Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
America Targets Terrorism
Aired October 03, 2001 - 19:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight on Wolf Blitzer reports, Target Terrorism. First up -- Saudi Arabia. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is on a coalition-building trip while President Bush tends to the homefront.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The events of September 11th shocked our economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Saying Americans ought to go about their business, the president seeks to get U.S. business a multibillion dollar shot in the arm. I'll speak live with Congressman Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
He stood fast with another George Bush during the Persian Gulf War. I'll speak with former British Prime Minister John Major.
Does a new terrorism bill threaten American's civil liberties? Bill Press and Tucker Carlson will have our "CROSSFIRE Debate."
We'll look at the military capabilities of Osama bin Laden's Taliban protectors and we'll look at past U.S. attempts to kill or capture him as America targets terrorism.
Good evening to our viewers in the United States and around the world, I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting tonight from Washington.
We'll get to my interview with former British Prime Minister John Major shortly, but first we want to get the latest on breaking news we're following out of India. What was reported to be a hijacking was not a hijacking after all. It's unfolding at this hour.
CNN New Delhi bureau chief Satinder Bindra is at the airport. He joins us now live via videophone with the latest details -- Satinder.
SATINDER BINDRA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, India's minister for civil aviation has just spoken. He's addressed members of the media. Now he's not calling this a hijack. He says this was a false alarm.
What happened was a ground controller received an anonymous call, then the call was passed on to the pilot of the plane. The plane was on a regularly scheduled flight from Mumbai to Delhi. The pilot then thought he was being hijacked because he received the call.
He took all safety precautions. He landed the plane here in New Delhi. The plane was taken to a secluded part of the airport and security commandos surrounded the plane, India's crisis management group, but when commandos went up to the plane they found everything was OK. In fact, many of the passengers did not even know they'd been hijacked. They thought there was a technical problem on board.
The latest now is 64 passengers and crewmembers are safe. Their well-being is OK and they have now left the plane.
Back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Satinder Bindra in New Delhi, thank you very much for that update.
And seeking to shore up support for a war against terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has begun a tour of four nations whose help is seen as vital.
CNN Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre is traveling with Rumsfeld and filed this report from Riyadh.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even before his arrival in Riyadh, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made it clear he would not be pressing the ruling royal family to be any more than a silent partner in the war on terrorism.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We're not going to be making requests of the Saudi Arabian government. We are respectful of the circumstance of the countries in the region. We understand that, and what we intend to do there is what we intend to do in each of the countries. And that's to visit with them about the facts that our interest is to create a condition, a set of conditions so we can engage in a sustained effort against terrorist networks in the region.
MCINTYRE: Rumsfeld insists he's not negotiating with Saudi Arabia, nor will he with Egypt, Oman, and Uzbekistan: the other countries on his three-day itinerary. Instead, his mission is to solidify old relationships, and in the case of Uzbekistan, forge a new one. It's still an open question, says Rumsfeld, whether Uzbekistan will allow the U.S. to base troops and planes across the border from Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld says he has no plans to share the evidence the U.S. has gathered to link Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network to the September 11th attacks. There's been plenty of evidence in the news media, he says. Besides, no one is asking for it except Afghanistan's ruling Taliban.
What is the U.S. pressing for from its reluctant allies? Intelligence, which Rumsfeld says is the key to getting bin Laden.
RUMSFELD: I really believe that before it's over it's not going to be a cruise missile or a bomber that's going to be the determining factor. It's going to be a scrap of information from some person in some country that been repressed by a dictatorial regime that's been sponsoring a terrorist organization that's going to provide the kind of information that's going to enable us to pull this network up by its roots and end it.
MCINTYRE: And Rumsfeld hinted the United States might not be completely in the dark about bin Laden's whereabouts. Asked if he knew where the accused terrorist leader was hiding, Rumsfeld replied, "I have a bit of a handle, but I don't have coordinates."
Jamie McIntyre, CNN, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Some tough talk meantime from a former top U.S. general on the tactics that might be used against terrorists and the people who support them. Joining me now, CNN Washington bureau chief Frank Sesno. Some pretty amazing language out there, Frank.
FRANK SESNO, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: General Barry McCaffrey, the former commander of the 82nd Airborne -- he fought in Desert Storm -- the former drug czar. He doesn't like that title, but he fought the war on drugs. It was more like the war on drugs than the Persian Gulf.
But an extraordinary exchange with one of his students, a West Point cadet, not too long ago, and these words are in the view of some U.S. officials very close to what the plan is all about. Let me tell you what they are.
First, he said, you increase security at home. Secondly, he says, we share intelligence.
And finally, this, Wolf: an extraordinary series of words, as you say. "We're going to disrupt these people through pre-emptive attack. At selected points and times they will be killed suddenly, in significant numbers and without warning. Tomahawk missiles, 2,000- pound laser-guided weapons dropped from B-2s or F-22s at very high altitude, remote-controlled booby traps, blackmail. And at places ... small groups of soldiers of SeALs will appear in total darkness, blow down doors and kill them at close range with automatic weapons and hand grenades."
