Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Mixing Politics and Religion; Iraq Ready For Trial of Saddam Hussein?

Aired June 15, 2004 - 20:00   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.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Fifteen Catholic bishops say, if you support abortion rights, you should be denied holy communion. Tonight, mixing politics and religion.

And out of the spider hole into a jail. Saddam has been a prisoner since December. Now the U.S. must make a decision, charge him or turn him over to the Iraqis.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We don't want and I know the Iraqi interim government doesn't want is there to be lax security and for Saddam Hussein to somehow not stand trial.

ZAHN: Is the new Iraqi government ready for the trial of Saddam Hussein?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Good evening. Welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.

Catholic Church doctrine holds that taking holy communion is morally necessary for salvation. So the possibility of being denied that sacrament is a powerful weapon. And in a nation in which 25 percent of adults say they are Catholic, it could have a powerful social and political impact.

Well, recently, some American bishops suggested that John Kerry be denied communion because he supports abortion rights. According to a church official, the president asked the Vatican to push American bishops to become more actively involved in promoting his conservative social agenda, all of this during a presidential campaign that pits the president, a conservative Protestant, against John Kerry, a liberal Catholic.

Here's Tom Foreman with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Catholic churches coast to coast, the debate is roiling. more than a dozen bishops have called on Catholic politicians and voters to support the church's position against abortion or stay away from the communion rail. As the U.S. Conference of Bishops meet, they're not talking publicly, but their supporters are. FATHER WILLIAM MAESTRI, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: What the bishops are calling politicians, especially those in public life to, is to put Catholic social teaching into practice in this most important area of defending innocent human life.

FOREMAN: The initiative is openly aimed at Catholic presidential hopeful John Kerry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't receive communion. Join another church.

FOREMAN: But behind the scenes is the American Life League, which tomorrow will post this ad in "USA Today." It says, "This Sunday, 500 pro-abortion Catholic politicians will be allowed to receive the holy Eucharist, because nearly all Catholic bishops have chosen not to enforce church law."

JOE GIGANTI, AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE: Why claim membership in something if you don't want to do what that organization stands for?

FOREMAN: Joe Giganti says the message is for every Catholic.

GIGANTI: That doesn't matter if you're a trash man or if you're a politician, if you work in the media for a living. It doesn't matter. If you're Catholic and you want to be a Catholic in good standing, you can't support abortion.

FOREMAN: So what do theologians, such as Notre Dame's Father Richard McBrien, say about that?

FATHER RICHARD MCBRIEN, NOTRE DAME: No, that's false. And if that were the case, if it were so easy, if it were so straightforward, if it were so clear-cut an issue, then why is it that the overwhelming majority of bishops have not risen to support this view?

FOREMAN: Some of the bishops have also targeted gay marriages, stem cell research and assisted suicide. Their opponents acknowledge, the church opposes all these things, but they suggest making any one issue a litmus test to bar a Catholic from communion is religious blackmail.

STEVE KRUEGER, VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL: This is has not been the tradition within the Catholic Church. In effect, the denial of the Eucharist to Catholics for their political views is a subtle form of excommunication.

FOREMAN: More than 60 million Americans are Catholic. And on many issues, from birth control to divorce, they often oppose the church. In a new "TIME" poll, 70 percent disapprove of bishops pressuring them about their votes. Still, supporters of this effort point out, black Baptist churches promoted the civil rights movement and Jewish synagogues openly support Israel.

GIGANTI: Catholics have been misled into believing that you can somehow separate your conscience from your actions. And that's an absurd premise. FOREMAN: This is touchy business. President Bush is taking heat this week for allegedly talking to the pope about Catholic support. John Kerry just today was fending off the bishops' complaints.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Catholicism and -- is not defined by one issue.

FOREMAN: How much this will affect the election is not even remotely clear, but this new crusade to make religion matter has clearly just begun.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: That report from Tom Foreman.

Joining us now, "TIME" magazine religion writer David Van Biema, who co-wrote this week's cover story, "Faith, God, and the Oval Office."

Welcome.

So, is it your belief that these bishops are ultimately telling Catholics that they should vote for George Bush for president?

DAVID VAN BIEMA, "TIME": No, I don't think so. I don't think that they see it that way. I think that..

ZAHN: What are they saying?

VAN BIEMA: I think that a good many of them are frustrated by what they think is Kerry's sort of straight-down-the-line, what they consider unthinking pro-choice attitude. They would prefer, at least in a Catholic politician, to see some wrestling with the issue. And they haven't seen that. To say that they are all stumping for Bush I think probably overstates it a little.

ZAHN: But, clearly, there is a political implication here. They can't deny that their coming out with a statement will have some kind of effect on the electorate out there.

VAN BIEMA: Well, if you're ticked at somebody and you express that you're ticked at that person and it has a political -- there's a political consequence of that, I'm not certain that you can say that you intend the consequence.

ZAHN: One of the questions you explored in your piece was this: Should John Kerry be denied communion because he is pro-choice? Look at these numbers: 73 percent said no; 21 percent said yes. So, why, then, are these bishops coming down so hard on John Kerry?

VAN BIEMA: Well, it's important to realize that it's only five bishops that said that they would deny him communion out of 250-some. And the bishops are meeting now. They're in a retreat.

And I don't know whether a statement will come out of that or not. But if a statement were to come out, you'd probably hear that they -- most of them were opposed to denying a politician communion on those grounds. But I think that there is a tremendous amount of frustration in the hierarchy with two groups of people, with laypeople, regular people in the pews, who they don't feel are truly getting the church's position on this, because the Catholics break down the same way as everybody else does on this issue.

ZAHN: Right.

VAN BIEMA: And with politicians whom they feel are sort of being careerist in their pro-choice attitude, rather than sort of wrestling with it and making pro-choice votes that might be with the notion at some point or another of being able to reduce abortions in some other way at some other point.

ZAHN: Interesting.

Well, David Van Biema, if you wouldn't mind, please stand by, because we're going to bring you back after this short break.

We will debate the issue with Judie Brown of the American Life League and Chuck Colbert, a contributor to "The National Catholic Reporter."

That's coming up next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: We are talking about U.S. Catholic bishops and the debate over denying holy communion to politicians who support abortion rights.

"TIME" magazine religion writer David Van Biema is back with us. Also joining us from Denver, Judie Brown, founder of the American Life League. She supports the idea. And on the other side of the argument, freelance journalist Chuck Colbert, who is with us. He is a contributor to "The National Catholic Reporter." And he joins us tonight from Watertown, Massachusetts.

Welcome, all.

Judie, I want to start with you this evening and share with our audience some of what "TIME" magazine asked some Catholic voters. Should the Catholic Church influence the way Catholics vote? Seventy percent said no; 26 percent said yes. Why do you think it's appropriate for the bishops to have made these statements?

JUDIE BROWN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE: I think it's very appropriate for the bishops to ignore public opinion polls, because moral absolutes are not based on public opinion. There is right and there's wrong.

The bishops have a moral obligation to protect the body and blood of Christ from sacrilege and holy communion. They have a moral obligation to teach that abortion is a grave sin. They have a moral obligation to deny holy communion to any public figure who claims to be Catholic and supports the direct killing of children by acts of abortion.

ZAHN: Chuck Colbert, your reaction to that, that these bishops have a moral obligation to say what they're saying?

CHUCK COLBERT, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: Well, only five in America, as your previous guest said, have taken that position.

There aren't absolutes in this debate, as we're finding out. For example, the pope himself gave communion to Tony Blair, a pro-choice Anglican. And also he gave...

BROWN: He did not.

COLBERT: May I speak, please?

And the pope also gave communion at the end of the jubilee to a left-leaning Italian mayor of Rome at the time who was solidly pro- choice. And it's very odd. You have a scenario where you have the bishops, the Vatican and the pope are not taking this absolutist view with respect to communion and to the Eucharist.

ZAHN: All right, Judie, do you deny that there's a disconnect there between some of what the pope has said and what the bishops are saying?

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I think that the bishops are remiss and I think they have totally failed in their responsibility to be the moral leaders of our country. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. They have a job to do and they're not doing it.

They're not listening to the holy father. They're not paying attention to the teachings of the church. And I pray that, eventually, they will recognize the fact that they must protect Christ from sacrilege. They must deny holy communion to pro-abortion Catholics who claim to be practicing Catholics.

ZAHN: But, Chuck, even though Judie passionately argues that these bishops should not be reading polls, you believe this is politically motivated, don't you?

