Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
America Speaks Out: Free-for-All Friday
Aired December 21, 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: Compensation for September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Implementing this program really requires you to be like Solomon. You have to decide what value to put on life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For many families, they might get nothing out of this fund.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Do some deserve to get more than others?
Also, was there something in the Osama bin Laden tape the government wanted to hide?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I must say that's puzzling to me. I mean, I suppose it could have been a problem in translation, but that's hard to believe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: A convicted cop killer catches a break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that we hit the switch (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Now, I can only hope that in other efforts in other areas, not only the sentence will be reversed, but that the verdict of the trial that led to that verdict to be examined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAUREEN FAULKNER, WIFE OF DANIEL FAULKNER: It is clear that Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered my husband. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: And turn out the lights, kill the poinsettias. Don't utter the words "merry Christmas."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oops, I said it again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Oh boy, it must be Friday. You can tell it's Friday.
Hello and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. It is "Free-for-All Friday," as you can tell by the noise level in here already.
Good afternoon, I'm Leon Harris.
All right, let's get started. First off, the victims compensation plan and the first 9/11 lawsuit against the airlines. Now, based on the government's plan for distribution, families of victims in the September 11 terrorist attacks will average about $1.5 million each in the compensation package that they'll receive. However, the formulas used to determine who gets what are a bit complicated, and it's actually been quite consternating to some families.
And if families do collect -- get this -- they give up the right to sue later. Big decision they've got to make.
Let's meet our guests; who are going to talk about it. Michael Smerconish is a trial lawyer and a columnist with the "Philadelphia Daily News."
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, COLUMNIST: Leon, how are you?
HARRIS: Hi, good to see you.
Melanie Morgan, a radio talk show host on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco. Good afternoon to you.
Nancy Skinner is co-host of the syndicated "Doug Stephan's Good Day" program on WLS in Chicago.
And Joe Madison, Radio One talk show host known as The Black Eagle. And I think we can see why, too.
Good to see all of you guys. How are you all doing?
(CROSSTALK)
NANCY SKINNER, WLS RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Merry Christmas, Leon.
HARRIS: Same to you; same to you. Now listen, before we get talking about -- get started talking about this plan, let's breakdown exactly what's involved. We've got a graphic that shows exactly how -- the way the program is actually going to be administered here.
You see that it's only going to be open to families of those who were killed or injured. And the participants, once they do sign on, they lose the right to sue later. And then the government's going to be estimating the lawsuits. And then from that, they will subtract whatever the family would probably get in insurance or pensions, but not necessarily for any charitable contributions they maybe eligible for. And the government promises that they will issue the check within 120 days.
All right, let's kick it off with you Michael, since we introduced you first. What's your thought about the way the plan is spelled out?
SMERCONISH: My thought is that it's remarkable that, given we've had given 3,200, 3,300 deaths and countless other injuries, it is remarkable that there's been only one lawsuit filed so far against the airline industry.
And the association of trial lawyers of America has put out a memorandum asking its membership, please refrain from filing lawsuits in the aftermath of 9/11 until the dust settles and we can decipher the government's plan.
Our law firm, which has representation of several of those families, has honored it. I just think it's remarkable that there's been only one suit. I like what the government is doing here. And on behalf of our clients, we're willing to wait and see exactly what the mechanics will be before we advise which way to go.
HARRIS: And before we move on, what's so remarkable here? Is this something remarkable on behalf of the lawyers who have not been pushing people to get out and start suing, or this particular...
SMERCONISH: Leon, I hate to say it -- you know, the lawyers are always taking a bad rap, and I tell people, well, there are bad plumbers and bad accountants and, yes, there are some aggressive lawyers.
But when you stop and think that there are 3,200, 3,300 families out there -- no doubt they all have counsel, and yet only one has stepped forward and filed a civil action, that, to me, is remarkable.
HARRIS: All right, we don't want to jump on that one all the way yet because we're going to talk -- hit that topic in the next segment here.
All right, let's go with you Melanie. What's your thought on this?
MELANIE MORGAN, KSPO RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think it's remarkable that more people haven't filed lawsuits. I know that if I were a member of a family who lost somebody in that terrible tragedy, I might want to sue.
I've looked over just the bare-bones details that came out last night and early today, and I have to say that -- as much as I'd like to bite my tongue off -- the trial lawyers should really probably be stepping up and taking a more aggressive stance on this.
HARRIS: It hurts to you say that, huh?
MORGAN: It pains me. You have no idea how much it pains me, but it does pain me to say that.
