Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

President Bush Visits South Korea; Trial of Dog-Mauling Death Begins

Aired February 19, 2002 - 17:00   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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: In South Korea, President Bush will soon visit the DMZ, the backyard of his "axis of evil." But furious protesters see no evil. So, should you be scared of North Korea?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Behind me is what's called the bridge of no return, right in the middle of the demilitarized zone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I'll look back at my own visit to the DMZ.

Fighting terrorism with information, or disinformation. How far will the Pentagon go to win hearts and minds?

A prosecutor spares no gruesome details...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When the police arrived, Diane was crawling, trying to push herself up towards her apartment, unable to breathe, bleeding to death with one dog still loose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: A San Francisco couple goes on trial for the dog- mauling death of their neighbor.

Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. President Bush has called it the most dangerous spot on earth, and in a few hours, he will be there. That tops our news alert.

President Bush will visit the American troops at the heavily- guarded demilitarized zone, separating communist North Korea and Democratic South Korea. He's not backing down from his "axis of evil" tough talk, but is expected to renew an offer to negotiate with the North. We'll have much more on this in a moment.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan may have opened a new phase in the war. Over the weekend, two airstrikes near the city of Khowst were apparently aimed at warring factions opposed to the interim government. Up to now, the aim of U.S. forces has been the destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

In another move to help the new Afghan government, a U.S. general has begun a mission aimed at helping Afghanistan establish a national army. According to U.S. officials, American soldiers are expected to arrive in about a month to begin training fighters loyal to Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai.

And at the Winter Olympics, amid the backdrop of the pairs figure skating scandal, Michelle Kwan goes for the gold tonight. She faces a tough battle, skating last among the other medal contenders in the short program. Kwan won the silver medal in Nagano, Japan, in 1998.

Now, more on our top story. In just a few hours, President Bush will visit the Korean demilitarized zone, one of the most heavily- armed areas anywhere on the planet, guarded by almost two million troops on both sides of that zone. Mr. Bush's visit is one of the key stops of his trip to South Korea.

For more on that, here is CNN's senior White House correspondent, John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A warm welcome for the president at the American high school in Seoul. The challenge now is convincing a key U.S. ally a tough stance against North Korea is not inconsistent with the goal of a reunited peninsula.

President Kim Dae Jung has staked his legacy on his so-called Sunshine police. And advisers worry now that Mr. Bush's labeling North Korea part of an axis of evil will discourage diplomatic progress.

YANG SUNG CHUL, SOUTH KOREAN AMB. TO U.S.: Whether wrongly or rightly, they are insisting, for instance, America not to have hostile actions or hostile stance on North Korea.

KING: Mr. Bush came to Seoul from Tokyo. In a speech to the Japanese parliament, he held out hope for Korean unification.

BUSH: We seek a region in which demilitarized zones and missile batteries no longer separate people with a common heritage and a common future.

KING: The DMZ separates South from North, nearly 50 years after the Korean War. Mr. Bush visits U.S. troops there Wednesday, and will make it clear, as he did in Tokyo, that in his view, the ball is in North Korea's court.

BUSH: We seek a peaceful region, where the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction do not threaten humanity.

KING: The focus on North Korea is just one reminder that Asia already is a second front in the war on terror. U.S. special forces are helping the Philippines crack down on the Abu Sayyaf terrorist network. And U.S. military officials are having talks with counterparts in Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, about efforts to curb terrorism, and perhaps, weapons shipments.

In Seoul, days of demonstrations objecting to the "axis of evil" characterization. And aides say Mr. Bush will not repeat the line while in South Korea.

(on camera): But his hosts fear the damage is already done. As Mr. Bush arrived here, the North Korean government issued a tough statement accusing the United States of trying to incite a second Korean war.

John King, CNN, Seoul.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: The standoff between North and South Korea with thousands of U.S. troops in between has been going on for decades. Successive American presidents have been warning that the demilitarized zone is potentially a flash point, one that could trigger all-out war. I was there almost nine years ago, when I was covering the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons, because if they ever used them it would be the end of their country.

BLITZER (voice-over): That was then President Bill Clinton in 1993 when he visited the DMZ. Things changed, but they also remained very much the same. Indeed, President Bush could make the same exact point today. The half-century U.S. security commitment to South Korea continues with no end in sight, physically backed up by some 40,000 U.S. troops.

They have always been seen as a trip wire, potentially standing only a few miles away from a million heavily-armed North Korean troops. Here is how I saw it when I was there.

