|
 |
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Why Won't Bush Administration Discuss Enron?; Should Detainees in Guantanamo Bay Be Considered POWs?
Aired January 28, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: See Enron collapse. See Dick stand his ground. See Congress sue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They don't have anything to hide. They ought to let it out. If they want to be suspected, they ought to keep on hiding things.
ANNOUNCER: Also, do the detainees in Cuba need more tlc?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.
ANNOUNCER: But are they covered by the Geneva Convention?
And no deal for an American journalist held hostage in Pakistan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The presumption is always that a foreigner coming to the country asking questions is somehow a spy.
ANNOUNCER: Where is Daniel Pearl?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
ROBIN MEADE, HOST: Well, hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, "America Speaks Out". So glad that you are joining us. I'm Robin Meade. Thank you so much for having us in.
You know, it is pretty clear that the administration doesn't really talk about the meetings that it held with Enron executives. Vice President Dick Cheney -- maybe you have heard this already -- says those talks were private. No, we're not talking about it unless you make me. And if you try to make me, well, those talks are private. That's what I said.
Well, but Congress wants to know, hey, who was there? What was said? And Congress also wants to know whether Enron had any role in shaping the energy policy, a very important point there. You know, it could all end up in court. Well, joining us right now, Robert Weiss is an attorney active in Democratic politics. Hi, Robert. And Armstrong Williams is a syndicated columnist and a radio talk show host of "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams". Like the name of that show. His latest book is called "Beyond Blame: Moving Beyond Being a Victim". So Armstrong and Robert, thank you both for being here. We really appreciate it.
Armstrong, let us talk with you. So why shouldn't the administration just tell us what was said during all of these meetings and who was there? What's the worry?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, Robin, I don't think there's any worry. I think eventually this administration will. I think it's just a matter of time. You know, GAO really has no -- has only jurisdiction over executive agencies. The White House and the office of the vice president is not an executive agency. That is a privilege that they have. I understand the concern that many people are having that if you have nothing to hide, why not just release the documents.
MEADE: Right. That's what a lot of the people in our audience have said.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think from the administration's point of view, they have nothing to hide. I think this is sort of a witch hunt by people in the Democratic party and the Democratic leadership. The president's ratings continue to soar. Democrats have lost the battle on the issue of education. They're losing votes among...
ROBERT WEISS, ATTORNEY: If I could just stop you here for one second...
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Now, Robert, let Armstrong finish a little bit. Armstrong, you go right ahead and Robert, I'll get right to you and you can put right in there.
WILLIAMS: Yes. And I think because they are so desperate of the fact that the midterm elections are really a pun that's right around the corner, they're doing everything they can to undermine this president and make it seem as though that this president is in some kind of way -- his officials are involved in some kind of scandal. And it's just ridiculous.
MEADE: Man, right at the top of the show and we're already arguing, aren't we? Armstrong, thank you for that comment. But, Robert, what do you have to say back to that? You wanted to jump right in, so go ahead now.
WEISS: Well, it seems clear to me that they are hiding something. You have to realize that it's not that the executive privilege claim is a very specious claim. The fact is that he wasn't meeting as a vice president with these Enron officials. He was meeting as the head of the Energy Task Force. And in that capacity, these meetings are clearly discoverable by Congress and they should be public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The only reason that David Walker, who is the attorney for the GAO, says that they had the vice president there in that position is so they could claim executive privilege. Now you have to remember that this -- we don't know what Enron did. We don't know exactly what Enron had to do with energy policy. But it seems to me that they are holding the blue dress and they are not letting it be examined. So for them to say that this is a scandal -- for Mr. Williams to say that this is a scandal that's being made up is absurd. This is the largest business failure in the history of the country. And it's a failure based on fraud.
MEADE: Now, Robert and Armstrong, I want you guys just to hold on just a little bit. Keep those thoughts because just like you all have been talking a lot about that today, there has been a lot of talk too as well and a lot of talk going on at a press conference that happened earlier and the subject was brought up.
So let me take you live right now to Major Garrett. I believe he's probably at the White House, a little bit more. Major, where does this stand right now? It's good to see you, by the way.
MAJOR GARRETT, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Robin. Well, the president made it pretty clear just a few moments ago in the Rose Garden when he was appearing with the leader of the interim government of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. He got all the questions about the GAO conflict with the White House.
The president said, we are going to assert executive privilege and more or less dared the General Accounting Office to file a lawsuit in pursuit of these notes and records of these meetings that were done and taken and carried out by the vice president's Energy Task Force in the formulation of that national energy policy. And the White House has said consistently that the GAO simply does not have jurisdiction over these notes or who was there and what was said.