He continues: "We will isolate them from their families. We will try to dominate their communication function, and alternately listen, jam, or spoof it. We will make their couriers disappear. If we can find out how they eat, or play, or receive rewards, or where they sleep, we will go there and kill them by surprise."
What's more, Wolf, the general said in the political domain, the United States and citizens around the globe really need to be prepared to pour significant money into places where terrorism has its roots, places like the Sudan and among Palestinians.
BLITZER: Now this is pretty blunt talk, obviously. What's the reaction from the U.S. military to this?
SESNO: Well, we've talked to some of them. They've seen this and they say it's vintage General McCaffrey. He's a tough-talking, straight-talking kind of guy. He knows intelligence, and one of them told us, one U.S. official told us flatly, there are no state secrets here. That's pretty much the plan. It happens in those three dimensions.
I talked to General McCaffrey, too, Wolf, and he's not displeased that this is out. He says he circulated it widely. He wants this to become part of the national discussion for people to understand what this is really all about.
BLITZER: Excellent, good reporting. Frank Sesno, our Washington bureau chief, thank you very much.
And President Bush meanwhile is proposing a big boost for the U.S. economy, which was struggling even before the terror attacks.
CNN senior White House correspondent John King joins us once again live with details -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the president was in New York today. He took a walk on Wall Street with the mayor and the governor, and he met with business leaders. But make no mistake about it, his every word meant to influence the political debate about the economy back here in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's why I believe we need additional stimulus beyond some of the spending that we've already put in place to the tune of about 60-75 billion dollars.
KING (voice-over): The administration and Congress are still haggling over the details, but Mr. Bush emerged from a meeting of business leaders to say the basic elements of the package should be a tax cut that puts more money into consumers' hands within months, most likely a payroll tax cut; some form of immediate, but likely temporary, business tax relief to encourage investment; and help for displaced workers, like extended health care and unemployment benefits.
BUSH: We've got to recognize that as a result of September 11th, folks have been laid off and we need to make sure they're able to survive until this economy gets going again.
KING: Congress is already debating the issue, and it is clear the president's biggest problem is fellow Republicans who think the White House is being too timid and too cooperative with the Democrats.
SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R), TENNESSEE: Let's decide if we want a stimulus package or not and we're going to have to have a different mindset than I see coming out of the administration.
KING: Many Republicans favor permanent cuts in corporate income taxes or in the capital gains taxes or both.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: But with the economy stalled any new spending would come at the expense of the Social Security surplus, and Democrats are saying because of that, everyone should proceed here with caution. The Democrats say they want a much more modest stimulus package, and one key voice in this debate, the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in a meeting with key lawmakers today. Many say he endorsed a package roughly the size of the president's plan, somewhere in the area of 50-75 billion .
BLITZER: Well, John, what happened to all that talk about getting along from both sides of the political aisle?
KING: Well, as the proposals to deal with this crisis make their way through the Congress, we are seeing some tensions and some debate. On this issue, economic stimulus, the president debating with conservatives in his own party. On the issue of airline security, the president debating mostly with Democrats in the Senate who want all those airport security workers to be federal employees. The president prefers federal oversight. Also a debate, of course, between the Democrats and the Republicans in the administration over the anti- terrorism package the attorney general wants.
The administration says there are some legitimate differences. They're hoping to keep the volume down, if you will, on the partisan rhetoric, hoping to resolve all these issues in the next several days to two weeks -- Wolf.
BLITZER: John King at the White House, thank you very much.
And the current search by the United States for Osama bin Laden, certainly not the first. CNN national security correspondent David Ensor has more on at least two missed opportunities to capture the accused terrorist mastermind.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. officials tell CNN that about 60 Pakistani commandos were equipped and trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 1999 for an operation in Afghanistan designed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The operation was agreed to with then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his intelligence chief. In return, the Clinton administration offered to lift economic sanctions on Pakistan.
The plan collapsed when General Pervez Musharraf took over Pakistan in a military coup d'etat in late '99 and refused to allow Pakistani commandos to go ahead with the attempt to get bin Laden.
Officials also confirm a second report in "The Washington Post" that in 1996, when bin Laden was living in the Sudan, the government in Khartoum offered to arrest him and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Three-way negotiations over the offer continued for more than two months, U.S. officials say, before the Saudis declined to accept bin Laden, fearing a backlash in their country among supporters of his extreme fundamentalist brand of Islam.
Though former Clinton administration officials declined to speak about the operations, they have consistently said they made many attempts to get bin Laden and destroy his Al Qaeda network, especially after the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: After the embassy bombings, which was my worst day as secretary of state, we worked very hard to try to get him and came close, and I think that it is unbelievably difficult and frustrating. I think people need to understand that it's not the lack of will that the U.S. has exhibited over time on this, but the difficulty of trying to do this.
ENSOR: The two stories only underscore the challenge faced now by the Bush administration as it seeks to put together an international coalition against bin Laden's group: a coalition that will need all the help it can get from the Pakistan's Musharraf and the Saudi government.
