Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview with Hussein Ibish, Paul Rosenzweig
Aired October 25, 2003 - 09:16 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CALLEBS: OK. That, the president speaking to two years ago. In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act. Now, some see it as an essential part of the war against terror. Others are calling it an infringement of our rights.
Here to debate the PATRIOT Act are Hussein Ibish of the American- Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. Thanks very much for joining us.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Delighted to be here.
CALLEBS: And Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation. Paul we'll get to you in just a second. Thanks for coming in on this Saturday morning.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Thanks for having me.
CALLEBS: Hussein, if I can call you that...
IBISH: Sure, please do.
CALLEBS: ... please tell me what you think the concerns are. Now, you have filed suit against the government. This was designed to detect terrorism and punish those.
IBISH: Right.
CALLEBS: Your concern, on the surface, what's wrong with this?
IBISH: Sure. Well, there's nothing wrong with most of it. I mean, I think -- you know, no one is -- It's a very huge bill and it runs into hundreds of pages with hundreds of different sections. And there's nothing wrong with most of it. Most of it is perfectly fine.
There are three basic areas of concern. One is the power for the government to detain foreign nationals indefinitely without charge, just recertifying every six months that they're a threat to national security. That's clearly inconsistent...
CALLEBS: OK.
IBISH: ... with constitutional protections of due process. The second concern, which is the one that we and other groups have brought suit on, that we're co-plaintiffs in a suit challenging, Section 215, which allows the government to collect confidential records on Americans, medical records, educational records, spy on Internet activities, get librarians to act as police informants, et cetera, without judicial review, without a court order, without probable cause, without the proper oversight of balance of, you know, balance of power between...
CALLEBS: And thirdly?
IBISH: ... the branches. And thirdly is an overbroad definition of what constitutes terrorism that includes things like vandalism and sabotage, and things that are really -- don't constitute what most Americans think of as terrorism, and could lead to guilt by association of trials and political thought (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: OK. Paul, let me...
IBISH: ... which is an area of concern.
CALLEBS: Paul, you're sitting there very patiently. Clearly you have concerns about this. Even Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, has come out and said, Listen, there's just -- the arguments that people are making are simply too vague. They don't understand it, and there have been no specific complaints.
ROSENZWEIG: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, I realize this is Halloween time, but it doesn't really do the debate any good to scare people with a boogeyman of government abuse, when there's really no evidence for that.
As you said, last week at the oversight hearings that the Senate is conducting on the use of the PATRIOT Act, Senator Feinstein reported that she had asked the American Civil Liberties Union to give her a single instance of actual abuse.
CALLEBS: And we're talking one instance, one instance.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), maybe one. But the answer to the potential for abuse is not to deprive ourselves of the power to fight terrorism, it's exactly what Congress is doing now, oversight, review, insurance that the powers are used rightly.
It may be the case that, you know, if we give the government a power, it can abuse it to look into people's books or to use an overbroad definition of domestic terrorism to go after vandalism. But it's simply not the case that they've done that. And the right answer isn't to...
CALLEBS: Well, well, hang, hang on, what...
ROSENZWEIG: ... prohibit that, but to say, Let's look over it...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
ROSENZWEIG: ... let's make sure that we are protecting ourselves, let's ensure that the FBI and the CIA in their respective spheres are doing the right things.
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Well, gentlemen, hang on...
IBISH: ... they should say what exactly they've done...
CALLEBS: ... hang on, hang...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Hang on one second, please.
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they won't tell us.
ROSENZWEIG: That's not true.
IBISH: No, it is true.
ROSENZWEIG: They -- actually, they've reported to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee...
CALLEBS: Gentlemen, just, but, but...
ROSENZWEIG: ... and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
IBISH: No, they (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Hang on for one second, please, guys...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: ... hang on...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: ... hang on, calm it down here for one second.
IBISH: That's true.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: Let's also talk about the fact that so many states have intervened and said the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Hussein?
