The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the leading headlines today, removal of U.S. ships became a new demand for release of the Beirut hostages. President Reagan canceled his July 4th vacation because of the hostage crisis; Israel released 31 Shiite Moslems, but said it was not related to the Beirut situation; and an international investigating team looked for the cause of yesterday's Air India airliner tragedy. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Air safety is one of the main topics in our NewsHour rundown tonight. After our summary of the day's news, we focus first on security fallout from the apparent sabotage of the Air India jet and what can be done to prevent further tragedies. Then, an Israeli and an American journalist give us a behind-the-scenes picture of efforts to free the 40 TWA hostages. Finally, from Boston, a documentary profile of the nation's oldest public high school, which found itself in the center of a racial controversy.News Summary

LEHRER: The 40 American hostages will not be released until U.S. warships are withdrawn from waters off the coast of Lebanon. That was the new condition laid down today by Nabih Berri, the Shiite Moslem leader. He told reporters in Beirut ships of the Sixth Fleet, including carrier-based F-14 fighter planes, are preparing for a military operation. The ships are located 25 miles off the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon. State Department spokesman Bernard Kalb had only this to say at the new Berri demand.

BERNARD KALB, State Department spokesman: I'm not going to comment on any demands. I am reiterating what you all know as the administration's position. I'm not caving in to any demands nor encouraging anybody else to do so. And so far as the U.S. Navy is concerned, I can confirm that all U.S. Navy vessels operating in the eastern Med are in international waters.

LEHRER: The hostage crisis caused President Reagan today to cancel his 10-day vacation. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said Mr. Reagan reviewed the Beirut situation and decided it was best for him to remain in Washington. He was to leave Friday for 10 days at his California ranch. Robin?

MacNEIL: Israel today released 31 of the 766 Lebanese prisoners the Shiites are demanding as their main condition for freeing the 40 American hostages. Israel insisted this was not linked to the hijackers' demands, but simply part of the on-going process of freeing prisoners taken across the border. Here is a report from Keith Graves of the BBC.

KEITH GRAVES, BBC [voice-over]: No hardened criminals or terrorists, these. Just young men caught up in Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and glad to be home. And now caught up in the hijack drama. Most of them just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their villages were the targets of reprisal raids following attacks on Israeli soldiers. They've left behind them in Israel more than 700 fellow countrymen who are at the center of the hijack drama. Today's freed men were greeted by a senior official of Amal, the Shiite Muslim organizationinvolved in negotiations to free the hostages. He told them, "All our men must be released before the Americans will be freed." On the hijacked aircraft, one of the crewmen has been taken ill, it's not clear which. Captain John Testrake was seen in the cockpit a few minutes before the call went out for a doctor. He was told he had to treat someone with stomach pains and then warned he should not talk to reporters or he "would have his tongue cut out and his wife would become a widow," which certainly had the desired effect. When he left, he said nothing.

LEHRER: We will look at the latest on the hostage situation later in the program with Don Oberdorfer of the Washington Post and Wolf Blitzer of the Jerusalem Post.

MacNEIL: Officials of four countries are asking whether terrorists are responsible for two occurrences costing 331 lives in connection with airplane flights originating in Canada. Off the coast of Ireland, 329 people died in the crash of an Air India flight from Toronto. In Tokyo, two baggage handlers were killed when a bomb exploded in baggage unloaded from a Canadian Pacific flight from Vancouver. One report from a sea captain indicated there might have been an explosion aboard the Air India plane before it crashed. The Indian government is asking whether Sikh extremists could have been involved, and the Canadian government is asking whether they might also have been involved in the Tokyo explosion. Ireland and Japan are making their own investigations on the scene. So far at least, 130 bodies have been recovered from the Air India crash; the search is going on for more bodies and more wreckage, which officials hope will provide clues to what happened. Here is a report from John Hale of Visnews.

JOHN HALE, Visnews [voice-over]: All day helicopters from the British Royal Air Force, supported by Irish and American teams, were combing the area. Now they know there are no survivors. Their task, only to retrieve the bodies and any vital clues as to why Flight 182 crashed into the Atlantic so suddenly. Every piece of debris is winched carefully into the helicopters. Although the weather has meant calm seas, the huge swell of the Atlantic will soon spread the wreckage over an area too wide to cover. The work retrieving the 329 bodies of passenger and crew has been hampered by reports that sharks have been attracted to the area. The helicopters have worked nonstop, refueling from tankers after every five hours in the air. At the airport in Cork, the stretchers continue to arrive. Air India flight investigators have already seen some of the wreckage, the most important being that from inside the aircraft, to establish if there was indeed a bomb on board. The captain of a Panamanian freighter in the Atlantic says he saw the jumbo shake as if there'd been an explosion moments before it double-somersaulted, broke up and fell into the sea. But the details of this tragedy will only be known if divers can find the two flight recorders on board the aircraft. They lie in more than 2,000 meters of water, and it will almost certainly be a lengthy operation before they're brought to the surface. At London's Heathrow Airport, as with airports all over the world, security has been stepped up around all Air India flights. One flight brought in an Indian investigation team on its way to Ireland; others, a steady stream of victims' relatives. In New Delhi, the heartbreaking task has continued of informing those whose relatives have died.

RELATIVE: What a sad thing! A young chap of 24 has lost his life.

HALE [voice-over]:Some have lost husbands, wives and children; others, everything.

