The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer : WETA : September 12, 2001 7:00pm-7:59pm EDT

Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news out tonight, the many aftermaths of yesterday's assaults on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. We have a summary of the latest developments and looks at the recovery efforts, the investigation into who was responsible and the state of airport security, plus a how-to-respond discussion among former officials, Warren Christopher Samuel Berger and Warren Rudman. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

The a fourth went down in western Pennsylvania. The investigation appeared to focus on Osama bin Laden's terror organization. There were no arrests but FBI agents conducted searches and questioned people in Boston and in various Florida cities. At the World Trade Center today, rescue workers found several people alive in the rubble. Mayor Giuliani offered a preliminary toll of 45 dead, 1500 injured, but he said the final death toll will probably be in the thousands. Late today, the last few stories of one of the towers collapsed,

sending hundreds of people running. In Washington, special teams searched the collapse section of the Pentagon, where dozens were still missing, but several thousand people returned to work there today. And at the White House, President Bush met with his national security team and said the hijack assaults were acts of war, later Congress strongly condemned the attacks. Elsewhere, most domestic air traffic remain grounded nationwide indefinitely, but some flights were allowed to let stranded travelers reach their destinations. Financial markets remain closed, but could reopen Friday. Now to the details beginning with two reports from New York City, the first narrated by Spencer Michaels. Massive rescue and recovery efforts continued through the night, and this morning in Lower Manhattan,

the area that had been home to the World Trade Center only yesterday. More than a thousand relief crews tried to clear away tons of debris and rubble from the site of the attack, often by hand. New Yorkers awakened to a change in eerie skyline, one still clouded with dust and smoke from the smoldering ruins. Just offshore, the aircraft carrier USS George Washington was in place to provide air defenses in the skies over New York City should they be needed. Satellite photos revealed the big picture of damage and smoke at ground zero. On the ground, the scene included broken girdards of buildings, once among the tallest in the world. Buses and rescue vehicles destroyed. A girl's doll lying on the street, clothing racks covered with dust. Throughout the night, crews worked to pull out victims trapped underneath.

Thousands remain missing, including at least 200 to fire fighters and 259 police and other city workers. New York Governor George Potaki expressed thanks to the rescuers. Mayor, your police and fire not only were heroes at the beginning, but they're still heroes. They're down there under enormous personal strain and risk. I saw them at the ground zero while a high rise was on fire right across the street that could have collapsed and they are risking their lives to try to save their friends and their colleagues and the New Yorkers who are still trapped. Meanwhile, city officials still did not have an estimate of the number of people killed. But Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said the numbers would be staggering. Building number two had a chance to clear out a lot of people probably cleared out of building number two. Building number one had some time to clear out, but there were areas of it that were affected. The best estimate that we can make,

relying on the port authority and just everyone else that has experience with this is that there'll be a few thousand people left in each building. Officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency explained today why it was taking so long to recover the bodies and how that compared with the bombing in Oklahoma City. Oklahoma City for that small structure went 15 days. So you can imagine that we're going to be in a long sustained operation. Now the difference is New York City has a tremendous capability, 14,000 firefighters and paramedics. So that's also in the equation, but I think that we're looking at at least a 30 to 60 day operation. With the exception of relief workers, Manhattan's lower west side was shut down today. All of the financial markets were closed for a second straight day as well. The mayor encouraged the rest of the city to try to return to some semblance of a normal day. The task of rebuilding New York's savage skyline and its crippled financial district, the World's Economic Nerve Center,

was a major concern to the mayor. There's no question we're going to rebuild. I can't say that we know the exact nature yet of how we're going to do that. The skyline will be whole again exactly what will be there. I think we have to leave to giving some people some time to consider it and to think about it. And also the reality is that the people in New York City are going to be whole again. We're going to rebuild. We're not only going to rebuild, we're going to come out of this stronger than we were before. And in addition to having wonderful people in New York as the governor indicated, we also have the strongest business community of any place in the world. And we're going to call upon them and we're going to need their help. But we're going to come out of this emotionally stronger, politically stronger, much closer together as a city, and we're going to come out of this economically stronger too. Late today, the few stories of the South Tower of the World Trade Center that remained began to collapse. Rescue workers were told to leave quickly.

And another nearby building, one Liberty Plaza was also threatening to come down. Now a report from Ray Suarez on the ground in New York City. While crews struggled to bring order out of the chaos at the scene of the attack, in other parts of New York, the attention turned to treating the hurt, searching for the missing and processing the dead. A day and a half after the terrorist struck, there was still relatively little known about the human cost of the crime. You want to come speak to somebody? I don't know. Outside the new school university in New York's Greenwich Village, a line stretched for a block. St. Vincent's Hospital, one of the main trauma centers in Lower Manhattan, set up an information clearing house. A unified database with all the news of the wounded admitted to area hospitals. John Castro's helping his son look for his fiancé. Our parents had contact with her right after the plane hit the first tower, but we haven't heard anything since the second plane went into the middle of the second tower there.

