Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Osama bin Laden Be Killed or Captured?

Aired December 14, 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.
LEON HARRIS, HOST: Good afternoon and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Leon Harris. Glad to have you folks with us today.

We've got a regular free-for-all-Friday, so you name it, we have it to talk about today. So let's see, we're going to hit a lot and hit very hard with topics we have been talking about all week: Osama bin Laden, John Walker, the American who fought for the Taliban. And let's see what else we can throw in.

Let's get right -- let's get on to our guests right now. Joining us talk show host, Mike Riley. Where is Mike? And we also have with us from Los Angeles, the author, journalist and political commentator, Jane Chastain. She's currently host of "Judicial Watch Report," that's a talk show on U.S.A. Radio Network.

And in Washington, we've got Bob Dornan, former congressman from southern California. You should recognize that man there. You know, he's also served as an Air Force fighter pilot, and he's also now a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host with Talk Radio Network. And I believe we also have with us Gerry Spence, the world famous and highly-acclaimed lawyer that is on CNN more than I am these days.

Good to see you guys. Glad to have you with us today. Let's jump right into it and start off with the question of Osama bin Laden. A lot of folks are wondering whether or not the end game includes the actual capture of this man, or basically just blowing him to smithereens.

Gerry, what do you think right now would be the best -- what would serve the best ends of the U.S. and its coalition right now, the actual capture of this man, or the actual doing him in?

GERRY SPENCE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think that we always have to consider the fact that we Americans stand as a sort of pillar to the whole world as an example what freedom and liberty are about, and what the rule of law is about, and that we are -- that we're not afraid of a justice system that can prove all of the safeguards that are guaranteed, even to our worst criminals. We have to bring him home. Bring him somewhere. Make sure that he gets a trial.

You know what I really think? I really think, Leon, that this crime that's been committed by this man is a crime against humanity, and it's a crime against the whole world. Maybe there really ought to be an international tribunal to try him just as we tried war criminals during the second world war. So I think we ought not to be afraid of a trial. I thought we ought to do a trial.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: As you can probably hear, the audience here agrees with you. Jane Chastain, you weigh in now.

JANE CHASTAIN, U.S.A. RADIO NETWORK: I think he should be tried, obviously, if he's captured alive, which I think is in serious doubt right now. But I agree that he should be tried in a military tribunal. This was an act of war perpetrated against the United States of America. It was on our soil and we should be the ones to try him.

However, I should he should be taken off to some little island somewhere and tried by the military, to escape the circus that would surely ensue if he were tried in a court of law here in the United States. And I remind even Gerry Spence that our laws were set up to protect our citizens. He's not a citizen. He's a terrorist. He's at war against the United States, and therefore should be treated as a military criminal.

SPENCE: May I comment on that?

HARRIS: You can in just a second. I want to try to give everyone a chance to weigh in first. In fact, we're talking about military tribunals. Let's ask someone who was in the military. Congressman Dornan, what's your thought on that?

ROBERT K. DORNAN, TALK RADIO NETWORK: Well, remember, John F. Kennedy wrote "Profiles in Courage" and one of the people included was Senator Taft of Ohio, because he was against war crimes trials because it was based on laws written after the fact -- wars against humanity. But I'm not afraid of what Jane has suggests, military tribunals overseas. After all, over 1 million men and women in the uniform are subjected to the uniform code of military justice, court marshal tribunals.

But I like Gerry, I'm not afraid of a trial. But I think the odds, to be very precise, are one in a thousand that we'll see him in handcuffs, leg shackles like Timothy McVeigh, Mike Nichols or even Susan McDougal. HE's not going to go through that humiliation. One of his sons will kill him and send him to the arms of Satan within the next few hours, I believe.

HARRIS: Mark Riley, your turn.

MARK RILEY, WLIB RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I kind of agree with a bit of what everybody said here. A, I believe that the American people are certainly fit to judge this man. I believe that he ought to be brought back here -- I don't think it's likely, but I think he ought to be brought back here and tried, and tried in a transparent manner -- in a manner that the American people can see.

Yes, there's a danger of a circus, but I think in the interest of American justice and our interests around the world are best served by a relatively transparent process, if they do catch him and if he's able to be brought back to trial.

HARRIS: Well, then, what happened to the big fear about having him go to some courtroom and having a platform where he can show off, where he can actually preach to, whichever apostles he may still have out there? There was a lot of talk about that a few weeks ago.

SPENCE: You know, you're not giving much credit to a judge. A good judge in an American courtroom doesn't let anybody preach. The evidence that comes in has to be in accordance with the basic rules of justice, Properly done and in accordance of the rules of law. And what we're really saying is that, you know, they want to destroy our way of life.

