Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Clues Missed in Fort Hood Massacre?; Administration Defends Terror Trials Decision
Aired November 18, 2009 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Breaking news: More than two years before the Fort Hood massacre, Nidal Hasan's Army supervisor wrote a damning memo raising serious concerns about Hasan's behavior and judgment. National Public Radio obtained that memo. Our questions tonight, what were the problems? And why was Hasan still allowed to serve?
The attorney general on the hot seat, trying to convince a skeptical Senate that it makes sense to try the alleged 9/11 mastermind just steps from ground zero.
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the power that he is. I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid either.
BROWN: Did he make the case?
And with the mounting confusion over mammograms, today the Obama administration steps in. What's a woman to do?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: So, look at what the task force is recommending. Use the information to be a better-informed consumer.
BROWN: Tonight, we separate fact from fiction and tell why you the furor is turning into a real political headache for the White House.
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water. And this is where you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is your only source for news. CNN prime time begins now. Here's Campbell Brown.
BROWN: Hi there, everybody.
Our breaking news tonight: a damning Army memo raising serious concerns about accused murderer Nidal Hasan two years before the rampage at Fort Hood, this coming to us from National Public Radio. We are going to have the full details coming up in just a moment.
First, though, the "Mash-Up," our look at the stories making an impact right now.
Strong words from the White House tonight defending the decision to try the alleged 9/11 mastermind in New York City. The man who made the call in the hot seat today on Capitol Hill. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It was a tense and testy few hours on Capitol Hill, with Republican senators challenging the attorney general, not just about these trials, but future cases.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Or would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we would go through our protocol. And we would make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The normally collegial Eric Holder was combative.
HOLDER: I know that we are at war. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our resolve is firm and our people are ready.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But Senate Republicans hammered the attorney general.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it is misguide.
GRAHAM: I think you have made a fundamental mistake here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: We are going to have a whole lot more on the administration's reasoning coming up. And we are going to show you also an emotional confrontation that happened today between the attorney general and the mother of a 9/11 victim.
Turning to Afghanistan now and a surprise visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Her unannounced trip is a show of support for President Hamid Karzai. Karzai will be sworn in again tomorrow after an election that was marked by fraud. Clinton will attend the inauguration. Her boss, meantime, was peppered with questions today about his war strategy.
President Obama sat down with all the major networks, including CNN. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are very close to a decision. I will announce that decision certainly in the next several weeks.
We do have a vital interest in making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack us and that they can't use Afghanistan as a safe haven. I'm confident that at the end of the process, I'm going to be able to present to the American people in very clear terms what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we are going to succeed, how much it is going to cost, how long it is going to take.
We have these deliberations in the Situation Room for a reason, because we are making decisions that are life and death, that affect how our troops are going to be able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberations, where we haven't made final decisions yet, I think is not appropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The president went on to call any war room leaks a fireable offense.
As you saw, CNN was one of the networks to interview President Obama. And ed Henry made room for a political question, because it is never too early to start thinking about the next campaign. Listen up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And will you be a candidate in 2012?
OBAMA: You know, I don't think about 2012 right now. I think about next week.
HENRY: But can you envision a scenario where you don't run for reelection?
OBAMA: Here's how I think about it.
I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, that I -- I don't want to be making decisions based on getting reelected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant.
There are a whole series of choices that I'm making that I know are going to create some political turbulence.
But I think they're the right thing to do. And, you know, history will -- will -- will bear out my theories or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And you can be sure of one thing, the president's political advisers, though, not taking a wait-and-see approach.
In Michigan, a rock star welcome for Sarah Palin. More than 1,000 fans camped out overnight to attend her very first book signing. That event is going on right now. Meantime, the Palin media juggernaut rolls on. Tonight, she is on FOX sounding off to Sean Hannity. Her target, the government for missing signals about Nidal Hasan, the man accused of mowing down 13 people at Fort Hood.
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: I think that there were massive warning flags that were missed all over the place. And it was quite unfortunate that, to me, it was a fear of being politically incorrect, to not -- I'm going to use the word -- profile this guy, profiling in the sense of finding out what his radical beliefs were.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And tonight there are new reports of red flags about Nidal Hasan. It is a breaking story. We are going to bring that to you coming up in just a moment.
