The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of what happened today: Reports on the fighting in Afghanistan; a look at the meeting in Germany aimed at creating a post-Taliban Afghan government; a debate between columnists Anthony Lewis and Joseph Perkins over the civil liberties issues of military tribunals; and a conversation about terrorism with a prominent writer in Egypt.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. Marines sent out heavily armed patrols today in southern Afghanistan. More than 600 Marines were on the ground near Kandahar. Heavy U.S. Air raids continued against Taliban targets there. In the North, the opposition Northern Alliance claimed it put down a three-day revolt by foreign prisoners in Mazar-e Sharif. And gunmen killed a Swedish television cameraman in the Northeast. He was the eighth journalist killed in the war so far. Humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan faced growing trouble today. A United Nations official said roving gunmen were now demanding money to let aid convoys pass. He said it was slowing the flow of relief. And the Afghan Islamic press reported crowds looted relief vehicles in a border town in the South. Four Afghan groups began talks on a post-Taliban government today in Bonn, Germany. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a written statement warning the factions not to return to civil war. He said, "To many skeptics it appears it is precisely that which you are about to do. You must prove them wrong." In Washington a White House spokesman said the goal should be a multiethnic government that includes women.

SPOKESMAN: The United States is not under any illusions that it will be done easily, right away. We're talking about different regions of the world where people have their own cultures and histories; and the future shape of Afghanistan will fundamentally be determined by the people of Afghanistan. The United States will continue to play a helpful and constructive role in it.

JIM LEHRER: The talks are expected to last three to five days. Iraq today rejected President Bush's demand to accept UN weapons inspectors again. On Monday, he said Baghdad must prove it's not making weapons of mass destruction, or face unspecified consequences. In response, Iraq said it would not bow to threats. Separately, the Arab League warned against any U.S. military strike at Iraq, and Syria's foreign minister said it would be "a fatal mistake." Palestinian gunmen killed three Israelis in separate attacks today. In northern Israel, two Palestinians shot up a bus station and market. They killed two people and wounded 14 before being shot to death by Israeli security forces. Two groups claimed responsibility. They said it was revenge for targeted attacks on Palestinian militants. Later, in Gaza, soldiers killed another gunman after he shot and killed an Israeli woman. The violence came as U.S. envoys began a peace mission to the region. More than 600 people remain in detention in the United States in the September 11 investigation. Attorney General Ashcroft announced that today. It's down from an earlier figure of more than 1,100. Most of those still in custody face immigration charges; others are accused of various federal crimes. Ashcroft said some are thought to be part of Osama bin Laden's terrorism network.

JOHN ASHCROFT: The Department of Justice is waging a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention to protect American lives. We're removing suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets to prevent further terrorist attack. We believe we have al-Qaida membership in custody, and we will use every constitutional tool to keep suspected terrorists locked up.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, the U.S. formally asked Britain to extradite an Algerian pilot being held in London. He's accused of training some of the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. He's denied any connection to terrorism. The government may miss a Congressional deadline to begin screening all checked bags on airlines by January. Transportation Secretary Mineta said today there aren't enough people, machines, or sniffer dogs available. But he said ultimately, he wants rigorous checks under a streamlined system. He spoke at a conference in Washington.

NORMAN MINETA: Our goal in passenger screening is no weapons, no waiting. We will strive to develop a screening process that prohibits weapons or other banned materials in the airport sterile zone without requiring a waiting period of longer than ten minutes at any security checkpoint for passengers using U.S. airports.

JIM LEHRER: Separately, the Customs Service ordered international airlines to provide advance lists of passengers arriving in the United States, or face intensive new inspections. The "New York Times" reported a warning letter went out to 58 airlines. They included carriers from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China, among others. In economic news, consumer confidence this month hit its lowest level in nearly eight years. The private Conference Board said today its index fell for a fifth straight month. It blamed rising unemployment and layoffs. The U.S. Supreme Court will not rule on a major affirmative action case. The justices said that today in a unanimous ruling. The case involved a white-owned construction company in Colorado. It argued federal incentives for minority businesses constituted reverse discrimination. The court cited procedural problems, including the fact the incentive program has been modified.

UPDATE - AFGHAN BATTLES

JIM LEHRER: More on the situation in Afghanistan. Allied forces secured their hold on northern towns, and U.S. Marines dug in around the Taliban southern stronghold of Kandahar. Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News reports.

