Skip to main content /TRANSCRIPTS



Colin Powell Plans to Meet With Yasser Arafat; Bush Says He is Against All Forms of Human Cloning

Aired April 10, 2002 - 22:00   ET


AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again. I'm Aaron Brown. A friend, or at least someone who writes us often and who I've come to see as a friend, asked me the other day how I kept from being depressed by all the misery in the Middle East, misery for which I think there is plenty of blame on both sides. I responded that I always believe that in the end people will come to their senses and see that this is madness.

Well she wrote again today. "Still feel that way," she asked? Yes, I do and here's why. It was a point former Senator George Mitchell made the other night. Almost everyone knows how this ends. As the Israelis, ask Palestinians, they'll tell you that in time there will be a Palestinian State alongside of Israel. It will be most of the West Bank and Gaza. Somehow Jerusalem will be figured out. Many of the Israeli settlements will be removed. There will be little, if any, right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper, and peace of something pretty close to peace will emerge. That's the end.

But as Senator Mitchell pointed out, far more eloquently than I can, it's the beginning that's so hard. Getting the process started again in an environment where old and new hatreds need to be set aside is far more complicated than figuring out how this all ends, and that's really what Secretary of State Powell has to deal with when he finally arrives in Israel.

He has to figure out a way, and it may require significant American involvement, to stop this current round of violence and get the sides talking again. He can't, the United States can't, end the hatreds, the old ones or the new ones. That will take time. But somehow, and only God knows how, he must get the beginning begun.

And today's news is a reminder yet again of the need for that beginning, so on to the whip, beginning in Jerusalem with Bill Hemmer. Bill the headline from you tonight, please.

BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, good evening from Jerusalem. Ariel Sharon says that military action is not yet met its goals, and despite Colin Powell's visit this weekend, the operation will continue with Colin Powell here in town. He also had another stiff message to the United States. In a manner of speaking, Ariel Sharon said, "back off the pressure" -- Aaron.

BROWN: Bill, thank you. We'll be back with you in a little bit. On to Andrea Koppel who's traveling with the Secretary of State. Tonight, that brings her to us from Madrid, Andrea, the headline from you.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron. On the eve of his arrival in Jerusalem, Secretary Powell's Mideast mission won the enthusiastic support of much of the world's community. But with yet another suicide attack in Israel, and with Israel's ongoing military incursion into the West Bank, it remains to be seen how Secretary Powell is going to get both sides to step back from the brink.

BROWN: Andrea, indeed. The President on another matter made news today, making clear in unambiguous terms his position on the issue of cloning. Kelly Wallace at the White House for us, Kelly, the headline from you.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Aaron. Well the President making it clear he's against all forms of human cloning, even if the practice is restricted to science, to finding cures for diseases. Many Senators agree with Mr. Bush, but many don't, so the stage is set for what is guaranteed to be a highly charged debate in the United States Senate -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you and now on to Boston, the above scandal involving priests seems to be coming to a head. There is an awful lot of buzz in Boston tonight. Jason Carroll is there for us, Jason the headline from you.

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And good evening to you, Aaron. There are increasing calls in the community for the resignation of Bernard Cardinal Law. We're hearing talk within the community. The words are coming off the editorial pages. We're going to have an update for you coming up in just a few moments -- Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you. Thank you all tonight. We'll be back with you. Heavy on the Middle East tonight, but also, a fair amount of time on the Boston story, and on the cloning debate. We'll also be talking to a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and a former Israeli Ambassador to the United States.

And we'll end it all tonight with a story from Beth Nissen about something lost on September 11th. Thousands of lives were lost, of course. That is the ultimate loss. Beth Nissen tonight on something else, about $100 million in lost art, all of that in the hours ahead. Our thanks to Judy Woodruff for being here last night.

We begin tonight in the Middle East. A pair of nearly irreconcilable positions taking shape, they are simple, persuasive, strongly held and completely at odds with one another.

One that the Israeli military operation has to end now and that the Israeli military operation can't be allowed to end yet; those are the two positions. On one side, President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, the U.N. Secretary General, and most of the developed world. Israel tonight is as isolated as ever. On the other side, the Israeli government, and at least for the moment, the especially grisly events of the day. More on what this means for the Secretary of State's peace mission as we go on, but first Haifa and a suicide bombing again. Here's CNN's Chris Burns.


CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The blast was so powerful witnesses say it lifted the bus off the ground, a packed commuter express on its way from the northern port of Haifa to Jerusalem. Police say the suicide bomber got on near Haifa's industrial outskirts, wearing an explosives belt. Minutes later, just after 7:00 a.m., he blew himself up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know that is not a regular death condition. This was a part from this bomb, you know, you never find a whole body. Many bodies (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but a lot of parts of bodies.

BURNS: More than a dozen survivors are hospitalized, some in serious condition. The government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon blames Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, one more reason, say the Israelis, to maintain their siege of Arafat's compound in Ramallah.

The bus bombing is the first suicide attack in Israel in ten days, the second since the Israeli offensive in the West Bank began, aimed at rooting out what the government calls the infrastructure of terror.

Chris Burns, CNN, near Haifa, Israel.


BROWN: If the results of today's suicide attack were brutally clear, the implications are not. Many in Israel took it as yet another reason to keep on fighting. Others see it as evidence that military force alone will not bring an end to the terror.

Publicly at least, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has no qualms. Whatever he plans for the Powell visit, today he was talking of a continued military assault on the Palestinian Authority. So we go back to Jerusalem and CNN's Bill Hemmer. Bill, good evening.

HEMMER: Aaron, hello from Jerusalem again, getting late word tonight the Israeli army saying it's withdrawing again from three small towns in the West Bank, one near Jenin, two others near Hebron.

And as we're getting that word, our CNN crew on the ground in Ramallah says the tanks right now rolling into a small town on the outskirts of Ramallah, described as a university town. Again, that word late tonight here in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, we have talked a lot over the past several days about the fierce fighting that has gone underway in the refugee camp of Jenin. Earlier today, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister, went to Jenin to give what some considered a bit of a pep talk to troops there. It was yesterday where 13 Israeli soldiers were ambushed by a suicide bomber in those narrow passageways through the refugee camp in Jenin.

Ariel Sharon says the military operation has not yet met its goals, and now it will not stop until those goals are met. He also said to the United States, "back off the pressure and turn it down" with Colin Powell coming here tomorrow. Here's Ariel Sharon on that.


ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: But one must understand that that is our right and responsibility to defend the lives of our citizens, and not to put any pressures upon us. In order to do the work that these wonderful soldiers and commanders are doing, and your (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they have to be able to continue and finish the struggle.


HEMMER: So now we know the military operation will continue when Colin Powell does arrive, again sometime within the next 18 hours here in Jerusalem. Also a heavy war of words today, Saeb Erakat the Chief Palestinian negotiator, live on CNN earlier today said, Palestinians have lost now 500 people between the battles in Jenin and Nablus.

A short time later, the Israeli government came out, refuted that claim heavily. They called it an outright lie. Also, Erakat did get together with Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. Later he met with Anthony Zinni. We are told that meeting went well, lasted a bit more than an hour. On Saturday, Aaron, Colin Powell will go to Ramallah and sit down with Yasser Arafat face-to-face.

BROWN: OK, I've got just a couple things here. Palestinians say 500 have died. Is that just - are they talking about just Jenin or are they talking about the whole incursion?

HEMMER: No, Jenin and Nablus. No, Jenin and Nablus was what Saeb Erakat referred to, and again just to reiterate, journalists have been restricted. Our movements have been very restricted for 12 days now in the West Bank, and even rescue workers say they can't verify that, because simply the fighting goes on in these areas and they can not get in to either treat the wounded or again count the bodies of those who might be dead there. Aaron.

BROWN: OK, in any case, the Palestinians say 500 died in Jenin. Did the Israelis put a number on it or did they say no, it's just not that high?

HEMMER: Yes, the Israelis are saying a minimum of 150 right now dead on the Palestinian side, and again these numbers have gone back and forth almost frankly by the hour, depending on who you talk to. Some of the other estimates we were getting yesterday from the Israeli side went as high as 200. But again, they said and they stressed they could not confirm whether or not that was indeed the number on the ground. BROWN: Bill, thank you. Bill Hemmer in Jerusalem tonight.


BROWN: It is a sad state of affairs when we sit here arguing about how many people it was that died, whether it was this 100 or that 100. Thank you for your work.

Now on to what's in store for Secretary of State Powell. An editorial columnist wrote this today about the leaders that Powell will be meeting with: "You couldn't choose two men who are worse equipped for their moment in history than Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat."

Secretary Powell has a job of getting these two men, who won't budge it seems to budge for a cease-fire to happen, and for peace talks to take hold, and it's important to note that the U.S. position itself has evolved here.

The Secretary saying a cease-fire deal must include a plan to resume broader political talks, something as recently as three weeks ago, the administration rejected and the Israelis did not like one bit. From Madrid tonight again, CNN's Andrea Koppel.


