Skip to main content
CNN.com /TRANSCRIPTS

CNN TV
EDITIONS





CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Government Foils Terrorist Plot

Aired June 10, 2002 - 15:00   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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Well, today Attorney General John Ashcroft, speaking from Russia, told us something that is pretty unnerving. He says an American citizen is in custody, accused of joining the enemy in plotting an attack on the United States.

Here's the picture of Abdullah al Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla. We're going to show it to you later.

Now, Ashcroft says he was plotting to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, possibly in Washington. You're going to find out more about this man today.

And you're also going to learn more about dirty bombs and what you can do to protect yourself in the event of an attack, and of course I want to hear what you have to say about the enemy within.

So the number is 1-800-310-4CNN or you can e-mail me, for those of you sitting at your computer all the time. E-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.COM.

Let's start now with CNN's national security correspondent David Ensor. He has even more details about today's announcement and, David, give us, if you will, right off the top, the latest information on the suspect.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He was arrested May 8 at the Chicago airport.

I'm told Jose Padilla, or Abdullah al Muhajir, as he calls himself, was carrying over $10,000.

United States officials have told me that, though he only declared $8,000 to United States Customs.

Now, he's a United States citizen, now a declared enemy combatant -- declared by the U.S. government. He received training in Pakistan in wiring and constructing bombs, in Lahore, Pakistan.

Officials say Padilla, or al Muhajir, met twice in Karachi, Pakistan with Abu Zubaydah and other senior al Qaeda operatives. It was captured al Qaeda operation chief Zubaydah who first told U.S. interrogators about the U.S. citizen working for al Qaeda, about two weeks before his arrest in Chicago.

Zubaydah did not give the man's name, though. Officials say that came from other sources.

NEVILLE: And he -- do you know anything about his...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTNY. GEN.: From information available to the United States government, we know that Abdullah al Muhajir is an al Qaeda operative and was exploring a plan to build and explode a radioactive dirty bomb.

Let me be clear. We know from multiple independent and corroborating sources that Abdullah al Muhajir was closely associated with al Qaeda, and that as an al Qaeda operative he was involved in planning future terrorist attacks on innocent American civilians in the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: Now U.S. officials tell me that an associate of his was arrested in Pakistan prior to his arrest in Chicago.

In the weeks before his arrest, we are also told that Padilla, or al Muhajir, traveled between Pakistan, Egypt and Switzerland. He arrived, they say, on the trip to Chicago on what they believe was a reconnaissance trip, which was likely to include Washington, D.C., though officials stress they do not believe there was a finalized plan yet for a full attack the time he was arrested -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: David, I'm not sure, you may have said this, but was he working with someone else here in the United States and exactly what prompted authorities to go after had him and detain him? And also, do you know anything about his family, this guy Padilla? Is his family still in Chicago? Does he have family, like a wife and kids or anything like that? Do you know that?

ENSOR: Don't know of any family in the United States. Just don't know. Don't know of any others who might have been working with him who are in the United States. Do know, however, that at least one other accomplice, alleged accomplice, has been arrested in Pakistan. And he met with Zubaydah and other senior al Qaeda people, so he is part of al Qaeda, according to the officials I speak to.

NEVILLE: I know this information is unfolding as we speak, so I just thought I would throw that out there, in case you had gotten it.

David, thank you very much for giving us the latest on that particular situation. And of course we'll hear from you later I'm sure. Maybe not in this show, but some place else on CNN, so keep it right here.

All right, with us is David Isby, a freelance writer and author covering Afghanistan, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. He is formerly with "Jane's Intelligence Review," and David, I want to welcome you to the show as well.

DAVID ISBY, JOURNALIST: Good afternoon.

NEVILLE: OK. Is this a big get?

ISBY: I certainly think that the Dept. of Justice would like to present it as such, having a live al Qaeda operative captured, especially one which presented a direct threat to this dirty bomb, radiological weapon. This is something I'm sure they would like to see would get the headlines more than the problems that were revealed last week.

