Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
King, Engel Discuss International Relations; Steinberg, Coulson Talk About Daniel Pearl's Murder
Aired February 23, 2002 - 10:00 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: We're resolved to find the terrorists wherever they hide and rout them out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KATE SNOW, HOST: The president takes his terrorism policies to the world. What's the impact of the president's Asia trip and of the killing of a U.S. reporter? We'll ask members of the House International Relations Committee.
And we'll see how one group of 9/11 widows is fighting their own battle against Osama bin Laden, going after his money in a U.S. court.
All just ahead in this special edition of CNN's TARGET: TERRORISM.
Good morning to the West Coast and our viewers across North America. I'm Kate Snow in Washington.
Coming up in a few minutes, President Bush's radio address. You'll hear it here first, and Congressmen Peter King and Eliot Engel are with us to listen and react to that. We'll also be talking to a woman who lost her husband in the terrorist attacks and is now fighting Osama bin Laden in court.
And we want to hear from you. Our address is security@cnn.com.
But first, this news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: We are just two minutes away from the president's radio address. And joining us first, from New York, Republican Congressman Peter King, and in Miami, Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel, also of New York. They are both members of the House International Relations Committee.
Thank you for being with us. We're going to stand by for that radio address, but first, let me just start with a couple of quick questions. The president just back from his Asia trip, back from China. He welcomed Chinese cooperation in the war against terror, which is quite a change from about a year ago.
Congressman Engel, is the U.S. giving China too much latitude, do you think?
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: No. I welcome cooperation with China and Russia. And, frankly, I think the president handled it just about right when he spoke at the university. He touched all the right buttons. And I think the war on terrorism is a war we need all nations to help, and if China is willing to work with us, I'm all for it.
SNOW: Congressman King, do you agree?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Yes, I do. I think the president did handle it just right. I think that what the president has done is stand for American interests, stand for human rights but, at the same time, say how important it is that we have China as a partner in the war against terrorism. So, yes, I agree with Elliot, I think the president handled it just the right way.
SNOW: Chinese President Jiang Zemin warned the U.S. not to move too quickly when it comes to expanding the war on terrorism, specifically Iraq.
SNOW: Quickly, Congressman Engel, do you think that we need to be careful, the U.S. needs to be careful about that?
ENGEL: Well, I think we, of course, need to be careful. But I think that the United States needs to do what's in the best interest of this country, and I would hope that we could build a coalition against the terrible, oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, who murders his own people. But I think the United States has to be prepared to go it alone if need be.
SNOW: Congressman Engel, I have to interrupt. Let's listen to the president of the U.S., and we'll come back with more questions in just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BUSH: Good morning.
As I return from a successful trip to Asia, the United States Senate will return from its recess for an important debate on America's energy security.
As our economy continues to grow, U.S. oil consumption is projected to increase by about one-third during the next 20 years. Our demand for electricity is expected to rise by 45 percent. America is already using more energy than our domestic resources can provide, and unless we act to increase our energy independence, our reliance on foreign sources of energy will only increase.
I have a balanced, comprehensive and aggressive energy plan that will help address this challenge. The plan has five main parts.
First, it promotes conservation. It increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and supports the development of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Second, my plan will modernize our energy delivery systems. America can't meet tomorrow's energy needs with yesterday's infrastructure. Just as the Internet has made our information more convenient, new technology can make our energy cleaner, cheaper and more efficient by upgrading power lines and connecting producers and consumers across the whole country.
Third, my new budget invests in new technology, such as fuel cells that may some day power our cars with hydrogen and omit only water.
Fourth, my plan offers tax credits and other incentives for the use renewable energy sources like wind power, solar power and fuels derived from crops. Renewable energy can increase our energy independence and help our farm economy.
Conservation technology and renewables are important, yet they alone cannot solve our energy problems. We must also reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil by encouraging safe and clean exploration at home.
On my way to visit Asia, I stopped in Alaska, a place of tremendous natural beauty and important energy resources. I met with many Alaskans, including native leaders who want to preserve the grandeur of their state while carefully developing the energy beneath a small fraction of it. New technology makes this possible; our national security makes it urgent.
Alaskans know first hand that modern technology allows us to bring oil to the surface cleanly and safely while protecting our environment and wildlife. We should listen to Alaskans, who support exploring ANWR in a safe and clean way.
Passing my comprehensive energy plan is not just important for energy security, it is also vital to our economic security. Economic growth requires reliable and affordable energy, and labor organizations support my plan because they know my energy plan means thousands of new jobs across America.
