[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 31, Number 18 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Pages 762-767]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Angie Cannon of Knight Ridder

May 4, 1995

    The President. Hello.
    Ms. Cannon. Good morning, Mr. President.
    The President. Good morning. How are you?
    Ms. Cannon. Good, how are you doing?
    The President. Great.
    Ms. Montgomery. Good morning, Mr. President. My name is Laurie 
Montgomery. I'm a reporter with the Detroit Free Press. And I'm going to 
be asking you most of the questions this morning. I have some that I 
think are real important to Michigan right now. Could I go ahead?
    The President. Sure, have at it.
    Ms. Montgomery. All right. I've got three related to the Oklahoma 
City tragedy, and one about trade talks with Japan. And then we've got a 
few other ones if there's time.
    The President. Okay.

Militia Groups

    Ms. Montgomery. So, first, in the wake of the bombing, you've 
proposed to expand the FBI's power to investigate terrorist, groups by 
using standards that determine when a group or individual becomes an 
appropriate target for surveillance. Tomorrow you're heading to 
Michigan, home of the Michigan Militia. I was wondering how dangerous 
you consider the militia movement. And from what you know now, does it 
currently present an appropriate target for FBI surveillance?
    The President. Well, first of all, I think it's important not to 
generalize. I think it's important not to generalize. We need to look at 
the facts of each one. But let me tell you, when I was the Governor of 
my State, as you know, for 12 years before I became President, and in 
the early eighties, we had the first wave of these groups coming to 
Arkansas. And I will give you three examples of what happened, where I 
judged each on the facts.
    First, we had the tax resistor, Gordon Calder, who killed two people 
in North Dakota and wounded three others and took the position that he 
had a right to live in this country and not pay taxes. And he killed the 
sheriff, who was a very good friend of mine in Arkansas when they tried 
to arrest him. He presented a threat to the United States. And he--of 
course, he was subsequently killed there in a shoot-out.

[[Page 763]]

    Secondly--let me just lay the predicate here--secondly, we had a man 
that expressed these same views but took the law into his own hands, 
named Snell, who killed a State trooper who was black and killed a 
pawnshop owner that he thought was Jewish. He was executed in Arkansas a 
few days ago. But he was arrested and convicted and sentenced to death 
when I was Governor. He presented a threat by his conduct. He took his 
words into action.
    Then we had a group of about 200 people that occupied an armed 
compound in North Arkansas, and they had two people who were wanted for 
murder. There were murder warrants out on them. And they refused to give 
them up, but we basically had a coordinated effort, and we in effect 
declared--we had an embargo, or we cordoned off their area, a blockade, 
and eventually the women and children came out, and eventually the men 
gave up. Those that were subject to indictment were treated 
appropriately; the others went right on with their lives. So they 
handled it in the appropriate way.
    So this country allows people broader personal freedoms than almost 
any democracy in the world, particularly with regard to the right to 
keep and bear arms.
    Ms. Montgomery. And I guess my question is, absent the sort of 
action that you described, murdering a sheriff----
    The President. It depends on--but here's the deal. The FBI needs to 
be in a position without abusing people's freedoms to try to prevent 
things like Oklahoma City from happening.
    Ms. Montgomery. And should they do that by beginning surveillances 
of some of the religious groups?
    The President. We have to be able to gather intelligence from people 
if we have reason to believe that they are threatening to use violence. 
That's the issue. The question is, is there reason to believe that these 
people are likely, that any groups are likely to use violence. And I 
think what our bill does is to give the FBI the means in a high-tech 
world with a lot of high-tech criminals to use high technology within 
appropriate safeguards to try to prevent the Oklahoma Cities, to try to 
prevent these things from happening in the first place.
    Ms. Montgomery. And I guess what I'm asking is, from what you know 
now, would some of these militias currently present an appropriate 
target for the use of that sort of surveillance?
    The President. From what I know now, the FBI would have to consider 
that based on the rhetoric and the conduct and make a judgment based on 
the facts of each group. I don't want to jump the gun here. I think it's 
important--what I'm asking for is to give us the tools we need to combat 
terrorism.
    I know--for example, if you look at Israel, for all the terrible 
incidents they have endured, well over half of the planned terrorist 
incidents in Israel never occur because they have the capacity to defang 
them. We have endured this awful bombing in Oklahoma City and the World 
Trade Center bombing, which came from a group outside this country that 
infiltrated here. We also--our Federal authorities have been successful 
in heading off at least two other incidents of terrorism that we know 
about that they were able to stop from occurring.
    We just believe--I cannot tell you how strongly I believe that this 
is the major threat to the security of Americans looking toward the 21st 
century, that the fundamental problem--it's not just in America. It's 
the same thing with that group of religious fanatics where the guy broke 
the vial of saran gas in the Japanese subway. It's exactly the same 
thing. The things which will make life exciting for all of our young 
college graduates--high technology society, free flow of people, goods, 
technology, and information, a highly open world society--make people 
very, very vulnerable to the forces of organized evil.
    Ms. Montgomery. I guess I'm asking, you know, just in case there are 
any Michigan Militia members in the audience in Spartan Stadium 
tomorrow, you know, do you think that they are----
    The President. Well, that's not my--I'm not going to make that 
judgment. I'm not the person to make that judgment. What I believe is 
the FBI, if they have reason to be concerned about it, should have the 
ability to look into any group where they think there is a likelihood 
that they might break the law in a violent way against citizens of the 
United States. That's what I believe.

