01/07/2011 Newsnight


Analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark, including a possible revival for Dominique Strauss-Kahn's 2012 French presidential bid.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/07/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, Newsnight learns that America is considering a plan to


enter Pakistan in the country's nuclear material should be in


danger of falling into terrorist hands.


The US Government is very concerned about the possibility that nuclear


weapons can be lost in Pakistan as a result of the Pakistani society


falling apart. Pakistan's High Commisioner will tell us what he


makes of that. We will ask him why relations between Islamabad and


Washington seem to be so bad. In New York, Dominique Strauss-Khan


is freed from house arrest, but he still faces a lengthy charge sheet.


The only defence that Dominique Strauss-Khan has s that this sexual


encounter was consensual. That is a lie.


One of America's top lawyers assess whether the case against him is


falling apart. Andy Murray says Scottish for


another year, will he ever make it to the Wimbledon final, Tim Henman


gives Newsnight his verdict. Good evening. Newsnight has


discovered that the United States is so concerned about security in


Pakistan, that worst case scenario plans are being discussed to enter


the country to stop extremists getting hold of nuclear material.


Following their success with Osama Bin Laden a mission carried out


without Islamabad knowledge, we are told the Americans are once again


warm to go the idea of a pre- emptive operation to stop


terrorists in their tracks. Relations between the two countries


seem to be close to an all-time-low. Just this week Pakistan stopped


drone flights from a base, and ordered US personnel to leave. In a


moment we will speak to Pakistan's High Commisioner to London.


First Richard Watson reports. Pakistan might yet prove to be the


major challenge in the so-called war on terror. The rising


confidence of extremist groups, in a constricting democratic space, is


making observers extremely nervous, especially as the country is home


to what the Jihadist like to call, the Islamic bomb. The last time the


world go so jittery about nuclear security in Pakistan was nearly -


got to jittery about nuclear security in Pakistan was after the


9/11 attacks. Newsnight has been told these plans are coming to the


fore once again, as the west contemplate as country fast


expanding its nuclear arsenal, at a time of acute weakness. As one


security source said tonight, it is a volatile mix.


These are the images behind the latest attack of nerves. A naval


base near Karachi, attacked and occupied in May by a band of


heavily armed insurgents. They destroyed two US-made spy planes in


a well-executed operation, which is believed to have received support


from elements within Pakistan's Armed Forces. The American author


of a new report published today, which charts nuclear proliferation,


is worried. The raid on that particular facility was unique n a


sense, in that it was the first time an organised group was able to


get inside to a heavily armed military facility, and move around


inside, and conduct devastating attacks against elements of the


facility. In this case they particularly went, of course, after


US supplied P3 maritime surveillance aircraft.


Pakistan's nuclear assets are spread across the country. Partly


for defensive reasons. Open source research reports and information we


obtained to an overseas intelligence source leads to this


map. Nuclear reactors. Uranium enrichment at these sites.


