Skip to main content /TRANSCRIPTS


America's New War: President to Make Second Trip to New York Since Attacks

Aired October 1, 2001 - 16:03   ET


JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, again. I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

President Bush is set to make his second trip to New York since September the 11th. He will visit an elementary school on Wednesday to talk about ways to help the city recover from the World Trade Center attacks.

For other developments in the war on terrorism now, here's my colleague Joie Chen at CNN Center in Atlanta. Hi, Joie.

JOIE CHEN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Judy. Good afternoon. In fact, this afternoon a Virginia man and woman are scheduled to appear in federal court on charges that they helped some of the suspected hijackers obtain phony identification papers.

Also today, amid fears of possible chemical or biological attacks, a source tells CNN that authorities now are investigating whether suspected hijacker Mohamed Atta asked about obtaining crop dusters in countries south of the U.S. border.

In New York, Mayor Rudy Giuliani tells the United Nations there is no room for neutrality in the war on terrorism. Giuliani is the first New York mayor in nearly 50 years to address the U.N.

After a firsthand look at the ruins of the World Trade Center, some of the 109 members of Congress who toured the site today are calling the devastation just incomprehensible.

Back in Washington, the White House says discussions are now under way about the possibility that Reagan National Airport may reopen in a "limited capacity." Officials have held off allowing flights to resume at Reagan National because, as you know, Judy, it is so close to the Washington landmarks.

WOODRUFF: Very close, indeed. And we want to go directly now to the State Department and our Andrea Koppel where, Andrea, we understand there are some late developments on the diplomatic front.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy. We've been hearing now for the last several weeks that various members of the Bush cabinet saying that they would be coming forward to present evidence that links Osama bin Laden to the September 11th attacks. Well, CNN has learned now, according to administration sources, that that process has begun. It's going to take place in probably three rounds, the first round beginning today, including English- speaking countries, in particular, close allies Great Britain, Canada and Australia. We're also told that -- now, they'll be provided various levels of evidence and declassified evidence.

The next round is supposed to begin in about 48 hours. This, we're told, should include NATO allies, other close U.S. allies, including South Korea, Japan and Singapore. And then there will be a third round, most likely, that will include everyone else.

Pakistan, I'm told, is going to be a separate case, a "special case," in the words of one official, that will be dealt with eyeball to eyeball, he said. This is going to most likely include a meeting between the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlin, and General Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan. Not quite sure when that is going to happen.

But in the meantime, Judy, these diplomatic cables are being sent to U.S. embassies in Great Britain, in Canada and Australia, with evidence that lays out some of the U.S. case linking Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network to the September 11th attacks.

WOODRUFF: So, Andrea, does this mean that the administration now has solid proof that the Osama bin Laden network was involved in what happened?

KOPPEL: Yes, Judy. I'm told for the last week the administration has had, as far as it's concerned, concrete evidence that convinced it without a shadow of a doubt that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were behind the September 11th attacks. But due to the tedious process of having to sift through all of this evidence, which is in many cases highly classified, and obviously the concern being the U.S. doesn't want to compromise with sources and methods, that is both people, human beings who were out there who could very well lose their lives if their identity are uncovered, or certainly the other means that the U.S. used to gather this intelligence. So for the last couple of weeks, that's exactly what many officials in this building and over in the Pentagon have been doing.

WOODRUFF: Andrea, I haven't asked you what the evidence is, because I'm assuming they're not sharing that yet?

KOPPEL: You are so right, Judy. I'm sure that some of our colleagues will manage to ferret it out, but as of right now, this is very closely held information that is really only being shared with the closest of U.S. allies. And as the process continues, many other countries around the world will be told, and right now they're just not telling us.

WOODRUFF: All right. Well, we'll see how long it takes before some of it begins to surface. Andrea Koppel at the State Department, thanks.

And we will move very quickly on to the Pentagon, where there are some other very late developments. Let's bring in our military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre for those -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, CNN has learned that the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk will be deploying to the Indian Ocean without its complement of fighter and attack aircraft. According to Pentagon sources, the plan is to use the aircraft carrier as a floating base from which special operations, helicopters and troops could be launched. It is -- will have an unconventional mix of aircraft, according to one Pentagon official.

