CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

American Accused of Espionage; Terrorist Strike Targets Spain

Aired March 11, 2004 - 20:00 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.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn.
It is Thursday, March 11, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight, the deadliest terror attack in Europe in 15 years, 10 synchronized blasts on trains, nearly 200 killed, 1,400 wounded. And there are reports al Qaeda is responsible.

SUSAN LINDAUER, DEFENDANT: I'm innocent.

ZAHN: She once worked side by side with members of Congress. Now the government says this journalist turned peace activist faces charges of conspiring with Saddam Hussein's secret police.

And hitting the divorce jackpot. These days, when Hollywood couples split, the settlement can be enormous. How is $100 million for 34 months of marriage sound?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We're going to get the latest, though, on the bombing in Madrid.

First, though, American citizens have been arrested before in the war on terror, but this latest case is a standout. First of all, it involves a woman accused of helping Iraq's secret police. And she has ties to the news media and some members of the U.S. Congress.

Justice correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now live from Washington with more.

What have you learned, Kelli?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Paula, her name is Susan Lindauer.

And she's a former journalist working for publications including "Fortune" and "U.S. News & World Report." She was also a congressional aide. And none of that work history was mentioned in her indictment. What the indictment does say is that Lindauer was a paid Iraqi intelligence agent. And it's a charge that she denies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LINDAUER: I'm an anti-war (INAUDIBLE) and I'm innocent. And I'm very proud. And I will very proudly stand by my achievements. I'm very proud of what I've done for this country for the good of the security of this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: Prosecutors say Lindauer had repeated contacts with Iraqi intelligence officers and conspired with two sons of Iraq's former liaison with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now, they allege that she took a letter to the home of a U.S. official saying that she had access to Saddam Hussein's regime. Sources say that official was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who happens to be Lindauer's second cousin. Then prosecutors say that she met with an undercover FBI agent and followed instructions to leave unspecified documents at certain locations.

Earlier, we spoke to some of her neighbors. They said that they were shocked at what they had heard. But the government says, for her services, Lindauer was paid $10,000. And if she's convicted on all the counts, she faces 25 years in prison, Paula.

ZAHN: Do we know exactly what she was called upon to do by the Iraqi secret police?

ARENA: We don't know. We just know that she had meetings. We know that she passed along some documents, some names and addresses. But the indictment was not very specific in terms of the information that she provided.

ZAHN: And do we know any of the information she provided, how damaging it might be to national security?

ARENA: We don't know.

But one very senior government official said, look, this is not a person who had classified clearances. This is not a person who had access to very sensitive material. But it really doesn't matter. Legally, it doesn't matter. If you're here working on behalf of an overseas government and providing information, and you are not registered as an intelligence agent, that is against the law, Paula.

ZAHN: Kelli Arena, thanks so much for that live update.

And we turn now to someone who worked with Susan Lindauer, CNN contributor "Fortune" magazine editor at large Andy Serwer. He knew her when she worked at "Fortune"

Andy Serwer joins us now.

ANDY SERWER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: Good evening.

So the two of you basically started your careers together. What do you remember about her?

SERWER: What I remember about Susan that she was a young woman who was always, I guess, trying to find herself. She only stayed at "Fortune" for about five months. I stayed in touch with her briefly after she was at the magazine.

She called me on the phone a couple times and asked me about career moves. She was interested in politics a little bit maybe, maybe working in journalism, kind of searching.

ZAHN: When you heard these charges against her today, what was your reaction?

SERWER: Well, we were shocked. I was stunned. I mean, it's just amazing. Someone you work with is charged with spying for the Iraqis. I mean, it's unbelievable.

But when you think about it, this is a person who is at least back then was very impressionable and trying to find her way. And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that maybe this was something she could have possibly fallen into.

ZAHN: Why did she seem like such a lost soul to you?

SERWER: Well, it's just the way that she was always trying to find herself. And I talked to other people, and they recall her also writing them letters, asking their advice, a little bit more than the average 20-something would do.

ZAHN: These charges are very serious, that she accepted payments directly from the Iraqis for her services and expenses amounting to $10,000, including $5,000 she received allegedly during a trip to Baghdad in just February of -- and March of 2002.

SERWER: Yes.

I mean, I'll tell you, back then, Susan Lindauer was not a political person. She was not an Islamist. She did not have strong political leanings. Obviously, something really changed in the intervening years. But, you know, that happens to people. They get taken up on things, I guess.

ZAHN: Andy Serwer, thanks for sharing your memories with us this evening. Appreciate it.

SERWER: Thank you.

ZAHN: Politics, politics, politics. We'll bring you up to date on the open mike controversy and what it all means to John Kerry.

And the Hollywood divorce settlement, $40 million, $80 million, sometimes, that's just the down payment. We're going to ask a star divorce attorney about fame and dividing up a fortune.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: It seems like it happens during every presidential campaign. At least one candidate says something that gets them into trouble because he didn't know the microphone was on. Well, it turns out Senator John Kerry is no exception.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here. These guys are -- these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen. It's scary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, Kerry has spent the last day doing damage control for that remark.

Joining us now from Washington, "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

Good to see both of you. Welcome.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Hey, Paula.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: All right, Tucker, so is John Kerry just not acting presidential in your judgment?

CARLSON: No, look, there's nothing wrong with being -- attacking the other guy or even being mad at the other guy.

What I object to is the fact that Kerry's not attacking the ideas, the opinions or even the tactics of the other side. He's attacking them as people. Oh, they're all just liars and crooks. It's like his line about anybody who disagrees with his economic policy is a traitor to the country, is a Benedict Arnold. It's not political rhetoric. It's something worse than that. It's the language of totalitarianism. It's writing them off as nonpeople. It's not engaging in

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: The language of totalitarianism?

CARLSON: Yes, it's like they don't count. They're all crooks and liars. Come on.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: All right, Paul, the Kerry camp said this was no mistake after all. Was it?

BEGALA: No.

You know, Michael Kinsley, who used to sit in this chair on "CROSSFIRE" years ago, famously said, a gaffe is when someone in Washington accidentally tells the truth. John Kerry believe that this is a crooked bunch. I think he's right. What else can you say about a White House that leaks the name of a CIA agent undercover in order to punish her husband for speaking out against a war?

What else do you say about a group of Republican staffers in the Senate who allegedly hacked into Democratic computers and stole internal documents from the Democrats or the Halliburton investigation which is going on or just a whole pack of things that look awfully crooked to average people? And I say good for John Kerry just for calling a spade a spade.

ZAHN: Let's reflect on what then Governor Bush did with an open mike while on the campaign trail. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's Adam Clymer, major-league (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, yes, big time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Tucker, you're not worried about any double standard here, are you?

CARLSON: I love it. I totally support lavaliere mike tragedies like this.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Like all of them.

Every time I think most Americans see Dick Cheney, they think of him as the man who said "big time." I like it. I think it's a window into a candidate. My favorite was when John Kerry was peppered with questions about Howard Dean back when Dean was the front-runner. He walks away from a podium and says to an aide, "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!"

You could just sort of -- you could see for the time publicly how tormented he was by Howard Dean. I love moments like this.

ZAHN: All right, Paul, on to the first Republican attack ad that's now airing. Let's watch that together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: A president sets his agenda for America in the first 100 days. John Kerry's plan: to pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least $900 billion, on the war on terror, weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America, and he wanted to delay defending America until the United Nations approved. John Kerry, wrong on taxes, wrong on defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Paul, what else is it that John Kerry has to be ready for?

BEGALA: Oh, my goodness, everything. You've already had all kinds of vicious personal attacks that have been spread via the Internet. This is mild.

If I were John Kerry, I would say, now, wait a minute, tearing the economy down and botching the war on terrorism? That's George Bush's legacy, not mine. I'm the guy who's going to rebuild the economy and create jobs. I'm the guy who's going to fight an effective war on terrorism, instead of declaring war against Iraq half a world away who is no threat to America, encouraging terrorists to come into Iraq, which is what has happened over there.

So I think this is fine. It's fine. We ought to fight it out on the issues. I think it's very instructive that the guy, though, who said he would be a uniter, not a divider, is beginning with campaign with such a negative ad.

ZAHN: Are the two of you having any fun yet in this campaign?

CARLSON: Tons! Are you kidding?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I have to say, like listening to that Adam Clymer bite again, I am. I'm in favor of candidates cursing. John Kerry, by the way, took off when he dropped the F-bomb in "Rolling Stone" magazine. He was nowhere until he started swearing. I think it worked for Bush in 2000. I want more cursing and more open mikes.

ZAHN: Tucker?

CARLSON: That's definitely the key, vulgarity, definitely, which candidate can go lower. Definitely.

All ZAHN: right, well, we're going to try to corner the market on that with you guys. Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Thanks, Paula.

BEGALA: Thanks, Paula.

ZAHN: Good to see both of you.

