Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Is the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?; Was the Supreme Court Correct to OK School Vouchers?; Is Cyberspace Open Space for Terrorists?

Aired June 27, 2002 - 15:00   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.
CAROL LIN, HOST: Hi everybody. We're going to talk some more about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether Michael Newdow had the point when he filed suit over the words "under God." I know you're going to weigh in on that.

And also the Supreme Court OK'd school vouchers. Now teachers unions and public school officials are reeling. So should taxpayer dollars be used for private education?

We're going to talk about what investigators also found inside al Qaeda computers. Is cyberspace a weak spot in America's defense against terror? I know you can't wait to talk about that, either.

And we're going to be talking a lot about that on TALKBACK LIVE.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: I pledge allegiance to the flag...

UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: ... of the United States of America...

UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: ... and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God...

LIN (voice-over): Emotions erupt like the Fourth of July after the Pledge of Allegiance is ruled unconstitutional.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems like we've lost our freedom as a country to express our feelings about God.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope my grandma doesn't see this, but I don't think you should make kids talk about God in school.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It says "under God." It's religion that I don't agree with, and there's not suppose to be religion at all (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by government.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're a dead man walking, man. Somebody's going to kill you.

LIN: Also: school vouchers get a nod from the Supreme Court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was the Super Bowl for school choice, and the kids won.

LIN: And is al Qaeda poised to use the Internet as a tool of terror?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: Well, the whole country is riled up over those powerful little words "under God." The entire Senate showed up for morning prayer today and nearly a full House recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONGRESSPERSONS: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Well consider this, even soldiers fighting in Afghanistan have weighed in on the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to expel the Pledge of Allegiance from schools.

And Michael Newdow, the man whose lawsuit fueled this firestorm, is getting death threats.

Newdow makes this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL NEWDOW: The issue was whether or not government should be putting this stuff in the middle of the school. If it were "one nation under Mohammed," would everyone say, oh, that's fine, just don't say it, to all their children? I doubt it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Everyone is so ready to talk about this. Let's talk about our guests. We're going to be joined shortly by California Republican Congressman Chris Cox. He's getting wired up right now; and Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He's an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

Good afternoon Reverend Lynn. Thanks for joining us.

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Nice to be here.

LIN: Lay out your opinion on this. What was your reaction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

LYNN: Well, frankly I think it's a good decision. I think it's one that understands very clearly that the right that's perhaps most important in our Bill of Rights is the right of conscience. Whether one person is offended or 500,000, this country does not have an orthodoxy and official position on religion, and we shouldn't. Back in 1954 when the Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge, they turned what was a powerful political and patriotic message into an affirmation of religion. It was a great Pledge of Allegiance. I wish we'd go back to it the way it was written in 1892 before these words were added. They turned it from something that unified to something that divided us along religious grounds.

Now the gentleman who brought this case happens to be an atheist, but there are other people who are deeply religious who simply don't believe we should mix government policy and religion, and that Congress shouldn't be writing proposals that suggest we should believe in one particular God.

I think that, frankly, some people have overestimated what this does. It does not stop any school child or any American from saying those words. It simply stops the schoolteachers in eight states in the West from adding it, reciting it, expecting children to recite it as well.

LIN: Reverend, we've got Lisa (ph) from New York on the telephone.

Lisa (ph), what do you think about what the Reverend is saying here?

CALLER: I agree completely with the Reverend. I think that adding in the name of God into government things is divisive. I'm a religious person. I have no problem with my own beliefs and doing it on my own time, but when it comes to our school systems and our government, I don't think there's a place.

I know this is a very sensitive subject, but I think it's very divisive to have that in there. I think we should go back, as the Reverend said, to the prior Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm extremely patriotic, but even after 9/11 when everything was "God Bless America," "God Bless America," it sounded that it wasn't about that. That's a whole war. The whole thing, everything that's happening is about God and religion and how much violence can come from that.

LIN: Let's take a poll here in the room. How many people here agree with Lisa (ph) and with the Reverend right now, by your applause.

LIN: Yes, half-hearted, a little tepid.

Let me bring in Representative Chris Cox, who's wired up now.

Congressman Cox, what is your reaction to this? I would take it that you disagree.

