The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

. . . . . . . Good evening, I'm Jim Lera on the news hour tonight a summary of the day's developments, a look at the use of racial profiling in the hunt for terrorists. A report on the struggle over reopening Reagan National Airport in Washington, a debate between Richard Holbrook and Richard Pearl over how wide the war against

terrorism should be, and the story of how the attacks on New York and Washington affected another major U.S. city, Chicago. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lera has been provided by. Imagine a world where we're not diminishing resources we're growing. Ethelol, a cleaner burning fuel, made from corn, ADM, the nature of what's to come. And also by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, seeking solutions to education, population, energy, and environmental challenges throughout the world. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. The leader of the Taliban said today the threat of a U.S. military strike on Afghanistan had eased.

In a written statement, Mullah Muhammad Omar said there is less possibility of an American attack. America has no reason. Justification or evidence, time Osama bin Laden, the terrorists assaults on New York City and Washington. The Taliban leader also urged refugees to return home. UN agencies estimated one and a half million Afghans may head for Pakistan and Iran. Some three and a half million are already in camps there. In the Afghan capital, thousands of protesters stormed the long abandoned U.S. embassy and said fires. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell told the Associated Press that Taliban could still avert war by handing over bin Laden and his lieutenants. The U.S. formally asked the NATO allies for help in tracking bin Laden, but at a meeting in Brussels, a top Pentagon official played down prospects for quick military action. President Bush defended U.S. intelligence operations, first at the CIA,

and later at a White House meeting with Muslim leaders. He said the hijackers had burrowed into American society more than two years ago. In the Middle East, Palestinian leader Arafat met today with Israeli Foreign Minister Paris. They agreed to a new ceasefire. That could help U.S. efforts to build an anti-terror coalition that includes Arab nations. In the investigation, a Virginia man was ordered held without bond as an essential witness. A prosecutor said he may be more than that. Police in Spain arrested six Algerians allegedly linked to bin Laden. British authorities captured a French suspect and a possible plot to attack U.S. interests. On the economic front, Delta Airlines announced its cutting up to 13,000 jobs. Other major airlines have already announced layoffs. And in New York, workers dismantled the last pieces of the World Trade Center towers. They may be preserved for a future memorial.

Now the details, Kwame Holman has been tracking the developments today. Here is his report. President Bush left the White House this afternoon and rode to the nearby headquarters of the CIA. Where reportedly employees have been working around the clock, sleeping in the building in order to stay on top of the anti-terrorism campaign. The president praised their dedication and said they all have his confidence, including CIA Director George Tennant. There's no question that I am in the hall of patriots. And I've come to say a couple of things to you. First, thanks for your hard work. You know, George and I have been spending a lot of quality time together. There's a reason. I've got a lot of confidence in him and I've got a lot of confidence in the CIA.

This is a war that is unlike any other war that our nation is used to. It's a battle and it's a war of series of battles. The sometimes we'll see the fruits of our labor and sometimes we won't. It's a war that's going to require cooperation with our friends. It is a war that requires the best of intelligence. But since September 11, CIA Director Tennant has been criticized by prominent members of Congress from both parties for failing to provide warning of the attacks. Today, two Democratic senators, Robert Toroselli of New Jersey and Dick Durbin of Illinois, called for a board of inquiry to review the government's entire intelligence gathering apparatus. And I agree with Senator Toroselli. This is something we should not put off. We ought to do it and do it soon. It is not a reflection of disunity on the part of those of us who suggested, but just the opposite. As we have stood with the president to make sure that he is effective in fighting this war for America,

let us stand together in a bipartisan fashion to concede our weaknesses and shortfalls in the past. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Colin Powell kept up the administration's anti-terrorism coalition building, meeting with Ireland's Foreign Minister. Ireland will assume leadership of the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Powell also received Egypt's Foreign Minister. Both men praised the new Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and pledged to help them continue to move toward peace. In New York City, massive traffic jams caused by security checks have become characteristic. Security and traffic got tighter after the Justice Department warned yesterday of the possibility of additional attacks using trucks carrying hazardous materials. Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged more use of public transportation and prepared to mandate carpooling. We are putting together the plan for tomorrow for no single ride cars below 60 Second Street. That would be a south of 60 Second Street ban, and it would go from six in the morning until 12 at night.

You have to have at least one other person in the car. It will not apply to a whole group of emergency-type vehicles. Family members of the missing lined up today to register their loved ones officially as deceased. A death certificate is necessary for families to file insurance claims. More than 6,300 remain missing. And in Congress, insurance executives told a House Committee the dollar amount of claims will be staggering. As of last Friday, we received 21 claims, but that number will grow as the hope to find thousands of people missing gradually dims. The first of those claims was paid on the life of a young Cantifitch Gerald employee. The $190,000 death benefit was delivered to the victim's surviving relatives by the New York Life Agent this past Saturday. We really... Analysts estimate the total claims at between $2 and $6 billion. So, I think it's been...

