The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MC NEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, a fire was reported on board a Soviet nuclear powered submarine in the Norwegian Sea, President Bush ordered the military to help in the cleanup of the Alaskan oil spill, Mr. Bush refused to discuss his role in a secret plan to aid the Nicaraguan Contras. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we lead first again today with the Oliver North trial. We get an update from Nina Totenberg on North's second day on the stand, then discuss the new revelations about President Bush's role in aiding the Nicaraguan Contras with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and former Tower Commission member Edmund Muskie, next, a News Maker interview with Israeli PrimeMinister Yitzhak Shamir, and finally Essayist Jim Fisher on murder in America's heartland.NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: A nuclear powered Soviet submarine traveling in the Norwegian Sea has had an accident underwater. It has caught fire and possibly sunk and some crew members have been killed. This word came late today from U.S. officials who said that Soviet ships and aircraft were being sent to the scene. It was unclear whether the sub's nuclear power plant was affected, but even if it were, nuclear experts told the Newshour that the potential danger to the environment is minimal. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the sub appeared to be a so-called "Mike" submarine, one of the most modern nuclear attack subs in the Soviet fleet. The incident occurred in international waters north of the Arctic Circle. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: President Bush today ordered the military to help clean up the Alaska oil spill. The President said the action would not free Exxon of legal liability from the grounding of its tanker Valdez. Mr. Bush said the ultimate goal of the cleanup would be the complete restoration of the area's ecology and economy, but he said that effort would be massive, prolonged and frustrated. He was asked at today's news conference if the spill would threaten oil exploration.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think that you can predicate a sound national energy policy on aberration that seemed to have taken place in Prince William Sound, and for those that do, I say please let me follow logically. Are you suggesting because of the alleged human error of a pilot of a ship in Prince William Sound that we shut down all the offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico? Is that the suggestion? If so, I oppose it.

MS. WOODRUFF: During that same news conference the President refused to answer questions about his newly revealed role in enlisting secret aid for the Nicaraguan Contras during the Reagan administration. Mr. Bush told reporters that saying anything might jeopardize the ongoing trial of former White House aide Oliver North. The President added, however, that the information released yesterday in a court document had earlier been made available to the Iran/Contra Congressional Committee and the special prosecutor. At the trial, North conceded today that he lied to members of Congress about the Reagan administration activities on behalf of the Contras, but testified that he didn't think what he had done was unlawful. North said he had been told by higher ups not to reveal what he knew.

MR. MacNeil: The nation's unemployment rate dipped slightly last month to 5 percent, the lowest level in more than 15 years. That improvement was tempered by news of a slowing in the growth of new jobs. While some new jobs were created in service industries, manufacturing and construction lost jobs, reflecting the impact of higher interest rates. Junk bond dealer Michael Milken was arraigned today in New York Court. The former Drexel Burnham executive and two associates pleaded innocent to fraud and racketeering charges involving some of the largest corporate takeovers in the last decade. If convicted, Milken could face fines of nearly $2 billion and 520 years in jail.

MS. WOODRUFF: In London today, Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced that his country is stopping its production of a kind of uranium used in making nuclear weapons. In a speech delivered in Guild Hall and broadcast live throughout Great Britain, Gorbachev called the move another step forward in the direction of stopping the use of fissionable materials for use in weapons. He went on to make a strong appeal for world disarmament.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I believe that it is high time that instead of speaking of how to deter others with nuclear weapons we spoke of how to deter, to keep in check nuclear weapons themselves. It means putting an end to the accumulation and upgrading of those weapons.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Washington and Europe, officials reacted to Gorbachev's announcement by saying it would not have an a major impact on the Soviet Union's ability to wage war, because the Soviets have enough other nuclear material on hand to produce more weapons if needed. Rhetoric between the two super powers heated up still further today when U.S. officials leveled new eavesdropping charges against the Soviets. Officials accused the Soviets of putting listening devices in the U.S. Consulate in Leningrad and said the American people resented what they call such hostile attempts at intelligence gathering.

MR. MacNeil: A Greyhound bus was hijacked in Montreal today as it was on its way to New York. A man took over the bus and had it driven to Canada's Parliament in Ottawa, where it was parked on the front lawn. He claimed to have dynamite, threatened to blow up the bus and said he wanted to talk to the news media. There were several hostages aboard. Police sharp shooters surrounded the bus. Some witnesses said the heard shots, but it was not clear whether anybody had been hurt.