(on camera): Behind me is what's called the Bridge of no Return, right in the middle of the demilitarized zone. It was here where nearly 100,000 prisoners were exchanged following the Korean War.

(voice-over): By all accounts, this is still one of the most dangerous spots on earth. Don't be misled by the routine and eerie silence that almost always pervades the DMZ. Here's what one U.S. soldier told me then.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually think it's pretty calm up here, real laid-back. Basically I don't have a lot of fears about North Korea coming down.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And that superficial calm certainly has not misled the Bush administration. In often blunt language, top officials in recent weeks have expressed concern over North Korea's missile program and export of arms. And in recent days, North Korea has responded, calling the president the head of -- quote -- "an empire of evil."

Joining us now to talk about these harsh words and whether North Korea remains a major threat to world peace is James Steinberg. He's the former deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration.

Thanks for joining us, Jim. The key question, how much of a threat is North Korea right now to the West?

JAMES STEINBERG, FMR. DEP. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There's no question, Wolf, that North Korea does pose a threat. It is a country that is the leading exporter of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction technology. And that's a legitimate area of concern.

The question now is how best to deal with that? We had to start beginning to deal with North Korea's nuclear program back in 1994. And what we needed was a policy that was both tough on our position that they shouldn't develop that technology, but at the same time, recognizing that we needed to engage with them to bring it to an end.

The same was true with their missile test. We became very concerned in 1998 with this new missile test, that posed a threat to Japan and potentially to the United States. But through engagement, we were able to get North Korea to impose a moratorium on that testing.

BLITZER: But they're pursuing weapons of mass destruction even as we speak right now. That's why the president included North Korea in his "axis of evil".

STEINBERG: Well, their nuclear program is frozen right now. They still have steps to go to dismantle it, but they have stopped the reprocessing that proposed such a great danger to us. Similar, their missile testing is in moratorium, and we need to extend that. Now the challenge is to get them to stop exporting that missile technology and other weapons of mass destruction.

At the end of the Clinton administration we were working on an agreement with them. We need to continue to press that. As well as deal with the other issues that the Bush administration has identified. But we're only going to get there if we have a combination of a strong stand and a willingness to engage.

BLITZER: All of the evidence, though, does point to biological, chemical weapons that they've been working on over all these years, as well.

STEINBERG: Well, unfortunately, Wolf, there are lots of countries around the world. And in the administration's own study, there are dozens of countries that are developing biological and chemical weapons. We need to deal with those problems wherever we find them.

But we have an opportunity to move forward on what are the most dangerous areas, which is these missile exports. And I do hope that both the North Koreans and the administration can take advantage of an opportunity to reach an agreement.

BLITZER: So are you suggesting that the president's tough talk about North Korea has undermined that effort?

STEINBERG: I think there's a place for tough talk, but there's also a place for a good strategy, that turns that tough talk, and the leverage that it gives you, into an agreement. In the first place, we need to get a good understanding with our South Korean allies. Because if we're not together on this, we're not going to make progress.

And then together we need to tell the North Koreans that we're not going to tolerate bad behavior. But we're also prepared to work with them to get a less tense and a less confrontational stance.

BLITZER: You know the parallel that's been drawn to former President Reagan's evil empire speech, which eventually resulted in steps that saw the Soviet Union crumble. A lot of people are suggesting right now President Bush's tough talk about North Korea, Iran and Iraq, will eventually see those regimes go down.

STEINBERG: There's a lot of debate about why the Soviet Union came to an end. We need to give credit to the people within the Soviet empire who stood up against it for all that time.

BLITZER: But the Bush administration people are saying what they're trying to do is give credit to those within North Korea, Iran and Iraq, to stand up and bring those regimes down, as was the case in the former Soviet Union.

STEINBERG: But don't forget, Ronald Reagan also negotiated arms control treaties with the Soviet Union during that time. And that's exactly the model we need to follow here. Be clear about our values and our principles, but also recognizing that the best way to protect our security is to stop these dangerous behavior. And if we can get it through engagement and negotiations, we shouldn't pass up that opportunity.

BLITZER: In the meantime, you're not suggesting the U.S. withdraw from the DMZ?

STEINBERG: On the contrary. It's critical that we stay there. Our support is what helps stabilize the situation there. We need to make clear to North Korea that we're not going to tolerate any kind of risky behavior. At the same time, we ought to show them an alternative path that can lead to a more stable future for the whole peninsula.

BLITZER: David Steinberg, deputy national security adviser to President Clinton. Thank you very much.

