Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Arizona Immigration Law to Take Effect; BP to Get American CEO; BP: Where It's Headed; Polygamist Leader Granted New Trial

Aired July 27, 2010 - 13:00   ET

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

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: I just can't believe that story.

All right, "CNN NEWSROOM" continues right now with Ali Velshi.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: That is fascinating. Wonder if we'll do so well when we retire, Tony. We'll just be sitting around in the local bar. That's Tony. Have a good afternoon.

I'm Ali Velshi. I'm going to be with you for the next two hours today and every weekday, taking every important topic that we cover a step further. I'm going to try and give you a level of detail that will help you put your world into context.

Let's get started. Here's what I've got on the rundown. Just two days to go until everything changes in Arizona. The eyes of the nation and the world on one state. This week, the debate over immigration takes center stage.

Plus, Wikileaks. You heard the word tossed around a lot of this week. We're going to tell you what's behind it, what it means, and the legal issues surrounding it.

Also, he bought two small boxes at a garage sale for 45 bucks. The contents turned out to be worth at least $200 million. We'll tell you what's inside that box.

Let's go to Arizona. This is the big story that we're all following right now. In less than 48 hours, Arizona bill will take effect, SB 1070 will take effect. That is the bill everybody has been talking about. I want to tell you a little about it.

It's a big bill. It's going to make immigration a state crime in Arizona. That's the first time that has happened in the United States. Immigration has typically been under federal jurisdiction.

But what does it say? Well, it really all comes down to one line in this big bill. Let me read it to you. Let's put it up here. I've read this to you before, but this is important that you know what this is all about. It says, "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of the person." That is where the controversy comes from. Now, we're going to discuss this a fair amount this hour. We'll also tell you about other parts of the bill that maybe give this a little less weight than you'd think. But standing on its own, this is what is really important right now.

Now, as you know, this has spilled over all across the states. In protests in some cases, in people not wanting to spend their money in a way that it gets to -- benefits Arizona. But in a couple other states, I want to tell about some things that are going on that are similar to what's happening in Arizona.

In Fremont, Nebraska, for instance, let's start with them. The city council there is going to debate and decide today whether or not to delay enforcement of a voter-passed initiative that makes it against the law to hire or to rent property to illegal immigrants.

Let's take you to Salt Lake City, Utah. Another development over there. Illegal immigrants are in a panic over a list that was sent out of 1,300 names, allegedly compiled by two state employees, and then sent to government agencies and media. Those state employees have been fired, but that list basically had names of people who they said were illegal immigrants who should be -- who should be made to leave the state.

Now, how do you feel about all of this? We have a brand-new CNN/Opinion Research poll I want to tell you about. Fifty-five percent of our respondents favor Arizona's law on illegal immigrants that's about to become law in a couple of days. Forty percent oppose that bill.

But once you start peeling back the layers of the onion, it gets a little more complicated. What if we asked this? We did. We asked this question. Would you allow illegal immigrants to stay in the United States if they have a job and they pay taxes? Look at the difference there. Now 81 percent of respondents favor it; 19 percent want to send illegal immigrants out of the country. So this is if they have a job and they pay taxes.

Let's talk about the fence, the fence between Mexico and the United States. It's only a little itty bitty fence; it's not that much of a fence. But Americans are split down the middle. It's a 700-mile fence. That sounds like a lot, but it's only a portion of the border between the United States and Mexico.

A new -- this new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that 49 percent of Americans favor that fence. 50 percent oppose the fence.

I want to talk a little bit more about that. Gary Tuchman, who is in Tucson for our extended coverage of this immigration debate, has a story of the long and troubled history of that fence -- Gary.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via phone): Well, Ali, I mean, you point out a very interesting thing with this poll, is that the people who were polled, we venture to guess that a lot of people don't really know the full story behind the fence. And that is people who are knowledgeable about it, for it and against it, the concept of the fence, still are not happy. The people who are against it aren't happy with the fence that exists at all.

A lot of people for the fence aren't happy because it only covers one third of the border, and if you don't have a fence that covers the whole border, what's the good of having the fence? I mean, that's the fact. It's about 646 miles, to be exact. It's 1,951 miles, the entire U.S./Mexican border. So that's one-third of the border has this fence.

