|
 |
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Is Pacifism Unpatriotic in Light of the September 11 Attacks?
Aired November 5, 2001 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We say no to more innocent victims. No more violence. No more killing!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not the '60s. This is not Vietnam. We have been attacked and we have to do something about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOIE CHEN, HOST: Is pacifism unpatriotic in light of the September 11 attacks?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know what means to see the deaths of innocent people, men, women and children. And a racist war will multiply that 100 times, 1,000 times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHEN: Imagine how a pacifist might fight a war against terror.
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: "America Speaks Out". I'm Joie Chen and now you can hear me a little bit better. The war in Afghanistan certainly has reignited the pacifist movement in this country. A few weeks ago, the Berkeley California city council passed a resolution asking the federal government to break the Cycle of violence and to stop bombing in Afghanistan as soon as possible.
Now, there was pretty immediate backlash there: calls for an economic boycott on businesses in Berkeley. So is pacifism antipatriotic in the wake of September 11?
Joining us to talk about, as to begin this hour, Snehal Shingavi, a student activist in the Berkeley "Stop the War" coalition. Also with us today, Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host on KSFO in San Francisco -- just trying to adjust her position there. Welcome to you as well.
Thank you both for being with us. Snehal, I want to you talk first about this movement that you are involved with in Berkeley and what it has done in the Berkeley community. Explain to us what the reasoning is here.
SNEHAL SHINGAVI, GRAD STUDENT UC BERKELEY: The reasoning to oppose the war, is that what you're asking about?
CHEN: Well, the reasoning to put out a city council resolution saying, hey, we'd like to you stop the bombing as soon as possible.
SHINGAVI: Well, I think that the most important thing to understand, and I think that what everybody in Berkeley is beginning to see is that the bombs have actually made it impossible for ordinary people in Afghanistan to survive. The world food program is already estimating that half a million people are on the brink of starvation, and 7.5 million refugees will be created by the end of the winter.
I think that those are the reasons why people are asking for a cessation to the bombing. That, and the fact that there's no concrete evidence that what we're doing is targeting the terrorists and actually making a dent in the terrorist cells. That's why I think the Berkeley City council took measures to actually say that they were opposed to the bombing, and actually wanted...
CHEN: All right. Let's get Melanie in here on that. The reaction around the Bay Area has not all been very positive, Melanie.
MELANIE MORGAN, KSFO RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, when I hear opinions expressed like that, I'm glad it's constitutionally protected. But it just reminds me of how many simple and dangerously naive people there are in this world. This is not Vietnam, as one of your firefighters said in your pre-interview there. This is a different world indeed. And if you have spent any amount of time in it, you know that you cannot repeal human nature.
Human nature is something that will always fight might with right, and vice versa. And when I hear so many assumptions made by this young man about what is going to happen in Afghanistan in a war that has barely begun, it makes me sad and despairs for our youth.
CHEN: Gut reactions from here in our audience. Colleen, from the Pittsburgh area in Pennsylvania.
COLLEEN: Basically my opinion is that all Americans should be able to speak out with an educated or uneducated opinion. The whole point of going to war is that we have rights as Americans, and we should be able to speak out for, against or whatever.
CHEN: Yes, Melanie, I think Colleen's telling you we can be stupid if we want to be. You can even stupid on television. Some of us get paid for it.
MORGAN: Joie, you will get no argument from me. In fact, I think I just said that a moment ago, that these basic free speech rights are constitutionally guaranteed. But it does make me sad and it disgusts me to see that there are people out there who are making it difficult for people who are trying to change the tide of history here. Look, we've had 5,000 people who have died.
SHINGAVI: If I might say something, Joie.
CHEN: Sure, Snehal.
SHINGAVI: If I might say something, it's equally sad and disturbing to me that there are people who are so quick to rush to using -- I don't hear anything anymore -- who are so quick to go to war, who are so quick to justify the bombings in Afghanistan.
The thing -- you know, it's -- to say that it's OK to be stupid is a little insulting, because it defeats the point of what is actually happening. It's a critique of the United States' strategy in how they are actually going to deal with genuine terrorist threats.
CHEN: Snehal, you are a young man, though. There are people who would say: "Nice guy, but a little naive about all this." After all,sometimes you just have to fight bad guys with sometimes things that we don't want to do. But...
