Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Free-for-All-Friday
Aired January 04, 2002 - 15:03 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.
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST: It is free-for-all Friday. On tap today, Daschle on the offensive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: September 11 and the war aren't the only reasons the surplus is nearly gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Is the economy a winner for Democrats?
Also, dying for hockey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He hit him repeatedly in the face, in the neck area, and slammed his head on a concrete floor, while his children watched the victim die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Should those children now have to testify? And why -- why would this man want his terror trial televised?
Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. I am Carol Costello. Thank you so much for being with us this afternoon. As we said, it's free-for-all Friday. Politics, hockey rage and airline passengers are human too. It's all on the agenda today, along with an accused terrorist, who is ready for his close up.
Let's start our meeting by talking -- oh, by my introducing you to our talk show host in Washington, Janet Parshall, host of "Janet Parshall's America," which is syndicated on the Salem Radio Network; in Los Angeles, Paul McGuire, host of the "Paul McGuire Show" on KBRT; Bernie Ward, host of the "Bernie Ward Show" on KGO News Talk AM 810 in San Francisco; and Santiago Nieves, host of "Latino Journal" on WBAI in New York; and of course, the most fabulous studio audience and the history of the world -- thank you all for joining.
(APPLAUSE)
Yes, yes, that's what we like to hear. OK, let's get right to it, because as I said, it's free-for-all Friday. Zacarias Moussaoui, the first person charged in the September 11 attacks, is asking the court to televise his trial. The request suggests that televising the trial will put the American criminal justice system on display for world review.
You know, I can't remember another time when a defendant asked that his trial be televised. I mean, can you, Paul?
PAUL MCGUIRE, KBRT RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I think it's outrageous. What this terrorist wants to do is have an electronic pulpit to broadcast his propaganda to the entire world.
COSTELLO: Santi, do you agree with that?
(CROSSTALK)
BERNIE WARD, KGO RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Is there anybody who thinks that this guy is going to be able to make an argument that is going to make what happened on September 11 acceptable? Obviously, you can let him say whatever he wants. All he is going to do is put himself deeper in trouble. I mean, what is it about America that we're afraid to let people see how we put somebody on trial?
In fact, it would be a wonderful thing that Al Jazeera and others would actually carry an American trial, so that people in the rest of the world can see how it's supposed to be done, and how the rule of law can protect you, even if you're accused of killing thousands of Americans.
COSTELLO: But...
(CROSSTALK)
SANTIAGO NIEVES, WBAI RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I'm not surprised Moussaoui and the others always utilize this kind of thing for propaganda. But in the end, I agree with the gentleman who just spoke. In the end, it's the right of the American people to see that justice -- that they can see and hear what is going on in the courtroom. By the way...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: We're talking about a global society...
WARD: Yes.
MCGUIRE: ... in which you are giving a known terrorist the ability to transmit a terrorist propaganda message to the Middle East and incite further terrorists...
WARD: Well, first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: ... to do damage in the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: And you know, you have to put on the table the list -- you know...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: Yes.
WARD: ... go any farther, I know he misspoke. He meant a suspected terrorist, I hope.
NIEVES: Thank you very much.
COSTELLO: OK, let me...
NIEVES: Alleged and suspected.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: ... let me interrupt you all for just a second. Stop, stop stop.
NIEVES: I'm not going to make my point well with this group.
COSTELLO: Esteemed panel stop, because I have something to tell you about right now that may make a difference in your opinions. Zacarias Moussaoui's lawyers said this upon his request of the court to have the court -- or have the trial televised. He said, "Mr. Moussaoui recognizes that the American criminal justice system will be on display for the entire world as the trial of this action proceeds." The lawyer went on to say, "Televising the trial would add an additional layer of protection to see these proceedings are fairly conducted."
Do you think that Zacarias Moussaoui really wants that? Janet, we haven't heard from you. You are shaking your head up there.
JANET PARSHALL, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Not in all. In fact, I guess it's the arrogance of the defendant, the 20th hijacker, to be making these kinds of demands. This is a man who has already thumbed his nose at the American jurisprudential anyway. Remember what he did when he came into court? Heavy security in Alexandria, he said, "In the name of Allah, I enter no plea." The female judge looked at him and said, "I take that to mean a not guilty?" His lawyers nodded and said, "We too will interpret that as meaning not guilty."
This man isn't about adding a layer of protection. This man is about adding a layer of propaganda.
NIEVES: Can I -- all right.
PARSHALL: He wants to go to the borderline personalities in the Islamic world who already hate the west, and say, look, I am being persecuted in the name of Allah. I want you to see this, and he's doing it to shore up the anger here, not to make sure that justice is carried out.
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: Well, yes, of course, you know, you asked me before. Yes, of course, they are going to take that opportunity to propagandize as much as they can. But the bottom line has to be the right of the American people to see and hear what is going on.
By the way, there is an aspect that nobody has talked about here, and that's the technical aspect of cameras on the courtroom, and how encumbering or not encumbering they are. I remember the O.J. Simpson trial. It was outrageous. I mean, you had people pretty playing to the cameras. So I think an important element in the equation here is that cameras can be used, but they have to be as unencumbering and as...
