|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Will Saddam Cooperate?; Federal Government Receives Broadened Wiretapping Authority
Aired November 18, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: U.N. inspectors in Baghdad. Will Saddam cooperate or trigger a new war?
ANNOUNCER: U.N. weapons inspectors finally on the ground in Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We have come here for one single reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: Can 100 inspectors handle an entire country?
Plus: the man charged with finding and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the inside story of Hans Blix.
A new brigade of workers in the airports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: We have seen the lengths terrorists will go to penetrate airport security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But it's not without controversy. Should non-U.S. citizens be on the front lines?
Iraqi-Americans under scrutiny by the U.S. government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am not going to comment on specific groups or surveillances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Are they the target of racial profiling or legitimate homeland concern? And the last war with Iraq now the subject of a TV movie -- Helena Bonham Carter and her latest role covering a war. What lessons can the past teach us about the present?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight, U.N. weapons inspectors are back in Baghdad. Their mission: confirm or disprove Iraq's claim that it has no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. The price if the Iraqis prevent them from fulfilling their mission: war.
CNN's senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, is with the inspectors in the Iraqi capital.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Striding across the tarmac at Saddam International Airport with his Iraqi counterpart, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix begins what could be a long journey.
BLIX: The world wants to have assurances that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is tense at the moment but there is a new opportunity and we are here to provide inspection which is credible.
ROBERTSON: Part of that process facing questions from international media, not least about what happens next.
MOHAMMED ELBARADEI, IAEA: We've been discussing the program but we do hope to have meeting at the highest level and we hope to be able to come with a full understanding with Iraq on the necessity for full cooperation on the part of Iraq.
ROBERTSON: Cooperation apparently good this day. Antenna and other equipment to be installed by the advance team accompanying Blix swiftly unloaded. Within hours, the same equipment arriving at the inspection team's headquarters, quickly followed by Blix and ElBaradei ending an almost four year absence by U.N. weapons inspection teams from their offices in Iraq.
In another sign perhaps the day going well for the inspectors, within hours the first of the hoped four meetings. At the foreign ministry, face-to-face talks with General Amir Al-Saadi President Saddam Hussein's top scientific adviser. For the advance team of logistics and communication specialists traveling with Blix, a little over a week to make their preparations before the first inspectors get to work on November 27.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON: Now, Iraqi newspapers have been calling for the inspectors to be independent, unbiased and honest. They've also been reminding their readers of allegations of spying by previous teams. But it appears that all Iraqis here really want is the inspectors to finish their job quickly, so that the U.N. sanctions that have been hammering the economy here for the last 12 years can be ended very quickly -- Connie.
CHUNG: Nic, a White House spokesman said today that Iraq's continued use of anti-aircraft against coalition planes that are patrolling the no-fly zone, they consider that to be a material breach of the U.N. resolution. Does Iraq have a response?
ROBERTSON: Indeed, quite a loud response, if you will.
The foreign minister, Naji Sabri, has sent a letter to Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary-general. And, also today, just as the inspectors were landing, there was an announcement from a deputy spokesman at the Foreign Ministry essentially saying that, while the United States may call this a material breach, Iraq claims that, just by flying in those no-fly zones in the north and the south of the country is in fact a violation of the U.N. Charter and a violation of international law, and indeed Iraq calling upon the United Nations and personally calling upon the secretary-general to bring about an end to these flights in the no-fly zones.
CHUNG: All right, Nic Robertson in Baghdad, thank you.
The U.N. weapons inspectors are due to make their first report to the U.N. Security Council by January 27. It is the first time in four years that inspectors will be operating in Baghdad.
Joining us now from Washington are two veterans of Iraqi inspections, former inspectors David Albright and Jonathan Tucker.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be here.
CHUNG: Mr. Tucker, three-quarters of the U.N. inspectors are going to Iraq for the first time. That has to be a negative.
JONATHAN TUCKER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Yes, absolutely. They're going to have a very steep learning curve. And I think they're not really prepared for what they're going to encounter on the ground in terms of the possibility of Iraqi denial and deception tactics.
CHUNG: Why weren't more experienced inspectors chosen?
TUCKER: I think that Hans Blix has bent over backwards to create the appearance of neutrality on the part of this new inspectorate. And I hope that he will not sacrifice its effectiveness in order to ensure its neutrality. There is a bit of a tradeoff between the two.