This programming note: our senior White House correspondent, John King, will report. "LIVE FROM THE DMZ" tonight. That's at 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific, here on CNN.

And our Web question of the day is this: which of these three axis of evil nations, as attributed by President Bush, poses the greatest risk to the United States? Vote at cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, let me know what you're thinking. Send me your comments. I'll read some of them on the air each day. That's also where you can read my daily on-line column.

Turning now to some key shifts in the war on terrorism, one dealing with swaying public opinion overseas, including possibly spreading false information. The other involves U.S. warplanes attacking Afghan factions opposed to the new interim government of Hamid Karzai.

Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, is over at the Pentagon. She joins us now with details on both of these. First, Barbara, on the propaganda warfare strategy, what's going on?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a really interesting question, Wolf. Nobody's quite sure. It turns out that right after September 11th, the Pentagon established the Office of Strategic Influence. This is a 15-man shop with its own outside PR advisers that is aimed at, as one official told us, "influencing the hearts and minds of the opposition in the war on terrorism."

Now, of course, all of this used to be called propaganda, and we've seen some of it in the war in Afghanistan already: the dropping of leaflets, the broadcasting of radio transmissions into Afghanistan, all part of the traditional effort to influence the Afghan people to revolt against the Taliban and the al Qaeda.

But now the question is whether the Pentagon's going to go a step further into this very controversial new, era which they call information operations. And part of information operations, in fact, is deception. It's classified, very covert. The Pentagon never talks about it.

Now, officials tell us so far there has been no decision to engage in this kind of deception with the foreign news media. But the question is whether or not they might do it down the road, and whether they would see it as a key effort to try and influence public opinion abroad.

Rumsfeld is not known to be particularly in favor of this, but the final proposal hasn't come to his desk yet, so we're not really sure where all of this may sort out. It's likely to continue to be very controversial.

BLITZER: Barbara, on the other front, the air war. It used to be the U.S. was bombing Taliban targets and al Qaeda targets. But in recent days other targets are now the targeted, if you will, of U.S. bombs. What's going on on that front?

STARR: That's also a very interesting development that emerged over the weekend, not noticed very widely here in the United States. But over the weekend, the U.S. conducted two sets of airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday, southeast of Khowst, in an area where there were a lot of opposition forces. But that's exactly right. The target was not Taliban and not al Qaeda. It turns out a group of supporters of Hamid Karzai, the head of the interim government, had come under small arms fire in this remote area. Airstrikes were called in to deal with this, but there was no indication that Taliban or al Qaeda were involved. And so far it appears that for the first time now, U.S. airstrikes were called in in a local fight against militia between competing warlords -- something that the Pentagon had stayed out of until now.

BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Thank you very much for that update. And joining me now to talk a little more about both of these developments, our military analyst, Retired Army Brigadier General David Grange. General Grange, let's start off with the last thing that Barbara just spoke about: the U.S. intervening on behalf of Hamid Karzai's interim government, in effect. Going after certain targets -- not al Qaeda, not Taliban -- but targets that represent a threat to the interim government. Should the U.S. military be involved in that?

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET): Well, we said we were going to support the president, and so I think we have to do that. There's a danger there, though, obviously, just like with the Soviets: that when you're with one group, the recognized government, let's say, that may have the majority of certain ethnic groups, and then you attack others, in other words, regional warlords that represent another ethnic group, that can drag you into a longer campaign.

BLITZER: So if the U.S. is going to train Hamid Karzai's interim military -- and there are threats to that military, in effect, threats to the government, the interim regime -- the U.S., understandably, you're saying, would have an interest in trying to help Karzai?

GRANGE: I think we're committed to that. Even though there are some dangers there, we are committed, just like the international coalition is committed to them.

BLITZER: What do you think about this other proposal -- and it's only a proposal right now -- as Barbara just reported, the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not signed off on it. The Defense Department getting into this office of strategic influence, spreading information and, at times, disinformation -- wrong information, to win the propaganda war on behalf of the United States?

GRANGE: Well, the United States, we have to influence public opinion on both friendly and unfriendly countries around the world. We're going to do operations or we're going to engage through some type of diplomatic, or economic, or combat effort. However, I don't think it's right to spread disinformation around the world, for this reason: one is, our power is in telling the truth. American power is telling the truth. That's what we're known for. And that's powerful enough.

Now, if there is a combat operation that requires surprise, and you must have deception in that target country, or the surrounding regional countries in order to achieve surprise, then it's OK, I believe. BLITZER: To what? To lie to news media?

