The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, we have our News Summary; then, the differing views of Senators Levin and Roberts on investigating the pre-war intelligence about Iraq; a rundown on three Supreme Court decisions today, from Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune; a report on improving conditions for day laborers in Tucson; a health care series conversation with Democratic president candidate, Senator Bob Graham; and a report from Duluth, Minnesota, on atoning for past acts of racism.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. troops mounted a major sweep in Baghdad and several other Iraq towns today. Called Operation Desert Scorpion, it was aimed at finding resistance leaders and outlawed weapons. At least 59 men were taken into custody. A U.S. Army spokesman said the operation would spread.

MAJ. SEAN GIBSON, U.S. Army Spokesman: The purpose is to eliminate Ba'athist Party members and seek out terrorist organizations that we consider bad elements that de-stabilize the country for their own agendas. The key element is following those operations we'll also conduct various civil affairs and humanitarian assistance operations attempting to quickly get Iraq basically back on its feet, make it a better place to live.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, the military said ten U.S. soldiers were wounded Sunday in ambush attacks on convoys north of Baghdad. And a marine died last night in Najaf from a "non-hostile" gunshot wound. There were no other details. Authorities in Saudi Arabia pursued more Islamic militants today after a Saturday raid in Mecca. Police killed five people in the raid, and found an apartment filled with bombs. They arrested five suspects during the operation, and six more on Sunday. Most were wanted in last month's suicide bombings in Riyadh. Those attacks killed 35 people, including nine Americans. Egyptian mediators tried and failed to broker a cease-fire between Palestinian militants and Israel today. A top official in Hamas said it was premature to talk of a truce. Later, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon said he would continue attacks on Hamas leaders. The Israelis did hold talks with the Palestinian Authority, on possible troop pullbacks from Gaza. Iran today accused the United States of interfering in its affairs, amid protests in the capital city, Tehran. We have a report from Vera Frankl of Associated Press Television News.

VERA FRANKL: Iran's foreign ministry spokesman attacked President George Bush for his remarks on the recent demonstrations in Tehran. Bush said the demonstrations were driven by a desire for freedom. "Unfortunately, the Americans have displayed their animosity very vividly to our people," he says. "There were various statements from American officials which are outstanding examples of the irresponsible intervention in the domestic affairs of the Islamic republic of Iran." Nightly clashes between pro- democracy protesters and police began last Tuesday, triggered by students protesting plans to privatize universities. The demonstrations then snowballed into broader displays of opposition to Iran's clerical establishment. There was unprecedented condemnation of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even calls for his death, in a land where such criticism is punishable by imprisonment. These pictures show scuffles between students and riot police in a student district in the capital late on Saturday. Following the protests, more than 250 university lecturers and writers called on Ayatollah Khamenei to abandon the belief that he's God's representative on earth, and accept that he's accountable to the people.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington a State Department spokesman said the United States supports the protesters demands for democratic reform, but he denied any American role in stirring up the demonstrations. Also today, the head of the U. N. nuclear agency called for stricter oversight of Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians deny using the program to develop weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions of note today. The justices imposed limits on forcibly drugging mentally ill defendants. They upheld a ban on campaign contributions by corporations and advocacy groups that was first imposed in 1971. And they ruled public housing areas may be designated off- limits to unauthorized visitors to fight crime. We'll have more on the three decisions later in the program tonight. The Catholic bishop of Phoenix, Arizona was arrested today in a hit-and-run death. Bishop O'Brien would be booked on a charge of leaving the scene of a fatal accident Saturday night. Detectives traced a license number to his car. Earlier this month he gave up some authority to avoid being charged with shielding priests accused of sexual abuse. Twelve inmates were released from jail today in Tulia, Texas, in a racially charged drug case. They're among 38 people convicted of cocaine possession four years ago. Most were black. A white sheriff's deputy claimed they sold him drugs; he's now accused of perjury. The other defendants have already been paroled or released on probation. Federal prosecutors announced key arrests today in the deadliest immigrant smuggling case; 19 people died last month when a locked trailer was abandoned in stifling heat in Victoria, Texas. In all, 70 people were crammed inside. Now the alleged ringleader has been arrested along with eight others. Five more suspects remain at large. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 201 points, or 2 percent, to close at nearly 9319, its best finish in almost a year. The NASDAQ rose 40 points, or 2.5 percent, to close above 1666. Actor Hume Cronyn died Sunday at his home in Fairfield, Connecticut. He had prostate cancer. Cronyn had dozens of stage and screen roles, beginning in 1931. He was often paired with his actress-wife, Jessica Tandy, including the two "Cocoon" movies of the 1980s. Tandy died in 1994. Hume Cronyn was 91 years old. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Senators Roberts and Levin on Iraq intelligence; Supreme Court decisions; day laborers in Tucson; health care by Graham; and Duluth says it's sorry.