CHUNG: Mr. Albright, how will the inspectors really know where to look? They almost have to be detectives, don't they?
ALBRIGHT: Well, certainly part of their job is to be a detective.
And I think a lot of what they do will depend on how good the Iraqi declaration is that's due December 8. If it's a rich declaration and Iraq intends to comply, you'll see a lot of detail about their biological-chemical weapons programs, probably a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. And then the inspectors will have a job of trying to verify that the declaration is correct and complete.
If Iraq intends to comply, then they're going to have to bring in all -- I'm sorry, if it will not comply and it doesn't file a complete declaration, the inspectors are going to have to bring in a whole range of tools to try to show that that decoration is not complete or to at least gather evidence that Iraq is not being truthful.
CHUNG: But might inspections not even occur until December 8, because that is when Iraq will declare exactly what it had.
ALBRIGHT: Well, there may be some inspections of sites. For example, there's nuclear material at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center. And it may be the inspectors go there early just to make sure that the stuff has not been tampered with.
CHUNG: So, what's the upside of not doing any inspections until December 8?
ALBRIGHT: In a way, this is Iraq's last chance.
And if you use intelligence information to go to a site, for example, that would have a banned activity and you find something, Iraq could say: "Well, come on, you gave us one last chance. We were going to put that in the declaration." So I think we do have to give Iraq a chance to comply and to reveal its programs.
CHUNG: Mr. Tucker, how will improved technology help?
TUCKER: Well, in the biological area, there are now rapid detection systems.
It used to be that, you went to a biological facility, took a sample, brought it back to a laboratory. And it could take a long as a week to get the results, by which time the Iraqis could have cleaned up the facility. So, having rapid results enables you to pursue a lead right there on the scene. And that's extremely valuable.
CHUNG: Mr. Albright, do you think that these inspectors are in any personal danger?
ALBRIGHT: There's always a risk.
I mean, if things go badly and Iraq is confronted with information and it decides not to comply, you always worry. I think the inspection teams are able to evacuate quickly. And, certainly, Saddam Hussein understands that, if he harms an inspector, that there will be a considerable penalty to pay. CHUNG: Mr. Tucker, do you believe that the weapons inspectors actually will be able to find something before the 60 days? At 60 days, it needs to -- the inspectors need to provide a report to the U.N. Security Council.
TUCKER: I think that what will be clear within 60 days is Iraq's intention to cooperate or to obstruct the inspections. I think that will be put to the test quite early. It may be difficult to actually find prohibited weapons or activities within the 60-day timeframe. I think that will take a more protracted effort, particularly if, as David said, the Iraqis do not provide a detailed declaration.
CHUNG: Mr. Albright, I just feel that there must be such incredible pressure on these inspectors, because the alternative really out there is war.
ALBRIGHT: Well, they have to try to get that out of their mind. Of course, they can't completely.
But it's very important for them to go in, be skeptical, be persistent and record what they do. They shouldn't have to decide that an action by Iraq is a material breach, for example. They should just, in a sense, over-report what they see and then let others decide if what Iraq has done is a material violation of the resolution.
CHUNG: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much. I'd like to invite you back, because you were just really so very good. We appreciate it.
ALBRIGHT: Well, thank you.
CHUNG: David Albright, Jonathan Tucker, thank you.
And, of course, much of what the inspectors report back to the U.N. in January will depend on their leader. The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency is heading up the nuclear inspection team. And a veteran of Iraqi inspections, Hans Blix, is heading the chemical and biological team. Now, Blix is a controversial choice, with some critics claiming that he'll go soft on Iraq.
We asked CNN's Michael Okwu to give us some background on the world's point man in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As all eyes turn towards Baghdad, their focus is on Hans Blix, at 74, the chief weapons inspector and mild-mannered diplomat, Blix last week as he prepared for a tense trip back to his Baghdad office.
BLIX: That has now not been manned since the end of '98. So, we will have to make sure that the pigeons that have broken through the windows will be chased out and that we will have new paint on the walls. OKWU: If this is the face of pressure, then the threat of a full-scale war isn't what it used to be, or the man standing at its edge has become used to this.
RICHARD GARDNER, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: It says that he's sure of himself, that he doesn't have to show off with a lot of bravado in order to be taken seriously. He's tough and he's going to do his job.
