Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

America's New War: Lot of Intelligence Work Going on Overseas; Many People Worried Elected Leaders May Trade Away Some Freedoms for Safety

Aired September 26, 2001 - 11:31   ET

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.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: As the government tries to piece together the events of September 11, a lot of work going on overseas involves very sensitive work by U.S. intelligence agencies.

For some of the latest developments on that front, we wanted to bring in now our national security correspondent David Ensor -- David.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, well, one thing I should perhaps tell you first, and that is that U.S. officials tell me, is that there is some evidence that Taliban officials have been in contact over the last few years with members of the Russian mafia, not only to discuss, as has been previously reported, the drug trade, getting opium and heroin out of Afghanistan and into Western markets, but also to discuss possible weapons purchases. So that is something that obviously will be getting some more attention from the U.S. intelligence.

As Paula mentioned a moment ago, the president will be at the CIA today. And he's going go there to give a pep talk of sorts, but CIA officials say although they can see there was, by definition, an intelligence failure on September 11, no pep talk really is needed. Morale is high. They are galvanized by the attacks. The president will be going to see the counterterrorism center at the CIA. It's just not intelligence people there; it's also FBI, State, Defense Department and others. There's a frantic pace, I'm told. A much larger staff than before is working 24 hours a day and seven days a week. There are mattresses on the floor outside some of the offices. And a former snack bar has been taken over as a place for naps an overnights. The smell of take-out pizza is said to go through the hallways, although I must confess, they are not allowing reporters into those hallways since the attack.

So much new equipment has been brought into place, that there are walkways through it, and they have been given some sort of semihumorous names in the terrorism center. There's the "Osama Bin Lane," "Ghadaffi Court," "Abunidal (ph) Avenue," "Saddam Street," "Basque Boulevard." Well, you get the idea. There is also a new slogan that I'm told has been adopted by the counterterrorism center at CIA, and it's a quote from Todd Beamer, the young man who died on one of the jets that was the one that went down in Philadelphia, and that quotation is, "Let's roll." Critics have charged in the past that the CIA had too few officers who could blend into places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, Arab countries. But officials say, while that is true, it's less true than it was five years ago. In the last five or six years, for example, the number of Arabic speakers nearly tripled at the CIA. The intelligence work, there is various kinds. First, where is the information collection. Where is bin Laden, where are his top lieutenants? Where is the Taliban's Mullah Omar, for example? Then there are military issues, much of it handled by the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. What targets would hurt Al Qaeda? Is anyone left in the Afghanistan terror camps? Where have they gone to? Monitoring communications, obviously, and that is handled by the National Security Agency.

Another key part the work now is liaison relationships with other intelligence agencies. The most important of all at this point is obviously the Pakistani Intelligence Service, ISI. But Russia is offering complete cooperation, and of course, because of their past work in Afghanistan, their past attempt to control the country, they know a lot about it. Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, also very important, and then of course there are covert activities. We heard the report in the British press that an SAS unit, a British military unit, came under fire outside Kabul. I think you can assume, John, that there are representatives of a number of intelligence services in Afghanistan already.

KING: And we have heard in recent days from the Northern Alliance, the opposition in Northern Afghanistan, they say they say they're in increasing contact with the United States. Do we believe those assertions to be true?

ENSOR: We know that they're true. We know they're true here, and we believe that they may be true on the ground as well. Certainly, the representatives here have been in fairly frequent contact with policy makers and intelligence officers.

KING: David Ensor, our national security correspondent, thank you for that update on the often difficult tracking of intelligence operations overseas.

Paula Zahn, now back to you in New York.

ZAHN: Thanks, John.

And To fight this new war against terrorism, many people are worried our elected leaders may trade away some of our freedoms for our safety. And there is a precedent for just that, as CNN's Garrick Utley found out.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARRICK UTLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If all the flags, the stars and bars across the land, stand for one transcendent belief, it is to defend the freedoms under attack, including the freedom from fear. (on camera): Which brings Americans to that central question being debated across the country, and which will be decided in Washington: To preserve the freedom from what happened here September 11th, which individual rights are the nation prepared to trim, to compromise?

(voice-over): Those who have been detained, more than 350, are not the first. Back in 1798, when the young United States feared attack, Congress passed emergency laws allowing the detention and deportation of foreigners without evidence or trial. In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended that most basic ride of habeas corpus.

RANDOLPH MCLAUGHLIN, PACE LAW SCHOOL: That gives individuals who are being detained the power to come into the court and say, "I'm unlawfully detained. You shouldn't hold me any longer."

