The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then: The latest on the fatal shooting of a passenger by a federal air marshal at the Miami airport; a look at the task of rebuilding Iraq, including excerpts from President Bush's speech with additional assessments by Sen. Jack Reed and an administration official; and an airing of the Euro-American debate over how to handle terror suspects.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A federal air marshal shot and killed an airline passenger in Miami today. The man claimed to have a bomb. It happened on a jet way after an American Airlines plane arrived from Colombia. The U.S. Homeland Security Department said the passenger warned he had a bomb in a carry-on bag. It said he refused to halt, and reached into the bag and the air marshal fired. Officials said later the man was a 44-year-old American citizen. And they said no bomb was found. We'll have more on the story right after this News Summary.

President Bush talked up economic progress in Iraq today, but he conceded it's been tough. It was the second of four speeches to answer war critics and justify U.S. policy. Mr. Bush insisted Iraqis are seeing tangible improvements, from reopened schools to better roads, despite the violence.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Reconstruction has not always gone as well as we had hoped, primarily because of the security challenges on the ground. Rebuilding a nation devastated by a dictator is a large undertaking. It's even harder when terrorists are trying to blow up that which the Iraqis are trying to build. The terrorists and Saddamists have been able to slow progress, but they haven't been able to stop it.

JIM LEHRER: Senate Democrats issued their own assessment. It said the U.S. faces a reconstruction gap in Iraq with billions of dollars wasted. And Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania repeated his call to withdraw within six months. He said a gradual pullout leaves the troops exposed too long.

REP. JOHN MURTHA: I don't think you can continue to draw down the way they're talk about. They're going to withdraw. There's no question they're going to withdraw. I predict that a big proportion of the troops will be out by next year. I am convinced, and everything that I've read, the conclusion I've reefed is there will be less terrorism. There will be less danger to the United States. And there will be less insurgency once we're out.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more from the president's speech and the response to it right after this News Summary.

Saddam Hussein was a no-show at his trial in Baghdad today. He refused to appear as the court heard from two more witnesses. They described more of the beatings and torture in the town of Dujail in 1982. Saddam is accused in the deaths of 140 Shiites there. Later, the court recessed until Dec. 21.

In Kirkuk today, gunmen freed a man accused of plotting to kill a judge in the case. The attack killed three police officers.

Osama bin laden is alive and still leading a holy war against the West. That message came today from an interview with al-Qaida's deputy leader, posted online. Other parts of the interview were released in September. It was al-Qaida's first word in a year that bin Laden was still alive.

Secretary of State Rice offered new assurances to Europeans today on terror suspects. In Ukraine, she said a ban on cruel and degrading interrogation applies to all U.S. personnel everywhere. She did not define those terms or give examples. We'll have more on this story later in the program.

An Israeli missile attack today killed a man identified by the Israelis as a senior Palestinian militant. Palestinian officials said the attack in Gaza wounded ten other people, including three children. The strike came two days after a suicide bomber killed five Israelis at a shopping mall.

The governor of Mississippi complained today Congress has held up the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Republican Haley Barbour appeared at a House hearing. He criticized lawmakers for failing to approve funding for roads, schools and housing construction.

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR: We're at a point where our recovery and renewal efforts are stalled because of inaction in Washington, D.C., and that delay has created uncertainty that's having real negative effects on recovery and rebuilding. It's taken the starch out of people who have worked so hard to help themselves and their neighbors.

JIM LEHRER: Barbour's criticism was some of the sharpest yet from a top Republican. Congress has approved $62 billion in hurricane relief. Most has been spent on immediate needs such as food, clothing and shelter.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 46 points to close below 10,811. The NASDAQ fell more than eight points to close at 2252.

And that's it for the News Summary tonight, now it's on to: The Miami airport shooting; the reconstruction of Iraq; and a Europe terror debate.

FOCUS - AIRPORT SHOOTING

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the latest on the Miami airport.

RAY SUAREZ: An official from the federal air marshal service described what happened in Miami a short time ago. Here's an excerpt of what he said.

JAMES BAUER: At approximately 2:10 this afternoon, American Airlines Flight 924 was boarded at Gate D.-42. It was in the boarding process. An individual later tentatively identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, age 44, was boarding that aircraft as well.

