Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Larry King Live

Who is Faisal Shahzad?

Aired May 04, 2010 - 21:00   ET

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

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, breaking news. The Times Square terror suspect is in custody, arrested on a plane after the door closes, minutes from takeoff and a flight to freedom. U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad is now charged with the most serious crimes anyone could commit against America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's clear that this was a terrorist plot aimed at murdering Americans in one of the busiest places in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

L. KING: How did a guy on a no-fly list almost escape?

Why was he in Pakistan for five months?

How does his neighbor feel about her children playing with a suspected terrorist's kids?

She didn't have a clue.

The international investigation continues with this warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the eyes of terrorists, New York is America and they want to come back to kill us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

L. KING: Next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening.

Let's get right to the latest.

CNN's Mary Snow is in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

She is at the suspect, Faisal Shahzad's, last known address.

Who lives there now -- Mary?

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We haven't seen anyone who's lived here, Larry. And, you know, we were -- this block had been cornered off for most of the day, all of last night, as federal investigators had been searching through the home. And some neighbors thought that the house was abandoned. They didn't realize that anyone was living there.

L. KING: Do we know where his wife and children are?

SNOW: You know, according to the -- the court documents, he apparently said that his wife remained in Pakistan after he traveled there. You mentioned he had spent a few months in Pakistan.

What we do know, his last address before here in Bridgeport was in Shelton, Connecticut. And that's where he lad lived with his wife. His neighbors say he had two children. The neighbors say that they last were seen there in July of last year and that Shahzad had left earlier than that. The home was in foreclosure. It's not clear, though, where the family is right now.

L. KING: Now, Mary, the bomb didn't go off. He ran away.

What is he charged with?

SNOW: There are five charges that were brought against him, include -- including attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. And the maximum penalty there life in prison. So we do know that he is cooperating with authorities. He did not appear in court today. He is not expected to be in court tomorrow.

And basically, prosecutors want him to keep cooperating. He's already said that he had admitted that he brought that Nissan Pathfinder to Times Square with the intention of detonating it. And he also admitted to training in Pakistan.

L. KING: Now he was talking before he was Mirandized and after, is that correct?

SNOW: What we've been able to learn from a law enforcement source is that he waived his right to an attorney and he has been cooperating.

L. KING: Do we know where he specifically is right now?

SNOW: Presumably, he's being held in custody in New York City, as we speak.

L. KING: And what about investigative efforts in nearby Shelton, Connecticut, the home where he -- his family lived?

Do we have a lot of investigators there, too?

SNOW: Yes. We saw investigators there. They were there for several hours early this evening and late afternoon. And we did see FBI, ICE agents, state police. We saw them removing at least three bags of materials. They also went into a neighbor's home for a short time. But, you know, that house had not been blocked off earlier today, So it was a late development throughout the day that they went to that Shelton home. Again, you know, from what we know, that home had been in foreclosure. And neighbors say that the family had not been there for several months and that it had been vacant.

L. KING: Thank you, Mary.

Mary Snow on top of the scene, one of the better correspondents in the field.

Thanks so much.

Let's go now to Islamabad, Pakistan and Reza Sayah, the CNN International correspondent.

What's the latest?

Have there been arrests there, Reza?

REZA SHAH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There have been a couple arrests, a couple of individuals arrested in Karachi. And we don't know the identity of the individuals. But according to government officials here in Pakistan, Faisal Shahzad did have a Karachi ID, a Karachi residence. A house in Karachi, in this neighborhood, according to an intelligence source, was raided, two individuals detained and being questioned at this hour -- Larry.

L. KING: Now, he was legally in the United States, but back and forth to Pakistan a lot.

What -- what do we know about what he did when he was there?

SAYAH: Well, based on the investigation here so far, based on what we're learning about Faisal Shahzad, there was really no red flags -- no indications that he was headed for a life of militancy. Government officials telling CNN he lived pretty much a normal life. They tell us he was from a village in Northwest Pakistan just outside of Peshawar. His father eventually moved the family to Peshawar.

We found their house. It was empty. The father was not there, local residents telling us he probably left earlier on that day. According to government officials and police there, his father was identified as Bahari Ul Haq (ph), a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force, by all accounts, an upstanding citizen who served his country.