So the way to compare it is, if you have a fence in your backyard, and only covers a third of your backyard, things are going to get in and out. And that's what proponents of the idea of the fence are saying. They want more fence; they want a stronger fence.

So we kind of did a story about what it's like along the border. And what we found with no knowledge at all about how to sneak into a country, we found it was very easy to go back and forth between Mexico and the United States at various points. Not only where the fence is, because people climb over the fence. They weld holes through the fence. They go under the fence, but we found points where you just walk around the fence.

And while there are certainly hard-working Border Patrol agents everywhere and there's technology and there's also mountainous terrain, it's very easy for a novice, such as me, to go around the fence and go back and forth between the country.

So there are a number of people here in Arizona who are telling us, "Listen, we support this law that takes effect Thursday, but perhaps we wouldn't need the law if there was more fence."

But this is the most important point. This fence that covers a third of the border cost $2.5 billion.

VELSHI: And this is -- this is a nuance of this whole discussion. There are some people who think we don't have the right laws and some people who think our laws are fine; we just don't have proper enforcement of them. And to people who are nearer this thing than other Americans, those nuances become clearer and bigger than they are in a national debate.

TUCHMAN: Absolutely, Ali. The nuances are very key. And one thing we should point out that's very important about this, even though there's only a third of the fence, even detractors of the fence, sheriffs who don't like having the fence at all, acknowledge that where the fence is, which is particularly around the big cities on the border, there's been a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants who have come into the big cities.

But what they're telling us, it's just spread out. They go to the more rural areas, and that's where they go in.

VELSHI: Gary, you'll have much more on this tonight on "AC 360," and of course for the next few days, Gary. You'll also be back with us in just a few minutes, because there is another development on another story about Warren Jeffs, so I'll talk to you in a few minutes. Stand by.

Gary Tuchman in Tucson, Arizona.

One story we want to tell you about is BP. Coming up next, the next head of BP is going to be an American. We'll tell you what we have learned about the new boss at BP, Bob Dudley. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Day 99 of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Although oil hasn't been flowing out of that well since July 15, the disaster continues, because there is a lot of clean-up to do, and that means we're still going to be hearing a lot about BP for a long time.

BP is going to be getting a new CEO. Today after much anticipation, it was announced that Tony Hayward is going to be stepping down from his role as CEO. And there will be a new guy in the top seat, unusually for a British company, an American, Bob Dudley.

What do we know about Bob Dudley and the future of BP? Let's go to our man, Allan Chernoff. He's standing by in New York with the latest on this story that you've been working hard on -- Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ali, Bob Dudley steps in as you said, an American leading a British company, but more important than that, a guy who actually grew up in Mississippi. So he certainly knows the Gulf. In fact, he's been in charge of the clean-up in the Gulf area ever since Tony Hayward stepped away from that last month.

So he also has chief executive experience. He had been head of the TNK -- TNB-BP relationship in Russia, the joint venture that BP has in Russia. He had been the chief executive there to the TNK-BP. And so he has lots of executive experience; came over for Amoco when that company was purchased by BP, and he steps in as a man who is going to hopefully put out the fires for BP.

VELSHI: There was a conference call this morning on which Tony Hayward sort of defended himself. Tell us what he said.

CHERNOFF: He really went even beyond defending himself, Ali. He was defiant. He said, look, this was a problem that was really an industry problem. Let me quote. Have a listen to this.

He said, McCondo, and McCondo is the name of...

VELSHI: Name of the well, yes.

CHERNOFF: ... the well that spilled. McCondo is an accident for the deep water drilling industry. Not for BP. How about that? He's saying that, look, this really could have happened to any of us, any of the big companies that are involved in drilling for oil, deep under water.

He also defended his own safety record. He said under his tenure at BP, over the past three years, BP's safety record actually has improved. And he also added that, quote, "I believe BP has shown what corporate responsibility really means, and I believe that applies to individuals, as well as companies."

So he's saying, look, we did the right thing. Yes, the accident happened, but it could have happened to any of these big companies in the industry, and he said the entire industry is going to have to look at its business practices and improve them to make this industry much safer.

VELSHI: Let me ask you this, Allan. Tony Hayward, you know, he was not a giant of the media. He didn't really approach his public relations side of things all that effectively.

