Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

U.S. Raises Terror Alert Level

Aired May 20, 2003 - 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.


JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in once again for Aaron Brown.
We spent a lot of time in recent nights looking at blood spilled in places like Casablanca and Riyadh. Well, tonight we're going to focus on the fear that terrorists are determined to spill blood in places like San Francisco, Chicago, maybe Philadelphia or some other spot in the United States, a fear that was potent enough that the government today raised the terror threat level back up to high or orange.

And so we begin with the increase in the terror threat level. David Ensor is following that for us, David the headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is intelligence out there that has caused the United States to decide to go to the orange level, officials saying it may not be specific but it is credible and there's a lot of it.

WOODRUFF: All right, David, we'll talk to you in just a minute.

On now to the White House and a look at how the decision was made. Chris Burns is there for us, Chris the headline.

CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Judy. This decision here made at the White House during Homeland Security Council meeting that the president signed off on. Among the factors were the past recent terror attacks, chatter among terrorist groups about possible future attacks, and a Memorial Day weekend coming up with a lot of soft targets.

WOODRUFF: All right, Chris, and we'll see you in a moment as well.

The message from Washington is being heard in cities and towns across the country. Frank Buckley is looking at how they're responding, Frank the headline from you.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Judy. Police here on the streets of Los Angeles are patrolling what they call critical locations. That's something that's being done in other cities and towns across the U.S. Tonight we'll look at some of the specific areas that police are patrolling -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Frank, thank you. Well tough measures to protect against more terror in Saudi Arabia as well. Sheila MacVicar is with us from Riyadh, Sheila the headline.

SHEILA MACVICAR, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Three men have been arrested. Those arrests may prove to be important as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains on a heightened state of security amid fears that new terrorist attacks may be imminent.

WOODRUFF: We're going to be back with all of you in just a moment.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT the word on the terror threat comes out of Washington but it is the people in the cities and states who will actually have to do the protecting.

We're going to talk about the plans in New York with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

And, we'll hear how California is guarding against terror with Governor Gray Davis.

And, a look at the Los Angeles Police Department back in the headlines and forced to answer a very tough question, have they been holding themselves above the law?

All that is to come but we begin tonight with news that was not entirely unexpected, the Bush administration today raising the nation's threat level from yellow to orange, from an elevated risk to a high risk of a terrorist attack in the near future.

Now this is the fourth time the country has gone on such a high alert. Once again, it comes with the usual disclaimers about not having specific information on timing or targets. It also comes at a cost in rattled nerves and police overtime more on that in a moment.

But first, the reasons behind the alert and CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): The decision to go on high alert in the United States is based on intelligence, officials say, suggesting al Qaeda is trying to organize another serious attack or attacks in this country.

ASA HUTCHINSON, HOMELAND SECURITY UNDERSECRETARY: Vigilance in and of itself is a deterrent to terrorist activity. Obviously, we urge the American public if they see anything suspicious to call their local FBI office.

BRUCE HOFFMAN, RAND TERRORISM ANALYST: This, I think, forces the terrorists in turn to realize that the United States has ratcheted up the threat level and is more prepared and is, in fact, defending itself better than in a normal course of events.

ENSOR: U.S. officials are concerned al Qaeda or others may try to use the tactics so well known in Israel or in India, Britain, or Spain, attacks on so-called soft targets using vehicles filled with explosives or suicide bombers. It would be the same tactics arriving on American shores that we've just seen used in Saudi Arabia and in Morocco.

HUTCHINSON: When we see a pattern of activity overseas directed at United States targets we certainly have to be aware that there remains that potential of use of those type of tactics here in the United States.

ENSOR: U.S. defense officials tell CNN's Barbara Starr that some of the intelligence leading to the decision comes from intercepted communications since the Riyadh attacks. Intelligence officials decline comment on that.

HOFFMAN: We know that terrorists are constantly probing, poking, attempting to identify and then to exploit vulnerabilities so this really is a call that we have to be eternally vigilant.

ENSOR: The decision is first and foremost a signal to state and local law enforcement to increase vigilance against terror and beef up protection of key installations and large gatherings especially large gatherings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: One knowledgeable U.S. official said the intelligence concerning threats both to the U.S. and to targets elsewhere is not specific, but he did say it is credible and he also called it "reasonably spooky stuff" -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: David, it seems like it wasn't so very long ago that they were saying the threat seemed to be more outside the country than inside the country. This must mean they're getting new information in all the time.

ENSOR: That's right. I mean they still see a lot of evidence there may be attacks outside the country. There may be attacks against U.S. or western targets in other countries but there is now additional information and it does seem to have come in pretty recently that's reinforcing their fear that there might be attacks here too. So, that's really why the decision was made today.

WOODRUFF: OK, David Ensor, thank you very much.

Well, as we said recent headlines, given those, it seemed only a question of when we would get to orange not if. Well still, the political implications of sounding an alert like this can be complicated.

And for more on this, we turn once again to CNN's Chris Burns at the White House.

BURNS: Well, hi Judy. It was a very difficult decision, this decision signed off by Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Secretary who led the meeting here earlier today but, of course President Bush having to sign off on it giving the final OK. It's very difficult. It's a costly question. It's also not intended to raise panic but it's also to raise concern and vigilance.

What were the elements used in deciding this? Well one, of course, were the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco too was that unspecified terrorist chatter that they were talking about, e- mails, other kinds of communication and also thinking about this coming holiday weekend, Memorial Day weekend, a lot of outdoor events, large public gatherings, sports events and so forth that could become soft targets.

Now, what is mentioned specifically in this statement raising the alert, the threat alert level, they talk about recent attacks. They say that: "Small arms equipped assault teams, large vehicle born explosive devices, car bombs, truck bombs, and suicide bombers have been those tactics. These tactics underscore terrorist desires to attack soft targets. Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological, or radiological agents or materials can not be discounted."

Now, we talked to Ari Fleischer, the White House Spokesman, about President Bush having said in recent weeks about how al Qaeda was half destroyed, half arrested. However, President Bush has said that the other half is quite active, the president also having said that the tide had been turned against al Qaeda. Ari Fleischer answering why perhaps President Bush wouldn't regret that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What the president said is, the tide has turned and, as you know, tides have a way of coming in and going out. And, in the next sentence the president said is that al Qaeda has been diminished but not destroyed and that's what we're seeing. We know that there are terrorist organizations including al Qaeda that still desire to hit us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNS: Now, of course this announcement does alert state and local governments to get busy and prepare for this holiday weekend. Of course the question of cost is going to be a major factor -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Chris, Chris Burns reporting for us from the White House.

And, picking up on what Chris said, for all the talk of orange or yellow or whatever color alert, cities and states do have another sort of color to worry about at a time when budgets are already stretched to the breaking point.

The color green comes first, CNN's Frank Buckley now with preparations around the country and the bottom line.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY (voice-over): In suburban Chicago's country club hills they literally raise the threat level on a flagpole for all to see, an orange flag now indicating a high threat level. In Los Angeles, police plan to erect checkpoints at the busy international airport. And, in New York there was a visible increase in police presence in Times Square and elsewhere.

GOV. GEORGE PATAKI (R), NEW YORK: Additional police, additional troopers, additional National Guard at everything from critical infrastructure across the state to major transportation centers in the metropolitan regions.

BUCKLEY: From the Golden Gate Bridge to the St. Louis Gateway Arch to the streets of the city that suffered the most in the 9/11 terrorist attack, potential targets of terrorists received extra attention. Public safety officials everywhere put plans in place to protect their special landmarks and people.

KENNETH MORCKEL, OHIO PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER: Any time that the country is threatened I think Ohio is threatened.

BUCKLEY: But the daunting challenge for government leaders of trying to protect so many places and things was articulated in Los Angeles by city officials who said they'd identified more than 600 potential target sites in L.A. alone.

MAYOR JAMES HAHN, LOS ANGELES: The idea is we're going to increase surveillance as we do every time when we raise the threat level at these some 600 locations around the city, churches, synagogues, places like the entertainment industry venues, but also our airport, our harbor, important bridges and other infrastructure.

BUCKLEY: State and local officials have made paying for such increased surveillance a major priority with the Bush administration. And, while millions of dollars have now been budgeted to help local officials, state and city leaders say obtaining the money can be cumbersome.

HAHN: Very little of that money has actually reached any of us yet. We've seen the pledges and the promises but I think the problem for us is we have to spend the money now and, you know, the idea that the check's in the mail I guess that's been replaced by it's in the pipeline.

BUCKLEY: This is the fourth time the threat level has been raised to orange.

CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: It's the world we live in now and unfortunately we might as well get used to it because that's the way it's going to be.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY: And state and local officials that we talked to across the U.S. all stress that there are no specific threats to their respective communities that they all felt obliged to take steps to protect their citizens. As the police chief here in Los Angeles, William Bratton put it, we have no choice. We have to make the city safe -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Frank Buckley reporting for us tonight live from Los Angeles, Frank thank you very much for that report.

Picking up on what Frank reporting on, joining us now two men with their work cut out for them tonight. In New York, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly who arguably has the toughest job in local law enforcement and from Sacramento, California's Governor Gray Davis whose state like so many others is under an enormous fiscal burden, alert or not alert. Gentlemen, welcome back.

Commissioner Kelly, let me begin with you. When we hear them say soft targets, large gatherings, we don't know what, you know, the terrorists may be aiming for, this is a nightmare for you isn't it?

RAYMOND KELLY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: It certainly is a huge challenge. We have lots of gatherings. Of course we have many landmarks in New York City. We've been targeted here four times in the last decade by terrorists, so it is clearly a very expensive proposition for us.

We've put officers on overtime because we have to police the city 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We have to take additional officers and put them at critical locations and, again, this costs a lot of money for us to do that.

WOODRUFF: Governor Davis, from your perspective as the governor of the biggest state in the country, how do you begin to protect when the warning seems to many of us to be so broad and so almost amorphous?

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, we work as closely as we can with Governor Ridge and try and get a sense from him as to where he thinks resources should be deployed but this is a time when we just can't shortchange public safety. We have to commit the resources and the resources generally tend to be the California Highway Patrol, local police departments, and local sheriff's departments who are really the front lines in the war against potential terror.

WOODRUFF: Commissioner Kelly, what are you and your colleagues in the police department in New York doing differently right now as a result of this alert going out today?

KELLY: Well, with the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, we put in Operation Atlas which was an overlay increased security program. We covered our critical locations, our houses of worship, our transit system and subway system, and a lot more officers assigned to it.

We have heavily armed groups of officers that go to sensitive locations on unannounced basis. We have increased that. We've increased the deployment of officers in undercover roles certainly in our transit system. We have major gatherings that are happening, Madison Square Garden just a few blocks from here. We have additional officers assigned there.

So, we've done a lot in the last 16 months. What we've done is simply increase a lot of what we've done with the heightened concerns that we've gotten from Washington.

WOODRUFF: Governor Davis, in California how safe would you say the people of California should feel tonight?

DAVIS: Well, we can't make people 100 percent safe but we can certainly increase the security that they enjoy and I've ordered the Highway Patrol on 12-hour shifts. We have all the state's vital assets from nuclear power plants to bridges to water projects to houses of worship to what we call trophy buildings.

The people where large gatherings assemble they're all protected by larger numbers of security people tonight. So, we do everything humanly possible to let the terrorists know that we're ready. We're prepared and don't bother coming.

WOODRUFF: And let's talk about the cost. Commissioner Kelly you mentioned at a time like this obviously safety, security, comes first but surely there are some limits to what you can write a check or what you can count on there being money for.

KELLY: Well, Mayor Bloomberg has made it clear that we will do everything we have to do to protect the city but it comes at a very difficult time for us. There are great budget problems here in the city. It can cost us, the police department that is, it can cost us as much as $600,000 to $700,000 a day, depending on what configuration Operation Atlas is in. So, obviously that's adding up.

As the mayor of Los Angeles said, the money is supposedly in the pipeline. We haven't received anything as yet. We're hopeful that we will in the near term but it hasn't come our way as yet.

WOODRUFF: Well, can you go on indefinitely without it?

KELLY: No, we can't. We have a compartmentalized budget year. Our fiscal year ends here on June 30 and the budget has to be balanced. So, we need that money soon. We've run up some significant expenses. Clearly it's something that we have to do but we'd like to see that money real soon.

WOODRUFF: Well, we know what difficulties New York has been in since 9/11. And, Governor Davis, we know that the state of California's been having its own extreme budget problems.

DAVIS: Right.

WOODRUFF: How long can California go on without more assistance at the federal level or some other source of assistance?

DAVIS: Well, like the commissioner said, Judy, safety comes first. It's the first obligation of any elected official and we're moving heaven and earth to make Californians safer than they've ever been.

Now, obviously this costs money. We're spending it but we really do want the federal government to deliver resources because to the extent that we have the Highway Patrol on overtime, to the extent that for instance the L.A. Police Department's on overtime at some studios or a large athletic event, that's against a potential terrorist attack and so that's the cost directly attributable to the federal government. And while we've been promised money, very little has actually arrived.

