CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

FBI Issues Startling Terrorism Warning; U.N. Inspectors Head to Iraq

Aired November 15, 2002 - 20:00 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.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Anderson Cooper, in for Connie Chung.
Tonight: It has been more than a year, but now the FBI warns al Qaeda may be about to try again.

ANNOUNCER: A chilling new terror warning, Americans on the alert, this following the latest tape believed to be from Osama bin Laden.

Plus: Where should the U.S. focus be, on bin Laden or Saddam?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The worst nightmare that we would face is the combination of extremism with a hostile regime armed with weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: U.N. inspectors prepare to return to Iraq, led by this man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The United States government is determined that there shall be no cat-and-mouse play.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: What kind of reception will his team get in Baghdad this time?

John Lee Malvo, a sniper suspect; Nathaniel Brazill, convicted of killing his teacher; the King brothers admitted beating their father to death. Tonight: defending children accused of murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

EDIE FALCO, ACTRESS: Anthony Soprano, that is wonderful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tony's wife on TV.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FALCO: I played Fiona in our high school production of "Brigadoon."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Stanley's gal on Broadway -- the many sides of Edie Falco.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, for Connie Chung, Anderson Cooper.

COOPER: Good evening.

Tonight, the FBI says al Qaeda may be about to strike again and strike hard, not overseas, here at home, the goal the same as September 11: maximum damage, maximum death, maximum fear. The warning is not based on any new intelligence, but analysis of past al Qaeda patterns. Statements similar to this week's Osama bin Laden audiotape were received prior to the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 strike on the USS Cole.

CNN's Jeanne Meserve has more on the warning and what it means.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The words leap off the page, "spectacular attacks," a stark and striking phrase never seen in previous warnings. This alert sent in a weekly bulletin to law enforcement after an uptick in credible intelligence about al Qaeda and a recent audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden. Officials say it is not news that al Qaeda is bent on destruction.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The warnings that have gone out recently really are a summary of intelligence, not a new warning. This is a summary of intelligence as we know it.

MESERVE: The warning speaks of possible mass casualties, severe damage to the economy, maximum psychological trauma, and says likely targets are the aviation, petroleum, and nuclear sectors or national landmarks. It also raises the possibility of smaller low-tech attacks against less protected targets.

WILLIAM DALEY, CONTROL RISKS GROUP: They're trying to tell us that there's a very good chance, based on background information that something will happen.

MESERVE: Concern over al Qaeda has been growing steadily. CIA Director George Tenet last month.

GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: Al Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas.

MESERVE: A warning about railroads and other critical infrastructure, one of two public warnings issued in the past month and officials actually began drafting this one two weeks ago. Increased customs and immigration inspections at the nation's borders, an example of how the government has been ramping up security.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: We have taken additional protective measures to protect our critical infrastructure, both public and private, and secure our borders. There is unprecedented cooperation going on, both public and private at the federal, state, and local level.

MESERVE: An administration officials says law enforcement and some federal agencies are already operating very near threat level orange, representing high risk, though the country officially remains a step below at yellow.

(on camera): There is some reluctance, officials say, to raise the threat level to orange because of the potential disruption to citizens and commerce, but the administration is also lacking one thing it needs to move the level up: specific intelligence about when, where, and by what means a terrorist attack might take place.

Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: It is scary stuff.

You may be wondering, how does the warning affect you? How does it affect your community? And how does it even get into the hands of your local police?

Well, we asked CNN's Charles Feldman to lay out the process for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The latest FBI bulletin, No. 38, was sent out to more than 32,000 law enforcement officials or agencies worldwide via the FBI's Internet connection called LEO, short for Law Enforcement Online.

LEO supplements an older teletype system in which local police agencies can get special alerts from the FBI and exchange information with the federal agency. Since 9/11, law enforcement officials say that terrorist bulletins have been issued not to alarm the public or to mobilize local police, but rather to serve as reminders to police agencies nationwide that, in the war on terror, vigilance is the primary means of defense.

MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: They go back and they say: "OK, do we have this base covered? Do we have that base covered?" Then they also go out into the community, because we also remember that the community plays into this war on terrorism. They go out and make sure that all the critical infrastructures, the oil, petroleum, nuclear facilities, major icons, monuments, government buildings within their own jurisdiction, to make sure that they're covered sufficiently.

FELDMAN: And here in Los Angeles, that is exactly what the LAPD, the nation's second largest municipal police force, is doing on a daily basis.

LT. HORACE FRANK, LAPD: We owe it to the public to get the information out there and just remind them to continue being vigilant about their activities, not to panic, but just to be wary of your surroundings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FELDMAN: Now, so long as the apparent threat remains nonspecific, police agencies plan to continue to use these FBI alerts as important, but increasingly routine reminders to keep an extra eye out -- Anderson.

COOPER: Well, Charles, it's confusing, I think, for a lot of people. I know it is for me. The national threat level has not gone up, and yet this alert has gone out to local authorities. What are your contacts in local law enforcement saying about this new communique they've gotten?

FELDMAN: Well, to be quite honest, they say that the press, we in the press, we tend to overreact to these things, that they understand, in the context in which these bulletins are issued, that they really are vigilant alerts, for vigilance, that they're not, as I think Jeanne pointed out in her report, they're not based on new information.

But rather the intent is to say to law enforcement officials: "Look, this is a threat. It's a continuing threat. Don't get lazy. Don't think that this is over. It's far from it. And it's designed to get law agencies, law enforcement agencies, to contact their local sources, to have more people out on the street, and to try to figure out if there's anything in their own communities that fits into this sort of larger mosaic.

COOPER: All right, Charles, Charles Feldman, thanks very much.

Now, government sources tell CNN that a top al Qaeda leader was taken into custody in recent weeks. Out of the top two dozen al Qaeda leaders, half have been killed or captured in the last year. What do we know about this most recent capture?

Well, we go now to Washington and CNN national security correspondent David Ensor -- David.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, as one official put it to me, this is a big catch, definitely a big catch, in the top 20 of al Qaeda, as it now exists.

He was captured in the last two weeks, officials say. But they refuse to identify him or say where or how he was caught or, for that matter, where he is now. Still, they're saying this new prisoner, if he cooperates, is in a position to be quite helpful. The immediate goal, of course, is to stop attacks he might know about that might be coming up soon and to round up any other leaders that this one might finger. Now, while declining to name the new prisoner, officials did confirm he is not Osama bin Laden, nor his son Saad. And he's not Ayman Al-Zawahri or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the No. 2 and No. 3 men in al Qaeda. The new prisoner joins others in the hands of the CIA being held at undisclosed locations overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Omar al-Faruq.

The president's national security adviser said that such prisoners are proving useful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: There have been a number of numerous senior leaders of al Qaeda that have either been eliminated, incarcerated or detained someplace. One of the reasons that we have had different sources of information that we did not have is that we have some of those people in custody who are informing us about how al Qaeda operates, about what various things might mean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: Sources say there's debate within the administration about how much to make public about this new prisoner and when. They say the fact the man was caught at all was leaked. And they're not happy about that. And they want to keep his identity a secret for a while longer, while they try to make quick use of what information they can get from him -- Anderson.

COOPER: David, you mentioned that this information was leaked out. I know there are some people who are probably not going to buy that, that it seems coincidental, perhaps, that, just a few days after this bin Laden tape is released that has gotten so much coverage, all the sudden, the administration comes out or someone comes out and says, "We've captured a top al Qaeda person."

I mean, are people raising those kind of questions?

ENSOR: Well, let's face it. When you use the word leaks, there are deliberate leaks and undeliberate leaks.

They are saying this was not deliberate. A lot of journalists know a lot of officials through the government. And there is a tendency to want to crow about a success. Apparently, someone did that.

COOPER: All right, David Ensor, thanks very much, our national security correspondent, in Washington.

Now, government officials let out word of this capture just as criticism was heating up -- or at least someone let out word -- criticism over the fact the administration should focus more on Osama bin Laden, they say, and al Qaeda, rather than devote, as President Bush put it, America's full force and might against Saddam Hussein.

Now, that criticism sparked the very first question today as President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, spoke to reporters.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: And ordinary citizens continue to ask, "Why go after Iraq now if we have this unfinished problem right here at home?"

RICE: Well, let me start by saying that the president begins his day at 8:00 in the morning with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, joined shortly after that by my colleague, Tom Ridge, and the FBI director and his counterterrorism person to review the terrorism threats to the United States.

He does not begin his day on Iraq. He begins his day on the war on terrorism and the threat levels and the threat information that we have about the United States. This is a central focus of this administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, joining me now to address that same question: Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona. He joins us in Washington. And in Chicago, we have Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. Both men sit on the Intelligence Committee.

Thanks for being with us, both of you.

Senator Kyl, let me start out with you.

We've just heard how the president starts off his day. How do you end your day? When you're lying in bed, what scares you more, Iraq or al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Well, I say a prayer for peace. And I really don't distinguish between the two.

I think, as David Ensor's report just indicated, though, we're not taking the war on terror for granted. We are working very hard every day. We're tracking people down. We're catching them. We're getting good information from them. We're disrupting the al Qaeda network. We've had great successes abroad in preventing numerous terrorist attacks. And, as some official recently said, this has not been a good year for Osama bin Laden.

COOPER: Well, Senator Durbin, you know the argument. I wasn't just interested in Senator Kyl's sleeping thoughts and his dreams. The argument, the criticism is that there are those who say: "Look, Iraq is not as pressing a security threat to the United States at this time, at this moment in history, as possibly al Qaeda or some of these other groups out there."

Your thoughts?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I think that's right for one very obvious reason. Saddam Hussein has a return address. We know where to find him. We know the country he lives in. We know where the resources are in Iraq. And it's that threat of answering in kind anything that he throws at the United States that has really kept him in check for such a long period of time.

