The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. An instruction book on death and destruction leads today's news. The book was allegedly produced by the CIA for friendly rebels in Nicaragua. President Reagan this afternoon ordered an investigation to see if that's so. Also today, there were new figures out showing increases in consumer spending and personal income.And an earthquake did damage but no injury in six western states. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: On tonight's NewsHour we focus on three stories in depth. The sudden furor over the CIA and Nicaragua. We talk to a former CIA official and a congressman who wants the agency's present boss dismissed. We have a documentary report on how the environment has become the hottest issue in one election. And we talk to one of the investigators who unmasked the former Nazi who became a top NASA official.

LEHRER: The CIA manual story leads our summary of the day's news. President Reagan today ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the possibility of improper conduct by CIA employees in the matter. The 44-page manual was reportedly provided to U.S.-supported rebels in Nicaragua. It suggests neutralizing Nicaraguan government officials with the selective use of violence, among other things. White House spokesman Larry Speakes, in announcing the investigation, said the administration does not advocate or condone political assassination. Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican chairman of the Selate Intelligence Committee, said the investigation should be completed as soon as possible. Robin?

MacNEIL: Democrats jumped on the issue, some reviving calls for the dismissal of CIA director William Casey. House Speaker Thomas O'Neill called the manual "another one of our disasters to our foreign policy." Congressman Edward Boland of Massachusetts, chairman of theHouse Intelligence Committee, said the book was "repugnant, a document that should never have been produced by any element of the United States government." The Democratic presidential candidate, Walter Mondale, used it as another way of attacking President Reagan's competence in foreign policy.

Vice Pres. WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: Yesterday we have the disclosure of the CIA manual, which makes two or three things clear. First, at least if you read it, the objective of this administration is to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. The second is that it puts the United States in a position of continuing this illegal covert war which has been counterproductive. And once again the American people are embarrassed, just as they were in the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor, and our enemies are strengthened. Who's in charge? Who makes these decisions? Who protects Americans? This is now becoming a central issue in this campaign.

MacNEIL: In a campaign speech in Seattle, vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro accused President Reagan of "moral blindness" in foreign policy and pointed to the Nicaraguan manual as an example.

Rep. GERALDINE FERRARO, Democratic vice presidential candidate: This week we learned that the CIA has written and is circulating among the contras in Nicaragua a manual which teaches methods of assassination, terror, blackmail and mob violence. Now, this is totally contrary to our basic values. Anyone who believes for one minute that refining the murder techniques of Central Americans will advance our national interests is gravely mistaken. We should be resolving differences, not aggravating them. We should be building economies, not mining harbors.

MacNEIL: Democratic Congressman James Shannon of Massachusetts called on President Reagan to fire CIA Director Casey "for the sake of all those who believe in freedom." One administration official available for comment today was U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. She was asked in Washington whether the memorandum should have been distributed and whether assassination was a part of U.S. policy.

JEANE KIRKPATRIC, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: I know that our government and our administration absolutely forbid assassination and murder as instruments of U.S. foreign policy, and that is very clear. I also know that the President has asked for a full inquiry of this matter, and I do not know anything about distribution of such a manual -- I do not even know that there was such distribution.

MacNEIL: We'll be pursuing this story further later in the program.

American intelligence was also in the news today over the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex last month in Lebanon. The Washington Post reported that the U.S. government knew days before that explosives targeted against State Department personnel had been brought into Lebanon. The newspaper said Reagan administration officials reviewing the attack said the intelligence reports compound the government's failure to provide more stringent security measures. One official said it was inexcusable, the newspaper reported. Vice President George Bush, asked about this on the campaign trail, commented, "The White House did not ignore any intelligence." Jim?

LEHRER: There's nothing but good news to report on the economy today. The Commerce Department said consumer spending shot up 1.4% in September, the first increase in three months. Also in September, the personal income of Americans went up .9%. From abroad came even better news. The oil cartel called OPEC today called a meeting to deal with their price problem. And that problem is the decision by Norway, Great Britain and Nigeria to cut oil prices. Analysts here and in Europe say U.S. consumers, among others, are getting and will continue to get an unexpected break in fuel costs. But in Britain the first impact of the price cut was felt on the currency markets and the value of the pound fell sharply. James Long of the BBC reports.

JAMES LONG, BBC [voice-over]: North Sea oil is the main asset in Britain's balance sheet. A drop in its value prompts international investors to move their money elsewhere, and that's what's pushing the pound down. The North Sea oil price cuts could spark off an oil price war if other oil-producing countries join in the price-cutting game. The world is awash with surplus oil -- too many sellers and not enough buyers. The price should have fallen months ago. It didn't because Britain helped the OPEC oil exporters group to prop up prices. Yesterday Britain, not an OPEC member, went its own way with a price cut, to the surprise of OPEC and everyone else. Today it's been confirmed OPEC will meet in 10 days. They're unhappy with Britain's action. A further cut by them could be the first stage of an oil price war.

LEHRER: And the prospects of an international oil price war was certainly good news back here on Wall Street. The Dow Jones average was up almost 29 1/2 points, closing at 1225.38. Robin?