KOPPEL(voice over): On the eve of his arrival in Israel, Powell's supporters have wished him luck. With so much riding on his mission, success they say Powell can't afford to fail.

CHRIS PATTEN, COMMISSIONER, EUROPEAN COMMISSION: He carries with him all the prestige of the world's only super power, super duper power as somebody called it recently, and the United States has been a great friend to and of Israel, and if Mr. Sharon doesn't listen to Colin Powell and the rest of the international community, then God help the Middle East.

KOPPEL: Secretary Powell leaves Madrid with strong support from the world community and a stinging message from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I'm frankly appalled by the humanitarian situation. The international community demands that the government of Israel honor its obligation on the international law to protect civilians. We call on Chairman Arafat, as a recognized elected leader of the Palestinian people to undertake immediately the maximum possible effort to stop terror attacks against innocent Israelis.

KOPPEL: A situation one European official described as moving rapidly from bad to worse to appalling. Fresh from two days of intense consultations within the Arab world, Powell's strategy for a cease-fire is taking shape.

Among key components, accelerating the political process to, for example, recognize a Palestinian State even before a truce is in place; introducing American monitors, a small number of whom could verify a cease-fire; committing to rebuild the Palestinian Authority, much of which has been damaged or destroyed; and agreeing to meet Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat this week over strong Israeli objections.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The reality is that no other Palestinian leader or for that matter Arab leader is prepared to engage as a partner until Mr. Arafat has had a chance to express his views to me and to others. So I hope that there will be no difficulties in arranging a meeting with Chairman Arafat.


KOPPEL (on camera): The last time Madrid hosted a meeting on the Middle East, Aaron, it was 1991, and while it may seem like a distant memory, hopes were high then because back then the Israelis and Palestinians had just finally agreed to start talking peace. Well, 11 years later, things couldn't be more different. Instead of talking peace, the two sides are now waging war. Aaron.

BROWN: It's an odd sort of feeling of a countdown as, I think, at least for me, as we wait for the Secretary to get there. I assume one of the messages that he's going to deliver to Mr. Sharon is that Israel is standing virtually alone in the international community and that Mr. Sharon needs to pay attention to that.

KOPPEL: Actually, I think it is a message, Aaron, you're absolutely right that he will be delivering to Ariel Sharon, but it's one that he will also be delivering to Yasser Arafat. Granted Yasser Arafat is under siege right now, but there was yet another terrorist attack in Israel, and the U.S. and the international community holds Yasser Arafat responsible. They believe that he can control those attacks if he wants to or at least speak out against them.

But having said that, you're absolutely right. Ariel Sharon should brace himself for more tough talk from the Bush Administration. The question is whether or not he will respond. He has yet to do so thus far.

BROWN: Andrea, you have an interesting few days ahead. Thank you. Andrea Koppel in Madrid with the Secretary of State tonight. Coming up on NEWSNIGHT next, we'll talk with two veteran diplomats about the prospects for Secretary Powell's visit.

And a little later on in the hour, the growing controversy surrounding the Catholic Church in Boston, an awful lot of talk there tonight about what may happen tomorrow. This is NEWSNIGHT back in New York.


BROWN: I think it's fair to say that President Bush has struggled a bit with the events in the Middle East, trying to put a policy together. He appears torn between the need to deal with Yasser Arafat and the notion that under any other circumstance, perhaps in any other country in the world, Yasser Arafat would be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism. It is a nuance many in Israel have a hard time accepting. Today in a talk with members of the U.S. Senate, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, echoed that concern.


BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The free world is muddling its principles, losing its nerve, and thereby endangering the successful prosecution of this war.

The question many in my country are now asking is this: Will American apply its principles consistently and win this war, or will it selectively abandon these principles and thereby ultimately risk losing the war? My countrymen ask this question because they believe that terrorism is an indivisible evil that must be fought indivisibly.


BROWN: We're joined tonight by Martin Indyk, the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, and Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, not once but twice, if my memory serves correctly. They're both in Washington. It's nice to see you both.

Ambassador Shoval, let me get you quickly if I can on the record. Are you hopeful that the Powell visit will produce anything optimistic, that that will happen?

ZALMAN SHOVAL, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Well you know, I'm not terribly optimistic because Arafat may see this very visit as a reward for this strategy of terrorism which he has been conducting for the last few months, for the last few weeks.

