The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the news, the latest exchanges in the intensifying diplomatic war over going to real war with Iraq, a Paul Solman look at the economics of such a war, and a rundown on four important Supreme Court decisions today.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: France, Russia, and Germany warned today they would block any U.N. Resolution that authorizes war with Iraq. They did not use the word "veto," but France and Russia have veto power in the Council. In Washington, Sec. of State Powell accused Saddam Hussein of trying to divide the U.N., but he said, "No nation has been taken in by his transparent tactics." Powell said Iraq was still hiding banned weapons. The Iraqis destroyed nine more advanced missiles today, and the chief U.N. inspector called the move real disarmament. Hans Blix said he could not verify that Baghdad had destroyed its chemical or biological weapons. He reports to the U.N. Security Council again on Friday. We'll have more on the Iraq situation in a moment. Islamic nations urged Iraq today to cooperate with inspectors, and they rejected war. Their meeting in Qatar was marred when Kuwait's foreign minister interrupted a speech by Iraq's vice president. The Iraqi yelled back, "Shut up, you little traitor, you monkey." At the meeting, the Iraqis dismissed any proposal that Saddam Hussein go into exile. Top U.S. war planners met with Pres. Bush today, as the buildup in the Persian Gulf region neared 300,000 troops. A number of reports said the U.S. planned to drop 3,000 guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of any conflict. The goal would be to shock and overwhelm Iraqi forces. At the Pentagon, the U.S. commander said Iraq shares the responsibility for minimizing civilian casualties.

GEN. TOMMY FRANKS: We have seen in the past the regime in Baghdad positioned intentionally military equipment close to hospitals, close to schools, close to mosques, close to other civilian infrastructure and we certainly are not in a position to prevent the regime from doing that again.

JIM LEHRER: The leader of the Turkish military backed the deployment of U.S. combat troops on Turkish soil today. He said it could shorten a possible war. A top ruling party official said the statement could lead to a new vote in parliament in favor of accepting U.S. forces. Turkish lawmakers rejected the plan last Saturday. Pope John Paul II urged world leaders to avoid war today. He asked the world's one billion Catholics to pray for peace. After he spoke, demonstrators rallied in St. Peter's Square, protesting war. They unfurled a giant peace flag under the pontiff's window. In Washington, a papal envoy carried the peace message to Pres. Bush in a meeting at the White House. And across the country, thousands of college and high school students walked out of classes in protest. There were similar demonstrations in several other countries. The Bush administration came under new pressure today over North Korea. A White House spokesman disputed reports the U.S. would accept the communist state having nuclear arms. And a pentagon spokesman said a decision to send 24 heavy bombers to Guam was purely defensive. But leading democrats called for direct talks with North Korea. Senate minority leader Daschle said, "Time is not on our side." A suicide bomber destroyed a bus today in northern Israel. The attack in Haifa killed at least 16 people and wounded dozens. One of the dead was a 14-year-old American girl. We have a report from Sarah Smith of Independent Television News.

SARAH SMITH: Two months of relative calm, shattered by a suicide bomber who climbed onboard the 37 bus packed with students from nearby Haifa University. Israelis live in constant fear of suicide attacks, but this is the first since early January. The grim tasks of cleaning up and counting the dead, though, are still all too familiar. This return to suicide attack comes as Israeli forces in Gaza killed a pregnant woman and seven other Palestinians, drawing rare international criticism of violent Israeli tactics.

RAANAN GISSIN, Israeli Government Spokesman: I would say that the rest of the world, instead of trying to rebuke Israel for taking actions of self-defense, should put major pressure on those who instigate terrorist activities.

SARAH SMITH: Palestinians want to talk of the 160 of them killed since the last suicide bomb attack.

MAHMOUD A-ZAHAR, Hamas Spokesman: This is a clear message for the new government that Israeli crimes, Israeli aggression will be balanced by well effective resistance from the Palestinian side, especially from Hamas

SARAH SMITH: The bus driver is one of more than 30 injured in the blast. And as Israeli hospitals treat the wounded, the new Israeli government contemplates its response.

