Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Al Qaeda's Attack in Saudi Arabia May Backfire; Supreme Court to Hear Guantanamo Bay Detainees' Appeal

Aired November 10, 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, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.
There were plenty of warning signs. We reported some of them last Friday but for all the signs that an attack was coming in Saudi Arabia in the end it was unstoppable.

The Saudis, many believe, haven't always done all they could to deal with al Qaeda. That was as long as the terrorists didn't attack the kingdom. It was sort of live and let live. Now for the second time in a year the kingdom has been the target and whatever deal may have been in place seems gone.

A shaken Saudi Arabia leads the program and begins the whip. We start with the latest on the intelligence that predicted the Saudi attack, our National Security Correspondent David Ensor with that in Washington, David a headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the intelligence is getting pretty good in a general sense. They were able to predict that there would be an attack in these days. They were able to do the same thing last May but both times they were not able to say where exactly the attacks would take place so they did work protecting the embassy and other areas but the attacks went ahead anyway -- Aaron.

BROWN: David, thank you. We'll get to you early tonight.

Now, to Saudi Arabia where the investigation continues into that bombing, Nic Robertson is on the videophone, Nic a headline.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a new revelation from Saudi government sources here. They've been interrogating some al Qaeda suspects. They believe that al Qaeda made a mistake in its targeting believing that the people in the compound were Americans not Muslim Arabs -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, thank you.

And now back to Washington, another terror related story this time the rights of alleged terrorists, if any. Bob Franken has been working that, Bob a headline.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And, Aaron, when the Supreme Court justices decide on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, they'll be ruling on whether they have the right to rule. BROWN: Bob, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also ahead tonight we'll hear about a very controversial proposal on the best way to solve the insurgency problem in Iraq.

Later, just what exactly is the scandal that Prince Charles is denying? We'll give you all the details, well not really but that would have been a great tease wouldn't it? We'll talk, however, with Tina Brown about the British and the scandal and the rest.

We'll also visit "New Yorker" magazine in Segment 7 tonight for a behind-the-scenes look at how those great cartoons are created and chosen.

And finally, after a weekend to rest his vocal chords, the rooster heralds the arrival of morning papers, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with the bombing that was and the bombings yet to be, the first a fact, the second a very real possibility according to those who make it their business to know for even as investigators piece together what happened in Riyadh over the weekend, the intelligence community is already starting to look ahead.

We have two reports tonight first CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): From U.S. officials an ominous warning, the weekend attack is "not the end." There is intelligence suggesting additional attacks could come in Saudi Arabia at any time.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: That's a continuing threat.

ENSOR: U.S. officials warned Friday that attacks could come soon in Saudi Arabia. The ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence noted that this was a time U.S. intelligence got it right.

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: There had been a lot of chatter about the probability of something of this sort.

ENSOR: Traveling in the region, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage praised Saudi efforts since the al Qaeda attacks last May to crack down on the terrorist group. He was a fatalist about future attacks.

RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: We, the defenders, have to be right 100 percent of the time and the terrorists only have to be right once.

ENSOR: U.S. officials say this latest attack "looks and smells like al Qaeda" though that's not yet proven and they say the attacks appear designed to destabilize the Saudi monarchy. But with word the victims of the weekend bombing are mostly Arabs and include five children some officials suggest the attack could backfire turning many Arabs against al Qaeda.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: This was a case where U.S. intelligence got it right. The U.S. knew something was going to happen and got the embassy closed and likely targets protected. The problem was the terrorists went after a soft target, a housing compound where most of the residents are non-Saudi Arabs. It was not what al Qaeda was expected to do -- Aaron.

BROWN: All right does this tell us anything we didn't know about al Qaeda post Afghanistan?

ENSOR: Does this tell us anything -- I'm not getting very good audio I'm sorry.

BROWN: Does it tell us anything we didn't know about the strength of al Qaeda since the United States attacks in Afghanistan?

ENSOR: Well, it does tell us that al Qaeda is still able to conduct attacks even after it's had a series of gun battles with Saudi authorities. It's still strong enough in Saudi Arabia to pull something off but either they made a mistake or they attacked a target which in some ways could hurt them. Some officials are arguing this could actually backfire on them so it's not in a way a show of strength -- Aaron.

BROWN: OK, David, thank you, David Ensor in Washington tonight.

More on the target here, from the Saudi king today came a promise to strike back at the militants with an iron fist, his words. Their presence in the kingdom, which had been downplayed until fairly recently is now topic A in Saudi Arabia as well as the growing belief within the Saudi government that the bombings may, in fact, have intended to target Americans, for more on that in Saudi Arabia tonight CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERTSON (voice-over): In hospital the injured helped on the road to recovery. Lebanese sales manager Gassan (ph) doesn't know how many stitches he's had but with well wishers and good care he says he's already getting better.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the most important that we are, we get out alive just to be able to walk and to continue our life.

ROBERTSON: In another ward, Alia (ph) also Lebanese explains it was realizing her son had survived that made her fight for her own life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And he was sitting there without even one scratch. Then he asked me how you are sitting like that.

ROBERTSON: But trauma here is more than skin deep. Her husband remembers less his few memories already hardening into mental scars. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I still hear my neighbor calling me for help and calling me to save his children.

ROBERTSON: Egyptian pharmacist Amir (ph) hid his children behind a couch when the attack started. They escaped unhurt but profoundly shaken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody who (unintelligible) through that night would have to reevaluate his life in general and I'm staying in (unintelligible) right now, I'm not sure really if it's safe or not.

ROBERTSON: He's not alone. Businessmen like expatriate Jordanian pharmacist Haldoun (ph) and his friends who were miles from the attack Saturday now worry Muslims are also al Qaeda's targets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually now we feel that anybody could be a target because we are seeing that even as I told you innocent people without differentiation. Either they are westerners or they are Arab.

ROBERTSON: Among Saudis too that strikes a raw nerve.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not happy about that because this is (unintelligible) Islamic people. These people they are idiots.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERTSON: For most people here it seems the impacts and implications of Saturday's bombing are only now beginning to sink in. According to sources close to Saudi Arabia's government, however, that also may be the case for al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia's government has been interviewing some al Qaeda suspects over the weekend and we're hearing from sources that those suspects are saying they thought the compound was full of Americans not of Arabs -- Aaron.

BROWN: Was it any big secret who was living in those compounds?

ROBERTSON: Well, until about four years ago the compound was run by an American group, by Boeing, and perhaps for some reason some of the al Qaeda elements who the Saudi government believe are responsible for the attacks their information was old. They hadn't followed up. They hadn't checked. They found, as David Ensor said, a soft target and went for it without following through.

If, on the other hand, they did make this calculation we've certainly found from people we've talked to here it has really turned them off from this terror group the fact that they would strike at Muslims. This is not something people here would ever have expected from them.

BROWN: Do you see any evidence that the way the Saudi government is dealing with this, this particular attack is different in any way from the way they have dealt with previous attacks in the country?

ROBERTSON: It appears to me as if they're beginning to learn how to deal with the attacks. The security has been stepped up since the attack in May. They've stepped up the security again following the attack over the weekend. This is a learning process. They're very keen to get the message out that they're on top of this issue.

They've arrested over 600 people over the last few months since May in connection with al Qaeda operations inside of Saudi Arabia. They're very keen to show that they're on top of it but they do admit there's absolutely no way they can stop every attack because they say they're up against suicide bombers and they say that means you cannot stop every attack.

But they do really want to get that message out Saudi Arabia is stable and that they're on top of it but really they're only beginning, beginning to find out what they're up against -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, thank you, Nic Robertson in Riyadh tonight.

On to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and whether by virtue of who they are and where they are do they fall somewhere outside of the scope of the American criminal justice system?

As many as 600 people are being held on suspicion of belonging to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Lower courts have said they cannot challenge their incarceration or the fact that they're being held without charges or lawyers or anything but today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the case of 16 of the detainees.

Here's CNN's Bob Franken.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN (voice-over): Arguments in these cases will be limited to whether the United States courts have jurisdiction over the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.

THOMAS GOLDSTEIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: So far the federal courts have said that when we capture somebody overseas that's the business of the president and the Army, it's not the business of the courts but that could change with this case.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I would characterize Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as the least worst place we could have selected.

FRANKEN: Lower courts have agreed with the Bush administration that the detainees held at this least worst place, Guantanamo Bay, are not subject to U.S. judicial review since the Navy base is on sovereign Cuban territory.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: They're not in the judicial system. These people are detained as a part of the waging of the war by the president of the United States.