Obviously, according to U.S. investigators, his son took a very different path and took militant training in nearby Waziristan, in the tribal region.

We also found a cousin who said the family was shocked and reeling at these developments and he defended the family.

Let's take a listen to what the cousin had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAFAYAT ALI, TERROR SUSPECT'S COUSIN: This is certain that these people, they never indulged in any criminal activities. Not a family member, not the -- the village from which both of these people belongs. None of the village members involved in any criminal activities or in any jihad activities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAYAH: Once again, Faisal Shahzad's cousin defending the family. But look for those family members to come under severe scrutiny by Pakistani authorities, as this investigation unfolds -- Larry.

L. KING: Now, Reza, U.S. authorities say that he told investigators he received bomb making training in Pakistan.

Now, what do we make of that, if all these people are saying he had nothing to do with violence?

SAYAH: Well, at this point, it's much too early. And with this -- individuals like this, Larry, you really don't know at this point what's in -- in their head, whether they're lying, whether they're telling the truth. If, indeed, he's telling the truth; if, indeed, he received militant training in the Waziristan region -- in the notorious tribal belt along the Afghan border, it's not the first time. It's not unusual. It's one of the more troubling facts here in Pakistan, that that region is loaded with militant groups -- the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda linked groups -- all of them with declared desires to kill Americans.

Was this individual linked to one of these militant groups or was he working alone?

That's something Pakistani investigators will be helping U.S. investigators to find out -- Larry.

L. KING: Thanks.

Reza Sayah on the scene, CNN International correspondent, in Islamabad.

Three of the terror suspect's former neighbors join us next. One lived next to him, one across the street, one in the house behind him. They knew he didn't like sunlight.

What else caught their attention?

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

L. KING: Now with us, Brenda Thurman, a former next door neighbor of terror suspect Faisal Shahzad in Shelton, Connecticut. She's with us on the phone.

And live, Debbie Bussolari. Shahzad and his family used to live across the street from her. And Mary Ann Gallich, who lived in the home right behind the Shahzads.

Brenda, what did you make of it when you first heard who this bomb terrorist was?

BRENDA THURMAN, FORMER NEIGHBOR OF TERROR SUSPECT: I was very shocked, kind of confused, because he was the type of person that came out and played with his daughter and my daughter, hoping that I would be (INAUDIBLE). But very sharp.

L. KING: Debbie, you lived across the street.

Did you see him a lot?

DEBBIE BUSSOLARI, FORMER NEIGHBOR OF TERROR SUSPECT: Yes. I live kind of kitty corner across the street, only coincidentally, because I'm in and out. I would see them sometimes out in the front yard. I would also sometimes see his wife come home and bring the kids in the house after shopping, possibly.

L. KING: Were they like any other normal family?

BUSSOLARI: Yes. I've been here eight years. I do remember them moving in approximately three years ago and said, OK, there's finally a -- a young family that has moved into the house that had been empty for a while. And for a little while after that, a year or so, I remember them -- it being kind of quiet again. And then I saw them again. And last summer they had a tag sale and they moved out. And the house has been empty for about a year now.

L. KING: Mary Ann, did you have any kind of contact with him or his family?

MARY ANN GALLICH, FORMER NEIGHBOR OF TERROR SUSPECT: Not really. We were just -- I would see him, you know, when they'd have their little picnics out in the backyard because I lived in the back of them. And I seen them when they had their picnics on the backyard on their balcony. And they had a little swimming pool for the kids.

And when they had their little tag sale and I -- like I walk back and forth to work and I see them out in the front yards and I would say hello. And they'd say hi. And that was about it. KING: Would they appear like a normal...

GALLICH: They were normal people to me.

L. KING: Like a normal everyday family?

GALLICH: Yes (INAUDIBLE). An everyday family.

L. KING: Did you...

GALLICH: -- like a normal family.

L. KING: Did you know what he did for a living? GALLICH: No, I did not.

L. KING: Brenda, what were your impressions of him?

What did you think of?

THURMAN: Very concerned. He was very incognito. He liked to jog late at night in the wintertime. He would dress in all black. And in one incident, he kind of jumped over the fence and broke the fence. And I approached him about it and I asked him did he know that someone was in his backyard, someone broke the fence. And he advised me that it was him that jumped the fence. And he didn't like to be seen in the daylight. He liked to jog at night.

