The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; perspective on Iran's promise to prove it's not developing nuclear weapons; a look at the brewing storm over a Pentagon general's remarks about religions; a report from Los Angeles on the rise of health care costs as a labor management issue; and in light of the Washington sniper case, the pros and cons of being your own defense lawyer.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Iran said today it would prove it's not trying to build nuclear weapons. The Islamic republic said it will freeze efforts to enrich uranium, at least for now. That material can be used as fuel in reactors, or for weapons. Iran will also permit unfettered inspections of nuclear sites. The announcement came after a meeting in Tehran with the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany, and France. They said it was a promising start.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN: It is an important day for Europe because we are dealing here with a major issue. We are talking about proliferation which is, as everyone knows, a huge challenge for the world community.

JIM LEHRER: Iran gave no date for the steps announced today. But the U.N. nuclear agency has set a deadline of October 31. Reaction from the United States was guarded. A White House spokesman said it's "a positive step," if Iran follows through. We'll have more on this story in a moment. Asian Pacific nations called today for new talks on the North Korean nuclear problem. But they stopped short of directly urging North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program. President Bush and other leaders issued the statement at the close of a summit in Bangkok, Thailand. They also promised to crack down on transnational terror groups. And they promised new controls on the sales of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles. Iraqi police backed by U.S. forces raided a mosque in Karbala today. They arrested at least 40 Shiite Muslim militants, and seized weapons. The militants occupied the mosque last week, during clashes with rival Shiites. In northern Iraq, an oil pipeline burned today after saboteurs set off an explosion last night. The pipeline carries crude oil and natural gas to Baghdad. More U.S. troops, including National Guard and reserve units, will go to iraq early next year. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced today they'd replace units due to be rotated home. He would not say when the overall figure of 132,000 troops would be reduced.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It's impossible to predict precisely what the U.S. Or coalition levels will be in iraq in six months, let alone in one year. But the goal over time obviously to have an improving security situation with fewer U.S. troops on the ground and with Iraqis increasingly taking over the lead in policing their own country and securing their own freedom.

JIM LEHRER: On another issue, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon inspector general will investigate comments by a Pentagon official, Army Lieutenant General William Boykin. Earlier this year, Boykin told Christian groups the war on terror was a clash with "Satan." He said Muslim militants hate the United States because it's a "Christian nation." We'll have more on this later in the program. The U.S. House voted today for reconstruction loans to iraq, instead of outright grants. The vote was nonbinding. It came as negotiators work on a final aid bill, including nearly $20 billion for reconstruction. Last week, the Senate voted to make half that amount in the form of loans. Today, White House Budget Director Josh Bolten said there could be a presidential veto over the issue. Palestinian President Arafat called for immediate international action today to stop israeli raids. His appeal came a day after air strikes in Gaza killed ten people and injured about 100 others. Today, Arafat condemned what he called "this military madness." Later, Israeli forces raided the West Bank town of Ramallah, where Arafat is confined. Palestinians said at least a dozen people were wounded in clashes with the troops. Pope John Paul installed 30 new cardinals today, from 22 countries. The ceremony took place at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. The pontiff watched as the new cardinals knelt before him to receive their red hats. The group included one American, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia. Later, he talked about the church's future, in the wake of sexual abuse scandals.

CARDINAL JUSTIN RIGALI: The living of the gospel is something incumbent on every member of the church, and if we rise up to this challenge, then we will make an incredible impact on society, on the world, to be what we're called to be.

JIM LEHRER: With today's ceremony, there are now 194 cardinals. Pope John Paul has named all but five in his twenty-five-year reign. The U.S. Senate voted today to ban what opponents call partial- birth abortion. They said the ban targeted a specific, late-term procedure that's inhumane. Abortion rights supporters said it was really an attempt to undermine the overall right to abortion. They debated the issue for much of the day.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: We are for the first time since Roe versus Wade going todeal with the issue of abortion and limit the practice in one significant way. And this is, i think, an historic day for life, for establishing and supporting the culture of life in the United States.

SEN. TOM HARKIN: I really have serious questions about whether it will pass constitutional muster. I don't believe it will. So what we're doing here really is a kind of a political exercise. This is what i call something to go out and try to get votes and stuff for by exciting passions and arousing fears.

JIM LEHRER: The ban had passed Congress twice before, but was vetoed by President Clinton. This latest version has already passed the House, and President Bush is expected to sign it. Abortion rights groups plan to challenge it in court. College tuition costs have increased more than 40 percent in the past decade. The College Board Organization released that finding today. It blamed cuts in state funding. It said the total annual cost for in-state students at a four- year public college is well over $10,000. The annual cost at a private school is nearly $27,000. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 30 points to close at 9747. The nasdaq rose more than 15 points to close just under 1941. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Iran's nuclear announcement, a general's words about islam, labor conflict over health costs, and courtroom self-defense.

FOCUS - NUCLEAR DEAL

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill has our Iran nuclear story.