Twenty-first century slaves smuggled into the U.S. and forced to work as servants or sex slaves, what can be done to help them, and who are they?

And their pockets are empty, but TV is full of ads aimed at kids. Some say it's time to ban advertising aimed at younger children. We'll look at some of that logic.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: Tomorrow, President Bush will take up the issue of human slavery. The government says as many as 20,000 people are illegally brought into the U.S. every year as forced labor and prostitutes.

The president's remarks will be part of the rollout of a new national hot line designed to help victims of human trafficking. And that effort is run by Covenant House, the nation's largest privately funded international child welfare agency.

Joining us now from Tallahassee, Terry Coonan, executive director of Florida State University's Human Rights Center.

Good to see you, sir. Welcome.

TERRY COONAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FSU HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Do you look at this as modern-day slavery?

COONAN: Absolutely.

You know, it doesn't quite look like it did 100 years ago, but these are people working as field slaves, as house slaves, as sex slaves, so very much. We couldn't call it any other term.

ZAHN: I know you have a heartbreaking story to share with us. You actually interviewed a 14-year-old girl who was promised a new life as a nanny. When she got here, what happened to her?

COONAN: You know, she, along with a number of other young Mexican girls, all of them between 14 and 20, but this particular girl was 14 when she was brought in, had been promised a job essentially as a nanny or working in a restaurant.

And got here, found out not only was that not the work that she was going to be doing, but in fact was subjected to sex trafficking, was subjected to brutal gang rapes to prepare her for this kind of work, smuggled across the Texas-Mexico border, brought eventually here to Florida, where she was made to work, a lot of these other girls in brothels, which are really just trailers out in migrant farm worker camps.

ZAHN: And these young girls were forced to have sex 30 to 40 times a day?

COONAN: Yes.

The more we interviewed these victims, the more horrendous we realized their experience had been. And, again, it happened right here in our own backyards. They were actually in these brothels where, again, farm workers would come in, would be given a condom, be given 15 minutes with a girl for $20. And, again, the girl would be forced to transact this business, sometimes 12, 15 hours a day, usually about six days a week.

ZAHN: Oh, that's absolutely disgusting. You also have some chilling information about the kind of men who are taking advantage, American men, of these victims. Who are they? What do we know about them?

COONAN: Well, again, in our interviews, we found out that, again, many of the men were migrant farm workers.

We also found, though, that there were American businessmen and engineers that also frequented these brothels in South Florida. The brothels also extended through the Carolinas, so that -- again, we interviewed just a small segment of this problem. "The New York Times," of course, has looked at this as well. But it's a broader problem than just Florida or South Florida, certainly.

ZAHN: How do you stop this from happening, though, when most of the victims are non-English speaking, often illegal aliens and they're afraid to even contact the authorities?

COONAN: Well, you know, that's what we were asked to investigate as part of our FSU study. And we were asked to find out from victims themselves what their needs were, how they could be emancipated more quickly, how the trafficking operation worked.

Again, they're all young people, most of them women. They're brought here by the American dream. They all come to work, to somehow make good, to send money home to their families. What we found out, though, is that, at times, they had even encounters with law enforcement or with doctors that simply did not recognize that there was human trafficking going on, so that we've come up with recommendations for our law enforcement officers, for our social service providers, and actually for perhaps the people on the street as well that might simply make them more aware that this reality is closer than they might know.

ZAHN: And, of course, there's great hope that this hot line that will be announced tomorrow will ultimately help some of these women find some relief.

Terry Coonan, thanks so much for joining us.

COONAN: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Coming up, we're going to get the latest from the terror bombing in Madrid, close to 200 people dead. And now they are investigating a possible al Qaeda connection.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Now on to tonight's major story in Madrid, the death toll close to 200, with 1,400 injuries after today's terrorist train bombings. And there may be a militant Muslim connection.

Let's turn to senior international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, who now brings us up to date.

Good evening, Christiane. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, good evening from Madrid, where it's been really one of the worse days in Spain's history, certainly in memory anyway, the worst terrorist attack in this country ever.

And, as you know, nearly 200 people have been killed, 1,400 people wounded. And there's still no clear idea of exactly who did it. At first, the interior minister here said that they had absolutely incontrovertible proof and evidence that it was ETA, the terrorist group that is the armed Basque separatist organization. They say forensic evidence, as well as having arrested two suspected ETA people last month along with a truck full of explosives pointed to ETA being responsible for today's carnage.

But later on in the evening they said that they had new evidence. They showed a picture of a van that they had discovered, they said, outside of Madrid in a town that was on the same commuter line, the same commuter route where those trains had been attacked. And they said they found several detonators inside that van and a tape containing Arabic Koranic verses.

The interior minister said that there were no threats on that tape and the tape was commercially available. It could have been bought in any store. But, he said, it added a new element to their investigation. They are opening a new line of inquiry or a further line of inquiry. And although ETA, they say, remains their prime suspect, they are now not ruling anything out. In the meantime, the prime minister and other officials have called for mass demonstrations around Spain on Friday night to confront these killings and to put on a show of defiance in the face of what the prime minister has called mass assassinations.

Many of the relatives of these victims have been trying to find out what happened to their loved ones who were headed to work or who were headed to university.

We go now to Alessio Vinci, who is at one of the makeshift morgues in this he city, not far away from where I am -- Alessio.

ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Christiane.

Spanish officials set up earlier today this makeshift morgue just outside Madrid's International Airport. This is normally a convention center. However, one of the halls has been turned, as we mentioned, into a makeshift morgue, where, throughout the day and the evening, we've seen hearses, mini-buses, minivans and ambulances bringing some or many of the bodies of the victims of this morning's attack.

We understand from Spanish officials here that more than 180 bodies that have been brought here earlier today. Of those, 50 have already been identified fairly quickly by relatives and by forensic experts. And we understand -- and this is the latest development -- that already five bodies have been returned to their families. Spanish officials are telling us that at this time there, they are confronting two major tasks here at this makeshift morgue. The first one, of course, is to identify the rest of the victims. And the second one is to care for the relatives of those very same victims. The identification procedure has been extremely difficult because, of course, some of the bodies were damaged beyond recognition. We understand also that the Spanish government has invited a team of forensic experts from Israel. A team of three is expected to arrive here at some point tomorrow to help speed up this procedure.

As far as caring for some of the relatives here, we understand that as many as 100 people from the Red Cross, volunteers from the Red Cross have been recruited here to try to help out those relatives. We've seen them arriving at this makeshift morgue from another entrance. And many of them, of course, extremely stressed out. The recognition and the identification procedure is extremely painful and an extremely difficult task -- back to you, Paula.

ZAHN: That is so very, very sad. Thank you so much, Alessio Vinci, Christiane Amanpour.

We put the Madrid bombings "In Focus" tonight. Could it be the work of al Qaeda after all.

Terror expert Sajjan Gohel is director of international security with the Asia-Pacific Foundation. He joins us from London.

Thanks so much for joining us, sir.

I wanted to follow up on a point that Christiane Amanpour was making that earlier on in the day, Spanish authorities pointed to this group ETA as perhaps being responsible. But she also said now that they have this new evidence of this van that is found along the commuter line that had detonators in it, as well as some publications with Arabic Koranic verses. What does that suggest to you?

SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: Well, I think, Paula, the van is a very interesting development indeed.

What is most particularly interesting is that this van was actually stolen from a Southern Spanish town called Alcala De Henares. Now, that place is also the point of origin for four trains that were targeted in this attack. And I think that could well be more than just coincidence. And I think the van may well lead to many more clues, that who's really been behind this devastating terrorist attack.

ZAHN: Would there be any precedent for a collaboration between ETA and al Qaeda?

GOHEL: Well, we do know that al Qaeda in itself has never ideologically or religiously associated itself with other groups that have different causes or goals.

But that doesn't rule it out. Let's not forget that in Iraq right now we have dregs of Saddam Hussein's special forces that have affiliated themselves with foreign Islamic fighters. So I don't think it can be ruled out. It would be a major departure for al Qaeda. It would also be a very disturbing development if that was to prove to be the case.

ZAHN: Spain would be an obvious target for al Qaeda, wouldn't it, particularly because of its support for the U.S. in not only on the war on terror, but this war in Iraq?

GOHEL: Well, Spain has been a major ally to the United States. It's also been a key member in the war against terrorism. It has cracked down on al Qaeda cells that have been operating inside the country. It has also provided useful intelligence information of possible al Qaeda associates throughout Europe and also in America.

And, yes, of course, it supported the United States in its war against Saddam Hussein. And it's been singled out. Let's not forget, it was mentioned in audiotapes by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's No. 2, and by bin Laden himself as a possible country that could be attacked in the future.

ZAHN: If this ends up being the work of al Qaeda, what would that tell you about a potential shift in targets, from planes to trains?

GOHEL: Well, I think we have always known that al Qaeda has been after transportation, because it knows that that is where there's a mass congregation of individuals. They know they can create a huge devastation -- devastating attack, where they can kill a lot of people.

