Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Powell, McCain Come Out Against Bush Administration on Handling of Detainees; Interview With Barack Obama

Aired September 14, 2006 - 19:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou. And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Standing by CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you tonight's top stories.
Happening now, top Republicans deliver a defeat for President Bush. It's 7:00 p.m. here in Washington where Colin Powell and John McCain are bucking the White House on the treatment of terror suspects. I'll ask Senator McCain if he's giving aid and comfort to the Democrats. Is the political war over terror going too far? I'll ask Democratic Senator Barack Obama about Republican attacks and his party's election year blast at the president.

Plus, U.S. troops in Iraq take aim at death squads and CNN's on the scene for a brazen bombing. It's 3:00 a.m. Friday in Baghdad. We'll give you an exclusive inside look at the war and the bloodshed.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Tonight, top Republicans in defiance of the president, of the party's defining issue in the battle for Congress, homeland security. A Senate panel today approves its own bill in the treatment of terror suspects, rejecting President Bush's vision. And the president's former secretary of state, General Colin Powell is joining the fray, siding with the rebel senators against the White House.

Our congressional correspondent Dana Bash has more on this battle on Capitol Hill -- Dana.

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf one Republican senator put it this way today; this is an all-out war with the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BASH (voice-over): The president's rare Capitol Hill visit was part of an offensive to quiet a Republican rebellion over how to treat terror detainees.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.

BASH: But hours later, Senate Republicans defied the president. The Armed Service Committee passed a measure supporters say, better protects the rights of those in U.S. custody.

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), ARMED SERVICES CHAIRMAN: We have tried those of us who have put this draft together, to provide language which in no way reflects a basis for anyone to say that the United States is still not observing the Geneva Convention.

BASH: The biggest issue is Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which sets international standards for treating prisoner of war. The White House says it's too vague and must be clearly defined to allow tough interrogations of terror suspects while protecting interrogators from charges of war crimes. But three top Republicans, Armed Services Chairman John Warner, Senator Lindsey Graham and former prisoner of war John McCain, insist the White House plan would undermine U.S. credibility around the world.

All day long a stunning public display of Republican division over national security. Adding to drama the president's own former secretary of state, Colin Powell, threw his support behind the Senate measure. Warning in this letter, the president's plan for trying terror suspects would put our own troops at risk. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote.

Current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fired back with her own letter insisting the president's proposal would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties.

Back at the White House Mr. Bush dug in saying a program to get information from so-called high-valued terrorists could be shut down.

BUSH: And I would resist any bill that doesn't enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: Now there are other points on of contention. For example, whether or not a defendant can see classified evidence that an injury is able to see. Tempers here are flaring. Neither side in this Republican battle wants to see this kind of inter-party fight at this time, two months before Election Day on national security. But Wolf, both sides say that they're right and both sides say it's matter of principle.

BLITZER: Dana Bash on Capitol Hill, thank you very much.

Senator John McCain brings his history as a prisoner of war into the debate over how to treat terror suspects and a possible future as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Senator thanks very much for coming in.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you Wolf.

BLITZER: You have a very different stance than the president has right now on several issues involving the war on terror. Let's go through them and explain to our viewers why you believe the president's wrong. Why you believe for example that evidence that the U.S. government wants to use in a military tribal against suspected detainees, even if it's classified should be allowed -- the detainees and their lawyers should be allowed to review it.

MCCAIN: Well I think that the judge can make a decision as to whether national security would be jeopardized by allowing the defendant to have some information that's classified. Certainly means and methods would be outlawed so I think we see a compromise there so that we could prevent national security from being compromised, but yet still allow the defendant to be able to see some of the evidence against them.

It's just not a normal procedure that someone who's subject to the death penalty is not allowed to see the evidence that's presented against them.

BLITZER: So you think the president is going to be flexible on this specific issue.

MCCAIN: No, I think we all can be flexible on it. I think that's the way you reach agreement.

BLITZER: What about on the issue of torture as it's called. Right now the U.S. military has specific guidelines, it's been made public, there seems to be a separate standard for civilians like those in the CIA, you're not happy about that?

