The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ALLYN CONWELL: I am from Houston, Texas. I have been elected by my fellow hostages that were taken on Flight 847 and are held as hostage here in Beirut. With me tonight is Thomas Cullins, Arthur Toga, Peter Hill and Mr. Vincente Garza.

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. That was American hostage Allyn Conwell speaking in Beirut today on behalf of the other hostages. He appealed to President Reagan not to use force to rescue them and to Israel to quickly release its Shiite prisoners. Six Americans, including four Marines, were killed by gunmen in San Salvador. President Reagan, reacting to both events, said, "Our limits have been reached." Jim Lehrer is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, our lead focus again tonight is on the hostage crisis in Beirut. We hear a portion of White House spokesman Larry Speakes' statement today on behalf of President Reagan. Then two experts on Lebanon join us to size up the situation which the U.S. faces there. Two senators join us to give a Republican and Democratic view of the U.S. dilemma, and they return after we hear an assessment of last night's violence in San Salvador from a military specialist on Central America. Finally, we get an update on the efforts to identify the remains in Brazil that some say belong to Nazi criminal Josef Mengele.News Summary

MacNEIL: Five American hostages met the press in Beirut today at a news conference arranged by their captors but twice abandoned in confusion. The news conference was held in a crowded room at Beirut Airport, and from the outset it was disturbed by jostling and bickering among the newsmen and the Shiite Moslem gunmen. One of the hostages was identified as Peter Hill of Hoffman Estates, Illinois. And the man in the black shirt was identified as Thomas Cullins of Burlington, Vermont. As the gunmen tried to keep order, there was continuous jostling and shouting among the newsmen. But finally Allyn Conwell of Houston, Texas, began to speak.

ALLYN CONWELL, Houston, Texas: My name is Allyn Conwell. I am from Houston, Texas. I have been elected by my fellow hostages that were taken on Flight 847 and are held as hostage here in Beirut. With me tonight is Thomas Cullins, Arthur Toga, Peter Hill and Mr. Vincente Garza. The purpose of our agreeing to talk with you tonight is primarily involved with assuring our families, our fellow countrymen and our loved ones and friends that we are in good health, that we are being cared for. And in view of that I would like to list -- or read to you a list of names of all of the people that I have personally met with today to, verify their condition and their general well being. In addition to myself, there is Reverend Thomas J. Dempsey. Please, gentlemen, please be quiet.

MacNEIL: But they were not quiet, and the jostling and shouting grew worse. At that point the Moslem gunmen interrupted the news conference and ushered the five hostages out of the room. A short time later the hostages came back to the conference room and resumed. Here is part of what was said.

Mr. CONWELL: We as a group do most importantly want to beseech President Reagan and our fellow Americans to refrain from any form of military or violent means as an attempt, no matter how noble or heroic, to secure our freedom. That would only cause, in our estimation, additional, unneeded and unwarranted deaths among innocent peoples. It is also our hope, now that we are pawns in this tense game of nerves, that the governments and people involved in this negotiations will allow justice and compassion to guide their way. We understand that Israel is holding as hostage a number of Lebanese people, who undoubtedly have as equal a right and as strong a desire to go home as we do. We are kept in adequate housing. Yes, they are homes of, obviously, people or perhaps vacant homes, but they're adequate in the way of shelter and toiletries and things of this nature.

1st REPORTER: Do you have any doubt about conditions that are being set -- if they are not met, that the people who are holding you will carry out their threat to kill you?

Mr. CONWELL: I wasn't aware that that threat was made. I think the threat was made in the -- from the hands of the people that we're in now. And that is simply that if the negotiations fail, we will be returned back to the original hijackers. Let me say, based on experience, that is something that I would find most unappealing. I do not wish to go back there, and I think my fellow hostages will agree with that. Let's think in terms of the positive reaction. Let's do the right thing as countries; let's do the right thing as peoples. Let's stop the fighting. Let's go home. Let's go back to building our homes, families and buildings.

2nd REPORTER: Gentlemen, Israel says it wants somebody to ask her to release those prisoners that it's detaining. The United States so far has not; no one else has. Are you asking Israel to release the detainees?

Mr. CONWELL: Yes, I am. I am personally. That is something that we have not discussed as a group. But it's my understanding in reading the major journalism papers from the States, I understand that the Israelis planned to release the people. I understand that the International Red Cross feels that the Lebanese people should be returned to their homeland. I understand that -- well, I feel that most people in America would like to see the -- anyone, anyone in the world unjustly held, returned to their homeland.

2nd REPORTER: Mr. Hill, you were shaking your head on that. You were shaking your head as if you wanted to say something.

PETER HILL, Hoffman Estates, Illinois: Well, no, I agree with Al's comments.

2nd REPORTER: Did you feel that way before?

Mr. HILL: Did I feel that way before? Yes. They're hostages and we're hostages. And I mean, the world press was up in arms some time ago when all of this happened. Why don't you guys get on their back?

MacNEIL: The news conference was arranged by Nabih Berri, the Lebanese minister of justice and leader of the Amal faction of Shiites. However, he was not present. The White House called the press conference "a cynical exploitation that serves no real purpose." In the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, the death toll in a car bombing yesterday rose to 75 dead and 80 wounded, according to one report. The bomb went off near a pastry shop on the crowded seafront. No group has said it planted the bomb. Judy?