GWEN IFILL: Now that Iran has agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and permit spot inspections, what happens now? Have Iran's nuclear ambitions been permanently derailed? We pose those and other questions to George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He has written widely on the topic of nuclear nonproliferation. Welcome.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: What brought about today's... I guess I can't call it breakthrough. What brought about today's events?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Basically the international system is working the way it's supposed to work when someone breaks the rules. There was a very intense investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency into allegations that Iran may have been acquiring or trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The inspectors found that there were problems. They made a demand with a deadline that Iran answer these questions and take steps such as freezing the suspect activity. The deadline was October 31. Then we had a good cop/bad cop situation where three foreign ministers from Europe went to Iran saying, look, you're in a lot of trouble; it's going to get worse if you don't go forward with the demands and meet the demands. And that's where we are today.

GWEN IFILL: Significantly those foreign ministers included Germany and France which did not agree with us on the war and Britain which did. So let's talk about what the demands are that they got Iran at least tentatively so far to accede to. One was - and you mentioned this in passing -- the freezing of uranium enrichment activities. Describe that for us.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: That's the most important in many ways. The activity in Iran that had caused a great concern was they were building a large plant that was discovered earlier this year that would house centrifuges from which you produce highly enriched uranium. That's a material, one of the two principal materials in atomic bombs. That was a cause of great concern because if that plant had been completed, it would give Iran capacity to build nuclear weapons.

GWEN IFILL: The second demand they have to disclose, basically, everything that they're up to?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Right. The other demand that you mentioned was there were these discrepancies in Iran's story, all right? As Iran tried to answer questions over the last few months, the discrepancies were increased because actually there were contradictory stories. So finally, come clean, tell us everything we want to know. Answer all our questions. The final demand, the third demand was that they sign something called the additional protocol which was basically an agreement to allow new inspections or inspections anytime anywhere that the international system wants and also to fully disclose all nuclear activities in Iran.

GWEN IFILL: So what has happened that changed things so dramatically? It was earlier this month that the Iranian foreign minister was arguing that Iran has the legitimate right to develop nuclear weapons or nuclear... for civilian purposes anyhow nuclear energy.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Well, in some ways this is also the international system working too. Iran realized it was going to be utterly isolated and perhaps a pariah in the international system. When they realized that the European Union was going to stick with the U.S. in these tough demands, their choice became very stark. On October 31, if they hadn't taken these steps, they could have been found in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. There could have been a move in the United Nations Security Council to basically declare them in violation at which point they could have been subject to sanctions. Iran is a very proud culture and state. It does not want to be isolated from the international community so they had to make a deal.

GWEN IFILL: It seems significant that the United States was not involved in this deal that they made, that in fact, they seemed to be sitting... you've mentioned good cop/bad cop.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: You know how on the police shows a lot of times the good cop goes in and talks to the suspect and says if you work with us here, we'll take care of you. The bad cop is standing outside basically waiting to come and get rough if the persuasive approach doesn't work. The United States has effectively basically said we demand full compliance and we're almost itching for Iran not to do this on October 31, so we can take them to the Security Council and get a tougher judgment. So faced with that....

GWEN IFILL: Sanctions.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: So faced with that prospect, you know, what the good cop is saying sounds better.

GWEN IFILL: Even today the president's spokesman said what is important now is not only the words by the Iranians but the action to fully implement what their international obligations are -- very skeptical kind of response from the U.S. Administration.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I think appropriately so. This is very serious business and promises aren't enough. Given the pattern of suspect activity, you want to see actual compliance.

GWEN IFILL: How does the International Energy... Atomic Agency go about enforcing these agreements that Iran has signed off or is expecting to sign off on?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I mean, some of it is, you know, again getting Iran to clarify answers to these questions. So that's a laborious expert process. The key issue here is that Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment. And they did it voluntarily as they insist. Suspend isn't defined. We don't know how long that suspension lasts. The Iranian representative says it's totally at our discretion, we, Iran, our discretion. And so the big step now is how to make that a permanent act, a permanent halt to enrichment and Iran is going to want something for that, something in return for that.

GWEN IFILL: Which was exactly my next question: What is Iran getting in return in the short term between now and October 31 and for the long term if they're going to continue to abide by these rules?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: In the short term they get being deemed not yet out of the good graces of the international community. In other words they don't get busted and sanctioned on the 31st.

GWEN IFILL: Which is important for them.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Very important to them. Iran, it's Persia, it's a great civilization. They don't like the idea of being a pariah.

GWEN IFILL: President Khatami, he is considered to be a moderate. He's the one making the deal here. How does he go about selling this at home or is it an easy sell?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I think it's very tricky to sell at home. It's murky but i would assume that President Khatmi would not make such a deal if it were not blessed figuratively if not literally by the supreme leader, Ayatolla Khomeini. But then the question is who sells it and how do they sell it? That's where the argument that they need something in return will come in.