COLBERT: Oh, there's no question there is an element of politics in this. This is I'm sure very frustrating for the bishops to have a Catholic politician, a nominee for the Democratic Party who is solidly pro-choice and is not in lockstep with the church on the issue of abortion.

And I think there is frustration also with the fact that the church has been involved in political things on the gay marriage front. And, in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic politicians have not been in lockstep with the church against gay marriage. It's -- I'm sure it's frustrating for them. I'm sure it's difficult to navigate the American landscape with separation of church and state, with First Amendment rights, and with basic Catholic principles of freedom of conscience, freedom to form your conscience, religious liberty.

ZAHN: All right, but, Judie, in your mind, is the issue of abortion the overriding issue politically today when we look at this upcoming election?

BROWN: Frankly, abortion has never been an issue. It is an act that results in the death of a person. And it is a moral absolute. Thou shalt not kill is not debatable. You may not kill an innocent human being.

The bishops have a moral authority to make sure that Catholics understand that. And the gravity of saying that you support abortion, it's a serious, serious sin.

ZAHN: All right, but, Judie, you know what critics of the president are out there saying tonight. They're saying that he addressed this issue with the pope because it's all about winning the election this fall. You have to acknowledge that there are political implications here.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I have to acknowledge that there are many stories in the media that would lead people to believe that this is politically motivated. But, frankly, the...

ZAHN: You deny it?

BROWN: I absolutely deny it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

ZAHN: What about that, Chuck?

COLBERT: I don't know the motivation of the bishops.

I think they're trying to teach what they believe to be the church's teaching. And they have an obligation to do that. I have no problem with that. But the issue is that they're teaching on a variety of issues that I would call pelvic issues, birth control, contraception, gay marriage, divorce, remarriage, and abortion, are not being received by the laity significantly. And that's part of the disconnect.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: David, I want you to weigh in on this now. You have heard both sides passionately argue this issue tonight. What impact does this have on the Kerry campaign?

VAN BIEMA: Well, to be honest, from our polling, it doesn't seem to be having a tremendous impact on it. It is not as though there is a large group of voters who appear to be swayed by what the bishops have been saying.

ZAHN: Although your poll...

VAN BIEMA: That they're going to move in the Bush column over this.

ZAHN: Although your polling did show that, by and large, as a single issue, abortion trumps capital punishment and a whole host of other issues.

VAN BIEMA: People's attitudes towards it are reasonably well set. And I don't -- and when we polled amongst the group of people who described themselves as very religious, who are going to mass once a week, those Catholics, a majority of those Catholics were not in favor of what this very small group of bishops has been saying about the denial of communion. And that would tend to suggest that -- if they had already -- if they were thinking of voting Democratic, that they would not be swayed to vote Republican over this issue.

ZAHN: Well, it's a fascinating issue for all of us to study. We appreciate our trio joining us tonight.

David Van Biema, Judie Brown, Chuck Colbert, thank you, all.

Coming up next, a disturbing new videotape of an American hostage in Saudi Arabia.

Then, bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. Will the U.S. release its most prized POW to the Iraqis? And is the new Iraqi government ready to try him?

And Al Gore, he's all fired up and taking on President Bush. That's later in this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A chilling videotape surfaced on the Internet today showing what looks like the American contractor kidnapped in Saudi Arabia over the weekend.

The man in the tape identifies himself as Paul Johnson and says he works on Apache helicopters. His head is bandaged and his shirt is torn, revealing a tattoo. The tape also includes a threatening message from a mass gunman who claims to be part of a group linked to al Qaeda.

Deborah Feyerick joins us now with more on this new tape.

I am sure, when you saw this, just like everybody else in America, you got a huge chill down your spine.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, because the terrorists are giving the United States government and Saudi government about 72 hours to meet their demands. Otherwise, they say that they will kill Paul Johnson.

What we do know about this tape, it runs about 4 1/2 minutes. Paul Johnson appears at the very top for 20 to 25 seconds. The video is heavily edited. The kidnappers appear to have chosen only select statements made by Johnson. At one point, there is a side shot of him in which his neck appears to be heavily damaged. The gunman who takes up most of this videotape, really, making demands, saying that they want al Qaeda prisoners to be released and also that they want all Westerners, Americans, British, off of the Arabian Peninsula.

ZAHN: Which al Qaeda prisoners are they talking about, those in Guantanamo Bay as well?

FEYERICK: Well, this is what's interesting. On their Web site earlier, they did make references to all al Qaeda prisoners. But on this video, they specifically refer to only al Qaeda prisoners being kept in Saudi jails. And they refer to three specific Saudi prisoners.

ZAHN: Tell us a little bit more about the bandages.

FEYERICK: This is what's so interesting.

I spoke to one terrorism expert. And he basically says that the bandages, basically, around the eyes are placed in such a way so that Johnson does not know where he is, does not see who his captors are. Basically, they're making sure that he doesn't know where he is. The terrorism expert I spoke to said, these guys really seem to be hard- core. And this is why they're keeping him the way he is. You can see, he's slumped over. Even his speech was a little bit jerky.

ZAHN: Very difficult to watch.

Deborah Feyerick, thanks.

From a hostage to a prisoner of war, we turn now to the fate of Saddam Hussein. The Coalition Provisional Authority and the new government are in talks over transferring Saddam to Iraqi custody. But like so much in Iraq, it's not as simple as it sounds.

Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): Saddam came out of that spider hole and went into legal limbo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's when Saddam put his hands up and they assisted him out.

TOOBIN: He's an American prisoner of war, but maybe not for long. The plan was always to turn him over to the new Iraqi government to be tried. And the new Iraqi interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, says he wants him back right away.

IYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER-DESIGNATE: Well, definitely, we'll be trying our best to get custody of Saddam and the other criminals. We have so far some definite promises from the coalition this will be the case. The negotiations are under way and are progressing well.

TOOBIN: But is the new government ready to try Saddam? Today, President Bush said he wasn't sure.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I mean, one thing, obviously, is that we don't want and I know the Iraqi interim government doesn't want is there to be lax security and for Saddam Hussein to somehow not stand trial for the horrendous murders and torture that he inflicted upon the Iraqi people.

TOOBIN: A team of American legal advisers is already in Iraq planning for a trial.

GREG KEHOE, SADDAM PROSECUTOR: We are collecting evidence. We will interview witnesses. We will get involved in exhumations throughout the country, essentially do everything we possibly can to support the prosecutions that are currently being investigated.

TOOBIN: So, is the American government ready to turn over its biggest prize? And when would a trial start? Where? Who prosecutes and who defends? Many unanswered questions about this trial, very few doubts about the verdict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And Jeffrey Toobin joins us now. Always good to see you.

TOOBIN: Hi.

ZAHN: So if the U.S. turns over Saddam Hussein, what kind of control do they have, if any, during a trial?

TOOBIN: Well, that's why we have liaison -- that's the term that we're using -- liaison with this burgeoning Iraqi legal system. We're going to try to help them present the case. But that's the risk.

ZAHN: I don't know what that means.

TOOBIN: Well, what it means is, we can help assemble the case. We can gather evidence. We can work with the lawyers.

But, ultimately, the people who will be putting on the case and the judges who will be judging it will be Iraqis. So, once we turn it over, it's not totally within our control anymore.

ZAHN: But you can manipulate, you can massage, no?

TOOBIN: That's the goal. But strange things happen in court, as you well know, even in Iraqi courts. And there will be a lot of political cross-currents about this trial. What if Saddam wants to filibuster, like Milosevic has done in the trial in The Hague? Is that something that's going to be good? Will the courts allow that? Those are the kind of issues that are going to be difficult to resolve.

ZAHN: You know, this -- even the prospect of this case makes a lot of Americans nuts. What else could go wrong from the American perspective? TOOBIN: I think what can go wrong most is that Saddam gets a platform to the Iraqi people and people begin to become nostalgic for his rule.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: How could they possibly become nostalgic?

TOOBIN: Well, why are there people in the street blowing up our troops there? There are people who support him.

ZAHN: Well, but according to polls, that's a minority of the population.

TOOBIN: It is.

And what makes this so important is that, in World War II, the world didn't really know about the Holocaust until the Nuremberg trials. It's critically important for the American credibility and for world credibility that the public see that this invasion was justified because of Saddam's crimes that will be exposed in that trial.

ZAHN: Real quick answer. What the timetable for this we're looking at?

TOOBIN: Not clear. Could be weeks. Could be months. Legal systems being what they are, I would bet months.

ZAHN: And you can bet our man Jeffrey Toobin will be on the case.