MCCAIN: Well, the Geneva Conventions have a -- are generally for those in uniform and the treatment of quote "POWs". There's one provision that applies to people that are prisoners, which is much lower than that of POW status. But still, some rights are preserved and what we're seeking is to make sure that the Geneva Conventions covering these circumstances aren't changed. Because, if we amend the Geneva Conventions then other nations will to their liking and as several letters, including that of General Colin Powell, could put American lives at risk.

Common Article Three, by the way, is what it's called. We will and want to give in unity, both criminal and civil immunity to those in the CIA who are involved in this. And we would want to protect them in every way. The difference is whether you amend the Geneva Conventions or to do as we want to do and that's to amend or change the War Crimes Act so that these situations are covered under the War Crimes Act, telling them what they can't do. And also then giving them the immunity that they need.

BLITZER: Colin Powell, among other U.S. retired military personnel, agreeing with you that if this doesn't change, if the president's position stands, it could endanger U.S. troops serving around the world. You speak with a little authority on this as a former POW yourself in Vietnam. But go into a little bit more specific details why you think the fighting men and women of the United States could be endangered if the president gets his way.

MCCAIN: Suppose that we amend the Geneva Conventions to our interpretation of it, then another country that's not quite as democratic as ours decides they'll amend their version. A Special Forces person is captured by them. And their attorney general tells their secret police OK, here's our interpretation of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Have at them.

That's what people are worried about. The Geneva Conventions haven't been amended. They're -- we've adhered to them for 57 years. We think you can accomplish the same goal by amending the War Crimes Act which is a statute. Does that make sense to you?

BLITZER: Well it makes sense to me, but the question is, on the issue of evidence do you think there's a compromise potentially in the works with the president on this issue of the Geneva Conventions? Are you getting close to a deal with the administration or are you still pretty far apart?

MCCAIN: Well we remain hopeful. We have had hours and hours of conversations. And it's in everybody's interest to get this resolved. Remember the hand in decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court, practically mandated that the Congress act. And so it's important for us to act so that these agencies can get about their doing their business.

BLITZER: When you were a POW in Vietnam you weren't afforded the Geneva Conventions. You were brutally treated and tortured.

MCCAIN: But later on in our captivity the Vietnamese changed our treatment rather dramatically. There was also an American that was captured in Somalia, not that long ago, where he was being mistreated and we insisted that he be treated according to the Geneva Conventions Common Article Three and he was. And he was later released. We have the moral high ground because we adhere to the Geneva Conventions and we're not like these other countries and we understand that al Qaeda would never observe it, but many of us are afraid there will be additional wars in the history of the United States.

BLITZER: One final question, Senator, before I let you go. How concerned are you that three powerful Republican senators -- you, McCain -- you being John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner, that some Republicans might say you're giving aid and comfort to Democrats during this very, very bitter political season less than eight weeks before an election.

MCCAIN: First of all, there are other Republicans that agree with us. And there's many other people around the country like General Colin Powell who agrees with us. This is not -- this should have nothing to do with politics, nothing. This is about the lives of American men and women who are serving our country. I believe that we can work out our differences. And I will bend every effort to do so. It's very important not because we have an election coming up, but because we have men and women who are serving in military who need every protection we can provide them with.

BLITZER: Senator John McCain, thanks very much for coming in.

MCCAIN: Thank you. BLITZER: Let's go up to New York. Jack Cafferty's standing by with "The Cafferty File". Senator McCain thinking about -- I'm sure he's thinking about running for president.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: I'm quite sure he is and if I had to make a bet right now, I'd bet that he probably will. Opium production is out of control in Afghanistan. The statistics are staggering. Opium cultivation is up 59 percent there this year. Opium, of course, used to make heroin.

Ninety percent of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan. Huge amount of that heroin comes here to the United States where it ruins American lives by the tens of thousands. We spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs, everything from interdiction to enforcement, incarceration, drug treatment, rehab, you name it. The cost of Afghanistan's heroin to the American taxpayer runs in the billions of dollars every year.