Plutonium reprocessing at Rawalpindi and Chasma. Crucially it


has assessed there are weaponisation programmes at Wah,


and close to where Osama Bin Laden was based. There are now believed


Are they secure? Extremists are said to have taked three nuclear


sites in the past five years. able to find at least three


instances of attacks against the, again, allegedly, or supposedly,


secured, military-related facilities. This extends back over


the past, probably three or four years i can recall one against what


we would call a missile storage site a few years back. I don't


think the attack was wholly successful, but again, what it


indicates is a level of brazenness, and perhaps even sophistication, in


the fact that these kind of attacks can be co-ordinated by extremists


in country. Al-Qaeda's leaders have long harboured to obtain and


detonate a nuclear device. Al-Zawahiri said he would travel to


Daghestan in 1998, a repute the source of ex-society nuclear


weapons, says an Al-Qaeda insider. He told me there was an


investigation of the environment, the possibility of getting the


weapon itself, weapons of mass destruction, or the material, which


might help Al-Qaeda to build their own plant. He was arrested for six


months, it is fact, without a doubt. Why go to former Soviet Republic,


if weapons or radioactive material for a so-called dirty bomb can be


procured from inside Pakistan. Islamist groups have targtded the


Armed Forces with this in mind. there are people inside the


military command structure, that is in charge of these weapons, that


are sympathetic to extremists and under the right circumstances could


take action and either enable people from outside to get in,


where they otherwise wouldn't be able to get in, or simply divert,


by using a unit, try to divert some weapons during a crisis or


something like that. The Pakistani army has


internationally agreed safety protocols designed to protect their


nuclear assets. Warheads and detonators are stored separately


there are security codes, with inside help, anything might be


possible, it is feared. There is no question America is extremely


concerned about the nuclear sites inside Pakistan. There are


certainly contingency plans that have been made by the Americans,


probably involving British elements, to oversee those sites and in the


event of their falling into the wrong hands, to intervene. So what


would a plan look like? We asked a former CIA nuclear proliferation


expert and former adviser to the Clinton administration? Governments


aren't thinking about how they wo respond, you know, they are not


preparing and they are not doing their job if they don't. It would


be an operation both from those who would try to remove materials and


those who might respond, of such complexity, that we are almost


entering into unchartered territory. Again, we are on the extreme edges


of the real, I hope. There was a particular effort under what was


known as the global strike programme, which is, of course,


part of the US strategic command's plan to go out and take out WMD


facilities or facilities on a global scale. It is a global


programme in how far it is in Pakistan and in terms of real plans


I have no way of knowing. Some Pakistan watchers believe raising


nuclear security now is deliberately provocative, at a time


when relations are so tense. Any plan to go in would be a disaster?


This is not a Bin Laden raid, this is for them, something far, far


bigger and more serious. If the US were foolish enough to do this,


they would be setting a precedent, for example, with Israel, would


there be anything to stop Israel going and attacking Iran. It is a


very dangerous precedent to set. The west wants to see tough action


inside Pakistan. The arrests of an army Brigadier for alleged


extremist links, was made public, an encouraging sign at a time of


tension. Watching that with us the Pakistan


High Commisioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan. Good evening. Good


evening. How safe are your nuclear weapons' facilities? Well, I'm not


a professional nuclear expert, number one, but whatever little I


know about it is that IEA, NATO, Americans, CIA, and other


organisations, has certified that Pakistan nuclear weapons are in


safe hands, they are secure, they are not easily accessible. But, the


IEA is talking about obviously your nuclear facility for power. You are


telling me the CIA say they are happy with the weapons facilities


about the country? Even NATO has said they are satisfied with


Pakistan's security measures. by the reckoning, you have 90-100


warheads at the moment, you are adding 10-15 each year? You are


telling me the figure, I don't know. That is the sources. That is like a


Hollywood fictional script. Is it like a fictional script? The


Jihadis talk about the Pakistani bomb. You say Pakistani bomb, not


Islamic bomb. They say the, the Jihadis say. They say so many


things. You don't have to take them seriously. But, you would have


heard Mr Christianson saying that the measures that Pakistan has


taken are unclear. He, afterall, is the director of the nuclear


information project, he says the measures you have taken to secure


these areas are unclear, and that is what is making the Americans so


jittery. The IEA has been there, the watchdog authority on nuclear


things, it has certified that Pakistan is safe. So we cannot


dispute that. We don't know who the people they are, what sort of


condition they have, but when the IEA say that we don't believe it.


It is very strange. But there is evidence of insecurity, because you


have the attack on the Karachi naval bai, and also the unmasking


of the Brigadier, openly talked about, who had extremist links.


There is an insecurity in your security forces? My simple answer


would be what about 9/11, Pentagon, they could be attacked, any place


could be attacked. Mumbai, despite security was attacked, Sharm El-


Sheikh, despite all intelligence presence there, it was attacked.


Bali was attacked. So many other places were attacked by these


terrorists. But you are saying, you are saying that actually all your


nuclear weapons are stored safe and sound, and after the raid on Osama


Bin Laden, of course, which was a great success in the American eyes,


and indeed in Pakistan's eyes, although they were horrified not to


be involved. The Americans feel emboldened by that, it would seem


if they think that there is a problem, they are prepared to take


pre-emptive unilateral action. Americans did take pre-emptive


unilateral action against Osama, and they got him. I'm sure they


must be regreting it now, that they should have informed Pakistan, but


since there was a time lag and they didn't inform. The thing is, it is


all talk. They are planning to attack, they are doing this and


that. Our relations have worsened, our relations have not woreened. To


that extent, as to call it bad. Hillary Clinton was visiting


Pakistan and she was happy and satisfied with what was happening.