At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sense that, in fact, that he had a bomb. There were federal air marshals on board the aircraft. They came out of their cover, confronted him, and he remained noncompliant with their instructions.

As he was attempting to evade them, his actions caused the FAM's to fire shots and, in fact, he is deceased.

The Miami-Dade Police Department responded to this event and in fact are conducting the shooting investigation.

The FBI also responded to this, and a crime was committed aboard an American carrier aircraft and they have jurisdiction in that matter, and to see whether or not there's a nexus to terrorism.

RAY SUAREZ: Sara Goo has been covering this story for the Washington Post and she joins me now.

Sara, what do we know, if anything, about Rigoberto Alpizar? Was he a Floridian getting on a plane to leave Miami Airport? Was he in transit? Had he just come in from Colombia as that flight had?

SARA GOO: We are still learning a little bit about this man but we do know that he's 44. We are told by Homeland Security officials that he is a U.S. citizen. This flight originated in Colombia, stopped in Miami and then was to go on at this point to Orlando.

We have heard reports that this gentleman was on the original flight from Colombia, but federal officials say everyone from that plane departed, cleared Customs, and then re-boarded again.

RAY SUAREZ: And the air marshal, would he have been at that point boarding the flight along with Mr. Alpizar?

SARA GOO: We don't know anything about the air marshal's itinerary; that information is not publicly available to us.

We do know that they go on a number of international flights through agreements with nations across the world, and so they very well could have been on the original flight from Colombia and continuing on, but clearly they were responding to this instant that happened originally on the aircraft, and then of course now we know deadly -- it ended deadly on the jet way.

RAY SUAREZ: Has any kind of device or bomb-like device been found either in Alpizar's hand luggage on what he had checked on the plane to travel with?

SARA GOO: No, in fact, the reports so far indicate that this man might have been mentally unstable. Some reports from witnesses who were on the aircraft at the time said that he ran from the back of the plane near where his seat was to the front near the cockpit.

His wife, apparently with him, was telling passengers or screaming that he was unstable. He had mental problems. He had not taken his medication.

So I'm sure that will be a big part of this investigation going forward. For one, we don't know whether air marshals have any training in how to deal with someone who is not a terrorist but might have, you know, might be mentally unstable.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what do we know about the sequence of events? Was he told by the air marshals to get down, to stop, to drop what he was carrying?

SARA GOO: Yes. I'll tell you a little bit about what we do know as the events unfolded, before this plane even took off from the ground, passengers have said that he was boarding the plane. All 114 passengers on this flight had been boarded, were in their seats. The crew had not yet closed the cabin door for departure.

The man got up from his seat near the back of the plane, and, as I said, ran towards the front, the wife apparently screaming.

At that point near the cockpit, the air marshals apparently confronted him, and he said he had a bomb in his bag, in his carry-on bag which he had with him. They told him to stop; he did not. Instead, he exited the aircraft through the jet way. They followed him from what we are told from federal officials. They confronted him, told him to get on the ground; he didn't comply apparently, apparently even reached into his bag, and that is why the shots were fired.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you know what rules air marshals are obliged or trained to follow in cases like this when it comes time to use lethal force?

SARA GOO: Yeah, Ray. I've actually been to the federal air marshal training facility in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where they are trained in very specific tactics, in close quarters, of course, shooting from short ranges, and from a confined seating position.

These air marshals are not your average cops on the street; they're very, very well trained. There's a high washout rate of them who don't even make it into this program, so they're very well trained in how to deal with physical confrontational situations.

And this is the first time that we've known where an air marshal has actually fired his weapon with a deadly consequence.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what happens after an incident like this? You have, as you mentioned, over 100 passengers trying to get on a plane to go somewhere else entirely. Is the plane sequestered? Are the passengers set off to one side and interviewed? What goes on?

SARA GOO: Well, this is the digital age, so we saw a lot of this unfold on television, on national television. But we did see what the airport officials told us was the passengers were deplaned after this, apparently some of them interviewed, their luggage screened, themselves screened again.

Some of them we were told from the airport were actually allowed to go on to their flights eventually this early evening. But, you know, a lot of this is a gray area.

