Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Saudis in Spotlight Following Controversial Report; Israeli- Palestinian Talks Break Down; Scientist Claims Crop Circles are Bunk

Aired August 07, 2002 - 22:00   ET

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

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good to be back. Good evening again everyone.
So, I was thinking bout Saudi Arabia today. Actually, I spent most of the day thinking about summer, and that it seems to be ending much too quickly, and thinking about how nice it was -- it is to be back home after two days on the road speechmaking in Dallas.

But as soon as I got into the office I started thinking about Saudi Arabia because, well, that's what I'm expect to do.

It seems a briefing given to an important Pentagon advisory group and leaked, brilliantly, it seems, to me, to the "Washington Post" was bouncing around our office today. In short, the briefer, one of those really smart people who works for the Rand Corporation, made the argument that Saudi Arabia isn't really our friend, more like our enemy. Imagine that.

Now, this is not the United States government's position at all. To the government, the Saudis are our friends; important friends. Sure, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. And, yes, about a third of the people held prisoner at Guantanamo are Saudi. And, of course, they do hold telethons to send money to the families of the suicide bombers, and they fund groups that fund terrorists.

Sure, that's all true. But hey, the argument goes, who's perfect.

Today, the Saudis said if the United States attacks Iraq, it won't be from Saudi bases. And, of course, our government just said, that's OK, no problem, we understand.

Here's what I understand. They have oil and lots of it. Someone far smarter than I said the other day that if the Saudis had onions instead of oil, we'd isolate them.

But, alas, they do have oil, not onions. And while they are autocratic, while they treat half their population, at least, like servants, while their schools teach a fanatic hatred, they remain our friends.

And you know what -- and this is the galling part -- it's probably a good thing. They probably aren't as bad as whomever would replace them. Some days it just doesn't pay to come back to work and start thinking again.

So "The Whip" begins with the Saudis and what role, if any, they would play in a possible attack on Iraq.

Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

Jamie good to see you, and a headline please.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, you've stolen my thunder tonight. But let me just say that it's the instability of the Saudi royal family that's behind their reticence in helping the United States in the next round against Iraq. But that doesn't mean they won't be any help at all. I'll tell you more.

BROWN: Thank you Jamie. That is the anchor's prerogative, as you well know.

Off we go to Ramallah next. They've been working in the Middle East, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators trying to come to some agreements. Didn't work yet.

Michael Holmes is in Ramallah tonight.

Michael, a headline from you.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the door opened slightly here this week, promising meetings, the chance of an Israeli withdrawal, a partial withdrawal, a Palestinian step forward. Well, tonight that door was slammed shut -- Aaron.

BROWN: Michael, thank you.

Back to the United States now. A fascinating case involving drunk driving here. One of two interesting legal cases on the program tonight.

Bob Franken is following that from Salem, New Jersey.

Bob, the headline from you.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, a guilty verdict here would greatly expand the potential punishment in the field of drunk driving law, so it's no wonder that the jury, so far, is deadlocked -- Aaron.

BROWN: We'll give you all the details on that. Back with all of you in a moment. Believe me, it is no ordinary drunk driving case.

Also coming up, we'll talk with the Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat on the talks in Israel today and his talks with Secretary of State Powell tomorrow. Other things in that conversation, too.

CNN correspondent Mike Boettcher tonight gives us a look at some tapes he got ahold of: Force 055 in action in Afghanistan, the elite fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden.

And from Nissen tonight -- or perhaps we should call her Scully -- she dips into her own X-Files with a completely explainable phenomenon that is terrifying millions in movie theaters: crop circles.

And a fascinating case about adoption: whether certain mothers should have to reveal some very intimate information -- in the newspaper, no less -- if they decide to give their child up for adoption instead of choosing an abortion.

All of that to come.

But we begin with the Gulf and the alliance that's looking a bit frayed around the edges tonight. The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia was strained already in the wake of September 11, then came a number of statements by the Saudis that the kingdom wasn't about to become a launching pad for a war against Iraq.

By the strange rules of the relationship, those statements didn't really count. It was understood what the Saudis said for public consumption, for Arab consumption, especially, was apt to be very different from what they really meant behind closed doors.

Today things seemed to change.

Here again our senior Pentagon correspondent, CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): Saudi Arabia, which hosted half a million U.S. ground troops in the 1991 Persian Gulf War is telling Washington to make other plans this time around. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud, in statement made both for internal and international consumption, said his government doesn't want the U.S. to use Saudi grounds for any attack.

Still, the Pentagon insists when the time comes there won't be a problem.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If they're helping us in ways that are different from that and they prefer not to discuss it, that's their choice. And we can live with that too.

