Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Bush Poised to Move on Iraq After U.N. Votes on Resolution
Aired November 08, 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.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening, again, everyone.
Today feels a little like "Groundhog Day" to me. You know, that movie where Bill Murray keeps repeating the same day over and over? You see, last Friday I anchored this program and we talked about a rumor that the "L.A. Times" had reported that Ted Turner was going to be on NEWSNIGHT to announce merger between CNN and ABC News.
Now, it was just a rumor. He wasn't on the program. And, so far, no merger has been announced yet.
Apparently, just by talking about it, I managed to anger some of my friends at ABC News. Now, I think it was some jokes about the cultural differences in our two companies. Clearly, a sense of humor seems to be one of those differences. But, hey, water under the bridge, I say.
Today, I can officially announce that Ted Turner will be on this program on Monday. Now how's that for a tease? You have to wait all weekend.
Now, I got to tell you, Ted Turner is not -- I repeat, not, coming on to talk about the CNN-ABC News merger. At least I don't think he is. Of course, with Ted -- I'm sorry, Mr. Turner -- you just never know what he might talk about.
So an important note to viewers, especially those of you who work at ABC News. Be sure to watch on Monday, because you just never know who you might be working for on Tuesday. You know what I mean? It's true.
We begin with the top story of the day, and no question that Iraq leads the list. Richard Roth is at the United Nations for us -- Richard, the headline.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In a bit of a surprise, the Security Council votes together to give Iraq a final opportunity. But will Iraq accept it?
COOPER: All right, we'll see.
The Iraq news caps a pretty remarkable week for the president. Suzanne Malveaux is at the White House this evening. Suzanne, a headline.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was eight weeks ago that President Bush insisted that the United Nations hold Saddam Hussein to account to disclose, as well as destroy his alleged weapons of mass destruction. It has really been a high stakes and sometimes heavy-handed game of diplomacy, but it seems to have paid off for the Bush administration.
COOPER: And it is a game we will look at later on. Thanks, Suzanne.
A follow-up on a U.S. attack earlier this week on al Qaeda and questions about what it might mean for the future. David Ensor is on the story for us. David, a headline.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, the success in the Omani (ph) desert was extraordinary for the CIA, using one of those hell-fire missiles fired from a pilotless drone. A great success, but it's raising all kinds of questions about the tactic. Should the U.S go on doing this?
COOPER: All right. On to Jill Dougherty in Moscow, and a remarkable look at the hostage crisis from inside the theater. Jill, a headline.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: More video is emerging that paints a horrifying picture of what went on in that theater during the hostage crisis.
COOPER: All right. And we will take a look at that video shortly coming up. Thank you all. Back with all of you in a moment.
Also, coming up tonight, some perspective on Iraq and what happens now with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. And Nigela Lawson (ph), the domestic goddess, as she's known in Britain, proof positive that there is at least one person in Britain who knows something about good food. Did I say that out loud? Please address your letters and complaints to me, Aaron Brown, care of NEWSNIGHT.
That is all in the hour ahead. We begin with a recipe for Saddam Hussein. It was nearly two months in the making. All that diplomacy seems at times to have tried the patience of the Bush administration. But in the end, it seems patience has won out.
A deal was reached, a vote taken, and now the U.N. Security Council has made it clear. Let weapons inspectors in, let them do their job, don't deceive them or else. Here again, CNN's Richard Roth.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): A big score for the Americans. A unanimous 15 to nothing vote by the Security Council sends international weapons inspectors into Iraq and demands Saddam Hussein disarm, more than 11 years after the end of the Gulf War.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: We have a new ball game now and Iraq has to comply.
ROTH: And now the clock is ticking. The Security Council demanding that Iraq must comply with a resolution within seven days. Baghdad must declare all weapons of mass destruction by December 8. Iraq denies possessing any. And full inspections will begin no later than two days before Christmas.
Despite the return of the inspectors, the U.S. said it reserves the right to strike Iraq.
JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: This resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq.
ROTH: For inspectors of the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the next big step is a trip to Baghdad.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We are chartering a plane and we are going to fly in from Cypress to Baghdad.
ROTH: Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix will lead a nuts and bolts team there on November 18, setting up a headquarters for larger teams of weapons probers. The Security Council will now place a lot of responsibility on what Blix and his inspectors find. The U.S. agreed to another council meeting before attack Iraq.
JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: But is going to be a fact of life, a reality, that if the question of a breach arises, the Security Council will wish to hear a report on that from the inspectors. It's inevitable.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: But is it inevitable that the inspectors will encounter resistance and problems in Iraq? The French ambassador said let's hope for the best and let's not look on the dark side of possibilities. But also tonight, Anderson, an unusual statement by France, Russia and China in the wake of the comments you heard from the U.S. ambassador about Washington reserving the right to use force.
The statement begins that those three nations say this resolution that was adopted unanimously excludes any automatic trigger for the use of force. So the debate may rage on here, but Washington still feels it has the hammer -- Anderson.
COOPER: So let's be very clear about exactly what happens in the event there is a problem on the ground there. I mean, is it as simple as it boils down to the U.S. says they can use force without going to the Security Council and these other nations are saying they have to go to the Security Council? How exactly does this fall?
ROTH: The only new element, really, and this was part of the concessions, is the U.S. has agreed that there would be another meeting of the Security Council, private discussions and debate. But Washington hasn't said it's OK to have another resolution and wait for weeks of debate. The United States says it can go it alone even if they come here first to talk.
COOPER: And I take it Britain agrees with the U.S. on that? ROTH: Britain does agree, but perhaps less publicly so. British Ambassador Greenstock said this resolution doesn't have an automatic trigger. But here, it's going to be Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, who will return to say here's the problem. But many hope it's a clear problem that everyone can agree on.
COOPER: And there has been so much disagreement on this over the last weeks and months. I suppose this is something that all sides can kind of claim victory over?
ROTH: Oh, without a doubt. Any one can claim whatever they want here. And the tussle over the words will also now go in high style for weeks and months and these resolutions still live on. We're arguing over resolutions approved in the fall of 1990 still.
COOPER: All right. Richard Roth, thanks very much.
On now to the White House and the effort that went into getting a resolution. Not the sort of work the president enjoys. He's made that clear from the start, but work that is certainly needed to be done. So for that, we turn once again to CNN's Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Well Anderson, it was really eight weeks of this high- stakes diplomacy that was taking place. President Bush was lobbying at least a dozen world leaders. Secretary of State Colin Powell making more than 150 phone calls. The bottom line is that the U.S. had to have a resolution that included three things.
First of all, that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of previous U.N. resolutions, that he had broken promises. Secondly, the requirements to actually come into compliance. And third, the consequences if Saddam Hussein did not.
Ultimately, President Bush, this administration got what it wanted, that unanimous vote, 15 to zero to take on Saddam Hussein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test, a final test. Iraq must now without delay or negotiation fully disarm, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Now the Bush administration was willing to concede on two points. First of all, eliminating, changing a couple of words, the language that would indicate some sort of automatic trigger for authorizing military force. That was the fear from other U.N. Security Council members. And also agreeing that it would consult with the U.N. Security Council, not necessarily ask for authorization to use military force if Saddam Hussein does not comply.
Now Anderson, it really came down very much to the last minute here. Really Secretary of State Colin Powell saying that it was just moments before he actually walked his daughter down the aisle to get married that he got a cell phone call saying that there was a major breakthrough. That happened last weekend.
And then it was just moments before the vote today that he found out that Syria was on board. That was really a big surprise to the Bush administration. They did not think that they were going to get that. But rather they thought Syria would abstain.
That did not happen. Just moments before the vote they found they had a unanimous decision -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, Suzanne, where does this leave the whole notion of regime change in Iraq? That's not a term we've heard anything about today.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely. It's a really good question. You know, what happened to this regime change, the ousting of Saddam Hussein? Senior administration officials are insisting that, yes, that policy still stands. But right now the focus is on disarmament. And we have seen over the last couple of weeks the language of this Bush administration really change from this call to ousting Saddam Hussein back to this focus of let's disarm Iraq.
That is what they're focusing on. But they say still they reserve the right that if this does not happen, they do not believe that Saddam Hussein is really going to cooperate here, that the regime will change. That that allows them to go in and change the regime for itself.
COOPER: And do they seem very confident in the ability as to Hans Blix and the other weapons inspectors? I mean, does the White House seem pleased with them? I know President Bush had talked with Mr. Blix.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly. They seem that they are confident, they're pleased with them. Also very interesting, when they actually came to the White House. Really what happened was they said, OK, we'll go ahead and we'll have these tough inspections. The deal was is that the United States would provide really top intelligence where they believe that these weapons of mass destruction are located, primarily in those palaces that we've talked about before.
They would give that information over to the inspectors, they would be able to use that information. And in exchange, they said that they would go through with a real tough inspections regime. So they are really determined. They believe that will happen if they provide that kind of support.