SHINGAVI: It seems to me that that's both -- if age is the question, it seems to me that like what we're actually asking ourselves is not a question about analyzing, understanding or trying to explain what is actually happening in Afghanistan. It's basically limiting the conversation to a group off people who have survived in this world longer.
But now the real question to me is: what are we doing in Afghanistan? What we are doing -- and this is according to the world food program, Amnesty International, according to Christian Aid, et cetera, it's creating an enormous refugee crisis and putting half a million people at the risk of starvation.
I thought what would happened on September 11 was truly tragic. I think that this compounds the tragedy. Doesn't help us solve it, doesn't help us actually root out terrorists.
MORGAN: Joie, I would like to ask to ask your guest this question. If you were analyzing the situation so perceptively, as you insist that you are by quoting certain aid organizations, do you understand what life would be like under the Taliban for yourself, a man of your age, which I'm assuming to be 22, 23, 24?
SHINGAVI: That's really interesting, Melanie, because if...
MORGAN: First of all, for your views, they would kill you. You would be dead. You would not be allowed to have those views, let alone express those views, because that is exactly what is going on right now.
CHEN: Sometimes bad stuff does happen in the course of war. Want to get a couple comments in that we're getting by e-mail now, from Kenny in Memphis, Tennessee.
"If those who want to get those responsible for the terror can come up with a peaceful way, let's do it. Otherwise, we can't just roll over and say, 'Oh well.'" That word from Kenny.
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: What's the option here, Snehal?
SHINGAVI: Yeah. In times of war this is the kind of sentiment that exists. And I think that even somebody as young as me can understand that when bombs are flying, when the war planes are flying over, when there's a lot of jingoism and patriotism, it's really easy to justify sentiment like this. But we bombed Afghanistan before, you'll remember, in 1998. We tried to bomb Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. It didn't work then.
How much longer do we have to continue to bomb Afghanistan until we realize there's nothing left to bomb? And the real question that I have, and I think that most anti-war activists in this country have, is why did the United States support the Taliban when it was first existing in 1996?
Melanie is right, somebody like me wouldn't have the right to express these views. And I do oppose the Taliban. But the real question is, if the United States government was opposed to what the Taliban was about, why, from 1996 onwards, did we continue to operate with the Taliban?
MORGAN: You know what? I really don't care. You know, I'm sorry to sound so crude and blunt about it. But I don't care about the foreign policy that was taking place 10 years ago. What I care about is the fact that there are 5,000 Americans who didn't deserve to have death, and the ultimate sentence, for the American government policy.
(APPLAUSE)
SHINGAVI: It's a little...
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: Well, I guess we could get into the foreign policy discussion, but we're going to try to stick on the moment. A word from T.J. in our audience.
T.J.: I agree that we don't like seeing what happens right now, but the bottom line is, is that while do you have some good numbers, what were the numbers before the bombings? That country wasn't in great shape before we came there. I understand we are doing some bad things there. But right now bad things have to be done.
CHEN: Snehal?
SHINGAVI: That actually seems a little naive to me. If you actually want a sustainable Democratic government in Afghanistan, what you actually need is well-fed, educated people with a decent economy to survive. We're making it impossible for that to continue. We have bombed aid agencies, we bombed hospitals, we bombed infrastructure...
CHEN: Well, T.J.'s got a point here. Was that happening before September 11?
T.J.: There were no freedoms. There was no economic prosperity in that country to begin with. What we are trying do is install that.
SHINGAVI: That's not actually what the bombs are doing. The bombs are not bringing bridges. The bombs are not building schools. The bombs are not building hospitals. What the bombs are actually doing is causing an enormous refugee population to develop, fleeing both into Iran and into Pakistan, and internally displaced within Afghanistan.
What the bombs are doing is making it harder for democracy to exist. And I think, fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why did the United States help to train and recruit bin Laden in the 80's in the war against the Soviets, right?
CHEN: I think Melanie has already told you, she doesn't care. It's over and done with, and now she's on the now. This is a word from Ed in our Web audience, up in Stoneham, Massachusetts. "Come on, Berkeley! This isn't the '60s and it's not Vietnam anymore. Those were our people who were murdered and it's time for those who did it to pay."
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: I guess the other part of the question now here is -- who is it that is paying? is it that paid. And I think that's what Snehal is saying: who is it that is paying? Ed says, "those who did it have to pay." Who is it that is paying?
