The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news tonight, the Soviets freed dissident Andrei Sakharov from exile. Lawrence Walsh was named independent counsel to conduct a criminal investigation into the Iran-contra deals. Attorney General Meese testified before the House Intelligence Committee. President Reagan called for deployment of 50 MX missiles in railroad cars. We'll have the details in our news summary coming up. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, we hear from a relative of Andrei Sakharov and from Soviet official Vitaly Churkin and U.S. official Kenneth Adelman on nuclear testing, as well as the Sakharov case. Then the appointment of Lawrence Walsh as Iran arms independent counsel will be examined by attorney Leon Silverman and reporter Nina Totenberg. We have a report on the use of animals in scientific experiments. And we close with an essay about NOW. News Summary

MacNEIL: The Soviet government freed dissident Andrei Sakharov from internal exile and pardoned his wife, Yelena Bonner. That means that the 65 year old physicist and his wife can return to Moscow from the distant city of Gorky, where he's been confined as punishment for his human rights activism. Sakharov, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was banished six years ago, after critizing the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. More details of his release were announced by the Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin at a Washington news conference.

YURI DUBININ, Soviet ambassador [through translator]: A decision has been taken in the Soviet Union allowing Sakharov to return to Moscow. That decision was based on humanitarian considerations, and it allows him to take -- to fully participate, to fully engage in his scientific activities. And that means that he's going to have all the rights of a Soviet citizen.

MacNEIL: The families of both Sakharov and his wife live in the Boston area. Mrs. Bonner's daughter, Tatiana Yankelevich, told newsmen today that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had personally called the couple to tell them their exile was over.

TATIANA YANKELEVICH, daugher of Yelena Bonner: It is probably the nicest Christmas or Hanukkah or New Year present we ever had. What can I tell you? It's wonderful.

REPORTER: And there was, to your knowledge, no quid pro quo in this? This was just -- they made no promises? Sakharov didn't promise not to speak out? He still maintains his --

Ms. YANKELEVICH: There is absolutely no indication that Mr. Gorbachev placed any conditions on his return to Moscow -- at least not to the best of our knowledge.

MacNEIL: The White House welcomed the release but stated that countless others remain incarcerated for no reason other than their desire to express their views.

In West Germany, it was reported that one other dissident, a Crimean Tartar named Mustafa Dzhemilev, was also freed today.

The White House also announced that President Reagan wants to buy 50 more giant MX missiles, to be placed on railroad cars. They would be shuttled from base to base in times of crisis. In addition to the MX, Congress will also be asked for funds to develop 500 of the small, single warhead missiles called Midgetman. Jim?

LEHRER: An Oklahoma City lawyer who is a former judge and diplomat was selected today as the independent counsel to investigate the Iran arms affair. His name is Lawrence Walsh. He is 74 years old. His first stint in government service was as an assistant attorney under Thomas Dewey in New York City 45 years ago. He later served as a federal judge in New York and as the deputy negotiator at the 1969 Vietnam peace talks in Paris, among many other things. He was chosen for the independent counsel position by a three judge federal panel. He was sworn in this morning in Washington and talked to reporters afterward.

LAWRENCE WALSH, independent counsel: I would like, as one of my first things, to call upon the leadership of both houses and upon the chairmen of the appropriate committees to arrange for as cooperative a future as possible and to minimize any possible conflicts. I obviously will need information and cooperation and help from the executive branch of government. I will talk to whoever is necessary to achieve that objective.

LEHRER: Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee continued its look at the Iran arms affair. Today, the witness was Attorney General Meese. After the hearing, Meese explained how he came up with the 10 to $30 million figure he said was transferred from Iran arms sales profits to the Nicaragua contras.

EDWIN MEESE, Attorney General: I was basing my estimate on what we had been told by various people, including Colonel North, and it was a rough estimation based on the idea that there had been, apparently, three transactions and that the money that we had heard about that might have been made available to the forces fighting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua was something in the neighborhood of -- we had estimates on one hand that might be as much as three or four million dollars per shipment. On another occasion, we had some information that it might be as much as 12 million. I merely multiplied each of those figures roughly by three, and that's where we got the ten to thirty million. But that was a very rough approximation, as I said at that time.

LEHRER: A House select committee will take over the investigation after the first of the year. There will be a similar select committee in the Senate.

The condition of CIA Director William Casey was described today as stable. Casey had a cancerous tumor removed from his brain yesterday. A Georgetown University Hospital spokesman said his postoperative recovery was progressing satisfactorily. Yesterday, attending physicians said Casey should be able eventually to resume his normal activities.

MacNEIL: The life of Eugene Hasenfus returned to something like normal today in Marinette, Wisconsin. Rick Rockwell of station WHA-TV in Madison had this report.

RICK ROCKWELL [voice over]: Hugging his children and smiling broadly, American mercenary Eugene Hasenfus returned home to Wisconsin. He was met at the Green Bay Airport by about 30 supporters and a large crowd of reporters eager to ask him about his part in supplying arms to rebel forces in Nicaragua. After meeting with family members behind closed doors, Hasenfus made a brief statement to the media.

EUGENE HASENFUS, freed prisoner: I have to thank Senator Dodd for all that he's done and tried to do, Governor Earl, many other people that are involved that everybody, I'm quite sure, is aware of.

ROCKWELL [voice over]: But he refused to answer any questions.