WOODRUFF: As if the hostage crisis in Beirut weren't enough, Americans woke this morning to a tragic assault on the U.S. from another part of the world as well. Gunmen in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador, shot and killed 13 people, including six Americans, last night. Of the six, four were Marines, victims when the gunmen jumped out of their automobiles next to a row of cafes in downtown San Salvador and began spraying bullets into the crowd of patrons seated at some outdoor tables. The Marines were identified as Sergeant Thomas Handwork of Boardman, Ohio; Corporal Gregory Webber of Cincinnati; Sergeant Bobby Dickson of Tuscaloosa, Alabama; and Corporal Patrick Kwiatkowski of Wausau, Wisconsin. The two American civilians killed were Robert Alvidrez and George Viney, both employees of Wang Laboratories. After the shooting the gunmen escaped in a pickup truck. No one has accepted responsibility for the incident, but U.S. officials say they assume members of the FMLN, the leftist guerrilla group which is fighting the Salvadoran government, is behind it. The four Marines, who were assigned to guard the American Embassy in San Salvador, were wearing civilian clothes at the time of the shooting. Robin?

MacNEIL: In Washington, the El Salvador shooting on top of the Beirut situation caused President Reagan to say, "Our limits have been reached." In a statement, the President pledged extra military aid to El Salvador to strike back at the terrorists and called for a worldwide campaign against terrorism. His statement was read by presidential spokesman Larry Speakes.

LARRY SPEAKES, presidential spokesman: The President wishes the American people to know that what we do in this circumstance must not be done in pointless anger. These events call for reasoned responses to lawless actions by those who do not abide by the norms of civilized society. As for the President, he believes that our actions must be appropriate and proportionate to the criminal acts which have been taken against our citizens. Those who are responsible for such lawlessness and those who support it must know the consequences of their actions will never be capitulation to terrorist demands. We are both a nation of peace and a people of justice. By our very nature we are slow to anger and magnanimous in helping those in less fortunate circumstances. But we also have our limits, and our limits have been reached. We cannot allow our people to be placed at risk simply because they are blessed in being citizens of this great Republic.

MacNEIL: Answering questions, Speakes stressed that the administration will not use American troops in helping the Salvadoran government find and punish the gunmen. We'll have a fuller version of Speakes' remarks and analysis of both the Beirut and Salvadoran developments in a focus section after this news summary.

WOODRUFF: There was a little good news on the U.S. economic front today. A government report estimates that the economy is now growing at an annual pace of 3.1 , a significant pickup from what figures the first quarter of this year showed. And a separate report, also from the Commerce Department, showed consumer prices rose at only 0.2 in May, the smallest increase since January. Economists say the reports together portray an economy growing at a moderate rate for the rest of the year, while keeping inflation under control.

MacNEIL: The struggle for shares of the huge Air Force jet fighter market turned into a dogfight today between two big contractors, Northrop and General Dynamics. The Air Force is in the market for 720 fighter planes. Last April, Northrop made a bid to fill half of that with its F-20 fighter, saying it could sell them at $15 million each. Today General Dynamics stepped in and said it could save the Air Force $1.3 billion by offering them a stripped-down version of its F-16C ghter for $10.9 million a plane. General Dynamics' vice president Herbert Rogers commented, "Competition is a wonderful thing."

WOODRUFF: President Reagan's controversial choice to become the number three man at the Justice Department ran into more complications today in his efforts to win confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to postpone a vote on the nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to become associate attorney general. The move was led by Republicans, who feared that they didn't have enough votes to get the Reynolds confirmation to the Senate floor. Reynolds' chances were considered seriously weakened after contradictions arose in his testimony about his enforcement of the civil rights laws while he served as assistant attorney general for civil rights.

MacNEIL: At Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, Robert Dean Stethem, the Navy diver killed by the TWA hijackers, was buried this afternoon with full military honors. Stethem, 23 years old, was bound, beaten and finally shot in the head last Friday and his body dumped from the hijacked plane. More than 600 mourners attended his funeral, followed by the ceremony at Arlington.

[11m clip from funeral]

RICHARD STETHEM, father: We thank all who have come to us, giving us strength and support. Let us continue to pray for the families of the hostages and pray for their safe return home. Robert's spirit and love for life will live with all of us forever. Hostage Ordeal

MacNEIL: We look first tonight at the TWA hostage crisis, now in its seventh day. As we reported, the Shiite militia, headed by Nabih Berri, put five of the hostages on display at a news conference at the Beirut airport. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the United States was continuing to "watch and wait." As President Reagan did at his news conference on Tuesday night, Speakes said that militia leader Berri holds the key to ending the TWA hijacking crisis.

Mr. SPEAKES: We believe that Nabih Berri and the influence he has is important in the Lebanese situation and that we can, through bringing -- through asking those who have influence on him, that we can bring results.

REPORTER: Some people are going to say that your bark is considerably worse than your bite.

Mr. SPEAKES: Well, wait and watch. We certainly have always maintained our military options as far as going to the heart of terrorism and striking when we can either do in a preventive fashion, if we feel that's necessary, or in -- and there is always the option of preventing further instance of this type if we know where we're going. Indications after the President's press conference on Tuesday night were that there was understanding and support for the President's position on this, and I think that is by and large the majority opinion in the United States.

