Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iraq Suicide Attack; Nonaligned Summit in Cuba; Pleading Darfur's Case

Aired September 14, 2006 - 13:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: And we begin the hour with a breaking story out of Iraq. A suicide truck bomb kills two American soldiers, more than two dozen are wounded.
We're going to go straight to Baghdad and CNN's Cal Perry, who witnessed this go down himself -- Cal.

CAL PERRY, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Yes. Well, good afternoon, Carol.

What we know at this point -- and facts are still unfolding as we speak -- at least two U.S. soldiers have been killed, some 29 others wounded when a suicide truck bomber truck a U.S. military fixed position. The video you're seeing now was shot by cameraman Peter Morris. We were actually at this combat hospital in Baghdad when the call came down, mass casualties on their way.

Literally, within minutes, U.S. soldiers came streaming in. Some of them wounded very, very seriously. Others not very wounded. Very light injuries there. We saw a gamut of injuries.

They immediately started triaging. That is, they triaged out the lesser wounds. They started treated those that were more heavily wounded.

A number of these soldiers are going to be going into surgery. Some are going to be flown to Balad. We're obviously blurring out the faces. We do not want families to be seeing their loved ones in these kinds of conditions.

Also worth mentioning, a very emotional moment with Major General James Thurman, the commanding general of the 4th I.D. He actually came in to the combat hospital and stood next to one of the U.S. soldiers.

He whispered something in his ear, then took a step back and asked a chilling question -- simply, "Is he going to be OK?" The doctor said, "Sir, he is going to be OK."

It was an exceptionally emotionally day at the combat hospital to be sure -- Carol.

LIN: Cal, how did the suicide bomber get so close?

PERRY; That's still under investigation. We do know that the U.S. military keeps fixed positions all throughout the country. They call them combat outposts.

This one is somewhere in western Baghdad. I spoke to a member of the 4th Infantry Division just a few minutes ago. I asked him, "Why were some of these wounded wearing sneakers and in their physical training gear, as opposed to their combat gear?" He said that a group of the soldiers were actually resting at this combat outpost before going back on patrol.

It also is worth mentioning that five of the 29 wounded have been returned to duty. But, again, it will be key in the investigation as to how this suicide truck bomber was able to get that close to this combat outpost -- Carol.

LIN: Cal, thank you. I know it's a developing story out there in Baghdad. It's getting late in the day. Appreciate the reporting and the exclusive videotape.

Now we want to go to the breaking news desk. Fredricka Whitfield working on a ship that went aground in Florida -- Fred.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. And it's still stuck just off the coast of Port Everglades in Florida, just outside of the Ft. Lauderdale area.

You're looking at a 500-foot cargo ship called the Clipper Lasco (ph), and it went aground just a short while ago. And we saw pictures of the Coast Guard on its way there, and we know that a sea tow has also been dispatched to the area. And hopefully, momentarily, it will be able to free this ship.

It's unclear exactly what happened, whether it just had hit a sandbar there. In the wider shot you can see that it was probably less than a mile off the coast there.

But, you know, Port Everglades is an area that is accustomed to a lot of ship activity, whether it's pleasure cruise ships or whether it's cargo ships like this one. Something like 3.5 million cruise ship passengers come in and out of the Port Everglades area every year, and that breaks down to about 5,400 ships as a whole that make their way through the Port Everglades area.

So it's unclear exactly what took place today with this cargo ship, but help is on the way to try and free it up.

LIN: Fred, earlier you mentioned there was a chemical on board. Are they worried that it might be dangerous?

WHITFIELD: Well, we haven't heard that there is any worry about it being dangerous. And instead of it being a chemical, it really may be more of a rock. And we're not sure exactly in what form this rock, whether it has been in some way, you know, grounded up -- it's bauxite, which is used to help make aluminum.

We don't know if it's been grounded up, is it in a granular form, or whether it's in a heavy massive rock, or whether it's been liquefied in some way. So, it's unclear whether that is in any way a hazardous material to be concerned about, but that's what we know about what is on board.

Bauxite is what it's called.

LIN: A rock on board a ship that sunk. All right.

WHITFIELD: Yes. A bad scene.

LIN: Thanks very much, Fred. You got it.

WHITFIELD: All right.

LIN: All right.

Well, the Nonaligned Summit gearing up today in Havana. Officials of more than 100 nations are meeting in the Cuban capital. Heads of governments are now filing in for the climax, and they include some of the world's most vocal opponents of the Bush administration.

To fill us in on what's happening, CNN's Morgan Neill.

