The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of the news; a look at the options now confronting the United States on resolving the international stand-off over Iraq; the latest on the war preparations of U.S. forces in Kuwait from Michael Gordon of the New York Times; a report from Denver on police efforts to watch the protesters; and excerpts from the congressional debates that led to legislation outlawing partial birth abortions.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. signaled today it might delay a U.N. vote on Iraq or drop the idea entirely. Originally, the Bush administration wanted the Security Council to vote on a new resolution by tomorrow, regardless of the outcome. Today, a White House spokesman said the vote could slip to next week. He said the president was "going the last mile for diplomacy." At a House hearing, Sec. of State Powell said the U.S. wanted a vote that would help unify the Security Council.

COLIN POWELL: We are still talking to the members of the Council to see what is possible with respect to coalescing around a position that wouldn't draw a veto, but the option remains to go for... the options remain: Go for a vote and see what members say or not go for a vote. But there are -- all the options that you can imagine are before us and we'll be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend.

JIM LEHRER: U.S. Officials refused again today to make predictions about the possible outcome at the U.N. There had been reports the resolution was close to winning nine votes on the Security Council. That's the number needed to pass barring a veto. Today, Pres. Bush cancelled a luncheon with members of Congress to continue his telephone diplomacy. France today rejected a British plan on Iraq. The plan called for Saddam Hussein to admit he has banned weapons, and then surrender them to inspectors. The French foreign minister said his government would not support any ultimatum leading to war. But later, he said France was still open to efforts to achieve a consensus. Iraq also dismissed the British plan. A Baghdad newspaper praised what it called the "well-intentioned powers" standing against war. But Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France. They said the French veto threat was "unreasonable" and "intransigent." At the U.N., Sec.-Gen. Annan appealed again for unity. He talked of a possible summit of world leaders to help forge a compromise.

KOFI ANNAN: Regardless of how this crisis or the current issue is resolved, the Council will have to work together and the member-states will have to work together to deal with the situation in Iraq, in the Middle East, and on many other issues. Therefore, the divisions which have appeared, some of it is normal in democratic parliamentary processes, should not be... long divisions that will prevent the Council from tackling the major issues ahead.

JIM LEHRER: The U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector also appealed for compromise today. Mohammed ElBaradei called for staggered deadlines, without the threat of war. We'll have more on the U.S.-U.N.-Iraq story in a moment. Iraq promised today to send a letter to U.N. inspectors on the disposal of anthrax and VX nerve gas. The Iraqis said the letter would arrive at the U.N. by tomorrow. The inspectors have asked for evidence that Baghdad destroyed its stocks of chemical and biological weapons. One of the inspectors was killed today when his car collided with a truck south of Baghdad. U.N. officials said it appeared to be an accident. The U.S. has begun deploying B-2 Stealth bombers closer to Iraq. The Air Force confirmed today some of the planes left Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, last night. They were believed headed to bases in England, and Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean. The ruling party in Turkey called a special weekend session of parliament today. Officials would not say if lawmakers would discuss letting U.S. combat troops deploy on Turkish soil. Parliament refused to allow the deployment earlier this month. The incoming prime minister has indicated he would call for a new vote, but he hasn't said when. The U.S. military resumed reconnaissance flights over the coast of North Korea today. The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific confirmed it at a Senate hearing in Washington. He said the military was taking "prudent measures" to protect the surveillance planes. On March 2, four North Korean fighter jets briefly intercepted one of the unarmed planes over the Sea of Japan. Police in Serbia rounded up suspected crime figures today, in the assassination of the country's prime minister. At least 70 people have been detained since the ambush killing yesterday in Belgrade. We have a report from Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: The street corner where the prime minister was gunned down has become a focus for the mourning of ordinary Serbs. Many saw him as the only man capable of washing away the stains of the Milosevic years and bringing Serbia into the European fold. Now they face uncertainty, as well as grief. The Serbian government has pointed the finger of blame at an underworld criminal network known as the Zemun Clan. In particular, they want to talk to this man, Milorad Lukovic, a warlord known as Legija. Djindjic's body is thought to be in this forensic institute in Belgrade, awaiting an autopsy. The pro-western prime minister had begun a crackdown on organized crime in Serbia. He was also instrumental in the handing over of Milosevic to The Hague. These efforts had gained him many enemies. On Thursday, Serbian politicians met to commemorate Djindjic. Members of the Ultra-Nationalist radical party, among his staunchest opponents, did not attend. There were similar scenes at the European parliament, where delegates mourned the first European leader to be murdered in 17 years. There are now fears a political power vacuum in Serbia could plunge the country into violence.

