Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Fighting Continues in West Bank Following Suicide Attack; Andersen Accountant Pleads Will Testify Against Firm
Aired April 09, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: And good evening to all of you. To the Middle East now, the sirens rang out at 10:00 a.m. Jerusalem time, ominous when you first hear it, considering everything that has been happening in that region. But the sirens today are about remembrance.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF (voice over): Remembering the Holocaust, Israelis across the country stopped what they were doing to commemorate the dead. A difficult day was the understatement from Prime Minister Sharon, a day when 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush in the Jenin Refugee Camp, the single deadliest attack on soldiers since the uprising began 18 months ago.
Near that camp, Palestinians are protesting what they say is inhumane treatment at the hands of Israeli forces. Jenin has been the scene of some of the fiercest fighting of the conflict.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
There was more death, more bloodshed among Palestinians and Israelis on the day to remember the worst crime of the 20th century, a difficult day indeed.
And so it is Jerusalem where we begin the whip around of our reporters, with Bill Hemmer. Bill the headline.
BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Judy, good morning from Jerusalem. Colin Powell will be here in two days. Today he said he will meet with Yasser Arafat, but the Israelis still say that Arafat is irrelevant. They don't even want to talk to him. The net effect of this trip this weekend, will it amount to anything? We'll look at that on the diplomatic side in a moment here in Jerusalem -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Thanks, Bill, and we will see you just in a moment or so. Now to New York and new indictments in a high profile terrorism case. Deborah Feyerick is covering that for us tonight -- Deborah.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Judy, a terrorist is behind bars accused of passing messages of hate to his followers worldwide, and the go-between for the blind Sheikh, allegedly his lawyer.
WOODRUFF: And, Deborah, we'll see you in a moment. A very different legal story tonight involving Enron and its former auditor Andersen; Allan Chernoff is following the developments -- Allan.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in fact, it is plea bargain time in the Andersen case. The former chief Enron auditor, David Duncan pleading guilty to Obstruction of Justice and agreeing to be a prime witness for the government against Andersen.
WOODRUFF: All right, and Allan we'll be back to you in a moment as well. Also coming up on NEWSNIGHT, an update on the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Boston didn't think it could get much worse than the case of Father John Geoghan. Well now, there is a new story that has stunned and angered the city. Jason Carroll on that tonight.
Here in New York, the line that has come back to haunt Michael Bloomberg, he inhaled and he liked it. We'll look at how the mayor became the unwitting poster boy for the pro-pot movement.
And we'll meet the odd couple of the Middle East, Palestinian- American and an American-Jew engaged to each other and to the protest against Israel. And author David Vies (ph) on the man he calls the most dangerous double agent in FBI history, Robert Hanssen.
Well all that is to come, but we begin again in the Middle East, and once again a grim morning there. It comes after a bloody day on both sides, but especially so this time for the Israeli army, which lost 13 soldiers.
They died in a battle for the West Bank city of Jenin, a battle that continued all through the night. The larger Israeli military effort goes on as well. So does Palestinian resistance. In fact, both sides appear to be digging in as Secretary of State Powell makes his way into the region, that side of the story in just a moment. But first, Jenin, and CNN's John Vause.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): These are the weapons the Israeli military says belong to Palestinian militants, and the reason behind the operations on the West Bank, a staggering collection of automatic and semi-automatic rifles, RPGs and mortars, bomb-making equipment, found inside a house in the Jenin Refugee Camp.
There's no way to verify the Israeli army account because the area is closed to journalists, all these pictures were provided by the Israeli Defense Force. This is how, the Israelis say, they are dismantling the terrorist network.
The house was wired with explosives and destroyed, but after a week of fighting, the Israeli losses are beginning to mount. According to the military, a group of reservists were caught in an ambush, a blast from a suicide bomber setting off explosions in nearby homes, which had been booby-trapped. Palestinian gunmen then opened fire on the wounded.
ARIEL SHARON (Vause translating): This is a difficult day. That was a very tough battle between the IDF forces and the terrorist organizations.
VAUSE: In all, 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Palestinians claim the Israelis set off the explosion, not knowing their own troops were nearby, and the Palestinians say their losses now total more than 150, and hundreds of Palestinian civilians have fled Jenin for Ramallah looking for shelter.
Along Israel's northern border, Israel says Katyusha rockets were fired by Hezbollah militants into the northern Golan Heights. Two missiles landed near civilian settlements, but there were no injuries. Israeli air force and artillery units returned fire.
And in the small town of Dura, the Israeli offensive rolls on, tanks and troops supported by helicopter gun ships on a mission to arrest more suspected militants and seize more weapons, a mission the Israelis say is now complete in two West Bank towns, in Tulkarem and Qalqilya.