COOPER: All right. Suzanne Malveaux, thanks very much.
We move on to the case of the suburban snipers. Now the suspects appeared separately in two northern Virginia courtrooms today. A juvenile court judge finding probable cause to hold John Lee Malvo in the killing of an FBI analyst. She, of course, was gunned down in a Home Depot parking lot. Today the prosecution revealed some key evidence in the case. Here's CNN's Kathleen Koch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the first open hearing for the 17-year-old sniper suspect. John Lee Malvo entered the Fairfax, Virginia courtroom in handcuffs. Calm and wide- eyed, he answered the judge politely, yes, sir, when asked if he understood his rights.
Prosecuting attorney Robert Horan revealed critical evidence in arguing Malvo be held for trial. His fingerprints on the Bushmaster rifle. And word of witnesses.
ROBERT HORAN, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROSECUTOR: Well, I think there are witnesses who place him in the vicinity of both the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) shooting, the Manassas shooting, and we have a witness who places him in the vicinity of the Fairfax shooting.
KOCH: Malvo's new attorney is upset that the teenager was questioned by police Thursday night for, he says, seven or eight hours, until 1:00 in the morning, without a lawyer present.
MICHAEL ARIF, MALVO'S ATTORNEY: I'm not at all comfortable with a 17-year-old being in police custody, being interrogated for that long a period of time without any representation.
KOCH: Malvo was held without bond at the Fairfax County jail. His attorney said he will plead innocent and described the teenager's current state of mind.
ARIF: Well, he's 17 years old. He's in jail. He's concerned. But, other than that, he's an intelligent kid.
KOCH: Prosecutors are try to reach Malvo's mother in Bellingham, Washington to tell her the trial is going forward. Earlier in the day, suspect John Allen Muhammad sullen and in shackles, appeared at a hearing in nearby Prince William County, Virginia. Prosecutor Paul Ebert says their case will tie into other sniper shootings.
PAUL EBERT, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA. PROSECUTOR: ... the tentacles go throughout the country. And what happened elsewhere may be very material in this case.
KOCH: Law enforcement sources tell CNN that on the laptop computer found with the suspects there is a, quote, "blueprint" for the shootings that places them at the locations where the crimes occurred.
(on camera): Both prosecutors say they intend to seek the death penalty. Malvo's attorney says that in order for his client to get a fair trial, he may ask the proceedings be moved elsewhere.
Kathleen Koch, CNN, Fairfax County, Virginia.
(END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Well ahead on NEWSNIGHT, CNN investigates what went on behind the scenes of the Moscow hostage taking. Jill Dougherty has an insider's look.
And up next, what a former top arms inspector thinks will happen next in Iraq. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Even though the outcome was pretty well known before the vote, the U.N. Security Council's action today on Iraq was nevertheless pretty important news in a number of countries, not just ours, of course. So, in less than two minutes, travel to four countries with us and hear what they heard about Iraq in their TV news.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The Security Council has adopted a new resolution on Iraq with the number 1441. The issue of this resolution, which is unjustified, comes in the shadow of the Iraqi's permission for inspectors to return to certify it is free from weapons of mass destruction. It also comes after weeks of pressure and blackmail practiced by the evil American administration to pass its draft resolution against Iraq.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): France has fought over this in order to find a compromise with the U.S. If finally mandated, the resolution will oblige Baghdad to accept the presence of the U.N. inspectors in seven days. If Iraq refuses, then the use of force will not be automatic. The Security Council will have to consult again. Jacques Chirac talked about a chance to reach the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) agreement in a peaceful manner.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't have to add that the foreign minister of Russia declared -- this is a quote -- "Moscow supported the resolution because it became possible to exclude from the proposed resolution the most unacceptable phrases, including the provision permitting the unilateral use of force."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, for President Bush it's really been a dream week, winning those midterm elections on Tuesday night and then winning consensus at the United Nations. The action of course now moves to Baghdad, and the clock is ticking. Saddam Hussein must carefully calibrate his response in the coming days. And It's a fateful decision. Will he sacrifice his weapons of mass destruction in order to save his regime?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: It's always interesting to hear what others are having to say around the world.
A bit more now on what it may take to ferret out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It has been four years since inspectors were last inside Iraq. That is, of course, an awful lot of time to hide things if that is what they have in fact done. And experts worried the Iraqis have gone beyond the usual hiding places, perhaps even turning homes and cities into miniature laboratories.
As one former inspector put it this afternoon, "It's a cat-and- mouse game and the mouse has a lot of fast feet." Here with us tonight, another former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter. He joins us from Albany, New York. Thanks for being with us tonight, Mr. Ritter.
SCOTT RITTER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: It's my pleasure.
COOPER: Your reaction to the actions by the Security Council today?
RITTER: Well, on the one hand, it's good to have the Security Council speaking with a single voice for a change on the issue of Iraq. It's been a long time coming. I wish they had shown this kind of unanimity four years ago, when inspectors were on the ground trying to do their job.
But, you know, it's a good thing they're speaking with a single voice. I'm very concerned, however, that the United States still has a number of, you know, triggers embedded in this resolution and that this may not be the document that facilitates only inspections, but also facilitates military action.
COOPER: What -- I mean, as a former inspector, I know you have obviously been very critical of the Bush administration and their policies thus far toward Iraq. What do you want to see from the U.N. inspectors on the ground? What do you want to see them doing?
RITTER: Oh, I want to see the inspectors in Iraq getting unfettered access, you know, going where they need to go to do their job. If they feel they need to go to presidential palaces, so be it, they go to presidential palaces. If they need to do any sort of investigation, there should be no impediment on the weapons inspectors.
It's imperative the inspectors maintain their adherence to the provisions of Security Council resolutions and limit their actions to that of disarmament and not undertake any activity which would constitute provocation or somehow infringe on Iraq's sovereignty, dignity or national security. But they have to do everything they can to ensure that they meet the standards necessary to determine that Iraq has been disarmed in accordance with the will of the council.
COOPER: Well, it's well know that in the past you've made allegations that the past weapons inspectors have been influenced by U.S. intelligence agencies to go beyond the U.N. mandate inside Iraq to actually engage in other forms of intelligence gathering. Do you have confidence in Hans Blix and the inspectors, their independence, their abilities?
RITTER: I have a high degree of confidence in the inspectors. You know, the leadership of the inspection team, especially Hans Blix, in my opinion, has come under some question, given the amount of susceptibility he has shown in the past to, you know, to cave into U.S. pressure. I find it odd that a servant of the Security Council would go to the White House without either Kofi Annan or the president of the Security Council accompanying him.
He does work fort Security Council and not the White House. I also felt that he showed himself too willing to give into the pressure of Colin Powell in regards to the return of weapons inspectors and not demand a better hearing from the council. But, be that as it may, Hans Blix has the obligation to lead his team into Iraq and do their job. And it's not necessarily they who I'm worried about. It's the Bush administration.
I think you mentioned earlier we haven't heard that term regime removal mentioned in some time, but it certainly still is there. And we have to remember the inspectors are now going to presidential palaces without any hindrance, immediate access. At the same time, the Bush administration still has a covert finding in effect that authorizes the CIA to eliminate Saddam Hussein. So I think the Iraqis have a lot to be concerned about here.
COOPER: Let me just ask you, what changed in the way you look at this issue? And maybe nothing changed. But, to an outsider, I remember when you were a weapons inspector on the ground in Baghdad and there was one image of you. And certainly it seems that in your return and in the last couple of years, your perspective seems to have shifted. If that is fair, what is it that caused that shift?
RITTER: Well, I can't say that I've changed at all. I've always been a hard-nosed inspector and a hard-nosed person who believes in the rule of law. I believe Iraq needs to be held fully accountable for the rule of law. But I also believe that those who are prosecuting Iraq in accordance with the law, the inspectors, must likewise adhere to the rule of law.
If you want to look for a single event, I would say Desert Fox in December 1998, when the United States used the weapons inspections process to trigger a military action that was not sanctioned by the Security Council, and then use the intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein.
It represented the ultimate corruption of the rule of international law. It showed that the United States allowed its unilateral policy of regime removal to trump international law in regards to disarming Iraq. And it's a situation that I've spoken out against vociferously.
Today, I'm still saying Iraq must be held fully accountable to the rule of law. Inspectors mus get back on task in Iraq to do the job of disarming Iraq, but I'm very concerned that the United States policy has not changed one iota. We are still gunning for Saddam and we're going to use the United Nations to facilitate our unilateral desire to remove him from power.
COOPER: All right. Well, Scott Ritter, we appreciate you being with us. Obviously there are a lot of people who differ with your view on the matter, but we appreciate you adding your perspective tonight. Thanks very much. Later on NEWSNIGHT we'll take you behind the scenes of the Moscow hostage situation.