MORGAN: Let me just explain a little bit of background. I was an ABC correspondent during the -- 20 years ago, immediately after the bombing of the Marine barracks compound. I covered that situation, I spent time in Israel. And I have seen up close what is going on in the Middle East.
And this is an area that has been involved in perpetual warfare for thousands of years. And I can tell you, culturally, the only thing that these people understand really is who's got the bigger sword. And...
SHINGAVI: That is a patently racist comment, Joie.
MORGAN: And I'm sorry that that is true, but that is the case. It is the case of human nature. SHINGAVI: Educated people in the Middle East -- there are people who have been to school, have been to college.
MORGAN: I'm not saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
SHINGAVI: All kinds of artists and musicians. People are cultured. And just pure violence -- it seems to me that Melanie would like to reduce it...
MORGAN: It's a culture of violence. I didn't interrupt you. I'd like to finish my thought here -- that has been going on for thousands of years. And I do, in a way, in a way blame the people of Afghanistan, in that they have allowed the Taliban to take over their country. So there is some responsibility that they bear for allowing this form of government.
I understand that they have been brutally repressed and that they are hungry. But you know what? The American government is air dropping food to these people, as well as bombs. And so there are two sides to that story.
CHEN: All right, Melanie, I want to get one more word in from Snehal, ere. And it really goes back to the Berkeley question itself. Those folks in Berkeley who run mom and pop stores now, who have little restaurants and what have you in Berkeley are being negatively affected. We have heard about the economic boycott against some of the businesses you have there in Berkeley.
What is the answer that you give to those folks? That whatever their belief is, your city government has taken this action, and they may be the ones paying for it there? In addition, what do you say to the other folks in the Bay Area who are saying, "we don't want to be involved with Berkeley, we don't want to have anything to do with it, and we're not going to patronize those kind of businesses out there"?
SHINGAVI: Well, I have spoken to several members of the Berkeley city council, including Chris Worthington, who's a member. And the statistic -- I think that the word is still out on this question. Mayor Dean has gone out of her way to make it seem as if there's this enormous economic boycott. But you go to stores, you walk through downtown Berkeley, and business is continuing just as usual.
If anything, it was Gray Davis' report that the bridges might be bombed that has had the most adverse affect on the economy of Berkeley people, scared to travel over the bridges, scared to use public transit, those kind of things. The hysteria around terrorism that the people at the top have created in the last couple of weeks has been the thing that has most adversely affected the economy.
MORGAN: That's a dream world.
SHINGAVI: I think that people should be proud to live in a place like Berkeley, in which free speech is not only respected, but ideas are welcomed. And it's the one place where it has been possible to protest this war, protest what is happening, and draw attention to the fact that what we are not doing is solving terrorism. What we are in fact doing is breeding the grounds for more terrorist acts.
I'll ask you to think about the last four weeks, and how many anthrax scares there have been, how many bomb threats there have been. And ask yourself whether terrorism has actually declined because of U.S. bombs, or has actually increased. And I think that those kinds of questions are the ones that, in Berkeley, we are allowed to ask.
CHEN: I hate to do this to you, but I'm going to have to cut you off there, because we do have business to do. We're going to continue to talk about this subject of patriotism and pacifism throughout this hour. I appreciate both of you being with us. Snehal Shingavi, Melanie Morgan, thanks for joining us today.
SHINGAVI: Thanks a lot, Joie.
CHEN: And up next, here are the pacifists who would be president, but isn't. How would Bradford Lyttle win the war on terror? We'll ask him when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DUSTIN GROVE, STUDENT: I'm Dustin Grove from Ball State University, and I don't think it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) American to be anti-war. It is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) American to be intolerant of other people's views. If someone disagrees with war in this country, this is a free country. They have the right to think that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHEN: You have the right to think what you want to think and you have the right to TALKBACK.
Welcome back. And joining us now, Bradford Lyttle, presidential candidate for the U.S. Pacifist Party. This party opposes the use of any military force and it would eliminate the military budget. He joins us, along with Don Feder, a syndicated columnist, editorial writer for the "Boston Herald" as well.
Gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. Mr. Lyttle, I want to get immediately to a question from a person in our audience. This is Jamie, who's here from Texas. He has a question for you.
JAMIE: Well, my question is, if war is not the answer then what do you propose?
CHEN: Mr. Lyttle?
BRADFORD LYTTLE, U.S. PACIFIST PARTY: Well, we have to develop alternatives to military force, clearly. Basically, the United States Pacifist Party believes that non-violent resistance, in all of its...