Obviously, the planes have been the No. 1 priority for al Qaeda because of the fact that they're devastating and powerful. But trains, we've always warned that trains could well be another form of transportation that terrorist groups like al Qaeda could attack. And unfortunately there's no such thing now as a safe mode of transport.

ZAHN: What did it take to pull off this horrible attack today, Sajjan?

GOHEL: Well, I think we're dealing with individuals that have created a multiple, well-planned, coordinated, mass casualty attack and that is, of course, hallmarks of a transnational terrorist group. I think the biggest fear now, and something we've all been worried about for a long time, is when would the first major attack like this be in Europe. And we've seen it today. And I think what we're almost all concerned about is this could now mean that there could be attacks throughout Europe. And this is dangerous development in the war on terror. And I think this clearly shows we've got a long way to go before we can claim we're winning this.

ZAHN: I think there are a lot of people that agree with you on that final point. Sajjan Gohel, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Now, since 9/11, the U.S. has made airport security a major priority, but how secure are trains against bombings like we saw those unfold in Madrid today. Jeanne Meserve is at historic Union Station in the heart of Washington, D.C. tonight to bring us up to date on that. Good evening, Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula. There is a lot more security on the rail system than there used to be. There are more police, there are more bomb-sniffing dogs, more surveillance cameras, more sharing of information, but the system is still very porous. I travelled on Amtrak today. They're supposed to check I.D., they did not check mine today. Some blame the federal government and say they are simply not making rail security a priority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D) DELAWARE: The truth is, the administration says, no, we're not going to spend the money on that. We don't think that's necessary. Not withstanding the fact that the CIA has said in the past that it is one of the likely places where we're going to see serious terrorist activities on the rails.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Since 9/11, the federal government has disbursed about $100 million in security grants to rail systems, aviation in contrast has gotten about $11.8 billion. But some security analysts say history and intelligence make aviation the logical priority here -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jeanne Meserve, thanks very much.

Now, on to some of the other headlines you need to know right now. San Francisco gets an order to stop tying the knot for same-sex couples. The order from California's supreme court is a victory for some conservative groups. But the court still has to decide whether the marriages are in fact legal. More than 3,700 gay marriages have been performed.

And the National Hockey League has suspended Vancouver's Todd Bertuzzi and fined him more than half a million dollars. Bertuzzi leveled Colorado's Steve Moore with a sucker punch this week, breaking Moore's neck. Now Bertuzzi is out for the rest of the season. Plus, the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Are Supreme Court justices crossing the neutrality line. This year we've heard that justice Antonin Scalia has gone on hunting trips with the vice president, who has a case going before the high court. Scalia has also spoken before a pro family group, battling gay rights in court. And Justice Ruth Baider Ginsburg has lended her name to a lecture series for the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense Fund.

We are giving the ethics question the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five direct answers. Joining us now, the vice dean of New York University School of Law, Stephen Gillers. It's good to see you, sir.

STEPHEN GILLERS, NYU: Hello.

ZAHN: No 1. should a Supreme Court justice be allowed to participate in activities with an advocate group?

GILLERS: Absolutely. We want them to get out there and to speak about the law, generally, to talk about the history, the theory, it helps us to hear that voice. So, sure. But they shouldn't limit themselves to a particular point of view among advocacy groups. They should talk to many different groups.

ZAHN: Question No. 2, if justices take part in political activities, what limitations should there be?

GILLERS: They should not take part in political activities, period. Justices, judges are nonpolitical. The judiciary is not a political branch of government. And judges and justices should not participate in politics in any form.

ZAHN: All right. On to question No. 3. we mentioned justice Scalia went on a hunting trip with the vice president. Is that appropriate?

GILLERS: It is not appropriate, because the vice president has a case coming up before the Supreme Court that will be argued in April, in which he has a real personal and political interest.

ZAHN: The case being?

GILLERS: The case being the effort to discover the identity of the people in his energy task force. He wants to keep that information private. Various groups want to know the people he met with. It's a big case. It's a case he lost below. And now his last chance to win. And keep the information private is in the Supreme Court.

ZAHN: Question No. 4. should relationships with government officials be off limits to Supreme Court justices?

GILLERS: Not at all. Washington is a small town. People know each other from prior service. They have friendships. They play poker together. They go to concerts together. They go to dinners together. Fine. No problem. It's what they talk about or don't talk about that matters.

ZAHN: And finally that brings us to question No. 5 tonight, does being a Supreme Court Justice mean giving up any right to a private life?

GILLERS: It does not mean giving up any right to a private life. It means being careful about what you do, and what you say, who you socialize with, what gifts you accept. But you don't have to be a hermit. You don't have to go into a monastery.

ZAHN: Professor Gillers, thank you for our course this evening.

GILLERS: You bet.

ZAHN: Appreciate your time. So can you trust those new electronic voting machines? An investigation stirs some doubts about the machines and the people, that manufacture them.

And in some countries, commercials like this aimed at younger kids are actually illegal. Well, now some psychologists say it's time for the U.S. to follow suit. Do commercials really harm our children?

And tomorrow, Chicago: heroes divided by race. Accusations fly over racism and who's been making racial insults over emergency radios.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: When you vote in November, you may be using an electronic voting machine, but will you be able to trust it to count your vote? According to an investigation in next month's "Vanity Fair," maybe not. The report says, glitch-prone and vulnerable to hackers, the electronic voting machines that will be in nearly every state this November will make hanging chads look benign. The report also says that by November these companies, three of which have ties to wealthy Republicans, will have their machines in almost every state. "Vanity Fair" contributing editor Michael Shnayerson wrote the story. Good to see you.

MICHAEL SHNAYERSON, "VANITY FAIR": Hi, Paula. Nice to be here.

ZAHN: Are you actually telling me tonight that you can rig an election with these machines?

SHNAYERSON: Unfortunately, it can be done.

ZAHN: How?

SNHAYERSON: My story is really based on the investigative reporting of a woman named Bev Harris, who did the -- simple but brilliant thing of downloading files from one of these companies that makes these machines. It turned out that she had downloaded all the source code, the software, the guts, the secret information inside these machines. And when she passed that along to computer experts, they were aghast, because they found all sorts of security flaws in the system. Starting with when these machines are put in the polling places, they all had the same password hardcoded into the system. So anyone's who's working there that election day had access to any of those machines.

ZAHN: As many times as they wanted.

SHNAYERSON: Yes. When the voters came in to vote, they would use a card, much like you use a card in your ATM machine, indeed, Diebold, the largest manufacturer of these, is also the manufacturer of ATMs. Same touch-screen idea. So you use this card. But those cards could be manipulated. Then when the votes were tallied they would be sent from the polling places to the central county, whatever, someone could hack into that transmission, manipulate the votes then. Then once they were on the central server, she could go in and actually change the votes then. So at each step of this process, there were vulnerabilities.

ZAHN: All right. What you're saying really smacks of conspiracy. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here, is there? In this article, you point out that the owner of Diebold, who happens to be a friend of the president's, gives him a bunch of money, you're not saying he could manipulate an election through his machines?

SCHNAYERSON: No, I'm certainly not saying that. The problem is, they've created a system which is open to manipulation by others.

ZAHN: Let me read to you, Mike, a statement from Diebold. Quote, "as a result of independent security audits, we are very comfortable with the security of our systems, as well are the election officials who have deployed our systems for voters."

SCHNAYERSON: Those studies they refer to were only done as a result of the files that Bev Harris downloaded. And the resulting hue and cry that occurred in the states where Diebold machines have been installed.

ZAHN: You're not suggesting it's intentional on their parts to have loaded up the system with all these vulnerabilities?

SCHNAYERSON: I don't think this is a conspiracy story. I think it's a story of greed and ineptitude. And it really begins with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which came about as a result of the whole debacle in Florida in 2000. Part of that Act was to build in federal oversight. The problem is, the cart got ahead of the horse. And these manufacturers raced out to sell these machines, the technology is premature, it does have security flaws, and there isn't yet the federal oversight there should be.

ZAHN: Can we go to the polls in November and use one of these machines and have any degree of confidence that our vote will be counted the way we exercised our vote?

SCHNAYERSON: I don't think, and Bev Harris doesn't think, that you can be confident of that until these machines have paper trails, receipts, just like your ATM machine does. They don't have it yet. They can, and they should.

ZAHN: Michael Schnayerson, thank you very much for educating us about this process.

Coming up, are TV ads aimed at younger kids making them fat and greedy and untrustworthy? Some psychologists think so, and they want them banned. We'll debate that.

And the enormous divorce settlements of the rich and famous, hundreds of millions and mansions besides. Well, the details from a celebrity divorce attorney.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: We've all been there as parents, our kids see a commercial for a toy or snack and then the nagging begins. But surprising new reports suggest that advertising to kids could have far more serious consequences. An American Psychological Association task force recommends restricting advertising that is aimed directly to children under the age of nine.