Up next, is the U.S. in the business of assassinating terrorists?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Well there were quite a few stories that were buried under the crush of political news this week. One such story we thought you should know about, the attack on suspected al Qaeda members in Yemen earlier this week by a CIA drone. Now the U.S. government called the attack highly successful; others are calling it highly controversial. Here's David Ensor.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (voice-over): It was a highly successful CIA strike against known al Qaeda terrorists, quietly approved by the Yemeni authorities and conducted out in the desert. No innocents died, say officials. Still, it raises a host of new questions.
STEVEN AFTERGOOD, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Who gave the order? Does the director of central intelligence now have a James Bond style license to kill?
ENSOR: Did CIA Director George tenet give the order to fire, or was it President Bush himself or the White House which made that decision Monday? CIA and other U.S. officials won't say.
What about the fact confirmed by U.S. officials that one of the men killed was a U.S. Citizen named Ahmed al Hijazi (ph)? A former U.S. national security lawyer says legal protections do not apply in this case.
JEFFREY SMITH, FMR. U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: I do not believe the presence of a dual national or a U.S. citizen, for that matter, makes any difference. If he is engaged in terrorist actions against the United States, we are justified in taking appropriate response, including the use of deadly force.
ENSOR: So are covert hell-fire missile strikes from CIA-run pilotless drones the wave of the future? And should they be?
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's a very successful tactical operation.
ENSOR: Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, Ali Abu Harifi (ph), and his associates, were a legitimate target, agrees Smith. But he says this kind of attack should be extremely rare.
SMITH: This ought to be a matter of last resort. I am uncomfortable with the idea that the United States would casually engage in targeted killings of individuals. That's just I think repugnant to much of American values, and I think is counterproductive as a policy. ENSOR: When Israel killed Hamas leaders in a similar fashion, the State Department criticized the tactic. A spokesman says this U.S. attack is different. Different or not, might the U.S. and Israeli attacks backfire?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They do, in fact, breed others stepping into the shoes of those who have been killed and indeed perhaps producing additional terrorists.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Asked about the U.S. government apparently killing, among others, an American citizen, one senior official was blunt. "Just because you're an American citizen," he said, "does not mean you get a free pass to be a terrorist." -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, David, I think there are a lot of people looking at this that might say, you know, yes, it may backfire at some point, but it also seems highly effective and really sends a very strong message, a warning to terrorists around the world.
ENSOR: It certainly did that. And U.S. officials, intelligence officials, are hoping that it might cause some of the other top leaders, the other 14 or 15 top leaders of al Qaeda to get nervous and move. Every time they move, they're at risk of being hit again. Yes, it's a successful tactic.
A lot of people are very pleased it happened but some are raising questions about whether the U.S. really should be in the business of assassinating people from the air. What if they make a mistake? There are all kinds of legal issues.
COOPER: All right, David Ensor. Thanks very much.
A few stories in our "National Round Up" tonight, beginning with some images that were e-mailed to news organizations, including us here at CNN. They are photographs of what appear to be detainees on a U.S. military transport plane. A Pentagon spokesman says the photos appear to be genuine. It's not known who took them, or who released them, for that matter.
Confident words from California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. She said, "This race is over." Referring to the race to succeed Dick Gephardt as the Democratic leader in the House. It looks pretty good for her since her main rival Texas Congressman Barney (ph) Frost has dropped out. Pelosi would be the first woman elected to lead either party in either house of Congress.
NASA began the countdown today for the launch of space shuttle "Endeavor". Endeavor will bring a fresh crew and other building blocks of the international space station. Liftoff is early Monday morning.
Still to come, on NEWSNIGHT the amazing drama behind the scenes at a Moscow theater where more than 700 people were held hostage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: There was a story we came across from the Russian hostage crisis a few weeks back, a musician in the orchestra, a Muslim, who the Chechens were going to release. He said he couldn't bear to leave his band mates behind and so he stayed. He was one of the more than 100 people killed. This story and most of what we know about what happened in that theater has come from the survivors. But we are getting a better look at what actually happened now, literally frame by frame. The story from Jill Dougherty.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC, MALE SINGING)
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Second Act had just begun. A Russian musical about love and heroism during World War II, suddenly, a moment captured on this in-house video, an armed man in camouflage commandeers the stage. At first the audience thinks it is part of the show. One former hostage, a doctor, says some people even applauded.
DR. VLADISLAV PONAMARYEV, RELEASED HOSTAGE: You just can't imagine that it is that reality.
DOUGHERTY: A few managed to escape.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): On the stage they're wearing masks and uniforms.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They yelled at us, don't you understand what's happening?
DOUGHERTY: Inside the darkened hall, men brandished guns on stage, armed women in long black garb stand along the halls, bombs strapped to their bodies.
Moscow's emergency numbers light up as terrified hostages call from cell phones.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (SUBTITLES): "I'm calling from the theater. They want to kill us! Help!"
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (SUBTITLES): "I'm really scared...I can't talk long...There's a guard outside my door."
DOUGHERTY: Russian special forces surround the theater. Desperate relatives of the hostages gather in the freezing rain.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I have two children in there. How can this be happening?
DOUGHERTY: Inside the theater, the orchestra pit is turned into a toilet. There's almost no food and little to drink. Even as the terrorists threaten to shoot him, the doctor, he says, helps his fellow hostages.
PONAMARYEV (TRANSLATOR): Some are in hysterics, some lose consciousness, some weep.
DOUGHERTY: The leader of the hostage takers, Chechen fighter Mufsar Varia (ph) allows a television crew in to record him.
MUFSAR VARIA, CHECHEN FIGHTER (TRANSLATOR): Our group is called the Suicide Squad of Islam. Our aim, and we said this many times, is to stop the war and get the Russian troops out.
DOUGHERTY: The hostage takers call for a journalist who has chronicled the Chechen wars who act as go-between with Russian authorities. She talks with the hostage takers and with their prisoners.
ANNA POLITKOVSKAYA, JOURNALIST (TRANSLAOR): I've never heard or seen anything as horrifying. The hostages said, we're ready to die. We're praying, but we know you've abandoned us.
DOUGHERTY: Another emergency call from a hostage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (SUBTITLES): "They're really planning to blow everything up. There has to be a demonstration with a lot of people supporting their demands. The only way to save the hostages is to broadcast this on all channels."
DOUGHERTY: Frantic relatives comply, demonstrating outside the theater. Some children are freed; other children remain inside.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (TRANSLATOR): Please, please, we want our kids to come home. Resolve your problems any way you want, but just let the kids go.
DOUGHERTY: Before dawn on the third day, the sound of explosions. Special forces fill the theater with a knockout gas, then attack. Chaos, as rescue personnel rush comatose hostages from the hall. When it's over, the theater is littered with the bodies of terrorists and unexploded bombs.
DOUGHERTY (on camera): After nearly three days held at gunpoint, more than 700 people left this theater alive; 128 hostages were killed, five of them reportedly shot by the hostage takers. The rest, the victims of the gas that was used in the rescue mission, including one American.
(voice over): Parents mourn their dead children as families from both sides of this conflict have done for too many years. The unanswered question hangs in the air here -- why is this war still not over?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOUGHERTY (on camera): There were 41 hostage takers, 22 men, 19 women, all of them were shot to death by Russian special forces. The authorities said it was simply too dangerous, that they could have exploded all the bombs that they had with them -- Anderson.
COOPER: Jill, how are people viewing this now? It's been, you know, some weeks have passed. Is there still a lot of anger? If so, is if directed toward the Chechen rebels or toward the Russian government?
DOUGHERTY: Well, there still is a lot of anger and concern about this, but surprisingly, you know, one of the biggest issues was the use of gas, the knockout gas. Surprisingly there are a lot of people here who actually supported the use of that, that certainly they didn't want people to die, but many of them realized that the situation was so bad that there was really -- seemed to be no way to get out of it without using something like that. So the mood is still -- it's really much of a post-9/11 feeling here, Anderson.
COOPER: My understanding along with that was that a lot of the anger wasn't so much over the use of gas, it was over the refusal by Russian authorities to tell the doctors, to tell the relatives what kind of gas it was and that that might have helped in the treatment.
DOUGHERTY: Right, right. And they actually, it's a very complicated thing, as you can see from that video, it was chaos. But they actually did have some of the antidote there but the Russian authorities have said that they cannot guarantee that everyone who needed it got that antidote.
COOPER: All right, Jill Dougherty, thanks very much for that amazing look. Thanks very much.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Our news from around the world tonight begins in China where some very, very old Communists have come out against Western- style democracy and in favor of gardening, surprisingly enough. At the 16th Communist Party Congress today, Communist leader, Jiang Zemin, called on the party to let a hundred flowers bloom. He was standing in front of a few dozen at the time. He went on to say China needs diversity of thought, but still just a single political party. The party may be over for Jiang Zemin, this is expected to be his last Party Congress as leader. No matter how many flowers they send, he says he's stepping down to let a new generation of politicians run the country.
