INTERVIEW TEXT: REAGAN'S THOUGHTS ON ARMS TALKS, STAR WARS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000505370010-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 13, 2010
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: June 24, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00552 R000505370010-2
18 Part iffuesday, June 24, 1986
XoeAnades gintp3.
Interview Text: Reagan 's Thoughts On Arms Talks, 'Star Wars'st
The following( is the transcript of
the interview of President Reagan
conducted Monday by Times Wash-
ington Bureau Chief Jack Nelson,
White House correspondent Eleanor
Clift and assistant news editor Joel
Havemann.
Questions Mr. President, Sen
Paul Laxalt, your old friend, said
that early on in your Administra-
tion, not long after the assassina-
tion attempt, that he told you that
he lhought that the Lord saved you
out there on the sidewalk, not so
much to save the economy but to
save the world, and he meant by
that to reach some sort of an arms
control agreement with the Sovi-
ets, and he said you didn't disagree
with that. Now, you have recently
in the speech at Glassboro said that
you are firmly committed to an
arms reduction. I just wondered?
the Soviets have made a proposal
now for a deep reduction in offen-
sive weapons in return for some
restraint on deployment of space -
based defense. Can you accept that
In Principle?
Answer: Well, almost all of them
in principle. There have been, you
know, the?like figures and so
forth talking of the weapons. There
are changes that I think because of
the; mix that each of us sees, we
have chosen a different way to
go,-with what we call the triad?
than they have. They've placed
more reliance on the interconti-
nental, and so there are things that
have to be negotiated and worked
out.
Now we're still in the process of
studying their latest proposal. But I
am , encouraged because, not only
thi s one, but the first proposal that
the"), began making. It's to my
knowledge the first time the Sovi-
ets have ever proposed actually
reducing the number of weapons.
Q: Well, you may J?e able to
accept that in principle, then? That
proposal?
As Yes, but don't pin me down on
this because, as I say, we're still
studying this.
Qe Yeah. The other thing is, just
what kind of priorities do you
give?I mean, how high a priority
do you give an arms control, or
arms reduction? I know?would it
be possible, for example, to raise
the t level of the Geneva talks from
an ambassadorial level to the level
of foreign ministers to accelerate
the progress there?
41 Well, I don't know. Our
negotiators there we think are very.
capable, and I assume the Soviets
think, theirs are too. But whatever
way is necessary to get an agree-
ment, we'll do. Eventually, of
course, it has to come back to the
top, and therefore, if the General
Secretary and I could in the forth-
coming summit arrive at some
agreements there and then hand it
over to one of the negotiators to put
it down on paper and work out the
details?but we agreed, as you say,
in principle there on all the major
elements. That would probably
help shortcut it instead of waiting
for something to come back to us
and then having to go through it
and dotting every i and so forth,
A$ I say, this has been my belief
and my goal since long before I
came here. The previous efforts
at?arms?which have literally
only been a kind of legitimizing of a
continued arms increase, I had
been critical of those. That was
why I spoke as harshly as I did
abont a couple of those stories.
Re Is it your highest priority for a
second term?
A: I think that this is probably?
could be as important a thing for
the world at large?if anything is to
remove this menace. For the world
to sit here with the MAD policy as
it's called?and it is mad, even
though it means mutual assured
destruction?the idea that we are
going to base our hopes for peace
on each being able to destroy the
other and therefore hoping that no
one will suddenly go mad and push
the button.
Q: Mr. Reagan, I would like to see
if I can't get you to be a little more
specific on what it is that you don't
like about the latest Soviet offer. Is
it the level of reductions? Is it the
length of the ABM Treaty? Is it
verification? I mean, how and
what?
A: It's things of that kind that
have to be ironed out, that are not
specific and that we might in some
instances, find ourselves in dis-
agreement. We have been?we've
announced our willingness several
times to change the figures to
approximate theirs in which we're
willing to buy any substantial re-
duction as long as we both are
aiming eventually at the total elim-
ination.
Q: So you do have problems in all
those three areas? With the length
of the ABM Treaty, I mean, that's a
crucial part of their latest offer.
A: As I say, we're still studying
these things, and I'm waiting for
some of the people who are dealing
with the exact terms to get togeth-
er and sit down and see what our
positions really are.
Q: But, as a matter of principle, is
some sort of hold-down on SDI,
some sort of a delay in deployment
of SDI, is that acceptable as part of
the package?
Ax We know that this has been a
great cqncern to them, the SDI. On
the other hand, we believe that this
is one of the most hopeful things
that has come along in a long
time?the idea of making it possible
for us mutually to depend more on
defensive systems than on just the
threat of overpowering offensive
systems. And we have some ideas
about that too, which we think will
be forthcoming when we start
responding to their latest proposal.
R On sort of a lighter note, if the
summit with Mr. Gorbachev comes
off, what is it you would like to do
with him, you want to take him tO
the ranch, and what would you like
to see in Moscow? Have you
thought about that?
