Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Empty Chemical Warheads Found in Iraq; Former Death Row Inmate Says Governor Ryan Should Have Pardoned Him

Aired January 16, 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: And good evening again, everyone. We wrote last night on this page about how much had changed in just three years. We write tonight about how much is the same 12 years later.
Twelve years ago today the Gulf War started; an anniversary that was unnoticed and unmentioned a year ago on this program. We had the luxury to do that back then; we don't anymore. Back then there was no doubt to anyone about Iraq and its crime against Kuwait. There were disagreements about how best to get Saddam out of Kuwait, but few doubted that he had to go. The world was behind the United States.

The coalition included 34 nations, including Arab nations. Even Syria joined . The so-called coalition of the willing right now seems quite small, and the British, the best ally the United States has on this, seems to be talking more these days about slowing down, than rushing in.

Well we suspect that will change if things get truly nasty. Tonight the coalition meeting could be held in a very small room. Twelve years ago, when the war broke out, the reasons were clear, the evidence indisputable, and everyone in the world seemed to get it. We wish that were the same this time, 12 years later.

On to "The Whip" we go. And we begin with a discovery of sorts today made by the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Rym Brahimi has been working this literally all day and all night. A headline from you, please.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the U.N. inspectors call it a discovery. Iraq says it's insignificant. Inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads, and they also break new ground when they for the first time search private homes. We'll be talking about what all that means -- Aaron.

BROWN: Rym, thank you very much. Back to you at the top tonight.

Reaction on this from the White House. Suzanne Malveaux is following that for us. Suzanne, a headline from you, please.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well the White House is not calling the discovery of empty chemical warheads a smoking gun, but the Bush administration is encouraged by what it sees as mounting evidence against Saddam Hussein. BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

A follow-up now on the Illinois death penalty story. Jeff Flock has been working that, is again. Jeff, a headline.

JEFF FLOCK, CNN CHICAGO BUREAU CHIEF: Indeed, Aaron. I spent the better part of this day on Illinois' death row. They still call it that even though no one there is currently under sentence of death. And I'll have some interesting perspectives, perhaps surprising perspectives from the men on what Governor Ryan has done.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you. And on to a very pressing question for millions of you out there tonight. Just how safe is your SUV? Allan Chernoff has looked into that for us. Allan, a headline from you.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sport utility vehicles, Americans love them, and they drive profits for Detroit. So why are they suddenly under attack? We will explore the dangers of America's favorite four wheel drive.

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

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT for the 16th of January: sponges, clamps, even scissors left inside a patient during a surgical screw-up. It may happen more than you'd think. We'll talk about how mistakes like this can happen on a day when the president said he supports putting a cap on punitive damages for medical malpractice.

Getting an American story of tolerance out to the Muslim world. Has a high-profile government campaign failed? We'll talk with the advertising executive behind the campaign, Charlotte Beers (ph).

And the revenge of Red Emma (ph). One university accused of trying to censor a legendary radical who's been dead for six decades. A story rich in irony. That's "Segment 7" tonight. All to come in the hour ahead.

But we begin with Iraq. We've said it before. This is a story that can turn on a dime. And in some respects today it did.

After weeks of finding nothing, U.N. inspectors found something. A dozen warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. How much of a something this turns out to be is open to debate, and we'll explore that a little bit later in the program.

But what's clear and what tonight is the debate is no longer hypothetical or centered on classified information. Tonight there's at least a little bit of there there. From Baghdad, CNN's Rym Brahimi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRAHIMI (voice-over): Empty chemical warheads found by U.N. weapons inspectors in old sealed boxes at an ammunition depot. Iraq says the boxes had been forgotten. But they say they're a type of artillery rocket that was mentioned in their latest weapons declaration.

GEN. HUSSAIN AMIN, DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL MONITORING DIRECTORATE: You can't imagine how the American pressure on this commission and how they want to make this finding a huge finding which related to the mass destruction weapons. They were (UNINTELLIGIBLE) without any intention to use them, because they were expired since 10 years ago.

BRAHIMI: The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ammunition depot, about a two-hour drive southwest of Baghdad, was bombed in the 1991 Gulf War. There, inspectors say they found 11 empty chemical warheads. They also found a warhead they say was modified and sampled for chemical testing.

The U.N. weapons inspectors say their findings at the ammunition depot need further evaluation. They say this may not be the smoking gun that proves Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. And for the first time, another inspection team searched the homes of two Iraqi scientists. Iraq says neither was involved in past weapons programs. One was unhappy about his unexpected callers.

SHAKER AL-JABOURI, IRAQI NUCLEAR SCIENTIST (through translator): It is a provocative act. They browsed papers, they were searching for pictures or anything else in order to find any document through which they can condemn Iraq.

BRAHIMI: After the search the other scientist left his home carrying documents. Inspectors say the documents are related to past proscribed activities from the early 1990s. The scientists then accompanied weapons inspectors in a U.N. vehicle. The Iraqis maintain they are cooperating fully with the inspectors and say outstanding issues can be resolved when the U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, visits Baghdad this weekend.

GENERAL AMER AL-SAADI, PRESIDENTIAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISER: It's all going well so far. There are some remarks here and there, some complaints here and there. But we expect to have resolved those questions or complaints on Sunday and the next day.

BRAHIMI: That visit, and the subsequent report to the U.N. Security Council, will be critical in deciding the future course of the weapons inspections here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Now Aaron, that visit indeed is going to be critical. The report that the U.N. weapons inspectors have to hand over to the U.N. Security Council is going to be very important no matter what they say about the fact that it is not the end of the inspections. The whole world will be watching. Back to you, Aaron.

BROWN: OK. One quick question, I guess. On the scientist who left with the inspectors with the documents, do we know where he was taken? Do we know if he's come back home?

BRAHIMI: Yes, Aaron. We understand that what happened was the scientist was reluctant to allow the inspectors to just take those documents from him like that. He insisted that they be photocopied in his presence, and he did not want them to be photocopied at U.N. headquarters. So they agreed on a sort of compromise that he accompany the inspectors to where they actually live, the hotel where they're staying.

They have a photocopy machine over there. They took them over there. They drove all the way to that hotel, had those photocopies made. And from what we hear, Aaron, he was then able to take back his documents that he was very concerned would go astray, brought them back home, and apparently was back home in the evening. From what Iraqi officials told us -- Aaron.

BROWN: Rym, I know it's been a long reporting day for you and your team there. Thank you for your efforts on this tonight for us.

The reaction at the White House today was somewhat low-key, considering the potential implications. That may be a sign, it may not. Given the rhetoric up to this point, though, it was somewhat surprising. With that side of the story, again tonight, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): The White House is not calling the discovery of empty chemical warheads a smoking gun. But the Bush administration is encouraged by what it sees as mounting evidence against Saddam Hussein. President Bush was notified of the findings but is waiting for more information before commenting on their significance. Earlier in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the president made clear that Saddam Hussein continues to hide weapons of mass destruction and warned the end game is near.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's his choice to make. So far, the evidence hasn't been very good that he is disarming. And time is running out. At some point in time the United States' patience will run out. In the name of peace, if he does not disarm, I will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein.

MALVEAUX: This brought on by the harshest language yet from the U.N.'s Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix.

HANS BLIX, U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The message that we want to bring to Baghdad is that the situation is very tense and very dangerous.

MALVEAUX: Blix maintains January 27, the day U.N. weapons inspectors report their findings to the U.N. Security Council, will only act as a status report. But a White House spokesman insists it's an important benchmark in helping the president determine whether the U.S. will go to war.

The White House strategy is to continue to push for aggressive inspections and access to Iraqi scientists for interviews about possible hidden weapons. Mr. Bush insists Saddam Hussein still has time to comply to account for any weapons programs. But it's not much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Now the Bush timetable, looking at January 27, when U.N. weapons inspectors will report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. January 28, when President Bush will give his State of the Union Address. The weekend, when Mr. Bush will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David to strategize what they will do next. And then White House aides tell us, look to the following weeks, the events that will dictate what happens next. They say that's when President Bush has to make that critical decision whether or not the U.S. will go to war -- Aaron.

BROWN: And that would be the first full week in February, right?

MALVEAUX: January 27, January 28. First full week...

BROWN: Yes. The 31st I think is Saturday or Sunday. So, yes.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. So February is when they'll be meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and then the weeks to come is when they're going to look for those developments to see what happens next, what does Saddam do, what does the U.N. Security Council do. And then within weeks the president will make up his mind.