And so, we've been doing this since shortly after September 11 and we estimate that city, county, and state together has spend about $700 million in California. If all the money promised arrives, which it has not, there will probably been $200 million or $220 million. So, we still have a long ways to go to make ends meet even if the money arrives which it's not yet done so.

WOODRUFF: So, what do you say to the citizens of both of you, to Commissioner Kelly first and you Governor Davis very quickly, what do you say to people who are listening and saying I hear you're saying you're going to do everything you can but the money isn't unlimited, Commissioner Kelly?

KELLY: Well, again, we are committed to making the city as safe as possible. I think people should be reassured. I think we've done an awful lot, as I say, in the last 16 months. We're going to continue to keep this city safe. Our message is go about your business. Let us do the worrying. Let the professionals be concerned about it. I think most people in New York feel pretty secure. We certainly get that feedback these days.

WOODRUFF: And, Governor Davis?

DAVIS: Every time we put the Highway Patrol on 12-hour shifts as they are tonight that's about $1 million every two weeks. When we have the National Guard on the Golden Gate Bridge that costs us a couple hundred thousand dollars a month, so these costs add up, but again you have no choice, Judy, but to spend the money to keep them safe and hope the federal money finally arrives.

WOODRUFF: Governor Gray Davis, Commissioner Ray Kelly, we thank you both for being with us tonight.

DAVIS: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: From both sides of the country, California and New York City, thank you very much.

DAVIS: Thank you, Judy.

KELLY: You're welcome.

WOODRUFF: Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, more on the terror threat, including new concerns in Saudi Arabia after the bombing there.

And, we'll talk with expert Jim Walsh from Harvard University about the continuing danger presented by al Qaeda. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Not more than a few hours after the bombs went off in Riyadh last week Saudi officials promised to get tough on al Qaeda and be quick about it. Tonight there is good news and bad on that front. "The Washington Post" is reporting that a number of al Qaeda members fled Saudi Arabia in the days following the bombings, this according to a senior Saudi official.

But CNN has also learned that three suspected militants who tried to get out have failed, the report from CNN's Sheila MacVicar.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACVICAR (voice-over): CNN has learned that three Saudi men arrested by Saudi authorities at the airport in the port city of Jeddah have been linked by Saudi authorities to al Qaeda. We are told the men have long been on a Saudi wanted list and it is believed by Saudi authorities that they are members of the same cell which carried out last week's triple attacks here in the capital of Riyadh.

The men are not believed to have been amongst the perpetrators of those attacks but it is believed that they will have a great deal more information about those who planned and carried them out. The men were arrested as they tried to leave the country on a flight to the Sudan.

Now, these arrests come at a time of heightened security here in the kingdom. We are told the kingdom is at the highest level of security amid fears that new terror attacks could be imminent. Now those fears resulted in both the U.S. and the British embassies announcing on Tuesday that they would be closing their doors beginning on Wednesday for a few days.

The U.S. putting out a notice which said that because of what it called "credible information" that new terror attacks might be planned for them, might be underway against unspecified targets and fears that such attacks could be imminent that the embassy and the American consulate here in Saudi Arabia would be closed.

We are told also that some residents in compounds similar to those which were attacked last week, including one of those which was attacked last week (unintelligible) are being told tonight to stay indoors and security at some of those compounds is being strengthened.

Sheila MacVicar, CNN, Riyadh.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: We want to try for a little perspective now. Here to help us Jim Walsh who was a resident scholar at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Jim Walsh, we just had President Bush say yesterday, just yesterday, we are slowly but surely dismantling the al Qaeda network. What's going on here?

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, I think some of those comments were obviously overly optimistic and if he had another chance I'm sure he'd try to get them back. But it reflected in some ways where the intelligence community was going. They were cautiously optimistic, and I emphasize cautiously optimistic, that al Qaeda was in retreat in part because we'd arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the number three person, and because they had not attacked during the Iraq war and a lot of folks, myself included, thought they would try to strike during the Iraq war. It didn't happen and we were, I think, overly encouraged by that and they've come back with a vengeance and I think these last attacks are very troubling.

WOODRUFF: Is there any doubt in your mind that the attacks in Riyadh and in Morocco in Casablanca are somehow tied to al Qaeda?

WALSH: There's no doubt in my mind that the Saudi attacks are al Qaeda. I want to wait and see a little more evidence regarding the Morocco attacks. But what is striking about both sets of attacks is the large number of personnel. They clearly have enough bodies and enough cash to do what they want to do. There are somewhere between ten and 15 terrorists who were used up in just the one attack in Saudi Arabia, another ten in Morocco.

WOODRUFF: Well, does that surprise you? I mean we've been led to believe all along these people are that passionate in their fanatic belief in what they're doing.

WALSH: I think that's right, Judy, and we had a U.N. report earlier in the year that suggested the recruitment for al Qaeda had actually gotten better, for them better, since 9/11. But still, you know, when we think about suicide bombers in the Israeli and Palestinian context it's a suicide bomber. We're talking about large numbers, dozens, and that's a one offer source, right. Al Qaeda doesn't get those folks back so clearly they have a lot of people, more than I would have guessed.

WOODRUFF: All right. A number of us, I think, had this image of al Qaeda coming after 9/11 of people who went through these training camps in Afghanistan sheltered by the Taliban but now is al Qaeda something different from what we originally thought it was?

WALSH: Well, I think it has adapted and transformed. I mean the one thing about al Qaeda is it's an adaptive organization. I think it would have preferred to have stayed in Afghanistan, had a stationary stable base, territorial base, training camps, facilities, that sort of thing. But having lost that, they've managed to morph and to become a distributed network, so there are cells that are distributed across a broader area and who are probably acting with a little more autonomy.

Now, I think finally the other thing I would add is when we talk about al Qaeda we got to be careful because there's al Qaeda itself, al Qaeda proper, which is really sort of a small organization of the made members, and then there are those thousands of folks who went through the training camps that you alluded to who may -- are loosely affiliated who may be for one cause or another cause depending on what month it is.

WOODRUFF: But what you're describing is almost, and these are your words, almost a mutation of al Qaeda is a much more difficult challenge for the United States than what it was earlier.

WALSH: Yes and no. It's difficult because obviously any organization that changes in real time you don't have good data on it, and even though we're spending more resources trying to figure out al Qaeda and we have more allies helping us, if it's changing every day, every week, every month, it's hard to keep up with that.

Now, those changes, some of them are beneficial to al Qaeda. Some of them are weaker. So, they adapt but that doesn't mean they keep all their capability. So, for example, they don't have laboratories because they can't pick up and move a laboratory. It's harder for them to carry out a scientifically sophistically technological project. So, they gain some things when they morph and they lose some capabilities when they morph.

WOODRUFF: So, some reason to be optimistic but also some reason to be very, very wary.

WALSH: Still dangerous. Still dangerous.

WOODRUFF: Jim Walsh, thank you very much. It's always good to see you.

WALSH: Thank you, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thank you for coming by.

And coming up on NEWSNIGHT, more on what is behind raising the threat level as we talk with "NEWSWEEK" magazine's Michael Isikoff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: It's hard to forget the mixed signals coming from Saudi Arabia. In the days following 9/11, there was a mixture of sympathy, but there was also denial about the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were not foreigners or Jews, but they were Saudis.

This time around, in the wake of the recent bombings in Riyadh, there is more sympathy and more cooperation. And how that came to be is one of the fascinating pieces of reporting Michael Isikoff is doing these days. As always, his work appears on the pages of "Newsweek" magazine.

And we are always glad to see you, Michael Isikoff. Thanks for being here.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Good to be here.

WOODRUFF: What do we learn, what have we learned from the bombings in Riyadh about al Qaeda?

ISIKOFF: Quite a bit.

What's really fascinating about the Saudi bombing is that you look at the suspects that the Saudis have identified as being a part of it, and these are significant players in al Qaeda. They're not operational leaders. They're not the top echelon, but they have been in contact with top al Qaeda leaders, including Saif al-Adel, who is believed -- No. 3 military commander -- believed to be in Iran, and, before he was captured, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

And that shows that there is a direct line and connection between what happened in Riyadh last week and al Qaeda's plans for the future.

WOODRUFF: And the United States did not -- intelligence -- did not know this? Suspected it, but...

ISIKOFF: Well, there was a great deal of intelligence that there was going to be an attack in Saudi Arabia. In fact, this caused a great deal of consternation last week, because the United States was trying to alert the Saudis to get increases in security in those compounds.

Of course, as you know, Ambassador Jordan had repeatedly gone to the Interior Ministry top levels, Prince Nayef, who runs the Saudi Interior Ministry, high level member of the royal family, and is the prime example of a guy who has been in denial about this subject for some time. And he didn't act.

WOODRUFF: Are there top-level people still in Saudi Arabia in denial or have they been awakened?

ISIKOFF: Well, it's hard to say, because you would have thought -- remember, you just look at Prince Nayef. Again, he is, in many ways, the key guy we deal with in the war on terror in Saudi Arabia. He heads the security forces.

And he's a man who, after September 11, originally said that there was no al Qaeda presence in Saudi Arabia. Asked about Osama bin Laden and his whereabouts, he said -- this is a quote -- "This is not a subject of any interest to us." Last December, as recently as then, he had suggested that Jews were behind the September 11 attack and there was a Zionist conspiracy to drive a wedge between the United States and Saudi Arabia. And yet he is the man we are dealing with to track down al Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Now, it is unquestionably true that last week's attack was a real jolt to the Saudis. Remember, it was a reminder to them that al Qaeda's original goal was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. And I think this has emboldened them and gotten their attention in a way that nothing has before.

WOODRUFF: All right, let me pick up on something that Jim Walsh has said before this about al Qaeda now almost mutating, changing its form, having been thrown off its original, more stationary game, based in Afghanistan. Is that the same picture you're getting from the people you talk to

(CROSSTALK)

ISIKOFF: Oh, sure, yes. Adaptability is the key.

But what's, again, really striking, look at the suspects. One was a Canadian passport holder whose brother had been linked to the Bali bombing, had been captured last year. But this is a man who can travel with ease around the world because he holds a Canadian passport. And yet there is evidence that he had been in touch with top al Qaeda leaders. So that's scare.

Another really scary one was, there was a 19-year-old suspect. So this is not a guy -- a young Saudi guy -- this is not a guy who had been through the training camps in Afghanistan. He's a new recruit. It's an indication that they are still able to find new recruits, even as we capture so many of their top leaders.

WOODRUFF: So, the full circle, coming back to what President Bush said yesterday, al Qaeda is an organization we're beginning to get a handle on, in so many words...

ISIKOFF: That looks less and less like the case right now.

WOODRUFF: Michael Isikoff, "Newsweek" magazine, with some pretty grim reporting, thanks very much.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. Good to see you again. Thank you.

Well, as NEWSNIGHT continues, we're going to check some of the day's other important stories, as Canadian authorities confirm a case of mad cow disease and the United States cuts off beef imports from Canada.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: And coming up on NEWSNIGHT: the first case in a decade in Canada, mad cow disease. We'll look at how the U.S. is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: A few stories from around the country tonight, beginning with the state trial of Terry Nichols.

The judge overseeing the trial of the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf during arraignment today. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nichols' role in the bombing. He's already serving life in prison, convicted on federal conspiracy and manslaughter charges for the deaths of the federal law enforcement officers killed in the 1995 bombing.

A troubling discovery in Canada: A cow slaughtered in Alberta back in January has tested positive for mad cow disease. It is the country's first case in 10 years. Health officials said they think they have limited the spread of the disease, but, as a precaution, the U.S. Department of Agricultural said that it is temporarily banning Canadian beef.

And in Maryland, quite an educational project for thousands of middle school students: the living American flag. Baltimore-area kids have been creating the living American flag -- you can see them here -- for the last 20 years, an event to mark the Battle of Baltimore in 1814 and the song it inspired, "The Star-Spangled Banner." Those are children down there making up that flag.

There are few police departments that have had more trouble than the Los Angeles Police Department. A few weeks ago -- a decade ago, it was Rodney King. More recently, there was a massive corruption scandal, described as the worst the city had ever seen. Well, the LAPD has been trying hard to clean up its image, but it has found itself in the headlines again. A report in the "L.A. Times" of some accusations of police wrongdoing didn't make it to prosecutors until the statute of limitations had already run out.

More now from CNN's Charles Feldman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After reviewing police disciplinary records, as well as internal reports by prosecutors, "The Los Angeles Times" claims that as many as 96 LAPD officers suspected of wrongdoing avoided prosecution because the police department waited too long to hand the cases over to the DA's office.

Steve Berry wrote the story.

STEVE BERRY, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": The vast majority of the cases are misdemeanor cases. But many of those misdemeanor cases are serious, ranging from misdemeanor assault to battery, to lying, to falsifying reports. And there are a handful of felony cases involved in these cases, too, such as grand theft and perjury.