The White House tonight wading into the furor over mammograms. Earlier this week, a government panel found only women -- or found only women over 50, rather, need to get tested for breast cancer, not 40, as previously believed.
But today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told women to keep doing what they have been doing. We are going to have an interview with Sebelius coming up later tonight.
Meantime, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta grilled nurse Lucy Marion, who sits on that government panel. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: What do you mean by that, when you say the benefits are small? Let's not beat around the bush here. What exactly are you trying to say?
LUCY MARION, PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE: We look at it in various ways. For example, we look at life years gained by the actual screening every year or every other year. And the life years gained for that group is not very large. There are some life years gained. But it's not very large.
GUPTA: You're a nurse, you're in a profession of healing and compassion. Are you comfortable with what you're saying right now? Because what you're saying, what I'm hearing you say is that you're saying some lives just aren't worth it. We -- that's why we're changing these screening recommendations. And that is an incredibly frightening thing to hear from someone like yourself. Is that what you're saying?
MARION: No, I'm not saying that some lives are worth it. I do not say that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: We are going to have a lot more on this story. And as promised we are going to bring that interview with the secretary of health and human services. And a top cancer expert will be on hand to help us separate fact from fiction on all of this.
Finally in the news, a true milestone in American history. On Capitol Hill today, Senator Robert Byrd officially became the longest serving member of Congress. He's been in there 56 years, 10-and-a- half months. Byrd, who turns 92 on Friday, was wheeled into the Senate chamber to speak. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Because of those wonderful people in West Virginia, this foster son of an impoverished coal miner from the great hills of Southern West Virginia has had the opportunity to walk with kings, to meet with prime ministers, and to debate with presidents.
I have served with so many fine senators in the Congress, and I have loved every precious minute of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Byrd was first elected to Congress in 1952. That was when he -- Harry Truman was president, and "The Diary of Anne Frank," was published and the first Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise opened.
And that brings us to the "Punchline" -- the late-night guys having some fun with President Obama's much-ballyhooed bow in Japan. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH CONAN O'BRIEN": Now, some critics are saying President Obama made a faux pas in greeting the emperor of Japan, because Obama did the traditional bow, but mixed in a handshake.
Yes. Yes. And, to make matters worse, Obama then tried to get out of that with an awkward end of a blind date half-hug.
(LAUGHTER)
O'BRIEN: That thing where you go in, like...
(APPLAUSE)
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": Please welcome back to the program Vice President Joe Biden.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE": The other problem was Obama didn't even bow correctly. He combined the bow with a handshake. And it was awkward. Well, watch here. You can see where it went wrong. He says hello to the emperor.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Everyone's a critic. And that is the "Mash-Up."
When we come back, we have breaking news to tell you about. We are learning of warning signs raised about Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan by his own Army boss more than two years ago. The reporter who broke that story is joining me next with all the details, this on the day lawmakers demand answers about why the killing spree wasn't prevented.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Once again, in the wake of a mass murder, we must confront a troubling question. Was this, once again, a failure to connect the dots?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Breaking news tonight in the Fort Hood shooting investigation. CNN has learned that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to announce a broad Pentagon review into the circumstances surrounding the killings.
Also breaking tonight, news of a scathing report on the suspect in the shootings, Major Nidal Hasan. National Public Radio has obtained a May 2007 memo blasting Hasan's residency work as an Army psychiatrist at Walter Reed Medical Center.
NPR correspondent Daniel Zwerdling broke that story and he is joining me tonight, along with former military JAG Tom Kenniff, and on the phone with us psychiatrist Lisa Weinstock as well.
Welcome to everybody.
DANIEL ZWERDLING, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Thank you.
BROWN: Daniel, let me start with you. Let's take a look at the contents and this memo that you obtained at NPR.
Again, this is from the director of Hasan's military psychiatry training program dated May 17, 2007.
ZWERDLING: That's right.