Next, rioting in Canada. It happened outside an arena in Vancouver. Concert-goers, now I'm not sure you can even call Guns & Roses fans concert-goers, anyway, they came to see Axle Rose, when failed to show due to airplane trouble promoters cancelled the show. No guns, no roses, but plenty of rocks and bottles.
The police showed up, not the band, the actual police and they brought their dogs.
Finally, from mad dogs to Englishmen, Diana's former butler, don't get him started. No sooner is he acquitted of stealing royal knick-knacks, then he begins blabbing royal secrets to a tabloid paper. Among the tidbits, Paul Burrell says, Diana didn't want a divorce. And relations were so bad between the Spencers (ph) and the Windsors, Diana's brother ripped the Royal Crest from the coffin just minutes before her burial.
Well, Martha Stewart hasn't been in the headlines much these days. It seems some people actually think elections and threats of war are more important. Go figure.
If you're missing your domestic diva and need some advice, we have just the solution tonight, someone with impeccable taste, who is easy going, yet glamorous. And best yet, she doesn't have the feds rifling through her file fax. She is to some the anti-Martha of foodie and all around good sport, Britain's Nigella Lawson, star of the TV series, "Nigella Bites", that airs on E! and the Style Network. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIGELLA LAWSON (voice over): Supposedly, avocado is good for your skin, but I'd rather eat it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually, it feels lovely.
LAWSON: It does rather, doesn't it?
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)
LAWSON: Ah, no. It's very, it's rather creamy, isn't it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mmm, I think I've looked better, but...
LAWSON: I think I feel healthier already.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Nigella Lawson joins us now. Thanks for - what were you doing there? Were you eating the stuff? Were you smearing it on the face? I've never seen anything like that.
LAWSON: I can't remember. I think we had read somewhere that avocado was very, very good for the skin but it tastes good, as well, so I thought why not?
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Why not?
LAWSON: I should say that that's a friend of mine who's there. And I feel single handedly ruined her career. Until that point she was head of documentaries at the BBC.
COOPER: Was she quickly let go?
LAWSON: I think she thought, she ought to stand down.
COOPER: And did it, in fact, work? Smearing the hummus or the avocado?
LAWSON: Well, you say, you're staring at me. COOPER: Well, your skin looks great. Your show looks really good. You're not a foodie, so I don't -- but you're originally not a foodie, either. I mean, you're not a professional chef?
LAWSON: I'm not at all. I'm not even an unprofessional chef. I'm not any sort of chef, I'm a journalist.
COOPER: But is largely, but I mean it is in a sense a cooking show.
LAWSON: It is, it is a cooking show and I do cook, but it's not a cooking show in the sense that it's really about, I think, trying to find a way of talking about food and about cooking, and how it fits into the context of life. I mean that's what I -- that sounds quite pretentious, so when we're doing a segment I kind of babble as I wander about my kitchen.
COOPER: Well, but it's interesting for a show that is about food, it's sort of shot in sort of verite (ph) way. You're sort of just wandering through your house, your two kids are in it at times. And you know, you are opening up your closet and kind of pulling out all sorts of exotic foods and sort of talking. And you talk -- the language you use to describe food, it seems very important to you.
LAWSON: Well, I think that it interested me. When I started, I was a literary journalist, in fact, and mainly wrote about books, but sometimes about the arts. And I had an op-ed column for many years. Of course, in a way it's writing that interests me otherwise I'd have been a caterer.
When I started going to the food area, what interested me is how you use the language we speak in, if you like, to talk about another language, which is that of taste and texture and flavor. It's quite difficult, but it interests me. And that's what I like doing.
I think that if you're a greedy person, and I can see that you're very trim, therefore, you're obviously not. If you are a greedy person, you have to believe me that the pleasure doesn't just lie in eating. It also lies in talking about the meal you had the day before you were having this meal and also maybe the lunch you are going to have tomorrow. So, it's about that.
COOPER: OK, now this is something I just don't get. And I'm so not a food person, and maybe you can help me with this. I just don't get food. I don't get what the big deal is. To me, just as soon, if I could drink a shake for every meal, that would be fine with me. What is it about food that is important? Why should one pay attention to the --
LAWSON: I don't think there's any should. And if you don't feel that way, then I think that's fine. I don't think there's a moral imperative about cooking. And I don't think
COOPER: But what am I missing? I know, I'm just like a savage.
LAWSON: Everything. The whole of life. The whole of life. Okay? I mean, where do I begin? But it seems to me -- do you not so -- when you decide to what to have to eat in the evening, do you just think it's A or B or C? You don't think do I feel like a hamburger or do I want a steak or piece of fish?
COOPER: I have two options, it's Dominos pizza or a maybe a turkey burger, maybe some spaghetti, that's it.
LAWSON: So when you go to the restaurant you don't care what you order from the menu?
COOPER: Not really, as long as it's kind of vaguely healthy.
LAWSON: Vaguely healthy, ie!
COOPER: See what I mean, and a lot of the stuff you cook is not particularly healthy. I was watching you cook a think of duck, I don't know, some part of a duck and like you are leaving all the fat on it. And like, you were talking about the fat.
LAWSON: I think it's very good for you. It's good for the skin.
(LAUGHTER)
It is!
COOPER: Again, were back to the skin.
LAWSON: Well, it is good for the skin. And I think it's actually quite good for the whole hormonal system.
COOPER: Do you think people take food too seriously? I mean, you have come under some criticism from people, from viewers, who have actually said, oh, you're not a trained chef. You know, you're kind of...
LAWSON: It's so odd, isn't it? Like you need a qualification to eat or to cook. You think the human race would have survived so many hundreds of thousands of years if you needed to have a certificate before you were allowed to put your bison on the fire?
COOPER: And with you it's all about very simple kind of foods. I mean, foods you can kind of - you know, you're like whipping up kind of a pasta with little things in it, and it looks wonderful.
LAWSON: Little things. It's good isn't it? See, you can talk about food.
COOPER: Little nibbley bits, nibbley bits, olives and things.
LAWSON: You do know what you're talking about.
COOPER: So, now, how often is the show on?
LAWSON: Well, very rarely.
COOPER: Very rarely? LAWSON: In the sense that...
COOPER: How many do you shoot a year?
LAWSON: Eight or 10.
COOPER: Really? That's it?
LAWSON: It's very labor intensive. It may look naturalistic to you, but as know television is a very odd medium. The more natural it looks --
COOPER: Right, yes. Well, yes, you can see all the hydraulic pumps I need to keep myself up here.
LAWSON: I wasn't going to tell anyone. But, so - and also, you know, my children are quite small so I'm limited in what I can do.
COOPER: Right.
LAWSON: But it takes a long time to do that, one -- 24 minutes of one of my programs takes, you know, seven or eight ten-hour days.
COOPER: Wow. Well, it's well worth it for the viewers. It's fun. I enjoy it.
Nigella Lawson, thanks very much. Even though you came and made fun of my little tiny cell phone.
LAWSON: You know, I knew saying do you think your telephone is altogether masculine was a bad thing to do.
COOPER: She mocked me, she said it wasn't manly. Anyway, I've got to go. Thank you very much.
Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, gratuitous news and gratuitous pictures.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Finally tonight, a couple stories we wanted to tell you about, but frankly didn't know how. You see, the problem is television, isn't radio. You need pictures to tell a story. They teach you that on day one of anchor school. See, I didn't go to anchor school, so I didn't learn that.
Our bosses are really, really insistent on this idea. Seriously, it has become like a thing with them. People watch TV, they keep saying. You've got to give them something to look at.
So, we found some pictures to illustrate these next few stories. Unfortunately they don't really have anything to do with the story, but we're kind of hoping you just won't notice.
In Germany today, the high court found in the favor of the Bavarian man who runs a swingers club. Now in case you didn't live in New York in the 1970s, a swingers club is for people who like to swap mates. The German court ruled that such clubs are not immoral and that wife swapping is not illegal.
Vogel Gerhardt (ph), the fellow who won the case, said afterwards, this is very positive for all German swingers. That was bad German, sorry. No word if Vogel Gerhardt has a wife.
Also in Germany -- why are all these stories from Germany, I'm wondering. A zookeeper in a town north of Cologne was recently fired. Why? Because he was caught barbecuing five of the zoo's Tibetan mountain chickens and two Cameroonian sheep. Mmm, Cameroonian sheep. The zookeeper objected to his dismissal, arguing that German law requires notice be given before you're fired. The town of Recklehausen (ph) agreed and forced to give the zookeeper six months severance pay. No panda's were involved, thankfully.
Finally, back in this country, a judge in Michigan has gone on indefinite involuntary leave after a woman told court officials she's seen his honor smoking a doobie at a Rolling Stones concert in Detroit.
After an investigation the district judge in question - hello, focus. Over here. Thank you -- would be censured, suspended or permanently removed from the bench, which would probably drastically reduce the number of sitting judges in this country, who are Mick Jagger fans.
That's it for NEWSNIGHT. Thanks very much for joining us. Aaron Brown is back on Monday. Have a good weekend.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Resolution>
Aired November 8, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening, again, everyone.