JIM LEHRER: The Serbian government said today the chairmanship of the ruling cabinet would rotate until parliament elects a new prime minister. The U.S. Senate voted today to ban a hotly debated procedure that critics call "partial birth abortion." It's performed mostly late in pregnancies. The Senate vote was 64-33. The bill now goes to the House. Congress approved the ban twice in the past but then Pres. Clinton vetoed it both times. Pres. Bush has indicated he would sign it but a court challenge is likely. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Senate Republicans failed again today to stop a filibuster against Miguel Estrada, a federal appeals judge nominee. They fell five votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. Democrats insisted that Estrada answer more questions on his views. Republicans say the opposition is based solely on the fact he's a conservative. The House passed a bill today that sets ceilings on financial awards in malpractice suits. It would cap non-economic damages for pain and suffering to $250,000, limit punitive damages and attorneys' fees and impose a window for patients to file suits. Supporters of the bill said soaring insurance rates are putting doctors out of business. Opponents said it was unfair to victims of medical errors. That bill now goes to the Senate. A top NASA official reportedly turned down a request for spy satellites to focus on the shuttle "Columbia" several days after its launch. The New York Times reported that today. It said engineers made the request amid concern debris had damaged the shuttle's left wing during lift-off. The report said shuttle program director Ron Dittemore turned down the request. A NASA spokesman said Dittemore and others doubted the satellite images would have helped. Wall Street had its best day in five months after weeks of selling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 269 points, 3.5 percent to close above 7821. The NASDAQ rose 61 points, more than 4.5 percent to close above 1340. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to new options for the U.S. on Iraq, U.S. forces in Kuwait, protesting in Denver, and an abortion update.

FOCUS - END GAMES

JIM LEHRER: Iraq, and the ongoing, ever-changing choices for the United States, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Pres. Bush made two things clear at his press conference last week: He wanted the Security Council to vote on a new Iraq resolution before the end of this week, and the U.S. would insist on holding a vote even if the prospects looked bleak.

PRES. GEORGE BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

MARGARET WARNER: But today, Sec. of State Colin Powell said negotiations would continue into next week, and he suggested the U.S. might pull its draft resolution without a vote if it appeared headed for defeat. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked to explain the apparent change of heart.

REPORTER: The president was very clear last week, he wanted a vote in the Security Council. It was time for countries to show their cards. And now today, Sec. Powell says, among the options is to go for a vote or not to go for a vote. What's going on here?

ARI FLEISCHER: Okay, let me... let me try to share or inform you about where things stand in the fluid situation with the diplomacy. The end is coming into sight, and there are numerous routes to reach that end through the diplomacy the president is pursuing. And the president has said that he seeks a vote, and we seek a vote. I cannot predict for you every shape and turn of the road on the way to that end, but this end is coming into sight. And that's why you're seeing some levels of flexibility and discussion of option as it comes into sight.

MARGARET WARNER: To persuade the undecided Council members, Britain this week proposed adding a number of specific benchmarks, or tests, that Saddam Hussein could meet to avert war. But today France, which had vowed to veto the original U.S.- British-Spanish resolution, rejected the latest British proposal, too.

DOMINEUQE DE VILLEPIN (Translated): We cannot accept the British proposals because they exist within logic of war, logic of automatic recourse to force. It would be necessary for the text not to be written as an ultimatum.

MARGARET WARNER: In London, British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, condemned the French reaction.

JACK STRAW: Without even proper consideration, the French government have decided they will reject these proposals, adding to the statement that, "whatever the circumstances, France will vote no."

MARGARET WARNER: Straw said the British would continue their push nonetheless.

JACK STRAW: We're not going to give up until we come to the final conclusion that it's simply not possible to reach an agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: Later today, the British met with representatives of the six undecided countries at the U.N., and the Security Council held a closed meeting late this afternoon.

