Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

President Proposes Government Reorganization; FBI Whistleblower Testifies on Capitol Hill

Aired June 06, 2002 - 22:00   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, everyone. I love that guy.

This is one of those nights when it's best to dispense with the musings and get quickly down to business.

The president tonight proposed an enormous government reorganization, a cabinet-level position on homeland security. It is an idea that many in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, have been clamoring for, and publicly, at least, the president has resisted.

Now, ordering paper clips in Washington is not an easy thing. Shifting billions of dollars from one agency to another, thousands of employees, will not be easy either. A lot of turf is going to get trampled. Eighty-eight congressional committees have some jurisdiction in this, and there is no rule that says the plan the president presented is the only plan or the only one that will work.

We do not think we will solve this all tonight, but much of the program will be spent on what the president has proposed and why.

So we go to the whip, and it starts at the White House, of course. Our senior White House correspondent, John King.

John, the headline.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, in making his case tonight, nationally televised address to the American people calling for a new department of homeland security, the president message, hardly reassuring, if you will. He said there are, quote, "thousands of trained killers plotting to attack us." Because of that, the president says, the government should have its most dramatic restructuring since the end of World War II.

BROWN: John, thank you. That was the line that jumped out at me when he said it too. Thank you.

Quite a day of testimony related to 9/11 on Capitol Hill as well. Kelli Arena working that. Kelli, the headline from you tonight.

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley makes her first appearance on Capitol Hill. She tells Congress the FBI is hampered by bureaucracy and a fear of rocking the boat. BROWN: Kelli, thank you.

The latest now on the crisis in the Middle East, a story that so dominated the program last night after the suicide bombing and the retaliation.

Christiane Amanpour is back in the region. Christiane, a headline from you, please, tonight.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, that vicious cycle of suicide bombing and retaliation shows no sign of abating, and at the same time, some diplomatic flurry, which many observers say showed little sign right now of emerging or shaping up to be any kind of meaningful peace agreement.

BROWN: Christiane, thank you.

And the mother testifies in the case of Danielle van Dam out in San Diego. Thelma Gutierrez is covering that. Thelma, your headline tonight, please.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, it was a very emotional day of testimony for Brenda van Dam, the mother of 7-year- old Danielle van Dam. She broke down several times on the stand as she talked about her daughter, and she was asked some very intimate details about her life.

Aaron?

BROWN: Thelma, thank you.

Back with all of you shortly. In our van Dam coverage, we'll also talk with Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, about the tactics of the defense.

On the president's speech, former CIA and FBI director William Webster and former CIA director James Woolsey will join us shortly on the plan and the problems in making it work.

Coleen Rowley tonight in her own words. You might think an FBI agent would speak in the kind of jargon that none of us could understand, but you'd be wrong, at least in this case. We'll take a long listen at what she had to say before the Senate today.

And you know the old slogan, "Loose lips sink ships." It's been revamped for the war on terror. That will end it all. It comes from correspondent Jeanne Meserve.

But we begin, of course, at the White House tonight and the proposal from the president. What the president has called for tonight is massive, complicated, and, by his argument at least, necessary. It is also difficult, not just to get it done -- that likely will be easy part, getting it through Congress -- but making it work once it is done.

The plan itself was developed in such secrecy, remarkable even by the standards of an administration that has held its secrets pretty well. Now the reaction begins.

We start at the White House, our senior White House correspondent, John King. John, good evening.

KING: Good evening again, Aaron.

So secret, in fact, that the cabinet chiefs who will have to give up billions of dollars in budget authority, thousands of employees, were told just yesterday that the president was planning to do this. The president now trying to sell this plan, 13-minute address to the American people tonight.

A president who for months publicly said he did not need a cabinet agency for homeland security now says it is an urgent tool in the war on terrorism. He's trying to sell it through the American people, and here in Washington, a very turf-conscious town.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Two one (ph). The proposal would dramatically reshape the federal government, based on what the president calls the lessons not only of September 11 but the nine months since.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As we have learned more about the plans and capabilities of the terrorist network, we have concluded that our government must be reorganized to deal more effectively with the new threats of the 21st century.

KING: The president's plan would create a new cabinet agency, the Department of Homeland Security, with the goal of centralizing functions now spread across nine cabinet departments and dozens of other government agencies.