[[Page 764]]

    Ms. Montgomery. You've been pretty tough specifically on some of 
these militia groups. What do you think motivates them?
    The President. Well, I think a lot of them have had experiences in 
their life which profoundly alienate them from the American Government. 
And I would remind you that suspicion of Government and the desire to 
limit Government power is at the core of what created the United States 
in the first place. The whole Constitution is written to limit the power 
of Government. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the Federal 
Government to move against individuals. The separation of powers limits 
the power of any branch of Government. They check each other, the 
executive, legislation, and judicial. The division of authority between 
the Federal and the State and local governments limits the power of 
government in that way.
    Our whole system was set up basically to try to guard against the 
abuses of Government power which the original Americans have lived 
under, under monarchies. And we know that there--that we have--from time 
to time, Governments make mistakes. And our Government, not only at the 
Federal level, but State government and local government, does 
occasionally abuse its authority. We know that. People are people 
everywhere. And people in Government authority make mistakes. Every one 
of us, including the President, can cite an example where he or she 
believes the Government oversteps its bounds, from something as innocent 
as being rude to a citizen in a Social Security line, or who's trying to 
get information about taxes, or trying to deal with an EPA regulation, 
to something as terrible as an unjustified arrest or an unjustified 
prosecution. Everybody can cite an example. There are no perfect people 
in the world.
    But we have a Constitution and a system that gives people the right 
of redress. And what I think about those folks is, I don't know what at 
all their life experiences have been; I know that in our country they 
have more freedom to speak, to organize, and to bear arms, and 
especially to bear arms, than they would have in virtually any other 
democracy on the face of the Earth.
    So I would say to them, that you have these freedoms. And if you 
don't like the way things are going, you can participate in elections. 
You can call in on talk shows. You can be part of forums. You can file 
lawsuits. You can do all kinds of things that are perfectly legal. You 
also have the right in our country to go meet on the weekend and talk 
about your feelings and express your feelings and do target practice and 
all these other things. But you do not have the right to break the law. 
And you certainly do not have the right to commit violence. There is a 
line over which people shouldn't step, and we have to draw the line 
clear and bright.
    Ms. Montgomery. Do you have the right to say you're willing to use 
violence if you feel threatened by your Government?
    The President. What I think is you have a right--there's all kinds 
of free speech rights. All they have to do is--you know, the Supreme 
Court has outlined the parameters of free speech. And the line, 
basically, in threatening other people is like the guy that cries fire 
in the crowded theater. That's the classic example. So what I think is 
that the closer you come to advocating violence, the more, at least, our 
law enforcement officials have to have the ability to at least look into 
whether they believe an incident is about to occur and whether they can 
head it off. I think the American people are entitled to that amount of 
protection.
    Ms. Montgomery. Your discussion of the Constitution sort of goes to 
the heart of what these really extreme versions of these militia groups 
would say is what they're afraid of, that the Federal Government is not 
adhering to the Constitution. And that's the paranoid extreme. What I 
want to ask you about is that you can make the argument that that is a 
very extreme version of some fairly popular views.
    You know, we've seen since the bombing that there are thousands of 
ordinary people who are just stunningly distrustful of their Government, 
who don't pay taxes and reject driver's licenses. Even when Malcolm X's 
daughter was charged, a lot of people said, ``Oh, that's the FBI just 
coming after us, making things up.'' Do you think Americans are more 
suspicious of their Government than they should be? Why, and what do you 
think, if anything, you can do about it?