More than two weeks after the terrorist attacks, only one major U.S. airport remains closed. Terence Smith tells that story. Thank you for calling the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Airport Information Line. The Metropolitan Washington Air Force Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration makes decision that Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport will remain closed for the time being. For 60 years, the airport, known locally as National, has served as the gateway to the nation's capital. Last year, some 16 million passengers passed through this concourse, boarding 149,000 flights, all within view of the capital and the Washington money. This is the scene today, baggage abandoned, Coast Guard boats patrolling the Potomac River, airport security personnel being retrained.

Reagan National is the only major airport in the country still closed after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Security officials say they are unsure when or whether the recently expanded $1 billion airport will reopen. Vice President Dick Cheney. The problem we have is, of course, that on the approach or takeoff from Reagan, you fly right up the Potomac and you're within seconds or a minute or two, being able to hit the White House, the Congress, important facilities in Washington and finding a way to deal with those circumstances is going to have to precede, I think, a reopening of the airport. Reagan National, like all the other airports in the country, was closed immediately after the terrorist attacks. But it remains closed, administration sources say, at the personal direction of the president. And we'll only reopen when the U.S. Secret Service and National Security Council approve. Both those agencies declined to say when or how they'll make that decision.

I want to thank Washington's mayor, Anthony Williams, is one of the area political leaders at a news conference this afternoon who called on the federal government to reopen the airport. Reagan National is the front door to our nation's capital. When you can't have an open city, you can't have an open house if your front door is closed. Open Reagan now! Open Reagan now! Meanwhile, the economic pinch is being felt throughout the Washington area. Out of work, airport employees staged a rally outside the shuttered terminal which generate some $5.6 billion in annual revenue. Mr. President, one more thing. You have the power to give us our lives back. And I urge you on behalf of my family and the approximately 80,000 people and their families in this area that are affected by the airport closure to open the airport today. Until recently, Alan Bouchong worked at the Sun Glass Hut at National, one of the 80 stores in the airport complex.

No sales. I can't sell. That's my passion to sell. I'm the top salesperson. I'm next to Lorraine. And he can't sell. It very bugs you. It hurts a lot. U.S. Airways accounts for 43% of the daily flights at Reagan National. Chairman Stephen Wolf says the airline is still financially sound but has had to lay off some 11,000 employees and is feeling the impact of the continued closing. We like all the airlines in the country are going through cash today at a fairly alarming rate. Despite its proximity to the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Wolf believes the airport can be reopened safely. I think the practice of solution is expanding security and opening it up and opening it up in a gradual basis. I'd say it'll start with the shuttle tied the nation's Capitol

with the Financial Capital of World New York and it was Boston. And within a gradual period thereafter, expand to other cities and communities served from National Airport. Even before September 11th, flights to and from Reagan National had to avoid a restricted airspace over the White House in Capitol that ascends to 18,000 feet and spans from the north bank of the Potomac to downtown and from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. National, just 10 minutes by cab from the Capitol, has long been a favorite with members of Congress. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, reflects the impatience of many members with the continued closing. What's the matter with Reagan National? When it comes to air operations, there's no difference in proximity than Baltimore or Dallas and the plane that hit the Pentagon, of course, everyone knows, came from Dallas. Ronald Reagan, Washington National Airport,

is closed for because that decision really is not in our hands. I still can't understand that National Security Council dillian around, tell them let's move and order the doors and get the personnel out there, get the marshals on those particular planes and let's get this country moving. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate echoed that thought on NBC's Meet the Press. Anyone disagree with that? Reagan should reopen. Shutting the airport permanently says Stephen Wolf of U.S. Airways would hand the hijackers a big victory. I think the symbolic effect would be tragically wrong for these terrorists to have closed down Ronald Reagan National Airport in the heart of Washington DC for the entire world to see would be the wrong symbol to send. But until and unless the threat of another kamikaze hijacking can be ruled out to the satisfaction of the National Security Council

and the Secret Service, the future of Washington's gateway will remain unclear. Now Gwen Eiffel has our racial profiling story. The President appeared today with leaders of the Muslim and American Sikh communities, denouncing dozens of recent assaults apparently connected to post-attack backlash. And American Sikh has been killed on justly so. These citizens bring their hearts with them. And I can assure them that our government will do everything we can. And I'll only bring those people to justice, but also to treat every human life as deer. At the Capitol, representatives from religious and civil rights groups held a similar meeting with Senate Majority Leader Tom Dashel. The high-profile events came in the wake of some 700 reported crimes

against Sikhs and Muslims since September 11. This mosque in Columbus, Ohio was rammed by a car. This one in Austin, Texas was set on fire. The FBI is investigating 40 specific events as possible hate crimes. In Central Arizona Saturday, a Sikh gas station owner was allegedly gunned down by a suspect who later told police he stood by America all the way. People understand we have determined we have the bills. We have like a Muslim country. Of them, it's unwells and we not have anything to do with this. And we are from India. Middle Easterners say they've been targeted in other settings as well. Since September 11, at least 100 Arabs attending U.S. colleges have left the country to go home. Two elderly Iranians in their 70s allegedly received death threats during a morning stroll in California. And in Cleveland, this mosque received this phone message.

