The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news this Good Friday evening Lebanon's warring factions appear to have made political peace at last, maybe. But Britain and Libya remained apart on resolving the London embassy crisis. London was jarred by another act of violence -- an airport bomb explosion that injured 23 people. A bomb also went off at a Navy facility here in Washington, but there were no injuries.And in West Germany two mystery fighter planes shot at a U.S. helicopter. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: We'll explore the news from Lebanon in more detail with a Lebanese journalist who's spoken with the principals involved. Also tonight, Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports from Window Rock, Arizona, on an historic meeting between the Nayajos and western governors. Two writers, Roger Rosenblatt and Roger Wilkins, give us sharply different views of the presidential candidacy of Jesse Jackson. A plea bargaining case recently caused a political storm in Minnesota. We have a documentary report and discuss the rights and wrongs of plea-bargaining with two prominent attorneys.Peace in Lebanon?

MacNEIL: Another plan to bring peace to Lebanon is reported to have been worked out by President Gemayel with Syrian backing. Gemayel returned to Beirut today after talks in Damascus. Lebanese sources told Reuters and the Associated Press that he carried plans to form a new cabinet quickly to end the fighting between Lebanese factions. The sources said in the next few days Gemayel would appoint a new half-Christian, half-Muslim cabinet, with Rashid Karami, a Sunni Muslim of the Syrian-backed opposition as prime minister. The report said the cabinet would include two other prominent opponents of Gemayel, Shiite leader Nabin Berri and Druse leader Walid Jumblatt. As these reports circulated, a buffer force of paramilitary police took up positions between warring factions. Here's report from Diane Griffiths of Visnews.

DIANE GRIFFITHS (Visnews) [voice-over]: With Phase I of the disengagement plan completed, the green-uniformed gendarmes moved out to take up their positions along the Green Line. From the port area to the north down to the army-held town of Suk al-Gharb in the south, the 1,500-strong force dispersed to keep the peace. They skirted barricades erected by the warring factions and placed themselves between them, a human buffer zone designed to stop and report and ceasefire violations. The force has joined a team of 200 Lebanese observers and some 400 French monitors already in the firing line. Much of that remains devastated by years of civil war. President Gemayel hopes the buffer force can maintain the present calm long enough for a new government to be formed.

LEHRER: For more detail on the agreement Gemayel brought home from Damascus, we hear from George Nader, a Lebanese Journalist who spoke earlier today with some of the key players involved. He is editor of the monthly magazine Middle East Insight. Mr. Nader, have Jumblatt and Berri agreed to serve in this new cabinet?

GEORGE NADER: To the best of my knowledge Mr. Jumblatt and Mr. Berri have agreed to serve on this cabinet.

LEHRER: They have? And Mr. Karami has agreed to be the prime minister?

Mr. NADER: And Mr. Karami has accepted. He is under the service of the Lebanese people, and --

LEHRER: What does that mean, under the service?

Mr. NADER: If Mr. Jumblatt, Mr. Berri and the Christian leaders will agree to serve together in the coalition government, Mr. Karami would lead such a government.

LEHRER: What word did you hear today on whether the Christian leaders, who -- of course, under this agreement of before this agreement they had the majority not only in the cabinet, but in the Parliament. They are giving up some power under this agreement. Have they agreed on this? The wires were silent on that issue today. What have you heard?

Mr. NADER: Well, they are discussing, they are reviewing this agreement very carefully, and my indications, coming out from Beirut that they will agree to such an agreement because what's so important here is for the first time since the regime of former President Sarkis, all political-religious leaders tentatively have agreed to participate in a coalition government. And this, by itself, is very important, and what we witnessed today is but a continuation of Lausanne and Geneva --

LEHRER: That's Lausanne, Switzerland, where they had their meeting.

Mr. NADER: Exactly.

LEHRER: Right. So this is real, you think?

Mr. NADER: I think it's the best news that has come out from Lebanon in many weeks, and it may turn out to be very positive because what is urgently needed in Lebanon right now is a quiet time. There is an equilibrium here, political as well as military equilibrium. There is no winner and no loser on the ground. And this is really the time for different factions to sit down and try to resolve -- this is their chance and as, first, Vice President Haddam pointed out really carefully, this may be very well Lebanon's last chance.

LEHRER: If this doesn't work, yeah. The stories also did not say what President Gemayel's role will be in this new government. I assume he remains President? Is that it?

Mr. NADER: He will remain as a president. The government will play a much stronger role than the previous government, and he will work much closer with the prime minister than before.

LEHRER: Of course, President Gemayel went to Damascus and he met 11 hours with not only President Assad but other officials of Syria. Does this mean that this is a Syrian deal and that Syria is going to back this deal?

Mr. NADER: There is no question about it. What we witnessed today is a desperate final moment of Syrian efforts to provide enough of peace time for Lebanon for the different factions to solve their problems. The deal is fully backed and [unintelligible] by the Syrians. It doesn't mean here that there is no room for America's political involvement. I think from all along, from now to Syria or the different factions in Lebanon they are yearning, continuously yearning for an effective U.S. diplomatic involvement.

LEHRER: Well, what role would there be for the United States now? This thing was worked out without any U.S. involvement, wasn't it?

Mr. NADER: Well, I'm not very sure. President Gemayel, to the best of my knowledge, has made it very clear to President Assad that U.S. friendship is very essential for Lebanon. The United States and Lebanon have had historical relationship and cooperations, some very successful, others not. But this would give another chance for U.S. political involvement, quiet diplomacy, although very effective. Because after the withdrawal from Lebanon -- the Marines' withdrawal from Lebanon -- the U.S., fairly or unfairly, U.S. credibility and image in the Middle East has never been lower. And Lebanon issue not only for the sake of Lebanon but much at stake here than Lebanon survival, although it's been very remarkable after so many years of internal wars and outside interferences.