FRANKEN: The two cases involve prisoners from Britain, Australia, and Kuwait among the 600 plus whose treatment has been hotly controversial around the world. MICHAEL RATNER, DETAINEE'S ATTORNEY: They've essentially had the key thrown away, no rights to an attorney, no right to counsel, no right to a court hearing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: The justices will hear the administration argue the treatment and the isolation of the detainees are necessary for their interrogation -- Aaron.

BROWN: Was there surprise in Washington that the court even agreed to take up the case?

FRANKEN: Well, it was not the normal procedure. There was not one of the fundamental reasons why the court would take the case but this is the Supreme Court and the answer to why they decided to hear it because they felt like it.

BROWN: And there was no -- there's no clue. There were just five votes to hear the case. That's what we know.

FRANKEN: Not even five as a matter of fact. In order to grant certiorari, in order to decide to hear a case they only need four votes. Of course they need five votes to have a majority ruling.

BROWN: Got it, Bob thank you, Bob Franken in Washington.

Things got a bit jumpy at the White House today. The Secret Service went on alert. Fighters were scrambled when a private plane found itself in restricted airspace close to the White House. The president and first lady were away but the vice president was there until the Secret Service whisked him to that undisclosed location.

So far officials say the whole thing looks like an accident. Fighters escorted the plane and the pilot to North Carolina, the original destination where the pilot will face a lot of questions from law enforcement and the FAA.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight we'll have more on the rights of the detainees. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com joins us.

Later what the butler saw, why Prince Charles is denying it even while everyone stays mum about just what it is.

Segment 7 tonight a treat for you "New Yorker" cartoon fans, the secret formula for how they're created and chosen more or less.

This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This is the story of someone caught in something worse than limbo. It has to do with a Canadian citizen of Syrian extraction who found himself caught up in the American war on terrorism. From there for him the story quickly became a nightmare.

Here's CNN's Susan Candiotti.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For ten months and ten days...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So for me that was a slow death process basically.

CANDIOTTI: Syrian Canadian Mayer Irar (ph) maintains he was wrongfully held in a Syrian prison and tortured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cable is about one or two inches thick. It's that long and they say open your hands. I opened my right hand. He hit me very strongly and I was crying all the time.

CANDIOTTI: Irar says the U.S. and Canada are to blame. The ordeal began a year ago September, 2002. Irar left a family vacation in Tunisia on his way home to Canada when U.S. immigration pulled him aside at JFK Airport.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said it's a routine thing and they took my fingerprints, of course. They took some pictures and they kept telling me it's a routine thing until the FBI showed up.

CANDIOTTI: Irar says the FBI showed him a six-year-old apartment lease that a brother of a coworker witnessed for him as a last minute favor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For them that was an important document. For me it was something normal.

CANDIOTTI: After hours of questioning Irar was shackled and taken to a federal detention center in Brooklyn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They gave me two or three page document and in that they basically told me that they believe I'm a member of al Qaeda terrorist organization.

CANDIOTTI (on camera): What did you think when you read it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was completely shocked because during the interrogations they did not tell me anything about that and I started crying and crying and crying and...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We always had a sense that there was a terrible injustice at work here.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): (Unintelligible) retired Canadian chief of consular affairs says the U.S. "stonewalled them for ten days about Irar's whereabouts." Party (ph) thought he would be sent home to Canada.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an American action to deport to Syria. I mean this is an action that was taken under American law and the legality or the legitimacy of that particular action now is under -- will be tested in the American courts which is quite appropriate.

CANDIOTTI: From a small New Jersey airport, Irar shackled and chained was put on a private U.S. government jet bound for Syria.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems like Syria refused to take me directly. The reached a decision that I had to fly to Oman. They blindfolded me. They took me in what felt like a van and one or two minutes later just started beating me.

CANDIOTTI: Then he was taken to Syria.

(on camera): They made you sign documents.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They forced me to make a false confession that I had been to a training camp in Afghanistan.

CANDIOTTI: Why did you sign the documents?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had no choice. I would be beaten again.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): U.S. authorities tell CNN they did everything by the book and deported Irar based on information from Canada. Neither country will say exactly what that information was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I reached a point where basically I was dying. I had nothing to lose.

CANDIOTTI: The Canadians protested and Syria finally released him last month.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Syrian government in its own statement subsequent to the release admitted that they had nothing.

CANDIOTTI (on camera): Why did the U.S. put Mayer on a government jet to Syria via Jordan? So far neither Canada nor the U.S. can fully explain it. Until they do Mayer's lawyers say both countries will be held accountable for the torture he says he suffered.

How has this changed you Mayer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To brand someone with this word, to brand someone as a terrorist especially after 9/11 basically is to destroy this person's life.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): Susan Candiotti, CNN, Ottawa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A lot of difficult questions tonight, more now on the question of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay whether they do or don't fit in the criminal justice system. That's the question the Supreme Court decided to look at today.

We're joined tonight by Dahlia Lithwick the court watcher for Slate.com, nice to see you again. Are you surprised the court took the case given that honestly courts really haven't given these guys down there the time of day to this point?

DAHLIA LITHWICK, SLATE.COM: I was a little bit surprised both because the Supreme Court has had other opportunities to review 9/11 cases and they have refused every time and also because the lower courts said the courts are going to stay out of it and that seems pretty consistent with what the Supreme Court would have liked. So, I would have thought they could have walked away from this and looked all right but, no, they want to get in the fray.

BROWN: I want to talk about why they might want to get in the fray but tell me where the law is on this. What is the law the administration relies on here?

LITHWICK: You know one of the complexities of this case, Aaron, is that we're sort of thinking back to the last time we had a big war and so the cases that we're talking about are World War II cases and the predominant one is a case from 1950 called Eisentrager.

That was a case that the Bush administration says is directly on point. What happened was 21 German spies were caught after World War II in China spying for Japan if you followed all that and they were sent off. After a hearing on the merits they were tried and sent off to jail in Germany.

They sought habeas corpus relief which is what the detainees in Guantanamo are seeking, essentially saying to the U.S. courts explain to us why you're holding us. Let us out and tell us why we're here.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1950 in that case said we don't have jurisdiction to hear this. You're in Germany. It has nothing to do with us. You're not American citizens. Appeal to some other court. This is not a U.S. problem and the Bush administration says that's exactly analogous to the situation here.

BROWN: And is it exactly analogous to the situation here?

LITHWICK: Well, the detainees' attorneys say no, it's not analogous for three big reasons. The first is that they're not from countries that are our enemies. They're not from anything that's like Germany in World War II. They're from Australia and Britain and Kuwait. They're our allies.

Second of all there's never been any sort of hearing on the merits and that's their principal objection. The Eisentrager detainees had trials. These guys have never been told the charges against them.

Third and maybe most importantly the distinction comes down to this funny shell game that we had about Guantanamo. Germany is Germany. Guantanamo seems to be in the control of the United States.

Now the Bush administration says oh, no, no, no. We don't own it. We just lease it but the problem really is that the detainees they can't appeal to the Cuban courts, Cuba owns it, so who can they appeal to? The camp they say is in control of the United States. If they can't appeal to American federal courts for habeas relief there is no court open to them.

BROWN: The analogy I'm about to draw is admittedly imperfect but I want to draw it anyway. Do you think that a sense of history comes into play where the court is concerned here that history may look at what the government is doing today quite differently than we do and the evidence of that, and here's the imperfect part, is the way history looks at the decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II?

LITHWICK: Oh, absolutely and I think there are never any accidents. These appeals to the Supreme Court always are carefully choreographed and among the petitions that have been filed in support of the detainees one of the signatories is Fred Korematsu.

You may remember his name because he was the main plaintiff in that case where the Supreme Court said that the detention of Japanese Americans in World War II was in fact constitutional and permissible so his name involved here is very, very much a rebuke to the court.

It sort of says you guys got it wrong and admitted sort of later that you got it wrong. Don't get it wrong again just in the name of deferring to the presidency in a time of war.

BROWN: Given the court's history and its thinking do you have a feel for how this will play out?

LITHWICK: You know they're sort of the on the horns of a dilemma here, Aaron. On the one hand this is a court that loves to be in the middle of things. This is a court that has no hesitation to jump into a presidential election, the affirmative action debate. This is a court that really truly believes that it knows better than the rest of us what should go on in this land.