Today feels a little like "Groundhog Day" to me. You know, that movie where Bill Murray keeps repeating the same day over and over? You see, last Friday I anchored this program and we talked about a rumor that the "L.A. Times" had reported that Ted Turner was going to be on NEWSNIGHT to announce merger between CNN and ABC News.
Now, it was just a rumor. He wasn't on the program. And, so far, no merger has been announced yet.
Apparently, just by talking about it, I managed to anger some of my friends at ABC News. Now, I think it was some jokes about the cultural differences in our two companies. Clearly, a sense of humor seems to be one of those differences. But, hey, water under the bridge, I say.
Today, I can officially announce that Ted Turner will be on this program on Monday. Now how's that for a tease? You have to wait all weekend.
Now, I got to tell you, Ted Turner is not -- I repeat, not, coming on to talk about the CNN-ABC News merger. At least I don't think he is. Of course, with Ted -- I'm sorry, Mr. Turner -- you just never know what he might talk about.
So an important note to viewers, especially those of you who work at ABC News. Be sure to watch on Monday, because you just never know who you might be working for on Tuesday. You know what I mean? It's true.
We begin with the top story of the day, and no question that Iraq leads the list. Richard Roth is at the United Nations for us -- Richard, the headline.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In a bit of a surprise, the Security Council votes together to give Iraq a final opportunity. But will Iraq accept it?
COOPER: All right, we'll see.
The Iraq news caps a pretty remarkable week for the president. Suzanne Malveaux is at the White House this evening. Suzanne, a headline.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was eight weeks ago that President Bush insisted that the United Nations hold Saddam Hussein to account to disclose, as well as destroy his alleged weapons of mass destruction. It has really been a high stakes and sometimes heavy-handed game of diplomacy, but it seems to have paid off for the Bush administration.
COOPER: And it is a game we will look at later on. Thanks, Suzanne.
A follow-up on a U.S. attack earlier this week on al Qaeda and questions about what it might mean for the future. David Ensor is on the story for us. David, a headline.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, the success in the Omani (ph) desert was extraordinary for the CIA, using one of those hell-fire missiles fired from a pilotless drone. A great success, but it's raising all kinds of questions about the tactic. Should the U.S go on doing this?
COOPER: All right. On to Jill Dougherty in Moscow, and a remarkable look at the hostage crisis from inside the theater. Jill, a headline.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: More video is emerging that paints a horrifying picture of what went on in that theater during the hostage crisis.
COOPER: All right. And we will take a look at that video shortly coming up. Thank you all. Back with all of you in a moment.
Also, coming up tonight, some perspective on Iraq and what happens now with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. And Nigela Lawson (ph), the domestic goddess, as she's known in Britain, proof positive that there is at least one person in Britain who knows something about good food. Did I say that out loud? Please address your letters and complaints to me, Aaron Brown, care of NEWSNIGHT.
That is all in the hour ahead. We begin with a recipe for Saddam Hussein. It was nearly two months in the making. All that diplomacy seems at times to have tried the patience of the Bush administration. But in the end, it seems patience has won out.
A deal was reached, a vote taken, and now the U.N. Security Council has made it clear. Let weapons inspectors in, let them do their job, don't deceive them or else. Here again, CNN's Richard Roth.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): A big score for the Americans. A unanimous 15 to nothing vote by the Security Council sends international weapons inspectors into Iraq and demands Saddam Hussein disarm, more than 11 years after the end of the Gulf War.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: We have a new ball game now and Iraq has to comply.
ROTH: And now the clock is ticking. The Security Council demanding that Iraq must comply with a resolution within seven days. Baghdad must declare all weapons of mass destruction by December 8. Iraq denies possessing any. And full inspections will begin no later than two days before Christmas.
Despite the return of the inspectors, the U.S. said it reserves the right to strike Iraq.
JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: This resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq.
ROTH: For inspectors of the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the next big step is a trip to Baghdad.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We are chartering a plane and we are going to fly in from Cypress to Baghdad.
ROTH: Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix will lead a nuts and bolts team there on November 18, setting up a headquarters for larger teams of weapons probers. The Security Council will now place a lot of responsibility on what Blix and his inspectors find. The U.S. agreed to another council meeting before attack Iraq.
JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: But is going to be a fact of life, a reality, that if the question of a breach arises, the Security Council will wish to hear a report on that from the inspectors. It's inevitable.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: But is it inevitable that the inspectors will encounter resistance and problems in Iraq? The French ambassador said let's hope for the best and let's not look on the dark side of possibilities. But also tonight, Anderson, an unusual statement by France, Russia and China in the wake of the comments you heard from the U.S. ambassador about Washington reserving the right to use force.
The statement begins that those three nations say this resolution that was adopted unanimously excludes any automatic trigger for the use of force. So the debate may rage on here, but Washington still feels it has the hammer -- Anderson.
COOPER: So let's be very clear about exactly what happens in the event there is a problem on the ground there. I mean, is it as simple as it boils down to the U.S. says they can use force without going to the Security Council and these other nations are saying they have to go to the Security Council? How exactly does this fall?
ROTH: The only new element, really, and this was part of the concessions, is the U.S. has agreed that there would be another meeting of the Security Council, private discussions and debate. But Washington hasn't said it's OK to have another resolution and wait for weeks of debate. The United States says it can go it alone even if they come here first to talk.
COOPER: And I take it Britain agrees with the U.S. on that? ROTH: Britain does agree, but perhaps less publicly so. British Ambassador Greenstock said this resolution doesn't have an automatic trigger. But here, it's going to be Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, who will return to say here's the problem. But many hope it's a clear problem that everyone can agree on.
COOPER: And there has been so much disagreement on this over the last weeks and months. I suppose this is something that all sides can kind of claim victory over?
ROTH: Oh, without a doubt. Any one can claim whatever they want here. And the tussle over the words will also now go in high style for weeks and months and these resolutions still live on. We're arguing over resolutions approved in the fall of 1990 still.
COOPER: All right. Richard Roth, thanks very much.
On now to the White House and the effort that went into getting a resolution. Not the sort of work the president enjoys. He's made that clear from the start, but work that is certainly needed to be done. So for that, we turn once again to CNN's Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Well Anderson, it was really eight weeks of this high- stakes diplomacy that was taking place. President Bush was lobbying at least a dozen world leaders. Secretary of State Colin Powell making more than 150 phone calls. The bottom line is that the U.S. had to have a resolution that included three things.
First of all, that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of previous U.N. resolutions, that he had broken promises. Secondly, the requirements to actually come into compliance. And third, the consequences if Saddam Hussein did not.
Ultimately, President Bush, this administration got what it wanted, that unanimous vote, 15 to zero to take on Saddam Hussein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test, a final test. Iraq must now without delay or negotiation fully disarm, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Now the Bush administration was willing to concede on two points. First of all, eliminating, changing a couple of words, the language that would indicate some sort of automatic trigger for authorizing military force. That was the fear from other U.N. Security Council members. And also agreeing that it would consult with the U.N. Security Council, not necessarily ask for authorization to use military force if Saddam Hussein does not comply.
Now Anderson, it really came down very much to the last minute here. Really Secretary of State Colin Powell saying that it was just moments before he actually walked his daughter down the aisle to get married that he got a cell phone call saying that there was a major breakthrough. That happened last weekend.
And then it was just moments before the vote today that he found out that Syria was on board. That was really a big surprise to the Bush administration. They did not think that they were going to get that. But rather they thought Syria would abstain.
That did not happen. Just moments before the vote they found they had a unanimous decision -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, Suzanne, where does this leave the whole notion of regime change in Iraq? That's not a term we've heard anything about today.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely. It's a really good question. You know, what happened to this regime change, the ousting of Saddam Hussein? Senior administration officials are insisting that, yes, that policy still stands. But right now the focus is on disarmament. And we have seen over the last couple of weeks the language of this Bush administration really change from this call to ousting Saddam Hussein back to this focus of let's disarm Iraq.
That is what they're focusing on. But they say still they reserve the right that if this does not happen, they do not believe that Saddam Hussein is really going to cooperate here, that the regime will change. That that allows them to go in and change the regime for itself.
COOPER: And do they seem very confident in the ability as to Hans Blix and the other weapons inspectors? I mean, does the White House seem pleased with them? I know President Bush had talked with Mr. Blix.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly. They seem that they are confident, they're pleased with them. Also very interesting, when they actually came to the White House. Really what happened was they said, OK, we'll go ahead and we'll have these tough inspections. The deal was is that the United States would provide really top intelligence where they believe that these weapons of mass destruction are located, primarily in those palaces that we've talked about before.
They would give that information over to the inspectors, they would be able to use that information. And in exchange, they said that they would go through with a real tough inspections regime. So they are really determined. They believe that will happen if they provide that kind of support.
COOPER: All right. Suzanne Malveaux, thanks very much.
