THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RELMAN, ATTORNEY: Pure and simple, this is a case of discrimination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Was it discrimination or did an American Airlines pilot have good reason to boot an Arab-American Secret Service agent? Plus, a heated debate over new ads that take on the Catholic church's policy on condoms.
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE, John Relman, attorney for the ejected Secret Service agent and former agent Chuck Vance, president of Vance International. And later, Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and in New York, William Donohue, president of the Catholic league.
PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
As you know at airports today, security is tight. So tight, a lot of people are getting extra scrutiny, but when one of President Bush's personal Secret Service agents by the name of Wahlid Shater (ph) got bounced off a plane last week, it created quite a stir.
American Airlines said he was booted because his paperwork was not in order. And besides, he appeared to be carrying a book that was believed to be written in Arabic. But his attorneys charge discrimination, insisting he was ejected only because he was Arab- American and that the book, in fact, was a history of the Middle East written in English.
Is this a case of racial discrimination? Have the airlines gone too far? Or are they just doing their job? We'll debate it. And then you might see a billboard like this one popping up in your neighborhood, condemning Catholic bishops for opposing the use of condoms. Fair play or Catholic bashing? That's next. But first, a Secret Service agent flunks airport security.
Tucker?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Mr. Relman, here's the story, as I understand it. A man with a loaded gun boards an airplane. His papers are not in order. He admits they're not in order. He's asked to clarify them. He becomes belligerent and angry, He gets tossed off the plane. It makes total sense. I don't see a hint of discrimination in that. Where's the discrimination?
JOHN RELMAN, ATTORNEY FOR EJECTED SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well that's American Airlines story, but it's actually not accurate at all. What happened was that there was nothing out of order with his papers. And he was not belligerent.
The only facts that are relevant here are whether American Airlines made a legitimate good faith effort to verify that he was a Secret Service agent, as he claimed to be. He was on his way to protect the President.
If that is the case, they need go no further. He gave them the numbers. He was prepared to cooperate in any way for them to call and verify who he was. The pilot refused to do it and he never made any good faith effort to do that.
In fact, the American Airlines statement that came out today says as much, that he said well, the number could have been a phony one. It could have been a fake one.
CARLSON: This good faith effort, well, let me ask you this. Now you haven't used his name on television. His name is Wahlid Shater (ph), apparently. You treat him like he's in the witness protection program. And my understanding is you acted that way because of fears for his safety concerns, that somehow safety will be jeopardized if we know his name.
And yet, you appear to have no understanding of the position of the pilot, who's in charge of this entire plane. A guy gets on with a loaded gun, gets mad, and all of a sudden, your position is that he didn't try hard enough to verify this guy's a Secret Service agent?
RELMAN: Well, first, let's say it. I mean, he didn't get mad. And second of all, the agent had requested that his name not be used. And we're respecting that request. But the fact of the matter is, the procedure is he shows his identification.
It's a badge. It's a photo ID. It's not something that can easily be faked. I think Chuck will address that. Again the only question is, we don't object to him being asked further questions. If they want to ask further questions, if they want to try and verify that he is who he says he is, that's perfectly appropriate. Let them do that. The point is he was there.
CARLSON: Well, quickly...
RELMAN: He gave numbers, but they didn't do it.
CARLSON: ...your position is American Airlines is lying about him being angry? That's what you seem to be saying?
RELMAN: That's correct. We say that our agent has said he was not angry. He did not act in any way that should have indicated there was a problem with him getting on the plane. He was not unprofessional in anyway.
PRESS: Chuck Vance, President Bush himself, because this is one of his agents, was asked last Friday actually his opinion on this case. Just had a quick statement on that. I'd like you to listen to please, if you will.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's an inquiry going on specifically what took place, but if he was treated that way because of his ethnicity, that's -- that will make me madder than heck.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: Now I'd like to suggest to you why the President should be madder than heck. Mr. Relman just said he's a Secret Service agent. He's assigned to the President. In fact today, he was on his way to Crawford, Texas. Today, he was on duty in Crawford, Texas, guarding the President.
He had his badge. He had his credentials. He was carrying a gun. He had a government-issued ticket. There were three different law enforcement officials at the airport who checked his papers and verified that he was, in fact, a Secret Service agent, who he said he was. And yet the pilot, also the pilot was offered a Secret Service number or the White House number, refused to call.
Now wouldn't you have to say that maybe with the best of intentions, this pilot made a mistake? And American Airlines ought to just admit it and then it'd be all over?
CHUCK VANCE, FMR. SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well, Bill, let me go on record real quick to say having been a Secret Service agent for 14 years, I certainly respect and admire the agent. And I know what it's like on Christmas Eve Day to go down to a place like Crawford, Texas.
On the other hand, we have to realize the circumstances here. We have -- you know, we lost two American Airlines jumbo jets September 11. We've had also had high alerts put out by the FBI and the Justice Department. We've got a man who has a set of credentials. And I'll disagree with John on that, is that I've seen Secret Service credentials. I've worked cases myself, that have been counterfeited. And there have, in fact, been federal agents or alleged federal agents who have gotten on board aircraft with false credentials and guns.
So consequently, that pilot was put in position to make a determination at that point. And not that I necessarily agree with him, but I think he had was justified somewhat in making it.
PRESS: Chuck, let me tell you something. (202) 456-1414, OK? It's the White House number.
VANCE: Right. PRESS: I mean, it's not hard to get. Why didn't he call the White House? Why didn't he call the number given him by the agent to say, is this one of your agents? And it's over with?