KEVIN DUNN: After three days of fighting, Northern Alliance troops, backed by British and American special forces, have retaken control of the fort at Mazar-e Sharif. But until rebelling Taliban prisoners were finally subdued, the alliance continued to take casualties. Pictures from inside the fort, too gruesome to broadcast, show scores of Taliban dead. Elsewhere in Afghanistan, Russian soldiers landed to establish a mobile hospital and humanitarian center. It is the first Russian presence in the country since their troops were defeated 12 years ago by the Mujahadin. Their numbers are small, but symbolic. By contrast, up to 1,000 heavily armed U.S. Marines have been sent into southern Afghanistan. They have been warned to expect to see combat. They also expect to win.

LT. COL. CHRIS BOURNE, U.S. Marine Corps: 11 weeks ago our country was attacked. Tonight Marines landed in Afghanistan. From that moment the tide has turned. This fight is over. For the al-Qaida, this fight is over for the Taliban.

KEVIN DUNN: The Marines were sent to seize an airstrip near Kandahar. From there, they will conduct sabotage and search and destroy operations against Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.

SPOKEMAN: -- in combat I think other guys are anxious to go.

MATTHEW WESTOVER, U.S. Marine Corps: There's just a lot of pride that you actually get the chance to actually do something for the states, you know.

KEVIN DUNN: The Marines have already seen action. Last night, their helicopters followed up an attack by Navy Tomcat jets on an armored Taliban convoy. 15 Taliban vehicles were destroyed in the first of what will surely be many missions.

JIM LEHRER: The view from the U.S. military leadership now. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Speaking from central command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army General Tommy Franks said Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds across Afghanistan had fallen. But they said two areas of the country are not yet controlled by opposition forces, and those may be where Mullah Muhammad Omar and Osama bin Laden are.

GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS: One of the general areas that we do not have firm control of is this general area in here, and so of course we're paying very close attention to that. The other one that we do not have good control of, because... we talked about it a minute ago, in Kandahar. So this, then, is the second area where we have interest. Now, for me to say, "well, yes, one is Osama bin Laden and the other is the leadership of the Taliban"-- well, I wouldn't do that --

KWAME HOLMAN: General Franks gave an update on Mazar-e Sharif, the northwestern town that was the first to be captured by rebel forces two weeks ago.

GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS: Mazar-e Sharif, according to my people who are on the ground there-- and you know several of them were hurt yesterday in an air strike-- it is not yet fully under control. I mean, there is... The city itself is as it has been now for a week or ten days. The city is doing fine. People are going about their business. But in this... In the sport complex where this fight started, it is not yet fully under control. And I'm not sure what that amounts to in numbers, but my people tell me that there probably are 30 or 40 very hard-core people still on the inside, and it's just very simply a matter of rooting them out to the last... To the last person.

KWAME HOLMAN: General Franks said the situation in Kandahar also remains confused.

GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS: We see evidence that a great many people of the non-Afghan type are working very hard to get out of Kandahar. We have applied pressure to the city of Kandahar, both from the North and from the South. We have gone through this without... Intentionally not striking high-collateral-damage targets, and so that certainly includes in Kandahar. We do not intend to go in and begin to just bomb the city of Kandahar.

KWAME HOLMAN: The General said U.S. soldiers have come across sites and labs where the Taliban may have made weapons of mass destruction.

GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS: We've identified more than 40 places, which represent potential for WMD research or things of that sort. Of those, a great many are currently under opposition leadership control. And we're very systematically going about our way of visiting each one of those, I think, as the Secretary has said. And we'll continue to visit them until we've gone through all of them and performed the analyses that we need to perform to assure ourselves that we do not have evidence of WMD.

KWAME HOLMAN: Secretary Rumsfeld said the next phase of the military campaign will be tougher.

DONALD RUMSFELD: This is going to be a very difficult period. Those cities are not safe. There are people in those cities who are hiding and who are perfectly willing to tie grenades around their bodies, blow up themselves and whoever else happens to be standing around. There are people who have defected who may redefect. There are people who have gone across borders who may come back across borders. It is a difficult environment for the Americans that are there, it's a difficult environment for the coalition forces that are there, and it's a difficult environment for the opposition forces who are attempting to provide some stability in those villages and towns. But we have to recognize that it's not over. It's going to take some time, it's going to be difficult, it's going to be dangerous, and people are not going to live who are in situations like I've characterized or like this riot in the compound up in Mazar-e Sharif.

KWAME HOLMAN: General Franks said as many as 1,100 U.S. Marines eventually would be on the ground in Afghanistan.