We all remember the blackouts and the sky-high energy bills of recent summers. I urge Congress to protect consumers from these wild swings in energy prices for the future. The House has passed by agenda for energy independence. Now I urge the Senate to act.
Thank you for listening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: President Bush in his weekly radio address.
We're talking with two members of Congress: Congressman Eliot Engel and Congressman Peter King, who have been on standby through that.
SNOW: Thank you, gentlemen, for pausing for a moment there.
Congressman Engel, you were mid-sentence, and I want to go back to that question. But first, since the president just talked about energy, let me just pick up with a couple of questions about the energy bill.
President Bush framing the debate rather clearly about energy, saying it's a matter of security, a matter of national security. Do you buy that, Congressman Engel?
ENGEL: Well, I think it's a matter of national security, and I agree with a lot of what the president said. But I absolutely disagree with his wanting to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. I don't think that that's something we ought to be doing. I think we ought to have renewable energy and conservation, and there are other things that we can do. But I don't think we should use the crisis, terrorism crisis, as an excuse to drill in Alaska. So I don't agree with that.
SNOW: Doesn't it make sense, though -- he talks about energy independence and making the U.S. less dependent on foreign sources. Does that not make sense?
ENGEL: It absolutely makes sense. I believe there are other ways you can do it without drilling.
First of all, if we drilled in Alaska, we wouldn't see the fruits of that drilling for at least 10 years. And I think right now we need to have all kinds of renewable energy. We should practice conversation. There are other things that we can do.
We need to be more self-dependent and independent on foreign oil because we don't want to have the importation of foreign oil really cripple the country. But I don't think we should use that as an excuse for drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, and I think a lot -- most of the American people agree with me.
SNOW: Congressman King, the "New York Times" wrote an editorial this week saying the president is, their word, "fixated" on ANWR, on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. "The U.S. can't drill its way out of dependency," the "New York Times" wrote.
Do they make a point there? Are Republicans fixated on Alaska as a solution?
KING: No, we're not fixated. I think this is a multi-faceted struggle that we have. We do have to become energy independent. We have to do what we can to go along that route.
However, I do think that ANWR is an important part of it, and I disagree with my friend Eliot on that. I think that we're talking about such a tiny, minute area of Alaska where this drilling would be carried out. I don't see any danger at all to the environment. And it would be a significant help. And it's not -- it's by far not the only answer. It's a small part of the overall program, but I think it's an important part of it and we should go ahead with the drilling.
I can't imagine any damage to the environment, and it will provide more energy for the U.S., so I think we should do it.
I think this is the case where there has been a large effort by the environmental lobbyists, which I think is adverse to our energy interests. And also, even as far as jobs, we're talking about tens and tens of thousands of jobs that will result from this, which is why so many leaders and organized labor stand with the president on this effort.
SNOW: Congressmen, we're going to get back to some questions about the war on terrorism in just a moment, if you'll bear with us. We're going to take a quick break.
Congressmen King and Engel will also take your phone calls and e- mail when TARGET: TERRORISM continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: As we know, al Qaeda operates in 60 different countries. Afghanistan was only one of them. We think we have made a major dent in the operation, even the world-wide operation to some extent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers this week, talking about a major dent in al Qaeda.
We're talking with two members of the House International Relations Committee: Republican Congressman Peter King and Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel, back with us now.
Congressman Engel, we interrupted you before the president spoke this morning. You were talking about this idea of expanding the war, particularly into Iraq. And I had asked you about China's reaction to that. The president of China saying, "not a good idea." They don't like that tough talk coming out of the United States.
Let's go back to that. Is the U.S. talking too tough on that front?
ENGEL: No, I don't think we're talking too tough. I think it's just about right.
We have to -- this war on terrorism is going to take many, many years. And it's not simply a matter a matter of getting rid of the Taliban or even capturing Osama bin Laden. It's getting into those terrorist cells and destroying them. Al Qaeda is in many, many different countries. And I think the president is right when he says not only the countries that are harboring terrorists are against us, but the countries that are making biological and weapons of destruction that could harm us are also people, countries that really are wrong.
When the president was criticized for using the term "axis of evil," I don't criticize him for that. I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein has shown that he is evil. He is evil to his own people. He is evil to the world, and he's a threat.
And I believe that he should ultimately be removed. And I think that there ought to be a coalition against terrorism to remove him. But if there isn't, I think that this county has the right to do what it needs to do to protect our citizens.
