Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Are Drugs Ruining Baseball?; Libya Wants to Settle; Mueller to Unveil FBI Restructuring; Alarming Increase in Tension Between India and Pakistan

Aired May 28, 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.
AARON BROWN, NEWSNIGHT ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone. Sometimes I wonder about me. There is serious stuff going on in the world. We'll report it tonight. There was a very moving moment down at Ground Zero a short time ago, and we're going to show it to you.

The world is closer to a nuclear war than it's been in years. India and Pakistan almost chomping at the bit it seems to toss nukes around. In one projection we saw the other day, guessed the death toll from such an exchange would reach 12 million people. We'll talk about that too tonight.

And all that is going on and what did I write about tonight? Baseball. Sometimes I wonder. Later in the program, we're going to look at a piece that's running in "Sports Illustrated" this week, a legend that perhaps half of all Major League Baseball players are using steroids.

Now these are illegal drugs, but hey so what, doesn't stop the players and this makes perfect sense too doesn't it? It doesn't seem to matter that much to the wise people who run the game either. I say wise, because I remember the commissioner once saying not long ago that he's not the dummy the people accuse him of being. Now football doesn't allow players to use steroids and neither does hockey, but baseball does, and forget for a moment the stuff could make you crazy and sick and mess with your sex life.

Here's what's so sad. Baseball is about history. It's about records and statistics that go back a hundred years or more. That's why we cared so much when Babe Ruth's record was broken and a lot of other records too. Now "the Babe" played with a lot of drugs in his system, if you see alcohol as a drug, but no one would argue they made it easier for him to hit the ball.

So the lords of baseball and the players are not just messing with the game, they're messing with history and they ought to be ashamed. But, it's baseball and given its recent history of strikes and lockouts and lawsuits, shame isn't part of the vocabulary of the game. That's later.

On to the whip; first to the State Department tonight and a proposed settlement with Libya with the families of Pan Am Flight 103, a bombing more than a decade ago; Andrea Koppel is working the story, Andrea the headline please.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, at first glance it may seem like a sweet deal, a total of $2.7 billion working about to about $10 million for each of the victims' families, but there's a catch. The Libyans want something in return.

BROWN: Andrea back to you. Word of a shakeup tonight in an organization that apparently could use one, Kelli Arena is covering that story in Washington, Kelli the headline from you.

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: FBI Chief Robert Mueller is unveiling a restructuring designed to change, not only the culture of the FBI, but its focus as well. Aaron.

BROWN: Kelli. An alarming increase in tension between two nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan. Two sides of the story. We start in Islamabad and CNN's Tom Mintier, Tom, from your side, the headline.

TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, people in Pakistan are nervous and the world community is anxious. Pakistan just completed a test of ballistic missiles, completed the last one with a short-range launch, a missile that went about 100 miles. The diplomacy efforts are underway. Jack Straw was here yesterday. He met with President Musharraf, but he says the world community needs not sit by and allow these two to go to war. They have to find a way to bring peace.

BROWN: Tom, thank you, back with you. And to the other side of this, the Indian side, Satinder Bindra is in New Delhi for us tonight, and Satinder, the headline from you please.

SATINDER BINDRA, CNN NEW DELHI BUREAU CHIEF: Good evening, Aaron. With all this talk of war and nuclear weapons, diplomacy is now moving into overdrive. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, has arrived in New Delhi. In a short while, he's scheduled to meet with Indian leaders, including the Indian Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, but already Mr. Straw is warning, hey don't expect too much. Aaron.

BROWN: Satinder, thank you. With you and Tom, we'll walk viewers through this one tonight. That's coming up, also as we said, steroids and Major League Baseball. We'll hear from a former Most Valuable Player who admits to years of steroid use, abuse, and we'll talk to the reporter who wrote the story for "Sports Illustrated" about who's to blame, which is essentially if we can shorthand this for you, everyone involved.

And in a quiet moment tonight with remarkably little fanfare, the beginning of the end at the worksite like no other, the beginning of the closing ceremonies at Ground Zero, all of that in the hour ahead.

But we begin with a major development in a case that has haunted the families of 270 people, victims of terrorism for more than a decade now. It's also had more diplomatic twists and turns than a Robert Ludlam thriller. The Libyan Government has offered a $2.7 billion settlement to the families of the Pam Am 103 bombing. The victims, those killed on December 21st, 1988.