JIM LEHRER: Now to the UN-sponsored meeting in Bonn to form a new government in Afghanistan. Kristy Lang of TIN reports.

KRISTY LANG: There were four political groups represented in Bonn discussing the future of Afghanistan: The Northern Alliance, the largest delegation, with the advantage of military supremacy on the ground; the Rome group, loyal to the former Afghan King, Zahir Shah; the Peshawar group, which groups together Pashtun tribal leader backed by Pakistan, but also loyal to the king; and finally the Cyprus group established by Iran to challenge the king's bid to power, its link to the hated warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who brought down the Kabul government in '96, clearing the way for the Taliban. In the middle: The UN mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, who needs to persuade this disparate group to form an interim government.

YUNUS QANOONI, Northern Alliance Interior Minister (Translated): A monopoly on power and relying on the gains of our military-- this is not important for us. We have a message. Our message is peace, national unity. We want a system in Afghanistan that will involve all sections of the population, men and women.

KRISTY LANG: And there are women delegates here making sure their voices are heard.

FATIMA GAILANI: We are not going to compromise upon these three things: We will never compromise upon equal rights and equal opportunity of education, equal rights and equal opportunity of work, equal rights and equal opportunity of political participation.

KRISTY LANG: There was a dramatic moment during this morning's talks when Hamid Karzai-- he's a Pashtun military leader fighting on the ground in southern Afghanistan-- rang in. He was put on the speakerphone, and he spoke to all the delegates, pledging his support for a unity government. Now, this is quite significant to hear a senior Pashtun leader saying, "Yes, I'll share power with the Northern Alliance." There was rather more hostility outside the conference gates between rival demonstrators-- some arguing for women's rights, others against American intervention. Inside, western diplomats were calling for a multinational peace keeping force. The Northern Alliance isn't keen, but the carrot is billions of dollars of aid money.

JAMES DOBBINS, U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan: We've made clear that while humanitarian assistance will continue to go to people in need, as it did, even while the Taliban was in control, and while military assistance will go to commanders who cooperate with the coalition and the fight against terrorism, that reconstruction assistance, which is by far the largest type of assistance, will not begin to flow until there is at least an interim administration in place that represents all of Afghanistan with which the international community can work.

KRISTY LANG: The talks are expected to last up to a week. Nothing concrete has been decided yet, but as one senior European diplomat put it, "the atmospherics are good."

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has more now on the meeting in Bonn, and the creation of a new government in Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining me now: Peter Tomsen, a former U.S. Special envoy to Afghanistan-- he is now ambassador in residence at the University of Nebraska at Omaha-- Nazif Shahrani, chairman of the Department of Mideastern Languages and Culture at Indiana University-- he was born in Afghanistan and still has family in the country-- and Helena Malikyar was raised in Afghanistan and worked for the exiled king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, in Rome earlier this year. She recently joined the Afghanistan Reconstruction Project in New York City. Peter Tomsen, let me start with a process question. Ideally, what is supposed to be the sequence of events that begins with this meeting in Bonn?

PETER TOMSEN: The sequence of events as stated by the UN is to move towards a provisional council of under 20, perhaps 10, Afghans who represent the entire country, different groups in the country, and to move from there to an interim regime in Kabul which could be that provisional council, then to move towards an emergency Loya Jirgah, a meeting, say, of 200 or more Afghans again broad based who would confirm an interim regime, which would take power and presumably take Afghanistan's UN seat, and work with the international community for two years as construction proceeds and peace and stability settles in. And after two years another Loya Jirgah, this time perhaps of over a thousand Afghans from around the country will meet and select leadership for Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: Are the major stakeholders, groups that will have to be heard from in forming a future, durable peace all represented in Bonn? Are the right people there to begin these conversations?

PETER TOMSEN: Well, there are some problems here. Like, for instance, over 50% of those in Bonn are expatriate Afghans. Some have been out of the country for 25, 30 years. However, there are representatives of every group in Afghanistan in Bonn, and that is very good. There hasn't been an intra-Afghan gathering like this, including Shiah Sunni, Uzbek, Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik in many years. So this is a chance for a rich dialogue among the different Afghan factions assisted by the international community to begin the trek, the difficult trek along this track towards a broad-based government.

RAY SUAREZ: Nazif Shahrani, same question: Do you have the ingredients there in the groups represented in Bonn to start the country down this road?