MacNEIL: The Air India plane that brought the relatives and airline officials to London was then searched because a bomb threat was received. And the British police reported another kind of bomb threat. Scotland Yard said it had uncovered a plot by the Irish Republican Army to plant time bombs at hotels in 10 British seaside resorts next month, at the peak of the vacation season.

LEHRER: And, in Canada, the Ministry of Transport, with the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is investigating whether there were lapses in security at Canadian airports. Here is a report from Bill Casey of the CBC.

BILL CASEY, CBC [voice-over]: Transport Canada's air operation center in Ottawa, where officials have been on duty round the clock. They're sifting information on the air tragedies from around the world, trying to piece together the reasons for the CP bomb blast in Tokyo and the Air India crash off the coast of Ireland. Transport Minister Don Mazankowski said his officials are trying to find out if there was a breach of security while the Air India plane was in Canada. He said extra RCMP protection was only asked for the flight's Montreal touchdown, but not while the plane was in Toronto.

DAN MAZANKOWSKI, Canadian Transport Minister: That was a request that came from Air India personnel and we responded. We simply responded. As we understand, there was not an alert that there was a security risk with respect to this particular aircraft, but there obviously was some suspicion in the minds of Air India personnel. We just simply responded by deploying RCMP at the check-in counter, the departure lounge and the baggage areas.

LEHRER: The Canadian minister of transport will be with us as we look at baggage checks and other airport security issues in a focus segment later tonight.

MacNEIL: Another aspect of air safety was the subject of Congressional hearings today. The subject was near misses, given additional point by an incident yesterday when an American Airlines 707 had to dive suddenly to avoid a collision with an unidentified twin-engine plane. Three flight attendants and a passenger were injured. Congressmen and consumer activists charged that near collisions are on the rise, but the trend has been kept from the public because the Federal Aviation Administration underreported the numbers. Congressman Guy Molinaro said the incidents of mid-air collisions has grown 44 in the first quarter of this year, and was alarmingly high. Consumer activist Ralph Nader said there was a political incentive to keep the numbers down, because President Reagan fired the most experienced air traffic controllers after a strike in 1981.

RALPH NADER, consumer advocate: How many mid-air collisions is this government going to tolerate before it rehires 3,000 or so fully qualified air traffic controllers? And why should we sacrifice a possible mid-air collision and several hundred innocent lives as a government simply because they don't want to bring back these fully experienced air traffic controllers?

MacNEIL: The FAA will be testifying at those hearings on Wednesday.

Finally, two stories from the courts. The Supreme Court ruled that a person who has been barred from a military base may be prosecuted for demonstrating at a public celebration there, even if the demonstration is peaceful. The case involved a man who was barred from Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu for pouring animal blood on secret papers. He reappeared on Armed Forces Day several years later distributing leaflets and showing a peace banner. The vote on the Supreme Court was six to three. In the majority opinion, Judge Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the government's interest in securing a military base was more important than the demonstrator's First Amendment rights.

And a federal judge in New York found R. Foster Wynans, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, guilty of peddling stock tips based on inside information about forthcoming articles in the paper. He faces a sentence of up to five years in prison.

LEHRER: The space shuttle Discovery is back. It landed this morning at Edwards Air Force Base in California after a seven-day trip officials said was one of the most successful of all shuttle missions. It had a crew of five Americans, a Frenchman and an Arab prince. They launched three communications satellites, among other things. The only problem was minor, and came at the very end this morning. The brakes locked after landing, which went like this.

NASA OFFICIAL: And we have touchdown at mission elapsed time, seven days, one hour, 38 minutes and 50 seconds. And we expect the roll-out margin to be 4,500 feet and 15 braking. Flight 847:Maneuvering

MacNEIL: First tonight we focus on the continuing story of the TWA hijacking. This 11th day was marked in Lebanon, as we reported, by a new demand from Shiite Muslim leader Nabih Berri that the U.S. Sixth Fleet move away from the Lebanese coast. The demand was rejected in Washington, where a spokesman said it was U.S. policy not to deal with terrorists. Judy Woodruff has more on today's TWA hijacking developments. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robin, Shiite leader Berri also had some tough words for Israel. He called the Israeli release today of 31 of the more than 700 mostly Shiite Moslems that it holds in prison a political zigzag. Berri said the 40 Americans seized on the TWA flight will not be set free until the remaining prisoners held in Israel are released. The Israeli decision to let the 31 prisoners go came yeterday at a cabinet meeting. The Israeli government said its decision was not linked to the TWA hijacking, a view seconded by the Reagan administration in Washington. The move, however, does follow growing tension between Washington and Jerusalem over the hijacking. We explore that tension now with Jerusalem Post correspondent Wolf Blitzer and Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Don Oberdorfer.

Mr. Blitzer, why did the Israeli government, if they were going to go ahead and release 31, why didn't they release all 700?

WOLF BLITZER: Well, I think Israel was trying to first test the waters to see what the exact reaction would be to this initial release, to see what the reaction especially would be in Lebanon, where the Americans are being held hostage. If in fact there would be some sort of opening and there would be a de-linkage with the hostage situation, then presumably these types of releases will continue within Israel. Secondly, I think the other major objective of Israel was to try to improve its own public relations image in the United States. It was beginning to get reports that it was being blamed for the continued stalemate in Beirut, so it wanted to send a signal that it was not the problem, it was willing to cooperate, provided that a way could be found which would delink these two problems and not, presumably, give the impression that Israel was caving in to terrorism.

