Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Could Detainees be Drugged?

Aired January 10, 2002 - 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.
MAUREEN O'BOYLE, HOST: How far can the U.S. go to control al Qaeda and Taliban detainees? Could they be drugged?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN STARR: These individuals do not enjoy legal protection under the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BOYLE: Also, Yasser Arafat terrorist or statesman? Did he know about a secret shipment of arms?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The information we are receiving and developing on our own, makes it clear that there are linkages to the Palestinian Authority. I have not seen any information that yet links it directly to Chairman Arafat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BOYLE: And a Kentucky judge delivers a tough punch to women who return to their abusive men.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody wants any kind of an order, has the authority all to themselves to say, the heck with you, judge, I'm going do whatever the hell I want to. And I want go back with this guy over here, and he beats me up very nicely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BOYLE: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. I'm Maureen O'Boyle. So glad that you are with us today. The U.S. isn't taking any chances with Taliban and al Qaeda captives being transported from Kandahar to Guantanamo, Cuba.

The shade the detainees are reportedly chained to their seats. They will be hand fed, apparently, during this 20-hour journey. We are going to find out more from CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.

Barbara, as we have been reporting here on CNN today, there was some gunfire as the flight took off?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. It was noticed that shortly after the plane took off, there was some gunfire apparently at the end of the runway. The military is investigating exactly where that came from. They are not quite sure yet but it is an indication that Afghanistan remain as very dangerous place.

There really are hundreds of shoulder fired missiles, rocket propelled grenade launchers, just about anything and everything still in that country and this was an indication today that there are still many, many risks there. So, the military is looking into exactly was happened.

O'BOYLE: Can you tell us how many people are being transported right now, how many of these detainees?

B. STARR: The best word we have on that from the Pentagon is it's an initial group of 20 detainees. They wanted to essentially run a bit of a test flight, make sure the route was relatively safe, make sure they could move these very dangerous men safely, see exactly how it all went.

And now we should begin to see flights of more and more detainees in the days ahead.

O'BOYLE: There was some concern that violence might erupt on this flight or something -- that they might actually drug the detainees. Is that possible?

STARR: Well, it is. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters earlier today that the military had consulted with experts on prisons and detention and that sort of thing. The Pentagon considers these men very dangerous; has called them murderous and suicidal. And they want to make sure that the military people who are serving as escorts on these planes remain safe.

And so, in fact, some of restraint measures are unprecedented. It does include sedation, very heavy physical restraints and, although it's awkward to discuss, no bathroom privileges, apparently.

O'BOYLE: Now, what are the going do about that?

STARR: Well, they will provide them with other means, we are told.

O'BOYLE: They're not explaining exactly what that is?

STARR: It's perhaps a little graphic.

O'BOYLE: I think so. We don't need to go into that, but that's interesting.

STARR: OK, that's fine.

O'BOYLE: Barbara, are they going to be in cages on these planes? Will they actually be kind of caged separately from one another? STARR: I don't think on the plane. I think your first reference was probably much more specifically accurate. Apparently, they will be in heavy physical restraints, chained to seats or other things on the plane. These types of planes generally carry some seating arrangements. If they're not airplane seats, they're, perhaps, webbed seats.

But once they get to Guantanamo Bay, essentially they will be in cage-type facilities. There will a roof over their heads, but our understanding is the sides will be open, chain-link, individual facilities surrounded by concertina wire. Everything and anything the military can think of to keep them isolated and under the control.

O'BOYLE: We have a comment or a question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A little of each. I wanted to see -- or hear if you know of any push-back on these things that they're going to do by sedating them, caging them. You know, in Washington, is anyone speaking up saying that this is inhumane?

As a citizen I just think that these guys are out to kill us all, eventually, if they could. And I don't care how they get them to Guantanamo Bay, as long as they get them there and no one else gets hurt in the meantime.

O'BOYLE: Has there been any backlash about this?