OKWU: Friends talk about his rye humor, on the ready, even in front of a probing press corps. Here, he addressed the thorny question of what might constitute a violation.
BLIX: If it is with the Iraqi escorts having one flat tire is one thing. If they have four flat tires on the way, delaying us much more, then it may be a different thing.
OKWU (on camera): An international lawyer, with a degree from Cambridge University, Hans Blix became Sweden's foreign minister in 1978, until now best known as the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he took over in 1981.
(voice-over): Critics complain it was under his watch through the '80s that Iraq developed its covert nuclear program.
ALBRIGHT: We all knew that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. And the IAEA, under Blix, decided to ignore that.
OKWU: Still, in January 2000, after the Security Council rejected other candidates for the chief inspections job, Secretary- General Kofi Annan tapped Blix, coaxing him out of retirement while he was trekking in Antarctica.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: He's worked in Iraq before. And he's familiar with the Iraqis. And I expect him to do very well.
OKWU: Still, he may have the world's most thankless job. As one observer put it, Iraq may likely find him too demanding, the U.S. too diplomatic. And for people who want peace at any price, Hans Blix, the consummate diplomat, may be too uncompromising.
Michael Okwu, CNN, at the United Nations.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Next: New federally-trained airport screeners stand at the front lines of safety in the skies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIDGE: More than 44,000 dedicated men and women have been hired, trained and deployed to screen passengers and ensure the safety of our skies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But can non-U.S. citizens be trusted with the job?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Homeland security on the front burner: a big Senate vote on the Homeland Security Bill set for tomorrow, but will it pass? Democrats are fighting to remove what they call special interests benefits for big companies involved in defense.
Also, tomorrow is the deadline for federal screens are to be in place at America's airports. But there's a controversial element to this. We'll have more on that.
And finally, nationwide scrutiny by the American government of Iraqis living in the U.S., which we'll get to also in just a moment.
But first: a controversial ruling today by a secret court on when government officials can listen to your phone conversations and read your e-mail and how they can use what they find.
CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a big victory for Attorney General John Ashcroft,
ASHCROFT: This will greatly enhance our ability to put pieces together that different agencies have. I believe this is a giant step forward.
ARENA: An appeals court view backed Ashcroft's view that the Patriot Act, the new anti-terrorism law, gives the government more flexibility in how wiretap information is used. Wiretaps, otherwise known as FISAs and issued by a secret court at the Justice Department, are no longer limited to intelligence-gathering missiles, but can be used to build criminal cases, as long as an individual is acting on behalf of a foreign power.
Critics say that is dangerous.
ANN BEESON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, ACLU: Our primary concern is that they are going to use the FISA law as an end run around the Fourth Amendment and spy on citizens when they have no probable cause to believe that those citizens have committed a crime.
ARENA: But one lawyer who used to work for the National Security Agency says the new wiretap rules are a crucial tool for tracking down terrorists.
STEWART BAKER, FORMER COUNSEL, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: If we use them effectively, we'll catch them when they get sloppy, which happens, and we will deny them the use of modern telecommunications for many of the activities that they want to carry out.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Under the law governing the secret court, the decision cannot be appealed. But experts say that the issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court if a convicted terrorist or spy challenges how information was gathered leading to that conviction -- Connie.
CHUNG: Kelli, I think a lot of people find this quite alarming. Why did law enforcement feel that it needed wider latitude?
ARENA: Well, there was a wall that was erected between those who gathered intelligence and those who prosecuted.
And, for example, if you were part of the intelligence community and you were gathering information about possible terrorist activity, you could not, as perceived by both those groups, pass that information along to law enforcement if they were working on a criminal investigation. So this breaks that wall down, breaks down that barrier to open up lines of communication so that, if you have those who are building criminal cases, they can still get information from the intelligence agencies and vice versa.
So it just helps, according to Justice officials and law enforcement, in getting at the bad guys.
CHUNG: All right, Kelli Arena in Washington, thank you.
ARENA: You're welcome.
CHUNG: Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, is joining us now.
Jeffrey, help us a little more, because I don't want to misunderstand this. I want everybody out there to understand. We're talking about wiretaps. What are we talking about? What are investigators able to do now that they weren't able to do before?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: See, the FBI, the structure of the FBI was really established during the Cold War days.
And there, it was basically divided in two. You had the people who went and chased spies, who went and got after the Soviets. And then you had the people who chased criminals. They all had almost nothing to do with each other. They were totally separate operations. But now there's really no difference anymore between foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence.