COSTELLO: I want the truth, though. Yes, Santi, you bring up a good point.
NIEVES: Yes.
COSTELLO: Before we go to the rest, though, we have some studio audience members wanting to participate. First, we want to talk to George from California. What do you have to say?
GEORGE: I think the trial should be shown to the public, so we can see and prove to the world that this is going to be a fair trial. And they know we're not going to hold anything against anybody. And I agree that it needs to be broadcast in Afghanistan and to the rest of the world, so they know that we're very set on this terrorism thing.
COSTELLO: Does it make any difference to you that he requested that the trial be public -- the defendant?
GEORGE: No, I think he might try to use it as a stepping ground for something. But I still think that we need to be able to show the world that this is not a platform for games. We are very serious against terrorism.
COSTELLO: Next comment from our audience.
This is Ron from Tennessee -- go ahead, Ron.
RON: Yes, I don't think he ought to be given the chance to make this a propaganda item, which is exactly what he's after. And the press will turn it into a fiasco, much like the O.J. Simpson trial and let it get out of hand, and it's about time we get through with some of that and just let the trial go on.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's sweep it under the rug.
RON: And we'll hear enough about it without it being televised, that's for sure.
PARSHALL: I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: You're probably right on that one. Hey, let's hear from Grant in Indiana. He's on the phone with us now -- Grant.
GRANT: Yes. With all of the controversy surrounding the whole case, and with individuals claiming that it won't provide him a fair trial in Virginia, I think the only thing we can do to prove to the American public, the critics and the rest of the world is to go on national TV and say, hey, this has how American justice works, and it will prevail.
COSTELLO: Thank you, Grant.
WARD: Is there anybody who thinks...
COSTELLO: Bernie, you were going to say something? Go ahead, Bernie.
WARD: Well, is there anybody who thinks that that this guy's message is going to -- No. 1, Janet says they all hate us anyway. So his message isn't going to make any difference. And secondly, we do have a question...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: It's going to incite and be inflammatory.
PARSHALL: That's right.
MCGUIRE: They already hate us.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: They already said that.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: You are going to pour gasoline on an already volatile mixture.
WARD: What more do we need?
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: You do not want to give this man a global platform to preach hate and propaganda.
NIEVES: You know, saying it over and over again is not going to help your argument.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Let's take a break, panelists. Let's take a break right now. WARD: Plus, he only gets to talk once. He only gets to testify once.
COSTELLO: Ooh, they're worked up today. I like that.
WARD: I don't know what you guys think...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: Bernie, you're right. You're right, Bernie.
COSTELLO: Hey, guys, hold on -- hold on. We've got to take a break now. Should the Moussaoui trial be televised? That's what we're talking about. Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at CNN.com/Talkback; AOL keyword, CNN. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Oh, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're having a very lively conversation this afternoon. But is there any other kind on TALKBALK LIVE? I just don't think so, do you?
Today, one of the subjects that we're talking about: Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged yet in the September 11 attacks, wants his trial televised. His lawyers asked the judge to take cameras into the courtroom to televise his trial, and we're all arguing about that point.
I have a comment from a studio audience member -- Patty up there. What do you have to say from California?
PATTY: Yes. Well, I think that it's -- it will be useful propaganda on both sides. I mean, he's going to try to convince the public of his beliefs. But also, we are showing the rest of the world how our -- and we need to show the rest of the world how our judicial system works.
And the other comment I wanted to make was one of the commentators said they all hate us. They don't. I don't who he is saying "they," perhaps the terrorists. But a lot of the people in the Islamic world do not hate us. In fact, they look to us...
(CROSSTALK)
PATTY: ... for leadership.
COSTELLO: Let's bring...
WARD: Yes, one of the questions we should be asking is -- we have heard Janet pronounce him guilty. Paul has pronounced him guilty. So the question you have to ask is whether or not in the United States five miles away from the where Pentagon was blown up, is there anybody in the audience today who believes you're going to get 12 people who are going to start with the presumption that this guy didn't do it? COSTELLO: OK, Bernie, let's ask the audience that very question. Do you think, audience members -- and tell me by applause -- that this guy can get a fair trial?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: OK. Stop clapping.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow!
COSTELLO: Stop clapping.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow!
COSTELLO: How many do not think he can get a fair trial?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Well, that was pretty tepid too. But, Bernie, you don't think he can get a fair trial. Maybe it's...
WARD: Well, I just want to -- I listen to the commentators who have all pronounced him guilty already. He's a terrorist. He's a propagandist. So you tell me. If they're telling their radio shows constantly that this guy is guilty, if he is being called that in the papers, if he's being called that on all of the FOX News Network, et cetera, where do we get a fair trial for him?
COSTELLO: Janet?
Well, Bernie, you sound like...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: You sound like you're a defense attorney for the terrorists.
COSTELLO: OK, we've got to go one at a time. Janet -- Janet, I know you have...
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: I am sorry. Is he a suspected terrorist, Paul, or a terrorist?
PARSHALL: Well, first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: You sound like you've been hired by Moussaoui to defend him.
COSTELLO: OK, guys -- hey, hey, it's Janet's turn.