MS. WOODRUFF: There was an outbreak of violence today at one of the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem. We have a report from Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

LOUISE BATES: Moslems' Sabbath day prayers in Jerusalem have traditionally been a flash point, but with the start of the Islamic feast of Ramadam, the Israelis drafted in extra police and troops. As the worshippers filed out of the dome of the Rock Mosque, some PLO supporters unveiled their flags. This is the third holiest shrine in the Islamic world and a flash point in Jerusalem. When Israeli border police and army units moved in, the running street battles began. Stones were thrown at security forces and at one stage Palestinian demonstrators tried to get through to Jewish worshipers praying at the Wailing Wall. The soldiers and police opened up with rubber bullets and tear gas. Most of the demonstrators fled but sporadic clashes continued, leaving more than a dozen people injured, including five policemen.

MS. WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization today criticized Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's new proposal for holding elections on the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat told reporters that Shamir's plan is inappropriate, that what is needed instead is the international peace conference he has been pushing for. For his part, Shamir in an interview with the Newshour today stood by his election proposal and he said the election would not lead to representation for the PLO.

YITZHAK SHAMIR, Israeli Prime Minister: I don't think they will be members of the PLO because according to my proposal, the elected people will let them know and accept the principles of the agreement about the elections. The purpose is to be, to get a solution acceptable to both parties. I don't think it is in the line of the PLO.

MS. WOODRUFF: We'll have the rest of our interview with Mr. Shamir later in the Newshour.

MR. MacNeil: El Salvador's President-Elect was also in Washington today. Alfredo Cristiani began a six day visit to this country designed to counter U.S. fears that his government would be associated with right wing death squad activity. He met this afternoon with President Bush in the Oval Office. Afterwards, he told reporters that he received assurances of support from the Bush administration.

ALFREDO CRISTIANI, President-Elect, El Salvador: President Bush was again reconfirming the fact that the administration was going to work and help our government in El Salvador, and also from my part the reiteration that we are dedicated to continue the consolidation of democracy in El Salvador, the respect for human rights, and all that that entails, and that we believe there could be a very productive relationship between both countries for the benefit of both countries.

MR. MacNeil: In other foreign news, independence plans for the Southwest African nation of Namibia seemed to take a step backward today as fighting intensified between South African-led troops and nationalist guerrillas. Pretoria warned that elections in Namibia scheduled for November would have to be postponed. South Africa also asked the United Nations for permission to send more troops to Namibia.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead, Oliver North on the witness stand, George Bush's Contra connection, Israel's Yitzhak Shamir, and Jim Fisher on murder in America's heartland. UPDATE - DAY IN COURT

MS. WOODRUFF: Our lead story tonight is Oliver North's trial. The former White House aide took the stand for a second day and under direct questioning from his own lawyer, North admitted that he had lied to members of Congress about his aid to the Contras, but said that he didn't think it was illegal. Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent for National Public Radio was in the courtroom and now she joins us. Nina, what was the thrust today of North's testimony?

NINA TOTENBERG, National Public Radio: Well, for those of you out there who watched the Iran-Contra hearings, this was an entirely different Oliver North. Gone was that combative, belligerent, almost proud witness who testifies, as I said, almost with some pride about lying to Congress. Here was a remorseful, sincere, soft spoken witness, testifying about how he had been ordered to violate this own personal code of conduct, he'd been ordered to do that by his superiors, to lie to Congress in various forms, in first eye to eye testimony to the Congress, and that was the image he portrayed, and he said this was part of the political process, however, as much as he didn't want to lie, it never occurred to him that it was illegal.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying he was attempting to put it in more of a context than what we saw during the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings?

MS. TOTENBERG: That's right, and while at the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings he said, yes, I lied, but I lied with a purpose, today he said, I think I'm accurately quoting him, "I felt like a pawn in a game of chess played by giants.".

MS. WOODRUFF: Now who were the giants he's referring to? I mean, he named names.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right. The first series of lies that he told, he said, he was ordered to tell by National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. And he testified that when the letters from Congress started coming in saying what's North up to that he, North, wanted the President to invoke executive privilege and to refuse to answer those questions. He wanted the President to say this is none of your business, under the Constitution, this is an improper, Congressional intrusion on the Presidency and he kept urging that position on McFarlane, but finally, McFarlane said to him, I've talked to the President about this and your approach is far too confrontational and I want you to answer these letters, A, B, C, and D, and North said, he knew, I told him that he was asking me to give answers, just tell these people that I was doing things, that I was not doing things that I was doing, that he had ordered me to do, but any way, he told me to go ahead and do it, and so I did it.

MS. WOODRUFF: And was he saying, so, it was okay?

MS. TOTENBERG: He said that it wasn't okay, but that he didn't like it, that he would have preferred to have refused to answer, but that it wasn't illegal, and he said further than that that McFarlane ordered him to at one point fix his own memos, fix it so that they wouldn't reflect what he had been doing. Now that directly contradicts McFarlane's testimony. McFarlane said, I didn't understand these memos when I reviewed them and he told me that I'd misunderstood them and I took his word for it.