[[Page 765]]

    The President. Well, first of all let me say again, our country was 
founded on suspicion of government. But our country was founded on the 
belief that you could have a decent Government, and that societies have 
to have Government to do certain limited functions that will not be done 
in other ways. And over 200 years, we have defined and redefined over 
and over again what those powers were.
    In times of great national duress, the Government has taken powers 
to itself that we would never tolerate in ordinary times. Look at what 
Abraham Lincoln did, for example, during the Civil War just to try to 
hold the country together. So, that has ebbed and flowed. We all, all of 
us as Americans, part of your birthright as an American is to have a 
healthy suspicion of the Government.
    Ms. Montgomery. So you don't think it's particularly strong right 
now or----
    The President. No, no, I do. I think it is stronger now. We're going 
through a period now when it is much stronger among certain groups than 
it has historically been. Sometimes it's because of their personal 
experience; sometimes it's because the anti-government voices are louder 
and better organized. But the point--and my own view is that the 
suspicion of the Government prevents people from making good--if it's 
blanket and if it's extreme, it keeps you from making good judgments 
about whether particular actions are right or wrong and keeps us from 
seeing what our challenges are and which challenges we have to meet 
through Government and which challenges we have to meet as private 
citizens.
    But that is not the important thing. My view of that is irrelevant. 
The First Amendment gives people the right to say what they want to say, 
to believe what they want to believe, and to organize. But there is a 
bright, clear line against violation of the law and taking force and 
violence into your own hands. That is the bright, clear line.
    Ms. Montgomery. Sure. I was talking on more of a philosophical 
level, actually, in the sense that, you know----
    The President. What I think we ought to do about that is, yes, I 
think that the sort of generic anti-government feelings are keeping 
people from evaluating whether specific--whether it's my administration 
or the Congress or a particular bill pending, if you have a generally 
negative view of what is a very great country that is doing very well 
today compared to what other countries are doing, but which has some 
serious challenges which have to be met, some of which require 
Government response and some of which don't, it's hard to think about 
those things with a clear head if you're negative almost to the point of 
being paranoid, if you don't believe anything good can ever happen.
    You know, if it's like--but that is not what I am concerned with 
now. I mean, I worry about that, and I think what I'd like to see is a 
sort of a discussion about that. One of the things I think in the wake 
of the American people's wonderful concern for the victims in Oklahoma, 
and they're seeing these Federal employees there and their children who 
were killed as real citizens, as people, as the people with whom they go 
to church and go to the ball park and eat lunch at the civic club once a 
week with, and do all those things--I think it would be a good thing. 
And this is something that could occur basically on the radio shows all 
over the country, where people are invited to call in.
    We ought to ask ourselves, you know, to think of something--what do 
they do that is right; what do they do that is good; what matters that 
is a positive force; what do we think ought to be changed? In other 
words, we ought to have a balanced debate here, and it ought to be a 
grassroots debate. And my sense is that there's a lot of energy out 
there in our people for this kind of conversation, and we need to give 
it outlets.
    Ms. Montgomery. Is there anything more you can do to encourage that, 
to help people feel more comfortable?
    The President. Well, I intend to do--I'm going to continue to try to 
talk about these things and talk about it more and encourage others to 
do that as well.

Freedom of Speech

    Ms. Cannon. So, in other words, Mr. President, what you're 
suggesting is, instead of some of the talk radio shows being purveyors 
of paranoia or just constant sneering, just sort of----

[[Page 766]]

