Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Iran Reacts to Bush; Concern about Air at Ground Zero; Lindh May Have Way Out

Aired February 11, 2002 - 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: Now on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: a chain of mistakes in Afghanistan? The Pentagon defends a missile strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REAR ADM. JOHN STUFFLEBEEM, JOINT STAFF DEPUTY OPS. DIRECTOR: These are not peasant people up there farming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: John Walker Lindh may have a way out. Hear why his lawyers are thanking the FBI.

Axis of evil? Iran has a loud answer for President Bush.

And, safety concerns about the air near ground zero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It took eight guys in white suits and respirators five days to clean my apartment. But, is it clean?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Today, the concern and confusion spreads to Congress.

Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. The Pentagon is keeping one eye on the war and the other on its own troops, and that tops our news alert.

There are troubling allegations from Afghanistan. Some Afghan villagers claim they were beaten and kicked by U.S. forces after they were captured in a raid near Kandahar. The detainees were later released. The Pentagon says so far, there is no evidence to back up the allegations. But the investigation is proceeding. We'll have much more on this in just a moment.

Forensic evidence could help answer some questions surrounding the hellfire missile strike in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon believes some high-ranking al Qaeda leaders may have been killed in last week's strike. A U.S. team found the site of the attack and retrieved documents, weapons and human remains. DNA tests on the remains could help reveal just who was killed in the strike. Five commercial airline pilots and two other airline employees face arraignment later this month on immigration fraud charges. The group appeared in a Florida courtroom today. Another defendant is being held in Texas. Two of the pilots fly passenger routes for American Eagle Airlines. The men, who are not U.S. citizens, were arrested over the weekend. More arrests are expected.

President Bush is in the nation's heartland to promote his health care plans. A short time ago he talked about his proposals in a speech at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. He says he wants to help more Americans get high-quality insurance and improve health research. The president also wants to create a tax-free medical savings account, that would help people shield themselves from high deductibles.

Now to the Pentagon, where officials were on the defensive today over some recent military operations in Afghanistan. In the spotlight: last week's missile strike by an unmanned CIA predator aircraft, and last month's raid on a village north of Kandahar. CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre joins us live from the Pentagon. He's been covering both of these developments -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the problem with the CIA missile strike, a week ago today, is that the Pentagon doesn't know who was killed. In fact, the CIA doesn't know either. That's why they sent a military assessment team in over the weekend.

The problem has been that some of the local villagers in that area have claimed that the people who were killed were three men who were peasants gathering scrap metal. But after that assessment team has now cleared the area and begun to bring back evidence, the Pentagon says it's convinced that the initial evidence is supporting the spy agency's claim that it killed the right people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STUFFLEBEEM: The anecdotal reports, what I hear has been recovered from that site to date, include things like weapons and ammunition, include things like communications systems, or at least things that would give you the impression that there may have been communication devices. Documents in English, having to do with applications for credit cards, possibly, or maybe for airline schedules. So the intelligence that was garnered to be able to facilitate the strike, the initial indications afterwards would seem to say that these are not peasant people up there farming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: Credit card applications, flight schedules, not the kind of thing the Pentagon says that peasants foraging for scrap metal would be carrying. The Pentagon also has recovered some human remains from the site, and it will attempt to do some DNA matching, although the U.S. government won't say how it could get DNA, for instance, for Osama bin Laden or other members of al Qaeda. The other part of this controversy is the January 24th raid that took place north of Kandahar. Now some of the 27 people who were detained in that operation say that they were beaten by U.S. special operations troops during the initial assault, and as they were being transferred to the Kandahar facility. Today the Pentagon said they had no information that would confirm any beatings, except they did acknowledge that, in this kind of a special operation, when the U.S. troops don't know who the good guys or the bad guys are, that there can be a lot of rough treatment. That may be what some of these detainees are complaining about -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So, Jamie, as of today, how seriously are Pentagon officials taking the notion that perhaps Osama bin Laden may have been killed in that convoy?

MCINTYRE: Right now they're operating under the assumption that he is still alive. That's because, as the Pentagon explains, they don't have enough indicators that he is dead. So they're working under the assumption that he's alive. Now, intelligence officials tell me that there are no indications that he is dead. There are some indications that he's alive that may not be credible. And there are some indications that he's alive that are deemed to be more credible. But right now, the working assumption is: Osama bin Laden is still alive -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, thank you very much.