WARD: Answer the question, Paul. Is he a suspected terrorist or a terrorist? NIEVES: Hey, can I have a turn at this, Bernie?
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: First of all, Bernie, I agree with you. I couldn't agree with you more, and I think that that really is the bottom line here.
WARD: Well, Paul hasn't answered me yet.
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: In the end, of course -- of course, Mr. Moussaoui is going to use this to propagandize as I said. And of course, the U.S. is going to use it as best as possible to do what they have to do to get their side heard. But in the end, on the table of the choice that people's rights to view and see what was going on in terms of justice in this country. And on the other side of the table, there's the propaganda. I choose all the time for the people's right to see and hear what's going on.
COSTELLO: OK. It's Janet turn.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: Well, now let's look at what the law says. Thank you, Carol. The law says that federal rules actually prohibit cameras -- TV cameras in courtrooms, and I'm glad. Because there's a presumption here that's fallacious, and I think it needs to be addressed.
The presumption is that justice does not get carried out in America's courtrooms unless there are cameras. I happen to be married to a lawyer. My first-born is a lawyer. I'll tell you, they're involved in the business of justice every day. And the red power light of the camera doesn't have to be on to carry out justice. So again, I go to a defendant -- I go to a defendant, and, Bernie, they can strike me from the jury pool. Yes, I think he is guilty. Sorry, I won't serve on his jury trial.
But the bottom line is this man...
WARD: I love America.
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: It's not about (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but that's not the case.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Hold on, people -- hold on. We've got a comment from an audience member -- Ned from Tennessee.
NED: Yes, I had a question for Bernie. If you're so convinced that we can't give him a fair trial, what are we supposed to do, just turn him lose? PARSHALL: Exactly. Exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: Well, we have two choices actually. One choice is to do it with a judge without a jury in the hope that a judge who has committed themselves to justice will, in fact, not allow themselves to be swayed by Janet and her ilk to make sure that this guy doesn't get a fair trial.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: ... Bernie.
WARD: Or we have to have incredible faith that these people have far less influence than they think they have, and that 12 Americans will start out with the presumption that this is an innocent man. And then, we'll go and let the government try and make his case. I think that -- quote -- "jury" is out on whether or not in the United States right now -- and by the way, this trial is going to start less than a month after the first anniversary of September 11, not exactly a guarantee that people are going to be of a fair mind when this guy has to go to trial.
COSTELLO: OK, you guys -- you guys...
MCGUIRE: You know, Janet just said by the way...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: ... hold on, hold on.
MCGUIRE: Yes.
COSTELLO: You have incited our studio audience and also our callers -- Cheryl from Connecticut. I heard you are hot, Cheryl. Why?
CHERYL: We're hot. First of all, we're -- I'm calling you from Oxford, Connecticut. And I guess, well, a few weeks back, our name was put on the map in the United States through the anthrax thing. So we're very sensitive about any potential terrorist issues that are going on in our country.
But firstly, I'd like to say, you know, this is not O.J. Simpson trial. You know, I think this is just a whole another ballpark, and I think most of us who didn't even conceive in the past of sitting in front a TV and watching that whole thing play out, did probably at one point or another.
My other concern I have about this is that we aren't really sure what this man has done. I think when discovery issues come out, we might find out maybe perhaps more about his involvement with possible terrorist links. I think what he was looking to do was terrible, but at this point, I am also concerned about the government in terms of sensitivity of issues that the government may not want to be let out in terms of, you know, of classified information and intelligence that they might get from this at some point.
COSTELLO: And, Cheryl, you do bring up a good point. A lot of sensitive information might come out in this trial. Does that change your mind at all, Bernie?
WARD: Well, sensitive information could come out, but in the past, of course, we have seen lots of people, particularly on the Republican side, who used that kind of blackmail to make sure that they never went to trial at all. You can go out to Lawrence Walsh (ph)...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: Well, wait, you talk about Alice in Wonderland logic and just taking...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: What does this have to do with the Republican Party. We are talking about the trial of a terrorist, and you are introducing the Republican Party.
WARD: A suspected terrorist (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I know you hate that word, but we'll stay with suspected.
MCGUIRE: No. You seem to have this affinity...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: ... you seem to have this affinity and love affair with this terrorist that I don't understand.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: OK, hold on a second...
WARD: Paul, how do you know he's a terrorist?
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: Can I say something? Because...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Hold on. Hold on, Santi, please.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: ... documented reports of this man's activities?
COSTELLO: Hold on, everybody. We have another comment -- now wait a second, we have another comment...
WARD: Wait a minute. Paul, do you know any of this firsthand, or do you just know what the government told you?
COSTELLO: ... from our studio audience -- George, you're going to have to raise your voice...
(CROSSTALK)
GEORGE: Not a problem. I just got a question for Bernie. If he doesn't think the guy can get a fair jury trial, what makes you think he can get a fair single judge?
COSTELLO: Bernie...
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: Well, I think you have a better chance with a judge.
PARSHALL: That's right.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: You have a better chance with a judge, because in many cases, because of the position they've been in....
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: Wait! You just said the American people have the right to see this, and now you're saying you don't trust the American people to have a fair jury.
WARD: I raised the question, Paul, and you and Janet...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: ... have one person.
