Return to Transcripts main page

Campbell Brown

Oprah Winfrey Ending Talk Show; Who Missed Fort Hood Massacre Warning Signs?; Oprah to Quit in 2011; Can U.S. Count on Karzai?; Surveillance Cameras Become More Common; Panel Clarifies Breast Cancer Screen Recommendations

Aired November 19, 2009 - 20:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): A bombshell announcement from the queen of all media: Oprah Winfrey ending her talk show after 25 years. One of our questions tonight, why is she giving it all up and what is her next act?

Also, who missed the warning signs before the Fort Hood massacre? So many red flags. Shouldn't the Army have seen the threat?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Was this another failure to connect the dots?

BROWN: Or was there more to it than that?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Do you think that political correctness may have played some role in the fact that these dots were not connected?

GEN. JOHN KEANE (RET.), FORMER ARMY VICE CHIEF OF STAFF: Yes, absolutely.

BROWN: Plus, in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai sworn in for a second term as president, his government awash in corruption. The big question: Does he have a hand in it?

HAMID KARZAI, PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN: Corruption is a very dangerous enemy of the state. But we have got a program for tackling the corruption.

BROWN: But do his deeds match his words? Who really is this man, our last best hope in Afghanistan?

And do security cameras really make us safer? You may be caught on camera dozens of times a day and not know it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel like your privacy is being invaded?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do. But there ain't a whole heck of a lot I can do about it.

BROWN: Our series, "The End of Privacy." (END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is your only source for news. CNN prime time begins now. Here's Campbell Brown.

BROWN: Hey, everybody. We are going to start tonight, as always, with the "Mash-Up," our look at the all stories making an impact right now, the moments you may have missed today. We are watching it all, so you don't have to.

And our top story tonight, outrage on Capitol Hill, senators demanding to know how the Army missed so many red flags about the suspect in the Fort Hood rampage, a man several lawmakers branded a terrorist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: one senator says there were -- quote -- "warning signs and red flags galore" on Nidal Hasan.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, HOST, "NBC NIGHTLY NEWS": Hot-button words like terrorism and political correctness in hearings on Capitol Hill.

MCCAIN: Do you think that political correctness may have played some role in the fact that these dots were not connected?

KEANE: Yes, absolutely.

FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: I worry about a sense of political correctness, that there might have been some sort of self-censoring, if you will, a reluctance for them to pursue a senior uniformed military member, a doctor who was Muslim.

MCCAIN: Do you believe the attack on Fort Hood was an act of terror?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like an act of terror to me.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: A terrorist attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Major Hasan's e-mails have been classified top-secret. But, tonight, we have been able to learn some of what he said to the radical cleric in Yemen who authorities consider to be an al Qaeda recruiter.

"I can't wait to join you in the afterlife," Hasan wrote Awlaki. Other messages include questions, the official said: "When is jihad appropriate? Is it permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack?"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Today, Defense Secretary Bob Gates ordered a broad Pentagon investigation into whether the military is doing all it can to identify potential threats. We're going to have much more on this story coming up tonight, including the role that political correctness may have played in the case of Nidal Hasan.

Also on Capitol Hill today, an angry showdown between Republican congressmen and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. It was a wide- ranging hearing on everything from the bank bailout to the stimulus plan, and it ended with a call for Geithner to resign. Watch this exchange. This is between the secretary and Kevin Brady of Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN BRADY (R), TEXAS: Mr. Secretary, the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Congressman...

(CROSSTALK)

BRADY: And it's reflecting on your president.

GEITHNER: Congressman, if you look at...

BRADY: Conservatives agree, liberal Democrats agree that it really is time for a fresh start.

GEITHNER: If you look at any measure of confidence in the financial system, it is substantially stronger today than when the president of the United States took office. And that happened not on its own. It happened because of a set of tough, difficult choices.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Hinchey is recognized for five minutes.

BRADY: At some point, you have to take responsibility for your decisions.

(CROSSTALK)

GEITHNER: I can take responsibility for anything I am part of doing. I would be happy...

(CROSSTALK)

GEITHNER: What I take responsibility is, is for the legacy of crisis you have bequeathed the country.

BRADY: This is your budget.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Well, after that pummelling from Republicans, Democratic lawmakers did jump in to Geithner's defense.

