Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Michael Chertoff; Interview With Congressmen King, Clyburn

Aired July 1, 2007 - 11:00   ET


JEFFREY TOOBIN, HOST: This is "Late Edition," the last word in Sunday talk.
The U.K. on highest alert.


GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I want all British people to be vigilant.


TOOBIN: A fiery terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport. Two car bombs in London. Security stepped up at U.S. airports in advance of the July Fourth holiday. We'll talk with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Who is responsible? We'll get analysis on the British terror attacks, Iraq and more from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Plus, the House Homeland Security Committee's ranking Republican, Peter King, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn weigh in on terrorism and this week's death of the immigration bill.


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work.


TOOBIN: A subpoena standoff between the White House and Congress. A landmark Supreme Court ruling on race and education. Legal insight from former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis, and former Republican National Committee counsel Benjamin Ginsberg.

"Late Edition's" lineup begins right now.

ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN in Washington, this is "Late Edition" with Wolf Blitzer.

TOOBIN: It's 11:00 a.m. in Washington, 4:00 p.m. in London and in Glasgow, Scotland, and 7:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you are watching around the world, thanks for joining us for "Late Edition." I'm Jeffrey Toobin filling in this week for Wolf Blitzer. We're going to talk shortly with U.S. Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.

There are new developments in Scotland in the last few minutes at the hospital where one of the terror suspects was taken for treatment over the weekend.

CNN's Paula Newton has the very latest -- Paula.

NEWTON: Jeffrey, what's gone on at that hospital is that it is right now in lockdown. No one is getting in or out, and that the reason, as police say, there is either a suspicious vehicle or package outside and they do not have this confirmed. Some people are saying on the ground that they did conduct a controlled explosion of that. We are still trying to confirm it.

The reason it's significant, Jeffrey, is because yesterday when one of the suspects was arrested, he was admitted to the hospital with severe burns. He's still in critical condition. What they found on him at that time was something they thought -- they thought -- might be an explosive device.

They evacuated the hospital, removed that device, investigated that and said it was not an explosive device. But as you can imagine, given what's going on here in Britain right now, very jittery at that hospital. It remains in lockdown. If we find out anything more, we'll get back to you.

TOOBIN: Paula, just to be clear, the idea is this was a car that was visiting someone, a car of someone who was visiting someone at the hospital and that's the focus of the investigation and perhaps there's been a controlled explosion in that car?

NEWTON: Yes. And you can imagine in this heightened state of alert, is it significant? Isn't it? We still have to wait to find out.

If someone is parked too long in a place where they are not supposed to be, I can tell you, given the security alert in Britain now, which is at its highest level, critical, you are not going to be able to stay there parked too long before authorities surround that vehicle. We don't know at this point in time if anything there did pose any kind of credible threat -- Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Now, there have been house searches in Scotland, as well, right? Where has that been going?

NEWTON: Well, for following up on the investigation from yesterday at Glasgow International Airport, that big flaming inferno of the Cherokee Jeep that we saw on air, two suspects out of that arrested. As said, one in the hospital, one in police custody.

After that, several properties being searched in a place called Houston, Scotland, which is just very close, in fact, to the airport. Police and eyewitnesses saying, in fact, that those people had been there on a short-term basis and had rented properties there. Eyewitness reports on the ground saying that they had seen that Jeep Cherokee at that address previous, and police are crawling all over those properties, Jeffrey, trying to see how much more evidence they can gather in connection with this case.

TOOBIN: Paula Newton in London. Thank you. You'll keep us apprised.

Police have made a fifth suspect -- a fifth arrest in the terror plots, and our John Roberts is in London with the details -- John.

ROBERTS: Jeff, good morning to you.

As we saw in the wake of the London transit bombings two years ago, police have been making remarkable progress in the last 48 hours since those first incidents here in London.

The latest arrest is of a 26-year-old man in Liverpool. We also understand that police towed away from the parking lot at the Liverpool Airport a vehicle last night, though they are not making any connection between the two of those.

As well yesterday, two people were arrested by police traveling on the M-6 highway. This is the major highway that links London with Glasgow. They were in Cheshire, England, about 200 miles south of Glasgow, a 26-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman picked up, brought back here to London. They are now at a London police station undergoing questioning.

You know, Jeff, police really have a gold mine here of intelligence and forensic evidence. They've got two completely intact car bombs. They have got five suspects in custody, including the two people in Glasgow who drove that car into the terminal building there at the Glasgow Airport. I mean, if you're an investigator, it really doesn't get much better than this.

The big question now is, who is responsible? Is it homegrown terrorism? Does it have international elements? Today, in an interview, Prime Minister Gordon Blair (sic), who's only been in the job a few days, said he has no doubt that there are some links to Al Qaida and that this threat is going to go on for some time to come.

TOOBIN: John, you covered the 7/7 bombings in London two years ago and now you're here, alas, on a similar, but not quite as bad story -- not nearly as bad story -- two years later. How does it feel in the city differently?

ROBERTS: You know, there was obviously -- to a greater degree, there was an impact from the 7/7 bombings of 2005 because 52 people died. And no one has died in these incidents, though there still is the same sense of fear of what could happen.

Now, the Brits, of course -- and it's a cliche to say this at this point because it's been going for 60 years now, but they have a certain sense of get about their lives, stoicism, if you want to call it. And they're doing that again. The outdoor cafes here are jammed. People are walking along the streets, but they all have in the back of their minds, "What's this all about?"

And the fact that it's car bombs and car bombs filled with nails, of course, hearkens back to a dark period in history here in London. In 1982, when there were two bombings, one in Hyde Park and one in Regents Park, the horse guards -- the famous horse guards -- were attacked. Those bombs, one was a car bomb, the other was a nail bomb, placed under a grandstand.

And people still remember back to those days. Nothing here has happened like that since. There were not nails that were used in those London transit bombings. So the fact that the streets of London now have become a potential danger really does weigh heavily on people. It's something that's at the top of their minds, so they're not letting it affect them, getting about their daily business, Jeff.

TOOBIN: John Roberts, thank you very much.

John will anchor "American Morning" from London tomorrow begin at 6:00 Eastern.

And just to recap what we know so far, authorities have conducted a controlled explosion, we believe, in a Scotland hospital parking lot. A suspect in the bomb plots is being treated at that hospital, and a fifth suspect was picked up a short time ago in Liverpool -- that as police are searching homes in a Glasgow suburb.

Authorities believe the Glasgow Airport attack and the two bomb- laden cars discovered in London Friday are linked. Britain is now under its highest threat level, which means that the authorities there believe another attack is imminent.

The Glasgow Airport attack has prompted heightened security at U.S. airports. The Britain terror scare is also raising concerns about security here. Earlier today, I spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.


TOOBIN: Secretary Chertoff, thanks for joining us.

CHERTOFF: Good to be here.

TOOBIN: So what is the latest on who is behind these attacks in the U.K.?

CHERTOFF: Well, as you know, Jeff, this is unfolding literally moment by moment. And of course, the facts, therefore, are still coming in. It appears, based on what the British authorities have released publicly, that there is a connection between what went on in London and what went on in Glasgow.

I want to be careful not to speculate about this because the investigation is still very active and we don't want to do anything to impair the ability of the British authorities to complete their work.

TOOBIN: Based on what you have seen, does this look the work of Al Qaida or people affiliated with Al Qaida?

CHERTOFF: Well, it certainly seems a reasonable possibility that it is either Al Qaida or people who are associated with Al Qaida or sympathetic to Al Qaida. I don't think, again, we can be definitive about whether this is a plot that was directed from Al Qaida central, so to speak, or whether it reflects what we sometimes call homegrown terrorism.

TOOBIN: Did the American government have any sort of notice that this attack or this kind of attack was going to happen in Britain, now?

CHERTOFF: Well, let me say, that, of course, any information the intelligence in this country gets, we share immediately with the British and vice versa. And we have known coming into this summer that we are entering a period when we have to be mindful of the threat of terrorism.

We have had a number of Al Qaida leaders quite publicly talking about how they want to carry out their threats against the West. So given that and given the history that we have had over past summers with attacks in Britain, I think we were clearly focused on this as a possibility.

TOOBIN: Now after 9/11, there was a tremendous focus on commercial aviation and improving safety there. Here we are talking about car bombs. Is there anything law enforcement can do about car bombs? Aren't there just too many cars?

CHERTOFF: Well, Jeff, you're quite right that it's impossible to protect against someone detonating a bomb in a car, given the fact that cars are in parking lots and garages all over this country and all over countries overseas.