SNOW: Congressman King, another take on this, this week, from Attorney General John Ashcroft. Take a listen to what he had to say, using religion to make the argument against terrorism. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Civilized individuals -- Christians, Jews and Muslims -- all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator. Governments may guard freedom; governments don't grant freedom. All people are called to the defense of the grantor of freedom and the framework of freedom He created.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Congressman King, was that an appropriate comment? Was it appropriate for the attorney general to be injecting religion into this?
KING: I think it is, because I think what John Ashcroft was saying is that, basically, no matter what your religion, if you believe in a true religion, you do stand for freedom and you are opposed to murder, you're opposed to random terrorism.
So I think what he was trying to do was take away this weapon that the Islamic fundamentalists are trying for themselves and show how it applies to, really, all good people, and that they should not be allowed to pervert religion for their purposes.
But also, if I could just say, Kate, how much I agree 1,000 percent with what Congressman Engel said about Iraq. I mean, they are a threat to us, they're a threat to the world. And the war against terrorism is going to take many fronts.
And obviously, in the best-case scenario, we will have a grand alliance set up. All countries will agree with us. We'll go forward together. But the reality is very often the U.S. has to show leadership. And if we have to go it alone, I think it's some thing we have to do. We can't wait for the rest of the countries in the world to line up behind us. If they do, fine, and we should make every effort. But in the final analysis, we have to do it ourselves and we have to do it for our own survival.
SNOW: Congressman Engel, this morning the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, actually lashed out at the United States, ridiculing the U.S. threats against him.
How soon are we going to see, do you think, action in terms of going after Iraq? Do you think, with his comments, Hussein is ramping up the rhetoric here?
ENGEL: Well, he's been known to do that before. And I think that, again, whether he ratchets up the rhetoric or not, we have to take him very seriously. I supported the first President Bush in the Persian Gulf War 10 years ago, and I think it was a mistake not to have removed Saddam Hussein, but I think that we can make up for that mistake.
And I agree with Pete 100 percent. I think that we have to do what's in our best interest. The United States was attacked on September 11. We know that we are vulnerable, and we have to take matters into our own hands to protect our citizens.
And if Iraq or Iran or any of the other countries, Syria, are harboring terrorists, then we have to do what we have to do to remove those regimes.
SNOW: Do you wrap the Palestinians into that at all? I know you've been very forthright in calling for the administration to take a stronger view toward Yasser Arafat.
ENGEL: Yes, I think at this point Yasser Arafat is part of the problem, not part of a solution. And I frankly think the United States should cut off all ties with him and try to help establish more moderate Palestinian leadership.
I think Arafat's groups are responsible for three-quarters of the terrorist attacks within Israel. And if we moved into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban because they harbored terrorists, I think Yasser Arafat is doing the same thing in his country. And I think that he is more of an impediment now than a help.
And I believe that we need more responsible, moderate Palestinian leadership. The terrorists who are blowing up innocent civilians are coming from the ranks of his groups, the Al-Aqsa Brigade and Tanzim and Force 17. They're all groups that Arafat is part of. So not only is he not controlling terrorism, in my view, he is aiding and abetting it.
SNOW: Congressman King, let me get you to weigh in on that. Does the U.S. need to be, in light of the war on terrorism, need to be more involved in the Middle East right now, more inserted?
KING: I pretty much agree with everything Eliot said. I think that Arafat's days really -- he is serving no purpose whatsoever as far as the cause of peace is concerned. I do believe he is a major part of the problem and that we have to find new moderate leadership among the Palestinians.
The only thing I would have -- I would prefer to leave that option to the president, as to when he wants to decide to cut Arafat off. But I have no moral or diplomatic problem with him doing it tomorrow. I would just prefer to leave that final decision to the president.
But I agree with Elliot completely. Arafat has become the problem. It's not a question of him not controlling terrorism, I have no doubt at all that his grips are the ones that are actually fomenting the terrorist attacks.
SNOW: We have a call from California on the line. Caller, are you there?
CALLER: Yes. Hello, Congressmen. I have a question in regards to the conclusion of the Hajj just coming upon us. And it was highly propagandized by the Saudis -- well, not by the Saudi government, but there was a high degree of propaganda against the West.
And my question is, what is our position on Saudi Arabia at this point and their cooperation on the war on terror?
SNOW: And can they perhaps be a player in all of this? There was a proposal floated by the Saudis just this week to try to end some of the violence in the Middle East.
Do you want to go ahead, Congressman Engel?
ENGEL: Well, I think there has been a major rethinking, I know in the Congress, about our relationship with the Saudis. We are very, very disappointed in what Saudi Arabia has been doing.