We turn now to Afghanistan, where Hamid Karzai was sworn to another five-year term as president, with Hillary Clinton there to watch, the ceremony coming on the heels of a scandal-scarred election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Amid all the pomp and pageantry, stark words about corruption and security -- President Karzai said he's determined for Afghan forces to control the country's security within five years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He also addressed U.S. concerns over corruption in his government, saying corrupt officials should be tried and prosecuted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Afghan ministers should be clean servants of the Afghan people, he said. That is exactly what the Obama administration wanted to hear, but what it wants to see is action.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, to demonstrate clearly that we're going to have accountability and tangible results.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, just who is Hamid Karzai, and can the U.S. trust him as a partner? We are going to answer those questions for you later tonight.

And on the home front, a surprise court ruling in New Orleans could mean big relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina. A federal judge blamed post Katrina flooding on the Army Corps of Engineers. The judge said the Corps' -- quote -- "failed maintenance" of a shipping canal led to the catastrophic flooding.

And the ruling could put the government on the hook for billions of dollars to storm victims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIERCE O'DONNELL, ATTORNEY: Judge Stanwood Duval issued a landmark 156-page decision declaring victory for the residents of St. Bernard Parish and the Lower Ninth Ward and condemning the Army Corps for monumental negligence, gross neglect, and willful failure to protect the people and the property of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish.

RAY NAGIN (D), MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: I think it is huge. We have been monitoring this case. And what this does for -- particularly the people in the Lower Ninth Ward, many of them did not get enough money from the Road Home program, which were the federal grants. Many businesses did not get enough help. And hopefully this ruling will open the floodgates if you will for those people to receive proper compensation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: The government will likely appeal that ruling.

And in TV land tonight, breaking news from Oprah Winfrey. The daytime diva is giving up her talk show after a quarter-century.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It appears there's a change in the air for Oprah Winfrey. A spokesperson for her company, Harpo Productions, says that, yes, Oprah will be ending her talk show.

KATIE COURIC, HOST, "CBS EVENING NEWS": She will end her talk show in 2011, after 25 seasons on the air. Winfrey will make the official announcement on her program tomorrow.

CHARLES GIBSON, HOST, "WORLD NEWS": And her production company says she intends to do something after the show ends, but is not saying yet what that might be.

WILLIAMS: She will apparently now focus on a new cable channel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, what is next for Oprah? Will it be that cable channel? We are going to game out her options a little bit later tonight.

And just who may take Oprah's place as the reigning queen of daytime TV? Well, not Rachael Ray, if Martha Stewart has any say in it. In an interview with ABC News, Stewart made it pretty clear she is no fan of her rival domestic goddess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA STEWART, FOUNDER, MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA: She just did a new cookbook, which is just a reedit of lot of her old recipes. And that is not good enough. So, she is different. She is more of an entertainer than she is -- with a bubbly personality, than she is a teacher, like me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Martha appeared on Rachael's show last week.

I sat down with Martha right after she did your show. She said: "We don't -- she doesn't do what I do."

RACHAEL RAY, "RACHAEL RAY": It's true. I don't.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: "It's not good enough for me."

RAY: It's true. It's 100 percent true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And Rachael Ray says she is not mad about Martha Stewart's comments, not even a little bit.

And that brings us to the "Punchline." This is courtesy of Conan O'Brien, who can't seem to get enough of that presidential bow. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH CONAN O'BRIEN": Dick Cheney slammed President Obama for bowing before the emperor of Japan. Yes. Yes. Cheney said, come on, it is not like he is the CEO of Exxon.

(LAUGHTER)

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE": The other problem was, Obama didn't bow correctly. He combined the bow with a handshake. And it was awkward. Well, watch here. You can see where it went wrong. He says hello to the emperor, and...

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. So, we tacked on a little old Jimmy Kimmel into that one. Couldn't resist playing that again.

And that is the "Mash-Up" tonight.

When we come back: so many people coming forward now, saying that they raised red flags about the suspected Fort Hood gunman. So, who missed the warning signs before the massacre? Is the Army being blinded by political correctness?

And Hamid Karzai sworn today in for his second term as the president of Afghanistan, but with his government awash with corruption, can the U.S. trust him? More on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Sharp questions today in Washington about the Fort Hood massacre. Senators want to know how the Army could have missed so many red flags about Major Nidal Hasan. Was it a failure to connect the dots or was the Army blinded by political correctness? This as Defense Secretary Robert Gates launches a Pentagon investigation into how the Army screens service members to identify potential threats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: After the bloodshed at Fort Hood, two investigations being launched in Washington.