Well, when we made the
agreement standing out in the
parking lot in Geneva, which is
where he and I made it all by
ourselves, he'd opened the subject
by saying that there were things he
would like to show me in the Soviet
Union. And knowing he had never
visited our country, I said, well,
there are some things I'd like to
have you see. So I said, why don't
we have a 1986 summit in the
United States and I am hereby
inviting you, and he said, I accept,
and he said, there are things, as
say, that I would like you to see in
the Soviet Union, and then we
could 'make the '87 summit' in the
Soviet Union, and I said, I accept.
Then we went into our respective
teams and told them that, and I
think they were astonished be-
cause they thought that there'd he
a lot of debating and .arguing and
hassling to get agreement on future
summits.
But he hasn't seen anything in
America, and I think there are an
awful lot of things that I'd like to
have him be able to see in our
country, just as I would like to see
things there. But I worry?I feel a
little frustrated because how, for
example, can I show him how
Americans live and this sort of
thing without there being suspicion
that it's a Potemkin Village or it's
been created as a display for him to
see. How can we convince him that
we're not staging something for
him, that it's. . . ?
Qe Maybe let him pick his spots?
Al Yes, I've?oh, I've thought of
that, And then?they're going to
have to do it right away so it
couldn't be any time lapse in there
in which he would think having
chosen the spot, we're now doing
something about it.
9: Would you take him to the
ranch?
A: We've talked about that. We
don't know now what the time
constraints would be and whether
we could or not. But since he comes
from an agricultural background,
we had thought about his seeing
our countryside and niaybe the
ranch.
Q: Mr. President, if I can take you
back to arms control for a mo-
ment?on the SALT treaty, you
and your top advisers have used a
variety of euphemisms to declare
the treaty dead, but you've never,
)W;;A:'''A
"So I said (to Gorbachev) why
don't we have a 1986 summit
in the United States. . . ."
quite said so in so many words. Are
you prepared to say that the SALT
II treaty is dead?
A: You know, when you keep
asking for things like that, I spent
about a quarter of a century in
labor management negotiations?
for my own union?the Semen
Actors Guild, and for much of that
time I was in charge of the negotia-
tions. I think I know something
about negotiations and now I have
kind of built-in instincts. And I just
am reluctant to come out with some
of the declarations that many of
you want to hear, either way,
because in a way you commit
yourself in advance to things that
may become issues in a negotiation.
So I have?yes, I have tried to
avoid that. But, in effect, what I
was saying with regard to SALT
II?the proposal, I understand,
came from the Soviet Union prior
to my arrival in office about ob-
serving the constraints even
though our Senate would not and
never has ratified that treaty. And
by now?the treaty was only for a
temporary period of time and we've
gone past that time, so it would
have outlived itself by now.
But the Soviets were very
choosy about their own observance
of the constraints of SALT. Some
BERNIE BOSTON / Los Angeles Times
"The Soviets were very choosy about their observance of SALT."
things they did abide by and ob-
serve, and others they ignored and
violated the terms of SALT to go
forward with their own arms build-
up. We found ourselves the only
one that unilaterally was observing
the constraints that were laid down
in SALT treaties.
Well, we can't go on doing that.
We don't seek a military superiori-
ty over the Soviet Union, We seek
a deterrent. But it must be a
deterrent that is practical and real.
Q: Well, would the setting of a
firm date for the summit, Mr.
President, together with the latest
Soviet arms control proposal, may-
be persuade you that we should not
exceed the .SALT II limits as you
have indicated we might do near
the end of the year?
A: We are in the process of A
modernization program, long over-
due and way behind theirs. Both
sides have been modernizing, not
just expanding in numbers but
exchanging now for superior ver-
sions cd these weapons. They are
way ahead of us in that. We're
" playing catch-up. And we must go
forward with that program if We
are to have an assurance that our
national security is solid.
Q l Are we going- to have a
summit this year, Mr. President?
At I certainly?I believe so, and
he has given every indication that
he wants to have a summit.
Q: So, the chance?it probably
will be in November or December?
Al Well, now, here again, I'm
prepared to?we made a proposal.
It obviously was top early for them
because of their great national
congress and so forth and a new
administration just taking oVer. So
we've recognized that, and
we're?we have expressed our
feeling about ourselves and the
problems of our own elections
coming up, that it would be better
following that. And frankly, I'm
waiting to see if he has a particular
date that he could suggest. I'm
quite sure that when it comes to '87
and they start inviting, they could
, very easily hit upon a wrong date
for us because of our own commit-
ments here, and we would come
back with an alternate suggestion.
So, whether they suggest one 0$
whether they're waiting for us,
we'll work that out. We'll have a
summit.
Q: U.S.-Soviet relations seem to
have been sort of up and down in
your Administration, as in a lot of
other administrations. How would
You describe them now?
A: I think they're on a more solid
footing than they've been for a long
time. For one thing because / think
we've made it plain to the Soviet
Union that we are realistic. We see
them and what their goals are, and
we're not deluding ourselves in any
way. And I think in the past there
has been a tendency to see them in
a mirror kind of image and think,
well, if we just are nice, they'll
want to be nice in return. They've
got some practical goals of their
own?some we probably disagree
with?be opposed to. But I think
that?and based on Geneva, he and
I did have hours of talk together,
and we got right down to basic
fundamentals and found out pretty
much what each other believed.
