Alan Keyes
May 21, 2002

ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Up front tonight, we'll be talking about home front security. Obviously, it's on everybody's mind these days, especially since over the course of the last several days we've been hearing some ominous warnings from official quarters, warning us I think that we are still in the midst of a war.

I've been going around the country the last little while. And in one way it's a tribute to America's resilience and not necessarily a bad thing that folks have started to slip a little bit back into normalcy, possibly even a sense of complacency, after the horrors of September 11. Part of what may be going on is an effort to look us in the eye and make sure we remember where we are.

And tonight, we're going to dedicate the entire hour to these three topics related to this challenge. One, should airline pilots be disarmed? A decision taken today that poses this question. We'll have a debate in the first segment of the program.

Two, what should we make of all the official terror warnings in the last few days? I think we all could use a little help from one another in thinking that through.

And, three, is the terror forcing America to shut the door on refugees? A report that suggests maybe it is.

But first, this development on Capitol Hill. The Transportation Department has said now that it will not allow U.S. commercial airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit as a last line of defense against hijackers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN MAGAW, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: My feeling is that you secure the cockpit as much as you possibly can, make it a secure area for them to function in, and then if something does happen on that plane, they really need to be in control of that aircraft.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Now, I've got to tell you, I can understand the reasoning that was just put forward. I mean, after all, a pilot is there to fly the plane. And you would under ordinary circumstances want the pilot to be focused exclusively on that job.

But tell me something. Do you think it helps or hurts one's concentration, the thought that at any moment someone is going to burst through the door and kill defenseless you, shoot you, slit your throat, do whatever? I have a feeling that that could get to the point of being a little bit distracting.

It might be calming, in fact, to the mind and helping to focus the attention if pilot or copilot were in a position to act as the last line of defense. But that's the kind of reasoning that appears to have been rejected by the Department of Transportation.

I would be open to it. But we're going to have a little discussion of it right now because joining us is Gail Dunham, the president of the National Air Disaster Alliance and PlaneSafe.org. Also with us, Captain Linda Powell from the Allied Pilots Association. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, both of you. Thank you for joining us.

LINDA POWELL, CAPTAIN, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: Good evening.

KEYES: I think that some of you in the audience will, of course, recognize these participants because we we've talked about this a little before. We thought it was a good idea to bring them back and see what they're thinking in light of what appears to be this conclusion now that has been reached over at the Department of Transportation.

Let me start with Captain Linda Powell. How do you react to what appears to be the decision now taken to nix the idea of armed pilots as a last line of defense in the cockpits?

POWELL: Good evening, Alan. Thank you. Hello, Gail.

GAIL DUNHAM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR DISASTER ALLIANCE: Hello.

POWELL: In a word, disappointed, but not surprised.

KEYES: Well, why are you disappointed?

POWELL: Because we would have liked to have been able to do this sooner rather than later. Now, unfortunately, we are going to be forced to proceed with legislative attempts to mandate this into law.

KEYES: Now, Gail Dunham, you would take the position that the decision that is taken here is something that you welcome, understand? Do you think it's a good idea?

DUNHAM: I think that the Department of Transportation has spent a great deal of time and resources evaluating this and trying to be as objective as possible. However, they were not able to overcome — the pilots were not able to overcome the objections.

I think it was a stretch to expect the government to just mandate that it was OK for 90,000 commercial airline pilots to be able to carry armed weapons with no regard to their age, their country of citizenship, no background checks. And it was supposed to be a voluntary program where they could make their decision.

And there's also the question of being law enforcement officers. And right now, the federal government is really using those training facilities to train as many sky marshals as possible. And that's the most positive solution. I know that the pilots are disappointed. But this has always been a controversial issue, and they had to overcome some of those concerns.

POWELL: Well, unfortunately...

DUNHAM: But I think it is important now to go forward and work out whatever can be worked out for taser guns. Taser guns are a possible answer because they don't kill people. It just simply disables them for a short period of time.

POWELL: No, I'm sorry, Alan...

KEYES: Captain Powell, go ahead.

POWELL: Absolutely. Gail, I have to tell you that I truly do respect your reasoning in this. But I have to disagree with you on every single point in this.