MS. WOODRUFF: McFarlane apparently said -- the memos had been changed.

MS. TOTENBERG: Yes, and that he then told him, no, you can't do that. He, McFarlane, said, I checked whether we could change memos and you can't just change them, so I didn't do it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now one of the things Oliver North is charged with in this case is lying to members of Congress. Now he's sat there on the stand -- where does that leave the case against him if he sits there and says I'm guilty?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, part of the case will rest, I suspect, with the judge's instructions on criminal intent, and he kept saying over and over, I didn't intend to do anything illegal, I didn't know it was illegal, I just thought this the normal part of the political process. He was sort of half saying, they lie to us, we lie to them if need be, I didn't like it, but I certainly never thought it was illegal, and probably the most emotional part of the testimony came when he was talking about the meeting he had with Congress, members of the House Intelligence Committee, on instructions from Admiral John Poindexter who by then had succeeded McFarlane as his boss at the National Security Council, and North testified that he didn't want to have this meeting, that he thought it was unwise, but that Poindexter told him, look, you can handle it, go ahead and do it, and we have to do this to quell these inquiries from Congress, so he had this meeting, and Oliver North's lawyer said to him, did you tell the truth at that meeting, and he said, "No, I did not.". Judy, he then said, he was looking down at his hands, he looked away from his own lawyer, his voice was choking, he said, "I was raised to know the difference between right and wrong. I knew it wasn't right not to tell the truth, but I didn't think it was unlawful," and as I say, he said, "I felt like a pawn in a chess game played by giants.".

MS. WOODRUFF: Now, Nina, you've been sitting through this whole trial. How do you explain the change in demeanor, what you're seeing today and yesterday compared with the Oliver North that we saw during the Congressional hearings?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, the I suppose calculated answer to that is that these are different forums or fora, I guess is the right word. When he was in Congress, he was testifying as essentially an adversary and it worked. We all know that his popularity soared. He became the hero of those hearings in popular opinion, certainly not everybody's opinion, but the majority of people who watched those hearings felt that he was being bullied by the committee and he gave back better than he got. This is a completely different forum. He is on trial, in essence, for his life. He could go to jail for up to 60 years in prison, and he has to convince those nine women and three men that he is not guilty of 12 distinct crimes that he is charged with, and I think probably the only way that he might do that is to show that he was forced into doing something he didn't want to do but he didn't think was illegal.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Well, now you've heard his testimony, you've heard all the testimony that led up to North. Is what he's saying holding together? Does it make sense? Is it believable?

MS. TOTENBERG: It's very believable, but it's, of course, direct testimony. It hasn't been tested under cross-examination. And I have to say that the jury based on this, listening to him, will have to decide whether he's lying or Robert McFarlane is lying. There's just no two ways about it. And the performance we saw from Robert McFarlane was not very convincing. The judge even instructed the jury that his statements were so inconsistent that the jury could disregard his testimony if they wish.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's McFarlane's testimony?

MS. TOTENBERG: McFarlane's testimony.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now, what was the jury's reaction while North was speaking and particularly during the emotional moment you mentioned a minute ago?

MS. TOTENBERG: They watch him very closely. He is a terrific witness. He really makes contact with people. My impression of him sitting in that courtroom is entirely different than it was watching him on TV. My feelings -- reporters try not to have feelings, but my feelings are not nearly what they were watching him on TV. He is a far more sympathetic figure. He is just a much more believable person. This is an account that is believable, but it is as yet completely untested.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is the judge having much to say during all of this, or is pretty much North's attorney, Brendan Sullivan, leading North on with questions and having him --

MS. TOTENBERG: In fact, there was only one bad moment for North I thought today and it was when he was asked a question and the prosecution objected and North then in a sort of smarty pants kind of way got the answer in through the back door at which the prosecutor got up and said, "I withdraw my objection and congratulate Col. North for getting in his statement anyway," and the judge said, "I don't congratulate somebody who violates my orders.". That was his only, I thought, misstep today and the judge is after all God in this courtroom and he has been very much the dominating presence. He's wonderful with the jury.

MS. WOODRUFF: This is Gerhard Gesell.

MS. TOTENBERG: Gerhard Gesell. He has a wonderful sense of humor, and he has completely been sympathetic to North, so for him to say something like that, it was a clear rebuke for walking across the line.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is this the end of direct testimony?

MS. TOTENBERG: No, there's more on Monday. We're not done yet, and then we go to cross-examination.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you have any idea who will come to the stand after North? They've pretty much played their parts close to the vest until now.

