Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview with Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Nelda Blair
Aired September 27, 2003 - 08:09 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.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Our legal eagles have a hot docket this morning. And it begins with some no nonsense orders Attorney General Ashcroft issued to federal prosecutors. Did he go too far? And the widow of the first anthrax victim is taking on the federal government. We'll talk about that, as well.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff joining us this morning from Washington.
Hello, Lida.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COLLINS: And former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair joining us from Houston.
Good morning to you, Nelda.
Thanks to the both of you for being here.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
COLLINS: Before we start, let's talk about John Ashcroft first. I want to go ahead and let the viewers know exactly what was said here. On Monday, he gave federal prosecutors new rules for framing criminal charges, designed, of course, to be as tough as possible. And what he said was, "In all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case."
Nelda, what's wrong with that?
BLAIR: Absolutely nothing's wrong with that. In this day and age, when we have an entire governmental entity called homeland security, we need all the tough enforcement we can get of our federal laws that protect our nation. You know, these are not old laws. Actually, these are very similar to the rules that were in effect prior to Attorney General Janet Reno's reign in Washington. She changed those. But Attorney General Reno lived in a very different United States than we live in today. And we need tough laws.
We also need consistent laws. I can't think of anyone who would say that our freedoms would be protected by inconsistently applying our federal laws across the nation. There are many exceptions to this. Prosecutors still have some leeway if they don't think they can prove a case or if they have an exception in a case. But we have to have tough and consistent enforcement to protect ourselves today.
COLLINS: Lida, is this about consistency?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, it isn't. This has nothing to do with consistency and I disagree with Nelda. Prosecutors can and should prosecute every crime that they believe was committed to the fullest extent.
However, the issue here isn't the prosecution of crime. The issue here is the use of the USA Patriot Act to prosecute garden variety criminals. The attorney general is asking his prosecutors not just to prosecute everybody to the nth degree. He's also asking them to use the expanded new powers given by the federal government after the September 11 attacks to prosecute those people. So now we have the USA Patriot Act being used not on terrorists, but on garden variety criminals...
COLLINS: But you say garden variety...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... and that's the problem.
COLLINS: Aren't we talking about federal criminal cases?
BLAIR: That's right. We're talking about federal cases.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: We are -- the fact that they're federal means nothing. Drug cases are federal. It doesn't elevate them to a higher stature. It just means that there are federal laws to cover them. There are certain types of homicide that are federalized. You're talking about drug crimes. You're talking about bank robbers. You're talking about the usual criminals who used to have the protection of the constitution when their homes were searched, when their properties and the persons were searched. Now they don't because the USA Patriot Act is being used by the attorney general to circumvent the constitution with these garden variety criminals.
It was nothing more than a bait and switch on the part of the attorney general.
COLLINS: Nelda, are these just your every day common criminals?
BLAIR: Absolutely not. We are talking about federal drug traffickers. We are talking about people who have violated our borders in some way and that is why they are federal crimes, whether it be a state to state border or a United States border, these are people that have committed crimes against our nation. We can do nothing, nothing too far to protect ourselves. I applaud him.
COLLINS: Well, then let me ask this of both of you. If you do violate federal law, what kind of leeway should there be? Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Come on, Nelda. You know that the reality here is that there should be no leeway in prosecution. These people should be prosecuted. But that doesn't mean that the fourth amendment should be thrown out the window in prosecuting them. That's what this is really about. BLAIR: Absolutely not.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about throwing away the fourth amendment in prosecuting...
BLAIR: No, no it's not.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... garden variety criminals.
BLAIR: What happened...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's all it's about.
COLLINS: OK, Nelda?
BLAIR: What happened prior to this, during Janet -- Attorney General Reno's tenure -- is prosecutors were able to have so much more leeway in plea bargaining, a lot of leeway. In other words, what would happen is you would go to one district and a certain criminal committing one offense would be prosecuted one way, maybe charged differently, maybe he had a plea bargain that was different, maybe dismissed. And the same criminal...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But that's not this...
BLAIR: Let me finish.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But Nelda...
