The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the U.S. retaliates against Cuba. We have a Newsmaker interview with UN Ambassador Madeline Albright, plus congressional reaction. A Supreme Court case about fairness and cocaine. Jeffrey Kay reports, Stuart Taylor explains. A second round of candidate stump speeches: tonight, Lamar Alexander. And our Monday night essay, Ann Taylor Fleming has birthday greetings for the baby boomers. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM, supermarket to the world. And by New York Life, yet another example of New York Life's wise investment philosophy. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by the annual financial support from viewers like you. President Clinton imposed new sanctions on Cuba today, they include halting all charter air flights between the United States and Cuba, and restricting the movements of Cuban diplomats in this country.

The moves were in retaliation for the shootdown Saturday of two civilian planes being flown by Cuban Americans. The planes were unarmed and belonged to the Miami-based Cuban exile group, Brothers to the Rescue. Mr. Clinton criticized Cuba for the action. - We must be clear. This shooting of civilian aircraft out of the air was a flagrant violation of international law. It is wrong, and the United States will not tolerate it. - The president of Cuba's parliament would not confirm suggestions from Cuban officials they had captured one of the pilots. He said at a news conference today, a pilot from the very same group is in Cuba. Witnesses said there were no survivors of the shootdown. We'll have more on the Cuba story right after this news summary. In Israel today, Prime Minister Shimon Perez vowed to wage all-out war against the Muslim radical group Hamas. Hamas has claimed responsibility for the twin suicide bombings in Israel Sunday. Also today, a fatal traffic accident incited fear of another terrorist attack.

We have a report from Gabby Ratto of Independent Television News. This afternoon, another body lay in a Jerusalem street. It was thought there had been another terrorist attack, but police now believe it was a tragic accident on the day of mourning for the 25 Jewish victims of yesterday's bombings. An Arab American tourist was shot dead by onlookers after crashing his car into a bus stop. The funerals of those murdered in the suicide attacks, Jerusalem and Ashkelon continued today. It has revealed that nine of those who died were recent immigrants to Israel, and ten of them were young people doing their military service. Prime Minister Shimon Perez told Parliament he was presenting Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority with a list of tough demands to root out the terrorists of Hamas and their backers. - In Washington today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving race and crack cocaine. The government asked the court to reinstate drug charges against five Black men accused

of selling crack. The men told a lower court they were held on federal charges instead of state charges because they are Black. Federal drug penalties are tougher than state penalties. The lower court dismissed the case. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Two top U.S. intelligence officials have been fired. They are Jeffrey Harris, director of the National Reconnaissance Office, and his deputy Jimmy Hill. Their agency is responsible for spy satellites. Their dismissal announcement came from Defense Secretary Perry's office, no specific reason was given. There have been recent complaints from Congress that NRO staffers had built up a secret slush fund of $1 billion. The agency had also been criticized for spending lavishly on a new headquarters building in suburban Virginia. NASA officials said today they did not know what went wrong last night on the Space Shuttle Columbia for the second time a costly experiment to generate electricity in space failed. A tether attached to a half billion dollar Italian satellite snapped allowing the satellite

to escape. The cord was 12 miles long and 1-10 of an inch thick. The satellite will burn up when it reenters the atmosphere. Haing Ngor was shot to death in Los Angeles last night. The Cambodian refugee, physician and actor won an Academy Award in 1984 for his role in The Killing Fields. Police said he was shot as he returned to his home in the Chinatown section of L.A. No motive has been announced. Haing Ngor had survived capture and torture by communist Khmer Rouge rebels during their campaign of genocide in the late 1970s. He was 45 years old. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the Cuba story. The Supreme Court considers a cocaine issue, an Alexander stump speech, and our Monday night essay. The Cuba incident is our lead story tonight.

Our coverage begins with this report by Betty Ann Bowser. - Brothers to the Rescue has been flying missions over the water between South Florida and Cuba since 1992. The pilots look for Cubans attempting to leave their island nation by boat or makeshift rafts. - We're here on a humanitarian mission. We're here to save lives. The purpose of this flight is to detect the Cuban rafters leaving Cuba before the weather and the waves and the sharks take them. And then we report them to the US Coast Guard for their safe return to the United States. - José Basulto is founder of Brothers to the Rescue. He talked back in 1992 with the NewsHour about the dangers inherent in the missions. - It is a very dangerous mission. We have been close many times to losing the lives of pilots. We had a pilot that had an accident that is in wheelchairs today. We had airplanes hit the water assisting rafters and come back in only one engine with the other one engine-damaged.