That was the last contact anybody's habit. We're out here looking. I don't know what to do, what else to do. Well, it must get harder with every hour of the passes. Well, it's, it is, it's quite hot. I mean, as time goes by, you know, things are more bleak. He does want to give up hope in the end of the line. One. The family of Moises Rivas, a chef at Windows on the world, famed restaurant at the top of the world trade towers, also waited for word and worked the phones. We don't find him in the list at all, and I'm just waiting to see if he'll pee at us there. Did, do you know that he went to work yesterday? Yes, he did. He called me from there, nine o'clock, exactly, and he told me that he left me and that was it. And he had got the phone on me, because it was the motion right there, the first explosion.

Okay. So that he already knew something was up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm okay. I'm okay. Don't worry. I love you. No matter why I love you. And he just hung up. Yeah. And I wish he appeared because we got too little kids. My son was Mark Zapplin. He worked on the 104th floor. Desperately holding on to scraps of hope, and fighting to maintain composure, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives tell anyone who listen about who they're looking for. If anybody sees him or knows anything, his name is Andrew Stern. Do you know that he even made it to work yesterday? Yes. You do know that. He did go to work yesterday. He was in very early, about 7th, 30. So he was definitely there. So if anybody knows anything, please, his wife and his mother, and the rest of us are all waiting for here. Andrew Stern from Canada. My brother was on that floor. I haven't brought them all.

So that's missing. OK. He's a Robert Slewex wife, Susan. They're from Long Island. Their number there is 516-783-824-4. We were here yesterday, and we thought that they were setting up a facility or a service for people from Cantor. And as I understand it now, I don't know if they're there or not. And we'd like the Cantor people to please come and give us some information. This is my brother, he's 42. He was on the 103rd of 4th floor. His wife, he called his wife when he heard a bang. And told him, told her there was smoke all over, and the phone went dead, and that's the last we heard, and that was just two. This is my brother Tom Knox. He was in Tower 1 on the 150th floor. Anybody knows anything about him, please contact us? The flow of the wounded into trauma centers, a torrent yesterday, slowed to a trickle today. This was a chance for the emergency workers at St. Vincent's to catch their breaths, grab a bottle of water, or a piece of pizza.

Take blood donations and process volunteers. A dozen refrigerator trucks rolled in a convoy to the New York City Medical Examiner's office this afternoon. As one processing center for the dead reaches capacity, the work spreads to centers throughout the metropolitan area. What you see behind me is just the front edge of a line that stretches more than two and a half blocks to the FDR drive on the east side of Manhattan. These people are waiting to submit personal information questionnaires. He's a six, seven-page dossier, and in contained information about blood time, identifying scars, dental work. And if you remember, the last outfit of clothes a missing person might have been wearing when they headed for work yesterday morning. One of the most interesting parts of this shared experience for these New Yorkers is how even though on the front of the line they've been waiting for more than three hours to submit this work and give a personal interview, there is no panic. There's very little in the way of acting out

or the tears. It's deadly combat on that street. People have very serious work today. All day, you knew something was wrong in New York, not by what was there, but by what was missing. Wednesday, midday. No traffic on 6th Avenue and above 6th Avenue, no shadow from the world tradeshowers. And Washington government officials stepped up the rhetoric as the Pentagon recovery efforts continued. Kwame Holman reports. The day after Dondon Washington with smoke still rising from the Pentagon, small fires and roof sections continued to burn. Defense Department employees had been told to return to work, but officials briefly reconsidered that and ordered the massive building cleared. We have had the fuel from the jet catch fire again, and we're now in there with some additional hand lines and some phone lines with aircraft firefighters inside of the insides of the Pentagon,

trying to suppress it this time with a firefighting phone. Just after noon, officials rescinded the evacuation order despite the stubborn flames. Pentagon officials said no one could have survived the catastrophic impact of the jetliner and the fire that followed. FBI agents combed the grounds for evidence. Today's return to work for official Washington included President Bush, who received his daily national security briefing, then met with the cabinet. The deliberate and deadly attacks, which were carried out yesterday against our country, were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war. This will require a country to unite instead fast determination and resolve. Freedom and democracy are under attack. The American people need to know we're facing a different enemy than we have ever faced.