LIEBERMAN: Our congressional investigation is to learn whether the federal government or any of its employees could have acted in a way that would have prevented these murders from occurring.

TODD: One senator says there were -- quote -- "warning signs and red flags galore" on Nidal Hasan before the Fort Hood shootings.

BLITZER: Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Pentagon's review will last 45 days. It will zero in on whether the military is falling short in these areas: personal screening, base security, and its emergency response.

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It is prudent to determine immediately whether there are internal weaknesses or procedural shortcomings in the department that could make us vulnerable in the future.

The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete, but prompt answers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And today's hearing came on the heals of that National Public Radio story that broke yesterday about one of those red flags, a memo that was dated May 17, 2007, and in it Hasan's supervisor at Walter Reed said that he was unprofessional, that he had a bad work ethic, and was proselytizing to patients.

And joining me now, we have NPR correspondent Daniel Zwerdling, who that broke that story, CNN national contributor Fran Townsend, who testified at today's Senate Homeland Security hearing. And also with us tonight, Lieutenant General Dan Benton, who is former chief of staff of U.S. European Command.

Thanks to everybody for joining us tonight.

Daniel, I want to start with you on this. You have some new information that follows up on the story that you broke yesterday that we told people about, about why that memo was written, what happened with it afterwards. What can you tell us?

DANIEL ZWERDLING, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: The psychiatrist who wrote that memo took over the psychiatric residency program in March 2007.

And he went through the folders on all the 50 or so residents that he was going to manage, as any good manager does. And when he got to Nidal Hasan's file, my sources tell me that he said to his colleagues, why is this guy still on our staff? Why didn't -- why wasn't he gotten rid of a year or two ago?

Because this file was filled with negative evaluations and other material about Nidal Hasan. So, this boss, Major Scott Moran, according to my sources, he went to the big committee that had to pass on getting rid of somebody. It's called the Graduate Medical Education Committee. And they said, you can't get rid of Nidal Hasan.

Why? Because Nidal Hasan could hire a lawyer. There would be all kinds of hearings, potentially. It would drag on and on and on. So, their decision was, he is going to a fellowship soon. He's going to leave Walter Reed. So, let's just hope he does better at his new post.

(CROSSTALK)

ZWERDLING: And let me just add...

BROWN: Yes.

ZWERDLING: ... and so Major Scott Moran wrote this memo, I'm told, because he wanted to make sure there was something in the file, in the permanent file, to show that he and his colleagues thought that Nidal Hasan was bad news as a psychiatrist.

BROWN: And they wanted to be on the record about it.

General, is this something that is typical? I mean, you're hearing what he's laying out for us. Did this happen a lot?

LT. GEN. DAN BENTON (RET.), FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND: I just find it absolutely incredible that somebody two years ago that had those kinds of allegations against him, why those allegations didn't make it into his efficiency file.

And I don't think this is a problem with the promotion boards. I think this is a failure of leadership, because Major Hasan, in addition to having this committee that looks at the medical aspects of what he does, he also had a military rater and a senior rater. Those people have the responsibility to take allegations like this, find out what the facts are, and if they are true, they need to be into his efficiency report.

Major Hasan never should have even gone to this promotion board. He should have been eliminated from the Army far, far before the promotion board ever met.

BROWN: And, Fran, let me bring this into -- bring you into this, because I want to take it little more big picture. This memo that we're talking about was just one of those red flags that was central to that hearing today that you testified at.

And you talked about the fact that political correctness may have something to do with why the warnings were missed. And I know you are not alone in that thinking. Explain.

TOWNSEND: Well, you know, Campbell, the problem was, when you talk to people now about, well, why wasn't this taken further -- after all, there were the communications al-Awlaki, the radical preacher in Yemen, who was the subject of investigations, including of the 9/11 Commission -- why wasn't this taken further?

And what you hear more and more is, well, this man had a First Amendment right. He had freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And I have to tell you, Campbell, that's -- it is one thing to say we have constitutional protections. I'm Catholic, and so you can't investigate me because I'm Catholic.

But if I'm Catholic and I'm communicating with a terrorist, a known, established terrorist who is the subject of multiple investigations, that ought to be enough. And so that was part of the frustration you saw on the part of Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman today.

(CROSSTALK) ZWERDLING: But, Campbell, may I add something?

BROWN: Yes, go ahead.