And the reason why is that if you look at the fine print, you see that the amounts for the people who are in the upper income -- say the people who made a lot more money and had more children, and therefore had more losses sustained -- they are going to subtract their government pension, they're going to subtract their insurance payouts.
And so conceivably they could end up with less money than people who didn't have the foresight to look ahead, to take care of their family in the event of anything catastrophic happening. And I don't begrudge the people who made less money at the times of their death -- any amount of money -- but I just think that this is an unequal compensation package.
HARRIS: Yes, it's unequal in that sense, but doesn't it seem fair, in another sense, when you look at it like this: It's going to those who -- the most is going to those who need it the most. Couldn't you say that?
MORGAN: You could say that; but you could also -- you also have to keep in mind the fact that the whole idea is to make these people whole under the law to compensate them for their damages and the loss. And it's not an equal compensation. So I think that some of these people might actually be better off in court.
HARRIS: OK, Nancy Skinner, your turn.
SKINNER: OK. Leon, first one quick thing on billing -- when you introduced me. I want to be clear on this: I do a show on Sundays on WLS in Chicago; and then Monday through Friday I'm on the nationally- syndicated Doug Stephan show.
HARRIS: There you go...
SKINNER: We've got a crossing of those two. So -- just so people know.
HARRIS: There you go. Stick it in there. That's fine with us.
SKINNER: OK, now as to the issue. We discussed this on the show this morning. And you know, excuse me for questioning this, but -- my heart goes out to all the victims and their families -- but this is government money, this is taxpayer money. And the average award, or whatever reimbursement is going to be -- $1.5 million, give or take whatever, based on these factors -- why should the government -- why should taxpayer money really go to the families of these victims? After all, people lose loved ones tragically, you know, in many different ways. I think they should get all the money from all the charities, and I support all that effort.
But I question overall why we're giving, you know, this much money to people out of taxpayer dollars. Is the death of other people less important than -- you know because this happened on a certain day -- 9/11 in this terrible fashion? Does it make their deaths more important, let's say, than other victims?
HARRIS: Well this actually -- it was an attack on the nation. So that's the logic that I'm hearing when I talk to people about this.
SKINNER: So what -- I don't understand, though. Yes, that was one way they died. But people die in a lot of tragic circumstances. I just don't see how that meets some criteria or threshold for being able to get taxpayer dollars.
MORGAN: I think that if you take a closer look at this, this is kind of a bailout plan for the airlines. I think this is a way to avert putting all of these airlines out of business, and that's why they've come up with it.
And I'm not sure -- you know, I think I agree with Nancy on that. I'm not sure that this is the best use of taxpayers' money, but God knows it is a tragic, horrible event, and there are a lot...
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Let's let Joe weigh in here. He hasn't had a chance yet. Joe?
JOE MADISON, RADIO ONE TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it was an attack not only against the country, but it was an attack against our government. And it's not just the airlines that they won't be able to sue, but they also won't be able to sue the FAA. So let us speak very -- be very accurate about that, because it's the FAA that actually establishes security for the airlines.
Now, the reason I think you haven't seen a lot of lawsuits is because attorneys are probably going to wait to see how this one lawsuit or maybe a second one will play out in courts. I'm not a lawyer like the other guests, but I think that it's just a question of saying what is the fine print, what is the law and how will this play out. And I think some people will sue who simply aren't going to accept the -- what amounts to a settlement.
SKINNER: Joe, why should taxpayers have to protect the industry, the airline industry? They were responsible for security, OK?
MADISON: No.
SKINNER: They chose the low-cost bidder, and they allowed some breaches at the airport.
MADISON: No. SKINNER: Why should we bail them out in the first place?
MADISON: That's not totally accurate. That's not totally accurate.
HARRIS: Hold that thought. Hey Joe, hang on, hold that thought. We have to take a break, but we'll let you answer that when we come back after the break. Don't go away. Much more coming up.
Now, you can also weigh in for us on our online poll if you'd like to go ahead and tell us what you think should happen. Take the "TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at CNN.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT.
We have been talking about the government's recently announced victims compensation program and the plan, and this plan which is going to basically provide for any family that has suffered a loss in the World Trade Center tragedy. They are going to get -- somewhere -- I guess the average is 1.65 million is one of the reports that we have seen about the average, but the range is somewhere between -- anywhere between $300,000 perhaps up to maybe 4.5 million. And there's lots of debate, as you may guess, about exactly whether or not this plan is equitable.
Joe Madison, you were just beginning your comments before we went to commercial, I'll let you finish it.