L. KING: Debbie, "The Wall Street Journal," citing a law enforcement official, says that in October of 2000 -- two years ago, he reported his marriage to a woman he identified as Yuma Asif Mian (ph), an American citizen.

Did you ever talk to her?

BUSSOLARI: No. I did not.

L. KING: Did you see her a lot?

BUSSOLARI: No. Like I said, coincidentally. I would see her with -- they'd the van parked in the front a lot. And once in a while I would see her in the front, on the front steps, maybe with her child and coming in and out of the car from shopping. That was about it.

L. KING: Mary Ann, when you heard about the terror bombing and you find who the accused was, were you shocked?

GALLICH: I was totally shocked. I was like petrified. I was like, oh, my God. I didn't believe that something over here would happen like this.

L. KING: Did you ever see any guns or ammunition in his car?

GALLICH: No. I did not.

L. KING: Brenda, your daughter occasionally played with his little daughter, is that right?

THURMAN: Yes, it was. My daughter always played with his daughter. And he also came out and played with them on -- on occasion. And he very -- he really loved his kids. He liked to play with his kids. His wife didn't speak English until the day of the tag sale. I spoke with them. And little (INAUDIBLE) and I wasn't aware that she knew English until the day of the tag sale. So he was the one who always spoke English.

L. KING: And we understand that he gave your son his old computer?

THURMAN: He gave my daughter his old computer, yes. L. KING: You do.

Has the -- did the authorities confiscate that computer?

THURMAN: Yes. They're in the process of confiscating -- Homeland Security is in the process of confiscating the computer.

L. KING: Did he, to your knowledge, Debbie, ever say anything against the United States?

BUSSOLARI: No, I never spoke. I never conversed with him at all.

L. KING: Mary Ann, did you ever hear word that he said things against the United States?

GALLICH: No. I did not.

L. KING: We'll be back with our ladies right after these words.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

L. KING: We're back with some more questions for our lady friends.

Brenda, do you know why the children weren't allowed in the United States?

THURMAN: It was a part of their culture. He advised me that that was a part of their culture. When it was time for her to have the baby, she went back to her country. She had the little boy then she came back like two months later.

L. KING: Debbie, did he appear to be a devout Muslim?

BUSSOLARI: No, I don't think so. I -- I didn't see any indication of real religious following. They were just a -- a young couple that lived here quietly and moved away.

L. KING: Mary Ann, did they have a lot of friends in the neighborhood?

GALLICH: No, not really. They have company, you know, like on the weekends -- a couple of weekends. And that was about it. There was no, you know, like in and out -- people in and out of the house.

L. KING: So you can all say you're shocked by this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm surprised.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very surprised.

L. KING: Brenda Thurman, Debbie Bussolari and Mary Ann Gallich, thank you so much.

Let's now go to Washington. Two distinguished members of the United States House of Representatives, both from New York.

Congressman Peter King, ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

And Congressman Charles Rangel.

Peter, I want to read a quote and to check that -- did you say this?

You said: "I hope that Attorney General Holder did discuss this with him -- did discuss with the intelligence community if they believe they got enough from him, how much more did they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen, but still."

What did you mean by an American citizen, but still?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Well, if a person is an American citizen, you're less likely not to give him his Miranda rights. However, there are Supreme Court cases that say if you are an American citizen, you don't have to be given your Miranda rights. That's the point I was making. Even though he was a citizen, they still could withhold the rights.

And the -- the point I'm making is I thought the mistake that was made at Christmas time with the Christmas bombing was they gave him his Miranda rights almost immediately.

And I believe that the attorney general should consult with the director of National Intelligence, the head of the CIA, and all -- really, even overseas allies to see if there's any information that we feel we have to get.

Now, they did not give him his Miranda rights, I understand, for almost eight or nine hours. They used the exception un -- under the law. And they have now given him his rights.

