Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Did Kidnapers Extend the Deadline?; Should the Beamer Foundation own 'Let's Roll'?

Aired January 31, 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.
KARYN BRYANT, HOST: Did kidnappers extend the deadline, threatening journalist Daniel Pearl's life? Why would they delay? Former hostage Terry Anderson helps us understand the minds of the kidnapers.

And Todd Beamer's last words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now America is embracing a new ethic, and a new creed: Let's roll.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE")

LISA BEAMER, WIFE OF TODD BEAMER: Of course, Todd's infamous, "Let's roll" words have been put on a variety of T-shirts and hats and all sorts of things that we have received from all over the country, so...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Can the Beamer family own these words? Should anyone?

Hello and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. I'm Karyn Bryant, your host for the rest of this week.

Now, we are going to start off with the case of kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl. Yesterday's 24-hour deadline has come and gone, and it seems Pearl may still be alive. This information apparently hinges on an e-mail.

Let's ask CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel about it.

Andrea, we're glad you could join us. What can you tell us? What is the latest from the State Department?

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, good afternoon Karyn. It's a bit of bittersweet news for the friends and family of 38- year-old Daniel Pearl. We now know that there was, in fact, a third e-mail that was sent today by the people believed to be Pearl's kidnapers. It was sent to a number of Western news organizations. CNN did receive a copy.

And in this e-mail, there is an extension of the one day -- the 24-hour deadline the kidnappers had put into place yesterday. I believe we have a copy of this e-mail, which I can read a portion of for you.

In this e-mail, the kidnappers say: "We give you one more day. If America will not meet our demands, we will kill Daniel. Then this cycle will continue and no American journalist could enter Pakistan."

I should also tell you that, in yesterday's e-mail -- there have been a total of three e-mails -- in Wednesday's e-mail the kidnappers not only threatened Daniel's life, but they also gave American journalists who are in Pakistan right now three days to get out of Pakistan or they could be become targets too.

Now, earlier today Secretary of State Powell was asked about what the kidnappers are demanding; they're making several demands of the U.S. government. And he was ask whether or not this is something the U.S. would ever consider. He absolutely ruled it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We're doing everything we can to try to locate him and rescue him. I have spoken to President Musharraf in Pakistan about the situation, and I know that he is doing everything he can.

The demands that the kidnappers have placed are not demands that we can meet or deal with, or get into a negotiation about. The detainees at Guantanamo are being treated humanely. People have been down there from various countries and various organizations to see them, and can provide witness to this fact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: So where does that leave us right now? Well, in fact, there is an FBI team that has been on the ground since this story first broke last week, Karyn. They're working hand-in-hand with Pakistani authorities on the ground, trying to piece together what few clues they have to try to find Daniel, to try to find his kidnappers and save him before this 24-hour, new deadline expires, Karyn.

BRYANT: Now Andrea, have there been any recommendations for the journalists, coming from the State Department?

KOPPEL: Yes, in fact there have been. Today we learned that the U.S. officials, U.S. diplomats in Pakistan, in Islamabad, the capital, have called in all American journalists and tried to gather them together and give them what advice they can -- how they might sort of beef up their own security measures because many of them, including our own -- CNN's Ben Wedeman, who is on the ground there, refuse to leave. They want to continue to report on the story.

But U.S. diplomats are trying to give them some tips as to how they might be on the lookout and be on alert.

BRYANT: OK, Andrea Koppel thanks very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

And we have somebody with us now who knows all about being a hostage. Terry Anderson was a journalist head hostage in Beirut for seven years -- that's seven years -- beginning in 1985. He is currently co-chairman of the Committee to Protect Journalists. His memoirs of those seven years is titled "Den of Lions."

Terry, thank you for joining us. And first question: Is this extension good news for Daniel Pearl?

TERRY ANDERSON, FORMER BEIRUT HOSTAGE: Sure; absolutely. It's a good indication that they want someone to talk to them, and that they're in no hurry to carry out their threats. It's perfectly obvious that it would do them no good to kill Daniel -- then, what are you going to do?