BLAIR: And -- let me finish. And the same criminal, in another district, would be treated differently. It has got to be consistent. And you know what, Lida? You are wrong that these are garden variety criminals. These are people who have committed crimes against our nation in one way or another and I say we can't deal harshly enough with them in today's environment.
COLLINS: Ladies, we are going to have to move on to our next topic or we won't be able to get to it. Certainly more discussion on this, we will see in the media as days go on, I would be willing to bet.
Let's move on now to the anthrax case and just kind of update our viewers on what we're talking about here. The widow of the Florida man who was the first victim of the 2001 anthrax attacks Wednesday filed suit against the federal government, claiming that lax security at a U.S. Army lab led to his death.
Is this fair, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, this case absolutely makes my point. She -- one of the things, whether or not she wins at the end of the day, I don't know. It's going to be a very tough case to prove. The federal government has all sorts of privileges and immunities to protect it from disclosing not just its investigatory files, but also immunities that limit its liability if she is, in fact, correct. The one thing that this case highlights is the fact that after September 11, we were all gripped with the terror of these anthrax attacks. Those attacks initially were blamed on possible domestic terrorists. However, those terrorists have not been caught. Why? Because the attorney general is too busy prosecuting the garden variety criminals to remember the real terrorists here.
So, you know, Nelda, this case makes my point. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us all to bring the anthrax situation back to the forefront, back where it belongs, to see whether or not this administration can catch those terrorists.
COLLINS: Nelda?
BLAIR: Lida, your point is that this case is going nowhere and you're exactly right about that. This poor woman, who has lost her husband, has nowhere to put her feelings, nowhere to place blame, because we don't know who poisoned her husband. But it wasn't the federal government. It was a terrorist. And let's remember, this woman has not only sued the federal government for an iffy case against whether or not their loose anthrax security caused her husband's death or even helped it, but she's sued them for $50 million. This is a misguided attempt to place her grief and I feel very, very strongly for her. But it's going nowhere.
COLLINS: All right, ladies...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, I agree with that.
COLLINS: I certainly appreciate your comments this morning so very much on all of these issues.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, coming from Washington. And also Nelda Blair joining us from Houston.
Thanks so much, ladies.
We appreciate it.
BLAIR: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
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 September 27, 2003 - 08:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Our legal eagles have a hot docket this morning. And it begins with some no nonsense orders Attorney General Ashcroft issued to federal prosecutors. Did he go too far? And the widow of the first anthrax victim is taking on the federal government. We'll talk about that, as well.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff joining us this morning from Washington.
Hello, Lida.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COLLINS: And former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair joining us from Houston.
Good morning to you, Nelda.
Thanks to the both of you for being here.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
COLLINS: Before we start, let's talk about John Ashcroft first. I want to go ahead and let the viewers know exactly what was said here. On Monday, he gave federal prosecutors new rules for framing criminal charges, designed, of course, to be as tough as possible. And what he said was, "In all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case."
Nelda, what's wrong with that?
BLAIR: Absolutely nothing's wrong with that. In this day and age, when we have an entire governmental entity called homeland security, we need all the tough enforcement we can get of our federal laws that protect our nation. You know, these are not old laws. Actually, these are very similar to the rules that were in effect prior to Attorney General Janet Reno's reign in Washington. She changed those. But Attorney General Reno lived in a very different United States than we live in today. And we need tough laws.
We also need consistent laws. I can't think of anyone who would say that our freedoms would be protected by inconsistently applying our federal laws across the nation. There are many exceptions to this. Prosecutors still have some leeway if they don't think they can prove a case or if they have an exception in a case. But we have to have tough and consistent enforcement to protect ourselves today.
COLLINS: Lida, is this about consistency?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, it isn't. This has nothing to do with consistency and I disagree with Nelda. Prosecutors can and should prosecute every crime that they believe was committed to the fullest extent.
However, the issue here isn't the prosecution of crime. The issue here is the use of the USA Patriot Act to prosecute garden variety criminals. The attorney general is asking his prosecutors not just to prosecute everybody to the nth degree. He's also asking them to use the expanded new powers given by the federal government after the September 11 attacks to prosecute those people. So now we have the USA Patriot Act being used not on terrorists, but on garden variety criminals...
COLLINS: But you say garden variety...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... and that's the problem.