On the other hand this is also a court that is very, very deferential to the Executive Branch and the military, particularly during times of war so they have to make a very stark decision which is, is there a role for them in this and this court loves to have a role in everything but, at the same time, I think they have historically been very, very much in favor of letting the Executive Branch have its way during wartime.

BROWN: Dahlia, good to see you. Thanks for working through this with me tonight.

LITHWICK: Always a pleasure.

BROWN: Thank you.

A few more items here from around the country starting with the two sniper trials, two of them. The prosecution rested today in its case against John Muhammad.

In another courtroom not far away, Mr. Muhammad's protege entered a plea. Lee Malvo pleaded not guilty. His attorneys say they will try to persuade a jury that their young client was so indoctrinated by Mr. Muhammad that he had no control over his actions. The jury selection, very preliminary, began today.

Florida next and the case of Terry Schiavo, Governor Jeb Bush today appealed a lower court's ruling on a lawsuit challenging the state law that is keeping her alive. The court last week rejected his motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was filed on behalf of Ms. Schiavo's husband who, as you know, wants to take her off life support, feeding tube.

And John Kerry has fired his campaign manager, the presidential contender replacing Jim Jordan with Mary Beth Cahill. "I just wanted to change the dynamics" said the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts whose campaign has been a bit of a struggle.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT a solution for the Iraq problem? One suggestion is a little more stick and a lot less carrot. We'll talk with the man who made that suggestion in a moment, take a break first.

On CNN, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld shook hands today with his counterpart from Vietnam, the first time a Vietnamese defense minister has visited the Pentagon in 28 years, an echo, to be sure, of another war in another place at a very different time, but a reminder just the same of a knotty problem, both then and now, finding the right mix of carrot and stick, if you will, to fight an insurgency.

It can be argued the problem went unsolved in Vietnam. Our next guest believes it remains so in Iraq. Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." Recent, he wrote a very tough op-ed piece we saw arguing in phrase less carrot, more stick. We're always glad to have him on the program. And he joins us again tonight from Washington.

It's good to see you.

RALPH PETERS, AUTHOR, "BEYOND BAGHDAD: POSTMODERN WAR AND PEACE": Great to talk to you again, Aaron.

BROWN: Basically, the argument you make is that, in that part of the country that we call the Sunni Triangle, the Army has been a little bit too friendly and not tough enough.

PETERS: Well, Aaron, as you know, we've got several occupations going in Iraq.

Up in the north, with the Kurds, General David Petraeus has been doing a great job. And it's going very well. In the south, with the Shiites, it's going surprisingly well. But in the center, Sunni Triangle, where they keep doing our soldiers, doing their best to kill them, we've tried too much carrot with the civilian population and not enough stick.

Now, the Army's tough when they go after terrorists. They fight -- it's a tough -- they do a good job on the fighting end. But, essentially, we're trying to bribe really bad kids to behave by giving them more candy. And what we need to do is give them a time-out now and then. I think we need to try some new things.

For instance in Fallujah or Tikrit, instead of trying hard to just pour on the aid and make them love us, we need to modulate, control electricity, ration it, get to the bazaars. A lot of Iraqis are getting richer and are going to get richer in this occupation. Exclude the merchants of Fallujah. And they'll come around.

Now, you'll never persuade the terrorists. But by carefully controlling, by putting more troops on the streets of selected cities, by taking a tougher line, without violating human rights, just a firmer law-and-order line, I think we can achieve a lot more than simply piling on the aid.

BROWN: Let's work with this here, a number of arguments pro and con here, I suppose. One of the arguments is that, the greater the presence, the more humiliating it is to Iraqis and the more offended they are by the occupation itself.

PETERS: Well, I think that would be true if we were piling on in the Kurdish area, for instance, where it's not necessary.

But, in the center, we are having trouble with a minority of a minority, those Sunni Arabs who profited from the Saddam's regime, who were able to steal, rape, loot, oppress their fellow countrymen. And there's no way we're going to win their hearts and minds, because we have taken away all of their privileges. So, specifically targeting that audience and the cities that harbor terrorists, that harbors the killers of our soldiers and of Iraqis who try to cooperate and build a new Iraq, that's -- carefully targeted, now -- that's where you have to take, I think, a much tougher line.

And you create contrast, Aaron, where some cities that cooperate are seen obviously as prospering and doing well. If you attack and kill American troops, well, then you don't do as well.

BROWN: One of the problems on the Sunni side is, they know -- because numbers are numbers -- that they are never going to be the majority again. They are never going to have the privilege that they had. What, then, is their incentive to be cooperative?

PETERS: Well, the incentive is different for different members of the Sunnis. They, too, are various.

For the businessman and for the people that just want to get on with their lives, for those who didn't profit under Saddam Hussein, there's plenty of incentive. But, again, we're never going to win the people that really were the thugs of the regime and profited from it. And those are the people we have to do a better job of targeting. And the only way you can bring this home to them, that they're never going to be in power again -- and they're hoping to outlast us, to wear us down -- is by taking a firmer line, a stronger U.S. presence.

That means more troops on the streets of Fallujah, Tikrit and other cities, and making it clear to them that you cannot back us down, that Iraq is going to be free, and we will never again let a minority of the minority tyrannize the rest of the people of Iraq.

BROWN: Ralph, it's always good to have you on the program.

PETERS: Always great talking to you.

BROWN: Provocative thoughts. And there are signs, as you know, that the Army is taking this notion pretty seriously tonight. Thank you for your time.

(CROSSTALK)

PETERS: Aaron, we just need to try different things. When they don't work, you move on.

BROWN: Ralph, thanks again -- Ralph Peters in Washington.

PETERS: My pleasure.

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT: the secret scandal. Why is the prince of Wales denying something we know nothing about? Who knows. But we'll find out what Tina Brown has to say in a moment.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And lots more ahead NEWSNIGHT: morning papers, of course; "New Yorker" cartoons; and up next, the prince and the scandal.

A break first. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: There's something built into human nature that just makes us go crazy over secrets. If we know one, we need to tell it. When we don't know one, we must learn it, all of which makes the Prince Charles story so delicious.

The prince, who just returned form an overseas trip, has denied doing anything wrong. The problem is, no one is saying exactly what he's denying. The British tabloids have reported that a former servant has made allegations, though we're not sure exactly what they are because of a court-ordered ban on reporting them. So, with only the tiniest glimmers of what's going on, we're all left wondering how you can have a scandal without knowing exactly what it is that's so scandalous.

Fortunately, we found someone to explain it all to us, British magazine editor Tina Brown, who is now hosting her own television program "Topic A With Tina Brown," on, shall we say, another network.

We talked to Ms. Brown earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: There's something very British about this episode with the prince and what is being said and what isn't being said, isn't there? It's quite British.

TINA BROWN, HOST, "TOPIC A WITH TINA BROWN": It's very British.

And it's riddled with class from beginning to end. This whole debacle really is about class. It's about unleashing this butler, Paul Burrell, into the world, feeling angry and grudging and not kind of given his due, as he feels. And now he's just talking all over the place. And it's really about the fact he feels snubbed. They could have bought him off by simply being nice to him.

A. BROWN: Right. When you talk about class, we are talking about class in the British sense, lower class, the royal class. Why didn't they just buy this guy off?

T. BROWN: Because they are so condescending, in a sense.

They never thought that the butler would overstep. They never thought that the butler would, in fact, violate his sense of where he is on the status quo. They should have understood that he was actually a very dangerous guy, unless he was kept quiet. But they didn't do that. They didn't nail him down. They let him loose. And that was an enormous error on their part. And it was an error of kind of arrogance.

A. BROWN: And whose error was that?

T. BROWN: I think it was the collective error of the whole royal household.

The thing about Burrell is that he had worked for many, many years, for the royal family, first for the queen as a footman. And then he went to join the Princess of Wales. When he went to work for the princess of Wales, his whole sense of himself changed. He became really part of a celebrity entourage. He became a handler. He became a guy who shared her secrets, who brought her custard in bed, all the things that -- these slightly creepy, sort of groupie-ish things that he used to do for her.

When she died, they wouldn't acknowledge that he had changed. They wanted him to creep back into the shadows and be a royal footman again and just shut up. But he didn't. He wanted to be a celebrity. He wanted to go out on the talk show circuit. He wanted to be part of her whole legacy. And when they really wouldn't accept that, things became very rancid between them. And they fired him from her committee, which was her royal memorial fund. He was very upset about that.