Tasers are not effective. We will never have sufficient air marshals in order to man the flights in this country or internationally. And it is not a rationale that has not been done in the past. Pilots were armed. They had had no problems being armed. And what was proposed was a voluntary program with background checks and training. Most of the pilots are military. They have training to begin with. That's why it doesn't make any sense.

DUNHAM: But the Department of Transportation really has looked at these issues for probably eight months.

POWELL: I have to tell you...

DUNHAM: And they have said no because they still have so many concerns about the responsibility, about being law enforcement officers, about people flying a plane and then supposedly making instant decisions whether they should...

POWELL: The decisions are not instant, Gail. No.

DUNHAM: They need to — they know that the cockpit door has to be hardened. We're going to increase the sky marshals. Those are the priorities right now.

KEYES: Gail, Gail, can I interrupt for a second, because I have to confess a certain amount — now, I understand perfectly well the hesitations and all. But it seems to me we can't take it for granted that folks at the Department of Transportation did more than sit on this for a while and then make the safe call.

POWELL: Absolutely, Alan.

KEYES: No, let me finish. Safe at least for the bureaucracy, because I can think of several ways — every objection that you've alluded to, I can think of a fairly easy way to deal with that problem.

DUNHAM: How do you overcome 90,000 people...

KEYES: Let me go through it. Gail, let me go through it. I said I could do it. And I will do it, OK?

DUNHAM: ... OK.

KEYES: Step number one, 90,000 people in all of this. Well, OK, I'll buy it. Why don't we set up a program that allows folks to step forward, volunteer, go through some checks that would see what their background is? You would certainly have some people with military background and possibly other kinds of background that already give them the training. You could clear those fairly easily. That is not the whole 90,000.

OK, you could set age limits and other things like that if you felt that was required. People who are flying our airplanes, however, are put through rigorous physical tests to make sure they still have the capability to handle those aircraft. And I think in part all these objections are ignoring who we're dealing with, folks who already...

POWELL: Absolutely.

KEYES: ... have in their hands the fates of hundreds of people every day, making complex judgment calls that would challenge most people, but which they are trained to do with cold blood, right down to the moment the plane gets into an emergency and is threatening to smack into the ground. Their ability to handle those situations proves, it seems to me, that they're capable of making these judgments.

So those objections fly in the face of the particular population of trained individuals that we're dealing with. I don't understand why the Department of Transportation didn't take these things into account.

DUNHAM: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

POWELL: I don't understand that, either, Alan. And let me tell you that we have a proven track record. We can't say the same for our intelligence services so far and some of the things that have been happening.

So, we have a proven track record. We have the ability to be trained. We are disciplined. We are response people. And we are willing to do this.

DUNHAM: But we — but we've had two pilot suicides within the last five years. Silk Air, Egypt Air 990 was Halloween of '98. You're assuming...

KEYES: Gail, Gail, Gail...

(CROSSTALK)

DUNHAM: ... I agree that pilots are well trained. They're responsible. They're overwhelmingly, yes, they could handle this. However, you're still talking about the use of deadly force.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Gail — Gail, can I interrupt one second, though, because the argument about pilot suicides, it either proves too little or it proves too much because on the one hand, if it really proves that these pilots are simply dangerous and we can't trust them, don't forget that they can, in fact, smack those planes into the ground if that's what they're going to do. They have the lives of the passengers in their hands already. So, raising doubts about their capacity to deal with that makes no sense at all.

Putting a gun on their hips isn't going to change that responsibility one iota. So, the argument proves too much, it seems to me, in that particular case. It makes no sense at all to make that objection.

DUNHAM: How do you do background checks on foreign pilots? And they would be in that 90,000 number of pilots who would be able to carry a loaded weapon. How do you do background checks on foreign pilots?

KEYES: Captain Powell, it seems to me — my understanding was that we're talking about American pilots here.

POWELL: We are talking about pilots in the United States...

DUNHAM: We're talking about 90,000 pilots that fly in or out of the United States.

POWELL: ... We're talking about U.S. commercial airline pilots. And the legislation calls for the one — both of them that are going through the process right now, the Young-Mica bill in the House and the Senate bill that will be introduced next week by Senator Burns, Smith, Murkowski, and Miller, all of those are voluntary background checks, deputization of pilots as federal flight deck officers. And they're only U.S. pilots in the airspace of the United States and international operations for U.S. carriers, period.

