Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Democratic Party Meets In Orlando; Experts Debate Usefulness Of Intelligence Reform Bill

Aired December 11, 2004 - 14:00   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.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: It's 2:00 p.m. on the East Coast, 11:00 a.m. out West. I'm Fredricka Whitfield in CNN's global headquarters in Atlanta. Straight ahead this hour...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NOMINEE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This is my responsibility. It was my mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The man President Bush tapped to head homeland security steps aside. Now hear what Bernard Kerik has to say about his decision.

The 9/11 Commission called for it, Congress passed it, now the president says he'll sign it. But how will the intelligence reform bill change the way America protects you and your family. We'll have an in depth look.

Those stories and more. But first, a look at the top stories.

Doctors in Vienna, Austria, say there's no doubt about the dioxin poisoning of Ukraine opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. They add the poisoning was probably intentional and suspect a third party. The presidential candidate has endured back pain, nerve damage and facial disfigurement.

We'll go live to Moscow for the latest.

President Bush underwent several hours of an annual physical exam this morning at the Bethesda Navy Medical Center in Maryland. Doctors pronounced 58-year-old fit for duty. And said they expect he will remain fit for duty for the duration of his presidency. After the exam the president visited with U.S. troops who had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. military says one Marine died in action today in one of Iraq's most volatile provinces Al Anbar. The area includes troubled cities like Falluja and Ramadi. That brings the total number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq to 1,289.

Homeland Security chief nominee Bernard Kerik says a household issue caused him to pull his name from consideration. The former commissioner of police in New York City, says the immigration status of a woman who worked for him as a nanny prompted his decision. Mary Snow has more reaction from Kerik and from former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who recommended Kerik for the job. Both spoke publicly earlier today -- Mary.

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Fredricka.

We're outside the home of Bernard Kerik, he came out a couple hours ago speaking to us, calling this a grueling time. Kerik called the White House last night and asked that his nomination to be Homeland Security director be withdrawn. Kerik says he realized on Wednesday that he had a problem. He said he was going through financial documents and realized there were tax issues linked to the nanny who takes care of his two children. He said then yesterday he discovered that there were legal questions about her legal status here in this country, and that led him to the call. Kerik is saying that he is taking the blame for this alone. And he calls it a stupid mistake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERIK: This is my responsibility. It was my mistake. It wasn't a mistake made by the White House. I think during their vetting process, this is something that they had looked at. But in a deeper, closer look by me, it was something that I felt was just something I couldn't move forward on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Now, one of Kerik's biggest advocates is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City. Kerik was the police commissioner for Giuliani. He also became nationally known following September 11th. Giuliani today spoke to reporters. He had lobbied on behalf of Kerik getting the job. Today he says he is heartbroken.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I have great confidence in Bernie. He made a mistake that people -- human beings make mistake, even the very best of us, including you and me. It's one, unfortunately, that's a mistake that you can't deal with in a process like this where he's going to run the immigration service and he had this oversight in terms of the immigration status and tax situation of this woman who was working for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Giuliani also said that he called Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff this morning to a apologize. Kerik also said that he apologized to the president. Also Kerik says that he does believe there were no other issues that would have derailed his nomination process. And that includes a report in "Newsweek" that there had been an arrest warrant issued back in 1998, this linked to a complicated series of unpaid bills linked to a condo that he had owned. Kerik says there had been no arrest warrant and he does not believe that there were other issues that could have stopped his process -- Fredricka. WHITFIELD: Mary Snow, thanks for that report.

Well, Kerik's withdrawal may have saved the White House from a very challenging confirmation process. But now the president has to come up with a another nominee for Homeland Security chief. Tom Ridge says he'll stay on until February at the latest.

CNN's Elaine Quijano is live from the White House with more on that -- Elaine.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, administration officials are being very tight-lipped, Fredricka. In fact, President Bush made no comment just a short time ago. He left Bethesda Navy Medical Center, as you mentioned, where he was getting his annual physical, which had been delayed because of the busy campaign schedule. But the president also visiting privately with troops there. But in a statement issued last night, the White House said, "Commissioner Kerik informed the White House this evening that he is withdrawing his name for personal reasons from consideration for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The president respects his decision, and wishes Commissioner Kerik and his wife Hala, well."

Now, this news certainly coming as a surprise, because yesterday all day long, officials both on background as well as on the record, were saying that they were quite confident. They felt comfortable that Kerik's confirmation would, in fact, move forward. There had been some questions raised because of financial dealings having to do with Taser International, a stun gun manufacturing company, through which Kerik earned millions of dollars through stock options. But White House officials here as late as yesterday afternoon were saying they felt that issue had been looked at quite thoroughly and his personal background, taking a step back, had been vetted quite carefully. Obviously though, with this announcement last night, the White House, a major misstep as President Bush tries to put his team in place for the second term -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And Elaine, what about from Capitol Hill?

Any reaction from lawmakers this weekend?

QUIJANO: There are reactions coming in from lawmakers. Notably the Senator Susan Collins, a person in charge, really, of overseeing Homeland Security, throwing out a couple of names already as potential replacements. These are people that had been in the running that we had heard about, speculation, anyway, centering on before it appeared that Kerik was the nominee.

But Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat. Also Asa Hutchinson, the deputy secretary for Homeland Security. So, these are two names that we could be hearing about. But important to note, at this point, no official kind of news about exactly who the White House might be looking at. As I said, officials are very tight lipped at this point.

We should also tell you some reaction coming in from Democrats, notably Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton. She was one of the people who came along with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who even before the official announcement came about Kerik's nomination a week ago, was saying that he was a good choice. Someone that they felt had first hand knowledge, first hand experience, because he was, in fact, on the front lines in the days after and on September 11th. But she has come out with a statement saying that she hopes that President Bush will nominate someone who understands the tremendous task of protecting America. Who understands the needs facing high threat areas like New York -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Elaine Quijano, at the White House.

Well, CNN is on Homeland Security watch with President Bush set to sign the Intelligence Reform Bill into law. We take a look at what you may not know about the bill. That's coming up at 2:30 Eastern, 11:30 Pacific.

Some world news now. A mystery surrounding the Ukraine's opposition presidential candidate is revealing some answers, much of which is sure to stir passions in that country's already tense political arena. Austrian doctors treating Viktor Yushchenko, say his puzzling illness and disfigurement was caused by dioxin poisoning.

Are Moscow Bureau chief, Jill Dougherty, is keeping track of all the latest developments -- Jill.

JILL DOUGHERTY, MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Fredricka, they are saying pretty much what Viktor Yushchenko himself has been alleging now for quite a while, that he was poisoned. The doctors are saying he was poisoned about dioxin, a very toxic chemical. They believe that it was introduced into his body orally. In fact, one of the doctors said, it could have been in soup.

And what we know is according to the staff from Yushchenko and his family, that he went to a dinner, a kind of reception with members of the SBU, that is the security services of Ukraine back in September. And right after that, he fell ill. In fact, his wife that evening said that she -- told American TV that she had tasted something metallic on his lips. He fell ill, had to go to the clinic in Vienna. And in fact, this is his third visit. This time he's back. They did a battery of tests. And this is what they he have determined. And just this evening, Fredricka, the prosecutor in the Ukraine is saying that they're going to reopen an investigation that had been closed into this. So that's exactly what the Yushchenko people want. Not only do they want to know what he was poisoned with, but they want to finally know who did it.

WHITFIELD: Jill Dougherty in Moscow, thanks so much.

And now a quick look at dioxin. What is it? It's not one chemical by a byproduct of several, and they are some of the most toxic known to science. Dioxin is known to cause cancer as well. It is formed by burning chlorine based compounds. And it is a primary component of agent orange, orange, pesticides and paper bleaching.

In this country, focus on the future of the Democratic Party. Up next, how the fight over Terry McAuliffe's replacement as the head of the DNC will determine the party's heart and soul.

And it is now up to the jury. Will Scott Peterson live or die?

Our legal round table makes their predictions on the outcome.

Plus, intelligence reform efforts could one day determine who gets a driver's license.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: To politics now and the future of the Democratic party. The party is coming off losses for the White House and Congress.

Judy Woodruff of CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS" looks at what's going on in the party to try to stop its big slide.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST "INSIDE POLITICS": (voice-over): Vacationers at Orlando's many amusement parks may enjoy being in free- fall, but the Democrats meeting there sure don't. More than a month after their election losses, Democrats appear to be engaged in a battle for, as Pat Buchanan once put it for Republicans, the heart and soul of the party.