You know, most of the funding for al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia, and I think it's no coincidence that most of the hijackers on September 11 were Saudi nationals.
Saudi Arabia has thrown money and given money to the terrorists and saying to them, "Well, we'll give you money. Just leave us alone." As long as the Saudi royal family is there, they have been throwing money and giving money to terrorists.
And they have these schools, these madrassas, and they are preaching anti-American and anti-Western hatred.
And I think that we need to rethink our position with Saudi Arabia. You know, I saw the plan that ostensibly the leader in Saudi Arabia has come up with for peace in the Middle East. I think that he should have come up with it years ago when there was a real chance. I think it's sort of easy for him to do it now, when he sees things are blowing up and there's almost no chance for peace right now.
I don't think the Saudis have been very helpful. And I think it's time, frankly, unless they change their positions, for the United States to reassess our relationship with them.
SNOW: Peter King, last word from you.
KING: I absolutely agree with Eliot. You know, for years it was considered that we needed the Saudis, that we would stand by the Saudis and they would stand by us.
The reality is, as Eliot said, there's a growing consensus in Congress, and the administration I believe, that the Saudis have been terribly disappointing. In many ways, they have tried to play both sides of the street. And in doing that, again, it is no coincidence that so many of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
And whenever we've needed Saudi Arabia, really in last four or five months, they not been there. They have given us some intelligence maybe, but as far as military assistance, allowing us to use their bases, they have been really terribly deficient.
I think we have to seriously consider whether or not we just want to end our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
SNOW: A Democrat and Republican agreeing, on matters of international policy anyway. Thanks so much to both of you.
ENGEL: So we must be right.
SNOW: Well, you disagree on other things, I know that.
Congressman Engel, Congressman King, thanks so much for joining us on a Saturday morning. Have a great weekend.
KING: Thank you.
ENGEL: Thank you, Kate.
SNOW: When we come back, the kidnapping and killing of journalist Daniel Pearl. How should the U.S. respond? Two international policy experts will give us their views as TARGET: TERRORISM continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: All Americans are sad and angry to learn of the murder. All around the world, American journalists and humanitarian aid workers and diplomats and others do important work in places that are sometimes dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: President Bush commenting on the killing of journalist Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped in Pakistan late last month.
Joining us from New York to talk a little more about it is James Steinberg. He served as deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration and is now head of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. And from Dallas, former FBI chief hostage negotiator, Danny Coulson. He is co-author of the book "No Heroes."
Thank you both for joining us this morning.
JAMES STEINBERG, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Good morning.
DANNY COULSON, FORMER CHIEF HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR, FBI: Good morning.
SNOW: Good morning.
Mr. Steinberg, let me start with you. You were in the national security scene in the Clinton White House. I'm sure you sat in on a lot of very tense meetings, and I'm sure the Bush administration was having some tense meetings about this situation.
Do you think they handled it correctly?
STEINBERG: I think, so far as we can tell, they did. I mean, it's a difficult situation. There's a lot of pressure in these cases to try to solve the problem but also not to appear that we're trying to undermine the Pakistani government, which has the law enforcement responsibility there.
So it's trying to be helpful and pushing the problem hard, but also making sure that the Pakistanis are doing everything they can to solve it.
SNOW: Danny Coulson, should they have been more direct? Should the U.S. have been more direct in its involvement?
COULSON: I think they were pretty direct. It's pretty obvious that they had FBI agents over there advising the Pakistani government about how to handle a situation like that.
But as your other guest said, this is their show. It's there government. It's their country, and they're sovereign there. About the only thing we can do is offer whatever assistance and encouragement to do the job that they tried to do. Unfortunately, they weren't successful in retrieving this man.
SNOW: So given that, James Steinberg, what can we do, what can the U.S. do now given what's happened? Can they go in after these guys?
STEINBERG: Well, we have to remember that this kidnapping, in some ways, was an attack not only against a U.S. citizen, but in some ways it was against General Musharraf and the Pakistani government as well. The suspects involved are the heads of organizations that the Pakistani government banned after September 11.
And so we have an interest in working with them to stay the course on cracking down on these extremists groups in Pakistan.
SNOW: We'll talk more about that in just a moment. We'll come back with our guests and with a news alert. Also, your e-mails and your calls about terrorism are welcome, also about kidnapping, how the U.S. must make hard decisions.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: An important source of information about the news of the day, the war and the terrorism investigation can be found online at cnn.com, AOL keyword CNN.
