How Far Should Law Enforcement Go in Defending the Homeland?
JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: How much does America need to spend on airport security, border patrols, homeland offense and September 11 recovery measures? And how far should law enforcement go in defending the homeland? We'll hear from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and from White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, tonight on "GREENFIELD AT LARGE." It's comforting, familiar in a way: clashes between a White House and a Senate committee, battles between the parties over who gets what in new spending and tax breaks. And then you remember this isn't politics as usual. These battles are about how to deal with the post- September 11 America. They're about how to protect our security, our liberties, our economic well being. In a few moments, we will turn to today's Capitol Hill duel where Attorney General John Ashcroft faced some tough questions from some senators about his approach to combating terror. We'll talk with a key administration player, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But first, the political terrain. Earlier, I spoke with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.</s>SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I think we have to take these events as they come and I think the most important thing we have got to do is to find a way to our bridge differences, to try to govern in the best way possible. I actually think it's been a good thing for Democrats to be in control of the Senate because I think it's brought about the kind of balance that we have needed. I think we have got better legislation and we've responded in a way that I think is in keeping with American expectations and that period since September 11.</s>GREENFIELD: And, yet, one of things I think that -- and it maybe naive on the part of a lot of Americans, was to assume that September 11 had really brought the country together. And yet, many noticed a kind of blossoming of very traditional partisan differences, at least over the economy. Are we really in a point where the stimulus bill and homeland defense is going to be at stake because of a difference of a comparatively trivial amount of money -- $15 billion or so in a $10 trillion economy?</s>DASCHLE: Well, that's a very good question. It shouldn't be, but the factor that makes a big difference in terms of ultimately our success in bringing both parties together. But the economy, I think, is what defines both Republicans and Democrats, Jeff, as you've observed on many occasions. And I think when it comes to economic issues, especially when it comes to the key questions that Democrats feel are so important, providing health care and unemployment insurance for unemployed workers, trying to address the income gap that exists today. Those kinds of things I think have to be addressed and that's really the essence of the difference between our approaches to economic stimulus.</s>GREENFIELD: I can understand how it's almost like the phrase "going to the mattresses", how the respective parties will do that on that as an economic debate. But is there no argument -- can you understand how some folks who don't watch C-SPAN for, you know, sporting pleasure and who are not that connected to it are looking at this and saying, "My Lord, even now, in the midst of the most serious crisis in decades in the United States, these guys still can't put aside their almost theological differences about one economic policy versus another.</s>DASCHLE: Well, I think the American people have actually drawn a distinction between the war effort and domestic policy. I think they are very supportive of what the president is doing in Afghanistan and our war on terrorism. And so are we. We are very strongly in support of most, if not all, of the what the president has done. But they do draw that distinction between what has happened in Afghanistan and what is happening in our economy. You've got seven and a half million people out of work. You've got a budget deficit now instead of a budget surplus that we had just six months ago, in large measure, because of what this president has advocated. So I don't think there's any question the American people are very concerned about the direction we're taking in economic and social policy in this country and I think they want the American people to -- they want the Congress to respond accordingly.</s>GREENFIELD: And yet, you know, we're being told now that this is a really critical matter, getting this stimulus bill passed. And on the other hand, we're hearing people actually on both sides of the ideological spectrum saying, "You know what, maybe the economy is going to be OK by next spring. Manufacturing is looking better, the markets up. Maybe if we don't have a stimulus bill at all, that's OK." Is it OK with you if nothing passes by the end of year?</s>DASCHLE: Well, I think that a lot of companies, a lot of economists have already factored in an assumption that some form of economic stimulus will pass. So for us not to pass it could have very negative psychological and economic ramifications, but I don't think we want to approach. So my feeling is that we have got to get it done. We would like to find a way to bridge our differences. We've said we'll be flexible. We've already demonstrated that. In fact, I would argue we're the only ones who have shown give to date. But nonetheless, I think it is important we keep trying. We're doing that and I'm reasonably optimistic we'll get a bill before the end of this session.</s>GREENFIELD: Permit me an impolite political question, but it does come up. As I believe you're aware, you're coming into a midterm election year. It has probably crossed your mind now and then. If you have got a president who's leading the country...