Mr. HASENFUS: At this time, I can't really any questions. There's a lot of technical things involved, promises made so far. And other times the time will come where we can have a question and answer period, which I'm sure will come whether I like it or not.

ROCKWELL [voice over]: Dwight Davis, one of the attorneys representing Hasenfus, told reporters his client would not make any further comments until he was interviewed by the FBI.

DWIGHT DAVIS, Hasenfus attorney: The FBI wanted to talk with him as soon as possible, to use their terms, so that his memory would not be diluted or polluted by accounts of what he has read in the paper. And they didn't want to get his story piecemeal through the press.

ROCKWELL [voice over]: On this night, Hasenfus chose to ignore the lingering questions about his part in the contra arms pipeline. For him, it would be a jubilant ride home accompanied by family, friends and supporters.

MacNEIL: Back in Managua, U.S. embassy officials have now met with Sam Nestle Hall, the American accused of spying by the Sandinista government. Hall, the brother of Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio, was seized December 12 near a restricted air base outside Managua. Sandinista officials said he had maps of military targets stuffed in his socks. Although he has not been officially charged with any crime, Hall has been told he will be tried by a revolutionary tribunal like the one that convicted Eugene Hasenfus.

LEHRER: There was good inflation news today. The Labor Department said the Consumer Price Index for November rose .3%. That led economic analysts to project an annual inflation rate of 1.3%, the lowest annual rate in 22 years. Department spokesmen said drops in gasoline and other fuel prices were the main reasons for it all.

MacNEIL: And that's our news summary. Coming up, why the Soviets have freed the Sakharovs, the new special prosecutor, the rights of animals used for experiments, and an essay on NOW, 20 years old. Soviet Thaw?

MacNEIL: The Soviets move in such hidden ways that when they do something generous, the tendency is to ask why. We do that now with the release of the most famous of the Soviet dissidents, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner. Sakharov's career as one of the leading Soviet physicists was reason enough for his fame. He played an important role in developing Russia's first hydrogen bomb in 1953. But by 1970, he and Yelena Bonner, the woman who would become his second wife, had found an unofficial committee on human rights. Despite official warnings that his statements to Western reporters were anti-Soviet slander, Sakharov continued to speak out on Soviet abuses. In 1975, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1980, the government tried to silence Sakharov by exiling him without trial to the remote city of Gorky, 240 miles east of Moscow. And later, the state exiled Yelena Bonner too. A hunger strike by Sakharov forced the Soviet government to grant Bonner a visa to seek medical treatment in the West last year. And when she returned, she returned to Gorky. Today, the government freed Sakharov from internal exile and pardoned his wife. They are expected to return to Moscow. Today's news was particularly welcome to the members of the Sakharov-Bonner family in the United States. We get that reaction now from Tatiana Yankelevich, the daughter of Yelena Bonner. She joins us tonight from station WGBH in Boston.

We heard you say a moment ago on the news, Ms. Yankelevich, that this was the best Christmas and Hanukkah New Year's present you could imagine. Have you been able to speak to your mother and Mr. Sakharov since the news?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, that's -- this is the way we learned about the news -- in the telephone conversation with my parents. They have called us on the morning -- early morning, around 8:00 Eastern Time. That is on Wednesday, December 17. And they have told us that a telephone has been installed in their apartment in Gorky on Monday night at 10:00 in the evening and that next day, Tuesday, December 16, at 3:00 p.m., they had a telephone call from Secretary Gorbachev, who has spoken to my stepfather, Dr. Sakharov. He has -- Secretary Gorbachev told Dr. Sakharov that he will be able to return to Moscow, that my mother will too be allowed to come back to Moscow. And I would like to quote from what Mr. Gorbachev had said to my father -- that he will be able to, and I quote, "come back or to return to patriotic work." These are the words that my stepfather told me Mr. Gorbachev told him on the telephone during their conversation.

MacNEIL: That would mean, in Soviet parlance, that your stepfather would now be trusted by the state to engage in very sensitive scientific work, presumably.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, I really have no ability to speculate on this. It is pure guesswork, since my parents did not indicate how did they understand these words.

MacNEIL: Do you --

Ms. YANKELEVICH: But I do view this as a positive remark or development.

MacNEIL: Do you and do they think of this, in a sense, as a victory? You said -- we also heard you say earlier they were not -- they did not have to promise anything. They have not compromised themselves. They were no conditions or deals made. Do you and they regard this as a victory for their stand?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, my parents -- we did not dwell on this, since there was no -- I didn't ask them whether there were any conditions. They themselves did not indicate that there were any conditions. And my understanding is that there are no such conditions. Therefore, we did not discuss whether or not this was a victory. But I think that I certainly view this as a humane step of the Soviet authorities, and I personally am very grateful to them. And I am only surprised why Mr. Gorbachev did not take the possibility as soon as he became General Secretary to disassociate himself from the mistakes or misdeeds of his predecessors and has not freed my parents then. But I'm very happy and delighted that he has done so now.

MacNEIL: Why do you think --

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Although -- yes, I'm sorry?

MacNEIL: Why do you think it's now? What passes through your mind?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, that was exactly what I was about to bring, and I'm glad that you have brought this yourself. I think that the timing of this announcement or this --

MacNEIL: Action?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: This action, this possibility for my parents to come back to Moscow, has been prompted by two factors, one of them a very tragic one. That is the death of one Soviet dissident and writer, Anatoly Marchenko, in prison in Christopol, which occurred on the 8th of December. And another that today -- Friday, the 19th of December is the closing date before they recess in the work of a conference that is being held in Vienna on security and cooperation in Europe -- in other words, on the implementation of the --

MacNEIL: Of the Helsinki Accords.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Follow up of the Helsinki Accords.

