Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Reporter's Notebook

Aired May 25, 2002 - 09:34   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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration has issued a series of terrorist alerts in recent weeks, amid criticism it failed to follow up on warnings before 9/11. Are these warnings simply being used as a political tool, or are they a necessity?

Well, joining us to discuss this, from Moscow, CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace, and from New York, Tony Karon from Time.com.

Tony, why don't we start with you? What do you think?

TONY KARON, TIME.COM: Well, I think the Bush administration finds itself in a very difficult position. Obviously it's getting a lot of this criticism, and it needs to find a way to get the public to think about the context in which this criticism is occurring.

Everybody, you know, may grumble about big government, but when it comes to terrorism, people really want to believe in big government, and they want to believe that it's able to protect them.

So a lot of the fallout post-September 11 is concerning the idea that the government failed to protect people. And, you know, I think in some people's minds, that means something must have been done, somebody must have made terrible mistakes, and we need to get to the bottom of this.

I think what the administration is saying is, Look, this threat has not gone away, it's an ongoing thing. We need to focus our minds on the fact that more of these things are coming, and that the government isn't going to be able to protect people in all circumstances.

Of course, the problem it faces in that respect is that actually by releasing too many of these threat assessments, which are very -- often very vague and don't really give the public much option -- much to do except panic, there's a possibility of undermining public morale and confidence.

PHILLIPS: All right, Tony. We want to bring one more individual into this mix. We got him up on the satellite now. From Washington, CNN security analyst Kelly McCann.

We also want to plug that we're taking your calls now at 404-221- 1855. We've got plenty of e-mails now, but give us a call if you're near a phone line.

Kelly, let's go to you. I've got this e-mail coming across the screen right now. It comes from Ron in New Jersey. "I guess the question is, how much trust can we put into our own federal and local agencies regarding national security, and are these agencies talking and sharing information?"

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Which Kelly, Kyra?

PHILLIPS: Oh, good point. Kelly Wallace. Sorry about that, Kelly McCann, I apologize.

WALLACE: Right, right. We'll have to use a last-name basis for (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

PHILLIPS: Right, all right, we'll do KW, how's that?

WALLACE: KW, we'll start here.

Well, you know, this issue, Kyra, has gotten a lot of attention, of course, a lot of focus on exactly what the federal government knew before September 11, and how it handled that information, how agencies were sharing or not sharing information.

So Congress is certainly looking into this. This administration certainly wants to make sure that investigation is restricted to the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate.

White House officials will say they've already taken steps to make changes, that now President Bush is briefed every day by the FBI and the CIA together, that there is more coordination going on between those agencies. You even have the Office of Homeland Security, which was developed after September 11, to really act as a coordination agency, to coordinate the information flow.

So still, though, lots of questions that Ron is bringing up, and congressional investigators are looking into that to see if there are any intelligence failures and how to correct them for the future -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Kelly McCann, this one's for you. This comes from Don Williams in Ashville, North Carolina. "It makes no sense to warn that there might be airplanes hijacked. We have known that for years. Other warnings are suspect if based on what a detainee at Gitmo says unless he is connected to a polygraph. How do we know that they are not just telling us a lie?"

KELLY McCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it's a good point, and it goes to two issues, the first of which is, there's a legal charter. I mean, the U.S. government has a charter to warn its population when there's a pending threat of some kind of credible nature. So there's a responsibility to let people know about a threat once it's decided that it's credible.

The second is a control issue. You know, terrorism by its nature seeks to control a population by putting them in fear, which of course is what has happened here. And to wrest control back into our own ball -- playing field, if you will, we have to act and make them react to us. And that step has not been taken yet. For instance, direct action type of missions, et cetera.

So it is a very complex kind of thing, them seeking to make us, a small threat seem very large, and us seeking to, you know, make sure the public feels like they are less threatened.

PHILLIPS: All right, call now, Jean from New York on the line. Tony, you can take this one. Go ahead, Jean.

CALLER: Yes, with all these terrorist alerts, and of course with everything that's happened up till now, what are we actually doing to secure our borders with these types of terrorists that are coming into the country? And with all the ones that are already here, how are we really monitoring them?

KARON: It's a very tough call for a country that is really at the center of the world economy to secure its borders. I think essentially there's a lot more attention being paid to the INS, there's a lot more attention being paid to screening for known terrorists and known suspects and full background checks on immigrants and so on.

But at the same time, we have to recognize, for the level of economic activity that is ongoing in the United States, and on which the U.S. economy depends, it's really impossible- really, really difficult to seal the borders and to eliminate the possible threats.

So the real emphasis has to be, as you say, on monitoring, on intelligence-gathering, on coordination between the CIA and the FBI, really breaking down the wall between the two so that the domestic and international dimensions are able to merge more easily, because terrorists obviously take advantage of the fact that they can move from being under the surveillance of the CIA in a different country to moving into the domestic U.S. space and that issue becomes more difficult.

So I think it's really -- on the whole, we're in a -- on a steep learning curve here. The U.S. was alerted to the dramatic danger of domestic terrorism on 9/11, and really the whole national security culture has been reoriented as a result.

And really, it's a work in progress, I think.

PHILLIPS: All right. Kelly...

MCCANN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

PHILLIPS: ... Kelly Wallace, this one is going to go to you. You -- did you want to make a comment, Kelly?

MCCANN: Just a real quick one...

WALLACE: Well, I was going to...

MCCANN: ... Kyra. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

WALLACE: Oh...

MCCANN: I'm sorry, Kelly, we're walking on each other. But just a real quick note...

