Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Iraq Meets First Deadline Saying it Will Concede to U.N. Resolution; Weapons Inspectors Will Use New High-Tech Sensors

Aired November 13, 2002 -   ET

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

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


AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again, everyone.
We think page two is a place where stories big and small can find a home. We'll try to do one of each tonight.

The big one is about Iraq, as you probably guessed. The country is saying the weapons inspectors could come back in. And, oh, by the way, there are no weapons of mass destruction to find anyway. It turns out that the nine-page letter was more of a yes, but, then a straight unconditional yes, but that is no surprise.

So on Iraq, the world seems to be waiting to exhale. We are no closer to really knowing if there's going to be a war until the smart money still says yes.

Now the small story. A welcome home to a victim whose name we may never know. "The Washington Post" today had an extraordinary account of the 13- year-old who was shot by the sniper. He went home yesterday with a foot-long scar you can see and a deeper scar you cannot.

The latter, the precise memory of what happened to him, how it felt. The fear he was going to die. And then the fear as he recovered that the sniper would come back and finish the job, as he said to his family.

There were the nightmares that didn't end until the suspects were caught. And today, the boy wants to go back to school, the same school as before, saying he never realized how blessed he was. His family feels the same way. This, they say, will be their very best Thanksgiving ever.

Often, the news is about the big issues and the grand disputes that mark our times. But they should never drown out the little stories. The 13-year-old boy with scars who understand the joys of life far better than before and better than most of us ever will.

On to the news of the day. The Whip tonight is pretty much all Iraq. We begin at the White House. The reaction there, Frank Buckley has the duty -- Frank, a headline from you.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, Iraq has met its first deadline. It says it will receive U.N. inspectors, but questions remain about just how much access they will have. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was here at the White House today. He said the first real test will come when the inspectors are on the ground -- Aaron.

BROWN: Frank, thank you. Back to you in a moment.

On to Baghdad and the latest on what's emerging from there. Rim Brahimi is following that thread of the story. A headline from you tonight, please.

RIM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, a sigh of relief, but a small one, that Iraqis wondering here this may be the end of one problem but very potentially the beginning of a new one -- Aaron.

BROWN: And back to you as well. Now to the trail of diplomacy and where it all goes from here. Richard Roth is where he usually is, up on the East side of New York, the United Nations. Richard, a headline from you tonight.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, for their return to Iraq, the weapons inspectors will be packing, not weapons of their own, but new high-tech sensors. Better technology for a 21st century return to Iraq.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. Back to you shortly.

Also coming up tonight, we'll dissect what the Iraqis said with someone with plenty of experience of doing just that. We'll be joined tonight by former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson.

A lot of other stories in the mix tonight. An update on the laws that came out of one terrible crime, controversial since moment one, Megan's laws. U.S. Supreme Court is looking at two cases involving the rights of convicted sex offenders. We will as well tonight.

This one has been controversial since moment one in Utah, and that would be more than a century ago. That fine line sometimes between church and state and whether it's literally being crossed on a city sidewalk.

Our latest from Christiane Amanpour, Americans living in Saudi Arabia. People dealing with a fragile relationship before 9/11, a sometimes tense one after.

And a life remembered tonight in the pictures he took, the history he captured. AP photographer Eddie Worth (ph). All that and more in the hour ahead.

Before we get to the history on the page, we have to deal with the history in the making. Iraq today, as we said, accepted the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution, but in tones better suited to a declaration of war. If the lead was, we'll let the inspectors in, the Iraqis buried it halfway into a letter that opened with a slam of the United States and Britain. It closed with a veiled threat of what will happen if Iraq is pushed too far.

But threat or not, conditions or not, the clock is now ticking. Inspectors will go in. Iraq will present a list of weapons and weapons factories it has, a short list if the Iraqis are to be believed. And then the search will begin. More on that in a moment.

First the letter and how it's being received at the White House. Here again, CNN's Frank Buckley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I did deliver the letter to the office of the secretary general.

BUCKLEY (voice-over): Iraqi Ambassador Mohammad Al-Douri (ph) confirming that Saddam Hussein and Iraq will comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution. A defiant nine-page letter telling U.N. Security General Kofi Annan, we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable, despite, the letter says, it's bad contents. Inspectors will prove, say the Iraqis, that Iraq doesn't have any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We tried to explain our position saying that Iraq have and had not and will not have any mass destruction weapons. So we are not worried about the inspectors when they will be back in the country.

BUCKLEY: As the White House digested the letter, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan arrived for a face-to-face meeting with the president, who had pushed the U.N. to be more aggressive with Iraq on inspections.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The U.N. stepped up to its responsibilities and I want to thank you for that, Mr. Secretary General.

BUCKLEY: Mr. Annan emerged from the meeting to say Iraq must allow inspectors to do their job.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: The issue is not the acceptance, but performance on the ground.

BUCKLEY: The White House shares the view, but some of the language in Iraq's letter may hint at some of the obstacles inspectors may face. Iraq will also take into consideration their way of conduct, one portion of the letter says. The intentions of those who are ill intentioned aamongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty.

But if Iraq attempts to raise any issues to block inspectors, Bush made it clear the U.S. will declare it in violation.

BUSH: And I want to remind you all that inspectors are there to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein is willing to disarm. It's his choice to make. And should he choose not to disarm, we will disarm him.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY: The first inspectors are to be on the ground in Baghdad by Monday. By December 8, Iraq is required to provide a full inventory of all of its weapons programs. If anything is missing from that list that the U.S. believes that should be there, Aaron, White House officials say that to them will be considered a violation -- Aaron.

BROWN: It was almost as if the White House did not formally react to the letter at all. It was neither good news or bad news. It was just something that happened.

BUCKLEY: That's a good point, Aaron. The White House -- in fact, President Bush, when he came out after the letter was received, really didn't acknowledge it. White House officials said, look, this is what we expected all along. This part we knew would happen. It's what happens next, when the inspectors get on the ground.

They say they're not going to play what they call rope a dope in the desert, which is what they've seen over the past 11 years, 16 different resolutions. This time they say it's different, that the facts will speak for themselves. There will be no room for interpretation. That's an arguable point, but that's the White House position.

BROWN: It is an arguable point. And some of that argument is going on at the U.N. Frank, thank you. Frank Buckley with White House duty for us tonight.

And now the view from Iraq with all the usual warnings, that try as we might otherwise most of what we see there is what the Iraqi government allows us to see or wants us to see. That said, back to Baghdad and CNN's Rim Brahimi.

Let's start with the timing. The Iraqis did not take this down to the Friday deadline. Any significance to that?

BRAHIMI: Yes, well it was expected by many people that they would maybe wait until the last minute. But in fact, they didn't. And many diplomats that I spoke to here, Aaron, say that this is probably a sign of good intention. Maybe Iraq's message behind that, just saying, well, we are willing to cooperate, no matter what the violent rhetoric comes behind the letter and behind the acceptance.

So I think the timing was surprising if the acceptance itself was not -- Aaron.

BROWN: How was this news spread to the Iraqi people? Was there a big official government announcement or was it just one more story in the course of the day?

BRAHIMI: Well, it was the main story. It was obviously the first story in the evening news. The announcement was not the object of a breaking news or anything on Iraqi TV. It came, in fact, two hours after Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations delivered his foreign minister's letter to U.N. Security General Kofi Annan. Now basically, what we saw here on state-run TV here were pictures of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein meeting with the revolutionary command council, the highest authority in the country, which he chose himself, and the highest ranking members of the ruling Bath (ph) party as well.

After that, the commentator came on reading the nine-page letter in its entirety, saying to the Iraqi people, we have agreed, we have decided to accept the resolution because we want to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction -- Aaron.

BROWN: And reaction on the street?

BRAHIMI: Yes. Well, people here are under -- not many illusions here, Aaron. Of course there is, to some extent, a sigh of relief. I think people think that at least war may not be averted but at least delayed. But apart from that, people are still pretty much convinced that this is not really the end of their problems.