MacNEIL: Here in New York, four men and five women were arrested in a massive police sweep today on charges of planning to rob an armored truck and free an armed robber from prison. The FBI said the nine were members of a group called the New African Freedom Fighters, which is said to have links with a group that wants to set up a separate black nation in the United States. Members of that group tried to rob a Brink's armored truck in 1981 and five of them are now in prison. The FBI said the nine arrested today were planning a prison breakout for one of those convicts. At the Federal Office Building in downtown Manhattan, cameramen caught glimpses of FBI cars bringing the suspects into the basement garage. The arrests were made before dawn by more than 500 FBI agents and city police officers. They swooped down on scattered locations in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The police also brought in four guns and two dynamite bombs. They found a rope ladder, a guard's uniform with a badge, and plans of a courthouse where one of the Brink's convicts is on trial in another case. Jim?

LEHRER: Scientists in Kenya have discovered the remains of a boy who died 1.6 million years ago. The find was made in August but the announcement was delayed until today. Reporter Jeff Goldman has the details.

JEFF GOLDMAN [voice-over]: Anthropologists today said this was a particularly important find for two reasons. Much of the ancient skeleton was found intact, and its size dispels the belief that early man was smaller than modern humans. Scientists say the skeleton is of a 12-year-old boy. He was estimated to be about five-foot four inches tall and weighed 140 pounds at death. This indicates he would have grown to more than six feet had he lived. The skeleton was found in northern Kenya, and today in news conferences in both Washington and Nairobi, the anthropologists explained why this is an important find.

Dr. ALAN WALKER, anatomist: In this case, to be able to lay the skeleton out and say, "Look, there's a skeleton. Skull, jaw, collarbones, scapula, ribs, everything, lying out there, it makes a tremendous visual impression." And it says to the layperson, we've looked like humans for 1.6 million years. That's an awful long time for the human body to be like that.

RICHARD LEAKEY, paleonanthropologist: To find a complete skeleton rather than fragments of a skull that had a smaller brain, I think is going to answer many, many of the doubts that people have when thinking about human origins. And I think for the first time, we have a human -- not just its head, not just its teeth, but the whole body in terms of skeletal parts -- living 1.6 million years ago. The volume of information that is going to be found out by the study of this individual is going to be quite extraordinary.

GOLDMAN [voice-over]: While this is not the oldest human fossil ever found, it is one of the most complete. Scientists hope it will bring further insights about the anatomy, growth patterns and body size of early humans.

LEHRER: And the modern-day residents of six states in the American West got a jolt this morning from an earthquake. It caused rattles and shakes and damage to buildings in parts of Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana and South Dakota, but no injuries were reported. Robin?

MacNEIL: In medical news, scientists today announced they have found the virus that's believed to cause AIDS disease in a healthy homosexual man. Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and the National Cancer Institute say the discovery confirmed their suspicion that the disease could be spread by healthy carriers. The virus was found in the semen of a healthy 30-year-old homosexual man as well as a number of other men with the disease, further supporting a long-held theory that the disease is often sexually transmitted. So far, about 6,400 cases of AIDS have been reported in the United States since 1981 and 45% have died.

Another research team announced today that it's found a natural substance that apparently promotes the growth of new blood vessels. The Boston University medical team reported their discovery in The Journal of the American Medical Association. Its editor, Dr. George Lundberg, said the discovery is something of tremendous potential value. He said the new substance could be valuable in promoting new blood vessel growth in areas of the body cut off from the blood supply by heart attack or stroke.

Jim?

LEHRER: The 1984 Nobel Prize for economics was announced today. The winner was Sir Richard Stone of Cambridge University in England. Stone was honored for developing a standardized accounting system for governments. It is now used by all major international organizations and by more than 100 countries. Stone is the fourth Englishman to win the economics prize, which was created in 1969. All others have been Americans.

One of the week's other Nobel Prize winners was Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, an opponent of apartheid. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Bishop Tutu arrived home today in Johannesburg to a huge welcome from his supporters. He said he regarded current U.S. policy toward South Africa as a disaster and said the Reagan administration was perceived by blacks as collaborating with this racist regime. Here is a report from Graham Leach of the BBC.

GRAHAM LEACH, BBC [voice-over]: It was a tumultuous reception which awaited Bishop Tutu.

REPORTER: Bishop Tutu, what do you think of the welcome?

Bishop DESMOND TUTU, Nobel laureate: Tremendous. Very heartwarming.But then again, our prize -- it belongs to all of us.

LEACH [voice-over]: The bishop's family were all there, some not old enough to understand the significance of the occasion, but all anxious to offer their own congratulations. A greeting, too, from fellow churchman Allan Boesak, founder of the United Democratic Front, the body spearheading the current opposition to the government. From the airport the bishop went straight to his office to share his joy with his supporters and to receive a tribute from the Afrikaner antigovernment clergyman Beyers Naude, whose banning order was recently lifted.

BEYERS NAUDE, Dutch Reform Church: We thank God.We thank Him for you. We thank Him for your goodness.And I pray, Desmond, I pray that the day may come when even my own people will understand something of the message that you have been trying to say to us.

Bishop TUTU: We are going to be free. And nothing, absolutely nothing that anyone can do, will do, is going to stop that.