MARGARET WARNER: How should the U.S. play out this diplomatic end game and for how long? We get two views on that. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Charles William Maynes was assistant secretary of state for international organizations during the Carter administration. Welcome to you both.

Sen. Brownback, as we just heard today, the president is now willingto let these negotiations continue through the weekend into next week. Is it worth the wait, and if so, for how long?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Well, I think the president is clearly signaling that what he wants to do here is push to the nth degree, to the final day, to the final possibility to get some sort of U.N. resolution, to get the world community to pull together about the issue of Saddam Hussein. And he's going beyond any sort of efforts I think he probably contemplated at the outset to see if he can pull that together. The French have made this extraordinarily difficult. And they have actually perhaps short-circuited the process by their statements of saying virtually regardless of what the United States does they're going to veto this.

MARGARET WARNER: But how long do you think the president should wait?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: I don't think he can wait much longer. You've really come to about the end of the string here, that further efforts aren't going to move much more, that you do have a coalition of the willing that exists that's ready to go, that's substantial, that people from the region by and large other than Turkey are very supportive and they're ready. I met with people from Saudi Arabia just today, ready, willing to move on forward. And you wait too much longer, this thing gets overripe and it starts moving backward on you. I think the time is pretty short.

MARGARET WARNER: Bill Maynes, in danger of getting "overripe"?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I don't think we should criticize the administration for the maneuvering it's trying to do to get the best resolution possible. The president's going to be judged by the final product, not whether he contradicted on Wednesday what he said on Monday, because what he's really trying to do and what everybody is trying to do is bring maximum pressure on all sides to try to move this process forward. I think that if we can get European support on this, it is worth working for. We're going to win the first battle in this struggle, but there are going to be many chapters to this, and we're going to need outside support. We're going to need outside support for rebuilding. We're going to need outside support in coalitions for the struggles that will come after that. And if there's any possibility of moving the French and the Germans, I think we should make an effort to do that. I think the administration is trying that. I probably would go longer than others on that because I'm... I not only feel that the coalition is important; I feel that U.S. interests in Europe could be severely damaged depending on how this all falls out, and a lot of that depends, of course, on how the war goes.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean severely damaged if the U.S. were to go ahead without a resolution.

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Yes, because the Europeans have said they won't pay a penny on this if we go ahead without a resolution. If the war doesn't go as we expect, there will be a lot of recriminations here. The time to get them on the... you know, on our side is now. But I think they have to make a gesture towards us. I think, you know, they've painted themselves in the corner. We're painted in a corner. It's very hard to get out unless both sides try to reach out to one another to see if it's possible to reach some kind of agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Brownback, as you know, to entice the six undecided countries, or the countries believed to be undecided, the British did propose these specific benchmarks: Saddam Hussein could meet and avert war. Secretary Powell was a little non-committal about that today in the hearing. He said something like, "Well, not all of us bought all the elements, but we're looking at it." If Britain felt they could round up the necessary nine votes with something like that, is that something the U.S. should also support?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Well, I think if it's a possibility, a strong possibility that we could round up the votes with that, I think you'd see the administration readily look at that. But, again, I think you're looking at a situation now where you've got a number of countries, particularly in the region that have been hanging out there for a period of time, in a very delicate and difficult situation, whether it's Jordan or Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait, and even some of the negotiations with other countries in that region. And I don't think you can wait forever for this. If we can and we can do it fairly concisely and quickly, I think you could see the administration move forward, but we have tried. The administration has really tried and pushed and pushed on this. They've gone to the U.N. for a resolution last year. A number of people are questioning whether they need to get another one. I do agree that the time to get people on board is now, but I don't know that any stone is left unturned now. We've turned about every one of them over.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you suggesting that if the U.S. waits too long that some of the other countries willing to help will be less willing to help?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: I just think it gets more and more difficult for them. And they are right there in the neighborhood. I've traveled through the region; many people have. And they don't want Saddam Hussein in power, and they haven't wanted him in power for a long period of time, but they've been waiting for a situation where the United States is clearly committed to move, and then they said, "We'll be there." Now they're saying the United States clearly wanted to move, we're there, but it puts them in difficulty and in jeopardy with their own population. And the longer that situation sits that way, I think it makes it very difficult for a lot of those countries, particularly like a Saudi Arabia or a Jordan, to continue to hang in there with us so aggressively and so openly and boldly.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that, Bill Maynes, that there's a political... we can put some potential allies in the region in political jeopardy if we wait too much longer?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: If the current checkers are on the board and those are the only ones there, I agree with what the senator said. I think one of the issues here is whether other checkers can be put on the board. For example, one weakness I think in the French position is they agree Saddam Hussein should go. They agree that the American troops in the region provide pressure for him to make concessions. They want more concessions, and they say that if the concessions stop, they would participate in a war. Logically it seems to me the French should offer to put some troops in the Gulf to bring pressure on Saddam Hussein. That's the kind of additional checker that I think could be put on the table if the two sides were to reach out to one another. And that would, I think, reduce some of the pressure on -- the political pressure on the United States and others. That kind of gesture hasn't been made. I think it still could, but time is very short.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Brownback, the other issue that came up today was whether the U.S. should pursue this as the president said last week, whatever the vote count looks like it's going to be, to make everyone put their cards on the table, or whether it's better to pull the resolution if it looks like it's going down to defeat. What is your view on that?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Well, I've been one all along for some period of time that has felt if the French were going to dig in so hard and say that "regardless of what you do, we're going to veto this in the Security Council," that I really question whether it was worthwhile for us to go forward and get an 18th resolution in front of the United Nations regarding Iraq. That's where we're at with this. Now I think it's worthy and it's the right thing to do to try to pursue that at this point in time, but I really question if they've decided, period, "we are going to veto this." It is worth some benefit if we have a majority that's a vote there and then we go forward and the French veto it, we can say we have absolutely done everything we can. But I think the French are putting that strategy into question for us. I think if we can get a majority and we can do so fairly soon, it can't wait for a long period of time, we should pursue that, but I wouldn't spend a great deal more time on it. We've really worked this very hard, and I don't know if there's much more to be gained by working it much longer.