I think what we're trying to do with them is not negotiate in any sense, because there isn't anything to be negotiated -- those demands are just impossible. The U.S. government isn't going to address them -- but to convince them that they've made a mistake. That they've done something that isn't going to help them at all.

BRYANT: Well, the "Wall Street Journal" obviously -- and everybody in the government contending he is not in the CIA, he is not part of Israel's Mossad -- what is the "Wall Street Journal" doing, though, to help Daniel?

ANDERSON: I can't give you any details. I know they're doing everything they can...

BRYANT: What can they do, even?

ANDERSON: Try to convince these people to let him go.

Look, my kidnappers told me 10 years ago, when I was released, that they agreed, finally, after seven years, that kidnapping hadn't done them any good. It was not, they said, a useful tactic. It hadn't gotten them what they wanted, and it had been a lot of trouble.

We hope that these people will conclude the same thing. Kidnapping doesn't help. It -- there is no way that any Western government, including the United States, is going to negotiate with kidnappers over these kinds of political demands. It's just not going to happen.

And if they're after publicity, I have to remind them the only publicity they're getting is negative. Nobody is paying any attention to the demands. Nobody is looking to see if there's any justice or truth in them. And nobody will or should, as long as they're holding a hostage to try to make their point. The only reasonable way out of this is for them to give Daniel his interview and let him go home.

BRYANT: Well, we've got a question here from somebody in the audience -- Carl (ph).

CARL: Terry, my question to you is: When you're in a situation like that, how do you motivate yourself from day to day? How do you continue to live, as opposed to falling into a depression?

ANDERSON: Well, you do what everybody in the world does: You do what you have to do every day. You have to find the strength to get through the day, face whatever comes your way, do it with whatever grace and dignity you can muster. Sometimes you don't think you can, but you do it anyway because you don't have a choice.

Isn't that what everybody does?

BRYANT: Well Terry, let's give everybody here a little bit of background on what exactly did happen to you. You were kidnapped and you were kept in Lebanon for seven years. What was your situation like? Were you alone? Were you with others? You know, how did you keep your spirits up?

ANDERSON: I was the chief Middle East correspondent for the AP at the time. I was kidnapped off the street. The first six months or so I was in solitary confinement. The treatment was not good. Then a number of hostages were collected in a couple of different places. I had several cell mates over the years. It was difficult. It was not a good place to be.

BRYANT: I mean, what kind of things go through your mind? You know, there's on week you're there, maybe you can handle that. How do you deal with one year, two years, three years?

ANDERSON: One day at a time, one hour at a time.

It gets hard to deal with after a while, but you do it anyway. I'm praying, of course, that Daniel won't have to face anything like that -- that we can resolve his situation relatively quickly.

Look, this is a mistake, OK. After the Lebanon hostages were released, after my release, Americans were not kidnapped around the world for political reasons for a good decade. Why? Because everybody realized after the Lebanon that it didn't do any good. It didn't accomplish anything, including those groups that would have indulged in that kind of thing.

Now, here is a group in Pakistan. They obviously have not thought this through very well. They think they can gain something, whether it be a demand or something in terms of publicity, that is going to help them. They need to understand they can't.

BRYANT: That's right.

It's not going to help them. Once they get that understanding, then we can figure out a way to end this. We can work something out. But first, they have to understand threats are not going to do any good. It doesn't help them to kill Daniel. Certainly doesn't help them to mistreat him. It doesn't help them to hold him at all. And if we can get that idea across to them, then we can resolve this.

BRYANT: That's right. Well, we do want to talk a little bit later on about the options that they do have with Daniel, but we do have another question here in the audience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Diana (ph) from Sacramento. Go ahead.

DIANA: Terry, I was wondering when you were captive, did they try to brainwash you? And also, did you have any reading material? Or what did you do to pass the time of day?