L. KING: Yes.

P. KING: But I understand he's waived them. He's waived his rights and he's continued to talk.

L. KING: So, Charlie, are you surprised that they're getting all this information?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: No. But I am surprised that -- that Peter is saying that the attorney general should check with a Congressional committee before the arresting officers decide whether or not this is a case that Miranda should be given or not given. You know, each case folds on the judgment that has to be made at the time by the arresting officer. And just because it's a hideous crime doesn't mean that -- if a person is entitled to Miranda, he's entitled to it. If you don't give it to him, you blow the whole case.

P. KING: Well, he doesn't have to be given rights because he can be tried in a military tribunal where you don't have to have your military -- your Miranda rights. And I was saying not check with Congress, but check with the CIA, check with the director of the National Intelligence because he is (INAUDIBLE)...

RANGEL: When do you do all this checking?

And -- and -- and under what circumstances would this guy be tried in a military court?

He wasn't an (INAUDIBLE). He was an American citizen.

P. KING: No, but he was carrying out a terrorist act on behalf of a foreign entity. And that's...

RANGEL: And so the military comes in?

He was arrested by the FBI and New York...

P. KING: But he can still...

RANGEL: -- City police.

P. KING: -- he can still be considered an enemy combatant, just as Abdulmutallab could have been considered an enemy combatant on -- on Christmas Day.

RANGEL: An enemy combatant in...

P. KING: An enemy combatant.

RANGEL: -- in Times Square?

P. KING: Sure. Just like -- just like the Nazi saboteurs who came onto Long Island were executed as enemy combatants. If he is engaged as a...

RANGEL: This is an American citizen, Pete, if we're talking about the same thing.

P. KING: There are a number of Supreme Court decisions and a person who is working for a foreign power can be declared an enemy combatant and does not have to have the Miranda warnings and...

L. KING: But isn't...

(CROSSTALK)

L. KING: -- isn't there a danger, Peter, that if you don't Mirandize, you could wind up winning the war -- winning a pyrrhic victory and having it thrown out by the courts?

P. KING: Well, if he's -- no, because a military tribunal is a valid trial for an ab -- an enemy combatant. But the point I'm making is, this person could have such knowledge, such information, such intelligence. Remember, he's been, as far as we know, in a foreign terrorist training camp. He could tell us where that camp is. He could tell us who the instructors are. He could tell us are there any other Americans at that camp.

L. KING: Apparently, he is, right?

P. KING: Well, he may be. We don't know. That's what we've been told. And if he is...

RANGEL: Well, they said he waived it, so the question is moot.

P. KING: Well, except that the attorney general did wait. Unlike Christmas, he waited nine or 10 hours. They questioned him for nine or 10 hours before they gave him his Miranda rights. They claimed the national security exception, which I think was the right thing to do.

L. KING: All right. I want to ask -- I want to ask both congressmen what they make about the whole security picture, what they make of this, how much danger their state and city is in.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Around the world and here at home, there are those who would attack our citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their murderous agenda. They will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of life. But once again, an attempted attack has been failed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

L. KING: We're back.

Congressman Rangel, aren't you impressed with the way the city handled this?

RANGEL: Always. My city always makes me very proud. And I do hope that the president and the federal authorities recognize that New York City is a target. People come there, they don't let fear or anything stop them from -- from going about their work. They will not be terrorized by terrorists. And -- and I felt even more proud of the vendor who said, if you see something, say something.

L. KING: Peter, are you surprised there haven't been more of this?

P. KING: Yes, because -- and this is one thing Charlie and I agree on completely. New York City is the number one terrorist target in the entire country. The NYPD -- and I'm proud to say my father was a member of the NYPD years ago -- under Ray Kelly, they are doing a phenomenal job. But we have a thousand police officers in New York City working on counter-terrorism. The average city has two or three. But this is extremely expensive. And we have tunnels. We have bridges. We have roadways. We have a subway system. We have ports. We have icons. We have Wall Street. We have so many churches and synagogues. We have Times Square. And yet we don't get the federal support.

And I'm not making this a partisan issue. I could be critical of both administrations.

But one pressing issue right now is, we actually saw Saturday night, the real fear is an attack will be launched from the outer boroughs or the suburbs or New Jersey or Connecticut into the city. And Christian Kelly (ph) wants to set up a -- a secure the cities program, which would have a set of radiation detectors on all the entrance ways into the city.