REP. CHRIS COX (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, I was just very much surprised. For 10 years before I joined the United States Congress, I practiced law, and I thought I knew something about the law. And this decision came as a surprise. The Supreme Court has been asked before to consider questions such as this, and they specifically have mentioned both the Pledge of Allegiance and our motto, our nation's motto, "In God We Trust," and the Supreme Court has said that they don't think that this is an establishment clause problem.

And so for this case to show up as it did rather surprisingly, I think it just caught everyone off guard. In the House of Representatives, of course, the Speaker of the House stands beneath that motto and, in fact, we start each day with a prayer. Legislative prayer has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it does not violate the establishment cause.

So the question's really not so much whether it's a good idea. I think a lot of your participants in this discussion are reacting to whether they think it's a good idea or not to have this motto or to have God in the pledge, but rather the question is what's the law in this country, and can it be changed really (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by judges who simply change their minds.

LIN: Well, can they? Because the Justice Department is reviewing this decision, and pressure is going to be on to make sure that if this does go to the Supreme Court, that the government's position is loud and clear on this, or at least the Bush administration.

COX: Well, that's right. And of course the first-named defendant in this case was the United States Congress, and so I'm a defendant in the case. And I expect that the United States Congress will join with the United States Department of Justice in petitioning for a rehearing of this case.

I think it's extremely likely that the case will be reheard by a bigger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

LYNN: No...

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Go ahead Reverend Lynn.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: One of the things the Pledge of Allegiance was said by members of Congress, some members of Congress yesterday, but not everybody showed up and in fact it's very rare for members of Congress to show up for the pledge or for the prayer that's given by the chaplain of the House that we pay, I think, $150,000. So it strikes me just a little bit without commenting personally -- I don't know the congressman terribly well about what's in his heart, but I did find it odd that yesterday virtually nobody showed up for the prayer or the pledge and now today when they know it's going to be on television all day, they all show up.

It just suggests to me and I hope I'm not being too cynical here, that a lot of members of Congress I regret to say are playing politics once again with religion, just as they did two years ago when they were passing all these proclamations to post the 10 Commandments in every government building. I think their constituents probably would prefer that they obey the 10 Commandments, that they believe in their own conscience and not just show up and pray when they know they're going to be on television or when it suits some political purpose.

That's how we got those words "under God" into the pledge. It was in the height of the McCarthy Era. Some people wanting to be politically correct in the time said you know, it's not enough to affirm that we're patriots. We have to say that in order to be a patriotic American, you really have to believe in God, and I resist that idea, and I think the tens of thousands of Americans who have served in peace and war in this country who didn't have a religious viewpoint are just as patriotic, should be able to say a pledge to their country...

LIN: But Reverend Lynn...

LYNN: ... without taking a position on religion.

LIN: ... what is so threatening about these two words, which frankly over time now, have been taken for granted as a matter of tradition. God is not necessarily a figure of religion, but really more a symbol of a greater -- a greater good that you may believe in. You know it could be your...

LYNN: Sure.

LIN: ... sports car in California for all I know.

LYNN: Well if I believed that, I would agree with you, but I think that every time we invoke the name of God we are saying something of importance that God never loses his true meaning. God never becomes just some kind of a word we use, a symbol. It is an important word. That's precisely why when we say "God is the leader of this country, overarches this country," that is something that is a religious comment.

That's why Congress should never have got involved in this. It's not up to Congress to figure out what God we should worship, how many, whether there should be any. That is not the province...

LIN: All right...

LYNN: ... of the United States Congress.

LIN: ... Reverend Lynn, hold that thought. Congressman Cox, we're going to get you into the dialogue here. We're also going to be taking questions from our audience, but it's a quick time for a break.

There are so many people waiting to be heard on this. We're going to take the polls of the people in Miami right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a very special flag because it has been flown over the Capitol of the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: That was a new campaign ad for Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins. The ads made before yesterday's appeal court ruling are scheduled to begin airing tomorrow.

OK, I have someone else to bring into the conversation. I just hope you to very quickly meet Steve Yothment. He is an atheist and vice president of the Atlanta Free Thought Society. Steve, thanks so much for joining us here.

STEVE YOTHMENT, ATLANTA FREE THOUGHT SOCIETY: Thank you.

LIN: What do you think about the debate so far?

YOTHMENT: Well it's a very interesting debate I think. I see this more as a constitutional issue. I think these judges who made this decision have based it on the constitution and constitutional law.