GRANGE: No, to deceive in what's going on in that operation, to save lives and achieve surprise. But the general idea of just putting out disinformation around the world, in order to gain public support, is wrong. That, I think, is wrong. And it won't only stay overseas. Because the world is so small with globalization, the information environment, it will come back to the United States media anyway.

BLITZER: So if you spread disinformation in the Middle East or in Europe or in Asia someplace, it could, as they say in the trade, blow back into the U.S. news media. And that would in effect be illegal, for the U.S. government to be providing false information to the U.S. news media?

GRANGE: It's illegal for the Department of Defense, for the Central Intelligence Agency, to spread propaganda in the United States. That is illegal. So, that would be the blowback problem if we did that.

BLITZER: There would have to be new legislation to approve this, to authorize that kind of false information dissemination.

GRANGE: I can't imagine us doing that. I think only in war and to save lives and to accomplish an objective. Never a carte blanche capability to do that.

BLITZER: So, who is promoting this notion at the Pentagon right now? It's obviously got some serious consideration.

GRANGE: Well, it may be blown out of proportion a little. I think that our ability to use information operations around the world is a necessity. You have to. But keep in mind, information operations also involves just good public affairs, sharing information. Soliciting what America and the West stands for: blue jeans, rock and roll and hamburger joints. I mean, there's great things to be put out there to tell the truth. And that's -- when others get caught off guard, our adversaries, with disinformation, that gives us the power.

BLITZER: So you're saying there's a major difference between public diplomacy, public affairs -- psychological warfare, if you will -- as opposed to disinformation?

GRANGE: Well, disinformation can be part of psychological operations, but only focused on the enemy, not on the world or our regional allies.

BLITZER: General Grange, thanks for your insight. I appreciate it.

GRANGE: Sure, thank you.

BLITZER: And this note: Pentagon information versus disinformation. We'll discuss that tonight here in the CNN "WAR ROOM." That's at 7:00 Eastern, 4:00 Pacific. Should dog owners pay when their pets kill? Today, jurors start gathering the facts in a high-profile trial. And the first account was hard to hear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The back of her neck, which was pierced so deep, it almost went down to the vertebrae.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Later: why the killer mom trial became surprisingly tense earlier today.

And forget about Vegas and Atlanta. There's a new place for Mike to fight. You might be surprised to hear where he might show up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. In Houston, testimony was temporarily halted, but now has resumed in the trial of Andrea Yates. She's pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity" in the deaths of her five children. Prosecutors argue Yates knew what she was doing when she drowned the children, one by one, in the bathtub.

Today they wanted to present into evidence the clothes the children were wearing at the time, which sparked a heated argument with the defense and prompted the judge to send the jurors out of the room. Eventually, prosecutors won their point. They have said they'll seek the death penalty if Yates is convicted. If her defense holds, she would be sent to a mental hospital.

For some insight into the strategies of both sides, we're joined now from Houston by Gerald Treece. He's a distinguished professor at the south Texas college of law. Professor, thanks for joining us.

The whole issue of insanity in Texas -- Texas has a very specific statute which the defense will have an enormous hurdle to overcome. Explain to our viewers what the law is in Texas.

GERALD TREECE, SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW: Texas has hard rule on insanity because it's not just that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong. The defense has to also show that the defendant suffered from a mental illness or mental defect that robbed them of the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. And that's why the insanity defense seldom works down here in Texas.

BLITZER: Well, it does work on occasion in Texas. There have been some highly-publicized cases. When it does work, what does the defense have to show?

TREECE: Well, the defense is going to have to show, through a string of expert witnesses, that this lady, even though she could function and make some decisions, did not know what she was doing. As the one case said, she's "robbed of reason." She's walking in a dream, not knowing what she's doing.

And of course, classic mental illness is so difficult. Because unlike a broken arm or a cut, something that we can see, mental illness manifests itself in so many strange ways. And these experts for the defense are prepared to say that she suffered from such a mental defect.

BLITZER: So if she brings those witnesses in, those expert witnesses to say she suffered from depression -- she was on all sorts of medication, she attempted suicide -- that in and of itself won't be enough, right?

TREECE: I think that's right. See, the burden stays on the defendant. The defendant's probably going to meet that burden, but then the burden shifts to the state who has a list of distinguished experts, who also look at the same data and reach the conclusion that while depressed, while she suffering somewhat, she doesn't meet that standard of insanity. And therefore, she should be held responsible for capital murder.