BROWN: We'll get you out of the snow. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight. Thank you very much.

To give us a better read on today's discovery, its implications, we're joined from Washington tonight by David Albright, former weapons inspector. Currently runs the Institute for Science and International Security. And joining us from Atlanta, CNN Analyst Ken Robinson. Nice to see both of you. Thank you.

David, let's start with what they found. Are you surprised by any of this? Is this important? Big? Or not?

DAVID ALBRIGHT, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: I think today's been a very important day for the inspection process. Starting with the scientists going after documents, getting the documents. It's not good that they didn't take the originals, but at least they got the documents.

The chemical weapons warheads, that's another important find. Whether it's a serious violation or not, we'll just have to wait and see. But it does show that the inspectors are uncovering things and they are doing more investigations and trying to get to the -- an answer to this basic question, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

BROWN: Ken, do you essentially agree on the relative importance of what was found today? And tell me what they'll do with these warheads now.

KEN ROBINSON, CNN TERRORISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think what's important is that the fact that they're hitting multiple fronts, that we're going into the homes of individuals. We are going to be able to take these rounds now that were found and there's going to be a forensic analysis done to determine whether there was any agent with them, any precursors of an agent. And they'll check the purity of that.

BROWN: Ken, tell me what you mean by agent.

ROBINSON: If these rounds were weaponized, they would have been designed to carry a chemical warfare agent like a serin or a mustard. Both mustard and serin were found in Iraq by the United Nations special commission during its inspections prior to 1998.

BROWN: OK. So they're going to try and figure out if there's ever any agent, any chemical or biological there in those warheads? Is that it? And what does that tell them?

ROBINSON: Well, they're going to have to look for agent purity. One of the things that we found, the United States and the UNSCOM inspection team discovered by analyzing rounds which were found in the past, they discovered mustard-filled rounds of 155-millimeter rounds and the agent purity after eight or nine years stayed at around 94 or 95 percent. But the serin-filled rounds, they degraded.

So the first question is, was there any chemical warfare agent ever placed in any of these rounds. And then number two, what is that purity? And then what they'll have to sit down and think about is what would the degradation of that have been to determine whether is this new or is this old? Because we have the Iraqi general today stating that this was leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. The interesting thing is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in 1997 and 1998, the 155- millimeter mustard rounds which were found, the CIA finally in 2002 assessed were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war.

BROWN: OK. I'm pretty much tracking that. David, let me turn back to you, and let me get one more piece of clarification and we'll move on. Is what the inspectors are trying to determine is whether or not recently, in the last couple of years, there have been chemical agents in these warheads? Is that what's important?

ALBRIGHT: Well that's one part of it. Another part is just that were these warheads declared? And if they weren't declared, was this just an oversight on the part of Iraq or was this a deliberate attempt to hide the warheads? And so I think it's important in terms of the severity of the violation to understand these questions. And if it turns out that there is agent in -- or evidence or traces of a chemical agent in these warheads, that will be an extremely serious violation.

BROWN: Just a quick question. Does it take very long to make this determination on whether there was an agent present or not?

ALBRIGHT: It shouldn't take very long. I mean, it should be -- inspectors should be able to do it relatively rapidly. I mean, if...

BROWN: OK. So at the end of the day, question for both of you, has this been a breakthrough day or has this event that happened, the discovery of these warheads, has it been somewhat overblown as to its importance? David, why don't you take the first one?

ALBRIGHT: I think what's important is that the -- it was a good day for the inspectors to start showing that they can do the job.

BROWN: Got it.

ALBRIGHT: How serious the violations will turn out to be, we'll have to wait. I mean, maybe there's something important in these documents that are now in the hands of the inspectors. And we'll have to wait for that. But I do think that it's -- the inspectors needed to demonstrate that they can actually do the job. And there's been an increasing number of questions about that. And I think they performed quite well today.

BROWN: And Ken, last word. Agree? Disagree? Want to amplify on that at all?

ROBINSON: I agree. The only thing I'd amplify on is the fact that the Iraqis three times were told to give a full and final complete disclosure. And every time that disclosure was neither full, final, nor complete. And these inspectors are being forced to dig when, according to the United Nations Security Council resolutions, Iraq is supposed to present and disarm.

BROWN: Gentlemen, thanks. I think we all understand what did and did not happen better today. We appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

And still ahead on NEWSNIGHT for Thursday, the 16th of January, we'll take you to Illinois death row, as inmates react to the clemency ruling by former Governor Ryan there.

And a little bit later in the program, surgeons leaving medical equipment in patients' bodies. Goodness. We'll talk with an author of a new study there from New York. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: People can take remarkable paths in life, and this one would certainly qualify. On death row one week, on "Oprah" the next. Such was the path for one of three men pardoned last week by Illinois's former Governor George Ryan right before he emptied death row, saying the system was broken.

Anyone who thought this story had a limited shelf life was wrong. Today it was the state's two U.S. senators who took George Ryan to task. Senator Dick Durbin, for one, said Ryan should have made his decisions case by case. And in that he has something in common with a convicted killer, one who insists he should have been one of the men pardoned last week.

Jeff Flock talked with him and another convicted killer, both spared the ultimate punishment but still very much behind bars.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) FLOCK (voice-over): This is the door to Aaron Patterson's cell, empty now. Soon they'll all be. First pictures of a death row full of inmates who no longer face the death penalty.

RENALDO HUDSON, FMR. DEATH ROWTH INMATE: I think life without the possibility of parole is a terrible thing because it says there's no hope. Do you know?

FLOCK (on camera): And so is murdering people in cold blood.

HUDSON: Yes, it is.

FLOCK (voice-over): Renaldo Hudson doesn't deny he was a murderer. Ron Kliner has always said he was innocent. We sat down with both, men with different perspectives on life instead of death.

(on camera): You're coming clean?

HUDSON: Yes, sir.

FLOCK: You did the crime?

HUDSON: Yes, I did.

FLOCK (voice-over): We first heard about Hudson from Governor Ryan himself.

GEORGE RYAN, FMR. ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: Renaldo Hudson is a guy that committed a terrible crime.

FLOCK: As an example of a man who has reformed after committing a horrible murder.

(on camera): You stabbed a man to death.

HUDSON: Yes.

FLOCK: Watched him die.

HUDSON: Yes.

FLOCK: Why do you not deserve to pay with your life?

HUDSON: I think I should have been dead in 1983. But I was suicidal in 1983. So it wouldn't have made a difference. When my lawyers started telling me they're talking about killing and I'm talking about, oh, something I'm trying to do to myself? Come on with it.

FLOCK (voice-over): But Ryan and others tell us Hudson on death row has turned his life around, even if he knows the rest of it will be spent in prison.

HUDSON: What I know is this, that there's a god. That's what I know. I don't know what tomorrow will bring. And I'm full of hope.

FLOCK: When Aaron Patterson walked out of Pontiac last week, he just finished his good-byes to Ron Kleiner.

RONALD KLINER, FMR. DEATH ROW INMATE: I definitely had tears in my eyes. And I told him, I said Aaron, I says, in a voice filled with emotion, don't forget me. You know that I'm innocent. And he says, "Don't even worry about it."

AARON PATTERSON, FMR. DEATH ROW INMATE: Ronald Kliner is an innocent man sitting on death row.

FLOCK: Patterson didn't forget.

KLINER: He's not saying these names for nothing. There's a reason. There's a reason.

FLOCK (on camera): As he believes.

KLINER: Absolutely. He knows.

FLOCK (voice-over): Kliner denies he killed this suburban Chicago woman in a 1988 murder for hire scheme and is fighting for DNA testing he hopes will prove it.

KLINER: I would rather die for something I didn't do than to have to live like this when I'm innocent.

FLOCK: Two men in a historic group who will soon physically leave death row. One thankful for life, another still fighting for something more.

KLINER: Innocence will emerge from that group, and I'm one of them. And you'll see more.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FLOCK: But Aaron, if Mr. Kliner or others are to be exonerated, they will certainly have to make their case in the courts. I think it is fair to say that they will be a harder sell than was Governor Ryan -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you very much. Jeff Flock in Chicago.

A few quick stories from around the country tonight, beginning with yesterday's scare which involved, you'll recall, bubonic plague. University scientists at Texas Tech University broke down after failing a lie detector test. Dr. Thomas Butler told investigators he accidentally destroyed vials containing the plague bacteria, vials that he had reported missing a day earlier. He's now been arrested and charged with making false statements to the FBI. A hearing is set for next Tuesday.