FELDMAN: A spokesman for the Los Angeles county DA says the numbers sound right to her, although no one from the DA's office has actually reviewed all the cases. The new man in charge at the LAPD of evaluating alleged police abuse cases says some are indeed filed late, but not because the department wants to get bad cops off the hook.

STEVE BERKOW, LOS ANGELES DEPUTY CHIEF: The delay is not caused by a lack of desire to do the right thing or caused by an effort to protect an officer, but rather just the opposite. The delay is caused by our efforts to avoid any mistake or misstep.

FELDMAN: But the chief deputy public defender for L.A. County says, failing to timely file police misconduct cases is an old story at the LAPD.

ROBERT KALUNIAN, LOS ANGELES PUBLIC DEFENDER: It's been a tradition within the department going back many years. They have a circle-the-wagons-type attitude when something of this nature occurs.

FELDMAN: For most of the two-year period examined by the paper, Bernard Parks was chief of police. He is now a city councilman.

BERNARD PARKS, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCILMAN: I think the only way you're going to be able to assess those 96 cases is to look at them individually and determine what were the reasons that they were not submitted.

FELDMAN: The nation's second largest municipal police force is currently operating under a federal consent decree aimed at correcting past cases of police abuse.

(on camera): And the LAPD has a new reform-minded New York City- imported police chief who department officials say has ordered a full investigation of all cases of alleged police abuse, no matter where it may lead.

Charles Feldman, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: And ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll more on this story from one of the people we just heard from. When we come back, we will be joined by former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Joining us now: someone you heard from just a moment ago in that piece from Charles Feldman. He is Bernard Parks, former Los Angeles Police Department police chief. Tonight, he happens to be in Philadelphia.

Mr. Parks, how could it be that something like 96 cases of police misconduct, and worse, have just fallen through the cracks?

PARKS: Well, first of all, Judy, I don't know if we can validate 96 have fallen through the cracks.

If you read Mr. Berry's story, several times, on some very critical cases, he's failed to interview the investigator that could have told him the information. And I think we also have to realize, Mr. Berry is the same reporter that, a couple years ago, wrote an inflammatory article about officers shooting mentally ill people, when, in fact, when the story was examined, none of them were mentally ill. And so I think we have to go back and look at the critical analysis before we can make judgments.

WOODRUFF: But there still is an acknowledgement on the part of officials in Los Angeles that something pretty bad has happened here, in that so many internal cases have not made their way to prosecution. What does this say about the way the police department is run?

PARKS: Well, first of all, Judy, I think if we go back to your story that I was just listening to, the DA's office, no one has looked at the cases that Mr. Berry has talked about.

The public defender made a general statement that this is historical, with no basis. I think, again, it's not a matter of whether the department is being run bad. Let's look at the material. What we would find if we looked at the material is that, until Mr. Cooley became the DA, there were no real guidelines on what should have been submitted to the DA. You'll also find that, prior to Mr. Cooley, there was a standing verbal agreement amongst -- with the DA that certain cases would not be submitted.

WOODRUFF: We should say, Cooley being the new district attorney.

PARKS: The new district attorney.

There was an agreement certain cases would not be brought to the DA and that internal discipline would be sufficient to address the issue. And so, until we can go through each of these 96 cases, identify those that may have had a verbal rejection from the DA or fit the DA's guidelines, I don't think we can classify LAPD as doing a bad job or that investigators have purposely not done their job.

WOODRUFF: Do you know for a fact, though, of your own personal knowledge, that many other, say, dozens of other instances of police misconduct were ultimately prosecuted during this same time period?

PARKS: I think, if we look at cases that you find, that hundreds of cases are taken to the DA and many of them are not prosecuted for a variety of reasons. And that's why there's a guideline as to what is produced.

I think what's inflammatory is that someone would identify the number 96, which would cause a great deal of concern. But if you read the material in the article, you do not find a clear understanding of what's the basis of those judgments. And each one of the cases in LAPD has a fly sheet inside the case that gives a historical perspective of what is happening on the case, who's contacted, and what the DA may have given them advice verbally. And so, until you know that, it's difficult to make a general statement that it was done improperly.

WOODRUFF: I hear what you're saying about the reporter, that there was a failure to interview investigators, that there weren't guidelines and so forth. But when you put all this together, when you look at the kinds of things that these officers were accused of, falsifying reports, stealing a pistol, coming to work intoxicated and so on, it does -- the picture that one gets is of a troubled police department.

PARKS: Well, I think, if you look at that information and also read the article, they did not state whether the officers were even found guilty in many of those circumstances in the internal investigation.

And so, if the officers were not found guilty and they were merely allegations, that may account for why they did not get submitted to the DA. And so, we can make judgments that it's a troubled department, but, again, we're evaluating an incomplete report and one that has not been thoroughly evaluated, so that you could make a proper judgment.

WOODRUFF: So, in other words, if I ask you what the department needs to do to restore confidence, you're saying, we still need to find out more about whether anything really happened here.

PARKS: Well, I think, if we look at restoring confidence, the department works daily to maintain the confidence of the community.

And the issues that deal with whether it was rampart, the fact that LAPD identified rampart, investigated it, brought officers to justice, fired a number of officers, ended up prosecuting officers. Rafael Perez is in prison, a variety of people. Every day, the department attempts to maintain its credibility in the department. And these kinds of stories do not help us, particularly when they're incomplete investigations.

WOODRUFF: All right, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, we thank you very much, current city councilman.

PARKS: My pleasure. Thank you very much.

WOODRUFF: Thank you very much. It's good to talk to you.

Money cannot buy everything -- we all know that -- including a winning baseball team -- the story of the team that beats the odds and other teams from Michael Lewis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: His name is Michael Lewis and he has a great talent for finding the vivid characters and the unconventional wisdom in places like Wall Street, the scene of his best-known book, "Liar's Poker." Well, he's done that again with a new book called "Moneyball."

And, Michael Lewis -- the subtitle, "The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" -- what are we talking about here?

MICHAEL LEWIS, AUTHOR, "MONEYBALL": Well, the unfair game is baseball, because it's the one sport where teams have dramatically different amounts of money to spend on players.

And Major League Baseball has been saying for years that it's sort of ceasing to become an athletic competition and it has become a financial competition instead of an athletic competition. And the one great exception to that is the Oakland Athletics. It's a team that has won lots and lots of games with no money. So I moved into the life of their general manager for the last year and tried to determine why it was they were doing so well.

WOODRUFF: And his name is Billy Beane.

LEWIS: His name is Billy Beane.

WOODRUFF: And he's an unusual character.

LEWIS: Oh, he's a great character. He's the best at what he does.

And what he has done is, in response to being permanently poor -- they figured out in Oakland they weren't going to have money years ago and that they were going to have to compete in some other way. They have gone about, more or less, systematically rethinking the game and looking for the inefficiencies in the game.

And the first thing I thought, actually, when I met him and saw how they were doing and what they were doing, is, I was watching this great Wall Street trader who had figured out how to get better information about the things he was trading. They just happened to be baseball players instead of stocks and bonds.

WOODRUFF: What gave Beane the confidence to do what he did?

LEWIS: That's a great question.

I think a big part of it is that he was maybe the hottest prospect, baseball prospect, in the country when he was in high school. And he was meant to become a big-time sort of All-Star baseball player. And he was drafted by the New York Mets in the first round. He went there instead of taking a scholarship to Stanford. And he had 10 miserable years in the minor leagues and then kind of as a bench player in the Major Leagues.

He learned firsthand that the conventional wisdom of baseball scouts about baseball players is flawed, because they thought he was great and he actually wasn't very good at all. And so he's built his team, actually, out of people who are, in many ways, the opposite of himself and built his team out of players that, in many cases, other teams didn't want.

WOODRUFF: So is this a formula that's going to work for any other or every other team out there?

LEWIS: Well, what's likely to happen is, the insights that they've gained about baseball and having to rethink it and their ability to find hidden values in players that other people haven't seen, that -- those insights are likely to spread. And they are spreading. The Toronto Blue Jays and the Boston Red Sox have, in the last 18 months, more or less openly said that: We're reinventing our organizations in the image of the Oakland A's.

So he's found this knowledge and it is spreading slowly. Big league baseball is very resistant to any kind of change. And what I found so incredible about the story was that anyone in this hidebound culture was trying to do anything differently.

WOODRUFF: What did Billy Beane and the Oakland A's think about being exposed by your book?

LEWIS: You know, I think that Billy Beane probably has -- I know he has one probably legitimate criticism.

And that is that I have captured him, novelistically, in the most intense moments of his day of all of last year. And so it captures him in his most manic state of mind. And so it didn't get the whole man, but it wasn't a biography. The business of exposing their secrets, interestingly, they don't feel that frightened about that, because I think they think that, if anybody cared to know them, they would know them by now and that other teams have been really kind of resistant to the idea there is such a thing as finding out -- finding new knowledge about baseball.

WOODRUFF: Well, if it's by Michael Lewis, it's a great read. The book is "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game." And, of course, he's talking about baseball.

Michael Lewis, it's always terrific to talk to you.

LEWIS: Judy, thanks a lot.

WOODRUFF: Thanks very much.

In our next half-hour here on NEWSNIGHT: part two of my interview with Sandra Day O'Connor.

And up next: Annika Sorenstam prepares to tee it up with the men.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) * the famed athlete Babe Diedrickson (ph), who once gave this advice for good golfing. She said, "It's not just enough to swing at the ball, you got to loosen your girdle and really let the ball have it."

Well, for the latest woman to play in a PGA event, the challenge, we suspect, has nothing to do with loosening girdles. It is managing the intense scrutiny she is under after deciding to compete with the men.

Today, Annika Sorenstam spoke out about that scrutiny from Fort Worth, Texas, where the Colonial tournament begins on Thursday.

The story from CNN's Josie Karp.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSIE KARP, CNN SPORTS (voice-over): Annika Sorenstam faced her first major challenge at the Colonial on Tuesday away from the golf course. At a pre-tournament press conference, she sat for almost an hour in the glare of the spotlight and still had trouble comprehending that decision she made three months ago led to this.

ANNIKA SORENSTAM, 43 CAREER LPGA VICTORIES: I'm still overwhelmed, and I can't believe how many of you guys are here. I mean, it's great. But I think when I accepted the invitation, I must have been very naive. You know, I'm doing this to test myself, and I didn't think everybody else wanted to test me at the same time.

KARP: Sorenstam said her goal when the tournament starts on Thursday is to shoot even par. If she does that, she'll likely make the cut, the measuring stick most experts are using to determine if her calculated risk is a success.

Along the way, the world's best female golfer will have to prove she can withstand demands that are more than physical.

SORENSTAM: You know, mentally, I mean, I've -- you know, this is -- you know, I like to compare myself, maybe, with a mountain climber. This will be Mount Everest for me, and I believe I have practiced for this for years. And now I'm here, and, you know, I've -- you know, I personally feel like I got nothing to lose. You know, nobody expects anything from me. You know, I expect to play well.

KARP: With her blonde ponytail and exclusive access to Colonial's ladies' locker room, playing well is the only way Sorenstam will fit in on this golf course.

SORENSTAM: This is once in a lifetime opportunity, and I want to enjoy the week. And, you know, I -- everything around it is so different than I'm used to, obviously, playing with the guys, you guys, the golf course, that, you know, I'm in an environment that I'm not really used to. So, you know, those are factors that I have back in my mind.

KARP (on camera): To try to put Sorenstam's mind at ease, one high-profile PGA tour player has been providing moral support. According to Sorenstam, Tiger Woods has called three times in the last week, offering advice and letting her know that even though he's not here, he will be watching.

Josie Karp, CNN, Fort Worth.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: More now on the PGA tour and the question of Annika Sorenstam competing in the Colonial with Rachel Nichols. She is national sports reporter for "The Washington Post." She's in New York tonight.

Rachel, is Annika Sorenstam going to make the cut, first of all? What do you think?

RACHEL NICHOLS, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I'm not sure if she is going to make the cut. I'm not sure if she needs to make the cut for her. She wants to see how she's going to do on this course, and making the cut isn't really in her scheme of what she's looking for. But I think a lot of other people are going to be looking to see if she makes the cut.

And it's going to be tough for her, because it's a much longer course than she's used to, and the greens play very fast. She's going to really have to depend on her short game in the end, and I'm not sure she's going to be able to do that.

WOODRUFF: She said she's doing this to test herself, and you were just referring to that. And yet she had to have known that everybody was going to be watching.

NICHOLS: There's no question that she knew there was going to be some interest. I think she was being a little modest there. But I don't think she realized just how many people wanted to turn this into something else, into a women's movement, into a thing about embarrassing men. One of the former PGA champions said, She's either going to embarrass herself or embarrass a lot of men out there. And I don't think Annika feels that way. I think to Annika, this is really about what the best sports has to offer. It's about getting your fingernails dirty, it's about trying hard, breaking the four- minute mile, outdoing broadbeam in an along job (ph).