And I'll remind you and the viewers that we have, unfortunately, had experience in this country with car bombs: the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And that's one of the reasons why people see these concrete barriers and other kinds of defensive measures outside of our buildings, because we've been building precautions to try to minimize the possibility of an attack.

TOOBIN: But you can't put barriers everywhere. You can't put barriers in front of every nightclub, if this was, in fact, a nightclub that was targeted. I mean, isn't that -- I mean, aren't cars simply too ubiquitous to be protected against?

CHERTOFF: Well, that's right. There is no guarantee that somebody who is determined is not going to be capable to pull an automobile up next to some kind of a building and detonate the car.

Now one of the principal ways, of course, we try to protect against that is with vigilance, by having not only our authorities, by having regular citizens notice when there is something that seems a little bit strange or out of place, and then having them notify the police or the authorities. That's, in fact, what happened in London. So I think that ordinary citizens can play a very important role in doing everything that we can to minimize the danger of these kinds of bombs. But we will not be able to eliminate that danger.

TOOBIN: Let me read you something that was said yesterday by Lord John Stevens, who is a former senior official with the British police: "Initially it was believed that the main problem faced was insulated groups of home-grown extremists. But now it is clear a loose but deadly network of interlinked operational cells has developed. The terror of July 7th," that's two years ago, "was awful enough, but now Al Qaida has imported the tactics of Baghdad and Bali to our streets, and it will get worse before it gets better."

Are there terrorist cells now in the United States?

CHERTOFF: Well, we do actively investigate and actively monitor the activities of a significant number of people in the United States who we are concerned are linked to terrorism, either as facilitators or even as potential operators.

Obviously, you've seen a number of high-profile arrests in the last couple of months. I'm not saying those are linked to Al Qaida, but they certainly indicate the possibility of people becoming radicalized and deciding they want to carry out attacks on their own.

So this is not -- by no means a European problem. It is a problem here as well. But I have made the point in saying that I think over the last year, Europe has become a particularly dangerous platform. And therefore we have to be continually elevating our security with respect to travel from Europe and other parts of the world.

TOOBIN: Well, you bring up the question of travel between countries. And that, obviously, refers to immigration. And you were one of the leaders in the fight for the immigration bill, which ended this week.

Let me just play something that you said earlier about the immigration bill.


CHERTOFF: I believe it will pass because I believe the alternative, which is doing nothing, is not an acceptable alternative.


TOOBIN: Well, it's not an acceptable alternative, but you're faced with it. So what now on immigration?

CHERTOFF: Well, what now is, we will continue to enforce the law vigorously as we have done. We will do it using the tools and the weapons that we have, recognizing that some of the best tools and weapons were left on the floor of the Senate last week when the bill died. I think it's going to be very hard to achieve the result the American people want simply doing it through brute force, because I think that having a temporary worker program and a comprehensive solution was an important part of tackling a decades-old problem.

But I will tell you this. We are committed to enforcing the law. Sometimes it requires us to do things which are unpleasant and tough. But we will do those things. And I hope the Congress will pull itself together and take another run at fixing this problem.

TOOBIN: Some people have suggested breaking the immigration bill into smaller pieces and proceeding that way. If that was the approach, what would you want to see done first?

CHERTOFF: Well, I'm not going to start to speculate about pieces of legislation that haven't even been filed or haven't even moved through the process. In 2006, of course, there were a number of different measures, including an enforcement-only measure. That did not pass. Earlier this year, we tried to deal with a problem by bringing everybody together and coming up with a comprehensive solution. That is now stalled in Congress. I think now the burden is on those who think there's another approach to come forward and get that approach under way. And then we'll see what it is they have to offer.

TOOBIN: Well, one group of people who believe in another approach is the conservative Republicans like Duncan Hunter, who's one of the -- who's running for president. And this is something that he said about you recently.


REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-CALIF.: Here is a question for Mr. Chertoff, Wolf. If you're going to have more border enforcement, why do you cut the border fence in half and leave New Mexico and Texas wide open for people to come in?

And what magic wand are you going to have that's going to turn those people back who think they're going to come in and catch the third amnesty? Mr. Chertoff is charged with securing the border. And the one thing he's not doing -- he's appearing on lots of talk shows, he is not securing the border.


TOOBIN: Are you securing the border?

CHERTOFF: Well, here is my response. We are, and as I think Congressman Hunter ought to know, because we've certainly reported on this to Congress. As a consequence of what we have done, we have had a record-breaking number of removals. We have seen a decrease in the flow across the border.

We've ended catch and release. We have put high technology on the border, ground-based radar that is much more effective in some locations than fencing is. I mean, fencing has a symbolic value, and it has usefulness in some parts of the border. And we're going to use it where it is effective.

But the idea that you are going to solve the problem simply by building a fence is undercut by the fact that yesterday we discovered a tunnel. So the idea that fencing alone is a solution I think is overly simplistic.

TOOBIN: Let's talk a little bit about the work of the Department of Homeland Security. One of the big things you do is you give money to the states to implement projects. And a recent report said that you allocated $16 billion and the states have only spent $4.7 billion.

Are the states dropping the ball here?

CHERTOFF: Well, part of it, of course, reflects the fact that once the states get the money allocated, they then have the ability to go out and contract, to buy the things that they need. But they don't actually pay until they have received the goods and they've tested it. And that's sensible and prudent.

On the other hand, I do think we need to remember that as we come up to another grant cycle this year, we have put a lot of money in the pipeline. And that's money that has not yet fully hit the streets.

So there's a lot on the way. And as we consider future appropriations, we need to balance to make sure that we're paying proper attention to some of the less glamorous but very important elements of what the department does, including the information technology that allows us to process people who want to be citizens, for example.

TOOBIN: Well, Secretary Chertoff, thank you very much. You know, 21 years ago, I was your summer intern in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan. Do you ever miss those days, where the enemies were simple, like the Mafia people you were prosecuting, as opposed to sort of the formless enemies we have now?

CHERTOFF: Well, there's no question the enemies we have now are more dangerous. Of course, organized crime was a criminal problem. And the kind of terrorism we are seeing here is part of what I think is actually a war.

So, we are in a situation now where the whole country is at risk. And that's one of the reasons I'm in this job and that is why my 208,000 colleagues work hard 24-7 to keep this country safe.

TOOBIN: Very good. Thank you, Secretary Chertoff.

CHERTOFF: Good to be on the show, Jeff.


TOOBIN: Coming up, next hour, we'll get another perspective on the terror plots in London and Glasgow from two top House members, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, James Clyburn, and the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, Peter King. The bomb plots kick off a busy first week, to say the least, for the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown. How will those attempted attacks change the way Britain fights terrorists at home and abroad? We'll ask Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

And Vice President Dick Cheney was served subpoenas by Congress over the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Will he have to turn over the documents Congress wants? Two lawyers on opposite sides of the issue give us their views.

You're watching "Late Edition," the last word in Sunday talk.


TOOBIN: You're watching "Late Edition." I'm Jeffrey Toobin in Washington, filling in today for Wolf Blitzer. Just two days after taking over as British prime minister, Gordon Brown had to lead his country through terrorism scares in London and Glasgow. How will he handle his country's fight against terrorism and the close relationship with the United States?

For that, we turn to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Kent, Connecticut, and here with me in Washington, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Gentlemen, welcome back to "Late Edition."

KISSINGER: Always good to be here.

BRZEZINSKI: Good to be with you.

TOOBIN: You were both national security advisers during the Cold War, when the central issue in American foreign policy was relations with the Soviet Union. Today, Dr. Kissinger, as we see in the U.K., terrorism is dominant, at least in the minds of many Americans and for many people in the West.

How do you fight this new enemy diplomatically when they don't have embassies, they don't have public spokesmen, they don't have a country? How do you do that?

KISSINGER: It's a really quite a new challenge for us because it has to be fought on several levels. First of all, there is the level of making it as difficult for the terrorists as possible to operate. Secondly and more importantly, it is important to get on our side the governments of Muslim countries from which many of the terrorists originate.

Third, it is important to deal with the conditions which breed terrorism. In other words, there are multiple levels at which we have to operate. And the difficulty is as you described it. There is no one with whom to negotiate. The objective of the terrorists are really not to bring about a negotiation but to bring about victory, which means the defeat of the secular types of government that we prefer.