The liberal-leaning, Internet-driven group MoveOn clearly has a dog in that fight. In an e-mail to supporters, the head of MoveOn's political action committee blasts outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool for corporate donors and a professional election loser.

Elis Pariser say the grassroots contributors who made MoveOn a political powerhouse bought the party, own it, and now he says, we are going to take it back.

MCAULIFFE: They didn't buy it and nobody should say that. Listen they are -- they're entitled to whatever their opinion is.

You know, in the Democratic Party we like to sort of form these circular firing squads. It's not my nature. I am very positive. I am very optimistic.

WOODRUFF: McAuliffe is particularly upbeat in his success in shoring up the party's bottom line. The DNC is in the black in and out raised the RNC in the '04 election cycle for the first time ever. But other Democrats say money isn't everything.

HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The way to rebuild the Democratic Party is not from the consultants down; it is from the ground up.

WOODRUFF: Howard Dean is likely to be a hot topic of conversation in Orlando. As Democrats look ahead to their February vote for a new party chairman. Dean is one of many possible and official candidates for the job. The crowded field underscores the various party factions. And there are often opposing ideas about how to win again.

Some want to compete on the GOP's faith and family turf.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA: Our faith is enormously important to us. Our family is obviously enormously important to us.

WOODRUFF: Other Democrats argue the party should stay true to its traditions and convince voters that issues such as equal rights, health care and education are moral values.

DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRATEGIST: We need candidates at all levels that connect head to heart with voters.

WOODRUFF: Left or center? What about national security? Try to win back the red states or rebuild and expand the base? It's enough to make any Democrat's head spin.

Judy Woodruff, CNN reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Criminal charges are handed out in last month's infamous NBA brawl. The prosecutor has already laid out his case in a detailed step-by-step explanation against each suspect. What do our own legal eagles think of the public performance. I'll ask them.

And still to come, changing the way security screens airline passengers. Supporters of the new intelligence reform bill say it's going to make things easier, but might there be a privacy trade-off?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The jurors in Scott Peterson case are sequestered this weekend. They'll resume deliberations in penalty phase on Monday. They must determine whether Peterson should get life in prison without parole or death. Peterson was convicted last month of murdering his wife and unborn child.

The Scott Peterson trial and charges handed down in the NBA brawl are the focus of this weekend's legal round table.

With me now from Cleveland, civil rights attorney and law professor Avery Friedman. Good to you, Avery.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Fredricka, hi.

WHITFIELD: Hello.

And in New York, criminal defense attorney Richard Herman. Hello to you.

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon.

WHITFIELD: All right. Avery, let me begin with you. Monday the jurors will be back for day three, not a full day three, but day three of deliberations. Are you surprised that it has taken this long for a penalty phase?

FRIEDMAN: A lot of commentators have said that they thought something would come back on Friday. We have seen this jury being very serious about this case. Mark Geragos actually did the best job he has done in the entire case in making the pitch, so I am actually not surprised. I'm actually delighted to see that this jury is taking this issue so terribly seriously, and it should.

HERMAN: You know, Fredricka...

WHITFIELD: Some have described -- yes, go ahead, Richard.

HERMAN: The point I'd like to make is that, it's one thing when you come in for your first day of jury duty and you're opposed with the intellectual proposition, could you impose the death penalty. Is it a whole other thing after a six-month trial to actually impose the death penalty and stand up and be polled. And each of these jurors is going to have to stand up at the end and confirm their verdict to say that they want to kill him. Much different proposition.

WHITFIELD: For the death penalty, it's got to be a unanimous decision. However, there is still the prospect that, what if this were a hung jury, they couldn't even decide on life if that's what ends up being the result during deliberations. Then were dealing with a couple of really crazy options, aren't we gentlemen?

We're talking about a whole other new jury.

HERMAN: That's right.

WHITFIELD: And possibly even a whole other new venue, Richard.

HERMAN: If there's a hung jury, the district attorney, Brazelton, will have the option to say whether he wants to go forward with the new penalty phase of the trial. I don't believe he'll do that. In all honesty, I believe the prosecution put on a horrible case. I think there was huge reasonable doubt here. I think there are enormous appellate issues. I think, they take this victory, they give him life in prison without parole. And they've done their job, as far as they can be concerned, justice has been served. That's what will happen if there's a hung jury.

WHITFIELD: Avery, you agree that, the prosecution put on a horrible case, but...

FRIEDMAN: I don't buy that.

WHITFIELD: some describe the penalty phase as being really powerful, especially hearing from Ms. Rocha.

FRIEDMAN: Well -- and I agree with that part of it. The prosecution's case was not a horrible case. I do agree that there are substantial appellate issues. But you know what, I've got to throw some reality into this. The fact is that the California legislature, Fredricka, has put in $220 million to expand the death row section of San Quentin. There are roughly 629 people on death row. They inject one person a year. Even if the jury comes back with the death penalty, Scott Peterson is not going to die by lethal injection. He's going to die in the penitentiary. So while this is all very interesting intellectually, the reality is, that it's not going to happen, he'll spend the rest of his life in jail.

HERMAN: He'd rather not get the death penalty, though. He'd rather have life in prison.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I agree. I agree with him.

WHITFIELD: All right, let's move on and talk about the NBA case. Five and five; Five players, five fans who were charged mostly with misdemeanor assault and battery. Do you see, Avery, that perhaps there may be more charges to come, that perhaps those that were outside the per view of the videotape surveillance may be being getting charged as well?

FRIEDMAN: That may happen, Fredricka. I think they have the main culprits. In fact, they also have the victims. Some more schmo named Mike Ryan was sitting there and one of the NBA players thought that was the guy that threw the drink, the reality is they've nailed most of the key players here. Actually, I'm surprised there weren't more felonies. There is one felony charge against one of the fans who threw a chair.

WHITFIELD: The throwing of the chairs.

FRIEDMAN: Right. Exactly right.

HERMAN: Avery the reason -- and the reason there were not more felonies is because there were no injuries. After all this brawl, there were no injuries. And the only reason that the felony was brought against only one of those people that was arrested is because he threw a chair and aggravated the condition there. But otherwise there were no injures here. In all reality, these were probably violations. These are probably like traffic tickets, going through red lights. I don't believe these even rise to the level of misdemeanor.

WHITFIELD: And we also had a pretty interesting law lesson this week...

FRIEDMAN: Oh, no, they're not traffic tickets.

WHITFIELD: ... that even just throwing a drink, that alone constitutes battery. Even though there weren't any serious injuries, as you pointed out.

FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. You know, Fredricka, the Oakland prosecutor said this is equivalent to spitting on somebody. But the fact is that both the fans and the players are equally culpable from a criminal perspective. And then after that piece is over, watch for a flood of civil litigation coming out of this, surely.

HERMAN: With no injuries, these civil litigations are ridiculous. This is why the legal profession has a bad name for bring these preposterous cases with no injuries...

FRIEDMAN: That's not right, Richard. These people should be held accountable.

HERMAN: ... with no physical injuries. But Fredricka, the reason the prosecutor had to bring charges is because these sports arenas, whether it's basketball or football or baseball, they're hallowed grounds in American culture. They've got to send a loud and clear message, we'll never tolerate this behavior again.

WHITFIELD: So I wonder if this might precipitate some kind of security changes in a lot of these arenas, too.

HERMAN: Yes, it could. We could very well.

FRIEDMAN: ... see that. Actually, we may see that, I think, speaking o on behalf of my gender worldwide, you can't check testosterone at the door, but you can actually do something about the distribution of alcohol. I think we're going to see that. I think we're going to see differences in security measures. There's going to be a change in American sports.

FRIEDMAN: Richard, a final word, final thought?

HERMAN: Well, I just think -- yes, I think it's political at this point. I think they send that message loud and clear, you can't do this, basketball, baseball, football. I think the owners are behind it. I think the players are behind it. And this will end it loud and clear. This Artest, he's going -- he lost $5 million. He's going to get sued. He's got big trouble.

FRIEDMAN: We'll see. We'll see.

WHITFIELD: Oh, boy. All right, Richard Herman, Avery Friedman, I know we're going to be talking about both these cases again probably next week. All right good to see you.

HERMAN: Take care.

FRIEDMAN: See you soon.

WHITFIELD: Well, a new intelligence director and a new screening system for airline passengers. Those are just two of the myriad of changes laid out in the national intelligence reform bill. Not clear, how it might change your life and the nation's future overall.