Now there are strings here, lots of them, which mostly boil down to Libya wanting back into the good graces of the civilized world. But there is an offer on the table and that is an admission of complicity more or less. Once again, here's CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KOPPEL (voice over): Word of the Libyan offer, more than 13 years after Pam Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, came with a lot of ifs.

"Dear Clients" began a letter from the attorney for many of the victims' families. "We finally obtained a settlement offer from Libya that we recommend to you."

The bottom line, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, is offering $2.7 billion in installments if U.S. and U.N. sanctions are lifted and if Libya is removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

But the State Department says that's not how it works. Before sanctions can be lifted, it says Libya must not only pay compensation and accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing; it must also renounce terrorism and agree to cooperate in future investigations.

Libya has already cooperated with a trial before a Scottish court, which convicted one former Libyan intelligence agent, and acquitted another.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOPPEL (on camera): Publicly, the State Department says the decision to accept or reject the Libyan compensation package rests with the victims' families, but privately, Aaron, one State Department official told me that Gadhafi's offer, even though conditional is encouraging and it's a step in the right direction.

BROWN: Actually, I have a lot of little things. Let's see how many we can get in. Was there any inkling that this was about to happen? It played out so late this afternoon.

KOPPEL: For those of use who've been following the Middle East and South Asia, the answer is no, but certainly to the victims' families, who are following it much more closely, the answer is yes.

BROWN: OK, and on the subject of U.S. sanctions, what is it - what kind of business is it the United States would do, could do, or the Libyans would like the United States to do with it in lifting these sanctions?

KOPPEL: Oil, oil and oil. American companies want to get back in there. There's a lot of money to be made in the Libyan oil fields.

BROWN: Andrea, thank you and we'll talk with a victims' representative a little bit later in the program. Thank you.

The case began in Libya, began when an FBI special agent discovered, you may remember this, a fragment in the wreckage no bigger than a thumbnail. That piece led to a timer, which led to a bomb, which led to the bombers, which led to a trial, which led to today. It's kind of the story the FBI loved to tell but can't tell any longer because it's no longer such an accomplishment to unravel acts of terror after the fact.

Post 9/11, the pressing need is to stop them before they occur, something the FBI now admits it is ill-equipped to handle without major changes, and major changes are coming, the official announcement tomorrow. CNN's Kelli Arena with the details tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice over): The need for change is obvious, and even the critics say the prospects are good.

SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY (R) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I believe that the FBI mindset can change. Will it change? I don't know, and it will be a few months or years down the road before we know for sure. I do happen to know that Director Mueller's heart is in the right place.

ARENA: As part of a major reorganization, FBI Director Robert Mueller will announce the creation of "Flying Squads," elite mobile terrorism units that can be dispatched around the world to assist field agents.

The bureau will hire about 500 analysts, with expertise in languages, world cultures and technology, to boost the agency's analytical capacity to deal with the volume of information coming in, and more than 500 agents will be reassigned to terrorism units from narcotics, white-collar crime, and violent crime squads, areas that can be served by other federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.

BILL BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE: There is certainly a lot of duplication. Over the previous administration, just about every crime was being federalized.

ARENA: As CNN previously reported, the FBI will also establish an Office of Intelligence, to be led by someone from the CIA, its goal to be proactive rather than reactive.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: We must refocus our mission and our priorities and new technologies must be put in place to support new and different operational practices.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (on camera): Along with what the FBI is proposing, officials say the Justice Department is rewriting investigative guidelines to give agents more flexibility in the field, especially when it comes to surveillance. The attorney general is expected to announce those changes on Thursday. Aaron. BROWN: In the days after the attack, Kelli, the attorney general and others talked a lot about prevention more than prosecution. I assume that's where they're going here, is that it?

ARENA: That is exactly where they're going. Priority number one on a checklist was preventing terrorism, plain and simple, black and white.

BROWN: But it's not so plain and simple. When you start to talk about, for example, increasing surveillance, that means or that might mean to some at least infringing on civil liberties. So how do they strike the balance?

ARENA: Well, we have to see what comes out of the Justice Department on that front and these guidelines, these attorney general's guidelines for behavior in the field do not need congressional approval.