As the heavy armor and soldiers pulled out, Palestinians began cleaning up after the weeklong occupation. Israel says the pullout is proof they are rapping up the operation, but at the same time insisting it will be in their own time, in their own way, and without bowing to international pressure. The Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says, this is a fight for the survival of the Jewish people. John Vause, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And it is evidently a popular fight. A recent poll in Israel is showing strong support for the operation, and for Ariel Sharon himself. But there's a twist as well.
Fifty-five percent say they think that Mr. Sharon ought to declare right now that if terrorism stops, Israel would agree to peace talks and eventually to a Palestinian State, just one more thing for Secretary of State Powell to consider when he arrives in Jerusalem on Thursday night. For more on what he'll find, we turn once again to CNN's Bill Hemmer. Bill.
HEMMER: Judy, hello again from Jerusalem. It is a tall mountain for Colin Powell to climb. Earlier today, he did say and confirm with the world essentially that he will meet with Yasser Arafat, which should be a very interesting image still holed up inside of that, what's left anyway, of that compound inside of Ramallah, just about three rooms left there.
On the outside, Israeli tanks and troops still surround now, for 12 days, the Palestinian leader. What's interesting about this, Judy, is what happens on the Israeli side? They have said for some time now that Arafat's irrelevant in their words. They said yesterday they will not even take the time to talk to him.
So then, if Colin Powell is able to make progress with Yasser Arafat, what happens then? That's a big wide open question right now, but earlier today Colin Powell, before he landed in Madrid, Spain again as he makes his way toward the region here, we do anticipate him to arrive in about two days' time. But right now, spending the night in Madrid, Spain.
Before he left there though, he talked in Cairo, said he'll have a stiff message for Yasser Arafat, including one to get the Palestinian leader once again to talk publicly and denounce terrorism. Here is Colin Powell in that message earlier on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I would ask all parties now to speak out against this kind of activity. I would ask all leaders of Arab nations, all Palestinian leaders to say to their people, and say to people throughout the world, this is the time to stop this kind of activity because there is a process waiting for us that will get us what we want, which is a state, which is peace, living side-by-side with Israel.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEMMER: Once again, Thursday night Colin Powell will be here on the ground, Thursday night in two days' time, and again it's anybody's guess whether or not Colin Powell will continue his stay, extend the stay, depending on the progress he makes or lack thereof.
One other thing, Judy, tomorrow we do anticipate several Palestinian leaders, including Saeb Erakat, the Chief Palestinian Negotiator is going to go to Ramallah and sit down and talk with Yasser Arafat about the current conditions. Later, they will meet with the U.S. Envoy Anthony Zinni. Then they'll go back to Arafat and compare notes.
Whether or not this results in anything certainly is a wide open question, as I mentioned before, but at least at this point, there appears to be some sort of talk that now seems to be developing, this ahead of Colin Powell's arrival again Thursday evening here. Judy.
WOODRUFF: And, Bill, on the Israeli side, to what extent is there an air of expectation since his arrival is what, two days away, and is there a sense that they're consolidating their gains, their hold on Palestinian areas with his arrival imminent?
HEMMER: Yes, first on the first question, Judy, it does appear that there's a lot of negativity frankly about Colin Powell's visit here. When I talked to some people about that dynamic, where Israel does not want to have anything to do with Arafat, what's the net effect of that and a lot of them say frankly the net effect is zero.
On the military operation, though, they do believe they say they are making progress. They have said this almost every day right now. They had the partial pullout of two towns about 24 hours ago, and we do anticipate a pullout from other parts of the West Bank, where though we do not know.
Bottom line is, they believe they are making progress and they talk that way on a daily basis, but then they say they're not over just yet. Judy. WOODRUFF: All right, Bill Hemmer, reporting for us tonight. Thanks very much, Bill.
HEMMER: Sure.
WOODRUFF: Well, another thing Secretary Powell underlined today and that was the idea that American observers or monitors might be used as a way of keeping the two sides separated. Now this would be quite a departure for the region. It is also something that Mr. Powell approached with great caution when he was a general in the military. With us now is a man who served with Secretary Powell for many years. He is retired general and CNN Military Consultant Wesley Clark. General Clark, the Secretary I noticed today was careful to use the term monitor and observer and not peacekeeper. What is the distinction there or is there?
WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY CONSULTANT: Well, this is all about definitions of responsibilities and authorities, Judy, and so the question is what exactly would a group of Americans on the ground do? Is it only to observe? If so, what? What happens when they observe, if they see a bomb go off inside Israel? Well, we generally know about that anyway.
