Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Kobe Bryant Appears in Court; Debate Over PATRIOT Act; What Did Jakarta Authorities Knew About Terror Attack?

Aired August 06, 2003 - 18:00   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.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, you're looking at pictures of the media frenzy surrounding Kobe Bryant's court appearance to fact sexual assault charges. We'll have live reports, legal analysis, and hear why, for better or worse, this media frenzy is reflective of our society.

The PATRIOT Act, is it a necessary change of law for our collective security, or an unreasonable surrender of individual rights and liberties? Tonight's face-off -- between the Justice Department's Barbara Comstock and Ann Beeson of the ACLU.

The war on terror. The U.S. military knew of the terrorist threat in Indonesia, but Jakarta authorities knew more and didn't tell. Barbara Starr reports from the Pentagon.

The forgotten war. Former Drug Czar William Bennett on the progress on the war on drugs. And Jan Hopkins reports on why too few of our kids can just say no.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, August 6. Here now, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening. The Kobe Bryant hearing is beginning now. Judge Frederick Gannett is presiding over the Eagle County courtroom. Let's go live now to Eagle, Colorado. You're looking at, obviously, Kobe Bryant. Let's listen in.

JUDGE FREDERICK GANNETT: We have several pending motions. There is a motion to seal, unseal the file. There are proposed findings of fact that have been filed by the district attorney, by the defendant, that will be filed tomorrow by the media applicant, and I'm told by Mr. Robbins (ph) that he will not file supplemental documents.

So I anticipate that we will rule on those matters not before August 18. I'm gone until then. Makes that kind of easy.

There is a media applicant motion to clarify or modify the decorum order, and to the best of my knowledge there's not been a response filed by anybody to that document. And I think the time for filing it expires on our around August 14, and the court would intend to rule on that expeditiously after that date. There is in place, filed yesterday, defendant's motion for a hearing to enforce a court order. I've issued today an order that has been passed out to the parties that represents a stipulation of the parties, and it, in effect, enables the court to appoint a special investigator to inquire into the allegations advanced by the defendant, to make that report back to the court, and to ensure that the district attorney's office and the defendant receives copies, unredacted copies of those recommendations.

Depending on that recommendation, we will either proceed to an evidentiary hearing, or the matter will be concluded without one. The court has met with, at least by telephone, Sheriff Bob Braudis of the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department. The Pitkin County Sheriff's Department has agreed to allow its investigative staff to serve as the special investigator from the court, and in an order signed this afternoon I have appointed the office of the Pitkin County sheriff to act as a special investigator on behalf of the court.

I would like the district attorney's office and the defendant to provide me any direction that you would want advanced to the sheriff's office so that I can review it and then get it to them and allow them to get that process under way.

Copies of that order will be made available to the public and to the press later this afternoon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When do you want those -- when do you want our direction?

GANNETT: If you could get that to me by mid-week next week, I won't be here, but I'll be checking in with the staff, and then I'll give you the name of the contact person at the Pitkin County sheriff's office. And after a review, we'll either file those directly with them or I'll pass them through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great. Thanks.

GANNETT: We're now down to an advisement. Miss Mackey.

PAMELA MACKEY, KOBE BRYANT'S ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor.

GANNETT: How do you wish me to proceed with regard to this issue?

MACKEY: Your honor, with regard to reading an advisement we will waive any further reading or advisement of the charge.

GANNETT: All right. With regard to your client's rights, how would you have me proceed?

MACKEY: We fully advise him and would waive that as well, your honor.

GANNETT: Any requests with regard to a preliminary hearing?

MACKEY: Yes, your honor. We would request that a preliminary hearing be held. We are willing to waive the 30-day rule. And I understand the court has selected a date.

GANNETT: That's correct. I've picked a date. It's October the 9th. It's at 1:00 in the afternoon.

Mr. Bryant, you're entitled to a hearing, and you've requested a hearing. The rule requires that if you request that hearing be held within 30 days. Any objection to that being waived?

KOBE BRYANT: No, sir.

GANNETT: All right. Having waived that, the matter will be set for a hearing at 1:00 on the 9th day of October.

That takes care of that. I understand I've been provided with a copy of the waiver of extradition.

MACKEY: Yes, sir.

GANNETT: And I think that I have that here.

DOBBS: Kobe Bryant standing in the courtroom, listening to Judge Gannett, to his right is Pamela Mackey, representing the defendant in this sexual assault case, Kobe Bryant, and as you are watching and hearing now, this will be about scheduling, the process moving toward trial. The date at this point is October 9. And is the preliminary hearing set to hear the sexual assault charges brought against Kobe Bryant. Let's return to the courtroom.

GANNETT: This is a very fast event for so much attention. I have a couple of comments to make, and they relate to the pretrial order issued by the court, and folks, you can have a seat. Thank you very much.

Now, the court issued an order with regard to pretrial publicity. It was issued on July the 24th. And it is in effect and will remain in effect for the pendency of the case. I'd like to remind all parties, and particularly I'm focusing my attention on the attorneys of record and any persons acting under their scope or authority. And for clarification, that does include any law enforcement personnel investigating the case. That those orders are in effect, and that they are deemed to be significant admonition against the release or discussion of materials contained in the investigation process.

The purpose behind it is to ensure that there's a fair trial for all parties. And I want to the extent possible to advance that issue at every opportunity.

So I am concerned with some of the reports that I have seen in the press. They appear to me to address issues that are not generally available to the public. And to the extent that the court in the process of appointing a special investigator can determine the origin of those pieces of information, we'll deal with it in a way that order sets forth.

But this is just another effort by me to remind parties to the case, be careful. This is really it. And I just, again, want to remind all the people seated here today, remain seated until all the parties have left the courtroom. At that time, you may leave. And this matter is continued until October 9 at 1:00 p.m. Thank you.

MACKEY: Thank you, your honor.

DOBBS: Judge Frederick Gannett setting October 9 as the date of the preliminary hearing. You heard Kobe Bryant himself accept the waiver of the 30-day rule that would otherwise have required that that hearing take place within a 30-day period. That October 9 date not particularly surprising. Perhaps surprising is the fact that Judge Frederick Gannett also ordered a special investigator be established and appointed, of the sheriff's office, to begin that investigation as to the source of leaks that the judge says has been manifest in a number of publications and news articles with information that is under seal by the court. The judge obviously means to enforce his orders requiring that that evidence be kept under seal.

We will be talking with our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. He is in the courtroom in Eagle, Colorado and will join us in just a moment. We're going now to Rusty Dornin outside that courthouse in Eagle, Colorado where you have just seen Kobe Bryant appear and now exit -- Rusty.

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, it's very interesting, because his attorneys tried to (UNINTELLIBLE) miss this proceeding, because it wasn't really required that he be here. Instead though, the judge required Kobe Bryant to be present here, however, they did waive his right to hear those charges read allowed knowing, that of course, they would be played over and over and over again. The judge reading the charges of the sexual assault charges. So they waived that hearing out loud so that that would not be somethign that would be replayed in the media.

Of course we did expect the preliminary hearing to be waived for more than 30 days. Gives the defense more time to put their case together. In cases like this, it is very common. Also, there is the chance that the accuser get cold feet, may not testify. Anything could happen.

Also, they appointed a special investigator for the court. Which, as you say, was very interesting. In this case, he didn't really give a reason why. Also, towards the end, he talked about -- he gave an admonition to law enforcement authorities, not to talk about this case. And that came from the defense team did file a motion saying that the -- there is sort of a gag order, it's not called a gag order, but it is a gag order, on law enforcement, court staff, and such.

And apparently, the defense team felt that the sheriff's department and some other members law enforcement were leaking things to the press and they wanted sanctions against them. Now the judge did not appear -- he was not going to impose any sanctions, but he did give a warning again, please do not talk about this case. We want to ensure a fair trial. Another interesting thing, of course, when Kobe Bryant left the courthouse, there was quite -- I was looking behind me. We can show you the crowd. It's just beginning to disperse here. A lot of press, but a lot of people from the town of Eagle. And there were -- I couldn't hear any boos. For the most, it seemed like people were cheering. There were also some balloons, some yellow and purple balloons, of course, the Laker colors, attached to cars in the parking lot here. So it would appear that a number of Kobe's fans in the accuser's hometown did show up to see the superstar.

Next time it looks that we'll see Kobe Bryant in court October 9. That will be a preliminary hearing. And after that preliminary hearing, he will have an arraignment. And, of course, then it will be decided whether there's going to a change of venue, should he be bound over for trial -- Lou.

DOBBS: As you pointed out, the spectators there -- do we know for certain those are local residents carrying Laker-colored balloons, as you put it?

DORNIN: Well, we did talk to a few of the folks wearing -- the kids wearing the Laker uniforms, some of them selling ice cream and that sort of thing around here. So we do know that a number of people from the community did show up here. Of course, I don't know if all of them -- some other people could have come from out of town, from Denver, from L.A. But there were a few that were obviously Laker fans, yes.

DOBBS: And Kobe Bryant was greeted with cheers and boos as if it were in fact, forgive the expression, a sporting event?

DORNIN: That's right. Back in court, this time a legal court, where he could be facing some pretty serious charges. Obviously, like I said, we won't see him back in court again until October 9.

DOBBS: Rusty Dornin reporting just outside the Eagle, Colorado courtroom. We thank you very much.

We're going to bring in my guests here in the studio now to discuss some of the media and the legal issues and implications raised by this case.

Sal Fallica is a media professor at New York University.

Michael Dorf, law professor at Columbia University. Gentlemen, good to have you here.

Let me turn to you first, Sal. When Rusty Dornin reports that people, --and we saw people lined up with balloons, team colors, cheers and boos greeting a defendant in a very serious case, what does that say about what's going on out in Eagle, Colorado, and now through the media the nation?