This enemy hides in shadows and has no regard for human life. This is an enemy who prays on innocent and unsuspecting people than runs for cover, but it won't be able to run for cover forever. This is an enemy that tries to hide, but it won't be able to hide forever. This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe, but they won't be safe forever. Beside the capital's dome, the flag flew at half-step. Senate Joint Resolution 22, expressing the sense of the Senate and the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. At 10am, the House and Senate convened simultaneously the only business a three-page Joint Resolution condemning yesterday's attacks and declaring today a national day of unity and mourning.

Mr. President, it's so important that we show that even these terrible acts cannot stop America from going forward. We must get on with our important work. Today we go back to work in Washington, New York and all around the country and we're determined to show the world that America will not be defeated by anyone. A short time later, Congress's leaders met privately with the President. They emerged promising Mr. Bush will get whatever he needs to respond to yesterday's events. We're in complete agreement that we will work together that we want to share information, that we will be ready to move on whatever the President suggests, and we will go through the debate and the actions of Congress in a bipartisan way to make that happen. We will work with the administration to allocate the resources

and to dedicate whatever strategy may be required to fulfill our obligations. It is our strong desire to do this not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans, and we will continue to demonstrate that desire as we consider whatever other actions may be required in days ahead. Congress could approve billions in emergency funds to aid New York City and install new security measures as early as the end of the week. It was late this afternoon that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed a wider terrorist threat yesterday and substantial progress in the investigation. The four planes were hijacked by between three and six individuals per plane, using knives and box cutters and in some cases making bomb threats. Our government has credible evidence that the White House and Air Force One were targets.

A number of the suspected hijackers were trained as pilots in the United States. We have, in the last 24 hours, taken the manifest and used those as an evidentiary base and have talked to many of the families of the victims and have successfully, I believe, identified many of the hijackers on each of the four flights that went down. We also have identified through a number of leads, principally at the city's origin, a number of individuals whom we believe may have had something to do with the hijackings and we are pursuing those leads aggressively. At his daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was quizzed about why Air Force One flew from Florida to Louisiana and Nebraska yesterday

before finally returning to Andrews Air Force Base near Washington. Because the information that we had was real incredible about Air Force One, the manner in which Air Force One operated maintained the security of Air Force One at all times and that also is one of the reasons why Air Force One did not come back to Andrews where some people may have thought it would. A short time ago, the president made the short trip from the White House to the Pentagon where he praised rescue workers. More on the investigation now and to Margaret Warner. And joining us is Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek Magazine. Evan fleshed out a little more for us what Ashcroft and Muller just said. First of all, about what they've learned about what happened yesterday. Well, the FBI believes that there was an act of heroism in the plane that didn't get to Washington, the plane that crashed near Pittsburgh. I actually spoke last night as the FBI has, I think, several times

to a woman named Liz Glick, whose husband, Jeremy, was on that plane. And he called on a cell phone and told her the plane had been hijacked and he said that he was talking to some other male passengers, four or five other passengers about taking a last ditch attempt to jump the hijackers as he put it. They could hear over the phone the screams, silence, screams again, silence, and then nothing. And the FBI believes there was some kind of a wrestling match in that that plane crashed in a field instead of getting to Washington and hitting the White House or the Capitol or some real target. And then how does the, how do investigators know, and maybe they're not saying but that Air Force One and the White House were targets? Well, I don't know how they know about Air Force One. I mean, the White House was definitely, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually headed right for the White House. It was just by looking at the flight.

Looking at the flight plane turned into the Pentagon. I'm not sure about the other one, why they think the Air Force One was a target. Now, then we heard Ashcroft or Mueller say that they have identified from the flight manifests, they think a lot of the hijackers. A great many of the hijackers, who are they? Well, the FBI has a lot of these guys in their filing cabinets. I mean, some of these names that have turned up in connection with this investigation are familiar names. This, of course, raises the question of, was there an intelligence failure if they knew these people were, why couldn't they catch them? I think the answer to that is it's easier said than done. I mean, they were tapping the phones of the people who bombed the embassies in Africa for about a year, and they still missed that. So, there'll be lots of investigations and recommendations, but the point is that the, I think they're going to crack the cell. They're going to find out who did this. But, Francis, do they know the nationality of these people? They're far and there's their Middle Easterners who were, it's been described to St. Newsweek, who were in this country from between a week and a year.

That's the time frame, came from many different countries. All of this suggests a very careful, deliberate, orchestrated act. Now, another focus, as they said today, is people who are still around, not hijackers who helped them, and there was a whole flurry today about arrests or detentions, different words were used, in both Boston and in Florida. What can you tell us about that? Well, they're just trying to hold these people until they find out. I mean, when they talk about holding somebody as a material witness, they may become suspects, they just don't have enough evidence yet, or they may truly be witnesses, they may be family members. They want to hold on to these people, pull the string back as it were, but they're well on their way to finding out who did this. What has been the most helpful pieces of evidence, for instance, in identifying some of these alleged accomplices or material witnesses? Well, you know, with this rental car they found in Boston that had Arab materials, only to one of the hijackers.