NAZIF SHAHRANI: Unfortunately not. I think these... I'm not quite sure what the rationale for choosing these four groups might be. Some of them perhaps are obvious but others may not be. Also the fact that at least three of these groups have been involved in attempting to create governments of unity in the past, and they have very, very poor track records in terms of their achievements in the past. So, it's not quite... I mean, ideally it would be wonderful if indeed they could map some kind of agenda for the future governance of the country and help solve the misery of the people of Afghanistan that have suffered for more than 20 years now. The problem I think is still that we are busy with one flawed question: The question of who should govern Afghanistan? And I think the answer to this question obviously presents sort of convenient solutions like these groups to bring them and help them sort of divide up this government post or that government post amongst themselves. The real question really is, how could at this juncture we help come about a different way of governance, a different kind of governance structure in Afghanistan that would avoid the problems of the past particularly strong central governments that have monopolized power and abused people and of course created a kind of system of internal colonialism? I think what needs to be done, if they are really serious, is to think in terms of alternative governance structure that is to allow local communities, provinces and regions to have local autonomy, to be able to help govern themselves and to decentralize power so that Kabul will have less power and less ability to impose itself. I think the possibility of reconstruction funds that international communities would be a great way to help essentially empower local communities and regions to help govern themselves as well as also to help rebuild that shattered nation.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me take your question.

NAZIF SHAHRANI: That is not what is being discussed right now unfortunately.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me take your question about the burden of Afghanistan's unhappy past and whether a new future can be built and turn it to Helena Malikyar. Are the ingredients there for building a new kind of system as you just heard Mr. Nazif Shahrani discuss?

HELENA MALIKYAR: Well, this is a great opportunity for Afghanistan after 23 years of misery to start from scratch. However, the main point here would be to demilitarize Afghanistan in order to be able to form new institutions and rebuild Afghanistan from scratch. If the Northern Alliance comes out of this meeting agreeing that they would take... that they would give up their arms and they will allow a sort of a multi-national security force to come to Afghanistan, then anything that they agree on in this meeting will have a chance of success. But let me just adhere that a large segment of the Afghan population, over 50% of it, in fact, Afghan women, have not been very well represented. My understanding is that there are only three women in this meeting.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, today both Ari Fleischer, the President's spokesman and Laura Bush in another one of her public statements on this subject, noted the United States'

desire that women be a big part of any future governing system in Afghanistan. How do you do this given the situation in the country today and the desire not to be seen enforcing or forcing some new ideas from the outside on these people?

HELENA MALIKYAR: It's not going to be a question of forcing this idea from outside. The women of Afghanistan want a restoration of their rights and they want political participation. Furthermore, there is also something else that's going on here that people don't talk much about, and that's a parallel conference that's going on in Bonn or will start in a couple of days, and that is the conference on... of the civil society. Encouraging those sorts of gatherings and empowering the Afghan civil society will also allow other segments, non-military and women, to emerge as leaders and as decision-makers in the process.

RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador Thomson, this conference in Bonn is not being held in a vacuum. The war continues apace on the ground. How much does the changing situation in Afghanistan affect what happens around that conference table?

PETER TOMSEN: Not much. But I do believe it's time for the UN representatives Brahimi and Vendrell to leave the luxury hotels in Europe and New York and get out to Afghanistan because what's missing are contacts with the guys with the guns, the ones that control territory, these expatriates inside Bonn and this conference, most of them don't control any territory or really have any influence in Afghanistan although they are representative of a variety of Afghan groups. Vendrell and Brahimi should go to Bamiyan; they should go to Herat and to Arganda near Kandahar. They don't have to go to Kandahar. They can meet the leaders in the Kandahar region nearby in Arganda. And they should listen to the Afghan leaders, the commanders, the tribal leaders inside Afghanistan, and they should give suggestions and they should then attempt to help them reach a consensus through dialogue and move towards the type of interim regime, which all sides can agree to. By calling Afghans at the second level and many expatriates to Bonn is an important step; it's a useful step. But the real work remains to be done inside Afghanistan without interference from Pakistan and Iran who, as was mentioned earlier, have representation in Bonn and it could be destructive representation as in the past.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, how do you get that process to the ground? Aren't things too dangerous there, too fluid there?

