Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Analyzing the California Gubernatorial Debate

Aired September 24, 2003 - 23:00   ET

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

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


AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, good evening again. We're on late tonight because of the debate and we'll deal with the debate tonight. We'll talk for a while tonight about who did well, who did less than well, what the implications are in California.
But we will deal with some other things, too. And let me just take a moment to point some of them out, not the least of which is a discussion of Iraq with two very different and very compelling voices who one sees Vietnam in Iraq, the other sees media irresponsibility in the reporting of the war to the point it's endangering American lives.

Also Mitch Album will join us before we go just to soften things up a bit. So there is a lot to do in the next 90 minutes in NEWSNIGHT.

But we begin first with the debate. Perhaps debate isn't the right word for what happened in California tonight. The candidates were given questions days ago, lots of time for handlers to script out answers for candidates to memorize them.

Still, it was what it was and the only thing to point out at the top is the one debate Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed to participate in. So to a certain extent, all eyes were on him. We begin our coverage with CNN's Kelly Wallace in Sacramento.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, even though the candidates had these questions well in advance, it is fair to say it was a very spirited debate. All of these candidates came playing to win because they know they will never see an audience as big as the audience they had tonight.

This debate was broadcast live on television and radio throughout the state of California. It will dominate the front pages of every newspaper in this state tomorrow. So the stakes were very, very high.

But the pressure greatest on Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP front runner, because he has said this will be his only debate in this recall race. The other major candidates were expected to pointedly challenge him on the key issues, and they certainly did that.

But Schwarzenegger came out swinging as well. They battled over issues such as driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and providing healthcare to Californians and also, of course, what to do about California's budget deficit. The NEWSNIGHT team has put together a little highlight reel of some of what was discussed. Take a listen

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HUFFINGTON: The first thing I would do is close corporate tax loopholes because right now just in terms of how we are assessing commercial properties, we are losing about $2 billion in revenue.

It should be absolutely unacceptable that companies defraud the California public and then the state continues to do business with them. Is that the kind of business climate you'd like to bring to the state, the same kind of business climate that brought us Enron and Global Crossing and Adelphia and has cost millions of jobs and still paying that price. One more thing, Arnold...

BUSTAMANTE: Arnold?

HUFFINGTON: Yes. You talk...

STATHAM: 30 seconds is he seconds.

SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, let me say one thing. You personally personal income tax have the biggest loophole. I can drive my Hummer through it that's how big the loophole is. Let me tell you something.

BUSTAMANTE: We've done all the easy things and now it's time to do the tough things. That's why I submitted a plan. A plan that I call tough love for California. In that plan I raise tobacco taxes. I raise alcohol taxes. I raise the upper income tax bracket on the largest and the highest 4 percent of all Californians.

MCCLINTOCK: What makes you think that your $8 billion of tax increases is going to do anything differently than when Pete Wilson raised taxes $7 billion in 1991. Those taxes broke the back of the economy. They turned a recession into a near depression. And we actually ended up collecting a billion dollars less total revenue after those tax increases went into effect than we had been collecting before...

near depression. And we actually ended up collecting $1 billion less total revenue after those tax increases went into effect than we had been collecting before they had gone into effect.

BUSTAMANTE: Because I really believe, Tom, that the future of California is really in investing in our education.

SCHWARZENEGGER: So what you're saying is that the politicians...

BUSTAMANTE: There's probably a lot of things that

(CROSSTALK)

SCHWARZENEGGER: The politicians make a mistake. They keep spending and spending and spending. Then, when they realize they made a mistake and they have spent money they don't even have, then they go out and they go and tax, tax, tax? That's the answer to the problem? What about cutting spending?

(CROSSTALK)

BUSTAMANTE: No, Arnold. In fact, when I was speaker, we provided a middle-income tax cut.

SCHWARZENEGGER: What you have to do is, you put the spending cap on it.

BUSTAMANTE: We also provided tax cuts.

SCHWARZENEGGER: You guys have an addiction problem. You should go to an addiction place, because you cannot stop spending.

So, what happens, then, is if you spend, spend, spend, then you have tax, tax, tax. Then, all of a sudden, you, say where are the jobs? Gone, gone, gone.

BUSTAMANTE: Well, that what's happen when you simplify things.

CAMEJO: You will never say that the wealthiest people should at least pay the same tax rate as the average person. You will never say those words.

And, in fact, you've been raising the taxes in California on the poorest people, who pay the highest tax rate. And I'm the only candidate saying cut taxes on 60 percent of our people that are overpaying. I'm the only one who says it. But I want the rich to pay their fair share. And neither Tom or Arnold will say it. All you have got to say is, yes, Peter, you're right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And now let the spinning begin.

The candidates and their aides will be assessing tonight's performance. Schwarzenegger's aides went into this fairly confident. They think that Schwarzenegger will benefit from low expectations.

A lot of attention, though, also, on state Senator Tom McClintock, the Republican candidate, who has faced some pressure from Republicans to step out of this race. Also, Aaron, Davis' aides, aides to Governor Gray Davis, the embattled governor who was not here at this debate tonight, were on hand, because they say they were going to watch this debate closely, knowing their strategy for the remaining days of this campaign to try and defeat the recall would depend a lot on how the candidates did tonight -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you. Why don't we let you go listen to the spinners spin. And if you can pick up stuff that's worth reporting, come back and talk to us. We've got plenty of time tonight. Thank you, Kelly Wallace.

Jeff Greenfield is here, our senior analyst, part-time resident of California.

Let me start off with a question. I know you've got some things you want to talk about.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Sure.

BROWN: Was Gray Davis the loser tonight?

GREENFIELD: That's a very intriguing question. And I think, to some extent, he was, because -- I agree with Kelly.

This was a very spirited debate. The fact that the questions were known in advance did not prevent a pretty lengthy, untimed exchange. And for people who thought that none of these people can step up to the plate and succeed Gray Davis, if that's what they were hoping for tonight, they didn't get that. There was a lot of substance in this debate.

BROWN: Because there has been, particularly over the last week, I think, this perception that nobody was exactly setting the world on fire. None of the other candidates were. And so maybe, rather than go for somebody who is inexperienced or this or that, maybe just stick with what you have got and see how it goes.

GREENFIELD: Yes.

If they were hoping for an international pig fight, to used the cleaned-up version of that phrase, they didn't get it tonight. They got a very -- Kelly is dead right. This was a very lively debate and had a lot of meat, as well as some interesting moments.

BROWN: All right.

Let's -- I don't know what order. But if I were picking the order, I would lead with Mr. Schwarzenegger.

GREENFIELD: Oh, you devil. Yes.

And Schwarzenegger, I thought, was clearly stepping out. He was not in any shell. He was -- he kept citing statistics, personal experiences and an occasional made-for-TV sound bite, as you'll hear in this little piece of business from Arnold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHWARZENEGGER: I visited companies here in California. I visited the farmers and the small companies, big companies, vendors, and all this stuff. Everyone is saying the same thing. California, we have a three-strike system. You guys pulled wool over the people's eyes twice. The third time, now you're out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: Now, as far as Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor, the Democrat, he was "Cool Hand Cruz" tonight.

BROWN: He was, wasn't he?

GREENFIELD: He was Mr. reasonable, never raised his voice. Kelly Wallace played you this bite. I thought it was intriguing, because, if you remember what happened to Walter Mondale when he promised to raise taxes, you wouldn't have thought that a sitting politician would want to do that.

So let's hear again the specifics of what he's talking about on how to balance this budget.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSTAMANTE: We've done all the easy things. And now it's time to do the tough things. That's why I submitted a plan, a plan that I call tough love for California. In that plan, I raise tobacco taxes. I raise alcohol taxes. I raise the upper-income tax bracket on the largest and the highest 4 percent of all Californians. I do that. But, in return, we close the budget gap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: And that is a message aimed at Democrats. Come on out and let's vote to do what we Democrats like to do, which is to go after the wealthiest, as opposed to the middle class.

Now, Tom McClintock, in some ways the most interesting guy in the race, state senator, conservative, has refused to get out of the race. State Senator Brulte, the Republican leader of the Senate, endorsed Schwarzenegger. There are some signs that Darrell Issa wants McClintock out. McClintock...

BROWN: Darrell Issa being the person who funded the recall and then...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: And then fell on his own sword, as it were.

GREENFIELD: So, first, I want you to hear what McClintock said about what I think is, in California, a perennially under-the-surface, sometimes, but always potent issue, illegal immigration.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCLINTOCK: Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that's the strength of our nation. There are millions of people who are willing to abide by our immigration laws to come to this nation, become Americans and see their children grow up and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is the process of cutting in line in front of them. And I don't believe that we should be rewarding such behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP) GREENFIELD: However, the most interesting thing was what Tom McClintock did not say tonight. He did not direct a single criticism at Arnold Schwarzenegger, which may give us a hint of what's coming in the days ahead.

And, lastly, I cannot ignore Arianna Huffington, author, columnist. Arianna came to this debate with one goal, go after Arnold. No matter what you asked...

BROWN: Why?

GREENFIELD: I think for two reasons. First, he's the most visible candidate. And she is the candidate of the aggrieved liberal left. And she's trying to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big movie star.

BROWN: OK.

GREENFIELD: So there is this one interesting exchange where she goads Arnold. And this was one of the few times that Arnold kind of took the bait. And it's fun, so you should hear it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (I), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: This is completely impolite. This is the way you treat women. We know that, but not now.

STAN STATHAM, CALIFORNIA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION: So, would did you respond?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I would just like to say that I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in "Terminator IV." That's it.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: So that was that little bit where she is saying, we don't like the way you treat women. That's a reference to his alleged past. And Arnold came back with a Hollywood one-liner.

But I have to say once again that the degree to which Schwarzenegger enveloped himself with statistics, what the budget deficits were, what the long-term debt was, I think his advisers might be fairly happy tonight.

BROWN: All right, don't leave us here.

Let me bring Elizabeth Garrett into the conversation. You've seen here in a number of pieces that our correspondents have filed out of California. She's a law professor, director of the USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.

Nice to have you on the program.

ELIZABETH GARRETT, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

BROWN: We'll give you a hanging curve to start. What did you think?

GARRETT: Well, I thought that the strategies of the candidates were very interesting.

You saw two candidates really staying above the fray. McClintock and Camejo did not take a lot of the debate. They did not get into the free-for-all. Bustamante strived to stay apart from that. But there were a lot of lines that Bustamante used about the intelligence or the understanding of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And he even got into a back-and-forth with Arianna Huffington, where he was a bit condescending. I'm not sure how that will play.

And then you have Huffington and Schwarzenegger, who went at it with each other. Whether that's the kind of leadership people expect is a question. I have to say, I disagree a little bit with Jeff. I don't know that I thought Arnold did have as many statistics as one would have suspected. And some of them were old, the $38 billion figure with the deficit.

One would have thought that he might have had more statistics, particularly because some of the other people around him had lots of concrete proposals, statistics, maybe too many, but certainly more than Arnold.

BROWN: All right, now that I've got both in, let me -- I did not see the whole thing, because we were doing some other things at the time. But here is of what I saw. And just slap me around if I missed any of this or you just disagree.

I thought some of the Schwarzenegger one-liners, maybe if they had come from someone else, would have worked. But coming from him, I thought they fell flat, Jeff.

GREENFIELD: That's why I used that last example.

I think the one thing he did that he'll regret was the kind of: Hasta la vista, baby. i have a role for you in "Terminator IV."

When he dropped that line on Arianna Huffington, I thought, whoops, that's a false note, because I thought, for a lot of other debate, he was kind of the citizen politician, like Ronald Reagan used to call himself, who was angry at what had happened to his state. I think he would have been better served to put all of them away. Yes, I agree.

BROWN: OK.

Elizabeth, I thought one of the things that the lieutenant governor had to do was, if you will, demonstrate reasonableness. He has been seen as a kind of money-grubbing leftist over the last couple of weeks, at least in the national press. Did he succeed in that, do you think?

GARRETT: I think that is the case. He did seem very reasonable.

And, interestingly, a lot of the criticism he's gotten about taking money from Indian tribes did not come up in this debate, maybe a little aside from Arianna Huffington. But he was able to avoid some of those attacks that might have been problematic for him. I think that's largely because Arnold was in this debate, and so more of the attacks were directed at him.

I think Jeff is exactly right. He tried to point himself in the role of a citizen legislator. Notice what some of the other candidates did. They tried to align him with Pete Wilson, with Bush, with Enron, with Global Crossing, trying to not allow him that kind of a position in this debate.

BROWN: Well, yes, I thought that tug of war -- he talked about the politicians in Sacramento. I'll bet he said it in the parts I heard 10 times. And I remember Ms. Huffington at one point pointing out that he had taken $8 million, or whatever the number was, from business groups, merely to say, hey, he's just another politician.

Jeff, has he succeeded in being seen as an outsider?

GREENFIELD: I don't know.

And the reason I don't know is because that that was clearly the note he struck the night he announced, "I am not going to take money from anybody." The fact that he is surrounding himself with Pete Wilson's team has given his opponents and given Gray Davis a chance to try to define this race as just another party race. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Republican is the biggest -- one of the biggest liabilities he will have in a state that is voting so Democratic.

And I don't think he has yet has shaken that. And that's one of the reasons why they were coming after him the way they were, to tie him with Bush.

I want to make one quick point, because I don't want to forget it. We're all talking about what is going to happen with Tom McClintock. Will he pull out of the race?

BROWN: Right.

GREENFIELD: OK.

Between them, Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate, and Arianna Huffington have 5 percent of the vote. Right now, Bustamante is leading in one of these polls by two points. There would be a great irony if we had Camejo and Huffington playing the Ralph Nader role in 2003 by getting just enough liberal left votes not to with Bustamante to wind up tipping the whole thing, which is possible.

BROWN: To both of you, then, on the subject of Senator McClintock, Elizabeth, you, first.

Part of the strategy, it has seemed to me, of that campaign has been hope that Mr. Schwarzenegger messes up and that creates an opening where one didn't seem to exist. That did not seem to happen. The earth didn't seem to move that way. So where does he go?

GARRETT: Well, I think he's going to be in a very difficult position. He was clearly trying tonight to pose as the leader, the person the Republicans should gather around. And he both had to look like a leader and he had to hope that Schwarzenegger really messed up in this debate.

And while I don't think that Schwarzenegger came out with enough specifics to really flesh out his program, he was very successful. He seemed to enjoy this. He relished the debate. When he used some of his one-liners, he got applause. The three strikes and you're out, he got applause. So maybe specifics don't matter as much. If the Republicans look at the polling after this, at the reaction after this and believe that their best shot is Schwarzenegger, they're going to stick with him and put a lot of pressure on McClintock.

BROWN: I will say -- just again, I don't see the whole thing -- I found Senator McClintock very impressive today.

GREENFIELD: He probably knows more -- even his ideological opponents acknowledge that McClintock probably knows more as much about the budgeting process in California as anybody alive.

Whether that is a salient issue in a hastily called, strange gubernatorial election shall, I don't know. But I do suspect that the pressure on McClintock to withdraw will be, if anything, higher tonight, because, whatever you think about Schwarzenegger's role, it did not leave Republicans saying, my God, he can't win.

BROWN: Mr. Schwarzenegger, as you see, is at the podium talking to reporters. So we'll listen in a bit on that.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SCHWARZENEGGER: ... I feel comfortable with policy. And the second one is to show in which direction I want to take the state. That's what we need right now.

OK, thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll see you again.

BROWN: Arnold Schwarzenegger after the debate in California.

He's not the first candidate to say he thought he did exactly what he planned to do, I guess, Jeff. That's what you say when you come out. But he said some other things in all of that.

Anything you hear that you want to mention? Then we'll move on. We'll move back to the main event, I guess.