DON FEDER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It doesn't really matter one way or the other.
CHEN: Let's let Mr. Lyttle get that out there. You may want to get out what you believe, but you still haven't answered Jamie's question. What else do you do?
LYTTLE: You mean in regard to the present war against terrorism?
CHEN: Sure.
LYTTLE: Well, the first thing that I think the United States should have done is taken the evidence that it has against Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda to the United Nations, and say what do you think about attacks like this against us? I think what would have happened was that we would have had a universal, virtually universal response from the world community, saying that these are absolutely inadmissible. They are a violation of all concepts in humanity and civilizations. There might have been a few exceptions, such as possibly Iraq.
CHEN: So you're looking more at a criminal justice, as the way to have resolved this, I guess.
LYTTLE: Well, I think that this clearly what we should do, if we believe in civil liberties and the legal process in this country.
CHEN: All right, Mr. Feder, jump in on that.
FEDER: It wasn't the United Nations that was attacked. It was the United States of America and 5,000 of our people were killed. I mean, this is so utopian, it's difficult for me to respond to it. This gentleman is saying that if a month of intensive bombing hasn't changed the Taliban's mind about surrendering Osama bin Laden, then an arrest warrant from the United Nations or a resolution by the United Nations suddenly would have the Taliban running to give up Osama bin Laden. That's ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: A little word here I want to get in from a poll recently taken. This is a CNN-"U.S.A. Today"-Gallup poll. Eighty-eight percent of Americans support military action in Afghanistan. Ten percent don't approve, 2 percent have no opinion. That's a "U.S. Today"-CNN- Gallup poll on that.
Mr. Lyttle, I don't think you're getting much positive feedback on this notions that this is a criminal justice question.
LYTTLE: Well, I think it's tragic that the American people do not understand what military force is, no matter who uses it. First of all, military force pretty clearly contradicts basic moral principals of Christianity and other great world religions.
CHEN: But how do you stop terrorists from being terrorists, if you don't...
LYTTLE: You have to ask a question of what is the cause of terrorism? Historically, the cause of terrorism -- terrorism occurs in this magnitude when people have tried to use conventional military force to promote their values in societies and have failed.
Now, you see this in the Middle East clearly. Arab armies five times attacked the state of Israel, trying to destroy it, and they all failed. They failed primarily because Israel had better weapons, which were provided by the United States.
Having failed, many of the militant Arabs then turned to terrorism. They used...
(CROSSTALK)
CHEN: But I suppose ultimately, you know, you say what is the root cause of terrorism? I suppose it's the ability to have a bomb or to be able to hijack a plane and drive it into a building. I mean, this is -- ultimately, aren't you talking about actually being able to carry this out?
LYTTLE: No. What I'm saying is the root cause of terrorism is military power applied to cultures, which makes people so angry and so desperate that they are willing to resort to suicide to fight back. They cannot fight back with military force.
You see this clearly with regard to the development of the current terrorism. After the Vietnam War, the United States military decided that it wasn't going to lose a war like that again. And it developed a whole arsenal of smart weapons, which have proven so effective in the Middle East, Bosnia and other places.
Now, the people against whom these weapons have been used regarded our position as cowardly. That is, we wanted to kill them without suffering anything ourselves. And they have devised this kind of suicidal terrorism to get back at us.
CHEN: Mr. Lyttle, I think we're getting your point.
LYTTLE: OK, I hope so.
CHEN: I want to get more comments.
LYTTLE: I'm trying to make it.
CHEN: I know that you are, and you're doing a fine job getting your word out, whether people will agree with you or not. Rita is here. She's from India. She has a question or comment.
RITA: Just a comment. I think all of us everywhere in the world would like not to solve problems by having a war and by bombing. But the fact is that people in our countries have had experience, and when we did have policies of non-violence, as for example, India had, and in the early years when we were independent, we decided not to use money to build up armament -- well, then we were open to attack from other countries like China, for example, in 1962.
And it was then shown that, for example, the Indian army was simply not sufficiently equipped because we hadn't spent enough money in armaments. What I'm trying to say is this: that whether you like it or not, if you don't protect yourselves from other people, there is the possibility that they will attack you.
(APPLAUSE)
CHEN: Yours is the native country that brought us Mahatma Gandhi.