And?so as I say, I think that it's on
a solid basis. When you say it's
been up and down, you have to
remember for most of my first term
here we had Soviet leaders, one
after the other, that were almost
incommunicado because of health
reasons. And they kept dying.
Q: Are you betting that the
Soviets will not respond to the
abandonment of the SALT treaty
with more?an increase of their
arms buildup because they can't
afford it?
?
A: I think they've got some very
real economic problems. And this
again is one of the reasons why I'm
,again
about getting together.
We've all got problems, one kind or
another, and they had some very
'real economic problems. So, I think
that the?well, let me put it this
" way: I don't think that either one of
us wants to engage in an arms race.
I have made it plain that there's no
1 way we're going to sit back and
allow someone else to have a?
build a great superiority. And I
believe that they have other prob-
lems that' they think might take
precedence over a continued arms
,' buildup at the rate that. they've
been doing it in the past.
Q: So, the time is right?
A: Yes,
Q: Mr. President, if I might ask
you just a quick question on terror-
ism. There have been reports that
Col. Kadaff has been in a very bad
mental state since the bombing of
Libya, Do you have any informa-
tion yourself on what sort of situa-
tion he's in now and whether he's
beginning to lose his grip on his
own country?
A: Well, we've seen these ru-
mors and there have been reports,
sometimes conflicting, but we are
- aware that he is?has not made any
public appearances as. he Usually
did. I don't think that one television
speech could count as?out with
the public as he's done in the past.
He's been keeping a very low
profile, and we do know that from
some reports that some time back
or shortly after our attack there
WAS fighting in the streets in his
country. And it's?I have to say, I
think it's apparent that his Arab
neighbors, while they dutifully said
some things at the time, are More
or less keeping their distance.
Q: Do you think the bombing of
Libya has had an/thing to do with
the drop in terrorists?terrorism in
this World?in the country or in th,e
world?
A.: I'm almost afraid to answer
that. If answer it, it might
challenge somebody to perform.
some acts just to prove me wrong.
Qt But there has been a drop
since the bombing, hasn't there?
A: Yes, there has. Yes.
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to
switch to South Africa. It's been
reported that you made a personal
appeal to South African President
Botha to lift the current state of
emergency and that he turned you
down. How do you feel about that,
and what do you do next?
A: Well, we?yes, we think that
things would be better and we
would be closer to?or they would
be closer to getting to some kind of
negotiations without this. We've
made it plain that we disagree with
this as the move that he made.
We think that?first of all, that
the Botha government has shown
its willingness to take steps and has
even expressed its desire to rid the
country of apartheid. At the same
time, he is faced, as anyone in this
position is?as I arn here in our
government?with a faction in his
own government ' that disagrees
and doeSn't go along with what he's
trying to accomplish. But he has
made some gains, the pass laws,
single citizenship, a number of?
well, things having to do with
racial mixing in marriage and so
forth, labor unions, black labor
unions, that have been permitted
there.
So I have to believe in the
sincerity that he wants to find an
answer to his problem. We think
the answer has to come from
negotiation with some of the recog-
nized black leaders. Right now the
big setback is?and this is where I
think his most recent action could
aggravate it rather than ease it?
and that is the literally civil war in
the black community where
they're now fighting each other.
And?
Q: ,Yes, but Mr. President, when
you singled out the fact that blacks
are now fighting each other and
then point out, the advances that
Botha has brought, some people
think that you're expressing sym-
pathy with his government. And
while you have called apartheid
repugnant, your Administration
has taken very few concrete steps,
and you have Sanctions against
Nicaragua and Libya, and there's a
feeling that you've treated Squth
Africa with somewhat of a kid-
glove approach.
A: We have sanctions also
against South Africa. But they're
not the kind of sanctions that, for
example, were being talked about
up on the floor of Congress the
other day because what would
happen with those is you would
punish the very people we're try-
ing to help. There would be great
unemployment there; there would
be a terrible economic situation.
But at the same time, we then
would have removed ourselves.
,We would be on the outside and'no
longer able to commtmicate and try
to persuade and talk, as we have
been all this time.
Take, for example, the idea of
American firms being ordered out
of South Africa. They have an
employment policy that was writ-
ten out by a very estimable black
clergyman in this country, Rev,
Sullivan, They kllowed that. They
have been?they have set a stand-
ard for South African firms in that
their treatment of ertiptoyees is
different than it has been any-
where else in South Africa?their
promotion to supervisory positions
and so forth of black employees.
Now, what we think would be truly
counterproductive and disastrous is
for us, out of sheer pique or anger,
to just remove ourselves and lose
all contact with that government.
Q: But then how do we deal with
the perception that you're some-
how sympathetic with this regime,
and what are you doing instead of
sanctions?