Now what the White House has hinted and sort of said in a less emphatic way is if a congressional committee with proper jurisdiction were to make a request for this information, the White House reserves the right to review that and possibly comply. That may be an exit ramp for everyone involved in this case. I'm not saying it will be, but there are indications here at the White House it might be and the GAO, the General Accounting Office, has threatened to sue many times. It has not sued. And the White House basically today, in the words of the president of the United States, is more or less daring the GAO to file that lawsuit and see where it's settled in court.
MEADE: Do you know what I kind of think about, Major, and I wonder if any of the reporters or yourself asked this. Is there a precedence for this? Did this happen in the past where the administration did not give out information and they used these -- this as a precedent? Do you know?
GARRETT: Well, there are precedents, but they are somewhat murky and every case like this seems to create a brand new and singular precedent. Now, I am not an expert on the entire history of executive branch disputes with Congress over access to those people who come and talk to the president or who deal with matters that the executive branch tries to protect.
But during Watergate, there were tremendous conflicts between the Congress and the executive branch.
expert on the entire history of Executive Branch disputes with Congress over access to those people who come and talk to the president or who deal with matters that the Executive Branch tries to protect.
But during Watergate there were tremendous conflicts between the Congress and the Executive Branch. Nixon Administration sought many times to protect deliberations, protect other elements of its administration from congressional oversight. There is even a case that goes back to the Teapot Dome scandal where Congress tried to find out more information about what the administration at that time was doing in that scandal.
So there is a long history of these sort of conflicts, but the White House attorneys, and I have talked to people who have spoken with them, are very confident that on this particular grounding they are very, very secure that the General Accounting Office simply doesn't have legal jurisdiction to ask these questions and obtain this information. A congressional committee might, and if the request is forthcoming, the White House might -- I underscore might -- comply.
MEADE: Does the White House, when you are there at the press conference, does any administration members, do they kind of seem a little aggravated that had so many people at home, like here, are talking about this?
KARL: There is a sense of aggravation. It deals particularly with how the Enron story has sort of gained velocity as it relates to the White House. Now this dispute between the General Accounting Office and the White House dates back to actually last fall, and died down precipitously after the tragic events of 9-11 -- understandably.
It has gained more momentum as Enron collapsed and it has become more topical generally around the country. The White House says that's only because Democrats are trying to politicize this issue. It's worth pointing out there are other Republicans in Congress who say the White House should comply with this request, make this information well known. And I have also talked to senior officials who know what is in these documents. They say there is absolutely nothing there.
They do not feel as if there is anything to hide. They are standing, they say, on a principal that they say is important, not just for this president but for future president's. Others will dispute that. But that's their contention at the moment.
MEADE: All right. Major Garrett, it is so good to see you. I know you are a busy person so everyone here at TALKBACK LIVE says thanks for spreading the information and stopping by.
All right, you know people on the floor, you guys have been talking a little bit about this. You have some thoughts. Who would like to make a comment about all of this? If you have a question you are going to have to ask a question either of Robert Wise or Armstrong Williams, who we were talking to earlier, but maybe it is just a comment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really have a question -- have a comment. I really thought the Bush Administration might be a lot smarter than the last one. I am really sick of all the government secrets. I think a lot of people are. It's our government. You work for us. Tell us what happened. Tell us the truth. That's all we are asking. Give us the truth.
WEISS: I agree with you 100 percent. I also want to say that during the Clinton Administration, the same conservatives, the same Republicans were bashing Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Administration to turn over documents when they claimed executive privilege, they yelled, cover-up. We went through this for years and years and years and years.
It turns out now, when they are on the other side, they are complete hypocrites because now they are hiding behind the same executive privilege that they were protesting before.
WILLIAMS: If I could just speak to the gentlemen in the audience who just spoke because he is quite sincere, and he shares many of the sentiments of the American people. I think what Major Garrett indicated, especially when he talked about the Teapot Dome case, that was during the Warren Harding Administration. There's some precedence there.
And even with the Nixon Administration, President Nixon never won one appeal in the trial court, in the court of appeals, even in the Supreme Court. Even with Bush's predecessor, Mr. Clinton, he never won one appeal. I think the administration understands that if this goes to court they have no chance of winning. But the issue is, the plaintiff, the GAO, is totally out of line here in asking the White House and the vice president to turn these papers over.
What the president in this administration is saying, let Congress, who have 12 committees that has jurisdiction over this issue, if they ask us by subpoena or whatever, we are willing to do that. That is the issue. I can assure you, from my talking to people in the administration who are familiar with this issue and Republicans on the hill, there is nothing in these documents that they are trying to hide. It is just the principle of the issue, like Major Garrett stated.
(CROSSTALK) WEISS: Let's review what we have at steak here. You have to realize that both Vice President Cheney and George Bush and the Bush family were from the oil industry. Vice President Cheney made millions of dollars personally in the oil industry. The oil industry and Enron were No. 1 contributors and now they are hiding these things, hiding behind the loop hole that I disagree with Mr. Williams on.
