Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Are Anti-Taliban Forces Ready to Enter the Last Taliban Stronghold?; Detainees and Diplomacy: Are the President's Cabinet Members All on the Same Page?
Aired November 29, 2001 - 17:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Today on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: "America Strikes Back."
Detainees and diplomacy -- are the president's cabinet members all on the same page?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Among the people that we have detained, we obviously feel like we have individuals related to terrorism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I hope that in the very near future, as these investigations continue, and as questions are answered and clarified, we'll be able to get this list of detainees down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: But hundreds, mostly Middle Easterners, have been rounded up since September 11th. Thousands more are wanted for questioning. What's the price of homeland security?
Is there enough security at the nation's nuclear plants?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they only knew how unprotected the nuclear facilities were.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Senate Democrats have a new worry.
And, are anti-Taliban forces ready to enter the last Taliban stronghold? Does the U.S. have a say in the matter? We'll have all the latest developments, as "America Strikes Back." Hello from Washington, where the U.S. attorney general is offering a new incentive in the war against terrorism: help the federal government find terrorists, and he'll help you on the road to U.S. citizenship. A good idea, or going too far?
In this hour, a debate about the tactics to bring suspected terrorists to justice. But first, a quick check on all the latest developments. Here's CNN's Catherine Callaway in Atlanta -- Catherine.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Wolf. It's good to see you.
Well, an escaped inmate was on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list is suspected of sending hundreds of anthrax hoax letters to clinics that perform abortions. Attorney General John Ashcroft today said that Clayton Lee Waagner has claimed responsibility for sending the letters. Waagner escaped from prison back in February.
And Attorney General Ashcroft also today called on immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward if they have any information about terrorist suspects. In return, they could receive visas or immigration assistance. Ashcroft says the move is another weapon in the war on terrorism.
Small teams of soldiers from the Army's 10th mountain division, now in northern Afghanistan, are providing security at two airfields. And in southern Afghanistan, the buildup of Marines continues near Taliban's last stronghold of Kandahar. Nearly 1,000 Marines are there now, and more could be on the way.
There is no letup in U.S. airstrikes against Taliban targets around Kandahar. Today's bombing was carried out amid conflicting reports on whether anti-Taliban forces have launched an attack on the city, the last Taliban stronghold in the country. The Pentagon says only that Northern Alliance forces -- quote -- "may" be in the Kandahar province. A southern rebel leader says that his forces are just outside the city, but they have not attempted to move in.
Progress today at talks in Germany on Afghanistan's future. The leader of the Northern Alliance delegation says the alliance will accept an international peacekeeping force for Afghanistan. If it happens, the peacekeepers would operate in the country while an interim government is being set up.
And that's the headlines. We're going to give it back to Wolf now -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Catherine. And we'll get to our report on the situation in Afghanistan and the reaction here at home in a moment. But first, we're continuing to watch a breaking story in the Middle East.
A bomb tore through a bus in Israel today. At least four people are dead. CNN's Jerusalem bureau chief Mike Hanna joins us now live with an update. Mike, give us all the details. MIKE HANNA, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Wolf, among those four people, according to Israeli police, one of the dead, a Palestinian suicide bomber who got aboard bus number 823, traveling along a major highway in northern Israel, between Nazareth and Tel Aviv, and detonated an explosive device.
Three Israelis aboard the bus were killed, along with the Palestinian suicide bomber, say police. Injured were at least nine other passengers aboard the bus. This, the latest in a litany of violent events in the course of the day.
Earlier, one Israeli was killed, another wounded, when Palestinians in a passing car opened fire on them at a checkpoint on the edge of the West Bank. And two Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces at a roadblock in the Jordan Valley. All this, on a day when U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni was continuing his efforts to get a lasting cease-fire in place -- a cease-fire that has eluded many people in the past. And according to the violence that we have seen in the course of this day, certainly continues to elude Mr. Zinni himself -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Mike, as you know, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was expected to come to Washington this weekend for talks with President Bush. Will this incident affect his travel schedule?
HANNA: Well, certainly what happened was there was moment of pause. Mr. Sharon was in fact due to leave for the United States at about the time news came through of this bombing attack on the bus in northern Israel. However, within the last five minutes, Ariel Sharon has given a news conference on Israeli radio, in which he says that he will go ahead with his visit to the United States.
He will be leaving within the next hour or so. And he says he will take to President Bush a message that this just confirms his position, that he will not negotiate while violence continues. There can be no negotiation in any form until there has been a period of quiet.
The Palestinians contend that the only way to end this ongoing violence is through negotiations. It's this point of fundamental difference that U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni is desperately trying to bridge -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Mike Hanna, Jerusalem bureau chief, thank you very much.
