Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Memphis School Shooting; Pentagon Announces Charges Against Key Terror Suspects at Guantanamo; Congressman Tom Lantos Dead at 80

Aired February 11, 2008 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You're with CNN. Hi there, everybody. I'm Heidi Collins.
Developments keep coming in to the CNN NEWSROOM on Monday, the 11th of February.

Here's what's on the rundown. The Bush administration pushing the death penalty for key terror suspects at Guantanamo. The Pentagon announcing charges live in just minutes.

And the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the U.S. Congress is dead. Flags on Capitol Hill lowered this morning for Representative Tom Lantos.

And here's a handy prescription for medical convenience. Now vending the pot machine -- in the NEWSROOM.

Quickly happening right now, we want to get directly to T.J. Holmes in the newsroom, who has been following this shoot in Memphis -- T.J.

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: This is at Mitchell High School. Local affiliates reporting that, in fact, there has been a shooting at this high school and that the victim has now been taken to the hospital in critical condition. That victim being a student who was found in the cafeteria.

Here are pictures of Mitchell High School that we're seeing. We see some of the students outside here, apparently. Some of the newest video we are getting.

We understood or told that the person was actually in custody, we're told now, but that the school was actually in lockdown. And that is still the case that we understand right now.

We do have on the phone with us right now detective Monique Martin, if I have that name correct, with the Memphis Police Department.

Can you please tell us what has happened at this school and if you do have a shooter in custody.

DET. MONIQUE MARTIN, MEMPHIS POLICE: Yes, we have Memphis police responding to a shooting that occurred inside the high school earlier this morning, about an hour ago. We do have a victim which is understood to be a male at this time that's in the 12th grade that has sustained at least two gunshot wounds. And we do have the suspect in custody.

HOLMES: Do you have reason to believe that this was, I guess, a targeted shooting and that this was the only person maybe that this shooter was after, or was this kind of a random thing and the student intended to do harm to many more folks?

MARTIN: We have a lot of information to uncover at this time. We will be talking to many of the students there that possibly were witnesses to this shooting.

It did occur in the cafeteria. There were several students inside the cafeteria, so we're trying to gain as much information at this time to develop any witnesses that could help us get more information as to why this shooting occurred.

HOLMES: And ma'am, do you know, is the shooter a student at the school as well?

MARTIN: Yes, we believe that at this time, that the shooter is an 11th grader at that school. We don't know the motive of the shooting at this time. We do have a victim that's been transported to the hospital in critical condition.

HOLMES: All right. Detective Monique Martin, we appreciate you so much for getting on the phone with us right quick and giving us information. I know you've got a fluid situation there, but thank you so much for giving us the update so we can give it to our viewers.

Thank you.

Again, folks, a 17-year-old student in critical condition after being shot at Mitchell High School there in Memphis.

We are following this story, Heidi. I will hand it back over to you.

COLLINS: All right, T.J. Thanks so much.

Quickly, also want to want to get the other story that is happening right now. Going to go live to the Pentagon and listen in to Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann regarding these military charges against six 9/11 terror suspects.

Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BRIG. GEN. THOMAS HARTMANN, DEFENSE DEPT. LEGAL ADVISER: ... are Khalid sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi (ph), and Mohammed al- Qahtani.

Now that sworn charges have been received, the convening authority will review the charges and supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to refer the case to trial by military commission. The chief prosecutor has requested that the charges be tried jointly and that they be referred as capital for each defendant. If the convening authority -- and this is Susan Crawford -- in her sole discretion decides to refer the cases as capital, the defendants will face the possibility of being sentenced to death.

Each of the defendants is charged under the Military Commission Act with the crime of conspiracy and with the separate substantive offenses of murder in violation of the law of war; attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; intentionally causing serious bodily injury; destruction of property in violation of the law of war; terrorism and material support to terrorism. The first four defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al- Shibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, are also charge with the separate substantive offense of hijacking or hazarding an aircraft.

All the charges are alleged to have been in accord (ph) of the attacks on the United States of America on September the 11th, 2001. The charge sheet details 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants and their uncharged coconspirators in furtherance of the 9/11 events.

The charges allege that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Osama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Osama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Walid bin Attash is alleged to have administered an al Qaeda training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the September 11th hijackers were trained. He is also alleged to have traveled to Malaysia in 1999 to observe airport security by U.S. air carriers to assist in formulating the hijacking plan.