At _Well, may. I cite some of the
statements that< I've made 'publicly
about actions there and that the
secretary of state has made?our
disapproval of various things? That
too is a part of negotiations and to
disapprove as well as to try to be
helpful.
Qt Mr. President, if I can turn you
to the domestic side of government.
I wonder if you can tell us how you
would like to see the addition of
Judge Scalia to the Supreme Court
and the elevation of Justice Rehn-
quist affect the court's rulings on
the social issues like abortion and
1 'I
. . . I have never given a
litmus test to anyone that I
have appointed to the bench."
school prayer and so forth.
A: Well, I have never given a
litmus test to anyone that I have
appointed to the bench, nor did I in
this instance. I feel very strongly
about those social issues, but I also
place my confidence in the fact that
the one thing that I do seek are
judges that will interpret the law
and not write the law. We've had
too many examples in recent years
of courts and judges legislating.
They're not interpreting what the
law says and whether someone was
violated or not. In too many in-
stances they have been. actually
legislating by legal decree what
they think the law should be. And
that I don't go for. And I think that
the two men that we're just talking
about here, Rehnquist and Scalia,
are interpreters of the Constitution
and the law.
?
Q: You didn't ask Judge Scalia
how he stands on abortion, for
example?
Al No.
Qt Mr. President, Pat Buchanan
has said that if you got two ap-
pointments to the Supreme Court,
it could make more difference on
your social agenda in achieving it
than 20 years in Congress. Do you
agree with that?that it could?
Approved For Release 2010/09/13: elA-RDP90-00552R000505370010-2
A: Yes, I think there are a greet,
a , I
many things, particularly these"
social things, that the Congress has
debated off and on and over theo?,
years. And?the interpretation efuf,,
the law, for example. You men-ied
tioned abortion. Let me state just
should be considering murder
privilege.
privilege from womanhood,,
cause I don't think that a Worn4n),-"
i;
And I don't feel that I'm trying Ig:
do something that is ta king alf;
unequivocally what I feel about,i,.tic,
The situation is, is the unborn?i-,
child a living human being? Now
every bit of the ,medical evidence!) L
that I have come across says that ,it.101
is. Then you're taking a human life?,,,,,2,
Now, in our society and under oit.
law, you can only take a human life-_,,-;;
in defense of your own. And lc p
would respect very much the rightiii,.
of a prospective mother if told thatxf,t
her life is in danger if she goek31
through with a pregnancy, thenr-,,,
that is an entirely different situa-
tion. But until someone can prove!
medically that the unborn is not pc
living human being, I think we ,..;1
have to consider that it is. 14)0'4
Q: There have been suggestioiXci"b'
though, by people in your Admiriis I.,
tration that white you feel strongly, i
about these subjects? abortion4 ,
school prayer, busing and
forth?that you haven't pushed'
them as much as you might haVer:::
because of the other more pressir:
matters?the taxes, budget and ,so,
forth?and that you've almost gi),i,cc",,
en up getting them through Con-,',' '
gress but you expect the SuprenK '
Court appointments, if you get., .
them, to help achieve that social' s.,' ;
agenda. Would that be accurate? -
Al' Well, you have found that
Congress has been unwilling te."':;
deal with these problems that;,,,.:
we've brought up. Prayer in-"
schools?I was struck the other ,,.
day when Chief Justice Burger was
speaking about a subject of that ,/-
kind and the separation of church
and state and the interpretations'
that have been placed upon it. And
he said there are only 16 words into
the Constitution, and those
words are very simple and plain?...,in
The Congress shall?I may not be,c,r,
able to quote accurately the worcls.,iL;
of the Constitution?the Congress,,,,
shall make no laws or provi,,,,2
sions ?whatever the word it usedjas.
there?regarding the establish -j,,,,,
ment of religion or the proliibition,.
of the practice of religion. Andi?.
whatever it is, it comes out to just3i,
16 words, and that's it.
Well, now, if you tell somebodf,
they -can't pray, aren't you- (viOlat-,..,
ing those 16 words? And are ybal,--
violating those 16 words with feti
gard to establishment of religion i
somebody's allowed to pray? An IA
the funny thing is, it was Benjarn,ii.
Franklin that uttered the state,-
ment in the Constitutional Corive4::1,
tion that finally got them to open
the meetings with prayer. And
Continental Congress?befdre- '
there was the present Congress anc?11,,f:
the Constitution?always opened''
with prayer. And to this day th.9
Congress opens with prayer. AncIL,1-,
on our coins it says, "In God Weep
Trust." And, to me, the decision, i'l
that prevented voluntary prayer,(, 'tt
by anyone who wanted to do so in 4,
school or in a public building is just
not in keeping with the Constitu9
tion at all. .,.t.3-,q
? ?`3"Iti
Q: Mr. President, I think tbc.,
predictions are that Judge Scalia,:c:,,
and Justice Rehnquist will sails
through their confirmations, bti.r1
you've had a couple of other nomie AI
nations that have been stalled ort,...,e
the Hill, And in the radio addressik
you attributed it largely to partiti.;
sanship. If the ABA has given bothIA
Manion and Sessions the lowest?,,12
ranking possible because of their, et-',
good housekeeping seals, so
speak, how can you call these:E.;
distinguished appointments?