Here in Washington, President Bush came out swinging today in defense of his decision to have military courts try suspected terrorists. Critics say the move steps on various liberties the nation was founded on. Our senior White House correspondent John King is standing by at the White House with details -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, that spirited defense of the military tribunals, and other new powers given to law enforcement agencies across the United States, delivered by the president in a speech to U.S. attorneys, gathered here for their annual meeting in Washington.
In those military tribunals, non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism could be put on trial in secret. And it only takes a 2/3 vote from the military jury to convict them and, if the jury says so, to impose the death penalty. That is quite controversial among some civil libertarians here in United States. European nations that have rounded up al Qaeda suspects at the request of the United States have raised objections as well.
But the president delivered a forceful defense of that option today, saying that this is a war, this is not a conventional case of looking for suspects in a crime. Extraordinary times, the president said, justify extraordinary measures.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ours is a great land, and we'll always value freedom. We are an open society, but we're at war. The enemies declared war on us. And we must not let foreign enemies use the forms of liberty to destroy liberty itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Mr. Bush also forcefully defended another controversial aspect of the law enforcement campaign. Nearly 550 people are being held in the United States on immigration violations. And the United States is trying to interview, across the country, some 5,000 men of Arab descent who have entered into the United States in the past two years.
Once again, the president said, another justified measure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: We will apply the immigration laws. We are interviewing people on a voluntary basis. We're saying welcome to America. You've come to our country. Why you don't help make us safe? Why don't you share information with us?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Leading this fight, of course, is the attorney general, John Ashcroft. Some have criticized him. The president praised him today, and he told those federal prosecutors gathered for the speech here that they were now on the front lines of the war here at home -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Earlier today, John, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, appeared to raise some eyebrows when he spoke up about all of these detainees that are being held now, some without any charges being filed. I want you to listen to what the secretary had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: I hope that in the very near future, as these investigations continue, and as questions are answered and clarified, we'll be able to get this list of detainees down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Is there any daylight, any difference of opinion, between what the secretary of state is saying and the attorney general is saying?
KING: Top Powell aides tell us, "absolutely not." They say the attorney general is a prosecutor, the secretary of state is a diplomat. The secretary answering that question because Egypt's foreign minister had raised questions about the number of Arabs being held and detained here in United States, even though many have not been charged with any crimes yet. Secretary Powell saying he hopes to winnow that list as soon as possible.
But his top aides tell us he fully supports all the law enforcement investigations under way. He also, at the same time, needs to tell his visitors that the United States will move as quickly possible to resolve all these questions -- Wolf.
BLITZER: John King at the White House, thank you very much.
And the Attorney General John Ashcroft today unveiled a new weapon in the war against terror. The aim is to get information on suspected terrorists. CNN national correspondent Eileen O'Connor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
EILEEN O'CONNOR, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: The attorney general is trying the carrot approach to get information from people here on temporary visas who might have overstayed their visas, and those who are abroad, perhaps wanting to come to the United States.
ASHCROFT: If information that you provide is reliable and useful, we will help you obtain a visa to reside in the United States, and ultimately become a United States citizen.
O'CONNOR: Specifically, non-U.S. citizens abroad could be given a non-immigrant visa. Those already here could get the grant of a parole, or the deferral of any prosecutions relating to visa violations. But some immigration lawyers say the program is a promise without any guarantees.
DAVID ROTHWELL, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: What if what he has to say is not enough, from the government's point of view? And in saying, he has disclosed who he is and what his immigration problem is. I don't see anything that would suggest that the government is going to go leniently on people like that.
O'CONNOR: The attorney general denies it is designed as a trap.
ASHCROFT: The instruction is to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the embassy offices that they are not to inquire as to the immigration status of the person bringing the information. They are only to receive the information. O'CONNOR: Still, the move comes on the heels of a memo sent to investigators conducting voluntary interviews, with mostly young men of Middle Eastern origin, here on temporary visas, about September 11th. The directive advises officials to be on guard for potential visa violations.
The memo says: "Affirmative requests provided by the FBI or the United States Attorney's Office to detain immigration violators under no bond should be honored."
This man, despite having a permanent resident visa, received an invitation like this from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Michigan for one of those interviews. He says the potential for more trouble, even if he cooperates, is giving him pause.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can never tell if a single word will be misinterpreted.
O'CONNOR: In addition, some lawyers are concerned the incentive of a visa or a parole for violators could invite false leads.
ROTHWELL: The consequences for the person that they would name could be huge. Suddenly someone gets named by an unknown source. They're drawn in. They have no bond, they have no good defenses.
O'CONNOR (on camera): Still, the attorney general says any idea like this one, designed obtain information in the fight against terrorism, is an idea he is going to try. Eileen O'Connor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And for more insight on this highly-charged issue, I spoke earlier with the Republican Congressman Scott McInnis of Colorado, and James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab- American Institute.
Jim Zogby, Scott McInnis, thanks to both of you once again for joining us. And let me begin with you, Mr. Zogby. The latest CNN- "USA Today"-Gallup poll asked the American people this question, if the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting people's civil liberties.