And it's quite a title to put on your resume, isn't it? Porn Czar. And Paula Houston will need a resume now. The Utah official is out of a job, a victim of the budget cuts. Ms. Houston was the only official in the United States whose sole job was to search her state for smut and obscenity. Still to come on NEWSNIGHT for this Thursday, two stories about medical mistakes. President Bush's medical malpractice reform plan. And a new study about doctors and what they leave behind after surgery.

And later, America's favorite cars under fire for guzzling gas and safety. Are they on their way out? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Today, President Bush waded into the perennial battle between doctors and lawyers and insurance companies, and he came down on the side of doctors and the insurance industry. In fairness, there are a lot of reasons why healthcare bills are rising and doctors are leaving the profession. Malpractice lawsuits and the costs they impose are just a part of the equation.

Lately, though, in a number of states doctors have gone on strike or threatened to do so because they say the malpractice insurance costs are killing them. One of those states is Pennsylvania, which is also a key state to win in 2004. The president spoke today in Scranton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We're a litigious society. Everybody's suing, it seems like. There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Mr. Bush called for federal legislation to cap non- economic damages at $250,000. That's the money above and beyond compensation for disability or loss of pay. He also proposed a cap on punitive damages, punishment for the doctors' mistakes. But he didn't specify a number on that front.

With us to talk about the proposal and the larger issue too is Dr. Atul Gawande. Dr. Gawande is the chief surgical resident at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. A pretty fair writer, too. The author of "Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science." Nice to see you.

We'll get to malpractice in a second. I want to talk about this study about mistakes and leaving instruments and sponges and the like during surgery. How often does this happen? Does it happen often?

DR. ATUL GAWANDE, CHIEF SURGICAL RESIDENT, BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: It's extremely rare. We looked at 54 cases from 22 hospitals which had done about 800,000 operations over the last 15 years. But it is clearly a serious error. It's certainly one that's terribly embarrassing, as well as harmful for patients.

And so what we wanted to look at -- these were all malpractice cases. And we had a team of both doctors and lawyers looking at these cases and comparing them to cases where there were no complications. And then tried to figure out, well, what it is -- what was it that really happened? And what we found...

BROWN: And do you have a better -- I assume you have a better sense. Do you have a clear sense of, despite all the efforts, the counting of the instruments and the sponges and everything in the operating theater, why things get left, literally left behind in patients?

GAWANDE: Well, the assumption, even among doctors ourselves, is that it must have been carelessness or negligence. And certainly that's what the courts rule almost de facto. But we did not find evidence of negligence. These cases in the vast majority of instances occurred despite people following the proper procedures. And then what we found was the tendency was to occur in emergency cases, cases where there was unexpected change in procedure, and also in very large patients.

BROWN: Let's deal with -- let's separate them out. Things get a little surprising or crazy in the operating room, an emergency situation, something goes wrong, and they find something, and people lose track. Is that what happened?

GAWANDE: That's more or less what happens. You can imagine, you have a patient who is bleeding, and you bring them to the operating room and people have as their first priority to get the patient open and the bleeding under control. The responsibility of the nurses in any case is that two of them have to count every instrument and every sponge that's potentially used in the operation and they have to count them twice. And then they do it again at the end of the operation to make sure everything is accounted for.

Well, in an emergency, you're going to do it very fast, because your first priority is to take care of the patient. And you can understand if something is missed.

Now, looking through these cases, we understand. We begin to see some patterns in how these complications occur. It points us in some new directions. But, really, this is almost the malpractice system in a microcosm. There wasn't negligence here. The patients were harmed. Many of them had to go back for subsequent operations to get the objects removed. Some of them had infections and so on.

And so, you had a system which is focused on punishment and the declaration of negligence without addressing how it is that these things happen in the hands of good doctors trying to do the right thing.

BROWN: So, the president has proposed today a cap on noneconomic damages. Obviously, trial lawyers would like to take these things to court, let juries make the decisions. I assume most patients would, too.

Is there something -- some concept here that we're missing, some better, clearer, different way to look at this?

GAWANDE: I think so.

What our study indicates is that errors are occurring for reasons that have to do with the complexity of situations. And we can do things to improve them by focusing on them, not in a punishment way, but in a way that has to do with engineering and really making a science of how it is that things go wrong. That's what we've tried to do here at Harvard, is look at these in a scientific way.

And it points us towards thinking that something like caps is not going to address the fact that 97 percent of patients who have something go wrong never do sue and they have injuries that have to be taken care of. They may be out of work. They may have died. And there may be people who need to be taken care of.

And the malpractice system, at the same time, has cases like the ones we studied, where an enormous amount of money is spent, and yet there was no negligence going on. It suggests the direction that we might go would be one that's an awful lot like workers compensation or a no-fault system, where what you have is, when there is an injury, that patients don't have to go through the court system, but instead would see -- would have a system in place for their disability or injuries to be taken care of.

BROWN: Obviously, the whole malpractice issue is back in front of us. I'd like to spend some more time on another night working through how the system you just talked about might work.

We appreciate your time tonight, Doctor. Thanks. Thank you.

GAWANDE: Thank you for having me on.

BROWN: Thank you.

Still ahead on the program tonight, we're at about the halfway point now. SUVs are under attack as gas-guzzling death traps. Oh, my. We love them anyway.

Later, segment seven tonight: how an anarchist who's been dead for 60 years is stirring up trouble again at U. Cal Berkeley.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT -- hey, we paid for this graphic. We're going to use it -- why are people picking on the road hog gas- guzzling SUVs? Well, maybe that's why.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, this is a program that never shies away from the lightning-rod issues, the death penalty race, abortion. But this one is so radioactive, we'll admit to being a bit nervous even bringing it up. It's about SUVs. And we're not being entirely cheeky here. Try telling a soccer mom, or dad, for that matter, that their beloved SUV just might be dangerous, dangerous to them or other people on the road, to the environment, even to the war on terror. All of these accusations have been hurled from different sources over the past few weeks, including some very blunt talk about safety from one government official.

And if that's not making suburban America nervous just yet, you can bet there's some nail-biting going on in Detroit.

Here's CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Detroit actually loses money on small- and medium-sized cars. The profit is all in heavy metal: luxury cars, light trucks, and especially sport utility vehicles. SUVs, pickups, and vans together outsell passenger cars.

That's a major reason General Motors Thursday announced profit of $1 billion for the past three months. As Detroit cashes in on America's love affair with heavy-duty vehicles, there's a growing backlash against sport utility vehicles.

CLARENCE DITLOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY: SUVs are a very unsafe form of vehicle. They're three times more likely to roll over than a passenger car.

CHERNOFF: Ten thousand people a year die in rollover accidents. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, warns the high center of gravity of SUVs does make them more prone to tipping. Rollovers account for 60 percent of SUV fatalities, only 22 percent of fatalities in cars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In regular driving, they're fine. I mean, it's not like I'm driving 100 miles an hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to keep this. I don't care what they say.

CHERNOFF: SUVs are also under attack for making it more dangerous to drive a car, because data show occupants of lighter vehicles are at greater risk in collisions with heavier vehicles like SUVs. Auto manufacturers say their products are safe.

JOSEPHINE COOPER, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER: The auto manufacturers work every day to do research on more and more safety features that can be added to SUVs. The bottom line, is sport utility vehicles are very safe vehicles.

CHERNOFF: An environmental group called the Earth Liberation Front has taken responsibility for vandalizing SUVs in Virginia. And an organization called The Detroit Project is claiming gas-guzzling SUVs even help support terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his SUV. And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's big. It's bold. It's in your face.

CHERNOFF: New models of sport utility vehicles were out in force at the recent Detroit Auto Show. Even Porsche is joining the parade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: Introduce Cayenne, pure Porsche in a most unexpected form.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHERNOFF: Detroit is simply shrugging off the criticism.

JOHN DEVINE, CEO, GENERAL MOTORS: It's a bit unfair to the SUV business. I think the people that buy them like them, want them. We're selling them well. And we expect to in the future as well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: Perhaps only sky-high gasoline prices and far tougher economic times will get Americans out of their SUVs. There is one thing that everyone does agree upon. And that is, the best way to protect yourself is to wear a seat belt. Nearly three-quarters of those killed in rollover accidents were not wearing their seat belts -- Aaron.

