Other transcripts

Transcripts

October 20, 2003

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
· Special legislative session;
· Senator Jon Kyl, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, and the recent hearings on the radical sect of Islam called Wahhabism;
· The New York Times former managing editor
In-Studio Guests:
Chip Scutari, The Arizona Republic;
Senator Jon Kyl

 

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," the legislature goes into special session to consider spending more money for CPS and prisons.

>>> Senator Jon Kyl talks about his terrorism investigation into Osama bin Laden's religion.

>>> And scandal at the New York Times costs that man his job, the former managing editor visits Phoenix.

>>> Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Those stories are ahead but, first, the firefighter accused of starting part of the Rodeo-Chediski fire has entered a plea of guilty. Prosecutors say Leonard Greg started the Rodeo fire because he wanted to earn money fighting it. Greg pled guilty to two counts of intentionally setting a fire. That fire burned 469,000 acres. Several hundred homes were destroyed. Thousands were forced to evacuate. Greg could receive up to 10 years in prison. Federal prosecutors have declined to charge the woman who started the other half of the fire. She had been lost and started the fire to signal a helicopter.

>>> A special session begins today and both sides are preparing for a long battle.

>> Rep. Jake Flak: None of us want to be here. We would rather not be here. I would like to have prevailed on the Governor as many of us would on both sides of the aisle to not call this special session until we've got all of the possibilities of both DOC and CPS out on the floor and discuss them and reach a consensus. We pleaded with her on that and told her that this could drag on for a month, this could drag on for six weeks. There has been some talk this special session because we can't reach a consensus on what to do could merge into the regular session in January, and people get a little cranky when we start going into the holiday time and they are here in special session. And yet we didn't prevail. She has that right and she has done it, so we are here. We hope to get those two smaller items out of the way as fast as possible and then just work and study and try to come up with the reform needed, especially with CPS. I think there is much reform and everybody agrees with that. That's in the Governor's comments, Mr. Romley, Mr. Twist has studied this at length and our own committees and we feel that there needs to be reform, well, that's what we've got to do and we need to work to get it done.

>> Rep. John Loredo: Look, folks, you're going to hear a lot of opposition to the Governor's bills. You are. And that shouldn't come as any surprise to you. There is a philosophy here at the State Capitol that is a flawed one in my opinion. It is a philosophy that every person should stand for themselves, that if there are people in this society that can't fend for themselves like children, that they should be on their own. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to take care of them. I beg to differ with that. Protecting children is everybody's responsibility. Protecting children is everyone's fundamental, not only their right, but their responsibility. These issues have been around for a long, long time. I've been here for 7 years and for 7 years you have been coming out here, long before that, but I've been seeing you folks standing out here in the same place for seven years demanding change, demanding some support, demanding that the state legislature prioritize some of these issues. Well, Governor Napolitano's help, that is finally going to happen. This year, right here right now, and I thank all of you for making that happen.

>> Michael: The "Arizona Republic's" Chip Scutari was at the Capitol today. He joins us now at the studios. Wherever we are, Chip, it's good to see you.

>> Chip Scutari: Welcome back from vacation.

>> Michael: Thanks very much. I feel very relaxed.

>>> Michael: What happened today?

>> Chip: The house and senate leadership which is controlled by the Republicans wants to do a full-scale fiscal review of Child Protective Services. They want to have public hearings starting next week to analyze their $250 million annual budget to see if actually we need more money to pump in to pay for more case workers, to raise case workers' salaries. The Governor wants to use this $35 million to do what she calls revamp or remake this be leaguered agency. Lawmakers are skeptical. What's driving that is somewhat of her lone wolf mentality to go it alone, to not get their input. Today around 4:00, she met with House Speaker Jake Flake and Senate President Ken Bennett, basically, to try to get on the same page, but nothing materialized out of that meeting.

>> Michael: She announced her intention to call the special session three weeks ago. In response to claims that we didn't have a consensus, she said well we've got three weeks to work out a consensus. Nothing really happened. Is that the 9th floor's fault? Is that legislature leadership fault? Some combination of the two? Something else.

>> Chip: I think it's a combination of those two factors you just mentioned. Also, CPS, this agency, it's an intricate, complicated agency. It's not like just dealing with police and fire. There is issues of openness, CPS records and files. There's issues of should there be joint investigation was police officers. So it's a very intricate agency, and one that, you know, protects children which everyone cares about. It's in the headlines, the horror stores stories are in the newspapers when something unfortunate happens to a child. The other thing that happens was the CPS bill from the Governor didn't get to lawmakers until late Friday night and most rank and file members haven't seen that bill. The other thing, the other big ticket item in this session is correcting the bed deficit in prisons and there still isn't a bill on that. So the Governor and her staff might have done a better job in expediting getting these bills to lawmakers, but as we heard from House Speaker Jake Flake say in the intro, it's going to be a slugging out process and we could see this thing dragging on for weeks and weeks.