MCINTYRE: Pentagon choices say war planning for Iraq includes options for various levels of access to Saudis bases, including no access at all.

What U.S. does hopes to get from Saudi Arabia is overflight permission: Any air attack on Iraq would be vastly complicated without the ability to fly through Saudi airspace; use of the air command center at the Prince Sultan Air Base; a backup facility is being readied in Quetta just in case, but sources say it's not as good; and logistical support for refueling jets an spy planes. Meanwhile, the chairman of the joint chiefs is dismissing recent newspaper accounts suggesting there has been tension between the chiefs, who were reported to have misgivings about going to war with Iraq, and the civilians in the Bush administration, who were said to be more gung-ho.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I don't know where these things get started. I don't know who's -- I mean, like I said, it is not consistent. Those articles are not consistent with what I see and what I observe and what I hear.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: So as the joint chiefs are saying that they are united behind implementing U.S. policy, the question about how vital Saudi bases is really comes down to the fact that it would be helpful to have access to those bases, but it's not as critical.

For one reason, this time around Kuwait is not occupied, and it is serving as a base. And unlike in Saudi Arabia, the United States has virtually a free hand in Kuwait to base as many planes or troops as it wants -- Aaron.

BROWN: I actually have two questions. I want to start with what General Myers said today, the fact that the joint chiefs are all on board. I'm just curious, in the halls of the Pentagon, are you hearing from military people, men and women in uniform, that there is some concern about whatever war plan with Iraq, ultimately -- if ultimately it happens, takes place -- is he speaking in absolute truth here, I guess is the question.

MCINTYRE: Well, you know, there's a little bit of truth to the fact that there's always some misgiving or some concerns at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is concerned about casualties. They're concerned about what would come after in Iraq. They're concerned about the possible use of chemical weapons.

But what does not seem to be the case is any really serious misgivings about carrying out a policy. In fact, most of the senior military people here, again, point out that it's not their role to set the policy, it's their role to advise the president on what can be done, what the risks are, how much time, what it would take to do it, and their best military advice on how to accomplish it.

Now, I don't get the sense that there's a lot of division about that.

BROWN: All right, let's go to the Saudis.

What is different from the -- maybe this, in fairness to you, a question better directed to the State Department -- but what is the difference this time around from the Saudi perspective? Why were they helpful a decade ago, and would be less helpful this time around? MCINTYRE: Well, there's been growing concern in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that the ruling royal family doesn't enjoy the full support of its population. The Saudi government and the U.S. is concerned about, you know, a growing Islamic movement. The last thing they want to see in Saudi Arabia is some sort of radical Islamic government take hold.

So the U.S. is very sensitive to the idea that the closer Saudi Arabia appears to be with the United States, the more risk it is to its own government.

Now, the message from Saudi Arabia to the United States through back channels is always the same, which is, we'll be there if you need us but, you know, if you don't have to ask, please don't, because it causes us a big problem.

And this time around the U.S. thinks, with the exception of a few things that it needs, as I mentioned earlier, that it basically can pull this off without having to put the Saudi government in the position of having to host a large number of troops and be in a position of obviously helping out.

BROWN: Jamie, I know it's been a long day, thank you for staying late tonight. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon this evening.

MCINTYRE: You're quite welcome.

BROWN: On to the Middle East. No surprise, there is some disagreement there. No surprise.

For the first time in a long time, high-level Israeli and Palestinian officials have been at the negotiating table, and apparently they seemed to be getting somewhere. The two sides have been negotiating for the Israelis to pull back from some parts of the West Bank in exchange for a Palestinian commitment to stopping the attacks on Israelis.

Tonight these talks apparently have hit a very rough patch, so we again turn to CNN's Michael Holmes, who is in Ramallah for us tonight -- Michael.

HOLMES: Aaron, the plan put on the table Monday, we're told, was one that showed some promise, some hope. It was a promise, we're told, for Israel to withdraw partially from Gaza, most of it, and for them to withdraw also from the West Bank town of Bethlehem, allowing Palestinians to take over security control of those areas. That meeting significantly described as very calm, very productive and very constructive.

It would, in a way, be a test. Palestinian security officials taking over control of those areas and in a way proving themselves to Israel. Meanwhile, Israel remaining in control of the vast majority of the West Bank. If the Palestinian security apparatus did well in reining in militants, the plan would then spread to other towns and cities in the West Bank. The Palestinian cabinet met in Ramallah Wednesday to discuss the plan, ministers approving it in theory, awaiting more details to come from another meeting that concluded just few hours ago. Well, that meeting did not go so well. According to Palestinian sources, it was, quote, "a complete failure."