BROWN: Allan, thank you very much -- Allan Chernoff tonight.

Quickly, some stories from around the world: The first stop is Seoul, South Korea. The country's president-elect today calling on the United States to talk directly with the North Koreans in an effort to end the nuclear standoff. He also said he believes American troops should stay in South Korea. And he downplayed much of the anti- American tone of his own presidential campaign.

A new twist in the ricin case: Senior American officials say there is evidence connecting the men charged with having the poison to al Qaeda. They believe the men have ties to associates of the al Qaeda leader involved in the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan last fall.

And the space shuttle Columbia lifted off this morning, all systems go, or everything kosher, depending on which astronaut you ask. On board for the 16-day mission is colonel Ilan Ramon of the Israeli air force. He becomes the first Israeli in space.

Thursday rolls on. So does NEWSNIGHT, with the story of America's attempt to influence public opinion in the Arab world. Is it working? We'll talk to the woman who's in charge.

And segment seven tonight arrives with the story of a dead rabble-rouser and the trouble she continues to stir up at U. Cal Berkeley.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT: more ads. But these are ones for the purpose of influencing people in Arab countries. Are these ads working? Is the program still in place?

Some answers as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Depending on who you believe, the State Department's efforts to use commercials to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is not Satan has either died a quiet death or has worked just fine and will go on.

"Wall Street Journal" today reported the campaign, which is being run by former advertising guru Charlotte Beers had been ended and there wasn't much bang in the $7 million spent so far. The State Department says that's not true.

So, we talked with Ms. Beers earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ms. Beers, the State Department spokesman today disputed the essence, it seems to me, of the "Journal" reporting, which said that the government had abandoned the campaign and that it had met stiff resistance in the Muslim world. Is it correct to say that the campaign has not been abandoned and is it correct to say it has not met stiff resistance?

CHARLOTTE BEERS, UNDERSECRETARY, PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS: I think it's quite correct to say that it was not suspended.

Buried in the article is the truth, which is that this initiative, which is just part of our shared value work, was intended to be a Ramadan offering, the highest viewing of television, a time when people reflect on such subjects. So, we had people in many documentaries talking about their experience of being Muslims in America. So, that part is actually quite wrong. That campaign ended when Ramadan ended, although those messages will have another life, an extended life, because we'll take out the Ramadan reference.

And many parts of the world will be using those messages on their own initiative. Embassies around the world have shown a great interest in them. And I think they'll have a much longer extended life than we first thought.

BROWN: And the second part, the question of resistance? BEERS: Yes.

I think that, when you seek, as we are, almost for the first time, to reach past the government and the elites and talk directly to the people in the country, you are waging a bit of a communication war. And, in some of the governments, there was resistance to the fact that the United States was going straight to the people in their country, in the sense that they called it propaganda. And they weren't comfortable with the idea of airing it.

We managed, I think, to get to -- for instance, in Indonesia, we managed to get to 90 percent of the people with an awareness of these messages. And we were able to evaluate what kind of communication process this is.

BROWN: OK.

And that begs the question. I'll ask it. What kind of a communication process is it? How effective is it and how do you measure how effective it is?

BEERS: Well, there are traditional ways of evaluating campaigns that work like this, that go into broad-based mainstream communication vehicles like television, print, and radio, all of which we use.

But the purpose of this effort is actually to create dialogue between the people of that country and this country. And the purpose of the dialogue is to talk about those things with which we have in common. It's not meant to be a policy communication. So the evaluation rests in: Did we start a dialogue and have we registered the message? In this case, the message was a story about religious tolerance in the United States. And we know this story is a very important one to those people.

What we've learned so far is that they heard the message and they were quite surprised that there are mosques in the United States, that there's a Muslim woman who's allowed to be a teacher and she could also wear her scarf with great comfort. And many parts of the stories, they picked out as newsworthy to them. I think the basic message they came back with us is, can you tell me more? And we intend to keep that dialogue going on that basis.

BROWN: From the beginning, the criticism, the most pointed criticism of the ads, it seems to me, has centered around the message itself, that the issue here is not whether Muslims live comfortably in America. The issue to most of the Muslim world is American policy in the Middle East. And, as you indicated, the spots don't deal with that at all.

BEERS: No.

But that is exactly the reason we're doing these spots. If you listen carefully -- and we do that now -- you learn in every piece of research that, for people in these countries, the No. 1 issue -- not even the No. 3, not even the No. 6 issue -- are foreign affairs. Their No. 1, 2 and 3 issues are their family, their opportunities, potential for their children, education. It's not too surprising.

We need to open conversations with these people on these subjects that are vitally important to them. The No. 1 issue in the Muslim country among the families we talked to is faith. And they believe that we do not have an equivalent interest in faith, which is not really true in the United States, nor do they think we treat their people well.

So, regardless of what the governments think or the highly sophisticated elites know about this subject, it was very clear that people were living with many misperceptions about the way Muslims are treated in this country. That's worth talking about.

BROWN: Ms. Beers, thank you for your time. It's good to talk to you. It's an interesting effort.

BEERS: Yes. Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Charlotte Beers from the State Department.

Segment seven coming up next, and the question on the table tonight: Just how much trouble can one dead anarchist cause? A lot, as it turns out.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It seems a lucky thing for officials at a certain university that Emma Goldman has been dead and gone for half a century or so. Actually, they still may want to watch their backs. Red Emma, as she was known, was said to be so stubborn, you could imagine she just might be able to defy death itself to make sure her voice wasn't being silenced.

And according to some Goldman historians, the flamethrowing anarchist and anti-war activist is being silenced by, of all places, U. Cal Berkeley. Probably the only thing Red Emma would have liked in any of this is the irony.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): J. Edgar Hoover once called the anarchist Emma Goldman one of the most dangerous women in America. Today, more than 60 years since she died, Ms. Goldman's words have struck again.

DR. CANDACE FALK, DIRECTOR, THE EMMA GOLDMAN PAPERS: "In the face of this approaching disaster, it behooves men and women not yet overcome by war madness to raise their voice of protest, to call the attention of the people to the crime and outrage which are about to be perpetrated on them." BROWN: Dr. Candace Falk, the director of The Emma Goldman Papers project at U.C. Berkeley, used that quote and another opposing the suppression of free speech in a letter to solicit funds for the project last month.

FALK: I was trying to evoke the spirit of Emma Goldman at a time when I felt that her voice was needed, especially on these issues of free speech and impending war, which seem so chillingly relevant to our own time.

BROWN: The university edited out both passages. Falk says she was censored by her superior, the vice chancellor in charge of research. The university sees it as a judgment call.

GEORGE STRAIT, ASST. VICE CHANCELLOR FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, BERKELEY UNIVERSITY: We thought that it was, frankly, difficult to raise money this way, that the quotes might be construed as being a political statement, one made by the university. So, he thought that there might be a better way to do this.

BROWN: Emma Goldman was a searing critic of the American social agenda and was eventually deported to her native Russia for her opposition to World War I. Her papers have been housed at Berkeley since 1980.

RONALD COLLINS, THE FREEDOM FORUM: It is precisely because Emma Goldman was political. It is precisely because she was a revolutionary who opposed the draft. It is those things that the university finds objectionable. And when, in response to that, it uses its censorial powers, the First Amendment is always involved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIO SAVIO, STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: Be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone, we're human beings!

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Berkeley, of course, is no stranger to wars of words. Students shut down the school during the '60s, protesting their free speech rights. Yet, despite the university's own recent history, administrators admit they only considered the relevance of the First Amendment in hindsight.

In a statement, Berkeley's chancellor, Robert M. Berdahl, said: "The question that has arisen was originally seen not as a free speech issue, but as a question by the associate vice chancellor over what was appropriate in a fund-raising letter. I can understand how others might view it differently. And, in retrospect, had we to do it over, we would have done it differently."

STRAIT: This university has already committed more than $1 million to this project and looks forward to when it is eventually completed. This is a very important part of the kind of research that is done here at the University of California, Berkeley.

BROWN: Dr. Falk is exercising her own right to free speech, perhaps as Emma Goldman would have. She's printed and mailed an alternate version of the fund-raising letter at her own expense.

FALK: I feel that my work as a historian is to present her position and to present it powerfully and forcefully and to allow, in her spirit, independent thought and to allow people to think critically, whether they agree or not.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: That's our report for tonight. I hope you're back tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time.

