The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight two reports on the British decision to deny immunity to former Chilean President Pinochet. Then Margaret Warner runs a four-way discussion about how to change the government in Iraq; media correspondent Terence Smith and Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky spotlight press freedom overseas; and Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to the winner of the National Book Award for young people's literature. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet is not immune from prosecution for human rights abuses. That was the ruling today of Britain's highest court - the House of Lords. Outside, crowds f people welcomed a decision. Many were relatives of the more than 3,000 people who were murdered or disappeared during the 17-year Pinochet regime. He was arrested last month at a London hospital on a Spanish warrant charging him with murder, torture, and genocide.We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The United Nations will send more weapons inspectors to Iraq. A UN spokeswoman made that announcement today. She said they will arrive this week to visit new suspected weapons sites. More than 80 inspectors have been rechecking previously monitored sites since resuming inspections earlier this month. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. There were more protests in Indonesia today. Students marched on the home of former President Suharto in an exclusive suburb of the capital, Jakarta. They demanded he be tried for corruption and human rights abuses. Troops turned back the demonstrators about a half mile from the heavily guarded residence. There were no reports of arrests or injuries. The president of China began an historic six-day visit to Japan today. Jiang Zemin is the first Chinese head of state to come to Japan since World War II. Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi hosted Jiang at a banquet. Formal talks are scheduled to begin Thursday. They will discuss the Asian economic crisis, and Obuchi is expected to offer a verbal apology for Japanese atrocities in China during World War II. Back in this country today Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with first degree murder and two other crimes. A Michigan prosecutor announced the criminal charges after viewing a videotape of Kevorkian giving a terminally ill man a lethal injection. Excerpts were shown on CBS's "60 Minutes" last Sunday night. The prosecutor spoke at a news conference this afternoon.

DAVID GORCYCA: It simply comes down to the facts that were depicted on the videotape and the law in the state of Michigan. If you look at the elements of first degree premeditation, he meets every one of them. The time has come for Kevorkian's violations of the law and involvement in this complicated moral, legal, and ethical issue be resolved in a court of law by a jury of peers and not in the headlines of the media or editorial pages.

JIM LEHRER: Kevorkian surrendered to authorities an hour after the charges were announced. He's admitted to aiding more than 130 people to commit suicide. He's been tried and acquitted three times on related charges. The holiday rush began today. Millions of Americans traveled by train, plane, bus, and car to reach their Thanksgiving destinations. Amtrak officials said they expected 30 to 50 percent more travelers than on a regular weekday. Airports anticipated large crowds. The American Automobile Association said Thanksgiving Weekend is the busiest travel time of the year. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a Pinochet update, toppling Saddam Hussein, fighting for press freedom, and another National Book Award winner.% ? UPDATE - NO IMMUNITY

JIM LEHRER: The case of General Augusto Pinochet. The highest court in Britain ruled that the former Chilean president is not immune from prosecution on murder, torture, and genocide charges. We have two reports, beginning in London with Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: It was the verdict they'd dreamt of, and when it came, they could scarcely believe it. Since General Pinochet was arrested on October 16th, the families of the disappeared and the dead have been hoping against hope that English justice would do what Chilean justice has failed to do - bring to book the man they blame for the years of terror in Chile.

VINCENTE ALEGRIA, National Organization of Chileans in Exile: Today justice has been done in this place. Today is an historic moment for the people of Chile, for the people of Britain, for the people of Latin America, and for all the people in the world, because finally justice has been done.

MAN: Thank you, Thank you.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Inside the Lords, the tension leading up to the judgment was acute. Lord Slynn concluded in favor of General Pinochet; so did Lord Lloyd. Lord Hoffman, a liberal South African; and Lord Steyn, also South African, found against. The key was Lord Nicholls, a quiet academic who swung the judgment against the general. The minority view that General Pinochet should have immunity from prosecution was detailed by Lord Slynn, who argued "We are not an international court. For an English court to investigate and pronounce on the validity of the amnesty in Chile would be to assert jurisdiction over the internal affairs of that state." But the argument of the three law Lords who said General Pinochet had no immunity was expressed by Lord Nicholls in these words: "International law has made it plaint hat certain types of conduct, including torture and hostage-taking, are not acceptable conduct on the part of anyone. This applies as much to heads of state, or even more so, as it does to anyone else; the contrary conclusion would make a mockery of international law." And he dismissed the argument that this will cause chaos in Chile. "Arguments about the effect on this country's diplomatic relations with Chile if extradition were allowed to proceed, or with Spain, if refused, are not matters for the court. These are, par excellence, political matters for consideration by the secretary of state." At a packed press conference, the Chilean ambassador expressed the hope that the home secretary will now exercise his political discretion and not allow extradition proceedings to start. He has from now until next Wednesday to make a decision.