Thanks so much.

When we come back, the latest on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. A defense attorney says he can prove top officers knew about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and actually mandated it.

Then, later on, Carlos Watson on his cross-country quest to sample the pulse of American voters. He goes to Ohio this evening.

And tomorrow, how is the Saudi government likely to handle the latest threat to execute an American captive? Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan will join us tomorrow night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The death of President Reagan knocked a lot of news off the front pages last week, but one story is about to make a comeback. In Baghdad next week, three American soldiers face hearings in the prison abuse scandal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: (voice-over): Nearly two months after the story broke, there are still so many unanswered questions about Abu Ghraib. Perhaps the biggest, how far up the ladder does responsibility lie? We know that the worst of the abuse happened between October and December of last year. Not long after Major General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of the prison at Guantanamo Bay suggested that guards at Abu Ghraib do the initial interrogation of Iraqi prisoners.

That was a departure from standard military practice. The International Red Cross says it alerted U.S. military commanders in Iraq of the humiliating treatment of prisoners who were being kept naked in dark cells at Abu Ghraib, and of other conditions that were in some cases tantamount to torture. And even submitted reports to central command in mid-November.

In December, two more reports have allegedly been filed. One by soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib, and another by a military intelligence analyst. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was in command of the prison until she was relieved of duty in January, said she wasn't responsible and pointed the finger at military intelligence.

BRIGADIER GENERAL JANIS KARPINSKI, U.S. ARMY: I certainly take the responsibility for some of this, yes. Because those soldiers were assigned to a company under my command. Blame? I don't think that the blame rests with me or with the 800th MP brigade.

ZAHN: Karpinski also said she told Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq about the abuse at Abu Ghraib in the fall. Sanchez denied that last month, saying that he was not aware of what had happened at the prison until January, when a formal investigation began. So, who took the rap? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: These events occurred on my watch as secretary of defense, I am accountable for them, and I take full responsibility.

ZAHN: But even though Rumsfeld had approved the use of nonstandard interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, he said he did not know about the abusive methods used at Abu Ghraib. What about President Bush? The White House said he first became aware of the situation in April when he saw the pictures on TV. In May, the president issued an apology to the Arab world.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES: The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as the Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. Therefore, there will be a full investigation, and justice will be served.

ZAHN: So where does the buck stop? Next week a military court begins hearings for three of the six soldiers facing charges in the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But some lawyers say the buck doesn't stop there, and that responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib reaches all the way to the top.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Earlier I talked with Houston attorney Guy Womack who is defending Specialist Charles Graner, one of the soldiers facing hearings next week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (on-camera): Your defense will be that your client was simply following orders. Do you believe that what your client did was legal and moral?

GUY WOMACK, ATTORNEY FOR SPECIALIST CHARLES GRANER: Yes, I do. Based on the legal opinions that have been given to President Bush by his White House counsel, to the CIA by the Department of Justice, and to Lieutenant General Sanchez, secretary of defense, all of the various SJAs and other counsel have said that the kinds of prisoners held at Tier 1-Alpha at Abu Ghraib were international outlaws. They were outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

ZAHN: And why would you believe that their treatment was moral?

WOMACK: Well, if they have no rights, but they have information that could save American lives, then I think we could rightfully use aggressive tactics to try to get that information. We were not killing them. We were not amputating limbs or torturing them. Rather they were being made to assume stress positions, something that would be uncomfortable. They were being deprived of sleep. They were being photographed in embarrassing, humiliating positions. I don't think any of that or all of that added up would be torture.

ZAHN: But how can military intelligence officers and prison guards make the assumption that all of these prisoners were confirmed international outlaws? Isn't there a possibility that some of these men were innocent?

WOMACK: Apparently not. Apparently over the months leading up to October and November of 2003, the Army had done a very thorough job of identifying people. According to Senator Inhofe, remember sometime back he stated that something between 70 and 90 percent of the men rounded up and taken to the prison were identified as innocent and were released. The ones who were left, the ones being interrogated Tier 1-Alpha were the baddest of the bad. These are ones that I think are outlaws.

ZAHN: So, sir, you have no doubt in your mind that the prisoners your client was guarding were guilty of something?

WOMACK: I am accepting the Army's position that these were people who were high interest detainees, high value detainees. They believe they were insurgents from other countries. Terrorists, irregular forces like the Fedayeen. If they are those types of people, then yes, they're outlaws.

ZAHN: No matter what you say about that picture and, clearly, the prosecution will probably use it. It is a loaded picture. Your interpretation will be heard in court. I know you believe that the so-called sadistic smile on your client's face was a reflection of what you say was stress in this horrible prison. But were you disturbed by the picture the first time you saw it? Did you find the expression on your client's face odd? WOMACK: No. Certainly the expression is odd because it's gallows humor. Or he was ordered to smile for the psychological impact it would have. I don't know which applies here. But one or the other clearly does.

ZAHN: Ordered to smile? Do you expect people to believe that? That the spearies (ph) would actually tell your client to smile behind a pile of naked Iraqis?

WOMACK: In the staged photographs, and we think this is one of them, certainly the MP's were ordered to smile. Because it has more psychological impact if the guards look like they're enjoying doing something humiliating.

ZAHN: But you do understand how people seeing them for the first time might arrive at an entirely different conclusion than you shared with us this evening?

WOMACK: Absolutely. Paula, there's an old saying that a photograph is worth 1,000 words. If you look at the photograph with no explanation, it may give you the wrong 1,000 words. My role, my mission is to make sure that the military jury, that panel of members, understands what 1,000 words go with these photographs.

ZAHN: Mr. Guy Womack, we have to leave it there this evening. Thank you so much for joining us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And when we come back, we will zero in on politics. Once again, he's not the nominee, but Al Gore is turning up the volume on the campaign trail this year.

What happens in Vegas could come to the White House. We're going to hear what voters in Las Vegas are thinking. That's a little bit later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The man who ran against President Bush four years ago is fired up for this year's election. Although Former Vice President Al Gore opted out of the race long before the primaries, he apparently will not be sidelined. National correspondent Kelly Wallace looks at Gore's rousing attacks on President Bush, and their potential political impact.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: His loyalists call it "Al Gore unplugged".

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our country would be a lot better off today if he were president because of all the problems in Iraq and the economy.

GORE: Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign immediately as the chief architect of this plan.

WALLACE: To his critics, it is the former vice president losing his mind.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He had his shot at political office, and we already said we didn't want him.

GORE: This administration has shamed America and has deeply damaged the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere.

WALLACE: To oldest daughter Karenna, it is her father who won the popular vote in 2000, speaking not as a candidate, but as a concerned statesman.

KARENNA GORE, AL GORE'S DAUGHTER: Right now my dad is not reading polls, not paying attention to focus groups. He is just saying from the heart what he believes is right, and where he would like to see this country go.

WALLACE: If Al Gore wanted to get people's attention, he succeeded. After all, Bruce Springsteen on his Web site is encouraging fans to read the speech Gore delivered a few weeks ago, his most critical yet of the president's handling of the war with Iraq.

GORE: We may have to wait to get rid of Bush and Cheney. But we ought to call on our Republican friends to join us in getting the rest of that team out right now.

WALLACE: Some Democratic strategists say Gore's charges could help John Kerry, especially with those Democrats who might be considering Ralph Nader.

HOWARD WOLFSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Strident anti-war Democrats need reassurance that it's OK to vote for John Kerry. And Al Gore helped provide that.

WALLACE: An alternative view that Gore does nothing but make the GOP smile.

MICHELLE COTTLE, THE NEW REPUBLIC: For every voter who thinks, wow, this is my team, go team. There's going to be somebody else who thinks, wow, Bush was right. The Democrats are a little unbalanced. I don't want them running national security or homeland security.

WALLACE: And then there is this political theory, that Gore seeming to be on the left of Kerry will make the presumptive Democratic nominee appear more moderate. Do you buy that assessment at all?

K. GORE: Well, I think it's absolutely great if what my dad is doing helps John Kerry for whatever reason. And I know that he feels that way too. But he really is speaking from the heart. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And, Paula, Karenna Gore told us she wanted her father to run this year, but he chose not to. And says while he has no plans for a future presidential bid, he will continue speaking out.

ZAHN: Interesting take on all this. Thanks, Kelly, appreciate it.

So do Al Gore's actions really matter in this election year? For more insight on Gore's motives in the campaign trail, we turn now to Joe Klein, a columnist for "Time" magazine and a frequent contributor to this program. You should just bring your coat. You just live here with us.