And all of these recent developments in Afghanistan raise new questions about intelligence operations, and whether the United States is getting the right information. Joining us now from Chicago to talk more about this is our military analyst, retired Brigadier General David Grange. General Grange, thanks for joining us. What's your take on what we used to call the fog of war? Clearly there's a lot of fog out there right now.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET), U.S. ARMY: In all these two incidents you just discussed, you know, you don't know how viable the intelligence There's a lot of double-crossing. There's a lot of different tribal leaders giving this bit of information for a certain amount of money, or just to say they're trying to help the coalition. And in fact, it's erroneous information, and sometimes you don't know that. And you have to make a decision on different sources of intelligence that's available at the time of decision to make a strike.

And there's always a risk-benefit analysis that goes on. And eventually, somebody on the ground has to say, OK, we've got enough to make the hit -- let's go. And then when you go in there, on the assumption that this is an enemy target, you take it down, and then later find out information that, hey, this has been a mistake, then you have to live with those consequences. And that's part of the business of the commanders on the ground, and take that responsibility once those decisions are made.

BLITZER: Further complicating this, though, General Grange, is the fact that that predator drone, that unmanned aircraft, was a CIA aircraft, not a military aircraft, and that the decision-making process in giving the OK for that kind of hellfire laser-guided missile to be launched against the convoy, is not necessarily through the formal military chain of command. Who makes that final decision, the CIA or the central commander, namely Tommy Franks?

GRANGE: The way I understand it, Wolf, is that General Franks of Central Command is a decision making authority for those kind of strikes in his area of operation. Now, if you recall, there was criticism in the past because there was a target that got away, that a drone could have taken out in the past, that they thought were high- level enemy leaders. And it was not taken out, and there was a lot of criticism. So, darned if you do and darned if you don't.

So again, in that particular situation, a decision had to be made. Now, having used unmanned vehicles in the past in Kosovo, the resolution that comes back from the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), on the communications, the video that you receive in your tactical operations center, is very good video. It's very accurate. You can see good detail. It's better than when I used it. So, though it was probably the only source of intelligence for that strike, it's very good resolution. It's to make a decision. I don't -- I think you could have been able to tell if these were farmers or leadership with a four-by-four vehicle, holding handheld radios, you know, weapons, maybe. A little more advanced than farmers.

BLITZER: There's obviously, though, a big difference between Kosovo and now, in that predator, that drone, didn't have hellfire missiles during the war in Kosovo, but it does now, which makes it a much more potent weapon, right?

GRANGE: That's exactly right, more advanced. But for instance, in Kosovo or other places where you had unmanned aerial vehicles before that didn't have weapons aboard, you would still use the information that it seized to call in airstrikes or artillery on a target. That vice just firing off the drone itself gives you an advanced capability. But the procedures to strike would still be the same.

BLITZER: Is this a situation where there could be some rivalry, some tension, some fighting over turf between the CIA and the military?

GRANGE: In all our governmental agencies, just like in the United States for homeland defense, between the FBI, FEMA, CIA overseas, the Army overseas, all these different agencies that have some kind of counterterrorist role, they have what's known as their own rice bowl, their own little pea patch, that they want to protect. However, my experience is, through joint information centers, generally, it's shared. The information is shared, and there's fairly good cooperation as fellow Americans.

BLITZER: All right, General Grange, thanks for your help in understanding this obviously very complicated situation.

And our Web question of the day is this: does victory in the war on terrorism require finding Osama bin Laden? You can vote at my Web page, cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, let me know what you're thinking. There's a "click here" icon on the left side of my Web page. Send me your comments. I'll read some of them, and some of them I'll even on the air each day. Also, that's where you can read my daily on-line column. Once again, cnn.com/wolf.

Turning now to Taliban-American John Walker Lindh. "Newsweek" magazine reports he plans to plead not guilty this week to conspiracy, terrorism and weapons charges. His lawyers reportedly will attack the credibility of his confession, charging it was coerced. They say Walker Lindh was abused in the days prior to his confession, and that the FBI broke its own rules when it sent only one agent, not two, to interrogate the Taliban-American.

For a look at how these developments might affect the prosecution's case, we're joined by the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in Boston. Professor Dershowitz, thanks for joining us. What do you make of this? Is it possible that his confession to the FBI in Afghanistan could be thrown out?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: No, I don't think so. Given a choice between a good issue and a good court, any lawyer picks the good court. There couldn't be a worse court to litigate Miranda-type issues than the courts of Virginia and the 4th circuit. The case that's closest on point is a case several years ago from Florida, where an American kidnapped another American and the police came upon. They tortured him. They acknowledged they tortured him. They strangled him until he revealed the whereabouts of the person who was kidnapped. And they went and they rescued the kidnapped person.