BLITZER: Were you surprised at her attorneys, Andrea Yates' attorneys, did not seek some sort of plea agreement, plea bargain with the prosecution?

TREECE: Well, you know, the answer is in two parts. I'm not surprised down here, because the district attorney is on record as saying with five dead children, they're going to have a capital murder case. So I don't think I'm surprised in that sense. But I'm also surprised that there's not some attempt to get this matter resolved.

We've had other histories in Harris County, Texas, dealing with this type of death, to where you had people -- a woman for example who was put into hospitalization. But in a case like this, I think it's probably one of those things to where the media helped fuel the ability or the lack of ability to get a resolution in this case.

BLITZER: They could convict her, this jury, all 12 members of the jury, but not necessarily impose the death sentence, is that right?

TREECE: Yeah, and, Wolf, I think that's the strategy. I think that while there's a low chance that she's going to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, there's a very good chance that that same jury of 12, which hears this evidence of mental illness, which is very great in this case, is the same jury that comes back after a finding of guilt, and determines punishment.

In Texas there's only one of two choices: either life imprisonment or death. But this same jury has to vote unanimously that she's a danger to society, that there's future dangers, and that there's no mitigating circumstances. So the defense strategy, as you call it, may be to play their hand during the case in chief, hoping in fact, that even if convicted, they will have saved her life.

BLITZER: All right. Dr. Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law, thanks so much for joining us. TREECE: Sure.

BLITZER: In other news today, two dogs trapped and mauled Diane Whipple in the hallway of her California apartment complex a year ago. Today the trial against the dog's owners opened in Los Angeles. CNN's Eric Horng is following the case. He joins us now live with the latest -- Eric.

ERIC HORNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, at this hour defense opening statements still on-going, but at this point the defense making two main arguments. One, that Marjorie Knoller, during the time of the attack, did all she could to save Diane Whipple's life. And two, that the defendants had never seen the dogs act that aggressively before.

Earlier in the day the prosecution also laying out its case, alleging the couple not only knew the dogs were dangerous, but had bred them to be dangerous.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): In its opening statement, the prosecution attempted to paint a picture of the January 2001 dog attack that left Diane Whipple dead, describing what a police officer saw when she arrived on the scene.

JAMES HAMMER, DEP. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And she too saw Diane Whipple naked, covered in blood, in a pool of blood, pushing herself up, with her throat ripped out.

HORNG: Deputy District Attorney James Hammer held up what he described as an attack dog training manual called "Manstopper," seen in the home of Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel. Hammer also said he would call witnesses who would testify to several previous violent encounters with the two Presa Canario dogs.

HAMMER: The evidence will show that Diane Whipple was not the first victim of these dogs, but was the last in a line of almost 30 fire warnings.

NEDRA RUIZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Get off her. Stop. Stop!

HORNG: The defense countered with its own account of the attack. Knoller visibly showing emotion, as attorney Nedra Ruiz told the jury Knoller attempted to shield Whipple from the dogs. The defense also held up a large photograph of the injuries Knoller sustained in the attack.

RUIZ: But the evidence will not show that Marjorie stood back and let that horrible thing happen to that beautiful girl.

HORNG: Ruiz also said Knoller had never lost control of the dogs in the past.

RUIZ: She had never been in a situation where Bane had pulled her off her feet. She had never been in a situation where both dogs were not being obedient to her.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HORNG: Noel and Knoller are both charged with involuntary manslaughter and possession of an animal that killed a human being. In addition, Knoller is also charged with second degree murder, and if convicted, could face 15 years to life in prison. In Los Angeles, I'm Eric Horng, reporting live. Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Thank you, Eric.

Let's check some other top stories on today's "Newswire." Georgia investigators are searching the grounds of a crematory in Noble, Georgia. So far, they've recovered the remains of 149 bodies. All were supposed to be cremated. Instead, authorities say the crematory owner either packed the bodies inside steel vaults or dropped them on the surrounding property. The body count is expected to grow to 200.

Opening statements got under way today in the Atlanta murder trial of Jamil Al-Amin. The former Black Panther known as H. Rap Brown is charged with the shooting deaths of a sheriff's deputy two years ago. If convicted, he could get the death penalty.

According to court documents, the two teenagers accused of killing two Dartmouth College professors talked their way inside the couple's home and killed Half and Susanne Zantop in a plot to steal their ATM cards and pin numbers. According to an indictment unsealed today, Robert Tulloch and James Parker first went to four other randomly-chosen homes, but were turned away.

