MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMay 30, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, the saber rattling between Pakistan and India continues. Both countries move toward a war footing in the disputed Kashmir region.
Today, President Bush signaled his increasing concern over a confrontation between the two countries which includes the possibility of nuclear war. He announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would visit the region next week and indicated that the U.S. is preparing evacuation plans for American soldiers and citizens if war breaks out. Bush also called on Pakistan's President Musharraf to take action to prevent attacks in India-controlled Kashmir. MSNBC's Ned Colt is in Islamabad with the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NED COLT, MSNBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The pressure intensified today as both sides flexed their military muscle. India sending reinforcements into disputed Kashmir, and Pakistan making it clear Kashmir is its top military priority too.
President Pervez Musharraf announced he may redeploy thousands of troops from their mission on the Afghan border to hunt al Qaeda and Taliban forces.
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PRESIDENT, PAKISTAN: We are very seriously contemplating on moving some elements out of these on to the east if at all the tensions remain as high as they are now.
COLT: To date, one of the bloodiest so far, 28 killed in cross-border duels, several hundred dead and injured in just the last two weeks of fighting.
India charges Pakistan is sponsoring the Islamic militants who are carrying out attacks on Indian positions inside Kashmir. The Indian prime minister has his political future on the line. Hindu militants don't think he's being tough enough on Pakistan.
Today, Musharraf pledged Pakistan won't be the one to start a war, but analysts say there's also growing domestic pressure on him not to back down or he risks being overthrown.
U.S. intelligence has told the Bush administration a nuclear exchange between the countries could kill 12 million people immediately, millions more later from nuclear fallout.
DR. PERVEZ HOOBHOY, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST: We'd see massive destruction of the cities. You'll see buildings leveled, fires breaking out, uncontrollable ones. There will be death and destruction all around.
COLT (on camera): Tonight, there's intense diplomatic pressure to try and head off a war here. Already, British and Russian envoys have met with both sides. Next week it's the Americans' turn to try and diffuse this crisis.
Ned Colt, NBC News, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now is Jed Babbin, formerly a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, now a columnist for the “Washington Times.” Jed wrote a piece on the Indian/Pakistan conflict for today's newspaper. Jed, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JED BABBIN, FORMER DEP. UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thanks, Alan. Glad to be back.
KEYES: Now, in your piece, you argue that if there is a conventional war between India and Pakistan, the military configuration on the two sides suggests that this might quickly get into a position where one side or the other would be tempted to cross the nuclear threshold. Why do you think that?
BABBIN: Well, I think there are several pretty obvious nuclear thresholds that will be reached very quickly. First is one really of perception. If either side — for example, if the Indian forces believed that Pakistan's air force was going to knock out the Indian nuclear force, India would launch. I mean, it's a use it or lose it scenario.
The second one that occurs to me is simply if India gets very lucky and manages to get its armored forces moving towards Islamabad, if Pakistan believes that its capital city is about to fall, I think they would go nuclear. There are a whole variety of others that could also happen. This is an extremely dangerous situation.
KEYES: Now, as I understood your analysis in your column today, one key element has to do with the fact that you see Pakistani air superiority quickly being established over the Indians. Why do you think that?
BABBIN: Well, I think if you look at the order of battle of both air forces, you find very quickly that Pakistan is leaner and meaner and really combat ready. They've got some very good aircraft, F-16's and so forth, very well-trained pilots, a good logistical tail and they're good to go.
India, on the other hand, has about a four to one numerical advantage, but that advantage is really ephemeral. Their aircraft are very poorly maintained. Their pilots are in short supply. They've got two-thirds of their MiG-21s grounded at any one time. Quite frankly, they are not combat ready. My money, if I were a betting man, which I am, I would put a lot of money on the Pak air force over the Indians very quickly.
KEYES: Now, it seems to me that in your column, because of that prospect of a very quick escalation to the possibility of some kind of nuclear threshold being crossed, you really think that allowing a conventional war to begin and to sort of continue down its course would be very dangerous for us and you suggest an alternative. What do you think that might be?
BABBIN: Well, I think we're probably not going to be able to deter a war altogether. I think Mr. Rumsfeld going over there next week is going to carry with him images of nuclear war to try to dissuade them.
If, however, despite all of our good efforts and the efforts of a lot of other countries, the war kicks off, I think we need to find a way to keep it from going nuclear. One of the things that we have seen and heard over the past week or so is that some of the groups, that are the terrorists operating in Kashmir out of the Pakistani side, may be connected to al Qaeda, Mullah Omar, the former Taliban chieftain, may be leading one of these groups. If that is the case, America has an absolute need and right to go in and get these guys ourselves.
I think rather than put our people in as a buffer force, which I would never propose, I think if we could get Musharraf's permission to simply go in and bomb the heck out of these groups, No. 1, that would reduce the problem that the Indians are complaining of; and No. 2, it would take both armies really off the field for a while, give diplomacy a little bit more of a chance. We could do that. Obviously, it's going to be some risk to our people. But if it means getting Mullah Omar, I think we ought to do it.
KEYES: Well, I think that you'd get no objection from a lot of Americans in terms of the need to go after the al Qaeda forces in the region, wherever they are. The prospect that Kashmir might be providing some kind of a de facto safe haven for some of these people has been raised in the media and I think disturbs people a lot.
I think there are, though, some questions that have to be raised about Musharraf's freedom of action in terms of this kind of proposal. And, Jed, if you'll stay right there, we are going to come back and debate this issue of whether and how America might intervene in the India/Pakistan conflict with Jed and also John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal,” and former Republican Congressman Bob Dornan. So, stay with us. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are making it very clear to both Pakistan and India that war will not serve their interests.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The FBI, under revised guidelines, will also be able to enter and observe public places and forums just as any member of the public has the right to enter and observe what is happening in those places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I know it may be hard for you to believe, but since the '70s, the FBI hasn't been able to go into public gathering places like mosques that are open to other people in the public and conduct investigations.
But now, that's changing under the new post-9/11 FBI. Will that crush the rights of many Americans? We'll debate that in our next half-hour.
Also a reminder, the chatroom is sizzling tonight. And you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
But let's get back to our discussion on whether America should intervene in the India/Pakistan conflict. Given the prospect of nuclear war, the impact on our own war on terror, this obviously has to be of great concern to us. What should be our response?
Joining to us talk about it, former Republican Congressman Bob Dornan of California, who is now a radio talk show host. Also, John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal,” and still with us, Jed Babbin of the “Washington Times.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
BOB DORNAN, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Good to be with you, Alan.
KEYES: First question I'd like to direct to my good friend Bob Dornan. How are you, Bob?
DORNAN: Doing great, Alan. Good to be on with you.
KEYES: Good to have you. In listening to Jed Babbin and thinking about the possibility that we might get involved under the rubric of our war on terror to go after the al Qaeda elements that would be part of the so-called liberation fighters in Kashmir, given that Musharraf has expressed support for this liberation movement and support, in fact, for these liberation fighters, doesn't part of his own domestic support in Pakistan depend on his posture of support for this liberation movement? If he let us go in there and smash these people up, wouldn't that risk his overthrow?
DORNAN: Well, it would not only endanger his power, how about his life. I really appreciated Jed's column because in a few words, he pulled so many things together and the air force is key.
I've visited with both those air forces and I know that in the last war, matter of fact, the Pakistanis flew F-86 Sabre jets and 104 Starfighters and just blew the Indian air force away.
But under weather, the superior Indian numbers, as Jed pointed out, coming across the border, and Islamabad was one of these created capitals like Brasilia. It's in the north. It's very close to that area. It's open area between there and Kashmir. I just don't think we can allow India to head for an Islamic nation's capital named Islamabad.
But the nuclear option, we should tell them privately, hopefully, that if either one of you even starts to use a nuclear weapon, we unilaterally are going to take away your nuclear capability, B-1's, B-2's, cruise missiles. We don't want to be world cop, but we will not allow that monster to come out of the bottle in your area.
KEYES: Well, but, I still have the question, though, Bob. If we try to implement Jed's suggestion and get Musharraf to allow us to go through and try to take out these forces, which might be something we could offer to Indians, would back them off because it would take care of their problem, can Musharraf in fact allow us to do that without risking his own domestic situation?
DORNAN: I think he's got a tough problem for this reason. It's not the Afghan border. It's in the north but it's the opposite side of the country. It's an eastern border which is 1,850 miles long. That's just 150 miles short of our California to Brownsville Mexican border. It's a huge area. And if we go in and try to surgically take out, say with AC-130 gunships, al Qaeda, Islamic people that are loved secretly by Saudi Arabia, then he has done something in the Islamic world that's probably outrageous. It might cause revolutions down in Karachi. What do you think?