We took control of Afghanistan about an hour and a half after 9/11, changed the government there almost overnight. We have an ongoing military presence there but we continue to ignore the heroin problem. Ignoring heroin production in Afghanistan while trumpeting the war on terror there is as hypocritical as ignoring the one million illegal aliens who enter this country from Mexico every year while trumpeting the war on terror here.

It's no wonder most of the rest of the world thinks we've lost our minds. Here's the question. What should the United States do about opium production in Afghanistan? E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We heard last night it brings in about $3 billion to Afghanistan, a small country, a poor country. Obviously a lot of people think there's not a lot we can do.

CAFFERTY: Well you know where a lot of that money goes, to the Taliban, who's making a comeback in that country...

BLITZER: Probably a billion of that three billion.

CAFFERTY: Exactly and that turns Afghanistan right back into a little narco state over there in the Middle East. Just what we need.

BLITZER: Jack, stand by because we're going to hear from our e- mailers as well. Jack Cafferty in New York.

Coming up -- Senator Barack Obama here in THE SITUATION ROOM, I'll ask him about terrorism, Republicans' accusations, his own plans for 2008.

Also, nukes in Iran, is U.S. intelligence being manipulated for political reasons? We're going to take a closer look.

The battle for Baghdad, are their moles in the Iraqi government right now, putting Americans at risk, our Michael Ware on the scene, standing by to join us. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. Are some American officials exaggerating the extent of Iran's nuclear activities? There's a growing dispute over just how great the threat may be. Meantime, the United States and a close ally can't agree on how to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is standing by, but let's go first to Brian Todd. He's got more -- Brian.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the U.N.'s chief nuclear watchdog group is not sure that Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons. Republican leaders of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee are sure and now the two groups are in a public and somewhat personal fight over the matter.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): In a scathing letter, the International Atomic Energy Agency accuses the House Intelligence Committee of misleading the public in a well publicized report last month about Iran's nuclear program. Take this caption.

Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade. The IAEA says Iran is nowhere near that capability, enriching uranium only 3.6 percent when 90 percent is needed to make a weapon. Congressman Mike Rogers who had a key role in that report says the IAEA is splitting hairs.

REP. MICHAEL ROGERS (R), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: If you take the caption with the text that is right along with the report, it says that we don't believe that they have gotten there, but the point of that whole section is they're trying to enrich uranium to weapons- grade.

TODD: A claim consistently denied by Tehran, but what's unleashed the most fury, an incident where an IAEA inspector was pulled out at Iran's request.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iranian said take them off the program and they said OK. You can't have Iran getting to pick who is their inspectors.

TODD: The House report says the IAEA has unspoken rules quote, "barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about Iran's program." The IAEA's letter calls that outrageous. The IAEA was also in the middle of a dispute over Iraq's weapons program before the U.S. invasion. The Bush administration criticized the agency for being too cautious and led a failed effort to oppose the reappointment of agency Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. Is this happening all over again?

DARYL KIMBALL, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: This is a very troubling instance here, this report of U.S. policymakers in my view, trying to push the intelligence community to find evidence that they believe supports their suspicions and their end policy goals.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Congressman Rogers disputes that too, saying this report was bipartisan and was reviewed by the intelligence community. U.S. intelligence officials we contacted wouldn't comment on the House Committee report or on the IAEA's letter -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Brian, thank you, Brian Todd reporting. Worries about another nuclear program were on the agenda today at the White House. Let's go to the White House. Our correspondent Suzanne Malveaux has more on this -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the six-party talks with North Korea have essentially stalled. President Bush reaching out a southern neighbor, that being of course South Korea. The tension between President Bush and the president of South Korea could undermine any progress.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): Amid concerns that the always- unpredictable North Korea could fire off another round of missiles or even test a nuclear device, President Bush held urgent talks with South Korea's Roh Moo-hyun. But it was clear from their Oval Office meeting the two remain at odds over how to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. President Bush again implored North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il to come back to the negotiating table.

BUSH: If he were to verifiably get rid of his weapons programs, there's clearly a better way forward.

MALVEAUX: But South Korea's president rejected the White House's push to punish North Korea if it doesn't comply. President Roh said his country's suspension of rice and fertilizer aid is punishment enough.