DUNHAM: I think you're wrong to reject the taser guns because there are airlines now that are using the taser guns. And they're working out, whatever needs to be worked out, where to put it, who's authorized, the training. There are some advantages.

POWELL: Gail, I was present...

DUNHAM: It would disable someone, and it wouldn't kill anyone.

POWELL: ... Let me tell you, taser guns are not effective for this. I was present during the congressional hearings when the National Institute of Justice discussed less than lethal force. Taser guns must always be backed up by lethal force. Even police forces talk about that. They do not penetrate some clothing. They're not available to be used well...

(CROSSTALK)

DUNHAM: ... up to two inches of clothing. They're used by thousands of law enforcement officers all over the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Ladies, one second, please. Can we back up a little bit because I have a problem here. I know under ordinary circumstances, the whole reference to lethal force and killing people might, in fact, cause some anxiety. But we are dealing here with the challenge of terrorism. And that means, Gail, meaning no particular offense...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: ... that we're talking about a situation where some really bad people will likely already be killing folks in that airplane. And whether or not pilots in the face of that should be able to defend themselves so that we don't give a choice, that we either — that we either let them have this ability to defend themselves and possibly prevent the takeover of the plane, or we have to kill everybody on the plane when we shoot it out of the sky before it hits a building.

POWELL: Absolutely.

KEYES: But we're talking life and death in either case, Gail. Let's not pretend we're talking about something where everybody is going to come out safe.

DUNHAM: There's an — we need an integrated security force. There's no doubt about it. But I do think that we should — at this point, the federal government has said no. Yes, this legislation, I know people are going to push for this legislation...

POWELL: Absolutely.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNHAM: Somehow, we have to work through these other issues, though, the background checks, the law enforcement officers. There's also a large segment of pilot that is do not want a loaded gun in the cockpit because...

POWELL: I disagree with you. It's not a large segment of pilots...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Gail, let Linda speak a little bit.

(CROSSTALK)

POWELL: Gail, it is not a large segment of pilots. The overwhelming majority of pilots and the public, I may add, is in favor of this measure. Let's not kid ourselves.

DUNHAM: I don't agree. I don't agree because there's 90,000 pilots, and the maximum petitions that I think, or signatures, that was presented was 40,000-some. And there is a segment of the population that also has the concern that this is a very serious issue.

KEYES: Ladies, I have to stop here because we're running out of time. I want to thank you for a very lively and enlightening debate. I think the audience gets a clear sense of what is at stake in this discussion and what some of the arguments are. I appreciate your coming with us tonight.

I would have to have the last word, though, because I think — I am praying that Congress will step in here — that's why we have a Congress — and remember we're dealing with the life and death issue of terrorism. There's no way that one's going to deal with this as if we're playing ball in the schoolyard or something. We're talking about war.

And I think it's time everybody in this country started to realize that we need to take some steps with confidence in our ability to handle this war as citizens. And if we can't trust the pilots in that regard, I don't know who we can trust.

Next, more about all those ominous terror warnings we've been hearing about the past few days. What purposes do they serve? And later, a post 9-11 America means tighter borders, obviously. But what does that mean for the thousands whose journey to this country may be a matter of life and death?

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: For a long time, we have cherished the idea of America as a refuge for oppressed and threatened people around the world. Does the threat of terrorism mean we must give up that ideal? We'll debate it in our next half hour.

A reminder, too, that the chat room is simmering tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But now, in the last few days, we have heard a number of general but ominous warnings about the inevitability of future terrorist attacks. Vice President Cheney spoke on television on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real. It's just as real, in my opinion, as it was September 12.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not a matter of if, but when?

CHENEY: Not a matter of if, but when.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: And, yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned that suicide bombings like those seen in Israel are, quote, “inevitable,” unquote, in the United States. He said, quote, “There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it,” unquote.

Today, Donald Rumsfeld struck the most ominous note yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Just facing at the facts, we have to recognize that terrorist networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction and that they inevitably are going to get their hands on them, and they would not hesitate one minute in using them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Finally, New York City is stepping up security around some of its landmarks after the FBI shared information about a general threat against the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Now, you do have to wonder, don't you, what is the point of this? Well, partly, I'm putting in mind one of those old movies — I think it was a Conan movie — where one of the characters looks into the camera and says, “Be afraid, be very afraid.” I can't believe our government is admonishing us in this regard. So, there has got to be a better purpose behind it than that.