KEYES: Well, I think that it raises a serious problem because it might then put us in a situation where we don't have Musharraf, where more extreme elements have taken over in Pakistan, leaving us then in a confrontational situation over all with a more extremist Pakistani government.
John Fund, you have read Jed Babbin's column and the analysis that he's given. What do you think of his proposal?
JOHN FUND, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Well, look, I think clearly that those groups — and I'm going to argue this in a column next week at opinionjournal.com — those groups clearly probably do have some ties to al Qaeda. But it's been six months since we took over Kabul. Why haven't we gone after them yet? Why haven't we leaned on Musharraf now?
If we go in now, the perception will be that we are tilting towards one side versus the other in this conflict and I think that that is highly dangerous. As you know, Alan, you've served in that region. The state department likes to think that it knows a lot about this region, but it really doesn't. I think it's very dangerous for us to be inserted into this region and I think we probably are going to end up making matters worse.
I think sending Rumsfeld over and reminding both countries of how much they have to lose, especially in terms of investment and other opportunities is one thing. But inserting American military power in a region we know so little about, highly dangerous, highly speculative.
KEYES: But, let me ask you a question. If we don't do something about the al Qaeda elements and the terroristic elements that are part of the Kashmir liberation movement, what becomes of our own war on terror?
I mean, here we have somebody, close partner in the war on terror, who would then be in a position where it looks like he's supporting the use of this terrorism. It almost seems like we're generalizing the Arafat exception and utterly destroying our own integrity on the terror issue.
FUND: Let me be clear. I think Mr. Musharraf has been very Arafat like in many of his pronouncements, referring to his people as freedom fighters and various other things. I think Jed is very right on that.
However, I think it's very clear that if we go beyond jawboning them and leaning on them and I think making it clear of how much Pakistan has to lose in terms of perhaps ever buying any arms from the United States in the future, the investment flows. Mr. Musharraf understood what the costs were if he didn't support us in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. I think we have to make that clear again.
Going beyond that, however, we will be giving the perception that we are leaning towards one side in this conflict. That's not something the United States wants to do in terms of military insertion. I think that would be highly dangerous.
DORNAN: Alan, I'm curious about something with this excellent panel. I have a feeling that India would never use an atomic weapon first because of their advantage in size and the beyond irony of Oppenheimer (ph) at the Alamogordo first blast of a weapon, quoting from the old Hindu text, “I am become death, the destroyer of nations,” I just don't think they would do it. So the danger is Pakistan, and I don't see why we can't lean on them and say this is something you will never, ever, ever do.
(CROSSTALK)
BABBIN: Guys, I'm sorry, we're not going to be able to just jawbone this. We are not going to be able to not engage. This is not something where we're going to be able to say don't do this or don't do that. These countries have invested so much in going to war right now that Mr. Vajpayee has to resolve something by violence. He's not going to be able to back down with this.
The way we can do this is to insert ourselves by making Musharraf look good and by making it worth India's while to withdraw. If we tell Musharraf that we have a particular target in Kashmir, we're not going to go operate in Pakistan. I agree. If we went into Pakistan proper, it would probably result in Musharraf disappearing by force of violence of his own people. His own intelligence service would knock him out.
But if we go in into Kashmir and try to say we are going to solve your problem, we are going to stop the cross-border incursions and bomb the snot out of those guys for a couple of days, that will separate them...
KEYES: But, Jed, the question that that raises, though, as you said, go into Kashmir, but there's a Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir that is in fact a staging area for terrorists.
BABBIN: Of course.
KEYES: Are we going to deal with that area?
BABBIN: We're going to have to, Alan. I think we have to go into that particular area. We ought to be able to find some places where some of these groups are operating from and destroy them by an air attack. If we don't do that...
KEYES: What do you say to John Fund then, and his objection that that is going in fact to look like a tilt toward India?
BABBIN: Well, I think if we do it in a way that gets Musharraf's support and participation, why not — the Pakistani air force, as Bob Dornan says, is top notch. Why don't we have a joint operation with the Paks and us and bomb the heck out of a couple of these camps, take the heat out of it, give diplomacy some time to work. If we don't go in and do something, this is going to be out of control. We can't sit back and watch.
DORNAN: Jed, at the end of your column, you said we ask Musharraf for permission to take out these al Qaeda cells and Omar's operation. But then you said we will make sure he understands we're not going to take no for an answer. Let's suppose he says no. What do we do?
BABBIN: I don't think — well, if he does say no, we're going to have to think of something else, Bob. The problem is we can't sit back and watch this. These guys will go and do something that will result in either a nuclear war or a devastation of both countries. We have to see Musharraf survive.
We only have two allies in the Muslim world, him and Turkey. If we don't have Musharraf survive and still be able to have some sort of peace with India, we are set back in our relations for a long time.
KEYES: Well, let me ask, John Fund, this raises a question for me, because you had said that we can't afford to tilt one way or the other. If, in fact, Jed is right though, and we're headed inevitably toward war, in point of fact, isn't it inevitable given our interest in the region that at some point, you've got to choose sides in that war?
We're sitting right in the middle of this situation with one side in the war as a partner in the war on terrorism. How can we stay out of it?
FUND: First of all, I think it's very dangerous to start talking about war being inevitable. It is not inevitable. Mr. Rumsfeld is going over there. I'll have to tell you, I think it would be highly unlikely for India and Pakistan to go into a nuclear exchange with the United States secretary of defense sitting right there and explaining to them what the costs of all of this are. This is a highly flammable situation.
I think we have to be careful, but let's not exaggerate this. These countries have gone to war in the past. They have been lobbing artillery shells across the Kashmir line of control for decades and they have never gone beyond a certain point. We have to be careful. We have to be involved. But let's not assume that war is inevitable unless the United States of America sends its carrier-based planes over there.
We have to be involved, but not to the point where we are perceived to tilt towards one side and I think that in itself could escalate the war. We have to be careful on both sides of this equation.
DORNAN: John, good plan. Rumsfeld may have to stay there a long time and then have Colin Powell alternate. But you're right, whenever they went to war before, it was when all the Western diplomats left the area and that's when something really gets dangerous.
BABBIN: Yes. We don't assume that nuclear war is going to break out (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FUND: You said either we're going to have nuclear war or both countries are going to be devastated. That is not inevitable.
BABBIN: No, that is not inevitable at all. What I'm saying is...
FUND: Well, then you're saying something different.
BABBIN: No, no, no. Conventional war is probably inevitable and with great loss of life. What I believe is there's going to be a conventional war and a stalemate, and at that point, we can help them resolve it.
If we let it go farther, if the stalemate continues and people get stupid or reckless, then you might risk a nuclear war. Nuclear war is not inevitable. A conventional war is already going on.
DORNAN: And their conventional wars, when they really go at it, are very short. Only Israeli wars are shorter. But their wars aren't like Iran and Iraq, eight years, a million soldiers dead. Their wars are very short. It's like there's a spasm of killing and they learn faster than a Saddam Hussein that they're accomplishing nothing by killing off their young people.
KEYES: See, I wonder though if this whole discussion isn't based on a failure to ask one simple question. Why is this happening right now? We have gone through a period of time, it simmered this way and that. Suddenly, it comes to this intense confrontation. Why? There has to be a reason.
And I would suggest that part of that reason has to do with the fact that this whole war on terror has changed the equation and could quite possibly have led, for instance, to a miscalculation on Musharraf's part of what he can get away with in Kashmir and what help we might be to him to keep the Indians under control.
But what if he's miscalculated about that, John Fund? That would mean that he's put himself in a war situation without meaning to.
FUND: Well, there may be another miscalculation, that because no one wants a nuclear war in that region, that he may hope that the United States and Britain, which is a former colonial power there, would lean on India to say you must go to the negotiating table, you must make concessions on Kashmir that you've never made in these last 50 years.
KEYES: Wouldn't he also possibly look at the current situation in the Middle East as kind of a precedent for precisely that kind of outcome?
FUND: Exactly. And that is why it is very important for the United States to be engaged, but not to the point where we take the major responsibility for having some kind of a solution or resolution. Once the United States is involved in that point, it becomes a tar baby and we've seen to what extent that may involve us in the Middle East to a point where it's not in our national interest. We can't ignore the situation, but we can also avoid getting sucked in beyond a point where we should be.
DORNAN: Alan, how is this for an answer, and I'd like John and Jed to comment on this. If Musharraf says no more terrorism, even though he says as you pointed out, Jed, in Urdu, he calls them freedom fighters. But I think, Alan, you're right on target with one added ingredient.
There are terrorists in that area that want to see an Islamic bomb used. All your years, Alan, at the U.N., everybody used to write about the Islamic bomb. Well, the Hindu bomb came first. Now we have an Islamic bomb. Pakistan is an Islamic country and this raid on May 14 that Jed talked about, 34 people killed, most of them women and children, and India says that's it. If the United States goes after terrorists, we're going to do it. Those terrorist groups want to provoke a nuclear war. How do we control them?