WOODRUFF: We look now at the situation in Beirut and the political options facing Shiite leader Nabih Berri with two experts. Riad Ajami is a Shiite Moslem from southern Lebanon who now teaches international economics at American University here in Washington. And Geoffrey Kemp, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University. During the first term of the Reagan administration, Mr. Kemp directed Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council.

Mr. Kemp, let me begin with you. The President was quoted today as saying that his patience has reached a limit. What does that mean practically?

GEOFFREY KEMP: Practically, I think that means that we wait and see. I think it would be most inappropriate for the President to spell out what he means at this point in time.

WOODRUFF: But what is the point then of saying something like that if it has no practical meaning?

Mr. KEMP: I think it's important to send a message to Lebanon, particularly to Mr. Berri, to point out to him that there are limits to how far we are prepared to go in this macabre theater to negotiate with him. And I think we all know Mr. Berri's fundamental objectives are reasonably moderate. He does not want an Islamic state established in Lebanon; he wants a greater share for the Shiite population. He has to realize that by protracting this awful conflict he is cutting his losses with the United States.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Ajami, what purpose did it serve for Mr. Berri, for the Shiite militia leaders to hold that news conference, to put the hostages on display today?

RIAD AJAMI: Basically, Nabih Berri would like to remind the United States that he's involved, he's at center stage, and they ought to be moving quite quickly to resolve the situation.

WOODRUFF: And do you think he succeeded in doing that?

Mr. AJAMI: Well, that remains to be seen, because only time will tell whether the demands of Berri for the release of the people from southern Lebanon will be met, or whether the United States will exercise any leverage over the Israelis for the accomplishment of that task.

WOODRUFF: Were you surprised at anything the hostages had to say today? For one thing, how emphatic they were in urging Israel to release the Shiite prisoners?

Mr. AJAMI: No, I was not surprised at all. That was expected. They were in difficult situations. Their sympathies ought to lie with their captors at this moment, and they probably also do believe that this is the only resolution of the conflict, the only possible one.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Kemp, what struck you about that news conference, anything in particular?

Mr. KEMP: Well, I think what struck me most about it, Judy, was the fact that it was in many respects a microcosm of what's going on in Lebanon. Nobody really seemed to be in charge. There were people tramping around all the point, pushing each other. And I think it's important to recall that in all the news that's come out so far, we've never seen all the hostages together. We don't really know exactly what control Nabih Berri has over all these factions. And we certainly don't know what's happened to the group of hostages that were separated from the main bulk that had Jewish-sounding surnames.

WOODRUFF: Well, are you saying that it's a mistake for the administration to put all their eggs in that basket and assume that Mr. Berri has the power to release all the hostages?

Mr. KEMP: Well, the administration obviously has more information on this than I do. And I think the administration has been very sensible in the way it's handled the discussions with Mr. Berri so far, or at least what it's told us about them. But the point of the matter is that we don't know how much control Mr. Berri has.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Ajami, how much control do you think he has?

Mr. AJAMI: Nobody can ascertain whether Nabih Berri has a great deal of control in Lebanon today over this specific matter. But the fact remains that it is only prudent for the administration to deal with Nabih Berri. He's the only man on the ground with some effective power in a very difficult place where power does not last for anybody for any long time. So he does have some power, but I would not want to attribute a great deal of power to him, nor would I want to suggest that with time he's going to still be holding much power to resolve this matter

WOODRUFF: Why do you say that?

Mr. AJAMI: Well, with time I think eventually if it is discovered that the United States is not going to be forthcoming in asking the Israelis to release the people from the south, other elements within Lebanon would suggest to Nabih Berri that your approach is not going to work out. Then they will move for move radical approaches.

WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that assessment?

Mr. KEMP: Yes, I do. And I think what that means is that time is not on anyone's side, least of all Mr. Berri. And if Mr. Berri is to emerge from this with any power base at all in Lebanon, it seems to me it's in his interests to resolve this. And I think that's the message the administration wants to get across.

WOODRUFF: So where are we then now after this news conference? How much closer are we, or after all the developments of today -- how much closer are we to achieving that?

Mr. KEMP: Well, I don't know what the exact tactical situation is and I don't think it would be wise to speculate. But I would say this: that in the context of what's happened in Lebanon and what's happened in El Salvador and what the President said today, that Mr. Berri and his followers should understand that there are clearly limits to American patience. And even if this immediate crisis is resolved, Lebanon still wants to have good relations with the United States, and that's what's at stake.

WOODRUFF: What do you think, Mr. Ajami? What do you think hearing the President say there are limits to his patience is going to mean to the Shiite leaders in Lebanon?

Mr. AJAMI: Well, I'm sure to Mr. Berri it will mean a great deal. He knows that the President of the United States has certain limits, and he's likely to act if anybody crosses these limits. That message I'm sure did get across, but we ought to also say something here -- in the heat of the moment we ought to make some distinctions between what is going on in South America [sic] today and what is going on in Lebanon. And I think the tendency today on the part of the administration and a lot of other people is to lump both of them together. I think the issue in Lebanon is clearly within reach; we can resolve it. The other one is a bit far more complicated and different.

WOODRUFF: Why are you so optimistic about Lebanon?

Mr. AJAMI: Well, I'm not too optimistic about Lebanon collectively, but I'm optimistic about this --

WOODRUFF: You mean about this particular one.