WALLACE: No, go ahead.

MCCANN: ... and that is that in fact, if -- the face is changing as well. A lot of the guys that we had a lock on prior to 9/11 and post 9/11 are now being changed. The face of al Qaeda is changing. They're regenerating new leaders, they're regenerating new people. So you're looking at a lapse in time before we lock them up.

Go ahead, Kelly, I'm sorry.

WALLACE: That's OK. No, I was going to jump in there. You know, President Bush just signed a new piece of legislation into law, and it calls for more inspectors, more investigators to look into who's coming into the United States, and other things that you would have thought had been going on for months before September 11 but were not, various, you know, information sharing, making sure that the INS has access to terrorist watch lists, and also other steps to make sure that, you know, new devices they're going to use on passports and visas to make sure that people can't tamper with them as they try to cross the border.

So that legislation signed into law, and so those steps should be in place very soon, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Kelly Wallace, stay on this for a moment. I'm getting a number of e-mails coming across about these terror alerts being political, this one from Susan in Atlanta, one of many here. "Isn't it common for many messages from the government to serve dual purposes? I think it's important to hear these threat assessments, but I am also sure that as with any administration, the federal government uses it to its advantage."

WALLACE: Well, this is a question reporters have been asking, people around the country certainly have been asking, because ever since the controversy started about what the administration before September 11 and how it handled that information. You had varying high-level officials, Vice President Cheney, FBI Director Robert Mueller, one after another coming out and with these very dire warnings, saying, It's not a question of if there will be another terrorist attack but when. And then the FBI, of course, putting out these alerts.

U.S. officials that have been asked this question, they say, look, we are not playing political games here. This is not about politics. But there was some sense that the administration could be responding to the controversy. Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, sort of alluding to it a bit at a briefing when he just talked about how a lot officials were out because of the controversy, and so they were using that opportunity to sort of get out the latest information they have. So they're saying there's no policy change. But you do get a sense that officials sort of perhaps have learned from the past and now feel that if they have some information, they want to get it out, also making the case, though, if it's nonspecific, but making a judgment call if they think this is something the public should know and should make judgments based on that information, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: OK, this e-mail from...

KARON: Kyra, Kyra...

PHILLIPS: Yes, go ahead, Tony.

KARON: I think on that point we should also say that it's a double, it's really a double-edged sword from a political point of view, because obviously putting out the threat assessments gives a -- creates some sense of the -- maybe takes some of the sting out of the criticism of previous -- on -- of previous handling of information.

But on the other hand, to, to build up the threat too much in the public's mind really undercuts just all -- has a danger of undercutting public morale in the successes that have been recorded so far in the war on terrorism. If we put out too much of a message saying, Well, actually you're in as much danger as you ever were and there's not all that much we can do to stop the next one, at some point there's a danger that the public may actually start to, to, to lose some faith.

So I think it's a very fine line, and I don't think it's a simple case of putting out something that's a political, you know, no- brainer.

PHILLIPS: Kelly McCann, let's direct this one to you, for Mr. Nielan in Alabama. "Why hasn't the homeland security office given the American people some basic tips on what we can do for ourselves now? I fully agree with those who believe we should all be warned."

MCCANN: You know, there's a phrase in the special operations community called "high speed," and everybody wants to be high speed, which means exceptionally well trained. To be high speed, you have to be excellent or master the basics. And the basics are, for the grassroots community, is to have eyes and ears and to provide that information to the law enforcement agencies.

And that information's been put out. A lot of people don't want to accept that the most simple thing is the best thing, and that best thing is to be an expert at noticing things that are unusual, and then reporting them. I mean, what else could someone expect to do? Certainly not personally intervene, personally not, you know, take action, but put it up the chain and see if it's linked to something else, similar to the guys in Eaton, Connecticut, when they saw the people videotaping up on top of the reservoir tower.

So, I mean, at some people want more. But you know what, Kyra? Sometimes there isn't more. Sometimes that is the answer.

PHILLIPS: All right.

WALLACE: Let's also, Kyra, I wanted to jump in, that's also the case with this FBI kind of advisory that went out, as we all know, to people who manage apartment buildings and rent apartments. They didn't have any specific information. They picked up discussions that al Qaeda leaders could rent apartments in the United States and try and rig them with explosives.

So they just decided to sort of get out and advisory to warn people renting out apartments just to be on the lookout for any suspicious activity. Here, of course, it's a balancing act, they don't have anything specific. But they felt that the public would benefit by just getting the word out to be on the lookout for something suspicious. And as Kelly's saying, then people can act if they see something that they don't think is exactly right -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, folks, one more phone call, Anna from Florida. What's your question, Anna?

CALLER: Yes, this question is for Kelly McCann. I just want to know if he feels that there are any certain parts of the U.S. that are more susceptible to a terrorist attack, and, like, the East Coast, West Coast, big cities, places close to, like, the Canadian or Mexican border, that type of thing.

MCCANN: That's a good question. And if you look at it from a tactical standpoint, infrastructure-wise, sure, your population centers would be a more lucrative target in military terms.

However, if you're talking about a chance of success and really striking terror, then perhaps it's somewhere totally unrelated where people may be more asleep at the wheel. So it's a complex problem. A good question too.

PHILLIPS: All right. Good e-mails, good phone calls. From Washington, CNN security analyst Kelly McCann, and from St. Petersburg, not Florida but Russia, White House correspondent Kelly Wallace, and Tony Karon, of course, Time.com. Thank you very much, the three of you.

MCCANN: 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