TOOBIN: How do you fight Al Qaida diplomatically? BRZEZINSKI: Well, first of all, I basically agree with what Henry said, except perhaps with a slight qualification of that last point. Namely, I don't think the terrorists are really fighting against secular democratic systems. The president sometimes says they hate freedom, they hate freedom.

I think we have to look more closely at whom the terrorists are going after. It's rather noteworthy that the predominant targets are the United States or American forces or institutions abroad, the British very much so, Israel very much so. And that tells us something significant, namely that ultimately the main impulse is political, even if it's expressed irrationally, brutally, reprehensibly such as terrorism.

But it is a political phenomenon tinged with religious passions, with fanaticism. But it is related to specific political problems. And I think that in dealing with these issues, in addition to what Henry said, and particularly in addition to trying to get the help of Islamic governments, we have to take a critical look at the policies that we have been pursuing, specifically in the Middle East, where we have become identified with traditional British imperialism and colonialism, where we have ceased to be the good, honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

TOOBIN: This is Gordon Brown's first week on the job. This is the kind of thing he's been saying in public.


BROWN: I want all British people to be vigilant, and I want them to support the police and all the authorities in the difficult decisions that they have to make. I know that the British people will stand together united, resolute and strong.


TOOBIN: Dr. Kissinger, how do you think he's doing so far, and what should be his top priority in dealing with this initial crisis?

KISSINGER: It's a little early to make a judgment on a prime minister who's only taken office on Wednesday. I happen to know Gordon Brown. I think he is a man of great intelligence and very great analytic ability and very calm.

And I believe I will deal with this matter effectively. I would assume not as dramatically as his predecessor would want to, but he will do a very good job.

TOOBIN: Dr. Brzezinski, Prime Minister Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair, has now been named the new Middle East peace envoy. Do you think he has a chance of succeeding where so many have failed?

BRZEZINSKI: You know, and this may be a somewhat odd comment for me to make because I have been very critical of Mr. Blair and particularly of his policy regarding Iraq. But maybe in some perverse fashion, I have the expectation that he'll actually surprise us. And the reason for it is purely personal. It's intuitive. Namely, Blair is a sensitive person. He is a very intelligent person. He knows he is being viewed historically as a failed prime minister because of his support for the war in Iraq, which has really bogged America and Great Britain in a big, big mess. How can he redeem himself historically?

It's not by being some bureaucratic-type, ineffectual Middle Eastern negotiator subject to the quartet and to Solana, the high representative of the E.U., which nominally he is. It will be if he exceeds his mandate.

And there are two issues here. One is the war in Iraq, which he's not charged with, and one is the Israel-Palestinian problem, which he is charged with. But his mandate is on the economics, finances and so forth. I will be willing to make a bet he's going to stretch that mandate, and he had a lot of influence in Bush, and he may pull a surprise.

TOOBIN: We have to take a break now. When we come back, we'll talk with Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski about the war in Iraq and what the Americans should do next.

And later, is there an Al Qaida connection to the British bomb plots? We'll get insight from a panel of terrorism experts. Stay with "Late Edition."


TOOBIN: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Jeff Toobin in for Wolf Blitzer.

As you know, we're also monitoring all the developments in the various terrorism investigations. And we have just learned that at JFK Airport in New York City, the American Airlines terminal has been evacuated because of a suspicious package.

We don't know if this is a false alarm. We don't know if the investigation will go anywhere further than just this evacuation, but we wanted to let you know about that and we'll keep you apprised as we learn more.

We're talking with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Dr. Kissinger, today we are at the beginning of July. Last month, more than 100 troops, again, died in Iraq. Do you see signs that the president's policy is succeeding in Iraq?

KISSINGER: I don't think one can measure the success of the current operation on the basis of two months of activity. It is a very difficult problem because there are several conflicts going on simultaneously. There's the civil war between the various Iraqi factions, there's the nationalist uprising against occupation and there's Al Qaida action against the whole Middle East establishment. And all these things are going on simultaneously. What I do know is that when the debate is put in the way you put the question, it usually implies that we should withdraw. I think the problem is to bring our military action into some relationship to a political solution and to attempt to define what that political solution is and see whether a negotiating process can be started.

TOOBIN: Just -- if I can just interrupt for a minute, we have learned that the government has given the all-clear at JFK Airport. The American Airlines terminal was evacuated and now things are back to normal. Glad to hear that.

The war in Iraq, how is it going?

BRZEZINSKI: Obviously badly. I mean, I don't think one has to really strain oneself to reach that conclusion. We've been there now, what, more than four years. TOOBIN: Badly, thus what? Thus we should be leaving?


BRZEZINSKI: Therefore, we should seriously consider trying to find a political framework which facilitates our departure, and the point of departure for finding such a framework is to indicate clearly that we do intend to leave, to start talking to the Iraqi leadership -- all Iraqi leaders -- about setting jointly a date for leaving, and also communicating to the countries around Iraq, every one of which has a stake in Iraq not blowing up, that we intend to leave because it will not be helpful if they think we are staying, and that we're prepared to talk to them about arrangements that would have to be adopted so that Iraq's difficult transition after our departure is somehow absorbed with our help.

TOOBIN: Politically, as you know, the Iraq war is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. A senator with whom you've both worked closely, Richard Lugar, said the following this week. He said -- he expressed concern and basically said we should change policies.

Dr. Kissinger, do you think the president will have the mobility, the political mobility, that he's had previously in terms of getting what he wants out of Congress, indeed getting the money he needs to sustain this war out of this Congress?

KISSINGER: I think it is extremely important to find a bipartisan approach to the problem that we are discussing. We are in the unusual position on this program that we Zbig and I substantially agree on what needs to be done, which is to develop a political program to begin a negotiation with all the partners, with all the neighbors of Iraq.

I have a question about the rate of withdrawal or the definite commitment to withdrawal, but it would end up in the same position, namely to define a political status for Iraq which keeps it from becoming a kind of a Balkan -- what the Balkans were before 1914 that led to war World War I.

This we can only do on a bipartisan basis, and so debate must not be on how quickly can the Congress force us out of Iraq, but how we can better coordinate the measures that need to be taken militarily with the measures that might be taken politically. There already exists a forum that met once in Sharm el-Sheikh with the foreign ministers of all the surrounding countries, and I think we should give emphasis to that.

TOOBIN: Dr. Kissinger, let me just interrupt. Dr. Brzezinski, quick question, don't have much time. The president meets with President Putin today. What should be his top agenda item with the Russians?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think it's a sad spectacle actually because the Russians are taking advantage of the war in Iraq to exercise much more influence. They know we need them. We are ignoring what they have been doing to us. We're ignoring the fact that Putin has been abusing the United States, comparing it to Nazi Germany, saying that we committed worse crimes than Stalin. And to be receiving Putin in this context, I think it's ridiculous.

Last but not least, foreign policy is not made by personal theatrics by some boat trip that is in a resort. It requires serious negotiations, understanding on some issues we disagree, on some we agree, and Kennebunkport is not the setting for that.

TOOBIN: We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much to Henry Kissinger in Kent, Connecticut. Here in Washington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, thank you.

Coming up, the White House refuses to turn over documents that Congress wants to see. Who will win the legal and political battle over executive privilege? Our legal panel will tackle that question and more.


TOOBIN: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Jeffrey Toobin, in for Wolf Blitzer. We're following every angle of the British terror investigation, and here's what we know so far.

Authorities have conducted a controlled explosion on a Scotland hospital parking lot. A suspect in the bomb plots is being treated at that hospital. Police say another arrest has been made. A fifth suspect was picked up a short time ago in Liverpool. That as police are searching homes in a Glasgow suburb.

Authorities believe the Glasgow airport attack and two bomb-laden cars discovered in London Friday are linked. Britain is now at its highest threat level. Although Britain is at that high terror threat level, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is urging people to go about their business.

And there's a lot of business in London these days. There's Wimbledon, there was a big gay pride rally earlier, and also today, there's a big concert in memory of Princess Diana at Wembley Stadium. And that's where CNN's Becky Anderson is. Becky, how does it look? BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jeffrey, as you can imagine, security here extremely tight. You heard the words of Gordon Brown just some ten or 15 minutes ago. You were running those with your guests.

And, you know, things are really, really difficult here in London at this point. So, you've got 450 police officers on duty here at Wembley Stadium behind me, where there are 62,000 people watching the concert in memory of Diana, princess of Wales, on what would have been, Jeffrey, her 46th birthday.

The Wembley Stadium event here will commemorate her life. It will have been ten years since, of course, she died in that car crash in Paris. Princes William and Harry are organizing this event. It was kicked off by Elton John. We've seen Duran Duran. We see Lily Allen singing now at the moment.