A: Because I have appointed 281::-...5
judges to the federal bench. All 4u,_.
them have been approved, usually-
by that rating of "qualified." Nowo-N
what they?the issue they are.:01
'raising with Manion is that, ve-61211s
the next rating below "qualified" iSa ,, L
"unqualified"?that they'r%,3t-i
marked as "unqualified." And :J.1b1
have never appointed anyone wh.,:k9.2/
was termed "unqualified" , eite is
tried?nominated anyone who wasoia
unqualified according to the court-lob
But Presidents Carter and Ford
between them appointed 555 judg9
es. And 282 of those were judged'0
"qualified" by the same bar associ'-'0Y
ation. As a matter of fact, tvv-rb
presidents in the recent past?very 10
recent past?each appointed thr4'3
who were declared uunqualified'A
' by the bar association.
Q't So you think ?qualifielci):rbi
should be good enough?
A: Yes, and in this one particular f 1?
s 4
case right now, I think there hay ?
been?well, one senator openly an 161
in a committee meeting expressed''
himself to my nominee as that he
respected his ability and his char -7-'-'1
acter and so forth, and would var.'
against him, however, only becauS4'..`,.'
he disagreed with his politicaib' '
views. Well, now, that is not thd2:'
prerogative of the Senate. -Thi'
should never have been said, and (-)1
that should not be their reason.r3l'it"
I was in this same position as th
tp
governor of California that I am i
now as President of the Unite . (.),
States, and there I had a L,egisla-%b
Please see TEXT, Pageirli
flogai'tiettfi arin.led
Approved For Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00552R000505370010-2
Tuesday, June 24, 1986/Part I I 9/
--AREAGAN: President Tells
Flexibility- on 'Star Wars'
as,
Coodnued from Page
ma% solid footing than they've
been for a long time."
AM although the Soviets* have
yet:tti propose a date for a second
Rdhan-Gorbachey Summit that
tiles twd leaders agreed would be
held- this year in the United States,
thd President expressed confidente
that the summit would be held,
probably after the Nov. 4 congres-
sional *elections.
Whether the Soviets will suggest
a date or "whether they're waiting
for:( 1S,'" he said, "we'll work that
out:-We'll have a suinmit."
AV the "forthcoming summit,",
the&President suggested, he and
Goltachev might arrive at a
franiework for arms control "and
theit hand it over to one of the
negotiators to put it down on paper
and-Work out the details."
Ilobost Forceful
The 75-year-old President, who '
las IP Friday had two non-cancerous
polyps removed from his colon,
lookeed robust and spoke forcefully
during the interview,
I4 smUed when a reporter men-
tion 4, that he obviously was in
god?ealth. He said that the doctor
wh :,performed the CAT scan in
Fri ay's physical exam told him the
san thing he had told him last
ye after surgeons removed a
two_-,fOot section of the colon in a
cancer operation; "Inside? I'm 25
years younger than my age."
eagan refused to declare the
l97 SALT II arms limitation trea-
ty dead, even though he has an-
nouRced his intention later this
yeas, to deploy midre B-52 bombers
equipped with cruise missiles than
thei'pratified treaty would permit.
When pressed on the issue, Rea.,
gan, indicating that his threat to
exceed SALT N limits may be a,
bargaining tactic in arinsnegotia-
tions, Said: "I think I know some-
thing about negotiations . . and I
just am reluctant to come out with
some of the declarations that many
of YOU want td hear, either way,
because in a Way you commit
yotirglf in advance to things that
may become issues in a negotia-
tion." *
Ire .emphasiZed, however, that
the United States would. not con-
tinue to abide by the SALT II limits
unilaterally if the Soviets contin-
ued to violate it.
On the recent violence in South
Africa, Reagan said he "made it
plain" to Botha that he opposes the recent years of judges "actually
current state of emergency in that
country. But he said he still be-
lieves in Botha's "sincerity" in
attempting to reach a negotiated
settlement to bring apartheid to an
eventual end.
1-.1e praised Botha for the limited
steps he' has taken in recent
months. Any application of U.S.
sanctions against the South African
government, he said, would "pun-
ish the very people we're trying to
help" and relegate the United
States to an oiltsider's role in trying
to reform the regime.
"What we think would be truly
counterproductive and disastrous is
for us out of clear pique or anger to
just remove ourselves and lose all
contact with that pvernment," the
President said.
He added that he thinks the
answer to apartheid must grow out
of negotiations between the gov-
ernment and recognized black
the blame for what he called "the in Death Sentence
leaders.in South Africa. He placed 4th Ruling Issue
big setback" in moving toward
those negotiations on "the literally
civil war in the black community
where they're now fighting each
other."
Sympathy for Botha ,
At the same time, he expressed
sympathy for Botha as he battles
political factions in his Country
over even the most modest steps
toward ending apartheid.