ANDERSON: They never tried to really brainwash us. I mean, they had their ideas, their views of the world, their views of America, and we talked about them from time to time, but they never really seriously tried to convince us to espouse their cause or become a Muslim or anything like that. That wasn't their point. We were simply goods, trading goods, if you will, that they were trying to trade for something they wanted, a release of some prisoners and things like that.

Reading material -- yeah, they gave us some stuff off and on. Depending on where we were. We were moved a lot of places over the years.

BRYANT: Well, Terry, thank you for joining us. We are going to have some more questions for you. We do have to take a break right now. More questions for Terry right after this on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRYANT: Welcome back. We are talking with former hostage Terry Anderson about the kidnapping of journalist Daniel Pearl. Terry, is Daniel more valuable alive, or if they kill him, is that something valuable to the people who have kidnapped him?

ANDERSON: Of course, he is more valuable alive, if he has any value at all. You can't do anything with a dead hostage. You have made a statement, but it's a statement that doesn't do anybody any good. It's madness.

BRYANT: Well, they might think that the statement is saying, we are serious, we're going to do this. We've threatened it, and now we're doing it, so you better pay attention to us.

ANDERSON: Well, nobody thinks they are not serious. We take them very seriously indeed, as does everyone else. That's not the point. The point is not whether or not they are willing to kill Daniel Pearl or anybody else. We all believe they are willing to do it. The point is, is going to do any good? The answer is no. It's not going to help them.

BRYANT: You firmly believe we should not negotiate?

ANDERSON: Whether I believe it or not, we are not going to. There is no Western government in the world today who's willing to negotiate political demands with terrorists, with kidnappers. That was all settled back in the 1980s. Everybody, through the Lebanon thing, everybody discovered if you negotiate with terrorists, you are simply inviting more terrorism.

BRYANT: Absolutely. All right, we have got another question from the audience. Steve, what are your questions?

STEVE: Terry, I would like to know, what can we do to keep reporters safer in those areas, in hostile situations?

ANDERSON: That's something I worry about every day. I'm honorary chairman of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which is a group of senior journalists who work on behalf of our colleagues who are under threat around the world -- most of them, by the way, from their own government. Danny's situation is a little bit different. Most of the journalists in trouble today are being persecuted by their own government.

How do you keep safe? That's a difficult one. It is a dangerous profession.

BRYANT: Has it gotten more dangerous?

ANDERSON: When you go out and cover a war, you're in danger, and you know it. You have to take risks to do your job properly. It's a matter of balancing risk against, you know, whether or not the information you are gaining is worth it.

BRYANT: Well, would you...

ANDERSON: We all think our job is really important, you know. We all do. And we are willing to take certain risks. It's just a matter of, you know, how do you judge.

BRYANT: Well, and your risks are always appreciated, but do you believe that journalism has gotten more dangerous over the years?

ANDERSON: Sure. It is an unfortunate development. Danny is an example of something that happened in Lebanon and began happening more often in the Bosnia years, is this idea of a journalist as target. And that's a really bad idea.

BRYANT: Oh, very bad, very bad. Leslie from Orlando, Florida, I believe we have got a question here in the audience.

LESLIE: Hi. What I'm wondering is, as a journalist, what is it that motivates you to go into a really dangerous war area? And were you at any time, and do you think that the current captive is prepared for what could possibly happen to him there?

ANDERSON: Well, we all think we're prepared. There are courses that I have helped to form, along with many other people, on how does a journalist conduct himself in dangerous situations. Not everybody is a war correspondent. Not everybody should be a war correspondent. Those people who are willing to run those risks and can operate in those situations are a rather special breed.

How do you prepare for it? I don't know. I've spent six years in the United States Marine Corp, I was in Vietnam. I had covered violence in a number of different places. I thought I was pretty good at my job. I thought I knew what I was doing. I went to Lebanon, I covered the war there for three years, and I got caught. I made a mistake one day. I made a bad judgment.

Does that mean that I shouldn't have been there? No, I don't think so, my job was important. People need to see and be told about these things that happen in other countries. You know, you do the best you can and hope your judgment is good enough, and you try not to take more chances than you have to.