MARGARET WARNER: And what's your view of that, Bill Maynes, in terms of whether it's worth pursuing?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: As I indicated before, it would be very valuable to us if we could bring others on, in particular the Europeans-- not simply for the Gulf War, but for other reasons. And the French, there are a couple of views that have come out of France on this.

MARGARET WARNER: But I guess the question I'm really asking, because it's what was raised by Sec. Powell today: If the U.S. takes a hard vote count privately and it looks like, one, the French are going to veto, and, two, maybe they can't even get the nine super majority, should they still push it to a vote just to say they went for a vote or not?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I think the administration argues that it would have a certain moral authority if they went to war and they had a majority of the Security Council even though the resolution had no legal standing according to the rules of the council, and that's a political judgment. Of course, we don't take that view when we veto resolutions. We insist they should have no operational effect whatsoever. But I think in terms of the politics of it, there's something that could be said to that regard, but our problem so far is that we've had trouble getting the nine.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you... and finally, what is your view of the British role in this and whether it's... I mean, the conventional wisdom and the truth of it is that the U.S. has pursued this resolution in good part because Tony Blair really needed it. At this point, do you think that the British want to push it even if it looks like it will go down to defeat?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I think, you know, we have been living in a cocoon in this country about what the problems are for the British government. I travel a lot, and months ago, it was clear that Blair was in trouble, and it just really hadn't filtered home here. He's in grave trouble. The establishment in Britain if you want to call it... I watched a program recently in Europe several months ago, and the former chief of staff, the former foreign minister, a bishop of the Church of England who's considered the military's bishop, they all are denouncing the war, and so he's got a very, very serious problem. And I think theadministration is right to try to protect their allies, somebody who has been very loyal to them and to see if they can help him out on this.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: If I could jump in on this real quickly...

MARGARET WARNER: Yeah, please.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: ...Because I think you're seeing historic realignments taking place since Sept. 11. After Sept. 11, our relationships into Central Asia matured and grew into countries that people hadn't even really heard of much-- Uzbekistan, Pakistan back with the United States and working in a very difficult situation. I'm afraid what you're seeing now as well are historic realignments as well. You're seeing countries that have recently grown, joined NATO, or seek to join NATO, strongly supporting the United States, others really questioning. I mean, this is a very fluid time that I think is going to have a long tail to it afterwards beyond this instance, and I don't know that all of it's positive. Some of it's very positive, of new people stepping forward to work with us and to work towards liberty around the world. But we are going to have consequences from this debate, I think, for a number of years to come.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you both. Sen. Brownback and Bill Maynes, thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, getting ready in Kuwait, watching the protesters in Denver, and the partial birth abortion vote.