RITA: Yes. My country is the country of Mahatma Gandhi. My country is also the country that had, I think, created one of the greatest books in the world, called the Bhagavad Gita. And the Bhagavad Gita starts with the beginning of a battle on a field, and Arjuna and Krishna are there. And Arjuna tells Krishna, "look, I can't bear to start this war against my own brothers and my own family."
And Krishna tells him, "But you are now on this battlefield. You have to do your duty. You have to act." Sometimes, whether we like it or not. we have to act in self-defense.
CHEN: I appreciate that. And who says this isn't an educated audience?
I want to get a question in from the telephone lines now. This is Jim, who is out in California. Jim, you there?
CALLER: Yes.
CHEN: All right, what's your question?
CALLER: First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Lyttle which side he's on. And second, since he knows so much about this event and what's going on, I want to know what his impression was when he walked at ground zero.
CHEN: Mr. Lyttle, I guess part of that question is, are you a patriot? Do you love your country?
LYTTLE: Well, I've run for president several times.
CHEN: Well, I know, but a lot of people run for political office and you could really question what they love.
LYTTLE: I regard myself as patriotic, because I think the United States embodies, and has some of the finest humanitarian and political values in the world. That's why I don't oppose the United States. I don't demonize the United States.
But I think the great tragedy in American history is that this great nation has been built on a foundation of military power from its beginning, and I think that this foundation is what's going to destroy us. Because I don't think you can control military force, and I don't think military force can indefinitely provide security.
In fact, scientifically, I think it can be demonstrated clearly that it's going to result in complete catastrophe -- that is, the use of nuclear weapons, thermonuclear war, what have you.
know, my reaction to the World Trade Center bombing almost immediately was one of horror and sadness. I was weeping when I was hearing the testimonies of the relatives of the people killed. But another thing that came into my head was my gosh, we are lucky it wasn't a nuclear bomb that went off there. And it could well have been.
JOIE CHEN, HOST: And it could well yet be, I suppose, too.
LYTTLE: And it's going to be. It's going to be unless we get rid of nuclear weapons, unless we learn how to solve disputes without using military force. That is a scientific fact in my mind.
CHEN: All right. Look, we have got to take a break here. I want to get back and when we come back I want to get straight to Mr. Feder. There's going to be a little bit of a news update and we're going to come back and continue this conversation. Please stand by for that.
Still ahead, if you are critical of U.S. policy in the wake of September 11, is this the wrong time to speak your mind? Find out what happened to "The Boondocks" creator Aaron McGruder after the September 11th attacks. You will meet him right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHEN: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. We are talking this hour with Bradford Lyttle -- presidential candidate at one time for the Pacifist Party -- and syndicated columnist Don Feder. And Don, I wanted to give you an opportunity -- since you didn't get much of a chance to talk in that last segment -- to speak to some of the things you have heard from Bradford Lyttle.
FEDER: Well, I would be delighted to, Joie. First, all the world's great religions allow the use of military force in self defense when you are attacked. In fact, the Talmud says, if someone is coming to kill you, kill them first. I am curious about how many votes Mr. Lyttle got the last time he ran for office. You know, pacifism is an ideology. It's not an idea system. It's an ideology, it's a dogma.
CHEN: But is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) justified?
FEDER: That has been massively -- that has been massively refuted by 20th century history.
CHEN: But is there point at which you can understand it, justify it, find it reasonable, even though it is not where you personally would go.
FEDER: No. No, I don't. I think pacifists have every right to spout their nonsense. This is a free country. It's not Afghanistan. The Constitution is still in effect. They have a right to be silly and people like me have a right to say you are silly.
CHEN: All right. Here in the audience we have got a few comments. Chris is up with some folks in the back row there.
CHRIS: This is Doug. Go ahead, Doug.
DOUG: I just want to raise the question -- to bring it back to Afghanistan. Is our military campaign there achieving the objective we set out to do? Are we going to lessen terrorism through a bombing campaign? My concern is that we are more likely to create more terrorism -- breed more terrorism -- through that kind of activity.
CHEN: Mr. Feder?
FEDER: You know, this is -- this is like saying after Pearl Harbor, you know, let's not do anything to Japan. Let's not retaliate because Japan may bomb more of our cities.
Pacifism has never worked. It didn't work in the 1930s. It didn't work in the 1970s and it certainly won't work today. When people kill Americans you have to strike back.