We had planes that had been, and this is something that I don't like to discuss that much, in very mysterious ways, return with a broken engine or losing oil or things of that nature. - Basulto also talked back then about what he felt was the need to fly closer and closer to Cuba. - In the beginning, we used to find only empty rafts and that's when we realized that if we made a closer effort at going for the rafters in Cuba, closer to the shores of Cuba would be more successful. So we shifted the emphasis of the operation to fly closer to Cuba and we fly our mission always beginning four miles north of the shores of the island, which is the waters that are considered international waters. Besides, if we find them any closer, I'm sure Castro will get them before we do. Saturday morning, Basulto and four other pilots took off from Opalaca Airport near Miami on one of their routine missions. As they neared mainland Cuba, two of the three aircraft were shot down by Cuban MiG

fighter jets. The Cuban government said the unarmed Cessna planes violated their airspace. Basulto's airplane was not hit, he was able to return safely to Miami. Administration officials were quick to condemn the Cuban attack and called for the United Nations Security Council to take steps against Cuba. - It is clear that the Cuban actions yesterday were a blatant violation of international law and a violation of the norms of civilized behavior. The president has already instructed United Nations ambassador Madeline Albright to convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the incident and discuss an appropriate international response. - Several Republicans denounced both the Castro government's actions and Clinton administration Cuba policy. Among them was presidential candidate Bob Dole, who spoke during a campaign stop in Georgia. - We're getting another taste of amateur hour in Cuba right now because of the fact that Clinton

has been trying to cozy up to Castro over the years, Castro's taken advantage of it. - In Havana this afternoon, the Cuban government gave its response. - So far, they haven't found any things in international water. But we have found some evidence on our waters, on our territory, and we do have objects from those planes that are in our hands, thus proving that the plane, the incident occurred over Cuban territory. - And a few moments later, President Clinton went before reporters at the White House to detail the steps his administration will take against Cuba. - Today I am also ordering the following unilateral actions. First I am asking that Congress pass legislation that will provide immediate compensation to the families, something to which they are entitled under international law, out of Cuba's blocked assets here in the United States. If Congress passes this legislation,

we can provide the compensation immediately. Second, I will move promptly to reach agreement with the Congress on the pending Helms-Burton Cuba legislation so that it will enhance the effectiveness of the embargo in a way that advances the cause of democracy in Cuba. Third, I have ordered that Radio Martí expand its reach. All the people of Cuba must be able to learn the truth about the regime in Havana, the isolation it has earned for itself through its contempt for basic human rights and international law. Fourth, I am ordering that additional restrictions be put on travel in the United States by Cuban officials who reside here and that visits by Cuban officials to our country be further limited. Finally, all charter air travel from the United States to Cuba will be suspended indefinitely. These deliberate actions are the right ones at this time.

They respond to Havana in a way that serves our goal of accelerating the arrival of democracy in Cuba, but I am not ruling out any further steps in the future should they be required. - Now to a Newsmaker interview with Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madame Ambassador, welcome. - Good to be with you, Jim. - These five actions that the President announced this afternoon that we just heard him lay out. What are they designed to do? - Well, first of all, Jim, let me say that we offer our condolences to the families of those who were lost and to say that the President, we've had a busy weekend over this and has taken some very tough actions. What they are, the actions that he's taken, are designed to do the following things. First of all, to make sure that those who have suffered will be compensated, that the embargo, by negotiating with the Congress now and the Helms-Burton bill, to make sure that the embargo is as tough as we can make it and really look at what is possible to

do within that area, then to make sure that Cubans cannot move around freely in the United States and then try to limit the problems of charter flights there, one, because of the safety of the people involved in it, but two, to try to make sure that there's not excessive goods going into Cuba. But that, so it's basically a way, proportionally, to deal with what is a criminal act by the Cuban government. - But are these actions designed to send a message or are they actually designed to do harm of some kind? In other words, do you expect specific impact to come as a result of these things? - Well, the point here is that these are penalties against the Cuban government and also a way to make sure that the Cuban people, for instance, one that I did not mention was the expansion of Radio Martí, so that the Cuban people themselves do not feel that they have been abandoned and these are measures designed against the Cuban government and not

in any way to punish the Cuban people who are desirous of some freedom. So these are a very strong message, they are, as the President said, he has reserved for himself the option of taking additional measures, but this is a way to respond proportionately to what is an illegal, dastardly act. - Why was military action, a blockade or something like that, rejected? - I think the important point, Jim, is that actions have to have a proportionality. We consider this an appropriate way to deal with the issue as the President, as you know, and Secretary Christopher mentioned that I called an emergency meeting of the Security Council. There we are working on a condemnation of what is clearly an illegal act to shoot down a civilian aircraft. So we are taking this one step at a time, getting these very tough unilateral actions that the President has put into place, and then marshalling multilateral condemnation also

and looking at further steps. - Well, where does the record and the evidence stand as to where these planes actually were when they were shot down? - Well, according to the material that the United States has, the two planes that were shot down were over international waters. But the point, I think, Jim, and one that I've been stressing in the Security Council is that it doesn't matter where these planes were. The point is that this is illegal under international law, the Chicago Convention of 1944, that absolutely prevents the use of weapons against unarmed civilian planes. And frankly, even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not shoot down the civilian aircraft, a Martin Roost (sic), that landed in the middle of Red Square. So this is totally unheard of and absolutely something that needs to be condemned by the international community. - So even if those planes were technically in Cuban territory or in Cuban waters, it's still