GREENFIELD: No. I just think that he was doing again in the post-debate spin -- he kept talking -- he was more than happy to field specific questions.

And I think, as I say, he showed just enough ankle. He's not a policy wonk. But I don't think he has to be a policy wonk to overcome the doubts about him. In other words, he doesn't have to say, here's what we're spending on secondary water treatment plants.

But the fact that he seems comfortable in talking about policy is a -- may just be enough. And you heard his full embrace -- the other thing, politically, the embrace of his Republican rival, Tom McClintock: I want to work with him in Sacramento.

BROWN: He's a good man.

Actually, I thought tonight -- and we'll bring Elizabeth and Tucker in, in a second as well -- that he was even more generous to Senator McClintock than I heard him the other day, when he seemed to be edging Senator McClintock a bit, saying, well, clearly the math would be better if only, and...

GREENFIELD: It's his decision to make.

He's got now the Republican Party. He's got, as I mentioned, Senator Brulte. He's got San Diego County supervisors. He's got the foot soldiers and the generals of the Republican Party, all with the same message: McClintock, get out. He doesn't have to do that.

BROWN: But the people who -- this is a good way to bring Tucker in, too, I guess. Tucker Carlson is with us.

Senator McClintock's natural constituency includes social conservatives. And those social conservatives, if they vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger, are going to do it uncomfortably.

Tucker, do you agree?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Yes. I mean, I think rational people in general would be uncomfortable voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And McClintock is not getting out. Keep in mind, he's been in California a long time. And he's very disliked by the liberal establishment in California, including former Governor Pete Wilson, because he's seen as obstinate and principled in a very inconvenient way. I don't see him getting out.

I have to say, I've never been hesitant to admit that I'm from California, but I'm starting to feel that way. It's just -- it's all so embarrassing. If you step back a little bit, tonight's debate was just -- it's hard to believe this is happening in California. And it's a measure of just how unpopular the current governor is, that something like this could happen.

And the fact that the people who ran the debate allowed Arianna Huffington to just completely take it over -- living proof, by the way, she is, that California does have an immigration problem, complete kamikaze candidate, and up there with Peter Camejo. And it, really, I thought, in the end, made Bustamante and McClintock seem like the only rational people on the stage.

BROWN: Well, we have three -- I guess we have 2 1/2 different takes on all this. Tucker, I'm coming back at you here. What I've heard from Elizabeth Garrett, what I heard from Jeff is that it was a pretty good toss-around of ideas. Everybody handled themselves well. Arianna Huffington was feisty, as you would expect. Mr. Schwarzenegger delivered a one-liner here, but showed enough policy interest. Everybody -- what was it that so turned you off?

CARLSON: Well, just the basic unseriousness of it.

It's sort of a big deal to be governor of California. Maybe this is because I'm from there, but it's a massive state, as you know. It's a vital state. These are banalities, but they're true. And the debate -- you might as well have had Gary Coleman up there. It was that sort of out of control, I thought.

And it just -- I don't know. It seems to me, it puts Democrats in a very tough position. If you're going to pretend -- if you're going to pose as a populist and you're going to make the argument again and again that, really, we ought to throw this open to the people and let the people decide and election as a pure democracy is always good, then how do you put the brakes on something like this?

Who is going to stand up and say, well, actually, maybe Gray Davis, for all his many faults, knows more about government than, say, Peter Camejo or Arianna Huffington? I know it's an unpopular to say, but it might be true. And there doesn't seem to be any adults around willing to say that, that maybe if you voted for Gray Davis, you ought to deserve to live with him for four years. I don't know. That seems rational to me.

BROWN: Jeff, weigh in. We'll just have a conversation for a while. We'll bring Elizabeth back in a second, too.

GREENFIELD: Well, to say that this debate was a feisty and interesting debate isn't to say that the recall process was good. There are plenty of things about the recall process that not only should be, but will be changed.

It's much too easy to get on the ballot. It's about as tough as joining the book of the month club. The recall standard has got to be higher, although it would have been met this time. But that's a different question. And the question I think -- I have just a disagreement with Tucker here. I thought -- I was expecting, when this process began, that we would see something out of an Evelyn Waugh novel like "The Loved One," or a satire of California lunacy.

I think you didn't see the clowns in this debate tonight. What you saw were people with different views batting it around in a pretty interesting way. I have seen an awful lot of government debates with nothing but career politicians. And I don't think those debates stand on a particularly higher plateau than this one.

The process needs fixing. I thought tonight was not a bad night for California.

BROWN: Elizabeth, now that you've heard Tucker's argument, are you at all persuaded that what you saw was not at all what you thought you saw?

GARRETT: No.

I actually agree with Jeff that this was not a bad debate. We saw lots of ideas out there. And it's interesting, I think, to see a debate with more than just the two-party candidates. Camejo had very different ideas than Bustamante, and then McClintock. Huffington was on the edge, but she certainly put out some issues that forced people to address them.

I have to say that, while Schwarzenegger did address policy issues, he did so at a very high level of generality: Let's bring businesses back, all very anecdotal. I sign checks. Businesses are under pressure.

But he doesn't give any specifics about how he'll deal with these difficult problems when he becomes governor. The real question to me is, are these generalities enough to convince Californians that he can make the difficult decisions later on, particularly when you have Bustamante, Camejo and McClintock putting out real policies and real programs?

BROWN: I heard Mr. Schwarzenegger once say -- or I read it -- I'm not sure which anymore -- details, details, details. Everyone wants details. Sacramento has got more details. What it needs is leadership. And I think that's in fact what he's selling, is: I'm a leader.

Now, whether he is a leader or whether he can persuade people he's a leader or whether being a really good actor, or an almost good actor, whatever he is, makes him a leader, if he can persuade people he's a leader, then he wins.

GREENFIELD: Yes. And I think there is always this argument in political campaigns as to, we need specifics. No, we don't.

Schwarzenegger's problem is because of where he comes from. He has to convince people that he is doing more than just flip lines, either that he thought up or his advisers did. And I do agree that the one problem this debate could produce for him is, there may have been a couple of those too many. But I think when he cites, for instance -- at one point in the debate, he was talking about the inherited debt of Californians.

BROWN: Right.

GREENFIELD: And he was talking about some of the numbers involved in workers compensation and what California has to pay. I don't think, in a debate, you need to do much more than that.

And if you are Schwarzenegger, I don't know whether this is like the dog that walks on its hind legs, that it's amazing that anyone did that at all.

BROWN: Yes.

GREENFIELD: Whether or not people expected him to come here and wear a belt of bullets and start throwing out just one-liners.

BROWN: Elizabeth, you're in the best position, I think, to answer this. Someone remarked to me yesterday that, in fact, this campaign has not been the big circus that the national media has portrayed it as, and that Mr. Schwarzenegger has come out with policy positions, and he has talked about policy. And maybe the rest of the country is seeing some of this for the first time, but Californians, on their local news and in their newspapers, have in fact seen this.

True?

GARRETT: Well, I think that's right.

This has not been the circus it's been portrayed. It's fun to focus on some of these strange candidates. It's fun to focus on all 135 people. But, in fact, we've had some real debates about policy. We've had some interesting new voices in this debate. In a regular debate, you would never see the kind of people that you saw today debating. Schwarzenegger would not be a leading Republican candidate if there had been a party primary.

So I actually think this has not been a bad process for California. I agree with Jeff. We're going to have some reforms. We need to think seriously about reforms. This can't be a perpetual process. But the campaign itself has really awakened political awareness.

We have voter registration that has just gone off the chart. We had 7,000 people register in the last seven hours of registration in Los Angeles County. So there is an enormous degree of involvement on the part of the citizenry.

BROWN: Tucker, I want to bring you back. I think you said -- when we first were talking, you threw out a bunch of things and something I think that kind of lost in the middle, if I heard it right.

You believe -- you're pretty confident that Senator McClintock is not going anywhere, that he will be there at the finish line?

CARLSON: Yes. Why would he leave?

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: All right, I'll tell you why. I can make an argument why he would leave. That's easy.

CARLSON: Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish my sentence.

I don't think he's running to win. He's not stupid. He knows he's not going to win. But he is running to make a point. He is a man of principle. He and Peter Camejo may be the only ones in there, Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate. He's there to prove that his beliefs are still alive, at least among some small group of people in California, and to push his own party to the right maybe just a little bit. So he's got nothing to lose, I don't think.

BROWN: He wants to push the California Republican Party to the right?

CARLSON: Yes, or at least not give up what tiny ground they still retain. I mean, the California Republican Party has been dominated by moderates and liberals for some time now, but there are still conservatives in central California, some in northern California, and maybe even some left in Orange County. And he represents them, and he wants to remind people that they're still here.

BROWN: You know more about this than I, but maybe I missed something in the primary, when Bill Simon, hardly the moderate candidate, defeated Richard Riordan, I thought the moderate candidate. It is my impression -- Jeff, weigh in here -- Ms. Garrett, weigh in here -- that the California Republican Part is, in fact, considerably more conservative than the electorate at large certainly, and hardly out of the mainstream of Republican politics in America.

GREENFIELD: If you go to Sacramento and look at the state legislature, that's exactly the point. Part of what's happened is reapportionment has made the districts more ideological. Certainly the leader of the state senate, and probably the most important Republican policy (UNINTELLIGIBLE). This is not a moderate Republican. This is a staunch conservative Republican.

It is true that the last few Republican governors elected, Deukmejian and Wilson, have been moderates. But the ranking file of California Republicans, as the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) showed us last -- in 2002, is pretty conservative. What shocked -- it didn't shock me. What interested me was that if McClintock was making a principled stand for conservative principles and thought of Schwarzenegger as an interloper with liberal social views, there was not one word of that in the debate tonight from him -- interesting.

CARLSON: I guess (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You look at where George W. Bush raises his money in California. I mean, every Bush money man in California is a moderate to liberal Republican. So perhaps at the very local level there is still conservatives in control of the machinery.

I don't think there's any way to say the party statewide is controlled conservatives. It's just now.

BROWN: Let me go around the group one more time.

Elizabeth, let me start with you. In any way, shape, or form do you think the earth moved tonight? Did anything happen that, in your view, will dramatically change the race?

GARRETT: I don't think so. I mean, certainly, the entire state was watching this. I'm sure there will be very high ratings. So it may well effect voters. At least two out of three voters were saying -- likely voters -- were saying this debate was going to play a roll in their decision. But whether they saw anything that's going to surprise them, I would be surprised. Perhaps most eyes were on Schwarzenegger. He did all right. I don't think he did a great job, but maybe that's enough to propel him forward.

BROWN: Tucker, you seem a little bit depressed tonight. Did the earth move at all from where you saw it?

CARLSON: Well, I'm not depressed. The best line of the night came after the debate, when Schwarzenegger said he hadn't appeared in previous debates because they pulled only a one share (ph) in the ratings.

BROWN: I agree.

CARLSON: That just said everything. I think this debate helps McClintock in the end.

BROWN: Thank you. That's an interesting point, actually. I know in my 54 years on the planet it's the first time I've ever heard a candidate after a debate talk about the relative rating points of one versus another.

GREENFIELD: Well, this is a country where we publish the ratings in daily newspapers and people know them a lot better than they know their candidates. I would make this point: I think this debate, which is probably the most watched on (ph) presidential debate in history -- it might be -- is going to help drive turnout way up.

My big fear for California is what happens election night. I think we could be heading with a vote count catastrophe with 135 candidates on the ballot. That is still hanging out there because of all those names on the punch cares, they're not in alphabetical order. Are you going to be able to find your candidate? That's the train wreck that I think is still a possibility.

BROWN: Jeff, Tucker, Elizabeth Garrett at USC, thank you all. This was an interesting half hour. And in the spirit of the night, at least from where I sit, it was a fun half hour to talk about all of this. We appreciate it.

There is, we should tell you -- we don't know if it will happen -- there is at least one more debate proposal out there. CNN-"LA Times" that has gone to the candidates, including Mr. Schwarzenegger. He didn't indicate that he felt the ratings would be big enough. We'll see if he changes his mind.

But, in any case, that's out there and that may happen. And they may duke it out one more time.

Thank you all.

We have a number of other things we're going to get to today. Richard Roth at the United Nations starts off a late "Whip," if you will.

Richard, it was an interesting day there. Give us a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Bush White House, Aaron, is not ready yet to hoist a beer for Oktoberfest. But White House officials seem to like what was brewing between German Chancellor Schroeder and President Bush -- Aaron.

BROWN: My goodness, you got two puns in there.

Next, to the Pentagon and questions of spying at Guantanamo Bay. Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, working that again today.

Jamie, the headline tonight.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the lawyer for Ahmad al-Halabi insists that his client is neither a terrorist or a spy. But the investigation of possible spying at Guantanamo and sympathy for al Qaeda is continuing. And sources say at least two other people are under surveillance -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, finally in this late "Whip," JetBlue caught up in a legal and PR mess over privacy and homeland security. Alan Chernoff with that.

Allan, a headline.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNFN CORRESPONDENT: The fight against terrorism becomes an invasion of privacy. Discount airline JetBlue is trying to dig itself out of a public relations nightmare after giving away information about passengers.

BROWN: Allan, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also ahead on this expanded edition of NEWSNIGHT, the courts step in to stop the do-no-call list. Well, supporters say they'll figure out a way to go ahead with the plan to stop telemarketers from calling people who don't want to be called.

We'll visit one American neighborhood deeply feeling the effects of the Patriot Act in this post-9/11 period, Brooklyn's Little Pakistan. And because we're a little late tonight, we'll have a better choice in morning papers, or at least a broader one. And we'll get to morning papers before tomorrow.

All that and more coming up on NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A year ago, if members of the Bush administration even mentioned the names of the French president or the German prime minister, it was in a closely-worded statement read through tightly- clenched jaws. Today, at the U.N., with the problems of Iraq no less urgent and the need for international help even greater, the French president remains a problem. As for his German counterpart, it's Gerhard.

Here's CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): At the General Assembly, the French continue to drive the Bush administration nuts over Iraq policies. But there was a crack in the deep freeze with another important European ally, Germany, and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Gerhard and I just had a very good meeting. The first thing I told him, I said, "Look, we've had differences and they're over. And we're going to work together."

ROTH: Schroeder won reelection campaigning against war with Iraq. U.S. officials had said he poisoned the relationship with America. But in the first major meeting between the two leaders in more than a year, Schroeder said he wanted to look to the future, including Iraq.

GERHARD SCHROEDER, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): I have once more said this to the president myself. I very much would like to come in and help with the resources that we do have.

THOMAS NEHLS, ARD GERMAN TV: There was no invitation not to the ranch, not to Camp David, not to Hanover, not to Berlin. But it's fine and it's business as usual again.

ROTH: However, at the U.N., the German leader said Afghanistan remains his country's top priority and failed to offer boots on the ground to help the U.S. in Iraq.

SCHROEDER (through translator): Germany stands really to support such a process. We are ready to combine humanitarian, technical and economic assistance, but also we could imagine training Iraqi security personnel.

ROTH: Training Iraqi security is a start, and U.S. officials were pleased with the thaw with Germany, especially compared to France, whose foreign minister was once again pushing for Iraqis to take power faster than the U.S. wants to give it to them.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): Only the Iraqi people will be able to find the new internal balances it needs. But for that, it must be able to count on the solidarity and assistance of the international community embodied, first of all, by the United Nations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Despite the public splits, U.S. officials tonight say they still expect to get their Iraq resolution through the Security Council within a month. However, they're talking more about tempering expectations, calling the resolution a catalyst to prompt countries to contribute money and troops for Iraq -- Aaron. BROWN: Just an observation. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) watching over the last couple of days, it has felt a bit like Iraq the sequel. I mean, the same characters back there.