I am not going to stop until I have executed at least 10 Muslims. You have no right to be in this country. This are members of a religion which is over 500 years old. They believe. As part of its response, the Sikh community is airing commercials like these. The police for tolerance have legal implications as well. As the airline industry begins to tighten security, Arab Americans and other dark-skinned passengers have increasingly become targets of suspicion. Last Thursday, this Iraqi-born man and two others were denied seats on a commercial flight when other passengers complained. The measures come up to us so we cannot take in the airplane because the customers refuse to go on the airplane if you go. Because they were scared of you. That's right. As I'm Arab, I make it. Now, religious and civil rights leaders are warning against the rise of racial profiling

as a legal tool in the war on terrorism. Attorney General Ashcroft has said ethnicity will not be the only factor used to identify suspects. But investigators and lawmakers are calling for racial tolerance on one hand, while also wrestling with a question of whether racial profiling should ever be acceptable. So, as what we've been seeing, racial profiling are reasonable investigation. We ask four people who specialize in civil rights, terrorism, and the law. Juliet Kayam is executive director of the domestic preparedness session at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Frank Wu is a professor at Howard University Law School. He is the author of Yellow, Race in America, Beyond Black and White. Stuart Taylor is a columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek and Gail Harriott is a law professor at the University of California at San Diego. Juliet Kayam, you are an Arab American woman. Do you believe at any time that racial profiling can be acceptable? The easy answer to your question is no.

It can't be. And it's not just simply for the legal issues that we'll probably get into or the ethical issues. As a person in the terrorism business, I think it's completely ineffective. It's ineffective with the specific problem we're dealing with here. I mean, we have the al-Qaeda group. We know that there are in 40 countries from Malaysia, the Philippines, to Latin America. So, Arab-looking people won't satisfy, you know, we're trying to get these guys. If you look for Arabs, you're not going to satisfy it. But, secondly, I think it's ineffective because we have a huge problem in law enforcement and intelligence right now. And that is simply we have no one to translate any of the information that we have. We have, we're starting to hear hints that we knew something was going on at least a few weeks before this and we're still trying to translate some of that information. If we continue to sort of intimidate and interrogate an entire community, and I should point out that most Arab Americans are Christians not Muslims in America, we will not get the kind of cooperation we need. Stewart Taylor, when can racial profiling ever be acceptable? I think what a form of racial profiling,

depending on how you define it, at airports, people getting on airplanes, giving special scrutiny to people who look Arab. For a limited time, may be a gestifiable exception to the general rule I would apply against racial profiling. As a general matter, I deploy racial profiling. I think people getting on airliners are a very special case. Unless you can thoroughly search everyone, which would be great, but I think it would take hours and hours and hours. It makes sense to search with special care those people who look like all of the mass murder suicide hijackers who did the deeds on September 11th. The fact is that although obviously many people might be hijackers, the only mass movement in the world that we know of that includes a number of numerous people who are interested in mass murder in Americans by hijacking airplanes and crashing them

and committing suicide in the process are adherence to this perversion of Islam that centers in the Middle East. Frank, what about that? Special cases should be allowed here? Well, once you're allowed in one instance, you start sliding down that slippery slope. Civil rights shouldn't be a matter of cost-benefit analysis. I think it's clear. We have to fight back, but when we fight back, we shouldn't lash out at ourselves. And that's what Arab Americans are. They're part of our society. They live here, they're part of our way of life. And who could be better to help us in this war than individuals who understand the cultural background that we're contending with during World War II. Japanese Americans formed the intelligence units that did the translation and did much of the intelligence work behind our effort to fight Japan because there you had a group. But even though it was interned, proved itself loyal and aided the US War effort. I would add, too, that Stuart Taylor commits a classic logical flaw. Even if every single terrorist involved is of Arab ancestry, that doesn't mean

everyone of Arab ancestry is a terrorist. Even if we were to take an absurd number, let's say a thousand people of Arab descent living in the United States are terrorists. That's still a fraction of 1% of the Arab population. The other 99% are law-biting citizens, like you or me, having racial profiling sweeps too broadly using race. It's simply wrong. Stuart, have a chance to respond. I agree we're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of Arab-looking people. I don't think that's inconsistent with my point. If you want to make very sure that nobody smuggles a box cutter or a small knife onto an airplane and does what was done on September 11th, you're going to have to either search everybody very, very thoroughly or search some of the people very, very thoroughly. And when, in that particular context, you're figuring on some of the people, I think people who look like those hijackers are among those who need special scrutiny.