WARD: You and Janet approved by case completely already.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: The case of an incredible naivete in your part about the true nature of this case.
WARD: The last thing I am is naive, Paul. When I hear you never say the word suspected, when you've already...
COSTELLO: Wait, wait.
WARD: ... convicted him and put him in jail, you've already...
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: I am thinking of 3,000 Americans who died at the World Trade Center.
NIEVES: All right, wait a minute. This is...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Unfortunately -- unfortunately (UNINTELLIGIBLE) panelists hold on. Time is up for that topic, unfortunately, because I think we could have talked about that forever, right?
But up next, remember the Clinton slogan back in 1992 -- it's the academy, stupid? Well, could it work for the Democrats again?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DASCHLE: When it comes to our second battle, our economic battle, I think most Americans would probably agree that the news hasn't been so good lately.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Oh, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're having some fun this Friday afternoon. A question for you: What is a Democrat to do? President Bush is enjoying the highest rating of any president in history. The public demands unity in a time of war, and a mid-term election is looming.
Taking a page from the Clinton handbook, Majority Leader Tom Daschle today targeted what could be a party winner, the economy. He started by blaming President Bush's tax cuts for destroying the budget surplus. The question is: Will it work for the Democrats?
So let's start with you Janet -- will it work?
PARSHALL: Well, I have to tell you what, this man has to be very careful that he doesn't get hoisted on his own petard. As you pointed out, the president's popularity rating is very, very high, but let me tell you what the president said today from Austin that I think really are words for Mr. Daschle. He said, "It's not about rhetoric. It is about results."
So what he said was I welcome the fact that you have come to the table and you want to do an economic security package. I think there should be a requirement now by law every time Mr. Daschle opens his mouth, a little video pops up on the TV screen that says, hi, I'm Tom. I want to be president in 2004. So he's going to go out of his way to make sure that distinctions are drawn between the two, and the reality is President Bill Clinton did, in fact, help him with his speech. So he wants to come out ahead as being the party's nominee for 2004, and he wants to shore up some democratic victories in the Senate and in the House for 2002.
The bottom line -- and Chuck Grassley said it beautifully serving on the Senate Finance Committee -- that up to this point, Tom Daschle has stood like a stone wall and blocked every bipartisan economic stimulus proposal that's come along thus far. He won and got the role of the Grinch that stole Christmas stealing the economic stimulus package before Christmas. So now my attitude is Tom, I don't want to hear you talk. I want to see you walk. What are you going to do for the American public?
COSTELLO: Oh, wow, somebody has got to respond to that. How about you, Paul? WARD: Well, it's fascinating to me. Here is a man, George Bush, whose popularity rating was at 50 percent on September 10. And the reason it was at 50 percent was his domestic agenda was a disaster. His programs across the board, from energy to education to trying to give money to right-wing Christian fundamentalists groups under the guise of social programs, had been completely rejected by the American people.
And then, Janet says that Daschle has been Mr. Obstacle. But what he was an obstacle to was a Republican-passed House resolution that would have handed corporate America the largest tax breaks they have had, cutting back a tax since 1986.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: Bipartisan.
WARD: Not only -- not only would they have gotten that, but the lowest, from people making under $45,000 a year, would have actually lost money under the Republican proposal. So it is fascinating to me that Tom Daschle is being vilified by Janet Parshall for standing in the way of another give back to the richest Americans, so that the Republicans continue to pay off all those people who gave them the money to put them in to begin with.
Yes, but the real question for the American public, don't you think, is who is being conciliatory in this case, the Democrats or the Republicans?
WARD: No. The real question is: Are we going to get jobs? Americans want to work. Americans want (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The unemployment rate today went up close to 6 percent. In my state of California, Silicon Valley, we're at twice the national average on the unemployment rate. We are seeing economies being devastated all over the state. But people don't want to know.
You talk to Bill Schneider at CNN. He will tell you that outside of the northeast, the No. 1 issue among Americans is the economy, because they want jobs, they want to be able to support their families, and they want to be able to put money -- and when they watch the surplus go up in smoke, so that the richest one percent of Americans can continue to get more tax breaks, they ask some real serious questions about which party represents their interests.
COSTELLO: OK, on that note, let's go to the audience right now -- Cheryl from California.
CHERYL: I agree with Bernie. Before the -- before September 11, everything was bad. I mean, the economy was going south. But that was because Bush had talked about and talked about everything was bad, bad, bad. After the 11th, some of the money, yes, had to be spent to fight the war. However, if he hadn't given back the surplus to us so that we could spend $600 back into the economy, which none of us probably did, then we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in now.
COSTELLO: I think you're speaking to Tom Daschle's choir. (CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: One more from the audience before that -- one second.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Rullah (ph). She's an economist -- go ahead, Rullah (ph).
RULLAH: Hello. I think that the economy is going to turn down no matter what. It has been accelerating upward for a while, and whether we like it or not, it's not the president, it's not the Congress, it's not the tax cut, but it eventually is going to turn down. So it is a natural process.
COSTELLO: So what's the answer?
RULLAH: The answer is just as what President Bush is doing in making it easy on us with the tax cuts that he's doing.