The Coast Guard, for example, would go from the Transportation Department to the new Department of Homeland Security. The Secret Service would shift over from the Treasury Department, and the new department also would take command of several smaller independent agencies, like FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

BUSH: Ending duplication and overlap, we will spend less on overhead and more on protecting America.

KING: The new department would have four major missions -- improving transportation and border security, emergency preparedness for terror strikes, deterring chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks, and collecting and analyzing intelligence about terrorist threats.

This new intelligence clearing-house would analyze information not only from the FBI and CIA, but also tips and evidence collected by the Border Patrol and Customs Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, and state and local law enforcement agencies.

BUSH: We are now learning that before September the 11th, the suspicions and insights of some of our front-line agents did not get enough attention.

KING: The plan was months in the making, secretly designed by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and chief of staff Andrew Card, even as the White House insisted publicly there was no need for a new cabinet agency. Ridge now is the favorite to lead the new department if Congress agrees with the president.

The announcement was slated for July, but moved up a month because of all the congressional focus on pre-September 11 intelligence lapses.

Selling it is the challenge now. The president called key department heads to a morning White House meeting, and sources tell CNN he made clear he will not tolerate grumbling from agencies losing power in the reorganization.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And the sales pitch continues first thing in the morning here at the White House. The president will sit down from key lawmakers in Congress from both parties. A key part of his sales pitch, he says this new department is now a key weapon in the ongoing war against terrorism.

And Aaron, if the president gets his way, this new department will be second only to the Defense Department in its size, 170,000 employees, an initial budget, $37 billion a year.

BROWN: Which the president called revenue-neutral, or at least suggested that it's not really an expansion of government.

I want to go back to something, actually a couple of things. The president is selling this. Who is he selling it to? The Congress in many ways, certainly Democrats, have been clamoring for it. Who's he have to convince?

KING: Well, Democrats in general have been clamoring for it. Dave Obey, a key member of the Appropriations Committee tonight questioning why would you have parts of the Agriculture Department that are responsible for pesticides in this new Homeland Security Department? They think, as people start to look at the details, a congressman from one state will say, Hey, wait a minute, that agency's in my state, now you're going to move it somewhere else or eliminate it altogether?

So they expect some fiefdoms and some pork battles, if you will, as the plans come out.

The president also trying to sell this to conservatives. That is why he is saying it is revenue neutral, that this money is being shifted from department to department, not new money, not new government workers, because this is the president who says he's a conservative who wants a smaller federal government. Many in the Republican Party want to look at the details. They want to make sure they're not growing the government here. BROWN: All right, just go back to that first question, the president comes up with a plan, certainly Congress will -- forgive the expression -- mess with it a little bit. I assume the White House anticipates that.

KING: They do anticipate that, they do anticipate that the president will probably get 70 to 80 percent of what he wants here. And one of the issues is, this president wants this done immediately. He wants this new agency in place, this new department in place, by January 1. The White House knows to get Congress to move that fast, it's going to have to be perhaps more flexible than it might normally be.

BROWN: John, thank you, John King at the White House tonight.

As we said a moment ago, Democrats have been clamoring for this, so in many ways they are not in a position to resist it, at least in a grand sense. There may be some quibbling about details.

Republicans want to support the president of their party, so they will go along in principle. It all sounds pretty simple. John King suggested perhaps not so, and we expect to hear something similar from Jonathan Karl, who's up on the Hill tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The immediate reaction on Capitol Hill was overwhelmingly positive.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: The news that the president is going to be moving for cabinet officer for homeland defense is very, very good news...

KARL: Democrats were quick to point out that they are the ones who have been pushing for a Department of Homeland Security, while the White House, until now, has resisted the idea.

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I congratulate the president for -- if this is a change, which it is, from where he was, I congratulate him for making it, because I think it's in the interests of the security of every citizen of America.

KARL: Before announcing the plan, the president met privately late Wednesday with the two top Republicans in Congress to assure them the new department would not expand the federal bureaucracy.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: My hope is that it could actually lead to some savings, with the efficiencies and the lack of duplication that -- or reduction of duplication.

KARL: Despite the early signs of broad support, getting the president's proposal through Congress will be a monumental task, a point underscored by this chart included in the plan.

Eighty-eight committees and subcommittees can claim jurisdiction over homeland defense, from the powerful Appropriations committees to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture.

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I would say that the war on terrorism has just expanded to the war on turf.