For example, the F.B.I. is I charge of investigating crimes aboard an aircraft. This really didn't take place -- at least the shooting -- on the aircraft but on the jet way. So, moving forward, we're in a really entirely new area here.

RAY SUAREZ: So it's not really clear what the agency of authority and the agency of responsibility is in this case?

SARA GOO: Well, we know that the Miami police clearly have a role because it happened at the airport. The F.B.I. initially is responding.

But a number of these questions are probably going to be ferried out in the next couple of days between the Department of Homeland Security, which employs the air marshals, and the F.B.I., which responds to a terrorist incident.

In this case, as wejust learned from the press conference, so far they don't know think this man who was killed was a terrorist suspect at all.

RAY SUAREZ: Sarah Goo from the Washington Post, thanks for joining us.

SARA GOO: Thanks, Ray.

FOCUS - FROM THE GROUND UP

JIM LEHRER: Now, rebuilding Iraq. That was the focus of President Bush's speech today to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Here is part of what he said:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Over the course of this war we have learned that winning a battle for Iraqi cities is only the first step. We also have to win the battle after the battle by helping Iraqis consolidate their gains and keep the terrorists from returning.

As improvements in training produce more capable Iraqi security forces, those forces have been able to hold on to the cities we cleared out together.

With help from our military and civilian personnel, the Iraqi government can then work with local leaders and residents to begin reconstruction with Iraqis leading the building efforts and our coalition in a supporting role. This approach is working.

As soon as its fighting in Najaf ended, targeting reconstruction started. The Iraqi government played an acting role, and so did our military commanders and diplomats and workers from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Together, they work with Najaf's governor and other local officials to rebuild the local police force, repair residents' homes, refurbish schools, restore water and other essential services.

Construction jobs are putting local residents back to work. One man from Najaf put it this way: Three years ago we were in ruins. One year ago we were fighting in the streets.

Now look at the people -- shopping and eating and not in fear. There's still plenty of work left to be done in Najaf. Like most of Iraq, the reconstruction in Najaf is preceded with fits and starts since liberation. It's been uneven. Sustaining electric power remains a major challenge.

Another area that has seen tremendous gains is the ancient city of Mosul. As security in Mosul improved, we began working with local leaders to accelerate reconstruction. Iraqis upgraded key roads and bridges over the Tigris River, rebuilt schools and hospitals and started refurbishing the Mosul airport.

Police stations and firehouses were rebuilt, and Iraqis have made major improvements in the city's water and sewer network. Mosul still faces challenges.

Like Najaf, Mosul's infrastructure was devastated during Saddam's reign. The city is still not receiving enough electricity, so Iraqis have a major new contract under way to expand the Mosul power substation. Terrorist intimidation is still a concern.

The progress of these cities is being replicated across much of Iraq, and more of Iraq's people are seeing the real benefits that a democratic society can bring.

We're helping the new Iraq government reverse decades of economic destruction, reinvigorate its economy, and make responsible reforms. We're helping Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure and establish the institutions of a market economy. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong in Iraq.

Our policies are aimed at unleashing the creativity of the Iraqi people. Iraqis who were disillusioned with their situation are beginning to see a hopeful future for their country. Many who once questioned democracy are coming off the fence. They're choosing the side of freedom.

This is quiet, steady progress. It doesn't always make the headlines in the evening news. But it's real. And it's important. And it is unmistakable to those who see itclose up.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has more.

MARGARET WARNER: Now two assessments of how reconstruction efforts in Iraq are faring. We start with Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's visited Iraq six times since the war began, most recently in October.

Senator, welcome. What's your reaction to the picture President Bush presented today of how the reconstruction effort is going?

SEN. JACK REED: Well, the president, I don't think, presented a picture consistent with the whole country of Iraq. The overall total suggests that electrical production is barely at prewar levels. The significant unemployment, there are serious economic problems.

He focused on two communities, Najaf and Mosul, and they're not in the Sunni heartland. They're not in the areas with the decisive battles will take place.

It would have been more hopeful - or helpful, rather, if he could have talked about Fallujah, and what we've done there. That's where I think the critical issues will be decided. Najaf is an interesting case.