Professor Harriet, where are you fold down in this argument? Well, let me start out by saying that in general, I oppose racial and ethnic profiling. Raciness and ethnicity are rightly very, very touchy issues in America, but then they're touchy issues everywhere, not just in America, but all around the world. I've thought about the issue, though, and I'd have to say that I agree with Stuart that I'm not willing to categorically rule out racial or ethnic profiling in this very specialized context. When it's used, however, it has to be used with the lightest possible touches. Is it because wartime is different? Is that why the distinction that you draw here? Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a wartime, peacetime distinction, but we do have a very special situation going on now, where we can, by using very small measures, measures like perhaps searching the baggage of certain passengers extremely carefully, imposed not very great costs upon those passengers,

but on the other side of the balance, we have thousands and thousands of lives at stake. Who gets to the side of the threat? I'm sorry? Who gets to the side that someone is a threat? Well, that's a difficult question and effect that the questions are difficult generally here, but I think we're going to have to rely upon those people who are experts in airport security for trying to come up with the least-intrusive system possible that will allow us to ensure an adequate level of safety in airplanes. Of course, this is also to the benefit not just of ordinary passengers, but also of Arab-American passengers and Middle Easterners generally, and people who just happen to look Middle Eastern. There's a certain cost of being led on to an airplane and seeing a large number of passengers

staring at you with fear. If searches are done more systematically, at least other passengers will be assured that the people who do get on do not post a threat. Let me ask Juliet Kayam to respond to that. The argument is incredible. It is so vague in terms of the kind of discretion that both of them are talking about. In terms of all Arab-looking, I'm not quite sure how you qualify that or who you determine. And then we know that the personnel who are in these airline securities, how do you define things like suspicious? They were doing things suspiciously. And how do you do this in a manner that doesn't totally intimidate Arabs and Muslims who I should say are suffering enough discrimination from the private sector? It's sort of not a good thing to tell the government it's okay to do this. Finally, I just, no one's making the case that this is an effective counterterrorism measure, except for what happened on September 11th to the extent it involved not Arab Americans. Let's be clear here.

Arabs and who are Muslims, who hijacked all four planes, how it's going to help us in the future is entirely unclear. And I want to go back to a point that Stuart May, it is possible to frisk or screen people who may pose a threat without using ethnic qualities. We have systems in place, and one in particular, the computerized airline security system, which I think is at least in place in Detroit, in which there are criteria which are non-racial, which sort of raise a bell. Okay. Did you buy the ticket one way? Did you buy it in cash? Did you buy it yesterday? Those kinds of things that should raise someone's barometer in terms of, is this person a security threat? Is not, are they Arab looking? Stuart, how about this effectiveness question? Is this effective? It's certainly this alone is not effective, and I hope that if we had effective ways of searching everybody, such as better X-ray machines, and if we had guards on planes with guns, and if we had impregnable pilot doors,

and the risk of repetition of September 11th were prevented in an airtight way, then you wouldn't need this. I think that a lot of people, and a lot of liberals, by the way, Floyd Abrams and New York Lawyer Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Law Professor, have either said or suggested that for now, it would be crazy to sort of ignore the danger of a repetition by people who look like the people who did it the last time. The other thing I'd like to quickly refer to is the slippery slope that Frank will refer to. I think he's right to worry about slippery slope. It's a danger. I think there's another danger, though. I think that racial profiling, as I define it, of people getting in on airplanes is going to be done, whether or not it's done openly. If it's done and it's lied about, that will send a message to police around the country that racial profiling is okay as long as you lie about it. I think it's better to articulate a general rule

against racial profiling and a very narrow exception for people getting on airplanes. How about that, Frank? Well, it would be best as if we didn't engage in it at all. There are other effective measures. We all recognize that in this time of crisis, our society has to bear burden, each and every one of us. But we shouldn't purchase national unity by ostracizing one group. This asks one discrete identifiable minority group to be singled out. And what we should try to do instead is ask the government to protect that minority group, when you listen to what Stuart Taylor is talking about, all Arab-looking persons. Well, one of the groups that's most heavily hit by this backlash is Indian Sikhs. They're not Arab. They're not Muslim. They just happen to look Arab and Muslim. So they look suspicious. The very first person who was killed by someone who was a self-proclaimed patriot was someone who was Indian and Sikh. That's what's not just a hypothetical law professor case. That's what's really happening out there.