ZWERDLING: Appropriately, everybody is focusing on Nidal Hasan and this horrendous tragedy at Fort Hood. But the problem is much bigger than Nidal Hasan when it comes to bad therapists.

First of all, the military has a horrendous shortage of competent therapists. I have traveled around the country talking to soldiers and Marines who often complain bitterly about how hard it is for them to get into a therapy session at an Army base or at the Marine base.

And, number two, they complain that a lot of the therapists are just really bad. Two years ago, the American Psychological Association had a big commission with all kinds of nationally respected psychologists and others who studied the mental health system, and they reported that the majority, the majority of mental health specialists at military bases were not even trained to do the basic therapies to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. So...

BROWN: But here's my question. And let me go to the general on this, because was it about a shortage of therapists, perhaps, or, as Sarah Palin has suggested, because she is calling for profiling of soldiers like Hasan, saying that the military is in such a bind in needing to attract more Muslim soldiers, people who speak the language, people who understand the culture, and if they fear profiling, you are not going to be able to attract these people?

BENTON: Well, Campbell, I have sat on military promotion boards in the past, both for noncommissioned officers and for officers at various levels.

Each of the boards is given a letter of instruction from the secretary of the Army with the guidance on the numbers of the various types of skills that are required.

Now, it is important to note that the Army Medical Department has its own separate promotion boards. They are not considered on the same promotion board along with infantry officers or artillery officers or the combat arms and so forth.

BROWN: Right.

BENTON: And, so, the medical boards, they are looking at veterinarians. They're looking at the Army Nurse Corps. They're looking at Dental Corps. They're looking at surgeons, medical support.

And each one of those branches, each one of those technical fields have floors, certain numbers of people...

BROWN: Right.

BENTON: ... certain skills that they have to find.

I never, in the time I was on promotion boards, ever heard any desire about religions as far as, you know, selecting people from various religions.

BROWN: Right.

BENTON: Now, I'm dated by about nine years on promotion boards.

But, having said that, let me just tell you Major Hasan that is a native-born Arab speaker. And the Defense Department a couple of years ago have designated Arabic and Chinese as strategic language for the Department of Defense. So, people that are native-born Arab speakers are very valuable in the Defense Department today.

BROWN: And, to Fran's point, may be getting a pass because of that.

All right, we have got to end it there. But, to Fran, General and to Daniel, many thanks to all of you. Appreciate it.

ZWERDLING: Thank you, Campbell.

BROWN: We have some breaking news to share with you tonight, the queen of all media getting set to announce she is ending her 25-year run. Why is Oprah Winfrey giving it all up? What will she do next?

Plus, why is this penny worth $1 million, that one -- that one right there?

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A big announcement from Oprah Winfrey, we have got the details.

(NEWS BREAK)

BROWN: Breaking news from Oprah Winfrey. Why is she leaving the talk show that made her an American icon? What is next for the queen of daytime television?

And speaking of being on TV, our series "The End of Privacy" looks at the growing number of video cameras watching your every move in public, whether you want it or not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you're going into the psychiatrist's office, when you are going into a gynecologist office, those pictures can be captured and used by anybody for any purpose. Sometimes, it is the government who captures the pictures. Sometimes, it's private entities, but there are no limitations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Bombshell news in the TV business. A short time ago, we learned that tomorrow Oprah Winfrey will announce she is quitting her talk show. The woman who became known as the queen of all media is moving on as of September 20 -- or September -- we don't know the exact date -- 2011. That's after 25 seasons on the air. What exactly is she going to do next?

Here now to help us answer all of our questions about this, Sharon Waxman, editor in chief of the TheWrap.com.

Hi, Sharon.

SHARON WAXMAN, THEWRAP.COM: Hi, Campbell.

BROWN: So, I know Oprah is going to tell us all of this tomorrow, but we can't wait.

WAXMAN: Right.

BROWN: So, any indication about why she is doing this, why she is leaving? Is she just bored?

WAXMAN: I think the short answer is 25 years on the air. And I think the longer answer probably is she wants to go out while she's on top, because, you know, Oprah's influence is still huge, but her ratings are in decline, like a lot of shows on over all sectors of television, especially on the broadcast networks.

Her ratings have been down. And so she might be looking out into the future and thinking, OK, I have 25 years put in here. I have got some other things I want to do and it's a good time to go.

BROWN: You wonder though, those declines are sort of inevitable, though, when you think about it, given that the media has expanded so much so, with cable news and everything else and the Internet going on.