If they see an Israeli strike back, we generally know about that. So what precisely would they observe? This is a very difficult operation to get started because you have to have greater authorities for this group than you would responsibilities.
WOODRUFF: What about monitor? That was another term. Are those terms interchangeable?
CLARK: They both connote a sort of a soft presence. You know, if you look at the record of this in the international community, starting in Bosnia with the U.N. protective force, it had very important responsibilities, but it had virtually no authority and the result was, it was discredited.
In the Kosovo campaign, we put in monitors with Milosevic's agreement if, after the period October of 1998, they were there for about six months, and they did provide information. They didn't stop anything from happening, and what they were is a way of drawing NATO into this action. This is not an easy thing to do.
WOODRUFF: So peace - you're making a distinction between observer and say a peacekeeper who would necessarily be armed and so we're talking about a potentially dangerous situation, are we not?
CLARK: It's dangerous for the monitors, but it's even more dangerous for the reputation of the organization that puts the monitors in, because most of the time without specific authorities, they don't get to the bottom of the facts.
Let me give you a quick example. The Israelis charge that there's a terrorist bombing. It's connected with Arafat. The monitors can confirm the bombing. They go to see the Palestinian authorities. The Palestinian authorities would deny any involvement in it. The Israelis would say they had information. The monitors would say they can't confirm it. It doesn't take many instances like this before people begin to ask, what are these monitors about?
The whole idea of the monitors is an internationalization of this conflict, and that is inherently something that the Israelis have resisted and the Palestinians have encouraged. And so, this is not a neutral move.
WOODRUFF: Well, in any event, we're talking about something that's some ways off because I noticed today Secretary Powell said, first there would be a cease-fire.
Then you would have the Tenet proposal, which is a military exercise, and then you'd move on to the Mitchell process, and then he said the political process. We're talking about a series of steps. We're not talking about something that's going to happen overnight.
CLARK: Exactly. The monitors have to come after there's a political agreement. That way they get the authority to do what they're supposed to do and they don't become part of the political process.
WOODRUFF: All right, General Wesley Clark, thank you very much. Good to see you again.
CLARK: Nice to see you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: And a little later on NEWSNIGHT, we'll meet a young couple trying to help bring peace to the Middle East, and up next, the lawyer for a convicted terrorist is indicted for helping him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: A New York defense attorney was in court today as a defendant. Lynne Stewart is charged, along with three others, with helping her client run a terrorist organization from his prison cell. Her client is Sheikh Abdel Rahman, the radical Muslim cleric convicted of plotting the first attack on the World Trade Center. Her case appears to be a first. The story now from CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (voice over): She defended a convicted terrorist. Now she's being accused of keeping his network going. Lawyer Lynne Stewart, accused of passing messages from radical Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his followers worldwide.
LYNNE STEWART, RAHMAN'S ATTORNEY: Prove it. Prove it. I'm a lawyer. I fight for my clients. That's what my job is.
FEYERICK: Justice officials say Stewart tried covering up an unlawful prison conversation, in which Sheikh Rahman gave his translator instructions to pass to members of his Islamic group, Gamat Islamia (ph). Prosecutors say that was a clear violation of prison rules, keeping the blind cleric from communicating with anyone else on the outside. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Stewart took affirmative steps to conceal the conversation from prison guards, making extraneous comments in English to mask the Arabic conversation between Rahman and Yousry.
FEYERICK: The translator, Mohammed Yousry was also charged. Prosecutors say Stewart publicly announced that Sheikh Rahman was withdrawing his support for a cease-fire among his followers, a cease- fire agreed to in 1997 after his terrorist organization claimed credit for attacking tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 58.
STEWART: I think this will be a very good fight. I think we can make the government put up or shut up here and I don't think they can put up.
FEYERICK: But the government says it's recorded conversations, hundreds of them between Rahman, his lawyer, his translator and two other men. Ahmed Abel Satir (ph) in New York and Yasir al-Siri (ph) in London. Those have been charged with spreading Rahman's message to followers.
ASHCROFT: We will not allow individuals to continue to perpetrate criminal acts or terrorist acts from their prison cells, and we will take whatever steps are necessary -
FEYERICK: The Attorney General says because of the alleged violations, the government's invoking the U.S. Patriot Act set up after September 11th, from now on monitoring all communication between Rahman and his lawyers, defense attorneys infuriated by the move.
SHELDON KRANTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If that is eroded, and basically the Department of Justice and the FBI can decide whenever they want to monitor conversations or search lawyer's offices or in some other way intrude in the confidential relationship, then we are no different than a totalitarian country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (on camera): Justice officials point out the indictment is not related to the September 11th attacks. Still they make several links to al Qaeda, the Attorney General saying Sheikh Rahman took a page out of the al Qaeda manual, making sure that even while he was in prison, the people he spoke to got his message out. Judy.