And a Kaiser Family Foundation report links advertising to children with rising rates of obesity, dangerous advertising or business as usual. Joining us now, Jerry Della Femina, chairman of the advertising agency, Della Femina, Rothchild and Jeary. Did I get that right? Yes.

And in Watertown, Massachusetts, Dr. Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard University. She's a member of the APA task force and author of the upcoming book, "Consuming Kids, the Hostile Takeover of Childhood."

Welcome to you both. Susan, let's start with you this evening because you personally recommend going farther than these guidelines. You actually think advertising should be prohibited for kids under the age of eight. Why?

DR. SUSAN LINN, PSYCHIATRY INSTRUCTOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Marketing to children is linked to childhood obesity, eating disorders, family stress, materialism, violence, precocious, and irresponsible sexuality and it has a negative impact on children's play. It's a factor in a lot of public health issues and I think that we as a society really need to do something about that.

ZAHN: All right, Jerry. We're going to put up on the screen, graphically, basically what the doctor just said. This advertising being linked to parent/child conflict, materialistic attitudes, unhealthy eating habits. Doesn't your business bear some responsibility for any of this?

JERRY DELLA FEMINA, CHAIRMAN, DELLA FEMINA, ROTHCHILD & JEARY: You know, we get blamed for everything. We get blamed for just about everything. So why not...

ZAHN: Do you deserve the blame?

DELLA FEMINA: No, of course, this is fairly ridiculous. I tell you right now, I was very lucky. I was born before television. And I was a fat little kid. But that was OK. I guess somebody did that. It was my mother's fault. Looking to blame people for the way -- literally the way advertising works. I've done children's advertising. I don't do it right now. I don't have any children. But the fact is, both of my products failed. I guess I'm not good at what I do.

ZAHN: But you've got to recognize it has to have some impact on children, otherwise these advertisers wouldn't be spending all this money to put the stuff on TV.

DELLA FEMINA: Kids look at it. They say they want something. But then you have the parent who has to say no, you can't have that. This is not for you. This is not something I'm going to give you. ZAHN: Dr. Linn, where do parents come into this in your equation? Shouldn't they share some of this burden on how much television they watch, what their kids eat? What they have in their pantries?

LINN: Sure, parents have responsibility. But one family can't fight a $15 billion industry that is doing everything it can to undermine adults, and to come between children and parents.

In 1998, a company called Western Media International did a study on nagging. The purposes of the study was not to help parents cope with nagging, it was to help corporations help children nag more effectively.

ZAHN: And corporations are pretty good at nagging more effectively aren't they, Jerry? With a little bit of help from you guys

DELLA FEMINA: We nag, we -- look at it this way. I have a granddaughter who is totally, totally loves the cookie monster. She wants everything that the cookie monster -- she loves cookie monster dolls. Now, here's the deal with the cookie monster. That's public television. So I say, ban the cookie, ban public television.

ZAHN: You don't really mean that.

FEMINA: Well, she also goes on play dates. And she sees -- this is where the real advertising comes in. The other kid has a toy or sees something and the kid says I want the same thing.

ZAHN: I understand that.

FEMINA: Well, ban play dates.

There's no question. We get rid of play dates, we get rid of public television and we're on our way. And than we can get rid of advertising.

ZAHN: Besides costing you a chunk of change, would be the consequences of banning advertising for kids under the age of eight?

Is it going to hurt our kids not to have that stuff on TV?

FEMINA: It's not going hurt them not to have.

Does it hurt them to have is it?

You know, you're talking about obesity and talking about young kids who -- well, the fact is that, there's food out there. It's up to the parents to decide what a 9-year-old eats. It certainly is. And if you look in the pantry at that home, they've got white bread, which is not good for kids. They've got plenty of butter, plenty of oil, plenty of food.

You know what...

ZAHN: You've been into my kitchen, haven't you, Jerry.

FEMINA: You got it. Ban mothers. Ban parents.

ZAHN: The final thought, Susan, where you think this is all going?

LINN: I think that parents desperately need help. And that in fact most parents really do want to do the right thing, and they really want to raise healthy children. I think that parents need help from educators, from health care professionals, and from legislators. And I think what the marketing industry is going to find is there is growing outrage around the country as people are starting to connect the dots.

ZAHN: You better watch yourself, Jerry.

FEMINA: I'm in trouble again.

ZAHN: Jerry, Della Femina. Dr. Susan Linn, thank you for both of your perspectives tonight.

You won't believe what it costs some stars to call it quits. Who got the biggest mansions and mountains of cash. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Well, Neil Diamond probably not singing baby loves me when he had to fork over $150 million to TV producer Marsha Murphy after 25 years of marriage. An article in today's "New York Daily News" got us thinking, who fares the worst and who fares the best when it comes to big Hollywood divorces.

Celebrity divorce attorney Raoul Felder joins us now.

How are you doing to night?

RAOUL FELDER, CELEBRITY DIVORCE ATTY.: Great.

ZAHN: Who brought home the bacon?

FELDER: In some of these cases we're talking about, lots of people are bringing home the bacon. And in fact in, Roseanne's case, her husband is bringing home the bacon. You know, but it reveals that the people behind the camera really do better than the people in front of the camera. Steven Spielberg's 30-month marriage, paid $100 million.

ZAHN: Now, that sounds like a lot of money.

FELDER: And that's after taxes, don't forget. So he had to earn $200 million, and that's after they spent their living expenses. So that they had another $100 million.

ZAHN: How did she wind up with that amount of money after three years of marriage? FELDER: The length of time doesn't matter, it's what's earned during that. And I suppose, that's two movies. You know, he owns the movies. The actors only get a piece of the profits. He owns the whole thing.

ZAHN: So who did the worst?

FELDER: I think Jerry Hall did the worst. Mick Jagger, and I represented the other lady involved at some pointed...

ZAHN: As in Bianca?

FELDER: No. I represented Luciana Mara, who was allegedly was the cause of the break-up according to the newspapers. She had a baby by Mick Jagger. But Mick Jagger's been a superstar for a quarter of a century or more. She only got $19 million. The reason is, there was a question about her marriage. It was a Buddhist ceremony of some sort. She acknowledged it. So, no marriage, no alimoney.

(CROSSTALK)

FELDER: Very little she took.

ZAHN: Bruce Willis, gave Demi Moore some 90 million dollars. They've moved on. They seem to have a workable relationship.

FELDER: They're career's both of them are sort of in the eclipse. She has a toy boy now, apparently. And sort of he's an aging action star. Youy know, another person, another break-up that wasn't particularly great was the Mike Douglas break-up. Now, she got lots of money. But the key there, that was a sickness that last three years. That case stretched out three years. The moral there is, if you're a woman, stretch it out. Stretch it out. Stretch it out. Until the checkbook opens.

ZAHN: And give them more time to earn more money in that period of time. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, I think he kept the $10 million ski chalet and bunch of planes. And she got $68 million? Is that a fair settlement based on what you know.

FELDER: Yes, he earned lots of money. The funny thing is, "Samurai," or whatever the name of that move notwithstanding, she's the bigger star, I think than he is today. Can't open up a newspaper...

ZAHN: You mean "Last Samurai."

FELDER: "Last Samurai."

ZAHN: You were very close.

FELDER: Very close, no cigar though. Today I think it's fair to say she's a bigger star than he is. You can't open up a newspaper without seeing a picture of her.

ZAHN: Now you mentioned Roseanne Barr, because that's one of the few cases were a women had to fork over big bucks to dump their husband. Pretty good deal for a struggling actor.

FELDER: Worse, worse, her lawyer wanted to sign a prenuptial agreement, she fired the lawyer.

ZAHN: I'll bet she regrets that.

FELDER: Sure. Hundreds of million dollars maybe.

ZAHN: What is the bottom line here, that these folks should all have signed or at least the wealthy partner a prenup agreement.

FELDER: The three words are prenuptial agreement, yes. Everybody should have it. If you don't have it, they ought to see a psychiatrist and not a lawyer. It just doesn't make sense not to have it.

ZAHN: Actually, those are becoming more common among members of the general public, no matter what your net worth.

FELDER: Yes, because the fact is, today, the person who sells the tickets, owns the theater, the waiter owns the restaurant, tomorrow, so for most people on the street today, they should have prenuptial agreements.

ZAHN: Do you ever get bummed out that you're always in the middle of these horrible divorces?

FELDER: No, I'm like a surgeon. That's just my job. Undertaker, surgeon, same thing.

ZAHN: Do you ever glue these marriages back together?

FELDER: Usually it's a rubicon. When they come to lawyer's office they've been to the priest, the rabbi, the marriage counselor, the women next door, the hairdresser, and so forth, it's too late.

ZAHN: Last line of defense here, Raoul Felder, thanks so much for joining us.