However, there is perhaps a glimmer of hope if the Secretary will make it very clear that the President's position, and I know this is the President's position, is that unless Arafat stops the terror altogether, altogether, I mean not just a cease-fire but an end to terrorism forever, America will wash its hands of him and the Palestinians will have to face Israel alone. That is the only chance I think that this visit can be successful.

BROWN: And, Ambassador Indyk also, quickly if I can just get you on the record. Do you have any hope for the Powell visit?

MARTIN INDYK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: I think it's going to be very hard for the Secretary of State. There are several problems he's going to face. First of all, the terrorists themselves, the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Tonsin (ph) militias have a very high incentive to show, as they tried to show today, that Ariel Sharon's offensive will not succeed in stopping the terror.

Secondly, they have a high incentive to show Secretary Powell, as they did with General Zinni on his three missions, that they can't succeed either. So we have to expect that there's going to be an increase in terrorism as the Secretary comes into the region.

That's going to make it very difficult for Ariel Sharon to cooperate in terms of not just ending the operation, but pulling the troops out. And Yasser Arafat, who's the master of half measures, in this environment is going to be extremely reluctant to confront the terrorists and the perpetrators of the violence, as he has been before, and in these circumstances, he's going to insist that before he does anything, Israel withdraws. So there's a kind of Gordian knot on top of everything else that the Secretary's going to have to cut here.

BROWN: There's always something else. I want to spend a minute or so talking about an idea of yours, Ambassador Indyk. You know the United States has been the principal player in trying to drive peace here, and I was reading today an idea of yours. I don't know if it's yours alone, that what really needs to happen is a much broader international effort and principally, and this is what intrigued me, is to make the Arab countries stakeholders in the outcome in a way that they are not now.

INDYK: Well, basically in 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn, the Arabs stepped back and were quite happy to have Yasser Arafat placed on the shoulders of Israel and the United States. Egypt helped a little, sometimes hurt a little. The Jordanians used what little influence they had to support it, but everybody else backed away.

Now the Saudis have come forward, I think partly out of fear, partly out of exhaustion, and the Crown Prince has said that he's ready to offer an end to the conflict and normal relations with Israel Embassy in Riyadh if there's a solution, based on a withdrawal to the 1967 lines, full peace for full withdrawal.

That indicates a change. Something's happening in the Arab world at a time when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is flaring up. So there's a chance that we can bring the Arabs in and I think this is what Colin Powell is trying to do before he gets to Israel, to get them to play a custodial role.

The basic problem that Colin Powell faces now is that he doesn't have a reliable partner in Yasser Arafat. The Israelis have now branded him an enemy, not a partner. The White House basically doesn't trust him at all, as you said in your lead-in, and therefore, it's very hard to see who he can deal with that's going to deliver on the Palestinian side.

So the question is, can you get the Arabs to take a more responsible role as kind of trustees for the Palestinians in this situation?

BROWN: Ambassador Shoval, I'm curious your reaction to that from the Israeli side in two respects. Obviously, you'd like to find someone to deal with other than Arafat, but is there anyone out there in the Arab world you feel comfortable enough dealing with?

SHOVAL: Well look, you know you can say about Yasser Arafat, better the devil you know. We've known him now for 40 years or more and we certainly have known him since the beginning of the '90s, when he made agreements with different Israeli governments. The man has never honored, never, never ever an agreement which he has made, and I think that when there was this meeting not so long ago with our previous Prime Minister Barak and Barak and former President Clinton more or less offered Arafat the store, 97 percent of the territories and he said no. I think he has made - he has disqualified himself as a peace partner.

That's the attitude I think of the administration here, of President Bush, but also former President Clinton who has said, as long as Arafat is on the stage, there won't be a peace partner for Israel.

BROWN: So it has to be somebody else. Gentlemen, it is very nice to talk to you. Perhaps in this - we have no idea how long Secretary of State Powell will actually be in the region, but if it goes on a bit, I hope you'll come back and lend your expertise.

SHOVAL: Aaron, it would be much better if the whole thing will end and you don't have us back.

BROWN: Boy am I with you on that, sir.


BROWN: I am so with you. Thank you both.

SHOVAL: Thank you.

BROWN: Good to see you both again.

INDYK: Thank you.

BROWN: Later on NEWSNIGHT, we'll take a look at the controversy over (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Imagine that, that we wouldn't have to deal with the Middle East. We'll deal with the controversy of human cloning. The President had things to say about that today.

Coming up next, we'll go to Boston and the uproar surrounding Cardinal Law there. This is NEWSNIGHT, it's a busy night here in New York.