They want to destroy our way of life. So let's let ourselves destroy our way of life by not granting and not following the very rules that we stand for. That's the problem that I see. We have to be who we are. And who we are, are proud Americans who have looked at the graves of hundreds of thousands of American men and women that have given their lives to make sure that we stand as this beacon of democracy.

And I'm not permitting -- I am not permitting these terrorists to terrorize us so much that we can no longer be the kind of a nation that we have been and would have required to be across the whole world. You know, we were fit to be tied with Burma, and China, because they had closed trials, and were eavesdropping between their counsel. We were upset with Columbia and Egypt and Nigeria and Russia and Turkey, all of these people, because they wouldn't give fair, open trials.

And now we've become so terrorized and so full of it that we can no longer do what we have been preaching across the world. That's not who America is.

HARRIS: Well, let me play devil's advocate, here. It's not -- I think what the big fear is that perhaps, in our effort to be fair in a courtroom, you know, having an attorney -- no offense, Gerry, but having an attorney who is as good as you -- and I think the Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned John Cochran's name -- having an attorney of that caliber spouting out pro-Osama positions or whatever, and allowing the defense of his case, or whatever, would actually feed the one or two minds out there that are capable of executing something that would have such devastating consequences.

So that is a risk that perhaps we should not take.

SPENCE: Well, are we really afraid that somehow we cannot sort -- we don't give credit to the judge, a jury of good American people? It's an outrage that we should discredit them in that fashion.

(CROSSTALK)

DORNAN: Can I comment on...

HARRIS: Sure, go ahead.

DORNAN: Ashcroft just put a fine point on this, did not say Johnnie Cochran. I believe he used the words a "flamboyant defense team" or lawyer, with creating a cable network that's called the Osama bin Laden trial network. The circus that was O.J. Simpson...

SPENCE: He said Johnnie Cochran.

DORNAN: I didn't know that.

HARRIS: He said both. He actually said both.

DORNAN: At the big press conference before the Senate committee, judiciary committee, he said a flamboyant lawyer. OK, he said both. But here's the difference. Goering did just exactly what we are afraid of -- Hermann Goering stood up, spouted off all these Nazi rationales. But Nazism, the 12 year reich, had been completely crushed, obliterated, unconditional surrender.

But it would be like having the trial, to make the comparison today, of Herman Goering in 1942, would we have allowed him to inflame Nazis around the world with a trial when we looked like we might not win the war? We have these al Qaeda cells all over the world, and there is a chance that he could become a hero martyr in shackles and cause more death. So I can argue both sides of this.

(CROSSTALK)

CHASTAIN: It is not a matter of fear. It's a matter of letting this guy parade himself, letting signals be given to other terrorists that may be in our shores, and further work their mischief. It's not a matter of fear that he won't get proper justice.

HARRIS: All right, hold that thought. We're going to get back to you and let you finish your thought. This is just an appetizer. We're just getting started. We have much more coming up after the break. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Boy, we are back with more TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out" here in Atlanta. The studio has really been cooking since we went away to break. We are going to start -- I have one e-mail here. We're going to talk about the end game, what's going to happen in Afghanistan. What happens to Osama bin Laden? Does he have to be caught alive? Does he have to be dragged into court, or does he have to disappear into the dead of night, or whatever?

I have got this e-mail from Cole here in Atlanta, who says: "Nod need to discuss this because bin Laden will be dead before Christmas."

There's a lot of folks here who think the same thing. Gayle, what was the comment that you made just before we came back from commercial? GAYLE: I think America needs for Osama to alive or not captured in order to continue to support the war efforts, or else people are going to lose interest.

HARRIS: You think people will lose interest in the war if Osama bin Laden killed?

GAYLE: I think that so much emphasis has been put on Osama and his al Qaeda -- not the al Qaeda run by Osama -- that once he's gone, we're not going to support it anymore and it will be like Vietnam all over again.

HARRIS: Before we get to you, Mark, Jane, I see you shake your head yes.

CHASTAIN: Well, you see, what we're forgetting is the war does not end with Osama bin Laden. We are still at war here. And the reason for the military tribunal is there is evidence that should be brought to light in any trial against bin Laden, that we really don't want to broadcast to the world at this point.

HARRIS: Mark, OK, I'm sorry to keep you waiting that long. Go for it.

RILEY: NO, it's OK. My thing is this. People are nervous about there becoming a circus around this. I believe that a good judge, as Gerry mentioned earlier, will not allow a circus to happen. As far as bin Laden sending out signals from a platform, if Osama bin Laden is captured, my guess is that whoever is in his network may be spurred to act based on that fact alone. So I'm not sure that an open trial would create a situation where more terrorist acts would happen because bin Laden got on TV and told people to do it. I'm just not buying that.

