Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Will Walker Video Be Used in Court?

Aired January 22, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Walker knowing and purposefully allied himself with certain terrorist organizations.

ANNOUNCER: Is this interview the basis of the case against American Taliban John Walker?

ROBERT YOUNG PELTON, AUTHOR: To be fair to him, he didn't start this war fighting Americans. He simply ended up with Talibans being attacked by Americans.

ANNOUNCER: The truth behind the tapes and the making of an American Taliban. What you don't know about John Walker, author Robert Pelton will tell you now.

Also, upgrade your health care. Have a doctor at your beckon call. Peak (ph) physicians and their pampered patients. Are the rich entitled to better care just because they can afford it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

NEAL BOORTZ, HOST: Hi, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, "America Speaks Out." I'm Neil Boortz. I'm your host for this entire week. Now later, you are going to learn how to get a doctor to make a house call. You just heard a little bit about that.

But right now, American Taliban -- I call him Johnny Taliban Walker -- is headed back to the United States under very tight security. The Pentagon won't even say where he is. But maybe CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon can fill in some of the blanks for us -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, there. It appears that Walker began his move back to the United States earlier today. He was flown off the USS Bataan. That's the Navy warship in the North Arabian Sea where he's been for many, many weeks now. They flew him off of there. We believe he was flown to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan and has been transferred to a larger plane for his trip back to the United States and his return to the custody of law enforcement authorities. This is about to no longer be the Pentagon's problem. Of course, he's going to face charges in federal court here in northern Virginia, and this is all going to be under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, the FBI and federal marshals. So Walker is on his way back to the U.S. now.

BOORTZ: Any idea of when his arrival will be, tomorrow, later this week?

STARR: That's a little hard to say right now because part of this is going to depend on where they stop to refuel his aircraft along the way and what some of their security concerns are. They do have some very, very big security concerns. They want to keep this all as hush-hush as possible until is he back in the United States and makes his first appearance in federal court. They could stop several places along the way to refuel and that could add several hours to the flight. He could be back sometime tomorrow, that would probably be the soonest we could expect him back in the States.

BOORTZ: OK. That's Barbara Starr. Thanks so much. Thanks for being with us.

And more about Johnny Taliban. With us now from Los Angeles -- this man is fascinating -- Robert Young Pelton. He's a freelance reporter hired by CNN to work for them in Afghanistan. His is the interview -- it was his interview you saw with John Walker. It was seen around the world. And Robert is pretty upset -- Robert is pretty upset with how that tape is being used right now. And I should mention that Robert has been to and is the author of "The World's Most Dangerous Places". That's because you haven't been on my show yet, Robert. Hey, welcome to the program, and by the way, I admire your work, fantastic book and some great video.

PELTON: Thanks, Neal.

BOORTZ: Now you are more than a little upset with the fact that this tape is being used in some of the ways it is. Would you tell us first how did this interview with John Walker happen?

PELTON: Well, I was with General Dostum, who is an Afghan commander in Mazar-e Sharif area. I was also with the Green Berets unit that was helping him fight the war against the Taliban. And John Walker was in the uprising at Kawejungi (ph) fortress. So after he had been in a bunker for seven days, they flushed out about 86 foreign fighters that were fighting with the Taliban.

Dostum brought those people to me at his house in Sheberghan so I could interview them and photograph them. At that time, Walker was on a truckful of wounded people and I didn't see him. He was then taken to a hospital, and then one of Dostum's men ran over and said there is an American in the hospital. I then went upstairs, grabbed a Green Beret medic because I knew he was wounded, and asked him if he would come with me to the hospital. We then went to the Sheberghan hospital to the admitting ward, where there were 18 people in very, very bad shape lying on the floor. I then walked over to where a doctor was yelling at this man lying on the floor. And he kept saying his name was John and that he was from Washington, D.C. And then I took over and started asking questions.

BOORTZ: Now, you talk about the Green Beret medic. At some point during the interview, they had to medicate him. He was obviously in pain from some of the video we've seen. But they had to medicate him. What was it, morphine?

PELTON: No, specifically when we had shown up, we confirmed that he had been given an antibiotic, which has obviously no effect on your mental state. When we took him upstairs to a separate room, he was given an IV of hespan. Hespan is a fairly benign form of IV that just builds up your blood sugar, gives you some protein.

And then -- you can actually hear it in the interview. About two-thirds of the way through, he is given a shot of morphine for his pain. And what happens is about five to eight minutes after that, he gets sleepy and I leave him alone and he falls asleep.