We battled a year ago, but not with Sunni insurgents. It was with Shia militia, Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army. And we ended with a truce, and he's still active in that area. There has been progress there, but that's not the critical point.

In Mosul, that's a Kurdish area, and we have got a little more, I think, presence there, and also more support by the Kurdish forces.

MARGARET WARNER: But if we just stick with reconstruction, now, he said what's happening in Najaf and Mosul is being replicated across Iraq.

You're saying, well, he wasn't talking about the Sunni triangle. But which is the exception? I mean, is the Sunni triangle the exception, and is the president right that throughout the rest of Iraq there really is all this reconstruction under way, or is it the reverse?

SEN. JACK REED: Well, frankly, Margaret, it would have been helpful to me and to the American public if he had pointed to those places where it is being replicated.

My trips there suggest that there is fitful progress. There is some progress, but it's not consistent across the country, and also that the resources that we need to ensure it does take hold in other places aren't adequate in terms of support by civilian components of the United States government and international agencies, and also the security situation is challenging.

So I think it is telling that he's simply he made an assertion that it's taking hold without pointing to where this replication is taking place.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, on your trips what have you seen that doesn't jibe with what he portrayed?

SEN. JACK REED: I was in Fallujah last March, and I was shocked to learn we had just one young Foreign Service officer that was charged with helping the military organize these efforts. That might have changed.

I went up to Mosul the same trip, and colonels and the armored cavalry squadron up there said they needed more civilian help. I've seen, I think, spotty progress. And the progress is, in those cases, obviously, which has the less-threatening security situation.

That's why places like Mosul and places like Najaf are doing better, but the real area of contention is in that Sunni triangle with al-Anbar Province and other places.

MARGARET WARNER: So from the U.S. end, the reconstruction end, is the problem not enough money and personnel being spent, or that it's being misspent in your view or both?

SEN. JACK REED: I think it's both. I think the needs are vastly greater than what was estimated, principallybecause of the security. Literally, there's a security tax on all these projects.

I think also we've seen situations where the planning was inadequate, situations where there has been outright stealing of funds and misappropriations of funds. And so this has been a situation where it's been very problematic about getting the construction done. And that I think is still with us today.

Hopefully progress is being made to address those points, but still a very challenging situation.

MARGARET WARNER: You said earlier today that only about half of the money that had been -- I think it's roughly half or less than -- that had been appropriated has actually been spent. What is the problem there?

SEN. JACK REED: I think the problem is, first, in terms of security, of getting the money out on the street. It's also other problems of finding competent contractors of design work, deciding how the money should be spent.

But we appropriated initially significant sums of money, and we're still waiting for those sums to be deployed, and those moneys that have spent, there's real criticism; GOA published a report about a water purification system, suggesting a portion of that money has not been spent well or wisely.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president did acknowledge that some of the early U.S. approaches really weren't effective. For instance, the projects taken on were too big -- I'll just use one example -- and he said, "We have adjusted."

In your travels there, have you seen an improvement in effectiveness, an adaptability or adaptation on the part of US AID officials in terms of the way it's approached?

SEN. JACK REED: Well, I have seen adjustments, obviously. And I think when you're there on the ground, you get a sense that people do understand these issues, but it took an awful long time.

I think one of the key faults that we're still paying for today is the fact that there was virtually no really good planning for what the military refers to as "phase four," the post hostility operations.

It took months for the administration to understand they had serious challenges. And still, I think, there is not yet fully developed and fully implemented sort of plan to provide the kind of reconstruction that's necessary.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, and briefly, if you can, please, how much of this is ultimately going to be the U.S. responsibility? In other words, are there certain reconstruction benchmarks that have to be met before U.S. troops can leave, or will most of this ultimately be an Iraqi responsibility?

SEN. JACK REED: Well, I think our departure will be accelerated to the extent we can get this construction correct. It very well might be that because it's so difficult that we don't fully complete our intended projects. But that is an important complement of defeating this insurgency. And I hope we can accomplish that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Sen. Jack Reed, thank you so much.

SEN. JACK REED: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Now a response from one of the U.S. Officials overseeing much of the reconstruction effort. James Kunder is an assistant administrator for the U.S, Agency for International Development. He is in charge of US AID's reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And, Mr. Kunder, welcome.