BABBIN: Bob is exactly right, but the problem is what John is looking at is he's trying to create another quagmire issue. We're already in this. We have very great stake in seeing Musharraf survive and trying to make the progress that he promised in his January speech.
What we cannot allow is for India to try to capitalize on this problem, and as Bob is pointing out, the terrorists that are there that are fleeing from Afghanistan and already there, to make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. We need to be involved.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I want to put in a word for a second, and, Jed, maybe take issue with the fundamental premise of what you just said, because — and I'll just throw this on the table for the sake of it.
If we're inevitably faced with a conflict here, why is it so important that we should hold on to an Islamic ally if that ally is playing a double game, and is actually using terrorism, even as he claims to be fighting terrorism side by side with us? If, in the context of that miscalculation he may have made, he provokes a major war with India that gets in the way of our own war on terrorism, why shouldn't we count it a blessing, join with the Indians, and at the end of the day, simply do what needs to be done in Pakistan with their help?
I know it's very provocative, it may be an outrageous suggestion. But I think we have for too long neglected the possibility of really forming a firm understanding with the largest democracy on the face of the earth in the south Asian region instead of always working with whatever despot is handy because we don't want to work with India. What do you say to that, Jed?
BABBIN: Well, I think you're right, Alan. I think if Musharraf is playing an Arafat-like game, I think we ought to dump him and tell Mr. Vajpayee to go do what he wants to do to cut off terrorism. All we would then do is tell Vajpayee to stop at the Kashmir line and not go to Islamabad. The fact of the matter is if Musharraf is playing the same game that the Saudis and Arafat are, we want him out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Well, he is playing that game.
KEYES: Go ahead.
FUND: He is playing that game. Look, Jed, you think that he's an ally. Yes, he is an ally, but he's an ally who's also fomenting terrorism. If we're going to be consistent in our moral clarity about terrorism, we have to recognize that facts are facts. It's indisputable that he is playing this dangerous game. We have to tell him to stop.
KEYES: John, if he is, one last thought for all three of you, wouldn't it be wise for us to make to clear that there is an Indian card? That may be a reason for him to listen to us when we ask him to cooperate with the things we need to do. Don't you think, Jed? If we have no alternative to him, why should he pay attention to us?
BABBIN: Well, I agree with that. I think we have to pressure him in an extreme way. The problem is, I don't think down in my heart of hearts that he can actually do something that will stop the terror. I think at some point we will have to side with India if he cannot act himself or if we don't take it into our own hands.
KEYES: Bob Dornan, what do you think?
DORNAN: Isn't it ironic, Alan, that today, slaughtered, tortured Danny Pearl, worked at John's paper, his little baby, Adam, who was born today, murdered in Karachi, one of the biggest cities in the world, Islamic city, in Pakistan.
I think Musharraf should be called to the White House again maybe. It helps his prestige. We have to go with him. He's not as duplicitous as maybe 8,000 Saudi princes teaching in these hate schools. A lot existed in his country, but I think we've got to lean on him, beg him, depend on him and make sure we keep him as an ally.
KEYES: Bob, I've got to tell you, I think that the only time you get a response from somebody is when it's clear that at the end of the day you've got an alternative to them and I think we'd better develop an alternative to Musharraf.
Thank you all. Really appreciate your coming with us tonight. It was a wonderful discussion, in fact. Thank you all for being with us.
Next, would you believe that until today, the FBI couldn't conduct undercover investigations in some places where the public is invited, like places of worship. Strange, but true. Well, that's all changing because of 9/11. But some say the new FBI is crushing our rights or could do so. We'll have a debate next. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Wasn't that a beautiful picture? Kind of reminds us of — puts a little hope into every situation, doesn't it? Children will do that to you.
The Justice Department, in an effort to mount a proactive war on terror, eased its own restrictions on domestic surveillance today. Among the many changes, the FBI may now enter gatherings open to the public to observe, develop leads, investigate, something that had stopped happening after the civil rights era of the 1960s. Now some groups are saying that the changes could result in the destruction of vital American rights. MSNBC's chief justice correspondent, Pete Williams, has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE WILLIAMS, MSNBC CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Concerned that longstanding rules are preventing the FBI from looking for signs of potential terrorism even in public places or the Internet, the attorney general today gave the nation's 11,000 FBI agents new powers to gather information.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our philosophy today is not to wait and sift through the rubble following a terrorist attack. Rather, the FBI must intervene early and investigate aggressively where information suggests the possibility of terrorism.
WILLIAMS: Under existing rules agents were forbidden to open new files on groups or individuals unless they got outside information suggesting criminal activity.
Effective today, the revised rules give agents new freedom when they're trying to detect or prevent terrorism. They can now enter any public place, surf the Internet, use commercial firms that compile data on Internet users, and open preliminary inquiries into groups suspected of terrorism. The FBI says under the old rules, agents were barred from even checking to see which Web sites gave bomb making instructions or methods for cyber-attacks.
The original rules were put in place in the mid '70s to curb FBI abuses in spying on politically unpopular groups and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, and today some Muslim groups fear the FBI fear the FBI could unleash the same kind of tactics on them.
JASON ERB, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: If you have to worry about the identity of the person sitting next to you, then that's going to start to erode the trust within the community.
WILLIAMS: And the ACLU says the new rules could discourage people from attending mosques or protest events where they fear the FBI might be watching.
LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: They will refrain from going or refrain in participating in activities that they have a constitutional right under current law to participate in.
But the author of a new book on the FBI says the old rules hampered agents investigating the blind sheik later convicted of plotting attacks in New York.
RON KESSLER, AUTHOR, “THE BUREAU”: Shockingly, under these guidelines, when a suspect walked into a mosque, the FBI would stop watching them, and of course a lot of these plots were in fact hatched in mosques.
WILLIAMS (on camera): Individual agents now get broad discretion, no longer needing headquarters permission to begin looking into suspected terrorists.
Pete Williams, NBC news, at the Justice Department.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now to debate this issue, Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review,” and Gloria Allred, attorney and radio talk show host. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Hi.
GLORIA ALLRED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Gloria, I want to start with you. I've got to be frank. I listened to this description. Part of my mind just went, gosh, I mean they weren't able to do this? It's almost like we were asking the FBI to be blind to what everybody else is free to look at. Why would this be dangerous?
ALLRED: Well, Alan, I think this whole thing has to be looked at in perspective. I mean, the FBI had the information. It wasn't a lack of power to get the information that may have contributed to the disaster that was September 11, because the FBI had the Phoenix memo, had the Minneapolis request for a search warrant, which they could have asked for. Their problem was lack of analysis, a lack of action. So we shouldn't say because there's a management failure, perhaps, within the FBI, that that should justify what the ACLU calls an insatiable grab for power by the attorney general and by the FBI.
There's no guarantee that any of this would make us safer, but there is a guarantee that we will lose some freedoms and liberty in the process.
KEYES: But wait, Gloria. That's what I'm looking at, because I am very sensitive — I don't know whether you realize or not, but I am very sensitive to this issue of not giving up our liberties on the excuse that we need security.
But why are we giving up any liberties to tell the FBI that they have the freedom to look at open source information that you or I could go look at on the Internet, to go into public places that you and I could enter freely and involve ourselves in? This isn't like crossing the privacy line or anything. They're just going where everybody else can go. Why not?
ALLRED: Well, we have to be very careful about allowing the FBI to go on fishing expeditions into public areas. They certainly look for terrorists or terrorist activity if they have probable cause. They can do that now. They did it — the field agents did a great job on that, made the connections to flight training and to Osama bin Laden before September 11.
All they need is probable cause. They can go and get a search warrant now. But to eliminate probable cause and just say they can go out there and spy on innocent American citizens, I think is going way too far.
KEYES: Rich Lowry, I guess I find the language kind of inappropriate. Why is it spying to go into a public place everybody can go into?
LOWRY: Yes, it's amazing. Gloria's position is that FBI agents shouldn't be allowed to surf the Internet, which seems rather extraordinary. And, you know, the blind sheik who, as the news entry into this segment said correctly, the blind sheik who plotted the first World Trade Center bombing did a lot of it in a Jersey City mosque, and the FBI agents just didn't both to surveil him there, gave him safe haven to plot there, because they thought they couldn't under the guidelines.
So those guidelines clearly need updating. They're very common sensical matters, I think, and look, the FBI, if it wants to wire tap someone, wants to go undercover, there are still many, many hoops it has to jump through. They still need to get judges to sign off on wire taps and other electronic surveillance.
KEYES: In other words, there is still a privacy line that when they cross it, they have to go to the courts.