WOODRUFF: All right, Deborah Feyerick reporting. Thank you very much. Well the chances are, we'll be talking about this one years from now when it or a case like it lands in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues involved are that profound, even if the client involved is less than savory.
Well joining me now, an attorney with quite some experience representing high profile, and some might say some notorious clients, among them convicted mobster John Gotti. John Mitchell, welcome to NEWSNIGHT.
JOHN MITCHELL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you very much. WOODRUFF: How unusual is it for an attorney to be dragged into a case like this?
MITCHELL: It's fairly rare. This is not the usual case, but as you said a moment ago, this case is going to go to the Supreme Court eventually and the issues that are on the table here, the procedures that were followed, raise a series of constitutional questions, First Amendment issues, Fourth Amendment issues, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the attorney-client privilege, the ability of the Justice Department to act unilaterally without court supervision, some very far reaching issues.
WOODRUFF: How strong do you think, based on what you know at this point, how strong is the case against her?
MITCHELL: It's difficult to say, and it would be unfair to both sides to really give an opinion on that. I've seen the indictment and I've heard the press releases but I don't know what the factual context is.
The legal questions will probably, you know, carry center stage in the beginning when the issue of whether or not it's appropriate to evade the attorney-client privilege for whatever purpose is litigated, the question of whether or not the Attorney General unilaterally can issue an order which would require the Sheikh to abandon his attorney- client privilege and permit the recording of all of the conversations with his lawyer.
There's a factual question as to whether or not the attorney that represented him understood what was going on. You got to remember these are conversations that are taking place in Arabic of course.
WOODRUFF: In Arabic. And she said she didn't understand them and therefore she didn't know what was in these messages.
MITCHELL: And more than that, the statute that she's charged under, that is to say providing material support to a terrorist organization, has a specific definition of what material support is, and what she does or is alleged to have done, doesn't seem to qualify.
WOODRUFF: What has to be proved here for her to be found guilty? I mean you ticked off a number of legal --
MITCHELL: There's a series of ways that you can provide material support, such as financial support, giving them communications equipment, things like that. If you do that for a terrorist organization then you can be found guilty of violating the material support or the anti-material support statute.
So they would have to prove that she knowingly provided material support, and what she did would have to qualify under that definition.
WOODRUFF: Knowingly? How important is that aspect?
MITCHELL: Fairly knowingly. In virtually every criminal statute, the standard is knowing conduct. You can't accidentally violate a criminal statute.
WOODRUFF: You sound not only knowledgeable about this, but you sound concerned about the fact that this is even taking place.
MITCHELL: Well every lawyer is concerned, not only with this case and the ramification of the particular events that took place here, but lawyers are concerned in general with the response to the 9/11 attacks. No one sympathizes with terrorists, but at the same time, everyone is a bit concerned that people have been stampeded with respect to the passage of laws that provide law enforcement officials virtually unfettered abilities and unilateral abilities to invade such things as attorney-client relationships, to wiretap, to monitor your communications on the computer, a whole range of far reaching measures that the American public really doesn't know about.
WOODRUFF: But, I mean just to get back to this particular case, I mean I'm sitting here thinking what could have happened is that they could have used her as a conduit to get this information out.
MITCHELL: Yes, they could have - I'm sorry.
WOODRUFF: I was just going to say and she might not have known anything about it, but it could have been a very elaborate plot or scheme on their part.
MITCHELL: Yes, the indictment doesn't seem to allege that. I mean it seems to be restricted to this one conference that they had in Minnesota, and then also to her apparently coming out later on and saying that the Sheikh had withdrawn his support for the cease-fire in Egypt.
I think if there were more, they would have put it in the indictment, because the indictment is a bit thin as it reads now.
WOODRUFF: Where do you - you said a minute ago you expect this to end up with the Supreme Court. What makes you so sure?
MITCHELL: Well, I mean the attorney-client privilege is at stake here, the ability of the executive department to act unilaterally without judicial supervision is at stake. The ability of someone who's even incarcerated to make statements protected by the First Amendment's at stake, and the issue of the Fourth Amendment privacy and whether or not the kind of constant supervision of a person, even when he's meeting with his counsel is permissible both under the Fourth Amendment and the under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Those are issues that have to go to the court.
WOODRUFF: Is this the kind of case you'd like to defend her on?
MITCHELL: I would like to defend the legal issues. I wouldn't be particularly suitable, I don't think, to be involved in a case involving terrorism.
WOODRUFF: All right, well John Mitchell we really appreciate your joining us tonight. Thank you very much.
MITCHELL: Well thank you very much for having me.