We'll weigh the pros and cons of the new intelligence bill in our special half hour look right after this.

(WEATHER REPORT)

WHITFIELD: Well, welcome back.

It is a sweeping overhaul of the nation's intelligence community and its creators say it will make America safer. For the next 30 minutes we're going to take you inside the intelligence reform bill. Just hours after withdrawing his name from consideration as the nation's Homeland Security Chief, Bernard Kerik is speaking out. He says this is the right thing to do. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner, was nominated by President Bush just over a week ago. Kerik says he withdrew his name after realizing he had unpaid taxes and a former nanny he employed may have been an illegal immigrant.

Part of the mystery surrounding Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko has been solved. Three months after he fell ill, doctors in Austria say they know what caused the illness, dioxin poisoning. And they suspect foul play. Yushchenko, the opposition candidate will face Ukraine's prime minister in a second runoff election the day after Christmas. Results of the first runoff were thrown out after fraud allegations.

Another American soldier has been killed in Iraq. The U.S. military says a soldier with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was killed in action today while conducting security and stabilization operations. The incident took place in Al Anbar Province where Fallujah is located.

In our security watch, we'll focus the rest of this hour on an inside look at the complicated and important provisions of the intelligence reform bill now awaiting the president's signature. We'll examine its impact from several viewpoints, including border patrol. And we'll explain what you might not have known about the bill's provisions.

We'll hear from Norman Ornsteen of the American Enterprise Institute about that. Second we'll hear about the privacy debate and why critics say the bill could lead to a loss of basic freedoms in this country. And we'll examine the debate over establishing new standards for issuing driver's licenses while trying to target terrorism. But first, the biggest question of all will the intelligence reform work? Here's CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The conference report is adopted.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Intelligence Reform Bill promises major change, creating what could be a powerful new director of national intelligence. But experts say it raises more questions than it answers.

DAVID KAY, FMR. CIA OFFICIAL: The real issue is what is his relationship with all the 15 intelligence agencies? Who actually works for him? Where is the national intelligence council going to be? Who is going to brief the president every day? And what's the basis for that? These are things that actually have to be worked out.

ENSOR: As it stands now, one man, Porter Goss, wears two hats. He's the CIA director and he's also the director of central intelligence, nominally in charge of all 14 other U.S. intelligence agencies as well as the National Counter Terrorism Center, which began operations Monday. Under the bill, a director of National Intelligence replaces the DCI and is put over the top of a separate CIA director. The Counter Terrorism Center and the 14 other intelligence agencies. But the most important change has to do with these two key agencies.

The National Security Agency, the big ear of the u.s. Government, the eavesdroppers and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the big eye of the U.S. government, which analyzes imagery from spy satellites.

Right now, though the intelligence director has nominal authority, the Pentagon largely controls the budgets and personnel of these two crucial spy agencies. Under the bill, a new intelligence director gains considerably more control. Potentially shifting the balance of power in Washington.

FLYNT LEVERETT, SABAN CENTER: It's not the culmination. It's the beginning and it gives a, hopefully, entrepreneurial first director of National Intelligence some tools that he might use to try and achieve real reform.

ENSOR: In the bill, Congress failed to reform itself to address the overlapping web of more than 20 committees overseeing parts of U.S. intelligence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's nothing in this bill that addresses the fiefdoms on the hill. And that is going to be an issue that Congress has got to return.

ENSOR: You think they punted on it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punt? At least you have contact when you punt. I think they ran away from it.

ENSOR: Senior intelligence officials say the key will be who the president picks for intelligence chief. He or she must have credibility, communications skills, a lot of discretion, a thick skin and the absolute trust of the man in the White House. A pretty tall order.

David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, what changes might Americans see as a result of the reform bill? Let's look at that and more with Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Good to see you Norman.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: We're going to hopscotch over a few things. We'll get back to the National Intelligence director in a moment. But first, let's talk about cost. We've heard quite a few little details about some of the changes being proposed in this intelligence reform bill. For one, as it concerns immigration, something like up to 2,000 new personnel on border patrol per year. That, obviously, has not revealed any precise cost measures, but we know that it will be costly to some degree. How will this play out?

ORNSTEIN: Well, absolutely. Of course, we've known for a long time that we have serious problems on the borders and that many of the issues that congressional actors like James Sensenbrenner, the house chair of the judiciary committee, wanted to deal with, far more stringent measures controlling immigration were not dealt with in this bill, but it does beef up the border patrol. And that is going to be costly.

WHITFIELD: Is that an obstacle?

ORNSTEIN: As you say, we don't know how much. It's an obstacle only in one sense. We just had a budget passed. Actually an omnibus appropriations bill right before Congress took this up, in which they declared victory on holding the line of discretionary spending, of which this is a part. Obviously, we are not going to hold the line.

We're going to have at least a couple billion dollars more added in, that will be added in a supplemental appropriations form for the border control itself.

WHITFIELD: All right and now one of the biggest and most perhaps most highlighted changes that is part of this reform bill and that being the director of National Intelligence. How do you get someone, one person, who bring cohesion to 15 agencies who have a culture and historically have not been able to share a lot of information and therein lies the criticism of the underlying problem involving the intelligence community?

ORNSTEIN: Absolutely. The difficulty that we have here is multiple. You're absolutely right that we are have a cultural question. It was the same reason and the same rationale that brought together the Department of Homeland Security with over 20 separate agencies departments and bureaus that were radically different and had different cultures. This isn't bringing them together into one agency. It's keeping them separate.

They've had this problem that we've called stove piping where everybody gathers their own information and doesn't share it widely. The question is whether adding this new layer, maybe a new layer of limited bureaucracy, will make the difference. What the 9/11 commission said, what the bill suggests is give this person, the National Intelligence director, some budget authority and then you can grab the hearts and minds of people who are involved out there.

But the budget authority in tend is limited enough and the direct lines of communication among and between these agencies imperfect enough that what it is going to take is a strong-willed individual as the first director here to knock some heads together and begin to effect some change. Otherwise we could have the same set of problems maybe with new ones added in.

WHITFIELD: A strong willed individual who is likely to encounter some kind of criticism from some of those agency directors or leadership who might say or accuse this new director as undercutting their authority.

ORNSTEIN: Well, exactly so. And, of course, everybody is going to be jealous about their independence, particularly the thing to watch here is how the new intelligence director interacts with the head of the CIA. You know ultimately, as your report suggested, the intelligence director is going to be separate physically from the CIA. But the CIA director who is the -- known as the director of central intelligence has at least nominally been the figure in charge of the intelligence operation is probably not going to take kindly to having somebody with parallel and superior authority in some ways, but others will also appoint -- will report directly to the president.

So these interactions are going to be tough to work out. Of course, as we've already seen with Porter Goss moving over to the CIA trying to effect major change in a short period of time, it has brought turmoil in the agency. We even see comparable turmoil in the intelligence community.

WHITFIELD: All right and first before we even get to that, we have to hear who the candidates, the nominees for that position just might be.

ORNSTEIN: Critical post. Absolutely critical for the president.

WHITFIELD: Norman Ornstein, thanks so much, of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Security versus privacy. Will you be losing some of your rights to privacy under the intelligence reform bill?

Also, why some people think the new bill will make it harder for them to earn an honest living.

This CNN special report continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Continuing our special report on intelligence reform, improving security in the air has presented problems for some travelers. Landing them on no-fly lists. The reform bill is supposed to fix that. But it might create new issues as well. Congressional correspondent Joe Johns explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Every time David Pathi flies, he gets stopped because due to a government mix up his name is on a federal no fly list. He's gotten an official letter that was supposed to clear him to fly. But he says he's still getting hassled. Now he's added his name to a lawsuit with other people in a similar situation.

DAVID PATHI: Now that it's happened over and over and over again, and I know a little bit more about how this list works, it's frustrating. It's humiliating. JOHNS: But it may be about to change. The new intelligence reform bill gives the Transportation Security Administration new powers to make control of no-fly list problems and fix them. But the bill also creates some new privacy concerns for Americans. First and foremost, provisions to encourage information sharing between agencies. An idea highly promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike.

SEN. DICK DURBIN, (D) ILLINOIS: I took this on as my mission to really have a Manhattan project to upgrade technology and to put someone in charge of really blending this computer technology from agency to agency so we can share valuable information.