LOWRY: Of course. This is just saying the FBI can go to any protest or any mosque or any place that Gloria goes to. That seems, I think, common sense to most people.
ALLRED: Last time I checked the blind sheik was actually prosecuted and convicted, so obviously there was sufficient information to do that. But constitutional protections were in place and that's what we need to keep.
LOWRY: The FBI now doesn't want to just prosecute crimes after they happen. It wants to prevent them, because the lives of thousands of Americans are at risk. Don't you think it's better to stop World Trade Center bombings before they happen?
And to do that the FBI needs to wake up and have a more aggressive attitude.
ALLRED: Well, actually, the field agents in the FBI had a very aggressive attitude. I commend Coleen Rowley, the general counsel in the Minneapolis office. I commend the Phoenix agent Williams and everyone else who did a great job. It was a management failure at the top and the middle levels, perhaps, that was the problem.
But instead of looking at what the real problem is, we're asking to sacrifice our constitutional rights. That's not fair.
KEYES: Rich, go ahead.
LOWRY: Can I make two points about that? One, I commend Rowley for writing that memo as well, but look — read closely, point four of that memo. And it goes in excruciating detail how difficult it is for the FBI to get these wire taps and search warrants. And the FBI didn't want to search — it's not that the FBI didn't want to search Moussaoui's computer, it's just that they knew they had to get a judge to sign off on it and they had to jump through a lot of hoops, so they just couldn't do it on a whim.
That's clear in her memo, and she suggests in fact that agents should be able to go specifically directly to judges, which would be a radical change that you would be complaining about if it were to happen, and also I think it's fascinating that Democrats now want to racially profile our flight schools. They're all yelling that the FBI should have followed up on these Phoenix memo. Democrats and Gloria now support ethnic profiling. I'm glad to hear it, but I think this is more opportunism.
ALLRED: It wasn't that at all, and on the Moussaoui case they had French intelligence, they had probable cause as to that individual. It didn't involve racial profiling at all. So that's a mischaracterization of our position.
LOWRY: The Phoenix memo suggested going to flight schools and looking into the Arab men who were enlisted, enrolled there. That is ethnic profiling. Gloria, if you support ethnic profiling, congratulations. I'm glad you finally adopted that...
KEYES: Rich, before we get off into other controversies, I am still kind of struck, Gloria, because I think that we are carrying the whole concern a little bit too far if we are going to tell our FBI people walking the terrorist beat that they can't do what any cop on the street walking down the sidewalk does.
If you're walking a beat, you get to look around public places and take account of what's going on there and if you see what looks like it might be a crime being committed, you get to follow up on it. Now all that the FBI is going to be doing right now is giving that same ability to keep their eyes open in public places and to enter public places to find, and go after and pursue leads that might help us prevent terrorism. All these guidelines do is, in a sense, allow the FBI to open its bureaucratic eyes in public places.
How can this be a threat to liberty? I just don't get it. Nothing you say, you can use all the hyperbole you want, but there is no privacy being violated here.
ALLRED: OK, well you know, I don't call the constitution of the United States hyperbole. I take it very seriously and I know you do, Alan, as well.
The point is there is a reason that there had to be a different threshold for the FBI, and that's because of all of the abuses against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other dissenters a number of years ago where the Congress was shown that there was persecution of Dr. Martin Luther King. There was spying. There were abuses by the FBI. And that's why some constraints had to be put on them.
You know, we are in a time of crisis. We don't know how long this crisis may last. It may be for the rest of our lives. I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of World War II in this crisis.
KEYES: Hold on. We've got to go to a break here. We're going to continue with this discussion. Gloria, keep in mind, though, because some people abuse their eyes doesn't mean that others should pluck them out, you know. We'll be right back. Keep that thought in mind.
Later my “Outrage of the Day,” but first, does this make sense? President Bush assured his brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, that there would be no drilling for oil in the Florida Everglades. They've now taken — made moves to get the government to purchase the rights so that drilling will not take place in the Everglades.
On the other hand, the Bush Administration says it's environmentally fine to go after the oil in the Alaska oil preserves, in ANWAR. Now if the argument holds good that there are safe — environmentally ways to go after the oil in ANWAR, why aren't there environmental safe ways to go after the oil in the Everglades?
Now I know that this particular decision is of some political benefit to Jeb Bush, but if the principle holds good in Alaska, why doesn't it hold good in Florida? Doesn't that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Rich Lowry and Gloria Allred, talking about the FBI's announcement today, relaxing certain guidelines so that FBI agents will now be able to go into public gathering places where they have in the past been restricted, in order to follow up on leads that are part of their investigation into terrorism, into other things.
Rich Lowry, as we were going out to the break, Gloria made a point with respect to past abuses, and as I was thinking about it during the break, and going over what I remember of some of those abuses, didn't most of them actually involve crossing the privacy line?
I mean, we weren't talking there about these kinds of things because a lot of the stuff that went on in people's bedrooms and that they used to blackmail folks, including Martin Luther King, that was in fact an invasion of privacy. That's not what we're talking about here, is it?
LOWRY: Yes. No, those were clearly abuses, but these guidelines announced today have nothing to do with that. They have to do with surfing the Internet and accessing other public sources, and I just would like to know what constitutional theory Gloria thinks justifies the view that if I post something on the Internet, that's my constitutional right not to have an FBI agent read it.
You know, things are put on the Internet for people to read. If I go to a protest and I give a speech, what is the constitutional right that's violated if an FBI agent listens to it? You go to give a speech as a protest in order to have people listen to you. So the whole Martin Luther King thing is a total non sequitur, and if the FBI wants to wiretap someone or bug someone, it has to still go to a judge to get approval for that.
So I don't think the FBI is going to be wire tapping Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson any time soon.
ALLRED: Of course there's no guarantee about that, is there?
LOWRY: They have to get a judge's approval.
ALLRED: First of all, I reject the notion that an individual should have to justify why that individual has a right to privacy. I think it should be for the government to try to justify why they should invade the right to privacy, why the fourth amendment, which prohibits...
LOWRY: Gloria, the Internet is not a private thing!
ALLRED: Let me just finish. I let you finish. Why the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, should not be complied with. Again, if there's probable cause, the FBI can go in, I hope they will go in, and find out and root out terrorist activity and prosecute it where the justice department feels it's appropriate to do so.
But to just go in without any constraints on government, just because the FBI failed in this time, it wasn't the individual people — that FBI failed, is ridiculous.
LOWRY: Gloria, a speech at a protest is not private. The Internet — posting something on the Internet is not private. It's public.
ALLRED: It's also not lawful.
LOWRY: And none of this has to do —the guidelines today — have to do with wire tapping or bugging or doing electronic surveillance. All that was dealt with in the Patriot Act, which maybe you oppose that as well although it had overwhelming support both from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, but that did make a little bit easier for the FBI to surveil people like Zacarias Moussaoui.
KEYES: If I may make a comment here, it does seem to me that Gloria, you're trying to get us to redefine the meaning of private to include a whole bunch of public places where people ought to have no reasonable expectation that the government, along with everybody else with eyes, will be able to see what they're doing. Just because we're going after the blind sheik doesn't mean we should have a blind FBI. It doesn't make sense.
ALLRED: We got him. You know, that's ridiculous.
KEYES: I want to thank you both for joining me today.
LOWRY: Alan, I think the FBI may have been listening to your show today. That's a violation of your rights.
KEYES: This talk will continue, I know. Next my “Outrage of the Day.” The INS taking a holiday against terrorism. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, KEYES.MSNBC.COM.
Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day. I'll be right back with the “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for the “Outrage of the Day.” According to the “New York Post,” cops in New York had to free a suspicious gang of illegal Mideast aliens because the INS didn't want to be bothered on the Memorial Day weekend.
In the end, not knowing whether the men they had nabbed were the hard working immigrants they claimed to be or a terror gang plotting to wreak havoc, the local authorities had to let them walk. The men, some with phony ID and all, admitted illegal aliens, could have been held if agents from the INS had bothered to show up. Apparently the INS didn't have anybody on duty in the city.
The agency's contact number for the weekend rang at an office in Burlington, Vermont, more than 300 miles away. Now, if you all had been listening, you probably noticed that some of the people sounding the terrorist warnings suggest that holidays might be the very time when people gather and so forth and where terrorists might be tempted to strike. That message got to you. Apparently it didn't get to the INS. What's it going to take to wake these folks up to the fact that these terrorists are on us 24 hours a day, including holidays?
Hear that, buddies at the INS? You need to be working all the time. Finally tonight, Adam V. Pearl, born today in Paris to Mariane Pearl, widow of murdered “Wall Street Journal” reporter Daniel Pearl. Weight, five pounds, seven ounces. THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. See you Monday.