GWEN IFILL: Missing from the table is Russia, which has actually had some active, ongoing trade

involving nuclear energy or nuclear fuel with Iran. Where were they?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Well, what Russia has said... you're absolutely right. Russia has some business interests in the Iranian nuclear program but what they've said is, look, if the IAEA and then the U.N. Security Council find Iran in breach of its obligations we will go along with any sanctions and if the international community says we have to therefore stop our cooperation with Iran, we're prepared to do that. So they were kind of sitting back and letting others figure out the terms and they say we'll comply.

GWEN IFILL: So now this is on the table. Everyone is agreeing that everyone is playing their role, the good cop, the bad cops, the sideline people in the case of the Russians. What has to happen next?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Well, the big thing is again how do you make this suspension permanent? For that I think the Europeans are going to offer Iran a deal that says, look, you can keep one nuclear power reactor that's 80 percent complete. You can finish that. You can have it. We'll even guarantee the fuel.

GWEN IFILL: For civilian purposes.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: For civilian purposes entirely. In return, though, you agree to have no suspect, no indigenous fuel cycle capability; that's a basic bargain. The question is will the U.S. Go along with that bargain? The administration has said thus far, at least some officials have said, no, we don't want any nuclear power plants in Iran. So that has to be sorted out. Finally what has to be sorted out is Iranian decision-makers have to decide can we live without a nuclear deterrent because if they can, there's a deal there. If they can't, then we've postponed a crisis to another day.

GWEN IFILL: George Perkovich thanks a lot for clearing it all up for us.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Thank you.

FOCUS - WORDS OF FAITH

JIM LEHRER: Now the Boykin case, involving a top pentagon general's comments about religion and the war on terror. Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: As the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, lieutenant general William Boykin is in charge of tracking down top terror targets like osama bin laden and saddam hussein. But Boykin, an evangelical Christian, says neither man is America's true enemy. He spoke this past june to a church in oregon. This video was broadcast on NBC nightly news last week.

LT. GEN. WILLIAM BOYKIN: The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.

MARGARET WARNER: As for international terrorists:

LT. GEN. WILLIAM BOYKIN: They're after us because we're a Christian nation.

MARGARET WARNER: In another church speech, delivered while wearing his army uniform, Boykin said this about a Muslim warlord in Somalia:

LT. GEN. WILLIAM BOYKIN: You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

MARGARET WARNER: Boykin has also said President Bush "is in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." Arab American advocates reacted strongly to the comments, first reported last week by NBC and the "Los Angeles Times." James Zogby heads the Arab-American Institute.

JAMES ZOGBY, President, Arab-American Institute: I think they need to remove the general. He is unfit for the position he is being called upon to serve, precisely because he's become a liability. He's become a weapon our enemies will use against us.

MARGARET WARNER: Two Senate Democrats running for president, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, blasted Boykin's comments at a meeting of Zogby's Arab-American group in Detroit.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Our cause in the war on terror isn't helped when we have army officers like Lieutenant General William Boykin speaking in evangelical churches and claiming this as some sort of battle for the Christian religion. That's wrong. That's un-American.

MARGARET WARNER: When the story first broke, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he hadn't seen the context of the remarks.

DONALD RUMSFELD: There are a lot of things that are said by people in the military, or civilian life, or in the Congress, or in the Executive Branch, that are their views. And that's the way we live. We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country.

MARGARET WARNER: But the next day, the Pentagon issued an apology from Boykin. "for those who were offended by my statements," it said, "I offer a sincere apology." Boykin also wrote: "I am neither a zealot nor an extremist - only a soldier who has an abiding faith .I am not anti-Islam or any other religion." Still, Boykin defended some of his past words, saying, "My references to Judeo-Christian roots in America or to our nation as a Christian nation are historically undeniable." On ABC News Sunday, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was asked if President Bush would condemn Boykin's words.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I think the president is very clear here on what he means here. This is not a war between religions. No one should describe it as such.

MARGARET WARNER: Rumsfeld was asked about the controversy again today.

REPORTER: How can you keep a man in a senior position on you staff whose views are so diametrically opposed to those of the president and to yours?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Let me make several, hopefully precisely put sentences on this subject. First of all, I appreciate your question, because it correctly indicated that the president's views and my views... the president's views are that this is not a war against a religion. General Boykin has requested that an inspector general review this matter. And I have indicated that if that's his request, I think it's appropriate.

MARGARET WARNER: Later, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner and top committee Democrat Carl Levin disclosed they had written Rumsfeld last Friday night, urging him to launch an inspector general probe. "Remarks by a senior military officer denigrating another religion could be exploited by America's enemies," they wrote, "and even endanger U.S. troops serving in Muslim nations."