KARL: Although the president wants the new department in place by the end of the year, the Senate has only 60 legislative days left, the House only 50 days, making it extremely difficult to meet that deadline.

Representative David Obey, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, was one of the few to criticize the plan, accusing the president of using it to distract attention from the embarrassing revelations about pre-September 11 intelligence foul-ups.

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: I'm not sure these changes are massive. I'm not sure these changes mean much of anything. I think they will attract attention so that you don't have attention focused on the problems that have been talked about the last week.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: And Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat with more than a little influence here on Capitol Hill, also reacted skeptically, suggesting that improving existing agencies may make more sense at this time than creating a new one. Kennedy told reporters, "The question is whether shifting the deck chairs on the `Titanic' is the way to go."

Aaron?

BROWN: So the early reaction is not overwhelming, or at least not unanimous, let's say that.

KARL: Yes, it's pretty close, though. I mean, you know, despite the fact that -- I mean, even Kennedy put out a statement saying this is a step forward, although questioning whether or not this massive reorganization makes sense right now. But overwhelmingly, people were very positive.

BROWN: Should be an interesting 60 days coming up, John. Thank you.

KARL: Yes.

BROWN: Jonathan Karl, thank you.

We're joined now by former director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey, and William Webster too, as former director of both the FBI and the CIA. Thank you both. Nice to see you both.

Mr. Woolsey, anyone who comes to the program in a tuxedo absolutely gets the first question.

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: I heard it was a black tie affair. I think the judge is underdressed here.

BROWN: We're just glad when people get dressed at all and come to the program. Thank you.

I read -- I reread today something you wrote back a couple weeks ago in "The Wall Street Journal." This is basically what you've wanted. I'm not sure it goes completely far enough. But is this pretty much what you had in mind?

WOOLSEY: This is a good chunk of it, yes. I'm particularly pleased at this office that will analyze intelligence about the infrastructure of the country and make recommendations, hopefully even get statutory authority to take steps to fix some of the single-point failures.

You know, out there in parts of the electricity grid and the oil and gas pipelines, the Internet, there are the functional equivalents of the weak cockpit doors that helped the terrorists do what they did on September 11...

BROWN: Give me a quick...

WOOLSEY: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lot of things we need to fix.

BROWN: Give me a quick definition of "single-point failures."

WOOLSEY: A -- someplace you could attack and shut down the oil and gas pipelines.

BROWN: Got it. OK.

Mr. Webster, it's one thing to have an office to analyze the information, it's -- but he problem seems to be -- although that is, I think, part of the problem, certainly there weren't enough people to analyze, but you got to get the information to them in the first place. How does this address -- does it address the problem of information sharing?

WILLIAM WEBSTER, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: I don't think it completely shares it, but it does put a significant step forward, I think, in getting the peripheral agencies, all of whom gather important information that isn't always recognized for what it's worth.

And as Jim Woolsey says, it puts it in one place where the proper analysis can be applied, at least as to those agencies. And then there must be a fusion system in place which would permit the -- that information to be added to an amalgamated with what comes through the CIA and the FBI as it -- and the other intelligence agencies that are involved.

BROWN: Well, respectfully, I don't think the problem here is that Agriculture wasn't analyzing information correctly. It seems in part, at least, the problem was that information was being gathered and it wasn't being passed along. You've run both agencies. Why is this?

WEBSTER: I won't make a defense for any information that should have been passed along. Those are lessons, hard lessons, and I know there's a great deal of heartburn and regret for not having recognized the significance of some of those pieces of information.

But I don't think the American people have any real concept of the huge volume of bits and pieces of information that come into these agencies and then have to be stored and then retrieved, or mined, whenever something comes up when you're looking for useful information.

I mean, the -- not so much for the CIA but the FBI has been working on 10-year-old equipment, trying to patch it with things called Trilogy. It's time for the appropriating authorities to recognize the need to equip the analysts, supply the analysts as well as the investigators, and to have the kind of equipment that can develop information rapidly and accurately and not lose it.

Some of it gets lost on people's desks, and that is inexcusable.

BROWN: Mr. Woolsey, do you agree that the problem is not so much information sharing as just being overwhelmed by information? Or is there an inherent distrust between the FBI and the CIA?

WOOLSEY: Well, some of the barriers between the bureau and the agency were imposed by law, and, for example, before September 11, it was illegal for the FBI to obtain information about terrorists pursuant to a grand jury subpoena to share it with the CIA.