We move on to the case of the suburban snipers. Now the suspects appeared separately in two northern Virginia courtrooms today. A juvenile court judge finding probable cause to hold John Lee Malvo in the killing of an FBI analyst. She, of course, was gunned down in a Home Depot parking lot. Today the prosecution revealed some key evidence in the case. Here's CNN's Kathleen Koch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the first open hearing for the 17-year-old sniper suspect. John Lee Malvo entered the Fairfax, Virginia courtroom in handcuffs. Calm and wide- eyed, he answered the judge politely, yes, sir, when asked if he understood his rights.
Prosecuting attorney Robert Horan revealed critical evidence in arguing Malvo be held for trial. His fingerprints on the Bushmaster rifle. And word of witnesses.
ROBERT HORAN, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROSECUTOR: Well, I think there are witnesses who place him in the vicinity of both the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) shooting, the Manassas shooting, and we have a witness who places him in the vicinity of the Fairfax shooting.
KOCH: Malvo's new attorney is upset that the teenager was questioned by police Thursday night for, he says, seven or eight hours, until 1:00 in the morning, without a lawyer present.
MICHAEL ARIF, MALVO'S ATTORNEY: I'm not at all comfortable with a 17-year-old being in police custody, being interrogated for that long a period of time without any representation.
KOCH: Malvo was held without bond at the Fairfax County jail. His attorney said he will plead innocent and described the teenager's current state of mind.
ARIF: Well, he's 17 years old. He's in jail. He's concerned. But, other than that, he's an intelligent kid.
KOCH: Prosecutors are try to reach Malvo's mother in Bellingham, Washington to tell her the trial is going forward. Earlier in the day, suspect John Allen Muhammad sullen and in shackles, appeared at a hearing in nearby Prince William County, Virginia. Prosecutor Paul Ebert says their case will tie into other sniper shootings.
PAUL EBERT, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA. PROSECUTOR: ... the tentacles go throughout the country. And what happened elsewhere may be very material in this case.
KOCH: Law enforcement sources tell CNN that on the laptop computer found with the suspects there is a, quote, "blueprint" for the shootings that places them at the locations where the crimes occurred.
(on camera): Both prosecutors say they intend to seek the death penalty. Malvo's attorney says that in order for his client to get a fair trial, he may ask the proceedings be moved elsewhere.
Kathleen Koch, CNN, Fairfax County, Virginia.
(END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Well ahead on NEWSNIGHT, CNN investigates what went on behind the scenes of the Moscow hostage taking. Jill Dougherty has an insider's look.
And up next, what a former top arms inspector thinks will happen next in Iraq. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Even though the outcome was pretty well known before the vote, the U.N. Security Council's action today on Iraq was nevertheless pretty important news in a number of countries, not just ours, of course. So, in less than two minutes, travel to four countries with us and hear what they heard about Iraq in their TV news.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The Security Council has adopted a new resolution on Iraq with the number 1441. The issue of this resolution, which is unjustified, comes in the shadow of the Iraqi's permission for inspectors to return to certify it is free from weapons of mass destruction. It also comes after weeks of pressure and blackmail practiced by the evil American administration to pass its draft resolution against Iraq.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): France has fought over this in order to find a compromise with the U.S. If finally mandated, the resolution will oblige Baghdad to accept the presence of the U.N. inspectors in seven days. If Iraq refuses, then the use of force will not be automatic. The Security Council will have to consult again. Jacques Chirac talked about a chance to reach the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) agreement in a peaceful manner.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't have to add that the foreign minister of Russia declared -- this is a quote -- "Moscow supported the resolution because it became possible to exclude from the proposed resolution the most unacceptable phrases, including the provision permitting the unilateral use of force."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, for President Bush it's really been a dream week, winning those midterm elections on Tuesday night and then winning consensus at the United Nations. The action of course now moves to Baghdad, and the clock is ticking. Saddam Hussein must carefully calibrate his response in the coming days. And It's a fateful decision. Will he sacrifice his weapons of mass destruction in order to save his regime?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: It's always interesting to hear what others are having to say around the world.
A bit more now on what it may take to ferret out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It has been four years since inspectors were last inside Iraq. That is, of course, an awful lot of time to hide things if that is what they have in fact done. And experts worried the Iraqis have gone beyond the usual hiding places, perhaps even turning homes and cities into miniature laboratories.
As one former inspector put it this afternoon, "It's a cat-and- mouse game and the mouse has a lot of fast feet." Here with us tonight, another former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter. He joins us from Albany, New York. Thanks for being with us tonight, Mr. Ritter.
SCOTT RITTER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: It's my pleasure.
COOPER: Your reaction to the actions by the Security Council today?
RITTER: Well, on the one hand, it's good to have the Security Council speaking with a single voice for a change on the issue of Iraq. It's been a long time coming. I wish they had shown this kind of unanimity four years ago, when inspectors were on the ground trying to do their job.
But, you know, it's a good thing they're speaking with a single voice. I'm very concerned, however, that the United States still has a number of, you know, triggers embedded in this resolution and that this may not be the document that facilitates only inspections, but also facilitates military action.
COOPER: What -- I mean, as a former inspector, I know you have obviously been very critical of the Bush administration and their policies thus far toward Iraq. What do you want to see from the U.N. inspectors on the ground? What do you want to see them doing?
RITTER: Oh, I want to see the inspectors in Iraq getting unfettered access, you know, going where they need to go to do their job. If they feel they need to go to presidential palaces, so be it, they go to presidential palaces. If they need to do any sort of investigation, there should be no impediment on the weapons inspectors.
It's imperative the inspectors maintain their adherence to the provisions of Security Council resolutions and limit their actions to that of disarmament and not undertake any activity which would constitute provocation or somehow infringe on Iraq's sovereignty, dignity or national security. But they have to do everything they can to ensure that they meet the standards necessary to determine that Iraq has been disarmed in accordance with the will of the council.
COOPER: Well, it's well know that in the past you've made allegations that the past weapons inspectors have been influenced by U.S. intelligence agencies to go beyond the U.N. mandate inside Iraq to actually engage in other forms of intelligence gathering. Do you have confidence in Hans Blix and the inspectors, their independence, their abilities?
RITTER: I have a high degree of confidence in the inspectors. You know, the leadership of the inspection team, especially Hans Blix, in my opinion, has come under some question, given the amount of susceptibility he has shown in the past to, you know, to cave into U.S. pressure. I find it odd that a servant of the Security Council would go to the White House without either Kofi Annan or the president of the Security Council accompanying him.
He does work fort Security Council and not the White House. I also felt that he showed himself too willing to give into the pressure of Colin Powell in regards to the return of weapons inspectors and not demand a better hearing from the council. But, be that as it may, Hans Blix has the obligation to lead his team into Iraq and do their job. And it's not necessarily they who I'm worried about. It's the Bush administration.
I think you mentioned earlier we haven't heard that term regime removal mentioned in some time, but it certainly still is there. And we have to remember the inspectors are now going to presidential palaces without any hindrance, immediate access. At the same time, the Bush administration still has a covert finding in effect that authorizes the CIA to eliminate Saddam Hussein. So I think the Iraqis have a lot to be concerned about here.
COOPER: Let me just ask you, what changed in the way you look at this issue? And maybe nothing changed. But, to an outsider, I remember when you were a weapons inspector on the ground in Baghdad and there was one image of you. And certainly it seems that in your return and in the last couple of years, your perspective seems to have shifted. If that is fair, what is it that caused that shift?
RITTER: Well, I can't say that I've changed at all. I've always been a hard-nosed inspector and a hard-nosed person who believes in the rule of law. I believe Iraq needs to be held fully accountable for the rule of law. But I also believe that those who are prosecuting Iraq in accordance with the law, the inspectors, must likewise adhere to the rule of law.
If you want to look for a single event, I would say Desert Fox in December 1998, when the United States used the weapons inspections process to trigger a military action that was not sanctioned by the Security Council, and then use the intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein.
It represented the ultimate corruption of the rule of international law. It showed that the United States allowed its unilateral policy of regime removal to trump international law in regards to disarming Iraq. And it's a situation that I've spoken out against vociferously.
Today, I'm still saying Iraq must be held fully accountable to the rule of law. Inspectors mus get back on task in Iraq to do the job of disarming Iraq, but I'm very concerned that the United States policy has not changed one iota. We are still gunning for Saddam and we're going to use the United Nations to facilitate our unilateral desire to remove him from power.
COOPER: All right. Well, Scott Ritter, we appreciate you being with us. Obviously there are a lot of people who differ with your view on the matter, but we appreciate you adding your perspective tonight. Thanks very much. Later on NEWSNIGHT we'll take you behind the scenes of the Moscow hostage situation.
