CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKERS: CHRIS WALLACE, HOST

SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NYC MAYOR

[*] WALLACE: I’m Chris Wallace, and this is “Fox News Sunday.”

The alleged 9/11 conspirators get their day in court, a civilian court near Ground Zero. Is the Obama administration plan the best way to serve justice and protect the homeland? We’ll talk with Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York on 9/11, and Democratic Senator Jack Reed .

Then, from the way forward in Afghanistan to the latest on health care, we’ll discuss the GOP’s strategy with Senator Mitch McConnell , the party’s top man in Washington.

Plus, Sarah Palin rolls out her new book, reintroducing herself to America and settling some old scores. Will our Sunday panel care to comment? You betcha.

And our Power Player of the Week, working non-stop to keep us safe from H1N1, all right now on “Fox News Sunday.”

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. The decision by Attorney General Holder on Friday to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged 9/11 conspirators in a New York City civilian court triggered fierce criticism and strong praise.

We’re going to hear both sides of the argument today, starting with former mayor Rudy Giuliani.

And, Mayor, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”

GIULIANI: Nice to be back, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to start with comments that Attorney General Holder made on Friday when he announced his decision. Here they are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York -- to New York -- to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mayor, as a matter of simple justice, isn’t it right to bring these men back to the scene of the crime?

GIULIANI: Why? We generally don’t do that. We generally don’t bring people back to the scene of the crime for justice. The reality -- we didn’t do that in our other wars.

It would seem to me what the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality, the war on terror, from their point of view, is over. We’re no longer going to treat these people as if this was an act of war.

We’re going to go back to the pre-9/11 approach that we had in 1993, trying it as a civilian matter, which turned out to be a terrible mistake. They are repeating the mistake of history.

WALLACE: But your successor, Mayor Bloomberg, disagrees with you on almost every point. He says it is, quote, “fitting” to try these men in downtown New York City. He says that your city has handled big terror trials before, and he says the New York City Police Department can handle the security issues. Is Mayor Bloomberg wrong?

GIULIANI: I don’t agree with him. I mean, the reality is I agree with him the New York City Police Department can handle the security. No question about it. And of course, if the case had to be in New York, we should handle it. It doesn’t have to be.

There are going to be military tribunals for other terrorists. Why wouldn’t you have military tribunals for this terrorist? And of course it’s going to create more security concerns. Just wait and see how much money New York City spends on this in order to protect him.

And finally, we’re kind of granting his wish. His wish was to be brought to New York. It really makes no sense to me to be granting him his wish. He should be tried in a military tribunal. He is a war criminal. This was an act of war.

We made this mistake once before in 1993. We didn’t read the intentions correctly. And then we ended up with three more attacks on American soldiers and the attack of September 11th.

It would seem to me that the Obama administration would read that history and not make this mistake. But of course, this is the administration that told us that there was no war on terror. The only problem is the terrorists seem to believe there is a war on us.

WALLACE: But, Mayor, I want to pick up on this argument that it’s a mistake to treat terrorists as common criminals in a civilian court.

I want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. You said this, “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.”

And after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, you said, “It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of war (sic).” Respectfully, Mayor, you supported civilian trials for terrorists then.

GIULIANI: And if there’s no other alternative, I support civilian trials for terrorists. The reality is there is another alternative here. And this administration has created tribunals. At least five, possibly more, terrorists are going to be tried in those tribunals.

If there was no other choice, again, Chris, I support this. If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you’re giving the -- than you’re giving the public?

WALLACE: But -- but, Mayor...

GIULIANI: And finally...

WALLACE: ... Mayor...

GIULIANI: ... with regard to -- but with regard to 1993, it turns out we were wrong in 1993. That was a mistake. Most experts have come to that conclusion.

WALLACE: Well, what about...

GIULIANI: ... that we missed...

WALLACE: ... 2006 with Zacarias Moussaoui?

GIULIANI: I would have preferred to see him tried in a -- in a military court than a civilian court. If it’s going to be a civilian court, well, then let’s convict him. Let’s do it as well as we can.

But the reality is this gives all the benefits to the terrorist and much less benefits to the public. And finally, we are -- we are doing what he wants us to do.

WALLACE: Mayor...

GIULIANI: He is asking -- he is asking for a trial in New York, and we’re giving it to him. Since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of -- wishes of terrorists?

WALLACE: Mayor, some of these detainees have been held for eight years. KSM -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- has been held for six and a half years.

What about the argument that the Bush administration had these guys for all these years, couldn’t set up military commissions that passed constitutional muster, and at least this president is ending the delay and bringing them to justice?

GIULIANI: Yes, he should end the delay and bring them -- he should bring them to justice in a military court. We spent six or seven years developing a constitutionally permissible military tribunal. He’s satisfied with it. He’s going to use it.

What the heck is he bringing this guy to New York for when he doesn’t have to, other than to give this guy more benefits than he’s entitled to? This seems to be an over concern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public.

WALLACE: Mayor, you know, you keep asking -- and it’s certainly a legitimate question -- why is the president doing this. I’m going to throw it back at you. You talked earlier, I think on Friday, about that this is a choice of process over safety.

Why do you think President Obama and Attorney General Holder have made this decision?