LEHRER: That report by Graham Leach of the BBC. The last story in our news summary tonight is on the Iran-Iraq war. After months of quiet on the ground in that five-year-old, seemingly endless war, there was action today. Iran claimed its army had launched a major and successful attack, but Iraq said it was small and it was easily crushed. There are no independent means of confirming what really did happen, and there was no certainty the new action signaled the start of Iran's long-promised final offensive against Iraq. Robin? Haunted by the Past

MacNEIL: Now our first story in depth tonight, and for that we turn to the story of Arthur Rudolph. A West German prosecutor confirmed today that the ex-Nazi scientist has been living in West Germany since leaving the United States and renouncing his citizenship last May. The Justice Department announced yesterday that Rudolph, who played a central role in American space efforts, had agreed to leave the U.S. rather than contest charges that he worked thousands os slave laborers to death during World War II. Most of those laborers came from the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camp in Germany. An estimated 20 to 30 thousand of them died from malnutrition, exhaustion and illness. The prisoners spent 12 hours a day, seven days a week, underground without ventilation or water. They had to use their own hands to widen tunnels that in turn were used to build and store V-2 rockets.The Nazis used the V-2 to bombard the city of London and its civilian population. Rudolph was in charge of producing the V-2.

After the war, Rudolph and more than 100 other German scientists surrendered to American authorities and were brought to the United States to work for the Army. In the late 1950s Rudolph helped develop the Redstone rocket, which launched the first American satellite. In 1961 he went to work for NASA, and throughout the '60s played a key role in developing the Saturn 5 rocket that carried the Americans to the moon. In 1969, the year an American first walked on the moon, Rudolph retired from NASA. He moved to San Jose, California, where he lived and worked as a management consultant until leaving the country this spring.

Jim?

LEHRER: The case against Arthur Rudolph was developed by the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations. It was set up in 1979 specifically to pursue Nazi war criminals. The man who headed it until a year ago and who initiated the Rudolph investigation is Allan Ryan, now a private attorney and author of the new book, Quiet Neighbors: Prosecuting Nazi War Criminals in America.

Mr. Ryan, what is the evidence against Rudolph?

ALLAN RYAN: The evidence against Rudolph is very well summed up by what Robin just said. He was really a production manager in a slave-labor camp, producing V-2s at a furious pace in the end of 1944 and beginning of 1945. And for the Nazis at that time, human beings were their cheapest commodity. They could be used up and thrown away like paper. Almost 20,000 people were literally worked to death in a frantic effort to produce V-2s.

LEHRER: And there was no question that Rudolph knew what was going on, in fact was supervising -- is that correct?

Mr. RYAN: That's correct.

LEHRER: What is this based on? What is the evidence based on?

Mr. RYAN: It's based on documents from that period of time. It is based on eyewitnesses and, to a certain extent, it's based on Rudolph's own admissions to the Justice Department.

LEHRER: All right, that was my -- you talked to Rudolph, did you not?

Mr. RYAN: Yes. Yes, I did.

LEHRER: What was his attitude toward all of this?

Mr. RYAN: Well, his attitude was, "Yes, it was a terrible thing, and I wished I could have done something about it, but I really had no control over the situation." And that was just not true. He was in control of the situation, and by putting himself at the scene and saying only that he couldn't control it, he went a long way towards making the case and admitting the truth of what we had been investigating.

LEHRER: How did he admit the truth?

Mr. RYAN: He admitted the truth by admitting that he was there. The only point at which he stopped was saying that he had no control over it. And we had documents that proved unquestionably that he was in fact the man in control.

LEHRER: What was his evidence that he had no control, or did he offer any?

Mr. RYAN: He didn't offer any.

LEHRER: What kind of man was he? You talked to him.

Mr. RYAN: He was -- when I talked to him, if you saw him on the street in San Jose, California, you wouldn't look twice at him.That's the case with all of the Nazi war criminals, I think, who came to the United States. Rudolph is unusual because he was a brilliant scientist and a man who, without question, contributed many, many valuable parts of our space program. But he was very soft-spoken, very mild-mannered, very deferential, very courteous. It was -- I had the feeling that sitting there talking to him, I'm talking not only one of the most brilliant aerospace scientists in the world, but one of the most heinous Nazi war criminals in the world. And that was a very strange feeling.

LEHRER: Did the magnitude of what you were saying to him seem to get through to him -- "Hey, man, we're saying you were responsible for the deaths of 20, 30 thousand people"?

Mr. RYAN: Well, we approached him in a bit of a different fashion, as prosecutors sometimes do.

LEHRER: I paraphrased, yes, sir, okay.

Mr. RYAN: We just took it fact by fact, and asked him about each fact and listened to his answers. There was no great eureka, there was no great breaking down, "now you've found me" sort of thing. It was simply a parade of facts, as these cases are.

LEHRER: Just out of curiosity, in his own defense did he cite this thing, "Oh, well, we were developing these rockets, and okay, some people had to die, 20 or 30 thousand had to die, but it was done to save millions," as often is an argument that scientists make.

Mr. RYAN: No, that argument wouldn't fly in California in 1982. No, he didn't make that argument to us.

LEHRER: That was when you talked to him, 1982.

Mr. RYAN: Yes. Yes.

LEHRER: Why did it take so long, Mr. Ryan? Forty years.

Mr. RYAN: Well, the office was only set up in 1979, as you mentioned, and it does take time to develop these cases, particularly this case, because the Dora camp was not like Auschwitz or others that are better documented. It was a very tough puzzle to put together.

LEHRER: Why? Why was it different?

Mr. RYAN: It was different because much of the research was very highly classified.It was not something that was within the regular administration of the SS; it was sort of a thing apart.

LEHRER: That's because it was dealing with rockets.

