Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Court Decides John Lee Malvo Will Be Tried as an Adult; White House Speaks Out Against Affirmative Action

Aired January 15, 2003 - 22:00   ET

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

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


AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, everyone. The 15th of January fell on a Saturday in the year 2000. So there was no trading on the stock market on this date three years ago. Which means that things stood on Wall Street just where they stood the day before.
Dow Jones industrials at what would turn out to be the highest they would ever get: 11,722 and change. Almost 3,000 points higher than the Dow is today. That's a pretty big change in only three years.

But then there were other things that changed a lot from three years ago. Three years ago, tourists were riding the elevators of the World Trade Center, headed for that spectacular view from the observation deck. Maybe a meal at Windows on the World.

Three years ago today few people outside the intelligence community and a few reporters had ever heard the name Osama bin Laden. Anthrax and smallpox and the plague were museum diseases of the distant past. Saddam Hussein was a long-defeated dictator doing who knew or cared what over there in his humiliated country.

Terrorism three years ago was something that happened in the Middle East. Bill Bradley and Al Gore were still duking it out in the Democratic presidential nomination battle. Y2K had turned out to be a false alarm. The millennium had come and gone. Enron was riding high. All that was only three years ago.

You know how it is. You don't see some friend for three years, you ask him what's new, and he says, not ironically at all, nothing much. And it's true, often. In three years nothing changes. And then sometimes in three years everything changes.

Three years ago today, the Dow and the twin towers were both at their heights. There's been an awful lot of crumbling in just the last three years.

We begin with the news of this day, not three years ago. And a very important decision from the White House stepping into a fierce and long-standing debate over affirmative action. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for us. Suzanne, a headline from you.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well President Bush had been deliberating over this since the summer. And aides tell us he made his decision today. The White House entering the controversial debate over affirmative action, and when it comes to the case of University of Michigan it is squarely against it.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Back to you at the top tonight.

On to Iraq now, and tough words not from the president, but from the chief U.N. weapons inspector. David Ensor, who has got double duty with us tonight, has that. David, a headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well the headline really is that Hans Blix, who normally speaks in pretty dry and understated terms, has been fairly blunt with the Iraqis tonight, Aaron. He said they need to do a good deal more in terms of supplying information about their programs of weapons of mass destruction. He is under pressure, though, from the Bush White House to do still more, to pressure the Iraqis to turn over certain scientists to be questioned overseas.

BROWN: David, thank you. Back to the United States. The decision today on how to try the teenage sniper suspect, John Malvo. Jean Meserve was in the courtroom today. Jeanne, a headline from you.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A juvenile court judge has ruled that 17-year-old John Lee Malvo will be tried as an adult. That means he could face the death penalty -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. And a very different courtroom now. This one in Louisiana and the case of a deadly accident from the air in the war in Afghanistan. Ed Lavandera is covering that. So Ed, a headline from you.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN DALLAS BUREAU CHIEF: Aaron, for the first time tonight we can show you the view from two F-16 fighter jets roaring over Afghanistan, capturing the crucial moments before and after four Canadian soldiers were killed by an American bomb -- Aaron.

BROWN: Ed, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT for this 15th day of January, more on the White House and affirmative action. Republicans in race. They're in an interesting spot. Tonight we talk with columnist Robert George.

Why Americans keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger still. Conventional wisdom is being turned upside down in terms of what medical pros thing we ought be eating. We'll talk with one of them who says we've gotten it all wrong. Walter Willard (ph) at the Harvard School of Public HHHHhealth.

And what's it like to get the call, the call to duty? We'll meet some reservists being deployed. All that in "Segment 7" tonight.

A full hour ahead. We begin at the White House, where questions of race and justice and politics all came together today. For nearly 50 years now the courts have upheld two notions when it comes to race. That schools cannot use race as a factor to keep students out, and that every effort must be made to bring minority students in. It is this second notion that the means to the end that has drawn the most fire. When does affirmative action become reverse discrimination? When do goals become quotas, when does the principle of fairness become something less than fair? This has been a tough line for the courts to draw and a dangerous issue for presidents to take up.

Tonight, in a case involving affirmative action at the University of Michigan, both the court and the president are in the thick of it. We begin at the White House. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush is throwing the weight of the White House into what some consider to be the most far-reaching affirmative action case the Supreme Court has faced in a generation.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are devicive, unfair, and impossible to square with the Constitution.

MALVEAUX: In a brief to be filed with the Supreme Court, the White House will argue there are better options to achieve diversity than affirmative action.

BUSH: Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low-income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity.

MALVEAUX: Solicitor General Ted Olson and conservative Republicans have been pushing Mr. Bush to take a hard line against racial preferences, to state that it is never justifiable and even unconstitutional for public universities to use race as part of their admissions. But Mr. Bush's political advisors were concerned such a rigid stand would turn away minority voters, particularly Hispanics, who the White House has been actively courting for a Bush 2004 presidential bid.

Mr. Bush won the presidency with 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. And nine percent of the African-American vote. The president ran in 2000 as a compassionate conservative, aware then and now the need to bring more minorities into the Republican fold. A need highlighted following Senator Trent Lott's controversial remarks praising Senator Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential bid; comments that cost Lott the Republican leadership.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Now ultimately Mr. Bush is taking the middle road, by focusing narrowly on the University of Michigan case and not addressing the broader legal question of whether or not it is always unconstitutional to use race as a factor in admissions. The White House is already receiving criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic leadership. Mr. Bush is focusing on what he calls affirmative access; that is, alternatives to achieving diversity -- Aaron.

BROWN: Why do -- I'll apologize for this, I'm not sure it's fair. The president clearly in the campaign made this argument that he opposed race-based admissions. He's been consistent on that. Why this sort of agonizing over whether in fact to file the brief then?

MALVEAUX: Well, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer says it's not a political decision. But if you look at the team that he consulted with, it included political advisors, lawyers, as well as those from the Justice Department. Just a whole team of people who were advising the president on this.

As you know, it is a very politically sensitive issue. The White House -- sensitive in light of the fact recently as Senator Trent Lott making those comments regarding Senator Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential bid. Of course he actually lost his Republican seat as a result of that, the leadership seat.

This White House is very sensitive to the issue. And it was a risk somewhat for the White House to decide to jump into this debate. They decided they would go ahead and do it. But aides telling us that the president was very clear on his position from the very beginning. Whether or not they were going to make a statement about it was another situation, another question they had to mull over.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House.

The sniper case is next. And two days of hearings that have brought back the savagery of the crimes and terror that paralyzed so many communities last fall. There is still much we don't know about the two men who stand accused. That seems especially important when we look at the younger suspect and the kind of life he led and the people who influenced that life.

We will learn more, that's for sure. It is especially true if he is convicted, and then a jury must decide if he lives or dies. And that is exactly where we are tonight, because a court today ruled that John Lee Malvo can and should be tried as an adult. Here again, CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE (voice-over): The path to a possible death penalty is now open before 17-year-old sniper suspect John Lee Malvo. Juvenile court judge Charles Maxfield (ph) ruled Malvo will be tried as an adult because of strong circumstantial evidence connecting Malvo to four sniper shootings.

MICHAEL ARIF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He's a 17-year-old kid, and we are not happy that it is being certified as a death case, obviously.

MESERVE: The courtroom got a first glimpse of the Bushmaster rifle taken from the car in which Malvo was arrested. Ballistics experts connected evidence from four shootings to that rifle, on which a single fingerprint was found, John Malvo's. But defense attorney Arif underlined that no eyewitnesses put Malvo at a shooting scene. ARIF: This is one of those cases where I just don't see the circumstantial evidence meeting beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

MESERVE: Malvo's case is a first test of Virginia's new anti- terrorism statute, which carries the death penalty. So Horan argued that the sniper had tried to intimidate the government. Notes and calls allegedly from the sniper were read or played. In every one, threats and demands for $10 million or negotiations.

ROBERT HORAN, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: We think you can take Mr. Malvo at his word, which is, you want us to stop the killing, pay us the money.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The request for $10 million sounds like something out of "Austin Powers" in this day and age. $10 million is not intimidation, that's blackmail. And it's nothing more than that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: The ruling means Malvo's case may be in the hands of a grand jury as soon as next Tuesday. The judge set a trial date of February 25. But everybody expects that that will have to be pushed back because of the nature and complexity of the case. Prosecutor Horan won't say at this point whether he's going to seek the death penalty, but experts say if he didn't, it would be a shock -- Aaron.