And this year, the administration has cut off all funding for that. Last year, that happened, too. And Charlie was one of those who supported restoring the funding. We're trying to do it now.

But I really wish the administration -- this is true of both parties -- the administration would stop looking at this in a strictly accounting way and realize that if there's an attack on New York, there will be terrible loss of life, but, also, it will have a devastating effect on the economy. So even from a dollars and cents point of view, it makes -- it makes sense to put these programs in place in New York City. RANGEL: Well, I tell you one thing, New York pays for the security of other countries around the world. And normally I say the writers of the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing. But when they gave every state two senators, that screwed up the whole thing.

KING: All right. Charlie, how did a guy on a no-fly zone list get on a plane?

RANGEL: You ask? I've been asking that. This is the second time to my knowledge that this has happened. The young Nigerian was on no fly, and he got on the plane. So let me say this, Larry, you're trying to be as positive as I can. Whatever went wrong, I hope they get their acts together and correct it. We learn every day.

And the good thing about this is that nobody was hurt in either case. But that's the question. And someone ought to come up with the answer and see that it doesn't happen again.

KING: Congressman King, you and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, are contacting other lawmakers and you're urging them to include 20 million dollars in a fiscal appropriations bill for the continuation of the Securing the Cities Initiative. What does that money do?

P. KING: Larry, this is a program which Commissioner Kelly started about five, six years ago. And it sets up radiation detectors on all the roads, tunnels, bridges leading into Manhattan from the suburbs and the tri-state area, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. There is about 70 police and fire departments involved.

It's a very effective program. And yet, this year, the president, as I said, has cut off funding for it. And Senator Gillibrand and I, as well as Congressman Rangel, Senator Schumer, we are working in a bipartisan way to have that money resourced. It's absolutely essential.

And again, Manhattan -- New York City is the target, but Manhattan is the epicenter of New York. And that's for the rest of the world, when they think of new York, they think of Manhattan. Just like they thought of the World Trade Center, now they think of Times Square and other landmarks around the city. I don't want to give anybody ideas. But there are so many landmarks which are known all over the world.

So this is essential. I don't know why the president took this money out in the first place. It's needed. It's absolutely essential. And there is a bipartisan effort in New York to restore that funding.

KING: Charlie, you agree?

RANGEL: There is no question about it. We've shown the expertise, but you need resources. Given the resources, we can provide the model for the rest of the country. But there is no institute for New Yorkers' spirit. And I think that makes me proud that it's business as usual. People are going around, enjoying the city and enjoying our great country.

KING: At that hearing today, at that press conference, Eric Holder, the HHS Secretary Napolitano, representatives of the FBI, NYPD were present. What do you make of the absence of the intelligence community, Charlie?

RANGEL: I guess they're so intelligent, they didn't show up. But quite frankly, I did not follow Pete when he was saying that all of these committees who worked so well together -- how they do it, I don't know, and I don't really want to know. All I know is that the system has worked. It continues to work after that terrible tragedy of 911.

There has been a few incidents and even those, we have foreclosed the ability of these people to hurt us. I don't care who shows up at the press conference. All I want to do is make certain that the security works. And God has been good to us. It has been working.

KING: Congressman King, Holder says New York City is still under consideration as a trial venue for Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. What do you think of that?

P. KING: I think it's absolutely wrong. This trial does not belong in New York. I don't believe it belongs in a civilian court, anyway, but it certainly doesn't belong in New York.

This would devastate Lower Manhattan. It would turn Lower Manhattan into an armed camp you. You talk to the business people down there, you talk to the residents there -- this is Democrat and Republican. You go into Lower Manhattan -- I've testified before the New York City council. They're all 100 percent against it.

This was the wrong thing. Attorney General Holder decided to have this trial there without ever speak once to the police commissioner of New York, the head of the Federal Protective Service. He had no idea what the logistical consequences were. The head of the Federal Protective Service testified before the Homeland Security Committee, and he said that they could not provide perimeter security for more than two weeks of a trial. This trial could go on for two years.

Commissioner Kelly would have to have -- again, it would be virtually an armed camp in Lower Manhattan. To me, it was one of the worst ideas ever. Why the attorney general continues to persist in this, the president apparently has told people he wants it out of New York. I've spoken to people --

KING: I'm pressed on time. So next time Charlie is on, we'll give him a chance to respond. Thank you both very much.