Look at the answers. Ten percent say yes, it's gone too far. But 26 percent said not far enough, and 60 percent, "just about right." In other words, 86 percent thought that the Bush administration was either right, or hadn't even gone far enough.
You are among the 10 percent who think they've gone much too far. Why?
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Let me say two things. First, there are multiple variables in the question. President Bush's favorable ratings are very high, and therefore almost anything predicated on the president's name is going to get good ratings, and deservedly so. But secondly, I think that you need to know that this not a comfortable position for me to be in. The country is at war. People are afraid. My job, as uncomfortable as it is, is to make sure that we don't cross the line in violating very basic and very sacred constitutional rights.
And so, yes, I'm proud I guess to be in the 10 percent who are saying to the country, yes, we're at war, yes, we have to root out these evildoers who intend to do us harm. But we need do it in the traditions of America, and being true to, what the president said in the very first days, to our values as country.
BLITZER: Scott McInnis, Jim Zogby is joined by the well-known conservative columnist of "The New York Times," William Safire.
Among other things, he writes this week in his column, he says: "The U.C.M.J. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) demands a public trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, an accused's voice in the selection of juries and right to choose counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights can be found in Bush's military order setting up kangaroo courts for people he designates before 'trial' to be terrorists."
Very strong words, from a conservative friend of yours.
REP. SCOTT MCINNIS (R), COLORADO: Well, Mr. Safire, I think, has misinterpreted -- another historical precedent -- in regards to military tribunals. I suggest that he start back with George Washington, work his way through Abraham Lincoln, Roosevelt, and then work his way through the two Supreme Court opinions, which found that these military tribunals are constitutional.
The key here -- and let me add, I'm proud I'm in the 90 percent that takes a common-sense approach to this -- the key here is they are constitutional, they are needed. On September 10th or 11th, maybe Safire was right. But as of about 10:00 on the 11th of September, we now are engaged in a war that is being fought within our borders, as well as outside our borders.
So I think these are very important institutions that are constitutional, and a common-sense way to go after these war criminals.
BLITZER: What about that, Mr. Zogby?
ZOGBY: Look, the military tribunal question is obviously a very troubling one, and one the Congressman is right, with historic precedent. But there have been many important studies done questioning whether those who were executed in these tribunals were even guilty. And the tragedy is we'll never know, because due process was denied.
I accept what President Bush said in the very first days of this crisis. We are at war with those who are opposed to our values. I don't want to see us give up our values as we make this war. And I don't think, at the end of the day, the American people want it, either. Yes, high numbers are going to be given right now.
But I think when people look at this at the end of day, they want to know that we're not executing people without due process, that we're not imprisoning people for prolonged periods of time without due process, and that our fundamental freedoms will be protected. Because that is what America is all about.
We may make mistakes. We've made them before. Yes, the Constitution -- I mean, the courts upheld the internment of Japanese during World War II. We found out it was wrong, and we feel enormous guilt and regret. I don't want to make the same mistake again.
MCINNIS: Mr. Zogby, let me make a point or a clarification for you, because I think you're basing your argument there on a misnomer, and that is that due process is being denied. The Supreme Court, on two separate occasions -- by the way, the only two occasions that it's come in front of the Supreme Court, have found that due process is in place.
Due process is not being denied. If it were, I can assure you by now, that Safire or people of your noteworthiness would have already filed a lawsuit claiming the unconstitutionality of it. And I urge you to do that. If you think it's unconstitutional...
ZOGBY: The problem right now is that we don't even know where all the people are, Congressman.
MCINNIS: Let me tell you about the people there. They can volunteer their names. What the government has said is we're not going to release their names for the benefit of the al Qaeda and bin Laden. But if these people, who are entitled to attorneys -- they can retain attorneys -- if they want to release their names to their legal counsel, they're certainly entitled to do so.
But I just don't want us to continue this discussion right now, on the premise that due process is being denied. In fact, all the evidence is against that.
ZOGBY: It's not true.
BLITZER: Gentlemen, let me interrupt for a moment because we don't have a lot of time. I want to ask you, Mr. Zogby, to react to what the attorney general announced today, a new proposal to help some of these detainees who are picked up. If they're willing to cooperate with the U.S. and provide information about terrorists, he says they would then put these people on the fast track to getting legal status here in the United States. Is that is a good proposal?
ZOGBY: It's a very good proposal. The fact, however, is that of the 650 people, I will assure you, from the cases that we have known, from anecdotal evidence, from families and from lawyers, that the overwhelming majority of them, unfortunately, don't know anything about the situation at all. They're being picked up as, as one described them, as fish that just happened to get caught in the net.
So the result here is that we've got people who are in prison as visa violators, minor criminal violations, and in some cases, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And therefore, they can't help this investigation. What we've done here is conflate two things: visa violators and terrorist suspects. They're not the same thing, Wolf.