But when you look at a guy like Bob Dudley, you didn't know him and you didn't hear him, you never heard him speak, you would think, well, America is different from sort of a British CEO. But Bob Dudley is sort of an understated lower key guy, as well. What fundamentally changes for BP with Bob Dudley at the helm as opposed to Tony Hayward at the helm?

CHERNOFF: Well, you know, Tony Hayward himself said, "Look, I've been vilified here." And he really has become the face of this crisis. BP has become the company, of course, that bore responsibility, but we'll see in the coming months how BP is going to try to say, "Hey, you know what? It's not just us." And they're going to go after their partners in that Gulf oil drilling venture. They're going to try to get billions of dollars from their partners.

So to return to your question, though, Ali, certainly Dudley lower key. He has not been confrontational at all. And that certainly helps from a PR standpoint, whereas Hayward at the very outset, he was minimizing the spill. He was trying to throw the blame elsewhere. Dudley has taken a very different approach. But, hey, he saw what Hayward was doing, clearly, was not working.

VELSHI: Allan, good to talk to you, as always. Allan Chernoff, my colleague in New York. We'll talk to you again soon about this, Allan.

BP has released its money numbers, its quarterly numbers. And, boy, we're talking about big, big losses with a "B". Billions. We've got details on that, particularly for those of you who may think this is a company you want to now invest in. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: BP's oil spill has racked up a pretty big price tag since the April 29 rig explosion. The company just released numbers for the first time that most of the gusher was going on. Some pretty interesting stuff.

Carter Evans joins us from the New York Stock Exchange.

Carter, I have to tell you, I have had more people who have nothing to do with investing in things or no -- no real direct involvement with their investing. Tell me they want to buy BP stock or should they buy BP stock.

I know you're not in the business of telling people to buy stocks or not. But you can give us some sense of the financial health of this company, based on some information that we got this morning.

CARTER EVANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. You know, a lot of people have been wondering about that. BP in general is a very healthy company, I mean, aside from this oil spill. And once you assess what the impact of the oil spill is going to be, you look at the stock price, which is down, like, 40 percent and you say to yourself, is this a deal? That's what a lot of investors are asking right now.

But we're talking about a huge loss that BP claimed today: $17.2 billion. That's how much BP said it lost in just three months. This loss entirely due to the clean-up costs.

BP took a charge of more than $32 billion to cover the clean-up costs. That includes the $20 billion compensation fund that it set up to cover damages, and today's report is really just a piece of a much bigger picture.

What's not included are the additional fines BP may have to pay to the U.S. government for violating the Clean Water Act. Some estimates put that tally as high as $18 billion. But the estimates are all over the place.

VELSHI: Right.

EVANS: And no one really knows what's going to happen when the lawsuits start pouring in.

VELSHI: So how does -- if you take out all the oil-related charges that BP took to have this -- this major loss, the $17 billion plus loss, where would they have been?

EVANS: Yes, if you take out this oil spill, BP is actually doing great. Revenue increased 30 percent in this quarter to more than $10 billion.

Now, we've been talking about revenue growth a lot this earning season. That's really what investors want to see from any big company.

VELSHI: Sure.

EVANS: Now if it weren't for this clean-up cost, BP would have actually posted a bigger profit than it did this time last year. It would have made about $5 billion in the quarter.

Of course, the concern, though, beside the bottom line, is the company's reputation. It's very important. It produces about 25 percent of its oil and gas right here in the U.S. So it's got to make friends, not enemies.

VELSHI: What's the plan for BP on the road ahead, again, for those people who are listening, who are hedging about whether or not they want to invest in this company, what's the future? What's in store for BP?

VELSHI: Well, clearly, BP is trying to put this whole spill behind it, at least as far as finances go. Because you may have noticed this $32 billion is a lot more than it spent so far. And basically, it's projecting into the future in what it's going to have to pay.

BP is planning to sell about $30 billion worth of assets to lower its debt, as well, and to help pay for this. But Ali, get this. And this is going to get a lot of people all riled up. In the conference called today, BP said it plans to deduct the entire cost of the spill from its U.S. tax bill.

VELSHI: Ooh.

EVANS: And that means BP will save about $10 billion in taxes. That means taxpayers are going to pick up that bill. It's a very controversial move. And the IRS could fight it. Could do wonders for BP's image.