</s>DASCHLE: Yes.</s>GREENFIELD: OK, if you have got a president leading the country in a time when unity on the war front is holding almost unanimously, and by next fall you've got an economy that's in full recovery, what do the Democrats run on?</s>DASCHLE: Well, there's an array of issues. We were in full recovery the last cycle and we didn't do badly with the take over of the Senate and closing the gap in the House. I don't think there's no doubt that we'll have a number of issues. I would argue we have got to work on the same things we have been working on: prescription drug benefits and health care in general. We want to work on a patients' bill of rights if it, God forbid, hasn't passed, a whole array of educational issues, issues having to do with Social Security and Medicare. Those are key Democratic issues continue to have great importance to the Democratic caucus.</s>GREENFIELD: But if the country still in a sense of a national crisis, do those issues even make it into the public consciousness?</s>DASCHLE: Well, you asked if we had reached full recovery. And I think that, by and large, if we have those issues, it will have even greater resonance. If we haven't, if we're dealing with an economy crisis of some kind, then clearly the economy will be a major factor in any election, whether it's this one or 2004.</s>GREENFIELD: Let me turn to something that hits, literally, close to home. We learned today that the anthrax letter mailed to Senator Leahy contained pretty much the same strain of anthrax, the one you're office received, and it was particularly potent. Do you know anything more about the progress of this investigation? Are we any closer to knowing the origin of this than we were say two weeks ago or a month ago?</s>DASCHLE: We really don't, Jeff. I think that it is clear that this is going to take a long time. Somebody reminded me the other day, it took us 17 years to find the Unabomber, and that was only after his brother turned him in. I hope it doesn't take that long for this case. But we recognize how complicated it is and how few leads we really have.</s>GREENFIELD: One of things that occurs to me, because we often never talk to you folks as though you're not just political people, but human beings. You've been in Washington a long time. You've seen the Senate that is still affected by this anthrax letter. You're looking at the holiday season where the decorated White House is now -- for the first time in my memory -- closed to the public. Do you sometimes wake up or in the middle of a busy</s>DASCHLE: It really feels that way sometimes. In fact, more often than not it seems. You have to bring yourself back and recognize that all of this seems so surreal in so many ways and, obviously, so harmful to people you care so deeply about. The good news is, of course, is that we're doing well. Our staff is healthy. They have got a great attitude. We're working every day, almost as if nothing had happened. But it is very, very unusual.</s>GREENFIELD: Well, to bring us back to the kind of differences we're perhaps more used to, Attorney General Ashcroft was before the Senate Judiciary Committee today and some of your colleagues had some pretty tough questions about the scope of administration power. Were you, by and large, satisfied with the answers and where the administration is going on issues like detaining noncitizens and tribunals, that whole scope of power?</s>DASCHLE: I think many of his answers actually caused me to have more questions. I think that it is very unclear just where this is all going and I think we have to be very concerned about the some of the responses provided by the attorney general. I think that was generally the reaction of most of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I think we've got to take very great care, and I think perhaps additional hearings are going to be required as a result of the information provided today.</s>GREENFIELD: What specifically gave you and some of your colleagues, what made you more concerned than when these hearing began?</s>DASCHLE: I think in some cases, the cavalier attitude that I would describe with regard to how long and under what circumstances we would hold these people. I think that in part is troubling. The degree to which we're willing to respect civil liberties and civil rights will continue to be a real question, and we want those questions resolved. We want to protect those rights at the same time, providing law enforcement with all the tools they need. Finding that balance is still something we're looking for and I don't think we have found it yet.</s>GREENFIELD: Finally, amid reports that the last Taliban stronghold may be about to fall, there is a real question about the capture of some of al Qaeda's leaders. Do you have a feeling of what you would like to see done with them? Do you want them tried here in civilian courts in America? Are military tribunals OK with you under those circumstances, people captured in Afghanistan or other foreign lands?</s>DASCHLE: Jeff, I think it's too early to make any conclusion. I think that it is a possibility that we could look at military tribunals in those cases. But I'm very skeptical about whether or not it's in our interest at this point, before everything has been cleaned up and everything has been resolved, that we make decisions of that kind. These are going to be important questions that I don't think should be resolved unilaterally. I think they need to be resolved in the context of the overall coalition effort, and I'm sure that will happen.