Then a few hours later they got him to confess. And the court was asked to rule that the second confession was really a product of the earlier torture. And the court said no, it was not -- that the second confession had to be looked at on its own terms, and allowed the conviction to stand. This case is very closely analogous to that one.

So if I were betting widows' and orphans' money, I would bet against the court ruling in his favor on this issue. Now, I think there's another issue that's much, much stronger an issue on the merits: what is the evidence that he conspired to kill Americans? He apparently, according to his own confession, turned down an opportunity to engage in terrorism against Americans and Israelis, and preferred to fight against the Northern Alliance.

So, I think they're had barking down -- they're just going up the wrong tree. Unless what they're doing is just making a ploy for a plea bargain. This is not a good tactical defense.

BLITZER: What about the whole notion, though, that he was blindfolded for several days, perhaps a week? That he was kept in very, very primitive conditions. That he was, in effect, they would claim -- the defense attorneys -- in effect, tortured into making this confession.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, the problem is that when he made the confession, he was not under those conditions. He was sitting next to an FBI -- to be sure, only one agent, there were supposed to be two, according to the FBI's internal rules. He also spoke to CSPAN, and CSPAN doesn't have to give Miranda warnings.

BLITZER: CNN.

DERSHOWITZ: I'm sorry. What a terrible place to make that mistake, on CNN. Yeah, he gave the confession to CNN. And that clearly can come into evidence as well. Your tape probably will be admitted into evidence. So, this is, I think, a no-starter. It's not going to sympathetically looked at by a court. And the Supreme Court, these days, is not particularly sympathetic to these kinds of claims. So, I suspect they have to be working on plan B as well.

BLITZER: And very briefly, on this particular subject you raised the possibility of a plea bargain, some sort of agreement between John Walker Lindh and the federal prosecutors. Do both sides in this particular case have an incentive to go for that?

DERSHOWITZ: I think they do. I think that the prosecution has a major incentive, because at the basis of the evidence that now exists, I think the government has a good chance of losing the most important count, count one. And if they can get a plea, they win. And the defense always has an incentive: to plea bargain when you have a case involving so unpopular a defendant.

So, the arguments against it are that there are points of principle involved here. And the government won't plea bargain on a point of principle. But this may end up in a plea bargain.

BLITZER: All right, Alan Dershowitz, stand by. I want to bring you back a little bit later to talk about another legal issue.

But let's move now to the latest developments in the Enron scandal. The former Enron chief, Kenneth Lay, is due to appear tomorrow before the Senate Commerce Committee. But Congressional leaders don't expect to learn anything new. A spokeswoman for Lay says he'll exercise his fifth amendment rights, and will not testify.

Last week, another former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling, appeared before Congress. In his testimony Skilling said he knew very little about Enron's growing financial troubles. According to at least one senator, nobody on Capitol Hill believed him. And as "Newsweek" magazine reports in their new issue: Congress is not alone with its doubts. "Newsweek" assistant managing editor, Evan Thomas, joins us now with more.

How much trouble is Skilling in, Jeffrey Skilling in right now, because of his testimony, as far as you can tell, Evan?

EVAN THOMAS, "NEWSWEEK": A lot of lawmakers saying they just don't believe him, in talking about perjury. We won't know whether he lied until we know more about the underlying facts, you know, what really happened.

There's a lot of skepticism right now, including his own mother. "Newsweek" reported this week -- we interviewed his mother, Betty Skilling. And she said that she thought that something fishy was up, that she didn't quite believe he could have known nothing about what was going on.

BLITZER: Evan, was anyone ever seriously considering the possibility that Ken Lay would actually come before Congress and answer questions?

THOMAS: It does sound incredible, because his exposure was so great. You would think any lawyer would say, you know, either you don't appear, or if you're subpoenaed, you're going to have to take the Fifth. But this sort of goes to this question of the level of denial involved in the Enron folks. Lay, according to his friends, is insistent that he did nothing wrong, that if only he could tell his story, we'd all understand. Whether he is innocent or not, no lawyer is going to let him go up there under oath and let him basically put a rope around his neck.

BLITZER: So why did Jeffrey Skilling, a former CEO of Enron, why did he go before Congress and answer questions, and not exercise his Fifth Amendment right?

THOMAS: You got me! I think it was a mistake. I'd like to know more about what his lawyers told him. We hear that there's a tremendous arrogance in the Enron executive suite, and that Skilling especially is somebody that believes he can do no wrong. I guess that's what happened.

BLITZER: You know, a lot of members who heard his testimony think that he's perjured himself by repeatedly saying, "I don't know, not to the best of my recollection," that they could come up with evidence that he did in fact know about, for example, those partnerships that are at the center of this collapse of Enron?