Obviously, there's some concern, especially in the wake of revelations about what was or was not known or told to the American people, some issues that were phony, to be quite frank with you. The notion that every time there's some kind of an intelligence report it's got to be shared with the public would destroy the possibility of effective intelligence in this country.

And yet there is a real issue about what has been shared, how it should be shared, and whether the public has a kind of right to be in the know when it comes to the level of degree of the terrorist threat. And there are other possibilities, which need to be considered, some of them probably less comfortable for us than others. We are going to be getting into that discussion right now.

And joining us, Congressman John Mica, Republican of Florida and a member of the House Government Reform Committee. Also with us, Steve Emerson, MSNBC terrorism analyst, and author of the book “American Jihad”. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

REP. JOHN MICA (R-FL), GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.

KEYES: Now, Congressman Mica, what do you think is the serious purpose and intent behind the kind of stern warnings and very realistic warnings at one level that we have been getting from high officials in the government in the course of the past few days?

MICA: Well, Alan, the further away we get from September 11, I think the more complacent our country has become. Only last week, I guess when the Democrats came out of the box and tried to pin some blame on the administration, did people begin to start thinking about this again seriously.

But we live in a very dangerous world. I tend to agree with Dick Cheney. They're going to come after us. I tend to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, that we are targets.

They waited eight years after they first took explosives into the World Trade Center and killed a limited number of people to take the towers down. I think we face that same threat and even more so today.

KEYES: Now, one thing I want to clarify, though, because you alluded to the fact that questions have been raised by Democrats, but also by others, about various aspects of the run up to September 11. But you're not suggesting that administration figures have stepped forward and kind of stepped up these warnings as some kind of response to or management of the concerns raised by those questions. That's not the case, is it?

MICA: Well, they're in a difficult situation. It's sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. There was a lot of so-called intelligence chatter. And that's unfortunately what some of this is.

Some of the people who have been screaming the loudest about what took place and pointing fingers are the same people that dismantled some of our intelligence capability. And we lost a lot of that in the last eight years.

You have got to remember, Bush was only in office eight months. He didn't even have his — and still doesn't have — a lot of his people confirmed, so dealing with a system that took some years to develop. So, how they're hearing that same kind of chatter in intelligence again. Some of it's not distinguishable and specific because, again, we're still trying to put together an intelligence service that was dismantled.

KEYES: But, Congressman Mica, well — let me turn to Steve Emerson for a moment. But I have got to say, Steve, as I introduce my question to you, that I at least would be loathed to suggest that the administration is issuing these kinds of warnings as some kind of maneuver to respond to the political situation raised by the questions that have come up in the last several weeks. I actually think that would be kind of an inexcusable use of these things to try to deal with their political problems.

I think there could be a quite serious positive purpose in what they're doing in order to rouse Americans from complacency, make sure that we don't slip back into a mode that forgets that we are, in fact, in a state of war, and that that would be necessary regardless of whatever political situation might be there. Do you think that's true?

STEVE EMERSON, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: I think that the statements made perhaps by — certainly by Rumsfeld — Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney are definitely part of an effort to rouse public opinion, mobilize the government to warn about the possibly of a new terrorist attack. On the other hand, the release of these unconfirmed reports repeatedly by the FBI is really more of a cover-your-gluteus-maximus agenda because they don't want to be caught, as they have been caught — accused — prior to 9-11 of not releasing information.

And now almost any raw intelligence report is being released. And I think there's going to be a counterproductive nature to this. Once there's a cumulative nature level of this and people start saying, “Oh, ho-hum,” I can't see what we're going to do about it.

(CROSSTALK)

EMERSON: I think you're right — go ahead.

KEYES: No, go ahead, because I'm wondering if that means that one of the things that I think the media has been mistaken about, which is the focus on this question of did they inform the public, did they release information, I have got to tell you, I raised some serious questions on this show about the run-up to September 11. But one of things I didn't raise was this phony notion that they should be telling the public everything that they see in intelligence. I think that's crazy.

I would raise the question about coordination of intelligence, analysis of intelligence information, about whether or not there was, in fact, effective, competent work being done with the information they did have and whether it was shared in such a way as to produce the best results. Those are serious questions that I think need answering.