There were a lot of divisions that were set up as a civil liberties notion. That's the reason Truman set the CIA up separately from the FBI over Hoover's objections in 1947. So part of it was imposed.

There were some cultural differences that occasionally would cause lack of cooperation, but some of this latest problem really was, I think, within the bureau, that it always been a very decentralized organization, operating out of its field offices, and in the center there, they just hadn't gotten organized yet enough to let Minneapolis know what Phoenix was doing and vice versa.

I think Bob Mueller has taken some very positive steps, and I think we all ought to give him a chance to get that all working.

BROWN: Let me go back to the president's plan for a second. Does it -- does this consolidation or reorganization of these agencies, does it create some problems? I don't mean political turf problems, but does it create some problems that the rest of us, perhaps, are not smart enough to figure out at first blush?

WOOLSEY: Well, I don't see any right off the top of my head. For example, they followed the Hart-Rudman Commission recommendations in putting all of the agencies that protect our borders, Customs, Immigration Service, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, all together to have them coordinated. And that, I think, has to be a plus. They were in three different cabinet departments before.

And I like the idea of having one place for all of our assessments of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction could be done, and countermeasures developed, such as, you know, biological sensors and the like.

Generally, I think the president's done a good thing here.

BROWN: And...

WEBSTER: I'd like...

BROWN: Go ahead.

WEBSTER: ... I'd like to say that I think the timing is good. Immediately after the 9/11 incident, there was a lot of pressure to overhaul and to restructure, and at a time when all of the people charged with dealing with the crisis were working 26, 28 hours a day, and they didn't need the distraction and the delays and the confusion of reorganization.

But we've had six months to analyze where those weaknesses existed, and as Jim pointed out, there were areas that could logically be brought together and have been, without breaking up or destroying the good things that we have in the FBI and the CIA. They'll make their contributions too.

So all in all, it's a good package and one that deserves very careful consideration and support, and I hope that turf will not be a factor, not only among the agencies but in Congress, where oversight turfing is also occasionally (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BROWN: It certainly is. Judge Webster, it's nice to see you again. Mr. Woolsey, you've clearly set the standard now for guests on the program that everyone's going to have to live up to. Thank you, sir, it's good to see you.

WOOLSEY: Good to see you.

BROWN: And thanks for breaking your dinner engagement to come in and talk to us too. Thank you.

WOOLSEY: Sure.

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, security problems now, what's wrong with the FBI, seen through the eyes of a whistle blower and the man who runs the bureau.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Today was a day of lots of metaphors and comparisons, but this one jumped out at us. "Like the plant in `Little Shop of Horrors,; the bureaucracy keeps saying, Feed me, feed me." The words of Coleen Rowley.

A first look in public at her at these hearings into 9/11 and what happened, signs of trouble that might have been missed, all in the Senate today.

Once again, CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): It's not every day an employee gets to take the national stage and tell the boss how to better do his job.

COLEEN ROWLEY, FBI AGENT: I never really anticipated this kind of impact when I wrote this letter to Director Mueller two over -- two weeks ago.

ARENA: FBI agent and whistle blower Coleen Rowley was the star witness, complaining about the bureau's crippling bureaucracy.

ROWLEY: Seven to nine levels is really ridiculous.

ARENA: She talked about a culture of inaction and of not being able to challenge authority.

ROWLEY: There was a certain pecking order, and it's pretty strong. And it's very rare that someone picks up the phone and calls a rank or two above themselves.

ARENA: Rowley was refreshing unpolished and honest. This is how she answered a question about how to fix the FBI's bureaucracy.

ROWLEY: You know, that is the $100 million question on how to reduce bureaucracy, and I really can't pretend -- give me another week? I really can't pretend to understand...

ARENA: Rowley works in the Minneapolis field office where agents first came across Zacarias Moussaoui, the supposed 20th hijacker. She believes FBI headquarters thwarted her office's efforts to search Moussaoui's computer and was frustrated enough to write a 13-page letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

ROWLEY: When I made my critical remarks, I was quite worried, because I don't -- I know in the FBI, you don't venture close to criticizing a superior without really running some risks.

ARENA: Instead, her boss has publicly thanked her and has promised there would be no retribution.

ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FBI: I will not tolerate reprisals or intimidation by any bureau employee against those who make protective disclosures.