BRYANT: Right. But there is always some risk involved in getting a story, certainly.

ANDERSON: There is always a risk.

BRYANT: We have got Steve on the phone. Steve, what are your thoughts?

STEVE: My thoughts are, Dan's family I feel very bad for, but if we do give in to the hostage situation, then it is setting precidents for hezbollah and other groups to do the same thing. And the people in the Philippines also. If we give in, then we have to back our government. They said no and no is no. We can't negotiate.

ANDERSON: I agree with you. How do you think all the other journalists are feeling out there or would feel if this became a negotiation situation where these people were gaining anything. Everybody would at greater risk.

BRYANT: We are going to take a look at an e-mail if we can get this up on the screen. We have an email. "My question is for Terry. 'What did your family do while you were gone for those seven years? Did you have any contact with them at all?'" And this is from Jusin in Des Moines -- Terry.

ANDERSON: Justin, I did get a letter and I was allowed to give some messages over those seven years. And I appreciate your curosity about that time. But I really would like to say to the audience and to all the people that are asking, I'm here because of Danny today. I'm don't want to spend a lot of time talking about what happened to me seven years ago. It happened to me, and I survived it, thank God and thanks to lots of people who helped me. But let's focus on Danny. He is the one in danger right now.

BRYANT: We have another question from the audience, Ken.

KEN: Ted (sic) I would like to know, if you you have been back to Lebanon since released? If not, will you ever go back? How difficult was it? ANDERSON: I have been back several times to Lebanon. In fact I made a film for CNN called "Return to the Den of Lions" about Lebanon's situation today that involved me interviewing some of the people from the very groups that kidnapped me. And that was kind of strange, but it was necessary and I am a pro too so we did that. And I found it fascinating.

It isn't a matter of hating a country or people or a people of a particular faith because of something that happened to you. Danny Pearl isn't going to hate Pakistanis or Muslims or anything else. It's groups, it's individuals who do these things.

BRYANT: Especially, if you have heard from his wife at all, they had been living in Pakistan for a while now, he had started learning the language. They loved living there. They are enjoying it there.

ANDERSON: One of peculiarties about these situations is that the people who are in the most danger, or the people that end up having bad things happen to them are the very people who provide the best coverage of the other side, if you will, if there is an other side.

Danny Pearl is out there covering both sides. He is listening to the people of Pakistan. He is reporting what they are saying. He is not some kind of functionarey of the U.S. government who is producing propaganda. He is a real professional, highly respected journalist. And those kind of people tell both sides of the story. So when you pick on him, you are picking on the wrong guy.

BRYANT: Picking on the wrong guy.

We've got a phone call, Tracy, go ahead. What is your question?

CALLER: Hello, actually it's a comment. I absolutely think it's terrible that we can't really do anything about Daniel Pearl. But if we give in to these terrorists, there is absolutely no reason they won't just start taking hostages and making demands. Also the journalists that are in Pakistan at the moment, my only advice to is get the heck out of there. You have been warned for your own safety. Get out of there. You guys have been warned for your own safety. You know, you guys can get your story somewhere else or whatever, but for your own safety, get out of there.

ANDERSON: The problem with that, is you can't get the story from anywhere else. If you you are going to do your job properly, you have to be there and you have to tell what's happening. You can't tell third hand. You can't tell what's happening in Pakistan from London. Somebody has to be there. You are as careful as you can be. And you know, nobody wants to be kidnapped. Nobody wants to be hurt, so you dot he best job you can, but telling everybody to get out is not an answer. Why would we have journalists at all?

BRYANT: Right, from the trenches you have to tell the story.

Terry Anderson, I want to thank you for sharing your experiences with us here on TALKBACK LIVE. We are going to take a break. Up next: a word puzzle. Watch this. We will be right back with TALKBACK LIVE.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up TALKBACK LIVE:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The last thing the operator heard Todd say at 10:00 a.m., 15 minutes into the call was "are you ready? Let's roll."

