captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. it's been a deadly 24 hours for u.s. forces in afghanistan. eight americans were killed in separate attacks. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the "newshour" tonight, this month's u.s. death toll stands at 33 so far on track to top last month's record of 60. we have the latest on the violence, the dangers and the difficulties on the frontlines.

>> lehrer: then, we assess the risks and benefits of the diabetes drug, avandia. >> ifill: we have another report from haiti-- six months after the earthquake. tonight, ray suarez looks at the road ahead for the many amputees. >> thousands of haitians lost limbs in january's earthquake. international charities are bringing pros thesees, mobility and hope. >> lehrer: and margaret warner updates the charges against six new orleans police officers in the killing and cover-up of unarmed citizens after hurricane katrina. >> what appears to me is that the officers based upon the admitted statements immediately decided to not tell the truth. that's just disgusting. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

this is the engine that connects zero emission technologies to breathing a little easier, while taking 4.6 million truckloads off the road every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and...

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: u.s. forces in afghanistan added eight more names to the killed in action list today. it was the latest sign of the escalating war, as american commanders struggle to adapt. the first strike came in kandahar. three americans killed last night in a car bombing and gunfight at an afghan police headquarters. then, this morning, four more u.s. troops killed in a roadside bombing elsewhere in the south and a fifth shot dead. and three british soldiers died tuesday, when an afghan soldier attacked them with gunfire and a rocket propelled grenade in helmand province. british brigadier nick parker is the deputy nato commander in

afghanistan. >> our afghan partners have got to look very carefully at what's happened, and they've got to reassure us that they're doing everything they can to minimize it happening again. >> lehrer: in all, 45 nato troops have been killed so far this month-- 33 of them americans-- as fighting intensifies in the south, and the east. that's on track to top the record of 60 u.s. deaths in june. overall, roadside bombs now cause up to 60% of combat deaths, and car bombings are also taking a toll. in fact, the kandahar attack resembled recent assaults on much larger, american-run air fields at jalalabad, near the pakistani border, and bagram, just north of kabul. with violence peaking, the rules of engagement for nato forces have become a particular flashpoint. recently relieved u.s. commander stanley mcchrystal had instituted tight new standards, to lessen civilian casualties.

the vast majority of civilians are killed by insurgents, but coalition killings bring routine and widespread condemnation from president hamid karzai on down to the streets, as seen this past weekend in mazar-e-sharif. >> ( translated ): foreign forces have carried out an operation, and they have killed two civilians and have arrested three others. that is why we are out here demonstrating against them >> lehrer: coalition-caused civilian deaths have declined, but mcchrystal's rules also led to resentment in the ranks. troops said they increasingly found themselves with fewer options to respond and repel danger. the new nato commander, general david petraeus, underscored the core tenet of counterinsurgency warfare, in brussels, shortly after being appointed. >> the human terrain is the decisive terrain. and therefore, you must do everything humanly possible to protect the population. >> lehrer: petraeus said the

rules of engagement would not be revised, but he did acknowledge the hard standard they demand. >> there are concerns among the ranks of some of our troopers on the ground that some of the processes have become a bit too bureaucratic. >> lehrer: those concerns were borne out recently in reporting by james foley of "global post." he talked to soldiers in the volatile kunar province hard by the pakistani border. >> we're infantry guys and we're trained to count our victories with the number of bodies that we clean up afterwards. it's kind of a vulgar way to put it, but it's the truth of it. and we're kind of out of our element. >> lehrer: the core of these fighting units are the sergeants who run their squads and who routinely update their soldiers on the rules of engagement. >> feel like you life is in danger or the life of your buddies is in danger-- engage. you know what i'm saying? you got to use your escalation of force. >> lehrer: the nature of counterinsurgency, called "coin" in shorthand, is trying to separate the enemy from the

people. and it is inherently difficult, complex and not a little frustrating to the troops carrying it out. >> when you destroy fighters, it makes you feel like you've accomplished something. it's very hard to feel like you've accomplished something in a coin fight because it takes so long to accomplish that task, that miniscule task of winning one individual over to your side. >> lehrer: to help accomplish that task, the afghan government today approved an initiative pushed by general petraeus, to establish community police forces. the groups would be empowered to patrol their own villages. in washington today, pentagon, spokesman geoff morrell said the need was urgent. >> this is temporary solution to very real near term problem. this would be a stop gap measure, at least envisioned at this point, because we don't

have enough police forces to provide security in populated areas. >> lehrer: morrell also placed the effort in the larger context of the u.s.-led counterinsurgency. >> the onus is on us, even to protect them from the taliban. so we have to work double not just to win their trust and confidence but to protect them. and so there is a real risk to those who step up in afghanistan. >> lehrer: a top american commander in southern afghanistan said today security will improve as more u.s. and afghan forces move into violent areas. he said: "it's a rising tide." two perspectives now: major benjamin tupper was an embedded trainer with the afghan national army. he wrote a book about his experiences "greetings from afghanistan, send more ammo." he's still in the army national guard. the views he expresses are his own.