According to one of the hijackers, they're looking at these flight schools, these pilot training schools in Florida. One of the pilots who trained at these schools is missing, and they think that he was one of the pilots who flew one of those Boeing airliners into the ground. And then, of course, all the cell phone calls from passengers. They're our descriptions of the hijackers from those cell phones, although I'm not sure that's as important as things like just the ticket who bought the ticket and tracing canceled checks, credit cards, that kind of thing. And then, how far have they gotten in establishing who their outside sponsors might have been? Of course, there's been all this talk about Osama bin Laden. I mean, you still hear from investigators this figure, 90% sure it was bin Laden, only bin Laden could have pulled this off. I mean, a combination of circumstantial evidence and intercepts of calls to bin Laden, saying that we hit the target, which sounds pretty convincing. Maybe those are false claims, or maybe the some story we don't know.

But they think they have electronic intercepts that tie bin Laden directly. And finally, how far long are they in collecting physical evidence actually at the crash scenes? For instance, the black boxes, we haven't heard about it. I mean, I know they're worried that they're never going to get them out of the World Trade Center in all of that rubble. I think they're more optimistic that they're going to find them at the Pentagon and in that field outside of Pittsburgh. And I gather they actually can't even go into the World Trade Center yet to collect evidence. Right. I mean, they obviously have a ways to go here. It's not yet a real crime scene in the sense of forensic specialist pouring over the rubble. They're still trying to rescue people. All right, Evan, thanks very much. Now, more on the state of recovery at the Pentagon and to go in Eiffel. For that assessment, we're joined by George Wilson, military columnist for the National Journal and former Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post. George, have you been over to the Pentagon in the last day and seen what it's like there?

Yes, I was there this morning, and it was still smoking. And the scene was very somber, very sad. It was a lone American flag flying on the roof where the west side of the building had been devastated by that airliner. The whole face was charred and a big gap was in the building. And there were cranes there, ready to put engineers on the roof so they could assess where the damage occurred and what the structural problems were, and there were tents outside in the parking lot to attend to the stricken and also give some meals to the construction workers. You mentioned that it's still smoking. Our officers are not so very far from the Pentagon, and we can step outside and still smell the smoke. Why are the fire still burning if that's what's happening? Well, as of late this morning, it was smoking. And one of the placement who said, you can't go in there now because the fires have just restarted. It's kind of a honeycomb structure, and it has various cells along these corridors.

So I suspect that there's little scattered fires that you just can't attack this one solid mass. But I have to add that late this afternoon when I went by, there was no more smoke coming out, and the fire was indeed finding me out. So when you talk about the honeycomb structure, when we think about the Pentagon, we know it's five-sided, but unless you fly over it, like a lot of people do landing in Washington, there are five hallways quarters that go around. There's concentric corridors, just figure like a set of donuts, each one smaller than the one behind it. And so a fireman would have to weave his way through these corners into these various separated hallways. And it would be a slow-moving process. And besides that, a good many of the doors in the Pentagon have combination locks on them. So a fireman couldn't just bang open the door and go in there with a foam or hose. He'd have to either knock down the door or know the combination. And I suspect there was a lot of fire actors, fire axes at work.

So where did this plane actually impact? It impacted in the west face of the Pentagon, which is where the helicopters had taken the generals and the executives of the Pentagon in and out, and it hit at the lower level so that all five stories were smashed. And of course the big damage was done by the fuel. It wasn't an effective, very effective bomb. And it hit smack into the face, and it took some pretty good flying to be that precise. Who works in that area of the Pentagon? Of course the Army people, that's an Army side of the Pentagon, but the good news is that because much of that face of the building was under renovation, some of it had already been renovated and it had glass which was plasticized so that it didn't shatter and scatter and hurt people. And also because there was renovations ongoing, several of the officers were on the hockey part. So the casualties were less than they would have been if they'd hit say another face of the building.