BOORTZ: Now, obviously, he had some things to say that, if they became evidence, might be damaging. Was he talking to you freely during this interview?

PELTON: Yes. The interesting thing was is that the initial contact with Walker was very belacose. He didn't want to talk to me. I repeatedly asked him if he could give me any details that I could pass on to his loved ones, specifically his parents or if he had a wife or friend, because the fact that he had survived alone was at least worth communicating to someone.

He refused to do that. He even said, I don't give you my permission to take my picture, and I respected that. So twice during the interview, I said, fine, I will leave you alone. We'll get on with your medical attention. And then when he was lying on the bed, I was just chatting with him. I wasn't filming, and he started talking. So I motioned to the cameraman. I said, you know, go. And he started talking. And we had a good conversation.

BOORTZ: Now, as we teased a second ago, you're upset. You're not -- this tape, your interview is apparently a central part of this entire prosecution of John Walker. And you're not happy with that.

PELTON: Yes. Well, I will give you some background. There was another reason why I brought a Green Beret medic with me to attend to Walker, because if he was an American citizen and if he was a member of a terrorist organization or if he was a foreign fighter fighting with the Taliban, he was someone that needed to be taken into custody; A: to prevent him from being killed; and B: to make sure that he could provide information to our troops; and C: so he would actually be alive and healthy to stand trial.

I did that as a person, not as a journalist or a writer. I did it because I felt that was his best interest. My conversation with him was after an extremely traumatic seven days. Most humans would not survive that type of treatment. He was also undergoing medical care. He was also being interrogated by a Green Beret medic. But that's not the worst part.

The worst part is that he's had almost two months in solitary confinement in the custody of the U.S. military being interrogated by the FBI, being interrogated the military, and I'm sure the CIA and other people. He's been very forthright about what he did, who he is, where he came from. So why the government has to use not only transcripts from an interview, but also apparently comments that I made about Walker to bring him to justice is beyond me.

BOORTZ: Well, I mean, our legal history is absolutely full of incidents where people have talked to the media, made statements in the public venue, and then those statements have come back to haunt them. Now, John Walker, he's 20 years old. He's an adult. I might say that he is a pretty stupid adult, but he is an adult nonetheless.

If he got some sort of a blanket protection from any statements he made to you on this interview, think what type of protection that could be for other people charged with a crime. All they have to do is blurt out, hey, I did it, to some reporter and boom, it becomes that much harder to prosecute him.

PELTON: I think the point you are forgetting is that Walker is not trying to escape any charges. He is cooperating fully with the military. He talked to the Green Berets that night when I took him back to my place. He at no time said, I'm not telling you something, or at no time has he ever told a story that didn't jive with everything he said. So what I'm saying is what happened for 46, 48, 50 days aboard the Bataan and also the Peleliu. My opinion is that if we are going to do trial by CNN, then everybody has to stop and say, you know, I can't really talk to you because this is going to be used in the court case against me.

BOORTZ: Well, I guess that issue about whether or not he is trying to escape charges, we will find out when they indict him. If he says not guilty, then he is trying to escape the charges.

We will be back in just a second, my friends, and add some more personalities to the mix here, talking about Johnny Walker, the Mullah of Marin. Stay where you are.

(APPLAUSE)

ANNOUNCER: If you're in the Atlanta area and you would like free tickets to the show, call 1-800-410-4CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOORTZ: OK. Joining us now, TALKBACK LIVE, CNN national correspondent, Susan Candiotti. She's following the John Walker saga. And, Susan, I understand that you have read the entire -- I don't think they call it an indictment, the charge or whatever it is they have drawn up against...

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's called a criminal complaint.

BOORTZ: A criminal complaint. Now to what extent is the CNN interview with John Walker used in this complaint?

CANDIOTTI: Well, it's certainly a part of it. As to whether it is the most important part of it is unclear from reading the criminal complaint. It is quite lengthy. And in this affidavit written up by an FBI agent, she goes on to discuss the highlights of her interview with John Walker. It doesn't say how long that took place.

But she does say that after speaking with John Walker, rather beforehand, that he signed an agreement to speak with her and agreed to do so in writing and then proceeded to provide this statement that he would have signed off on as well. But again, Neal, it is difficult to say at this time whether it was, you know, what percentage of the basis of the CNN interview made up the criminal indictment because he did also give information to the authorities. But of course, we will probably find out during the course of the trial.