VELSHI: And I saw there, they're going to reinstate this dividend that they put on hold. Now, again, the idea of putting that dividend on hold was that people didn't want investors getting paid before -- before remunerations were made, before the rescue costs were covered. So I guess that BP has put this $20 billion aside for the cost of the spill. They'll get less flack about starting with their dividends again.

EVANS: Right. And basically, BP said today that it would like to restart its dividend in February of next year. I mean, that's good news for investors, if you're looking at a company that's going to add a dividend or raise a dividend in the future. That means the future is generally bright.

VELSHI: Carter, good to see you, as always. Carter Evans at the New York Stock Exchange, we'll talk to you again soon.

And by the way, for more money related stuff, watch "YOUR $$$$$," Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern, Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern. We'll be covering this and all of your other money matters on that show.

All right. Let me give you a check of the top stories that we're following here at CNN.

The chairman of the joint chief of staffs visit Baghdad -- visits Baghdad today. Admiral Mike Mullen evaluating the situation on the ground and plans for the U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq. He was greeted by more violence around the country. Bombings have killed more than 40 people over the past two days.

President Obama pushing Congress to pass a war funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate passed the nearly $60 billion measure last week. The House is locked in debate today. They're expected to try and vote this afternoon. And ESPN reporter Erin Andrews on Capitol Hill today, pressing for legislation to bolster federal stalking laws. The measure introduced in the House last week would cover spyware, bugging and other high-tech technologies. Andrews was the victim of a stalker who videotaped her through a hotel peephole. He's got two years in prison.

Now remember Warren Jeffs, the polygamist sect leader who's behind bars? Well, he's getting a new trial. We'll bring you details of the overturning of his conviction, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs is getting a new trial. Just a short time ago the Utah Supreme Court reversed his convictions on charges of rape as an accomplice.

Gary Tuchman has been following this story for a long time. He's in Tucson, Arizona, right now with the surprising new chapter in this twisted tale. He joins us by phone -- Gary.

TUCHMAN (via phone): Ali, this is a big deal. It's very surprising. The Utah supreme court has overturned Warren Jeffs' conviction, ordered a new trial for Jeffs.

The significance of this is this man, who was on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list when he was captured four years ago, has the possibility now of getting out on prison on bond. His attorneys will certainly ask for that. Prosecutors will fight that. But he is only in prison right now because he was convicted of being an accomplice to rape in September of 2007 in the state of Utah.

Now, what we said in the trial back then -- this is what we noticed, and this is why the conviction has been overturned. The defense attorneys for Warren Jeffs told the judge that they wanted the jury to be told that, when Warren Jeffs married a 14-year-old girl by the name of Lisa Walt to a 19-year-old man named Alan Steed (ph), who happened to be her cousin, that the judge should tell the jury that Warren Jeffs knew that the couple would have sex.

The prosecutor said there was no reason to say that. It was a natural inference that, if Warren Jeffs married this couple, he knew they would have sex, and the judge agreed with prosecutors.

Well, today the Utah supreme court said the jury instructions should have told the jury explicitly that Jeffs knew unwanted sex would take place. And therefore, the supreme court says they feel bad for the 14-year-old girl, who's not 14 anymore, she's now 18 -- or she's now over 18, that is. They say they felt bad for her, but that justice had to be fair and this was the fair decision.

So Warren Jeffs is now going to have a new trial in the state of Utah. In the meantime, we should mention to you -- it's a confusing story -- but he was also going to have a trial on similar charges in Arizona. Those charges were dropped. But he does face a trial in the state of Texas. You may remember in April of 2008, 416 children in this polygamist religion or cult, depending on your viewpoint, were taken away from their families from this Texas ranch. All the children have now been brought back. But Warren Jeffs faces charges in that situation, too. And he will face a trial in Texas.

But right now, the headline story is his conviction has been overturned and the possibility exists that he could be released from prison on bond.

VELSHI: What happens to that other conviction that he faced in Utah? Does he not go back to jail for that?

TUCHMAN: Right. Well, the Utah case, he will get a new trial. That's the idea right now. But right now, he's convicted of nothing. That was his only conviction that he was in prison for, was for this Utah charge. So he's convicted of nothing right now.

The Arizona case, which was similar, has been dropped. One of the reasons people think Arizona prosecutors dropped that was so they could get Jeffs to Texas, where he faces the most serious charges, so he still faces that. So he ultimately could face a trial in Utah and/or Texas. But right now, he's officially guilty of nothing.