We can't say the same when it comes to Osama bin Laden. It's been 14 months now that we've been engaged in this war on terrorism. We've made some progress. But the events of last -- just this last week, the tape from Osama bin Laden, the disclosures of new threats against the United States, are a grim reminder that we're a long way from victory in the war on terrorism.

And if we are going to have the resources and dedicate them for a successful outcome in this war, we have to understand that it's going to require some focus by the United States.

COOPER: Senator Kyl?

KYL: Sure. And I don't think there's any suggestion we haven't been focusing on the war on terror. I mean, that's the point that Condoleezza Rice made.

But the point is, we have a lot of things to worry about in this world. And if it hadn't been for President George Bush, the United Nations tonight would not be preparing to send inspectors in to do what has not been done for 11 years. And that is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is ridding himself of his weapons of mass destruction, as he promised to do and as the United States has passed resolutions saying he has to do.

Somebody has to take that leadership in the world. We're going to have to deal with other problems, with North Korea sooner or later, and Iran and others. So the United States has to deal with a lot of issues. And we can do more than one thing at a time. But I totally agree with Dr. Rice that the president's top priority right now is the war on terror.

COOPER: Senator Durbin, Tom Daschle has come out saying -- somewhat critical of the idea of fighting basically a two-front war, saying we really should be focusing on al Qaeda.

You know, the timing of this, some people could look at it as somewhat suspicious. I mean, the Democrats performing quite badly in the last elections. A lot of people said they lacked focus. And now, all of a sudden, this seems to be the issue Democrats are focusing on.

First of all, let's just play this Daschle bite. And then I want you to respond. Let's hear what Tom Daschle had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: We haven't found bin Laden. We haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year-and-a-half ago. So, by what measure can we say this has been successful so far?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was the kind of thing you would have thought you would have heard before the elections. Is this suddenly an issue the Democrats are latching onto?

DURBIN: Oh, I think it's an issue that's been precipitated by this new tape.

I was in Kabul at Bagram Air Force Base, just outside, last January and sat in for a military briefing where they went to a map of the mountainous regions around Afghanistan and drew a circle about the size of a half-dollar and said, "That's where Osama bin Laden is and we're going to get him."

We thought, as of last January, that we were going to find him and either arrest him or, as they've said, go after him and whatever is necessary. It hasn't happened. And this new tape has come out as a reminder that we still have unfinished business in the war on terrorism.

And I think that we ought to make certain we do not really minimize the resources that are needed to make certain that we're successful in trying to suppress this threat that we're reminded of on a weekly basis.

COOPER: Senator Kyl, there have been some who said that there is political pressure, or some political pressure, in some sectors to link Iraq with international terrorism. Do you think there is that pressure, or do you think that the linkage is real?

KYL: I don't quite understand what the political pressure would be. There are other reasons to deal with Iraq. I mean, Iraq is unfinished business from the Persian Gulf War. There is no direct -- although there is indirect -- but there's no direct al Qaeda connection there. That's not the reason that we're trying to enforce these U.N. resolutions.

I mean, I guess I would ask any Democratic friend who disagrees: Should the president not be urging the United Nations to get Saddam Hussein to rid himself of these weapons of mass destruction? Should we not have asked the United Nations to begin this inspection regime? I don't know how my friend Dick Durbin voted on the resolution authorizing the president to take action if necessary, but the Congress overwhelmingly passed that resolution.

I guess the point is that the United States has to deal with a lot of different problems. And there's no reason that we can't deal with more than one problem at once. Part of the evidence of the success on the war on terrorism is that we have not been struck here in the United States since September 11. And I would think that people would be joyous about that.

COOPER: All right, Senator Kyl, Senator Durbin, we're going to have to end it there. Thank you both for joining us.

And we're going to home in on Iraq when we return. The weapons inspectors are about to return to Baghdad. How will they be received this time? And what obstacles did they face the last time? We will find out from someone who was there.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: He leaves tonight to hit the streets of Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: There's no restriction as to what time we can go, anywhere, any time, at night, or during holidays. We can do it at any time, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The man charged with finding and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, U.N. inspectors charged with searching Iraq for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons have begun moving out. The leader of the biochemical team, Hans Blix, he left New York today. He will arrive in Cyprus on Sunday and then lead his advance team into Iraq on Monday.

Today, Blix reemphasized that this may be Iraq's last chance to cooperate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: I think the United States government is determined that there shall be no cat-and-mouse play. And this is how I also have understood, that the Security Council takes that view. Zero tolerance is a very strict word. Certainly, cat-and-mouse is something that will not -- I'm sure will not be tolerated in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, earlier, I spoke with CNN's Rym Brahimi in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: The advance U.N. team is supposed to arrive in Baghdad on Monday. Do you know what they're going to be doing in those first few days?

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, my understanding, Anderson, is that the head U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the IAEA chief, Mr. ElBaradei, will be coming with this team.

As you said, they will be meeting with officials. And then part of the team is going to start going about to try and set up preliminary logistics. But, basically, the first step will really be to discuss what will come next with Iraqi officials on the ground here.

COOPER: At this point, we're being told that the first full team of inspectors really won't be on the ground until something like November 25.

What are the Iraqi people being told about these inspectors? What kind of reception are these U.N. inspectors going to get by Iraqis?

BRAHIMI: Well, there are a lot of mixed feelings about this, Anderson, here in Baghdad.

You know, people don't really need to be told about anything special about these inspectors, because they have memories of when the previous team of inspectors were here. Now, it's true we know, for instance, because we listen to foreign news, that the team is going to be slightly different. There will be less Americans, for instance. And that was supposed to allay some fears of Iraqi officials that the team would risk being too sort of U.S.-oriented. And this is not going to be the case.

I'm not sure people here are aware of those details. And even when you tell them that, they think, "Well, it's all the same thing to us." Really, what matters to them right now is, A, that they're not going to be bombed. And this, they think, that accepting the resolution, was a good step, because they think at least it will maybe not put off forever, but at least delay whatever the U.S. might want to do here in Iraq.

COOPER: I'm confused, because it seems pretty accepted by the world community that Iraq has used mustard gas, nerve gas, chemical agents against their own people, against the Kurds in 1988, also against Iranian forces. So how can Iraq say that they have never had these weapons at all?

BRAHIMI: What they're saying is, "In the past four years, since the inspectors left in '98, we have not produced weapons of mass destruction."

And what they're telling everybody is that, "It was a good thing to accept the resolution, because we will be able to verify and to prove to the world that the U.S. were lying about us, that the U.K. was lying, and that we have nothing in terms of weapons of mass destruction" -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Rym Brahimi, thanks very much, in Baghdad. Appreciate it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, the last man to head a team of U.N. weapons in Iraq was Richard Butler, who joins me now from Sydney, Australia.

And I want to start by asking you, what is different this time? What advantages will these inspectors have, in terms of power and access, that you didn't have back then?

RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Anderson, I wish I'd had those powers four years ago.

The Security Council gave them absolutely every authority that they need to verify Iraq's claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction. They can go anywhere, to any building, any place, at any time in Iraq. They can seize any document, any government document that they think they need to look at. They can interview any person who was involved in Iraq's weapons program, not only inside Iraq, but they can take them outside Iraq, so that they can be talked to free of Iraqi government pressure upon them.

That's very important, in my view, because I remember us trying to interview people in the past with Iraqi guards standing over them. Some of them were terrified. Some of them could barely speak. Clearly, many of them lied. I reckon that we would have a very different situation if we could take some of those engineers and scientists outside the country to freedom and say: "Now, tell us what you were working on. What were you doing?"

My point is this, Anderson. These inspectors, if -- if, big if -- they are allowed to exercise all of those powers, they'll get to the bottom of it. They'll get the truth.

COOPER: Take us, if you will, on to the ground in Iraq. What is it like being a weapons inspector? What are some of the obstacles that the Iraqis in your case threw up in your way? I've heard everything from bugging rooms to artificial traffic jams. What are you dealing with on the ground? What's it like?

BUTLER: You know, if it weren't so serious, Anderson, it would be as funny as the Keystone Cops. But you think of anything you can think of, from driving people down blind...

COOPER: Go ahead.

BUTLER: Sorry.

Driving people down blind allies, wrong maps, wrong times, cars running out of petrol, bugging telephones. Right at one end of the spectrum, that's the soft and silly end of the spectrum. But the other end, of course, was gunpoint, holding people up at gunpoint and saying, "You may not enter this place"; accommodating people too far from their place of work, making us land our aircraft in a military airfield well out of Baghdad.

So, before we went anywhere, we had to drive an hour-and-a-half to get into the city. As I said, it's almost laughable. I could go on and on about it. But I'll make this point. Hans Blix, the new chief inspector, he wrote to the Iraqis over a month ago, setting out the conditions that he would need to get the job done properly, you know, the ordinary working conditions on the ground. That letter is attached to the Security Council resolution adopted a little over a week ago. Anderson, Iraq has not yet even replied to that letter. So Hans is going there not knowing whether he'll be able to get the job done in the sort of practical, mundane way.

COOPER: Well, let me ask you about Mr. Blix. There are those who say, this guy is not tough enough. Not only is he a civil servant, but he's a Swedish civil servant, so kind of used to a bureaucratic mind-set. In your opinion, is this the man to take on Saddam Hussein?

BUTLER: I'm well aware of that characterization of Hans. I've known him for over 25 years. I'm aware of his track record at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where people do raise some questions about that.

But I want to say this very, very clearly. Hans has been given all of the powers that he needs. He is a man of integrity. He's a Swedish bureaucrat and therefore may be a bit cautious in some ways. But he's a man of integrity and a man of determination. I believe -- and listening to what he's been saying in the last week or so, I think he's going to be pretty determined to get this job done properly.