JIM LEHRER: And that response came later today as Israeli forces staged a new raid near Gaza City. There was also a bombing in northeastern Colombia today. The attack killed at least seven people and wounded twenty in a shopping center. Police blamed a rebel group known as the National Liberation Army. U.S. troops will not be allowed to fight Muslim rebels in the southern Philippines. Pres. Arroyo repeated that stance today as she visited the site of an airport bombing that killed 21 people yesterday. Arroyo welcomed U.S. military aid and training, but she drew the line at a combat role. There had been reports that hundreds of American troops would begin joint operations with Filipino forces. Federal authorities are now checking major U.S. airports to guard against missile attacks on airliners. The Wall Street Journal reported today that federal agents began visiting airports in the past week. In all, they plan to look at 80 airports to pinpoint spots where attackers might fire shoulder- mounted missiles. The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of longer sentences for repeat criminals. By 5-4, the justices upheld the "three strikes and you're out" law in California; 26 states and the federal government have such laws. The court also upheld the practice of posting photos of sex offenders on the Internet. It was a victory for so-called Megan's laws. They're named for a New Jersey girl who was kidnapped and killed in 1994. We'll have more on these decisions later in the program. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 70 points to close above 7775. The NASDAQ rose more than six points to close at 1314. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the escalating diplomatic war over Iraq, the economics of a war, and today at the Supreme Court.

FOCUS - THE COST OF WAR

JIM LEHRER: A look at what a war with Iraq might cost in Iraq and at home. Our economics correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston reports.

PAUL KENNEDY, Historian: One of the key elements as you know in any grand strategy is the economics of war. What will it cost you in the short-term and in the long-term?

PAUL SOLMAN: The exclusive grand strategy course at Yale. Last week, in a debate between those who teach it, historian Paul Kennedy anguished over the cost of war. Political scientists Charles Hill's position: Not to worry.

CHARLES HILL, Political Scientist: The U.S. has the power to do this operation swiftly, and it will be a war that will not do great damage to Iraq, to its installations, to its infrastructure, or to its people.

PAUL SOLMAN: In short, a war with great benefits, Hill insisted, and modest costs. Now, Yale's military history harks back to Nathan Hale, class of 1773. Executed by the British three yeas later, his parting words engraved him in memory: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Over the centuries, however, Yale, the almost fortress-like center of New Haven, Connecticut, has become more of a training ground for politicians than soldiers. Our last three presidents were schooled here in classes like Grand Strategy. Paul Kennedy, like Charles Hill, imagines a quick victory in Iraq, but he says unlike the Gulf War, where our allies paid most of the freight:

PAUL KENNEDY: When we try to put Humpty Dumpty together again, if we've done this in disregard of world opinion and United Nations Security Council, we will, unlike 1991, we will be paying the bill.

PAUL SOLMAN: But what is the bill? Pres. Bush hasn't yet put any numbers into next year's official budget or budget projections for the future, though the administration has mentioned costs for war and reconstruction of $60-90 billion in the first year. But beyond that, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, won't go.

DONALD RUMSFELD: What we have done is we have taken estimates looking different variables and said, if this were the case, on this variable and then on this variable. But there are so many variables that the numbers of possible point answers create a range that simply isn't useful.

PAUL SOLMAN: There is, however, a noted Yale economist who's tried to reckon the cost of an Iraq war. William Nordhaus, an economic advisor in the Carter administration, has become known for pricing non-market activities like leisure, global warming. In a study that's gotten lots of notice, he's costed out the war, starting with the "incremental" costs of actually fighting it, costs beyond soldiers' normal pay, weapons already bought, like the costs of moving troops halfway across the globe.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS, Economist: The main incremental costs are fuel costs. They're the costs of pulling up the reserves, the combat pay, the missiles, all the smart weapons that we're going to use.

PAUL SOLMAN: Weapons we've already paid for, but will have to replace. Total fighting cost?

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: At the low end, about $50 billion, if things go smoothly. At the high end for the military, maybe $150 billion, if things are protracted and go on a while.