In fact, you know if it signals the end of one episode, they feel it pretty much opens the door to another episode that equally, if not even more dangerous. They have not very good memories of when the previous team of inspectors were here that usually led to many crisis and the bombing in '98.

So people are very, very wary here of what might happen and they do feel -- they're convinced that no matter what Iraq does, the U.S. is determined to bomb Iraq anyway -- Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you. Another chapter written. And we'll see where it leads. Thank you very much.

As you heard a moment ago, an advanced team of inspectors is due in Baghdad on Monday. The Iraqis then have until December 8 to declare all weapons programs. And just before Christmas the search ought to begin in full swing.

It was clear from the secretary general's words today that he has some doubts about Iraq and its intentions. But they also have some concerns about the Bush administration and its intentions. From the U.N. tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): U.N. weapons inspectors will themselves be armed with new high tech gear to ferret out any trace of weapons of mass destruction.

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: That is true, that there is development in the technical devices for inspection. We'll make use of that.

ROTH: Devices such as this handheld germ analyzer, called the Hannah (ph), developed by the Lawrence Livermore (ph) Lab in California. Bioweapons detection much faster than when inspectors were last inside Iraq. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the difference between doing an analysis in an hour or even a day compared to sending samples back to the United States or somewhere else, where it might take a day or two or three or a week to return the samples.

ROTH: The inspectors only way of surveying Iraq while being kept out of the country has been by air through commercial satellites. Here a peek at some of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Inspection by air may get a big boost with the potential use of the unmanned predator drone vehicle used by the U.S. in Afghanistan.

JONATHAN TUCKER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Most systems can hover for many hours, up to 24-hours over a location. And, for example, if there's an inspection under way at a site, they could monitor what is going on.

ROTH: With Iraq saying it has nothing to hide, Arab nations say it will be like trying to prove a negative.

AHMED ABDUL GHEIT, EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: The burden of proof comes from the accuser, or from that who claims that there are weapons of mass destruction.

ROTH: The inspectors are armed with tougher orders than before. The Security Council resolution says go anywhere, any time, including the increasing number of presidential palaces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Time has, of course, allowed the weapons inspectors to build up their arsenal for investigation of sophisticated gear, but time has also allowed President Saddam Hussein to hide any weapons of mass destruction if they truly exist. And if you talk, Aaron, to the weapons inspectors, they say they like the human touch. They can get a lot more from personal interviews with people inside and outside of Iraq -- Aaron.

BROWN: It seems that in the resolution there are two phrases that matter, serious consequences and material breach. Are we any closer to understanding whether the sides in the Security Council agree as to what material breach means?

ROTH: No, we're where we were Friday, except late Friday there was a statement by China, Russia and France, quite rare, saying that they believe there's a meeting of the council and a position will be taken if Hans Blix says there's a problem. The U.S. says we can act on our own, following a get together here. But there won't be a vote.

I would say that serious consequences, material breach, those phrases will be hanging over everything. The Iraqi letter was not very comforting to a lot of diplomats today. They always say one thing, but then say, as they have indicated today, there's going to be another letter. This has happened throughout the whole run up to this process.

BROWN: So here we go again. Richard Roth, at the U.N., thank you very much.

One quick item tonight from Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives voted formally to create a federal department of homeland security cabinet level. Big victory for the president, who had seen the measure tied up for months in a scrum with organized labor and the Democratic Party over how much job protection employees in the department would enjoy.

The vote in the House was not unsuspected. The bill comes up next week in the Senate. And Majority Leader Tom Daschle says he expects it will pass.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk with former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson about the situation in Iraq. Later, we'll see what life is like for Americans living and working in Saudi Arabia. And we'll also have a story on a battle between church and state in Salt Lake City. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: You can look at today's letter from Iraq a couple of different ways. It is either much ado about nothing, Saddam will never comply, or perhaps it is a sign of something else and something that presents its own challenges to the Bush administration. What if Iraq does comply?

We talked about both possibilities with former U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, who is now the governor elect of New Mexico.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: What took the Iraqis nine pages to say yes, but? There are a lot of conditions contained in the letter to the U.N. How ought we look at this moment? Big deal or not?

BILL RICHARDSON, FMR. U.N. AMBASSADOR: I think not a big deal, but we have to watch the Iraqis. What is going to be key is, do they delay, what do all those conditions mean? It is an acceptance.

The secretary general says we should be patient, but the issue is how patient should we be? I think the key, Aaron, is what constitutes a material breach, a violation? Who determines that? Here's where the inspectors, the arms inspectors are going to assume, not just an oversight role, but a political role, too.

BROWN: The secretary general it seemed to me today seemed to indicate that the Security Council as a group has a somewhat broader view of what material breach is than does the administration. So how do we look at that? Is there still this tension between the Security Council and the United States and Britain?

RICHARDSON: Yes, there's still tension, but the fact is, that by 15 to nothing, the Security Council did approve a resolution, leaving the issues of serious consequences and material breach vague. I think the Bush administration has handled this well. It gives them flexibility. But the reality is, if there is noncompliance by Iraq, each member of the Security Council can interpret it the way it can.

And I do think the president has some flexibility. But I think one area that we need to consider, Aaron, is what happens if Iraq does decide to disarm totally? I know it's a little remote. I know they're going to buck and dodge and weave, but what happens if they have decided maybe Saddam thinks it's his only way of surviving, then what do we do? I think that's an area that should be on the part of our planners very soon.

BROWN: This is, in many ways, a really intriguing question to me. Can we accept yes for an answer?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think we're going to have to make that decision. Now I don't think it's likely. I think Saddam Hussein is not going to comply. I think he's going to be up to his old tricks. I think the odds are that that's what he'll do.

But maybe there is a scenario where he has felt that a massive invasion by the United States is going to replace him. And I've dealt with him. What he cares most about is his own personal political survival.

And if he's determined that the only way he's going to get it is by starting a process of disarming, then we as a nation have to decide what happens if we've achieved our goal of disarming him? Do we still want that scenario of him around, having had a disarmament? That's a key policy question and I hope somebody's thinking about that.

BROWN: I hope someone is thinking about that too. If the goal is simply to disarm him, is it in the international community's best interest to at least give the Iraqis a little wiggle room along the way to blow smoke, to create fuss, as long as ultimately they comply, or should they be expected to be obedient?

RICHARDSON: In dealing with Iraq, Aaron, I feel you have to be very firm. You have to give them firm deadlines. You have to really get the inspectors. Now we can't control that, but I've been encouraged by the two inspectors, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and Hans Blix, that they are serious about substantial oversight of going into all the palaces, seeing all the sights, reporting back to the council.

I think they assumed, the weapons inspectors, more of a political role. If they come back and say, Iraq is complying, we're starting a process, I think we should exercise some patience, but you cannot give Saddam any wiggle room, or he is going to take advantage of it. And he's going to get the Russians and other allies that he has on the council, like France, to take his side.

So we've got be very careful. And again, the key component is the inspectors, how they act, how they inspect, when they do it, how soon they're complete. And then their credibility is going to be enormous and their word is going to be enormous as they report back to the world whether Iraq is complying or not.

BROWN: Governor Elect Richardson, it's good to talk to you again. Congratulations on your win a week ago. We always enjoy our conversations. Thank you.

RICHARDSON: Thank you very much, Aaron.

BROWN: Former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson.

A quick update on the sniper case tonight. John Allen Muhammad made a second court appearance in Prince William County courthouse, where he faces capital murder charges. The judge set a hearing for the 12th of December to consider a trial date. After the hearing, one of his new lawyers, Peter Greenspan (ph), targeted law enforcement as a source of leaks involving the alleged confessions of the other sniper suspect, John Lee Malvo.

Today, Malvo's court-appointed guardian said he'll ask the court to move the 17-year-old from Fairfax, Virginia County Jail to a juvenile facility. That request could be made as early as tomorrow.

On to the meeting of American Catholic bishops in Washington and a vote today on a policy involving abusive priests. They overwhelming voted to set up church tribunals for accused priests. They also included a statute of limitations which runs out after the victim turns 28, though that can be extended on a case-by-case basis by the Vatican.