BOORTZ: Very quickly, Robert Pelton was concerned. He was wondering what happened to John Walker while he was on that ship. Who was talking to him? He had no access to family, lawyers, or the media for that matter. This interview you just talked about with the FBI agent, took place on that ship?

CANDIOTTI: Difficult to say for sure. They did have access to him, but it remains unclear whether they talked to him aboard that ship. I would be guessing. I think so, but I'm not certain of it. And we do know that his lawyers, by the way, lawyers representing John Walker and his family are in the Washington, D.C. area trying to make arrangements for the family so that they can see him as soon as possible once Walker is back on U.S. soil.

BOORTZ: Interesting about the lawyers, because the Pentagon is claiming that he has weighed -- does not agree to be represented by these people. So at this point, really, that's just the family's lawyers.

CANDIOTTI: According to the government, he waived his right to an attorney when he agreed to speak with the FBI. Of course, all of this will be challenged, his statement will be challenged naturally by the defense attorneys. But I think -- here is what we can probably expect when Walker makes his first appearance in court sometime after he arrives, not long after he arrives here.

First of all, the judge is going to read out the charges to John Walker. And then, the judge will explain what the maximum sentence would be, in this case, a possible life term. And then there is a brief opportunity to hear from Walker. He might say something, he might not. And he will be asked whether he has -- whether he is represented by counsel. So again, it will be interesting to hear in court what he has to say about that.

I would not be at all surprised at that point, the lawyers, who say they represent him, stand up to the bar and say, your honor, we represent Mr. Walker. We would like to address the court and we would like to speak with our client.

BOORTZ: It's going to be the show trial of the year. Susan, thank you so much, really appreciate your time.

And, Robert Pelton, you expressed concerns about what might have happened on the ship. Well, there is some indication, interviews by FBI agents. You were the first Westerner to encounter John Walker after he was captured and, I don't mean this in a negative sense, but do you have a certain amount of sympathy for him right now? You were the first one there.

PELTON: I don't have sympathy for John Walker. When I first saw him, my concern was, I was told there was a man who was an American who was amongst the wounded. You have to understand, 15 minutes earlier, I had been propping up dead bodies to take pictures of them watching people die. So my concern was simply getting him medical help. Right now, my concern is he is an American citizen, and as any American citizen should be, we are concerned that he is going to get a fair trial. And, obviously, that is going to be very difficult with the amount of media attention.

BOORTZ: From my home state of Texas, we have Linda, Linda with a question for Robert.

LINDA: How do you feel about Walker at sea not having access to an attorney as established by the war in court decision, Gideon versus Wainwright, not to mention the war in court Miranda decision?

PELTON: My concern is that we're fighting a war against terrorists. And obviously, we are not going to apprehend somebody and then give him full legal rights under either the Geneva Convention or either under our civil code.

You don't know who these people are until you talk to them. Many of them told me fibs about who they were, what country they were from, why they were here. So, until Walker's identity could be established clearly, obviously you can hold him anywhere you want. But Walker was very cooperative, and that's the key point I want it make here. He apparently talked to FBI agents during the 9th and the 10th, which surprises me because only two days of interrogation doesn't seem like a very long time, considering he was on there for 40 or 48 days.

BOORTZ: Robert, in the final analysis, we just showed a message on the screen that addresses this. In the war on terrorism, which may take many years, in the final analysis, John Walker is going to be a paragraph in a very thick book. Why has the -- why is the public latched on to this so much? And are we making a bigger deal out of the trials and travails of John Walker than he deserves?

PELTON: That's a good point. He is a face that we can understand because he is an American. When he opens his mouth, he speaks English. So we immediately relate that to his background and the Taliban and bin Laden and so on and so forth. But he is not the guy we need to focus on. The people that flew those planes into the buildings were not Americans or Afghans. The people conducting that will conduct the next terrorist acts are not people like John Walker. They live amongst us. They are carrying out their everyday activities without any suspicion. So I would just like to keep our eye on the ball here that there are terrorists out there waiting for the next time.

BOORTZ: One more -- two questions, one of them very quick. What do you think he will look like when he steps off that plane. Think they were worried about lice with John Walker? And what would you like to see happen to him, the final outcome?

PELTON: No. 1, I think John Walker will have his beard shaved and his head shaved just for health reasons and he will be quite upset about that. No. 2, I would like to see John Walker work very closely with the U.S. government to help us apprehend and find other people who might be waging terrorist acts against either this nation or other ones. And he can cut a deal any way he wants.