PROF. SAL FALLICA, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Well, it's a media narrative that has, I think, compelling emotional appeal to everyone. This gentleman, Kobe Bryant, represents some of the best things about our society. He's achieved an enormous amount. And he's ripe for a fall.

DOBBS: Ripe for a fall?

FALLICA: Ripe for a fall. I say ripe because the drama has to play out. And as -- and what we are seeing here in terms of this legal -- these legal-- this legal business, which Michael will talk about later, you're seeing a kind of exposition to the drama.

DOBBS: This drama, this media frenzy and it is that, as Rusty Dornin was pointing out, a third of the space in that courtroom for journalists. Thirty live trucks and satellite trucks hooking up all of America to the proceedings inside a courtroom, which frankly was all about a scheduling today. What does that say about our society?

FALLICA: It's part of the story.

DOBBS: Well, I understand that. But what does it say about our society?

FALLICA: You mean that we're obsessed with celebrity?

DOBBS: Correct.

FALLICA: We're obsessed with celebrity. And we're -- but, I mean, not to -- not to discount this fact, we are always interested regarding the pains and misfortunes of others. I mean, we can -- we can take the high road on this is and say this is an awful, you know, thing for the American people to be obsessed with. But essentially, we're all interested in this kind of tragedy. This is our contemporary tragedy in a sense.

And if you look at it from -- you know, as a narrative or as a metaphor for all kinds of things in our culture, that's the way people will read it.

DOBBS: Well, Professor Dorf, let me bring -- because I think that really does bring us to the next point. Professor Fallica has been talking about the tragedy here, our fixation. But by law, we're not permitted to exhibit or report the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. Who, if these charges are true -- for whom this is really the true tragedy, is it not?

PROF. MICHAEL DORF, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Well, there's a tragedy here no matter what. Either there's a tragedy in terms of what Bryant did to this woman or there's a tragedy in that he's been falsely accused. So there's no good solution to this. Something terrible has happened. And the point of the legal proceedings is to discover why.

As to the question of the accuser's name, actually the media are permitted to reveal that. It's just that major and respectable media organizations have a policy of not revealing...

DOBBS: And in this case that policy is given greater weight by the fact that Judge Gannett has said do not reveal that name or there will be punishment. Now we get back to you on whether or not that -- whether this judge truly has that authority and whether such an order is constitutional from any bench in the country.

But first let's go out to Eagle, Colorado. Jeffrey Toobin has made his way from that packed courtroom, through a maze of reporters, onlookers, lawyers, bystanders, and joins us now.

Jeffrey, let me -- let me turn first -- any surprises for you in what you've witnessed there?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was advertised to be routine, and it was routine.

Although, you know, it was, I have to say, dramatic to see Kobe Bryant in that courtroom. He is a very familiar figure to most -- or any American. Certainly all sports fans. And to see him in that extremely uncomfortable position and looking not at all happy, not changing his expression once during the entire seven minutes and 30 seconds he was in that courtroom -- I mean, it underscored for me the gravity of the situation he finds himself in.

DOBBS: Gravity in that he could face as much as life in prison under Colorado law if -- depending upon the charges that are ultimately brought and the penalties that could follow.

There was a surprise, at least to me, in that courtroom, Jeffrey, and that was the appointment of a special investigator. What do you make of that?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, I think this was a small example of why it pays to have extremely aggressive, competent defense attorneys. Because what they did was they took some arguably improper statements attributed to prosecutors and to the sheriff, and they said we want an investigation. We want to go forward.

Now, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the time in high- profile cases, these sorts of comments. But you know, oftentimes it's just sort of shrugged off. Here they have asked for an investigator. Now they've got one. They've got a sheriff who's going to interview everybody and talk -- and find out whether there's more to investigate.

This sheriff, who's from a neighboring county, will investigate and report back to the judge. Maybe there will be a hearing about these possible violations. Maybe there won't. But the wheels are churning now. Stuff is being churned up. And that's where defense attorneys flourish, in improvising, in finding out stuff that prosecutors didn't want to disclose necessarily. And the wheels are turning now. Perhaps it will add up to nothing. But it's a start.

DOBBS: The perhaps really begin rolling now as this legal process begins in earnest.

Let me bring in Professor Dorf and Professor Fallica. Jeffrey is raising an interesting point, and that is this judge now has an investigator going after evidence at the behest initially at least of the defendant to find out if news organizations acquired information illegally from a source knowledgeable because of the documents in the legal process.

But the media has every right to go after information, about the accuser, about the details, and as a matter of fact, one could argue, a definitive responsibility. What in your judgment will happen here?

Let me start with you, professor.

FALLICA: Well, this turns towards the role of the media in this, and what I think I'm seeing with this judgment here, that the media is becoming part and parcel of the process and the judge seems to be coming down on you folks, probably because he wants to limit the amount of speculation and commentary.

DOBBS: Professor Dorf, does he have the power, does he have the right to do it?

DORF: He has the power and the right to investigate the people subject to his order, namely, the prosecutor's office and the sheriff's office. The media is protected by the First Amendment to publish information, even if it was revealed to them by people who violated the law to get it. That's the holding in the Pentagon Papers case on in the Vietnam War.

DOBBS: And he suggested that he would not permit those news organizations into his courtroom or have access to that live video if they are guilty of breaching his order. Does he have the power to do that?

DORF: Probably no, although the organizations are not going to breach it anyway.

DOBBS: Jeffrey -- Jeffrey Toobin, you get the last word here. Your thoughts as we conclude our coverage.

TOOBIN: Well, it's just that, you know, so much of the coverage so far has been in the form of leaks and words, that investigators may or may not have disclosed. Come October 9, we're going to note some actual facts about what the case against Kobe Bryant is. And I think that's highly appropriate, that the action move into the courtroom as opposed to the backrooms where people may or may not be telling the truth to journalists.

DOBBS: You're not suggesting that we in the media will just simply defer to those courtrooms and the legal process without taking some small note of the proceedings, are you?

TOOBIN: Well, no. I think good information crowds out bad, and we'll have some good information come October 9. That's my hope, anyway, Lou.

DOBBS: Your hope, my faith. We thank you very much, as always, Jeffrey Toobin, live in Eagle, Colorado. Professor Dorf, we thank you very much. Professor Fallica, thank you very much.

That brings us to the subject of our poll question tonight.

Why do you think the media is so focused on this case?

National interest, the legitimacy of the story, to drive circulation and ratings, or all of the above?

Please vote at our Web site, cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show. The final results of last night's poll question, should the United States cut aid to Israel should it continue to build the wall? Sixty two percent of you vote, yes, 36 percent, no, 2 percent said, maybe.

Coming up next, a warning. In the days before the bombing in Indonesia, it was kept classified. And authorities in Jakarta knew even more, and they didn't tell.

Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr will report.

Also ahead did -- our series of special reports this week, "The Forgotten War." Tonight, an ounce of prevention, may be worth a kilo of cure in the war on drugs. Jan Hopkins will report. We'll be joined by former drug czar, William Bennett.

And our face-off tonight. The patriot act. How much should we sacrifice of our individual rights for collective security?

Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department, Ann Beeson of the ACLU are here, and they face off tonight. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Seven U.S. military advisors arrived in Liberia today to assist Nigerian peacekeepers in the capital city of Monrovia. Those advisors arrived on Black Hawk helicopters from U.S. warships waiting off the Liberian coast. Those helicopters also carried a three-person disaster relief team. Two U.S. amphibious warfare ships are about 100 miles from the Liberian coast now. They include the helicopter carrier "Iwo Jima." The ships are carrying more than 2,000 U.S. Marines.

Police investigating the Marriott Hotel attack in Indonesia today said the car bomb was detonated by mobile phone. At least 14 people were killed, 150 others wounded including two Americans. Police today released a sketch of one of the men, one of the two men they believe bought the car that was used in that terrorist attack. Authorities say the hotel bomb was similar to those used in two other attacks by radical Islamists linked to al Qaeda, including the terrorist attack in Bali that killed 200 people.

The Pentagon has been aware for the past two weeks of the possibility of a terrorist attack in Indonesia. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr joins me now with the story -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, a number of developments on this front. Now, here at the Pentagon we have learned that within the last two weeks or so, as you say the Defense Intelligence Agency raised, or updated, rather, its own threat warning about Indonesia to military commanders. They took this action for a very specific reason. All of this before the Jakarta bombing. And that is because in early July Indonesian authorities arrested several people who were members of the Jemaah Islamiah, that radical Islamic group possibly tied to al Qaeda that had been responsible for the Bali bombing, it was believed, and possibly now for this bombing.

When they arrested those people in early July, they seized weapons, but they also seized documents. The Indonesian authorities saying those documents indicated more attacks were being planned against possibly commercial targets in Indonesia, places where Americans might gather. That led the DIA to update its own warning, but very critical point, the Indonesians had no information at that time about a specific location, a specific time and place, in which those attacks might occur.

So that was a question of judgment on the part of the Bush administration, apparently, about whether to take any further action. The DIA updated its warning. We have learned the State Department chose not to update its travel warning to Indonesia. Officials saying they already had a very high level of warning about the concern Americans should have about going to Indonesia, about gathering in public places, and that this new information provided by the Indonesians was not specific enough and they had no reason to update their travel warning. But here at the Pentagon the DIA, military intelligence officials clearly felt there was a reason to add this additional information to their classified warnings -- Lou.

DOBBS: Barbara, any reaction at the pentagon to the reports that Jakarta authorities knew that there was a terrorist threat against the general area around the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta?