This helps address the problem the Vatican had earlier with the draft that came out of Dallas that the Vatican believed did not adequately protect the rights of the accused priests. Victims groups see it as a step backwards and say it doesn't do enough to hold the bishops themselves accountable for their leadership.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, we'll look at church-state battles in Utah. Up next, the U.S. Supreme Court case over the rights of sex offenders. This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This is one of those issues that pits our head and heart against each other. The laws across the country that track convicted sex offenders after they get out of prison. Our head tells us it doesn't quite square with the idea of doing your time, paying your debt and moving on. Our heart tells us we forget our head in a millisecond if a convicted sex offender moved into our neighborhood. We want to know.

Law enforcement will say there are solid reasons these offenders are different. And emotion has nothing to do with it. As a group, they tend to keep offending. And today, the U.S. Supreme Court began looking at two very different state laws. At the heart of both, though, is one question, whether protecting our safety means a life sentence of sorts for sex offenders.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To understand what this law really means, never forget its name. The law that bears the name of one child is now for every child, for every parent and every family.

BROWN (voice-over): It is a concept born of tragedy and outrage, the kidnap, rape and murder of Megan Kenka (ph) in 1994. Her killer, a long time sex offender who lived in the neighborhood. His record a secret.

All 50 states have now passed some version of Megan's law, laws that require sex offenders to register with police after they're released from prison. But not all those laws are the same and the court looked at two today. Both Alaska and Connecticut had seen their versions of Megan's law struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional.

At issue in the Alaska case, whether convicted sex offenders, men convicted before the state passed its own version of Megan's law, are being punished after the fact. In legal terms, that's called ex-post facto. In essence, you can't rewrite a law adding punishment after the crime has already happened.

The Connecticut case is somewhat different. The question before the court is whether being part of the sexual offender registry without a hearing to determine if the offender is still dangerous, is that a violation of due process? In Connecticut, persons convicted of violent sex offenses are registered for life ten years for the rest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We have two players from both cases tonight. The attorney general from the state of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, who argued on behalf of his state's law. General Blumenthal joins us from Stamford tonight and Darryl Thompson, an attorney who argued for the sex offenders in the state of Alaska. He joins us from Washington and welcome to you both.

There are differences, as we pointed out, but it does seem to me there's an underlying question in both cases.

General Blumental, I'm going to start with you. Is it punishment, does it constitute punishment, to have to register to have your name out there in public?

RICHARD BLUMENTAL, CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, it's not, Aaron. Both our head and our heart should tell us that there isn't any ex-post facto punishment here. The purpose of this law is to provide truthful, accurate information. It's all a matter of public record, so that individual citizens, particularly families, care givers, others with responsibility for children, can protect those children and know whether a convicted sex offender has -- working or living nearby.

Remember, every one of these individuals on the registry has been convicted after a full hearing, including often a trial. And the public really needs and deserves, indeed demands this information, which is, again, all a matter of public record so that it can make these choices. BROWN: Let me ask Mr. Thompson the same question, then. Sir, do you consider it, Darryl, punishment that the offender has to register and that his name is publicized, available to anyone and everyone?

DARYL THOMPSON, ATTORNEY FOR SEX OFFENDERS: Clearly we do. I mean, the punishment factor here is that it's just like that of probation.

The reporting requirements for many of the Alaskan registrants are not unlike that which someone would have to have if they're on probation.

To report to the police on a regular basis every 90 days, where you work, where you live, what cars you have access to and to report the very next day where you move. To report when you've gained weight, when you've gotten gray hair, when you've shaved a beard -- those are the classic kinds of punishments that are put on someone probation. And if you extend someone's probation for a lifetime here after the fact, that's an infliction of punishment. And we have the added component of the stigmatization that's associated with the present label of you as someone who is a danger to the community. And it makes no regard as to whether or not you're in fact not dangerous anymore.

There are clearly a variety of categories of people -- people have successfully undergone treatment and let's take, for example, the 19-year-old who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old. I mean, and -- it's been 25 years, yet that same person is going to have to be on the Internet for the rest of his life and is going to have to report to the police every 90 days. No determination as to whether or not that person is presently dangerous.

BROWN: Let me go to -- this is another area where it seems to me the two cases intersect.

General Blumenthal, why not is it -- why is it not more fair and more reasonable and honestly, perfectly appropriate to hold a hearing to determine whether someone is dangerous or not, because Connecticut does not?

BLUMENTAL: There are a number of reasons, Aaron.

First of all, there are exceptions for certain kinds of crimes, such as consensual sex or where the victim and the offender are in the same family and revealing the identity of the victim, incest, for example, would be extremely destructive.

Hearings, very bluntly, Aaron, are notoriously unreliable. There is no living expert who can really reliably tell us, in most cases, whether someone is currently dangerous.

And after all, if you were to have a hearing today on a convicted sex offender, you would need another six months from now and again a year or several years from now. The point here is, they are costly, cumbersome and inaccurate, and the constitution, after all we're interpreting he constitution, doesn't require them. BROWN: General Blumenthal, if that's true -- and it may be -- if we never can be certain these people are not going to offend again, why don't we just keep them in jail?

BLUMENTHAL: Because the constitution also says that there has to be a certain equity and fairness, and the laws do set provide set amounts of punishment, although, as you know, in a case just last term, the Supreme Court said that civil commitment could be imposed on individuals in this category.

But the main point here is that these hearings may provide a false comfort and reassurance, and they may impose additional burdens on society when they have no real productive results.

BROWN: Mr. Thompson, we'll give you the last word here. Surely you understand that probably 90 percent, 99 percent maybe 99.9 percent of the parents listening to this conversation are saying, Yeah, you know what? Maybe the guy shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place, and I want to know. What do you say to them?

THOMPSON: Well, I can certainly appreciate that. I have six children and I understand that emotional response. You know, we as a community and as a society need to hold together the fabric of our constitution, which really makes us, you know, a democratic society and makes us distinct and apart from the rest of the world.

And that constitution mandates that you can't increase someone's punishment after the fact. And that's what this law does. It puts them on a lifetime of probation and puts them on a lifetime public stigmatization, labels them as currently dangerous. And you have to balance those things.

And when we talk about a false sense of security, having this list and having it publicly available is really providing a false sense of security because most offenses are not committed by people in the past. There are new offenses and new offenders and they're not on the list.

BROWN: Mr. Thompson, General Blumenthal, good to have you both with us. I know it's been a long day for you both. We appreciate your time.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.

THOMPSON: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

And as NEWSNIGHT continues tonight, we'll see the visual legacy, and it's extraordinary, of Eddie Worth, one of AP's great photographers.

Up next though, Americans who live and work in Saudi Arabia. How they're dealing with the world post-9/11.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And coming up on NEWSNIGHT, a slice of America in Saudi Arabia. A short break, right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's easy to make Biblical references when talking about the Middle East. And one in particular comes in mind, tonight a concept found in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the idea of being a stranger in a strange land.

For thousands of Americans in Saudi Arabia, that's exactly what they are. And after 9/11, living in a land where 15 of the 19 hijackers lived no doubt has made it even stranger.

Here is CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On weekends, the Owen family likes to go horseback riding in the desert.

Tom Owen is a second generation American raised in Saudi Arabia. Now he's raising his own children here.

TOM OWEN, SAUDI ARAMCO: The major tradeoff is being so far away from your family. Of course, in our family, we've taken care of that when we brought them all over here.

AMANPOUR: Saudi Aramco is the world's biggest oil company. Aramcoms, as they call themselves, live in a company compound similar to any U.S. military compound overseas, with their own leisure activities, medical services, and commissaries. Other nationals, including Saudis, live here too.

KATHY OWEN: The events of 9/11 have put a tension there that I don't think they feel good about, we don't feel good about, and it is just very sad.

AMANPOUR: But things are getting back to normal. All together, some 40,000 Americans live and work across Saudi Arabia.

(on camera): Americans are on high alert. There are frequent warnings telling them not to look conspicuous in public, not to leave their cars unattended, to check under the hoods. But apart from one incident last year in which one American was killed, U.S. officials here say there has been no violence specifically targeted at the American community.