BLITZER: Congressman, let me give you the last word.
MCINNIS: Well, clearly they can help the investigation if they have information. They can be a part of that jigsaw puzzle, and that's exactly why the attorney general made that offer. So...
ZOGBY: And we're encouraging them to do that, if they know anything.
MCINNIS: But you said just a minute ago, they didn't have the information. You don't know that. And what we need to do is visit with these individuals on an individual basis, and as you, on a volunteer basis, for the ones not being held, for visitors to our country, and investigate that. I used to be a police officer, and I can you, we'd investigate a fight at the high school, we talked to the students. And we give them incentives to cooperate with us.
I think it's a great idea, and I think it could provide -- not everybody is going to be able to offer help, but if we could just give a little help, it might be that piece of the puzzle that completes it.
ZOGBY: I hope we solve it.
MCINNIS: Thank you.
BLITZER: We unfortunately have to leave it right there. Scott McInnis and Jim Zogby, thanks to both of you once again for joining us.
ZOGBY: Thank you.
BLITZER: And you can weigh in on this debate on the Web. Our quick vote question: Should the government offer immigration assistance in exchange for information about suspected terrorists? Add your opinion at cnn.com. The poll is not scientific. The AOL keyword is CNN.
The buildup of U.S. ground forces appears to be far from over. Army troops are now in northern Afghanistan, and more U.S. Marines are taking up positions at an airfield near the southern city of Kandahar. CNN's Bob Franken joins us now live at the Pentagon.
Bob, before we get to all of that, I understand there is word now of another U.S. casualty?
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, late word. Let me just read the news release from the Defense Department. "A soldier, supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, died today in Uzbekistan. Although the incident is under investigation, his death was not the result of enemy action." And as a matter of fact, want to report that about 50 Tenth Mountain Army division troops have been sent from Uzbekistan to the Bagram air base in northern Afghanistan. It's an Afghan air facility. That will bring to three, Wolf, the number of air bases in Afghanistan that are controlled by U.S. forces. There is that one, and of course, the one we know so much more about, the Marines near the air base in Kandahar.
Now, there are reports that Northern Alliance troops had in fact reportedly been ready to enter the city of Kandahar to the south, and that caused quite a bit of confusion. Pentagon officials say they're really skeptical that Northern Alliance forces that operate to the north, as their name suggests, would have come to the city of Kandahar, No. 1. It's possible they're moving toward the province of Kandahar, which extends quite well to the north.
The other thing is that there would be some conflicts perhaps, between the ethnic groups that compromise the Northern Alliance and the ethnic groups to the south, the Pashtuns in particular.
One other item: There have been reports for nearly a week that a 160 Taliban forces were executed when they were taken prisoner by their Pashtun and opposition group captors after they had surrendered, over the objections of U.S. forces who were accompanying those groups. Now, for about a week the Pentagon has been struggling to get information.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VICTORIA CLARKE, PENTAGON SPOKESWOMAN: There have been reports of a massacre of 160 prisoners by opposition forces. We have worked really hard to run this one to ground, and reports are just not believable. A U.S. liaison team is on the ground with opposition forces in the area. Excuse me. The team has not reported the capture of more than a handful of prisoners.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: Let's move on now to the supreme leader of the Taliban, the Mullah Mohammed Omar. We heard on Tuesday there was speculation that he might have been in a compound that was bombed by U.S. forces near Kandahar. The Pentagon is now saying that it is probably unlikely, Wolf, that he was in that compound.
BLITZER: Bob Franken at the Pentagon, thank you very much for that update.
And just ahead on this special report, "America Strikes Back": Northern Alliance soldiers are on the front lines of the fight, and in the effort to forge a new government. We'll discuss what it will take to bring peace to Afghanistan.
And, a call to safeguard American nuclear plants. Hear why some believe they could be tempting targets for terrorists.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Welcome back. Talks in Germany on Afghanistan's political future appear to be making some progress. The head of the Northern Alliance delegation today said his group no longer opposes a peacekeeping force from the outside for the country. If it happens, the peacekeepers would operate in the country while an interim government is put in place.
The four Afghan factions taking part in the United Nations- sponsored talks also seem to be moving closer to a power-sharing agreement. Joining me to talk more about all of this, and some other related issues, Robin Wright of the "Los Angeles Times" and CNN military analyst, the retired Army general, the former NATO supreme allied commander, General Wesley Clark.
General Clark, let me begin with you. All the speculation earlier today about the Northern Alliance troops, perhaps, moving in on Kandahar, in the southern part of Afghanistan. I want to go to a map, first of all, and show our viewers the area that we're talking about, if we could put it up. Right around here, the Kandahar area.