LEHRER: You are obviously very upbeat about what's happened today. Looking at it realistically, though, where are there possible pitfalls? I mean, where could this thing still fall apart?

Mr. NADER: There's still, you know, the leadership in Syria is going through some struggle as well. There's political struggle in Syria, news coming out from -- information coming out from Syria indicate that the health of President Assad is not the best. There is some information that there is a struggle between different elites in Syria, and that consequences of that can be very negative on Lebanon, and of course we should keep the interest of Israel in Lebanon as well in mind. We cannot, as many of our leaders tragically have done, ignore Israel's interest in its neighbor Lebanon. That cannot be kept out.

LEHRER: But the bottom line tonight is that this is a real hopeful thing and that your fingers are crossed and everybody should cross them with you and the best of the Lebanese?

Mr. NADER: Exactly. And we need more than just finger-crossing. We need -- the U.S. cannot give up on Lebanon. Secretary of State Shultz, as well as President Reagan, continuously --

LEHRER: I hear you. Mr. Nader, thank you.

Mr. NADER: Thank you very much.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: The Pentagon said today that two MIG jets, nationality unknown, fired rockets and cannons at a U.S. Army helicopter along the West German-Czechoslovak border today. The helicopter, said to have been on a routine observation mission, was not hit and returned sefely to its base. The Pentagon said it was not known whether the helicopter had flown into Czech territory or whether the Soviet-built jets had crossed into West German airspace.

In West Germany some 700 demonstrators tried to block access to a U.S. Army base as a protest against new nuclear NATO missiles. Police drove them off with water cannons and made 20 arrests. U.S. bases located at Garlstedt, 12 miles from Bremen.

The state of Colorado today filed suit against the federal government to stop deployment of the MX missile system in the neighboring states of Wyoming and Nebraska. The suit names as defendant the Air Force, which is due to deploy about 100 MX missiles in silos in those two states. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, wants deployment stopped until the environmental impact on Colorado is determined. Environmentalists say the missiles might damage wildlife and water in the northern part of Colorado.

The Soviet Union today rejected this week's U.S. proposal for a ban on chemical weapons as absurd and unacceptable. The comments, carried in the daily Pravda, were regarded as the most authoritative so far on the proposal, which was presented by Vice President George Bush in Geneva on Wednesday.

A member of the Communist Party leadership expressed hopes for an end to East-West tensions and a revival of detente today, but said Washington had to take the first step towards a thaw. The speaker was Vladimir Dolgikh, a member of the Politburo, addressing the annual Kremlin rally marking Lenin's birthday. That rally has been a traditional forum for expounding the basic aims of Soviet policy.Dolgikh said the present world situation was tense, but there were signs of changing attitudes in the West that gave grounds for hope.

Jim?

LEHRER: Britain and Libya remained in their respective standoff positions today, the British demanding the right to search the Libyan Embassy building in London, the Libyans saying that was unacceptable. There were more conversations between the British ambassador to Libya and the Libyan foreign minister in Tripoli, but there was no word on what progress, if any, was made in resolving the crisis, which began Tuesday when anti-Qaddafi demonstrators at the Libyan Embassy in London were sprayed with machine gun fire.Eleven of the demonstrators were wounded and a British policewoman was killed. Kate Adie of the BBC gives us this report on today's developments in Tripoli.

KATE ADIE, BBC [voice-over]: A second meeting between the British ambassador to Tripoli and the top official at the Libyan foreign ministry, Dr. Trake, confirms that serious negotiations are underway. This morning's meeting was described as friendly and the talks as constructive. The British Embassy today has about two dozen Libyan police around it, but no sign of demonstrators. And this evening lines between London and Tripoli were said to be permanently open as the British government's reply was awaited. No details about the negotiations have been disclosed.

OLIVER MILES, British Ambassador to Libya: I've had a further meeting with Dr. Trake today, but it was, again, a friendly atmosphere, and we British on the Libyan side are continuing to work for a peaceful solution of the problem. I don't want to go beyond that.

REPORTER: Are you optimistic that this will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion?

Amb. MILES: Well, we are still working together in the atmosphere I've described, so I don't think I'd say I'm optimistic. I'm certainly not pessimistic.

ADIE [voice-over]: The discussions held by the ambassador with Dr. Trake and the lifting of restrictions on Mr. Miles' family and other embassy personnel perhaps point to a willingness to talk the way out of the London situation.

LEHRER: There was another violent tragedy in London today, an explosion apparently caused by a bomb went off at Heathrow Airport.Twenty-three people were reported injured, as least one critically. Authorities said the device went off on the first floor of Terminal 2, the one used by foreign airlines for flights to other cities in Europe. There was no word, one way or the other, in whether it was connected to the Libyan Embassy situation.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Two U.S. senators returned to Washington today after what they called frank and broad talks with Nicaraguan leaders. Democrats J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana and Lawton Chiles of Florida spent 18 hours in Nicaragua, and met with Sandinista junta leader Daniel Ortega. Their trip included a forced landing when their helicopter was shot at by Salvadoran rebels. On their arrival in Washington the senators told reporters they were optimistic about the future in Central America. They said they expected the moderate candidate, Jose Napoleon Duarte, to win the presidential election runoff in El Salvador and to go on to deal with the problems of the country.

Sen. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, (D) Louisiana: Mr. Duarte, we believe, can broadly get the support of all sectors of that nation, from the private sector to the military, to the campesinos. We believe it is an historic opportunity both for this country and for El Salvador. We believe he can control the army, end the death squads, that he can control the guerrillas with our help, that he can bring social, economic justice and, most important, Mr. Duarte indicated to us that shortly after he is sworn in on June the 1st he will go to Nicaragua where he will negotiate with the leadership in Nicaragua. That was the message which we delivered to Mr. Ortega. He did not indicate what his reaction would be.