PETER TOMSEN: No. I think that Brahimi and Vendrell could fly into Herat very easily, could go into Talaqan, could go -- even though there's some battles still underway in Mazar, they could go there, they could go to Bagram. I would not go to Kabul since Rabanni has attempted to occupy the catbird seat in Kabul by coming back to the palace. He's never been selected by Afghans; he was selected by Pakistanis in Pakistan. There should not be steps towards establishing his legitimacy and the UN could very well though meet people from Kabul and Bagram, go down to Jalalabad and meet Hajik Hadir who is in Bonn. He's a major leader. Go over to Talaqan and meet Karzai and just through radio contact among the different Afghan groups, go to Bamyan, meet Mr. Kazami, the Hazara leader and Kalalili. That is where the arena for a settlement of the Afghan dispute is, for moving along this track towards the political settlement. It's not a abroad in Pakistan, Iran, or in Europe.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Shahrani, what do you think of that suggestion?

NAZIF SHAHRANI: I think Ambassador Tomsen is absolutely right. There is a possibility for going into the local level, General Ishmael in Heart, General Dostum and many other commanders in the North and East are capable of nominating their own representatives from the region to participate even... I wish they had, in fact, done that and that representative should have come from inside the country or nominated by those inside the country of expatriates who may be living overseas. And that process was not done and it's unfortunate. The only way we can really get back to the people is to allow people who have liberated their own local communities and regions to have a say in their own political process. And the only way we can do this again is to have representatives of those people from localities in any gathering such as the one in Bonn or the future ones that may be planned instead of looking for these convenient political groups that are really proxies for outsiders. At least two of those groups, as you mentioned, who are now represented at the Bonn conference represent either Iran or Pakistan's interest rather than the Afghan's interests.

RAY SUAREZ: We're going to continue this conversation. I want to thank you all guests. Thank you very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the military tribunal debate, and a conversation with an E

JIM LEHRER: Now, that debate over the legal front of the war on terrorism, and to media correspondent Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: The Bush administration has spearheaded a series of executive,...

SPOKESMAN: The yeas and nays are requested.

TERENCE SMITH: ...legislative,...

SPOKESMAN: I announced a wartime reorganization....

TERENCE SMITH: ... and legal actions in recent weeks broadening the government's ability to detain, investigate, and prosecute those suspected of terrorism. In his capacity as commander in chief, President Bush issued an order on November 13 authorizing the use of secret military tribunals to try non-American citizens accused of terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft explained why he thought this alternate system of justice is necessary.

JOHN ASHCROFT: The United States is in the state of war, and I think it's important to give the President of the United States the maximum flexibility consistent with his constitutional authority.

TERENCE SMITH: In response to the September 11 attacks, Congress passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which, among other things, provides for: detainment of non-citizens for up to seven days before being charged with a crime; expanded wiretapping, which extends to cell phones and tracking people with multiple numbers; and unprecedented information sharing between the CIA and FBI. In addition, the Justice Department has authorized the monitoring of conversations between attorneys and clients held in federal prison on suspicion of terrorist activity. The government has also announced plans to interview some 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who entered the country on temporary visas after January, 2000. Civil liberties advocates such as Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy are questioning the extraordinary tactics.

SPOKESMAN: I'll tell you why I'm concerned. All of a sudden, we pick up the paper every morning, here's "we're going to wiretap defense counsel." "We're going to do these ad hoc outside the justice system methods." It is bothering a great number of people, Republicans and Democrats. I think the Attorney General owes the country, certainly owes the Congress, an explanation.

TERENCE SMITH: One of those Republicans is the staunchly conservative Congressman, Bob Barr of Georgia.

REP. BOB BARR: It's massive suspension of civil liberties in a way that has never been done before in our country. It is very, very serious. If we simply now say that, well, we don't want to declare war because we don't want to quite go that far, and yet we are facing extraordinary circumstances and we have to suspend civil liberties, we are trying to have our cake and eat it too.

TERENCE SMITH: Today, Ashcroft responded directlyto these and other critics.

JOHN ASHCROFT: While I am aware of various charges being made by organizations and individuals about the actions of the Justice Department, I have yet to be informed of a single lawsuit filed against the government charging a violation of someone's civil rights as a result of this investigation. I would hope that those who make allegations about something as serious as a violation of an individual's civil rights would not do so lightly or without specificity or without facts.

TERENCE SMITH: Internationally, it is the plan to stage military tribunals that has encountered the most resistance. Spanish officials told the United States last week that they would not extradite eight men suspected of involvement in the September 11 attacks without assurances that they would be tried in civilian courts. But President Bush remained defiant yesterday.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I made the right decision. A President must have the option of using a military tribunal in times of war. I look forward to explaining it to my friend, the President of Spain, why I

made that decision.

TERENCE SMITH: For more perspective on the administration's decisions and civil liberty, we turn to two columnists: Anthony Lewis of the "New York Times," and Joseph Perkins of the United Media Syndicate and the "San Diego Union-Tribune." Welcome to you both.