As I say, it's all about security here. Huge queues coming into this stadium today, 62,000 people coming in for about three or four hours. Enormous queues as we came in about two hours ago as police really maintain strict security on everybody there, making sure that nobody's got anything going into that stadium that they shouldn't have with them. So, a tough day here at Wembley, but the concert, Jeffrey, goes on.

TOOBIN: Thanks, Becky. Keep us posted. Up next on "Late Edition," it was a week of surprising decisions out of the Supreme Court, from Guantanamo Bay detainees to race integration in schools. We'll cover all the major rulings and the battles between White House and Congress. "Late Edition" will be right back.


TOOBIN: Congress and the White House appear to be on a collision course after the Senate and House issue subpoenas involving the president's warrantless wiretapping program and the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. And the Supreme Court caused a stir with its controversial ruling regarding race and public education.

Here to talk about it all are the A-team: former Clinton special council Lanny Davis and former Republican National Committee counsel Ben Ginsberg. Welcome, gentlemen.

So, there are two sets of subpoenas pending. There's the U.S. attorney's office subpoenas and the warrantless wiretapping subpoenas. Should the White House comply, Ben?

GINSBERG: The White House has put forth a very compelling case why executive privilege applies here. And the truth of the matter is this is systematic of a Democratic Congress that failed to follow through on its legislative promises and is really using its subpoena power of the executive branch to try and keep its base happy.


DAVIS: Well, I have to admit to being conflicted here because I lived through being in a White House where a Republican partisan investigation issued subpoenas that we weren't very happy about responding to. But I also want to ask my brother Ben Ginsberg, who I greatly respect, to apply a single standard.

Tom DeLay said this about Bill Clinton's resistance to subpoenas: What they have to hide here? Executive privilege is reserved for national security. In March of '98, Trent Lott said, surely they understand it looks like they are hiding something. Executive privilege is reserved just for national security. But most important, a great and distinguished Republican named Ben Ginsberg said to NBC, one of CNN's competitors, on May 6th, 1998, quote, "the White House has erected a stone wall around themselves, and this is one another example of the breaking away of that edifice."

So, is that what the Bush White House is doing today, Ben?

TOOBIN: Well, let's talk about executive privileges for a minute. What is it and why does it exist? What's the reason for it?

GINSBERG: Well, The purpose of executive privilege is to allow the president the unfettered and free advice from his aides so that people can talk freely to the president, give him their best views on subjects, without feeling that what they say will be subject to the sort of partisan search warrants that are going on here.

My brother Lanny forgets what we were arguing about that day was Lanny's attempt to invoke a privilege for the protection of presidential peccadilloes in Bill Clinton at the time in the Jones case. So, executive privilege is something that is not applicable in, certainly in the case of the U.S. attorneys and probably not in the case of the warrantless wiretapping.

TOOBIN: Lanny, you are a political communicator as well as a lawyer. How do you, advising the Democrats, being a Democrat, sort of untangle the political motives behind, you know, the Democrats sort of sticking to it President Bush and the legitimate effort to uncover information? How do you persuade the public what the Congressional Democrats here are doing is really something that needs to be known?

DAVIS: Well, first of all, both sides have a double-standard problem here. Ben tried to do what my law school professor said is a distinction without a difference. We have a serious issue. Monica Goodling admitted to violating the law by asking civil servants, who are supposed to be protected from political litmus tests, political litmus-test questions.

We have a serious issue involving a Republican senator, Pete Domenici, and a Republican congresswoman, Heather Wilson, calling a U.S. attorney, Mr. Iglesias, right at the -- right before an election and asking questions about a pending prosecution. So, I don't know why Congress is ignoring those two acts of Republican members that border on obstruction of justice, and why they are focusing on asking for documents from the White House.

But it is a serious issue. It's not about presidential peccadilloes. And why Ben makes that distinction, I have no idea. TOOBIN: Now, in the warrantless wiretapping subpoena that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the vote was 13 to 3 in favor of these subpoenas, with people like Orrin Hatch, hardly a supporter of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats on that committee in usual circumstances, voting in favor of the subpoena. The way these fights usually end is a compromise.

TOOBIN: Do you think there is a compromise in the works or could be a compromise, Ben?

GINSBERG: Well, I think that there will not be a compromise on the issue of the U.S. attorney firings because those are executive branch personnel decisions. I think the national security wiretaps is, indeed, a different case because it does involve national security. I think that is probably more fertile ground for a compromise.

TOOBIN: Like, we'll give you some information but not all of it? Some people testify, not others?

GINSBERG: Yes, and under -- correct, and under certain conditions and certain documents produced or not produced.

TOOBIN: When you worked in the Clinton White House, that's how these fights ended. None of them went through to contempt proceedings. Do you think that's how this one will end too, in some sort of compromise, Lanny?

DAVIS: You know, I'm not so sure. The Clinton White House was very sensitive to the charge of trying to cover something up. And while we fought and fought and fought against what we thought were -- I mean, the White House Travel Office firings, the White House Christmas card list were the subject of subpoenas and demands for documents which I would say Republicans...

TOOBIN: Sounds pretty earth-shaking today, doesn't it?

DAVIS: But this is serious stuff. The Justice Department firings that may have had some partisan reasons and where we have testimony where the law was, in fact, violated, does represent a very serious issue, and that maybe will have to be enforced in the court. And we'll see what the courts say.

TOOBIN: Let's shift gears here in our remaining time to the Supreme Court.

Ben, you were part of the Florida legal team that led to its triumph in Bush v. Gore. You're now an adviser to Mitt Romney, who is running for president. This week, we saw two of President Bush's appointees -- his only two appointees to the Supreme Court, really assert themselves. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to be one of the president's biggest legacies? GINSBERG: Yes, I think that it probably will be. Certainly, what happened this week and it's what happened this term was precisely what the White House and, indeed, conservatives in general wanted to see out of the Supreme Court, which was a return to precedence and not making law from the bench by trial court judges.

TOOBIN: What do you -- I take it your reaction was different to these decisions this week?

DAVIS: Well, the conservative court is the conservative court. I think the elections, both back-to-back, allowed President Bush to fulfill his promise about conservative Supreme Court justices. We are now looking forward to eight years of president, I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton, appointing more progressive Supreme Court justices starting in January, 2009.

TOOBIN: I should have said that while you are supporting Mitt Romney, you remain a Clinton supporter working for Hillary Clinton.

DAVIS: But a great group of candidates, all of whom will have at least eight years because of the record of this administration to change...



TOOBIN: We understand that point. One of the issues that the Supreme Court dealt with was race this week. And four and maybe five members of the court seem to be leaning towards what some people call a colorblind Constitution, that the government simply cannot give anyone a benefit or a detriment based on race. Do you think that will be a good thing if that gets five or six or seven votes?

GINSBERG: Well, I think that it is a decision that the way Justice Kennedy wrote his is likely to be reexamined in the future on other cases and to be filled out more. The question of whether you want a colorblind society or want an integration of society is really one of the difficult ones for the whole country to deal with, especially given the demographic trends over the last 50 years since Brown v. Board that shows much more segregated housing patterns in the country.

DAVIS: Look, Sandra Day O'Connor was no liberal. And on two critical issues -- this is really why the presidential election is so important coming up. This Supreme Court swung and reversed what Sandra Day O'Connor would have voted.

One is on the issue of Roe v. Wade and on the issue of partial birth abortions, a complete reversal of the standard that allowed, in this case, the undue burden to be the test rather than to allow another standard that, in fact, was different than Sandra Day O'Connor would have recommended.

The other one is this race issues. We've had affirmative action since Brown v. Board of Education. For many, many years, that said a remedy for past discrimination can be to seek diversity.

This 5-4 switch from Sandra Day O'Connor's conservatism to a more extreme version, I think, does reflect a serious gap in the way the Supreme Court ought to be but should be starting January 2009. TOOBIN: Lanny Davis, Ben Ginsberg, thank you for joining us on "Late Edition."

DAVIS: Thank you, sir.

TOOBIN: Coming up, we'll go to Nic Robertson in Scotland for the very latest on the terror investigation, plus perspective from two top Congressmen on how this will affect safety here in the United States. We'll be right back.


TOOBIN: There's much more ahead on "Late Edition." Up next, the U.K. is on the highest alert after two attempted terror attacks in London and Glasgow. We'll have an updated on the stepped up security and what that means in a very busy day in London, and the latest on the investigations into the terror plots.