JAMES KUNDER: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's take the critique offered by Sen. Reed. He said that President Bush today, focusing on Najaf and Mosul, really was not painting a very accurate picture of what was going on in the country as a whole. Is that right?

JAMES KUNDER: Well, I hope every American reads or views the president's entire speech because he talked about three things. One, he talked about the targeted response in places like Najaf and Mosul. Second he talked about a broader effort across the country to deliver better services to the Iraqi people. And third, he talked about a focused effort to improve the capacity of the new Baghdad government -- that is to say, the government that will be elected in December.

MARGARET WARNER: But he was saying that real progress has been made and he used these two cities as his examples, and I guess my question to you is parallel to the one I asked Sen. Reed: Where else is that being replicated in Iraq?

JAMES KUNDER: It's been widely reported, and it's perfectly accurate, that probably in 60 or 70 percent of the countryside, there is enormous economic activity and progress taking place.

There are more than 30,000 new businesses that have started since the military action commenced, and I'd like to point out the fact that while we do have a problem in not being able to meet electricity demand in Baghdad and across the country, part of the problem is -- the problem, if you call it that -- is that there have been so many new Iraqi businesses started in many parts of the country, that we can't keep up with demand.

Clearly, there are parts of the country, as has been widely reported in al-Anbar Province in the West that are hot spots; clearly it's difficult to do reconstruction in those parts of the country. But I think what the president described today in Najaf and Mosul generally characterizes the -- what he called quiet, steady progress that's been taking place across the country.

MARGARET WARNER: If Sen. Reed is correct -- and I'll ask if he is correct - that, you know, up to half of Iraqis are still unemployed; that the economy, he said earlier today, isn't market-based at all. There are all kinds of fuel and food subsidies, is that because just the Sunni triangle is having difficulties, and that's dragging down all the numbers, or is this a problem countrywide?

JAMES KUNDER: I think in defining and designing any reconstruction program like we're doing in Iraq, you have to begin where you started from. And where we started from was an economy and a polity that Saddam Hussein had ruined. It was a Stalinist state. He had drained the investments in electrical power and schools and hospitals from average Iraqis to build the palaces.

And so what we started with was a massive rebuilding program. Now, many of us would question whether it's a cup half full or a cup half empty. But, from my perspective, where we started from, we've made enormous progress in just two and a half years.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, how about the fact that -- again, I'm going to refer to Sen. Reed -- that not enough money is being spent, that not even what Congress has appropriated has been spent, what's the problem there?

JAMES KUNDER: There's not a problem. What happens in any kind of program like this, whether it's a highway project in the United States or an engineering project, an electrical power generation system in Baghdad or in Iraq, is you do some of the design work up front; you scope the project, you design what you want to do, and that as the construction takes place, the money is paid to the contractor.

And when we hear this regular critique that the money hasn't been spent, what's really happening is the money is being paid out as the construction work is done.

MARGARET WARNER: But how about the critique that there is a kind of security tax, that some of this money is being siphoned off to pay for security?

JAMES KUNDER: Well, there's no question, and there is absolutely no complaint or no disagreement with the Congress on this. Probably 23 percent of the taxpayer dollars that are going into reconstruction in Iraq are, regrettably, diverted into security.

And the reason is that we have sadists who are willing to blow up schoolchildren when water projects are dedicated, and we have to invest in security in order to deliver those water services and those inoculation services against disease. So it's enormously costly because of the insurgency.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the senator also was faulting the U.S. Government, and your agency, for essentially poor planning and poor performance. And he cited the GAO report that came out a couple of months ago and just one example, which was that a quarter of the water and sanitation projects, or the money spent for that, that the projects, they found, either didn't work at all or were way underperforming. Do you have a problem with basic performance, and if so, what is it?

JAMES KUNDER: The problem at its core is that, again, because this was a centrally planned economy and because so many -- so much money was wasted on palaces and things for the elite, they simply didn't invest in operations and maintenance.

So what we're having to do is build a whole new operations and maintenance mentality so when the taxpayers build a plant, it's going to function the way it should function.

MARGARET WARNER: I mean, the GAO was referring to projects that apparently had already been completed.