MADISON: No, I was pretty much finished. You know, you keep using the word "equitable." It's not going to be equitable. I think it's going to be fair. Because some people -- I hate to say this -- maybe who are CEOs of companies, their income would have been much more than someone who maybe was mid-management, but the thing I was -- the point I was making is that the fine print in these agreements, if I'm not mistaken, will be not so much you can't sue the airlines -- and that certainly will be one -- but it's that you can't sue the government, the FAA.
And I think that's why you are seeing what amounts to a settlement. And these things happen in settlement. Some people will sue who can afford a good attorney, but let's keep in mind you have got a city full of attorneys here in Washington and the airlines have floors of attorneys that can drag it out for years.
HARRIS: You know, as a matter of fact, I read a comment this morning saying that the way this is plan rolled out, Mr. Feinberg (ph), Kim Feinberg (ph), who was the special master in charge of deciding this program has pretty much guaranteed at least 10 years of litigation. Is that how you all see it as well? What do you say?
MORGAN: I feel very, very sorry for the people who are involved, the victims and the relatives left behind. I think it's going to be years and years and years of litigation, but what's worse is having to think about how much your loved one's life is worth at this time of year. I mean, it just is unbearable in its agony.
SMERCONISH: I don't think it's going to be years of litigation at all. The whole benefit of going the route of the government program is that you have instant relief and closure and you don't have to engage in years and years of litigation. I'm sounding like an advocate for that program and I'm really not, but one of the upsides of going the government route is that you are done immediately and you don't have to go through any trial.
MADISON: And I think you get a $50,000 check as soon as you sign, if I'm not mistaken.
SMERCONISH: True.
HARRIS: I'm not going to try to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We have got plenty of people in the audience who want to ask questions about this or make comments. Dee (ph), go ahead.
DEE: I just was curious. I don't see the government's liability in this, in view of the all the millions of charitable donations that have been made. So I think the government can take a break here or have a break here because of the charitable contributions that have...
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: You know, it's not just that, to this lady's point. They also get tax relief this year and for the last year they are working on that, because of what happened to them. So they are not going to pay taxes for a couple years, plus they get $1.65 million. This is all tax money, all of us lose people and some in very tragic ways. We don't get tax relief for two years when that happens to us.
HARRIS: All right. Who's that, Sabina (ph)? Go ahead.
SABINA: It just seems like it's the government's responsibility to take care of the citizens. I mean, the U.S. World Trade Center was not bombed for no reason whatsoever. It was bombed because there was a vengeance against the U.S. government.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Let us not blame America for that. You know, that's...
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: She's not blaming America, come on.
MADISON: Now, that wasn't blaming America. The number one responsibility of government is security. And that's what we need to keep in mind. That's the number one responsibility of any government and particularly this one, security.
SMERCONISH: And Leon, if I might -- wait a minute, if I might echo -- I want to echo that gentlemen's point, and it's this: We are not talking about whether the government should bail out Chrysler. This is not the conventional conservative/liberal free market economy argument. This is an act of war committed against our country, and I for one am applauding our government stepping in and saying, you know, the airline industry cannot be permitted to fail because of Osama bin Laden and all those other degenerates hiding in caves, and I applaud the government for that.
The airline industry is not going to fail, because there's no way we are not going to have some sort of an airline industry. That is the free markets. What will happen is somebody will come along and buy it and make it whole. The whole point is they are responsible for security, and that's what happens. They made their choices -- and someone would come along.
Why is it our responsibility? Do we have to bail out the insurance companies -- what about the hotel workers? What about every restaurant worker that was affected? I mean, the whole country was affected.
HARRIS: I don't know, Nancy, have you seen "MONEYLINE" lately? We have had some pretty bad reports about the financial health of the airlines. A couple of them, major ones, are very close to declaring bankruptcy.
MORGAN: But Nancy is right, Leon. The airlines won't fail, because if they do that means our economy in America fails. It means that we will have no infrastructure to move people around in this country. So Nancy is right, the airlines won't fail.
But I would like to see the airlines take a little bit more responsibility in actually delivering to us security as we get on board those airplanes. I don't see much change from September 11 to today in terms of how safe it is to be on an airliner.
HARRIS: Well, I can tell you, I have been in about eight airports in the last couple weeks, and I can tell you there are some big changes out there. That's a whole different story, though.
MADISON: And I have traveled a lot too, and I have seen the same thing. It has been major changes.
MORGAN: Changes yes, but are we any safer?
HARRIS: Let's go to the phones right now. Jeff from West Virginia. You have been very patient. What's your comment or your question?