It's not a question of him. It's a question of whether or not the Iraqis will allow him or anyone to do this job. And frankly, Anderson, I don't think the signs are so good. Look at what I said about how they haven't even replied to the letter on ordinary, mundane working conditions. This will unfold in the next couple of weeks. But I will be agreeably surprised if Iraq actually shows that it really is willing to cooperate.

COOPER: All right. Well, we will see.

Richard Butler, thanks a lot for joining us. I appreciate it.

Well, still ahead: Would you go to bed with Tony Soprano? Edie Falco does. And you will meet her in just a bit.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: A 17-year-old suspected of multiple sniper killings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD PETIT, GUARDIAN OF JOHN LEE MALVO: The appropriate decision should have been to put him in the juvenile detention center.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Justice for juveniles accused of capital crimes -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Three high-profile criminal cases involving juveniles made the news this week, sometimes in disturbing ways. Just today, a judge ruled that John Lee Malvo, accused sniper, will be held not in a juvenile detention center, even though he's 17, but in an adult jail equipped to hold juvenile prisoners.

Now, yesterday, Derek and Alex King admitted in court that they killed their father, Terry, last year. And they entered a guilty plea that will bring them eight and seven years in prison. And a jury found that the gunmaker Valor was partly liable for 16-year-old Nathaniel Brazill's fatal shooting two years ago of his teacher at school, ordering Valor to pay the teacher's widow $1.2 million.

So, the question is: How does our justice system deal with kids accused of murder? We thought we'd talk tonight about the state of juvenile justice with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. We also have Catherine Crier, host of Court TV's "Catherine Crier Live"; and, in Miami, defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.

Thanks to you all for being here.

Jeffrey, I want to start off with you.

As you look at how the criminal justice system deals with kids, explain a little bit the difference. How do we deal with kids as opposed to adults?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's changed a lot.

I mean, in the '60s, there was a real movement in the courts to say that: "Juveniles have different needs, different responsibilities for their own actions. So, we're going to treat them not so much like they need punishment, but that like they need improvement, training, assistance, nurturing," and that -- we had lesser sentences for them. We had separate facilities for them. And that was true in the '60s and '70s.

COOPER: But that has changed.

TOOBIN: It's changed a lot. The great concern about crime in this country has led to trying children like adults, the elimination or reduction in juvenile detention centers.

So, 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, even going down to 13-year-olds are increasingly treated like adults and punished like adults.

COOPER: Catherine, do you think we need to go back to this two- tier system?

CATHERINE CRIER, HOST, "CATHERINE CRIER LIVE": Oh, a variation on the theme. I think several states have got it right. They have a juvenile-adult dual system, where what you can do is be tried as a juvenile. And you can be held in those facilities if, in fact, at the time that you should be released under the juvenile laws, and the court determines you are not ready, you can then move into the adult system.

But that gives them the option of trying to rehabilitate, separate and apart from the best crime school in the country -- and that is our prison system -- and try and do something about these kids before they're put in the system, at which point you write them off.

COOPER: Jayne Weintraub, let me bring you in.

Does our system know how to deal with kids who kill?

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, it doesn't. Our juvenile justice system is no justice at all. And we see that repeatedly. Unfortunately, in Florida, we've really had our fair share in the past few years.

The real problem here is that we're holding juveniles to a different standard. We expect 13- and 14-year-old children to be held to the standard of what a reasonable man should have known or should have acted. And that's just not fair. It's not the way that we bring up our 13- and 14-year-olds.

COOPER: Not fair because?

WEINTRAUB: Well, it's not fair because it's not reality. Your 13-year-old child is not ready to make decisions for the rest of his life. Your 13-year-old child still needs to be told what to do by the parent. That's why he can't enter a contract. That's why he can't drive.

CRIER: But when you kill your parent, it makes it a little difficult.

TOOBIN: But, Jayne, to play the devil's advocate here, isn't it true that a person killed by a 13-year-old is just as dead as someone killed by a 30-year-old? And isn't society responding to that problem?

WEINTRAUB: No, I think that society is writing off the kids. That's what I think. I think that society is taking the position: "You know what? You're a killer, kid. You're no good. You're an animal. Goodbye. We'll warehouse you, like we warehouse the rest of the prison society."

I go to the jails all the time. I see what's in the jails.

CRIER: But, again, devil's advocate on that point is, you have a child. It's not a reasonable-man standard. It's, "Did you knowingly and intentionally take a baseball bat and bash your father's head in?"

Now, I believe there should be accommodations made here, but I don't think we should characterize it quite as, these poor children. These two knew exactly what they were doing. They set fire to the house when they were done with their father.

COOPER: Let me jump in here. There are plenty of crimes where the child is influenced by an adult. I mean, people even point to the King case in Florida right now. They say, look this person, these two kids were perhaps influenced by this person.

CRIER: Well, the judge mitigated, obviously, in the way of the sentencing, the settlement. WEINTRAUB: Mitigated? Catherine, Catherine...

CRIER: Oh, heavens. Are you telling me seven and eight years is too tough for this?

WEINTRAUB: Catherine, I tell you it's too tough for this because it's an adult prison. There weren't even juvenile options that were considered.

CRIER: They are juvenile facilities.

WEINTRAUB: Just wait one second.

CRIER: No, they are juvenile facilities.

WEINTRAUB: Catherine.

CRIER: But you're wrong. They're juvenile facilities there. And they are not being kept in the adult quarters.

COOPER: Jayne, you want to respond?

WEINTRAUB: Hold on. That's not true.

They are going to be in the adult quarters. They're going to be in the youthful offender quarters. If there is any problem whatsoever, they're moved. But there is nobody within three years of their age limit. So, even though they're going to be treated as -- quote -- "children," and they were talking about counseling, none of that exists there. There's no dormitory there. It's a cell. I've been to these places.

CRIER: Well, it's very interesting, because I actually talked to their lawyer today on my program. And I asked her. I said any psychiatric assistance -- of course, we know that doesn't exist in the adult facility,

WEINTRAUB: Exactly.

CRIER: I said, "These two need some psychiatric help."

And she said, "Well, I'm unaware of any counseling provisions."

COOPER: Well, that goes back to what you were saying, Jeff, about, in the '60s, the idea was, there was talk of rehabilitation. You don't hear talk about rehabilitation...

TOOBIN: Rehabilitation -- and this goes to the broader penal system.

WEINTRAUB: The entire judicial system, yes.

TOOBIN: Right, that rehabilitation was a wonderful goal of the criminal justice system in an earlier time. Whether it's because we gave up or it's because we never tried in the first place, rehabilitation is less of a goal. COOPER: Well, there are those who say it doesn't work.

TOOBIN: Or it doesn't work.

I mean, rehabilitation is simply less of a goal throughout the criminal justice system than it used to be. So, the idea is, just simply warehouse them and get them off the streets, which is not entirely a terrible idea, by the way.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: Depending on what the crime is and who the criminal is.

TOOBIN: If they're stone-cold killers.

WEINTRAUB: What is a stone-cold killer? I mean, in the King case, it's a domestic situation.

And, Catherine, by the way, I will also take issue with the fact that there's an evidentiary problem here, which I saw. And that is, in this particular case -- and all I can do is address what I know -- in this particular case, there was an alleged -- there were three alleged confession that are all different, of course. And what I can tell you is...

CRIER: There was no confession on Chavis' part, no confession at all. You're talking about the two boys.

WEINTRAUB: Of course not. He's an adult. He's an adult, and he knew better than to waive his rights to counsel. But children, who are unduly influenced by adults and don't know how to not not exercise their rights, they get in trouble, because they talk, because they didn't understand what they were doing.

But my question to you is, do you know that there's absolutely no evidence even maintained today by the prosecutor at a news conference? The prosecutor's best evidence against little Alex is that he's an eyewitness to the crime and that he didn't do anything to prevent it. Last time I looked, that doesn't make him -- last time I looked, that doesn't make him, especially as a 12-year-old little boy, an accomplice to murder.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINTRAUB: Seven years in adult prison.

COOPER: Before we go down the road of arguing this case, Jayne, what do you think, if anything, what needs to change in the way we handle kids?

WEINTRAUB: What needs to change is, I disagree with Jeff also.

Sorry, Jeff, but I think that we need to go back to the '60s in a lot of ways. I think that we need to emphasize what was going on there and not give up on the kids. Maybe we need to restructure our prison population, because, unfortunately, there are so many kids. And, like Catherine says, I think a two-tier system is a great idea, because it matures with the child.

There is no education for these kids, except a GED correspondence course. They are all put in one room. So a 13-year-old kid is going to get education three hours a day in the same place that a 17-year- old is. So what do you think's going to happen? It's going to be like "Welcome Back, Kotter" again. It's just a joke.

These kids really need teachers. They need structure. They need supervision. And I hate to say it, but they might even need some nurturing. These are kids that are hurt. These are kids that need some help.

COOPER: All right, final thoughts?

TOOBIN: I'm just so transfixed by the thought of "Welcome Back, Kotter." That's not so bad. Look what it did for John Travolta.

CRIER: Horshack. Horshack.

TOOBIN: Right.

I think this is ultimately a political issue. The political climate is still to be very tough on kids, adults, anybody who commits crimes. And I don't think it's going to change.

CRIER: We've got to have a dual system, so that these kids can start out in the juvenile system. And if they're still a problem, we can take care of that.

COOPER: We've got to end it there. We're simply out of time.

Jayne Weintraub, thank you. Catherine Crier and Jeffrey Toobin, thank you as well. Appreciate it.