HARRIS: When we watched that videotape the other day, he talked openly about how each of these cells were working so independently, they didn't know what each other was doing. And if that's the case, perhaps he's got cells out there that are just waiting for one more instruction. And how would we know unless we give him the opportunity to have a platform like this?

SPENCE: Well, listen. Are you terrorized? Aren't we really talking about your terror? Aren't we talking about the fact that if terror is the very purpose of what these folks are doing to us, they have won? If we are so terrorized, my friends, so terrorized that we want to give up the sacred processes that make us different, you know, something is wrong here. They have won the war already. I think we have to stand tall, stand proud and be Americans, and say: This is the way we do it in America. This is the way it should be done the rest of the world.

DORNAN: Leon, what changes all the parameters of this debate and every other since September 11 is what we were all trained to listen to a couple of weeks ago, the euphemistic words "significant event." The government is expecting a significant event, particularly if Osama bin Laden is killed in the next few days. A significant event means one more terrorist attack of any type, minor, media, major.

And then that young lady's very thoughtful comments, I feel it's going back to business as usual, we're right back to the horror of September 11. This is why life in Israel has become unbearable. That's the word that's been used for five or six months now. Because every time things start to settle down and it looks like peace has a tiny little chance, another suicide bombing. More terror. And their numbers haven't, in 20 years, equaled our loss of life just in New York City in an hour and a half.

HARRIS: Let's go to Greg here in the audience. What's your though?

GREG: My comment is to Gerry. I'm wondering if we're not getting a little confused over a criminal justice system and an act of war during a time of war. Why would we bring in a Hitler before the end of the second world war and try him in our own country and give him the rights afforded to you and me?

SPENCE: Well, you know, even in the Nuremberg trials...

(APPLAUSE)

SPENCE: Even in the Nuremberg trials, the trials were open, evidence -- and it was -- the judges were from a variety of countries. Suppose you're charged with a crime.

DORNAN: The war was over! The gentlemen was right, Gerry. The war was over.

SPENCE: Doesn't make any difference. Ultimately, this...

CHASTAIN: It makes all the difference.

SPENCE: And in the first place, although this is a war, there is nobody that denies that, before you're going to have a military tribunal, you better have a declaration of war. And don't forget one thing, and that is the United States Supreme Court has held that military tribunals, even in the time of Lincoln in the Civil War, where there wasn't a necessary for marshal law in the home. were unconstitutional.

So we better start, you know, putting aside our terror. When I hear the congressman talk about worrying about a -- quote -- "significant event" that's likely to happen, we've been hearing about that now for quite some time. And that's really ourselves terrorizing ourselves -- terrorizing ourselves to the place where we give up who we are.

HARRIS: Well, let me jump in here real quick and toss in one other idea that we've been talking about the last couple days here, about the tape itself, the video that we saw yesterday that was broadcast. In the view of the panel that we have here today, is that, or was that a confession? Was that a clear confession at all? What do you think?

SPENCE: Better than a confession.

RILEY: Certainly would be something that he had knowledge of. I don't know if it was an out and out confession. I'm not sure he's that crazy. But obviously, he had very detailed knowledge of what took place on September 11. And I think he ought to be tried, based on that fact.

HARRIS: Was that good enough to take to court? Was that confession good enough or strong enough to take him to court, if we were to take him to court?

RILEY: I think there's no doubt about the fact that it would be introduced in court. But see, there's a scary undertone to all this, and that's the notion that there is a dual system of rights for people, when brought before American justice. That is the part that scares me, personally.

This country has told the world that we have one system of justice for everybody, no matter what they've accused of. So let's let that system work. There's nothing wrong with allowing it to run its course. I don't think 12 Americans, when faced with trying Osama bin Laden, will do anything else but look at the evidence and render justice based on that evidence. And I don't think...

DORNAN: Mr. Riley, except for our men and women in uniform. They're subject to courts marshal under the UCMJ. We don't have one standard for everybody.

HARRIS: All right, that's the period. We're up against the break. Let's go. Back in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: We are back with more TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." We're going to wrap up our discussion about the end game in Afghanistan, about what should happen to Osama bin Laden. Here, check out this last e-mail that we got. This pretty much puts the period on the whole discussion. This is from Raj in Metairie, Louisiana.

"The American justice system was designed for human beings. The September 11 attacks do not qualify the terrorists as human beings. Hence, the benefits of the American justice system does not apply."

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Raj is now a hero at the CNN center, it sounds like.

All right, let's change topics. Now, we talked about what should happen to Osama bin Laden, but now, how about John Walker? Today John Walker is still under guard, their sole detainee at a Marine base in southern Afghanistan. He is an American who was captured earlier this month, you may recall, while he was fighting with the Taliban. Now, his parents remember -- as they say, they told us he was a sweet, gentle teen. Now he's 20 years old and Walker could be charged with treason. And if charges are brought against him, how difficult is it going to be to convict him? All right, first let's go to Gerry Spence, the attorney in this case. He's also, we should mention, the author of a new book, "Seven Simple Steps to a Personal Freedom: An Owner's Manual for Life." There you see a picture of the book, and a picture of Gerry.