STARR: So far it hasn't been noticed here at the Pentagon if there is. These detainees, these prisoners, are specifically, interestingly being called "detainees." The Pentagon has not officially classified them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. They are being treated as if this were prisoners of war, but there's been no legal declaration. And that gives the Pentagon, possibly, a little more latitude in how they are treated. The Pentagon insists, however, it will be humane, but it won't be comfortable.

O'BOYLE: So what is next for the detainees, Barbara?

STARR: That really is the key question. Once they get to Guantanamo Bay, they can clearly expect more and more interrogation. But the Pentagon and the Bush administration is going to have to decide what to do with these men now. Which ones have enough intelligence that the U.S. wants to continue to hold onto them and learn what they can? Which ones might be charged with crimes and brought before military tribunals? And which once might be deported and sent back to their home countries?

O'BOYLE: And that process could take a very long time.

Barbara, I know there's been reports today on CNN that there are special forces moving into the Philippines. What can you tell us about that?

STARR: Well, it now appears that the U.S. military involvement in the war on terrorism officially has expanded to another country. We have learned that there are about 25 U.S. special forces commandos on the ground in the southern Philippines. They're the first wave of what is going to be a larger military deployment. It could grow to as many as 500 U.S. military personnel.

These people are going to move into the Philippines and they're going to assist the Philippine military in hunting down Islamic guerrilla groups in the Philippines that have possibly been tied to the al Qaeda.

But what's really interesting here, is there is an opening in this program -- it may be allowed that there will be -- some of these U.S. personnel will be armed, and they will allowed to travel with the Philippine military to front-line areas to work as armed observers.

And that could open the door -- could open the door -- to U.S. personnel being placed in combat situations in the Philippines.

O'BOYLE: Barbara, on that note we're going to take a quick break. Thank you so much for being with us. We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Is Yasser Arafat on shaky ground as an investigation into a secret arms shipment could lead to the Palestinian Authority?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Our counsel general is going in to speak to Palestinian authorities today to make it clear to them that this is a very serious matter. They have to give it their immediate attention; they have to conduct whatever inquiries or investigations are necessary to get to the bottom of this matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BOYLE: Welcome back.

So did Yasser Arafat know? It is a question being tossed around a lot lately. It seems that 50-ton ship-load of arms intercepted by Israel may be connected to the Palestinian Authority.

CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel can fill us in -- Andrea.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Maureen, that's exactly right. For the last week we've been hearing from the Israeli government, who insisted that not only did the Palestinian Authority and top officials there but, in fact, the top man in the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat himself, were behind that shipment of Iranian weapons that was intercepted last week by Israel not far from the Palestinian territories. Today, for the first time, publicly, we heard Secretary of State Powell there, acknowledging a direct link to the Palestinian Authority.

This is -- this is a big deal because for Iranian weapons to be brought into the Palestinian territories, would severely escalate the violence right now. The Palestinians -- the type of weapons they have are not nearly as sophisticated as the ones that were onboard this shipment. We are talking about long-range Katusha (ph) rockets, land mines, antitank missiles, the kind of thing that the Israelis say could reach every one of their cities and so right now the Bush Administration, Maureen, is trying to find a way to keep this from exploding in their face, literally.

They are trying to keep a possible cease-fire on the table, let alone a possible peace deal. And they are calling on Yasser Arafat to investigate this thoroughly and come up with some answers quickly.

O'BOYLE: Could the arms have made it that far without Arafat knowing? KOPPEL: Well, it isn't really a question of how far they made it, but the expense and the type of weapons that were onboard this ship, it was a $10 million shipment and U.S. officials privately acknowledge that something of that magnitude could not have happened, that couldn't have been approved without Arafat's knowledge.

O'BOYLE: And what do you think the U.S. response will be if he did in fact know?

KOPPEL: Well, privately what they are saying, and actually publicly, we heard President Bush today say he was still looking to send his special envoy, the retired Marine General Anthony Zinni back to the region at some point. The bottom line, Maureen, is that there really is no option here. What do you do? Not deal with head of the Palestinian Authority?

