![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
of course, you'll want to go back to cnn.com and view this in its original glory with advertisements and stuff
Welcome back to CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Coming up, the White House leaves the door open at least potentially for someone to assassinate Saddam Hussein. We'll discuss that much more with the former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. One hot item of political debate of course is the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq. And it's not just being heard on Capitol Hill. The debate over a possible war moved into the pages of the "New York Times" today with a full-page ad taken out by the Common Cause Organization. One of the signatories, the former New York governor, Mario Cuomo joins me now live from New York.
Governor, thanks for joining us. Sorry I called you mayor before, but everybody knows you were the -- once the governor of New York. Everybody knows. What made you go ahead and sign this ad, which among other things -- I'll read one sentence from it. It says, "Such a resolution, the draft resolution, the White House wants the Congress to support," if approved, you say, would give the president a blank check to make war on Iraq. What's wrong with that?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, I don't think you should give the president a blank check to make war on anybody under any circumstances. The Constitution anticipated that question and answered it by saying a president shouldn't have a blank check. Abraham Lincoln made it very clear that that would be an atrocious thing to do.
I think what happened here, Wolf, is, and a lot of people are now starting to ask themselves the questions that were printed in the "New York Times" today. When did this thing arise? Why are we even talking about it? Where did it come from? I think what happened because 9/11. 9/11 came. We realize what had happened to us. The country made a judgment to support the president in a war against terrorism with very little reservation. And with all the fierceness that we could muster, we were behind him in the war against terrorism. And all of a sudden they insinuated into that the war against Iraq.
BLITZER: But...
CUOMO: If you ask most people today, Wolf, when did that come up and why? And what was the association between 9/11 and Iraq? They can't answer that question.
BLITZER: Well, the administration would argue, as you well know, Governor, that this is a terrorist regime that has weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and as the president repeatedly says, may be on the verge of developing a crude nuclear device after 9/11. They say, wouldn't it be better to take this guy out rather than let him develop a -- this kind of capability which could threaten not only his own people but his neighbors, including the United States?
CUOMO: Yes, it might be. What about North Korea? What about Iran? What about other places? That logic doesn't work, Wolf. You could have said that in your campaign of 2000. You could have said the first thing I'm going to do is declare war on Iraq before 9/11, before terrorism. What you just offered by way of rational, George Bush had in 2000.
BLITZER: Well, let me tell you...
CUOMO: And he had it right...
BLITZER: ... what the administration...
CUOMO: Excuse me, and he had it right after 9/11.
BLITZER: But the administration...
CUOMO: And he never said a word about it.
BLITZER: The administration would argue that this is a leader, Saddam Hussein, who has proven that he is reckless, that he invaded Kuwait. He tried to kill an American president, this president's father, used poison gas against his own people and he's got a record of atrocity unlike North Korea, let's say, or Iran.
CUOMO: That's absolutely right and you supported him, too. The presidents of the United States supported him and encouraged him and that's part of the record, too. I'm saying this, Wolf. Before you go to war, before you sacrifice, perhaps thousands and thousands of lives, our lives, their lives, the lives of innocent people, there are certain questions you should answer.
The piece that you read in the "New York Times" doesn't conclude that the president's wrong. It simply says let's pause for a moment and ask questions. Why didn't it come up before? What exactly do you know now that you didn't know two years ago, a year ago?
BLITZER: Governor, let me ask you a question about your fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. They are raising these questions. Senator Biden...
CUOMO: More and more.
BLITZER: ... had hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee.
CUOMO: Good.
BLITZER: There's going to be a whole debate now on this resolution.
CUOMO: Excellent.
BLITZER: So are they being derelict in their responsibilities because the ad seems to suggest that they're not living up to what you believe they should be doing?
CUOMO: No, we're trying to support those who are asking questions. We just don't want people to be panicked by polls. And we don't want people to make the mistake that this is the logical sequel to 9/11. See and every once in awhile somebody will say, well, actually there is a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and that is the logic here. That's why we have to go after Iraq and that logic doesn't work. And you can point that out and then they back away from it. And all we're saying is this, Wolf, we're with the president in the war against terrorism, everybody is. Now make the case against Iraq. Tell us why it comes up now. Tell us how many lives we may lose.
BLITZER: Let me ask you what you mean...
CUOMO: Ask what you mean by regime change. Tell us isn't it possible that if he is the madman you say he is and we make a false move, he's liable to fire those weapons at us in anticipation. And...
BLITZER: Governor?
CUOMO: Yes?
BLITZER: You don't believe when the president addressed the United Nations he made that case because the administration, as you well know, argues that they are answering all of the questions that you asked in this full-page ad...
CUOMO: Fine, I'll read tomorrow's -- well, then all they have to do is publish it in the "Times" tomorrow and I'll read the answers nice and clearly and then, I'll come back and apologize to them.
BLITZER: The -- finally before I let you go, Governor, in 1991, there were those who raise questions about going after Saddam Hussein following his invasion of Kuwait. Obviously, many of them were Democrats, and only some who supported the then first President Bush. A lot of Democrats are right nervous -- very nervous right now. They could be making a similar mistake. You recognize the political pitfalls here.