This evening, Senator Warner went to the Senate floor and recommended that the Pentagon, without prejudice, temporarily remove General Boykin from his job and detail him elsewhere until the IG investigation is complete. To explore this controversy, we turn to Richard Kohn, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina. The former chief historian for the U.S. Air Force, he has written extensively on civil- military relations. And retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis. His final assignment was as an investigator in the army's inspector general office. He then served as national security director at the Family Research Council. He's now a consultant, and a contributor to Fox Television. Welcome to you both. Professor Kohn, what do you make of this controversy?

RICHARD KOHN: Well, it's a very disturbing controversy, Margaret. It's a potential disaster for American foreign policy particularly the war on terrorism. It's very disturbing that a man of these... not of his views-- the views are not as important as of his judgment in expressing them publicly in uniform, although that's not the issue either-- that are opposed to those of the United States repeatedly in semi-public forums should rise to general officer rank and would be appointed to a position like this.

I'm also disturbed that in general uniformed officers are serving in high positions with the title secretary in them. That's not really civilian control. And that Secretary Rumsfeld should be so testy and evasive at his press conferences about this incident doesn't speak to me that he, the secretary who has asserted civilian control most vigorously, more than anyone in the last 35 years, would just kind of evade this issue and try to put it off is also disturbing.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Kohn's laid a number of issues have been laid on the table. How do you see it, Col. Maginnis?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS: We live in a politically correct world. The reality is that we say today Margaret will be heard around the world. They'll kind of test those words. Osama bin Laden is sending tapes our way, you know, Saddam Hussein is sending tapes our way trying to influence the masses. So even though, you know, if you could say that what the general said was completely correct that, you know, whatever, it's politically incorrect. Obviously it can be manipulated by our enemies to our own, you know, chagrin quite frankly. I just came back from Iraq. I think we're doing a great job with working with the iraqi people and with the Muslims and the Shia and so forth. I would hate to see, you know, some statements made a couple years ago by an officer at the time that was in a clandestine sort of situation.

Now, quite frankly some of what he said i think was taken out of context by the LA Times and others. However, things get out of control and i tend to agree with what Senator Warner said tonight. Maybe it's time to kind of have a cooling off. Let's look at what was really said. Let's re-evaluate it because what we don't want is to have some of our young soldiers killed because some Jihadist got the idea that we're just ratcheting up this war against them. That would be unfortunate.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Kohn, help us understand here how much latitude officers do have to express their religious or political views. Senators Warner and Levin in their letter said that in general there had been, you know, the armed forces tries to give a lot of latitude but that there are limits. Was what... if what he said is what's reported he said, one, was it wrong of him or unprofessional or was it simply... or was it a matter of, say, political correctness as Colonel Maginnis has also suggested?

RICHARD KOHN: No, it's not a matter of political correctness, Margaret. The issue is the content and how it relates to American policy. This officer gave at least a dozen of these speeches, virtually once a month in different churches over the last year including one in July and one in September after he had been appointed to this job a very sensitive job in the war on terror. So while officers have a good deal of latitude in private, of course, to express their views, in private to people, in private even when they're in contravention of American policy they have to be very careful and very circumspect.

I think in this case when this officer used bad judgment to pronounce on the nature of our war, the nature of our enemy, the nature of what's motivating us and provides really an enormous propaganda coups to the other side, he's really made himself useless to the Pentagon and it seems to me that unless he is really swiftly removed, this disaster will be exploited more and more by our enemies.

MARGARET WARNER: Before we go on to what should happen to Colonel Boykin and you both seem to be in agreement on that. Help us understand, Col. Maginnis, your sense as a former uniformed officer of how much freedom, latitude you had and in what venues to express your views particularly... I mean, he's expressing religious views but also about a war he's in the middle of waging. Where's the line here? Where is it?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS: Well, the sensitivity he should have with regard to what's going on around him, he's an intelligence officer as well as a special ops having worked a long time in that part of the world so he knows how incendiary words can be in that particular culture. He reads it every day. I hold him at fault for not demonstrating that. There is a problem though, Margaret, when he goes out in uniform. You know, I served a long time in the military. I can recall back right before i retired, i did some national television. And I was told very clearly you don't show up in uniform. You say up front these are my thoughts. And they do not represent those of the United States government. So i hold him at fault for showing up in his uniform with his polished boots as they said in the LA Times and then stating his beliefs.

Now, Thomas Jefferson though if you go over to the memorial here it says clearly you should be able to express your religious opinion in this country but there is a difference between being in uniform and being a civilian and being in elected office. I would disagree with the professor. Politics does matter. The general should have known. He was going up the ranks fairly rapidly. If you live in a glass house, people throw rocks. And especially if you live in a glass house where there's a war going on, you better be very sensitive to that.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, is part of the issue that he did this in uniform and let me ask you a double-barreled question: There are some Republican members of congress who have written or are circulating a letter suggesting to Secretary Rumsfeld that he not do anything that would seem to interfere with General Boykin's free expression of his religious beliefs. That's not an exact quote but that's the gist.