BROWN: Well I guess it would be about as shocking as if the judge had not remanded the case over to adult trial.

MESERVE: That's right. It was widely expected that this was a slam dunk and this would go up to the circuit court. And indeed it has.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. Jeanne Meserve on the sniper case tonight.

Since the day it happened, we've talked about the friendly fire incident that left four Canadians dead in Afghanistan. Two American pilots now face the possibility of being court-martialed and long years in prison over that incident. Today we saw the incident quite literally as they saw it. Here's CNN's Ed Lavandera.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA (voice-over): On the left, you see Major Bill Umbach's view of the sky and ground near Kandahar. On the right is Major HHarry Schmidt's view. It's the middle of the night when the pilots notice rocket-propelled ground fire and people scattering around. Schmidt requests permission from a surveillance plane overhead to launch a warning shot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the vicinity. I request permission to lay down some 20 mike (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's just make sure that it's not friendly. This is all. LAVANDERA: Schmidt holds fire. For the next 80 seconds the pilots continue seeing tracer rounds. A military review found the pilots should have climbed to a higher altitude and left the area. Schmidt sensed deadly danger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got some men on a road, and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us. I'm rolling in, in self- defense.

LAVANDERA: It takes 20 seconds for Schmidt to line up the target.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bombs away (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

LAVANDERA: Another 20 seconds pass, and you see the laser-guided bombs strike the Canadian army unit. Four men killed. Then 10 seconds later, the dreadful words.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boss man, disengage. Friendly (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

LAVANDERA: The pilots' attorneys say that information should have been passed along sooner.

CHARLES GITTINS, SCHMIDT'S ATTORNEY: That's the job of the commanding control to push that information to pilots. They shouldn't have to call and try to figure out where the needle in the haystack is.

LAVANDERA: For the next several minutes, both pilots circled the area trying to make sense of what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were definitely shooting at you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sure seemed like they were tracking around and everything. And trying to lead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had a group of guys on a road around a gun and it did not look organized like it would be our guys. I hope that was the right thing to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA: The first two days of this hearing, most of the testimony that we've heard has come from several of the Canadian soldiers that survived that were participating in this traininging mission and survived the attack. The defense attorneys are trying to establish that the ammunition, the weaponry that was used in this training exercise could have easily been mistaken as an attack from the enemy and given in this moment of combat from thousands of feet above. But a U.S. military review has found that these two pilots did not follow the proper rules of engagement -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just tell me precisely what it is they are charged with. What is the crime they are alleged to have committed?

LAVANDERA: Well they are charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of dereliction of duty. If this does go to a court-martial and they are convicted, they could face up to 64 years in the military prison.

BROWN: And the decision on whether they'll be court-martialed comes when? Do we know?

LAVANDERA: Well, what happens, this hearing will probably last well into next week, perhaps longer, perhaps slightly shorter. And then what will happen is there is an investigating officer over this hearing. That investigating officer will then consult with the general here on this base, at Barksdale (ph) Air Force base, and then that person will determine whether or not the court-martial will happen. So we're still several weeks away.

BROWN: Ed, thank you. Ed Lavandera in Louisiana.

Tonight, ahead on NEWSNIGHT, just how much should we be worried about North Korea's nuclear capability? And how is one governor's decision to commute death sentences reverberated around the world.

And around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: U.N. inspectors today paid a visit to the Iraqi equivalent of the White House. Seven carloads rolled up to the presidential palace in Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein reportedly does much of his official business. It's unclear if he was in fact there when the inspectors arrived.

The inspectors did encounter some resistance. They waited two hours for the keys to a number of safes. No word on what, if anything, was in the safes. A team leader says inspectors took nothing with them and stayed out of Saddam's personal offices.

The waiting for the keys in this case is the kind of thing that tries the patience of the Bush administration. Any obstacle the Iraqis puts out there does. Today the president's national security adviser sat down with Hans Blix in charge of the inspections and in effect told him to quit pussyfooting around. That's one of two stories our National Security Correspondent David Ensor has been working tonight. So we go back to Washington and David for a double dose. David, good evening.

ENSOR: Good evening, Aaron. Well, as you say, Bush administration officials are clearly frustrated. And they are pressing U.N. arms inspectors to take a more robust approach. They want the inspectors to order Iraq to produce certain weapons scientists and their families for travel outside the country for interviews. And that was the message delivered yesterday by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice during a low-profile trip to your city, to New York, to meet with U.N. officials, including Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, who left tonight for another trip to Iraq.

Now, in the past, Blix has expressed doubts that the new interview power given to his team by the U.N. Security Council, the right to take scientists out of the country for interviews is workable. The U.N. resolution says inspectors may at their discretion conduct interviews outside -- inside or outside Iraq, and may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq.

But Blix has said the inspectors cannot force Iraqi scientists to leave the country to talk. And thus far, none have said they are willing to go. Bush administration officials are saying, though, that the onus should be on Iraq. Not the U.N., and not the individual scientists either. That Blix should order, not ask, the Iraqi government to produce certain scientists for travel and interviews.

Talking today about Iraq's Saddam Hussein, here is how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It isn't for us to grab those people and abduct them. His job under that resolution was to offer them up, to volunteer them, so that the inspectors could take them and their families outside the country to Cypress and talk to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: Administration officials say if Iraq refuses, it would be further proof that the regime is not cooperating with disarmament. And if it agrees, well, so much the better. That could avert a war, Aaron.

BROWN: OK. That's the Iraq's story today. You've also been working on North Korea today and the country's nuclear capability, as we understand it.

ENSOR: Well, that's right. And everyone agrees that, first of all, a war between the United States and its allies on the one side and North Korea is unlikely. They also agree about who would win such a war. But the experts I've spoken to both inside and outside government say, if it should come to that, if, the damage to the U.S. and its interests could be quite large.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): It was just a year ago that the president placed North Korea on his axis of evil.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.

ENSOR: It is a danger President Clinton once considered going to war to avert. According to former aides, plans were drawn up to bomb the Pyongyang plutonium reprocessing facility. The plans were only shelved when the North Koreans agreed to freeze the nuclear program.

ASHTON CARTER, FMR. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: A nuclear North Korea is a disaster. We were willing to risk war to prevent that in 1994. I believe we should be willing to risk war now. I hope it doesn't come to that and that diplomacy works.

ENSOR: North Korea has sold to others almost every weapons system it has ever developed. The fear is, if it built enough nuclear weapons, North Korea might also sell them. The CIA estimates Pyongyang could already have one or two nuclear devices. Some say the numbers could be higher.

BRUCE BENNETT: There are other Russian intelligence reports that a considerable amount of plutonium was smuggled to North Korea in the 1992 timeframe. If so, the numbers that they could have could be five or 10 or potentially more.

ENSOR: Most at risk, if it ever came to war, the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, and the South Korean people. Seoul is about an hour's drive from the DMZ. North Korea has 1.2 million troops under arms. It is estimated to have 2,000 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now a ton of chemical weapons can probably put in a city, cover an area of a kilometer or more in the right conditions. So having thousands of tons of chemical weapons is an immense quantity.

ENSOR: Japan and U.S. forces there must worry, too, since the North Koreans have fired a test missile right over the top of Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Many analysts believe North Korea's Kim Jong Il is bluffing with nuclear threats to gain U.S. attention and concessions. But if it were to come to all-out war, some say even the U.S. mainland might not be immune.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They could bring agents potentially into the country with some form of weaponry. Probably biological weapons. That's the kind of thing that special forces would tend to use.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: Of course war with the United States would be suicide for North Korea's leaders, and that has always been the main deterrent. But experts say the danger to the U.S. in the event of some kind of miscalculation is growing -- Aaron.

BROWN: David, thank you. David Ensor proving that productivity is up in the American workforce these days as well.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday night, what's behind the president's statements on affirmative action? We'll mix it up a little bit there.

And later, what's the effect of the government's food pyramid. You've seen that. Is it making you fatter? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Someone once said that Social Security was the third rail of American politics. It isn't. The true third rail is race.

From Fort Sumner to south Boston, people have spilled blood over it. Heroes have risen and fallen over it. Political careers have been made and unmade over race. And some of the best editorials have been written about it. And we count Robert George among those who has done incisive writing these days.

His columns appear in the "New York Post" and in the "National Review." And we're always glad to have him back with us. Nice to see you.