FOCUS - GATHERING STORM

JIM LEHRER: U.S. military preparations in the Persian Gulf for a potential war with Iraq, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining me from Kuwait City is Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times. Welcome to the program.

MICHAEL GORDON: Hi, nice to be here.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's start with the state of the build-up. How many troops are in country right now, and how many are on the way?

MICHAEL GORDON: Well, there are well over 100,000 U.S. forces, which basically break down into two rough categories: Marine forces and army forces. The maneuver units really here on this battlefield are one mass, the marine expeditionary force. There are actually more marines than soldiers at this point in time -- and then the fifth corps, which is the command for the U.S. Army. So those are the two main kind of U.S. forces and, of course, the British are here. They have the equivalent of a division, and they're fighting alongside and under the command of the Americans.

RAY SUAREZ: Those are some pretty big numbers that you're mentioning. How many of those forces are expected to enter Iraq in the event of an invasion? Is a large portion going to stay behind in Kuwait?

MICHAEL GORDON: Every ground force has a large logistics element, which does have to stay in the rear unnecessarily. But I mean, this essentially is... the invasion force consists pretty much of this. I mean, you have on the army side you have the third infantry division, and they've been here quite a while, and they're in pretty good shape and well prepared. So our infantry division, it's really a mechanized division even though it's called an infantry division, and it's, you know, on the order of about 20,000 strong. And then there's the 101st Airborne, which is in the process of getting ready. So that's another, you know, division, maybe another 15,000. Then there are the army elements. There's the 11th aviation regiment of attack helicopter force. And there's some sort of odds and sods, and that's the army side of things. And then for the marines, you have this marine expeditionary force that's 50,000-plus; there's some other elements thrown in there. They also have a very large air wing. The marines have their own air force. So this is one of their largest air wings in history.

RAY SUAREZ: Are the people that you talk to, both at lower- ranking combat people and their commanders, proceeding on the assumption that it's when and not if an attack goes forward?

MICHAEL GORDON: I think the way most people look at it out here, including the Kuwaitis, I would say, is the issue now is not whether there's going to be a war or whether the United Nations Security Council is going to decree that there should be a war; the issue is whether when the war occurs, is it going to have the blessing of the Security Council? So I would say the fact that there's going to be a war is a pretty widespread assumption here.

RAY SUAREZ: The U.S. and some of its other partners have moved a fairly large force, as you've described, into a very small country. Have there been any snags, any unforeseen problems?

MICHAEL GORDON: Well, Kuwait is a small country, but Iraq is a big country, so they're going to have a lot of territory to cover fairly soon, but I mean, one of the limiting factors here is I recall that during the '91 Gulf War Saudi Arabia just had much better facilities. It's a bigger country. I mean, Kuwait has one real port and one major airfield, so this has been a... sort of like putting a big force through a small funnel, and this has constrained the build-up to a certain extent, so that has been a factor, but there are more forces on the way. And forces will continue to arrive even as the invasion moves ahead.

RAY SUAREZ: If there is a lot longer delay before anything gets started, what do you do with that many people? What do you do with that many soldiers to keep them sort of on task, ready to fight, but also not getting hurt?

MICHAEL GORDON: I don't really think that there's going to be a lot longer delay, and most people here don't really expect that there will be. I can imagine perhaps a delay of a week or a few extra days. I can't imagine a delay for a month or so. That's not the assumption here. Basically what they're doing now is they're preparing to invade Iraq. I mean, for example, on the army side, in terms of the third infantry division, it's very revealing what they're doing. They've created a replica of the sand berm, the sand wall that separates Iraq from Kuwait with the barbed wire and the whole configuration, and they're practicing crashing through it just as they probably will a week from now or maybe two weeks from now if there's a delay. That's what they're doing. On the Marine side, they're moving right up to the border, and they've been studying the sort of tactical intelligence about the Iraqis who are deployed opposite them. They've been handing out malaria pills because they're going in to an area that, unlike the last Gulf War, you know, is a little, well, sort of marsh- like. You know, in some of the units, they've given out the chemical suits. To me, that's a very revealing sign because the... they come shrink-wrapped, and they're very hard to deal with when they're shrink-wrapped. You have to cut them open and sort of unfold them, and you certainly couldn't get into it in an emergency. So when you cut loose the chemical warfare suits and take them out of the shrink wrap and get them ready so you can put them on quickly, the reason that's significant is they only have a life of about 45 days or so, I think the new suits after you do that because the charcoal lining begins to bake. So when you unshrink-wrap the chemical suits and give them to your troops, and these suits are pretty expensive, you're pretty much signaling that you expect to do something in a fairly brief, you know, timeframe.