BROWN: I just want to read a little of it for people. "The Faculty has serious concerns about captain Hasan's professionalism and work ethic. Clinically, he is competent to deliver safe patient care. But he demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism."
And then the memo goes on to list a series of reasons why.
Walk us through some of those reasons and your take on all this.
ZWERDLING: Essentially, what this memo says, despite that sentence about competent care, it basically says this guy was a lousy and potentially very dangerous psychiatrist to his patients.
He would be on call. He would be the guy the doctors would call in a psychiatric emergency, and he wouldn't answer his telephone. He mishandled a psychotic patient in the emergency room and essentially allowed her to escape from the emergency room.
At a time when psychiatrists and other mental health specialists at Walter Reed and hospitals around the country were overwhelmed with soldiers and other troops coming back from the war with serious mental health problems, this fellow, Nidal Hasan, saw almost no patients for his last year at Walter Reed. He saw about one patient per week.
Most psychiatrists were seeing 10 to 20 times that many. And this was his choice to see so few patients. And his supervisors and others say they kept reprimanding him over and over again. He was proselytizing to patients. He told at least one patient that Islam can save your soul.
But what's so extraordinary about this memo, I think, is that put his Islamic obsession aside. Put aside Hasan's apparently extremist Islamic views. What this memo is saying -- it's right there in the Army's official credentials file -- it is saying this psychiatrist could be reckless for his patients. He could be a danger to them. Yet, he kept getting promoted. And as we all know, he was sent to Fort Hood to treat some of the most vulnerable soldiers in the Army.
BROWN: And, in fact, Daniel, I know you talked to people about that specifically, people who treat PTSD. And there were real concerns about the fact that -- that he was handling soldiers who were in such a delicate frame of mind and the danger that that could have caused to them.
ZWERDLING: Today, I talked to several psychotherapists who have worked with the military or with troops. And I said to them, please forget for a moment that this is Nidal Hasan and that he has allegedly shot dozens of people at Fort Hood.
Suppose you got an application from a psychiatrist to get a job at your medical center, and the chief of Sheppard Pratt -- that's one of the most prestigious psychiatric hospitals in the country, near Baltimore -- he said, even if I were desperate to fill a psychiatry slot, if I got an evaluation on an applicant like Nidal Hasan's, he would never even get in the door for an interview. And another therapist who runs a big project treating soldiers in California -- it's called the Soldiers Project -- I mean, she said this almost borders on malpractice, the fact that they would -- that the Army would send a psychiatrist like Nidal Hasan to treat soldiers in a very vulnerable state.
When you come back from the war and you are falling apart, you are feeling suicidal, you need a therapist who you can trust 150 percent, not somebody who didn't show up on call, not somebody who let a psychotic woman escape from the emergency room. She said it is disgraceful.
BROWN: Absolutely.
Lisa, let me get your professional take on this. You heard Daniel just sort of go through this list of what he -- you know, Hasan's supervisor, the issues he was raising. How serious are they, in your view? And is there anything there that would suggest that Hasan may become violent?
LISA WEINSTOCK, PSYCHIATRIST: Well, you know, I agree with Daniel on a lot of his points.
I mean, there are some basic issues, some basic problems that are just so clear-cut in this memo, both in terms of Dr. Hasan's clinical abilities, even though they say that he's competent, in terms of him discussing his religious ideas with patients, which is kind of something that psychiatrists are never encouraged to do -- we're always encouraged to not proselytize, not talk about our own personal beliefs -- to the fact that he missed appointments, that he missed tests, so there -- and other aspects of a lack of professionalism.
Having said that, I don't think that any of this in hindsight would predict that he would have become violent. I think the issue is more about whether he was clinically competent to treat patients moving forward, which in and of itself is a big concern.
BROWN: Right.
Tom, let me read you the conclusion that was made by Hasan's supervisor. Here is what he wrote.
"At this point he should not need so much supervision. In spite of all this, I'm not able to say he's not competent to graduate. My purpose in writing this letter is to give the credentials committee the benefit of full disclosure and to modify Captain Hasan's plan of supervision."