ROBERT GEORGE, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK POST": Flattery will you get you everywhere, Aaron. Thank you.

BROWN: We'll keep working on it. You know we're all over the world now. You were obviously pleased by the president's decision to weigh in on the Michigan case. Were you in any sense surprised at the decision?

GEORGE: No, I wasn't really surprised at the decision. In fact, once we actually see the brief itself, we'll find out exactly how far it goes. I mean, he clearly focused on the specifics of the University of Michigan, and I think it's very, very clear that it doesn't pass muster in terms of counting race as an overwhelming factor in admissions.

The question that I think some conservatives had, though, is on whether the administration was going to go so far as to basically ask the court to make the judgment that -- whether race should be used as a factor at all. And based on what the president said, it didn't seem like he was ready to go quite that far.

BROWN: Just a quick one, and then I want to move on. Why, other than it's a nice buzz word, where is the quota in the Michigan system? What the Michigan system does it gives you points, basically. Twenty points I think is the number if you're of a minority group that you would not get in your admission score essentially. But it doesn't say that 22 percent of the student body must be, which sounds like a quota.

GEORGE: Right. It's not -- you're right, it's not an explicit quota. But the question then, of course, though, is it's fine, for example, to give 20 points to somebody because they were a good athlete in high school. I mean, it's basically saying that what you did in terms of experience and so forth counts. The question, of course, though, is whether just because you happen to be born black or Hispanic, whether you should then get an extra 20 points on top of that.

BROWN: OK. But do we agree it's not quotas?

GEORGE: I would say it's not an explicit quota. No, that's correct.

BROWN: And would you further agree -- I feel like I'm walking you into a corner like a defense lawyer -- would you further agree that quota is a word that is used because it has political impact, as opposed to any actual relevancy in this?

GEORGE: Well, we see -- the reason why the word "quota" brings you into this area of numbers and putting a particular number of a given group within a college is -- we admit is morally inappropriate.

The reason why it looks something like a quota at the University Of Michigan is that you're -- again, you're playing around with numbers. You're giving a specific group added points. So that's why it's...

BROWN: OK.

GEORGE: Is that OK, counselor?

BROWN: If that's the best you've got, I'll take it.

All right. Let's go to something we were talking about earlier. The fact is -- and this is true, I think, virtually in every university, I think -- that decisions are never made simply on grades. It's range of issues. I think it's arguable about whether George Bush would have gotten into Yale had his father and family not gone to Yale. There are legacies. There's -- whether you're in the band. There's all sorts of things.

If you would consider all the other things, or any of those other things, what's so terrible about considering race or gender?

GEORGE: Well, the problem is, you know, you've got a body of, you know, constitutional and -- constitutional law that addresses this. You've got legislation. Whether you want to look at the 14th Amendment to the constitution, or whether you want to look at the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s, we can see that race is -- race, and by extension gender, are unique -- unique qualities that the Supreme Court has spoken on.

BROWN: And finally, in a half minute just give me just your sense of the political implications in terms of the issues we talked about last month, and race and the Republican Party.

Is it just one more nail in a coffin, or might it actually have an upside?

GEORGE: I think it's got an upside. Because in both the Trent Lott situation and here, the president came out and, in a sense, made himself the face of the Republican Party's position on this. He didn't send out some lower-level flunky to say, The administration is going to weigh in on Michigan. He basically said, This is what I believe. Diversity is a goal. But the University of Michigan's method is not the way we should go.

BROWN: The witness is excused. GEORGE: Thank you. Thank you, your honor.

BROWN: Thank you. Please come back again.

GEORGE: Absolutely.

BROWN: Thank you. No one's ever called me your honor.

Some quick stories from around the country before we go to break here, starting in Lubbock, Texas, at Texas Tech University. Follow-up now on the big scare today -- some might say hysteria -- over the missing Plague bacteria. Turns out the bacteria wasn't missing, though it was unaccounted for. It may have been destroyed. And tonight a researcher who was leading the Plague research at Texas Tech is under arrest. Police have yet to say what he is charged with, but sources tell us destroying the bacteria does have something to do with it.

In Washington, testing for anthrax at a postal facility that serves Federal Reserve has come up negative. No anthrax. The checks were made after one out of 36 samples taken at the Fed apparently returned a false positive on anthrax. So apparently we're not going down that road again now.

Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, about half past the hour now, 33 minutes past, an American decision applauded overseas, but not for what you might think.

And later, is the government telling you to eat the wrong foods? The pyramid, and more, as NEWSNIGHT continues on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, controversial death penalty decision in Illinois and how they are reacting to it abroad. A short break and we're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: If former Illinois Governor George Ryan, if he ever wanted to make a political comeback, he might want to forget about the people of Peoria. He'd probably have better luck with the cafe crowd on the left bank. His decision to empty death row last week has got glowing reception in Paris and other European capitals, exposing one of the greatest divides we have the rest of the Western world: American support of capital punishment.

Here's CNN's Jim Bitterman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM BITTERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just as every Wednesday night for the past seven years, a small group of demonstrators gathered not far from the American embassy in Paris, trying to save one Pennsylvania death row inmate in particular, and protesting the death penalty in general. Governor Ryan's decision, they feel, supported a battle they believed they were already winning.

JULIA WRIGHT, ABOLITIONIST: Historically, it's inevitable. There will be a moratorium; perhaps there will be abolition even before a moratorium. Why are people waiting? Why are useless lives sacrificed?

BITTERMAN: But the lives the governor spared put him and the issue in the headlines and gave heart to those against the death penalty in the U.S.

For decades, many overseas have worked hard to accomplish exactly what the government did, as U.S. officials can attest.

Felix Rohatyn, the former U.S. ambassador to France, frequently said during his years here, "No single issue evoked as much passion and as much protest as executions in the United States."

And so, in Mexico City and London and Rome, Governor Ryan's decision was roundly applauded. The president of Mexico telephoned the governor personally.

PRES. VICENTE FOX, MEXICO (through translator): We were commenting about the important step that Governor Ryan took in Illinois, which has saved three Mexicans from the death penalty.

BITTERMAN: In Rome, abolitionists were delighted.

ELISABETH ZAMPARUTTI, "HANDS OF CAIN" ASSOCIATION: We believe that this decision show how positive can be the introduction of a legal moratorium in states who apply the death penalty.

BITTERMAN: And on the streets of London, some feel the death penalty can never be justified.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's wrong. You can't take someone else's life. God gave you life, why do you have, like, the choice to take some one else's life.

BITTERMAN: French organizations against capital punishment said Governor Ryan's decision was a strategic as well as tactical victory.

MICHAEL TAUBE, TOGETHER AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY: It's so rare to hear that sort of decision in the USA. In fact, it's a very good decision, because it will contribute to the debate of the death penalty in the USA.

BITTERMAN: And Taube, who helped collect a half million signatures of Europeans against capital punishment in the U.S., said it is hurting America's image abroad.

(on camera): Whether Americans care or not, the U.S. is one of only three democracies in the world, along with Japan and India, which regularly executes people. And it's in the top five of the world's practitioners of capital punishment, in the same company as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

And so, while a governor from Illinois rarely receives international attention, those here fighting against America's death penalty were singing his praises. For at once, validating and justifying their dissent.

Jim Bitterman, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday, the 15th of January, questions about which foods are being recommended by the government.

And then later on, we'll meet a family struggling to adjust as reservists.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, is the food pyramid helping make Americans fat? A short break, will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRWON: Back when the painter Peter Paul Reubens was making masterpieces out of well padded women. Tonights story would have been laughable. Back then obesity was desirable because being fat meant being rich and starveation was the norm. Today being fat is quickly the norm for rich and poor alike.

And the question is, does our diet have something to do with it. Not just how much we eat, although, clearly, that's part of it, but the kinds of foods we eat. Too many carbs say some, too much fat say others. We'll take up the battle of the bulge in a moment. First, though, the bulge itself.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): From kids loading up on nachos in a school cafeteria to adults flocking to fast-food joints. You can't argue the facts. More American kids and more American grownups are fat.

OZ GARCIA, NUTRITIONIST: We eat way to much. We don't exercise enough. We're exposed to tremendous amount of marketing muscle aimed at us to eat a lot more food than our bodies of capable of consuming.

BROWN: In the past 20 years, figures show the number of overweight children has doubled. The proportion of overweight adolescents has tripled. As much as 60 percent of the adult population -- 60 percent -- is either overweight or obese.