BOORTZ: Again, Robert, I admire your work. Stay safe out there. You can only dodge this for so long. Glad you could join us today. I appreciate it, sir.

PELTON: My pleasure.

BOORTZ: We are going to take a quick break. TALKBACK LIVE when we come back we hear from the attorneys. You are going to like these guys. Stay where you are.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, is there sympathy for the American Taliban?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I don't notice that he was handled any differently or has been in the past or is now. He was wounded, so he was treated. There are many other people who were wounded, and they have been treated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The case against John Walker, next on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOORTZ: OK, welcome back. We're talking about the case against John Walker. He's the guy with the Taliban. Here to make or break the case right now, criminal defense attorney from New York, a talk show host also, imagine that, a talk show host and an attorney, this is Ron Kuby; and former Republican Congressional Counsel, a beltway attorney, and this is Jack Burkman and, gentlemen, you have seen Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson today. Why don't you two just go at it for a second. Ron, we will give you the first shot.

RON KUBY, FIRST AMENDMENT ATTORNEY: Well, a lot of what happens to Johnny Jihad is really going to depend on what he wants to happen. We have been talking about this case almost as if it is going to be the lawyer's decision how he conducts his defense. It may turn out that way. It also may turn out that Mr. Walker, who has been remarkably unrepentant so far, decides he wants to mount a political defense, take control of his own defense either represent himself or have the assistance of complying council, and mount a political attack on the United States.

Which is entirely possible. Defendants have done it in the past on both the left and right. In addition, he may very well decide he wants prisoner of war status, that the U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction to try him and he may make a political issue out of that.

BOORTZ: Ron, you are a media kind of guy. Is it going to be televised? Do you think the trial will be televised?

KUBY: Well, thus far, the one decision that came down so far, in the Zacharias Moussaoui case, the judge said no. Traditionally cameras have been barred from the federal courts, and I don't think that will change in this case.

JACK BURKMAN, GOP ATTORNEY: You know, Neal, sitting here listening to your previous guest talk about how he is sad his tape will be used as part of the criminal prosecution. I can't believe my ears. He should be proud that that tape would be used to convict this scum. And I think CNN should be proud as well. To the extent it can help the attorney general, it should.

I think the images of can 9-11 have become all too distant for Americans. This guy, John Walker, is fighting with the Taliban. These are the people who harbored al Qaeda. The notion that he would somehow emerge as a sympathetic figure listening to that photographer, all of a sudden Walker is becoming sympathetic. I just can't believe my ears. The other thing is speaking a little bit off the point, but your previous guest was talking about the injured Taliban and how terrible it was.

You know, these are the people who harbored al Qaeda. It's a great thing that they are injured. It is too bad we couldn't get rid of them all. I'm shocked. People are losing perspective on who these people are.

KUBY: Nobody's lost any perspective on September 11. But we don't repair the damage and avenge the murders of September 11 by ignoring our own standards of decency, and our own standards of justice. The reality is, John Walker is not charged with complicity in September 11. And certainly he fought with the Taliban, the Taliban harbored al Qaeda. The Taliban was harboring al Qaeda this past summer when George W. Bush gave them $43 million.

BURKMAN: All of this talk about these people down in Guantanamo, Walker and the others, somehow they are not being treated fairly. These are people who were living in caves in Afghanistan. Living in Guantanamo Bay with the U.S. military, these people have never lived better in their lives.

BOORTZ: Now, Jack...

KUBY: They have everything except freedom, right. BOORTZ: Ron, give me a chance. I am going to hate you for this later, but I am going to actually be on your side for a second. Jack, you called Johnny Taliban scum. OK, maybe so. But is it possible he is just a just a dumb Marin County teenager who is in some cases, the victims of hideously bad parents?

BURKMAN: Oh, I think all that is true. I think is he a dumb Marin County teenager and he did have bad parents and he is a victim. But none of that changes the fact...

BOORTZ: You are heartless, Jack.

BURKMAN: None of that changes the fact -- none of that changes the fact that this guy should be tried for treason. And today I will renew my call. I guess if I'm moving right of John Ashcroft, I don't know where that leaves me. But I will renew my call to my good friend, John Ashcroft, that he really should try this guy for treason.

BOORTZ: Ron, is there any way they can convict him of treason?