and major general charles dunlap was the air force's number two lawyer until his recent retirement. he's now a visiting professor of law at duke university. first, major tupper, how do you see the reasons for the rising tide of u.s. casualties? >> well, i think it's pretty straight forward. we're going into areas that we haven't been for years. we have force levels now that are on par to get into these home land, so to speak, safe areas that the talibans that been operating out of for years uncontested. so it's tragic, but it's logical to expect that we'll have more casualties as we go into their homeland and they fight to defend their logistical bases, their support bases. >> lehrer: do you agree, general, that this was pretty inevitable? >> i think it's inevitable when you put more troops on the ground, you're going to have more casualties.

especially given the interpretation any way of the rules of engagement as being more restrictive. if you decide to take out the logistical centers that major tupper referenced by putting ground troops and sending ground troops after it, then you're going to have more casualties. and that's why i believe that we ought to use more of our technological means, within the law, within the law, to achieve those objectives. >> lehrer: in other words, change the rules of engagement? >> well, it may be that the rules of engagement themselves are fine. but as general petraeus has alluded to, it may be the interpretation that's going down the chain. and sometimes at the bottom, at the pointy end of the stick the troops feel that they have to, they interpret the rule of engagement in they way that maybe wasn't intended up the chain him so that's an issue that i think general petraeus and the commanders have to address immediately. because there's obviously the perception that the troops are

fighting with one arm tied behind their back. and the facts seem to be supporting that. the original rationale that general mcchrystal put out was to protect the afghan people. but what we've seen since the restrictive rules have gone into effect is afghan civilian casualties have reached an all-time high, as have the losses of young americans and young nato troops. so we really have to take a look at this situation, see if there's a better way of accomplishing the task. >> lehrer: do you agree, major, that there's a connection between the rise in u.s. casualties and the possibly some misunderstandings about the rules of engagement? >> i'm not going to speculate on those individual actions that are occuring at a hair split second decision. i will tell you what i saw. and i had a unique perspectivele bed wind the afghan national army. i got to work alongside afghan soldiers, very few americans pretty much myself and one

other american would be out on missions. and i saw how the afghans approached these prickly moments when there's uncertainty, when it's a shoot-don't shoot moment. for the most part, they laid back and i think we could today we call it coin doctrine, they were more passive. they were more conservative in the use of force. and they reaped a lot of benefits from that, because unfortunately more times than not when we reacted that split second we make the wrong decision, we may shoot the wrong vehicle, we may shoot the wrong person. so i think we should never equate killing bad guys with winning in afghanistan. i think for me personally i think the coin philosophy is cause to cause us some short-term frustration. but it's going to get us a lot of long-term benefits in civilians not injured, in villages seeing that we the coalition forces use restraint and the enemy did not. the taliban did not.

that is how you win in afghanistan. and in your runup to the story when you had some of the guys out on the front line talking about how frustrating and difficult it was, i get that. and it's a lot to ask, it when your intonight try man to be a soldier, a immediate area, a teacher, but that's what we have to do. we say we're the most professional army in the world, we can do this. it's going to be a steep learning curve, it will be difficult for some of those guys who would rather pull a trigger, but we're professional soldiers and i think we can and will do it. >> lehrer: general, do you disagree with tharz i do. i think there are a number of irreconcilables in afghanistan, each to be dealt with in a military fashion. the fact is that the current process is not succeeding the way it was intended. it was intended to protect afghan civilians. we're seeing their deaths reach all-time highs. and if in fact we're winning hearts and mind, we've been told that less than 10% of the afghan people support the

taliban, but we're also being told that the taliban is making inroads. so this connection, it seems that we've won the hearts and mind, but we still seem to be losing the war in the sense of we are continuing to see rise in casualties. so we really do have to make some fundamental relooks at the way we're approaching this. because the american people need to know that every effort is being made to protect their sons and daughters that are going there. and i believe that's what the commanders want. and i'm not suggesting at all that we do something in violation of the law. we strictly adhere to the law. and i disagree with major tupper in the idea that we have troops making split second decisions where they're typically making the wrong decision. i think they're typically making the right decision. the army and marine corps has a very sophisticated process where they train the troops . but the point is we ought to use our technological means,

