|
 |
CNN CROSSFIRE
Interview With Jeffrey Fieger, Interview With Ann Coulter
Aired January 15, 2002 - 19:30 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)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The complaint alleges Walker knowingly and purposely allied himself with certain terrorist organizations with terror.
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: The government announces charges against American Taliban John Walker. Should treason have been one of them? And are the al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay being treated fairly?
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the crossfire, in Detroit, criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Fieger. And in New York, attorney Ann Coulter. And later, Ken Adelman of Defensecentral.com. And in London, human rights activist Bianca Jagger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Some 50 al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are being held in a makeshift American prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their lice- infested heads and beards have been shaved. They are confined to an open mesh cage, covered with tin and fed bagels and cream cheese for breakfast. Does this recall the atrocities of World War II Japanese and Nazi prison camps or doesn't it?
We're asking human rights activist Bianca Jagger of Amnesty International. She's in London. And international affairs expert Ken Adelman, host of Defensecentral.com. He's here in the studio -- Bill Press?
PRESS: Mr. Adelman, according to the Geneva Convention of 1949, whether we like these Taliban prisoners or not, they're supposed, like all prisoners of war, to be treated humanely. So I wanted to ask you, if we stick people...
KEN ADELMAN, DEFENSECENTRAL.COM: They're not prisoners of war.
PRESS: Well, let me ask my question first.
ADELMAN: Well, sure. PRESS: It usually works better that way. If these people are being kept outside in six by eight wire cages, I mean, do you really suggest that that amounts to humane treatment?
ADELMAN: Yes, I do. I think that -- no, I do.
PRESS: OK.
ADELMAN: First of all, they're not prisoners of war. They're terrorists. They're killers. And they afforded no rights to anybody under their control at any time.
I think it is fair to say that the United States is treating them more humanely than they have treated anybody or really, than they deserve to be treated. The fact is they get three meals. The fact is they get a shower, which they probably never took before in Afghanistan. And the fact is that, you know, they can live in that condition.
What we want to do is get information from them. And the more you make it like Club Med, the less information you're going to get.
PRESS: Well no, come on, nobody's suggesting Club Med. What we're suggesting is if we sign an international treaty that we ought to abide by it. Now you say we're not -- that these are not prisoners of war. I mean, this bouncing definition gets a little hard to follow here, Ken.
I mean, George -- President Bush says that the terrorist acts were acts of war. He has said over and over again, we're at war against the Taliban. John Ashcroft says we have to have these extra security measures because we're at war. And now you say they're not -- we're not at war, so therefore they're not prisoners of war.
ADELMAN: Well, let me just -- Bill, let me just tell you the difference here.
PRESS: When did it change?
ADELMAN: Let me tell you the difference right here. And the difference is when you are at war with honest soldiers, they go after the military on the other side. They do not go after civilians. They have certain kind of procedures that have started in the Middle Ages about decency as combatants, as non-combatants, both in their behavior and what they are afterwards.
If you're a soldier for an organized country, say like Italy or Germany or whatever in World War II, and that unit surrenders, you surrender and leave your arms. These guys go. They kill innocents. The wives, children, mothers, everything. And they go and after their unit surrenders, they pick up their arms once again. They're fanatics. They're not soldiers, they're fanatics.
NOVAK: To proceed from that point, Bianca Jagger, you know, when the -- in past wars, even the Vietnamese War, when they would have the surrender of military troops, that was the end of the war for them. But I want you to listen to what the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Myers, has to say about these prisoners brought to Cuba. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD MYERS, GENERAL, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I mean, these are people who would gnaw through hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down. I mean, so these are very, very dangerous people. And that's how they're being treated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Don't you think they should be treated as very dangerous people?
BIANCA JAGGER, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Indeed, they should be treated as dangerous people. But as well, we should adhere by the Geneva Convention. And they should be treated as prisoners of war.
It is not up to Mr. Rumsfeld to determine whether they are or not prisoners of war. The United States declared war against terrorism. And now, it is not convenient for the United States. And they are calling them not any longer prisoners of war.
The reason why they are refusing to call them prisoners of war is because of three particular reasons. One is that if they were treated under the Geneva Convention, they will not be required to answer anything more than the names, their military ranks, and the place from where they come. And if they are going to be coerced into responding, then it will be in violation of the Geneva Convention.
The other thing that will be not allowed under the Geneva Convention is that they be trialed by court that is not going to be properly constituted as the military tribunals are going to be.
NOVAK: Ms. Jagger, I wonder -- go ahead.
ADELMAN: OK, but that's the point of not having them as prisoners of war. What we want is so much, not so much taking them out of action, although that is very important. What we want is information from them. And if they get away with saying their name, and they don't have any serial numbers, so basically their name, which means practically nothing to us, that's not good enough.