What does it mean to be chasing a terrorist in the United States who may be a member of al Qaeda? It's sort of foreign and it's sort of domestic. So, basically, the two systems are starting to merge. And that's what this law really allows to happen.
CHUNG: Well, what are the implications, though?
TOOBIN: Well, the implications are that there's just a lower standard for all kinds of wiretaps now. It used to be pretty hard to get a wiretap. You have to persuade a judge that there was probable cause that a crime was committed. Here in the foreign intelligence area -- and, again, the areas are starting to merge -- there's a lower threshold. So, basically, what it means, it means lots more wiretaps, bugs, telephone wiretaps. And that's what the government wants, because that's what they think the country needs.
CHUNG: But is it encroaching on my constitutional rights as a citizen?
TOOBIN: The most troubling part of this is, you really don't know, is that, because so much of this is conducted in secret, there really is no way of knowing what exactly the government is doing. In the old days...
CHUNG: You're making me believe that J. Edgar Hoover is back.
TOOBIN: Well, but, see, the thing is, it relies a lot on the good faith of the people involved. Under J. Edgar Hoover, we later learned that he was investigating Martin Luther King's sex life and all sorts of things we shouldn't be doing.
CHUNG: Exactly. Exactly.
TOOBIN: Here, presumably, you have a different FBI, with more safeguards in place, more lawyers there to review these applications.
But it's not a public process. And it's not a process where defense attorneys are involved. It's one where the FBI is really in charge of what they monitor and how much they do it. And we're very much at the mercy of their good faith.
CHUNG: All right, so, how can this be tested? Because the ACLU can't appeal, right? So it's got to find it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
TOOBIN: It's really interesting, because this court that decided this case is a special court that's never met before, that deals only with foreign intelligence matters.
CHUNG: What do you mean special court?
TOOBIN: It's a special court. It's funny. I remember I studied it in law school. And it was sort of a joke. It's like, "Well, there's this court, but it's never met." Well, it's now met once. And it deals only with these foreign intelligence matters.
The only way this could get to court is if someone is actually prosecuted using evidence from these wiretaps. They then appeal their conviction. And that could go through the process. But that's likely to take many years, if it happens at all.
CHUNG: All right, Jeffrey, there's another area that we want you to comment on. And it has to do with the controversy surrounding who should be allowed to be airport screeners. And the question is: Should non-Americans be banned? Tomorrow is the deadline for the federal government to have 44,000 screeners in place at the nation's 429 airports. And the government says it will make that deadline. But the question is, a judge temporarily suspended the policy of hiring only Americans. So what does that mean?
TOOBIN: Well, it means thousands of people could lose their jobs, because, of the 28,000 screeners in place, as many as 25 percent are people with green cards, mostly. That's what this really affects.
And the ACLU went to court and said: "Look, there's no rule that people with green cards can't be airline pilots. They can be flight attendants. They can be baggage handlers. Why can't they be screeners?" And the judge agreed. They said that's irrational. He only froze it for Los Angeles. He only applied his temporary order in Los Angeles. But it's likely to be nationwide. And this raises an interesting point of why just screeners have to be citizens.
CHUNG: So what's going to happen?
TOOBIN: Well, the short answer is, I don't know.
But the argument is that the federal government has broad leeway when it comes to national security matters. And it's very likely that the court will say, well, just because we're banning national -- we're banning green card holders from this job doesn't mean we have to let them in everywhere. So it's likely that this policy will probably go into place. When it comes to the national security, if the federal government wants to make a rule, by and large, they're allowed to do it.
CHUNG: Is there a timeframe or a time limit for this decision?
TOOBIN: Well, it's short term. It will be right back in court this week.
CHUNG: Oh.
TOOBIN: But it remains to be seen whether these green card people will lose their jobs. Thousands of people are potentially out on the street.
CHUNG: Absolutely. You travel all the time. I do, too.
TOOBIN: It's interesting. You are starting to see in more and more airports those people with the TSA, the federal government screeners. The one thing you know for sure is that they're all American citizens. The question is, does that do any good for security?
CHUNG: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you, as always.
And when we come back, another question about non-Americans: Should the U.S. track Iraqi-Americans even if they've done nothing wrong?
What do you think, Jeffrey. I'm not going to ask you, anyway, but you can tell me during the commercial.