Now, what do you think about that question, Gerry? How difficult would it be to charge John Walker with treason? And in your mind, is he a traitor?

SPENCE: Well, you know, first of all, how could I make up my mind without knowing the evidence, and how could any others make up our minds without knowing the evidence? But to think about it for just a moment, intent is the basis of every crime. If a wrongful act is done and there's no intent, then there's no crime.

So we punish people for a wrongful, malicious, evil, in this case, treasonous intent. So why did this kid go over there and what was he doing? We have to find that out. You know...

HARRIS: We know one thing he was doing was shooting at troops that were trying to get rid of the Taliban.

SPENCE: No, we don't know that. And he may be -- but if he were, that doesn't mean he was shooting at our troops. It means he may have been shooting at Northern Alliance troops. So we have to figure out what was going on and what he was doing, and whether or not there was an evil intent.

HARRIS: Jane, what's your thought on that?

CHASTAIN: Well, I do agree with Gerry in that we don't know all the facts here. If John Walker Lindh knowingly took up arms against his country without being coerced, then he should be punished, and more than likely will be punished.

I just think it's regrettable that here this young man likely will face criminal charges, and his parents are going to get off scot- free, even though they paid the way of their son who, at that point, was an underage teenage to go to Yemen on some whim, and later Pakistan, to find absolute truth and convert to Islam, simply because he had read one book on Malcolm X.

They didn't ask him to -- they didn't show him any other books. They didn't take him into any scholars. They just gave him the money and shipped him over there. And here was an impressionable youth that, by their own admission, they say was a political blank slate. He was not street wise. Well, didn't they think that at some point that slate was going to get filled in?

HARRIS: Congressman Dornan, your thought on. You're a former military man. DORNAN: Well, I think Gerry would have an easy time defending him if what we hear is happening right now is true. He is apparently helping the military. He's gotten away from that silence that may, may have cost Mike Spann his life. If he had spoken to Mike Spann, said, help me, I am an American from California, Mike and the David -- we don't know his last name -- would have taken him immediately to that safe room where they were -- where David eventually held out, before Mike was killed.

They would have had a trophy there. They would have done good CIA work and interrogated him outside the fort. By his arrogant silence, combined with fear, he probably, probably cost Mike Spann his life. But now it appears he's helping. And if he is totally forthcoming, tells our government everything he can, as Gerry and lawyers say, that's pretty good mitigating circumstances.

But I agree 100 percent with Jane and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that it's too bad we can't try people for stupidity. And Lapin compares Chandra Levy and Johnny Walker Lindh. Both mothers were sort of Buddhist. One father was sort of Jewish. And this guy, Peter Lindh, calls himself a Catholic? This is no Catholic! He's sort of Catholic. They let their boy go off as a teenager into a dangerous world, accepting a religion that he knew nothing about. It's horrible.

HARRIS: We're going to have to squeeze in another break right now. Before we do that, Mark, I promise to get back to you in just a second and let you weigh in on this. But we're going to go to break and as we do, we're going to show you a picture of what this is all about. We have been watching what's happening there at the World Trade Center site. As you can see there, firefighters there and recovery officials who were working on that site have found another body. Stay with us. We'll be back with more in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." And boy, we've been getting a lot of folks speaking out about what should happen to John Walker, the American who was fighting for the Taliban.

We have our panelists with us: Gerry Spence, Bob Dornan, Jane Chastain and Mark Riley. Before the break we were about to let Mark speak. So Mark, go for it now. What was your thought before -- before we interrupted you?

RILEY: Well, I think there's really no way to know yet exactly what John Walker's role was. I find it amazing that people think that his parents are somehow responsible for this. They sent him overseas.

HARRIS: We've heard that a lot, yeah.

RILEY: I think, you know, to get an education. They didn't give him an AK-47 and tell him to go fight America. That's not why he was over there and I think we ought to be very clear about that. I don't think his parents have that level of -- of responsibility here.

But the young man does have to be responsible for his own actions. But we really don't -- I'm still curious to figure out how in the world this young man managed to get into Afghanistan, where we have been told all this time the CIA couldn't get near Afghanistan, couldn't get near the Taliban. They trusted him enough to give him an AK-47 and told him to go out and fight. I find that very, very curious.

But I think, you know, all of that needs to come out and -- and he really needs to speak out and -- and explain himself to people.

HARRIS: Well, you know, what I don't get is how you can read the autobiography of Malcolm X and go from there all of a sudden believing that women should walk around with rugs covering their faces up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean...