MacNEIL: I see. Do you feel that they will be able to speak freely -- speak their minds as they used to do -- when they're back in Moscow? Will they have a stomach to do that, or will they feel that it has cost them so much already, that they had better be more cautious now?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, I would like to hope that they will be able to choose for themselves whether or not they are speaking out or whether they feel comfortable to speak out and that there would be no outside circumstances that will restrict them, should they desire to speak out. I certainly hope that, in a way, we -- I mean me, myself, and my family here in the states -- that, in a way, we are relieved of the necessity to be an intermediary between the free world or the press here in the West and my parents; that from now on, they will be able to talk for themselves, should they choose to do so.

MacNEIL: Well, Ms. Yankelevich, thank you very much for joining us.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: The letting go of Andrei Sakharov was not the only piece of Soviet news today. The Soviet ambassador to the United States held a Washington news conference to push his government's position on nuclear testing. He said the Soviets remained ready to continue their unilateral test ban if the United States will begin talks about a mutual one. The U.S. has thus far rejected such proposals. We get the official reasons for both positions now. For the United States, Ambassador Kenneth Adelman, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; for the Soviet Union, the first secretary at the Soviet embassy here in Washington, Vitaly Churkin.

First, gentlemen, on the release of Mr. Sakharov. Mr. Churkin, why was he released now?

VITALY CHURKIN, Soviet embassy: There was a request coming from academician Sakharov. It was reviewed and considered and granted by special decision of the supreme Soviet. According to our constitution, the supreme Soviet can take such decisions, and it did so.

LEHRER: Is he free to speak out when he goes to Moscow?

Mr. CHURKIN: He has all the rights of a Soviet citizen.

LEHRER: What does patriotic work mean? What is your definition?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, I'm afraid to interpret that phrase, because, of course, I can not confirm the accuracy of the quotation. It has a very -- may have a very broad meaning. I would say that it means that he can conduct -- which I can confirm he can -- his scientific activities and all other activities to which he is entitled as a Soviet citizen fully and freely.

LEHRER: Can he fully and freely speak with Russian reporters in Moscow, criticize various things of the Soviet government if he wants to, and so on?

Mr. CHURKIN: He has all the rights of a Soviet citizen and all the obligations of a Soviet citizen -- everything which is provided for by the constitution. And incidentally, our constitution reflects all of the relevant provisions of the Helsinki Accords. He is entitled to all those rights.

LEHRER: Ambassador Adelman, what is your reaction to the Soviet action today? What do you think the Soviets are up to, if anything?

Amb. KENNETH ADELMAN, U.S. Arms Control Agency: I think it's remarkable that it gets such good news for a Nobel Prize winner to be freed after being held captive for seven years. I can't imagine any other country, if a Nobel Prize winner went from Cleveland to Washington, that the whole world would realize that was a terrific kind of move for that country, being so free as to let someone go from captive. If the prize winner Sakharov does have all the rights of a normal Soviet citizen, I feel sorry for him. We know that the constitution of the Soviet Union is not one that is lived up to in allowing any kind of freedom, any kind of human decency in the way we know it. And that's a sad situation for such a gifted person.

LEHRER: What are you saying, Mr. Ambassador -- that this is not a big deal today?

Amb. ADELMAN: Oh, I think it's wonderful for a man to get out of captivity. I just don't think it's wonderful for a man who has won the highest honors of his own country -- the Lenin Prize -- and one to win the Nobel Peace Prize to be held in captivity for seven years.

LEHRER: What --

Mr. CHURKIN: Let me say that I think Mr. Adelman's remarks are frivolous and inappropriate for a U.S. government official, in this particular case especially.

LEHRER: In what way?

Mr. CHURKIN: I think that he is trying to construe in his own manner and somehow blacken the things which have happened on academician Sakharov's request and trying to make a very positive gesture towards academician Sakharov --

Amb. ADELMAN: No, it is positive. I want to be very clear about that. When any person goes out of captivity, it's a very positive thing. I mean, obviously, someone getting out of jail is a positive thing when that person was innocent to start with. Someone going from a city -- Gorky -- where he certainly didn't want to be -- I mean, there's no doubt about that -- where he's captured the universal imagination with his views on freedom and on human decency and has been put in captivity for seven years, when he gets out, it's a wonderful thing.

LEHRER: Does it say anything positive to you about Mr. Gorbachev and the way he wants to run affairs in the Soviet Union?

Amb. ADELMAN: Well, you have to put it in a certain context. And the context is, the Soviet Union is a major totalitarian country. I mean, I think that goes without saying -- that the kind of rights that we have of dissension against our government, of free press, of free religion, of exit, of emigration -- a basic human right -- is just deprived for people in the Soviet Union. I think that whatever loosening we see in that society is a positive sign. And if this is taken as an individual act, it's a positive sign. But there still is a whole host of political prisoners as we know them. There's [unintelligible]. There's a whole host of regulations to keep people from being free.

LEHRER: Mr. Churkin, would it be a mistake to interpret Mr. Gorbachev's action today on Mr. Sakharov and Ms. Bonner as his saying it was a mistake in the first place to put them in Gorky and put them in exile?