Sources tonight have told me that so far, Justice has not conferred with members of the Hill yet on exactly what those changes will be, and so there's some trepidation as to how controversial they may be.

An as you know, some of the changes that were made in the Patriot Act, giving FBI agents more - empowering them more in terms of wiretaps and so on, did raise some privacy eyebrows. So, we will see where those take us, Aaron.

BROWN: And would this all have happened had it not been for the news of the last ten days or so, the Minneapolis letter, the Phoenix e-mail and all the rest?

ARENA: I think so, Aaron. I think once those planes jammed into those buildings, it was very obvious that it was a new day for the FBI.

BROWN: Kelli, thanks, Kelli Arena in Washington, covers the Justice Department for us. With us now, also from Washington, author Ronald Kessler, literally written a book on the FBI where things went wrong and also where things are going right. The book is called "The Bureau, The Secret History of the FBI." Mr. Kessler, it's nice to see you, thanks for joining us tonight.

I've heard a lot today the expression, the FBI mindset has to change. Will you explain to me what the FBI mindset is and what has to change?

RONALD KESSLER, AUTHOR: Well it's not quite that bad. You know, we saw that there are good agents out there, for example the Phoenix agent, the Minneapolis agent. They were all very much on top of things. So the agents are very good. The problem has been that there has been a risk adverse atmosphere in headquarters, which is totally traceable to Louie Freeh.

Louie Freeh was director for eight years, and somehow has beaten up on Mueller who took over a week before September 11th, rather than the person actually responsible for these problems who is Louie Freeh.

He was into political correctness. They, in fact, couldn't follow suspects into mosques. He would chop off the heads of supervisors for very minor issues without knowing the facts. So there was this whole feeling of, let's hunker down. If we can just do nothing, perhaps we'll succeed better than if we do something.

BROWN: Is it fair to say the bureau was still - still is and still was in 9/11, pretty good at gathering information and not very good at analyzing what it had gathered?

KESSLER: That's right, and a big part of that was the fact that the FBI's computers were a total wreck. They were 386 and 486 machines that nobody would even take as donations to churches. Again, Louie Freeh did not himself use e-mail. The first thing he did when he came into office was get rid of the computer in his office, and that was reflective of his attitude about technology. They didn't even have e- mail with the CIA.

And, in fact, about a year ago, they didn't have money for gasoline for their cars and about the half the bureau cars had to be parked, and this is the agency that we count on to protect us.

BROWN: Yes, here's my cynicism showing. It seems to me in one respect or another, I've heard this all before. When things go bad, they always talk about the bureau will talk more with the CIA or will talk more with local police agencies. There will be better coordination. Why is this one different? Why should we be more believing this time?

KESSLER: Oh the FBI is very responsive to the director. It's a quasi-military organization and Mueller is very insistent on change. In fact, even before September 11th, he already came in with plans to beef up analysis, to upgrade the computers. He's very focused. He's a former marine and he just won't take any foolishness.

As one example, when Sheila Harran (ph) a few months ago who was over at counterintelligence, failed to tell him about the problems on a case when she briefed him, he removed her, whereas Louie Freeh was the opposite. If you told him about problems, or disagreed with him, he would banish you. So there's a big difference in terms of just the honesty that is being brought to deliberations in the FBI.

BROWN: So as I listen to you, it sounds to me like you believe that a large portion of the problem comes down to the difference in two men, the director now, Mr. Mueller -

KESSLER: Oh yes, no question.

BROWN: -- and Mr. Freeh.

KESSLER: Yes. You know, under William Webster, the FBI operated beautifully. They went after the big cases. There were no problems with one minor exception, CISPUS (ph), and as soon as Louie Freeh came in, it was every six months one fiasco after another and Congress just gave him a free pass. He catered to Congress when the Democrats were in power. He emphasized minority hiring. When the Republicans were in power, he would denounce Clinton. They love that. And you know the whole place just disintegrated and Congress let it happen.

BROWN: So he played the political game, the Washington game really well and ran the bureau really badly?

KESSLER: Exactly.

BROWN: Is that really it? I mean is that really what this comes down to?