There is no reason why the GAO doesn't have jurisdiction. The GOA is a bipartisan arm of Congress and there is no reason to hide behind that and say we will wait for committee. The fact is that just from a political perspective, the question is, what are you hiding, Mr. Cheney?
MEADE: Robert and Armstrong, I want you guys to hold off a second because we have Justin right here, Justin is here in the audience and he has a question or concern about everything that you have been hearing.
JUSTIN: I believe Mr. Weiss is absolutely correct. The capacity that the vice president was serving on the committee, it shouldn't have anything to do with the executive privilege because he wasn't serving as vice president on the committee. If you don't have anything to hide, disclose the information.
It seems as though the loop-hole you are trying to work is the GAO. But I think the American people would like to know exactly what was going on because we are citizens of this country. We need to know if there is a serious conflict of interest. The Bush, their administrations in the past have been heavily funded by energy companies. They have been rich from oil companies. I think we need to know if Enron was having a serious influence on the energy policies. We have a right to know.
WEISS: I agree with this gentleman 100 percent. And I just want to make a quick point here. There were hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks to the energy industry in the final report of the energy task force. There were additional -- a lot of deregulation -- it is very hard to quantify how much money, what type of windfall the energy industry gained.
We want to know exactly what input Enron had, and what they got and what -- and if you match up what they got and what they gave, that's something the American people should be entitled to. I agree with that gentleman.
WILLIAMS: We also should some integrity on this issue. Let's just be candid in all fairness here. Everybody, from the Democrats to the Republicans, to the media was in some way, and many of them were on the payroll at Enron.
WEISS: Excellent point.
WILLIAMS: It is unfair for you to try to say that this is just something that has to do with the Bush Administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Gentlemen, we have a caller.
WEISS: I agree with you 100 percent. It is not just the Bush Administration. It is also the Democrats as well as the media. The fact is, Bill Kristol was apparently on the payroll. Ralph Reed was on the payroll, one of the No. 1 Republican consultants who never held office.
MEADE: Now gentlemen, Robert and Armstrong, I have to interrupt you guys. We have a caller and I'm sure the caller would like to kind of get a few seconds in here. Philip, is that who I have on the phone?
CALLER: That's correct.
MEADE: Phil, from Tennessee. Hi, Phil, how are you? What would you like to say?
CALLER: Well, according to the Republicans three years ago, Bill and Monica couldn't have a private meeting, but yet Dick Cheney, while he's on the taxpayers dime, can determine and in his cronies can determine the price of the gas that goes into my gas tank, yet their meetings are private and we can't find out what they were doing with the tax payer's money. Explain that one, Mr. Williams.
WEISS: Excellent point.
MEADE: Isn't it a matter of what actually was said during the meetings, or was it really a matter of timing and the rights?
WILLIAMS: The issue is -- I don't want anyone to misconstrue my point -- this administration will turn over those documents. That is not an issue. The issue is, is that the General Accounting Office does not have jurisdiction over asking them to do so. When Congress asks them to turn those documents over, the president and this administration will because, they have absolutely nothing to hide.
WEISS: If I could, I believe Mr. Armstrong should be in the administration, because that's not what Vice President Cheney said on Fox. I watched it myself. He said he will not do it. It's a separation of Executive Branch versus Legislative Branch, and I think Mr. Armstrong, makes a correct point.
If they turn over the documents, fine. But they will not turn over the documents. I also want to address the point to the last person, last caller. He's 100 percent right. The Republicans and conservatives impeached a very popular president based upon a minor sex scandal. Call that point, it's not the sex, it's the lying. It's the cover ups.
Here you have the president of the United States Gorge Bush lying about his relationship with Ken Lay. He said he didn't know Ken Lay until 1994 when you know he did. Now the vice president is covering up. That's pretty serious. MEADE: Robert, let me ask you something. We are going to have to wind up a little bit for this block, gentlemen. Robert, where do you think we go from here? What has to happen next?
WEISS: What I think has to happen next is I think the General Accounting Office will sue the vice president of the United States. The case will go to the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that ruled 5 to 4 for George W. Bush's election to begin with. And I can't prognosticate what is going to happen to the Supreme Court. Politically, I think the Bush Administration is shooting themselves in the foot.
This is how to take an 82 percent approval rating and lose the next election. Fair people, the people in your audience say, turn this stuff over. There is no reason not to. If they try to hide behind spin, hide behind technicalities, they are going to wind up losing politically.
MEADE: We have someone in the audience who would like to make a comment, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes I'm going to be the contrarian, I think.