CUOMO: Well, there's plenty of time to make a decision to agree 100 percent with everything the president's asking for. I'm just saying it's premature to do it until he answers those questions.
And go back to 1991, Wolf. You're an expert on this. You remember all of the different rationales they gave for this war? Remember first, they said this is a matter of economy and jobs and then they said this and then they said that. Do you remember that?
And when it was all over and they didn't go all the way, people wondered about why they hadn't gone all the way. We're still confused about some of those rationales, you know, exactly why we were doing it. All I want is answers to simple questions that I would ask before I send somebody I loved out on to a battlefield to risk his or her life.
BLITZER: All right, Governor Cuomo, let's continue this conversation, maybe Sunday on "LATE EDITION." We'll continue this conversation.
CUOMO: If you like.
BLITZER: The administration -- in fairness to the first President Bush, he'll argue that the rationale for the first war was to liberate Kuwait and that was achieved. But we'll continue this discussion, a lot more to talk about. Mario Cuomo, it was good to have you on the program.
CUOMO: Thank you.
BLITZER: The Justice Department is drawing heavy flack for its actions in the war on terrorism. Our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, reports now on the latest controversy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the government held an immigration hearing for Rabih Haddad, the first open hearing for a detainee with suspected links to terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft strongly defended the government's detention policy and other terror-fighting tactics.
JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our actions are firmly rooted in the Constitution, secure in historical and judicial precedent. And consistent with the laws passed by the Congress.
ARENA: Haddad's case has become the rallying cry for opponents of secret hearings. He is the chairman of the Muslim charity, Global Relief Foundation, and has been in custody for nine months because of suspected links to terrorism and for Visa violations. The charity's assets have also been frozen.
Haddad's case has been conducted mostly in secret, but a judge ordered the Justice Department to grant a new and open detention hearing for Haddad or release him.
DAVID COLE, GEORGETOWN LAW CENTER: I think it's absolutely critical because the rule of law only operates if it operates in full view, so that the public, the press, the family members, people interested can ensure that in fact this man is being afforded a fair trial.
ARENA: The government's war on terror has been sharply criticized by some who argue the very civil liberties the government is trying to defend are being undermined in the process. But Ashcroft sees it differently.
ASHCROFT: Neutralize potential terrorist threats by getting violators off the street by any means possible as quickly as possible. Detained individuals who pose a national security risk for any violations of criminal or immigration laws. Delay only if there's a valid national security reason.
Welcome back to CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Coming up, the White House leaves the door open at least potentially for someone to assassinate Saddam Hussein. We'll discuss that much more with the former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. One hot item of political debate of course is the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq. And it's not just being heard on Capitol Hill. The debate over a possible war moved into the pages of the "New York Times" today with a full-page ad taken out by the Common Cause Organization. One of the signatories, the former New York governor, Mario Cuomo joins me now live from New York.
Governor, thanks for joining us. Sorry I called you mayor before, but everybody knows you were the -- once the governor of New York. Everybody knows. What made you go ahead and sign this ad, which among other things -- I'll read one sentence from it. It says, "Such a resolution, the draft resolution, the White House wants the Congress to support," if approved, you say, would give the president a blank check to make war on Iraq. What's wrong with that?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, I don't think you should give the president a blank check to make war on anybody under any circumstances. The Constitution anticipated that question and answered it by saying a president shouldn't have a blank check. Abraham Lincoln made it very clear that that would be an atrocious thing to do.
I think what happened here, Wolf, is, and a lot of people are now starting to ask themselves the questions that were printed in the "New York Times" today. When did this thing arise? Why are we even talking about it? Where did it come from? I think what happened because 9/11. 9/11 came. We realize what had happened to us. The country made a judgment to support the president in a war against terrorism with very little reservation. And with all the fierceness that we could muster, we were behind him in the war against terrorism. And all of a sudden they insinuated into that the war against Iraq.
BLITZER: But...
CUOMO: If you ask most people today, Wolf, when did that come up and why? And what was the association between 9/11 and Iraq? They can't answer that question.
BLITZER: Well, the administration would argue, as you well know, Governor, that this is a terrorist regime that has weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and as the president repeatedly says, may be on the verge of developing a crude nuclear device after 9/11. They say, wouldn't it be better to take this guy out rather than let him develop a -- this kind of capability which could threaten not only his own people but his neighbors, including the United States?
CUOMO: Yes, it might be. What about North Korea? What about Iran? What about other places? That logic doesn't work, Wolf. You could have said that in your campaign of 2000. You could have said the first thing I'm going to do is declare war on Iraq before 9/11, before terrorism. What you just offered by way of rational, George Bush had in 2000.
BLITZER: Well, let me tell you...
CUOMO: And he had it right...
BLITZER: ... what the administration...
CUOMO: Excuse me, and he had it right after 9/11.
BLITZER: But the administration...
CUOMO: And he never said a word about it.