>> Michael: It's difficult to rally around the flag if there is no flag.

>> Chip:The only consensus is that there is no consensus right now.

>> Michael: That $35 million that we're talking about for Child Protective Services, what's the big breakout on that?

>> Chip: It goes for a number of things. One is 155 new case workers, better salaries for some case workers, even a small thing like cell phones for case workers so they can call on the road. You know, a number of things. There is also a reform piece where they want to redefine the mission of Child Protective Services so it is protecting children over preserving the family unit. So it goes for a variety of things.

>> Michael: Now, the corrections request, that's been on the radar screen for five or six months. That was pretty well known at the end of the regular session that you needed more money for more beds. They are just exceptionally short. So why haven't we been able to get a little closer on that issue?

>> Chip: I think if the Governor had dealt with the prison issue separately away from CPS, that would be a much smoother deal to cut. She's looking for $26 million for temporary beds to do some hiring of additional correctional officers and bonuses, but because of this massive CPS problem, it's kind of getting lost in the shuffle. The Governor will reduce that $26 million request to a little bit lower dollar figure because right now, lawmakers are getting into session saying well, we've got CPS and prisons, which are two major things that are worrisome for the common man, that Joe sixpack worries about locking of bad guys and protecting children.

>> Michael: The two minor items likely to move out of the session?

>>Chip: The judicial collections issue about that issue and the $5 withholding should get repealed this week and those housekeeping items should be done by Friday.

>> Michael: All right Chip Scutari, "Arizona Republic," appreciate the input.

>> Chip: Thank you.

>> Michael: Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has been part of the investigation into the faith practiced by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. It's also Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. Producer Larry Lemmons talks to Senator Kyl about that investigation.

>> Reporter: Senator, you are the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. You've had recent hearings on Wahhabism. What is that?

>> Senator Jon Kyl: We've had a series of hearings to know your enemy in this war on terror. Who is the enemy. It turns out that most of the terrorists that attacked -- in fact all of the terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11th and a lot of the Al-Qaeda are primarily influenced by this very radical sect of Islam called Wahhabism. That's the name we give to it. They call themselves "the true believers" but over 200 years ago in Saudi Arabia, this sect was born. Over the year, the Wahhabi religious sect which interprets Islam much differently than most traditional Muslims do, made a deal with the house of Saud, that they would dot religious side of things and the House of Saud would do the political side of things. As a result the wealthy kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been able to funnel a lot of money or provide a lot of money to the Wahhabi Imams and other officials who have gone all around the world and established mosques and schools and education centers to spread their brand of the Islam faith.

>> Reporter: You might talk a little bit about this is a fundamentalist kind of Islam, isn't it?

>> Jon: It teaches Jihad against all nonbelievers.

>> Reporter: Even other Muslims, Sunni Muslims are outsiders as well?

>> Jon: This is a branch of Sunni, but --

>> Reporter: Is it?

>> Jon: Yes, but most Sunnis wouldn't affiliate with it at all. It's not Shi'ite. It's against Christians, Jews and a lot of other Muslims. This sect actually preaches Jihad or holy war. We're all considered infidels in their view. It's spawned hatred and terrorist activity.

>> Reporter: It might be stated that there is that misconception on the part of a lot of people that the hijackers came from Iraq, but in fact, they came from Saudi Arabia, and as you said, they were all members of this sect that Saudi Arabia has been promoting -- well, people in Saudi Arabia have been promoting.

>> Jon: It's the State religion of Saudi Arabia. Not all Wahhabis are terrorists, just as it's true that not all terrorists are Wahhabis. However, much of the religious ferver from the terrorists comes from this sect. A great deal of the money comes through the Wahhabi sect. It's one of the reasons why we're holding hearings to demonstrate how the money from Saudi Arabia has come to the United States and elsewhere. The Wahhabis have put themselves and their own radical people in charge of certain activities. They have infiltrated the chaplaincy of the U.S. military. The chaplaincy of the U.S. prison system for example, as well as a lot of other organizations and that's what or hearings are focusing on.

>> Reporter: Speaking on chaplains in the military, that goes to Guantanamo bay where three people have been arrested, a translater, and captain James -- who was in fact charged with disobeying an order, not necessarily with espionage. And Al Muhdi (phonetic) was a founder of the military muslims.