FOCUS - WHAT WAS KNOWN

JIM LEHRER: Congress and the search for answers about pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Kwame Holman begins with some background.

KWAME HOLMAN: Two months after the fall of Baghdad as the hunt for Iraqi weapons continues, congressional democrats are stepping up calls for a detailed look at the Bush administration's prewar intelligence. How good was it, and was it overstated? Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER: We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, the al-Qaida Iraq connection has not been found to be very real. And so we need to have a very thorough investigation into what happened that caused the president to go ahead and proceed with a war.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last week republican leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees announced a set of closed door hearings on the subject to begin this week. They will focus on what U.S. Intelligence showed about Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism prior to the war; how reasonable was the administration's assessment of that intelligence; and how accurate was that assessment compared to the post-war search for weapons. The GOP leader said the closed hearings may lead to public sessions and that it's not correct to call the process an investigation.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I don't think a formal, quote, investigation, which is a pejorative, that there is something dreadfully wrong and that you're going to have to set things straight is the proper course of action at this time. Let's do our homework first.

KEVIN WILLIAMS: Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner supported the Bush administration's position that criticism of its use of intelligence is premature.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: The evidence that I have examined does not rise to give the presumption that anyone in this administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose. And I regret that those allegations have been made.

KWAME HOLMAN: Still, some Democrats want a formal public probe that reviews not only the CIA's knowledge but that of the Pentagon and other agencies. House Intelligence Committee senior Democrat Jane Harman said on Fox News Sunday there are legitimate questions about prewar intelligence.

REP. JANE HARMAN: A lot of the predictions didn't happen, I mean our troops as they cross the border from Kuwait to Iraq weren't subject to chemical weapons, no missiles carrying MWD's were fired at Israel. We were prepared for that. The intelligence sort of led us there -- didn't happen.

KWAME HOLMAN: A first round of closed hearings is scheduled to begin Wednesday.

JIM LEHRER: Now to two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Its chairman Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. Senator Levin, are you satisfied with the way the Senate is going about this business of looking at the prewar intelligence issue?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Well, I hope we'll do and I think it's still unclear that we're going to proceed this way, but Senator Roberts is here and can answer this directly, is that there be a joint decision made as to what issues we're going to look at, joint announcements as to whether there's going to be hearings. Joint decisions made as to the staffing issues. There should be a jointness to this so that it's totally bipartisan. And I have proposed this to Senator Warner in terms of the Armed Services Committee that we basically unite our staff as one, that they interview witnesses for instance together. They decide on what witnesses will be interviewed together. They decide on what questions we're going to ask of the intelligence community, what documents we're going to seek together. And that these all be done in joint announcements the way it was done in the House. I think that's the way in which we can create the greatest credibility and confidence that we're going to have a truly bipartisan inquiry, investigation. I frankly am not that hung up on the words as to whether it's an investigation, an inquiry or a review. The key thing to me is that it be thorough and it that it be bipartisan and that's what I propose to Senator Warner.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Roberts, why is it's not being done that way, the same way in the Senate as it's being done in the House?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, it is, Jim. And I don't know what all the fuss is about. We have said from the outset that we will have a thorough review of all the documentation, whether it applies to the al-Qaida and terrorist groups in Iraq or whether it applies to the public statements by the secretary of state, the president, secretary of defense. We have all that information now; we have all the documentation in the Intelligence Committee. It's tabbed. So any member of the Intelligence Committee, and I hope they will, do will go up and they will do their homework so they can make an informed judgment and not just make a personal opinion. In response to Carl's suggestion we've been meeting along with Senator Rockefeller and also Senator Warner, I think Carl's suggestion is good, it will be bipartisan. We have seven staff members, they are expert analysts, both Democrat and Republican, we will have hearings, we're going to have a hearing on a subject that is very crucial to Carl, that is what happened with all the intelligence that was shared with the inspectors, the U. N. inspectors, we start that off with a business session to outlining exactly what we're going to do as of this Wednesday, and we will follow it wherever it goes. At the end of this, at the end of the hearings and at the end of the review, it has to be reasonable, we have to determine if the intelligence was right, we have to look at the quality of it and we have to look at the quantity of it. My only concern is it's not really turn into a real political football and the circuit with something called a full investigation, until we do our homework. Let's do our homework and we'll see where it leads.