David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: There's been stepped-up fighting between Afghanistan's Taliban and opposition forces. I spoke earlier with CNN's Matthew Chance, who is with the anti-Taliban alliance in northern Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Matthew, first of all, update us. What's the latest on fighting up in northern Afghanistan, where you are?
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, throughout the course of today we've been reporting the renewed military activity here in Northern Afghanistan. We've been hearing reports that there have been a number of confrontations between forces of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in areas very remote from where we're standing right here.
Now fighting reported to be under way some 400 kilometers across some very rugged terrain in this very remote part of Northern Afghanistan. Officials of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance say they have made significant gains in territory. They say they've captured up to 75 Taliban fighters, including the commanders, although they do say there have been significant losses, significant casualties on both sides.
I have to say though, Wolf, there is no way at this stage for us to independently verify these things because of the remote nature of the conflict at this stage.
On the diplomatic front, there's also been activity: meetings between senior officials of the Northern Alliance and Afghan warlords, previously allied to the Taliban, meetings to try and get them to switch their allegiance away from the Taliban toward the Northern Alliance. Also meetings face-to-face, we're told, between Northern Alliance officials and representatives of the United States government.
Abdullah Abdullah is the foreign minister of the Northern Alliance here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADBULLAH ABDULLAH, NORTHERN ALLIANCE FOREIGN MINISTER: It is not just an issue of military assistance. It is the issue of cooperation, bilateral cooperation and coordination of efforts.
We have been fighting against terrorist groups for years alone. Now there is a chance that the international alliance wants to join in the war and to strike terrorist groups in Afghanistan in order to eradicate terrorism and those who are harmed by terrorism in Afghanistan. So we have been discussing all aspects of this cooperation and coordination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHANCE: It's not clear here at this point, Wolf, what kind of cooperation will be forthcoming from the United States. Clearly, the Northern Alliance say they want military cooperation, but we just don't know at this point what the details of any arrangement will be.
Back to you.
BLITZER: Matthew, I know you've done some reporting on Taliban prisoners now in the hands of the Northern Alliance. What's happening on that front?
CHANCE: Well, all along, the Northern Alliance has been saying they've been capturing prisoners of war from the Taliban side, fighters from the Taliban. Also they say fighters from the forces of Osama bin Laden, and they say that each one of these people that they take into their custody they interrogate, they investigate, and in their words extract any information on military bases or military capabilities that could be of use to them and could indeed be of use to the United States.
Now many of these prisoners are not from Afghanistan. Northern Alliance officials say many are from overseas. They're kept in prisoner of war camps here in the part of the Pangea (ph) Valley, and there is word, of course, that there are new prisoners, fresh prisoners that have been captured in recent fighting packed with fresh information, not just on the military capabilities of the Taliban, but also of the whereabouts and the capabilities of the organization of Osama bin Laden himself.
Back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Matthew Chance in Northern Afghanistan, thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And the Taliban remain defiant, rejecting demands they turn over Osama bin Laden. And faced with a military buildup, they've in turn warned of a jihad, or holy war.
Neighboring Pakistan meantime wants the United States to tell the world what it knows about bin Laden.
I spoke earlier with CNN senior international correspondent Walter Rodgers in Islamabad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Walter, some strong words coming from Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. What does he say?
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's calling for a holy war, a jihad. Of course, this is not the first time the Taliban has called for a holy war, but what makes it interesting this time is the timing. Just yesterday, the Taliban was calling for a negotiated end to the confrontation between the United States and Afghanistan. Now they've made a 180-degree turn.
Mullah Omar is calling on Islamic clerics around the world to prepare the Muslim faithful to this holy war. He's calling on Muslim businessmen to contribute big money to this holy war, and he's calling on young Islamic men to join in this holy war, this fight against what he calls the oppressive powers.
There seems to be a lack of operational logic here, and it almost smacks of a kind of desperation, but then you have to recall that desperate men sometimes commit desperate acts -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Walter, you spoke with the Pakistani foreign minister earlier today. What was his principle message?
RODGERS: Well, the biggest public relations problem the United States has in this part of South Asia, and Pakistan in particular, is the matter of evidence. How good is the evidence the United States has linking Osama bin Laden to the terrorist acts in the United States? That was the crux of Abdul Sattar, the Pakistani foreign minister's, arguments here.
He said he was impressed by what he has seen in terms of what the United States has done in a criminal investigation, almost satisfied, but he says that's not good enough. There has to be more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL SATTAR, PAKISTANI FOREIGN MINISTER: We request this information because we apprehend that if the world community is not aware of this information, they will not be convinced that the action that was taken was justified. And as you know, we in Pakistan are particularly very concerned about this issue, because there is a segment of opinion in our country which has extremist tendencies. And they would exploit the absence of information in order to mislead people.
(END VIDEO CLIP) RODGERS: Of course, the problem in this part of the world, we're already seeing is that even as evidence is made public, as it's leaking out of Washington and some of the European capitals, it's being rejected here. One radical Islamic cleric I spoke to earlier today, even when you presented him with some of the evidence that's been reported, he says the Americans are fabricating it.
