Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Yates Trial Begins; Bodies Found in Georgia

Aired February 18, 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.
STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Day one in the trial of Andrea Yates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Prosecutor will describe how she must have held her children under water while they struggled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALZBERG: Will there be much sympathy for a child killer?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our entire family believes that Andrea should be hospitalized and should not have even been brought up on these charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALZBERG: Also, horror story at a north Georgia crematorium.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is somebody's mom, somebody's life. She was found in a barn laying on the ground -- after two months. This is horrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALZBERG: And Louis Farrakhan condemns the war on terrorism saying if the truth were known, there would be a Nuremberg trial for American presidents.

Hello everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: America Speaks Out. I'm Steve Malzberg. Long time, guest, first time host of this show. I'll be here today and tomorrow. Opening statements delivered today in the trial of Andrea Yates, the Houston woman who drowned her five children in a bathtub. She pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the deaths of three of those children and you can hear where the defense is going.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PARNHAM, YATES DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Doctor Starbranch (ph) will tell you that in 31 years of practice, I believe it's 31, that Andrea Yates was without question one of the most severely ill with postpartum depression with psychotic features patients that she has ever treated -- ever treated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH OWMBY, PROSECUTOR: She is presumed to be sane to know right from wrong. The state bears no burden of proof to prove that she was sane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALZBERG: Here to talk about the case are criminal defense attorney Geoffrey Fieger and former state prosecutor Wendy Murphy, a professor at the New England School of Law and I might mention she's the mother of five. And welcome to both of you.

OK, we all know that she did it. We know she drowned the five children. She admits to drowning the five children. We all know how she did it. The question is was she insane at the time and why don't we start with ladies first and Wendy what is the jury going to believe, was she insane when she did the actual deed?

WENDY MURPHY, FMR. PROSECUTOR: Well, really the most important evidence is that which describes her state of mind at the time she killed the children.

Now on the one hand there is no dispute, as you pointed out, that she had severe mental illness, probably for many, many years up to and including the time she killed the children whether you call it depression or psychosis or anything else, there will be no dispute she was mentally ill. But that's a clinical, medical diagnosis.

The definition of insanity, which is a legal term is, could she appreciate right from wrong and did that mental illness make it such that she couldn't appreciate right from wrong at the time she killed her children. What the jury is going to hear that will be very damning evidence against her case is that right after she killed them she called the police.

That's something you do when you know you have done something wrong. And she called her husband and said you better come home. I have done a terrible thing. And the prosecution has evidence that she told them after they got to her house after she committed the crimes that she said I planned this many, many weeks ago, and on another occasion during a competency evaluation she said she'd planned it up to and including the night before, that it was well in her mind the night before she killed them that it was something she was going to do the next day and indeed she did it. Those are the acts of a perfectly competent, sane person.

MALZBERG: Now, Geoffrey, you have an interesting take on this, on her admitting that she did it, her admitting that she planned it, or her calling 911 and calling her husband. You say that that's the actions of a woman who is insane.

GEOFFREY FIEGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sure. I disagree with Wendy totally by saying that a person calls the police when they know they have done something wrong. Look at Susan Smith. She did exactly the opposite. Now this is a woman who wasn't insane. She made up a story about her children being kidnapped.

Andrea Yates is so obviously not only mentally ill, but insane, that it bespeaks terrible things about our society that we are actually doing this. Interestingly enough, several weeks before she was discharged -- or killed the children, she was discharged from a psychiatric facility.

The doctors is going to testify she's as severely mentally ill as she has ever seen anyone. She undoubtedly was going to do something bad. And she told the doctor she was about to have as many more children as nature would allow. And what I find incomprehensible is the same people who are trying her now and may seek the death penalty regarding Andrea Yates are the same people who would fight forever to allow her to have as many children as she wanted while she was mentally ill and capable of caring for them. So it's a terrible comment.

MALZBERG: Wendy, what about the argument that her calling 911, are the actions of a sane woman as opposed to someone who was insane -- or the actions of someone who was insane as opposed to sane?