Sen. LAWTON CHILES, (D) Florida: I think it is a time of great opportunity. I feel that we must be willing to test the Nicaraguans and some signals that they are now sending that they're willing to do something to alleviate some of our concerns. I think we have to be willing to test that. At the same time I think we have to be very firm in our resolve that we are going to aid the El Salvadorans in their quest for peace.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: A pre-dawn explosion in Washington ripped through the officers club at the historic Washington Navy Yard, causing extensive damage. No injuries were reported since the club had already closed for the night. Today federal investigators sifted through the debris looking for clues. A group called FMLN claimed responsibility for the bombing, in protest over U.S. policy in Central America and the Caribbean. The FMLN is the largest of five leftists guerrilla organizations fighting the U.S.-backed government in El Salvador. The bomb blew out windows all along a large section of the building. A spokesman for the Navy Yard said the blast could have caused serious injury or loss of life had the club been open. Navy Yard officials quickly implementednew security checks at the facility, which is a popular tourist attraction. There was no immediate cost estimate of the damage to the Navy Yard.

Jim?

LEHRER: The British threw in the towel today on Hong Kong, admitting for the first time that when its lease runs out in 1997 Hong Kong will again be part of China. Sir Geoffrey Howell, the British foreign secretary, said Britain would push the Chinese to allow the life and financial styles of the city to remain unchanged, but that could not be guaranteed. Britain settled Hong Kong in 1841, and has controlled it as a Crown colony in a lease arrangement with China since 1898. Here's a report from Brian Hanrahan of the BBC.

BRIAN HANRAHAN, BBC [voice-over]: The foreign secretary's statement was the first detailed account of what Britain has been seeking for Hong Kong, and it went considerably beyond anything said before. Although Sir Geoffrey said he still could say nothing about the substance of the negotiations, he did effectively admit that Britain has agreed to give up sovereignty over the whole of Hong Kong.

GEOFFREY HOWELL, British Foreign Secretary: The terms of an agreement between the British and Chinese governments still have to be worked out. But it's right for me to tell you now that it would not be realistic to think of an agreement that provides for continued British administration in Hong Kong after 1997.

HANRAHAN [voice-over]: Sir Geoffrey's statement spells out what the British are trying to preserve -- an independent administration, the present system of justice, freedoms of travel, assembly, speech and religion, and the right for Hong Kong people to be responsible for their own taxes, their own public order and their own links with the rest of the world.

LEHRER: And, speaking of China, President Reagan spoke of China today with three experts named Nixon, Ford and Carter. Mr. Reagan is at his California ranch boning up before leaving Sunday on the first leg of the trip that will take him to Peking next week. He spoke with his three presidential predecessors by phone today, the White House said. He was also scheduled to see a 35-minute documentary film and read a huge briefing book on China, all in preparation for his summit meeting with Chinese leaders.

And, speaking of summit meetings, there was a most unusual one in this country yesterday, in Window Rock, Arizona. The leaders gathered were those of three states and of the nation's largest Indian tribe. Charlayne Hunter-Gault was there too, and here is her report. Historic Truce: Navajo Nation & the States

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: The shooting wars between the Indians and their neighbors ended long ago, but another kind of fighting has continued for generations, costing both the Indians and the states around them millions of dollars in legal fees as well as bad feelings. It was in large part because of these continuing confrontations that for the first time in history governors and officials from New Mexico, Colorado and Utah came here to Window Rock, Arizona. Window Rock is the seat of the Navajo nation.They came to Window Rock to try and resolve their costly conflicts, conflicts over water and land rights, over who pays for education, over the proper role and responsibilities of a sovereign Indian nation within a nation, the United States. They came at the invitation of the chairman of the Navajo nation, Peterson Zah.

PETERSON ZAH, chairman of the Navajo Nation: We'd like to welcome everyone here for today's meeting. I especially wanted to thank Governor Bruce Babbitt from Arizona, my friend Toney Anaya. We were all voted into office by the same constituency. They voted for the same people that are at this table, and the people did not tell us, "We're going to put you in office so you can fight, Bruce," or Toney might fight me. What they want is services, quality services.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: It was 36 years ago that the Indians successfully sued the states of Arizona and New Mexico over the right to vote. Yesterday, for the first time, they sat down to negotiate an agreement that they believed would firmly establish them as governmental equals.

Gov. TONEY ANAYA, (D) New Mexico: It's historic first. Almost coincidentally I had just returned from a trip to Taiwan and to Japan, and if it was easy enough for me to go overseas thousands of miles to negotiate with foreign governments, it should be a very simple process for me to travel literally a few dozen miles to negotiate with the Navajo nation.

Gov. BRUCE BABBITT, (D) Arizona: The Indian reservations have tended to be remote in physical fact as well as in the minds of the states. And we've tended to walk away from the tribal governments and say, "Take your problems to Washington," Well, Washington isn't responding anymore, and that's kind of driven the tribes back to the state capitals, and for the first time in history they're finding governors who are receptive, who recognize that we have responsibilities, a moral obligation, to treat these folks as citizens of our states.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: The document is an attempt to convert such sentiments into policy. Like the Camp David accord, it sets up a general framework for peace rather than a detailed prescription. The main part of it provides a system whereby Indian problems, no matter how small, come to the attention of the governor's office the moment they arrive.Governor Anaya, a Democrat, applauded that and more.

Gov. ANAYA: I think what we're going to be seeing is a change in the relationship between the Navajo nation and the respective states. And also with the federal government. I think we're no longer going to be seeing the confrontations between the Indians and the state governments, and hopefully we'll see a united front in dealing with the federal government.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: But Washington isn't the only problem that confronts the Navajos and the states. Solving some of the others presents a formidable challenge. Governor Babbitt, also a Democrat, cites one example.

Gov. BABBITT: Well, the dilemma is that the Navajos who live in Arizona are citizens of Arizona, and we have the same obligation to provide them with schooling, roads, water supply, economic development monies we have to any other citizen of the state of Arizona. But the fact is that we don't have the jurisdiction to levy any taxes on the reservation. They're pre-empted by the federal government. So there's a continuing dilemma.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Nevertheless, all of the participants, including Governor Scott Matheson of Utah, who did not make the meeting but sent a representative, expressed the belief that the document would result in some fundamental change. For the states it could signal the end to costly litigation.