When we talked to the president of Pakistan yesterday, he said he wouldn't even consider sending troops without a U.N. resolution. Is it going to be -- or do the Americans expect it to be a resolution with enough power, if you will, you convince a recalcitrant country like Pakistan to send troops?

ROTH: It may not have much way in the wording, but as British foreign secretary Jack Straw today put it, it's going to have more of a "psychological and political impact." So that's where they're looking now, just get something on paper and then hope that U.N. legitimacy will carry the day.

BROWN: That makes it sound like they just -- that it's not the substance that they care about anymore. It's just accomplishing something.

ROTH: That's right. It just seems like, let's move past what looked like a dead end, and let's call it a victory and move on to the next thing, which is what they're hoping to do with the Germans, even though Germany today didn't even offer troops, just training people. They're proclaiming it a victory so far. They said it was a good day with the Germans compared to the French.

BROWN: That's what the expectations are at this moment. Richard, thank you, as always. Richard Roth at the U.N.

Tonight, adding urgency to the mission of getting international help in Iraq, there is this, and I'm not sure if you heard this yet today. A top Marine Corps general today opened the door to another call-up of the Reserves. General Peter Pace said a decision will have to be made in the next four to six weeks to send even more reservists to Iraq, especially if troops from other countries are slow in coming.

With that hanging in the air, administration officials were on Capitol Hill talking about something no less difficult: money, billions of it. Here's CNN's Jonathan Karl.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The administration sent its big guns to Capitol Hill. Vice President Cheney; Paul Bremer, the man in charge in Iraq; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top generals all came to make their case to a skeptical Congress.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Is $87 billion a great deal of money? The answer is yes. Can our country afford it? The answer is also yes.

We believe it is necessary for the security of our country and the stability of the world...

KARL: Democrats pounded on Rumsfeld throughout the five-hour plus hearing.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: The American people have never been told that we're going into that country to build a new nation, to build a new government, to democratize the country, and to democratize the Middle East.

RUMSFELD: Well, Senator...

BYRD: The American people haven't been told that. They were told we're going in there because of weapons of mass destruction.

RUMSFELD: The American people were told by the president of the United States at the U.N. and here in the United States the reasons for going in. Once having gone in, the last thing we need to do is to turn that country over to another dictator like Saddam Hussein.

KARL: In another hearing, Paul Bremer said he could not say how much more money would be needed in Iraq in the future, prompting this...

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: With all due respect, if you can't give us an answer, you're stiffing us.

AMB. PAUL BREMER, U.S. CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR TO IRAQ: Well, Congressman, I resent that.

OBEY: Well, I do too.

KARL: Republicans, for the most part, defended the White House, although some Republicans think the $20 billion the president wants to spend on reconstruction on Iraq should be re-paid with Iraq's future oil revenues, an idea the administration opposes.

RUMSFELD: And the idea of adding an additional burden to the debts they already have was concluded to be the kind of thing that didn't work very well after World War I.

KARL: In a private meeting with the Republicans, Vice President Cheney offered a different reason for not using Iraqi oil money to repay the U.S. He said it would fuel the perception the U.S. fought the war to get Iraq's oil.

KARL: Sources at the closed-door meeting with Vice President Cheney said he also told Republicans that the White House would not cut and run from Iraq because the going gets tough. He said that is what the U.S. did in Somalia and in Lebanon, and now is determined to finish the job in Iraq regardless of what the cost is.

Jonathan Karl, CNN Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On to one of the many players in the new Iraq, whatever that turns out to be. For years, Ahmed Chalabi was the Western face of the Iraqi resistance, and to some, at least, the leader in waiting. The then and now questions about his clout and his character have complicated that role. He resurfaced at the U.N. this week as something of a thorn in the Bush administration's side.

Here's CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As this month's president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi interim government, Ahmed Chalabi finds himself front and center, but noticeably out of sink with Washington.

AHMED CHALABI, PRESIDENT, IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL: We feel that Iraqis are capable of sovereignty quickly.

KOPPEL: For the man who seemed to be in lockstep with the Bush White House, Chalabi's increasingly public lobbying for a transfer of authority within months to the 25-member unelected Iraqi Governing Council, and a greater say in spending billions in Iraqi reconstruction, has irritated U.S. officials who refuse to set a strict timeline.

BREMER: The only path to full Iraqi sovereignty is through a written constitution, ratified and followed by three democratic elections. Short cutting the process would be dangerous.

KOPPEL: A snappy dresser, with fluent English, an MIT degree, and Shiite Muslim roots in Baghdad, Chalabi led the now defunct Iraqi National Congress and pushed the envelope, hoping to convince a skeptical American public to support regime change in Iraq.

CHALABI: We support completely President Bush's call not only for the removal of the weapons of mass destruction, but for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of democracy.

KOPPEL: Chalabi's tough talk made him a fast favorite among Pentagon hawks who ordered him airlifted into Iraq by the U.S. military once the war ended. And despite disagreeing with current U.S. strategy, Chalabi continues to applaud the Bush administration for its role in toppling Iraq's former president, Saddam Hussein.

CHALABI: We have no disagreement with the United States' government. We are not at odds with the United States.

KOPPEL: Experts say Chalabi's fancy footwork could be about politics back home.

KEN KATZMAN, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE: He's trying to bolster his Iraqi nationalist credentials by seeming to argue for a quick turnover of sovereignty to Iraqis and a quicker end to the occupation.

KOPPEL (on camera): But the Bush administration isn't being quite as diplomatic. One senior administration official pointedly noting that Chalabi was just one of 25 appointed members of the council, while another official said that Chalabi and others were "biting the hand that feeds them."

Andrea Koppel, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On now to the spy investigation at Guantanamo Bay, if that what it turns out to be when all is said and done. It may end up that the men now being held tonight on suspicion of espionage did nothing more than try to offer a bit of human kindness to the prisoners they tended, a message to the outside world, that sort of thing. Things that break the rules, but nothing more.

That's what their relatives and lawyers are saying tonight. On the other hand, the rules were there for a reason and the stakes could be higher. And there's much we still do not know.

From the Pentagon tonight, CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): The military attorney for Senior Airmen Ahmad al-Halabi insists his client is not guilty.

MAJ. JAMIE KEY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Airman al-Halabi is not a spy, he's not a terrorist.

MCINTYRE: But military investigators say while the Arabic language translator was at Camp Delta, the super secure prison for al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, he gained access to some of the most sensitive and secret data about the detainees.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: What the heck is going on here? This is the Pentagon, not the INS.

MCINTYRE: The charge sheet for Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi lists dozens of security breaches, everything from downloading classified information to his laptop computer from a secure system, to gathering over 180 electronic versions of written notes from prisoners, to delivering unauthorized food; namely, baklava pastries.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Any time you have allegations like this, you always look at your procedures and your process. And that would be natural a moment. So we'll do that.

MCINTYRE: The Pentagon insists even before the arrest of Captain James Yee, a Muslim chaplain also suspected of, but not charged with, spying, it was reviewing procedures for appoint chaplains and the outside religious organizations that certify them. Chaplain Yee had studied in Syria, and al-Halabi is accused of sending information to unnamed Syrians. But Syria is denying any connection to either man.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA, SYRIAN CHARGE D'AFFAIRS: Syria is not concerned at all with any supposedly Islamic extremists that might be held in any American prison.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Now, al-Halabi's lawyer admits his client was on the way to Syria when he was arrested. But he insists it wasn't to pass secrets; it was only to get married. Military investigators, though, aren't buying it. They're assembling a pretty tough case. And one of the big questions that will face the convening authority is whether to handle this case as a death penalty case, because some of these charges could potentially carry the death penalty -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just one or two perhaps. He's accused of sending things to people in Syria. I suppose you can send them to the relative of someone in Syria, or you can send them to Syrian intelligence. What are we talking about here? Do we know?

MCINTYRE: Well, according to these charging documents, it looks like he had information about the exact identities of each of the people detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Their identification numbers, detailed plans of the facilities, flight -- information about flights in and out of the facilities, this is information that could compromise security of the base. So they're taking it very seriously.

It's not known who he was sending it to in Syria. It's just named in the documents as "citizens" of Syria.

BROWN: Got it. But, again, these are the allegations. Jamie, thank you. Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Still ahead on this edition of NEWSNIGHT, the sales call millions of people thought they would stop getting on the first of October, a judge putting a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the do-not-call list.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A federal district court judge in Oklahoma issued a ruling today on telemarketing, an especially lonely one by the looks of it. When the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year gave Americans an opportunity to get on a Do Not Call registry, millions of people snapped at the chance in the first few days alone. A week from now, those on the list expected they'd be able to eat their dinners or watch a movie or just enjoy life without a salesman ringing them up on the telephone, and they still might.

Many legal experts say the judge didn't have a leg to stand on. And the FTC has already promised to appeal. We begin with CNN's Greg Clarkin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello?

GREG CLARKIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Telemarketers finally found someone who listened, and their sales pitch struck gold. A federal judge struck down the national Do Not Call list. The judge said the Federal Trade Commission didn't have the power to create the list in the first place, a ruling that riled the troops in Washington.

REP. BILLY TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE: But it is something that Americans -- 50 million Americans -- have said they absolutely want the advantage of. And we are determined before we leave this session of Congress to make sure they have the advantage of a Do Not Call list and that the legality of the FTC in establishing one is cleared up.

CLARKIN: Fifty million people signed up to put an end to the calls. The list was due to take effect October 1st. The telemarketing industry said $40 billion a year would be lost, along with two million jobs. They fought the list on free speech grounds.

TIM SEARCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: When the federal government said you could sign up to no longer receive commercial messaging everybody got excited, but the reality is that that's not the role of the federal government to decide what kinds of commercial messages you receive and what kind of commercial messages you don't receive.

CLARKIN: But Congress can still make the list a reality.

JUDITH O'NEILL, TELECOM LAWYER: Simply for Congress to be very specific and to state that they specifically grant jurisdictional authority to the Federal Trade Commission to implement the no call registry. It's as simple as that.

CLARKIN (on camera): Telemarketers are fighting the list in federal court in Denver as well. And a ruling there could come shortly. So with a week to go, there's plenty of legal wrangling. And even with their victory, telemarketers say it's too soon to predict if they'll be calling you come October 1st.

Greg Clarkin, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: You had briefly from Tim Cercy already in Greg's piece. He represents the telemarketing industry. He joins us again from Indianapolis.

I guess you won the battle today. This is the smaller of the cases, because the Denver case, if I've got this right in my mind, is the broader constitutional case. Is that right?

SEARCY: Good evening, Aaron. You're absolutely right. The bigger issue is that it's possible for legislators to go ahead and fix the problems that the judge identified in the Oklahoma case.

As Chairman Tauzin and Representative Dingle (ph) pointed out, they certainly have the power to go ahead and legislate that the Federal Trade Commission has authority in this matter. But what they can't legislate is constitutionality. The reality is, when this was first created by the FTC, and then supported again by the FCC, they went ahead and created two classes of speech which violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, ultimately, we believe that it will be struck down on constitutional grounds, which is, as you pointed out, probably the bigger issue. BROWN: Just to help viewers a little bit, there are actually, I think, two constitutional questions here. You talked about two classes of speech. The bill exempts certain kinds of speech, certain telemarketers political and religious, as I recall, right?

SEARCY: Yes. There's tremendous irony in that the non-profits and charities, which make some sense, are exempted from this. But the politicians have taken special pains to exempt themselves. So it's still fine for them to call ahead and ring you up and talk to you.

BROWN: Well, except that -- well, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that we have always looked at the first amendment as protecting ultimately political speech. I mean, that's the underlying part of it. But let's leave that for a second, if you don't mind.

SEARCY: OK.

BROWN: Let me deal with it more practically for a second. Fifty million people, OK? Fifty million people are saying, leave us alone. You know? What does that tell you?

SEARCY: Well, it tells me two things. First and foremost, it says that the amount of commercial messaging that's going on in the United States right now is troubling to consumers. And when they get an outlet, like a federal Do Not Call list, as a means by which to alleviate that commercialism in their lives, they express their frustration by opting for it.

The second point that it tells me is that we, as an industry, need to recognize that our constitutional rights come with them a certain amount of responsibility. You know we started off by trying to get the FTC and the FCC to come to the table and help us craft something in terms of self-regulation that made sense. Our initial comments, when they asked for comments for the update to the telemarketing sales rule and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in both cases we came back with what we thought were good ways to look at issues related to a company's specific lists, voluntary lists, et cetera, that existed.

The FTC and FCC weren't interested in working with the industry. They wanted a political sound bite, and so they crafted a poorly constructed law that went outside of the bounds of the jurisdictional guidelines granted to them under Congress.

BROWN: Well, I mean, ultimately, a court will decide that. It seems to me that maybe a different way to look at it -- and I don't know if you'll agree with this -- is that they wanted an easy and convenient way for people to deal with what has become a huge annoyance in their lives. And they have no confidence that you guys are going to do it.

SEARCY: Well, I'm not certain that that's true. Prior to Tim Muris taking over the Federal Trade Commission, we had worked with the FTC and the FCC to craft voluntarily guidelines that, according to their own records, had been proven to be effective in curbing fraud and abuse. The two biggest issues that were dealt with in the congressional mandate that was given to them.

I mean, the reality is, is that we recognized that there are some responsibilities we as an industry have in trying to create a better set of standards, a means by which consumers can work with us and receive more calls that they want to receive, and have a way to opt out of calls that they don't want to receive. But that doesn't give the federal government the right to legislate convenience.

The comments that you've made so far indicate that indeed convenience is what we're asking the government to get involved in. We don't believe at any point in time does it make sense for the federal government to decide who should be calling you, who shouldn't be calling you, and what they can talk about. That's what the first amendment is there for, that's why we argue in the courts and not in the court of public opinion.

BROWN: But here's -- I think you and I actually went through this once before. And I still don't get it, so we'll try it one more time. If I put up on my property a "Do not trespass," you cannot come up and sell me your knives, period. You do not have a free speech right to do that. All I feel like I'm doing by calling the Do Not Call list is putting up a "Do not trespass" sign on my phone.

SEARCY: Yes. But see, Aaron, here's the problem with that argument. Even if I bought it for a minute, which I can guarantee you I don't...

BROWN: And I didn't expect you to for a moment.

SEARCY: But if I bought that for a second, it doesn't make sense that the federal government is the one who puts the sign up and then says, no trespassing, except for politicians and charities.

BROWN: Well, no. The federal government didn't put the sign up. I put the sign up. The federal government merely was the enforcement mechanism.

SEARCY: No. I mean, to your point...

BROWN: I made the decision.

SEARCY: To your point, though, the federal government put the two big exceptions under your statement that said no trespassing.

BROWN: Absolutely.

SEARCY: And by doing that they violate the U.S. Constitution. See, Aaron, to your point, there are a number of ways for your to voluntarily opt out of receiving calls that don't involve the federal government and have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. But when they get involved, exempt themselves, and create two classes of speech, they're going to lose in court. And we're going to wind up hopefully being able to drive them back to a table with us, where we can craft something that's more appropriate.

BROWN: Well, you know I know you believe that, and honestly I believe you to be nothing but an honorable person. And this is just one man's experience talking. I've tried all the things you say I should have tried. They don't work. They haven't worked with me.

SEARCY: Well, here's the problem that I see with that, Aaron, is that when I talk to folks about fraud and abuse, which is when you've asked for people to take you off the list and they haven't taken you off the list and you still get the calls, when you've asked to be put on other types of lists and the calls still come, that's about enforcement of current laws. One of the things the federal government is terrible about is enforcing the laws that they create. They'd rather just make more laws.

More laws make for better press. Enforcement doesn't seem to be something the congressional people and regulators have much time for.

BROWN: Well, you weren't looking forward to the enforcement of this law, I can tell you.