JOHNS: The concern is about people in government taking your personal information and spreading it around. To address that, the bill creates a new government civil liberties board to review guidelines on how widely personal information can be spread through the government. And to advise the president on anti-terrorism laws and policies that could affect basic freedoms you, such as the Patriot Act. But some say the board doesn't have enough power to do anything. Critics include the ACLU, which happens to be where David Pathi works.

IPATHI: I'm not optimistic.

JOHNS: Civil liberties advocates will be watching how some other provisions in the bill play out, including government funded research into biometric screening in airports where personal characteristics like fingerprints are used as identifiers. And expanded government surveillance powers to track unaffiliated so called lone wolf suspects who are not connected to terrorist organizations.

Still, supporters of the bill in both parties argue on balance the new provisions will gain public acceptance.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, (R) GEORGIA: I think the American people know and understand that the information gatherers that we have around the world are very professional people. And that they are dealing with, in a lot of cases, the scum of the earth.

JOHNS (on camera): Many supporters of the bill say it's not perfect but a step in the right direction. Some activists say it will be a long time before we know whether it strikes the right balance between liberty and security.

Joe Johns, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And there are strong differences of opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of the intelligence reform bill. Critics worry about a loss of freedom. Supporters say criticism could make the measure less effective. Here to debate both side, Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union and James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. They both join us from Washington. Good to see both of you.

JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good to be with you. LAURA MURPHY, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTTIES UNION: Hi there.

WHITFIELD: All right well Laura let me begin with you. You've reportedly called this a Patriot Act two, that Americans will be spied upon. Is that your position?

MURPHY: No. We've not called it a Patriot Act two. In fact, we were successful in beating back several provision of Patriot two, with the exception of the lone wolf provision which gives the authority of the government to spy upon non-citizens with a much more freer hand without demonstrating that they're involved in any criminal activity. But overall, we are concerned that the legislation increases the ability of 15 different agencies and departments to consolidate information and conduct intelligence investigations within the United States, and we don't think that the information that's being shared is adequately protected, nor do we think that there's an adequate separation between law enforcement and intelligence.

What the American people need to understand is at least when the FBI conducts an interview, it's following up oftentimes on criminal activity. The CIA has much broader latitude. We think this bill puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans.

WHITFIELD: Is it your position overall that this bill opens the way that Americans will be spied upon unnecessarily?

MURPHY: I do think that there are inadequate safeguards. In fact, through freedom of information act documents, we've learned about peace groups and religious groups and environmental groups being spied upon in these joint terrorism task forces that now exist.

WHITFIELD: You feel there's some kind of guilt by association?

MURPHY: Well, yes. In fact, there is a provision in the bill that makes it a crime to be a member of an organization even if you personally are not engaged in any terrorism activity. And that's a first time in the history of this government. So we've got a lot of concerns.

WHITFIELD: So James, is it your position that the ACLU is overreacting, that perhaps they're taking this out of context?

CARAFANO: Well, I do think we both agree that we would have liked to see a lot more debate and discussion on the bill before it was passed, and that trying to rush it through in the lame duck session wasn't the best thing. And quite frankly I think we could have gotten back and gotten a much, much better bill. On the other hand I do think we have to recognize that additional measures are needed. And I reject the notion that we're in a debate between privacy and civil liberties and security.

I think those who frame it that way are simply giving us a false choice. We simply can have both and we should have both. We should have measures that give us privacy, protect our civiliers (ph) and at the same time give us security. I would argue with the fact that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives the CIA additional powers or creates additional opportunities or encourages the CIA in any way to do domestic intelligence in any way that was different from the past though.

WHITFIELD: Something that is still being worked on even though this bill has made its way to the president's desk and he has yet to sign it is the whole issue of driver's licenses being extended to illegal immigrants. There are some arguments being made that perhaps by doing this, it leaves the U.S. a little bit more vulnerable. Others say by extending these driver's licenses, it offers some way of tracking these individuals. Laura, where are you on that debate?

MURPHY: Well we are very concerned that the driver's license is being used now as an internal passport where the government can increasingly ask you to show your I.D., like show your papers. And while we understand the need to make a driver's license more tamper proof, the connection between the use of the driver's license and immigration reform is far more complicated.

The United States has programs to bring workers to the United States the who need to drive vehicles. And the driver's license was meant to determine whether or not you are equipped to drive different kinds of motor vehicles. It was never intended to be an internal passport. And increasingly --

WHITFIELD: OK.

MURPHY: Because of the concern about immigration, we think that the role of the driver's license is being misused.

WHITFIELD: Well, James how do you see this? There are some critics who say you're rewarding illegal immigrants with the privilege of driving.

CARAFANO: I think we both absolutely agree that what we don't want in this country is a national identity card. That would be exactly the wrong thing. The real question is what do we have to do to prevent that. And some people argue by standardizing these identity documents that we are on a slippery slope. But I would argue the opposite, identity is key to all the systems that we have in this country.

If we don't have valid documents that are legally held appropriately by people, we are going to be on a slippery slope. So I really see this as a bright red line. Quite honestly I don't understand why we would give any legitimate government document in any form to somebody who is in this country illegally. I think that's just inappropriate.

WHITFIELD: James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, Laura Murphy of the ACLU. Thanks to both of you for joining us from Washington.

MURPHY: Thank you.

CARAFANO: Thanks for having me.

WHITFIELD: Coming up next --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want to leave my parents, because that's going to make me like so sad.

WHITFIELD: We'll delve deeper into the what if's of immigration reform. While one American community has a special concern about steps being taken to protect the nations borders.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: As debated before the break, one of the provisions of the Intelligence Reform Bill is a provision to establish new standards for issuing driver's licenses. Some lawmakers want tighter rules making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get a license. Maria Hinojosa explains how that has some worried about their ability to continue to make a living.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Like a lot of mothers, Afrealita (ph) Aperez drives her daughter to school to keep her safe.

A (ph) APEREZ, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: I drive my daughter every day because I hear in the news about drugs.

HINOJOSA: But 14-year-old Nancy, who wants to be a doctor, has a new worry. Her mother is an illegal immigrant. New York is about to take away the driver's license she got using a fake Social Security number.

MARIA APEREZ, DAUGHTER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: It's just hard because the thought of having to leave here, I don't want to.

HINOJOSA: Nancy and her sisters were born here. U.S. citizens. They're afraid that if their mother gets stopped driving without a license, their parents would be deported to Mexico, which they left 20 years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know that if they get deported to Mexico, we're never going to come back. Because they don't have their papers yet. We can come back, of course, because we were born here. But, I don't want to leave my parents because that's going to make me, like, so sad.

HINOJOSA: Afilinta (ph) says she uses her license to chauffeur disabled people and to get to her job as a domestic, not to commit acts of terrorism like the 9/11 hijackers. They legally entered the United States, and then obtained 63 driver's licenses around the country. "We are decent people, Afilinta (ph), tranquil. We would never think of wanting to hurt anyone." But Brian Decell, who lost his son-in-law on September 11th, says without immigration reform, terrorists can use a driver's license to board planes, rent cars and open bank accounts.

BRIAN DECELL, SON IN LAW DIED ON 9-11: Somebody who is undocumented is a person that you don't know who they are, gets a driver's license, that gives them the keys to the city. That was the terrorist's favorite tool.

HINOJOSA: In New York state alone, an estimated 500,000 people have legal driver's licenses but are suspected of having entered this country illegally. This taxi driver is one of them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't concentrate anymore because I'm very worried.

HINOJOSE: They drive trucks, taxis, care for children and clean homes. I asked some of them how the U.S. can protect its borders if it provides them with a valid I.D. even when they entered this country illegally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Translator): This country definitely has to control its borders because it is dangerous to know who is coming in, this man told me. But by giving us and I.D. or license then they would have more control over who we are and what we do.

HINOJOSA: Rosalyn Kennedy Lewis employs Heanita (ph) to care for her family home. She says she can't afford a legal worker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I understand that they're illegal. But they should take into consideration how they've lived their life, what they've accomplished with their life and what their children are like. And it should be done on a case by case basis. Those people that are motivated do belong here. That's what America is about.

HINOJOSA: Losing their licenses means these workers will fade completely into the underground economy. "We're not terrorists," this man said to me." Many people said we'll use these licenses to do harm. We're not going to use them to do that, we are using them to work. Then he said in the same way a lot of people from here died in those towers on September 11th, many immigrants died in those towers as well."