It's about doing what you're not supposed to be able to do, and she's going out to try to do that. And it's not making a statement about something larger.

WOODRUFF: And she can't do all that on the women's tour?

NICHOLS: Well, you have to remember that she's been the most competitive player on the women's tour for years now. Think about all the great things you've heard of Tiger Woods doing, and then multiply that by four. She's dominated. She is so -- she's the winner before she walks in every time.

And she's a very competitive person. This is a woman who does 700 situps a day. This is a woman whose husband won't play chess with her any more because she throws the pieces across the room.

So she wants to...

WOODRUFF: So...

NICHOLS: ... test herself against something more, and this is a great way for her to do it.

WOODRUFF: So if she is so good, why, then, is there any doubt she's going to make the cut? Why is -- why can't she play against the good men players?

NICHOLS: Well, obviously golf isn't like a sport like tennis or a team sport, so playing against a man in terms of strength isn't an issue here. In that way, she'll have an easier time. But the courses on the PGA are longer. She's going to have to hit for more distance. There's more rough. I think the greens are going to be a little bit more difficult for her.

And the pressure is going to be enormous. Annika is such a competitive person that sometimes she's had trouble in big tournaments because the pressure just eats up on her.

And I don't think that there's any question this is going to be the most pressure-filled event of her career.

WOODRUFF: What are the male golfers saying about this?

NICHOLS: I think a lot of them are not so happy. I think a lot of them feel like it's fine if she plays, but not if she beats me. I think a lot of them feel, Why can't she just go...

WOODRUFF: Well, Vijay Singh decided not to play, right?

NICHOLS: Not to show up at all, which I think didn't score him a lot of points. But he's always been that kind of guy. He's certainly always been the kind of guy to just go to his own drummer.

I think that some people are happy for her. Tiger Woods certainly has been supportive, although you'll notice that he's not there this week either. Some guys -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Price has said, Gee, I'm the defending champion, why isn't anybody talking to me about that?

So I think some guys are upset that she's stolen their limelight.

But you have to remember also that Annika's from Sweden, which is one of the few countries that is maybe more progressive than we are on women's rights and women's participation. I think their parliament's 45 percent women.

So to her, this isn't maybe as big of a gender thing as it is to other people. Her country, they actually have a minister of sport, and it's a woman.

WOODRUFF: Rachel, is this a one-shot thing where she's just doing this, and it'll be kind of a, you know, a one-day wonder kind of thing and we'll forget about it? Or does this in any way really open doors for women golfers down the line?

NICHOLS: I think it is going to be maybe a one-shot thing for her, although she may come back and play occasionally. Those doors are opening anyway. There's a woman who's a -- just a club pro in Connecticut who qualified for a PGA event later in the year, and she's going to play. Michelle Wee (ph), who is a 13-year-old wonderkid, she hits the ball a mile, she said she's going to play in some women's events.

So Annika's the first one to do it in 58 years, and I think by playing this event, she's taking some of the pressure off of those lesser-known, lesser-accomplished women. And they're going to have an easier time, and that's kind of a nice thing for them.

WOODRUFF: Rachel Nichols is a national sportswriter for "The Washington Post." And we're going to know, what, Thursday and Friday whether Sorenstam makes the cut, right?

NICHOLS: Absolutely. And then maybe you'll see her play a little bit on Saturday.

WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you very much. Great to see you. We appreciate it.

NICHOLS: Thanks.

WOODRUFF: As NEWSNIGHT continues, "The Times," "New York Times" scandal, as the reporter involved tells his side of the story.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: The latest now on the scandal that has been the talk of the news media business for weeks, revelations that a reporter named Jayson Blair committed a massive journalistic fraud in the pages of "The New York Times." We've heard apologies from the editors at "The Times," a parade of pundits weighing in on every imaginable angle.

But Blair himself, who he is, what motivated him, has remained very much a mystery.

Well, it is somewhat less of a mystery now. Sridhar Pappu is media columnist for "The New York Observer." He landed an interview with Jayson Blair, and he joins us now from New York.

Sridhar Pappu, do you understand better now why Jayson Blair did what he did?

SRIDHAR PAPPU, MEDIA COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK OBSERVER": I -- to tell you the truth, I don't. What I do understand is that he's -- he himself is trying to figure that out himself.

He -- I guess -- he -- there's several things that come into it, and people have brought it up, that he's too young, that he was a black reporter at "The Times," and he addresses that. And he said all of that stuff plays in. There's also been allegations of drug use, and in my conversation with him, he confirmed that.

And while he said that he was not using drugs at the time that his major deceptions at "The Times" were going on, that some part of him makes him think that that played a part in the story.

WOODRUFF: He is -- he still must be very much sorting through what happened. It's only been a few weeks since all this became public. I mean, I wonder how he can even do an interview with someone like you asking him very, very tough and probing questions, and even know that he's telling you the truth, frankly.

PAPPU: Well, what seems more surprising is that he started working on his book, a book about his life at "The Times." It seems a little bit premature for that, as well.

WOODRUFF: How much -- let me just interrupt. How much is race a part of this? And how open was he about that?

PAPPU: He was very open about race. And, I mean, the most surprising comment he made to me was that anyone who thinks that race was not a factor in what happened to him at "The Times" is -- was -- is an idiot. But he makes a point that -- and it might seem odd -- that while he received racial preference, he's also the victim -- or, he says, of racial discrimination at "The Times."

WOODRUFF: Victim in what way?

PAPPU: He won't elaborate, because he's saving it for his book.

WOODRUFF: Oh. But he -- OK. And what about the other piece of that, the fact that he was protected, sheltered, in many ways, because of his race? PAPPU: Well, and that's one thing that surprised me as well. I mean, he went out of his way that he's -- to say that he wasn't protected, and that fact he was an antagonist of managing editor Gerald Boyd, who's been widely reported to be his major protector at the paper.

He -- that was the most surprising thing that he actually said to me.

WOODRUFF: Is this -- do you come away from talking to him, I'd say, worried more about the state of American journalism, or looking at this as an isolated incident, set of instances, or what?

PAPPU: I -- it's hard to sort of ascribe larger context, having talked to him just for the hour and a half that I spoke to him yesterday. And what I came away with is a man who is deeply troubled. He's troubled about what he did, but he's also largely, surprisingly, unrepentant. He's sorry for his actions and sorry for his colleagues, but he's largely unrepentant for what it's put the institution of "The Times" in.

WOODRUFF: Unrepentant, and what about his mood overall? How would you describe it?

PAPPU: He seemed good. He was -- he is, as the news reports have put it, a very engaging person. He's lively, he's funny, he grabs your attention. You know, he can captivate you.

WOODRUFF: And not angry.

PAPPU: He is angry.

WOODRUFF: A mixture.

PAPPU: yes.

WOODRUFF: All right. Sridhar Pappu, we're going to have to leave it there, media critic with "The New York Observer."

PAPPU: Thanks, thanks.

WOODRUFF: Thanks very much.

Coming up next on NEWSNIGHT, part two of my interview with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as she talks about women and minorities on the court and her future plans. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Term limits, you know, could be called one of the more reassuring mechanisms of American politics. After all, if you don't like someone, you disagree with their politics, you can just vote them out when their term is up.

This, however, is not the case with the United States Supreme Court. Instead, justices of the court are installed in the highest court in the land until they choose to leave, or until they die. It's much more permanent, and therefore much more political.

An open seat carries with it a tremendous weight. I talked about that and about court nominations and about what it was like being the first woman there with Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: You've also spoken about being the first woman and being for many years the only woman on the court. Along came Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, about, what, 10 or 12 years after -- 12 years after you had been...

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Yes, thankfully.

WOODRUFF: ... on the court.

O'CONNOR: Thankfully.

WOODRUFF: Did that make a difference?

O'CONNOR: It made an enormous difference. When I arrived, there had been a large amount of media attention to the selection of a woman, and then to see what that woman did under all circumstances. And too much attention for any reasonable comfort level.

And the minute Justice Ginsberg came to the court, we were nine justices. It wasn't seven and then the women. We became nine. And it was a great relief to me, and I'm sure it was welcome to Justice Ginsberg.

WOODRUFF: Do the two of you have any sort of special bond because you're the first women?

O'CONNOR: Well, certainly. We're both appreciative that we have at least two of us here. Very much so.

WOODRUFF: Shouldn't there be more? I mean...

O'CONNOR: I'd welcome it.

WOODRUFF: By the same token, and this is back to what you and I were just discussing, does it matter that there -- whether there is or isn't, for example, an Hispanic justice on the court?

O'CONNOR: Well, we'd welcome that too, I'm sure. For the very reasons I gave you earlier, in a broad sense, people take a certain level of comfort and looking around and seeing who's in office in ways that affect the public.

WOODRUFF: What do you think of this characterization of you as the most powerful woman in America, or, as "The New York Times" put it a little more modestly, America's most powerful jurist?

O'CONNOR: Well, I think you have to take that with a heavy, large grain of salt, because I think every member of this court has a certain degree of authority on behalf of the court, but we have an equal voice. And I'm no more powerful than anyone else on this court. That's for sure. And collectively, we do render opinions that matter to people.

But I've never looked upon myself or the role of the court as being all-powerful.

WOODRUFF: At the same time, you are characterized again and again as a crucial swing vote.

O'CONNOR: I think that's something the media has devised as a means of writing about the court. And I don't think that has a lot of validity either.

WOODRUFF: I've even heard lawyers and law professors use that term, because, very clearly, Justice O'Connor, you have weighed in on some very close decisions on this court.

O'CONNOR: Well, we have...

WOODRUFF: Some very visible -- Excuse me.

O'CONNOR: ... we've had many close decisions through the years I've been here. I think the court was more closely divided in the first 10 years, in a way, than it is today. And there have been many, many five-four decisions. So perhaps that's just been a factor of the times as well.

WOODRUFF: A number of these decisions, and you also talk about this in the book, have been very political, visibly political decisions. Obviously the 2000 presidential election, Bush vs. Gore. There have been other affirmative action decisions and so on and so on.

O'CONNOR: Well, I don't describe those as visibly political decisions. Some of the decisions we've had to make have been on subjects that have been of particular interest to the media, and therefore perhaps to the public. Or maybe it's visa-versa, of interest to the public and hence to the media.

And it's true that a certain percentage of the cases we hear are the ones you tend to read about more or hear more about, but I really don't classify them as political issues. We consider here abstract propositions of federal law. And they're really kind of far removed from the action that got the issue here. By the time it comes here, there's been a filtering-out process.

WOODRUFF: The current -- in connection with that, the current nomination process to the court, a lot of drama associated with that. It seems the last several presidents, some of their nominations have become, you know, just -- received enormous attention over whether these people are, quote unquote, "too ideological."

Why shouldn't a president be able to appoint whoever he wants to the Supreme Court as long as that person is qualified? O'CONNOR: The Constitution, in its customary brevity, says that appointment of federal judges, the nomination will be by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. And the role of the Senate in that process is not spelled out any further. It really is what the Senate decides to make of it.

In the -- for more than half of the history of the court, the Senate committees never asked the judicial nominees any questions at all. And it wasn't until about the time Justice Brandeis was nominated that the Judiciary Committee in the Senate asked him some questions, and then began the process of actually holding hearings, public hearings on it, in which the nominee was going to be in attendance and respond to questions.

And that custom continued to the present time.

Now, when you have a situation where the president is of one political party and the Senate is in the control of the other political party, it makes for a certain amount of fireworks, inherently. And what we have at the present time is a closely divided Senate. So there are lingering fireworks, I would say...

WOODRUFF: So...

O'CONNOR: ... in the process.

And under our system of selecting federal judges, there is a political component at the front end, when the president makes a selection and when the Senate exercises its role of advising and consenting.

WOODRUFF: All this is healthy, in your view.

O'CONNOR: Well, it's the system the Framers devised. And it's what we see unfolding.

WOODRUFF: Last question. A lot of speculation out there about your future plans. We notice you dedicated the book to your law clerks, past, present, and future. You've said you have no plans to retire. But my question is, have you given it any thought?

O'CONNOR: Oh, of course. I mean, I'm getting up there in age, so of course I think about, should I or should I not? But I haven't made the decision to do it.

WOODRUFF: Is it something that you spend a lot of time thinking about, or is it something you carve out a little of your...

O'CONNOR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I think that's enough, really. I just haven't made that decision.

WOODRUFF: There's also speculation about the chief justice and whether he might retire. If he did, would you like to be the chief justice?

O'CONNOR: No, I'm not seeking any new position. WOODRUFF: But the first woman chief justice, that has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

O'CONNOR: We'll have one someday. And, you know, our neighboring country, Canada, has one right now. Did you know that?

WOODRUFF: I didn't.

O'CONNOR: Yes. And she's a wonderful woman and has done a fine job. So it's nice to see. It can happen. And it undoubtedly will in due course.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke to us just a few days ago.