JAMES KUNDER: And because we've discovered -- and this is why the president mentioned today, Margaret, that we are having to adjust our program, we have got to build up a capacity that simply didn't exist for the Iraqis to take care of these investments. That wasn't done in the past under the Saddam Hussein regime. We're now building that capacity.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally, I'll ask you the same question I ended with, with Sen. Reed, how much of this do you think ultimately the U.S. is going to be responsible for, and do you agree that it's part of defining success in Iraq, that that's going to make it -- the more success you have in reconstruction, the faster U.S. troops can leave?

JAMES KUNDER: I think there's clearly a connection between the two. One of the things that the president did say today, we are rebuilding the capacity of the central government. Ultimately we want to shift the burden to the Iraqi oil revenues for the reconstruction of the country.

MARGARET WARNER: About how much more money do you think it's going to take of U.S. taxpayer dollars?

JAMES KUNDER: I think if we continue to spend the $18.6 billion that the Congress has thus far made available and modest additional investments in the coming years, we're going to be able to tip the balance so that the Iraqis can take over this reconstruction effort.

MARGARET WARNER: James Kunder of AID, thank you.

JAMES KUNDER: Thank you.

FOCUS - TERROR - TORTURE -TENSION

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight The European-American war of words over the war on terror. Gwen Ifill has our story.

GWEN IFILL: Everywhere Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled this week she has been confronted with the same mettlesome questions: Does the United States respect its allies? Does it condone terror? Does prosecuting terror mean ignoring international law?

From Berlin to Bucharest, she has insisted the United States is on the right side of the law.

And today in Ukraine, she said all American personnel comply with the U.N. Conventions Against Torture, or CAT.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT, which prohibits, of course, cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary Rice's planned agenda for this trip has been overtaken by the angry and insistent European debate.

Citing unnamed sources, the Washington Post reported last month that the CIA has been running terrorist interrogations camps in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, a charge the administration has not denied.

Even before she left Washington on Monday, Rice appeared to anticipate the firestorm to come.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The United States and those countries that share the commitment to defend their citizen will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists.

Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence law enforcement or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives.

GWEN IFILL: In Germany, new Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the issue of Khalid al-Masri, a German national of Arab descent. He claimed he was abducted by the CIA in Macedonia and taken to Afghanistan where he was later tortured. He now is suing the United States.

Merkel and Rice publicly disagreed over whether the U.S. acknowledged a mistake in the Masri, and Rice has continued to maintain the U.S. has not broken any treaties.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The United States does not condone torture. It is against U.S. law to be involved in torture or conspiracy to commit torture, and it is also against U.S. international obligations.

GWEN IFILL: Rice arrived in Brussels, Belgium today, where more questions await her from members of NATO and the European Union.

GWEN IFILL: So now we'll take a look at the continuing debate over how the United States is handling its war on terrorism with Stephan Richter, publisher and editor in chief of the Globalist, an on-line daily that focuses on international economy, politics, and culture -- a German citizen, Richter has lived in the United States for 25 years; and Richard Falkenrath, a former deputy homeland security adviser and special assistant to President Bush. He's now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Welcome to you both.

Richard Falkenrath, why is Condoleezza Rice having such a tough time in Europe?

RICHARD FALKENRATH: Well, there are a lot of different reasons. I think one part of it is the allegations in the Washington Post that there is a secret detention facility, maybe two, in Eastern Europe. And this is news to the European policymakers, and it's of great concern to them.

Another aspect are the questions of how does the United States treat individuals who are in U.S. custody? Are they tortured, are they treated humanely, in accordance with international law, and in particular the convention on torture?

GWEN IFILL: Has she had good answers to those questions?

RICHARD FALKENRATH: Well, I think she actually has an accurate answer. Whether the European public and policymakers think it's good, I don't know; probably not; they're pretty skeptical.

Her answer is we don't torture, and her argument is the following: We signed -- the United States signed the 1994 U.N. Convention Against Torture. That has been ratified the Senate, and there's implementing legislation defining precisely what is prohibited for all U.S. Government agencies.

And so when the president and Dr. Rice and everyone else says we do not torture, what they mean is we're, biding by U.S. law, the implementing legislation for the convention against torture.