And thank you all for being with us tonight. That wraps it up for all of us here. We hope you'll be with again, same time, same place tomorrow night. Until then have a good night. "LARRY KING LIVE" 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

Spain>

Aired March 11, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn.
It is Thursday, March 11, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight, the deadliest terror attack in Europe in 15 years, 10 synchronized blasts on trains, nearly 200 killed, 1,400 wounded. And there are reports al Qaeda is responsible.

SUSAN LINDAUER, DEFENDANT: I'm innocent.

ZAHN: She once worked side by side with members of Congress. Now the government says this journalist turned peace activist faces charges of conspiring with Saddam Hussein's secret police.

And hitting the divorce jackpot. These days, when Hollywood couples split, the settlement can be enormous. How is $100 million for 34 months of marriage sound?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We're going to get the latest, though, on the bombing in Madrid.

First, though, American citizens have been arrested before in the war on terror, but this latest case is a standout. First of all, it involves a woman accused of helping Iraq's secret police. And she has ties to the news media and some members of the U.S. Congress.

Justice correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now live from Washington with more.

What have you learned, Kelli?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Paula, her name is Susan Lindauer.

And she's a former journalist working for publications including "Fortune" and "U.S. News & World Report." She was also a congressional aide. And none of that work history was mentioned in her indictment. What the indictment does say is that Lindauer was a paid Iraqi intelligence agent. And it's a charge that she denies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LINDAUER: I'm an anti-war (INAUDIBLE) and I'm innocent. And I'm very proud. And I will very proudly stand by my achievements. I'm very proud of what I've done for this country for the good of the security of this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: Prosecutors say Lindauer had repeated contacts with Iraqi intelligence officers and conspired with two sons of Iraq's former liaison with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now, they allege that she took a letter to the home of a U.S. official saying that she had access to Saddam Hussein's regime. Sources say that official was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who happens to be Lindauer's second cousin. Then prosecutors say that she met with an undercover FBI agent and followed instructions to leave unspecified documents at certain locations.

Earlier, we spoke to some of her neighbors. They said that they were shocked at what they had heard. But the government says, for her services, Lindauer was paid $10,000. And if she's convicted on all the counts, she faces 25 years in prison, Paula.

ZAHN: Do we know exactly what she was called upon to do by the Iraqi secret police?

ARENA: We don't know. We just know that she had meetings. We know that she passed along some documents, some names and addresses. But the indictment was not very specific in terms of the information that she provided.

ZAHN: And do we know any of the information she provided, how damaging it might be to national security?

ARENA: We don't know.

But one very senior government official said, look, this is not a person who had classified clearances. This is not a person who had access to very sensitive material. But it really doesn't matter. Legally, it doesn't matter. If you're here working on behalf of an overseas government and providing information, and you are not registered as an intelligence agent, that is against the law, Paula.

ZAHN: Kelli Arena, thanks so much for that live update.

And we turn now to someone who worked with Susan Lindauer, CNN contributor "Fortune" magazine editor at large Andy Serwer. He knew her when she worked at "Fortune"

Andy Serwer joins us now.

ANDY SERWER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: Good evening.

So the two of you basically started your careers together. What do you remember about her?

SERWER: What I remember about Susan that she was a young woman who was always, I guess, trying to find herself. She only stayed at "Fortune" for about five months. I stayed in touch with her briefly after she was at the magazine.

She called me on the phone a couple times and asked me about career moves. She was interested in politics a little bit maybe, maybe working in journalism, kind of searching.

ZAHN: When you heard these charges against her today, what was your reaction?

SERWER: Well, we were shocked. I was stunned. I mean, it's just amazing. Someone you work with is charged with spying for the Iraqis. I mean, it's unbelievable.

But when you think about it, this is a person who is at least back then was very impressionable and trying to find her way. And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that maybe this was something she could have possibly fallen into.

ZAHN: Why did she seem like such a lost soul to you?

SERWER: Well, it's just the way that she was always trying to find herself. And I talked to other people, and they recall her also writing them letters, asking their advice, a little bit more than the average 20-something would do.

ZAHN: These charges are very serious, that she accepted payments directly from the Iraqis for her services and expenses amounting to $10,000, including $5,000 she received allegedly during a trip to Baghdad in just February of -- and March of 2002.

SERWER: Yes.

I mean, I'll tell you, back then, Susan Lindauer was not a political person. She was not an Islamist. She did not have strong political leanings. Obviously, something really changed in the intervening years. But, you know, that happens to people. They get taken up on things, I guess.

ZAHN: Andy Serwer, thanks for sharing your memories with us this evening. Appreciate it.

SERWER: Thank you.

ZAHN: Politics, politics, politics. We'll bring you up to date on the open mike controversy and what it all means to John Kerry.

And the Hollywood divorce settlement, $40 million, $80 million, sometimes, that's just the down payment. We're going to ask a star divorce attorney about fame and dividing up a fortune.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: It seems like it happens during every presidential campaign. At least one candidate says something that gets them into trouble because he didn't know the microphone was on. Well, it turns out Senator John Kerry is no exception.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here. These guys are -- these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen. It's scary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, Kerry has spent the last day doing damage control for that remark.

Joining us now from Washington, "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

Good to see both of you. Welcome.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Hey, Paula.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: All right, Tucker, so is John Kerry just not acting presidential in your judgment?

CARLSON: No, look, there's nothing wrong with being -- attacking the other guy or even being mad at the other guy.

What I object to is the fact that Kerry's not attacking the ideas, the opinions or even the tactics of the other side. He's attacking them as people. Oh, they're all just liars and crooks. It's like his line about anybody who disagrees with his economic policy is a traitor to the country, is a Benedict Arnold. It's not political rhetoric. It's something worse than that. It's the language of totalitarianism. It's writing them off as nonpeople. It's not engaging in

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: The language of totalitarianism?

CARLSON: Yes, it's like they don't count. They're all crooks and liars. Come on.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: All right, Paul, the Kerry camp said this was no mistake after all. Was it?

BEGALA: No.

You know, Michael Kinsley, who used to sit in this chair on "CROSSFIRE" years ago, famously said, a gaffe is when someone in Washington accidentally tells the truth. John Kerry believe that this is a crooked bunch. I think he's right. What else can you say about a White House that leaks the name of a CIA agent undercover in order to punish her husband for speaking out against a war?

What else do you say about a group of Republican staffers in the Senate who allegedly hacked into Democratic computers and stole internal documents from the Democrats or the Halliburton investigation which is going on or just a whole pack of things that look awfully crooked to average people? And I say good for John Kerry just for calling a spade a spade.

ZAHN: Let's reflect on what then Governor Bush did with an open mike while on the campaign trail. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's Adam Clymer, major-league (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, yes, big time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Tucker, you're not worried about any double standard here, are you?

CARLSON: I love it. I totally support lavaliere mike tragedies like this.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Like all of them.

Every time I think most Americans see Dick Cheney, they think of him as the man who said "big time." I like it. I think it's a window into a candidate. My favorite was when John Kerry was peppered with questions about Howard Dean back when Dean was the front-runner. He walks away from a podium and says to an aide, "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!"

You could just sort of -- you could see for the time publicly how tormented he was by Howard Dean. I love moments like this.

ZAHN: All right, Paul, on to the first Republican attack ad that's now airing. Let's watch that together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: A president sets his agenda for America in the first 100 days. John Kerry's plan: to pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least $900 billion, on the war on terror, weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America, and he wanted to delay defending America until the United Nations approved. John Kerry, wrong on taxes, wrong on defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Paul, what else is it that John Kerry has to be ready for?

BEGALA: Oh, my goodness, everything. You've already had all kinds of vicious personal attacks that have been spread via the Internet. This is mild.

If I were John Kerry, I would say, now, wait a minute, tearing the economy down and botching the war on terrorism? That's George Bush's legacy, not mine. I'm the guy who's going to rebuild the economy and create jobs. I'm the guy who's going to fight an effective war on terrorism, instead of declaring war against Iraq half a world away who is no threat to America, encouraging terrorists to come into Iraq, which is what has happened over there.

So I think this is fine. It's fine. We ought to fight it out on the issues. I think it's very instructive that the guy, though, who said he would be a uniter, not a divider, is beginning with campaign with such a negative ad.

ZAHN: Are the two of you having any fun yet in this campaign?

CARLSON: Tons! Are you kidding?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I have to say, like listening to that Adam Clymer bite again, I am. I'm in favor of candidates cursing. John Kerry, by the way, took off when he dropped the F-bomb in "Rolling Stone" magazine. He was nowhere until he started swearing. I think it worked for Bush in 2000. I want more cursing and more open mikes.

ZAHN: Tucker?

CARLSON: That's definitely the key, vulgarity, definitely, which candidate can go lower. Definitely.

All ZAHN: right, well, we're going to try to corner the market on that with you guys. Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Thanks, Paula.

BEGALA: Thanks, Paula.

ZAHN: Good to see both of you.

Twenty-first century slaves smuggled into the U.S. and forced to work as servants or sex slaves, what can be done to help them, and who are they?