And we'll get a progress report on Iraq, now that more troops are in place, from Democratic Congressman James Clyburn and Republican Congressman Peter King. Stay with "Late Edition."


TOOBIN: While the terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport has U.S. airports on heightened alert, are enough safeguards in place?

With us to talk about that and more, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Republican Congressman Peter King of New York. He's the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Congressmen, welcome to you both.

CLYBURN: Good to be with you.

KING: Thank you so much.

TOOBIN: You're both part of the leadership of your respective parties. That means you get the briefings on the terrorism matters.

Congressman Clyburn, does this look to you like this was an Al Qaida operation in England?

CLYBURN: Yes, it does, or at least someone acquainted with Al Qaida. I think that all of us are aware that when you live in societies such as we live in -- open, democratic societies -- these kinds of threats will exist. And we are, hopefully, prepared for that.

And so I do believe that what we saw there, especially in Scotland, was someone -- what we would call a frontliner, saw something, reported it and it got dealt with.

And that's why I think we ought to be very, very careful going forward that we don't include all of our first responders in all of these kinds of efforts, because no matter what we do in Washington, it's the people out there in our communities that we have to rely upon in these kinds of instances.

TOOBIN: Peter King, do you think that the government and the American people are prepared to respond the way the British appeared to have responded?

KING: I think we are, Jeffrey. Sometimes I think we have forgotten just how bad it was on September 11 and how terrible it was. On the other hand, I think once an actual attack is made and, god forbid, I hope it's not, I think the American people will respond. But to add to what Jim said about the attack in Glasgow and the attempted attacks in London, what's concerning about that is the British and the Americans and others have been looking out for activity.

There's reason to believe that there could be attacks over the summer, so they were looking very carefully. And both of these incidents ended up being under the radar screen. And the British with MI-5 and Scotland Yard have extraordinary intelligence and yet they didn't catch this.

And by using car bombs, this is something which is even more difficult to stop, which is why in New York, Commissioner Kelly has such a large counterterrorism force and why today they're going through the parking garages and they are doing random checks around the city and having checkpoints. So, this is cause for concern.

TOOBIN: Congressman Clyburn, when Congress returns from its recess, will there be an effort to address terrorism through legislation or is there something that you think needs to be done at this point?

CLYBURN: Oh, sure. That's what we're trying to do with these appropriations bills. That's why I'm very, very interested in the fact that when the president sent this budget over, he absolutely eliminated our firefighters, who are frontliners, their grant. He cut, by $300 million the grants that we have for homeland security.

We have, in our budget, increased each one of those instances, $25 million increased in the homeland security grants. That's about $400 million above where the president's request was, because we believe very sincerely that we have to equip our first responders with the ability to do the work that needs to be done.

Remember, I think, peter, though they may not have detected the planning, if you go back and look, what they did was the first responders saw something and reported it. And, as a result of that, they were not able to detonate the bombs, as I understand the reports I've read.

TOOBIN: Congressman King, is the president trying to fight terrorism on the cheap? That seems to be what Congressman Clyburn is implying.

KING: Not at all. First of all, we've not been attacked in six years. And I did vote for the appropriations bill. Having said that, the president was not attempting to take money away from firefighters. What he was doing is he wanted to put it into counterterrorism programs where the money would go to the cops and the firefighters in the areas that need it the most.

Now, I think we have to spread that out a bit more and have the SAFER grants, is what Jim is talking about but, no, the president obviously under his plan -- extraordinary amount still would have gone to New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. as far as police and firefighters. Where I disagree with Jim is, yes, the first responders did a great job in London, but that was only because the cell phone failed to detonate that explosion. The fact is, it was in place.

And it went under the radar screen, which, to me, shows the main way of stopping terrorism in addition to spending, which is obviously important, is to have better intelligence, to have electronic surveillance, to be able to infiltrate these groups, to infiltrate mosques and infiltrate communities and find out what's going on so we can get ahead of this.

Otherwise you're just going to be responding. First responders, by its nature, means you're responding. I want to anticipate and preempt.

TOOBIN: One thing we know Congress will not be doing when it returns from recess is voting for an immigration bill, which is now dead.

Congressman Clyburn -- of course, it never came to a vote in the House, but Congressman Clyburn, you were generally in favor and Congressman King, you were opposed.

Why do you think it failed, Congressman Clyburn?

CLYBURN: Well, it failed because the president failed. I have been a part of those meetings with the president since back in January. In every meeting, the president made it very clear to us that immigration reform was one of his top priorities. He indicated to us that he was prepared to bring at least half of the Republicans in the Senate along and about 75 Republicans in the House. He failed. And the obstructionists won.

We were prepared on the House side. And I really appreciate the work, bipartisan work done by Congressman Flake, the Republican, Luis Gutierrez, the Democrat, in fashioning a bipartisan approach to this to strive that. Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers doing tremendous work -- Joe Crowley, Xavier Becerra.

We had listening sessions of about six of them, these listening sessions. What we were doing in the House was preparing the House for a bipartisan bill. And I'm convinced that if the president had delivered in the Senate as he indicated that he would, we would have been able to do a good, comprehensive bill on the House side.

TOOBIN: Peter King, I'm sure you remember when President Bush -- right after he was elected in 2004, he said, "I have political capital and I'm going to spend it." Immigration is dead. Social Security reform is dead. What's left for the president in terms of an agenda in the Congress?

KING: First of all, as far as the immigration bill, if I could just answer on that, the reason it died is because the American people spoke out. And the president did try to deliver, but he couldn't because certainly the Republicans were independent and did not want this bill. I've never seen more of a disconnect between the American people and the electoral elite and media elite than on this issue. The people don't trust the government to enforce the law, to secure these borders. If they felt the borders were secure, then you would have seen much different attitude. That's really what happened here.

TOOBIN: But what's next? What can the president push and what Congress might conceivably pass in the year-and-a-half that's left in his term?

KING: Well, I think what's important is to continue with the war on terrorism, to certainly keep taxes from being increased so we can continue with the strong economy we now have, resist Democratic efforts to increase taxes or to allow tax cuts to die, which, in effect, would be a tax increase.

And also, again, I believe the war on terrorism is the main issue, to stay focused on it, to not allow people to cut into electronic surveillance, to stop that, to not be tying the hands of the president, neither here or in foreign policy.

TOOBIN: Up next, a live report from Scotland with our Nic Robertson on the ground, plus more with Congressman Clyburn and King.

Then the search for clues in the British terror scare. Who is behind the plots and how vulnerable is the United States? We'll talk with a panel of terrorism experts.

And the presidential candidates are ending round two of the money race. We'll look at who figures to be the biggest winners and losers in the mad dash for cash. Stay with "Late Edition."


TOOBIN: Welcome back to "Late Edition." For the latest in the British terror plot investigation, let's go to Nic Robertson in Scotland. Nic?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jeffrey, perhaps the biggest indication we've had today as to who may be behind these attacks and attempted attacks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown today said these attacks seem to be associated with people associated with Al Qaida. The latest from here is there was a controlled explosion in the last few hours at a hospital not far from the Glasgow Airport where one of the men arrested by the police is being treated for burns, injuries. Last night, the police found a suspected device. We've just learned in the last few hours, they have performed a controlled explosion. On the street behind me, the police are investigating a small, semi-detached house that they say is connected to that attack on the airport.

Residents here have told us that it is a rented house. Most of the houses on this street are owner-occupied. They say that the two men who moved into this house four months ago are Asian-looking. When they say that here, that tends to mean of Pakistani descent.

We're told that the men kept themselves to themselves. Nobody on this street really knew what they were doing. Now the police investigating that house, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Nic, thanks. Nic Robertson in Houston, Scotland. We'll be right back with two senior congressmen on the war in Iraq.


TOOBIN: We're back, talking with House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina and the House Homeland Security Committee's ranking Republican, Peter King of New York. Congressman Clyburn, last month more than 100 American troops again died in Iraq. And on Friday, this is what Speaker Pelosi had to say about Iraq.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them, including taking a bill to the floor in July to authorize the redeployment of troops out of Iraq except for the purposes I mentioned, with a definite deadline of April 1, 2008.


TOOBIN: So what's the House going to do about Iraq, Congressman?

CLYBURN: Well, we're going to try again. As you know, we did pass bill to redeploy our troops. And the president vetoed that bill. And so then we are going to try again next month -- this month, when we get back.