JOE KLEIN, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, we have a couch now.

ZAHN: Yes, I know. Who needs to go home? So what does Al Gore want?

KLEIN: I think he wants to be heard, number one. Number two, he's pretty angry. Every -- this is a guy who wakes up every day and sees the president making decisions, and knows if he were president he might be making the exact opposite decision.

ZAHN: Do you blame him?

KLEIN: No, you can't blame him for that. You might blame him for his tone. Also I think that there is a certain amount of self- indulgence going on here. Al Gore grew up the ultimate insider. His dad was a senator. And by the way, his dad used to sound a lot like that when he made speeches.

ZAHN: Almost Howard Dean-esque.

KLEIN: Yes, well, no, southern populist. And I think that Gore has always wanted to be an outsider. And now he has succeeded. He is an outsider; he is the candidate of MoveOn.org and the other liberal interest groups. And I think he's very pleased with that. And I also think that Karenna Gore is right. He's saying what he really believes.

ZAHN: All right. So you say he wants to be heard. The question is, is anybody listening to him?

KLEIN: Well, I think the question is, is anybody listening to President Bush or John Kerry at this point in the campaign? I don't know. Us political junkies are, but I don't know whether these messages are getting out to America.

ZAHN: Let's shift gears and talk about Bill Clinton. A man you know an awful lot about. His new book is generating a lot of buzz. What have you heard?

KLEIN: Well, it's coming out next week.

ZAHN: It's very long. I understand it was very hard for him to edit out stories.

KLEIN: It is 957 pages long, which is about 200 pages longer than Ronald Reagan's memoir.

ZAHN: Would you describe that as self-indulgent Joe?

KLEIN: I would describe that as presidential. These are presidential memoirs. And the presidents always want you to know about every last trip that they've taken, and every last decision they've made.

ZAHN: There is much being made of the Clinton's joint decision not to attend some sort of book joining party during the convention in July. Should we read anything into that?

KLEIN: I think that the president is probably sensitive about the fact that this should be John Kerry's time. And he has a book...

ZAHN: That's never bothered the former president before, has it? Raining on somebody else's parade?

KLEIN: Well, I think that he doesn't want to rain on the senator from New York's parade either. He doesn't want to make himself too obnoxious at this point. He is going to get a lot of press over the next few weeks. And I think he's going to try and be careful. Just as he tried to be careful in 2000 when Al Gore was the candidate. And he'll probably fail at being careful because he can never control himself.

ZAHN: There was a scene at the White House yesterday that I was really struck by. And it was sort of this giant love fest when President Clinton and Hillary Clinton's official portraits were unveiled. Describe to our audience the demeanor of President Bush, and whether you bought all of this chatty stuff that happened at the White House. It was a love fest, wasn't it?

KLEIN: The president was extremely gracious toward Bill Clinton. Talking about his convictions and fighting for his beliefs and all that he had done for the American people. Which is kind of odd after three years of trying to do -- erase everything that Bill Clinton had done, and do the exact opposite.

But, Clinton had been very gracious to his dad, and I think that at this point in the campaign George Bush is trying to move back to the center and seem more moderate. He has the right part of the spectrum sewn up. Now the fight is over the middle. And to be nice to Bill Clinton, to be nice in general is kind of the sort of thing that people want to see.

ZAHN: It got you, didn't it? Joe Klein, thank you.

Finally this hour, we're going to take the "American Pulse." Carlos Watson with voters in Las Vegas coming up next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: This year's presidential election is shaping up to be a close one, so it may be difficult to place your bet on who might win. For tonight's "American Pulse," CNN political analyst Carlos Watson visited a city where betting is a way of life. Las Vegas, Nevada. It is the latest stop on a cross-country trip that has taken him to communities such as New Orleans and Springfield, Missouri to talk politics with everyday folks.

In Las Vegas he sat down with some casino employees and got them to put their political cards on the table. Carlos joins us now. It's always good to see you.

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

ZAHN: You have to explain something to us tonight. Didn't Nevada used to be reliably Republican?

WATSON: Very reliably Republican.

ZAHN: What happened?

WATSON: Well, transplants in a word. People moving in from California, Arizona, other parts of the country. And actually now significant, believe it or not, Hispanic population in Nevada. Such that the last election wasn't a double digit Republican win. But instead Republicans won by a little more than 5 points. So both President Bush and John Kerry are spending a ton of money in Nevada, and will be heavily contested.

ZAHN: We are going to see now what you saw at the casino. At least the parts that we can share with our viewing public tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Here's what some of those voters had to think.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WATSON (on camera): What could President Bush do to win your vote?

PHIL SHALALA (D), VOTED FOR GORE IN 2000: He could figure out the debacle he put us into in Iraq is what he could do. When you go to war, you got a plan. It's not a plan for a year. It's not a plan for two years. It's a ten-year plan. Right now in ten years I think we're in a terrible situation.

RICHARD LEAN (R), VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000: Right or wrong when we went into Iraq, at least he made a decision and did it. He did something. I believe that because we're still in the conflict with Iraq that I don't think we should change horses in the middle of a stream.

WATSON: You think that would be a mistake?

LEAN: I think that would be a mistake. MELISSA DREZNER, (I), VOTED FOR GORE IN 2000: One of the biggest mistakes that this administration made in the invasion of Iraq was that they went into it without the full support of the world community. And now, in light of everything that's happened with the different militia groups over there springing up, it's become a cesspool, and a country up for grabs.

KATIE CLARKE (R), DID NOT VOTE IN 2000: It's very scary what happened to this country two-and-a-half years ago. And I pray to God that never happens again. We do need to have our Homeland Security. We need to show the world that we are a strong country. It's scary to think what's going on with all these innocent people that are over there, whether they be civilians or soldiers losing their lives.

SHALALA: Look what happened over here. I didn't see anyone apologize for slamming a plane into a building. And now all of a sudden we're expected to apologize for soldiers abusing prisoners. I'm not saying they should have done it. But enough of these people going out there and publicly apologizing and saying we're wrong and court-martialing soldiers. Hey, it's war. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the end. Get over it. That's what's going to happen.

WATSON: What would be the most important issues for you in this election?

CLARKE: Trying to resolve the conflict over in Iraq is a huge, you know, huge issue. We're spending all kinds of money in another country for the sake of security and freedom and everything. But it's like, I feel like we've kind of forgotten about some of the things going on in this country.

JEFF REACHER (R), VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000: Health care is a major concern of myself and my family's. Everyone has medical problems. Everyone has medical bills. And 20, 25 percent of my income is going towards medical expenses.

SHALALA: I'd like to look towards the future.

WATSON: OK.

SHALALA: And I don't see us going in a good direction. And I think a lot of it has to do with education, and what's going on with these children. Thank God I don't have kids, but you know, I feel bad anybody who does right now.

WATSON: Would you willing to pay more in taxes in order to have higher teacher salaries?

SHALALA: I'm not saying necessarily pay more, but I'd be willing to look at a tax structure and allocate it differently so that it would possibly benefit the education.

DREZNER: My concern is with the world and the state of affairs we're in right now, it's the gay marriage thing, it's the euthanasia thing. There's just certain civil liberties that I think people are entitled to. WATSON: I go to different places, I hear different things. How's the economy been for you?

REACHER: Well, I just moved here from New York about eight months ago. And in New York, it was pretty brutal. It was very tough. I mean everyone, friends, family members are out of work. There's no jobs, and it was kind of tough there. Over here it seems to be doing pretty well.

WATSON: What about you, Richard, what is your experience with the economy?

LEAN: No matter what is going on in the rest of the nation, we always seem to be doing well here. Interest rates are down. People are spending money. And as long as people are spending money, the economy is going to be good.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So, is there a single issue that will push the vote in Nevada?

WATSON: No, because, again, I don't think you have the kind of monolithic Republican-leaning block that you once had. Instead, it won't be the economy, because you have a much healthier economy there. But you will hear about health care. You will hear about the war. And interestingly enough, some of the social issues that aren't playing as big in other parts of the country, may matter here. Issues like abortion rights. Issues like civil liberties. You might hear a little bit more here than the west.

ZAHN: All right. You have to put all the cards on the table now. Did you come home richer or poorer from that trip?

WATSON: I'll say this. I'm going on vacation soon.

ZAHN: He did very well at the games he played. Carlos Watson, thanks.

WATSON: Good to see you.

ZAHN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: That wraps it up for us this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight. Tomorrow night more on the American hostage in Saudi Arabia who's facing an execution deadline and what can be done to save his life. Again, thanks for joining us tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a good night.