MEADE: You go right ahead and be the contrarian.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm speaking to Mr. Williams. I'm agreeing with him, and the fact that, doesn't anyone see a need for privacy on the part of Cheney's energy meeting?
MEADE: That's a good point.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had open, he had open corporate people to speak for him to get information to make a decision. If, in fact, there's no such thing as private talks with Cheney, you are going to get a different kind of response from American industry. At this point where he is now, if he could, if there is a mechanism to allow him to go to his cabinet...
MEADE: So basically...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... to make a decision but not make it on his own. I don't believe everything should automatically become public information.
MEADE: All right, we want to thank you so much for your comments today. I bet it's time for me to go to break. It is. OK, so let me tell you what is coming up.
Armstrong Williams and Robert Weiss, we want to thank you guys both for joining us today. Appreciate your time and your comments. We are going to take a break right now and we'll be right back here at TALKBACK LIVE. Stay close, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, what's the Geneva Convention have to do with the detainees in Cuba?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the Geneva Convention requires, then in a situation where there is some doubt, you assume that they are POWs until you are able to demonstrate otherwise.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They are not part of a country's army and they are not legitimate prisoners of war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Are the detainees getting what they deserve?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
MEADE: Well, welcome back everybody. Hello if you are just now joining us this afternoon. Appreciate your time.
You know, there were big discussions at the White House today. And it concerned whether al Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Cuba are covered by the Geneva Convention. You know, lots of other countries are kind of griping, maybe you have heard or you've read about this, about the treatment of the detainees that they are receiving and about U.S. refusal to call them prisoners of war.
Well, in the end, the White House announced that the detainees are not and they will not be considered POWs. Well, here to talk about why that all matters -- a bunch of titles here -- Jack Burkman, former Republican congressional attorney and lobbyist. Hi, Jack, glad to have you here.
JACK BURKMAN, FORMER GOP ATTORNEY: Hello, Robin.
MEADE: Hold that thought. And Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. Hi, there.
REED BRODY, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Hi, Robin.
MEADE: And also, OK, we've got a third person in this discussion, Michael Scharf, a professor at the New England School of Law. He is also the director for the Center for International Law and Policy. Michael, nice to have you here as well.
All right. So where do we start? This is such a big discussion. You know, I guess if you want to be simplistic about it, it sounds like a bunch of titles: prisoners of war, unlawful combatants. But it makes a big difference under the Geneva Convention. Let's learn a little bit more though about what the Geneva Convention says about it.
So Michael Scharf, we are going to start with you, if that's all right. Michael, what does the Convention say about the difference between POW or unlawful combatant? Does it say anything about unlawful combatant? MICHAEL SCHARF, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY: Well, it doesn't use those words. But what it does in Article 4 is define who is entitled to POW status and the rights that appertain to that. Article 4 says that if you are a member of the armed forces of the enemy's military and you fall into the custody of the detaining power, then you have that POW status. Article 4, paragraph 2 says that if you are part of a paramilitary force or a militia, then you only get POW status if you meet four different criteria, and they are all in the edition.
So first of all, you have to be part of a hierarchical command structure. Secondly, you have to carry your arms openly and have an insignia. Third, you have to abide by the rules and customs of law of war, and -- actually I added two together -- but those are the following conditions.
MEADE: OK. So, Michael, you said that they have to have an insignia or an uniform to be considered a fighting group of soldiers then? And wouldn't that rule out then the Taliban and al Qaeda? I mean, maybe it's money or organization but they certainly didn't have uniforms or an insignia.
SCHARF: Right. Now, paragraph one says that the people like the Taliban who are the legitimate government, even if not recognized, if they are the government in effective control and they are part of a conflict, that their armed forces get POW status. So, if you are part of the Taliban's armed forces, presumptively you get POW status.
Al Qaeda on the other hand would be covered by paragraph two because they would be seen as either terrorists or militia and they obviously don't fall within those four criteria. Now the importance is...
MEADE: All right. Now let me talk a little bit with Jack. Mike, thank you for helping us understand that a little bit. So, Jack, the White House says that the Geneva Convention does not apply in the case of a person who engages in terrorist acts. Should it or should it not?
BURKMAN: I think it doesn't, but the bottom line is this Convention, like a lot of these international conventions, every lawyer you talk to will give you a different answer.
The bottom line is this: Why do we want to give these people that we have captured more rights than the law allows? Clearly, the Bush administration has sound support for what it is arguing. Now there are people on the left who can make the case if you listen to those four criteria and other parts of the Geneva Convention, you can certainly make the case that they are POWs. I think Bush is right. Others might think, you know, those on the left are right. But the point is the case can be made either way. Shouldn't we do everything we can to make this as limited as possible?
You know, the other thing is...
SCHARP: OK, but there's one thing, Jack... (CROSSTALK)
MEADE: So, Reed, go ahead. Why should we give these people any more rights, Reed?