Tony Lewis, there's an old phrase that at extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Is this one of those times? Are these secret military tribunals justified and warranted?

ANTHONY LEWIS: I think we do have to have some strong measures now, Terry, but the idea of military tribunals as outlined by the President and Attorney General Ashcroft is frankly, I'll put it right to you straight, the most dangerous assault on our constitutional system in my lifetime. I can tell you why I think that -- because people think this just applies maybe to Osama bin Laden and a few hundred or a few thousand of his men that we might catch in Afghanistan. To the contrary, it applies to 20 million foreign citizens who are in the United States, most of them people with green cards looking forward to becoming American citizens, immigrants like all of us or our descendents of immigrants trying to make their way and become good Americans, and they can suddenly be taken before a military tribunal on the say-so of an executive official with no input by Congress, no authority. It is a coup by the President of the United States of an extremely dangerous character.

TERENCE SMITH: Joseph Perkins, does that bother you, that image that Tony Lewis just sketched out?

JOSEPH PERKINS: Well, it seems to me to be hyperbole grossly so. The reason is, is that I don't think all 20 million non-citizens of this country who are foreign nationals have to fear being rounded up by our government and put on trial for war crimes. I mean this is targeted directly to those who are responsible for the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, those who aided and abetted them. And I think these military tribunals will mostly be applied to those taken into custody abroad. There is historical precedent for it. George Washington used military tribunals, Abraham Lincoln and most recently Franklin Roosevelt and it was upheld by the nation's highest court - the U.S. Supreme Court -- on a unanimous decision.

TERENCE SMITH: Tony Lewis, explain to us what would be different in a military tribunal and why you think the difference is important from a civilian court.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Let me just say a word about what Mr. Perkins just said. It would be applied. You can't tell. We have a system of law in this country. It's not what somebody might do. And Mr. Perkins says it's only for al-Qaida -- not at all. It is for anybody who has aided or abetted any act of terrorism or preparation or harbored anyone. A person out in Minnesota could have had a man staying in his house who later is charged with something to do with an act of terrorism. It doesn't even have to be foreign terrorism. And, you know, it just really troubles me greatly that we have something written so broadly. If we only wanted to get the al-Qaida people, we could say that. The President could have said that. But this is a very, very dangerous thing. Let me tell you, Terry, read you one thing to tell you why I think it's so strikingly different and that is the opening words of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. There's no exceptions in there. That's the law.

JOSEPH PERKINS: Again, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke to this issue back during the Roosevelt administration and unanimously decided that during a time of war-- and I think we are in a time of war right now-- that the President has the power to order the creation of a military commission to try those who are guilty of war crimes or suspected of war crimes. And I think there's also a presumption you have that anyone who appears before such a tribunal will automatically be found guilty. And I think the lesson of history is that that is not the case. Yes, these trials are conducted under different circumstances than civilian trials. But justice prevails in these military tribunals much as it does in the civilian system. What it does though under a military tribunal we can both see the justice is done while also maintaining national security. And if you remember those trials in New York following the first terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, you can see how national security can be imperiled by putting terrorists on trial in civilian court.

TERENCE SMITH: Tony Lewis, the President took this step without a formal declaration of war.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Without a declaration of war, with no authority from Congress and unlike the Roosevelt example entirely. The one Roosevelt example was five Nazi spies who were landed by submarine or six, landed by submarine in Long Island, six people not 20 million and actually in the middle of a declared war and people who landed here to carry out a war. That's a little different from 20 million aliens in our midst. And, by the way, there's no reason why this same logic couldn't apply to citizens. Mr. Bush can on this logic could issue an order tomorrow saying all Americans, all citizens can also be subject to military tribunals.

JOSEPH PERKINS: But the President didn't issue that order. I might also say that you are suggesting that all 20 million American immigrants who are foreign nationals are going to be brought before military tribunals -- no, only those who are suspected of having complicity with terrorists.

ANTHONY LEWIS: I didn't say they were going to be brought. I say they are subject to being brought. I think if you were in that situation, Mr. Perkins, you might find yourself a little worried knowing that you're an alien in this country and if you said something that was a little different, you might be suspected by your neighbor or your landlord, and the next thing you'd know you'd be before a military tribunal. Those are the sort of tribunalswe criticize when Egypt and other countries use them. We list them as violated human rights because they use military tribunals.