WOODRUFF: Good to see you, appreciate it. And coming up on NEWSNIGHT, a key witness in the Enron scandal pleads guilty and promises to work with the government. And, Boston is in an uproar over the latest revelations in the priest sex abuse scandal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: The word one reporter used to describe the documents released by the Archdiocese of Boston yesterday damning. Well, you could add sordid and sickening. The documents show a pattern of shocking abuse by one priest that stretched over decades, a man who allegedly advocated abusing young boys, sometimes pushing his agenda in public. And they also show a pattern among the church leadership, including Bernard Cardinal Law, damage control at any cost. The story tonight from Jason Carroll.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Cardinal Law presided over a funeral in Portland, Maine, Tuesday, while back in Boston the fallout from church documents regarding Father Paul Shanley continued to grow, as does criticism.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he should retire. I think he should go.
CARROLL: Cardinal Law should resign for the way the church handled Shanley.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a doubt about whether he can regain the confidence of people.
CARROLL: Editorials in both of the city's major papers call for Law's resignation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can say anything you want.
CARROLL: Talk radio stations, like WTTK were flooded with calls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, I want to say I do support the cardinal.
CARROLL: From people on both sides of the issue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's already proven through his documented behavior that he has not been responsible as a leader.
CARROLL: What has upset Catholics and non-Catholics alike were the contents of internal church documents about Shanley, revealed Monday during a press conference with two of his alleged victims. They show church officials knew Shanley had been accused numerous times of sexual abuse, and that he allegedly supported sex between men and boys.
One document cited a gay magazine and quoted Shanley as saying: "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may after regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones."
Shanley allegedly made this statement in 1979, at a conference for the formation of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association.
Another document from a church official in 1991, says, "It is clear to me that Paul Shanley is a sick person."
Despite all the allegations of sexual abuse over the years, Cardinal Law thanked Shanley in a letter in 1996 for his impressive record, writing, "The lives and hearts of many people have been touched by your sharing of the Lord's spirit."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Am I wrong to think that Cardinal Law should resign immediately?
CARROLL: To date, at least three priests accused of sexual abuse have been moved from parish to parish under Law's watch. Before Shanley, there was Father Frederick Ryan, as well as defrocked and convicted priest, John Geoghan.
(on camera): This isn't the first time there have been calls for Cardinal Law to step aside. During the church scandal involving John Geoghan, Cardinal Law was under heavy pressure to step down. He responded by telling the congregation here at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross he would not step down.
BERNARD LAW, CARDINAL: I do not intend to resign as your archbishop.
CARROLL: Law did not return our calls for a comment. And to date, he has not publicly spoken about Shanley.
Jason Carroll, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: To another scandal now, but a very different on, Eron. Back in January, David Duncan, who handled the Enron audit for Andersen said exactly 87 words at a House hearing. He took the fifth. Well, today he said one word in a Houston courthouse with a lot more significance: guilty. It's the first guilty plea of the entire Enron mess, and it could well mean more trouble for Andersen, a company that's already on the brink.
Once again, here's Allan Chernoff.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF (voice-over): David Duncan, the auditor who had okayed Enron's books, arriving at Houston federal court to play the legal version of let's make a deal: cooperating with prosecutors in the hope of getting off easy. Before Judge Melinda Harmon, Duncan plead guilty to the prosecution's obstruction of justice charge, stating Enron "documents were in fact destroyed so that they would not be available to the Securities and Exchange Commission."
At the time, the SEC was investigating Enron's finances.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Duncan is cooperating, as he has been from the outset. He will continue to cooperate. No comment beyond that.
CHERNOFF: In mid-January, Andersen had fingered Duncan, firing him and claiming he was responsible for the shredding and e-mail deleting. Now Duncan will finger Andersen.
DAVID DUNCAN: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question based on the protection afforded me under the Constitution of the United States.
CHERNOFF: David Duncan refused to answer questions before Congress, but he has been talking to prosecutors, offering them evidence to convict the accounting firm of obstructing justice.
IRA SORKIN, FMR. SEC ADMINISTRATOR: When you have an insider cooperating, it's going to make the government's case that much stronger. And clearly, Mr. Duncan is cooperating with the government.
CHERNOFF: All along, Duncan has maintained he was merely following orders, heeding a reminder from in-house attorney Nancy Temple to stick by Andersen's policy, which called for disposal of non-essential papers.
FRANK VELIE, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think the Duncan plea turns up the heat on Andersen. It makes it plain that there is an important witness against them, a witness who's admission of guilt can be imputed to Andersen itself.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHERNOFF: Late today, Andersen's attorney, Rusty Harten, offered a written response to the Duncan plea. "For months, Mr. Duncan has contended that he had no intent to commit any criminal act. We believed Mr. Duncan and his statements served as the basis for our public statements on this matter and our discussions with the Department of Justice. Today Mr. Duncan told a completely new and different story to a judge in Houston."