We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Helena Bonham Carter and her latest role covering a war.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: We just talked about whether non-Americans should be allowed to work as airport screeners. But today, Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked about reports of much more specific profiling, namely federal agents tracking thousands of Iraqi citizens and Iraqi- Americans here in the United States.
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ASHCROFT: We're going to do everything we can to identify those who would hurt us, to disrupt them, to delay them, to defeat them. And, like I said earlier, I'm not going to comment on specific groups or surveillances, but that's what our job is in defending the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Joining me now is civil rights attorney Stanley Cohen; and, in Wilmington, Delaware, former Deputy INS Commissioner Jan Ting, now professor of law at Temple University.
Thank you, gentlemen, both for being with us.
Mr. Cohen, first, don't you think the government has an obligation to root out these terrorists, especially after 9/11?
STANLEY COHEN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Absolutely, when we have sufficient basis. There's reasonable suspicion. There's probable cause. There's something directed toward an individual, which should allow the government to do what law enforcement does.
But to focus on an entire group just because of their race, their religion or their ethnicity is illogical, incompetent, ineffective and perhaps illegal.
CHUNG: Well, how do you protect the citizenry, then, because, obviously, you know, 9/11 was not prevented and trying to find these people was very, very difficult.
COHEN: We're announcing a policy going after Iraqi-American citizens, essentially, because the thousands of Iraqis here are almost all U.S. citizens. Almost all of them fled Iraq. They wouldn't support Saddam Hussein over anything.
CHUNG: Well, how do you know that? You don't know that every single one of them fled.
COHEN: Well, that's the argument that was used to look up 160,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II: that someone from within the 160,000 may do something illegal. So let's lock them all up, just to make us safe.
CHUNG: All right.
Mr. Ting, this is -- I think you will concede, it is a bit of racial profiling, don't you think?
JAN TING, FORMER DEPUTY INS COMMISSIONER: Sure, but we're a million miles away from what Stanley has referred to, the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II. We're a long ways from that.
As far as monitoring foreign nationals in the United States, I think it's well-established under the plenary powers doctrine that the U.S. government is well within its rights to profile or to surveil foreign nationals while they're in the United States. As far as American citizens of Iraqi descent, look, as an Asian-American, I'm really sensitive about this issue given what happened to American citizens of Japanese descent. But I think we're a long ways away from that.
CHUNG: You didn't think that was appropriate, did you, in terms of the Japanese interment?
TING: No, certainly not.
But what was wrong with it was that the Japanese-Americans were not treated like the German-Americans and the Italian-Americans during World War II, which is treated as individuals and not imprisoned on the basis of their ethnicity.
CHUNG: Well, how is this different, sir?
TING: In terms of -- treating people as individuals means finding out about them, figuring out if they constitute some sort of threat, asking them questions.
I think it's perfectly all right to ask people questions. I don't see what right it violates. It doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment to ask people some questions. And I think that's appropriate.
COHEN: You are putting the cart before the horse, professor.
What you're saying is, we are going to go and ask thousands of people some questions. And then, if we discover something, we'll focus on them. The way it works here is, if you have information about an individual, you focus on the particular individual. You can't focus a group because of race, religion or ethnicity and say maybe someone will be up to no good. There hasn't been the scintilla of evidence connecting any Iraqi to any criminal activity in this country that we're dealing with right now. If you follow your logic, your conclusion to its end, or your logic to its end, what you're saying is, let's drag in every Muslim, every Arab, every Southeast Asian. We'll interrogate them. We'll go to the schools. We'll go to the job sites. We'll go to their homes. And maybe we'll develop some information. We don't do that to anyone else ever.
TING: Our government is under attack right now because it hasn't done a good enough job of gathering intelligence. So now they're going out to gather intelligence. And now people like Stanley are attacking them for going out and trying to do their job.
COHEN: You know, Mr. Ting, in times of crisis, we always prey upon the most vulnerable among us, whether it's Japanese-Americans, African-Americans, women. Whenever we're in times of crisis, that's when the Constitution says no.
TING: We're not preying on anyone, Stan.
COHEN: The Constitution is here to protect people in times like this, not to serve as a cheering leader for the executive.
TING: We're not preying on anyone. We are on the verge of war with Iraq. It's a very dangerous situation. Saddam knows it's coming. The only way he can retaliate against us, the only way, is through agents planted in the United States. He's well aware of that. We're well aware of that.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: I just want to ask Mr. Cohen a question.