BRODY: Professor Scharp is absolutely right in the way he interprets the law. And what's important to recognize, these may be very evil people. But the Geneva Conventions protect their soldiers just like they protect our soldiers. And for the United States to say OK, you know, we are not going to apply those parts of the Geneva Conventions that we don't want to apply, it's wrong. It sends a very bad message to the rest of the world about respect for law and American values. And ultimately, it invites other countries to disrespect the Geneva Conventions when American prisoners are captured.
BURKMAN: But you see, no one is arguing that at all. You have to remember no international tribunal, no international court, no U.S. court has ever held that these people would be prisoners of war. This is all interpretation. It's all wide open.
BRODY: But the Geneva Conventions specifically state that in the case of doubt as to a prisoner's status, they shall be entitled to POW privileges until a competent tribunal, not President Bush, not Secretary Rumsfeld, a competent tribunal determines on a case by case basis whether you are Taliban, you get it. You are al Qaeda, you don't. And we haven't had that.
MEADE: All right.
BURKMAN: We have lost really lost all perspective on 9/11. I think the DOD and Mr. Rumsfeld have done an excellent job given the conditions they are operating under. I mean, not only are we fighting a war, but we suddenly have thousands of people who need to be detained, who need to be held. I think if anything, we are doing probably a better job than we should be doing. Most of these people have been living in caves for most of their lives. The notion that they would be fed three times a day, have access to medical care, they are living better now than they ever lived in Afghanistan.
MEADE: All right, Reed, Michael and Jack, we have to interrupt you guys.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Reed, Michael and Jack, thanks you guys. Hold on just a second. Juan is on the phone. And, Juan, either you are currently a soldier or you are a retired soldier with the United States and you have a few comments. Juan, what's the story?
JUAN: Yes, hello.
MEADE: Hi there.
JUAN: Yes. I feel that these people should be given POW status. Number one, because the excuses that have come up from our president seem to twist it day by day.
First of all, as an ex-soldier, we are taught to resist no matter what, no matter how. These people have been called wild animals and other things because they are fighting. If you are a prisoner and you've been taken from your country, you are going to fight to get out any way you possibly...
twisted day by day. First of all, as an ex-soldier we are told to resist no matter what, no matter how. These people have been called wild animals and other things because they are fighting. If you are a prisoner and you have been taken from your country, you are going to fight to get out any way you possibly can.
No. 2, are we going to allow the president to continually make rules alone, as it goes everyday. Are we going to continually change it? And a good point was made. If we continually do this, what about our when our soldiers get caught overseas? You know, special forces without uniforms on get caught.
MEADE: That's a good point.
CALLER: What are they called?
MEADE: Gentlemen, we are going to have to take a little bit of a break and Juan I am so glad that you called. Thanks for your comment. Folks at home, think about that and we'll talk about the same thing when we come back -- Deal? All right, it's a deal. We will be right back. Hope you are around too.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANNY DAVIS, FMR. WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL: I'm have very, very little sympathy for the folks that are now claiming that there should be human rights considerations when I didn't hear those very same people about the way the Taliban treated women.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY BLACK, ATTORNEY: We have to be very careful how we treat these people. Not because we are sympathetic. But because do unto others as you want to have them do unto you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MEADE: Welcome back, everybody. This is TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Robin Meade. Normally you would find me on HEADLINE NEWS between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., but I am glad to be helping out here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Maybe you were with us before the break. If you weren't, let me tell you that we have been talking about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- the Afghan, the Taliban detainees and their treatment, and more importantly perhaps, and more confusingly, is whether they should be called P.O.W.s, prisoners of war, or unlawful combatants as the administration has said.
I want to talk a little bit to one of our guests, Jack Burkman.
So, Jack, is the U.S. hurting itself from a PR standpoint if the detainees are not being treated humanely? If -- no wait -- even if they are being treated humanely, are we hurting ourselves from a PR standpoint by not calling them prisoners of war? Thanks.
JACK BURKMAN, FMR. GOP ATTORNEY: I don't think so, Robin. Frankly it's difficult enough for the president to worry about the many diverse parts of American public opinion, let alone getting into trying to court European opinion on a daily basis.
What you have to remember is very shortly, if this war continues, there is could be thousands of captured persons. If we classify them all as P.O.W.s, God know where is this could lead. If this war goes into Iraq, if it goes into Somalia, if it goes into Sudan, the administration would have a situation that is unworkable. We are in new terrain. This is virgin territory for the law.
And as I say, no international tribunal. The Hague has never ruled this way. No U.S. court ever ruled. Nobody has ever ruled that under these kind of conditions, these kinds of captured persons must be classified as P.O.W.s. Clearly there's enough wiggle room in this for the administration up to hold the position.