This is again a very difficult problem that the Americans are going to have to finesse, because even if they make public the evidence, it's being rejected as a fabrication -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Walter Rodgers in Islamabad, thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Just ahead, an old ally and a new alliance, I'll speak with the former British Prime Minister John Major, and we'll take the measure of Afghanistan's Taliban fighters. How tough are they?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: U.S. Capitol on a beautiful night here in Washington, D.C. Welcome back.
He supported the first President Bush in the Persian Gulf War as American and its allies drew a line in the sand. With the U.S. now building an alliance against terrorism, I spoke earlier with former British Prime Minister John Major.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us.
So let me get right to one of the issues at hand, which is whether the United States should hand over at least some evidence against Osama bin Laden to the Taliban government in Afghanistan. What are your thoughts on that?
JOHN MAJOR, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, from all I understand, the evidence is crystal-clear and pretty plain, and I think the Taliban must know that the involvement of Osama bin Laden. I'm fairly relaxed. I don't particularly see any great need for that. I think it would be likely to be perverted were it to happen. A great deal of evidence has been shown to NATO colleagues and Western colleagues, and certainly I for one would be satisfied with that.
BLITZER: Prime Minister Blair, as you know, yesterday delivered a very scathing, very tough, forceful speech. I want you to listen to this very little, brief excerpt from what he said. I want to get your reaction.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Surrender the terrorists or surrender power. That is your choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: His message to the Taliban. What do you think of that kind of tough talk?
MAJOR: Well, I think it's merited. For a long time the Taliban have protected Osama bin Laden. If they wish to divorce themselves from him, then let them hand him over. They certainly would seem to be in a position to do so. They've chosen not to do so. They've chosen to protect him. They've chosen to offer him safe custody. They've chosen to help export terrorism. They've chosen presumably therefore to play a role in the awful tragedy of September 11th. So I think that sort of approach is justifiable.
BLITZER: And even if it would prevent a war, trying to stroke them, if you will, offer them some sort of relatively symbolic concession, you think that would simply be a delaying tactic, it wouldn't in the end be worthwhile?
MAJOR: Well, I strongly suspect it would be a delaying tactic. I mean, if I go back 10 years, I remember the immediate prelude to the Gulf War. There was a whole series of diplomatic and other moves where there was a determination to try to prevent the military action from taking place. Now it would have been as one can see in retrospect entirely focused. And of course, although the principal target is bin Laden and the Taliban because of the particular assault on the Twin Towers and on the Pentagon, of course the underlying battle is against the much wider enemy of terrorism more generally.
So I do believe the time has now come where it's very close to the action that needs to be taken, and I don't really think there's anything the Taliban are likely to be able to say to be able to convince the rest of the world that they don't have considerable responsibility for what happened.
BLITZER: On that specific point, the U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, earlier today was very direct in explaining what the U.S. objectives are right now. I want you to listen to what Secretary Powell had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have to make sure that this campaign focuses on Al Qaeda, but also takes note of those nations that provide haven, provide support to terrorist organizations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Other U.S. officials suggest he's referring to nations like Iraq, Iran, or Yemen, Sudan. If the U.S. and the coalition, including Britain, were to go after those countries, that would immediately cripple, if not destroy this coalition that the allies are trying to put together. MAJOR: I think this is a progressive coalition. There's the primary target and the primary target being bin Laden, and then I think immediately on the back of that some of the other major terrorist groups around the country. Now I hope that is going to shake loose from state-support terrorism elsewhere. At the moment, I know of no evidence to suggest that Iraq was directly involved in this particular attack. That evidence may exist -- people suggest it -- but I certainly have seen no evidence to suggest that's the case. So I think probably the interpretation that's being put on Secretary of State Powell's words may be a little wider than he intended.
BLITZER: You, of course, were the prime minister of Britain during the Gulf War. You were recently quoted as saying that during the war you tried, in fact the coalition trying to kill Saddam Hussein, but obviously you failed in that mission. Walk us back through those days. What was going on in that attempt?
MAJOR: Well, the war without Saddam Hussein would have come to a very dramatic and early conclusion. And when we knew where he was, we tried to capture him and we tried to kill him in order to bring the war to a conclusion. Now we failed, because he employed a tactic that we may find bin Laden and others will employ. He secreted himself in holy places, which for wider reasons nobody would wish to attack, and secondly, he secreted himself in population centers where for self- evident reasons nobody wished to attack in order to damage innocent citizens.
Now I think we have learned quite a lot from the sort of tactics employed there. And although some people have fixed in their mind in the action that may be yet to come, they have fixed in their mind the sort of approach that existed with the Gulf War, I think they will find this is a very different sort of campaign once it gets under way.
BLITZER: As you know, Lady Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain, says that you and then President Bush, the rest of the coalition should have finished the job, in her words, and gone into Baghdad and gotten rid of Saddam Hussein when you had the chance in 1991. When you look back on that, was it a mistake looking back, obviously with hindsight?