I mean, you know, is -- I guess is that really a surprise in a way? Would that be a reason for her to really leave?

WAXMAN: Well, you know, it is -- broadcast networks are still the biggest audience there is, but it is a much-reduced audience.

What we don't know is kind of what are some of the backdoor business dealings going on there, because is her show, which is fairly expensive for stations to buy from CBS, or to license from CBS, is there as much enthusiasm for her show as there might have been a few years ago, when you would get bigger ratings, basically, before there was so much fragmentation of the audience?

But the other big factor here, of course, is that Oprah is launching her own network called the Oprah Winfrey Network...

BROWN: Right.

WAXMAN: ... which is supposed to launch next year, and which has had a rocky start in terms of getting the right people in the right places. And Oprah sent out her -- one of her really key producers to head up the whole creative side of it a few -- about a month ago. And that sort of off speculation that maybe Oprah was going to follow her.

So, what we don't actually know is, she might leave Chicago. I talked to her spokesman just a little while ago, and he said -- I said, "Is she going to stay in Chicago?"

He said, you know, "We're just not going to talk about that." So he didn't say that she was going to stay in Chicago for sure. So that's pretty interesting. But she has -- she probably wants to put her shoulder behind getting this network launched, would be my guess.

BROWN: And you also have to wonder about the other ventures. Because the Oprah empire is about a lot more than just this television show. I mean, it's her book club, the magazine. She produces movies.

WAXMAN: Yes.

BROWN: She produces radio. But do you think that the -- that without the daytime show, without her having sort of that daily platform to a huge audience, does that have an impact on these other ventures? Do you think they'll suffer?

WAXMAN: I think -- I think your point is really well taken. That daily platform, that daily contact with her fan base and her audience is really key.

So what we don't know is if -- is where she'll land in terms of appearing on programming on her own network and how that network is going to take off. If it has, you know, a broad profile and if she really is a presence on the air, then perhaps it can replace the daytime, that day-to-day presence that she really has, that contact, that supports, as you say, her magazine, her publishing, her radio, her movie production.

But that's a risk that she's taking, because that is -- that's a very hard things to do, to launch a network. Not very many individuals have done that successfully. But she's Oprah.

BROWN: But she's Oprah. I was going to say.

WAXMAN: Yes.

BROWN: Let me just -- last question, Sharon, when you think about -- about her show over the last 20-plus years, you know, from free cars to all the various weight loss programs she did, what's the real legacy of the show, do you think?

WAXMAN: I think her legacy, to me, it feels like one of huge empowerment for women. There isn't another woman on the entertainment landscape period who has -- or even on the entertainment landscape, period, who has the kind of influence and respect and pure financial firepower that Oprah has.

And I think that just her personal story which is, you know, coming from poverty and abuse to rise to the place, to take the place and in a dignified way that she has in American culture, is something that will resonate over the years, whether she's on TV or not.

BROWN: Sharon Waxman, of course, editor in chief of TheRap.com -- dot com. Sharon, good to see you. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

WAXMAN: Thanks, Campbell.

BROWN: When we come back, for better or worse, America's future in Afghanistan now depends, in large part, on President Hamid Karzai. He was sworn in today, of course, but can we trust him? We're going to look at why the Obama administration isn't so sure.

And new questions tonight about the government panel that says women in their 40s don't need regular mammograms. Who are these people? Do they even know what they're talking about?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. DANIEL KOPANS, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: In listening to some of the responses over the past few days from panel members, it's clear to me that they're not very familiar with the mammography screening data.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The U.S. has no choice now but to hope it can count on Hamid Karzai. The Afghan leader was sworn in today for his second term as president. In his inaugural speech, he vowed to take on corruption in his own government. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAMID KARZAI, PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN (through translator): Corruption is a very dangerous enemy of the state. And we would like to take this matter quite seriously, so we could have a director dealing with the corruption. Our anti-corruption unit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: With President Obama promising an answer soon on sending what could be as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops, the fact is we are betting our future there, not to mention the lives of our troops, on one man: on Karzai.

And CNN's Atia Abawi has spent the last year on the ground, covering Afghanistan extensively. We are very lucky to have her with us tonight.

Welcome to you. It's good to have you here in the studio and in person.

ATIA ABAWI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's good to be here. BROWN: We know that U.S. officials have deep concerns about Karzai. And I just want to walk through them with you and have you talk it out with us. The first being corruption in his government. They think he knows about it and he lets it happen.

