Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

American Killed in Moscow Hostage Rescue Was Survivor of Oklahoma City Bombing

Aired October 29, 2002 - 07:36   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.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The American killed in last weekend's Moscow hostage rescue, 49-year-old Sandy Allen Booker, was a survivor of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He was one of 115 hostages killed by the gas pumped into the theater by Russian special forces. And the Russian government refuses to tell even doctors what was in that gas or provide an antidote. As CNN first reported on this program yesterday, Pentagon officials believe the gas contained a powerful opiate.
Joining us now from Washington is Amy Smithson, who directs the Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation Project at the Stimson Center.

Welcome.

Good to have you with us this morning.

AMY SMITHSON, STIMSON CENTER: It's a pleasure to be here.

Thank you.

ZAHN: Amy, why do you think the Russians are refusing to tell anybody what gas was used? What are they afraid of?

SMITHSON: Their stated reasons are that they don't want to give anybody who might do these types of activities in the future any advantages. They want to be able to take hostage takers or other possible opponents by surprise again. So that's why they're staying tight-lipped.

ZAHN: So if that is their stated reason, what do you think the unstated reason is?

SMITHSON: I'm not sure that there is an unstated reason. I think that law enforcement authorities always want to have some things that they hold close to the vest. And in this particular situation, the Russian authorities were put sort of between a rock and a hard place. They had people with obvious hostile intent wired to blow the building and they needed an element of surprise to try to resolve the situation with as minimal a loss of life as possible.

ZAHN: Now, we know that Russia and the United States are bound by the chemical weapons convention. But there are circumstances where governments may use incapacitating substances. Can you run through when they're allowed to do that? SMITHSON: Actually, this treaty allows for domestic law enforcement authorities to use incapacitating agents and it requires states to declare the agents that they have on hand for those purposes. In battle, however, there are pretty strict restrictions. If a government wants to try to rescue downed pilots or to try to control rioting prisoners of war or in limited situations where there are civilians intermingled with combatants, they might be able to release an incapacitating gas in order to have the civilians be knocked out and therefore be able to deal with the soldiers that are firing at them.

ZAHN: And if it turns out the gas that was used was some kind of antithetic or opiate, is it possible that they didn't understand how damaging too strong a potency could be?

SMITHSON: Well, first of all, when militaries study how these gases behave, they count on using them in most situations that are out of doors. And this was a confined space. Other things that might account for the casualty toll going higher include the fact that some people were sitting closer to the vents where the gas was introduced than others and unlike soldiers who are healthy, able-bodied individuals, there were a variety of people, ages and sizes, in the theater that day. And I don't rule out the possibility that the Russians might have used actually more than one agent.

ZAHN: A final question for you. I guess families are very upset that the antidote was only given to the attack group and the rescue workers at the scene and not the folks inside the theater until much later on. Is there any justification for that?

SMITHSON: I think on this particular issue, the Russian authorities might deserve some criticism. They knew what gas they were planning to use. They should have informed physicians of the symptoms they would be encountering, as well as provided ample quantities of antidote to physicians and to hospitals that would be receiving these patients so that they could account for these casualties and give them the best possible medical treatment.

That was doable.

ZAHN: So you certainly understand the outrage of these family members?

SMITHSON: Were I in their shoes, I would probably be pretty upset, too. But, again, these were very difficult circumstances. We don't know whether or not the individuals conducting the raid to try to free these hostages were pushed into action faster than they had planned because the hostage takers actually started executing people.

ZAHN: Amy Smithson of the Stimson Center, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it this morning.

SMITHSON: My pleasure. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com




Oklahoma City Bombing>


Aired October 29, 2002 - 07:36   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The American killed in last weekend's Moscow hostage rescue, 49-year-old Sandy Allen Booker, was a survivor of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He was one of 115 hostages killed by the gas pumped into the theater by Russian special forces. And the Russian government refuses to tell even doctors what was in that gas or provide an antidote. As CNN first reported on this program yesterday, Pentagon officials believe the gas contained a powerful opiate.
Joining us now from Washington is Amy Smithson, who directs the Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation Project at the Stimson Center.

Welcome.

Good to have you with us this morning.

AMY SMITHSON, STIMSON CENTER: It's a pleasure to be here.

Thank you.

ZAHN: Amy, why do you think the Russians are refusing to tell anybody what gas was used? What are they afraid of?

SMITHSON: Their stated reasons are that they don't want to give anybody who might do these types of activities in the future any advantages. They want to be able to take hostage takers or other possible opponents by surprise again. So that's why they're staying tight-lipped.

ZAHN: So if that is their stated reason, what do you think the unstated reason is?

SMITHSON: I'm not sure that there is an unstated reason. I think that law enforcement authorities always want to have some things that they hold close to the vest. And in this particular situation, the Russian authorities were put sort of between a rock and a hard place. They had people with obvious hostile intent wired to blow the building and they needed an element of surprise to try to resolve the situation with as minimal a loss of life as possible.

ZAHN: Now, we know that Russia and the United States are bound by the chemical weapons convention. But there are circumstances where governments may use incapacitating substances. Can you run through when they're allowed to do that? SMITHSON: Actually, this treaty allows for domestic law enforcement authorities to use incapacitating agents and it requires states to declare the agents that they have on hand for those purposes. In battle, however, there are pretty strict restrictions. If a government wants to try to rescue downed pilots or to try to control rioting prisoners of war or in limited situations where there are civilians intermingled with combatants, they might be able to release an incapacitating gas in order to have the civilians be knocked out and therefore be able to deal with the soldiers that are firing at them.

ZAHN: And if it turns out the gas that was used was some kind of antithetic or opiate, is it possible that they didn't understand how damaging too strong a potency could be?

SMITHSON: Well, first of all, when militaries study how these gases behave, they count on using them in most situations that are out of doors. And this was a confined space. Other things that might account for the casualty toll going higher include the fact that some people were sitting closer to the vents where the gas was introduced than others and unlike soldiers who are healthy, able-bodied individuals, there were a variety of people, ages and sizes, in the theater that day. And I don't rule out the possibility that the Russians might have used actually more than one agent.

ZAHN: A final question for you. I guess families are very upset that the antidote was only given to the attack group and the rescue workers at the scene and not the folks inside the theater until much later on. Is there any justification for that?

SMITHSON: I think on this particular issue, the Russian authorities might deserve some criticism. They knew what gas they were planning to use. They should have informed physicians of the symptoms they would be encountering, as well as provided ample quantities of antidote to physicians and to hospitals that would be receiving these patients so that they could account for these casualties and give them the best possible medical treatment.

That was doable.

ZAHN: So you certainly understand the outrage of these family members?

SMITHSON: Were I in their shoes, I would probably be pretty upset, too. But, again, these were very difficult circumstances. We don't know whether or not the individuals conducting the raid to try to free these hostages were pushed into action faster than they had planned because the hostage takers actually started executing people.

ZAHN: Amy Smithson of the Stimson Center, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it this morning.

SMITHSON: My pleasure. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com




Oklahoma City Bombing>