MARIO ARTAZA, Chilean Ambassador to Great Britain: Tomorrow, this embassy will present to the home office an official representation of the government of Chile in accordance with what is stated in the British Extradition Act.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Lady Thatcher, General Pinochet's old friend who took tea with him before his arrest, said the general should be allowed to go home on compassionate grounds and for the good of relations between the two countries. The conservative leader William Hague later endorsed her view. International reaction to the law Lord's surprise ruling was swift. In Spain, where the investigating judge, Baltazar Garcon's extradition words sparked off the whole controversy, Chilean exiles gathered in Madrid to celebrate the decision. A lawyer for the victims of Pinochet's rule hailed the judgment as an irreversible step towards the prosecution of crimes against humanity. In France, where General Pinochet is wanted for the disappearance of three French citizens in Chile during his rule, human rights campaigners and even members of the National Assembly, also celebrated. In Belgium, the implications for fugitive dictators were even before the ruling. Groups protested against the current leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Laurent Kabila, who's visiting Brussels. Likening him to Pinochet, they say they want him tried for crimes against humanity.

JOHN SNOW, ITN: Supporters of the former dictator watched the Lords proceedings live on a large screen at the Pinochet Foundation in the capital, Santiago. When it became clear that their patron would not be coming home today, the response was anger. Chilean television, which ran live coverage, showed them hurling abuse at camera crews and journalists. Some were eventually turned upon and ejected forcibly out of the building. Gen. Pinochet's son said the decision was political and partisan.

AUGUSTO PINOCHET, General Pinochet's Son: [speaking through interpreter] My father has received a severe blow on the day of his birthday with a sadism and a cruelty that goes beyond the real condition of human rights.

JOHN SNOW: But will these forceful outbursts be matched by Chile's military, still fiercely loyal to the general?

ISABEL ALLENDE, President Allende's Niece: [San Francisco] I doubt that the military will do anything, but this could delay the transition. For a decade, we have lived in a transition to democracy in Chile. It's not a full democracy. And the country is very divided.

JOHN SNOW: President Frei, in a live address, urged Chileans to remain calm. He's sending his foreign minister to Europe next week to argue the government's case that Pinochet should receive immunity. The day, though, belongs to opponents of Pinochet, former victims and relatives of those who died or disappeared under his regime. They too followed events live and were overjoyed and more than a little surprised when the Lords' verdict became clear.

VIVIANA DIAZ, President, Mothers of the Disappeared: [speaking through interpreter] We are right, and today it's been confirmed in the Lords, and we will carry on until we get justice for every one of the victims and the families of the detained and the disappeared.

JOHN SNOW: For the Chileans, dancing in the streets of Santiago today, the Lords' decision was a giant step closer to seeing justice done.% ? FOCUS - TOPPLING SADDAM

JIM LEHRER: Now, getting rid of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. It's the issue that won't go away and is back again after the latest confrontation between Iraq and UN weapons inspectors. Spencer Michels begins our coverage.

SPENCER MICHELS: As far back as the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was portrayed by the Bush administration as the embodiment of evil, the cause of the trouble. Allied bombs were targeted on his headquarters. But a march on Baghdad to house Saddam was not part of the UN resolution authorizing military action. And most of the European and Arab allies fighting with the US in the Gulf opposed any widening of war rings, at least publicly. After Saddam's defeat, he confronted an internal uprising by Kurdish rebels in the North and Shiite Muslims in the South. At that point President Bush said the job of getting rid of the Iraqi leader was up to the Iraqis, themselves, especially Saddam's generals.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: There's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside, and to comply with the United Nations resolutions and then rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Saddam's army stayed loyal and quickly crushed the Kurdish rebellion, killing as many as 50,000 and forcing more than a million Kurds into Turkey and Iran. In response to televised pictures of fleeing Kurdish refugees, the US and its allies created a safe haven for them by declaring a so-called no-fly zone, where Iraqi planes were forbidden. A year later, a similar zone was created in the South. There the Shiite uprising against Saddam's Sunni Muslim government was put down even more quickly and brutally. An estimated 30,000 to 100,000 Shiites were killed. In the years since Saddam held on to his dictatorial power within Iraq, despite several reported coup and assassination attempts against him, members of his family, and this week an attempt on his deputy, and despite reported American backing of anti-Saddam groups in Iraq and in exile. Saddam's government also has not only survived but tried to capitalize at home on UN trade sanctions that barred Iraq from selling its oil and that rapidly impoverished a once wealthy nation. In 1996, Saddam showed he still had the power to strike at potential rivals. His intelligence forces infiltrated and exploited divisions among Kurdish troops in the North. Iraq sent solders into the safe haven that summer, capturing the headquarters of one group, and executing nearly 1010 of its key officials. This summer, an increasingly frustrated US Congress earmarked $97 million to train and equip elements of the Iraqi opposition. On October 31st, President Clinton signed the bill, called the Iraq Liberation Act, with no public fanfare. On the same day Iraq informed the UN it would no longer cooperate with arms inspections provoking the latest crisis. But even within the US Government there have been dissenting voices. A month ago, the top US military commander for the region, Marine General Anthony Zinni, told a group of reporters the plan was severely flawed and that a Saddam in place and contained is better than promoting something that causes Iraq to explode, implode, fragment into pieces, and cause turmoil in the region. He went on to say that "I don't think these questions have been thought out." But last week, after yet another showdown with Iraq over UN weapons inspections, President Clinton began talking openly about measures to remove the Iraqi leader.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What we want and what we will work for is a government in Iraq that represents and respects its people, not represses them, and one committed to live in piece with its neighbors.