One of the areas -- only major area still under the control of the Taliban. Everything up here in the north, basically under the control of the Northern Alliance. Is that part of the strategy for the Northern Alliance rebels, to go into the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FMR. NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Well, it wouldn't seem to be. But on the other hand, if there is some arrangement between the local Pashtun tribes, who are anti-Taliban, and the Northern Alliance, maybe they would invite them in.
It might be a kind of a trade-off between military action on the ground and capabilities, versus the politics of the situation. But every experience with Afghanistan would say: be very cautious in making this trade-off, because the politics can be overwhelming.
BLITZER: Robin, as you well know, the Pashtun, who dominate the Kandahar area, they don't like the Northern Alliance, who are largely Uzbeks or Tajiks, not necessarily Pashtun.
ROBIN WRIGHT, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Well, taking Kabul is one thing. But moving into the heartland of the Pashtun really is likely to lead to some kind of backlash, and some fears about what the Northern Alliance intentions are. Is it trying to grab enough territory so that when it comes to the political issue and the diplomatic efforts to form a new government, that the Northern Alliance is in such a strong position that it can dictate to the Pashtun?
And of course, the Pashtun have been those who controlled the political situation, as the largest of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan, for three centuries.
BLITZER: So if those U.S. Marine forces, that are in the southern part outside of Kandahar, are looking for help in going in against the Taliban in Kandahar, where are they likely to get that kind of outside support?
CLARK: From the special forces and CIA, working with the rebel tribes down in the Pashtun area. And, through the use of U.S. air power brought in by these teams, they've got to intimidate and break apart the morale of the Taliban holdouts in Kandahar. And they will.
BLITZER: Are there significant numbers of those kinds of Pashtun rebels opposed to the Taliban, upon whom the U.S. can rely?
WRIGHT: Well, I think one of the problems is, the Pashtun really haven't organized themselves very well. They're kind of all over the place. They are not creating the equivalent of a southern alliance to fight the Taliban, which has, in a way, created the kind of vacuum that allows the Northern Alliance to move further south.
BLITZER: Is it good news today out of Bonn, these talks in Germany, that the Northern Alliance is no longer necessarily rejecting outside peacekeepers to come in to this area, after some sort of settlement is achieved?
CLARK: I think it's very good news. I think it's a recognition of reality, in this case. This discussion in Bonn is about future control of the country. And they want to defer that discussion, and still be able to receive aid. And what they've been told, essentially, is no security, no aid, and no reconstruction assistance.
So we've more or less forced them into accepting some kind of outside peacekeeping force. And they are acknowledging that.
BLITZER: And, Robin, is that a U.N. force, an international force? Are U.S. troops going to be involved in any such force?
WRIGHT: My guess is that the United States doesn't want to have any part of a peacekeeping mission, and feels it shouldn't, because it's been the power that used its warplanes to bomb Afghanistan. I think it wants to see a predominantly Muslim force, led, perhaps, by Turkey. Perhaps some European or other outsiders involved.
I think the United Nations, because of the long time period it takes to mobilize a U.N. force -- which is normally three months -- is probably the least likely alternative.
BLITZER: General Clark, as you well know, every time the U.S. has engaged overseas in combat -- almost every time -- whether in Germany or Japan, after World War II, or more recently, your operation in the Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo, U.S. troops wind up staying, sometimes for decades and decades and decades. Is it realistic to assume U.S. troops are going to just leave Afghanistan?
CLARK: I think it's going to be tough for the U.S. troops to not have some role. We have already some U.S. troops in securing airports now. Now maybe that could be transitioned to an international force. But as long as the U.S. has interests on the ground, in terms of tracking down al Qaeda, and disestablishing that network and getting rid of the chemical weapons and bioweapons factories, it is going to need its troops there to give it the influence and the on-the-ground presence. And so, I think we are going to see some troops there for a while.
BLITZER: All these various factions who are meeting, these Afghan factions outside of Bonn, seem to have some sympathy for the exiled king of Afghanistan. Yet, I don't anticipate he is going to be showing up in Kabul anytime soon, do you?
WRIGHT: He is clearly not going to show up in Kabul until there is some kind of international force in place.
In fact, one of the interesting things is the Pashtun has made it clear: They don't want to go back to Kabul until they feel their own safety is guaranteed as well.
BLITZER: Including the king.
WRIGHT: Particularly the king.
BLITZER: Is the king going to play that kind of politically symbolic role that can unify the country to a certain degree, given the fact that he is a Pashtun?
CLARK: Well, I think he can do it at the outset. But I don't think he can actually unify it and end the quarreling because as soon as he gets involved in the mechanics and the details and takes sides, he will discredit himself and he will have his opponents who want to push him aside. So I think it is going to be a transition. And we are going to see a continuing transition from tribal councils and the king to something else. The question is what else.
BLITZER: OK. Before I let you go though, very quickly, Robin Wright, is there unanimity, one voice, in the Bush administration? You cover the diplomacy very closely -- or are they speaking from different scripts?