NEVILLE: Can he help lead U.S. intelligence to other people involved here? Other al Qaeda members, possibly?

ISBY: That's certainly to be hoped.

We see how Abu Zubaydah, one of the senior prisoners, was key in identifying this person, and while al Qaeda has very strict cell discipline, this person is likely to have known of other people, other activities, and if he can be persuaded to assist the government, that would be a great step forward.

NEVILLE: Now, where was he recruited? Can you give us an idea of how this all works? I mean, how do you know from Jose Padilla, or aka al Muhajir, and American citizen, born in New York City, to be converted or a turncoat and be recruited by al Qaeda? How does that happen?

ISBY: Well, press reports in this case suggest he was recruited in prison, and many of the people who do get recruited, either from Islamic communities in the United States or Europe, or converts or people like Reid, the shoe-bomber, the disenfranchised, the alienated, and prisoners are posed to pick these people up.

NEVILLE: Now, do we need to be concerned? Because a lot of time prisoners go -- people get to prison and they are of one religion and they convert to Islam while they're in prison; which is not to say that everybody who does that becomes possible recruitees, if you will, for al Qaeda.

But how does that happen? And should we start to be concerned, though, that, in fact you have people, lifers, in there with nothing to lose and so why not? Is it going to be easier to convert these people, possibly?

ISBY: I don't know if necessarily prisoners are a vulnerable organization, and one of the limitations of recruiting prisoners is they do have records, their fingerprints are on file, and also they are prone to recidivism, regrettably, as is the same with any population that's been incarcerated.

So certainly the prisons are not teaming with the recruits for the next generation of al Qaeda operatives.

NEVILLE: What about mosques? ISBY: Well again, mosques -- certainly some mosques have attracted radicalism, and we point out, for example, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that some of this was used as support structure. Some of these people were recruited. Even though this certainly cannot apply to the vast bulk of the Islamic population in the United States.

NEVILLE: David, help us understand this, because I'm trying to understand how al Qaeda can recruit. Here's somebody who's born in the United States, and then does it take a lot of brainwashing or persuasion to get someone to turn against the country and perhaps really harm a lot of Americans?

ISBY: This is classic tradecraft for intelligence -- identifying someone who can be recruited and then making the recruitment. And this is something that goes back to the 16th century or beyond, in being able to point these people out, know what is going to attract them, whether it's money, danger, blackmail, excitement, and recruiting them over, the way the KGB has been recruiting spies back in the cold are war. So I suspect al Qaeda is quite capable of doing this.

NEVILLE: OK, David, I'm going to re-ask another question, because I'm trying to understand how this works.

I mean, I can't imagine that I'm on my way to work one day. I stop off for some coffee and there's an al Qaeda guy wait to recruit me or somebody else. Help us understand how this works. Is it just that simple? You just pick somebody?

ISBY: No. You look for an indications. At the mosque, you look for the guy who seems bitter and twisted, who mouths off against the system. Or more likely the guy who was taken himself and gone to Afghanistan. That's self-selecting.

If someone has gone to Afghanistan and sought training, he may be an infiltrator. You've got to check him out. But this is someone who has enough motivation, who has enough energy to get up off and go to a foreign country and seek out things in an Islamic jihad.

NEVILLE: That's what I'm talking about -- that motivation.

ISBY: This again -- well, certainly Afghanistan attracted people with Islamic motivations from throughout the world, much as the Spanish Civil War attracted people with a left of center motivation from throughout the world in the 1930s. So there was...

NEVILLE: Go ahead, David, finish your sentence.

ISBY: So there was wonderful ability to recruit, just as the KGB was able to recruit left-wingers for their cause for a generation for those who went to Spain during that conflict.

NEVILLE: OK. Suzie (ph) from Washington.

SUZIE (ph): Yes. My question was, where do they get the materials to put these together? Are they easy to get? Where do they come from?

NEVILLE: To put what together?

SUZIE (ph): The dirty bombs.

NEVILLE: All right, actually, David, if you'll hold on. That's a great question, if you don't mind we are going to get to that in another segment. So I'll get that answer for you.