a violation of international law, that is the position of the United States. - That is the position that we are saying, that the two planes that were shot down were outside of their territorial waters. But the point here is that it is markedly, totally illegal under international law to shoot down an unarmed civilian plane, having not given it all the proper warnings that you know about, which is direct communication, which is wiggling your wings, moving them around, giving some kind of signals. These planes were shot down in cold blood by MiG-29s by air-to-air missiles. - And all of the international laws that apply in this case, you mentioned some of them, they, Cuba does recognize them. - Well they are parties, we are all parties to this convention. And that is the basis on which we're making the argument that this is recognized international law.

The European Union today condemned it and said that this was a breaking with international norms and international law. And we are looking at doing something similar in the Security Council. - Is it your impression, Madame Ambassador, that this was a deliberate act ordered by Fidel Castro or somebody at the top of the Cuban government? - Well, it's hard to speculate on that exactly, but it is our understanding that this kind of action has to come from very high up, that these pilots of the MiGs do not do this on their own recognizance. - So what do you think was going on? Do you have any informed speculation you can share with us? - Well I think it's hard to say, but I think frankly some of the things that are going on is that the Cuban government is getting increasingly nervous about the desire of freedom by their own people. In the last few days they have taken very strong steps to limit human rights, a human rights group that was going to meet there was not allowed to do it. And I think it's a sign that our two-track Cuban Democracy Act is in fact working, that

the reaching out to the Cuban people, trying to show that the world cares about them and in effect also working to let them have greater access to information, is working and Castro is very nervous and has taken what is clearly an act which is illegal and deplorable. - Do you feel that the Cuban-American group itself that was flying these planes, the Brothers to the Rescue, bear any responsibility on the grounds that they may have been egging the government on or anything like that? - Well I think from what we've heard and also just the report that you gave, clearly they are taking action which they knew to be dangerous and they have in fact said that they have sometimes flown into territorial, over their territorial airspace. But the bottom line here is that it is unacceptable ever under any circumstance for a military of any country to shoot down an unarmed civilian plane and we deplore the illegal action.

- Are you satisfied, Madame Ambassador, that the Cubans had every reason to know that these were unarmed planes, the Cuban government? - Yes, absolutely. We have reason to know that they knew that they were civilian and also that they were outside of their territorial waters. - And that they were unarmed and they came to do no harm to Cuba. - From everything that I know that is the case. I think that the question probably for them is they say what is harm to Cuba but they were not armed planes, these were civilian planes and the Cubans have committed a crime. - Now you are the chair of the UN Security Council now, you call the meeting. What is it that you and the United States want the UN Security Council to do now? We are at this moment working on a statement that we would make in the Security Council that would in some way condemn the action that has happened in this illegal act. The point though is that because we are an international body, we need to ask for further

investigation. I have as President of the Council have been notified that the Cuban Foreign Minister is arriving tomorrow. He has sought an audience with the Security Council. It is my obligation as President of the Council to allow that kind of thing to go forward. Nevertheless we are pressing and I will leave this program to continue that for a condemnation of this illegal crime. - But nothing beyond a condemnation. - Well, we are building a case for additional measures and we are looking at all that but in order to do this action in the international body you have to build your case and that is what we are doing. - Finally, Madame Ambassador, do you see this as step one in an escalating situation with Cuba or do you think this is one incident, this is going to go away, what do you see at this moment? - Wel, we would not want to have an escalation with Cuba. We want Cuba to understand that it is alone in the Western Hemisphere as a non-democratic government.

We want to have relations with a democratic Cuba. We want the people of Cuba to have the ability to decide their own fate. We are not in a mood to escalate but we are in a mood to make very clear through the unilateral action that President Clinton has taken as well as whatever international action can be taken to deplore this illegal act. - All right. Well, Ambassador Albright, thank you very much. - Thank you very much, Jim. All right. Margaret Warner continues now with the reaction to the official U.S. reaction. - We are joined by two members of Congress. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from Florida, is a member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and Representative Jose Serrano is a Democrat from New York. Welcome both of you. - Congresswoman, let me start with you. You just heard Ambassador Albright call these steps very tough actions. How does it look to you? - Well, it's certainly a good first step but I hope that it does not end there because the convene a meeting an emergency meeting of the Security Council and merely ask for a condemnation does not really go far enough.