They told of shouting matches going on and that the atmosphere there was, in their words, extremely tense. The Israeli defense minister, Ben-Eliezer, was at the first meeting. He was not at the second meeting. And the offer, according to Palestinians, was reduced to just Gaza alone. Palestinian not keen on that. They said that that was counterproductive to their aims and the Gaza was a place that Hamas had very strong popularity in, and policing it would be extremely difficult.

Some felt they were set up to fail in that regard. Also, the problem, Palestinians say, is that they cannot effectively police areas, arrest militants, because they're not in control of many of these areas. Another problem, Aaron, is that the Palestinian security infrastructure has largely been destroyed, and they feel that they really can't do much of anything.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The curfew lifted briefly, cars cram the streets of Ramallah. In their midst, men direct traffic. They look civilian, but they are actually police. No uniforms, and they ask for their faces not to be shown. They say they have their reasons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the policemen go to the streets in their uniforms, maybe they will catch them or arrest them and send them to the prison.

HOLMES: They are Israeli troops. Officers say to wear a uniform in the West Bank these days is to invite arrest or at least questioning if caught by soldiers. It's one small example of the problems involved in reconstructing the Palestinian security forces. Another is credibility. Israel claiming in the past complicity by Palestinian security in terror attacks.

SAEB EREKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: We are willing to carry out our obligations. But today if we take Ramallah, where are the security vehicles? They are all destroyed. Where are the Palestinian police? Mostly arrested. Their small weapons confiscated.

HOLMES: Perhaps no better place to see Palestinian security efforts than the preventive security headquarters in Ramallah. Scene of a fierce battle in April, the CIA designed U.S. funded home to security operations is still little more than rubble. Police cars crushed, officers and vital records that were in them destroyed or taken by Israeli troops.

NABIL ABU RDEINEH, ARAFAT SENIOR ADVISER: It's difficult job, it's a difficult task. This is one of the issues which we discussed with Israelis last time. We hope this issue will be solved because we are in need of all the efforts, we are in need of all the capabilities of our officers.

HOLMES: That will take support, he says, from the Europeans, the United States, Arab nations, and Israel. Also plenty of cash. As for whether Palestinian security can realistically stop suicide bombers, something that wasn't always done with an intact security force, Nabil Abu Rdeineh says he can't give a 100 percent guarantee, however...

This is the test. If the Israelis are ready, we cooperate together, we succeeded in the past, we will succeed in the future.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

So Aaron, after a promising start to the week, a less than promising end to it. Following on from the meeting that concluded just a few hours ago, both sides went away to consult their leaders. They said that there would be another meeting next week, however, perhaps significantly, no date, no time has been set -- Aaron.

BROWN: Michael, thank you, Michael Holmes in Ramallah. Tonight and after this break we'll talk with one of the principle Palestinian negotiators for a long time. That Saeb Erakat. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

EREKAT: ...since the incursions began, we have unconfirmed figures of 500 Palestinians killed. And of course, you know five Palestinians killed or five Israelis killed is too much. The incursion is referred to as those of Nablus, of Ramallah, of Jenin, of Tulkarem, or Hebron, of many places.

Now the irony is that you don't have a United Nations team that came to the Jenin refugee camp. I remember the Finnish ex-president (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and a very distinguished political and military team were supposed to come to Jenin. Israel never allowed them.

But nevertheless, I just want to cut a long story short and say all what we wanted from the United Nations is to put recommendations to ensure the non-reoccurrence of such atrocities. There were, at the end of the day, 860 homes totally destroyed in Jenin refugee camp, 14,000 people made homeless. There were scores of people who were buried under the rubble.

And Aaron, I don't know if there's a definition, whether it's 500 or 50. If that's called a massacre or not. This is a vicious cycle of Israelis dying and Palestinians dying, and we must break a cycle.

BROWN: Let's move on, but I think the record is important there.

We have talked before about this question of security, and what you have said and others said, is look, the Israelis have destroyed all the security apparatus that we have. How can we stop this?

If you can't stop it, and you don't want the Israelis to stop it, but you both agree that it needs to be stopped, who does it? EREKAT: I think you touched on the nerve system of our problem. And I really think we should not continue speaking about the chicken and the egg, what comes first and who does what. Look, Palestinians and Israelis are drowning in their blood. This vicious cycle must be broken.

Today the trust level between Palestinians and Israelis is below zero. And because of this fact, Aaron, we need a third party. And a third party could be the U.S., the U.S. and Europe, Arabs and others, but we need the help of a third party.