>> Jon: And he is an interesting person because he is affiliated with organizations that have some degree of legitimacy or they were thought to. It's interesting that the two organizations that nominate the Muslim chaplains for the military and the third organization which trains those chaplains, all thee of them are basically controlled by the Wahhabi sect. Individuals in all three organizations have been raided or arrested, including AL Muhdi for actions involving terrorism. There is a significant interconnection here between the radical Wahhabi faith out of Saudi Arabia, the terrorists, and the organizations that are the only ones up to now that have been charged recruiting and training the Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military. Of course, our hearing got into that, and I think that some of those relationships are going to be put on hold pending inspector general reports and other investigations to see whether there isn't a better way to recruit Muslim chaplains. What we don't want, for example in prisons for the only Muslim chaplain to be a Wahhabi. There have been complaints from others --

>> Reporter: Is that how Jose Padilla allegedly became involved in that?

>> Jon: Yes. And he's not the only person, not the only terrorist who has been trained in prison. There is a lot of recruitment to Wah -- to Islam in prisons. We believe to WahhabisM, and we know there are attempts to recruit prisoners into terrorism and in some cases that's been successful. So all of this is about knowing the terrorist enemy, and you can't ignore the religious influence of it.

>> Reporter: The idea of religious freedom, is that a paradox? We have First Amendment rights. Obviously that can't extend to violence against your neighbor. Do you foresee any sort of problem on down the line as these things are being prosecuted against First Amendment rights?

>> Jon: No, because the FBI, for example, is very careful, but you're absolutely right. There is a point at which they meet. For example, the FBI does not go into mosque on a regular basis and try to figure out if somebody is preaching violence, but if there is some kind of a tip that a certain Imam is preaching violence in a mosque, then the FBI could go in there and become aware of a plot or of activities to foster a terrorism of violence and then take appropriate action. And because it's a public place and there is no expectation of privacy in that setting, there is no violation of constitutional rights.

>> Reporter: Is this what has come about with the Patriot Act recently, allowing FBI agents to go into a mosque?

>> Jon: Actually, no because it's always been legal to do that. I mean, there is -- wherever a public place is involved and you have no expectation of privacy, there is no reason that law enforcement can't be present, too. And therefore, while it has not been the practice, and in fact the FBI specifically did not go into religious institutions, in the event it has information that there is some plot being cooked up and it is still a public place and there is no constitutional prohibition against going in there and trying to figure out what they are up to, the Patriot Act gets into other areas, but it doesn't have anything to do with that.

>> Reporter: How can the Patriot Act help in this kind of investigation?

>> Jon: I'll give you an example. We have always been able to get business records to go after criminal enterprises, business records include things like library records. The unibomber, who printed this tract and referred to three or four books, and so the FBI figured out maybe if we figure out what libraries these books were checked out of, that might enable to us follow back and see where the unibomber was. They went in and got library records to see who checked out particular books that the unibomber had referred to. There is nothing wrong with going into the library under the constitution and getting records that assist with law enforcement. That same principle was applied to the USA Patriot Act with respect to terrorists and all of a sudden people got concerned that we were going to violate their constitutional liberties. As the attorney general pointed out, that particular part of the act has never been used but it could be used if there was some reason to believe that the FBI could gain a lead on a terrorist by figuring out what books had been checked out. It's the kind of thing that the patriot act allows. It's perfectly constitutional in this particular case, though, it's never been utilized.

>> Reporter: Critics are both from -- are from the from both the right and the left. They are worried about a loss of privacy in such a circumstances, and also about whether or not the government should know what we're reading. I think a lot of people are afraid of that.

>> Jon: Sure, and the government will not know what you're reading, unless the government lawyer can convince a judge that based upon probable cause you -- or that they would gain information about a crime that you either have or are about to commit. That's true whether you are about to commit a bank robbery or an act of terrorism. It's the same basic principle either way.

>> Reporter: There is a program I think at Arizona State University. They are doing some research about project zebra. Can you elaborate on that?

>> Jon: You bet. ASU is really proud of this. There are great folks here. Among other things, they have a way -- they think that they can establish a way to differentiate between a normal illness and symptoms of a biological attack, and we're trying to help get funding for that and the Department of Homeland Security. Essentially what it does, it would be a test, a kit that basically would test people who come into the hospital emergency room, for example, to try to differentiate between the symptoms of flu or stomach illness or something of that sort, versus that one in a million case where it's actually a biological or chemical agent. The reason it's zebra -- project zebra, as I understand it, is physicians are taught when they go to medical school that the general rule of thumb is that if the symptom looks like flu, smells like flu and taste likes flu, it's probably the flu. But separating out from the herd is the trick, and once in a million, you'll have a zebra, not a horse.

>> Reporter: It's like SARS. For the longest time they thought it was flu. It turned out to be much more serious.

>>Jon: I'll differentiate that. One case in a million through the genome project and other technologies, they will be able to have little kits that will be able to differentiate. If you exhibit flu, they will do the test, most times it'll say flu, but if there has' been a biological attack, this test will reveal that.

>> Reporter: That's valuable in terms of time so you can take appropriate action to figure out exactly what to do.