What we want to know is, A, are there other plans out there to attack innocent people in the United States or elsewhere around the world? B, who exactly was responsible for September 11 and how did it happen? That's the information we need from these guys above all.
NOVAK: Ms. Jagger, I wonder if you appreciate how the American -- how angry the American people are about the fact that these people are part of a conspiracy that created such mayhem, such catastrophe in the United States, killing innocent people, mostly citizens of the United States, but citizens of many other countries. I think there would be mass uprising in this country if they were treated as dignified prisoners of war, don't you? JAGGER: Absolutely. What I want to say to you is that we all, throughout the world, understand the need for those who are guilty be brought to justice. And what we do not understand is why, if probably many of the people who have been taken as prisoners are guilty and committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity, why is it not being done openly in court of justice, where everybody around the world could rally behind the United States and accept and adhere to the rule of law under the Geneva Convention? Why is it that they want to do it in secrecy in a country far away and without allowing the Geneva Convention, which has in the past, helped saved the lives of many American prisoners, whether in Vietnam or in Korea.
PRESS: Let me suggest to you that the important thing here is, and I know we want to get information from them, we're talking tonight...
ADELMAN: That's the main thing.
PRESS: But we're talking tonight about how they're being treated as prisoners of war is what I recall them. But I think, it's important to recognize is Geneva Convention, we signed it, because it is a two-way street. It's point made yesterday on Wolf Blitzer's show by Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch. I'd like you to listen to him, please, and then get your comment. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNETH ROTH, EXEC. DIR., HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: It's important for the Pentagon to be following the Geneva Conventions, because if it starts mistreating the detainees that it has, it loses its standing to protect American service member who might find themselves detained overseas. The Geneva Conventions are not there just to protect other people. They're there to protect American service member.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: Wouldn't be howling like mad if our guys were being kept in wire cages outside somewhere?
ADELMAN: Not if our guys behaved at all, to go after the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 innocent people.
PRESS: That's -- they're American...
ADELMAN: Not at all. Whether they're American or not, not at all if our guys were as barbaric as these people and if they were as fanatical as these people. It's one thing to say let's punish those who were involved in the past. But the main thing, Bill, is to keep us from being attacked again. And by God, I want to go to the extra mile to make these guys talk. And to get these guys to talk, you need...
NOVAK: Ms. Jagger, I wanted...
ADELMAN: ...OK, but you need to make it uncomfortable.
JAGGER: I wanted to say that...
PRESS: Go ahead, Ms. Jagger?
JAGGER: I wanted to say that this war, President Bush said, that we wanted to set standards for the rest of the world. And we have to set a standard for the rest of the world. You have to have proper trials and adhere to the rule of law and allow these prisoners to have the protection under the Geneva Convention. Why do you want to send a message to the rest of the world that unilaterally, the United States wants to change the set standards for the Geneva Convention and for prisoners of war?
ADELMAN: I wouldn't change the set standards of prisoners of war. These aren't prisoners of war. They're not in an organized army that goes -- Bill, that goes after...
(CROSSTALK)
JAGGER: They are prisoners of wars.
PRESS: Yes, and let me read you something from the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention says that it requires that all prisoners be treated as presumptive prisoners of war until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. We are in -- in fact, look what happened when they put them in those planes over in Afghanistan. They put hoods over their heads. We took video of it. And the Pentagon has ordered that that video not be shown on American television. Why? You've got to admit, because they know they're in violation of the Geneva Convention, correct? And they're ashamed of it?
ADELMAN: OK, but these are detainees that the Defense Department wants to keep and to get information out of them. I don't see that it's inhumane treatment at all. I think what they have done is the inhumane thing in the world. These people are cleaner than they have been in their lives. They are better fed than they have been in their life. And so, they wear hoods.
NOVAK: Ms. Jagger, let's go to the...
JAGGER: Let me say something.
NOVAK: Go ahead.
JAGGER: What I wanted to say is that imagine that Americans were treated the way they are being treated? Why do we have a different standard and a different set of rules for us and for them? That's the reason why people regard Americans and us in the way that they are regarding us today. Don't we need to have an even justice for all, regardless of people's background, race and creeds?
NOVAK: I want to get to the point, Ms. Jagger, of how they're actually being treated. You know, people who have following this, might think we're torturing them, that we are depriving them of food, they are treating them badly. But I want you to listen the Pentagon spokesman, Victoria Clark, what she had to say about it the other day. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VICTORIA CLARK, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: Each day, the detainees are given three culturally appropriate meals. They have daily opportunities to shower, exercise and receive medical attention. So in keeping with -- in accordance with Geneva Convention, they are receiving very humane treatment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: And not only that, they're given towels. They're given toiletries. They're probably treated better than they've ever been treated in their life. So they are treated probably beyond the level of the Geneva Convention. What's all this bellyaching about?
