Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
How Much Money Should the Families of Terror Victims Receive?; Should September 11 Be a National Holiday?
Aired December 11, 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)
CARIE LEMACK, LOST MOTHER ON AA FLIGHT 11: Our family, like so many others that we've spoken to, that have joined families of September 11, have fallen through the cracks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEON HARRIS, HOST: How much money should the families of terror victims get? As the government gets ready to pay compensation for September 11, how do you put a price tag on the loss of a loved one? And can it be done fairly?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Let us walk with each other.
TED OLSON, SOLICITOR GENERAL: We will prevail. We will comfort and care for those that have suffered. We will not forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Three months after the attacks, how should the nation honor the memory of the terror victims? Should September 11 be a national holiday?
And, judging the young American caught fighting for the Taliban. Should he be punished for following his convictions?
(APPLAUSE)
Hello, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Leon Harris.
You know, it has been three months since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. And in that time, a great deal of money has been raised for the victims and their families. And soon, the government is going to be handing out money as well. The compensation fund that's required by law to open just 10 days from now.
Now, that raises the question, as we look at this live picture there of the Ground Zero at the World Trade Center: How should the fund, and the special master in charge of it, decide who gets what? Is one victim worth more than another? And if so, why?
Joining us now is Carie Lemack. Her mother was onboard American Airlines flight 11, and she is scheduled to be meeting with the special master of that compensation fund later on today.
Also with us, Leo Terrell. He is an attorney and talk show host at KABC Radio. And Joe Tacopina. He is a criminal defense attorney representing five families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks.
Welcome to all of you. We're glad that you're going to take some time with us and share with us your stories and your insight, because it's a story and a question, and a problem that really has lot of people vexed right about now.
Carie, why don't you tell us about your mom, and her story.
LEMACK: Well, my mom was killed on American Flight 11 on September 11. Since that happened, my sister and I have taken over all responsibilities that a spouse would normally take over.
Another thing that we have done is started a group called Families of September 11th, whose main mission is to promote the interests of the victims' families, as well as to advocate public policy to prevent and respond to future terrorist attacks.
We believe very much that victims' families need to be treated fairly. That goes in all instances, whether there is a memorial built on the site where the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit, or if it's the aid organizations making sure that they actually donate the money that they told the American public, who was so generous to give it to these victims' families, that they would give.
HARRIS: First of all, tell us about your experience of trying to get some of the money. As I understand it, you and some of your partners in this effort have had to go through quite a few things, had to jump through quite a few hoops to get at least some minimal things accomplished.
LEMACK: Going through a few hoops is a nice way to put it. Right now we are advocating a common application, and a database, where people can understand what charities are out there, what money they are giving, and to who. Because there are many different aid organizations, but they each have their own criteria as to who they want to aid.
People here in New York are about to announce in a couple of days, I've been told, by the attorney general, of a common application and a database. Although this database will be for the charity's use, and not for the victims' families use. We won't be able to go in and look at the different charities. They would actually look at us. We hope it's the other way around.
HARRIS: OK, let's ask the attorneys that are with us. Leo, why don't you weigh in for us right now? What is your theory on exactly what the special master may be thinking of right now when he comes up with his formula on who should get what here?
LEO TERRELL, ATTORNEY: Well, Leon, I'm totally opposed to giving across-the-board, same amount of money to everyone. Because, just like the tax rebate, $600 does not help a Tom Cruise or a Jack Nicholson. Leon, it should be based on need, and that's what I'm concerned with.
People who really need $5, $10 -- people who are wage earners, 20-, $25,000. I hope the special master looks at the people who are struggling, and give them more.
HARRIS: How do you determine need, then? Can you be more specific about that?
TERRELL: You base need on the number of children in your family, whether or not the other surviving members in the family have the ability to earn money. I'm not as sympathetic, with all due respect, to people who are financially well off. I hope the special master looks at the people who were struggling at the time of the incident.
You cannot place a dollar value on a loss of a life. I'm not going to try to debate that. But I am going to sit here and tell you, Leon, that I look at the people who were making 25-, 30,000, $40,000 as people who the special master should focus on -- the people who are struggling. Those are the people I believe the money should go in a greater proportion, than those who are financially well-off.
HARRIS: Joe, do you agree with that?
JOSEPH TACOPINA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Not really.
HARRIS: Of course not.
TACOPINA: OK, Leon, of course not. The reason I don't agree with this, not because you said it, Leo -- believe it or not, I'm not all that moved by your statements. The reason I'm saying it is because that is now based on what the law allows for. That's not based on fairness...
TERRELL: It's not a court, and you know this.