GWEN IFILL: Stephan Richter, is that an adequate response?

STEPHAN RICHTER: I wish it were so. I think the bigger context is very important to keep in mind. Condoleezza Rice is the star player of this administration, came over to Europe for what probably shapes up to be a pivotal week in transatlantic relations, and she really needed to score high. Her German counterpart was here the week before. She promised to have an open debate about it.

Just the fact that before she went on the trip in Europe to give a press conference at Andrews Air Force Base, where she tried to put all these issues to rest I think was very unfortunate symbolism because it felt a little bit like the viceroy of India was coming to visit from London, and before he was getting to his underlings, was making the statement.

And that's not the style that this administration wants to portray in terms of having global democracy, but for European citizens, European politicians who are all very concerned about this, to see their buddy, the very smart, very charming U.S. secretary of state basically trying to end this debate before she even got over there was the wrong foot start.

GWEN IFILL: But she did say in Ukraine that she thinks -- she insists that the United States would comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the interesting thing about that, and you have Democratic senators saying today that's a reversal of the administration's position. Is it?

STEPHAN RICHTER: It would be if that were true, but the point is they are so -- there are so many other positions all the time. We've seen Abu Ghraib, we've seen Guantanamo; the Europeans now have the renditions issue to which they would basically agree as a matter of policy.

But then there were renditions not even done with the consent of governments, supposedly the Polish government and the Rumanian government -- which are the two countries in question -- had consented.

Even if that is the case, it puts the countries, in the European context, in very hot waters. They can even lose their voting rights in the European Council of Ministers. That leads to emasculation, and it's a very hard thing to say these countries are sovereign and we talked with them.

These countries operate in the European compound of promoting human rights at all cost, and I think that's the basic division -- that the United States pushes this agenda without looking at human rights. When we look at the current attorney general, he played loose with the torture definitions, and some of the Europeans are drawing a line in far more than the sand because European history has been tragic, and they, for good reason, stand up for human rights.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask Mr. Falkenrath about that. Is the tension we're seeing in Europe, responding to just a broader, everything thrown into the pot concerns that these countries and citizens in these countries have about human rights complaints against the United States in general, or is it about something specific?

RICHARD FALKENRATH: That's probably some of it. There clearly is a very broad and sort of amorphous concern around the world and in Europe in particular.

But I think what Dr. Rice is trying to do there is to talk from government to government about the responsibilities governments have to protect the people; it's a responsibility the U.S. Government has and the European governments have.

And she, I think, is having a pretty serious and frank conversation about the sort of means that governments routinely use to do that, and the rules that govern that conduct.

And this is very important. I mean, she's said in her departure statement that, yes, we do collect information, and we follow the law when we do it, but we collect intelligence from operatives, people we suspect or know are terrorists. So do you, the European governments and we share that, and we both benefit from it because by sharing it we're able to prevent attacks before they occur. It's a very important point, and one which I think she's raising at every one of her meetings.

GWEN IFILL: If she does not concede, as she has not, that these secret prisons exist, that torture exists, any of these complaints against the United States are true, is there a sort of wink-wink thing going on with European allies: Come on, you know you do it, too?

RICHARD FALKENRATH: Not on torture. On the how you treat people in your custody, I think there's no wink-wink.

GWEN IFILL: But rendition, for instance.

RICHARD FALKENRATH: Rendition is another matter -- and secret facilities -- if they exist -- is another matter. In that case, the rendition activities and the detention activity that happened on the territory of the European states happened with the consent of the European government.

And so she will be saying, look, we went to you beforehand and we asked you may you do this, and you said yes. And if you now have problems with your own domestic politics or the European Union, or anything else, you know, deal with it because you said we would do this.

And that's why she said we respect their sovereignty. She keeps saying that, and what that means is we talked to them beforehand, through channels, they agreed, they are responsible governments, we did our job.

GWEN IFILL: If that's so, Mr. Richter, then why the complaints now?

STEPHAN RICHTER: Why the complaints? Because we're talking about promoting democracy globally and the citizens of Europe have very open questions about these practices. They have questions about what the United States has done.