ARENA: Appearing before the very same committee, Mueller also said he does not believe the 9/11 attacks would have been disrupted if a search warrant had been granted for Moussaoui's computer.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Based upon the information that you do have, do you believe that information could have disrupted the operation?

MUELLER: Well, I do not believe that it is likely that it would have. ARENA: Despite the criticism hurled at the FBI, Mueller isn't taking the fall. Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed support.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I believe the steps he's taken to refocus and redesign the operational structure of the FBI to prevent terrorist attacks are the right ones.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: Both Mueller and Rowley are expected to testify again, this time before the joint congressional committee investigating 9/11.

Aaron?

BROWN: And that one's in secret, right?

ARENA: It sure is.

BROWN: Thank you, Kelli. Kelli Arena in Washington for us tonight.

More from Agent Rowley in a little bit, longer bits of sound. We thought it was worth hearing, so that's what we'll do. That's coming up a little bit later in the program.

Also coming up, dramatic testimony in the trial of the man accused of killing young Danielle van Dam out in San Diego.

But up next, the latest violence in the Middle East and what it portends.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: One of our guests last night, Robin Wright, the chief diplomatic correspondent for "The Los Angeles Times," said that in her long experience with events in the Middle East, that events on the ground there always overtake diplomacy, which is to say, one suicide bomber can in a moment undo the work of a lot of diplomats.

So the latest on the ground tonight on what was supposed to be a very busy week for diplomacy, once again, CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

Christiane?

AMANPOUR: Aaron, it was about 24 hours ago that the Israeli army struck Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah in retaliation for a suicide bombing the day before that left 17 Israelis dead.

By daybreak, however, the Israelis had pulled back. The compound, there was some rubble in it, because they had destroyed some of the buildings, a few cars, apparently one member of Arafat's security detail there was killed. But the Israelis say that the attack there did not portend a imminent reinvasion of the West Bank or indeed an imminent reclosure of the Ramallah compound.

Arafat, for his part, remained defiant, afterwards coming out, giving journalists a tour of the damage, and, as I say, remaining defiant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YASSER ARAFAT, PRESIDENT, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: They are saying, or they try to say, that they can defeat us. No one can defeat the Palestinian people who are defending their holy sacred Christian and Muslim holy places. And you are here to defend it, and you are ready to die to defend it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: For its part, the Israelis said that the attack on the compound was a direct message, a message that the Israelis could go anywhere, any place, to respond to terrorism inside Israel, and a message that they still consider the presidential authority, Yasser Arafat himself, responsible for ordering and orchestrating terrorist attacks.

There was a funeral yesterday for one of the victims of that suicide bombing attack. A young Israeli soldier, a female of 19 years who was killed among the 17 Israelis who died in that suicide bombing attack, was buried inside Israel yesterday.

At the same time, there are, as you mentioned, Aaron, some diplomatic activities going on. Prime Minister Sharon heads to Washington this weekend for talks with President Bush on Monday. It's no secret that Prime Minister Sharon considers Arafat irrelevant to the peace process. And in some of the harshest commentary yet in the last 24 hours, the United States has also said that Yasser Arafat has proven himself untrustworthy and ineffective -- Aaron.

BROWN: Well, so where do we go? Mubarak, President Mubarak of Egypt is in town now to meet with the president, Mr. Sharon coming. Has anybody got, as far as you know, any new ideas here?

AMANPOUR: Well, look, it's hard to tell. Certainly, President Mubarak seems to be trying to seize the Middle Eastern peace initiative back from the Saudis or perhaps trying to build on it. He is saying that there needs to be a state, a Palestinian state recognized and formally accepted by the United Nations and the international community by the year 2003, and then have the tricky issues of borders, and Jerusalem, and refugees negotiated thereafter.

You know, that his foreign minister was at the State Department yesterday or rather today, your time, Thursday, but there seems to be from the United States side no detailed plan on the table. And certainly many in the Middle East are saying that the United States needs to help provide a detailed plan. And no detailed and concrete plans from the Israeli side either. BROWN: Christiane, thank you. Christiane Amanpour in Jerusalem for us this evening. Good to see you again.

NEWSNIGHT continues a little later. As we said, more from FBI agent Coleen Rowley.