STARR: Well, officials say that they knew from the Indonesians, again, that there were documents, that there was information, that there was a growing trail of evidence that the J.i. group was planning and continues to plan more of these small tactical attacks against commercial targets, against places where either Indonesians or Americans might gather. Shopping centers, restaurants, hotels, malls, all that sort of thing. They know right now this is a very serious threat, but they don't have direct information about time or place. And I must add, Lou, that they are very concerned, of course, about tomorrow in Jakarta. They expect the first verdict to be handed down by the courts against the first people being tried for the Bali bombing. A lot of concern about what may happen tomorrow.

DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much. Barbara Starr reporting from the Pentagon.

Coming up next here asleep at the wheel. And American drivers driven to distraction by an alarming array of activities performed behind the wheel.

And London's hottest day ever. The heat wave is far from over. We'll have a report for you.

And our face-off tonight. The patriot act. A new lawsuit says the law goes too far, many Americans agree. In the face-off Tonight, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department and Ann Beeson of the ACLU, next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: In a world full of distractions, American drivers face a host of distractions that include children screaming from the back seat, the radio blaring in the front seat, fast food hamburgers flying around the car. According to a new survey from the American Automobile Association, American drivers are being driven to distraction. Patty Davis joins us from Washington with the story -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, AAA put videocameras in volunteers' cars for one entire week, and this is what they saw. Let's show you the video.

You see people writing while they're driving, flipping through reading materials, they are eating, drinking, and dealing with children in the back seat. Now, AAA says that distracted driving accounts for anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of all accidents.

Of course, everybody thinks there's a good driver -- that they're a good driver, but the top distractions here, reaching and leaning in your car 97 percent of those volunteers did that. Tuning the radio. Also eating and drinking and conversing. Now, personal grooming also high up on that list.

For instance, putting your mascara on in the car, which I have personally seen while I have been driving. Also, cell phones surprisingly not high up on that list. Only 30 percent of people, the volunteers surveyed here, were actually doing that. And these volunteers had no idea what that camera was shooting while it was in their car.

Now, AAA does have some tips for drivers, and number one, they're saying program your radio stations so you don't have to flip around to find some song that you like. Designate a co-pilot. If you have a map, that person can look at that, do your grooming at home, and teach your kids to behave in the back seat so you're not distracted. AAA's effort here, make people aware so that they could be better drivers on the road -- Lou.

DOBBS: Patty, thank you very much. Patty Davis, let me add to your list one that may rank there with some of your unusual driving distractions. Caroline Donkers was arrested, charged with child endangerment. She, it turns out, was breast feeding her baby while driving on the Ohio Turnpike. In court today Donkers said she did nothing wrong. She also has no driver's license she has no Social Security card, and she has no marriage license. She says her religion doesn't allow them.

Still ahead here -- the war on drugs. The forgotten war. Tonight, efforts to keep kids away from drugs, are those efforts working? Jan Hopkins will report. Former drug czar William Bennett joins us.

And "Exporting America." Factory jobs continue to disappear from this country at a staggering rate.

And the ever-changing face of politics. Who's in, who's out in these upcoming elections. We'll have that story, a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS; "The Forgotten War", at issue, how to reduce demand for drugs in this country, especially among young people. Jan Hopkins looks at drug prevention programs and whether they're working.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAN HOPKINS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's 3:00 in the afternoon, and the community outreach center in Brewster, New York, is swarming with kids.

GILBERT BOTVIN, CORNELL INST. FOR PREVENTION RESEARCH: We know that the high-risk period for kids, for example, is between 3:00 in the afternoon and 6:00 in the afternoon. So kids need to be monitored and supervised.

HOPKINS: These teens are considered at risk. The center gets them off the streets and helps them make choices that don't include drugs.

TABITHA SAEZ, AGE 18: This is just an environment where, you know, drugs aren't allowed. And it's just a good place to be.

KURT NISSEN, AGE 18: I didn't have to, you know, worry about doing everything that I used to. It just helped me, you know, just relax. Stop trying to be everybody else.

HOPKINS: The staff has seen kids change.

LAUREN AZEEZ BENNETT, PROGRAM MANAGER, COMMUNITY OUTREACH CTR.: They're less likely to use drugs. They're making healthier decisions. They're avoiding risky behavior. They're staying in school longer longer.

HOPKINS: According to federal statistics, illegal drug use among teenagers is leveling off after rising in the '90s.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What should you do when someone offers you drugs?

CHILDREN: No!

HOPKIN: Drug prevention campaigns have changed through the years. In the 1980s Nancy Reagan started her "Just Say No" campaign. Also in the '80s the LAPD developed the DARE program, in which police brought the anti-drug message to schools.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think a drug is?

HOPKINS: A recent GAO report questions the effectiveness of the DARE program. The current push is away from scaring kids about drugs...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

HOPKINS: ...and towards building up confidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who believe in themselves in here?

HOPKINS: In Philadelphia young kids get a year-round lesson in thinking positively about themselves and staying away from drugs. Parents are also being recruited for the war on drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marijuana use can be prevented by taking your kids to this clinic.

JOSEPH CALIFANO, NATL. CTR. ON ADDICTION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Parent power is the most underutilized tool in combatting substance abuse, and it's the most effective tool. How parents act, what their attitudes are about drugs, how engaged they are in their child's life, will have more to do with whether that child uses drugs than anything else that affects that child.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOPKINS: But parents can't always be there for their kids. So experts say that school and community programs are important. Yet these programs are fighting for funding in an environment when communities, schools, and government are all cutting back -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jan, thank you very much.

Drug use dropped, as Jan reported, during Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign in the 1980s. William Bennett helped spread that campaign through the nation's schools. Later he became the country's first director of drug control. William Bennett joins us now from Aspen, Colorado. Good to have you with us.

WILLIAM BENNETT, FRM. DRUG CZAR: Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: The "Just Say No" program, nearly every television comic had a field day with the expression, the, if you will, intelligentsia made great fun of it.

BENNETT: Right. But the thing worked.

Sure, it did. Yes, a lot of the intelligentsia and the comics, some academics made fun of it. They said what they often say about messages of this sort. It was too simple, but the kids liked it. They responded to it. They understood it. And they used it. And that's why you heard that chorus of children responding the way they did.

DOBBS: And today, Bill, we are faced with an onslaught of new synthetic drugs. We are faced with the same old drugs, heroin, cocaine, marijuana. Is there, even over a period of some time, we've already put in three decades, is there hope for absolute definitive success in this war against drugs?

BENNETT: Well, if you mean by absolute definitive success zero, no, you're never going to get to zero. But can we get to acceptable levels? Yes. From 1985 to 1991 drug use went down by about 60 percent in this country, Lou. That's very substantial.

What's discouraging is when you see polls, and you had a poll here the other night on your show, where people say let's not continue the effort, let's not spend more money. The history of this...

DOBBS: Did that surprise you?

BENNETT: It did surprise me, though I know trends are going in this direction, as the legalization trend is building. But the history of this is very simple. When societies tend to get hard on drugs and give a clear and unambiguous message, drug use goes down. When they have some success at this, they tend to pull back, which is where I think we are now. We shouldn't pull back. Attention must be paid. The front line is the parent, as Joe Califano said. And the school. And then other messages in the culture.

There are some great successes out there in local communities and education programs, and attention must be paid to them.

DOBBS: The schools, you when you were secretary of education embraced the "Just Say No" program. Schools face a host of issues today beyond drugs that we didn't anticipate almost two decades ago. Does the federal government have to do more here in education on drugs in the schools?

BENNETT: Yes, it does, but -- it does, but as John Walters, the drug czar, will tell you, a lot of it doesn't have to cost a lot of money. Policy is probably the most important thing, policy and attention. If parents, teachers, school administrators will pay attention, send a clear, unambiguous message, this can have as much effect as anything else. Kids are worried about drugs, and if we respond in a way that suggests we're with them, we're not surrendering, it could be very positive.

DOBBS: Not too brush too large an issue here, but just quickly, because this is a drug culture. We have 60 million people taking various drugs to reduce depression, to reduce anxiety, prescription legal drugs. We have 30 million people at least drinking alcohol in this country. Are we going to have to change as a culture in order to win the war on drugs?

BENNETT: Well, cultures have to figure this out in different ways. And we make different distinctions.

Some of these lines aren't as bright and bold as we would like. Nevertheless -- nevertheless, what we say is that there are some things that are acceptable, acceptable for adults and not for children.

The interesting thing -- and we can't ever forget is that most kids are on our side, and they expect us to be on their side. They don't expect us to retreat. They don't expect us to surrender. There are some adults where, you know, you see the numbers -- where some kids have had their first marijuana at home, where they've shared marijuana with their parents. When you've got that kind of thing, you know, you've got a disaster.

But if parents would recognize that kids are looking for clear signals, it can help a great deal.

DOBBS: Bill Bennett, thank you for being here to help us as we try to focus on this important issue. Bill Bennett.

BENNETT: Thank you, sir.

DOBBS: When we continue, "Face Off": The Patriot Act. Is it a violation of your civil rights or is it protection for your family? Ann Beeson of the ACLU, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department "Face Off" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The Patriot Act is the focus of tonight's "Face Off." The goal, to help prevent terrorist attacks, but critics say it's aimed at the wrong targets.

Ann Beeson is the lead attorney for the ACLU. She says the FBI's expanded powers to search personal records, amongst other things, is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department's spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, says the provision in question was long overdue and applies only to those who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents.

Barbara, Ann, we thank you both for being here.

Let me turn, if I may first, to you, Barbara. The idea of "sneak and peek" is under attack, Section 215 is under attack, is that section so important to the collective security interests envisioned by the Patriot Act?

BARBARA COMSTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Sure it is, Lou.