SPENCER MICHELS: The President did not specifically mention assassination, which has been barred by executive order since the Ford administration. The following day National Security Adviser Samuel Berger spoke on the NewsHour.

SAMUEL BERGER: We will work in a prudent, effective way with opposition voices, opposition groups to strengthen their ability, strengthen their capacity to bring about change. This is not a short-term proposition. This is not a quick fix. But this is something over the long-term which we are committed to doing.

SPENCER MICHELS: In London this week, the leaders of Iraqi exile groups met with American and British officials to discuss getting more help in their efforts to overthrow Saddam's regime. Nabeel Musawi spoke to the Iraqi National Congress, an organization of exile groups.

NABEEL MUSAWI, Iraqi National Congress: We're not getting any support from Britain and the United States. If they carry out their promises, yes, our position will definitely strengthen inside the country.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Saddam Hussein, who has been a key power in Iraqi politics since Lyndon Johnson was President, has so far outlasted all the western leaders who assembled their armies to defeat him in the Gulf War nearly eight years ago.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, four perspectives on whether and how to replace Saddam Hussein. Zalmay Khalilzhad was a state and Defense Department official in the Reagan and Bush administrations. He's part of a group - the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf -- that's called for Saddam's overthrow. Khalil Jahshan is the executive director of the National Association of Arab-Americans, which opposes US efforts to overthrow Saddam. Frank Anderson is a retired CIA official who directed the agency's covert activities in the Mideast from 1991 to '94. And Adeed Dawisha, who was born in Iraq, is professor of government and politics at George Mason University.

MARGARET WARNER: Is this something the United States should be doing? Should we be trying to oust Saddam Hussein?

ZALMAY KHALILZHAD, Former State Department Official: Of course, in general, it's up to the people of a country to change their own government if they want to. But in the case of Iraq, I think, and in the case of Saddam, this is an exception. Saddam poses a threat to international peace and stability. He threatens an area of the world that is vital to the United States, the Persian Gulf. He has not learned his lesson, given the conflict that he caused with Iran for several years, then invading Iraq. He continues not to cooperate with the UN, although in order to end the war, Desert Storm, he agreed to a number of resolutions. He continues to threaten his own people. Given all this, I think in this case it was inappropriate for us not to have help his overthrow immediately after the Gulf War, and I think it's appropriate for us now, given the experience that we've had with him since the end of the Gulf War, that we embrace this objective of getting rid of him and helping the Iraqi people have a different government that will be at peace with the Iraqis at home and at peace with the neighborhood in which he lives.

MARGARET WARNER: Khalil Jhashan, why do you think it's not appropriate?

KHALIL JAHSHAN, National Association of Arab Americans: Well, for all practical purposes, we feel that overthrowing or assassinating Saddam Hussein is Mission Impossible. At best, it's a costly, risky, and failure-prone enterprise. First of all on moral grounds, we certainly feel that assassinations and coup de tats that might involve assassinations are illegal in this country. We've had two presidents: President Ford and President Carter issuing presidential decrees or instructions in this regard, which have become part and parcel of US laws in this country. No. 2, we feel that changing the leadership of Iraq, just as President Bush said in your introductory piece, is a function of the will of the Iraqi people. That's will Iraqi sovereignty lies. It's not a function of the will of the US Congress, more a function of the will of the US administration. This is something that the Iraqi people should decide for themselves.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me interrupt you briefly. Would your view change if we were talking not about assassination but about helping indigenous groups? In other words, do you see a difference or a distinction in the sort of morality of it between those two?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Of course. There is a lot of distinction. Certainly one could agree or disagree with the US policy that seeks to change a particular government by helping politically and peacefully certain elements within that society. This is something we do all the time in many countries around the world. But to seek to subvert a form of government, especially as the leading democratic power in the world today and the only superpower in existence, we feel is a negation of the nature of our own system and the nature of the philosophy on which our system is based.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Dawisha, how do you see that in terms of whether we should be trying to change a government of another power?

