trouble in this plant so only about half were enriching uranium. And --
SPITZER: What were the others doing?
ALBRIGHT: They were just spinning. They were not --
SPITZER: Just for fun.
ALBRIGHT: Well, we didn't know. We didn't know why. I mean, it's really -- were they holding them in reserve?
SPITZER: Full disclosure. In tenth grade, we'd turn them on for fun, too, but, you know, I didn't do so well.
ALBRIGHT: And one of the impacts of Stuxnet, I mean, the damage done to the program is greater than just the 10,000 -- let's say 10 percent of centrifuges destroyed. One is the Iranians didn't know what hit them and centrifuges are very complicated technical devices. And having a thousand break all at once is devastating to a program like that. So it created a lot of uncertainty. Once they found out it was Stuxnet, they were going to feel quite vulnerable because the Stuxnet operators knew incredible amounts of detail of the plant, far beyond, for example, what the inspectors knew, so that the Iranians were in a sense the whole program had been penetrated by Stuxnet.
PARKER: Some internal involvement, then?
ALBRIGHT: Has to be. Has to be. It goes way beyond inspectors. It has to be a spy or --
PARKER: I want to back up just a minute. When you said it was terribly disruptive to their whole setup, what are we talking about in terms of years? I understand part of our goal has always been to slow down the process of development in developing nuclear weapons over there. So how much has their program been hurt? ALBRIGHT: I think 2010 was a bad year for Iran largely because of Stuxnet. There were other things going on too, but Stuxnet I think hurt them for maybe up to a year, delay them.
PARKER: Just a year.
ALBRIGHT: Yes. And that's one of the downsides. It's very hard to make a computer software save the day, I mean, or deliver a fatal blow.
SPITZER: Beyond the centrifuges, what is the best target that we can next say we will go after through this sort of malware, as you call it, this sort of computer virus that could knock out part of an essential production stage in the nuclear program?
PARKER: If, for example, we had anything to do with this.
ALBRIGHT: Yes. That's right, if we have. But one is -- and let me just add this, that one of the benefits of Stuxnet is that it makes the Iranians scared to build secret sites because if they're that penetrated, as Stuxnet would imply about Natanz, and they have to worry they'll be penetrated when they build secret sites. So also for the next up in the cyber war, which is really what we're starting to wage, and we need to think through that, but the next step would be a software that could better target secret sites and not expose itself so well, because that's really the demise of Stuxnet was that in trying to spread faster it did and it got out, and then it was picked up by these outside computer security firms and then the game was over.
SPITZER: All right, David. Thank you so much.
ALBRIGHT: OK. Thank you.
SPITZER: We'll talk more.
PARKER: Coming up next, the Amanda Knox trial takes another startling turn. This time her parents are at the center of new charges. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: A strange new twist in the case of Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murdering her roommate in Italy. Her parents have now been indicted for allegedly lying about the police. In a 2008 interview in Britain, Amanda's parents claimed the police in Italy were physically and verbally abusive to their daughter.
SPITZER: After the indictment today, Amanda's mother told CNN and I quote, "Yes, I'm going to trial for libel along with one of my lawyers and a group of journalists."
Let's bring in CNN's own legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, to talk about this bizarre case.
Jeff, thank you for coming in. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, guys.
SPITZER: I just want to get my arms around this. It strikes me as so unbelievably bizarre. Amanda Knox's mom in London makes a statement to a British newspaper saying that the Italian police abused her daughter, just not even saying it as a fact as much as repeating what her daughter had said and they indict her for, criminally indict her for libel.
TOOBIN: And potentially put them in prison, her parents in prison.
Look, let's start with the obvious. This is Italy, not the United States. There's no First Amendment. They have different rules about freedom of the press and about criminal prosecutions. And yes, libel is a criminal offense in the way it's not in the United States and yes, you can go to prison. Doesn't happen often in Italy but you can for making a false statement about the police.
PARKER: But even if you say that in another country? I mean, if I say something bad about the police, the Italian police violate all of people's -- all human rights, I mean, am I now liable? Can I be arrested?
TOOBIN: There are Italian police outside waiting for you --
PARKER: They're going to come after me?
TOOBIN: No. I mean, in theory, yes. In fact, they don't do this very often. I think it just illustrates how bizarre this whole case, even in the context of the Italian judicial system, the fact that they would do this. But yes, as a legal matter under Italian law, as I understand it, they can prosecute you or anyone else for a false statement made about an Italian official even if that statement is made here or in London.
SPITZER: Even crazier about it, she is repeating what her daughter said. I mean, she is saying, look, my daughter told me and her daughter, in fact, testified to those things under oath on the stand in Italy.
TOOBIN: Right.
SPITZER: She's repeating sworn testimony and they're now indicting her for libel. This makes a joke out of any free discourse.