GIULIANI: Well, I think they think that somehow this is going to increase our reputation overseas. I think it’s part of a whole package of the president not seeing the war on terror. After all, he tells us that we can’t use the description war on terror. Problem is the terrorists aren’t listening to him. They’re continuing to make war on us.

He has delayed inordinately in making this decision about the war strategy in Afghanistan when, in fact, he criticized President Bush for not paying enough attention to Afghanistan. The delay there, Chris, is political strategy, not war strategy.

And finally, this whole thing with Major Hasan is another indication that he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get the fact that there is an Islamic war against us. Major Hasan made it easy. He yelled out when he was doing the shooting, “Allah akbar,” and now it turns out that he has business cards with “son of Allah” printed on the business card.

Not so hard to figure out that this was yet another Islamic terrorist attack on American soil, now the second one that we’ve had in the -- in this decade, and we had one in 1993.

WALLACE: Mayor Giuliani, we want to thank you. Thanks so much for coming in today. It’s always good...

GIULIANI: Thank you very much, Chris.

WALLACE: ... always a pleasure to talk with you, sir.

GIULIANI: Always a pleasure to talk to you, too.

WALLACE: Now for the other side of the argument, we’re joined by Democratic senator Jack Reed , a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Army ranger.

And, Senator, welcome back.

REED: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to start where we ended with Mayor Giuliani. Military commissions have been reformed by Congress. Attorney General Holder announced Friday he is going to use them...

REED: Right.

WALLACE: ... as a legitimate legal forum to try five of the other Guantanamo detainees. Why not use them for the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

REED: Well, first of all, these 9/11 conspirators are heinous criminals, terrorists. The damage they’ve done to New York and the nation are significant. And they have to be treated, I think, fairly but with all due process, but with great, I think, sensitivity to the crimes they’ve committed against America.

The attorney general pointed out very clearly that there are several factors -- the location of the incident, the type of victims, the investigative services that are engaged in this process -- and that led him to conclude that the best forum -- and also, I think as a prosecutor -- the best forum to guarantee the success of the prosecution was a federal court, and in this case in New York City.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about a point that Mayor Giuliani made, that the Obama administration is holding these -- his allegation is -- holding these trials in New York in civilian court to make a political statement -- this president is different than the last president, and to say to the world, “We’re different.”

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can’t be a political decision by this administration.

WALLACE: Before we get into some of the specific risks, let me ask you a more fundamental question a lot of people are asking. Why do these men, allegedly enemy combatants who have declared war on the U.S. -- why do they deserve the same constitutional protections as an American citizen?

REED: Well, the court has determined that they deserve some constitutional protection. That was the whole issue in the Hamdan case and other cases by the Supreme Court.

WALLACE: But they could have fewer constitutional protections in a military commission.

REED: They could have if they were tried under military law under the provisions we set up. But they’re also criminals. And I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists -- all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist.

And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That’s not the image we want. These are heinous murderers. WALLACE: But -- but -- but wait a minute. I mean, Mayor Giuliani said, and he’s quite right, when in March of 2003 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was picked up, the first two things he said are, one, “I want a lawyer,” and two, “I want to be taken to New York.”

Aren’t you more granting him his wish by trying him in New York City?

REED: No, I don’t think so, because I think the attack here on September 11th was designed not just to kill innocent Americans, it was to break our spirit. It was to render our system of government fragile and broken.

When the foreman of that jury stands up and delivers the verdict, not empowered by religious fanaticism, by -- but the Constitution, he will know he’s lost.

And I can’t think of a better group of people to judge the guilt or innocence and the punishment for these individuals than people in New York who saw the towers fall.

WALLACE: But here, I think, is the question. There are some obvious downsides to having this trial in a civilian court in New York City. There’s the risk that intelligence information will come out. There’s less protection of that.

In fact, in the 1995 prosecution of the so-called blind sheik, apparently information came out that Osama bin Laden was a co- conspirator and he then left Sudan for Afghanistan.

There’s obviously the danger of a terrorist attack. It’s going to make New York City once again Ground Zero for Al Qaida. There’s the danger of more of a political circus, that they’re going to use this as a platform. There are obvious downsides.

REED: Right.

WALLACE: What’s the upside?

REED: The upside, I think, is you are vindicating this country’s basic values. And it’s not to condone terrorism. But it is to stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents, blind violence directed at those they dislike.

This is an opportunity to show that we’re better than they are, we’re much better than they are.

WALLACE: So it’s basically a political decision. I don’t mean political in the sense of partisan, but it’s more of a political statement by this country than it is a matter of justice, or security, or safety for the...

REED: Well, I...

WALLACE: ... people of New York. REED: ... I think all those factors have been considered. In fact, the Moussaoui case, which took place about two or three miles from here in Alexandria, presented the same problems -- classified information, security. We were able to accomplish that. I think New York can do that also.

The case you referred to in the ‘90s about the blind sheik -- those individuals involved did not seek protective orders or use the system of classification properly. That’s been established.

We’re going to be very conscious, I’m sure -- the attorney general -- about protecting this information. So those factors have been considered. I don’t think the president would have -- or the attorney general -- made a decision which would release classified information or endanger unnecessarily the public.