PAUL SOLMAN: Thus, Nordhaus has priced two war scenarios: Best- case-- victory within hours or days-- worst-case-- with oil fields destroyed, cities under siege, years of occupation. But the worst-case entails a lot more cost categories than just fighting.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: There are going to be internally displaced refugees, we need humanitarian assistance. Then there's going to be the actual occupation/peacekeeping cost. Then there's going to be reconstruction of whatever is destroyed in the last few wars in that area. All of those are going to be pretty big ticket items.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, what's your low-end and high-end estimates there?

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: Low-end, in the order of $100 billion over the next ten years. High-end, $500 billion maybe $600 billion over the next decade.

PAUL SOLMAN: So Nordhaus figures we'll be spending some $150 billion on the low-end, as much as $750 billion on the high-end for military-related costs. But, says Nordhaus, there's also the overall impact on the economy, especially of the price of oil.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: The biggest risk here isthat there'll be destruction of the oil wells, perhaps either in Iraq or maybe in some of the neighboring countries -- maybe some boycotts, and oil prices shoot up. The numbers I looked at were up to $75 a barrel from a normal price of $20-$25 a barrel.

PAUL SOLMAN: $75 barrel means roughly $3 a gallon for gas -- a shock to drivers, perhaps, but a bigger shock to the economy as a whole.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: It's a kind of in-your-face price increase here at the pump, but there are other subtle increases as it ripples through the economy. You'll see it in home heating, you'll see it in electricity, you'll see it in the products you buy, you'll see it in the price of your airline ticket, and it's going to be like a big tax increase -- a $100 billion tax increase facing the American people if we see those big oil price increases.

PAUL SOLMAN: And what happens when you have a $100 billion tax increase or something like that?

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: Well, when you have something like that, consumers spend less, businesses invest less, and I think there's a good chance you trigger a recession.

PAUL SOLMAN: Combine the cost of higher energy prices with the cost of the recession they'd likely trigger, and Nordhaus adds another $1.2 trillion to the cost of war, worse-case. On the other hand, best-case could mean lower oil prices-- 25 cents or more down, and a benefit to the economy.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: You know, people breathe a sigh of relief. Oil prices come back down a little, people stop getting nervous because it's over quickly. And so actually, the economy will probably do a little bit better if things really turn out well.

PAUL SOLMAN: So bottom line, in Nordhaus' best-case scenario, cheap oil and lower prices at the pump cancel out some of the war costs, and you get a tab of about $100 billion, some $1,000 per U.S. household. The worse-case, higher prices at home, more spending abroad, a total of roughly $2 trillion-- $20,000 per U.S. household over a decade. But others argue this is too pessimistic, that the best case would revive consumer and business spending, jump-start the stock market. At a dinner with economists recently, Donald Kagan reports:

DONALD KAGAN, Historian: Their judgment was that if a war were fought against Saddam Hussein and if it were won and it were won relatively quickly and painlessly, the effect on the American economy would be a boost, a very significant boost.

PAUL SOLMAN: But Kagan, a Yale historian of ancient warfare, is skeptical of any economic analysis of war.

DONALD KAGAN: It's remarkable to me how these very difficult and mathematical and very scientific observations and calculations almost always end up with a recommendation that accords with the political position that the economist had before he ever looked into the question. That strikes me as being worth noticing.

PAUL SOLMAN: Kagan favors the war. Nordhaus, who hasn't taken a position on it, bristles at the idea his results are political.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: I'll just tell you my own experience with this was that I started on it because I was kind of curious. I said, "Well, nobody's done an analysis of this," so I figured, well, let's give it a shot. I actually was very surprised at the answer, and the thing that most surprised me about doing this work was that the non- military side, the collateral costs, if you like, were so much bigger than the military cost. I'd never conceived of that when I started out.

PAUL SOLMAN: Kagan's main problem, however, is not what Nordhaus does count, but what he doesn't; that economic analysis is simply too narrow to capture the larger costs and benefits of war. Kagan himself has costed out the Athens-Sparta conflict of Ancient Greece, but loves to cite Thucydides-- that war's great chronicler-- on the three reasons behind it.