Professor Harriet, assume for a moment that this is something a Stuart Taylor says that's going to happen. How do you craft a racial profiling or whatever you want to call it policy that doesn't take away people's rights? The 99% of Arab Americans or Arabs who are not terrorists, for instance. I think, again, we have to use the lightest possible touch here. No one is talking about banning Arab Americans or anyone from the nation's skies. But it may be an order at least in the very short run before other methods can be developed to take special care in searching people who are more likely to be Middle Eastern than others. But it's not just a question of ethnic profiling. There are lots of things that might raise suspicion. Juliet mentioned several that of course should be used if we find someone that's purchased a one-way ticket. If I were to get on to an American Airlines flight from Paris and my passport said that I'd spent

the last six months in Afghanistan, I would expect, and in fact, I'd be troubled if it didn't happen to be searched much more carefully than the average passenger. And these are things that we just may just have to put up with in the short run. I'm hoping this won't last long. And I think the Frank is quite right that we have to be especially on guard for the slippery slope problem. At the same time, again, thousands of lives are in the balance. Stuart Taylor, one final question. The FBI already has had profiles, perhaps not ethnic or racial, but profiles of people who are likely to, that they should be on the watch for. Those profiles show that people were young, were single, were poor, poorly dressed. And that didn't fit the profile of any of the people who are suspected of having been the terrorists in this case. So how does profiling help? Profiling is a very imperfect way of trying to prevent danger, but it's better than nothing. And they obviously need to revise their profiles,

taking care of what we learned September 11th. But on the Arab American point, yes, these people were not Arab Americans, but identification documents are so easily forged in this country that you cannot assume that because somebody presents a driver's license that says he's an Arab American, that that's true. Lastly, I think it's really quite wrong to associate the deplorable acts of bigotry that we've been heard about with efforts by rational security people to prevent mass murder. Juliet, can I have this time for a quick response from you? Well, everyone is for preventing mass murder. And the question here, I mean, clearly we all are. The question here is, how do we do that? And we've already seen, as Stuart says, well-trained personnel from the airlines taking people off of planes for no reason whatsoever. And unless Stuart sort of has, in his mind, a massive training for all these people,

the standards he proposes, I think, the cost is born on a particular community to take that into account. We're going to have to let you and Stuart settle that some other time. We're out of time. Thank you all for joining us. President Bush will visit post September 11th, Chicago tomorrow, Elizabeth Brackett of WTTW, Chicago, reports on what you'll find. The first skyscraper in the world went up in Chicago, and now the tallest skyscraper in North America, the Sears Tower, sores above other Chicago buildings. But after September 11th, many Chicago and see the Sears Tower differently. I can't stop picturing a plane going into it for some reason. It's just kind of airy, but, you know, it's just, you know, when it was a targeted one-on-one. Many of the 10,000 people who work in Sears Tower felt suddenly vulnerable. You feel like you've got a big bulls eye on your back when you come into work.

The building was evacuated within an hour of the attacks on the World Trade Center after a series of bomb threats were received. Last Thursday, it was evacuated again in response to a rumor that a plane had been hijacked in Milwaukee and was heading for the tower. Some companies have started offering help to their tents and nervous employees. It was very supportive as far as the fears that people have as far as discomfort being coming in in the morning and counseling that's available to the employees. Employees have also been reassured by dramatically tighter security measures. Once an open building, all those who work in Sears Tower must now check in through security with a building ID. Despite the delay and getting up to their offices, there were few grumbles. That makes me feel much better. I'm glad they're doing it. The Sears Sky Deck is closed until further notice and cabs can no longer stop in front of the building. Building management says no one has asked to break their lease yet. I think people are talking about moving. What's been the talk in your firm?

I think that I'm not sure what the talk has been, but I'm sure that the people who run my firm have been considering all their options. What would you think of that? I think that'd be great. The city took on a different look with very visible security posted at critical locations. Sementt barriers around the building that contains federal offices and courts. Once a bustling place, the calder sculpture now stands in a nearly empty plaza. And as Chicagoans look around their city, their view of it has changed. I always admire the tall buildings. Now it's kind of like a harm to us, I think. Chicago's treasured natural resource, Lake Michigan, is the sole source of the city's drinking water. This water treatment facility treats billions of gallons of water per day before it arrives in the city's faucets. Now heavy trucks block the entrance and no one gets in without a photo ID. Outside the city, security at nuclear power plants has doubled. And the Department of Energy ordered the Fermi Lab closed to the public. 75,000 visitors a year visit the facility,

which does no defense work, but is the premier physics research laboratory in the world because of its huge high-energy particle accelerator. The lab was planning to open a new exhibit explaining the impact of particle accelerator research on medicine. Spokesperson Judy Jackson helped coordinate the exhibit. We're very disappointed. We put this exhibit together in a way to try to explain some ways in which the science of high-energy physics and biomedical research and medical treatment come together. And we were eager to share this with our visitors. A major exhibit did open downtown over the weekend, but lines were short for the Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gogan's studio of the South Show at Chicago's Art Institute. Museum officials that originally predicted that half of the expected 750,000 visitors would come from out of town. But O'Hare, especially populated terminals, showed that fear of flying was still keeping those visitors away. By the weekend, O'Hare was back to more than

half the number of operations than before the attacks. Airlines were flying at about 80% of their schedules, but many of those flights were going out with far fewer passengers. Even at events that depend upon local fans, attendance was down, and security was up. As NFL football resumed last Sunday, coats were opened, bags were checked, and despite the rainy skies, even umbrellas were confiscated. You looked up your shirts, guys. The tight security was welcomed by those who were fearful as they arrived for the game. What they're saying, terrorists are everywhere, you know, it could be a cell here. So you want to just look out and hope everybody else was looking out, and we can drop that cell, dry it up, and make America what it's supposed to be. Once inside, it was an emotional opening ceremony. Young sailors covered the entire field with one of the largest flags ever made. So the game was sold out, about 16,000 fans failed to show up. Many in the stand said they had come to show that terrorism could not disrupt their lives.