KESSLER: That's really what it comes down to. I mean in my book, I trace you know exactly how all these fiascos were traceable to Louie Freeh's decisions of management, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, even the Hanssen case, where Freeh turned down a recommendation to polygraph agents back in '94, which would have definitely stopped Hanssen from spying if it had been implemented.

BROWN: About a half a minute, one of the criticisms I've heard about the proposal is - centers around these Flying Squads, which the critics argue is another example really of the centralization of the FBI, putting more trust in Washington and the bureaucracy than in field agents.

KESSLER: Well, the field agents will still be involved, but we're talking about a global threat, al Qaeda, and therefore you need a centralized force to go after it so that these things don't get lost between the cracks when you have everything spread all over the place. That's the idea behind that and I think it's a very good idea.

BROWN: Mr. Kessler, good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

KESSLER: Thank you.

BROWN: Ronald Kessler on the FBI tonight in Washington. On we go. The Skakel trial next. The defense rested today but not before putting on a witness who may have harmed the defense case. It happens in court sometimes.

On cross-examination, Michael Skakel's brother John said he couldn't recall for certain if brother Michael traveled to a cousin's house a few minutes before Martha Moxley was killed. This is a central part of Michael's alibi that he wasn't in the area. Tomorrow, Michael's sister will take the stand and do so as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution. Hmm.

Elsewhere, little hope to be had today that justice will come anytime soon in the case of Chandra Levy, in Washington today the medical examiner did call it murder but admitted there may never be enough evidence to actually establish a cause of death.

A spokesman said Dr. and Mrs. Levy were prepared for the news, but one can only imagine the moment when it came. They emerged from seclusion to attend the memorial service in Modesto, California, where they live and where the focus was on how their daughter lived, not on how she died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANNY KEMAN, GODMOTHER: Our beautiful Goddaughter was aptly named. Her name is Chandra. It means higher than the moon. Well, when we think of our beloved Goddaughter, we're not going to look down at the ground. We're going to look up at the stars, because that's where she is right now. She's in God's hands. She's at home and she's higher than the moon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Dr. and Mrs. Levy did not speak at the memorial, which was attended by more than 1,200 friends, family members, and well wishers in Modesto. Up next on NEWSNIGHT, one of the widows of December 21, 1988, Pam Am 103, what today's settlement offer means and what it does not.

And later, as one Indian official once put it, you can change your friends but you can not change your neighbors, a frightening story when the neighbors have been fighting for a half a century and now have nuclear weapons. We'll have reports from both India and Pakistan as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's always a delicate thing to talk about compensating the victims of a disaster or a terrorist attack. To Victoria Cummock, the real compensation she's after, after losing her husband in the bombing of Pam Am 103 is justice, for Libya to admit responsibility. She says most of the families are not out for the money. Ms. Cummock joins us tonight from Miami. It's nice to see you. Thank you. What do you make of the offer today?

VICTORIA CUMMOCK, LOST HUSBAND ON PAN AM 103: Well, Aaron, the Pam Am 103 families have waited for over 13 years to have Libya acknowledge their part in the murder of 270 people in December of 1988. So any offer that's limited only to compensation is not a complete offer.

We would like for Libya, not only to claim responsibility, but then also to admit their guilt and renounce terrorism as a whole and to comply with all the terms and conditions that the U.N. Security Council has put forth, as well as the U.S. Government in order to lift any of these sanctions.

BROWN: I don't want to say anything here that suggests that I'm in any way an apologist for the Libyan Government, OK, but does the offer itself in a kind of back door way, acknowledge complicity and responsibility?

CUMMOCK: Well let's ask this question. If tomorrow or in ten years from now, the 9/11 families were approached and said to them, let's not even talk about what happened on 9/11 and who might have been involved but bin Laden is going to offer each one of you $10 million to forget about this. Do you feel that that's going to deter future acts of terrorism against Americans or send out a very strong message to those who seek to use terrorism as a tool to continue to use it?

I think that by accepting only compensation, that we are accepting virtually blood money, that we need to make sure that we hold these people and these governments accountable for their actions and to make sure that no matter how long we have to wait, that that is what needs to be done in order to bring these countries back to trading with other countries in the world and a part of the global community.