You understand military rules and procedures better than anybody. That's why you are here. If somebody is raising those kind of doubts, why stop short of saying, we have got a problem?
I mean, I feel like they sort of gave him a pass anyway, even after that laundry list that Daniel read.
THOMAS KENNIFF, FORMER ARMY JAG OFFICE ATTORNEY: Yes. Well, you know, one thing, Campbell, that's important to keep in mind is, you know, most of us in the civilian world, we are used to how things work. If we are having a bad day at work or we get a bad review, maybe the boss calls us into his office and gives us a tongue- lashing. And if you get too many tongue-lashings, maybe he tells you, hey, you need to find employment elsewhere.
BROWN: Right.
KENNIFF: Things are different in the military. They have a very arcane system of rating and evaluating their personnel. And it is extremely paper heavy.
So, one thing that we have to keep in mind is we are dealing with one particular memo. And I would guess if you looked in his file through the course of this multiyear residency, there were probably dozens of memos. And there would have been annual evaluation reports. The officer evaluation reporting system is what military officers live and die by.
BROWN: But hear is my question, because you are right. There probably were dozens. And we already know about other red flags that were raised about this guy repeatedly.
And I think a lot of people are saying, like, how does that happen? How do you -- you know, all of these red flags are raised over the years, because we are talking about years here. And, yet, this guy keeps getting promoted and keeps making his way up the food chain. How does that happen?
KENNIFF: His rater here seems to be doing a little bit of a stutter step. And one of the things that I would like to know is, was this filed as part of his official unrestricted fiche? In other words, did the person, the major who gave this rating intend that it be seen by the promotion board, by the rating boards?
You can file these type of memos in a restricted fashion, so as to say to Major Hasan, look, there's problems here. This is the sort of glass of cold water in your face.
BROWN: Right.
KENNIFF: And you better change, or else.
Or was it filed in his official unrestricted fiche, so that when then Captain Hasan came up for his promotion, the promotion board would have seen this? If an Army promotion board saw this memo and nonetheless promoted him to major, yes, there is a problem here.
BROWN: Well, and there are so many other areas.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Wait. Go ahead, Daniel.
ZWERDLING: May I add something? BROWN: Yes.
ZWERDLING: I know from other sources, from talking with supervisors at Walter Reed and elsewhere in the military, that the same supervisor who wrote this memo tried to get rid of Nidal Hasan in spring of 2007. And he was told by higher-ups, you know, it's too much trouble. There's all this due process, which you and I, Campbell, would be happy about if we were being kicked out.
But they said, you know, Hasan can hire lawyers. There can be hearings. It could drag on and on. So they eventually just dropped the idea and they pushed him on to the next position.
BROWN: Well, we know there's going to be a lot more delving into this. As we reported earlier, CNN has learned that Defense Secretary Gates expected to announce a broad Pentagon review into the circumstances surrounding the killing.
And I want to thank Daniel Zwerdling, who is the NPR correspondent who broke this story.
ZWERDLING: Thank you.
BROWN: Appreciate your time tonight, Daniel...
ZWERDLING: Appreciate it.
BROWN: ... and, Tom, as always, and Lisa Weinstock on the phone with us as well.
KENNIFF: Thank you.
BROWN: Thanks, guys.
The professed 9/11 mastermind facing trial, but does it make sense to try him, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, just steps from ground zero? Attorney General Eric Holder was under fire today on Capitol Hill. We are going to tell you how he is defending his decision on that front.
Plus, the Obama administration stepping right into the middle of the controversy over mammograms. We are going to separate fact from fiction on that story as well when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Why are some people calling the president's big trip to China a missed opportunity? The answer to that question coming up.
(NEWS BREAK)
BROWN: The Obama administration wants 9/11 trials on our soil, but the attorney general got an earful today from an angry Congress and from grieving families. How's the attorney general defending his decision?
Plus, the president is in the homestretch of his sweeping visit through Asia. He sat down with China's power brokers, but did he get what he was looking for? We will look at just what, if anything, was accomplished.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Today, Attorney General Eric Holder withstood a grilling on Capitol Hill. He faced hours of pointed questions from senators criticizing his plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City court. This is just steps from ground zero.