JEFF: I think there's a lot more going on here that we don't know anything about for quite awhile. I made a mistake of signing an agreement -- while of course it was on a lot smaller basis -- but I signed an agreement at my place of employment because I was terminated from my job while I was off having surgery. And I found out later that there were a lot of things that they were hiding. So my point is, they should wait if they possibly can, because I think that there's a lot of things that we don't know about yet.
MADISON: One of the things I would add to that is that you may need an attorney -- and again, the attorney can speak to that -- to actually look at this agreement. I personally would not sign any agreement with the government or anyone without someone who can understand what I'm signing and advising me.
So all in all, the attorneys are going to get employed here. You have attorneys that put the agreement together, you would certainly need an attorney, whether you worked in the McDonald's at the basement of the World Trade Center or whether you were a CEO.
HARRIS: That's going to have to do it for this topic, but here's something to chew on during the break: This is from Dave in Indiana: "Did the Oklahoma City bombing victims receive $1.5 million? Did the Pearl Harbor victims receive $1.5 million? This was a horrible event, but it is getting blown out of proportion." That's from Dave in Indiana. We got more coming up after the break. Don't go away.
Coming up, is something important missing in the translation of the Osama bin Laden tape?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIEBERMAN: The world or the American people begin to doubt the straightforwardness of our government, then we are going to begin to be in trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT.
Remember watching that Osama bin Laden tape that was released by the Defense Department last week? We sure hoped you watched it here on CNN. Well, already there is a new translation with some eye- opening revelations about the 9/11 on the tape. It's not the new tape, it's the same tape.
Now, in this new version of the same tape, though, bin Laden names nine hijackers, and it becomes very clear that there were fatwas issued that played on Saudi government radio supporting the attacks.
Now, one of the overall messages does remain the same, bin Laden did know about the attacks and he did ahead of time, but was there any reason for the Defense Department to leave out parts of this tape in Arabic? I mean, a lot of talk was made before this tape was released about suspicions that perhaps this tape was doctored or whatever.
And we go to our panel now to see whether or not the way this new information is coming out is actually even helping or hurting, you know, our reputation or the government's reputation with this suspicion.
Michael, start with you, what do you think about that?
SMERCONISH: You know, I watched Joe Lieberman in your outtake a moment ago saying, oh, it raises questions. Joe Lieberman is the kind of guy who drives a Volvo that has a bumper sticker that says "question authority." I think the government erred on the side of caution. They had four linguists look at that tape, and I think that the worst thing that could have happened, Leon, is if they had a translation that was inaccurate. Instead, what we're now hearing is some of the words that they said were inaudible perhaps now can be deciphered by somebody else. No big deal is the bottom line.
HARRIS: Melanie, you see it that way?
MORGAN: I'm frankly a little bit baffled why we released the tape in the first place, because the second-guessing was as sure as rain. I mean, there is no reason for us to go back and second-guess. If the government left something out, there was probably a reason for it. Maybe they felt it could have been used as evidence in a trial -- in a criminal trial. But all it has done now is set itself up for conspiracy theorists who drive me absolutely batty.
HARRIS: Nancy, your turn.
SKINNER: I guess that's me. No, here's the thing, Leon. I suspected that there was some reason that there was such a delay in releasing this tape. It was reported that President Bush saw the tape on December 3, and we didn't see it until several weeks later. I wondered why that was; suspected it had something to do with our relationship with the Saudis.
And now what we are hearing is that I guess in this tape they're naming clerics, Saudi clerics, who supported the attack and implicating the Saudis more directly than has been in the past. So my -- honestly, I'm left to conclude that the reason there was a delay and maybe the reason some of the transcript was read inaudible was because that is damning evidence that all is not well with our relation with the Saudi Arabians, that they are more involved in this in many different forms than the government wants us to know.
Why is that? Because we get our oil from Saudi Arabia, and we just all have to look the other way when they do all these things, because that's the lifeblood of our economy. It's an unholy relationship if you ask me.
MADISON: Well, I totally agree. I agree with Nancy on this 100 percent. Let me add one other thing. And kudos to CNN and any other network that did an independent research, independent interpretation, because this is what news organizations are supposed to do. And I really thank CNN for doing that.
Now, does it mean anything? The bottom line is, absolutely not. Are the soldiers going to come home? No. Is it going to destroy relationships with Saudi Arabia? No. But it's good to see a news network step up and do it independent.
HARRIS: Well, if it's not going to do any of that damage that you mention, then why should the government have been so reticent -- or recalcitrant I should say -- about actually releasing that information?