WRIGHT: Well, I think when it comes to the diplomacy, they're probably pretty much in sync.
BLITZER: All right, Robin Wright, can't ask for a better answer than that. General Clark, thanks always for joining us.
CLARK: Thank you.
BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.
How long will it take for Kandahar to fall? We'll cover all of that later tonight in just more than an hour in the CNN WAR ROOM. I'll have a panel of specialists who will discuss that issue.
And you can also, by the way, participate by going to the cnn.com/wolf Web site. That happens to be my Web site. Click on send questions and I will ask as many of those questions as possible to our panel.
Just ahead, measuring the terrorist threat to U.S. nuclear plants. Some lawmakers sound an alarm. And, a family's grief is compounded when a mistake is made with the body of a firefighter from the World Trade Center. A remarkable story. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
Four U.S. lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to strengthen security at America's nuclear power plants. Democrat Senators Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joe Lieberman, and Democratic representative Ed Markey outlined their plans in a Washington news conference today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: The tragedy of September 11 taught us many things. It taught us the importance of first responders. It taught us the vulnerability of our nation's buildings and strength of our nation's resolve. And I guess, finally, it taught us that we must be prepared for today's threats because they could become tomorrow's attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: The plan proposed by Senator Reid and his colleagues aims to protect power plants from nuclear attack, strengthen their security forces, harden their physical infrastructure and review their emergency response capabilities. There are more than 80 licensed nuclear power plants in the United States.
To help us better understand the threat U.S. nuclear power plants might face from terrorist attack: We're joined now by Gary Milhollin. He's from the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a group that works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Gary, thanks for joining us.
How much of a threat is there to these U.S. nuclear power plants?
GARY MILHOLLIN, DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN PROJECT: Well, I think the threat -- we just learned because of September 11 that the threat is much greater than we thought.
These plants are not designed to withstand a crash by a kamikaze attack of an airliner, for example. We didn't even have big airliners at the time a lot of these plants were designed. Also, the plants are not designed to withstand an attack by a large group of commandos. Only a small group of commandos is in what's called the design basis for the plant. So, we are going to have to look at what we are doing with a new light.
BLITZER: And we have a map that I want to put up screen, show our viewers where these 80 licensed U.S. nuclear power plants exist. As you can see, most of them are on the East coast of the United States, many in the northeast. How worried should people who live around those plants actually be, given what you say, is lax security around those plants?
MILHOLLIN: Well, I'm not saying there is lax security. But, it's just that we haven't really thought through what it would mean to have dedicated kamikaze like attacks by well-armed individuals.
I think the present systems are good. I think we are going to have to redesign our safety arrangements by assuming a greater threat. But I'm not sure it would be a good idea to federalize the employees since it hasn't been shown that they are having any problems with the present staff.
BLITZER: In all your experience, in all your research on terrorist threats, nuclear threats, is there any evidence that they've actually want to target these kinds of facilities?
MILHOLLIN: There really isn't any evidence that a nuclear power plant is a soft target. Nobody has ever successfully blown one up or disabled one. We're talking about -- all the scenarios we're talking about are hypothetical. But the risk is that if you did break into a nuclear power plant and you could breach the security system and blow up the containment building, then you would have a big nuclear release. And, as we can see from the map, a lot of those plants are near populated areas. So we can't dismiss the risk.
BLITZER: So, what should the U.S. government, the federal government, be doing now to beef up security around those 80 plants?
MILHOLLIN: I think we have to start designing against a bigger threat, that is instead of designing against three well-financed -- oh, I'm sorry -- well-armed individuals, we ought to be designing against more than that.
We ought to be thinking about attacks by large caliber weapons. The plants are not now designed to defeat that kind of an attack. We just haven't thought through the new world.
BLITZER: And is it automatically assumed that if a jumbo aircraft were to smash into one of those plants or if a missile were to smash in, that the radiation, the fallout, would be devastating to people who live around that area?
MILHOLLIN: No, we don't know that for sure. It would depend how the plane hits the plant, whether it was accelerating, whether it hit it in the right place, whether a lot of the what's called the nuclear inventory gets out or whether it doesn't. And, you know, we have never taken a nuclear plant and blown it up to see what would happen. You can't do that. So we really don't know what the effects would be.
BLITZER: Obviously worthy of study though. Gary Milhollin, thanks again for joining us.
MILHOLLIN: Thank you.
BLITZER: Thank you.
And just ahead, the strongest U.S. ally in the war on terror is Britain. But how far will the U.K. go if the battle against terror extends to other countries? We will talk to Tony Blair's political rival about that.
Also, in London, honoring the victims of the September 11 attacks.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: It used to be the world's biggest buyer and seller of natural gas and America's largest marketer of electricity. But now, Enron corporation of Houston is on the edge of bankruptcy. The company's credit rating collapsed yesterday, and its main rival, Dynergy, walked away from a buyout plan.