JIM LEHRER: He kept saying joint. Well, he's sitting right there, he said there wasn't a joint, in fact we ran the announcement just in the introduction of the two of and you there were three Republicans, there were no Democrat there's. Is that what you're talking about, Senator Levin?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Exactly. I think it's really important that there be Democrats and Republicans in making these announcements together, making the decisions together as to who will staff these inquiries, as to what additional material will be sought. Joint meetings with witnesses, these should -- I've seen this go both ways in the Senate. I've seen one hearing that was in the campaign finance reform, the so-called Thompson hearings, which just became very partisan, and I think of very little value. On the other hand, I've seen other investigations or inquiries or reviews, and you can call them whatever you want, that have been very, very useful because there has been joint decisions with the chairman and the ranking Democrat together, announcing things, appearing together, deciding on what witnesses will be interviewed, deciding on the issues. So that it's not just the unilateral decision of the chairman.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Senator Roberts, do you have a problem with that?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: No. As I say, I don't know what all the fuss is about. We held a press conference with Porter Goss, who had talked to Jane Harman, and I'm not going to put any words in her mouth, and I talked to Jane individually and I said let's do this on a step by step process, and the statement with Porter Goss and the same with Jay Rockefeller, there was some suggestion on the part of the minority that we do the public hearings first. I don't think we should do that, I think that was a mistake in the 9/11 hearings. I think we ought to do our work first and that obviously members of the Intelligence Committee would have access to all of the documentation, make an informed judgment and then let's see where this takes us. I really don't think there's - I think we're parsing words and I think we're reading a lot of press releases that sort of jump the gun, because this will be bipartisan. Senator Rockefeller and I are good friends; he's a good colleague. Senator Levin will not leave any stone unturned, he'll cross every "T" and dot every "I," and so I think we will work together.

JIM LEHRER: So when you said a while go, Senator Roberts, that you're afraid this thing would be politicized what did you mean? What are you talking about?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Basically, I didn't want to have the words a formal investigation, a public hearing, all the airing of all the campaign talk that we have seen from a lot of presidential candidates and statements that the president lied or the president deceived or the president manipulated or the administration did all that. I think that's uncalled for at this point because people don't know. That may be a personal opinion. It may be a political opinion. It's not my opinion. Basically I don't know, I don't have any evidence to that. I want members to go through the documentation, see the quantity of it, the quality of it and if it is reasonable. If it is not, obviously we're not going to rule anything out. If there's something egregious, we have our basic oversight responsibility that we really have to get this done. By the way, Senator Rockefeller has two other hearings that are planned before the first of August, or the August break so, we have other things that we are doing as well as getting to the bottom of this to all the members' satisfaction.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Levin, you had a news conference earlier today where you suggested, and you've suggested this before as have others, that more is at stake here than whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the real issue here is now the credibility of the United States and its intelligence. Explain what you mean.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: We've got to be able to rely on our intelligence; just to give you one example, there's a report in the press that the intelligence communities is now concluding that there's a link between al-Qaida and Iran. Well, if there is, that could have a huge effect on American policy. On the other hand, we were told by the intelligence community that there was a very strong link between al-Qaida and Iraq, and there were real questions raised. And there are real questions raised about whether or not that link was such that the description by the intelligence community was accurate or whether or not they stretched it. And if we can't have confidence in their findings, if we determine, if we determine in a bipartisan thorough inquiry or investigation or review that the CIA made a finding that there was a strong link between al-Qaida and Iraq, which was not accurate, if, if that is the finding, that raises really serious questions in terms of American security on future decisions relative to Iran, relative to North Korea. And by the way, we've issued lots of reports about investigations and inquiries, we haven't been reluctant on the Intelligence Committee, for instance, to call the investigation into the shootdown of a Peruvian plane an investigation or inquiry, we had no reluctance to call lots of our investigations and inquiries investigations and inquiries. But it seems to me the reluctance here to call something for what it is, which should be a thorough bipartisan inquiry, a very neutral word, it seems to me is something which there's not reassureme that this is going to be as bipartisan as it ought to be.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Roberts I want to first get your reaction to that. You heard what the senator just said. He's worried about the -

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I heard it quite a bit as a matter of fact, but, okay, go ahead.