BROWN: What the Libyans have done so far, and they have done it under considerable international pressure, aside from the offer today, is they have turned over the suspects the international community wanted. They have been, and I'm not quite sure what the right word is, but I think somewhat supportive of the broader war on terror, at least publicly supportive of that. Does it seem to you like the Libyan Government is trying to make peace here without coming out and directly saying, "we did it. We're responsible. We won't do it again."

CUMMOND: Well, Aaron, right now we only have a verbal offer. There's nothing in writing and what the Libyan Government needs to do is to put down an offer, a full offer in writing to meet up with all the terms and conditions that have been delineated by our government and by the United Nations, and I think anything short of that is really totally inadequate for the families.

BROWN: Do you think you're getting there? I mean today whatever its inadequacies are, has to be considered to some extend a significant moment. There's an offer on the table and negotiations taking place. Do you feel like you're getting where you're trying to get to?

CUMMOND: Well right now, as I said, we've only heard that there have been verbal offers. I don't think Mr. Kreindler has anything in writing. I know that the other attorneys that are part of the negotiating team do not. So I think what he has done has been very premature in going public with supposedly a verbal offer because as we all know, talk is cheap.

And if Libya is not willing to admit that they committed a wanton act of terrorism and mass murder of 270 people, mostly Americans, and ripped out of the fiber of America by this act, if they don't renounce terrorism, then we are going to continue to allow countries to get away with murder.

BROWN: Nice to talk to you. Thank you. I think you put a nice perspective on what came out today and it gives us all something to think about in terms of the dollar settlement offered and what is missing. Thank you, Victoria Cummond from Miami tonight. Thank you very much.

It seems odd, isn't it, that we talk about this in terms of the negotiation to people's lives. Later on NEWSNIGHT, baseball's dirty secret, the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is a terrific story this week from "Sports Illustrated." We'll talk with the man who reported it, Tom Verducci. That's coming up a little bit later in the hour.

Up next, a danger of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, we'll walk you through this one with our reporters on both sides of the border. That's on NEWSNIGHT, here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In many ways, the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is a strange thing. For weeks now, the two sides have been lobbying artillery over each other and trading shots across the line that divides them. That's the normal part of this. They have been doing this for about 50 years or so. Sometimes it's worse than other times. It's more intense. There is more dying. But it is always there. It is always tense and it is frequently ugly.

Acts of terror are nothing new either, nor are assassinations and provocations and ultimatums. What is new and simply terrifying is this. Both sides now have missiles and nuclear weapons to put on top of them, which as we say at the poker table, does raise the ante a bit.

So we're going to walk sort of slowly through this one tonight. It's a long way away. The players are not well known. The dispute is not either. Perhaps this is Kashmir 101. Tom Mintier reporting the story from Pakistan and Satinder Bindra is working it from India.

Gentlemen good evening, Saftinder let me start with you. On your side of the line, in India, they would say, we are at this moment, where we're talking about the possibility of nuclear war because what happened?

BINDRA: The Indians, Aaron, are definitely talking about the possibility of war. They're not actually saying it will be nuclear, but they're definitely saying, yes, military action is a definite possibility. Why has this been precipitated? It's because of an attack which happened on the Indian side of Kashmir about two weeks ago. India blamed the attack on Pakistani-based militants.

Now in this attack, some 34 people were killed. Militants had attacked an army installation, but most of those killed were women and children. There was a great sense of outrage in India. There was also a lot of public pressure on the Indian prime minister to act, to take some sort of military action. But since that attack, the international community also has been urging restraint on the prime minister.

So things stand here now that the Indians are very angry, very upset, but the international community is urging them to take things coolly. Aaron?

BROWN: All right, we'll come back. And we'll pick it up in a second.

Let me go to Tom Mintier.

Tom in Pakistan, on your side of the line, the government of Pakistan would say, we are at this moment, where we, Pakistan, are testing our missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons. We are at this moment because? Why?

TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's interesting, Aaron, that we did not hear from the Pakistani president in his speech the other day the word missile, the word nuclear. He said we will not strike first. But if we are attacked, we will fight back.

Nobody here is talking about the use of nukes. Sure they have them. but they are shooting at each other, not talking at each other. And sometimes, things spiral out of control. If there is limited war that is launched, it becomes a major war, and then they resort to using these weapons of mass destruction. That's the real danger.