I think we got to move on with life. What happened was a freak, a terrorist, if they want to do something, they'll do something. We need to move on with life and show the support, and get back to what we do here, and support our troops when the time comes. So even though people are moving on, Chicago is a different place than it was before the terrorists struck. Now to the question of how wide should the military campaign against terrorism be? Margaret Warner has that. Shortly after President Bush declared a new kind of war on terrorism, news stories surfaced about a rift in the administration. Over how wide a war, particularly a military war, it should be. The stories reported on behind-the-scenes discussions among Bush and his advisors, they also noted differences in the way administration officials had publicly described the coming campaign.

Two days after the bombings, for example, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was asked how wide a war it would be. I think what has to say, it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states as sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals are taken care of. Wolfowitz elaborated the next evening on the news hour. It's not going to be solved by some limited military action. It's going to take, as the president has said, and Secretary Rumsell has said, a broad and sustained campaign against the terrorist networks and the states that support those terrorist networks. On September 17th, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his view on the scope of the coming campaign. In the first round of this campaign, we have to deal with the perpetrators of the attacks against America in New York and in Washington. And it is becoming clear with each passing hour

with each passing day that is the al-Qaeda network that is the prime suspect, as the president has said, and all roads lead to the leader of that organization, Osama bin Laden, and his location in Afghanistan. Last week, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz used the phrase, ending regimes that sponsor terrorism. No administration official has repeated that formula. Are we really after ending regimes or are we simply going to try to change the campaign? We're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think ending terrorism is where I would like to leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak to himself. Now our own debate on how wide the war against terrorism should be. Richard Pearl was Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration

and a campaign adviser to President Bush. He's now head of the Defense Policy Board which advises Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. And Richard Holbrooke was Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration. He was Chief Architect of the Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia. Welcome, gentlemen. Richard Pearl beginning with you. Last week, you wrote, those countries that harbor terrorists must themselves be destroyed. What did you mean? Well, I mean the regimes of those countries and not the countries, of course. And in most cases, the regimes are ruling by terror themselves even within their own countries. As long as the structure of state-supported terrorism is available to support terrorists, we will not end terrorism. We will not win the war against terrorism. But what kind of, which countries are you talking about? I'm talking about countries like Iraq, like Syria, Sudan, parts of Lebanon and others.

The fact is that we often think of terrorists as sleeping in caves like bin Laden and Afghanistan. Terrorists go to office blocks where they have modern communications, technology, where they have the ability to move money around the world to obtain false documents. The technology of explosives and the like take that support structure away from them. And they will be so diminished that we will be secure again. Leave that support structure in place and there will be other acts of terror against this country. So just to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying these countries should be military targets? Even if there's no direct link between them and the September 11th attacks? Absolutely. There are countries that we know to be consistent supporters of terrorism. The fact that they may or may not have been involved in September 11th cannot be the basis on which we decide to get them out of the terrorism business.

I'm not saying we need to attack all these countries. I think if we deal effectively with one or two, the others will decide to get out of the terrorism business because until now there's been no cost attached to supporting terrorism. Richard Holbrook, is that what it's going to take to end global terrorism? Margaret, I honestly don't know the answer to your question. And I don't believe Richard Pearl knows it either. He has left the impression with his comments. And I'm sure he didn't intend to be this narrow, but because he and I have discussed this privately. But he's left the impression with these comments that if you end the state-sponsored terrorism, you end the terrorist network. It is not my understanding that it's that simple. Some of these states are sheltering the terrorists without actively organizing the terrorism. That would appear to be the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They're giving Osama bin Laden and his network shelter, but Osama bin Laden is running his own network.

And I need to stress one clear point since President Bush and his very eloquent speech last week focused on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, not on the country's Richard just mentioned. And that is that if and when Osama bin Laden is eliminated and the Taliban are removed, and I should stress here that I am utterly confident that those two objectives will be achieved by the United States and its allies, particularly now that Pakistan has made this historic shift. If and when Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are removed, the problem will not disappear. Nor Richard, do I think it will disappear when Saddam Hussein finally receives his just reward which he should have received a decade ago. I agree with you that a regime change in Iraq is a highly desirable American goal. But the more we learn about this horrible network, the more clear it is that it operates without necessarily what we call in the Washington jargon state sponsorship.