COLLINS: Aren't we talking about federal criminal cases?
BLAIR: That's right. We're talking about federal cases.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: We are -- the fact that they're federal means nothing. Drug cases are federal. It doesn't elevate them to a higher stature. It just means that there are federal laws to cover them. There are certain types of homicide that are federalized. You're talking about drug crimes. You're talking about bank robbers. You're talking about the usual criminals who used to have the protection of the constitution when their homes were searched, when their properties and the persons were searched. Now they don't because the USA Patriot Act is being used by the attorney general to circumvent the constitution with these garden variety criminals.
It was nothing more than a bait and switch on the part of the attorney general.
COLLINS: Nelda, are these just your every day common criminals?
BLAIR: Absolutely not. We are talking about federal drug traffickers. We are talking about people who have violated our borders in some way and that is why they are federal crimes, whether it be a state to state border or a United States border, these are people that have committed crimes against our nation. We can do nothing, nothing too far to protect ourselves. I applaud him.
COLLINS: Well, then let me ask this of both of you. If you do violate federal law, what kind of leeway should there be? Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Come on, Nelda. You know that the reality here is that there should be no leeway in prosecution. These people should be prosecuted. But that doesn't mean that the fourth amendment should be thrown out the window in prosecuting them. That's what this is really about. BLAIR: Absolutely not.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about throwing away the fourth amendment in prosecuting...
BLAIR: No, no it's not.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... garden variety criminals.
BLAIR: What happened...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's all it's about.
COLLINS: OK, Nelda?
BLAIR: What happened prior to this, during Janet -- Attorney General Reno's tenure -- is prosecutors were able to have so much more leeway in plea bargaining, a lot of leeway. In other words, what would happen is you would go to one district and a certain criminal committing one offense would be prosecuted one way, maybe charged differently, maybe he had a plea bargain that was different, maybe dismissed. And the same criminal...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But that's not this...
BLAIR: Let me finish.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But Nelda...
BLAIR: And -- let me finish. And the same criminal, in another district, would be treated differently. It has got to be consistent. And you know what, Lida? You are wrong that these are garden variety criminals. These are people who have committed crimes against our nation in one way or another and I say we can't deal harshly enough with them in today's environment.
COLLINS: Ladies, we are going to have to move on to our next topic or we won't be able to get to it. Certainly more discussion on this, we will see in the media as days go on, I would be willing to bet.
Let's move on now to the anthrax case and just kind of update our viewers on what we're talking about here. The widow of the Florida man who was the first victim of the 2001 anthrax attacks Wednesday filed suit against the federal government, claiming that lax security at a U.S. Army lab led to his death.
Is this fair, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, this case absolutely makes my point. She -- one of the things, whether or not she wins at the end of the day, I don't know. It's going to be a very tough case to prove. The federal government has all sorts of privileges and immunities to protect it from disclosing not just its investigatory files, but also immunities that limit its liability if she is, in fact, correct. The one thing that this case highlights is the fact that after September 11, we were all gripped with the terror of these anthrax attacks. Those attacks initially were blamed on possible domestic terrorists. However, those terrorists have not been caught. Why? Because the attorney general is too busy prosecuting the garden variety criminals to remember the real terrorists here.
So, you know, Nelda, this case makes my point. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us all to bring the anthrax situation back to the forefront, back where it belongs, to see whether or not this administration can catch those terrorists.
COLLINS: Nelda?
BLAIR: Lida, your point is that this case is going nowhere and you're exactly right about that. This poor woman, who has lost her husband, has nowhere to put her feelings, nowhere to place blame, because we don't know who poisoned her husband. But it wasn't the federal government. It was a terrorist. And let's remember, this woman has not only sued the federal government for an iffy case against whether or not their loose anthrax security caused her husband's death or even helped it, but she's sued them for $50 million. This is a misguided attempt to place her grief and I feel very, very strongly for her. But it's going nowhere.
COLLINS: All right, ladies...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, I agree with that.
COLLINS: I certainly appreciate your comments this morning so very much on all of these issues.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, coming from Washington. And also Nelda Blair joining us from Houston.
Thanks so much, ladies.
We appreciate it.
BLAIR: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