This is Judy Woodruff. That's it for NEWSNIGHT tonight. We'll see you tomorrow night. Thanks for joining 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







Aired May 20, 2003 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in once again for Aaron Brown.
We spent a lot of time in recent nights looking at blood spilled in places like Casablanca and Riyadh. Well, tonight we're going to focus on the fear that terrorists are determined to spill blood in places like San Francisco, Chicago, maybe Philadelphia or some other spot in the United States, a fear that was potent enough that the government today raised the terror threat level back up to high or orange.

And so we begin with the increase in the terror threat level. David Ensor is following that for us, David the headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is intelligence out there that has caused the United States to decide to go to the orange level, officials saying it may not be specific but it is credible and there's a lot of it.

WOODRUFF: All right, David, we'll talk to you in just a minute.

On now to the White House and a look at how the decision was made. Chris Burns is there for us, Chris the headline.

CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Judy. This decision here made at the White House during Homeland Security Council meeting that the president signed off on. Among the factors were the past recent terror attacks, chatter among terrorist groups about possible future attacks, and a Memorial Day weekend coming up with a lot of soft targets.

WOODRUFF: All right, Chris, and we'll see you in a moment as well.

The message from Washington is being heard in cities and towns across the country. Frank Buckley is looking at how they're responding, Frank the headline from you.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Judy. Police here on the streets of Los Angeles are patrolling what they call critical locations. That's something that's being done in other cities and towns across the U.S. Tonight we'll look at some of the specific areas that police are patrolling -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Frank, thank you. Well tough measures to protect against more terror in Saudi Arabia as well. Sheila MacVicar is with us from Riyadh, Sheila the headline.

SHEILA MACVICAR, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Three men have been arrested. Those arrests may prove to be important as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains on a heightened state of security amid fears that new terrorist attacks may be imminent.

WOODRUFF: We're going to be back with all of you in just a moment.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT the word on the terror threat comes out of Washington but it is the people in the cities and states who will actually have to do the protecting.

We're going to talk about the plans in New York with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

And, we'll hear how California is guarding against terror with Governor Gray Davis.

And, a look at the Los Angeles Police Department back in the headlines and forced to answer a very tough question, have they been holding themselves above the law?

All that is to come but we begin tonight with news that was not entirely unexpected, the Bush administration today raising the nation's threat level from yellow to orange, from an elevated risk to a high risk of a terrorist attack in the near future.

Now this is the fourth time the country has gone on such a high alert. Once again, it comes with the usual disclaimers about not having specific information on timing or targets. It also comes at a cost in rattled nerves and police overtime more on that in a moment.

But first, the reasons behind the alert and CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): The decision to go on high alert in the United States is based on intelligence, officials say, suggesting al Qaeda is trying to organize another serious attack or attacks in this country.

ASA HUTCHINSON, HOMELAND SECURITY UNDERSECRETARY: Vigilance in and of itself is a deterrent to terrorist activity. Obviously, we urge the American public if they see anything suspicious to call their local FBI office.

BRUCE HOFFMAN, RAND TERRORISM ANALYST: This, I think, forces the terrorists in turn to realize that the United States has ratcheted up the threat level and is more prepared and is, in fact, defending itself better than in a normal course of events.

ENSOR: U.S. officials are concerned al Qaeda or others may try to use the tactics so well known in Israel or in India, Britain, or Spain, attacks on so-called soft targets using vehicles filled with explosives or suicide bombers. It would be the same tactics arriving on American shores that we've just seen used in Saudi Arabia and in Morocco.

HUTCHINSON: When we see a pattern of activity overseas directed at United States targets we certainly have to be aware that there remains that potential of use of those type of tactics here in the United States.

ENSOR: U.S. defense officials tell CNN's Barbara Starr that some of the intelligence leading to the decision comes from intercepted communications since the Riyadh attacks. Intelligence officials decline comment on that.

HOFFMAN: We know that terrorists are constantly probing, poking, attempting to identify and then to exploit vulnerabilities so this really is a call that we have to be eternally vigilant.

ENSOR: The decision is first and foremost a signal to state and local law enforcement to increase vigilance against terror and beef up protection of key installations and large gatherings especially large gatherings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: One knowledgeable U.S. official said the intelligence concerning threats both to the U.S. and to targets elsewhere is not specific, but he did say it is credible and he also called it "reasonably spooky stuff" -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: David, it seems like it wasn't so very long ago that they were saying the threat seemed to be more outside the country than inside the country. This must mean they're getting new information in all the time.

ENSOR: That's right. I mean they still see a lot of evidence there may be attacks outside the country. There may be attacks against U.S. or western targets in other countries but there is now additional information and it does seem to have come in pretty recently that's reinforcing their fear that there might be attacks here too. So, that's really why the decision was made today.

WOODRUFF: OK, David Ensor, thank you very much.

Well, as we said recent headlines, given those, it seemed only a question of when we would get to orange not if. Well still, the political implications of sounding an alert like this can be complicated.

And for more on this, we turn once again to CNN's Chris Burns at the White House.

BURNS: Well, hi Judy. It was a very difficult decision, this decision signed off by Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Secretary who led the meeting here earlier today but, of course President Bush having to sign off on it giving the final OK. It's very difficult. It's a costly question. It's also not intended to raise panic but it's also to raise concern and vigilance.

What were the elements used in deciding this? Well one, of course, were the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco too was that unspecified terrorist chatter that they were talking about, e- mails, other kinds of communication and also thinking about this coming holiday weekend, Memorial Day weekend, a lot of outdoor events, large public gatherings, sports events and so forth that could become soft targets.

Now, what is mentioned specifically in this statement raising the alert, the threat alert level, they talk about recent attacks. They say that: "Small arms equipped assault teams, large vehicle born explosive devices, car bombs, truck bombs, and suicide bombers have been those tactics. These tactics underscore terrorist desires to attack soft targets. Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological, or radiological agents or materials can not be discounted."

Now, we talked to Ari Fleischer, the White House Spokesman, about President Bush having said in recent weeks about how al Qaeda was half destroyed, half arrested. However, President Bush has said that the other half is quite active, the president also having said that the tide had been turned against al Qaeda. Ari Fleischer answering why perhaps President Bush wouldn't regret that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What the president said is, the tide has turned and, as you know, tides have a way of coming in and going out. And, in the next sentence the president said is that al Qaeda has been diminished but not destroyed and that's what we're seeing. We know that there are terrorist organizations including al Qaeda that still desire to hit us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNS: Now, of course this announcement does alert state and local governments to get busy and prepare for this holiday weekend. Of course the question of cost is going to be a major factor -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Chris, Chris Burns reporting for us from the White House.

And, picking up on what Chris said, for all the talk of orange or yellow or whatever color alert, cities and states do have another sort of color to worry about at a time when budgets are already stretched to the breaking point.

The color green comes first, CNN's Frank Buckley now with preparations around the country and the bottom line.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY (voice-over): In suburban Chicago's country club hills they literally raise the threat level on a flagpole for all to see, an orange flag now indicating a high threat level. In Los Angeles, police plan to erect checkpoints at the busy international airport. And, in New York there was a visible increase in police presence in Times Square and elsewhere.

GOV. GEORGE PATAKI (R), NEW YORK: Additional police, additional troopers, additional National Guard at everything from critical infrastructure across the state to major transportation centers in the metropolitan regions.

BUCKLEY: From the Golden Gate Bridge to the St. Louis Gateway Arch to the streets of the city that suffered the most in the 9/11 terrorist attack, potential targets of terrorists received extra attention. Public safety officials everywhere put plans in place to protect their special landmarks and people.

KENNETH MORCKEL, OHIO PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER: Any time that the country is threatened I think Ohio is threatened.

BUCKLEY: But the daunting challenge for government leaders of trying to protect so many places and things was articulated in Los Angeles by city officials who said they'd identified more than 600 potential target sites in L.A. alone.

MAYOR JAMES HAHN, LOS ANGELES: The idea is we're going to increase surveillance as we do every time when we raise the threat level at these some 600 locations around the city, churches, synagogues, places like the entertainment industry venues, but also our airport, our harbor, important bridges and other infrastructure.

BUCKLEY: State and local officials have made paying for such increased surveillance a major priority with the Bush administration. And, while millions of dollars have now been budgeted to help local officials, state and city leaders say obtaining the money can be cumbersome.

HAHN: Very little of that money has actually reached any of us yet. We've seen the pledges and the promises but I think the problem for us is we have to spend the money now and, you know, the idea that the check's in the mail I guess that's been replaced by it's in the pipeline.

BUCKLEY: This is the fourth time the threat level has been raised to orange.

CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: It's the world we live in now and unfortunately we might as well get used to it because that's the way it's going to be.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY: And state and local officials that we talked to across the U.S. all stress that there are no specific threats to their respective communities that they all felt obliged to take steps to protect their citizens. As the police chief here in Los Angeles, William Bratton put it, we have no choice. We have to make the city safe -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Frank Buckley reporting for us tonight live from Los Angeles, Frank thank you very much for that report.

Picking up on what Frank reporting on, joining us now two men with their work cut out for them tonight. In New York, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly who arguably has the toughest job in local law enforcement and from Sacramento, California's Governor Gray Davis whose state like so many others is under an enormous fiscal burden, alert or not alert. Gentlemen, welcome back.

Commissioner Kelly, let me begin with you. When we hear them say soft targets, large gatherings, we don't know what, you know, the terrorists may be aiming for, this is a nightmare for you isn't it?

RAYMOND KELLY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: It certainly is a huge challenge. We have lots of gatherings. Of course we have many landmarks in New York City. We've been targeted here four times in the last decade by terrorists, so it is clearly a very expensive proposition for us.

We've put officers on overtime because we have to police the city 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We have to take additional officers and put them at critical locations and, again, this costs a lot of money for us to do that.

WOODRUFF: Governor Davis, from your perspective as the governor of the biggest state in the country, how do you begin to protect when the warning seems to many of us to be so broad and so almost amorphous?

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, we work as closely as we can with Governor Ridge and try and get a sense from him as to where he thinks resources should be deployed but this is a time when we just can't shortchange public safety. We have to commit the resources and the resources generally tend to be the California Highway Patrol, local police departments, and local sheriff's departments who are really the front lines in the war against potential terror.

WOODRUFF: Commissioner Kelly, what are you and your colleagues in the police department in New York doing differently right now as a result of this alert going out today?

KELLY: Well, with the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, we put in Operation Atlas which was an overlay increased security program. We covered our critical locations, our houses of worship, our transit system and subway system, and a lot more officers assigned to it.

We have heavily armed groups of officers that go to sensitive locations on unannounced basis. We have increased that. We've increased the deployment of officers in undercover roles certainly in our transit system. We have major gatherings that are happening, Madison Square Garden just a few blocks from here. We have additional officers assigned there.

So, we've done a lot in the last 16 months. What we've done is simply increase a lot of what we've done with the heightened concerns that we've gotten from Washington.

WOODRUFF: Governor Davis, in California how safe would you say the people of California should feel tonight?

DAVIS: Well, we can't make people 100 percent safe but we can certainly increase the security that they enjoy and I've ordered the Highway Patrol on 12-hour shifts. We have all the state's vital assets from nuclear power plants to bridges to water projects to houses of worship to what we call trophy buildings.

The people where large gatherings assemble they're all protected by larger numbers of security people tonight. So, we do everything humanly possible to let the terrorists know that we're ready. We're prepared and don't bother coming.

WOODRUFF: And let's talk about the cost. Commissioner Kelly you mentioned at a time like this obviously safety, security, comes first but surely there are some limits to what you can write a check or what you can count on there being money for.

KELLY: Well, Mayor Bloomberg has made it clear that we will do everything we have to do to protect the city but it comes at a very difficult time for us. There are great budget problems here in the city. It can cost us, the police department that is, it can cost us as much as $600,000 to $700,000 a day, depending on what configuration Operation Atlas is in. So, obviously that's adding up.

As the mayor of Los Angeles said, the money is supposedly in the pipeline. We haven't received anything as yet. We're hopeful that we will in the near term but it hasn't come our way as yet.

WOODRUFF: Well, can you go on indefinitely without it?

KELLY: No, we can't. We have a compartmentalized budget year. Our fiscal year ends here on June 30 and the budget has to be balanced. So, we need that money soon. We've run up some significant expenses. Clearly it's something that we have to do but we'd like to see that money real soon.

WOODRUFF: Well, we know what difficulties New York has been in since 9/11. And, Governor Davis, we know that the state of California's been having its own extreme budget problems.

DAVIS: Right.

WOODRUFF: How long can California go on without more assistance at the federal level or some other source of assistance?

DAVIS: Well, like the commissioner said, Judy, safety comes first. It's the first obligation of any elected official and we're moving heaven and earth to make Californians safer than they've ever been.

Now, obviously this costs money. We're spending it but we really do want the federal government to deliver resources because to the extent that we have the Highway Patrol on overtime, to the extent that for instance the L.A. Police Department's on overtime at some studios or a large athletic event, that's against a potential terrorist attack and so that's the cost directly attributable to the federal government. And while we've been promised money, very little has actually arrived.