DORNAN: Did he shoot Indian -- did he kill Indian soldiers up in Kashmir? He said he fought -- fought -- in Kashmir. What right does an American citizen have to go into an Islamic-Hindu conflict and shoot young Indian shoulders?

CHASTAIN: All right. But let's remember when his parents -- when his parents sent him over there, he was an underage child.

DORNAN: Yes.

CHASTAIN: He was really not able to -- to support himself on his own. His teacher took him in Pakistan. He slept on a rope bed in a little flat with no hot water.

Do you suppose they had CNN -- do you suppose they had television at all? I mean, how did he end up fighting for the Taliban? And did he have a choice? And when he saw the American soldiers, did he say, "Oops, wait a minute, maybe I made a mistake. I want to go home."

And then the Taliban leader would say, "Oh, yes, little Johnny. Here, use my cell phone. Call your parents. Let's bring in a helicopter to take you off to a chartered jet and take you home to mommy and daddy."

HARRIS: That's -- that's a twisted fairy tale that we know probably never did happen. But Matt, what's your comment about that?

MATT: Well, I'm concerned that if my parents send me to France at 16 or 18 or 20 and I shoplift, should they be punished for shoplifting because I acted in that manner?

DORNAN: No, but if you kill French soldiers you ought to be tried.

SPENCE: You see the problem that -- the problem that we are having here is that we -- you know in America we assume people are innocent, not that they are guilty. And what I'm hearing from everybody on this panel except my friend here is that this man is guilty.

He's done this and this and somebody else and Leon you said it in the mouthful and you said it very accurately. It is a fairy tale that has been spun by the panel, not by any of the facts involved in this case.

(CROSSTALK)

SPENCE: ...we're still trying to get to those, though.

DORNAN: Gerry, he could have said to Mike Spann -- who we just buried -- buried in Arlington Monday, with a tear-grabbing eulogy from his wife -- he could have said, "Help me, sir. I'm an American." His arrogant silence makes him look guilty.

SPENCE: You don't know what -- you don't know what the circumstances were there. You don't know anything about it. And for -- and for us to begin saying, number one we are...

DORNAN: It's on videotape, Gerry. It's on videotape.

CHASTAIN: I hate to disagree with my friend Bob...

SPENCE: What we really ought to do is to charge his parents. And number two, what we really ought to understand is he is guilty of killing Mike Spann are simply accusations that I think are shameful.

HARRIS: Hey, guys...

DORNAN: Look, I didn't see he killed Mike Spann. I said he probably would be alive if he had been a decent American kid and said, "I'm an American. Help me."

HARRIS: Maybe those -- those may be different things. We have -- let's -- let's get some comments.

RILEY: ...the uprising would have been stopped because John Walker talked to Mike Spann. I -- I think that's incredible. How can you make that...

CHASTAIN: Well, Bob said something else. Bob mentioned the word fear. Yes, he could have said to Mike Spann, "I'm an American. get me out of here." But...

SPENCE: No no no. You don't know what he could or couldn't say to Mike Spann.

CHASTAIN: But he probably had -- wait wait wait. He probably had knowledge of...

SPENCE: Why do you continue making that stuff up?

CHASTAIN: ...the plot take over the prison.

HARRIS: I think I'm learning why they call this show TALKBACK LIVE. CHASTAIN: So he probably had fear.

SPENCE: We don't know whether he (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HARRIS: Let's -- let's let some other people get in here. Linda, what's your comment on this one?

LINDA: Just be patient with me while I make my stuff up now.

HARRIS: OK. Go for it. You better go now while you got a chance.

LINDA: He is responsible. He is responsible for his own actions. Although his parents, I don't know what they were thinking. I would not send my 16-year-old child to some strange country and then expect them to behave themselves. They can't go even down the street to the mall and behave themselves.

RILEY: Wait a minute. We send -- we send 16-year-old children to strange countries all the time. It's called a -- the -- the...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exchange.

RILEY: Yeah, the foreign exchange.

DORNAN: Mark, we don't send them to Kashmir (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

LINDA: I don't do that without sending -- without me going with him. I would not do that.

SPENCE: But he wasn't -- he didn't go to Kashmir initially. Not at first.

LINDA: It's my responsibility...

(CROSSTALK)

DORNAN: He went to what used to be a country, South Yemen, the world's first Islamic Communist country, where they blew a hole in the side of a billion-dollar Aegis destroyer and killed two female sailors and 15 men sailors.

HARRIS: Well, let's...

DORNAN: And he says to his dad, "they shouldn't have been in this port." He was already radicalized by Columbus Day a year ago.

HARRIS: Let me go to another point that you raised earlier, Congressman Dornan.

What about his cooperation? If he is really cooperating right now, doesn't that say something about what his intent was? Doesn't that say something about giving him something of a break?