Judy, it look, based on that quote, that perhaps Andersen is now leaving the window open for a settlement with the Department of Justice.
WOODRUFF: So how would that work? I mean, presumably, the government wants more information, first of all, out of Duncan himself, right?
CHERNOFF: Oh, they're certainly going to fish for everything they can out of Duncan. And if they can get more people to cooperate, they will certainly go for that. It's always the style of federal prosecutors, get the smaller fish and then you get the big fish.
WOODRUFF: And move up the line. But your point is that the discussions are now open.
CHERNOFF: Yes, they have been talking. Thus far, Andersen has been unwilling to actually offer a guilty plea in court, fearing that it could destroy its business. Meanwhile, the business itself, as you know, is eroding very rapidly.
WOODRUFF: On the other hand, this is just one person. And we don't know how much of the rest of Anderson is going to follow him.
CHERNOFF: There is certainly is a lot there.
WOODRUFF: OK, Allan Chernoff, thanks very much.
And as NEWSNIGHT continues, we'll find out why New York City's mayor appears to be endorsing marijuana. And coming up next, a real true-to-life spy thriller. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: We've talked a lot about the problems with the country's national security system since September the 11th. Well, nothing is more telling than the story of Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who sold top secrets to the Russians for over 20 years.
David Vise, who just wrote a new book called "The Bureau and the Mole" says Mr. Hanssen is "the most dangerous double agent in FBI history." And Mr. Vise is with us tonight.
David Vise, thanks very much.
DAVID VISE, AUTHOR, "THE BUREAU AND THE MOLE": Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: We're talking to you tonight, David, not only because of your book, but because of this report done by experts, including former FBI and CIA director William Webster. This report's come out in the last few days very critical of the FBI.
First of all, in this report, what do we learn about just how damaging that we didn't already know, about just how damaging Robert Hanssen's actions were?
VISE: Well, one of the things we learned, Judy, is that he was the most prolific spy without question. Not only in FBI history, but in American history. Robert Hanssen sold secrets taken not only from the FBI, also from the CIA, the National Security Agency, the White House, the Pentagon. And he also was absolutely indiscriminate in what he sold the Russians, and the dangers that this posed stretched across the spectrum and directly to September 11, unfortunately.
WOODRUFF: Hanssen told these investigators, when they were working on this report, just how easy it was for him to get the information he got, that he wasn't supposed to know?
VISE: Judy, that's right. I have the report right here. And one of the things Hanssen said is the following. "Security was lax. You could bring documents out of FBI headquarters without having a risk of being searched or looked at, or ever concerned about it."
And in the report itself, it says "as shocking the depth of Hanssen's betrayal is the ease with which he was able to steal material that was tremendously useful to hostile foreign powers."
WOODRUFF: So what -- I just -- I don't mean to interrupt you, what does all this say? And what did the committee conclude, that put this report together about just how lax internal security was at the FBI?
VISE: The committee concluded that the FBI lacked a serious program for internal security, that Robert Hanssen was able to sell the Russians the crown jewels of America's intelligence secrets and put us all at risk in the process, because the FBI did not have a serious program.
I mean, Hanssen worked at the FBI 25 years, Judy. He was never polygraphed once. And one of the recommendations out of this report is that an extensive polygraph program be put into place. Another recommendation is that the FBI create a division focused solely on internal security.
WOODRUFF: Well now, the FBI has already instituted some of this, haven't they? I mean, I gathered from what I've read that there's a fairly widespread polygraph effort there, but how far does that go toward making the FBI truly secure?
VISE: Well, Judy, you know, I think if you read "The Bureau and the Mole" and you read this report, and you take them together, the FBI is probably in the first or second inning of a nine inning game.
The FBI, according to this report, is moving much too slowly and not aggressively enough to address issues of internal security. In the back of "The Bureau and the Mole," I have three sections for the reader.
One is the betrayals of a spy, then the e-mails of a spy, then the sexual fantasies of a spy. In that first section, I list all the secrets that Hanssen sold. It's absolutely staggering. He sold the Russians without difficulty in obtainint it, the super secret plan for how the president and vice president would survive a nuclear first strike. He gave up a $500 million spy tunnel underneath the Russian embassy that we were going to use to gain intelligence.
Instead, the Russians used it for information. And he sold them as well, information that led to the execution of a number of Russians who had been providing the United States with intelligence. So -- and he did, he says, it in his own words, "in a criminal way," but he says in his open words, "that the FBI was criminally negligent in the way it handled security."