And then they let loose on him, Scotland Yard, because they said he had been stealing her possessions. And that's really what turned him into a very angry man.

A. BROWN: Do you think the -- does all of this go away? Does it all blow over, or does the prince have some serious problems right now?

T. BROWN: I think it's very unfortunate that this fresh load of sleaze has surfaced to bedevil Prince Charles.

He is actually a very decent, very boring, very honest, very pleasant man. And, somehow, he's continually being tormented by all of this. It's really quite wrong. The tabloids will not let this guy rest. They almost want to hound him into the grave.

A. BROWN: So?

T. BROWN: I think it's very sad for Charles. I think that it will probably mean that this will cling to him somewhat. I think he will -- nothing's going to harm him, ultimately.

A. BROWN: Right.

T. BROWN: But it just brings him further down. And I think it makes people feel even more contemptuous of royalty at the moment, which is unfortunate.

A. BROWN: What is it about him? Might it be anyone who was in that job, who had that title, or is there something about Prince Charles that makes him the kind of target the tabloids can't resist?

T. BROWN: Well, unfortunately for Prince Charles, yes. I think that he's a kind of transitional man. He's still got one, or really two feet in the old way of being a Windsor.

But he was actually married to this woman who was this incredible superstar, who was part of the new world of sort of Hollywood and media and superstardom. And he was kind of dragged unwillingly, really, into that world. But he really belongs in the other old world of the Windsors and Christmas Day speeches and kind of the corgi dogs and all of that. That is Charles' world. And yet he's been pulled into the other one. And he doesn't fit easily into it. And he doesn't like being there.

He wants to go back into that old world. And the old world isn't there any more for him to go back into.

A. BROWN: Just a last quick question. Do you think that this episode, what's going on now, will cost him the monarchy? Will it cost him being the king of England?

T. BROWN: No, it won't cost him that. There have been far worse scandals in the British monarchy than this. I don't think it's true. But it's just more sleaze. It will go. This, too, shall pass.

A. BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's nice to meet you.

T. BROWN: Thank you.

A. BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: Tina Brown. We talked with her earlier today.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: the man behind the cartoons, a look at the secret science behind the "New Yorker" cartoon issue.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: In a magazine where 10,000 words is often just a windup, you can also find some of the finest journalism, some of the keenest social observation, some of the quickest wit in a cartoon and a caption. The magazine, of course, is "The New Yorker." And just like "Playboy," people read it for more than the articles.

Each year, the magazine publishes an issue that puts the cartoons front and center. You can pick it up today. But before you do, take a look at how a cartoon becomes a "New Yorker" cartoon.

Producer Laura Van Stratton (ph) spent a day with cartoonist and cartoon editor Robert Mankoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT MANKOFF, CARTOON EDITOR, "THE NEW YORKER": It's not like I have some sort of laboratory testing kit to tell me what's actually funny.

The thing about being a cartoonist and being a cartoon editor or any of these jobs, of course, it's a wonderful and fantastic occupation, but it is not easy.

Oh, I made a mistake.

Unfortunately, when you go to work, you don't have anything to do. In other words, there's not a big pile of papers and say, oh, yes, add up these numbers, or, let's get out these memos. These are reports. Get this to Mr. Davis posthaste. No, you've got a blank piece of paper. You have to start.

In "The New Yorker," we do a certain type of cartoon called the magazine or even single-panel cartoons. In its classic form, it's just one sort of picture that needs some sort of a resolution.

Here, I'm just working on the idea, which was this bum, which is, "Please help me get an Internet fund-raising site," because I was listening to the radio with Howard Dean and all the people who are raising money on the Internet. The business of cartooning is the business of not acceptance, but rejection. Every cartoonist gets well over 90 percent of their work rejected. So you just don't want to make that like the Motor Vehicles Bureau: Oh, no good, no good, no good, no good.

The process of the cartoons, as they come into "The New Yorker" is, I'd say, basically, I'm looking at between 500 and 1,000 cartoons a week. I'm looking at the art. I'm looking at the jokes. And then I'm looking at the jokes to see, can I punch up any of these jokes? I try to take between 30 and 50 cartoons to David Remnick. And from that, we'll pick 15 or 20.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is disgusting.

MANKOFF: Disgusting in a good way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Make sure it gets

(CROSSTALK)

MANKOFF: You bet.

The cartoon issue started in 1997, when I became cartoon editor. I had been doing it for six years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is very funny. This is good. We can publish this in "The New Yorker."

One of the great new features we have now is this cartoon crossword puzzle, in which many of the answers are the captions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just want to see if it's doable, 13 across. First name...

MANKOFF: You want that funniness that is, of course, more funny than people actually are.

(LAUGHTER)

MANKOFF: Genius. This is great.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is really depressing.

MANKOFF: If they were mimes, we'd say yes.

People who make their money by jokes know that that's the underlying reality. It's all going go away. Let's just hope the jokes can carry you as long as possible.

A coffin with an "I'd Rather Be Alive" bumper sticker on the back.

Humor is the thing that tries, in a moment, to reconcile these things. What happened after 9/11, we didn't run cartoons for a week, because everybody was grieving. But the week after, the first cartoon we ran was a woman in a bar looking at a guy with a weird jacket, saying, "I thought I'd never laugh again until I saw that jacket."

And, basically, that said, we're alive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, morning papers. A break first.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

A. BROWN: OK. I know that sound. Time to check morning papers, whether I'm ready or not. Fortunately, tonight, I am. Here we go, morning papers from around the country and around the world.

"The Dallas Morning News" starts it off, because it was on top. "Same For Home, Roam." Advice to consumers switching cellular firms, bring along patience. Yes, I'll bet, too. "New Rules Allow Transfer of Land Line Numbers to Sell." That means that the telemarketers can call you at dinner no matter where you're eating dinner.

Also, I like this story. We should actually do this story, I think, and no reason we can't, because we have a bureau in Havana. "Cuba At Biotech's Cutting Edge," a look at the Cuban -- the Cubans spent a fortune -- and they don't have a fortune -- but they spent what they had to develop a biotech industry. And according to this piece in "The Dallas Morning News," it's paying off for them.

"The Miami Herald." "Justices to Hear Case of Foreign Captives." This is the Guantanamo case. "Transfer of Home Numbers Gets OK." That's the cell phone case. And "A Son's Tribute to Bravery." This is a nice Veterans Day feature, tomorrow being Veterans Day, the 11th. So when "The Miami Herald" lands on your doorstep, take a look at that article. It's pretty cool.

"San Francisco Chronicle." "High Court to Hear Detainees' Appeal. Case Looks at Guantanamo Prisoners' Rights." This story, I have seen a couple of times: "Dirty Bombs Possible in the United States." That's something to think about tomorrow, right, when the paper lands on your doorstep. And "Where Veterans Are Home" -- a veterans home, literally in Yountville, California, for aging veterans in the country. And we honor them tomorrow.

In "The Washington Times," down in the corner: "Democrats Decry Abuse of Civil Rights, Take Aim at Bush Team." What I noticed -- this was probably inadvertent -- but could they have picked a more unflattering picture of Al Gore to put on there? I don't think so.

"The Chattanooga Times Free Press." "To give the news impartially, without fear or favor," that's their slogan. "The Long Road Home. Vietnam Veterans Find Acceptance After a Lack of Support For Years" is their big story.

Twenty seconds. Let's go to the "Chicago Sun-Times." I love the . "Farewell, Mr. Chicago." Irv Kupcinet died. "From Presidents to Popes, Entertainers to Kings, Irv Kupcinet Knew Them All and Chronicled Their Stories For Six Decades." The legendary "Sun-Times" columnist dead Monday at 91. Weather tomorrow, "mixed bag" in "Chicago Sun-Times," a very cool front page for tomorrow.

We'll wrap up the day in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: Before we go tonight, a quick update on our lead story, the possibility that this weekend's bombing in Saudi Arabia won't be the last. "This is not the end," says a senior State Department official. The next attacks, according to this official and other intelligence sources, may already be in the operational stages; 17 people died over the weekend, most OF them Arabs, Saudi officials increasingly now saying the bombers might have been trying to target Americans, but made a mistake -- the story tonight.

Tomorrow on the program, an American town that's been hit hard by fighting in Iraq, a small town now with three young casualties to mourn, CNN's Martin Savidge with that -- and much more tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time, NEWSNIGHT.