These are people you can't reason with. They are people you can't sit down with and say, "tell me -- tell me what the problem is and let's negotiate." They are not negotiators. They are murderers. You don't negotiate with killers. You stop them.
CHEN: Brad, I need to ask you a question. I am just curious. You have taken a position that some people might have a little trouble with or at least wonder about where you would go with that. I wonder, do you have any discomfort? Do you have any feeling like gee, you know, maybe I shouldn't say that in a public place? Maybe I can say that to my wife but I don't go out and say that publicly.
LYTTLE: I think there is fine tradition of dissent in America, and I appreciate dissent. And I don't claim to have all the answers, but I appreciate being in a country where people who come from different perspectives and can present different ideas and together we can arrive at an answer.
CHEN: But do you feel at all uncomfortable? Maybe people are talking about you, or maybe people will talk about you after they have seen you on television. Does that...
FEDER: No, doesn't bother me. I'm glad to be part of that.
CHEN: All right. Move on here. We have Eduardo on the telephone line with us from California, I believe. Eduardo. Eduardo, are you there?
EDUARDO: Hello. I am here.
CHEN: Hi Eduardo. You are a vet?
EDUARDO: I am a Vietnam combat veteran. I volunteered to serve in Vietnam. I served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I am not a pacifist. I believe in self defense. But this war is wrong. It is unlikely to stop terrorism. It is more likely to increase it. It may have nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, because if Bush is serious about bringing him to justice, he would have made a reasonable approach to the Taliban. He wouldn't have given them a demand that we ourselves wouldn't respond to.
And it probably has more to do with 50 million barrels in the Caspian Sea and the desire of the United States to build a pipeline from there to the ocean than it actually has to do with stopping terrorism.
CHEN: Mr. Feder.
FEDER: Well, it's interesting. Anti-- you know, anti-war activists always say, "this is great country and I am delighted to be here and to be able to express my thoughts freely." And they are right, it is a great country for that reason. And the reason we have those freedoms is because generations of Americans have been willing to fight and die for those values.
If pacifism had been in effect in 1776 we wouldn't have a country. If there had been pacifists in the North in 1861, the South would have seceded, America would have been destroyed and slavery would have never ended.
CHEN: But is this actually a war in that sort of traditional sense? I mean, where you say, OK, "you got something, I want something." I mean, in this case, it's pretty much down to, "you got one guy, we would like to have him. Give him up."
FEDER: It's not -- it's not just one guy. It's one guy and it's a worldwide terrorist network. It's al Qaeda, it's the Taliban, it's Iraq, it's lot of people.
And you know, I think that there's probably more justification for this war than there was for the Civil War, when you get right down to it. The South didn't start the Civil War by killing 5,000 Americans -- by killing 5,000 Northerners. That is the way this war started.
CHEN: All right. More from the audience here. Chris?
CHRIS: This is Stan. And Stan, you had a comment. Go ahead.
STAN: Well, I am veteran and I sure didn't win any wars myself. I was lucky enough to come back in one piece. But a lot of American soldiers, and sailors and Marines did not come back. And the reason we are enjoying all of these pleasures that we have in this country is because they gave their lives for it.
CHEN: I guess the question is, is this the sort of conflict, is this the -- that protects our freedom, or is it a more simple matter, more about safety and -- and immediate sense of security, whether you can knock out targets that will keep terrorists from coming back tomorrow.
STAN: I have got confidence in the people who are running the country, the people running the military now, that their intent is to hit those targets that are going to do the most damage to us. And during the war, unfortunately, some of these missiles and some of the bombs get away and innocent people are killed. But there is certainly no more innocent people than the 5,000 that gave up their lives -- well, they didn't give up their lives -- but they lost their lives in New York.
CHEN: Stan, thanks very much. And thank you for your service to the country. We are going to take another break here and return with more conversation with Don Feder and Bradford Lyttle and you as well. Stand by TALKBACK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD GERE: And I think in this situation right now when -- when we have the possibility of taking this energy -- this horrendous energy that we are all feeling and the possibility of turning into more violence and revenge -- we can stop that. We can take that energy and turn it into something else. We can turn it into compassion, into love, into understanding. That is apparently unpopular right now. But that is all right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHEN: People have been talking throughout that break here at the TALKBACK LIVE set. A lot of questions and a lot of comments I hear. Wayne is on our telephone line. Wayne, you're in North Carolina?