we ought to use air power. we ought not to be sending troops on the ground against every target. we ought to be looking at other opportunities. and the fact of the matter is we keep telling the adversary that if there's one civilian there then we're not going to use air power or artillery. we've telegraphed to the adversary exactly what strategy to use. and that's not what the law provides. the law expects that there's going to be civilian casualties because they don't want to encourage enemy adversarys to surround themselves with civilians, which is exactly what's happening in afghanistan. it was a well intentioned idea, but we need to have aggressive rules of engagement that comply with the law. i completely agree with major tupper that the more we can have afghans leading this effort, afghans in the field, i'm all in five of that. and what he did was heroic and the kind of thing we need to do more of. but what we're talking about now is we're americans and nato troops are leading the

effort, they need to be free to use all the capability that's available to them. >> lehrer: major, what about the point that the general just made, and also mr. morell made in his statement today that the problem is there are not enough trained afghan security forces out there to get the job done and the americans have to step up to it and of course the general's point is if americans are going to step up to it they'll have to step up more aggressively. >> just to clarify, i'm not saying we shouldn't have a kin eic role and we shouldn't be engaged in kinetic operations. what i think is, to your question about the afghan security forces, we're growing them as fast as we can. it's a ram shackle army, it's a work in progress. any professional army takes years and years to develop. again, i can speak to my experience there, and the afghan soldiers i worked with ,

i was very impressed. at their motivation and understanding of the big picture of what was trying to be done in afghanistan. in other words they weren't just there to get a paycheck. their commitment to working with coalition forces, and we came in there with a lot of arrogance and ignorance and well intentions, and they put up with us and helped us walk the afghan landscape and understand it a little better. so the cup is half empty, the cup is half full. there's a lot of progress being made, you know, we had that tragedy of an afghan soldier, i believe, killing the three british guys yesterday, the day before. >> lehrer: is that an aberration or is that a serious problem? >> in my opinion that's an aberration. we've been at war there now nine years and i think this is an accurate statement that tragicly more american soldiers have killed american soldiers in that nine-year period -- >> lehrer: you mean from friendly fire accidents? >> and intentional. think of the hassan case and some other incidents.

have had more fatalities than from afghan soldiers attacking their embedded trainers. and trust me, the afghan soldiers every day and every night have the opportunity to do away with their trainers if they saw fit. but they don't, because they recognize that they're part of a team, that the americans and the coalition forces are there to do something good for afghanistan, and they don't have a problem with that. and they're willing to work with us hand in hand, teach us some of what we need to know about the afghan landscape. we're teaching them some of the military tactics they need to know to be more successful. >> lehrer: general, i take it from your perspective you don't disagree with what the major said about what the ultimate intent here is. >> well, certainly we do need the afghans need to defend themselves and have their own army. i do think it an aberration. but the problem is we have to think about this sophisticated enemy we're dealing with. he only has to have a few of these incidents to inject what some would call friction into the operation. every american over there and every nato member is going to

be looking a little harder at his afghan ally, and that's what the enemy wants to take place. i believe that we have to focus, the president of the united states talks about protecting the american people from al qaeda. we hear army commanders or troop commanders talking about protecting the afghan people from the taliban. i think we have to focus on that sophisticated element of our adversary that presents a threat to the united states. and so that's where i think we ought to bring our capabilities and let the afghans continue the training process and let them deal with the threat of the taliban, as opposed to the kinds of adversaries that can wreak havoc in this country. >> lehrer: general, major, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: still to come on the "newshour": the risks of a diabetes drug; help for amputees in haiti and charges in the shootings on a new orleans bridge after hurricane katrina.