LIN: But isn't this personal to you as well as an atheist? I mean how do you feel as an atheist...

YOTHMENT: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: ... growing up in America.

YOTHMENT: ... it is a bit personal to me because I know when I say the Pledge of Allegiance and I love to say it, when it comes to the time to say those words "under God," it just really doesn't have that much meaning to me. And so, you know, if those words are removed, I would still want us to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

LIN: One thing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote yesterday in their reasoning, they said that this was an endorsement of religion to say "under God" because it sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders.

YOTHMENT: Yes.

LIN: Do you feel that kind of pressure?

YOTHMENT: Well, yes to some degree, but you know there are other things that are more pressing in my life I suppose. But still, I'm very pleased with this decision. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the higher courts now.

LIN: All right, we've got a comment here from Dale (ph). Dale (ph), what do you think?

DALE: Well I just believe in God and I believe in America. It's on our money and I just think this is a minority thing that has got its way and I just think the majority of us like to say that it's "under God."

LIN: All right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree.

LIN: All right, we've got a little fellow back here, though, that I want to get into the dialogue here and then we're going to take a comment from the telephone.

CALLER: I think that if the people who are making these complaints are really so worked up about not having their kids to say the words "under God," then they should find the time to home school their children because that takes care of the problem and it stops people who do believe in God from not being able to say "under God."

LIN: James (ph), how old are you?

JAMES: 13.

LIN: Thirteen -- how do you feel when you say the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you say those words or do you feel uncomfortable about it?

JAMES: No I don't and I'm an atheist and I could really care less.

LIN: All right James (ph).

YOTHMENT: Carol, let me say that I agree that religion should be taught in the -- in the home and in the churches. That's the appropriate place for religious indoctrination if there's going to be religious indoctrination, but I don't see that the government should be playing any kind of role in that.

The First Amendment of the Constitution says that the government shall not be an establisher of religion -- OK. And so now we're in this difficult situation with the courts, of course, where they've ruled that those words are not appropriate. And so gee, what can we do?

I suppose we could change the constitution, if that's what people really wanted to do, but I personally don't think that the constitution is faulty.

LIN: All right let's hear from Diane and Nick in Miami who want to weigh in. Go ahead.

Diane, Nick go ahead.

DIANE KRATOCHVIL, WANTS "UNDER GOD" IN PLEDGE: My personal feeling is that even though I have a strong belief in God, the last thing this country needs is to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance. And I think that if they feel it necessary to take out those two words that seem to offend people, then let's do that. But let's don't even consider abolishing the Pledge of Allegiance.

LIN: Nick.

NICK CALABRESE, WANTS "UNDER GOD" IN PLEDGE: I'd like to -- yes -- I'd like to add that I was brought up Catholic and after 9/11 that has become our mantra, "God Bless America" and it's just needed. But I'd just like to know how far the word God goes where bin Laden and his crew have also thanked God for their success that they have and I can't see that. But, they did use that word and I don't know. I'm just...

LIN: All right. Thanks Nick. Thanks Diane.

CALABRESE: ... confused on that.

LIN: Yes, a lot to think about. Steve, what do you think? I mean some interesting points here are being made.

YOTHMENT: Yes I think so. It's a very controversial issue, as you can see. Everybody's talking about it. It's amazing how many people have contacted me on this issue and you know, you hear about it on TV an awful lot now.

LIN: All right, Rob (ph) from Massachusetts. Do you have a question or a comment?

ROB: I'm against the court's ruling. As the father of three children, two of which are school age, I don't believe that the words "one nation under God" are in any way detrimental to my children. I'm trying to teach them patriotism, especially in a time that we're living in right now such as after September 11. This sort of thing is just a mar on a nation trying to pull itself together and be one with all the struggles we already have. I think it's really just a trivial matter.

LIN: You think it's trivial matter, but the argument here is that it's a legal matter. It's a constitutional matter. It's not a slam against religion Rob (ph).

ROB: I think it's somewhere along the lines if I'm in a crowd of people and I light a cigarette, some folks can walk away when they don't like it, and I think that's the same here. I think it should be up to the individual. If they don't agree with the pledge, ask them to step out of the room and they can come back in afterwards, if that's their choice, if it offends them.

LIN: Which is a choice that people do have, opting out.

YOTHMENT: But then that person feels left out and do we really want to have that?