WOODRUFF: Did the Israelis check with Washington or tell Washington before they released the prisoners? I mean, before they announced it?

Mr. BLITZER: Yes. Before the Israeli cabinet formally approved this decision the prime minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, was on the phone in the middle of the night here in Washington with Secretary of State George Shultz, and Peres did inform Shultz of this Israeli decision. Certainly the mere fact that he would call Shultz in the middle of the night and inform him of this at this time, that in and by itself does give the impression of a direct connection between these two events. When the administration and the Israeli government later insisted there was no linkage, I think they're sort of walking on some thin ice.

WOODRUFF: Don Oberdorfer, the official reaction in Washington wasn't to say very much. What was the private reaction?

DON OBERDORFER: Well, I think the key word here is what Wolf has mentioned several times. It's this obscure word, delinking. These people were said to be on the verge of being let go anyway. The United States had word that Israel was going to let them go before the hijacking. Then the hijacking happened, this was the main demand. The U.S. was in the situation of not wanting to encourage terrorism and everybody is doing a lot of posturing here, political posturing, for their own home audience. I'm sure that in Washington, and I imagine to a degree in Israel, certainly there are very few in the United States government who were not happy to see some of the Shiites let go by Israel. But they don't want to do or say anything that suggests this is giving in to a hijack demand.

WOODRUFF: But the reality is -- in reality can they delink the two? Is it possible?

Mr. OBERDORFER: Well, anything is possible if you say you're doing it. But in fact, of course, this has now become part of the play. It is the central demand of Nabih Berri. What is far from clear, though, is that this is the real demand, the one that would be acted upon by the people who were actually holding the Americans in Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: You mean, even if they went ahead and released all 700?

Mr. OBERDORFER: It's not at all clear that the Americans would be released.

WOODRUFF: What's the Israeli view on that?

Mr. BLITZER: Well, the Israeli view is also exactly the same, that Berri probably does not have full control over all 40 of the Americans being held hostage, maybe 30 or 31, and that more extreme elements in the Shiite movement have control over the others, and even if Israel were tomorrow to release all of the 700-plus mostly Shiite prisoners, it's by no means clear that Berri would still be able to deliver all 40 of the Americans, let alone the seven other Americans who have been kidnapped over the past year or so and remain in captivity someplace in Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: Well, how then does the U.S. deal with Berri? I mean, he's not only apparently not in control of all of them, but he's upped the ante and he said we've got to get our ships out of the area. So what --

Mr. OBERDORFER: I guess the answer is, "With difficulty." The basic reality here, as it was so often the case in the predecessor episode in Iran, seems to be the reality on the ground in Lebanon as to who is in control of what, who has -- who is winning in a power struggle between obscure forces that are only vaguely understood in this country, and the administration, like the previous administration, is trying manfully to come to some policy which at the same time gets those forces to act in the field, and says to the American public, "We're doing something and we're doing something in a way that it's not going to cause us increasing trouble down the road." And that's hard to do.

WOODRUFF: Was there any reaction today to the specific demand that we get our ships out of the area? I mean, other than to say what we heard Bernard Kalb at the State Department say?

Mr. OBERDORFER: Very little, because they don't want to get into a public posture of making an argument every time Nabih Berri or somebody else comes up with a demand. Officially Washington doesn't acknowledge where its ships are anyway, except that they are not within the territorial waters of Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: Did the Israelis agree with the way the Reagan administration is handling this at this point?

Mr. BLITZER: Yes. I think officially and unofficially there is widespead not only understanding but support for the predicament of the Reagan administration. Israel's position over the years has always been to see if there was a military option available to save hostages or innocent people, and that was, of course, vividly demonstrated on July 4th during the Entebbe rescue operation. But when there is no military option that is viable, Israel in the past has found itself in a similar type of predicament and has been forced to negotiate some sort of peaceful resolution. So it fully understands and can sympathize with Washington's position right now. My sense is that this whole controversy which has erupted over the past 24 hours involving the U.S. ships off the Lebanese coast is very significant, because it seems to me that the Amal leadership and other Shiites within Lebanon are beginning to get scared of a potential U.S. military retaliatory strike, and this could take, of course, many forms, especially one after some sort of deal is complete. So what they are now beginning to demand, I think, and this will become more obvious in the days ahead, is some guarantees that if there is some sort of resolution the United States will not strike militarily, a demand that the Iranians successfully had negotiated five years ago or so.

WOODRUFF: Are you hearing the same thing?

Mr. OBERDORFER: Well, yes, I think that by saying that we won't retaliate now but we may retaliate later the administration has created the impression that as soon as the hostages are released the people that are holding them may get zapped, and that is a worrisome thing in the Middle East. So it just adds another layer of complexity to what is already a frightfully complex situation on the ground -- maybe more so than the Iran situation.

Mr. BLITZER: The mood, Judy, in Beirut seems to be getting much more hostile, much more anti-American, as the apparent success of this hijacking begins to unfold. Here Israel already is returning 31. There seems to be an impression amongst many of the extremists that things are going their way, the United States is beginning to capitulate and, unfortunately, some of the more moderate elements amongst the Shiites are going to be pushed aside, I fear, and the real extremists are going to start ruling that show in Beirut.

WOODRUFF: Don Oberdorfer, in the view of Washington whose turn is it now to do something? I mean, the Israelis made a gesture; Berri has responded.

Mr. OBERDORFER: Well, in the view of Washington, it's been the turn of Berri and Amal and the other Lebanese Shiites right from the very beginning to release the hostages. And Washington is not -- it's taken the position that it is not going to take any action to concede to any demand, and it's going to be up to the other side to move.