Mr. CHURKIN: I don't think that's an accurate interpretation. There is a record, of course, of what has happened in that case to academician Sakharov, and it is well documented record. I don't think it's appropriate to go through it now, and I'm sure Mr. Adelman is also aware of that record, despite the things that he is saying. But there was a request, as I said, and that request was considered in a humane and humanitarian manner, if you will, and academician Sakharov was granted permission to return to Moscow, which is good for him, I think.

Mr. ADELMAN: It's a return to Moscow, which is true, I agree. And, but, you know, it's just so interesting to look at the differences in the two societies. You get somebody who has been as gifted and as warm of a human being and as skilled of a human being as Mr. Sakharov, and in our society, as in any free society, you hold them as a pinnacle to youth and to citizens around the world that this is what you should try to be, instead of shoving them into exile and making a deal that they can live like normal citizens now. It's a remarkable difference.

Mr. CHURKIN: I have to register, though, that, of course, I disagree with the interpretation of our society, and we have our attitude to the American society. I would like to point out that with all the liberties which you have in your society, as you say, Oppenheimer -- there is a parallel because academician Sakharov is often described here as the father of our H-bomb -- Oppenheimer was almost drive to suicide in this country, with all the liberties. So you see, you can not just make declarations. You have to look at the particular things and work on that basis. We have something which happened in Moscow. A request was granted in a positive manner, and I think it is a positive gesture.

LEHRER: All right. Let's move on to nuclear arms testing. Today your ambassador -- in fact, if I'm not mistaken, that was your voice interpreting for him. It sounded very familiar to me, Mr. Churkin. But anyhow, the message was --

Mr. ADELMAN: We got a double hitter here --

LEHRER: Double hitter here, right. But the message yesterday in Moscow was that your government was going to stop its ban if -- this next year if the United States did not -- if the United States continued with its testing. Today the message was -- well, what was the message today? That there was a second thought if the U.S. would sit down and talk? Is that it?

Mr. CHURKIN: No, not exactly. Our message is that as far as we're concerned, the moratorium can continue. The peace child can mature into a permanent ban on all nuclear weapon tests, but we can not continue that moratorium unilaterally, indefinitely. So, if in 1987 the United States is going, despite everything, to conduct a test, after that we'll be compelled to resume testing. But at the same time -- and you are right in that -- we do propose again to start immediately negotiations with the United States on a complete ban on nuclear weapon tests.

LEHRER: Now, the U.S. position -- are you going to accept the offer and sit down and talk?

Mr. ADELMAN: We have been trying, Jim, for six years to get the Soviets to sit down and talk about better verification on nuclear testing. For six years have been bobbing and weaving one way or another, refusing to give us better verification in two treaties that we have both signed -- the Soviet Union signed, the United States signed -- and we want better verification for it. I think we have to keep our eye on the ball, and the main issue is reductions of nuclear weapons.

LEHRER: So how do you interpret -- what's your interpretation of what the Soviet's have done the last two days?

Mr. ADELMAN: My interpretation is, I expected it all along. Last time we went through a test ban moratorium in the early sixties, the Soviets got out of it. We all knew for months now, and I think I've been saying on this program for months now, that the Soviets are going to get out of their test moratorium. So I guess my reaction is a collective yawn.

LEHRER: A collective yawn? It doesn't mean a thing?

Mr. ADELMAN: I don't think it means much at all --

Mr. CHURKIN: That shows the attitude, at least of some people, to the goal of stopping nuclear weapon tests. Instead of doing something, they prefer to yawn, which is very bad --

Mr. ADELMAN: No, that's true. He's right.

Mr. CHURKIN: And let me clear up the issue of verification. In fact we are prepared for any form of verification, for a ban on nuclear weapon tests, and American seismic stations are now in the Soviet Union verifying the silence of our test ranges. And they will remain there, at least until July, with American scientists. So there is no problem of verification. There is a problem of reluctance by the United States to stop nuclear testing. That is true.

Mr. ADELMAN: When Mr. Churkin says something I agree with, I get very anxious to jump in, because it happens so seldom. Let me say I think he is absolutely right in saying that that is the attitude of a lot of people in the American government that a nuclear test ban is not the way to go in arms control. That's my attitude. I don't think it's a serious approach to arms control. I don't think it's serious because I don't think it would reduce nuclear weapons by one. I don't think it would reduce the risk of war. Any -- so I don't think it is serious arms control.

Mr. CHURKIN: It would, however, place the brakes on the arms race very seriously -- on the nuclear arms race, at least. And if you count --

LEHRER: How would it do that?

Mr. ADELMAN: How would it do that?

Mr. CHURKIN: If you can not test new nuclear weapons that means you can not go on building new nuclear weapons. It's as simple as that.

LEHRER: He's right, isn't he?

Mr. ADELMAN: No, he's not right. Have you -- obviously, over the years, each side has built new nuclear weapons, but also modernized nuclear weapons, whether they've tested or whether they haven't tested. It seems to me that the test program is immaterial to that.

Mr. CHURKIN: Of course you have to test. If it's immaterial, why do you continue to test? Maybe you should stop the test in order to accommodate the Soviet Union and the entire international community, which is very strongly in favor of stopping nuclear testing.