DONALD KAGAN: Honor, fear and interest. Interest means, you know, economics, let's say. Honor can mean prestige, it can mean esteem, it can mean respect. The opposite of it is dishonor, and that's very important to remember-- humiliation, resentment. To my mind, these are the major forces in bringing about wars forever, as I have studied them. And that I think is one of the things that is a problem when you try to bring cost-benefit analysis, if all you mean by that is economic costs and economic benefits, because that's not what's in the minds of the folks who are making these decisions most of the time.

PAUL SOLMAN: Back at the Grand Strategy class, student Sara Aviel had a response.

SARA AVIEL, Student: One of the benefits of doing an economic analysis with numbers is that it forces you to be more precise. Otherwise, you can talk about evil and you can talk about Saddam, and we can all agree with that, but until you actually put it into numbers, that's where the real debate happens.

PAUL SOLMAN: In fact, when Prof. Kennedy began this debate, he'd come up with costs beyond Prof. Nordhaus' $2 trillion worst case. For instance:

PAUL KENNEDY: The world economy is teetering. One Middle East war would be enough to tip it into depression.

PAUL SOLMAN: But when I asked him, professor hill offered the opposite analysis.

CHARLES HILL: We will see collateral benefits. The benefits will be the restoration of American credibility and decisiveness. We'll see an Iraq that is freed from oppression. This situation will also do a lot to transform the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

PAUL SOLMAN: Are those variables-- ballpark here, obviously-- on the order of magnitude of $2 trillion, if I am asking you to price them?

CHARLES HILL: I think it's far beyond that.

PAUL SOLMAN: But $2 trillion?

CHARLES HILL: I think that's nothing in terms of what we're going to see in 15 years, if we can transform the Middle East and turn it into a place of good governance and good economies.

PAUL SOLMAN: Prof. Nordhaus, however, emphasizes that his was

not a cost-benefit analysis.

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: What I did is primarily a cost study. So when you look at your automobile, you look at the sticker and you say, "This is what it's going to cost me."

PAUL SOLMAN: As to the uncounted benefits, well, sure Nordhaus acknowledges:

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: But there are also lots of really terrible things that can go wrong along the way.

PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, in none of these analyses is there any reckoning of those who might die; the cost, that is, of lives lost, like those of Yale alumni killed in wars past. We price life for insurance purposes in court settlements. What would it add to the total cost of war in Iraq, much less a long war? William Nordhaus has purposely avoided that calculation, but in pricing the conflict as narrowly as he has, he's opened himself to a familiar charge.

PAUL SOLMAN: Think of the old gag, "An economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

WILLIAM NORDHAUS: The way I usually think of it is "an economist is a scoundrel who tells you the way things really are rather than the way you'd like them to be."

PAUL SOLMAN: A sober thought at a sober moment in American history.

UPDATE - WAR OR DIPLOMACY

JIM LEHRER: Now Sec. of State Powell's plea for the world to act together against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Gwen Ifill has the story.

GWEN IFILL: On a day when U.S. military officials pronounced themselves "armed, ready and capable" to launch action against Iraq, a trio of allies dealt the U.S. a diplomatic setback. Foreign ministers from Russia, France, and Germany said today they will do whatever they can to avoid war. The hard-line statements, issued at an emergency meeting in Paris, called for continuing inspections, and the foreign ministers-- two of whom have U.N. veto power-- said they will derail any new U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN (Translated): We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the force as a recourse. Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume all our responsibilities on this point.

GWEN IFILL: Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, in a news conference later in the day at the U.N., added some fuel to the diplomatic fire. He said Iraq has destroyed 28 of its 100 long-range al-Samoud missiles and has also allowed inspectors to interview seven more Iraqi scientists.

HANS BLIX: There's certainly a great deal of activity and clearly motivated by the threat around them. It's a pity that it's needed, but it's good that this cooperation happened, and I regretted also that it was late. In my latest report, I said that they could have done this earlier and could have brought it to fruition now. It could have changed the political situation. But there is a great deal more cooperation now, and the threat certainly has brought it there. I hope it is not too late.

GWEN IFILL: Blix said he'd welcome more time for the inspectors to do their work, but he wasn't confident the Iraqis would continue to cooperate.