When we come back: Can't we just let them live and play in their natural habitats? Humanity's relentless encroachment on the catwalk, native environment to the endangered South American supermodel -- when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, changing gears here a little, in just a few moments, I'll sit down with mama Soprano, Edie Falco. You won't want to miss that.

But first, if you've opened a magazine in the last year, you've probably seen the supermodel Gisele. She's 22, Brazilian. She dated Leonardo DiCaprio -- although, frankly, what self-respecting supermodel hasn't? Gisele has becomes become a super spokesmodel, or is it spokes supermodel?

Anyway, she represents a fur coat company. And that's angered anti-fur activists. Last night, in New York, they struck back.

Take a look at this. During a taping of a Victoria Secret's fashion show, protesters stormed the catwalk. Gisele was caught with her pants down. But she strutted on. Ain't nobody going to break her stride. That's Gisele there in the underwear. The protesters are wearing clothes. Faster than they could yell, "Gisele is fur scum," fashion police cleared the stage. Order and beauty was restored.

Ah, yes. Gisele told CNN she really doesn't wear fur and says she's -- quote -- "the biggest animal lover in the world." I guess it really is hard being a supermodel after all.

Back in a moment with Edie Falco.

ANNOUNCER: Next: life on Broadway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STANLEY TUCCI, ACTOR: Beware young Cassius. He hath a lean and hungry look.

FALCO, ACTRESS: Who's Cassius?

TUCCI: I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: And what it's like to be married to the mob.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

FALCO: When you trivialize things that are important to me, like this family's financial security, it make me feel unloved.

JAMES GANDOLFINI, ACTOR: Well, that's your problem right there, because you equate love with money.

FALCO: You equate love with money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Edie Falco steps off the stage and into our studio.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, in the New York City thesaurus, the preferred synonym for waiter is actor. And not so long ago, the picture you found next to that listing might have been Edie Falco's.

After a decade serving Diet Cokes and burgers, these days Edie Falco serves up quality TV in her award-winning role as Carmela Soprano on the HBO series "The Sopranos."

Now, as Carmela, she doesn't really quarrel with her husband's work as a strip club owner or extortionist or drug dealer or loan shark or killer, for that matter. No, what really gets under her skin these days is lack of retirement planning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

GANDOLFINI: You gonna cry now? What the hell is wrong with you?

FALCO: When you ignore me, Tony, when you trivialize things that are important to me, like this family's financial security, it makes me feel unloved.

GANDOLFINI: But that's your problem right there, because you equate love with money.

FALCO: Oh, you equate love with money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Edie Falco's also receiving rave revenues on Broadway in "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune"; her part, a waitress.

Edie Falco joins me now.

Thanks very much for being with us.

FALCO: I'm glad to be here.

COOPER: A lot of people probably know of you, obviously, as Carmela Soprano, and that's, sort of, the first they ever heard of you. But you have been in this business a long, long time, and it has been a very, very tough road.

When you graduated acting school, did you have any idea how difficult it was going to be?

FALCO: No, I don't think -- and nobody can actually warn you about that, also. I kept thinking, "I wish somebody had told me." But they -- you know, it's also not as difficult for everybody, so, in a way.

COOPER: But it was tough for you -- I mean, you were pounding the pavement for a long time.

FALCO: Yes, I was. I was.

COOPER: What was the problem?

FALCO: It's a ridiculously stupid career choice. That's what the problem was...

(LAUGHTER)

... the percentage, you know, the ratio of people who want to be actors and the people who are working. I mean, it's a ridiculous thing to do.

COOPER: Right. FALCO: But unfortunately, I loved it and I didn't know anything else. I didn't know anything...

COOPER: And you couldn't do anything else...

FALCO: You know, I never felt as good about myself or just in general, never felt as good as I did when I was acting. So I figured I would just -- I know I was going to do it. I just didn't know if I'd ever get paid for it.

COOPER: I mean, to love something so much, and yet, sort of, not be able to do it at the level you want. I mean, you were living in a one-room apartment...

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: ... in New York. And I've read you couldn't afford cable television.

FALCO: Yes, until recently, actually...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: And you were working as a waitress.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: What was that like?

FALCO: Well, it was ridiculously hard. The thing is, I was always acting. I was doing, you know, backstage, magazines and stuff, but always auditions to do for little plays or...

COOPER: Readings.

FALCO: Yes, exactly, or student films at NYU or something. So I was always doing something. I never got paid for it. And it ended up actually costing me money a lot, because I'd have to give up my waitressing shifts and all that stuff. All I really wanted to not have to do something else to supplement my income. And that took a long time.

COOPER: I've also read, and you've been very up front about it is that there were some very, dark, dark times. I mean, you talked about having anxiety attacks. What was that period like?

FALCO: It was brutal. It was really brutal. I mentioned it offhandedly in an interview once, and it became this huge thing. It's funny. And then I started thinking, I thought everybody had anxiety. I guess I didn't realize...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: If you are in the media or in the acting business, I think so. FALCO: I started to think maybe I was more nuts than I realized at the time, but it was terrible. I had no money, I had no -- there was nothing coming up career-wise. It looked, sort of, hopeless. I was working at a horrible job, which is all related to what was actually happening. It was these horrible anxiety attacks.

They did eventually subside, but at the time, if you know anybody who's ever had them, is the worst thing is that you don't think they'll ever go away. And you think you've lost your mind.

COOPER: You said you came close to thinking you were having a breakdown.

FALCO: Yes. I didn't know what it was. I just had nothing to compare it too. It's such a strange physiological thing that happened with an anxiety attack. You really think you're losing your mind.

COOPER: And how did you get out of it?

FALCO: Well, each little attack eventually does subside and go away. And I talked to friends, actually, and members of my family who said, "You've just got to believe me when I tell you they eventually go away and they never come back." And that was exactly what happened.

COOPER: And there was the time you ended up at your mom's house.

FALCO: Yes, I had quit a job and I left the job -- you know, a stacking shelves job -- in the middle of the day. I said, "I have to go." And I left, walked to Penn Station and got on the train and went home to my mother's house on Long Island and just stayed there for a while. So sad.

COOPER: Yes. Well, this certainly would seem to be a great time in your life. I mean, you have won two Golden Globes -- or two Emmys.

FALCO: Or whatever.

COOPER: However many. It's a whole list of things. I mean, it's really...

FALCO: It's great.

COOPER: ... it's got to be an extraordinary time for you.

FALCO: It really is great. It's a lot. It's a lot that's happened in a short period of time. So it's -- I'm still trying to, sort of, digest it all, you know.

COOPER: Is the fame what you thought it was going to be?

FALCO: I never thought so much about fame, to be honest with you. It was never something I wanted. I just wanted to work. I wanted to work all the time. I wanted to make sure I had some script of something, you know, at my house at all times to work on. I had not anticipated any of this stuff. Saying it's kind of great and kind of not so great sometimes because I...

COOPER: Everyone on the street must say, "Hey, Carmela."

FALCO: Yes, there was a lot of that. And that's another thing, to be known for one character really, is also strange. It'd be different if she was somebody I felt like I was like, you know. The fact that I, in my real life, I don't know if I would ever meet her, you know.

COOPER: Your hair is much different.

FALCO: And my hair, for instance, is so much different than hers. The nails. So the idea that people think that I am her is still a little shocking.

COOPER: What seems to me though, is, I mean, you have reached a very high level of fame. And yet you're not the kind of person that seems or -- I mean, I haven't seen you, like, "Access Hollywood" hanging out with Ivana Trump.

FALCO: Not yet.

COOPER: You know, at fashion shows. We can dream. We can hope.

(LAUGHTER)

FALCO: A girl can dream.

COOPER: But, I mean, it seems really about the work for you. I mean, you're in this play on Broadway, you're not, like, kicking back and just cashing in.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: You're really still taking very tough roles.

FALCO: Yes. Well, I mean, you know, and I don't mean to sound, you know, whatever, Pollyannish about it, but the truth is, the only reason I ever pursued this is because I really do love acting, I really do love it. I love movies and I love plays, I love seeing them, and all I ever wanted to be was a part of this community, and I am. And the rest of this stuff is really -- it's a side effect, you know, but it was not anything I ever wanted. So I do the best I can at showing up for it and stuff, but it's for me.

COOPER: Everyone must pump you for information about "The Sopranos." The fourth season is almost over; it's airing right now.

FALCO: Right.

COOPER: You're about to start your fifth season, right?

FALCO: Yes, beginning of the year.

COOPER: And everyone must constantly ask you, "Can you tell me what's going to happen the fifth season?"

FALCO: Yes, there is a lot of that.

COOPER: Yes. Seriously, though, what is...

(LAUGHTER)

FALCO: I didn't see that coming.

I have no idea. I haven't seen the show. So I have absolutely no idea.

COOPER: But do you think this is the last season?

FALCO: Coming up? I think so, yes. The one we're about to shoot. But, you know, things change all the time. Literally, my mother calls me when she hears stuff on the radio, and I'm like, "Oh, I guess we're doing another season." I'm always the last person to know these things.

COOPER: And you don't even tell your mother?

FALCO: No. And she pumps me, you know, worse than anything else, like, "I'm your mother?" I'm like, "Well, can't tell you."

COOPER: Yes. Well, I'm a huge fan of the show. I've been a huge fan of yours for a long time.

FALCO: Thank you.

COOPER: So we appreciate you coming in.

FALCO: It's my pleasure.

COOPER: All right. Thanks very much.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: All right. Edie Falco, thanks a lot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: We'll be right back with a look ahead at next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Monday: Helena Bonham Carter has a new movie about CNN and the Gulf War. You'll meet her on Monday with Connie.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, on Iraq and what the world really thinks of America.

Thanks for watching. I'll be on tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m.