Ramzi bin al-Shibh is alleged to have lived in the Hamburg, Germany, al Qaeda cell where three of the 9/11 hijackers resided. It is alleged that bin al-Shibh was originally selected by Osama bin Laden to be one of the 9/11 hijackers and that he made a martyr video in preparation for the operation.

He was uncertain -- he was unable to obtain a U.S. visa and, therefore, could not enter the United States as the other hijackers did. In light of this, it is alleged that bin al-Shibh assisted in finding flight schools for the hijackers in the United States and continued to assist the conspiracy by engaging in numerous financial transactions in support of the 9/11 operation.

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali's role is alleged to have included sending approximately $127,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training and facilitating the travel to the United States for nine of the hijackers.

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi (ph) is alleged to have assisted and prepared the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler's checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have facilitated the transfer of thousands of dollars between the 9/11 hijackers and himself on September the 11th, 2001. Mohammed al-Qahtani is alleged to have attempted to enter the United States on August the 4th, 2001, through the Orlando International Airport, where he was denied entry. It is also alleged that al-Qahtani carried $2,800 in cash and had an itinerary listing a phone number associated with al-Hawsawi.

Now that the charges have been sworn, they are being translated into the native language of each of the accused and served on them. I will evaluate the charges and all of the supporting evidence, along with the chief prosecutor's recommendation, and I will forward them with my independent recommendation to Mrs. Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the military commissions.

She will review all of the information and make her independent decision whether to refer any or all of the cases to trial by military commission. And, if so, whether to refer them as capital.

Just as in military court-martial practice, the pretrial advice must contain my legal conclusions, as well as whether the charges are supported by probable cause, are subject to jurisdiction by the military commission, and should be tried by military commission. The convening authority's final decision follows her review and consideration of my advice, the file provided by the prosecutors, and any national security concerns. This is very similar to the sequence of events that occurs in military legal offices thousands of times a year all around the world.

If the convening authority refers the charges to trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard applied in all U.S. and military criminal trials. In the military commission process, every defendant has the following rights: the right to remain silent and to have no inference drawn from it, no adverse inference drawn from it; the right to be represented by detailed military counsel, as well as civilian counsel of his own selection at no expense to the government; the right to examine all evidence used against him by the prosecution; the right to obtain evidence and to call witnesses on his own behalf, including expert witnesses; the right to cross-examine every witness called by the prosecution; the right to be present during the presentation of evidence; the right to have a military commission panel of at least five military members determine his guilt by a two-thirds majority, or in the case of a capital offense, a unanimous decision of a military commission composed of at least 12 members; the right to an appeal to the court of military commission review, then through the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, to the United States Supreme Court.

These rights are guaranteed to each defendant under the Military Commission Act and are specifically designed to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial, consistent with American standards of justice. The sworn charges prepared by the joint team of military and Department of Justice prosecutors highlight the tremendous cooperative efforts put forth by a multitude of government agencies and reflect the continued progress of the military commissions.

As the legal adviser to the convening authority, I remind you that the sworn charges are only allegations, only allegations of violations under the Military Commission Act, and that the accused are and will remain innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll take your questions.

QUESTION: Sir, can you talk about the steps once more, but with a time frame? How soon would Judge Crawford come back with her decision, when trials might start?

HARTMANN: There's no specific statutory time specified for Judge Crawford to review the file. We will receive the file, I expect, later in the week, and we will work on it very quickly, as quickly as we can, with the entire staff focused on that. I can't give you a specific time frame.

When Judge Crawford completes her review, and should she decide to refer the case to trial, then 30 days following that, the accused will be arraigned -- within 30 days the accused will be arraigned, and that means that they will be read the charges in court and have the opportunity to enter a plea. One hundred and twenty days after Judge Crawford refers the case, the court is assembled. The means the jury is brought in, or the panel members -- the military panel members.

In between that time, there will certainly be discovery and motions, as there have been in the past. So I expect that the 120 days will push out. But she will have -- after the arraignment, you will begin to see activity in the courtroom in terms of discovery and motions and that sort of thing.

As to when you would see what most people call a trial, the taking of evidence in front of a jury, I can't predict that at this time. But it will be certainly at least 120 days, and probably well beyond that, beyond the time Judge Crawford makes her referral decision.

QUESTION: There will at least be some court activity by May or June?

HARTMANN: We expect there to be some, but don't hold me to that. I can't predict that.

Yes?

QUESTION: Sir, would you expect that KSM's confessions (INAUDIBLE) would be admissible given the fact that the CIA has since said that it used the waterboarding technique during the interrogation?

