Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Matthew Brzezinski

Aired March 02, 2003 - 08:14   ET

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

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


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: There is fear in the United States as well, fear of another terrorist attack. It has led to beefed up security and nagging questions about privacy rights. Both are discussed in "Fortress America," a cover story last month in the "New York Times" magazine. We thought it a fascinating look and we wanted to talk to the writer. Matthew Brzezinski wrote the story and he joins us now from Washington. Matthew, thanks very much for being with us.
MATTHEW BRZEZINSKI, "NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE": Good morning.

COOPER: Security technology, as you discussed in this article, is developing so fast. Has the law been able to keep up with it?

BRZEZINSKI: So far, no. It's very much like the Internet. That the laws are always two or three steps behind.

COOPER: And what does that mean for Americans?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, right now it means that the government can basically spy on us with more or less impunity. There's been one landmark ruling recently in the Supreme Court, where the government can't use thermal imaging, infrared technology to actually spy right into our homes with cameras that can see through roofs or walls. Other than that, we're fair game where we will go.

COOPER: And do you think Americans right now have a sense of where the technology is? I mean do we really understand what sort of technology there is out there that can be used to, as you say, spy on Americans?

BRZEZINSKI: No. I don't think we do at all. I don't think we have an idea, because so much of it is really cutting edge stuff. Face recognition technology, all sorts of biometric technology. Of course, we have a better idea of electronic surveillance and things like, you know, things like Internet monitoring and so on and so forth. But a lot of this technology has been imported from other countries. It's not being used yet in the United States.

And just now it is so. So, you know whereas people have gotten used to it in other parts of the world, we are just going to have to start getting used to it here right now.

COOPER: And as you discussed in the article, I mean there has been a shift in perception. A shift in perhaps Americans' tolerance for this kind of thing. I mean, a couple of years ago, if you had asked Americans how far should the government go, they probably would have said -- you know they probably would not have been quite so open minded to allow this kind of thing. Obviously, 9/11 accounts for a lot of that shift, doesn't it?

BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. And how far we do go, how much inconvenience we end up putting up with. Thinks like, you know, maybe getting searched when we go to the shopping center or to the restaurant or to the movies will largely depend on what happens in the future. Right now it's too early to say how much Americans will put up with.

If you and I are talking this time next year and there's been no significant terror strikes against the U.S., then people will say, well, maybe we've gone too far, we should scale back. But if we're talking a few months ago, and god forbid there's 30,000 dead because some chemical or biological agent has been unleashed in a major American city, there will be a tremendous public outcry for added security measures. So it's really too early to say right now.

COOPER: In the article, you also traveled to Israel to examine sort of how they deal with homeland security. I've spent a lot of time in Israel working there, and it is sort of amazing how, at least my own personal perception, of our two countries has sort of changed. I mean, they no longer seem so far apart in the way they handle security.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, absolutely. It's funny you mention that. Israelis, when they come to the U.S., are shocked by how lax things are. But that's rapidly changing, and the gap between the two countries is clearly narrowing. But, you know, as you well know, the case of Israel shows that even a maximum security state doesn't guarantee your safety.

There is no foolproof system against terrorism. And, you know this is clearly a problem as to how much resources to devote to this and how much liberties to give up. And will we still be safe anyway?

COOPER: What's the thing that most surprised you in doing the research for this article?

BRZEZINSKI: I think how quickly events are moving. When I was reporting a lot of the counterterror measures and writing sort of hypothetical scenarios, the things that I was putting together, I was saying, well, this could happen, that could happen. And then after I'd written the piece, and we were waiting to go to print in the weeks that followed, things started happening here.

Cars began being searched outside of hotels in New York. Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security, launched a public awareness campaign like they have in Israel. You started having proposals for bills for New laws that would allow secret arrests the way they have in another pars of the world. Technology, the Coast Guard started introducing the special technology that they have in Israel. And I was astounded at how quickly everything was moving.

COOPER: I remember the first time I came back from Sarajevo during the war, I came back to New York and suddenly I looked at buildings in a different way. I suddenly saw soft targets, where before I had just seen a building. I think a lot of Americans probably feel that way in a post 9/11.

Matthew Brzezinski, thanks very much for being with us. Appreciate it. And I enjoyed your article very much.

BRZEZINSKI: My pleasure. Thank you.