HANS BLIX: If I asked, say, give me four more months, I think I can settle it in that period. That sort of suggests I have confidence that they would cooperate sufficiently. I would not dare to give any check on that, that they would do so, because the track record has not been good.

GWEN IFILL: But it's the threat of force, Sec. of State Colin Powell said, not the threat of inspections, that has made the difference. In a speech in Washington, Sec. Powell said Saddam Hussein has already squandered his one last chance.

COLIN POWELL: We know that the Iraqi regime intends to declare and destroy only a portion of its banned al-Samoud inventory, and that it has, in fact, ordered the continued production of the missiles that you see being destroyed. Iraq has brought its machinery that produces such missiles out into the daylight for all to see, but we have intelligence that says at the very same time, it has also begun to hide machinery it can use to convert other kinds of engines to power al-Samouds II. We have received further intelligence from multiple sources showing that Iraq is continuing in its efforts to deceive the inspectors. Much of this intelligence, from a variety of sensitive sources, many of these sources I cannot share with anyone in any greater detail than I am here today, but it's reliable and shows that the Iraqi regime is still moving weapons of mass destruction materials around the country to avoid detection.

GWEN IFILL: Saddam Hussein, he said, has deliberately set out to divide the U.N.

COLIN POWELL: If Iraq complies and disarms, even at this late hour, it is possible to avoid war. He is betting, however, that his contempt for the will of the international community is stronger than the collective result of the Security Council to impose its will. Saddam Hussein is betting that some members of the Council will not sanction the use of force despite all the evidence of his continued refusal to disarm. Divisions among us, and there are divisions among us, if these divisions continue, will only convince Saddam Hussein that he is right, and I can assure you he is wrong.

GWEN IFILL: But Powell said U.N. inaction will not prevent U.S. action.

GWEN IFILL: Now we get two perspectives on today's developments. Raymond Tanter served on the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration. He's now an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Jacqueline Grapin is president of the European Institute. It's a public policy organization devoted to transatlantic affairs. Raymond Tanter, was that the sound of gauntlets being thrown we heard today?

RAYMOND TANTER: I think Sec. Powell has done two things. One he told Hans Blix that American intelligence doesn't confirm what Hans Blix thinks about the al-Samoud II missiles. I think American intelligence is showing that Iraq is engaged in a shell game of saying that it's going to destroy "x" numbers of missiles, while at the same time it produces additional missiles. So I'm very pessimistic that Hans Blix... in effect, I'm saying that Hans Blix and Secretary Powell are on a collision course.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Grapin we started the day hearing from Russia, Germany, and France saying... not quite saying they were willing to veto to stop the resolution or stop the action, but suggesting it. Was that a gauntlet being thrown down?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: Yes. I suppose that it's difficult to believe that the next week they will prove or disprove today. Basically, it's a difference of approach. No one denies that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The question is not so much is Saddam Hussein sinning so to say with regard to U.N. rules and the U.N. resolution. It's how dangerous is he and does this justify war, does this justify killing people because this is what war is about? And a number of governments think that the priority is really the war against terrorism, that this war will set the Middle East on fire, that it will have a backlash, it will create backlash in the Arab world, and therefore, it is a dangerous process. However, everybody agrees that if it is necessary, perhaps war as a last resort should be undertaken. It seems that Russia, Germany, and France at this time think that some more time should be given to these inspectors. Hans Blix was just in your presentation a few moments ago saying four months. In a way when you think with the climate situation in the Middle East, starting a war before the spring and summer is a little dangerous. Why not wait until September, when you are before the winter? So probably there would be more legitimacy in undertaking this later, when it is proven that the inspectors have not been able to obtain improvements.

GWEN IFILL: Prof. Tanter, we have heard these different interpretations especially what Hans Blix for instance said today. Difference sides read what he said is hopeful or not. Why today? Why did we hear such tough talk not only from the secretary, but also from these three key allies today?