HARTMANN: All of the issues with regard to the admissibility of evidence and the decision of what evidence to produce and to try to bring into the court will be the decision of the prosecutors. That's not my decision.

We have the rule of law. We have a Military Commission Act that's been determined by the Congress and the president, supported by the Department of Defense. We will follow the rule of law, we will apply the rule of law. And evidence with regard to admissibility of evidence will be determined there by the prosecution and the defense fighting it out, a military judge making that decision.

QUESTION: Two questions. What about destruction of evidence, as in the destruction of the case pending? And you used the word "jointly". Were you saying that all six are going to be tried together?

HARTMANN: Yes, all six are going to be tried together. The -- all six have been recommended for trial together. The chief prosecutor has recommended that all six be tried jointly.

That decision remains in the discretion of Judge Crawford, as to whether she will refer them jointly, and then it can also be challenged. Even if she should refer them jointly, that can still be challenged.

As to the destruction of evidence, I'm not familiar with the details of that. And again, that matter will be decided in the courtroom among the prosecutors and the defense in front of the military judge, and they will decide the extent to which any possible destruction of evidence has an impact on these cases.

QUESTION: Can you clarify -- two questions. Can you clarify the death penalty issue? Do the sworn charges recommend these be taken as capital cases, or is that an option for you and Judge Crawford? And I have a second question.

HARTMANN: The answer to both is yes, they recommend that they be referred to trial as a capital case, and Judge Crawford will make this decision as to whether to actually refer them to trial as capital. That's her decision, her sole discretion.

QUESTION: I have a question. Among the more high-profile allegations -- claims he made was that he killed "Wall Street Journal" journalist Daniel Pearl with his "blessed right hand," I think was the phrase.

Is that one of the charges in the sheet we'll see today?

HARTMANN: That is not one of the charges in this case.

QUESTION: Why not?

HARTMANN: That is -- the case you have before you is the case that has been brought to me by the chief prosecutor through his prosecutors. This is the level of evidence they have on these cases. If there is a decision to try somebody else for the Pearl case, that decision will be made later.

QUESTION: In terms of the trial, is it fair to assume that it would be completely public? And also, in terms of classified evidence, will that also be made public during the course of the trial?

HARTMANN: That's a good question. And I'll try to answer them both in the same answer.

As to classified, there will be no secret trials. Every piece of evidence, every stitch of evidence, every whiff of evidence that goes to the finder of fact, to the jury, to the military tribunal, will be reviewed by the accused, subject to confrontations, subject to cross- examinations, subject to challenge, exercising the rights I described to you before.

In terms of the openness of the trial, it is our goal to have the trials as completely open as possible. They're designed for that.

We've had more than 100 members of the press down to the commissions before. Thirty more recently. And then there were sessions last week where they the commissions were present. So we will make every effort to make everything open.

There may be limited circumstances in which classified evidence will be presented. Classified evidence is classified for the purpose of protecting the national security interest and our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the field, and other operatives. So, to the extent that that is necessary, we will apply that standard in the courtroom. I have been advised by the prosecutors that relatively little amounts of evidence will be classified, but it's still a possibility, and we have rules and procedures and rules of evidence in place to deal with that.

QUESTION: Do you have concerns that the CIA may not provide the prosecutors with some of the evidence that they extracted while some of these detainees were held in secret prisons or perhaps waterboarded? Are you finding it difficult to get that information from the CIA?

HARTMANN: We're very appreciative of the total interagency effort that has gone on among the law enforcement, intelligence and legal community. And that will be decided in the courtroom, when the prosecution decides what evidence it needs to present as to whether there are any debates or disputes about the availability of the evidence. But I'm not aware of any at this time.

QUESTION: How many of these detainees actually have lawyers at this point in time, military or civilian?

HARTMANN: Of all the detainees?

QUESTION: Of the six that we're talking about.

HARTMANN: Of the six, effective today, with the swearing of charges, they will be entitled to a detailed military counsel. So that will occur after today.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, was any of the information that was derived from aggressive interrogations of either KSM or any of the other five defendants used in referring these charges?

HARTMANN: I don't know the answer to that question. The prosecutors will make a determination about what evidence they are going to produce in the case in chief. I haven't seen the files yet. And they will -- that will identify to us what evidence is used.

But let me -- let me be clear. We are a nation of law and not of men. And the question of what evidence will be admitted, whether waterboarding or otherwise, will be decided in the courts, in front of a judge, after it's fought out between the defense and the prosecution in these cases.

That's the rule of law. That's the procedure that Congress has provided to us. And that's what we will use to finally answer these questions.