LIN: Do they really feel left out? I don't know. Congressman, what do you think? Do you think people feel really left out? At least they have the choice of opting out.

COX: Well I want to return to this question of the law because people are saying this is a matter of constitutional law. On this question of whether being forced to watch as other people say something in which they believe and you don't is, in fact, an injury that the courts can take recognition of.

The Supreme Court has said very plainly it is not, that is binding Supreme Court precedent that even the Ninth Circuit recognized and yet they chose to go their own way. I also want to remind Mr. Lynn who was suggesting that Congress attended the Pledge of Allegiance this morning in both the Senate and the House in order to be on television, that that's not why people showed up this morning.

They showed up in a show of solidarity because from Senator Lieberman to I think you had our conference chairman on, J.C. Watts earlier, Republicans, Democrats. There's pretty strong agreement on this. On this occasion of September 11, I don't think members of the House and the Senate gathered on the steps of the capitol even knowing that the capitol was then a target of the terrorists who were still at large and sang "God Bless America" so that they could get their faces on TV.

I think these are symbols of our country and the word God in our national motto, "In God We Trust" the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under God" is as high up on the ladder of abstraction of religion as one can get. I mean God to an atheist may be nothing more than the explanation of where the big bang came from. It is not...

LIN: Congressman...

COX: ... a particular sect. It's not...

LIN: Congressman, on that note, and I know Reverend Lynn, I know you want to jump in. The congressman and Reverend Lynn are going to stay with us, but right now I want to thank Steve Yothment for joining us today. Thank you very much...

YOTHMENT: Thank you.

LIN: ... for your time, for taking the questions.

Up next, we're going to be talking about school vouchers. It's getting a reluctant thumbs up from the Supreme Court. Does this mean a mass exodus from public schools? If you could, would you take vouchers and run to the nearest private school? We'll have more on this topic next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: We're going to move on to school vouchers in just a second, but this whole debate over the Pledge of Allegiance and using the words "under God" has been so controversial. I wanted to give Reverend Lynn a chance to respond to some of the things in the previous block -- Reverend Lynn. LYNN: One of the things that I think would send the strongest possible message to those of our enemies around the world who watch American television is if they didn't see the gentleman who brought this case getting death threats on his home telephone answering machine, but instead saw people saying look, we might disagree about this issue. We might have strong disagreements, but we're going to use the courts of this country to resolve it because that's what we do in America.

We don't create a holy war against individuals who have a different religious view than we do. Salman Rushdie, he faced that. He's still under threat of death by some Islamic terrorists. We do it differently. We respect people's conscience. We go to court -- sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. But that's how we conduct ourselves and that's what I wish we'd be seeing instead of death threats on that gentleman's phone machine.

LIN: Well let...

LYNN: That send a...

LIN: ... let me ask the congressman, then, let's say this makes it through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It's upheld pending the Supreme Court, if it's appealed there. It becomes law. So what happens if somebody says the Pledge of Allegiance and says "under God." Can they be sued? Are they going to be arrested? Do they face federal charges?

COX: It's a very good question and it's a -- it's a hypothetical. I hope we don't ever come face to face with, but you know Mr. Lynn makes a worthwhile point. The whole point is freedom here. We want to make sure that everyone in America has liberty and so for the last half century, ever since these words have been in the Pledge of Allegiance, it's been the right of every American to say the pledge or not say the pledge. You don't have to leave the room. You simply don't even have to say it.

It cannot be compelled and as a matter of fact, in this litigation, in this lawsuit, the father who brought the lawsuit expressly said my daughter was never forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher didn't make her say it. The school district didn't make her say it. It's just that I'm injured as a dad because she has to be in school where other people are saying it, and that's the reason I think a lot of people believe this is somewhat trivial.

LIN: Well it's interesting for those people who feel it's a form of intimidation to say it. It might be a form of intimidation to be told by a court to not say it. But anyway...

(CROSSTALK)

COX: I don't think we want official atheism any more than we want official religion. We just want the government to be neutral with respect to these things.

LIN: Yes, you know we could talk about this all day, but I definitely want to get in another important court ruling today. The Pledge of Allegiance has been ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court today said school vouchers are not. In a 5-4 ruling, the judges said vouchers do not promote religion and give parents a choice when it comes to educating their children.

So, let's find out more about this decision from CNN national correspondent Bob Franken -- Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, actually, Congressman Cox just used the word that applies here. And it is the word neutral.