Let me explain just for your audience just some of the basics of the Patriot Act. It was a long overdue measure that was bipartisanly and overwhelmingly supported in Congress, 98 out of the 100 senators supported it, only one voted against it, and by a five to four - 5.4 to one margin in the House. And what it did is it just allowed us to update technology so that we could be tracking terrorists who use the disposable cell phones and a lot of advanced technology because we were stuck back in the rotary.

And then it also allowed to us share information between our intelligence sources and our law enforcement because before we couldn't connect a lot of the dots we had. And what it also did was allow us to just collect some of this information that we weren't able to collect before by being able to go after criminal terrorists. And as Senator Joe Biden said, before the Patriot Act, we could go - we could do a wire tap on a Mafia boss but we couldn't do it on a terrorist. And that was crazy. And Senator Biden was right, it was crazy not to be able to use the same tools we were using in the drug war that you were just talking about or against Mafia bosses and then take those same legal tools and use them against terrorism. And we always have to have - duly authorized by a judge. We have to get a warrant. And we have to go in and demonstrate to the judge that it is somebody who is involved in international terrorism or a clandestine foreign spy, somebody like a Robert Hanssen or, you know, people who are involved in terrorism, ties to international terrorism.

DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much.

Let's turn to Ann. Barbara is persuasive. As she points out, in the days immediately following September 11, the Senate did vote 98 to 1, the Congress by a slightly larger margin - slightly smaller margin. What is the problem with Section 215? It is - has, at least, Barbara, Comstock, John Ashcroft, the attorney general, they say it's working. What's the problem?

ANN BEESON, ASSOCIATE LEGAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Congress is now actually seriously reconsidering this particular provision. There are a number of different amendments that are pending in the House that would repeal portions of the act. This law allowed the FBI to secretly obtain the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not just apply to criminals and terrorists. It applies to innocent people.

DOBBS: Wait a minute, Barbara Comstock just said this applies only to foreign nationals and nonpermanent residents.

BEESON: If you look at actual...

COMSTOCK: No, what I said, Lou...

DOBBS: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Barbara.

COMSTOCK: Actually the language from the statute is to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. So...

BEESON: And it's precisely that second provision of the law, Lou, that allows the FBI to use this provision against ordinary Americans, innocent people. ...

(CROSSTALK)

COMSTOCK: Ordinary Americans aren't involved in terrorism.

BEESON: No, no. They always had the power to investigate actual criminals and foreign terrorists. This allows them to go much farther and to get the academic transcripts, the medical records, even the genetic information...

DOBBS: Of Americans.

BEESON: ... of American citizens. That's right. John Ashcroft himself...

DOBBS: Barbara, is that true, Barbara?

COMSTOCK: No, it is only individuals. And what we have seen, obviously, there have been American citizens who have been involved in terrorism. But they have to be individuals who are involved in international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities like a Robert Hanssen. So certainly in a Robert Hanssen-type situation or a U.S. citizen who, say - you know, if you had a U.S. citizen who had decided to join up with the 19 hijackers, yes, we can go. But that is not an ordinary American. I don't think ordinary Americans consider people involved with international terrorism, people who go to training camps in Afghanistan...

BEESON: I have to encourage (ph)...

COMSTOCK: ... ordinary Americans. And that is what this is focused on. And we're required to go to the judge and demonstrate that. And Congress has been supervising this, and in a recent press release, Congress said they that had seen no misuse of the Section 215. They said they have no concern...

DOBBS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BEESON: Yes. I have to encourage all Americans to go and read this law for yourself and see just how broad it is. Go to ACLU.org. We have done a whole report on just this campaign of disinformation by Ms. Comstock about just what this law can do and how far it can reach. It's important that we all understand just how easily it could be used to violate our rights. It's shrouded in secrecy. It can be - the only order they have to obtain is from a secret court. And I think that there are many Americans, and you see this through the growing number of communities nationwide who are passing resolutions against the Patriot Act, just because of provisions like this. Over 140 communities nationwide have now passed community resolutions opposing the Patriot Act. And that's why most Americans now understand that they can't trust the FBI to police itself. We've got to step in. And that's why the ACLU has filed this lawsuit challenging the...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I'm sorry. Just for a moment, Barbara. Isn't it true that this has to be approved by a judge, not just simply the FBI in a search of records or...

BEESON: This is a secret court. It's a special secret court that I think Americans are growing more and more concerned about, unlike a normal order for information, a request for records under Section 215 only requires the FBI to certify that they're seeking it in relationship to an investigation.

DOBBS: Barbara, what about this issue of secrecy, what about the public's right to know, the First Amendment. COMSTOCK: Sure, well, of course, when you're investigating a conspiracy, whether it's a drug conspiracy, a mob conspiracy, or a terrorism conspiracy, would you not alert the people?

Say, if you had found out about a Mohammed Atta on September 10, you would want to find out the other 18 hijackers or the whole - you know, as many people as you could find in that conspiracy before you alert that one you know about him. So you don't go to a Mohammed Atta's lawyer and say, hey, can we look at your records. That is why you have always had for decades - and I should point out the ACLU not only opposes this section, they oppose the Patriot Act in general. They oppose the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. And they have opposed many of our provisions on the war on drugs. They philosophically are opposed to this.

But we have to be able in order to be able to break up a conspiracy to go to a court and to temporarily be able to keep things confidential until you find out the conspiracy in order to protect people.

DOBBS: Barbara Comstock, thank you very much. We're going to give Ann Beeson, the last word, quick words please.

BEESON: These gag orders are very different than those in other laws, they are permanent. Businesses that receive these requests for information from the FBI are permanently gagged from ever telling American citizens that they have been spied on. And that's one of the reasons why we think the law violates the Fourth Amendment, right to privacy and the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

DOBBS: And this issue is not only going to be debated here on "Face Off," but add adjudicated in court now. Ann Beeson of the ACLU, we thank you for being with us.

BEESON: Thank you.

DOBBS: Barbara Comstock of the U.S. Justice Department, thank you for being with us.

COMSTOCK: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: When we continue, from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jerry Springer. Who's in and who's out in politics tonight?

And scientists in Italy have beat the odds in a horse race of sorts. We'll tell you all about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Political theater, or theater of the absurd. Here is a list of who will and will not be running for political office as of today. It turns out talk show host Jerry Springer, he's out. He says he can't run for the U.S. Senate and continue to host a television show at the same time. Apparently, the television show pays somewhat better. In California's recall run for governor political columnist Arianna Huffington is in. She says she is not a conventional candidate. We are awaiting word contradicting her claim. And actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, well, we'll have to wait to find out whether he joins the recall race until he makes that announcement tonight on national television. National television, in this case, NBC's Jay Leno, or "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." Either way, it will be Jay Leno and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Italian scientists say they've created the world's first cloned horse. The healthy female weighed in at 80 pounds. What makes the case unusual is the horse was cloned from a cell taken from her mother. In effect, the mother carrying a twin of herself. Many experts say such a cloning would be impossible. At least that's what they used to say. Not anymore.

In other news, fire crews in Montana attacking the blaze in Glacier National Park. That fire has forced the closure of the park for a week. But a 2,000-acre back burn stopped its progress. Firefighters in Idaho have also managed to contain a wildfire in the Boise National Forest. Lightning strikes there, however could spark more fires.

That's what happened in Canada. Electrical storms ignited 46 new fires there in the past day. More lightning strikes are expected tonight.

In Portugal wildfires are blamed for the deaths of 14 people. Almost a quarter of a million acres of forest have been destroyed in the past ten days.

And Europe's heat wave is now one for the record books. London experienced the hottest day in the city's history. The thermometer reached 95.7 degrees. In Paris the 104 degree reading was close to its all-time high. The suffocating heat has led to at least 37 deaths.

Ozone concentrations have reached dangerous levels there as well. Roadways are buckling in the heat. River and lake levels are falling. Forecasters are warning there is no relief to the heat wave or the drought in sight.

When we continue, the preliminary results of our poll. We'll share some of your thoughts on "The Forgotten War." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Still ahead, your thoughts on "The Forgotten War," including the role drugs and the drug war play in our economy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll question, why do you think the media is so focused on the Kobe Bryant case? Two percent of you said the national interest, 3 percent said it's a legitimate story, 73 percent said, I think rather cynically, to drive circulation and ratings, 22 percent said all of the above. More reasonably. Now to the markets. Stocks finished little changed today following yesterday's sell-off. The Dow up 25, the Nasdaq down 20.

Christine Romans, what happened in the market today?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: The Nasdaq is down six days in seven now. Cisco is the problem there. But financial stocks and housing stocks are strong for the Dow and the S&P, that's because interest rates, at least for today, were a little bit lower. Industry upgrades helping those financial stocks, Lehman and Morgan Stanley having a very good day. But look at the housing stocks, Lou. Toll Brothers revenue jumped 22 percent in the quarter. The company said recent rising rates actually enticing people off the fence to get out there and start buying homes. Home Depot rallying 3 percent. Take a look at this. In the last week a near record number of mortgage applications. Even as the average 30-year rate soared half a point, to 6.37 percent for mortgages, that's the highest in more than a year.

DOBBS: These are new mortgage applications, refinancing still getting hammered.

ROMANS: Yes.

DOBBS: All right. Christine Romans, thank you.

"Your Thoughts" now. Many of you writing in about our series of reports on "The Forgotten War."

Kathy Stinesteet of Kentucky, "The U.S. has no real interest in ending the drug trade which supports so many jobs, provides the government with endless money from confiscated goods, and gives politicians another reason to spend our hard earned tax dollars."

Chris Keen, of Puerto Rico said, "Enforcing drug laws is like enforcing traffic laws, you're not going to stop everyone from breaking the law, but if law enforcement is not out there, a lot more people are going to die."

We want to hear from you. We enjoy your thoughts and sharing them. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "LIVE FROM THE HEADLINES" with Anderson Cooper is next.