RAYMOND TANTER: Well, Gwen, if you look at 678, it authorized all necessary means to be taken by member states to oust the Iraqi army from Kuwait. That was in 1990 - U.N. Security Council Resolution 678. Then 687 said Iraq should have full final and complete disclosure of all of its weapons inspectors. That's 1991. So I'm not sure that 12 years later that there is any rush, and in the meantime you had 1441.

GWEN IFILL: I'm not suggesting that there is a rush. I'm just thinking of the context where we are right now in the last ten days to suddenly have heard such tough talk today, two days before we expect to hear from Hans Blix.

RAYMOND TANTER: Hans Blix is supposed to come to the U.N. Security Council and give his quarterly report on March 7. Sec. Powell is going tomorrow to the U.N. in order to round up the nine votes tomorrow. I think it's important for a gauntlet, as you called it, to be laid down by Sec. Powell so those who are sitting on the fence fall off the fence on the American side on the British side, on the Spanish and Bulgarian side, and not sit on the fence. No one is going to remain on the fence once the shooting starts, so they might as well get off the fence now before the shooting starts and help to legitimize the use of force.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Grapin, does what the secretary said today, does it knock people off the fence?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: I don't think so. I think there are several timetables here. There is the timetables of the inspectors, and I think they need several weeks if not several months, probably until the fall. There is the timetable, the military timetable and the military plans and there is the diplomatic timetable and the possible vote of a resolution next week. Sec. Powell says he has the votes, the Russians, the Germans, and French say they will not even have to use a veto in this case, because he will not have the nine necessary votes to oblige them to have a veto. The probability is that if that is the case, the resolution will not be put to a vote. If the U.S. had these votes, the resolution would already had been put to the vote. So obviously it's a last minute effort to try to rally some of the undecided members.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that the administration has the votes?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: I don't know, but my guess would be that they do not have it, and that next week there are two possibilities. I doubt that they have the votes. I think that either that they will not have enough and a veto will not be necessary. If they had it, I would guess that a veto would be used. But it's just a guess. I don't know.

GWEN IFILL: I understand. Crystal balling is very difficult. Mr. Tanter, one of the things that Sec. Powell today said is that process is not performance, his counter to Hans Blix's assertions about cooperation. "Process is not performance, concession not compliance." Does that argument do you think work for the people on the fence, for the people who need stop this coming to a kind of embarrassing failure at the U.N.?

RAYMOND TANTER: I think so, Gwen. The Russian-French-German declaration this morning in effect said inspections can produce disarmament. That's like saying the Internal Revenue Service is supposed to produce declarations on the part of Americans and French with respect to their income. Each individual family is supposed to produce their income and the Internal Revenue Service simply verifies compliance on a random basis. Even Hans Blix said if only if Iraq were proactive and cooperated more, then it would take, as Madame said, two or three months to complete the job. But, in fact, Iraq has not been cooperative.

GWEN IFILL: Now, let me ask you a question about this because it seems... the secretary said today he had new intelligence information that showed that Iraq was still creating new biological weapons, that they had moved weapons supposed to be destroyed and that he had, from good sources, he said-- "reliable" was the word he used-- evidence this was happening. If that's true, why isn't that information handed over to Hans Blix or to the inspectors so that the proof can be put in the pudding, I guess?

RAYMOND TANTER: That's a good reason. If war is about to start, I don't want the Iraqis to know that American intelligence knows where their mobile weapons labs are. Of course, they're running back and forth between Syria and Iraq, many of them are probably in Syria at this time. But I suspect they'll go back to the western Iraq desert and U.S. Special Forces are going to have to go in and take out the delivery systems and weapons of mass destruction first before any war begins. So you don't want to reveal all of your intelligence right away, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: Was this new intelligence information compelling in any way for you?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: I don't think this is the real question, because no one pretends that Saddam is a saint and that suddenly he's complying with the U.N. inspectors' requirements. Actually, what are the requirements, nobody knows. It looks like there is nothing that Saddam could do this week that would assure the U.S., and would avoid war. This is probably not really the question. The question from the standpoint of the international community is this war worthwhile, and if it can be avoided what action can be taken in the next four months to avoid it? The U.S. takes a different perspective, which is that we have waited for a long time, that we have our troops ready. We are ready to go. Let's do it" But this is really going to end up in the U.N. being some sort of an international referendum at the highest level because, in fact, the populations in many countries have already expressed their reservations about undertaking war under this condition.