And so, we've been doing this since shortly after September 11 and we estimate that city, county, and state together has spend about $700 million in California. If all the money promised arrives, which it has not, there will probably been $200 million or $220 million. So, we still have a long ways to go to make ends meet even if the money arrives which it's not yet done so.

WOODRUFF: So, what do you say to the citizens of both of you, to Commissioner Kelly first and you Governor Davis very quickly, what do you say to people who are listening and saying I hear you're saying you're going to do everything you can but the money isn't unlimited, Commissioner Kelly?

KELLY: Well, again, we are committed to making the city as safe as possible. I think people should be reassured. I think we've done an awful lot, as I say, in the last 16 months. We're going to continue to keep this city safe. Our message is go about your business. Let us do the worrying. Let the professionals be concerned about it. I think most people in New York feel pretty secure. We certainly get that feedback these days.

WOODRUFF: And, Governor Davis?

DAVIS: Every time we put the Highway Patrol on 12-hour shifts as they are tonight that's about $1 million every two weeks. When we have the National Guard on the Golden Gate Bridge that costs us a couple hundred thousand dollars a month, so these costs add up, but again you have no choice, Judy, but to spend the money to keep them safe and hope the federal money finally arrives.

WOODRUFF: Governor Gray Davis, Commissioner Ray Kelly, we thank you both for being with us tonight.

DAVIS: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: From both sides of the country, California and New York City, thank you very much.

DAVIS: Thank you, Judy.

KELLY: You're welcome.

WOODRUFF: Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, more on the terror threat, including new concerns in Saudi Arabia after the bombing there.

And, we'll talk with expert Jim Walsh from Harvard University about the continuing danger presented by al Qaeda. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Not more than a few hours after the bombs went off in Riyadh last week Saudi officials promised to get tough on al Qaeda and be quick about it. Tonight there is good news and bad on that front. "The Washington Post" is reporting that a number of al Qaeda members fled Saudi Arabia in the days following the bombings, this according to a senior Saudi official.

But CNN has also learned that three suspected militants who tried to get out have failed, the report from CNN's Sheila MacVicar.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACVICAR (voice-over): CNN has learned that three Saudi men arrested by Saudi authorities at the airport in the port city of Jeddah have been linked by Saudi authorities to al Qaeda. We are told the men have long been on a Saudi wanted list and it is believed by Saudi authorities that they are members of the same cell which carried out last week's triple attacks here in the capital of Riyadh.

The men are not believed to have been amongst the perpetrators of those attacks but it is believed that they will have a great deal more information about those who planned and carried them out. The men were arrested as they tried to leave the country on a flight to the Sudan.

Now, these arrests come at a time of heightened security here in the kingdom. We are told the kingdom is at the highest level of security amid fears that new terror attacks could be imminent. Now those fears resulted in both the U.S. and the British embassies announcing on Tuesday that they would be closing their doors beginning on Wednesday for a few days.

The U.S. putting out a notice which said that because of what it called "credible information" that new terror attacks might be planned for them, might be underway against unspecified targets and fears that such attacks could be imminent that the embassy and the American consulate here in Saudi Arabia would be closed.

We are told also that some residents in compounds similar to those which were attacked last week, including one of those which was attacked last week (unintelligible) are being told tonight to stay indoors and security at some of those compounds is being strengthened.

Sheila MacVicar, CNN, Riyadh.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: We want to try for a little perspective now. Here to help us Jim Walsh who was a resident scholar at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Jim Walsh, we just had President Bush say yesterday, just yesterday, we are slowly but surely dismantling the al Qaeda network. What's going on here?

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, I think some of those comments were obviously overly optimistic and if he had another chance I'm sure he'd try to get them back. But it reflected in some ways where the intelligence community was going. They were cautiously optimistic, and I emphasize cautiously optimistic, that al Qaeda was in retreat in part because we'd arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the number three person, and because they had not attacked during the Iraq war and a lot of folks, myself included, thought they would try to strike during the Iraq war. It didn't happen and we were, I think, overly encouraged by that and they've come back with a vengeance and I think these last attacks are very troubling.

WOODRUFF: Is there any doubt in your mind that the attacks in Riyadh and in Morocco in Casablanca are somehow tied to al Qaeda?

WALSH: There's no doubt in my mind that the Saudi attacks are al Qaeda. I want to wait and see a little more evidence regarding the Morocco attacks. But what is striking about both sets of attacks is the large number of personnel. They clearly have enough bodies and enough cash to do what they want to do. There are somewhere between ten and 15 terrorists who were used up in just the one attack in Saudi Arabia, another ten in Morocco.

WOODRUFF: Well, does that surprise you? I mean we've been led to believe all along these people are that passionate in their fanatic belief in what they're doing.

WALSH: I think that's right, Judy, and we had a U.N. report earlier in the year that suggested the recruitment for al Qaeda had actually gotten better, for them better, since 9/11. But still, you know, when we think about suicide bombers in the Israeli and Palestinian context it's a suicide bomber. We're talking about large numbers, dozens, and that's a one offer source, right. Al Qaeda doesn't get those folks back so clearly they have a lot of people, more than I would have guessed.

WOODRUFF: All right. A number of us, I think, had this image of al Qaeda coming after 9/11 of people who went through these training camps in Afghanistan sheltered by the Taliban but now is al Qaeda something different from what we originally thought it was?

WALSH: Well, I think it has adapted and transformed. I mean the one thing about al Qaeda is it's an adaptive organization. I think it would have preferred to have stayed in Afghanistan, had a stationary stable base, territorial base, training camps, facilities, that sort of thing. But having lost that, they've managed to morph and to become a distributed network, so there are cells that are distributed across a broader area and who are probably acting with a little more autonomy.

Now, I think finally the other thing I would add is when we talk about al Qaeda we got to be careful because there's al Qaeda itself, al Qaeda proper, which is really sort of a small organization of the made members, and then there are those thousands of folks who went through the training camps that you alluded to who may -- are loosely affiliated who may be for one cause or another cause depending on what month it is.

WOODRUFF: But what you're describing is almost, and these are your words, almost a mutation of al Qaeda is a much more difficult challenge for the United States than what it was earlier.

WALSH: Yes and no. It's difficult because obviously any organization that changes in real time you don't have good data on it, and even though we're spending more resources trying to figure out al Qaeda and we have more allies helping us, if it's changing every day, every week, every month, it's hard to keep up with that.

Now, those changes, some of them are beneficial to al Qaeda. Some of them are weaker. So, they adapt but that doesn't mean they keep all their capability. So, for example, they don't have laboratories because they can't pick up and move a laboratory. It's harder for them to carry out a scientifically sophistically technological project. So, they gain some things when they morph and they lose some capabilities when they morph.

WOODRUFF: So, some reason to be optimistic but also some reason to be very, very wary.

WALSH: Still dangerous. Still dangerous.

WOODRUFF: Jim Walsh, thank you very much. It's always good to see you.

WALSH: Thank you, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thank you for coming by.

And coming up on NEWSNIGHT, more on what is behind raising the threat level as we talk with "NEWSWEEK" magazine's Michael Isikoff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: It's hard to forget the mixed signals coming from Saudi Arabia. In the days following 9/11, there was a mixture of sympathy, but there was also denial about the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were not foreigners or Jews, but they were Saudis.

This time around, in the wake of the recent bombings in Riyadh, there is more sympathy and more cooperation. And how that came to be is one of the fascinating pieces of reporting Michael Isikoff is doing these days. As always, his work appears on the pages of "Newsweek" magazine.

And we are always glad to see you, Michael Isikoff. Thanks for being here.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Good to be here.

WOODRUFF: What do we learn, what have we learned from the bombings in Riyadh about al Qaeda?

ISIKOFF: Quite a bit.

What's really fascinating about the Saudi bombing is that you look at the suspects that the Saudis have identified as being a part of it, and these are significant players in al Qaeda. They're not operational leaders. They're not the top echelon, but they have been in contact with top al Qaeda leaders, including Saif al-Adel, who is believed -- No. 3 military commander -- believed to be in Iran, and, before he was captured, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

And that shows that there is a direct line and connection between what happened in Riyadh last week and al Qaeda's plans for the future.

WOODRUFF: And the United States did not -- intelligence -- did not know this? Suspected it, but...

ISIKOFF: Well, there was a great deal of intelligence that there was going to be an attack in Saudi Arabia. In fact, this caused a great deal of consternation last week, because the United States was trying to alert the Saudis to get increases in security in those compounds.

Of course, as you know, Ambassador Jordan had repeatedly gone to the Interior Ministry top levels, Prince Nayef, who runs the Saudi Interior Ministry, high level member of the royal family, and is the prime example of a guy who has been in denial about this subject for some time. And he didn't act.

WOODRUFF: Are there top-level people still in Saudi Arabia in denial or have they been awakened?

ISIKOFF: Well, it's hard to say, because you would have thought -- remember, you just look at Prince Nayef. Again, he is, in many ways, the key guy we deal with in the war on terror in Saudi Arabia. He heads the security forces.

And he's a man who, after September 11, originally said that there was no al Qaeda presence in Saudi Arabia. Asked about Osama bin Laden and his whereabouts, he said -- this is a quote -- "This is not a subject of any interest to us." Last December, as recently as then, he had suggested that Jews were behind the September 11 attack and there was a Zionist conspiracy to drive a wedge between the United States and Saudi Arabia. And yet he is the man we are dealing with to track down al Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Now, it is unquestionably true that last week's attack was a real jolt to the Saudis. Remember, it was a reminder to them that al Qaeda's original goal was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. And I think this has emboldened them and gotten their attention in a way that nothing has before.

WOODRUFF: All right, let me pick up on something that Jim Walsh has said before this about al Qaeda now almost mutating, changing its form, having been thrown off its original, more stationary game, based in Afghanistan. Is that the same picture you're getting from the people you talk to

(CROSSTALK)

ISIKOFF: Oh, sure, yes. Adaptability is the key.

But what's, again, really striking, look at the suspects. One was a Canadian passport holder whose brother had been linked to the Bali bombing, had been captured last year. But this is a man who can travel with ease around the world because he holds a Canadian passport. And yet there is evidence that he had been in touch with top al Qaeda leaders. So that's scare.

Another really scary one was, there was a 19-year-old suspect. So this is not a guy -- a young Saudi guy -- this is not a guy who had been through the training camps in Afghanistan. He's a new recruit. It's an indication that they are still able to find new recruits, even as we capture so many of their top leaders.

WOODRUFF: So, the full circle, coming back to what President Bush said yesterday, al Qaeda is an organization we're beginning to get a handle on, in so many words...

ISIKOFF: That looks less and less like the case right now.

WOODRUFF: Michael Isikoff, "Newsweek" magazine, with some pretty grim reporting, thanks very much.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. Good to see you again. Thank you.

Well, as NEWSNIGHT continues, we're going to check some of the day's other important stories, as Canadian authorities confirm a case of mad cow disease and the United States cuts off beef imports from Canada.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: And coming up on NEWSNIGHT: the first case in a decade in Canada, mad cow disease. We'll look at how the U.S. is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: A few stories from around the country tonight, beginning with the state trial of Terry Nichols.

The judge overseeing the trial of the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf during arraignment today. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nichols' role in the bombing. He's already serving life in prison, convicted on federal conspiracy and manslaughter charges for the deaths of the federal law enforcement officers killed in the 1995 bombing.

A troubling discovery in Canada: A cow slaughtered in Alberta back in January has tested positive for mad cow disease. It is the country's first case in 10 years. Health officials said they think they have limited the spread of the disease, but, as a precaution, the U.S. Department of Agricultural said that it is temporarily banning Canadian beef.

And in Maryland, quite an educational project for thousands of middle school students: the living American flag. Baltimore-area kids have been creating the living American flag -- you can see them here -- for the last 20 years, an event to mark the Battle of Baltimore in 1814 and the song it inspired, "The Star-Spangled Banner." Those are children down there making up that flag.

There are few police departments that have had more trouble than the Los Angeles Police Department. A few weeks ago -- a decade ago, it was Rodney King. More recently, there was a massive corruption scandal, described as the worst the city had ever seen. Well, the LAPD has been trying hard to clean up its image, but it has found itself in the headlines again. A report in the "L.A. Times" of some accusations of police wrongdoing didn't make it to prosecutors until the statute of limitations had already run out.

More now from CNN's Charles Feldman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After reviewing police disciplinary records, as well as internal reports by prosecutors, "The Los Angeles Times" claims that as many as 96 LAPD officers suspected of wrongdoing avoided prosecution because the police department waited too long to hand the cases over to the DA's office.

Steve Berry wrote the story.

STEVE BERRY, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": The vast majority of the cases are misdemeanor cases. But many of those misdemeanor cases are serious, ranging from misdemeanor assault to battery, to lying, to falsifying reports. And there are a handful of felony cases involved in these cases, too, such as grand theft and perjury.