It is an independent network, loosely linked, ideologically linked, getting money from businessmen, including Saudi Arabian businessmen who are playing both sides of the street, money coming out of Egypt. And it is, by the way, a tremendous threat to the moderate Arab regimes of the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabian Jordan. So what would you do about those states? Well, let's be clear here. There is going to be an American military action in the region. That our motto moving towards the Gulf now is not going out to get a suntan. But I cannot stress too highly that the network that did September 11th wasn't run by somebody from a cave on a cell phone in southern Afghanistan. This network is in Hamburg. There are tens of thousands of people in Hamburg, Germany, who apparently are sympathetic. It apparently is in Jersey City, as we know since 1993, when the origins of the attack on the World Trade Center

were there. It's in the Washington area. It has its sympathizers. In fact, your previous discussion, racial profiling, was another cut at the same issue from a different point of view. So we're debating two things here. Whether or not we should go after a rack in Syria and other terrorist organizations. It's a very important issue, which is now getting publicity. But the other thing is getting the network that's already in place in the West. The immediate danger to the United States comes from the existing network. And I cannot stress too highly that as we marshal our forces to move against the Taliban and ascend have been lawden in the region, the highest priority is the homeland security issue, which will not be solved no matter even if a missile hits us or some have been lawden's cave head on. All right, Richard Pearl. One of the objections that many would be members of this coalition are allies. Even in Europe and certainly in the Middle East

are raising is they'd have a hard time maintaining public support at home if the United States were seeing broadening this campaign militarily attacking more than one Muslim country. What about that? Well, if we have to choose between protecting our country or having other countries say they support what we're doing, there's no doubt in my mind we have to defend ourselves. The countries you're talking about who may find it inconvenient or awkward to defend a more aggressive position on our part can't protect us. They're not offering to protect us. But this is a false choice. They're incapable of protecting us. I agree it's a false choice. I think if we do the right thing, if we are seen to be effective, we will get all the support we need and we don't need much to be blunt about it. The idea of recruiting large numbers of countries signing them up behind this, the fact is that we will do most of the military work we will do most of the political work.

It's wonderful to have the support of our friends and allies, but it is not always essential for the particular missions we have in mind. And our first and foremost consideration has to be to protect this country and not take a vote among others as to how we should do it. Mr. Holbrook. Well, first of all, we both agree that it's a false choice. I'd like to say two points on coalitions and on unilateral action. First, on the coalition side, the Secretary of State Powell and his colleagues have done an excellent job in the first 15 days of building international support backed by unified and bipartisan America. And the most important achievement so far have been Pakistan's historic switch and the administration's correct and immediate decision to lift sanctions on both India and Pakistan. I would sub note here very, very importantly that Pakistan is going to need massive relief for the two million refugees now headed for its border.

And the Congress and the administration are going to have to give the UN High Commission on Refugees a great deal of money for that immediately. If I can just direct you, though, do you think the administration would risk the coalition it needs by expanding or broadening? I honestly believe, Margaret, that the journalists right now, some journalists, it's not you, of course, but some journalists are way overreporting the alleged problems with the coalition. I think for 15 days, under these circumstances, compared to where they were 10 years ago with the racks invasion of Kuwait, the administration's just done fine. The Saudis have cut ties with the Taliban now. UAE has cut ties. I'm concerned about each of the NATO countries with the notable exception of Greece, have been terrific. The Greeks have been lagging a little. NATO is going to be there for us. The Chinese and the Russians are going to be fine. I think the administration's okay on coalition building.

I think it's a false choice. A Richard has talked about America taking certain actions on its own, and I'm sure we will. There is a special problem with Canada because, under after, we have a single economic unit, but we have different security areas, different security regulations, and that border, the $410 billion of two-way trade, is either going to have to be closed, which would wreck the economies, or we're going to have to become a security perimeter. And that is a unique subplot of enormous concern. Let me ask you also Mr. Holbrooke about other would-be coalition partners. Secretary Powell and the State Department have actually reached out to some of the states that are on the State Department terrorism list. In fact, three of the states, Mr. Pearl, enumerated Sudan, Syria, and Iran, trying to get them to join this coalition. Do you think that's a wise idea? It's not my understanding. And Richard will know more than I do about this. It's not my understanding. We're asking them to join the coalition. We're testing, particularly with Iran, which is a unique history.

The degree of cooperation. The Iranians hate the Taliban. They potentially could help us here, but they have a very bad track record, and they rebuked the British foreign minister, Jack Straw, on this the other day. But I want to make one other point going back to what Richard said. In order for the United States to succeed, and I cannot stress this too highly, we will have to make sure and encourage Muslim leaders around the world from Indonesia to Morocco. Muslim clerics, religious leaders, and political leaders to make clear to the million, the billion Muslims in the world that this isn't Islam. We cannot do it alone. And I think Osama bin Laden's greatest desire here would be to begin a crusade versus a jihad and have a tremendous strife between two religions. And that is critical to success. It isn't just going to be unilateral action. It's got to involve a repudiation by the Islamic leaders.