We don't need the Americans to negotiate for us. Neither us nor the Israelis want the Americans to negotiate or to make decisions for us. We will do the negotiations. We will make the decisions, but we need a third party ingredient to monitor the implementation, because here in this security aspect, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We have the Mitchell Report that was accepted by both parties, we have the Tenet Plan that was accepted by both parties, we have resolutions of Security Council 1402, 1403, and then the Quartet recommendations.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we need to carry the mutually accepted obligations on both sides. This cannot go in a sequential pattern. This will go parallel. Now, as far as Palestinian capabilities, we will do our obligations, 100 percent efforts in accordance with what we have in capabilities, but do we need help to rehabilitate our forces, to rebuild our security infrastructure? Yes, we do.

And there where the United States come in handy, where the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Europeans, and every party that says that they're willing to help in rebuilding our forces, but we need to begin the process. We need to start somewhere.

BROWN: Mr. -- I'm sorry, I've got less than a minute. I want to get to one other thing that I think's important. There was a report out yesterday about conditions in the West Bank, about malnutrition, particularly among children.

The situation is obviously very bleak there. Do you expect the U.S. government to be helpful in that regard?

ERAKAT: Actually, Aaron, this is one of the points on the top of our agenda in the meeting tomorrow. The meeting is tomorrow, actually. It's human catastrophe that we will face. I will warn here that 50 percent of the Palestinian children under the age of five face malnutrition, 48 percent of Palestinian women have anemia. One-third of the Palestinian population live in hand-outs.

There is a serious threat of outbreak of diseases and starvation, and yes, we need the United States to help us to break this human catastrophe before it's too late. Today the West Bank and Gaza have literally turned into the biggest prison in history.

There is the continuation of the clamp-down, the closures, the siege, the settlements, the collective punishment, the home demolitions and so on, and this must stop to avoid a major human catastrophe.

BROWN: Mr. Erakat, I hope you'll come back soon and talk to us, and I promise the next time I'll keep my questions shorter and we'll get more ground covered. It's always good to see you, sir. Thank you for your time.

Saeb Erakat, who will be meeting with Secretary of State Powell tomorrow. Later at NEWSNIGHT, an extraordinary law in the state of Florida -- extraordinary to me, I guess.

Some women of Florida are -- will be forced to publish their sexual histories in newspapers. We'll explain why. Up next, an unusual drunk driving trial, where the defendant never took a sip. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Jurors in New Jersey tonight are grappling with a case that raises a question as old as the Bible, though it ups the ante a bit. The question is this: Are you your brother's keeper? A bit more complicated is the variation before the jury tonight. Does the law compel you to be your brother's keeper, and can you be sent to jail if you are not? Here again, CNN's Bob Franken.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN (voice-over): After more than a day, the jurors reported they were deadlocked, their difficulty hardly a surprise in a case that could well break some new legal ground. But the judge insisted they stay with it.

JUDGE WILLIAM FORRESTER, SALEM COUNTY NJ SUPERIOR CT: I would ask you to deliberate with a view towards reaching a unanimous decision.

They're deliberating the fate of 40-year-old Kenneth Powell, charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and aggravated assault, facing up to 15 years in prison, even though he was nowhere near the car when its drunken driver swerved into an oncoming vehicle. Two died, a third was critically injured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Count to -- from one to third.

FRANKEN: One of the dead was Michael Pangle, the drunk driver who had been jailed earlier that evening, about two years ago, arrested by New Jersey state troopers after a night of heavy drinking.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you going to do, arrest me, now?

FRANKEN: Three hours later, after he had called his friend at home, Pangle was out of jail and back behind the wheel of his car. Police had released him to Powell, who took him back to his automobile and left him. Powell went home, but Michael Pangle drank some more and drove some more.

Three more hours later, Pangle swerved, slammed his vehicle into the oncoming car driven by 22-year-old Navy ensign Johnny Elliott. Both Elliott and Pangle were killed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations.

FRANKEN: Ensign Elliott had graduated from the Naval Academy just two months before.

WILLIAM ELLIOTT, VICTIM'S FATHER: It would be hard, if there is acquittal, not to take it personally, but we know that there is a greater good that will come out of this regardless of this verdict.

FRANKEN: And that is the national attention this case is getting. Experts believe it would be unprecedented if Powell was convicted for drunken driving deaths if he was neither in the car nor provided any alcohol. Last year, New Jersey adopted a new law, which allows police to impound a drunk driver's vehicle for up to 12 hours.

But John's Law, as it's called, was passed after the death of Johnny Elliott.