THOMAS: Well, they brought some evidence out, that a lawyer had tried to get him several times to sign these forms, that would require him to authorize these partnerships, that the controls over these partnerships were discussed at a meeting of the board's finance committee. He said, well, I wasn't there, or I don't remember, or the lights went out. It didn't sound very believable. But as you well know, often not remembering is a powerful defense. Perjury is a hard thing to prove. And if he has to go to court on it, not remembering often works.

BLITZER: So where is this investigation heading, in the days and weeks ahead?

THOMAS: It has a long way to go. I think there's an interesting dance that's going to go on between the principles here. Prosecutors love to divide and conquer, and they're going to try to turn Lay and Skilling and Fastow against each other, to get one of them to turn on the others, to get some proof here that they really were intentionally cooking the books.

BLITZER: OK, Evan Thomas...

THOMAS: Thanks, Wolf. BLITZER: The Washington bureau chief of "Newsweek" magazine. Good article this week. Thanks for joining us.

THOMAS: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: And there are many questions following Jeffrey Skilling's testimony on Capitol Hill, some even raising questions, as we've just noted, of perjury. Rejoining me once again is the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. How hard would it be for the government to convince a jury that he committed perjury?

DERSHOWITZ: It's hard when you say I don't know. The government has to prove not only that you knew, but that you knew you knew. I think the usual stance that a lawyer takes in a case like this is, you don't want your client to testify substantively in front of Congress, but you also don't want your client to plead the Fifth Amendment. And if you can figure out a way to do this dance without taking a step in that direction or a step in this direction, then you've earned your legal fee.

And I think Ken Lay's lawyer has an opportunity to do that. He can say: This is not a legitimate Congressional hearing. This is a perjury trap. You already know the answers, as you've indicated, by what you said in response to Skilling. You're not asking me questions to gain information. You're asking me questions to get me to commit, in your view, perjury. And I'm not going to play that game. I'm not going to fall into that trap,

And therefore, I'm prepared to tell anything that's relevant. But not now. Only after the criminal prosecution is over. If he can avoid saying those magic words "privilege against self-incrimination," and refuse giving testimony that is substantive, he can play hardball against the hardball now being tried by the Congressional committee.

BLITZER: Well, how does he do that, Alan Dershowitz? Tomorrow morning he is supposed to show up at 9:30 before the Senate committee. They're going to ask him a question. He's immediately going to raise his hand and say, after he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that he's not going to answer any questions based on his Fifth Amendment rights?

DERSHOWITZ: He wouldn't do that if he were my client. If he were my client, I would immediately respond to the question, and say that I'm here on behalf of my client. If you have any questions, ask them to me. I'm going to provide legal arguments for why my client is not obliged to answer at this point. And let them take you to court.

The best place to confront this is in a court of law, not on television in front of grandstanding congressmen. And a lawyer's job is to put himself between the Congressional inquisitors and his client. But that's not the way the rule book is laid out. And so, a lot of lawyers just play knee-jerk instinctively by the rules, and raise the Fifth Amendment, and get their clients in trouble. Or don't raise the Fifth Amendment, as Skilling's lawyer didn't, and get their clients in trouble. The job of a lawyer is to try to figure out how to keep the client out of trouble. And it's challenging, and that's why creative lawyers are required.

BLITZER: But if Ken Lay was subpoenaed, they want him to come before the committee and make a humiliating statement that he's refusing to answer questions. The members of Congress don't have to allow his lawyer come before Ken Lay and start answering questions.

DERSHOWITZ: You say "allow." What they can do is they can try to file a contempt charge. The contempt statute says that you can refuse to answer if you have just cause. You then go into court and try to argue that you have just cause. Don't necessarily play by their rules. Don't play in their ballpark. Take the case and bring it into a ballpark in which you can get a more friendly and legalistic reception. That's the job of the lawyer: not to simply exceed to the grandstanding ploys of congressman, who are not there, necessarily, to learn information, but to show how righteous and virtuous they are.

BLITZER: OK. Alan Dershowitz doing double duty for us today. Thanks so much for joining us.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

BLITZER: And you can get a timeline of Enron's fall at cnn.com. The AOL keyword, of course, is CNN.

And, is the air around New York's Ground Zero truly safe? For months, New Yorkers have complained about their coughs. Now they're hearing back. But is it the answer they want?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: There are questions we can't answer. And it's frustrating and concerning to all of us, and particularly those who live or work in the vicinity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Also ahead: a mystery illness that has the Centers for Disease Control paying attention.