When we had the case of a corrupt military regime in Haiti, what we did against General Raoul Cédras there was to condemn him and take a step further. We actually asked our allies to join with us in an international embargo. We have asked for international embargoes in other cases in other countries, whether it's South Africa, whether it's against the aggressors against Kuwait. We have been successful in an international embargo if the U.S. takes the leadership role. And that's the key phrase there: unless the President goes out there, unless Madeline Albright really makes a full-corurt press, we will not be able to get it. So in the past, when we've asked for an international embargo, what we hear from the Clinton administration is, gee, we just don't have the votes. Well, we can get the votes if we really back this measure. So I hope that this is just the first step of many others because this is not far enough. We want a naval blockade so that the Castro doesn't get the supplies he needs to stay afloat. That's what we had in Haiti.

So I think it's a good first step, but it really does not go far enough. Congressman Serrano, not far enough, too far? What do you think? Well I think that the President reacted the way the world and this country expected him to react on this issue because this is a long history. We have a confrontation we've had with Cuba and the Cuban government with us. But I think there's another step that no one wants to take right now and that's to call the Cuban government to the table and to discuss the issue of whether in fact or not there have been violations of their airspace. I certainly would want to hear from my State Department why the Cuban government has been complaining for the last two years about these violations and who decided not to move on them, how much advice that we give these groups. The tragedy of this is that human life has been lost. And so it makes this argument very difficult because there are people in mourning and we're all in mourning over this tragedy. But we have to be able to stop it in the future. The President spoke about flights to Cuba. He didn't speak about illegal flights to Cuba. That still remains a problem.

- Let me make sure I understand here. What are you suggesting exactly? - I'm suggesting that in the same way we discussed the immigration issue with the Cuban government and reached a decision some months back that we can call the Cuban government to the table and discuss the issue of these flights. They can put on the table whether they feel they're being violated. We can put opposition under international law. And reach an agreement they may stop this particular problem from coming back. - Congresswoman, what do you think of that idea? - Well, I think that's patently absurd. In fact, the Cuban regime which has been on a propaganda of lies for over 35 years will have that opportunity. Madeline Albright clearly explained that tomorrow the Cuban regime will present its case. We know that it's going to be a package of lies. And let me say something about this defense about whether they had been warned or not. With the Berlin problem in the World War II, when people wanted to escape from that communist regime, the guards shot them down when people wanted to scale the walls. And the defense of those guards, when we brought them to trial for that atrocity, their

defense was, gee, we warned the people not to climb the fence, but they did it anyway. And the trials concluded by saying that the defense is no good. That just to say to the people you have been warned, you can't scale the wall to freedom is no defense against a criminal act of shooting down innocent people. They have shot down in a very cold-blooded, calculated way. And it seems the more we know about it that it was actually a planned act to shoot these planes down. These are U.S. citizens in a U.S. civilian plane bearing no arms and obviously without any intent whatsoever to do any harm to anyone. And Castro shot them down. And now we're going to sit down and negotiate with Castro. That's like negotiating with the Japanese government after Pearl Harbor. Come on, Jose. You still want to whine and dine and listen to these people. - Let me... Let me let the Congressman back in here. Let's go back to what the U.S. government has done and these steps, the U.S. government

has taken. Do you consider them tough steps? - Well, tough for people like myself who would want a negotiated way out of the situation, but it's nothing new. All he did was strengthen somewhat an embargo that has not worked for 37 years. And so the issue now remains, what did we just do that's going to change or turn around the confrontation that is coming between Cuban Americans and Cubans and maybe between the U.S. government and the Cuban government. Now if we look at this issue very briefly as a single issue over this weekend, then we'll respond the way we do. If we look at it in a historical basis of how we got here, what is this anger about on both sides, why are we allowing planes to fly over Cuba, drop leaflets and then claim that if one of them gets shot down, that we're going to react in a different way. I wish it hadn't happened. But it did happen because we, this government, has not been strong enough to say to some American citizens, you can't take foreign policy in your own hands.

That's why we have a government. - Let me ask you both, since you're both members of Congress. The president today did say that he was willing to work with Congress now on this Burton- Helms bill, briefly Congresswoman, what you make of that pledge and do you think now that this measure which has not even been agreed to in the same version between House and Senate? I think that's going now on the Hill. - Well, I think this statement of the president, although we welcome it, I think it lends more credibility to those who accuse him of having a flip-flop strategy when it comes to foreign policy. - All right, but I'm sorry. But I'm sorry. - One person who was against Helms Burton from the very beginning is President Clinton. And because now Castro shoots down the two planes, which is what he's been doing, committing crimes against humanity for over 30 years. - Congresswoman, are you saying then that you do not welcome the president's offer to deal on this, which I should explain to our viewers, would try to make it more difficult for foreign countries to invest in Cuba. Do you think this means the measure will now move forward? - The measure was going to move forward.