JIM LEHRER: But is there anything you can say to reassure him?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: You know, I constantly work to reassure Carl. on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. He's pretty tough to assure because he's a tough cookie and he's asking the right questions, and we're going to ask the right questions. We're parsing words here. When the Peruvian plane went down, we didn't have eleven Democratic candidates standing on the stage in front of the public employee union in Iowa blaming the president for, actually lying about intelligence, and we don't know that. That documentation that the distinguished senator, my colleague, my friend has referred to as to whether or not there was any terrorist activity in regards to the link between al-Qaida and Iraq, we have that, it's about that deep, and I want members, Carl included, myself included, to read the documentation. And then we can make an informed judgment as to whether it had the right quantity, quality, was it reasonable, was it right? That's all I'm asking, let's do our homework first before we raise these questions in a political context. And I'm not saying that Carl is doing that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with him on the significance of this inquiry, in other words why it's important beyond Iraq, how it could influence attitudes toward Iran, North Korea, and you can name the list from this point on if there's some question, some cloud of question hanging over the quality of our intelligence as it related to Iraq?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: There's no question about that. If you are embarking on a policy of preemption which is brand new to Americans and you have the selective use of that, you're going to have to rely on the best intelligence possible. But I don't think that it's helpful quite frankly to be beating the intelligence community about the head and shoulders with a lot of questions before we've done our homework. More to the point, prior to 9/11, if you connected the dots, you had to connect all ten of them before you issued any kind of a threat warning. After 9/11, we said get out of the risk a version business, if you connect three dots, you better make that public. Now, what worries me about all of this press and all of this, I don't know what to call it, all of this fuss, is that once again we have the intelligence community right in the cross hair, some of it is political without question, all I want to do is get to the bottom of it. If there is something egregious, you're darned right we need to know about it and we need to know about it very quickly. It could be a lesson learned in regards to the intelligence community to fix it, simply not point fingers of blame.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Politics can run both ways here, we ought to avoid politics from either direction, either any suggestion that Democrats are pressing for an inquiry for political purposes or that Republicans are resisting a thorough inquiry for political reasons. In order to avoid any such implication, charges, innuendo, the decisions as to what should be investigated, what materials should be all the, who should be the staff, what witnesses should be interviewed, joint interviews of those witnesses, ought to be joint decisions, that is all that we've made and by the way it's not just Democrats calling for a thorough investigations, Senator Hagel has said we ought to have a thorough investigation, Senator McCain has said we ought to have hearings promptly. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is truly an issue of making sure that intelligence is not shaped or exaggerated in order to support a policy of any administration because of the risk to this country if there is such exaggeration or shaping, are very dangerous when it comes to critical decisions in the future about Iran, North Korea or other dangerous places.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Roberts, what has been the White House and others in the administration's view toward what you and your colleagues might do on this issue in the Senate?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, despite a lot of rumors to the contrary and a lot of criticism, I have not heard from the white House. There's been no contact to me personally from the white House on what we ought to do with this, and I think that's proper. The Committee on Select Intelligence or the Select Committee on Intelligence should be independent from any kind of, any kind of political pressure from the white House. They have not been in touch with me, and that same question was asked of Senator Warner and Porter Goss and they repeated that. Let me just say one thing. Carl is very concerned about the number of sites that were provided to the U. N. inspectors, and he is concerned rightly. We will have a hearing on that with the very top people from the CIA -- George Tenet, to finally put that issue at rest. He just issued a letter here saying that he continues to be concerned. Now, in the staff work that I've seen, and the questions that I have raised, and the meetings I've been in I think it's more a question of actionable intelligence. But that's my opinion. We need to make an informed judgment on this, and that's why I promised Carl there will be a hearing, it's backed by Senator Rockefeller. All the things he is asking for, we are going to do. What we're not going to do is have a public hearing first like the 9/11 investigation where it can be politicized and I want an informed judgment by every member of that Intelligence Committee who have read through the documents. That's what we're trying to do.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: This isn't an issue of whether the public hearing is first, by the way. The issue here is whether the decision on what information will be sought, what issues will be explored, when and whether there are public hearings as a matter of fact, will be a joint decision. That is the key issue here. It's not whether there will be -

JIM LEHRER: Senator Roberts, you're saying there will be?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Of course it will be. I don't know how many times very to say that. We have seven staff members, part of them are Democrats, and part of them are Republicans. The biggest thing is they're expert analysts; that's what we need.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: The second biggest thing is that they really should be selected jointly between you and Senator Rockefeller.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: That's been done.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Not jointly, I don't think that decision to select that staff was --

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, invite Senator Rockefeller over to give you a phone call, but basically we are having a joint bipartisan staff that are very good in terms of analyzing intelligence and we'll get that job done.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the issue, Senator Levin, that Senator Roberts just mentioned was also a subject to your news conference today, in a nutshell you're concerned that the number, when he says sites, you're talking about possible sites where weapons of mass destruction might have been in Iraq, and you say there's a conflict between the numbers given to the U. N. inspectors or that -- in a nutshell what is your concern?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: First let me commented Senator Roberts because of the hearing which was decided upon is exactly the right way to go, and I commend him and Senator Rockefeller for jointly making that decision. The issue here is whether or not the CIA stated fact actually in public how many of the top suspect sites were shared with the U.N. I said publicly, that as a matter of fact they misstated it, twice, in public, saying that all of the top suspect sites of high or medium value were shared with the U.N. Their classified material does not demonstrate that, and I have urged for four months that that be declassified so that the public can decide whether or not George Tenet was saying it straight when he said that all of the top suspect sites had been shared with the U. N., because if he misstated it, that again raises the question as