JOSEPH PERKINS: Well, I disagree. We have a gentleman right here in this town who actually provided lodging to at least one of the men responsible for the hijacking and terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Even though he provided this lodging, he was not prosecuted because he didn't know. The point is, is that I have faith in our justice system both our civil justice system like you do but also our military justice system that ultimately justice will prevail, that we will not cavalierly and capriciously prosecute and find guilty those who are not guilty. I might also mention, if I can just add one more point. This is the same system of military justice that our men and women in uniform, including those who are in Afghanistan right now fighting for our civil liberties, this is the same justice that they are subject to. And if it's good enough for our men and women in uniform it seems to me that it should be more than good enough for those suspected of terrorist acts.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Mr. Perkins, you'd better read that order again because one of the striking things about it is that it denies the rights that are always given to people tried in our system of military justice. They can't choose their own lawyer. They cannot hear the evidence against them in many cases. It's -- one of the striking things is that it's much worse than a military... system of military justice that I agree with you is perfectly fine.

TERENCE SMITH: Joseph Perkins, let me ask you this. Should the President in your view have sought specific congressional approval of this? I note that tonight just late this afternoon, Democrats in Congress said they'd hold hearings next week on the legitimacy of the military tribunals. Would it have been either good politics or sensible from another point of view for the President to do that?

JOSEPH PERKINS: Well, let me say this. It seems to me to be unnecessary for the President to go before Congress to exercise powers that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated that the President has. Having said that, I do think there is some virtue in the President or his representative appearing before Congress to make the case, to restate the case, for these military tribunals. And I think that, on balance, the argument bends to having these tribunals. Again, I don't think that the President wants to do this because he wants to deprive 20 million foreign-born Americans of civil liberties. I think it's because he recognizes what the deleterious consequences are by bringing people before civilian courts who are war criminals.

TERENCE SMITH: War criminals?

JOSEPH PERKINS: That's right. In the case of the first World Trade Center bombing, evidence came to the fore from an expert that said that the World Trade Center could not be destroyed by simply a bomb, that something bigger like, say, for instance a fuel laden jet would be needed to collapse the towers. In the trials of those suspected terrorists who bombed our embassies in Africa, it came out in this testimony that we had been eavesdropping on the conversations of Osama bin Laden by listening to his satellite telephone calls. Well he no longer uses that anymore. This is the danger of bringing suspected terrorists before civilian court, and that is that it will provide, I think, germane information to those who would prey upon us.

TERENCE SMITH: Tony Lewis.

ANTHONY LEWIS: My comment on that is that we have from the beginning rested ourfreedom as Madison and Hamilton and the rest of them at the beginning of this country sought on a three-part government: The courts, Congress, the President. This order excludes Congress and specifically and really amazingly denies anybody caught in this trap of military tribunals the right to go to any court. It says no court right up to the Supreme Court of the United States may hear any appeal from these people. Now, Mr. Perkins, I honestly wish you'd think about that. Do you want this country to stand for the proposition that you can't have a court review your conviction, that the President on his own motion without any legislation by Congress can declare that people may be executed after a secret trial that we will never know the record of maybe in your lifetime and mine? I mean, if that were done in another country, I think you and the rest of us would think it was shocking.

TERENCE SMITH: Mr. Perkins can you answer in just a few seconds?

JOSEPH PERKINS: Yes, I think that those who are brought before a military tribunal will receive a vigorous defense from well trained military lawyers and all will not be convicted and some will be acquitted.

TERENCE SMITH: Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

CONVERSATION - MAN OF LETTERS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, an Egyptian writer's take on the war. Elizabeth Farnsworth reported from Egypt last week on some of the political repercussions of the September 11 attacks. Tonight, she interviews playwright Ali Salem.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ali Salem has written 25 plays and 15 books, and is a columnist for the London-based Arabic daily "Al Hayat." He is perhaps best known for his 1995 book, "A Drive into Israel," which was controversial because of his opened-minded approach to a country many Egyptians consider an enemy. His views on Israel have brought criticism in the media and elsewhere, and his pro-democracy sentiments have angered the government, which called them "threatening to national security." I spoke to Ali Salem last week in Cairo. Thanks for being with us.

ALI SALEM: Thank you very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's good to see you.

ALI SALEM: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How have the events of September 11 and everything that happened after affected Egypt?

ALI SALEM: It attacked me repeatedly as a nightmare. All the time, I can't get rid of the picture itself, the two towers and the two planes. And I try as a writer to find words describing what happened, but honestly, I discovered that dictionaries of all languages have no words describing what happened. So this is the accident that divided history into two parts: Before and after-- before the destruction of the two towers, and after the destruction of the two towers. In this big collision between East and West, I started thinking that you will gain some of our qualities and we will gain some of your qualities. That you'll be more suspicious, less just, more afraid; and I think we will be more progress.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You will have more progress?