COSTELLO: OK. Well, there you go. We have a very smart audience today, as is usual.
Santi, would you like to comment after those comments from our studio audience?
NIEVES: Well, you know, Iowa senator, Charles Grassley, has said in today's "Wall Street Journal" that Daschle, to a great extent, was like a stone, like Janet said. But he also said that he was an absolutely -- quote -- "positive step" in the great (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of what he was planning. It is at 6 percent -- our unemployment rate. It is over the roof. I think Bernie was on target. That's what the American people care about -- jobs, jobs, jobs. And to that extent, I think it's irrelevant that Mr. Daschle did this.
I will tell you that he does have great difficulty in terms of Mr. Bush, President Bush, having an outrageously great numbers in terms of approval ratings right now. But that is something that he has to tackle. In the end, I do believe that the tax cuts really gave us basically nothing, those of us who got -- what -- for people who make my kind of salary, $150, $200, $300. Did that really help to spur the economy? That's all gone at this point, so I think it's absolutely relevant to bring up. I am glad that Daschle has brought it up. And it is about the economy, and the economy should be about jobs.
COSTELLO: Did you...
WARD: Well, the irony is the economy may already be turning around. The idea is that a lot of people are saying there doesn't need to be any economic stimulus package whatsoever, let alone a massive tax cut for corporate America. I mean, do you understand that Bush wants to hand IBM, General Motors and others $600, $700, $800 million back in their pockets? I mean, at the same time that the Americans that are working the hardest and making the least would actually lose money under the proposal? My god! How can we keep on doing this?
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: I agree and...
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: ... when you're going to sit there and watch it?
NIEVES: I agree, and when you talk about bailing out the airline industry, then other people will be knocking at your door. I think that it's very relevant.
WARD: And that was a great example of free market conservatism.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: But aren't you glad that he did that though, Santi, because...
NIEVES: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: ... looked at all of the interconnecting. As we talked about the unemployment rate today, aren't you glad that there help to the airline industry, because what we're all learning here is a crash course in economics. The airlines don't stand alone. It involves restaurants and hotels and service organizations and shops in the airports. And if we hadn't bailed them out, then we would have had this concentric circle of response.
When we look at the figures for October and November, the reason they were high clearly are tied back to 9/11. But I have to tell you, I did not hear from one single listener...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Wait a second. Let me ask the panel this question.
In order to have any kind of economic stimulus plan, don't we have to compromise? Did anything in what Daschle said today move towards a compromise with the Republicans?
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: I agree with you, Carol. I think that's a very valid question. And what disturbed me about Daschle's speech today, it was the same old partisan politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Wouldn't it be great if Daschle would work with Bush in stimulating the economy instead of trying to take credit for many of the proposals that were already sitting there in front of him proposed by Republicans?
WARD: Listen, it's funny to listen all these guys talk about bailing out the airlines. I'll guarantee you both of these guys consider themselves free-market conservatives. And yet the first thing we do is bail out the airlines. By the way, in that bailout bill, there was no money allowed for the people that the airlines were laying off, while the airlines' executives were allowed to continue to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary under this bailout. So this idea that we had to bail out the airlines, the free market says you let them go under and somebody else buys their equipment and puts another airline up.
And, as far as this being concerned about all the little people that were kept in, the Republicans have yet to propose one item that would affect or help people making under $45,000 a year.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: What are you talking about? The Republicans proposed a tax cut which, across the board, helped all Americans. Historically, tax cuts always stimulate the economy.
WARD: Well, absolutely, that's not true, Paul.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Hold on, panel. Hold on. We have got another comment from an audience member.
Ted from Michigan.
TED: Yes, I just wanted to comment that what is happening over in Afghanistan, I think sometimes we are losing some kind of scope as to what is happening here as far as the American workers. We are seeing all these layoffs. People are losing jobs. They passed Fast Track, which -- and we saw how great NAFTA has worked. Now, that passed. It didn't even get a bleep.
And then the Microsoft trial, that all of a sudden seems to have gone away. And I don't think that Bush should be getting a free pass for what is happening here in the American economy despite what -- the job he's doing as far as the foreign affairs are going.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: Well, let's remember daddy Bush had 90 percent approval ratings after the Gulf War. And you saw what happened to daddy Bush when the economy went south. And baby Bush is facing the exact same thing, because the domestic agenda has been an absolute disaster. And Afghanistan isn't going to save it.
COSTELLO: OK, Bernie, we've got to...
PARSHALL: First quarter, Bernie. Four-quarter game. Keep watching.
COSTELLO: OK, it's time to move on, panel. Sorry about that. We'll be right back after this break.
Still ahead: Should 10- and 11-year-old children be testifying at a murder trial? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The reality is that these children watched their father die. Other children watched this man die. And even the defendant's children -- or child -- watched his father kill this man. And they are all eyewitnesses and need to testify in order for there to be a fair result.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are having such a great and interesting show.
The topic now: kids hockey. It's only a game and yet all over the country, parents get into shouting matches and occasional brawls over games their kids are playing. And in the case of Michael Costin, such a fight cost him his life. Did you hear about this? He got into it with Thomas Junta, who is now on trial in Massachusetts for manslaughter. Both of their sons are witnesses. And they could be called to testify.