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





Inmate Says Governor Ryan Should Have Pardoned Him>


Aired January 16, 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: And good evening again, everyone. We wrote last night on this page about how much had changed in just three years. We write tonight about how much is the same 12 years later.
Twelve years ago today the Gulf War started; an anniversary that was unnoticed and unmentioned a year ago on this program. We had the luxury to do that back then; we don't anymore. Back then there was no doubt to anyone about Iraq and its crime against Kuwait. There were disagreements about how best to get Saddam out of Kuwait, but few doubted that he had to go. The world was behind the United States.

The coalition included 34 nations, including Arab nations. Even Syria joined . The so-called coalition of the willing right now seems quite small, and the British, the best ally the United States has on this, seems to be talking more these days about slowing down, than rushing in.

Well we suspect that will change if things get truly nasty. Tonight the coalition meeting could be held in a very small room. Twelve years ago, when the war broke out, the reasons were clear, the evidence indisputable, and everyone in the world seemed to get it. We wish that were the same this time, 12 years later.

On to "The Whip" we go. And we begin with a discovery of sorts today made by the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Rym Brahimi has been working this literally all day and all night. A headline from you, please.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the U.N. inspectors call it a discovery. Iraq says it's insignificant. Inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads, and they also break new ground when they for the first time search private homes. We'll be talking about what all that means -- Aaron.

BROWN: Rym, thank you very much. Back to you at the top tonight.

Reaction on this from the White House. Suzanne Malveaux is following that for us. Suzanne, a headline from you, please.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well the White House is not calling the discovery of empty chemical warheads a smoking gun, but the Bush administration is encouraged by what it sees as mounting evidence against Saddam Hussein. BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

A follow-up now on the Illinois death penalty story. Jeff Flock has been working that, is again. Jeff, a headline.

JEFF FLOCK, CNN CHICAGO BUREAU CHIEF: Indeed, Aaron. I spent the better part of this day on Illinois' death row. They still call it that even though no one there is currently under sentence of death. And I'll have some interesting perspectives, perhaps surprising perspectives from the men on what Governor Ryan has done.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you. And on to a very pressing question for millions of you out there tonight. Just how safe is your SUV? Allan Chernoff has looked into that for us. Allan, a headline from you.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sport utility vehicles, Americans love them, and they drive profits for Detroit. So why are they suddenly under attack? We will explore the dangers of America's favorite four wheel drive.

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

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT for the 16th of January: sponges, clamps, even scissors left inside a patient during a surgical screw-up. It may happen more than you'd think. We'll talk about how mistakes like this can happen on a day when the president said he supports putting a cap on punitive damages for medical malpractice.

Getting an American story of tolerance out to the Muslim world. Has a high-profile government campaign failed? We'll talk with the advertising executive behind the campaign, Charlotte Beers (ph).

And the revenge of Red Emma (ph). One university accused of trying to censor a legendary radical who's been dead for six decades. A story rich in irony. That's "Segment 7" tonight. All to come in the hour ahead.

But we begin with Iraq. We've said it before. This is a story that can turn on a dime. And in some respects today it did.

After weeks of finding nothing, U.N. inspectors found something. A dozen warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. How much of a something this turns out to be is open to debate, and we'll explore that a little bit later in the program.

But what's clear and what tonight is the debate is no longer hypothetical or centered on classified information. Tonight there's at least a little bit of there there. From Baghdad, CNN's Rym Brahimi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRAHIMI (voice-over): Empty chemical warheads found by U.N. weapons inspectors in old sealed boxes at an ammunition depot. Iraq says the boxes had been forgotten. But they say they're a type of artillery rocket that was mentioned in their latest weapons declaration.

GEN. HUSSAIN AMIN, DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL MONITORING DIRECTORATE: You can't imagine how the American pressure on this commission and how they want to make this finding a huge finding which related to the mass destruction weapons. They were (UNINTELLIGIBLE) without any intention to use them, because they were expired since 10 years ago.

BRAHIMI: The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ammunition depot, about a two-hour drive southwest of Baghdad, was bombed in the 1991 Gulf War. There, inspectors say they found 11 empty chemical warheads. They also found a warhead they say was modified and sampled for chemical testing.

The U.N. weapons inspectors say their findings at the ammunition depot need further evaluation. They say this may not be the smoking gun that proves Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. And for the first time, another inspection team searched the homes of two Iraqi scientists. Iraq says neither was involved in past weapons programs. One was unhappy about his unexpected callers.

SHAKER AL-JABOURI, IRAQI NUCLEAR SCIENTIST (through translator): It is a provocative act. They browsed papers, they were searching for pictures or anything else in order to find any document through which they can condemn Iraq.

BRAHIMI: After the search the other scientist left his home carrying documents. Inspectors say the documents are related to past proscribed activities from the early 1990s. The scientists then accompanied weapons inspectors in a U.N. vehicle. The Iraqis maintain they are cooperating fully with the inspectors and say outstanding issues can be resolved when the U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, visits Baghdad this weekend.

GENERAL AMER AL-SAADI, PRESIDENTIAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISER: It's all going well so far. There are some remarks here and there, some complaints here and there. But we expect to have resolved those questions or complaints on Sunday and the next day.

BRAHIMI: That visit, and the subsequent report to the U.N. Security Council, will be critical in deciding the future course of the weapons inspections here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Now Aaron, that visit indeed is going to be critical. The report that the U.N. weapons inspectors have to hand over to the U.N. Security Council is going to be very important no matter what they say about the fact that it is not the end of the inspections. The whole world will be watching. Back to you, Aaron.

BROWN: OK. One quick question, I guess. On the scientist who left with the inspectors with the documents, do we know where he was taken? Do we know if he's come back home?

BRAHIMI: Yes, Aaron. We understand that what happened was the scientist was reluctant to allow the inspectors to just take those documents from him like that. He insisted that they be photocopied in his presence, and he did not want them to be photocopied at U.N. headquarters. So they agreed on a sort of compromise that he accompany the inspectors to where they actually live, the hotel where they're staying.

They have a photocopy machine over there. They took them over there. They drove all the way to that hotel, had those photocopies made. And from what we hear, Aaron, he was then able to take back his documents that he was very concerned would go astray, brought them back home, and apparently was back home in the evening. From what Iraqi officials told us -- Aaron.

BROWN: Rym, I know it's been a long reporting day for you and your team there. Thank you for your efforts on this tonight for us.

The reaction at the White House today was somewhat low-key, considering the potential implications. That may be a sign, it may not. Given the rhetoric up to this point, though, it was somewhat surprising. With that side of the story, again tonight, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): The White House is not calling the discovery of empty chemical warheads a smoking gun. But the Bush administration is encouraged by what it sees as mounting evidence against Saddam Hussein. President Bush was notified of the findings but is waiting for more information before commenting on their significance. Earlier in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the president made clear that Saddam Hussein continues to hide weapons of mass destruction and warned the end game is near.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's his choice to make. So far, the evidence hasn't been very good that he is disarming. And time is running out. At some point in time the United States' patience will run out. In the name of peace, if he does not disarm, I will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein.

MALVEAUX: This brought on by the harshest language yet from the U.N.'s Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix.

HANS BLIX, U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The message that we want to bring to Baghdad is that the situation is very tense and very dangerous.

MALVEAUX: Blix maintains January 27, the day U.N. weapons inspectors report their findings to the U.N. Security Council, will only act as a status report. But a White House spokesman insists it's an important benchmark in helping the president determine whether the U.S. will go to war.

The White House strategy is to continue to push for aggressive inspections and access to Iraqi scientists for interviews about possible hidden weapons. Mr. Bush insists Saddam Hussein still has time to comply to account for any weapons programs. But it's not much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Now the Bush timetable, looking at January 27, when U.N. weapons inspectors will report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. January 28, when President Bush will give his State of the Union Address. The weekend, when Mr. Bush will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David to strategize what they will do next. And then White House aides tell us, look to the following weeks, the events that will dictate what happens next. They say that's when President Bush has to make that critical decision whether or not the U.S. will go to war -- Aaron.

BROWN: And that would be the first full week in February, right?

MALVEAUX: January 27, January 28. First full week...

BROWN: Yes. The 31st I think is Saturday or Sunday. So, yes.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. So February is when they'll be meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and then the weeks to come is when they're going to look for those developments to see what happens next, what does Saddam do, what does the U.N. Security Council do. And then within weeks the president will make up his mind.