Maria Hinojosa, CNN, Newburgh, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Next@CNN is straight ahead. But first a check of the headlines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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


Aired December 11, 2004 - 14:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: It's 2:00 p.m. on the East Coast, 11:00 a.m. out West. I'm Fredricka Whitfield in CNN's global headquarters in Atlanta. Straight ahead this hour...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NOMINEE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This is my responsibility. It was my mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The man President Bush tapped to head homeland security steps aside. Now hear what Bernard Kerik has to say about his decision.

The 9/11 Commission called for it, Congress passed it, now the president says he'll sign it. But how will the intelligence reform bill change the way America protects you and your family. We'll have an in depth look.

Those stories and more. But first, a look at the top stories.

Doctors in Vienna, Austria, say there's no doubt about the dioxin poisoning of Ukraine opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. They add the poisoning was probably intentional and suspect a third party. The presidential candidate has endured back pain, nerve damage and facial disfigurement.

We'll go live to Moscow for the latest.

President Bush underwent several hours of an annual physical exam this morning at the Bethesda Navy Medical Center in Maryland. Doctors pronounced 58-year-old fit for duty. And said they expect he will remain fit for duty for the duration of his presidency. After the exam the president visited with U.S. troops who had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. military says one Marine died in action today in one of Iraq's most volatile provinces Al Anbar. The area includes troubled cities like Falluja and Ramadi. That brings the total number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq to 1,289.

Homeland Security chief nominee Bernard Kerik says a household issue caused him to pull his name from consideration. The former commissioner of police in New York City, says the immigration status of a woman who worked for him as a nanny prompted his decision. Mary Snow has more reaction from Kerik and from former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who recommended Kerik for the job. Both spoke publicly earlier today -- Mary.

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Fredricka.

We're outside the home of Bernard Kerik, he came out a couple hours ago speaking to us, calling this a grueling time. Kerik called the White House last night and asked that his nomination to be Homeland Security director be withdrawn. Kerik says he realized on Wednesday that he had a problem. He said he was going through financial documents and realized there were tax issues linked to the nanny who takes care of his two children. He said then yesterday he discovered that there were legal questions about her legal status here in this country, and that led him to the call. Kerik is saying that he is taking the blame for this alone. And he calls it a stupid mistake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERIK: This is my responsibility. It was my mistake. It wasn't a mistake made by the White House. I think during their vetting process, this is something that they had looked at. But in a deeper, closer look by me, it was something that I felt was just something I couldn't move forward on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Now, one of Kerik's biggest advocates is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City. Kerik was the police commissioner for Giuliani. He also became nationally known following September 11th. Giuliani today spoke to reporters. He had lobbied on behalf of Kerik getting the job. Today he says he is heartbroken.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I have great confidence in Bernie. He made a mistake that people -- human beings make mistake, even the very best of us, including you and me. It's one, unfortunately, that's a mistake that you can't deal with in a process like this where he's going to run the immigration service and he had this oversight in terms of the immigration status and tax situation of this woman who was working for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Giuliani also said that he called Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff this morning to a apologize. Kerik also said that he apologized to the president. Also Kerik says that he does believe there were no other issues that would have derailed his nomination process. And that includes a report in "Newsweek" that there had been an arrest warrant issued back in 1998, this linked to a complicated series of unpaid bills linked to a condo that he had owned. Kerik says there had been no arrest warrant and he does not believe that there were other issues that could have stopped his process -- Fredricka. WHITFIELD: Mary Snow, thanks for that report.

Well, Kerik's withdrawal may have saved the White House from a very challenging confirmation process. But now the president has to come up with a another nominee for Homeland Security chief. Tom Ridge says he'll stay on until February at the latest.

CNN's Elaine Quijano is live from the White House with more on that -- Elaine.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, administration officials are being very tight-lipped, Fredricka. In fact, President Bush made no comment just a short time ago. He left Bethesda Navy Medical Center, as you mentioned, where he was getting his annual physical, which had been delayed because of the busy campaign schedule. But the president also visiting privately with troops there. But in a statement issued last night, the White House said, "Commissioner Kerik informed the White House this evening that he is withdrawing his name for personal reasons from consideration for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The president respects his decision, and wishes Commissioner Kerik and his wife Hala, well."

Now, this news certainly coming as a surprise, because yesterday all day long, officials both on background as well as on the record, were saying that they were quite confident. They felt comfortable that Kerik's confirmation would, in fact, move forward. There had been some questions raised because of financial dealings having to do with Taser International, a stun gun manufacturing company, through which Kerik earned millions of dollars through stock options. But White House officials here as late as yesterday afternoon were saying they felt that issue had been looked at quite thoroughly and his personal background, taking a step back, had been vetted quite carefully. Obviously though, with this announcement last night, the White House, a major misstep as President Bush tries to put his team in place for the second term -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And Elaine, what about from Capitol Hill?

Any reaction from lawmakers this weekend?

QUIJANO: There are reactions coming in from lawmakers. Notably the Senator Susan Collins, a person in charge, really, of overseeing Homeland Security, throwing out a couple of names already as potential replacements. These are people that had been in the running that we had heard about, speculation, anyway, centering on before it appeared that Kerik was the nominee.

But Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat. Also Asa Hutchinson, the deputy secretary for Homeland Security. So, these are two names that we could be hearing about. But important to note, at this point, no official kind of news about exactly who the White House might be looking at. As I said, officials are very tight lipped at this point.

We should also tell you some reaction coming in from Democrats, notably Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton. She was one of the people who came along with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who even before the official announcement came about Kerik's nomination a week ago, was saying that he was a good choice. Someone that they felt had first hand knowledge, first hand experience, because he was, in fact, on the front lines in the days after and on September 11th. But she has come out with a statement saying that she hopes that President Bush will nominate someone who understands the tremendous task of protecting America. Who understands the needs facing high threat areas like New York -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Elaine Quijano, at the White House.

Well, CNN is on Homeland Security watch with President Bush set to sign the Intelligence Reform Bill into law. We take a look at what you may not know about the bill. That's coming up at 2:30 Eastern, 11:30 Pacific.

Some world news now. A mystery surrounding the Ukraine's opposition presidential candidate is revealing some answers, much of which is sure to stir passions in that country's already tense political arena. Austrian doctors treating Viktor Yushchenko, say his puzzling illness and disfigurement was caused by dioxin poisoning.

Are Moscow Bureau chief, Jill Dougherty, is keeping track of all the latest developments -- Jill.

JILL DOUGHERTY, MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Fredricka, they are saying pretty much what Viktor Yushchenko himself has been alleging now for quite a while, that he was poisoned. The doctors are saying he was poisoned about dioxin, a very toxic chemical. They believe that it was introduced into his body orally. In fact, one of the doctors said, it could have been in soup.

And what we know is according to the staff from Yushchenko and his family, that he went to a dinner, a kind of reception with members of the SBU, that is the security services of Ukraine back in September. And right after that, he fell ill. In fact, his wife that evening said that she -- told American TV that she had tasted something metallic on his lips. He fell ill, had to go to the clinic in Vienna. And in fact, this is his third visit. This time he's back. They did a battery of tests. And this is what they he have determined. And just this evening, Fredricka, the prosecutor in the Ukraine is saying that they're going to reopen an investigation that had been closed into this. So that's exactly what the Yushchenko people want. Not only do they want to know what he was poisoned with, but they want to finally know who did it.

WHITFIELD: Jill Dougherty in Moscow, thanks so much.

And now a quick look at dioxin. What is it? It's not one chemical by a byproduct of several, and they are some of the most toxic known to science. Dioxin is known to cause cancer as well. It is formed by burning chlorine based compounds. And it is a primary component of agent orange, orange, pesticides and paper bleaching.

In this country, focus on the future of the Democratic Party. Up next, how the fight over Terry McAuliffe's replacement as the head of the DNC will determine the party's heart and soul.

And it is now up to the jury. Will Scott Peterson live or die?

Our legal round table makes their predictions on the outcome.

Plus, intelligence reform efforts could one day determine who gets a driver's license.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: To politics now and the future of the Democratic party. The party is coming off losses for the White House and Congress.

Judy Woodruff of CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS" looks at what's going on in the party to try to stop its big slide.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST "INSIDE POLITICS": (voice-over): Vacationers at Orlando's many amusement parks may enjoy being in free- fall, but the Democrats meeting there sure don't. More than a month after their election losses, Democrats appear to be engaged in a battle for, as Pat Buchanan once put it for Republicans, the heart and soul of the party.