Up next, a dramatic day and again, a kind of troubling day of testimony in the trial of a murdered seven-year-old. Her mom on the witness stand, defending her lifestyle. This is CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Late development and update in the case of Chandra Levy. A new discovery today of a human leg bone at Rock Creek Park, in the area near where her remains were found. It was found by a private investigator working for the Levy family. The Washington -- police chief in Washington, D.C. said, quote, "it is unacceptable that these items were not located in earlier searches."

An update now in the search for a missing girl in Salt Lake City. 14-year old Elizabeth Smart kidnapped at gunpoint from her bedroom very early on Wednesday morning. Salt Lake City police announced a $250,000 reward, most of it given by the residents of Salt Lake City for the girl's safe return today. And hundreds of volunteers are searching the area around her home. There had been lots of leads generated, but according to police, nothing has turned up yet.

In San Diego, the mother of Danielle van Dam took the witness stand today in the case of her daughter's murder, allegedly by a neighbor. But for the last couple of days, it has been the van Dams who have seemed to be on trial, their lifestyle, that sounds more like Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice than the Cleaver family. But then this isn't a lifestyle case. It's a murder case. Once again, here's CNN's Thelma Gutierrez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GUTIERREZ (voice-over): It was a painful four hours on the stand for this grieving mother.

UNIDENTIFIED LAWYER: Who was your next child?

BRENDA VAN DAM, DANIELLE VAN DAM'S MOTHER: Danielle.

UNIDENTIFIED LAWYER: How old was she?

VAN DAM: Seven.

GUTIERREZ: She recalled the morning of February 2nd, when she discovered Danielle was missing.

VAN DAM: And I started looking around the house, and looking under the beds, and looking in the closet.

GUTIERREZ: The prosecution then played Brenda's frantic 911 tape for the jury. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no history of running away or anything, right?

VAN DAM: No, no, not at all. And oh, my God.

GUTIERREZ: Several jurors were visibly moved by the tape and Brenda's testimony. But then, the moment the van Dams must have been dreading: cross-examination.

STEVEN FELDMAN, DAVID WESTERFIELD'S ATTORNEY: ...that you, quote, "had never" had a sex party at your house. Do you recall that answer?

VAN DAM: Yes.

GUTIERREZ: Under cross-examination by David Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, Brenda was asked the same blistering questions as her husband, Damon, who took the stand yesterday, questions about their sex lives.

FELDMAN: The party was risque, was it not?

GUTIERREZ: In particular, Feldman zeroed in on a Halloween party several months before Danielle was abducted.

FELDMAN: Isn't it true that on Halloween evening in the year 2000, you engaged in sex in -- with Denise, and Andy, and Brenda, and -- I'm sorry -- and Damon?

VAN DAM: Yes.

GUTIERREZ: The defense is trying to establish the van Dams engaged in the sort of behavior that could have exposed Danielle to danger, and possibly another suspect besides his client, David Westerfield.

FELDMAN: Was anything else missing or taken from your house?

VAN DAM: Not that I know of.

FELDMAN: How thoroughly did you check?

VAN DAM: I checked jewelry, I checked everything to see if anything else was missing. I wish they'd taken anything else but her.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GUTIERREZ (on camera): On several occasions, while Brenda van Dam was on the witness stand, she would glare over at David Westerfield. He would make eye contact with her, and then he would look away. Also, at one point, as she was done testifying, we were all leaving the courtroom, she broke out in tears in the arms of one of her girlfriends.

Her husband, who was standing nearby, handed her a cell phone. And he told her to say happy birthday to one of the boys. It was her youngest son's sixth birthday today. And this is how she spent it. Both the van Dams are now done testifying.

Aaron, back to you.

BROWN: Thelma, thank you.

Let's just turn quickly here to Jeffrey Toobin, who's our legal analyst.

Defend the defense attorney here. And this is not easy, but what is the relevance of who these people slept with, to the murder of their daughter?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the theory is, and I think you have to at least let the defense attorney sort of make his case, but the theory is there were other people with access to the apartment, other people who had some possible contact with Danielle. It's a tough, tough argument to make.

And -- but you know, I do want to defend him a little bit, because you know, David Westerfield's on trial for his life. This is a death penalty case. And you know, it's not a defense attorney's job to be popular. He's got to try to help his client. He's the only one in the world who's doing it. The question is, could this possibly help? I mean, it just doesn't seem like there's much there.