When all the questioning ended, we finally had a clear picture of why I think the White House thinks this will work. Let's listen right now to what the attorney general said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLDER: First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing so for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in the Bureau of Prisons custody, including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on embassies in Africa.
Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act or CIFA establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases.
Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have had in a military commission. Before the commission's last year, he declared the proceedings and inquisition. He condemned his own attorneys and our constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media. Yet, few complained at that time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.
Fourth, there is nothing common, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct the prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: So is Holder right? Is a lot of this criticism politically motivated? Joining me now to talk about this, we have CNN legal analyst, senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind joining us as well.
And guys, I just want to walk through Holder's defense of his decision sort of point by point. And, Ron, let me start with you.
You heard him. He says it's going to be safer to try accused terrorists in New York because they go directly from jail to the courtroom without ever seeing the light of day. Does that make it safer? RON SUSKIND, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR: Well, I don't think that's really the point. They can get them in and out of the courtroom. I think the bigger issue is New York City. You know, no city, no major urban area can really be protected, and New York included. The question is will this insent sort of wannabes or even Al Qaeda Central, which has been holding off according to intelligence sources for a big attack like 9/11. Maybe this will be a time where we see the smaller stuff, the car bombings, the smaller corner stuff that you get in Tel Aviv. Here as a kind of a part of the theater. This is going to be theater which I think is what's leaving people troubled.
BROWN: Are you troubled?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I'm not. Remember, he has to have a trial. It has to be a military tribunal or it has to be a criminal trial. It's not clear that a military tribunal would withstand scrutiny. They might have to do it again. The Supreme Court hasn't approved military tribunals since World War II.
BROWN: All right. We're going to get to that point in a minute.
TOOBIN: OK.
BROWN: But a military tribunal, you certainly wouldn't have the theater and the kind of things that Ron is talking about. Right?
TOOBIN: You'd still have journalists in the room. There's no television coverage in either setting. So you'd have him reporting -- you'd have the same kind of reporting in either setting. I don't think the propaganda difference is big between the two.
BROWN: OK. Let me go to the second point on this. And, Jeff, you address this. This is about the classified information. Holder says it will not get into the hands of terrorists, that there are laws in place that will protect any classified information that comes up in the course of this trial. You dealt with these laws in your previous life.
TOOBIN: As a prosecutor, the law says that if there's any classified information involved in a trial, it goes to the judge first and he or she decides whether it can be disclosed to the defense and whether it can be disclosed publicly in consultation with the administration. It's a well-known law. It's been around since 1980. It doesn't strike me as a major problem.
BROWN: Ron, what do you think on this one? Is that protection enough?
SUSKIND: I agree with Jeff on this one. There's not really an issue, I think in terms of classified information here. There's plenty of evidence in terms of KSM. Ramzi Binalshibh, his partner, they confessed to this, remember, for the first time in April of 2002. Both of them were anxious to take credit for the 9/11 attacks. Essentially what we have here is so much evidence that they don't need to dig into the well of proprietary classified information to get convictions here.
BROWN: Right. OK, let me have you both listen to this. We also heard Holder say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed won't have this bigger platform to spew his ideology than he did at his military tribunal last year. Today, though, this is really emotional. A 9/11 mother confronted Holder about this decision to stop that tribunal. And I want you guys to listen to what she said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALICE HOAGLAND, MOTHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: Attorney General, my name is Alice Hoagland.
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Nice to meet you.
HOAGLAND: I lost my son on flight 93.
HOLDER: I'm sorry.
HOAGLAND: I have great respect for you and your office, but I have to say that I take great exception to your decision to give short shrift to the military commissions and to put the five most heinous criminals and war criminals into court in New York City. As you know, on December 8th, when I was down in Guantanamo, I heard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed encouraging his buddies there and they did, in fact, plead guilty and did want to be executed and then withdrew their pleas.