MADISON: To protect -- well, because they have to look at it, who are we going to protect? How will it impact our allies? How will it impact this coalition of people that we put together? What will be the impact on Pakistan? What will be the impact elsewhere? I mean, these are things that governments do.
SMERCONISH: If the tape had been...
HARRIS: Go ahead, Michael.
SMERCONISH: If the tape had been edited, if we were sitting here saying, oh my God, we just figured out Rosemary Woods, Richard Nixon's secretary, had her finger on the kill switch, then this would be a worthy debate. The tape got played in its entirety on CNN for the world to see. So the idea that the government was hiding -- this is crazy.
SKINNER: Several weeks after it was acquired, and as reported on CNN, again the reason that it was finally released was they weren't going to tell anybody, but there was a leak to "The Washington Post" that the tape existed, and then they were forced to put it out there. If you ask me, they might have wanted to keep this tape secret because it implicates the Saudis, and as Joe said, so then that changes the coalition.
But the American public have a right to know. If the Saudis aren't our friends and if they're doing this stuff, we have the right to know that. And the government shouldn't withhold that information.
SMERCONISH: They played the whole tape. The whole tape got played on CNN. You are making a ridiculous argument.
HARRIS: Well, let me ask you this about that.
MORGAN: See, this is exactly the reason why I said we shouldn't have released the tape in the first place. We all are spending a
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: I think I see your point.
SKINNER: And we all know Osama bin Laden did it to begin with.
HARRIS: I see.
MADISON: That I agree with. I mean, the bottom line is, we ought to just stop it here because it's not going to make any difference.
HARRIS: Well, the thing is, it won't. But the question -- you can't help but ask the question about whether or not this is going to cause -- which is going to be the worst problem: the erosion of trust here in the U.S. or the fact that this actually, by doing it this way, does give quarter to all those perhaps in the Muslim world who have been looking for some reason to either ignore or denounce this tape and question its credibility? And this sort of thing actually
(CROSSTALK) MORGAN: Leon, those in Muslim world will already have made up their mind that they are not going to believe anything on this tape anyway. That's why it was an exercise in futility. Those people who hate Americans and the West are going to continue to hate us. And they're not going to have their minds changed by anything in that tape to begin with. So we were going down the wrong road to begin with.
MADISON: Well, I disagree with that. I think that tape should have been shown. The president kept saying there was evidence. People were waiting for the evidence. We deserved that evidence. We got the evidence. Let's call it a day and move on.
HARRIS: One final comment from Donna here in the audience with us.
DONNA: I was just thinking that perhaps they had to hold those names. Maybe they wanted to investigate first. Maybe they didn't want them to know the names that was on there until they had a chance to do that.
HARRIS: We did talk about that quite a bit, about perhaps there being some sort of security considerations in the way that was handled as well.
All right.
MADISON: Governments do it.
HARRIS: Yes, that's right.
All right, stick tight. We're going to come up with another topic coming up next. Celebrities cheer and a widow cries after a convicted murderer on death row in Philadelphia gets -- well, doesn't get off necessarily, but the technicality does come into play. We'll talk about that just after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT.
We're changing topics now. On to another subject. Earlier this week, the death sentence of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal was overturned. A federal judge ruled the jury was given faulty instructions in that 1982 trial. Prosecutors are right now appealing that decision. Abu-Jamal was found guilty of shooting police officer Daniel Faulkner during a traffic stop back in 1981.
And we're going to with Michael Smerconish. And I should warn the rest of the panel, Michael has got something of a distinct advantage on this particular one, because you were actually involved in this case, correct?
SMERCONISH: I represent the widow of the police officer murdered by Mumia, as well as the brothers. And I've done so on a pro bono basis for seven years. HARRIS: And I have seen you go on this week talking about the case. And we don't want to necessarily go all the way back through all the details of the case. But the question we have is: What is it about this case that did generate the interest that it did across the country? There have been no shortage of Hollywood stars who have come to speak out on behalf of Abu-Jamal. What's the story with all that? Why is this man so appealing?
SMERCONISH: Leon, it's a great question.
I want to start by telling you that right here in the city of Philadelphia, there's not much controversy about it. The further you get from the city limits, the more support you find for Jamal, the Ed Asners, Whoopi Goldbergs and Mike Farrell.
And to answer your question, I think they are driven by an anti- death-penalty fervor. And I respect a healthy debate on the death penalty. I happen to be a proponent. And what I say is, they could find a better poster child than Mumia. They then blend together elements of fact and fiction. And they spin a pretty good yarn about the innocence of this man, but it falls far from the mark because, in this opinion from the federal court, what's not getting the bulk of the attention is that the conviction was upheld.