Morgan, it's fair to say when you look at this room full of -- full of men, these are people who represent countries that hate America.

MORGAN NEILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they certainly have been vocal critics of the United States. There are more than, as you said, more than 50 heads of state expected to get here. Recent arrivals, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and just a few hours ago, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a close ally of host country leader, Cuban president, Fidel Castro.

Now, of those more than 50 heads of state, several are, as you point out, very vocal critics of the United States. And Cuban officials have been joining in, blasting away at U.S. policies, calling -- accusing the United States, among other things, of warmongering and sponsoring terrorism. But it's good to remember that this is an organization that includes some 118 countries, many of them with close relationships with the United States.

We've been talking to some of the delegates taking part in the preliminary meetings here. These are delegates from smaller countries, and they say what they are looking for is not any condemnation of the United States. What they are looking for is a stronger, more united voice in world affairs than they feel that they've been getting and a way to respond to what they perceive as U.S. unilateralism.

Now, one of the stories that everyone here is waiting to here more about is, will Cuban president Fidel Castro make a public appearance? Last night on Cuban television we saw some still photos of President Fidel Castro wearing his pajamas, seated at a table, talking to a representative from Argentina.

Now, since he was forced to hand over power on July 31st following surgery to stop internal bleeding, he has not made a public appearance. He's told us that -- he said through the official media, he's lost some 41 pounds in that time, and it's clear to see in these pictures that we've seen most recently.

Will he appear or will we see his brother, acting president Raul Castro, hosting the event? Well, Cuban officials just aren't saying -- Carol.

LIN: Morgan, what about the atmosphere there? I mean, this is just, what, 90 miles off the coast of the United States where this meeting is taking place? Is it stridently anti-American?

NEILL: Well, you have to take into account a lot of the rhetoric that you've been -- that you see in the recent days is rhetoric that you'll hear most times of the year here from Cuban officials. That is, these charges that the U.S. is warmongering, that they are supporting terrorism.

These are charges that we've heard before. But you have a lot more focus on this event now because of the arrival. Some, as you said, very vocal critics from other parts of the world.

But, as I say, we've been talking to the delegates here of many, many smaller countries, and over and over today, just in the last few hours, we've heard that, "We are not here to criticize the United States. We have enough problems of our own that we're trying to sort out" -- Carol.

LIN: Morgan Neill, live in Havana.

Thank you.

Three years of fighting in Darfur, Sudan, 450,000 people dead, two million others forced to flee. Now, so far, the United Nations has voted to impose sanctions on a few alleged war criminals and voted to send peacekeepers, but Sudan's government hasn't given the OK for troops. Now, some say the world must act now, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Hollywood actor.

CNN's Richard Roth at the United Nations.

So, Richard, what a combination, Elie Wiesel and George Clooney.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, George Clooney is the Oscar winner, not the Nobel Prize winner. He is, along with Eli Wiesel, they're going to be going before a rare Security Council private meeting hosting this actor and humanitarian activist. They are going to be appealing to the international community to do something about the situation in Darfur.

Clooney has been there recently, along with his father, who is coming here, a former newsman. And they are going to say that the time to act, in effect, has long past.

George Clooney issued a statement earlier saying, "The situation in Darfur is not getting better. It is getting worse. We need the international community to commit all of its resources to bring an end to this extraordinary suffering. The critical hour for Darfur is now."

The Security Council has called for Sudan to accept at least 20,000 peacekeeping troops, but the government of Sudan has not given its permission. And the Security Council is not willing to test that. Nations such as China and others on the council say the consent of Sudan is essential.

The president of Sudan was not exactly forthcoming today. In a stop in the African nation of Gambia, he said the U.N. forces have a hidden agenda in Sudan because they are not coming for peace in Darfur, they want to recolonize Sudan. He said, "We're not ready to be recolonized."

So there's going to be some likely passion on behalf of Clooney and Wiesel behind the closed-door council meeting, and then they'll meet with the press afterwards.

Back to you, Carol.

LIN: Richard, in two weeks, before the end of the month, the African nation troops which are already there in Darfur, trying to do what they can to stop the violence, their contract is up. They are talking about pulling out by the end of the month.

So what's the point of having this conversation at the Security Council when you still need -- the United Nations still needs Sudan's permission? Sudan's president said, well, his country is going to shoot at U.N. troops if they try to come in. So what more can George Clooney and Elie Wiesel do? It's like they are preaching to the choir.