Mr. AJAMI: This particular issue. This particular issue can be resolved for a number of reasons. For one, the Israelis have indicated they were planning to release the detained people anyway.

WOODRUFF: But they've said that they're waiting for the United States to ask them directly. And the administration has said it's not going to do that. Mr. Kemp?

Mr. KEMP: I personally think it's awfully difficult to say it can be resolved. There can be an outcome that is not disastrous. But it can't be resolved because an American has been brutally murdered. And until such time as that crime has been dealt with, there can be no resolution to the conflict.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean "dealt with"?

Mr. KEMP: That we cannot assume that if we get all the hostages back, that somehow we've resolved this crisis. We've lost an American who's been brutally murdered, and we should hold Mr. Berri responsible for that. And it should be up to him, then, to punish those that perpetrated it.

WOODRUFF: Do you think there's any chance that that will happen?

Mr. AJAMI: That would be quite difficult in a place like Lebanon today. For one thing, Nabih Berri might not have a great deal of control over the people who committed that murder and that act.

WOODRUFF: Because they represent more extremist groups over which he is not --

Mr. AJAMI: In control of. That is quite the point. I'm sure you are aware that Nabih Berri joined the act at a latter stage. He joined the act at a time after the initial hijacking took effect. In order for him to exercise some control in a very difficult situation in Lebanon, he joined in. So naturally he is a minister for justice in Lebanon -- whatever that may mean today in Lebanon. Somebody ought to be held accountable. But I think we ought to separate the two issues: the initial release of the present hostages, to be dealt with immediately; the latter issue I think we ought to look into.

WOODRUFF: How clever a move now is this on Mr. Berri's part? He has now placed himself in a position where he is the -- can be the savior of the hostages. I mean, he said if you don't release the Shiite prisoners from Israel, then I'll turn these -- we will turn these hostages back over to the more militant group.

Mr. KEMP: Well, I think again, I come back to what I said earlier, Judy -- I don't think we really know how much involvement he had in this. We know he came into it late; we know that he's got out on a limb. I think he must be very nervous about what's happening, and that even under the best circumstances for him, I don't think he's going to emerge with a great deal of credit and respectability in the United States.

WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that?

Mr. AJAMI: I believe if the issue of the people of the south is dealt with effectively, and then as a result of that, of course --

WOODRUFF: The prisoners, you're referring to.

Mr. AJAMI: Yes. The release of the held hostages will be accomplished, I think Nabih Berri's likely to emerge far stronger than where he is today.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Ajami, Mr. Kemp, we thank you both for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: We get a reaction now to the events in Beirut and the way they're being handled in Washington from two members of the Senate. Patrick Leahy is a Democrat from Vermont and co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. With him is Wyoming Republican Malcolm Wallop. The senators join us tonight from a studio on Capitol Hill.

Senator Leahy, what's your feeling about the hostage situation, having heard the news conference and the developments of today?

Sen. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, naturally I'm pleased to see some of the hostages alive and well. But I don't have any -- I don't take any great comfort from it beyond that. I would like to see all the hostages together. Ideally I'd like to see all the hostages together getting off a plane in the United States. We all would. And there has been no real indication that Mr. Berri or anybody else can vouch for the whereabouts of every one of the hostages, or can say that they have complete control over the fate of the hostages.

MacNEIL: Senator Wallop, what's your feeling this evening? We'renow in the seventh day of this, the news conference took place today -- how do you think it looks right now?

Sen. MALCOLM WALLOP: Well, I think the news conference was entirely predictable. I think they're playing on you in the media who have issued some kind of judgment that Nabih Berri is a rational, liberal man. The idea of parading a few hostages and then creating all that turmoil around them seems totally predictable. It's designed to make Americans panic-stricken and to play on the paralysis that the administration has already demonstrated.

MacNEIL: You say it's our judgment that Berri is a rational, liberal man. Is that our judgment or the administration's?

Sen. WALLOP: Well, I think it's yours primarily. I don't mean you and PBS, but all the news media have been playing up Nabih Berri and then quizzically wondering why he's an unreliable source of information. And I think I would point out that people in the Middle East have been behaving like that since before the time of Christ and fooling Westerners in the process.

Sen. LEAHY: I think you've got to understand that with Berri -- Berri in some ways is like the crooked crap game: it's the only one in town. And unfortunately, we've taken it that way. There's no indication, certainly I've not seen anything, that tells me that Berri has the ability to deliver all the hostages, has the ability to say that if certain things are done, either by the United States or by anybody else, that then the hostages will be released, or that he can absolutely guarantee the safety of the hostages. I suspect what you have are a number of factions fighting among themselves. Each one wants to hold a few American hostages so they can show their own power by, "Well, we're negotiating with the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world." And I think that you're going to see a continuation of that, but you're not going to see a situation, unless it becomes one of pure chance, where Berri is able to say, "I can speak for all the hostages. I can speak for their safety and I can speak for their deliverance."

MacNEIL: Both of our previous guests just referred to time. Mr. Ajami said we've got to move quickly to resolve the situation, and Mr. Kemp said time is not on anyone's side. Has the clock suddenly started running faster now, in your view? Is time more urgent?