TACOPINA: No, it's not a court, but it's...
TERRELL: Don't go there.
TACOPINA: It's in lieu of a court, Leo. And what these people get...
TERRELL: It's an alternative.
TACOPINA: See, don't start interrupting.
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: What happens, Leon, is when these people sign on for this program, they waive their right to sue. And this should not be a get-rich- quick fund.
TERRELL: Good!
TACOPINA: Exactly, good. The way the formula is going to be based on, is expected earnings in life, coupled with recovery for pain and suffering. So there has to be some sort of balance, here. But it can't be if you're poor, you get more. If you're rich, you don't get as much.
TERRELL: So if you're a multimillionaire, you need as much.
TACOPINA: This is not made to get poor people rich. This is made to compensate, in whatever way we can, to the people who lost someone on September 11. As horrific as it is...
LEMACK: Can I speak?
HARRIS: I'm sorry. OK, Carie, please, jump in.
LEMACK: I'd just like everyone to understand, and I think there's some confusion about the victim compensation fund. The reason the government created the victim compensation fund is because they limited the liability of anyone who would be held responsibility for what happened on September 11th.
We effectively cannot sue. Any plane crash that has happened in the past, the victims' families are able to sue. And whether or not you believe in suing is your own personal decision, but everyone needs to understand that the government took away that right by limiting the liability of those who could be held responsible.
In order to compensate the victims -- because we won't get to stand in front of a judge and say who is held responsible -- they created this fund. It's not a get-rich-quick. It is a compensation for what they took away from us.
TERRELL: And it's a get-rid-of-lawyers, out of the business of trying to get money. They don't need you, sir. They don't need me. The special master can sit there. So let's keep lawyers out of this.
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: Well, I need to represent them because they don't know what their rights are. I'll tell you what, Leo.
TERRELL: Oh, sure.
TACOPINA: I'm representing them for free. I'm not making $1.50 off of any of these people, nor would I. I'm representing them to make sure their rights are guarded.
TERRELL: Sure, OK.
TACOPINA: So they don't go willy-nilly signing documents. Sure.
LEMACK: The American Trial Lawyer's Associate has said that they will represent victims' families for free if they are going for the victim compensation fund.
TACOPINA: That's right.
HARRIS: We're just getting a taste of how heated this debate is going to be, and it's going to go on for some time now.
We actually have another lawyer with us in the audience, who has nothing to do with any of these cases. And he's actually got an opinion of his own. We're going to weigh in with that in just a moment after a break, so make sure you stay with us. Much more coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: We are back here at TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out," and we're picking up our discussion here of what may be the most thankless, or perhaps the most controversial job in the country. Very soon, in about 10 days or so, the special master in Washington is going to be dishing out the money in the victims' compensation fund. And the question of the day is, how do you figure out who gets what?
Now, we've got lots of people in the audience here with plenty of opinions. Eldridge (ph) is an attorney who happens to be with us, and you were speaking out just before the break.
ELDRIDGE: That's correct. I think what Leo is suggesting is going to end up in more red tape and more litigation. From my understanding, the families need the moneys now. And what he suggests is going to end up in trying to decide who gets what, and it's hard to decide. Courts today, juries today have a hard time deciding what life is worth what amount of money.
TERRELL: I'm saying handled by the special master. What are you talking about? I like the special master idea. I don't believe that it needs to go to court. It's based on need -- people who need money, versus those who don't need money.
HARRIS: Yes, but you know, Leon, when you talk about need, it's not that rich people don't need money, or people working and make good money don't need money. For instance, say if somebody who was working at Cantor Fitzgerald, making tons of money as a bond trader, they leave lots of bills behind. They have a big need, even though you wouldn't necessarily immediately put them in the same category as someone who was only making, say, 25- or $30,000 a year.
TERRELL: That's why you do it on a case by case basis, Leon. I'm simply saying that there are people who are well-off, who probably better planned for the future in case of situations of disaster, versus those who don't have a safety net. That's all I'm saying, case by case.
TACOPINA: Leo, what they're trying to do, though, what part of Feinberg's job is going to be here, is to determine if there is any offsetting of the compensation fund. In other words, there are people that have tremendous life insurance policies. And the life insurance policies will -- could be in the 4-, 5-, 6-, $7 million range. And then the government has to decide, well, do we offset...
TERRELL: Yeah!
LEMACK: Actually, the government has decided.
TACOPINA: There's no problem with that being yes, but if they do, you know, then you determine, after that is put aside, does someone who makes $250,000 a year need it less than somebody who makes $30,000 a year? I don't think the answer is yes.
TERRELL: Yes!