But if the administration would move in response to a phony problem, which is sharing this information in, I think, sort of ill-considered ways with the public, that might suggest that the media is driving the agenda in a way that is very unhealthy. Wouldn't you think, Steve?

EMERSON: Well, I agree with you. I think that, first of all, the administration is in a defensive mode right now because the accusation against it, which I think is unfair, is that they with held information that might have allowed citizens to make an informed judgment that would have protected themselves and thus protect themselves from 9-11, which I think is ludicrous.

The bottom line was the National Security Council counter-terrorism group didn't have the information it needed to make the policy decisions that you pointed out last night. And that is the question about how do you integrate intelligence.

As far as the daily release of raw intelligence, again, I think that this is really more of an FBI effort to cover your — you know, your A, whatever you want to call it. But in terms of the statements of the prospects for terrorism occurring in the United States, definitely, if these statements were being made last summer publicly or the year before or the year before, perhaps it would have galvanized government, the public, and Congress to do certain preemptive things.

KEYES: Representative Mica, one of things that does come to my mind as I listen to these warnings, though, especially when I heard I think it was Robert Mueller tell us, “Well, it's going to happen, we can't stop them,” and so forth and so on — Mueller, rather, of the FBI — that we can't stop them and all of this, are we lowering the bar here in terms of what we can expect in the security field from our government?

After all is said and done, I don't particularly like having officials look me in the eye and say, “A lot of Americans going to die. Nothing we can do about it.” I'd rather hear from them about the kind of things that we can do and are doing in order to try to deal with and respond to this risk while also letting us know that with maximum effort there may still be some problems. What is going on here?

MICA: Well, I think, again, we've fallen into some complacency. And I think the administration wants to snap people out of that. And two ways to do that is to do exactly what they've done, is give some more specific information.

I think we heard a lot more in the last few days about specific threats, the meeting of the Hezbollah and the al Qaeda and other terrorist groups reportedly in Lebanon, revelations that there are coming together an unprecedented conglomeration of terrorist groups plotting against us, saying that we can't stop terrorists who may be hell bent on blowing themselves up. Those are the realities we face.

KEYES: Well, what about two things? First, we just had a discussion about arming pilots in the cockpit, which I think is looked upon by some folks as one of those areas where you do what you can to try to reduce the risk and so forth. And yet, the administration, the Department of Transportation, has nixed that.

It's almost as if we're in a — the people are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. Sit there, be very afraid, don't do anything. And when you ask for steps that might help you to defend yourselves, we're not going to let you do that. What sense does that make?

MICA: Well, I think they erred. I think the airlines did an effective lobbying job on the administration. For some reason, I think they're their own worst enemy in this case, because you want people to feel secure.

The airline pilots see all the gaps in our current aviation security system. And I can tell you, I chair that subcommittee, there are many of them. And I'm concerned. I was sort of neutral on this to begin with. Now I'm a very rabid supporter because they see the gaps, I see the gaps.

We have an airline security system in an incredible transition the next year-and-a-half, a lot of things slipping by every week. And we have got to do — we have got to put every line of defense in place.

KEYES: We've only got 30 seconds left. What do you think are the prospects, Congressman, that Congress will take action to permit this possibility?

MICA: Well, again, I chair Aviation Subcommittee. I'll take the bill up. If Congress is in this Thursday, we may go out a day early, we'll take it up and pass it out of subcommittee. If not, as soon as we get back, we will pass it out. And I'll have bipartisan strong support for the measure.

KEYES: Well, thank you both for joining us tonight. Obviously, these are issues we're going to be coming to again and again as we move through this period and judgments are made about what's to be told, what's not to be told.

I think a lot of folks will be more comfortable when it's clear that there is an effective, proactive approach to this that also seeks to visit harm upon the terrorists before they act against us. And that's something that I think the administration might want to take a look at, sharing with us the ideas they have along those lines.

Thanks to both of you.

Next, after 9-11, is America tightening its borders at the expense of thousands of refugees seeking safety in this country? We're going to debate the conclusion of a report released yesterday that says yes.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

A report released today by a refugee advocacy group claims the United States is not allowing enough refugees into the country. The group claims America is punishing refugees in light of September 11 by, quote, “slowing their entry down to a trickle.” By this time last year, 36,000 refugees had been let in. This year so far, only 11,000 have entered the United States.