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





What Did Jakarta Authorities Knew About Terror Attack?>


Aired August 6, 2003 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, you're looking at pictures of the media frenzy surrounding Kobe Bryant's court appearance to fact sexual assault charges. We'll have live reports, legal analysis, and hear why, for better or worse, this media frenzy is reflective of our society.

The PATRIOT Act, is it a necessary change of law for our collective security, or an unreasonable surrender of individual rights and liberties? Tonight's face-off -- between the Justice Department's Barbara Comstock and Ann Beeson of the ACLU.

The war on terror. The U.S. military knew of the terrorist threat in Indonesia, but Jakarta authorities knew more and didn't tell. Barbara Starr reports from the Pentagon.

The forgotten war. Former Drug Czar William Bennett on the progress on the war on drugs. And Jan Hopkins reports on why too few of our kids can just say no.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, August 6. Here now, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening. The Kobe Bryant hearing is beginning now. Judge Frederick Gannett is presiding over the Eagle County courtroom. Let's go live now to Eagle, Colorado. You're looking at, obviously, Kobe Bryant. Let's listen in.

JUDGE FREDERICK GANNETT: We have several pending motions. There is a motion to seal, unseal the file. There are proposed findings of fact that have been filed by the district attorney, by the defendant, that will be filed tomorrow by the media applicant, and I'm told by Mr. Robbins (ph) that he will not file supplemental documents.

So I anticipate that we will rule on those matters not before August 18. I'm gone until then. Makes that kind of easy.

There is a media applicant motion to clarify or modify the decorum order, and to the best of my knowledge there's not been a response filed by anybody to that document. And I think the time for filing it expires on our around August 14, and the court would intend to rule on that expeditiously after that date. There is in place, filed yesterday, defendant's motion for a hearing to enforce a court order. I've issued today an order that has been passed out to the parties that represents a stipulation of the parties, and it, in effect, enables the court to appoint a special investigator to inquire into the allegations advanced by the defendant, to make that report back to the court, and to ensure that the district attorney's office and the defendant receives copies, unredacted copies of those recommendations.

Depending on that recommendation, we will either proceed to an evidentiary hearing, or the matter will be concluded without one. The court has met with, at least by telephone, Sheriff Bob Braudis of the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department. The Pitkin County Sheriff's Department has agreed to allow its investigative staff to serve as the special investigator from the court, and in an order signed this afternoon I have appointed the office of the Pitkin County sheriff to act as a special investigator on behalf of the court.

I would like the district attorney's office and the defendant to provide me any direction that you would want advanced to the sheriff's office so that I can review it and then get it to them and allow them to get that process under way.

Copies of that order will be made available to the public and to the press later this afternoon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When do you want those -- when do you want our direction?

GANNETT: If you could get that to me by mid-week next week, I won't be here, but I'll be checking in with the staff, and then I'll give you the name of the contact person at the Pitkin County sheriff's office. And after a review, we'll either file those directly with them or I'll pass them through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great. Thanks.

GANNETT: We're now down to an advisement. Miss Mackey.

PAMELA MACKEY, KOBE BRYANT'S ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor.

GANNETT: How do you wish me to proceed with regard to this issue?

MACKEY: Your honor, with regard to reading an advisement we will waive any further reading or advisement of the charge.

GANNETT: All right. With regard to your client's rights, how would you have me proceed?

MACKEY: We fully advise him and would waive that as well, your honor.

GANNETT: Any requests with regard to a preliminary hearing?

MACKEY: Yes, your honor. We would request that a preliminary hearing be held. We are willing to waive the 30-day rule. And I understand the court has selected a date.

GANNETT: That's correct. I've picked a date. It's October the 9th. It's at 1:00 in the afternoon.

Mr. Bryant, you're entitled to a hearing, and you've requested a hearing. The rule requires that if you request that hearing be held within 30 days. Any objection to that being waived?

KOBE BRYANT: No, sir.

GANNETT: All right. Having waived that, the matter will be set for a hearing at 1:00 on the 9th day of October.

That takes care of that. I understand I've been provided with a copy of the waiver of extradition.

MACKEY: Yes, sir.

GANNETT: And I think that I have that here.

DOBBS: Kobe Bryant standing in the courtroom, listening to Judge Gannett, to his right is Pamela Mackey, representing the defendant in this sexual assault case, Kobe Bryant, and as you are watching and hearing now, this will be about scheduling, the process moving toward trial. The date at this point is October 9. And is the preliminary hearing set to hear the sexual assault charges brought against Kobe Bryant. Let's return to the courtroom.

GANNETT: This is a very fast event for so much attention. I have a couple of comments to make, and they relate to the pretrial order issued by the court, and folks, you can have a seat. Thank you very much.

Now, the court issued an order with regard to pretrial publicity. It was issued on July the 24th. And it is in effect and will remain in effect for the pendency of the case. I'd like to remind all parties, and particularly I'm focusing my attention on the attorneys of record and any persons acting under their scope or authority. And for clarification, that does include any law enforcement personnel investigating the case. That those orders are in effect, and that they are deemed to be significant admonition against the release or discussion of materials contained in the investigation process.

The purpose behind it is to ensure that there's a fair trial for all parties. And I want to the extent possible to advance that issue at every opportunity.

So I am concerned with some of the reports that I have seen in the press. They appear to me to address issues that are not generally available to the public. And to the extent that the court in the process of appointing a special investigator can determine the origin of those pieces of information, we'll deal with it in a way that order sets forth.

But this is just another effort by me to remind parties to the case, be careful. This is really it. And I just, again, want to remind all the people seated here today, remain seated until all the parties have left the courtroom. At that time, you may leave. And this matter is continued until October 9 at 1:00 p.m. Thank you.

MACKEY: Thank you, your honor.

DOBBS: Judge Frederick Gannett setting October 9 as the date of the preliminary hearing. You heard Kobe Bryant himself accept the waiver of the 30-day rule that would otherwise have required that that hearing take place within a 30-day period. That October 9 date not particularly surprising. Perhaps surprising is the fact that Judge Frederick Gannett also ordered a special investigator be established and appointed, of the sheriff's office, to begin that investigation as to the source of leaks that the judge says has been manifest in a number of publications and news articles with information that is under seal by the court. The judge obviously means to enforce his orders requiring that that evidence be kept under seal.

We will be talking with our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. He is in the courtroom in Eagle, Colorado and will join us in just a moment. We're going now to Rusty Dornin outside that courthouse in Eagle, Colorado where you have just seen Kobe Bryant appear and now exit -- Rusty.

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, it's very interesting, because his attorneys tried to (UNINTELLIBLE) miss this proceeding, because it wasn't really required that he be here. Instead though, the judge required Kobe Bryant to be present here, however, they did waive his right to hear those charges read allowed knowing, that of course, they would be played over and over and over again. The judge reading the charges of the sexual assault charges. So they waived that hearing out loud so that that would not be somethign that would be replayed in the media.

Of course we did expect the preliminary hearing to be waived for more than 30 days. Gives the defense more time to put their case together. In cases like this, it is very common. Also, there is the chance that the accuser get cold feet, may not testify. Anything could happen.

Also, they appointed a special investigator for the court. Which, as you say, was very interesting. In this case, he didn't really give a reason why. Also, towards the end, he talked about -- he gave an admonition to law enforcement authorities, not to talk about this case. And that came from the defense team did file a motion saying that the -- there is sort of a gag order, it's not called a gag order, but it is a gag order, on law enforcement, court staff, and such.

And apparently, the defense team felt that the sheriff's department and some other members law enforcement were leaking things to the press and they wanted sanctions against them. Now the judge did not appear -- he was not going to impose any sanctions, but he did give a warning again, please do not talk about this case. We want to ensure a fair trial. Another interesting thing, of course, when Kobe Bryant left the courthouse, there was quite -- I was looking behind me. We can show you the crowd. It's just beginning to disperse here. A lot of press, but a lot of people from the town of Eagle. And there were -- I couldn't hear any boos. For the most, it seemed like people were cheering. There were also some balloons, some yellow and purple balloons, of course, the Laker colors, attached to cars in the parking lot here. So it would appear that a number of Kobe's fans in the accuser's hometown did show up to see the superstar.

Next time it looks that we'll see Kobe Bryant in court October 9. That will be a preliminary hearing. And after that preliminary hearing, he will have an arraignment. And, of course, then it will be decided whether there's going to a change of venue, should he be bound over for trial -- Lou.

DOBBS: As you pointed out, the spectators there -- do we know for certain those are local residents carrying Laker-colored balloons, as you put it?

DORNIN: Well, we did talk to a few of the folks wearing -- the kids wearing the Laker uniforms, some of them selling ice cream and that sort of thing around here. So we do know that a number of people from the community did show up here. Of course, I don't know if all of them -- some other people could have come from out of town, from Denver, from L.A. But there were a few that were obviously Laker fans, yes.

DOBBS: And Kobe Bryant was greeted with cheers and boos as if it were in fact, forgive the expression, a sporting event?

DORNIN: That's right. Back in court, this time a legal court, where he could be facing some pretty serious charges. Obviously, like I said, we won't see him back in court again until October 9.

DOBBS: Rusty Dornin reporting just outside the Eagle, Colorado courtroom. We thank you very much.

We're going to bring in my guests here in the studio now to discuss some of the media and the legal issues and implications raised by this case.

Sal Fallica is a media professor at New York University.

Michael Dorf, law professor at Columbia University. Gentlemen, good to have you here.

Let me turn to you first, Sal. When Rusty Dornin reports that people, --and we saw people lined up with balloons, team colors, cheers and boos greeting a defendant in a very serious case, what does that say about what's going on out in Eagle, Colorado, and now through the media the nation?