REED BRODY, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: The law is very clear, International Committee of the Red Cross, which is the authoritative interpreter of the convention, the United Nations, European Union have all urged the United States to treat these people as prisoners of war.
BURKMAN: Those aren't courts.
BRODY: After September 11...
BURKMAN: Those aren't courts.
BRODY: This hasn't gone to a court yet.
BURKMAN: But that's my point. This is all interpretation. What you are offering, what you are saying is, there are a bunch of people out there...
BRODY: Is that everybody thinks one way, and the Bush Administration -- even in the Bush Administration, Secretary Powell, who understands the enormous damage that this is doing to the U.S. is calling for the application of the Geneva Convention.
MEADE: Let me jump in because, do you know who has been sitting listening very quietly is Michael Scharf, and we are calling him our Geneva Convention expert today.
So Michael, the White House says that Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the case of a person who engages in a terrorist act. Does it really? Does it not? Should it?
MICHAEL SCHARF, CENTER FOR INTL. LAW AND POLICY: Here's the problem. Article Five of the Geneva Convention says that people are presumptively to be considered P.O.W.'s until a competent tribunal has determined otherwise. It may be the fact that these people do not qualify as P.O.W.'s but it's not for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to make that decision or George W. Bush to make that decision.
They have to convene a competent tribunal, and that is not something that can wait forever, because otherwise these people are in unlawful detention without coming before a competent tribunal.
MEADE: All right, now I have Jeff on the phone, gentlemen. Let me talk to Jeff on the phone. He may have a question for you all, or maybe just a comment. Jeff, where are you from.
CALLER: I'm in California.
MEADE: You are in California. Do you have a question for the gentlemen, or just a comment in general about P.O.W. Status versus unlawful combatant?
CALLER: Well, I basically just have a comment. And it seems that I think that any American that is fighting for the rights of any of these detainees is out of their sort. They are trying to kill American citizens. And we have to acknowledge that. They don't follow the rules of war. We are talking about that soldier said that we have to worry about how our soldiers are treated. Well let's look back at Iraq. If those people treated us the way we treat others.
MEADE: Reed, do you think that we are responding, when we say something like that, are we talking emotionally or are we talking with knowledge when we talk like that? Thanks, Jeff, by the way.
BRODY: You know, after September 11, there was an outpouring of solidarity with the United States around the world. But now, U.S. closest allies are saying we are winning the war, let's not lose the peace. Let's not lose the moral high ground by descending to the lawless level of these people.
BURKMAN: Yes. And those same allies are contributing nothing to the war effort and aren't fighting the war. Look, you know, I listen to your...
BRODY: This is an international coalition.
BURKMAN: I listened to the other guest, the professor, had mentioned earlier, why don't we convene a tribunal to get answers on these questions. There's a war going on. You can't convene tribunals and fight a war at the same time. First we have to detain the people...
BRODY: U.S. military regulations...
BURKMAN: ... and then you determine their status.
BRODY: The U.S. has in place military regulations that call for a three-officer panel to decide on a case by case basis who is a prisoner of war and who is not. That's been applied in the past. It can be applied very easily now. Some will be prisoners of war and some won't.
BURKMAN: You are talking about -- this is a new and different kind of situation where there are soon going to be thousands of people. You can't -- no other country in the world would keep these...
BRODY: There were hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war in World War II.
BURKMAN: Let me tell you something. No other country in the world would treat these detainees as well as the United States is treating them.
BRODY: I don't think...
BURKMAN: No other country in the world could even have the capacity...
BRODY: I don't think putting people in cages...
BURKMAN: ... to detain them the way we are detaining them.
MEADE: All right. Gentlemen, here in the studio, we have Mike who has a comment about this issue and kind of talking history with us as you look at this issue today.
MIKE: Well, I have been interested in the Vietnam conflict and I know how Senator McCain was treated. And I don't think we want any of our people treated that way and we certainly don't want to treat the al Qaeda that way. And, you know, the old golden rule, what comes back to bite you is what you give out and it's sort of the same thing, back and forth. So if we overdo it, we are going to pay for it in the long run. Some young man is going to suffer.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Well, let me ask you a question about that. What is the risk of actually giving these people the prisoners of war status then? Why not or why do we?
BURKMAN: Well, Robin, you ask a great question. I will tell you that even if, even if I'm wrong and even if some tribunal were to decide that these people are POWs, I think the U.S. government has already done more than enough to meet that standard.
You have to keep in mind the standard is not the American standard of living. I mean, our standard of living is the best in the world. You have to keep in mind where these people are coming from. I mean, 95 percent of the people in Afghanistan don't even have clean water to drink. These people have never lived so well in all their lives.
MEADE: All right. We have someone else with a thought here in the studio. What's your name?