We passed a very tough bill in the House. We passed a weaker version in the Senate because the Clinton administration opposed the bill. We could not get the 60 votes. We needed to stop the filibuster, which Chris Dodd did, administered by the White House. Well, just last week, we got the 60th vote. It was reported widely here in the press in Miami that we got the vote number 60 to pass the bill. And this coming month, we were going to pass it anyway. So we welcome the president to helping us to pass it. We'd rather have him with us than against us. But frankly, it's a little too late that that train left the station a while back. But welcome aboard, Bill. We're welcome to have you on. - What is your interpretation of the president's offer on this particular piece of legislation? - Well, I think what he's going to do now is try to tell the Florida community that he's going to get tougher against Castro by putting this legislation forth. This legislation does nothing. It's just more of the same confrontation through an embargo. The world community is going to laugh at us because I don't think the Canadians and the British and the Japanese are going to go along with us and other powers.

So I still think that the only way out of this to prevent future confrontations sit on at the table, negotiate this issue and then negotiate a new relationship. Otherwise, we're headed to what's a serious confrontation with Cuba. - And briefly, Congresswoman, what is your interpretation of why you heard Ambassador Albright say that an action like this wouldn't happen unless it was directed from the top or very high up? She said, do you agree and why do you think Fidel Castro would have authorized this to be done? - Oh, definitely. Castro has a very closed society. He is the government. He is the state. He runs everything. No one acts in Cuba without, especially in the military, without his direct authority. And this was a very calculated act. And I think it sends a very clear message to those people inside Cuba who wanted more of a reformed government, who wanted more of a discussion about these ideas. Congressman Serrano, my colleague, wants to U.S. to sit down and negotiate with Castro. There doesn't even want to negotiate with the Cuban people who are for open change.

What has happened last week? We had a roundup of dissidents with trumped up charges now in jail. And what was their crime? They wanted an open discussion of freedom and democracy in Cuba. And that's a crime against the state. - Congressman, why do you think Castro ordered this shooting down if he did? - Well, I don't know that he ordered it. I don't know who ordered it. Whoever ordered it made a horrible mistake that took human life. Let's see, I don't know what it is to live in Cuba and have planes flying over my place telling me to overthrow Bill Clinton. I don't know how I would react to that. So I think that before we speculate on who was wrong and who did something wrong, we already took the steps to condemn Castro. We took steps to punish him. The next steps should be to talk. Otherwise, we're going to be doing this show again on the same subject with the same outcome months from now. - Well, thank you both very much. We'll have to leave it there. - Thanks. - Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, cocaine before the U.S. Supreme Court, an Alexander stump speech, and an Ann Taylor Fleming essay.

Now the Supreme Court takes up allegations of racism in the criminal justice system, Charlene Hunter-Gault has more. - That issue in today's hearing, whether Blacks accused of selling crack cocaine have been targeted for federal prosecution because of their race. We'll hear more after this background report from Jeffrey Kay of station KCET, Los Angeles. - Since April 1992, this federal prison in downtown Los Angeles has housed Christopher Lee Armstrong, whose case today was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Armstrong, a former postal worker, is being held without bond on charges that he and four alleged accomplices sold crack cocaine and carried firearms. The five have pleaded not guilty and claimed their prosecution on federal charges is racially motivated, an allegation the government denies.

- The truth is, Blacks are being unfairly prosecuted and I don't think that, I know it after living inside of this building for 46 months. - Armstrong and his co-defendants are charged with possessing and selling a total of about four and three quarter ounces of crack cocaine. The sales to undercover agents allegedly took place in this motel and in various parking lots around the Inglewood area in early 1992. Armstrong's lawyer, David Dudley, says the case transcends the details. - I think his case represents a fundamental problem with the criminal justice system. I think that pretty much the majority of people who are charged with crack cocaine offenses are only in federal court because of their race. - The decision to try Armstrong and his co-defendants in federal as opposed to state court was a critical one. Conviction on federal charges could bring sentences ranging from

35 years to life in prison. The penalty in state prison would be three to ten years for the same crimes. Deputy federal public defender Barbara O'Connor is representing a co-defendant in the case. A case she says is part of a pattern of selective prosecution. - She claims Blacks accused of selling crack cocaine are more likely than whites to face federal rather than state charges. - Our lawyers were brainstorming these cases as it were. We noticed that all of the crack cocaine defendants that we were representing were Black. We noticed that these individuals were facing multi-decade sentences and we became concerned about the pattern of prosecution that all the defendants appeared to be Black. So what we did was look at our closed files for 1991 and we found out that in fact our suspicions were true, that of the 24 individuals we represented that year 1991, all were Black.