KUBY: It is extremely unlikely. John Ashcroft, who can hardly be accused of excessive sympathy towards al Qaeda sympathizers, recognizes that the only to get a treason conviction is either through two eyewitnesses to the actual treasonous act or a confession made in open court, and so far that evidence...

BURKMAN: We have both.

KUBY: He has made a confession in open court?

BOORTZ: Jack, he hasn't been in open court.

KUBY: The Constitution says that, the Constitution itself. You can blame those old dead white men, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, maybe they were too easy on terrorists too, but they wrote that provision into the Constitution.

BURKMAN: Neal, let me tell you something, no one is talking about throwing the Constitution away. Treason in most cases, and I have said this before, is a very complex case to prove because you are dealing with political abstractions. You are talking about people like Richard Nixon or Aaron Burr. It's complex.

When you are dealing with someone who has joined an army that is fighting the United States, it is not so complex. To find those two witnesses, OK, you need to find two people who Walker may have told that he was aware that the Taliban was fighting the United States. Yes, you will have to give immunity, yes, that is a problem, yes, we just have to swallow hard and do that.

This isn't that complicated. What I said have before is, if you can prove the charges that the Justice Department has currently laid out against Walker, there's no reason you can't take the final step and prove treason.

BOORTZ: Let me make this proposal to both of you. This kid is taking up a lot of our attention. There may be more important things we can focus on.

Jack, you just mentioned, fighting in a foreign army against the United States. Look at the back of his passport. It says he can be stripped of his citizenship for that act. Why not just strip him of his citizenship, leave him in Kandahar, where he apparently is right now, and say, adios, Johnny Taliban; you can never enter the United States again?

BURKMAN: You know why, Neal? Because 4,000 people and my good friend Barbara Olson are lying dead in the World Trade Center. And the Pentagon of the United States was hit. And what happened is too serious. And if we have an opportunity to bring a charge of treason.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: Let me tell you something. If the government has any opportunity to bring a charge of treason, it is incumbent on the president to do that. He should not look to go the other way. He should do everything humanly possible to bring this charge.

KUBY: The difficulty with this conversation is, we want to place on John Walker's shoulders the weight of September 11. If there was some evidence that he had something to do with September 11, I and I think almost all decent people would agree he should be tried for that. But he didn't. He is not charged with it. He wasn't involved in it. And to go out and wreak vengeance on a guy like John Walker because of what happened September 11 I think is outrageous.

BURKMAN: You are missing the point. Walker fought with the army who harbored al Qaeda. Remember what the president said. It is not just the terrorists...

(CROSSTALK)

BOORTZ: But, Ron, he was a gang member.

KUBY: The Northern Alliance, General Dostum, the gang of murderers and cutthroats that made up the Northern Alliance, those are the people who chose to fight.

BURKMAN: He was aware. He was certainly aware, unless you are going to argue that he is somehow mentally retarded or insane or something else.

BOORTZ: OK, the bell has rung. To your corners, OK? We are going to continue this in just a few minutes.

And then, later -- I love this topic -- doctors who make house calls for the people who can afford to get them to do it, rich people. Should quality medical care depend on the size of your wallet?

Well be back. This is TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BOORTZ: OK. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Neal Boortz.

We are talking with attorneys Ron Kuby, Jack Burkman about the case against John Walker.

So far, Jack, man, I hate it. You got me on that left-wing, pony-tailed attorney's side. How is this happening?

(LAUGHTER)

BOORTZ: Now, we have which Will from Ohio, wants to ask a question. I want to see if your answer is going to be the same as mine.

Go ahead, Will.

CALLER: I would like to know what happened to the presumption of innocence that Walker is supposed to be afforded, when Ashcroft is out front already basically saying he is guilty?

BURKMAN: Well, Ashcroft is the prosecutor. And I think he is doing a good job in that role. It is his job to prosecute the case. It will be for a judge and jury to try the issues of material fact.

Look, I agree with you, there are relevant and significant issues of material fact. You know what I think. I mean, I think what is really at issue in this case is John Walker's state of mind: What did he know? When did he know it? I don't think and I don't think the attorney general thinks that it is too much -- it will be too hard to prove those things.

But in terms of Ashcroft, you have to remember, he is not just the attorney general. He is the prosecutor and he has to do his job.

KUBY: Right. It would be useful, though, if defense attorneys had been granted access to John Walker at some point in the past couple of months. It is true that when he was being interrogated on board ship on December 9 and 10, he waived his Miranda rights, at least according to the authorities. But he was never informed that the family had hired counsel, that counsel was trying to see him.