On his recent nominations to the
Supreme Court, Reagan said his
main criterion in making the selec-
tions was to find judges who "will
interpret the law and not write the
law." Although he said he felt
"very strongly" about social issues
such as abortion and school prayer,
he insisted he has "never given a
litmus test to anyone that I have
appointed to the bench, nor did I in
this instance."
Reagan maintained that there
have been "too many instances" in
TYXT: Reagan Interview
COfitinued from Page 18
tur4 of the other party in the -
niajdrity. And you'd be' surprised
ho4,difficult, as it got clown toward
the- fast couple of' years, it was' for
me-to appoint anyone requiring
Senate confirrnation in the state, to,
get' them qualified b.eCause they
just 'decided they'd wait?outlast
niel'how and let all these things'
rentiain for?if their fellow" got
eletted.
q, So you have to make a stand
against this.,or you could be, relet,
gated into lame duck as fai,as?
,-
At Yes. ,
I wanted to ask you about
White Rollie spokesman Larry
Spe-Oltres: We're out of time, Mr.
PreOdent. I think maybe it might
be a good idea to revisit this
U. `-Soviet "accept in principle,"
an be sure you've got the Presi- ,
dent's,- thinking on that.
4.), .
?
' Qi OK,,but if you will, Larry, we
didb have a couple of impOrtant
queitions we'd like to give to the
President. One of them is on AIDS,
,
if you don't mind.
All right. ,
C4The Public Health Service has
presented some pretty scary fig-
ures about AIDS, and it says that it
wilt strain the existing health re -
sontCes of the nation, First of all, do
yod think of AIDS as kind of public
health enemy No. 1. And do yoli
think it's time for a stepped-up
government effort?
At Well, we have been spending
a tremendous amount of money on
AIDS , research. You know our
financial problems. I don't know
how much more leeway there is for
US, b'ut we've been doing all that we
cal-PA? because of the threat thii
represents AS a matter of fact, why
don't some of you in the media start
suggesting to people, because of
another problem?and that is the
problem of blood donors and so
forth. You know, there's a practical
ansWer to that if someone would
just- announce it. Why. don't
healthy and well people give blood
forthemselves? And it can then be
kept in case they ever need a
transfusion, they can get a transfu-
siorr of their own blood and they
don't have to gamble on?
(1),Mr. President, can I ask you
one very quick political question.
You, one time said the vice prest-
dency reminded you of an old rule
of ctog sledding?only the lead dog
.,
get ?$ change of scenery.
AtYes, I remember.'' : t -
,_, ;_,_
' Q: Now, you've had yice West-
denti Bush as your vice president
for all these years. Do you still look
on be vice presidency that way?
Well, you know, I said that in
tal ing about?well, actually, I was
tal,ing about the?well, I know, I
wag talking about that as well as
my_ pvin lieutenant governor. But
I've done here the same, thing I did
with the lieutenant governor in
Ca4 ornia, and that is, our dog
sle4r?we're running double har-
nev. The vice president is a party
to and part of every decision and
evsy meeting that we have.
q, If both he and your good
friind Paul Laxalt run for the
nomination, what are you going to
do?' ' .
Ai I'm going to do?even without
that?what I'm forced to do. And
that is o titular head of the party,
until the party has decided on a
nominee?and then I will support
that nominee all Out. I cannot take
sides in the primary.'
?
Q: et me go back and ask you
since Larry suggested it, Mr. Presi-
dent, that we get straight how you
fe0 on arms control prOcess with
the Soviets. Do you accept.iii
principle what the Soviets?
At Well, let me define principle.
As I li,ave said, for the first time,
they are?as representatives of the
Soviet Union?are proposing aetual
reductions and have even An.
nounced their desire that these lead
to an eventual elimination of such
weapons. That 'principle, yes, I
agree on. That was my goal a long
time ago. I said in 1982 I made the
proposal, and I'd still like to see
happen?of the intermediate:
range weapons that were based in
Europe?alined at each other?that
those be just totally eliminated?
that threat be taken away.
The principle of starting mean-
ingful reductions of weapons and
with the ultimate goal of eliminat-
ing them entire1y7yes; I agree
with wholeheartedly.
Q; But if the Soviets _insist bn
linking that with some Sort of a
constraint on SDI deployment?
A: Well, you know, there's One
thing about SDI that I think all of
Ili should lopk at. F,'irst of all,
research isnot violating any agree-
ments or treaties. If research de-
velops that there is such a weapon,
wouldn't that be?wouldn't there
be a practical reason then to say to
all the world, here it is and why
don't we have this? Just as when,
after World War I, we ruled out gas
as, a weapon Of war, but no one
threw away their gas masks be
we'always?you've always
got to think that you know how to
make it. The world cannot forget
that it knows how to make a
ballistic missile/ And someday,
there could be another madman?.
as there was in Germany that came
along, and this other madman?he
could decide. But if you've got this
and it's practical, then you can all
go to sleep and rest easy at night,
knowing that if somebody tries to
cheat, it won't work because you
have that system.