SEARCY: I would have preferred that they started by enforcing the laws that they had, by meeting with industry, by crafting policy that made sense and was constitutional, and by taking themselves out of the role of curbing commercial speech.

BROWN: Just quickly, finally, do you agree that this is fundamentally a problem of your industry's own making?

SEARCY: Well, I haven't found an industry in the United States right now that doesn't have a public image problem. I doubt you can find one as well. Everything from the Catholic Church to being a news reporter right now is being criticized in the press. So certainly we have an image problem, but I don't think we're unique.

BROWN: Good to talk to you again. Today was a good day for you. We'll see how the days ahead go.

SEARCY: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: Appreciate your time. Thank you, Tim.

On to the issue -- this, too, fits right in, doesn't it? E-mail spam and the state of California's full-fledged attack on that. We'll see how that survives in the courts. A new law has been signed by Governor Gray Davis that bans commercial e-mail sent or received in the state unsolicited.

The bill, which takes effect the first of January, calls for fines of up to $1 million, and targets not just spammers, but the company whose products and services are being advertised. Entire industries depend on this.

Another Internet story now that got a lot of people's attention today. Microsoft says it will shut down three online chat rooms in more than two dozen countries around the world and limit services elsewhere, because the company believes the chat rooms are being used to solicit children for sex. CNN technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, has that. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft says the chat rooms provide cover for pedophiles, distributors of pornography, and spam.

GEOFF SUTTON, EUROPEAN DIRECTOR, MSN: And we've been watching and seeing how that's been growing. And it's been very clear that, particularly in the free and unmoderated chat rooms, it's very difficult to police and very difficult to deal with. And, therefore, we consider them to be unsafe. Microsoft is a company that takes its responsibilities as a leader in the industry very seriously.

SIEBERG: Children's advocates in Britain say it's about time.

CAROL VORDERMAN, U.K. ANTI-PEDOPHILE CAMPAIGN: This is a day of celebration. The world's biggest online service provider has said, look, we cannot protect children in our chat rooms. We are closing them down.

SIEBERG: The chat rooms will remain in the U.S., Canada, Japan and Brazil, with safeguards in place so the company knows who is using them. But some free speech advocates say losing the chat rooms will have an unintended consequence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The chat room closures, especially in developing countries, will contribute to the digital divide. Those folks won't be able to get on to free chat anymore. And even in the United States, Canada, and Japan, the decision to charge for services will create almost like a gated community online.

SIEBERG: Tech analysts say there may also be financial reasons behind the shutdown, which happens October 14th. Policing chat rooms is labor-intensive and expensive. And that's not a good business model when the service is free. Rivals who provide chat rooms and instant messaging, including Yahoo and AOL, part of CNN's parent company, have not announced any changes in their service.

Daniel Sieberg, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Until recently, JetBlue was known for getting the kinds of headlines normally associated with walking on water, not running an airline. In a business where bankruptcy and grumpy passengers are the norm, JetBlue has been both profitable and wildly popular. Then it was learned the airline had turned over million of passenger records to a Defense Department contractor. Some passengers filed suit, and suddenly JetBlue finds itself in a tough spot for doing what it believed at the time was the right thing in the "new normal."

Here's CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Discount airline JetBlue says it was trying to help in the fight against terrorism. Responding to a request from the military, JetBlue shared passenger names, addresses, phone numbers, and flights with the so-called information mining company, Torch Concepts. Torch then bought detailed personal information from a database company to build an airline passenger risk assessment. It included the data of one specific unnamed passenger, information that was presented at a conference and posted on the Worldwide Web.

JAMES MCCONKIE, ATTORNEY SUING JETBLUE: JetBlue violated its own privacy policy. If you look on the Internet to get a ticket, what happens is they state there that they will not give this information to any third party.

CHERNOFF: JetBlue issued a letter of apology, saying it was a well-intentioned attempt to assist the Department of Defense in a national security matter. The Army says it did contract with Torch, but only to study its data technology, not to create airline passenger profiles. Some JetBlue passengers are annoyed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think that everyone is entitled to their privacy when flying airlines.

CHERNOFF: Others are understanding.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I see no problem at all with JetBlue providing a Defense contract with information to make the airlines safer.

CHERNOFF: It is a question that could effect all U.S. air passengers. The Transportation Security Administration is planning to weed out potential terrorists with a computerized pre-screening system. While the government says it won't collect personal data, privacy rights groups are concerned.

MARC ROTENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORY, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: Air travelers shouldn't be required to sacrifice all of their privacy. And then whatever the government does, there needs to be some oversight and accountability.

CHERNOFF: JetBlue says it won't participate unless required by law.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: In the post-9/11 world, Americans face a delicate balance between protection and privacy. The effort to protect can easily lead to unwanted crime. Not only are airlines placed in a very uncomfortable position, but so is the federal government, which wants to avoid the appearance of acting like big brother -- Aaron.

BROWN: What I found interesting about this story is there's really two issues here. There's the one you just talked about, this question of national security and privacy, and it's huge. The other is, here is this company that was sailing along, and people fly it say it's terrific, and they've done everything right, seemingly. Is there any way to know right now -- we're only four, five days into the story -- whether it's taken a hit?

CHERNOFF: The stock is actually doing beautifully. It was even up today in a very down market. And it seems that with the low prices, the apology from the company -- they seem to be straightforward with the company -- it seems that they're going to survive this pretty well.

BROWN: Thank you, Allan. I don't know why I felt I needed to say "um" before that. But thank you. Maybe because it's late.

Still ahead on the program, a trip to heaven, or at least Mitch Album's rendition of it. He joins us in a bit. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Consider Mitch Albom's summer as a sports columnist for the "Detroit Free Press." He could write about the hell that has been the Tigers' season and how they're on the verge of becoming the losingist baseball team of all time, or he could make up a story about happens when you get to heaven. Hint: you don't find the Tigers there.

Mitch's new book is called "The Five People You Meet in Heaven." It's good to see you. Very glad to have you. I know it's been a long day for you, and we appreciate you staying late.

MITCH ALBOM, AUTHOR, "THE FIVE PEOPLE YOU MEET IN HEAVEN": Oh, that's OK.

BROWN: I heard a line that you -- and you probably used it a bunch. You said there was this incredible pressure to write "Wednesdays (ph) with Morrie," having this hugely successful book six years ago. Perhaps that was...

ALBOM: Heaven calling.

BROWN: Yes. Give me the kind of broad strokes of what you decided on -- a novel, for one thing.

ALBOM: Yes. Well, I didn't want to do any franchised things with Morrie. I mean, I wrote that book as a labor of love to raise money for his medical expenses. And the fact that it became a big book was a happy accident, but it wasn't a career opportunity as far as I saw.

So I waited until I found another idea that I felt moved me as much as that story did. And I thought a lot about what happens next, you know? I watched the man die, and then I kind of started thinking, well, where does he go?

And I had this old uncle who told me this story. He was kind of an old tough guy, World War II veteran. He used to hit you in the arm when he said hello.

And he always told us a story when we were kids about how he had gone to this -- he had been rushed to the hospital for open heart surgery, and in the middle of the operation he woke up, kind of lifted from his body, and saw all his dead relatives waiting at the edge of the bed. And of course we would say, "Well, what happened? What did you do?"

And he said, "I told them, 'Get the heck out of here. I'm not ready for you yet.'" And they kind of scattered and he went back into his body.

But for all of those years, I kind of thought, well, that must be what happens when you die. There must be these people waiting. And I started to form the idea of sort of an homage to him, kind of a blue collar guy, kind of the opposite of Morrie.

BROWN: This is your uncle Eddie, right?

ALBOM: Uncle Eddie, right, and the character in the book is named Eddie. And what if, you know, a guy like him, who kind of worked his whole life, was a really honorable guy, but never saw himself as anything special -- says, "Oh, I didn't do anything, I didn't go anywhere, I never accomplished anything" -- what if maybe when he died and went to heaven actually that the trick of heaven was that there were five people waiting there to tell you how significant you actually were in ways that you didn't know. And that sort of became the outline of the book.

BROWN: And there's Eddie.

ALBOM: He didn't always look like that -- the bathing suit part.

BROWN: That's a nice bathing suit. But it's a novel, it's not a -- and can you sort of briefly draw us a picture of one of the five, or does it give too much away?

ALBOM: Well, no. I will say one that the people seem to be coming to is he does get to meet his wife, who died young. And he gets a chance to ask her, you know, "Well, why did you leave me so soon?" And he says to her at one point, you know, "I never loved anybody else." And she says, "I know."

And he says, "How do you know?" She says, "I felt it, even here." He said, "Here, you felt it?" And she said, "That's how strong lost love can be."

And I think over the course of the six years since "Tuesdays With Morrie," I've met so many people who have lost people they've loved who have wanted to believe that what they felt went somewhere. And I think it kind of found its way into this book.

A lot of those experiences and stories I've heard have (ph) found. And so, yes, some of the people he meets he knows well; some of them he doesn't. It's sort of accidental. It's all about how people connect in people's lives.

BROWN: And the underlying idea is we may not understand how we touch people sometimes, the lives we change, the way we influence people. But all of us, whether we're plumbers or whatever, cable TV anchors, touch somebody.

ALBOM: The cable guys maybe more than you think. Give yourself credit. But I'm walking proof of that, Aaron. I mean, I'm living that life.

You know, an old man who nobody knew told a story to me and touched me. I wrote a book to help him out. People read it, passed it on. And then people come up to me and say, "Well, your book changed my life." And I don't even know who they are.

BROWN: Well, at what point -- and you're probably tired talking about that book -- but at what point did you realize that "Morrie" was this extraordinary moment? I mean, it was six years on the best -- I think it's still on the best seller list -- the paperback best seller list, isn't it? I mean, how far into it? I mean, was it weeks, months?

ALBOM: Well, probably weeks when I started hearing people talking about it. And then I remember one incident in less than a year after it had been out that a guy came up to me at a book store and he was shaking. And he was just shaking and he grabbed my arm, and everybody thought he was going to hurt me. And he started to cry and he said, "My wife died last week, and the last thing we did together was read your book out loud to one another. And I just want to hold on to you because it makes me feel like I'm closer to her."

That's when I think I realized that this wasn't just, you know, your average book in terms of its effect.

BROWN: When -- this question is actually going somewhere -- when the book came out, when "Morrie" came out, was it well received? Reviewers received it well?

ALBOM: It didn't get reviewed.

BROWN: It didn't?

ALBOM: I mean, nobody paid any attention to it. It was a really small book.

BROWN: Because you're you now, this will get reviewed. And my guess is that you'll get some that are terrific and some that are OK, because that's the way reviewers work. Are you prepared for that?

ALBOM: Oh, yes. You know I'm walking proof that you don't know what's going to happen with a book. I mean, "Tuesdays with Morrie," nobody even wanted to publish, let alone review. And look what happened there.

So my feeling is, if you write from the heart, you'll find your way to your readers. And I don't think readers need critics to tell them how to feel.

BROWN: It's great to see you. We're big fans of all of the many different hats you wear. You wear a number of them. Thanks for coming by. I know it's late tonight. ALBOM: Yes, thank you. I know. I appreciate you having me.

BROWN: Thank you, Mitch, very much.

Morning papers, we're already there. But, no, not quite. First, some of the after effects of September 11th.

This is an intriguing little story about an immigrant community that is disappearing slowly. We'll take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The notion of America as a giant melting pot, welcoming all foreigners to become part of the greater whole, is an ideal that's becoming more and more difficult for many immigrants to accept, especially if those newcomers are Muslims. What happened on September 11th, of course, has everything to do with that. It means being meticulous if you're a cop or a border guard. But if you're on the opposite side of that particular equation, it means you feel trapped.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): The attacks on 9/11 changed a lot in America. In Brooklyn's Little Pakistan, they seem to have changed everything.

MOHAMMED KHAN, CAB DRIVER: Business is gone. Everything is slow. Restaurants are empty, you know? People, you know, they're all gone.

BROWN: An immigrant's dream has been replaced by something else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Pakistanis are in fear of the INS...

BROWN: There are reasons to be fearful. Many here have overstayed their visas. They are illegals. And illegals from their part of the world are being targeted for detention and deportation.

Mohammed Razvi provides legal help.

MOHAMMED RAZVI: What are we losing here? We're losing immigrants who came to this country for that freedom, and they're leaving here in sorrow that now this is no longer the land of the free, basically. That's not what they were here for. That's what's sad.

BROWN: Many Pakistani immigrants have been sent home. Many others have simply fled. Once bustling, Coney Island Avenue is not the same street it was just two years ago.

RAZVI: This barbershop, it was in business before 9/11. After 9/11, when special registration initiative took place the guy migrated to Canada and left the place as is and just left.

BROWN: Most here know someone like Ansar Mahmood. A few weeks after September 11th, he says he was just taking photos to send back to his family in Pakistan. He wanted to show off his new home in Hudson, New York. Pretty pictures he was taking. One scene was near the town's water treatment plant, and that raised suspicion of a guard who took his picture. And the next thing, Mr. Mahmood knew the police were at his door.

ANSAR MAHMOOD, DETAINEE: They came like after one hour. Maybe 10, 15 people -- I don't know how many people. And a couple of them introduced me.

He said, "I am the special agenda (ph) of INS. I am the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Show me your card." And then he started asking questions about 9/11.

BROWN: Though he was never charged with anything related to terrorism, and he was in the country legally, he was charged with harboring illegals. And he's been held for 20 months now, fighting deportation, which isn't much of a fight. And his parents, who are still in Pakistan, cannot do much to help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If he was in Pakistan, he would borrow money to hire a lawyer for his case. But here, we can't do anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Ansar called and said that if I cried he would come back. So I stopped crying. I comforted myself by saying that at least he is alive.

BROWN: He fights to stay in America for the same reason immigrants have fought to stay here for 200 years.

MAHMOOD: What would it look like if I go back? What can I do over there? No jobs, nothing. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my family to suffer more and more, I have to keep fighting.

BROWN: Others have simply given up the fight, finding refuge in Canada or Europe or back home. Friday prayers in Little Pakistan used to fill the streets. No more.

No more busy stores either or shops. And dreams build on hard work and great hopes slip away.

CHAFIQ HASSAN, GROCERY STORE OWNER: Seventeen years, 14 hours, 18-hour day, and then we make a living here now. That's really tough. But still, we're working hard.

BROWN: The attacks on 9/11 changed a lot in America. In Little Pakistan, in Brooklyn, New York, they seem to have changed everything.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The view from Little Pakistan. Morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right. Time for morning papers. The advantage of being on this late is you get a great run of papers.

"The New York Times" will start it out. I've got to move pretty quickly, because there are a bunch of good ones.

Up at the top: "Draft Reports Said to Cite No Success in Iraq Arms Hunt. Four-month search By U.S., no illicit weapons found, but officials describe evidence of suspicious material."

And also on the front page, the Pentagon says it may need to call up more reservists. I think that's going to be a huge story in the country, because it affects big cities and small.

"The Washington Times" -- oh, I know why I picked this one, because it was next. "Arnold Steals Show in California Debate, Deflects Hits With Humor Levels, Criticism at Bustamante." I'm not sure I would have headlined the story that way, but it's not my newspaper, it's theirs. And that's what they did.

"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," the "No Call" list is on the front page, as it is on most papers that we've seen. But their big feature is a legendary case in the country, the lynching of Leo Frank. Newbrook (ph) names the leading local citizens, people in Atlanta, believed to have had a hand in the infamous crime. It's a great story if you don't know it. You might look it up on the Web.

That's NEWSNIGHT for tonight. I have to read this: For those of you watching this at midnight Eastern, an encore edition of the California debate is next. On the other hand, if you're watching a repeat of NEWSNIGHT after the repeat of the debate, we're repeating something else.