- Seeking to bolster the selective prosecution argument, O'Connor's office persuaded the judge in the case to order the government to hand over documents, a racial breakdown of its crack sales prosecutions and its guidelines for federal charges. The government refused to comply with the order and has fought the case to the Supreme Court. U.S. attorney Nora Manella says the government shouldn't be forced to turn over documents or to chase statistics in order to fend off what it considers spurious allegations. - We felt there was simply no basis for any inference of selective prosecution and no reason to send the government out on a fishing expedition to collect data and racial statistics which we do not compile and which are absolutely irrelevant to our prosecuted decisions. All the government says it shouldn't have to compile data for the defense, statistics that collected for another case indicate comparatively high numbers of minorities have been

prosecuted for federal crack trafficking crimes. According to its study between January 1992 and March 1995, 149 defendants were charged with federal crack cocaine crimes in the greater Los Angeles area. Of those only one was white, 109 were Black, 28 Hispanic, 8 were Asian. Manella says there's a reasonable explanation for the racial disparity. - The reason law enforcement is concentrating its anti-crack trafficking and anti-violent crime resources in the inner city is that that is the area most plagued by violent crime and crack trafficking. Period. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money was. Law enforcement goes into the inner city to protect inner city residents against violent crime because that's where the violent crime is. - The city of Inglewood where Armstrong was arrested is mostly non-white. Armstrong's arrest was the product of a joint investigation by Inglewood Police and federal

law enforcement. At the time the federal agents involved were stationed at the Inglewood City Police Department as part of an effort to crack down on inner city crime. Defense lawyers in the Armstrong case suggest that law enforcement disproportionately targets minority drug dealers in communities like Inglewood because going after white crack dealers would be more work. One of our district judges has suggested that it's like shooting goldfish in a goldfish bowl. It's easier for a law enforcement to go down to the corner of 11th and Hoover. - The Black community. - Yes, the Black community in Los Angeles and easily arrest people who are openly dealing out on the street. If they go into a more affluent neighborhood like Brentwood... - A white community. - A white community, by and large, the crack dealing is going on behind closed doors. - O'Connor's assessment jibes with the perceptions of former crack dealers and users at Los Angeles area halfway house called Impact.

- I can take you to Sherman Oaks. I can take you to North Hollywood. - Burbank. - I can take you to Burbank, Glendale. - All right. These are white neighborhoods. Predominantly white, Beverly Hills, you can find crack cocaine. So by the way, the Blacks standing on the corners, they do do it and basically Blacks have no shame in their game. They stand out there and they sell crack cocaine. The cops come and they take off. So the feds are looking at that direction because it's an easy bust for them. Basically that's personal opinion, but that's where I'd see it, yeah. - And you all agree with that, I take it. The government says there's no conspiracy in that prosecution simply reflect the fact that certain racial groups dominate certain crimes in the Los Angeles area. - Hispanics constitute 98% of those prosecuted as criminal aliens, whites constitute 100% of those prosecuted for child pornography, and whites constitute the overwhelmingly large percentage of those prosecuted for complex white-collar fraud.

So as you can imagine, if the Armstrong decision stands, an inference of selective prosecution could be brought in all of these cases. The Supreme Court will not have to decide whether the Armstrong case itself constituted selective prosecution, but a decision in this case about what documents the government should give to the defense could set the stage for other claims of selective prosecution percolating up through the judicial system. - For more on today's Supreme Court hearing, we're joined by Stuart Taylor, correspondent for The American Lawyer, and Legal Times, and a NewsHour regular, Stuart, thank you for joining us. There's probably not much to add to that, but is there anything else that we need to know that clarifies exactly what it is that the court heard today? - Well, what they have is a relatively narrow piece of a big social issue. The big social issue is whether we have racial bias in our criminal justice system, and there are lots of statistics showing huge, hugely disproportionate numbers of Blacks being locked up for certain crimes, particularly drug crimes, and especially crack cocaine, which

has huge penalties. The narrow issue the court is deciding is whether the defendants in this case have made enough of a preliminary showing to get to first base, as it is, as it were, in trying the very difficult task of proving race-based selective prosecution, which if proven is a violation of the Constitution and would justify throwing out the cases against them. - And where would that take us, I mean, where would that leave us in the whole issue of selective prosecution? - Well, if the defendants win this case, what they win from the Supreme Court is an affirmance of a lower court order that the prosecution has to come forward with certain, with a lot of details about its prosecutorial policies, about the cases it's brought for crack cocaine, about statistics showing Black, white, et cetera. If the defense wins that, then they go back to the lower courts to litigate in greater detail whether whatever evidence comes out proves racially disparate, racially selective prosecution, I should say.

And by the way, there's only been one case in the history of the United States, as far as I can recall, in which that has ever been proven to the point of getting a case thrown out. That was 110 years ago in the Supreme Court. - So you mean they've got a pretty, the defense lawyer, have a pretty tough row to hoe? - It's a very tough road. - Well, you were in court today and you have the Clinton administration's lawyer on one side and a pretty tough, street-wise defense attorney on the other side, we saw briefly in the tape piece, Ms. O'Connor, how did it go? - The argument, she acquitted herself very well and was very poised in the argument. But she ran into a lot of flack from the justices, they were polite, but what was striking about it was that across the board, even the more liberal justices on the court who one might have thought would be more receptive to her argument, were an essence saying to her, you've got to make a pretty good preliminary showing to convince us to make the government cough up these data and several of them indicated that the statistics that have been brought forward so far, although they do show large disparities in terms of more Blacks being prosecuted