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Court to Hear Guantanamo Bay Detainees' Appeal>


Aired November 10, 2003 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.
There were plenty of warning signs. We reported some of them last Friday but for all the signs that an attack was coming in Saudi Arabia in the end it was unstoppable.

The Saudis, many believe, haven't always done all they could to deal with al Qaeda. That was as long as the terrorists didn't attack the kingdom. It was sort of live and let live. Now for the second time in a year the kingdom has been the target and whatever deal may have been in place seems gone.

A shaken Saudi Arabia leads the program and begins the whip. We start with the latest on the intelligence that predicted the Saudi attack, our National Security Correspondent David Ensor with that in Washington, David a headline.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the intelligence is getting pretty good in a general sense. They were able to predict that there would be an attack in these days. They were able to do the same thing last May but both times they were not able to say where exactly the attacks would take place so they did work protecting the embassy and other areas but the attacks went ahead anyway -- Aaron.

BROWN: David, thank you. We'll get to you early tonight.

Now, to Saudi Arabia where the investigation continues into that bombing, Nic Robertson is on the videophone, Nic a headline.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a new revelation from Saudi government sources here. They've been interrogating some al Qaeda suspects. They believe that al Qaeda made a mistake in its targeting believing that the people in the compound were Americans not Muslim Arabs -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, thank you.

And now back to Washington, another terror related story this time the rights of alleged terrorists, if any. Bob Franken has been working that, Bob a headline.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And, Aaron, when the Supreme Court justices decide on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, they'll be ruling on whether they have the right to rule. BROWN: Bob, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also ahead tonight we'll hear about a very controversial proposal on the best way to solve the insurgency problem in Iraq.

Later, just what exactly is the scandal that Prince Charles is denying? We'll give you all the details, well not really but that would have been a great tease wouldn't it? We'll talk, however, with Tina Brown about the British and the scandal and the rest.

We'll also visit "New Yorker" magazine in Segment 7 tonight for a behind-the-scenes look at how those great cartoons are created and chosen.

And finally, after a weekend to rest his vocal chords, the rooster heralds the arrival of morning papers, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with the bombing that was and the bombings yet to be, the first a fact, the second a very real possibility according to those who make it their business to know for even as investigators piece together what happened in Riyadh over the weekend, the intelligence community is already starting to look ahead.

We have two reports tonight first CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR (voice-over): From U.S. officials an ominous warning, the weekend attack is "not the end." There is intelligence suggesting additional attacks could come in Saudi Arabia at any time.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: That's a continuing threat.

ENSOR: U.S. officials warned Friday that attacks could come soon in Saudi Arabia. The ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence noted that this was a time U.S. intelligence got it right.

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: There had been a lot of chatter about the probability of something of this sort.

ENSOR: Traveling in the region, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage praised Saudi efforts since the al Qaeda attacks last May to crack down on the terrorist group. He was a fatalist about future attacks.

RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: We, the defenders, have to be right 100 percent of the time and the terrorists only have to be right once.

ENSOR: U.S. officials say this latest attack "looks and smells like al Qaeda" though that's not yet proven and they say the attacks appear designed to destabilize the Saudi monarchy. But with word the victims of the weekend bombing are mostly Arabs and include five children some officials suggest the attack could backfire turning many Arabs against al Qaeda.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ENSOR: This was a case where U.S. intelligence got it right. The U.S. knew something was going to happen and got the embassy closed and likely targets protected. The problem was the terrorists went after a soft target, a housing compound where most of the residents are non-Saudi Arabs. It was not what al Qaeda was expected to do -- Aaron.

BROWN: All right does this tell us anything we didn't know about al Qaeda post Afghanistan?

ENSOR: Does this tell us anything -- I'm not getting very good audio I'm sorry.

BROWN: Does it tell us anything we didn't know about the strength of al Qaeda since the United States attacks in Afghanistan?

ENSOR: Well, it does tell us that al Qaeda is still able to conduct attacks even after it's had a series of gun battles with Saudi authorities. It's still strong enough in Saudi Arabia to pull something off but either they made a mistake or they attacked a target which in some ways could hurt them. Some officials are arguing this could actually backfire on them so it's not in a way a show of strength -- Aaron.

BROWN: OK, David, thank you, David Ensor in Washington tonight.

More on the target here, from the Saudi king today came a promise to strike back at the militants with an iron fist, his words. Their presence in the kingdom, which had been downplayed until fairly recently is now topic A in Saudi Arabia as well as the growing belief within the Saudi government that the bombings may, in fact, have intended to target Americans, for more on that in Saudi Arabia tonight CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERTSON (voice-over): In hospital the injured helped on the road to recovery. Lebanese sales manager Gassan (ph) doesn't know how many stitches he's had but with well wishers and good care he says he's already getting better.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the most important that we are, we get out alive just to be able to walk and to continue our life.

ROBERTSON: In another ward, Alia (ph) also Lebanese explains it was realizing her son had survived that made her fight for her own life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And he was sitting there without even one scratch. Then he asked me how you are sitting like that.

ROBERTSON: But trauma here is more than skin deep. Her husband remembers less his few memories already hardening into mental scars. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I still hear my neighbor calling me for help and calling me to save his children.

ROBERTSON: Egyptian pharmacist Amir (ph) hid his children behind a couch when the attack started. They escaped unhurt but profoundly shaken.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody who (unintelligible) through that night would have to reevaluate his life in general and I'm staying in (unintelligible) right now, I'm not sure really if it's safe or not.

ROBERTSON: He's not alone. Businessmen like expatriate Jordanian pharmacist Haldoun (ph) and his friends who were miles from the attack Saturday now worry Muslims are also al Qaeda's targets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually now we feel that anybody could be a target because we are seeing that even as I told you innocent people without differentiation. Either they are westerners or they are Arab.

ROBERTSON: Among Saudis too that strikes a raw nerve.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not happy about that because this is (unintelligible) Islamic people. These people they are idiots.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERTSON: For most people here it seems the impacts and implications of Saturday's bombing are only now beginning to sink in. According to sources close to Saudi Arabia's government, however, that also may be the case for al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia's government has been interviewing some al Qaeda suspects over the weekend and we're hearing from sources that those suspects are saying they thought the compound was full of Americans not of Arabs -- Aaron.

BROWN: Was it any big secret who was living in those compounds?

ROBERTSON: Well, until about four years ago the compound was run by an American group, by Boeing, and perhaps for some reason some of the al Qaeda elements who the Saudi government believe are responsible for the attacks their information was old. They hadn't followed up. They hadn't checked. They found, as David Ensor said, a soft target and went for it without following through.

If, on the other hand, they did make this calculation we've certainly found from people we've talked to here it has really turned them off from this terror group the fact that they would strike at Muslims. This is not something people here would ever have expected from them.

BROWN: Do you see any evidence that the way the Saudi government is dealing with this, this particular attack is different in any way from the way they have dealt with previous attacks in the country?

ROBERTSON: It appears to me as if they're beginning to learn how to deal with the attacks. The security has been stepped up since the attack in May. They've stepped up the security again following the attack over the weekend. This is a learning process. They're very keen to get the message out that they're on top of this issue.

They've arrested over 600 people over the last few months since May in connection with al Qaeda operations inside of Saudi Arabia. They're very keen to show that they're on top of it but they do admit there's absolutely no way they can stop every attack because they say they're up against suicide bombers and they say that means you cannot stop every attack.

But they do really want to get that message out Saudi Arabia is stable and that they're on top of it but really they're only beginning, beginning to find out what they're up against -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, thank you, Nic Robertson in Riyadh tonight.

On to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and whether by virtue of who they are and where they are do they fall somewhere outside of the scope of the American criminal justice system?

As many as 600 people are being held on suspicion of belonging to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Lower courts have said they cannot challenge their incarceration or the fact that they're being held without charges or lawyers or anything but today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the case of 16 of the detainees.

Here's CNN's Bob Franken.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN (voice-over): Arguments in these cases will be limited to whether the United States courts have jurisdiction over the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.

THOMAS GOLDSTEIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: So far the federal courts have said that when we capture somebody overseas that's the business of the president and the Army, it's not the business of the courts but that could change with this case.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I would characterize Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as the least worst place we could have selected.

FRANKEN: Lower courts have agreed with the Bush administration that the detainees held at this least worst place, Guantanamo Bay, are not subject to U.S. judicial review since the Navy base is on sovereign Cuban territory.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: They're not in the judicial system. These people are detained as a part of the waging of the war by the president of the United States.