Mr. ADELMAN: We test, very simply, because our security and our freedom ultimately relies on nuclear weapons today. And as long as we need nuclear weapons for our -- to preserve our freedom and those of our friends and allies, we want to make sure that the handling of the nuclear weapons are as safe as possible and nuclear weapons are reliable, so that the Soviet Union is not tempted to attack any of our friends and allies around the world. And that's been the explanation, and that's been the reason for 25 years.

Mr. CHURKIN: It's not a valid explanation, unfortunately.

Mr. ADELMAN: For 25 years it's been the explanation.

LEHRER: I don't think we resolved that one. Let me ask you this Mr. Churkin. Let me test your skills as a diplomat. Does the Iran arms affair, as it's called here in the United States now, from the Soviet point of view mean that arms control agreements of any kind are pretty much off now, until the end of the Reagan administration.

Mr. CHURKIN: We hope not. We'd like to work with the Reagan administration. It is difficult to do that, but we hope to have an agreement as soon as possible, and we hope that before that first test next year they will probably reconsider even the nuclear testing issue. But certainly we have not lost hope.

LEHRER: And the Iran arms thing doesn't affect this at all, from your perspective?

Mr. CHURKIN: As far as we are concerned, it does not affect us. We are prepared to work and our negotiators have the instructions to keep on pushing.

LEHRER: Have you all kind of relaxed, Ambassador Adelman, thinking that nothing is going to happen now? There's so many other fish to fry by the Reagan administration.

Mr. ADELMAN: Not at all. The President's determination on arms control is as strong as it has been for six years. We want an agreement that is unlike previous agreements -- one that reduces nuclear weapons, one that reduces the risk of war, and one that, lo and alas, that the Soviets start complying with. That kind of arms control would be wonderful.

LEHRER: And that is not affected at all about all these other things that are going on: independent counsels, House select committee, Senate select committee, etc.

Mr. ADELMAN: What it is affected by more so is the attitude of the Soviet Union and any steps that they take. For example, since Reykjavik --

LEHRER: Make it a quicky.

Mr. ADELMAN: Since Reykjavik, if the Soviets move back from their positions on arms control, that's disappointing. But we want to move ahead.

LEHRER: And your answer to that, Mr. Churkin, is?

Mr. CHURKIN: Well, my answer is, you can not start blaming the Soviet Union even for the Iran scandal.

Mr. ADELMAN: I didn't.

Mr. CHURKIN: Oh, yes you did.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

MacNEIL: Still to come on the News Hour, a look at the Iran special prosecutor and the task facing him, a documentary report on rights of animals in experiments, and an essay on the National Organization for Women. Chief Investigator

LEHRER: Lawrence Walsh became one of the most famous lawyers in America today. A three judge federal panel selected the 74 year old Oklahoma City man to be the independent counsel who investigates the Iran arms affair. Who is Lawrence Walsh, and what is his job? A first answer comes from correspondent Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice over]: Lawrence Walsh says he feels comfortable with his new job as independent counsel, even though he hasn't handled a criminal investigation in 20 years.

REPORTER: Would you consider yourself a civil or criminal attorney?

Mr. WALSH: I, immodestly, never though myself limited. I've worked in both fields.

HOLMAN [voice over]: Walsh's experience as a criminal prosecutor spans the first half of his legal career. Shortly after graduating from Columbia University Law School in the thirties, Walsh helped then New York City prosecutor Thomas Dewey bust organized crime figures. In 1954, President Eisenhower appointed Walsh as a federal judge. But Walsh choose to leave that judgeship three years later to become second in command in the Eisenhower Justice Department. Walsh was sent to oversee the historic federal effort to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. By the '60s, Walsh had become an established attorney in private practice. He returned to public service briefly in 1964, serving alongside Henry Kissinger in the Vietnam peace talks in Paris. After two decades at a New York law firm, including a stint as president of the American Bar Association, Walsh moved to private practice at this firm in Oklahoma City. Walsh is described as personable, though reserved. This morning, he described himself as someone who could not pass up the chance to become independent counsel in the Iran affair.

Mr. WALSH: Well, I though it was an important job -- perhaps the most important thing I'd been asked to do, and so I want to do it.

MacNEIL: Joining us now is a man who knows both Lawrence Walsh and the job he must now perform. New York Lawyer Leon Silverman worked closely with Lawrence Walsh in the Eisenhower Justice Department and has known him for some thirty years. Mr. Silverman was also himself a special prosecutor, appointed to examine former Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan's business dealings.

Mr. Silverman you've known Mr. Walsh since the Eisenhower Justice Department. How would you describe him?

LEON SILVERMAN, former special prosecutor: Well, I knew Judge Walsh before he became the Deputy Attorney General, because he was a federal judge in New York, and I was a prosecutor in New York and appeared before him on various occasions. I did get to know him rather well in the Department of Justice when he was the deputy Attorney General and asked me to serve as assistant deputy. How does one describe a man? I suppose one can use adjectives. He is laconic, determined, scholarly, dogged, articulte, judicious, honorable. I could go on and sing his praises at great length, but I'm not sure you have time enough for that.

MacNEIL: Well, let me ask you, what of those qualities or others you might mention fit him particularly for this difficult job?

Mr. SILVERMAN: If one were to write a job decription, you would probably write it around Judge Walsh. He was a prosecutor. He was a judge. He served in government as the Deputy Attorney General. He had an exposure to foreign affairs -- not an insignificant criteria for choosing a man for this post. How many other things -- how many other people can you say that about? In each of those posts, he served with distinction, and I have no reason to think that he will not serve in his present post.