JAGGER: But you know, the Red Cross have not been there. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medicines and Frontier has not been there. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be able to make sure to check and see if it is true that they are adhering to the Geneva Convention?
ADELMAN: Well, basically the detainees just got there. So there isn't much time to do that. But I don't think there has been a double standard. If Americans behaved in the way that these terrorists have behaved, then I think that they should be treated in the same way these terrorists are being treated.
PRESS: That has to be the last word. Ken Adelman, thanks so much for joining us. Bianca Jagger, thank you very much for joining us.
We're going to take a break here. And when we come back, the young American Taliban John Walker was charged by his government today. Does the United States have a case against him or will Walker walk? More CROSSFIRE coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: CROSSFIRE, round two. 20-year-old American Taliban John Walker was invited back home today. Invited back home by Attorney General John Ashcroft to face criminal charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens, providing support to terrorists, and engaging in transactions with the Taliban. None of the charges are punishable by death.
But if found guilty, Walker could face up to life in prison. Captured last November, the Marin County, California native will be tried in U.S. District Court, not in a military tribunal. Is he getting a fair deal from the government he's accused of betraying? Or is he getting off easy?
Joining us to debate the topic, first in New York City, attorney Ann Coulter. And joining us by phone from Detroit, Defense Attorney Geoffrey Fieger -- Bob Novak.
NOVAK: Mr. Fieger, in the assumption that perhaps you and other people will say, this is just a poor misunderstood little boy, who is not being treated well. I'd like to call -- summon a witness for the opposite point of view. And my witness is the Attorney General of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Youth is not absolution for treachery. And personal self-discovery is not an excuse to take up arms against one's country. Misdirected Americans cannot seek direction in murderous ideologies and expect to avoid the consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Is there any response to that, sir?
GEOFFREY FIEGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course, the assumption is wrong. And that it wouldn't be the basis of my concerns. This entire process is tainted. We have the president of the United States being consulted by the Attorney General to make a political decision about whether somebody should be charged in the third branch, the judicial branch of government.
We have Mr. Ashcroft attempting to convict him on television, where Mr. Walker has been denied even access to his attorney, though Mr. Ashcroft has known that he's had an attorney for over a month and has denied him access to it.
Mr. Ashcroft has picked the location, the Northern District of Virginia, where his good friend sits as chief judge with the rocket docket. Mr. Ashcroft denigrates and derides any attorney that would represent him. And the media portrays him as a terrorist. I say the man has a lot of stuff stacked against him. And it's going to take some powerful defense to allow him to have a fair trial. Don't you think?
NOVAK: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Fieger, that's a lot of lawyer talk.
FIEGER: No, it's not.
NOVAK: You know, the fact of the matter is, is this young fellow was caught with a weapon, with people who were trying to kill Americans. And the time he was captured, an American person trying to protect your liberties, Mr. Fieger was killed. And all the evidence against John Walker is his own confessions. It's an open and shut case.
FIEGER: Well, I'm not sure what his confessions are, but I know he's been denied access to legal counsel. And I have no question at all that he's been put in positions where anything he's said has got to be considered as coercive.
But beyond that, they clearly don't have the evidence because they haven't charged him with murder. He's one of 400 people that's stuck in a prison. Apparently there's guilt by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, because he's now charged with conspiracy to kill.
And frankly, I doubt they have the evidence as why he's not being charged with murder. Supporting -- and he's also being charged with engaging in transactions with the Taliban? I guess the four missionaries that were there before him that were doing the Lord's work were also engaging in transactions with the Taliban.
PRESS: Ann Coulter, good evening. Let me just assure you that I am not a member of John Walker fan club. But if anything, I must say, and I think you'll have to agree, this is anything but an open and shut case.
Let's just review the facts. John Walker went over there, a new convert to Islam, to join the Taliban in May 2001. How many American soldiers were on the ground then? None. How many were on their way to Afghanistan? None.
In fact, at that time, we, the United States government, were giving the Taliban money not to grow opium. And according to a new book, if it's true, we were talking to them about making a pipeline deal for an oil pipeline against Afghanistan. Now how can that be against the law to be on the same side we were at the time?
ANN COULTER, ATTORNEY: Ask Ezra Pound. He went to Italy in the '20s and remained in Italy during World War II, where he made pro- facist radio broadcasts. And he was charged with treason in this country.