But going back to what you
said earlier, this also could be part
of your negotiations on arms con-
trol generally?
A: That's right. Yes.
Q: In that answer you addressed
research and not deployment. I
, believe Mr, Gorbachev now has
taken the position that he'll allow
research to go ahead.
4t Yes.
Q: It's the next step that seems to
be the sticking point.
A: All right, but now allow me to
hold back on soine things because,
as I said before, I am in a position of
having to negotiate.
Q: Mr. President, thank you very
much. I was going to ask you a
health question, but it isn't really
good because obviously you're in
very good health. .
Al Yes, and I'll tell you it was one
that nobody seemed to mention?
he personally did the CAT scan,
said the same thing that he said a
year ago. Inside I'm 25 years
younger than my age.
legislating by legal decree what
they think the law should be, and
that I don't go for." He said he was
conyinced that Scalia and Justice
William H. Rehhquist, whom he
has nominated aS chief justice,
were "interpreters of the Constitu-
Money Spent on AIDS *
When asked about the growing
menace of AIDS, Reagan said the
Administration has been spending
"a tremendous amount of money"
on research despite budgetary con-
straints. "I don't know how much
more leeway there is for us,' he
said, "but we've been doing all that
we can do because of the threat this
represents."
Reagan offered what he 'called "a
practical answer" to one aspect of
the AIDs threat?the danger of
contracting AIDS from a blood
transfusion, "Why don't healthy
and well people give blood for
themselves?" he wondered, ex-
plaining that the blood could then
be *kept in the event they ever
needed it. "They can get a transfu-
sion of their own blood, and they
don't have to gamble."
Reagan indicated that he has no
hard infOrrnation aboutseports that
Libyan leader Moammar Itadaft
' was losing his grip on ,his country in
the wake of the U.S. bombing raids
on suspected terrorist outposts in
Tripoli and I3enghazi in April.
When asked if he thinks the bomb-
ing4 were responsible for a fall-off
in international terrorism in the
last two months, Reagan said; '
ahnos; afraid to answer
that. If f answer it, it might
challenge somebody' to perform
, some acts just to prove me wrong."
Trial Held Fair for Man Called 'Animal' by Prosecutor
By PHILIP HAGER, Times ,Staff Writer
WASHINGTON?Over bitter
dissent, the Supreme Court on
Monday upheld the murder convic-
tion and death sentence imposed on
a Florida defendant whom the
prosecutor called an "animal" who
should have had his own face
"blown away" by the man he shot
between the eyes.
Ina decision marked by unusual-
ly harsh exchanges between the
justices, the court voted 5 to 4 to
reject an appeal by Death Row
inmate Willie Jasper Darden. It
was the fourth time that the grisly
12-year-old case had come before
the justices, '
Darden was accused of shooting
a Florida store owner at close
range, ordering the victim's wife to
engage in sex with him as her
husband lay dying and then se-
verely wounding a 16-year-old boy
who had sought to help the couple.
Remarks Called Improper
The court majority, in an opinion
by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.,
coneluded that, although the pros-
ecutor's remarks were improper,
they were not sufficient to have
deprived Darden of a fair trial.
In dissent, Justice Harry A.
Blackmun accused the court of
tolerating a "level of fairness" in a
criminal trial "so low. it should
make conscientious prosecutors
cringe.'"
Blackmun, joined by Justices
William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood
Marshall and John Paul Stevens,
criticized the court for its "impa-
tience' with Darden's repeated ap-
peals?and assailed Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger for taking the
rare step last fall of publicly dis- '
closing his opposition to the court's
decision to review the case.
Burger, noting that over the
years about 95 federal and state
judges already had reviewed the
case, had called Darden's claims
"meritless." The chief justice re-
peated that observation in a con-
curring opinion Monday?and add-
ed that "at some point; there must
be finality." ?
Blackmun, in turn, aecused Bur-
ger of undermining public respect
for the court's case-review process
by openly suggesting that he had
made up his mind against Darden
before the case was fully presented
to the court.
Darden was charged in the 1973
shooting death of Carl Turman, a
Lakeland furniture store owner. At
trial, a state prosecutor referred to
Darden as an "animal" who should
not be let out of his cell without "a
leash" held by a guard. "I wish
(Turman) had had a shotgun in his
hand . . . and had blown ( Dar -
den'S ) face off," the prosecutor
said. "I wish I could see him sitting
here with no face, blown away by a
shotgun."
In a subsequent appeal of his
conviction, Darden asserted that
prosecutorial misconduct had de-
prived him of a fair trial. Ethical
codes bar prosecutors from ex-
pressing personal opinions or from
IIMMISINI0?110
'We agree . . that
Darden's trial was not
perfect?few are?but
neither was it funda-
mentally unfair.'
seeking to inflame a jury.
Darden contended also that he
had been denied effective assist-
ance of counsel and that a prospec-
tive juror had been improperly
excluded because of the juror's
views on capital punishment.