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

Head to Iraq>

Aired November 15, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Anderson Cooper, in for Connie Chung.
Tonight: It has been more than a year, but now the FBI warns al Qaeda may be about to try again.

ANNOUNCER: A chilling new terror warning, Americans on the alert, this following the latest tape believed to be from Osama bin Laden.

Plus: Where should the U.S. focus be, on bin Laden or Saddam?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The worst nightmare that we would face is the combination of extremism with a hostile regime armed with weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: U.N. inspectors prepare to return to Iraq, led by this man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The United States government is determined that there shall be no cat-and-mouse play.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: What kind of reception will his team get in Baghdad this time?

John Lee Malvo, a sniper suspect; Nathaniel Brazill, convicted of killing his teacher; the King brothers admitted beating their father to death. Tonight: defending children accused of murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

EDIE FALCO, ACTRESS: Anthony Soprano, that is wonderful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tony's wife on TV.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FALCO: I played Fiona in our high school production of "Brigadoon."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Stanley's gal on Broadway -- the many sides of Edie Falco.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, for Connie Chung, Anderson Cooper.

COOPER: Good evening.

Tonight, the FBI says al Qaeda may be about to strike again and strike hard, not overseas, here at home, the goal the same as September 11: maximum damage, maximum death, maximum fear. The warning is not based on any new intelligence, but analysis of past al Qaeda patterns. Statements similar to this week's Osama bin Laden audiotape were received prior to the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 strike on the USS Cole.

CNN's Jeanne Meserve has more on the warning and what it means.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The words leap off the page, "spectacular attacks," a stark and striking phrase never seen in previous warnings. This alert sent in a weekly bulletin to law enforcement after an uptick in credible intelligence about al Qaeda and a recent audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden. Officials say it is not news that al Qaeda is bent on destruction.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The warnings that have gone out recently really are a summary of intelligence, not a new warning. This is a summary of intelligence as we know it.

MESERVE: The warning speaks of possible mass casualties, severe damage to the economy, maximum psychological trauma, and says likely targets are the aviation, petroleum, and nuclear sectors or national landmarks. It also raises the possibility of smaller low-tech attacks against less protected targets.

WILLIAM DALEY, CONTROL RISKS GROUP: They're trying to tell us that there's a very good chance, based on background information that something will happen.

MESERVE: Concern over al Qaeda has been growing steadily. CIA Director George Tenet last month.

GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: Al Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas.

MESERVE: A warning about railroads and other critical infrastructure, one of two public warnings issued in the past month and officials actually began drafting this one two weeks ago. Increased customs and immigration inspections at the nation's borders, an example of how the government has been ramping up security.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: We have taken additional protective measures to protect our critical infrastructure, both public and private, and secure our borders. There is unprecedented cooperation going on, both public and private at the federal, state, and local level.

MESERVE: An administration officials says law enforcement and some federal agencies are already operating very near threat level orange, representing high risk, though the country officially remains a step below at yellow.

(on camera): There is some reluctance, officials say, to raise the threat level to orange because of the potential disruption to citizens and commerce, but the administration is also lacking one thing it needs to move the level up: specific intelligence about when, where, and by what means a terrorist attack might take place.

Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: It is scary stuff.

You may be wondering, how does the warning affect you? How does it affect your community? And how does it even get into the hands of your local police?

Well, we asked CNN's Charles Feldman to lay out the process for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The latest FBI bulletin, No. 38, was sent out to more than 32,000 law enforcement officials or agencies worldwide via the FBI's Internet connection called LEO, short for Law Enforcement Online.

LEO supplements an older teletype system in which local police agencies can get special alerts from the FBI and exchange information with the federal agency. Since 9/11, law enforcement officials say that terrorist bulletins have been issued not to alarm the public or to mobilize local police, but rather to serve as reminders to police agencies nationwide that, in the war on terror, vigilance is the primary means of defense.

MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: They go back and they say: "OK, do we have this base covered? Do we have that base covered?" Then they also go out into the community, because we also remember that the community plays into this war on terrorism. They go out and make sure that all the critical infrastructures, the oil, petroleum, nuclear facilities, major icons, monuments, government buildings within their own jurisdiction, to make sure that they're covered sufficiently.

FELDMAN: And here in Los Angeles, that is exactly what the LAPD, the nation's second largest municipal police force, is doing on a daily basis.

LT. HORACE FRANK, LAPD: We owe it to the public to get the information out there and just remind them to continue being vigilant about their activities, not to panic, but just to be wary of your surroundings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FELDMAN: Now, so long as the apparent threat remains nonspecific, police agencies plan to continue to use these FBI alerts as important, but increasingly routine reminders to keep an extra eye out -- Anderson.

COOPER: Well, Charles, it's confusing, I think, for a lot of people. I know it is for me. The national threat level has not gone up, and yet this alert has gone out to local authorities. What are your contacts in local law enforcement saying about this new communique they've gotten?

FELDMAN: Well, to be quite honest, they say that the press, we in the press, we tend to overreact to these things, that they understand, in the context in which these bulletins are issued, that they really are vigilant alerts, for vigilance, that they're not, as I think Jeanne pointed out in her report, they're not based on new information.

But rather the intent is to say to law enforcement officials: "Look, this is a threat. It's a continuing threat. Don't get lazy. Don't think that this is over. It's far from it. And it's designed to get law agencies, law enforcement agencies, to contact their local sources, to have more people out on the street, and to try to figure out if there's anything in their own communities that fits into this sort of larger mosaic.

COOPER: All right, Charles, Charles Feldman, thanks very much.

Now, government sources tell CNN that a top al Qaeda leader was taken into custody in recent weeks. Out of the top two dozen al Qaeda leaders, half have been killed or captured in the last year. What do we know about this most recent capture?

Well, we go now to Washington and CNN national security correspondent David Ensor -- David.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, as one official put it to me, this is a big catch, definitely a big catch, in the top 20 of al Qaeda, as it now exists.

He was captured in the last two weeks, officials say. But they refuse to identify him or say where or how he was caught or, for that matter, where he is now. Still, they're saying this new prisoner, if he cooperates, is in a position to be quite helpful. The immediate goal, of course, is to stop attacks he might know about that might be coming up soon and to round up any other leaders that this one might finger. Now, while declining to name the new prisoner, officials did confirm he is not Osama bin Laden, nor his son Saad. And he's not Ayman Al-Zawahri or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the No. 2 and No. 3 men in al Qaeda. The new prisoner joins others in the hands of the CIA being held at undisclosed locations overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Omar al-Faruq.

The president's national security adviser said that such prisoners are proving useful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: There have been a number of numerous senior leaders of al Qaeda that have either been eliminated, incarcerated or detained someplace. One of the reasons that we have had different sources of information that we did not have is that we have some of those people in custody who are informing us about how al Qaeda operates, about what various things might mean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: Sources say there's debate within the administration about how much to make public about this new prisoner and when. They say the fact the man was caught at all was leaked. And they're not happy about that. And they want to keep his identity a secret for a while longer, while they try to make quick use of what information they can get from him -- Anderson.

COOPER: David, you mentioned that this information was leaked out. I know there are some people who are probably not going to buy that, that it seems coincidental, perhaps, that, just a few days after this bin Laden tape is released that has gotten so much coverage, all the sudden, the administration comes out or someone comes out and says, "We've captured a top al Qaeda person."

I mean, are people raising those kind of questions?

ENSOR: Well, let's face it. When you use the word leaks, there are deliberate leaks and undeliberate leaks.

They are saying this was not deliberate. A lot of journalists know a lot of officials through the government. And there is a tendency to want to crow about a success. Apparently, someone did that.

COOPER: All right, David Ensor, thanks very much, our national security correspondent, in Washington.

Now, government officials let out word of this capture just as criticism was heating up -- or at least someone let out word -- criticism over the fact the administration should focus more on Osama bin Laden, they say, and al Qaeda, rather than devote, as President Bush put it, America's full force and might against Saddam Hussein.

Now, that criticism sparked the very first question today as President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, spoke to reporters.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: And ordinary citizens continue to ask, "Why go after Iraq now if we have this unfinished problem right here at home?"

RICE: Well, let me start by saying that the president begins his day at 8:00 in the morning with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, joined shortly after that by my colleague, Tom Ridge, and the FBI director and his counterterrorism person to review the terrorism threats to the United States.

He does not begin his day on Iraq. He begins his day on the war on terrorism and the threat levels and the threat information that we have about the United States. This is a central focus of this administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, joining me now to address that same question: Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona. He joins us in Washington. And in Chicago, we have Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. Both men sit on the Intelligence Committee.

Thanks for being with us, both of you.

Senator Kyl, let me start out with you.

We've just heard how the president starts off his day. How do you end your day? When you're lying in bed, what scares you more, Iraq or al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Well, I say a prayer for peace. And I really don't distinguish between the two.

I think, as David Ensor's report just indicated, though, we're not taking the war on terror for granted. We are working very hard every day. We're tracking people down. We're catching them. We're getting good information from them. We're disrupting the al Qaeda network. We've had great successes abroad in preventing numerous terrorist attacks. And, as some official recently said, this has not been a good year for Osama bin Laden.

COOPER: Well, Senator Durbin, you know the argument. I wasn't just interested in Senator Kyl's sleeping thoughts and his dreams. The argument, the criticism is that there are those who say: "Look, Iraq is not as pressing a security threat to the United States at this time, at this moment in history, as possibly al Qaeda or some of these other groups out there."

Your thoughts?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I think that's right for one very obvious reason. Saddam Hussein has a return address. We know where to find him. We know the country he lives in. We know where the resources are in Iraq. And it's that threat of answering in kind anything that he throws at the United States that has really kept him in check for such a long period of time.