Mr. RYAN: Yes, yes. And that was a very high priority. It took us 35 years, I think, to get to that point, because throughout the '50s and the '60s and well into the '70s in this country, there was, I think, first of all an ignorance that thousands of Nazi war criminals had come to this country, and an attitude that Nazism was dead, communism is our enemy. I don't think any enemy in our history was forgotten as quickly as the Nazis were forgotten after World War II and our immigration into this country after the war showed that.

LEHRER: Was there ever any question about Rudolph's involvement? It was just a case that just took time to get to the case, is that it?

Mr. RYAN: Well, there was a very superficial investigation done by the Army immediately after the war, because this program that brought rocket scientists to the United States, by President Truman's own order it said no Nazi war criminals are eligible. So there was an investigation done, but it was a very cursory investigation, and when they asked Rudolph had he ever been involved in any of the slave labor operations at Dora, he said no, and that was the end of it.They took his word for it, and in he came, and really the case stayed there, essentially, for the next 35 years.

LEHRER: Looking back on this and the investigation you did, not only of Rudolph but others -- but specifically let's talk about Rudolph -- was an irresponsible, awful decision made by some American official or officials that let him and others like him in this country?

Mr. RYAN: If you're talking about the rocket program as a whole, I think a very strong argument can be made -- and I would probably make it -- that it was necessary for national security to bring these people into the United States. For two reasons. One, the state of the art in rocketry in 1945 and in missiles was Germany. And secondly, if we didn't get them, the Soviets would. I mean, that's an old argument, but it happens to be true. And I don't want to suggest that everyone, every scientist who came to the United States under that program was a Nazi war criminal. I'm sure that's not true. Whether there are others than Rudolph, we really can't say at this point. So no, I don't think that was an irresponsible decision. I think it was simply a case where the investigation, either intentionally or unintentionally, did not go far enough, did not uncover what it should have uncovered.

LEHRER: Do you have any hint at all as to whether it was intentional or unintentional that Rudolph was not found before?

Mr. RYAN: In terms of why he was not discovered, his past was not discovered by the Army -- I cannot say it was intentional. No, there's no evidence that I could point to and say this was an intentional coverup.It could have been simply a quick job, maybe a case where they didn't look because they didn't want to find out what they might.

LEHRER: Moving the story back to the present, to 1984, do you think it makes sense to let the man go as they did, as the United States government did?

Mr. RYAN: Yes, I do.

LEHRER: Why?

Mr. RYAN: Because although his contributions to this country were substantial, I think the point remains true that the law applies to everyone. Had he told the truth in 1945, he never would have come to this country. He did not tell the truth, he lied. And now, 35 years after he's been in this country, he has agreed to leave and to renounce his citizenship. And I emphasize that it was his -- after he was confronted with the evidence, he said that he would leave and renounce his citizenship. The Justice Department went along with that proposal, as I think it should have, because the alternative was spending three or four years in litigation, at the end of which a judge, if we were successful, if justice was successful, would say "You're out of the country."

LEHRER: Mr. Ryan, many people would ask after this, are there more Rudolphs out there living in the San Jose, Californias, of this country, and if so, how many?

Mr. RYAN: I think the answer is certainly there are -- no question that there are. I think after the war the number of Nazi war criminals who came to this country was on the order of 10,000.

LEHRER: Ten thousand?

Mr. RYAN: Ten thousand. And I emphasize that few, if any, of those came in through government sponsorship. They came in through a refugee program, the Displaced Persons Act, that was so prejudiced in its scope and so loosely and corruptly administered that people were lined up for visas like you'd line up to buy a movie ticket on the street. It was very easy to conceal your background. The preferences under the act went to groups where collaboration had been very high. Anybody who had the ability of a 12-year-old to tell a lie could come into this country through the front door. They didn't need government sponsorship. And when you consider that 400,000 refugees came here in those years, 10,000 is only 2 1/2%. I think that's a very conservative estimate.

LEHRER: Mr. Ryan, thank you very much.

Mr. RYAN: Thank you.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour, a documentary look at one state race where the environment is the hottest issue this election. And our focus report on the day's top story: we analyze the furor over the CIA manual for the contras in Nicaragua.

[Video postcard -- Westmoreland City, Virginia]

LEHRER: It was mostly all quiet on the presidential politics front today. Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale remained in their debate preparation mode, getting ready for their televised encounter on foreign policy in Kansas City Sunday night. The main news was a new ABC/Washington Post poll showing Mr. Mondale gaining a bit on President Reagan, but a 12-point percentage gap remains. Many a local and state candidate are wondering and praying one way or another about that gap and how it might affect them or their political loved ones. Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio has a report on just such a happenstance -- the race for the United States Senate in conservative New Hampshire, where Reagan runs well but so does the environmental issue. New Hampshire: Voting the Environment

COKIE ROBERTS [voice-over]: New Hampshire's natural beauty, its lakes and forests, its quaint New England towns, not only attracts thousands of tourists every year, but many new residents as well.The fastest-growing state east of the Mississippi River, New Hampshire's environment matters to these people, personally and politically.

1st WOMAN: I think New Hampshire people definitely think about the environment. That's why people live in New Hampshire. They live here because quality of life is good.

1st MAN: We live here because you can walk out to the mountain range and you can hike on the weekends and you can see the beautiful foliage this time of the year, and one of the nicest sounds in New Hampshire is when you don't hear any cars, you hear the water running through the streams. I think that's why a lot of us stay here.

2nd WOMAN: I love the quality of life that we have here in New Hampshire, and I'm up in the north country of New Hampshire because I enjoy the environment, and I want to see the environment protected and remain the way that it is.