BROWN: The Massachusetts Attorney General wasn't subtle at all with his reaction to the latest priest abuse case in Boston. But then neither are the details of the story. Disgusting and devastating, his words, and if that was not enough, he said it again, disgusting and devastating, referring not just to the lurid accusations against Father Paul Shanley, but to the blatant cover-up of the problem under the leadership of Bernard Cardinal Law. The latest tonight from our Jason Carroll.


CARROLL (voice over): The pressure is mounting for Cardinal Bernard Law to step down. Editorials in the Manchester Union Leader and The Boston Globe are leading the call.

RENEE LOTHA, BOSTON GLOBE: The anguish in the Boston community really can't be overstated and it really was reflected in the editorial board's decision as well.

CARROLL: Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy says the church scandal has been painful for everyone.

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Certainly the most difficult situation that any of us have sort of seen in our time, and with regards to myself, I've had my own meditations and conversations with the Cardinal, but I'm not saying anything about that.

CARROLL: Cardinal Law and other church officials could be facing something more serious than losing a position in the Archdiocese. The State Attorney General is reviewing internal church documents released Monday regarding Father Paul Shanley. Shanley is an accused pedophile priest who, documents show, was moved by Cardinal Law from parish to parish.

TOM REILLY, MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL: But ultimately, there may not be a criminal solution to this problem. Is it likely that additional charges may be brought against some of the offending clergy? Yes. I would expect that there will be.


CARROLL (on camera): Only the Pope can remove a cardinal from his position. So far the Vatican is not commenting on Cardinal Law's situation. As for Cardinal Law, Aaron, he isn't talking either.

BROWN: Jason, thank you. Jason Carroll in Boston tonight, and I expect in Boston for a few days to come.

The question for Catholics in Boston and perhaps for all Catholics watching this very sad story play out is should the cardinal stay or should he go? That's one of the questions on the table at least.

Reverend Robert Carr of the Cathedral of Holy Cross in Boston believes the best thing the cardinal can do is stay as he wants to and try and fix the problems. Margery Eagan is a columnist for "The Boston Herald" who thinks it's time for the cardinal to go. Perhaps she thinks it is past time for the cardinal to go. We're pleased to have them both with us.

Ms. Eagan, let me start with you. What are you hearing in Boston tonight?

MARGERY EAGAN, COLUMNIST, "BOSTON HERALD": I hear the same thing thing that you are, Aaron. There's a lot of rumors that Cardinal Law is considering going. We may hear something as early as tomorrow. And you know, the idea that Cardinal Law can be part of the solution at this point, after what we've read this week, you know, by that logic then we should release the pedophile John Geoghan from jail and have him become part of the solution with dealing with pedophilia. The pain and anguish you talked about is so true. It's horrible. But his credibility, with all due respect to the fine work he's done in social justice issues, is gone.

BROWN: And so let me turn to Reverend Carr here, because no matter how this plays out, this is enormously painful. But at some point, it does come down, as it must in a case like this where the clergy's involved to moral authority. And the question on the table, I think, is wittingly or unwittingly, it doesn't matter at this point, has the cardinal forfeited his morale authority?

ROBERT CARR, REVEREND, CATHEDRAL OF THE HOLY CROSS: You know, I think the question actually is bigger than that, Aaron. And that is, how did this happen in the church, and how did it happen in the whole church? And I think what it does is calls for the whole church to look at itself and see how we can be more alive and more true to who we are. So that's why I think the problem is bigger than the cardinal. It is not -- and the cardinal stepping down is not going to solve the issue. And I disagree with Margery on the issue that it's the same thing as John Geoghan fixing the pedophile. I don't see anyway that...

BROWN: Well, let's assume for a minute, she was making rhetorical point and didn't necessarilyl mean that literally. But what I don't hear anyone saying is that Cardinal Law stepping down is the solution, as in the entire solution. I think, we'll ask Ms. Eagan in a second, that what they're saying is it's impossible to find a solution absent him stepping down?

CARR: No, I wouldn't say that. I think the church is -- this is bringing a church at a changing point. But we have to turn around and say, OK, we've seen this. What does it mean to be Catholic? We're in the aftermath of Vatican two. And I think that's the question that comes to us. And I think the call is to really look at who we are as Catholics, in light of teachings of Jesus Christ, the resurrection, the Eucharist, and answer our questions within there and then say, where is this not being lived out in the various parts of our diocese?

EAGAN: Aaron...

BROWN: Ms. Eagan, I just -- I can feel you wanting to jump in. Go.