We can't say the same when it comes to Osama bin Laden. It's been 14 months now that we've been engaged in this war on terrorism. We've made some progress. But the events of last -- just this last week, the tape from Osama bin Laden, the disclosures of new threats against the United States, are a grim reminder that we're a long way from victory in the war on terrorism.

And if we are going to have the resources and dedicate them for a successful outcome in this war, we have to understand that it's going to require some focus by the United States.

COOPER: Senator Kyl?

KYL: Sure. And I don't think there's any suggestion we haven't been focusing on the war on terror. I mean, that's the point that Condoleezza Rice made.

But the point is, we have a lot of things to worry about in this world. And if it hadn't been for President George Bush, the United Nations tonight would not be preparing to send inspectors in to do what has not been done for 11 years. And that is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is ridding himself of his weapons of mass destruction, as he promised to do and as the United States has passed resolutions saying he has to do.

Somebody has to take that leadership in the world. We're going to have to deal with other problems, with North Korea sooner or later, and Iran and others. So the United States has to deal with a lot of issues. And we can do more than one thing at a time. But I totally agree with Dr. Rice that the president's top priority right now is the war on terror.

COOPER: Senator Durbin, Tom Daschle has come out saying -- somewhat critical of the idea of fighting basically a two-front war, saying we really should be focusing on al Qaeda.

You know, the timing of this, some people could look at it as somewhat suspicious. I mean, the Democrats performing quite badly in the last elections. A lot of people said they lacked focus. And now, all of a sudden, this seems to be the issue Democrats are focusing on.

First of all, let's just play this Daschle bite. And then I want you to respond. Let's hear what Tom Daschle had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: We haven't found bin Laden. We haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year-and-a-half ago. So, by what measure can we say this has been successful so far?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was the kind of thing you would have thought you would have heard before the elections. Is this suddenly an issue the Democrats are latching onto?

DURBIN: Oh, I think it's an issue that's been precipitated by this new tape.

I was in Kabul at Bagram Air Force Base, just outside, last January and sat in for a military briefing where they went to a map of the mountainous regions around Afghanistan and drew a circle about the size of a half-dollar and said, "That's where Osama bin Laden is and we're going to get him."

We thought, as of last January, that we were going to find him and either arrest him or, as they've said, go after him and whatever is necessary. It hasn't happened. And this new tape has come out as a reminder that we still have unfinished business in the war on terrorism.

And I think that we ought to make certain we do not really minimize the resources that are needed to make certain that we're successful in trying to suppress this threat that we're reminded of on a weekly basis.

COOPER: Senator Kyl, there have been some who said that there is political pressure, or some political pressure, in some sectors to link Iraq with international terrorism. Do you think there is that pressure, or do you think that the linkage is real?

KYL: I don't quite understand what the political pressure would be. There are other reasons to deal with Iraq. I mean, Iraq is unfinished business from the Persian Gulf War. There is no direct -- although there is indirect -- but there's no direct al Qaeda connection there. That's not the reason that we're trying to enforce these U.N. resolutions.

I mean, I guess I would ask any Democratic friend who disagrees: Should the president not be urging the United Nations to get Saddam Hussein to rid himself of these weapons of mass destruction? Should we not have asked the United Nations to begin this inspection regime? I don't know how my friend Dick Durbin voted on the resolution authorizing the president to take action if necessary, but the Congress overwhelmingly passed that resolution.

I guess the point is that the United States has to deal with a lot of different problems. And there's no reason that we can't deal with more than one problem at once. Part of the evidence of the success on the war on terrorism is that we have not been struck here in the United States since September 11. And I would think that people would be joyous about that.

COOPER: All right, Senator Kyl, Senator Durbin, we're going to have to end it there. Thank you both for joining us.

And we're going to home in on Iraq when we return. The weapons inspectors are about to return to Baghdad. How will they be received this time? And what obstacles did they face the last time? We will find out from someone who was there.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: He leaves tonight to hit the streets of Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: There's no restriction as to what time we can go, anywhere, any time, at night, or during holidays. We can do it at any time, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The man charged with finding and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, U.N. inspectors charged with searching Iraq for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons have begun moving out. The leader of the biochemical team, Hans Blix, he left New York today. He will arrive in Cyprus on Sunday and then lead his advance team into Iraq on Monday.

Today, Blix reemphasized that this may be Iraq's last chance to cooperate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: I think the United States government is determined that there shall be no cat-and-mouse play. And this is how I also have understood, that the Security Council takes that view. Zero tolerance is a very strict word. Certainly, cat-and-mouse is something that will not -- I'm sure will not be tolerated in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, earlier, I spoke with CNN's Rym Brahimi in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: The advance U.N. team is supposed to arrive in Baghdad on Monday. Do you know what they're going to be doing in those first few days?

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, my understanding, Anderson, is that the head U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the IAEA chief, Mr. ElBaradei, will be coming with this team.

As you said, they will be meeting with officials. And then part of the team is going to start going about to try and set up preliminary logistics. But, basically, the first step will really be to discuss what will come next with Iraqi officials on the ground here.

COOPER: At this point, we're being told that the first full team of inspectors really won't be on the ground until something like November 25.

What are the Iraqi people being told about these inspectors? What kind of reception are these U.N. inspectors going to get by Iraqis?

BRAHIMI: Well, there are a lot of mixed feelings about this, Anderson, here in Baghdad.

You know, people don't really need to be told about anything special about these inspectors, because they have memories of when the previous team of inspectors were here. Now, it's true we know, for instance, because we listen to foreign news, that the team is going to be slightly different. There will be less Americans, for instance. And that was supposed to allay some fears of Iraqi officials that the team would risk being too sort of U.S.-oriented. And this is not going to be the case.

I'm not sure people here are aware of those details. And even when you tell them that, they think, "Well, it's all the same thing to us." Really, what matters to them right now is, A, that they're not going to be bombed. And this, they think, that accepting the resolution, was a good step, because they think at least it will maybe not put off forever, but at least delay whatever the U.S. might want to do here in Iraq.

COOPER: I'm confused, because it seems pretty accepted by the world community that Iraq has used mustard gas, nerve gas, chemical agents against their own people, against the Kurds in 1988, also against Iranian forces. So how can Iraq say that they have never had these weapons at all?

BRAHIMI: What they're saying is, "In the past four years, since the inspectors left in '98, we have not produced weapons of mass destruction."

And what they're telling everybody is that, "It was a good thing to accept the resolution, because we will be able to verify and to prove to the world that the U.S. were lying about us, that the U.K. was lying, and that we have nothing in terms of weapons of mass destruction" -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Rym Brahimi, thanks very much, in Baghdad. Appreciate it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, the last man to head a team of U.N. weapons in Iraq was Richard Butler, who joins me now from Sydney, Australia.

And I want to start by asking you, what is different this time? What advantages will these inspectors have, in terms of power and access, that you didn't have back then?

RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Anderson, I wish I'd had those powers four years ago.

The Security Council gave them absolutely every authority that they need to verify Iraq's claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction. They can go anywhere, to any building, any place, at any time in Iraq. They can seize any document, any government document that they think they need to look at. They can interview any person who was involved in Iraq's weapons program, not only inside Iraq, but they can take them outside Iraq, so that they can be talked to free of Iraqi government pressure upon them.

That's very important, in my view, because I remember us trying to interview people in the past with Iraqi guards standing over them. Some of them were terrified. Some of them could barely speak. Clearly, many of them lied. I reckon that we would have a very different situation if we could take some of those engineers and scientists outside the country to freedom and say: "Now, tell us what you were working on. What were you doing?"

My point is this, Anderson. These inspectors, if -- if, big if -- they are allowed to exercise all of those powers, they'll get to the bottom of it. They'll get the truth.

COOPER: Take us, if you will, on to the ground in Iraq. What is it like being a weapons inspector? What are some of the obstacles that the Iraqis in your case threw up in your way? I've heard everything from bugging rooms to artificial traffic jams. What are you dealing with on the ground? What's it like?

BUTLER: You know, if it weren't so serious, Anderson, it would be as funny as the Keystone Cops. But you think of anything you can think of, from driving people down blind...

COOPER: Go ahead.

BUTLER: Sorry.

Driving people down blind allies, wrong maps, wrong times, cars running out of petrol, bugging telephones. Right at one end of the spectrum, that's the soft and silly end of the spectrum. But the other end, of course, was gunpoint, holding people up at gunpoint and saying, "You may not enter this place"; accommodating people too far from their place of work, making us land our aircraft in a military airfield well out of Baghdad.

So, before we went anywhere, we had to drive an hour-and-a-half to get into the city. As I said, it's almost laughable. I could go on and on about it. But I'll make this point. Hans Blix, the new chief inspector, he wrote to the Iraqis over a month ago, setting out the conditions that he would need to get the job done properly, you know, the ordinary working conditions on the ground. That letter is attached to the Security Council resolution adopted a little over a week ago. Anderson, Iraq has not yet even replied to that letter. So Hans is going there not knowing whether he'll be able to get the job done in the sort of practical, mundane way.

COOPER: Well, let me ask you about Mr. Blix. There are those who say, this guy is not tough enough. Not only is he a civil servant, but he's a Swedish civil servant, so kind of used to a bureaucratic mind-set. In your opinion, is this the man to take on Saddam Hussein?

BUTLER: I'm well aware of that characterization of Hans. I've known him for over 25 years. I'm aware of his track record at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where people do raise some questions about that.

But I want to say this very, very clearly. Hans has been given all of the powers that he needs. He is a man of integrity. He's a Swedish bureaucrat and therefore may be a bit cautious in some ways. But he's a man of integrity and a man of determination. I believe -- and listening to what he's been saying in the last week or so, I think he's going to be pretty determined to get this job done properly.