DORNAN: No. It says maybe he's had an epiphany because these Marines treated him well, and the Northern Alliance turned him over to us instead of saying, "Hey, he tried to kill us. He's our prisoner."

No, I want to cut him a lot of slack. As I said -- Gerry didn't hear me say he might -- Mike Spann might have lived. He probably would have lived. I don't know. But I have seen video.

SPENCE: You really don't know.

DORNAN: If he's helping now, I'd cut him a lot of slack. He's a walking treasure of intelligence. The tape of Osama is literally a gift from God out of a private home in the -- in the detritus and rubble of war in a home in Jalalabad.

And this 20 -- I was flying in the Air Force at 20 years of age, in pilot training. We had fighter pilots in Europe who were 19. He's not a kid. I slipped. He's a man.

And maybe he's had an epiphany and he'll now help his country and realize what a jerk his father was to let him dump Jesus for a camel driver who had nine wives.

HARRIS: That's -- that's pretty strong words there.

DORNAN: You bet it is. Because I hear everybody criticizing the Crusades instead of Islam killing Christians and Jews for 1400 years. And I don't hear anybody in the media defending Christianity. It's bizarre.

RILEY: All religions have had wars fought in their names. You name the religion, they have had wars fought.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's true. That's true.

RILEY: So I mean, you know, it's a wash as far as that's concerned.

DORNAN: No it's not a wash, Mark.

RILEY: The young man obviously made a series of mistakes...

DORNAN: Nobody -- go to your history, Mark.

RILEY: He made a series of errors. And that's -- you know, that he must answer for.

DORNAN: Go to your history.

RILEY: But -- but to act as though his father is somehow culpable for this, to me is absurd. I don't understand that.

HARRIS: I've got to say, I'm not a -- I'm not a...

DORNAN: He's not culpable, Mark. He's flaky. His father is flaky. In the extreme.

CHASTAIN: He is guilty of neglect. Extreme neglect of his boy.

DORNAN: Neglect. Breaking the...

HARRIS: All right. You know, I'm not a cleric, but I gotta -- I think I remember them using camels when Jesus was around, too. Let me -- let me ask you something else about this.

DORNAN: But they didn't murder other camel drivers.

HARRIS: Well, OK. Let me ask you...

DORNAN: Mohammed did, Leon.

HARRIS: Let me ask you about another -- another topic, about what should happen as far as his citizenship goes? You may recognize this. This is a passport. And Gillian St. Charles, our producer, is kind enough to let me borrow it.

There's a phrase in here that talks about loss of U.S. citizenship. It says that one of -- one of the circumstances that could cause you to lose your citizenship would be to serve in the armed forces of a foreign state. Is it clear that's what he did? And at the very least, he should not be a U.S. citizen any longer?

RILEY: Gee, if he -- if he wasn't a U.S. citizen, could you try him for treason?

DORNAN: Well, you know what?

RILEY: I'm -- I'm just asking. I'm not a lawyer. But it strikes me that if he's not an American citizen you can not try him for treason against his country.

HARRIS: That's an -- that's a very interesting question. Gerry, what do you think?

SPENCE: It is a very interesting question.

DORNAN: No. You know why it's a little shaky?

HARRIS: That's all you've got, Gerry? That's all you got?

DORNAN: Wait, wait. Wait a minute. You know why Gerry could have fun with that? Roosevelt let the American Navy, Marine and Army pilots go fly for Chiang Kai-Shek. We let guys violate federal law and fly with Free Eagle squadrons in Britain before we were in the war. And a lot of Americans of Jewish heritage went and fought for Israel then and now. That's a very weak area.

HARRIS: I can't believe that's all you've got, Gerry. And interesting question. That -- that may be the shortest answer I think you have ever given me.

SPENCE: No, I was -- I was just thinking. I'm sitting here thinking. I'm listening to a panel here that wants to, you know, do this kid in before he's ever been tried.

CHASTAIN: That is not true. SPENCE: They want to -- that want to -- they want to blame his parents without knowing anything about it. Want to suggest that maybe if he had done something different...

CHASTAIN: That is true.

SPENCE: ...somebody would be alive. You know, all of these things are made up because nobody knows the facts.

DORNAN: Gerry, help this -- help this man pro bono.

SPENCE: I don't know the facts, they don't know the facts.

DORNAN: Gerry, you help him pro bono. Help him.

SPENCE: And there is -- it would help me a lot if you would be aware of the proposition that if this kid is an American, he's presumed innocent until he's proven guilty, and not guilty until he's proven innocent. Would you please understand that?

DORNAN: It all depends on how much he's helping us now.

HARRIS: All right. And on that note, we are going to take a break. Don't go away. Much more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And we are back at TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out" and we are picking it up right now on our free-for-all Friday. One more topic we've got to hit before we get out of here. Now, you see them all the time. TV ads for beer and wine.