Here you see pictures of the carrier as it left its base in Japan. Notice that there are no aircraft on the deck of the carrier. That is not unusual, because normally the carrier wing flies out to meet the ship after it's out at sea. But in this case, sources tell us that those fighter planes will remain at their bases in Japan and the carrier will proceed to the region of the Indian Ocean where, again, it could be used as a floating platform -- four-and-a-half acres of sovereign U.S. territory, as one Pentagon official put it, for conducting other operations.

You may recall back in 1994 that the Pentagon took planes off of aircraft carriers to use them as troop transports and launching platforms for army troops that were going to invade Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Sources say that what's in mind here is a very similar kind of operation. Now, this raises the question about whether Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or other U.S. allies have denied permission for U.S. troops to use them as bases.

What this might give the United States the option, would be to carry out an opportunity without having to ask Pakistan, for instance, for permission to base U.S. troops there. In his interview with Christiane Amanpour, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf said that he not yet granted U.S. permission for that, although he had granted overflight rights and intelligence sharing and logistical support.

So this gives U.S. military planners the option of conducting a special operations mission with helicopters right from the deck of the aircraft carrier. And there will be plenty of other planes, with two other carriers there in the region, to protect the carrier and its escort ships -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: So, Jamie -- and we know on the record that the Saudis have said they officially have not been asked, and we don't know what's going on in very private conversations. In effect, are you telling us that this gives the U.S. more flexibility?

MCINTYRE: Well, it does, and that's exactly the kind of sort of unconventional use of an aircraft carrier, again, that we saw in 1994. Again, in that case, it wasn't a matter of permission, it's just that there weren't good places to launch an invasion from. Here, again, it gives planners more options.

And the United States is very appreciative of the support it's getting from its allies. It also appreciates the difficult position that some of these leaders in the Saudi royal family, for instance, General Musharraf in Pakistan, that if they're seen as giving the United States carte blanche to do whatever it wants, that could risk destabilizing those regimes. That's not something the U.S. wants to do. So they have to be careful. The amount of support they ask for and get, and this move, moving the aircraft carrier there without its airplanes, gives the United States, again, another big flat surface that they can operate from, that they didn't have to ask anybody for permission.

WOODRUFF: All right, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, telling us four-and-a-half acres of U.S. space. That is on the aircraft carrier Kitty House, moving toward the Gulf region.

All right, now let's go down to Atlanta and Joie.

CHEN: Judy, following up on these two developments just reported by Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon and Andrea Koppel, we're joined by our military analyst, retired General Wesley Clark, former supreme commander of the NATO Allied Forces. He is joining us from Arkansas this afternoon.

General, if you could talk to us about some of this -- particularly what Jamie has just mentioned -- the notion of an aircraft carrier going out without its aircraft, leaving those at home, and how it plays into the strategy and thinking.

RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I think it's a very important part of the strategy. It does provide a floating base, as Jamie said, and we would be able to base troops and aircraft, helicopters and so forth, on this. It would give us an alternative to having to ask a government like Pakistan to use their terrain.

We can get the aircraft carrier in close enough with refueling. We'd be able to do most of what we need to do, were we to put those troops on the ground in Afghanistan, I believe.

CHEN: Put it together for us, the battle groups that we are seeing moving into the region, this latest development with the Kitty Hawk. This represents a pretty sizable contention if the U.S. seagoing forces, into the region.

CLARK: It's a very sizable contingent. Not only do you have the two aircraft carriers and their escorts, you also have the U.S. forces based at Diego Garcia. So you have a combination of very -- a long range, high-altitude, precision-strike capability coming out of Diego Garcia followed up with dozens of aircraft that could be flown off the two decks, plus ground troops that could be brought in by helicopter inside the country, plus the cruise missiles that can be launched from the Naval vessels that are accompanying aircraft carriers. So it's a very formidable striking force.

CHEN: This is something that you and I have talked about before, the notion of hand-in-hand between diplomacy and the military. Andrea Koppel just telling us now the word is that the U.S. government is beginning to putting out word to its allies and to some people that it's trying to convince as well, that it's made a case against Osama bin Laden.

What does this represent, in terms of potential military action?

CLARK: Well, I think it's -- we've seen two of the three legs of the stool so far. First leg is, get the forces in place. And we've been moving forces to the region now for some time, and as this latest aircraft carrier arrives and we bring in forces on that, that gives us perhaps the forces we need to be able to act.

The second stool is, prepare the way diplomatically. That was a matter of getting the information out to the governments, our friendly governments and moderate Arab governments, and even the world opinion. We've got to retain a moral high ground as we go into this operation, and so there will be some give and take on this information. It may be augmented at some later time; this may be adequate.