ELLIOTT: The waiting is the hardest part, there is no question. But again, for the last two years, every morning we have awakened knowing that we would never see our son's face, and never hear his voice, or never hold him again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: His parents said that Ensign Elliott just wanted to be a naval pilot. Powell, Kenneth Powell, the plaintiff in this case, just wanted to be a friend and made a big mistake as far as the law is concerned. He is on trial and faces a long time in prison -- Aaron.

BROWN: Did he take the witness stand, Bob?

FRANKEN: He did not testify in this case. It's been a very complicated case, but he is -- was not put on the stand.

BROWN: Bob Franken in Salem, New Jersey tonight, awaiting a verdict there. And as we do, we'll turn to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Counselor...

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sir.

BROWN: I have some questions here.

TOOBIN: OK.

BROWN: Does the law not require intent, criminal intent or at least the knowledge that the actions you are taking are likely to lead to a criminal outcome?

TOOBIN: Well, that's -- this case reminds me of a law school hypothetical. And one of the things you learn is you have to have two things for crime. You need an intent of some kind, and you need an act. And what's so interesting and difficult about this case is that there's not an act. There's an omission, there's failure to act. And usually when there's no act there can be no crime.

BROWN: I said in the e-mail we sent out to viewers every afternoon, that this is one of those cases where your head may tell you one thing while your heart tells you another. You could be outraged at taking this guy back to his car, but he can't have know the guy was going to go drink some more and -- I posit this as a question.

TOOBIN: Well, but it raises the whole issue of Good Samaritan laws. You now, laws that impose duties on us and punish us if we don't comply with them.

And, you know, the question is, well, what if you serve drinks to someone and they go out and kill someone? What if you're a bartender? It comes under the same theory, you could be held liable. What if you're a tollbooth attendant who smells alcohol but doesn't stop the driver...

BROWN: Well, that's an interesting one to me. If you're the bartender and you serve 12 drinks to someone, then you have a kind of affirmative knowledge of the condition of that person, or you should.

Now I'm not sure that in this case that's what applies. It's been three hours, the guy might seem perfectly sober, he goes out and drinks again. But the state argues you are still responsible.

TOOBIN: That's what they say but, you know, that's why this is such an unusual case, because usually you are just not responsible for another person's action.

BROWN: Have cases like this gone to appellate-level courts to see if they are fairly applicable?

TOOBIN: As far as I've been able to determine, there's no case exactly like this. You may remember the Jodie Foster movie a few years back, "The Accused," which was about men who watched a rape take place and then didn't do anything about it.

BROWN: That actually was, as they say, based on a true story.

TOOBIN: It was based on a true story, although the legal question was posed a little differently in the movie.

But it's really the same issue: What obligation do you have to stop something from taking place?

BROWN: But there you're -- again, there you're in a situation where you are seeing a crime being committed.

TOOBIN: Right.

BROWN: Am I missing something here? I usually am.

TOOBIN: No, I don't think you're missing something.

But that doesn't mean that this case is not a crime either. Sure, the rape taking place in front of you is, in many respects, an easier case.

But, you know, here if he really did know that this guy was totally bombed and was delivering this guy to his car, to deliver him to his vehicle, I mean, that's pretty close.

I think there's a factual dispute in the case about how much he knew. But just assume that he did know...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: How much he knew about how drunk the guy was?

TOOBIN: Right.

BROWN: And he certainly -- well, I can't say "certainly" -- he presumably did not know that the guy was going to go drink again.

TOOBIN: No, that I don't think he's being accused off knowing. But it's just how drunk he was when he took him to the car.

BROWN: It is a fascinating legal issue.

TOOBIN: Well, it's fascinating also because it really deals with what our obligations are to other people. I mean, as you said in the introduction, it goes back to the Bible, brother's keeper, Good Samaritans. We deal with it all...

BROWN: Maybe I should have brought the God Squad in tonight.

TOOBIN: That's right.

BROWN: But we got you, and we're glad. Nice to see you.

TOOBIN: That's right, much less than the God Squad.

BROWN: I don't know about that.

TOOBIN: Lesser authority.

BROWN: Thank you Jeffrey. Jeff Toobin.

Still ahead: a rare look at Osama's toughest troops. Are they still a factor in Afghanistan?

This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We're about to introduce you to some very dangerous men, even more so, if that's possible, than the group to which they belong. They make up Osama bin Laden's elite bodyguards -- for lack of better words, his special forces. This group is called Force 055. And while members have been killed, some taken into custody, others have survived to fight on.

CNN has obtained a tape of Force 055 in training.