Negotiating with kidnappers: Past policy had been to say no way. Now new thinking perhaps -- perhaps -- from the White House. What could that mean for Daniel Pearl and other Americans abroad? Will the U.S. still wind up bargaining for a life? And what happens when an airport security screener falls asleep on the job? We'll have the answer from Kentucky -- and mining for gold in Utah.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Topping our "News Alert": Just hours from now, President Bush will catch his first glimpse of North Korea when he visits the heavily fortified demilitarized zone. He arrived in South Korea today and will be meeting shortly with the nation's president, Kim Dae-jung's.

From the West Bank, more bloodshed: Israeli security sources say Palestinian gunmen ambushed a group of Israelis at a military checkpoint. Six of the seven Israelis were reported killed.

Turkish authorities say they have arrested three men, possibly al Qaeda members, who were planning attacks in Israel. Police say the men confessed after being interrogated. Two suspects they are Palestinian, another a Jordanian -- police say all three trained in Afghan terror camps. Still no word on Daniel Pearl, "The Wall Street Journal" reporter who disappeared in Karachi four weeks ago -- Pakistani officials say they won't share information with India about the alleged mastermind behind the kidnapping. India wants to know if Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh had anything to do with recent terror incidents there.

Until this week, the White House policy on terror negotiations was relatively simple: It won't make deals with terrorists. But now some are suggesting that policy could be shifting, to a certain degree. The Bush administration says Washington will review hostage situations on a case-by-case basis.

Joining me now is Brian Jenkins, an expert on counterterrorism strategy.

Brian, thanks for joining us.

A new, more aggressive U.S. government policy in dealing with private American citizens who are kidnapped around the world, is that good or bad for these kidnapped victims?

BRIAN JENKINS, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: Well, the fact is, you have to keep in mind most Americans who are kidnapped abroad are not kidnapped for political purposes, but are kidnapped as part of straight ransom kidnappings, simply to get cash.

These, traditionally, have been negotiated by the families involved or by the corporations involved, sometimes with the assistance from the local American embassy, providing advice on how to deal with the local government officials, but without participation of U.S. government officials.

BLITZER: The paying of the money, though, to these kidnappers, doesn't that encourage additional kidnappings, if they think this is a lucrative growth industry?

JENKINS: I suppose it does.

But, you know, the real issue here, the deterrent to future kidnappings is not the payment or nonpayment of ransom. It is what happens to the kidnappers. If, as in the United States, the apprehension rate is very, very high -- and here the apprehension rate for ransom kidnappings is close to 100 percent. The conviction rate is high. The sentences are extremely harsh.

We do not have a serious ransom kidnapping problem in this country. In other countries, where the apprehension rate is close to zero, then there is a proliferation of kidnappings.

BLITZER: If the U.S. is going to be more aggressively involved in dealing with private Americans who are kidnapped for political reasons, let's say, like Danny Pearl, "The Wall Street Journal" reporter, might that not elevate their status and make this a more important political target for these kidnappers?

JENKINS: Well, let's put the Danny Pearl specific case aside here, because we know from previous experience that even the most inadvertent, innocent remark, when broadcast throughout the world, can sometimes derail delicate negotiations or even sometimes imperil a hostage -- so nothing about that in case in particular.

But, in general, the political cases have been very, very difficult to resolve. They have often historically resulted in lengthy captivity, where the terrorists simply do not understand U.S. policy. There, U.S. policy has been relatively consistent over the years, since 1973. The United States will not make concessions. It will not release prisoners. It will not make other political concessions to gain the release of hostages.

BLITZER: And there is no suggestion that the Bush administration is rethinking that strategy.

JENKINS: There is no suggestion at all.

What has been approved is that now the United States government will review all kidnappings of Americans abroad. That does not require the government to intervene in the kidnapping. It may, as it does now, provide some useful advice locally. But it may not intervene in the actual negotiations.

In fact, the expertise for negotiating ransom kidnappings does not reside in the U.S. government. It resides in the private sector, because they deal with so many of these cases every year that they usually have very good information and skills.

BLITZER: And I know you personally have been very much involved in freeing Americans in various countries around the world. In the few seconds we have left, give our viewers who may be traveling around the world, businessmen or whatever, some practical advice, what to do and not do.

JENKINS: In most cases, the traveling businessman is not going to be the target because kidnappers don't have a chance to set up an operation. It is probably -- don't go or you ought not to go. In some cases, the traveling businessman gets himself in trouble because he is off someplace where he shouldn't be.