Was there any sign of the plane that hit the building left in the wreckage that you could see? I could not see it, which it made me because I thought that big of a plane, I could spot some pieces of the wreckage, but I suspect it's buried in the rubble or from that distance that they let you go to, which is on the perimeter. Maybe it wasn't visible, but it was surprising that there was a hole there as opposed to a splattering of parts on the concrete face of the building. We can only assume that the Pentagon still remains ground zero for whatever retaliatory response to U.S. is planning. You've been doing some reporting on that. What have you heard? Well, that it's not going to be just a single strike. That this is going to be a long war and they're using the term war if you notice more and more. And it's kind of the who, what, when and where. And as soon as that is determined, there will be strikes. And eventually, given the president's words and the military planner's words, if you're harboring a terrorist, the known terrorists, and you will not give them up to us,

there is certainly a lot of sentiment for inflicting some real hurt on that country. The folks who talk to who work at the Pentagon, have they gotten over the shock of this? No. It's a very, people go back and forth to work, but it's a very sober kind of movement. It's almost like they're a little bit shell shocked and understandably so. One Air Force officer told me this morning that he was on the entire other side of the building. But the impact was such that it was shook the whole building and he couldn't believe the structure of that solid. And that built like a fortress could be shaken by such an attack. Thank you, George Wilson. You are. Still to come on the news hour tonight. Airport security and how to respond. The airport security issues, late this afternoon, transportation secretary Norman Manetta,

announced that passengers stranded on flights yesterday would be allowed to continue to their destinations. He also outlined some new security guidelines. I have ordered a variety of security measures to be instituted at our nation's airports upon reopening to improve the security of our aviation system. A thorough search and security check of all airports and air planes will take place before passengers are allowed to enter and reboard aircraft. We will discontinue curbside check-in at the airport and passengers will be required to go to the ticket counters to check-in. We will also discontinue off airport check-in. We can no longer allow passengers to check in for their flights at hotels or other venues.

Passengers must check in at the airports. We must reserve boarding areas for passengers only. Only ticketed passengers will be allowed to proceed past airport screeners to catch their flights. And all vehicles near airport terminals will be monitored more closely. I know that all Americans want us to move as quickly and prudently as possible to return our national airspace system to normal. And we will as soon as we can do so safely. Elizabeth Farnsworth takes it from there. And for more, we're joined by Douglas Laird, Vice President at BGI International, a consulting firm specializing in counter-terrorism and aviation security. He's a former security director at Northwest Airlines.

And Isaac Yefert, Chairman of Yefert Security, Consultant Inc., a security and investigative firm that focuses on anti-terrorism. He's the former director of security for L.O., the National Israeli Airlines. Mr. Laird, what do you think of these new measures? And let me say there were a couple that weren't mentioned by Secretary Minetta, a ban on all knives and other cutting instruments including plastic, for example, and uniformed and plain closed police patrolling airports among others. There was most impressed by the order that only ticketed passengers could proceed beyond the screening checkpoints. If you think about this, that will allow the screeners a lot more time to more thoroughly check individuals entering a sterile area of the airport. And overall, do you think these are just about the right measures to be taken now? I think it's very early to say what measures need to be taken. What we need to do is take a good, hard look at how this event happened and then decide the best way to prevent such things in the future. But there's no clear-cut, easy answers to any of these questions. Mr. Yefert, what's your view? And I hope I'm saying your name right.

Yes, you did. What's your view of the new measures? I'm glad to hear what the Secretary said, but unfortunately it's too late. 12 years, I'm talking about the lack of security that we have around the country. I was testifying in the Congress for two days. I was promised that we'll be upgrade the level of security. This will be more tightened, will be more sophisticated. In reality, nothing happened. For a couple of days, we react and we never pro-react. I hope that from now on, this tragedy will teach us. Mr. Yefert, please look at what happened yesterday. What you know from your own sources and what you know from sources available publicly today and briefly. What do you think happened and what were the failures and what would be necessary that it not happen again? Were the measures today enough, for example?

Number one, if you remember that the FAA procedures are that passenger with a knife, long up to four inches, can be sharp and so on, is allowed to board the aircraft. They call it knife. I call it weapon. What we should do is to stop using low level of people that we call them to be a security device. We have to trend them completely different. You cannot train people for a couple of hours and then they become the expert for security. You cannot hire people for six or seven dollars an hour because this is what you get with this amount of money. It's time now to decide that we will choose the right people to be in our security system. We trend them days and not hours. We have to test them every day. We have to make sure that they understand the heavy responsibility that they take on their shoulders when people are coming to board the aircraft.

They are responsible for the life of innocent people. We have to stop from now on to react only. Let's us do whatever it's necessary to prevent and not to react. Douglas Laird, when you look at what happened yesterday, what do you see and what has to be done to prevent it? What happened today enough? If they wouldn't be able to go based on the FAA procedures with the knife to the aircraft. I'm sorry, Mr. Yefid, I'm asking Mr. Laird now. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. We must understand that a lot of people are saying that the screeners failed. The screeners did not fail because the way the regulations were written. Knives up to four inches were until now allowed an aircraft. This is service well since 1972. What I'm saying is we need to look at the future. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but let's not find fault with the screeners who in fact were meeting the regulatory obligations. I think the things that the Secretary mentioned today will help in the interim.