ADEED DAWISHA, George Mason University: I think I agree that the - the notion of assassination probably resides outside the moral parameters of this country. However, I do take a different view in terms of undermining the rule of Saddam Hussein. There is a kind of provision in almost all moral traditions that makes it possible to remove an unjust ruler, whether this is Islamic or Christian, or any other tradition. Saddam Hussein is not your normal tin pot dictator. Saddam Hussein, one can argue, is as evil as the worst dictators that we've had. He's doing untold damage in his own country. And he is certainly a threat to the rest of the world. But my concern is with the Iraqi people and the Iraqi people cannot on their own get rid of Saddam Hussein. There is no indication and there has never been an indication that they are [a] capable of doing that; they need to have some help. If we are prepared to help, I think we're doing - we're working within this kind of broad moral parameter, and that is to say there is a man who is doing untold harm to his people. And they can't do it on their own; there is almost a moral imperative that we should go and help.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that, there's really a moral imperative in this case?

FRANK ANDERSON, Former CIA Official: I absolutely agree that there is a moral imperative that we not accept Saddam in power in Iraq without seeking to do what we can to change that. My big concern with this is that discussions of small programs or even large programs involving support to opposition elements and particularly people who are outside the country is inevitably ineffective. Dean Acheson's wisdom on this subject I think is right in this. It was the comment that if you wish to change the form of government in another country, you must conquer it. Frankly, I have no ethical problems with the idea of conquering Iraq if its aim is removing an unjust leader. I believe that when you examine the cost of doing that in American lives, in Iraqi lives, you do turn into it a program that not at its base but in its effect is unethical. The cost would be too high. And my biggest problem with this is that it diverts attention, and it slows us from facing the difficult choices that we're going to have to make in that region over a long period of time.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean, even talking about this?

FRANK ANDERSON: Even talking about it diverts attention away from what I think is the reality, and that is, if we're going to look for models on how we deal with this and what kind of a threat this is -- this is a threat like North Korea, and it's one that we will have to deal with over decades, not over a short period of time.

MARGARET WARNER: How would you - because your group has really called for this - how would you do it, short of conquering a military operation, which I think we'd all agree just politically isn't feasible? Plus the cost that Mr. Anderson just laid out.

ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Well, I think there is another way to do it, and that is to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam. And for that I think we need three things. One, we need - the people of Iraq or large numbers of Iraqis willing to rise against their leader, against the dictator, Saddam. Two, we need a neighboring country willing to provide -- to be a conduit for military, political, and economic support for the opposition to Saddam.

MARGARET WARNER: And who would you nominate for that?

ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Oh, I think clearly we would need Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and possibly Jordan for this effort. And, thirdly, that we - assuming that we are serious about getting rid of Saddam - would be willing to provide economic, political, and military support in a sustained way to the Iraqis until they achieve that objective.

MARGARET WARNER: Are the dissident groups that exist inside the country and particularly outside the country -- I mean, are they up to the job? We've been talking about this now for seven years.

KHALIL JAHSHAN: This is a very serious, I think, consideration, and this element has not been totally understood, I think, by the American public and even by decision-makers in this country. There is a simplistic, if you will, assessment of the Iraqi opposition, particularly in a sense that this opposition is mostly a Diaspora opposition. It's outside Iraq and has --

MARGARET WARNER: You're saying that's a misconception, or that is true?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: No. It is not fully understood. I mean, we have to understand it in a way - the hard way - during the events of '95 and '96, when that opposition was defeated and we did not feel even the moral necessity of having to rush to the rescue of it after we have put them in this predicament But the Iraqi opposition is a very diverse group. It's a weak group. We're talking here about at least 30 plus, if not even closer to 50 different groups that we have to deal with. Some of them are secular. Some of them are sectarian. Some of them are ethnic, and they do not agree with one another. There is no least common denominator, if you will, that brings a significant number of them together to agree. But what we also need to understand -- that American support for these groups is tantamount to the hug of death. The fact that we are supporting them publicly and there is a big difference between serious support as Zalmay was talking about and between public support for political purposes, which I think the administration is engaging in at this time - this is the ultimate hug of death in terms of robbing the opposition from any credibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it in terms of the feasibility of working with Iraqi dissident groups?

ADEED DAWISHA: Well, I agree that the opposition outside Iraq is weak and is divided. I think it's up to the United States to make two things - to be sure of two things: first of all, to make both zones -- northern and southern - unavailable to Saddam politically and militarily; rather than work with the opposition groups, at least have their help, that's fine, but work within the dissent groups in those two zones.