TOOBIN: Well, exactly. And much as you might have wanted when you were a prosecutor --
SPITZER: Boy.
TOOBIN: Exactly. Exactly.
But -- and I think in the -- the serious thing that is really very so troubling about this case is that one of the main themes of the Knox defense throughout this long, long proceeding has been that the system is out to get them, that she has gotten a special brand of justice. They have targeted her. They have treated her worse than other defendants, and this case would seem to prove her point because they have gone out of their way to bring this very strange case against her parents, which doesn't seem justified by any stretch of the imagination.
PARKER: Italians are so thin-skinned. I mean, what is that with the point? Why are they doing this? Legally, what would the strategy be?
TOOBIN: Well, I mean, I think the first question that Knox's parents have is whether they want to show up at all to defend themselves because after all, they are Americans, they don't have to go. The problem is --
SPITZER: Their daughter is there.
TOOBIN: Their daughter is there. So they are -- if they want to see their daughter, they're compelled in essence to submit to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
Now, one thing in their favor is that, as this case also illustrates, the Italian judicial system moves incredibly slowly. And the appeals process, which is what the daughter's case is in now, is almost like a whole new trial. They are impaneling a new jury, six judges, two civilians, just for the appeal, which is supposed to start in May.
SPITZER: And I don't mean to quiz you. You have absolutely no reason to know the answer. But whose decision is it to bring this indictment? Is this a vindictive local prosecutor without supervision, or is the judiciary involved in screening an indictment of this form in some way? Because I would imagine the judiciary would look at this and say this is a blemish on the entire Italian judicial process.
TOOBIN: You have taxed my knowledge of the Italian judicial system to its breaking point.
SPITZER: All right. OK.
TOOBIN: I don't know who brought the case.
SPITZER: Because it worries me. I mean, thinking structurally as somebody who's been part of our judicial system for many years, this sort of case does make any judicial process, makes a mockery of it.
TOOBIN: It does. And you know, one of the cliches of our First Amendment is people always complain about a chilling effect, that if the government does something, it will stop other people from speaking in ways that they should be allowed to speak. This is the very definition of the chilling effect. I mean, think about it. All these parents are doing is defending their daughter.
PARKER: Of course. TOOBIN: Repeating testimony she's already given, and they get charged now.
SPITZER: OK. Now I'm going to throw a curveball at you.
TOOBIN: OK.
SPITZER: Talking about chilling effect --
TOOBIN: Yes.
SPITZER: -- you've been on the show. We've had fascinating conversations as we did with Alan Dershowitz earlier tonight by Julian Assange.
TOOBIN: Correct.
SPITZER: Chilling effect. Our government right now pursuing a criminal case against Julian Assange for publishing documents. How is that different? Why is his publication of documents that he claims to have innocently received not demonstrative in a way of a government trying to impose a chilling effect and saying with a speech we don't like, we're going to clamp down?
TOOBIN: Well, I think the factual leap you're making there is one that we don't know is true.
SPITZER: We don't know yet.
TOOBIN: Which is how did he get the documents? If he conspired with Private Manning, that's one -- that makes the government's case a lot easier. But if he simply received these documents over the transom and published them just like "The New York Times" published them, I think it's a very difficult decision to make. And by the way, they haven't made it yet. I mean, Julian Assange has been charged with nothing.
SPITZER: Shortly after Assange published those documents, of course, the attorney general of the United States stood up and made a big claim and a big show, rightly so, I suppose, to say we're going to investigate, suggesting something was about to happen. Everything we're hearing is that nexus, that connection between Assange and Private Manning, has not yet been established. And if, in fact, Assange was a mere recipient, then he begins to look kind of like Knox's parents. Right?
TOOBIN: Well, I don't know about Knox's parents. He starts to look a lot like "The New York Times." Because "The New York Times" has published these articles, too, these documents, too, and they haven't been prosecuted. And I don't think anyone thinks they're going to be prosecuted.
SPITZER: Turns to chilling First Amendment stuff, not so dissimilar.
TOOBIN: They are not so dissimilar. SPITZER: All right.
TOOBIN: I'm not prepared to --
SPITZER: OK. More analogy.
PARKER: With bated breath and on the edge of our seats we'll have to see how this plays out.
TOOBIN: Exactly.
PARKER: All right, Jeff.
TOOBIN: The Amanda Knox saga has occupied plenty of time over the past three, four years now.
PARKER: All right. Thanks so much for your legal insight as always.
SPITZER: All right. Up next, two senators who were taking on the deficit in the president's budget. Their plans to cut trillions when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Precious few lawmakers or presidents for that matter have been courageous enough to make the kind of budget deficits needed to fix the deficit long term. But now, two senators have emerged as leaders of a bipartisan group that says it can cut as much as $4 trillion over the next 10 years. They also plan to make social security solvent and rein in Medicare and Medicaid costs.