We plan to put up legislation to ban any permanent bases from being erected there in Iraq. We plan to put up legislation that would start within 120 days a redeployment out of Iraq. This time, hopefully, because of senators Lugar and Voinovich of Ohio, we may have some other people marching to the drums that we've been beating now since back in January.

TOOBIN: What about that, Congressman King? How solid is Republican support in the House for President Bush's policy in Iraq?

KING: I think it's still solid. Speaking for myself, I think it would be very wrong for us to interfere with General Petraeus and the surge policy. We're actually only several weeks into the surge policy. It started several months ago, but we've only had the full compliment of troops there in the last several weeks.

There have been significant results in Anbar Province. Even in Baghdad itself, civilian casualties were down significantly last month, about 36 percent. A good number of the neighborhoods have been secured.

I can't guarantee that it could work. But the consequences of failure in Iraq will go far beyond Iraq, just like when President Reagan pulled the troops out of Beirut in 1983. That had consequences. President Clinton taking the troops out of Somalia in 1993. That had consequences.

This would give an opening to Iran, give an opening to Al Qaida and it would make the situation far worse. So, I think it's very dangerous what the Democrats and some Republicans are talking about doing. And that's leaving before General Petraeus, who is the leading general in the United States Army, more talented than anyone I know of, certainly, before he's given the opportunity to complete the program that he's begun.

TOOBIN: Congressman Clyburn, let's listen to one of General Petraeus's chief subordinates has to say about how things are going in Iraq right now.


LT. GEN. RAYMOND ODIERNO, MULTINATIONAL CORPS, IRAQ: I feel like we are building some momentum over here, momentum of change both within the government of Iraq and on the ground. But we'll see. I mean, that could change very quickly. But what we have to be able to do is provide recommendations on whether we think we are making enough progress to continue in the direction we are going or we are not making progress and we have to change our strategy.


TOOBIN: Congressman Clyburn, is the war just lost and over?

CLYBURN: Well, I don't know. It all depends on what you call winning and losing. I do believe we can still be successful in Iraq. But it has to be done politically.

We're trying to do this militarily. I was there Memorial Day weekend of last year.

CLYBURN: And I did radio interviews from Baghdad, and I said in every instance that what I found was that our military people were doing everything we asked them to do. But we were not doing politically what needed to be done to get the Iraqis able and willing to take over the politics of their own country.

We've got to get our military men and women out of the civil war, get them out of the red zone, get them redeployed into other parts of Iraq. Put them in a training mode and put them out on the periphery so that we can help secure the country. But this thing of being involved in the middle of a civil war, it is not working. It will not work. It takes politics, and the politics have not been employed by this administration.

TOOBIN: Congressman King, there was a lot of talk when the so- called troop surge began about September as being an important date. And some people are still talking about it. Earlier today on "This Week" on ABC, Senator Lieberman said the following.


SEN. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, I-CONN.: In Iraq, we've got the enemy on the run. But for some reason, in Washington a lot of politicians are on the run to order a retreat by our troops, even as they are beginning to succeed. And I think that's just plain wrong, contrary to our national security and unfair to our troops who are fighting it. Let's wait until September.


TOOBIN: What are we going to see in September, Congressman King? What are we going to learn then that we don't know now?

KING: First of all, I agree with Senator Lieberman, his analysis of the war. What we will know in September is whether or not the surge is beginning to work as far as controlling neighborhoods. Also as far as allowing the Iraqi army and police to build themselves up so they can take it over.

We will find out whether or not, for instance, by clearing areas and staying there, and allowing the Iraqis -- and not to leave before the Iraqis are ready to take it over, you know, can we restore stability to Baghdad to allow the political situation to work?

A political settlement will only reflect the military reality on the ground. That's why there has to be a strong military presence in the short term. What we have to look for is whether or not General Petraeus, as has worked very well in Anbar Province, which a year ago was considered a loss to Al Qaida, is now certainly back in the hands of the government and the U.S. There's almost no violence as at all compared to what it was a year ago.

What we will see in September is whether or not there are sufficient troops there, whether or not this has reduced the level of violence. And again, just this last month, the level of civilian violence in Baghdad was down by 36 percent. Obviously, every American death is tragic and it's horrible. But my concern is we'll have many more deaths in the future if we withdraw too quickly.

TOOBIN: I'm going to have to leave it there. Thank you both to Congressman Clyburn and Congressman King.

Still ahead on "Late Edition," who's behind the British terror plots? We'll get insight and analysis from a panel of terrorism and security experts. Then Senator Richard Lugar spoke out this morning about his break with President Bush on Iraq. We'll tell you what he had to say in our "In Case You Missed It" segment.

And remember, you can speak out on the CNN/YouTube debates. The Democrats will face off on July 23rd in South Carolina, and the Republicans take the stage on September 17th in Florida. Submit your videotaped questions at

Stay with "Late Edition." We'll be right back.


TOOBIN: Welcome back to "Late Edition." A U.S. security official calls the British terror plots amateurish. But could there be an Al Qaida connection, and could there be Al Qaida amateurs? Joining us to help sort things out are our guests Kelli Arena, our CNN correspondent, and Peter Bergen, our CNN terrorism analyst. How dangerous do you think things are over in London right now, Kelli?

ARENA: Well, I mean, London is one of those places where we've seen extremists, extremists plots and people who have not necessarily been members of Al Qaida, but have sympathized with Al Qaida. And as Peter has made the distinction, you have Al Qaida central and then you have groups that are inspired by its ideology. And we have seen that in a big way in Europe, and particularly in the U.K.

TOOBIN: We won't see e-mail traffic or cell phone calls from bin Laden's cave to these people. But that doesn't mean they aren't connected. Is that what you're saying, they're inspired?

BERGEN: Well, you know, I mean, in the case of Britain, we have Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber. He was British. He was trained in an Al Qaida training camp. In the case of July 7, 2005 bombings that killed 52 people, two of the main plotters were trained in an Al Qaida camp. You may remember the plot last summer to bring down ten American airliners with liquid explosives. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said publicly in January that that was directed by Al Qaida from Pakistan. So, the point is that there are enough -- 400,000 British citizens go to Pakistan every year for vacation.

TOOBIN: How many?

BERGEN: 400,000.

TOOBIN: Wow, 400,000.

BERGEN: So, just think 0.01 percent of that would still -- you go to a training camp, that's 40 people. And the British obviously can't keep track of all these different -- I mean, they are trying to keep track right now of up to 2,000 people. It's a big -- you know, they have an enormous problem.

TOOBIN: We're joined by John O'Connor, a terrorism expert, in London. John, is the attitude there that this is a surprise or is this something you expect to live with indefinitely?

O'CONNOR: I'm afraid it's something we expect to live with indefinitely. It's not a surprise. I mean, we've already been on the second from top alert for terrorism since -- for the last couple of years. We're now at the very top, where another attack is believed to be imminent.

I don't think that's because they've got specific information. I think that's because common sense would tell you that after three failures they're likely to go again. So, you know, we're on alert for it. It's going to happen.

And I think we're just learning to live with it. The people over here really have gotten to the stage -- what they can't understand is why these people hate their fellow citizens so much. I mean, it's just something that you really can't get your head around.

TOOBIN: Well, this is the great question, Peter. Why do they hate British -- Britons so much? I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who live in relative peace in England -- not relative peace, in total peace in England. And yet repeatedly they appear to be trying -- some of them appear to be trying to blow up the country. Why are they?

BERGEN: I grew up in Britain. There's no British dream. There is an American Dream. It works very well for American Muslims. American Muslims are better education than most Americans. They have higher incomes, they're very well integrated, they don't live in ghettos.

Now, take all those different characteristics, and the exact reverse applies in Britain, where there's extremely high unemployment rates among young British Pakistani males. There's a fair degree of alienation, there's quite a lot of radicalization, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And, you know, it's really a problem of identity. These second- generation British Pakistanis, they don't feel fully British, they're not really completely accepted often, and they sort of reject their parents in a way.

BERGEN: And they turn to this violent Islamism as a way of sort of identity -- shaking their identity.

TOOBIN: We have a lot of new immigrants in this country, Kelli, yet we not had this kind of attack since 9/11, or except for 9/11 and then going back to '93. In the Justice Department, do people believe there are these cells out there, somewhere in the United States, just getting ready to attack us?

ARENA: Well, Michael Chertoff, who is the secretary of Homeland Security, today, as you know, says, "Hey look, you know, we've got people that we are surveilling." There are people who we believe have connections to potential suspected terrorists.