In the meantime, David Isby, I want to thank you for joining us on here on TALKBACK LIVE now that Abdullah al Muhajir, or Jose Padilla, is in custody, what happens to him? How long can authorities hold him. And what does it mean to be an enemy combatant.

We'll get those answers in a moment. TALKBACK LIVE continues

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about an alleged al Qaeda plot to detonate a nuclear dirty bomb, possibly in Washington.

Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al Muhajir, was picked up in Chicago sometime last month.

He still has not been charged with any crime, however he has been declared an enemy combatant.

Attorney General John Ashcroft explained why earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHCROFT: The safety of all Americans and the national security interests of the United States require that Abdullah al Muhajir be detained by the Defense Department as an enemy combatant.

In determining that al Muhajir is an enemy combatant who legally can be detained by the United States military, we have acted with legal authority both under the laws of war, and clear Supreme Court precedent, which established that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. Let's find out what all of this means.

Joining us now are attorney Jack Burkman. He's a former Republican congressional counsel; he'll join us in a minute. Also with us is Stanley Cohen, a criminal defense attorney whose clients have included the head of Hamas and the head of the American Muslim Conference.

I want to welcome you to the show.

STANLEY COHEN, ATTORNEY: Thanks for inviting me.

NEVILLE: Of course.

Stanley, OK, how and why, again, was Padilla declared an enemy combatant? And exactly what does that mean?

COHEN: This is what's so outrageous about this.

Apparently, for the last month he's been in custody in New York City. The government had an opportunity to make a case out against him, and could not. When a United States federal judge said, look, you've had a month. You can't make a case out. You've got to release him.

All of a sudden, the executive, in this case the attorney general, says the heck with the constitution. I'm going to take him and I'm going to move him over to the military.

He's been in custody. The reason why he wasn't charged was they couldn't make a case. We are talking about probable cause here. We're not talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The attorney general says, "I think he's a bad guy. I think he did something wrong. Forget about the fact that we couldn't prove anything in the federal court. Forget about the fact that a federal judge said I'm going to have to release him. I'm just going to take the U.S. citizen, put him in the military camp, strip him of all rights and privileges and benefits of the citizenship and leave him alone. And I'll decide when I can cut him loose, the president and I."

That's what's happened here.

NEVILLE: But wait -- you seem to be upset about this.

COHEN: I think it's outrage us.

I think when some one is in the criminal justice system and the government is put to its burden, a very low burden, and can't prove even a nominal case to permit the government to then say, with an American citizen, well, we don't like what the judge said, so we're going to pick him up and put him in military custody and strip him of his attorney and strip had him of rights, is an outrage which can happen to any American at any time.

NEVILLE: OK. But, Jack Burkman, we're not talking about any American at any time. We're talking about somebody who was planning to detonate a dirty bomb.

COHEN: We have no proof of that, though.

JACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: No. We're talking about a person, Arthel, who if given his choice would have destroyed the studio where I'm sitting today so we couldn't have done the broadcast.

Look, let me lay this out. This is not something that should even be in the criminal justice system. This person was committing an act of war against the United States on American soil.

I think the president is being judicious and gracious even to give this barbarian a military tribunal. I would give him no proceeding at all.

The analogy -- if a U.S. aircraft carrier were bombed this afternoon in the Pacific, none of us here, not the president, not even Stan, would have any qualms about sending out U.S. ships to destroy the ships and planes that did it.

This is the same thing. We don't think of it in those terms, but this is actually worse. This is a person who would throw this whole country into terror and who would in an instance cause millions of deaths.

I believe, and I think...

COHEN: This is -- this is...

BURKMAN: Wait a minute, Stan. You had your say.

I think the U.N. charter and a number of provisions of international law, under self-defense, could enable the United States -- we can claim self-defense -- I don't think this person should get anything more than a military execution.

I think proper procedure is for the Defense Dept. to make a quick verification that this person was involved in securing materials for a dirty bomb, and he should be executed.