    The President. Now, those are your words, not mine.
    Ms. Cannon. Okay. [Laughter]
    The President. --[inaudible]--always try to get into a discussion 
that I don't want to have instead of the one I do want to have.
    Ms. Cannon. No, but I mean to try to turn the content of those shows 
over into something a little bit more constructive.
    The President. Well, let me say this. This is a general observation. 
I think, insofar as talk radio is giving our country a sort of a set of 
town hall meetings that are constant and giving even people who are too 
shy ever to have their pictures on television the opportunity to call in 
and express their views and engage in a conversation, I think that's a 
very positive thing in the country. And I don't think it matters whether 
the talk radio shows or the talk shows are themselves conservative or 
liberal or what else, wherever they exist.
    What I'm suggesting, though, is that we ought to use these forums 
now to try to reopen this conversation to really talk this things 
through. Now, I think some speech is wrong. I cannot defend some of the 
things that Gordon Liddy has said. I cannot defend some of the things 
some of these more extreme talk show hosts have said, even more extreme 
than that in these little short-wave programs that plainly are 
encouraging violence. I think that people should just speak out against 
that.
    But what I would like to see is more of the people who consider 
themselves moderate to liberal calling the conservative talk shows and 
people who consider themselves conservatives calling the liberal talk 
shows. And I think the American people--we forget that we are strongest 
when we are united and that 90 percent of the times, our differences are 
nowhere near as important as the things which bring us together. And we 
forget that we have challenges today that are profound and that provoke 
a lot of anxiety in our country. You know, more than half our people are 
working harder for lower wages than they were making 15 years ago. I 
understand that. I'm doing my best to do something about it.
    But instead of having this sort of undifferentiated anxiety and 
lashing out, what we need to be talking about is, every generation of 
Americans have had their own set of challenges and problems. We are no 
different from any other. There is no reason to believe, if you go back 
through all of human history, that there will ever be a time without 
problems. And this is the set of problems we face today. We have a lot 
of problems. But we also have vast opportunities. And if you look at 
where our country is, compared with so many others in the world, most of 
us would not trade places with people in any other country in the world. 
I know I wouldn't, and I wouldn't want my child to be growing up in any 
other country besides America now, and I think most people feel that 
way.
    So, I'm hoping that we can draw the lines of things that we think 
are unacceptable that are just purely fostering hatred, division and 
encouraging violence and still have a conversation with differences of 
opinion. I think--and I also would tell you that my job as President is 
not to try to silence people with whom I disagree, no matter how 
bitterly I disagree. My job is to try to see that the Constitution is 
protected, and that the laws are upheld, that the American people are 
safe and secure to lead whatever lives they want to lead, to do whatever 
they want to do, and to express whatever political views they have.
    Director of Media Affairs Lorrie McHugh. Angie, Laurie, we have to 
wrap this up.

Trade With Japan

    Ms. Montgomery. Okay, one last question. Speaking of trading places, 
a question about the trade talks this week with Japan: There have been 
some reports of disagreement within your administration about taking 
firm action against Japan. Are you personally committed to proposing 
formal sanctions if the Japanese do not make sufficient concessions on 
autos, and by what date?
    The President. First of all, I am committed to taking a strong line 
here. I have worked for over 2 years on this. I have done everything I 
could to open American markets, to expand trade. I supported NAFTA, I 
supported GATT. I have tried to be very strongly supportive of the 
American automobile industry and their trade interests.

[[Page 767]]

And this administration has been a good friend of the auto industry in 
many, many ways as you--and we have worked hard, and we are proud of the 
success that they're now enjoying.
    But the one thorny problem that never seems to get solved is the 
inaccessibility of the Japanese markets, not only to autos, but also to 
auto parts--in some ways, an even bigger problem for us in the near 
term. And we have taken a very strong line here because we've tried all 
those other things and they have not worked. So we are going to have to 
be very strong, and to be strong you have to be prepared to take strong 
action if your words fail.
    Ms. Montgomery. So thumbs up on sanctions?
    The President. So thumbs up on very strong responses, but my trade 
negotiator, Mickey Kantor, is in the middle of these negotiations, and 
he has done a great job. I think he is the best Trade Ambassador we have 
ever had, at least in the last 20 years. He has been very tough. He's 
opened more markets, taken more actions, succeeded in doing things that 
had never been done before. We're even selling rice in Japan, something 
we never thought we could do.
    The last big trade hurdle we have is the auto markets and the auto 
parts markets in Japan. And I do not want to say anything in this 
interview that complicates his life. I can just tell you, the United 
States is committed to taking strong action. We are taking a tough 
position. It doesn't matter what anybody says in my administration; I 
support the line that Ambassador Kantor has taken. It is my line. It is 
my conviction. We have done everything we could do, and it is not in the 
interest of the Japanese government or people to be in the position 
they're in now.

Note: The interview began at 11:25 a.m. The President spoke by telephone 
from the Oval Office at the White House.