We do know that there have been arrests made of people who were allegedly plotting attacks of a homegrown nature. So we do have sort of the beginnings of what some would say is a disenfranchisement of some of the Muslim population in the United States.

But as Peter mentioned, there's a big difference between the situation that Muslims are facing in Europe and the situation that they're facing here. They're much more assimilated. And you don't have the outright public radicalization going on either. I mean, you've had imams over in London be very anti-West. Their rhetoric is very violent. You don't have that here, at least not out in the open and publicly.

TOOBIN: John, you mentioned earlier the failed attacks that have gone on. And I think, fortunately, this one counts as a failed attack, too. Nic Robertson, our colleague at CNN, mentioned to me earlier in the day he thought it might be that Al Qaida or the affiliates were lowering their sights. They were trying to do smaller scale attacks like this, like these relatively low-tech attacks. Do you think that's a plausible scenario?

O'CONNOR: No, I don't. I think these people will use whatever materials they can get their hands on. And you've got to bear in mind that these homegrown terrorists that we have are away from mainstream criminals. They're not getting access to firearms. They're not getting to military or commercial explosives. They're not even getting access to stolen vehicles because they're not involved at all with mainstream crime.

They stand alone. They almost live in a vacuum. And they are financed by themselves. They're probably financed by the Social Security money that they get. It's all being done on the cheap. The worrying thing for me is that at some stage they may get more support, they may get access to weapons, they may get access to proper explosives. What they're trying to do is recreate the bombs that we've seen in Iraq and tactics used in Iraq, but are using materials which are probably not up to it. I suspect as well, that the experience of the bomb makers is not of the same level as you get in Iraq.

TOOBIN: But even with very primitive material -- gasoline, petrol and nails and automobiles -- you can do a lot of damage. You can't bring down airliners, but you can kill a lot of people, can't you?

O'CONNOR: Yes, you can. But you've got to find a way of making sure that when you set the thing going -- I mean, they're sophisticated inasmuch as they use a mobile phone as a circuit breaker. When they phone the mobile phone, that then completes the circuit. That hotwires the filament of an electric light bulb, which should detonate the precursor explosive. That's where they're having problems.

And even if they detonate that, they can't guarantee that is, in fact, going to set off the gasoline, which will set off the propane gas cylinders. They're succeeding in doing that in Iraq because I suspect that they're using Semtex or RXD as a precursor explosive which is more reliable. What we have over here is unreliability in the construction of the weapons. But that's only a matter of time before they get that right. TOOBIN: We've got to take a quick break. We'll be back with our panel in just a minute. More insight and analysis on the British terror plots and implications for security here in the United States when we come back.

And this program reminder -- CNN's John Roberts will anchor "American Morning" from London tomorrow morning. You can catch that on Monday beginning at 6:00 Eastern time.


TOOBIN: We're talking about the Britain terror scare and whether future attacks could be in the works with former Scotland Yard detective John O'Connor in Britain, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena and CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen.

Peter, this not only was a failed attack, but it was kind of a low-tech attack with just gasoline and an automobile. Doesn't that, though, make it harder to detect what they're doing if they're not getting very sophisticated supplies?

BERGEN: Yes, maybe. I mean, certainly if you're a South Asian, British Pakistani going to buy fertilizer, for instance, that would set off a lot of red flags. And so the reason that they went to this propane kind of gassing, that doesn't necessarily set off a lot of red flags. And so, I think, at this point it's probably much harder -- I mean, there were no explosives involved in this plot, right? So Anything in terms of either fertilizer or explosives right now it would be very hard for a young, British male, I think, to acquire without attracting a lot of attention.

So they defaulted to this propane thing. It didn't work. As you say, it would be quite hard to trace, because right now I don't think there's any mechanism in place to prevent people or to look at people buying simple propane gas.

TOOBIN: Kelli, do you think that the American public is as mobilized as the British public? And one of the things that is very interesting here is to look at how the British people responded and how individuals seemed to have helped thwart this attack. Do you think the American public is as savvy and aware?

ARENA: Well, it's definitely not part of our DNA like it is in Britain. I mean, they had the IRA for all those years and so they've got a lot more practice than we have. But interestingly, in every single one of the domestic cases that we've had, and arrests made of -- or breakup of so-called terror plots, it's been either a tip or an informant that one of the members of the group reached out to.

And one good thing that the U.S. has going for it in terms of law enforcement is that they've got really deep tentacles when it comes to the existing criminal structure. So if somebody is looking for weapons or explosives, they are going to go to the people who are already in that business. And that's where FBI and local police forces have informants. And so, so far, they've gotten very lucky in that that's the network that these people have chosen to turn to, or you've had somebody just come up and say, "hey," -- like the guy who saw the videotape when they came -- you know, they had training and he was said, "Oh, let me call the feds because this doesn't look right to me." So, it has worked. Are we where we need to be in terms of alertness? Probably not.

TOOBIN: John O'Connor, I would like to play for you an excerpt of an interview with one of the heroes who stopped this attack. Let's hear it. Do we have that? Oh, we don't have it.

Anyway, one of the things that was just so disturbing, I think, is the idea that the guy who was pulled out of the flaming car was chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah." What has that meant for relationships between the Muslim community and the rest of Britain? How tense are things there?

O'CONNOR: Well, things aren't that tense because I think most people accept the 2 million Muslims in the U.K. are law abiding, peaceful people, want to get on with their lives like everybody else does. But it's the extremists that are bringing the threat of a backlash against the law-abiding Muslim community. And I think that's what the strategists want.

I think they want to try and marginalize the 2 million Muslims that we've got here and have them feel that they're under threat. Well, they're not under threat. But I think that there's a fair chance that they may feel that they are.

Because, you know, if you sit next to a guy on a train who has got a beard and he's wearing a Muslim hat and carrying a backpack, people would tend to move away. Now, that might be totally unfair, but you can't blame people for doing that. Because, historically, they've seen that actually happen. You know, we saw the...

TOOBIN: Since 7/7 two years ago...

O'CONNOR: ... you saw the bombs on 7/7.

TOOBIN: Right. Since 7/7 two years ago, have the relations gotten more tense or has there been an effort to -- a successful effort to embrace the vast majority of British Muslims who are law- abiding?

O'CONNOR: I wish it were as simple as that, but actually it isn't. What we have in the U.K., we have such a large number of immigrants that have come in that they've almost formed in ghettos. And most of the major cities now have got areas where they're almost exclusively put over to Pakistan immigrants.

And they tend, very often, to stay within their own communities, particularly the Muslims. They tend not to be involved in mainstream British life. Now, there are numerous reasons for that. And I think part of that is self-protection. So, even if there was some form of a backlash against them, they are going to feel that within their own ghettos, they feel that they are going to be protected.

TOOBIN: I have to stop you there. Peter, let me ask you. It's a big question to conclude on, but are you more optimistic or more pessimistic about our -- the chances of terrorism attacks than you were right after 9/11 in the United States?

BERGEN: In the United States, Al Qaeda is going to have a very tough time to attack the United States. If there are Al Qaida sleeper cells in this country, they appear to be so asleep, they're effectively dead. I mean, they don't...

TOOBIN: Excuse me, I have to interrupt. We have to go to a press conference in Glasgow, Scotland, the Scottish police. I'll thank our guests and turn it over to them.

SCOTLAND POLICE OFFICIAL: I'm unable to divulge details of the searches for operational reasons. However, they are connected with the ongoing terrorist inquiry. As part of the ongoing inquiry, the EOD carried out a controlled explosion of a vehicle within the car park of the Royal Alexander Hospital.

There was no danger to any of the public, and there's no known cause for concern in relation to that vehicle. That investigation took place in accordance around public safety. We're examining CCTV footage from the airport and surrounding area, but I would welcome photographs and video images from anyone who was at the airport when this incident occurred.

But indeed, in the half hour before the incident occurred and equally would welcome them from people who have not yet come forward. In terms of public response, I'm delighted to report we have an excellence response from the public with an average of 100 calls every hour.

This reflects the outrage felt in our communities at this act, and the calls we are receiving are supportive of the police actions. I am satisfied that this investigation is progressing dynamically, it appears, and I have extensive resources dedicated to the inquiry. And indeed, I'm grateful for the continuing cooperation and support of all police forces in the U.K.

That concludes my statement. I'd like to hand you over to Mr. Clarke.