QUESTION: But just -- excuse me. A follow-up. But just based on your own legal expertise, is that kind of evidence normally permissible against a defendant if it's achieved through duress?

HARTMANN: Well, I'll answer the same question. It's not -- this issue is not based upon my legal experience. This issue is based upon the rule of law. And the military judge will decide if this evidence is going to be admitted.

That's the procedure we have set up. That's the American standard of justice, that the court decides, the judge decides. And so we're very proud of the system that we've set up, with all the rights we've defined here, that the accused will have the opportunity to have his day in court and to challenge these things, to the extent they're even presented.

I can't predict that anything like that will be presented. But to the extent it is, it will be in open court.

QUESTION: And a technical question. Just a very quick technical question, please.

Is the appeal process in a capital case like this automatic as it is in some civilian courts?

HARTMANN: That's an excellent question. In this process, unlike...

QUESTION: Finally.

HARTMANN: In this process -- and it's quite a unique process -- if the accused is found guilty of anything, he gets an automatic right of appeal through the Court of Military Commission review. Very similar to the military process, but very dissimilar to any other process. It's an extra right for the accused in this case. And in addition, let me say this -- before he even gets to that, his sentence and the charges would again be reviewed by the convening authority.

Again, another right that doesn't exist anywhere on earth except in the military system. So it's an extraordinary set of rights that we're providing to the accused. And just so you know, at Nuremberg, there were no rights of appeal.

QUESTION: Just to be clear about the admissibility of some of this evidence, you don't take that into account in you're looking at the charges, nor does Judge Crawford?

HARTMANN: We take that into account in determining whether there's probable cause to proceed, whether there's probable cause or reasonable cause to believe that the accused committed these offenses, and if there's jurisdiction. But we have to look at the files before we make any determination.

QUESTION: But you will -- excuse me. You will make a decision on the admissibility of that particular evidence?

HARTMANN: We will make a decision as to whether we think the evidence is admissible or not.

QUESTION: Well, I wanted to follow up on that, because I'm now really confused. But let me ask you first -- you speak of rule of law. Is there anything in your law or procedure for these matters that allows you to compel the intelligence community on discovery? Do you only ask them, or can you compel them for full discovery?

And I'm now confused about this second part of what you just said. When you decide, and Judge Crawford, on the admissibility of the evidence in the charges referred to you, will you have information on how this evidence came in to being?

HARTMANN: As to your first question, I have very little power to compel anyone to do anything. So I'm -- we are not in the position to compel any other government agency to produce information.

As to the general question about Judge Crawford's role, my point is that we will evaluate the evidence that comes to us and review it to determine if there's probable cause. I don't know the source of the information that's coming to us. I don't know what that information is.

So once we see that information, we will evaluate it and apply a legal standard to determine whether there is probable cause to proceed. And a variety of factors is used in making that evaluation.

Judge Crawford has 15 years on the bench, on the court of appeals of the armed forces. She was the general counsel to the Army and the -- also the DOD IG. So she has a great deal of background in terms of evaluating these things. And that's how we will proceed, and I will do a similar review before it gets to her.

QUESTION: So, to be clear, in fact, the military process here, you basically have to take -- whatever the intelligence community tells you at face value. You have no independent means of discovery on the U.S. intelligence community?

HARTMANN: Well, we receive -- whatever evidence we receive, we receive it from the various communities and the law enforcement intelligence community. And we use that evidence and proceed with the evidence that's been provided. It's been a very cooperative effort.

QUESTION: And can I just also ask you one -- you know, it sort of escaped notice. You're standing here in the Pentagon announcing charges against the men believed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks, including on this building that morning. Just wondering your thoughts as a general officer of the United States military. It must be a fairly compelling experience for you right now.

HARTMANN: I'm glad to be an American. Proud to be an officer in the United States Air Force and the military. And we are going to move the process forward.

It's our obligation to move the process forward to give these people their rights. We are going give them rights. We are going to give them rights that are virtually identical to the rights we provide to our military members -- our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines -- who fight in the battlefield, and I think we'll all agree are a national treasure.

So thank you for asking that question.

QUESTION: Where were you on the morning of 9/11?

HARTMANN: I was working in a civilian -- in a civilian company. I was called to active duty.

QUESTION: Sir, can I ask...

COLLINS: A great question there by our own CNN's Barbara Starr, our Pentagon correspondent, asking Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann about his feelings standing there bringing these charges forward.

Let's talk a little bit about them.

Six suspects, as you well know by now. The prosecution has recommended that all six of them will be tried jointly. You see their pictures there. And as capital.