to whether or not we can rely upon the statements of the intelligence and community and director.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Roberts, I take from what you said a moment ago you have no problem looking into that very issue?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Absolutely not. Now, I think there's a question in regards to definition again because I know Carl and I have sat down with Senator Warner, Senator Rockefeller and we've had several meetings about it, we've had staff actually go up and talk to Hans Blix and the U. N. team up there, that regime. I think we've got to the bottom of it. There is a very definite difference of opinion between a top side, a medium side, a hot side, warm side, and a site that would prompt actionable intelligence. Carl is right, if this question is out there and the figures are wrong, we need to know about it, although from my point of view, I think they did share, as a matter of fact, I think Mr. Blix told our staff they got probably too much intelligence as opposed to actionable intelligence sites. Now we can get into the definition of that. And one other thing while I have this on my mind: I really don't think that the site investigation is as important as what Mr. David Kay now, who is our new person over there in charge of this, will be doing, and that is rounding up the people that can direct us to the weapons of mass destruction. It isn't so much whether those figures were inflated. The weapons of mass destruction, we all know they were. Now, it's either one of three things: They've either been dispersed or hidden or off shore. Now, the most important thing to do is to find out where on earth they are. If in fact - all Saddam is saying they had to do if he destroyed them was to let the U. N. know that, his regime might have been preserved, although I think the world is much better off. But the real question is, where's the WMD?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Going back to George Tenet's inaccurate statements about how many sites were shared with the U.N., all I want released is his own numbers, to declassify their own numbers, and the last excuse he gave for not doing it was that we have this secret relationship going with the U.N., it would embarrass the U.N. if we disclosed the number which the CIA told us in a classified way. We wrote Hans Blix. Hans Blix said heck no, go ahead. Make that number public; it's fine with us. That was the letter that we released today from Hans Blix, saying he had no objects to going ahead.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I don't have quite as much confidence in Hans Blix and the inspection teamthat Carl does.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: He has no objects to releasing the number. That's the only question. It's not a question of confidence in Blix. If you're using Hans Blix as the relationship as the excuse not to release your own number in the CIA, Hans Blix says he doesn't have any objections.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: In terms of criticism it's like a mosquito bite, so I urged him to put on some American insecticide.

JIM LEHRER: We have to leave it there, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: Next, decisions from the Supreme Court, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The justices severely limited the government's authority to forcibly medicate mentally ill defendants to make them well enough to stand trial. They also ruled in two First Amendment cases. Here to walk us through those decisions is "NewsHour" regular Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune. Well, Jan, the first involved Dr. Charles sell, a dentist from St. Louis. What was at issue in the case?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: At issue is whether or not the government could forcibly medicate Dr. Sell who has a long history of mental illness in order to make him competent to stand trial on charges that he engaged in a variety of health care fraud. Now, Dr. Sell objected to taking this medication. He acknowledged that he had had delusions, but he did not believe that this medication would solve his problem. So he challenged the government's authority to forcibly medicate him, arguing that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which insures that the government won't deprive you of liberty without due process of law, he argued that he had a Fifth Amendment right to reject it.

RAY SUAREZ: And the decision?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the court today set aside a lower court ruling that had ordered Dr. Sell to be forcibly medicated and it told the lower court to rethink that issue in light of a series of new guidelines that the court handed out today. The courts decision, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, said that government can in some situations forcibly medicate mentally ill criminal defendants to make them fit for trial. But only in certain circumstances where it was medically appropriate, where the drugs were necessary to ensure a fair trial, where it was important to further the government interest, only in several sets of circumstances could the government do so. And the court cautioned that those instances may be rare.

RAY SUAREZ: So let me make sure I understand you. The court ruled today that you can still do this. It is possible for governments to forcibly medicate defendants, but they just couldn't do it in this case with Dr. Sell?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Or not at least at this point. The lower courts may come back and say, okay, we've looked at what the Supreme Court said, we've analyzed these guidelines and based on that we still believe Dr. Sell could be forcibly medicated. Now keep in mind that the Supreme Court has long held that the government could forcibly medicate a criminal defendant who is mentally ill if that person posed a danger to himself or others. But that wasn't the issue in this case. Dr. Sell, the federal courts found, was not a danger. The government wanted to medicate him solely to make him competent to stand trial. So that was really the issue today. And the new guidelines that the court issued today on the one hand certainly enabled the government to forcibly medicate mentally ill criminal defendants to make them competent for trial. But it made it difficult. I mean, they have to follow these strictguidelines. And the court did set aside the lower court opinion and said to the lower court, rethink it, because we want to make sure that you followed all these steps and properly balanced the very important constitutional right of this criminal defendant, with the government's also important right to put this person on trial. It's a difficult issue because you have those two key concerns at stake.

JIM LEHRER: Let's take a brief mention of the dissent which was written by Atonin Scalia; he suggested that in light of this ruling, defendants could gain the system?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right, he did. There were three justices in dissent. They didn't take issue with the fact that he should be medicated, they said yes the government should be able to medicate Dr. Sell, but that the federal courts had no business getting involved in this case in the first place, they should wait and resolve this issue at the end of the trial and that by jumping in here now, criminal defendants across the country were going to be encouraged to raise all of these constitutional arguments on the eve of their trial solely to delay proceedings. He gave an example of a criminal defendant who wanted to wear a certain T-shirt before the jury and argued that the judge's orders saying no would violate his constitutional rights, that he could make that argument and try to delay his trial. But Justice Breyer addressed the dissent and he said, look, this is a different case, this is an intrusion, this is a serious constitutional concern, and he flatly discounted Justice Scalia's argument and dissent.