Gov. ANAYA: As these issues reach the U.S. Supreme Court almost invariably the Indian litigants have been winning the lawsuits against the respective states, not only in New Mexico, but all over this country. In the process the feelings were hardened and overall a lot of money was spent, and it just simply isn't in the best interest to continue in that process.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: For Indian leaders like Sam DeLoria, director of the American Indian Law Center, the document is more than just an agreement to agree.

SAM DeLORIA, director, American Indian Law Center: This means that the tribe is assuming its expected place among governments. It is entering into the kinds of discussions that governments have in this country with each other, and that's an enormous step forward, because previously, not only in these, but in other states around the country, the states took the position that, "We don't want to deal with the tribes at all because we hope the federal government will abolish them." This move that was taken today is essentially a recognition by the states that the Navajo tribe is not going to go away, "So we'd better sit down and deal with them."

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Clearly the leaders of the Navajo nation agreed. At day's end the document was presented to the governing body of the 150,000-member nation, the tribal council.

Chairman ZAH: Seventy-six in favor, and zero opposing, the motion has passed.

[interview] It's one thing to agree to a piece of paper saying that this is what we're going to do, but I think the key thing is going to be making sure that we use this as a mechanism to go forth and do the things that is necessary to do so that all of our people will get the quality services that they're looking for.

LEHRER: An aide to Utah Governor Scott Maheson, who was unable to attend the meeting, told us today the governor intends to sign the document when he receives his copy early next week.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Presidential politics slowed down for the Easter weekend. Walter Mondale and Gary Hart returned to their homes in Washington to spend the weekend resting. In the last days of campaigning Mondale has sounded increasingly confident, scarcely mentioning Hart, but directing his attacks at Ronald Reagan. Hart has continued to insist that no loss of a single state like the Missouri caucuses this week would drive him out of the race. Jesse Jackson was in Ohio appealing for the support in the May 8th primary of Democratic Governor Richard Celeste.Jackson again found himself responding to comments made by his controversial supporter, Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. In a speech yesterday to the National Conference of Black Mayors in St. Louis. Farrakhan said that if blacks weren't brought into the political mainstream, he would seek a separate black state as a final option. Asked if he repudiated that, Jackson said today, "There are a couple of positions that he took I don't agree with. In my judgment disassociation is enough; repudiation is a bit too far."

Jackson's candidacy, the fact that he is running for president at all, continues to provoke very different reactions. We get a taste of that tonight in the form of contrasting essays by two writers who see the Jackson candidacy through very different eyes. As you will hear, they hold their opinions strongly. The first is by Time magazine essayist Roger Rosenblatt. Jesse Jackson: Symbol or Substance?

ROGER ROSENBLATT, essayist: No sooner had Jesse Jackson announced his candidacy for president than all the images of the civil rights years rushed down from the national attic and presented themselves to the public again. Martin Luther King, Jr., the freedom rides, Selma to Montgomery, "I have a dream today." [voice-over] To which Democrat Jackson added his own symbolic language: PUSH, Excel. "You may be in the slums, he exhorted black children, but don't let the slums be in you." On his left hand, "free at last;" on his right, free enterprise. Dead center stood the symbol of symbols, Jackson's blackness, pointing to national expiation for national guilt for the deepest of national sins. Let the former slave arise from the raft and the river and run for U.S. president. Let the poor and disenfranchised arise with him. Jackson stood for them, too. Forget not that God was on his side, as well, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. If you're looking for symbolic candidates, they don't come much better.

If you're looking for real candidates, however, Jackson may leave you cold. No experience in government, a lot of gibberish, a lot of wind. More recently a lot of Boss Tweedish bragging about the votes in his pocket. Then there's that issue of his having called Jews Hymies and New York Hymietown, which might not have meant so much had Jackson not been associated with Yasir Arafat and had the backing of the Arab League. Milton Coleman of The Washington Post, who reported the Hymie slur, was threatened by Louis Farrakhan, a Black Muslim leader and a worker in the Jackson camp. Would Jackson cast off Farrakhan? "I'm not in a position to chastise him," whispered the Reverend. So strong a symbol, so weak a candidate, yet the votes click in -- black votes almost exclusively, but plenty of them. Bushels in Illinois and New York, fewer in Pennsylvania last week, but a ton in Philadelphia carried the fifth-largest city in the United States. Were these votes for the symbol or votes for Jackson? Ask Jackson and he'll tell you that the votes he gets are not for blackness but for peace in Central America, for disarmament, for the environment, for the rainbow coalition. Maybe. But so far the rainbow is 96% one color, and an awful lot of blacks have said that they are voting for Jackson to make a statement, stake a claim. Which, after all, is just what Jackson asked them to do. "Vote for your power, your pride." Who would say no to such a vote? Not Hart or Mondale, certainly, each eager for a thick slice of that pride, come the Democratic convention in San Francisco in July. Not much of the public either. What were all those civil rights marches and jailings for but that one day a black man might run for president? Yet a symbolic candidate can cause a great deal of trouble, and it's the trouble with symbols in general.

Symbols are anti-rational. The mind grasps a particular and immediately, without thinking, leaps to a picture of the absolute. No questions are asked, no tests administered. With Jackson the trouble deepens because the white candidates and the press have been content to regard Jackson as a symbol, they also seem willing to regard American blacks as an undifferentiated mass. Suddenly everything is a symbol. No need to address real black people or the real black problems of unemployment, uneducation, drugs, health, crime. Everybody looks the other way. And this is not what the civil rights marches and jailings were for. The reason all that pain was worthwhile was that one day a qualified black man or woman might run for president. No symbols, thanks. No patronizing. Just fair, rational, decent play.