GARCIA: We're living through the fattening of America. When you have 20 million American children that are overweight, and that figure continues to expand at the rate of 4 percent to 6 percent a year, it's an extraordinary phenomena.

BROWN: But why? Some doctors believe the cause might actually be those so-called refined carbohydrates, the pasta, the rice, the bread. They're at the very foundation of the famous food guide pyramid. The government's guidelines for healthy eating.

GARCIA: It's getting worse. People are not losing weight as a result of better information and better access to food sources. It continues to expand. Within a number of years you're going to have 70 percent or more of the population overweight.

BROWN: So what to do. There's a proposed new food guide pyramid circulating these days, one that still has some with the same carbohydrates as the foundation, but puts things like pasta and potatoes way at the top. Saying clearly they are not nearly as important for health as we once thought.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: This new food pyramid is part of the work that Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard University Public Health has been doing. Dr. Willett with us now. Much of this was -- this work was originally reported in this week's edition of "Newsweek magazine."

Dr. Willard, it's good to have you with us. I'm going to get to the pyramid in a second. Let me ask you a quick question.

Do we know that the same foods, for example, that might make me fat would also make you fat?

DR. WALTER WILLETT, HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Well, there's really overwhelming evidence that it is total calories that count. Whether they come from fat or from carbohydrates, it's calories. But there's some issue whether it's easier to control the caloric intake depending on whether it's fat calories or carbohydrate calories. So there may be some differences.

BROWN: So there is some -- I guess -- how the body processes these different foods comes into play, and that's what the sort of fat at the moment -- the low-carb diet is all about?

WILLETT: Right. There are many diets. First of all, nutritionists and the food guide pyramid that's put out by the Department of Agriculture told the public that it was only fat calories that counted. And that we could load up on all kinds of fat- free cookies and cakes and it wouldn't make us fat. That probably has contributed to the obesity epidemic. We can't, of course, attribute the whole epidemic to that. There are many factors. But anything that makes it worse is a problem.

BROWN: And what they were telling us in this is, eat as little fat as you possibly can. And in fact, isn't there a reasonable body of evidence now that some fat, or some fats, think it depends on which ones, are actually good for you? WILLETT: Absolutely. Some fats -- and we've known this for 30 or 40 years -- are absolutely essential for a healthy life. Many fats in saturated fats in general will help reduce blood cholesterol levels and prevent heart attacks. There's now evidence accruing that high intake of refined carbohydrates that make up the base, the majority of the government's food guide pyramid can actually make it more difficult to control our caloric intake. Because when we eat a lot of refined carbohydrates, in a couple of hours we're hungry and head to the refrigerator.

BROWN: OK. I am going to go back to the old pyramid then we'll talk about then new pyramid again. If we can put that up. In the existing pyramid, which I think goes back about a decade now, that bottom level is -- that's bread, that's potatoes, that's pasta and the like, right?

WILLETT: Right. And it doesn't make a distinction whether it's white refined bread or what could be a healthier choice, whole-grain pasta or whole-grain bread. That will make an important difference.

BROWN: In your work, some of those carbs are still at the foundation, correct?

WILLETT: Right. I think in the healthy diet, it is possible to have a modest amount of those kinds of foods. As long as they're the whole-grain, high-fiber versions. But unfortunately, the vast majority of that base of the pyramid, that so-called complex carbohydrates are eaten as white bread, white rice and pasta. And is potatoes put in as a vegetable, but they really act just like white bread.

BROWN: Is there within the nutritional community, if that's in fact -- in fact there is such a thing -- is there an acceptance that the existing food pyramid is not healthful?

WILLETT: I think the situation is in flux. Just two or three years ago, it was against party line to even raise a hint that the food pyramid night not be good for us. But the last two years I think have seen a big shift. I think -- probably the majority of the nutrition community now believes that it's time for a major overhaul. In fact, some people are even suggesting the overhaul needs to be so dramatic that we should get rid of the pyramid shape itself.

BROWN: Is there in the formation of the pyramid, and these decisions is there political pressure? Do the rice growers weigh in and the potato people out in Idaho, and the ranchers and all of that?

WILLETT: You can bet there's plenty of political pressure out there. The agricultural economic forces are huge. They're more powerful than the tobacco industry. So each of those segments is out there pushing hard in every way they can directly and indirectly to make sure that they stay in a very prominent part on the dietary pyramid.

BROWN: Eat less, exercise more, always good advice.

Dr. Willett, thanks for joining us.

WILLETT: Good to be with you.

BROWN: Appreciate it. Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard university.

"Segment 7" tonight up next, one of the thousands of American families saying good bye as reservists are called up for a possible war. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, the call. The one that families in homes across the country have been getting and dreading over the past few months. U.S. forces being deployed and the people we'll look at, tonight. Reservists being called up for active duty for the possible war with Iraq.

The country that says -- the call, rather, that says your country needs you, and the consequences for one family left behind. The spouse who must keep the family going alone, the boss left in the lurch, the child whose birthdays will be missed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the count of three, we're going to take a picture. I want you to look at the camera. On three -- one, two, three.

ADRIAN SCHRAUDT, PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS, NAVY CARGO HANDLING, BATTALION TEN: My new I.D. now. It's official.

My name is Adrian Schraudt. I work with for the Newport News Police Department. I'm a detective. I joined the reserves when I got out of active duty. I sort missed the Navy life. I came back in about six years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I need is everybody to break off and head to the bay.

A. SCHRAUDT: The military, they could ship us out at any time.

I went out to the grocery store as normal, you know, the weekend to get things. I came back and I had groceries spread all over the house, and I saw the United States government on the caller I.D. so I knew what was happening.

The last couple of days have been hectic.

BERNADETTE SCHRAUDT, WIFE: The emotions are -- they're running. And it's like, OK, let's get through this, get what we have to get done, all the last-minute paperwork, so I'm not left wondering how am I going to do this.

A. SCHRAUDT: We've pretty much set up most of our payments online so she won't have to sit down and spend a lot of time writing out checks. You know, just make sure she's got a good picture of what she needs to do which basically is everything.

B. SCHRAUDT: It's going to be hard. But I know that I can do it. But I think about what he's going to encounter. And I don't get to decide and I don't get any input or any say. You know, he's my husband, but now the military gets all the say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You didn't think you'd have a big yellow folder like you did in boot camp for a while?

A. SCHRAUDT: Yes, just like boot camp you without the yelling.

We go over our medical and dental records. Our service record. They give us briefings on our benefits to keep our jobs. Health benefits and things like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're basically responsible for the processing of reservists who are recalled to active duty. A lot of our job is to make sure they have all the information they need for themselves and their families to take care of themselves while they're gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Number three says that you meet the requirements and that you are mobilized.

A. SCHRAUDT: It 's going to be hard for her, because before this we shared all the responsibilities.

B. SCHRAUDT: He does the taxes. And he says, Well you know you got the appointment in March. And I was like, I've got to do the taxes? He said, No, the accountant will do it, you've got to get the paperwork there. And I was like, I hate getting the paperwork together.

A. SCHRAUDT: When I got the call Saturday, I had to first notify my police department that I was leaving.

LT. LINDA SPRIULL, NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT: He worked Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. So as far as I was concerned he was telling me that I had already lost him, and he wasn't mine for another year probably.

It has a great impact. And it is a loss. And we'll be working short. But when we comes back, his job will be here. We'll hold it for him.

A. SCHRAUDT: Even though they have to take up the extra caseload, they all said, you know, wished me luck. They're glad that somebody's doing the job that we're doing.

I'm proud that we were called. I feel proud that we were ready. We were trained to do a job and that we're actually called upon for what we were trained to do all these years.

B. SCHRAUDT: The only thing he regrets is that he has to leave us here. But he wants to do this for his country. A. SCHRAUDT: That's going to be hard. My baby, she's going to be turning two in March. So she's going to be more grown by the time I get back. So I'm going to miss out on that.

My wife just gave this to me today. We got this done Saturday. A little picture of all the kids together. And us.

B. SCHRAUDT: It's about protecting us so that we can be here doing this.

A. SCHRAUDT: Give me a kiss.

B. SCHRAUDT: So if this is the price that we have to pay, so that we can keep doing that, I'll do it again next year and the year after that, too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Navy Petty Officer First Class Adrian Schraudt shipped out yesterday.