MARGARET WARNER: And you're talking about the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North?

ADEED DAWISHA: In the South and the Kurds in the North. That shouldn't be that difficult. What you want to do, therefore, is to create some kind of force both in the South and in the North that will almost eat away at the credibility of Saddam's - Saddam through his armed forces. I am convinced myself that the support within the army is not as solid as people think it is -- even within the Republican Guard, which people always bring out as an example of the support for the regime. And what you want to do is to show the Republican Guard that there is a force, that there is dissension. And if you begin to see some kind of defection, some dissension within the Republican Guard, my feeling is that Saddam's rule will not last very long, if that happens. That is to my mind a much better way of going about it than working with - I agree - a Diaspora group that really has very little legitimacy inside Iraq.

MARGARET WARNER: Do either of these scenarios sound workable to you?

FRANK ANDERSON: Neither. In terms of working with opposition groups, for example, the Iraq Liberation Act would support an armed forceof about 5,000 fighters in an area that is already occupied by at least 50,000 Kurdish fighters, who were unable to resist a small commitment of Saddam's available forces -- a similar situation in the South. Neither of these things will significantly change the balance of power in Iraq. Now --

MARGARET WARNER: Go ahead.

FRANK ANDERSON: But Zalmay's comment that what we need is Saudi Arabia, we need Jordan, we need Turkey, we need Kuwait, we need the neighbors on our side on this. This is an issue that requires a long-term consistent and integrated policy in the United States in the area which frankly has been lacking. We have failed to recognize the needs and the costs that have been borne particularly by Turkey and by Jordan. And we have failed to recognize until very recently a lot of the political needs of countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in lining up with this when we're insufficiently attentive to their policy needs in the region. Now that has shifted, and I believe that over time we certainly are not too foolish or too weak to conduct a policy like this, but we do need to get to work on it, rather than talk about little things that won't work.

MARGARET WARNER: But haven't some of the neighboring countries actually been the ones that are the most worried about the breakup of Iraq -- and that overthrowing Saddam would lead to that?

ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Right. I think that neighboring countries have had two kinds of concern: One, that they have not been sympathetic to efforts that would merely stir the pot, create problems inside Iraq, without solving the problem of Saddam, so that if we had a commitment, a serious commitment to getting rid of him and supporting the opposition, I think the calculations of the neighboring states could change, that is that they would be more supportive. Second, on your disintegration question with regard to Iraq, I think it's important to keep in mind that there is some risk of that; that there are different groups - you know - different ethnic and sectarian groups. And I think as we help them, we ought to do everything we can to encourage habits of cooperation and to lessen the likelihood of turmoil and instability of the kind that we saw in Afghanistan after our very successful effort to help the Afghans resist the Soviet Union.

MARGARET WARNER: Very briefly because we're almost out of time, but Mr. Anderson, what level of US military involvement would this ultimately call for? Are we talking just air power? Are we talking ground troops ultimately?

FRANK ANDERSON: First, we're operating in a situation where Saddam Hussein is vulnerable. There is no question he is not a popular leader. He - unfortunately - I think is not vulnerable to us. Now I believe that the imposition of a no-fly zone or a no-go zone would be effective. The amount of military commitment, frankly, I think is the sort of thing that would require the equivalent of a declaration of war, and is not something that I believe you could get sustained support for in the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly on that.

ZALMAY KHALILZAD: I think that the amount of effort that will be required by us militarily would not be very great. I think, however, the amount of effort required to help the Iraqi opposition in terms of weapons, economic resources, would have to be much higher than what is so far accepted by the administration and put forward by the Congress

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight journalists at risk and a National Book Award winner.% ? FOCUS - RISKY BUSINESS

JIM LEHRER: The sometimes risky business of international journalism and to media Correspondent Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Investigative reporter Gustavo Gorriti has a habit of annoying Latin American governments. In 1992, after publishing articles linking Peruvian authorities to the drug trade, Gorriti was kidnapped by the Peruvian army. The reporter spoke about his detention with the NewsHour's Elizabeth Farnsworth shortly after his release.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Soldiers and plain clothes men came to my house. They entered into the house - presenting themselves first as police -- and arrested me and my computer. And it probably has been one of the very first cases of computer kidnapping in Peruvian political history. In the very early hours of the morning of the next day, I was suddenly transferred, without a word of explanation, to the state security police, at which point my detention became acknowledged and official. And I was released the next day. The reason for this sudden turn of events was the tremendous pressure - mainly international pressure -- that immediately bore down over the Peruvian Golpista governments.