ROTH: Well, the idea the United States, in sponsoring these two gentlemen, is to put more pressure on China, Russia, and others in the council to put more pressure on Sudan. It's believed -- Kofi Annan has said so. He has said, "We'd like to have other voices step in to appeal to Sudan."

In the past, sometimes countries react when larger nations that have been allies in the past support them, such as China and Russia. China's ambassador to the U.N. today said that he has -- his country has appealed again to China to let the peacekeepers in. So this is another attempt face to face to put pressure on.

LIN: Star power and compassion this afternoon at the Security Council.

Richard, thank you very much. We'll be checking in with you in the next hour before we actually hear those statements by Clooney and Elie Wiesel.

Now, they're expected to address the United Nations Security Council at 3:00 Eastern. We are going to bring that to you live when it happens.

Also, an interesting report out of Amnesty International which says that Israel may have committed human rights violations but Hezbollah's attacks on civilians can't be justified. A new report by the human rights group criticizes Hezbollah for firing rockets into civilian areas during the recent war with Israel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IRENE KHAN, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SECRETARY GENERAL: And what we found is that the Hezbollah launched rockets, Katyusha rockets, which are known to be inaccurate over any distance, at targets that were very clearly civilians, civilian homes, hospitals, towns where people are living. And therefore, we are saying that these were direct attacks on civilians, it led to deaths of 43 Israeli civilians, including nine of them children. It led to destruction of homes, of businesses, of hospitals, and other sort of civilian structures.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: But the report did not address accusations by Israel that Hezbollah used human shields, civilians.

Now, the same report -- the same organizations, rather, notes, claims of human rights violations by Israel. So it is calling for a full investigation of both sides, led by the United Nations.

Well, Montreal's Dawson College remains closed as authorities investigate yesterday's shootings. The gunman belonged to an online Goth community called VanpireFreaks.com.

Twenty-five-year-old Kimveer Gill identified himself as "Fatality666" and the "Angel of Death" in his Web postings. He died yesterday in a firefight with Canadian police, but not before he allegedly shot 20 people. One was killed, six remain in critical condition.

Now, as of now, police still don't have a motive for that shooting.

Also, she was a white-haired, shoot-from-the-lip, one-time governor of Texas. Ann Richards is being remembered for her zest for life a day after her death of esophageal cancer at the age of 73.

Now, Richards shot to national prominence with a biting speech at the 1998 Democratic convention. She won the governor's office two years later, cementing her reputation as a champion of women and minorities in government. Ann Richards lost re-election to a challenger named George W. Bush in 1994.

Today, he calls her a national role model.

Well, from equal rights to equal time, talk radio gets a new spin from a couple of women who are used to shaking things up.

Lend us your ears. We've got details straight ahead from the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Hoping to put the "F" in FM, "F" as in female, and an all new female, all-talk radio network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everything will be great when I lose 10 pounds.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's called hope. You're thinking -- you know, there's goals. I don't think you're lying to yourself. You think, I'm going -- I'm going to fit into those one day.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, what's the deal-breaker in your relationship? That's what I'd like to know. I mean, when is it that you say, no way, enough?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're talking about the catastrophic healthcare disaster that was affected by Hurricane Katrina.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Well, partners in the new GreenStone Media venture include two women who know a little something about how to be heard.

Yesterday I spoke with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem about their new venture.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: First of all, ladies, I just want to say how great you both look. You both look gorgeous. And I just kind of wonder in this day and age is that OK to say? I mean, is that OK to say about women who have been so accomplished as the both of you?

JANE FONDA, ACTRESS: You bet. Of course.

GLORIA STEINEM, GREENSTONE MEDIA: Well, you know, I think it's better with age, you know, because -- because it's sort of counterintuitive, you know. It may not be so great at 21, but by the time...

(LAUGHTER)

LIN: Well, you know what? It's ironic that we're talking about your new network today, because in nothing less than "The New York Times" today, all right, they have an article about the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, right, one of the most powerful women in the world, and what's the article about? Not Iran, not Iraq, it's speculation whether she is having a romance with the foreign minister of Canada.

You know, and it proceeds to describe her as, you know, single, sophisticated, American, black stiletto, knee-high boots, above-the- knees black skirt.

What's does that say when Condoleezza Rice is dealing with some of the most complex issues of the day and reporters are asking her about whether the dinner -- the working dinner she had with this man was by candlelight?

FONDA: You'll probably come up with a funny answer.

STEINEM: No, well, I have to say, in the unique case of Condoleezza Rice, it sort of humanized her for me, because up until now, she's seemed like such an autonotom. But I agree with you that it's -- it's a -- it's a complete double standard.