BLITZER: That's good practical advice, as usual. Brian Jenkins, thanks for joining us.

JENKINS: Thank you.

BLITZER: And let's check some other international stories in the Middle East. Israeli police say a suicide bomber attempted to board a bus in the West Bank, but the driver and several passengers jumped the Palestinian assailant and tossed him out the door. Only the bomber was killed in the explosion.

And two million followers of Islam are expected to crowd the city of Mecca this week for the Hajj, or holy pilgrimage. It's one of the five pillars of Islam. And every able-bodied Muslim is required to make the journey during his or her lifetime. This year's Hajj is under intense security. And Britain's Queen Elizabeth is in Jamaica, a trip she is making as part of her Golden Jubilee celebration. She acceded to the thrown some 50 years ago. Today she addressed the Jamaican Parliament.

And when we come back, I will take you to the Games for more controversy on the ice. And speaking of controversy, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis move one step closer to a fight in the United States. I will tell you where right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Skating into controversy: This time, it's the Lithuanian ice dancing pair. Last night in the free dance, worth some 50 percent of the final score, they held onto fifth place. But today they filed a protest, saying they should have been awarded the bronze medal because the third and fourth place pairs fell during their programs. The judges' marks showed that, technically, the Lithuanians were comparable with the other two pairs, but on presentation, they scored lower.

Skating gracefully and fast is part of what's on tap at the Winter Games today. There is also action on the slopes as team USA aims for 20 medals.

Let's get an update now from CNN Sports Illustrated's John Giannone. He is in Utah -- John.

JOHN GIANNONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, 20 was the goal set by the U.S. Olympic Committee before the Games. And 20 it is. And it came in a most dramatic fashion. Derek Parra of the United States, who won the silver medal in the 5,000-meter speed skating event last week, set a new world record and won the gold in the men's 1,500. It happened moments ago, a time of 1:43.95 seconds.

In a sport often separated by tenths or even hundreds of a second, the difference between Parra's first-place run and the third- place run of Adne Sondral of Norway was nearly one second and a half. Now, Jochem Uytdehaage of the Netherlands, he won the silver medal. So that gives the United States 20 medals in these Winter Olympics. And, again, that evens the goal set by USOC before the Games. And there is still five days of competition left.

Now, earlier in the day, the men's aerials: another for the United States. And that was a silver medal. Joe Pack, a native of Park City, performing on a slope in nearby Deer Valley, he won the silver medal in the men's aerials. Ales Valenta of the Czech Republic won the gold. Alexei Grichin of Belarus was the bronze medalist. The big surprise in the event was American favorite Eric Bergoust. He was first entering the final round. He was the final performer on the day. But when he landed, he fell flat on his back and fell from first to last.

Now, the U.S. is expected to increase its medal total later in the week in women's figure skating. The short program begins tonight. The gold medal long program is Thursday. And, for Michelle Kwan, it represents what could be her final quest for gold. Kwan has won six national titles, four world championships. But, in 1998 in Nagano, she finished second to Tara Lipinski. Kwan's toughest competition should come from a pair of Americans, 17-year-old Sasha Cohen as well as Sarah Hughes, and also a pair of Russian skaters, Maria Butyrskaya and Irina Slutskaya, who has beaten Kwan head to head in six of their last eight meetings.

So a monumental, world-record-setting day for Derek Parra of the United States. He wins the U.S.'s 20th medal of these Games. In Park City, Utah, I'm John Giannone.

BLITZER: Thank you very much, John.

And now checking some other stories on today's "Newswire": A small fire outside the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta today forced the governor, lawmakers and other workers to evacuate the building. The blaze burned for about 20 minutes, injuring two construction workers. It broke out on a scaffolding set up as part of the renovation project. Fire officials say the fire was probably started by construction workers.

Washington, D.C. officials say they are reviewing Mike Tyson's application for a boxing license, taking the first steps toward bringing the title fight to the nation's capital. Last month, Nevada officials rejected Tyson's application because of his volatility in and out of the ring. Tyson was scheduled to fight Lennox Lewis in Las Vegas on April 6.

More airport security troubles, this time at Louisville International Airport in Kentucky: 15 flights were delayed this morning because thousands of passengers had to be rescreened, all because a National Guardsman noticed a security guard dozing off at a security checkpoint.

And, in Florida, a broken water main created a flooded sink hole in this Boca Raton neighborhood. One driver attempted to drive through the waters, which swallowed his van instead. With firefighters shouting for him to escape, the man stayed with the vehicle until his two dogs were free. He got out and so did the dogs.