Some have done it, some have not. Let me let Richard Probe back in. What's your response to that, because many Muslim leaders or leaders of Muslim countries are saying that themselves? Well, I think that's fine. But when we talk about the action we take to eliminate the support structure for terrorism, we have to focus on that, whether other countries approve of that or not. Otherwise, we're going to leave them intact. And if we leave them intact, there will be other acts of terror that we saw on the 11th of September. Are you saying that you think that the approach that Secretary Palfrinse has just sketched out about trying to persuade these other states through diplomatic pressure, financial pressure, and so on, to perhaps not join a coalition, but to take the steps we want them to take to root out the terrorists in their own countries. That's just not likely to be effective. It's always better. If we could go to the Syrians and say there are a number of terrorist organizations

on your territory and on the territory of that part of Lebanon that you in effect control, we would like to see them expelled and we'd like to see them expelled now. If they did that, I think that would be fine. If they chose not to do that, then we would have only one conclusion to draw, which is they are with the terrorists and not with us. The President put it very clear. And then, of course, the action with that. And then I think we have to hold those regimes at risk. And until now, the cost of giving sanctuary to terrorists and supporting them in a variety of ways has been essentially nil. Because when there were acts of terror or when we foiled terrorist thoughts, the retribution, the counteraction from us, was aimed narrowly at the terrorists and not at those who supported them. If now, by assisting terror, they themselves are at risk. I think they'll get out of the terrorism, isn't it? So I don't think we're going to have to persuade more than one or two countries.

And we may need force to do that. I Richard Holbrook, brief final point for me. We only have about 45 seconds on this sort of ultimate idea. Well, what Richard just said, you mean? Yes. It's fine and theory, but it has to be applied individually. There are many terrorist groups in the world which have nothing to do with the United States. The Tom Hill Tigers and Sri Lanka, some of the groups in the Philippines and Indonesia. I can't imagine that we want to undertake to go after every group in the world and make that our campaign. The immediate thing is to defend the United States and go after people who pose a threat. I wonder what Richard's view is about the specific groups like the Hamas and the Hezbollah who have been very dangerous in the Middle East and have killed Americans in the Middle East but have never done anything in the American homeland. Otherwise, I agree with them on many of this points. And we're going to have to leave it there and you all can continue it off camera. Thank you both very much. And editors know before we go tonight and it's about the funding of our program.

Starting tonight, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation joins Archer Daniels Midland as an underwriter of the NewsHour. We thank the Foundation for their support and welcome them to our NewsHour family. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with our ongoing coverage of the September 11th aftermaths. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by... Imagine a world where no child begs for food. While some will look on that as a dream, others will look long and hard and get to work. ADM, the nature of what's to come. And also by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Seeking solutions to education, population, energy and environmental challenges throughout the world. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

This program is also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Music Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer are available from PBS Video. Call 1-800-328-PBS-1. And this is PBS. Music

Music Music Music Music

Music Music Music

Music Music Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the day's developments. A look at the use of racial profiling and the hunt for terrorists. A report on the struggle over reopening Reagan National Airport in Washington. A debate between Richard Holbrook and Richard Pearl over how wide the war against terrorism should be.

And the story of how the attacks on New York and Washington affected another major U.S. city, Chicago. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by. Imagine a world where we're not diminishing resources. We're growing. Ethinal. A cleaner burning fuel. Made from corn. ADM. The nature of what's to come. And also by the William and Flora Human Foundation. Seeking solutions to education, population, energy, and environmental challenges throughout the world. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. The leader of the Taliban said today the threat of a U.S. military strike on Afghanistan had eased. In a written statement, Mullah Muhammad Omar said there is less possibility of an American attack.

America has no reason. Justification or evidence, time Osama bin Laden, the terrorists assaults on New York City and Washington. The Taliban leader also urged refugees to return home. UN agencies estimated one and a half million Afghans may head for Pakistan and Iran. Some three and a half million are already in camps there. In the Afghan capital, thousands of protesters stormed the long abandoned U.S. embassy and said fires. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell told the Associated Press that Taliban could still avert war by handing over bin Laden and his lieutenants. The U.S. formally asked the NATO allies for help in tracking bin Laden, but at a meeting in Brussels a top Pentagon official played down prospects for quick military action. President Bush defended U.S. intelligence operations, first at the CIA, and later at a White House meeting with Muslim leaders. He said the hijackers had burrowed into American society more than two years ago.

In the Middle East, Palestinian leader Arafat met today with Israeli Foreign Minister Paris. They agreed to a new ceasefire that could help U.S. efforts to build an anti-terror coalition that includes Arab nations. In the investigation of Virginia man was ordered held without bond as an essential witness. A prosecutor said he may be more than that. Police in Spain arrested six Algerians allegedly linked to bin Laden. British authorities captured a French suspect and a possible plot to attack U.S. interests. On the economic front, Delta Airlines announced its cutting up to 13,000 jobs. Other major airlines have already announced layoffs. And in New York workers dismantled the last pieces of the World Trade Center.