Rep. NORMAN d'AMOURS, Democratic Senate candidate: I'm Norman d'Amours and I'm running for the United States Senate. Norm d'Amours.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The Democratic challenger for the New Hampshire Senate, five-term Congressman Norman d'Amours, is counting on the attachment to the environment to help him unseat the incumbent, and d'Amours' strong environmental record makes New Hampshire one of six states where Democrats have a shot at a new Senate seat. D'Amours is playing the environmental issue for everything it's worth.

Rep. d'AMOURS: There is only one person in this Senate campaign who is truly and consistently committed to protecting and preserving New Hampshire's environment.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: To environmental groups, the d'Amours record rates an endorsement. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters provide the Democratic challenger with volunteers and visibility. D'Amours charges that the Republican incumbent has flip-flopped on environmental issues during his one term in the Senate.

ANNOUNCER [d'Amours commercial]: Did you know that Gordon Humphrey voted against funding the cleanup of hazardous waste, and voted against efforts to stop acid rain? He claimed he didn't understand the issue.

Rep. d'AMOURS: I think it's clear to anyone who's been watching his record over the past several years that Gordon Humphrey, the guy trying to run for reelection, is the antithesis of Gordon Humphrey, the guy who's been in the Senate for six years.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Senator Humphrey admits he's changed his position on some issues.

Sen. GORDON HUMPHREY, (R) New Hampshire [at debate]: I'm man enough, Rod, to admit when I was -- when I'm wrong. I have publicly changed my position on acid rain. As I've said, frankly, when I first heard of the problem six and seven years ago, I thought it was preposterous. Imagine that, acid rain. Well, it's a real problem, and the scientific reports emerging over the years have persuaded me that I was wrong.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Scientists say New England's forests and lakes are suffering from acidic rain caused by pollution from heavy industry in the Midwest. Senator Humphrey now favors acid rain control and a cleanup of toxic waste sites. He's come to understand his constituents' concerns.

Sen. HUMPHREY: Well, I have freely admitted that I was skeptical about the problem of acid rain. That does not say, however, that I have recently become concerned about acid rain, as my opponent has charged. That is not true. I cosponsored the very first acid rain control bill ever introduced in the Senate, way back in 1981. That's hardly a recent conversion on my part. And I regret very much that my opponent has distorted my record and really misled my constituents on this point.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The acid rain problem is something which particularly troubles science teacher Doug McLane, who tells his students that New Hampshire could lose its lakes and forests if the polluted rain continues to fall.

DOUG McLANE, science teacher: In real terms, the rain coming on this lake and a lot of New England is more than 100 times as acid as it used to be. And if it got a little more acid, it would be like raining lemon juice. If acid rain were red or Day-Glo green or something, people wouldn't stand for it.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Doug McLane's environmental concerns helped him choose a Senate candidate.

Mr. McLANE: That's an easy one for me. It's Norm d'Amours. He's been working for, I believe it's six years, a long, quiet struggle, trying to get good acid rain legislation before the Congress. And Mr. Humphrey would like people to believe he's been doing that all along, and I know he hasn't.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: But some of Gordon Humphrey's constituents believe the Senator should be rewarded for his change of heart.

GEORGE ZINK, environmentalist: I'm not concerned about his changing his mind, provided he changes his mind in support of those things which the people of New Hampshire want. And if he has learned from experience that people want these things and he is willing to change his position, I say more power to him. Emerson said something about a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds. And I guess he's shown us that he doesn't have a little mind.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Recent polls commissioned by station WMUR-Manchester show Republican Humphrey maintaining a clear lead over Democrat d'Amours. That's due primarily to a strong economy and a popular President, says University of New Hampshire pollster David Moore, who believes d'Amours' best hope of catching up lies in stressing the environment.

DAVID MOORE, pollster: One might have expected, given the Republican dominance in the state and given the very good performance that the President, as a Republican, and that our governor, as a Republican, are doing in the state, you might have expected the Senate race to be a runaway for the Republican incumbent. But I think it's been both a combination of the personal characteristics of d'Amours as well as the issues that he's stressed, one of which happens to be the environment -- a key one, as a matter of fact -- that have made the difference in the race so far.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Senator Humphrey's strongest issue is New Hampshire's thriving economy. But here the economy and environment are intertwined. Nature's not just something for the natives to behold, it's their bread and butter. Right now New Hampshire's one of the most prosperous states in the Union. Add the economy to the President's popularity, and prospects look bright for Gordon Humphrey. But in New Hampshire, when people go to vote, they often connect the economy with the environment.

LEHRER: That report by Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio. Robin? CIA Manual: Improper Conduct?

MacNEIL: We focus now on today's lead story: the uproar over the CIA manual reportedly distributed to the contras fighting in Nicaragua. President Reagan today asked the CIA to investigate the possibility of improper conduct in the publication of the manual, which gives detailed advice on how to wage war against the Nicaraguan government. The manual was clear as to its goal. "When infiltration and internal subjective control have developed in a manner parallel to other guerrilla activities, a commandante of ours will literally be able to shake up the Sandinista structure and replace it." While most of the manual instructs on the use of psychological tools, it does recognize the need for more direct action. "It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, police and state security officials. For psychological purposes it is necessary to take extreme precautions." What caused much of the uproar on Capitol Hill was the document's apparent advocacy of assassination. In calling for a complete report today, Senator Goldwater, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it might violate rules against U.S. participation in assassinations. One of the Democrats reacting strongly to the manual was Congressman James Shannon of Massachusetts.