ANNOUNCER: Now those words are on T-shirts, mugs even underwear. And the president quotes them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have our marching orders, my fellow Americans, let's roll.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: But do these words belong to the Beamer family? Should the Beamers be allowed to own them? Should you? We will roll on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRYANT: "Let's roll," that song by Neil Young was made to commemorate what happened on flight 93 as Todd Beamer and passingers apparently attacked their hijackers. Those words, "let's roll" were the last words heard from Beamer and they have become a rallying cry as the president quotes them, and they are printed on everything from hats to underwear.

The Beamer family wants to trademark the phrase, and so do a lot of other people. With us is Doug MacMillian. He is the executive director of the Todd M. Beamer Foundation.

Doug, thanks for joining us. First and foremost, why do they want to trademark those words?

DOUG MACMILLAN, TODD M. BEAMER FOUNDATION: We are interested in trademarking "Let's Role" and I should say it is not the Beamer family but the foundation that is initiating this, and our primary focus for trademarking is to protect Todd's image. As you said, the saying is being used on everything from hats and t-shirts to underwear. We also include Todd's picture, pictures of some of the other heroes of Flight 93 as well, and we really want to protect Todd's image.

Secondly, our goal of this foundation is to help the children who lost one or both parents that day on September 11. And those children number in the thousands. And we are hoping that by trademarking "let's roll," using that phrase on merchandise that the foundation is authorizing, we can raise significant funds to be able to help those children.

The items that you just showed on TV, those are items being sold by people for their own profit. And I just don't feel that it is right. And the foundation doesn't feel that is right that people are capitalizing on that phrase and Todd's likeness to profit for themselves. We would rather see the profits going to the people who need it most. And those right now the children of the victims of September 11.

BRYANT: So what sort of things would you use "Let's roll" on?

MACMILLAN: We would like to, again, what everybody seems to be using it on right now, which are hats and T-shirts. And we get requests by the hundreds weekly, saying: We want a hat. We want a T- shirt. We want a bumper sticker. We want to buying something from you to help your foundation.

So we are in the process of doing that now, but right now we don't have anything available for sale. But yet if you look on the Internet and on eBay and other types of venues like that, you can find all kinds of people hocking their goods. And very little of it, if any, is coming back to the foundation.

BRYANT: All right, Doug, we have already got somebody hot on the phone to contest this with you. Let's take this phone call -- Irene I believe it is.

CALLER: Hello?

BRYANT: Hi. Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I think it is nonsense to try to own words. No one should be able to own such things. Americans have a disturbing propensity to cash in on virtually everything no matter how vulgar it makes them appear.

BRYANT: Well, especially vulgar -- some people believe what is especially vulgar, Doug, is the fact that those were his dying words.

MACMILLAN: Well, to the American public, they were his dying words. To those of us who knew him at best, he used those words all the time.

BRYANT: But so do a lot of people.

MACMILLAN: And that's right. And that's why, for the inspirational use of "Let's roll," I don't think there's an issue with that. We have people all over the country who want to use that saying to raise funds. We are not saying that it is wrong for people to use it, but we think it is wrong for those that want to capitalize off it for their own use.

And to say that the foundation is wrong for trying to capitalize on trademarking "Let's roll," I think it is just as equal to say it's wrong to have those that are out there hocking merchandise to line their own pockets.

BRYANT: All right, well, Jeff Marsh (ph) is with us. And he is one of those other people out there in America who has tried to trademark the phrase. Jeff, why did you attempt to?

JEFF: Well, first, we have never tried to trademark "Let's roll." We felt, frankly, that the Beamer Foundation should have first opportunity on that, given what they are trying to do by the trademark action. What we did was, we filed for trademark for "USA Let's Roll" so that we could do what we could to raise money for victims of Flight 93. We have been able to do that.

We have got a Web site, USALetsRoll.net. And the purpose for that is to raise money for victims of 93, the families. I am appalled, frankly, to see billions of dollars raised for all of these people who were very, very adversely affected and no focus or attention on Flight 39. I support what the Beamer Foundation is doing. I had sent a letter to Mr. MacMillan telling him what we had planned to do and that we would like to cooperate and in fact donate to their foundation if they thought that was appropriate. If not, we would not do it.