And their pockets are empty, but TV is full of ads aimed at kids. Some say it's time to ban advertising aimed at younger children. We'll look at some of that logic.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: Tomorrow, President Bush will take up the issue of human slavery. The government says as many as 20,000 people are illegally brought into the U.S. every year as forced labor and prostitutes.

The president's remarks will be part of the rollout of a new national hot line designed to help victims of human trafficking. And that effort is run by Covenant House, the nation's largest privately funded international child welfare agency.

Joining us now from Tallahassee, Terry Coonan, executive director of Florida State University's Human Rights Center.

Good to see you, sir. Welcome.

TERRY COONAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FSU HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Do you look at this as modern-day slavery?

COONAN: Absolutely.

You know, it doesn't quite look like it did 100 years ago, but these are people working as field slaves, as house slaves, as sex slaves, so very much. We couldn't call it any other term.

ZAHN: I know you have a heartbreaking story to share with us. You actually interviewed a 14-year-old girl who was promised a new life as a nanny. When she got here, what happened to her?

COONAN: You know, she, along with a number of other young Mexican girls, all of them between 14 and 20, but this particular girl was 14 when she was brought in, had been promised a job essentially as a nanny or working in a restaurant.

And got here, found out not only was that not the work that she was going to be doing, but in fact was subjected to sex trafficking, was subjected to brutal gang rapes to prepare her for this kind of work, smuggled across the Texas-Mexico border, brought eventually here to Florida, where she was made to work, a lot of these other girls in brothels, which are really just trailers out in migrant farm worker camps.

ZAHN: And these young girls were forced to have sex 30 to 40 times a day?

COONAN: Yes.

The more we interviewed these victims, the more horrendous we realized their experience had been. And, again, it happened right here in our own backyards. They were actually in these brothels where, again, farm workers would come in, would be given a condom, be given 15 minutes with a girl for $20. And, again, the girl would be forced to transact this business, sometimes 12, 15 hours a day, usually about six days a week.

ZAHN: Oh, that's absolutely disgusting. You also have some chilling information about the kind of men who are taking advantage, American men, of these victims. Who are they? What do we know about them?

COONAN: Well, again, in our interviews, we found out that, again, many of the men were migrant farm workers.

We also found, though, that there were American businessmen and engineers that also frequented these brothels in South Florida. The brothels also extended through the Carolinas, so that -- again, we interviewed just a small segment of this problem. "The New York Times," of course, has looked at this as well. But it's a broader problem than just Florida or South Florida, certainly.

ZAHN: How do you stop this from happening, though, when most of the victims are non-English speaking, often illegal aliens and they're afraid to even contact the authorities?

COONAN: Well, you know, that's what we were asked to investigate as part of our FSU study. And we were asked to find out from victims themselves what their needs were, how they could be emancipated more quickly, how the trafficking operation worked.

Again, they're all young people, most of them women. They're brought here by the American dream. They all come to work, to somehow make good, to send money home to their families. What we found out, though, is that, at times, they had even encounters with law enforcement or with doctors that simply did not recognize that there was human trafficking going on, so that we've come up with recommendations for our law enforcement officers, for our social service providers, and actually for perhaps the people on the street as well that might simply make them more aware that this reality is closer than they might know.

ZAHN: And, of course, there's great hope that this hot line that will be announced tomorrow will ultimately help some of these women find some relief.

Terry Coonan, thanks so much for joining us.

COONAN: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Coming up, we're going to get the latest from the terror bombing in Madrid, close to 200 people dead. And now they are investigating a possible al Qaeda connection.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Now on to tonight's major story in Madrid, the death toll close to 200, with 1,400 injuries after today's terrorist train bombings. And there may be a militant Muslim connection.

Let's turn to senior international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, who now brings us up to date.

Good evening, Christiane. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, good evening from Madrid, where it's been really one of the worse days in Spain's history, certainly in memory anyway, the worst terrorist attack in this country ever.

And, as you know, nearly 200 people have been killed, 1,400 people wounded. And there's still no clear idea of exactly who did it. At first, the interior minister here said that they had absolutely incontrovertible proof and evidence that it was ETA, the terrorist group that is the armed Basque separatist organization. They say forensic evidence, as well as having arrested two suspected ETA people last month along with a truck full of explosives pointed to ETA being responsible for today's carnage.

But later on in the evening they said that they had new evidence. They showed a picture of a van that they had discovered, they said, outside of Madrid in a town that was on the same commuter line, the same commuter route where those trains had been attacked. And they said they found several detonators inside that van and a tape containing Arabic Koranic verses.

The interior minister said that there were no threats on that tape and the tape was commercially available. It could have been bought in any store. But, he said, it added a new element to their investigation. They are opening a new line of inquiry or a further line of inquiry. And although ETA, they say, remains their prime suspect, they are now not ruling anything out. In the meantime, the prime minister and other officials have called for mass demonstrations around Spain on Friday night to confront these killings and to put on a show of defiance in the face of what the prime minister has called mass assassinations.

Many of the relatives of these victims have been trying to find out what happened to their loved ones who were headed to work or who were headed to university.

We go now to Alessio Vinci, who is at one of the makeshift morgues in this he city, not far away from where I am -- Alessio.

ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Christiane.

Spanish officials set up earlier today this makeshift morgue just outside Madrid's International Airport. This is normally a convention center. However, one of the halls has been turned, as we mentioned, into a makeshift morgue, where, throughout the day and the evening, we've seen hearses, mini-buses, minivans and ambulances bringing some or many of the bodies of the victims of this morning's attack.

We understand from Spanish officials here that more than 180 bodies that have been brought here earlier today. Of those, 50 have already been identified fairly quickly by relatives and by forensic experts. And we understand -- and this is the latest development -- that already five bodies have been returned to their families. Spanish officials are telling us that at this time there, they are confronting two major tasks here at this makeshift morgue. The first one, of course, is to identify the rest of the victims. And the second one is to care for the relatives of those very same victims. The identification procedure has been extremely difficult because, of course, some of the bodies were damaged beyond recognition. We understand also that the Spanish government has invited a team of forensic experts from Israel. A team of three is expected to arrive here at some point tomorrow to help speed up this procedure.

As far as caring for some of the relatives here, we understand that as many as 100 people from the Red Cross, volunteers from the Red Cross have been recruited here to try to help out those relatives. We've seen them arriving at this makeshift morgue from another entrance. And many of them, of course, extremely stressed out. The recognition and the identification procedure is extremely painful and an extremely difficult task -- back to you, Paula.

ZAHN: That is so very, very sad. Thank you so much, Alessio Vinci, Christiane Amanpour.

We put the Madrid bombings "In Focus" tonight. Could it be the work of al Qaeda after all.

Terror expert Sajjan Gohel is director of international security with the Asia-Pacific Foundation. He joins us from London.

Thanks so much for joining us, sir.

I wanted to follow up on a point that Christiane Amanpour was making that earlier on in the day, Spanish authorities pointed to this group ETA as perhaps being responsible. But she also said now that they have this new evidence of this van that is found along the commuter line that had detonators in it, as well as some publications with Arabic Koranic verses. What does that suggest to you?

SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: Well, I think, Paula, the van is a very interesting development indeed.

What is most particularly interesting is that this van was actually stolen from a Southern Spanish town called Alcala De Henares. Now, that place is also the point of origin for four trains that were targeted in this attack. And I think that could well be more than just coincidence. And I think the van may well lead to many more clues, that who's really been behind this devastating terrorist attack.

ZAHN: Would there be any precedent for a collaboration between ETA and al Qaeda?

GOHEL: Well, we do know that al Qaeda in itself has never ideologically or religiously associated itself with other groups that have different causes or goals.

But that doesn't rule it out. Let's not forget that in Iraq right now we have dregs of Saddam Hussein's special forces that have affiliated themselves with foreign Islamic fighters. So I don't think it can be ruled out. It would be a major departure for al Qaeda. It would also be a very disturbing development if that was to prove to be the case.

ZAHN: Spain would be an obvious target for al Qaeda, wouldn't it, particularly because of its support for the U.S. in not only on the war on terror, but this war in Iraq?

GOHEL: Well, Spain has been a major ally to the United States. It's also been a key member in the war against terrorism. It has cracked down on al Qaeda cells that have been operating inside the country. It has also provided useful intelligence information of possible al Qaeda associates throughout Europe and also in America.

And, yes, of course, it supported the United States in its war against Saddam Hussein. And it's been singled out. Let's not forget, it was mentioned in audiotapes by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's No. 2, and by bin Laden himself as a possible country that could be attacked in the future.

ZAHN: If this ends up being the work of al Qaeda, what would that tell you about a potential shift in targets, from planes to trains?

GOHEL: Well, I think we have always known that al Qaeda has been after transportation, because it knows that that is where there's a mass congregation of individuals. They know they can create a huge devastation -- devastating attack, where they can kill a lot of people.