TERENCE SMITH: In 1996, Gorriti moved on to Panama, and its leading paper, "La Prensa." He expected a rewarding, but quieter journalistic life. Instead, within a year, he was again writing about links between drug traffickers and the government. This time, his work visa was revoked and he was ordered to leave the country. Worse yet, Gorriti says, the Panamanian authorities failed to share with him intelligence about a purported threat against his life allegedly by the Peruvian government. Once again, protests by journalistic organizations and the United States Government brought relief, and Gorriti's Panamanian visa was renewed. Today, Gustavo Gorriti continues his reporting from Panama about Latin America -- the region the committee to protect journalists calls "the most dangerous environment for journalists in the world."

TERRY SMITH: Gustavo Gorriti is one of the winners this year of the International Press Freedom Award presented by the Committee to Protect Journalists. He joins us now. Gustavo, welcome.

GUSTAVO GORRITTI: Thank you.

TERENCE SMITH: It was reported that Hillary Clinton spoke up in your behalf when she was in Panama not long ago and helped relieve the situation, is that so?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Yes, it is. She did, indeed, speak, and it had an effect. It had an impact. It was a very important initiative.

TERENCE SMITH: Let me take you back a bit. Why did you leave Peru?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: After my release, I continued to work - mainly as a correspondent - for foreign media - and I was constantly the subject of threats against both me and my family. It meant I would say more than emotional strain and financial costs, because I couldn't afford not to have some security for my daughters and my wife. So eventually after a number of months of that, I was offered a position first with the Carnegie Endowment in Washington and then with the North-South Center in Miami. I took it, thinking that I would be back in a year or so, but things turned out to be different.

TERENCE SMITH: Not quite the case.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: And some of those death threats, I take it, followed you to Panama?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Well, last year, in the midst of the confrontation with the Panamanian government we had the report that the president had said that the real reason for trying to expel me was that he had received information of a contract on meby the Peruvian intelligence services. When we learned about it, we made it immediately public, of course. And the result of it was the Peruvian government denied having to do anything with that and the Panamanian government essentially remained silent about the whole affair.

TERENCE SMITH: I mean, all of this serves to illustrate the point that the Committee to Protect Journalists makes, that Latin America is a very dangerous place for journalists to work.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: It's not an easy place by any means.

TERENCE SMITH: Yes. I mean, ten of the twenty-six journalists killed in this past year in the line of duty were, in fact, in Latin America. What are the situations there? Give us a little sense of what the dangers are and how specific they are.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: There are a number of dangers. First of all, you have the more blatant ones, the physical dangers, the assassination attempts that sometimes succeed and sometimes, such as in the case of Jesus Posados Del Campos of Mexico, for instance, fortunately did fail. In other cases there are just threats, continuous, more or less permanent, and then myriad forms of legal and administrative harassment, which almost any journalist that does good investigative reporting will have to eventually endure. The political systems and the very imperfect democracies in Latin America are just not well prepared for the kind of deep, probing investigative reporting so the reaction tends to be to attack the messenger, to attack the journalist, instead of trying to bring accountability into those holding power.

TERENCE SMITH: And, in fact, I gather, that there are still laws on the books to stifle journalists in Panama that date back to the Toreros era.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: That's correct. They are nicknamed the mass laws. They are very much in effect. And they are not used most of the time. They tried to use them against me last year. But they are still pending as a threat -- of course they are.

TERENCE SMITH: And, in fact, you have still criminal prosecution against you in Panama.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Yes. Yes. That's another case. The attorney general of the country tried to compel me to reveal the identity of a source. And, of course, I denied doing so. So he had me prosecuted. And they have been dragging for quite a while, and will probably drag for a few months more.

TERENCE SMITH: And yet, despite this official hostility frequently from the government against journalists, journalists stand much higher in public estimation there than certainly they do in this country.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: That's precisely because of it. In most of Latin America there is a true yearning for transparency, a true yearning for freedom also, and for true accountability. So in this - again, very imperfect and sometimes purely cosmetic democracies, and - or the judiciary or the legislators do not fulfill their roles. It has been the press, the independent press, that has taken those larger roles, and taken of course the costs that that implies, and because of that they are held so highly in esteem by many people. Journalists in most countries have a higher level of credibility than any other institution, except the Catholic Church. And at least in two countries - Peru and Colombia, I think - they rank higher even than the Catholic Church in terms of credibility.

TERENCE SMITH: Now, you've spent a good deal of time in this country. I wonder, given that background, what you think when you see the US, the press, media, in the throes of their obsession with Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and this sort of thing, as an observer, what do you think?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Well, it is a depressing sight actually. As I wrote a few months ago, most Latin America journalists of my generation who are heavily engaged in investigative reporting - were very strongly influenced by - not only by the traditional muckrakers, but also the very good investigative reporting of the 60s and 70s, of the Watergate era especially, and then afterwards to see the evolution or shall we say the involution of this great journalistic tradition, getting totally bogged down in that miserable case, and in all the triviality of that -- losing perspective of what is the business of news to get into show business is somehow depressing.