As Andrea said, we don't know what's in this package right now, but let's assume it is sufficient then to make clear and convincing case that Osama bin Laden and his network were behind this.

Then the third leg is: Do we have the targets to strike? And we're apparently doing some reconnaissance on the ground inside Afghanistan. We're looking for the kinds of facilities, the groups, the meeting places and ideally, the leaders and the people that we can strike that would disconnect this terrorist network.

CHEN: General Wesley Clark, thanks very much for your insight and perspective. Now we go back to Judy.

WOODRUFF: Well, Joie, while all that is happening on the diplomatic and military front, President Bush saying the nation has frozen $6 million in bank accounts linked to terrorist activity. He gave that update during his visit with Federal Emergency Management Agency workers today. Let's check in that with our White House correspondent, Kelly Wallace -- Kelly.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, what aides say the goal of the speech by the president was to really focus on the progress, on the unconventional aspects of this campaign against terrorism. You noted the financial part. The president also talking about how the FBI has detained or arrested more than 400 people. He also noted how an individual linked to a 1986 hijacking, that is not necessarily linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, has been arrested and will be charged with murder. The president saying this is an example of the wider war against terrorism.

Now, as you noted, Judy, another part of the president's day thanking the staffers, the hundreds of staffers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who have been working incredibly long hours with recovery efforts in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

What he also did today, Judy, once again, calling on the American people to be patient, saying this campaign, this unconventional war will definitely take time.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The evildoers like to hit, and then they try to hide. And slowly but surely, we're going to make sure they have no place to hide. Slowly but surely, we're going to move them out of their holes, what they think of as safe havens. And you get them on the move. We're a patient nation. We're a nation who's got a long term view.


WALLACE: And we also saw today, the White House increasingly reaching out to the people of Afghanistan. And administration officials telling CNN that the president has authorized $100 million in humanitarian assistance to help the tens of thousands of people fleeing Afghanistan, most of them heading to neighboring Pakistan.

What we also heard the administration saying is that it is not into nation building, that its goal is not toppling the Afghanistan ruling Taliban militia. But Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, making clear the U.S. will provide political, financial and military assistance to any groups seeking to oust the Taliban regime.


ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The United States is not going to get in the business of choosing who rules Afghanistan, but the United States will assist those who were seeking a peaceful and economically developed Afghanistan that does not engage in terrorism.


WALLACE: And, Judy, one final thing we learned today: The president will hit the road again. He'll head to New York City on Wednesday. The focus there, visiting an elementary school. There's been a lot of attention about how children are dealing with the September 11th attacks. That will be the president's focus when he heads to New York on Wednesday -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Kelly Wallace at the White House. Thanks.

Just ahead, how the suspected hijackers paid their bills and planned their attacks. We'll have an update on the terrorist money trail when we return.


WOODRUFF: The investigation into the planning and financing of the September 11th attacks has uncovered at least one new money trail. CNN has learned that the suspected hijacker, Mohamed Atta, believed to be a leader of the terrorist attacks, was wired as much as $100,000 over the past year. The money supposedly came from an unknown source in Pakistan. It was distributed to others involved in the terrorist plot.

For more on the investigation into the terrorist attacks, and reports of questions, problems within the U.S. intelligence community, I'm joined by journalist Seymour Hersh, whose article on the new issue of "The New Yorker" is titled "What went wrong?: The CIA and the Failure of American Intelligence."

Who or what is to blame, Sey Hersh, for what happened here?

SEYMOUR HERSH, "THE NEW YORKER": Oh, it goes back 10, 15, 20 years. We just stopped, particularly after the end of the Cold War, I think we stopped being aggressive, in terms of our intelligence, probably for a reasonable -- you know, the world seemed to be a lot safer, and I think we really didn't think this would happen.

WOODRUFF: Why was it missed?

HERSH: Well, we don't have any agents that could penetrate anything anymore. I'm sorry to tell you that the CIA really has slowed down. We don't have people that are -- I don't think there's one agent undercover inside the fundamentalist circles in the Islamic world. We don't have one.

WOODRUFF: Not one?

HERSH: I'd hate to say not one, but I'm pretty -- if there's one, there's one. But there's not very many. We have agents undercover in other countries in the Middle East, Egypt, et cetera. What I'm talking about, people that are working as an intelligence agent not attached to an embassy. It's called nonofficial culvert, or NOC (ph). We don't have somebody posing as a businessman who can get in and out of Afghanistan. We just don't have it.