The liberal-leaning, Internet-driven group MoveOn clearly has a dog in that fight. In an e-mail to supporters, the head of MoveOn's political action committee blasts outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool for corporate donors and a professional election loser.

Elis Pariser say the grassroots contributors who made MoveOn a political powerhouse bought the party, own it, and now he says, we are going to take it back.

MCAULIFFE: They didn't buy it and nobody should say that. Listen they are -- they're entitled to whatever their opinion is.

You know, in the Democratic Party we like to sort of form these circular firing squads. It's not my nature. I am very positive. I am very optimistic.

WOODRUFF: McAuliffe is particularly upbeat in his success in shoring up the party's bottom line. The DNC is in the black in and out raised the RNC in the '04 election cycle for the first time ever. But other Democrats say money isn't everything.

HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The way to rebuild the Democratic Party is not from the consultants down; it is from the ground up.

WOODRUFF: Howard Dean is likely to be a hot topic of conversation in Orlando. As Democrats look ahead to their February vote for a new party chairman. Dean is one of many possible and official candidates for the job. The crowded field underscores the various party factions. And there are often opposing ideas about how to win again.

Some want to compete on the GOP's faith and family turf.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA: Our faith is enormously important to us. Our family is obviously enormously important to us.

WOODRUFF: Other Democrats argue the party should stay true to its traditions and convince voters that issues such as equal rights, health care and education are moral values.

DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRATEGIST: We need candidates at all levels that connect head to heart with voters.

WOODRUFF: Left or center? What about national security? Try to win back the red states or rebuild and expand the base? It's enough to make any Democrat's head spin.

Judy Woodruff, CNN reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Criminal charges are handed out in last month's infamous NBA brawl. The prosecutor has already laid out his case in a detailed step-by-step explanation against each suspect. What do our own legal eagles think of the public performance. I'll ask them.

And still to come, changing the way security screens airline passengers. Supporters of the new intelligence reform bill say it's going to make things easier, but might there be a privacy trade-off?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The jurors in Scott Peterson case are sequestered this weekend. They'll resume deliberations in penalty phase on Monday. They must determine whether Peterson should get life in prison without parole or death. Peterson was convicted last month of murdering his wife and unborn child.

The Scott Peterson trial and charges handed down in the NBA brawl are the focus of this weekend's legal round table.

With me now from Cleveland, civil rights attorney and law professor Avery Friedman. Good to you, Avery.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Fredricka, hi.

WHITFIELD: Hello.

And in New York, criminal defense attorney Richard Herman. Hello to you.

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon.

WHITFIELD: All right. Avery, let me begin with you. Monday the jurors will be back for day three, not a full day three, but day three of deliberations. Are you surprised that it has taken this long for a penalty phase?

FRIEDMAN: A lot of commentators have said that they thought something would come back on Friday. We have seen this jury being very serious about this case. Mark Geragos actually did the best job he has done in the entire case in making the pitch, so I am actually not surprised. I'm actually delighted to see that this jury is taking this issue so terribly seriously, and it should.

HERMAN: You know, Fredricka...

WHITFIELD: Some have described -- yes, go ahead, Richard.

HERMAN: The point I'd like to make is that, it's one thing when you come in for your first day of jury duty and you're opposed with the intellectual proposition, could you impose the death penalty. Is it a whole other thing after a six-month trial to actually impose the death penalty and stand up and be polled. And each of these jurors is going to have to stand up at the end and confirm their verdict to say that they want to kill him. Much different proposition.

WHITFIELD: For the death penalty, it's got to be a unanimous decision. However, there is still the prospect that, what if this were a hung jury, they couldn't even decide on life if that's what ends up being the result during deliberations. Then were dealing with a couple of really crazy options, aren't we gentlemen?

We're talking about a whole other new jury.

HERMAN: That's right.

WHITFIELD: And possibly even a whole other new venue, Richard.

HERMAN: If there's a hung jury, the district attorney, Brazelton, will have the option to say whether he wants to go forward with the new penalty phase of the trial. I don't believe he'll do that. In all honesty, I believe the prosecution put on a horrible case. I think there was huge reasonable doubt here. I think there are enormous appellate issues. I think, they take this victory, they give him life in prison without parole. And they've done their job, as far as they can be concerned, justice has been served. That's what will happen if there's a hung jury.

WHITFIELD: Avery, you agree that, the prosecution put on a horrible case, but...

FRIEDMAN: I don't buy that.

WHITFIELD: some describe the penalty phase as being really powerful, especially hearing from Ms. Rocha.

FRIEDMAN: Well -- and I agree with that part of it. The prosecution's case was not a horrible case. I do agree that there are substantial appellate issues. But you know what, I've got to throw some reality into this. The fact is that the California legislature, Fredricka, has put in $220 million to expand the death row section of San Quentin. There are roughly 629 people on death row. They inject one person a year. Even if the jury comes back with the death penalty, Scott Peterson is not going to die by lethal injection. He's going to die in the penitentiary. So while this is all very interesting intellectually, the reality is, that it's not going to happen, he'll spend the rest of his life in jail.

HERMAN: He'd rather not get the death penalty, though. He'd rather have life in prison.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I agree. I agree with him.

WHITFIELD: All right, let's move on and talk about the NBA case. Five and five; Five players, five fans who were charged mostly with misdemeanor assault and battery. Do you see, Avery, that perhaps there may be more charges to come, that perhaps those that were outside the per view of the videotape surveillance may be being getting charged as well?

FRIEDMAN: That may happen, Fredricka. I think they have the main culprits. In fact, they also have the victims. Some more schmo named Mike Ryan was sitting there and one of the NBA players thought that was the guy that threw the drink, the reality is they've nailed most of the key players here. Actually, I'm surprised there weren't more felonies. There is one felony charge against one of the fans who threw a chair.

WHITFIELD: The throwing of the chairs.

FRIEDMAN: Right. Exactly right.

HERMAN: Avery the reason -- and the reason there were not more felonies is because there were no injuries. After all this brawl, there were no injuries. And the only reason that the felony was brought against only one of those people that was arrested is because he threw a chair and aggravated the condition there. But otherwise there were no injures here. In all reality, these were probably violations. These are probably like traffic tickets, going through red lights. I don't believe these even rise to the level of misdemeanor.

WHITFIELD: And we also had a pretty interesting law lesson this week...

FRIEDMAN: Oh, no, they're not traffic tickets.

WHITFIELD: ... that even just throwing a drink, that alone constitutes battery. Even though there weren't any serious injuries, as you pointed out.

FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. You know, Fredricka, the Oakland prosecutor said this is equivalent to spitting on somebody. But the fact is that both the fans and the players are equally culpable from a criminal perspective. And then after that piece is over, watch for a flood of civil litigation coming out of this, surely.

HERMAN: With no injuries, these civil litigations are ridiculous. This is why the legal profession has a bad name for bring these preposterous cases with no injuries...

FRIEDMAN: That's not right, Richard. These people should be held accountable.

HERMAN: ... with no physical injuries. But Fredricka, the reason the prosecutor had to bring charges is because these sports arenas, whether it's basketball or football or baseball, they're hallowed grounds in American culture. They've got to send a loud and clear message, we'll never tolerate this behavior again.

WHITFIELD: So I wonder if this might precipitate some kind of security changes in a lot of these arenas, too.

HERMAN: Yes, it could. We could very well.

FRIEDMAN: ... see that. Actually, we may see that, I think, speaking o on behalf of my gender worldwide, you can't check testosterone at the door, but you can actually do something about the distribution of alcohol. I think we're going to see that. I think we're going to see differences in security measures. There's going to be a change in American sports.

FRIEDMAN: Richard, a final word, final thought?

HERMAN: Well, I just think -- yes, I think it's political at this point. I think they send that message loud and clear, you can't do this, basketball, baseball, football. I think the owners are behind it. I think the players are behind it. And this will end it loud and clear. This Artest, he's going -- he lost $5 million. He's going to get sued. He's got big trouble.

FRIEDMAN: We'll see. We'll see.

WHITFIELD: Oh, boy. All right, Richard Herman, Avery Friedman, I know we're going to be talking about both these cases again probably next week. All right good to see you.

HERMAN: Take care.

FRIEDMAN: See you soon.

WHITFIELD: Well, a new intelligence director and a new screening system for airline passengers. Those are just two of the myriad of changes laid out in the national intelligence reform bill. Not clear, how it might change your life and the nation's future overall.