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Why don't we let someone who's in the situation answer that kind of question. Carie, what do you think? What is your opinion?
LEMACK: To go back to your earlier position, the definition of collateral sources that was defined when the act was put into law, which was on September 22, merely 11 days after this happened, was that all life insurance would be deducted from any award given out by the special master. So you have to keep that in mind.
TERRELL: That's good, very good.
HARRIS: Let's go to the phones right now. Ken from Ohio is on the line. Ken, are you there? Hello, Ken? I think we lost Ken. We've got someone else here in the audience.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Fenia (ph). She's also an attorney, Leon.
HARRIS: Your opinion?
FENIA: In my opinion, because I believe that no life should be valued above another, you have to look at this: each one of those that died relating to the September 11 incident, is basically a hero or a heroine, in the eyes of America and around the world. And I guess the payments from the fund should be more seen as a monetary medal of honor to the families, who basically sacrificed their loved ones. Therefore, I believe it should be equally partitioned.
HARRIS: Let me carry that idea just one step further. There's also the idea being kicked out here that perhaps some of the uniformed police officers and fire department workers who also died there should also be included as -- and they should be getting a special compensation along those same lines, as some kind of a medal. Is that what you're thinking?
FENIA: I certainly believe that. And when I said the heroes and heroines, that included not only the people that were working in that building, visiting, but also the firefighters, the medical assistants, the police officers -- all of the people that came in there to do the right things. They're all heroes and they all should be awarded equally. HARRIS: All right, Joe, should there be any differentiation amongst them?
TACOPINA: Well, there's a resolve and get to -- I think what she says is very -- really poignant and actually, probably the best way to handle this thing. Across the board, we need a compensation that takes into consideration what September 11 was all about. And the way to do that is, if you are in the military and you have to lose a loved one to military battle, and someone you care about dies in the military, or a family member, the government compensates that particular family, or people left behind, by making that family tax- exempt for life.
We could do that here, because these people, in effect, were front-line warriors in a fight on terrorism. We can do that here. But you can't say that the people who have earned $250,000 and a lifestyle and a family that's accustomed to that should all of a sudden have to move to a different area, and getting a lot...
TERRELL: You must be representing a lot of rich people. Are you representing any poor people?
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: What, Leo?
TERRELL: Poor people. You know, 20,000, 30,000...
TACOPINA: Three firefighters, who earn about $38,000 a year. I know that's not a smidgen of what you earn, but there are people who earn $38,000 a year.
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: And everything's racial to you, and...
TERRELL: I'm proud to be a civil rights attorney.
HARRIS: All right, guys. We don't want to start the civil war over this. Let's just settle down for just a...
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Let's get some more comments here. Kelly from Florida, you had a pretty interesting comment a moment ago.
KELLY: I really think that a big problem is there is not a defined purpose of this money yet. And until we figure out, is the purpose something such as a medal of honor, or just a lump sum for sympathy, you know, we're sorry your loved one has died. Or is the purpose to specifically pay certain bills, in which case there might be differences based on the money that people earn, such as you know, they might have more educational loans, or other things that they are paying back with their paychecks.
(CROSSTALK) LEMACK: Actually, the purpose is because they took away our right to sue or find anybody responsible, by eliminating the liability of anyone who could be responsible. So that is the purpose.
HARRIS: Well, Carie, we're going to let you have the last word, because as I understand, you're going to be going to meet with the special master once you leave the show, is that correct?
LEMACK: That is correct. I'm a little late already, but that's OK. This is important.
HARRIS: I'm sorry. Well, good.
LEMACK: Don't be sorry.
HARRIS: Who don't you tell what you're going to say when you meet him?
LEMACK: We -- I represent Families of September 11, which is a group of all the surviving victims and victims' families. We invite everyone to join us. They can do that by going to our Web site, familiesofseptember11.org, or calling our 800 number, which is 1-800- 568-8399. And we plan to promote the interests of all the victims' families, to generate that equality among everyone, be it civilian or people who were killed in the line of duty, rescue workers' families.
We are inclusive. We are everyone. And we want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. And that's the message to Ken Feinberg.
HARRIS: There you go. And you can be sure that we'll be watching, and we'll be covering the story as it unfolds. We wish you well.
LEMACK: I hope you are. Thank you very much.
HARRIS: Carie Lemack, thank you very much. Leo Terrell and Joe Tacopina, thanks. We appreciate you guys coming in and sharing with us, and wish you both good luck down the road. Again, we'll be watching to see how this all plays out.