We -- again, the facts are pretty clear. We’ve done this before. We’ve done this consistently.

WALLACE: We’ve got about 30 seconds left. What if one of these guys gets off?

REED: Well, if -- that is highly unlikely. The evidence is compelling.

WALLACE: But there are no guarantees in a trial.

REED: There are no guarantees, but under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.

WALLACE: But -- and very briefly -- if someone is acquitted and then he’s picked up again...

REED: I...

WALLACE: ... what’s the message that that would send to the rest of the world?

REED: I do not believe they will be released, because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities, we held...

WALLACE: No, no, no. What I’m saying is if he’s acquitted and then picked up again and held...

REED: Well, but you...

WALLACE: ... what’s the message that sends?

REED: ... you presume that he’ll be acquitted and released.

WALLACE: I’m just...

REED: I don’t presume...

WALLACE: ... raising the issue.

REED: ... he’ll be released.

WALLACE: Senator Reed...

REED: Thank you, sir.

WALLACE: ... thank you. always a pleasure. Thanks for coming in.

REED: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, the top Republican in Congress, Senator Mitch McConnell , on health care reform, Afghanistan and more, right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now from Louisville, Kentucky is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell .

And, Senator, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”

MCCONNELL: Good morning, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to ask you one question to button up the conversation we had in the first segment. You have long opposed sending Guantanamo prisoners to this country.

Is there anything that you can do -- is there anything that you will do in the Senate -- to try to block the president and the attorney general’s decision to put these five alleged conspirators on trial in a civilian court in New York?

MCCONNELL: Unfortunately, we had that very vote on the Lieberman- Lindsey Graham amendment just a week ago, and 54 Democrats voted opposed, frankly, having the trials down in Guantanamo. So it looks to me like the administration is going to do this. They seem to be sort of hellbent to do it.

I agree with the family of Daniel Pearl. You know, KSM murdered their son. And they said, “Why in the world would we want to give him the show trial that he desires?”

WALLACE: On a related subject, there’s also a report today that the Obama administration is considering -- it may buy a near-empty prison in rural Illinois to house perhaps dozens of Guantanamo detainees. Is there anything you can do -- is there anything you will do -- to try to stop that?

MCCONNELL: Well, the Senate went on record on that issue a couple of years ago 94-3 against bringing these people to the United States.

I can’t imagine the people of Illinois would like to have these prisoners incarcerated in their state. There may be some local officials who are going to support it, but I expect it will be a huge issue up in Illinois, probably in the U.S. Senate race up there next year.

WALLACE: And is there anything you can do in terms of blocking funding for it? MCCONNELL: Well, we’ll be -- we’ll be looking for ways to do it, and hopefully the Senate and House will speak on this issue.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to health care reform. Senate Democrats are expected to bring a bill to the floor this week. Do you have the 41 votes in the Senate to prevent them from even bringing it to the floor?

MCCONNELL: Well, what we do know for sure, Chris, is this is a bill that cuts Medicare, raises taxes and raises insurance premiums.

We know it’s been in Harry Reid ’s office for six weeks and the other 99 senators have not seen it. I think we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had.

The only way to guarantee that for sure would be to delay the process to allow everyone to fully understand what’s in the bill.

And then if there are 60 senators who want to go to this bill, even though the administration’s own actuary, somebody who works in the administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, has said that it will drive the cost of health care up and that it will hurt seniors -- if they still want to go to it, then we’ll have the debate.

And when we get on the -- on the bill, if we do, there will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks. I mean, the Senate is not the House. You saw in the House three votes and it was over in one day.

Look, we spent four weeks on a farm bill in the last Congress, eight weeks on an energy bill earlier this decade. This will be on the floor for quite a long time. I think it ought to be on the floor at least as long as it’s been in Harry Reid ’s office.

WALLACE: So what are you talking about, because that has been an issue? Do you think that health care reform, even if they have the votes, can and will get through the Senate before the end of this year?

MCCONNELL: The American people are overwhelmingly telling us, “Don’t pass it.” It will be up to whether the Democratic majority wants to listen to the American people or whether they want to pass this anyway just to basically ignore the opinion of the American population and go ahead with this bill.

I think it is yet to be determined, you know, whether there are 60 senators who are going to ignore public opinion and pass a bill that cuts Medicare, raises taxes and raises insurance premiums.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about some of the key issues that are going to come up. And one of them is the Stupak amendment which was passed by the House, which basically will bar the use of federal funds in any way to provide health insurance that would cover abortions.

Do you believe that you will have 41 votes to block that in the Senate?

MCCONNELL: Well, what we do know is that the American people, regardless of how they feel about the abortion issue, don’t think that taxpayer money ought to be used to pay for abortions. And so I think that issue will be hashed out on the Senate floor.

I think it would be very difficult to pass a bill that, in effect, either directly or indirectly provided tax money to pay for abortions.

WALLACE: So let me rephrase, because I kind of messed it up. Are you saying that you believe you have the votes to get the Stupak amendment added, which would further restrict the use of federal funds?

MCCONNELL: Well, we don’t know what will be in the bill that Senator Reid produces. And I’m not going to predict the outcome of this.