We'll see you tomorrow. Good night.







Aired September 24, 2003 - 23:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, good evening again. We're on late tonight because of the debate and we'll deal with the debate tonight. We'll talk for a while tonight about who did well, who did less than well, what the implications are in California.
But we will deal with some other things, too. And let me just take a moment to point some of them out, not the least of which is a discussion of Iraq with two very different and very compelling voices who one sees Vietnam in Iraq, the other sees media irresponsibility in the reporting of the war to the point it's endangering American lives.

Also Mitch Album will join us before we go just to soften things up a bit. So there is a lot to do in the next 90 minutes in NEWSNIGHT.

But we begin first with the debate. Perhaps debate isn't the right word for what happened in California tonight. The candidates were given questions days ago, lots of time for handlers to script out answers for candidates to memorize them.

Still, it was what it was and the only thing to point out at the top is the one debate Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed to participate in. So to a certain extent, all eyes were on him. We begin our coverage with CNN's Kelly Wallace in Sacramento.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, even though the candidates had these questions well in advance, it is fair to say it was a very spirited debate. All of these candidates came playing to win because they know they will never see an audience as big as the audience they had tonight.

This debate was broadcast live on television and radio throughout the state of California. It will dominate the front pages of every newspaper in this state tomorrow. So the stakes were very, very high.

But the pressure greatest on Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP front runner, because he has said this will be his only debate in this recall race. The other major candidates were expected to pointedly challenge him on the key issues, and they certainly did that.

But Schwarzenegger came out swinging as well. They battled over issues such as driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and providing healthcare to Californians and also, of course, what to do about California's budget deficit. The NEWSNIGHT team has put together a little highlight reel of some of what was discussed. Take a listen

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HUFFINGTON: The first thing I would do is close corporate tax loopholes because right now just in terms of how we are assessing commercial properties, we are losing about $2 billion in revenue.

It should be absolutely unacceptable that companies defraud the California public and then the state continues to do business with them. Is that the kind of business climate you'd like to bring to the state, the same kind of business climate that brought us Enron and Global Crossing and Adelphia and has cost millions of jobs and still paying that price. One more thing, Arnold...

BUSTAMANTE: Arnold?

HUFFINGTON: Yes. You talk...

STATHAM: 30 seconds is he seconds.

SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, let me say one thing. You personally personal income tax have the biggest loophole. I can drive my Hummer through it that's how big the loophole is. Let me tell you something.

BUSTAMANTE: We've done all the easy things and now it's time to do the tough things. That's why I submitted a plan. A plan that I call tough love for California. In that plan I raise tobacco taxes. I raise alcohol taxes. I raise the upper income tax bracket on the largest and the highest 4 percent of all Californians.

MCCLINTOCK: What makes you think that your $8 billion of tax increases is going to do anything differently than when Pete Wilson raised taxes $7 billion in 1991. Those taxes broke the back of the economy. They turned a recession into a near depression. And we actually ended up collecting a billion dollars less total revenue after those tax increases went into effect than we had been collecting before...

near depression. And we actually ended up collecting $1 billion less total revenue after those tax increases went into effect than we had been collecting before they had gone into effect.

BUSTAMANTE: Because I really believe, Tom, that the future of California is really in investing in our education.

SCHWARZENEGGER: So what you're saying is that the politicians...

BUSTAMANTE: There's probably a lot of things that

(CROSSTALK)

SCHWARZENEGGER: The politicians make a mistake. They keep spending and spending and spending. Then, when they realize they made a mistake and they have spent money they don't even have, then they go out and they go and tax, tax, tax? That's the answer to the problem? What about cutting spending?

(CROSSTALK)

BUSTAMANTE: No, Arnold. In fact, when I was speaker, we provided a middle-income tax cut.

SCHWARZENEGGER: What you have to do is, you put the spending cap on it.

BUSTAMANTE: We also provided tax cuts.

SCHWARZENEGGER: You guys have an addiction problem. You should go to an addiction place, because you cannot stop spending.

So, what happens, then, is if you spend, spend, spend, then you have tax, tax, tax. Then, all of a sudden, you, say where are the jobs? Gone, gone, gone.

BUSTAMANTE: Well, that what's happen when you simplify things.

CAMEJO: You will never say that the wealthiest people should at least pay the same tax rate as the average person. You will never say those words.

And, in fact, you've been raising the taxes in California on the poorest people, who pay the highest tax rate. And I'm the only candidate saying cut taxes on 60 percent of our people that are overpaying. I'm the only one who says it. But I want the rich to pay their fair share. And neither Tom or Arnold will say it. All you have got to say is, yes, Peter, you're right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And now let the spinning begin.

The candidates and their aides will be assessing tonight's performance. Schwarzenegger's aides went into this fairly confident. They think that Schwarzenegger will benefit from low expectations.

A lot of attention, though, also, on state Senator Tom McClintock, the Republican candidate, who has faced some pressure from Republicans to step out of this race. Also, Aaron, Davis' aides, aides to Governor Gray Davis, the embattled governor who was not here at this debate tonight, were on hand, because they say they were going to watch this debate closely, knowing their strategy for the remaining days of this campaign to try and defeat the recall would depend a lot on how the candidates did tonight -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you. Why don't we let you go listen to the spinners spin. And if you can pick up stuff that's worth reporting, come back and talk to us. We've got plenty of time tonight. Thank you, Kelly Wallace.

Jeff Greenfield is here, our senior analyst, part-time resident of California.

Let me start off with a question. I know you've got some things you want to talk about.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Sure.

BROWN: Was Gray Davis the loser tonight?

GREENFIELD: That's a very intriguing question. And I think, to some extent, he was, because -- I agree with Kelly.

This was a very spirited debate. The fact that the questions were known in advance did not prevent a pretty lengthy, untimed exchange. And for people who thought that none of these people can step up to the plate and succeed Gray Davis, if that's what they were hoping for tonight, they didn't get that. There was a lot of substance in this debate.

BROWN: Because there has been, particularly over the last week, I think, this perception that nobody was exactly setting the world on fire. None of the other candidates were. And so maybe, rather than go for somebody who is inexperienced or this or that, maybe just stick with what you have got and see how it goes.

GREENFIELD: Yes.

If they were hoping for an international pig fight, to used the cleaned-up version of that phrase, they didn't get it tonight. They got a very -- Kelly is dead right. This was a very lively debate and had a lot of meat, as well as some interesting moments.

BROWN: All right.

Let's -- I don't know what order. But if I were picking the order, I would lead with Mr. Schwarzenegger.

GREENFIELD: Oh, you devil. Yes.

And Schwarzenegger, I thought, was clearly stepping out. He was not in any shell. He was -- he kept citing statistics, personal experiences and an occasional made-for-TV sound bite, as you'll hear in this little piece of business from Arnold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHWARZENEGGER: I visited companies here in California. I visited the farmers and the small companies, big companies, vendors, and all this stuff. Everyone is saying the same thing. California, we have a three-strike system. You guys pulled wool over the people's eyes twice. The third time, now you're out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: Now, as far as Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor, the Democrat, he was "Cool Hand Cruz" tonight.

BROWN: He was, wasn't he?

GREENFIELD: He was Mr. reasonable, never raised his voice. Kelly Wallace played you this bite. I thought it was intriguing, because, if you remember what happened to Walter Mondale when he promised to raise taxes, you wouldn't have thought that a sitting politician would want to do that.

So let's hear again the specifics of what he's talking about on how to balance this budget.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSTAMANTE: We've done all the easy things. And now it's time to do the tough things. That's why I submitted a plan, a plan that I call tough love for California. In that plan, I raise tobacco taxes. I raise alcohol taxes. I raise the upper-income tax bracket on the largest and the highest 4 percent of all Californians. I do that. But, in return, we close the budget gap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: And that is a message aimed at Democrats. Come on out and let's vote to do what we Democrats like to do, which is to go after the wealthiest, as opposed to the middle class.

Now, Tom McClintock, in some ways the most interesting guy in the race, state senator, conservative, has refused to get out of the race. State Senator Brulte, the Republican leader of the Senate, endorsed Schwarzenegger. There are some signs that Darrell Issa wants McClintock out. McClintock...

BROWN: Darrell Issa being the person who funded the recall and then...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: And then fell on his own sword, as it were.

GREENFIELD: So, first, I want you to hear what McClintock said about what I think is, in California, a perennially under-the-surface, sometimes, but always potent issue, illegal immigration.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCLINTOCK: Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that's the strength of our nation. There are millions of people who are willing to abide by our immigration laws to come to this nation, become Americans and see their children grow up and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is the process of cutting in line in front of them. And I don't believe that we should be rewarding such behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP) GREENFIELD: However, the most interesting thing was what Tom McClintock did not say tonight. He did not direct a single criticism at Arnold Schwarzenegger, which may give us a hint of what's coming in the days ahead.

And, lastly, I cannot ignore Arianna Huffington, author, columnist. Arianna came to this debate with one goal, go after Arnold. No matter what you asked...

BROWN: Why?

GREENFIELD: I think for two reasons. First, he's the most visible candidate. And she is the candidate of the aggrieved liberal left. And she's trying to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big movie star.

BROWN: OK.

GREENFIELD: So there is this one interesting exchange where she goads Arnold. And this was one of the few times that Arnold kind of took the bait. And it's fun, so you should hear it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (I), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: This is completely impolite. This is the way you treat women. We know that, but not now.

STAN STATHAM, CALIFORNIA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION: So, would did you respond?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I would just like to say that I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in "Terminator IV." That's it.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: So that was that little bit where she is saying, we don't like the way you treat women. That's a reference to his alleged past. And Arnold came back with a Hollywood one-liner.

But I have to say once again that the degree to which Schwarzenegger enveloped himself with statistics, what the budget deficits were, what the long-term debt was, I think his advisers might be fairly happy tonight.

BROWN: All right, don't leave us here.

Let me bring Elizabeth Garrett into the conversation. You've seen here in a number of pieces that our correspondents have filed out of California. She's a law professor, director of the USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.

Nice to have you on the program.

ELIZABETH GARRETT, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

BROWN: We'll give you a hanging curve to start. What did you think?

GARRETT: Well, I thought that the strategies of the candidates were very interesting.

You saw two candidates really staying above the fray. McClintock and Camejo did not take a lot of the debate. They did not get into the free-for-all. Bustamante strived to stay apart from that. But there were a lot of lines that Bustamante used about the intelligence or the understanding of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And he even got into a back-and-forth with Arianna Huffington, where he was a bit condescending. I'm not sure how that will play.

And then you have Huffington and Schwarzenegger, who went at it with each other. Whether that's the kind of leadership people expect is a question. I have to say, I disagree a little bit with Jeff. I don't know that I thought Arnold did have as many statistics as one would have suspected. And some of them were old, the $38 billion figure with the deficit.

One would have thought that he might have had more statistics, particularly because some of the other people around him had lots of concrete proposals, statistics, maybe too many, but certainly more than Arnold.

BROWN: All right, now that I've got both in, let me -- I did not see the whole thing, because we were doing some other things at the time. But here is of what I saw. And just slap me around if I missed any of this or you just disagree.

I thought some of the Schwarzenegger one-liners, maybe if they had come from someone else, would have worked. But coming from him, I thought they fell flat, Jeff.

GREENFIELD: That's why I used that last example.

I think the one thing he did that he'll regret was the kind of: Hasta la vista, baby. i have a role for you in "Terminator IV."

When he dropped that line on Arianna Huffington, I thought, whoops, that's a false note, because I thought, for a lot of other debate, he was kind of the citizen politician, like Ronald Reagan used to call himself, who was angry at what had happened to his state. I think he would have been better served to put all of them away. Yes, I agree.

BROWN: OK.

Elizabeth, I thought one of the things that the lieutenant governor had to do was, if you will, demonstrate reasonableness. He has been seen as a kind of money-grubbing leftist over the last couple of weeks, at least in the national press. Did he succeed in that, do you think?

GARRETT: I think that is the case. He did seem very reasonable.

And, interestingly, a lot of the criticism he's gotten about taking money from Indian tribes did not come up in this debate, maybe a little aside from Arianna Huffington. But he was able to avoid some of those attacks that might have been problematic for him. I think that's largely because Arnold was in this debate, and so more of the attacks were directed at him.

I think Jeff is exactly right. He tried to point himself in the role of a citizen legislator. Notice what some of the other candidates did. They tried to align him with Pete Wilson, with Bush, with Enron, with Global Crossing, trying to not allow him that kind of a position in this debate.

BROWN: Well, yes, I thought that tug of war -- he talked about the politicians in Sacramento. I'll bet he said it in the parts I heard 10 times. And I remember Ms. Huffington at one point pointing out that he had taken $8 million, or whatever the number was, from business groups, merely to say, hey, he's just another politician.

Jeff, has he succeeded in being seen as an outsider?

GREENFIELD: I don't know.

And the reason I don't know is because that that was clearly the note he struck the night he announced, "I am not going to take money from anybody." The fact that he is surrounding himself with Pete Wilson's team has given his opponents and given Gray Davis a chance to try to define this race as just another party race. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Republican is the biggest -- one of the biggest liabilities he will have in a state that is voting so Democratic.

And I don't think he has yet has shaken that. And that's one of the reasons why they were coming after him the way they were, to tie him with Bush.

I want to make one quick point, because I don't want to forget it. We're all talking about what is going to happen with Tom McClintock. Will he pull out of the race?

BROWN: Right.

GREENFIELD: OK.

Between them, Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate, and Arianna Huffington have 5 percent of the vote. Right now, Bustamante is leading in one of these polls by two points. There would be a great irony if we had Camejo and Huffington playing the Ralph Nader role in 2003 by getting just enough liberal left votes not to with Bustamante to wind up tipping the whole thing, which is possible.

BROWN: To both of you, then, on the subject of Senator McClintock, Elizabeth, you, first.

Part of the strategy, it has seemed to me, of that campaign has been hope that Mr. Schwarzenegger messes up and that creates an opening where one didn't seem to exist. That did not seem to happen. The earth didn't seem to move that way. So where does he go?

GARRETT: Well, I think he's going to be in a very difficult position. He was clearly trying tonight to pose as the leader, the person the Republicans should gather around. And he both had to look like a leader and he had to hope that Schwarzenegger really messed up in this debate.

And while I don't think that Schwarzenegger came out with enough specifics to really flesh out his program, he was very successful. He seemed to enjoy this. He relished the debate. When he used some of his one-liners, he got applause. The three strikes and you're out, he got applause. So maybe specifics don't matter as much. If the Republicans look at the polling after this, at the reaction after this and believe that their best shot is Schwarzenegger, they're going to stick with him and put a lot of pressure on McClintock.

BROWN: I will say -- just again, I don't see the whole thing -- I found Senator McClintock very impressive today.

GREENFIELD: He probably knows more -- even his ideological opponents acknowledge that McClintock probably knows more as much about the budgeting process in California as anybody alive.

Whether that is a salient issue in a hastily called, strange gubernatorial election shall, I don't know. But I do suspect that the pressure on McClintock to withdraw will be, if anything, higher tonight, because, whatever you think about Schwarzenegger's role, it did not leave Republicans saying, my God, he can't win.

BROWN: Mr. Schwarzenegger, as you see, is at the podium talking to reporters. So we'll listen in a bit on that.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SCHWARZENEGGER: ... I feel comfortable with policy. And the second one is to show in which direction I want to take the state. That's what we need right now.

OK, thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll see you again.

BROWN: Arnold Schwarzenegger after the debate in California.

He's not the first candidate to say he thought he did exactly what he planned to do, I guess, Jeff. That's what you say when you come out. But he said some other things in all of that.

Anything you hear that you want to mention? Then we'll move on. We'll move back to the main event, I guess.