RAY SUAREZ: Another of the rulings today involved a public housing development in Richmond, Virginia, and one Kevin Hicks. What was at issue there?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, Kevin Hicks was arrested by Richmond police one day when he was on his way to take his baby diapers, the child lived in this housing development. Mr. Hicks had been ordered to stay away from this housing development and so he was arrested for trespass. He filed suit and challenged this policy of the Richmond Housing Authority that could bar certain people from the public housing developments on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. So that was the issue before the court today: Whether or not this housing authority policy which enabled the housing authority to keep out people who had no legitimate purpose, as the policy says, whether that violated the Constitution. And the court today said no, not right now, not on these grounds. But Mr. Hicks, you may have some other arguments to raise again in the lower courts. So what they did was they shut the door to Mr. Hicks' first argument, which was a pretty technical First Amendment doctrine argument.

RAY SUAREZ: Made it a free speech matter?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: He did. He said this policy was overbroad, that it would suppress speech and expression, for example someone who might want to pass out leaflets in the Housing Authority project, would not be able to do so. So because the law was so overbroad, it should not apply to him and should not apply to anyone else. Now, the courts rejected that, they said that's a pretty novel application of that kind of technical First Amendment doctrine, but it did leave open the door, and suggested certainly to oral argument that Hicks had several other legal avenues that he could pursue below in challenging this policy, and in challenging his exclusion from this Housing Authority development.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, even though this was public housing, it had become private space because it had been put under private management. Did that end up playing into this case, whether or not it was public space?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Sure, and that's I think an interesting aspect of this case because the Richmond City Council in an effort to combat crime and drugs that have gripped this housing authority development like many areas across the country decided what it was going to do was convey the streets and sidewalks in the Public Housing Authority developments to the Public Housing Authority. And make them private. So then therefore the Public Housing Authority could pass this policy that says these streets are private, if you don't live here and you don't work here and you don't have a legitimate reason for being here, then you can't be here. And if you come here, say like Mr. Hicks did and we don't want you here or you shouldn't be here, then we're going to arrest you for trespassing. So because the streets had been privatized the, yes, then the Housing Authority was able to pass that no trespassing ordinance that Mr. Hicks got swept up in.

RAY SUAREZ: Let's take the briefest look at another case argued on free speech grounds, this had to do with private not for profits and their political donations. What did the justices rule?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the court today took up a challenge to a ban that prevents corporations from directly contributing to political campaigns. The nonprofit advocacy corporations had said they should be exempt from that ban because they're advocacy organizations, and a North Carolina Right to Life organization had mounted a challenge to this, organizing that it violated the First Amendment free speech grounds. And the court today upheld that ban, even for not for profit corporations. This was a closely watched case, it's a pretty narrow issue but a closely watched case because many people were looking for clues to see if they could discern any hints of how the court might look at the mammoth overhaul of campaign finance reform that's headed this way on Sept. 8; that's the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And the court on Sept. 8 has set a special argument date just to consider that case. So today, supporters of McCain-Feingold said they were heartened that the court had upheld this restriction and said they thought it might bode well for some of the soft money effort, soft money loophole to close the soft money loop hole, I'm sorry, that McCain-Feingold does.

RAY SUAREZ: And this was a seven-two decision. Jan Crawford Greenburg, the Chicago Tribune, thanks a lot.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You're welcome, Ray.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Graham on health policy, and a Minnesota atonement.

SERIES - CANDIDATES' RX

JIM LEHRER: Now, another of our conversations with the Democratic presidential candidates about health care. Margaret Warner has tonight's.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Bob Graham of Florida is advocating what he calls an incremental approach to getting health coverage to nation's 41 million uninsured. He would expand government programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to guarantee health coverage for all children; offer an affordable buy-in to Medicare for those nearing 65 who have lost coverage from their employers; and expand Medicaid to cover more of the so-called working poor, whose employers don't provide coverage and who cannot afford to buy it on their own. Senator Graham joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Welcome, Senator.

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: How many of thenation's 41 million-plus uninsured would get coverage if you combined all three of your proposals?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Two-thirds of the currently 41 million Americans who are without health insurance would be covered under these three proposals.