Joining me now from Washington on the Capitol itself are Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss and Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining me. Senators, let me dive right into this. We have now seen the president's budget proposal that will save about $1.1 trillion over a decade, and we've seen the House Republican budget proposal that saves about $60 billion to $100 billion this year. Does either one of those meaningfully in a genuine way confront the deficit issues we've got in this country?
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), GEORGIA: Well, Eliot, the problem with both the approaches of the House budget as well as the president's budget doesn't address the major issue. Sure, it does address spending, but spending is a very minor part. Annual spending is a minor part of the overall problem. We've also got to look at the mandatory programs where most of the money is spent. That means social security and Medicare.
SPITZER: Senators, I want to put up on the screen a chart that I think you can see there and what it shows is that what you're referring to is the nondefense discretionary part of the budget, is that little aqua piece, it's about 12.3 percent. That's what all the conversation the past couple days has been about. The rest of the budget is where most of the money is. And Ezra Klein of "The Washington Post" had a good line up. He said the government is basically an insurance company with an army attached to it and somehow those big pieces are not part of the conversation. Social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and, you know, those are the big three entitlement programs. How do you intend to make those part of this conversation? What do you think we should do to those programs as we go forward?
SEN. MARK WARNER, MEMBER, SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Eliot, on social security, in 2037, if we don't act, you're going to see 22 percent across the board cuts. And anything that we've been talking about is not taking social security proceeds and using it for the deficit. We're trying to say how do we keep social security solvent for 75 years. And some of the ideas that have been laid out that would do that I think are worthy of discussion. It's why the deficit commission did that. And some of this is just math.
I mean, in 1950, there were 16 workers for every one social security retiree. Now there are three workers paying in for every one retiree. We've got an aging population. It's not Democrat or Republican fault, but we've got to make sure that we guarantee our kids and our grandkids that kind of insurance program, and that's going to take some changes.
SPITZER: Let me talk about the revenue side of this for a minute. One of the things the bipartisan commission also did was say we've got to raise some additional revenue and they did that through a very smart calculus of saying we can lower marginal rates, get rid of a lot of loopholes and raise more revenue. Is that the direction you're going in? Is that the principle that you're embracing as we go forward?
WARNER: Eliot, one of the things that we can do if we do this right, we can stop some of the gaming that takes place between personal rates and business rates. Right now, America's corporate rate at 35 percent is way too high. We've got to bring that down. But that's going to mean businesses are going to have to give up some of their tax exemptions. I don't know many businesses that actually pay that 35 percent rate other than small and moderate size businesses. Large companies don't pay that, so we have to level the playing field by lowering the rates and getting rid of some of the exemptions.
And one of the remarkable things, if we do this right and take on some of these tax expenditures, even with lowering the rates we can still keep the progressivity aspects of the tax code that I think is important to make sure that everybody gets a fair shot.
SPITZER: The other side of this was defense. I think there have been -- there are significant savings on the defense side in the bipartisan commission that I think Secretary Gates has gone some of them, but clearly in the president's budget he's only talking about $78 billion over a number of years. Is it your sense we have to go beyond that?
CHAMBLISS: Well, I don't know what the number is, but what I do know is that anytime you have a $700 billion budget, there's an awful lot of waste, fraud and abuse. We've just got to task the right people at the Pentagon and we've got great leadership over there to do this to come up with a way that we can make significant reductions.
Secretary Gates has already come forward in a short period of time, very honestly, with some very positive recommendations. So I think there is a way to do it, and we can do it and still make sure that our men and women in uniform have the right kind of quality of life, have the right kind of weapons systems that will allow us to remain the world's strongest military, but at the same time the Defense Department needs to pay their fair share just like every other segment of our government towards reducing this deficit and reducing this overall debt.
SPITZER: All right. Well, Senators, thank you so much. We'll obviously continue to watch this. It is a hugely important issue and you're taking a really powerful and important leadership role there. So thank you so much for having this conversation with us.
CHAMBLISS: Sure. Thank you, Eliot.
WARNER: Thank you, Eliot.
SPITZER: Talk to you soon.
You know, Kathleen, it's been amazing listening today to the rhetoric and all the -- you know, commentary from all the pundits and even the politicians. Everybody is saying we need grown-ups. We need an adult conversation to tackle the big four -- social security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending. Maybe these two guys can actually do it.
PARKER: I've heard it a hundred times. We have to have the grown-ups. And these are two old school gentlemen. It's really quite refreshing to hear them talk. And let's hope that they can do what they say they want to do.
SPITZER: I thought you're going to say from the south. Anyway, I was going to fight that.
PARKER: And that too.
SPITZER: All right.
"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now. We'll see you tomorrow night.
PARKER: Good night.