Tonight's scheduled lift-off of the space shuttle Endeavour has been delayed for at least one day. The shuttle will take a new crew to the international space station. But NASA says a cargo ship, currently attached to the station must first be attached more securely.
Heavy rains have caused flooding in parts of the south. One woman died when floodwaters swept a car into a creek in northwest Mississippi. Nearby, in Tennessee, some roads were closed and some schools let out early.
Looking at latest satellite picture, there are flash flood watches in the Tennessee and Ohio River Valleys, and strong to severe storms are expected from the Gulf Coast to Georgia tonight.
When we come back, we will take a look at one case of mistaken identity involving a firefighter in New York. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Family members of a firefighter killed in the World Trade Center attack thought they buried him two months ago. They were wrong. And a couple who went to that funeral have learned the body buried that day was their firefighter son. CNN's Jason Carroll reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Alexander Santora and his wife, Maureen, unpacked pictures of their son, Christopher, that will be displayed at a service for him. It was scheduled to be a memorial. But because of a bizarre mixup, it will now be a funeral.
MAUREEN SANTORA: I just think it was just an awful, terrible, tragic mistake.
CARROLL: Christopher Santora was a firefighter at Engine 54 in Manhattan. Santora and 14 other firefighters from the same company were killed on September 11. A few days later, rescuers found what was thought to be the body of Jose Guadalupe in the rubble. The final resting place, a cemetery in Queens. Al SANTORA: We were at service because Jose was the only one in the house who was found.
CARROLL: True, only one person from the firehouse had been found, and buried, but it wasn't Jose Guadalupe. DNA evidence showed it was Christopher, who was misidentified and mistakenly buried as Guadalupe. The medical examiner revealed the mistake this week.
A. SANTORA: They were up front and they were honest and they were hurting as well as we were.
CARROLL: The body was disinterred so it could be turned over to the Santoras. The medical examiner says his office had used x-rays to identify the body. Guadalupe had an unusual neck condition that showed up in an x-ray. The odds were astronomical, but it turns out Santora had the same neck condition.
M. SANTORA: A peculiar twist. I prayed they would find his body, and God answered my prayers.
CARROLL: Not only were the Santora's prayers answered, but they learned something about their son's death and the men that died with him. A. SANTORA: They were all together, and that they didn't suffer.
CARROLL: At Christopher's service, his family will talk about the 23-year-old man who lived life to the max, who loved Scooby Doo, and his job. They can finally lay Christopher to rest, but they know another family still has to wait.
Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And when we come back, we will speak with the leader of the British opposition in Parliament, Iain Duncan Smith. He is visiting Washington, has just met with the vice president, Dick Cheney. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
In Nepal, Maoist rebels are blamed for the bombing of a Coca-Cola bottling plant today in the capital, Katmandu. There are no reports of casualties. Nepal announced a state of emergency this week after rebels broke a cease-fire.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says Israel could eventually accept the existence of a Palestinian state. Mr. Sharon, who's known for his hawkishness on the Middle East conflict, made the statement today, before a scheduled trip to the U.S. He insisted that such a future state be demilitarized and formed under a peace agreement.
Queen Elizabeth and her family attended a September 11 memorial service at Westminster Abbey in London. Former President Bush joined the royal family and hundreds of friends and relatives of Britons killed in the attacks.
Britain is America's strongest ally in this war in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who heads the ruling Labour Party, remains shoulder to shoulder with the Bush Administration.
But where does the opposition stand? With us now is Iain Duncan Smith, head of the British Conservative Party, the opposition leader. Mr. Duncan Smith, thank you so much for joining us.
Where does the opposition stand with the Bush Administration right now?
IAIN DUNCAN SMITH, BRITISH CONSERVATIVE LEADER: Well, from the first moment it was behind and with our government in supporting the U.S. I made that absolutely clear, and I continue to make it clear as long as the government does the right thing, and the right thing, I think, is to support the U.S.
BLITZER: So, no daylight between you and Tony Blair on this?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think there are times when party politics are important and there are other times when national unity is more important. And I place national unity ahead of party politics in this particular instance.
BLITZER: Now, you just came from a meeting with the Vice President Dick Cheney. Did you get into be substantive issues, or example, issues that divide the United States from its European friends, like extraditing terrorist suspects that might be eligible for the death penalty here in the United States? As you know, a big commotion over there.
DUNCAN SMITH: It is, and I have to say that the British government has been sucked into that since it signed up to the conventional human rights. We, the conservative party, arguing that actually this is one of the areas they now ought to change, that it is absurd, that we, if we would have a terrorist suspect who was wanted on a charge in the U.S., the very idea we couldn't send them to the U.S. because there is the death penalty, I think, is outrageous.