GREENFIELD: No. I just think that he was doing again in the post-debate spin -- he kept talking -- he was more than happy to field specific questions.

And I think, as I say, he showed just enough ankle. He's not a policy wonk. But I don't think he has to be a policy wonk to overcome the doubts about him. In other words, he doesn't have to say, here's what we're spending on secondary water treatment plants.

But the fact that he seems comfortable in talking about policy is a -- may just be enough. And you heard his full embrace -- the other thing, politically, the embrace of his Republican rival, Tom McClintock: I want to work with him in Sacramento.

BROWN: He's a good man.

Actually, I thought tonight -- and we'll bring Elizabeth and Tucker in, in a second as well -- that he was even more generous to Senator McClintock than I heard him the other day, when he seemed to be edging Senator McClintock a bit, saying, well, clearly the math would be better if only, and...

GREENFIELD: It's his decision to make.

He's got now the Republican Party. He's got, as I mentioned, Senator Brulte. He's got San Diego County supervisors. He's got the foot soldiers and the generals of the Republican Party, all with the same message: McClintock, get out. He doesn't have to do that.

BROWN: But the people who -- this is a good way to bring Tucker in, too, I guess. Tucker Carlson is with us.

Senator McClintock's natural constituency includes social conservatives. And those social conservatives, if they vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger, are going to do it uncomfortably.

Tucker, do you agree?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Yes. I mean, I think rational people in general would be uncomfortable voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And McClintock is not getting out. Keep in mind, he's been in California a long time. And he's very disliked by the liberal establishment in California, including former Governor Pete Wilson, because he's seen as obstinate and principled in a very inconvenient way. I don't see him getting out.

I have to say, I've never been hesitant to admit that I'm from California, but I'm starting to feel that way. It's just -- it's all so embarrassing. If you step back a little bit, tonight's debate was just -- it's hard to believe this is happening in California. And it's a measure of just how unpopular the current governor is, that something like this could happen.

And the fact that the people who ran the debate allowed Arianna Huffington to just completely take it over -- living proof, by the way, she is, that California does have an immigration problem, complete kamikaze candidate, and up there with Peter Camejo. And it, really, I thought, in the end, made Bustamante and McClintock seem like the only rational people on the stage.

BROWN: Well, we have three -- I guess we have 2 1/2 different takes on all this. Tucker, I'm coming back at you here. What I've heard from Elizabeth Garrett, what I heard from Jeff is that it was a pretty good toss-around of ideas. Everybody handled themselves well. Arianna Huffington was feisty, as you would expect. Mr. Schwarzenegger delivered a one-liner here, but showed enough policy interest. Everybody -- what was it that so turned you off?

CARLSON: Well, just the basic unseriousness of it.

It's sort of a big deal to be governor of California. Maybe this is because I'm from there, but it's a massive state, as you know. It's a vital state. These are banalities, but they're true. And the debate -- you might as well have had Gary Coleman up there. It was that sort of out of control, I thought.

And it just -- I don't know. It seems to me, it puts Democrats in a very tough position. If you're going to pretend -- if you're going to pose as a populist and you're going to make the argument again and again that, really, we ought to throw this open to the people and let the people decide and election as a pure democracy is always good, then how do you put the brakes on something like this?

Who is going to stand up and say, well, actually, maybe Gray Davis, for all his many faults, knows more about government than, say, Peter Camejo or Arianna Huffington? I know it's an unpopular to say, but it might be true. And there doesn't seem to be any adults around willing to say that, that maybe if you voted for Gray Davis, you ought to deserve to live with him for four years. I don't know. That seems rational to me.

BROWN: Jeff, weigh in. We'll just have a conversation for a while. We'll bring Elizabeth back in a second, too.

GREENFIELD: Well, to say that this debate was a feisty and interesting debate isn't to say that the recall process was good. There are plenty of things about the recall process that not only should be, but will be changed.

It's much too easy to get on the ballot. It's about as tough as joining the book of the month club. The recall standard has got to be higher, although it would have been met this time. But that's a different question. And the question I think -- I have just a disagreement with Tucker here. I thought -- I was expecting, when this process began, that we would see something out of an Evelyn Waugh novel like "The Loved One," or a satire of California lunacy.

I think you didn't see the clowns in this debate tonight. What you saw were people with different views batting it around in a pretty interesting way. I have seen an awful lot of government debates with nothing but career politicians. And I don't think those debates stand on a particularly higher plateau than this one.

The process needs fixing. I thought tonight was not a bad night for California.

BROWN: Elizabeth, now that you've heard Tucker's argument, are you at all persuaded that what you saw was not at all what you thought you saw?

GARRETT: No.

I actually agree with Jeff that this was not a bad debate. We saw lots of ideas out there. And it's interesting, I think, to see a debate with more than just the two-party candidates. Camejo had very different ideas than Bustamante, and then McClintock. Huffington was on the edge, but she certainly put out some issues that forced people to address them.

I have to say that, while Schwarzenegger did address policy issues, he did so at a very high level of generality: Let's bring businesses back, all very anecdotal. I sign checks. Businesses are under pressure.

But he doesn't give any specifics about how he'll deal with these difficult problems when he becomes governor. The real question to me is, are these generalities enough to convince Californians that he can make the difficult decisions later on, particularly when you have Bustamante, Camejo and McClintock putting out real policies and real programs?

BROWN: I heard Mr. Schwarzenegger once say -- or I read it -- I'm not sure which anymore -- details, details, details. Everyone wants details. Sacramento has got more details. What it needs is leadership. And I think that's in fact what he's selling, is: I'm a leader.

Now, whether he is a leader or whether he can persuade people he's a leader or whether being a really good actor, or an almost good actor, whatever he is, makes him a leader, if he can persuade people he's a leader, then he wins.

GREENFIELD: Yes. And I think there is always this argument in political campaigns as to, we need specifics. No, we don't.

Schwarzenegger's problem is because of where he comes from. He has to convince people that he is doing more than just flip lines, either that he thought up or his advisers did. And I do agree that the one problem this debate could produce for him is, there may have been a couple of those too many. But I think when he cites, for instance -- at one point in the debate, he was talking about the inherited debt of Californians.

BROWN: Right.

GREENFIELD: And he was talking about some of the numbers involved in workers compensation and what California has to pay. I don't think, in a debate, you need to do much more than that.

And if you are Schwarzenegger, I don't know whether this is like the dog that walks on its hind legs, that it's amazing that anyone did that at all.

BROWN: Yes.

GREENFIELD: Whether or not people expected him to come here and wear a belt of bullets and start throwing out just one-liners.

BROWN: Elizabeth, you're in the best position, I think, to answer this. Someone remarked to me yesterday that, in fact, this campaign has not been the big circus that the national media has portrayed it as, and that Mr. Schwarzenegger has come out with policy positions, and he has talked about policy. And maybe the rest of the country is seeing some of this for the first time, but Californians, on their local news and in their newspapers, have in fact seen this.

True?

GARRETT: Well, I think that's right.

This has not been the circus it's been portrayed. It's fun to focus on some of these strange candidates. It's fun to focus on all 135 people. But, in fact, we've had some real debates about policy. We've had some interesting new voices in this debate. In a regular debate, you would never see the kind of people that you saw today debating. Schwarzenegger would not be a leading Republican candidate if there had been a party primary.

So I actually think this has not been a bad process for California. I agree with Jeff. We're going to have some reforms. We need to think seriously about reforms. This can't be a perpetual process. But the campaign itself has really awakened political awareness.

We have voter registration that has just gone off the chart. We had 7,000 people register in the last seven hours of registration in Los Angeles County. So there is an enormous degree of involvement on the part of the citizenry.

BROWN: Tucker, I want to bring you back. I think you said -- when we first were talking, you threw out a bunch of things and something I think that kind of lost in the middle, if I heard it right.

You believe -- you're pretty confident that Senator McClintock is not going anywhere, that he will be there at the finish line?

CARLSON: Yes. Why would he leave?

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: All right, I'll tell you why. I can make an argument why he would leave. That's easy.

CARLSON: Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish my sentence.

I don't think he's running to win. He's not stupid. He knows he's not going to win. But he is running to make a point. He is a man of principle. He and Peter Camejo may be the only ones in there, Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate. He's there to prove that his beliefs are still alive, at least among some small group of people in California, and to push his own party to the right maybe just a little bit. So he's got nothing to lose, I don't think.

BROWN: He wants to push the California Republican Party to the right?

CARLSON: Yes, or at least not give up what tiny ground they still retain. I mean, the California Republican Party has been dominated by moderates and liberals for some time now, but there are still conservatives in central California, some in northern California, and maybe even some left in Orange County. And he represents them, and he wants to remind people that they're still here.

BROWN: You know more about this than I, but maybe I missed something in the primary, when Bill Simon, hardly the moderate candidate, defeated Richard Riordan, I thought the moderate candidate. It is my impression -- Jeff, weigh in here -- Ms. Garrett, weigh in here -- that the California Republican Part is, in fact, considerably more conservative than the electorate at large certainly, and hardly out of the mainstream of Republican politics in America.

GREENFIELD: If you go to Sacramento and look at the state legislature, that's exactly the point. Part of what's happened is reapportionment has made the districts more ideological. Certainly the leader of the state senate, and probably the most important Republican policy (UNINTELLIGIBLE). This is not a moderate Republican. This is a staunch conservative Republican.

It is true that the last few Republican governors elected, Deukmejian and Wilson, have been moderates. But the ranking file of California Republicans, as the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) showed us last -- in 2002, is pretty conservative. What shocked -- it didn't shock me. What interested me was that if McClintock was making a principled stand for conservative principles and thought of Schwarzenegger as an interloper with liberal social views, there was not one word of that in the debate tonight from him -- interesting.

CARLSON: I guess (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You look at where George W. Bush raises his money in California. I mean, every Bush money man in California is a moderate to liberal Republican. So perhaps at the very local level there is still conservatives in control of the machinery.

I don't think there's any way to say the party statewide is controlled conservatives. It's just now.

BROWN: Let me go around the group one more time.

Elizabeth, let me start with you. In any way, shape, or form do you think the earth moved tonight? Did anything happen that, in your view, will dramatically change the race?

GARRETT: I don't think so. I mean, certainly, the entire state was watching this. I'm sure there will be very high ratings. So it may well effect voters. At least two out of three voters were saying -- likely voters -- were saying this debate was going to play a roll in their decision. But whether they saw anything that's going to surprise them, I would be surprised. Perhaps most eyes were on Schwarzenegger. He did all right. I don't think he did a great job, but maybe that's enough to propel him forward.

BROWN: Tucker, you seem a little bit depressed tonight. Did the earth move at all from where you saw it?

CARLSON: Well, I'm not depressed. The best line of the night came after the debate, when Schwarzenegger said he hadn't appeared in previous debates because they pulled only a one share (ph) in the ratings.

BROWN: I agree.

CARLSON: That just said everything. I think this debate helps McClintock in the end.

BROWN: Thank you. That's an interesting point, actually. I know in my 54 years on the planet it's the first time I've ever heard a candidate after a debate talk about the relative rating points of one versus another.

GREENFIELD: Well, this is a country where we publish the ratings in daily newspapers and people know them a lot better than they know their candidates. I would make this point: I think this debate, which is probably the most watched on (ph) presidential debate in history -- it might be -- is going to help drive turnout way up.

My big fear for California is what happens election night. I think we could be heading with a vote count catastrophe with 135 candidates on the ballot. That is still hanging out there because of all those names on the punch cares, they're not in alphabetical order. Are you going to be able to find your candidate? That's the train wreck that I think is still a possibility.

BROWN: Jeff, Tucker, Elizabeth Garrett at USC, thank you all. This was an interesting half hour. And in the spirit of the night, at least from where I sit, it was a fun half hour to talk about all of this. We appreciate it.

There is, we should tell you -- we don't know if it will happen -- there is at least one more debate proposal out there. CNN-"LA Times" that has gone to the candidates, including Mr. Schwarzenegger. He didn't indicate that he felt the ratings would be big enough. We'll see if he changes his mind.

But, in any case, that's out there and that may happen. And they may duke it out one more time.

Thank you all.

We have a number of other things we're going to get to today. Richard Roth at the United Nations starts off a late "Whip," if you will.

Richard, it was an interesting day there. Give us a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Bush White House, Aaron, is not ready yet to hoist a beer for Oktoberfest. But White House officials seem to like what was brewing between German Chancellor Schroeder and President Bush -- Aaron.

BROWN: My goodness, you got two puns in there.

Next, to the Pentagon and questions of spying at Guantanamo Bay. Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, working that again today.

Jamie, the headline tonight.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the lawyer for Ahmad al-Halabi insists that his client is neither a terrorist or a spy. But the investigation of possible spying at Guantanamo and sympathy for al Qaeda is continuing. And sources say at least two other people are under surveillance -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, finally in this late "Whip," JetBlue caught up in a legal and PR mess over privacy and homeland security. Alan Chernoff with that.

Allan, a headline.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNFN CORRESPONDENT: The fight against terrorism becomes an invasion of privacy. Discount airline JetBlue is trying to dig itself out of a public relations nightmare after giving away information about passengers.

BROWN: Allan, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also ahead on this expanded edition of NEWSNIGHT, the courts step in to stop the do-no-call list. Well, supporters say they'll figure out a way to go ahead with the plan to stop telemarketers from calling people who don't want to be called.

We'll visit one American neighborhood deeply feeling the effects of the Patriot Act in this post-9/11 period, Brooklyn's Little Pakistan. And because we're a little late tonight, we'll have a better choice in morning papers, or at least a broader one. And we'll get to morning papers before tomorrow.

All that and more coming up on NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A year ago, if members of the Bush administration even mentioned the names of the French president or the German prime minister, it was in a closely-worded statement read through tightly- clenched jaws. Today, at the U.N., with the problems of Iraq no less urgent and the need for international help even greater, the French president remains a problem. As for his German counterpart, it's Gerhard.

Here's CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): At the General Assembly, the French continue to drive the Bush administration nuts over Iraq policies. But there was a crack in the deep freeze with another important European ally, Germany, and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Gerhard and I just had a very good meeting. The first thing I told him, I said, "Look, we've had differences and they're over. And we're going to work together."

ROTH: Schroeder won reelection campaigning against war with Iraq. U.S. officials had said he poisoned the relationship with America. But in the first major meeting between the two leaders in more than a year, Schroeder said he wanted to look to the future, including Iraq.

GERHARD SCHROEDER, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): I have once more said this to the president myself. I very much would like to come in and help with the resources that we do have.

THOMAS NEHLS, ARD GERMAN TV: There was no invitation not to the ranch, not to Camp David, not to Hanover, not to Berlin. But it's fine and it's business as usual again.

ROTH: However, at the U.N., the German leader said Afghanistan remains his country's top priority and failed to offer boots on the ground to help the U.S. in Iraq.

SCHROEDER (through translator): Germany stands really to support such a process. We are ready to combine humanitarian, technical and economic assistance, but also we could imagine training Iraqi security personnel.

ROTH: Training Iraqi security is a start, and U.S. officials were pleased with the thaw with Germany, especially compared to France, whose foreign minister was once again pushing for Iraqis to take power faster than the U.S. wants to give it to them.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): Only the Iraqi people will be able to find the new internal balances it needs. But for that, it must be able to count on the solidarity and assistance of the international community embodied, first of all, by the United Nations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Despite the public splits, U.S. officials tonight say they still expect to get their Iraq resolution through the Security Council within a month. However, they're talking more about tempering expectations, calling the resolution a catalyst to prompt countries to contribute money and troops for Iraq -- Aaron. BROWN: Just an observation. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) watching over the last couple of days, it has felt a bit like Iraq the sequel. I mean, the same characters back there.