MURPHY: It may be a dumb thing to do, but the question is, did she notice right from wrong. That's the only issue the jury is going to have to deal with. Did she know right from wrong. When she called the police she didn't say look, I just did cartwheels on the front lawn in front of a space ship. She said I have done a terrible thing. Come on over. I have done something wrong. What more do you need?

FIEGER: Wendy, I have a lot of respect for you, but if you are differentiating between insanity and mental illness, where we have a woman who was so clearly insane and with a past history of the insanity that she has, and say well, clearly she's mentally ill but she's not legally insane, then nobody is legally insane.

MALZBERG: All right, Wendy, I want to ask you, The make-up of the jury; eight women, four men, does that work to the advantage of the defendant or does that work against Andrea Yates?

MURPHY: Well, that is the million dollar question. It suggests to me that the defense is thinking the gender card will work to their advantage and may well be a sign that the defense intends to point the finger of blame at Rusty, Andrea's husband.

There's been some talk, and I think Geoffrey's right, that there is some extra blame to go around in terms of Andrea not getting the care she needed, not getting the medical help she deserved and that she was crying out for help and didn't get it. That's a different issue than whether she's criminally responsible. I suspect the defense will try to exploit the fact that she tried to get help and her own husband did the wrong thing. MALZBERG: Don't women tend to be mostly less sympathetic toward women?

FIEGER: Yes, yes. In rape cases especially.

MURPHY: No you can't generalize.

FIEGER: Yes you can. In rape cases they can.

MURPHY: No, you can't.

MALZBERG: We have a phone call. Hold it. I want to go to the phone. Tonya in Georgia. Tanya, what do you think? Are you sympathetic towards Andrea Yates.

CALLER: Not at all. I believe that she was aware of what she was doing and I believe her husband was in it with her. Otherwise she wouldn't have made the call. He had known before hand from what reports have said that she had threatened to do this before. The woman should be turned into a crispy critter.

MALZBERG: All right, Tanya -- Geoffrey: agree or disagree that the husband could have been in on this at all?

FIEGER: Obviously not. His problems now, setting up a Web site and everything are clearly to deal with his own agony that he's going through, but more importantly is that we have got to understand as a society she clearly did something wrong but how are we going to address people who are mentally ill?

Are we going to treat them significantly different than people who are sick in other ways? Sure, she did something wrong. Sure she needs help. But what will we get out of it as a society to talk about executing her?

MURPHY: Geoffrey, you are making a very (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about disposition...

MALZBERG: Wendy, Wendy, hold it. You will get the first word when we come back, Wendy, I promise. Time for a break. When we come back we'll talk about Andrea Yates' very supportive husband, Russell. He has a Web site where you are invited to visit the kids.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALZBERG: Welcome back. We are talking about the Andrea Yates trial, and you have to think that through it all, Russell Yates has been extremely supportive of his wife. He is still living in the family home. He visits Andrea often and is quick to defend her. Let's look at the Web site he built where people are invited to visit the children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): This is the home page at Yateskids.org. It reads, "the purpose of this Web site is to honor the memory of our children: Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary, who died tragically on June 20, 2001."

There are pictures and movies of each of the five children from birth to death, and what looks like happy moments in between. Family pictures like any of us might have in our own albums and video files. Then links to thank those organizations and people who have helped Russell Yates and another link in case you want to contribute to the Andrea Yates defense fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

All right, we are rejoined by Geoffrey Fieger and Wendy Murphy. Wendy, I'm sorry, to me, Wendy, that's kind of a spooky, ghoulish type of Web site. I just can't see a father who lost those kids putting that site together. It's freaky to me.

MURPHY: I don't disagree but to each his own, in terms of how they grieve. I'm not going to judge the guy. But I do think that we have to be careful that this sort of thing can have an impact on justice. It can affect the truth-finding process, and do what I call acquittal by frenzy in some cases. We saw it in the O.J. case. The Louise Woodward, you know, the nanny trial. When we have defense attorneys using the fact that the public is watching and trying to parlay that into some kind of advantage in the trial process, that is what I find unseemly. He can grieve how he wants.

MALZBERG: Geoffrey Fieger.