UTLEY: In World War I, socialists who tried to persuade Americans to peacefully oppose the draft were convicted under the espionage act. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes issued his famous opinion: that the defendants had no more right to oppose the draft in war time than a person had the right to shout, "fire" in a crowded theater.

MCLAUGHLIN: The courts had bent over backwards in those periods to give the executive branch and the legislative branch the latitude it needs to function, and to shut down the problem.

UTLEY: And so the Supreme Court also upheld the internment of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. Were they a security problem, or merely guilty by ethnic association?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Calling the House un-American Activities Committee to order...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UTLEY: And then, in the early years of the Cold War, there was the guilt by association of those caught up in the McCarthy investigation of communist activities in the United States.

Throughout history, Americans have found that some inalienable rights have been more inalienable than others. Still, when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago, they guaranteed freedoms that remain broader than in many other democracies.

In France today, citizens are required by law to carry national identity cards, which the police can inspect at any time. In Germany, citizens are required to register with local authorities when they move to a new address, and from age 16, they, too, must carry a government-issued identity card.

(on camera): Of course the United States is not Germany. It is not France. But at the same time, it has not been above or beyond re- balancing the scale between basic human rights and basic human security.

(voice-over): So now, the nation searches again for that balance, decides which rights will be buried in order to preserve other rights in this new war.

Garrick Utley, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So the question is, should the United States require its citizens to carry national ID cards?

Joining us right now, Congressman George Gekas, who chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee. He joins us this morning from Washington.

Welcome, sir. Good to see you.

REP. GEORGE GEKAS (R-PA), HOUSE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE: Nice to talk to you.

ZAHN: Thank you. So in all honesty, do you believe a national ID system would have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11th?

GEKAS: Probably not. As a matter of fact, the debate on the national ID has reached a public fervor and public debate status, but it does not penetrate the sense of Congress, it seems to me, who will be hesitating to move toward a national id.

ZAHN: At this point in Congress, what is the biggest -- where is the strongest opposition coming from, on what point?

GEKAS: Almost everyone to whom you speak in the Congress feels first that it is not necessary, because the real problem is port of entry to keep terrorists from coming into our country, or identifying those who are already in, who could fake a national ID card, if we had that, or have other ways of dodging the authorities.

So the focus is on preventing terrorists from getting into our country, and to investigate and prosecute those who we find are already in the country.

ZAHN: Congressman Gekas, you raise an interesting point, because it is true, is it not, that these cards are only as good as the documents on which they are based on?

GEKAS: Exactly. We believe that those of us who have opposed ID nationally across the spectrum of years here, believe that they're more subject to fraud than almost any other kind of documentation that we have already seen, as part of the terrorist picture.

ZAHN: All right, but clearly, you have some colleagues who think this is a good idea. Can you communicate to us what their selling points are on this? GEKAS: They believe, I believe, that a national ID card would be able to crystallize the awareness of the entire citizenry as to who might among them be possibly a suspicious character, or one who requires further scrutiny. But we go back again, we believe that that would be, many of us, a fruitless kind of endeavor, while still, while trampling on the rights on individual citizens.

We believe that the fraud elements and the terrorist activities can go beyond the ID card, and it would turn out to be completely useless.

ZAHN: So as the nation continues to bait this in, and clearly, it hit a raw nerve with many Americans, can you give us a sense before you leave us this morning where you think Congress does stand on this issue?

GEKAS: Yes.

ZAHN: Could legislation fly? Could it pass, that would require a national ID?

GEKAS: To give you one idea, the anti-terrorist package that the Judiciary Committee, which I'm a member, is contemplating, that proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and the president, does not have any kind of provision in it that calls for a national ID. Rather the thrust is on the search warrants, and surveillance and port of entry tightening up charitable institutions that are fronts for terrorists.

Not a word, not a provision having do with national ID.

ZAHN: So another piece of legislation would have to be created. Do you see any appetite for that at all in Congress?

GEKAS: I see in appetite, in fact, no discussion in Congress to proceed with hearings on a national ID,

ZAHN: It nevertheless is something that it caught the attention of Americans, and I know the public is debating it.

GEKAS: The public is debating it ferociously. We are recipients of inquiries all the time. And in fact, I have said, even though Congress is not moving towards it, it is clearly a part of the public debate.

ZAHN: Congressman Gekas, we appreciate your insights this morning, we appreciate your dropping by. Thank you for your time.

GEKAS: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com