WOODRUFF: And in that case, then, how long do the people you're talking to think it's going to be before this gets resolved?

Mr. OBERDORFER: I don't know of anybody who thinks it's going to be a quick resolution. I don't hear any predictions about how many months, weeks, or whatever. But no one I know thinks this is going to be over fast.

WOODRUFF: Wolf Blitzer?

Mr. BLITZER: I think that it is going to be a prolonged stalemate, unfortunately. One option that the administration does have, and I don't know if they're going to use it, is to increase the pressure on Syria, which, if it wanted to, it has the leverage to get this thing resolved relatively quickly, given Syria's influence within the Lebanese complex situation. And whether the administration decides to use their leverage on Syria of course remains to be seen, but the presence of those warships off the --

WOODRUFF: But it's felt that that would make a difference?

Mr. BLITZER: Certainly. Even Secretary of State Shultz and others have said that the Syrians, if they wanted to, could get this thing over with very, very quickly. I think the Syrians are unhappy with that military presence off the Lebanese coast, and certainly the Soviet Union is as well, and that might be related to the Berri demand today to give up that U.S. presence in the eastern Mediterranean.

WOODRUFF: Wolf Blitzer, Don Oberdorfer, thank you both for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour, a documentary profile of the country's oldest public high school, recently caught up in racial controversy, and a discussion of the security problems indicated by the crash of the Air India jet and what can be done to prevent further tragedies. Terror in the Skies

MacNEIL: We look next at the impact of two weekend air tragedies, one the Air India 747 jet flying from Toronto, Canada, to Ireland, which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 329 people. Authorities speculate there may have been a terrorist bomb aboard. An hour before that, a bomb exploded at the international airport in Tokyo, killing two baggage handlers. Authorities say the bomb had been carried as baggage on a Canadian Pacific Airlines plane that had just landed after a flight from Vancouver. Indian officials say there may be a link between the two incidents, a link now being investigated by Canadian authorities. One of the Canadian officials responsible for airport security is Dan Mazankowski, Canada's minister of transport. He joins us tonight from a studio in Ottawa.

Minister, do you and the people assisting you now assume there was a bomb on that Air India plane?

DAN MAZANKOWSKI: That has not been clearly established as yet. It's speculated, but certainly not clearly established. There is nothing in a definitive way to make that conclusion.

MacNEIL: Are you taking seriously the statement by a Sikh extremist group that it was responsible for the Air India crash?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, of course, the matter is a subject of investigation both from a security and a criminal point of view, and that's being conducted by the RCMP in conjunction with Interpol and other international police arrangements.

MacNEIL: And are you assuming some link now between the Air India event and the Canadian Pacific Airlines incident?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, there's the prospect of a link, but that has not been clearly established either, and that is also part and parcel of the on-going investigation.

MacNEIL: You were quoted earlier today as saying there may have been a breach of security at Toronto airport because of the malfunctioning of an X-ray baggage examination machine. Could you explain what you meant by that?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, the fact is that it has been suggested that one of the X-raymachines had developed a malfunction, but upon discovery of that there were hand inspections through a mechanical sniffing device which covered the other baggage. That will also be a subject of investigation by the authorities, and we have in no way determined whether in fact there was a breach. There's always that possibility, but that will not be determined until the investigation is concluded.

MacNEIL: And then the plane stopped. On its way to Europe the plane stopped at Montreal and three bags, as I understand, were taken off because sniffer dogs started barking at those three bags. What actually happened there?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, there was a detection of something that was suspicious but -- and of course the bags were detained and seized by the RCMP. But on examination the following day, there was nothing other than a normal baggage -- normal things in the baggage involved, so, quite frankly, I think it just demonstrates the kind of precautions that were taken and that have been taken with respect to Air India. They have, from time to time, requested additional RCMP security and our authorities have provided that whenever that request has been made.

MacNEIL: Do you now think that it's possible that, if it was a bomb, that it was not in luggage but had been placed at some strategic point in the airliner? Some authorities looking at the kind of debris left have suggested that somebody who really knew what he was doing placed it in a strategic place. Is that something you are considering?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, certainly the people that are investigating this thing will be looking at all of these suppositions, and at the present time it's merely speculation and conjecture, and in terms of the accident investigation itself, our people and other authorities are being deployed to the scene of the accident, and I understand that they will be engaged in the actual accident investigation commencing tomorrow. In the meantime, the on-going criminal and security investigation is taking place here in Canada under the auspices of the RCMP in cooperation with other authorities. And so, you know, while --

MacNEIL: It's too early to speculate?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: There's a lot of speculation, but it's very -- you know, in a situation like this it's very important not to speculate in the open because we find that during the course of our trying to piece these events together that we have to go back and revalidate some of the information from time to time to make sure that we're accurate.

MacNEIL: In the meantime, what additional security measures have you adopted at Canadian airports today?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, we issued an order yesterday ordering that all luggage in international traffic, both with respect to incoming flights into Canada and outgoing flights into Europe, Asia and Africa have the luggage, all luggage, security checked. In addition, we've beefed up our security at the boarding locations with regards to cargo. We've put a 24 delay on all -- a minimum of 24 hours' delay on all cargo with the exception of perishables, and we're also going to be bringing in new equipment, screening and X-ray equipment for the purpose of checking luggage. But I should say that Canada is one of the highest -- has one of the highest standards in the world in terms of airport security and in the case of Air India, they had taken precautions that were in addition to the standards, the levels which were prescribed by Canada. So we're really dealing with a very extenuating situation here.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: Next, the view of Tom Ashwood, a veteran airline pilot who is director of security for the Airline Pilots Association. He is also chairman of the Flight Security Committee of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations. He has been a TWA pilot for 15 years. Mr. Ashwood, how would you rate airport security in Canada?