And that is now the final time that a court will probably look at the underlying facts of the case.
HARRIS: Yes, but there's more to it than that. I interviewed Ed Asner just the day before yesterday on the whole thing. And he even brought up the fact there have been other guys who have come forward and who have testified and have offered their own testimony saying that they knew for a fact that...
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute.
HARRIS: In fact, one man confessed, if I'm not mistaken.
SMERCONISH: A man by the name of Arnold Beverly...
HARRIS: He confessed, did he not?
SMERCONISH: Eighteen years after the murder, he emerged. And let me tell you what happened. This is what Ed Asner doesn't want to hear. When he emerged, Mumia's lawyers found him to have a, quote, "patently outrageous" story. They would not advance his story in the court. So Mumia had to fire them and bring in new lawyers who were willing to advance that story.
The fact that his own lawyers thought it was, quote, "patently outrageous" ought to tell you everything you need to know.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: I didn't really want to go back through all that. We want to get back to exactly the phenomenon of the -- I guess the appeal of this case, not necessarily the facts of the case.
MADISON: Let us also be honest. I don't know who you are talking to in Philadelphia. And I will trust -- I have lived in Philadelphia. And I go to Philadelphia, too. So let's not just say everybody in Philadelphia agrees. There are a lot of people in Philadelphia who have been working on Jamal's behalf. And that is how it spread. It didn't spread from outward in. It spread from inward out.
This was a technicality that was found. And there may be other technicalities. This is not just about the death penalty. There have been witnesses that have come forth. There were people who were not allowed to testify in the first trial. There's some legitimate legal arguments. And a client has a right to fire an attorney and get another group of attorneys, because attorneys will see things differently, as you well know.
HARRIS: Melanie, have you had a chance to follow this case much at all?
MORGAN: Unfortunately I have, because out here on the Left Coast, we have every wretched individual from Berkeley to Marin County who has been involved in very ugly demonstrations on behalf of Abu. And it just makes me sick. Maureen Faulkner said it when she called the judge's ruling sick and twisted. And it is a sick and twisted ruling; 20 years after her husband was slain by this man, after the courts have rendered their verdict, it is a pathetic shame that he is not dead.
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: Nobody has been insulting anybody. Just simply because you have a different opinion about a case and probably an opinion that I have doubt if you have read.
MORGAN: I have read it.
SKINNER: Sick and pathetic -- the ruling is -- the appeal...
MADISON: That's right.
SKINNER: This judge issued a meticulous opinion. Now, as to the guilt or innocence, I'm not sure how really do we know. If they have found him guilty and he upheld it, I accept that. But it does speak to the larger issue of the death penalty. And you say, well, he should be put to death. That's the problem.
The reason we go through this many years of appeals or this many years of the process is because, for instance, in the state of Illinois, we have put to death 13 people -- or 13 people were exonerated, excuse me, 12 put to death since capital punishment was reinstated -- greater than 50 percent rate of failure in the system. So don't complain about how long this takes and technicality.
(CROSSTALK) HARRIS: Hang on a second, gang. Hang on a second, gang. See, this is exactly what I was talking about. The case itself is so -- it inflames emotions, no matter which side you happen to be on. But the question that we have is why? What is it about this case?
Michael, you were saying that these advocates could have picked a better candidate someplace else. But why didn't they? What is it about it? There must be something about this case, something about this man.
SMERCONISH: Leon, because what I'm telling you is that they give you part fact and part fiction. It's like watching Oliver Stone put together that movie "JFK." There don't want you to know there were four eyewitnesses who testified at the trial. I will bet you never heard that before -- that the ballistics match, that when Jamal came into the hospital with Faulkner's bullet in him, he was heard to say: "I shot the MF'er and I hope the MF'er dies." Now, those are all the sort of things that Ed Asner and Whoopi Goldberg hope your audience never hears.
HARRIS: In speaking out on his behalf, I will say this. Ed Asner did not come on the show and say the man was innocent and did not say the man should be let out. He did say that he just deserves a new trial. This technicality may be only the tip of the iceberg.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: But that's the whole problem with the whole death- penalty debate is it always comes down to technicalities. And who looks out after the victims' families? Maureen Faulkner has suffered enough. For God's sakes, let that man go to sleep.
SKINNER: Is innocence a technicality, Melanie? Is innocence a technicality?
SMERCONISH: Innocence. What a joke. Innocence.