That being said, I don't think the administration will go that route. I think they should. If they don't do that, I think a military tribunal is more than appropriate and more than this guy deserves.

NEVILLE: OK. So help us understand this, either one of you. You're talking about a military tribunal. But he's an American citizen so why can't he just be...

BURKMAN: Well, first of all...

COHEN: Because the government has already...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: One at a time. Stop.

COHEN: The government has already said that they don't plan on using a military tribunal. What the government has said is, we're just going to detain him indefinitely.

What my opponent fails to say today to America is that they had one month to show any evidence whatsoever that he was involved in this alleged conspiracy, and they couldn't.

NEVILLE: But maybe they had to gather the information. (CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: I don't know where you're getting your timeline.

The detention, as far as I'm concerned, has only begun very recently. You're imposing that timeline on the system.

COHEN: May 8. May 8 he was detained and put in front of a federal court. At that point, the government have one month and couldn't do it.

BURKMAN: Arthel, there is a substantial issue here as to whether this person is a United States citizen.

You have to remember, all of these persons involved in these terror trials will make speeches, claims through council, that they are United States citizens. I doubt he will succeed on those claims.

Even though if he does, even if he does, remember that the law under ex parte Quirin in the 1940's, current Supreme Court law gives the president the right in a time of war to try United States citizens in a military tribunal.

Now, again, George Bush, I think in his graciousness, has heretofore declined to apply this to United States citizens, as in the Walker case.

But the president has full legal authority to subject this person to a military tribunal. I believe after the detention period he will certainly do that.

NEVILLE: And Jack, how long is that detention period?

BURKMAN: Because of the risk involved, I think there has to be broad leeway to the attorney general. You can't...

COHEN: How about life? Let them hold him for life.

BURKMAN: If necessary, we can't have a situation where American cities are terrorized.

COHEN: You can't have it both ways. We have a system of justice in this country which says that the judicial branch is a co-equal branch of government. We don't just simply allow the attorney general to say trusts.

Here, the attorney general brought a case in a federal court and failed. The laws of this nation said you know what, we'll give you the lowest burden of proof and they couldn't. They couldn't. Let me finish.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Actually, Stan, I'm going to have to jump in because we have to take a break. But I've got to tell you guys, we have an audience full of questions for both of you, so we're going to talk about that and let my guests get some questions in to you guys.

In the meantime, what is a dirty bomb? And what can you do to protect yourself from an attack? We're going to give you the facts, so stick around for that.

And, of course, TALKBACK LIVE will continue in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can tell you that we have a man detained who is a threat to the country, and that thanks to the vigilance of our intelligence gathering and law enforcement, he is now off the streets, where he should be. And I'll let the Defense Dept. and the Justice Dept. comment on the specifics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. Welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about Jose Padilla, the American accused of helping al Qaeda plan a dirty bomb attack on the United States.

And as promised, I was going to let my audience here ask some questions of Jack and Stanley.

Go ahead and stand up for me, David. Turn around for me, I think we're here.

DAVID: How are you doing?

I agree with Stanley that you should -- you have at least 28 to like 30 days to prove your case against someone and to prove that he has something to do with it. So you should release him. However, I don't think that people should just go ahead and try to crucify the man without probable cause.

BURKMAN: I will tell you, Arthel, my feeling on this -- I think part of the problem is, it's inappropriate to think of this in the criminal justice paradigm.

This is not like a police officer going out and arresting someone who robs a 7-11. This is, this is a war...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Hold only, Stan. This is a wartime situation. The United States is at war.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Can I just jump in here? We have had three dozen cases in New York since September 11 in which the same argument was raised, in which people were picked up and held one month, two months, six months, in which the government says they did all sorts of bad things, and then eventually walk out, and the government says gee, we're sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Nothing is perfect, Stan. But you see, nothing is perfect. What you are failing to see, of course, in a time of war, of course, there will be one or two people who are wrongfully held.

COHEN: No, no. This is dozens of Muslims. This is dozens of Muslims...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Nothing, Stan, is perfect. But you see, in a time of war, what you're forgetting is, the stakes are sufficiently high that if the government is wrong, this CNN studio and this city and this government are destroyed.