What I am going to say once again is that we know where the American public is. They’re overwhelmingly opposed to using tax funds, either directly or indirectly, to pay for abortions. Whether the Senate will reflect American public opinion on that or not, we’ll have to see.

WALLACE: Just as a final wrap-up question on this, you obviously are constantly counting votes. As you look at the various key issues out there, whether it’s tightening abortion restrictions, or fighting the public option, or increasing limits on illegal immigrants being able to have any access to the system, or the funding for it, where do you think is the Republicans’ best chance of derailing, or at least changing, the health care reform bill the Democrats are going to put up?

MCCONNELL: Well, all of those are hot-button issues -- abortion, immigration, whether or not the government’s going to get in the insurance business. All of those are very contentious issues.

But of course, the core of the bill is very contentious as well -- massive cuts in Medicare, huge tax increases on individuals and on businesses, and raising insurance premiums for 85 percent of the Americans who already have health insurance. All of these are at their core very controversial.

Let me tell you what we ought to do, Chris. We ought not to pass a 2,000-page bill. We ought to go step by step, regain the confidence of the American public, deal with the cost issue, and target the problems in our health care system, not scrap it, not have the government take over one-sixth of our economy.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to another subject. The president has been meeting with his war council. He’s had eight meetings over several months considering the way forward in Afghanistan.

Senator, if he decides to give the generals basically what they want, somewhere between 30 and 40,000 troops, will members of your party -- will Republicans support the president’s decision even over the opposition of some members of his own party?

MCCONNELL: I think so. You know, what we’re a little frustrated with -- you know, during the campaign last year, the president said the Iraq war was the bad war and the Afghan war was the good war.

Then he announced in March that he was going to send General Stanley McChrystal, one of the architects of the surge that was so successful in Iraq, to take over in Afghanistan.

We are a little bit perplexed about the length of time it’s taking to make this decision. Even liberal columnists -- for example, David Broder in the Washington Post is saying today, “It’s time to make up your mind, Mr. President. Make a decision.”

Part of being president is you don’t have easy choices. You have a lot of choices you have to make among difficult options. None of them are perfect. We do know this for sure, Chris. We know that by staying on offense in the war on terror we have largely protected America since 9/11.

We know there are a lot of terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know what happened when the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan before. I think the president, as difficult as this decision is, needs to make it, needs to follow the advice of his generals. And if he does, he’ll have overwhelming support among Republican senators.

WALLACE: Let me turn, because I would -- I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t ask you a few political questions, Senator.

Conservatives are now talking about launching primary challenges against candidates who are actually picked by the Senate Republican leadership in a number of states. We have them up on a map there -- in Florida, in Connecticut, in Illinois, in California, and your home state of Kentucky.

In fact, it has gotten so serious that the National Republican Senate Committee has stopped endorsing candidates because it seems that it creates a grassroots backlash.

How concerned are you -- how much of a threat is this split within the GOP to your chances in 2010, the way it kind of messed up things in that upstate congressional district in New York?

MCCONNELL: No threat at all. I mean, what you see here is enormous enthusiasm to run. People believe that getting the Republican nomination means you have a good chance of winning.

And so we’ve got, for example, a four-way primary in Connecticut for our nomination, a state we haven’t been competitive in in a very long time. So our view is this is an indication of the shifting political environment.

We all know the Gallup poll just last week, in response -- asked the American people if the election were held today would you vote for the Republican candidate for Congress or the Democratic candidate for Congress. Our side had a four-point lead. Among independents it had a 22-point lead.

The political landscape, Chris, has shifted dramatically in the last year...

WALLACE: But -- but let...

MCCONNELL: ... since this administration, and that’s...

WALLACE: ... but let me just...

MCCONNELL: ... why all of these -- that’s why all of these people want to run for office.

WALLACE: But let me just briefly ask you about the political landscape within the party, because it now seems that an endorsement by the National Republican Senatorial Committee is a bad thing, not a badge of honor.

MCCONNELL: Well, they generally don’t endorse anyway. So it doesn’t make any difference. I mean, we’re happy that there are a lot of people running, and the reason they’re running is because they think the nomination’s worth having because they think they can win in November.

WALLACE: And finally, I got to ask you about the party’s apparent rock star, Sarah Palin . Do you think that her criticism in her book of the McCain campaign staff is a good or bad thing for her political future? And do you think she has a political future?

MCCONNELL: I’m not going to give Governor Palin any advice. She’s a very popular figure among Republicans and, actually, among the American people in general. She doesn’t need any advice from me about how to go forward politically.

WALLACE: Do you think she has a political future?

MCCONNELL: If she wants one, as big a following as she’s got, you bet she’s got a political future.

WALLACE: I think you’re actually supposed to say “you betcha,” Senator, but that’s close enough.

MCCONNELL: OK.

WALLACE: Senator McConnell, thank you. Thanks for joining us. And we’ll see how things shake out this week on Capitol Hill.

MCCONNELL: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Coming up, our Sunday panel tackles the Obama administration’s plan to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in a New York City courtroom. You won’t want to miss this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: It’s a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL MUKASEY: I can’t see anything good coming out of this. I certainly can’t see anything good coming out of it very quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That’s Attorney General Eric Holder and his predecessor during the Bush years, Michael Mukasey, disagreeing about the best way to bring terrorists to justice.