And Iran talks back to President Bush. And it wasn't just one voice.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. Iran's celebration of the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic revolution today turned into an anti- American rally. Tens of thousands of demonstrators used the occasion to show their anger with President Bush's comments linking Iran to an "axis of evil." CNN's Kasra Naji reports.

KASRA NAJI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (VOICE-OVER): Clergymen led the march, shouting, "death to America." The march, marking the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic revolution -- a day for (UNINTELLIGIBLE) faithful, to renew their religions.

Iranian leaders have called for a big turnout to show President Bush they are angered by his threats and allegations. To show many Iranians are united behind their leaders in facing any threat from the U.S. And they came in the tens of thousands.

This man has put on a white shroud. He says he's ready to be martyred in a suicide mission against the U.S.

This woman, member of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) defense force basis, says she comes every year. But this year, she's come with great enthusiasm, "to raise at the U.S.," she says. On the fringes of the demonstration, there was even a competition for the best effigy of Uncle Sam -- something that came useful later in Audra Biel (ph) Freedom Square, where the crowds converged.

(on camera): There are probably more than 200,000 people here in the square behind me. That number, greater than any time for many years. That's because both moderates and hard liners have closed ranks in the face of threats from the United States.

(voice-over): President Khatami, a moderate, says President Bush's speech naming Iran as part of an axis of evil is insulting to the Iranian nation. Here, he told the crowd Iranians will resist all threats to the revolution. Iranian leaders will be happy with the turnout, although mindful that there are many more who not come out.

Kasra Naji, CNN, Teheran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: So, is Iran really united in its anger over the "axis of evil" characterization? An article published last week in "The Wall Street Journal" says a majority of Iranians actually welcomed President Bush's comments. Joining us now is the author of that article, Rob Sobhani. He's an adjunct professor of politics at Georgetown University here in Washington.

Rob, thanks for joining us. Looked like they were pretty united out there, demonstrating against President Bush and the United States today.

ROB SOBHANI, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Wolf, dictatorships have a good way of bringing out the crowds. That was a rent-a-crowd. Children were given the day off. And of course, the government has its own militia people that it can bring to the street. Tens of thousand is very little compared to the millions who live in Teheran, a city of 12 million. So, I think this was a show. It was for American media. But I also think that there's silent majority in Iran that welcome President Bush's remarks.

BLITZER: And is that silent majority led by the president of Iran, as opposed to the Ayatollah?

SOBHANI: Absolutely not. Mr Khatami, actually, today...

BLITZER: The president.

SOBHANI: The president. BLITZER: The so-called moderate president.

SOBHANI: The so-called moderate president lied to the Iranian people. He told the crowd that the Iranians were insulted by President Bush, whereas that's an absolute lie. President Bush did not insult the Iranian people. In fact, he made a distinction between the people of Iran and the regime in Tehran. And I think this really puts to rest any implication that there's somehow a moderate and a conservative wing. They all speak with one voice.

BLITZER: So you don't see any different between the Ayatollah and President Khatami?

SOBHANI: President Khatami is himself a cleric. And there is, yes, an element within President Khatami's camp, that wants to have reform. But this is really on the margins, within domestic society within Iran. It does not imply the foreign policy. It does not go beyond the borders of Iran.

BLITZER: There was a new poll, a CNN-"USA Today" poll, that asked the American people: Do you think these governments are evil -- the governments named by President Bush. Look at this: Iraq, 82 percent. Iran, 69 percent. North Korea, 54 percent. So, as far as Iran is concerned, a sizable majority of the American public does consider Iran to be evil

As far as the overall situation, though, you might have seen that article in "The New York Times" over the weekend. An article which suggested a professor at Yale suggested that by President Bush linking Iran in that axis of evil, he's really undermining the moderates in Iran, and strengthening the hard-line clerics.

SOBHANI: Absolutely not. What President Bush did was to hearten the reform movement. He gave hope and excitement to the people inside Iran who want change. And the best way that we can fight terrorism is to promote democracy and our American values. And that's what President Bush has started. And I think we will see change, within this year, probably. If the United States sticks to its guns, does not back-pedal from what the president has said.

BLITZER: So, some other commentators have suggested that just as President Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be an evil empire in

Byline: Michael Okwu, Tom Rinaldi, Lou Dobbs, Guest: Charles Lewis,

BLITZER: Some other commentators have suggested that, just as President Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be an evil empire in 1983, and that may have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, what you are saying is that President Bush speaking of an axis of evil might contribute to a change in government in Iran?

SOBHANI: Absolutely.