Up next, is the U.S. in the business of assassinating terrorists?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Well there were quite a few stories that were buried under the crush of political news this week. One such story we thought you should know about, the attack on suspected al Qaeda members in Yemen earlier this week by a CIA drone. Now the U.S. government called the attack highly successful; others are calling it highly controversial. Here's David Ensor.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (voice-over): It was a highly successful CIA strike against known al Qaeda terrorists, quietly approved by the Yemeni authorities and conducted out in the desert. No innocents died, say officials. Still, it raises a host of new questions.
STEVEN AFTERGOOD, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Who gave the order? Does the director of central intelligence now have a James Bond style license to kill?
ENSOR: Did CIA Director George tenet give the order to fire, or was it President Bush himself or the White House which made that decision Monday? CIA and other U.S. officials won't say.
What about the fact confirmed by U.S. officials that one of the men killed was a U.S. Citizen named Ahmed al Hijazi (ph)? A former U.S. national security lawyer says legal protections do not apply in this case.
JEFFREY SMITH, FMR. U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: I do not believe the presence of a dual national or a U.S. citizen, for that matter, makes any difference. If he is engaged in terrorist actions against the United States, we are justified in taking appropriate response, including the use of deadly force.
ENSOR: So are covert hell-fire missile strikes from CIA-run pilotless drones the wave of the future? And should they be?
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's a very successful tactical operation.
ENSOR: Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, Ali Abu Harifi (ph), and his associates, were a legitimate target, agrees Smith. But he says this kind of attack should be extremely rare.
SMITH: This ought to be a matter of last resort. I am uncomfortable with the idea that the United States would casually engage in targeted killings of individuals. That's just I think repugnant to much of American values, and I think is counterproductive as a policy. ENSOR: When Israel killed Hamas leaders in a similar fashion, the State Department criticized the tactic. A spokesman says this U.S. attack is different. Different or not, might the U.S. and Israeli attacks backfire?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They do, in fact, breed others stepping into the shoes of those who have been killed and indeed perhaps producing additional terrorists.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Asked about the U.S. government apparently killing, among others, an American citizen, one senior official was blunt. "Just because you're an American citizen," he said, "does not mean you get a free pass to be a terrorist." -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, David, I think there are a lot of people looking at this that might say, you know, yes, it may backfire at some point, but it also seems highly effective and really sends a very strong message, a warning to terrorists around the world.
ENSOR: It certainly did that. And U.S. officials, intelligence officials, are hoping that it might cause some of the other top leaders, the other 14 or 15 top leaders of al Qaeda to get nervous and move. Every time they move, they're at risk of being hit again. Yes, it's a successful tactic.
A lot of people are very pleased it happened but some are raising questions about whether the U.S. really should be in the business of assassinating people from the air. What if they make a mistake? There are all kinds of legal issues.
COOPER: All right, David Ensor. Thanks very much.
A few stories in our "National Round Up" tonight, beginning with some images that were e-mailed to news organizations, including us here at CNN. They are photographs of what appear to be detainees on a U.S. military transport plane. A Pentagon spokesman says the photos appear to be genuine. It's not known who took them, or who released them, for that matter.
Confident words from California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. She said, "This race is over." Referring to the race to succeed Dick Gephardt as the Democratic leader in the House. It looks pretty good for her since her main rival Texas Congressman Barney (ph) Frost has dropped out. Pelosi would be the first woman elected to lead either party in either house of Congress.
NASA began the countdown today for the launch of space shuttle "Endeavor". Endeavor will bring a fresh crew and other building blocks of the international space station. Liftoff is early Monday morning.
Still to come, on NEWSNIGHT the amazing drama behind the scenes at a Moscow theater where more than 700 people were held hostage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: There was a story we came across from the Russian hostage crisis a few weeks back, a musician in the orchestra, a Muslim, who the Chechens were going to release. He said he couldn't bear to leave his band mates behind and so he stayed. He was one of the more than 100 people killed. This story and most of what we know about what happened in that theater has come from the survivors. But we are getting a better look at what actually happened now, literally frame by frame. The story from Jill Dougherty.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC, MALE SINGING)
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Second Act had just begun. A Russian musical about love and heroism during World War II, suddenly, a moment captured on this in-house video, an armed man in camouflage commandeers the stage. At first the audience thinks it is part of the show. One former hostage, a doctor, says some people even applauded.
DR. VLADISLAV PONAMARYEV, RELEASED HOSTAGE: You just can't imagine that it is that reality.
DOUGHERTY: A few managed to escape.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): On the stage they're wearing masks and uniforms.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They yelled at us, don't you understand what's happening?
DOUGHERTY: Inside the darkened hall, men brandished guns on stage, armed women in long black garb stand along the halls, bombs strapped to their bodies.
Moscow's emergency numbers light up as terrified hostages call from cell phones.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (SUBTITLES): "I'm calling from the theater. They want to kill us! Help!"
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (SUBTITLES): "I'm really scared...I can't talk long...There's a guard outside my door."
DOUGHERTY: Russian special forces surround the theater. Desperate relatives of the hostages gather in the freezing rain.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I have two children in there. How can this be happening?
DOUGHERTY: Inside the theater, the orchestra pit is turned into a toilet. There's almost no food and little to drink. Even as the terrorists threaten to shoot him, the doctor, he says, helps his fellow hostages.
PONAMARYEV (TRANSLATOR): Some are in hysterics, some lose consciousness, some weep.
DOUGHERTY: The leader of the hostage takers, Chechen fighter Mufsar Varia (ph) allows a television crew in to record him.
MUFSAR VARIA, CHECHEN FIGHTER (TRANSLATOR): Our group is called the Suicide Squad of Islam. Our aim, and we said this many times, is to stop the war and get the Russian troops out.
DOUGHERTY: The hostage takers call for a journalist who has chronicled the Chechen wars who act as go-between with Russian authorities. She talks with the hostage takers and with their prisoners.
ANNA POLITKOVSKAYA, JOURNALIST (TRANSLAOR): I've never heard or seen anything as horrifying. The hostages said, we're ready to die. We're praying, but we know you've abandoned us.
DOUGHERTY: Another emergency call from a hostage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (SUBTITLES): "They're really planning to blow everything up. There has to be a demonstration with a lot of people supporting their demands. The only way to save the hostages is to broadcast this on all channels."
DOUGHERTY: Frantic relatives comply, demonstrating outside the theater. Some children are freed; other children remain inside.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (TRANSLATOR): Please, please, we want our kids to come home. Resolve your problems any way you want, but just let the kids go.
DOUGHERTY: Before dawn on the third day, the sound of explosions. Special forces fill the theater with a knockout gas, then attack. Chaos, as rescue personnel rush comatose hostages from the hall. When it's over, the theater is littered with the bodies of terrorists and unexploded bombs.
DOUGHERTY (on camera): After nearly three days held at gunpoint, more than 700 people left this theater alive; 128 hostages were killed, five of them reportedly shot by the hostage takers. The rest, the victims of the gas that was used in the rescue mission, including one American.
(voice over): Parents mourn their dead children as families from both sides of this conflict have done for too many years. The unanswered question hangs in the air here -- why is this war still not over?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOUGHERTY (on camera): There were 41 hostage takers, 22 men, 19 women, all of them were shot to death by Russian special forces. The authorities said it was simply too dangerous, that they could have exploded all the bombs that they had with them -- Anderson.
COOPER: Jill, how are people viewing this now? It's been, you know, some weeks have passed. Is there still a lot of anger? If so, is if directed toward the Chechen rebels or toward the Russian government?
DOUGHERTY: Well, there still is a lot of anger and concern about this, but surprisingly, you know, one of the biggest issues was the use of gas, the knockout gas. Surprisingly there are a lot of people here who actually supported the use of that, that certainly they didn't want people to die, but many of them realized that the situation was so bad that there was really -- seemed to be no way to get out of it without using something like that. So the mood is still -- it's really much of a post-9/11 feeling here, Anderson.
COOPER: My understanding along with that was that a lot of the anger wasn't so much over the use of gas, it was over the refusal by Russian authorities to tell the doctors, to tell the relatives what kind of gas it was and that that might have helped in the treatment.
DOUGHERTY: Right, right. And they actually, it's a very complicated thing, as you can see from that video, it was chaos. But they actually did have some of the antidote there but the Russian authorities have said that they cannot guarantee that everyone who needed it got that antidote.
COOPER: All right, Jill Dougherty, thanks very much for that amazing look. Thanks very much.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Our news from around the world tonight begins in China where some very, very old Communists have come out against Western- style democracy and in favor of gardening, surprisingly enough. At the 16th Communist Party Congress today, Communist leader, Jiang Zemin, called on the party to let a hundred flowers bloom. He was standing in front of a few dozen at the time. He went on to say China needs diversity of thought, but still just a single political party. The party may be over for Jiang Zemin, this is expected to be his last Party Congress as leader. No matter how many flowers they send, he says he's stepping down to let a new generation of politicians run the country.
Next, rioting in Canada. It happened outside an arena in Vancouver. Concert-goers, now I'm not sure you can even call Guns & Roses fans concert-goers, anyway, they came to see Axle Rose, when failed to show due to airplane trouble promoters cancelled the show. No guns, no roses, but plenty of rocks and bottles.