And this has been going on for 16 months, this intense fighting between Israelis and Palestinians and the only way, the U.S. believes, that they are going to be able to end the violence is by getting Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, to sit down and deal with one another. So they are going to be doing everything they can to keep this thing moving forward, to keep the talking, at least, on the table.

O'BOYLE: Andrea Koppel, thank you for that official word from the State Department. We appreciate you being with us here.

Now let's here from Hussein Ibish. He is the communications director for the American Arab Antidiscrimination Committee; and Frank Gaffney. He is a former assistant secretary of defense. Currently, he is director of the center for security policy.

Frank, do you think Arafat knew about the weapons?

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: There is no doubt in my mind that has not only known about this weapons shipment, but a great many others that have come through. You know, it is a little bit like the drug war. We have seen this ship intercepted, but we have only the vaguest of indications as to how much else has been slipped across the border from Egypt into the Gaza Strip perhaps by Lebanon, by sea, other ways of getting into the Palestinian Authority. But the main point is, as was indicated by Andrea, this is despotic regime. There are very few rogue operations in most despotic regimes, and in fact the principle rogue is the man running it. And I think this is a man who not only probably have direct authority to assure that the money was available for this purchase of weapons, but directed that it be purchased and was probably aware of the means by which the trans-shipment was taking place.

You know the idea that you have to have an investigation now, it is a little like the famous line in "Casa Blanca," -- "let's round up the usual suspects." This was an authorized operation I believe from the very top.

O'BOYLE: Hussein, does it matter if Arafat knew? Does it really make that much of a difference?

HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN ARAB ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: No. Not at all. Only the most naive and silly person can be surprised or shocked by this. There is a conflict, there is a was going on. Israelis and Palestinians are attacking each other; 270 Israelis have died, almost 1,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians have died.

People have the right to defend themselves. Palestinians have right to defend themselves. We send billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel every year, and Israel has turned those arms, all of their weaponry, with the exception of their chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, which they have the largest stockpiles of in the Middle East, they have turned everything, including tanks, F-16s, Apache Helicopters, on Palestinian civilians. And as result they have killed almost 1,000 of them in the past year.

This conflict is not about Arafat or arms shipments or anything like that. This is about a military occupation that Israel refuses to end and Andrea Koppel was right, the only way to end this conflict is for the two parties to sit down and negotiate. Israel cut off those negotiations in February. Ariel Sharon should return to the negotiating table and work out a time table to get Israel's troops back into Israel and out of the Palestinian-occupied territories.

O'BOYLE: Frank, how do you think the U.S. should respond to this?

GAFFNEY: Well, I think they have to recognize the type of person they are dealing in Arafat. I agree with Hussein, ironically, this is a war. This is a war by which I think the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat hopes to do precisely what Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah hope to do. And it indeed is reflected in a Web site that they have used for some time, whereby they have indicated their objective is to liberate all of what they call Palestine.

It's not about just freeing up parts of the West Bank, or parts of the Gaza Strip. And as a result, if the objective of these campaigns is to kill...

O'BOYLE: Hussein and Frank, one second, I have to Leon Harris at the CNN news senator with some breaking news -- Leon. (INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

O'BOYLE: Before our break, Hussein, you were mentioning that you really feel the Palestinians have a right to these weapons, a right to defend themselves.

IBISH: They have a right to defend themselves, of course.

O'BOYLE: Frank, what do you say to that?

(CROSSTALK)

GAFFNEY: I would just like to finish my thought, if I may.

I think that they have a right to defend themselves as long as what they are doing is defending, in a sense, a solution that is genuinely meant to arrive at peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If what they are in fact doing, as this map very strongly suggests, is driving Israel into the sea, as the Arab rhetoric and propaganda and even Arafat's own consistently suggests, that is not about defense; that it is offense. And Israel is right. And we should be standing with it as it tries to defend itself against terror.

