Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Battle Over Secrets; Danube Dangers

Aired April 20, 2006 - 13:31   ET

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

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, the late Washington columnist Jack Anderson made a career out of exposing government secrets. Now the FBI wants to seize classified documents Anderson obtained and his family continues to hold. It's classic confrontation between the government and the media.
CNN's senior national correspondent John Roberts has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN SR. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): It's the kind of story Jack Anderson, Washington's legendary muckraker journalist, would have loved to chase himself. The FBI wants to comb through his records of decades of work, looking for old classified documents he may have obtained before his death in December of last year.

In a letter this week, Anderson's family told the FBI, "Not a chance are you getting your hands on those documents."

KEVIN ANDERSON, JACK ANDERSON'S SON: If we are ordered by a court, we would not comply. And if that results in jail time, both my 79-year-old mother and I are prepared to sit in jail.

ROBERTS: The FBI claims the documents are government property in a statement, saying, "No private person may possess classified documents that were illegally provided to them. There is no legal basis under which a third party could retain them as part of an estate."

"Washington Post" reporter Howard Kurtz, who once worked for Anderson, believes the documents issue is part of a broader government agenda.

HOWARD KURTZ, "WASHINGTON POST": The Bush administration seems to be taking its aggressive policy against the press one step further, now going after a dead journalist.

ROBERTS: Anderson's archives, nearly 200 boxes worth, are being donated to George Washington University, kept in this warehouse outside the nation's capital. They document an aggressive style of journalism that earned Anderson exclusives and enemies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The CIA's trying to botch up Australia (ph) now?

ROBERTS: President Richard Nixon and former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover both had it in for him. But G.W. professor Mark Feldstein, who is overseeing the archive, is surprised how far the FBI is going now.

MARK FELDSTEIN, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV. PROFESSOR: Jack Anderson made sport of the FBI for five decades. The irony that they would pursue him now, even past his grave, is something that even J. Edgar Hoover didn't try.

ROBERTS: Anderson's family claims the FBI was devious in trying to obtain access to the archives. Agents claim they were looking for information on a lobbying scandal and convinced Anderson's 79-year-old widow to sign a release.

ANDERSON: If they wanted her to sign something, she signed it. And like I said, she did not understand that it would have led to papers being removed from the collection.

ROBERTS: The FBI wouldn't comment on the accusation. But just like the family, George Washington University officials vow, in the spirit of Jack Anderson, the FBI will get nothing from them.

FELDSTEIN: I think they didn't come after him while he was alive, because he would have died rather than give it to them.

ROBERTS (on camera): A government official says the FBI has it on good authority that there are numerous classified documents that Jack Anderson had in his possession. The family doesn't dispute that -- in fact, confirms to CNN that, yes, there are classified documents in the archive, but the FBI still can't have them.

The FBI could subpoena the archive, but Justice Department officials are worried about the appearance of being heavy-handed with the family.

John Roberts, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: Let's talk more about the battle over government secrets. Jack Anderson's son, Kevin Anderson, joins me from Salt Lake City and former federal prosecutor Gerald Walpin is in New York.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good afternoon to you.

Kevin, let me begin with you. If, let's say, national security is at stake, and there are classified documents in that collection of papers, would you liken this to being the receiver of stolen goods? And if so, isn't it your obligation to give them back to the government?

KEVIN ANDERSON, JACK ANDERSON'S SON: A lot of "ifs" in that. And I think that if your statements were all true, the family would be inclined to cooperate. In fact, when we were first approached by the FBI, they categorized it along those lines, and we told them that we likely would cooperate. It was only subsequently that we found out the scope of what they were after.

LIN: And the scope would be what?

ANDERSON: The scope is they want to go through all of his papers, all of the 188 boxes, and they want to remove each and every classified document in there, regardless of what it relates to whether it's the pending criminal investigation that they initially contacted us about.

LIN: But your father used that as his resource and his reporting. He's reported what he needed to report. What would be the harm in giving those documents back?

ANDERSON: Well, if they wanted to have access to them, that would be fine, but the reason we gave them to the G.W. library is so that they would be preserved for historians and academians to do research about what was actually happening in the government during the 1970s and 1980s.

LIN: So, Gerald, has a crime been committed here?

GERALD WALPIN, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I don't know if a crime has been committed. But what is a fact, then and as the lawyer for Jack Anderson's estate says in his letter, and I note, Jack Anderson was a great believer in the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution provides for a rule of law with no one, no reporter, no lawyer, above the law. And the law is clearly that if someone has received stolen goods, goods that they are not entitled to under the law, the FBI has a right to get it back.

LIN: Well, wait a second, wait a second -- the law applies to federal employees, not necessarily civilians, like Kevin Anderson.