It's time for a check of the hour's top stories. Here's Kyra Phillips in Atlanta with our news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: We are continuing our conversation with former deputy national security adviser James Steinberg and former FBI chief hostage negotiator Danny Coulson. We're talking about the death of "Wall Street Journal" reporter Danny Pearl.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL STEIGER, MANAGING EDITOR, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": It makes a mockery of everything that Danny's kidnappers claim to believe in. They claim to be Pakistani nationalists, but their actions must surely bring shame to all true Pakistani patriots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Paul Steiger talking about the loss of Danny Pearl. He's the managing editor of the "Wall Street Journal."
Let's go back to our guests now.
James Steinberg, we were talking about how the U.S. can proceed from here, what they can do to try to apprehend those responsible.
President Musharraf of Pakistan has pledged to help on this front. Do you think Pakistan will be able to apprehend those responsible? Will the U.S. have to intervene?
STEINBERG: Well, I think the Pakistani government has a strong interest in doing it. As I was suggesting before, this is a challenge to them as well. He has got to prove that, having cracked down on these extremist groups, that he's not going to be intimidated, and therefore there's going to be a huge incentive for him to try to solve this problem.
One challenge he's going to have is the United States may be interested in having any suspects extradited to the United States. And that will be a very difficult challenge for him because there will be a lot of contention in Pakistan about whether the suspect should be tried there or sent to the United States.
SNOW: And there's no treaty, am I right? There's no treaty about extradition between the U.S. and Pakistan. STEINBERG: There is no treaty, but it's certainly something that the two governments could agree on. And I think the judgment here will be the U.S. strong interest in bringing these individuals to justice here in the United States versus the risk that Musharraf will be seen as just acting on the orders of the United States.
SNOW: Danny Coulson, a lot of talk about changing the way the U.S. policy works now toward kidnapping and perhaps the U.S. government taking a more active role, examining every case on a case- by-case basis. Do you think that's a good idea?
COULSON: Well, I think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a new policy. Very frankly, the FBI has been handling kidnappings of American citizens overseas since the '80s, so it's not really new. It's maybe an articulated new policy, but in practice we've done that in the past.
One thing I think we should remember, too, though, is that the Pakistani government has been very helpful to the Americans on a case- by-case basis. They helped the FBI's hostage rescue team actually apprehend a terrorist in Pakistan, Amir Kanzi (ph), who was the individual with a machine gun in front of the Central Intelligence Agency several years ago.
So we have a long history, on a case-by-case basis, of grabbing terrorists and bringing them back to the United States from that part of the world.
SNOW: How do you negotiate with a terrorist?
COULSON: It's very, very difficult. First of all, you have to establish some communication link. They try to do it, in this case, through the Internet, and that wasn't successful.
COULSON: Sometimes by phone, sometimes by radio. It's very difficult to get a dialogue. Sometimes there's messages sent through the newspapers.
Again, that's one of the difficult things here is the communication problems that occur when you have kidnapping, especially in another part of the world.
SNOW: Mr. Steinberg, pick up on that point. Did the U.S., did they get actively involved enough? We talked a little bit before about the FBI teams that were certainly there on the ground. You're limited though, aren't you, in a sense in how much you can do on the ground?
STEINBERG: I think there are limitations. But I think here, from what we can see, as the facts now begin to come out, is that it looks like the people who abducted Mr. Pearl deliberately tried to keep the investigators off the trail by suggesting that perhaps he was still alive even after he had been killed.
And so this was a particularly difficult one. We're obviously dealing with some very brutal and ruthless individuals here, who were prepared to go all the way to deal with this problem.
So I think that we have seen a lot of cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. The administration has been very positive in terms of its positive support for what General Musharraf is doing. So I think there was a deep engagement here from the beginning. It's just tragic that we weren't able to successfully get him before he was killed.
SNOW: Would changing the U.S. policy, do you think, encourage more kidnappings and more hostage situations?
STEINBERG: I think it's a difficult judgment call. Right now, given the attention to the U.S. war against terrorism, there are going to be risks to Americans around the world. And I don't think we can rule out having the U.S. government be involved if there is something useful the FBI can do to help the local government or even to deal with it directly.
But I think we also have to be careful not to, in effect, play the terrorist game, by making this something that's even more attractive for them to do. That means working often behind the scenes, rather than in a high-profile way. And that's why I think what was done here, in which the FBI worked closely with Pakistan but not out front, is the right way to go.
SNOW: Danny Coulson, you say this happens already. You say this happens, this sort of thing happens all of the time, where the U.S. government is sort of -- at least a little bit involved. And there are perhaps companies negotiating with groups to try to get people back.