Coming up next, an American-turned-Taliban-fighter -- traitor, misguided kid or something else? We'll meet one columnist who's calling Walker's decision courageous. We'll hear why after the break. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
HARRIS: Twenty-year-old John Walker fought with the Taliban, and now he's just sitting, cooling his heels in U.S. custody in southern Afghanistan. Now, was his choice to side with the Taliban an actual act of treason, was it a youthful indiscretion, as some believe, or should it be considered as act of courage? That's right, courage. we're going to ask our guests about that. Glenn Sacks is a columnist for the Los Angeles "Daily Journal." Curtis Sliwa is founder of the Guardian Angels, and he's a radio talk show host at WABC in New York. And Peter Noel, he is a columnist and investigative reporter.
We sure do thank all of you for coming in today. Glenn, I have to start with you, because I just heard the strangest thing. I heard someone tell me moments ago that you have admitted that you did something similar to what John Walker did in your youthful past. What's the story there?
GLENN SACKS, COLUMNIST: Well, when I was young, when I was 19, I left the United States looking for adventure, looking for a cause to believe in, and I tried to join a revolutionary movement in Africa. Fortunately for me, they wouldn't take me. But I look back now, I realize it was a brutal left-wing regime. But at the time, I was idealistic.
I thought this was a noble thing to do. I thought it was important to commit myself to what it was that I believed in. And there were a lot of young men like me, you know, that you could find in the hostels and train stations of Europe, who felt this way.
Some of them went to Nicaragua, some of them went to El Salvador. Some of them went to various places. So I can understand some of what motivated John Walker to do what he did.
HARRIS: All right, now that you think you understand it, what do you think he is? Is he a traitor? Is he some sort of a hero? What do you think?
SACKS: No, I don't think he's a hero. I give him credit for having the courage to put his life on the line for his religious beliefs. I think he's extremely foolish. I agree with President Bush, that he's a misguided young man who was sort of misled into thinking that he was going to join a great and noble cause.
I don't see that he's a traitor. There's no evidence that he ever fired on Americans or American soldiers. When he went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, nobody could have imagined that the Americans would have been fighting a ground war in Afghanistan.
He want to Afghanistan in March or April. There's nobody in the United States who could have possibly imagined that we'd be fighting a war in Afghanistan. He went to fight the Northern Alliance. Taliban are one group of thugs. The Northern Alliance, in their day in power, they were a group of thugs, too. So I don't see where he's a traitor.
HARRIS: All right, but, Curtis, I'm going to guess that you're not going to see it the same way.
CURTIS SLIWA, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Not at all. And in fact, Johnny "Taliban" Walker there -- remember, as he prefers to be referred to, Abdul Hamid. Let's refer to him by his Muslim preferred name. He believed in martyrdom. That was part of his fundamentalist religious world of the world of Islam.
And if he believed so fervently in martyrdom, well, let's put him on that Paradise Express and let him meet his maker, Allah, at his side, and have his marriage to 72 vestal virgins, so he'll learn whether it exists or not. And I'll do it at taxpayers' experience.
Give him a trial. Get Alan Dershowitz to defend him. Give him all the defense that money can buy, and then put him up against the wall, shoot him as a traitor, and let's see if he can make it on the paradise express.
HARRIS: Let me play devil's advocate here...
(CROSSTALK)
SACKS: ... an armchair patriot who never put himself on the line for his beliefs, and now you're just calling for John Walker to be put up against the wall and shot.
PETER NOEL, COLUMNIST: Well...
SACKS: Armchair patriot.
SLIWA: I don't think you should jump to that conclusion. I have been shot five times out in the streets, the mean, tough streets of New York city defending people. So although I haven't served in the military I think I've earned a few stripes in the war against domestic terrorism.
HARRIS: Let's -- let's let Peter weigh in. He's -- he's earned his moment now. Go ahead, Peter.
NOEL: Right. I feel that look, at some point it's going come out that John Walker might have been working for some agency connected to the U.S. government.
SLIWA: Like what?
NOEL: I believe it. Who knows? The CIA and all the different agencies they don't ever speak to each other. At some point, he is going to come out as someone who may have been a patriot. You know, he went there, yes, to fight. He may have been misguided, yes. He's everything that they say about him.
But look at this: he -- how you can accept John Walker into the Taliban? People must have questioned him. He must have been suspicious to some other members of the Taliban. This is an American. This is the Great Satan. He must have represented a Great Satan before he came...
SACKS: Well, but he was American who was -- he was an American who was fluent in Arabic, which is the language that they spoke.
NOEL: But he was still an American. The point is, yes, the CIA -- CIA agents and different people infiltrate different groups. They must have felt he must have infiltrating the Taliban. SLIWA: Can you imagine? This is like pearl diving. You get one of the evil ones, the Americans to convert to your point of view and you parade him around campfire talk to campfire talk about how your life was decadent and debaucherous (sic) before, how you've given up all Western cultural values and discovered...