FRANKEN: The two cases involve prisoners from Britain, Australia, and Kuwait among the 600 plus whose treatment has been hotly controversial around the world. MICHAEL RATNER, DETAINEE'S ATTORNEY: They've essentially had the key thrown away, no rights to an attorney, no right to counsel, no right to a court hearing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: The justices will hear the administration argue the treatment and the isolation of the detainees are necessary for their interrogation -- Aaron.

BROWN: Was there surprise in Washington that the court even agreed to take up the case?

FRANKEN: Well, it was not the normal procedure. There was not one of the fundamental reasons why the court would take the case but this is the Supreme Court and the answer to why they decided to hear it because they felt like it.

BROWN: And there was no -- there's no clue. There were just five votes to hear the case. That's what we know.

FRANKEN: Not even five as a matter of fact. In order to grant certiorari, in order to decide to hear a case they only need four votes. Of course they need five votes to have a majority ruling.

BROWN: Got it, Bob thank you, Bob Franken in Washington.

Things got a bit jumpy at the White House today. The Secret Service went on alert. Fighters were scrambled when a private plane found itself in restricted airspace close to the White House. The president and first lady were away but the vice president was there until the Secret Service whisked him to that undisclosed location.

So far officials say the whole thing looks like an accident. Fighters escorted the plane and the pilot to North Carolina, the original destination where the pilot will face a lot of questions from law enforcement and the FAA.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight we'll have more on the rights of the detainees. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com joins us.

Later what the butler saw, why Prince Charles is denying it even while everyone stays mum about just what it is.

Segment 7 tonight a treat for you "New Yorker" cartoon fans, the secret formula for how they're created and chosen more or less.

This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This is the story of someone caught in something worse than limbo. It has to do with a Canadian citizen of Syrian extraction who found himself caught up in the American war on terrorism. From there for him the story quickly became a nightmare.

Here's CNN's Susan Candiotti.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For ten months and ten days...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So for me that was a slow death process basically.

CANDIOTTI: Syrian Canadian Mayer Irar (ph) maintains he was wrongfully held in a Syrian prison and tortured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cable is about one or two inches thick. It's that long and they say open your hands. I opened my right hand. He hit me very strongly and I was crying all the time.

CANDIOTTI: Irar says the U.S. and Canada are to blame. The ordeal began a year ago September, 2002. Irar left a family vacation in Tunisia on his way home to Canada when U.S. immigration pulled him aside at JFK Airport.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said it's a routine thing and they took my fingerprints, of course. They took some pictures and they kept telling me it's a routine thing until the FBI showed up.

CANDIOTTI: Irar says the FBI showed him a six-year-old apartment lease that a brother of a coworker witnessed for him as a last minute favor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For them that was an important document. For me it was something normal.

CANDIOTTI: After hours of questioning Irar was shackled and taken to a federal detention center in Brooklyn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They gave me two or three page document and in that they basically told me that they believe I'm a member of al Qaeda terrorist organization.

CANDIOTTI (on camera): What did you think when you read it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was completely shocked because during the interrogations they did not tell me anything about that and I started crying and crying and crying and...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We always had a sense that there was a terrible injustice at work here.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): (Unintelligible) retired Canadian chief of consular affairs says the U.S. "stonewalled them for ten days about Irar's whereabouts." Party (ph) thought he would be sent home to Canada.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an American action to deport to Syria. I mean this is an action that was taken under American law and the legality or the legitimacy of that particular action now is under -- will be tested in the American courts which is quite appropriate.

CANDIOTTI: From a small New Jersey airport, Irar shackled and chained was put on a private U.S. government jet bound for Syria.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems like Syria refused to take me directly. The reached a decision that I had to fly to Oman. They blindfolded me. They took me in what felt like a van and one or two minutes later just started beating me.

CANDIOTTI: Then he was taken to Syria.

(on camera): They made you sign documents.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They forced me to make a false confession that I had been to a training camp in Afghanistan.

CANDIOTTI: Why did you sign the documents?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had no choice. I would be beaten again.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): U.S. authorities tell CNN they did everything by the book and deported Irar based on information from Canada. Neither country will say exactly what that information was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I reached a point where basically I was dying. I had nothing to lose.

CANDIOTTI: The Canadians protested and Syria finally released him last month.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Syrian government in its own statement subsequent to the release admitted that they had nothing.

CANDIOTTI (on camera): Why did the U.S. put Mayer on a government jet to Syria via Jordan? So far neither Canada nor the U.S. can fully explain it. Until they do Mayer's lawyers say both countries will be held accountable for the torture he says he suffered.

How has this changed you Mayer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To brand someone with this word, to brand someone as a terrorist especially after 9/11 basically is to destroy this person's life.

CANDIOTTI (voice-over): Susan Candiotti, CNN, Ottawa.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A lot of difficult questions tonight, more now on the question of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay whether they do or don't fit in the criminal justice system. That's the question the Supreme Court decided to look at today.

We're joined tonight by Dahlia Lithwick the court watcher for Slate.com, nice to see you again. Are you surprised the court took the case given that honestly courts really haven't given these guys down there the time of day to this point?

DAHLIA LITHWICK, SLATE.COM: I was a little bit surprised both because the Supreme Court has had other opportunities to review 9/11 cases and they have refused every time and also because the lower courts said the courts are going to stay out of it and that seems pretty consistent with what the Supreme Court would have liked. So, I would have thought they could have walked away from this and looked all right but, no, they want to get in the fray.

BROWN: I want to talk about why they might want to get in the fray but tell me where the law is on this. What is the law the administration relies on here?

LITHWICK: You know one of the complexities of this case, Aaron, is that we're sort of thinking back to the last time we had a big war and so the cases that we're talking about are World War II cases and the predominant one is a case from 1950 called Eisentrager.

That was a case that the Bush administration says is directly on point. What happened was 21 German spies were caught after World War II in China spying for Japan if you followed all that and they were sent off. After a hearing on the merits they were tried and sent off to jail in Germany.

They sought habeas corpus relief which is what the detainees in Guantanamo are seeking, essentially saying to the U.S. courts explain to us why you're holding us. Let us out and tell us why we're here.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1950 in that case said we don't have jurisdiction to hear this. You're in Germany. It has nothing to do with us. You're not American citizens. Appeal to some other court. This is not a U.S. problem and the Bush administration says that's exactly analogous to the situation here.

BROWN: And is it exactly analogous to the situation here?

LITHWICK: Well, the detainees' attorneys say no, it's not analogous for three big reasons. The first is that they're not from countries that are our enemies. They're not from anything that's like Germany in World War II. They're from Australia and Britain and Kuwait. They're our allies.

Second of all there's never been any sort of hearing on the merits and that's their principal objection. The Eisentrager detainees had trials. These guys have never been told the charges against them.

Third and maybe most importantly the distinction comes down to this funny shell game that we had about Guantanamo. Germany is Germany. Guantanamo seems to be in the control of the United States.

Now the Bush administration says oh, no, no, no. We don't own it. We just lease it but the problem really is that the detainees they can't appeal to the Cuban courts, Cuba owns it, so who can they appeal to? The camp they say is in control of the United States. If they can't appeal to American federal courts for habeas relief there is no court open to them.

BROWN: The analogy I'm about to draw is admittedly imperfect but I want to draw it anyway. Do you think that a sense of history comes into play where the court is concerned here that history may look at what the government is doing today quite differently than we do and the evidence of that, and here's the imperfect part, is the way history looks at the decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II?

LITHWICK: Oh, absolutely and I think there are never any accidents. These appeals to the Supreme Court always are carefully choreographed and among the petitions that have been filed in support of the detainees one of the signatories is Fred Korematsu.

You may remember his name because he was the main plaintiff in that case where the Supreme Court said that the detention of Japanese Americans in World War II was in fact constitutional and permissible so his name involved here is very, very much a rebuke to the court.

It sort of says you guys got it wrong and admitted sort of later that you got it wrong. Don't get it wrong again just in the name of deferring to the presidency in a time of war.

BROWN: Given the court's history and its thinking do you have a feel for how this will play out?

LITHWICK: You know they're sort of the on the horns of a dilemma here, Aaron. On the one hand this is a court that loves to be in the middle of things. This is a court that has no hesitation to jump into a presidential election, the affirmative action debate. This is a court that really truly believes that it knows better than the rest of us what should go on in this land.