WOODRUFF: Why don't we?

HERSH: Well, there was a general draw-down. In times of peace, Americans never like intelligence, in part, you can say, because of stories like that people like me wrote when I was at "The New York Times," criticizing the CIA left, right, for some of its operations against Allende and some...

WOODRUFF: And there was reaction to that?

HERSH: We just don't like it in peaceful times, intelligent people, you know, it's just something that's sort of dirty. It's the operation of "dirty tricks," we called it in the CIA, so it got dwindled down. It got made more PC, and we weren't as tough and aggressive, and we're paying for it right now.

WOODRUFF: Are you saying, Sey Hersh, that the only way the U.S. can prevent this scale of terrorist attacks is to have human beings, spies, to have penetrated these operations?

HERSH: I think it would have been wonderful if we had some intelligence before that. You know, what we do is we depend on our foreign intelligence -- we depend on other intelligence services, particularly in the Middle East, the Jordanians and the Saudis. Nobody gave us clue.

So the CIA is in a position right now where overseas, particularly in the Middle East, most of its reporting comes from calling up our buddies and fellow intelligence service and saying: "What do you have for us? We don't operate, we don't penetrate. I've always been against overthrowing governments, but the idea that we don't have intelligence seems very silly to me.

WOODRUFF: You and I were just talking, as we're listening to this reporting just now from Andrea Koppel at the State Department, that why are the -- communications are now going out with U.S. allies telling them now what the links are between Osama bin Laden and what happened on September the 11th. We heard Andrea saying hard evidence, that there's a connection.

Does that mean a lot of progress had been made here, in the investigation since?

HERSH: There's no question we're getting a lot of leads. What I write in "The New Yorker" is that the intelligence communities are pretty much unsure today who these guys were -- whether they were a bunch of guys that came together as a pick-up basketball team, one guy said to me, or whether they were planted here for years and there's many more behind. We really don't know a lot of information about how they operated in America, who everyone is.

There's certainly a lot of evidence some of them are connected to bin Laden, been to the camps. Everyone? I don't think so. I don't think they have -- well, I shouldn't say, because I don't know what they have. A lot of stuff does come from highly-classified stuff, but I can tell you the government is very divided on whether these guys are going to strike against immediately or whether it was a one-time shot. We really don't know that.

WOODRUFF: Last question, Sey Hersh. Will heads roll over this? The president keeps saying he has a lot of confidence in CIA director George Tenet.

HERSH: A lot of people I know say Tenet must go. It's going a matter of time, three, four, five, six months, as soon as we get traction, somebody said. I don't think there's any question that somebody has to pay for this failure, and George Tenet, who is a very nice, personable guy, I think is the first one on the chopping block.

WOODRUFF: All right. Seymour Hersh, writing for "The New Yorker." Thanks very much.

HERSH: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Appreciate it. Good to see you again.


CHEN: Judy, Attorney General John Ashcroft's warning that the United States remains at risk of new terrorist attacks have a lot of folks thinking, and worrying, in many cases, about chemical or biological attacks. Two of the weekly news magazines devote their latest cover. The story of "Newsweek," you see there, features a gas mask and the title, "Unmasking Bioterror."

"TIME" magazine, which is owned by CNN's parent company, AOL Time Warner, also features the mask and the question, "How Real is the Threat?" Joining us to talk about the threat, and ways to respond to it, is CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Sanjay, talk to us. I mean, you've seen these covers, you see the gas masks. And you see a growing sense of fear out there among a lot of folks. A lot of people are saying I want to go buy the gas mask.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, and I've talked to a lot of people about this. And what I'm sort of hearing is that there is probably some justification to the fear. But it's also important thing to be -- use as good judgment when you can when talking about these things -- gas masks, for example.

Now, when it comes to chemical or biological warfare, most of the experts I talked to, if you get a chance, try and run upwind as fast as you can. Don't spend as much time actually trying to investigate or seeing if you actually have a hazard on your hands. Run upwind -- that's probably your best measure.

CHEN: The amount of time you might take to put on a mask.

GUPTA: Exactly. Don't spend time fiddling with the masks. The masks are oftentimes very complicated. You can see here, take a lot of different technical maneuvers to get it on properly, and if you don't get it on properly, it's probably not going to do you much good anyway. So the gas masks may not be the best idea. Running upwind may be a much better idea.