The fact that Johnnie Walker, or as he calls himself, is nom de jihad, Abdul Hamid, the fact that he was in Afghanistan before the war started makes absolutely no difference. The way treason is defined in the Constitution, it is not merely levying war against the United States, which Abdul, Johnnie Walker here did, but also giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
And I think everyone on this panel has seen Johnnie Walker giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We saw Michael Spann interviewing him. And we saw him refusing to cooperate, refusing to give answers. That is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I think this was a huge mistake not to try him for treason.
PRESS: Well first of all, for the record, he is not being charged with treason.
COULTER: I know.
PRESS: Obviously, because the United States does not have the evidence against him. It's obviously not why they're charging them. What he is charged with...
COULTER: No, I disagree with that entirely.
PRESS: Let me just -- he is charged with intending to kill U.S. citizens. What evidence -- he didn't go there obviously intending to kill U.S. citizens? What evidence is there anywhere that John Walker intended to kill U.S. citizens in Afghanistan? Where's the case? COULTER: Well, I'm not the prosecutor making the case. But as for whether or not they have the evidence for treason, I think the fact that they are not bringing treason charges against him has nothing to do with them not having the facts. I think this is more PC nonsense out of the Bush administration to keep the Europeans and liberals like you off balance.
I think it would be worth not charging Johnnie Walker with treason if President Bush would stop hugging Teddy Kennedy so much and naming buildings after the Kennedys. But I really think it's all a piece of that. It's just Bush being too soft. And I think it's a mistake. Trotsky was right, you must be ruthless. We're in a war -- it has to be clear that there is no turning back if you take the side of the terrorists.
NOVAK: Geoffrey Fieger, let me ask you a quick question.
FIEGER: Sure.
NOVAK: You've defended a lot of the downtrodden, a lot of the people that I don't care for, but admire your defending them. But what in the world are you doing speaking up for this person here tonight? Here's somebody who was engaged with people who were trying to kill innocent Americans. What in the world is your motivation to try to pick holes in the case of the U.S. government against this person?
FIEGER: Upholding the system that we're supposedly over there fighting to defend. This is a real test of our system. It's a real test of whether we truly believe in the American system of justice. That someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That people are entitled to due process of law. I uphold the greatest traditions of American jurisprudence, standing as an attorney to defend an individual who is being accused.
PRESS: Mr. Fieger, we're short on time. And I'm sorry we have to move so fast, but thank you so much for joining us.
FIEGER: Thanks again, talking to you.
PRESS: OK. And in New York, Ann Coulter, thank you for joining us. They'll be another chance to debate John Walker.
But when we come back, moving on to stories you might have missed today. And in case you missed it, would you believe, guess who's running against Jesse Jackson? Jesse Jackson. We'll find out more when we come back on CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: So much news and so little time. So tonight in our "in case you missed segment," some stories that didn't make big headlines. I'll start. The University of Judaism denies that Bill Clinton received a record high lecture fee of $200,000 for his speech in Los Angeles yesterday. Turns out, he received only $100,000, more or less. Poor Bubba. PRESS: Now will the real Jesse Jackson please stand up? In Chicago, it's hard to tell. You see, there's not one Jesse Jackson running for Congress. There are two: Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., running for re-election against another unknown Jesse Jackson. The congressman, son of still a third Jesse Jackson, of course, accused his political enemies of recruiting that other Jesse to run just to confuse voters. Whatever happens, we know this for sure. We know who will win. Jesse Jackson. We just don't know which one.
NOVAK: Republican John Bennett, one of New Jersey's five governors in eight days, ran off the set last Friday before we could interview him. Now we know why. He used 3.5 days in office to pardon an old friend, sentenced for carrying a concealed weapon, bookmaking, and possession of stolen goods.
PRESS: Driving while stoned. A court has ruled that it's not OK to drive in the state of Idaho while drinking, but it is OK to drive while smoking marijuana, as long as you're not swerving all over the road. This is good news for potheads. But a word of caution to Britain's pot-smoking Prince Harry. If he's thinking about moving to Idaho, he should know you're also obliged to drive on the right hand side of the road.
NOVAK: And in Pennsylvania, they sure take seriously the war against terrorism. To celebrate Groundhog's Day, Punxsutawney Phil will be protected by state police, bomb-sniffing dogs and the National Guard. Think they'll send Phil to join Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location?
PRESS: Finally, here's one politician we can all support. Up in Somerville, Massachusetts, Philip Hyde is known as a perennial candidate for just about every office. His one campaign promise: Americans work too many hours, so he will shorten the work week and thereby improve both the economy and workers lives.
Here, here. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen soon. Hyde's decided to practice what he preaches and shorten his own work load this year. For the first time in years, he will not run for office. Too bad, Bob, glad to get all those extra stories in.
From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: I miss Governor Bennett already. From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