Sen. WALLOP: I think that that is part and parcel of what people want us to believe in that part of the world. Clearly it is a means for stepping outside accountability, the description of Berri versus the others that Senator Leahy just meant. I believe we are being played, and that time is not on our side, particularly when the President said that we couldn't do anything about all of this until every last person was safe. And that's a license to steal.

MacNEIL: You agreed with him when he said that?

Sen. WALLOP: No, I did not. I think that's a license to steal, and it's a death sentence for some American and some Americans yet to come.

MacNEIL: What did you think about that statement, Mr. Leahy, Senator Leahy?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, this may bother them down at the White House, but I happen to agree with the President. I think that once the hostages have been taken, then our options are extraordinarily limited. And I think the President finds, as President Carter found in Iran, President Reagan is finding that today; the thing you have to do is stop the hostages from being taken in the first place. But once they're taken our first and foremost effort always as Americans is to get those Americans back alive and safely.And that limits, limits very seriously, your options. And I think the President has been handling this in the only way that he can.

MacNEIL: Did you take comfort, Senator Wallop, from the President's statement today that our limits have been reached?

Sen. WALLOP: No, unfortunately I did not because he has been talking a very hard line since he was first elected. There is a certain paralysis that I mentioned earlier in the administration. He seems to be surrounded by people who will not give him firm advice and bicker amongst each other. And the problem is simply this, that it is intolerable that we state that acts are intolerable and then profess to the world our toleration by refusing to act on them.

MacNEIL: Well, what should he be doing, do you think?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I can think of a thing that could be done -- and I'm sorry, Malcolm, do you want to go back to that?

MacNEIL: I was addressing that to Senator Wallop.

Sen. LEAHY: Oh, I'm sorry.

Sen. WALLOP: Well, I think in the first place we know more than we say we know. We know where Nabih Berri is, and Nabih Berri has set foot forward. There is reason to believe that fear of his own life might make him act a little more prudently than he presently does. I think he has no fear whatsoever. We know where Assad is. None of this could be taking place without the direct acquiescence, even guidance, of the Syrians. There are things that we could do that are credible, and yet we have done nothing credible.

MacNEIL: Senator Leahy?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, you know, I think that we find ourselves, because of the frustration Americans feel, you start talking about what kind of retaliation or anything else. I think that we better look at what our -- rst and foremost, what our efforts should be, and that first and foremost is return the Americans alive, safe and alive. Any talk about what we might do after the fact I think is premature, and I'm not sure it's responsible at the time we're trying to get them back. What has happened, of course, is that we're about five years behind where we should be in our ability to gather intelligence against terrorism, both in the Middle East and Europe. And until we substantially improve our ability to do that, we're not going to be able to take the actions that have to be done before the terrorists hit us.

MacNEIL: Do you think -- gentlemen, I'll ask each of you, Senator Leahy first of all -- do you think there is a clear path to a solution right now in this situation?

Sen. LEAHY: No, I don't think there is, not in this particular situation. I don't think in terrorism generally there'll be one clear path. We're going to see an increasing number of terrorist attacks, not only abroad, but we're going to begin to see them here in the United States. But that means we've got to be able to identify these people far better, and then we've got to hit them, quite frankly, before they hit us.

MacNEIL: Do you think, Senator Wallop, there is a clear path to a solution right now?

Sen. WALLOP: No, I think the opportunity for a clear pathway was lost. But let me suggest to you that one of the things that keeps being proffered by the administration, that somehow or another terrorism is a series of random acts -- and I think they're anything but random; and secondly, that we must know the name of the battery commander before we can engage an artillery battalion. I don't think that can ever be the case. As long as we say that there can be no innocent ever who is affected by our retaliation, that we must know precisely the man who pulls the lanyard, not the battalioncommander, then we're frozen into inactivity and are increasingly vulnerable to terrorism, not decreasingly.

MacNEIL: Well, Senator Wallop, Senator Leahy, thank you. We'd like to move on and come back in a moment. Judy? Attach in Salvador

WOODRUFF: White House attention and White House anger was also focused today on El Salvador, where six Americans were killed last night when gunmen attacked a group of people sitting at outdoor restaurants. The Americans, four Marines in civilian clothes and two businessmen, were among the 13 people killed in the attack. Today White House spokesman Larry Speakes talked about the Reagan administration response.

Mr. SPEAKES: In response to the death of our Marines and private citizens in El Salvador, the President today has directed the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, with the help of our intelligence services, to immediately provide whatever assistance is necessary to President Duarte's government in order to find and to punish the terrorists who perpetrated this act. To this end the President today has directed that the United States expedite the delivery of security assistance items on order by the Salvadoran government and be prepared to use the emergency authorities of the President to furnish the Salvadoran armed forces with additional military assets, which will help them prosecute their campaign against the Communist guerrillas.

WOODRUFF: For a look at the military situation in El Salvador we turn now to retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Edward King. During his military career he served as the Joint Chiefs of Staff liaison officer with the Inter-American Defense Board. Lieutenant Colonel is now a consultant specializing in foreign policy and defense issues in Central America.

Colonel King, who do you think was behind this attack?

Lt. Col. EDWARD KING: Our indications are that it was probably from the left. My conversations this morning with people in El Salvador seem to indicate that it may have been the Revolutionary Army of the Poor or perhaps the People's Liberation Forces, one of the two organizations, if it were leftists that did the killing.