Now, I know that one's first reaction to this might be, but we're in the midst of a terror war. Of course we have the right to tighten up our borders. We've got to do it. At the same time though, I think that there is a real question here about a cherished American ideal, and it is not immigration. This is separate from the immigration issue. This has to do with the safe haven we have tried over the course of our history to offer to people who are subject to dangerous oppression in the country where they live, seeking a safe place to find refuge from the hand of their tyrannical government, oppressive customs and practices that threaten their lives.

I think that is something that we have pridened ourselves over the years on providing for people. Give me your tired, your poor is part of it, but also the huddled masses yearning to be free. The wretched refuse, the people who are being crushed down by the forces of oppression. Do we have to shut this down now? Has terrorism succeeded in depriving us of this important ideal of the American heart? That, I think, is part of the issue that's at stake here beyond talk of numbers and other things.

Joining us now, Joseph D'Agostino, the associate editor for “Human Events” magazine, where he covers immigration issues; and Leonard Glickman, the chairman of the Refugee Council USA and president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

Leonard, let me start with you because the report obviously is making a point that I think you both sympathize with, believe in. What is the situation and why do you think that even in the context of the war against terrorism, it's appropriate to be asking about this issue now?

LEONARD GLICKMAN, REFUGEE COUNCIL USA: I think it's more important than ever before. You know, Alan, all day we've seen pictures of the Statue of Liberty as being a target of attack by terrorists. Everything she symbolizes has been under attack as a result of September 11.

She stands for this country being that safe haven for people who are fleeing persecution. And as that graphic showed, only 11,000 people have been admitted to the United States. Six months ago, six months ago today, and two months after September 11, President Bush himself authorized 75,000 refugees to be admitted to this country this year. At the current rate we're going, we won't even reach 50,000 refugees. That is a shame on America and everything that the Statue of Liberty stands for.

KEYES: Now, Joseph D'Agostino, as you hear the concerns that are expressed in this report in the context of the war on terror, what is your sense of the priorities we ought to be observing here?

JOSEPH D'AGOSTINO, “HUMAN EVENTS” MAGAZINE: Well, the first priority our government needs to pursue is the protection of the citizens of the United States of America. And if that involves taking a much longer time to screen asylum seekers or to not let in as many asylum seekers as we have in the past — and that is something our government has a moral and constitutional and legal responsibility to do — and the question is not now whether the numbers we are bringing in, but are we really being certain when we screen these people, interview these people, etc., that they do not pose a threat to the United States, which we know, from all these warnings that you've been talking about tonight, is a very real threat.

KEYES: Now, Leonard Glickman, what do you say to this though? I mean, we are living in times when people are obviously going to be worried about some of the bad intentions that people coming from abroad will have toward the United States. Why do you feel that the refugee population doesn't make itself part of that problem in a way that justifies the slowdown we've been seeing?

GLICKMAN: No one argues the increased need for security scrutiny of the people entering our borders. But it is very important for people to understand, none of the terrorists entered this country as refugees. Refugees of all migrants, and you were right, Alan, to point out that refugees are different than any other migrant that enters this country. No other migrant that enters this country has, prior to September 11, been under closer scrutiny and gone through more extensive background checks than refugees. And post-9/11, the whole program and the only program dealing with immigrants or refugees, this program was shut down. Its entire security procedures were reviewed by every part of the federal government.

When it started back up again in February, the government was assured that its security procedures on all of the refugees were as good as they were going to get. So, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever...

KEYES: Well...

GLICKMAN: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

KEYES: No, no, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to signal that when you got done with your sentence there. But the question I have for you though, Leonard, is what is the reason — do you think that this is just a kind of arbitrary decision or is it the result of not having enough manpower or effort, given the kind of security that they're going through. What explains the slowdown in your view?

GLICKMAN: There is one explanation. We had a long period of time when the whole program itself was shut down, so that the whole program could be reviewed from a security perspective. We lost time there.

And now, as the program slowly starts back up again, there are certain nationalities that are falling under even closer scrutiny. They are taking an inordinate amount of time to be cleared for security purposes. But to date, we have yet to hear of a single cases overseas of a refugee who has been interviewed by the INS, who has been proven to have a credible, fair persecution and in need of this country's protection as a durable solution, not one of them has been declined based on security reasons.