GWEN IFILL: You alluded to the reservations so many countries expressed. The secretary also said today that Saddam's strategy here was to divide traditional allies and that it's working. Do you think it's true?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: It's certainly true that Saddam's strategy has always been to divide the allies, but this time I think that the U.S. pressure, which has been praised by all leaders including Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder and Vladimir Putin, everybody recognizes that if the inspections are succeeding, it is because of the U.S. pressure. So it's good to continue putting pressure on Saddam. It doesn't mean it's good to go into war.

GWEN IFILL: Raymond Tanter, same question to you. Are the allies divided as part of a grand scheme from Saddam Hussein?

RAYMOND TANTER: Actually Sec. Powell said that Saddam Hussein has attempted to divide the allies is not going to work in the long run that unity of purpose will kick in and it reminded me... I think Sec. Powell switched hats, put on the general hat and kept referring to his chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This man's time... the last exit ramp on the road to Baghdad has been reached. As far as I'm concerned Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld are all singing from the same song sheet and that is a song with respect to the road to war in Baghdad.

GWEN IFILL: It seems there have been several exit ramps, but let me ask you about that. One of the things he also said today was even now, "even at this late date," I think was the way he put it, war can still avoidable if Saddam does all of the things that the United States would be satisfied with. Do you agree with that?

RAYMOND TANTER: If there were a full final and complete disclosure of the weapons of mass destruction, but get this: full, final and complete. That doesn't mean incremental, I like to a say that the holy roman empire wasn't holy, it wasn't roman, and not an empire, similarly Saddam hasn't made a full, final, or complete disclosure of his weapons of mass destruction. That's the issue.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Grapin, what's your response to that?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: The approach of Russia and Germany and France is to set a very clear program of disarmament with a schedule that Saddam must follow and if he does not follow, it then they would approve the use of force. So it's possible. I think there is less division among the allies than it looks. Everybody agrees that Saddam must disarm, everybody agrees that he does not comply with the U.N. resolutions. But some of the allies think that some further use of the inspectors, must be made.

GWEN IFILL: But... excuse me, but is war avoidable?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: If they have it their way, yes, war is avoidable, and I would add that there is a second chapter in what they suggest, is that there should be an overall framework for the Middle East, for resolution of the powers of the Middle East if possible with disarmament, with arms control, and with confidence-building measures, that should be agreed among the various parties. In fact, this would avoid antagonizing the Arab world and increasing the level of animosity that creates terrorism.

GWEN IFILL: Okay, Jacqueline Grapin, Raymond Tanter, thank you very much for joining us.

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, decisions day at the Supreme Court.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, major rulings at the Supreme Court, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The court handed down decisions today in cases from Connecticut and Alaska that dealt with the so-called Megan laws that require sex offenders to register with the state and keep in touch with authorities. In addition, there were rulings in two cases challenging California's strict sentencing law known as "Three Strikes." We get more on today's decisions from NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court reporter for the "Chicago Tribune." And let's, Jan, take Megan's laws first one case from Alaska, one case from Connecticut.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. And in both them convicted sex offenders were saying that these laws were just too broad, that they covered people who should not have to register with the state after their convictions. The Alaska case involved a challenge by a group of convicted sex offenders who said that they should not have to register with the state because they were convicted of sex offenses before the state passed that Megan's law. It says that applying the Megan's law requirement to them violated the Constitution expos facto clause, which means that you should not be able to subject people to additional punishments after they have already served time for their crimes. Now, the Connecticut case involved a totally different legal question. A group of convicted sex offenders there argued that they should get a hearing to show they were no longer dangerous and as a result that they no longer had to abide by the strict requirements of that law, notify the state about their employment, their license plate information, where they moved, and provide photographs.