Good to have you with us tonight. We'll see you all tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then good night from 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





White House Speaks Out Against Affirmative Action>


Aired January 15, 2003 - 22:00   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. The 15th of January fell on a Saturday in the year 2000. So there was no trading on the stock market on this date three years ago. Which means that things stood on Wall Street just where they stood the day before.
Dow Jones industrials at what would turn out to be the highest they would ever get: 11,722 and change. Almost 3,000 points higher than the Dow is today. That's a pretty big change in only three years.

But then there were other things that changed a lot from three years ago. Three years ago, tourists were riding the elevators of the World Trade Center, headed for that spectacular view from the observation deck. Maybe a meal at Windows on the World.

Three years ago today few people outside the intelligence community and a few reporters had ever heard the name Osama bin Laden. Anthrax and smallpox and the plague were museum diseases of the distant past. Saddam Hussein was a long-defeated dictator doing who knew or cared what over there in his humiliated country.

Terrorism three years ago was something that happened in the Middle East. Bill Bradley and Al Gore were still duking it out in the Democratic presidential nomination battle. Y2K had turned out to be a false alarm. The millennium had come and gone. Enron was riding high. All that was only three years ago.

You know how it is. You don't see some friend for three years, you ask him what's new, and he says, not ironically at all, nothing much. And it's true, often. In three years nothing changes. And then sometimes in three years everything changes.

Three years ago today, the Dow and the twin towers were both at their heights. There's been an awful lot of crumbling in just the last three years.

We begin with the news of this day, not three years ago. And a very important decision from the White House stepping into a fierce and long-standing debate over affirmative action. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for us. Suzanne, a headline from you.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well President Bush had been deliberating over this since the summer. And aides tell us he made his decision today. The White House entering the controversial debate over affirmative action, and when it comes to the case of University of Michigan it is squarely against it.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Back to you at the top tonight.

On to Iraq now, and tough words not from the president, but from the chief U.N. weapons inspector. David Ensor, who has got double duty with us tonight, has that. David, a headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well the headline really is that Hans Blix, who normally speaks in pretty dry and understated terms, has been fairly blunt with the Iraqis tonight, Aaron. He said they need to do a good deal more in terms of supplying information about their programs of weapons of mass destruction. He is under pressure, though, from the Bush White House to do still more, to pressure the Iraqis to turn over certain scientists to be questioned overseas.

BROWN: David, thank you. Back to the United States. The decision today on how to try the teenage sniper suspect, John Malvo. Jean Meserve was in the courtroom today. Jeanne, a headline from you.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A juvenile court judge has ruled that 17-year-old John Lee Malvo will be tried as an adult. That means he could face the death penalty -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. And a very different courtroom now. This one in Louisiana and the case of a deadly accident from the air in the war in Afghanistan. Ed Lavandera is covering that. So Ed, a headline from you.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN DALLAS BUREAU CHIEF: Aaron, for the first time tonight we can show you the view from two F-16 fighter jets roaring over Afghanistan, capturing the crucial moments before and after four Canadian soldiers were killed by an American bomb -- Aaron.

BROWN: Ed, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT for this 15th day of January, more on the White House and affirmative action. Republicans in race. They're in an interesting spot. Tonight we talk with columnist Robert George.

Why Americans keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger still. Conventional wisdom is being turned upside down in terms of what medical pros thing we ought be eating. We'll talk with one of them who says we've gotten it all wrong. Walter Willard (ph) at the Harvard School of Public HHHHhealth.

And what's it like to get the call, the call to duty? We'll meet some reservists being deployed. All that in "Segment 7" tonight.

A full hour ahead. We begin at the White House, where questions of race and justice and politics all came together today. For nearly 50 years now the courts have upheld two notions when it comes to race. That schools cannot use race as a factor to keep students out, and that every effort must be made to bring minority students in. It is this second notion that the means to the end that has drawn the most fire. When does affirmative action become reverse discrimination? When do goals become quotas, when does the principle of fairness become something less than fair? This has been a tough line for the courts to draw and a dangerous issue for presidents to take up.

Tonight, in a case involving affirmative action at the University of Michigan, both the court and the president are in the thick of it. We begin at the White House. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush is throwing the weight of the White House into what some consider to be the most far-reaching affirmative action case the Supreme Court has faced in a generation.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are devicive, unfair, and impossible to square with the Constitution.

MALVEAUX: In a brief to be filed with the Supreme Court, the White House will argue there are better options to achieve diversity than affirmative action.

BUSH: Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low-income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity.

MALVEAUX: Solicitor General Ted Olson and conservative Republicans have been pushing Mr. Bush to take a hard line against racial preferences, to state that it is never justifiable and even unconstitutional for public universities to use race as part of their admissions. But Mr. Bush's political advisors were concerned such a rigid stand would turn away minority voters, particularly Hispanics, who the White House has been actively courting for a Bush 2004 presidential bid.

Mr. Bush won the presidency with 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. And nine percent of the African-American vote. The president ran in 2000 as a compassionate conservative, aware then and now the need to bring more minorities into the Republican fold. A need highlighted following Senator Trent Lott's controversial remarks praising Senator Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential bid; comments that cost Lott the Republican leadership.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Now ultimately Mr. Bush is taking the middle road, by focusing narrowly on the University of Michigan case and not addressing the broader legal question of whether or not it is always unconstitutional to use race as a factor in admissions. The White House is already receiving criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic leadership. Mr. Bush is focusing on what he calls affirmative access; that is, alternatives to achieving diversity -- Aaron.

BROWN: Why do -- I'll apologize for this, I'm not sure it's fair. The president clearly in the campaign made this argument that he opposed race-based admissions. He's been consistent on that. Why this sort of agonizing over whether in fact to file the brief then?

MALVEAUX: Well, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer says it's not a political decision. But if you look at the team that he consulted with, it included political advisors, lawyers, as well as those from the Justice Department. Just a whole team of people who were advising the president on this.

As you know, it is a very politically sensitive issue. The White House -- sensitive in light of the fact recently as Senator Trent Lott making those comments regarding Senator Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential bid. Of course he actually lost his Republican seat as a result of that, the leadership seat.

This White House is very sensitive to the issue. And it was a risk somewhat for the White House to decide to jump into this debate. They decided they would go ahead and do it. But aides telling us that the president was very clear on his position from the very beginning. Whether or not they were going to make a statement about it was another situation, another question they had to mull over.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House.

The sniper case is next. And two days of hearings that have brought back the savagery of the crimes and terror that paralyzed so many communities last fall. There is still much we don't know about the two men who stand accused. That seems especially important when we look at the younger suspect and the kind of life he led and the people who influenced that life.

We will learn more, that's for sure. It is especially true if he is convicted, and then a jury must decide if he lives or dies. And that is exactly where we are tonight, because a court today ruled that John Lee Malvo can and should be tried as an adult. Here again, CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE (voice-over): The path to a possible death penalty is now open before 17-year-old sniper suspect John Lee Malvo. Juvenile court judge Charles Maxfield (ph) ruled Malvo will be tried as an adult because of strong circumstantial evidence connecting Malvo to four sniper shootings.

MICHAEL ARIF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He's a 17-year-old kid, and we are not happy that it is being certified as a death case, obviously.

MESERVE: The courtroom got a first glimpse of the Bushmaster rifle taken from the car in which Malvo was arrested. Ballistics experts connected evidence from four shootings to that rifle, on which a single fingerprint was found, John Malvo's. But defense attorney Arif underlined that no eyewitnesses put Malvo at a shooting scene. ARIF: This is one of those cases where I just don't see the circumstantial evidence meeting beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

MESERVE: Malvo's case is a first test of Virginia's new anti- terrorism statute, which carries the death penalty. So Horan argued that the sniper had tried to intimidate the government. Notes and calls allegedly from the sniper were read or played. In every one, threats and demands for $10 million or negotiations.

ROBERT HORAN, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: We think you can take Mr. Malvo at his word, which is, you want us to stop the killing, pay us the money.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The request for $10 million sounds like something out of "Austin Powers" in this day and age. $10 million is not intimidation, that's blackmail. And it's nothing more than that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: The ruling means Malvo's case may be in the hands of a grand jury as soon as next Tuesday. The judge set a trial date of February 25. But everybody expects that that will have to be pushed back because of the nature and complexity of the case. Prosecutor Horan won't say at this point whether he's going to seek the death penalty, but experts say if he didn't, it would be a shock -- Aaron.