Now what happens is those recommendation also go on to Mrs. Susan Crawford, otherwise known as the convening authority, a judge. She will also decide whether or not to accept or reject this death penalty.

There are so many things to talk about in all of this, legal and otherwise. I want to go ahead and bring in Peter Bergen. He is a CNN terrorism analyst. He's joining us now from Washington.

Peter, I know you were watching these proceedings with me today. Very compelling.

I just wonder off the top, what is your reaction to all of these charges, 169 overt acts?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, Heidi, it's six and a half years after the event. I mean, what the first thing that strikes me is that this underlines the problem the military commissions and the whole processes had over the last six and a half years. After all, the United States justice system has handled previous terrorist attacks with far more dispatch and speed. For instance, of course you'll recall Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City. Well, of course he had a trial, he was executed, it didn't take six and a half years to retrieve and get an indictment on him.

Similarly, Ramzi Yousef, who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993, he's now serving 240 years. He'll never get out of prison. Again, he had a trial. It didn't take six and a half years.

Similarly, Mir Amal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees outside Langley, CIA headquarters, back in 1993, he was executed in Virginia. Again, it didn't take this long.

So I think the first thing -- the first point is that the military tribunal's -- you know, I don't need to entertain you with the details. As you know, there's been so much back and forth between the Congress, between DOD and the Department of Justice about how to handle these detainees. And it's taken a long time. It's going to take longer.

Then, of course, any adequate defense attorney is going to raise some serious objections, not simply to the waterboarding that we know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to, but also enhanced interrogation techniques, because lost in the coverage of General Hayden's comments before Congress that three of the detainees had been waterboarded, he also said something like a third of the 100 in CIA custody had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Now, what do enhanced interrogation techniques really mean? That's something that defense attorneys will want to explore with the other people accused.

So, it's going to be a long process. It's the beginning. I'm sure the 9/11 families are happy that at last they're going to get these guys in court.

But one interesting question, Heidi, is, will any 9/11 families be able to be in court when these trials happen?

COLLINS: Yes.

BERGEN: General Hartmann said that there was an aim to make this public. But so far the trials at Guantanamo have been, in my view, really far from public.

Yes, they've allowed journalists down there, but that's only not public in the sense of trials that we've had in the United States of other terrorists. So I think this is another big dimension. 9/11 families surely will want to be present in the court, or at least have a video feed that they can watch of the proceedings.

So, a lot of unanswered questions, Heidi.

COLLINS: Yes. So many unanswered questions. And there's so much to talk about in all of this, because it has taken a long time.

There have been major complications with military commissions. The issue of the evidence, now whether or not some of it will be admissible, as we heard a lot of questions about this in this press conference. Most of the answers were, you know, we just don't know yet, we've got to see all of that evidence.

But really, when we talk about this capital punishment that the prosecution has recommended in all of this, is that really the best way to go with these type of suspects who really likely would enjoy the idea of martyrdom?

BERGEN: Well, you know, I don't know the answer to that question, Heidi. It still remains to be seen whether these will be capital -- this will be a capital crime.

Of course, the United States has death penalty. Three thousand- something American citizens are dead as a result of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminding this operation. If the United States has a death penalty, it seems that he is quite a good candidate for it.

I'm not taking a position on it myself, but the fact is that the death penalty exists in this country. These crimes took place in New York and also in Virginia.

COLLINS: Right.

BERGEN: Virginia has quite a strong tradition of executing people involved in terrorism. Mir Amal Kansi, who I mentioned earlier, he killed people in Virginia. He was executed in Virginia.

So this has happened before on crimes of much smaller scale. It seems plausible that capital -- this may be a capital crime, but as yet that's still an open question.

COLLINS: Yes.

BERGEN: Will these guys be martyred in their own minds? No doubt if this happens. But...

COLLINS: Yes. And if not the death penalty, then what in a case like this?

BERGEN: Well, it would be life without parole.

COLLINS: Yes.

BERGEN: I mean, if you look back at the embassy attacks in '98, four people involved in those attacks, they were all convicted, life without parole. They'll never see outside an American jail cell before they die.

COLLINS: All right. Well, obviously a very -- early stages of all of this. It sounds like it's going to take quite a bit of time to go through this entire process.

We appreciate your help, with all of it. CNN terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen, coming from D.C. today. Thank you, Peter.

BERGEN: Thank you.