But when was the last time any of us have ever seen an ad for hard liquor on one of the major broadcast networks? How about this? 50 years it's been since we have seen that.

Well, that is about to change. On NBC, as we understand it, this weekend we'll see on that network the -- for the first time in 50 years a hard -- a liquor -- I'm sorry, an advertisement for hard liquor. It's been a long time.

Let's go to our panel. First of all starting with you, Mark Riley. What do you think about this move?

RILEY: Well, I don't think anybody needs to drink any more hard liquor. Let me start by saying that. But you know, it -- it's one of those...

HARRIS: People have been doing quite fine on that without the advertising.

RILEY: Yeah. People have been getting drunk without having to go to advertisements.

I am very nervous about the placement of these ads. I don't know that any government -- well, maybe there's already government regulation. But I would hate to see hard liquor ads in commercials where young children are able to see them and absorb the -- the message that drinking hard liquor is either cool or the thing to do, et cetera.

We have enough of that in our society as it is. Our children are able to see it in many other different forms without seeing it in -- in the form of concentrated advertising. But that raises the question of whether or not the liquor companies are prepared to be responsible in how they place these advertisements.

HARRIS: Jane, what do you think about that? This up until now has been something that the networks have been doing on their own. They haven't had a, you know, sledgehammer from the government saying you can't do this sort of thing.

And it -- obviously this is being done now because right now the -- the advertising climate and money that comes from it is just so weak because of what happened on September 11. What do you think about this?

CHASTAIN: Well, I think that that is -- that's the reason NBC has made this decision. I think it's really regrettable, particularly at this season of the year when there are a large number of parties and people tend to overindulge. I -- and I think it's bad timing and I think it's just plain wrong.

I mean, here we are in the middle of a recession. Everyone's revenue is down and of course they'd like to get the revenue back up. I mean, we'd all like to get our incomes back up. We'd like to put this country on an even keel. But we have to work together here and this is not the way to do it.

HARRIS: Congressman Dornan, do you think people really care about that? Do you think people will even notice since we have been seeing beer ads for so long on television?

DORNAN: Well, they -- they should. In the last few weeks the Dornan clan has welcomed the 12th and 13th grandchild. And television, such a magnificent instrument for education, information and news is becoming so offensive.

In two years, the last bastion of smoking ads is being taken away from NASCAR and Indy car racing, two sports I love. We're rid of smoking.

Now we're going to go back to hard core advertising. We've got the Viagra car. How can you let a grandchild or a child walk in front of the television when they see sex being pushed in their face. Performance, satisfaction, desire. Hardcore liquor -- but don't smoke. It's reprehensible.

HARRIS: Gerry Spence -- you seem you've got some folks here who agree with you -- do you think that -- do you think there will be enough heat put on the networks and maybe the liquor companies themselves to change this? Or is this something that's going to be here for good? SPENCE: Well, first of all, let me just say that I never thought that I would agree with all of the other members of the panel.

DORNAN: Terrific.

SPENCE: And I just -- I just do. I agree with every one of you that -- that it is, I think -- I think somebody used the word reprehensible.

People -- these -- these corporations -- these corporations will do anything in their power, not only to -- even if it requires selling liquor to make the money, even if it requires advertisement and subjecting America to this -- this indignity, they will do it. They will lay off people without -- they will -- they will deprive us of our -- they will -- but finally they will sell liquor. You know, if you want to drink liquor that's your problem. But -- but to sell it on television is going too damn far.

DORNAN: Amen, Brother Gerry. Amen.

RILEY: I tell you something, though. I -- I really must say, if you've seen the "truth" ads that are against smoking, I have found them to be extremely, extremely effective.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

RILEY: And I think that if -- if the networks are going to start putting these ads on, you know, liquor ads on TV, then maybe they ought to start running some commercials that show twisted wreckage of cars where people have been drinking hard liquor or talking to the family...

SPENCE: Alcohol -- you are absolutely right, because alcohol is the source of -- of more death, more injury and -- and more sickness in this country than any other single cause.

HARRIS: That's right. And you know what, we've seen...

SPENCE: Any other single cause.

HARRIS: ...we have seen the numbers every single year to back that up. Let's go to the audience. Brian, what's your thought on this?

BRIAN: Look at all these issues. I'm kind of appalled by most of the opinions of most of the members of the panel. It seems to me that what we're trying to do is to prevent people from being informed and making their own choices.

I look at Bob Dornan and I'm really offended. You know, I can understand...

DORNAN: Did you ever look at Gerry?

BRIAN: I can understand. You know, to some extent he doesn't want us to see sex on television or cigarettes or anything else. DORNAN: Are you a libertarian?

BRIAN: But by the same token -- no, I'm not actually. What I don't understand...