EAGAN Listen, I am a Catholic. I'm raising my three children as a Catholic. I love my faith. I'm ashamed and embarrassed by my church, by Cardinal Law, by the Vatican, by many of the great priests who should be speaking out about this.

You cannot, as we have learned this week, coddle child molesters, known child molesters for 30 years and say to a divorced woman who leaves an abusive marriage and gets remarried, she can't get communion in good standing as a Catholic. But the priest who gives out communion may have been molesting children with the complicity of the church for decades after decades.

You cannot do, with all due respect to Cardinal Law, what he has done to people in Boston. Just within the last year and a half, he supervised and oversaw the eviction and firing of a 73-year-old nun, who had served for 52 years in the church for the crime of wearing a priest stall at a baptism. He has told women who want to talk about ordaining women as priests, Massachusetts women church, a group of little old ladies there in sensible shoes, who have raised eight kids and run soup kitchens, they can't discuss the ordination of women in church buildings. He's evicted them.

He's evicted gay Catholics, a group called Dignity, said they can't practice their faith as homosexuals because they don't agree, that there's something wrong with being homosexual. The hypocrisy is just overwhelming.

BROWN: But you know, Margery...

EAGAN: And again, I respect Cardinal Law, but it's too much.

BROWN: Well, you know, no one here, including the cardinal, no one here is arguing that he did everything right or even anything right here. What he seems to be saying is I made this mess, let me clean it up.

EAGAN: Aaron, up until last week, he was fighting the release of documents through his law firm concerning the Reverend Paul Shanley, 800-plus pages of documents. Not one mention of a victim. In 1996, Cardinal Law wrote a letter to Paul Shanley, singing his praises.

BROWN: I know.

EAGAN And ode to his service to the church. I can't bring my kids to a mass where we pray for Cardinal Law and explain this. How do you do that?

BROWN: I hear you. I really do. Let me give Reverend Carr the last word here. But let me frame the question.

CARR: Sure.

BROWN: If in fact he resigns, is it the worst thing?

CARR: No, it isn't the worst thing, but I think what we'll need is someone who will now come in and make sure that this doesn't become a succession of resignations. And I think we need to look at the whole facts. You know, during the '60s and '70s, the word "dignity" and Father Paul Shanley were synonymous. Obviously, the NAMBLA thing is something different. And Margery doesn't understand that. But and this is one of the issues.

EAGAN: Well, I think I do, reverend.

BROWN: Go ahead and finish the thought. We'll move on.

CARR: Well, I think this is the point. We need to understand. Margery is wrong what she teaches about about homosexuality in the church. The church does not condemn homosexuals, it condemns any sex out of marriage. BROWN: All right, I don't want to go down this road.


BROWN: I mean, I just want to stay focused for a second. The church in Boston will survive the cardinal's resignation, right?

CARR: Absolutely.

BROWN: OK. We're going to be back on this, I'm sure. Reverend Carr, thank you. Margery, nice to talk to you on television.

EAGAN: Thank you.

BROWN: We'll talk later. Thanks again. Nice to have you both with us. Anyway, there's lots of talk in Boston that something may happen tomorrow. And we'll wait until tomorrow to find out what it is.

Later on NEWSNIGHT, a look at the millions of dollars in lost art in the destruction of the World Trade Center. It's a sad story, that. Up next, a very difficult controversy, the battle over human cloning in all its forms. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.


BROWN: One of the issues somewhat lost in the aftermath of September 11 is the whole issue of cloning, of which there are a couple of important components. The president, as the Senate prepares to deal with this issue, put it back in the agenda today in very clear, unequivocal terms.

Kelly Wallace with the story at the White House. And Ms. Wallace joins us from there tonight. Nice to see you.


Well, as you know, most lawmakers and most Americans are against the practice of human cloning to create another human being. So Aaron, the debate really centers around whether the United States should ban the practice, even if it is solely restricted for scientific purposes, for scientific research on diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, the president using the an East room gathering to make it very clear he thinks there are moral and ethical reasons for an outright ban.

Joining Mr. Bush, many people who also think that human cloning should be made a federal crime, made illegal, including people who could benefit from the research, such as people like Steven Mcdonald.

He is an officer, a New York City police officer who became a quadriplegic after he was shot in the line of duty. The president using that East room gathering there to say that he believes this is a matter of human dignity and respecting human life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Anything other than a total ban on human cloning would be unethical. Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another.