The court majority rejected all
three of Darden's contentions
( Darden vs. Wainwright, 85-5319).
The justices acknowledged that the
prosecutor's comments, deserved
the coridemnatkm they received
from every court that had' re-
viewed the case?but they noted
that not one of those courts con-
cluded that the remarks had made
the trial unfair.
Powell pointed out that Darden's
attorney himself had told the jury
? that whoever committed the crime
"would have to be a vicious ani-
mal." Further, Powell 'said, there
was strong evidence' against Dar-
den, reducing the likelihood that
the jury would be influenced by a
prosecutor's mere argument.
"We agree . . that Darden's
trial was not perfect?few are?but
neither was it fundamentally un-
fair," Powell said.
Blackmun's dissent said that the
trial outcome rested heavily on
whether the jurors believed Dar-
den's claims of innocence. The
prosecution's attack 'On" Darden's
7'
"very humanity" coUld well have f)
affected the jury's evaluation of his..
credibility, depriving him of a fair
trial, Blackmun said. ?
Other Decisions ' Ise41.1
In other actions, the court:
?Saved the governmentwha-4
the Reagan Administration said,
c['
could have been hundreds of mil
from group insurance they provide
lions 4 dollars in revenue by :
that tax-exempt charitable organf-'?
zations may be taxed on income -1
for their members.
4
The court, by a 6-1 vote, said,
that the American Bar Endowment
must pay taxes on dividends as ?
-
signed to the organization by
more than 50,000 lawyers enrolled
in its insurance program. Such
dividends?calculated at $19 mil-,,
lion over a recent four-year peri-,,d
od?are used by the endowment toi
help fund legal research and edun,
cation projects.
Marshall, writing for the cotirt,:i
said that Congress had intended td
prevent such organizations from?
engaging in unfair competition'
with taxable businesses. Stevens'
dissented and Justices Powell and "'d
Sandra Day O'Connor, without ex-
planation, did not participate in th$,
case (U.S. vs. American Bar
dowment, 85 599 ).
?Ordered a federal appealgl
court in San Francisco to reconsid-
er a 1985 decision that private ?`s*
landholders are entitled to "just; ,11
compensation" for water right '1
acquired by the state of Hawaii:
Hawaiian officials, backed by nine' IL,
other Western states, including: ,
California, had told the justices that
the appellate ruling would unfairly)
limit the ability of states to control,
water resources within their)
boundaries (Ariyoshi vs. Robinson;'
85-406).
Man Slated to Die Today
Given Stay by Texas Court'
HUNTSVILLE, Tex. (UPI)--
Death Row inmate Calvin J. Wil-
hams received a stay of execution vl
Monday from a Texas appeals court
pending a hearing on his claim that 10
minority members had been un-
constitutionallY kept off of his jury:?
Williams, 25, had faced execution.-)..
today. for the killing of a woman -
during a 1980 robbery in Houston.
Now when you rent a car for 5 days at Hertz Affordable' Weekly rates
you can keep it for up to 4 extra days on us.
Everyone likes to get away with one
thing or another.
Well, now,
Hertz lets you get
away with some-
thing really big. ,
? Because now
when you rent
any Hertz sub-
cofhpact through
full size car at the
Affordable Weekly
rate for a mini- ,
mum of five days,
you can keep it
for up to four
more days at no
? additional cliarge
(except for optiOnal items, of course).
Nine days in all.
The only thing you have to
do is let us know ahead of time
Hertz Affordable' Weekly Rates
'99?
Florida.
(Every airport
location)
119*
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Palm Springs
Las Vegas
Reno
Sacramento
Dallas/Ft. Worth
Albuquerque
Chicago
Atlanta
New Orleans
Detroit
Minneapolis
Kansas City
Memphis
Knoxville
Nashville
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Call for additional cities. Rates shown apply to subcompact car,
139'
Boston
Washington, D.C.
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Hartford
Manchester
Richmond
Norfolk
Omaha
w4en, you wain the Car by
reserving it SOVelf days in
advance. And keep it at least
one Saturday night. ?-
TO ge(aWay'with this, just
call your Agent or call
HertZ'A011 free '4t 1(800) 654-
73131.
But don't Wait. You never
know when we'll let you get
away with this much again.
You on't just rent a car.
ou rent a company."
licr4 rot& and otheo ra,i CAM.
*Limited supply available at these rates. Rates available at selected airport locations only, are subject to change and cancellation without notice, are not discountable and include a limited number of free
miles with a charge for any excess, These weekly rates (5 to 9 days) require reservations 7 days in advance and cars must be kept a minimum of 5 days including one Saturday night. Cars must be returned
to the renting location or drop-off and return mileage charges may apply (except Florida rentals returned in Florida). Taxes and optional refueling service charges, cpw,PAI and PEC are extra for each full 4,
or partial day. If rate restrictions and keep requirements are not met, higher rates may apply. Holiday'Seasonal surchLges and blackout periods may apply, too. a HESus Prot uses,,EITT SYS'IMS INC '9134
sci
Approved For Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00552R000505370010-2