BROWN: Well I guess it would be about as shocking as if the judge had not remanded the case over to adult trial.

MESERVE: That's right. It was widely expected that this was a slam dunk and this would go up to the circuit court. And indeed it has.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. Jeanne Meserve on the sniper case tonight.

Since the day it happened, we've talked about the friendly fire incident that left four Canadians dead in Afghanistan. Two American pilots now face the possibility of being court-martialed and long years in prison over that incident. Today we saw the incident quite literally as they saw it. Here's CNN's Ed Lavandera.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA (voice-over): On the left, you see Major Bill Umbach's view of the sky and ground near Kandahar. On the right is Major HHarry Schmidt's view. It's the middle of the night when the pilots notice rocket-propelled ground fire and people scattering around. Schmidt requests permission from a surveillance plane overhead to launch a warning shot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the vicinity. I request permission to lay down some 20 mike (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's just make sure that it's not friendly. This is all. LAVANDERA: Schmidt holds fire. For the next 80 seconds the pilots continue seeing tracer rounds. A military review found the pilots should have climbed to a higher altitude and left the area. Schmidt sensed deadly danger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got some men on a road, and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us. I'm rolling in, in self- defense.

LAVANDERA: It takes 20 seconds for Schmidt to line up the target.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bombs away (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

LAVANDERA: Another 20 seconds pass, and you see the laser-guided bombs strike the Canadian army unit. Four men killed. Then 10 seconds later, the dreadful words.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boss man, disengage. Friendly (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

LAVANDERA: The pilots' attorneys say that information should have been passed along sooner.

CHARLES GITTINS, SCHMIDT'S ATTORNEY: That's the job of the commanding control to push that information to pilots. They shouldn't have to call and try to figure out where the needle in the haystack is.

LAVANDERA: For the next several minutes, both pilots circled the area trying to make sense of what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were definitely shooting at you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sure seemed like they were tracking around and everything. And trying to lead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had a group of guys on a road around a gun and it did not look organized like it would be our guys. I hope that was the right thing to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA: The first two days of this hearing, most of the testimony that we've heard has come from several of the Canadian soldiers that survived that were participating in this traininging mission and survived the attack. The defense attorneys are trying to establish that the ammunition, the weaponry that was used in this training exercise could have easily been mistaken as an attack from the enemy and given in this moment of combat from thousands of feet above. But a U.S. military review has found that these two pilots did not follow the proper rules of engagement -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just tell me precisely what it is they are charged with. What is the crime they are alleged to have committed?

LAVANDERA: Well they are charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of dereliction of duty. If this does go to a court-martial and they are convicted, they could face up to 64 years in the military prison.

BROWN: And the decision on whether they'll be court-martialed comes when? Do we know?

LAVANDERA: Well, what happens, this hearing will probably last well into next week, perhaps longer, perhaps slightly shorter. And then what will happen is there is an investigating officer over this hearing. That investigating officer will then consult with the general here on this base, at Barksdale (ph) Air Force base, and then that person will determine whether or not the court-martial will happen. So we're still several weeks away.

BROWN: Ed, thank you. Ed Lavandera in Louisiana.

Tonight, ahead on NEWSNIGHT, just how much should we be worried about North Korea's nuclear capability? And how is one governor's decision to commute death sentences reverberated around the world.

And around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: U.N. inspectors today paid a visit to the Iraqi equivalent of the White House. Seven carloads rolled up to the presidential palace in Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein reportedly does much of his official business. It's unclear if he was in fact there when the inspectors arrived.

The inspectors did encounter some resistance. They waited two hours for the keys to a number of safes. No word on what, if anything, was in the safes. A team leader says inspectors took nothing with them and stayed out of Saddam's personal offices.

The waiting for the keys in this case is the kind of thing that tries the patience of the Bush administration. Any obstacle the Iraqis puts out there does. Today the president's national security adviser sat down with Hans Blix in charge of the inspections and in effect told him to quit pussyfooting around. That's one of two stories our National Security Correspondent David Ensor has been working tonight. So we go back to Washington and David for a double dose. David, good evening.

ENSOR: Good evening, Aaron. Well, as you say, Bush administration officials are clearly frustrated. And they are pressing U.N. arms inspectors to take a more robust approach. They want the inspectors to order Iraq to produce certain weapons scientists and their families for travel outside the country for interviews. And that was the message delivered yesterday by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice during a low-profile trip to your city, to New York, to meet with U.N. officials, including Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, who left tonight for another trip to Iraq.

Now, in the past, Blix has expressed doubts that the new interview power given to his team by the U.N. Security Council, the right to take scientists out of the country for interviews is workable. The U.N. resolution says inspectors may at their discretion conduct interviews outside -- inside or outside Iraq, and may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq.

But Blix has said the inspectors cannot force Iraqi scientists to leave the country to talk. And thus far, none have said they are willing to go. Bush administration officials are saying, though, that the onus should be on Iraq. Not the U.N., and not the individual scientists either. That Blix should order, not ask, the Iraqi government to produce certain scientists for travel and interviews.

Talking today about Iraq's Saddam Hussein, here is how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It isn't for us to grab those people and abduct them. His job under that resolution was to offer them up, to volunteer them, so that the inspectors could take them and their families outside the country to Cypress and talk to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: Administration officials say if Iraq refuses, it would be further proof that the regime is not cooperating with disarmament. And if it agrees, well, so much the better. That could avert a war, Aaron.

BROWN: OK. That's the Iraq's story today. You've also been working on North Korea today and the country's nuclear capability, as we understand it.

ENSOR: Well, that's right. And everyone agrees that, first of all, a war between the United States and its allies on the one side and North Korea is unlikely. They also agree about who would win such a war. But the experts I've spoken to both inside and outside government say, if it should come to that, if, the damage to the U.S. and its interests could be quite large.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): It was just a year ago that the president placed North Korea on his axis of evil.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.

ENSOR: It is a danger President Clinton once considered going to war to avert. According to former aides, plans were drawn up to bomb the Pyongyang plutonium reprocessing facility. The plans were only shelved when the North Koreans agreed to freeze the nuclear program.

ASHTON CARTER, FMR. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: A nuclear North Korea is a disaster. We were willing to risk war to prevent that in 1994. I believe we should be willing to risk war now. I hope it doesn't come to that and that diplomacy works.

ENSOR: North Korea has sold to others almost every weapons system it has ever developed. The fear is, if it built enough nuclear weapons, North Korea might also sell them. The CIA estimates Pyongyang could already have one or two nuclear devices. Some say the numbers could be higher.

BRUCE BENNETT: There are other Russian intelligence reports that a considerable amount of plutonium was smuggled to North Korea in the 1992 timeframe. If so, the numbers that they could have could be five or 10 or potentially more.

ENSOR: Most at risk, if it ever came to war, the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, and the South Korean people. Seoul is about an hour's drive from the DMZ. North Korea has 1.2 million troops under arms. It is estimated to have 2,000 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now a ton of chemical weapons can probably put in a city, cover an area of a kilometer or more in the right conditions. So having thousands of tons of chemical weapons is an immense quantity.

ENSOR: Japan and U.S. forces there must worry, too, since the North Koreans have fired a test missile right over the top of Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Many analysts believe North Korea's Kim Jong Il is bluffing with nuclear threats to gain U.S. attention and concessions. But if it were to come to all-out war, some say even the U.S. mainland might not be immune.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They could bring agents potentially into the country with some form of weaponry. Probably biological weapons. That's the kind of thing that special forces would tend to use.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: Of course war with the United States would be suicide for North Korea's leaders, and that has always been the main deterrent. But experts say the danger to the U.S. in the event of some kind of miscalculation is growing -- Aaron.

BROWN: David, thank you. David Ensor proving that productivity is up in the American workforce these days as well.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday night, what's behind the president's statements on affirmative action? We'll mix it up a little bit there.

And later, what's the effect of the government's food pyramid. You've seen that. Is it making you fatter? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Someone once said that Social Security was the third rail of American politics. It isn't. The true third rail is race.

From Fort Sumner to south Boston, people have spilled blood over it. Heroes have risen and fallen over it. Political careers have been made and unmade over race. And some of the best editorials have been written about it. And we count Robert George among those who has done incisive writing these days.

His columns appear in the "New York Post" and in the "National Review." And we're always glad to have him back with us. Nice to see you.

ROBERT GEORGE, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK POST": Flattery will you get you everywhere, Aaron. Thank you.