There's an element of historical necessity in the candidacy of Jesse Jackson. Recognized as such, his campaign may be cheered from the housetops, but we ought not to confuse his candidacy with progress. That will come the next time around, one hopes, when a black man or woman runs for president as an individual, not a powerbroker, and when every black and white vote that comes his way is a vote for flesh and blood. "I have a dream," said Martin Luther King, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Amen.

MacNEIL: That is one view of the Jackson candidacy. We have another by Roger Wilkins, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and a commentator for the Mutual Broadcasting System.

ROGER WILKINS, commentator: When Jesse Jackson began talking seriously about running for the presidency, some of us who have been his friends over the years were deeply worried about the fury that this audacious political quest would cause. The ferocity of the emotional resistance to this candidacy that has been packaged as routine political analysis has exceeded our worst expectations. A primitive but successful pundit has described Jackson's candidacy as "tribal politics." [voice-over] Another Well-respected Journalist passed through a television studio in tux and black tie and paused long enough to announce that Jackson had not made any attempt to extend his rainbow coalition beyond the black community. This, at the end of a three-week period in which Jackson had campaigned in New York's Chinatown, had slept in the home of a Puerto Rican family in Rochester, had sought the votes of progressive whites in Manhattan and had traveled to Arizona to campaign among native and hispanic Americans. Other diminishers of the American dream grumble that Jackson is polarizing the country, that he is not qualified to run for the presidency, that he is detracting from the principal task of principal people, to defeat Ronald Reagan.

All of this amounts to an update of American racism. In the past a fellow could stand in the door of the university and below, "Never!" When resistance to black progress left the South and became a nationwide phenomenon, resisters dropped their hammer of "never" and began to smother our expectations with the pillow of "Yes, but." "Yes, we agree that there is something seriously wrong with the American racial condition, but the remedies cost too much. But your solutions won't work. But this is the wrong time. But you are following the wrong leader."

With their registrations and their votes blacks are saying emphatically that this is the right time to utilize politics more fully as an instrument for social justice and that Jesse Jackson is the right leader to help them do it. Unlike many whites who would require prominent blacks to be perfect, blacks recognize the imperfections in Jackson and his campaign -- his use of the words Hymie and Hymietown, his supporter Louis Farrakhan's unacceptable, inflammatory rhetoric and the candidate's clumsy handling of both of those problems are splotches on the campaign. But those serious human and political mistakes do not destroy the profound meaning and the extraordinary accomplishments of the Jackson candidacy.

The accomplishments are astonishing. With little money, a skeletal organization and a late shart, Jackson has educated and aroused the black electorate as it has never been moved before, and his total white vote across the primaries exceeds the non-white vote that Gary Hart has attracted. And while Hart and Mondale have bickered with each other, Jackson has forced such issues as American poverty, South Africa and the need for a peace policy towards the Soviet Union higher on the agenda than otherwise would have been the case.

In attempting to diminish that effort critics say, "Yes, but this candidacy is mere symbolism." Walter Mondale and the other leaders of the Democratic Party, who are faced for the first time with the political task of dealing with real muscle in that quarter of that part that used to be taken almost for granted, would be surprised to lean that they are dealing with symbolism and not with politics. That this candidacy is effective politics is demonstrated by the fact that some whites are now saying, "Yes, but you risk polarizing the country." Every time blacks have made a new move towards justice -- when Booker T. Washington ate at the White House, when the NAACP brought the first desegregation suit, when Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers, when President Truman desegregated the armed forces -- there have always been discomfited whites around to yell about polarization. That boils down to whites caring so much more about the privileges they reap from injustice than they do about securing equality that they warn that they will have temper tantrum if the status quo is disturbed. And often they do, but then things usually settle down and the country becomes a little better place for everybody. After all, even the University of Alabama has been known to start five blacks on its basketball team.

Finally people say, "Yes, but this Jackson fellow just isn't qualified." Compared to Ronald Reagan, I wonder? Or to Richard Nixon? Or Jerry Ford? Since white America has not yet gotten the habit of electing blacks to statewide office, potential black candidates can't become qualified in the way we normally use that term. In fact, one of the objectives of this campaign is to inspire blacks to run for the whole range of political offices so perhaps the entire rainbow of American voters will now get into the habit of voting for minorities. But if, in addition to the constitutional standards which Jackson clearly meets, one looks at a lifetime of public service, at intellect and at character, then Jackson stands in the front rank of those qualified to lead this nation. The qualities he has brought to this race have already changed America.

As I look at the results in South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Alabama, I know that my three black children will live far more comfortably with their American citizenship than did those of us born into segregation. And I know the children of my white high school chums are seeing larger and richer possibilities for this country because of this campaign. So whether he ever gets to the White House or not, Jesse Jackson's profoundly patriotic effort has already qualified him for the history books. That's a lot.

[Video postcard -- Cannonville, Utah]

LEHRER: Last night we spoke of crime, and we're going to do so again tonight. It was the new FBI crime statistics that was the focus last night. Tonight it's the use of plea-bargaining, a process where a bargain is struck between the criminal and the prosecution. In exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, we'll recommend such-and-such a sentence kind of thing. Controversy erupts from time to time, as it did during Watergate, about its use, and did recently over a murder case in St. Paul, Minnesota. Producer Brendan Henehan of public station KTCA, Minneapolis-St. Paul reports. Plea Bargaining: Is it a Bargain?

BRENDAN HENEHAN, KTCA-TV [voice-over]: Richard Shoebottom murdered his wife Linda on Thanksgiving Day, 1983 and hid her body under the snow. Without a body, no charges could be filed, and, taking theadvice of his public defender, Shoebottom refused to talk to the police. Finally, in February there was a breakthrough. The St. Paul paper's headlines said it all: "Plea Bargain," In a deal worked out between the prosecutor and the public defender, Richard Shoebottom disclosed the location of his wife's body and pled guilty to second-degree murder. The deal, especially a deal involving bargaining with a body, sent shock waves throughout the community.