When we talked to the president of Pakistan yesterday, he said he wouldn't even consider sending troops without a U.N. resolution. Is it going to be -- or do the Americans expect it to be a resolution with enough power, if you will, you convince a recalcitrant country like Pakistan to send troops?

ROTH: It may not have much way in the wording, but as British foreign secretary Jack Straw today put it, it's going to have more of a "psychological and political impact." So that's where they're looking now, just get something on paper and then hope that U.N. legitimacy will carry the day.

BROWN: That makes it sound like they just -- that it's not the substance that they care about anymore. It's just accomplishing something.

ROTH: That's right. It just seems like, let's move past what looked like a dead end, and let's call it a victory and move on to the next thing, which is what they're hoping to do with the Germans, even though Germany today didn't even offer troops, just training people. They're proclaiming it a victory so far. They said it was a good day with the Germans compared to the French.

BROWN: That's what the expectations are at this moment. Richard, thank you, as always. Richard Roth at the U.N.

Tonight, adding urgency to the mission of getting international help in Iraq, there is this, and I'm not sure if you heard this yet today. A top Marine Corps general today opened the door to another call-up of the Reserves. General Peter Pace said a decision will have to be made in the next four to six weeks to send even more reservists to Iraq, especially if troops from other countries are slow in coming.

With that hanging in the air, administration officials were on Capitol Hill talking about something no less difficult: money, billions of it. Here's CNN's Jonathan Karl.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The administration sent its big guns to Capitol Hill. Vice President Cheney; Paul Bremer, the man in charge in Iraq; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top generals all came to make their case to a skeptical Congress.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Is $87 billion a great deal of money? The answer is yes. Can our country afford it? The answer is also yes.

We believe it is necessary for the security of our country and the stability of the world...

KARL: Democrats pounded on Rumsfeld throughout the five-hour plus hearing.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: The American people have never been told that we're going into that country to build a new nation, to build a new government, to democratize the country, and to democratize the Middle East.

RUMSFELD: Well, Senator...

BYRD: The American people haven't been told that. They were told we're going in there because of weapons of mass destruction.

RUMSFELD: The American people were told by the president of the United States at the U.N. and here in the United States the reasons for going in. Once having gone in, the last thing we need to do is to turn that country over to another dictator like Saddam Hussein.

KARL: In another hearing, Paul Bremer said he could not say how much more money would be needed in Iraq in the future, prompting this...

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: With all due respect, if you can't give us an answer, you're stiffing us.

AMB. PAUL BREMER, U.S. CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR TO IRAQ: Well, Congressman, I resent that.

OBEY: Well, I do too.

KARL: Republicans, for the most part, defended the White House, although some Republicans think the $20 billion the president wants to spend on reconstruction on Iraq should be re-paid with Iraq's future oil revenues, an idea the administration opposes.

RUMSFELD: And the idea of adding an additional burden to the debts they already have was concluded to be the kind of thing that didn't work very well after World War I.

KARL: In a private meeting with the Republicans, Vice President Cheney offered a different reason for not using Iraqi oil money to repay the U.S. He said it would fuel the perception the U.S. fought the war to get Iraq's oil.

KARL: Sources at the closed-door meeting with Vice President Cheney said he also told Republicans that the White House would not cut and run from Iraq because the going gets tough. He said that is what the U.S. did in Somalia and in Lebanon, and now is determined to finish the job in Iraq regardless of what the cost is.

Jonathan Karl, CNN Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On to one of the many players in the new Iraq, whatever that turns out to be. For years, Ahmed Chalabi was the Western face of the Iraqi resistance, and to some, at least, the leader in waiting. The then and now questions about his clout and his character have complicated that role. He resurfaced at the U.N. this week as something of a thorn in the Bush administration's side.

Here's CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As this month's president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi interim government, Ahmed Chalabi finds himself front and center, but noticeably out of sink with Washington.

AHMED CHALABI, PRESIDENT, IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL: We feel that Iraqis are capable of sovereignty quickly.

KOPPEL: For the man who seemed to be in lockstep with the Bush White House, Chalabi's increasingly public lobbying for a transfer of authority within months to the 25-member unelected Iraqi Governing Council, and a greater say in spending billions in Iraqi reconstruction, has irritated U.S. officials who refuse to set a strict timeline.

BREMER: The only path to full Iraqi sovereignty is through a written constitution, ratified and followed by three democratic elections. Short cutting the process would be dangerous.

KOPPEL: A snappy dresser, with fluent English, an MIT degree, and Shiite Muslim roots in Baghdad, Chalabi led the now defunct Iraqi National Congress and pushed the envelope, hoping to convince a skeptical American public to support regime change in Iraq.

CHALABI: We support completely President Bush's call not only for the removal of the weapons of mass destruction, but for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of democracy.

KOPPEL: Chalabi's tough talk made him a fast favorite among Pentagon hawks who ordered him airlifted into Iraq by the U.S. military once the war ended. And despite disagreeing with current U.S. strategy, Chalabi continues to applaud the Bush administration for its role in toppling Iraq's former president, Saddam Hussein.

CHALABI: We have no disagreement with the United States' government. We are not at odds with the United States.

KOPPEL: Experts say Chalabi's fancy footwork could be about politics back home.

KEN KATZMAN, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE: He's trying to bolster his Iraqi nationalist credentials by seeming to argue for a quick turnover of sovereignty to Iraqis and a quicker end to the occupation.

KOPPEL (on camera): But the Bush administration isn't being quite as diplomatic. One senior administration official pointedly noting that Chalabi was just one of 25 appointed members of the council, while another official said that Chalabi and others were "biting the hand that feeds them."

Andrea Koppel, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On now to the spy investigation at Guantanamo Bay, if that what it turns out to be when all is said and done. It may end up that the men now being held tonight on suspicion of espionage did nothing more than try to offer a bit of human kindness to the prisoners they tended, a message to the outside world, that sort of thing. Things that break the rules, but nothing more.

That's what their relatives and lawyers are saying tonight. On the other hand, the rules were there for a reason and the stakes could be higher. And there's much we still do not know.

From the Pentagon tonight, CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): The military attorney for Senior Airmen Ahmad al-Halabi insists his client is not guilty.

MAJ. JAMIE KEY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Airman al-Halabi is not a spy, he's not a terrorist.

MCINTYRE: But military investigators say while the Arabic language translator was at Camp Delta, the super secure prison for al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, he gained access to some of the most sensitive and secret data about the detainees.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: What the heck is going on here? This is the Pentagon, not the INS.

MCINTYRE: The charge sheet for Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi lists dozens of security breaches, everything from downloading classified information to his laptop computer from a secure system, to gathering over 180 electronic versions of written notes from prisoners, to delivering unauthorized food; namely, baklava pastries.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Any time you have allegations like this, you always look at your procedures and your process. And that would be natural a moment. So we'll do that.

MCINTYRE: The Pentagon insists even before the arrest of Captain James Yee, a Muslim chaplain also suspected of, but not charged with, spying, it was reviewing procedures for appoint chaplains and the outside religious organizations that certify them. Chaplain Yee had studied in Syria, and al-Halabi is accused of sending information to unnamed Syrians. But Syria is denying any connection to either man.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA, SYRIAN CHARGE D'AFFAIRS: Syria is not concerned at all with any supposedly Islamic extremists that might be held in any American prison.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Now, al-Halabi's lawyer admits his client was on the way to Syria when he was arrested. But he insists it wasn't to pass secrets; it was only to get married. Military investigators, though, aren't buying it. They're assembling a pretty tough case. And one of the big questions that will face the convening authority is whether to handle this case as a death penalty case, because some of these charges could potentially carry the death penalty -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just one or two perhaps. He's accused of sending things to people in Syria. I suppose you can send them to the relative of someone in Syria, or you can send them to Syrian intelligence. What are we talking about here? Do we know?

MCINTYRE: Well, according to these charging documents, it looks like he had information about the exact identities of each of the people detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Their identification numbers, detailed plans of the facilities, flight -- information about flights in and out of the facilities, this is information that could compromise security of the base. So they're taking it very seriously.

It's not known who he was sending it to in Syria. It's just named in the documents as "citizens" of Syria.

BROWN: Got it. But, again, these are the allegations. Jamie, thank you. Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Still ahead on this edition of NEWSNIGHT, the sales call millions of people thought they would stop getting on the first of October, a judge putting a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the do-not-call list.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A federal district court judge in Oklahoma issued a ruling today on telemarketing, an especially lonely one by the looks of it. When the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year gave Americans an opportunity to get on a Do Not Call registry, millions of people snapped at the chance in the first few days alone. A week from now, those on the list expected they'd be able to eat their dinners or watch a movie or just enjoy life without a salesman ringing them up on the telephone, and they still might.

Many legal experts say the judge didn't have a leg to stand on. And the FTC has already promised to appeal. We begin with CNN's Greg Clarkin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello?

GREG CLARKIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Telemarketers finally found someone who listened, and their sales pitch struck gold. A federal judge struck down the national Do Not Call list. The judge said the Federal Trade Commission didn't have the power to create the list in the first place, a ruling that riled the troops in Washington.

REP. BILLY TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE: But it is something that Americans -- 50 million Americans -- have said they absolutely want the advantage of. And we are determined before we leave this session of Congress to make sure they have the advantage of a Do Not Call list and that the legality of the FTC in establishing one is cleared up.

CLARKIN: Fifty million people signed up to put an end to the calls. The list was due to take effect October 1st. The telemarketing industry said $40 billion a year would be lost, along with two million jobs. They fought the list on free speech grounds.

TIM SEARCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: When the federal government said you could sign up to no longer receive commercial messaging everybody got excited, but the reality is that that's not the role of the federal government to decide what kinds of commercial messages you receive and what kind of commercial messages you don't receive.

CLARKIN: But Congress can still make the list a reality.

JUDITH O'NEILL, TELECOM LAWYER: Simply for Congress to be very specific and to state that they specifically grant jurisdictional authority to the Federal Trade Commission to implement the no call registry. It's as simple as that.

CLARKIN (on camera): Telemarketers are fighting the list in federal court in Denver as well. And a ruling there could come shortly. So with a week to go, there's plenty of legal wrangling. And even with their victory, telemarketers say it's too soon to predict if they'll be calling you come October 1st.

Greg Clarkin, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: You had briefly from Tim Cercy already in Greg's piece. He represents the telemarketing industry. He joins us again from Indianapolis.

I guess you won the battle today. This is the smaller of the cases, because the Denver case, if I've got this right in my mind, is the broader constitutional case. Is that right?

SEARCY: Good evening, Aaron. You're absolutely right. The bigger issue is that it's possible for legislators to go ahead and fix the problems that the judge identified in the Oklahoma case.

As Chairman Tauzin and Representative Dingle (ph) pointed out, they certainly have the power to go ahead and legislate that the Federal Trade Commission has authority in this matter. But what they can't legislate is constitutionality. The reality is, when this was first created by the FTC, and then supported again by the FCC, they went ahead and created two classes of speech which violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, ultimately, we believe that it will be struck down on constitutional grounds, which is, as you pointed out, probably the bigger issue. BROWN: Just to help viewers a little bit, there are actually, I think, two constitutional questions here. You talked about two classes of speech. The bill exempts certain kinds of speech, certain telemarketers political and religious, as I recall, right?

SEARCY: Yes. There's tremendous irony in that the non-profits and charities, which make some sense, are exempted from this. But the politicians have taken special pains to exempt themselves. So it's still fine for them to call ahead and ring you up and talk to you.

BROWN: Well, except that -- well, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that we have always looked at the first amendment as protecting ultimately political speech. I mean, that's the underlying part of it. But let's leave that for a second, if you don't mind.

SEARCY: OK.

BROWN: Let me deal with it more practically for a second. Fifty million people, OK? Fifty million people are saying, leave us alone. You know? What does that tell you?

SEARCY: Well, it tells me two things. First and foremost, it says that the amount of commercial messaging that's going on in the United States right now is troubling to consumers. And when they get an outlet, like a federal Do Not Call list, as a means by which to alleviate that commercialism in their lives, they express their frustration by opting for it.

The second point that it tells me is that we, as an industry, need to recognize that our constitutional rights come with them a certain amount of responsibility. You know we started off by trying to get the FTC and the FCC to come to the table and help us craft something in terms of self-regulation that made sense. Our initial comments, when they asked for comments for the update to the telemarketing sales rule and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in both cases we came back with what we thought were good ways to look at issues related to a company's specific lists, voluntary lists, et cetera, that existed.

The FTC and FCC weren't interested in working with the industry. They wanted a political sound bite, and so they crafted a poorly constructed law that went outside of the bounds of the jurisdictional guidelines granted to them under Congress.

BROWN: Well, I mean, ultimately, a court will decide that. It seems to me that maybe a different way to look at it -- and I don't know if you'll agree with this -- is that they wanted an easy and convenient way for people to deal with what has become a huge annoyance in their lives. And they have no confidence that you guys are going to do it.

SEARCY: Well, I'm not certain that that's true. Prior to Tim Muris taking over the Federal Trade Commission, we had worked with the FTC and the FCC to craft voluntarily guidelines that, according to their own records, had been proven to be effective in curbing fraud and abuse. The two biggest issues that were dealt with in the congressional mandate that was given to them.

I mean, the reality is, is that we recognized that there are some responsibilities we as an industry have in trying to create a better set of standards, a means by which consumers can work with us and receive more calls that they want to receive, and have a way to opt out of calls that they don't want to receive. But that doesn't give the federal government the right to legislate convenience.

The comments that you've made so far indicate that indeed convenience is what we're asking the government to get involved in. We don't believe at any point in time does it make sense for the federal government to decide who should be calling you, who shouldn't be calling you, and what they can talk about. That's what the first amendment is there for, that's why we argue in the courts and not in the court of public opinion.

BROWN: But here's -- I think you and I actually went through this once before. And I still don't get it, so we'll try it one more time. If I put up on my property a "Do not trespass," you cannot come up and sell me your knives, period. You do not have a free speech right to do that. All I feel like I'm doing by calling the Do Not Call list is putting up a "Do not trespass" sign on my phone.

SEARCY: Yes. But see, Aaron, here's the problem with that argument. Even if I bought it for a minute, which I can guarantee you I don't...

BROWN: And I didn't expect you to for a moment.

SEARCY: But if I bought that for a second, it doesn't make sense that the federal government is the one who puts the sign up and then says, no trespassing, except for politicians and charities.

BROWN: Well, no. The federal government didn't put the sign up. I put the sign up. The federal government merely was the enforcement mechanism.

SEARCY: No. I mean, to your point...

BROWN: I made the decision.

SEARCY: To your point, though, the federal government put the two big exceptions under your statement that said no trespassing.

BROWN: Absolutely.

SEARCY: And by doing that they violate the U.S. Constitution. See, Aaron, to your point, there are a number of ways for your to voluntarily opt out of receiving calls that don't involve the federal government and have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. But when they get involved, exempt themselves, and create two classes of speech, they're going to lose in court. And we're going to wind up hopefully being able to drive them back to a table with us, where we can craft something that's more appropriate.

BROWN: Well, you know I know you believe that, and honestly I believe you to be nothing but an honorable person. And this is just one man's experience talking. I've tried all the things you say I should have tried. They don't work. They haven't worked with me.

SEARCY: Well, here's the problem that I see with that, Aaron, is that when I talk to folks about fraud and abuse, which is when you've asked for people to take you off the list and they haven't taken you off the list and you still get the calls, when you've asked to be put on other types of lists and the calls still come, that's about enforcement of current laws. One of the things the federal government is terrible about is enforcing the laws that they create. They'd rather just make more laws.

More laws make for better press. Enforcement doesn't seem to be something the congressional people and regulators have much time for.

BROWN: Well, you weren't looking forward to the enforcement of this law, I can tell you.