ABAWI: That's the biggest issue when it comes to the U.S. relation with Afghanistan right now when it comes to the international mission in Afghanistan, at the moment, because there's -- there's no doubt that billions and billions of dollars have been poured into Afghanistan. Even the average Afghan will tell you that they haven't even seen one dollar of it. Every time I go from province to province, that's what I hear.

The fear right now is that the government that President Karzai has surrounded himself with in the last administration and his new administration is just more corrupt individuals. And what they're fearing at the moment is that nothing will happen, in fact, that they'll take advantage of the situation that Afghanistan is in right now to increase their power.

BROWN: And they have, and increased their wealth. A lot of them have become very rich people.

Second big concern, obviously: Afghanistan is a narco state. I mean, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called it that. And Karzai's own brother has been linked to the drug trade.

ABAWI: He's allegedly been linked to the drug trade. Many officials will tell you -- they won't tell you on the record; they'll tell you off the record that they do feel that he's connected to the drug mafia.

President Karzai himself and his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the individual that they're talking about, have denied these allegations. This is a man who's in charge of the provincial council in Kandahar in Southern Afghanistan, one of the most volatile provinces, and area that's surrounded by poppy fields, by the drug mafia.

But he still says to this day that he's not involved in it. But it has hurt the credibility of not just his brother but President Karzai himself and his entire administration.

BROWN: And third, broken trust -- we know about that one -- between U.S. officials and Karzai. And this has really exploded. There are reports that he's had run-ins with everybody from the vice president on down.

ABAWI: Absolutely. This is not the cozy relationship that we saw with the Bush administration and the Karzai administration. This is a completely different relationship at the moment.

President Obama, the second that he came into office, it's been somewhat of a symbol, when you talk to sources on the ground, that he hasn't been to Afghanistan since he's been elected as president.

Then you look at Joe Biden, the vice president, when he was in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he was in Afghanistan prior to the Obama administration coming into office, there are reports that he stormed out of a dinner with President Karzai.

We've also heard of reports that have been denied by Richard Holbrook, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, that he, too, slammed out of a room with President Karzai when it came to talking about corruption, saying that President Karzai has denied that there is widespread corruption. But obviously, the U.S. officials don't feel the same way.

BROWN: And fourth and finally, there are certainly doubts about the legitimacy of his government. I mean, you were there on election day. Despite the swearing in today, you know, what do you think? What really happened?

ABAWI: Well, we ourselves, we went to a polling station in Kabul. This is an area that seems to be controlled and actually better off than the rest of the country, that has some sort of security.

We saw around 200 people come out to vote. When we were leaving, I was asking how many ballots they were counting. They were counting 1,000 ballots. And this is an area where there seems to be control. This was an area where we saw international monitors come in.

President Karzai himself states that it's the international media that's blowing up, stating that there was widespread corruption when there wasn't.

But obviously, we saw the drama that occurred. The elections happened on August 20. There wasn't a firm answer to who the president of Afghanistan was going to be until November and the swearing in today. So, yes, there is allegations of these -- this corruption.

BROWN: We appreciate you being here in person and hearing your perspective on this, Atia. Thanks so much.

ABAWI: Thank you for having me.

BROWN: Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, you may be on camera. Tonight our series, "The End of Privacy," how far one American city is willing to go to keep an eye on everyone, all in the name of safety.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Tonight more of our special series "The End of Privacy." At any given moment, whether you like it or not, somebody could be watching you: in the store, at the bank, on the corner of the street surveillance cameras catch your every move.

As CNN's Susan Candiotti shows us, it is a digital-age dilemma, pitting the right to privacy against the need for safety.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In New York City it seems like everywhere you turn it's like being on candid camera.

DONNA LIEBERMAN, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Here's another one. There you go. There's one. And there's another, and there's another, and there's another. You can go over there diagonally. There are two cameras: one, two, a little higher than the traffic light.

CANDIOTTI: In this post-9/11 world, privacy has often had to take a back seat to security.

(on camera) Do you ever get the sense, walking around the city, that you feel like your privacy is being invaded because there are so many surveillance cameras around?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do, but there ain't a whole heck of a lot I can do about it.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): We went behind the scenes at New York's police counterterrorism command post. Here they monitor cameras 24/7. Some 300 cameras are operated by police, some provided by private businesses.