MS. TOTENBERG: I would imagine that this is pretty much the end of the defense case, but then I would imagine that this will open up the prosecution to put on quite a lengthy rebuttal case, quite a number of witnesses, and that's why it's a big gamble for the defense. The prosecution may now well be able to gain evidence that there was a trust fund set up for North's children with some of the profits of the Iran-Contra affair, or the fact that he was third in line controlling those Swiss bank accounts. The prosecution may get in some stuff that it wasn't able to get in before and because North has taken the witness stand, he has waived his right against self-incrimination, and he has had to turn over his 16 notebooks to the prosecution. This is the first time those notebooks will be looked at in their entirety by an adversary. Congress did not have them; they had only excerpts.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Nina, once again, we thank you for being with us.

MS. TOTENBERG: You're welcome. CONTRA CONNECTION

MR. MacNeil: The North trial has also revealed new information about the efforts of the Reagan administration, including then Vice President Bush, to aid the Contras. A court document released yesterday described Bush as the intermediary who personally told the President of Honduras in 1985 that extra aid was being funneled to his country as payment for helping the Contras. At a press conference in Washington today, President Bush refused to answer questions about whether his actions violated the spirit of a Congressional amendment specifically banning military aid to the Contras.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Look. I am not going to comment on any aspect of the North trial while it's in progress. If I even commented on your question, it could prejudice the trial and that would be totally unfair, and I would note that of all the material that you seem to be referring to and that has been introduced, all the material that was introduced yesterday, material you're referring to, has been available to the Independent Counsel and the Iran-Contra Committee and has been reviewed by them for any special significance. So I believe the legal process ought to run unfettered without you or me endangering the trial process that's going on right now, and that's the last question I'll take on that subject.

MR. MacNeil: Ever since news of the Iran-Contra affair broke three years ago, Mr. Bush has repeatedly denied any knowledge of any illegal diversion of funds to the Contras.

GEORGE BUSH: [December 3, 1986] I was aware of our Iran initiative and I support the President's decision, and I was MNEIL not aware of and I oppose any diversion of funds, any ransom payments, or any circumvention of the will of the Congress or the law of the United States of America, and as the various investigations proceed, I have this to say, let the chips fall where they may. We want the truth, the President wants it, I want it, and the American people have a fundamental right to it.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now to look at George Bush's role in aiding the Contras are two men who have investigated the Iran-Contra scandals for two different government. Former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie was on the Presidentially-appointed Tower Commission and Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch was on the Congressional Iran-Contra Committee. Sen. Hatch joins us from Capitol Hill. Mr. Muskie, how important is the revelation that George Bush solicited aid for the Contras from Honduras?

EDMUND MUSKIE, Tower Commission: Well, I think it is first of all important because so far as I am concerned, it is a new revelation, new information, but how significant that is I think depends upon how much more needs to be told or needs to be learned about the significance of his visit to Honduras, for example.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Hatch, we just heard the President saying all these materials had been made available to the Iran-Contra Committee before, you were a member of that Committee, is this new to you?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: [Capitol Hill] No, I think these matters were known and I don't see any problems with them. The real issue was diversion of funds, and there is absolutely no evidence that I've ever seen or I think anybody on the Committee ever saw or anybody has seen that either President Reagan or George Bush knew anything about the diversion of funds. It's no secret that the prior administration, the President, himself, and President Bush to a limited degree were trying to raise funds for the Contras throughout some of the process and there is no secret that they supported the Contras very strongly.

MR. MacNeil: You say the issue was diversion of funds, but we just heard Mr. Bush say in 1986, he was against any circumvention of the will of the Congress. Wouldn't going to Honduras and saying we'll give you more aid if you'll continue to help the Contras be a circumvention of the will of the Contras?

SEN. HATCH: Not really, because keep in mind that the Congress sometimes acts as though it's the only branch of government. There are three separated branches of government, each with co-equal power. The executive branch of government has charge of foreign policy. Now we in Congress can withhold funds so that we can force them to do some foreign policy matters, but the only two items that come into dispute here are No. 1, the Boland Amendment, which MNEIL was

in effect in 1985, with regard to the evidence that appeared today in the admission document of 42 pages, and the so-called Pell Amendment. Under the Boland Amendment, the fact of the matter is that nobody that I know on the Committee or really anybody with a substantial knowledge of constitutional law believes that the Boland Amendment was applicable to the President of the United States or the Vice President. They had a right to conduct foreign policy and to support the freedom fighters if they thought that was a valid policy. No. 2, the Pell Amendment said that you could not provide assistance to another nation as a sole condition for their assistance to the Contras. Well, in this particular case had been provided economic assistance by the United States for years and certainly, it would be a very difficult case to say that the sole reason we provided assistance back in 1985 was so they would help the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. So it really doesn't apply to either President Bush or the present President Bush or former President Reagan.

MR. MacNeil: How do you read that, Mr. Muskie? I keep wanting to call you Sen. Muskie, because we did for so many years. Do you see that as a circumvention of the will of the Congress?