Here's correspondent Mike Boettcher.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): August 1, 1999, two years before the al Qaeda attacks against New York and Washington, the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies are fighting for survival in an Afghan civil war. On that date, the Taliban takes Bagram Air Base and the surrounding area from the Northern Alliance, a crucial victory.

They do it with the aid of Osama bin Laden's elite fighters, a group known as Force 055. Here an al Qaeda commander celebrates the victory with some of the troops on the front line.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Thanks to God, we are participating in the jihad in Afghanistan and when the jihad is over in Afghanistan, we will move from Afghanistan to other countries that were Islamic before.

BOETTCHER: These tapes obtained by CNN provide a rare glimpse of the al Qaeda fighters who kept the Taliban in power and who are now challenging U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan. At the core, the so-called Afghan Arabs, in this tape there are Egyptians, Saudis, Yemenis and others, some of these men have fought alongside bin Laden in Afghanistan since the 1980s.

RUNAN GUNARATNA, AUTHOR "INSIDE AL QAEDA": Most 055 members are from the Gulf, North Africa caucuses, central Asian countries, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and from Southeast Asia.

BOETTCHER: Another tape shows 055 members getting live fire advance training with shoulder-mounted mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft weapons. There is plenty of ammunition at their disposal. The instructor is Arab.

Some of the trainees appear to be from Central Asia. There is at least one African. While the tapes date from two or three years ago, the same Force 055 is now hiding out in and around Afghanistan.

GUNARATNA: 055 is the guiding arm of al Qaeda that is now preparing to fight the Americans. It's conducting probing attacks. It's mounting reconnaissance and it's engaging some clandestine training.

BOETTCHER: On this recent U.S. operation, we accompanied Bravo Company of the 101st Airborne when they launched an assault on a suspected al Qaeda hideout. In these caves, they had hoped to find members of Force 055, but they had disappeared.

Some of the people on these tapes may have already died fighting the U.S. and Northern Alliance; others could even be in custody. But members of Force 055 are also Osama bin Laden's closest bodyguards and wherever he is hiding out, they are at his side. Mike Boettcher CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Quick look at some of the stories making news from around the world tonight, beginning with the journey home for the remains of journalist Danny Pearl. It has been a long time coming.

A plane carrying his remains left Karachi, Pakistan today, bound for California, where his parents live. The Pakistani morgue that has kept his remains since May left a wreath and a note with the coffin that said: "for the peace of the soul of Daniel Pearl."

A horrible day of violence in Colombia. Several explosions went off in downtown Bogota blocks from the parliament, just before the new President Alvaro Uribe was sworn in. More than a dozen people killed. Uribe has vowed to crack down on leftist rebels, who are thought to be behind today's bombings.

And this from Argentina. We can't think of a better picture to sum up the economic crisis there. Tens of thousands lined up for blocks at the sanctuary of Saint Cayetano, the patron saint of work. They are praying for jobs in a country where more than 20 percent of the people are unemployed tonight.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, mystery solved. Nissen takes on crop circles.

Up next, a battle in Florida over the rights of birth fathers in cases of adoption.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Some people are comparing this to the scarlet letter, though that seems a bit inflammatory. The story involves a new law in the state of Florida that forces women to detail some of their sexual history in the local newspaper before giving a child up for adoption. This is in cases where the women do not know who the father is or can't find him.

We can't quite imagine what the notices would say and, frankly, we don't want to. But, essentially, they have to list the men they've slept with who may have fathered the child. The idea is to give the father, if he wants, a say in the adoption, and to make the adoption, when it happens, truly final. No challenge from the birth father years down the road.

We're joined tonight by an adoption attorney who is challenging the law on behalf of six women in Florida. There's Charlotte Danciu, she joins us from Boynton Beach, Florida.

And Michael McCormick of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. Michael joins us tonight from Washington.

Charlotte, if I may, let me start with you.

Basically, have we laid this out correctly, that in those cases where a woman wants to put the child up for adoption and can't specifically identify the child, she has to put a notice in the paper saying, I slept with the following men?

CHARLOTTE DANCIU, ADOPTION ATTORNEY: Actually, she has to describe herself, her age, her weight, her eye color, her hair color, and she has to describe the men that potentially could be the fathers, whether there's one or whether there's 10. And this applies across the board.

We did challenge it, and were successful in preventing the publication of rape victims' names in the newspaper, which was required by the 2001 adoption act in the state of Florida.

However, the judge did not go so far as to exclude the publication of other women's names, including minors, mentally handicapped and women who are looking to have, perhaps, their husband adopt their child after being married for 10 years.

So we still -- it actually is not much different than the scarlet letter, in that we have to publish just about everything there is to identify the woman as well as the man who may or may not be the father.