but first, with the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: the federal reserve's economic outlook has turned a bit dimmer. the estimate today said growth will be slightly lower than its april forecast. at the same time, white house officials projected the president's economic stimulus program has created or saved two and a half to more than three and a half million jobs. christina romer, of the council of economic advisers, and vice president biden presented the estimates in washington. >> now there's obviously a lot of uncertainty about any jobs estimate, and i suspect that the true effects of the act will not be fully analyzed or fully appreciated for many years but our compendium show that analysts across the ideological spectrum as well as the non partisan budget office agree the act has had a significant beneficial effect on unemployment and output over the past year. >> sreenivasan: president obama also called in former president clinton today, to encourage business leaders to invest and

create jobs. but republicans dismissed the administration's economic efforts. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said, "the fastest- growing parts of this democrat economy aren't jobs. they're the crushing burden of the national debt and the size of the federal government." wall street lost its recent momentum, after the fed issued its weaker economic forecast. stocks were mostly higher, but not by much. the dow jones industrial average added less than four points to close at 10,366. the nasdaq rose seven points to close above 2,249. b.p. got word late today to proceed with testing a new cap on that gushing oil well in the gulf of mexico. the effort had been in doubt much of the day after federal officials asked the company to delay the test. oil spewed unabated from the blown-out wellhead, after the operation to test a new cap was put on hold. b.p. and top government officials called off the crucial test last night, citing a need for further analysis. kent wells, a b.p. senior vice president, defended the move

today. >> sreenivasan: news accounts said energy secretary steven chu and others were concerned about how the well would stand the pressure, when valves on the 75- ton cap are closed to halt the flow of oil and gas. in a worst case scenario, the pressure might break through the well shaft and create new leaks. in new orleans this afternoon, retired coast guard admiral thad allen. >> we will start to increase the pressure in the capping stack, and we will do this in six-hour intervals. and at each six-hour interval we will stop and we will consider a pressure data, we will look at information we are gaining from sonar, acoustic data, remote visual data from remotely operated vehicles. >> sreenivasan: b.p. also

temporarily halted drilling two relief wells-- designed to choke off the damaged well-- until it's clear how the new cap is going to affect the situation. meanwhile, marine scientists reported the oil spill is starting to affect the food chain at sea. the crude has killed organisms that endangered sea turtles usually feed on. oil is showing up in the shells of young crabs that fish, turtles and shorebirds rely on for food. an iranian nuclear scientist who surfaced in washington yesterday has flown home to iran. shahram amiri disappeared a year ago in saudi arabia. yesterday, he turned up at the pakistani embassy in washington and said he wanted to go home to iran. in a an interview, he repeated claims that americans abducted him last year, and tried to force him to talk. >> ( translated ): they gave me a lot of psychological pressure. there was no physical torture, but the psychological torture was a hundred times worse than physical torture would have been. the most important thing was some documents and a laptop which the u.s. wanted me to go to the media with and say, "i left iran on my own free will with this document, and applied

for asylum." i refused to accept, so the u.s. started offering me money. the u.s. has dismissed amiri's abduction claim. and at the state department today, spokesman p.j. crowley said anything amiri says now should be viewed with caution. >> because he had conflicting info and perspective on whether he was here of own volition or not, from the united states standpoint, i can tell you he was here of his own volition, nobody coerced him to come here and no one convinced him to leave. once he gets back to iran, i'm suspect he'll have a variety of things to say and my advice would be take what he says with a grain of salt. >> sreenivasan: amiri flew today to iran via qatar. an official welcome is planned for him at tehran's international airport tomorrow. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: next, the safety concerns surrounding the diabetes drug, avandia. this afternoon, an independent panel of experts recommended that it remain on the market with additional warnings despite

concerns over heart risks. "newshour" health correspondent betty ann bowser begins with this report. the health unit is a partnership with the robert wood johnson foundation. >> reporter: the decision came after the 33-member panel spent the past two days sorting through 700 pages of data and listening to more than 20 experts who weighed in, and this instruction from f.d.a. commissioner dr. margaret hamburg. >> apply your sharpest scientific thinking and bring your best judgment to the questions facing the agency. >> reporter: avandia has been one of glaxosmithkline's blockbuster drugs used by millions of type-2 diabetes patients since 1999. but new questions on avandia's risks prompted the food and drug administration to re-examine the drug's safety.

even f.d.a.'s own scientists came up with different analyses of a glaxo study designed to look at avandia's heart safety versus other drug treatments. dr. ellis unger a deputy director of drug evaluation said >> the analysis is reassuring, a favorable trend on mortality. >> reporter: dr. thomas marciniak works in the same f.d.a. office and gave a stinging review of avandia's safety trials. glaxo officials insisted their product is safe. dr. murray stewart vice president for drug research and development. >> overall, when used appropriately, rosiglitazone has a positive benefit/risk profile and should remain a treatment for type 2 diabetes.