WALPIN: No, that's not true. If somebody is a recipient of stolen goods...

LIN: So you're saying a crime has been committed. You're saying that there was a theft.

WALPIN: If there was -- I don't know if there are any illegal documents, or documents that were subject to classification that were in his possession. If there was, then, of course, he had no right to them.

LIN: Well, then fine, then let the government get a search warrant, but they haven't produced one.

WALPIN: That's what I was going to say. All that the FBI has done so far in a very diplomat way, apparently, is to say, we request access to them. Now the family can say, no. At that point, the FBI has the responsibility of going to the U.S. attorney and seeing if they can get a search warrant or a grand jury subpoena for those documents. At that point the family, if it's served with that, can go to court and object, and then the court will determine whether there's a reasonable basis for the government believing that there are stolen or classified documents within their possession. LIN: So, Kevin, would you be willing then to sit down with the FBI, have the papers all presented before you, they not take documents, but you have a discussion over what is in fact there? Would you be willing to do that?

ANDERSON: Very likely, yes. And you know, like I said, we plan on having these documents available to other researchers. The FBI could go through the papers at that point in time and look at the historic -- see what historic value there is.

LIN: So, Gerald, would that be acceptable then?

WALPIN: Well, that is not acceptable. Because if they are stolen goods, classified documents, then the public as a whole is not entitled to them. The law applies to reporters, too. And if those documents -- and I don't know that they are there, don't get me wrong. If those documents would hurt security in any way, and give names of people who were supposed to be classified, then of course the government has an obligation to try and get them back and...

LIN: And, Kevin, you're not standing in the way of national security, are you? I mean, that is not your intent here.

ANDERSON: That's not our intent. And these documents don't have that type of information.

LIN: You're sure of that?

ANDERSON: I'm positive of that.

And I would point out that the law of this country includes the constitution, which includes the first amendment. And whether Congress passes a statute or some FBI agent interprets a statute to think that they're entitled to these documents, I think that the first amendment trumps those laws.

WALPIN: I don't disagree that the first amendment is involved, but the thing about the First Amendment and the Constitution is that no individual can decide for himself or herself. It has to go to court. Let the court decide. And the Constitution does not provide any immunity for a reporter.

LIN: But for all we know Jack Anderson didn't go into the government offices and steal these papers out of a file, someone in the government gave them to Kevin's father.

WALPIN: Carol, if somebody stole a piece of jewelry from your grandmother, who I don't know -- I don't mean to say anything if she's deceased -- and you're holding it and they can proven it was stolen from her, don't they have a right, and somehow somebody received those stolen goods, doesn't the FBI have a right to try and get it back for you?

Of course. And the government is in the same position. And the government is in the same position. LIN: It depends what the rules are when it applies to journalists, journalists just doing their job, which Jack Anderson did so well, Kevin.

Appreciate the time. Gerald, appreciate you representing...

WALPIN: I agree Jack Anderson did a great job, too.

LIN: That can all agree! Kevin, Gerald, thank you so much. All right. Because, Kevin, what are we going to do if your 79-year-old mother goes to jail? I'm going to have to interview her from behind bars. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

ANDERSON: I hope that you will interview her if she does.

WALPIN: I hope it doesn't come to that.

LIN: Jack Anderson would marry a spunky women, I'm sure.

All right, fellas. Well, I want to invite you to watch the rest of the show, too, because the waters are rising, and we are hearing word that people are on the run, as farmland and villages are overrun.

LIVE FROM brings you the dangers along the Danube River, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Danger along the Danube River. More villages and farmlands in Romania and Bulgaria are flooding right now, as one of Europe's largest rivers rushes over dikes and sandbag barriers. Thousands of people have fled the floodwaters, and many more are packing up.

CNN's Michael Holmes has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Several European rivers have broken century-old flood levels, sandbags useless against the raging and rising waters. In Romania evacuations, thousands fleeing after a dam was breached, people using whatever means they could find to get to higher ground, taking only what they could carry or leave.

Here people crowding into a school to escape the flood waters.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Our house is flooded, the house of my mother, also. Where can we go? Six people with an old woman.

HOLMES: Affected, villages, thousands of hectares of farmland, roads, even ports. As people flee in Romania and Bulgaria, better news in Serbia. After extensive damage to homes and farmland, the Danube is receding. The waters leaving behind ruined homes and lives.

Still, sandbagging continues as health workers fan out across flooded areas to watch for possible outbreaks of disease like hepatitis or diarrhea. In some areas, evacuated residents are being told that even after the water levels fall, they won't be allowed back home until there has been a thorough cleanup.