Human rights is an American invention as a matter of international public law in the modern world. They are very concerned if what they have learned with their mother milk in the post-war era, thanks to the United States, is now played with by the administration that has to defend itself, go through Washington appearances every single day, another administration official, vice president, president, secretary of state, defense secretary, and so on, is talking it up.

There are very big questions that have not been answered, and I think that's a very big concern, and you just look at Angela Merkel, the German chancellor that you showed; she has been yearning for years, not only to become chancellor of Germany but also to improve the relationship with the United States. That entire agenda that she's been hoping for is in shambles.

GWEN IFILL: Well, I mean, is it in shambles, or are we just talking about a renewal of old tensions? Or is it really -- is this really a huge setback for the whole --

STEPHAN RICHTER: This was meant to be a new beginning, and the two famous women had a disagreement over the word whether there was a mistake in these rendition cases or not.

And that's something that with all the preparations that go into visits like that, ought to have been avoided, but there's a spat about this, and it lets European citizens feel not right about this, and even the sovereignty issue, you know, with regard to the Polish government and others, leads to a big problem in the end because, yes, wink-wink, we agreed with it, but if then afterwards you get into such hot waters with the European human rights conventions and so on, it sends a very clear and chilling signal to anybody who has cooperated in the past not to do that again.

GWEN IFILL: How much of this is a fundamental break in our relations with these countries, and how much of it is something that's going to pass?

RICHARD FALKENRATH: I think it will pass. I don't think this is a fundamental break with these countries. We are, in many cases, operating together against terrorism threats worldwide, and we will continue to do so, as we must, on many other issues.

This is a point of tension. It's an embarrassment. It's a very awkward situation, and it's a very tough situation with the European politics and opinion leaders.

I think the bigger problem is actually an internal European problem. And if it is true, as reported, that there are detention facilities in countries that have recently been admitted into the European Union, those countries face serious sanctions when that information comes out; and if it is true that such facilities exist on countries that hope to get into the European Union, I think they will probably not be getting in on the schedule expected.

GWEN IFILL: So given all of that, if you were -- not that you would be advising Secretary Rice, but what could she have been prepared to say on a trip like this to head off the criticism which has been awaiting her at every turn?

STEPHAN RICHTER: She should have said: Mistakes happen; this is a very difficult time. We're all facing a new front. Let's look at what we've done. We've all, actually in terms of intelligence cooperation and so on, have done a good job. We have shared that intelligence. Let's focus on prosecutions.

If you look at the Florida case we had yesterday where the U.S. authorities have spent 20,000 hours monitoring a guy, this Florida professor, and then not winning a conviction in Florida -- this was not California or some liberal state of the union -- that leads to fundamental questions, and the Europeans don't mind and need the American push which often comes, but it needs to be done smart and it needs to be done right, and we need to focus on results, on convictions.

And the Spaniards, for example, have gotten many more convictions out of 9-11 than the United States has so far.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let's ask the same question of Mr. Falkenrath. Maybe she's saying the right thing. Maybe she's just saying to them, listen, get used to it.

RICHARD FALKENRATH: Well, she's clearly saying different things privately to them than she is in public. That's always the case. And there are things she can say in private that she can't say in public.

I mean, if we actually have sensitive intelligence cooperation with some other country, we cannot reveal that; we cannot just fess up to it and say, yes, mistakes were made; we work for Country X and this went wrong.

And the reason we can't is not only is it impossible for that country, but every other country we go to, seeking such cooperation, will remember that we burned Country X., so we can't do that, in public at least.

I'm not sure, this is really the key question: How do you do better than what she's done? Where I'm sitting with my vantage point, I'm not sure how you really improve on this, given the reality of the circumstance.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. We'll leave it there for now. Richard Falkenrath, Stephan Richter, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again,the major developments of this day: A federal air marshal shot and killed an airline passenger in Miami. The man claimed to have a bomb, but no bomb was found. President Bush talked up economic progress in Iraq, but conceded it's been tough. Democrats said in fact, there's been little progress. And Saddam Hussein was a no-show at his trial in Baghdad but the court heard more testimony about mass killings in 1982.

JIM LEHRER: And, once again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are six more.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, with a Newsmaker interview with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.