Jack Straw, I think, said it quite well when he was here yesterday. He said the international community has a responsibility to get these two nations, once again, talking to each other. to have a dialogue, to reduce the tensions, to find a way diplomatically out of the standoff that they're in now. As I said at the beginning, as long as they're shooting at each other and not talking at each other, the chance for a step back or a step down really isn't going to happen. Aaron?

BROWN: Tom, on your side of the line, does the Pakistani government, General Musharraf, acknowledge that Pakistanis crossed the border into India and commit terrorist acts? Does he acknowledge that?

MINTIER: He doesn't acknowledge that at all. That's something he denies and denied recently in the speech this week. He said that there are no incursions coming from Pakistan. Again, it's something that India denies as being truthful. But he says that the only support given to those who are fighting in Kashmir is moral or diplomatic support, no financial support, no military assistance. So he is saying there is no cross border terrorism sponsored by the government of Pakistan. He was quite clear about that. He said it several times in his speech.

BROWN: Let me go to Satinder, then, because at the core of this is the belief in India that the Pakistani government is not doing nearly enough to stop what it believes are terrorists crossing the border and killing Indians?

BINDRA: That's right. And, Aaron, Tom mentioned dialogue. India's position is there can be no dialogue. And dialogue would be fruitless. Still, what India calls cross border terrorism stops. Yesterday, the Indian minister for external affairs, Mr. Jaswansain (ph), addressed the media. And he said there's no question of dialogue, until as he put it, and this in his own words, "if you hold the gun of terrorism to my head, and say hey, dialogue with me or I'll pull this trigger of terrorism."

So that, in a nutshell, is the Indian viewpoint. And the Indians say this terrorism from across Pakistan has been going on for about 12 years now. The Indians, in fact, Aaron, refer to this as "proxy war." They say that over the years, thousands of citizens and thousands of members of its armed forces have been killed. And India is now saying enough is enough. India is saying its patients have run out. And now, really the government is under a lot of political pressure to act. Aaron?

BROWN: OK, and let me go to Tom for the last word. This is a difficult question because the -- if the Pakistani position is that no Pakistanis are contributing to the terror in India, I don't know how this gets resolved, short of the Indians backing down. What changes, I guess, the momentum here?

MINTIER: Well, I think what may change the momentum here is dialogue, as we talked about earlier. While President Musharraf says that his government does not sponsor those who are committing the acts of terrorism across the border, there are individuals and individual groups who are indeed financially supporting these groups and providing more than moral support.

So the crackdown that occurred in January, where about 2000 people were rounded up and groups were banned, that was seen by the international community as a step in the right direction. But most of those 2,000 people who were arrested were again released. The groups are still banned.

But I think what the international community is hoping for, is that the two sides will at least sit down and start a dialogue and stop shooting. That's the thing. They're worried about it spiraling out of control, that one side hits the other in a major way. Then the response comes. And the response to the response. So it is a very dangerous situation, but I'm sure the leaders in both Pakistan and India are aware of the statistics you brought up at the beginning of the show. 12 million people could die if nuclear weapons are used here. And probably one or two of those would be the prime minister of India and the president of Pakistan.

BROWN: Tom, Satinder, thank you. And they warn not visit your neighborhoods, You guys have seen enough of that in the last nine months. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

These are important allies to the United States. I mean, aside from the nuclear weapons, it's another reason this all matters.

BROWN: Later on NEWSNIGHT, an unforgettable evening at ground zero. I don't know if any of you all saw this earlier today. We'll show it to you, coming up. Kind of snuck up on us. We'll also see what some top competitors in Major League baseball are doing to get ahead. It won't make you happy if you love the game. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Sports writer Tom Boswell once said this about baseball. "It's a religion that worships the obvious, and gives thanks that things are exactly as they seem." If only that were so, but this week's issue of "Sports Illustrated" shows a very ugly side of baseball. And it's a tough read for anyone who loves the game. It's about the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a problem so widespread, that players even have a nickname for the rare times when they are not using them: playing naked they say. We'll talk with the reporter on the story in a few moments.

And but first, we'll hear from a one-time star, a Major League star, who confesses to half a decade of steroid use.