RICHARD KOHN: Well, i think the general has the right to freely express his religious beliefs in private, and he can do it in public when he's not attaching those religious beliefs to the nature of the war and then transferring them to the war. I think the issue of uniform is really a less significant issue. Because he is a high official of the Department of Defense in a particularly important job means that he has to be very careful. He can express his religious views in the appropriate forum if they are his private religious views and they are detached from the policies of the United States Government and are not, not his views but those views of policy and of the war in contradiction to national policy and what the president, the secretary of defense, and most other high officials are saying.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Colonel, let me go back to an issue that the professor raised earlier which was Secretary Rumsfeld's reaction to how he's handled this. Do you think he's been testy and defensive? Do you think he should have... he pointedly refused to criticize the remarks or applaud them either. How do you think he's handled this?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS: He's been fairly evasive i think. He didn't win a deal with the particulars. He said in today's press conference, i listened to the tape but i couldn't really make it out. He escapes to a certain degree, Margaret, you know, accountability. But I think this buys him time to kind of see what obviously what Senator Warner says and what others are beginning to see. And I think it's an appropriate outcome here that, you know, the general has asked for an Inspector General investigation to look at the details here, to verify what was said on the tape, how it was perhaps misconstrued from his point of view. He does go through in his statement of last Friday night outlining what he really intended. And so quite frankly the audience ha he was speaking to might have understood it in one context but it was interpreted completely differently.

RICHARD KOHN: Margaret?

MARGARET WARNER: Yes.

RICHARD KOHN: It seems to me that we have to keep in mind just how potentially damaging this can be to the war on terror because in many foreign countries particularly unrepresentative countries, conspiracy theories abound. People consider in those kinds of societies that the public statements of leaders are just blather, just propaganda. And when a second or third or fourth level official lets slip something like this, it can be taken out of context. It can be blown up. It can be represented by our enemies as the true motivation of the United States particularly in those societies in the Middle East and elsewhere that are so susceptible to these conspiracy theories. You see that in the rise in anti-Semitism in some societies again attached to conspiracy theories which is an old basis for anti-Semitism. So I think it's really quite dangerous here. This is just not political correctness. This is a possible major problem for the United States that has to be dealt with quickly.

MARGARET WARNER: Col. Maginnis, let me go back now to how Secretary Rumsfeld should handle this next because even though he said today that Boykin had asked for the I.G., We then learned from Senator Warner that they had written and suggested it to Rumsfeld; however, Rumsfeld did not say today Boykin would be remove. Warner goes to the floor and makes the suggestion. Should Secretary Rumsfeld... does he have a choice now is he going to have to temporarily remove Boykin from this job?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS: You heard Condoleezza Rice yesterday or Sunday and what she spoke about. I think that she was speaking for the president -- that it is inconsistent to have someone saying something that is interpreted differently than what the party line. The party line is this is not a war against Islam. Apparently these words, whether he intended them or not, are being misused.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, briefly, do you agree that Secretary Rumsfeld should take the next step and temporarily transfer Boykin out of this job?

RICHARD KOHN: I think it's an interim step but I think that this whole issue has to come to closure very quickly if it's to minimize the damage that's been done.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Richard Kohn and Lieutenant Colonel Maginnis, thank you both.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Strikes and health, and self-defense in the courtroom.

FOCUS - BENEFIT ISSUES

JIM LEHRER: The connection between health care costs and labor troubles. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles reports.

JEFFREY KAYE: For two weeks, pickets have seemed to be almost everywhere in southern california. In Los Angeles, 2,000 striking mechanics supported by six thousand drivers and train operators have idled most buses and closed rail and subway stations. As a result, LA traffic is even more clogged than usual, as 400,000 former mass transit passengers scramble for transportation alternatives. 70,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union are also pounding the sidewalks. They're picketing 859 supermarkets throughout southern California. The overriding issue in both labor disputes is the same: Company plans to cut health benefits. A broad array of labor unions is rallying to support the supermarket workers.

SPOKESMAN: We're going to last one day longer than they do and we're going to win this strike! ( Cheers)

JEFFREY KAYE: Miguel Contreras heads the L.A. County Federation of Labor which comprises some 350 local unions.

MIGUEL CONTRERAS: We're united with the retail clerks here to tell all the employers, that if the battle's about health care, this labor union stands united in supporting each other.

JEFFREY KAYE: Supermarket workers are on strike against Vons and Pavilions, owned by safeway. The two other major chains, Ralph's owned by the Kroger Company and Albertsons, have locked out their employees in a show of corporate solidarity. The three companies, the nation's largest supermarket owners, negotiate as one. Teamsters, afraid that their benefits will be cut in the future, are trying to prevent trucks from delivering merchandise to the markets. The grocery chains want to cut pension benefits, freeze existing salaries, and pay new hires lower wages. But workers on the lines say their main concern is health costs.