VELSHI: Gary, as you said, complicated story, but I know you've been on it from the beginning, and you've made it make some sense to us. So thanks for that.

Gary Tuchman on the phone from Tucson, Arizona on Warren Jeffs. 0057e're hearing he may have a press conference, probably not him, his lawyers. We'll monitor that, as well, and if there is anything note worthy, we will bring it to you.

Now, when it comes to controlling immigration, the eyes of the world are on Arizona, where Gary is. But we'll keep our eyes all over the world as only CNN can. Straight ahead, how other countries handle unauthorized newcomers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: John King is in Arizona tonight. Less than 48 hours to go before this immigration law in Arizona takes effect. So you'll want to tune into that, of course. Al through CNN, we're covering this immigration debate from start to finish. All the angles we've got.

It's half an hour into our show. Let me bring you up to speed on some of the headlines that we've got.

As I said, these -- this law becomes law within the next 48 hours, unless something very unusual happens. We'll be on it, if it does.

Here is the crux of it. This is the first time that immigration, being in the country illegally, becomes a state offense in the United States. It's until now been exclusively a federal offense. Now in the state of Arizona, if this law comes into effect, it will be a state crime.

This is not simply an Arizona story, however. In Fremont, Nebraska, city council is going to decide today whether or not to enforce or delay enforcement of a voter-passed initiative which will make it illegal to either hire or rent property to an illegal immigrant.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, illegal immigrants there are in a panic because over 1,300 names were put on a list by two state employees who have since been fired. And they were distributed to media and to government agencies. The idea being that there is this list of illegal immigrants who should be sent out of the state. So people are in a real panic about that.

It's also not just an American story. Obviously, many countries struggle with illegal immigration, particularly people coming in from countries less prosperous than the country that is dealing with the immigration problem.

I want to give you some sense of what's going on in other places.

We've got some of our reporters from all over the world.

Let's start with Stan Grant in the United Arab Emirates.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STAN GRANT, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Stan Grant on the streets of Abu Dhabi.

The United Arab Emirates depends on immigration just to make this place work. More than 80 percent of the population comes from somewhere else. Ninety-nine percent of the private industry work force are foreigners.

So the question is not so much illegal immigration. The question here are the rights of migrant workers.

Now, the U.S. State Department and Human Rights Watch have complained about the treatment of workers here, whether it be pay being withheld, or people being poorly paid, inadequate housing, or sometimes even passports that are confiscated by the employers. Now, the government here has recognized there is a problem, and they are now putting in laws to try to deal with it, to try to make sure there is adequate housing, to try to improve the living conditions of workers.

But all of this is still to play out. At the same time, the region is being hit very hard by the economic downturn.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Water. That's what all of Japan is surrounded by.

I'm Kyung Lah, in Tokyo, at the Tokyo Bay.

Because Japan is an island, illegal immigration here isn't so much about a porous border, but about immigrants overstaying their visas. They then disappear into Japan's population.

The government estimates some 90,000 illegal immigrants live here, too high for Japan's government, which, in a controversial move, has stepped up its attempts to expel illegal immigrants, such as the case with 13-year-old Narica Calderon (ph), a 13-year-old Filipino girl who was born and raised in Japan. The government allowed her to remain in Japan, but deported her parents out of the country to the Philippines.

The United Nations has denounced such family separations and says that Japan must do more to protect migrants' human rights.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AL GOODMAN, CNN MADRID BUREAU CHIEF: I'm Al Goodman in Madrid.

Immigrants accounts for about 10 percent of Spain's population, and that's a big change from 15 years ago. But when the economy was booming, they rushed in from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. Many were illegal, and that caused political tension.

So, successive governments offered two big amnesties for illegal immigrants, essentially allowing those already established here to get legal status with certain conditions. Still, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants remain, according to estimates. And now that the economy is in a downturn, immigrants especially are suffering, and some are returning to their home countries.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: We'll of course continue to cover the issue of illegal immigration in the United States.

Now, it's been compared to the American West of the 1800s. It's wild, it's rugged, and it's violent. And it is a haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The tribal area straddling the Afghan/Pakistan border, we're going to tell you everything you need to know about it coming up next in "Globe Trekking."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK. It's time now for "Globe Trekking." Our first story is the war in Afghanistan.