Congressman, you called today for Mr. Casey's dismissal by the President. Why should he be dismissed?

Rep. JAMES SHANNON: Well, it's clear that Mr. Casey and the CIA have been deceiving the Congress. They've come to the Congress time and time again and said that the purpose of our operations in Nicaragua, the contras, support of the contras, is not to overthrow the Sandinista government. And yet as you just pointed out, that document indicates that the purpose is to replace the Sandinista government. He's been lying to the Congress. Secondly, I think that there are real questions as to whether or not the executive order which was issued by this President and his two predecessors, which said that the CIA shall not participate in acts of political assassination and shall not encourage those acts of political assassination, have been violated by this document.

MacNEIL: Let's take these points one at a time. First of all, how are you sure that this document was actually written by the CIA and distributed to the contras in Nicaragua?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, they have not denied that it was written by them, nor have they denied that it was distributed to the contras. Now, whether or not it was distributed to the contras, we're supposed to be the greatest democracy in the history of the planet. And does neutralizing of the public officials, inciting mob violence, creating martyrs and setting people out to get killed so that you can have martyrs for a counterrevolutionary cause, does that represent the values of the American people? I don't think so. And I think that there's a real question raised here, either as to whether or not this administration has been going around prescriptions of the Congress and deceiving the American people, or as to the competence of this President to continue in office.

MacNEIL: Now, are you saying Mr. Casey deceived the Congress? Or are you also saying that Mr. Casey deceived the President? Or are you alleging that President Reagan also shared in this purpose?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, somebody has to be held accountable. And if the President didn't know about these activities and if the CIA is once again a rogue elephant running off doing things without permission, then Casey should be fired summarily, and perhaps others as well. If not, if the President of the United States knew of these activities and encouraged them and supported them, then I think that raises a very serious question about whether or not he's been coming clean with the American people and the Congress.

MacNEIL: Well, both the White House and U. N. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, we heard earlier on our program, said today that assassination is definitely not part of U.S. policy. Are you not satisfied with those declarations?

Rep. SHANNON: It's nice of them to say that. However, the document which we have obtained indicates that assessination was in fact contemplated in this manual prepared by the CIA for the contras in Nicaragua. And so, you know, if they're saying one thing, and if in fact they're producing manuals calling for another thing, I think an explanation is deserved and I think it's deserved very quickly, as Senator Goldwater said.

MacNEIL: Are you satisfied with the President's call for an investigation today?

Rep. SHANNON: I am not satisfied with his call for an investigation. I think the American people deserve an answer before the election, and I think that we deserve an answer that comes from someone other than those within the Central Intelligence Agency. And I'd like to see him go further and very quickly state his case to the American people as to what this manual is all about. It's abhorrent. It is as Congressman Boland says, it espouses the doctrine of Lenin, not Jefferson, and we deserve an answer as to what goes on here.

MacNEIL: Thank you, we'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: For a different view of it, Ray Cline, former CIA deputy director. He also served from '69 to '73 as director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He is now a senior associate at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington.

Mr. Cline, is this the kind of thing the CIA ought to be doing?

RAY CLINE: You know, I'm not very clear what the CIA has done with respect to this document. The Congressman seemed to be very wrought up about it, but I've seen an awful lot of guerrilla handbooks of this sort which tend to be of the same kind -- they're written mostly by Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh and various communist revolutionaries.I think we should find out how the contras got the document, what use it was. I don't see it as a very clear form of instruction by anybody in the American government to do anything. We all know the contras are working against the Sandinista government. We know that the President within his constitutional authorities has been giving some assistance through the CIA, perhaps for other purposes, to the contras. I must say, I am particularly surprised at the congressman's statement that the CIA is again a rogue elephant. I never thought I'd hear the Intelligence Committee people say that after Frank Church said it when he began his investigation and then retracted it in his formal investigation of the CIA. So let's find out what has been happening before we have impeachments and Casey dismissals. I suspect this is not a very sinister document, nor will it have very much to do with CIA.

LEHRER: You don't think it'll have anything to do with the CIA?

Mr. CLINE: I think the fact that the contras have such a document or the CIA may have helped them get their hands on such a document, does not mean the CIA has asked them to do anything specific in the book, and I am sure the CIA would not ask them to commit an assassination.

LEHRER: Why are you so sure?

Mr. CLINE: Because the guidelines of the CIA since 1976 have made clear that they should not do so, and in fact, CIA never did commit an assassination, despite all the speculation about it and the fact that two presidents once suggested that they undertake to do so.

LEHRER: You do not believe, then, one of Congressman Shannon's alternatives here, or scenarios, was that the CIA is doing this all on its own, not telling Congress or possibly even the President?

Mr. CLINE: I think that's preposterous. I think that Frank Church was right after his two-year investigation, which Walter Mondale sat in on, when they said that if anything, CIA was guilty of following its instructions from presidents who wanted them to commit assassinations. In fact, they failed even to carry out those orders. I don't think CIA has ever been in the assassination business, and I'm very sure that they didn't instruct the contras to commit assassinations.

LEHRER: But back to my first question, that if this document or this handbook on guerrilla warfare included -- there's no question that it includes that words, that if the CIA just did what you said, possibly, helped get it to the contras that we're supporting -- you do not find that reprehensible or anything?