IBISH: No, in fact, the Palestinian position is extremely clear. What they want is independence in the occupied territories. They want to enforce international law. They want Israeli troops to go back to Israel.

In 1993, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people committed themselves to recognizing Israel in its internationally recognized boundaries. Israel has never recognized the Palestinian right to a state. Israel has never recognized the national rights of the Palestinian people.

In fact, Israel maintains tens and thousands of heavily armed troops, hundreds of thousands of settlers. It continues to build settlements. And it has deployed massive military force against unarmed civilians in the past year, killing a thousand of them, in order to deny this freedom to Palestinians. That is my evidence that Israel wants to control the whole area. Frank's evidence is a picture from a Web site that is actually historically accurate.

But the Palestinian position is clear. They want a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. Israel does not want this, because Israel wants to continue the occupation indefinitely.

O'BOYLE: Hussein, we have got a comment from a member of our audience.

STAFF: This is Chris from Elmira, New York.

Chris?

CHRIS: I think that Yasser Arafat is a weak leader. He is a chairman. He is not an absolute dictator. And he has a number of people behind him that are heavily polarized, that are fanatical. The situation is pretty ungovernable, which is probably what frustrates the Israelis so much. And, in addition to that, I've read that he probably is not in very good health either, so he may want to be the head of a new nation, but, historically, it may not work out.

IBISH: Well, actually, I agree with Chris has said.

I think Arafat is a fairly weak leader. And I think he lacks vision. But the weakness of the P.A. comes from the fact that it is not an independent state, that it is this weird quasi-autonomous thing that has very limited powers in extremely small areas. And the whole place is still under Israeli military occupation. We cannot have a rational, decent, reasonable system of government for the Palestinians until they are independent, until they have a normal, fully independent, fully sovereign state in the occupied territories.

The problem is that Israel refuses to agree to that.

GAFFNEY: The reality is that the Palestinians, in the person of Yasser Arafat, continue to say to their people, this is part of a phased plan. We will get the so-called occupied territories back. And we will use them to liberate the rest of the territory.

(CROSSTALK)

GAFFNEY: For American and Western consumption, there has been this line about peace and recognizing Israel in practice. As this map indicates -- just a moment please -- what we have seen is Yasser Arafat exercises control today over something like 98 percent of the people of Palestinian origin in these so-called territories. And he is maintaining, through a 40,000-person police force, so-called, an absolute control that is being used, I believe, with weapons like those he's trying to acquire now to wage war against Israel.

(CROSSTALK)

O'BOYLE: Frank Gaffney and Hussein Ibish, we appreciate you guys coming in today.

Up next: the judge who won't let women go home -- we'll be right back.

Coming up: A Kentucky judge holds some abused women in contempt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't take my order and say I'm going to stuff it in my sock.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BOYLE: When TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BOYLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Judge Megan Lake Thornton is losing her patience with abused women. She's started fining women who take out protection orders and then ignore the orders and return to their abusers.

Here to talk about it: Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and Larry Doherty, also known as Judge Larry Joe. He is an attorney and a judge on the syndicated show "Texas Justice."

Rita, first of all, this ruling must hit home for you.

RITA SMITH, COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Well, I think it is really unfortunate, because battered women need all the support they can get to actually leave and to stay out of the violence. And if what they have heard is that they are going to be fined for something they didn't do, which -- if they are not in contempt of anything because they are not the subject of the order, if they are going to be fined, then they may in fact stop seeking them.

O'BOYLE: Do you agree with that, Judge?

LARRY DOHERTY, ATTORNEY: Well, you have got to be careful when you issue an order not to revictimize a victim. And it is terribly difficult not to be sympathetic to the victim in every instance. But this was an even-handed order by the judge and she handed it down to the perpetrator as well as the victim.

O'BOYLE: It seems to me that some women are going to be really scared to get orders of protection for fear that they are then going to be thrown in jail or held in contempt.