Even when President Obama was here, and when he was talking with Prime


Minister Cameron, and Prime Minister Cameron said it very


clearly, the enemy of Pakistan is our enemy, and this afternoon when


the President of Pakistan was meeting him, he said Pakistan's


future is Britain's future. Pakistan's future is Britain's


future, and therefore, security is one of the most important issues.


So if the Americans were to move in and take pre-emptive action on


sites they have identified, and our sources say these plans are in


place. What would Pakistan's reaction be? Again, you are a very


hypothetical in your questioning, it doesn't have any sound basis.


The Americans planning to do this, and the Americans wouldn't do that.


They did do it with Osama Bin Laden? Let me tell you, if I were


to see him, or any Pakistani, with so much money on his head, they


would have killed him. So Osama was a known tart. These national assets


will be protected by each and every Pakistani, including the Armed


Forces. Like at Shamzi now, the Government in Islamabad has ordered


the Americans to stop the drone flights and American personnel to


get out. That is not a signal of good relations, is it? Again it is


a Misper exception. Americans have themselves said they never flew


their drones from Pakistani territory. They have proved it time


and again, and said it time and again, and they have not done that.


But you want American personnel out of that area? We want the Americans


to give us drones so we should use them, instead of our space being


used by them. High Commisioner thank you very much indeed.


Today there were dramatic scenes inside and outside a Manhattan


courtroom, as the former IMF chief, Dominique Strauss-Khan, was


released from house arrest, but ordered to remain in the country


for another hearing on July 18th. He still face seven serious charges


over the alleged attack on a hotel maid in New York. But the judge


said he understood the circumstances of the case had


changed substantially, now Strauss- Khan's supporters in France have


been given fresh hope of an improbable comeback. Could he still


with the socialist presidential candidate. It has been an


extraordinary day? Absolutely. Everyone thought this would be the


centre of the cautious we thought all of the charges would be dropped.


They haven't been. Why was that? was because of a report in the New


York Times. They reported two law enforcement officers, as they say


they were, they were saying there were flaws in the witnesses


statement. She claims that after she was allegedly raped she went


and reported it straight away. There is evidence to suggest she


didn't, she went and cleaned another room and took her time to


report it. They also say she lied on her asylum claims, her


credibility is not what it was. You can see why Dominique Strauss-Khan


woke up this morning thinking he might be a man who was in a


slightly better place than he was six weeks ago. We saw pictures of


him in court, you can see his whole demeanor is different to what it


was, he's there with his wife. They both look, not chipper, but calm,


and they look relaxed. There is a bit of a swagger about Dominique


Strauss-Khan? Something like a smirk there, not the pictures we


have seen in the past of him, he looked nothing like that. Cast your


mind back to six weeks ago, here he is in the dock, jouly, heavy lided,


tired. These are the pictures beamed across the world, a guilty


man. A different picture. This Case has been studded with dramatic, we


have the lawyer, who represents P Diddy and other superstars, is a


star in his own right, this is his statement saying the case was


almost over. We asked the public not to rush to judgment, now you


can see why. We believed from the start this case was not what it


appeared to be. We are convinced that today is the first giant step


in the right direction, the next step will lead to a complete


dismissal of the charges. He hopes, but, of course, what


actually has changed today? only thing that has changed today


is the bail conditions. He still is facing these charges. We have


Benjamin Brafman there saying his client's in the clear, on the other


side we have the alleged victim's representatives saying he's


absolutely not. The scene that followed Benjamin Brafman's


statement here were quite extraordinary, we saw her


representative using the most lurid, explicit and aggressive language to


describe exactly what he thought had happened, saying this was not


consensual. Some people might find this quite offensive, this shows


you what was going on outside the court today. He grabbed her vagina


with so much force that he bruised her vagina. When she went to the


hospital later that day, the nurses who examined her saw the bruises on


her vagina that were caused by Dominique Strauss-Khan's hand. They


took pictures of the bruises on her vagina, and the District Attorney


has those pictures. That is language that is designed to shock.