NOEL: (OFF-MIKE) secret -- top secret group that the U.S. trained.
SLIWA: You are a looney kazooney.
NOEL: He might be doing this for his country. He might be doing the same thing and say, "look, I represent the government of the United States. I'm part of some secret war that the government sent me in there." Or what else. So they captured him, so what.
But it could be that he is involved in some top-level secret thing to topple the Taliban. He's providing information right now that can help the government.
HARRIS: Peter, I've got to tell you, if you listen real close, you're probably going to hear a lot of pins dropping at the CIA right about now.
NOEL: Hey, I have a different point of view, you know?
HARRIS: That's a heck of a stretch, man. That's a heck of a stretch.
NOEL: Listen, anything is possible. We didn't -- we didn't believe that -- that people -- some terrorists could come down and take care of the World Trade Center. We didn't believe they could fly two planes into the World Trade Center. Why is that a stretch?
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: I'll grant you that. But look, what -- we've got to take a break right now.
SLIWA: Saying that the Mossad ended up attacking the World Trade Center on one of those Al Jazeera routines.
HARRIS: Yes, we've heard that one, too. We've heard that one amongst many. But don't worry. We've got much more to talk about coming up. We've got a caller waiting on the line as well. Don't go away, caller from Kentucky. We'll get to you in just a minute. Back with more in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: We are back and we are continuing our discussion about what should happen to John Walker. No shortage of opinions about what this young man's fate should be. We have got a couple of e-mails here I want to get through first. "I think he should be sent to Norfolk, Virginia. I have some Navy buddies who would love to have a chat with him." That's from Brett in Norfolk. I don't think he's talking about having any holiday cookies and tea.
"Mr. Walker is not a traitor. He simply chose his country." How about that? "He should neither be allowed to return to the U.S.A. nor be considered a citizen." That's from Brian in Atlanta, Georgia.
Let's go to the phones now. It's -- we've got a caller from Kentucky. Is it Michael from Kentucky?
MICHAEL: Yes.
HARRIS: Are you there? Thanks for -- from being patient, Michael. What -- what's your view here?
MICHAEL: Well, I'd just like to say that I think he should honestly be branded as a traitor, because of the mere fact that if had those been American troops rather than Northern or Eastern Alliance troops there that he was engaged with, that he would have engaged on us rather than just -- it's becoming one of them. He'd be the same as they are.
SACKS: He never went there to fight the United States. He went there to fight the Northern Alliance.
HARRIS: You know what? I hate to be a...
SACKS: But he went there to fight for -- for the Taliban at a time when the United States was giving aid to the Taliban.
HARRIS: Stay there, Michael. Is it...
(CROSSTALK)
SACKS: He never could have imagined that the Americans would enter that war.
HARRIS: Yeah, but he -- Michael, you also said one key word. You said "if." And if it can't be proven that he actually did that sort of thing, does that change your view about what he should -- what should happen to him?
MICHAEL: He stood up for a government that treated people that way. And I just don't think that -- I think was -- he betrayed the United States. You know?
(CROSSTALK)
SLIWA: ...benefit of the doubt, Leon. And September 11 came and he heard through the grapevine -- because we do know the Taliban were exalting Osama Bin Laden's ability to attack the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon.
At that point, being an American, if he supposedly was there only to fight the Northern Alliance, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the non- Pashtuns, then he should have put his Kalashnikov down, gone back to Pakistan, shown his American Express card -- which is an American passport -- and gone back to the Bay Area in San Francisco. But he stayed with that lot of thugs and murderers and marauders. He declared war on America. He should be tried. He's a traitor. He's worse than Osama Bin Laden.
HARRIS: All right. Jump in, jump in.
(CROSSTALK)
NOEL: ...clearly on that. You know, if I was his lawyer -- if I were his lawyer, I would say, "Listen. Did you kill any Americans?" No. I mean, and I guess that's what most Americans -- if they brought him back to be tried in the United States in a federal court, most Americans would want to know did you kill any Americans. He didn't kill any Americans.
He -- he was fighting the Northern Alliance.
SLIWA: Hold on, Peter. We have the CIA out there...
HARRIS: Let's -- let's go back to the phones. We've got another caller from Oregon on the line right now. Sorry, we lost the call. All right. Listen. We've got a person here in the audience that had a very interesting point about what would happen if you say this was a person here in the States making the same choice about their life?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I was simply saying as a criminal lawyer here and an 18-year reservist in the military, if this was a case tried in the States, here, and you had individual in the courts who -- or a child who had joined a gang, there would be no discussion about whether or not they had committed a crime, and they wouldn't be talking about getting off because of their age. They would be punished according to the law and that would be the end of it. I think...