VANCE: OK. My answer is because he's not a security expert. He's a pilot. He's worried about getting that plane off the ground. He's worried about getting the passengers on. And he shouldn't be the one that makes the determination of whether or not that guy is valid or not valid.
RELMAN: And that's exactly the point. That's precisely the point of what this is all about. When you have untrained pilots, who are given unfettered discretion, you get what we saw this past week, which is Richard Reid walks on a plane, wires coming out of his sneakers. He's paying with cash. He has a newly minted passport, the whole works.
American Airlines defends the pilot's decision to keep him on the plane. On the other hand, they keep a Secret Service agent off the plane and they defend that as well.
VANCE: That's totally false.
RELMAN: And that's what happened...
(CROSS TALK)
CARLSON: Actually, Richard Reid was stopped in Paris, as you know, and kept off the plane, made to spend the night in Paris because of concerns...
PRESS: But he got on the plane the next day.
CARLSON: That's exactly right, but that's exactly my point. Your client was kept off a plane. He wasn't thrown in prison. You're claiming that his civil rights were violated here. The guy tries to gets on a plane with a loaded gun and his papers aren't in order, and he's not again, incarcerated, but just asked to get off the plane. How were his civil rights violated?
RELMAN: That's not true. If American Airlines could demonstrate why they didn't make the call to verify, that's all they had to do. This is not Richard Reid. All you need to get is one supervisor who says he is a Secret Service of the President. And you know what? I'd be happy to have him fly. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: As you know, Mr. Relman, they've already answered that question in, I think, in a satisfactory way. They've said how do we know? He could provide the phone number of his brother-in-law or some fellow terrorist?
RELMAN: All...
CARLSON: My question to you is, hold on, American Airlines has come out with I think a pretty cogent story. You don't believe it, but it's still a story for why they kept him off the plane. No signature no phone number, they didn't know the Secret Service number. You have not provided a countervailing story for why this discrimination. There's no evidence.
RELMAN: The countervailing story, Tucker, is -- and you're just wrong about that because the countervailing story is that the discrepancy they talk about in the papers is that when he was moved from the first plane, which was mechanical failure to the second plane, the American Airlines agent crossed out the flight number because there are no new forms available at the gate, writes them in.
She was there, she was available, she could have provided the explanation. But instead, the pilot somehow uses that as an excuse after the fact to say this is why I didn't call the number. It all doesn't matter. If he is who he says he is, chuck would agree, everybody would agree, we want him on the plane. You know, this is like having an extra air marshall on the plane.
CARLSON: Sure, who he said he was. He had a loaded gun.
VANCE: The fact of the matter is that how do you determine? There needs to be a better system of determining that the man is an agent. If you've got a guy in these circumstances, coming on an aircraft with an gun.
Now when you talk about discrimination, I'm not sure you've got it, because how many other people were on that plane with guns that they didn't kick off?
RELMAN: But Chuck, here's why you've got it. You've got it because there's no other explanation why he doesn't call. He has a feeling about this guy. He sees him, he's Arabic-American.
Then a report comes from a flight attendant who rifled his possessions, found some books. She says it's Arabic material. And suddenly now, this is the reason why they say they're keeping him off the plane.
In fact, that's false. It was a book in English. It was a standard college text in English about Middle Eastern history. This is hysteria we are dealing with.
(CROSS TALK)
VANCE: We're dealing with hysteria, and that's exactly correct.
PRESS: Thank you. We are dealing with hysteria. And that's my point as well. So Chuck, you'd have to say, I mean from what -- I think you would agree, that whether the pilot acted rightly or wrongly, this is clearly a case of racial discrimination?
VANCE: Well no, I would agree that it's a case of racial discrimination. My point was, how many other people that were coming on board with a gun did they eject from the aircraft? There was only one man. And he just happened to be an Arab-American.
PRESS: Well, I don't know how many of those had guns, but let me ask you this.
(CROSS TALK)
VANCE: There was nobody else on that plane.
PRESS: Put it this way, if this guy were an Anglo agent named John Smith, he would have been in Crawford, Texas. He would've been on that plane. And you know that's true.
VANCE: You know what I think, Bill? I think these pilots, and I've seen it before because I've seen it in my experience, they're very concerned about anybody going on those aircraft with a gun. So they'll look. And particularly in these circumstances, they'll look for a reason.
(CROSS TALK)
CARLSON: Now (UNINTELLIGIBLE), just the moment we have left here. I sense a payoff here. You've said that you're not going to be asking for monetary damages. You're not seeking any money. I expect that's subject to change. Will you pledge here that you're not going to take money from American Airlines for the supposed civil rights violation?
RELMAN: We represent our client. Our client has said that if there were money in a settlement, that it would go to the victims.
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or not?
RELMAN: Right now, there's no lawsuit. Right now, we're trying to engage...
CARLSON: Are you planning to ask for money in a lawsuit is the question?
RELMAN: What we want from American Airlines is we want American Airlines to implement procedures and policies and training for these pilots because there's...
CARLSON: Do you want money is my simple question. Are you going to ask for money?
RELMAN: The answer is no, we are not going to ask for money. We are asking American Airlines to changes the procedures and policies or to implement new procedures and policies, so that these pilots don't go untrained. Because you know, any kind of profiling like this is bad security. It's bad security because you overlook people who should be examined. And you focus only on certain types of people.
CARLSON: Mr. Relman, Mr. Vance, thank you both very much for joining us. We appreciate it. |