I have never heard anything like that outside any court anywhere in


the world. That is specifically designed to make an impact, this is


lunchtime in the US, going out on the networks over there, quite


unprecedented. You have to question the motivation behind that kind of


performance. In France, there is all this talk about a possible


comeback for Dominique Strauss-Khan as the socialist presidential


candidate? This morning there was even talk that he could be the


President of France. We have got the primaries closing on the 13th,


he's due back in Manhattan five days later, it is certainly not


looking good. Yes, it has been a slightly better day for him, but he


still wakes up tomorrow, although he's not under house arrest, he is


still facing seven serious charges here, he's not anywhere near in the


clear yet. Joining us from Martha's Vineyard,


is distinguished lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, and Dominique Strauss-


Khan's biographer. First of all, Alan Dershowitz, what


is the dynamic of this case now? This case is over. There is only


the technicality of when it will be dismissed. Nobody knows, nobody


will ever know what happened in that hotel room, what we do know is


that the witness simply doesn't have the kind of credibility


required to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. She has allegedly


lied about previously being raped, she has allegedly lied on her


application for amnesty. She will be lucky if she's not deported at


the end of this matter. She came into the case hoping perhaps to


come away with several million dollars, she will be very fortunate


if she comes awhich with the status quo preserved. This is a very good


day for the defendant and justice in America. The prosecution came


forward and produced the conclusions of the investigation


and made it clear this case is a weak one. The weakness of the


American system is it has the perp walk, in which it presents the


defendant as guilty, it withholds the name of the victim, which


suggests that she is a real victim and that the defendant is guilty,


it undercuts the presumption of innocence. It will cause many


Americans to re-think how we prosecute cases of this kind.