PRES. ROH MOO-HYUN, SOUTH KOREA (through translator): Because we don't want to hurt the inter-Korean relations, we are in fact taking measures tantamount to sanctions after the North Korean missile launches.

MALVEAUX: Those missile launches carried out in July, alarmed North Korea's neighbors and led to widespread condemnation by the United Nations Security Council. But political observers say negotiations with North Korea are essentially dead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty much nothing is happing right now. The North Koreans walked out. They said they're not coming back.

MALVEAUX: What's made matters worse even contributed to North Korea's defiance is the relationship between these two men has deteriorated.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, THE BROOKINGS INST.: Unfortunately President Bush and President Roh really don't get along very well.

MALVEAUX: It's not a personal thing, observers say, but fundamental differences over what to do next with the communist state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Roh wants to induce it through incentives and kindness and President Bush wants to confront it and challenge it, seeing it as perhaps the most evil of the original members of the axis of evil.

MALVEAUX: Some believe the differences between the two have emboldened Il Jong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: North Korea sees the split and it exploits it and we're not going to be successful in convincing North Korea to disarm as long as this split exists.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: So Wolf both leaders are trying to find common ground, focusing on a possible free-trade deal between the United States and South Korea and also a timetable for repositioning the nearly 30,000 U.S. troops that are stationed there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks, Suzanne. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House.

And still to come -- Senator Barack Obama does he have presidential ambitions in 2008. I'll ask him. He's here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Plus, Cuba welcomes some of America's biggest foes and taunts President Bush, comparing him to Hitler. We're going to go live to Havana. You're going to want to see this.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his country will support Iran just as it would Cuba if the United States should invade. Mr. Chavez is in Havana right now, along with Iran's president for an international summit and hostility there toward the United States is reaching new levels.

Our national correspondent Gary Tuchman is joining us now live from Havana -- Gary.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, hello to you. It's called the summit of nonaligned nations, but it's clearly also a summit of anti-Americanism. There are 116 nations here in Havana, Cuba. Most of them have good relations with the United States, but some of the ones that don't are being very loud about it and using propaganda to its full effect.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN (voice-over): World leaders, some quite unfriendly with the United States, are descending upon Cuba for the summit of nonaligned nations. The U.S. is not part of the summit, but there is a peculiar American presence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not worthy of the Cuban people.

TUCHMAN: When Michael Parmly, America's top diplomat in Cuba, looks out the window of America's only diplomatic outpost here this is what he sees -- a billboard calling President George Bush an assassin, showing a picture of the president with bloody teeth like Dracula.

Another sign comparing the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Hitler, still another with images of President Bush and Cuban exiled leader Luis Posada Carilles. The accused terrorist, who is now a U.S. prisoner is wanted by the Cuban government, but the U.S. will not extradite him to Cuba. The sign tries to mock George Bush by using his words from the past, if you harbor terrorists you are a terrorist.

The signs are clearly visible to the visiting world leaders. While there are no diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, Parmly, the chief of the U.S. Interest Section, says it's still diplomatically inappropriate and vulgar and that's not the only hostility he says his employees deal with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happens to some of your people though?

MICHAEL PARMLY, CHIEF U.S. DIPLOMAT IN CUBA: Homes broken into it, urine on the floor, dogs being poisoned. Things like that.

TUCHMAN: The Cuban government denies it's behind that, but the president of the Cuban National Assembly doesn't disavow responsibility for the signs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That kind of thing is potentially and probably very insulting to million of Americans. I'm wondering if that's something the government advocates those billboards and isn't it a bit juvenile?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

RICARDO ALARCON, PRES., CUBAN NATL ASSEMBLY: To tell you the truth, I hope that one day, listen to the truth will be as American as apple pie.

TUCHMAN: Meanwhile, the Cubans aren't too happy with something the Americans are doing. An information ticker put up by the U.S. can be seen on the windows of the American building. It's seen clearly at dusk and can be seen from far away at night. The message on the sign right now a free Cuba distanced from communist dictatorship.