The police showed up, not the band, the actual police and they brought their dogs.
Finally, from mad dogs to Englishmen, Diana's former butler, don't get him started. No sooner is he acquitted of stealing royal knick-knacks, then he begins blabbing royal secrets to a tabloid paper. Among the tidbits, Paul Burrell says, Diana didn't want a divorce. And relations were so bad between the Spencers (ph) and the Windsors, Diana's brother ripped the Royal Crest from the coffin just minutes before her burial.
Well, Martha Stewart hasn't been in the headlines much these days. It seems some people actually think elections and threats of war are more important. Go figure.
If you're missing your domestic diva and need some advice, we have just the solution tonight, someone with impeccable taste, who is easy going, yet glamorous. And best yet, she doesn't have the feds rifling through her file fax. She is to some the anti-Martha of foodie and all around good sport, Britain's Nigella Lawson, star of the TV series, "Nigella Bites", that airs on E! and the Style Network. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIGELLA LAWSON (voice over): Supposedly, avocado is good for your skin, but I'd rather eat it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually, it feels lovely.
LAWSON: It does rather, doesn't it?
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)
LAWSON: Ah, no. It's very, it's rather creamy, isn't it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mmm, I think I've looked better, but...
LAWSON: I think I feel healthier already.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Nigella Lawson joins us now. Thanks for - what were you doing there? Were you eating the stuff? Were you smearing it on the face? I've never seen anything like that.
LAWSON: I can't remember. I think we had read somewhere that avocado was very, very good for the skin but it tastes good, as well, so I thought why not?
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Why not?
LAWSON: I should say that that's a friend of mine who's there. And I feel single handedly ruined her career. Until that point she was head of documentaries at the BBC.
COOPER: Was she quickly let go?
LAWSON: I think she thought, she ought to stand down.
COOPER: And did it, in fact, work? Smearing the hummus or the avocado?
LAWSON: Well, you say, you're staring at me. COOPER: Well, your skin looks great. Your show looks really good. You're not a foodie, so I don't -- but you're originally not a foodie, either. I mean, you're not a professional chef?
LAWSON: I'm not at all. I'm not even an unprofessional chef. I'm not any sort of chef, I'm a journalist.
COOPER: But is largely, but I mean it is in a sense a cooking show.
LAWSON: It is, it is a cooking show and I do cook, but it's not a cooking show in the sense that it's really about, I think, trying to find a way of talking about food and about cooking, and how it fits into the context of life. I mean that's what I -- that sounds quite pretentious, so when we're doing a segment I kind of babble as I wander about my kitchen.
COOPER: Well, but it's interesting for a show that is about food, it's sort of shot in sort of verite (ph) way. You're sort of just wandering through your house, your two kids are in it at times. And you know, you are opening up your closet and kind of pulling out all sorts of exotic foods and sort of talking. And you talk -- the language you use to describe food, it seems very important to you.
LAWSON: Well, I think that it interested me. When I started, I was a literary journalist, in fact, and mainly wrote about books, but sometimes about the arts. And I had an op-ed column for many years. Of course, in a way it's writing that interests me otherwise I'd have been a caterer.
When I started going to the food area, what interested me is how you use the language we speak in, if you like, to talk about another language, which is that of taste and texture and flavor. It's quite difficult, but it interests me. And that's what I like doing.
I think that if you're a greedy person, and I can see that you're very trim, therefore, you're obviously not. If you are a greedy person, you have to believe me that the pleasure doesn't just lie in eating. It also lies in talking about the meal you had the day before you were having this meal and also maybe the lunch you are going to have tomorrow. So, it's about that.
COOPER: OK, now this is something I just don't get. And I'm so not a food person, and maybe you can help me with this. I just don't get food. I don't get what the big deal is. To me, just as soon, if I could drink a shake for every meal, that would be fine with me. What is it about food that is important? Why should one pay attention to the --
LAWSON: I don't think there's any should. And if you don't feel that way, then I think that's fine. I don't think there's a moral imperative about cooking. And I don't think
COOPER: But what am I missing? I know, I'm just like a savage.
LAWSON: Everything. The whole of life. The whole of life. Okay? I mean, where do I begin? But it seems to me -- do you not so -- when you decide to what to have to eat in the evening, do you just think it's A or B or C? You don't think do I feel like a hamburger or do I want a steak or piece of fish?
COOPER: I have two options, it's Dominos pizza or a maybe a turkey burger, maybe some spaghetti, that's it.
LAWSON: So when you go to the restaurant you don't care what you order from the menu?
COOPER: Not really, as long as it's kind of vaguely healthy.
LAWSON: Vaguely healthy, ie!
COOPER: See what I mean, and a lot of the stuff you cook is not particularly healthy. I was watching you cook a think of duck, I don't know, some part of a duck and like you are leaving all the fat on it. And like, you were talking about the fat.
LAWSON: I think it's very good for you. It's good for the skin.
(LAUGHTER)
It is!
COOPER: Again, were back to the skin.
LAWSON: Well, it is good for the skin. And I think it's actually quite good for the whole hormonal system.
COOPER: Do you think people take food too seriously? I mean, you have come under some criticism from people, from viewers, who have actually said, oh, you're not a trained chef. You know, you're kind of...
LAWSON: It's so odd, isn't it? Like you need a qualification to eat or to cook. You think the human race would have survived so many hundreds of thousands of years if you needed to have a certificate before you were allowed to put your bison on the fire?
COOPER: And with you it's all about very simple kind of foods. I mean, foods you can kind of - you know, you're like whipping up kind of a pasta with little things in it, and it looks wonderful.
LAWSON: Little things. It's good isn't it? See, you can talk about food.
COOPER: Little nibbley bits, nibbley bits, olives and things.
LAWSON: You do know what you're talking about.
COOPER: So, now, how often is the show on?
LAWSON: Well, very rarely.
COOPER: Very rarely? LAWSON: In the sense that...
COOPER: How many do you shoot a year?
LAWSON: Eight or 10.
COOPER: Really? That's it?
LAWSON: It's very labor intensive. It may look naturalistic to you, but as know television is a very odd medium. The more natural it looks --
COOPER: Right, yes. Well, yes, you can see all the hydraulic pumps I need to keep myself up here.
LAWSON: I wasn't going to tell anyone. But, so - and also, you know, my children are quite small so I'm limited in what I can do.
COOPER: Right.
LAWSON: But it takes a long time to do that, one -- 24 minutes of one of my programs takes, you know, seven or eight ten-hour days.
COOPER: Wow. Well, it's well worth it for the viewers. It's fun. I enjoy it.
Nigella Lawson, thanks very much. Even though you came and made fun of my little tiny cell phone.
LAWSON: You know, I knew saying do you think your telephone is altogether masculine was a bad thing to do.
COOPER: She mocked me, she said it wasn't manly. Anyway, I've got to go. Thank you very much.
Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, gratuitous news and gratuitous pictures.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Finally tonight, a couple stories we wanted to tell you about, but frankly didn't know how. You see, the problem is television, isn't radio. You need pictures to tell a story. They teach you that on day one of anchor school. See, I didn't go to anchor school, so I didn't learn that.
Our bosses are really, really insistent on this idea. Seriously, it has become like a thing with them. People watch TV, they keep saying. You've got to give them something to look at.
So, we found some pictures to illustrate these next few stories. Unfortunately they don't really have anything to do with the story, but we're kind of hoping you just won't notice.
In Germany today, the high court found in the favor of the Bavarian man who runs a swingers club. Now in case you didn't live in New York in the 1970s, a swingers club is for people who like to swap mates. The German court ruled that such clubs are not immoral and that wife swapping is not illegal.
Vogel Gerhardt (ph), the fellow who won the case, said afterwards, this is very positive for all German swingers. That was bad German, sorry. No word if Vogel Gerhardt has a wife.
Also in Germany -- why are all these stories from Germany, I'm wondering. A zookeeper in a town north of Cologne was recently fired. Why? Because he was caught barbecuing five of the zoo's Tibetan mountain chickens and two Cameroonian sheep. Mmm, Cameroonian sheep. The zookeeper objected to his dismissal, arguing that German law requires notice be given before you're fired. The town of Recklehausen (ph) agreed and forced to give the zookeeper six months severance pay. No panda's were involved, thankfully.
Finally, back in this country, a judge in Michigan has gone on indefinite involuntary leave after a woman told court officials she's seen his honor smoking a doobie at a Rolling Stones concert in Detroit.
After an investigation the district judge in question - hello, focus. Over here. Thank you -- would be censured, suspended or permanently removed from the bench, which would probably drastically reduce the number of sitting judges in this country, who are Mick Jagger fans.
That's it for NEWSNIGHT. Thanks very much for joining us. Aaron Brown is back on Monday. Have a good weekend.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Resolution>