DOHERTY: Well, you have got be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

O'BOYLE: What do you say to that, Rita? We've got an attorney here saying that these women are asking for orders of protection. And, statistically, you can look at all the numbers. Women do go back to the men who abuse them.

One, I have to ask you, as a woman who has survived this yourself, why would a woman go back to a man who has abused her?

SMITH: Well, there is a myriad of reasons. There is hundreds and thousands of reasons why a woman might return. Leaving is a process. It's not a one-step deal. It takes a while for that process to happen.

But what the judge is referring to is something that isn't available in Kentucky legally. And it is a mutual restraining order. That is not possible in Kentucky. She is instilling it, but it is not legally possible. So that concerns me greatly.

O'BOYLE: I was speaking to Theresa during the break. And she is in our audience. And she said that she actually stayed with an abusive man.

Can you tell us why?

THERESA: It was about putting a finish to it. No one could tell me to leave out of the situation but myself. And when I was satisfied, I did it. And it was about self-esteem. A lot of the abusers lower women's self-esteem so low that they see no daylight.

O'BOYLE: If a judge had told you, Theresa, because you went back to your husband the you are now held in contempt, do you think that is fair?

THERESA: No, I don't think it is fair, because there is not a whole lot of places to turn to for battered women.

O'BOYLE: And would you have put an order of protection out on him if you feared that you might be held in contempt of court?

THERESA: I did actually do that. And I did go back.

O'BOYLE: Tell us, Joe, is this something that you see setting any sort of an precedent? Will we see this anywhere in the country?

DOHERTY: Well, just reading between the lines with the judge's comments about it driving her nuts, I thought that the ruling was designed more to protect the integrity of her judicial system. And there is 30,000 of these cases, where restraining orders are issued in Kentucky on an annual basis. And here two of them just drove her to the boiling point.

And it's really not a man-and-a-woman, issue. It is a victim- perpetrator issue. And she decided to deal with what I think she must have thought was a claim that was not serious. And if you drive the people out of our judicial system who are not serious about seeking protection by letting them know that there are serious consequences for fooling the court, our court system might have a little bit more time to deal with the people who really are being victimized.

And I do not think they are going to refuse to come to the system when they are being honestly pursued by somebody who is trying to do them harm.

O'BOYLE: Well, it is very difficult for these women to come forward. And, Theresa, you are very brave to talk about it on national television.

We have got Carol on the phone, who also has a comment -- Carol?

CALLER: Yes. I would just like to say that it is very hard to get out of an abusive relationship. I was in one back probably 30 years ago. And the most dangerous time for me was when I was trying to leave him. So, I mean, I don't really know where the judge is coming from. It almost looks like she is victimizing the victims again. And that's pretty much all -- I didn't really see any peace, I don't think, in my life until he died.

O'BOYLE: Wow, that's really...

CALLER: I mean, that's really bad when I have to say that.

O'BOYLE: Painful.

CALLER: But I was always in fear of my life, because he was so abusive. And I went back to him. There were several times I went back to him, because he would say, "Oh, I will straighten up. Everything will be OK." So it just seems wrong to me to victimize those victims all over again.

O'BOYLE: Rita, it seems like it took us a long time to get this far with victims-rights laws and watching out for women who are being abused. Do you think that, in some way, we are going to go back 20 years now?

SMITH: Well, I hope not, because the point here is to hold the perpetrator accountable. And the restraining order is based on the fact that he is a danger to her. If something changes in her life that she feels like it is important that she has to contact him or that she needs to be living with him again, there is no reason for us to penalize her for that decision.

We just need to keep supporting her so that she can in fact get safe and stay safe. And, as long as he is a danger to her, then we support that choice on her part.

O'BOYLE: We have got Florence on the phone, who has the absolute opposite view -- Florence?

CALLER: I feel the judge is right. The women left these men because they were doing it to start with. Why not stay away?