IBISH: Sure. Two hundred communities around the country, representing 26 million Americans, plus the state legislatures of Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont, have all spoken out in voicing concern. You know, and I think, in other words, there is a growing mood to say, Look, you know, this is a -- parts of this are fine, but parts of it may have gone too far.
There are two very important pieces of legislation in Congress right now, the SAFE Act and the Murkowski-Weiden (ph) Act, both of which are bipartisan. And they are trying to address certain problems with elements of the PATRIOT Act.
And I think it's time that two years later, we revisit a bill that was rushed through and wasn't properly debated.
CALLEBS: That's a good argument. Paul, what do you think that? I mean, should, and also should the government be allowed to listen in on conversations between a client and his attorney?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I mean, those are two different things, because, of course, the second of those has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
IBISH: Sure. But...
ROSENZWEIG: The two bills, I'm absolutely for congressional review of how we're implementing the PATRIOT Act.
IBISH: Good, we agree, then.
ROSENZWEIG: The oversight of -- by Congress of what the government is doing is absolutely vital. But then the legislation should be based not upon evidence and fears, hyperbole and hysteria, but rather upon what's actually happening.
So, for example, when you talk about Section 215, which Minister Ibrahim's (ph) group has challenged, the government has reported that it has used that power to examine libraries exactly zero times in the two years.
IBISH: No, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
ROSENZWEIG: Now, that doesn't sound to me like...
IBISH: No, that comment...
ROSENZWEIG: ... something we should be afraid of...
IBISH: Look, that comment, that comment was very lawyerly worded, and it raises all kinds of other questions. If you don't need these powers, why are they there? And why are they releasing only some very limited information on the use of these powers, when it comes to basically...
CALLEBS: OK, gentlemen, I'm sorry...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: ... we really have to end on that point. We're out of time. But something tells me you two will cross paths again on this issue.
IBISH: I sure hope so.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: OK, Paul Rosenzweig with the Heritage Foundation and Hussein Ibish with the American-Arab Antidiscrimination League, thanks very much for joining us both this morning.
IBISH: Delighted.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: Take care.
IBISH: Thank you so much.
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 October 25, 2003 - 09:16 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CALLEBS: OK. That, the president speaking to two years ago. In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act. Now, some see it as an essential part of the war against terror. Others are calling it an infringement of our rights.
Here to debate the PATRIOT Act are Hussein Ibish of the American- Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. Thanks very much for joining us.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Delighted to be here.
CALLEBS: And Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation. Paul we'll get to you in just a second. Thanks for coming in on this Saturday morning.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Thanks for having me.
CALLEBS: Hussein, if I can call you that...
IBISH: Sure, please do.
CALLEBS: ... please tell me what you think the concerns are. Now, you have filed suit against the government. This was designed to detect terrorism and punish those.
IBISH: Right.
CALLEBS: Your concern, on the surface, what's wrong with this?
IBISH: Sure. Well, there's nothing wrong with most of it. I mean, I think -- you know, no one is -- It's a very huge bill and it runs into hundreds of pages with hundreds of different sections. And there's nothing wrong with most of it. Most of it is perfectly fine.
There are three basic areas of concern. One is the power for the government to detain foreign nationals indefinitely without charge, just recertifying every six months that they're a threat to national security. That's clearly inconsistent...
CALLEBS: OK.
IBISH: ... with constitutional protections of due process. The second concern, which is the one that we and other groups have brought suit on, that we're co-plaintiffs in a suit challenging, Section 215, which allows the government to collect confidential records on Americans, medical records, educational records, spy on Internet activities, get librarians to act as police informants, et cetera, without judicial review, without a court order, without probable cause, without the proper oversight of balance of, you know, balance of power between...
CALLEBS: And thirdly?
IBISH: ... the branches. And thirdly is an overbroad definition of what constitutes terrorism that includes things like vandalism and sabotage, and things that are really -- don't constitute what most Americans think of as terrorism, and could lead to guilt by association of trials and political thought (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: OK. Paul, let me...
IBISH: ... which is an area of concern.