LIN: You have a motto, a mission, where you say on the radio, "Talk, listen and connect." And I have to say, as a working woman and a working mom, I only have time to do one of those things in a day. OK, I can either talk, I can either listen, or I can connect, but I can't do all three in a single day.

Who do you expect to reach with this -- with this radio network? Who is going to have the time to tune in when they are juggling all these balls in the air every day?

STEINEM: Well, in the first instance, it's women who have been listening to radio anyway and have fled radio because it's too hostile and argumentative and crazy and...

LIN: Well, what's not to say that women aren't going to be hostile and argumentative, too?

STEINEM: Well, as it turns out, women are not nearly as hostile and argumentative. And also, the surveys that we've done, which are very, very extensive, show that women want information. They want information about current events, but they don't want just prizefighting and debating.

They want -- they want information that can help them live their own lives, make decisions about what's going on in the world, learn about women in other countries. I thought it was really interesting that that came out in the surveys, because it's very, very difficult to find out about women in other countries. And there's a great hunger for it.

And humor and laughter is a good thing, a positive thing, a -- you know, you laugh with recognition. You laugh because you're learning something. You know, we've been gathered around campfires for, I don't know...

FONDA: Millennia.

STEINEM: Yes, millennia, and -- and we need campfires where we can share stories and have a sense of community. And radio has not been a campfire in a long time. We want to -- we want to restore that.

LIN: Jane...

FONDA: And you can listen to the radio -- you can't watch TV, but you can listen to the radio while you're cooking, while you're sewing, while you're driving to and from school and sports events. LIN: But Jane, you know the commercial world. You know the message in mass media is to sell to the 45-year-old male, because women may make the pocketbook decisions, but it's still the men who make the money in this country, and that's who advertisers want. So how viable is -- is a women's network?

FONDA: I think it's very viable. It's very viable. Advertisers want women and are dismayed by the fact that women are leaving radio in droves. And we think that we can help bring them back, and advertisers are very, very interested in that.

LIN: Jane, you're going to have a show one day a week, is that right?

FONDA: I'm not going to have my show, but I'm going to be on one of the shows, hopefully, once a week. What I've learned is called appointment radio. Yes.

LIN: And when do we make the appointment with you? How do we know when you're going to be on?

FONDA: Well, that's being -- it's being worked out.

LIN: So what are you going to talk about?

FONDA: Well, the -- parenting. You know, I work with -- I live in Georgia. I work with adolescents and I spend a lot of time talking to them, and talking to their parents, their fathers and their mothers. Very often the kids ask me to talk to their parents.

And so I -- there's a lot that I've learned about parenting, adolescence, which is really tricky think to do these days. Boys and how they are different from girl adolescents, and how you deal with their sexuality. So those kinds of issues. Grandmothering.

LIN: I wish I had you when I was growing up, because I sure would like to take you home...

FONDA: I wish you had me, too.

LIN: Hey, I want Jane Fonda to talk to me about what it's like for me to grow up here.

FONDA: You know, my kids wish they had me when they were growing up.

LIN: Well, you've had so many lives, Jane. I mean, come on.

FONDA: I'm quite different than I was when I was first parenting.

LIN: Well, congratulations on this new effort. We'll be following the success very closely. It's such a pleasure to talk to both of you.

FONDA: Thank you. STEINEM: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: Super women.

Now, speaking of female voices, we hear novelist and poet Maya Angelou is coming to a satellite radio near you. Maya Angelou will be hosting a weekly show on the "Oprah and Friends" XM satellite channel. She'll interview the famous, the infamous, and just plain ordinary people, asking them what they think it means to be American.

Suspected Taliban militants in the crosshairs, but no one pulled the trigger.

Find out why in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: The Segway stubs its toe, or wheel, or whatever. For the second time since their debut, Segway makers issue a recall on their commuter scooters -- more than 23,000 of them. The reason? Well, the wheels may suddenly reverse because of a software glitch.

Six Segway users have reported injuries blamed on the malfunction. The Consumer Product Safety Commission tells Segway riders to park it immediately. The company is offering free software upgrades to fix the glitch.

In the meantime, Apple's iPod has had a stranglehold on the digital media player market for years. But Susan Lisovicz joins us from the New York Stock Exchange to tell us about a serious new challenger.

(BUSINESS REPORT)

(BUSINESS HEADLINES)

In the meantime, we're going to take our audience hundreds of miles from the Mexican border. A new front in the fight with Mexican drug cartels. CNN's Casey Wian went on as drug agents raided a marijuana forest near the California-Oregon border.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just after dawn Tuesday, 100 law enforcement officers needed a staging area in the Klamath National Forest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is our target area over here.