But again, we have to look at the long term and we have to do a careful analysis of how to stop this in the future without crippling our aviation system. Mr. Laird, is it possible to stop somebody under whatever the stringent measures if they're willing to die? If they're basically using the plane as a bomb and flying it into a building. They could just say they have a bomb, for example. They might not have any weapon. The last hijacking the United States was in 1987, and I'm hijacking it. I mean when a person had an actual weapon, there have been several hijacking since when people bluff their way by saying they had a weapon when they didn't. It's hard to prevent somebody from bluffing. We have to understand as a people that nothing is a hundred percent. And if you recall back when the following Panam 103, the Commission, the President's Commission clearly stated that part of the solution, that part of the solution was the will of the American people. And that's even more true today. We as a society have to agree upon certain things that we are willing to surrender of our rights to search and so forth to make the skies safe.

But at the same time, if it takes five hours to process people to board a flight, our entire economic system will collapse. Mr. Yup, are your response? My response is that I agree with the gentleman that there is no hundred percent security. From other hand, with poor skill and almost nothing security serious, there is a big gap between this and the hundred percent. We have to work hard to come close to the hundred percent as much as we can. And to think that we need five hours to make the flight possible, I think it's illusion. We tell today people, come two hours ahead of time. With these two hours, we can interview the people, we can ask them, we can check them, and we can decide who is going to feed the passenger or who is suspicious passengers. Let's concentrate on the suspicious passengers and not with the bonafide. So therefore, we will not lose any money or we will collapse by thinking that we need five hours.

Very briefly, Mr. Yup, let me just interrupt you. Do you think we have to move towards something more like the LLL system? Anybody who has been through the Tel Aviv Airport knows what it is to have a stringent security check. I was questioned for five minutes by two people, for example. We have to move towards something that's directed briefly. The LLL system shows that two hours more than enough to take care of 450 passengers at 747. And if we do it right here, believe me, that we can do it similar to LLL or to close to LLL without having any problem to the passengers. We are worried about the convenience of the passengers. And my question is, convincing by knowing that we risk our life or inconvenancy by knowing that we save life, the answer is very clear. Okay, Mr. Lair just briefly a response. Well, when I talked earlier about the will of the people, if lines get very long at the airport, the public complains vehemently to the screeners and to the airlines.

There has to be a happy medium. And I think through the use of technology, proper training and retaining screeners longer after they've been retained will allow their quality to improve. And I'm not trying to imply that they're not doing good job. The events of yesterday happened in spite of the fact that the screeners are following all the regulations. There's no indication that there was any failure at a checkpoint. Thank you both very much. Finally tonight, some focus on what the United States response should be. Secretary of State Powell was asked about that. It is his news conference today. He also addressed the role of Pakistan and NATO's declaration late today that the attack on the U.S. was an attack on the entire NATO alliance. That is in accordance with Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

I think when you're attacked by a terrorist and you know who the terrorist is and you can think of print back to the cause of the terror you should respond. I mean, limited response or you should respond whether it's limited or other than limited you should respond to those who did it. And if you were able to stop terrorist attacks, you should stop terrorist attacks. We have not made a determination yet as to who is responsible for yesterday's attack. But we thought as we gather information and as we look at possible sources of the attack, it would be useful to point out to the Pakistani leadership at every level that we are looking for and expecting their fullest cooperation and their help and support as we conduct this investigation. And as we generate more information and see if they can be helpful in generating information as well as how helpful they might be if we find a basis to act upon that information. So yes, we are doing what you describe with the Pakistani's problem.

Just to clarify, when you say you're building a strong coalition to go after the perpetrators, does this mean that you are expecting or hoping that other countries will participate in some kind of military retaliation? Under Article 5, if we go that far, it actually is executed then there is an obligation on the part of our NATO allies to assist if we go in this direction. It doesn't mean that they necessarily will participate in the attack, but it makes it easier to obtain support in the way of overflight rights and things of that nature. But I don't want to get into what we might or might not do and who might go with us and who might not go with us because that's just too speculative at the moment. And that leads us to a discussion about response and options among former Clinton Secretary of State Warren Christopher Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor in the second Clinton term. And Warren Rudman, former Republican Senator of New Hampshire, he co-chaired a commission that warned in February of a major terrorist attack on the United States and was what happened yesterday what you had in mind, Senator? Precisely, we talked about two kinds of attacks. One, the one that we all worry about attack using weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, biological, and weapons of mass disruption, which is what we saw yesterday.