In retaliation, the Cubans put up 138 black flags to block the view of the ticker. Each flag symbolized in a Cuban life they say lost to terrorist acts by Cuban Americans. Jose Carlos Arragosa (ph) is the director of the Anti-Imperialism Complex, where the flags are located.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They deserve the response they have gotten. (END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN: You're now looking at a live picture of that U.S. interest section on the waterfront street known as the Mollycone (ph), next to those 138 flags. Tomorrow is the major day of the summit where heads of state will speak, some of those speeches include Venezuela's Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad and also Zimbabwe's Mugabe. Cuba will be speaking, too, the big question, will Fidel Castro be speaking? The government says it's a possibility, but Castro of course has been in the hospital since July 31. But they are saying he will participate in some way -- Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Gary Tuchman in Havana, thank you. And to our viewers you're in THE SITUATION ROOM where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Happening now -- President Bush suffers a defeat on Capitol Hill just hours after a rare visit there. A Senate panel approved its own bill on the treatment of terror suspects, rejecting a White House plan, also opposed by the former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.

House Republicans vote to crack down on illegal immigration just weeks before congressional elections. The House today approved new fencing along the border with Mexico, a provision members had passed last year.

And the United Autoworkers says Ford now is offering buyouts to 75,000 union employees. It's an effort by the automaker to slash costs and limit financial losses in its North American operations.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

In Baghdad today a suicide truck bomber hit by a -- hit a U.S. Army outpost killing two American soldiers and wounding more than two dozen. One soldier died at the scene. The other died at a U.S. combat hospital. CNN was there. We have this exclusive video.

Two other American troops died in Iraq today, but for the Iraqis the toll much, much higher. Baghdad has been especially hard-hit. More than 100 bodies were turned up in the past three days, apparent victims of sectarian death squads. The U.S. military is hitting back.

And joining us now from Baghdad is Michael Ware, our correspondent. Michael, you just got off an embed. Where did you go this time? What did you see?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this was quite interesting. This is -- we're seeing the battle of Baghdad stepping up to a new level. This is the ongoing, massive military operation called Operation Together Forward designed to reclaim the capital from death squads, insurgents and militias.

What we saw today was thousands of U.S. troops hit for the first time a stronghold of the rebel anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This is an area that it's known that death squads are running from. What we have seen in the past is Americans moving into areas where the death squads have been hitting. This time, they went to death squads' home patch for the first time.

BLITZER: Muqtada al-Sadr, though, this radical Shiite cleric, he's close to many within the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki. What do they say, the Iraqi government, about the U.S. going after this militia?

WARE: This is a very complicated issue here, Wolf. I mean, the new prime minister is essentially a man with very little power. He has no popular votes, and the political currency in Iraq is weapons. The power of politics still comes a the barrel of a gun, so this is a prime minister, a man without a militia.

Now, he does have some backing from Muqtada al-Sadr, and his enormous Jaish al-Mahdi militia. So there's a very complicated relationship there. So as the Americans move against one of Muqtada's strongholds, there's a number of very interesting issues.

For a start, I was told by a U.S. officer that the prime minister had to sign off on this operation. Also, the Americans had to use Iraqi security forces, army, police and the controversial Ministry of Interior forces, though they weren't alerted until late in the pace, shortly before the raid. As one American commander told me, the militias knew we were coming.

BLITZER: Michael, I just heard you say that there's fear that there could be moles in Iraqi government that could give a tipoff to this Shiite militia that potentially could endanger the thousands of U.S. troops you were with?

WARE: Well, this is very much an ongoing issue. I mean, it's been raised many, many times by U.S. military intelligence and at the highest levels of the embassy here in Baghdad, this close connection between large chunks, in fact, key elements of this government, with not only these militias but their Iranian backers.

So very much this was a factor that was working to the planning for this mission, for this new phase of the battle of Baghdad. The American officers said that clearly leakage of information was a part of the issues involved. So very much we see that that's at the forefront here -- Wolf.

BLITZER: I know you got close to what's called Sadr City, the slum part of the Iraqi capital, a huge area, mostly Shiite. How bloody was this battle for the U.S. troops that you just eyewitnessed?