TOM ASHWOOD: I would agree with the minister. In fact, I would rate Canada as being amongst the highest in terms of their quality.

LEHRER: Well, then what's your educated guess as to what went wrong?

Capt. ASHWOOD: I could speculate endlessly about that, but when you have a security system, any security system, if it's being breached by, say, people that are in cahoots with the terrorists, you know, you just cannot cover every eventuality at an airport, no matter how sophisticated you are.

LEHRER: Why can't you?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Because of the fact that you're transporting literally hundreds of thousands of people on a given day in the United States, for example; I'm not sure what the traffic flow is in Canada, but it will be proportionate. You're transporting a larger number of baggage; you're transporting freight. Just the daily flow of traffic throughout airports throughout the world is of such immense proportions that if you place any more obstacles in the path of that, the backup is going to be so tremendous that the air transportation system will actually choke on itself. And this is the problem that airline executives, security executives and pilots face.

LEHRER: Well, you heard what the minister just said that they have done in Canada, just in the last 24 hours, as a result of the Air India disaster. Do you think that is too much?

Capt. ASHWOOD: No, I don't think it's too much. I believe that it's a correct response to what is a perceived threat, and obviously they have had an occurrence -- at least one and perhaps two -- that had their origins in Canada. And they're taking what I consider to be sensible measures to prevent a repeat event. But the fact of the matter is that any system, including the aviation system, is vulnerable to terrorist attacks by sophisticated paramilitary groups. Trains are subject to it; cruise ships. Fixed targets such as buildings. They're all subject to these attacks. And just to say that civil aviation is vulnerable is incorrect. We're all vulnerable to terrorist attacks, no matter where we are, no matter what we're doing.

LEHRER: Well, what about the simple issue -- not a simple issue, but what about the issue of checked baggage? Why can't all checked baggage be screened?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Because currently there's not the technology to do it in a timely fashion. Now, it takes an average of, I guess, 30 to 40 minutes to board an average flight in the United States today.

LEHRER: A 747?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Say a 747, yes. It takes roughly that amount of time to do that.

LEHRER: From the time the first passenger goes through the gate --

Capt. ASHWOOD: Starts to check in at the ticket counter with his or her bags and you can get them on board the airplane -- about a 40 -- let's say an hour's long task. Now, you know what it's like in airports currently right now.

LEHRER: Yes, indeed.

Capt. ASHWOOD: We conducted some experiments, the FAA did, a couple of years ago out of Dulles, where they randomly picked flights and they did 100 screening of everything going on the aircraft. The average time, if I recall, was 3 hours to board a flight. Now, you multiply that by the number of flights that operate daily and you can see what's going to happen. And this is the problem that we face. You have this constant dichotomy between the commercial necessities of moving people and material from Point A to B, and you have the security that you have to apply to that.

LEHRER: Now, you're an airline pilot and you're an expert. What in the world is the answer?

Capt. ASHWOOD: The answer is to find, obviously, better means of security, faster means of security to check --

LEHRER: Mechanical means?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Mechanical means, such as explosive detection devices. Technology has reached a phase now where we believe that, given a push, and I'm talking about a financial push of relatively modest proportions -- $10-, $15 million -- that within a relatively short period of time, such as a year and a half, we could have available technology which will become shelf technology.

LEHRER: Like what?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Explosive detection devices, mechanical explosive detection devices which could scan all bags.

LEHRER: Just a machine that you would take hand-held --

Capt. ASHWOOD: No, the baggage would pass by it on its way down the moving belts that they use in the airports for loading at the airport. Conceivably you could reach a point where you could have a detector in the outflow valve of an aircraft. Every atom of air on an airplane passes out through the outflow valve, and the pilot could get in, close the doors, pressurize the aircraft, sample the air as it flows out past the outflow valve and you could find out whether you have explosives on board the airplane either in the cargo or the cabin area.

LEHRER: You can do that now?

Capt. ASHWOOD: No, you can't do that now, but we believe --

LEHRER: No, but I mean the technology is there?

Capt. ASHWOOD: We believe that that technology can be developed with enough rapidity that that is a feasible -- the last one is a feasible reality perhaps in five years. But the first one of having a device to check baggage, we believe is within a year, year and a half, if the money is put into it.

LEHRER: In the meantime?

Capt. ASHWOOD: In the meantime, just extra security, extra vigilance. Most of the breaches of security that have occurred over the past, what is it, I guess 11 years since it was really put into place have occurred because of human failings. Human failures. The machinery is there, the systems are there. The United States systems are excellent. The Canadian systems are excellent. But of course it depends upon people and people aren't always excellent.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: We talk now with a Democratic congressman, Dan Glickman of Kansas, a key member of the House Transportation Subcommitee, and founder of the House Aviation Forum. Congressman, you wrote to the FAA chief, Donald Engen, today asking him to look to the security of U.S. airports. Do you think there is a problem here?