Should those companies be paying ransoms? Should the government wink and nod and let them go ahead and do that in order to get back people who have been...
COULSON: You have to remember it's very difficult not to, in some cases, pay a ransom. If there is a reasonable ransom and you have a comrade and fellow worker or family member that's been kidnapped, it's a little difficult on a personal level to say "We're not going to pay positively because that's the policy of our government." In fact, ransoms are paid. They're paid in Latin America all the time.
And it's a difficult situation. You want to -- you don't want to grow up a cottage industry of kidnappings. But also, on the other side of it, there is the humanitarian part of it and the personal relationships, where people really think that, "Well, if we pay a little money, we'll get him back."
And it's a very difficult balance, and it's something that will just have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
SNOW: We have phone call on the line now from Texas. Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, good morning.
SNOW: Good morning.
CALLER: I was wanting to know, since September 11 and now with the death of Mr. Pearl, is it not time for the United States to take its lead from the Israelis and create a unit such as the Mossad and find these folks and make short work of the problem?
SNOW: Mr. Steinberg?
STEINBERG: Well, as we've seen in Afghanistan, that we do have a lot of capability, both within the CIA, the Special Forces of the military. And as Mr. Coulson was saying earlier, even capabilities within the FBI to deal with these situations.
So I think we have to make a judgment in each case as to how to deploy these forces. But we certainly do have some capabilities, if that's what's required.
SNOW: Mr. Coulson, does there need to be more coordination? Did you ever feel, when you were with the FBI, that you were acting -- that you were sort of out there in vacuum? Or did you feel like you had a lot of support?
COULSON: No, I never felt like that. I always felt that we had the support that we needed.
You have to remember, though, that finding an individual in a vast country like Pakistan or any other part of the world is not easy. It's one thing to say we're going to send Mossad out to find them, but oftentimes Mossad doesn't find them either.
And I don't think we've seen a lot of successes, frankly, in that part of the world with trying to bring peace to the world. And I'm not so sure that technique always works.
You have to work within the boundaries of international law, and you have to be able to ensure that the people you are working with don't lose face. You don't want the government -- the United States government going in and trying to take away something from Pakistan that would undermine their own leadership there. You want to let them do their thing and support them wherever we can.
But to do it unilaterally is not a good idea.
SNOW: Mr. Steinberg, one last question for you, given your role in the Clinton administration. Some have been critical and said the Clinton administration allowed -- didn't handle the Pakistani relationship correctly and sort of laid the groundwork for some of this, for extremists to rise up there.
Let me let you defend yourself on that. Do you think that there is anything to that criticism?
STEINBERG: No, I think that it was a very difficult situation. There were a number of issues of deep concern that we had with Pakistan. There was concern about whether it was doing enough on terrorism. Pakistan was developing its nuclear weapons program; it was involved in the proliferation of weapons. And those were matters of concern and needed to be addressed.
At the same time, President Clinton resisted the pressure from some to cut off Pakistan entirely. And so, when he went to South Asia, he did go to Pakistan to make clear that, although we had problems with some of the things Pakistan was doing and needed to keep the pressure on them, at the same time we had to engage because it was an important country and we couldn't simply walk away from them.
SNOW: Danny Coulson, last word to you. How likely do you think it is that we see some closure to this case soon, and how soon?
COULSON: Oh, I think they will catch the individuals involved. Obviously they've gone right in the face of their country's leader. They've embarrassed him and the rest of the people in power there. And there will be a great deal of pressure put upon them, and they'll come up with them, probably sooner than later.
SNOW: OK. Thank you both very much for being with us on a Saturday morning.
STEINBERG: Thank you.
SNOW: Danny Coulson and James Steinberg joining us.
COULSON: Thank you, Kate.
SNOW: Work never stops at Ground Zero, nor does the motivation to hit back. Just ahead, we'll talk about one of the women taking Osama bin Laden to court.
First, before we take a break, another way of looking at the week, our favorite political cartoons.
(voice-over): The Pentagon inspired political cartoonists this week, especially the flap over the new Office of Strategic Influence and the risks of giving out false information.
Gary Markstein (ph) of the "Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel" showed generals on parade with Pinocchio noses. A bystander says "Pentagon news team."
Matt Davies (ph) of the "Journal News" shows Uncle Sam with a television remote control. Onscreen, a report about Operation Infinite Figure Skating Justice. Uncle Sam muses, "I think we're losing focus."