COHEN: No. What you forget is, in the history of this country, it is precisely in these times when the most vulnerable have to be protected. We locked up...

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Wait a minute. We locked up 160,000 Japanese Americans in 1940 for five years, and we said it was a time of war.

BURKMAN: That's not an appropriate metaphor.

NEVILLE: Stanley...

COHEN: We always use that excuse.

NEVILLE: Regarding this particular situation, you were saying that the most vulnerable. Who are you talking about when you say the most vulnerable?

COHEN: In this particular situation, Muslims, people that have come from other countries. What we have focused on since September 11 are Arabs, East Asians and Muslims, and in almost every single case people have been held for months and then released.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Help me understand this, Stanley. Help me understand this, then. How do you get away with the fact that the terrorist were from the Middle East?

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Listen. Listen to me.

I'm not saying -- listen to me. Because I'm not saying that all Muslims or people form the Middle East are terrorists. I'm not certainly not saying that. And as a black woman, I understand being painted with a broad brush. So I understand what you're saying.

At the same time, Stanley, this is a different day. This is a different time, we're talking... COHEN: No, no.

NEVILLE: Hang on. Should we let whomever we're talking about, in this case Padilla -- should we let him go and then he turns up and detonates this bomb. And then we go, oh, yes, he was -- where's probably cause.

COHEN: Listen to me. This sounds -- the government -- no, no, no, no. This sounds good. The government had one solid month and said to a judge, we can't prove a case.

BURKMAN: Where do you come up with the time limits? Where do you come off with these time limits, and why should the government be limited to a case?

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Let me tell you what the law is, Stanley.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: You know what, guys? You all are giving me a headache right now. I'm going to let Scott talk. Go ahead, Scott.

SCOTT: Yes, I just have a question for Jack. He said something about the U.N. had -- we could hold him because the United Nations had a rule or a law. Doesn't our Constitution have enough authority to hold somebody?

BURKMAN: Well, sure it does. Sure it does. It's an excellent question. I would take it at two levels.

First of all, my initial argument is that this is an act of war against the United States, on American soil. So the U.N. charter gives us as a country the right to act in self-defense. I don't even think you reach a criminal justice situation, where this guy is entitled to any type of proceeding.

I think you can deal with him the way you would deal with any other soldier who fired on our troops in the battlefield, and that is simply eliminate him.

If you don't do that, if you go the way they're going, which is to put it into the criminal justice system, what Stan forgets and what we were hacking about in the last segment is that the law is on the side of the administration.

The ex parte Quirin case, in a time of war, gives the attorney general, A, the right to make these detentions for as long as he sees fit in a time of war.

NEVILLE: Jack, I hate to cut you off, because it's a good explanation, but I've got to take a break for the news.

I've got Roy on the phone and more questions from the audience. So this is -- people want to know about this, and we'll talk about it after the break.

OK. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, we are talking more about this Jose Padilla guy. And what should happen to him. And Roy, I know you are standing by in Arizona and I'd like to hear your thoughts right now.

ROY: Hi, good morning. Good afternoon. I just wanted to let you know that I was one of the millions of Americans that woke up this morning, turned the TV on, saw the breaking news about Jose Padilla, and I just want to make the point that none of this is new. We have got, what, 26 to 40 other people like this gentleman in Camp X-Ray?

The evidence that is presented to us is not new. It was something we saw immediately after busting up the case, and I'm not quite clear that I understand why all of a sudden the breaking news?

It makes sense to me if the government wants to cover up their inability and buffoonery when it comes to the kind of information that could potentially prevent stuff like this from happening, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

NEVILLE: I'll let Jack...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: ... you know, Arthel I really have to tell you. I hate to say this, but I don't think the left in this country will be satisfied until we have another 9-11. The reason this guy -- the reason the attorney general made a decision to detain this guy further is because he doesn't want to take any chances.

We have to remember the stakes at this. The point to keep in mind, the law, Stan says, follow the law. Current law gives the attorney general that right to do everything he's doing...