What the justices, the majority of the five justices, the majority, said was that, even though in Cleveland parents can choose a religious school that requires religious training, nevertheless, the fact that it is their choice means that it is neutral. And it is not unconstitutional simply because it is determined on -- quote -- "whether and why, in a particular time, most private schools are religious or that most recipients choose to use them in religious schools," that that is not enough of a reason to declare this an unlawful breach of the separation between church and state.

Now, there was a bitter dissent. There was a dissent from Justice John Paul Stevens, for instance, who called this ruling profoundly misguided. However, it is a ruling that was made by the majority of the court, 5-4. It is a ruling with huge implications. Of course, schools vouchers, besides the discussion about separation of church and state, have been very deeply involved in the whole idea of public school reform.

And public school advocates say that, by allowing people to take money from the government to go to private schools, it is taking money away from the public schools that are so necessary.

LIN: And it is not to say that at all private schools are religious schools, Bob, right?

FRANKEN: Well, it is interesting. In Cleveland, as an example, 96 percent of those, more than 96 percent, who opted for private schools went to religious schools. It is true that not all are religious, but the affordable ones, for the most part, are.

LIN: So all schools, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim?

FRANKEN: Well, the simple fact is the matter is, is that most of the schools in Cleveland that are private schools are Catholic schools. That is a hugely Catholic population. In other cities, it would be otherwise.

And what the opponents are saying is that none of these schools should be allowed to provide mandatory religious training with taxpayer subsidies. But the Supreme Court justices today said that, since the choice is made not by government, but by individual parents, it is OK; it is constitutional.

LIN: All right, thank you very much, Bob Franken. Bob has set the stage for us. We are going to take it into a debate right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Hey. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Lin. Arthel Neville is on assignment today.

We are talking about the Supreme Court ruling on school vouchers.

Congressman Cox and Reverend Lynn both here today, but I want you guys to hear some of things that our audience has been saying.

We're going to hear from a schoolteacher here from Miami.

CHRIS: Yes, this is Ann.

Go ahead, Ann.

ANN: Not Miami. Central Florida.

LIN: Oh, my apologies.

(LAUGHTER)

ANN: In our area, we have been finding that the kids try to go on vouches are not being accepted by the private schools always, because those schools require that they meet a certain standard. Parents have to attend a certain number of meetings. These parents are often single parents. They are poor. They cannot manage it. Transportation to the school is not always provided by the school district sometimes. The voucher is to go to pay the money at the school.

So, we have been finding that some of those kids are coming back to the public schools. And we want that money in the public schools. If they give more money to the public schools for smaller class sizes, we will not have the problem with lack of education.

LIN: We got a student here who has got a solution, too, Stephanie from Washington D.C.

STEPHANIE: Yes, I agree with that teacher in the sense that school choice is really -- school choice is important and public schools need to be reformed, so that the public schools are better. And I therefore, think charter schools provide a good alternative because school choice is still available to different parents and different families, but you are not necessarily dealing with the religious aspect, as you are with vouchers. And it is still using public money. You're not using private money -- or public money to go to a private school.

LIN: Well, Congressman Cox, have public schools really had a fair shake in terms of being able to really prove themselves out with public funding? Should this money be diverted to private schools? COX: Well, we are, of course, in the second century of public education in the United States of America. And, interestingly, the one thing that both the majority and the minority in this Supreme Court case agreed upon -- the majority opinion and the dissenters -- is that, in Cleveland, the public schools were failing the citizenry. They were failing the students. The dissenters went out of their way to say, without question, the record establishes as a fact that the kids were getting shortchanged.

And what the dissent said is that, "We understand that policy- makers want to give these kids a choice, but we don't think that they can do it that way." What the majority said is: "Not only do these kids deserve a choice, but we think that, in Ohio, they found a way to do it, because they're not giving any money to private schools. They are giving the money to the parents. And the parents exercise the choice. The state is cut out from this."

They pointed out that a half-century ago, this case, in a different way, came up when New Jersey decided to provide transportation -- something the teacher just mentioned a moment ago -- transportation to all kids, wherever they were going. And the Supreme Court said that was not aid to religious schools because it was neutral. When you got on the bus, you could go wherever you wanted, whichever school you wanted to go. The Supreme Court found that that was, in the Eberson (ph) case, constitutional. They applied Eberson in today's decision.