Rep. DAN GLICKMAN: I think, as the captain said, the issue is one of alertness to make sure these things don't happen at our airports. I think the fact that they haven't happened at our airports doesn't mean that we shouldn't be alert to the fact that they could. We have a lot of airports now serving international traffic, like Atlanta or Dallas or Houston or St. Louis, that did not service international traffic a few years back, and I think it's time to realize that terrorism could happen in the United States, and therefore each one of our airports serving both domestic and international passengers, but particularly international passengers, should be a focus of doing a security review now.

MacNEIL: What kind of measures should be taken, do you think?

Rep. GLICKMAN: Well, I think that the sky marshal program that the President announced as a part of his speech, although he did not necessarily indicate that he was going to go forward with that. He said he was going to study it. But I think that we should explore the use of sky marshals more aggressively on selected flights throughout the world. I think that we need to move ahead, if the technology is there, to detect explosives, as the captain just talked about; we need to move ahead quickly. I realize that's going to cost a lot of money. The carriers may be concerned about that cost, and if so it may be an appropriate function of the federal government to pick up the costs of anti-explosive detection devices.

MacNEIL: You think the federal government, as he suggested, should put some money into research, sort of crash research to improve these devices?

Rep. GLICKMAN: Yes. I think that if in fact that's feasible then we ought to be perhaps shifting some money out of other research areas and into areas to try to prevent terrorists being successful. Above all, terrorists must know in advance that they are not likely to penetrate an airplane, an aircraft. You know, you rarely see an Israeli plane hijacked or terrorized anymore. You rarely see a Soviet plane hijacked or terrorized. Now, one of the reasons is because the world would know if they hijacked those planes, there would be very swift retribution. And sometimes that retribution, like in the KAL 007 flight, is something we as Americans would never entertain at all. But the other reason they're rarely hijacked is because they know their security measures are beyond reproach, to the best that we can possibly do. For the most part, we do a good job in this country, but I think we can do better so that terrorists would know that it is extraordinarily unlikely that they would be able to penetrate security of a U.S. airplane.

MacNEIL: What about foreign airports that U.S. planes fly to?

Rep. GLICKMAN: Well, right now the secretary of transportation is reviewing that and is conducting a study of it and is going to report back to Congress swiftly on that point. I think that if we find that those airports are not secure we ought to determine and ensure that our planes do not fly into those airports. Above all, we need to let the public know that. One of the problems with respect to the Athens situation was is that we have known for a long time that Athens airport was an unsecure airport, but we never let passengers in this country know that fact.

MacNEIL: I see. And what about getting airport security improved at airports that are served by U.S. carriers? Is that a responsibility of the United States in any way?

Rep. GLICKMAN: It's a responsibility of the carriers, but it also is a responsibility of the United States. Under the statute the FAA and the Department of Transportation have authority in those areas. They can in fact prevent U.S. airlines from flying into airports that they deem insecure. So it's a joint and cooperative relationship, and it's one that needs to be pursued. You know, I'm in the unfortunate position, I still have a constituent who is a hostage in Beirut as a result of this activity; and I had four, three have been released, one is still there. And the fact of the matter is that those people flew through an airport that had inadequate security. Now, I'm not blaming the carrier, I'm not blaming the government, but the fact of the matter is is that we knew for a long time there were problems at that airport and we didn't warn passengers about it until it was too late.

MacNEIL: What do you think of measures like Canada's adopted in the wake of the Air India thing, about forcing all baggage to go through a 24-hour check before the flight and things like that?

Rep. GLICKMAN: I can't speak to the specifics of the Canadian plan, but I do think that obviously everywhere in the world, both in the United States and Canada, I think you're going to see a more accelerated approach to airplane and airport security than you've seen in the past. The question is, will it continue very long? The question is, will the alertness that's required to deal with this problem, particularly in a free society like ours where we cannot prohibit everybody from moving around airports and around the country, as they can do in a totalitarian society, the question is whether we can be successful. I think we can.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, first back to you, Minister Mazankowski, in Ottawa. What do you think of the anti-explosive detection devices that the captain was talking about? Are you working on those kinds of things in Canada as well?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, we have ordered some 20 new pieces of equipment. As the captain has indicated, the technology clearly has to be beefed up, and perhaps that's why there has been a delay in the screening of checked baggage. But I think you can appreciate with the new measures that we put in place, it has caused extreme lineups at our international airports and some congestion and perhaps some frustration. But notwithstanding that, we believe in view of the circumstances and the issues that confront us, that basically the passengers will understand. But what we have to do, if this is going to become something of a permanent kind of feature in our airport systems, then we are clearly going to have to get the kind of advanced technology that the captain has spoken of.

LEHRER: Do you think it should become a permanent feature?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, this is something that -- we've responded to a crisis situation and took this action in light of the events that transpired. The prime minister has today ordered a full review of airport and airline security within Canada. We'll be looking at that, examining it. Naturally we'll be discussing these measures with the aviation industry and with the countries who form a part of IKALE and the IATA --

LEHRER: Those are international airline organizations, right?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: -- and the international organizations, that is correct. The thing is that we're not an island unto ourselves. We believe that we have to take these steps in unison with the international aviation community.

LEHRER: Captain Ashwood, do you see this as a permanent thing, or are we talking about a temporary reaction to the tragedies of the last several days?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Oh, what you're seeing now, of course, are temporary bandaids, I guess, that we're placing on the system and the Canadians are placing on their system. Although I will repeat they're second to none, in my view, in their security systems, but what we have to do is have permanent systems in place.