COHEN: It's not true.

BURKMAN: ... the other thing to remember...

NEVILLE: ... hang on Jack, I'm going to let him tell us why it's not true.

COHEN: The precedent that Jack keeps citing is completely inapposite to this situation; in two respects. Number one, here the process began in a civilian court. The attorney general made a choice. He had ample time. All you have to do is show probable cause.

He couldn't show probable cause. He was to be released. At that point, the lawyer siding does not permit him to simply say, "OK, I'm now slipping you into the military tribunal." Moreover...

(CROSSTALK) COHEN: If I may finish? The second point is...

NEVILLE: ... we want to follow you. Hang on, because I have a question regarding what you just said from Mike from California.

MIKE: OK, Stanley, this question is for you. If you're not in favor of put Jose Padilla in prison, who do you propose we go after?

COHEN: The way we have a system that's worked for 200 years is very simple. You make a showing of probable cause when you bring someone into a federal court. It's not up to me. It's not up to you. It's up to the government to make a very low showing of probable cause.

They admitted to the judge, we can't make this showing. We believe he was up to no good, but we can't establish it.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: We're forgetting, they may have additional information that can't be dumped out on the cable news channel.

COHEN: They didn't say that.

BURKMAN: ... They have no legal obligation to tell you.

COHEN: ... but you do, once you choose ....

NEVILLE: ... hold on.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Hold on, we need to set the law straight. The fact this case originated in civilian court has nothing to do with the president's authority under ex parte Quirin -- A, to detain this man, or, B, to host a military tribunal. That is completely irrelevant.

The fact -- they could have had this case in civilian court for five years. It has nothing to do with the president's authority in the time of war. Why Stan would cite that as a red herring, I don't know.

The other think to remember, Arthel, is, it is -- we all want our freedoms, we all want to uphold the Bill of Rights, we all want to uphold the Constitution. But it's an obsession with this kind of liberty taken to excess.

NEVILLE: These people are studying those liberties and they're using them against Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Why don't we just let George Bush tell everyone in the world who is good and who is bad. We'll forget about laws. We'll forget about judges.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: How is that irrelevant?

NEVILLE: Hang on guys, let me let Bjorn (ph) from Germany jump in.

BJORN (ph): I just want to make sure that you all take a step back here -- you just said we should just execute this guy. I think we just shouldn't do that right away. I have no problem detaining this guy if he presents a problem to the United States. But we can't just have military take over and execute randomly people.

BURKMAN: I recognize that that's a strong statement. And I am a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the right of even the administration on this, but I'll again go into my legal argument. This is a time of war. The United States is at war. This is a person who wanted to commit an act of war and did commit some kind of act of war on American soil.

COHEN: We don't know that.

NEVILLE: Why do you keep saying we don't know that?

COHEN: Because all we know is George Bush says, trust me. And when he was given an opportunity to show one shred of evidence, he couldn't.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: The problem here is everyone assumes, just because the president says he's a bad guy, he's a bad guy. And then they say, lock him up.

BURKMAN: First of all, this is classified. First of all, see, this is the problem of doing this in a television forum. This is classified information. Neither the president nor the attorney general can or has any obligation to go on television and tell the whole world the intimate details of what they are doing. That's why the Supreme Court...

COHEN: ... they couldn't tell a judge. We don't trust judges? We don't trust federal judges?

BURKMAN: Frankly, Stan, under the law they don't have any obligation to have this in civilian -- no, you're quite wrong...

COHEN: ... once you choose to go into federal court, the burden is on the government and they couldn't meet their burden.

NEVILLE: Stanley Cohen and Jack Burkman, thank you very much. Actually, we got some informative comments from you guys on this, and I appreciate it, and I'm sure I'll see both of you again on TALKBACK LIVE.

COHEN: Thanks for the invitation.