But the focus of Jeff Parker (ph) of "Florida Today" locks right back on the terrorism war. Uncle Sam is in the foreground gazing at all the links to al Qaeda across the globe, but looming over it all is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. And the title says "Not seeing the forest for the tree."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: My turn now to examine some other news this week. There was action on another front in a war against terrorism, not in Afghanistan or the Philippines or even the Middle East. In Colombia, guerrillas who have been fighting the government for four decades hijacked a plane carrying a lawmaker.
President Andres Pastrana reacted by breaking off all negotiations and ordering the Colombian military to seize back a chunk of the jungle, about twice the size of New Jersey, that had been set aside as a sort of buffer zone. Civilians are caught in the middle; some have died.
The U.S. has already committed more than $1 billion to help Colombia fight drugs. Now the question is, can any of that money be used to fight terrorism?
It is a messy situation and one the Bush administration seems tempted to get involved in, raising another question: When you declare war on global terrorism, where does it end?
Still ahead, we are talking to one 9/11 victim about her suit against Osama bin Laden. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: One of the Pennsylvania women who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack is going to join us now and talk about a lawsuit being filed this week against Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. The suit seeks billions of dollars in damages.
Joining us from Philadelphia is Tara Bane, one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs.
Tara, thank you so much for coming in on a Saturday morning. I know this must be pretty difficult for you.
Tell us a little bit about your husband who you lost and why you're doing this.
TARA BANE, 9/11 WIDOW: OK. My husband Michael was 33-years old at the time of his death. He's been my soul mate for 11 years, and, you know, I feel lost without him.
And after the events of September 11, at some point I came to the realization that I needed to do something to take action and not give up on myself or America.
SNOW: You're not suing a company, you're not suing an airline. You are suing al Qaeda and the Taliban. You are suing people who don't usually, you know, get named in lawsuits.
BANE: That's correct.
SNOW: Is it more symbolic than anything else?
BANE: It definitely has a symbolic component. Since learning about more of the information that's come across to me regarding the terrorists' actions and their plans, it was quite scary. And I feel if we are able to succeed in freezing their assets, then we can succeed in preventing this from happening to any other American.
SNOW: Explain that...
BANE: And that's why I'm doing that.
SNOW: ... I'm sorry, Tara, explain that a little bit for those who don't know, that there is a U.S. law, right, that allows you to file suit against other countries, against countries sponsoring terrorism, even against Osama bin Laden. Can you explain that a little bit? You are going after essentially frozen assets, right?
BANE: Right. The objective is to get as many of their assets frozen and keep them frozen so they can't use it to create the kind of terror they did on 9/11.
SNOW: Is it about getting money from them?
BANE: No, it's absolutely not. The objective for all of the women on the case, we are trying to represent all of the 3,000 victims of 9/11, and we're trying to prevent this from happening any other person. So by freezing their assets, they will be less likely to be able to succeed in committing a terrorist act.
SNOW: And who are the women? You mentioned the women. They are all from your area, right?
BANE: That's correct. We're from Pennsylvania, Bucks County.
SNOW: Are you inviting other people to join you? It's a class action suit, so anyone else can join you?
BANE: That's correct. Actually, it's seven women who are representing the 3,000 victims, and that's the class action suit. And at some point they will be given the option to continue in as part of this class action suit. But right now we're representing all 3,000 victims.
SNOW: Right. Your naming in the suit, if I understand correctly, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, right?
BANE: Yes, it was the government prior to September 11 that were named in the suit regarding Afghanistan.
SNOW: The Taliban regime?
BANE: That's correct.
SNOW: So if the U.S. government hasn't even linked some of those, Iran and Iraq, to the terrorist event of 9/11, how do you go about -- isn't it going to be very complicated and difficult to prove this one in court?
BANE: Yes, it is, and that's why I do have lawyers that are doing that work for me. The information that I was given is information that they've been given through the United States government. So the connections that we have and the links that we have so far have been made already.
SNOW: Do you, by suing now, do you give up any of your right to go to the special master? That's what's been set up by Congress to give compensation to some of the victims. Do you give up any of your rights there by suing?
BANE: It's my understanding that, no, because of the group that we're suing, it will not conflict with the special master's compensation plan.
SNOW: Tell me a little bit more -- I know this is difficult -- but can you tell me a little bit more about where your husband was and what happened?
BANE: Sure. Michael worked for Marsh (ph). And he was on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center. He, every day, was in at work by 8:30 in the morning, and I'm sure he was there at that moment that the plane struck the building.