It would be useful if somebody can speak on behalf of Mr. Walker after the government has had two months of interrogation to sort of present their case before the public.

(CROSSTALK)

BOORTZ: OK. Ron and Jack, on this presumption of innocence, my response -- tell me how wrong I am -- the presumption of innocence is for the government, not for the citizens. We are free to think and say what we want about Johnny Taliban.

BURKMAN: Well, yes, sure, the defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, no question about it.

But what I would say, Neal, is that what Ron is talking about is giving this guy, giving the defendant more than the law allows. He says, well, he waived his Miranda rights, but it would have been helpful, it would have been useful if he had been told this, that and the other.

It is not the government's job, it's not the military's job, it's not John Ashcroft's job to do that sort of thing.

(CROSSTALK)

KUBY: You know what? That notion that an American who is the subject of criminal proceedings is being held incommunicado for weeks and weeks and weeks with injuries, a lawyer is trying to reach him, and he is not being permitted to speak to counsel, is he being told that counsel is there is certainly going to be a factor in whether any of these statements are admissible in the first place. A judge could go either way on it.

BURKMAN: Ron, we are in a wartime situation. It is not the fault of the Justice Department that they find themselves in a war. Johnny Walker is the one who went to Afghanistan. We did not bring him there. And I think you're losing sight.

KUBY: Fine. Then treat him as a prisoner of war in accordance with the Geneva Convention. When hostilities are over, repatriate him back to Afghanistan. If we're going to call this a war, then treat him as a prisoner of war. If you want to treat this as a crime, then treat him in accordance with the criminal justice system of the United States.

BOORTZ: Now, Ron, you said it might be helpful if the American forces would tell John Walker that his parents had hired lawyers. It also might have been helpful if John Walker had told the American forces at Mazar-e Sharif that an uprising was being planned by his buddies in the Taliban and the al Qaeda there.

KUBY: Sure. And it might have been even more helpful to John Walker that, when he was being questioned, he would have shown some remorse instead of this cold, steely, jihadist determination, which I think has eroded any sympathy that some people initially had for him, when they saw him disheveled face and they say, "How did this kid end up here?" As he kept talking, he's done what a lot of defendants do. He's talking himself into prison.

BURKMAN: Ron misses a lot of the point.

We have to do everything humanly possible to get this guy convicted. This is not a hero.

KUBY: Who are we?

BURKMAN: Even Ron doesn't think this guy is a hero. We have to do everything -- it is incumbent on the Justice Department to get every piece of evidence admitted, to get the witnesses called who need to be called. We have to do everything humanly possible to get a conviction in this case. KUBY: And it is incumbent upon the defense to do everything possible to secure that presumption of innocence. And, ultimately, it's incumbent upon the court to decide whether these statements that he made under these conditions and this extensive detention are in fact admissible. And I just hope there is a judge out there who has the courage to make the ruling in according with law rather

(CROSSTALK)

BOORTZ: Gentlemen, you two have been great, absolutely fantastic.

Ron, some day I will want to do a show with you on why the world's defense attorneys all have raggedy pony-tails.

KUBY: Yes, go figure.

(LAUGHTER)

BOORTZ: But that will be another show. We're going to say goodbye to Ron Kuby and Jack Burkman right now.

When we come back -- again, I like this topic -- if you have the money, should you be able to buy special access to your doctor? Well, why not?

TALKBACK LIVE, I'm Neal Boortz -- back in a moment.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up: super-sized health care, service with a smile: Are boutique doctors offering the rich something extra at the expense of the poor? Could you afford a little TLC? Find out next on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOORTZ: All right, folks, they are called boutique medical plans: lots of personal attention, top-notch care. Doctors make house calls, are always in. You have their cell phone number. They're at your beck and call 24-7. And guess what? It costs thousands of dollars a year more than your basic health care costs, your basic insurance plan.

Great if you can afford it, but is there a downside? We are going to talk to Dr. Bernard Kaminetsky, an internist in Boca Raton, Florida. He is a member of one of those specialty groups. I think it's called MDVIP. And with right here us at the TALKBACK LIVE studios, we have Dr. Richard Roberts. He is the chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

And since you are right here next to me, I will ask you first. If you can afford the special access, where is the problem?