The story reported by Bob Fiscella of CNNSI.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOB FISCELLA, CNNSI CORRESPONDENT: Ken Caminiti was once one of baseball's best players. In 1996, he was a unanimous choice as the National League's most valuable player. It's his greatest individual accomplishment. It's also an honor that is tainted by his disclosure that he spent much of the season on steroids.

KEN CAMINITI, FMR. PLAYER: I took a black-market deal. And it's the worse thing I did, because I got the strength. I built the muscles up.

FISCELLA: In April of '96, Caminiti had suffered a shoulder injury. He decided to take steroids to help him play through the pain.

CAMINITI: Like I said, I was trying to do anything to play. And I knew I was tore up. So I said, "OK, do it." You know? Hold together, hold together, and I played that whole year. You know, I was MVP. And I look back now, and I cheated almost, you know.

FISCELLA: The steroids made Caminiti a better player. He hit 40 home runs in that '96 season. Neither before, nor after, would he ever reach 30. His 130 RBIs were 36 more than in his next best season. In a lengthy interview with Tom Verducci, of "Sports Illustrated," Caminiti said he continued to use steroids for the rest of his career, that ended just last season. He also said that his steroid use was not the exception, but the rule.

"It's no secret what's going on in baseball. At least half the guys are using it. They talk about it. They joke about it with each other." Caminiti also told Sports illustrated, "At first I felt like a cheater. But I looked around and everybody was doing it...Back then you had to go find it in Mexico or someplace. Now? It's everywhere. It's very easy to get."

CURT SCHILLING, BASEBALL PLAYER: No number would shock me, because I know I think it's prevalent out there, without a doubt. I just wouldn't know of a percentage at all, but I'm sure it's higher than anyone thinks.

FISCELLA: Like Rogers, Curt Schilling is dismayed by what he sees as a game radically changed by steroids. He told "SI", "you sit there and look at some of these players and you know what's going on."

SCHILLING: It's not an even playing field in that respect, but I've dealt with it my whole career. My benefit for me is I can look myself in the mirror everyday, whether I succeeded or failed, and I knew it was me out there. And you know, that's my satisfaction.

FISCELLA: Major League baseball does not currently test its players for steroids. So the number of users is difficult to pin down, but commissioner Bud Selig agrees that body-building drugs are a problem in his game. And says that something must be done. Any testing program will have to be agreed to by the players as part of a collective bargaining agreement.

SCHILLING: I wish we would never have to worry about this subject, but it's something we're going to have to deal with. It's not going to happen anytime soon, I don't think, but one day it will. The saddest part is, it's probably when something drastic happens to someone.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Tom Verducci wrote the story for "Sports Illustrated." And we'll talk to him after this break and some other assorted business. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A bit more now on steroids and Major League baseball. As we mentioned, it's the cover story in this week's "SI," which, by the way, does a pretty good job sports journalism, as well as sporting events. Tom Verducci reported the story. He's here now.

It's nice to meet you. And here's what Major League baseball had to say about why this problem is a problem when we talked with one of their people earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB MANFRED, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, EXEC. VP: The commissioner's policy bans the use of steroids at the Major League level. The problem is, because testing for steroids isn't a mandatory topic of bargaining, we've never been able to get an agreement with the Players Association that would allow us to test and find out who is using steroids.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, that's official position. It's the other guys' fault, which is the very nature, of course, of baseball, the business of baseball these days.

Let me be a cynic here. Actually, baseball kind of likes it that Mark Mcguire, I'm not suggest Mark Mcguire used these drugs, but that the Mark Mcguires of the world hit 70 homeruns, and they hit the ball forever. And the pitchers throw at 100 miles an hour when they didn't use to. And so, while they probably would be happier if this issue went away, there's something about it that they like.

TOM VERDUCCI, SPORTS ILLLUSTRATED: Absolutely. This is the game that the owners of baseball want and like. Fans come out to the ballpark to see someone throw the ball 98 miles an hour. And they come to the ballpark to see someone hit the ball 500 feet. And you know what? Steroids are going to help certain guys do exactly that. I will say, though, that there's something that eventually, I think, is going to catch up to management. And that's the dollar.

I mean, last year, they spent $317 million, 16 percent of the total revenues that they paid players was given to players who couldn't play, players on the disabled list. That number has more than doubled inside of four years. Now steroids are definitely a part of that. Now it becomes economically feasible that they really mean it, that they want to stop it, then you would might see something.