SACKS: But we're not talking about a crime. We're talking about serving an army.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think one of the mistakes that the gentleman in the middle was making is this: he talks about that he hadn't actually fired upon northern troops. But one of the things he doesn't realize is the reason why we have President Bush flying from country to country getting people to join in on this fight is that everything about terrorism begins as a philosophy, not as an act or an overt act of carrying a gun.
And you cannot stop a philosophy by waiting for someone to pick up a gun. You have to -- it's when -- when Walker got on the plane, bought that ticket and joined the Taliban, he showed you what his philosophy, where he was mentally and what he was trying to accomplish.
HARRIS: All right. Let's let Glenn respond to that. Glenn?
SACKS: He was studying in Pakistan as a devout Muslim. No doubt he was told a bunch of lies that the Taliban were this noble group of holy soldiers who were going to form the world's first Islamic, morally pure state according to the Koran, and he no doubt bought into it.
There were a lot of Afghanis six years ago, they welcomed the Taliban when the Taliban came to power. The Taliban, of course, wore out their welcome. But they were originally welcomed in Afghanistan.
NOEL: Glenn, Glenn...
SACKS: If the Afghanis can be fooled, if Pakistanis can be fooled, why is it that this foolish young kid can't be fooled?
NOEL: Glenn --- not just Pakistan, Glenn. There are people here -- there are people in the militia here in these United States who believe in what John Walker did. We forgot Timothy McVeigh already. Timothy McVeigh killed over 168 people, Americans. And is John Walker any different? Are we going to try him any differently?
SLIWA: Peter, you're absolutely right. Give...
SACKS: There is no evidence that John Walker has done anything except fight in a war.
SLIWA: And we should give John Walker the same treatment we gave Timothy McVeigh. Execute him. I have no problem with that.
NOEL: Well, if he killed Americans, yes.
HARRIS: OK. We'll continue...
SACKS: There is no evidence that he ever took part in any actions against civilians...
SLIWA: But wait. We do know. Wait a minute.
SACKS: ...any act of terrorism.
SLIWA: Excuse me. We do know that Michael Spann, the CIA operative who passed away, was shot and killed in that prison uprising there in Mazar-e Sharif...
NOEL: You have evidence that Walker killed him?
SLIWA: ...was questioning him.
NOEL: Walker didn't kill him.
SLIWA: He was sent back with the cabal, who rose up...
NOEL: Come on, Curtis.
SLIWA: ...stormed in the guards.
NOEL: Walker did not kill Spann.
SLIWA: He is complicit in the killing of that CIA agent.
SACKS: Well, actually -- but he actually... HARRIS: All right. We're going to have to -- I'm sorry, guys. We are -- we are up against it. We are going to leave it there. As you can see, pretty all of the emotion is tied up in this. Can we get one last, quick comment here from -- from Jenny?
JENNY: I think any comments that were made about Johnny Walker acting out of youthful indiscretion are wrong, because he is a 20- year-old. Of course, we have 18-year-olds in the Army who are fighting for the United States. And I think youthful indiscretion is something like shoplifting lipstick or something, but not...
SACKS: Well, they made -- they made a better decision than Johnny Walker did, those who fought for the United States. There's no question about that, that this man made -- this young man made some astoundingly foolish decisions.
But it doesn't mean he's a traitor. And you've at least got to give him some credit for -- for having the courage to leave the good life up in Marin County and travel halfway around the world, live under primitive conditions to fight for this thing that he believed in. No matter how foolish it is.
HARRIS: Glenn, we are going to have to leave it there. And I'm going to give you credit for having the courage to come out and say all of that. Thank you very much.
SACKS: Ah, well, thank you.
HARRIS: Glenn Sacks, we appreciate you taking the time to join us today. Curtis Sliwa and Peter Noel, you stay right there. We're going to come back and talk to you guys some more just a bit after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
HARRIS: Solemn memorials mark the day three months after the terror attacks on America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will remember their lives and the reason for their deaths until freedom triumphs over oppression, over fear, and long beyond.
HARRIS: But how should America remember the victims in years to come? Should September 11 be a national holiday?
Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out."
(END VIDEO TAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TANYA GOMEZ, STUDENT: Hi. I'm Tanya Gomez from Stony Brook University. The day our country was attacked and innocent people of all ages were killed should not be a holiday. September 11 is already unforgettable. The day this country recovers and gets justice should be. The terrorists do not deserve a day of remembrance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Well, that's interesting. Makes you wonder if that's a glass half empty or a half full look at it. We're going to talk about that now.