COLLINS: What's ahead of the Democratic and Republican contests? We'll talk about it with our guests coming up, looking at both sides in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Welcome back, everybody. A big announcement just made this hour in the 9/11 terror attacks. Military prosecutors will seek the death penalty against six terror suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay naval base. All are accused of playing central roles in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

The suspects include those listed there. That would be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the top. He is the former al Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attack. The death penalty will draw more international attention and anger to the case. The military commission has been a lightning rod of controversy since it was established just two months after the attacks. A military official reviewing the case, a judge can accept or reject now the death penalty request.

Why don't we take a moment to bring in our legal analyst, senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin to talk a little bit more about this.

Jeffrey, now that we have heard Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann talk about these charges, there is such a process here. We already have established that it's going to take a very long time to get through. But I want to ask you most about what will happen first in all of this.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the easiest way to think about what will happen next is that there will be what's like a grand jury proceeding. This Judge Crawford, who is a military judge, will review the evidence against all of the defendants and then decide whether there's enough to proceed to an actual trial, which is called a military commission.

That process is likely to take many months, this preliminary process, and only then will the case proceed to a trial. There are lots of legal uncertainties. And the General's press conference didn't address many of them, although he did talk about some.

COLLINS: Yes and what you're talking about is this -- the idea of possible waterboarding, some of the evidence that was possibly destroyed, you know. How will they deal with all of that moving forward and whether or not some of that is admissible?

TOOBIN: Well, that -- those were key questions that came up. And the General really didn't deal with that very much. He basically said we'll deal with that when we get to it. But I think really one of the critical, critical questions is the issue of the interrogation of these suspects. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it's acknowledged now, was waterboarded. What was done with that evidence? Will that evidence be used against him? In a conventional criminal -- in an American criminal trial that would never be allowed to be used against him.

What about leads that were derived from that evidence? Even if you don't use the statement itself, what if he gave you leads that then was evidence that was attempted to be used in the trial. Again, a complicated legal question. What about secret evidence? The judge --

COLLINS: Classified, yes.

TOOBIN: The General said we expect that we hope most of the evidence will be available, both to the public and to the defendants. But implicit in that statement is that some of it won't be. Can the American legal system execute someone based on evidence that the defendant himself has not entirely seen?

On the other hand, can the CIA, can the American government, really allow these terrorists, accused terrorists, though they are, to see the fruits of our most important criminal investigation? Can we really let them see everything? Those are really hard questions that we're only beginning to address.

COLLINS: Very, very quickly before we let you go, Jeffrey. This appeal process, there was a question asked about that that is unique and only allowed or only available in the military court system. What were they talking about there?

TOOBIN: Well, once this case gets to a trial and then there's a verdict, it will then be appealed through, in part, the civilian court system and then they'll have a chance to look at it. So the one thing we know for sure is that this process is likely to take several years, not several months.

COLLINS: Wow, all right. CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin for us again today. Appreciate that, Jeff. Thanks.

TOOBIN: OK, Heidi.

COLLINS: To the presidential election now. John McCain is trying to change the tide with tomorrow's Potomac primaries. CNN's Dana Bash is with the McCain campaign this morning in Annapolis, Maryland.

So Dana, McCain has a new endorsement that we're just hearing about here.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: An endorsement that the McCain campaign is very eager to tout. And that is because it comes from Gary Bauer who the McCain campaign describes as a prominent pro-life, pro-family advocate. Gary Bauer is an evangelical leader, the kind of leader that John McCain is trying very, very hard to prove he can get on his team as he fights the perception, and really the reality, that he has trouble with those conservatives, many of whom distrust him. Now Gary Bauer has not been one of those who has been so vocal in his opposition to John McCain. He's actually said some nice things about him in the newspaper. Nevertheless, this is exactly the kind of thing that the McCain campaign thinks that they need.

Even though, Heidi, you look back at -- over the weekend, what happened in the state of Kansas. Mike Huckabee is the one who got the conservative votes, even though -- even though John McCain claims that he is going to be the nominee. So today at a press conference here in Annapolis, John McCain was asked why are people actually still voting for Mike Huckabee?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because they like him. I never expected a unanimous vote, although I would certainly like to have that. But I think we'll continue to -- to win primaries across the country, including tomorrow. I hope that we'll do well here. I have great confidence that we will, both here in Maryland and -- both here in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And the McCain campaign really is banking on doing well in all of these contests, the three contests tomorrow, to prove that what happened over the weekend is not necessarily indicative of the lack of support that he is going to get, or at least the full support that he is going to have from his own party.