So we don't feel we have an exclusive right to do it. We want to do something that will raise money for the families of Flight 93. I have no hesitation to feel any way other than what we're doing is appropriate.

BRYANT: Now, Doug, if you get the trademark, are you going to share it with other people?

MACMILLAN: Absolutely.

And, just like the gentleman just spoke, that is what we're hoping will happen here. We don't want the focus move away from the victims, primarily from our standpoint, the children. And so it is in our best interests to, as I mentioned a little earlier, for the inspirational use of it, for people across the country that come in to us and say, "Hey, we want to do something. We feel like we're being left out. We feel like we want to help out. What can we do?"

They come and say, "Our idea is to sell 'Let's roll' hats, T- shirts and bumper stickers and we are doing this, and the money is going to an agency, either the Beamer Foundation or another one that is helping these children," then, that's our goal. So if they are doing that, that is fine. Our issue is with the other companies that are mass merchandising items, raising a significant amount of money, and that money is not going to help anybody.

BRYANT: All right, well, you guys out there at home can tell us what you think. Should anyone own the term "Let's roll"? You can take the TALKBACK LIVE "Online Viewer Vote" at CNN.com/TALKBACK.

We are going to take a few minutes for a news update. Jack Burkman is going to join right us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRYANT: Can anyone own the term "Let's roll"? Well, let's ask our next guest. Tom Holt is a international property attorney with the Boston office of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

Thanks for joining us, Tom.

First and foremost, the Beamer Foundation, they were not the first people to apply for the trademark. So shouldn't it just be first come, first served?

TOM HOLT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY: Well, Karyn, typically, there is a saying in the law: First in time, first in right.

And if you are first to that window to stake out a claim, you have a leg up. But I think there is a more significant issue here for whomever seeks to trademark the phrase "Let's roll." And that is that, typically, as a matter of law, trademark law does not permit an individual or a group of individuals -- and as compelling a case as the Beamer Foundation certainly can make, generally, the law does not allow you to appropriate for your own use common English words from the dictionary or a phrase from the dictionary.

And I think that is going to be difficult. These are generic words that typically are not viewed as having the level of distinctiveness that we typically associate with something susceptible of being trademarked. So I think that whomever will be seeking a trademark here will have a tough road to hoe.

BRYANT: Well, what is going to happen until the decision is made as to who owns the trademark?

HOLT: Well, I think what happens many times in these cases is that, where someone either has a common law trademark, you do not have to go to the Patent and Trademark Office to get trademark rights. But once an application, an intent-to-use application is filed by whatever party, that the trademark can issue, then, let's say, within 12 months. And that party has a period of time in which to use that particular trademark.

Now, the rub comes in when a second third party try to use that same mark and that second or third party can be sued for trademark infringement. And that is where the rubber hits the road. But there could also be some difficulty in securing this mark as a federal trademark in an action at the Patent and Trademark Office, because someone who believes that, as a matter of law, this particular phrase should not be trademarked does have a set of procedural rights before the PTO in Washington to essentially to object to that.

But, again, I think it is interesting to look at a case that was recently decided involving AOL Time Warner in its use of "You've got mail." And it was decided in that case that the phrase, even though it had been associated with a particular software application for quite some time, the courts held that that was so generic, so general it did not have the level of distinctiveness or what's called a fanciful mark, let's say, to be afforded trademark protection.

So I really think that, unless someone can show that the consuming public associates a particular good or T-shirt or some other consumable with an origin with the Beamer Foundation being identified with the phrase "Let's roll," I think it is going to be difficult for anybody to assert that right over the long haul.

But that could change if there is a line of T-shirts or clothing articles that has become so associated with the Beamer Foundation that the term "Let's roll" does become their property. That could change matters. But I think, as the ball sits in the fairway right now, it is going to be difficult for anybody to effectively assert a trademark protection on that phrase.