BROWN: We'll keep working on it. You know we're all over the world now. You were obviously pleased by the president's decision to weigh in on the Michigan case. Were you in any sense surprised at the decision?

GEORGE: No, I wasn't really surprised at the decision. In fact, once we actually see the brief itself, we'll find out exactly how far it goes. I mean, he clearly focused on the specifics of the University of Michigan, and I think it's very, very clear that it doesn't pass muster in terms of counting race as an overwhelming factor in admissions.

The question that I think some conservatives had, though, is on whether the administration was going to go so far as to basically ask the court to make the judgment that -- whether race should be used as a factor at all. And based on what the president said, it didn't seem like he was ready to go quite that far.

BROWN: Just a quick one, and then I want to move on. Why, other than it's a nice buzz word, where is the quota in the Michigan system? What the Michigan system does it gives you points, basically. Twenty points I think is the number if you're of a minority group that you would not get in your admission score essentially. But it doesn't say that 22 percent of the student body must be, which sounds like a quota.

GEORGE: Right. It's not -- you're right, it's not an explicit quota. But the question then, of course, though, is it's fine, for example, to give 20 points to somebody because they were a good athlete in high school. I mean, it's basically saying that what you did in terms of experience and so forth counts. The question, of course, though, is whether just because you happen to be born black or Hispanic, whether you should then get an extra 20 points on top of that.

BROWN: OK. But do we agree it's not quotas?

GEORGE: I would say it's not an explicit quota. No, that's correct.

BROWN: And would you further agree -- I feel like I'm walking you into a corner like a defense lawyer -- would you further agree that quota is a word that is used because it has political impact, as opposed to any actual relevancy in this?

GEORGE: Well, we see -- the reason why the word "quota" brings you into this area of numbers and putting a particular number of a given group within a college is -- we admit is morally inappropriate.

The reason why it looks something like a quota at the University Of Michigan is that you're -- again, you're playing around with numbers. You're giving a specific group added points. So that's why it's...

BROWN: OK.

GEORGE: Is that OK, counselor?

BROWN: If that's the best you've got, I'll take it.

All right. Let's go to something we were talking about earlier. The fact is -- and this is true, I think, virtually in every university, I think -- that decisions are never made simply on grades. It's range of issues. I think it's arguable about whether George Bush would have gotten into Yale had his father and family not gone to Yale. There are legacies. There's -- whether you're in the band. There's all sorts of things.

If you would consider all the other things, or any of those other things, what's so terrible about considering race or gender?

GEORGE: Well, the problem is, you know, you've got a body of, you know, constitutional and -- constitutional law that addresses this. You've got legislation. Whether you want to look at the 14th Amendment to the constitution, or whether you want to look at the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s, we can see that race is -- race, and by extension gender, are unique -- unique qualities that the Supreme Court has spoken on.

BROWN: And finally, in a half minute just give me just your sense of the political implications in terms of the issues we talked about last month, and race and the Republican Party.

Is it just one more nail in a coffin, or might it actually have an upside?

GEORGE: I think it's got an upside. Because in both the Trent Lott situation and here, the president came out and, in a sense, made himself the face of the Republican Party's position on this. He didn't send out some lower-level flunky to say, The administration is going to weigh in on Michigan. He basically said, This is what I believe. Diversity is a goal. But the University of Michigan's method is not the way we should go.

BROWN: The witness is excused. GEORGE: Thank you. Thank you, your honor.

BROWN: Thank you. Please come back again.

GEORGE: Absolutely.

BROWN: Thank you. No one's ever called me your honor.

Some quick stories from around the country before we go to break here, starting in Lubbock, Texas, at Texas Tech University. Follow-up now on the big scare today -- some might say hysteria -- over the missing Plague bacteria. Turns out the bacteria wasn't missing, though it was unaccounted for. It may have been destroyed. And tonight a researcher who was leading the Plague research at Texas Tech is under arrest. Police have yet to say what he is charged with, but sources tell us destroying the bacteria does have something to do with it.

In Washington, testing for anthrax at a postal facility that serves Federal Reserve has come up negative. No anthrax. The checks were made after one out of 36 samples taken at the Fed apparently returned a false positive on anthrax. So apparently we're not going down that road again now.

Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, about half past the hour now, 33 minutes past, an American decision applauded overseas, but not for what you might think.

And later, is the government telling you to eat the wrong foods? The pyramid, and more, as NEWSNIGHT continues on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, controversial death penalty decision in Illinois and how they are reacting to it abroad. A short break and we're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: If former Illinois Governor George Ryan, if he ever wanted to make a political comeback, he might want to forget about the people of Peoria. He'd probably have better luck with the cafe crowd on the left bank. His decision to empty death row last week has got glowing reception in Paris and other European capitals, exposing one of the greatest divides we have the rest of the Western world: American support of capital punishment.

Here's CNN's Jim Bitterman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM BITTERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just as every Wednesday night for the past seven years, a small group of demonstrators gathered not far from the American embassy in Paris, trying to save one Pennsylvania death row inmate in particular, and protesting the death penalty in general. Governor Ryan's decision, they feel, supported a battle they believed they were already winning.

JULIA WRIGHT, ABOLITIONIST: Historically, it's inevitable. There will be a moratorium; perhaps there will be abolition even before a moratorium. Why are people waiting? Why are useless lives sacrificed?

BITTERMAN: But the lives the governor spared put him and the issue in the headlines and gave heart to those against the death penalty in the U.S.

For decades, many overseas have worked hard to accomplish exactly what the government did, as U.S. officials can attest.

Felix Rohatyn, the former U.S. ambassador to France, frequently said during his years here, "No single issue evoked as much passion and as much protest as executions in the United States."

And so, in Mexico City and London and Rome, Governor Ryan's decision was roundly applauded. The president of Mexico telephoned the governor personally.

PRES. VICENTE FOX, MEXICO (through translator): We were commenting about the important step that Governor Ryan took in Illinois, which has saved three Mexicans from the death penalty.

BITTERMAN: In Rome, abolitionists were delighted.

ELISABETH ZAMPARUTTI, "HANDS OF CAIN" ASSOCIATION: We believe that this decision show how positive can be the introduction of a legal moratorium in states who apply the death penalty.

BITTERMAN: And on the streets of London, some feel the death penalty can never be justified.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's wrong. You can't take someone else's life. God gave you life, why do you have, like, the choice to take some one else's life.

BITTERMAN: French organizations against capital punishment said Governor Ryan's decision was a strategic as well as tactical victory.

MICHAEL TAUBE, TOGETHER AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY: It's so rare to hear that sort of decision in the USA. In fact, it's a very good decision, because it will contribute to the debate of the death penalty in the USA.

BITTERMAN: And Taube, who helped collect a half million signatures of Europeans against capital punishment in the U.S., said it is hurting America's image abroad.

(on camera): Whether Americans care or not, the U.S. is one of only three democracies in the world, along with Japan and India, which regularly executes people. And it's in the top five of the world's practitioners of capital punishment, in the same company as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

And so, while a governor from Illinois rarely receives international attention, those here fighting against America's death penalty were singing his praises. For at once, validating and justifying their dissent.

Jim Bitterman, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday, the 15th of January, questions about which foods are being recommended by the government.

And then later on, we'll meet a family struggling to adjust as reservists.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, is the food pyramid helping make Americans fat? A short break, will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRWON: Back when the painter Peter Paul Reubens was making masterpieces out of well padded women. Tonights story would have been laughable. Back then obesity was desirable because being fat meant being rich and starveation was the norm. Today being fat is quickly the norm for rich and poor alike.

And the question is, does our diet have something to do with it. Not just how much we eat, although, clearly, that's part of it, but the kinds of foods we eat. Too many carbs say some, too much fat say others. We'll take up the battle of the bulge in a moment. First, though, the bulge itself.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): From kids loading up on nachos in a school cafeteria to adults flocking to fast-food joints. You can't argue the facts. More American kids and more American grownups are fat.

OZ GARCIA, NUTRITIONIST: We eat way to much. We don't exercise enough. We're exposed to tremendous amount of marketing muscle aimed at us to eat a lot more food than our bodies of capable of consuming.

BROWN: In the past 20 years, figures show the number of overweight children has doubled. The proportion of overweight adolescents has tripled. As much as 60 percent of the adult population -- 60 percent -- is either overweight or obese.