WALLACE: But there are a number of Democratic senators, including at least one, maybe more Republicans, who also believe there should a ban on human cloning to create another human being, but believe the Senate should allow therapeutic cloning, allowing the cloning of embryonic stem cells to try to find revolutionary new treatments for diseases affecting millions.


SEN TOM DASCHLE (D), MAJORITY LEADER: Do we impede progress in the most debilitating diseases known to man? Or do we allow research to go forward as long as we ban human cloning? That's the question.


WALLACE: So Aaron, how will this all play out? The House of Representatives passed an outright ban last summer. The Senate expected to take it sometime between now and the end of May. You could say the lobbying of the undecided senators is under full swing.

BROWN: Well, yes. And just to make one quick point about the House bill. It not only bans both kinds of cloning we've talked about. It makes it illegal to import into the country the fruits of that have labor. So if it's going on in England or wherever, and they come up with a cure for whatever, it would not be allowed in the country. That is a very restrictive bill.

WALLACE: Very restrictive indeed. And again, that is really going to be the issue confronting senators. As you see, the Senate somewhat divided on this issue. Many senators, again we pointed out one Republican, maybe others, who do think you should allow this therapeutic cloning. You should allow it to be used for scientific purposes. We'll see how it plays out in the weeks ahead, Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you. We will do that.


BROWN: This is a very complicated issue. It is a very juicy issue in the way we see things. It goes to the heart of how we feel about life and science and the future. We'll talk with people on both sides of it in a moment. This is NEWSNIGHT.


BROWN: More now on the debate over cloning human embryos to use either, I suppose, to create another human being or for research in some form or another. We're joined from Washington tonight. Sean Tipton of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and Judy Norsigian, the co- author of "Our Bodies, Ourselves for a New Century." And she joins us from Boston tonight.

I want to try to both of you, I want to focus this as much as I can. So let me ask each of you a question and give you try to focus it. Judy, let me start with you. If tomorrow, there were, as a result of therapeutic cloning, a cure for parlysis, for spinal cord paralysis, would you still be opposed to it?

JUDY NORSIGIAN, CO-AUTHOR, "OUR BODIES, OURSELVES FOR THE NEW CENTURY": Well, first of all, that isn't a very good question, because most of the research that we're looking at right now is research on embryotic stem cells. And we don't need clonal embryos for most of this research.

There are major obstacles that have to do with tumgenicity (ph), with the inability to control differentiation. And scientists are working on those problems. It'll be some time before they solve them. We're not going to have any therapies. In fact, we object to the term therapeutic cloning. We prefer research cloning. But if we get to that point in time where the embryotic stem cell research does prove to be beneficial, then we can talk about the need for embryo cloning, but we're far from that point.

BROWN: And so, because we are not there yet, it's easy to be opposed to it?

NORSIGIAN: Well, there are other reasons, too. One of the things that's been long hidden from the public eye is the fact that you do not get these eggs, which then you involve an embryo cloning. You know, you nucleate the eggs and then you put in the nucleus from an adult cell from somebody else. You don't get them from thin air. You get them from women who have to undergo fairly strenuous procedures that involve giving them strong drugs to hyperstimulate their ovaries to produce multiple eggs.

And the risks of taking these drugs are quite substantial. There are serious risks that a small percentage of women who take the drugs endure. Now we know about these risks, because they're used in invitro fertilization clinics. But in those situations, women are seeking a baby. They have something pretty substantial to gain if they're successful. In the research setting, they would simply be providing eggs for research. And it's a very difficult risk benefit ratio.

BROWN: OK, that's a fair point. Can I come back to that in a second?


BROWN: Thank you. Let me go to Mr. Tipton for a second. Sean, here's the concern that I have. I think a lot of people do. You know what? Somebody, somewhere's going to clone a person. It's going to happen. And the whole notion of a slippery slope is not so far farfetched at all. If we start down that slope, we're going to end up in a place we're not going to be happy with.

SEAN TIPTON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AMER. SOCIETY OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Well, I think that may be a valid concern. And I think our organization, and indeed, virtually every scientific or medical group in the country is opposed for reproductive cloning in part for that reason.

But I would also say that, if science is going to progress, the best way to make sure it's done correctly is to not make it illegal and drive it overseas or underground, but to have the government regulate it and indeed support it. So it can be done in the light of day.

I think, in fact, if you're concerned about that this might happen eventually, you may be right about that. But I don't think we will stop it through a legislative prohibition. I think science is going to progress.

BROWN: And let me ask you, since the subject came up, to address Judy's point that one of the problems here, as we sit here today, is that women to produce these eggs are taking drugs that aren't very good for them?