It's not a question of him. It's a question of whether or not the Iraqis will allow him or anyone to do this job. And frankly, Anderson, I don't think the signs are so good. Look at what I said about how they haven't even replied to the letter on ordinary, mundane working conditions. This will unfold in the next couple of weeks. But I will be agreeably surprised if Iraq actually shows that it really is willing to cooperate.

COOPER: All right. Well, we will see.

Richard Butler, thanks a lot for joining us. I appreciate it.

Well, still ahead: Would you go to bed with Tony Soprano? Edie Falco does. And you will meet her in just a bit.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: A 17-year-old suspected of multiple sniper killings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD PETIT, GUARDIAN OF JOHN LEE MALVO: The appropriate decision should have been to put him in the juvenile detention center.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Justice for juveniles accused of capital crimes -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Three high-profile criminal cases involving juveniles made the news this week, sometimes in disturbing ways. Just today, a judge ruled that John Lee Malvo, accused sniper, will be held not in a juvenile detention center, even though he's 17, but in an adult jail equipped to hold juvenile prisoners.

Now, yesterday, Derek and Alex King admitted in court that they killed their father, Terry, last year. And they entered a guilty plea that will bring them eight and seven years in prison. And a jury found that the gunmaker Valor was partly liable for 16-year-old Nathaniel Brazill's fatal shooting two years ago of his teacher at school, ordering Valor to pay the teacher's widow $1.2 million.

So, the question is: How does our justice system deal with kids accused of murder? We thought we'd talk tonight about the state of juvenile justice with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. We also have Catherine Crier, host of Court TV's "Catherine Crier Live"; and, in Miami, defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.

Thanks to you all for being here.

Jeffrey, I want to start off with you.

As you look at how the criminal justice system deals with kids, explain a little bit the difference. How do we deal with kids as opposed to adults?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's changed a lot.

I mean, in the '60s, there was a real movement in the courts to say that: "Juveniles have different needs, different responsibilities for their own actions. So, we're going to treat them not so much like they need punishment, but that like they need improvement, training, assistance, nurturing," and that -- we had lesser sentences for them. We had separate facilities for them. And that was true in the '60s and '70s.

COOPER: But that has changed.

TOOBIN: It's changed a lot. The great concern about crime in this country has led to trying children like adults, the elimination or reduction in juvenile detention centers.

So, 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, even going down to 13-year-olds are increasingly treated like adults and punished like adults.

COOPER: Catherine, do you think we need to go back to this two- tier system?

CATHERINE CRIER, HOST, "CATHERINE CRIER LIVE": Oh, a variation on the theme. I think several states have got it right. They have a juvenile-adult dual system, where what you can do is be tried as a juvenile. And you can be held in those facilities if, in fact, at the time that you should be released under the juvenile laws, and the court determines you are not ready, you can then move into the adult system.

But that gives them the option of trying to rehabilitate, separate and apart from the best crime school in the country -- and that is our prison system -- and try and do something about these kids before they're put in the system, at which point you write them off.

COOPER: Jayne Weintraub, let me bring you in.

Does our system know how to deal with kids who kill?

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, it doesn't. Our juvenile justice system is no justice at all. And we see that repeatedly. Unfortunately, in Florida, we've really had our fair share in the past few years.

The real problem here is that we're holding juveniles to a different standard. We expect 13- and 14-year-old children to be held to the standard of what a reasonable man should have known or should have acted. And that's just not fair. It's not the way that we bring up our 13- and 14-year-olds.

COOPER: Not fair because?

WEINTRAUB: Well, it's not fair because it's not reality. Your 13-year-old child is not ready to make decisions for the rest of his life. Your 13-year-old child still needs to be told what to do by the parent. That's why he can't enter a contract. That's why he can't drive.

CRIER: But when you kill your parent, it makes it a little difficult.

TOOBIN: But, Jayne, to play the devil's advocate here, isn't it true that a person killed by a 13-year-old is just as dead as someone killed by a 30-year-old? And isn't society responding to that problem?

WEINTRAUB: No, I think that society is writing off the kids. That's what I think. I think that society is taking the position: "You know what? You're a killer, kid. You're no good. You're an animal. Goodbye. We'll warehouse you, like we warehouse the rest of the prison society."

I go to the jails all the time. I see what's in the jails.

CRIER: But, again, devil's advocate on that point is, you have a child. It's not a reasonable-man standard. It's, "Did you knowingly and intentionally take a baseball bat and bash your father's head in?"

Now, I believe there should be accommodations made here, but I don't think we should characterize it quite as, these poor children. These two knew exactly what they were doing. They set fire to the house when they were done with their father.

COOPER: Let me jump in here. There are plenty of crimes where the child is influenced by an adult. I mean, people even point to the King case in Florida right now. They say, look this person, these two kids were perhaps influenced by this person.

CRIER: Well, the judge mitigated, obviously, in the way of the sentencing, the settlement. WEINTRAUB: Mitigated? Catherine, Catherine...

CRIER: Oh, heavens. Are you telling me seven and eight years is too tough for this?

WEINTRAUB: Catherine, I tell you it's too tough for this because it's an adult prison. There weren't even juvenile options that were considered.

CRIER: They are juvenile facilities.

WEINTRAUB: Just wait one second.

CRIER: No, they are juvenile facilities.

WEINTRAUB: Catherine.

CRIER: But you're wrong. They're juvenile facilities there. And they are not being kept in the adult quarters.

COOPER: Jayne, you want to respond?

WEINTRAUB: Hold on. That's not true.

They are going to be in the adult quarters. They're going to be in the youthful offender quarters. If there is any problem whatsoever, they're moved. But there is nobody within three years of their age limit. So, even though they're going to be treated as -- quote -- "children," and they were talking about counseling, none of that exists there. There's no dormitory there. It's a cell. I've been to these places.

CRIER: Well, it's very interesting, because I actually talked to their lawyer today on my program. And I asked her. I said any psychiatric assistance -- of course, we know that doesn't exist in the adult facility,

WEINTRAUB: Exactly.

CRIER: I said, "These two need some psychiatric help."

And she said, "Well, I'm unaware of any counseling provisions."

COOPER: Well, that goes back to what you were saying, Jeff, about, in the '60s, the idea was, there was talk of rehabilitation. You don't hear talk about rehabilitation...

TOOBIN: Rehabilitation -- and this goes to the broader penal system.

WEINTRAUB: The entire judicial system, yes.

TOOBIN: Right, that rehabilitation was a wonderful goal of the criminal justice system in an earlier time. Whether it's because we gave up or it's because we never tried in the first place, rehabilitation is less of a goal. COOPER: Well, there are those who say it doesn't work.

TOOBIN: Or it doesn't work.

I mean, rehabilitation is simply less of a goal throughout the criminal justice system than it used to be. So, the idea is, just simply warehouse them and get them off the streets, which is not entirely a terrible idea, by the way.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: Depending on what the crime is and who the criminal is.

TOOBIN: If they're stone-cold killers.

WEINTRAUB: What is a stone-cold killer? I mean, in the King case, it's a domestic situation.

And, Catherine, by the way, I will also take issue with the fact that there's an evidentiary problem here, which I saw. And that is, in this particular case -- and all I can do is address what I know -- in this particular case, there was an alleged -- there were three alleged confession that are all different, of course. And what I can tell you is...

CRIER: There was no confession on Chavis' part, no confession at all. You're talking about the two boys.

WEINTRAUB: Of course not. He's an adult. He's an adult, and he knew better than to waive his rights to counsel. But children, who are unduly influenced by adults and don't know how to not not exercise their rights, they get in trouble, because they talk, because they didn't understand what they were doing.

But my question to you is, do you know that there's absolutely no evidence even maintained today by the prosecutor at a news conference? The prosecutor's best evidence against little Alex is that he's an eyewitness to the crime and that he didn't do anything to prevent it. Last time I looked, that doesn't make him -- last time I looked, that doesn't make him, especially as a 12-year-old little boy, an accomplice to murder.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINTRAUB: Seven years in adult prison.

COOPER: Before we go down the road of arguing this case, Jayne, what do you think, if anything, what needs to change in the way we handle kids?

WEINTRAUB: What needs to change is, I disagree with Jeff also.

Sorry, Jeff, but I think that we need to go back to the '60s in a lot of ways. I think that we need to emphasize what was going on there and not give up on the kids. Maybe we need to restructure our prison population, because, unfortunately, there are so many kids. And, like Catherine says, I think a two-tier system is a great idea, because it matures with the child.

There is no education for these kids, except a GED correspondence course. They are all put in one room. So a 13-year-old kid is going to get education three hours a day in the same place that a 17-year- old is. So what do you think's going to happen? It's going to be like "Welcome Back, Kotter" again. It's just a joke.

These kids really need teachers. They need structure. They need supervision. And I hate to say it, but they might even need some nurturing. These are kids that are hurt. These are kids that need some help.

COOPER: All right, final thoughts?

TOOBIN: I'm just so transfixed by the thought of "Welcome Back, Kotter." That's not so bad. Look what it did for John Travolta.

CRIER: Horshack. Horshack.

TOOBIN: Right.

I think this is ultimately a political issue. The political climate is still to be very tough on kids, adults, anybody who commits crimes. And I don't think it's going to change.

CRIER: We've got to have a dual system, so that these kids can start out in the juvenile system. And if they're still a problem, we can take care of that.

COOPER: We've got to end it there. We're simply out of time.

Jayne Weintraub, thank you. Catherine Crier and Jeffrey Toobin, thank you as well. Appreciate it.