>>Jon: Exactly. It's so much less expensive than the alternative which are monitoring stations. Think about having to have some kind of air monitoring sample station all over the country. In fact, it boggles the mind to think that you could ever detect a biological attack through those kind of devices. What's going to happen is somebody is going to get sick and come to the emergency room. If you can immediately determine that that is a biological agent, not a normal flu, let's say, you can immediately begin to look for it elsewhere and to treat people.

>> Michael: The Jason Blair scandal at the "New York Times" has forced the journalistic profession to ask itself a lot of questions. Blair was a young reporter at the "Times" who admitted faking a significant number of stories and making up sources. Subsequent scandal caused the resignation of executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd. He attended the managing editors conference last week in Phoenix.

>> Reporter: Gerald Boyd is in Phoenix after resigning as managing editor of the "New York Times."

>> Gerald Boyd: When Ed Jones called me several months ago and asked did I want to come to Phoenix and appear before you all, I was hurting. I was hurting deeply. But I really felt that it was important to find a way to come here and to find a way to come here in part because I know that many of you in this room have the same love and passion I have for journalism and that many of you care about the future.

>> Reporter: The future of journalism has been in question since the Jason Blair scandal damaged the credibility of the "New York Times."

>> Gerald: It's very important for journalism to start engaging issues that really matter in terms of our future. I think journalism as we know it is evolving. As it evolves, it's important that we begin to deal with issues like leadership, issues of diversity, issues of credibility and trust and issues that deal with the challenges that come from the information explosion, brought on by technology advances. And what am I talking about? What I'm talking about is the fact that I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult for people to understand what we do as journalists, to appreciate how we're different from other sources of information that they get from entertainment shows and talk shows and web sites, and therefore, I think it impacts our credibility. I think we've got to again to address that.

>>Gerald: I'm sure over dinner tables you all have sat around asking yourselves how could Jason have fabricated for so long and that the "New York Times" didn't know about it? I've asked myself a lot too, often late at night when I couldn't sleep, as I thought about this. And one of the things that strikes me that happened is this traditional policing mechanism of the public picking up the phone, writing a letter or E-mailing us, telling us that we've gotten it wrong, broke down there. And I think we've got to ask ourselves as an industry why it broke down, and I would submit that one of the factors may well have been that the public wasn't surprised that they think that that's what we do, that we get it wrong, and that we don't care, and that we don't correct mistakes. And if that's true, then I think we've got a serious problem.

>> Reporter: Besides citing the need for greater communication with the public, Boyd says the public's lack of trust is also damaged by the tendency of some journalists to be biased.

>> Gerald: I think that's a problem for us. To the degree we do that and we run the risk again that people will no longer trust us as much. I mean, the fact of the matter is journalism was ass we know it has checks and balances. It has layers. It has a lot of different things in place to make sure that the information that's presented is as fair and balanced and objective as possible, and that's our bread and butter.

>> Gerald: Jason Blair occurred because we thought we were managing one problem and actually, we were dealing with another. We thought we were managing a situation that involved the performance of a young reporter who was green and occasionally erratic but who had enormous talent. That's something that can be managed. What we didn't realize, we were managing someone who didn't share the same values, and who didn't believe in honesty and integrity the way all of us, I'm sure in this room, do. And we didn't realize that until it was too late.

>> Reporter: In the aftermath of the scandal, some critics of the paper cast events in racial overtones, attributing the problem to Affirmative Action. Boyd emphasizes the value of with diversity.

>> Gerald: I think diversity is important for journalism because it makes us relevant. I'm not only talking about diversity of race and subsequent Der and ethnicity, I'm talking about diversity of thought. I think news rooms have to find ways to engage leaders on a serious way, and to be able to be able to make those decisions, they've got to have people around the table who have a variety of experiences and backgrounds in -- and histories, and they've got to create the kind of environment that allows those people to be heard.

>> Reporter: Gerald Boyd joined the "New York Times" in 1983 and was named managing editor in 2001. He won a Pulitzer prize in 1992.

>> Michael: Let's take a look at what's coming up tomorrow night on "Horizon."

>> Reporter: There are 4,000 more people in Arizona prisons than there are dedicated beds and more inmates arrive every week. Now Governor Napolitano wants lawmakers to approve $26 million to ease overcrowding. What do lawmakers think of her proposal? Find out Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

>> Michael: Wednesday, we will have a discussion about the Latino vote, which is being courted by both Republicans and Democrats. 31% of it went to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.

>>> Thursday we'll talk about the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of medical marijuana.

>>> And on Friday, please join us for the Journalists' Roundtable. We'll be talking about what progress, if any, is made in this week's special session of the legislature and undoubtedly other developments in the week's news as well. That's the rest of the week on "Horizon."

>>> Thank you very much for joining us on a Monday evening.

>>> I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

Back to the top