(voice-over): Indeed, many say they feel safer here than on the mean streets of urban America.

JAMES RYLANDS, SAUDI ARAMCO: It's a safe place. It gives me a good environment for my family. They're safe here. We have a good school system. As a family man, this is the place for me to be. AMANPOUR: Well-paid jobs brought them here, but they say the lifestyle keeps them here.

CATHY RYLANDS: Their sense of community, that's missing in the States as well. Your neighbors become your aunts and uncles and grandmothers and grandfathers, and so -- it is hard to find that. That is why it is so hard to leave here.

AMANPOUR: Inside the compound, women are not restricted.

C. RYLANDS: I'm able to drive on the camp. I am able to jog, go to the beach, go to the pool. But once I'm off camp, I respect the customs here.

AMANPOUR: The Americans we talked to say they regret what they call a post-September 11 campaign against Saudi Arabia by some in the U.S. government and the media.

MICHELLE AL-REZA: Most of the people in the United States don't know anything about Saudi Arabia, they don't know anything about the people, and the people here are not terrorists. They're not fundamentalists for the most part.

AMANPOUR: Michelle's husband Shihab is Saudi.

SHIHAB ALI-REZA: We don't have a democracy, so we don't really have a say in what happens, and in a way, we perceive that about Americans. It's George Bush that is causing trouble, we're not thinking she is at fault, or anything like that, so there's not a lot of animosity between Americans and Saudis.

AMANPOUR: In fact, many say they learn a lot living in this multicultural environment. They say they are more sensitive to how their government's policies affect the people of this region. And after an alliance that has lasted 70 years, Americans say they still have most favored ex-pat status.

Christiane Amanpour, CNN, Dahran, Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Before we go to break, a few more stories from around the world. Tanks rolled into Gaza again today for the second time in less than 24 hours. Israeli soldiers rounded up a number of people they say are suspected terrorists in a neighborhood known to be controlled by Hamas. Earlier today, a toddler was shot and killed, his mother wounded.

The IDF says they were caught in the middle of a firefight. Palestinians say the shooting was unprovoked.

A year after the Taliban fled, music can still be heard in Kabul, girls go to school -- and women can, if they want to, show their faces in public without fears of being beaten or worse.

Still on this anniversary, there are signs of backsliding in Afghanistan. War lords run much of the country beyond the capital, the government has reestablished a Department of Religious Instruction, and girls schools have come under attack.

And in London, it looks a bit like the world's oldest game of knock knock, but in fact, it's the opening of a new session of Parliament. He knocked, the door opened, the queen entered, she spoke. A lot of hear, hear's were heard, and now it is back to work, which, for the queen and the royal family these days is dealing with yet more allegations of scandal.

Later on NEWSNIGHT, a look at the works of one of the great AP photographers. Up next, a battle between church and state in a state where church pretty much is the state. Are you following this? We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The joke going around the office this afternoon is tonight's program would feature one story about an exotic and sometimes misunderstood place where church and state intertwine, and one story about Saudi Arabia.

Like Saudi Arabia, in the place we're about to take you, a single faith is dominant. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, the tension between church and state plays out freely, sometimes loudly, on the street, in the courts, in some of the voices in favor of keeping church and state apart come from the faithful.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): It is not surprising that here in Salt Lake City, home of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Mormon church, that you would find a struggle between church and state, and what the separation of the two means.

STEPHEN CLARK, ATTORNEY, SALT LAKE CITY ACLU: The reality is that this city has long been marked by sort of a struggle between the Mormons and the non-Mormons, whose city is it, whose voice will be heard, who will be allowed to participate, who belongs here.

BROWN: The center of the struggle is this unlikely place, a gorgeous multimillion dollar plaza, filled with reflecting fountains and a statuary. Three years ago, the Mormon church bought the land from the city for $8 million, and spent another $30 million in improvements.

It was designed to fill in the space between the gleaming spires of the church's main temple and its administrative offices.

DAVID BURTON, PRESIDING BISHOP: The plaza is a marvelous table setting for the temple. It's also a place of solitude. It's a place of tranquility, and a place where people, hopefully, can just get a feel for what this block is all about, and the sacred nature of it.

KURT VAN GORDEN, SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER: Would you like one, ma'am? How are you doing today? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just fine.

BROWN: But last spring, church officials convinced Salt Lake City Police that this man was disrupting that tranquility.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're under arrest for trespass.

BROWN: He's a Southern Baptist minister named Kurt Van Gorden, who on that day, as on this, was handing out leaflets just steps away from the main gate to the Mormon temple.

VAN GORDEN: Two officers in business suits rather than uniforms showed up and handcuffed us, arrested us, fingerprinted us, took mug shots of us, jailed us, and I had to post bail to get out of jail, for passing out gospel literature on a public easement.

BROWN: But to the church's consternation, a federal appeals court ruled recently that he can pass out leaflets in front of the church as long as he wants because, the court said, the sidewalk in front of the temple doesn't belong to the church, though the plaza does.

CLARK: What the Mormon church is insisting on is the ability to keep people out who disagree with it or have a different viewpoint, and call the police and throw them in jail if they come on their property espousing a viewpoint that they don't sponsor.

BROWN: The current mayor, who was not in power when the land deal between church and state was struck, could solve the problem, according to the Mormon church. He could simply abandon the city's right of public access, but he will not.

ROSS ANDERSON, MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY: I want everybody to get the benefit of their bargain, so long as it's constitutional. But since it's not constitutional to allow the restrictions and maintain the easement, the Church of Jesus Christ is going to have to live with its contract.

BROWN: A contract that for now means almost any sort of protest at the church's gate is fair game. In fact, a group protesting war against Iraq has already applied for a demonstration permit later in the month.

BURTON: It was intended to be a cooperative effort on the part of the city and the church to provide this beautiful plaza for public usage. What's turned out to be is, of course, is a test of the constitutional issues involved in free speech, which was just as far away from our reckoning as anything could possibly be.

BROWN: Which is the way it is sometimes with great and important constitutional questions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A view from Salt Lake. A few other stories before we go to break tonight beginning in Boston. The city was chosen today by the Democratic Party to host its national convention in 2004. Boston winning out over New York, Detroit and Miami. If you want to mark your calender, the Democratic National Convention set to open July 26, 2004.

Final resolution. The South Dakota Senate race, Republican Congressman John Thune says he will not go after a recount in his race against the Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson. Johnson won by almost -- just about 500 votes. Thune says he thinks there were some voting irregularities last Tuesday, but he does not believe a recount would change the outcome.

Next, on NEWSNIGHT a legacy of a man and the pictures he took. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, a man to remember, Eddie Worth. The name may not be familiar but many of the pictures he took were very familiar for a very long time.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): Eddie worth first picked up a camera for Associated Press in 1934. This is Mr. Worth as an old man showing off one of his most famous photos to Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair.

Now, here's the thing you need to bear in mind about Eddie Worth. He might have died many times over many years ago doing what he did for AP. He might have died in London during the blitz during World War II.

This is his picture, the one he was showing Tony Blair, of smoke curling up around the dome of St. Paul's after a German bombing raid on London in June of '41. Eddie Worth and the cathedral were both spared.

He might have died while he was following the fighting all through Europe from the beaches of Normandy on D-Day on to the rest of France and into Germany. That's young Eddie Worth scribbling a photo caption while flying into Berlin.

He might have died after the war too, covering perilous cleanup operations. Here is his photo of Canadian soldiers disarming a V-1 Flying Bomb in Germany in 1945.

And this is Eddie Worth's photo of perhaps the most famous tribunal of the 20th century, the trial at Nuremberg, the trial of high level Nazis accused of war crimes. By the time he took this picture, Eddie Worth was already a legendary combat photographer and he went on doing that work and doing it brilliantly for a long time after.

As we say, he might have died many times over many years ago, but he didn't. Eddie Worth lived through it all took, pictures of it all and he died this past Sunday back home in England at the age of 93.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Good to have you with us tonight. Hope you'll join us again tomorrow. Until then, I'm Aaron Brown in New York. Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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; Weapons Inspectors Will Use New High-Tech Sensors>


Aired November 13, 2002 - Iraq; Weapons; United Nations   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again, everyone.
We think page two is a place where stories big and small can find a home. We'll try to do one of each tonight.