WOODRUFF: So in the wake of 9/11, how should Americans feel about this crucial agency at the heart of maintaining security in our country?
VISE: Well, I think that there's level of confidence that you can have that the FBI is working at improving security. There's a level of confidence you can have that this report and Congress are getting serious about enforcing security at the FBI, but let's be realistic about it.
The FBI still has a very long way to go in implementing the recommendations here. One of the things in "The Bureau and the Mole" is that Hanssen sold the Russians computer software that ultimately ended up in the hands of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, facilitating Osama bin Laden's ability to evade monitoring and detection by the United States for a number of years. That kind of a secret in the hands of a terrorist who's brought about the kind of atrocities we've had on our soil is the sort of thing that FBI has to do everything in its power to safeguard against.
WOODRUFF: Author David Vise. The book is "The Bureau and the Mole." Thank you, David, we appreciate it.
VISE: Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: A grim report from David who spent months working on that book.
Later on NEWSNIGHT, a Palestinian-Jewish couple works for peace in the Middle East. And up next, what's New York's mayor doing in an add for marijuana?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is known for various traits. It's pretty much agreed, he's driven, he's intensely competitive, and he speaks his mind. Well, it is that last trait that has gotten him into a bit of a pickle. It is a full-page ad in Tuesday's "New York Times" from a group that backs legalizing marijuana.
It has a quote from Mayor Bloomberg, when asked during his election campaign last year whether he had ever smoked pot. "You bet I did and I enjoyed it." Well, clearly, he enjoyed "it" more than the newfound publicity, saying today that he is "not thrilled" about the ads.
Joining me now from Houston, Asa Hutchinson. He's director of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. And joining me here in New York, Linda Stasi. She's a columnist for "The New York Post."
To be fair, both of you, I want to point out, the mayor also said today that he supports full enforcement of the laws against the illegal use of drugs.
But having said that, Asa Hutchinson, director of the DEA, the mayor is not the first public official to acknowledge having experimented or used marijuana. Is what Normal is doing here in running this ad really so bad?
ASA HUTCHINSON, DEA DIRECTOR: Well, anytime you're misrepresenting someone's policy statement, it's horrendous. And in this case, you have Normal indicating that the mayor, in essence, supports the legalization of marijuana, that he does not believe it's problem to be a violation of the law.
And in fact, the mayor said today very clearly that he believes we should not legalize marijuana, we should enforce the laws. And he intends to do that in New York City. So what is troubling again is the misrepresentation of the mayor's policy positions.
WOODRUFF: Linda Stasi, is this such a misrepresentation?
LINDA STASI, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK POST": Well, I think he was very open and honest. And I would rather have somebody who's telling the truth, rather than having someone who's lying about it. But I think that it's interesting that he also said I'm not going to interfere with the First Amendment rights, as opposed to the mayor before, who had all those ads taken down from the subways.
WOODRUFF: But what about director Hutchinson's point that the mayor's words are being used out of context? They're misleading anyway.
STASI: Well, they're certainly being used out of context. And he -- but I think he's handling it very graciously, as opposed to attacking. I mean, he's not lying. He did smoke pot. He came from the 60s, I mean, you know, the whole generational thing. And it's being used out of context, but he's not going crazy about it. And it'll go away.
WOODRUFF: Asa Hutchinson, how much more use today is there of marijuana in the United States? Or is there? Has it gone down?
HUTCHINSON: Well, the fact is that over the last 15 years, overall drug usage has decreased by 50 percent. Now since about 1992, it's been flatlined in terms of drug usage. And a lot of that's because teenagers have minimized the risk associated with it.
So these types of statements, even though they're understandable, because they're a candidate. It's important that people in public high positions like this, if they have had marijuana use in the past, that they express regret on it, that they do not minimize the impact of that, that it was a mistake.
And that's what I think the public should hear from these -- not just candidates, but public officials. His public policy is correct. We'd like to have a stronger statement, of course, when he was candidate.
WOODRUFF: Well, and Linda Stasi today though, this ad, should Normal be runnin these ads?
STASI: I think he made the statement. They're running with it. He's been gracious about it. They shouldn't do it. No, they shouldn't do it. But the fact that he's being gracious about it and saying that all right, I did it. This is the First Amendment right. They have the right to do this, I think will make it disappear, as opposed to bringing it to court and making a big deal. It's stupid and it's nasty. And they shouldn't have done it, but they did.
WOODRUFF: Asa Hutchinson, as I understand it, Normal's goal is to to roll back New York City's policy of arresting and jailing anybody caught smoking marijuana in public. Is this policy the right one for the city to have?