KEYES: Now, you raise a point that I'd like to put in front of Joseph because we are talking about a special population here of folks who have to prove a situation that other immigrants do not. There are categories of immigration. You fall into them, relatively automatically. You wait in line. You come into the country because you're qualified under one of those categories. Refugees aren't like that. They actually have to make a case which is then thoroughly scrutinized to prove that they, in fact, need refuge in this country. Doesn't that in and of itself take care of some of the security concerns?

D'AGOSTINO: I'm afraid not. For example, in recent years, we have let in thousands of refugees from countries like Iran and Iraq and it really doesn't seem at all farfetched to think that a few terrorists could insert themselves into those few thousands and claim persecution and make a good case for it. Because if you're coming from a country like Iran or Iraq, I would think the presumption would be that you could make a case that you'll be persecuted if you return there.

And they could slip into this country and use that method to get into this country when they can't get in through any other way. It's a system which doesn't require any sort of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a system that is done on a system of more likely than not, where you suffer persecution more likely than not, if you are returned to your home country.

And after September 11, in this climate, instead of trying to get those numbers back up to where they were before September 11, we should instead be evaluating the system in a completely new way and we should actually be happy to see that the INS is being careful, not letting in as many people as it used to be, considering that its incredible lack of manpower, the disorganization the agency has demonstrated. I'm actually reassured to see that the INS is letting in people at a much slower rate.

KEYES: Leonard Glickman, what do you say to that, the possibility that we'd be providing a mask for terrorists to enter the country under plausible guise?

GLICKMAN: Well, if I was a terrorist and I was trying to figure out a way to get into this country, the refugee program would be absolutely the last place I would look at. Even if I were from Iran, let's look at the people we're taking in from Iran. We're taking in religious minorities from Iran. We're taking in Bahais (ph). We're taking in Jews. We're taking in Christians.

These are people who were persecuted, who arrived outside of Iran, who go through an INS scrubbing, who go through a security check by our national intelligence establishment. They prove both to INS that they have a credible fear of persecution. They prove to our national security establishment while they wait overseas, before they even get here, that they pose no threat whatsoever to the security of the United States. Only then, and only then, are they admitted into the United States.

It just makes no sense that if I were some operative overseas trying to figure out a way to penetrate America's borders and do harm to our security, would I use the refugee program as an avenue to get in.

KEYES: Well, we are going to have more of this discussion with our guests after we take a break.

And later, my “Outrage of the Day.” I think this one is really going to grab you.

But first, does this make sense? As a result of ending the standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, 13 hijackers now in Cyprus are going to Spain, three to Italy, two to Greece, two to Ireland, one to Portugal, one to Belgium and one temporarily staying there in Cyprus. Now I want you to think about the fact that according to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 52 percent of Palestinians support suicide bombings; 86 percent of Palestinians oppose arresting those behind the suicide bombings; 67 percent of Palestinians believe armed action is more effective than negotiation.

So we are sending folks who represent in some ways the most extreme elements of this population that believe that violence is a solution to political problems and we're ceding them over Europe, where we already have developing a problem with populations, possibly unhappy with Middle Eastern problems. Are we solving the problems of the Middle East or are we sewing the seeds of violence in Europe? Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: You're looking at a live picture of New York City. Tomorrow is a momentous day for New York, marking the beginning of its annual fleet week. MSNBC's Lester Holt will be with some of America's bravest on the board the USS Iwo Jima, just one ship containing thousands of sailors headed to the Big Apple. Live coverage begins tomorrow only on America's news channel, MSNBC.

Now, we're back with Joseph D'Agostino from “Human Events” magazine and Leonard Glickman from Refugee Council USA. Joseph, question I'd like to get your reflections on because as I consider and listen to this, it does seem to me that we may be in danger of limiting access to the United States and helping to keep in danger and maybe get killed the very sorts of people in a lot of these terrorist-minded countries with nasty regimes who would be our friends and supporters and be sympathetic with the United States, the very people we need to preserve and who possibly might provide some of the seed bed for better regimes to replace these guys in the future. Aren't these people, in fact...

D'AGOSTINO: Unfortunate...

KEYES: Let me finish. Aren't these people, in fact, folks that we need to scrutinize from a positive point of view, to work with, possibly, even in the context of the war against terror?