We'll weigh the pros and cons of the new intelligence bill in our special half hour look right after this.

(WEATHER REPORT)

WHITFIELD: Well, welcome back.

It is a sweeping overhaul of the nation's intelligence community and its creators say it will make America safer. For the next 30 minutes we're going to take you inside the intelligence reform bill. Just hours after withdrawing his name from consideration as the nation's Homeland Security Chief, Bernard Kerik is speaking out. He says this is the right thing to do. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner, was nominated by President Bush just over a week ago. Kerik says he withdrew his name after realizing he had unpaid taxes and a former nanny he employed may have been an illegal immigrant.

Part of the mystery surrounding Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko has been solved. Three months after he fell ill, doctors in Austria say they know what caused the illness, dioxin poisoning. And they suspect foul play. Yushchenko, the opposition candidate will face Ukraine's prime minister in a second runoff election the day after Christmas. Results of the first runoff were thrown out after fraud allegations.

Another American soldier has been killed in Iraq. The U.S. military says a soldier with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was killed in action today while conducting security and stabilization operations. The incident took place in Al Anbar Province where Fallujah is located.

In our security watch, we'll focus the rest of this hour on an inside look at the complicated and important provisions of the intelligence reform bill now awaiting the president's signature. We'll examine its impact from several viewpoints, including border patrol. And we'll explain what you might not have known about the bill's provisions.

We'll hear from Norman Ornsteen of the American Enterprise Institute about that. Second we'll hear about the privacy debate and why critics say the bill could lead to a loss of basic freedoms in this country. And we'll examine the debate over establishing new standards for issuing driver's licenses while trying to target terrorism. But first, the biggest question of all will the intelligence reform work? Here's CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The conference report is adopted.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Intelligence Reform Bill promises major change, creating what could be a powerful new director of national intelligence. But experts say it raises more questions than it answers.

DAVID KAY, FMR. CIA OFFICIAL: The real issue is what is his relationship with all the 15 intelligence agencies? Who actually works for him? Where is the national intelligence council going to be? Who is going to brief the president every day? And what's the basis for that? These are things that actually have to be worked out.

ENSOR: As it stands now, one man, Porter Goss, wears two hats. He's the CIA director and he's also the director of central intelligence, nominally in charge of all 14 other U.S. intelligence agencies as well as the National Counter Terrorism Center, which began operations Monday. Under the bill, a director of National Intelligence replaces the DCI and is put over the top of a separate CIA director. The Counter Terrorism Center and the 14 other intelligence agencies. But the most important change has to do with these two key agencies.

The National Security Agency, the big ear of the u.s. Government, the eavesdroppers and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the big eye of the U.S. government, which analyzes imagery from spy satellites.

Right now, though the intelligence director has nominal authority, the Pentagon largely controls the budgets and personnel of these two crucial spy agencies. Under the bill, a new intelligence director gains considerably more control. Potentially shifting the balance of power in Washington.

FLYNT LEVERETT, SABAN CENTER: It's not the culmination. It's the beginning and it gives a, hopefully, entrepreneurial first director of National Intelligence some tools that he might use to try and achieve real reform.

ENSOR: In the bill, Congress failed to reform itself to address the overlapping web of more than 20 committees overseeing parts of U.S. intelligence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's nothing in this bill that addresses the fiefdoms on the hill. And that is going to be an issue that Congress has got to return.

ENSOR: You think they punted on it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punt? At least you have contact when you punt. I think they ran away from it.

ENSOR: Senior intelligence officials say the key will be who the president picks for intelligence chief. He or she must have credibility, communications skills, a lot of discretion, a thick skin and the absolute trust of the man in the White House. A pretty tall order.

David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, what changes might Americans see as a result of the reform bill? Let's look at that and more with Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Good to see you Norman.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: We're going to hopscotch over a few things. We'll get back to the National Intelligence director in a moment. But first, let's talk about cost. We've heard quite a few little details about some of the changes being proposed in this intelligence reform bill. For one, as it concerns immigration, something like up to 2,000 new personnel on border patrol per year. That, obviously, has not revealed any precise cost measures, but we know that it will be costly to some degree. How will this play out?

ORNSTEIN: Well, absolutely. Of course, we've known for a long time that we have serious problems on the borders and that many of the issues that congressional actors like James Sensenbrenner, the house chair of the judiciary committee, wanted to deal with, far more stringent measures controlling immigration were not dealt with in this bill, but it does beef up the border patrol. And that is going to be costly.

WHITFIELD: Is that an obstacle?

ORNSTEIN: As you say, we don't know how much. It's an obstacle only in one sense. We just had a budget passed. Actually an omnibus appropriations bill right before Congress took this up, in which they declared victory on holding the line of discretionary spending, of which this is a part. Obviously, we are not going to hold the line.

We're going to have at least a couple billion dollars more added in, that will be added in a supplemental appropriations form for the border control itself.

WHITFIELD: All right and now one of the biggest and most perhaps most highlighted changes that is part of this reform bill and that being the director of National Intelligence. How do you get someone, one person, who bring cohesion to 15 agencies who have a culture and historically have not been able to share a lot of information and therein lies the criticism of the underlying problem involving the intelligence community?

ORNSTEIN: Absolutely. The difficulty that we have here is multiple. You're absolutely right that we are have a cultural question. It was the same reason and the same rationale that brought together the Department of Homeland Security with over 20 separate agencies departments and bureaus that were radically different and had different cultures. This isn't bringing them together into one agency. It's keeping them separate.

They've had this problem that we've called stove piping where everybody gathers their own information and doesn't share it widely. The question is whether adding this new layer, maybe a new layer of limited bureaucracy, will make the difference. What the 9/11 commission said, what the bill suggests is give this person, the National Intelligence director, some budget authority and then you can grab the hearts and minds of people who are involved out there.

But the budget authority in tend is limited enough and the direct lines of communication among and between these agencies imperfect enough that what it is going to take is a strong-willed individual as the first director here to knock some heads together and begin to effect some change. Otherwise we could have the same set of problems maybe with new ones added in.

WHITFIELD: A strong willed individual who is likely to encounter some kind of criticism from some of those agency directors or leadership who might say or accuse this new director as undercutting their authority.

ORNSTEIN: Well, exactly so. And, of course, everybody is going to be jealous about their independence, particularly the thing to watch here is how the new intelligence director interacts with the head of the CIA. You know ultimately, as your report suggested, the intelligence director is going to be separate physically from the CIA. But the CIA director who is the -- known as the director of central intelligence has at least nominally been the figure in charge of the intelligence operation is probably not going to take kindly to having somebody with parallel and superior authority in some ways, but others will also appoint -- will report directly to the president.

So these interactions are going to be tough to work out. Of course, as we've already seen with Porter Goss moving over to the CIA trying to effect major change in a short period of time, it has brought turmoil in the agency. We even see comparable turmoil in the intelligence community.

WHITFIELD: All right and first before we even get to that, we have to hear who the candidates, the nominees for that position just might be.

ORNSTEIN: Critical post. Absolutely critical for the president.

WHITFIELD: Norman Ornstein, thanks so much, of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Security versus privacy. Will you be losing some of your rights to privacy under the intelligence reform bill?

Also, why some people think the new bill will make it harder for them to earn an honest living.

This CNN special report continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Continuing our special report on intelligence reform, improving security in the air has presented problems for some travelers. Landing them on no-fly lists. The reform bill is supposed to fix that. But it might create new issues as well. Congressional correspondent Joe Johns explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Every time David Pathi flies, he gets stopped because due to a government mix up his name is on a federal no fly list. He's gotten an official letter that was supposed to clear him to fly. But he says he's still getting hassled. Now he's added his name to a lawsuit with other people in a similar situation.

DAVID PATHI: Now that it's happened over and over and over again, and I know a little bit more about how this list works, it's frustrating. It's humiliating. JOHNS: But it may be about to change. The new intelligence reform bill gives the Transportation Security Administration new powers to make control of no-fly list problems and fix them. But the bill also creates some new privacy concerns for Americans. First and foremost, provisions to encourage information sharing between agencies. An idea highly promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike.

SEN. DICK DURBIN, (D) ILLINOIS: I took this on as my mission to really have a Manhattan project to upgrade technology and to put someone in charge of really blending this computer technology from agency to agency so we can share valuable information.