Up front tonight, the saber rattling between Pakistan and India continues. Both countries move toward a war footing in the disputed Kashmir region.
Today, President Bush signaled his increasing concern over a confrontation between the two countries which includes the possibility of nuclear war. He announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would visit the region next week and indicated that the U.S. is preparing evacuation plans for American soldiers and citizens if war breaks out. Bush also called on Pakistan's President Musharraf to take action to prevent attacks in India-controlled Kashmir. MSNBC's Ned Colt is in Islamabad with the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NED COLT, MSNBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The pressure intensified today as both sides flexed their military muscle. India sending reinforcements into disputed Kashmir, and Pakistan making it clear Kashmir is its top military priority too.
President Pervez Musharraf announced he may redeploy thousands of troops from their mission on the Afghan border to hunt al Qaeda and Taliban forces.
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PRESIDENT, PAKISTAN: We are very seriously contemplating on moving some elements out of these on to the east if at all the tensions remain as high as they are now.
COLT: To date, one of the bloodiest so far, 28 killed in cross-border duels, several hundred dead and injured in just the last two weeks of fighting.
India charges Pakistan is sponsoring the Islamic militants who are carrying out attacks on Indian positions inside Kashmir. The Indian prime minister has his political future on the line. Hindu militants don't think he's being tough enough on Pakistan.
Today, Musharraf pledged Pakistan won't be the one to start a war, but analysts say there's also growing domestic pressure on him not to back down or he risks being overthrown.
U.S. intelligence has told the Bush administration a nuclear exchange between the countries could kill 12 million people immediately, millions more later from nuclear fallout.
DR. PERVEZ HOOBHOY, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST: We'd see massive destruction of the cities. You'll see buildings leveled, fires breaking out, uncontrollable ones. There will be death and destruction all around.
COLT (on camera): Tonight, there's intense diplomatic pressure to try and head off a war here. Already, British and Russian envoys have met with both sides. Next week it's the Americans' turn to try and diffuse this crisis.
Ned Colt, NBC News, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now is Jed Babbin, formerly a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, now a columnist for the “Washington Times.” Jed wrote a piece on the Indian/Pakistan conflict for today's newspaper. Jed, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JED BABBIN, FORMER DEP. UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thanks, Alan. Glad to be back.
KEYES: Now, in your piece, you argue that if there is a conventional war between India and Pakistan, the military configuration on the two sides suggests that this might quickly get into a position where one side or the other would be tempted to cross the nuclear threshold. Why do you think that?
BABBIN: Well, I think there are several pretty obvious nuclear thresholds that will be reached very quickly. First is one really of perception. If either side — for example, if the Indian forces believed that Pakistan's air force was going to knock out the Indian nuclear force, India would launch. I mean, it's a use it or lose it scenario.
The second one that occurs to me is simply if India gets very lucky and manages to get its armored forces moving towards Islamabad, if Pakistan believes that its capital city is about to fall, I think they would go nuclear. There are a whole variety of others that could also happen. This is an extremely dangerous situation.
KEYES: Now, as I understood your analysis in your column today, one key element has to do with the fact that you see Pakistani air superiority quickly being established over the Indians. Why do you think that?
BABBIN: Well, I think if you look at the order of battle of both air forces, you find very quickly that Pakistan is leaner and meaner and really combat ready. They've got some very good aircraft, F-16's and so forth, very well-trained pilots, a good logistical tail and they're good to go.
India, on the other hand, has about a four to one numerical advantage, but that advantage is really ephemeral. Their aircraft are very poorly maintained. Their pilots are in short supply. They've got two-thirds of their MiG-21s grounded at any one time. Quite frankly, they are not combat ready. My money, if I were a betting man, which I am, I would put a lot of money on the Pak air force over the Indians very quickly.
KEYES: Now, it seems to me that in your column, because of that prospect of a very quick escalation to the possibility of some kind of nuclear threshold being crossed, you really think that allowing a conventional war to begin and to sort of continue down its course would be very dangerous for us and you suggest an alternative. What do you think that might be?
BABBIN: Well, I think we're probably not going to be able to deter a war altogether. I think Mr. Rumsfeld going over there next week is going to carry with him images of nuclear war to try to dissuade them.
If, however, despite all of our good efforts and the efforts of a lot of other countries, the war kicks off, I think we need to find a way to keep it from going nuclear. One of the things that we have seen and heard over the past week or so is that some of the groups, that are the terrorists operating in Kashmir out of the Pakistani side, may be connected to al Qaeda, Mullah Omar, the former Taliban chieftain, may be leading one of these groups. If that is the case, America has an absolute need and right to go in and get these guys ourselves.
I think rather than put our people in as a buffer force, which I would never propose, I think if we could get Musharraf's permission to simply go in and bomb the heck out of these groups, No. 1, that would reduce the problem that the Indians are complaining of; and No. 2, it would take both armies really off the field for a while, give diplomacy a little bit more of a chance. We could do that. Obviously, it's going to be some risk to our people. But if it means getting Mullah Omar, I think we ought to do it.
KEYES: Well, I think that you'd get no objection from a lot of Americans in terms of the need to go after the al Qaeda forces in the region, wherever they are. The prospect that Kashmir might be providing some kind of a de facto safe haven for some of these people has been raised in the media and I think disturbs people a lot.
I think there are, though, some questions that have to be raised about Musharraf's freedom of action in terms of this kind of proposal. And, Jed, if you'll stay right there, we are going to come back and debate this issue of whether and how America might intervene in the India/Pakistan conflict with Jed and also John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal,” and former Republican Congressman Bob Dornan. So, stay with us. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are making it very clear to both Pakistan and India that war will not serve their interests.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The FBI, under revised guidelines, will also be able to enter and observe public places and forums just as any member of the public has the right to enter and observe what is happening in those places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I know it may be hard for you to believe, but since the '70s, the FBI hasn't been able to go into public gathering places like mosques that are open to other people in the public and conduct investigations.
But now, that's changing under the new post-9/11 FBI. Will that crush the rights of many Americans? We'll debate that in our next half-hour.
Also a reminder, the chatroom is sizzling tonight. And you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
But let's get back to our discussion on whether America should intervene in the India/Pakistan conflict. Given the prospect of nuclear war, the impact on our own war on terror, this obviously has to be of great concern to us. What should be our response?
Joining to us talk about it, former Republican Congressman Bob Dornan of California, who is now a radio talk show host. Also, John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal,” and still with us, Jed Babbin of the “Washington Times.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
BOB DORNAN, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Good to be with you, Alan.
KEYES: First question I'd like to direct to my good friend Bob Dornan. How are you, Bob?
DORNAN: Doing great, Alan. Good to be on with you.
KEYES: Good to have you. In listening to Jed Babbin and thinking about the possibility that we might get involved under the rubric of our war on terror to go after the al Qaeda elements that would be part of the so-called liberation fighters in Kashmir, given that Musharraf has expressed support for this liberation movement and support, in fact, for these liberation fighters, doesn't part of his own domestic support in Pakistan depend on his posture of support for this liberation movement? If he let us go in there and smash these people up, wouldn't that risk his overthrow?
DORNAN: Well, it would not only endanger his power, how about his life. I really appreciated Jed's column because in a few words, he pulled so many things together and the air force is key.
I've visited with both those air forces and I know that in the last war, matter of fact, the Pakistanis flew F-86 Sabre jets and 104 Starfighters and just blew the Indian air force away.
But under weather, the superior Indian numbers, as Jed pointed out, coming across the border, and Islamabad was one of these created capitals like Brasilia. It's in the north. It's very close to that area. It's open area between there and Kashmir. I just don't think we can allow India to head for an Islamic nation's capital named Islamabad.
But the nuclear option, we should tell them privately, hopefully, that if either one of you even starts to use a nuclear weapon, we unilaterally are going to take away your nuclear capability, B-1's, B-2's, cruise missiles. We don't want to be world cop, but we will not allow that monster to come out of the bottle in your area.
KEYES: Well, but, I still have the question, though, Bob. If we try to implement Jed's suggestion and get Musharraf to allow us to go through and try to take out these forces, which might be something we could offer to Indians, would back them off because it would take care of their problem, can Musharraf in fact allow us to do that without risking his own domestic situation?
DORNAN: I think he's got a tough problem for this reason. It's not the Afghan border. It's in the north but it's the opposite side of the country. It's an eastern border which is 1,850 miles long. That's just 150 miles short of our California to Brownsville Mexican border. It's a huge area. And if we go in and try to surgically take out, say with AC-130 gunships, al Qaeda, Islamic people that are loved secretly by Saudi Arabia, then he has done something in the Islamic world that's probably outrageous. It might cause revolutions down in Karachi. What do you think?