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: ... exonerated state as innocent in the state of Illinois than were executed. The rate of failure is so high.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: We are not talking about the state of Illinois, Nancy. We are not talking about that. We are talking about Philadelphia.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: One at a time.
SKINNER: That was the case across the country, that the failure rate -- I think 93 people have been exonerated from death row nationally. Those would be 93 innocent people dead because you are worried about technicalities.
MADISON: I would think that we look at the technicalities of it. Look, if he did he deserves a new trial, what is everyone afraid of?
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: The precedent it sets.
MADISON: But let the judge determine that, not a talk show host.
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute. What kind of a precedent does it set? It says go out and murder a cop in cold blood, have a jury of your peers convict you, but get Whoopi Goldberg and Lou Grant to come to your defense and you get a new trial.
MADISON: Oh, come on, counselor. That is not going to determine whether there are new trials. Whoopi Goldberg...
SMERCONISH: The reason you are not in Philly is because you believe what you believe, because everybody here in this town knows he did it.
HARRIS: Well, let me ask you all this.
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: Then why have a trial? If we all know who is guilty and who is not, why bother with the whole legal system? We just simply know they are guilty.
HARRIS: Listen, I want to go back to the point Joe makes just a second ago. It seems like that may be a fair enough question, considering the fact that, even though the judge may have tossed out many other things, he did say that there was a technicality and there was a need here to revisit some part of this case. If the facts are that solid, what's the problem with actually having, going back and taking a real look at it?
SMERCONISH: Leon, respectfully, I think I'm the only one of these panelists who has read all 300 pages of Judge Yohn's decision. It was very technical. And in 300 pages, there's only one issue that he questioned. And that was whether the jury knew the difference between aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing. It had nothing to with the underlying fact. That's the real story in Philadelphia this week is, it was an upholding of the conviction.
MADISON: We understand that. We understand that. But you have got to be careful when you start characterizing why people don't live where they live. I am saying to the people of this country, you do not speak for everyone in Philadelphia. So let's not go down that line.
MORGAN: Well, guess what? The people of Berkeley, who have been making all of this noise and just absolutely driving this story forward, don't speak for the rest of us in this country either. The case was adjudicated. It's over. Let it rest.
HARRIS: Well, I have one guy here who is going to speak for himself. He's here in Atlanta. I don't know if he lives here. But he is going to speak for us.
Greg, where are you from, New York?
GREG: Manhattan, New York.
HARRIS: All right, what's your comment here?
GREG: I think it's a matter of, when you talking about guilty vs. innocent, I think you have to look at this case and say the death penalty is the highest punishment that we can impact upon somebody. And if there's technicalities involved in that, you have to look at the fairness of that and really iron out those technicalities, because this is a precedent that you're setting across the board. And if somebody else comes along and they are put to death and there's technicalities in the case, the death penalty is the one thing you have to really iron out these technicalities.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: That's a fair point, is it not?
(APPLAUSE)
SKINNER: Yes.
SMERCONISH: No. Danny Faulkner didn't get this kind of deliberation. Danny Faulkner didn't get this kind of rationale discussion when Mumia put a gun up to his head 12 inches away and blew his brains out.
SKINNER: OK, see, that's just an emotional appeal.
SMERCONISH: That's not emotional. That's a fact, ma'am. That's a fact.
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: Do you make two wrongs? I'm just talking in general, just because, yes, there's a victim, he died horribly, do you say, oh, we need justice, so you put someone to death?
SMERCONISH: I read in a book once an eye for an eye is a sound concept. And in this, it's long overdue; 20 years long overdue.
MADISON: Then why don't you read the New Testament?
HARRIS: All right, on that note -- and to think we were worried we might not have enough to talk about on that segment.
All right, that's all the time we have for that topic. Stay tuned. We're going to talk coming up about the Christmas taboo.
Up next: Have yourself a politically correct holiday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Christmas specifically is about the birth of Christ. And political correctness has no place in that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a sensitive time. And people should be sensitive to other people's feelings, particularly now with the things that are going on in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Can you say bah, humbug?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT.
And, boy, this one may be the strangest topic I think I have done yet on this show. Happy holidays, seasons greetings. You have got to be careful what you say these days. Turn off the lights and burn the trees. Kick Santa off the sleigh. It's that time of year again when hallmarks and mentioning of the holiday that can't be named are taboo in many cities and workplaces across the country.
This is just -- it's incredible to see how long this list has been getting every single year. I want to toss this one out to the panel. First of all, anybody in the crowd here from Minnesota, before we start disparaging the people in the state of Minnesota?