CITIZEN: When you commit a crime, you should pay for that crime, you know, and not just because you go along and say that you're willing to cooperate with the police, that you should get any less time.

2nd CITIZEN: You know, if they would have waited two weeks longer, they would have found her body. The snow was melting, you know. And then they would have gotten him, you know, on first-degree.

3rd CITIZEN: Because he showed them the body they gave him second degree instead of first degree. It's wrong. It's just as simple as that. It's wrong.

HENEHAN [voice-over]: The harshest critic of the Shoebottom deal and the person who best articulated the public's sense of injustice was St. Paul Police Chief William McCutcheon. During the hour of Linda Shoebottom's funeral he held a press conference where he blasted prosecutor Tom Foley and Public Defender Bill Falvey's handling of the case. Weeks later, Chief McCutcheon is still frustrated. He is especially concerned about the type of message a case like this sends to crime victims.

WILLIAM McCUTCHEON, chief, St. Paul Police Department: Most of the frustration with plea-bargaining is in the form of the questions of the victims of crime who simply can't understand how someone who intruded into the home or who assaulted their daughter or who, at knife-point or at gunpoint, stuck somebody up is back on the street. Where was the trial? Where was the opportunity for the victim to have a say in the proceeding?

HENEHAN [voice-over]: The Shoebottom case, especially the plea-bargain, raises a number of questions in McCutcheon's mind.

Chief McCUTCHEON: Is plea-bargaining going on without supervision? Does plea-bargaining serve the best interests of the criminal justice system? Does it serve the best interests of the people who are being plea-bargained? Does it serve the best interests of the community?

HENEHAN [voice-over]: The legal profession has responded forcefully to the charges made by McCutcheon and others. Prosecutor Tom Foley has defended his actions in the case, as has the chief public defender involved, Bill Falvey. And many local attorneys have been eager to come to their defense.

WILLIAM KENNEDY, County Public Defender, Hennepin County: Tom Foley did what he had to do, exactly the right thing. So did the defense lawyer. No. they should be neither condemned nor praised. They did their job and did it well.

MARTIN COSTELLO, private attorney: So it was a classic case of a bargain. Each side had something to offer, and each side gave up something. Bill's absolutely right. Without that body, there would have been no murder prosecution at all, and if by happenstance the police had found the body, it might have been a first-degree murder case, although nobody knows for sure: So with that kind of uncertainty a bargain was appropriate.

Mr. KENNEDY: Here in Hennepin County we try about 8% of our cases, and I think last year the county attorney issued somewhere around 3,800 felonies, and we're understaffed. Eight percent was the maximum for us. Let's assume they tried all 3,800. You'd haveto build, I don't know, four, five, six more government centers? You know, that's ridiculous.

Chief McCUTCHEON: It makes no sense to have an adversary system if in fact you'e going to sit down and cut a deal with another guy outside of the public forum, outside of the structure that the system provides, which is the review by the court, the open argument; you state your position, I state mine, a judge rules or before the jury of the peers of the person being accused you state your arguments, I state mine, and the jury finally makes a decision. Plea-bargaining negates all that.

HENEHAN [voice-over]: Discussion of the Shoebottom case has spilled over into law school classrooms as well.

STUDENT: Do you think it appropriate for them to plea-bargain down?

PROFESSOR: Oh, yeah. I think justice was served by that, and the victims participated in that plea bargain. The police aren't happy, but the victims are happy.

HENEHAN [voice-over]: Steve Simon is a professor at the University of Minnesota law school, where he teaches courses like this one on legal ethics. And he offers some insights into why Americans seem to have such a problem accepting plea-bargaining.

STEVE SIMON, law professor: We don't see the criminal justice system in terms of degrees. We see it in terms of absolutes. Guilt or innocence. Also, and I think just as important, in our culture, the concept of bargaining, of negotiating the price of something is literally foreign.When you walk into Dayton's or the supermarket, you don't, when you come up with your package, with your blouse or your carton of milk, say, "The price you have is 95 cents here. I'll give you 80."

HENEHAN [voice-over]: And, yet, this type of negotiation is just what goes on in plea-bargaining. To find out better how the process really works, we went to the Ramsey County Courthouse and sat in on an actual plea-bargain session between Public Defender Pat McGee and Prosecutor Cathy Gerrin. The case involved two felony drug sales. It is a typical, everyday plea-bargain. The prosecutor will press for the stiffer charge -- sale of drugs, for example -- while the defense will offer a guilty plea in exchange for the lesser charge of possession.

CATHY GERRIN, prosecutor: Do you have anything else pending? As long as we're together.

PAT McGEE, public defender: Yeah, we've got that other, that distribution on methamphetamines.

Ms. GERRIN: Okay. I just got that file, so I haven't had time to talk to the police about it. But what is it? Let's see. It's four counts, two sales, right?

Mr. McGEE: Yeah.

Ms. GERRIN: I'll have to check with the police but to make sure there's nothing more to it. I've read it enough to know it's not a big amount, so she can have one count of sales, but I do want the sale part of it.

Mr. McGEE: At least from our reports it looks like she's like the middleman. She's not getting anything out of it.

Ms. GERRIN: She's getting $20, and she's spreading around this crystal. I mean, that's amphetamines.

Mr. McGEE: Yes. If she's willing to help you out some would you consider straight possession?

Ms. GERRIN: Okay. Might she be willing to help out on the person she's getting the methamphetamine from?

Mr. McGEE: Yeah. I mean, if, you know, if she were to be able to help out on that would you consider giving her possession?

Ms. GERRIN: Why don't we leave it this way? I kind of think the police would be interested in that. I'll get ahold of the undercover policeman and talk to him about that and see what he thinks. You know, why don't I do that before you talk to her?

Mr. McGEE: Okay.

Ms. GERRIN: And then I'll get back to you about it, okay?