What examples do you have of your clients being mistreated?
COHEN: I'll give you two and it has got nothing to do with now. I've represented a number of Iraqi-Americans over the last year.
CHUNG: It has nothing to do with now? I want something that does have to do with now.
COHEN: No, no, I'm talking about over the last year. It's not a magic date.
Since September 11, I had a doctor who was ready for a promotion, Iraqi. They had information that he was -- he was a Ph.D. in nuclear science. He ended up being a gynecologist, didn't get a promotion.
I had another person who was visited at the job site, an Iraqi, a U.S. citizen, who was ready for a promotion. The FBI shows up unannounced. They go to the boss. The next thing you know, he not only doesn't get the promotion. He gets transferred 100 miles from New York City or he has to quit. So he quits. We've had examples throughout the last year where people are profiled in this way.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Ting, those examples seem really awful, don't you agree? TING: Those problems are problems between Mr. Cohen's clients and their employers. Those are labor relations problems. Those do not reflect, I don't think, adversely on what the United States government is doing, which is trying to protect its citizens from an external threat.
COHEN: But that's the way the policies unravel. The policy is sent by the FBI, by the executive branch. They're the ones who show up, pursuant to a federal policy.
TING: They're just doing their job. What's the problem?
CHUNG: Mr. Ting, do you think that the government investigators have yielded any information that's valuable?
TING: Well, I think they have.
You know, obviously, they're trying to withhold that information from our enemies. We don't try and disclose what we know and what we don't know. But I don't think the government likes to engage in fruitless activity that's unproductive and a waste of their time any more than anyone else does.
CHUNG: Mr. Ting, do you think that it is in any way unconstitutional?
TING: What part of the Constitution does it violate to go out and ask people questions? What part of the Constitution does it violate to go out and observe what people are doing in their daily lives? There's no reason why an FBI agent can't do what any other member of the public can do.
COHEN: No, there's a difference. The FBI agent is acting with state action. And the state action says, when you focus a group on the basis of their race, religion, color or ethnicity, you have got to have a narrow and necessary means to a compelling state end.
This isn't some guy just going to a house and knocking on the door and saying, "Excuse me, will you answer a few questions?" These are government agents going to schools, going to jobs, going to homes, harassing people, because they may develop some information down the road. You wouldn't like it happening to you.
CHUNG: Mr. Ting, you have the last 20 seconds. Go ahead.
TING: What more compelling purpose can the government have than trying to prevent further terrorist attacks against the citizens of this country? The question, I think, is, what other alternatives does the government have?
COHEN: Find proof and go after individuals, not the other way around.
TING: What else should they be doing that they're not doing? They are going after individuals. And that's what they should be doing, treating people as individuals, no more Japanese internment. We're 1,000 miles away from that.
COHEN: Now the interment camps are in your house and your job. You're afraid to leave.
CHUNG: Stanley Cohen, thank you.
And, Jan Ting, thank you so much for being with us.
Intelligent people disagreeing, right?
Helena Bonham Carter is coming up, with the real-life CNN producer she plays in her new movie. We'll talk to both of them about art imitating life and life imitating art.
ANNOUNCER: Next: an attempted hijacking of an Israeli passenger jet? Tonight, one of the passengers on that flight with a first- person account -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: We've seen some frightening stories from the front lines on the war on terror this weekend. Today, in London, three men appeared in court accused of planning to release nerve gas into the city's subway system. The men were arrested last week. And they've denied planning a nerve gas attack. "The London Sunday Times" said the Muslim men were thought to be members of a terror group linked to al Qaeda.
Also today, officials in Turkey said a would-be hijacker wanted to send a plane crashing into a Tel Aviv building yesterday in a terrifying echo of September 11. The El Al jet took off from Tel Aviv yesterday with 170 people on board. But, as it began its descent into Istanbul, a scuffle began and security officials on board subdued an Israeli Arab. Officials said he was found to be in possession of a small knife, but his intentions remain unclear.
CNN's Matthew Chance has the harrowing details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The El Al flight enters Turkish airspace, signaling it had been the target of an attempted hijack.