for crack, didn't necessarily show that there were whites out there selling crack of whom the prosecutors knew or had reason to know, they're not being prosecuted. - And that's what they've got to show that not just that persons prosecuted are of just one race, but that whites in this case or other non-blacks got off lighter or didn't get prosecuted at all. - That's right. They ultimately to prove selected prosecution, they have to show that there are a lot of white people who are getting off easy, even though the Blacks are getting prosecuted in federal court, and to get discovery, they have to at least to get this information they want from the government. They at least have to make a start down that road. So for example, Justice Stephen Breyer was asking Barbara O'Connor, the defense lawyer, she couldn't, you haven't presented us any cases of particular white defendants who got the light penalties in state court instead of the heavy penalties in federal court and couldn't have you gone around to the bar association meetings, other defense lawyers and found somebody, and he indicated that he was troubled that the defense had not made

as strong as showing as he thought it should have been able to make at this stage. - Were there any sympathetic questions or any questions that indicated, you know, any interest in that side at all? There was certainly interest on the court. I think they realized that the allegation of racial discrimination is a very serious one in criminal prosecution. They typically don't show their sympathy to one side of the other by asking them nice questions. They may show it by asking the other side hard questions, and solicitor general Drew Days got some pretty hard questions too from various members of the court. They wanted to know, Mr. Days, you're saying that the statistics that were presented in this case aren't good enough to justify forcing you to come forward with this information. What kind of statistics, various members of the court, would you insist on? Suppose there were 200 cases, and all of them were Black, and none of them were white. Would that be good enough? And he had to bob and weave a little bit because he didn't want to concede anything yet he didn't want to be in the position of seeming to indicate that there was nothing in

the world that could possibly satisfy the legal requirement to make the government disclose its policies. - Well, the justices in the past have been pretty closely divided on cases involving statistics based on race, and they've tended to be conservative in terms of law enforcement, being on the side of law enforcement. What's your sense of where this is going to go, or do you have one yet? - Based on today's argument, I think it looked like the government is pretty likely to win this case. Part of the reason is that the court is very deferential to the discretion of prosecutors to decide who to prosecute. - All right, well, we'll come back at a later date. Thank you, Stuart. - Thank you. Now we continue our periodic series of presidential stump speeches tonight, former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, speaking this weekend in Colorado Springs, Colorado. - I'd like to say a short word about the other choices that you have.

One of them is Senator Dole. I have the greatest respect for Senator Dole, but Republican primaries are family discussions and family discussions are a time for plain talk. Our goal is to beat Bill Clinton. Most of us saw Senator Dole follow Bill Clinton after the State of the Union address. Most of us imagine what will happen next October in the presidential election. There will be a debate. 40 million people will be watching, and you know exactly what Mr. Clinton will do. He's not much of a president. But when his medicine show goes on the road, it's a pretty good show. And you can imagine what will happen next October in that big debate. He'll get a question, and he'll move out from behind the podium like he does. He'll walk over slowly to the questioner, and he'll look the questioner right in the eye and he'll feel their pain. And he'll give a very good answer about the future.

He'll fake a compelling vision. And the whole country will turn around to see what the Republican nominee has to say about the future. And all we can talk about is getting a bill out of a subcommittee in Washington instead of families, about Congress instead of neighborhoods, about Washington instead of schools. If we have no more vision than that, Bill Clinton will be re-elected. The Democratic Congress will be elected and will have a speaker named Gephardt instead of Gingrich. I'm afraid that the message we heard coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire was this. Senator Dole, we respect you. We appreciate your long service in the Senate. But you're not the right man to have in that debate with Bill Clinton, and you're not the right man to be the first president of the next century. It's time for new leadership. It is time to move on. There's one other choice, and I'll say this very quickly, and then I'll finish up. Pat Buchanan and I worked together for President Nixon 30 years ago.

We don't have any bad words to say about each other. I'm not going to join in those who are calling him names or anyone who's trying to smear him by guilt, by association, but I am going to contest my friend Pat's ideas. And I did that down in Arizona a couple of nights ago. I said, Pat, I'm not going to let you hijack our party. Buchananism is wrong for our party and wrong for our country. We cannot build a wall around America. The most important words are we are all Americans. We need to paint a rising, shining picture of the future. That's what President Reagan did. He was for a strong America, Pat opposed the Gulf War. He was for trading in the world. Pat wants to build a wall. He understood the difference between illegal immigration, which we should control, and legal immigration, which is of value to our country. He was an optimist about our future, not a pessimist. Sometimes all of the other choices forget the most important thing that the next president

can say as we go into the new century. And it would be these words. We should spend less time trying to figure out who to blame for what goes wrong. And less time trying to figure out what the government owes us and more time being willing to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. I have the executive background to be the commander-in-chief. I helped Tennessee go from one of the poorest states to the fastest growing in family incomes, and I've helped to create a company with 1,200 employees, so I know about job creation. I can balance a budget because I'm the only one who has balanced budgets. I will give the military the lead in doing a better job of controlling our borders. I will see that we celebrate the great American outdoors and oppose environmental extremism. I will do the things. I will do the things that need to be done in Washington.