MacNEIL: You mentioned that he served in government. He's widely described as a Republican. I mean, how political a fellow is he, and how is that going to affect this position?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I think I have known him for thirty years. I can't recall a conversation that I had with him about politics in that sense. I think he was a Republican. I think he is a Republican. For anyone to think that he would act in accordance with the political perceived necessities is to be so far off the mark with Judge Walsh that it almost -- it boggles my mind. He is a man whom I described as honorable. That is a term rarely used today. He is a man who is public spirited. The public good is that which would concern him most.

MacNEIL: Where has that been tested? Can you think of an example in his work that you know of where that's actually been tested?

Mr. SILVERMAN: It's hard after all of this time to dredge up incidents, but I will try this one, which I think is significant and perhaps much forgotten. When Judge Walsh was the Deputy Attorney General, there are many of your viewers who may remember that there was a crisis in Little Rock in connection with integrating black children into the central high school. The mode that had been followed before then was to call out the army and to put the children into schools with a show of force. A task force in the Department of Justice was established, headed by Judge Walsh, which consisted of five or six people in the department. It was that group that strategized the peaceful integration of the children of Little Rock into the central high school unaccompanied by force, unaccompanied by violence. And indeed, I believe that was the first time that marshals were used to enforce court decrees in this very sensitive area. It was done with sensitivity, with style, and above all, with success.

MacNEIL: Thank you. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: More on the job that lies ahead for Lawrence Walsh from Nina Totenberg, legal correspondent for National Public Radio. Nina, you've talked to many in the legal and justice business today. What's been the general reaction to the appointment of Lawrence Walsh?

NINA TOTENBERG, National Public Radio: Well, I'd say it's twofold. The Democrats are a little schizy about it. They're a little worried. This guy's been a Republican all his life. He's been in Republican administrations. And he's older than they expected the prosecutor to be. They though some young Turk was going to get the job. I've known Lawrence Walsh for about 20 years, I'm sorry to say, on my own age's behalf.

LEHRER: I won't tell anybody.

Ms. TOTENBERG: And I must say I agree with Mr. Silverman. He is a dogged person with a steel backbone and a person of an -- I think probably an enormous rectitude. There have been times in the past when he stood up to President Nixon.

LEHRER: When was that?

Ms. TOTENBERG: During the Nixon administration, there were a number of controversial Supreme Court nominations that went to the American Bar Association's screening committee that Lawrence Walsh then headed. The two best known that he approved when he was chairman of that committee were Clement Hainsworth and G. Harold Carswell. And he has said he still approves the Hainsworth nomination. And he has said privately, I know, that he is sorry, and he thinks that they didn't do a good enough job on Carswell. But there were two other nominations that went to that committee before they were made, and Walsh's committee rejected them as unqualified. And as a result of that, President Nixon refused to give any nominations to the Bar Association's screening committee in advance ever again.

LEHRER: Okay. What's the scope of the job he has to perform -- the independent counsel's job?

Ms. TOTENBERG: Well, the three judge court has given him a broader mandate than Edwin Meese requested. He now has the power not only to investigate the Iran arms deal and the diversion of funds to the contras, but also the entire private supply mechanism to the contras and whether it violated the criminal law of this country. And that's an important distinction, because there could be violations of civil law, but not criminal law. He has the power to investigate the criminal law aspects, and I would presume that he'll be taking over the gunrunning grand jury investigation that's now going on in Miami that the Justice Department is doing, that he will take over any investigations at the Justice Department of impropriety by Justice Department officials in delaying that investigation in Miami for ten days that we heard about earlier this week, and anything else -- any new leads that come up.

LEHRER: What kind of resources will he have at his disposal?

Ms. TOTENBERG: Well, his resources are really unlimited. He said today that he would start with a small staff and grow as needed. One would suspect -- he said he was going to meet with FBI Director Webster as soon as possible. But he'll ask for a large number of FBI agents to be detailed to him, because he's going to need investigators. And that he'll start with a cadre of lawyers. I would guess that he's going to need a fairly large staff. This is an enormous and unlimited investigation. And one lawyer I talked to today said -- this is a Democrat, by the way, who has known him a lot years -- said this is the kind of man who is able to staff up this kind of investigation, who is able to get the best kind of legal talent. And another --

LEHRER: And get them in a hurry?

Ms. TOTENBERG: And get them in a hurry. And another guy I talked to, who'd worked for him, said, somewhat ruefully, "This man is so thorough, if they moved two paper clips from one room to another, he'll find out about it."

LEHRER: Oh, my. How long do you think this is going to take, based on the kind of man he is, etc.?

Ms. TOTENBERG: I think it'll take a long time.

LEHRER: What's a long time?

Ms. TOTENBERG: Well, it took a week for him to get FBI clearance. Now, he already had it. He was the deputy negotiator at the Paris peace talks. How long do you suppose it's going to take to clear, let's say, 20 lawyers to see top secret FBI stuff? Well, I imagine that will take a month, anyway, once he hires them. That will take three or four weeks. So we're talking two months, I think, before they even get started. And then we're talking about poring over thousands of pages of documents, talking to hundreds of witnesses, checking and double checking their stories.

LEHRER: A long time.