Very interesting, Heidi, just a little bit of color. You saw there, John McCain talking to the press. That was the event that he had here in Maryland a-day ahead of the primary. Not a rally, no music no, no nothing. Just a Q&A session with reporters with some local officials. Kind of indicative of the kind of campaign he wants to show that he's having now that he considers himself the nominee.

COLLINS: All right. Yes, very interesting. Appreciate that. Dana Bash, coming to us live this morning from Annapolis, Maryland. Thank you, Dana.

Meanwhile, Democrats locked in a tough fight. And on the Republican side, as we said, John McCain's lead doesn't seem all of that certain anymore, except in his mind as we heard from Dana Bash.

Carl Jeffers is a syndicated columnist who is in Los Angeles for us this morning. And in Washington, conservative blogger, Matt Lewis. Welcome to you both. A lot to talk about here. I guess we should start with this most recent endorsement that we just announced here, John McCain being endorsed by Gary Bauer.

Matt, what do you think about that? A big deal?

MATT LEWIS, CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER: It is a big deal. Gary Bauer actually used to work at the Family Research Council. He ran it. That's a group that was started by Dr. Dobson who is supporting Huckabee. So right away what we see is that conservatives are split. About half of them, I think including the leaders, are on the McCain bandwagon right now. About half of them, right now, are supporting Huckabee. That's not bad for John McCain considering where he came from. And I think it's really good news going into this weekend in Virginia.

COLLINS: And Carl what about one of your candidates, Hillary Clinton? Sort of this shake-up that we've been reporting this morning. Maggie Williams being replaced by Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager. Is that a big deal?

CARL JEFFERS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well -- well, first of all, let me just say that with respect to the Gary Bauer endorsement that is not a big deal, despite what Matt says --

COLLINS: I can't believe you're saying that.

JEFFERS: Most Americans only remember Gary --

COLLINS: You disagree?

JEFFERS: Most Americans only remember Gary Bauer because he fell off the stage making pancakes when he was running for president four years ago. But the reality is, in terms of John McCain, the interesting thing, Heidi, is that the thought occurs to me that the very reasons that conservative Republicans that dislike John McCain, those are actually the only reasons that he really is a formidable candidate in the fall campaign. So that's -- that's a point I would make. And actually you reversed it.

COLLINS: I did. I know. Thank you, lets clear that up first thing.

JEFFERS: And Maggie Williams is the one replacing Doyle as the campaign manager. There's no question about it. And I think earlier in the week, Candy Crowley made the point that you only replace your campaign manager if things are not going the way you would like them to go. And certainly that is a reflection of that.

But let's remember, Barack Obama swept all four states this weekend, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana, and Washington state, where you have three female Democratic leaders. The governor and both U.S. senators, the governor supports Obama, the two senators support Hillary Clinton. And even with that sweep throughout the weekend, Hillary Clinton still remains marginally ahead of Barack Obama in the polls in terms of the delegates.

But the final point I would make on that, Heidi, it's terrific that we are following CNN's coverage of the Pentagon's indictment of these terrorists from 9/11, because that only reaffirms the argument that I've made for several months. The fall campaign will not in any way resemble the current primary campaign that both candidates are running.

And in the fall, hope and inspiration and change will give way to experience and leadership. And because of issues like this, that remind Americans of the important task and challenges we have around the world and ahead, that will still favor Hillary Clinton.

LEWIS: No -- you've got to be -- you've got to be joking.

COLLINS:

LEWIS: If it's about experience, John McCain wins. You know that.

COLLINS: What do you think about that Carl?

JEFFERS: I don't think much of it at all. I know I'll match espousing his particular position. I have said John McCain always would be the most formidable candidate the Republicans could nominate, and precisely because of experience. But, when you go to the experience factor between Hillary and Barack Obama, Hillary has the better chance to match that and counter that. But there's no question that --

LEWIS: She was in Woodstock when he was in the Hanoi Hilton. I don't think there's a competition there.

JEFFERS: Well, lets wait a minute. The Hanoi Hilton, first of all, was never really the Hilton or in Hanoi.

COLLINS: All right, lets not get off track, guys.

JEFFERS: Yes, exactly.

COLLINS: Now, I want to make sure that we give equal time here, too. Let's talk a little bit about your candidate, your candidates if you will. Because Mike Huckabee, obviously, still in this thing. In fact, winning in primaries over the weekend, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Does he now need to drop out for the sake of unifying the party? Is that something that we're going to see happen soon?