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







Aired March 2, 2003 - 08:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: There is fear in the United States as well, fear of another terrorist attack. It has led to beefed up security and nagging questions about privacy rights. Both are discussed in "Fortress America," a cover story last month in the "New York Times" magazine. We thought it a fascinating look and we wanted to talk to the writer. Matthew Brzezinski wrote the story and he joins us now from Washington. Matthew, thanks very much for being with us.
MATTHEW BRZEZINSKI, "NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE": Good morning.

COOPER: Security technology, as you discussed in this article, is developing so fast. Has the law been able to keep up with it?

BRZEZINSKI: So far, no. It's very much like the Internet. That the laws are always two or three steps behind.

COOPER: And what does that mean for Americans?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, right now it means that the government can basically spy on us with more or less impunity. There's been one landmark ruling recently in the Supreme Court, where the government can't use thermal imaging, infrared technology to actually spy right into our homes with cameras that can see through roofs or walls. Other than that, we're fair game where we will go.

COOPER: And do you think Americans right now have a sense of where the technology is? I mean do we really understand what sort of technology there is out there that can be used to, as you say, spy on Americans?

BRZEZINSKI: No. I don't think we do at all. I don't think we have an idea, because so much of it is really cutting edge stuff. Face recognition technology, all sorts of biometric technology. Of course, we have a better idea of electronic surveillance and things like, you know, things like Internet monitoring and so on and so forth. But a lot of this technology has been imported from other countries. It's not being used yet in the United States.

And just now it is so. So, you know whereas people have gotten used to it in other parts of the world, we are just going to have to start getting used to it here right now.

COOPER: And as you discussed in the article, I mean there has been a shift in perception. A shift in perhaps Americans' tolerance for this kind of thing. I mean, a couple of years ago, if you had asked Americans how far should the government go, they probably would have said -- you know they probably would not have been quite so open minded to allow this kind of thing. Obviously, 9/11 accounts for a lot of that shift, doesn't it?

BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. And how far we do go, how much inconvenience we end up putting up with. Thinks like, you know, maybe getting searched when we go to the shopping center or to the restaurant or to the movies will largely depend on what happens in the future. Right now it's too early to say how much Americans will put up with.

If you and I are talking this time next year and there's been no significant terror strikes against the U.S., then people will say, well, maybe we've gone too far, we should scale back. But if we're talking a few months ago, and god forbid there's 30,000 dead because some chemical or biological agent has been unleashed in a major American city, there will be a tremendous public outcry for added security measures. So it's really too early to say right now.

COOPER: In the article, you also traveled to Israel to examine sort of how they deal with homeland security. I've spent a lot of time in Israel working there, and it is sort of amazing how, at least my own personal perception, of our two countries has sort of changed. I mean, they no longer seem so far apart in the way they handle security.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, absolutely. It's funny you mention that. Israelis, when they come to the U.S., are shocked by how lax things are. But that's rapidly changing, and the gap between the two countries is clearly narrowing. But, you know, as you well know, the case of Israel shows that even a maximum security state doesn't guarantee your safety.

There is no foolproof system against terrorism. And, you know this is clearly a problem as to how much resources to devote to this and how much liberties to give up. And will we still be safe anyway?

COOPER: What's the thing that most surprised you in doing the research for this article?

BRZEZINSKI: I think how quickly events are moving. When I was reporting a lot of the counterterror measures and writing sort of hypothetical scenarios, the things that I was putting together, I was saying, well, this could happen, that could happen. And then after I'd written the piece, and we were waiting to go to print in the weeks that followed, things started happening here.

Cars began being searched outside of hotels in New York. Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security, launched a public awareness campaign like they have in Israel. You started having proposals for bills for New laws that would allow secret arrests the way they have in another pars of the world. Technology, the Coast Guard started introducing the special technology that they have in Israel. And I was astounded at how quickly everything was moving.

COOPER: I remember the first time I came back from Sarajevo during the war, I came back to New York and suddenly I looked at buildings in a different way. I suddenly saw soft targets, where before I had just seen a building. I think a lot of Americans probably feel that way in a post 9/11.

Matthew Brzezinski, thanks very much for being with us. Appreciate it. And I enjoyed your article very much.

BRZEZINSKI: My pleasure. Thank you.

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