Both of those little boys are 10 and 11 years old. Should they testify?
We have asked our studio audience that question. Before we get to our panel, we want to go to the studio audience once again. By applause, how many of you think that those little boys should testify?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: We've had a lot of interesting comments. Let's get to them right now from our audience.
Who is first?
STAFF: Natalie. And she is 12.
NATALIE: Well, I think they should testify even though they are minors and can't be charged with (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But they are witnesses. And if your father died, would you want adults that may be on someone else's side to testify for them, or yourself? But we are the voice of tomorrow, so we should have our own right to speak out at a certain point.
COSTELLO: Very well said. Thank you, Natalie.
Let's go to Maureen on the phone from Washington. She has the opposite viewpoint.
CALLER: Hi. Yes, I do have the opposite viewpoint. There is a precedent in this country where minors do not testify. And retraumatizing these children, even though they may have been witnesses, I'm sure there were other adults present and that this case can be handled accordingly without bringing minors and bias and emotion into the trial.
COSTELLO: Thank you, Maureen.
We have another comment from our studio audience.
Chris, who are you talking to up there?
CHRIS: This is Arnie and he has a comment.
Arnie, go ahead.
ARNIE: I think the children should be allowed to testify, for several reasons. One is they need to see that justice works. I have great faith in a judge, having lived in Massachusetts and in fact in the town next to where the crime occurred. I have great faith in these judges to set the right environment so the child isn't badgered, but is led to the truthful statements that really have to come out in the trial.
COSTELLO: That is a tough thing for the child not to be badgered, especially on cross-examination.
Let's turn to our panel now to ask their opinion.
Janet, do you think these kids should testify?
PARSHALL: I do, Carol, but I think there have to be some pretty secure parameters about this.
No. 1, there will be no cameras when they testify simply because they are minors. No. 2, I do believe that in order to be able to have justice carried out, because there were so many eyewitnesses -- at one point, the police arrived and there were several children standing around the unconscious victim lying on the ground. And they saw it all, every single one of them.
And so that's why the prosecution team has decided that, in order for justice to be carried out, some of these children have to testify. It will be done carefully. It will be done judiciously. The judge and all of those in attendance in the courtroom will understand the tender nature of children and will handle their testimony accordingly. But because this was ultimately about children, in the presence of children, they will in fact be called upon to testify. And I think it's an important component.
COSTELLO: Let's talk about the wider issue, because doesn't this bring up the issue of conduct of parents at their children's games in general?
(CROSSTALK)
MCGUIRE: I'm a parent of three young children. I go to a lot of hockey games, baseball games. And, unfortunately, the climate of America has changed. I regularly see parents in my community who would never hit or murder somebody. But they are screaming at the referee. They're screaming at each other. This didn't happen when I was a child in the little league. Our culture has changed. We are overly competitive. And I think that this horrible murder is really a manifestation of the overcompetitiveness that we have regarding children's sports.
WARD: Well, in Northern California, they have rules now that, if the parents say anything, the game is forfeited and it's over with. And you are not allowed to talk from the sidelines. You are not allowed to coach from the side lines. I have been coaching sports. And I had coached sports on every level through the elite high school level. And I have been doing it now for 25 years, have been doing it for 25 years.
COSTELLO: Hold on for one second. We're going to get some more comments from our studio audience.
We're talking to?
STAFF: This is Ben. And Ben is a baseball player.
BEN: I don't think that children should be able to testify because their views might be slanted by the views of their parents.
COSTELLO: Ben, let me ask you this, too. You play a lot of baseball, don't you?
BEN: Yes.
COSTELLO: Yes. Do you ever see arguments between parents on the sidelines?
BEN: Yes, a lot.
COSTELLO: What do you think of that?
BEN: I don't think they should be so stressed out about their children, about their child.
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: It's embarrassing sometimes, isn't it, Ben? It's embarrassing. Isn't it embarrassing Ben, sometimes, to see the parents acting that way?
BEN: Yes, a little bit.
COSTELLO: Let's talk about the psychology. Does anyone have a comment on that? What might make a parent just explode into anger over what, in essence, is just a little baseball game?
WARD: Well, what made people throw bottles and cans and everything else at a football game because a call was wrong? And then down in New Orleans, they did it again. The children watch their parents. And the parents, many of whom are living through their children's athletic exploits, and many of whom take great pride in whether their team wins or loses, and they have lost complete perspective on this. And they are encouraged that way through the way that we look at sports in this country now.
I ask anybody in your audience to try to remember anybody who has come in second in the Super Bowl in the last five years, because we don't think that that's of any value. Only the person that wins in this country has any value. The person who comes in second is considered to have lost.
PARSHALL: Green Bay. Green Bay.
(LAUGHTER)
WARD: Green Bay is absolutely right.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: Came in second in the Super Bowl.
My dad was a football coach. Carol, I have to tell you, I grew up in a sports family. He was an award-winning football coach at the college level. And it was wonderful on Saturday afternoons to watch him take these young men and teach them the joys of playing as a team, competitive nature in a positive fashion, and learning how to work for one another for a single and stated purpose, which was to win the game.