BROWN: And for people who don't know much about steroids, which is assume is most of our viewers would don't use them, it gives you a lot of muscle, but doesn't make your tendons or the joints any stronger in your body. Right?

VERDUCCI: No.

BROWN: And that's why these guys break down.

VERDUCCI: That's exactly right. Basically what steroids are doing is they're adding greater muscle mass than your body, in many cases, can actually withstand. And in fact, in the story, we -- quote a renowned sports orthopedist as saying the incidence of traumatic muscular injuries, we're talking about muscles ripping off of the bone, has more than quadrupled inside the last five to 10 years. And he attributes that to steroids and their supplements.

BROWN: You know, if I -- I speak hypothetically now, if I'm a kid down playing A ball in wherever, and I see the kind of deals that these guys are getting, I'm tempted.

VERDUCCI: Absolutely. I mean, that brass ring has never been shinier and brighter than it is now, because in Major League baseball, you can have one great season and parlay that into a contract that will set you and your family up for the rest of your life. So you will do anything that you can. And that's the thing that really came through loud and clear was that this is now a peer pressure thing in the big leagues. If you want to make the money, if you want to make the Major Leagues and then make the money, if you're not using steroids, and Curt Schilling said this beautifully I thought, if you're a hitter and you're not using steroids, you're putting yourself in competitive disadvantage.

BROWN: There was a guy, and I don't want to him, I have no idea whether he used steroids or not, but I guarantee he used something, I think in '93, maybe it was '94, he hit 15 homeruns. The next year, he hit 50. And you tell me that's weight training. You know, come on. You would think maybe players would get upset in some respects at this, but they don't seem to.

VERDUCCI: Well, Aaron, I disagree, because I think that is beginning to show. And that's what I started to hear from more and more players. They feel, the ones who are not using, as if they are in the minority now. And it really bothers them that they see that the playing field is not level any more, that they are at a disadvantage. And that really bothers them.

And people were more than willing to speak on the record about that situation now. I did not detect that situation four or five years ago. I think that group is becoming more vocal about being put in a competitive disadvantage.

BROWN: Well, if you're someone like me, and you believe in the records of the game as part of the fabric of America, it is all very sad. Nice piece of work.

VERDUCCI: Thanks.

BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's the cover story in this week's "Sports Illustrated." If such stuff interests you, it is right there.

Up next on NEWSNIGHT, we go back to ground zero. There was a wonderful moment down there. And we'll show it to you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Thursday morning at ground zero will be what's being called the "closing ceremony" for the long, hard task of sifting through, pulling out, and taking away close to two million tons of rubble, and, most importantly, whatever remains and whatever effects could be found. We'll anchor that broadcast Thursday morning coming up at 10:00 Eastern time. It will be, we expect moving, sad, in is own way, quite important.

But it seem to us that while the ceremony and the speeches will come on Thursday, the real event took place tonight, quietly, with much respect and little fanfare. The final piece of steel, the one still standing was cut down, wrapped lovingly in a black shroud and an American flag, and touched or saluted by hundreds of workers. We're just going to let this play out.

We may jump in a moment here and a moment there, but this is how it looked tonight in New York. These are construction workers mostly, some firefighters, a lot of people who have been at the scene now for almost nine months. There are photos they are attaching. They spraypainted names. An American flag, of course, one of many that have flown over the site.

You could see the number 343. For those of you who may have forgotten or just didn't know, that's the number of New York city firemen, who died.

CROWD: USA! USA!

BROWN: They began cutting this girder down. This stood at the south tower. It is called column 10021B, the southeast corner of the tower. And they'll bring it down slowly. On Thursday, they will carry it out, as part of the ceremony on Thursday morning. But today, in what essentially was not for the dignitaries and the like, but for the workers at ground zero, they put the acetylene torch to it and took it out.

And then this. They very gently laid it out. In many ways I think unless you've been down there, you can't appreciate the dignity with which this operation took place for now almost nine months. The workers, construction workers wrapping this, 1001B in a black shroud. They're now covering it with an American flag. Thursday morning, they'll take it out. And a new and different phase of ground zero will begin. What to do next? We're not there yet. Not quite.

We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00. Good night.

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