The body of one of two missing U.S. sailors was found in Lowgar Province. That's just south of the Afghan capital of Kabul. A NATO spokesman says the remains were recovered Sunday during a massive land and air search. The two sailors were reportedly missing after they were last seen driving out of a military base in Kabul. Their vehicle was also found.

Just what their mission was remains a mystery. A Taliban spokesman confirmed to CNN that they killed one of the sailors and captured the other. He says they wanted to capture both men, but one was killed when a firefight broke out. He says the other sailor is alive and being held in a safe location.

There is no word of ransom. A U.S. military official confirms that the military is offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to the return of that sailor.

Now, I want to stay in the region, but I want to shift to the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is really the heart of the matter, particularly with respect to the U.S. considering Pakistan an ally in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Now, part of the issue is this tribal area that straddles the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Daniel (ph), I want to sort of show the viewers that line.

That's the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is an area of deeply-rooted tribes. It's an area that's got a long history of violence and invasion and war. And that's why troops are bogged down, coalition troops are bogged down in this Afghan War, in part because of what's going on in this area.

I want to give you a broad look at the various tribes.

You can see there, there is a legend over to the side of it. The red are Pashtun (ph) tribal members. The blue are Baluchi (ph). The yellow is Sindhi. And the other area is Punjabi.

You can see that the Pashtun (ph) and the Baluchi (ph) tribes basically straddle much of that area, but this whole area, this whole region is considered somewhat ungovernable. They have a special deal, basically, with the Pakistani government. They do their thing, the Pakistanis don't get too involved in that. In fact, for people in these tribal regions, being a citizen of either Pakistan or Afghanistan is far less important than your affinity to the tribe that you're a member.

Now, that line -- Daniel (ph), I just want to show them that again.

That line there is called the Durand Line. It's a 1,600-mile- long border named after Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, who basically drew the border in the late 1890s as a way to divide and weaken the tribes. That wasn't all that successful.

And today, the area, as I said, it's semiautonomous. The power lies in the hands of the tribes. Now, I want to go into another map and show you a little more detail about the areas that are really worth worrying about. And you can see there in blue at the top of that map are the tribal areas. In orange is the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. And in red is Balochistan.

Now, on the Pakistani side -- this is all we're looking at now. The areas in color are only on the Pakistani side -- this is where some elements of the Taliban have training camps and have -- they've launched attacks from there against U.S. and coalition troops back over the border into Afghanistan, because as I told you, the tribal -- people who live in that tribal area don't really have any regard for that border. So, as far as they're concerned, this is part of their own country, not a separate country.

Analysts say that area that you're looking at, those colored areas, are where al Qaeda operatives have bases, and many people believe that's where Osama bin Laden might actually be hiding. That's where he is likely to be, in that area.

Now, it's from that area that Pakistanis have sometimes launched attacks on Taliban forces, it's where U.S. drones have sometimes launched attacks. And in some cases, they get their targets. In other cases, they hit innocent civilians.

Now, all of this explains this complicated and volatile relationship that we've been discussing between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistani secret service has allegedly been helping Taliban members through funding, through training, through logistics. The Pakistani government denies those allegations. But as you know, we've talked about this with experts, and it came out in that document dump by WikiLeaks.

So, we just want to give you some sense of why there's this tension about whether Pakistan is on the side of the U.S. in fighting terrorism and fighting the Taliban, or they have divided allegiances and maybe they're double dealing. This is part of the history.

We'll talk more about that later.

All right. It's got a mysterious founder, a lofty goal, and lots of enemies. WikiLeaks' Afghan document dump that we were just talking about has -- really, it's got the spotlight again.

A lot of folks wondering, who are these guys? Who's WikiLeaks? How can they do what they do?

We're going to talk with our legal eagle, Jeffrey Toobin, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

VELSHI: OK. I want to talk to you about WikiLeaks. What is it? It's been in the news for the last couple of days. They did this massive dump of 90,000 documents that have to do with the Afghan War, over the last five or six pages.

Well, we want to discuss what this is.

Well, basically, it calls itself a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive material that they want conveyed to the public. It's been around since 2007, and its stated goal is to disseminate -- these are their words -- "to disseminate those documents that the world should see, or to be an intelligence service of the people."