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: No, check this out. Have you heard about this one, guys? Let's see. Ramsey County, Minnesota says it's OK to have holiday plants like poinsettias, but only if they are white. You can't have red ones.
MADISON: Why? Why?
HARRIS: I don't know. It just says you can't. You tell me why.
MADISON: We were in Kensington, Maryland here outside of Washington and they didn't want Santa Claus at the Christmas tree lighting. And, oh...
HARRIS: Wait, wait, Santa Claus at the Christmas tree lighting. I can see why you wouldn't want to have him at the Menorah lighting, but at the Christmas tree lighting. Explain that one to me.
(LAUGHTER)
MADISON: No, I don't know why either. I haven't figured it out.
SKINNER: Because a couple Jewish residents were upset about it. So the city council said that they weren't going to have him. They were going to make it a patriotic thing instead. But then, with all the ruckus, talk radio took over. For all across the country, it was the biggest topic. And, of course, they reversed themselves and Santa showed up.
HARRIS: Did they say exactly how many people actually cared about that, how many people were against it? Or was it just one person? Or are we talking here...
MADISON: It was only a couple. I think it was only a couple of people who were really opposed to it, the way it turned out.
MORGAN: I think I'm the only panelist that here today who can honestly claim to live in the most politically correct city in the country, San Francisco.
HARRIS: You may be right. You may be right about that.
MORGAN: I think so. I think we'll take that top honor.
And I tell you, I'm afraid to wish somebody merry Christmas where I live. It is considered bad form. And it just strikes me as being so intolerant. People who are offended by a merry Christmas wish are religiously intolerant. And it's very disappointing to me as a Christian.
HARRIS: What does that say about us, though, that if -- as a country, if one...
SMERCONISH: We have got to lighten up. That's what it says.
Leon, I had people during the high holidays wish me a happy New Year as if I were Jewish and I'm not. I didn't say, oh, I'm not Jewish. You know what I said. Hey, thank you very much. And the same to you.
HARRIS: I would have done the same thing.
SMERCONISH: No big deal.
MADISON: You know how I do it, Leon. I say merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and call it a day.
(LAUGHTER)
MADISON: Pick one.
HARRIS: Yes, pick one, whichever. Fill in the blank, huh? Happy fill-in-the-blank day.
Let me ask you about this other one. Have you heard about this one from Portland? Anybody here from Oregon before we get started with Portland?
No hands in the audience.
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: No, go get them. Go ahead.
HARRIS: It's a PC kind of show, too.
MADISON: No, that's because you are close to them.
HARRIS: That does matter. That does matter.
In Portland, the housing authority there says that you can have holiday decorations on your doors, but they must be on the inside and not on the outside. That's got to give you the spirit of the season, doesn't it, when you go by the door and have to wonder if there's something on the inside that might say happy holidays?
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: I was just going to say -- I was going to make a joke and say it sounds like the Taliban is alive and well in Oregon.
(LAUGHTER)
MORGAN: I think this does go back to the issue of church and state division. And I think that we have put so much and invest so much energy into this when we could actually be investing a lot more energy in being productive and kind and loving neighbors.
SMERCONISH: And, you know, nobody takes time to read the Constitution. It says don't establish a religion. You honor Santa Claus, you are not establishing anything.
HARRIS: Yes, OK. Let's go to the telephones.
Angelica, from California, are you there?
CALLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Would you be agreeing with Melanie, who say that you are living in the perhaps...
CALLER: All I know is that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. It's been celebrated for centuries. And what it's about is love, loving one another. And anyone who finds it offensive can just refrain from celebrating. And what happened to freedom of choice?
HARRIS: Yes, there you go.
MADISON: Yes, simple as that.
HARRIS: All right, simple as that.
CALLER: Merry Christmas.
MORGAN: Merry Christmas.
HARRIS: Happy holidays to you.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: You guys have been sitting here talking about it and you still don't get the message.
SMERCONISH: Merry Christmas.
HARRIS: That is going to have to do it for us.
SKINNER: I think we all agreed on something, Leon. We all agreed.
HARRIS: Finally. It only took 55 minutes.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: Listen. We are out of time, but thanks to our guests. We sure do appreciate it. And we do wish you a happy holiday season, all right.
MORGAN: Merry Christmas.
HARRIS: Same to you. Same to you.
Thanks to the audience here as well in Atlanta. And for those of you watching at home, we sure do appreciate it. And we do wish you the best of holiday season as well.
That's it for TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. We come back on Monday, the eve of that day.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
