Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Reporter's Notebook

Aired June 15, 2002 - 09:35   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: Well, debate is continuing in Washington over the creation of this homeland security agency, and fallout over security lapses from 9/11. We're taking your comments by phone and e-mail. The phone number is 404-221-1855.

And we're joined this morning by two guests, Abraham McLaughlin, a reporter with "The Christian Science Monitor," he's in Washington, and of course our CNN law enforcement analyst, Mike Brooks, he's back here with us in Atlanta.

Abraham, thanks for being with us.

ABRAHAM MCLAUGHLIN, "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR": Hi, Kyra, how are you?

PHILLIPS: Very good.

Hey, listen, we're going to get right to the e-mails, because we have a number of them, OK? This one is actually directed to Mike brooks, so Mike, I'll let you take this one.

"I know that airport security is currently being upgraded for a deadline near the end of the year for carry-on luggage. But has a carry-on drink ever been discussed as a potential threat? It seems as bio and chemical weapons become the new weapons discussed in the media, then they're likely to be used in the future, and this, is this a threat on board of a plane has never been discussed." Michael from Ohio wants to know.

MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, as a matter of fact, I was coming out of Washington, D.C., at Dulles National -- International Airport yesterday, coming back to Atlanta, and right in front of me was a woman that had a strange-colored drink in a bottle, looked like something she had made up.

And as she Washington coming through, she put her laptop through and she put the rest of her carry-on through, and the security person there said, "Please take a drink of your drink." So she opened it up, took a drink, put the top back on...

PHILLIPS: Really? Made her take a drink.

BROOKS: Made her take a drink of it. That's what they're doing, to -- because they figure if it's not good enough for you to drink, it's not good enough for you to bring on.

PHILLIPS: OK.

BROOKS: And the same thing with water, if you come through with a bottle of water, they'll ask you to take a drink of that, so...

PHILLIPS: Very good, you be the beefeater (ph), here you go.

BROOKS: That's it, exactly.

PHILLIPS: All right, here we go. E-mail two, Lisa from Virginia, "Explosives and guns are terrorists' weapon of choice. Why, then, is ATF, the federal agency responsible for enforcing explosives and gun laws, not included in the proposed Homeland Security Department?"

Abraham, you want to tackle that one?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it's a good question, and I think it shows Bush was reluctant to get into creating this agency, and now with all the debate in Congress about what agencies should be in or out, it shows why he was reluctant. And ATF is -- it will probably be an important part of homeland security.

I think this is just the first draft, and sometimes it takes years or decades to figure out what the government agencies will be doing, and what organization they'll be in.

PHILLIPS: What do you think, Mike?

BROOKS: Yes, well, ATF currently investigates and also regulates explosives in the United States. They work with the FBI on explosive -- on scenes of -- bombing scenes now here in the United States. They work together, they have their own explosives lab.

ATF and DEA were not mentioned in the homeland security, in the homeland security package. I think because with the downsizing of taking some of the agents, 500 of the agents, FBI agents, away from drugs and guns and gangs, putting them over towards the counterterrorism issues, I think that the DEA and ATF are going to take up a lot of slack where the DEA -- where the FBI has been pushed in another direction, towards the counterterrorism side.

But they are involved in counterterrorism. They deal in -- with drug gangs, motorcycle gangs, and, you know, every year they investigate over 2,000 bombings here in the United States alone. So they're -- they, they are involved, but they just weren't mentioned in that particular piece of the homeland security bill.

PHILLIPS: All right. Jeff from Chattanooga, "With the events of September 11, many people are now getting their permits to carry guns to protect themselves. Guns are being purchased in record numbers as are permits to carry them. Will the Supreme Court finally make it clear that the Second Amendment deals with individuals and not only the militia so we can carry legally anywhere in the United States? Many Americans are afraid and want to be able to carry a defensive weapon but cannot due to unconstitutional laws" -- Abraham.

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it's raising all sorts of issues, isn't it? I mean, it -- the whole terrorist attack thing raises the question of what can individual Americans do? And carrying guns may or may not help. It's tough, but it certainly changed the politics on a lot of issues.

PHILLIPS: Would crime go up, Mike? Would there be more? Because you have to be well trained on a gun. I mean, you got to know when in your right when you can shoot and when you can't shoot.

BROOKS: Right.

PHILLIPS: Lot of training involved.

BROOKS: Well, in most states, way before they issue a permit for someone to carry a gun, they make sure that you have had some training and make sure you go to a range, and they have certified instructors to give range training in certain states to teach how to use a firearm.

Again, I think firearms are probably best for personal protection. And you know, it's -- when you -- and you also -- when you're carrying a firearm, there's a lot of responsibility. You get pulled over for a traffic stop, a law enforcement officer comes up, sees a gun, you got to make sure that you know how to identify yourself, let the officer know you have a gun.

There's a lot, there's a lot of problems with citizens owning guns. But, you know, I -- again, it's a right, and I think then there have been crimes that have been thwarted by citizens carrying guns. So, you know, it's a -- it's kind of a two-sided coin here.