CALLEBS: Paul, you're sitting there very patiently. Clearly you have concerns about this. Even Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, has come out and said, Listen, there's just -- the arguments that people are making are simply too vague. They don't understand it, and there have been no specific complaints.
ROSENZWEIG: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, I realize this is Halloween time, but it doesn't really do the debate any good to scare people with a boogeyman of government abuse, when there's really no evidence for that.
As you said, last week at the oversight hearings that the Senate is conducting on the use of the PATRIOT Act, Senator Feinstein reported that she had asked the American Civil Liberties Union to give her a single instance of actual abuse.
CALLEBS: And we're talking one instance, one instance.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), maybe one. But the answer to the potential for abuse is not to deprive ourselves of the power to fight terrorism, it's exactly what Congress is doing now, oversight, review, insurance that the powers are used rightly.
It may be the case that, you know, if we give the government a power, it can abuse it to look into people's books or to use an overbroad definition of domestic terrorism to go after vandalism. But it's simply not the case that they've done that. And the right answer isn't to...
CALLEBS: Well, well, hang, hang on, what...
ROSENZWEIG: ... prohibit that, but to say, Let's look over it...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
ROSENZWEIG: ... let's make sure that we are protecting ourselves, let's ensure that the FBI and the CIA in their respective spheres are doing the right things.
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Well, gentlemen, hang on...
IBISH: ... they should say what exactly they've done...
CALLEBS: ... hang on, hang...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Hang on one second, please.
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they won't tell us.
ROSENZWEIG: That's not true.
IBISH: No, it is true.
ROSENZWEIG: They -- actually, they've reported to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee...
CALLEBS: Gentlemen, just, but, but...
ROSENZWEIG: ... and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
IBISH: No, they (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: Hang on for one second, please, guys...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: ... hang on...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: ... hang on, calm it down here for one second.
IBISH: That's true.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: Let's also talk about the fact that so many states have intervened and said the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Hussein?
IBISH: Sure. Two hundred communities around the country, representing 26 million Americans, plus the state legislatures of Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont, have all spoken out in voicing concern. You know, and I think, in other words, there is a growing mood to say, Look, you know, this is a -- parts of this are fine, but parts of it may have gone too far.
There are two very important pieces of legislation in Congress right now, the SAFE Act and the Murkowski-Weiden (ph) Act, both of which are bipartisan. And they are trying to address certain problems with elements of the PATRIOT Act.
And I think it's time that two years later, we revisit a bill that was rushed through and wasn't properly debated.
CALLEBS: That's a good argument. Paul, what do you think that? I mean, should, and also should the government be allowed to listen in on conversations between a client and his attorney?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I mean, those are two different things, because, of course, the second of those has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
IBISH: Sure. But...
ROSENZWEIG: The two bills, I'm absolutely for congressional review of how we're implementing the PATRIOT Act.
IBISH: Good, we agree, then.
ROSENZWEIG: The oversight of -- by Congress of what the government is doing is absolutely vital. But then the legislation should be based not upon evidence and fears, hyperbole and hysteria, but rather upon what's actually happening.
So, for example, when you talk about Section 215, which Minister Ibrahim's (ph) group has challenged, the government has reported that it has used that power to examine libraries exactly zero times in the two years.
IBISH: No, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
ROSENZWEIG: Now, that doesn't sound to me like...
IBISH: No, that comment...
ROSENZWEIG: ... something we should be afraid of...
IBISH: Look, that comment, that comment was very lawyerly worded, and it raises all kinds of other questions. If you don't need these powers, why are they there? And why are they releasing only some very limited information on the use of these powers, when it comes to basically...
CALLEBS: OK, gentlemen, I'm sorry...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
CALLEBS: ... we really have to end on that point. We're out of time. But something tells me you two will cross paths again on this issue.
IBISH: I sure hope so.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: OK, Paul Rosenzweig with the Heritage Foundation and Hussein Ibish with the American-Arab Antidiscrimination League, thanks very much for joining us both this morning.
IBISH: Delighted.
ROSENZWEIG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CALLEBS: Take care.
IBISH: Thank you so much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