PROF. SAL FALLICA, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Well, it's a media narrative that has, I think, compelling emotional appeal to everyone. This gentleman, Kobe Bryant, represents some of the best things about our society. He's achieved an enormous amount. And he's ripe for a fall.

DOBBS: Ripe for a fall?

FALLICA: Ripe for a fall. I say ripe because the drama has to play out. And as -- and what we are seeing here in terms of this legal -- these legal-- this legal business, which Michael will talk about later, you're seeing a kind of exposition to the drama.

DOBBS: This drama, this media frenzy and it is that, as Rusty Dornin was pointing out, a third of the space in that courtroom for journalists. Thirty live trucks and satellite trucks hooking up all of America to the proceedings inside a courtroom, which frankly was all about a scheduling today. What does that say about our society?

FALLICA: It's part of the story.

DOBBS: Well, I understand that. But what does it say about our society?

FALLICA: You mean that we're obsessed with celebrity?

DOBBS: Correct.

FALLICA: We're obsessed with celebrity. And we're -- but, I mean, not to -- not to discount this fact, we are always interested regarding the pains and misfortunes of others. I mean, we can -- we can take the high road on this is and say this is an awful, you know, thing for the American people to be obsessed with. But essentially, we're all interested in this kind of tragedy. This is our contemporary tragedy in a sense.

And if you look at it from -- you know, as a narrative or as a metaphor for all kinds of things in our culture, that's the way people will read it.

DOBBS: Well, Professor Dorf, let me bring -- because I think that really does bring us to the next point. Professor Fallica has been talking about the tragedy here, our fixation. But by law, we're not permitted to exhibit or report the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. Who, if these charges are true -- for whom this is really the true tragedy, is it not?

PROF. MICHAEL DORF, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Well, there's a tragedy here no matter what. Either there's a tragedy in terms of what Bryant did to this woman or there's a tragedy in that he's been falsely accused. So there's no good solution to this. Something terrible has happened. And the point of the legal proceedings is to discover why.

As to the question of the accuser's name, actually the media are permitted to reveal that. It's just that major and respectable media organizations have a policy of not revealing...

DOBBS: And in this case that policy is given greater weight by the fact that Judge Gannett has said do not reveal that name or there will be punishment. Now we get back to you on whether or not that -- whether this judge truly has that authority and whether such an order is constitutional from any bench in the country.

But first let's go out to Eagle, Colorado. Jeffrey Toobin has made his way from that packed courtroom, through a maze of reporters, onlookers, lawyers, bystanders, and joins us now.

Jeffrey, let me -- let me turn first -- any surprises for you in what you've witnessed there?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was advertised to be routine, and it was routine.

Although, you know, it was, I have to say, dramatic to see Kobe Bryant in that courtroom. He is a very familiar figure to most -- or any American. Certainly all sports fans. And to see him in that extremely uncomfortable position and looking not at all happy, not changing his expression once during the entire seven minutes and 30 seconds he was in that courtroom -- I mean, it underscored for me the gravity of the situation he finds himself in.

DOBBS: Gravity in that he could face as much as life in prison under Colorado law if -- depending upon the charges that are ultimately brought and the penalties that could follow.

There was a surprise, at least to me, in that courtroom, Jeffrey, and that was the appointment of a special investigator. What do you make of that?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, I think this was a small example of why it pays to have extremely aggressive, competent defense attorneys. Because what they did was they took some arguably improper statements attributed to prosecutors and to the sheriff, and they said we want an investigation. We want to go forward.

Now, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the time in high- profile cases, these sorts of comments. But you know, oftentimes it's just sort of shrugged off. Here they have asked for an investigator. Now they've got one. They've got a sheriff who's going to interview everybody and talk -- and find out whether there's more to investigate.

This sheriff, who's from a neighboring county, will investigate and report back to the judge. Maybe there will be a hearing about these possible violations. Maybe there won't. But the wheels are churning now. Stuff is being churned up. And that's where defense attorneys flourish, in improvising, in finding out stuff that prosecutors didn't want to disclose necessarily. And the wheels are turning now. Perhaps it will add up to nothing. But it's a start.

DOBBS: The perhaps really begin rolling now as this legal process begins in earnest.

Let me bring in Professor Dorf and Professor Fallica. Jeffrey is raising an interesting point, and that is this judge now has an investigator going after evidence at the behest initially at least of the defendant to find out if news organizations acquired information illegally from a source knowledgeable because of the documents in the legal process.

But the media has every right to go after information, about the accuser, about the details, and as a matter of fact, one could argue, a definitive responsibility. What in your judgment will happen here?

Let me start with you, professor.

FALLICA: Well, this turns towards the role of the media in this, and what I think I'm seeing with this judgment here, that the media is becoming part and parcel of the process and the judge seems to be coming down on you folks, probably because he wants to limit the amount of speculation and commentary.

DOBBS: Professor Dorf, does he have the power, does he have the right to do it?

DORF: He has the power and the right to investigate the people subject to his order, namely, the prosecutor's office and the sheriff's office. The media is protected by the First Amendment to publish information, even if it was revealed to them by people who violated the law to get it. That's the holding in the Pentagon Papers case on in the Vietnam War.

DOBBS: And he suggested that he would not permit those news organizations into his courtroom or have access to that live video if they are guilty of breaching his order. Does he have the power to do that?

DORF: Probably no, although the organizations are not going to breach it anyway.

DOBBS: Jeffrey -- Jeffrey Toobin, you get the last word here. Your thoughts as we conclude our coverage.

TOOBIN: Well, it's just that, you know, so much of the coverage so far has been in the form of leaks and words, that investigators may or may not have disclosed. Come October 9, we're going to note some actual facts about what the case against Kobe Bryant is. And I think that's highly appropriate, that the action move into the courtroom as opposed to the backrooms where people may or may not be telling the truth to journalists.

DOBBS: You're not suggesting that we in the media will just simply defer to those courtrooms and the legal process without taking some small note of the proceedings, are you?

TOOBIN: Well, no. I think good information crowds out bad, and we'll have some good information come October 9. That's my hope, anyway, Lou.

DOBBS: Your hope, my faith. We thank you very much, as always, Jeffrey Toobin, live in Eagle, Colorado. Professor Dorf, we thank you very much. Professor Fallica, thank you very much.

That brings us to the subject of our poll question tonight.

Why do you think the media is so focused on this case?

National interest, the legitimacy of the story, to drive circulation and ratings, or all of the above?

Please vote at our Web site, cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show. The final results of last night's poll question, should the United States cut aid to Israel should it continue to build the wall? Sixty two percent of you vote, yes, 36 percent, no, 2 percent said, maybe.

Coming up next, a warning. In the days before the bombing in Indonesia, it was kept classified. And authorities in Jakarta knew even more, and they didn't tell.

Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr will report.

Also ahead did -- our series of special reports this week, "The Forgotten War." Tonight, an ounce of prevention, may be worth a kilo of cure in the war on drugs. Jan Hopkins will report. We'll be joined by former drug czar, William Bennett.

And our face-off tonight. The patriot act. How much should we sacrifice of our individual rights for collective security?

Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department, Ann Beeson of the ACLU are here, and they face off tonight. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Seven U.S. military advisors arrived in Liberia today to assist Nigerian peacekeepers in the capital city of Monrovia. Those advisors arrived on Black Hawk helicopters from U.S. warships waiting off the Liberian coast. Those helicopters also carried a three-person disaster relief team. Two U.S. amphibious warfare ships are about 100 miles from the Liberian coast now. They include the helicopter carrier "Iwo Jima." The ships are carrying more than 2,000 U.S. Marines.

Police investigating the Marriott Hotel attack in Indonesia today said the car bomb was detonated by mobile phone. At least 14 people were killed, 150 others wounded including two Americans. Police today released a sketch of one of the men, one of the two men they believe bought the car that was used in that terrorist attack. Authorities say the hotel bomb was similar to those used in two other attacks by radical Islamists linked to al Qaeda, including the terrorist attack in Bali that killed 200 people.

The Pentagon has been aware for the past two weeks of the possibility of a terrorist attack in Indonesia. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr joins me now with the story -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, a number of developments on this front. Now, here at the Pentagon we have learned that within the last two weeks or so, as you say the Defense Intelligence Agency raised, or updated, rather, its own threat warning about Indonesia to military commanders. They took this action for a very specific reason. All of this before the Jakarta bombing. And that is because in early July Indonesian authorities arrested several people who were members of the Jemaah Islamiah, that radical Islamic group possibly tied to al Qaeda that had been responsible for the Bali bombing, it was believed, and possibly now for this bombing.

When they arrested those people in early July, they seized weapons, but they also seized documents. The Indonesian authorities saying those documents indicated more attacks were being planned against possibly commercial targets in Indonesia, places where Americans might gather. That led the DIA to update its own warning, but very critical point, the Indonesians had no information at that time about a specific location, a specific time and place, in which those attacks might occur.

So that was a question of judgment on the part of the Bush administration, apparently, about whether to take any further action. The DIA updated its warning. We have learned the State Department chose not to update its travel warning to Indonesia. Officials saying they already had a very high level of warning about the concern Americans should have about going to Indonesia, about gathering in public places, and that this new information provided by the Indonesians was not specific enough and they had no reason to update their travel warning. But here at the Pentagon the DIA, military intelligence officials clearly felt there was a reason to add this additional information to their classified warnings -- Lou.

DOBBS: Barbara, any reaction at the pentagon to the reports that Jakarta authorities knew that there was a terrorist threat against the general area around the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta?