>> reporter: this isn't the first time the safety of avandia -- also known as rosiglitazone-- has been called into question. in 2007, an analysis from a cleveland clinic cardiologist showed avandia patients had 43% increase in the risk of heart attacks, and a 64% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes. despite that finding and other studies, an f.d.a. advisory panel voted that same year to keep avandia on the market, with the recommendation a stronger warning be added to the drug's label. the senate finance committee began investigating avandia three years ago. and yesterday, it released internal glaxo documents showing the drug giant hid a 1999 study that revealed avandia's heart risks. a company executive wrote in an email message dated march 29, 2001.

"these data should not see the light of day to anyone outside gsk." even though avandia's sales have dropped from $2.6 billion to about $1.2 billion over the past four years since safety concerns surfaced three years ago, two million prescriptions were filled last year. while the f.d.a. often does follow its panel's recommendation, it often does. >> ifill: we get two views now on today's f.d.a. decision on avandia's safety. doctor harlan krumholz is a cardiologist and professor of medicine at yale university and doctor hal roseman is a cardiologist with a private practice in nashville. for the record, he is also a paid consultant for glaxosmithkline-- the maker of avandia. dr. roseman, describe for us what it is that avandia does. >> avandia makes insulin more effective. in diabetes there's a condition that precedes diabetes called ins lins resistance in which fat

basically causes changes in the way that insulin operates in the body. what avandia does is correction the defects that this fat has and the way i works in the body. >> ifill: did the f.d.a. panel make the right recommendations? >> you know, time will tell about this. but actually i agree with the recommendation of the panel because they said this drug should either be taken off the market or if left on the majority said it should have such severe restrictions that only certain doctors should be able to prescribe it or if patients take it they should get special education about the medication, or doctors who prescribe it should have special education about the medication. i think the bottom line here is that if you're going to leave it on the market, every patient is taking this medication should understand that the f.d.a. believes that there's increased risk associated with it, that there's evidence of increased risk of heart attack associated with it, and that the american diabetes association consensus

statement last year said that the they unanimously advise against the use of the drug. so i think the panel did a good job. 22 out of 33 voted to either take it off the market or if they're going to leave it on it should have such severe restrictions that only certain doctors should be able to use it. >> ifill: i'll ask you and then dr. roseman as well. with all those red flags, too many red flags to be born, which is to say what are the risks you're asking patients and their doctors to take, the comparative risks now? >> i think what patients need to know is that there are plenty of drugs that can control blood sugar, and this particular drug that controls blood sugar has a cloud over it. there's a strong probability that it's increasing the risk of precisely the things you would hope to prevent in treating diabetes, that is heart risk and stroke risk and cardiovascular disease. so the question really is how much proof do you need when there are alternatives for patients, and how many of those two million people who are taking this drug know that

there's a high probability of strong risk of heart disease associated with it. >> ifill: let me pose that question to dr. roseman. >> i think the data is extremely conflicting. i think the analysis used by the f.d.a. to substantiate the current committee's decision is one that is of inferior nature compared to some of the longer trials that we have. we have six trials. that have shown in essence that there's either no risk, where actually, or actually some benefits. those take priority. it's a difference between just basically taking a hodgepodge of studies and an nicing lem and trying to make sense of them, or trying to have an orchestrated well processed study in which will are boards that oversee the safety, oversee the definitions of the end points. such as whether someone has had chest pain, really did

indeed have a heart attack. that it's essentially important in terms of qualifying the value of these drugs. >> ifill: explain something to me. your understanding of the board's decision today was that this was a question of insufficient study? not because of the underlying safety concerns about the drug? >> no, the committee made the decision based upon the f.d.a.'s analysis, from my standpoint, a large group of studies. those studies did not have the intent of really examining some of the end points that we want to know is, as physicians, the morrow bust, the more significant type of data was really overlooked when you hear the comments of the committee members. and in that respect i think there's some problems. for example, the speaker talks about stroke. there's a significant amount of evidence that both avandia

as well as -- >> ifill: that being the other drug. >> yes. and in some of the trials there was indications toward a trend, not sta test tick alley significant, with a reduction of mortality. keep in mind what the committee actually ruled on was the issue around heart attacks, and there certainly is a trend from my standpoint, not significant, of heart attacks related to this drug. >> ifill: let me ask dr. krumholz about, that because he's talking about relative risk. >> let me try to make this as clear as i can. you can try to cherry milk the studies, but when you take them altogether they suggest increased risk, a worrying increased risk. when you take some of the best specialists in the country and ask them to do consensus statement on behalf of the american diabetes association, they look at the data in toits totality and unanimously advise against the use of this drug. you take a bunch of smart