BROWN: And I want to go to Michael in a second, but just to make sure that we're laying this out correctly, the idea here is to give the father, should he want it, notice. And I guess the idea is that every man in the state of Florida would read these notices, I don't know, that this child is up for adoption, correct?

DANCIU: That is the idea behind it. And it's not just the state of Florida. If the young woman -- for example, one of my six cases is a 14-year-old that came from a another state. We actually have to publish in the state -- in every state, in every city, in every county where the woman possibly conceived the child.

So if she traveled form, for example, New York to Miami, having sexual relations with a man, perhaps an adult male, we would have to publish in every city between those two states.

BROWN: Michael, you think this is a good idea?

MICHAEL MCCORMICK, DIR., AMERICAN COALITION OF FATHERS & CHILDREN: I do think it's a good idea. I think biological fathers should know their children and have the opportunity to be fathers to their children...

BROWN: Well, we all think that. That's not -- I mean, in fairness, I think -- I don't believe Ms. Danciu would disagree with that. I think everybody agrees that biological fathers ought to take responsibility, ought to know their children, ought to participate in their children's lives.

But I'm not sure that's precisely the issue on the table, is it? MCCORMICK: Well, I think it is the issue on the table when you're looking at a situation where adoption may occur and the father may not have the opportunity to know their child again, they ought to at least have the opportunity to intervene in that situation and say, I have a child by this particular woman, I was unaware of this fact prior to this time, but I want to step up and take responsibility for the child. I think that goes directly to the issue.

BROWN: And it doesn't strike you as an extraordinary invasion of privacy?

MCCORMICK: What strikes me as interesting about this is that we have a situation where I understand one of the plaintiffs in this case, or one of the women involved in this case, actually slept with men and was using drugs and can't remember who the father was.

And it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that in that case we're concerned or worried about the reputation and what this says about the woman at the expense of that child's relationship to the father.

BROWN: That's an interesting point. But if I may, let me ask you the question again: Does it not strike you as an extraordinary invasion of someone's privacy?

MCCORMICK: It's an extraordinary action. I would say that it's an action of last resort. I understand that there is also -- an effort has to be made to identify those fathers prior to going to this particular step of publication.

And I would also say that there are consequences to being involved with someone, and a child the result of that relationship. And the father certainly has a right to know who his child is.

Yes, I would agree with you, it's an extraordinary measure. It's an extraordinary situation.

DANCIU: Well, I think that -- if I may interject here...

BROWN: Please.

DANCIU: ... I think the father does have rights, absolutely. But I think he also has obligations.

And if he is going to have sexual relations with women -- with a woman, knowing that a child might result, that you should have some obligation to stay in touch, perhaps to come forward within a limited period of time.

We are going to extraordinary means. And we are actually having such a chilling effect on adoption, which is something that is so necessary in this country, and promoted by our president and celebrities and people across the country, that we have to start putting responsibility on fathers. If they're having sex, they know children can result, and they should stay in touch with the women. They must come forward. The woman cannot escape the pregnancy. And I'm particularly bothered in the case, which is one of our six cases in Florida, where a woman -- not a woman, a 12-year-old child was raped. And I was required, if I had gone forward with it, to publish her name and the name of the rapist in the paper. And this is...

BROWN: Except that the judge agreed that that was not going to happen.

DANCIU: That has -- in Palm Beach County Circuit, yes. However, that is still the law throughout the rest of the state.

And this law -- and what he did distinguish was that if it was consensual, whether or not the woman was a minor, whether or not -- it was a statutory rape, if she consented to the sexual relations, she is not exempt.

BROWN: Ms. Danciu, let me give Michael the last word here.

I'm -- one of the things that occurred to us today -- maybe I'm wrong about this, but let me throw it out -- is there is a kind of unintended consequence, Michael, which is that it is now easier, much easier, and much more private for a woman to abort the father's baby than it is to put the child up for adoption.

MCCORMICK: Well, it appears to be the case. And unfortunately what we've seen is that men are being more and more marginalized in family life. And this would continue to do that.

You know, we have attorneys who say who say, we don't want the trouble of a father being involved in the child's life as we try and adopt this father out, and the father shouldn't have any say at this point.

I think that's absurd. I think that fathers are -- want to be as engaged with their children as mothers do. I think that society is developing that to preclude their ability to have a relationship with their children, that's the problem.

DANCIU: But there are other means of achieving that goal rather than further humiliating the woman. Not to mention the fallout -- what if she names the wrong man; all the other people that are affected by this.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

BROWN: Ms. Danciu and Mr. McCormick, thank you both for joining us.