FIEGER: It's tragic. It demonstrates the agony and the angst this man must be going through, and beyond that I don't think it's significant to this trial. If Andrea Yates is acquitted it certainly not going to encourage mother to kill their children. It will be some type of recognition by the jury that mental illness exists and in that sense she is better off in a mental institution being treated than in a jail cell being paid for by the taxpayers and wasting away.

MURPHY: Steve, could I respond to Geoffrey on that because I think that one of the points Geoffrey makes, and I adore Geoffrey Fieger, I would hire him in a minute, but he has mastered spin and brought to it a new level that I disagree with in a big way on this point.

You know, somebody being found insane means, in a sense, we have excused them for what they have done as a criminal matter.

FIEGER: No it doesn't.

MALZBERG: We excuse them. Let me finish, Geoffrey. The bottom line is, he makes a good point that there are certain things about the mind that should have an impact on our moral view of what people do that is wrong on the one hand, but may not be as wrong as if it were committed by somebody else.

My opinion is, and I think the law generally bears this out, that should be a factor during disposition. Maybe we take it into account and have her found guilty of something less. Maybe she doesn't get the death penalty. Maybe she gets something slightly less than a life sentence because of her mental illness, that's a big, big difference between mental illness and insanity, which is out right forgiveness.

MALZBERG: I want to get to the audience, we have Adam here. Adam, what is your feeling on the Web site?

ADAM: Well on the Web site I just don't really understand what his thinking for doing that is. What he's trying to get people to think about. More than that, what the two on TV are arguing about, I think we are arguing about insane, not insane, murder, back and forth. The only thing I'm concerned about is that Andrea and Russell are never around children again. I don't want them as part of society. Whether they want to execute her or put her in an insane asylum that doesn't really matter. I just hope she has...

FIEGER: You know...

MALZBERG: I happen to believe that once you kill your child you should not be allowed to raise any more children. Children shouldn't be allowed in your custody.

FIEGER: That's the point I was trying to make. The same people who are trying to execute her now are the ones who are defending the rights of the unborn. Andrea Yates had threatened and had dreams about killing her children, was clearly insane, and told her doctor she was going to have as many children as humanly possible and the doctor wrote in the chart that this is almost assuredly going to result in a tragedy. So you better, society, better address something.

MALZBERG: Wendy and Geoffrey, one more question -- Russell Yates, does he take the stand in her defense -- Wendy.

MURPHY: Well, I think he will. He's the best hope she has of generating some degree of sympathy. The problem is if he takes the stand and the defense intends to point the finger at him in some accusatory fashion that he's blameworthy on some level, will he do himself much good by -- I mean, maybe he will let them point the finger at him. Maybe he will take the fall a little bit in the hopes that it will do her some good at trial.

MALZBERG: Geoffrey, yes or no, yes or no -- got to go.

FIEGER: Yes, he'll take the stand.

MALZBERG: All right, both of you, thank you very much. We appreciate you coming on. Let's put that aside for right now. That's Wendy Murphy and Geoffrey Fieger. Thank you both for joining us.

We'll leave Houston and head to Georgia where something strange is going on near the Tennessee line. We will do that right after this.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, a gruesome find in Walker County.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We found numerous bodies stacked in these buildings. Some of these bodies appear to have been there from several days to maybe several months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: What was a north Georgia crematory doing with the bodies. That's bit of horror next on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALZBERG: This story out of north Georgia near the Tennessee line is so strange, what could add to the hundreds of bodies destined for cremation were left to rot, piled up in sheds, dumped in the woods, from grief to anger, folks up that way say there was no respect for the dead, or for that matter, for the living.

At the very least grieving relatives wonder what kind of ashes fill their memorial boxes and vases. Joining us now with the latest is CNN correspondent Holly Firfer and Holly, fill us in on these really bizarre details, please.

HOLLY FIRFER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Let me tell you the word horrific has been used a lot this afternoon. If you think it couldn't get any worse, the medical examiner says it actually could. There were five vaults on the property of the crematory which were really supposed to carry one body, to hold one body, and they found all five are stuffed with bodies and remains.