WARE: Well, what happened today was very much -- was very interesting. I mean, this is the first phase of an operation into this district that will see continue to see roll on in days to come. But by and large, it was a passive operation. I mean, the people were there, ready, waiting, kind of welcoming but kind of not.

I mean, for a start, we had a sniper attack that wounded a U.S. soldier. I believe that he was only lightly wounded. There was also an IED or roadside bomb attack on a Stryker armored vehicle. And also, when I was talking to some of the locals there, they pointed to the American soldiers and they pointed to me as a journalist and said Jaish al-Mahdi, Muqtada's militia like this.

When I asked them where is Muqtada's militia, they said, oh, they're off having breakfast. So that's the kind of place this was. So even though it was quiet on the surface, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

By and large, what intelligence sources believe is happened is that these guys know that the Americans are coming. They move out and let the operation wash over. Then they return once the control is given back to the Iraqi police, Wolf.

BLITZER: This battle for Baghdad is going to be fierce as a lot of U.S. military leaders have suggested. As goes Baghdad, the Iraq capital, so goes the Iraqi nation. Michael Ware on the scene for us, doing some very courageous reporting. Thank you.

And just ahead, Saddam Hussein on trial. The judge says he's not a dictator. Find out why prosecutors want him thrown off the case.

Plus, the buzz is growing, but will Senator Barack Obama run for president in 2008? I'm going to ask him. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Serious questions are being raised about the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein after controversial comments by the judge. CNN's Zain Verjee joining us with details -- Zain.

ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, that judge raised eyebrows and questions about whether he's biased when he said flat-out that Saddam wasn't a dictator.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VERJEE (voice-over): The stunning statement came after testimony from the latest in series of Kurdish witnesses recounting the terror they experienced under Saddam Hussein's rule. This man told how he pleaded with Saddam to spare the lives of his wife and seven children. Afterward, Saddam questioned why the man came to see him if he was a dictator. That prompted the remarked by Judge Abdullah al-Amiri that seemed to surprise even the defendant himself.

ABDULLAH AL-AMIRI, JUDGE (through translator): I will answer you, no, you're no dictator.

SADDAM HUSSEIN, FMR. IRAQI LEADER (through translator): Pardon?

AL-AMIRI (through translator): You're not a dictator.

HUSSEIN (through translator): Anyway, thank you.

AL-AMIRI (through translator): It's the people or officials around him who make the dictator.

VERJEE: Later, a spokesperson for the Iraqi high tribunal tried to downplay the comments saying Saddam's guilt or innocence will be based on evidence, adding, quote, "this has no effect on the case."

The controversy comes one day after prosecutors called on Judge al-Amiri to step down, accusing him of bias for allowing Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants to make irrelevant political statements. Interestingly, the judge is a member of the majority Shia community which suffered greatly under the Saddam's Sunni-led government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VERJEE: The trial is in recess until Monday and we're still waiting for the verdict in Saddam's first trial, that one over the deaths of some 148 Shia men and boys in Dujail -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Zain, thank you. Zain Verjee reporting.

Up ahead tonight, Democrats and Republicans at odds over the war on terror. I'll talk about it with a Democratic senator, Barack Obama. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: A disturbing story developing right now. Let's go to Zain for details, Zain.

VERJEE: Wolf, federal health officials say there's an outbreak of e-coli in eight states. It's killed one person. There are more than 50 people that have fallen ill and the warning is basically this to consumers, don't eat bagged fresh Spinach. FDA officials say that they don't know the source of the outbreak, but that it appears to be linked to bagged Spinach, Wolf.

BLITZER: Zain, we'll watch this story. Thank you very much.

Let's get back to our top story, the fight for military tribunals for suspected terrorists, amid the broader fight over who's better dealing with the war on terror. Just a short awhile ago, I spoke with Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: What about this Republican effort right now to paint not only you, but almost all Democrats as weak on terror? In the words of one House Republican leader, "more interested in protecting terrorists than the American public"?