charges are serious charges, still standing of tonight, and Dominique


Strauss-Khan is still due in court on the 18th of July? These charges


will stand, and he remain as defendant, but I think anybody who


has any understanding of the American criminal justice system


has to say, unless some miraculous new evidence will come forward, I


can't imagine what that will be, short of a video tape, no


prosecutor will want to vouch for the victim's credibility, and say


ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a witness we are asking you


to believe on the basis of her word and put someone in jail for a long


time. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires more credibility


than this witness is prepared to present. This creates a terrible


problem, it means that sometimes women who are actually raped but


who have terrible backgrounds, backgrounds of criminality or lack


of credibility, cannot get justice. That's why we say better ten guilty


people go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted. This


may be a case that fits that description, nobody will know for


sure. What do you make of it, from a legal point of view, we may never


know what happened in that bedroom, we may never know what Dominique


Strauss-Khan actually did, but because this witness has changed


her story, we will never maybe know. Dominique Strauss-Khan, in a sense,


will he ever be free of this, if he is actually acquitted, or if the


case falls? You know, I'm not a friend of Strauss strau, I'm just a


journalist, just a journalist who did - Dominique Strauss-Khan, I'm


just a journalist who did his work. During the work, during my


investigations of more than two years for writing this book, the


biography of Dominique Strauss-Khan, that is called The True Story of


Strauss-Khan strau, I have met more than 60 people, his political


enemies and friends, his first wife, his actual woif. I twelve his


political story - wife, I twelve his political story and also in


this book about his relations with women. Why do I talk about this


question, it is because in France there were a lot of rumour about


his attitude with women. My conviction, not a personal


conviction, but a conviction after a big work about his life, after


having met a lot of people, is that this man is a typical French lover,


he's a great seducer, but completely unable to do any


violence, any act of violence against a woman. We don't...I


that before May 14th, I say that after May 14th, and today I don't


change my words, you know. I don't change my mind. But, Alan


Dershowitz, on that point, let's pick up on that, there is Dominique


Strauss-Khan's biographer, let's be clear about this, in a situation of


power, we never know, as you say what happens behind that bedroom


door, and as you say, we may never know what actually happened,


therefore, how do you think the frenzy around this case in America,


will go on from this now. What do you think people's view of


Dominique Strauss-Khan will be? think he will be viewed the way


many defendants are viewed, when their cases are dismissed, the


court of public opinion and the court of history, often makes


different judgments from a court of law, in the court of law the burden


of proof is very, very high, for historians, for journalist, the


burden of proof is some what lower, people can come away concluding


that we don't approve of the conduct that we believe this man


engaged in, but there was insufficient evidence to convict


him of a crime. Some people may come away thinking he was


absolutely innocent, perhaps even framed, there is no real evidence


there was a set up here. But perhaps that this woman took


advantage of the situation, considering her background, and


he's the real victim. It will end up being a mixed picture. I would


hope that since there is not sufficient evidence to conclude he


is a criminal, that the presumption of innocence will apply. He will be


able to go back to life as normal. He will always be kind of


representative of this problem of how do you prosecute "he said/she


said" rape cases that happen in a room. This is one of the most


difficult and daunting challenges our legal system faces today. I


think Americans have learned a lesson from this, don't jump to


conclusion, don't conclude a person is guilty before all the evidence


is there. Sorry to interrupt, I will put one point there, go back


to life as it is, is what might happen. Life as it is, is that the


possibility of the reemergesence of reemergence of Dominique Strauss-


Khan, even as the socialist candidate for President? What I


have always said since the beginning of the scandal is that


the main problem for Dominique Strauss-Khan was the judiciary


problem. But in the case of, if this judiciary problem is finished,


is over, as there is no reason that Dominique Strauss-Khan cannot come


back to French policy, and now the decision, the decision belongs to


himself and to his wife and family. You know he has suffered a lot in


this situation, and there is no reason for not to come back, but it


is his own personal decision. Thank you very much, we are out of


time. At 7.45 this evening, Andy Murray's hopes of playing in the


Wimbledon final were dashed, as he was defeated for the 12th time in


his career by the champion, Rafael Nadal. After winning a blistering


first set, the momentum went away very suddenly, when mid-way through


the second, he sent a forehand back beyond Nadal's line, from this


Nadal looked the more confident Well earlier I asked four-times


Wimbledon semifinalists Tim Henman whether the problems for Murray was


all psychological, is it that he hadn't prepared for a moment like


that when he he couldn't get over? He played faultless tennis up until


then. My disappointment for the match thank moment in time is it


really took Murray quite a long time to regroup. I think if the


roles had been reversed and Nadal had been up a set and had those


opportunities and hadn't taken it, then perhaps he would have had a


few hiccups for a couple of minutes, where as with Murray, unfortunately


it lasted seven games N that moment in time, through that period, Nadal


raised his game, and then once you give him an opportunity, his level


was phenomenal. John McEnroe's analysis is Murray don't get angry


enough. Ironically we have seen him angry in the past. You were in


semifinals in the past, maybe there is a thing you don't get angry


enough. You just don't psyche yourselves up hard enough, do you


see that in Murray? No, not at all. I look at the semifinals and I


would say that probably was pblt good enough, I lost to Sampras


twice, Hewitt was world number one, and Ivanisavic in a Vicky three-day


match. There is - a tricky three- day match. There is all this talk


about Murray and being in control with his emotions and he hasn't had


all the problems on the court, and now everyone is saying he needs to


get angry again. It is a fine line. Murray is doubtless, he's


physically much, much stronger, he's in much better shape in that


way,'s changed trainers, there is been a bit of churn, has that been


an issue? No, you are making a comparison with Murray and one of


the best, the number one player in the world today, and who is going


to go down as one of the best players in history. Nadal has won


ten slam, and Murray's game is still exceptional. He's four in the


world for a reason. You don't get to that level without being a very


good player. And the exciting thing is that he can get better. And he


needs to get better if he's going to win these majors, because the


rather that he's in is probably the tough Esther ra ever.


Next year. That - toughest era ever. On Monday, Jeremy will be here with


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Can fresh doubts about the credibility of the chambermaid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assualt help revive his 2012 French presidential bid?