MR. MUSKIE: Well, the question as I understand it, largely from reading the news reports, is whether or not the Vice President's visit to Honduras had anything to do with the acceleration of aid to Honduras, and whether or not, if that were the case, it had anything to do with soliciting Honduras for aid to the Contras. That connection was clearly, if I read the reports accurately, that connection was clearly the answer or non-answer to the point as to whether or not it was an end run around the Boland Amendment.

SEN. HATCH: Well, let me read to you the Pell Amendment, because the Boland Amendment is out of the picture. I don't think anybody would argue that.

MR. MacNeil: I think you've made the point, Senator, haven't you, that the Pell Amendment said that if, you couldn't do it if it were the sole reason for the aid.

SEN. HATCH: Well, that's right. Basically it says you couldn't enter into any arrangement conditionally such aid on help to the Contras.

MR. MacNeil: And your point is that this wasn't the sole reason for giving aid to Honduras?

SEN. HATCH: Well, not only that, but I think the aid would have been given regardless of whether to help the Contras, but I'm sure that the President and the Vice President, one of their major goals was to keep the Contras alive and the only place they could is Honduras. And by the way, I think we're missing the major point. That fighting for the freedom fighters in Nicaragua to be based in Honduras and kept alive is probably the reason why we have the Baker plan in existence today and it may be the sole reason why we ultimately will have some peaceful resolution of this. So that should never be ignored and I think that's a very solid reason for the President and then Vice President to have supported Honduras.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Hatch, if it wasn't in violation of the Pell Amendment, what would lead James Baker, who was then Treasury Secretary, who was in a conference which is revealed in these papers who says he thought that activity would be an impeachable offense, the Attorney General, Griffin Bell, disagreed with him, but would it be so clear cut not a violation of the Pell Amendment to lead a lawyer, James Baker, to say this could be an impeachable offense, we better not do it?

SEN. HATCH: I'm not aware that Sec. Baker said that this sole activity, this one activity was possibly an impeachable offense. I think he was talking in terms of many aspects of this matter, including the diversion of funds. But be that as it may, I think there is a reasonable ground for anybody to argue that anybody who comes up and says the Pell Amendment makes what President Reagan did and Vice President Bush did to keep the freedom fighters alive wrong and a contravention to the Congress, I think there's a good argument that that just doesn't hold water.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Muskie, how do you feel about all this now as a member of the Tower Commission? Do you feel that you were misled about the scope of the administration's plans to seek third party aid?

MR. MUSKIE: First of all, I ought to make clear that the mandate of the Tower Board was to evaluate the performance of the National Security Council and the National Security staff as an institution, and using as the ground for examining that role not only the arms for hostages issue in this case, but also previous activities of the National Security Council. We were not able to pursue every line of inquiry opened up in the course of our examination. We did not and could not within the time available to us pursue the Iran-Contra connection. We opened up some of those lines of inquiry I think that were pursued subsequently by the Special Prosecutor and by the Congressional Committees. Now the issue that's involved here was not an issue that arose in our inquiry, that is, was an attempt made to suggest a connection between aid to the Contras and economic assistance to third countries, and from what I read in the papers today on this revelation that occurred in the North trial, the full story on that has not yet been told. Now whether or not the basic documents upon which this revelation was based tell us more about it, we on the Tower board are not in a position to say.

MR. MacNeil: Right. I don't think we can pursue this much further. Just in conclusion, Sen. Hatch, as more comes out MNEIL showing how much Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan did to help the Contras, leaving aside whether it was right or wrong, just what they did, does it help North's case in this trial do you think?

SEN. HATCH: I certainly do think it helps North's case. I think most people throughout the country believe that North was a pawn and may very well be a scapegoat here for actions of superiors that he was expected to fulfill, and it's a very difficult set of matters. For instance, this bit of lying to the Congress, not once was Oliver North under oath and never in the history of this country has the False Statements act, although it could be, never once has it been used by any prosecutor, to my knowledge, to indict or convict or prosecute or convict anybody who is not under oath. So to me, the man is being persecuted by a situation and a process that is now running into the tens of millions of dollars under circumstances that nobody would have ever been prosecuted had we used normal Justice Department procedures.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Muskie, do you see the new information as any vindication for North?

MR. MUSKIE: I would say that North's demeanor and his testimony today and yesterday is such to be very persuasive with the jury. Now if you're asking me the legal question has he, in fact, violated the law and the law here consists of the Boland Amendment and the Pell Amendment and that legislation, again, that depends upon the connection between the activities that he was involved in and the requirements of the law. And I don't think we have the full story of that yet. I don't think that what's been revealed up to this point is conclusive.

MR. MacNeil: Do you see, as Sen. Hatch does, Oliver North as a scapegoat in this case?