You are very conversant with the law. I am not. But I think that I can speak for many 9/11 families when I say that we are heartsick and weary of the delays and the machinations. And I am afraid that the theatrics are going to take over at this point and I very much regret that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And, Ron, you know, she's addressing your earlier point here. And she's right that back in December, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wanted to plead guilty. And now the process starts all over. I mean, what's the rationale for not just letting them plead guilty then? Wouldn't it have ended all of this?
SUSKIND: Well, I think you're getting a sense of the theater that we're facing. This will be a catharsis for America. Make no mistake, but I think that's part of the point in terms of why this process may be so very important.
You know what we're going to have here is something that is befitting of the standards of the country has let sag, sadly over these years in terms of a public courtroom. And what's interesting about the whole drama, KSM will have a stage. Actually, I think it actually turns out to be mostly the opposite.
I think the model we should be thinking about here is more Eichmann in Jerusalem. You know, Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust has pulled in 15 years after the event and he is placed in the courtroom in Jerusalem and he is shrunken. He is a character at that point of evil mythology. He looks like a dyspeptic accountant. He faces his victim. He faces accusers and ultimately he is hung. That provides a kind of closure. And I think in a way that's what the goal is here is to have these characters who hope to die as war fighters.
BROWN: Right.
SUSKIND: That's part of what they want. They want to die as war heroes in a giant global jihad.
BROWN: Right.
SUSKIND: Ultimately the goal is for that not to happen. And I think this is the process certainly Obama is hoping comes to wholeness.
BROWN: Let me give you the last word.
TOOBIN: You know, Campbell, there are tragically lots and lots of 9/11 families. And they think lots of different things. There is no one opinion. I have been receiving e-mails today from 9/11 families who think this is a good idea...
BROWN: Who want to be there, who want to see this.
TOOBIN: ... who want to see a trial, who want to see a trial in New York City right near the World Trade Center. So, it's right that we hear from these families. They have a voice in the process, but they don't all think one thing.
BROWN: Right. A debate not ending any time soon. Jeff Toobin, Ron Suskind, thanks, guys, appreciate it.
The new mammogram guidelines were made even more confusing today when the White House entered the fray. Tonight, one of the country's leading experts helps to separate fact from fiction. We'll sort that out coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, the White House is trying to tamp down outrage and worry in the wake of the new mammogram recommendations. An independent government panel of experts said women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms but rather that they should wait until they're 50.
Well, today the controversy turned political with some Republicans connecting the recommendations to the administration's plan for health care reform. On CNN's "SITUATION ROOM" this afternoon, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to put out the fire. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Are you rejecting these recommendations?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECY: What we've done is put out a statement that basically indicates that the most important conversation that a woman can have is with her health care provider. This panel was appointed by the prior administration by a former president, George Bush, and given the charge to routinely look at a whole host of services.
BLITZER: You're saying that there is benefit from this task force recommendation, this task force study. It shouldn't just totally be dismissed.
SEBELIUS: Well, it shouldn't be dismissed. It's a piece of information. There are other groups who have disagreed with this information, but I think women need to be informed health consumers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: With me now to help us separate some of the facts from fiction on this issue is Dr. Daniel Kopans, a radiologist and Harvard Medical School professor. And CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley joining us as well tonight.
Dr. Kopans, let me begin with you. A lot of people now more confused than ever. You were one of the country's leading mammography experts. What do you recommend? What's the bottom line here?
DR. DANIEL KOPANS, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, I think it's unfortunate that the secretary didn't come out and just say the bottom line is that mammography screenings saves lives for women beginning at age 40. I completely support discussions with your doctor as to the false positives which is one of the things that this panel has come up with. But she should point out that mammography screening has reduced the death rate in the United States by 30 percent and in other studies it's as high as 40 percent in Sweden, for example.
If I can be a little bit politically incorrect here, this panel has been labeled as a panel of experts. I know all the experts in the United States in mammography screening and all the ones around the world. I don't know any of these people. And quite frankly --
BROWN: So how -- let me stop you there. Help me then. How did this happen?
I mean, this -- this is -- you know, become a huge story and, you know, women are completely confused about this. How -- how did this panel gain the credibility it did if you don't know any of these people?