And it’s time for our Sunday group -- Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and daughter of the former vice president, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

So let’s start with a basic question, Bill. The attorney general has decided that military commissions are now legitimate forums. They’ve been cleaned up and pass constitutional muster. In fact, he’s going to use them for some trials.

Why do you think he decided to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and these four other defendants to New York City?

KRISTOL: I have no idea, because I think it’s just crazy. First of all, did he make the decision or did he president?

WALLACE: Well, the White House says he made it.

KRISTOL: Right. And let’s talk about that for one second. This is a decision with huge national security and foreign policy implications. What are the rationales for the decision as a foreign policy rationale? The world will be impressed to see American justice at work. This isn’t the attorney general’s decision to make. The president needs to take responsibility for this decision. This is a presidential-level decision. The attorney general’s statement says, “Well, these -- I discussed it with the secretary of defense.”

What about the CIA director? Is he comfortable with the kinds of things that could be exposed at this trial as were exposed at the 1995 trial of the blind sheik?

So I don’t know why he did this. I think it is -- I’m told there were bitter debates within the interagency task force that did this. The people -- the prosecutors at the military tribunals are not confident -- are not confident -- that the evidence will hold up to convict in a civilian court.

There are huge problems with this. These guys were not given their Miranda warnings. They were under enhanced interrogation. Everything that happened after that may not be admitted.

Holder says well, I have -- there’s evidence that hasn’t been made public that assures me that he’ll get a conviction. I don’t buy it. I mean, I -- God knows, I hope if they go ahead, they convict them and sentence them to capital punishment, capital -- you know, to the death penalty. But I would -- I would -- I’m very worried that this will not happen.

WALLACE: Mara, when I asked -- talked about all the obvious negative -- the possible downsides with Senator Reed, he -- I said, “What’s the upside?” He said it shows to the world who we are and what American justice is.

Is that what you think is driving the Obama administration in this decision, not a partisan but a political statement to the world, “We’re different,” and especially, “We’re different than the previous administration?”

LIASSON: Well, you know, Eric Holder was asked about this on PBS. He said symbolism was a part of it. He said a lot of factors came into play, but the fact that the American justice system can try terrorists, can convict them -- it’s happened before.

Apparently, 100 percent of terrorism defendants that are tried in New York where the targets were domestic have been convicted.

So I think that the attorney general would not be going forward with this unless he had a high level of confidence that he could get a conviction and that this would be a process that would showcase the American justice system, which can and has tried terrorist suspects successfully in the past.

WALLACE: Liz, what do you worry about most, the security threat to New York, the possible danger that intelligence secrets will be disclosed, the possibility one of these guys will get off, or something else? What’s your biggest concern?

CHENEY: You know, I think it is absolutely unconscionable that we are a nation at war and that the president of the United States simultaneously is denying our troops on the ground in Afghanistan the resources that they need to prevail to win that war while he ushers terrorists onto the homeland.

He’s going to put these terrorists in a courthouse that is six blocks from where over 2,000 Americans were killed on the worst attack in history on the American homeland.

He’s going to give them a public platform where they can spew venom, where they can preach jihad, where they can reach out and recruit other terrorists. And it is totally unnecessary.

When the attorney general says that he’s bringing them to justice, he’s ignoring the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked 11 months ago to be executed for Allah. He asked to plead guilty and be executed. We should have said, “All right, you’ve got it.”

Instead, we’re bringing him and his cohorts to America. We’re giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens. And the attorney general throughout the day on Friday talked about this as a crime.

He said in that same interview Mara is talking about that this will be treated like any other crime.

WALLACE: But what about...

CHENEY: There’s no question but that the Obama administration now has in a completely indefensible way taken us back to a pre-9/11 treatment of terrorism...

WALLACE: But what about the...

CHENEY: ... as a crime.

WALLACE: .. argument that the Bush administration had all of these people for eight years -- they got a total of three convictions in eight years in military commissions.

CHENEY: The Bush administration worked very hard to put together military commissions. The first round of military commissions that they put together, which were based on the precedent of the FDR military commissions -- full constitutional precedent, approved by the Supreme Court in the 1940s -- were rejected by the Supreme Court.

The administration then put together a new set of military commissions approved by Congress, and they have held these guys at Guantanamo now where they are providing -- presenting no threat at all to the United States.

WALLACE: But three convictions in eight years is not much of a record.

CHENEY: You know, but I think that if you ask the family members of these people -- I mean, you saw the family members, for example, of Daniel Pearl. You know, they do not want to see the United States for no -- there’s no legal, no national security, no constitutional reason why we should be giving these people a megaphone from which they can recruit future jihadis, from which they can mock the victims of these attacks, and from which they can really put the U.S. government on trial.

They’ll ask for access to classified information, and they’ll get access to a lot of classified information in the civilian court system.

WALLACE: Juan?

WILLIAMS: Look, I think the delay has been intolerable. I think, in fact, something should have been done with these people one way or the other.

But the Obama administration, actually, is not establishing any broad new format. I mean, they’re bringing these men to trial, and I think if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the rule of law in this country, you would say these people should be brought to trial.

And clearly, Mayor Bloomberg in New York and New York public officials, the legal officials in terms of the people who would prosecute, and the people of the U.S. marshals office have all said they can handle this situation in New York.