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


Aired June 15, 2004 - 20:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Fifteen Catholic bishops say, if you support abortion rights, you should be denied holy communion. Tonight, mixing politics and religion.

And out of the spider hole into a jail. Saddam has been a prisoner since December. Now the U.S. must make a decision, charge him or turn him over to the Iraqis.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We don't want and I know the Iraqi interim government doesn't want is there to be lax security and for Saddam Hussein to somehow not stand trial.

ZAHN: Is the new Iraqi government ready for the trial of Saddam Hussein?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Good evening. Welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.

Catholic Church doctrine holds that taking holy communion is morally necessary for salvation. So the possibility of being denied that sacrament is a powerful weapon. And in a nation in which 25 percent of adults say they are Catholic, it could have a powerful social and political impact.

Well, recently, some American bishops suggested that John Kerry be denied communion because he supports abortion rights. According to a church official, the president asked the Vatican to push American bishops to become more actively involved in promoting his conservative social agenda, all of this during a presidential campaign that pits the president, a conservative Protestant, against John Kerry, a liberal Catholic.

Here's Tom Foreman with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Catholic churches coast to coast, the debate is roiling. more than a dozen bishops have called on Catholic politicians and voters to support the church's position against abortion or stay away from the communion rail. As the U.S. Conference of Bishops meet, they're not talking publicly, but their supporters are. FATHER WILLIAM MAESTRI, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: What the bishops are calling politicians, especially those in public life to, is to put Catholic social teaching into practice in this most important area of defending innocent human life.

FOREMAN: The initiative is openly aimed at Catholic presidential hopeful John Kerry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't receive communion. Join another church.

FOREMAN: But behind the scenes is the American Life League, which tomorrow will post this ad in "USA Today." It says, "This Sunday, 500 pro-abortion Catholic politicians will be allowed to receive the holy Eucharist, because nearly all Catholic bishops have chosen not to enforce church law."

JOE GIGANTI, AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE: Why claim membership in something if you don't want to do what that organization stands for?

FOREMAN: Joe Giganti says the message is for every Catholic.

GIGANTI: That doesn't matter if you're a trash man or if you're a politician, if you work in the media for a living. It doesn't matter. If you're Catholic and you want to be a Catholic in good standing, you can't support abortion.

FOREMAN: So what do theologians, such as Notre Dame's Father Richard McBrien, say about that?

FATHER RICHARD MCBRIEN, NOTRE DAME: No, that's false. And if that were the case, if it were so easy, if it were so straightforward, if it were so clear-cut an issue, then why is it that the overwhelming majority of bishops have not risen to support this view?

FOREMAN: Some of the bishops have also targeted gay marriages, stem cell research and assisted suicide. Their opponents acknowledge, the church opposes all these things, but they suggest making any one issue a litmus test to bar a Catholic from communion is religious blackmail.

STEVE KRUEGER, VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL: This is has not been the tradition within the Catholic Church. In effect, the denial of the Eucharist to Catholics for their political views is a subtle form of excommunication.

FOREMAN: More than 60 million Americans are Catholic. And on many issues, from birth control to divorce, they often oppose the church. In a new "TIME" poll, 70 percent disapprove of bishops pressuring them about their votes. Still, supporters of this effort point out, black Baptist churches promoted the civil rights movement and Jewish synagogues openly support Israel.

GIGANTI: Catholics have been misled into believing that you can somehow separate your conscience from your actions. And that's an absurd premise. FOREMAN: This is touchy business. President Bush is taking heat this week for allegedly talking to the pope about Catholic support. John Kerry just today was fending off the bishops' complaints.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Catholicism and -- is not defined by one issue.

FOREMAN: How much this will affect the election is not even remotely clear, but this new crusade to make religion matter has clearly just begun.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: That report from Tom Foreman.

Joining us now, "TIME" magazine religion writer David Van Biema, who co-wrote this week's cover story, "Faith, God, and the Oval Office."

Welcome.

So, is it your belief that these bishops are ultimately telling Catholics that they should vote for George Bush for president?

DAVID VAN BIEMA, "TIME": No, I don't think so. I don't think that they see it that way. I think that..

ZAHN: What are they saying?

VAN BIEMA: I think that a good many of them are frustrated by what they think is Kerry's sort of straight-down-the-line, what they consider unthinking pro-choice attitude. They would prefer, at least in a Catholic politician, to see some wrestling with the issue. And they haven't seen that. To say that they are all stumping for Bush I think probably overstates it a little.

ZAHN: But, clearly, there is a political implication here. They can't deny that their coming out with a statement will have some kind of effect on the electorate out there.

VAN BIEMA: Well, if you're ticked at somebody and you express that you're ticked at that person and it has a political -- there's a political consequence of that, I'm not certain that you can say that you intend the consequence.

ZAHN: One of the questions you explored in your piece was this: Should John Kerry be denied communion because he is pro-choice? Look at these numbers: 73 percent said no; 21 percent said yes. So, why, then, are these bishops coming down so hard on John Kerry?

VAN BIEMA: Well, it's important to realize that it's only five bishops that said that they would deny him communion out of 250-some. And the bishops are meeting now. They're in a retreat.

And I don't know whether a statement will come out of that or not. But if a statement were to come out, you'd probably hear that they -- most of them were opposed to denying a politician communion on those grounds. But I think that there is a tremendous amount of frustration in the hierarchy with two groups of people, with laypeople, regular people in the pews, who they don't feel are truly getting the church's position on this, because the Catholics break down the same way as everybody else does on this issue.

ZAHN: Right.

VAN BIEMA: And with politicians whom they feel are sort of being careerist in their pro-choice attitude, rather than sort of wrestling with it and making pro-choice votes that might be with the notion at some point or another of being able to reduce abortions in some other way at some other point.

ZAHN: Interesting.

Well, David Van Biema, if you wouldn't mind, please stand by, because we're going to bring you back after this short break.

We will debate the issue with Judie Brown of the American Life League and Chuck Colbert, a contributor to "The National Catholic Reporter."

That's coming up next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: We are talking about U.S. Catholic bishops and the debate over denying holy communion to politicians who support abortion rights.

"TIME" magazine religion writer David Van Biema is back with us. Also joining us from Denver, Judie Brown, founder of the American Life League. She supports the idea. And on the other side of the argument, freelance journalist Chuck Colbert, who is with us. He is a contributor to "The National Catholic Reporter." And he joins us tonight from Watertown, Massachusetts.

Welcome, all.

Judie, I want to start with you this evening and share with our audience some of what "TIME" magazine asked some Catholic voters. Should the Catholic Church influence the way Catholics vote? Seventy percent said no; 26 percent said yes. Why do you think it's appropriate for the bishops to have made these statements?

JUDIE BROWN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE: I think it's very appropriate for the bishops to ignore public opinion polls, because moral absolutes are not based on public opinion. There is right and there's wrong.

The bishops have a moral obligation to protect the body and blood of Christ from sacrilege and holy communion. They have a moral obligation to teach that abortion is a grave sin. They have a moral obligation to deny holy communion to any public figure who claims to be Catholic and supports the direct killing of children by acts of abortion.

ZAHN: Chuck Colbert, your reaction to that, that these bishops have a moral obligation to say what they're saying?

CHUCK COLBERT, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: Well, only five in America, as your previous guest said, have taken that position.

There aren't absolutes in this debate, as we're finding out. For example, the pope himself gave communion to Tony Blair, a pro-choice Anglican. And also he gave...

BROWN: He did not.

COLBERT: May I speak, please?

And the pope also gave communion at the end of the jubilee to a left-leaning Italian mayor of Rome at the time who was solidly pro- choice. And it's very odd. You have a scenario where you have the bishops, the Vatican and the pope are not taking this absolutist view with respect to communion and to the Eucharist.

ZAHN: All right, Judie, do you deny that there's a disconnect there between some of what the pope has said and what the bishops are saying?

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I think that the bishops are remiss and I think they have totally failed in their responsibility to be the moral leaders of our country. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. They have a job to do and they're not doing it.

They're not listening to the holy father. They're not paying attention to the teachings of the church. And I pray that, eventually, they will recognize the fact that they must protect Christ from sacrilege. They must deny holy communion to pro-abortion Catholics who claim to be practicing Catholics.

ZAHN: But, Chuck, even though Judie passionately argues that these bishops should not be reading polls, you believe this is politically motivated, don't you?