RANGEL: Thank you, Larry.

KING: Congressman Pete King, Congressman Charlie Rangel.

P. KING: Thanks, Larry.

KING: Our next guests might know as much about terrorism as anyone. We'll get their take on the arrest of Faisal Shahzad next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Paul Cruickshank is a terrorism analyst and fellow at NYU School of Law Center on Law and Security. He has worked with CNN's Nic Robertson on "AC 360" special investigation, "American al Qaeda," which begins on Monday. Harvey Kushner is a terrorism expert, professor and chairman of the department of criminal justice at Long Island University, and a best-selling author. His books include "Holy War on the Home Front." And Jack Rice, criminal defense attorney and investigative journalist, a former CIA officer.

OK, Jack, we'll start with you. The most significant thing we have learned about Shahzad so far is what?

JACK RICE, FMR. CIA AGENT: The most significant thing that we really have on an international basis is that there is this connection of Pakistan. Earlier, we had no whether or not this was simply a lone wolf or not. But if there is somebody rolling out of Pakistan now, the investigates continues domestically, but we also have to look internationally now, because the resources are different, the connections are different, and where he may have come from, who may have trained him, and who may have driven him into the states to do what it is that he has done, all of those are issues that we have to really look at very closely now.

KING: Paul, is this -- what is the thing that most surprises you about all of this?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, the most important thing about all of this is his claim today that he was trained in bomb-making in Waziristan. That's al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. It brings al Qaeda into play. It brings the Pakistani Taliban into play as a group he might be involved into. It brings Uzbek groups into play, Laskar Otoybar (ph) into play. These groups have all sort of gone into the global Jihad business recently.

Now, the Pakistani Taliban have claimed responsibility for this attack. In the past, officials have viewed these claims as sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable. Well, the fact that he actually went over to Pakistan and trained there may mean that they were in fact responsible for this. But it's too early to tell. Officials tonight say that's still an open line of inquiry, Larry.

KING: All right. Harvey, what about the report that he received some bomb training in Waziristan? Do you find that credible?

HARVEY KUSHNER, TERRORISM ANALYST: I don't know how that is going to shake out, Larry, but what I find amazing about this is it tells us we have the new era of terrorism right here in the United States. The Christmas Day bomber was somebody who went outside this country to Yemen, had some training. If that plays out to be that Pakistan is initially the training point, it shows us that we made some great progress in fighting al Qaeda and taking apart its structured side, and their ability to pull big events, blowing a naval vessel out of the water, Larry, taking down the Trade Towers, blowing up embassies.

This is sort of dumbing down the target. Not to say that Times Square isn't a hardened target or an important target. But that was our greatest fear here in law enforcement, that they would now pinpoint areas where people congregate, not necessarily major symbols such as a naval vessel or a building. This I think is very telling. And unfortunately, I think this is the bad news about this. I think this is the new face of the new type of terrorism we're going face in the decades to come.

KING: Jack, it's apparent, though, if he got training, he didn't get good training, did he?

RICE: You're absolutely right, Larry. That's the one thing we can look at. I talked about this the other night. This question of pitiful was what we saw earlier on. If you look at the bomb-making efforts here, if this was the training that he received, then clearly they have some problems in their educational structure. So that's what we have.

But I think if we look at where we're going, I think your other guests make very valid points here. If we look at where this man is and what we're looking at in the future, we may be seeing softer targets, simpler targets, targets that aren't grand in scale, but at the same time in some ways are much, much harder to defend, because I can take you any place from San Diego to Maine to Iowa, and how do you stop everything in every place? That's what makes it so difficult. It's not just the Holland Tunnel anymore.

KING: Paul, when the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the Baltimore attempt, many experts dismissed it. Should that claim be taken more seriously now?

CRUICKSHANK: I think it needs to be taken more seriously, the fact he was in Pakistan. This is a group that in 2008 did orchestrate a plot to attack subways in Barcelona. Spanish authority thinks that was a legitimate plot, and they were really responsible. They claimed responsibility for that one. And that helped secure convictions in a trial in Spain after that plot.