Obviously, the planes have been the No. 1 priority for al Qaeda because of the fact that they're devastating and powerful. But trains, we've always warned that trains could well be another form of transportation that terrorist groups like al Qaeda could attack. And unfortunately there's no such thing now as a safe mode of transport.

ZAHN: What did it take to pull off this horrible attack today, Sajjan?

GOHEL: Well, I think we're dealing with individuals that have created a multiple, well-planned, coordinated, mass casualty attack and that is, of course, hallmarks of a transnational terrorist group. I think the biggest fear now, and something we've all been worried about for a long time, is when would the first major attack like this be in Europe. And we've seen it today. And I think what we're almost all concerned about is this could now mean that there could be attacks throughout Europe. And this is dangerous development in the war on terror. And I think this clearly shows we've got a long way to go before we can claim we're winning this.

ZAHN: I think there are a lot of people that agree with you on that final point. Sajjan Gohel, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Now, since 9/11, the U.S. has made airport security a major priority, but how secure are trains against bombings like we saw those unfold in Madrid today. Jeanne Meserve is at historic Union Station in the heart of Washington, D.C. tonight to bring us up to date on that. Good evening, Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula. There is a lot more security on the rail system than there used to be. There are more police, there are more bomb-sniffing dogs, more surveillance cameras, more sharing of information, but the system is still very porous. I travelled on Amtrak today. They're supposed to check I.D., they did not check mine today. Some blame the federal government and say they are simply not making rail security a priority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D) DELAWARE: The truth is, the administration says, no, we're not going to spend the money on that. We don't think that's necessary. Not withstanding the fact that the CIA has said in the past that it is one of the likely places where we're going to see serious terrorist activities on the rails.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Since 9/11, the federal government has disbursed about $100 million in security grants to rail systems, aviation in contrast has gotten about $11.8 billion. But some security analysts say history and intelligence make aviation the logical priority here -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jeanne Meserve, thanks very much.

Now, on to some of the other headlines you need to know right now. San Francisco gets an order to stop tying the knot for same-sex couples. The order from California's supreme court is a victory for some conservative groups. But the court still has to decide whether the marriages are in fact legal. More than 3,700 gay marriages have been performed.

And the National Hockey League has suspended Vancouver's Todd Bertuzzi and fined him more than half a million dollars. Bertuzzi leveled Colorado's Steve Moore with a sucker punch this week, breaking Moore's neck. Now Bertuzzi is out for the rest of the season. Plus, the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Are Supreme Court justices crossing the neutrality line. This year we've heard that justice Antonin Scalia has gone on hunting trips with the vice president, who has a case going before the high court. Scalia has also spoken before a pro family group, battling gay rights in court. And Justice Ruth Baider Ginsburg has lended her name to a lecture series for the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense Fund.

We are giving the ethics question the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five direct answers. Joining us now, the vice dean of New York University School of Law, Stephen Gillers. It's good to see you, sir.

STEPHEN GILLERS, NYU: Hello.

ZAHN: No 1. should a Supreme Court justice be allowed to participate in activities with an advocate group?

GILLERS: Absolutely. We want them to get out there and to speak about the law, generally, to talk about the history, the theory, it helps us to hear that voice. So, sure. But they shouldn't limit themselves to a particular point of view among advocacy groups. They should talk to many different groups.

ZAHN: Question No. 2, if justices take part in political activities, what limitations should there be?

GILLERS: They should not take part in political activities, period. Justices, judges are nonpolitical. The judiciary is not a political branch of government. And judges and justices should not participate in politics in any form.

ZAHN: All right. On to question No. 3. we mentioned justice Scalia went on a hunting trip with the vice president. Is that appropriate?

GILLERS: It is not appropriate, because the vice president has a case coming up before the Supreme Court that will be argued in April, in which he has a real personal and political interest.

ZAHN: The case being?

GILLERS: The case being the effort to discover the identity of the people in his energy task force. He wants to keep that information private. Various groups want to know the people he met with. It's a big case. It's a case he lost below. And now his last chance to win. And keep the information private is in the Supreme Court.

ZAHN: Question No. 4. should relationships with government officials be off limits to Supreme Court justices?

GILLERS: Not at all. Washington is a small town. People know each other from prior service. They have friendships. They play poker together. They go to concerts together. They go to dinners together. Fine. No problem. It's what they talk about or don't talk about that matters.

ZAHN: And finally that brings us to question No. 5 tonight, does being a Supreme Court Justice mean giving up any right to a private life?

GILLERS: It does not mean giving up any right to a private life. It means being careful about what you do, and what you say, who you socialize with, what gifts you accept. But you don't have to be a hermit. You don't have to go into a monastery.

ZAHN: Professor Gillers, thank you for our course this evening.

GILLERS: You bet.

ZAHN: Appreciate your time. So can you trust those new electronic voting machines? An investigation stirs some doubts about the machines and the people, that manufacture them.

And in some countries, commercials like this aimed at younger kids are actually illegal. Well, now some psychologists say it's time for the U.S. to follow suit. Do commercials really harm our children?

And tomorrow, Chicago: heroes divided by race. Accusations fly over racism and who's been making racial insults over emergency radios.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: When you vote in November, you may be using an electronic voting machine, but will you be able to trust it to count your vote? According to an investigation in next month's "Vanity Fair," maybe not. The report says, glitch-prone and vulnerable to hackers, the electronic voting machines that will be in nearly every state this November will make hanging chads look benign. The report also says that by November these companies, three of which have ties to wealthy Republicans, will have their machines in almost every state. "Vanity Fair" contributing editor Michael Shnayerson wrote the story. Good to see you.

MICHAEL SHNAYERSON, "VANITY FAIR": Hi, Paula. Nice to be here.

ZAHN: Are you actually telling me tonight that you can rig an election with these machines?

SHNAYERSON: Unfortunately, it can be done.

ZAHN: How?

SNHAYERSON: My story is really based on the investigative reporting of a woman named Bev Harris, who did the -- simple but brilliant thing of downloading files from one of these companies that makes these machines. It turned out that she had downloaded all the source code, the software, the guts, the secret information inside these machines. And when she passed that along to computer experts, they were aghast, because they found all sorts of security flaws in the system. Starting with when these machines are put in the polling places, they all had the same password hardcoded into the system. So anyone's who's working there that election day had access to any of those machines.

ZAHN: As many times as they wanted.

SHNAYERSON: Yes. When the voters came in to vote, they would use a card, much like you use a card in your ATM machine, indeed, Diebold, the largest manufacturer of these, is also the manufacturer of ATMs. Same touch-screen idea. So you use this card. But those cards could be manipulated. Then when the votes were tallied they would be sent from the polling places to the central county, whatever, someone could hack into that transmission, manipulate the votes then. Then once they were on the central server, she could go in and actually change the votes then. So at each step of this process, there were vulnerabilities.

ZAHN: All right. What you're saying really smacks of conspiracy. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here, is there? In this article, you point out that the owner of Diebold, who happens to be a friend of the president's, gives him a bunch of money, you're not saying he could manipulate an election through his machines?

SCHNAYERSON: No, I'm certainly not saying that. The problem is, they've created a system which is open to manipulation by others.

ZAHN: Let me read to you, Mike, a statement from Diebold. Quote, "as a result of independent security audits, we are very comfortable with the security of our systems, as well are the election officials who have deployed our systems for voters."

SCHNAYERSON: Those studies they refer to were only done as a result of the files that Bev Harris downloaded. And the resulting hue and cry that occurred in the states where Diebold machines have been installed.

ZAHN: You're not suggesting it's intentional on their parts to have loaded up the system with all these vulnerabilities?

SCHNAYERSON: I don't think this is a conspiracy story. I think it's a story of greed and ineptitude. And it really begins with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which came about as a result of the whole debacle in Florida in 2000. Part of that Act was to build in federal oversight. The problem is, the cart got ahead of the horse. And these manufacturers raced out to sell these machines, the technology is premature, it does have security flaws, and there isn't yet the federal oversight there should be.

ZAHN: Can we go to the polls in November and use one of these machines and have any degree of confidence that our vote will be counted the way we exercised our vote?

SCHNAYERSON: I don't think, and Bev Harris doesn't think, that you can be confident of that until these machines have paper trails, receipts, just like your ATM machine does. They don't have it yet. They can, and they should.

ZAHN: Michael Schnayerson, thank you very much for educating us about this process.

Coming up, are TV ads aimed at younger kids making them fat and greedy and untrustworthy? Some psychologists think so, and they want them banned. We'll debate that.

And the enormous divorce settlements of the rich and famous, hundreds of millions and mansions besides. Well, the details from a celebrity divorce attorney.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: We've all been there as parents, our kids see a commercial for a toy or snack and then the nagging begins. But surprising new reports suggest that advertising to kids could have far more serious consequences. An American Psychological Association task force recommends restricting advertising that is aimed directly to children under the age of nine.