BRYANT: Well, Doug, what do you think of this? What do you think of your chances?

MACMILLAN: Well, we are going to aggressively pursue it. Again, our focus is on the children. And if it means the Foundation taking action to try to do this, to try to procure the rights and try to help these children, we are going to do that at any cost.

A lot of the gripes that have been out there now is that foundations that are set up are not giving money to the victims, that the money is not getting filtered through. We were kind of looking at this as a way of saying: We can use this as a way to raise funds for us, to cover our overhead, to cover operating expenses. And we could then say to people, for every dollar you donate, you're donating -- 100 percent of that donation is going to go to the children.

So this is a way for us where we can really do some good. And we are really hoping that, no matter what the outcome is, our final goal will be 15, 20, 30 years down the road, people will look back and say the Beamer Foundation did what they were saying they were going to do. They helped the children. And the victims and their families were not forgotten.

BRYANT: Well, you know what we're going to do right now on TALKBACK LIVE? We're going to something I don't usually recommend. And that's put two lawyers together. We're going to get another lawyer in the mix with us.

With us now is Jack Burkman. He's a Washington attorney as well as a lobbyist for banking and entertainment issues.

Thank you for joining us. And please excuse me

(CROSSTALK)

BRYANT: I almost went to law school, but decided against it.

JACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: You made the right move.

BRYANT: Thanks.

I'm just curious, though, do you think that the Beamer Foundation has the best claim to "Let's roll"?

BURKMAN: I do, Karyn, very much so. But I will tell you what. There are far more important issues at stake here than federal copyright law. I am as pro business and as pro capitalism as anybody out there, but I am incensed to learn every day the morals of these commercial interests who are selling key chains and T-shirts and hats with "Let's roll" and World Trade Center -- and the morals of this.

What happened to the spirit that the president espoused in the wake of September 11, that we're supposed to come together and transcend greed and think of each other? I am shocked. First of all, I think the Beamer family should definitely have the copyright. If, for any reason they can't get it, I would urge Congress, and will make a commitment with them to work on this right now, to grant them a private copyright, because I think they deserve it.

Secondly, I will say right here and now, any commercial entities who are trying to earn a profit off of this man's legacy and this man's words, that is a national disgrace. And I will commit right here and now to organize a massive national boycott of any entity. And I would urge every American and every CNN viewer to join me in this, because that is a sin and it is a disgrace.

And the more we learn about this, we have to be better than this as a people. And in the wake of 9/11, everyone out there was saying this has made us better. This has made us stronger.

Let me tell you something, if you have people trying to make a buck selling hats and T-shirts and key chains off of Todd Beamer's legacy, we have not become better.

BRYANT: Well, you are obviously very passionate about this. We have got somebody on the phone passionate as well.

Go ahead on the phone, Maria.

CALLER: Yes. I do not believe that anyone should own those rights to use the phrase "Let's roll." I appreciate what Todd Beamer did on the plane. But back in the '80s, during the sitcom "The Golden Girls," that phrase was coined by Sophia Petrillo. She used it several times on that show. And it always got a lot of laughs. And I do not believe anybody should own the rights to that phase.

BRYANT: Thanks for calling.

Well, I didn't watch a lot of "The Golden Girls."

Well, we're getting some applause here.

BURKMAN: Forgive me, Karyn. I do not think you can compare "The Golden Girls" and any sitcom to what Todd Beamer did to save that aircraft and maybe save the U.S. Capitol. And I would urge members of Congress to remember that. I think this guy is very much entitled to a trademark. I think there is a compelling national need to give him one. And I think we should give him one.

BRYANT: Well, right here in the audience, Jeff Marsh is trying to get some respect for Flight 93. He believes that they have been ignored. And that is the only reason, am I right, Jeff, that you wanted to trademark it?

JEFF: Absolutely. And we have not filed for trademark for "Let's roll."

BRYANT: I'm sorry. I keep saying that, but...