It has been three months to the date now since the terrorist attacks of September 11. And today Americans across the nation mark the day with ceremonies and with moments of silence.
But should there be a some sort of a permanent observance, or even a national holiday? There is no shortage of opinion about that either. Let's check in now with our guests Curtis Sliwa and Peter Noel who are still with us. I want to start with you, Peter. What's -- what's your view on that? And where do you come down on that?
NOEL: Well, I believe that there is a certain hierarchical structure. Because people that -- some believe that the only people who died in the World Trade Center were police officers and firefighters. So if this day is pretty much to remember firefighters and police officers, I say forget it. We should have a national holiday for everyone who died in that World Trade Center.
HARRIS: Curtis?
SLIWA: Well, Leon, I don't believe in having a national holiday. Pearl Harbor Day is not a national holiday.
NOEL: Could be retroactive, then. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) could have it too.
SLIWA: But I do -- I do think it should be a day for retrospectives, particularly mandatory school from nine in the morning to three, or whatever the curriculum is that day should be devoted to studying that day's events and actually the aftermath: all the legal issues, all the military issues, all the geopolitical issues.
And also doing things that we've just gotten back into the habit of doing. Singing the national anthem. Doing the Pledge of Allegiance. Sort of reaffirming our patriotism.
You know, before September 11 patriotism was out of vogue. It was sort of hackneyed. It was fuddy duddy. Now all of a sudden everyone is a super patriot. And we ought to remain that way.
NOEL: No. Curtis, it should not be a day to enforce patriotism. No. It should be a day to reflect on your lost loved ones. There are people right now who want to remember their loved ones. They want to play music. They want to, you know, to have pictures of them. That's what I'm talking about...
SLIWA: But Peter, look...
NOEL: ...not to be patriotic. SLIWA: You know what? We already have national holidays. For instance, Veteran's Day. And everybody shops 'til they drop.
NOEL: Right.
SLIWA: They don't really any kind of...
NOEL: I think there's a different...
HARRIS: Well, listen. You know, since you -- since you bring that up, Curtis, we just got this e-mail here -- I mean a second ago -- here from Joe in Burlington, Vermont, saying, "similar to Veterans' Day, we should make September 11 a national holiday to remember those heroes who helped to help to aid to the survival of many New Yorkers." And that's...
NOEL: But that is different time, Leon.
HARRIS: Yeah, but...
NOEL: It's a different time. It's a different time. You see, you know, you have lot of young people now who were not around with Civil War -- not the Civil War, but World War II. I'm saying now that this is different. There are 12-year-old boys or 12-year-old girls who lost parents in the World Trade Center.
SLIWA: But Peter...
NOEL: But have a different kind of meaning. So they're going to sit back and they're going to reflect. They're not going to go shopping and -- and discredit the memory of their parents.
SLIWA: Leon.
HARRIS: That is pretty ironic, Peter, because that's what President Bush is asking them to do right now, is go out and go shopping.
NOEL: But not on that day. Not on the holiday. Not on the holiday. If we have a day of remembrance, it should be a day or remembrance, not to go and shop or fly about the country.
SLIWA: Those who survived it, those who went through it will never forget it. Why you should mandate that it is a day in which this -- the entire school day be devoted to it is for the new generations. The children, the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren so that they will never forget, so that it can be brought up to them, up close and personal.
HARRIS: Well, let me introduce an idea that struck us. We were talking this morning about what to do with the show. I mean, you've been talking about making this more relevant for younger kids and kids of this generation.
What would you say to an idea of perhaps dropping one of the holidays that kids don't necessarily pay that much attention to now anyway -- say for instance, I don't know, pick one -- Columbus Day. If you could do that and exchange it, would that make sense?
NOEL: Yeah. Then the racists in this country want to drop Martin Luther King Day. They already resisted that. I think that's dangerous.
SLIWA: Well, I tell you. You talk about a holiday. You would think the holiday Flag Day in June that nobody remembers, that nobody ever talks about would be a holiday we would focus a lot of the patriotic pride that we have within us now on that particular day.
But I say not the holiday, Leon, just a day of remembrance and maybe all across America at 8:46 -- just as we did today upon the wishes of the president -- stop, reflect, sing the national anthem if you choose. Say a prayer, a moment of silence, whatever your choice.
And then the rest of the day -- whether you're working, playing, whatever you're doing -- keeping that in your mind as to what happened on September 11 of 2001.