MR. MUSKIE: I think he was a very willing participant from everything that I've heard in the Congressional hearings and the reports of this trial.

MR. MacNeil: Senator.

SEN. HATCH: If I could add one other thing.

MR. MacNeil: Can you make it brief, Senator? We're just coming to the end of our time.

SEN. HATCH: I surely will. I think you have to be in the position of a lesser official in any of these agencies who is totally patriotic and trying to do his best duty, who is told what to do by superiors. They generally do it, and especially when they're not under oath, and frankly this isn't going to be the first time somebody in the executive department does not tell the truth to Congress. It hasn't been the first time, and I think that oath thing is a pretty important aspect.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Sen. Hatch, Edmund Muskie, thank you both for joining us. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour, a talk with Israel's Yitzhak Shamir, and some thoughts on murder in middle America. NEWS MAKER

MS. WOODRUFF: We go next tonight to Israel's new proposals for achieving peace in the Middle Easter, where the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation has entered its sixteenth violent month. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrapped up his visit to Washington today meeting with members of Congress one day after he presented to President Bush a plan for holding elections in the occupied territories. At his news conference this morning, the President was asked if he expected to get personally involved in trying to resolve the crisis in the Middle East.

PRESIDENT BUSH: If I felt that being immersed in it would help solve the problem of peace in the Middle East, I would do that. And I think you're right, there have been times when it appears that the President shouldn't be fully involved, but we've had two visits here now this week of President Mubarak, Prime Minister Shamir, we'll have a visit, forthcoming visit from King Hussein, and I'm going to give the same assurances to him I've given to Mubarak and Shamir and that is that if I personally can be helpful, I want to do it, and in the meantime, why, I will say that I can't say I'm elated, but in the Middle East, a little step sometimes can be, prove to be fruitful, and I think the climate is better than it's been in a while, but I would simply say it is a not a time when a lot of high visibility missions on the part of the President can accommodate, can be helpful in the process, but I want to leave you with the view that it is of deep concern to us, particularly the violence in the West Bank, and I think both leaders that I've talked to so far know my personal feelings on this, and we're not despairing. In fact, I hope the two visits have moved things forward a little bit.

MS. WOODRUFF: Before the Bush news conference, I talked with Prime Minister Shamir about his government's new proposal to sponsor elections among Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

MS. WOODRUFF: Thank you joining for us, Mr. Prime Minister. You have brought some suggestions to Washington but some people are saying these are not really new suggestions, that they're just warmed over materials from the Camp David Accord.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, no, no, everything like everything based on the Camp David Accords but there are some enlargements, some changes, some additions, but I must say that the Camp David Accords have been an excellent agreement, an excellent accord and it could still solve the cause of peace.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about the specifics of what you are proposing, elections. Who would be eligible to vote in the West Bank and the Gaza?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well the general idea is that the Palestinians who are living in the these areas, the inhabitants of these areas.

MS. WOODRUFF: And who would be eligible to be elected?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: The same, the same.

MS. WOODRUFF: Could they be members of the PLO?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I don't think they will be members of the PLO because according to my proposal, the elected people will have to know and accept the principles of the agreement about the election. They will have to know they are elected in order to conduct negotiations about an interim period of arrangements of self rule for a specific time, for a few years, and then afterwards there will be started a process of negotiations about the permanent status of the territories, the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with the clear purpose that the target of the negotiations, the purpose has to be to get a solution acceptable to both parties. I don't think it is in the line of the PLO.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you me it is not in the line of the PLO? What do you mean?

YITZHAK SHAMIR, Prime Minister, Israel: I think that the PLO is opposed to such elections and to this way of solving the problem. They are asking for a Palestinian state immediately.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if they were willing to participate, would Israel have a problem with their being elected as these interim representatives?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well maybe it would be a problem but all these details and many other details have to be discussed have to be discussed by the parties. What we have now proposed to the United States is the principles, the principles of such a proposal, of such a way to solve the conflict. Many details, many details have to be discussed and they will be discussed in the coming weeks.

MS. WOODRUFF: You say PLO participation may be a problem. What do you mean by MNEIL that?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: You know there will be people, there will be elected people who will oppose the principles of the agreement. It will give a, to the parties, it will give a problem, because we are looking for a solution, but anyhow, I don't think we have to speculate now about the various problems that could arise during the negotiations about all what concerns the elections.

MS. WOODRUFF: As you know, the Americans and others had urged you to arrange for some outside observers to be there during these elections. Will Israel accept the situation?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: We have not raised formally this question. There are some talks about it and I don't think we need foreign observers. I don't think it is a need because Israel is well known for its honest way of conducting democratic elections, democratic elections. In our country the Israel Arabs participate in the elections to the Knesset, and I don't remember any case of claims against the Israeli Government for distortion of the results of the elections.