COLBERT: Oh, there's no question there is an element of politics in this. This is I'm sure very frustrating for the bishops to have a Catholic politician, a nominee for the Democratic Party who is solidly pro-choice and is not in lockstep with the church on the issue of abortion.

And I think there is frustration also with the fact that the church has been involved in political things on the gay marriage front. And, in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic politicians have not been in lockstep with the church against gay marriage. It's -- I'm sure it's frustrating for them. I'm sure it's difficult to navigate the American landscape with separation of church and state, with First Amendment rights, and with basic Catholic principles of freedom of conscience, freedom to form your conscience, religious liberty.

ZAHN: All right, but, Judie, in your mind, is the issue of abortion the overriding issue politically today when we look at this upcoming election?

BROWN: Frankly, abortion has never been an issue. It is an act that results in the death of a person. And it is a moral absolute. Thou shalt not kill is not debatable. You may not kill an innocent human being.

The bishops have a moral authority to make sure that Catholics understand that. And the gravity of saying that you support abortion, it's a serious, serious sin.

ZAHN: All right, but, Judie, you know what critics of the president are out there saying tonight. They're saying that he addressed this issue with the pope because it's all about winning the election this fall. You have to acknowledge that there are political implications here.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I have to acknowledge that there are many stories in the media that would lead people to believe that this is politically motivated. But, frankly, the...

ZAHN: You deny it?

BROWN: I absolutely deny it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

ZAHN: What about that, Chuck?

COLBERT: I don't know the motivation of the bishops.

I think they're trying to teach what they believe to be the church's teaching. And they have an obligation to do that. I have no problem with that. But the issue is that they're teaching on a variety of issues that I would call pelvic issues, birth control, contraception, gay marriage, divorce, remarriage, and abortion, are not being received by the laity significantly. And that's part of the disconnect.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: David, I want you to weigh in on this now. You have heard both sides passionately argue this issue tonight. What impact does this have on the Kerry campaign?

VAN BIEMA: Well, to be honest, from our polling, it doesn't seem to be having a tremendous impact on it. It is not as though there is a large group of voters who appear to be swayed by what the bishops have been saying.

ZAHN: Although your poll...

VAN BIEMA: That they're going to move in the Bush column over this.

ZAHN: Although your polling did show that, by and large, as a single issue, abortion trumps capital punishment and a whole host of other issues.

VAN BIEMA: People's attitudes towards it are reasonably well set. And I don't -- and when we polled amongst the group of people who described themselves as very religious, who are going to mass once a week, those Catholics, a majority of those Catholics were not in favor of what this very small group of bishops has been saying about the denial of communion. And that would tend to suggest that -- if they had already -- if they were thinking of voting Democratic, that they would not be swayed to vote Republican over this issue.

ZAHN: Well, it's a fascinating issue for all of us to study. We appreciate our trio joining us tonight.

David Van Biema, Judie Brown, Chuck Colbert, thank you, all.

Coming up next, a disturbing new videotape of an American hostage in Saudi Arabia.

Then, bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. Will the U.S. release its most prized POW to the Iraqis? And is the new Iraqi government ready to try him?

And Al Gore, he's all fired up and taking on President Bush. That's later in this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A chilling videotape surfaced on the Internet today showing what looks like the American contractor kidnapped in Saudi Arabia over the weekend.

The man in the tape identifies himself as Paul Johnson and says he works on Apache helicopters. His head is bandaged and his shirt is torn, revealing a tattoo. The tape also includes a threatening message from a mass gunman who claims to be part of a group linked to al Qaeda.

Deborah Feyerick joins us now with more on this new tape.

I am sure, when you saw this, just like everybody else in America, you got a huge chill down your spine.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, because the terrorists are giving the United States government and Saudi government about 72 hours to meet their demands. Otherwise, they say that they will kill Paul Johnson.

What we do know about this tape, it runs about 4 1/2 minutes. Paul Johnson appears at the very top for 20 to 25 seconds. The video is heavily edited. The kidnappers appear to have chosen only select statements made by Johnson. At one point, there is a side shot of him in which his neck appears to be heavily damaged. The gunman who takes up most of this videotape, really, making demands, saying that they want al Qaeda prisoners to be released and also that they want all Westerners, Americans, British, off of the Arabian Peninsula.

ZAHN: Which al Qaeda prisoners are they talking about, those in Guantanamo Bay as well?

FEYERICK: Well, this is what's interesting. On their Web site earlier, they did make references to all al Qaeda prisoners. But on this video, they specifically refer to only al Qaeda prisoners being kept in Saudi jails. And they refer to three specific Saudi prisoners.

ZAHN: Tell us a little bit more about the bandages.

FEYERICK: This is what's so interesting.

I spoke to one terrorism expert. And he basically says that the bandages, basically, around the eyes are placed in such a way so that Johnson does not know where he is, does not see who his captors are. Basically, they're making sure that he doesn't know where he is. The terrorism expert I spoke to said, these guys really seem to be hard- core. And this is why they're keeping him the way he is. You can see, he's slumped over. Even his speech was a little bit jerky.

ZAHN: Very difficult to watch.

Deborah Feyerick, thanks.

From a hostage to a prisoner of war, we turn now to the fate of Saddam Hussein. The Coalition Provisional Authority and the new government are in talks over transferring Saddam to Iraqi custody. But like so much in Iraq, it's not as simple as it sounds.

Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): Saddam came out of that spider hole and went into legal limbo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's when Saddam put his hands up and they assisted him out.

TOOBIN: He's an American prisoner of war, but maybe not for long. The plan was always to turn him over to the new Iraqi government to be tried. And the new Iraqi interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, says he wants him back right away.

IYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER-DESIGNATE: Well, definitely, we'll be trying our best to get custody of Saddam and the other criminals. We have so far some definite promises from the coalition this will be the case. The negotiations are under way and are progressing well.

TOOBIN: But is the new government ready to try Saddam? Today, President Bush said he wasn't sure.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I mean, one thing, obviously, is that we don't want and I know the Iraqi interim government doesn't want is there to be lax security and for Saddam Hussein to somehow not stand trial for the horrendous murders and torture that he inflicted upon the Iraqi people.

TOOBIN: A team of American legal advisers is already in Iraq planning for a trial.

GREG KEHOE, SADDAM PROSECUTOR: We are collecting evidence. We will interview witnesses. We will get involved in exhumations throughout the country, essentially do everything we possibly can to support the prosecutions that are currently being investigated.

TOOBIN: So, is the American government ready to turn over its biggest prize? And when would a trial start? Where? Who prosecutes and who defends? Many unanswered questions about this trial, very few doubts about the verdict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And Jeffrey Toobin joins us now. Always good to see you.

TOOBIN: Hi.

ZAHN: So if the U.S. turns over Saddam Hussein, what kind of control do they have, if any, during a trial?

TOOBIN: Well, that's why we have liaison -- that's the term that we're using -- liaison with this burgeoning Iraqi legal system. We're going to try to help them present the case. But that's the risk.

ZAHN: I don't know what that means.

TOOBIN: Well, what it means is, we can help assemble the case. We can gather evidence. We can work with the lawyers.

But, ultimately, the people who will be putting on the case and the judges who will be judging it will be Iraqis. So, once we turn it over, it's not totally within our control anymore.

ZAHN: But you can manipulate, you can massage, no?

TOOBIN: That's the goal. But strange things happen in court, as you well know, even in Iraqi courts. And there will be a lot of political cross-currents about this trial. What if Saddam wants to filibuster, like Milosevic has done in the trial in The Hague? Is that something that's going to be good? Will the courts allow that? Those are the kind of issues that are going to be difficult to resolve.

ZAHN: You know, this -- even the prospect of this case makes a lot of Americans nuts. What else could go wrong from the American perspective? TOOBIN: I think what can go wrong most is that Saddam gets a platform to the Iraqi people and people begin to become nostalgic for his rule.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: How could they possibly become nostalgic?

TOOBIN: Well, why are there people in the street blowing up our troops there? There are people who support him.

ZAHN: Well, but according to polls, that's a minority of the population.

TOOBIN: It is.

And what makes this so important is that, in World War II, the world didn't really know about the Holocaust until the Nuremberg trials. It's critically important for the American credibility and for world credibility that the public see that this invasion was justified because of Saddam's crimes that will be exposed in that trial.

ZAHN: Real quick answer. What the timetable for this we're looking at?

TOOBIN: Not clear. Could be weeks. Could be months. Legal systems being what they are, I would bet months.

ZAHN: And you can bet our man Jeffrey Toobin will be on the case.

Thanks so much.