What’s key here to my mind is that you would say not to the world but to America that we have the capacity to try these people for crimes committed against Americans in an American court and win a conviction. Apparently, there is no doubt here.

These -- remember, Sheikh Khalid Mohammed has said he not only killed Daniel Pearl but he has taken responsibility for 9/11 before any of the enhanced waterboarding, torture, all that.

CHENEY: Yeah, but you know, the issue is not...

KRISTOL: Wait, wait, wait, let me just say -- let me say a word about that. He didn’t get read his Miranda rights. It’s not clear that those statements can be admitted, Juan. It is just not true that there’s no doubt.

Let’s talk about these cases everyone cites. Moussaoui -- was that -- that trial was a circus, A. B, he was arrested in America. He was arrested in Minnesota in August of 2001. That’s why he’s the 20th hijacker.

The FBI got him before he -- they read him his rights when they arrested him. They had a clean chain of evidence. They have -- this -- where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed arrested? In Pakistan in a pre- dawn raid. He wasn’t read his rights.

It’s going to be...

CHENEY: And the issue’s not...

KRISTOL: It’s going to be very hard -- it’s going to...

CHENEY: ... and the issue...

KRISTOL: ... be very hard -- it’s -- it’s going to be...

CHENEY: But the issue is not just...

KRISTOL: ... very hard to convict these people. Four people were tried. Now, there’s one case more like this, the embassy bombers from 1998. Four of them were arrested, brought to the U.S. They were arrested by the FBI, and so they tried to do, you know, American-style procedure -- brought to the U.S. and tried in New York in 2001. They were convicted.

WILLIAMS: Right.

KRISTOL: The jury refused to give them capital punishment. They’re in jail. That could happen this time.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Wait. Wait.

Juan, go ahead.

You can’t double-team him.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CHENEY: (inaudible)

WILLIAMS: I just want to say in this case what you have here is an opportunity for people to hear the evidence. This is a public case. The military tribunals -- and by the way, overwhelmingly, the people still at Guantanamo are going to still be in military tribunals and commissions, not brought to public trial.

CHENEY: But brought to...

WILLIAMS: The Justice...

CHENEY: ... the U.S. for that.

WILLIAMS: The Justice Department made a decision in this case, and Eric Holder has said he is confident of winning a conviction, Bill.

So he’s made a decision in this case, and what he has said very clearly is that what evidence exists that’s not going to be exempted because of possible non-reading of Miranda rights and the like is sufficient to win that conviction.

WALLACE: Mara, you get the...

CHENEY: But the issue is not...

WALLACE: Wait.

Mara?

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Mara, you get the last word.

CHENEY: You’re double-teaming now.

LIASSON: The only point I want to make about Bill’s -- about the death penalty -- now, Eric holder says that’s what he’s going to ask for. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants the death penalty. There’s an argument to be made why give him what he wants. Why make him into a martyr? Why not lock him up for the rest of his life...

CHENEY: Well, the issue is not...

LIASSON: ... which is exactly what he doesn’t want.

CHENEY: ... getting convictions, though. The issue’s not getting convictions, because we got a conviction in 1993. And after we got that conviction, we were attacked at our embassies in East Africa, the USS Cole was attacked, and we were attacked here on 9/11.

The problem is that when you signal to the world and when you shape your policy so that you’re treating terrorism as law enforcement, the tools are completely insufficient to keep the nation safe.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Wait, let me just -- let me just -- let me just say that I want to now fully welcome Liz Cheney to the panel, because she has learned to run right through the red light just like everybody else here.

We have a step aside for a moment, but when we come back, Sarah Palin releases her new book and politicians in the media are buzzing. What does our panel think? Find out after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1939, President Roosevelt laid down the cornerstone for the Jefferson Memorial. Roosevelt called it the nation’s great shrine in honor of our third president.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: The campaign said, “Right on, good, you’re showing your independence. This is what America needs to see, and it was a good interview.” And of course, I’m thinking, “If you thought that was a good interview, I don’t know what a bad interview was,” because I knew it wasn’t a good interview.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Love her or hate her, you’re about to see a lot more of Sarah Palin when her book hits the stores and she comes to a television screen near you this week. Excuse me.

And we’re back now with the panel.

So the book isn’t even officially out until Tuesday, Bill, and there are already lots of stories, and they primarily focus on her war of words with the McCain campaign staffers, whether she did right by them, whether they did wrong by her.

From what you know, is that fair to the spirit of the book? And did she make a mistake writing about all this campaign internecine war in such juicy detail?

KRISTOL: No, she had to address it. I mean, it would be kind of crazy -- here’s Sarah Palin ’s book, and she’s not going to talk about her two months on -- in a credibly visible and interesting way on the national stage?

I gather the book is pre-campaign, a pretty interesting autobiography. She takes -- she settles some scores on the campaign, which from my point of view is fine, and then she looks ahead in the last chapter, I guess, in terms of her agenda.

I haven’t read the book. Look, she will either -- she’ll do the million interviews, giving speeches over the next year, campaigning for candidates. As Newt Gingrich said today, she’ll either prove herself or she won’t. Her fate is in her hands.