You have due process here, a first rate Democratic system. I think it is an insult not to be able to extradite and leave their fate to a good judicial system. So, we are pressing them to change that, but so far, they are not prepared to and the rest of Europe isn't either.
BLITZER: The rest of Europe seems pretty much united on that issue opposing the death penalty, which has been a source of some concern here in the United States because of this extradition issue.
DUNCAN SMITH: It is a problem because the convention of human rights is now used to stop that extradition and our point is that it should be left to sovereign governments to decide what their relations with other nations are. It's not only in the U.S. For example, in the Uk, quite recently, we were unable to extradite two people suspected of terrorism in India.
Now, India has a good legal system but we couldn't do it for similar reasons. So, they spent further time in the U.K., so it is really quite ridiculous, I think, and we want to change that.
BLITZER: As you well know, there is a debate under way here in Washington among officials inside and outside the government over whether to target Iraq. Even if there is no smoking gun linking the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attack, what is your stance on this because we have heard from the British prime minister, Tony Blair's stance I think, is little bit different from yours?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, my view, and has been for some time, that I think Iraq is guilty of a large number of things. The al Qaeda network is not the only network exporting terror. There are many others, and Iraq is, I think, linked to those and we want to see the evidence, and I think the U.S. government has some evidence of that.
Furthermore, Iraq, since they kicked out the inspectors, Richard Butler and UNSCOM, has been building up its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. We have seen what a little bit of anthrax can do to a civilized country. Well, they have weapons-grade materials like this, much more dangerous. And they also have the means of delivering them, whether it be building up missiles as well as terrorist means, so I think -- they are not alone, by the way -- I think generally, we now need to use this as an opportunity to say, how do we address the stakes that put themselves beyond rule of law.
BLITZER: So, what specifically, do you think the U.S. and its British ally should do?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think the U.S. government and the president is quite right to insist that inspectors go back in.
BLITZER: And if the Iraqis say no?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think we need to review the whole of the sanctions policy because it has been left sort of left in limbo for a while. It hasn't been working because a number of nations have turned a blind eye to breaches. And I wonder if those nations now, some of whom are in the coalition, would want to tighten that up. And I think it may be possible to do that, so they ought to visit that.
And then they ought look at a range of further measures, which is that, you know, Iraq ought to know. As we are already, by the way, engaged in military action in Iraq, we have our Air Force there, as you do, patrolling the No-Fly Zone.
The question is, how much to do you step up the military pressure beyond that? Now, if there is evidence, and I feel that there must be evidence of their activities, that they are now alone, Yemen and the other nations as well, that we consider to beyond the pale, that ought to be brought forward, and I have asked and urged the administration to publish that. BLITZER: As you well know, the British government probably would stand with the United States if it struck Iraq, but many of the other European nations, including, probably France, would not. How much of a split is there between Britain and the rest of Europe on this issue of Iraq?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, it depends. It depends how much things have change since the 11th. And it's a difficult one to read. Before the 11th I think action in Iraq was unwelcome for most European countries, and certainly France was very much against it. Britain, as you know, as I said, still has its air force there, so we were supportive, but it was pretty limited action.
Since then, we have seen a slight shifting, and a change taking place. Whether that would run itself across into Iraq as well, is a debatable point. I think people have realized that September 11 was not a point of retribution. It was actually a wake-up call to defend the values that we all stand for and the freedoms of our own homelands. So we need to make sure that that is defended in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) .
BLITZER: Very briefly before I let you go, how did you find the vice president? Was he hiding out someplace?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, I found the vice president, which, I gather, is quite difficult, and he was in immensely good form, very good humor, and wished that he could be there more often.
BLITZER: They actually met at the West Wing at the White House.
DUNCAN SMITH: Indeed, yes. I was very pleased.
BLITZER: That's encouraging that he is not hiding out someplace else.
DUNCAN SMITH: No it was a great privilege. He was there and firing with all guns.
BLITZER: All right, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, thanks for joining us. Good luck with your stay here in the United States.
DUNCAN SMITH: Thank you.
BLITZER: Let's go to CNN's Lou Dobbs. He is standing by with a preview. What is ahead at the top of the hour -- Lou.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, "MONEYLINE": Thank you very much. Coming up, the last major Taliban stronghold on the brink of collapse tonight. We will have a live report for you from Afghanistan. General David Grange, CNN military analyst will be here.
Congress pushing for a compromise on that economic stimulus package. We will hear from Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. And a corporate meltdown, the deal between Dynegy and Enron is off. Enron facing bankruptcy. I will be talking with the CEO of Dynegy, Charles Watson. All of that and a lot more coming right up. Please join us. Now back to Wolf in Washington.
BLITZER: Thanks, Lou. We, of course, will be watching. And I will be back in one hour inside the CNN WAR ROOM. Our focus tonight: When will Kandahar fall? Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. CNN's coverage of America's new war continues with LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE, and that begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