PHILLIPS: This one comes from Brian in -- Brian Black. He asks, "How does the Homeland Security Department feel that they can keep ocean container traffic safe? Just looking at the bills of lading is not enough. How do they ensure the goods that are in these containers they're safe, and not a WMD, weapon of mass destruction?" Abraham?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, they're starting to develop a thing called trusted shipper, which -- it's essentially trying to know that the people who are shipping the goods are not terrorists. And if they can ensure that, then they can seal those cargo containers and try to make sure that there aren't any explosives or WMDs in there.

It's a pretty Swiss cheese program. There's plenty of opportunity for people to go around it or to -- for terrorists to become trusted shippers. They can pretty easily become those trusted shippers. So that's what they're doing right now, and they'll need to do a lot more.

PHILLIPS: Mike.

BROOKS: Well, U.S. Customs and U.S. Coast Guard, which guard our ports all around the country, it's over 300 ports (UNINTELLIGIBLE) around, all around the coastline of U.S., they have been through a lot of training dealing with seaport security. They have monitoring devices for radiological, nuclear, W.M.D kind of things.

And they do also put them through different machines when they're -- before they even get onto the ships. A lot of times you'll have the container ships, they're shipped via truck, and then they'll get to the port, they'll put them through a large X-ray machine, if you will, and then onto the ship.

Now, coming from overseas, that's where I think the problem is, a lot of the ships -- a lot of the containers coming from overseas into the United States. And a lot of times they'll sit there on the, you know, in the ports, they'll sit there in the parking lots of the ports for a long time. And we've seen people as passengers inside some of these containers.

So I think there -- a lot needs to be done, but the -- at least they're looking and they're stepping in the right direction right now.

PHILLIPS: All right. Dave, on the phone from Texas, go ahead, Dave, what's your question? And to whom does it go?

CALLER: Oh, that gentlemen right there, I can't -- Ram, Rob...

PHILLIPS: Mike?

CALLER: Mike, there you go, I'm sorry.

PHILLIPS: With me? That's OK, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CALLER: Yes, I just wanted to know if we're working with any of the truckers' unions to safeguard our trucking routes, hazardous chemical routes that go through our cities, because I feel that, you know, the -- if we're going to have any kind of terrorist attack, it's going to be some, like, primitive thing where they'll just pull up next to a truck and explode a vehicle next to a truck. And I just wanted to see if we're, you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) down on the hazardous chemical routes through our cities.

BROOKS: That was a good question, and right now, the American Trucking Association had -- was just last week or the week before last, if I recall correctly, was giving training to some of their people dealing with hazardous (UNINTELLIGIBLE), hazardous materials.

The DOT also does a good, does a good job, as well as a lot of the state agencies. You have, as you're going through different states, for Virginia and North Carolina, Georgia, you'll see Department of Transportation enforcement officers out there. And this is what they're looking for. If they see a truck alongside the road abandoned, just sitting there, they'll approach it with caution, see exactly what that truck is up to, and take the proper actions.

But land transportation and antiterrorism is a big issue here in the United States. In fact, it was big enough back a number of years ago that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center down in Glen Cove, Georgia, that teaches -- they were -- trains all federal law enforcement agencies except for the FBI and DEA, they have a specific course that they take out to the cities when requested dealing specifically with land transportation and antiterrorism.

PHILLIPS: This question, e-mail question, comes from R.W. Mann. Abraham, I'm going to let you take this. "Where does the term `homeland' come from? It sounds like an ethnic term from early European nationalism or a form of modern Zionism. Why not just simply call it the Department of Domestic Security?"

MCLAUGHLIN: It's a good question. And yes, I mean, some people see it as, you know, the Germans talk about the fatherland, and people -- some Americans are uncomfortable with that. And I think the point being that we as a country are more tied to ideas than we are to the physical land. And if we get too tied to the physical land, that can be distracting.

PHILLIPS: Abraham, do you think the president's homeland security proposal goes far enough? What's your real opinion about it? We've talked to Mike a lot about that.

MCLAUGHLIN: I think, you know, if we look back to 1947 with Truman and when he created the Defense Department and the CIA and the NSC, they did a lot in one year, and it was a good first start. But it really took them 40 years to get the structure into a workable organization.

And this will probably be a good first start. But, you know, eventually, do we bring the ATF in? Do we bring other agencies in? Maybe they split off the FBI, counterterrorism department, and put it under homeland security? That'll all have to be hashed out in the coming years and probably decades.

PHILLIPS: All right. Abraham McLaughlin, "Christian Science Monitor," thanks so much. Mike Brooks, law enforcement analyst for us, you'll be back here tomorrow with me.

BROOKS: Yes, I will.

PHILLIPS: We'll see you then.

BROOKS: All right.

PHILLIPS: All right, gentlemen, thank you.

MCLAUGHLIN: 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