They said it just gets worse and it is such a confusing slow process, they have been able to pull out 130 remains; 22 have been identified, but they said it's like taking a jigsaw puzzles, hundreds of jigsaw puzzles, mixing them together, throwing them up in the air and trying to put them back together while standing on your head. He said it's just nearly impossible.

But they are bringing up what is called DMOR, it is a Disaster Mortuary Response Team, they are bringing up a temporary 8,000 square foot morgue to help put these pieces together and make sense of all this. And as you can well imagine, the families here and the authorities are working tirelessly trying to help out the families and they are very distressed.

MALZBERG: All right, Holly, what doesn't make any sense to me is that we are hearing that some of the bodies may have been there for as long as 15 years, 20 years and yet the defense that the son has given, Ray Brent Marsh, who is 28 years old, is that the furnace has been broken.

Well, the furnace hasn't been broken for 15 years, has it? What would motivate them to not to just simply fix the furnace as opposed to having to store these bodies and these body parts all over the place. It doesn't make any sense at all.

FIRFER: It doesn't make sense. Actually nobody can make any sense out of this. Marsh isn't talking anymore. On Friday he was talking a little bit to authorities, but he's retained an attorney and has decided not to speak to protect his rights and he said that the incinerator worked sometimes. It didn't work other times. They don't know for how long it had worked and had not worked. And now there's a question about the business license. Did the crematory actually even have a business license to be running this crematory. So, nobody can make any sense and it just becomes more bizarre as new details come out.

MALZBERG: Holly, thank you very, very much. Holly Firfer of CNN. This story is shocking people all over the world. We have a gentlemen with us right now, whose name is Rock Thomas, and his mother recently died and he paid to have her cremated at that Georgia cemetery. He has just taken what he believes to be her ashes to be tested to see if it's really her or if it is wood chips and other ingredients that certainly is not his mom.

Rocky, welcome to CNN and TALKBACK LIVE. What did you think when you heard the news on Friday? What went through your mind?

ROCK THOMAS, MOTHER WAS CREMATED: Well, I received a call from my mom's sister who told me she had seen the story on local news and word was that the funeral home in Chattanooga sent the bodies to north Georgia crematorium. Then I read the story in the paper, and when I saw the extent of it, at that point on Saturday morning they are saying 49 bodies, I just immediately kind of -- it was like how could anyone just have such disregard for human dignity.

I mean, -- I was just shocked that anybody could walk around and conduct business and go home to what we now know are hundreds and hundreds of bodies scattered out and behind their place.

MALZBERG: What are they telling you? Your mom died relatively recently. Are they saying they will have a good chance of identifying her if she's among the bodies that are there?

THOMAS: Well, her circumstances are a little bit different. They are saying that if they died in a hospital and they had a taking on them, those are the bodies that are most easily identified. My mom died at home, surrounded by friends and family. I do not know if a tag was ever placed on her. If you are going to have a viewing at the funeral home, then they will probably them embalm the body to preserve it for that viewing. We did not have a viewing, so she was not embalmed.

MALZBERG: We wish you the best...

THOMAS: We don't know at this point exactly how they are going to identify her. Every family has filled out forms on how to, giving distinguishing characteristics, scars, medical records, dental records. They have to match that up with what they are finding over there and I just delivered the urn that supposedly contains her ashes to the GBI officials here. Tonight they will test them to see if they are human remains. What they are calling cremation.

MALZBERG: We wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

THOMAS: If they are human, if they are, then there are still no assurances that it is her remains.

MALZBERG: Rock, thank you very much. We have to move along. We wish you the best of luck and hope you find out, obviously Rock is having some trouble with our two way communications.

How can you prevent this kind of thing from happening to you? With us on the line is Lamar Hankins, president of the Funeral Consumers Alliance and the first question I guess that we want answered is that question. Can we trust anymore when we bring our loved ones to a funeral home or to a crematorium that they are being treated properly?

LAMAR HANKINS, FUNERAL CONSUMERS: I think so if you ask a few questions. One of the questions that you want to ask in Georgia is, is this cremation going to occur at a crematory that is owned by a funeral director that is licensed by the state of Georgia? That is the real key to this.