HUTCHINSON: Well, the mayor said it very well, that anytime you don't enforce the law, you build contempt for the law. And so, you know, that's a legislative decision, that it's a violation of the law. The mayor's job is to enforce it. And he said that he would.
I think it's certainly the right policy that minimizes drug use of a very harmful drug. And I think it sends the right signal for our young people that it's not just harmful, but it is also illegal and can bring consequences.
WOODRUFF: The right policy, Linda Stasi?
STASI: Well, I think that when you arrest 33,000 people in one year for marijuana smoking, you're tying up the courts. And I think it's not the right policy. I mean, we're talking about people who are not selling drugs. They're not dealing drugs. I mean, I don't smoke pot, but I just think that tying up the courts and the police with 33,000 arrests is over the line.
WOODRUFF: What about that point, Asa Hutchinson?
HUTCHINSON: Well Judy, those really decisions and discretionary decisions are made by law enforcement. So I certainly respect the mayor and the previous mayor for decisions they've made in New York City. The D.A.'s responsibility is to go after the trafficking organizations. We don't address the users. That's up to local law enforcement. And they certainly have some discretion as to how they approach each of those.
WOODRUFF: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Asa Hutchinson is director of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. Linda Stasi is a columnist for "The New York Post". I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this one. Thank you both.
STASI: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: We appreciate it.
And up next on NEWSNIGHT, an unlikely pair in a dangerous confrontation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, you might recall the recent story of Adam Shapiro, the American from a Jewish family, living in Ramallah, protesting the Israeli occupation, even having breakfast with Yasser Arafat after his compound came under Israeli attack.
Well, some Jews were troubled by Adam Shapiro's support for the Palestinians. His parents even received death threats. Well, Shapiro he has no plan to leave the West Bank. And he has company, another American, his wife to be, who happens to be of Palestinian descent.
Their story from Michael Holmes.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Some call them the odd couple, the American Jew, his Palestinian-American fiance. Instead of planning their wedding in the States, they're challenging the Israeli army in the West Bank.
HUWAIDA ARRAT: : My family is extremely worried. My mom calls me every day, come home!
HOLMES: During our interview, gunfire. They don't even notice.
ADAM SHAPIRO: I feel good about what I'm doing. And I think it's the right thing to do at this moment. So you know, if a bullet were to hit me and this was to happen, at least I feel secure, and I think my family feels secure, and people who know me know that I'm doing what I feel is right to be doing at this time.
HOLMES: They're among dozens of foreign nationals in the West Bank, defying curfews, delivering food, taking what they call non- violent direct action, hoping white vests and bravado will keep them alive.
(on camera): A day after the tanks rolled into Ramallah, they started appearing on these empty streets. From Europe, the United States, even from Israel, supporting they say Palestinian civilians and opposing occupation.
(voice-over): They're still arriving. This, a strategy meeting for new arrivals, advice for the uninitiated.
ARRAT: I can tell you, when I'm standing in front of a tank who's just fired, you know, and you're determined not to move, it's really, you're holding on to the just nature of this struggle and believing that your right is stronger than their might.
HOLMES: Perhaps no better example of their audacity, some say foolishness, than when this group strolled past tanks, soldiers and warning shots to enter Yasser Arafat's office last week. Some 30 or so are still there.
After the fighting died down at this apartment block, activists literally play tug-of-war with the Palestinian. The army won, but nothing seems to deter these people.
ARRAT: People that I think are motivated and move to come and put their lives at risk are operating basically on, you know, the fundamentals of humanity that we would hope everyone, that would motivate everyone to act.
HOLMES: There's going to be plenty of people who say, look, you just shouldn't be here. You're setting yourselves up. And if you get shot, well, it's your own fault. SHAPIRO: To an extent, it's true, we do take responsibility for ourselves. And we don't seek to, you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that responsibility if we get hurt.
HOLMES: Adam Shapiro is keenly aware of his Jewish name. Not he says in Ramallah, but when he crosses Israeli military checkpoints.
SHAPIRO: For me, when soldiers see my name, and I'm crossing a checkpoint and coming into Ramallah, and they find out I live here, I think it forces them to question for a second like how I can exist and live here perfectly normally, and not have any problems, when they're trained to think that this is a hot bed of terrorism, and that, you know, that the Jews want -- that people who want to kill all the Jews. And it's just simply not the fact.
HOLMES: For now, the odd couple are staying put. They will leave, but only because Adam's visa expires soon.
Michael Holmes, CNN, Ramallah.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And in the current environment there, every single voice for peace should give us cause for hope. Well thank you for joining us. I'm Judy Woodruff in tonight for Aaron. He'll be back tomorrow night. We appreciate you joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