WOODRUFF: What makes you think, what makes them think it was from the left?

Lt. Col. KING: The rumors seem to be that this was a leftist organization doing it. There has been a certain amount of movement by the guerrillas, by particularly the FPL, the radical left front, Popular Liberation, and the Revolutionary Army of the Poor, into the cities and into the more populated areas over the past eight months. This isn't new; they've been moving for some time.

WOODRUFF: Now, is this a mainstream -- are these mainstream groups you're talking about or are they --

Lt. Col. KING: Well, that's the question. It may be some splinter groups. There is one with the FPL, the Clare Ramudez brigade, which is a very small group of people who have done some of the killing in the past, of Commander Schaufenberg and some of these Salvadorans that have been killed over the last six months.

WOODRUFF: Well, what's their relation to the FMLN?

Lt. Col. KING: Both of these units are part of the FMLN -- the FPL and the ERP. However, it seems to be there's some division in the FMLN right now as to whether they want to follow a prolonged war system of urban guerrilla activity or to go back into the field and fight the more direct fighting that they've been doing for the past two years. The problem is, the Salvadoran army is performing much better over the last two years, so they're having to diversify their activities somewhat. And this is causingboth dissension within the FMLN and with the FDR, the political arm. So there is some difference of opinion going on.

WOODRUFF: Well, that's what I was going to ask you. The reports we read are that the Salvadoran army is doing better lately, and therefore how do you explain something like this?

Lt. Col. KING: Well, the Salvadorans are doing better in the field, but they have been able to move out of the security operation pretty much in the cities, and leave that to the security forces. This is going to cause the army to have to take more security precautions in the rear areas, in the cities, in the road nets and so forth, because the terrorism is beginning again behind the fighting fronts.

WOODRUFF: Is it your sense that they were going after the Americans deliberately, or were these Marines just -- did they just happen to be there at the wrong place?

Lt. Col. KING: I think they were probably starting with the Marines. The place they shot them, the Cafe Mediterranee, is a very -- it's a place a lot of Americans go. I was there about two months ago myself, having dinner, and the Marines come there most every night. So we've become a little lax over the past year and a half, because there haven't been this sort of thing happening in the past. And so they've begun to leave themselves to open patterns, and I think that caused the initial shooting.

WOODRUFF: You were saying it wasn't very smart of the American servicemen to be in such an open situation.

Lt. Col. KING: It may not be smart but it's kind of normal. We've relaxed our guard there. The Marines have been going there for over a year and a half. Every night they meet there and eat pizza and drink beer and meet each other. It's not something that's happened just once in a while. That probably is complacency on the part of the security apparatus from the embassy, and I think that'll change.

WOODRUFF: Were you surprised this happened?

Lt. Col. KING: Yes, I was. I was surprised at the way it was done and the fact that it happened in a way where so many people were killed. It's so unlike the strategy that the FMLN has followed in the past, and it's certainly counterproductive. Two things come out of this. One, it's counterproductive to their contact with the population, and two, it causes the army to have to become security conscious.

WOODRUFF: Counterproductive because the people look on it very unfavorably, because innocent people were --

Lt. Col. KING: Yes. They basically just shot innocent civilians. You know, four Guatemalans and five Salvadorans were also killed besides the Marines.

WOODRUFF: What about the steps that the White House is announcing that it's prepared to take, that we're going to speed up the military assistance that's already on the way, that we may even give them more military assistance and we're going to help them try to apprehend these people? Are those effective measures for the administration to take?

Lt. Col. KING: They're about the only thing they can do at this point. I think they'll be effective in the long term. They're not going to immediately take any action against the terrorism itself, because it doesn't help in that way. But I think it will be effective over a longer term. For example, the FBI has been training Salvadoran security people for nearly a year. If they upgrade that, more people can be trained. The flow of weapons and equipment certainly will speed up. That can be done with the pipeline indications.

WOODRUFF: Would you guess that they'll ever be able to find the people who were responsible for this incident?

Lt. Col. KING: I would seriously doubt it. It would be very difficult because they're probably not in San Salvador; they're probably far up in the hills by now.

WOODRUFF: Do we look for more of this sort of thing to happen?

Lt. Col. KING: I think we can in El Salvador expect more terrorism on the part of the guerrillas, because they are having to transfer their operations from the field into the cities. Whether it will be this blatant, this brutal, I seriously would doubt. It has not been in the past, but I think we can expect more of it. And attacks on Americans, I think, they can expect to happen quite frequently.

WOODRUFF: Why is that?

Lt. Col. KING: There are elements within the FMLN who are quite concerned about the American aid and assistance that's being furnished to the Salvadoran army. If they can create fear on the part of the Americans and if they can create an instability situation within the security forces and the protection of the Americans, then it's certainly to their advantage; I think they'll do that.

WOODRUFF: But they've just done just the opposite, is what you were saying a moment ago.

Lt. Col. KING: That's where I think they're making their mistake, is they're doing what they should not do, though they're reading it in terms of hoping this is going to help them. I see it as being very counterproductive to what they're trying to do.

WOODRUFF: How much difference will it make, do you think, if this does cause the Salvadorans to beef up -- Salvadoran government to beef up security in San Salvador?