The big one is about Iraq, as you probably guessed. The country is saying the weapons inspectors could come back in. And, oh, by the way, there are no weapons of mass destruction to find anyway. It turns out that the nine-page letter was more of a yes, but, then a straight unconditional yes, but that is no surprise.

So on Iraq, the world seems to be waiting to exhale. We are no closer to really knowing if there's going to be a war until the smart money still says yes.

Now the small story. A welcome home to a victim whose name we may never know. "The Washington Post" today had an extraordinary account of the 13- year-old who was shot by the sniper. He went home yesterday with a foot-long scar you can see and a deeper scar you cannot.

The latter, the precise memory of what happened to him, how it felt. The fear he was going to die. And then the fear as he recovered that the sniper would come back and finish the job, as he said to his family.

There were the nightmares that didn't end until the suspects were caught. And today, the boy wants to go back to school, the same school as before, saying he never realized how blessed he was. His family feels the same way. This, they say, will be their very best Thanksgiving ever.

Often, the news is about the big issues and the grand disputes that mark our times. But they should never drown out the little stories. The 13-year-old boy with scars who understand the joys of life far better than before and better than most of us ever will.

On to the news of the day. The Whip tonight is pretty much all Iraq. We begin at the White House. The reaction there, Frank Buckley has the duty -- Frank, a headline from you.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, Iraq has met its first deadline. It says it will receive U.N. inspectors, but questions remain about just how much access they will have. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was here at the White House today. He said the first real test will come when the inspectors are on the ground -- Aaron.

BROWN: Frank, thank you. Back to you in a moment.

On to Baghdad and the latest on what's emerging from there. Rim Brahimi is following that thread of the story. A headline from you tonight, please.

RIM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, a sigh of relief, but a small one, that Iraqis wondering here this may be the end of one problem but very potentially the beginning of a new one -- Aaron.

BROWN: And back to you as well. Now to the trail of diplomacy and where it all goes from here. Richard Roth is where he usually is, up on the East side of New York, the United Nations. Richard, a headline from you tonight.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, for their return to Iraq, the weapons inspectors will be packing, not weapons of their own, but new high-tech sensors. Better technology for a 21st century return to Iraq.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. Back to you shortly.

Also coming up tonight, we'll dissect what the Iraqis said with someone with plenty of experience of doing just that. We'll be joined tonight by former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson.

A lot of other stories in the mix tonight. An update on the laws that came out of one terrible crime, controversial since moment one, Megan's laws. U.S. Supreme Court is looking at two cases involving the rights of convicted sex offenders. We will as well tonight.

This one has been controversial since moment one in Utah, and that would be more than a century ago. That fine line sometimes between church and state and whether it's literally being crossed on a city sidewalk.

Our latest from Christiane Amanpour, Americans living in Saudi Arabia. People dealing with a fragile relationship before 9/11, a sometimes tense one after.

And a life remembered tonight in the pictures he took, the history he captured. AP photographer Eddie Worth (ph). All that and more in the hour ahead.

Before we get to the history on the page, we have to deal with the history in the making. Iraq today, as we said, accepted the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution, but in tones better suited to a declaration of war. If the lead was, we'll let the inspectors in, the Iraqis buried it halfway into a letter that opened with a slam of the United States and Britain. It closed with a veiled threat of what will happen if Iraq is pushed too far.

But threat or not, conditions or not, the clock is now ticking. Inspectors will go in. Iraq will present a list of weapons and weapons factories it has, a short list if the Iraqis are to be believed. And then the search will begin. More on that in a moment.

First the letter and how it's being received at the White House. Here again, CNN's Frank Buckley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I did deliver the letter to the office of the secretary general.

BUCKLEY (voice-over): Iraqi Ambassador Mohammad Al-Douri (ph) confirming that Saddam Hussein and Iraq will comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution. A defiant nine-page letter telling U.N. Security General Kofi Annan, we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable, despite, the letter says, it's bad contents. Inspectors will prove, say the Iraqis, that Iraq doesn't have any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We tried to explain our position saying that Iraq have and had not and will not have any mass destruction weapons. So we are not worried about the inspectors when they will be back in the country.

BUCKLEY: As the White House digested the letter, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan arrived for a face-to-face meeting with the president, who had pushed the U.N. to be more aggressive with Iraq on inspections.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The U.N. stepped up to its responsibilities and I want to thank you for that, Mr. Secretary General.

BUCKLEY: Mr. Annan emerged from the meeting to say Iraq must allow inspectors to do their job.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: The issue is not the acceptance, but performance on the ground.

BUCKLEY: The White House shares the view, but some of the language in Iraq's letter may hint at some of the obstacles inspectors may face. Iraq will also take into consideration their way of conduct, one portion of the letter says. The intentions of those who are ill intentioned aamongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty.

But if Iraq attempts to raise any issues to block inspectors, Bush made it clear the U.S. will declare it in violation.

BUSH: And I want to remind you all that inspectors are there to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein is willing to disarm. It's his choice to make. And should he choose not to disarm, we will disarm him.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BUCKLEY: The first inspectors are to be on the ground in Baghdad by Monday. By December 8, Iraq is required to provide a full inventory of all of its weapons programs. If anything is missing from that list that the U.S. believes that should be there, Aaron, White House officials say that to them will be considered a violation -- Aaron.

BROWN: It was almost as if the White House did not formally react to the letter at all. It was neither good news or bad news. It was just something that happened.

BUCKLEY: That's a good point, Aaron. The White House -- in fact, President Bush, when he came out after the letter was received, really didn't acknowledge it. White House officials said, look, this is what we expected all along. This part we knew would happen. It's what happens next, when the inspectors get on the ground.

They say they're not going to play what they call rope a dope in the desert, which is what they've seen over the past 11 years, 16 different resolutions. This time they say it's different, that the facts will speak for themselves. There will be no room for interpretation. That's an arguable point, but that's the White House position.

BROWN: It is an arguable point. And some of that argument is going on at the U.N. Frank, thank you. Frank Buckley with White House duty for us tonight.

And now the view from Iraq with all the usual warnings, that try as we might otherwise most of what we see there is what the Iraqi government allows us to see or wants us to see. That said, back to Baghdad and CNN's Rim Brahimi.

Let's start with the timing. The Iraqis did not take this down to the Friday deadline. Any significance to that?

BRAHIMI: Yes, well it was expected by many people that they would maybe wait until the last minute. But in fact, they didn't. And many diplomats that I spoke to here, Aaron, say that this is probably a sign of good intention. Maybe Iraq's message behind that, just saying, well, we are willing to cooperate, no matter what the violent rhetoric comes behind the letter and behind the acceptance.

So I think the timing was surprising if the acceptance itself was not -- Aaron.

BROWN: How was this news spread to the Iraqi people? Was there a big official government announcement or was it just one more story in the course of the day?

BRAHIMI: Well, it was the main story. It was obviously the first story in the evening news. The announcement was not the object of a breaking news or anything on Iraqi TV. It came, in fact, two hours after Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations delivered his foreign minister's letter to U.N. Security General Kofi Annan. Now basically, what we saw here on state-run TV here were pictures of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein meeting with the revolutionary command council, the highest authority in the country, which he chose himself, and the highest ranking members of the ruling Bath (ph) party as well.

After that, the commentator came on reading the nine-page letter in its entirety, saying to the Iraqi people, we have agreed, we have decided to accept the resolution because we want to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction -- Aaron.

BROWN: And reaction on the street?

BRAHIMI: Yes. Well, people here are under -- not many illusions here, Aaron. Of course there is, to some extent, a sigh of relief. I think people think that at least war may not be averted but at least delayed. But apart from that, people are still pretty much convinced that this is not really the end of their problems.

In fact, you know if it signals the end of one episode, they feel it pretty much opens the door to another episode that equally, if not even more dangerous. They have not very good memories of when the previous team of inspectors were here that usually led to many crisis and the bombing in '98.