LIN: Reverend Lynn, I want to you take a look at an e-mail that we just got in. Maybe we can throw it up on the screen. Here we go.

From D. in Pennsylvania: "I pay school taxes and should be able to benefit from the money I've paid when my children attend a Christian school."

I take it you would agree.

LYNN: Well, frankly, most of the people who are paying school taxes don't have any children in any school. They are either single or their kids are long out of school or they're grandparents or whatever.

I do think that what is strange about this decision -- it is 5-4. My side lost. And, as I said earlier, we have to respect the fact that, as far as it went, that is now the law of the land. But this decision does not require any new voucher programs to be started anywhere in the United States. And I think we do have to look at the quality of these programs. As the teacher from Florida pointed out -- and teachers in Ohio and other states that have experimented would say the same thing -- the voucher plans don't seems to work, if work means: Do they improve the academic performance of students?

If they don't do that, then why in the world would we take very scarce resources away from the public schools and transfer them to these private religious academies that don't do any better? So I think that, as a matter of good policy, vouchers are going to prove to be nothing more than snake oil. They are certainly not a cure for what ails not all, but a few of America's inner-city and a few of America's rural schools.

So, I think it was the wrong decision on constitutional grounds. But I do expect, as we go around the country debating this in legislatures, that legislators are going to look at it -- like the public has done in 20 initiatives and referenda -- and say, when you look at all the facts, vouchers do not solve the problem. We've got to get serious about guaranteeing a quality education in a public school to every child in America. If we don't do that, we are in deep trouble.

LIN: All right, well, also, a Harvard study found that private religious schools tend to be more racially segregated. Interesting number here, public schools, 34 percent of blacks attending schools where only 10 percent of the student body is white. That's according to Harvard University.

We have a phone call from Mike.

Mike, what do you think?

CALLER: Well, I have two quick points.

One, I don't agree with the Supreme Court. I don't think any tax money at all, whether redirected or not, should go to religious organizations. Second of all, shouldn't the senators actually just resign after saying that, because what they're saying, in effect, is that they are completely inept in leadership and that they cannot use public funds to correct the schools that they are in charge of?

LIN: That is a loaded, loaded statement. Mike is feeling pretty hot. Mike took a hostile pill today.

LYNN: No, no, but he does raise one interesting point. I've heard a lot of these politicians in Cleveland who have jumped on the voucher bandwagon who will actually say: "I've been in local government for 15, 20 years, and now I am turning to vouchers." And there I think the caller makes a good point. If you really can't fix the problem, you probably ought to find another line of work, because there are good, innovative ways to make schools better. People have studied this, have implemented it in Baltimore and in Philadelphia. And they have got some great schools there.

LIN: And the question is, should federal moneys go to these mostly religious institutions to do that?

Thank you very much, both of you. Congressman Cox, Reverend Lynn, thanks so much for joining us today.

LYNN: Thank you.

LIN: The debate goes on. We'll see you again, I'm sure.

But up next: Imagine terrorists shutting down the nation's 911 system while launching an attack. We are going to talk about the newest threat, how terrorists could be using cyberspace, right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

LIN: What a great audience. Welcome back.

U.S. intelligence officials say information about government and industry computer systems, as well as the nation's infrastructure -- big word for, like bridges and power systems and the like -- all of that has been found inside al Qaeda computers. And CNN has learned there was a house in Pakistan, run by al Qaeda, that was devoted to cyber warfare training. That so-called cyber academy was discovered late last year.

So, is the United States vulnerable to a cyber attack? And what exactly would that mean?

We have an expert in the field of information security with us today. Chris Wysopal is director of research development at @Stake, Incorporated. He's an adviser to top government security agencies.

And, Chris, forgive me for saying it this way, but aren't you a former hacker, too?

CHRIS WYSOPAL, @STAKE: Actually, before this job, I was involved with a group call the Loft (ph), which -- we called ourselves a hacker think tank. We did not really break into computer systems. What we did was, we took the software that corporations were running on their networks in our own lab and we attacked that software and found the vulnerabilities in it and publicized those things, so that the companies would be forced to fix them.

LIN: All right, I just wanted to establish that you know firsthand how to detect weakness in security systems yourself.

WYSOPAL: Sure, definitely.