When we come back: Can't we just let them live and play in their natural habitats? Humanity's relentless encroachment on the catwalk, native environment to the endangered South American supermodel -- when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, changing gears here a little, in just a few moments, I'll sit down with mama Soprano, Edie Falco. You won't want to miss that.

But first, if you've opened a magazine in the last year, you've probably seen the supermodel Gisele. She's 22, Brazilian. She dated Leonardo DiCaprio -- although, frankly, what self-respecting supermodel hasn't? Gisele has becomes become a super spokesmodel, or is it spokes supermodel?

Anyway, she represents a fur coat company. And that's angered anti-fur activists. Last night, in New York, they struck back.

Take a look at this. During a taping of a Victoria Secret's fashion show, protesters stormed the catwalk. Gisele was caught with her pants down. But she strutted on. Ain't nobody going to break her stride. That's Gisele there in the underwear. The protesters are wearing clothes. Faster than they could yell, "Gisele is fur scum," fashion police cleared the stage. Order and beauty was restored.

Ah, yes. Gisele told CNN she really doesn't wear fur and says she's -- quote -- "the biggest animal lover in the world." I guess it really is hard being a supermodel after all.

Back in a moment with Edie Falco.

ANNOUNCER: Next: life on Broadway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STANLEY TUCCI, ACTOR: Beware young Cassius. He hath a lean and hungry look.

FALCO, ACTRESS: Who's Cassius?

TUCCI: I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: And what it's like to be married to the mob.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

FALCO: When you trivialize things that are important to me, like this family's financial security, it make me feel unloved.

JAMES GANDOLFINI, ACTOR: Well, that's your problem right there, because you equate love with money.

FALCO: You equate love with money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Edie Falco steps off the stage and into our studio.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, in the New York City thesaurus, the preferred synonym for waiter is actor. And not so long ago, the picture you found next to that listing might have been Edie Falco's.

After a decade serving Diet Cokes and burgers, these days Edie Falco serves up quality TV in her award-winning role as Carmela Soprano on the HBO series "The Sopranos."

Now, as Carmela, she doesn't really quarrel with her husband's work as a strip club owner or extortionist or drug dealer or loan shark or killer, for that matter. No, what really gets under her skin these days is lack of retirement planning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SOPRANOS")

GANDOLFINI: You gonna cry now? What the hell is wrong with you?

FALCO: When you ignore me, Tony, when you trivialize things that are important to me, like this family's financial security, it makes me feel unloved.

GANDOLFINI: But that's your problem right there, because you equate love with money.

FALCO: Oh, you equate love with money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Edie Falco's also receiving rave revenues on Broadway in "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune"; her part, a waitress.

Edie Falco joins me now.

Thanks very much for being with us.

FALCO: I'm glad to be here.

COOPER: A lot of people probably know of you, obviously, as Carmela Soprano, and that's, sort of, the first they ever heard of you. But you have been in this business a long, long time, and it has been a very, very tough road.

When you graduated acting school, did you have any idea how difficult it was going to be?

FALCO: No, I don't think -- and nobody can actually warn you about that, also. I kept thinking, "I wish somebody had told me." But they -- you know, it's also not as difficult for everybody, so, in a way.

COOPER: But it was tough for you -- I mean, you were pounding the pavement for a long time.

FALCO: Yes, I was. I was.

COOPER: What was the problem?

FALCO: It's a ridiculously stupid career choice. That's what the problem was...

(LAUGHTER)

... the percentage, you know, the ratio of people who want to be actors and the people who are working. I mean, it's a ridiculous thing to do.

COOPER: Right. FALCO: But unfortunately, I loved it and I didn't know anything else. I didn't know anything...

COOPER: And you couldn't do anything else...

FALCO: You know, I never felt as good about myself or just in general, never felt as good as I did when I was acting. So I figured I would just -- I know I was going to do it. I just didn't know if I'd ever get paid for it.

COOPER: I mean, to love something so much, and yet, sort of, not be able to do it at the level you want. I mean, you were living in a one-room apartment...

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: ... in New York. And I've read you couldn't afford cable television.

FALCO: Yes, until recently, actually...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: And you were working as a waitress.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: What was that like?

FALCO: Well, it was ridiculously hard. The thing is, I was always acting. I was doing, you know, backstage, magazines and stuff, but always auditions to do for little plays or...

COOPER: Readings.

FALCO: Yes, exactly, or student films at NYU or something. So I was always doing something. I never got paid for it. And it ended up actually costing me money a lot, because I'd have to give up my waitressing shifts and all that stuff. All I really wanted to not have to do something else to supplement my income. And that took a long time.

COOPER: I've also read, and you've been very up front about it is that there were some very, dark, dark times. I mean, you talked about having anxiety attacks. What was that period like?

FALCO: It was brutal. It was really brutal. I mentioned it offhandedly in an interview once, and it became this huge thing. It's funny. And then I started thinking, I thought everybody had anxiety. I guess I didn't realize...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: If you are in the media or in the acting business, I think so. FALCO: I started to think maybe I was more nuts than I realized at the time, but it was terrible. I had no money, I had no -- there was nothing coming up career-wise. It looked, sort of, hopeless. I was working at a horrible job, which is all related to what was actually happening. It was these horrible anxiety attacks.

They did eventually subside, but at the time, if you know anybody who's ever had them, is the worst thing is that you don't think they'll ever go away. And you think you've lost your mind.

COOPER: You said you came close to thinking you were having a breakdown.

FALCO: Yes. I didn't know what it was. I just had nothing to compare it too. It's such a strange physiological thing that happened with an anxiety attack. You really think you're losing your mind.

COOPER: And how did you get out of it?

FALCO: Well, each little attack eventually does subside and go away. And I talked to friends, actually, and members of my family who said, "You've just got to believe me when I tell you they eventually go away and they never come back." And that was exactly what happened.

COOPER: And there was the time you ended up at your mom's house.

FALCO: Yes, I had quit a job and I left the job -- you know, a stacking shelves job -- in the middle of the day. I said, "I have to go." And I left, walked to Penn Station and got on the train and went home to my mother's house on Long Island and just stayed there for a while. So sad.

COOPER: Yes. Well, this certainly would seem to be a great time in your life. I mean, you have won two Golden Globes -- or two Emmys.

FALCO: Or whatever.

COOPER: However many. It's a whole list of things. I mean, it's really...

FALCO: It's great.

COOPER: ... it's got to be an extraordinary time for you.

FALCO: It really is great. It's a lot. It's a lot that's happened in a short period of time. So it's -- I'm still trying to, sort of, digest it all, you know.

COOPER: Is the fame what you thought it was going to be?

FALCO: I never thought so much about fame, to be honest with you. It was never something I wanted. I just wanted to work. I wanted to work all the time. I wanted to make sure I had some script of something, you know, at my house at all times to work on. I had not anticipated any of this stuff. Saying it's kind of great and kind of not so great sometimes because I...

COOPER: Everyone on the street must say, "Hey, Carmela."

FALCO: Yes, there was a lot of that. And that's another thing, to be known for one character really, is also strange. It'd be different if she was somebody I felt like I was like, you know. The fact that I, in my real life, I don't know if I would ever meet her, you know.

COOPER: Your hair is much different.

FALCO: And my hair, for instance, is so much different than hers. The nails. So the idea that people think that I am her is still a little shocking.

COOPER: What seems to me though, is, I mean, you have reached a very high level of fame. And yet you're not the kind of person that seems or -- I mean, I haven't seen you, like, "Access Hollywood" hanging out with Ivana Trump.

FALCO: Not yet.

COOPER: You know, at fashion shows. We can dream. We can hope.

(LAUGHTER)

FALCO: A girl can dream.

COOPER: But, I mean, it seems really about the work for you. I mean, you're in this play on Broadway, you're not, like, kicking back and just cashing in.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: You're really still taking very tough roles.

FALCO: Yes. Well, I mean, you know, and I don't mean to sound, you know, whatever, Pollyannish about it, but the truth is, the only reason I ever pursued this is because I really do love acting, I really do love it. I love movies and I love plays, I love seeing them, and all I ever wanted to be was a part of this community, and I am. And the rest of this stuff is really -- it's a side effect, you know, but it was not anything I ever wanted. So I do the best I can at showing up for it and stuff, but it's for me.

COOPER: Everyone must pump you for information about "The Sopranos." The fourth season is almost over; it's airing right now.

FALCO: Right.

COOPER: You're about to start your fifth season, right?

FALCO: Yes, beginning of the year.

COOPER: And everyone must constantly ask you, "Can you tell me what's going to happen the fifth season?"

FALCO: Yes, there is a lot of that.

COOPER: Yes. Seriously, though, what is...

(LAUGHTER)

FALCO: I didn't see that coming.

I have no idea. I haven't seen the show. So I have absolutely no idea.

COOPER: But do you think this is the last season?

FALCO: Coming up? I think so, yes. The one we're about to shoot. But, you know, things change all the time. Literally, my mother calls me when she hears stuff on the radio, and I'm like, "Oh, I guess we're doing another season." I'm always the last person to know these things.

COOPER: And you don't even tell your mother?

FALCO: No. And she pumps me, you know, worse than anything else, like, "I'm your mother?" I'm like, "Well, can't tell you."

COOPER: Yes. Well, I'm a huge fan of the show. I've been a huge fan of yours for a long time.

FALCO: Thank you.

COOPER: So we appreciate you coming in.

FALCO: It's my pleasure.

COOPER: All right. Thanks very much.

FALCO: Yes.

COOPER: All right. Edie Falco, thanks a lot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: We'll be right back with a look ahead at next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Monday: Helena Bonham Carter has a new movie about CNN and the Gulf War. You'll meet her on Monday with Connie.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, on Iraq and what the world really thinks of America.

Thanks for watching. I'll be on tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m.

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

Head to Iraq>