LEWIS: I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Mike Huckabee yesterday on "Meet the Press" made a very sort of coherent argument that it's very conservative for him to stay in the race, because competition is a good thing. I thought that was pretty compelling. He also made the argument, hey, folks in Ohio and Pennsylvania have a right to be a part of this process. I think he's in it at least through Texas.

And look out for Virginia. John McCain, right now, is leading in all the polls here in the Potomac primary. But if Mike Huckabee were to sort of sneak up and win in Virginia, the state where John McCain called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell 'agents of intolerance.' If we can turn out the home-schoolers and evangelicals and come close in Virginia, then he could make it very interesting.

COLLINS: Yes, so that's your final word for us here, Matt. Tell us exactly how you think this whole Potomac primary is going to go.

LEWIS: Looks like John McCain is going to win. I'm from western Maryland, that's Huckabee country. I think McCain will win. But if Huckabee can make a good running, then he's off to Texas, so.

COLLINS: And Carl, your thoughts on what's going to happen?

JEFFERS: Well, first of all, Heidi, I'm also from Maryland. And Maryland is a Democratic state. So regardless of who wins on the Republican side, the Democrats will still carry the state in November. And that's important.

I do think that we should remember that this year has surprised us all. The reason why candidates are dropping out is for one reason only, money. John Edwards had every reason to stay in the race, but didn't have the money to go forward. Mitt Romney had every reason to stay in the race, but he had already spent $35 million, couldn't go forward. Mike Huckabee has every reason to stay in the race, but at some point the money issue is becoming the dominant factor, which also, by the way, goes back to the John McCain support for campaign finance reform.

COLLINS: All right. Well, to the both of you, we could talk for hours. But we only have 15 minutes. So stay tuned and we certainly appreciate your help with the segment today. Carl Jeffers and Matt Lewis, appreciate it, guys.

LEWIS: Thank you.

JEFFERS: Good to be here, Heidi.

COLLINS: Stay tuned for more much on the candidates as they crisscross the country. Don't miss a full hour of the CNN "Ballot Bowl" today, noon Eastern. You can join us for live coverage on the candidates as they make their last pitches before tomorrow's contest. That's the CNN "Ballot Bowl," right at the top of the hour.

Still ahead now, passing out pot. Available at the push of a button. Say hello to the new marijuana vending machine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Let's get a quick check of the markets now. As we look the Dow Jones Industrial averages, down about 47 points, resting at 12,134. The Nasdaq also down just a smidge by .6, or so. So we'll continue to watch those numbers for you throughout the day, right here on CNN.

And breaking news this morning on Capitol Hill. Congressman Tom Lantos is dead after a bout with esophageal cancer. Lantos was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress. The Democrat chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Lantos represented his northern California district for 14 terms.

His spokeswoman says Lantos passed away at Bethesda Naval Medical Center early this morning. On Capitol Hill, show you that live shot now, flags are flying at half staff. Lantos disclosed last month that he had been diagnosed with the cancer. He was 80 years old.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (NEWSBREAK)

COLLINS: Moment of grace for a troubled singer. Amy Winehouse took a leading five awards at last night's Grammy show. CNN's Brooke Anderson has a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROOKE ANDERSON, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Grammys turned 50 this year and celebrated its history by pairing performers from the past and present. Alicia Keys summoned the late Frank Sinatra for a duet. Rihanna sang alongside the '80s group The Time, and Beyonce went rolling on the river with Tina Turner.

History may have been the theme of the night, but high emotion was felt, too, in the form of four-time winner Kanye West, who paid tribute to his late mother, Donda.

KANYE WEST, RAPPER: Mama, all I'm going to do is keep making you proud. We run this.

ANDERSON: Speaking of history, Grammy voters shocked everyone by giving Herbie Hancock's "River: The Joni Letters" the album of the year award. It's the first time a jazz artist has received that honor in 43 years.

HERBIE HANCOCK, JAZZ ARTIST: I would like to thank the academy for courageously breaking the mold this time.

ANDERSON: But the night was dominated by a troubled 24-year-old singer, by the name of...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amy Winehouse!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amy Winehouse!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amy Winehouse!

ANDERSON: The retro-soul singer who performed via satellite from London led the pack with five trophies, including best new artist and both song and record of the year for her autobiographical hit "Rehab."

Amy Winehouse's problems may have kept her out of the country, but they didn't keep her from Grammy glory.

Brooke Anderson, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: CNN NEWSROOM continues one hour from now. And "Ballot Bowl" is coming up next with live coverage of the candidates as they make their pitches to the voters.

I'm Heidi Collins. Have a great afternoon, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow.

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