RICHARD ROBERTS, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS: Well, Neal, people in America have always been able to have that kind of access if they could afford it. When I trained in Los Angeles, I can assure you the folks living up in the hills that were the movie stars always knew where to find their doctor. But the issue here is really reorganizing an entire medical practice so that only those willing to pay a premium can access the doctor. And, as a family doctor, I make house calls. My patients have my home number. They can reach me when they need to reach me. And I don't charge extra for it.

BOORTZ: Dr. Kaminetsky, I want to get your opinion on this. You are MDVIP, Boca Raton, Florida. And there is certainly no shortage of people down there that can afford some enhanced care or enhanced access.

Your side of this equation, sir?

DR. BERNARD KAMINETSKY, INTERNIST, MDVIP: Thank you for having me.

You know, one of the things that attracted me to the MDVIP model, just to qualify your question, is that I believe that what they have set up is decidedly within the reach of the middle class in terms of $1,500 a year or $125 a month. But, granted, there are people for whom that would be prohibitive as well.

The issue for me and for my patients is that there are real problems in American medicine the way it is practiced today. This concept that MDVIP came up with did not occur in a vacuum. It has come up in response to a need. It is come with as a situation where doctors are facing declining reimbursement, a crush of people who need to see them for various reasons, demographics. The population is getting older. Baby boomers are now at an age where they need of treatment for diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, heart disease and so forth. The population is getting older.

There are new treatments and new technologies and new medications for conditions which were not treated before; 30 years ago, you might have told the patient, "It is a chronic condition. There is nothing we can do"

So all of these things together have created an environment where there is more of a need to see the doctor. There are more patients to see the doctor. And, the same time, doctors got declining reimbursement, fixed overhead or increasing overhead, increasing malpractice. And the only way a doctor can do this is by seeing 25, 30, 35 people a day. And it becomes diminishing returns. There is no time for emphasis on wellness. There is no time for emphasis on prevention, no time to discuss nutrition, exercise physiology.

All of the naysayers who say, well, this is not a solution, I agree. This it is not a global solution. It's not a national solution. But it is easy to say, "There is no solution. You can't do that." But then what? What is the solution? How do people get time with the doctor? How do people get access?

I applaud what Dr. Roberts says. Dr. Roberts -- I have an article in "Medical Economics" where he says he does house calls. He goes to nursing homes. People have his phone. He goes to a school to see if a child may be autistic. And he sees 30 people a day. I don't know. Are the days that long in Wisconsin? I found it impossible. You can't see 30 people a day. Just look at numbers: 30 people a day, 15-minute visits. That is 7 1/2 hours just for your visits, plus the phone calls, review of labs, discussion with patients, consultation with families. It is impossible.

And even 15 minutes, by the way, is not enough. There are new therapies where I can spend 15 minutes just discussing the new therapy with the patient and explaining to them why I think they should use it.

BOORTZ: We have Florence. She is on the phone calling from, I believe, North Dakota. That is close to Wisconsin.

Florence, go ahead.

CALLER: Yes.

I just wanted to say that I personally feel that nobody, not even the people that consider themselves high and mighty, should be treated any different than the normal, everyday people because of medical treatment.

BOORTZ: Now, Florence, what do you mean by high and mighty? By high and mighty, are you talking about the people that have worked hard all of their lives to earn enough money to be able to afford special care from a doctor? Is that the high and mighty?

CALLER: Well, movies stars, lawyers, for example, judges, anybody that has some money that can say, "Hey, here I have got it. Come take care of me at the house."

I can't do that. And I am sure there is probably 75 percent of the people out there that can't do it either.

BOORTZ: So, even if they can afford it, they should not have it because other people can't afford it?

One second, Florence. You're looking at President Bush returning to the White House. We will keep him on screen just for a second to see if his dog gets away from him again.

But, Florence, if somebody can afford it, they should not be able to have it just because other people can't afford it, is that right?

CALLER: Well, I'm not saying they shouldn't have it, but because of that, they are depriving other individuals of getting good medical care.

BOORTZ: Oh, OK.

Now, back to you, Doctor. Are people being deprived of medical care because some doctors are setting up a boutique practice?

KAMINETSKY: Absolutely not, for a variety of reasons. BOORTZ: Well, I was going to actually ask Dr. Roberts here, if I could.

ROBERTS: Well, I don't know the answer to that, because this is a fairly new phenomenon, Neal. Even if people are not ultimately denied care, because everybody, sooner or later, if the problem is severe enough, will show up in an emergency department and they will be treated.