DOMINGO ALAMO, Produce Manager: We are not asking for a raise, or anything like that. We want our benefits. Without a benefit, what am i going to do, you know? I mean, what if my kid gets sick tomorrow or today? How about if something serious happened? I mean, where am I going to get money? I would have to sell my house in order to pay for that.

JEFFREY KAYE: The grocery chains had paid the entire cost of family health benefits for their workers. The companies now want employees to start paying premiums. Transit workers are also being asked to pay more for their health care.

JUAN VILLALVA, Mechanic: We're here to protect our health and welfare benefits. In the last two contracts, we have given up any kind of raises so we could keepthose benefits, and now the company is going after that too.

JEFFREY KAYE: Labor experts say disputes over health costs are increasingly common nationwide. In addition to California, supermarket workers in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Missouri are also striking Krogers to retain their health benefits.

KENT WONG: What we are finding is that healthcare is the number one strike issue in the country today.

JEFFREY KAYE: Kent Wong directs the Center for Labor Research and Education at UCLA.

KENT WONG: This is the first time in 25 years that we've seen this labor dispute, and in part it is because the supermarket employers are very aggressive in demanding massive concessions on the part of the supermarket workers.

JEFFREY KAYE: Grocery executives would not be interviewed for this story. But a newspaper ad signed by the three chains explained "our health care costs have skyrocketed 50 percent in the last four years. We simply cannot pass these costs along to our customers." Across the country, skyrocketing health care costs have led to double-digit inflation of insurance premiums for four straight years. U.S. workers pay on average $2,400 in annual premiums for employer-provided health insurance. The supermarket chains want their southern California employees to pay nearly $800 a year in premiums. That's in addition to increased fees for office visits, medicine, and other expenses. Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, in a conference call with analysts last week, said the supermarkets had to cut their health bills.

STEVEN BURD: When you consider what the alternative is, I think if we had done a business as usual deal in that marketplace, our costs three years out would have gone up in excess of $130 million. I mean, this offer does a marvelous job of protecting the existing employees, an incredible job. They still have Cadillac benefits when it's over with. It shouldn't have really created a strike, but the fact is it did, so you just ride it out.

JEFFREY KAYE: With companies around the country are passing on rising health care costs to their employees, Southern California grocery workers are a distinct minority. They have been among only 8 percent of employees nationwide whose companies pay for their family health insurance premiums.

JACK KYSER, LA County Econ. Development Corporation: If you have fully covered health benefits, you're very, very lucky, but you're also sort of a dinosaur.

JEFFREY KAYE: Jack Kyser is chief economist of the LA County Economic Development Corporation, which advocates for business. He says a variety of factors contributed to the skyrocketing health care costs.

JACK KYSER: Cost of pharmaceuticals, drugs, they're going up rapidly, cost of medical equipment, medical malpractice suits. There's a whole array of forces that are driving up the cost of health care.

JEFFREY KAYE: The grocery chains say increased competition makes them less able to afford additional expenses, without cutting profits. On its web site, Safeway compares the number of union supermarkets in LA with the multitude of comparatively low- wage, nonunion rivals. One looming challenge is Wal-Mart, the goliath of retailers. The discount, non-union store, has announced plans to increase grocery sales in the area.

JACK KYSER: Wal-mart with their super centers, are going to come into southern California, very, very tough competitors, non-union, huge buying power. And so the supermarkets are scared. They're being hammered by wall street, to bring their costs down, to get more competitive.

JEFFREY KAYE: The financial fortunes of the three supermarket chains have been mixed. Their stock prices have been sliding. But their combined net income has risen by about 40 percent over the last five years. The unions argue that the large supermarkets can afford to preserve their employees' health benefits.

RICK ICAZA, United Food & Commercial Workers Union: They want to take away our medical benefits. Are we going to let them do it? ( Crowd shouts "no" )

JEFFREY KAYE: Rick Icaza is president of the Los Angeles local of the supermarket workers union. He says the grocers are exaggerating the threat from Wal-mart. He points out that the three chains control 60 percent of the area's retail food industry.

RICK ICAZA: It's corporate greed and that's what it boils down to: Corporate greed. And they want it to get away from the people. They want them to pay the medical care, yet they make all this profit. And it's all about Wall Street. Wall Street wants them to trim down.

JEFFREY KAYE: The conflict between labor and management over who should pay for spiraling health care costs is becoming a hot political issue. Wong points to the estimated 44 million Americans, most of them working, without health insurance.

KENT WONG: Until there is some type of resolution to the healthcare crisis nationally, the issue of healthcare will continually emerge as the number one issue that will lead to strikes in the country.

JACK KYSER: So, I think health care is going to be an issue on the 2004 presidential election. It's not yet, but I think it's fast moving onto the agenda.

JEFFREY KAYE: Public sympathy for supermarket workers is cutting into sales. At many stores, normally busy parking lots are virtually empty. No talks are scheduled in the grocery dispute. Negotiations to end the transit strike resumed this afternoon.