When we come back, the latest on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. A defense attorney says he can prove top officers knew about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and actually mandated it.

Then, later on, Carlos Watson on his cross-country quest to sample the pulse of American voters. He goes to Ohio this evening.

And tomorrow, how is the Saudi government likely to handle the latest threat to execute an American captive? Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan will join us tomorrow night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The death of President Reagan knocked a lot of news off the front pages last week, but one story is about to make a comeback. In Baghdad next week, three American soldiers face hearings in the prison abuse scandal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: (voice-over): Nearly two months after the story broke, there are still so many unanswered questions about Abu Ghraib. Perhaps the biggest, how far up the ladder does responsibility lie? We know that the worst of the abuse happened between October and December of last year. Not long after Major General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of the prison at Guantanamo Bay suggested that guards at Abu Ghraib do the initial interrogation of Iraqi prisoners.

That was a departure from standard military practice. The International Red Cross says it alerted U.S. military commanders in Iraq of the humiliating treatment of prisoners who were being kept naked in dark cells at Abu Ghraib, and of other conditions that were in some cases tantamount to torture. And even submitted reports to central command in mid-November.

In December, two more reports have allegedly been filed. One by soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib, and another by a military intelligence analyst. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was in command of the prison until she was relieved of duty in January, said she wasn't responsible and pointed the finger at military intelligence.

BRIGADIER GENERAL JANIS KARPINSKI, U.S. ARMY: I certainly take the responsibility for some of this, yes. Because those soldiers were assigned to a company under my command. Blame? I don't think that the blame rests with me or with the 800th MP brigade.

ZAHN: Karpinski also said she told Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq about the abuse at Abu Ghraib in the fall. Sanchez denied that last month, saying that he was not aware of what had happened at the prison until January, when a formal investigation began. So, who took the rap? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: These events occurred on my watch as secretary of defense, I am accountable for them, and I take full responsibility.

ZAHN: But even though Rumsfeld had approved the use of nonstandard interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, he said he did not know about the abusive methods used at Abu Ghraib. What about President Bush? The White House said he first became aware of the situation in April when he saw the pictures on TV. In May, the president issued an apology to the Arab world.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES: The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as the Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. Therefore, there will be a full investigation, and justice will be served.

ZAHN: So where does the buck stop? Next week a military court begins hearings for three of the six soldiers facing charges in the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But some lawyers say the buck doesn't stop there, and that responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib reaches all the way to the top.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Earlier I talked with Houston attorney Guy Womack who is defending Specialist Charles Graner, one of the soldiers facing hearings next week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (on-camera): Your defense will be that your client was simply following orders. Do you believe that what your client did was legal and moral?

GUY WOMACK, ATTORNEY FOR SPECIALIST CHARLES GRANER: Yes, I do. Based on the legal opinions that have been given to President Bush by his White House counsel, to the CIA by the Department of Justice, and to Lieutenant General Sanchez, secretary of defense, all of the various SJAs and other counsel have said that the kinds of prisoners held at Tier 1-Alpha at Abu Ghraib were international outlaws. They were outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

ZAHN: And why would you believe that their treatment was moral?

WOMACK: Well, if they have no rights, but they have information that could save American lives, then I think we could rightfully use aggressive tactics to try to get that information. We were not killing them. We were not amputating limbs or torturing them. Rather they were being made to assume stress positions, something that would be uncomfortable. They were being deprived of sleep. They were being photographed in embarrassing, humiliating positions. I don't think any of that or all of that added up would be torture.

ZAHN: But how can military intelligence officers and prison guards make the assumption that all of these prisoners were confirmed international outlaws? Isn't there a possibility that some of these men were innocent?

WOMACK: Apparently not. Apparently over the months leading up to October and November of 2003, the Army had done a very thorough job of identifying people. According to Senator Inhofe, remember sometime back he stated that something between 70 and 90 percent of the men rounded up and taken to the prison were identified as innocent and were released. The ones who were left, the ones being interrogated Tier 1-Alpha were the baddest of the bad. These are ones that I think are outlaws.

ZAHN: So, sir, you have no doubt in your mind that the prisoners your client was guarding were guilty of something?

WOMACK: I am accepting the Army's position that these were people who were high interest detainees, high value detainees. They believe they were insurgents from other countries. Terrorists, irregular forces like the Fedayeen. If they are those types of people, then yes, they're outlaws.

ZAHN: No matter what you say about that picture and, clearly, the prosecution will probably use it. It is a loaded picture. Your interpretation will be heard in court. I know you believe that the so-called sadistic smile on your client's face was a reflection of what you say was stress in this horrible prison. But were you disturbed by the picture the first time you saw it? Did you find the expression on your client's face odd? WOMACK: No. Certainly the expression is odd because it's gallows humor. Or he was ordered to smile for the psychological impact it would have. I don't know which applies here. But one or the other clearly does.

ZAHN: Ordered to smile? Do you expect people to believe that? That the spearies (ph) would actually tell your client to smile behind a pile of naked Iraqis?

WOMACK: In the staged photographs, and we think this is one of them, certainly the MP's were ordered to smile. Because it has more psychological impact if the guards look like they're enjoying doing something humiliating.

ZAHN: But you do understand how people seeing them for the first time might arrive at an entirely different conclusion than you shared with us this evening?

WOMACK: Absolutely. Paula, there's an old saying that a photograph is worth 1,000 words. If you look at the photograph with no explanation, it may give you the wrong 1,000 words. My role, my mission is to make sure that the military jury, that panel of members, understands what 1,000 words go with these photographs.

ZAHN: Mr. Guy Womack, we have to leave it there this evening. Thank you so much for joining us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And when we come back, we will zero in on politics. Once again, he's not the nominee, but Al Gore is turning up the volume on the campaign trail this year.

What happens in Vegas could come to the White House. We're going to hear what voters in Las Vegas are thinking. That's a little bit later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The man who ran against President Bush four years ago is fired up for this year's election. Although Former Vice President Al Gore opted out of the race long before the primaries, he apparently will not be sidelined. National correspondent Kelly Wallace looks at Gore's rousing attacks on President Bush, and their potential political impact.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: His loyalists call it "Al Gore unplugged".

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our country would be a lot better off today if he were president because of all the problems in Iraq and the economy.

GORE: Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign immediately as the chief architect of this plan.

WALLACE: To his critics, it is the former vice president losing his mind.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He had his shot at political office, and we already said we didn't want him.

GORE: This administration has shamed America and has deeply damaged the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere.

WALLACE: To oldest daughter Karenna, it is her father who won the popular vote in 2000, speaking not as a candidate, but as a concerned statesman.

KARENNA GORE, AL GORE'S DAUGHTER: Right now my dad is not reading polls, not paying attention to focus groups. He is just saying from the heart what he believes is right, and where he would like to see this country go.

WALLACE: If Al Gore wanted to get people's attention, he succeeded. After all, Bruce Springsteen on his Web site is encouraging fans to read the speech Gore delivered a few weeks ago, his most critical yet of the president's handling of the war with Iraq.

GORE: We may have to wait to get rid of Bush and Cheney. But we ought to call on our Republican friends to join us in getting the rest of that team out right now.

WALLACE: Some Democratic strategists say Gore's charges could help John Kerry, especially with those Democrats who might be considering Ralph Nader.

HOWARD WOLFSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Strident anti-war Democrats need reassurance that it's OK to vote for John Kerry. And Al Gore helped provide that.

WALLACE: An alternative view that Gore does nothing but make the GOP smile.

MICHELLE COTTLE, THE NEW REPUBLIC: For every voter who thinks, wow, this is my team, go team. There's going to be somebody else who thinks, wow, Bush was right. The Democrats are a little unbalanced. I don't want them running national security or homeland security.

WALLACE: And then there is this political theory, that Gore seeming to be on the left of Kerry will make the presumptive Democratic nominee appear more moderate. Do you buy that assessment at all?

K. GORE: Well, I think it's absolutely great if what my dad is doing helps John Kerry for whatever reason. And I know that he feels that way too. But he really is speaking from the heart. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And, Paula, Karenna Gore told us she wanted her father to run this year, but he chose not to. And says while he has no plans for a future presidential bid, he will continue speaking out.

ZAHN: Interesting take on all this. Thanks, Kelly, appreciate it.

So do Al Gore's actions really matter in this election year? For more insight on Gore's motives in the campaign trail, we turn now to Joe Klein, a columnist for "Time" magazine and a frequent contributor to this program. You should just bring your coat. You just live here with us.

JOE KLEIN, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, we have a couch now.