STEPHEN (ph): Stephen.
MEADE: OK, Stephen.
STEPHEN (ph): I think I'm echoing Lany (ph) Davis' comments on Sunday when I say that this kind of gives me confidence as an American that we are all going to get through this just fine and treat these detainees as well as possible because taking individuals who took women and put them in soccer stadiums and brutally killed them and raped them and a lot of other horrible things. And now we are questioning how we are giving them three meals a day. So I think we are going to get through this OK.
MEADE: All right. There's a thought to leave you with. We're going to take a break and be right back here at TALKBACK LIVE. And I want to thank first, though, Michael Scharf, Reed Brody and Jack Burkman for joining us. You guys have been great. Appreciate your time. And we'll be right back. Appreciate your time there at home. Stay with us, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
ANNOUNCER: Coming up, kidnapped in Pakistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pakistan is a country with a free press, so they are used to journalists. But the presumption is always that a foreigner coming to the country asking questions is -- suddenly is somehow a spy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Who is holding Daniel Pearl? What do they want? And do they have any chance of getting it? Find out next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
MEADE: All right. About 14 minutes to the hour and we welcome you back everybody here to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Robin Meade. Appreciate your time.
A "Wall Street Journal" reporter has been missing in Pakistan since last Tuesday. Well, there's evidence that David (sic) Pearl has been kidnapped and is being held for ransoms -- ransom I should say.
CNN state department correspondent Andrea Koppel is joining us now along with Roy Gutman, diplomatic correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine. You know, let me tell you that he has covered wars in the Middle East, Central America and the Balkans. And he is also the author of "Crimes of War". I would like to first welcome them both. Thank you for your time.
And I want to talk to Andrea first because she's over there at the state department. I can ask her what is the very latest as far as what the state department knows about Daniel Pearl -- Andrea.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, Robin, the answer is not a whole heck of a lot. I mean, they know that he's a 38-year-old "Wall Street Journal" reporter who disappeared last Wednesday and there is some group that nobody has ever heard of that alleges to be a Pakistani group that is holding him and hasn't demanded a ransom, per se, but has put forward certain demands that it wants the United States government to respond to and alleges that he is a CIA operative. That's something that, in an unusual move, the CIA has denied, the White House has denied.
The "Wall Street Journal" has come forward saying that he's just an average reporter who has worked for them for 12 years. And so, so far the state department is a bit befuddled. It doesn't know what this group is and, quite frankly, it's not even sure if the group it alleges to be is in fact the one that is holding.
MEADE: Yes. I think they are calling themselves the National Movement for Restoration of Pakistan Sovereignty, correct?
KOPPEL: That's correct.
MEADE: Hey, is the state department saying will they play a role in trying to get Daniel Pearl released if he's in fact being held hostage?
KOPPEL: Well, they do believe he's being held hostage. And what the state department has always done in cases like this and what it is doing right now is to be in contact with the Pakistani government. In fact, Secretary Powell was supposed to speak with the Pakistani president today to try to get them to do everything they can. And according to the state department, according to Pakistani diplomats I have spoken with, they are on the ground. They have put together a task force, some interagency task force to try to do everything they can to search out and find Mr. Pearl.
MEADE: That's pretty interesting. You know, the letter that is was sent by this group implies that they will capture or they intend to capture other Americans. Has the state department said anything about that and does that raise their concern for United States citizens in such treacherous areas?
KOPPEL: It certainly does. In fact, today, midday today, the state department issued a travel warning for all American citizens to Pakistan. This is something that has been in effect pretty much since before September 11, telling Americans that if they were to travel to Pakistan, to be on alert, to vary their travel routes and to make sure that the American consulate knows where they are at all times. MEADE: You know, it really raises your eyebrows. Hey, Andrea, if you would kind of hold on for us because I want to bring in Roy Gutman, who has been a reporter overseas at different times. Roy, when you would report in areas that you deemed were dangerous, weren't you traveling with security or did you not? And why wouldn't you be traveling with security or someone who can help you out in a dangerous situation?
ROY GUTMAN, "NEWSWEEK": Well, I suppose when you say security, you are thinking of an armed bodyguard.
MEADE: Yes, I guess I am. Yes.
GUTMAN: Or your own weapons and frankly that can expose you to as much risk as it might be able to help you out of, because frankly, reporters should not be armed. We should not be taking sides. We should not be ever seen to be along with somebody or other who is armed because it can make you a target.
MEADE: Did anything ever happen to you where you were like, oh wow, I don't know if I'm going to get out of this situation, while you were overseas?
GUTMAN: Well, I have the experience of doing various things where it took me about two or three weeks, sometimes two or three months to tell my wife about, because they were so hairy. I was once arrested in southern Lebanon by allies of the Israelis and held for 4 or 5 hours. I have been sort of had held by the Bosnian Serbs at various times. These things happen. You have stumbled into situations and you really shouldn't, you know, afterwards, why was I there? There was really not that much of a story.