The Georgia state board of funeral service believe that there is a loophole in the law that has allowed these crematories that are not open to the public to not be licensed. And so they don't even know how many there may be, because a crematory is defined as a place that is open to the public.

MALZBERG: Mr. Hawkins, the governor says he's going to sign legislation or encourage legislation that would put the crematories on the same -- under the same rules as the funeral homes. What do you think is the motivation for these people, these owners doing this? I mean, is it to save money? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to fix the furnace and burn the bodies than to go through this process of storing them and, you know, piling them into little cubby holes? I don't get it?

HAWKINS: I can't imagine any rationale for this, you know, except some sort of serious mental health problem. You know, that would be the only conclusion I could come to. And I have no base -- I don't know anybody involved in this, and so that's the only thing I can imagine that would make sense to me.

MALZBERG: All right, Lamar, thank you very much, Lamar Hawkins.

And let's go to the audience here, and we have Carl from Missouri.

Carl, what's your take on all this nonsense?

CARL: Well, my question is: Is there not a local agency or government agency that would regulate the crematory at any time, that someone would come in and inspect what's going on at that place?

MALZBERG: Well, the answer to that -- and that's a good question right now, as I alluded to earlier, is no. They're just about unregulated, and the governor of the state of Georgia says that he wants them to be regulated in the same way as the funeral homes are. So good question. And again, I think maybe we'll find out some facts about this as time goes on that we really don't know about at this time.

We'll break for the news, and we will be right back on TALKBACK LIVE. Thanks for being there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALZBERG: Well, over the weekend, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a 2-1/2 hour speech -- he's been known to do long ones -- out in California. He condemned the U.S. war on terrorism saying the U.S. is only in it for oil. He predicted the next target is Iraq and suggested current U.S. foreign policy could ignite more hatred of the United States. He said, quote, "If the truth were known, there would be a Nuremberg trial for American presidents" -- Nuremberg. "I cannot allow them to use the American soldier -- black, brown and poor white -- to fight a war that is unjust and wrong, provocative or provoking." What do you think?

Joe Madison is a Radio One talk show host known as the Black Eagle. He's the former executive director of the NAACP in Detroit. And Cliff May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He's a former communications director for the Republican National Committee. We invited a representative from the Nation of Islam but we were turned down.

OK, Joe Madison, what do you think of Louis Farrakhan's comments? Is this a poor-timing effort on his part? We're at war, after all.

JOE MADISON, RADIO ONE TALK SHOW HOST: Well, come on, I mean, let's be honest. He certainly has a right. And the thing that I do find amazing is that the majority of his speech really involved everyone coming together, denouncing racism, bringing Jewish people -- as a matter of fact, there were rabbis there. He had a long list of people who were there primarily to talk about America coming together. This is consistent, and I'll say this quickly, with what Minister Farrakhan has said even when 9-11 happened, that the acts against the United States were barbaric, but nobody reported that, that the United States must now use this opportunity to look at itself and how it is perceived by other countries.

Now the part that you put on the screen on this President's Day, there's a magnificent book out called, "Nixon's Piano." And you should really read that book by a historian at the University of Alaska who has written about the tremendous atrocities that have been part of American policy. Where do I begin?

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: Let me make this point such as, for example, Eisenhower giving a tacit approval of the assassination of Patrice Lamumba (ph).

MALZBERG: All right, we're here to discuss what Louis Farrakhan said, and the rest of the American bashing could wait for a second, Joe.

Cliff May, your reaction? And I want you to address also possible alternative motives for Louis Farrakhan, who, against State Department advice and rules, has traveled overseas to countries like Libya in the past. Go ahead, Cliff.

CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: First of all, with all due respect, Joe's argument is a little like the defense lawyer who says, "My client was a good citizen all last week, and why you single out the one hour when he held up the 7-11 at gunpoint." I mean, what he said was anti-American and pro-terrorist. He should be ashamed of it. It brings shame on him, on the Nation of Islam, and on all those who support him.