So people are very, very wary here of what might happen and they do feel -- they're convinced that no matter what Iraq does, the U.S. is determined to bomb Iraq anyway -- Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you. Another chapter written. And we'll see where it leads. Thank you very much.

As you heard a moment ago, an advanced team of inspectors is due in Baghdad on Monday. The Iraqis then have until December 8 to declare all weapons programs. And just before Christmas the search ought to begin in full swing.

It was clear from the secretary general's words today that he has some doubts about Iraq and its intentions. But they also have some concerns about the Bush administration and its intentions. From the U.N. tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): U.N. weapons inspectors will themselves be armed with new high tech gear to ferret out any trace of weapons of mass destruction.

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: That is true, that there is development in the technical devices for inspection. We'll make use of that.

ROTH: Devices such as this handheld germ analyzer, called the Hannah (ph), developed by the Lawrence Livermore (ph) Lab in California. Bioweapons detection much faster than when inspectors were last inside Iraq. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the difference between doing an analysis in an hour or even a day compared to sending samples back to the United States or somewhere else, where it might take a day or two or three or a week to return the samples.

ROTH: The inspectors only way of surveying Iraq while being kept out of the country has been by air through commercial satellites. Here a peek at some of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Inspection by air may get a big boost with the potential use of the unmanned predator drone vehicle used by the U.S. in Afghanistan.

JONATHAN TUCKER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Most systems can hover for many hours, up to 24-hours over a location. And, for example, if there's an inspection under way at a site, they could monitor what is going on.

ROTH: With Iraq saying it has nothing to hide, Arab nations say it will be like trying to prove a negative.

AHMED ABDUL GHEIT, EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: The burden of proof comes from the accuser, or from that who claims that there are weapons of mass destruction.

ROTH: The inspectors are armed with tougher orders than before. The Security Council resolution says go anywhere, any time, including the increasing number of presidential palaces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Time has, of course, allowed the weapons inspectors to build up their arsenal for investigation of sophisticated gear, but time has also allowed President Saddam Hussein to hide any weapons of mass destruction if they truly exist. And if you talk, Aaron, to the weapons inspectors, they say they like the human touch. They can get a lot more from personal interviews with people inside and outside of Iraq -- Aaron.

BROWN: It seems that in the resolution there are two phrases that matter, serious consequences and material breach. Are we any closer to understanding whether the sides in the Security Council agree as to what material breach means?

ROTH: No, we're where we were Friday, except late Friday there was a statement by China, Russia and France, quite rare, saying that they believe there's a meeting of the council and a position will be taken if Hans Blix says there's a problem. The U.S. says we can act on our own, following a get together here. But there won't be a vote.

I would say that serious consequences, material breach, those phrases will be hanging over everything. The Iraqi letter was not very comforting to a lot of diplomats today. They always say one thing, but then say, as they have indicated today, there's going to be another letter. This has happened throughout the whole run up to this process.

BROWN: So here we go again. Richard Roth, at the U.N., thank you very much.

One quick item tonight from Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives voted formally to create a federal department of homeland security cabinet level. Big victory for the president, who had seen the measure tied up for months in a scrum with organized labor and the Democratic Party over how much job protection employees in the department would enjoy.

The vote in the House was not unsuspected. The bill comes up next week in the Senate. And Majority Leader Tom Daschle says he expects it will pass.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk with former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson about the situation in Iraq. Later, we'll see what life is like for Americans living and working in Saudi Arabia. And we'll also have a story on a battle between church and state in Salt Lake City. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: You can look at today's letter from Iraq a couple of different ways. It is either much ado about nothing, Saddam will never comply, or perhaps it is a sign of something else and something that presents its own challenges to the Bush administration. What if Iraq does comply?

We talked about both possibilities with former U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, who is now the governor elect of New Mexico.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: What took the Iraqis nine pages to say yes, but? There are a lot of conditions contained in the letter to the U.N. How ought we look at this moment? Big deal or not?

BILL RICHARDSON, FMR. U.N. AMBASSADOR: I think not a big deal, but we have to watch the Iraqis. What is going to be key is, do they delay, what do all those conditions mean? It is an acceptance.

The secretary general says we should be patient, but the issue is how patient should we be? I think the key, Aaron, is what constitutes a material breach, a violation? Who determines that? Here's where the inspectors, the arms inspectors are going to assume, not just an oversight role, but a political role, too.

BROWN: The secretary general it seemed to me today seemed to indicate that the Security Council as a group has a somewhat broader view of what material breach is than does the administration. So how do we look at that? Is there still this tension between the Security Council and the United States and Britain?

RICHARDSON: Yes, there's still tension, but the fact is, that by 15 to nothing, the Security Council did approve a resolution, leaving the issues of serious consequences and material breach vague. I think the Bush administration has handled this well. It gives them flexibility. But the reality is, if there is noncompliance by Iraq, each member of the Security Council can interpret it the way it can.

And I do think the president has some flexibility. But I think one area that we need to consider, Aaron, is what happens if Iraq does decide to disarm totally? I know it's a little remote. I know they're going to buck and dodge and weave, but what happens if they have decided maybe Saddam thinks it's his only way of surviving, then what do we do? I think that's an area that should be on the part of our planners very soon.

BROWN: This is, in many ways, a really intriguing question to me. Can we accept yes for an answer?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think we're going to have to make that decision. Now I don't think it's likely. I think Saddam Hussein is not going to comply. I think he's going to be up to his old tricks. I think the odds are that that's what he'll do.

But maybe there is a scenario where he has felt that a massive invasion by the United States is going to replace him. And I've dealt with him. What he cares most about is his own personal political survival.

And if he's determined that the only way he's going to get it is by starting a process of disarming, then we as a nation have to decide what happens if we've achieved our goal of disarming him? Do we still want that scenario of him around, having had a disarmament? That's a key policy question and I hope somebody's thinking about that.

BROWN: I hope someone is thinking about that too. If the goal is simply to disarm him, is it in the international community's best interest to at least give the Iraqis a little wiggle room along the way to blow smoke, to create fuss, as long as ultimately they comply, or should they be expected to be obedient?

RICHARDSON: In dealing with Iraq, Aaron, I feel you have to be very firm. You have to give them firm deadlines. You have to really get the inspectors. Now we can't control that, but I've been encouraged by the two inspectors, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and Hans Blix, that they are serious about substantial oversight of going into all the palaces, seeing all the sights, reporting back to the council.

I think they assumed, the weapons inspectors, more of a political role. If they come back and say, Iraq is complying, we're starting a process, I think we should exercise some patience, but you cannot give Saddam any wiggle room, or he is going to take advantage of it. And he's going to get the Russians and other allies that he has on the council, like France, to take his side.

So we've got be very careful. And again, the key component is the inspectors, how they act, how they inspect, when they do it, how soon they're complete. And then their credibility is going to be enormous and their word is going to be enormous as they report back to the world whether Iraq is complying or not.

BROWN: Governor Elect Richardson, it's good to talk to you again. Congratulations on your win a week ago. We always enjoy our conversations. Thank you.

RICHARDSON: Thank you very much, Aaron.

BROWN: Former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson.

A quick update on the sniper case tonight. John Allen Muhammad made a second court appearance in Prince William County courthouse, where he faces capital murder charges. The judge set a hearing for the 12th of December to consider a trial date. After the hearing, one of his new lawyers, Peter Greenspan (ph), targeted law enforcement as a source of leaks involving the alleged confessions of the other sniper suspect, John Lee Malvo.

Today, Malvo's court-appointed guardian said he'll ask the court to move the 17-year-old from Fairfax, Virginia County Jail to a juvenile facility. That request could be made as early as tomorrow.

On to the meeting of American Catholic bishops in Washington and a vote today on a policy involving abusive priests. They overwhelming voted to set up church tribunals for accused priests. They also included a statute of limitations which runs out after the victim turns 28, though that can be extended on a case-by-case basis by the Vatican.