MS. WOODRUFF: That is true, but the United States has a reputation, for example, of being observers of elections in other countries and if that observer situation becomes an obstacle to these elections taking place would Israel be willing to bend on that point?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Let us not look for obstacles now. We have to discuss all these details, as I said before, all the modalities and if there will arise some questions we'll have to give answers, argue about it, negotiate, and I hope that if there will be difficulties, we will overcome them.

MS. WOODRUFF: The reason I am asking this as you well know, in 1976, there were mayoral elections.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Yes.

MS. WOODRUFF: In the territories and right afterwards Israel threw out the people who had been elected and said we are not going to have any more elections. So some people wonder if Israel might do this again.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, you know, these '76 elections are an additional proof that the elections organized by Israel are honest and decent elections. And the fact is that Israel was compelled that time to do something against the results of these elections, but this is not the case, it is not same case as these elections we are talking now about. It is a different case. We don't speak now about municipal elections or the elections of this kind. What we are looking to establish by the elections is a representative delegation that will be able to negotiate on behalf MNEIL

of the inhabitants of these areas. It is a different story.

MS. WOODRUFF: And I understand you to say that Israel is willing to consider the notion of outside observers, foreign observers.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I wouldn't say so now because what I am entitled to do now is to bring before the United States Government proposal accepted and agreed by our government. When we will go to the other phase of handling this problem, we will have to consult in our government and establish our positions about the various problems that will arise.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do I understand you to say that Israel is committed, that this interim arrangement will lead to some sort of final solution one way or another?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I would say so. We propose negotiations in two stages about a solution of the problem, of the conflict between us and the Palestinian Arabs, one stage negotiations about establishing an interim period of self rule; that has to be a period of test. We have to test and to examine if some co-existence is possible, and then after a few years, we will have to start a second phase of the negotiations about the permanent status of this territories.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is Israel willing to accept the possibility down the road that that final solution might be an arrangement whereby Israel would give up control of those territories?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, I have explained precisely that there will be a negotiation without any pre- conditions. It means that every party will be entitled to bring all its proposals and all its ideas to the table of negotiations but the parties will have to accept and to and to agree on a solution that could be accepted, that will be accepted by both parties. I am ready to explain more. I can't imagine. I don't know if I will participate in such negotiations. It will be in the future, a few years and nobody knows whether we will be there but I can't imagine that the Israelis, the Israel representatives will propose Israeli sovereignty and the Arabs will propose Arab sovereignty, or let us say Palestinian sovereignty, it's the same, and then what will happen, they will have to continue to negotiate until they find an acceptable solution. Acceptable means acceptable to both parties. It's not easy, but I believe it's possible.

MS. WOODRUFF: It sounds to me as if you are saying the possibility is there that a final arrangement could be a situation where Israel relinquishes sovereignty.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: You know it is very difficult to arrive at such a conclusion. I think it is very difficult but the parties will have to agree.

MS. WOODRUFF: What was your reaction this week when you heard that President Bush had said that Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, I think if there will be an agreement between the parties, nobody will be able to speak about occupation. The agreement will be the result of the acceptance by both parties of the status of these territories. There will not be any occupation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that a change in policy on the part of the United States to say that?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I don't think that it is a change in the American policy and I don't think it is a change in our policy. We are committed to it since a long time. We are committed to this principle that the future status of these territories will be established as a result of negotiations between the parties and this is the principle.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, if this principle has long been accepted by Israel and the United States, why did Mr. Bush bother to make that point this week?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I don't think I have to comment on the position, the Israeli position of the President of the United States. It's up to him.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. Prime Minister, one other thing about these elections. What has to happen before they take place in terms of violence in the territories. You have said that it has to end. Do you mean it has to come to a complete end, what do you suggest?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I think that the parties are supposed to agree on this process and if they agree on this process and they will work together to organize and to launch elections, it's clear that there will not be any room for violence and disturbances. Everybody understands that in a climate and an environment of violence, it is not possible to hold elections.

MS. WOODRUFF: One other point on what President Bush said this week. Some people interpreted that as a hardening of the U.S. position toward Israel. Do you see it that way?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I don't think that it is a hardening. You know sometimes there are some differences of views between the United States and Israel and it is quite normal; you have some differences even among best friends, but in this case I don't see any real deep difference.

MS. WOODRUFF: One last point. This is the first time you have met with an American Leader U.S. Leader since the United States began to have discussions with the PLO. Did you raise this in your talks with President Bush or Secretary Baker?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Of course, I've explained very clearly my position. I don't use -- you know, it's not my way it's not my place to criticize friends and allies in public but when we talk together I feel that it is my duty to explain very sincerely my position and I've explained it.