TERENCE SMITH: To get into show business-

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: You see that as - that's part of the mix?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Yes. I think the genius of the United States is its capability to rebound. And what you begin to see now in some of the magazines, in some of the papers, is a good strong introspection out of which I'm sure will emerge again, a better kind of journalism, but, I mean, I am sure that in the future this whole Lewinsky-Starr era will be seen as a sort of journalistic abomination.

TERENCE SMITH: For a moment let's talk a little about Panama, the situation there. We approach the date when the full operation of the canal will be turned over to Panama. Delicate times.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: They are, indeed. They are going to next year -- the last day of the Millennium the canal is going to be handed over to Panama. And it has great promise and at the same time tremendous fears that it won't be managed as properly as it should. I have to say, however, that most Panamanians take it very clearly upon themselves that this is once in a time - once -- the lifetime of the country - responsibility -- that they are taking it very, very seriously.

TERENCE SMITH: Is it possible to envision a smooth transition, or is that na ve?

GUSTAVO GORRITI: No, no. It certainly is possible. Most of the transition has already in some ways or another taken place. Most of the real estate is now in Panamanian hands. You can see several cases of corruption here and there - not truly terrible but the fact that they have a good investigative press at this point has helped a lay the things openly and to see that this doesn't go any farther.

TERENCE SMITH: And your notion is to go back and write about it.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Of course.

TERENCE SMITH: Thanks very much.

GUSTAVO GORRITI: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Another winner of the International Press Freedom Award this year was Goenawan Mohamad, founder and Editor of Tempo Magazine, Indonesia's most widely circulated weekly. His magazine was officially banned in 1994, but reopened in October, following the ouster of Indonesian President Suharto. Mr. Mohamad is also a poet. And we asked NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, Poet Laureate of the United States, to read one of his poems.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: Goenawan Mohamad has related poetry to political life by saying that for him poetry resists the totalitarian political regimes' program of transforming the individual into a new kind of person, according to an ideology. Poetry, he says, by providing a sane, private space of integrity, resists totalitarian power. Possibly that idea is related to why Goenawan Mohamad's poem about an election-time murder ends with a paper hat, a kite, and a description of birds against an evening sky. Here is the poem, as translated by John MacGlynn:About That Man Killed Sometime Around Election Day."Dear God, give me your voice."The silence was the silence that followed the dog's howl when the watchmanfound the corpse behind the dike. Face down, as if seeking the paddy's fragrantwarmth. But beneath the moonlight the acrid smell and the man's cold cheekswere strange. Then others came - with flashlights, torches and fireflies - but no onerecognized him. 'He's not from around here,' the watchman said."Give to me your voice."Beneath the lantern in the ward office they discovered the gaping wounds.Shadows swayed rapidly, the verandah was flush with whispers. The man had no identity card. He had no name. No party affiliation. No party symbol. He had noone to cry for him because we could not cry. What might his religion be?"Noble Cartographer, where is my homeland?"The day after the next they read about it on the front page of the paper. And therewas a person who cried with no one knowing why. And a person who didn't cry,no one knowing why. And a tired boy who fashioned a hat from the morningpaper, that was later stolen by the wind. Look! See the kites pasted to the sky,resting on the breeze. And the flock of evening birds alighting on the wires, as thecranes flee toward twilight's end, crossing the barren field and long streaks of colorlike dissipating smoke."Dear God, give to me your voice."CONVERSATION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the last of our conversations with winners of the 1998 National Book Award and again to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And tonight we talk to Louis Sachar, who won the Young People's Literature Award for his book "Holes." It's the darkly humorous story of a boy's ordeal at a juvenile detention center called "Camp Greenlake" and of fate's role in the young prisoner's redemption. Sachar has written 17 children's books, including the best-selling "Wayside School" Series of Stories. He got a law degree at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall and now lives in Austin, Texas. Congratulations.

LOUIS SACHAR, National Book Award, Young People's Literature: Thank you very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you for being with us.What led you in the direction of children's, rather than adult literature?

LOUIS SACHAR: Well, it was when I was going to school in Berkeley. For one class I signed up to be a teacher's aide at an elementary school, I just did it because it sounded easy - no homework, no tests, just help out at a school. But I just had a great time. I loved all the kids and it became my favorite thing to do everyday, would be to leave the heavy world of the Berkeley campus and go to Hillside School. And so I thought I'd try writing a children's book.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And then your book - first book - was about that school, right?

LOUIS SACHAR: Yes. That was "Sideways Stories from Wayside School."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think there's a big difference between your approach when you write for children, or young adults? What is a young adult, by the way?