BROWN: We'll get you out of the snow. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight. Thank you very much.

To give us a better read on today's discovery, its implications, we're joined from Washington tonight by David Albright, former weapons inspector. Currently runs the Institute for Science and International Security. And joining us from Atlanta, CNN Analyst Ken Robinson. Nice to see both of you. Thank you.

David, let's start with what they found. Are you surprised by any of this? Is this important? Big? Or not?

DAVID ALBRIGHT, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: I think today's been a very important day for the inspection process. Starting with the scientists going after documents, getting the documents. It's not good that they didn't take the originals, but at least they got the documents.

The chemical weapons warheads, that's another important find. Whether it's a serious violation or not, we'll just have to wait and see. But it does show that the inspectors are uncovering things and they are doing more investigations and trying to get to the -- an answer to this basic question, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

BROWN: Ken, do you essentially agree on the relative importance of what was found today? And tell me what they'll do with these warheads now.

KEN ROBINSON, CNN TERRORISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think what's important is that the fact that they're hitting multiple fronts, that we're going into the homes of individuals. We are going to be able to take these rounds now that were found and there's going to be a forensic analysis done to determine whether there was any agent with them, any precursors of an agent. And they'll check the purity of that.

BROWN: Ken, tell me what you mean by agent.

ROBINSON: If these rounds were weaponized, they would have been designed to carry a chemical warfare agent like a serin or a mustard. Both mustard and serin were found in Iraq by the United Nations special commission during its inspections prior to 1998.

BROWN: OK. So they're going to try and figure out if there's ever any agent, any chemical or biological there in those warheads? Is that it? And what does that tell them?

ROBINSON: Well, they're going to have to look for agent purity. One of the things that we found, the United States and the UNSCOM inspection team discovered by analyzing rounds which were found in the past, they discovered mustard-filled rounds of 155-millimeter rounds and the agent purity after eight or nine years stayed at around 94 or 95 percent. But the serin-filled rounds, they degraded.

So the first question is, was there any chemical warfare agent ever placed in any of these rounds. And then number two, what is that purity? And then what they'll have to sit down and think about is what would the degradation of that have been to determine whether is this new or is this old? Because we have the Iraqi general today stating that this was leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. The interesting thing is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in 1997 and 1998, the 155- millimeter mustard rounds which were found, the CIA finally in 2002 assessed were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war.

BROWN: OK. I'm pretty much tracking that. David, let me turn back to you, and let me get one more piece of clarification and we'll move on. Is what the inspectors are trying to determine is whether or not recently, in the last couple of years, there have been chemical agents in these warheads? Is that what's important?

ALBRIGHT: Well that's one part of it. Another part is just that were these warheads declared? And if they weren't declared, was this just an oversight on the part of Iraq or was this a deliberate attempt to hide the warheads? And so I think it's important in terms of the severity of the violation to understand these questions. And if it turns out that there is agent in -- or evidence or traces of a chemical agent in these warheads, that will be an extremely serious violation.

BROWN: Just a quick question. Does it take very long to make this determination on whether there was an agent present or not?

ALBRIGHT: It shouldn't take very long. I mean, it should be -- inspectors should be able to do it relatively rapidly. I mean, if...

BROWN: OK. So at the end of the day, question for both of you, has this been a breakthrough day or has this event that happened, the discovery of these warheads, has it been somewhat overblown as to its importance? David, why don't you take the first one?

ALBRIGHT: I think what's important is that the -- it was a good day for the inspectors to start showing that they can do the job.

BROWN: Got it.

ALBRIGHT: How serious the violations will turn out to be, we'll have to wait. I mean, maybe there's something important in these documents that are now in the hands of the inspectors. And we'll have to wait for that. But I do think that it's -- the inspectors needed to demonstrate that they can actually do the job. And there's been an increasing number of questions about that. And I think they performed quite well today.

BROWN: And Ken, last word. Agree? Disagree? Want to amplify on that at all?

ROBINSON: I agree. The only thing I'd amplify on is the fact that the Iraqis three times were told to give a full and final complete disclosure. And every time that disclosure was neither full, final, nor complete. And these inspectors are being forced to dig when, according to the United Nations Security Council resolutions, Iraq is supposed to present and disarm.

BROWN: Gentlemen, thanks. I think we all understand what did and did not happen better today. We appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

And still ahead on NEWSNIGHT for Thursday, the 16th of January, we'll take you to Illinois death row, as inmates react to the clemency ruling by former Governor Ryan there.

And a little bit later in the program, surgeons leaving medical equipment in patients' bodies. Goodness. We'll talk with an author of a new study there from New York. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: People can take remarkable paths in life, and this one would certainly qualify. On death row one week, on "Oprah" the next. Such was the path for one of three men pardoned last week by Illinois's former Governor George Ryan right before he emptied death row, saying the system was broken.

Anyone who thought this story had a limited shelf life was wrong. Today it was the state's two U.S. senators who took George Ryan to task. Senator Dick Durbin, for one, said Ryan should have made his decisions case by case. And in that he has something in common with a convicted killer, one who insists he should have been one of the men pardoned last week.

Jeff Flock talked with him and another convicted killer, both spared the ultimate punishment but still very much behind bars.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) FLOCK (voice-over): This is the door to Aaron Patterson's cell, empty now. Soon they'll all be. First pictures of a death row full of inmates who no longer face the death penalty.

RENALDO HUDSON, FMR. DEATH ROWTH INMATE: I think life without the possibility of parole is a terrible thing because it says there's no hope. Do you know?

FLOCK (on camera): And so is murdering people in cold blood.

HUDSON: Yes, it is.

FLOCK (voice-over): Renaldo Hudson doesn't deny he was a murderer. Ron Kliner has always said he was innocent. We sat down with both, men with different perspectives on life instead of death.

(on camera): You're coming clean?

HUDSON: Yes, sir.

FLOCK: You did the crime?

HUDSON: Yes, I did.

FLOCK (voice-over): We first heard about Hudson from Governor Ryan himself.

GEORGE RYAN, FMR. ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: Renaldo Hudson is a guy that committed a terrible crime.

FLOCK: As an example of a man who has reformed after committing a horrible murder.

(on camera): You stabbed a man to death.

HUDSON: Yes.

FLOCK: Watched him die.

HUDSON: Yes.

FLOCK: Why do you not deserve to pay with your life?

HUDSON: I think I should have been dead in 1983. But I was suicidal in 1983. So it wouldn't have made a difference. When my lawyers started telling me they're talking about killing and I'm talking about, oh, something I'm trying to do to myself? Come on with it.

FLOCK (voice-over): But Ryan and others tell us Hudson on death row has turned his life around, even if he knows the rest of it will be spent in prison.

HUDSON: What I know is this, that there's a god. That's what I know. I don't know what tomorrow will bring. And I'm full of hope.

FLOCK: When Aaron Patterson walked out of Pontiac last week, he just finished his good-byes to Ron Kleiner.

RONALD KLINER, FMR. DEATH ROW INMATE: I definitely had tears in my eyes. And I told him, I said Aaron, I says, in a voice filled with emotion, don't forget me. You know that I'm innocent. And he says, "Don't even worry about it."

AARON PATTERSON, FMR. DEATH ROW INMATE: Ronald Kliner is an innocent man sitting on death row.

FLOCK: Patterson didn't forget.

KLINER: He's not saying these names for nothing. There's a reason. There's a reason.

FLOCK (on camera): As he believes.

KLINER: Absolutely. He knows.

FLOCK (voice-over): Kliner denies he killed this suburban Chicago woman in a 1988 murder for hire scheme and is fighting for DNA testing he hopes will prove it.

KLINER: I would rather die for something I didn't do than to have to live like this when I'm innocent.

FLOCK: Two men in a historic group who will soon physically leave death row. One thankful for life, another still fighting for something more.

KLINER: Innocence will emerge from that group, and I'm one of them. And you'll see more.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FLOCK: But Aaron, if Mr. Kliner or others are to be exonerated, they will certainly have to make their case in the courts. I think it is fair to say that they will be a harder sell than was Governor Ryan -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jeff, thank you very much. Jeff Flock in Chicago.

A few quick stories from around the country tonight, beginning with yesterday's scare which involved, you'll recall, bubonic plague. University scientists at Texas Tech University broke down after failing a lie detector test. Dr. Thomas Butler told investigators he accidentally destroyed vials containing the plague bacteria, vials that he had reported missing a day earlier. He's now been arrested and charged with making false statements to the FBI. A hearing is set for next Tuesday.