RAY SUAREZ: How did the majority rule in the Alaska case?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, in both cases the courts sided with the state. The Alaska case was a closer call for the justices; the court ruled six to three in an opinion by Justice AnthonyKennedy that these type of laws did not constitute an additional punishment, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority emphasized that states weren't looking to punish convicted sex offenders again but in fact, were trying to notify the public when convicted sex offenders were moving into their neighborhoods or taking jobs that may be in their workplaces. And he said that the state furthermore -- while it didn't have this intent to punish, the law didn't have a punitive effect -- that it was not excessive. So in his opinion he ruled of course against the convicted sex offenders. Now the Connecticut case in an opinion by Chef Justice William Rehnquist was 9-0; the court was unanimous that these sex offenders were not entitled to this hearing to show that they no longer were dangerous. But several justices in concurring opinions suggested that they might be able to come back and present a slightly different constitutional argument.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, does this have the effect of making the 25 states that have Megan's laws a little more fireproof in this way?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, I think most all states have the Megan's laws and of course this case has been very closely watched, because these have been very important and popular laws states, enacted them of course in the wake of the murder of the 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Megan Conka, who was killed by a sex offender who moved next door to her unbeknownst to her parents. Of course, that led all states to pass the laws and today the court said that, yes, the states did have this important interest in notifying the public.

RAY SUAREZ: In the three strikes laws again we had two separate cases making their way to the high court.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right, and these were both in California. Unlike the Megan's laws cases that involve different legal arguments, in both cases men who had been convicted of a third crime and had been subject to extremely harsh sentences argued that those excessive sentences violated the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which of course prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. They argued that their punishment, 25 years, 50 years to live in prison for relatively minor offenses like shoplifting was so excessive and so disproportionate to their crimes that it violated the 8th Amendment. These cases were very close today, closely decided and the court divided very narrowly 5-4 in both cases that the states laws, the states three strikes laws were not unconstitutional and that California could continue to impose harsh sentences on repeat offenders.

RAY SUAREZ: Now in one case you had a man who stole about $1200 worth of golf clubs; in another case a man who stole about $150 worth of videos out of a store. What did the justices say about the extent of these crimes, the seriousness of these crimes in relating them to the 25 and 50 year mandatory sentences?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Both of the opinions were written by Justice O'Connor and in the first indicates opinion involving the man that had stolen the golf clubs she emphasized that the state legislatures were entitled to great deference on these issues -- that the court had traditionally given state legislatures an area of criminal justice policy great deference, and that California had made a policy judgment that it wanted to protect the public from repeat offenders and she said that it was all wrong to think about this as life in prison for a man who had shoplifted some golf clubs. In fact, she said he had committed a crime and he committed previous crimes and he was being punished because of being a repeat offender to such a severe degree. Now in the other case it was - it came up in a slightly different way, a slightly different way procedurally; it was a federal challenge and that involved a man who had stolen like you said the videotapes and the court in that case said that his sentence was not contrary to clearly established law and that the court would not set that aside.

RAY SUAREZ: Quickly, you had a very unusual dissent, didn't you?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. In the first case Justice Breyer took about five minutes to read the dissent allowed from the bench and he said that these sentences were extreme and highly unusual and that he could find no evidence that other states could punish so harshly and furthermore said that he doubted they would have any effect at all. That's not unheard of for justices to read aloud portions of their decision from the bench in controversial cases, but it is unusual and it reflects the extreme disagreement on the court in this case.

RAY SUAREZ: But he asked -- didn't he -- if this isn't excessive punishment, then it's hard for him to imagine what is?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right and Justice Souter in a separate dissent in the other case said if these cases aren't grossly disproportionate -- if someone who steals the videotapes and is facing twenty-five, fifty years, to life in prison is not cruel and unusual punishment, then the principle simply has no meaning and many people today, criminal defense lawyers, civil liberties groups certainly the lawyers for the two men made that same point.

RAY SUAREZ: Jan, thanks a lot.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You're welcome, Ray.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the other major developments of this day: France, Russia, and Germany warned they would block any U.N. resolution authorizing war with Iraq. Sec. of State Powell accused Saddam Hussein trying to divide the United Nations. Chief U.N. Inspector Hans Blix said Iraq had made new moves to cooperate. And a suicide bus bombing in Israel killed at least 16 people. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.