BROWN: Right. And obviously, I mean, I'm not these jurors. I have no idea how they're reacting. But if they're reacting in any way like I am, honestly, I mean, I'll concede to you my outrage level is somewhat lower than most, I think.

TOOBIN: Right.

BROWN: But I just -- I kind of wonder the risks of the strategy?

TOOBIN: I think jurors have a lot of common sense. I trust jurors by and large. And I think they will be able to evaluate. And they'll say, OK, well, I mean, it makes us all kind of sick to think about these parents being put through another trauma. But if there is a legitimate possibility that there is another suspect, I think they'll recognize that possibility. If it's just trashing the parents and blowing smoke, I think they'll see...

BROWN: Right. So don't you have to, if you're the defense, somehow connect those dots? Because otherwise, you're just slapping these people because it's slapping them around and may help you, but doesn't connect anything.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And you've got to have more there. But in fairness again, it's only the third day of the trial. So there's been no defense case yet. If Feldman could put on some sort of evidence used in cross-examination, I think it may be worthwhile. But it may make a bad situation worse by just alienating the jurors.

BROWN: You know, oddly, perhaps this is how the case is laid out, we tend to lose sight of where the strength of the prosecution's case is, and focusing on the cross-examination of the family. There are -- there is physical evidence.

TOOBIN: There is abundant -- there a DNA evidence linking Danielle's blood in Westerfield's -- in his car, in his RV.

BROWN: RV.

TOOBIN: And on his jacket.

BROWN: Her blood on his jacket?

TOOBIN: I mean, I don't have any idea how you explain that away. I mean, you got to attack the science. But because if that blood is really hers, I mean...

BROWN: Well, we're back to attacking the science. This is where you and I came in?

TOOBIN: It is. That's right. Well I mean, you know, garbage in, garbage out.

BROWN: Yes.

TOOBIN: If the evidence wasn't collected properly to make that argument. But if the jury believes that's her blood, I think that's the end of the story.

BROWN: All right, I want to switch gears here. Skakel jury's been out three full days?

TOOBIN: Three full days.

BROWN: Today, they asked for a read back on closing argument, not evidence, it didn't happen, but I want to know what you think that means?

TOOBIN: Well, remember, we talked on Monday about what a good summation Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor gave. Apparently some jurors were interested enough to want to hear it again. Judges differ on whether they let summation be repeated to the jury. Some allow it, some don't. This judge didn't. I think it shows that they're interested. More interesting is that they asked for the jury instruction on guilt and innocence, suggesting to me anyway that they must be getting to the end of their deliberations because they're getting away from the facts (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BROWN: Have -- they've asked for a couple of things over the last several days. And I would resent it if someone would asked this of me, but you're my friend, so what the heck. Any of these read backs given you any sense of where you think they're headed. I don't mean that they completed work on facts. They're just trying to deal with the law.

TOOBIN: Well, what's interesting about what they've asked for is it relates to his alibi. And there were kind of two categories about this. There were the pro defense witnesses on alibi, and the sort of pro prosecution witnesses on alibi. They asked to hear about all the pro prosecution witnesses on alibi, the ones who said maybe Skakel was really still at the house.

So I think they're giving go the government its best shot They are really listening to the government's case. Whether that means they're really buying it, I wouldn't begin to say. But I think the prosecutors are happy about the read backs than the defense.

BROWN: So do I. The way you carried that question is yet another example that you're smarter than I. Thank you, Jeffrey. Jeffrey Toobin with us tonight. When this verdict comes down, whenever it is. And you're betting tomorrow, aren't you?

TOOBIN: I'm betting tomorrow. Friday is a big day.

BROWN: Always, thank you. We'll talk some more.

One quick other legal note tonight, a judge in California has fined R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company $20 million, deciding that the cigarette maker violated terms of the 1998 tobacco settlement with the states. The judge found that RJR violated the settlement by running ads in magazines, ads that were aimed at teenagers. The California attorney general had sued the tobacco company last year. R.J. Reynolds tonight said the judge's decision was an outrage at censorship.

Later on NEWSNIGHT, America's super spy agency and the ad campaign. Up next, we'll hear some more of the FBI agent of the moment. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Coleen Rowley came before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate today, very much the woman friends say she is. Direct, to the point, rich with common sense. A child of Iowa, who moved to Minnesota, very much the best in the Midwest. She's worth more than a few soundbytes. So here's three minutes more of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLEY: I saw the new direction of the FBI perhaps, it was kind of hard to discern when it was first announced, but I thought I saw some impetus for a little more additional bureaucracy and micro managing from headquarters. And I wanted to point out to director Mueller that that seemed to fly in the face of what we should have learned from September 11.