And it's quite a title to put on your resume, isn't it? Porn Czar. And Paula Houston will need a resume now. The Utah official is out of a job, a victim of the budget cuts. Ms. Houston was the only official in the United States whose sole job was to search her state for smut and obscenity. Still to come on NEWSNIGHT for this Thursday, two stories about medical mistakes. President Bush's medical malpractice reform plan. And a new study about doctors and what they leave behind after surgery.

And later, America's favorite cars under fire for guzzling gas and safety. Are they on their way out? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Today, President Bush waded into the perennial battle between doctors and lawyers and insurance companies, and he came down on the side of doctors and the insurance industry. In fairness, there are a lot of reasons why healthcare bills are rising and doctors are leaving the profession. Malpractice lawsuits and the costs they impose are just a part of the equation.

Lately, though, in a number of states doctors have gone on strike or threatened to do so because they say the malpractice insurance costs are killing them. One of those states is Pennsylvania, which is also a key state to win in 2004. The president spoke today in Scranton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We're a litigious society. Everybody's suing, it seems like. There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Mr. Bush called for federal legislation to cap non- economic damages at $250,000. That's the money above and beyond compensation for disability or loss of pay. He also proposed a cap on punitive damages, punishment for the doctors' mistakes. But he didn't specify a number on that front.

With us to talk about the proposal and the larger issue too is Dr. Atul Gawande. Dr. Gawande is the chief surgical resident at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. A pretty fair writer, too. The author of "Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science." Nice to see you.

We'll get to malpractice in a second. I want to talk about this study about mistakes and leaving instruments and sponges and the like during surgery. How often does this happen? Does it happen often?

DR. ATUL GAWANDE, CHIEF SURGICAL RESIDENT, BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: It's extremely rare. We looked at 54 cases from 22 hospitals which had done about 800,000 operations over the last 15 years. But it is clearly a serious error. It's certainly one that's terribly embarrassing, as well as harmful for patients.

And so what we wanted to look at -- these were all malpractice cases. And we had a team of both doctors and lawyers looking at these cases and comparing them to cases where there were no complications. And then tried to figure out, well, what it is -- what was it that really happened? And what we found...

BROWN: And do you have a better -- I assume you have a better sense. Do you have a clear sense of, despite all the efforts, the counting of the instruments and the sponges and everything in the operating theater, why things get left, literally left behind in patients?

GAWANDE: Well, the assumption, even among doctors ourselves, is that it must have been carelessness or negligence. And certainly that's what the courts rule almost de facto. But we did not find evidence of negligence. These cases in the vast majority of instances occurred despite people following the proper procedures. And then what we found was the tendency was to occur in emergency cases, cases where there was unexpected change in procedure, and also in very large patients.

BROWN: Let's deal with -- let's separate them out. Things get a little surprising or crazy in the operating room, an emergency situation, something goes wrong, and they find something, and people lose track. Is that what happened?

GAWANDE: That's more or less what happens. You can imagine, you have a patient who is bleeding, and you bring them to the operating room and people have as their first priority to get the patient open and the bleeding under control. The responsibility of the nurses in any case is that two of them have to count every instrument and every sponge that's potentially used in the operation and they have to count them twice. And then they do it again at the end of the operation to make sure everything is accounted for.

Well, in an emergency, you're going to do it very fast, because your first priority is to take care of the patient. And you can understand if something is missed.

Now, looking through these cases, we understand. We begin to see some patterns in how these complications occur. It points us in some new directions. But, really, this is almost the malpractice system in a microcosm. There wasn't negligence here. The patients were harmed. Many of them had to go back for subsequent operations to get the objects removed. Some of them had infections and so on.

And so, you had a system which is focused on punishment and the declaration of negligence without addressing how it is that these things happen in the hands of good doctors trying to do the right thing.

BROWN: So, the president has proposed today a cap on noneconomic damages. Obviously, trial lawyers would like to take these things to court, let juries make the decisions. I assume most patients would, too.

Is there something -- some concept here that we're missing, some better, clearer, different way to look at this?

GAWANDE: I think so.

What our study indicates is that errors are occurring for reasons that have to do with the complexity of situations. And we can do things to improve them by focusing on them, not in a punishment way, but in a way that has to do with engineering and really making a science of how it is that things go wrong. That's what we've tried to do here at Harvard, is look at these in a scientific way.

And it points us towards thinking that something like caps is not going to address the fact that 97 percent of patients who have something go wrong never do sue and they have injuries that have to be taken care of. They may be out of work. They may have died. And there may be people who need to be taken care of.

And the malpractice system, at the same time, has cases like the ones we studied, where an enormous amount of money is spent, and yet there was no negligence going on. It suggests the direction that we might go would be one that's an awful lot like workers compensation or a no-fault system, where what you have is, when there is an injury, that patients don't have to go through the court system, but instead would see -- would have a system in place for their disability or injuries to be taken care of.

BROWN: Obviously, the whole malpractice issue is back in front of us. I'd like to spend some more time on another night working through how the system you just talked about might work.

We appreciate your time tonight, Doctor. Thanks. Thank you.

GAWANDE: Thank you for having me on.

BROWN: Thank you.

Still ahead on the program tonight, we're at about the halfway point now. SUVs are under attack as gas-guzzling death traps. Oh, my. We love them anyway.

Later, segment seven tonight: how an anarchist who's been dead for 60 years is stirring up trouble again at U. Cal Berkeley.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT -- hey, we paid for this graphic. We're going to use it -- why are people picking on the road hog gas- guzzling SUVs? Well, maybe that's why.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, this is a program that never shies away from the lightning-rod issues, the death penalty race, abortion. But this one is so radioactive, we'll admit to being a bit nervous even bringing it up. It's about SUVs. And we're not being entirely cheeky here. Try telling a soccer mom, or dad, for that matter, that their beloved SUV just might be dangerous, dangerous to them or other people on the road, to the environment, even to the war on terror. All of these accusations have been hurled from different sources over the past few weeks, including some very blunt talk about safety from one government official.

And if that's not making suburban America nervous just yet, you can bet there's some nail-biting going on in Detroit.

Here's CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Detroit actually loses money on small- and medium-sized cars. The profit is all in heavy metal: luxury cars, light trucks, and especially sport utility vehicles. SUVs, pickups, and vans together outsell passenger cars.

That's a major reason General Motors Thursday announced profit of $1 billion for the past three months. As Detroit cashes in on America's love affair with heavy-duty vehicles, there's a growing backlash against sport utility vehicles.

CLARENCE DITLOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY: SUVs are a very unsafe form of vehicle. They're three times more likely to roll over than a passenger car.

CHERNOFF: Ten thousand people a year die in rollover accidents. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, warns the high center of gravity of SUVs does make them more prone to tipping. Rollovers account for 60 percent of SUV fatalities, only 22 percent of fatalities in cars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In regular driving, they're fine. I mean, it's not like I'm driving 100 miles an hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to keep this. I don't care what they say.

CHERNOFF: SUVs are also under attack for making it more dangerous to drive a car, because data show occupants of lighter vehicles are at greater risk in collisions with heavier vehicles like SUVs. Auto manufacturers say their products are safe.

JOSEPHINE COOPER, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER: The auto manufacturers work every day to do research on more and more safety features that can be added to SUVs. The bottom line, is sport utility vehicles are very safe vehicles.

CHERNOFF: An environmental group called the Earth Liberation Front has taken responsibility for vandalizing SUVs in Virginia. And an organization called The Detroit Project is claiming gas-guzzling SUVs even help support terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his SUV. And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's big. It's bold. It's in your face.

CHERNOFF: New models of sport utility vehicles were out in force at the recent Detroit Auto Show. Even Porsche is joining the parade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: Introduce Cayenne, pure Porsche in a most unexpected form.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHERNOFF: Detroit is simply shrugging off the criticism.

JOHN DEVINE, CEO, GENERAL MOTORS: It's a bit unfair to the SUV business. I think the people that buy them like them, want them. We're selling them well. And we expect to in the future as well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: Perhaps only sky-high gasoline prices and far tougher economic times will get Americans out of their SUVs. There is one thing that everyone does agree upon. And that is, the best way to protect yourself is to wear a seat belt. Nearly three-quarters of those killed in rollover accidents were not wearing their seat belts -- Aaron.