WIAN: They are preparing to raid a massive marijuana growing operation linked to Mexican drug traffickers. These rugged mountains provide perfect cover for huge marijuana gardens, which are overwhelming the tiny Siskiyou sheriff's department, so it's working with nearly a dozen, federal, state and local agencies. As the operation commander begins a reconnaissance flight, medics get ready.

DARRELL FROST, SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.: An issue with the Mexican cartel type stuff, is that these folks are willing to defend their marijuana growers, and so the potential for trauma and gunshot wounds is high.

WIAN: Deputies head out to set up a perimeter, hoping to catch growers before they flee. Then the raid begins.

WIAN (on camera): Marijuana gardens are located in such remote terrain that sheriff's deputies must be airlifted in by a helicopter, two at a time on a rope. Another chopper hovers above the garden, providing cover in case growers shoot at the incoming deputies.

WIAN (voice-over): From the air, the marijuana is easy to spot. On the ground, it's overwhelming. Thousands of plants eight feet tall.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a bud. These plants probably have a couple more months before they get there, but this is where the money's at.

WIAN: And the money appears headed to Mexico. From the living quarters and supplies, to sophisticated irrigation systems, these gardens bear all the signs of Mexican drug traffickers. The SWAT team pursued about a dozen men through the thick timber.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe you guys could bump over the next ridge to the north, we don't think we looked in there yet.

WIAN: Though they escaped, deputies seized plenty of evidence, including boxes of .45 caliber bullets, notebooks in Spanish and a cell phone. Investigators are tracking the kingpin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we have to do is gather every bit of information we can from in here and the intel that we can and try to put that together to track these guys back.

WIAN: Meanwhile, other agents begin cutting the plant, each one, worth about $5,000. Twelve hours after the operation began, deputies continue to stack load after load of dope. They cut 12,000 plants the first day. The two-day total, about 16,000 plants with a street value of $80 million.

LT. JIM BETTS, SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.: We've got a rural area that hunting season's going to be starting here in another week, and there's going to be a lot of people coming in the woods here and for safety of those people, we needed to get those -- get this out of here.

WIAN: Eight hundred miles from the Mexican border, Mexican drug traffickers are spreading throughout this and other national forests. But a familiar problem is on the traffickers' side, federal money for operations like this is scarce.

Casey Wian, CNN, Siskiyou County, California.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIN: Casey Wian is part of the team covering the world for "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT". Tune in weekdays -- weeknights, actually, at 6:00 Eastern, only on CNN.

All right. President Bush versus Colin Powell.

It's a policy divide that's complicating the White House strategy in the war on terror. Mr. Bush went to Capitol Hill this morning to lobby support for his anti-terror proposals, but he had to share the spotlight with a letter by Colin Powell. The former Secretary of State opposes the president's attempt to redefine the Geneva Convention article on interrogations.

Now, in Powell's words, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, to redefine Common Article III, which protects, in effect, prisoners of war. Now further, he said, it would put our own troops at risk by changing the rules of engagement.

Now, a short time later, the president defended his proposal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So the question I ask about any piece of legislation is, will the program provide legal clarity so that our professionals will feel comfortable about going forward with the program? That's what I'm going to ask.

And I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to be -- go forward -- legal clarity, and there's all kinds of letters coming out, and today, by the way, active-duty personnel, in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you. This is an important program for the security of this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Mr. Bush proposed the new legislation after the Supreme Court ruled his initial plan for war tribunals was unconstitutional. So let's go now to the White House briefing room, where Press Secretary Tony Snow, now taking questions from reporters.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me put it this way, you define it by saying these -- the practices that were prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act will henceforth be prohibited because they're interpreted as violating Common Article III...

QUESTION: The critics of this, Republicans that you've talked about, think that you are seeking to alter Article 3 because you are in effect lowering the standards of Article 3 by the elimination of this language.

SNOW: No, it's a straw man.

As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is we're trying to reach out and work with them to come up with the issues.

There are two things going on. There is one proposal that says, "Here's what the law is, and if you break it, you won't get punished by American authorities." What we're saying is, "No, you can't do that." In the law, what you have to do is to say these activities are illegal. That's what laws do.

And so what we thought -- and, again, I don't think this should be terribly controversial -- is we went back -- for the purposes of defining what falls within Common Article 3 and the kinds of things that will be prohibited, we went back to the Detainee Treatment Act and Senator McCain's own formulation from a year ago.