MEADE: So if you could be speaking with Daniel Pearl, we all wish we could, what kind of advice should he have? Do you tell people what story that you are working on, or do you try to give as little information as possible to the hostages? Do you say anything to get out of the situation?
GUTMAN: I mean, the story that I have read about him suggests that he was actually looking for an interview and met these people and that they then held him. I'm not sure if it really happened that way. So they would know very well exactly what he's looking for. He's a very professional reporter and it is such a serious newspaper. This is the whole, everything that they ever doing to him is a pre-text basically for making a political statement.
So I'm sure he can grasp and I would assume somebody in that situation would be able to grasp that he is in a political situation, to keep his calm, not to say anything untoward and just be patient.
MEADE: Let's go back to our CNN's Andrea Koppel. Andrea, what is the State Department saying about, does it appear the captors really think he's a CIA spy or is it some kind of ploy just to get what they want?
KOPPEL: Nobody really knows at the moment. Nobody has heard of this organization. There are some officials who are suspicious because normally a Pakistani militant group, one of this nature, would have mentioned God in some way shape or form, that they were doing this in the name of God.
This organization in that e-mail you mentioned made no mention of God. At the moment what the State Department is hoping is that this organization will just turn him over. As Roy mentioned, it appears they have political objectives. They want better treatment for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They want the release of the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan who is in U.S. custody. And they want better treatment of all detainees, not just Pakistani, but from other countries as well who are being held here incommunicado in the U.S.
MEADE: We understand too, isn't his wife with child? Certainly you have to feel for this family. I know that someone here in the audience has a comment or a question about this issue. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that this ties right in with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. This gentleman should be treated as fairly just like they are. You see on the news with a 9mm. Point to his head. He was just doing his job.
MEADE: It was a terrible picture, wasn't it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A journalist doing his job. Also, with the note, the United States should put more pressure on Pakistan to keep our guys protected over there. They are trying to do a job, but they have to watch their back. They should put more pressure on the Pakistan government to protect our people over there.
MEADE: Andrea, on that point, I don't know if you were able to hear that gentleman, but what is the State Department saying about if they have talked to the Pakistan government about this alleged group of National Movement for Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty?
KOPPEL: Right, well the State Department has all along been speaking with the Pakistani government, with President Musharref about cracking down on a variety of militant groups and, in fact, earlier this month, I don't know if our viewers remember, President Musharref gave quite an historic speech in which he outlawed all militant groups.
He arrested more than 2,200 suspected militants. And in fact has taken more steps towards cracking down on Islamic militants than any previous leader in Pakistan in recent years. So the U.S. is pleased with what the president of Pakistan is doing.
But this is an enormous problem there. There are thousands of religious schools there known as madrases that train these young men to fight for, to fight holy war against the west. This isn't something you resolve overnight.
MEADE: Good point. We have a comment here in the studio. This is Reg.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Under what circumstances was he taken hostage? Was he just doing his job or was he just minding his own business?
MEADE: He wants to know what circumstances he was taken under? What is the State Department, what kind of light are they shedding on that? Reg, good point.
KOPPEL: Well, as Roy mentioned a short time ago, he was out on assignment. He told his wife that he was going to do an interview. He was actually looking into the shoe bomber case, Richard Ried, and he was trying to meet with some of these suspected terrorists. And in fact wanted to meet with some of the leadership.
And he went off without a translator, without any kind of office assistant, which his colleagues believe means he was going to meet with someone who spoke English. And that's really all they know right now.
MEADE: Andrea, I want to interrupt you there, before we leave, Roy talk about, aren't there some classes to help reporters when you know you are going into an area that could be dangerous about what you should say or what to do?
GUTMAN: ... six years. A variety of English ex-soldiers have set up at least two or 3 different courses. Most of them are in England, one is is in the United States, called the dangerous environments course. And what they do is try to train a journalist in the event you are kidnapped.
MEADE: I could talk to you and Andrea forever, but we are out of time. Andrea Koppel and Roy Gutman, glad you guys could join us today. Do appreciate your time and your opinions and your observations and information, Andrea. I'm Robin Mead and everybody here, thank you too, for being here.
I'm going to be your host again tomorrow if you allow me to be, here on TALKBACK LIVE, and we'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern. Hope to see you then. And by the way, you can catch me at my regular time, early mornings on CNN HEADLINE NEWS, between 6 and 9 a.m. Eastern. So I'll be back on Wednesday. Hope to see you then, and how about we make it a date tomorrow at 3:00 p.m.? TALKBACK LIVE here at CNN. More news coming your way right after this.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