LIN: All right, so, you saw the reports about al Qaeda. Do you think they have the ability to launch some sort of cyber attack? And, if so, what are the likely targets?

WYSOPAL: Well, there are definitely a lot of targets out there. And those targets are weak. We, as a company, have done assessments of these types of infrastructure, such as power companies, and have found that we have no problem getting into the control systems.

The NSA, National Security Agency, does the same thing as part of running threat scenarios. And they are able to get into these places. The thing is, groups like al Qaeda haven't had the capabilities, the access to the computers, and the software for very long to be able to build up a capability to do this. But I think it would be naive of us to think that this group of people, which is determined -- and there's a lot of smart people there who have been educated, with engineering degrees -- can't come to up to speed and do the same thing.

LIN: Well, tell me what you think about this latest report. Apparently, a computer seized at an al Qaeda office in Kabul had something called a micro-strand program in it, which is supposed to be able to analyze steel and concrete structures.

So, let's say they have that ability, this program, to do so. What would they do with it? And how far would they get, say, with a major water system in a big city?

WYSOPAL: Well, that software sounds like it's more of a piece of engineering software which is used to design and detect stresses and weakness in something like a dam. And that -- I think that goes to show the level of sophistication they're at, targeting where they may put explosives to try to physically disrupt something. I don't that particular piece of information points to what we call a cyber attack, which is something which would probably come over the Internet, more of a virus or a worm type of attack.

LIN: When you talk about vulnerability, back in 1998, a 12-year- old broke into the computer system that regulated the water supply of Arizona's Roosevelt Dam. So, if a 12-year-old can get in there, doesn't that tell you that a 32-year-old terrorist could, too?

WYSOPAL: Oh, most definitely.

I think that just -- I think that 12-year-old probably had a lot of time on their hands and was determined. And that is the only thing that you really need to figure out how to attack these systems. The information is out there on the Internet. There's tools to do it. Someone who is determined can get the capability.

LIN: All right, we have got a quick question or comment here from our audience.

Chris, who do you have?

CHRIS: This is Martin. He has a comment about this whole thing.

Go ahead, Martin.

MARTIN: Yes, I think any group of terrorists that really has the time and the money to devote to this kind of endeavor -- we are getting domestic viral threats every day. Every week, new ones are coming out in places like the Philippines, not just from the United States. So, definitely, we need to beef up our end to make sure that we can effectively counter something like this from al Qaeda.

LIN: All right, Martin, thank you very much.

We're going to take a quick break.

Chris, you stay right there. We're going to be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Chris Wysopal, a security expert, former hacker, consultant, I don't know. Chris, we've got some great questions from our audience, one from Christian here, a young man who has got sort of the cut-to-the-chase question.

CHRISTIAN: If this cyber attack does happen, what would we do about it? The computers would be shut down, so what would we do about that?

WYSOPAL: Well, I guess it depends on the scope of the attack.

A lot of times, after the attack has happened, there is not much you can do. If it was, say, a dam and the floodgates were opened, or it was a pipeline where pressure built up and it was ruptured, there is not much you can do except try to figure out what happened and close those computer problems afterwards.

If it is something like a power company that has taken -- the control system has been taken over and it's been shut down, what you could do, is you can disconnect the company from the Internet or from the phone lines of the outside world and try to fix the problem internally, keeping the attackers out.

LIN: But perhaps too little, too late, which brings us to Cindy.

WYSOPAL: Yes.

LIN: Hang on one second.

Cindy from Missouri.

CINDY: Yes, my comment is that, even though our government found out that this country had this information, I can't believe that our government doesn't have just as much information about them and can protect us with that information.

LIN: Maybe we do.

Chris, how ready is the government to fight this?

WYSOPAL: Yes.

Well, no, I think the government understands this problem very well. Richard Clarke, who works for Tom Ridge as the cyber security expert for the nation for homeland security, knows this very well. One of the problems is going out there and convincing all the companies that own the critical infrastructures to fix the problems, because they actually have to spend the money.

LIN: To fight something you can't see.

WYSOPAL: The government doesn't own all these pipelines. They don't own these power companies. The companies themselves have to fix the problems.

LIN: You bet.

Thank so much, Chris Wysopal, for joining us, security analyst.

We are out of time. Thanks, everybody, for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. It was a pretty hot day.

Arthel Neville is back tomorrow, "Free-For-All Friday."

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