MAJOR: Well, emphatically not. If we had got in, in 1991, we'd have breached international law. We'd have breached the U.N. resolutions under which we were operating. We would have broken up the coalition. We would have broken our word to the coalition, and on this occasion President George W. Bush would never have been able to draw a coalition together if an earlier president had broken his word to those who are now our coalition partners.
So I think for all of those reasons, it was a very compelling reason not to have done it, and I very much doubt, if Margaret Thatcher had been in government, she'd have taken any other view. I think there was little choice but to stop at the time. It was the right thing to do. I believed it then. I believe it now, and I don't believe any other posture is credible based upon the details understanding the examination of what occurred at the time. BLITZER: Looking at the September 11th terror attacks in New York, at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania, the four simultaneous hijackings, over these past 10 years is there something, one particular thing that the U.S., Britain, other Western nations, and moderate Arab nations, other countries should have done that could've prevented this horrendous terrorist attack?
MAJOR: Well, I very much doubt it. I mean, there has been some criticism of the intelligence information available, and I understand that, but it's extraordinarily difficult to gain intelligence in the sort of operation that occurred here. I find it difficult to envisage a single act that could have stopped it.
I mean, we in the United Kingdom are very supportive of the position the United States take, not least of course because we've had considerable amounts of experience with terrorism themselves. The IRA tried to kill the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, taking out a hotel in Brighton. They tried to kill many of the conservative cabinet by firing a mortar at 10 Downing Street, and there of course have been huge numbers of terrorist incidents in which large numbers of people in Northern Ireland and on the mainland of the United Kingdom have been murdered.
So we have been seeing terrorism for the last 20 to 25 years, and we're pretty robust about the need that it needs to be dealt with, and very supportive of the coalition that is now being put together to do precisely that.
BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, it was kind of you to join us. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Security throughout the United States is being stepped up in the wake of September 11th. Some say it's coming at the expense of civil liberties. Is it really? And if so, is it worth it?
Bill Press and Tucker Carlson debate the issue in the "CROSSFIRE" when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Checking our top stories: in New Delhi, India, authorities say a plane once said to be hijacked is the subject of a false alarm. The government says an anonymous phone caller claimed the 737 was hijacked.
Here in the United States, at his final news conference as Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Ridge today said he's optimistic about his new job as the head of homeland security. His first order of business: sizing up the domestic forces.
And, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson addressed a skeptical Senate panel today on bioterrorism attacks. Thompson says the government is ready. As America works to firm up homeland security, there's growing concern new laws, intended to protect Americans, may actually threaten their civil liberties. That's the topic in tonight's "CROSSFIRE" debate.
Here's Tucker Carlson -- Tucker.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": Thanks, Wolf.
New anti-terrorism legislation is speeding through Congress. Provisions would allow authorities to hold suspected terrorists for up to seven days without charging them. It would also give government broad new wire tapping powers.
Do the laws go too far, or not far enough? That's out CROSSFIRE question tonight. Joining us, Laura Murphy, who is the director of the American Civil Liberty Union, Washington office, and former CIA director, Stansfield Turner -- Bill.
BILL PRESS, HOST, CNN's "CROSSFIRE": Admiral Turner, I think the law goes too far. From what I understand, you don't think it goes far enough. You've been quoted as proposing giving the attorney general the power to deport, without any judicial proceedings, anybody that he suspects of being a terrorist. Doesn't that turn this country into a one-man police state?
STANSFIELD TURNER, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: No. No, it does not. We're talking now about noncitizens who have come to this country as a privilege, not a right. And we don't have to give them all the rights of the Constitution of the United States.
And the president has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) against other countries harboring terrorists, and we're harboring terrorists! Look at all the Mohamed Attas who were running around this country for years, planning this last operation. We don't need to tolerate that. This is a small incursion on our civil liberties, and I say it's very needed in this time.
PRESS: Well, I'm glad you mentioned the fact that these guys were here for five years. But they weren't in hiding. They were openly living in communities, they were going to flight school. They were using their credit cards, they were going to pizza parlors.
Admiral, it seems to me that the problem was not that the attorney general did not have the power to deport them. The problem was, our agencies were not doing their jobs.
TURNER: I agree! But we need authority when they do their job, and can identify these people as having an association with a terrorist group. My plan would be that...
PRESS: How do you know he is right?
TURNER: It is not the "he." The director of the FBI or the chief of the CIA would have to go to the attorney general and specify why he had cause to believe this individual was associated with terrorism.
We already have that same kind of provision in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I used to have to certify that I thought a certain person was an agent of a foreign power -- that is, a spy -- in our country to the attorney general, who then approved a wiretap of that person's communications. This is the same thing, in a different scale.
CARLSON: Now, Laura Murphy, I realize it's your job to oppose these kind of improvements, but I hope you listened carefully to what Admiral Turner said, and saw the fundamental reasonableness of it.
The essence is, these people are not citizens. They don't have the same rights that American citizens do. And the questioning here is, should the attorney general -- we're not talking about a county sheriff, we're talking about the attorney general -- when he believes they're terrorists, have the right to detain them for seven days? Not throw them in a dungeon for a year -- seven days. What's wrong with that?
LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: Oh, no, no, no. The legislation that the attorney general proposed goes much further than that. And the Fifth Amendment to our United States Constitution says that due process shall be applied to all persons. It doesn't say "only to citizens."
We're talking about a modicum of due process that is necessary to change this legislation so that we don't live in a country where, by edict or decree, the attorney general can incarcerate any alien, without an opportunity for that individual to prove his or her innocence. We have a government that makes mistakes -- that couldn't even find Mr. Hanssen in the FBI. We have the Richard Jewells of the world to remember.
So we've got to have some checks and balances on the executive branch. And what Attorney General Ashcroft is proposing is to write the judiciary entirely out of the process, so that he alone makes the decision. And I thought we started the United States, or the -- ran away from King George precisely for these kinds of reasons.
CARLSON: You're painting a "Dr. Strangelove" scenario here.
PRESS: John Ashcroft scenario, is what it is.
CARLSON: What you're leaving out is -- now, let me repeat it. This is seven days of detention. We're not talking about rounding up everyone in a turban. We're not talking about putting people of Japanese ancestry into camps or anything like that. We're talking about seven days for suspected terrorists.
MURPHY: I just came from the mark over the House Judiciary Committee. There is still indefinite detention. If the attorney general decides that someone should be deported, and the country that he's deporting that person to refuses to accept him, that person can be entitled to life imprisonment without any opportunity for judicial review. That's un-American! I'm sorry. That's wrong. Our people don't believe in that. CARLSON: If that becomes law, I'll eat the bill on the show.
PRESS: I want to just pick up on that. There are six people being held right now in Afghanistan, including two young Americans, with no evidence presented against them, no court proceedings, and they're in prison indefinitely. Isn't that exactly, exactly what Ashcroft is asking to turn this country into?
TURNER: No, not at all. We're a country of law, and we're not going to have an attorney general who is going to be draconian like the Taliban is. And you may think we will, but I have great confidence in the checks and balances in our system.
Now, what I'm proposing: one of two directors, FBI or CIA, must certify in writing that this person is associated with a terrorist group, that we have evidence to that effect. And then the attorney general scrutinizes that and says, yes, I think that's good, or I think it's not. And if we make a mistake, it isn't a big issue. This is somebody who is not entitled to be in our country. And I want him here if he's going to be a terrorist.
MURPHY: Well, I just think that we've got to make sure that we protect the safety and security of our country. These attacks have to be stopped. But at the same time, we don't have to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of protecting our territory. You can detain somebody under current law. All we're talking about is making sure that a judge can review the decision of the attorney general. That is the American way, checks and balances on the government.
CARLSON: Let's get to another proposed improvement in this legislation, and that's roving wiretaps, the idea that a wiretap shouldn't be tied to the individual -- or shouldn't be tied to the phone that an individual uses, but the individual. So if he uses a cell phone, if he uses a land line, whatever, you ought to be able tap all of them. How could you possibly find fault with something this sensible?
MURPHY: Well, first of all, roving wiretaps are already in current law, that's No. 1. And, again, you ought to have a requirement that the taps meet a judicial standard, that attorney general himself doesn't just say, go and tap that individual. That the individual knows that a third party has looked at that order.
So the question isn't whether or not this bill should introduce roving wiretaps -- they are already in the law. The question is how much latitude are you going to give to law enforcement to self police? And again, here is the question of checks and balances. That is what the attorney general is asking to take out of this law.
CARLSON: I want to ask you, Admiral, let's just be honest here. Aren't you convinced, as I am, that if the federal government gets broader wiretap authority, or broader authority to check credit card records or bank records or Internet records of terrorists, they're going to use those powers against innocent American citizens, as soon as they have them? TURNER: I'm not convinced of that at all, because our system of government is so open, that when people do abuses like that, it comes out. And it gets before the public, it comes into the media and we...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: J. Edgar Hoover gives his authority to tap Martin Luther King, with Bobbie Kennedy's approval!
CARLSON: Forty years ago.
TURNER: That's deep history.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Oh, and no more mistakes are made right now. It's not possible now.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Roosevelt locking up Japanese-Americans wasn't OK.
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: That's right, but we're going down the right road.
CARLSON: One other quick thing, here.
MURPHY: OK, fine.
CARLSON: Democrats in both the House and the Senate have objected to removing the statute of limitations for crimes of terrorism. You can't possibly be on their team on this, too, can you?
MURPHY: Well, first of all the problem is the definition of terrorism. When the definition of terrorism is that some WTO protester, an American citizen, throws a rock through a window of a federal building, and he can be tried under the terrorism statute, yeah, I do have a problem with removing the statute of limitations and punishing that person with life imprisonment, if that is something that deserves a two-year penalty.
CARLSON: That is an impossible scenario.
MURPHY: No, it is not. No, it is not. Assault and arson and all of these things that are punishable now under our criminal laws have been scooped under these terrorism definitions, and we've got to narrow the definition of terrorism to go after the people we're concerned about.