Mr. CLINE: I don't think so. As I say, I can find such a handbook on any library shelf here in Washington. I can find a lot of it in Spanish. I suspect that the contras did in fact ask somebody, perhaps the CIA, for the classical literature on how to run a guerrilla operation, and the book included these statements, which are characteristic of the way the Vietcong in Vietnam and other places ran operations. But I don't see that as a CIA order to do anything.

LEHRER: Do you smell any U.S. presidential politics in the timing?

Mr. CLINE: I smell a lot. And I also smell the fact that, as we all know, the House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee has been against any support for the contras in Nicaragua or any attack on the Sandinistas. And I am really surprised that that very careful Intelligence Committee has released a document of this size -- kind, which is being quoted out of context as far as I can see.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Congressman, why has your very careful committee done that?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, first of all, let me say that it wasn't released by the Intelligence Committee. It was released, as I understand it, by the Associated Press. But secondly, let me say, I am astounded that Mr. Cline would equate the leaders of our country to Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. That's the essential point. We aren't a communist country. We are an open society. We've been respected for our values around the world for 200 years because we have respect for human life and liberties, and here we go -- and I know, Mr. Cline, you haven't read this document, but I'd be glad to give you my copy of it, because I have another copy --

Mr. CLINE: I hope you will, so we can be sure what we're talking about.

Rep. SHANNON: This calls for assassination. And if it was published by the CIA and if it was distributed by the CIA, I think it's in violation of the law and I think the American people have a right to know why it is that the law was violated.

Mr. CLINE: If I gave you a book on birth control, would I be ordering you to use some particular form of contraception? I think you're taking a very routine document in the guerrilla business and pretending that it's an American order.

Rep. SHANNON: Let me just suggest that before you characterize this document, that you read it. I've read it, you haven't, and when you read it I think you'll come to the same conclusion that I and others who've read it have come to. This calls for illegal acts and it is not --

Mr. CLINE: But by who? By whom?

Rep. SHANNON: -- consistent with --

Mr. CLINE: Who calls for it?

Rep. SHANNON: By, whoever wrote the document.

Mr. CLINE: It says "Tatayan" on the front. Who is Tatayan?

Rep. SHANNON: We have had no denial from the CIA. As a matter of fact, the CIA has confirmed that this document was written by the CIA. The question is whether or not it was distributed.

MacNEIL: Congressman, what about Mr. Cline's other point? He was sure the CIA would never ask the contras to commit assassination, because assassination in against the guidelines and the CIA's been obeying them.

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I guess the question is, have they been obeying them? And does the distribution of this pamphlet, this manual, if it was distributed, violate that executive order? I think that's a question that is legitimately raised and which the CIA and the President of the United States should respond to.

MacNEIL: Isn't that a legitimate question to raise, Mr. Cline?

Mr. CLINE: I have no objection to raising the question. I just object to having what -- all I have been able to see has been the allegations in the press, obviously coming from the House Intelligence Committee, that it is already a case proved against the CIA. I suggest that --

Rep. SHANNON: Well, no one in the Intelligence Committee said that.

Mr. CLINE: -- that's not true. Well, you just said it. You said it was a rogue elephant, which it never has been.

Rep. SHANNON: I'm not on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Cline, but nobody on the Intelligence Committee --

Mr. CLINE: Well, all right.

Rep. SHANNON: Nobody on the Intelligence Committee has made the allegation.

Mr. CLINE: I wouldn't like -- I don't like to see any congressmen making such allegations without having some evidence.

MacNEIL: Congressman, what about Mr. Cline's further point, that it is preposterous, to use his words, that the CIA would be operating on its own, deceiving the Congress or even the White House?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, then I think that that raises questions about the White House and about the leadership of this country. I'd like to believe that the President of the United States would never allow such a document to be produced by our intelligence agency. But there is a question raised here. If he knew about it, if he knew the CIA was in fact counseling these kinds of activities, killings, then there are real questions about the leadership of the country. If he didn't know about it, there are real questions about his competence to control the administration, the government and the Central Intelligence Agency.

MacNEIL: I know you don't speak for the White House, Mr. Cline, but do you have any observation on the relationship between the CIA and the White House or the presidency that could be relevant to what you just heard?

Mr. CLINE: I feel that the White House is establishing the guidelines and the operational instructions for the CIA, that the CIA is following them very carefully. I am struck by the fact that the front page of this manual, which is all I've seen, says "psychological operations." It doesn't say "a manual for murdering people." The fact that it does, in a kind of iffy way, according to the quotations, discuss the possibility of neutralizing officials and using some of the jargon of what is essentially Leninist literature, doesn't impress me as being a serious act by the CIA authorized by the President or carried out in definance of their instructions.

MacNEIL: What about Mr. Cline's point, Congressman, that there's a strong smell of presidential politics about this?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think this is a legitimate issue. I think our policy in Central America should be squarely on the table before this election and we should have the facts. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We are a democracy here, Mr. MacNeil, and people can decide on the basis of the facts whether they want these policies to continue. These are very, very serious statements that are made in this manual. If in fact it is a CIA document, then I think the President has some explaining to do.

MacNEIL: Is it naive to think, Mr. Cline, that all protestations to the contrary, that assassination and other uses of force like this are never part of American policy?

Mr. CLINE: No, I don't think that's naive. I think the flirtation with assessination in the late '50s and early '60s, which was brought out in the Church committee inquiry and, as I say, did not result in any real assassinations, were an aberration in our national behavior. I think it was decided very clearly in the mid-'70s that we would not authorize such operations and that therefore I think it is logical, not naive, to believe that they have been avoided ever since that time. And I do not believe that a manual about murders or assassinations means that the CIA or the President has instructed anybody to carry them out.