STARR: Well, officials say that they knew from the Indonesians, again, that there were documents, that there was information, that there was a growing trail of evidence that the J.i. group was planning and continues to plan more of these small tactical attacks against commercial targets, against places where either Indonesians or Americans might gather. Shopping centers, restaurants, hotels, malls, all that sort of thing. They know right now this is a very serious threat, but they don't have direct information about time or place. And I must add, Lou, that they are very concerned, of course, about tomorrow in Jakarta. They expect the first verdict to be handed down by the courts against the first people being tried for the Bali bombing. A lot of concern about what may happen tomorrow.

DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much. Barbara Starr reporting from the Pentagon.

Coming up next here asleep at the wheel. And American drivers driven to distraction by an alarming array of activities performed behind the wheel.

And London's hottest day ever. The heat wave is far from over. We'll have a report for you.

And our face-off tonight. The patriot act. A new lawsuit says the law goes too far, many Americans agree. In the face-off Tonight, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department and Ann Beeson of the ACLU, next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: In a world full of distractions, American drivers face a host of distractions that include children screaming from the back seat, the radio blaring in the front seat, fast food hamburgers flying around the car. According to a new survey from the American Automobile Association, American drivers are being driven to distraction. Patty Davis joins us from Washington with the story -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, AAA put videocameras in volunteers' cars for one entire week, and this is what they saw. Let's show you the video.

You see people writing while they're driving, flipping through reading materials, they are eating, drinking, and dealing with children in the back seat. Now, AAA says that distracted driving accounts for anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of all accidents.

Of course, everybody thinks there's a good driver -- that they're a good driver, but the top distractions here, reaching and leaning in your car 97 percent of those volunteers did that. Tuning the radio. Also eating and drinking and conversing. Now, personal grooming also high up on that list.

For instance, putting your mascara on in the car, which I have personally seen while I have been driving. Also, cell phones surprisingly not high up on that list. Only 30 percent of people, the volunteers surveyed here, were actually doing that. And these volunteers had no idea what that camera was shooting while it was in their car.

Now, AAA does have some tips for drivers, and number one, they're saying program your radio stations so you don't have to flip around to find some song that you like. Designate a co-pilot. If you have a map, that person can look at that, do your grooming at home, and teach your kids to behave in the back seat so you're not distracted. AAA's effort here, make people aware so that they could be better drivers on the road -- Lou.

DOBBS: Patty, thank you very much. Patty Davis, let me add to your list one that may rank there with some of your unusual driving distractions. Caroline Donkers was arrested, charged with child endangerment. She, it turns out, was breast feeding her baby while driving on the Ohio Turnpike. In court today Donkers said she did nothing wrong. She also has no driver's license she has no Social Security card, and she has no marriage license. She says her religion doesn't allow them.

Still ahead here -- the war on drugs. The forgotten war. Tonight, efforts to keep kids away from drugs, are those efforts working? Jan Hopkins will report. Former drug czar William Bennett joins us.

And "Exporting America." Factory jobs continue to disappear from this country at a staggering rate.

And the ever-changing face of politics. Who's in, who's out in these upcoming elections. We'll have that story, a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS; "The Forgotten War", at issue, how to reduce demand for drugs in this country, especially among young people. Jan Hopkins looks at drug prevention programs and whether they're working.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAN HOPKINS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's 3:00 in the afternoon, and the community outreach center in Brewster, New York, is swarming with kids.

GILBERT BOTVIN, CORNELL INST. FOR PREVENTION RESEARCH: We know that the high-risk period for kids, for example, is between 3:00 in the afternoon and 6:00 in the afternoon. So kids need to be monitored and supervised.

HOPKINS: These teens are considered at risk. The center gets them off the streets and helps them make choices that don't include drugs.

TABITHA SAEZ, AGE 18: This is just an environment where, you know, drugs aren't allowed. And it's just a good place to be.

KURT NISSEN, AGE 18: I didn't have to, you know, worry about doing everything that I used to. It just helped me, you know, just relax. Stop trying to be everybody else.

HOPKINS: The staff has seen kids change.

LAUREN AZEEZ BENNETT, PROGRAM MANAGER, COMMUNITY OUTREACH CTR.: They're less likely to use drugs. They're making healthier decisions. They're avoiding risky behavior. They're staying in school longer longer.

HOPKINS: According to federal statistics, illegal drug use among teenagers is leveling off after rising in the '90s.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What should you do when someone offers you drugs?

CHILDREN: No!

HOPKIN: Drug prevention campaigns have changed through the years. In the 1980s Nancy Reagan started her "Just Say No" campaign. Also in the '80s the LAPD developed the DARE program, in which police brought the anti-drug message to schools.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think a drug is?

HOPKINS: A recent GAO report questions the effectiveness of the DARE program. The current push is away from scaring kids about drugs...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

HOPKINS: ...and towards building up confidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who believe in themselves in here?

HOPKINS: In Philadelphia young kids get a year-round lesson in thinking positively about themselves and staying away from drugs. Parents are also being recruited for the war on drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marijuana use can be prevented by taking your kids to this clinic.

JOSEPH CALIFANO, NATL. CTR. ON ADDICTION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Parent power is the most underutilized tool in combatting substance abuse, and it's the most effective tool. How parents act, what their attitudes are about drugs, how engaged they are in their child's life, will have more to do with whether that child uses drugs than anything else that affects that child.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOPKINS: But parents can't always be there for their kids. So experts say that school and community programs are important. Yet these programs are fighting for funding in an environment when communities, schools, and government are all cutting back -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jan, thank you very much.

Drug use dropped, as Jan reported, during Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign in the 1980s. William Bennett helped spread that campaign through the nation's schools. Later he became the country's first director of drug control. William Bennett joins us now from Aspen, Colorado. Good to have you with us.

WILLIAM BENNETT, FRM. DRUG CZAR: Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: The "Just Say No" program, nearly every television comic had a field day with the expression, the, if you will, intelligentsia made great fun of it.

BENNETT: Right. But the thing worked.

Sure, it did. Yes, a lot of the intelligentsia and the comics, some academics made fun of it. They said what they often say about messages of this sort. It was too simple, but the kids liked it. They responded to it. They understood it. And they used it. And that's why you heard that chorus of children responding the way they did.

DOBBS: And today, Bill, we are faced with an onslaught of new synthetic drugs. We are faced with the same old drugs, heroin, cocaine, marijuana. Is there, even over a period of some time, we've already put in three decades, is there hope for absolute definitive success in this war against drugs?

BENNETT: Well, if you mean by absolute definitive success zero, no, you're never going to get to zero. But can we get to acceptable levels? Yes. From 1985 to 1991 drug use went down by about 60 percent in this country, Lou. That's very substantial.

What's discouraging is when you see polls, and you had a poll here the other night on your show, where people say let's not continue the effort, let's not spend more money. The history of this...

DOBBS: Did that surprise you?

BENNETT: It did surprise me, though I know trends are going in this direction, as the legalization trend is building. But the history of this is very simple. When societies tend to get hard on drugs and give a clear and unambiguous message, drug use goes down. When they have some success at this, they tend to pull back, which is where I think we are now. We shouldn't pull back. Attention must be paid. The front line is the parent, as Joe Califano said. And the school. And then other messages in the culture.

There are some great successes out there in local communities and education programs, and attention must be paid to them.

DOBBS: The schools, you when you were secretary of education embraced the "Just Say No" program. Schools face a host of issues today beyond drugs that we didn't anticipate almost two decades ago. Does the federal government have to do more here in education on drugs in the schools?

BENNETT: Yes, it does, but -- it does, but as John Walters, the drug czar, will tell you, a lot of it doesn't have to cost a lot of money. Policy is probably the most important thing, policy and attention. If parents, teachers, school administrators will pay attention, send a clear, unambiguous message, this can have as much effect as anything else. Kids are worried about drugs, and if we respond in a way that suggests we're with them, we're not surrendering, it could be very positive.

DOBBS: Not too brush too large an issue here, but just quickly, because this is a drug culture. We have 60 million people taking various drugs to reduce depression, to reduce anxiety, prescription legal drugs. We have 30 million people at least drinking alcohol in this country. Are we going to have to change as a culture in order to win the war on drugs?

BENNETT: Well, cultures have to figure this out in different ways. And we make different distinctions.

Some of these lines aren't as bright and bold as we would like. Nevertheless -- nevertheless, what we say is that there are some things that are acceptable, acceptable for adults and not for children.

The interesting thing -- and we can't ever forget is that most kids are on our side, and they expect us to be on their side. They don't expect us to retreat. They don't expect us to surrender. There are some adults where, you know, you see the numbers -- where some kids have had their first marijuana at home, where they've shared marijuana with their parents. When you've got that kind of thing, you know, you've got a disaster.

But if parents would recognize that kids are looking for clear signals, it can help a great deal.

DOBBS: Bill Bennett, thank you for being here to help us as we try to focus on this important issue. Bill Bennett.

BENNETT: Thank you, sir.

DOBBS: When we continue, "Face Off": The Patriot Act. Is it a violation of your civil rights or is it protection for your family? Ann Beeson of the ACLU, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department "Face Off" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The Patriot Act is the focus of tonight's "Face Off." The goal, to help prevent terrorist attacks, but critics say it's aimed at the wrong targets.

Ann Beeson is the lead attorney for the ACLU. She says the FBI's expanded powers to search personal records, amongst other things, is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department's spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, says the provision in question was long overdue and applies only to those who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents.

Barbara, Ann, we thank you both for being here.

Let me turn, if I may first, to you, Barbara. The idea of "sneak and peek" is under attack, Section 215 is under attack, is that section so important to the collective security interests envisioned by the Patriot Act?

BARBARA COMSTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Sure it is, Lou.

Let me explain just for your audience just some of the basics of the Patriot Act. It was a long overdue measure that was bipartisanly and overwhelmingly supported in Congress, 98 out of the 100 senators supported it, only one voted against it, and by a five to four - 5.4 to one margin in the House. And what it did is it just allowed us to update technology so that we could be tracking terrorists who use the disposable cell phones and a lot of advanced technology because we were stuck back in the rotary.