And we essentially said that these are the number one threats to this country today. We laid out a whole series of things for Congress and the new administration to find ways to respond and to prevent and to prepare. Anything happened after you turned in your report? Things are happening, whether they're happening at a fast enough pace is hard to say. I don't think anything could have been done quickly enough to prevent today. But there are those in Congress who are proposing legislation to deal with the things that we talk about and the Vice President is supposed to report on October as to what the administration's response will be to what we put forth. Well, Secretary Christopher, the word today from President Bush and others was that, yes, this was a terrorist act, but it was also an act of war. Do you agree this was an act of war and should be seen by the United States as an act of war?

As I don't think there's any point, Jim, in quibbling over the word, it's an act of war and particularly ugly kind of war because the rules of war don't apply here. It's a long and difficult road ahead, very complex. We have to be calm and disciplined and very relentless about it, Jim. If it turns out that there's a Middle East connection, then I think we have to take very strong decisive action. But when we do so, we have to understand that some of our erstwhile friends in the Middle East are likely to be very unhappy about it. I've had a lot of experience with Middle Eastern leaders who claim that there are some ugly people down on their border. We just can't quite control all the control of the country completely, so I think we can expect some opposition. That kind of opposition may have economic consequences as well as military consequences. So we've got to be in for the long course, we have to stay the course and for my money, we certainly shouldn't shrink from it in any way. We shouldn't be lulled into any kind of immediate aftermath comments. By immediate aftermath comments that the whole world is going to support whatever we do if we take action to get somebody, right?

Absolutely. There will be in almost all great likelihood if it's in Middle Eastern connection, there will be doubters and complainers about whatever we do, and that may have some real consequences. My advice is we have to stand up to those consequences. You agree with that, Mr. Berger, that if anybody thinks this is going to be easy, forget it? Absolutely. The stakes in the fight against terrorism were raised to a entirely new level yesterday. And I certainly agree with Secretary Christopher. American people have to be prepared now for a long term enterprise here. This is not going to be resolved with one single swift and even punishing strike. Why not? Why not? Let's say that this group of terrorists is identified and part of the identification reveals where they've been, where they are, what country has been supporting them. Why can't we just go in there and wipe them out?

Because the objective here is not simply retaliation at this stage. The objective has to be a long term effort by the international community to attack this terrorist network. And if not take it down, reduce it in substantial ways. If, in fact, for example, if, in fact, what was assembled around the Gulf War was a coalition of the willing that was organized for a single purpose. What we need now is a coalition of will that is organized for a long-term purpose. And that long-term purpose is to attack this terrorist network not only in Afghanistan, but in 50 or 60 countries where there are elements here. And that will take a sustained period of time. A Secretary Christopher points out each action or will have its own reaction. And we need to support the President in a long-term undertaking here joined by, as many allies, as will summon the will, to deal with terrorism in their own country, as well as to cooperate in dealing with the center of gravity of this particular threat if it is, in fact, in Afghanistan. Well, Senator, your commission looked at all of this. How would you rate the prospects of their being and international effort just the way Sandy Burger just outlined to really do something seriously, finally, about international terrorism?

I think that all depends on what the state of diplomacy is between this country and its allies, both in Europe and Asia, and as Secretary Christopher points out in the most difficult place of all, and the most important place of all, the Middle East. I think it will be very difficult to get some of those Middle Eastern leaders, so I've had some limited experience with, to agree with massive American action against people they consider their friends. For a number of reasons, they have their own domestic politics, which in many cases these governments could be easily destabilized. But having said that, I totally agree with what President Bush said last night. I think we have to identify the particular perpetrators of this act and those who harbor them and make them pay a very severe price for what they did. However, as Sandy Burger has said, this is only the first step. There were so many of these shadowy organizations around the world that the American people have to understand and the thing that we tried to bring out on our report.

This is a new era in American security. This is not the first or the last act of terrorism against the United States. It's the most horrendous. But we have to be prepared for other things, which is why we hope that the government will be do more to prepare for response and prevention. Secretary Christopher, why has more not been done about this before now? There's been all kinds of commissions in all due respect to Senator Redmond and there have been all kinds of statements by secretaries of state, including you, when you were Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher, and by presidents and all of that, and nothing ever seems to happen. Why not? Jim, I think yesterday's events are a wake-up call. Not just America under attack. It's the world under attack. Whatever the failings of the past, I think, were in a different situation right now. And I go, even slight step beyond where Senator Redmond just was, I think we didn't have to go.