WAYNE: Yes, ma'am.
CHEN: All right. And what is your comment today?
WAYNE: I think that pacifism is the reason that the people attacked us on September 11. We didn't know they were coming into our country. We let them come in and surround us, and that is why we paid for it. We've got to do something. And I think attacking them is the way to go.
CHEN: Mr. Feder, this raises sort of an interesting point for me. And that is, I guess what it is you are trying to defend your freedoms.
One of the freedoms that you have in this country is to live with opportunity, with the ability to do what you want to do. And I guess that does make it possible for bad guys to get in your country and work their bad deeds and spend a year or two developing their bad plan and then carry it out. I mean, this is part of what happens in a free society, I guess. A risk.
I'm not sure you would actually have this happen in Afghanistan. Well, for one thing, they don't have any tall buildings to fly into.
LYTTLE: Is this a question? CHEN: Well, I don't know if it's a question or comment, but it does raise this -- this issue of the freedoms that we have and maybe sometimes you have too much freedom?
LYTTLE: No, no. I think that you -- I'm interesting in protecting freedom, but I think the best way to do it is develop economic and social programs that eliminate poverty, that eliminate all kinds of racial, sexual and economic injustice and learn how to use nonviolent resistance on a mass organized scale against all kinds of aggression and injustice.
And I think enough is known about non-violence and all of its facets today so that effective programs can be developed. I just think -- think the military approach is going to absolutely catastrophic, not only for this country but the human species. There are alternatives.
CHEN: I hear you on that. I want to get some comments here. Mark is from Georgia. He's here in our audience.
MARK: Yes. I would just like to ask him, what if that was his neighborhood, or if it was his wife he lost in those buildings. What would he -- what would he do? What would he suggest we do?
CHEN: Mr. Lyttle?
LYTTLE: Well, I don't think that my position would change, basically. Of course I would be personally terribly disturbed, but I -- I'm interested in creating a world in which events like September 11th simply will not happen, in which terrorism is unthinkable.
And I think that by constantly using military violence against other peoples and cultures is going to increase the likelihood that that will happen to me and my family. I don't think I have very much chance, living in Chicago -- if we continue the way we are -- of surviving, or even my friends.
I think we are going to face a nuclear holocaust probably within a few decades, maybe sooner. And there's not going to be anything left to speak of after that.
CHEN: Mr. Feder -- does it take, Mr. Feder, feeling like they are personally involved to get it, from your point of view?
FEDER: You know, if I can -- if I can just address something Mr. Lyttle said a moment ago. I get tired of the root causers, the people who want to explain away rape and murder with poverty in this country, and then the people who extend this rationale abroad and say, "well, if there wasn't poverty and injustice in the world, 5,000 Americans would not have died on September 11."
You know, Osama Bin Laden is not a poor man. In fact, he is quite the opposite. He's a very rich man. He didn't grow up in poverty. He probably was never hungry a single day in his life. So if poverty and injustice cause these things, then how do you explain Osama Bin Laden? Hitler, Stalin came from middle-class families. It is not -- it's not poverty that creates vicious killers. It's evil in the world.
CHEN: Gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. We are going to have to say good-bye here to Bradford Lyttle. We appreciate you joining us this afternoon and expressing your views.
I want -- we want to bring on now Aaron McGruder. And some of you may be familiar with Aaron's name or maybe with his byline -- certainly with his illustrations. They are "the Boondocks." Those are his kids, Huey and Riley and the others as well. A comic strip that got him in a bit of trouble here.
We want to look at this. And some of the folks in our audience are wondering about this. This is one of the ones that got Aaron McGruder.
Huey calls the FBI terrorism tip line. "I am very serious. I know of several Americans who have helped train and finance Osama Bin Laden," he's telling the FBI. So what happens? "How did you come by this information, Mr. Hughes?" "Well, with a little investigating it wasn't that hard, actually." "Oh yeah? OK, give me some names." "Well, let's see. First one is Reagan. That's R-E-A..." and he gets hung up on.
Aaron McGruder, you got yourself into a bit of trouble over some of your cartoons. I'm wondering why you didn't just leave Huey and Riley out of it.
AARON MCGRUDER, "BOONDOCKS" CARTOONIST: That would have been a little too easy. You know, this is a -- an important time. This is a critical moment in American history.
CHEN: Well, some people say it is such an important time that you really can't go down this road, that it's not appropriate, that it's not right, that, you know, it's not a time for comedy or jokes.