In my article, I refer to the fact that it reminded Iranians of Ronald Reagan going to the Berlin Wall and saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." President Bush has laid down the gauntlet. The Iranian leadership has to reform or else change will be brought upon them.

BLITZER: OK, Rob Sobhani, of Georgetown University, thank you very much.

And let's check some stories making news elsewhere around the world: Israeli officials today authorized a series of strikes in Gaza after the firing of a Palestinian-built rocket into Israel. Israeli helicopter gunships and F-16 warplanes attacked a security compound in Gaza City that houses several prisons. The Palestinian Authority responded by freeing Palestinian militants being held in the facility. The Bush administration expressed deep concern to Israel over the attacks.

A Jordanian-American man convicted of plotting terror attacks against tourists during millennium celebrations has been sentenced to death. Raed Hijazi plans to appeal the verdict. He pleaded innocent to several charges, including conspiring to set off bombs at sites frequented by American and Israeli tourists.

And it's Carnival time again in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Organizers promised the richest and most lavish Samba parade ever. They did not disappoint. Costumed dancers paraded before 70,000 delirious fans at the Sambadrome Stadium. Former first lady Barbara Bush was in attendance.

In a moment, the air just beyond ground zero that the EPA says tested safe: why some senators are not so sure anymore. And later: The parents of a missing girl try a new strategy for finding their daughter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

In the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, it took a long time for the dust to literally settle over lower Manhattan. In a moment, we will take a closer look at the toxic levels in and around ground zero.

But first, this "News Alert": The Pentagon is investigating allegations that U.S. forces may have mistreated Afghan citizens captured during a raid near Kandahar. During the raid, U.S. forces killed 15 and captured another 27 Afghan villagers. Upon their release, those villagers told reporters they had been beaten and kicked by U.S. forces.

U.S. military sources say DNA testing will be used to identify the victims killed last week by a missile fired from a U.S. surveillance drone. There is speculation that a senior al Qaeda leader may have been killed in that raid. There's also reports that victims may have been local smugglers.

President Bush is in the Midwest today touting his domestic agenda. During a speech in Wisconsin, he spoke about health care reform and laid out his agenda that, if implemented, would cost $300 billion over the next decade.

Thirty-four more Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have arrived today at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These new detainees raise the prison population there to 254.

Five months ago today, two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers. In the weeks and months following, smoke and dust particles hovered over Lower Manhattan. And now many are complaining of respiratory troubles.

CNN's Michael Okwu is following the story and he joins us now live from New York -- Michael.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, hello.

You know, residents and recovery workers talk about a plume of smoke that enveloped Lower Manhattan. Environmentalists say it contained lead, PCBs and asbestos, and sometimes in what they believe are very dangerous levels.

Today Senators Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton held a congressional field hearing where Senator Clinton proposed a five- point plan calling for legislation creating a system to monitor health concerns, recovery workers and indoor spaces in Lower Manhattan. Environmental groups criticized the federal government for failing to establish a single agency responsible for dealing with the environmental fallout and getting the word out to the public. Many residents looked to the EPA to find out if their homes were safe. But indoor space was the responsibility of the city health department. And they only tested for asbestos.

There were other particulates that could cause damage. And, even then, critics argue that the city left cleaning to individual landlords. That essentially means that was no government agency making sure that individual's homes were safe and clean.

Liz Berger lives in lower Manhattan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ BERGER, LOWER MANHATTAN RESIDENT: I mean, we could smell it: computers, fluorescent bulbs, copiers, electrolytic fluids, bodies. Let me tell you, everyone downtown knows that we are the baseline of the 30-year study on what happens when worlds collide. And, as a parent, that is the most frightening experience and responsibility I have ever faced.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OKWU: Wolf, today the EPA repeated what it has been saying all along: that the area outside the perimeter of ground zero is in fact safe, that the tests that came back showed that they would not cause any long-term damage to anybody who breathed in the air there.

And they had support today from a report issued by the University of California at Davis. But not everyone was buying it at the hearing this morning, especially those who believe there could be long-term damage caused from exposure there and also especially from those people who say that they are not sure that in fact their homes today are clean -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Okwu in New York, thanks for that report.

And let's check now some other stories on today's "Newswire": New Jersey health officials say a woman who dined at a convention center over the weekend had pneumonia and meningitis. It doesn't appear to signal a meningitis outbreak. Seven people attending the same convention were hospitalized. And about 80 were treated with antibiotics. The Office of Homeland Security said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sent experts to take part in the investigation, but there is no -- repeat, no -- evidence of bioterrorism.