PRESS: Very quickly, Admiral, yes or no. You're former director of the CIA. Shouldn't George Tenet be fired for falling down the job here?
TURNER: No. We don't know enough about it.
PRESS: OK. Admiral Turner, thanks very much. Laura Murphy, thank you for joining us.
Wolf Blitzer, that is our lively but abbreviated CROSSFIRE tonight. Back to you.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Bill. Good debate.
Coming up, he's a Congressional point man for anti-terrorism efforts. I'll speak live with Congressman Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: His job involves subjects that, until very recently, most Americans didn't think much about. Joining me now, Republican Representative Saxby Chambliss. He's the chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security.
Congressman, thanks for joining us. You spent a lot of time looking at this issue of terrorism. What's the biggest deficiency in counterterrorism right now in the U.S. government?
REP. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), GEORGIA: Well, I think, without question, gathering proper intelligence. Intelligence coming out of the -- directly from the bin Laden organization is just very difficult to get.
And we have got to do a better job of that. CIA does a good job, but we've got to get better with it.
BLITZER: But this has been an issue that's been around for years and years and years. Why did it take the September 11th terrorist attack to finally force people to focus in on this enormous problem?
CHAMBLISS: Well, Wolf, those of us who have been dealing with the terrorism issue for a number of years -- and I've been involved in it for about five years, now -- and we're still preaching the same message that we were preaching five years ago. After September 11th, the audience got bigger. So now we're saying the same thing, but people are listening and they're taking action.
BLITZER: The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, insists that the U.S. Government, the federal government, is fully prepared for any contingency -- bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, even nuclear terrorism -- they have everything in place. Are you confident that that's so?
CHAMBLISS: If his statement was that broad, he's a little more confident than I am. I think we're moving in the right direction. We've got the CDC, for example, stockpiling medication for immunization.
BLITZER: That's the Centers for Disease Control.
CHAMBLISS: Right. But we've got a problem, an initial problem, in recognizing smallpox virus, anthrax virus. Our first folks on the scene at the emergency room, a lot of whom have never been trained in identifying smallpox, for example, have got to be trained in that.
Now, as I say, we're moving in the right direction, but we're not there yet. We've still got a ways to go.
BLITZER: Well, how long is that going to take? The American public is obviously nervous about all of this.
CHAMBLISS: Well, I can't say whether it will take a week, whether it will take a month, or what. But I'm excited about Tom Ridge coming on board. This is one area that Governor Ridge is going to be directly involved in, and he'll be leading the fight, with respect to preparedness and response, as well as to the threat itself.
So, we're going to get there.
BLITZER: Now, he's coming in very soon. He's giving up his job as Pennsylvania's governor. But will he have -- are you confident he will have the clout, the authority, the wherewithal to unite some 40 different agencies, and take charge of what's called homeland security?
CHAMBLISS: I think he's got to have that authority. I mean, he's got to be the guy that speaks for the president. And when Tom Ridge speaks, with respect to terrorism, every head of every federal agency has got to march in tune to what Governor Ridge says. And I'm confident the president has given him that authority.
If he hadn't, then we're going to have to look at it from a legislative perspective. But I'm very confident the White House is going to do the right thing with Governor Ridge.
BLITZER: But as you know, there are turf battles, there are bureaucratic battles. Each one of these agencies is on a different computer system, technological problems -- it's going to take a long time, if he's going to have the clout, to get that new structure in place.
CHAMBLISS: Well, not just that. But we've got communication problems within law enforcement agencies, from a detection standpoint. And that's going to be one of his primary responsibilities. You're right. Everybody has got their own computer software in place, and a lot of times it doesn't mix and match with other agencies, but we've got to get that in place.
We've got to make sure that INS is communicating with the FBI, and whoever else out there, to make sure that the right information gets to the right agency, whether it's intelligence information, whether it's a law enforcement agency, or who. And Governor Ridge is going to be in a position to do that.
BLITZER: Some people have been suggesting this could be another Cold War, in other words, decades and decades of a war against terrorism. The American public, as you know, is an impatient public, by and large. They want this resolved quickly. How long of a struggle is this going to be? CHAMBLISS: It's going to be a long war. Hopefully, it's not going to be decades. We've got to go after the folks that are primarily involved in it. We've got to cut them off, not just from the standpoint of taking out or arresting and prosecuting those individuals who are primarily responsible -- we've got to choke off their resources, too. And we're in the process of doing that.
We've got to look at their financing sources, both what they have on hand, as well as their means of gathering those resources. That's one of the reasons that the attorney general has come forward with this legislation that he wants us to pass in the House and in the Senate and that we're moving forward with. And there are a number of different directions that the administration is going to attack these folks on, and we're going to get there.
BLITZER: You know, a lot of people are under the assumption that if you find Osama bin Laden, and you destroy or uproot his Al Qaeda network, that's going to end the problem right then and there. You don't believe that, do you?