Yes, not only the perpetrators and those who harbor them, but also those who support them. I think that's been the failure in the past. So we've seen bombings where we, I think, have tried to get the perpetrators, but we have fallen shy of going after those who supported them, or probably supported them. I don't think we can do that in this situation. We have to dig very deep here. I think the Osama bin Laden solution is too glib, too simplistic for me. This particular enterprise was so sophisticated that it's hard for me to believe that there wasn't some larger organization like a nation state behind it. And so we shouldn't accept any easy solutions to this particular problem. Mr. Berger, you had to deal with Osama bin Laden when you were a national security adviser, or deal with the ramifications of what he allegedly did. You agree with Secretary Christopher that it's too glib to say, okay, we'll get him, put him out of business, that's the end of this.

Well, we can't reach any conclusion to this point. No, let's say I know. But there is obviously always the potential here that there was some state behind this. But I also don't think we ought to underestimate the sophistication and global reach of bin Laden. Give us a feel for that based on what you discovered when you were there. He operates in 60 countries, 60 countries. There are five to 10,000 operatives who have been through his training camps. They've obviously now learned to operate in a sense under the radar screen of our intelligence. I mean, in a way, it's a sophistication by being more primitive, by not using some of the communication techniques that we can easily detect. And we saw a multiple attack in Africa. This is qualitative at our embassy.

It's qualitatively different. My point earlier, though, Jim, is that this is not going to, it may go beyond a single organization. But that's, I suspect, going to be a part of this. And Afghanistan, if that is what in part we're talking about, is a long way from nowhere. It's 1,000 miles from the nearest body of water. It's got Iran on one side, Pakistan on the other side, Russia on the other side, and Tajikistan on the other side. Cruz missiles are not rifles. The last army that went into Afghanistan was a Soviet Union who lost. Now, we have to, I believe, take decisive action as Secretary Christopher and the President have said. We should have no illusions here that the choices facing the President are difficult ones, and we have to be prepared for difficult options here. Okay, flesh that out, Senator Revan, from your point of view.

What difficult things lie ahead, not only for the President, it makes the decisions, but also for Congress to support them and the American people to support it, and our allies. Now, I'm going to talk about that myself, I will tell you, if we want to undergo an operation to severely limit. Not only Osama bin Laden, if he turns out to be culpable, but other organizations that are clearly identifiable and well-known to Sandy Berger and the U.S. Intelligence Committee, it's going to take a huge American effort involving many people and a great deal of risk. I believe that if you're going to move against some of these terrorist organizations, you're talking about several wings of aircraft, substantial naval presence, and possibly ground troops. We are not talking surgical strikes against these kinds of operations. If we're going to do this right, if we're going to really roll these people up, as I think the American people would support, it's not going to be an easy operation, and nobody should sell it as such.

You agree, Senator? I mean, Secretary Christopher? Yes, I certainly do, Jim. I'd like to make one other point about it. One of the real difficulties is that we have to remember what we're protecting and what we stand for. If we go beyond that, if we violate our Constitution, as we did in the Alien and Sedition Acts, and when we took the Japanese prisoners, Japanese American prisoners, then we would really have undone ourselves. We make a terrible mistake, if in an effort to protect democracy. We let the terrorists go to us into doing something that robbed us of our own democracy. So that's on the other end of having to take extremely decisive, strong action. I agree with Senator Rudman about that. We also, I think, need, as Senator Rudman said, to rebuild the coalition. We have to remember, now, above all, we need our allies and friends around the world.

This intelligence business is not a single-nation operation. There's no unilateral intelligence that really works. All right. Gentlemen, thank you all very, very much. There will be special editions of Washington Week and Bill Moyers later tonight on most of these PBS stations, and we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with our continuing coverage of the New York and Washington attacks. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you. Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer are available from PBS video. Call 1-800-328-PBS-1. Now in its 28th season, Washington Week and Review covers the major news events with Washington's top journalists next on PBS. Next time, explore two magnificent museums from coast to coast with Sister Wendy.

Treasures from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. I won't study your ears by giving you a please, but they're all content-related cookies. And wonders from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Sister Wendy's American Collection. Next on PBS. This is the first time I've ever seen it. I've been so excited about this. I've been so excited about it.

I've been so excited about it. I've been so excited about it. Coming soon on PBS. Honey, I need bonds. Hey, hey, get your wife and come on over here. No, it's sad. Come on. You've lived over eight months and nobody even knows you. I'm a little busy. I mean, what? Are you in the witness protection program or something? Life is a series of surprises, and now it's also a series, Life 360, coming to PBS. What's with him? I don't know. I just made a joke about the witness protection program. Who's going to tell you the stories that hit you where you live? That make you think that change your mind?

Who's going to tell you the stories that open doors, that tear down walls, that change lives? Who's going to tell you the stories that matter? Front line. Now in its 28th season, Washington Week in Review covers the major news events with Washington's top journalists next on PBS.