LEHRER: Do you think they are necessary?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Absolutely. Unfortunately, you know, the world has become such a place where they are necessary. I deplore it; everybody else of a civilized nature deplores it, but it's there, and I live in the real world. I think I live in the real world, at least, when I recognize -- at least the pilots recognize the fact that there is -- an accommodation has to be reached between the commercial necessities of the aviation system and the absolute security that we'd really like to see.

LEHRER: What about the congressman's point about all the unsecure airports in the world that planes are still flying in and out of? What's the pilots' feeling about that?

Capt. ASHWOOD: Well, we've known it for years and of course we've complained for years about the airports such as Athens airport which are unsecure. But on the other hand, the difficulty arises that on any given day any given airport can be very, very good or very, very bad, again depending upon the personnel, or the crew that's on duty for that particular shift, or the supervisor that's in charge of that crew. That's how fragile the security system is because it depends upon the fragility of human beings. And this is why sometimes it's difficult to ascertain what is an unsecure airport. What time?

LEHRER: Do you all rate them? Do you pilots have a list of airports that you think security needs to be beefed up?

Capt. ASHWOOD: We know of them. We do not maintain a list for security reasons. That's the problem.

LEHRER: You don't want everybody to kow that Athens, for instance, is an unsecure --

Capt. ASHWOOD: We don't want to publish a list of soft spots so that terrorists can determine where the best places they can attack civil aviation.

LEHRER: Congressman, what should Captain Ashwood and the pilots do more of?

Rep. GLICKMAN: Well, you see, I'm not sure that we shouldn't publish a list of soft spots because, if we do publish a list of soft spots, then the American public and the world traveling public have some idea of what's softer than other ideas, and the economics of the situation often will work to require those airports to straighten up or else people won't fly there anymore. I think sometimes in the security business -- sometimes, not all the time; most people do a great job -- there is a little bit too much of a paternalistic attitude about both by the government as well as sometimes by the carriers about, don't tell the public because that will open the situation up to a great deal of overconcern and perhaps might encourage terrorists. But the fact of the matter is that one of the reasons that the Athens airport is now beefing up their security, and it's probably the safest airport in the world right now, is because the public is aware of it. Also obviously because of the tragedy that occurred.

LEHRER: Mr. Mazankowski, what's your view of this as to whether or not the public should be told what airports in the world are not secure?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: Well, that clearly is a concern. I can see the argument on both sides of that --

LEHRER: Where do you come down it?

Min. MAZANKOWSKI: -- circumstances that -- I think that we have to make a determined effort to make all airports more secure, and I think in light of the circumstances, the events that have unfolded, we may very well be entering a new era where this kind of thing is going to be a permanent fact of aviation throughout the world. And if that is the case, then it's going to require the collective and combined efforts of everyone in order to secure our air lanes and to secure the people, and it really becomes perhaps beyond the issue of simply aviation. It becomes an issue of the security of individual nations and the people within those nations. And I sense that it's going to take on a much higher priority in the minds of all governments in the future.

LEHRER: Captain Ashwood, what about the congressman's other point, which also President Reagan has made, and that's to put more air marshals -- to put air marshals on U.S. planes?

Capt. ASHWOOD: We are opposed to sky marshals, and with due respect to the congressman whom we consider probably one of the strongest advocates for air safety and for security for both passengers and pilots, and has been for many years, we believe the sky marshal program is not the way to go, and we have a number of reasons for this. For example, taking TWA 847. A sky marshal on board that flight, one could perceive of a situation where he might try to shoot it out with the hijackers, who are armed with automatic weapons. Obviously he'd be no match, and I think you'd have a disaster on your hands. Had he behaved, in my view, sensibly and not tried to shoot it out, he ultimately would have been discovered and probably would have been the first victim. Sky marshals -- I would prefer to see whatever funds are contemplated to be expended on this to be expended in other areas.

LEHRER: And no sky marshals at all.

Capt. ASHWOOD: No sky marshals at all. Now, we have a handful. We have some which are designated to specific flights that are known to be under threat, okay? And that's okay. But if we do it as a general rule on international flights, we believe it's going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. GLICKMAN: Well, I think it has a deterrent effect. Again, I know that there are sky marshals on El Al flights flying from Israel to the United States and everywhere else in the world, and I am sure that there are sky marshal types on Eastern European airlines. Now, the question is is that, will it have a harmful effect, as the captain says, or will it have a deterrent effect, terrorists knowing that there are, so to speak, policemen -- I'm sure well-educated, well-skilled policemen -- on these flights. And I think that we should use them a little more aggressively than we have in the past.

Capt. ASHWOOD: Well, I'd respond to the El Al argument, which I've heard before. Of course, we're dealing with a nation, a small nation, with a single international airport at home, Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, with a relatively small airline and a nation that's at war, with an airline that is a formal extension of their air force. And so it's an entirely different situation. People that fly on El Al, they're citizens, and the other people expect to find war measures, war defensive measures on board.

LEHRER: All right, we have to leave it there.

Rep. GLICKMAN: Okay, I just want to say, unfortunately the U.S. may be finding itself at war with terrorists around the world, and we may have to take somewhat of a similar attitude.

LEHRER: Congressman, Captain and Minister, in Ottawa, thank you all three very much. Boston Latin: Open to All?

LEHRER: Finally tonight, a final education story from this just-finished school year. It's about racial desegregation in Boston at Boston's best-known public school, the Boston Latin School. Our report is by Howard Husock of public station WGBH-Boston.