RAY SUAREZ: Has there been distribution of ammunition, fuel, to move vehicles-- all in place, being given out, put in a line of March?

MICHAEL GORDON: Well, the ammunition... they're getting full loads of ammunition. But I mean, all of these sorts of things-- you know, practicing crashing through berms, giving out chemical suits, giving out ammunition, they've been giving them the final briefings about, you know, how you deal with the dead actually, the things of that sort-- all these preparations are going on right now even as the U.N. talks and the French and the British debate what's going to happen. Now, you know, I think that the assumption of the military is they just have to go ahead and make these preparations so that when they do get the go signal, as they anticipate, they're in a position to move forward really in a matter of, you know, hours and not days. You know, a lot of preparations have gone on already that people haven't really noticed because they've sort of gone on under the radar. For example, huge quantities of fuel have been moved up to the border. They've actually created sort of a pipeline in the army that goes back to the Kuwaiti refineries, and they bring the fuel all the way up to the border in huge, what they call, bag farms-- the fuel in a location so they can be trucked north into Iraq. This is actually... that's a process that has been under way for several months, just no one's really noticed it. I mean, entire airfields for the helicopters have been constructed in the middle of the desert. I was here in November and, you know, one or two of these sorts of facilities didn't exist then, and they exist now. So this has been a very big industrial enterprise which is reaching its natural culmination as, you know, this force, you know, prepares to spring forward for what is going to be a very logistically demanding thrust into the center of Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Gordon from Kuwait City, thanks a lot.

MICHAEL GORDON: Okay, thank you.

FOCUS - MONITORING PROTESTERS

JIM LEHRER: Now back to this country and to police surveillance in Denver. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: For most of her 50 years as a nun, Sister Antonia Anthony has been speaking out against violence.

SISTER ANTONIA ANTHONY: As John Paul II has said, war is always a defeat for humanity.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Recently, the 74- year-old Denver activist joined hundreds of others in protesting a possible war with Iraq. She never had any reason to worry about this kind of dissent, that is until last year when she discovered that those political activities had landed her in a Denver police file.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It says here you're a criminal extremist.

SISTER ANTONIA ANTHONY: Well, of course that's just totally a lie, you know. That's totally wrong. Of course we aren't. We have never attempted to do any criminal activity, to harm anybody.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sister Antonia is just one of over 3,000 activists in Denver who have been the targets of police surveillance since the 1950s. (Drums beating) Political science Prof. Glenn Morris is another. As a leader in the American Indian movement, he has organized rallies and protests against government polices, all the while being watched by the Denver police.

GLENN MORRIS, American Indian Movement: It's always a little shocking to see yourself in black and white in a police intelligence... particularly a politically motivated intelligence file.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What do you mean politically motivated?

GLENN MORRIS: There was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that criminality was being engaged in or was imminent. And so what were they doing? They were criminalizing dissent. In essence, they were saying, "we're going to come to your events, we're going to make sure that the people who are attending the events know that they're under surveillance," and that has a chilling effect on the First Amendment.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The American Civil Liberties Union thought so, too. A year ago it filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver, claiming the files violated the civil rights of many Denver residents. And it demanded the files be released to the people who were spied upon. Mark Silverstein is the legal director of Colorado's ACLU.

MIKE SILVERSTEIN, American Civil Liberties Union: We have police keeping files on people when there is absolutely no suspicion at all of any link to criminal activity. The police have acknowledged that. They don't even have an unreasonable suspicion of activity. They have kept files on peaceful activists who are doing nothing more than exercise their constitutionally protected right to demonstrate, to rally, to criticize the government.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The mayor and the police chief declined interview requests because of the pending lawsuit. But Mayor Wellington Webb did issue a statement, saying he is particularly sensitive to the issue because he and other civil rights leaders were the subject of an FBI spy operation in the '70s. He also said that no information about political activities should be collected unless it relates to criminal activity.