Lt. Col. KING: It's going to make their operations within the cities much more difficult. It's also going to cause the security elements of the armed forces to be much more active than they've been in the past. This has two sides. One, it'll make the guerrillas' operations difficult, but it will make the army once again very vulnerable because they'll be dealing with the civilian population. Here they'll get accused of brutality, etcetera, etcetera, because those things happen when you're checking civilians quite closely and you have a lot of troops in the area. So it has both sides.

WOODRUFF: Colonel Edward King, thank you for being with us.

Lt. Col. KING: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Back to Capitol Hill and our two senators. Senator Leahy, Elliot Abrams, assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, El Salvador is really a great success story because U.S. aid has reduced the rebels to this kind of terrorist attack. Do you read it that way?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, it's hard to call anything a success when you see a number of Americans murdered in cold blood. And I'm sure that Secretary Abrams didn't mean it in that way. Colonel King, I think, set it out very well in saying that the guerrillas are losing in the countryside and so they're going back to what they were doing five years ago, which is basically urban terrorism. And I think the more they lose in the countryside -- and everything shows that they will continue to lose -- then they are going to be into urban terrorism. They're going to target Americans, and Americans do not have the luxury of going to places like this cafe, something that they go to apparently day after day after day. Or you're just going to see one more tragedy after another. So to the extent that the U.S. involvement in El Salvador has been successful in combating the guerrillas, yes, this is a sign of that success. But it's certainly not a success any of us would applaud, when we see Americans murdered in cold blood.

MacNEIL: How do you view it, Senator Wallop?

Sen. WALLOP: Well, much the same way, although one would have to say that a people who engage themselves, not in combat with their nation's so-called enemy in a civil war, but against the civilians of their own country and neighboring countries and Americans, can scarcely be said to be operating with large national popular will. What they're doing and what we're seeing is a change in tactics, probably run out of Nicaragua, and probably going to increase. I have nothing further to add to that. I think El Salvador is a success story. Clearly the very success is the cause for a new anxiety.

MacNEIL: What did you think about the administration reaction to it today? You heard what Speakes outlined.

Sen. WALLOP: Well, again, I would rejoice if I thought that there was going to be any specific action other than to say our limit has been reached. To put more -- to accelerate military aid really doesn't do anything directly about terrorism. Until we learn how to make people pay a price for the acts of terrorism they do, until there is real fear that there is going to be retribution extracted [sic] for acts like this, I think we'll see more of them. It's a great deal safer than operating against U.S.-trained forces in the field.

MacNEIL: Do you think, Senator Leahy, there's a case now for increased military aid to El Salvador beyond accelerating what's already in the pipeline?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I think if you're going -- there is a significant amount in the pipeline and there will be significantly more military aid to El Salvador. To greatly increase that would mean sending in American troops, and I don't think either El Salvador wants that or the American people want that, and that's not going to happen. One of the things that this shows, and it can't be emphasized enough, is that the efforts being made by the Salvadoran armed forces have been successful. That's why the guerrillas are back. Remember, this was about five years ago they started as urban guerrillas. That's when they started having success in the field that they moved out into the countryside. Now that they're not having those successes in the field they're back into urban terrorism again.

MacNEIL: Senator Wallop, what do you think the administration should be doing more specifically?

Sen. WALLOP: Well, I think in the case of El Salvador there should be a capability delivered to the [technical difficulty] and rather enormous retribution on concentrations of guerrillas every time some kind of an urban terrorist attack takes place. Somebody ought to have to pay a price for it. I think I agree with Senator Leahy, that the idea that we're going to chase down and find the five or six gunmen who jumped out of a pickup truck is not a likely event. But you don't have to know precisely who those are in order to make their commanders frightened about what we would do.

MacNEIL: The point you were making earlier about Lebanon.

Sen. WALLOP: Exactly, the same point, yes.

MacNEIL: Senator Leahy, from your experience on the Intelligence Committee, is it easy to find large concentrations of guerrillas that you could punish in that way?

Sen. LEAHY: I don't know if it's all that easy to find. It's become somewhat more -- somewhat easier. After all, El Salvador is a small state -- it's smaller in land area than my own state of Vermont. But even when they are found, for the Salvadoran forces to go after them, that's another thing. We've seen in the past over and over again, they're found; it might be hours, even days, before there's a response from the Salvadoran forces. When you're dealing with guerrillas, it's going to be very difficult to find them. And if they are going down to urban terrorism, it's going to be even more difficult.

MacNEIL: So do you think what happened today indicates that there should be a change in U.S. policy, or the policy's right and we just have to stick it out?

Sen. LEAHY: I think we've got to understand that there have to be changes in tactics, and one of the things you do is not to -- in a place where urban terrorism is on the increase, you don't go into outdoor cafes that are known as places habituated by Americans, especially when Americans may well be the target. But that means actually worldwide we have got to take terrorism far more seriously, and as I said earlier in this show, we must realize that within this decade we're going to see significant terrorist activities here inside the United States unless we get an awful lot better at stopping them.

MacNEIL: Well, Senator Leahy, Senator Wallop, thank you both for joining us. Update: Dead or Alive?

WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, an update on the investigation of Nazi fugitive Josef Mengele. Forensic experts in Brazil say they are close to concluding their examination of the skeletal remains of a body believed to be Mengele's. The chief investigator in the case said today that everything points to a positive identification of the Nazi doctor who had reportedly lived in Paraguay and Brazil following his escape from postwar Europe. Mengele was known as the Angel of Death, accused of sending 400,000 people to their deaths during World War II. Special correspondent John Arden filed this report on the progress of the investigation in Brazil.