</s>GREENFIELD: And lastly, with roughly, at this point, two-thirds of Americans supporting the whole idea of military tribunals, with at least one Democratic Senator, I believe Senator Miller of Georgia saying to Democrats, get off the attorney general's back, are you at all concerned that some of the old concerns that some voters had about Democrats being a little soft on strength abroad may come back to haunt you if members of your party begin to go up against the administration, not on the economy, but on the issues of the conduct of the war and the battle against terrorism?</s>DASCHLE: By and large, I think you have seen most Democrats generally supportive. I think the real question is how do you find the balance? And I think that's really where the American people are. They want to provide law enforcement with the tools they need, but they also are very concerned about the abrogation of civil liberties and civil rights. So, I think it is right where the American people tend to be on this question, and that's where we are going to stay.</s>GREENFIELD: All right, Senator Tom Daschle, Senate majority leader, thank you very much for joining us.</s>DASCHLE: My pleasure, Jeff. Thank you.</s>GREENFIELD: When we come back, Attorney General John Ashcroft went to Capitol Hill today to defend the administrations bid for sweeping new powers. We'll talk with White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales.</s>GREENFIELD: We just heard Senate Majority Leader Daschle say he thinks additional hearings may be required the scrutinize the new measures that are being implemented by the Justice Department. Senator Daschle speaking after hearing Attorney General Ashcroft testify today before the Judiciary Committee. Here's a brief at some of today's proceedings.</s>JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities, plotting, planning, waiting to kill again. They enjoy the benefits of our free society even as they commit themselves to our destruction.</s>SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), CHMN., JUDICIARY CMTE.: Every single American has a stake in protecting our freedoms, is to make sure we keep in site at all times, a line that separates government power on the one hand, and the rights and liberties of all Americans on the other hand.</s>SEN. JOHN KYL (R), ARIZONA: My first question is, what you're take is on the need for the commissions? We've talked a lot about the potential needs and procedures, but why do we need them in the first place?</s>ASHCROFT: When we come to those responsible for this, say in Afghanistan, are we supposed to read them their Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the United States to create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you, provide a worldwide platform from which propaganda can be developed?</s>SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: History has shown that the military courts have been effective, but they have also shown that they've been abused. This time we want to try and get it right. And it is of profound importance to the country that we defend our ideals and our security. President Bush's executive order is a broad proposal that has enormous potential for abuse.</s>ASHCROFT: I am pleased to say that the president's order requires that there be full and fair proceedings. Those are the kinds of descriptive terms that have governed the proceeding of wartime commissions and that govern the proceedings of war crimes commissions that operate today.</s>SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Certainly the American people are not interested in watching us quibble about whether we should provide more rights than the Constitution requires to the criminals and terrorists who are devoted to killing our people. They are interested in making sure that we protect our country against terrorist attacks</s>SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Will you commit to this committee today, that the Department of Justice will take immediate steps to assure that every detainee is made aware of his right to be represented by counsel, and made aware of organizations or groups that will represent him without charge if he can't afford a lawyer, that counsel are able to locate and consult with their clients without difficulty, that detainees are permitted to contact their attorneys as often as they need to and receive or return all calls from their attorneys without interference?</s>ASHCROFT: I do not intend to hold individuals without access to council and we will take steps to make sure that we don't.</s>GREENFIELD: Some experts from to today's hearing. And joining us now, White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales. He joins us from the White House. Judge Gonzales, Senator Daschle, as I mentioned, told us just a few moments ago that he was bothered by what he called the cavalier attitude of the attorney general. Do you folks regard the Congress as a legitimate oversight body in this area or do you see them more of an obstacle in getting done what you think you have to get done?</s>ALBERTO GONZALES, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: We certainly don't consider anything that Congress does in this area as an obstacle. Obviously we are very respectful of the role of Congress, even in a time of war, where the president has been acting under his lawful authority as the commander in chief under the Constitution. The president has taken certain actions here, the executive branch has taken certain actions and as we see in many other instances when the executive branch takes action, the Congress looks and examines those actions and I think what they are doing now is perfectly appropriate.</s>GREENFIELD: And so, if they come up with something and you on sober second thought, think, you know, they have a point, you might alter or reshape what you propose?