FOCUS - SELF DEFENSE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, defending yourself in the courtroom, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The trial of sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad began Monday in Virginia. He is the alleged mastermind behind shootings that terrorized the Washington area last fall. In a surprising last-minute move, Muhammad asked to represent himself. The presiding judge ruled he could. He is the latest in a long line of defendants who have forgone counsel and defended themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that defendants could do so, although a judge first has to determine whether the defendant is competent and understands that he is giving up the right to an attorney. Since then there have been many criminal cases where the defendants have represented themselves, including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder in the death of a patient; Colin Ferguson, convicted in the 1993 shootings on a New York commuter train that killed six people and wounded nine; and Ted Bundy, convicted of killing sorority sisters in Florida.

What are the risks and benefits to self representation? Some answers now from two criminal law professors: Anne Coughlin of the University of Virginia, and Ronald Allen of Northwestern University. Professor Coughlin, is there any judicial discretion here or if the defendant requests it, does the judge pretty much have to say yes you can defend yourself?

ANNE COUGHLIN: The case that you cited, the Supreme Court decision in Ferreta, that case makes it clear that the defendant has a constitutional right, an absolute right to represent himself. And once the judge decides that he is competently exercised that right, the judge has no discretion. He has to let the defendant go forward on his own.

RAY SUAREZ: So, Professor Allen, if a person is sane enough to be tried, that is, competent to stand trial, that's the same in this purpose as being competent to defend yourself?

RONALD ALLEN: Well that's actually the standard although most of us think it should be something other than that and that there ought to be a distinction between competency to proceed to trial and competency to represent yourself. Actually that's the standard today.

RAY SUAREZ: Does anybody do a good job of it, Professor Allen?

RONALD ALLEN: Actually once in a while people do a good job. Angela Davis in the mid '70s did a very effective job representing herself. Typically it's a disaster. Typically it's a disaster for the defendant; it's always a disaster for the courts, both the trial level and the appellate level. This case though may be an exception to that.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Coughlin, who is doing it? Courts around the country are reporting that a growing number of people are representing themselves in court. Who are they?

ANNE COUGHLIN: Well, the cases that you mentioned suggest that they're high-profile cases. I want to go back to something that Professor Allen just said in response to your last question. Of course, the defendant's definition of what counts as a disaster in this case may be different from ours. It may be that the defendant, be it Dr. Kevorkian or John Muhammad has some kind of agenda that they want to present to court, some face that they want to put on the issues and they think that they're in the best position to do that. They're willing to run the risk of being convicted and then ultimately facing a very severe penalty. But, yes, I take it there is a growing trend towards defendants making this type of gesture, and it's one that, like Professor Allen, gives me a lot of concern, a lot of alarm because we don't think that defendants are in any position to go through the kind of trial procedure, present evidence particularly do a cross-examination effectively. That's the job that lawyers do.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Allen, what are the up sides and the down sides that a defendant should know about before making the decision, informing the judge of their desire to defend themselves?

RONALD ALLEN: The down sides are clear. A person who represents himself has to abide by the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. They're invariably ignorant of them. And the trial judges are supposed to not dig them out of the holes that they dig themselves into. You can get all bollixed up in various ways. That's begun to happen a little bit in this case, although he's not doing a bad job all things considered. There are two possible up sides: One, you might classify as in the technical legal area. That has to do with the fact that there is one rule of evidence in a way that gets relaxed when you represent yourself. That is, you get to make unsworn statements to the juries. This maps under what Professor Coughlin was saying a second ago, you can make various kinds of statements. Sometimes they can be advantageous for various reasons; but I don't think that's what's going on here. The second kind of possible advantage I think may be at stake here and it's why I'm not so sure this is a crazy move on Mr. Muhammad's part. I don't think he thinks and certainly I don't think there is any chance that he'll get out of jail ever. If he's not convicted in this case he'll be convicted in some other case. So what this is likely to be about is whether he dies of old age in prison or whether he is executed. In that context, representing himself allows him to form more of a bond, if I can use that term-- it's not exactly the right term-- with the jury but he becomes a person in the eyes of the jury. If he doesn't come across as a monster, that will make it more difficult for them to sentence him to death because they now have to look this person in the eye not an object and say we're sentencing you to death. Whether this is what he is thinking or has in mind of course I don't know. But it's the one possible advantage that I can see that might emerge from all of this.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Coughlin, do you agree with that overview and are the stakes particularly high for everybody involved since it's a capital case?

ANNE COUGHLIN: Yeah, the stakes are high for everybody involved. I notice that Professor Allen was careful to say, if the jury doesn't come to view him as a monster. That, for me, is one of the huge risks and down sides here. You mentioned in your overview of prior cases the Ted Bundy case. That was a case that I had some contact with during the time it was on appeal. And Bundy very much came across as a monster to the jury and later to appellate judges working on that case. So his decision to present himself to sort of put a personal face on the defendant ended up backfiring quite badly so again I agree with Professor Allen that there may well be a rational thought process going on here, one that we would want to take account of. On the other hand, the risks are huge. So again my judgment, I'm thinking about this from a perspective of a defense lawyer, is that this is likely to be a very big mistake for him and not likely to have the kind of ameliorative effect he would hope.