O'BOYLE: We have got a comment from Marty.

MARTY: Well, the fact is, if a person -- before they go to get a restraining order, maybe they should experience all boundaries before they go into court and put the court through all of the tests and trials.

O'BOYLE: Well, Rita, you mentioned that there is a lot of different economics involved here, too. Many of these women, they have children with their abusers. They have been dependent on them for years financially.

SMITH: Absolutely. There could be a hundred reasons.

We are in an economic downturn right now, the fact that she may have to go back because she can't afford to support herself anymore. He may in fact have started to harass her again and threatened to kill her if she didn't come back. We have absolutely no idea what why she is being -- making decisions different than she had in the past.

But that's not a reason to hold her in some kind of contempt. And it more sounds that like the judge is feeling like it's a contempt to her, rather than that it is against the law for her to contact. She wasn't in a no-contact position. He was the one who had the no contact. O'BOYLE: Well, this judge in Kentucky is saying it has to go both ways.

SMITH: But there is no legal precedent for that in Kentucky. There isn't a mutual-restraining-order process in Kentucky right now. So she cannot implicate something into the law that is not there.

DOHERTY: Maureen, the victim has an opportunity to go back to that judge and seek a change of the order if the circumstances have changed.

Every case is unique on its own facts. And if you start stereotyping the defenses that the battered woman syndrome produces, you are going to have people having baggage on their defense that don't fit the facts in their case. And the only person uniquely positioned to understand the facts of these two cases is Judge Megan Thornton. And it is not up to us to speculate about what might have happened under these circumstances.

She is the one that has heard the facts of the case.

O'BOYLE: We have an e-mail to TALKBACK: "Why the abuser never gets fined?" That is from Elizabeth in Atlanta, Georgia.

When we come back, we will talk with victims advocate Hedda Nussbaum.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BOYLE: Tomorrow on TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday," a special panel of guests, including Sarah Ferguson, duchess of York, actor/TV host Ben Stein and you. Admit it. You have always wanted to talk to royalty. So, don't miss it.

(APPLAUSE)

O'BOYLE: We have had Hedda Nussbaum on the phone now. She is a well-known victim of domestic violence. And she wants to comment on the Kentucky judge's decision.

Hedda, thank you for joining us for TALKBACK LIVE.

HEDDA NUSSBAUM, VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: You're very welcome.

O'BOYLE: What's your response?

NUSSBAUM: My response is that I think that that judge obviously has no idea of what it's like to be a battered woman.

In fact, most women, and myself included, will leave the abuser several times and come back again. I never did get a restraining order. But it is -- it just seems like it is totally unfair to these women. O'BOYLE: Larry, is it unfair? Or do you think the judge has this right to sort of protect her -- protect the protection order that she put out, basically, saying this is my ruling and you have to follow it?

DOHERTY: If she doesn't have that right, the place to test it is in the appellate courts. And I think they have the machinery to go there.

O'BOYLE: They are going to appeal, the lawyers for the two women.

DOHERTY: But also bear in mind that, if you have one of those subtle perpetrators, who is not the overt attacker that prey genuinely upon the victims that the courts need to protect, this message that the judge sends is a strong message to the perpetrator too, because it is even-handed. It's to both of them. And are you not going to find somebody sweet-talking their wife trying to lure her back, anymore than we would hope that the wife would be sucked into such a charade.

O'BOYLE: Hedda, do you think that the judge might -- her thinking might be that she is actually protecting these women from these men who have harmed them?

NUSSBAUM: Well, she might be thinking that, but there are many reasons why a woman may feel that she has to go back. She may feel threatened. She may need to be supported. There is a lot of reasons. And...

(CROSSTALK)

DOHERTY: Then take those reasons back to the judge.

NUSSBAUM: ... victimized again.

O'BOYLE: We have a comment from somebody in the audience -- Cynthia?

CYNTHIA: I think that the judge is right. They should be prosecuted, because they are going through all of this system to track these folks down to lock them up because we put warrants out on them. So I feel, for me being so young, I've been in an abusive relationship.