Officials say a passenger wielding a small knife had tried to enter the cockpit and threatening a stewardess, before being overpowered by Israeli sky marshals on board. No one was injured. And the Boeing 757 aircraft landed safely in Istanbul. Leaving the plane, relieved passengers spoke of their ordeal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw a guy came to the hostess. What she tell me after, he asked for water and then immediately take out a knife. And she pushed him out. And she gave a cry. And then I saw two people jumping on somebody. And I jumped also to help them. And, in two seconds, this guy was falled on the floor. CHANCE: Details of the alleged would-be hijacker, now in police custody, are still sketchy. El Al says he is an Arab with an Israeli passport. Turkey's Anatolia news agency has named him as Tawfiq Fukra. He's believed to have been traveling alone. His motivation is still unclear.
Israel's national airline is perhaps the most heavily protected in the world. Passengers are closely screened and questioned at check-in. Baggage is carefully searched. And armed undercover agents travel on every flight. And already, in Israel, investigation is under way into how even this most stringent security was breached.
Matthew Chance, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: The man is now in Israeli custody.
Earlier, I spoke to a passenger who sat right next to him, Leslie Schull, who joined us from Istanbul.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Thank you, sir, for being with us.
Tell us, when you first got on the plane, did you notice this man and did he seem to be acting strangely?
LESLIE SCHULL, EYEWITNESS: We got onto the plane together. And he sat down next to me. And he was hyperactive. He never stopped moving for a minute.
While we were sitting down, he asked for some water. He waited quite a while for the water. Of course, the flight attendants were busy organizing the passengers, making sure that they were buckled in, etcetera. And so he waited a while for it, but he did receive the water after a while. But he didn't sit still for one minute. He kept on moving, bumping me. I was trying to rest. I was a bit tired, but I just couldn't. He literally didn't sit still for one minute.
CHUNG: Did you speak with him?
SCHULL: I did speak a few words to him. Most of the conversation was between him and the gentleman sitting on the other side of him. I was sitting in the aisle seat. He was sitting in the middle. And there was a gentleman next to the window. This gentleman asked him quite a few questions about his intended stay in Istanbul.
CHUNG: Did you tell anyone that you thought that this man's behavior was quite odd?
SCHULL: After we'd been -- after we finished our meals and they'd taken the trays away -- just by the way, he didn't eat anything of his meal -- we all got up, wanted to stretch our legs. I had some friends on the plane and I went back to talk to them. And I said to them that this guy was really acting strangely, that he didn't sit still. He was disturbing me. After I spoke to them, I went back to our seats. I didn't sit down, but I stood in the aisle talking to the gentleman who was sitting on the other side of him. And we started talking about this guy and his behavior. And that's when the scuffle actually started.
CHUNG: And when did you realize that it was the sky marshals who wrestled him down?
SCHULL: I turned my head for maybe one or two seconds. And I heard the scuffle in the front. And I looked around. And I saw, first of all, two guys wrestling with -- I didn't see, actually, that it was the person sitting next to me, but I saw them wrestling somebody to the ground.
At the same time, the flight attendant came running toward us, shouting that he had something in his hand. The flight crew kept calm throughout, reassured the passengers, were absolutely amazing. And I think that they really deserve every praise that we can give them.
CHUNG: Sir, when you realized that this really was somewhat serious and the man had a small knife, were you frightened?
SCHULL: I started shaking a little bit. I normally don't.
But the thing is that it happened so quickly that there wasn't really time to -- there was no threat to any of us at all. So it wasn't really a matter of being scared or anything. It was just a realization that something had happened and that something much worse could have happened.
CHUNG: Thank you so much. We're glad you're safe and we appreciate your speaking with us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: When we come back: Helena Bonham Carter and the CNN producer she plays in a new movie about CNN's coverage of the Gulf War from behind the enemy lines.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Right now, American soldiers are preparing for the possibility of going into Iraq. And CNN producers are, too, in order to tell the world what happens there. That's exactly what CNN did in Iraq back in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. And a new HBO movie, "Live from Baghdad," chronicles what it's like for those CNN producers, including the fundamental dilemma of whether to stay when the bombs started falling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LIVE FROM BAGHDAD)
HELENA BONHAM CARTER, ACTRESS: What's this about?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know what it's about. You're going to stay.
CARTER: No. Actually, I was going to go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were?
CARTER: I'm not the suicidal type. I suggest you go, too. Nothing you can do to stop this, especially dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: That was Helena Bonham Carter, who joins me now, along with the CNN producer she portrays, Ingrid Formanek.