MacNEIL: Congressman?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I will just say that we've had some real concerns about the operation in Nicaragua. There's been a raging debate in this country for the last four years. There have been allegations of failure to disclose essential facts to the Congress in the past. And as to the question of whether or not this is a partisan effort going on, you know, I think we can cite Senator Goldwater, who's clearly not a liberal Democrat, who wants to see this matter cleared up. That's what I'm asking for too, and that's what others on Capitol Hill are asking for -- some answers, and some answers quickly.

MacNEIL: Well, Congressman Shannon and Ray Cline, thank you both for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Tonight President Reagan is in New York City. He's a featured speaker at a traditional election-year event, the Alfred E. Smith dinner sponsored by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of New York. This year the President will not share the stage with his challenger. Democrat Walter Mondale decided to stay in Washington and prepare for Sunday's debate. The dinner is billed as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical evening. But some eyebrows were raised when the dinner organizing committee refused to let Geraldine Ferraro take Mondale's place at the head table. Ms. Ferraro and New York Archbishop John O'Connor have duelled publicly over her views on abortion. That issue, the relationship of religion to politics, is the subject now for Time magazine essayist Roger Rosenblatt.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: You'd think there would be more of a national outcry against those who seek to impose religion on government. Jerry Falwell, the TV evangelists, some Catholic bishops, even the President. Total them up and you still have a small minority. Why has the American majority, including the majority of churches, remained so silent on this issue? Could be cowardice, of course. Could be laziness. It could also be that most Americans, while disapproving of religion in politics, still feel the need for an expression of national morality. And the inappropriate door of foisting church on state is the one that has been opened.

Those who would like to see religion exert more control over government claim that the founding fathers intended it that way. They are nearly right. In setting up the nation, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison sought to separate church and state so that no sectarian God could bestride the capital. They may also have wanted to preserve the new nation's delicate balances. Federal power versus state power was another way of pitting reason against passion. Religions run on passion. Permit church to permeate state and the balance swings against reason.

Yet the founders wanted God somewhere in the picture. No single church's God, but a kindly, fairminded deity, a guide to moral conduct. Thus there arose the national God, the God in our civil religion. You've seen him. He's the one you pledge allegiance to or have called upon in a war. Big fellow, gentle, flexible, but no pushover. Spencer Tracy could have played him. Does he sanction money making? Certainly, but only if riches are tempered with charity. Is this God a Christian? For the most part, though he tries not to look overtly Christian. In paintings such as Grant Wood's you've seen his church: classic, serene, but with no cross showing. In movies he delivers one-liners and dispatches angels, but remains deliberately ambiguous. A generalist, scholars would call him. His good book is the Constitution; his psalms were written by Walt Whitman; decent citizens make up his clergy.

To this God the nation turns in times of extreme confusion, guilt or danger. And it may be doing so these days, using the convenient, if entirely unsuitable, wedge of mixing religion and politics. Like the founding fathers, most Americans abhor the idea of the state becoming a church. But they do seek the solace of a national covenant with a being who cares for the country. Why should this matter seem so urgent now? Several reasons. For one, people are scared, deep down scared of things they've done to themselves. The earth quaked when Darwin shook it with The Origin of Species. Now it quakes with new origins of the species -- test-tube babies, surrogate mothers, genetic sleight of hand. It quakes with the mysteries attached to abortion and the right to die. It quakes with the great computer revolution fully grown upon the world before the world knows what to do with it. Apple indeed. Is God in a machine? Is there a real God in the house?

Then there's the battle of nuclear war. Never goes away, that war. Never comes, never goes. Perhaps the impulse toward religion in politics bespeaks the public's general helplessness in the arms race or in foreign policy. A few weeks ago Beirut again, the U.S. Embassy a sitting duck. Or general helplessness per se. All right, we once allowed the holocaust to work its evil. Knowing that, why did we do nothing about Pol Pot in Cambodia. Knowing that, why is sub-Saharan Africa starving at this hour? Is it guilt that propels this seeking of the spirit? Residual guilt over Vietnam? The national God approved not of that war. Guilt for the American poor, exacerbated at times of apparent prosperity? Lead thou us on.

Any or all of the above might serve to encourage the desire for closer relations between church and state. The trouble is, of course, that if such a marriage were ever to take place, we would wind up solving none of the major problems that inspire this wish and would only create one more mess bigger than the others. In the end, national morality and religion in politics really have nothing to do with each other. Better to sort things out. Better to confront the main problems squarely, no matter how impossible they appear. Those who would corrupt the state with church ought to be out on a limb, alone and insignificant. They would be there now if the rest of us felt less alone and insignificant.

LEHRER: The words of Roger Rosenblatt.

Vice President George Bush had some unanticipated excitement late today. His plane, Air Force Two, was forced to quickly drop 200 feet to avoid colliding with a small plane which crossed in its flight path. The near-miss happened as Bush's plane was landing at Seattle's Boeing Field. Once on the ground, the Vice President continued campaigning.

Again, the other major stories of this Thursday. Amidst an uproar from Congress, President Reagan ordered an investigation of a manual prepared for CIA-backed rebels in Nicaragua.

There was good economic news. Personal income and consumer buying are up, and so are the prospects for lower oil prices.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with another. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.