And a lot of people can sit and try to rule her out ahead of time. I’m struck by how many people want to do that. It makes me think that maybe they’re a little scared of her being a very popular Republican, a conservative, but it’s up to her whether she made mistakes.

She didn’t have a -- she said she had a bad interview with Katie Couric. She let herself get mishandled in the campaign in 2008. It’s now up to her to see if she can move ahead.

WALLACE: Mara, I’ve got to tell you that two -- I’m sitting just by my desk here preparing my show very assiduously, and two of the McCain staffers most prominently mentioned in the book -- and there they are.

Steve Schmidt, who immediately called up and said, “Why is the bald guy always the villain,” and Nicolle Wallace both called me and said that the Palin stories are made up and, quote, “total fiction.”

LIASSON: Well, I think what that guarantees is you’re going to have this family feud, the Palin vs. the McCains, going on for quite a while.

And that’s going to be one of the kind of sidelines of this story as she makes her big media debut. And they can fight it out, and I don’t know who’s going to end up getting the better of it. I don’t think it’s going to be good for either of them.

I think the question about Palin’s future -- I think she is -- the fact that she’s interesting, and charismatic, and polarizing and has tremendous popularity among the Republican base guarantees she’s going to have a future as a force in the party, as a media celebrity.

The big question is what about her future as an actual candidate. And what I think about is whether or not she’s willing to do the work that she wasn’t willing to do when she went back to Alaska, which is kind of fill in the gaps, get up to speed on policy and kind of make herself into the full package candidate that you have to be if you’re going to run for president. And I don’t know if that’s going to happen or not.

But even without that, she certainly has got a great career ahead of her.

WALLACE: Liz, you know, let me follow up on that, and put yourself, if you will, in the position of political adviser to Sarah Palin .

If she wanted to take advantage of all the attention she’s going to get -- she’s going to -- I mean, it’s not just the book. She’s going to be on “Oprah” tomorrow. She’s going to be on Barbara Walters all week. She’s going to be on Fox a bunch of times.

Should she try to pivot off this “who struck John during the campaign” and talk about other things?

CHENEY: You know, I actually don’t think she’s stuck on that. I’ve actually read parts of the book, and it’s a good book. It’s a good read. It’s well written. She comes across, you know, as very likable, as somebody with a lot of common sense. When she does make criticism, I have to say she does it with a pretty deft touch, and the book is moving in some parts. She talks about what it was like to meet mothers and other children with Down syndrome on the campaign trail.

So you know, it’s clearly -- it reads like it was written by somebody who’s got their future in mind. And you know, I think that the media likes to focus on, you know, sort of who shot John and who’s up and who’s down.

In terms of 2012, whatever Republican takes the mantle of our party in 2012, you know, they’re going to have to be able to address these incredibly grave challenges we’re facing as a nation.

They’re going to -- in my view, they’re -- they will have to undo a lot of the damage, some of which we talked about in the last segment, that this president has done to our national security, to our economy, to our health care system, to our standing around the world.

And the person who is going to be able to sort of put forward the kind of leadership and courageous policy proposals that will attract Republicans as well as independents -- and I think by 2012 you’ll have a number of moderate Democrats who are also looking for a way out...

WALLACE: Let me ask a...

CHENEY: ... I think that person will...

WALLACE: ... Let me ask a simple question before I go to Juan. Do you take...

CHENEY: ... will prevail.

WALLACE: ... Sarah Palin seriously as a potential presidential candidate?

CHENEY: Absolutely.

WALLACE: Because?

CHENEY: You know, look. I think that she will have to go through the exact same process as anybody else, but you know, she was our vice presidential nominee in 2008, and I think that it would be nothing short of sexist to say that simply, you know, she -- she’s not a serious candidate.

Once you’ve been the vice presidential nominee, you are a serious candidate. Now, she has to prove herself like everybody else has to prove themselves.

WALLACE: Juan?

WILLIAMS: Well, Bill Kristol is in love with her, so I’ll excuse his comments this morning.

But you? Why would you say that she’s a serious candidate for president?

CHENEY: Juan, she was the...

WILLIAMS: Look, she has...

CHENEY: ... she was...

WILLIAMS: ... she has -- look.

CHENEY: I think she’s a contender, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Let us -- let us look...

CHENEY: And I think she’s got to...

WILLIAMS: ... at the record here.

CHENEY: ... prove herself like everybody else.

WILLIAMS: Let’s look at the record here. The woman resigned -- resigned -- from being governor of Alaska, a responsible position, with no reason.

Secondly, she’s the one who’s been talking about things like death panels.

Even if you are a die-hard conservative, she essentially gave the Democrats the 23rd congressional district of New York when she hijacked the nomination from the person that the Republicans had nominated and gave it to this true-blue -- true-red conservative, I should say. And what did it do? It imploded.

There is -- I mean, this is someone who is centered on herself. She apparently doesn’t even know what’s going on with her family. She says in these interviews that the kids don’t know...

CHENEY: Do you know her well? Do you know her well?

WILLIAMS: I don’t know her well. I’m just saying this is the record. This is the records of interviews. You say judge her ahead of time, Bill. It’s incredible to me. This is a windfall for Barack Obama in 2012...

WALLACE: OK.