HARRIS: All right. We've got an idea here in the audience. Let's check into this. Gary, what is your idea?
GARY: I believe that there should be a holiday for this. I mean, look at Memorial Day, OK? What is it? Remembering things that, you know, the sadness, the hurt, the people who have -- the loss in this. We remember other holidays, Martin Luther King Day and Labor Day.
This is something that -- these people, whether they died of their choice or not, a lot of them were in the motions of trying to rescue people and some of them were just going about their ordinary day of life. But they were, in my eyes, to some degree heroes in this country.
HARRIS: All right. And how about this, then? And considering the fact, again, we're talking again -- the idea of doing something that went in as rescuers, that keeps coming back up.
What about the idea of perhaps folding it into another holiday that already exists? Say for instance having this also be added to the special remembrances that are on Memorial Day?
GARY: That is what I was thinking of. That would be acceptable to me. I would -- as long as they are recognized and not forgotten, OK? I mean, people are going to have their private moments for their -- that's going to last for years and years. But like you said, if you fold it into a major holiday, I think it would be acceptable. If you lost too many people at one time to just let it go.
SLIWA: But -- but Leon, Memorial Day has become a day in which people go to the ocean. They put on lotion at the ocean. They jump into the waves. They have barbecues. They are not out there honoring the veterans. They're not at the parades...
HARRIS: Well, then, don't you want to change that? Don't you want to change that? And bring their attention back to what the original intent was?
SLIWA: Well, Leon, where are you going to do that? You can't force people outside of the privy of school but if you mandate it in the school day, 9:00-3:00 that they focus on that, you guarantee that at least a generation is going to become well aware of the dangers not having a strong defense in America.
NOEL: No. No, Leon. What you have to tell these businesses -- hey, you don't want people to shop? Listen. Tell these business owners, close your shops in respect for the dead. In remembrance. Close your shops so that people won't go shopping.
SLIWA: But Leon, how hypocritical. How hypocritical. We are at war now with the Taliban and we are trying to seek out the al Qaeda warriors and Osama Bin Laden. We are eventually going to go to war against other areas where terror reigns. And yet...
HARRIS: Well, that remains to be seen.
SLIWA: And yet in so many of our college campuses and high schools, we don't have ROTC. They are not permitted. You can't have military recruiters come on campus. It's not permitted, a presence of the military. That's why on this particular day if you would allow for that...
NOEL: Curtis, listen. We have a military state. What...
SLIWA: ...you would open up the eyes and minds of so many young people who are not permitted to hear the patriotism of the military.
HARRIS: Well, why don't we check in with someone who would probably -- if there was a holiday -- would never get the day off, someone who's calling in from Ontario, Canada. Gary, are you on the phone with us?
GARY: Yes. Hello, there.
HARRIS: Hi, Gary. Thanks for calling in here. What's your opinion?
GARY: I think there shouldn't be a holiday because the memories of the loss they shouldn't bring back in the future, but they should have a Memorial Day, a certain time of the day for the people that died like firefighters, the people -- the police officers and the citizens themselves.
HARRIS: That is good one. Thanks, Gary. We appreciate that. Just got this e-mail in here too. Let's check this out. Bill in Denver, Colorado, says: "Holiday? The war isn't even over yet. This could happen again. Let's not forget that."
That's interesting. Well, what do you think -- listen. Something is going to be -- is going to happen here. Do you think that perhaps just limit -- just having something on a limited basis could basically make everybody happy or is this one of these deals where no one is going to be happy no matter what we decide? SLIWA: Leon, you need to focus. And obviously we saw that at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But there are plans afoot to put new structural towers up in the air, to house businesses or just to house families.
And I would say that that is sacreligious. That's a human crematorium in Lower Manhattan. It should be a park. It should be a museum. We should have some of the wreckage of World Trade Center I and II there so that future generations can come down there and see for themselves some of the devastation and go on a retrospective.
And there maybe a hall of fame. All the heroes, the victims who died. Firefighters, cops, correctional officers, court officers, EMT people. All those personnel who...
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Guys, we are going -- we are going to have to leave it there. You can see the clock from where you are, I'm sure. We are up against it. We sure do appreciate you guys coming in and sharing with us today. Curtis Sliwa and Peter Noel, thanks a lot. We sure do appreciate it. Take care.
Thanks to you folks at home for coming. Thanks to you guys for coming here in the audience. We sure do appreciate having you here. That's going to be it for TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out" today. Don't worry. We are back tomorrow 3:00 P.M. Eastern.
Now let's hop up to Judy Woodruff, who is standing by in Washington. She's got more on what's coming up next on CNN. Judy, take it away.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