But after we get Washington's act in order, and after Washington makes it easier for to take control of our own lives, we have some more work to do. I would like to lead us into the next century expecting less from Washington and asking more of ourselves. If the television set is on and it is trash, we can turn it off. If the children are not learning to read, we can read to them. My mother gave me my library card, not the president of the United States. It still works best that way. So I would like to be the leader of the Republican Revolution. I would like to help reelect our Republican Congress. I would like to help build a future based upon Republican principles as we go into the next century. I believe I can stand up there with Bill Clinton, next October, and paint a picture of the future based on our principles. That's more compelling than whatever he cooks up that day. I believe that I am the right person to contest with Pat Buchanan over the next

several weeks for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. If all Senator Dole can do is duck debates, run negative ads, and have no new ideas, he would be better in the Senate than he would be as president. So I would like to ask for your help. And here's a way we might sort this all out. Senator Dole can go back to doing what he's very good at, leading the Senate. Pat Buchanan can go back to Crossfire, and I'll be the president of the United States. Thank you. Lamar Alexander speaking in Colorado Springs this weekend. Tomorrow we'll have a speech by Senator Dole. Finally tonight, our Monday night essay, the baby boomers are turning 50, and Ann Taylor Fleming has some birthday greetings. As you no doubt have heard by now, the first of us are actually doing it.

From Sally Field to Cher, from Sylvester Stallone to Leslie Gore, the boomers are turning 50. We may not be crying, but we are reckoning, and we'll no doubt do so the whole year long, once again dominating the cultural landscape with our soul-searching and psyche scratching. After all, we make up over a third of the country's population, and between now and the year 2014, a boomer will turn 50 every 7.5 seconds. This birthday hoopla will inevitably reach a peak around August 19th. The day that our very first baby boom president reaches his 50th birthday. He, both the Clintons in fact, somehow seemed like the very essence of the boomers. Confident and ambitious, arrogant and compassionate, self-righteous and morally ambiguous, the baby boom elite at its apex. Looking at them is like looking in the mirror, and it's impossible not to ask how in the world that we get here, and do we like what we see.

Our collective bio is well known. We tumbled into a country aswoon in post-war prosperity, and from our arrival, we commanded the attention of our parents. Our station wagon-driving, Dr. Spock-reading mothers, and our hardworking bread-winning dads. We slid into the 1960s, then, with an already defined sense of self-importance and entitlement, a loud sexually liberating soundtrack, always cheering us on. A challenge to the manners and mores of parents, who often didn't seem that happy beneath the ceremonial surface of their marriages. [music] "If you're going to San Francisco..." - We wanted more. More love, more sex, more fun. And by decades-end, were in a full-tilt rebellion against pretty much everything. Marriage, monogamy, sobriety, universities, you name it.

And the TV cameras were always there, beaming us back to ourselves, making us the first hooked-on-celebrity generation, that's so much of who we are, who we have become, a generation of fame-obsessed media freaks. [music] "What a field day for the heat, a thousand people in the street..." - Not to say that there weren't genuine politics mixed in; for many, there were, adamant impulses towards improving the world, towards racial equality, and equality between men and women, and economic equality. Though that was lower on the list. And of course, there was the Vietnam War. [music] "Some folks were born, made to wave the flag, oooh they're red, white and blue..." - But looking back now from this birthday juncture, it is disquieting to see how Vietnam inevitably stained, if you will, the moral self-image of the men who did not serve.

One need only stand before that wall, or reread the young Bill Clinton's tortured letter to his draft board, to understand that. [music] "Buried in the ground. Mother Earth will swallow you. Lay your body down." - We must remember, of course, that many conservatives also did not go to Vietnam, and that Newt Gingrich, in his fierce ambition and political gyrations, is every bit the boomer the Clintons are. So what marks do we give ourselves at this reckoning point? There are things to be proud of, political movements that made the country more equal, anthems to tear the heart out, and an obsession to stay young and healthy that has infected

the whole country. The question is, are we jogging towards wisdom, or only towards more self-dom? Stay tuned. We'll no doubt let you know. I'm Ann Taylor Fleming. - [music sting] Again the major story of this Monday, President Clinton imposed sanctions on Cuba for shooting down two civilian planes, flown by Cuban Americans on Saturday. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM, supermarket to the world. And by New York Life, yet another example of New York Life's wise investment philosophy. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by the annual financial support from

viewers like you. Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer are available from PBS Video. Call 1-800-328-PBS-1. This is PBS. . . .

. .. .. .. .. .. ..