PETER CLARKE, METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE: Thank you. Good afternoon. First of all, could I reiterate the importance of the appeal for information made by Mr. Malcolm? As I said two days ago, I'm absolutely convinced that we will need the support of the public in bringing these investigations to a successful conclusion. And so I would urge that everyone pays attention to the appeals which Mr. Malcolm has just made.

In terms of the wider investigation, we are learning a great deal about the people who were involved in the attacks here in Glasgow and the attempted attacks in central London. The links between the three attacks are becoming ever clearer. We are pursuing many lines of inquiry.

And I'm confident, absolutely confident that in the coming days and weeks, we will be able to gain a thorough understanding of the methods used by the terrorists, of the way in which they planned their attacks and the network to which they belong. My job here in Glasgow has been to ensure that the investigations into the London attacks and yesterday's attack at Glasgow Airport are totally coordinated. Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Counterterrorism Command are working very closely with our colleagues from (inaudible) and indeed from a number of police forces across the country. The forensic examination of the vehicles involved in these attacks is proving to be extremely valuable.

Meanwhile, the detailed, very detailed examination of thousands of hours of CCTV material is, yet again, in one of these cases, helping us to piece together the events of the past few days. I have to say, though, that this process will take many weeks to complete.

As you know, two men have been arrested in Glasgow. A further three people, two men and one woman, have also been arrested, and they are being taken to London to be interviewed.

The investigations into these events, these attacks, is extremely fast-moving. It is no exaggeration at all to say that new information is coming to light hour by hour. It would not be right, though, for me to give a running commentary on the investigation.

However, I shall, of course, give more information when it is right to do so. But I know you'll understand that I must respect the fact that there are now people who have been arrested and are in custody, and so I must not say anything that might interfere with due process. Due process must be allowed to run its course.

As always, I would urge the public to stay alert. And I shall repeat that which I have already said before, that public safety has always been, is and will remain our top priority. We shall be doing everything we can to keep you safe. That is the end of my statement.

UNKNOWN REPORTER: There's been three attacks. How worried are you that there will be more?

CLARKE: We're working very hard to try to ensure that there are not. One can never guarantee that there will not be more attacks, of course.

UNKNOWN REPORTER: (inaudible) that there was no intelligence prior to the attack in Glasgow and the ones -- the attempted ones in London?

CLARKE: I think what we've seen on many occasions is that these events happen without notice. What we've also seen is the scale, the extent and the complexity of the networks that are involved in this sort of thing.

So obviously, while we're working very hard to understand the precise nature of what took place, I think it's too soon to draw any conclusions about the fact that there was or wasn't intelligence about these precise attacks.


UNKNOWN: Ladies and gentlemen, sorry. Can we have one at a time, please? And I did ask you to restrict your questions to points of clarification. I will take any further questions afterwards, and I will come by with answers to your questions. But if there's any points of clarification, can we please ask them? Sorry. You, sir?

UNKNOWN REPORTER: There's been reports on ABC News in America that U.S. law enforcement has received a warning, too. (inaudible)

CLARKE: I haven't seen those reports, and I think there's a degree of speculation involved in them.

UNKNOWN REPORTER: Could you clarify, the men apparently were not Scottish have come to Scotland in the last six weeks or so?

CLARKE: No, I'm not going to give any details at all about the people who are in custody.

UNKNOWN: This is the last question from yourself, and then, as I said, I will take any (inaudible) after. Sorry.

UNKNOWN REPORTER: Can you give us any indication of how security is being tightened at Scotland's airports and other transport facilities?

CLARKE: I think that's probably a question for Mr. Malcolm (ph).

SCOTTISH POLICE OFFICIAL: All Scottish forces are involved in a liaison in this matter. Indeed it was addressed at (inaudible) meeting yesterday in regard to targeting of the airports. And the key economic points and what are termed soft targets, places of public resort, public entertainment, high-density crowds. All forces have taken on the recommendations of that. And you'll find that airports have taken the security...

TOOBIN: We're going to cut away. The press conference is ending. Those were the Scottish authorities who were investigating the bombing or the attempted bombing of the Glasgow airport. Kelli, one of the things that seems extraordinarily fortunate about this event is that there's all this evidence left over.

ARENA: Right.

TOOBIN: These cars that didn't explode. Somebody bought those cars. Somebody bought those. So, this could lead to some very productive investigation, I would think.

ARENA: Yes. And, as you heard, when they said they have a wealth of forensic evidence -- and the one thing that, of course, you're going to hear a lot of discussion about is the camera capability in London. And, as you know, the city is covered with a CCTV network. And that, of course, very crucial to investigators and already we're starting to hear discussion this side of the Atlantic about how the United States needs to employ more of that technology because, of course, you know, terrorism remains a threat here.

TOOBIN: John O'Connor in London, does this -- what does this attack and the failure of it tell you about what Britain should be doing more of? What is missing from security precautions there that you think should be added?

O'CONNOR: Well, it's very difficult, because the security services made a claim some months ago that there were upward of over 1,500 people with a propensity to carry out these kind of attacks. It isn't physically possible to carry out surveillance and monitoring of the activities of these people.

What they have to do is to pick the most likely ones who pose the greatest threat. Very often those guys are acting as stalking horses and they take the resources of the security services and the police, and the police are spending a lot of time on keeping surveillance on people who are there just to take up their resources.

Meanwhile, under the radar, some clean skins come along, who may be unknown to the authorities, and then commit these atrocities. I think for every person in those communities who passively support terrorism, they're only one step away from taking part in it.

So there is an abundant supply of potential volunteers for this and it's getting more and more serious. So I don't think that anybody can blame the authorities for not having prior information or knowledge that these attacks were going to take place.

TOOBIN: I've got to leave it there. Thank you very much, John O'Connor in London. And here in Washington, Kelli Arena and Peter Bergen.

Up next, we'll go live to Kennebunkport, Maine, where President Bush will be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin today.

And Senator Joe Lieberman spoke out earlier today on the Sunday morning talk shows. Find out what he had to say in our "In Case You Missed It" segment.


TOOBIN: You're watching "Late Edition." I'm Jeffrey Toobin reporting today for Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

President Bush is keeping a close eye on events in Britain and he's awaiting a visit later today from President Vladimir Putin.

With us from Maine is CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry at the Bush family retreat in Kennebunkport.

Ed, what's up there? HENRY: Well, Jeff, just like yesterday, the president out on the boat again today. We saw him earlier also around his family compound here in Kennebunkport, chatting on his cell phone, kicking back.

Obviously, it's a sensitive subject for the White House for the president to be on vacation at such a tense time in Britain right now, but aides say the president has been getting briefings throughout this weekend, including this morning from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, updating him on the situations both in London and in Glasgow.

And while -- the administration is also, meanwhile, ramped up some security enhancements outside U.S. airports, as you know, though they have stopped short of actually raising the national threat level. Officials say that's because they have no specific, credible threat against the U.S.

Also, one close adviser to the president telling me another reason why they've pushed ahead with the rest and relaxation for the president is that he's basically spent right now. He had a long European trip at the beginning of June. He got ill on that trip. He also just had a bruising immigration battle.

And, as you know, he now has to get ready for two days of talk with his Russian President Vladimir Putin. They're going to have a hefty agenda. The president wants to push him on Iran, in particular, Jeff.

TOOBIN: OK, Ed Henry, thanks. I know you'll be keeping us posted throughout that presidential visit.

Back here in Washington, which presidential candidates are winning the money race? We'll check here with Bill Schneider for the inside story on these new numbers, and we'll be right back.


TOOBIN: We're back on "Late Edition" with Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. The second quarter money returns in the presidential race -- who raised the most money? The results are in. What did you find? SCHNEIDER: Well, the results are not quite in. The second quarter ended midnight last night. They have a couple of weeks to report them. But there's lots of spin and leaks coming out of the campaigns.

Right now we're expecting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to lead the fundraising race, just as they did in the first quarter of this year. Hillary Clinton expects, she says, to raise about $27 million, slightly more than before. But her campaign says they expect Barack Obama perhaps to raise even more than that. That's a phenomenal amount of money this early in the campaign.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney was the big story in the last quarter, $21 million. He says he probably will not raise quite that much money in this quarter. In fact, his campaign says Rudy Giuliani may be the leading fundraiser on the Republican side in this second quarter.

TOOBIN: That's -- we've got to leave it there. Thank you, Bill. I know we'll have full details on that.

That's "Late Edition" for Sunday, July 1. I'm Jeffrey Toobin. Wolf will be back next Sunday.

For our international viewers, stand by for world news, and for those of you in North America, it's "This Week at War" with Tom Foreman. It starts right now.