Coming up, a job it seems nobody wants, but why would anyone want to pass up on a six-figure income and a posh office? The answer just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: If you have been following the Enron scandal, chances are you know the former head of Enron is Kenneth Lay. His alma mater, the University of Missouri, is now taking applications to fill a position that bears his name. The Kenneth L. Lay chair in international economics comes with a six-figure salary. But, so far, it is not drawing many applicants.

Joining me now with more: Professor Ken Troske. He is chairman of the International Economics Department at the University of Missouri. Is it as simple, Professor, that no one wants to be the Kenneth Lay professor at the University of Missouri, given the association that Ken Lay has with Enron?

KEN TROSKE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: No. I could offer the job to any number of people tomorrow. And I can assure you that they would take it.

Part of what this search for any endowed position is, it involves searching for someone who you feel is appropriate for the position. And this search, generally, will take some time and some thoughtfulness. And that's the type of search that we are undertaking. So there are people who would be interested in being the Ken Lay chair of international economics in the Economics Department.

And we still have people who are applying for the position. I actually received an application today. And so we -- the fact that his name is associated with the chair, he is not the reason the chair is currently not filled.

BLITZER: Now, just for the record, what, he gave more than $1 million -- was it in Enron stock -- to the university for this chair to be dedicated in his name?

TROSKE: Yes. His original -- the gift was for $1.2 million. I believe the gift came to us in the form of Enron stock, which is not unusual when someone such as Mr. Lay gives money to a university.

BLITZER: As you know, some politicians are returning money that they received from Ken Lay and other high executives at Enron. Is the University of Missouri thinking at all about returning this $1.2 million?

TROSKE: No, I mean, the money came from his foundation. I'm not sure that that would -- who we would return it to other than Mr. Lay. And no, we have -- we are going to use the money to fill the position, to find a prominent academic to sit in the Ken Lay chair.

BLITZER: And you wouldn't feel tainted by having that association? Ken Lay obviously hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing. He took the Fifth when he came, when he was asked to testify before Congress. But there is nothing illegal about that.

TROSKE: No, I mean, he certainly -- as far as I know, the only thing he has been convicted of -- or he has done has been president of a company that failed. So, certainly, I don't think that there is any stigma attached to the chair. If, at some point, something changes about that, then maybe the university will reevaluate it. But it is certainly not the time for us to do so now, nor do we have any plans on doing so. So, again...

BLITZER: Let me interrupt for a second. But there must be a lot of jokes going on about Ken Lay being associated with international economics given the demise of Enron. What's the funniest joke you have heard? TROSKE: Well, I have received a few e-mails with comments about that. A WAV file talking about how Enron's phone service is working these days is one of the funnier things that I have heard. But that would be about the funniest one I have seen.

BLITZER: All right, Ken Troske, from the University of Missouri, thanks for joining us. Good luck with that chair.

TROSKE: Thank you very much.

BLITZER: Thank you.

And let's go live to New York now and get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE." That begins right at the top of the hour.

Jan Hopkins is filling in today for Lou -- Jan.

JAN HOPKINS, "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE": Thanks, Wolf.

Coming up on "MONEYLINE": another brutal sell-off on Wall Street. We will see if the market must test the lows of last September before a sustained recovery. Also tonight: marketing the war on terrorism. The Pentagon's new mission: information warfare. And a look at some cool products that are turning out to be a hot commodity for one business at the Winter Olympics -- Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Thank you very much, Jan.

A look at viewer e-mail when we return. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Today's Web question: Which of the axis of evil nations pose the biggest threat to the United States? More than two- thirds of you believe Iraq is the biggest threat.

Now to the e-mail. You might recall that, after reading one from a viewer yesterday complaining about the -- quote -- "unfairness" of the 2000 presidential election, I suggested, in a rather offhand, almost casual way, that the viewer should get over the election. It is done, I said. It's more than a year already. But that clearly touched a very, very raw nerve.

Digby's e-mail was typical: "It may surprise you to know that there are literally millions of Americans who maintain that the decision by the Supreme Court to stop the count in Florida was a crime against democracy and they will never get over it."

And David adds this: "The election system either broke down or was manipulated. And the man who is now in the White House was not chosen by the consent of the people. The country will survive, but if we allow what happened to go by and don't examine if the law was broken and by whom, I am doubtful that the rule of law or democracy will remain strong."

BLITZER: I'll be back in one hour with the CNN "War Room." Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right now.

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