I think what's happened is, we have seen the evolution of sports now, where all of a sudden now sports have value if you pull in a seven-figure salary, that somehow your child is going to live out your dream. What's amazing to me is, as you look at the background of this case, remember, the one father walked back in and allegedly did the sucker-punch to the other father. And they were arguing over a hit one of the children took during the hockey game.
Well, my first response to that was, if you want your child to take up crochet, then he shouldn't be playing in a hockey game. In a contact sport, there's going to be hitting. That goes on. But it can be done in a positive fashion. I like -- Bernie and I are going to have an agreement on this. I think it's a good idea that parents have to learn to be muzzled on the sidelines and should not somehow be the de facto coach to what is going on.
NIEVES: Can I say something here, please?
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: ... in our culture I think is extremely important.
COSTELLO: Santi, go on.
NIEVES: I actually agree with you completely, Janet.
And, by the way, yes, children -- these children were witnesses, so they absolutely should be testifying if in fact the lawyers feel that it's relevant. It certainly is relevant here. What's interesting to me is, certainly, we know what -- we feel we know what the children of the victims are going to say, which basically is that their father was attacked. But what is fascinating is what the children of Mr. Junta are going to say.
Despite the fact that Mr. Junta said he was sucker-punched and he was provoked and threatened, etcetera, clearly, there are witnesses, allegedly, that say that they had seen him pounding him and attacking him. So, how that's going to come out of the courtroom is interesting.
But I think we are not looking at the bigger issue here. And there's a larger issue. And we keep skirting it. And that is violence in sports and how we celebrate it and how we promote it. You see a hockey game, and in the process of a hockey game, you see somebody pummel someone. And there's blood. And they go back into the game.
COSTELLO: The audience cheers, right? The audience cheers.
NIEVES: The audience cheers. To that extent, I agree with the other guests. And that is that, absolutely, there is a mob mentality very often.
Now, about parents...
COSTELLO: Wait, before you get on to that, Santi, we have some comments from the audience on the very subject in which you were speaking.
Mia from Canada, what do you have to say?
MIA: I was just going to say that I'm a third-grade teacher. And I think it's very unfortunate that we are here and we're trying to model for our students how they should behave, and how they should be, and that they should be exposed to this at such a young age, and that the fun is really taken out of sports. And what is the reason that they play sports? It's to socialize and to have fun and to make friends.
COSTELLO: But isn't the nature of some sports violence? In football, don't you tell kids to hit harder?
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Now, wait a second, one at a time.
Paul, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: Go ahead, Paul. Sorry.
MCGUIRE: Thank you.
I'm a parent of three kids. I want to teach my kids teamwork, cooperation, competitiveness, all kinds of things. But I didn't want my kid to be a gladiator, destroying somebody, blood on the ground. And I think we are out of control as a society. NIEVES: You know, I was here in a TALKBACK in the past. If you remember, this young girl who, in dodge ball in school, had actually killed another girl by mistake, throwing the ball in the process of the game.
And on the table was a decision whether the Supreme Court should ban dodge ball from the schools. And no one is talking about banning this kind of sport. Clearly, that is a contradiction and a hypocrisy. And I will tell you that one of the reasons we are not talking about it is because dodge ball is not major business and not a major sport and hockey is.
(CROSSTALK)
PARSHALL: I would rather work their aggressions out on the grid irons than in the back alleys of our city streets.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: We need to understand also that, in sports, that you as a parent cannot stand on the sideline and watch your child beat up. And one of the real crimes right now is that the referees and the officials, many of them are very unqualified. Many of them do not do a good job of making sure that, if you are going to have your child in a sport where it's not crochet and you're going to get hit, that there is a real control by an adult of how that is brought out.
And I have seen on numerous occasions where referees and umpires just simply let the kids play. And it can get very rough. And I'll tell you, as a parent, you are not going to stand on the sideline and watch your child be beaten up in a game if a referee does not take control of it.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Before we go on, panel, hold on, hold on, hold on. We have got to talk to David in California. He's on the phone.
Dave, your thoughts.
CALLER: Good afternoon everybody. Hello, Bernie in San Francisco. I'm up here in Chico. How you doing?
WARD: Good, Dave.
CALLER: You know, what really is the problem here, it has to go back to the top, all the way to the professionals. And everybody has to get this straight. This is just a game. It's not war. It's not life and death. It's just a game, for God's sake. And the fact that so much value is placed on players and they're paid so much money, this is the fervor that feeds into what happens on the schoolyard, what happens at the little league field, what happens in the hockey rink. It's just a game, folks.
(APPLAUSE) COSTELLO: Well, Dave, let me say this to you. I heard a lot of blame being placed on the players and the big salaries. But don't the fans have something to do with this now? Don't we -- and I'm saying just that hypothetically -- we in the stands want to see action, want to see hard hits in football games? When we are watching a hockey game, how many people watch just for the fights?
CALLER: I happen to, just by accident, tune into a hockey game the other night. I don't watch hockey. I was totally appalled. If you were to do any of those things out on the street, you would be in jail.
NIEVES: Absolutely.
CALLER: You would be in jail. That's not a game. That's mayhem. That's illegal. It's assault.