On the other hand this is also a court that is very, very deferential to the Executive Branch and the military, particularly during times of war so they have to make a very stark decision which is, is there a role for them in this and this court loves to have a role in everything but, at the same time, I think they have historically been very, very much in favor of letting the Executive Branch have its way during wartime.

BROWN: Dahlia, good to see you. Thanks for working through this with me tonight.

LITHWICK: Always a pleasure.

BROWN: Thank you.

A few more items here from around the country starting with the two sniper trials, two of them. The prosecution rested today in its case against John Muhammad.

In another courtroom not far away, Mr. Muhammad's protege entered a plea. Lee Malvo pleaded not guilty. His attorneys say they will try to persuade a jury that their young client was so indoctrinated by Mr. Muhammad that he had no control over his actions. The jury selection, very preliminary, began today.

Florida next and the case of Terry Schiavo, Governor Jeb Bush today appealed a lower court's ruling on a lawsuit challenging the state law that is keeping her alive. The court last week rejected his motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was filed on behalf of Ms. Schiavo's husband who, as you know, wants to take her off life support, feeding tube.

And John Kerry has fired his campaign manager, the presidential contender replacing Jim Jordan with Mary Beth Cahill. "I just wanted to change the dynamics" said the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts whose campaign has been a bit of a struggle.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT a solution for the Iraq problem? One suggestion is a little more stick and a lot less carrot. We'll talk with the man who made that suggestion in a moment, take a break first.

On CNN, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld shook hands today with his counterpart from Vietnam, the first time a Vietnamese defense minister has visited the Pentagon in 28 years, an echo, to be sure, of another war in another place at a very different time, but a reminder just the same of a knotty problem, both then and now, finding the right mix of carrot and stick, if you will, to fight an insurgency.

It can be argued the problem went unsolved in Vietnam. Our next guest believes it remains so in Iraq. Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." Recent, he wrote a very tough op-ed piece we saw arguing in phrase less carrot, more stick. We're always glad to have him on the program. And he joins us again tonight from Washington.

It's good to see you.

RALPH PETERS, AUTHOR, "BEYOND BAGHDAD: POSTMODERN WAR AND PEACE": Great to talk to you again, Aaron.

BROWN: Basically, the argument you make is that, in that part of the country that we call the Sunni Triangle, the Army has been a little bit too friendly and not tough enough.

PETERS: Well, Aaron, as you know, we've got several occupations going in Iraq.

Up in the north, with the Kurds, General David Petraeus has been doing a great job. And it's going very well. In the south, with the Shiites, it's going surprisingly well. But in the center, Sunni Triangle, where they keep doing our soldiers, doing their best to kill them, we've tried too much carrot with the civilian population and not enough stick.

Now, the Army's tough when they go after terrorists. They fight -- it's a tough -- they do a good job on the fighting end. But, essentially, we're trying to bribe really bad kids to behave by giving them more candy. And what we need to do is give them a time-out now and then. I think we need to try some new things.

For instance in Fallujah or Tikrit, instead of trying hard to just pour on the aid and make them love us, we need to modulate, control electricity, ration it, get to the bazaars. A lot of Iraqis are getting richer and are going to get richer in this occupation. Exclude the merchants of Fallujah. And they'll come around.

Now, you'll never persuade the terrorists. But by carefully controlling, by putting more troops on the streets of selected cities, by taking a tougher line, without violating human rights, just a firmer law-and-order line, I think we can achieve a lot more than simply piling on the aid.

BROWN: Let's work with this here, a number of arguments pro and con here, I suppose. One of the arguments is that, the greater the presence, the more humiliating it is to Iraqis and the more offended they are by the occupation itself.

PETERS: Well, I think that would be true if we were piling on in the Kurdish area, for instance, where it's not necessary.

But, in the center, we are having trouble with a minority of a minority, those Sunni Arabs who profited from the Saddam's regime, who were able to steal, rape, loot, oppress their fellow countrymen. And there's no way we're going to win their hearts and minds, because we have taken away all of their privileges. So, specifically targeting that audience and the cities that harbor terrorists, that harbors the killers of our soldiers and of Iraqis who try to cooperate and build a new Iraq, that's -- carefully targeted, now -- that's where you have to take, I think, a much tougher line.

And you create contrast, Aaron, where some cities that cooperate are seen obviously as prospering and doing well. If you attack and kill American troops, well, then you don't do as well.

BROWN: One of the problems on the Sunni side is, they know -- because numbers are numbers -- that they are never going to be the majority again. They are never going to have the privilege that they had. What, then, is their incentive to be cooperative?

PETERS: Well, the incentive is different for different members of the Sunnis. They, too, are various.

For the businessman and for the people that just want to get on with their lives, for those who didn't profit under Saddam Hussein, there's plenty of incentive. But, again, we're never going to win the people that really were the thugs of the regime and profited from it. And those are the people we have to do a better job of targeting. And the only way you can bring this home to them, that they're never going to be in power again -- and they're hoping to outlast us, to wear us down -- is by taking a firmer line, a stronger U.S. presence.

That means more troops on the streets of Fallujah, Tikrit and other cities, and making it clear to them that you cannot back us down, that Iraq is going to be free, and we will never again let a minority of the minority tyrannize the rest of the people of Iraq.

BROWN: Ralph, it's always good to have you on the program.

PETERS: Always great talking to you.

BROWN: Provocative thoughts. And there are signs, as you know, that the Army is taking this notion pretty seriously tonight. Thank you for your time.

(CROSSTALK)

PETERS: Aaron, we just need to try different things. When they don't work, you move on.

BROWN: Ralph, thanks again -- Ralph Peters in Washington.

PETERS: My pleasure.

BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT: the secret scandal. Why is the prince of Wales denying something we know nothing about? Who knows. But we'll find out what Tina Brown has to say in a moment.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And lots more ahead NEWSNIGHT: morning papers, of course; "New Yorker" cartoons; and up next, the prince and the scandal.

A break first. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: There's something built into human nature that just makes us go crazy over secrets. If we know one, we need to tell it. When we don't know one, we must learn it, all of which makes the Prince Charles story so delicious.

The prince, who just returned form an overseas trip, has denied doing anything wrong. The problem is, no one is saying exactly what he's denying. The British tabloids have reported that a former servant has made allegations, though we're not sure exactly what they are because of a court-ordered ban on reporting them. So, with only the tiniest glimmers of what's going on, we're all left wondering how you can have a scandal without knowing exactly what it is that's so scandalous.

Fortunately, we found someone to explain it all to us, British magazine editor Tina Brown, who is now hosting her own television program "Topic A With Tina Brown," on, shall we say, another network.

We talked to Ms. Brown earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: There's something very British about this episode with the prince and what is being said and what isn't being said, isn't there? It's quite British.

TINA BROWN, HOST, "TOPIC A WITH TINA BROWN": It's very British.

And it's riddled with class from beginning to end. This whole debacle really is about class. It's about unleashing this butler, Paul Burrell, into the world, feeling angry and grudging and not kind of given his due, as he feels. And now he's just talking all over the place. And it's really about the fact he feels snubbed. They could have bought him off by simply being nice to him.

A. BROWN: Right. When you talk about class, we are talking about class in the British sense, lower class, the royal class. Why didn't they just buy this guy off?

T. BROWN: Because they are so condescending, in a sense.

They never thought that the butler would overstep. They never thought that the butler would, in fact, violate his sense of where he is on the status quo. They should have understood that he was actually a very dangerous guy, unless he was kept quiet. But they didn't do that. They didn't nail him down. They let him loose. And that was an enormous error on their part. And it was an error of kind of arrogance.

A. BROWN: And whose error was that?

T. BROWN: I think it was the collective error of the whole royal household.

The thing about Burrell is that he had worked for many, many years, for the royal family, first for the queen as a footman. And then he went to join the Princess of Wales. When he went to work for the princess of Wales, his whole sense of himself changed. He became really part of a celebrity entourage. He became a handler. He became a guy who shared her secrets, who brought her custard in bed, all the things that -- these slightly creepy, sort of groupie-ish things that he used to do for her.

When she died, they wouldn't acknowledge that he had changed. They wanted him to creep back into the shadows and be a royal footman again and just shut up. But he didn't. He wanted to be a celebrity. He wanted to go out on the talk show circuit. He wanted to be part of her whole legacy. And when they really wouldn't accept that, things became very rancid between them. And they fired him from her committee, which was her royal memorial fund. He was very upset about that.