FELDMAN: A spokesman for the Los Angeles county DA says the numbers sound right to her, although no one from the DA's office has actually reviewed all the cases. The new man in charge at the LAPD of evaluating alleged police abuse cases says some are indeed filed late, but not because the department wants to get bad cops off the hook.

STEVE BERKOW, LOS ANGELES DEPUTY CHIEF: The delay is not caused by a lack of desire to do the right thing or caused by an effort to protect an officer, but rather just the opposite. The delay is caused by our efforts to avoid any mistake or misstep.

FELDMAN: But the chief deputy public defender for L.A. County says, failing to timely file police misconduct cases is an old story at the LAPD.

ROBERT KALUNIAN, LOS ANGELES PUBLIC DEFENDER: It's been a tradition within the department going back many years. They have a circle-the-wagons-type attitude when something of this nature occurs.

FELDMAN: For most of the two-year period examined by the paper, Bernard Parks was chief of police. He is now a city councilman.

BERNARD PARKS, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCILMAN: I think the only way you're going to be able to assess those 96 cases is to look at them individually and determine what were the reasons that they were not submitted.

FELDMAN: The nation's second largest municipal police force is currently operating under a federal consent decree aimed at correcting past cases of police abuse.

(on camera): And the LAPD has a new reform-minded New York City- imported police chief who department officials say has ordered a full investigation of all cases of alleged police abuse, no matter where it may lead.

Charles Feldman, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: And ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll more on this story from one of the people we just heard from. When we come back, we will be joined by former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Joining us now: someone you heard from just a moment ago in that piece from Charles Feldman. He is Bernard Parks, former Los Angeles Police Department police chief. Tonight, he happens to be in Philadelphia.

Mr. Parks, how could it be that something like 96 cases of police misconduct, and worse, have just fallen through the cracks?

PARKS: Well, first of all, Judy, I don't know if we can validate 96 have fallen through the cracks.

If you read Mr. Berry's story, several times, on some very critical cases, he's failed to interview the investigator that could have told him the information. And I think we also have to realize, Mr. Berry is the same reporter that, a couple years ago, wrote an inflammatory article about officers shooting mentally ill people, when, in fact, when the story was examined, none of them were mentally ill. And so I think we have to go back and look at the critical analysis before we can make judgments.

WOODRUFF: But there still is an acknowledgement on the part of officials in Los Angeles that something pretty bad has happened here, in that so many internal cases have not made their way to prosecution. What does this say about the way the police department is run?

PARKS: Well, first of all, Judy, I think if we go back to your story that I was just listening to, the DA's office, no one has looked at the cases that Mr. Berry has talked about.

The public defender made a general statement that this is historical, with no basis. I think, again, it's not a matter of whether the department is being run bad. Let's look at the material. What we would find if we looked at the material is that, until Mr. Cooley became the DA, there were no real guidelines on what should have been submitted to the DA. You'll also find that, prior to Mr. Cooley, there was a standing verbal agreement amongst -- with the DA that certain cases would not be submitted.

WOODRUFF: We should say, Cooley being the new district attorney.

PARKS: The new district attorney.

There was an agreement certain cases would not be brought to the DA and that internal discipline would be sufficient to address the issue. And so, until we can go through each of these 96 cases, identify those that may have had a verbal rejection from the DA or fit the DA's guidelines, I don't think we can classify LAPD as doing a bad job or that investigators have purposely not done their job.

WOODRUFF: Do you know for a fact, though, of your own personal knowledge, that many other, say, dozens of other instances of police misconduct were ultimately prosecuted during this same time period?

PARKS: I think, if we look at cases that you find, that hundreds of cases are taken to the DA and many of them are not prosecuted for a variety of reasons. And that's why there's a guideline as to what is produced.

I think what's inflammatory is that someone would identify the number 96, which would cause a great deal of concern. But if you read the material in the article, you do not find a clear understanding of what's the basis of those judgments. And each one of the cases in LAPD has a fly sheet inside the case that gives a historical perspective of what is happening on the case, who's contacted, and what the DA may have given them advice verbally. And so, until you know that, it's difficult to make a general statement that it was done improperly.

WOODRUFF: I hear what you're saying about the reporter, that there was a failure to interview investigators, that there weren't guidelines and so forth. But when you put all this together, when you look at the kinds of things that these officers were accused of, falsifying reports, stealing a pistol, coming to work intoxicated and so on, it does -- the picture that one gets is of a troubled police department.

PARKS: Well, I think, if you look at that information and also read the article, they did not state whether the officers were even found guilty in many of those circumstances in the internal investigation.

And so, if the officers were not found guilty and they were merely allegations, that may account for why they did not get submitted to the DA. And so, we can make judgments that it's a troubled department, but, again, we're evaluating an incomplete report and one that has not been thoroughly evaluated, so that you could make a proper judgment.

WOODRUFF: So, in other words, if I ask you what the department needs to do to restore confidence, you're saying, we still need to find out more about whether anything really happened here.

PARKS: Well, I think, if we look at restoring confidence, the department works daily to maintain the confidence of the community.

And the issues that deal with whether it was rampart, the fact that LAPD identified rampart, investigated it, brought officers to justice, fired a number of officers, ended up prosecuting officers. Rafael Perez is in prison, a variety of people. Every day, the department attempts to maintain its credibility in the department. And these kinds of stories do not help us, particularly when they're incomplete investigations.

WOODRUFF: All right, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, we thank you very much, current city councilman.

PARKS: My pleasure. Thank you very much.

WOODRUFF: Thank you very much. It's good to talk to you.

Money cannot buy everything -- we all know that -- including a winning baseball team -- the story of the team that beats the odds and other teams from Michael Lewis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: His name is Michael Lewis and he has a great talent for finding the vivid characters and the unconventional wisdom in places like Wall Street, the scene of his best-known book, "Liar's Poker." Well, he's done that again with a new book called "Moneyball."

And, Michael Lewis -- the subtitle, "The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" -- what are we talking about here?

MICHAEL LEWIS, AUTHOR, "MONEYBALL": Well, the unfair game is baseball, because it's the one sport where teams have dramatically different amounts of money to spend on players.

And Major League Baseball has been saying for years that it's sort of ceasing to become an athletic competition and it has become a financial competition instead of an athletic competition. And the one great exception to that is the Oakland Athletics. It's a team that has won lots and lots of games with no money. So I moved into the life of their general manager for the last year and tried to determine why it was they were doing so well.

WOODRUFF: And his name is Billy Beane.

LEWIS: His name is Billy Beane.

WOODRUFF: And he's an unusual character.

LEWIS: Oh, he's a great character. He's the best at what he does.

And what he has done is, in response to being permanently poor -- they figured out in Oakland they weren't going to have money years ago and that they were going to have to compete in some other way. They have gone about, more or less, systematically rethinking the game and looking for the inefficiencies in the game.

And the first thing I thought, actually, when I met him and saw how they were doing and what they were doing, is, I was watching this great Wall Street trader who had figured out how to get better information about the things he was trading. They just happened to be baseball players instead of stocks and bonds.

WOODRUFF: What gave Beane the confidence to do what he did?

LEWIS: That's a great question.

I think a big part of it is that he was maybe the hottest prospect, baseball prospect, in the country when he was in high school. And he was meant to become a big-time sort of All-Star baseball player. And he was drafted by the New York Mets in the first round. He went there instead of taking a scholarship to Stanford. And he had 10 miserable years in the minor leagues and then kind of as a bench player in the Major Leagues.

He learned firsthand that the conventional wisdom of baseball scouts about baseball players is flawed, because they thought he was great and he actually wasn't very good at all. And so he's built his team, actually, out of people who are, in many ways, the opposite of himself and built his team out of players that, in many cases, other teams didn't want.

WOODRUFF: So is this a formula that's going to work for any other or every other team out there?

LEWIS: Well, what's likely to happen is, the insights that they've gained about baseball and having to rethink it and their ability to find hidden values in players that other people haven't seen, that -- those insights are likely to spread. And they are spreading. The Toronto Blue Jays and the Boston Red Sox have, in the last 18 months, more or less openly said that: We're reinventing our organizations in the image of the Oakland A's.

So he's found this knowledge and it is spreading slowly. Big league baseball is very resistant to any kind of change. And what I found so incredible about the story was that anyone in this hidebound culture was trying to do anything differently.

WOODRUFF: What did Billy Beane and the Oakland A's think about being exposed by your book?

LEWIS: You know, I think that Billy Beane probably has -- I know he has one probably legitimate criticism.

And that is that I have captured him, novelistically, in the most intense moments of his day of all of last year. And so it captures him in his most manic state of mind. And so it didn't get the whole man, but it wasn't a biography. The business of exposing their secrets, interestingly, they don't feel that frightened about that, because I think they think that, if anybody cared to know them, they would know them by now and that other teams have been really kind of resistant to the idea there is such a thing as finding out -- finding new knowledge about baseball.

WOODRUFF: Well, if it's by Michael Lewis, it's a great read. The book is "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game." And, of course, he's talking about baseball.

Michael Lewis, it's always terrific to talk to you.

LEWIS: Judy, thanks a lot.

WOODRUFF: Thanks very much.

In our next half-hour here on NEWSNIGHT: part two of my interview with Sandra Day O'Connor.

And up next: Annika Sorenstam prepares to tee it up with the men.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) * the famed athlete Babe Diedrickson (ph), who once gave this advice for good golfing. She said, "It's not just enough to swing at the ball, you got to loosen your girdle and really let the ball have it."

Well, for the latest woman to play in a PGA event, the challenge, we suspect, has nothing to do with loosening girdles. It is managing the intense scrutiny she is under after deciding to compete with the men.

Today, Annika Sorenstam spoke out about that scrutiny from Fort Worth, Texas, where the Colonial tournament begins on Thursday.

The story from CNN's Josie Karp.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSIE KARP, CNN SPORTS (voice-over): Annika Sorenstam faced her first major challenge at the Colonial on Tuesday away from the golf course. At a pre-tournament press conference, she sat for almost an hour in the glare of the spotlight and still had trouble comprehending that decision she made three months ago led to this.

ANNIKA SORENSTAM, 43 CAREER LPGA VICTORIES: I'm still overwhelmed, and I can't believe how many of you guys are here. I mean, it's great. But I think when I accepted the invitation, I must have been very naive. You know, I'm doing this to test myself, and I didn't think everybody else wanted to test me at the same time.

KARP: Sorenstam said her goal when the tournament starts on Thursday is to shoot even par. If she does that, she'll likely make the cut, the measuring stick most experts are using to determine if her calculated risk is a success.

Along the way, the world's best female golfer will have to prove she can withstand demands that are more than physical.

SORENSTAM: You know, mentally, I mean, I've -- you know, this is -- you know, I like to compare myself, maybe, with a mountain climber. This will be Mount Everest for me, and I believe I have practiced for this for years. And now I'm here, and, you know, I've -- you know, I personally feel like I got nothing to lose. You know, nobody expects anything from me. You know, I expect to play well.

KARP: With her blonde ponytail and exclusive access to Colonial's ladies' locker room, playing well is the only way Sorenstam will fit in on this golf course.

SORENSTAM: This is once in a lifetime opportunity, and I want to enjoy the week. And, you know, I -- everything around it is so different than I'm used to, obviously, playing with the guys, you guys, the golf course, that, you know, I'm in an environment that I'm not really used to. So, you know, those are factors that I have back in my mind.

KARP (on camera): To try to put Sorenstam's mind at ease, one high-profile PGA tour player has been providing moral support. According to Sorenstam, Tiger Woods has called three times in the last week, offering advice and letting her know that even though he's not here, he will be watching.

Josie Karp, CNN, Fort Worth.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: More now on the PGA tour and the question of Annika Sorenstam competing in the Colonial with Rachel Nichols. She is national sports reporter for "The Washington Post." She's in New York tonight.

Rachel, is Annika Sorenstam going to make the cut, first of all? What do you think?

RACHEL NICHOLS, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I'm not sure if she is going to make the cut. I'm not sure if she needs to make the cut for her. She wants to see how she's going to do on this course, and making the cut isn't really in her scheme of what she's looking for. But I think a lot of other people are going to be looking to see if she makes the cut.

And it's going to be tough for her, because it's a much longer course than she's used to, and the greens play very fast. She's going to really have to depend on her short game in the end, and I'm not sure she's going to be able to do that.

WOODRUFF: She said she's doing this to test herself, and you were just referring to that. And yet she had to have known that everybody was going to be watching.

NICHOLS: There's no question that she knew there was going to be some interest. I think she was being a little modest there. But I don't think she realized just how many people wanted to turn this into something else, into a women's movement, into a thing about embarrassing men. One of the former PGA champions said, She's either going to embarrass herself or embarrass a lot of men out there. And I don't think Annika feels that way. I think to Annika, this is really about what the best sports has to offer. It's about getting your fingernails dirty, it's about trying hard, breaking the four- minute mile, outdoing broadbeam in an along job (ph).

