01/07/2011 Newsnight

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