SEARCY: I would have preferred that they started by enforcing the laws that they had, by meeting with industry, by crafting policy that made sense and was constitutional, and by taking themselves out of the role of curbing commercial speech.

BROWN: Just quickly, finally, do you agree that this is fundamentally a problem of your industry's own making?

SEARCY: Well, I haven't found an industry in the United States right now that doesn't have a public image problem. I doubt you can find one as well. Everything from the Catholic Church to being a news reporter right now is being criticized in the press. So certainly we have an image problem, but I don't think we're unique.

BROWN: Good to talk to you again. Today was a good day for you. We'll see how the days ahead go.

SEARCY: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: Appreciate your time. Thank you, Tim.

On to the issue -- this, too, fits right in, doesn't it? E-mail spam and the state of California's full-fledged attack on that. We'll see how that survives in the courts. A new law has been signed by Governor Gray Davis that bans commercial e-mail sent or received in the state unsolicited.

The bill, which takes effect the first of January, calls for fines of up to $1 million, and targets not just spammers, but the company whose products and services are being advertised. Entire industries depend on this.

Another Internet story now that got a lot of people's attention today. Microsoft says it will shut down three online chat rooms in more than two dozen countries around the world and limit services elsewhere, because the company believes the chat rooms are being used to solicit children for sex. CNN technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, has that. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft says the chat rooms provide cover for pedophiles, distributors of pornography, and spam.

GEOFF SUTTON, EUROPEAN DIRECTOR, MSN: And we've been watching and seeing how that's been growing. And it's been very clear that, particularly in the free and unmoderated chat rooms, it's very difficult to police and very difficult to deal with. And, therefore, we consider them to be unsafe. Microsoft is a company that takes its responsibilities as a leader in the industry very seriously.

SIEBERG: Children's advocates in Britain say it's about time.

CAROL VORDERMAN, U.K. ANTI-PEDOPHILE CAMPAIGN: This is a day of celebration. The world's biggest online service provider has said, look, we cannot protect children in our chat rooms. We are closing them down.

SIEBERG: The chat rooms will remain in the U.S., Canada, Japan and Brazil, with safeguards in place so the company knows who is using them. But some free speech advocates say losing the chat rooms will have an unintended consequence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The chat room closures, especially in developing countries, will contribute to the digital divide. Those folks won't be able to get on to free chat anymore. And even in the United States, Canada, and Japan, the decision to charge for services will create almost like a gated community online.

SIEBERG: Tech analysts say there may also be financial reasons behind the shutdown, which happens October 14th. Policing chat rooms is labor-intensive and expensive. And that's not a good business model when the service is free. Rivals who provide chat rooms and instant messaging, including Yahoo and AOL, part of CNN's parent company, have not announced any changes in their service.

Daniel Sieberg, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Until recently, JetBlue was known for getting the kinds of headlines normally associated with walking on water, not running an airline. In a business where bankruptcy and grumpy passengers are the norm, JetBlue has been both profitable and wildly popular. Then it was learned the airline had turned over million of passenger records to a Defense Department contractor. Some passengers filed suit, and suddenly JetBlue finds itself in a tough spot for doing what it believed at the time was the right thing in the "new normal."

Here's CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Discount airline JetBlue says it was trying to help in the fight against terrorism. Responding to a request from the military, JetBlue shared passenger names, addresses, phone numbers, and flights with the so-called information mining company, Torch Concepts. Torch then bought detailed personal information from a database company to build an airline passenger risk assessment. It included the data of one specific unnamed passenger, information that was presented at a conference and posted on the Worldwide Web.

JAMES MCCONKIE, ATTORNEY SUING JETBLUE: JetBlue violated its own privacy policy. If you look on the Internet to get a ticket, what happens is they state there that they will not give this information to any third party.

CHERNOFF: JetBlue issued a letter of apology, saying it was a well-intentioned attempt to assist the Department of Defense in a national security matter. The Army says it did contract with Torch, but only to study its data technology, not to create airline passenger profiles. Some JetBlue passengers are annoyed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think that everyone is entitled to their privacy when flying airlines.

CHERNOFF: Others are understanding.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I see no problem at all with JetBlue providing a Defense contract with information to make the airlines safer.

CHERNOFF: It is a question that could effect all U.S. air passengers. The Transportation Security Administration is planning to weed out potential terrorists with a computerized pre-screening system. While the government says it won't collect personal data, privacy rights groups are concerned.

MARC ROTENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORY, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: Air travelers shouldn't be required to sacrifice all of their privacy. And then whatever the government does, there needs to be some oversight and accountability.

CHERNOFF: JetBlue says it won't participate unless required by law.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: In the post-9/11 world, Americans face a delicate balance between protection and privacy. The effort to protect can easily lead to unwanted crime. Not only are airlines placed in a very uncomfortable position, but so is the federal government, which wants to avoid the appearance of acting like big brother -- Aaron.

BROWN: What I found interesting about this story is there's really two issues here. There's the one you just talked about, this question of national security and privacy, and it's huge. The other is, here is this company that was sailing along, and people fly it say it's terrific, and they've done everything right, seemingly. Is there any way to know right now -- we're only four, five days into the story -- whether it's taken a hit?

CHERNOFF: The stock is actually doing beautifully. It was even up today in a very down market. And it seems that with the low prices, the apology from the company -- they seem to be straightforward with the company -- it seems that they're going to survive this pretty well.

BROWN: Thank you, Allan. I don't know why I felt I needed to say "um" before that. But thank you. Maybe because it's late.

Still ahead on the program, a trip to heaven, or at least Mitch Album's rendition of it. He joins us in a bit. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Consider Mitch Albom's summer as a sports columnist for the "Detroit Free Press." He could write about the hell that has been the Tigers' season and how they're on the verge of becoming the losingist baseball team of all time, or he could make up a story about happens when you get to heaven. Hint: you don't find the Tigers there.

Mitch's new book is called "The Five People You Meet in Heaven." It's good to see you. Very glad to have you. I know it's been a long day for you, and we appreciate you staying late.

MITCH ALBOM, AUTHOR, "THE FIVE PEOPLE YOU MEET IN HEAVEN": Oh, that's OK.

BROWN: I heard a line that you -- and you probably used it a bunch. You said there was this incredible pressure to write "Wednesdays (ph) with Morrie," having this hugely successful book six years ago. Perhaps that was...

ALBOM: Heaven calling.

BROWN: Yes. Give me the kind of broad strokes of what you decided on -- a novel, for one thing.

ALBOM: Yes. Well, I didn't want to do any franchised things with Morrie. I mean, I wrote that book as a labor of love to raise money for his medical expenses. And the fact that it became a big book was a happy accident, but it wasn't a career opportunity as far as I saw.

So I waited until I found another idea that I felt moved me as much as that story did. And I thought a lot about what happens next, you know? I watched the man die, and then I kind of started thinking, well, where does he go?

And I had this old uncle who told me this story. He was kind of an old tough guy, World War II veteran. He used to hit you in the arm when he said hello.

And he always told us a story when we were kids about how he had gone to this -- he had been rushed to the hospital for open heart surgery, and in the middle of the operation he woke up, kind of lifted from his body, and saw all his dead relatives waiting at the edge of the bed. And of course we would say, "Well, what happened? What did you do?"

And he said, "I told them, 'Get the heck out of here. I'm not ready for you yet.'" And they kind of scattered and he went back into his body.

But for all of those years, I kind of thought, well, that must be what happens when you die. There must be these people waiting. And I started to form the idea of sort of an homage to him, kind of a blue collar guy, kind of the opposite of Morrie.

BROWN: This is your uncle Eddie, right?

ALBOM: Uncle Eddie, right, and the character in the book is named Eddie. And what if, you know, a guy like him, who kind of worked his whole life, was a really honorable guy, but never saw himself as anything special -- says, "Oh, I didn't do anything, I didn't go anywhere, I never accomplished anything" -- what if maybe when he died and went to heaven actually that the trick of heaven was that there were five people waiting there to tell you how significant you actually were in ways that you didn't know. And that sort of became the outline of the book.

BROWN: And there's Eddie.

ALBOM: He didn't always look like that -- the bathing suit part.

BROWN: That's a nice bathing suit. But it's a novel, it's not a -- and can you sort of briefly draw us a picture of one of the five, or does it give too much away?

ALBOM: Well, no. I will say one that the people seem to be coming to is he does get to meet his wife, who died young. And he gets a chance to ask her, you know, "Well, why did you leave me so soon?" And he says to her at one point, you know, "I never loved anybody else." And she says, "I know."

And he says, "How do you know?" She says, "I felt it, even here." He said, "Here, you felt it?" And she said, "That's how strong lost love can be."

And I think over the course of the six years since "Tuesdays With Morrie," I've met so many people who have lost people they've loved who have wanted to believe that what they felt went somewhere. And I think it kind of found its way into this book.

A lot of those experiences and stories I've heard have (ph) found. And so, yes, some of the people he meets he knows well; some of them he doesn't. It's sort of accidental. It's all about how people connect in people's lives.

BROWN: And the underlying idea is we may not understand how we touch people sometimes, the lives we change, the way we influence people. But all of us, whether we're plumbers or whatever, cable TV anchors, touch somebody.

ALBOM: The cable guys maybe more than you think. Give yourself credit. But I'm walking proof of that, Aaron. I mean, I'm living that life.

You know, an old man who nobody knew told a story to me and touched me. I wrote a book to help him out. People read it, passed it on. And then people come up to me and say, "Well, your book changed my life." And I don't even know who they are.

BROWN: Well, at what point -- and you're probably tired talking about that book -- but at what point did you realize that "Morrie" was this extraordinary moment? I mean, it was six years on the best -- I think it's still on the best seller list -- the paperback best seller list, isn't it? I mean, how far into it? I mean, was it weeks, months?

ALBOM: Well, probably weeks when I started hearing people talking about it. And then I remember one incident in less than a year after it had been out that a guy came up to me at a book store and he was shaking. And he was just shaking and he grabbed my arm, and everybody thought he was going to hurt me. And he started to cry and he said, "My wife died last week, and the last thing we did together was read your book out loud to one another. And I just want to hold on to you because it makes me feel like I'm closer to her."

That's when I think I realized that this wasn't just, you know, your average book in terms of its effect.

BROWN: When -- this question is actually going somewhere -- when the book came out, when "Morrie" came out, was it well received? Reviewers received it well?

ALBOM: It didn't get reviewed.

BROWN: It didn't?

ALBOM: I mean, nobody paid any attention to it. It was a really small book.

BROWN: Because you're you now, this will get reviewed. And my guess is that you'll get some that are terrific and some that are OK, because that's the way reviewers work. Are you prepared for that?

ALBOM: Oh, yes. You know I'm walking proof that you don't know what's going to happen with a book. I mean, "Tuesdays with Morrie," nobody even wanted to publish, let alone review. And look what happened there.

So my feeling is, if you write from the heart, you'll find your way to your readers. And I don't think readers need critics to tell them how to feel.

BROWN: It's great to see you. We're big fans of all of the many different hats you wear. You wear a number of them. Thanks for coming by. I know it's late tonight. ALBOM: Yes, thank you. I know. I appreciate you having me.

BROWN: Thank you, Mitch, very much.

Morning papers, we're already there. But, no, not quite. First, some of the after effects of September 11th.

This is an intriguing little story about an immigrant community that is disappearing slowly. We'll take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The notion of America as a giant melting pot, welcoming all foreigners to become part of the greater whole, is an ideal that's becoming more and more difficult for many immigrants to accept, especially if those newcomers are Muslims. What happened on September 11th, of course, has everything to do with that. It means being meticulous if you're a cop or a border guard. But if you're on the opposite side of that particular equation, it means you feel trapped.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): The attacks on 9/11 changed a lot in America. In Brooklyn's Little Pakistan, they seem to have changed everything.

MOHAMMED KHAN, CAB DRIVER: Business is gone. Everything is slow. Restaurants are empty, you know? People, you know, they're all gone.

BROWN: An immigrant's dream has been replaced by something else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Pakistanis are in fear of the INS...

BROWN: There are reasons to be fearful. Many here have overstayed their visas. They are illegals. And illegals from their part of the world are being targeted for detention and deportation.

Mohammed Razvi provides legal help.

MOHAMMED RAZVI: What are we losing here? We're losing immigrants who came to this country for that freedom, and they're leaving here in sorrow that now this is no longer the land of the free, basically. That's not what they were here for. That's what's sad.

BROWN: Many Pakistani immigrants have been sent home. Many others have simply fled. Once bustling, Coney Island Avenue is not the same street it was just two years ago.

RAZVI: This barbershop, it was in business before 9/11. After 9/11, when special registration initiative took place the guy migrated to Canada and left the place as is and just left.

BROWN: Most here know someone like Ansar Mahmood. A few weeks after September 11th, he says he was just taking photos to send back to his family in Pakistan. He wanted to show off his new home in Hudson, New York. Pretty pictures he was taking. One scene was near the town's water treatment plant, and that raised suspicion of a guard who took his picture. And the next thing, Mr. Mahmood knew the police were at his door.

ANSAR MAHMOOD, DETAINEE: They came like after one hour. Maybe 10, 15 people -- I don't know how many people. And a couple of them introduced me.

He said, "I am the special agenda (ph) of INS. I am the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Show me your card." And then he started asking questions about 9/11.

BROWN: Though he was never charged with anything related to terrorism, and he was in the country legally, he was charged with harboring illegals. And he's been held for 20 months now, fighting deportation, which isn't much of a fight. And his parents, who are still in Pakistan, cannot do much to help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If he was in Pakistan, he would borrow money to hire a lawyer for his case. But here, we can't do anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Ansar called and said that if I cried he would come back. So I stopped crying. I comforted myself by saying that at least he is alive.

BROWN: He fights to stay in America for the same reason immigrants have fought to stay here for 200 years.

MAHMOOD: What would it look like if I go back? What can I do over there? No jobs, nothing. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my family to suffer more and more, I have to keep fighting.

BROWN: Others have simply given up the fight, finding refuge in Canada or Europe or back home. Friday prayers in Little Pakistan used to fill the streets. No more.

No more busy stores either or shops. And dreams build on hard work and great hopes slip away.

CHAFIQ HASSAN, GROCERY STORE OWNER: Seventeen years, 14 hours, 18-hour day, and then we make a living here now. That's really tough. But still, we're working hard.

BROWN: The attacks on 9/11 changed a lot in America. In Little Pakistan, in Brooklyn, New York, they seem to have changed everything.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The view from Little Pakistan. Morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right. Time for morning papers. The advantage of being on this late is you get a great run of papers.

"The New York Times" will start it out. I've got to move pretty quickly, because there are a bunch of good ones.

Up at the top: "Draft Reports Said to Cite No Success in Iraq Arms Hunt. Four-month search By U.S., no illicit weapons found, but officials describe evidence of suspicious material."

And also on the front page, the Pentagon says it may need to call up more reservists. I think that's going to be a huge story in the country, because it affects big cities and small.

"The Washington Times" -- oh, I know why I picked this one, because it was next. "Arnold Steals Show in California Debate, Deflects Hits With Humor Levels, Criticism at Bustamante." I'm not sure I would have headlined the story that way, but it's not my newspaper, it's theirs. And that's what they did.

"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," the "No Call" list is on the front page, as it is on most papers that we've seen. But their big feature is a legendary case in the country, the lynching of Leo Frank. Newbrook (ph) names the leading local citizens, people in Atlanta, believed to have had a hand in the infamous crime. It's a great story if you don't know it. You might look it up on the Web.

That's NEWSNIGHT for tonight. I have to read this: For those of you watching this at midnight Eastern, an encore edition of the California debate is next. On the other hand, if you're watching a repeat of NEWSNIGHT after the repeat of the debate, we're repeating something else.

We'll see you tomorrow. Good night.