QUESTION: Right. But in your attempt to redefine it...

SNOW: It's to define it.

QUESTION: Well, right, but that's your interpretation of it. But you're defining it in a way that does not address "outrages upon personal dignity and particularly..."

SNOW: Sure it does.

QUESTION: "... humiliating and degrading treatment," because you find that to be vague.

SNOW: No. All of it is vague, and therefore what you do is you try to provide some clarity by saying, "Here are the subset of behaviors that we think fall under those terms."

I think we're talking past each other here.

QUESTION: No, I don't -- you're certainly talking past the people who oppose you, and so maybe you can help the country understand, because I can't imagine this is clear.

SNOW: OK, well -- I don't even understand the question. What exactly is it...

QUESTION: I'll restate the question.

You claim that you are not redefining Article 3. Everyone who opposes you on this, from Secretary Powell to Senator Warner to Senator Graham to Senator McCain, says, in effect, you are trying to redefine it by excluding language you consider vague that they think is actually important.

SNOW: No, no, no. Thank you. Thank you. No, that's OK -- thank you.

No, we're not excluding it, we're defining what that language means. So heart be still. No, I mean the fact is, the language is vague and so nobody knows exactly what would be prohibited or not prohibited under it. And we're saying, "No, here are the things that ought to be prohibited under it."

And that's an important point. And I'm glad you asked, because I didn't quite understand it.

We're saying that the language is vague and therefore you define it by putting together the proper framework for saying, "I'm sorry, if you do this, you're guilty of cruel and inhumane treatment or cruel and degrading treatment. You are in violation of Common Article 3 if you do the following." And "the following" are the things that are specified in the Detainee Treatment Act.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you do not address -- you do not address the language that you think is vague, which is in Article 3 now, which has to do with outrages and...

SNOW: No, you do. I don't know how I can make it clearer.

What you do is you say...

QUESTION: You can, Tony. I mean, you may think I just don't get it, but I mean...

SNOW: Well, I do. And...

QUESTION: Let me suggest to you that if I don't get it, then I'll bet there's a lot of people who don't get it as well.

SNOW: Well, what's interesting is, that's why we're having briefings on the Hill. And it may be that the two sides are talking past each other.

Because, again, the way you have to define "cruel and inhumane" is specifying which acts qualify as cruel and inhumane, correct? Is that not how you would do it in law?

QUESTION: I'm not a lawyer.

SNOW: Well, you've been making a legal argument. Isn't that the way you would do it?

QUESTION: I'm not making any argument. I'm trying to get some clarity here.

SNOW: OK, cruel and inhumane treatment and you would say, "The following behavior is illegal." Would that not be a reasonable way to try to define it in clear terms that would be accessible to people doing it?

QUESTION: I'm asking you why you want to replace the...

SNOW: OK, well, that's what we're trying to do. We're not trying to replace. The fact is, these terms for the purposes of enactment and implementation, for the purposes of the people who are out in the field trying to do interrogation, it has absolutely no meat on the bones.

There is no specification of which methods are legal and which are not; which approaches are, which are not; what activities would constitute cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment and which would not.

What we're trying to say is, "No, guys, we'll tell you what is, and we'll do it in the context of a law that you've already passed and that is already operative."

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) other countries to do the same, to have other interpretations of Article 3?

SNOW: What allows every country to do this, to have an interpretation? Our European allies don't have an interpretation.

QUESTION: Your critics say that that's bad for U.S. troops if you allow those kinds of interpretations.

SNOW: No, I think, just the opposite.

As a matter of fact, the five guys who are judge advocates general right now say, "We need it." The people who interpret the law, the people who serve as the chief legal officers within the Pentagon, themselves say, "We need it."

You can't tell somebody to enact a program if you don't tell them what they can and cannot do.

And what we're trying to say is, "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." And it's really that simple. And again, that's why I think -- ultimately, I think we're going to get to a resolution on this because I think both sides want clarity.

You cannot have a program -- and this is what -- this is what Director Hayden was saying the other day. If you can't tell people what the rules are, the program can't go forward. And both sides say they want the program to go forward. And I think both sides would agree they want to figure out what the ground rules are.

And that is the approach we have taken, and that's what we hope to achieve.

QUESTION: Tony, I'm confused. Everybody I talked to today on the Hill says, "Look, you've had the Geneva Conventions in place since 1947. This isn't the Migratory Birds Treaty we're talking about. This is the Geneva Conventions. And it's a very simple argument. We don't want to talk about the definition of 'amend' or 'change,' but that it stands on its own, as written, hasn't been with tinkered with since 1947, doesn't need to be tinkered with now."