CHEN: You know, we talk about prevention, but also antidotes. And I understand there's some issues, particularly about Anthrax, which is -- I guess there have been some agents who have tried to use Anthrax as weapons before.

GUPTA: Yes. And we've heard about that. You know, actually, Anthrax was used -- unsuccessfully, I might add -- up to eight confirmed times in Tokyo, and they actually released Anthrax. And what happens here with Anthrax, it is a bacteria and it releases spores. Those spores will get into your lungs, and when it gets into your lungs it will subsequently get into the smallest part of your lungs and cause toxins to be released, which can then get into your lymphatic glands and get into your blood, possibly go to your brain. It can be a bad player, if you have all those things happening. That's why Anthrax is so deadly.

There have been some reports of antibiotics such as cyprofloxacin, and what you've been hearing so much about, actually doing some work. But you know, Joie, we haven't had a case of inhaled anthrax in this country for over 20 years. So if you haven't had one for over 20 years, it's a little hard to tell how effective the anthrax -- the antibiotics for the anthrax are going to be.

CHEN: You know, you say Cipro. And I actually think I was given Cipro for something. I don't even remember what. But it is a fairly common antibiotic. GUPTA: That is right. It's a fairly common antibiotic. But whenever you start hoarding large doses of antibiotics and putting them in the community, you run a couple of risks.

One is that, if you start using antibiotics indiscriminately, you can actually cause resistant organisms to start to develop. And that's always a caution when using antibiotics. Also, they do have side effects, these antibiotics, especially in kids. Ciprofloxacin can cause problems with the joints in kids under 16. It's actually not FDA-approved for kids under 16. So that's an important point as well.

CHEN: Yes, but on the other hand, if I thought my kid was exposed to anthrax, or was showing some symptoms -- because we wouldn't necessarily know if somebody distributed a bad agent like this -- I would certainly think: Gosh, if there's anything I could do, I am going to give the kid antibiotics.

GUPTA: Right. And that's where that walking-a-line thing comes again -- justified feared, but also being aware as you can.

The only thing I think doctors are cautioning -- and what I'm hearing is, is don't give it unless you know that it actually is going to be the anthrax, because you could -- it might potentially do more harm than good.

CHEN: So the widespread notions -- I have talked to people -- honestly, Sanjay, I have actually talked to people who said: Look, I want to go and get a smallpox vaccine. I want to get the anthrax vaccine. That kind of fear -- although it is understandable, given the circumstances -- that kind of fear, what do you, as a physician, tell people?

GUPTA: Right.

Well, the vaccines, again, are important to talk about. When you talk about the anthrax vaccine, for example, you're talking about a series of shots. You're not talking about something you can get tomorrow and it is going to protect you -- a shot at two weeks, four weeks, six months, 12 months, 18 months, and then booster shots every year after that to really get protective effect of the vaccines.

So I think it is really a question of being as informed you can about these sort of things -- again, while there may be some justification to the fear, making sure you inform yourself, educate yourself as much about all these things as possible.

CHEN: And it isn't like you can necessarily go get the anthrax vaccine from your doctor, anyway.

GUPTA: Right.

CHEN: So don't assume that that is all available.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta from our medical unit, thanks very much...

GUPTA: Thank you.

CHEN: ... for bringing the caution and insight on that.

If you are looking for more information about the subject, please check out our Web site. Among other things, there you will find a list of some of the countries known to have chemical or biological weapons programs.

Members of Congress visiting ground zero in New York just ahead -- and curbside check-in making a comeback -- an update on airport security right after the break.



MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI (R), NEW YORK: On one side is democracy, the rule of law and respect for human life. On the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions and mass murder. We are right and they are wrong. It's as simple as that. And by that I mean that America and its allies are right about democracy, about religious, political and economic freedom, and the terrorists are wrong.



WOODRUFF: Rudy Giuliani today became the first mayor in almost a half century to address the United Nations. He spoke at the beginning of a weeklong U.N. session devoted to fighting terrorism. Giuliani said any nation that remains neutral in that fight must be isolated. As he put it, "This is not a time for further study or vague directives."

Cool, cloudy weather descended over New York today, where the recovery operation continues at the site of the World Trade Center. The most recent police department numbers show 5,219 people still missing and presumed dead. Another 344 deaths have been confirmed.

FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh says it will take months for recovery workers to comb through the rubble, just to reach ground level. Also today, more than 100 members of Congress traveled to New York for a first-hand look at the devastation. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt called the scene -- quote -- "incomprehensible."

Here in Washington, Congress is considering a range of measures to help in the fight against terrorism.

For the latest from Capitol Hill, let's go to CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl.


Congressional negotiators are on the verge of coming to a deal, a deal on an agreement of a scaled-back version of that broad package of expanded law enforcement powers that John Ashcroft has been trying to get for the past three weeks.

Ashcroft says he needs to track down terrorists who still may be active in this country. The reason why this has gotten some newer momentum here -- well, there's two reasons. First, Ashcroft and the president himself have forcefully made the case that they need these powers and need them immediately. And the second is that the attorney general and the Justice Department have scaled back what they were originally looking for.

This package of law enforcement powers had raised some red flags among civil libertarians concerned about the violations of civil liberties as we attempt to get more security. Some of the things that have been pulled out of this that the Justice Department has agreed to do without, one includes perhaps the most controversial measure Ashcroft wanted, which was the right for the attorney general to indefinitely detain noncitizens that he deems may pose a threat of committing a terrorist act. That is now, we are told by members on both sides of the aisle, no longer in this package.

Another thing that has been stripped out, the attorney general wanted prosecutors to have right to use illegal wiretaps that were used overseas. In other words, if another country other than the United States had used a wiretap, gotten some information that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he wanted prosecutors to be able to use that material here. That now is no longer part of the package.

But there is much else that remains, including the roving wiretap, which he has talked a lot about. This would allow the attorney general, prosecutors to wiretap an individual's phone conversations regardless of which phone he or she uses. Right now, current law says you must get separate warrants for each different phone number.

There will also be tools in here that will allow prosecutors to track down money-laundering, and also the ability for prosecutors to share what is now secret grand jury information. It will now, if this would become law, they would be able to share some of that information with intelligence officers and those trying to track down the activities of terrorists.

Some things not included in that graphic -- two other very important points -- one, this law, as it now stands -- this bill, as it is now agreed to, would make formally a crime to harbor anybody who has committed a terrorist act or who is about to commit a terrorist act a crime punishable by 10 years in prison -- that now not formally a crime in the law. Also, it would eliminate the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes -- also not part of the law as it stands.

So that's where it stands now. There still is negotiation on both sides of the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans working on this together, also working with the Justice Department. They are hopeful -- leaders in both parties hopeful that this package could actually be passed by the end of the week -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Jonathan, just quickly, so does this mean that all the concerns on the part of lawmakers who were citing civil liberties, that all those concerns have now been taken care of?

KARL: Absolutely not, Judy.

This will still be a very controversial package. Many of these measures that have been now agreed to by negotiators on both sides have been defeated every since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. There have been a series of anti-terrorism measures that have come up from year to year, many of them included in this package which had been rejected. Now the threat is seen as being so much more present and so much clearer that these measures will pass, but they will still be controversial.

It's been very interesting to watch this being debated. You have got people on the left and the right concerned that these will be a violation of civil liberties. So they will be controversial, but ti's expected they will have broad support and clearly the support of the Democratic and Republican leadership here on the Hill.

WOODRUFF: All right, Jonathan Karl reporting from the Capitol.

From the expansion of investigative powers to airport security now. There is word today that the government is easing restrictions on curbside check-in at airports.

And for the very latest on that, I'm joined by our Patty Davis -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, the FAA has gone ahead and lifted its ban on curbside check-in.

This was scene at many airports around the country -- these pictures of Dulles Airport here in the Washington, D.C. area -- curbside check-in going on today at US Airways and United. But we found not a lot of people using it at that airport. They say they just don't know about it yet.

Now, also, in San Francisco, some airlines allowed to offer curbside check-in there as well -- now, that was banned on September 11 after the terrorist attacks as part of the FAA's beefed-up security procedures -- curbside check-in, though, now only applies to airlines which have beefed up their security as part of the FAA's directives. And sources tell CNN that those security measures include some computerized screening of passengers, the CAPS system.

If your name comes on up in the computer, you are flagged by the computer, you can no longer check in at curbside. You have to go in and go through a more rigorous screening. Now, over in Chicago, Delta Air Lines -- and not only Chicago but other areas around the country -- Delta not yet offering curbside check-in.