It's about doing what you're not supposed to be able to do, and she's going out to try to do that. And it's not making a statement about something larger.

WOODRUFF: And she can't do all that on the women's tour?

NICHOLS: Well, you have to remember that she's been the most competitive player on the women's tour for years now. Think about all the great things you've heard of Tiger Woods doing, and then multiply that by four. She's dominated. She is so -- she's the winner before she walks in every time.

And she's a very competitive person. This is a woman who does 700 situps a day. This is a woman whose husband won't play chess with her any more because she throws the pieces across the room.

So she wants to...

WOODRUFF: So...

NICHOLS: ... test herself against something more, and this is a great way for her to do it.

WOODRUFF: So if she is so good, why, then, is there any doubt she's going to make the cut? Why is -- why can't she play against the good men players?

NICHOLS: Well, obviously golf isn't like a sport like tennis or a team sport, so playing against a man in terms of strength isn't an issue here. In that way, she'll have an easier time. But the courses on the PGA are longer. She's going to have to hit for more distance. There's more rough. I think the greens are going to be a little bit more difficult for her.

And the pressure is going to be enormous. Annika is such a competitive person that sometimes she's had trouble in big tournaments because the pressure just eats up on her.

And I don't think that there's any question this is going to be the most pressure-filled event of her career.

WOODRUFF: What are the male golfers saying about this?

NICHOLS: I think a lot of them are not so happy. I think a lot of them feel like it's fine if she plays, but not if she beats me. I think a lot of them feel, Why can't she just go...

WOODRUFF: Well, Vijay Singh decided not to play, right?

NICHOLS: Not to show up at all, which I think didn't score him a lot of points. But he's always been that kind of guy. He's certainly always been the kind of guy to just go to his own drummer.

I think that some people are happy for her. Tiger Woods certainly has been supportive, although you'll notice that he's not there this week either. Some guys -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Price has said, Gee, I'm the defending champion, why isn't anybody talking to me about that?

So I think some guys are upset that she's stolen their limelight.

But you have to remember also that Annika's from Sweden, which is one of the few countries that is maybe more progressive than we are on women's rights and women's participation. I think their parliament's 45 percent women.

So to her, this isn't maybe as big of a gender thing as it is to other people. Her country, they actually have a minister of sport, and it's a woman.

WOODRUFF: Rachel, is this a one-shot thing where she's just doing this, and it'll be kind of a, you know, a one-day wonder kind of thing and we'll forget about it? Or does this in any way really open doors for women golfers down the line?

NICHOLS: I think it is going to be maybe a one-shot thing for her, although she may come back and play occasionally. Those doors are opening anyway. There's a woman who's a -- just a club pro in Connecticut who qualified for a PGA event later in the year, and she's going to play. Michelle Wee (ph), who is a 13-year-old wonderkid, she hits the ball a mile, she said she's going to play in some women's events.

So Annika's the first one to do it in 58 years, and I think by playing this event, she's taking some of the pressure off of those lesser-known, lesser-accomplished women. And they're going to have an easier time, and that's kind of a nice thing for them.

WOODRUFF: Rachel Nichols is a national sportswriter for "The Washington Post." And we're going to know, what, Thursday and Friday whether Sorenstam makes the cut, right?

NICHOLS: Absolutely. And then maybe you'll see her play a little bit on Saturday.

WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you very much. Great to see you. We appreciate it.

NICHOLS: Thanks.

WOODRUFF: As NEWSNIGHT continues, "The Times," "New York Times" scandal, as the reporter involved tells his side of the story.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: The latest now on the scandal that has been the talk of the news media business for weeks, revelations that a reporter named Jayson Blair committed a massive journalistic fraud in the pages of "The New York Times." We've heard apologies from the editors at "The Times," a parade of pundits weighing in on every imaginable angle.

But Blair himself, who he is, what motivated him, has remained very much a mystery.

Well, it is somewhat less of a mystery now. Sridhar Pappu is media columnist for "The New York Observer." He landed an interview with Jayson Blair, and he joins us now from New York.

Sridhar Pappu, do you understand better now why Jayson Blair did what he did?

SRIDHAR PAPPU, MEDIA COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK OBSERVER": I -- to tell you the truth, I don't. What I do understand is that he's -- he himself is trying to figure that out himself.

He -- I guess -- he -- there's several things that come into it, and people have brought it up, that he's too young, that he was a black reporter at "The Times," and he addresses that. And he said all of that stuff plays in. There's also been allegations of drug use, and in my conversation with him, he confirmed that.

And while he said that he was not using drugs at the time that his major deceptions at "The Times" were going on, that some part of him makes him think that that played a part in the story.

WOODRUFF: He is -- he still must be very much sorting through what happened. It's only been a few weeks since all this became public. I mean, I wonder how he can even do an interview with someone like you asking him very, very tough and probing questions, and even know that he's telling you the truth, frankly.

PAPPU: Well, what seems more surprising is that he started working on his book, a book about his life at "The Times." It seems a little bit premature for that, as well.

WOODRUFF: How much -- let me just interrupt. How much is race a part of this? And how open was he about that?

PAPPU: He was very open about race. And, I mean, the most surprising comment he made to me was that anyone who thinks that race was not a factor in what happened to him at "The Times" is -- was -- is an idiot. But he makes a point that -- and it might seem odd -- that while he received racial preference, he's also the victim -- or, he says, of racial discrimination at "The Times."

WOODRUFF: Victim in what way?

PAPPU: He won't elaborate, because he's saving it for his book.

WOODRUFF: Oh. But he -- OK. And what about the other piece of that, the fact that he was protected, sheltered, in many ways, because of his race? PAPPU: Well, and that's one thing that surprised me as well. I mean, he went out of his way that he's -- to say that he wasn't protected, and that fact he was an antagonist of managing editor Gerald Boyd, who's been widely reported to be his major protector at the paper.

He -- that was the most surprising thing that he actually said to me.

WOODRUFF: Is this -- do you come away from talking to him, I'd say, worried more about the state of American journalism, or looking at this as an isolated incident, set of instances, or what?

PAPPU: I -- it's hard to sort of ascribe larger context, having talked to him just for the hour and a half that I spoke to him yesterday. And what I came away with is a man who is deeply troubled. He's troubled about what he did, but he's also largely, surprisingly, unrepentant. He's sorry for his actions and sorry for his colleagues, but he's largely unrepentant for what it's put the institution of "The Times" in.

WOODRUFF: Unrepentant, and what about his mood overall? How would you describe it?

PAPPU: He seemed good. He was -- he is, as the news reports have put it, a very engaging person. He's lively, he's funny, he grabs your attention. You know, he can captivate you.

WOODRUFF: And not angry.

PAPPU: He is angry.

WOODRUFF: A mixture.

PAPPU: yes.

WOODRUFF: All right. Sridhar Pappu, we're going to have to leave it there, media critic with "The New York Observer."

PAPPU: Thanks, thanks.

WOODRUFF: Thanks very much.

Coming up next on NEWSNIGHT, part two of my interview with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as she talks about women and minorities on the court and her future plans. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Term limits, you know, could be called one of the more reassuring mechanisms of American politics. After all, if you don't like someone, you disagree with their politics, you can just vote them out when their term is up.

This, however, is not the case with the United States Supreme Court. Instead, justices of the court are installed in the highest court in the land until they choose to leave, or until they die. It's much more permanent, and therefore much more political.

An open seat carries with it a tremendous weight. I talked about that and about court nominations and about what it was like being the first woman there with Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: You've also spoken about being the first woman and being for many years the only woman on the court. Along came Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, about, what, 10 or 12 years after -- 12 years after you had been...

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Yes, thankfully.

WOODRUFF: ... on the court.

O'CONNOR: Thankfully.

WOODRUFF: Did that make a difference?

O'CONNOR: It made an enormous difference. When I arrived, there had been a large amount of media attention to the selection of a woman, and then to see what that woman did under all circumstances. And too much attention for any reasonable comfort level.

And the minute Justice Ginsberg came to the court, we were nine justices. It wasn't seven and then the women. We became nine. And it was a great relief to me, and I'm sure it was welcome to Justice Ginsberg.

WOODRUFF: Do the two of you have any sort of special bond because you're the first women?

O'CONNOR: Well, certainly. We're both appreciative that we have at least two of us here. Very much so.

WOODRUFF: Shouldn't there be more? I mean...

O'CONNOR: I'd welcome it.

WOODRUFF: By the same token, and this is back to what you and I were just discussing, does it matter that there -- whether there is or isn't, for example, an Hispanic justice on the court?

O'CONNOR: Well, we'd welcome that too, I'm sure. For the very reasons I gave you earlier, in a broad sense, people take a certain level of comfort and looking around and seeing who's in office in ways that affect the public.

WOODRUFF: What do you think of this characterization of you as the most powerful woman in America, or, as "The New York Times" put it a little more modestly, America's most powerful jurist?

O'CONNOR: Well, I think you have to take that with a heavy, large grain of salt, because I think every member of this court has a certain degree of authority on behalf of the court, but we have an equal voice. And I'm no more powerful than anyone else on this court. That's for sure. And collectively, we do render opinions that matter to people.

But I've never looked upon myself or the role of the court as being all-powerful.

WOODRUFF: At the same time, you are characterized again and again as a crucial swing vote.

O'CONNOR: I think that's something the media has devised as a means of writing about the court. And I don't think that has a lot of validity either.

WOODRUFF: I've even heard lawyers and law professors use that term, because, very clearly, Justice O'Connor, you have weighed in on some very close decisions on this court.

O'CONNOR: Well, we have...

WOODRUFF: Some very visible -- Excuse me.

O'CONNOR: ... we've had many close decisions through the years I've been here. I think the court was more closely divided in the first 10 years, in a way, than it is today. And there have been many, many five-four decisions. So perhaps that's just been a factor of the times as well.

WOODRUFF: A number of these decisions, and you also talk about this in the book, have been very political, visibly political decisions. Obviously the 2000 presidential election, Bush vs. Gore. There have been other affirmative action decisions and so on and so on.

O'CONNOR: Well, I don't describe those as visibly political decisions. Some of the decisions we've had to make have been on subjects that have been of particular interest to the media, and therefore perhaps to the public. Or maybe it's visa-versa, of interest to the public and hence to the media.

And it's true that a certain percentage of the cases we hear are the ones you tend to read about more or hear more about, but I really don't classify them as political issues. We consider here abstract propositions of federal law. And they're really kind of far removed from the action that got the issue here. By the time it comes here, there's been a filtering-out process.

WOODRUFF: The current -- in connection with that, the current nomination process to the court, a lot of drama associated with that. It seems the last several presidents, some of their nominations have become, you know, just -- received enormous attention over whether these people are, quote unquote, "too ideological."

Why shouldn't a president be able to appoint whoever he wants to the Supreme Court as long as that person is qualified? O'CONNOR: The Constitution, in its customary brevity, says that appointment of federal judges, the nomination will be by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. And the role of the Senate in that process is not spelled out any further. It really is what the Senate decides to make of it.

In the -- for more than half of the history of the court, the Senate committees never asked the judicial nominees any questions at all. And it wasn't until about the time Justice Brandeis was nominated that the Judiciary Committee in the Senate asked him some questions, and then began the process of actually holding hearings, public hearings on it, in which the nominee was going to be in attendance and respond to questions.

And that custom continued to the present time.

Now, when you have a situation where the president is of one political party and the Senate is in the control of the other political party, it makes for a certain amount of fireworks, inherently. And what we have at the present time is a closely divided Senate. So there are lingering fireworks, I would say...

WOODRUFF: So...

O'CONNOR: ... in the process.

And under our system of selecting federal judges, there is a political component at the front end, when the president makes a selection and when the Senate exercises its role of advising and consenting.

WOODRUFF: All this is healthy, in your view.

O'CONNOR: Well, it's the system the Framers devised. And it's what we see unfolding.

WOODRUFF: Last question. A lot of speculation out there about your future plans. We notice you dedicated the book to your law clerks, past, present, and future. You've said you have no plans to retire. But my question is, have you given it any thought?

O'CONNOR: Oh, of course. I mean, I'm getting up there in age, so of course I think about, should I or should I not? But I haven't made the decision to do it.

WOODRUFF: Is it something that you spend a lot of time thinking about, or is it something you carve out a little of your...

O'CONNOR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I think that's enough, really. I just haven't made that decision.

WOODRUFF: There's also speculation about the chief justice and whether he might retire. If he did, would you like to be the chief justice?

O'CONNOR: No, I'm not seeking any new position. WOODRUFF: But the first woman chief justice, that has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

O'CONNOR: We'll have one someday. And, you know, our neighboring country, Canada, has one right now. Did you know that?

WOODRUFF: I didn't.

O'CONNOR: Yes. And she's a wonderful woman and has done a fine job. So it's nice to see. It can happen. And it undoubtedly will in due course.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke to us just a few days ago.

This is Judy Woodruff. That's it for NEWSNIGHT tonight. We'll see you tomorrow night. Thanks for joining 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