SPOKESMAN: Is there going to be time for me to do this or are going to do it?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Ed Thomas, who served on the police force for 22 years, said it's not always easy to make that distinction. He's now a city councilman, running for the auditor's office. He says the police must gather intelligence on demonstrators to prevent a riots from breaking out, like those that took place at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.

ED THOMAS, Denver City Council: There were fire bombs, you know, at these rallies. There were, you know, people assaulted in the crowd, police officers that were assaulted. There were people wearing masks. There are people that are very well meaning that go to a lot of these rallies, that very well truly believe in the issues that they're coming up with. But then there are also people that are hell-bent on the destruction of this country at any cost. And do they need to be monitored? You bet.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Thomas is quick to point out that he thinks the Denver police went too far in some instances, like the case of Sister Antonia, and he thinks the police should have more oversight.

SPOKESMAN: Hi, sir. How are you?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ari Zavaras also thinks the police need to be better monitored, but he whole- heartedly defends the need for police surveillance. He was the chief of police and the city's manager of safety for many of the years the files were being kept. He's now one of eight candidates running for mayor.

ARI ZAVARAS, Former Denver Police Chief: Intelligence files, information gathering is the lifeblood, it's one of the staples of law enforcement and police work. We in law enforcement circles-- and I have almost a 37-year history in it-- have always realized it. The world got its eyes opened about the importance of intelligence as a result of 9/11.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And in fact, it's the fear of increased police surveillance in the wake of 9/11 that has some Denver activists worried.

SISTER ANTONIA ANTHONY: It could start a pattern of behavior that could even increase. I could see us becoming a police state, almost a totalitarian state.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: You mean that in the interest of trying to root out terrorism this could happen?

SISTER ANTONIA ANTHONY: That's it. That's it. And I see the police spy files as part of that.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Activists are also concerned about how the information was used and disseminated, and with the passage of the Patriot Act, how information could potentially be misused by law enforcement agencies in the future.

GELNN MORRIS: In our files, we have at least 20 different police-- local, state and federal agencies-- with whom this information was shared, without verifying it; there are many, many inaccuracies in our files. And we know now that that kind of information finds itself in a massive database that is used for a variety of purposes. The Transportation Safety Administration just announced that it's creating a huge database of information that determines whether or not you can fly on an aircraft. And it doesn't matter if that information is inaccurate or incorrect or labels you a criminal extremist when you've never been convicted of a crime.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Zavaras agrees that there is a real potential for the misuse of information collected in such files. He says police should continue to monitor demonstrations but only keep information if there is evidence of criminal activities.

ARI ZAVARAS: If they're monitoring a peaceful demonstration, and that's exactly what it is, peaceful, there's no outbreak of violence, it would be inappropriate to classify that information and keep it. You would want to discard it. You would want a policy in place that allowed for immediate purging of that.

SPOKESMAN: Let me get a shot of the police right now.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Steve Nash, one of the original plaintiffs to the lawsuit, says he doesn't trust Zavaras or the law enforcement community to make any meaningful changes to surveillance policy. He's a member of a group called Copwatch, which monitors police actions. Five months ago the city was supposed to enlist an independent agency to audit the training of intelligence officers. But that hasn't happened. Nash hopes the Denver case will make people in the rest of the country realize the need for increased police accountability.

STEVE NASH: I think if we're going to give more power to the police and to intelligence, we need to make sure there's civilian controls on them that are effective. Right now police departments operate pretty independently, so does the FBI and the CIA. If we're going to increase security here in the United States, we have to have democratic control over our security institutions. Otherwise what we're going to end up here with is a police state.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Former Police Chief Zavaras admits police intelligence is a constant balancing act.

ARI ZAVARAS: We need to be very vigilant, as I say, for the safety of not just of our citizens, but how it may connect in some international movement. By the same token, we cannot throw out the Constitution. And we have to be very careful not to cross any of those boundaries.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A settlement to the lawsuit could come later this month.