KOPANS: Well, I think you need to ask the people who organized the panel. I don't know who actually chose the members of the panel. I'm sure they're very nice people. I don't mean to denigrate them. But in listening to some of the responses over the past few days from panel members, it's clear to me that they're not very familiar with the mammography screening data. And if they're going to be making decisions that affect individuals' lives, I think they should be very conversant in the data.
BROWN: So let me be clear about this because you are being very politically incorrect. And this is fascinating to me. I mean, bottom line, you think you should be screened starting at 40, period. Right? That saves lives.
KOPANS: That's what --
BROWN: This recommendation is absurd to you.
KOPANS: Well, that's what the data shows and in fact that's what the -- the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force state in their material. But then they -- they -- start saying well, but the false- positives, we think that women in their 40s can't deal with those. Most of the false positives are resolved by a few extra mammographic (ph) views. But they decide that they're going to decide for women in their 40s that they shouldn't get mammography because of that and then they tell women 50 and over we know we're not going to be able to save as many lives but we think you should go every two years to reduce the false-positive rate. It's incomprehensible quite frankly to me to make those kind of recommendations.
BROWN: Well, Candy, let me go to you now because this has also become a major political fight here. And let me play for people what -- what's happening on Capitol Hill. This is a Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, earlier today. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water. And this is where you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. And as we have gone through this health care debate over the past several months, this is what we have warned about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: So, Candy, what was going on today with Kathleen Sebelius coming out. I mean, is the White House concerned that this could turn into much more than it already has and possibly derail a very fragile process over health care reform?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Certainly it doesn't help and it's already a fragile process. They don't know if they have the votes in the Senate to even get a bill out. What are people concerned about when they think about health care reform? Two things. Money and whether or not the federal government is going to tell them how a disease should be treated. How you should -- how and what sort of tests should be available for whom.
And the Republicans have for some time said there's all these sort of task force panels in here. I mean, the most famous statement, of course, as you know, the Sarah Palin death panel statement, which is proven over and over not to be true. But nonetheless, there are these panels in there. And you are already seeing people saying well, suppose this task force made this recommendation. Is that not where private insurers are going to look and say well, then if this is the standard, then we're only going to pay for this.
So it became a huge political issue over the push and pull of health care reform, and that's why you saw Kathleen Sebelius come out feeling that she could not absolutely say don't pay attention to this panel. But coming as far as she could to say, well, discuss that with your doctor. This is what health care reform is all about.
BROWN: Well, and it sounds like given what Dr. Kopans told us, she should have come out and said this panel is not a panel of experts. But we're going to be looking into this a lot more given what Dr. Kopans has said to us tonight. We appreciate your time. Doctor and Candy to you, as always, thanks so much.
When we come back, President Obama on the very last leg of his Asia trip. But his high-profile visit to China is drawing scathing reviews. "The New York Times" calls it a long uphill slog. "The Daily Beast" brands it a bad trip. So what did the president accomplish? We're going to have some answers coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, President Obama is in South Korea on the final leg of his Asia trip. "The New York Times" is calling the trip, quote, "a long uphill slog." The issue, his visit to China, which is getting some fairly harsh reviews. So exactly what, if anything did the president accomplish on this trip?
Joining me now to break it down for us is Victor Cha, who was Asian Affairs director for the White House National Security Council during the Bush administration, and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, who was an adviser to four U.S. presidents with us as well tonight.
David, I'm going to start with you because you write that this is not the kind of summit this administration wanted and should serve as a wakeup call to all Americans. What happened in your view? What went wrong here?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Campbell in part, the president went playing the weakest hand of any recent president with many around the world believing that the balance of power is shifting towards China. Most presidents have gone to China with the sort of a cocky (ph) walk. This president went with hat in hand because China, of course, is also our largest creditor. And when we depend so heavily now on China.
So this president went in a way that I think was a deferential. And he tried to use his charm and his reason but by all accounts from correspondents there on the scene reporting back through many different news outlets in this country, basically the Chinese president stiffed him. He stage managed the Obama speeches there, censored much of his material he was trying to get out, and was not at all cooperative on the big issues. So that this was I think a wakeup call to the president in the sense that I think he made just as John Kennedy found in his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in 1961, that if the U.S. president simply goes in and appeals to reason and charm, he will often get stiffed by another -- a country that's on the rise. And he changed his presidency after that. He became a much tougher, more aggressive president.