Michael Holmes, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: Well, in the U.S., a spring time snowstorm. Take a look at this, a post-Easter blizzard dumping up to five feet of snow on the Dakotas. Thousands are without power, and some roads are closed because of downed trees and high snowdrifts and more than a few accidents.

(WEATHER REPORT)

LIN: The U.S. attorney general says child pornography is a bigger problem than ever. He's going to join us shortly to talk about what he's going to do about it. This is LIVE FROM on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: For anyone who cares about children, this is going to be a segment that's going to hit home, but it may not be something you want children to hear. There has been a strong new warning about child pornography.

And as we reported earlier this hour, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is calling for new measures to fight pedophiles who use the Internet. In a speech today, Gonzales declared the problem much worse than many people even think. He described some of the material that's available, and before we play that description, once again, want to warn you that what you're about to hear is extremely explicit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I've seen pictures of older men forcing naked young girls to have anal sex. There are videos on the Internet of very young daughters forced to have intercourse and oral sex with their fathers. Viewing this was beyond shocking, and it makes my stomach turn. But while these descriptions may make some uncomfortable, we will not defeat this threat unless we all really understand the nature of the child pornography that is now prevalent on the Internet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Joining me now from Washington, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Sir, welcome and good to have you. I appreciate the time here.

Those words, you didn't stop there. You kept going. And it was at a point where I had to take my earpiece out because you couldn't hear the descriptions that you had of infants and toddlers and what these predators are doing to these kids. With all due respect, why did you feel the need to be that graphic? GONZALES: I thought it was important for people to understand what child pornography is today on the Internet. I think too many Americans have a view that child pornography is fairly benign. We're talking about still pictures of young girls, perhaps in scampy bikinis. But because of Internet, it has really evolved into images, both still photographs and videos, of cases of child abuse of young children, sometimes infants.

And it is a serious problem, and I want the American people to understand that it's a serious problem. And unless they know the reality of the problem, it's too easy to sort of turn away and to focus on other matters.

LIN: Because, sir, you are asking Congress to quickly consider new legislation. Is it true that this legislation's aim is to basically force Internet providers to give the Justice Department information about its Web users? And if they don't, that they face criminal charges?

GONZALES: Now that's not the purpose of the legislation that I talked about.

LIN: It's not the purpose, but is that the outcome? If Internet providers don't give you the addresses of web users or report child pornography on their site, that the providers will face criminal charges?

GONZALES: Well, let me just say that Internet service providers, by and large, have been very, very helpful with the law enforcement community in providing information that we need to prosecute child pornographers. But what we're finding is that there are cases, sometimes extreme cases, where we don't have information, we don't have evidence, because records are no longer available.

And what we want to do is engage in a dialogue with the Congress, with the industry, with Internet service providers, to see what we can do to address this problem. The focus of the speech today was not to talk so much about the legislation. There already is some strong legislation that is currently pending in the Senate; it's been passed by the House and we hope the Senate takes action on it soon.

But the primary purpose of the speech today was simply to inform the American people that we have a serious problem here. And it requires not just the work and the efforts of the law enforcement community, but also parents and civic and community and political leaders in order to effectively deal with it.

LIN: And to support the Justice Department's efforts in trying to track these people down who use the Internet. Look, I'm a parent. I have a 3-year-old daughter. I hear what you're saying, and I don't even want to discuss what I would do to somebody if they ever harmed her. I understand that as a parent.

My question is, though, how much access should the government have to information on sites such as Google? I mean, the fight for Google to reveal some of its records is well known now. And the Supreme Court has struck down similar legislation when it comes to tracking Internet users. So what convinces you that Congress is going to pass this legislation that would penalize Internet providers who don't cooperate with the DOJ?

GONZALES: Well, again, we certainly understand that Americans have privacy rights that should be respected and need to be accommodated. We respect any kind of legislation that is focusing on this issue. But we're talking about child pornography that does not enjoy protection under the First Amendment, and that we -- again, we want to work with the Congress, we want to work with the industry to see what we can do to ensure that we have the tools consistent with the protection of the privacy rights, that we have the tools necessary to go after child pornographers.

LIN: So do you want unlimited access to an Internet provider? Do you want the ability to be able to go into their records, scan their sites, and get information on someone who is posting child pornography pictures?

GONZALES: I'm not talking about unfettered access here. I'm talking about access to information. And it may not even -- it may not even be related to mandatory retention of data. That's not what we're proposing. We want to engage in a dialogue with the Congress, and particularly with the industry, to see what they can do on a voluntary basis. But we're talking about information that's going to be directly relevant to a prosecution or investigation of child pornography.

LIN: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for your time.

GONZALES: Thank you.

LIN: The news keeps coming. We're going to bring it to you. More LIVE FROM next.

(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