</s>GONZALES: I think it's premature to talk about altering or reshaping or amending the military order. It's not an executive order, it is a military order from the commander in chief down to the secretary of defense. I think we need the wait and see and look at the regulations promulgated by the secretary of defense. We have had military commissions throughout the history of this country without any kind of statutory authorization or guidance by the Congress. In fact, there's even some question that Congress would have the authority to regulate the military commissions by the president. The Supreme Court in the Quearing (ph) case, the 1942 Supreme Court case, specifically reserved the question. So, that is clearly an open question as to whether or not Congress would have the authority.</s>GREENFIELD: All right, let's talk about something you yourself argued in an Op/Ed piece in the "New York Times." You said, that "under the order" -- let me just find this for a minute -- "the president will refer to military commissions only non-citizens who are members or active supporters of al Qaeda, or other international terrorist organizations, targeting the United States." I have a very simple question, Judge Gonzales, how do you know? Aren't you begging the question by asserting that he's only going to refer to the military tribunals that which might be in doubt?</s>GONZALES: That will be a personal decision made by the president of the United States who is accountable to the American people and he will make a decision based on the facts that he believes are relevant in protecting the security of this country.</s>GREENFIELD: Let me cut to the chase. Clearly, the president is not going to go out personally and do investigations. We are not talking about President Columbo. He is going to rely on his intelligence services and the FBI. You remember, in 1996, one of the most intensive FBI intelligence gathering operation centered around who set off the bomb at Olympic Park in Atlanta during the Olympics. And the FBI said we got Richard Jewell. And it then turns out, they got the wrong guy. If under this system, isn't there a danger that relying on good faith but mistaken intelligence, the president or the secretary of defense will consign to the military tribunals people, who may be the victim of just bad intelligence? What is the protection here?</s>GONZALES: Well, the protection, of course, is the president making the determination that in fact, this is a person who's a member of al Qaeda or someone who's engaged in terrorist activities or someone who's harbored a member of al Qaeda or another terrorist, plus the president will have to make a determination that it is in the best interest of this country that this person be subject to military justice, through a military commission, and then we have a trial. During that trial the person will have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, to present evidence, and that person will have the opportunity to make the case whether or not in fact the person is guilty of terrorist activities.</s>GREENFIELD: In past military tribunal situations, like World War II which the White House often cites, we knew when it was time to stop it, because there was a surrender. This is a war on terrorism that the president has described, and everybody else has described as a shadowy war which may go on for years. Is there not a danger that these sweeping new powers are not going to be temporary as they were in every past war, but will be permanently embedded in our system of justice?</s>GONZALES: I think it is wrong to presume that these powers will be exercised in the manner that people have been concerned about in the press. There is no guarantee that the president will ever use this authority. To presume that the president would every use a military commission I think is a wrong presumption. This is simply a tool that the president felt was necessary in this extraordinary time to deal with terrorists.</s>GREENFIELD: Lastly, Judge Gonzales, it seems to me, from my dim memory of law school, that our whole system is based on the fact that you don't put faith in government officials. You as Jefferson said, bind them down with the chains of constitutional law. Are you in effect asking the American people to simply say, rely on the good faith of the White House in this endeavor -- we won't abuse our power?</s>GONZALES: What we're saying here is that this authority has been exercised pursuant to the Constitution. Nothing has been done here that is outside the bounds of the Constitution.</s>GREENFIELD: OK, Judge Gonzales, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. When we come back. Vindication for your humble servant.</s>GREENFIELD: "And Another Thing," you know how bad it sounds when someone says, I told you so. You know how good it feels when it is you that gets to say it? OK, nearly 20 years ago,during the holiday season, when I was writing a syndicated newspaper column. I once wrote about how dangerous it would be if people took seriously all the criticism about the orgy of shopping and buying and commercialism. Think about it, I argued, if everybody stopped buying gifts, whole sectors of the American economy would collapse: Apparel, electronics, liquor and wine, toys, the whole retail underpinnings of our economy. Abandon commercialism, I opined, it is a word you don't hear enough, by the way, and you plunge the nation into doom. I took a lot of heat for that view. And now what, now you have the president himself telling us to whip out the credit cards, hit the malls, empty the stores, armies of experts are watching the cash registers everyday to find out if citizens have been loyal enough, patriotic enough, to spend our way to economic health. Urge Americans to embrace the true meaning of the season, it seems, and you are unwittingly giving aid and comfort to our enemies. I told you so. I'm Jeff Greenfield. Thanks for watching. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" is next.