D'AGOSTINO: Absolutely, Alan. I mean, there are a lot of people out there who will make great American citizens and we certainly don't want anyone to be left to die in a country if we can help them come here and we know they are going to make a good American citizen.

The problem is we do know that the 19 September 11 hijackers were not American citizens. We do know that most of those who want to do similar things are probably also not American citizens. Let's certainly hope so, in any case. And we have to protect ourselves first...

GLICKMAN: But, Alan, they're not refugees...

D'AGOSTINO: We have to protect our American citizens before we try to save...

KEYES: I know that. I understand that.

D'AGOSTINO: ... other people.

KEYES: The question is, though, because I've been reading stuff about how the INS hasn't yet cleaned up its act in dealing with student visas and things of this kind. We still might have al Qaeda pilots training at air schools in America and so forth and so on. If you were going to be tightening up, wouldn't it be in those more grab bag areas rather than...

D'AGOSTINO: Oh...

KEYES: Wait, let me finish though — rather than in an area where the scrutiny is already close, where you're dealing with populations of people who are less likely to be seed beds for terror than other more general populations in these countries? And I wasn't just thinking, by the way, of folks coming to the Americas. I was thinking of folks coming for refuge here who might intend at some point to go back home after the danger passes and who might help us then to build the kind of network in the world that we need to replace some of these regimes. Don't we have to think about that?

D'AGOSTINO: We absolutely have to think about that. We know that many of these terrorists are very well financed and well organized. And if we don't protect ourselves along every point, they'll use another point. If we reform the refugee system or even end it, and we might want to consider putting a moratorium on high-risk groups like young men from Middle Eastern countries, we may want to consider not letting any of those in.

But even if we do that, even if we reform the visa system, well, guess what they'll do? They'll just go to Mexico, walk across the border because we know that it's very easy to walk across the border from Mexico. We have to take care of all of the holes in our system or we can't protect ourselves.

KEYES: Well, I guess what the...

GLICKMAN: Alan...

KEYES: Go ahead, Leonard.

GLICKMAN: Alan, when you spoke about people dying overseas as a result of the slowdown of the refugees — the fact is, people are dying overseas as a result of the slowdown in the refugee program. We know already that there are children in African refugee camps being born there who have died because the international community cannot protect them any longer.

They are candidates for the protection of this country. They don't pose a security threat for this country. They go through these security briefings. We've seen children die. We see mothers and Afghan women at risk who could use the protection of the United States. The fact is, people are dying. People are in danger overseas, all because of the aftermath of 9/11. And, again, I go back to what I said originally. We're talking today about a possible attack against the Statue of Liberty by terrorists.

(CROSSTALK)

D'AGOSTINO: What about what Dick Cheney has been telling us?

GLICKMAN: Everything that she stands for, about this country being a safe haven, about being a place for the people who are oppressed and who are persecuted...

D'AGOSTINO: What about what Dick Cheney...

(CROSSTALK)

How many people could die if you let in one terrorist...

KEYES: Let me get a word in edgewise here.

D'AGOSTINO: through the asylum process with a nuclear bomb or smallpox? How many Americans could die?

KEYES: Joseph, we've come to the edge — what am I talking about — the end of our segment because we've run out of time.

I actually think, to tell you the truth, that you both have some points. I want to thank you for being with us. Because I think, one, we do have to pay attention to our security. There's no doubt about it. That's the top priority. I agree with Joseph there.

But I wonder whether or not we aren't throwing the baby out with the bath water, if we're willing to deal indiscriminately of elements of this in-migration, not looking carefully at those elements that might actually support us in the war against terror and also support our determination to defend our way of life and its ideals and not let terrorism deprive us of them. I think that's what's involved in this issue and we need to be careful with it.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” A rapist who's now become a plaintiff against the hospital where he committed his rape. Think about this. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now for my “Outrage of the Day.” A Sandusky, Ohio man serving a 10-year sentence for raping a patient at Providence Hospital is suing the hospital for negligence. Yes, the rapist. The rapist, Edward Brewer, a former employee at the hospital, was convicted of raping a 44-year-old cerebral palsy patient while she was in her hospital bed.

He filed suit Monday against the hospital for inadequate security in protecting visitors as well as their patients, which caused him, the rapist, pain and suffering, according to court documents. Do I really have to say anymore than that? I don't think so.

That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.