And then they let loose on him, Scotland Yard, because they said he had been stealing her possessions. And that's really what turned him into a very angry man.

A. BROWN: Do you think the -- does all of this go away? Does it all blow over, or does the prince have some serious problems right now?

T. BROWN: I think it's very unfortunate that this fresh load of sleaze has surfaced to bedevil Prince Charles.

He is actually a very decent, very boring, very honest, very pleasant man. And, somehow, he's continually being tormented by all of this. It's really quite wrong. The tabloids will not let this guy rest. They almost want to hound him into the grave.

A. BROWN: So?

T. BROWN: I think it's very sad for Charles. I think that it will probably mean that this will cling to him somewhat. I think he will -- nothing's going to harm him, ultimately.

A. BROWN: Right.

T. BROWN: But it just brings him further down. And I think it makes people feel even more contemptuous of royalty at the moment, which is unfortunate.

A. BROWN: What is it about him? Might it be anyone who was in that job, who had that title, or is there something about Prince Charles that makes him the kind of target the tabloids can't resist?

T. BROWN: Well, unfortunately for Prince Charles, yes. I think that he's a kind of transitional man. He's still got one, or really two feet in the old way of being a Windsor.

But he was actually married to this woman who was this incredible superstar, who was part of the new world of sort of Hollywood and media and superstardom. And he was kind of dragged unwillingly, really, into that world. But he really belongs in the other old world of the Windsors and Christmas Day speeches and kind of the corgi dogs and all of that. That is Charles' world. And yet he's been pulled into the other one. And he doesn't fit easily into it. And he doesn't like being there.

He wants to go back into that old world. And the old world isn't there any more for him to go back into.

A. BROWN: Just a last quick question. Do you think that this episode, what's going on now, will cost him the monarchy? Will it cost him being the king of England?

T. BROWN: No, it won't cost him that. There have been far worse scandals in the British monarchy than this. I don't think it's true. But it's just more sleaze. It will go. This, too, shall pass.

A. BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's nice to meet you.

T. BROWN: Thank you.

A. BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: Tina Brown. We talked with her earlier today.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: the man behind the cartoons, a look at the secret science behind the "New Yorker" cartoon issue.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: In a magazine where 10,000 words is often just a windup, you can also find some of the finest journalism, some of the keenest social observation, some of the quickest wit in a cartoon and a caption. The magazine, of course, is "The New Yorker." And just like "Playboy," people read it for more than the articles.

Each year, the magazine publishes an issue that puts the cartoons front and center. You can pick it up today. But before you do, take a look at how a cartoon becomes a "New Yorker" cartoon.

Producer Laura Van Stratton (ph) spent a day with cartoonist and cartoon editor Robert Mankoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT MANKOFF, CARTOON EDITOR, "THE NEW YORKER": It's not like I have some sort of laboratory testing kit to tell me what's actually funny.

The thing about being a cartoonist and being a cartoon editor or any of these jobs, of course, it's a wonderful and fantastic occupation, but it is not easy.

Oh, I made a mistake.

Unfortunately, when you go to work, you don't have anything to do. In other words, there's not a big pile of papers and say, oh, yes, add up these numbers, or, let's get out these memos. These are reports. Get this to Mr. Davis posthaste. No, you've got a blank piece of paper. You have to start.

In "The New Yorker," we do a certain type of cartoon called the magazine or even single-panel cartoons. In its classic form, it's just one sort of picture that needs some sort of a resolution.

Here, I'm just working on the idea, which was this bum, which is, "Please help me get an Internet fund-raising site," because I was listening to the radio with Howard Dean and all the people who are raising money on the Internet. The business of cartooning is the business of not acceptance, but rejection. Every cartoonist gets well over 90 percent of their work rejected. So you just don't want to make that like the Motor Vehicles Bureau: Oh, no good, no good, no good, no good.

The process of the cartoons, as they come into "The New Yorker" is, I'd say, basically, I'm looking at between 500 and 1,000 cartoons a week. I'm looking at the art. I'm looking at the jokes. And then I'm looking at the jokes to see, can I punch up any of these jokes? I try to take between 30 and 50 cartoons to David Remnick. And from that, we'll pick 15 or 20.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is disgusting.

MANKOFF: Disgusting in a good way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Make sure it gets

(CROSSTALK)

MANKOFF: You bet.

The cartoon issue started in 1997, when I became cartoon editor. I had been doing it for six years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is very funny. This is good. We can publish this in "The New Yorker."

One of the great new features we have now is this cartoon crossword puzzle, in which many of the answers are the captions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just want to see if it's doable, 13 across. First name...

MANKOFF: You want that funniness that is, of course, more funny than people actually are.

(LAUGHTER)

MANKOFF: Genius. This is great.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is really depressing.

MANKOFF: If they were mimes, we'd say yes.

People who make their money by jokes know that that's the underlying reality. It's all going go away. Let's just hope the jokes can carry you as long as possible.

A coffin with an "I'd Rather Be Alive" bumper sticker on the back.

Humor is the thing that tries, in a moment, to reconcile these things. What happened after 9/11, we didn't run cartoons for a week, because everybody was grieving. But the week after, the first cartoon we ran was a woman in a bar looking at a guy with a weird jacket, saying, "I thought I'd never laugh again until I saw that jacket."

And, basically, that said, we're alive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

A. BROWN: Next on NEWSNIGHT, morning papers. A break first.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

A. BROWN: OK. I know that sound. Time to check morning papers, whether I'm ready or not. Fortunately, tonight, I am. Here we go, morning papers from around the country and around the world.

"The Dallas Morning News" starts it off, because it was on top. "Same For Home, Roam." Advice to consumers switching cellular firms, bring along patience. Yes, I'll bet, too. "New Rules Allow Transfer of Land Line Numbers to Sell." That means that the telemarketers can call you at dinner no matter where you're eating dinner.

Also, I like this story. We should actually do this story, I think, and no reason we can't, because we have a bureau in Havana. "Cuba At Biotech's Cutting Edge," a look at the Cuban -- the Cubans spent a fortune -- and they don't have a fortune -- but they spent what they had to develop a biotech industry. And according to this piece in "The Dallas Morning News," it's paying off for them.

"The Miami Herald." "Justices to Hear Case of Foreign Captives." This is the Guantanamo case. "Transfer of Home Numbers Gets OK." That's the cell phone case. And "A Son's Tribute to Bravery." This is a nice Veterans Day feature, tomorrow being Veterans Day, the 11th. So when "The Miami Herald" lands on your doorstep, take a look at that article. It's pretty cool.

"San Francisco Chronicle." "High Court to Hear Detainees' Appeal. Case Looks at Guantanamo Prisoners' Rights." This story, I have seen a couple of times: "Dirty Bombs Possible in the United States." That's something to think about tomorrow, right, when the paper lands on your doorstep. And "Where Veterans Are Home" -- a veterans home, literally in Yountville, California, for aging veterans in the country. And we honor them tomorrow.

In "The Washington Times," down in the corner: "Democrats Decry Abuse of Civil Rights, Take Aim at Bush Team." What I noticed -- this was probably inadvertent -- but could they have picked a more unflattering picture of Al Gore to put on there? I don't think so.

"The Chattanooga Times Free Press." "To give the news impartially, without fear or favor," that's their slogan. "The Long Road Home. Vietnam Veterans Find Acceptance After a Lack of Support For Years" is their big story.

Twenty seconds. Let's go to the "Chicago Sun-Times." I love the . "Farewell, Mr. Chicago." Irv Kupcinet died. "From Presidents to Popes, Entertainers to Kings, Irv Kupcinet Knew Them All and Chronicled Their Stories For Six Decades." The legendary "Sun-Times" columnist dead Monday at 91. Weather tomorrow, "mixed bag" in "Chicago Sun-Times," a very cool front page for tomorrow.

We'll wrap up the day in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

A. BROWN: Before we go tonight, a quick update on our lead story, the possibility that this weekend's bombing in Saudi Arabia won't be the last. "This is not the end," says a senior State Department official. The next attacks, according to this official and other intelligence sources, may already be in the operational stages; 17 people died over the weekend, most OF them Arabs, Saudi officials increasingly now saying the bombers might have been trying to target Americans, but made a mistake -- the story tonight.

Tomorrow on the program, an American town that's been hit hard by fighting in Iraq, a small town now with three young casualties to mourn, CNN's Martin Savidge with that -- and much more tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time, NEWSNIGHT.

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Court to Hear Guantanamo Bay Detainees' Appeal>