It's also a wakeup call to the United States. If we're not careful, we stand to be in a situation where the Chinese not only are equals but the world will think they're passing us by and that is a dangerous position for the United States.
BROWN: Victor, how much of this to David's point is out of the president's control? I mean, how much has to do with the fact that China owns us in a lot of ways -- I mean, holding so much of our debt that they feel no need to be deferential about anything, frankly.
VICTOR CHA, BUSH ADMINISTRATION ASIA SPECIALIST: Well, I mean, I would agree with David. There's been a real attitude change on the part of the Chinese. And they do hold, you know, $1 trillion of our debt -- of our debt. The other thing we have to remember though is, you know, the U.S. -- we're still a $40,000 per capita income country, and they're only a $3,000 per capita income country. So there's still a big difference.
And I think David is right. I mean, the administration could have used this trip to really try to push some policy deliverables because that's what summits are about. They are about trying to push the hard issues forward. They're action forcing events. And it just didn't seem like this administration was ready to push that.
Now, you know, in fairness to them, we're not going to resolve the $260 billion trade deficit with China with one visit. You know, or the -- or the -- or any of our other problems with China with simply one visit. But having said that, you need to use visits like this to really set the agenda and impress upon the other country, you know, that there are certain goals you want to reach by year two or year three. And it just doesn't seem like that really happened on this trip.
BROWN: So was there some upside here at all, David? I mean, something that was at least the beginning of a conversation for later.
GERGEN: I think that, in fairness to the president, you have to say a couple of things about upsides. President Obama was the first American president to go to China in his first year in office, sending a very strong signal that he intends to be a Pacific president and he intends the United States to be an active partner in the Pacific where there are some who have been sort of trying to toss us out of that club.
And the second thing is he did seemingly lay the groundwork for long-term progress. But I must tell you going back to the Khrushchev experience, when Khrushchev took the measure of John Kennedy in 1961, he concluded that he was inexperienced, timid and weak. And from that, Khrushchev became very aggressive and went after us in Berlin, went after us in Cuba with missiles and one thing and another.
I think President Obama handled himself better than Kennedy did, but there is a real danger here that the Chinese will have concluded from this that the United States is a power on the wane and a president who is cautious and timid, and we can pretty much have our way. And that's why it's so important in these situations in these summits to have them extremely well prepared and have some concrete results that both sides can point to and say we have some real breakthroughs. This seems to be much more sort of an introductory prelude kind of conversation.
BROWN: All right. We've got to end it there. Gentlemen, I'm out of time.
Victor Cha, though, thanks to you, for all your help this week. And David Gergen as well, always appreciate it.
We're going to take a short break. We'll be back with more after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few moments. But first, Mike Galanos is back with tonight's "Guilty Pleasure," the video we just can't resist.
What have you got, Mike?
MIKE GALANOS, HLN PRIME NEWS: All right, Campbell. There's always debate. What's "Guilty Pleasure?" A lot of ideas thrown around. But when you say baby panda, enough said.
The cute factor off the charts. Let's check it out. This is 3- month-old Yun Zi. Around the country, it's the awe factor.
Now you can't name the little guy until he's 100 days old. So finally the name counts out. Yun Zi means "son of cloud." Why that name? Mom's name "white cloud." 6,300 suggestions came pouring in. That's finally you're looking at Yun Zi, Campbell.
BROWN: All right, Mike. I'll give you a big awww (ph).
GALANOS: Awww (ph). Let's wave (ph) to that.
BROWN: You know, I like the aww (ph) kind of stories.
GALANOS: I know you do.
BROWN: All right. Mike Galanos for us. Mike, thanks.
GALANOS: Yes.
BROWN: Tomorrow night our series, "The End of Privacy" continues with the inside story of cameras that may be watching you when you least expect it.
Thanks for joining us. That's it.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