BURKMAN: See you soon. NEVILLE: All right, listen, we're going to take a break right now. Then we're going to find out exactly what a dirty bomb is and what you can do to protect yourself and your family from one of these things. We'll talk about that in a minute. More TALKBACK LIVE after this.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBALK LIVE, everybody. It's scary enough to hear that an American citizen might be bent on killing us in our homes and cities. And then you hear authorities say he was working on using a weapon described as a radioactive dirty bomb.

Right now, we're going to find out exactly what that is, how far it reaches and what if you are exposed to it. Joining us now is John Newhouse, a senior fellow with the Center for Defense Information. He's an expert in arms control and diplomacy.

Also with us is CNN Medical Correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen and I want to welcome you both of you to the show.

Mr. Newhouse, the first question is going to go to you. And I'm not going to ask it. I'm going to let an audience member do that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I had a question. Where do they get these materials to put these dirty bombs together?

JOHN NEWHOUSE, CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFO.: We haven't seen any dirty bombs yet, so far as I know, and that's the good news. The other good news that it's very difficult to assemble one of these things. They have to be made from radioactive materials such as radiological medical isotopes, or the 12-foot spent fuel rods from nuclear fuel centers.

And that would be very tough. That would be highly radioactive, heavy, difficult to handle. And a terrorist or terrorists trying to build a bomb after grinding up that stuff would confront a whole array of difficulties. Making the weapon, delivering it to the target would be difficult and dangerous, and probably an invitation to martyrdom at every stage.

NEVILLE: And then actually getting his or her hands on the materials. How difficult is that?

NEWHOUSE: Well, radiological medical isotopes might be accessible, but they wouldn't have quite as much lethal radiation involved as the spent fuel rods would.

But the probability is that getting the stuff, the radiological material, and then building it into a bomb, having a chemical explosive set it off, all that would be pretty complicated. Not difficult, not as difficult as some other so-called weapons of mass destruction, but difficult enough. And how lethal is it? Well, we couldn't say. It would depend on how intensely radioactive it was. The probability is it would not be a weapon of mass destruction in the end. It would be a weapon of mass disruption. Probably cause some panic. Quite a number of people would probably die prematurely from thyroid cancer. Some will be killed out right. There would be crops and livestock contamination in a given area; again, depending on how big the bomb was.

But when you look at the whole menu of weapons of mass destruction, this would not be considered one of the most destructive.

NEVILLE: You know what, hang on for me, I promised I was going to let you talk. But you know, Elizabeth, this is a good place to bring you in here now. The effects of this radioactive dirty bomb, if we were to be exposed to it.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, as John Newhouse was saying, it's very important to keep in mind. This is not the best weapon of mass destruction. As he said, it really isn't even a weapon of mass destruction. It's meant more to scare the "you know what" out of people.

The damage it would cause, according to one article written last month in a medical journal, would be within maybe a few city blocks. The radiation does not spread out with great force all over the place. It is instead just attached to solid particles. And that's why we have a list of the things that one should do if a dirty bomb did, God forbid, go off.

The first thing, of course, would be to leave the area. Get out of there. The second, would be to remove your clothing. The reason for that is, if the solid particles hit your clothing, you want that clothing as far away from you as possible. The third thing is to wash your body, especially the parts that weren't covered up by the clothing. And the last thing is to use an N-95 Mask.

I actually have one right here. The reason why I have it is, I found this just down the hall from my office.

NEVILLE: You can get them at Home Depot, right?

COHEN: You can these at a lot of different places. It's N-95. It's important to get one with the right number. And like Nancy, 95. And the reason why is you don't want to breathe in the radiation, this keeps from you doing it.

A lot of large companies like CNN, keep them near where you have the aspirin and throat lozenges in case there is some kind of an accident, or something like that. And so those are the really important things to remember.

Now, if you did get radiation illness, if you were right near where the bomb went off, sometimes in those kind of radiation incidents they distribute KI pills. They would distribute it, for example, just recently to people who lived near nuclear power plants. And they're cheap and they don't cause a lot of problems. And so that's why they give them out.

But this is not something like a Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Not under any circumstances.