DORNAN: Just a hedonist.

BRIAN: How could you actually as an elected official in a country that embraces separation of church and state make pro-Jesus Christ and anti-Islam statements? That is offensive and wrong.

DORNAN: Why? All you've heard is pro-Islamic statements for the last three months. It's not wrong. I'm not in office anymore. I never invoked Jesus' name on the House floor. Many times I was tempted, but you ought to study the two men. Study Jesus Christ, a man of peace, and study Mohammed, a man of war. Study them.

HARRIS: Well, well, well. Now let's stop...

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: Here we go. Here we go. Listen, I don't think I want...

SPENCE: I just want to say one thing. Give me the chance to say one thing.

HARRIS: I just don't think we want this genie out of the bottle, Gerry.

SPENCE: I just want to say one thing. Jesus said, "forgive them. Forgive them." And I don't hear much forgiveness on the part of you.

DORNAN: Well, and what did Mohammed say?

SPENCE: I just don't hear it.

DORNAN: Cut their throats.

HARRIS: All right.

DORNAN: And that's what Mohammed Atta said.

HARRIS: How did we get from liquor ads back to that? I don't...

SPENCE: That's the way we are. We've been drinking too much liquor.

DORNAN: Your anti-Jesus guest.

HARRIS: And just in case you're watching at home, folks, no, we didn't give them any liquor before we got started. Marvin, what's your -- what's your thought on this?

MARVIN: My opinion is that there are many other things on television that need to be looked at. And everyone has to act morally, act responsibly. And I think it's up to the individual to decide. But if you are going to prohibit liquor, you have to look at sex, you have to look at other factors that have come on TV.

HARRIS: But yet -- and that brings back my original question before we got started with this is, is it -- will there be enough -- will there be enough of a call from the viewing public -- but will there be enough of a call from the viewing public to actually make a change? There hasn't been as far as your concern goes, Mark -- Marvin, about the sex and the violence we have seen on television.

There hasn't been enough of a reaction in the viewing public to change what we have seen. Does anyone think there will be a change in these liquor ads in this step that we've taken in this direction because of that?

RILEY: Look, there's one easy way to deal with this. If people are that upset about having liquor ads on television, stop drinking. And let people know that you have a problem with these ads and you hit them in the pocketbook and then you won't see them any more. It's as simple as that.

HARRIS: All right. Let's hit -- let's hit the phone right now. Tom from Delaware, you have a line right now?

TOM: Yes. Being a recovering alcoholic -- I've been sober 16 years -- I still feel that they do have the right to advertise as long as it's done late at night where children don't see it.

You see beer commercials during all the time. During football games, my nephews are down here watching football. They are 12 years old. They see the beer ads. Now, what's the difference between beer and hard liquor? They both get you drunk. Simple as that.

DORNAN: Good point. Good point. Ban them both.

HARRIS: All right. We've got another comment here. Jim?

JIM: We all know what happened with smoking corporations and the lawsuits. How long is it going to take before these lawsuits start rolling against the corporations that make liquor because someone got injured or dies sooner than they should?

HARRIS: Let's ask the lawyer. Gerry?

SPENCE: Well, there are -- there are, you know, what's called dram shop -- there are called dram shop laws around this country, which require -- which permit people to sue bars that permit people to sit in there and get drunk and they know they are drunk and then they watch them walk out. There's dram shop laws of that nature.

But I don't know that that -- the answer is -- the ad -- the liquor cases were based on a proposition that -- that these companies lied. They just lied. They doused up with chemicals and all the rest and additional addictive drugs into the cigarettes and lied about it to Congress. Lied about it to people. Got people addicted to it and then lied about it again. And so maybe one thing we learned from them is that they should ought to -- that people ought to tell the truth.

RILEY: I -- I think Gerry makes an important point because...

HARRIS: This will be the final point.

RILEY: We need to -- if they are going to allow these kinds of ads, then talk to people whose homes have been destroyed by alcohol.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Yes.

RILEY: Talk to people whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol. That 16-year recovered alcoholic would be a good place to start. Start putting out that kind of truth to people and I think that sooner or later those liquor ads will be irrelevant.

HARRIS: All right. We're going to have to...

DORNAN: Child abuse. Divorce. Wife beating. All attributed to alcohol. Let's hear those stories.

HARRIS: Right. We'll have to get to those stories sometime later, because we are out of time. That is it. Thanks to our guests today. Mark Riley, Gerry Spence, Jane Chastain and Bob Dornan. Thanks a lot, gang. We really appreciate the spirited discussion today.

Thanks to the studio audience. Thank you. You've been great today, and to you at home as well. Please enjoy your weekend. TALKBACK LIVE returns Monday at 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

Now time for Judy Woodruff with a preview of what's coming up next hour -- Judy.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com