MARGARET WARNER: So, do you not... then you do not consider this less ambitious than the plans of some of your rivals, Senator Kerry, Howard Dean, or Dick Gephardt?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: No, it is approximately the same number of people that they would propose to cover in their plans. I think it is pragmatic. If there's a lesson that was learned from the efforts of two very able and persuasive people, Bill and Hillary Clinton, to get comprehensive health care through ten years ago, it is that the health care system is so complicated and there are so many people who have a stake in the status quo that it's very difficult to do in one giant step. I believe it's pragmatic to do it step by step, focusing on three groups for whom there are already programs in place and who have very special medical needs: children, the working poor, and the early retiree.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's take the children and the working poor, the CHIP program and Medicaid. As you know, the states in particular are already facing huge budget pressures on these programs. How would you pay for them? Are you talking about the federal government assuming all the additional cost?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: No, I'm not. I think that this should be a shared responsibility, and that sharing should include the federal government, state governments, the individual beneficiary, and in the case of the working poor the employer of the individual beneficiary. The estimate is that this will cost the federal government between $70 billion and $90 billion a year when it is fully implemented.

MARGARET WARNER: So you are roughly... your cost is also roughly the same, say, as Senator Kerry's or Howard Dean's?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes. We would propose to provide to all children who do not have access to other forms of health care insurance coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program. We would propose to extend Medicaid up into the working poor with a buy-in that is a partial participation by the beneficiary, the amount of that depending on the income of the working poor. And then at the early retiree stage, it would be in the opposite direction, as Medicare reaches back to provide access to its services to the early retiree, again, on a co-payment basis.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, again, many of your rivals are suggesting or saying that to pay for their plans they would roll back the Bush tax cuts, both of 2001 and 2003. Would you do that? If not, how would you pay for this?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: That's the place I would start. I would not roll back benefits which are already in place, but I would freeze those parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax plans that have yet to go into effect.

MARGARET WARNER: Your plan-- at least as I read it, and it's not, as I'm sure you admit, very detailed-- but I didn't see a lot about trying to beef up also the existing employer-provided health coverage, as again several of your opponents do by, say, offering tax credits to get more employers to offer it. Do you have anything there for getting employers just to do more?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: That would be part of the working poor plan. We would encourage employers to be a participant with the beneficiary in partial financing of the working poor plan. I want to say that our plan is not just focused on access. We also have proposals as it relates to enhancing the quality of health care and the patient outcomes, controlling cost of health care, dealing with the special needs of the elderly, and rebuilding our public health service, which as we have just learned through this recent SARS epidemic is a critical part of our health safety net.

MARGARET WARNER: What would do you about controlling costs?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: In terms of cost to the system at large, these are some of the things that I would do. I would establish what I call the land rent college system for health care. This would provide that there would be not only research and development of applicable new technologies, but also an outreach system so that we can accelerate the pace at which those new technologies are adopted. I would also look to things like accepting the fact that for older Americans it's no longer just a single issue of retirement and then death; it is an aging process. And we need to reform our system so that we are providing the appropriate care at the appropriate process or period in that process of aging, with one goal is to keep people as independent and active as possible as long as possible.

MARGARET WARNER: Some of your rivals who have issued more detailed plans have actually submitted them through what they call scoring or vetting or analysis of the cost and how many would be covered by an independent firm or analyst. Are you going to do the same?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, and we have. The number-- 70 to 90 billion per year when fully implemented and the two-thirds of the 41 million covered-- are the results of submitting our plan to experts in health economics, and this is what they have given us as their assessment of what it would cost, how many it would cover.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally an issue that you were very active in last year, which is prescription drug coverage for seniors. President Bush is pushing to say he wants a bill on his desk by July 4. The Senate, as you know, is wrestling with now considering a plan to offer at least partial drug coverage for seniors. What's your feeling about that overall approach?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: First, it is extremely important that we do provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The reason is that Medicare today is a sickness program. If you're sick enough to go to the doctor in the hospital, Medicare will pay a substantial amount of your cost. What Medicare doesn't do very well is to help keep you out of the doctor's office and out of the hospital by providing the kind of preventive care and early intervention. Now, once you make that transition, it is obligatory that you provide a prescription drug benefit since prescription drugs are an increasingly central part of any preventive regime. I, therefore, strongly support the objective. I have some serious problems with a specific plan, primarily because for the 86 percent or 87 percent of Medicare eligibles who are in the traditional fee-for-service plan, it would require that they get their prescription drugs through a private insurance policy rather than through traditional Medicare. There's no other group of Americans who get their prescription drugs in that manner. We're about to go into a vast social experiment with 39 million older and, in many cases, frail and vulnerable Americans.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Bob Graham, thanks so much.

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Thank you.

FINALLY - ATONEMENT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, atoning for racism in Duluth, Minnesota. Fred de Sam Lazaro of Twin Cities Public Television reports.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: International shipping and tourists attracted to Lake Superior and the nearby woods have all helped Duluth get beyond its rusty industrial history.

SPOKESMAN: We are about to retrace the steps that were taken on that terrible day.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But this year, this city of 90,000 decided to revisit one of the ugliest moments in its history. A week-long public atonement that ended Saturday included vigils, readings, and a silent march.