ALI SALEM: Yes, we'll have more progress because you will take share in our troubles. There is no first world, there is no second or third world; there is a village called this planet. And if somebody is dangerous in a village close to Cairo, this person, the same person, will be very, very dangerous in Hamburg, in London, in Paris, in New York. He will represent the same danger everywhere. Thousands, thousands of the Americans died in order to have a better life for both of us. Yes. You know, it was our battle against these extremists. In Egypt, we lost more than 1,000 officers and policemen, and about 1,000 from the civilians, in battles against them. They killed writers... Tried to kill writers, tried to assassinate Naguib Mahfouz.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The great novelist.

ALI SALEM: The great novelist.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Nobel prize- winning.

ALI SALEM: And all the time we think that it's our battle. No, it's the world's battle.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I think it's hard sometimes for Americans to understand Egypt. Some people in America say there's not real freedom here; it's not democratic; that there's not real freedom for writers; that either the radicals, the terrorists will kill you, or the government will put you in prison.

ALI SALEM: You know, something? It's a skirmish between the Egyptian media and the American media. It's a skirmish between these two tribes of men of letters, print carriers, really. But I think that the relation between the Egyptian government and the American government is very strong, very strong. And they understand each other. So don't be deceived by those men of letters and journalists who are expressing their ancient views clouded by hatred emanating from other... from other stages of history. These people who hate America are not the representatives of the Egyptian people. People in Egypt were horrified when they saw the destruction of the two towers-- were horrified, were very sad, very gloomy. So we are talking about human beings, and we are human beings. We know very well that we, before you, were the victims of this terrorism.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Taliban were seen by some as sort of the ultimate in the Islamic state. They said that the things they did were following the Koran. What do you think their fall or their apparently rapid fall indicates?

ALI SALEM: That history sometimes may make some mistakes. I'm obliged - I'm forced to tell you that the American governments before in the '70s took part in this when they exploit religion in order to win their political battles. And the Soviet Union thought that the American government, with the help of some other government in our Middle East, told people, "These people, the Russians, the Soviets, are infidels. They are against God. So come to fight for God." And after that, they left them. So they are still going, fighting for God. But suppose they told them before, or they had told them, "Come and fight for freedom. These people are against freedom. Come to fight to enjoy freedom." They didn't say anything about freedom. They were talking all the time about God. Even Reagan raised the holy book to talk about it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Reagan?

ALI SALEM: Yes. So it's a phase in history. I don't like to talk about it. It's a mistake. It was a mistake.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: As you know, some of the experts here who write about these things put a lot of blame on Israel and say that if only the Palestinian-Israeli situation were solved, if there were peace, there wouldn't be this terrorism. Do you think that that's true?

ALI SALEM: Part of the answer, but not the whole answer, because you may solve this problem, we all may all solve this problem, and in the shade of the same culture, we'll have more extremists. But it's a part of the answer itself. Of course it's politics. Politicians try to make games in this occasion. Come and solve this problem in order not to have terrorists again.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But do you really believe that when some of the groups, including bin Laden, say they're doing this to help the their Palestinian brothers...

ALI SALEM: He's a liar. He knows that he is a liar. Everybody knows that he is a liar. And he didn't mention Palestine before. And all people know that the man is against the royal family in Saudi Arabia, that's all. The man wants to be something great. That's all.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I want to ask you just a little bit about what it's like to be a writer here in Egypt. I know you've had some trouble.

ALI SALEM: I think thinking in itself is a risky job, even in the first world. You have to prepare yourself when you say, "Okay, ah, I discovered something-- there is a mistake, there is a fault." And this sort of thinking-- I would like to tell my people that they are mistaken-- it starts. At this moment, you will pay the price. So writing is the only way for somebody to assure themselves, to be themselves. I can't imagine myself while I'm not writing. I can't. I'm nothing. I'm nothing. I am myself only when I write. And I try to write what I feel all the time, and I know that the honor of a writer is to declare what he is thinking of.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ali Salem, thanks for being with us.

ALI SALEM: Thank you very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day. More than 600 U.S. Marines were on the ground near Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance claimed it put down a three-day revolt by foreign prisoners in Mazar-e Sharif. And four Afghan groups began talks on a post-Taliban government in Bonn, Germany. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.