people and an f.d.a. advisory panel who for two days are listening to testimony and facts and one study after another, 12 of '22 say my goodness take this off the market, another 10 say if you leave it on you must restrict it, such that for example only some people can prescribe it or in my opinion if you leave it on, every patient should sign an informed consent where they recognize that there are many doctors in this country that strongly believe it's going to increase the risk. that is a major restriction. so then you've got 22 out of the 33 people saying either take it off or highly restrict it. i think it's a strong message that's not just leave it on the market. the message here is that things have to change. if you're going to leave it on, access has to be restricted. because by leaving a label that most people ignore, you're still left with a billion dollar drug and two million prescriptions a year. i think what the panel else saying is we need to change the way things are being done. >> ifill: lit me ask dr. roseman about that. >> the absolute risk in this

situation, if you look at the 52 study analysis that was done by the f.d.a., is that it did not include these longer morrow bust studies. it was point three versus point four percent in terms of m. i. rates. myocardial infarction, or heart attack rates. that's incisions. >> ifill: you're talking about the actual decision, not the arguments leading up to the decision. so based on the decision they made today, is what dr. krumholz saying correct, which is that a very strong warning has now been given to patients that they should, to their doctors, they should beware. >> first of all, the warning has not been given. theres with a recommendation by the committee to the f.d.a.. number two is contrary to the dr. krumholz' point, i turns out that the american academy of clinical endocrinologists

as late as 2009 after reviewing all the data from 2007 actually still included avandia as part of their al gore its imof treatment for diabetic patients. >> ifill: what do you tell patients now who are on avandia? >> i think right now there's a certain amount of uncertainty. from my standpoint i still feel very convinced in the drug. i think both drugs have their risk, but the total risk benefit analysis seems to favor the use of avandia. >> ifill: dr. krumholz? >> let me say first of all it's important to emphasize that for doibs treatment lifestyle is the important first step of when you come to drugs you have many options, no reason to expose yourself to the potential risk of this drug when there are other alternatives. though one should be using this drug unless day know there's a controversy about it, and many people who believe it should come off the market. >> ifill: dr. krumholz and dr. roseman, thank you very much.

>> thank you very much. >> lehrer: now, some of the casualties of the haiti earthquake whose wounds never will go away. ray suarez continues his reporting from the capital. >> reporter: when port-au-prince began to fall on its three million people, thousands were crushed by collapsing ceilings and falling walls. and thousands who didn't die, must now learn to navigate a broken city, missing a foot or a leg. these haitians must make their living in a city that runs on manual labor with just one hand, arm. it is estimated that up to 4,000 people underwent emergency amputations after the january 12th earthquake in haiti. and while six months have passed since the devastating event, the journey for this newly disabled population is in some cases only just beginning. adults are learning again how to do what they've known longer

than anything else to walk. and children, who all need to keep replacing their prosthetics throughout their growing years, are getting back the futures almost stolen by falling cinder block. >> ( translated ): i would like to go back to school so i can finish education and become a nurse. >> reporter: 13-year-old monica paul is back for another fitting. she was trapped in the rubble of her home for a day. she had been washing dishes when the quake began, and part of her kitchen fell on her leg. repeat visits, examinations, and fittings have been necessary. many the amputees in haiti continue to get by with a temporary until their final model is done. anna avakian is in haiti with the hanger ivan sable foundation, an american that provides prosthetics to those who couldn't otherwise

afford it. navigating broken, rutted streets, in a medically under- served city requires a tough replacement knee, or ankle. >> we're using prosthetics with less components, less pieces to break, so it is a good long term prosthetics for patients here, also were making sure we use also we're making sure we use prosthetics the same color as feet here in haiti, were using feet here in haiti, we're using african american colored feet, it's better for patient acceptance. >> reporter: there is something a little disorienting about seeing piles of legs and feet-- some assembled, some still being crafted, sticking up at crazy angles-- seen all together, they remind you of the living flesh they've made to replace. but that uncomfortable moment is banished by this. a boy, newly fitted, learning to walk with his new leg.