And then it also allowed to us share information between our intelligence sources and our law enforcement because before we couldn't connect a lot of the dots we had. And what it also did was allow us to just collect some of this information that we weren't able to collect before by being able to go after criminal terrorists. And as Senator Joe Biden said, before the Patriot Act, we could go - we could do a wire tap on a Mafia boss but we couldn't do it on a terrorist. And that was crazy. And Senator Biden was right, it was crazy not to be able to use the same tools we were using in the drug war that you were just talking about or against Mafia bosses and then take those same legal tools and use them against terrorism. And we always have to have - duly authorized by a judge. We have to get a warrant. And we have to go in and demonstrate to the judge that it is somebody who is involved in international terrorism or a clandestine foreign spy, somebody like a Robert Hanssen or, you know, people who are involved in terrorism, ties to international terrorism.

DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much.

Let's turn to Ann. Barbara is persuasive. As she points out, in the days immediately following September 11, the Senate did vote 98 to 1, the Congress by a slightly larger margin - slightly smaller margin. What is the problem with Section 215? It is - has, at least, Barbara, Comstock, John Ashcroft, the attorney general, they say it's working. What's the problem?

ANN BEESON, ASSOCIATE LEGAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Congress is now actually seriously reconsidering this particular provision. There are a number of different amendments that are pending in the House that would repeal portions of the act. This law allowed the FBI to secretly obtain the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not just apply to criminals and terrorists. It applies to innocent people.

DOBBS: Wait a minute, Barbara Comstock just said this applies only to foreign nationals and nonpermanent residents.

BEESON: If you look at actual...

COMSTOCK: No, what I said, Lou...

DOBBS: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Barbara.

COMSTOCK: Actually the language from the statute is to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. So...

BEESON: And it's precisely that second provision of the law, Lou, that allows the FBI to use this provision against ordinary Americans, innocent people. ...

(CROSSTALK)

COMSTOCK: Ordinary Americans aren't involved in terrorism.

BEESON: No, no. They always had the power to investigate actual criminals and foreign terrorists. This allows them to go much farther and to get the academic transcripts, the medical records, even the genetic information...

DOBBS: Of Americans.

BEESON: ... of American citizens. That's right. John Ashcroft himself...

DOBBS: Barbara, is that true, Barbara?

COMSTOCK: No, it is only individuals. And what we have seen, obviously, there have been American citizens who have been involved in terrorism. But they have to be individuals who are involved in international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities like a Robert Hanssen. So certainly in a Robert Hanssen-type situation or a U.S. citizen who, say - you know, if you had a U.S. citizen who had decided to join up with the 19 hijackers, yes, we can go. But that is not an ordinary American. I don't think ordinary Americans consider people involved with international terrorism, people who go to training camps in Afghanistan...

BEESON: I have to encourage (ph)...

COMSTOCK: ... ordinary Americans. And that is what this is focused on. And we're required to go to the judge and demonstrate that. And Congress has been supervising this, and in a recent press release, Congress said they that had seen no misuse of the Section 215. They said they have no concern...

DOBBS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BEESON: Yes. I have to encourage all Americans to go and read this law for yourself and see just how broad it is. Go to ACLU.org. We have done a whole report on just this campaign of disinformation by Ms. Comstock about just what this law can do and how far it can reach. It's important that we all understand just how easily it could be used to violate our rights. It's shrouded in secrecy. It can be - the only order they have to obtain is from a secret court. And I think that there are many Americans, and you see this through the growing number of communities nationwide who are passing resolutions against the Patriot Act, just because of provisions like this. Over 140 communities nationwide have now passed community resolutions opposing the Patriot Act. And that's why most Americans now understand that they can't trust the FBI to police itself. We've got to step in. And that's why the ACLU has filed this lawsuit challenging the...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I'm sorry. Just for a moment, Barbara. Isn't it true that this has to be approved by a judge, not just simply the FBI in a search of records or...

BEESON: This is a secret court. It's a special secret court that I think Americans are growing more and more concerned about, unlike a normal order for information, a request for records under Section 215 only requires the FBI to certify that they're seeking it in relationship to an investigation.

DOBBS: Barbara, what about this issue of secrecy, what about the public's right to know, the First Amendment. COMSTOCK: Sure, well, of course, when you're investigating a conspiracy, whether it's a drug conspiracy, a mob conspiracy, or a terrorism conspiracy, would you not alert the people?

Say, if you had found out about a Mohammed Atta on September 10, you would want to find out the other 18 hijackers or the whole - you know, as many people as you could find in that conspiracy before you alert that one you know about him. So you don't go to a Mohammed Atta's lawyer and say, hey, can we look at your records. That is why you have always had for decades - and I should point out the ACLU not only opposes this section, they oppose the Patriot Act in general. They oppose the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. And they have opposed many of our provisions on the war on drugs. They philosophically are opposed to this.

But we have to be able in order to be able to break up a conspiracy to go to a court and to temporarily be able to keep things confidential until you find out the conspiracy in order to protect people.

DOBBS: Barbara Comstock, thank you very much. We're going to give Ann Beeson, the last word, quick words please.

BEESON: These gag orders are very different than those in other laws, they are permanent. Businesses that receive these requests for information from the FBI are permanently gagged from ever telling American citizens that they have been spied on. And that's one of the reasons why we think the law violates the Fourth Amendment, right to privacy and the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

DOBBS: And this issue is not only going to be debated here on "Face Off," but add adjudicated in court now. Ann Beeson of the ACLU, we thank you for being with us.

BEESON: Thank you.

DOBBS: Barbara Comstock of the U.S. Justice Department, thank you for being with us.

COMSTOCK: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: When we continue, from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jerry Springer. Who's in and who's out in politics tonight?

And scientists in Italy have beat the odds in a horse race of sorts. We'll tell you all about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Political theater, or theater of the absurd. Here is a list of who will and will not be running for political office as of today. It turns out talk show host Jerry Springer, he's out. He says he can't run for the U.S. Senate and continue to host a television show at the same time. Apparently, the television show pays somewhat better. In California's recall run for governor political columnist Arianna Huffington is in. She says she is not a conventional candidate. We are awaiting word contradicting her claim. And actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, well, we'll have to wait to find out whether he joins the recall race until he makes that announcement tonight on national television. National television, in this case, NBC's Jay Leno, or "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." Either way, it will be Jay Leno and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Italian scientists say they've created the world's first cloned horse. The healthy female weighed in at 80 pounds. What makes the case unusual is the horse was cloned from a cell taken from her mother. In effect, the mother carrying a twin of herself. Many experts say such a cloning would be impossible. At least that's what they used to say. Not anymore.

In other news, fire crews in Montana attacking the blaze in Glacier National Park. That fire has forced the closure of the park for a week. But a 2,000-acre back burn stopped its progress. Firefighters in Idaho have also managed to contain a wildfire in the Boise National Forest. Lightning strikes there, however could spark more fires.

That's what happened in Canada. Electrical storms ignited 46 new fires there in the past day. More lightning strikes are expected tonight.

In Portugal wildfires are blamed for the deaths of 14 people. Almost a quarter of a million acres of forest have been destroyed in the past ten days.

And Europe's heat wave is now one for the record books. London experienced the hottest day in the city's history. The thermometer reached 95.7 degrees. In Paris the 104 degree reading was close to its all-time high. The suffocating heat has led to at least 37 deaths.

Ozone concentrations have reached dangerous levels there as well. Roadways are buckling in the heat. River and lake levels are falling. Forecasters are warning there is no relief to the heat wave or the drought in sight.

When we continue, the preliminary results of our poll. We'll share some of your thoughts on "The Forgotten War." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Still ahead, your thoughts on "The Forgotten War," including the role drugs and the drug war play in our economy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll question, why do you think the media is so focused on the Kobe Bryant case? Two percent of you said the national interest, 3 percent said it's a legitimate story, 73 percent said, I think rather cynically, to drive circulation and ratings, 22 percent said all of the above. More reasonably. Now to the markets. Stocks finished little changed today following yesterday's sell-off. The Dow up 25, the Nasdaq down 20.

Christine Romans, what happened in the market today?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: The Nasdaq is down six days in seven now. Cisco is the problem there. But financial stocks and housing stocks are strong for the Dow and the S&P, that's because interest rates, at least for today, were a little bit lower. Industry upgrades helping those financial stocks, Lehman and Morgan Stanley having a very good day. But look at the housing stocks, Lou. Toll Brothers revenue jumped 22 percent in the quarter. The company said recent rising rates actually enticing people off the fence to get out there and start buying homes. Home Depot rallying 3 percent. Take a look at this. In the last week a near record number of mortgage applications. Even as the average 30-year rate soared half a point, to 6.37 percent for mortgages, that's the highest in more than a year.

DOBBS: These are new mortgage applications, refinancing still getting hammered.

ROMANS: Yes.

DOBBS: All right. Christine Romans, thank you.

"Your Thoughts" now. Many of you writing in about our series of reports on "The Forgotten War."

Kathy Stinesteet of Kentucky, "The U.S. has no real interest in ending the drug trade which supports so many jobs, provides the government with endless money from confiscated goods, and gives politicians another reason to spend our hard earned tax dollars."

Chris Keen, of Puerto Rico said, "Enforcing drug laws is like enforcing traffic laws, you're not going to stop everyone from breaking the law, but if law enforcement is not out there, a lot more people are going to die."

We want to hear from you. We enjoy your thoughts and sharing them. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "LIVE FROM THE HEADLINES" with Anderson Cooper is next.

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





What Did Jakarta Authorities Knew About Terror Attack?>