JOHN ARDEN [voice-over]: For 12 years, undisturbed by the world, Josef Mengele apparently lived here in the Brazilian countryside working as a caretaker for a Hungarian family. A neighbor who remembers him retraces his steps in the foothills of Sara Negra, 100 miles from Sao Paulo. Mengele was remembered as a man who said very little and was suspicious of strangers. During his time here, Mengele helped build this observation tower and spent hours surveying the surrounding countryside with a pair of binoculars. His neighbor, Ferdinando Beletatti, said Mengele seemed to care only for his dogs, a pack of 15 mongrels.

FERDINANDO BELETATTI, neighbor of Mengele [through interpreter]: He used to give them injections when they were sick. He cured them, but if he was asked by someone to help with a medical problem outside the cottage, he never, never went. Because he never left there, nobody ever saw this man. Nobody ever saw this man in this neighborhood.

ARDEN [voice-over]: What seems surprising is that while he was in Brazil no one wanted to denounce him, even when they knew who he was. The Hungarian woman he worked for, Gita Stammer, said he was hard to get rid of.

GITA STAMMER, Mengele's employer [through interpreter]: That's why we did everything to make him go away, but it was very difficult because no one wanted him. He always said, "Patience, patience, wait a little more," but nothing worked out. When people knew what it was about, they got frightened. We didn't want to denounce him.

ARDEN [voice-over]: Paraguay was a haven for all types of criminals and there was no special objection to ex-Nazis. Mengele went to Paraguay in the early '50s when his first refuge in Argentina looked dangerous. President General Stroessner, Latin America's longest surviving dictator, was surrounded by generals highly influenced by Nazi doctrine. Mengele didn't even change his name when he took up residence in Asuncion under the benevolent eye of the president. With his naturalization papers in order, Mengele went to the south of Paraguay to live near Encarnacion, a sleepy area just across the river from Argentina and already heavily settled by German immigrants. An Auschwitz victim, Amil Wolf, who runs a small delicatessen in Asuncion, recalls a scene with Mengele.

AMIL WOLF, Auschwitz survivor: Mengele, when I had my business a restaurant in '53, that he was coming every morning to have his coffee, but I did not know this was Mengele.

ARDEN: How did you find out?

Mr. WOLF: Some friends told me, "You don't know who was here as your business." "No, who was it?" "That was Mengele."

ARDEN: And if he came today to ask you for a coffee, what would you do?

Mr. WOLF: I kill him.

ARDEN [voice-over]: Twenty years later these photos provided by his Austrian friends, Wolfram and Lisolette Bossert, purport to show Mengele as he was in Brazil. It was the Bosserts who were with Mengele when he's alleged to have drowned on this beach at Bertioga not far from Sao Paulo. A lifeguard who dragged him from the surf remembers that Mrs. Bossert seemed very scared when their friend suffered a stroke in the water

LIFEGUARD [through interpreter]: She was very scared. She cried a lot. She clutched the body. I have never seen anyone in 19 years of service clutch a body like that.

ARDEN [voice-over]: Mengele had already moved to the city before he died, where his maid, Elsa, had a close relationship with him.

ELSA, Mengele's maid [through interpreter]: He was not sad when we were here. He wasn't sad, but he didn't like being alone. He felt very alone when the workers went home, and when I went home he would used to accompany me all the way. He say, "I'm not going to stay alone. I don't like staying alone. I'm going to accompany you." He used to do a lot of walking around the streets.

ARDEN [voice-over]: Outside Sao Paulo's medical institute, newspeople have been elbowing each other daily in the search for confirmation that Mengele really died. Sao Paulo's federal police chief, Romeu Tuma, says investigations are now being held to know if there was any organization behind the protection of Mengele. The head of Sao Paulo's large Jewish community, Rabbi Henry Sobel, thinks there is.

Rabbi HENRY SOBEL: The Nazi underground, the Nazi infrastructure in Brazil, Nazis protecting Nazis, sheltering Nazis, providing funds for Nazis, this was confirmed to us in 1978, when we discovered a congress in Itetiyaya, where 16 people came from all parts of the world and they chose Brazil as a central address. And these Nazis came to talk about the good old times with Adolf Hitler.

ARDEN [voice-over]: The findings announced by the scientists working on the case will never be sufficient to convince the skeptics.

Rabbi SOBEL: I mean, whether the bones are Mengele's or not, everybody's talking about Mengele and the Holocaust. That's what the world Jewish community has been aiming at all along. So I think we've accomplished our purpose. We don't want to look back. We want to look forward. We don't want another Holocaust. Never again.

WOODRUFF: That report from Brazil was filed by special correspondent John Arden.

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. A spokesman for the American hostages in Lebanon appealed to President Reagan not to use force to rescue them and appealed to Israel to quickly release its Shiite prisoners. Six Americans, including four Marines, were killed by gunmen in San Salvador. President Reagan, reacting to both events, said, "Our limits have been reached." And this evening an American was reported to have been shot and killed by a Honduran army patrol near the Salvadoran border. The man's identity was withheld pending notification of his relatives.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.