And a Kaiser Family Foundation report links advertising to children with rising rates of obesity, dangerous advertising or business as usual. Joining us now, Jerry Della Femina, chairman of the advertising agency, Della Femina, Rothchild and Jeary. Did I get that right? Yes.

And in Watertown, Massachusetts, Dr. Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard University. She's a member of the APA task force and author of the upcoming book, "Consuming Kids, the Hostile Takeover of Childhood."

Welcome to you both. Susan, let's start with you this evening because you personally recommend going farther than these guidelines. You actually think advertising should be prohibited for kids under the age of eight. Why?

DR. SUSAN LINN, PSYCHIATRY INSTRUCTOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Marketing to children is linked to childhood obesity, eating disorders, family stress, materialism, violence, precocious, and irresponsible sexuality and it has a negative impact on children's play. It's a factor in a lot of public health issues and I think that we as a society really need to do something about that.

ZAHN: All right, Jerry. We're going to put up on the screen, graphically, basically what the doctor just said. This advertising being linked to parent/child conflict, materialistic attitudes, unhealthy eating habits. Doesn't your business bear some responsibility for any of this?

JERRY DELLA FEMINA, CHAIRMAN, DELLA FEMINA, ROTHCHILD & JEARY: You know, we get blamed for everything. We get blamed for just about everything. So why not...

ZAHN: Do you deserve the blame?

DELLA FEMINA: No, of course, this is fairly ridiculous. I tell you right now, I was very lucky. I was born before television. And I was a fat little kid. But that was OK. I guess somebody did that. It was my mother's fault. Looking to blame people for the way -- literally the way advertising works. I've done children's advertising. I don't do it right now. I don't have any children. But the fact is, both of my products failed. I guess I'm not good at what I do.

ZAHN: But you've got to recognize it has to have some impact on children, otherwise these advertisers wouldn't be spending all this money to put the stuff on TV.

DELLA FEMINA: Kids look at it. They say they want something. But then you have the parent who has to say no, you can't have that. This is not for you. This is not something I'm going to give you. ZAHN: Dr. Linn, where do parents come into this in your equation? Shouldn't they share some of this burden on how much television they watch, what their kids eat? What they have in their pantries?

LINN: Sure, parents have responsibility. But one family can't fight a $15 billion industry that is doing everything it can to undermine adults, and to come between children and parents.

In 1998, a company called Western Media International did a study on nagging. The purposes of the study was not to help parents cope with nagging, it was to help corporations help children nag more effectively.

ZAHN: And corporations are pretty good at nagging more effectively aren't they, Jerry? With a little bit of help from you guys

DELLA FEMINA: We nag, we -- look at it this way. I have a granddaughter who is totally, totally loves the cookie monster. She wants everything that the cookie monster -- she loves cookie monster dolls. Now, here's the deal with the cookie monster. That's public television. So I say, ban the cookie, ban public television.

ZAHN: You don't really mean that.

FEMINA: Well, she also goes on play dates. And she sees -- this is where the real advertising comes in. The other kid has a toy or sees something and the kid says I want the same thing.

ZAHN: I understand that.

FEMINA: Well, ban play dates.

There's no question. We get rid of play dates, we get rid of public television and we're on our way. And than we can get rid of advertising.

ZAHN: Besides costing you a chunk of change, would be the consequences of banning advertising for kids under the age of eight?

Is it going to hurt our kids not to have that stuff on TV?

FEMINA: It's not going hurt them not to have.

Does it hurt them to have is it?

You know, you're talking about obesity and talking about young kids who -- well, the fact is that, there's food out there. It's up to the parents to decide what a 9-year-old eats. It certainly is. And if you look in the pantry at that home, they've got white bread, which is not good for kids. They've got plenty of butter, plenty of oil, plenty of food.

You know what...

ZAHN: You've been into my kitchen, haven't you, Jerry.

FEMINA: You got it. Ban mothers. Ban parents.

ZAHN: The final thought, Susan, where you think this is all going?

LINN: I think that parents desperately need help. And that in fact most parents really do want to do the right thing, and they really want to raise healthy children. I think that parents need help from educators, from health care professionals, and from legislators. And I think what the marketing industry is going to find is there is growing outrage around the country as people are starting to connect the dots.

ZAHN: You better watch yourself, Jerry.

FEMINA: I'm in trouble again.

ZAHN: Jerry, Della Femina. Dr. Susan Linn, thank you for both of your perspectives tonight.

You won't believe what it costs some stars to call it quits. Who got the biggest mansions and mountains of cash. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Well, Neil Diamond probably not singing baby loves me when he had to fork over $150 million to TV producer Marsha Murphy after 25 years of marriage. An article in today's "New York Daily News" got us thinking, who fares the worst and who fares the best when it comes to big Hollywood divorces.

Celebrity divorce attorney Raoul Felder joins us now.

How are you doing to night?

RAOUL FELDER, CELEBRITY DIVORCE ATTY.: Great.

ZAHN: Who brought home the bacon?

FELDER: In some of these cases we're talking about, lots of people are bringing home the bacon. And in fact in, Roseanne's case, her husband is bringing home the bacon. You know, but it reveals that the people behind the camera really do better than the people in front of the camera. Steven Spielberg's 30-month marriage, paid $100 million.

ZAHN: Now, that sounds like a lot of money.

FELDER: And that's after taxes, don't forget. So he had to earn $200 million, and that's after they spent their living expenses. So that they had another $100 million.

ZAHN: How did she wind up with that amount of money after three years of marriage? FELDER: The length of time doesn't matter, it's what's earned during that. And I suppose, that's two movies. You know, he owns the movies. The actors only get a piece of the profits. He owns the whole thing.

ZAHN: So who did the worst?

FELDER: I think Jerry Hall did the worst. Mick Jagger, and I represented the other lady involved at some pointed...

ZAHN: As in Bianca?

FELDER: No. I represented Luciana Mara, who was allegedly was the cause of the break-up according to the newspapers. She had a baby by Mick Jagger. But Mick Jagger's been a superstar for a quarter of a century or more. She only got $19 million. The reason is, there was a question about her marriage. It was a Buddhist ceremony of some sort. She acknowledged it. So, no marriage, no alimoney.

(CROSSTALK)

FELDER: Very little she took.

ZAHN: Bruce Willis, gave Demi Moore some 90 million dollars. They've moved on. They seem to have a workable relationship.

FELDER: They're career's both of them are sort of in the eclipse. She has a toy boy now, apparently. And sort of he's an aging action star. Youy know, another person, another break-up that wasn't particularly great was the Mike Douglas break-up. Now, she got lots of money. But the key there, that was a sickness that last three years. That case stretched out three years. The moral there is, if you're a woman, stretch it out. Stretch it out. Stretch it out. Until the checkbook opens.

ZAHN: And give them more time to earn more money in that period of time. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, I think he kept the $10 million ski chalet and bunch of planes. And she got $68 million? Is that a fair settlement based on what you know.

FELDER: Yes, he earned lots of money. The funny thing is, "Samurai," or whatever the name of that move notwithstanding, she's the bigger star, I think than he is today. Can't open up a newspaper...

ZAHN: You mean "Last Samurai."

FELDER: "Last Samurai."

ZAHN: You were very close.

FELDER: Very close, no cigar though. Today I think it's fair to say she's a bigger star than he is. You can't open up a newspaper without seeing a picture of her.

ZAHN: Now you mentioned Roseanne Barr, because that's one of the few cases were a women had to fork over big bucks to dump their husband. Pretty good deal for a struggling actor.

FELDER: Worse, worse, her lawyer wanted to sign a prenuptial agreement, she fired the lawyer.

ZAHN: I'll bet she regrets that.

FELDER: Sure. Hundreds of million dollars maybe.

ZAHN: What is the bottom line here, that these folks should all have signed or at least the wealthy partner a prenup agreement.

FELDER: The three words are prenuptial agreement, yes. Everybody should have it. If you don't have it, they ought to see a psychiatrist and not a lawyer. It just doesn't make sense not to have it.

ZAHN: Actually, those are becoming more common among members of the general public, no matter what your net worth.

FELDER: Yes, because the fact is, today, the person who sells the tickets, owns the theater, the waiter owns the restaurant, tomorrow, so for most people on the street today, they should have prenuptial agreements.

ZAHN: Do you ever get bummed out that you're always in the middle of these horrible divorces?

FELDER: No, I'm like a surgeon. That's just my job. Undertaker, surgeon, same thing.

ZAHN: Do you ever glue these marriages back together?

FELDER: Usually it's a rubicon. When they come to lawyer's office they've been to the priest, the rabbi, the marriage counselor, the women next door, the hairdresser, and so forth, it's too late.

ZAHN: Last line of defense here, Raoul Felder, thanks so much for joining us.

And thank you all for being with us tonight. That wraps it up for all of us here. We hope you'll be with again, same time, same place tomorrow night. Until then have a good night. "LARRY KING LIVE" 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

Spain>