and two young men, moments ago sitting on a bench with an empty sleeve of pants leg draped next to their healthy limb, now, able to kick a ball back and forth for practice. thomas calvot is with handicap international, which runs this new prosthetic workshop along with healing hands for haiti says as challenging as physical therapy is for patients here. what they face outside these walls holds the real challenge. >> this is the double negative-- they are amputees because their house fell on them, so they receive the prosthesis, but they don't have a place to stay, displace person camps, mostly it's camps, it's a difficult location, a difficult ground, so these people are facing huge challenge ahead. >> reporter: and then there are extraordinary patients like george exantus. exantus was a prize-winning

competitive dancer before january 12th, when he was pinned under rubble for days. he lost his leg below the knee and suffered nerve damage in his hand. >> we replaced the prosthetic foot for him, so it was a little more flexible and so he would be able to dance. >> reporter: so he still is? >> oh, yeah, you should put on some music and dance with him. >> reporter: if you just happened on the dance studio where he used to teach and train, you can find him practicing again, but you'd have to look twice, to see his artificial leg. >> this is a temporary leg, given to me so that i can practice, and continue my therapy sessions at home, but they have promised me a better leg, and i'm hoping at some point that will come true. but to dance, you need an extremely expensive leg, but that's not available in haiti, i'll probably never get that. >> reporter: for now, exantus sees his visits to the dance studio just as therapeutic as

any doctor's office. >> ( translated ): since the quake, i haven't been able to teach here, i come here to clear my mind, enjoy the moment. i enjoy watching the students working on their dance, because what i used to do as a teacher and as a choreographer. i can't do anymore, and it will be a long time before i can get back to doing that, but here is a much better place to be, then sitting at home. >> reporter: in fact, exantus plans to do quite the opposite of sitting at home by returning to the spotlight. >> ( translated ): the main thing for me is the idea of competing again, make money, teach, and compete and compete at a very high level. >> reporter: we told him we'd come see him next when he is able to compete again. >> lehrer: ray's next story is about mental health care for haitians traumatized by the earthquake.

>> ifill: finally tonight, what's behind the criminal charges brought against members of the new orleans police department. margaret warner has the story. >> we want help! >> warner: in the immediate aftermath of hurricane katrina, parts of the city of new orleans spiraled out of control and police struggled to keep law and order. but since then, questions and charges have arisen over how some new orleans police officers conducted themselves in the days after the storm. yesterday, the federal government indicted four officers in the shooting deaths of two unarmed civilians on september 4th, 2005. they are charged with federal civil rights violations, and using weapons in the commission of a crime. convictions could carry the death penalty. three of those officers pled not guilty today. two other officers were charged with obstructing justice by trying to cover up the crime and make it appear that the

shootings were justified. u.s. attorney general eric holder spoke in new orleans yesterday just after the 27- count indictment was unsealed. >> put simply, we will not tolerate wrongdoing by those who are sworn to protect the public. this will not stand. and we will hold all offenders accountable. >> warner: the shootings occurred on the danziger bridge, which spans the industrial canal in east new orleans. a squad of police went there that day, after getting a call that officers had come under fire nearby. the first victim, 17-year old james brissette, met his death on the east end of the bridge, as he walked with family friends to a supermarket. the indictment says police opened fire, shooting brissette seven times, and wounding four of his companions. some of the officers continued westward on the bridge. there they encountered ronald madison-- a 40-year-old man with severe mental disabilities, who was walking with his brother to

a third brother's dental office. the indictment charges one officer shot madison in the back, and another officer kicked madison as he lay on the ground, wounded but still alive. at the time, the police department said the officers shot in self-defense. >> they approached the subjects who were several, several feet away, who fired on the police officers. the officers returned fire. >> warner: a state grand jury charged seven of the police with murder and attempted murder in the case in 2006, but the case was dismissed in 2008. federal investigators picked it up then. kevin perkins is assistant director of the f.b.i.'s criminal investigative division. >> these police officers to oaths to protect the people of new orleans and instead, as alleged in the indictment they killed two people and wounded four others. >> warner: the current new orleans police chief, ronal surpas, has expressed deep dismay, especially about the alleged cover-up. he spoke to producers of an upcoming documentary by the

p.b.s. program "frontline", with the on-line news organization "pro-publica" and the "times- picayune" newspaper. >> what appears to me to have what appears to me is that the officers, based upon the admitted statements, immediately decided to not tell the truth. that's just disgusting. it's an insult to everybody who does this work. it's an insult. it's an insult to the community, obviously. >> warner: in may, serpas' boss -- the city's newly inaugurated mayor, mitch landrieu-- asked the justice department to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the department, saying he feared he'd inherited "one of the worst police departments in the country." there are additional probes underway into the killings of nine other civilians in the first week after hurricane katrina, including henry glover. he was found shot, then incinerated in a car just a few hundred feet from a police station. five officers were indicted last month in his death.