JEFF: The first priority should be the Beamer Foundation. But I think, if you are an American citizen and you have a concern about what's going on and what happened on Flight 93, that you have several choices: A, reach in your own pocket and write a check. Do something. Do not be just concerned. Don't be empathetic. Put your money where your mouth is.

And the only way that we knew to try to raise any form of money at all is what we have done with the Web site. And we have raised some money and we have cut some checks. We are going to continue to do it and try to do it on a moral level and plain that all of us involved with it can feel good about.

BRYANT: OK, we are going to continue on with TALKBACK LIVE and the "Let's roll" issue. Stay with us right here. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRYANT: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are discussing the "Let's roll" action that is going on. People are trying to trademark the name. The Todd Beamer Foundation believes they have the right to it.

Now, I've got a question for you, Tom Holt, in Boston. What if I went down today and tried to get it? Do I have just as much of a claim as anybody who has filed before me?

HOLT: You do. I think, in terms of the representations you would have to make to the PTO, you might have some difficulties. But you would have that claim.

BRYANT: The PTO is?

HOLT: And, again, I want to respond a little bit to what Jack had to say.

I absolutely agree with his assessment of what is going on in many respects, where some less scrupulous individuals are trying to take advantage of a very grave situation. We can't overlook the fact that the phrase was used by Todd Beamer, who was a patriot and a hero. And there's no question about that. Looking at it however, from the narrow legal perspective, I still think that there is a difficulty on the part of anybody trying to trademark this particular phrase.

BURKMAN: Well, there may be, but Congress can change that. Congress can step in and grant this guy by private action. And I think if ever such action is warranted... HOLT: And I think that is absolutely right, Jack.

BURKMAN: If ever it is warranted, it is warranted now. If you won't give it to guy who single-handedly saved the U.S. Capitol, to whom will you give it?

But, you know, Karyn, there is a broader point. Day by day, you just see more and more of the greed that is starting to surround 9/11. So many corporate leaders, the first thing they are asking is not, "How can I commemorate the memories of the people who died," but "How can I make money off this? How can my company do more business with the government? How can we put money in our pocket from this?"

You see these ads. Companies are always willing to do ads on television and associate themselves with the firefighters and the police, etcetera, but behind the scenes, it is all about greed. There is so much, I have been shocked. There are political people, there are members of Congress, there are other political leaders who take leading contributors and fund-raisers down to the World Trade Center as a kind of a political payback. It's become chic to go there. The whole thing to me has become sick.

BRYANT: Well, you know, it certainly has really become a quite a mess.

We've got somebody in the audience, Darin, who is also sickened over there.

Darin, what do you have to say?

DARIN: Well, Doug, I just wanted to comment. I agree with the objectives of your foundation, but both of them, there are ways to meet them without patenting "Let's roll." And my suggestion to you would be to save your money from the legal battles and apply that to the children. And you can accomplish both objectives without putting a patent on those two words.

(APPLAUSE)

BRYANT: All right, Doug, you have got 30 seconds here. We're wrapping up the show. You've got the last word.

MACMILLAN: Well, it's a great point. The drawback with that is, our attorneys are already doing this pro bono. So they feel it in their heart. They see the greed. They see the problems that are going on. They want to help just as much. So our attorneys are all doing this pro bono. We are strictly right now a volunteer staff. We are putting all our resources into help.

We want to stand and be a cut above all the other foundations that are out there. And we want to provide long-term assistance for these children. So the only way we can do that is to raise a significant amount of money to do that. And we are hoping that this is just going to be a way for us to help, not to hinder, not to hurt, not to embarrass, but a way to help the children.

(CROSSTALK)

BRYANT: I'm sorry guys, we -- I hate to say it, but we do have to roll. We are out of time.

I know, it was easy, but I had to say it.

Thanks to Doug MacMillan, Tom Holt, and Jack Burkman. Thanks also to everybody here in the studio.

HOLT: Thank you very much.

BRYANT: Thank you.

And everybody at home, thanks for watching. I'm Karyn Bryant. I'm going to see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with 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