MS. WOODRUFF: And it was?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, I am against it.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what was their reaction?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well they have their decision. They have taken a decision and they keep it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Since those talks are taking place, if you could direct what the United States was saying to the PLO, what would you say to them?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, not let me speculate about it. It's up to the United States. You know, my position, my position is a position of principle. I don't think that the United States has to talk with the PLO and since you are talking with them, I am not ready to take a position about a confidence of this sort.

MS. WOODRUFF: There is no message that you think the PLO should have from the United States, you could direct what the United States is saying to the PLO, what would you say to them?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: Well, let me not speculate about it, except the United States -- you know, my position, my position is a position of principles. I don't think that the United States should talk to the PLO and since you are talking with them, I am not ready to take any position at all.

MS. WOODRUFF: There's no message that you think the PLO should have from the United States?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: My message they know and the United States will know --

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean your message they know? What do you mean by that?

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: The PLO knows what -- they know that I don't trust them. I think that they have not -- I think that they've showed themselves. I think that the PLO is an obstacle for peace in the Middle East.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining us.

PRIME MINISTER SHAMIR: I thank you. ESSAY - KANSAS CITY KILLINGS

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, regular essayist Jim Fisher of the Kansas City Times looks a century of murder in his hometown.

JIM FISHER: This is about Kansas City, placed with one of those ragged skylines that mark 1980s urban America. Here is where George Brett plays baseball, where the football Chiefs stumble along, where they make Hallmark cards, the barbecue is the best, the people are friendly, and where the Chamber of Commerce promotes the slogan "One of the few livable cities left.". This is also about murder, not the battered wife who shoots her husband, or the rapist who kills his victim, nor even Kansas City's latest sensation, the serial killer who lured young men into his home, killed and dismembered them, then stood on the curb on trash days with his plastic bags, waiting for the compactor truck. This is about the other murders, the casual, senseless killings that in Kansas City are mirror images of what is happening in other American cities as drugs take over, the blanket covered body on the street amid the emergency lights, forms trammeled from some inner-city dwelling, the charred ruins of a house where six children, adults and an invalid woman died. Those latter killings were allegedly ordered by a 17 year old, 17 mind you, a crack dealer who paid $150 to two men to set the fire. The teenager was upset with the occupants because they were upset with his drug dealing. Murder, here as elsewhere, has become so casual, almost so predictable, and so linked to the epidemic that inexorably drives it, drugs. And no matter how upset people get and how much frustrating effort police expend trying to control it, it seems to go on and on. Murder these days isn't glamorous anymore. It used to be different. It used to be that newspapers and pop magazines and the movies made murders and murderers great figures of American mythology. In Kansas City, we had the die with your boots on, cult carrying Western desperados, including the James Boys, the Daltons and the Youngers. So what if Jesse shot a little girl when he robbed a Kansas City fair grounds? Many Kansas Citians went into mourning when that dirty little coward, Bob Ford, ventilated Jesse up in St. Joe in 1882. We had Bonnie and Clyde. The shootout at the Tourist Court in the movie happened near the airport here. We had Pretty Boy Floyd in the Union Station massacre where the bullets that mowed down five men and led to the arming of FBI agents plus several Hollywood treatments still marked the building's facade. We had and still have the mob. Kansas City even had Congressional racket hearings and our own Mafia representatives at the Appalachian, New York get-to-together. Naturally, we had the now and then gangland hit, including a couple of gang bosses who got crossways and ended up horizontal beneath then President Harry Truman's portrait. But for the most part, with the exception of domestic violence and the sometimes unintentional inclusion of others, they only killed each other. There was a certain marvelous style to it all, something that gave the newspaper subscriber and later the television viewer a vicarious thrill. Now it's changed. Last year, there were 136 homicides in Kansas City, scores of them related to drugs. In 1871, before Abilene, before Dodge City, when Western novels and the movies tell us there was a shootout on every corner, every hour, not a single Kansas Citian was a murder victim, not one. Now it's police cars and gaping crowds. It's tawdry deaths in the gutter or on some dilapidated porch, or in some roach-infested apartment. It's killing about much rhyme or reason, and the majority of people here, just like anywhere else, don't know where to turn for help. No longer is it a pair of cowboy boots pointing skyward. Instead, it's Pumas, Nikes and Reeboks. It's truly the wild wild West. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, the main stories of this Friday, a Soviet nuclear submarine has apparently caught fire and sunk in international waters at least 300 miles off the coast of Norway. U.S. and Norwegian officials said they believe some crew members have been killed. The submarine, which is one of the most modern in the Soviet fleet, is believed to carry a crew of 95, and in this country, President Bush ordered the military to help in the cleanup of the Alaskan oil spill. He said the ultimate goal was complete restoration of the area's ecology and economy. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour tonight. And we'll be back on Monday night. Have a nice weekend and we'll see you then. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.