O'BOYLE: Did you ever take an order of protection out on someone?

CYNTHIA: Yes, I did.

O'BOYLE: Did you go back with him?

CYNTHIA: No, I didn't, because I was on a point that I was on my deathbed how bad he beat me. So I think they should be prosecuted.

O'BOYLE: Wow, that's interesting. From a victim's perspective, she thinks the judge is in the right place. DOHERTY: On the facts of this case, she may just well be.

SMITH: And I think what is important here is that the issue is not to support the system so much as make sure that the system works well. The system is in place to protect us and to work on our behalf.

This isn't a normal crime situation, where -- the perpetrator is someone that they know, that they have lived with, they may have children in common with. And so it is not a regular burglary, where they are never going to have contact in the future again. There may be legal reasons or financial reasons, filing joint IRS reports or something that they have to have contact.

So we have to look at these cases differently than we would other kinds of crimes, because there is a special relationship that exists here that does not between a perpetrator and a victim. And so we have to be able to be creative with our legal representation and our legal implications around this, because, otherwise, battered women's lives are in danger.

O'BOYLE: We have another audience member who has something to say.

STAFF: This is Betsy from Elmira, New York.

BETSY: Hi. I just wanted to mention, I just recently read a statistic about, there are more animal shelters in the United States than there are shelters for abused women and their children. So where are these women supposed to go?

And I just spoke with someone from Long Island. And I remember a case, a woman did have an order of protection. And when the man got out of prison, he killed her. It is just a piece of paper.

O'BOYLE: We have got Pam on the phone.

Pam, are you there?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

O'BOYLE: And what is your response to this judge's order?

CALLER: I think the judge is absolutely right. I was in an abusive relationship. And he hit me once and I never looked back. I did not take an order of protection on him. I put him in jail. And that was the end of it. I had a small child. And he was not going to get another shot at me.

O'BOYLE: We have this e-mail to TALKBACK LIVE: "I am a male and I think that this judge is doing the right thing. It will protect lives and keep women from sending a lot of men through the judiciary process unjustly" -- Philip in Atlanta.

Philip has a different perspective on this, because I think what the judge is hoping to do is not to let the men off, but in fact to protect the women. We also have a comment from Kisha (ph) in our audience.

Kisha, you had something to say?

KISHA: Yes, I wonder if you know somebody that has been battered and they don't want nobody to say nothing, they're scared, what should I do?

O'BOYLE: Are you in this situation right now?

KISHA: No, I have a friend.

O'BOYLE: You have a friend?

Hedda, could you tell our audience member, is there an 800-number or someone that she should -- a local person in their town to talk with?

NUSSBAUM: There is. If she looked in the telephone book, there are hot lines she could call. There is even a national hot line. I don't know the number offhand.

(CROSSTALK)

O'BOYLE: I think Rita has the number.

NUSSBAUM: Oh, OK.

SMITH: The number is 800-799-7233, 24-hour crisis line, multi- lingual. Have her call.

O'BOYLE: OK, I wrote it down and I will pass it on to you after this.

Chris, you've got someone -- Mike?

STAFF: Yes, this is Mike.

Mike, go ahead and make your comment.

MIKE: Yes. I just wanted to say real quickly, I think maybe the judge is trying to actually protect this women, them also thinking, "Well, if I go back to them, there might be some legal ramifications as well," that might be something that will prevent them from going back to that abusive relationship.

DOHERTY: And amen to that, Maureen.

Bear in mind that this judge has such a keen grasp of her own judicial ethics that she is not out commenting about the justification for her own ruling. She is relying on other people to interpret her actions.

O'BOYLE: Larry, we thank you so much for being here, and Rita as well. And, Hedda Nussbaum, on the phone, thanks for your comments.

Thanks, of course, to all of you at home and our guests throughout the show.

We will see you right back here tomorrow.

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