I think it is a possibility that this group was responsible for this. But we're going to find out much more in the weeks to come, Larry.

KING: Harvey, what about the fact that there was a gun and ammunition found in the car? Law enforcement sources have told CNN that it was a nine millimeter rifle, semiautomatic. He purchased it less than two months ago. What's he doing with a gun, do you think?

KUSHNER: Larry, I don't know. I don't know if that's part of the training he had. I don't think so. This is probably a scared individual, obviously an individual who didn't want to die in the blast. So he wasn't a suicide bomber, that's for sure. I think he knew -- he heard in the media that they were looking for somebody such as him. I know he probably left a trail and was trying to high-tail it out of this country.

We got very lucky. We were able to bring him back off the tarmac and arrest him in apprehension. I think it's very chilling also, Larry, to take a look at when in fact he got his citizenship. It was a year ago. Prior to 9/11, we vetted people quite differently than we do today. I think we're going to have to roll back and take a look at people from certain regions of the world that gain citizenship here, where they might have been, where they might have traveled. There might be some clues in this.

Quite frankly, this wasn't a Harvard graduate or an MIT-trained person. He tried to get out by buying a ticket with cash. He did it from the car. He made all the mistakes. And as the other guest said before, he wasn't very skillful in putting together the bomb.

But all that said, Larry, I think that it's indicative of a new type of terrorism we're going to face here with the softer target, and with people stepping up to the plate who never stepped up before.

CRUICKSHANK: And Larry, he is an American citizen, but he has lived here for ten years. So it's very possible that he was radicalized here in the United States.

KING: I want to get to that.

I'll get right to that. Jack Rice, Paul Cruickshank, Harvey Kushner with us, all experts. Back with more. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

KING: It's Cruickshank, right, Paul? I just want to get it right.

CRUICKSHANK: That's right.

KING: There is no IK in the crook. You mentioned about Faisal being in the United States for a decade. Does that suggest to you that he was a terrorist sleeper?

RICE: Not necessarily. That's part of the problem. The radicalization issue can happen over a matter of months, not necessarily over a matter of years. We have to take a look at what has happened in Britain, where you have first generation British citizens of Pakistani descent, where we have seen this, sometimes coming out of Pakistan, that radicalization. Sometimes it's actually coming out of Britain.

So the idea that it may actually come out of the United States isn't completely unreasonable. We can look at this and say oh, is this a master plan over ten years? To be honest, I doubt that. This is something that could have happened very, very quickly, very, very recently. If we have information about this man walking away from his home or losing his home, losing his job, we don't know which. What drives people to do the things that they do? We never know whether or not they're right wing Christian radicals, whether they're or not they're Jihad Jane and drives them to do that, or whether or not it's this young man who decides to do what he does.

KING: Paul, we had two experts on last night, both of whom agree there's virtually nothing you can do to stop car bombers. Would you agree with that?

CRUICKSHANK: It's very difficult to stop these sorts of attacks where people just get these devices, put them in their car. You can drive freely around in a car and leave it anywhere. It's very difficult to prevent car bombs. It's very, very difficult to prevent devices being planted on subways or suicide bombers. You have to at that point really rely on intelligence in preventing the attack before it happens, Larry. That's right.

KING: Harvey, are you encouraged by the fact he was talking openly to authorities, before Mirandizing, after Mirandizing, that he is revealing lots of things? Isn't that encouraging?

KUSHNER: One would think it would be encouraging, Larry. But I'm not so sanguine about Mirandizing him so quickly. Quite frankly, the segment before, where Congressman King mentioned it, they canned the Supreme Court decisions that would say you don't have to Mirandize him, and it could be a military tribunal trial.

Let's face it, that is a very important question. I think we flubbed it with the Christmas Day bomber, certainly, when we gave him his Miranda rights up front. With this individual, I did notice it was made clear in the statements by Holder that he was given those rights. Quite frankly, I don't worry about it being thrown out later in a court. I think we have to become more sophisticated in extrapolating information from these individuals, what they know, when they know it, what they can tell us.

We shouldn't be that concerned about this, Larry. I think that takes us down a wrong street and I think it's very dangerous to worry about that first.