This helps address the problem the Vatican had earlier with the draft that came out of Dallas that the Vatican believed did not adequately protect the rights of the accused priests. Victims groups see it as a step backwards and say it doesn't do enough to hold the bishops themselves accountable for their leadership.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, we'll look at church-state battles in Utah. Up next, the U.S. Supreme Court case over the rights of sex offenders. This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This is one of those issues that pits our head and heart against each other. The laws across the country that track convicted sex offenders after they get out of prison. Our head tells us it doesn't quite square with the idea of doing your time, paying your debt and moving on. Our heart tells us we forget our head in a millisecond if a convicted sex offender moved into our neighborhood. We want to know.

Law enforcement will say there are solid reasons these offenders are different. And emotion has nothing to do with it. As a group, they tend to keep offending. And today, the U.S. Supreme Court began looking at two very different state laws. At the heart of both, though, is one question, whether protecting our safety means a life sentence of sorts for sex offenders.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To understand what this law really means, never forget its name. The law that bears the name of one child is now for every child, for every parent and every family.

BROWN (voice-over): It is a concept born of tragedy and outrage, the kidnap, rape and murder of Megan Kenka (ph) in 1994. Her killer, a long time sex offender who lived in the neighborhood. His record a secret.

All 50 states have now passed some version of Megan's law, laws that require sex offenders to register with police after they're released from prison. But not all those laws are the same and the court looked at two today. Both Alaska and Connecticut had seen their versions of Megan's law struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional.

At issue in the Alaska case, whether convicted sex offenders, men convicted before the state passed its own version of Megan's law, are being punished after the fact. In legal terms, that's called ex-post facto. In essence, you can't rewrite a law adding punishment after the crime has already happened.

The Connecticut case is somewhat different. The question before the court is whether being part of the sexual offender registry without a hearing to determine if the offender is still dangerous, is that a violation of due process? In Connecticut, persons convicted of violent sex offenses are registered for life ten years for the rest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We have two players from both cases tonight. The attorney general from the state of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, who argued on behalf of his state's law. General Blumenthal joins us from Stamford tonight and Darryl Thompson, an attorney who argued for the sex offenders in the state of Alaska. He joins us from Washington and welcome to you both.

There are differences, as we pointed out, but it does seem to me there's an underlying question in both cases.

General Blumental, I'm going to start with you. Is it punishment, does it constitute punishment, to have to register to have your name out there in public?

RICHARD BLUMENTAL, CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, it's not, Aaron. Both our head and our heart should tell us that there isn't any ex-post facto punishment here. The purpose of this law is to provide truthful, accurate information. It's all a matter of public record, so that individual citizens, particularly families, care givers, others with responsibility for children, can protect those children and know whether a convicted sex offender has -- working or living nearby.

Remember, every one of these individuals on the registry has been convicted after a full hearing, including often a trial. And the public really needs and deserves, indeed demands this information, which is, again, all a matter of public record so that it can make these choices. BROWN: Let me ask Mr. Thompson the same question, then. Sir, do you consider it, Darryl, punishment that the offender has to register and that his name is publicized, available to anyone and everyone?

DARYL THOMPSON, ATTORNEY FOR SEX OFFENDERS: Clearly we do. I mean, the punishment factor here is that it's just like that of probation.

The reporting requirements for many of the Alaskan registrants are not unlike that which someone would have to have if they're on probation.

To report to the police on a regular basis every 90 days, where you work, where you live, what cars you have access to and to report the very next day where you move. To report when you've gained weight, when you've gotten gray hair, when you've shaved a beard -- those are the classic kinds of punishments that are put on someone probation. And if you extend someone's probation for a lifetime here after the fact, that's an infliction of punishment. And we have the added component of the stigmatization that's associated with the present label of you as someone who is a danger to the community. And it makes no regard as to whether or not you're in fact not dangerous anymore.

There are clearly a variety of categories of people -- people have successfully undergone treatment and let's take, for example, the 19-year-old who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old. I mean, and -- it's been 25 years, yet that same person is going to have to be on the Internet for the rest of his life and is going to have to report to the police every 90 days. No determination as to whether or not that person is presently dangerous.

BROWN: Let me go to -- this is another area where it seems to me the two cases intersect.

General Blumenthal, why not is it -- why is it not more fair and more reasonable and honestly, perfectly appropriate to hold a hearing to determine whether someone is dangerous or not, because Connecticut does not?

BLUMENTAL: There are a number of reasons, Aaron.

First of all, there are exceptions for certain kinds of crimes, such as consensual sex or where the victim and the offender are in the same family and revealing the identity of the victim, incest, for example, would be extremely destructive.

Hearings, very bluntly, Aaron, are notoriously unreliable. There is no living expert who can really reliably tell us, in most cases, whether someone is currently dangerous.

And after all, if you were to have a hearing today on a convicted sex offender, you would need another six months from now and again a year or several years from now. The point here is, they are costly, cumbersome and inaccurate, and the constitution, after all we're interpreting he constitution, doesn't require them. BROWN: General Blumenthal, if that's true -- and it may be -- if we never can be certain these people are not going to offend again, why don't we just keep them in jail?

BLUMENTHAL: Because the constitution also says that there has to be a certain equity and fairness, and the laws do set provide set amounts of punishment, although, as you know, in a case just last term, the Supreme Court said that civil commitment could be imposed on individuals in this category.

But the main point here is that these hearings may provide a false comfort and reassurance, and they may impose additional burdens on society when they have no real productive results.

BROWN: Mr. Thompson, we'll give you the last word here. Surely you understand that probably 90 percent, 99 percent maybe 99.9 percent of the parents listening to this conversation are saying, Yeah, you know what? Maybe the guy shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place, and I want to know. What do you say to them?

THOMPSON: Well, I can certainly appreciate that. I have six children and I understand that emotional response. You know, we as a community and as a society need to hold together the fabric of our constitution, which really makes us, you know, a democratic society and makes us distinct and apart from the rest of the world.

And that constitution mandates that you can't increase someone's punishment after the fact. And that's what this law does. It puts them on a lifetime of probation and puts them on a lifetime public stigmatization, labels them as currently dangerous. And you have to balance those things.

And when we talk about a false sense of security, having this list and having it publicly available is really providing a false sense of security because most offenses are not committed by people in the past. There are new offenses and new offenders and they're not on the list.

BROWN: Mr. Thompson, General Blumenthal, good to have you both with us. I know it's been a long day for you both. We appreciate your time.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.

THOMPSON: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

And as NEWSNIGHT continues tonight, we'll see the visual legacy, and it's extraordinary, of Eddie Worth, one of AP's great photographers.

Up next though, Americans who live and work in Saudi Arabia. How they're dealing with the world post-9/11.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And coming up on NEWSNIGHT, a slice of America in Saudi Arabia. A short break, right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's easy to make Biblical references when talking about the Middle East. And one in particular comes in mind, tonight a concept found in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the idea of being a stranger in a strange land.

For thousands of Americans in Saudi Arabia, that's exactly what they are. And after 9/11, living in a land where 15 of the 19 hijackers lived no doubt has made it even stranger.

Here is CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On weekends, the Owen family likes to go horseback riding in the desert.

Tom Owen is a second generation American raised in Saudi Arabia. Now he's raising his own children here.

TOM OWEN, SAUDI ARAMCO: The major tradeoff is being so far away from your family. Of course, in our family, we've taken care of that when we brought them all over here.

AMANPOUR: Saudi Aramco is the world's biggest oil company. Aramcoms, as they call themselves, live in a company compound similar to any U.S. military compound overseas, with their own leisure activities, medical services, and commissaries. Other nationals, including Saudis, live here too.

KATHY OWEN: The events of 9/11 have put a tension there that I don't think they feel good about, we don't feel good about, and it is just very sad.

AMANPOUR: But things are getting back to normal. All together, some 40,000 Americans live and work across Saudi Arabia.

(on camera): Americans are on high alert. There are frequent warnings telling them not to look conspicuous in public, not to leave their cars unattended, to check under the hoods. But apart from one incident last year in which one American was killed, U.S. officials here say there has been no violence specifically targeted at the American community.