TIPTON: Well, I don't know about not being good for them. I can say that egg donation is a very important therapy for infertility in this country. We've had more than 15,000 babies born as a result of egg donation. And that experience has been good. And you know, we've got more than 100,000 babies born with the help of assisted reproductive technologies in this country. And all of their mothers have had -- have taken the hormones to help them harvest their eggs. And they've all been used.

So I think that, yes, as with any medical procedure, there are some risks. However, it's a safe procedure when done correctly. And everyone involved in the procedure is very well informed of the small potential for risks.

NORSIGIAN: That is actually not true. And there are hundreds of women who weren't well informed and who did not successfully come out with babies, and who were quite upset about the effects of Lupron (ph). We also wee women, five, six, seven years after their last Lupron (ph) shot enduring very, very significant problems.

TIPTON: And the FDA continues to allow the use of the drugs.

NORSIGIAN: The FDA has not done an adequate job.

TIPTON: Because it's proven...

NORSIGIAN: ...of post-marketing surveillance. And I think that it's partly because they haven't had the resources. But that needs to be done, especially long-term effects of these drugs need to be better established. You cannot have a government properly regulating this research if you cannot give women true and informed consent.

BROWN: Well, Judy, I'm sorry. I hate being the sheriff in moments like this. Judy and Sean, thank you. We'll come back at this more and more. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

This is so difficult to focus, I think for me. On NEWSNIGHT next, the lost art of September 11. We're right back.


BROWN: Finally from us, tonight, a different kind of loss from September 11. We lost so much. You go down to ground zero, you see it everyday. They found another body down there. They continue to search for more, but there are other things lost. Our sense of innocence, our sense of security, intangible things like that. And then there were tangible things, things that say a lot about who we are and what we value in the world.

Here's NEWSNIGHT'S Beth Nissen.


BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 1,000 corporations, banks, and financial service companies leased space in the Twin Towers, many of their offices designed to impress clients with expensive furnishings and artwork in the reception areas and conference rooms.

DIETRICK VON FRANK: I'm not sure that people were aware that there were fine art objects, paintings, scupltures, etcetera in the World Trade Center.

NISSEN: A prime example, bond trading firm Cantor Fitzgerald. This videotape was shot four months before September 11. Company chairman Howard Lutnik, who survived in 9/11, is seen showing CNN anchro Willow Bay the company's world class collection of Rodin scupltures.

HOWARD LUTNIK: There are 12 in the world.

NISSEN: All these bronzes, valued at $17 million, were lost. Although remarkably, one sheered piece was recovered by ground zero workers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think it's from Cantor Fitzgerald. We think it's part of a Rodin, yes.

FRANK: They would finding more pieces of torn metal or paper or canvasses, but it's all basically destroyed.

NISSEN: Dietrick Von Frank is president of Aqsa Art Insurance, which insured several World Trade Center collections.

FRANK: When those towers came down, the range of artwork that was lost is wide variety, paintings, sculpture, textiles.

NISSEN: And valuable ceramics, such as this plate at Cantor Fitzgerald. Among the lost artworks were paintings by Pablo Picasso, David Hockney (ph) and Roy Lichtenstein, photographs by Cindy Sherman. Bank of America, alone, lost more than 100 contemporary works on paper, such as watercolors, photographs and collages.

Several of the destroyed works had been displayed in the Twin Towers public lobbies and plazas. A Jeff Konigsburg (ph) installation. A Louise Nevillson work, valued at three-quarters of a million dollars. A tapestry by Juan Miro, valued at $2 million. A large outdoor sculpture by Alexaner Calder, valued at $2.25 million.

FRANK: You have very grand names like Alexander Calder, Louise Nevillson, Juan Miro, and Nigary, but you also have other artists that are less known.

NISSEN: Many of those works were highly prized and highly priced. A $30,000 marble sculpture, a $650,000 metal work, a million dollar sphere.

FRANK: My estimate on the art that was lost in September 11th would be around $100 million.

NISSEN: It's impossible to compare the loss of even the most exquisite painting, the most elegant statue to the loss of human life, human potential on that day. Yet every work of art represents human creativity, human potential realized in plaster, or acrylic paint, or bronze. And is, on that account, a loss of some account.

Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.


BROWN: Let's leave you tonight at ground zero. The two beams of light still shine down there. The memorial, it's hard to see them through the night sky tonight. They'll be up there for a couple more days, no longer a few more days. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. Good to see you tonight. Good night.


He is Against All Forms of Human Cloning>



Back to the top