So if that seems to be the position from a former JAG and a former POW and a former secretary of the Navy, where's the room to work anything out?

SNOW: Well, I think there is. For instance, in 1987, we didn't know what the Genocide Convention said, so we passed a law to deal with it.

It appears...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: Yes, the Geneva Convention.

QUESTION: Not Article 3 -- that has nothing to do with Article 3.

SNOW: That's because Common Article 3 had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party. And furthermore, it has not been construed as applying to conflicts, for the most part, that afflicted any of our allies, to which they have been a party.

It is something that they had never had to think about, and for which there was not a substantial and settled body of law that would define what the terms mean.

And this is the key point. Nobody has defined in law what the terms mean. And we think it's important not only that we define what the terms mean, but that our -- the people who are working for us, either as soldiers in the field or those who are doing the questioning for the CIA, they have to know that it passes constitutional muster and it is defined and approved as abiding by our international treaty obligations.

The reasons nobody talked about this from 1948 is it hadn't come up. And there are times, you'll be surprised to know...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: Yes, but, you know what? It didn't apply to most of those wars. It didn't apply to most of those wars, which is why people have not asked the question.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Hang on a second. This seems to be...

SNOW: Well, let me just make the point here, is the predicate of your question was it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is nobody knew what the meeting was.

QUESTION: That's not my reading of it. That's what's coming off of the Hill. So this sounds eminently reasonable, what you're explaining.

And so you have these guys with a little bit of experience and certainly their own perspectives that have been developed by very direct experience with this stuff, they're saying, "You know what? Not so unreasonable; we don't need to do this."

SNOW: Well, just, again, I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I think people are still talking about it. You had 58 members of the House Armed Senate Committee vote for this.

You're talking about three people. And guess what? Senator McCain is still talking and working with us. I believe that it is his intention to come up with a way of clarifying what happens under Article 3, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The Supreme Court decision itself says that you need to define what it means. Thereby, continuing what I said, which is people did not know what it means. So we have an obligation to figure out what the terms are. I think everybody has the same goal, which is we want to keep intact a program that foiled numerous plots, that saved American lives. We want to figure out a way that comports with the Supreme Court's decision and also with our law and our treaty obligations.

And you're absolutely right: It's complex. And therefore there have been times, I think, when people have been talking past one another.

Let me reiterate, Senator McCain, in his conversations with us, has been very supportive. Today Senator Specter came out and supported our interpretation of the need to clarify the terms of Common Article 3.

I think what we need to do is, rather than saying, "He says this and he says this," is to realize that it's a complex situation and that everybody wants to get to the same end point.

SNOW: And what I'm trying to lay out to you is our position. And if it sounds reasonable, it's because it is.

LIN: So what is all this talk about Article 3? Well, what exactly does that part of the Geneva Conventions actually say? Well, Article 3 prohibits -- and I'm quoting here -- "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." It also outlaws the taking of hostages, as well as, and I'm quoting here, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

The final line of Article 3 prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Now, you can follow that White House briefing on CNN's Pipeline service as they talk about whether they're changing the language. Tony Snow says the administration wants legal clarification on some of those issues.

Now, coming up in the CNN NEWSROOM, the International Space Station spreads its wings -- well, sort of. Solar power in deep space, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: The Atlantis mission marks a restart of sorts, the resumption of major additions to the International Space Station that have been on hold since the Columbia tragedy.

Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg joins us with what's happening up there.

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, 240 miles up, on the International Space Station. A pretty exciting day for the folks up there. You can say it's the payoff for the payload. The 17.5 truss or addition to the International Space Station, this girder-like skeleton.

And today what we saw were these enormous solar panels -- so solar blankets. There are about 33,000 solar cells on each wing. They were slowly unfurled today. It started about 6:00 a.m. Eastern time. All told, it took a few hours to do.

They had to be careful with this procedure because of some problems they ran into back in 2000. At that time, when they were rolling out the first set of solar arrays that went up, they ran into some -- what's called sticktion (ph). And the best definition I can use for that is combining the word sticky with situation. So you got a sticktion. It basically means that some of the chemicals, some of the adhesion that's part of these solar blankets, gets stuck. And you can see that it's sort of buckling over here where it's not coming apart just as they would like to.