(voice-over): Indeed, many say they feel safer here than on the mean streets of urban America.

JAMES RYLANDS, SAUDI ARAMCO: It's a safe place. It gives me a good environment for my family. They're safe here. We have a good school system. As a family man, this is the place for me to be. AMANPOUR: Well-paid jobs brought them here, but they say the lifestyle keeps them here.

CATHY RYLANDS: Their sense of community, that's missing in the States as well. Your neighbors become your aunts and uncles and grandmothers and grandfathers, and so -- it is hard to find that. That is why it is so hard to leave here.

AMANPOUR: Inside the compound, women are not restricted.

C. RYLANDS: I'm able to drive on the camp. I am able to jog, go to the beach, go to the pool. But once I'm off camp, I respect the customs here.

AMANPOUR: The Americans we talked to say they regret what they call a post-September 11 campaign against Saudi Arabia by some in the U.S. government and the media.

MICHELLE AL-REZA: Most of the people in the United States don't know anything about Saudi Arabia, they don't know anything about the people, and the people here are not terrorists. They're not fundamentalists for the most part.

AMANPOUR: Michelle's husband Shihab is Saudi.

SHIHAB ALI-REZA: We don't have a democracy, so we don't really have a say in what happens, and in a way, we perceive that about Americans. It's George Bush that is causing trouble, we're not thinking she is at fault, or anything like that, so there's not a lot of animosity between Americans and Saudis.

AMANPOUR: In fact, many say they learn a lot living in this multicultural environment. They say they are more sensitive to how their government's policies affect the people of this region. And after an alliance that has lasted 70 years, Americans say they still have most favored ex-pat status.

Christiane Amanpour, CNN, Dahran, Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Before we go to break, a few more stories from around the world. Tanks rolled into Gaza again today for the second time in less than 24 hours. Israeli soldiers rounded up a number of people they say are suspected terrorists in a neighborhood known to be controlled by Hamas. Earlier today, a toddler was shot and killed, his mother wounded.

The IDF says they were caught in the middle of a firefight. Palestinians say the shooting was unprovoked.

A year after the Taliban fled, music can still be heard in Kabul, girls go to school -- and women can, if they want to, show their faces in public without fears of being beaten or worse.

Still on this anniversary, there are signs of backsliding in Afghanistan. War lords run much of the country beyond the capital, the government has reestablished a Department of Religious Instruction, and girls schools have come under attack.

And in London, it looks a bit like the world's oldest game of knock knock, but in fact, it's the opening of a new session of Parliament. He knocked, the door opened, the queen entered, she spoke. A lot of hear, hear's were heard, and now it is back to work, which, for the queen and the royal family these days is dealing with yet more allegations of scandal.

Later on NEWSNIGHT, a look at the works of one of the great AP photographers. Up next, a battle between church and state in a state where church pretty much is the state. Are you following this? We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The joke going around the office this afternoon is tonight's program would feature one story about an exotic and sometimes misunderstood place where church and state intertwine, and one story about Saudi Arabia.

Like Saudi Arabia, in the place we're about to take you, a single faith is dominant. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, the tension between church and state plays out freely, sometimes loudly, on the street, in the courts, in some of the voices in favor of keeping church and state apart come from the faithful.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): It is not surprising that here in Salt Lake City, home of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Mormon church, that you would find a struggle between church and state, and what the separation of the two means.

STEPHEN CLARK, ATTORNEY, SALT LAKE CITY ACLU: The reality is that this city has long been marked by sort of a struggle between the Mormons and the non-Mormons, whose city is it, whose voice will be heard, who will be allowed to participate, who belongs here.

BROWN: The center of the struggle is this unlikely place, a gorgeous multimillion dollar plaza, filled with reflecting fountains and a statuary. Three years ago, the Mormon church bought the land from the city for $8 million, and spent another $30 million in improvements.

It was designed to fill in the space between the gleaming spires of the church's main temple and its administrative offices.

DAVID BURTON, PRESIDING BISHOP: The plaza is a marvelous table setting for the temple. It's also a place of solitude. It's a place of tranquility, and a place where people, hopefully, can just get a feel for what this block is all about, and the sacred nature of it.

KURT VAN GORDEN, SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER: Would you like one, ma'am? How are you doing today? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just fine.

BROWN: But last spring, church officials convinced Salt Lake City Police that this man was disrupting that tranquility.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're under arrest for trespass.

BROWN: He's a Southern Baptist minister named Kurt Van Gorden, who on that day, as on this, was handing out leaflets just steps away from the main gate to the Mormon temple.

VAN GORDEN: Two officers in business suits rather than uniforms showed up and handcuffed us, arrested us, fingerprinted us, took mug shots of us, jailed us, and I had to post bail to get out of jail, for passing out gospel literature on a public easement.

BROWN: But to the church's consternation, a federal appeals court ruled recently that he can pass out leaflets in front of the church as long as he wants because, the court said, the sidewalk in front of the temple doesn't belong to the church, though the plaza does.

CLARK: What the Mormon church is insisting on is the ability to keep people out who disagree with it or have a different viewpoint, and call the police and throw them in jail if they come on their property espousing a viewpoint that they don't sponsor.

BROWN: The current mayor, who was not in power when the land deal between church and state was struck, could solve the problem, according to the Mormon church. He could simply abandon the city's right of public access, but he will not.

ROSS ANDERSON, MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY: I want everybody to get the benefit of their bargain, so long as it's constitutional. But since it's not constitutional to allow the restrictions and maintain the easement, the Church of Jesus Christ is going to have to live with its contract.

BROWN: A contract that for now means almost any sort of protest at the church's gate is fair game. In fact, a group protesting war against Iraq has already applied for a demonstration permit later in the month.

BURTON: It was intended to be a cooperative effort on the part of the city and the church to provide this beautiful plaza for public usage. What's turned out to be is, of course, is a test of the constitutional issues involved in free speech, which was just as far away from our reckoning as anything could possibly be.

BROWN: Which is the way it is sometimes with great and important constitutional questions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A view from Salt Lake. A few other stories before we go to break tonight beginning in Boston. The city was chosen today by the Democratic Party to host its national convention in 2004. Boston winning out over New York, Detroit and Miami. If you want to mark your calender, the Democratic National Convention set to open July 26, 2004.

Final resolution. The South Dakota Senate race, Republican Congressman John Thune says he will not go after a recount in his race against the Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson. Johnson won by almost -- just about 500 votes. Thune says he thinks there were some voting irregularities last Tuesday, but he does not believe a recount would change the outcome.

Next, on NEWSNIGHT a legacy of a man and the pictures he took. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, a man to remember, Eddie Worth. The name may not be familiar but many of the pictures he took were very familiar for a very long time.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): Eddie worth first picked up a camera for Associated Press in 1934. This is Mr. Worth as an old man showing off one of his most famous photos to Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair.

Now, here's the thing you need to bear in mind about Eddie Worth. He might have died many times over many years ago doing what he did for AP. He might have died in London during the blitz during World War II.

This is his picture, the one he was showing Tony Blair, of smoke curling up around the dome of St. Paul's after a German bombing raid on London in June of '41. Eddie Worth and the cathedral were both spared.

He might have died while he was following the fighting all through Europe from the beaches of Normandy on D-Day on to the rest of France and into Germany. That's young Eddie Worth scribbling a photo caption while flying into Berlin.

He might have died after the war too, covering perilous cleanup operations. Here is his photo of Canadian soldiers disarming a V-1 Flying Bomb in Germany in 1945.

And this is Eddie Worth's photo of perhaps the most famous tribunal of the 20th century, the trial at Nuremberg, the trial of high level Nazis accused of war crimes. By the time he took this picture, Eddie Worth was already a legendary combat photographer and he went on doing that work and doing it brilliantly for a long time after.

As we say, he might have died many times over many years ago, but he didn't. Eddie Worth lived through it all took, pictures of it all and he died this past Sunday back home in England at the age of 93.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Good to have you with us tonight. Hope you'll join us again tomorrow. Until then, I'm Aaron Brown in New York. Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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; Weapons Inspectors Will Use New High-Tech Sensors>