Mr. McGEE: All right. Let me know.

Ms. GERRIN: All righty.

COURT OFFICIAL: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. This court is now convened pursuant to adjournment. The Honorable Eugene J. Farrell presiding.

HENEHAN [voice-over]: In the end we must realize that while the judge sitting in the courtroom remains the dominant image of justice in our country, because of plea-bargaining most of our justice is done outside of the formal court in little meetings like the one we just saw. And we are left to ponder whether the Shoebottom case is an example of how the legal system works or an example of how the legal system fails.

LEHRER: An update on the Shoebottom case. Since this report was prepared Richard Shoebottom was sentenced to 25 years for killing his wife. He will be eligible for parole in less than 17 years. Robin?

MacNEIL: Cases such as the Shoebottom one again bring the issue of plea bargaining front and center in the public's mind. To elaborate on why plea bargaining is used, we hear from two prominent attorneys, Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University Law School is a well-known criminal lawyer. He is with us from public station WGBH in Boston. For another view we have Lois Herrington, assistant secretary for justice assistance in the Reagan Justice Department. She was formerly a prosecutor in California. Ms. Herrington, starting with you, how do you answer the question we heard the St. Paul police chief ask there? Does plea bargaining serve the best interest of the criminal justice system?

LOIS HERRINGTON: I would answer it and say it definitely does not. You know, the values of society and the measure and the seriousness with which they are held is many times measured by the penalty imposed when these values are violated. I think victims and innocent people feel very frustrated by the plea bargain system. I think they have a right to feel frustrated.

MacNEIL: And Mr. Dershowitz, what is your answer to that same question? Does it serve the best interests of the criminal justice system?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. You can't answer it absolutely. When it helps get more serious criminal convicted, it does.When it just makes the job easier for lazy prosecutors and defense attorneys, it doesn't. But the important point is, we can streamline the system much, much more effectively, but the Reagan administration is pushing us in the opposite direction. If we clog our courts with drug cases, prostitution cases, pornography cases, gambling cases -- which are high priorities to the Reagan administration -- we will have more and more plea bargaining because there simply aren't enough courts, aren't enough judges, aren't enough prosecutors to let all the cases go to trial. So there's a lot of hypocrisy. The police chief knows a lot better when he says, "We have to bring every case to trial." We can't bring every case to trial because most of the cases are junk. If we want to bring the real assault cases -- the rape cases and the murder cases -- to trial, we have to streamline the system and get rid of a lot of the junk cases from the administration of justice.But the Reagan administration won't do that because it takes political guts to do that.

MacNEIL: Ms. Herrington, what's your reply on that charge?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Well, obviously I think that that's quite a misstatement. The Reagan administration is very, very concerned, as we are in the Department of Justice, with serious and violent crime. We are very excited that crime has gone down a little bit for the first time in years. We think some of this reason is certainly from the discretion of the judges has somewhat been lessened. Some of the states have determinate sentencing so that plea bargaining is not such an issue. Plea bargaining has been eliminated in several states. In an interesting state such as in Alaska, that eliminated plea bargaining, we know that the number of pleas was reduced only 2%. It had very little effect on the whole plea system.

MacNEIL: Well, explain that figure to me. I don't quite understand. The number of pleas was reduced to 2%. What does that mean?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Well, plea bargaining is somewhat of a misnomer, because some cases are simply plea; in some cases there is a bargain for the plea. We have no statistical background at all to find out exactly which is which -- what the total percentages. But we know when Alaska eliminated plea bargaining, their pleas only dropped -- total dropped 2%.

MacNEIL: I see. Mr. Dershowitz, could plea bargaining be eliminated nationally?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: No. There's no way you can eliminate plea bargaining completely. It's a necessary evil.Some people emphasize the necessary, some people the evil. But so long as we have 10 times as many arrests and prosecutions as we have capacity in the courts to handle trials, we will have to continue with some kind of plea bargaining. And of course, you know, the first rule of crime in America is, "Always commit a crime with someone more important than you. Then you can turn him in and get a good deal." Prosecutors are going to want plea bargaining; defense attorneys are going to want it. It's good for their pocketbooks.Judges love it. The people in the system, who run the system, favor plea bargaining. I agree, however, that it does not serve the interests of the public, probably, in 80% of the cases where it's practiced.

MacNEIL: Ms. Herrington, could plea bargaining be eliminated nationally as it has been in Alaska?

Sec. HERRINGTON: I think it could be.Every state must do this for their states, but I think it certainly could be. It's certainly a sense of accountability that the people want for the person that committed the crime. I think that's very important to the victims and the innocent people in the United States.

MacNEIL: What about Mr. Dershowitz's point that the system just hasn't got the capacity if all those cases went to trial?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Well, I think Mr. Dershowitz makes a point on speculation, but I'm telling you, in the cases and the places where it has been abolished, that has not been a problem.

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: Yeah, but it's been abolished in Alaska --

Sec. HERRINGTON: In Louisiana --

MacNEIL: Let her just finish, Mr. Dershowitz, and then we'll come back.

Sec. HERRINGTON: All right. We have three places. We have Alaska, we have Louisiana, and we also have, most recently, California. They have not experienced a great upsurge in their courts. They found there's more pleas. And, you know, something that's bothered me: why don't we encourage in our schools people to accept responsibility for what they do? Why don't they plead guilty when they do something wrong?

MacNEIL: Mr. Dershowitz?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: We haven't abolished plea bargaining in Alaska and California or anyplace else. There are just as many pleas, and defense attorneys and defendants know that if you plead you will get a better deal struck. It's called implicit plea bargaining instead of explicit plea bargaining. The only way of abolishing plea bargaining would be to eliminate incentives to pleading. And if we did that we'd be back in the system where everybody would plead not guilty and everybody would insist on a trial because every good defense attorney worth his salt would say, "You might as well take a chance. If there's nothing in it for me to plead guilty, why shouldn't I at least take the chance of perhaps being found not guilty?"