BROWN: Allan, thank you very much -- Allan Chernoff tonight.

Quickly, some stories from around the world: The first stop is Seoul, South Korea. The country's president-elect today calling on the United States to talk directly with the North Koreans in an effort to end the nuclear standoff. He also said he believes American troops should stay in South Korea. And he downplayed much of the anti- American tone of his own presidential campaign.

A new twist in the ricin case: Senior American officials say there is evidence connecting the men charged with having the poison to al Qaeda. They believe the men have ties to associates of the al Qaeda leader involved in the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan last fall.

And the space shuttle Columbia lifted off this morning, all systems go, or everything kosher, depending on which astronaut you ask. On board for the 16-day mission is colonel Ilan Ramon of the Israeli air force. He becomes the first Israeli in space.

Thursday rolls on. So does NEWSNIGHT, with the story of America's attempt to influence public opinion in the Arab world. Is it working? We'll talk to the woman who's in charge.

And segment seven tonight arrives with the story of a dead rabble-rouser and the trouble she continues to stir up at U. Cal Berkeley.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT: more ads. But these are ones for the purpose of influencing people in Arab countries. Are these ads working? Is the program still in place?

Some answers as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Depending on who you believe, the State Department's efforts to use commercials to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is not Satan has either died a quiet death or has worked just fine and will go on.

"Wall Street Journal" today reported the campaign, which is being run by former advertising guru Charlotte Beers had been ended and there wasn't much bang in the $7 million spent so far. The State Department says that's not true.

So, we talked with Ms. Beers earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ms. Beers, the State Department spokesman today disputed the essence, it seems to me, of the "Journal" reporting, which said that the government had abandoned the campaign and that it had met stiff resistance in the Muslim world. Is it correct to say that the campaign has not been abandoned and is it correct to say it has not met stiff resistance?

CHARLOTTE BEERS, UNDERSECRETARY, PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS: I think it's quite correct to say that it was not suspended.

Buried in the article is the truth, which is that this initiative, which is just part of our shared value work, was intended to be a Ramadan offering, the highest viewing of television, a time when people reflect on such subjects. So, we had people in many documentaries talking about their experience of being Muslims in America. So, that part is actually quite wrong. That campaign ended when Ramadan ended, although those messages will have another life, an extended life, because we'll take out the Ramadan reference.

And many parts of the world will be using those messages on their own initiative. Embassies around the world have shown a great interest in them. And I think they'll have a much longer extended life than we first thought.

BROWN: And the second part, the question of resistance? BEERS: Yes.

I think that, when you seek, as we are, almost for the first time, to reach past the government and the elites and talk directly to the people in the country, you are waging a bit of a communication war. And, in some of the governments, there was resistance to the fact that the United States was going straight to the people in their country, in the sense that they called it propaganda. And they weren't comfortable with the idea of airing it.

We managed, I think, to get to -- for instance, in Indonesia, we managed to get to 90 percent of the people with an awareness of these messages. And we were able to evaluate what kind of communication process this is.

BROWN: OK.

And that begs the question. I'll ask it. What kind of a communication process is it? How effective is it and how do you measure how effective it is?

BEERS: Well, there are traditional ways of evaluating campaigns that work like this, that go into broad-based mainstream communication vehicles like television, print, and radio, all of which we use.

But the purpose of this effort is actually to create dialogue between the people of that country and this country. And the purpose of the dialogue is to talk about those things with which we have in common. It's not meant to be a policy communication. So the evaluation rests in: Did we start a dialogue and have we registered the message? In this case, the message was a story about religious tolerance in the United States. And we know this story is a very important one to those people.

What we've learned so far is that they heard the message and they were quite surprised that there are mosques in the United States, that there's a Muslim woman who's allowed to be a teacher and she could also wear her scarf with great comfort. And many parts of the stories, they picked out as newsworthy to them. I think the basic message they came back with us is, can you tell me more? And we intend to keep that dialogue going on that basis.

BROWN: From the beginning, the criticism, the most pointed criticism of the ads, it seems to me, has centered around the message itself, that the issue here is not whether Muslims live comfortably in America. The issue to most of the Muslim world is American policy in the Middle East. And, as you indicated, the spots don't deal with that at all.

BEERS: No.

But that is exactly the reason we're doing these spots. If you listen carefully -- and we do that now -- you learn in every piece of research that, for people in these countries, the No. 1 issue -- not even the No. 3, not even the No. 6 issue -- are foreign affairs. Their No. 1, 2 and 3 issues are their family, their opportunities, potential for their children, education. It's not too surprising.

We need to open conversations with these people on these subjects that are vitally important to them. The No. 1 issue in the Muslim country among the families we talked to is faith. And they believe that we do not have an equivalent interest in faith, which is not really true in the United States, nor do they think we treat their people well.

So, regardless of what the governments think or the highly sophisticated elites know about this subject, it was very clear that people were living with many misperceptions about the way Muslims are treated in this country. That's worth talking about.

BROWN: Ms. Beers, thank you for your time. It's good to talk to you. It's an interesting effort.

BEERS: Yes. Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Charlotte Beers from the State Department.

Segment seven coming up next, and the question on the table tonight: Just how much trouble can one dead anarchist cause? A lot, as it turns out.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It seems a lucky thing for officials at a certain university that Emma Goldman has been dead and gone for half a century or so. Actually, they still may want to watch their backs. Red Emma, as she was known, was said to be so stubborn, you could imagine she just might be able to defy death itself to make sure her voice wasn't being silenced.

And according to some Goldman historians, the flamethrowing anarchist and anti-war activist is being silenced by, of all places, U. Cal Berkeley. Probably the only thing Red Emma would have liked in any of this is the irony.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): J. Edgar Hoover once called the anarchist Emma Goldman one of the most dangerous women in America. Today, more than 60 years since she died, Ms. Goldman's words have struck again.

DR. CANDACE FALK, DIRECTOR, THE EMMA GOLDMAN PAPERS: "In the face of this approaching disaster, it behooves men and women not yet overcome by war madness to raise their voice of protest, to call the attention of the people to the crime and outrage which are about to be perpetrated on them." BROWN: Dr. Candace Falk, the director of The Emma Goldman Papers project at U.C. Berkeley, used that quote and another opposing the suppression of free speech in a letter to solicit funds for the project last month.

FALK: I was trying to evoke the spirit of Emma Goldman at a time when I felt that her voice was needed, especially on these issues of free speech and impending war, which seem so chillingly relevant to our own time.

BROWN: The university edited out both passages. Falk says she was censored by her superior, the vice chancellor in charge of research. The university sees it as a judgment call.

GEORGE STRAIT, ASST. VICE CHANCELLOR FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, BERKELEY UNIVERSITY: We thought that it was, frankly, difficult to raise money this way, that the quotes might be construed as being a political statement, one made by the university. So, he thought that there might be a better way to do this.

BROWN: Emma Goldman was a searing critic of the American social agenda and was eventually deported to her native Russia for her opposition to World War I. Her papers have been housed at Berkeley since 1980.

RONALD COLLINS, THE FREEDOM FORUM: It is precisely because Emma Goldman was political. It is precisely because she was a revolutionary who opposed the draft. It is those things that the university finds objectionable. And when, in response to that, it uses its censorial powers, the First Amendment is always involved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIO SAVIO, STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: Be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone, we're human beings!

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Berkeley, of course, is no stranger to wars of words. Students shut down the school during the '60s, protesting their free speech rights. Yet, despite the university's own recent history, administrators admit they only considered the relevance of the First Amendment in hindsight.

In a statement, Berkeley's chancellor, Robert M. Berdahl, said: "The question that has arisen was originally seen not as a free speech issue, but as a question by the associate vice chancellor over what was appropriate in a fund-raising letter. I can understand how others might view it differently. And, in retrospect, had we to do it over, we would have done it differently."

STRAIT: This university has already committed more than $1 million to this project and looks forward to when it is eventually completed. This is a very important part of the kind of research that is done here at the University of California, Berkeley.

BROWN: Dr. Falk is exercising her own right to free speech, perhaps as Emma Goldman would have. She's printed and mailed an alternate version of the fund-raising letter at her own expense.

FALK: I feel that my work as a historian is to present her position and to present it powerfully and forcefully and to allow, in her spirit, independent thought and to allow people to think critically, whether they agree or not.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: That's our report for tonight. I hope you're back tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time.

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





Inmate Says Governor Ryan Should Have Pardoned Him>