RAYMOND KELLY, NYPD COMMISSIONER: It's happening incrementally, and indeed, it's happening in every major city in America.

CANDIOTTI: This shot is just one angle near Wall Street. Here's the same shot from our camera outside.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I must be oblivious. I just go from working in a cubicle to the subway. So thank goodness for the security.

CANDIOTTI: Next year the city will spend another $24 million in homeland security money on cameras to keep a closer eye on high- security targets, as well as public streets.

(on camera) How many cameras are there?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, the New York Civil Liberties Union did a survey of Manhattan ten years ago, and we were shocked to find out that there were over 2,300 cameras on the streets of Manhattan.

Well, we tried to repeat that survey back in 2005. We got as far as at 14th street and called it a day.

CANDIOTTI: Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union showed me how many cameras there are on just on her block.

LIEBERMAN: Those pictures can be captured and used by anybody for any purpose. Sometimes it's the government who captures the pictures. Sometimes it's private entities. But there are no limitations on what anybody can do with that -- those images.

CANDIOTTI: The police say their tapes are destroyed every 30 days. They'd like the city to look like London where four million cameras are on the watch, one for every 15 people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've seen them (INAUDIBLE) women on the street, continue by themselves (INAUDIBLE).

CANDIOTTI: Those camera images connected two men to suicide attacks that killed 56 people on subway trains and a bus in 2007.

Some critics say London's system isn't very good at preventing crime. And one study claims as many as 80 percent of the images are too poor to make a criminal case.

But New York police say crime dropped 30 percent in public housing the first year cameras were installed.

KELLY: It just cut it down tremendously. And there's many, many examples of that. So by and large, cameras are a public safety benefit, a public safety godsend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My guess is they're doing it for our protection. I'll trust them.

CANDIOTTI: Trust for safety's sake, even as all those lenses keep popping up.

Susan Candiotti, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Coming up at the top of the hour, "LARRY KING LIVE" what do you have for us tonight, Larry?

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": We've got a lot going on. We've got more on Oprah's breaking news, Campbell. We're going to talk about Palin mania. Why are people getting up in the middle of the night to go see her?

And some late-breaking developments on the horrible North Carolina case, the mother charged with human trafficking in the disappearance and death of her own 5-year-old daughter.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is next at the top of the hour -- Campbell.

BROWN: All right, Larry. We'll see you in a few moments.

When we come back, a new twist to that story about mammograms. We're going to have Sanjay Gupta here to try to clarify all of this for us, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There is enormous outrage from Congress to doctors' offices about the controversial new recommendations for mammograms, this coming from an independent government panel.

The panel, or one of the members of the panel did an interview that's just coming in now. A telephone interview with "The Wall Street Journal." They are now trying to clarify their position because of all the confusion that this story has brought on.

The finding, their original finding was that women in their 40s should not get routine screenings for breast cancer. Again, this finding from an independent panel called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

But according to "The Wall Street Journal," a member of the task force now saying that their message is not to say to women they should not get mammograms when they're in their 40s, but it should not be mandatory, per se, that they should at least make the decision themselves in consultation with their doctor.

I don't know if this helps clarify things or not. But we're going to go to Sanjay Gupta now and try to get more on this.

There are also a lot of questions about why these people are qualified to make these kind of decisions. Listen to what a doctor told me on our program last night about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOPANS: This panel has been labeled as a panel of experts. I know all the experts in the United States in mammography screening and all the ones around the world. I don't know any of these people. I don't know who actually chose the members of the panel.

I'm sure they're very nice people. I don't mean to denigrate them. But in listening to some of the responses over the last few days from panel members, it's clear to me that they're not very familiar with the mammography screening data.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And we are very lucky to have Dr. Sanjay Gupta with us tonight to help again clarify all this.

And Sanjay, I may have confused things even more. This report from "The Wall Street Journal" just crossing, clearly the panel not realizing they were going to cause this kind of uproar, is now trying to clarify things to put their recommendations in perspective and tone it down a bit, it sounds like.

And then we also have this issue of what Dr. Kopans just said right there, questioning the integrity of the panel. About whether these people are qualified to be making these kind of recommendations in the first place. Give us your take on all of this.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, it's sort of interesting. Because you know, I read the recommendations pretty thoroughly, and they do say that they do not recommend routine mammograms for women anymore between the ages of 40 and 49.

It goes on to say that women should have a consultation with their physician before getting the mammogram to learn about the risks and benefits. And high-risk women should get screened and get the mammogram.