BLITZER: The administration would argue that this is a leader, Saddam Hussein, who has proven that he is reckless, that he invaded Kuwait. He tried to kill an American president, this president's father, used poison gas against his own people and he's got a record of atrocity unlike North Korea, let's say, or Iran.
CUOMO: That's absolutely right and you supported him, too. The presidents of the United States supported him and encouraged him and that's part of the record, too. I'm saying this, Wolf. Before you go to war, before you sacrifice, perhaps thousands and thousands of lives, our lives, their lives, the lives of innocent people, there are certain questions you should answer.
The piece that you read in the "New York Times" doesn't conclude that the president's wrong. It simply says let's pause for a moment and ask questions. Why didn't it come up before? What exactly do you know now that you didn't know two years ago, a year ago?
BLITZER: Governor, let me ask you a question about your fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. They are raising these questions. Senator Biden...
CUOMO: More and more.
BLITZER: ... had hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee.
CUOMO: Good.
BLITZER: There's going to be a whole debate now on this resolution.
CUOMO: Excellent.
BLITZER: So are they being derelict in their responsibilities because the ad seems to suggest that they're not living up to what you believe they should be doing?
CUOMO: No, we're trying to support those who are asking questions. We just don't want people to be panicked by polls. And we don't want people to make the mistake that this is the logical sequel to 9/11. See and every once in awhile somebody will say, well, actually there is a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and that is the logic here. That's why we have to go after Iraq and that logic doesn't work. And you can point that out and then they back away from it. And all we're saying is this, Wolf, we're with the president in the war against terrorism, everybody is. Now make the case against Iraq. Tell us why it comes up now. Tell us how many lives we may lose.
BLITZER: Let me ask you what you mean...
CUOMO: Ask what you mean by regime change. Tell us isn't it possible that if he is the madman you say he is and we make a false move, he's liable to fire those weapons at us in anticipation. And...
BLITZER: Governor?
CUOMO: Yes?
BLITZER: You don't believe when the president addressed the United Nations he made that case because the administration, as you well know, argues that they are answering all of the questions that you asked in this full-page ad...
CUOMO: Fine, I'll read tomorrow's -- well, then all they have to do is publish it in the "Times" tomorrow and I'll read the answers nice and clearly and then, I'll come back and apologize to them.
BLITZER: The -- finally before I let you go, Governor, in 1991, there were those who raise questions about going after Saddam Hussein following his invasion of Kuwait. Obviously, many of them were Democrats, and only some who supported the then first President Bush. A lot of Democrats are right nervous -- very nervous right now. They could be making a similar mistake. You recognize the political pitfalls here.
CUOMO: Well, there's plenty of time to make a decision to agree 100 percent with everything the president's asking for. I'm just saying it's premature to do it until he answers those questions.
And go back to 1991, Wolf. You're an expert on this. You remember all of the different rationales they gave for this war? Remember first, they said this is a matter of economy and jobs and then they said this and then they said that. Do you remember that?
And when it was all over and they didn't go all the way, people wondered about why they hadn't gone all the way. We're still confused about some of those rationales, you know, exactly why we were doing it. All I want is answers to simple questions that I would ask before I send somebody I loved out on to a battlefield to risk his or her life.
BLITZER: All right, Governor Cuomo, let's continue this conversation, maybe Sunday on "LATE EDITION." We'll continue this conversation.
CUOMO: If you like.
BLITZER: The administration -- in fairness to the first President Bush, he'll argue that the rationale for the first war was to liberate Kuwait and that was achieved. But we'll continue this discussion, a lot more to talk about. Mario Cuomo, it was good to have you on the program.
CUOMO: Thank you.
BLITZER: The Justice Department is drawing heavy flack for its actions in the war on terrorism. Our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, reports now on the latest controversy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the government held an immigration hearing for Rabih Haddad, the first open hearing for a detainee with suspected links to terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft strongly defended the government's detention policy and other terror-fighting tactics.
JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our actions are firmly rooted in the Constitution, secure in historical and judicial precedent. And consistent with the laws passed by the Congress.
ARENA: Haddad's case has become the rallying cry for opponents of secret hearings. He is the chairman of the Muslim charity, Global Relief Foundation, and has been in custody for nine months because of suspected links to terrorism and for Visa violations. The charity's assets have also been frozen.
Haddad's case has been conducted mostly in secret, but a judge ordered the Justice Department to grant a new and open detention hearing for Haddad or release him.
DAVID COLE, GEORGETOWN LAW CENTER: I think it's absolutely critical because the rule of law only operates if it operates in full view, so that the public, the press, the family members, people interested can ensure that in fact this man is being afforded a fair trial.
ARENA: The government's war on terror has been sharply criticized by some who argue the very civil liberties the government is trying to defend are being undermined in the process. But Ashcroft sees it differently.
ASHCROFT: Neutralize potential terrorist threats by getting violators off the street by any means possible as quickly as possible. Detained individuals who pose a national security risk for any violations of criminal or immigration laws. Delay only if there's a valid national security reason.