I think I'm comforted by hoping that it was quick for Michael, that the plane came in relatively around the same floor that he was on. But I know that so many people suffered so much, and it was uncalled for.
SNOW: Where were you?
BANE: I was in my car. I was on my way to work, and I heard on the radio that a small plane hit, and I didn't worry too much. And then I heard the second plane hit and they were commercial jets and that they thought it was terrorists. And as you can imagine, the fear just overtook me.
SNOW: Yes, I can imagine.
Let me go to an e-mail that we have back to the case again, that you're filing against Osama bin Laden.
BANE: Sure.
SNOW: It says, "With the impending class action lawsuit against the Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, how will the suit papers be served and to whom?" It gets back to what we were talking about a moment ago.
BANE: Right.
SNOW: Especially, given that the Taliban is no longer in power, no one knows where Osama bin Laden is. How do you actually technically go about suing these folks?
BANE: Well, I don't know all of the legalese...
SNOW: I know you're not a lawyer, but...
BANE: ... but it's my understanding they can serve them through public documents, through TV, through newspapers, all over the world. So the job now is to determine where exactly this needs to be published so the people on our list will get their notice.
SNOW: So that they will technically be informed of the suit being filed?
BANE: That's correct.
SNOW: How big do you think this is going to get? Do you sense that there will be dozens and dozens of victims joining in on this, or do you think it's a small core of you who want to do this to make a point?
BANE: I think more people -- I hope that more people will join on. It's a statement that I feel very important about making. And I hope that it empowers other victims to want to join on and make the same statement, that we will not stand for these actions against our people.
SNOW: We have another good e-mail here, Tara, from one of our viewers. They asked, "Who is paying for this lawsuit?" It's a good question. Where is the money coming from? Who is paying for our lawyers to help you do this?
BANE: The law firm is paying the costs that it will take at this point to do all of the research and follow up with this case.
SNOW: We have another e-mail here. I'm not going to read it out loud to you. It's a little -- they say -- I don't want to be politically incorrect, they ask a question about compensation. And I think there has been some criticism as you probably know, of the amount of compensation that people will get through the special master and through the government program.
What do you say to that when people -- I don't if anyone has ever confronted you on that, but do you say about that?
BANE: Well, one thing is that the compensation is a very different...
SNOW: Different vehicle than what you are doing.
BANE: ... component to this. This is not connected to that in any way.
And the lawsuit is specifically to freeze the assets. And it's a chance that I have to do something for everyone else. It's a chance that I have to hopefully prevent another terrorist act. And that's the reason that we have joined on this class action suit.
And regarding the money, there is no amount of money in the world that could bring my husband back. And it's not going to change the fact that he was brutally killed along with 3,000 other people.
SNOW: Does anybody say to you, friends, relatives, "Just let it go, leave it behind, Tara. Don't go through all of this?" BANE: Yes. I think some people feel the more I get involved the more stuck I will be, but this actually has been an extremely empowering experience for me. It is finally something that I can do and I take control of. September 11, I had no control. I had no control of what followed. I have control over this and what I can do to participate in preventing terrorism.
SNOW: I read some of your other plaintiffs, some of the other widows that filed with you, saying similar things, that this is almost like a way for you to grieve, for a way for you to kind of move through your grief by taking some kind of action.
BANE: That's right.
SNOW: Back to the question about Iran and Iraq and including them, who made these decisions? Who decided who you were going to go after and how you were going to pursue this, your lawyers? Or did you have a hand in that?
BANE: The only part I had a hand in is making it clear that I was not going to join a lawsuit that would be against any American entity or our government. They were not the ones who orchestrated 9/11, and they should not be included in any class action suit. So that's the only piece that I made clear to them.
SNOW: Is that because you want to make sure that you're not -- because I know if people file suit then they're not going to be eligible for any of the special master funds.
BANE: No, I...
SNOW: Is that part of the thinking?
BANE: No. If I felt that there was -- that the airlines were at fault or other parts of the government or whatever was at fault, then that's where I would want to put a lawsuit against. I don't feel they're at fault for what happened.
SNOW: OK.
BANE: That's why they're not -- that's why I'm separating that.
SNOW: Tara Bane, I hope you will come back as this progresses...
BANE: OK.
SNOW: ... and tell us a little bit more about the case. It's fascinating to all of us. Your story, absolutely compelling.
Thank you for joining us on a Saturday morning.
BANE: OK. Thank you for having me.
SNOW: Sure.
And that's all we have for this edition of TARGET: TERRORISM. Thanks for watching.
Just ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," with a preview of the Grammys, right after this news alert.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