LOUIS SACHAR: It's - I write the books and let the market find who reads it. I guess a young adult is anywhere from ten to fifteen.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. So is there a difference between your approach for these kids and somebody who's writing for us?

LOUIS SACHAR: I don't think so. I think what makes good children's books is putting the same care and effort into it as if I was writing for adults. I don't write anything - put anything in my books that I'd be embarrassed to put in an adult book.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, I read "Holes," and I found it very interesting. Where did it come from? What was the source of your inspiration for "Holes?"

LOUIS SACHAR: I'd say the first source was just having moved from San Francisco to Texas and being exposed to the heat here. And, in fact, we had just come back from a vacation in Maine to the Texas summer, and I just started writing about the heat and started writing about this camp where the kids have to dig a hole every day under the Texas sun.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why don't you read the first page. It gives a sense of this place.

LOUIS SACHAR: Okay.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: A place where a kid is sent, by the way, for a crime he didn't commit.

LOUIS SACHAR: That's right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's something ever kid can relate to.

LOUIS SACHAR: Right. Although when you first start reading this book, you don't know it's that kind of camp. You just know you're going to Camp Greenlake. There is no lake at Camp Greenlake. "There once was a very large lake here, the largest lake in Texas. That was over a hundred years ago. Now it is just a dry, flat wasteland. There used to be a town of Greenlake as well. The town shriveled and dried up, along with the lake and the people who live there. During the summer, the daytime temperature hovers around 95 degrees in the shade, if you can find any shade. There's not much shade in a big, dry lake. The only trees are two old oaks on the Eastern edge of the lake. A hammock is stretched between the two trees, and a log cabin stands behind that. The campers are forbidden to lie in the hammock. It belongs to the warden. The warden owns the shade."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And the main character who is sent here has a very scary encounter with the warden. I found this a very disturbing scene. The warden has put rattlesnake venom in her fingernail polish, and she threatens to scratch him. And she scratches somebody else, and he has - he doesn't die, but he comes close to dying. How do you decide what's too scary for a kid, what you can and can't do?

LOUIS SACHAR: Well, I never thought of that scene as especially disturbing. I thought of it as sort of fun, with this rattlesnake venom. I don't know - I guess there were other scenes where I had to really deal with that issue. There was a scene where Kate Barlow, a notorious outlaw, is being tortured by these two people who have captured her to find out where she buried treasure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's why they're digging, by the way, because there's treasure.

LOUIS SACHAR: Right. And it was very difficult. I didn't want to get very graphic with the torture at all, but I wanted to - for there actually to be a relief when, instead of being tortured, one of these yellow-spotted lizards bites Kate Barlow and kills her, and, in a sense, she's saved from the torture. So I had to make the torture bad enough that the biting of the lizard was a good thing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And how do you decide how bad you can make it? Do you use your own child?

LOUIS SACHAR: No. I don't test anything out on my own child. I guess it's just - it's just instinct, I suppose.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, of course, you have this humor going through it all the time, and the kids must pick up that tone. You're very funny too.

LOUIS SACHAR: Thanks. Yes. Sometimes when I start reading, people aren't quite sure if this is a humorous book or not, and they're not sure whether to laugh at first, and then gradually, people start laughing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes. I see you're having trouble with your ear piece.

LOUIS SACHAR: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thanks for sticking with it. What do you think is most important in your books for kids? What do you want them to get out of them?

LOUIS SACHAR: I want them to have fun. I want kids to think that reading can be just as much fun and more so than TV or video games or whatever else they do. I think any other kind of message or morals that I might teach is secondary to first just enjoying a book.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you don't set out - although there is - I mean, there is a moral in this book - you don't set out with that as your goal?

LOUIS SACHAR: No. Morals, I mean, are also - are also fun. I don't mean to say that fun just has to be - you know - being frivolous. People like it when the good guy wins and when good triumphs over evil. You know, I think -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do you - I'm sorry, I lost the sound there for a minute. What difference will this award make in your writing life, do you think?

LOUIS SACHAR: It may choose what I - what I write next. I was planning to write another Wayside School Book, and now I'm thinking I may try something more ambitious like "Holes."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And do you think you'll ever want to write books for adults, or are you just really committed to staying with the children's literature?

LOUIS SACHAR: I may write for adults. I actually started an adult book, worked on it for about two years, and then decided it just wasn't coming together for me, and thought I'll go back to children's books, and almost immediately I started "Holes," and it just seemed to take off on me.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, I can see why. It's a very riveting story. Thank you so much, and congratulations again.

LOUIS SACHAR: Oh, thank you.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the highest court in Britain ruled former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution for human rights abuses, and Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with first degree murder and two other crimes in Michigan. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. Have a nice Thanksgiving. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.