Ms. TOTENBERG: And seeing if everybody's telling the truth.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: From what you hear, Mr. Silverman, is this the biggest and most complicated job that has faced an independent counsel since the law was instituted?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Oh, I think clearly there's been nothing of this magnitude, given the nature of the jurisdiction that he was given by the courts order.

MacNEIL: And on the point that Nina Totenberg mentioned of some people being surprised by his age, how would you say he's able, at 74 years old, to handle that?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I've seen him very recently, and you've had pictures of him today in Washington. For a 74 year old, he looks as though he were rather more a 54 year old, and he surely behaves as though he were closer to 50 than to 70.

MacNEIL: Leon Silverman, Nina Totenberg, thank you. Animal Rights

MacNEIL: Next, we focus on the use of animals in scientific experiments and a new federal law imposing more restrictions on the way such animals are treated. The law which goes into effect next week is designed to make animal research more humane and to satisfy opponents of animal experimentation. But scientists are wondering if the new law will end a decade of agitation by animal rights advocates. We have a report from Michael Tobias of public station KQED, San Francisco.

SECURITY OFFICER [over intercom]: Lab animal medicine, may I help you?

Dr. THOMAS HAMM, Jr., Stanford veterinarian: This is Dr. Hamm. Would you let me in, please?

SECURITY OFFICER [over intercom]: Dr. Hamm, come in please.

MICHAEL TOBIAS [voice over]: Veterinarian Thomas Hamm is dierctor of Stanford University's new $11 million animal research facility -- a fortress where researchers keep 50,000 animals they use in biomedical experiments. Security is tight, because researchers here and around the world are under attack -- sometimes violent attack by opponents of animal experimentation.

Dr. HAMM: We think we're about three to five years behind England, and in England now they're putting pipe bombs against individuals and attempting to kill individuals who work at research facilities. The state attorney general has listed the Animal Liberation Front as one of the three most active terrorist groups in California, because the tactics of these organizations have changed from a group of people working towards humane treatment of animals to a very terrorist approach, with break-ins, threatening people's lives and so forth.

TOBIAS [voice over]: Twenty million animals are being used in research nationwide. Animal protectionists claim that abuses persist, despite new facilities like this one at Stanford. In the last two years, there have been major demonstrations at campuses, hospitals and research facilities around the country. For example, at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland last summer, activists protested the treatment of the famed Silver Spring monkeys, attempting to block the building's main entrance. At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles last June, use of dogs in research brought out hundreds of protesters. Such demonstrations have received widespread media coverage, much to the dismay of scientists, pitting vocal segments of the public against biomedical research.

Dr. HAMM: This is going to have very long term bad effects on American science.

TOBIAS [voice over]: Dr. Hamm's colleagues at Stanford argue that animal experimentation has yielded many of the major medical breakthroughs, from most vaccines to the kind of heart transplant surgery that made this lifesaving operation possible.

Dr. FRANCES CONLEY, Stanford surgery professor: It is my feeling that the majority of the patients that I see expect -- not only do they expect, but they demand -- the very highest standard of medical care that we can deliver to them. They would have to be willing to accept that that standard of medical care would go no further than it is right here today, if we stop doing animal research.

TOBIAS [voice over]: But animal activists insist that science should be able to make progress without the animal abuse they say is widespread. They have gathered what they claim are examples of unjustified brutality to animals, including this footage taken by scientists at the head injury clinic of the University of Pennsylvania. The film was stolen in 1984 by activists who point out alleged nonsterile surgical procedures and abusive treatment of baboons. They say the animals should have been anesthetized but were not. Following Congressional hearings, the federal government ordered the research suspended, and the University of Pennsylvania was fined $4,000 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Virginia Handley is a director of the Fund for Animals, one of many groups in the modern day antivivisectionist movement -- a movement that for more than 100 years has fought to prevent the use of animals in research.

VIRGINIA HANDLEY, Fund for Animals: I think laboratory animals now are in an emergency situation, even though it's been going on for years. They need immediate relief from the pain that they are undergoing and the suffering that they are undergoing through experiments and just through the way that they are being housed.

TOBIAS [voice over]: The University of California at Berkeley has been the target of critics for years, and the fight is still unresolved. Berkeley scientists use a vast array of laboratory animals -- more than 50,000 of them, from large langurs used in behavioral studies to an endless profusion of rodents and rabbits which are used in hundreds of experiments. The life science building in which the animals are housed is 50 years old, and the faculty members admit that the building is structurally inadequate. Roy Hendrickson, a vetrinarian who has responsibility for the care of Berkeley's animals, suggests that, though the problems are serious, they are being corrected.

ROY HENDRICKSON: As we look at the facility that we're in, this is one of the buildings where we have problems -- problems in maintaining proper ventilation, proper temperatures and just maintaining the environment.

Dr. RODERIC B. PARK, vice chancellor, University of California: We were not up to standard probably either in appropriate levels of management or facilities, with respect to the kinds of animal research we did. And it was brought to our attention somewhat painfully.

TOBIAS [voice over]: U. C. Berkeley was fined $12,000 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, following complaints by the group Buddhists Concerned for Animals. The director is Brad Miller.

BRAD MILLER, Buddhists Concerned for Animals: We could look at corroded air ducts and facilities problems, but that's not really the issue. The issue is negligent care and negligent enforcement of even campus policies. The university is spending $180 million to renovate the old life sciences building and construct this new adjoining facility. But Brad Miller is not optimistic about the supposed improvements.