What's confusing about this, Campbell, and I think this is something that you've touched on, is that about -- around 75 to 90 percent of women who get breast cancer don't have any risk factors and don't have any family history.

So you know, as a doctor, and I've talked to a lot of other doctors about this, I'm not sure what we doctors are supposed to tell patients when they're getting that consultation before getting the mammogram. If you hear that the vast majority of women never had a risk factor, most women are going to want the mammogram. You know, there's nothing to sort of tell them yes or no.

So that's -- that's where it gets really confusing, and that's where I think a little bit of a disservice was performed here by this task force, because it left both patients and doctors a little bit in the lurch here without any clear guidance.

BROWN: And I think, Sanjay, that -- that they're trying to play a little PR here, as well. I mean, they're getting a lot of blowback. And you're right. I mean, their recommendations said what they said.

GUPTA: Right.

BROWN: You went through them very clearly.

But talk to us a little bit about the qualifications.

GUPTA: Sure.

BROWN: Because we've heard this criticism raised a number of time -- a number of times. There are no oncologists, no radiologists actually on this panel. So -- so who are these people, really?

GUPTA: Well, you know, I think if you talk to most medical folks, they're going to say this is a pretty -- this is a pretty esteemed group of people, you know, by their own qualifications, their training. They come from all different sectors of the health-care system.

This task force has been around for about 25 years and was set up as part of, you know, trying to find the best preventive and primary care sort of measures.

It's got 13 physicians, two nurses, one Ph.D. that's on the panel. And also, they come from a broad variety of disciplines: epidemiology, public health, family medicine, pediatrics. You can read the list there.

Two -- two of the folks on the panel kind of work for the nonprofit part of the insurance industry at one point or another.

Dr. Kopans is absolutely right, on the task force itself, there are no oncologists. There's no mammography experts. But what they do is they sort of outsource it, if you will, to an evidence panel that is made up of oncologists and mammography experts, who then present the data to the task force. This group of doctors don't -- they don't make any recommendations. The task force takes this data and then gives us what we -- what we've been talking about the last few days.

BROWN: So -- so are there any real criteria that they're using in order to reach their decision on this kind of thing? Is it just kind of they sit around and debate it a little bit and you know?

GUPTA: I think there is probably a lot of debate. And every couple of years they sort of decide on a topic that they're going to pursue. You know, diabetes screening, for example, blood pressure screening. It's not just cancer.

You know, you can talk about who's -- how do you screen for diabetes in pediatric populations, for example. So that's part of the reason they have such breadth.

But you're right. You know, back in 2002, when they had mammography guidelines, it sort of hinted at this idea that they were going to recommend against screening in this age group. They didn't do it back then. But we're seeing it this time. You know, they looked at the same data back then, look at the same data now and have arrived at different conclusions.

BROWN: And Sanjay, we're out of time here, but just very quickly, your bottom line recommendation to women is get a mammogram when you turn 40, right?

GUPTA: Get a mammogram when you turn 40. Do it every year. And keep in mind, again, that most of the women who get breast cancer -- this is an important point -- did not have a family history, did not have a risk factor. So just because you don't have those things, you've still got to get this mammogram. It's an important screening test.

BROWN: Sanjay Gupta for us tonight. Sanjay, thank you.

GUPTA: Thanks, Campbell.

BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few minutes. He's got more on the Oprah Winfrey news. Her getting ready to quit her talk show.

And up next, tonight's "Guilty Pleasure," the video we just can't resist. Did a soccer team win big by cheating? Where was the ref?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" in just a few moments. But first "The Guilty Pleasure." Tom Foreman in Washington with the video we just can't resist.

Hey, Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Well, you know you don't have to know the finer points of soccer to know this: keep your hands off the ball. Last night in overtime, with Ireland poised to upset France for a World Cup berth, a French player slapped the ball -- look at this guy -- twice with his hands before passing to a teammate for the header and the winning goal. You just cannot do that. The ref missed it.

And to add insult to injury, as the French are so good at, he admitted afterward that he did it. So today a big international uproar. Fans in Ireland say the French cheated. But this is not America. There's no instant replay there, so the call on the field stands.

BROWN: Oh, no!

FOREMAN: Yes, that's it. Unbelievable.

BROWN: I feel so bad for the Irish guys.

FOREMAN: If you could do that in soccer, I would have won a lot of games.

BROWN: Tom Foreman. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it.

That's it for us. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.