CHAMBLISS: No, I don't. He's got a number of lieutenants out there. Afghanistan and the Taliban have been directed to turn over all of those lieutenants, in addition to bin Laden. Unless we get them, the problem is not solved.
Plus, other than Al Qaeda, there are some large number of other groups: Hezbollah, Hamas, some of the jihad groups that exist out there, that are just as dangerous. So this is not going to be over when we get bin Laden. But I tell you, it will be a step in the right direction, and it will be a very important asset for us to complete.
BLITZER: But you know that if the U.S. and its coalition partners go after those other groups, then you're dealing with countries like Iraq and Iran and Syria, that support those other organizations you mentioned. That could disrupt this coalition.
CHAMBLISS: Well, the coalition is together right now. It's going to step in the right direction, with respect to bin Laden. I'm confident that the administration is already planning on what the next step is going to be and how we're going to approach that.
And it is a delicate, fine line that we're going to have to walk, and we've got to build some stronger relationships in that part of the world.
BLITZER: Congressman Saxby Chambliss, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
CHAMBLISS: OK, Wolf.
BLITZER: And when we return: the U.S. military is taking up positions in and around the Indian Ocean. Are the Taliban ready to take on a super power?
After the break, a look at the Taliban and their weapons for war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. As the United States military prepares for war, many in Washington are sizing up the Taliban. Are they ready to take on a super power?
CNN's Nic Robertson reports from the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On a front line just north of Kabul, a Taliban tank pounds Northern Alliance positions. This attack, four years ago, is typical, analysts say, of the Taliban's military hardware: old, and of Soviet origin. Firepower here seems to owe as much to human ingenuity as it does to the manufacturers' designs.
Analysts warn, however, not to underestimate this unconventional- looking force.
CLIFFORD BEAL, EDITOR, "JANE'S DEFENCE": On certain occasions they've been able to show how to use surprise, elements of surprise, mobility and firepower.
ROBERTSON: Often, though, it has been their ability to buy over commandos with cash. And their momentum as the winning side has kept the Taliban advancing across the country, to the current position, controlling all but 5 percent of the territory.
AMER RASHID, TALIBAN ANALYST: These are Pashtun tribal chiefs, local commanders, clan leaders, who joined Taliban not because of its ideology, but purely because the Taliban were winning. And it was expected by the village that the clan chief would join the winning side.
ROBERTSON: It is through these tribal alliances that the Taliban claim to have 300,000 fighters. Analysts, however, say the regular Taliban force is about 45,000, and organized conventionally into armored elements and infantry, although often used unconventionally.
Command and control is also loose, which is beneficial, say experts, give the vulnerability of the Taliban's wireless communications network.
Another asset, analysts say, surface-to-air missiles, lending credence to recent claims by the Taliban to have shot down an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft flying at 12,000 feet.
BEAL: They have some stinger, U.S.-supplied missiles. They also Russian-made missiles in same class.
ROBERTSON: Such sophisticated weaponry came into Afghanistan courtesy of the United States' determination to arm Mujahideen fighters in the 1980s with sufficient firepower to drive out the Soviet army. Resupply of such equipment is unlikely to be an option for the isolated Taliban, and experts doubt the military skills the Taliban are now familiar will be effective against a modern army. Even the Taliban's considered advantages, as a good guerrilla force, may prove of limited value in a protracted campaign.
RASHID: They know the terrain very well, but the whole -- you know, it's going to be a war of attrition, in the sense that even their mobility in their pickups, you know, they're going to run out of fuel very quickly.
ROBERTSON: Along with fuel dumps, analysts also expect the Taliban's inherited aging air force of fighters and helicopters could be targeted in the opening salvos of a missile attack. Long-range missiles, rarely used these days, could also be a target. Otherwise, analysts say, they could be one of the more unpredictable elements of the Taliban's armory, should they choose to destabilize the region.
RASHID: Perhaps some scud missiles, which are, again, about 20, 30 years old. And they were used a lot during the war against the Soviet Union. In fact, the communist regime in Kabul used scud missiles to bomb Pakistan a lot. But they cannot be targeted very effectively.
ROBERTSON (on camera): Even fighting on their own soil, the Taliban stand to be disadvantaged facing off against the United States. Not only are they unfamiliar with an enemy with such a mobile force, backed up by precision missiles, but it is an enemy that trained some of their veteran Mujahideen fighters, and by virtue of that training, has a good knowledge of the terrain.
Nic Robertson, CNN, Quetta, Pakistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And I'll be back in just a moment with a look at the latest developments as America targets terrorism.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Updating the latest developments: A report that a plane in India was hijacked while flying from Mumbai to New Delhi turned out to be not true. Authorities say a ground controller got a false anonymous phone call.
In the United States, economic assurance from President Bush as he visited New York City. He announced his support for a multibillion dollar stimulus package to boost the U.S. economy.
And there will not be a third consecutive term for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But Giuliani says he's offered to remain in office an extra three months to help the city bounce back.
That's all the time we have tonight. Please join me again tomorrow, 7:00 p.m. Eastern, as "America Targets Terrorism." Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