GARCIA: We're living through the fattening of America. When you have 20 million American children that are overweight, and that figure continues to expand at the rate of 4 percent to 6 percent a year, it's an extraordinary phenomena.

BROWN: But why? Some doctors believe the cause might actually be those so-called refined carbohydrates, the pasta, the rice, the bread. They're at the very foundation of the famous food guide pyramid. The government's guidelines for healthy eating.

GARCIA: It's getting worse. People are not losing weight as a result of better information and better access to food sources. It continues to expand. Within a number of years you're going to have 70 percent or more of the population overweight.

BROWN: So what to do. There's a proposed new food guide pyramid circulating these days, one that still has some with the same carbohydrates as the foundation, but puts things like pasta and potatoes way at the top. Saying clearly they are not nearly as important for health as we once thought.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: This new food pyramid is part of the work that Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard University Public Health has been doing. Dr. Willett with us now. Much of this was -- this work was originally reported in this week's edition of "Newsweek magazine."

Dr. Willard, it's good to have you with us. I'm going to get to the pyramid in a second. Let me ask you a quick question.

Do we know that the same foods, for example, that might make me fat would also make you fat?

DR. WALTER WILLETT, HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Well, there's really overwhelming evidence that it is total calories that count. Whether they come from fat or from carbohydrates, it's calories. But there's some issue whether it's easier to control the caloric intake depending on whether it's fat calories or carbohydrate calories. So there may be some differences.

BROWN: So there is some -- I guess -- how the body processes these different foods comes into play, and that's what the sort of fat at the moment -- the low-carb diet is all about?

WILLETT: Right. There are many diets. First of all, nutritionists and the food guide pyramid that's put out by the Department of Agriculture told the public that it was only fat calories that counted. And that we could load up on all kinds of fat- free cookies and cakes and it wouldn't make us fat. That probably has contributed to the obesity epidemic. We can't, of course, attribute the whole epidemic to that. There are many factors. But anything that makes it worse is a problem.

BROWN: And what they were telling us in this is, eat as little fat as you possibly can. And in fact, isn't there a reasonable body of evidence now that some fat, or some fats, think it depends on which ones, are actually good for you? WILLETT: Absolutely. Some fats -- and we've known this for 30 or 40 years -- are absolutely essential for a healthy life. Many fats in saturated fats in general will help reduce blood cholesterol levels and prevent heart attacks. There's now evidence accruing that high intake of refined carbohydrates that make up the base, the majority of the government's food guide pyramid can actually make it more difficult to control our caloric intake. Because when we eat a lot of refined carbohydrates, in a couple of hours we're hungry and head to the refrigerator.

BROWN: OK. I am going to go back to the old pyramid then we'll talk about then new pyramid again. If we can put that up. In the existing pyramid, which I think goes back about a decade now, that bottom level is -- that's bread, that's potatoes, that's pasta and the like, right?

WILLETT: Right. And it doesn't make a distinction whether it's white refined bread or what could be a healthier choice, whole-grain pasta or whole-grain bread. That will make an important difference.

BROWN: In your work, some of those carbs are still at the foundation, correct?

WILLETT: Right. I think in the healthy diet, it is possible to have a modest amount of those kinds of foods. As long as they're the whole-grain, high-fiber versions. But unfortunately, the vast majority of that base of the pyramid, that so-called complex carbohydrates are eaten as white bread, white rice and pasta. And is potatoes put in as a vegetable, but they really act just like white bread.

BROWN: Is there within the nutritional community, if that's in fact -- in fact there is such a thing -- is there an acceptance that the existing food pyramid is not healthful?

WILLETT: I think the situation is in flux. Just two or three years ago, it was against party line to even raise a hint that the food pyramid night not be good for us. But the last two years I think have seen a big shift. I think -- probably the majority of the nutrition community now believes that it's time for a major overhaul. In fact, some people are even suggesting the overhaul needs to be so dramatic that we should get rid of the pyramid shape itself.

BROWN: Is there in the formation of the pyramid, and these decisions is there political pressure? Do the rice growers weigh in and the potato people out in Idaho, and the ranchers and all of that?

WILLETT: You can bet there's plenty of political pressure out there. The agricultural economic forces are huge. They're more powerful than the tobacco industry. So each of those segments is out there pushing hard in every way they can directly and indirectly to make sure that they stay in a very prominent part on the dietary pyramid.

BROWN: Eat less, exercise more, always good advice.

Dr. Willett, thanks for joining us.

WILLETT: Good to be with you.

BROWN: Appreciate it. Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard university.

"Segment 7" tonight up next, one of the thousands of American families saying good bye as reservists are called up for a possible war. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, the call. The one that families in homes across the country have been getting and dreading over the past few months. U.S. forces being deployed and the people we'll look at, tonight. Reservists being called up for active duty for the possible war with Iraq.

The country that says -- the call, rather, that says your country needs you, and the consequences for one family left behind. The spouse who must keep the family going alone, the boss left in the lurch, the child whose birthdays will be missed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the count of three, we're going to take a picture. I want you to look at the camera. On three -- one, two, three.

ADRIAN SCHRAUDT, PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS, NAVY CARGO HANDLING, BATTALION TEN: My new I.D. now. It's official.

My name is Adrian Schraudt. I work with for the Newport News Police Department. I'm a detective. I joined the reserves when I got out of active duty. I sort missed the Navy life. I came back in about six years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I need is everybody to break off and head to the bay.

A. SCHRAUDT: The military, they could ship us out at any time.

I went out to the grocery store as normal, you know, the weekend to get things. I came back and I had groceries spread all over the house, and I saw the United States government on the caller I.D. so I knew what was happening.

The last couple of days have been hectic.

BERNADETTE SCHRAUDT, WIFE: The emotions are -- they're running. And it's like, OK, let's get through this, get what we have to get done, all the last-minute paperwork, so I'm not left wondering how am I going to do this.

A. SCHRAUDT: We've pretty much set up most of our payments online so she won't have to sit down and spend a lot of time writing out checks. You know, just make sure she's got a good picture of what she needs to do which basically is everything.

B. SCHRAUDT: It's going to be hard. But I know that I can do it. But I think about what he's going to encounter. And I don't get to decide and I don't get any input or any say. You know, he's my husband, but now the military gets all the say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You didn't think you'd have a big yellow folder like you did in boot camp for a while?

A. SCHRAUDT: Yes, just like boot camp you without the yelling.

We go over our medical and dental records. Our service record. They give us briefings on our benefits to keep our jobs. Health benefits and things like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're basically responsible for the processing of reservists who are recalled to active duty. A lot of our job is to make sure they have all the information they need for themselves and their families to take care of themselves while they're gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Number three says that you meet the requirements and that you are mobilized.

A. SCHRAUDT: It 's going to be hard for her, because before this we shared all the responsibilities.

B. SCHRAUDT: He does the taxes. And he says, Well you know you got the appointment in March. And I was like, I've got to do the taxes? He said, No, the accountant will do it, you've got to get the paperwork there. And I was like, I hate getting the paperwork together.

A. SCHRAUDT: When I got the call Saturday, I had to first notify my police department that I was leaving.

LT. LINDA SPRIULL, NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT: He worked Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. So as far as I was concerned he was telling me that I had already lost him, and he wasn't mine for another year probably.

It has a great impact. And it is a loss. And we'll be working short. But when we comes back, his job will be here. We'll hold it for him.

A. SCHRAUDT: Even though they have to take up the extra caseload, they all said, you know, wished me luck. They're glad that somebody's doing the job that we're doing.

I'm proud that we were called. I feel proud that we were ready. We were trained to do a job and that we're actually called upon for what we were trained to do all these years.

B. SCHRAUDT: The only thing he regrets is that he has to leave us here. But he wants to do this for his country. A. SCHRAUDT: That's going to be hard. My baby, she's going to be turning two in March. So she's going to be more grown by the time I get back. So I'm going to miss out on that.

My wife just gave this to me today. We got this done Saturday. A little picture of all the kids together. And us.

B. SCHRAUDT: It's about protecting us so that we can be here doing this.

A. SCHRAUDT: Give me a kiss.

B. SCHRAUDT: So if this is the price that we have to pay, so that we can keep doing that, I'll do it again next year and the year after that, too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Navy Petty Officer First Class Adrian Schraudt shipped out yesterday.

Good to have you with us tonight. We'll see you all tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then good night from 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





White House Speaks Out Against Affirmative Action>