How are you going to fight back on that?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), ILLINOIS: Well, first of all, I hope they didn't say it about me personally. This is the usual routine that the Republicans have trotted out before every election. And the question is, is it going to work a third time despite the irrefutable evidence that the policy in Iraq that they pursued has failed, that Afghanistan is getting worse, that every intelligence officer that you talk to and every objective observer that you talk to would indicate that we actually have more active terrorists around the world than we did at the time of 9/11. BLITZER: But the president says that may be true but right now Iraq has become the centerpiece in the war on terrorism and it's better for the U.S. to be fighting terrorists there than to let them come to the United States.

OBAMA: Wolf, there was just a report in the last week indicating how badly the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The place where the people who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks have been making a haven. We know that in fact the number of U.S. troops and the number of NATO troops that have been killed in Afghanistan actually exceeds the number that have been killed in Iraq.

So I think it's a little difficult for the administration to credibly claim that somehow their strategy has been successful when the situation is rapidly deteriorating in the area there was bipartisan unanimous support to act and strike to dismantle al Qaeda. Finally we have a situation in which Osama bin Laden is still at large and is still engineering these activities.

BLITZER: How do you explain, senator, how do you explain the point that the president and others keep hammering that it's been five years since 9/11 and there's been no terror attack here in the United States and that this administration deserves some credit for that.

OBAMA: Listen, first of all, I think that's a wonderful thing. That transcends politics. The notion that somehow any of us want terrorist attacks, that I want my eight-year-old daughter or five- year-old daughter subject to terrorist attacks I think is ridiculous. So when you hear House members make some of the statements that they've made, I think they are frankly offensive and I think they were intended as such to pick a political fight.

There is no doubt that we have taken some good steps. I think that the administration has done a good job when it comes to dealing with the financial networks that terrorists utilize. I think that we have made some improvements in terms of how we monitor people who come into this country. But our overarching foreign policy I think has made us less safe rather than more safe.

BLITZER: Let's talk about what is being described as your first major legislative achievement since becoming a United States senator. Lifting the veil, if you will, on some of the federal spending. Almost all of the federal spending. The pork barrel spending, as it's called.

You and Republican Senator Tom Coburn managed to get legislation through. It has still got to work its way through the process with the House. But there were two U.S. senators who tried to block this in secret. Eventually they failed. Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd. When you see them, what do you say to the guys who wanted to put a hold, as it's called, on this legislation?

OBAMA: Look, I admire Robert Byrd tremendously and I admire Ted Stevens. Some of this is I think generational. Get some of the old lions here in the legislature. They are accustomed to doing things certain ways. And I think what Tom Coburn and myself have simply been trying to do that most federal spending is well spent.

There is some waste, abuse and fraud. The more transparency we have in the system the more accountability we have in the system. The more accountability we have to the American people, to the taxpayers, the more likely that our money is going to be well spent.

And this bill, which actually passed the House yesterday, so we expect a bill signing sometime next week, does something very simple. It says we're going to create a searchable database that anybody can access to track where the federal money is going.

Let me read to you, Senator, what you were quoted as saying in your hometown newspaper, the "Chicago Sun-Times" in November of 2004: "I am not running for president in 2008. The only reason I'm being definitive is because until I'm definitive you" -- referring to reporters -- "will keep asking me this question, but it's a silly question." Is it a silly question? Because I'll ask you flat out, are you thinking right now of throwing your hat in the ring and running for the Democratic presidential nomination?

OBAMA: Well, let's put this in context, Wolf. That question was asked of me the day after I had been elected to the United States Senate. I hadn't been sworn in yet, I hadn't gotten an office here in the Senate, and, you know, I thought the question was silly.

You know, I have not changed my mind in the intervening two years, in terms of my attitude toward 2008. I'm focused on 2006 and trying to make sure that we can recapture the Senate and recapture the House. That's my focus. That's what I'm going to concentrate on.

BLITZER: Because I asked the question in the context of where you're going to be this weekend, namely in a neighboring state called Iowa. You're going out to Iowa. When any politician at this time of the year, this time of the political cycle goes to Iowa, you know what us political reporters, what we think.

OBAMA: Well, look, Wolf, if you look at my calendar over the next two months, I'm going to be traveling to every single state where there are contested races, where there's an opportunity for us either to win the House or the Senate.