The parents of a missing 7-year-old San Diego girl are offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the safe return of their daughter. Hundreds of volunteers have been searching for Danielle van Dam, who disappeared earlier this month. Her mother says she hopes the reward will help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDA VAN DAM, MOTHER OF DANIELLE: I hope this will motivate someone who knows where she is to step forward, return her to us, or help us find her. Somebody out there knows something they are not talking about. And we just thought that maybe this money will motivate them. And that's why we are doing this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And hundreds of firefighters are battling a wildfire in Southern California. It doubled in size overnight and has burned dozens of homes north of San Diego, many of them wealthy estates. Today the blaze reached the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. At least 11 people have been injured. In a moment, a most unusual discovery dating back to the dinosaurs; also, Enron's latest impact on the people you send to Congress.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Against the backdrop of Enron troubles, the issue of campaign finance reform is finding new life on Capitol Hill. Recently, 218 members of the House signed petition forcing a key reform bill called the Shays-Meehan bill to the House floor. As written, the bill would ban so-called soft money, the campaign contributions that are unlimited that go to the political parties. Debate kicks off tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

Joining us now with more is Charles Lewis. He's the executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.

Charles, thanks for joining us.

If Shays-Meehan, Meehan-Shays, or McCain-Feingold, if that would have been the law of the land the last few years, how would that have impacted the way Enron just gave money away to politicians?

CHARLES LEWIS, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: Well, they would have saved some money. Since '89, Enron gave $6 million in soft -- sorry, in total contributions. About $3.5 million was soft money.

BLITZER: Enron as a corporation?

LEWIS: Enron as a corporation, and their top executives with checks also separately. The point is, 50 or so percent, roughly, was soft money. So there was still over $2 million in other contributions. So you are still going to have powerful corporations still trying to influence the process. It just means that there will be fewer -- you are going to substantially reduce the flow of those large checks, those six-figure, $100,000 at one write of the check type contributions figure. Those will be diminished.

And that's, I think, the point of the folks that wrote the bill.

BLITZER: But even if McCain-Feingold does becomes the law of the land, this campaign finance reform, and President Bush signs it into law -- and that is still way, way down the road if in fact it happens -- won't the big corporations, the wealthy, find other ways to get money for political interests?

LEWIS: Well, they will. The history of reform about good government and politics over the last century is, there is a tug of war. And whenever reform occurs, the folks on the dark side game it. And it usually takes months or years and then there is new reforms. And there is a cycle, sort of, of history about this. And for the last, 25, 27 years, there has been no legislation passed in Washington, since Watergate. And this is why this is such an interesting, historic moment. Will Congress and the American people, will something happen differently in the coming weeks?

BLITZER: Yesterday, I interviewed Republican Congressman David Dreier, the chairman of the House Rules Committee. And he opposes the Shays-Meehan legislation, although he says he supports campaign finance reform, an alternative version which doesn't completely ban soft money.

Listen to what David Dreier said.

LEWIS: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID DREIER (R), CALIFORNIA: I think we need to have full disclosure. I think that if we are going to ban soft money, we should eliminate soft money for both unions and for corporations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What is he suggesting? What is his point there?

LEWIS: Well, I'm not sure. I mean, this legislation would prevent soft money checks from the unions and from the corporations. Unions give heavily to Democrats. The top 10 soft money donors in the '90s to the Democrats, six of them were unions. That would be dried up.

BLITZER: But what a lot of Republicans want, what the president wants is what they call paycheck protection. They want rank-and-file union members to support this money going largely to Democrats.

LEWIS: Right. The problem with that is, they don't want it across the board. They don't want that same protection for members -- folks who work in companies about their contributions from soft money. They only want it for unions. It's sort of where you stand depends on where you sit on campaign finance reform. And certain folks had different positions.

You can say that about unions, but do you feel the same way about corporations? Is it an even-handed policy? The folks at McCain- Feingold and Shays-Meehan believe that they have fashioned a bill that does that. And we'll have to see how that plays in Congress.

BLITZER: Very quickly, no one knows more about what's happening on the Hill on this campaign refinance reform issue than you do. What is going to happen in the next few days?

LEWIS: Well, the disadvantage for the opponents of campaign finance reform is that being against this equates you with being for Enron. And, right now, the American people are working up to a lather about this subject; 60 percent think the Bush White House is not telling the truth. This is not a good moment to be standing on the other side of this issue right now. I think the momentum seems to be favoring the reformers. We will have to see. BLITZER: All right, Charles Lewis, thanks for joining us.

LEWIS: Sure. Thanks.

BLITZER: And when we come back: A 42-year-old Olympic draw ends for the United States. And Olympians in Salt Lake are avoiding danger on the mountain. We will explain. That's coming up. And later: What did the dinosaurs eat? Scientists receive some unusual confirmation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

It's another golden day for the United States at the Winter Olympic Games in Utah.