You may have seen the founder of WikiLeaks on "LARRY KING LIVE" last night. He's a reformed Australian compute hacker. And he says that he has hundreds of anonymous volunteer experts around the world who help translate and authenticate the documents that they put out there.

It used to post all the documents that came its way. Now it solicits documents and vets the submissions.

Prior posts that you may have seen off of WikiLeaks that grab headlines, the internal Church of Scientology design totaling papers; Sarah Palin's personal e-mails; and, of course, recent video of U.S. air strikes that killed a Reuters staffer in Iraq.

Along with the headlines, a lot of people are questioning the group's actual aims and have some criticisms of its methods.

Take a listen to this criticism, for instance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN YOUNG, CRYPTOME.ORG: Digital material is notoriously forgeable and manipulatable and corruptible. There is no provenance for this information. And WikiLeaks knows this.

They're experts at authenticating digital documents by cryptography. They did not do that in this case. So we actually don't know if anything has been leaked at all that is legitimate. And I'm surprised that "The New York Times" and "The Guardian" and "Der Spiegel" did not do some true technical authentication.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: And that brings us to our man, Jeff Toobin, our chief legal analyst. He's joining me from New York to talk about this.

Jeff, good to see you.

A lot of people posting to my Facebook page and tweeting that if anything bad were to come out of releasing these documents -- for instance, somebody whose name was disclosed, as the White House press secretary said, someone who was participating, helping the U.S. government, then something bad were to happen to them, or something led to an attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, who would be liable?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's not clear that anyone could be held liable. I mean, WikiLeaks is not a conventional company the way BP is. It is an apparently nonprofit organization based in Sweden and run by this Australian gentleman that you talked about. But it is not a company that you could sue, that you could prosecute in any conventional way.

So, certainly, the people who are at most risk are the leakers, the people who took these official secret government documents and gave them to WikiLeaks. Those people have been prosecuted, and will be, if they can be found. But WikiLeaks itself I think is an unlikely legal target.

VELSHI: Well, let's look at it this way then. Nobody has come out and said that these documents are false. The quote that we just heard before we came to you talks about the fact that with digital stuff, there is no provenance. It's hard to know whether it's legitimate, and the news organizations that initially posted these, we haven't done any technical testing to know where these things come from.

Is there any liability on the news organizations?

TOOBIN: Well, as a technical matter, it is possible to prosecute media entities for publishing secret material. In point of fact, it really never happens.

I don't think "The New York Times," "Der Spiegel, " The Guardian," which are the three news organizations, one American, one German, and one British, are under any legal risk at all. What the government, I think quite properly, concentrates on is prosecuting the leakers themselves, the people who took these classified documents and gave it to the press.

VELSHI: These are people inside the military.

TOOBIN: The press itself is insulated from liability.

VELSHI: So these people, they're inside the military. There's somebody who had access to classified information.

Is there a whistleblowers' defense inside the military?

TOOBIN: There really isn't. That is not a defense that any court would recognize.

You know, you mentioned earlier the now famous -- infamous tape from a helicopter of the Reuters photographer being killed which was leaked to WikiLeaks. There is a prosecution now under way of a 22- year-old Army intelligence analyst for giving that tape to WikiLeaks. And if he goes to court and says, well, I thought I was justified, well, I thought it was in the public interest, I mean, that will get him nowhere in court.

These leakers, they may be acting in good faith, they may be thinking that they're doing something in the public service, but they should certainly know that that is not a legal defense, and they're going to go to prison.

VELSHI: All right. But putting aside WikiLeaks, we may see a lot more of this in the day and age in which we live, people getting access to private information and putting it out there, and maybe offering that defense that it was justified or it was in the public interest. So I want you to hang on there, Jeff. We're going to come back and we're going to discuss that side of things, the ethical side of things, and how that could have an impact on a group of people more broadly than the military.

When we come back, Jeff Toobin standing by with a lot more legal angles on both WikiLeaks and the whole concept of leaking digital information. We're going to pick it up right after the break.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. Our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, joins us again from New York discussing WikiLeaks, and leaks in general that take place on the Internet.

We were sort of getting to something a moment ago, Jeff, and that is the idea that some people leak things to be malicious, and some people leak things because they think they're operating in the public interest. They think there's some justification. And in some cases, WikiLeaks calls itself a whistleblower site.

Where's the line there on what's defensible as a whistleblower, what's defensible about doing things in the public interest, and what is just not your business to be putting out in the public?