Now, it turns out that there are a couple of important House races in Iowa, there an important governor's race in Iowa. For me to avoid Iowa simply because I'm worried about what reporters think when it's right next door to my home state of Illinois wouldn't make much sense.

BLITZER: Can we hear that Shermanesque statement about 2008? Are you ready to make that statement right now?

OBAMA: Wolf, I have given you more than enough to work with, at least for the next week.

BLITZER: Well I got a little opening there. I'm hearing a little opening. You're smiling. We'll see what happens. Senator Barack Obama, thanks very much for coming in. OBAMA: It was great to talk to you, Wolf.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And up ahead, what should the U.S. do about the opium production in Afghanistan? Jack Cafferty with your e-mail. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's go to Jack in New York with "The Cafferty File" -- jack.

CAFFERTY: What should the United States do about the opium production in Afghanistan. Ninety percent of the world's heroin, which is made from that opium crop, comes out of there.

Ben writes from Washington, D.C., "The U.S. position on opium production in Afghanistan comes down to choosing the lesser of two bad decision: Do we crack down on production and collapse 50 percent of Afghanistan's already ruined economy, or do we led opium production and the suffering that follow it continue?"

Anita writes, "The fools in power act as if they're on the nod themselves. Who's counting the overdose deaths in American's inner city? Who really cares? Until they stop the opium flow, I think our own government is part of the network of terror and the victims are us. Burn the fields down."

Christina in Ohio: "We need to quit being so politically correct. They do everything they can to hurt our economy. We need to do the same. They're killing out people daily with heroin. We need to wipe out their crop. We're losing the war on terrorism and the war on drugs because of our politics that the rest of the world doesn't respect anyway."

Deborah in Virginia: "I would think that with our satellite technology we could locate the opium fields and put some of our stockpiled napalm to good use."

Rob in California: "We should use some of the billions we currently spend on unneeded farm support programs to create a sustainable, 21st century agricultural industry in Afghanistan."

And William in Kerrville, Texas: "The U.S. should buy all the opium production, use what we need for legitimate purposes, medication and research, and burn that which we cannot legitimately use. Too simple a solution. Are we really serious about workable solutions to our drug problems?"

If you didn't see your e-mail here, you can go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile and read more of these online there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jack, thank you. Let's find out what's coming up at the top of the hour. Paula is standing by. Hi, Paula.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. Thanks so much.

We have the very latest on that suicide truck bombing out of Iraq. The latest numbers on that.

And then we have more on tonight's breaking news story. The government warning us not to eat bagged, fresh spinach because of an outbreak of a deadly bacteria.

We're also going to show you some lifesaving technology. The government says it should be in every new car that's sold. How much will it cost? Details at the top of the hour -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you, Paula, we'll be watching.

And still ahead tonight on THE SITUATION ROOM, the future of airline security and how you may be front and center. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: As airline security gets tighter, screeners may soon be watching you as closely as your bags.

CNN's Miles O'Brien has our "Welcome to Future" report -- Miles.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it all began here five years ago, here at the site of the World Trade Center. Airline travel hasn't been the same ever since. But are the layers of security we have added really making us safer? Could we be missing something important.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN (voice-over): Psychologist Paul Eckman (ph) says we may be focusing too much on screening bags while not paying enough attention to the body language of a terrorist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your emotions are manifest primarily in your facial expressions. Those are innate and many of them are involuntarily and hard to prevent.

O'BRIEN: Eckman has discovered 3,000 universal facial movements that can reveal a person's concealed emotions. He says screeners could be trained to spot those telltale signs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you go back through the records of the 19 9/11 hijackers, some of the people who saw them on the very day they committed their act thought there was something off, but they hadn't been trained in exactly what to look for or what it meant.

O'BRIEN: Eckman says the idea has been tried in pilot programs and it's efficient and effective.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they saw someone who one of things on the checklist, they didn't have them out of the line. In less than 60 seconds in almost every case, they were able to clarify that there was no problem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: Eckman wants Congress to appropriate more money for research and training so his techniques can be put to the test in the real world -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Miles, thanks very much.

That's it for us. Let's go to New York and Paula -- Paula.

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