Thank you for both of you being with us. Thank you very much.
How did you get to know her, because you didn't meet her until after the film was done.
CARTER: No, we had a long chat on the telephone. And then I did try, because I said, "Look, I am trying to play you" -- although I won't necessarily completely impersonate her, because I can't -- "but it would be nice to get something, given that I can't necessarily meet you." So she managed to persuade her lovely Brian (ph) tall cameraman of a husband to video...
CHUNG: Very handsome.
CARTER: Yes, very handsome. Well, anyway...
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: To video you.
CARTER: To video her.
So I got this video. That's how I got to know Ingrid.
CHUNG: How was it being portrayed? I know that you didn't feel it was really identical to what you experienced, but it was close.
INGRID FORMANEK, CNN PRODUCER: It's not a documentary. It's a film. It's very strange watching the screen and hearing your name and watching somebody who's meant to be you.
CARTER: And it's not you.
FORMANEK: No, Helena and I referred to this person as a she. But, no, I think you've got some things done really, really well. But it's a composite character. And there's composite events in the film.
CHUNG: Ingrid, I want to know how hard it was for you when the decision had to be made as to whether or not you would leave before the bombing started.
FORMANEK: It was difficult, because it was very much an emotional roller coaster in the lead-up to the war. The whole tension, which was a global tension, we felt on a very immediate level in Baghdad. So it was yes one minute, no one minute, yes one minute, no one minute.
CHUNG: In fact, you stayed.
FORMANEK: Stayed. And as soon as the bombs fell, it was a very easy decision to make, but it happened and it wasn't nearly as bad as what you imagine. You always imagine things that are much worse than reality.
CHUNG: You were just there and kicked out.
FORMANEK: Yes, I was part of the team that was in Baghdad that got expelled, which the Iraqis backtracked on and they said they would allow us back in. And now I'm waiting for a visa to go back in.
But, yes, journalistically, it's our job to do this. It's a huge challenge. And we all play chicken with ourselves. And we look at every situation separately. We try and assess the dangers, the reality of it. And, is it worth it? You take your risks. You try and calculate them. If you think you can survive it, you go and do it. It's our job.
CHUNG: Where were you when those bombs began dropping?
CARTER: I was actually in New York on holiday here. And I remember being somewhat completely glued to the television. I think I'm right in saying that that war was a sort of television war broadcast live from behind enemy lines.
Do you feel that's accurate?
CHUNG: Yes. Yes.
FORMANEK: Yes, I think that's right.
CARTER: That's right. OK.
FORMANEK: You're right.
CHUNG: And, Ingrid, this war, you will go back.
FORMANEK: Yes. I'm debating right now, assessing the risks. It depends on a lot of things, like every war. We look at the composition of people. You have to look at your colleagues, who you're in there with. But, yes, basically it's waiting for a visa to go back in.
CHUNG: And you will, despite the potential danger of chemical, biological warfare?
FORMANEK: There's a lot of dangers. That's one of the many potential dangers, I think. The risks are much higher this time around. The stakes are much higher, because the end game is there.
The administration talks about regime change, which I think makes this war much more serious. I think it will be much more intense. I think there will be different dangers. I think that, if journalists are in a building that is a target or there is somebody else in this building, I think it will be a very different calculation, perhaps hostage-taking. We don't know. There's a lot of possible scenarios. And all these have to be assessed before one goes in.
CARTER: Do you think -- sorry, I shouldn't be asking questions here.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: No, go ahead. Go ahead.
CARTER: But do you think you'll be able to do your job as you were able to in the last one? Is it going to be even harder?
FORMANEK: I think it's much more difficult because the nature of television has changed. There's much more competition. And, of course, for CNN, this was such a milestone journalistically that we want to equal or better ourselves. So that makes it much more difficult. But I think the rules will be very, very different. And I think it will be much more difficult to work there this time around.
CHUNG: Ingrid Formanek, Helena Bonham Carter, thank you so much for being with us.
And the movie is HBO's "Live From Baghdad," debuting December 7. The reality, just as it was then, is America's confrontation with Iraq.
And we'll return with a quick word about tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tomorrow: bad enough you're accused of running over your husband with your car, but getting caught doing it on tape? Oh, my gosh.
Coming up: "LARRY KING LIVE."
Thanks for joining us. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Broadened Wiretapping Authority>
|