We need to streamline the FBI's bureaucracy in order to more effectively combat terrorism. We need that agility that Director Mueller was speaking of this morning, that agility and ability to quickly react. And I really see that as -- if you get too top heavy with too many layers, he also mentioned that problem, that you are going to be stymied.

When I read Director Mueller's statement, he points to integrity. I think this is the last page also. And he does point to that as an issue. And I'm very encouraged by that, because, of course, if you look at the end of my statement, I think integrity is extremely important.

Some of the people this morning did ask questions about how are we going to effectively combat terrorism. We're going to be in proactive environment, which definitely has the potential of maybe interfering with people's civil liberties. And how are we going to still protect those civil liberties? And I honestly think integrity really plays into this whole item.

A lot of -- when you're asking for some new law or some new authority, it's perhaps not only what the law allows you to do, but it's how it's going to be done. And then, it really boils down to an issue of trust with the agency or the entity that you're giving this particular power to.

And there are -- there are potentials for abuse, if you go over that line. And I think, as an agency, we have to be so completely truthful and honest, that people are able to trust the FBI that we will not cross those lines and commit -- or commit any kind of civil rights violation or collect too much information, etcetera.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: what would you do, if you were a director, or if the director came to you and said, how do you change the culture?

ROWLEY: I think there's probably several things that could be done to improve the culture, and the FBI leadership, and the problem of careerism. Our Director Mueller has -- I keep saying Director Mueller has said this and whatever. In many cases, this is true. He has mentioned time over, that we need to pick our best leaders. We need to pick those best people out there.

In my statement, I mentioned the fact that I've seen in the past few years just the opposite happening. I've seen a number of great FBI agents with great background experience actually stepping down from their positions of leadership. It's actually gone the opposite direction, and for a lot of reasons. So somehow that has to be reversed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Coleen Rowley before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

Next on NEWSNIGHT, the secret of "Segment 7." We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, you might remember the famous posters from World War II, "loose lips sink ships." It's one of the lessons I remember learning in boot camp. And believe me, I didn't know anything about anything then. But in World War II, or in the late '60s, or in the first years of the 21st century, the lesson is unchanged. And by the way, so are the posters.

Here's CNN's Jeanne Meserve. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The slogans, the graphics grab you, warn you, be quiet. They are vintage posters from World War II.

JACK GREEN, NAVY HISTORICAL CENTER: Ship movements, troop movements, train movements, aircraft flights all were extremely critical information. Spies and saboteurs could take little bits of information and put them together like a jigsaw puzzle into a complete whole.

MESERVE: Now the message and the method are being mimicked in posters and in advertisements in military newspapers. The campaign is remarkable for its style, its substance, but most of all, its sponsors: the super secret sleuths of the National Security Agency.

RICHARD LINNETT, ADVERTISING AGE: The NSA is all about being quiet. They are cryptologists. They make codes, and they break codes. So here they are coming out and breaking their own silence, and saying, "Hey, everybody, you know, you've got to zip it up!"

MESERVE: The word within the NSA has always been "hush." In keeping with its zipped lips policy, the NSA refused an on-camera interview, and muzzled the Baltimore ad agency that created the campaign. But it said, in writing, "Unguarded information can be a valuable source of intelligence to our enemies. The increased threat of terrorism has intensified demand for our military personnel to remain vigilant and alert."

Fans of the World War II poster genre, like Richard Linnett, say it is brilliant to revive it and piggyback on the current boom in World War II nostalgia, reflected in television shows like HBO's "Band of Brothers," books and movies.

In World War II, one in 10 Americans was in the armed forces. And large numbers worked in industry supporting the war effort. The urgent appeals to protect information back then were aimed at all Americans. This campaign, for the moment, is targeted exclusively at the military. Radio host Rush Limbaugh, for one, thinks it's missing the mark. A parody is up on his Web site shushing, not military personnel, but big mouths in Congress.

Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And we remind you this is an important anniversary, June the 6th. This would be the anniversary of D-Day, the 58th if our math is correct. There aren't a lot -- we're losing our veterans from that great battle too quickly.

That's our report. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. Join us please. Good night for all of us.

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