MAYOR GARY DOTY, Duluth, Minnesota: Eighty-three years ago on Sunday, a shameful, tragic, horrific event took place in our city.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Reporter: It was a lynching-- far less likely to occur in a northern city, especially one with less than 500 black citizens.

MAYOR GARY DOTY: Three young African American men were lynched in cold blood for a crime they did not commit. We condemn that act.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: On June 15, 1920, rumors spread in the city's working class and entirely white west end that a young white woman had been raped by black men working for the visiting circus. Six suspects were rounded up by police and jailed. But a growing mob, many already angry at blacks who were being hired amid local labor unrest, wanted its own justice. Watched by an estimated 10,000 spectators, the mob overran police guards, who were instructed not to shoot. They broke in and pulled out three men.

ANTHONY PEYTON PORTER: The crowd dragged the young men about a block away, beat them as viciously as you can imagine, and hanged them from a light pole that stood diagonally across the street from where you are now.

MICHAEL FEDO, Author, "The Lynchings in Duluth:" It's really a horrible picture, and when you look at it, you can see people crowding into that picture. Probably in the back, people are on tip toes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Michael Fedo wrote a book about the lynching in 1979. It was recently released again.

MICAHEL FEDO: You can see people grinning, certainly happy to be there and probably proud of what they had done. I don't think anybody would have posed in that picture had any thought at all that this could be evidence against them in a trial.

SPOKESMAN: We do know that only three men of the several hundred of those who did this dastardly act were ever convicted and spent one year in jail.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Many black residents left Duluth. For years, Maxine Johnson Taylor says, no one in the traumatized community talked about it.

MAXINE JOHNSON TAYLOR: My mother was too... what happened was it became a shock, so when it happened, she went back... she was from Kentucky, and then she came back and lived here, so it became a mental block.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Reporter: So you were never told about this?

MAXINE JOHNSON TAYLOR: No, no, never. And not even from... even though that happened, not even from anyone from the community here. Nothing was said until the '60s.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The civil rights era brought talk of righting historic wrongs, but it was years before any action was taken. In 1991, Duluth began to restore the dignity of the three men. They'd laid here in the pauper section of Park Hill Cemetery, anonymous for seven decades until their graves were finally marked with foot stones. But a diverse committee of residents, including Henry Banks, pushed for fuller reconciliation.

HENRY BANKS: This wasn't something we were trying to black the eye of Duluth or what have you. We were trying to say we don't want to blame anyone for their actions. We want to heal from their actions. And we want to make sure that our community becomes the best place it possibly can become.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The task became easier as the generation that witnessed the lynching faded into history.

MICHAEL FEDO: I think people don't have so much a personal stake in it as they did, say, twenty/twenty-five years ago, when it would be brought up and people would be upset because they had an uncle, a neighbor, or a grandfather who had been there and participated.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: It may be easier to talk about in Duluth today, but some, like Leon Paquette, don't think the observances were necessary.

LEON PAQUETTE: I wish that we would forgive, forget, and let it lie. I don't believe in bringing things up from so long ago, you know. It happened, it's done with, and I'm sure it's too bad, but it happened. It shouldn't never have happened. Amen.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But many of the others we spoke to at the west end Veterans of Foreign War post were far more supportive.

FRIEDA ERICKSON: I think it's wonderful. I think it's way late in coming. It should have been there long, long, long time ago.

ROGER GALEA: A very good idea.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Why?

ROGER GALEA: They didn't do nothing wrong to begin with.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And there are signs that views in the west end have changed with the times, even if some language hasn't.

MARIE PAULSON: I'm involved with the Minnesota senior federation, and we have colored people that belong to that, and I've gotten to know them real well. And we have another lady that lives in our area, and she's colored, and I don't think I could find a better friend in the world than she is -- and down to earth, a lot of fun, so I believe that there must a lot of those people, just like us.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: While there's little outspoken opposition, event organizers worry about indifference. Crowds, for example, in the low hundreds, were just a fraction of those who showed up for the lynching. High school senior Eddie Glenn, a model for a bronze memorial to the three murdered men, hopes it will lead to more interaction across racial lines.

EDDIE GLENN: There really isn't any conflict anymore. It's just there's still a lack of understanding, and there's still, you know, segregation among the cultures that really just stems from not understanding and not really caring to understand, and that's what I'd like to see change.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The bronze sculpture will be unveiled sometime in October.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We had planned to bring you a report on day laborers in Tucson, but we had time problems so we'll have that report another evening. Again, the major developments of this day: U.S. troops mounted a major sweep in Baghdad and several other Iraqi towns. At least 59 people were taken into custody. Iran accused the United States of interfering in its affairs amid protests in the capital city, Tehran. And the U.S. Supreme Court imposed limits on forcibly drugging mentally ill defendants. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.