Mr. MILLER: The problems will even be worse. They'll be worse because, rather than putting money towards animal care and increasing animal housing, they're really fortifying their facility. They're building underground brunkers that in the future will be much less easy for the public to have access to and to see the problems that are taking place.

TOBIAS [voice over]: U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors like those seen in this government training film are charged with enforcing the standards of animal care set by Congress 20 years ago in the Animal Welfare Act. That law was passed to halt the use of stolen pets in research. But the pro-animal lobby has long complained that the law is inadequate and needs further reform. Activist Brad Miller:

Mr. MILLER: The Animal Welfare Act inspection system carried out by the USDA is worse than nonexistent. And I say worse, because it gives an appearance of something going on. You have USDA inspectors that are not looking at the conditions of the animals. They look underneath the cages to see whether it's piled up with feces, and that's the end of it. They're walking by cage after cage of sick and suffering animals.

TOBIAS [voice over]: Because complaints have increased around the country, the Animal Welfare Act has just been strengthened by Congress. Starting December 23, there will be stricter standards for animal treatment. The law requires exercise for dogs, larger cages, higher fines for violators, and the creation of an oversight committee at every research center that will include at least one outside observer. The law also requires consideration for the so-called psychological well being of primates. But most critics still are not satisfied with the new legal guidelines.

Ms. HANDLEY: They offer minimal protections. They do not prohibit painful animal experiments. They do not inhibit the researcher and what he wants to do. He has to jump through a couple of more hoops now. And tragically, they really don't upgrade the quality of life that laboratory animals have to face every day.

TOBIAS [voice over]: Increasing numbers of researchers are convinced that there are substitutes to the use of animals in research. Computer programs can now simulate some dissections. This artificial dog provides students the means to research heart attack recovedry without actually using and having to kill a real dog. The Aimes test used in laboratories around the world allows scientists to study carcinogens without the need of live animals. Participants on both sides in this battle are resolute in their beliefs. And they are waiting to see what effect the new National Animal Welfare Act amendments will have on research and on the protests against that research. Essay: How NOW?

LEHRER: Finally, a birthday essay. The birthday is that of NOW, the National Organization for Women. The essayist is Anne Taylor Fleming.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: During my childhood, whenever I got excited, I talked much too fast and often much too loud. My mother invariably tried to quiet me. This may seem an odd way to begin a reflection on the 20th anniversary of the National Organization for Women, but what I remember most about the advent of the women's movement is that suddenly I was allowed to be loud. I got my decibels.

All around me, women were making noise, speaking up, speaking out, and it was exhilarating. Nobody was saying shhh anymore. Maybe they were. Maybe we young women had just stopped listening or, for a change, were listening to other women who were also long tired of being hushed. Women listening to women, thrilling to their words, even to their anger. That's what NOW was all about. Founded by older women whose dreams had been denied, NOW was the sometimes inelegant mouthpiece for the dreams of a lot of younger women. We could do it all, be it all, have it all. No less than men, we could be part of the great big capitalistic game of chance. We need not be house-bound, childbearing beasts of domestic burden. Oh, no. We could climb the corporate ladders, scale the political heights and acquire initials beyond Mrs. -- initials like LLD, MD, MBA, PhD.

I think of those early days of NOW and the movement quite often these days, especially when I'm on the road and see a lot of other women also traveling around on business with their no nonsense demeanors, serious suits and bulging briefcases. Is this what we wanted? Is this where it led, all that early joy, juice and excitement: to these corporate clad, serious minded women racing through the airport corridors of the country, as their husbands do and fathers did, while they worry about the children they left at home if they have them or the children they've yet to have if they don't. All of which leaves them tired a lot and longing for the clear eyed young women they once were, who felt sure they could have it all.

Was that unrealistic, even arrogant? Probably. The male professional worlds were less yielding than expected or at least hoped for. Women got in, but not to the top. Not too often, anyway. All these many years later, most women do indeed work outside the home, but still earn only 65 cents to the average man's dollar -- barely more than they made ten years ago. And though in business 50% of entry level managers are women, the figure goes down by half at middle management levels and down to 2% at the highest levels. And the women who got to the top often had to out-token the other women around them. So often sisterhood went out the window. That was a loss, a betrayal of the original dream. There were others. There were the babies. No one had taken them into account -- not corporate American, which still has made little provisions for maternity leave or child-care, nor the new mothers themselves, who were often knocked sideways by their newborns. Enough, if they had the money, to abandon their careers and stay home. It is these women who are now extolling child rearing as the most important thing a women can do with her life.

Have we come full circle 20 years later? So much has changed, and yet so little has. We are living in a world which seems to be going backwards -- a world where a proudly old fashioned man runs the country while his adoring old fashioned wife stands chic-ly behind him, a world in which tough-guy he-men are the male icons again and where even young working women are going around saying quite emphatically that they are not feminists.

So as people around the country are observing NOW's milestone birthday, a lot of women are doing so with uneasy heart, worrying not just about brass tack issues like wages and child care, but also about the backward drift they see around them and the part they themselves might be playing in it.

MacNEIL: Again, the top stories of this Friday. The Soviets freed dissident Andrei Sakharov from exile. Lawrence Walsh was named independent counsel to conduct a criminal investigation into the Iran-contra deals. Attorney General Meese testified before the House Intelligence Committee. And President Reagan called for deployment of 50 MX missiles on railroad cars. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.