some of the footage and still for more, we turn to a.c. thompson, who's been reporting on this story for independent investigative news site "pro publica," which is co-producing the documentary. and welcome. thanks for joining us. we laid out the chronology of that day. but tell us about the coverup. what was involved in that allegedly? >> the allegations about the coverup are that two homicide detectives sergeants, dugue and kaufman, orchestrated a bogus police report. a police report that was full of lies and untruths about what happened that day. further, it's alleged that archy kaufman planted a gun at the scene to make it look like the civilians were engaged in a gun battle with the police, and that he fab rigted statements from the victims,

the shooting victims, in the report, and created fictional witnesss to the incident that also appeared in the report. warnz are they also alleging a conspiracy among all the officers to make sure that all their stories were the same? >> exactly, that the officers conspired to tell this big lie, this massive lie, about what occurred that day when the six people were shot, that they all got together and strategized about how to do this. >> i imagine in doing this documentary, and you've been working on it for a while, that the police officers must have some defenders. what do they say to explain this? >> we've interviewed a lot of officers and what they say is, look, you don't understand what it was like on the ground or under the water at that time in new orleans. it was chaos. the communication system for the police department collapsed. the command structure of the department collapsed.

basically officers were in small groups and left to themselves. without clear directives and clear orders. so the normal rules just were not able, were not happening. >> now, why were the state murder charges dismissed in 2008 and is that why we're not seeing the federal charges until now, nearly five years after the event? >> the state charges were dismissed because of prosecutorial missteps skpshs at that point the federal government came in and looked at the case in an entirely different way. they started looking at, hey, this looks like a coverup to us, let's figure out if it a coverup. and that's the angle that they've approached it from, is trying to figure out who conspired to tell this story in such a way that it's fictional. >> you have also reported on some of these other probes that are supposedly going on. how soon do you expect to see

charges in those? >> so, we've already seen indictments in the murder of henry glover, who was killed in the wake of hurricane katrina. and we think that we may see more indictments, more charges in cases involving other shootings in the months leading up to the five-year anniversary of hurricane katrina in august. >> is there some sort of statute of limitations, is five years important? >> now, the u.s. attorney for eastern louisiana said, looking the statute of limitations issue is complicated. but one thing is clear, is on some of these charges there's a five-year statute of limitation, so that's why we think we're going to see possibly more indictments, more charges before we hit that five-year mark. >> now, meanwhile, the mayor, the new mayor, has asked for this top to bomb review from the justice department of the police department. what is he looking for there? what does he hope to get out of it?

>> mitch landrieu wants the justice department to come in and do several things. create an early warning system for the department that will flag troubled officers, officers who are getting into altercations or shootings with citizens. to create a citizen complaint system, a legitimate citizen complaint system so people can say hey i had this problem with an officer, he verbally abused me or she physically abused me and i want to complain about it. and third i think the third thing you'll see is a push to create a real discipline system so you don't have officers who have been complained about and complained about and complained about 40 or more times and still are on the force and haven't been severely disciplined. >> and briefly because we're just about out of time, why can't the mayor and the new police chief do that on their own? >> well, what we've seen is wherever there's been major reform efforts and a major transformation of a troubled

police department, l. a., cincinnati, these things have happened with the help of the justice department coming in and pushing these systemic reforms. >> all right, a. c. thompson, thank so you much and keep up the good work. >> thank you. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: u.s. forces in afghanistan reported eight more troops killed in action. the federal reserve lowered its economic growth forecast for the year. b.p. got government permission late today to test a new cap on that gulf oil well. it had been delayed 24 hours when federal officials voiced concerns that pressure on the well might be too great. and an advisory panel the "newshour" is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari? >> sreenivasan: we have more on the charges against the new orleans officers. find video and reporting from the "frontline," "propublica" and "times-picayune" collaboration. there's a link to their online investigation on "the rundown." their report called "law and disorder" airs august 25th on pbs. you can watch all of "globalpost's" story about the

rules of engagement in afghanistan. plus on the oil spill, we check in again with jean-michel cousteau. he talked to us from the louisiana coast about the challenges of recovery and shared his aerial and underwater images of the disaster. and as always you can keep tabs on efforts to stem the leak on our live video feed. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> lehrer: and again to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, are 13 more.

>> ifill: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm gwen ifill. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org