UPDATE -CONGRESS AND ABORTION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, Congress takes on the issue of abortion again. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Over the past decade, majorities in both Houses of Congress have voted to prohibit a late-term abortion procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion. But each time the legislation reached Pres. Clinton, it was vetoed.

SPOKESPERSON: The bill as amended is passed.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, the Senate approved a slightly revised version of abortion ban, and with the House and Pres. Bush's support virtually assured, the ban against so- called "partial birth abortions" could become law next month. Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum was the bill's chief sponsor.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: This isn't taught in any medical school. It isn't done in any hospital. It isn't done by any obstetrician. This is a rogue procedure for the convenience and economic benefit of abortionists and abortion clinics. Of course, it is not medically necessary. It is not even medically recognized.

KWAME HOLMAN: A partial birth abortion, as described in the bill, is a procedure in which: "The entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech delivery, if any part of the fetal trunk past the naval is outside the body of the mother." The legislation prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: We said the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus, in the case of head-first presentation the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother. You do not do any other procedures where you present the head. You don't do it. I don't think any doctor in the land would say that you do any of these other abortions where you present the head. I mean, it is just not done. Secondly, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel. So it is not a hand or a foot or an arm. It is the legs, the feet, the buttocks, and the lower part of the abdomen is outside of the mother, and in most cases the arms... the hands and arms. So that is a pretty clear definition of this procedure and cannot be-- from all of the descriptions that we have received in testimony-- confused with any other procedure.

KWAME HOLMAN: But California Democrat Dianne Feinstein argued the legislation was too broadly written and could make abortions unavailable for many women.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEN: I get so annoyed when men constantly strive to take away hard-won rights from women. Respectfully, I don't want Sen. Santorum telling me what to do with my reproductive system. I respect his views, I respect his rights, I respect his moral code, his religion, his conversations with his physician. Why can't those same rights apply to those of us that happen to be pro-choice, particularly when a fetus is not viable, when a fetus cannot sustain life outside the womb? And that is what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Majority Leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, said many others in the medical community find this particular type of abortion procedure offensive and criticized those who perform it.

SEN. BILL FRIST: It is interesting that the people who developed this procedure and its loudest proponents are not surgeons, but, in fact, practitioners, and they are not board certified in a field that would be consistent with performing procedures such as this. From a medical standpoint, I took an oath to treat every human life with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. Abortion takes life away, and partial-birth abortion, this particular procedure, does so in a manner that is brutal, that is barbaric, and morally offensive to the medical community.

KWAME HOLMAN: During the weeklong debate, Senate Republicans with the help of a few Democrats, turned back efforts to modify the abortion ban. Feinstein suggested a ban on all late-term abortions unless a physician certified a woman's life or health was threatened by continuing her pregnancy. Illinois' Dick Durbin suggested the same ban unless two physicians certified the woman was in danger.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: So I come today understanding that division in America, that division in my state, even that division of opinion within my own family. I understand this, I feel it, and I am trying with this amendment to strike a reasonable compromise. Oh, the people with their arms folded on both sides of the hall won't like it. It does not ban abortion, which is what some people want. And it does not get the government out of the picture completely, which is what others want. Instead, it tries to draw a reasonable, sensible line, a good-faith line, of where we will allow abortions in late- term pregnancies.

KWAME HOLMAN: But both times, a majority in the Senate rejected the amendments. The Senate also rejected a call by California's Barbara Boxer to send the abortion bill to the Judiciary Committee. She argued the committee hadn't reviewed the issue since June of 2000, when the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law similar to the Santorum bill. However, in the midst of the debate, the Senate did vote to reaffirm its support for "Roe versus Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to have an abortion. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin offered the resolution.

SEN. TOM HARKIN: With all of the legislation that continues to come up and chips away at "Roe V. Wade," I decided it was important for us in the Senate to go on record that this historic decision was appropriate and should not be overturned.

KWAME HOLMAN: And those who argued against the abortion ban approved today expect an almost immediate court challenge once Pres. Bush signs it into law.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major developments of the day: the U.S. signaled it might delay a U.N. vote on Iraq until next week, and Sec. of State Powell left open the possibility of not calling for a vote at all. And France rejected a British plan, calling for Saddam Hussein to admit he has banned weapons, and then surrender them. We'll see you online. And again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.