DANCIU: You're welcome.

MCCORMICK: Thank you.

BROWN: I had not heard of this. It's a great issue to throw out on the table. Thank you very much.

We have much more ahead tonight. We'll be right back.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Quick look at some of the proposals for ground zero that have been -- that you've been sending our way to our Web site. And hope you do do this, although that's not easy to say. You can send them to CNN.com/NEWSNIGHT. Follow the links and this is what you'll see.

This has gotten very cool. Got the little thumbnail things, you can click on bunch of them, take a look at what's coming in, submit your own. While new batch came in today, and our friends at the Web site have put some of them up.

This one is -- it's amazing to me how different, how sophisticated some are and how simple others are. You can do the same thing. This comes from Adam in Virginia.

A pair of two structures, representing the towers, intertwining staircases, stairs to heaven, as he sees it. Nicely done, Adam.

Davide, two semicircular buildings surrounding a garden atrium, the center of which would be a fountain or a circular subway entrance, next to that a tree of life, lit up, at the top is a beacon into the skyline.

Lots of good ideas coming. And I can guarantee you the city of New York has no idea, the state of New York has no idea how this is all going to shake out, so your idea may be part of it. So send them our way, CNN.com/NEWSNIGHT.

Follow the links. No prize, no awards for this but the satisfaction of having done it, which is pretty cool, too. Finally tonight a science lesson, sort of, or perhaps a lesson in sort of science. It's the kind of science that has people going around in circles, crop circles, mostly. In any case, here's the recipe: a cornfield and some ideas from left-field, the hit movie, "Signs," some TV specials, two English practical jokers and one reporter who regular viewers have probably figured out by now is named Nissen.

BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Crop circles are intricate, seemingly mystical designs that, since the mid-1970s, have periodically cropped up, usually overnight in a field. They are also the latest field of battle between science and pseudoscience.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS, ASTROPHYSICIST, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: Pseudoscience is based on ideas that are either non-testable or in fact have been tested and have come up disagreeing with the experiments. Many ideas that are just simply wrong. Crop circles are a perfect example, because for some reason, as often happens, immediately people said aha, it's aliens! Well, that's an interesting hypothesis.

NISSEN: But not a hypothesis that can be tested, and, anyway, a hypothesis already disproven. In 1991, two humans, Doug Bower (ph) and Dave Chorley (ph), admitted that they, not aliens, had been making crop circles in England at night for 13 years. Step-by-step how-to directions for ever more complex designs have since been published on the world wide web.

KRAUSE: In science, once you propose something, and test it, if your hypothesis doesn't agree with the observation, we throw out the hypothesis, no matter how beautiful it is, it's gone.

NISSEN: Pseudoscience doesn't play by those rules. It allows, even encourages inventive guesses, strange coincidences, popular theories, with or without evidence. Doug and Dave's confession aside, some Americans will continue to believe that aliens might have made the crop circles, and maybe landed in Roswell, New Mexico a few decades back, and might well have visited earth more than once. It's possible, right?

KRAUSE: To have some perspective on what's possible and what's not possible, you have to have some grounding in science. And unfortunately, in this country right now, the level of scientific literacy is extremely low. Fifty percent of Americans, in a survey by the national science foundation, did not know that the earth orbited the sun, and took a year to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Scotty, I've gotta change the laws of physics.

NISSEN: More Americans connect the laws of physics to science fiction than science. Few have any grounding in space, know, for example, that travel between earth and the nearest star would take almost 100,000 years at conventional rocketship speeds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Warp speed, Mr. Sulu (ph).

NISSEN: Few know that even if something like Star Trek's warp speed was possible, and earth's physicists haven't ruled that out in principle, a cross-galactic trip would still be almost unfathomably challenging.

KRAUSE: To send a spacecraft out at the speed of light, or near the speed of light, no matter what technology you use, would require an energy which is equivalent to the entire energy used by humanity at the present time. It's very, very unlikely that any civilization could actually make it here.

NISSEN: Krauss and other scientists say it is especially hard for Americans to accept limits of physics, of possibilities. Part of the problem is our democratic tradition, our belief that majority opinion rules. It doesn't in science.

KRAUSE: When it comes to science, there's sometimes only one side. In fact, that's what makes science so powerful.

NISSEN: There's something else, a law of nature, American nature. KRAUSE: I think that in fact Americans have a special predilection towards believing in these type of things because of the American mentality that anything is possible. The notion that some things are simply not possible seems to go against the grain.

NISSEN: He said it, I didn't. Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.

BROWN: That's our Nissen. Good to see you again. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Join us for NEWSNIGHT. Good night for all of 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