JOHNS: The concern is about people in government taking your personal information and spreading it around. To address that, the bill creates a new government civil liberties board to review guidelines on how widely personal information can be spread through the government. And to advise the president on anti-terrorism laws and policies that could affect basic freedoms you, such as the Patriot Act. But some say the board doesn't have enough power to do anything. Critics include the ACLU, which happens to be where David Pathi works.

IPATHI: I'm not optimistic.

JOHNS: Civil liberties advocates will be watching how some other provisions in the bill play out, including government funded research into biometric screening in airports where personal characteristics like fingerprints are used as identifiers. And expanded government surveillance powers to track unaffiliated so called lone wolf suspects who are not connected to terrorist organizations.

Still, supporters of the bill in both parties argue on balance the new provisions will gain public acceptance.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, (R) GEORGIA: I think the American people know and understand that the information gatherers that we have around the world are very professional people. And that they are dealing with, in a lot of cases, the scum of the earth.

JOHNS (on camera): Many supporters of the bill say it's not perfect but a step in the right direction. Some activists say it will be a long time before we know whether it strikes the right balance between liberty and security.

Joe Johns, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And there are strong differences of opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of the intelligence reform bill. Critics worry about a loss of freedom. Supporters say criticism could make the measure less effective. Here to debate both side, Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union and James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. They both join us from Washington. Good to see both of you.

JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good to be with you. LAURA MURPHY, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTTIES UNION: Hi there.

WHITFIELD: All right well Laura let me begin with you. You've reportedly called this a Patriot Act two, that Americans will be spied upon. Is that your position?

MURPHY: No. We've not called it a Patriot Act two. In fact, we were successful in beating back several provision of Patriot two, with the exception of the lone wolf provision which gives the authority of the government to spy upon non-citizens with a much more freer hand without demonstrating that they're involved in any criminal activity. But overall, we are concerned that the legislation increases the ability of 15 different agencies and departments to consolidate information and conduct intelligence investigations within the United States, and we don't think that the information that's being shared is adequately protected, nor do we think that there's an adequate separation between law enforcement and intelligence.

What the American people need to understand is at least when the FBI conducts an interview, it's following up oftentimes on criminal activity. The CIA has much broader latitude. We think this bill puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans.

WHITFIELD: Is it your position overall that this bill opens the way that Americans will be spied upon unnecessarily?

MURPHY: I do think that there are inadequate safeguards. In fact, through freedom of information act documents, we've learned about peace groups and religious groups and environmental groups being spied upon in these joint terrorism task forces that now exist.

WHITFIELD: You feel there's some kind of guilt by association?

MURPHY: Well, yes. In fact, there is a provision in the bill that makes it a crime to be a member of an organization even if you personally are not engaged in any terrorism activity. And that's a first time in the history of this government. So we've got a lot of concerns.

WHITFIELD: So James, is it your position that the ACLU is overreacting, that perhaps they're taking this out of context?

CARAFANO: Well, I do think we both agree that we would have liked to see a lot more debate and discussion on the bill before it was passed, and that trying to rush it through in the lame duck session wasn't the best thing. And quite frankly I think we could have gotten back and gotten a much, much better bill. On the other hand I do think we have to recognize that additional measures are needed. And I reject the notion that we're in a debate between privacy and civil liberties and security.

I think those who frame it that way are simply giving us a false choice. We simply can have both and we should have both. We should have measures that give us privacy, protect our civiliers (ph) and at the same time give us security. I would argue with the fact that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives the CIA additional powers or creates additional opportunities or encourages the CIA in any way to do domestic intelligence in any way that was different from the past though.

WHITFIELD: Something that is still being worked on even though this bill has made its way to the president's desk and he has yet to sign it is the whole issue of driver's licenses being extended to illegal immigrants. There are some arguments being made that perhaps by doing this, it leaves the U.S. a little bit more vulnerable. Others say by extending these driver's licenses, it offers some way of tracking these individuals. Laura, where are you on that debate?

MURPHY: Well we are very concerned that the driver's license is being used now as an internal passport where the government can increasingly ask you to show your I.D., like show your papers. And while we understand the need to make a driver's license more tamper proof, the connection between the use of the driver's license and immigration reform is far more complicated.

The United States has programs to bring workers to the United States the who need to drive vehicles. And the driver's license was meant to determine whether or not you are equipped to drive different kinds of motor vehicles. It was never intended to be an internal passport. And increasingly --

WHITFIELD: OK.

MURPHY: Because of the concern about immigration, we think that the role of the driver's license is being misused.

WHITFIELD: Well, James how do you see this? There are some critics who say you're rewarding illegal immigrants with the privilege of driving.

CARAFANO: I think we both absolutely agree that what we don't want in this country is a national identity card. That would be exactly the wrong thing. The real question is what do we have to do to prevent that. And some people argue by standardizing these identity documents that we are on a slippery slope. But I would argue the opposite, identity is key to all the systems that we have in this country.

If we don't have valid documents that are legally held appropriately by people, we are going to be on a slippery slope. So I really see this as a bright red line. Quite honestly I don't understand why we would give any legitimate government document in any form to somebody who is in this country illegally. I think that's just inappropriate.

WHITFIELD: James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, Laura Murphy of the ACLU. Thanks to both of you for joining us from Washington.

MURPHY: Thank you.

CARAFANO: Thanks for having me.

WHITFIELD: Coming up next --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want to leave my parents, because that's going to make me like so sad.

WHITFIELD: We'll delve deeper into the what if's of immigration reform. While one American community has a special concern about steps being taken to protect the nations borders.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: As debated before the break, one of the provisions of the Intelligence Reform Bill is a provision to establish new standards for issuing driver's licenses. Some lawmakers want tighter rules making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get a license. Maria Hinojosa explains how that has some worried about their ability to continue to make a living.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Like a lot of mothers, Afrealita (ph) Aperez drives her daughter to school to keep her safe.

A (ph) APEREZ, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: I drive my daughter every day because I hear in the news about drugs.

HINOJOSA: But 14-year-old Nancy, who wants to be a doctor, has a new worry. Her mother is an illegal immigrant. New York is about to take away the driver's license she got using a fake Social Security number.

MARIA APEREZ, DAUGHTER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: It's just hard because the thought of having to leave here, I don't want to.

HINOJOSA: Nancy and her sisters were born here. U.S. citizens. They're afraid that if their mother gets stopped driving without a license, their parents would be deported to Mexico, which they left 20 years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know that if they get deported to Mexico, we're never going to come back. Because they don't have their papers yet. We can come back, of course, because we were born here. But, I don't want to leave my parents because that's going to make me, like, so sad.

HINOJOSA: Afilinta (ph) says she uses her license to chauffeur disabled people and to get to her job as a domestic, not to commit acts of terrorism like the 9/11 hijackers. They legally entered the United States, and then obtained 63 driver's licenses around the country. "We are decent people, Afilinta (ph), tranquil. We would never think of wanting to hurt anyone." But Brian Decell, who lost his son-in-law on September 11th, says without immigration reform, terrorists can use a driver's license to board planes, rent cars and open bank accounts.

BRIAN DECELL, SON IN LAW DIED ON 9-11: Somebody who is undocumented is a person that you don't know who they are, gets a driver's license, that gives them the keys to the city. That was the terrorist's favorite tool.

HINOJOSA: In New York state alone, an estimated 500,000 people have legal driver's licenses but are suspected of having entered this country illegally. This taxi driver is one of them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't concentrate anymore because I'm very worried.

HINOJOSE: They drive trucks, taxis, care for children and clean homes. I asked some of them how the U.S. can protect its borders if it provides them with a valid I.D. even when they entered this country illegally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Translator): This country definitely has to control its borders because it is dangerous to know who is coming in, this man told me. But by giving us and I.D. or license then they would have more control over who we are and what we do.

HINOJOSA: Rosalyn Kennedy Lewis employs Heanita (ph) to care for her family home. She says she can't afford a legal worker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I understand that they're illegal. But they should take into consideration how they've lived their life, what they've accomplished with their life and what their children are like. And it should be done on a case by case basis. Those people that are motivated do belong here. That's what America is about.

HINOJOSA: Losing their licenses means these workers will fade completely into the underground economy. "We're not terrorists," this man said to me." Many people said we'll use these licenses to do harm. We're not going to use them to do that, we are using them to work. Then he said in the same way a lot of people from here died in those towers on September 11th, many immigrants died in those towers as well."

Maria Hinojosa, CNN, Newburgh, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Next@CNN is straight ahead. But first a check of the headlines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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