RAY SUAREZ: What about the judge, Professor Coughlin, is this a tightrope walk for him in this case.

ANNE COUGHLIN: Yes it's a tightrope walk for the judge for sure. You can imagine that this announcement must have come as a great shock and raised great concern for the judge. The judge has a whole other layer of difficulties to reckon with. This case was difficult enough before to say the very least. Now the judge has to worry about what exactly is going to come out of Mr. Muhammad's mouth. Lawyers, when lawyers are involved, we have a pretty good idea of what kinds of things they're going to say. They know how to present evidence. Suddenly all bets are off as to what's going to happen on any given day at any given time. The lawyer also... I'm sorry, the judge also understandably has appointed stand-by counsel to help Mr. Muhammad. They're going to be involved so they may be getting up and saying things, which is going to add more work. The other question in my mind too again just thinking about the larger societal interests in hearing the account of this case is to think about the position of the victims' families and again their interest in having an orderly presentation of the facts, an orderly account of what occurred. It may be well be disrupted and obviously changed quite dramatically when Muhammad as opposed to lawyer s are in control. But again those are risks I take it that we've decided the community has to bear in order to give this man his constitutional right to represent himself. He's the one that's going to bear the consequences at the end of the day. He's the one who should be the master of the case. The lawyers are there to assist him. If he doesn't want their help, that's his choice.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Allen, let's talk a little bit about the stand-by counsel that Professor Coughlin mentioned. In this case and in many others, there are court- appointed lawyers. They are actively preparing to mount a defense. And close to the last minute often right before the opening arguments, they are sent to the sidelines. Prosecutors in the Muhammad case have already complained that they are not far enough over on the sidelines, that Mr. Muhammad is leaning on them in court.

RONALD ALLEN: That's correct. This is an example of the kinds of strains this process poses on the system that Professor Coughlin was talking about. It will pose strains throughout the entire trial and then actually on appeal as well. A good example of this is the stand-by counsel are not there actually to assist him in a sense. They're there to pick up the case again if he decides that he has made a mistake and wants to be represented. If you didn't have stand-by counsel present that would be almost an impossibility because you'd have to start the trial over again. The lawyers wouldn't know. The problems that have arisen so far are precisely that Muhammad on the one hand is intelligent enough. In fact he comes across as a fairly quite intelligent man actually in this trial. He's intelligent enough to know that he is not trained in the law and he's trying to consult with his lawyers. And the prosecutors are objecting because what that amounts to is not self-representation but what we call hybrid representation where you basically are co-counsel with the lawyers. That's not what we have here. He is counsel for himself. They are not co-counsel. He has to more or less sink or swim on his own. He can consult with them outside of the courtroom of course but inside the courtroom he's not supposed to. They've in fact now moved them physically farther apart to reduce that from happening. This is just a good example of what professor Coughlin is talking about, the strains on the trial judge. It will continue and my heart goes out to this person because it's going to get worse rather than better as we go along.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Coughlin one lawyer who was fired by his high-profile client who considered himself a political detainee said the outcome is less important than the platform. In the case of Zacharias Moussaoui who is also defending himself at this point, are there perhaps different matters, motivations at play than those guiding John Allen Muhammad?

ANNE COUGHLIN: Well that certainly is our intuition. When we look at the Moussaoui case, we think that he has an overt political agenda, and that he really is thoroughly disinterested in helping the United States criminal justice system follow its definitions of fair trial procedures. He is clearly trying to make another kind of political statement, one that would challenge the foundations of the system. With Muhammad, again, we don't yet know exactly what his approach to the trial is going to be. As Professor Allen mentioned, so far it looks like he is trying to proceed in a lawyerly way. In fact, insiders or those who have been following the case closely have thought this his defense lawyer strategy was to focus on the capital sentencing hearing, not that they would give up on the question of whether he was guilty or innocent but that their main goal was going to be to spare him from the electric chair. In the first few days or the first day of his performance as his own lawyer it looks like he's going to vigorously challenge the evidence of guilt. So it looks like he may be approaching this case in the way a lawyer would. On the other hand, my own intuition has been that he does have a political agenda even if it is a much simple he one than Moussaoui's...

RAY SUAREZ: We're going to have to end it there. Thank you both.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Iran announced it would freeze efforts to enrich uranium, to prove it's not trying to build nuclear weapons. Pope John Paul installed 30 new cardinals, including Justin Rigali of Philadelphia. And the U.S. Senate voted to ban what opponents call partial-birth abortion. The measure already passed the House, and President Bush has said he'll sign it.

JIM LEHRER: And once again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in iraq. We add the names when the deaths are officially confirmed, and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are four more.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.