HOWARD HUSOCK, WGBH [voice-over]: It was founded the year before Harvard, which its first graduates attended, 140 years before the Declaration of Independence, which five of its alumni signed. The Boston Latin School is in the limelight this year, on the occasion of its 350th anniversary. It's the nation's oldest public school and still, by many measures, Boston's best. Entrance at grade 7 is by examination only; requirements, including the study of Latin, are steep. In a school system that has lost a third of its enrollment since the start of court-ordered desegregation in 1974, nine students from throughout the city still vie for each openseat at Latin. The school sends 96 of its graduates on to college, 22 this year to Harvard. Graduates have always been leaders in Boston and beyond, and this year's seniors, in the tradition, think big.

JIM WYNN: I'm Jim Wynn. I'm a senior at Boston Latin School, and in the future I would like to go into computer engineering, designing the new computer of tomorrow.

BENJAMIN VENITOR: I'm Benjamin Venitor in class one like everybody else, and I'm either going to go to the University of Texas or the University of Chicago. And for my career I plan on going into the foreign service.

PENNY CADRASON: My name is Penny Cadrason and I'm Class of '85, and I'm going to Harvard next year. And I think I want to study law.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: Historically this school has embodied both the promise and conflicts of democracy. Free to all has never meant open to all here. As Boston's schools have become predominantly black, Boston Latin has remained predominantly white. To those who have pursued the goal of desegregation in Boston, that's no coincidence. Standards, they say, can be a code for discrimination.

THOMAS ATKINS, former counsel, NAACP: The Boston school system standard at the examination schools has been one carefully crafted to serve the children of advantaged families. That's what it was created to do. That's what the school was created to do.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: Thomas Atkins, former general counsel for the NAACP, and one-time head of its Boston branch. For more than a decade he's led the challenge to the traditional structure at Latin School. In 1974, federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity considered abolition of Latin School, then 90 white, as part of his broad school desegregation order for Boston. Ultimately he let the school continue, but did order an historic change. The court ordered that at least a third of those invited to Latin be black, even if they scored lower than whites on the entrance exam. The effect, creation of two standards. To get in, blacks must score a 50 on the entrance test, whites, an 80. But this spring the issue of Latin School and race was back on the table. In a new political climate, the outcome was different. Advocates for black students called for a bigger quota, for black students to make up half of all those invited to the school, the same as their numbers in schools citywide. The reasoning? That blacks score lower on tests mainly because of poor preparation. Whites, they say, can prepare for the Latin School exam at private and parochial elementary schools that blacks cannot afford.

Mr. ATKINS: It's like saying everybody can run the 100-yard dash. Anybody that lines can run it, except for you, John, and you, Sue, are going to have to carry these 50-pound weights. Everybody else doesn't have to carry them.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: Atkins points to the fact that only one of every three blacks entering Latin School graduates today. Atkins proposed both that more blacks be admitted and that all those admitted to Boston Latin come from public schools, a way, he said, to encourage higher standards citywide. But as Boston Latin celebrated its 350th anniversary, the Atkins plan came to be viewed as an attack on educational standards. This time the city seemed to close ranks behind Boston Latin. Boston University President John Silber.

JOHN SILBER, President, Boston University: We need to face the fact that this is a proposal not to reform Boston Latin School, but to destroy it. This proposal substitutes standards of race and ethnicity for standards of academic achievement. It is racist on its face. It arbitrarily limits the representation of whites, hispanics and Asians, even if children from these groups should demonstrate superior qualifications for admission.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: School officials advance the idea that Latin School is a meritocracy, a place where anyone qualified may attend. As proof of its open door, school officials point to its large new population of Asian students, nearly 15 of those qualifying for admission, 20 of graduates. These students, children of Boston's latest immigrants, get no admission preference.

MICHAEL CONTOMPASIS, headmaster, Boston Latin: What we're going at this level if an attempt to try and address the issue of access and equity to youngsters that do not have the wherewithal to go to those high-powered competitive private institutions. And as much, I think we have an obligation to recognize the need of those youngsters -- the need is as great now as it was 50 years ago, and to continue to prove that type of education.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: Mary Chan, captain of the Latin School cheerleaders, will go to Yale this fall.

MARY CHAN: You start out with, say, around 400 to 500 kids in a class when you come in in Class 6, and once you come down to Class 1, the average graduating class is around 300 or so. What happens here to 200 of the kids? It's just -- it would be cruel, but I think what the truth is is that it's survival of the fittest, and you have to adapt and you have to condition yourself to try to be the very best you are and try to outdo the person that's next to you in order to survive.

HUSOCK [voice-over]: School officials say it's not all sink or swim. In the past decade, the school has introduced tutoring programs for underclassmen having difficulty. And, despite their high attrition rate, there are more black graduates in the Class of '85 than in any previous Latin School class in history. In 1985, that has proved to be enough to satisfy the federal courts. In late May, W. Arthur Garrity, the same judge who ordered the racial quota at Latin School 10 years ago, rejected the proposal to increase that quota, and he urged the city to do more to prepare all its public school students for the rigor of Boston Latin.

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. Lebanese Shiite Muslims demanded that U.S. warships leave the eastern Mediterranean before American hostages are released. President Reagan canceled his 4th of July vacation because of the hostage crisis. Israel released 31 Shiite prisoners, but said it was not because of the hostage situation. An international investigating team is looking for the cause of the Air India crash near Ireland. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.