Now, Judy, this really could help those long lines at the airports. We are seeing, in some cases, two hours-plus to check in -- so a lot of passengers really looking forward to this.

WOODRUFF: Yes, I was looking at those pictures over the weekend of people standing in these lines that were beyond belief. Patty, does this mean now that the airlines are more able to, in terms of the number of staff, to cope with the people who are traveling, with the numbers of people who are traveling?

DAVIS: Well, this certainly will help ease it on the airlines. They have been under a heavy load there trying to get people through their system, those ticket counters -- also getting them through the screening.

Now, the screening for your carry-on baggage still the same. That's a long line as well. Although the curbside check-in and the check-in at the ticket counter may be less, you are still going to hit the screening at the check points to bring your carry-on baggage through.

WOODRUFF: All that a reassuring sign of security.

Patty Davis, thanks very much.

Well, Afghanistan faces a new threat in what some have called its endless war. We will talk about the country's history and its future when we come back.


WOODRUFF: As the U.S. military gears up for action in Afghanistan, United Nations officials say they are stepping up relief efforts in preparation for a massive flight of Afghan refugees. One example, the first U.N. refugee emergency airlift flight into Iran is set to arrive tomorrow.

In the meantime, an aid convoy finally has reached Afghanistan from Pakistan, as CNN's Nic Robertson tells us.


NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The big news Monday from the World Food Program that they were able to deliver some 280 tons of wheat to the capital, Kabul. They say this will mean that they will now step up deliveries into Afghanistan. They expect to send another 1,000 tons to Kabul, 100 tons into Herat in the West, and also some 900 tons into the north of Afghanistan.

But they say some 300,000 people are on the verge of running out of food later this week. Inside Kabul, they this current delivery of food will be sent to the bakeries, where World Food Program distributes fresh bread every day to several hundreds of thousands of people.

Now, the reason the World Food Program says that they have been able to make these deliveries is that the trucks necessary to move the wheat throughout the country are now available. They said that, in the early days, shortly after the 11th of September, these trucks were busy moving people out the cities into the countryside and sometimes towards the borders. Now they say today, Monday, that these roads leading towards the borders are not clogged with refugees. They're some refugees headed through the mountains, however, trying to get into Pakistan illegally because the borders remain closed. But for the World Food Program, this is a positive step forward. They say food prices, however, have increased some 20 to 40 percent.

Now, sources inside Afghanistan tell CNN that, inside the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, there is a rally called for Tuesday. And also sources tell us that the Taliban defense minister has been making a tour of some of the eastern provinces of Afghanistan -- those are the provinces close to Pakistan -- inspecting defenses there, we understand.

Nic Robertson, Quetta, Pakistan.


WOODRUFF: Well, one day after the ruling Taliban said that Osama bin Laden is under their control in Afghanistan, knowledgeable U.S. officials tell CNN they believe the suspected terrorist leader is indeed inside that country.

Well, let's talk more now about Afghanistan and its history with Larry Goodson. He's author of the book, "Afghanistan's Endless War."

Larry Goodson, Americans are hearing more now than they have ever heard about the country of Afghanistan, about the Taliban, about the Northern Alliance, the politics of the country, the refugees, the poverty. What are we not hearing that we should know?

LARRY GOODSON, "AFGHANISTAN'S ENDLESS WAR": Well, perhaps the one thing that we don't hear much about is the important ethnic divisions that exist within the country.

The Taliban, largely -- in the minds, at least, of the Northern Alliance -- represent the Pashtun people, the dominant ethnic group and the traditional group of the kings and the leaders of the country -- also a lot of Pashtuns in the northwest frontier of Pakistan.

The Northern Alliance is an alliance, really, of ethnic and religious minorities: the Tajiks of the northeast, the Uzbek, the Turkoman, the Hazara. And so, to a certain extent, this ethnic issue, which is extremely critical in any kind of post-Taliban future, let's say, in Afghanistan, is a missing part of picture thus far, I would say.

WOODRUFF: Why is it important for to us understand this? What is the relevance of that to the future of the country?

GOODSON: Well, the real important reason for that is that, for example, no alliance that grows just out of the -- no government, rather, that grows just out of the Northern Alliance will really work in Afghanistan in any kind of long-term way, because the Pashtun people expect to be represented in the country's future. And the king, for example -- the former king, Zahir Shah in Italy -- is, of course, a Durrani Pashtun. The Taliban leaders are overwhelmingly Pashtun. And the Pashtuns expect to have seats at table. So, if, for example -- we have heard a lot -- lately a lot about the Northern Alliance as possibly growing stronger and perhaps in some fashion supplanting the Taliban, that wouldn't work in the long run for Afghanistan.