MacNEIL: You're saying it's going on, but by another name?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: Oh, of course. It's going on.

MacNEIL: Covertly.

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: It goes on in every country in the world. It goes on in the Soviet Union; it goes on it Germany; it goes on in California. Ask a defense attorney; they'll tell you how to plea bargain within any system. Change the names, change the words; the system remains the same.

MacNEIL: Well, you know California, Ms. Herrington. Is that the case?

Sec. HERRINGTON: I think that there's some truth in what he's saying in California. I think that there is some element of that. After all, many times a judge will say, "Plea to the sheet, but I'll give you much lesser." But I think that we're overlooking the fact that I think the public deserves a trial also, and they deserve a fair trial. They need to know what's going on in their community, and so much is behind closed doors. I think if the public was aware of what went on and what were the sentences handed out that perhaps they would think a lot differently when they go to the election box.

MacNEIL: Do you think that the extent of plea bargaining today is undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Absolutely. And, you know, I chaired the President's task force on victims of crime, and every victim practically told us this.

MacNEIL: What's your view on that, Mr. Dershowitz?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: Well, I completely agree. I do think that it undermines the faith in the administration of justice. I think it has to be far more open. I think it also has to be emphasized that the Reagan administration Justice Department engages in plea bargaining very extensively, as it has to and as it will continue to do. But we're talking here about bandaids. The basic, fundamental reforms are not ones this administration is willing to consider -- decriminalization of many kinds of victimless crimes and a focus solely on those crimes that really, really hurt victims. We're hearing a lot of talk about victims, but we're not hearing anything really being done about how to protect victims.

MacNEIL: I think Ms. Herrington has answered that point, But I don't think you've answered her point, that in the states where it has been abolished, at least explicitly, it has not resulted in a shortage of facilities. In other words, that your point that there isn't the courtroom time or space, the number of judges, the number of prison cells to cope with the elimination of plea bargaining isn't so.

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: Well, but we have an admission on the other side that we really haven't seen an abolition of plea bargaining in a place like California. We have as much plea bargaining by a different name. We just do it under the table. And, in fact, I think she would have to acknowledge that since under the table is worse than over the table, that since we want it out in public, the California result is probably even worse that the current result because we have plea bargaining, but we have it buried deeper and deeper into the interstices of the system. As Lenny Bruce once said, "In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls." And I think we're seeing more and more of that, and the public is getting fed up.

MacNEIL: What's your response to that, Ms. Herrington?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Well, I think the public is definitely fed up. You know, the victims constantly were telling us they could not believe the sentences that were being handled. And you know, when we went around on the task force, we listened to the sentencing for each state, and we felt it was a tough enough sentence, but the abuse of discretion was so incredible by prosecutors and by judges.

MacNEIL: There are suggestions that one way to overcome this is to include the victim as a party to the plea bargaining. Do you approve of that?

Sec. HERRINGTON: Yes, I certainly do. And we have found in cases that you have to have plea bargaining if there are states where it is, then let's deal with it as best we can. And when the victim is told what's going to happen or has an opportunity to explain to the prosecutor the consequences of the crime on the victim before the plea bargaining is made, many times a victim feels a lot better about the system and will cooperate later. And let me explain something. I think it's really important. We had over six million victims of violent crime last year in the United States. And crime has gone down. So you know how big it was. And over 50% of these people do not cooperate in the system because they said it is so terrible. I think it's very important that we bring them into the system; let them have some input.

MacNEIL: What's your view of including the victims, Mr. Dershowitz?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think there are great dangers and great risks. We'll start to evaluate victims' lives and worths somewhat differently when all victims really should be regarded as equal. Second, when victims, who all are individuals and different, have input into the system, they're going to have even greater discrepancy in the sentencing. I want to include victims as well, but I think there's a danger of making them a formal part of the process in administering sentences. I think it'll also have an impact of increasing sentences, and we already have overcrowded prisons, and that's no solution, I think, to the crime problem in America.

MacNEIL: Finally, and briefly, Ms. Herrington, there was another question asked by the reporter at the end of that piece. Was that Shoebottom case in St. Paul evidence that the criminal justice system is working or failing?

Sec. HERRINGTON: I think in that case I think it's evidence that it's failing. The man was not held accountable for the terrible crime that he did, and I think all the public feels very deceived by that and very sad by it.

MacNEIL: Do you have a brief comment on that, Mr. Dershowitz?

Mr. DERSHOWITZ: The vast majority of murder cases are resolved by plea bargains. Most first-degree murderers plead guilty to second-degree murders. That case was not so different; it just had a dramatic impact because of the discovery of the body. But it's fairly typical.

MacNEIL: Well, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Dershowitz, in Boston and Ms. Herrington, in Washington, for joining us this evening.

Sec. HERRINGTON: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: In much of the country Easter weekend will be cold or wet or stormy or, in some places, all three. The bad weather extends from Oregon, where the Snake River was expected to be running over its banks this weekend, to the mid-Atlantic states, where the forecast calls for a rainy Sunday. And as much as two feet of snow is expected in the Rocky Mountains, from Montana to New Mexico. In Denver, wet heavy snow was piling up today at the rate of an inch an hour, and as much as eight inches was expected. The snow made it slow going on the highway, and showed a sample of what can be expected further east. The National Weather Service said the storm was on a track that would bring snow or rain throughout the central plains, the Tennessee and Ohio valleys and parts of the eastern seaboard. For a lot of people it looks like a white Easter.

Again, the major stories as this Easter weekend begins. A new government of national unity is apparently on its way to being in Lebanon. A bomb exploded but no one was injured at the Navy Officers Club in Washington, but another bomb explosion at London's Heathrow Airport injured 23 people, at least one critically, as the standoff continued unresolved in the embassy crisis there between Britain and Libya.

Good night, and good Easter weekend, Robin.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Jim. Same to you. We'll back on Monday. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.