ZAHN: Yes, I know. Who needs to go home? So what does Al Gore want?

KLEIN: I think he wants to be heard, number one. Number two, he's pretty angry. Every -- this is a guy who wakes up every day and sees the president making decisions, and knows if he were president he might be making the exact opposite decision.

ZAHN: Do you blame him?

KLEIN: No, you can't blame him for that. You might blame him for his tone. Also I think that there is a certain amount of self- indulgence going on here. Al Gore grew up the ultimate insider. His dad was a senator. And by the way, his dad used to sound a lot like that when he made speeches.

ZAHN: Almost Howard Dean-esque.

KLEIN: Yes, well, no, southern populist. And I think that Gore has always wanted to be an outsider. And now he has succeeded. He is an outsider; he is the candidate of MoveOn.org and the other liberal interest groups. And I think he's very pleased with that. And I also think that Karenna Gore is right. He's saying what he really believes.

ZAHN: All right. So you say he wants to be heard. The question is, is anybody listening to him?

KLEIN: Well, I think the question is, is anybody listening to President Bush or John Kerry at this point in the campaign? I don't know. Us political junkies are, but I don't know whether these messages are getting out to America.

ZAHN: Let's shift gears and talk about Bill Clinton. A man you know an awful lot about. His new book is generating a lot of buzz. What have you heard?

KLEIN: Well, it's coming out next week.

ZAHN: It's very long. I understand it was very hard for him to edit out stories.

KLEIN: It is 957 pages long, which is about 200 pages longer than Ronald Reagan's memoir.

ZAHN: Would you describe that as self-indulgent Joe?

KLEIN: I would describe that as presidential. These are presidential memoirs. And the presidents always want you to know about every last trip that they've taken, and every last decision they've made.

ZAHN: There is much being made of the Clinton's joint decision not to attend some sort of book joining party during the convention in July. Should we read anything into that?

KLEIN: I think that the president is probably sensitive about the fact that this should be John Kerry's time. And he has a book...

ZAHN: That's never bothered the former president before, has it? Raining on somebody else's parade?

KLEIN: Well, I think that he doesn't want to rain on the senator from New York's parade either. He doesn't want to make himself too obnoxious at this point. He is going to get a lot of press over the next few weeks. And I think he's going to try and be careful. Just as he tried to be careful in 2000 when Al Gore was the candidate. And he'll probably fail at being careful because he can never control himself.

ZAHN: There was a scene at the White House yesterday that I was really struck by. And it was sort of this giant love fest when President Clinton and Hillary Clinton's official portraits were unveiled. Describe to our audience the demeanor of President Bush, and whether you bought all of this chatty stuff that happened at the White House. It was a love fest, wasn't it?

KLEIN: The president was extremely gracious toward Bill Clinton. Talking about his convictions and fighting for his beliefs and all that he had done for the American people. Which is kind of odd after three years of trying to do -- erase everything that Bill Clinton had done, and do the exact opposite.

But, Clinton had been very gracious to his dad, and I think that at this point in the campaign George Bush is trying to move back to the center and seem more moderate. He has the right part of the spectrum sewn up. Now the fight is over the middle. And to be nice to Bill Clinton, to be nice in general is kind of the sort of thing that people want to see.

ZAHN: It got you, didn't it? Joe Klein, thank you.

Finally this hour, we're going to take the "American Pulse." Carlos Watson with voters in Las Vegas coming up next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAHN: This year's presidential election is shaping up to be a close one, so it may be difficult to place your bet on who might win. For tonight's "American Pulse," CNN political analyst Carlos Watson visited a city where betting is a way of life. Las Vegas, Nevada. It is the latest stop on a cross-country trip that has taken him to communities such as New Orleans and Springfield, Missouri to talk politics with everyday folks.

In Las Vegas he sat down with some casino employees and got them to put their political cards on the table. Carlos joins us now. It's always good to see you.

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

ZAHN: You have to explain something to us tonight. Didn't Nevada used to be reliably Republican?

WATSON: Very reliably Republican.

ZAHN: What happened?

WATSON: Well, transplants in a word. People moving in from California, Arizona, other parts of the country. And actually now significant, believe it or not, Hispanic population in Nevada. Such that the last election wasn't a double digit Republican win. But instead Republicans won by a little more than 5 points. So both President Bush and John Kerry are spending a ton of money in Nevada, and will be heavily contested.

ZAHN: We are going to see now what you saw at the casino. At least the parts that we can share with our viewing public tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Here's what some of those voters had to think.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WATSON (on camera): What could President Bush do to win your vote?

PHIL SHALALA (D), VOTED FOR GORE IN 2000: He could figure out the debacle he put us into in Iraq is what he could do. When you go to war, you got a plan. It's not a plan for a year. It's not a plan for two years. It's a ten-year plan. Right now in ten years I think we're in a terrible situation.

RICHARD LEAN (R), VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000: Right or wrong when we went into Iraq, at least he made a decision and did it. He did something. I believe that because we're still in the conflict with Iraq that I don't think we should change horses in the middle of a stream.

WATSON: You think that would be a mistake?

LEAN: I think that would be a mistake. MELISSA DREZNER, (I), VOTED FOR GORE IN 2000: One of the biggest mistakes that this administration made in the invasion of Iraq was that they went into it without the full support of the world community. And now, in light of everything that's happened with the different militia groups over there springing up, it's become a cesspool, and a country up for grabs.

KATIE CLARKE (R), DID NOT VOTE IN 2000: It's very scary what happened to this country two-and-a-half years ago. And I pray to God that never happens again. We do need to have our Homeland Security. We need to show the world that we are a strong country. It's scary to think what's going on with all these innocent people that are over there, whether they be civilians or soldiers losing their lives.

SHALALA: Look what happened over here. I didn't see anyone apologize for slamming a plane into a building. And now all of a sudden we're expected to apologize for soldiers abusing prisoners. I'm not saying they should have done it. But enough of these people going out there and publicly apologizing and saying we're wrong and court-martialing soldiers. Hey, it's war. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the end. Get over it. That's what's going to happen.

WATSON: What would be the most important issues for you in this election?

CLARKE: Trying to resolve the conflict over in Iraq is a huge, you know, huge issue. We're spending all kinds of money in another country for the sake of security and freedom and everything. But it's like, I feel like we've kind of forgotten about some of the things going on in this country.

JEFF REACHER (R), VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000: Health care is a major concern of myself and my family's. Everyone has medical problems. Everyone has medical bills. And 20, 25 percent of my income is going towards medical expenses.

SHALALA: I'd like to look towards the future.

WATSON: OK.

SHALALA: And I don't see us going in a good direction. And I think a lot of it has to do with education, and what's going on with these children. Thank God I don't have kids, but you know, I feel bad anybody who does right now.

WATSON: Would you willing to pay more in taxes in order to have higher teacher salaries?

SHALALA: I'm not saying necessarily pay more, but I'd be willing to look at a tax structure and allocate it differently so that it would possibly benefit the education.

DREZNER: My concern is with the world and the state of affairs we're in right now, it's the gay marriage thing, it's the euthanasia thing. There's just certain civil liberties that I think people are entitled to. WATSON: I go to different places, I hear different things. How's the economy been for you?

REACHER: Well, I just moved here from New York about eight months ago. And in New York, it was pretty brutal. It was very tough. I mean everyone, friends, family members are out of work. There's no jobs, and it was kind of tough there. Over here it seems to be doing pretty well.

WATSON: What about you, Richard, what is your experience with the economy?

LEAN: No matter what is going on in the rest of the nation, we always seem to be doing well here. Interest rates are down. People are spending money. And as long as people are spending money, the economy is going to be good.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So, is there a single issue that will push the vote in Nevada?

WATSON: No, because, again, I don't think you have the kind of monolithic Republican-leaning block that you once had. Instead, it won't be the economy, because you have a much healthier economy there. But you will hear about health care. You will hear about the war. And interestingly enough, some of the social issues that aren't playing as big in other parts of the country, may matter here. Issues like abortion rights. Issues like civil liberties. You might hear a little bit more here than the west.

ZAHN: All right. You have to put all the cards on the table now. Did you come home richer or poorer from that trip?

WATSON: I'll say this. I'm going on vacation soon.

ZAHN: He did very well at the games he played. Carlos Watson, thanks.

WATSON: Good to see you.

ZAHN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: That wraps it up for us this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight. Tomorrow night more on the American hostage in Saudi Arabia who's facing an execution deadline and what can be done to save his life. Again, thanks for joining us tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a good night.

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