KEYES: Well, I think that it raises a serious problem because it might then put us in a situation where we don't have Musharraf, where more extreme elements have taken over in Pakistan, leaving us then in a confrontational situation over all with a more extremist Pakistani government.
John Fund, you have read Jed Babbin's column and the analysis that he's given. What do you think of his proposal?
JOHN FUND, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Well, look, I think clearly that those groups — and I'm going to argue this in a column next week at opinionjournal.com — those groups clearly probably do have some ties to al Qaeda. But it's been six months since we took over Kabul. Why haven't we gone after them yet? Why haven't we leaned on Musharraf now?
If we go in now, the perception will be that we are tilting towards one side versus the other in this conflict and I think that that is highly dangerous. As you know, Alan, you've served in that region. The state department likes to think that it knows a lot about this region, but it really doesn't. I think it's very dangerous for us to be inserted into this region and I think we probably are going to end up making matters worse.
I think sending Rumsfeld over and reminding both countries of how much they have to lose, especially in terms of investment and other opportunities is one thing. But inserting American military power in a region we know so little about, highly dangerous, highly speculative.
KEYES: But, let me ask you a question. If we don't do something about the al Qaeda elements and the terroristic elements that are part of the Kashmir liberation movement, what becomes of our own war on terror?
I mean, here we have somebody, close partner in the war on terror, who would then be in a position where it looks like he's supporting the use of this terrorism. It almost seems like we're generalizing the Arafat exception and utterly destroying our own integrity on the terror issue.
FUND: Let me be clear. I think Mr. Musharraf has been very Arafat like in many of his pronouncements, referring to his people as freedom fighters and various other things. I think Jed is very right on that.
However, I think it's very clear that if we go beyond jawboning them and leaning on them and I think making it clear of how much Pakistan has to lose in terms of perhaps ever buying any arms from the United States in the future, the investment flows. Mr. Musharraf understood what the costs were if he didn't support us in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. I think we have to make that clear again.
Going beyond that, however, we will be giving the perception that we are leaning towards one side in this conflict. That's not something the United States wants to do in terms of military insertion. I think that would be highly dangerous.
DORNAN: Alan, I'm curious about something with this excellent panel. I have a feeling that India would never use an atomic weapon first because of their advantage in size and the beyond irony of Oppenheimer (ph) at the Alamogordo first blast of a weapon, quoting from the old Hindu text, “I am become death, the destroyer of nations,” I just don't think they would do it. So the danger is Pakistan, and I don't see why we can't lean on them and say this is something you will never, ever, ever do.
(CROSSTALK)
BABBIN: Guys, I'm sorry, we're not going to be able to just jawbone this. We are not going to be able to not engage. This is not something where we're going to be able to say don't do this or don't do that. These countries have invested so much in going to war right now that Mr. Vajpayee has to resolve something by violence. He's not going to be able to back down with this.
The way we can do this is to insert ourselves by making Musharraf look good and by making it worth India's while to withdraw. If we tell Musharraf that we have a particular target in Kashmir, we're not going to go operate in Pakistan. I agree. If we went into Pakistan proper, it would probably result in Musharraf disappearing by force of violence of his own people. His own intelligence service would knock him out.
But if we go in into Kashmir and try to say we are going to solve your problem, we are going to stop the cross-border incursions and bomb the snot out of those guys for a couple of days, that will separate them...
KEYES: But, Jed, the question that that raises, though, as you said, go into Kashmir, but there's a Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir that is in fact a staging area for terrorists.
BABBIN: Of course.
KEYES: Are we going to deal with that area?
BABBIN: We're going to have to, Alan. I think we have to go into that particular area. We ought to be able to find some places where some of these groups are operating from and destroy them by an air attack. If we don't do that...
KEYES: What do you say to John Fund then, and his objection that that is going in fact to look like a tilt toward India?
BABBIN: Well, I think if we do it in a way that gets Musharraf's support and participation, why not — the Pakistani air force, as Bob Dornan says, is top notch. Why don't we have a joint operation with the Paks and us and bomb the heck out of a couple of these camps, take the heat out of it, give diplomacy some time to work. If we don't go in and do something, this is going to be out of control. We can't sit back and watch.
DORNAN: Jed, at the end of your column, you said we ask Musharraf for permission to take out these al Qaeda cells and Omar's operation. But then you said we will make sure he understands we're not going to take no for an answer. Let's suppose he says no. What do we do?
BABBIN: I don't think — well, if he does say no, we're going to have to think of something else, Bob. The problem is we can't sit back and watch this. These guys will go and do something that will result in either a nuclear war or a devastation of both countries. We have to see Musharraf survive.
We only have two allies in the Muslim world, him and Turkey. If we don't have Musharraf survive and still be able to have some sort of peace with India, we are set back in our relations for a long time.
KEYES: Well, let me ask, John Fund, this raises a question for me, because you had said that we can't afford to tilt one way or the other. If, in fact, Jed is right though, and we're headed inevitably toward war, in point of fact, isn't it inevitable given our interest in the region that at some point, you've got to choose sides in that war?
We're sitting right in the middle of this situation with one side in the war as a partner in the war on terrorism. How can we stay out of it?
FUND: First of all, I think it's very dangerous to start talking about war being inevitable. It is not inevitable. Mr. Rumsfeld is going over there. I'll have to tell you, I think it would be highly unlikely for India and Pakistan to go into a nuclear exchange with the United States secretary of defense sitting right there and explaining to them what the costs of all of this are. This is a highly flammable situation.
I think we have to be careful, but let's not exaggerate this. These countries have gone to war in the past. They have been lobbing artillery shells across the Kashmir line of control for decades and they have never gone beyond a certain point. We have to be careful. We have to be involved. But let's not assume that war is inevitable unless the United States of America sends its carrier-based planes over there.
We have to be involved, but not to the point where we are perceived to tilt towards one side and I think that in itself could escalate the war. We have to be careful on both sides of this equation.
DORNAN: John, good plan. Rumsfeld may have to stay there a long time and then have Colin Powell alternate. But you're right, whenever they went to war before, it was when all the Western diplomats left the area and that's when something really gets dangerous.
BABBIN: Yes. We don't assume that nuclear war is going to break out (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FUND: You said either we're going to have nuclear war or both countries are going to be devastated. That is not inevitable.
BABBIN: No, that is not inevitable at all. What I'm saying is...
FUND: Well, then you're saying something different.
BABBIN: No, no, no. Conventional war is probably inevitable and with great loss of life. What I believe is there's going to be a conventional war and a stalemate, and at that point, we can help them resolve it.
If we let it go farther, if the stalemate continues and people get stupid or reckless, then you might risk a nuclear war. Nuclear war is not inevitable. A conventional war is already going on.
DORNAN: And their conventional wars, when they really go at it, are very short. Only Israeli wars are shorter. But their wars aren't like Iran and Iraq, eight years, a million soldiers dead. Their wars are very short. It's like there's a spasm of killing and they learn faster than a Saddam Hussein that they're accomplishing nothing by killing off their young people.
KEYES: See, I wonder though if this whole discussion isn't based on a failure to ask one simple question. Why is this happening right now? We have gone through a period of time, it simmered this way and that. Suddenly, it comes to this intense confrontation. Why? There has to be a reason.
And I would suggest that part of that reason has to do with the fact that this whole war on terror has changed the equation and could quite possibly have led, for instance, to a miscalculation on Musharraf's part of what he can get away with in Kashmir and what help we might be to him to keep the Indians under control.
But what if he's miscalculated about that, John Fund? That would mean that he's put himself in a war situation without meaning to.
FUND: Well, there may be another miscalculation, that because no one wants a nuclear war in that region, that he may hope that the United States and Britain, which is a former colonial power there, would lean on India to say you must go to the negotiating table, you must make concessions on Kashmir that you've never made in these last 50 years.
KEYES: Wouldn't he also possibly look at the current situation in the Middle East as kind of a precedent for precisely that kind of outcome?
FUND: Exactly. And that is why it is very important for the United States to be engaged, but not to the point where we take the major responsibility for having some kind of a solution or resolution. Once the United States is involved in that point, it becomes a tar baby and we've seen to what extent that may involve us in the Middle East to a point where it's not in our national interest. We can't ignore the situation, but we can also avoid getting sucked in beyond a point where we should be.
DORNAN: Alan, how is this for an answer, and I'd like John and Jed to comment on this. If Musharraf says no more terrorism, even though he says as you pointed out, Jed, in Urdu, he calls them freedom fighters. But I think, Alan, you're right on target with one added ingredient.
There are terrorists in that area that want to see an Islamic bomb used. All your years, Alan, at the U.N., everybody used to write about the Islamic bomb. Well, the Hindu bomb came first. Now we have an Islamic bomb. Pakistan is an Islamic country and this raid on May 14 that Jed talked about, 34 people killed, most of them women and children, and India says that's it. If the United States goes after terrorists, we're going to do it. Those terrorist groups want to provoke a nuclear war. How do we control them?