WILLIAMS: ... if anybody would suggest...

WALLACE: All right. I...

WILLIAMS: ... Sarah Palin should be the Republican nominee.

WALLACE: Nobody’s going to get to respond to that comment, because we are going to switch to another subject. We’ve got less than two minutes left.

The Internet is abuzz today with this picture. Take a look. It is a picture of the president of the United States bowing to the emperor of Japan during his trip to Asia. By way of comparison, when Vice President Cheney met the emperor in 2007, no bow.

Bill Kristol, what do you make of “bow-gate?”

KRISTOL: Sarah Palin would not have bowed to the emperor of Japan.

(LAUGHTER)

She wouldn’t even have curtsied to him, you know? Nor would she have an attorney general who is taking the extremely risky move of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York. Oh, I don’t know. I mean, it...

CHENEY: You could also look at the comparison and think Cheney 2012.

KRISTOL: Yeah.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: How far do you want to go with that...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: Cheney-Palin. Anyway...

WALLACE: Or Palin-Cheney. Don’t be sexist.

KRISTOL: I met the emperor when I was Vice President Quayle’s chief of staff. We went over just after he was...

WALLACE: Did you bow?

KRISTOL: No. And the vice president didn’t. And we weren’t told by the embassy to. And I bet if you look at pictures of world leaders over 20 years meeting the emperor in Japan, they don’t bow.

I don’t know why President Obama thought that was appropriate. Maybe he thought it would play well in Japan. But it’s not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one.

WALLACE: Mara?

LIASSON: Yeah, I think it’s not that significant either way. He was obviously showing his respect to a foreign leader. I don’t think he was showing his allegiance to the emperor of Japan.

WALLACE: Well, that’s a good thing to clear up. Thank you all, panel. See you next week.

And don’t forget to check out the latest edition of “Panel Plus” where our group here continues the discussion shortly after the show ends on our website, foxnewssunday.com. Time now for a comment that you posted to our blog, “Wallace Watch,” that reflected the thoughts of many about last week’s tragedy at Fort Hood.

Fonda Parker writes, “I believe that the murderer was not fully investigated. People are so afraid to say anything about anyone. The government can cover itself all it wants, but the average American knows that we are ruining ourselves with political correctness.”

Please keep your comments coming to foxnewssunday.com. Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: The H1N1 scare is just the latest in a long line of health emergencies that have confronted our country. And for decades one man has led his team working almost non-stop to protect us. He’s our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FAUCI: We get confronted with various challenges through the years -- HIV/AIDS, SARS, West Nile, regular influenza and now pandemic influenzas.

WALLACE: For a quarter century, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, which means since 1984 he’s led government research into vaccines and other treatment of some of our worst illnesses.

How have you stayed in such a high-visibility job for a quarter century?

FAUCI: If you just stick with the science, don’t get involved in any political things, no ideology, just stick with the science -- the science is true and the science is knowledge.

WALLACE: These days Fauci is focused on swine flu and those long lines waiting for the vaccine. The government projected by now there would be 200 million doses, but so far there are only 40 million.

The main problem was just making the stuff?

FAUCI: That was the problem, not the main problem. It was the problem.

WALLACE: Fauci says it turned out growing this strain of vaccine took longer than expected. But he adds while H1N1 spreads easily, it turns out to be mild to moderate as flus go. And he says doctors and patients should have no more fears about this vaccine than any flu shot.

FAUCI: I think the idea of being afraid of getting vaccinated is probably kind of a knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t necessarily look at the scientific facts.

WALLACE: If H1N1 is Fauci’s latest battle, it’s not his biggest one.

Fair to say that AIDS has been your fight of career?

FAUCI: There’s no doubt about it.

WALLACE: He said almost from the moment gay men started getting the disease in 1981, he devoted his life to fighting it. Back then AIDS activists thought he was part of the problem.

You were public enemy number one.

FAUCI: Well, I was public enemy number one because I was the face of the federal government.

WALLACE: But over the years, Fauci’s pioneering work on the immune system helped develop drugs to fight a disease that was once 100 percent fatal.

FAUCI: Now a person comes into my clinic. If that’s a 20-year- old person who was just HIV-infected and I began treatment, I could predict that person would live to at least 69, 70 years old.

WALLACE: Tony Fauci started at the National Institutes of Health in 1968.

FAUCI: I wanted something that was clear, no ambiguity about infectious disease. They come in, they make you very sick or they kill you, or you do something and you make somebody better.

WALLACE: In the last 41 years, his work ethic has become legendary.

People say, “Infamous workaholic. Never takes a vacation. Never even considers retirement.” How do you plead?

FAUCI: Guilty. Totally. Totally guilty.

WALLACE: And even now at age 68, he has no interest in slowing down.

FAUCI: We have the AIDS challenge. There’s malaria. There’s tuberculosis. And I want to get us out of this H1N1 pandemic situation. So we’ve got a lot of things we need to do. So that’s the future that I’m looking at.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: If you want practical advice about the H1N1 virus, who should get the vaccine, how do you know if you have swine flu, you can see a special segment of our interview with Dr. Fauci at foxnewssunday.com.

And that’s it for today. Have a great week and we’ll see you next “Fox News Sunday.”