TOOBIN: Well, as a strict legal matter, certainly when you're talking about national security information, the line is very clear. You have no right as a government official, as a government contractor, to give the news media classified information, period, regardless of what your motives are.

Now, it is often very hard to catch leakers. There are often leak investigations, and they very rarely succeed.

Now, it did succeed, at least leading up to a criminal charge for the person who is accused of leaking the video of that shooting in Iraq, but in terms of the law, the law is very clear. Your motives are irrelevant. If you have access to classified information, you are not allowed to disclose it, period.

VELSHI: But clearly, there are a lot of people who think that it is in the public interest to get more of this information out there. In the case of the incident you're talking about, it did show some behavior that shocked people about the U.S. military.

Where do you change that law if you want to change it? Do you challenge it in court or do you have to do it through legislative means?

TOOBIN: You would have to do it through legislation, because the law, as written now, is completely clear. You know, there's a very interesting evolution of the whole leak/whistleblower role.

In the early 1970s, Daniel Ellsberg, who was the famous dissident within the government, leaked "The Pentagon Papers," which was a government account of how the United States got into the Vietnam War. He gave it directly to "The New York Times."

Today, no one, I think, would conceive of leaking something directly to a newspaper. That's why WikiLeaks serves such a modern function.

They put it up on the Web, let everybody see it, including journalists. And that just, I think, illustrates the technique of leaking changing, but in fact it's always -- it was illegal in the '70s and it's illegal now.

VELSHI: What is the defense? And I'm thinking obviously in my realm of experience in business news. If you are leaking information that your company is breaking the law, sometimes the courts will look upon that differently.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. That's a very different situation because there is no criminal penalty for leaking government documents.

Now, it is possible -- I'm sorry, there's no criminal penalty for leaking company documents, private documents. Now, you could possibly be sued by your employer, but you are likely to have a much better time in the courts if you are leaking private material rather than government material. And there is really almost no history, as far as I'm aware, of criminal prosecutions for leaking company or private documents to the press, particularly if it's in the public interest.

VELSHI: And do you get some kind of defense from the court? Can you go to the court and say, I was doing something good? I was reporting someone who was breaking the law?

TOOBIN: Well, there are whistleblower laws that do protect people like that. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has been a great champion of whistleblowers throughout his long career in Congress.

And there are even provisions where whistleblowers can receive monetary awards. The IRS is famous for giving rewards to people who blow the whistle on tax evasion schemes. And there are people who have been given millions of dollars because they saved the government millions of dollars.

VELSHI: Right.

TOOBIN: So the legal situation is very different in terms of leaking material that comes from a company or an individual, as opposed to something that comes from classified information from the government.

VELSHI: Good stuff, Jeff. Thank you very much for joining us.

Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst, joining me from New York.

All right. Forget about making money off of being a whistleblower. Forget about the lottery, actually. How about becoming a millionaire from a garage sale?

You've got to hear this story. I'll bring it to you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. How's this for a way to get rich?

This antique collector goes to a garage sale in California. His name is Rick Norsigian. Ten years ago he did this.

He bought two small wooden boxes for 45 bucks, together. They were 70 bucks, by the way. He negotiated the price down.

What's inside the boxes? Sixty-five glass negatives, photo negatives. He does some studying and figures out that they were created by a famed nature photographer Ansel Adams, who some people think of as the father of American photography.

Now, he's looking around trying to try and figure out what these things are worth. These are the pictures that he had.

They seem to be this missing set of pictures that people couldn't find. So he takes them to a Beverly Hills appraiser who says they're worth $200 million. The images are of Yosemite Park, San Francisco landmarks.

Some experts had believed that those negatives had been destroyed in a darkroom fire in 1937. The pictures were originally taken between 1919 and the early 1930s.

They got into -- we don't know how they got into the hands of the person who sold it to Norsigian, but the person who sold them said that they were bought in the 1940s at a warehouses salvage. A photography expert has confirmed the authenticity of the pictures. He thinks that maybe Ansel Adams had carried them to a photography class when he was teaching in Pasadena way back in the 1940s.

Norsigian, by the way -- this is the guy who bought these for 45 bucks -- he was originally looking for an antique barber chair but thought it was in bad shape. So he bought these boxes instead. So, this time somebody's trash truly was a national treasure.