MCGRUDER: Yeah, I mean, people also think that it's not a time to wonder who won the presidential election. Like everything that was going on in the world up until September 11 now has to be ignored, including our right and our responsibility to hold the government responsible. And I just don't feel that way.
CHEN: What's happened with some of your strips?
MCGRUDER: I'm sorry?
CHEN: What happened with some of your strips?
MCGRUDER: I was removed temporarily removed from the "New York Daily News," but, you know, that is something that has happened to me in a variety of papers for a variety of different reasons. So I am not too bent out of shape over that. That's -- that's their choice. They can run what they want to run and not run it. And you know, it's up to them.
CHEN: You are not bothered by that? You don't wonder about your free speech to appear where you would normally appear? MCGRUDER: It -- you know, it -- it ultimately is decision made by a private company to run or not run a strip.
CHEN: It's business.
MCGRUDER: So that is not exactly a Bill of Rights issue.
CHEN: It's business.
MCGRUDER: Essentially.
CHEN: Are your strips saying that all war is bad? Are you a pacifist by this term?
MCGRUDER: I wouldn't call myself a pacifist. I wouldn't -- I mean, I think everyone agrees that all war is bad. I think the issue is, can war solve anything? And particularly, can it solve this issue?
Specifically, can we drop enough bombs to make sure that no group of 10 or 20 individuals is going to attack the United States? And I don't think that is going to work.
CHEN: Huey and Riley ill not be singing "Kumbaya," as near as I can tell. OK.
MCGRUDER: No.
CHEN: Don Feder, we kept you around to talk a little bit with Aaron McGruder about his strips and about where he goes with them. Is there something wrong with where Aaron McGruder is going with his strips?
FEDER: Well, I'm not really sure. I don't follow his comic strip. But based on the comic strip that you -- that you offered us, is that wrong? Yeah, it is. It's Monday morning quarter backing.
Did we -- did we make a mistake in supporting the mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980s? Quite possibly we did, but that's hindsight. In World War II we were allied with Stalin, and Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler. We were allied with him out of necessity.
Was it necessary to support the mujaheddin of Afghanistan in the 1980s? Possibly, possibly not. But we have to deal with the reality of terrorism in the world today, not mistakes we might have made 20 years ago.
CHEN: Though...
MCGRUDER: Didn't the -- didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban government $43 million in May of this year?
CHEN: But it was specifically for opium -- combating opium production.
MCGRUDER: I mean, but come on. There are still people that are harboring terrorists. We've known they were harboring terrorists.
FEDER: And we have been feeding people in Afghanistan, too. And by the -- by the way...
MCGRUDER: We drop bombs and we drop food.
FEDER: Millions of people...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGRUDER: ...in Afghanistan.
FEDER: Millions of people were starving in Afghanistan before the war started. Afghanistan has had the largest refugee population in the world for years now. If we eliminate the Taliban, that will do more to feed people in Afghanistan than all of the aid packets we've been dropping.
MCGRUDER: I guess there is bigger issue here, which is, do we believe in an eye for an eye. I mean, there are gang members in Los Angeles that, you know, they kill because somebody killed someone they cared about and they feel that their life is threatened. And we say that that is wrong.
So I think it is a bit hypocritical to be going over there, engaging in this war for whatever reason. And as for this issue of moral relativism, or trying to explain murder and rape, you know, it was -- it was the mayor of New York city who had lot of explanations as to why a black man with a wallet was shot at 41 times by the NYPD. So I find all of this interesting and worthy to think about.
CHEN: We are drifting a little -- drifting a little bit. Just want to get a couple more comments in from e-mail. John in Lawton, Oklahoma: "Boondocks" is inappropriate for the funny page. It should be published on the editorial page." I don't think Aaron has a problem with that. And, "If you don't like his cartoon, skip over it. The comic section in the newspaper -- just don't silence him just because you don't agree with what he has to say." That's from Jennifer in Dayton, Ohio.
Wish we had more time to talk, but unfortunately we are fresh out of time. Our thanks, though, to Aaron McGruder and Don Feder as well as all of you in our studio audience -- you've done a great job for us today -- and all of you at home.
We will be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT.
Now we turn to Judy Woodruff with a look at what is ahead in the next hour of news here on CNN.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT WWW.FDCH.COM
|
|
|
|
|