We check in now with CNN Sports Illustrated's Tom Rinaldi. He is in Park City. He has the very latest -- Tom.

TOM RINALDI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, even though snowboarding is a relatively new Olympic event, it looks like the Americans are turning out to be very fast learners.

Just yesterday, the women's halfpipe, 18-year-old Kelly Clark wins the first U.S. gold. In the men's halfpipe, it turns into an American parade to the medal podium. The gold goes to Ross Powers, who had claimed bronze in Nagano. He celebrated his 23rd birthday just yesterday. The silver goes to Danny Kass of New Jersey. J.J. Thomas wins the bronze. It is the first medal sweep by a U.S. team in the Winter Olympics in 46 years.

In other events, the men's single luge, Armin Zoeggeler of Italy turns back history in the form of Germany's Georg Hackl, who tried to win four consecutive gold medals in an individual event, something no Winter Olympian had ever accomplished. The Americans: Adam Heidt ends up in fourth place. He misses a bronze by three-tenths of a second.

The downhill, weather plays a role. Even though it is perfectly pristine here in Park City at Snowbasin at the Wildflower course, where the women's downhill will be run, high winds upwards of 20 miles an hour cause a postponement in that race event. And, as a result, sentimental favorite from the U.S. side Picabo Street has to wait at least another day for what is widely considered to be her final run. She is expected to retire after these Winter Games.

It turns out to be yet another golden day for the United States. In terms of a quick look at the medal count, Germany and United States with six medals, tied with Austria -- Germany and America also tied for the lead in terms of gold medals -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Tom Rinaldi, thanks so much. And every night at this time, we are going to have a daily update on what is going on at the Winter Olympics. And let's check some other stories on today's "Newswire": For dog lovers, it's paradise. The 126th annual Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show opened this morning at Madison Square Garden in New York City. This year, there is a new dimension to the show. About a dozen dogs that took part in search-and-rescue operations at the World Trade Center site are being honored this evening. Good work, dogs.

A team of British scientists are marveling at their latest archaeological find: a petrified pool of, get this, dinosaur vomit. They say the fossilized vomit came from this creature in the picture. It's called an Ichthyosaurus and is more than 160 million years old. If you missed it, that's an Ichthyosaurus.

And a New York City medical examiner had a quite a surprise over the weekend. A woman was declared dead after she was found unconscious on her bathroom floor. But she opened her eyes and moved while she was being placed in a body bag. The woman, who had suffered a stroke, was taken to a hospital, where she died early today.

And does the United States need to find Osama bin Laden in order to win the war on terrorism? You have had almost an hour to weigh in. The results of our viewer poll are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's go to New York and get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE." That, of course, begins right at the top of the hour -- Lou.

LOU DOBBS, "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE": Wolf, thank you.

A warning that childhood vaccines are in dangerously short supply -- we will hear from the medical leader who says the shortage is a crisis. We'll also hear from the woman who warned about Global Crossings' potential problems and subsequent bankruptcy. We will tell you what Ken Lay has said in the past, words that may well come back to haunt him. All of that, and we will be telling you all about a big Wall Street rally today at the top of the hour. Please join us.

Now back to Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you very much. Good to hear about a Wall Street rally as well.

And results now from our CNN Web question of the day: "Does victory in the war on terrorism require finding Osama bin Laden?" An overwhelming majority of you say, absolutely, yes. Check my Web site tomorrow: CNN.com/Wolf. We will have a new question of the day. Also, that's where you can e-mail me your comments.

And here are some of them right now.

Joseph from Greenlawn, New Jersey writes this: "Sometimes a nation must stand alone and do what is just and right. If the United States does not launch right now full-scale military campaigns against the forces of evil, the next September 11 will involve weapons of mass destruction and result in the death of millions."

Bill from Bloomfield, Indiana writes: "The Enron scandal brings to mind a line from 'The Godfather' novel where the don reminds his sons that a lawyer or executive can steal more money with his briefcase than can a thousand men with guns."

And Howard from London, Ontario has another comment on Enron: "If I walk into a Wal-Mart store and steal a Mars bar, I get arrested. How is it that these executives are able to steal millions and walk around free and arrogant?"

I'll be back in one hour with the CNN "War Room." We will take a close look at the intelligence prompting that Hellfire missile attack in Afghanistan. Among my guests: former CIA case officer Bob Baer (ph), House Intelligence Committee member Jane Harmon and CNN security analyst Kelly McCann.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" 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