BABBIN: Bob is exactly right, but the problem is what John is looking at is he's trying to create another quagmire issue. We're already in this. We have very great stake in seeing Musharraf survive and trying to make the progress that he promised in his January speech.
What we cannot allow is for India to try to capitalize on this problem, and as Bob is pointing out, the terrorists that are there that are fleeing from Afghanistan and already there, to make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. We need to be involved.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I want to put in a word for a second, and, Jed, maybe take issue with the fundamental premise of what you just said, because — and I'll just throw this on the table for the sake of it.
If we're inevitably faced with a conflict here, why is it so important that we should hold on to an Islamic ally if that ally is playing a double game, and is actually using terrorism, even as he claims to be fighting terrorism side by side with us? If, in the context of that miscalculation he may have made, he provokes a major war with India that gets in the way of our own war on terrorism, why shouldn't we count it a blessing, join with the Indians, and at the end of the day, simply do what needs to be done in Pakistan with their help?
I know it's very provocative, it may be an outrageous suggestion. But I think we have for too long neglected the possibility of really forming a firm understanding with the largest democracy on the face of the earth in the south Asian region instead of always working with whatever despot is handy because we don't want to work with India. What do you say to that, Jed?
BABBIN: Well, I think you're right, Alan. I think if Musharraf is playing an Arafat-like game, I think we ought to dump him and tell Mr. Vajpayee to go do what he wants to do to cut off terrorism. All we would then do is tell Vajpayee to stop at the Kashmir line and not go to Islamabad. The fact of the matter is if Musharraf is playing the same game that the Saudis and Arafat are, we want him out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Well, he is playing that game.
KEYES: Go ahead.
FUND: He is playing that game. Look, Jed, you think that he's an ally. Yes, he is an ally, but he's an ally who's also fomenting terrorism. If we're going to be consistent in our moral clarity about terrorism, we have to recognize that facts are facts. It's indisputable that he is playing this dangerous game. We have to tell him to stop.
KEYES: John, if he is, one last thought for all three of you, wouldn't it be wise for us to make to clear that there is an Indian card? That may be a reason for him to listen to us when we ask him to cooperate with the things we need to do. Don't you think, Jed? If we have no alternative to him, why should he pay attention to us?
BABBIN: Well, I agree with that. I think we have to pressure him in an extreme way. The problem is, I don't think down in my heart of hearts that he can actually do something that will stop the terror. I think at some point we will have to side with India if he cannot act himself or if we don't take it into our own hands.
KEYES: Bob Dornan, what do you think?
DORNAN: Isn't it ironic, Alan, that today, slaughtered, tortured Danny Pearl, worked at John's paper, his little baby, Adam, who was born today, murdered in Karachi, one of the biggest cities in the world, Islamic city, in Pakistan.
I think Musharraf should be called to the White House again maybe. It helps his prestige. We have to go with him. He's not as duplicitous as maybe 8,000 Saudi princes teaching in these hate schools. A lot existed in his country, but I think we've got to lean on him, beg him, depend on him and make sure we keep him as an ally.
KEYES: Bob, I've got to tell you, I think that the only time you get a response from somebody is when it's clear that at the end of the day you've got an alternative to them and I think we'd better develop an alternative to Musharraf.
Thank you all. Really appreciate your coming with us tonight. It was a wonderful discussion, in fact. Thank you all for being with us.
Next, would you believe that until today, the FBI couldn't conduct undercover investigations in some places where the public is invited, like places of worship. Strange, but true. Well, that's all changing because of 9/11. But some say the new FBI is crushing our rights or could do so. We'll have a debate next. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Wasn't that a beautiful picture? Kind of reminds us of — puts a little hope into every situation, doesn't it? Children will do that to you.
The Justice Department, in an effort to mount a proactive war on terror, eased its own restrictions on domestic surveillance today. Among the many changes, the FBI may now enter gatherings open to the public to observe, develop leads, investigate, something that had stopped happening after the civil rights era of the 1960s. Now some groups are saying that the changes could result in the destruction of vital American rights. MSNBC's chief justice correspondent, Pete Williams, has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE WILLIAMS, MSNBC CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Concerned that longstanding rules are preventing the FBI from looking for signs of potential terrorism even in public places or the Internet, the attorney general today gave the nation's 11,000 FBI agents new powers to gather information.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our philosophy today is not to wait and sift through the rubble following a terrorist attack. Rather, the FBI must intervene early and investigate aggressively where information suggests the possibility of terrorism.
WILLIAMS: Under existing rules agents were forbidden to open new files on groups or individuals unless they got outside information suggesting criminal activity.
Effective today, the revised rules give agents new freedom when they're trying to detect or prevent terrorism. They can now enter any public place, surf the Internet, use commercial firms that compile data on Internet users, and open preliminary inquiries into groups suspected of terrorism. The FBI says under the old rules, agents were barred from even checking to see which Web sites gave bomb making instructions or methods for cyber-attacks.
The original rules were put in place in the mid '70s to curb FBI abuses in spying on politically unpopular groups and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, and today some Muslim groups fear the FBI fear the FBI could unleash the same kind of tactics on them.
JASON ERB, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: If you have to worry about the identity of the person sitting next to you, then that's going to start to erode the trust within the community.
WILLIAMS: And the ACLU says the new rules could discourage people from attending mosques or protest events where they fear the FBI might be watching.
LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: They will refrain from going or refrain in participating in activities that they have a constitutional right under current law to participate in.
But the author of a new book on the FBI says the old rules hampered agents investigating the blind sheik later convicted of plotting attacks in New York.
RON KESSLER, AUTHOR, “THE BUREAU”: Shockingly, under these guidelines, when a suspect walked into a mosque, the FBI would stop watching them, and of course a lot of these plots were in fact hatched in mosques.
WILLIAMS (on camera): Individual agents now get broad discretion, no longer needing headquarters permission to begin looking into suspected terrorists.
Pete Williams, NBC news, at the Justice Department.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now to debate this issue, Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review,” and Gloria Allred, attorney and radio talk show host. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Hi.
GLORIA ALLRED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Gloria, I want to start with you. I've got to be frank. I listened to this description. Part of my mind just went, gosh, I mean they weren't able to do this? It's almost like we were asking the FBI to be blind to what everybody else is free to look at. Why would this be dangerous?
ALLRED: Well, Alan, I think this whole thing has to be looked at in perspective. I mean, the FBI had the information. It wasn't a lack of power to get the information that may have contributed to the disaster that was September 11, because the FBI had the Phoenix memo, had the Minneapolis request for a search warrant, which they could have asked for. Their problem was lack of analysis, a lack of action. So we shouldn't say because there's a management failure, perhaps, within the FBI, that that should justify what the ACLU calls an insatiable grab for power by the attorney general and by the FBI.
There's no guarantee that any of this would make us safer, but there is a guarantee that we will lose some freedoms and liberty in the process.
KEYES: But wait, Gloria. That's what I'm looking at, because I am very sensitive — I don't know whether you realize or not, but I am very sensitive to this issue of not giving up our liberties on the excuse that we need security.
But why are we giving up any liberties to tell the FBI that they have the freedom to look at open source information that you or I could go look at on the Internet, to go into public places that you and I could enter freely and involve ourselves in? This isn't like crossing the privacy line or anything. They're just going where everybody else can go. Why not?
ALLRED: Well, we have to be very careful about allowing the FBI to go on fishing expeditions into public areas. They certainly look for terrorists or terrorist activity if they have probable cause. They can do that now. They did it — the field agents did a great job on that, made the connections to flight training and to Osama bin Laden before September 11.
All they need is probable cause. They can go and get a search warrant now. But to eliminate probable cause and just say they can go out there and spy on innocent American citizens, I think is going way too far.
KEYES: Rich Lowry, I guess I find the language kind of inappropriate. Why is it spying to go into a public place everybody can go into?
LOWRY: Yes, it's amazing. Gloria's position is that FBI agents shouldn't be allowed to surf the Internet, which seems rather extraordinary. And, you know, the blind sheik who, as the news entry into this segment said correctly, the blind sheik who plotted the first World Trade Center bombing did a lot of it in a Jersey City mosque, and the FBI agents just didn't both to surveil him there, gave him safe haven to plot there, because they thought they couldn't under the guidelines.
So those guidelines clearly need updating. They're very common sensical matters, I think, and look, the FBI, if it wants to wire tap someone, wants to go undercover, there are still many, many hoops it has to jump through. They still need to get judges to sign off on wire taps and other electronic surveillance.
KEYES: In other words, there is still a privacy line that when they cross it, they have to go to the courts.