NEVILLE: OK. Now, Sal, as I promised, go ahead and stand up for me. Mr. Newhouse, you were talking earlier about how difficult it would be for somebody like Padilla to get his hands on these materials to make a dirty bomb, and your comment, Sal, was?

SAL: My comment is simply that why are we assuming Padilla was going to make the bomb. He was going to deliver the bomb. And so, these materials are not that hard to get for people in Iran or Iraq or wherever these people come from.

I don't think we should make the mistake of saying, well, a guy like this doesn't have a way to pick up a bomb and bring. No, he's not going to. They were going to deliver it to him in a suitcase or however big these things are. Then he would blow it up.

NEVILLE: Mr. Newhouse, would you like to comment? Did you hear that?

NEWHOUSE: I heard it; I'm not disputing it. I just go back to the point that I made before, that this stuff is very difficult to handle. And it's certainly not inconceivable that it can be handled and it could be exploded successfully, so that it would create some damage. I don't think it's a high risk proposition, but we don't really know.

NEVILLE: OK. Those are some interesting points made here. Elizabeth, thanks for showing us this mask. And you are right. You can get it at your local hardware story, I imagine if you need it.

COHEN: You don't want the kind that are thin like surgeons wear in surgery. You don't that, you want an N-95 mask.

NEVILLE: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you so much, and John Newhouse, thank as well for joining us here. Up next, we're going to talk about the worst kept secret in Ireland. Have you heard? Sir Paul is getting married. Everybody knows. We'll talk about that when we come back, OK.

[APPLAUSE].

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All you need is love and an invitation, which is not going to get you to Castle Leslie in Glaslough, Ireland. Sir Paul, Paul McCartney and his love Heather Mills are going to tie the knot and say "I do" -- look at them, a nice looking couple. We need to know all the details, and we are going to get that from Richard Quest.

Who is in -- where are you, Richard? Where are you, Richard? Are you there, where are you, you're outside the gate. Are you going in? RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Believe me, Arthel, I'm outside the gate, and there's absolutely no chance that I can get inside the gate. We have been here now for a couple of days.

Oh, let me in. Absolutely no chance. But the reason we are looking reasonably happy, it's stopped raining. For the first time in hours. I mean, since we have been here since 7:00 this morning. It's now coming up to 9:00 at night here in Ireland. And it has rained incessantly. Non-stop, we just had rain. I mean, it's everywhere. We've just been totally, totally drenched.

In fact, the only time it did stop raining was when Paul McCartney and his fiancee came out of the castle and came to speak to us and basically told us a few things. Who the best man is, Mike McCartney. Who's made the wedding dress; it's a designer in London. Those sort of facts.

But, you know, Arthel, while you think about what you might like to know -- hang on, I think I felt a spot of rain then. While you ever think -- I'd like to show you a little bit of the area that we're actually here. Although these are the gates of Castle Leslie...

NEVILLE: ... Go ahead.

QUEST: This is what exactly is going to be happening behind us. Let me show you something of the area, because this is actually where most of -- come with me, bear with me. This is where most of the work is actually being done. This is the pillar house pub, where most of the people have been staying, not the famous guests or anything like that, but a lot of the roadies, a lot of the organizers, that sort of thing.

It will come perhaps as little surprise that we have spent a considerable amount of time in here as well trying to keep dry and also trying to find out whatever we can.

NEVILLE: I'm so glad you said it and not me. You know we heard about this whole ring thing, that supposedly the engagement ring was thrown out the window here in the States, I think in Florida last week. What's up with that, quickly, Richard?

QUEST: Very briefly. She was asked about that. She didn't say anything at all. Heather Mills was asked about the ring. She just sort of shrugged her shoulders. We were none the wiser about what might have happened on that one.

NEVILLE: All right, Richard, go back into the public. Stay dry. Maybe you won't. But go inside the pub. We're out of time, Richard Quest. Thank you so much for joining us everybody.

Thanks to our studio audience and to you at home as well for watching. I'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE with me, Arthel Neville.

Judy Woodruff is next with a look at what's up ahead on "INSIDE POLITICS." TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





 
 
 
 


 Search   

Back to the top