WOODRUFF: Well, so, when the Bush administration talks about supporting groups that are working to overthrow the Taliban, is that a realistic strategy for the administration to pursue?

GOODSON: Well, it is a realistic strategy in the short run. These groups do deserve support, because, in many ways, this is a country that has a sort of ethno-regional divide.

The defense ethnic groups are located primarily in different parts of the country. And they all, I think, have a right and a reasonable expectation to have a role and a seat at table in the future of their country. So those groups that have been sort of pushed into the northeastern corner by the Taliban, who have been practicing, in recent years, a policy of ethnic cleansing against these groups, quite naturally do hope to have a role.

And our support for them will strengthen them and help them to reclaim some of the territory where they are traditionally based, that they had been driven back from.

WOODRUFF: Let me just clarify something, Mr. Goodson.

Are there large numbers of the so-called Pashtun, the dominant ethnic group, who are not part of the Taliban?

GOODSON: Well, yes, absolutely.

I would venture to guess that your average Pashtun Afghan at this moment within Afghanistan would be quite pleased if the Taliban were replaced, but not, you understand, by a Tajik-led or an Uzbek-led or a Hazara-led government, but by a government that was led by more moderate Pashtuns willing to share power in a regional or a federal or a confederal arrangement with those other groups.

So the Pashtuns, I don't mean to equate the Taliban with the Pashtuns. But I do mean to suggest that they do come out of that group. And they are perceived by the Northern Alliance as being a Pashtun militia.

WOODRUFF: Based on everything you know about the country's history, Larry Goodson, what do you believe the real prospects are for political stability in Afghanistan?

GOODSON: Well, this is a country that has been in the midst of now almost a quarter-century of unbroken war. It's a country that has been destroyed profoundly, comprehensively, physically, socially, politically. There's no economy except the drug and smuggling economy. The only way to rebuild that country is to do so from the ground up, rebuilding the roads, rebuilding the irrigation system.

WOODRUFF: Larry Goodson, I'm sorry. I am going to have to interrupt you. We are going to have to move to a break. My apologizes. Thank you very much for joining us.

GOODSON: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Our coverage will continue in just a moment.


WOODRUFF: Before the break, we were discussing Afghanistan's seemingly endless history of war. Well, after years of fighting, the people of Afghanistan have found some ways to use the remnants of war to their advantage.

CNN's Chris Burns explains.


CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Beating swords into car parts? Afghans are making do with what they have. Recycling what years of factional fighting and a decade of Soviet occupation left behind. A Soviet military vehicle finding new life, fashioned into a truck bed. These used Soviet shell casings make good sheet is metal for auto part, or are melted as scraps. Some old shells have military use as markers for road checkpoint. One shop fashions a water-driven generator from pieces of a Soviet armored car.

"This is an Afghan invention," this man says. "We had a hydroelectric plant in the area, but it was destroyed in the fighting, so we built this.

Necessity bred ingenuity after war laid Afghanistan's small industrial sector to waste. Instead of more expensive imports, Afghans grab building materials that litter the landscape.

Spent shells work as rain gutters, chimneys and outdoor seating. Tank scaping fortifies a neighborhood wall.

(on camera): This bridge is an example of Afghanistan's permanent war of society. Soviet armor personnel carriers used to drive over the old one; now they hold the new one up.

(voice-over): For Afghans, it's not war junk, it's an opportunity, using it in their daily lives to replace what war deprived them of, the only way of life most here can remember.

Chris Burns, CNN, in Northern Afghanistan.


WOODRUFF: Now, that's a people with ingenuity. Here in the United States, on this first Monday in October, the U.S. Supreme Court opened a new session by expressing sorrow for the victims of terrorism and by hearkening back to a more politicized time.

The justices suspended Former President Bill Clinton from practicing law before the high court. The order stems from Mr. Clinton's five-year suspension from the Arkansas bar as part of his settlement with the independent counsel after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The former president's attorney says that Mr. Clinton will contest the Supreme Court order.

I'm Judy Woodruff. CNN's coverage will continue now with Bill Hemmer in New York and Joie Chen at the CNN Center in Atlanta.




Back to the top