LOWRY: Of course. This is just saying the FBI can go to any protest or any mosque or any place that Gloria goes to. That seems, I think, common sense to most people.
ALLRED: Last time I checked the blind sheik was actually prosecuted and convicted, so obviously there was sufficient information to do that. But constitutional protections were in place and that's what we need to keep.
LOWRY: The FBI now doesn't want to just prosecute crimes after they happen. It wants to prevent them, because the lives of thousands of Americans are at risk. Don't you think it's better to stop World Trade Center bombings before they happen?
And to do that the FBI needs to wake up and have a more aggressive attitude.
ALLRED: Well, actually, the field agents in the FBI had a very aggressive attitude. I commend Coleen Rowley, the general counsel in the Minneapolis office. I commend the Phoenix agent Williams and everyone else who did a great job. It was a management failure at the top and the middle levels, perhaps, that was the problem.
But instead of looking at what the real problem is, we're asking to sacrifice our constitutional rights. That's not fair.
KEYES: Rich, go ahead.
LOWRY: Can I make two points about that? One, I commend Rowley for writing that memo as well, but look — read closely, point four of that memo. And it goes in excruciating detail how difficult it is for the FBI to get these wire taps and search warrants. And the FBI didn't want to search — it's not that the FBI didn't want to search Moussaoui's computer, it's just that they knew they had to get a judge to sign off on it and they had to jump through a lot of hoops, so they just couldn't do it on a whim.
That's clear in her memo, and she suggests in fact that agents should be able to go specifically directly to judges, which would be a radical change that you would be complaining about if it were to happen, and also I think it's fascinating that Democrats now want to racially profile our flight schools. They're all yelling that the FBI should have followed up on these Phoenix memo. Democrats and Gloria now support ethnic profiling. I'm glad to hear it, but I think this is more opportunism.
ALLRED: It wasn't that at all, and on the Moussaoui case they had French intelligence, they had probable cause as to that individual. It didn't involve racial profiling at all. So that's a mischaracterization of our position.
LOWRY: The Phoenix memo suggested going to flight schools and looking into the Arab men who were enlisted, enrolled there. That is ethnic profiling. Gloria, if you support ethnic profiling, congratulations. I'm glad you finally adopted that...
KEYES: Rich, before we get off into other controversies, I am still kind of struck, Gloria, because I think that we are carrying the whole concern a little bit too far if we are going to tell our FBI people walking the terrorist beat that they can't do what any cop on the street walking down the sidewalk does.
If you're walking a beat, you get to look around public places and take account of what's going on there and if you see what looks like it might be a crime being committed, you get to follow up on it. Now all that the FBI is going to be doing right now is giving that same ability to keep their eyes open in public places and to enter public places to find, and go after and pursue leads that might help us prevent terrorism. All these guidelines do is, in a sense, allow the FBI to open its bureaucratic eyes in public places.
How can this be a threat to liberty? I just don't get it. Nothing you say, you can use all the hyperbole you want, but there is no privacy being violated here.
ALLRED: OK, well you know, I don't call the constitution of the United States hyperbole. I take it very seriously and I know you do, Alan, as well.
The point is there is a reason that there had to be a different threshold for the FBI, and that's because of all of the abuses against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other dissenters a number of years ago where the Congress was shown that there was persecution of Dr. Martin Luther King. There was spying. There were abuses by the FBI. And that's why some constraints had to be put on them.
You know, we are in a time of crisis. We don't know how long this crisis may last. It may be for the rest of our lives. I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of World War II in this crisis.
KEYES: Hold on. We've got to go to a break here. We're going to continue with this discussion. Gloria, keep in mind, though, because some people abuse their eyes doesn't mean that others should pluck them out, you know. We'll be right back. Keep that thought in mind.
Later my “Outrage of the Day,” but first, does this make sense? President Bush assured his brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, that there would be no drilling for oil in the Florida Everglades. They've now taken — made moves to get the government to purchase the rights so that drilling will not take place in the Everglades.
On the other hand, the Bush Administration says it's environmentally fine to go after the oil in the Alaska oil preserves, in ANWAR. Now if the argument holds good that there are safe — environmentally ways to go after the oil in ANWAR, why aren't there environmental safe ways to go after the oil in the Everglades?
Now I know that this particular decision is of some political benefit to Jeb Bush, but if the principle holds good in Alaska, why doesn't it hold good in Florida? Doesn't that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Rich Lowry and Gloria Allred, talking about the FBI's announcement today, relaxing certain guidelines so that FBI agents will now be able to go into public gathering places where they have in the past been restricted, in order to follow up on leads that are part of their investigation into terrorism, into other things.
Rich Lowry, as we were going out to the break, Gloria made a point with respect to past abuses, and as I was thinking about it during the break, and going over what I remember of some of those abuses, didn't most of them actually involve crossing the privacy line?
I mean, we weren't talking there about these kinds of things because a lot of the stuff that went on in people's bedrooms and that they used to blackmail folks, including Martin Luther King, that was in fact an invasion of privacy. That's not what we're talking about here, is it?
LOWRY: Yes. No, those were clearly abuses, but these guidelines announced today have nothing to do with that. They have to do with surfing the Internet and accessing other public sources, and I just would like to know what constitutional theory Gloria thinks justifies the view that if I post something on the Internet, that's my constitutional right not to have an FBI agent read it.
You know, things are put on the Internet for people to read. If I go to a protest and I give a speech, what is the constitutional right that's violated if an FBI agent listens to it? You go to give a speech as a protest in order to have people listen to you. So the whole Martin Luther King thing is a total non sequitur, and if the FBI wants to wiretap someone or bug someone, it has to still go to a judge to get approval for that.
So I don't think the FBI is going to be wire tapping Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson any time soon.
ALLRED: Of course there's no guarantee about that, is there?
LOWRY: They have to get a judge's approval.
ALLRED: First of all, I reject the notion that an individual should have to justify why that individual has a right to privacy. I think it should be for the government to try to justify why they should invade the right to privacy, why the fourth amendment, which prohibits...
LOWRY: Gloria, the Internet is not a private thing!
ALLRED: Let me just finish. I let you finish. Why the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, should not be complied with. Again, if there's probable cause, the FBI can go in, I hope they will go in, and find out and root out terrorist activity and prosecute it where the justice department feels it's appropriate to do so.
But to just go in without any constraints on government, just because the FBI failed in this time, it wasn't the individual people — that FBI failed, is ridiculous.
LOWRY: Gloria, a speech at a protest is not private. The Internet — posting something on the Internet is not private. It's public.
ALLRED: It's also not lawful.
LOWRY: And none of this has to do —the guidelines today — have to do with wire tapping or bugging or doing electronic surveillance. All that was dealt with in the Patriot Act, which maybe you oppose that as well although it had overwhelming support both from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, but that did make a little bit easier for the FBI to surveil people like Zacarias Moussaoui.
KEYES: If I may make a comment here, it does seem to me that Gloria, you're trying to get us to redefine the meaning of private to include a whole bunch of public places where people ought to have no reasonable expectation that the government, along with everybody else with eyes, will be able to see what they're doing. Just because we're going after the blind sheik doesn't mean we should have a blind FBI. It doesn't make sense.
ALLRED: We got him. You know, that's ridiculous.
KEYES: I want to thank you both for joining me today.
LOWRY: Alan, I think the FBI may have been listening to your show today. That's a violation of your rights.
KEYES: This talk will continue, I know. Next my “Outrage of the Day.” The INS taking a holiday against terrorism. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, KEYES.MSNBC.COM.
Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day. I'll be right back with the “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for the “Outrage of the Day.” According to the “New York Post,” cops in New York had to free a suspicious gang of illegal Mideast aliens because the INS didn't want to be bothered on the Memorial Day weekend.
In the end, not knowing whether the men they had nabbed were the hard working immigrants they claimed to be or a terror gang plotting to wreak havoc, the local authorities had to let them walk. The men, some with phony ID and all, admitted illegal aliens, could have been held if agents from the INS had bothered to show up. Apparently the INS didn't have anybody on duty in the city.
The agency's contact number for the weekend rang at an office in Burlington, Vermont, more than 300 miles away. Now, if you all had been listening, you probably noticed that some of the people sounding the terrorist warnings suggest that holidays might be the very time when people gather and so forth and where terrorists might be tempted to strike. That message got to you. Apparently it didn't get to the INS. What's it going to take to wake these folks up to the fact that these terrorists are on us 24 hours a day, including holidays?
Hear that, buddies at the INS? You need to be working all the time. Finally tonight, Adam V. Pearl, born today in Paris to Mariane Pearl, widow of murdered “Wall Street Journal” reporter Daniel Pearl. Weight, five pounds, seven ounces. THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. See you Monday.