The problem, though, is that care denied is often the result of care delayed, if you can take care of things when they are small or prevent them altogether. One thing Dr. Kaminetsky and I absolutely agree on is, the system is in a mess right now. Find me somebody that is happy with the health care system in America. The way it is funded, the way it is organized really is not working anymore. And we need go back to the basics and rethink how we would like health care delivered.

BOORTZ: Well, let me ask you this -- not exactly on topic -- but is the system in a mess because of too much government or too little?

ROBERTS: Good question, don't know the answer.

We know that more than half of health care spending is by government, but I have not heard anybody standing up asking that Medicare or Medicaid or the Department of Defense or the Veterans Administration or all the other federal programs be cut.

BOORTZ: Dr. Kaminetsky, down there in Boca Raton, Florida, when you switched over to MDVIP -- I am going to assume that your practice was structured differently before you went into this speciality.

KAMINETSKY: Yes, of course.

BOORTZ: Did you have to tell any your patients, "Cough up $4,000, $5,000, $8,000 or I can't be your doctor anymore"?

KAMINETSKY: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

Well, the model would be -- it is $1,500. But, in any case, there were several provisions made. For many people, it is a matter of choice; it's not a matter of need. And they are entitled to make that decision. For those who chose to have more time with me, have greater access with me, know they can be guaranteed a same-day appointment, talk to me about wellness, prevention, nutrition, etcetera, all those other bells and whistles I mentioned before, for those people, it was a choice.

Now, some people don't have that choice because they really didn't have the means. And for those patients who legitimately don't have the means, for my partners and for myself, those people continue to be our patients. They are complimentary members of MDVIP. So, in terms of our responsibility to the community, I believe that we certainly meet that standard.

BOORTZ: We have a question here from the audience. Before we go to Audrey, real quick your answer: too much government, too little government in medical care right now?

KAMINETSKY: I wouldn't posit an answer to that. There is a tremendous misallocation of resources. Whether that is a government responsibility or not is open to debate.

BOORTZ: OK. We have -- Chris has cornered Audrey.

STAFF: Yes. Audrey, go ahead.

AUDREY: I have a comment, not a question. And it simply is that if you can afford a luxury, go ahead and buy it. And if getting special treatment is a luxury, go for it.

BOORTZ: Now, Diana, you are not happy with that?

DIANA: Well, say today he is my doctor and then he goes to this VIP, and then tomorrow he is not, and I have lost a really good doctor. And maybe I get someone I really don't care for because I can't afford this guy now.

BOORTZ: Well, he just said that did not happen to his patients.

DIANA: So, what is he doing with all these patients? If he is going to do a VIP, then he can't service everybody if he is on call 24-7.

BOORTZ: Dr. Kaminetsky?

KAMINETSKY: I'll give you the answer to that.

In anticipation of my move, my former group brought in another physician so that any patients who chose not to follow me to my new practice certainly had the option of staying with a physician in the practice and being cared for. No one fell through the cracks. The analogy, to me, is sort of like the private school/public school. If your teacher in public school moves over to a private school, you have that option. If you want to stay with that teacher, you can enroll in the private school. If not, however, you are still going to get a education. There are still teachers there. And there are still doctors there.

BOORTZ: Dr. Roberts, time is short. I am going to let you carry it to the end of the discussion here.

And I would like you to tell me why, for instance, if I can afford the special care, why should I not be able to go out there and seek it?

ROBERTS: Neal, you can and should if you can afford it. My concern is, if many doctors take on this approach, there will be a number of people denied access to care. We really need, in our system, to better support relationships that doctors and patients have. And I agree with Dr. Kaminetsky. The current system does not do that very well. And that is why many of us are frustrated. BOORTZ: Maybe if we could get insurance companies and the government out of the relationships between doctors and their patients, it might help a bit?

ROBERTS: I think if you can fix that one, you have tackled a pretty big problem.

BOORTZ: I am not taking that one on. And tell me where this analogy is wrong. And we only have 20 seconds: You can play a public course. You can join a country club.

ROBERTS: Well, one of the issues around health care is that everyone eventually needs some of it. And the issue is, all of us eventually pay for it, because if you have no means to pay, and you show up in the emergency department, you will be cared for. So we better figure out a way to fund it and deliver it efficiently and effectively.

BOORTZ: Doctors, thank you very much. We are right at the end of our rope.

Thanks to the guests. And thank you very much at home for watching.

I'm Neal Boortz. And we're going to be back again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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