KING: All right. We'll be right back with our panels. Time now for tonight's LARRY KING LIVE Top 25 moment. What you're about to see is number four on my own personal list of top moments. In 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, King Hussein of Jordan and Yasser Arafat all sat down on this program, historic, together. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wrenching events have convulsed the Middle East.

KING: It's family. The Palestinians and the Jews are second cousins. You have a family argument and a dispute and two faiths.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Attack, counterattack, retribution.

KING: Someone said to me, you could be a diplomat. You could be a peace broker.

Together for the first time ever on television, Jordan's King Hussein, Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat talk about peace in the Middle East.

Very interesting night. Intellectual night, thoughtful night. As Bill Clinton told me, he's not sure it's solvable. He came very close, Arafat turned that deal down. I still doesn't know why Arafat turned that deal down.

YASSER ARAFAT, FORMER PLO CHAIRMAN: They have to withdraw from all but related area in the West Bank, so that we can have very soon our election freely.

YITZHAK RABIN, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: What is needed is to carry out the elections and then to discuss the further deployment. I believe, the first of July is possible.

KING: Between the Palestinians and Israelis, leaders of both, I find myself nodding as each one talks. It's both their land. It's sad.

KING HUSSEIN, FMR. KING OF JORDAN: We are looking for comprehensive, lasting, peaceful solution between the Arabs and the Israelis.

RABIN: The time is in our hands and the results are dependent on what we will do.

ARAFAT: We must make sure that peace is achieved for future generations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: All three now gone. Go to CNN.com/LarryKing for clips of the top 25 moments. You can vote for your top five. We'll reveal the results to you beginning May 31st, my silver anniversary week at CNN. How about them apples.

Sign up for our sweepstakes for a trip chance to go to L.A. You can also win a one of a kind anniversary t-shirt. It's right here. It's all at CNN.com/LarryKing. More with our terrorism experts right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Wine winding up with our top experts. I guarantee you all three will be back. Jack, is it safe to assume there are other Faisal al-Shahzad's in this country?

RICE: Yes. I think it's reasonable. The worst part is, remember, there's never necessarily a finite number. Every time you have one down, you take one down, you may create another, or there may be another that is being created by some other extremist. That is part of the problem.

So every decision we make, we have to make based upon what we have already seen, but what it is that we may create. That's why the responses we have to take are the most logical.

Back to this last guest, frankly, I think the idea of Mirandizing made complete sense. It worked well in that Abdulmutallab case. It did. Frankly, it has worked well in this case. Whether or not it ends up in a courtroom or otherwise, we want to make sure that we can go after this guy, too, and get the intelligence.

KING: Paul, are we going to see more car bombings in this country?

CRUICKSHANK: It's possible. One of the things we're seeing here in the United States is growing radicalization. It's a real problem. There have been 16 cases of Americans becoming implicated in terrorism in just the last year. That's a surge in the numbers. And it's something that's deeply worrying, Larry, to U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

KING: Harvey, overall, what's your biggest fear?

KUSHNER: Larry, I think we have seen it. I have a dire warning. We saw on Christmas Day, we saw in Times Square two people that didn't get it necessarily 100 percent right. But they are going to try. They're going to try again. And eventually, they're going to hit it. An IRA terrorist once said, you guys have to be right 100 percent of the time, we just got to be right once. So what Jack said and what Paul said, certainly, there's more radicalization in this country. It continues. You never know what act triggers it. I think this is what we have in store in the upcoming decades. It's a monumental task for law enforcement, because how do you get inside the head of each individual that would do us harm. Larry, these are dangerous times, and, unfortunately, we live in them.

KING: Especially someone who is willing to give up their own life. Jack Rice, Paul Cruickshank, Harvey Kushner, thank you. We'll call on all of you again.

May is National Mental Health Awareness Month. We have two blogs on our website about it right now. Actor Joe Panteliano tells us about his own problems with depression, what he did about them. And former First Lady Rosalyn Carter advocates caring for and understanding those with mental illness. There's no shame, by the way. Her new book is "Within Our Reach, Ending the Mental Health Crisis."

Go to CNN.com/LarryKing, and read some very worthy thoughts.

Now some very worthy programming, Anderson Cooper and "AC 360." Anderson?