WARD: And let's remember football is at its highest popularity. And it has actually been toned down. The idea that you can't tone down violence -- at one time, if you tackled somebody and they could get back up and run, they were allowed to get back up and do that. And it turned into this brutal, absolute horrible mess. And football had to step in and change some of the rules.
So the idea that we can't control the violence or we can't make rules to make it safer and saner is just crazy. And, as far as the children are concerned, they watch their adults. They watch the adults.
COSTELLO: They certainly do. Thank you, Bernie.
Time is up for this segment.
Up next: runway madness. Stick around.
COSTELLO: Coming up: the snow trap.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We came in at about 6:00, sat on the tarmac for about two hours.
QUESTION: So, how long have you been here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sixteen hours.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would move maybe every half hour or so. And you think you would be heading to the terminal then they would stop. And so it's like: Well, we are sorry. We don't know anything else except we are moving closer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: What would happen if you just said, "Let me out of here"?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Oh, it's a rowdy bunch today. We love that.
You know, Atlanta ain't Buffalo. While folks in the North dealt with 8 feet of snow this week, a couple of inches managed to shut down one of the busiest airports in the entire country. Bad enough people were stranded inside the terminal, but some passengers were left sitting in planes on the runway. At Hartsfield Airport right here in Atlanta, they were left sitting there for up to 10 hours, and the plane never got off the ground. And they never got the heck out of Atlanta.
I'm telling you, it was a nightmare. Many of us have experienced that very thing in different places and times.
I know, Paul, you are one of them. Tell us your horror story.
MCGUIRE: Well, I was locked in a plane for several hours. They turned down the air conditioning because they want to save money, so you are pouring out sweat. You can't use the bathroom because everybody wants to use the bathroom at once.
And then you have to beg, beg for a bag of peanuts. It's a shameful thing for a grown man to beg for a bag of peanuts. You ask for a Coke; they give you a half a coke. Then you say, "Can I please have a can?" And hour after hour goes by, you want to scream and just get off the plane. and they lock the doors and they won't let you out.
COSTELLO: No, they won't. A lot of audience members have the same horror stories.
Let's go to Sandy from California.
SANDY: When we came into Atlanta last night, we had a pretty good flight over and we had a lot of information. The pilot came on, saying that we should be pulling right up into a gate. And we stopped there for a minute. And the next thing we know, he was like, we are going to be stuck here for awhile. And we don't know how much longer. And we'll let you know.
And that kept on for three more hours. So we were trapped on the plane for three hours last night.
COSTELLO: Wow. So, remember that passenger...
WARD: Sue them!
COSTELLO: Now, wait a second. Do you remember that passenger bill of rights? Does anyone remember that?
NIEVES: Yes, I do remember the bill of rights. And that is one of the best things that can happen.
By the way, I just came back from Hawaii. And my horror story is that they considered peanuts a meal, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
NIEVES: Continental has to understand that, when you say three meals a day, you are not talking about peanuts. So, I agree with you.
COSTELLO: We don't have much time left, but let's talk about that passenger bill of rights, because it's been stalled many, many times in Congress. Do we need such a thing?
NIEVES: We absolutely, absolutely need a passenger bill of rights, for all of the reasons. And I don't think anybody is going to disagree on this panel, I'm not sure. But it's absolutely necessary.
COSTELLO: So, who is holding it up?
NIEVES: By the way, that passengers are not included -- never mind a bill of rights -- after things are decided, when things are built and we have an airport to deal with, I think that passengers frankly should be at the table, even at the level of designing and thinking out airports and that kind of thing, getting input from us. And I think that that's a good idea.
WARD: Ask yourself why the federal government has not said to Hartsfield and every other airport that, in the event of snow or whatever, you are to have in place buses, shuttles, whatever you want to call it, an ability to deplane everybody stuck on these planes and let them go back into the terminal. This is being held against your will. This is unacceptable. And you should be able to take legal action.
COSTELLO: OK, on that note, Bernie, we have a former pilot in the audience.
Why don't they let you off the plane, Mr. former pilot?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I work for the commuters. And one of the problems was, we didn't make money unless we left the gate. We weren't paid sitting at the gate.
COSTELLO: Well, what does that mean?
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: In other words, if they pull away, but they don't leave, they get paid.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's correct.
COSTELLO: Oh, we found out something here today.
NIEVES: Do you mean to say -- does he mean to say seriously that passengers are simply fodder in this process?
WARD: Oh, I'm shocked. Oh, there's gambling going on in this establishment, Rick. (LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
NIEVES: Well, talk about needing a passenger bill of rights. I'm not kidding. Listen to what this pilot just said. That's how passengers rank in the airline industry. And that's a very sad message to send.
(APPLAUSE)
WARD: Yes, but we bailed them out. We bailed them out.
COSTELLO: Wait one second, panel.
Before we have to leave folks today, we want to read our poll question once again: "Should the Moussaoui trial be televised?" Remember that question from long ago? Well, according to our online poll, 40 percent say yes; 60 percent say no.
Hey, thanks, all of you, for being here today. Thank you, panelists. Thank you, audience.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Thank you at home. This is TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." We'll see you on Monday.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