So they had to try and sort of accommodate for that. They did what's called thermal conditioning. They allowed some time where it sort of warmed up. And just a short time ago, Commander Brent Jett talked about the comparison between 2000 and what happened today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENT JETT, ATLANTIS COMMANDER: When they did release, we did see the waves in the blanket. The bottom part of the blanket box, the rigid structure on the bottom would move around a little bit, but it was very similar to what we saw back in 2000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIEBERG: So even though they saw some similarities with the unfurling, in the end it worked out just as they had planned. And, you know, the next part of the mission would be tomorrow. They've got another spacewalk planned. That would be EVA or extravehicular activity number three, and the last one.

LIN: Extravehicular activity?

SIEBERG: Yes, everything has to have an acronym with this.

LIN: Yes, it sounds like rush hour. Anyway. So how do these panels work?

SIEBERG: Well, the interesting thing about these panels is the way that they are designed in terms of following the sun. Of course, solar panels are meant to capture the sun's energy and turn it into power. They need that up there, that juice up there in the ISS.

And you can see them spinning here in this animation, following the sun. As the ISS makes its orbit around the earth once every 90 minutes, it goes through periods of light and periods of dark. Well, with this design, they're basically using it to capture the sun as efficiently as they possibly can, so it's a very efficient way of doing it, and you can see it going there around the earth, so ...

LIN: Very cool.

SIEBERG: Yes.

LIN: All right. Thanks, Daniel.

SIEBERG: You bet.

LIN: Well, you can watch more of Miles' interview with the astronauts at the space station tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING" at 6:00 a.m. Eastern.

In the meantime, straight ahead, tough times for a couple of reality stars. A.J. Hammer of "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" has that story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Welcome back to the NEWSROOM. Well, call it the curse of reality television. Whitney Houston files for legal separation from husband and one-time co-star Bobby Brown.

And as if the shocking death of her son weren't bad enough for Anna Nicole Smith, we hear criminal charges could be filed.

"SHOWBIZ TONIGHT's" A.J. Hammer joins me now. A lot on tap tonight, A.J.

A.J. HAMMER, "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT": Certainly, Carol, and today we are, in fact, taking a look at how real life really isn't being all that kind to a couple of reality TV stars.

As you mentioned, Whitney Houston and her husband Bobby Brown had a brief run on Bravo back on their reality show, "Being Bobby Brown." Well now, like so many other reality show couples, they are, in fact, splitting up. Yesterday Whitney took the very first steps toward divorce in Orange County, California in the superior court. The couple just marked their 14th wedding anniversary back in July.

They have a 13-year-old daughter together, named Bobbie Kristina, but as we all know, this relationship certainly not all rainbows and daffodils. The couple made repeated headlines throughout the year with erratic behavior. They had run-ins with the police and battles with drugs. So far there is no word yet on Bobby Brown's reaction to the end of their marriage.

Well, authorities in the Bahamas say they know what killed Anna Nicole's Smith 20-year-old son Daniel, but autopsy and toxicology results aren't going to be revealed until an October 23rd inquest can officially determine the cause of death.

Anna Nicole will have to testify in that inquest, but authorities say that an inquest does not necessarily mean that they suspect foul play. However, they are also saying there may be criminal charges involved. They are not elaborating beyond that.

Daniel was in the Bahamas visiting his mom who, just days before, had given birth to a healthy baby girl. He was spending the night at her side in the hospital when Anna Nicole and her attorney, Howard K. Stern, woke up to find him dead. Truly a sad, sad story.

Well, coming up on tonight on "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT," we're going to divorce court. What may become one of Hollywood's most explosive divorces of the year is what we'll be talking about when we take a look inside the Whitney Houston divorce court documents.

We do it all on TV's most provocative entertainment news program, which is "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT." We'll see you at 11:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN Headline Prime.

LIN: You're going to be hot tonight, A.J. Thanks.

HAMMER: There's a lot to do.

LIN: You bet.

All right. Straight to the newsroom now. Fredricka Whitfield has more details on a developing story -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, this developing story taking place in the nation's capital, just below the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently, police have taken into custody a man who fired off a flare gun not long ago. You are looking right there at the corner on the First Street Northeast side of the Supreme Court.

A man was taken into custody after firing this flare gun allegedly, and apparently, according to the Associated Press, he also left behind a bag. And police are on the scene there, still checking out this suspicious package to see if, in any way, it imposes a danger.

The roads around the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly this First Street Northeast and possibly the Maryland Avenue as well as East Capital Streets may be blocked off. For sure this First Avenue Northeast street has been blocked off as they continue to investigate this suspicious package -- Carol.

LIN: OK, thanks very much, Fred.

Coming up next hour from the CNN NEWSROOM, George Clooney, live at the United Nations. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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