Louis Farrakhan does have a history of siding with America's enemies. And I also think that for Joe to say as well, this is a good opportunity for us to look deep inside and see why these people hate us -- hey, after Pearl Harbor, did we look deep inside to see why the Japanese hated us or why the Germans hated us? Would you say that the Jews in World War II should have said, "You know, there must be a reason these Nazis hated us. We have to think about that." No, that's not what you do. We were attacked in a terrible atrocity.

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: All right, Cliff -- wait, wait.

Joe, wait, I'll give you the next word, but we have someone who was actually there at the speech at the forum in Englewood, and that's Shayon (ph) in California.

Hi, Shayon.

SHAYON: How are you?

MALZBERG: How are you, sir? What was the speech like? I know it was a long one. What did you think of it when you got to the part about the war being wrong and the Bush administration being wrong in their war efforts?

SHAYON: Well, he was absolutely right. And to go even one step further, he even pulled out the maps and documented each area where the U.S. has labeled these countries anti-American and terrorist areas, but they happen to be also rich with oil resources. So, you know, that's kind of ironic that these countries that were pointed out in the terrorists had been terrorists, also happen to be rich in oil resources.

MALZBERG: All right, Shayon, thank you very much.

Joe Madison, is the president wrong in going after terrorists, whether they be in Afghanistan or if they happen to be in Iraq or if North Korea is a threat to us? Is the president wrong, as Louis Farrakhan indicated?

MADISON: Well, my opinion is, no, he's not wrong for going after terrorists. There's no question about that. But, you know, it's interesting. When I started to define history or repeat history -- and I'm told, "Oh, please, that's not relevant." -- and then I get this history lesson to the right of me, and no one stopped that history. You know, what about... MALZBERG: Well, I don't know what history Cliff May gave sir.

MADISON: Well, you know, he just got through talking about Pearl Harbor.

MALZBERG: He was talking about the fact that Louis Farrakhan said something that was anti-American in the view of many.

MADISON: You know, but here's the problem.

MALZBERG: Wait, wait, Joe, Joe, wait a minute.

MADISON: Well, wait a minute.

MALZBERG: You're going back to Eisenhower. We're not here to talk about that. Farrakhan had remarks, and that's what we're addressing sir.

MADISON: Oh, guys, you know, you can't win with Farrakhan. Let me just make -- just let me make a point here.

MALZBERG: Go ahead.

MADISON: And that is that the byproduct of this war -- if you're going to attack Louis Farrakhan for what he said, then you better be prepared to attack several right-wing conservative pundits who said that the president went too far when he talked about the axis of evil.

MAY: Joe, I'll be glad to -- and you're right. Anybody...

MADISON: All right, I'm glad I'm right about something.

MAY: Let me explain what you're right. Those who didn't understand the access of evil line, I don't care if they're right, left or center, they're absolutely wrong. They didn't get it. Let me point out some of the things that were really offensive in what Mr. Farrakhan had to say.

MADISON: You weren't there.

MAY: We know what he said. He said that the president should be tried at Nuremberg. In other words, he suggested that presidents are war criminals. He said that this is about oil.

Joe, if there's oil in...

MADISON: That's not what he suggested.

MAY: He said this is about oil. Look at the quote.

MADISON: It is about oil in part.

MAY: Afghanistan does not have any oil as far as we know. It's not -- look, if we wanted more oil, the best thing we can do is give a big hug and kiss to Saddam Hussein. Let me finish my point and I'll let you. I promise you. MADISON: OK, but let me have a say here before time runs out.

MAY: Just two quick things. Afghanistan has no oil, and if we want more oil at cheaper prices, we should give a big hug and a kiss to Saddam Hussein and to the Iranians and to everybody else. What we shouldn't be doing is taking them on because they sponsor terrorism, create weapons of mass destruction, and threaten our people, and sponsor and host and support the kinds of atrocities that happened on September 11th.

MALZBERG: All right, Joe, hold the thought. I promise you'll get time. We're here for two segments.

Let's go to Joe, who's in the audience here, from Missouri -- Joe.

JOE: Yes. By no means am I a strong Louis Farrakhan supporter, but what I believe that he's trying to say in one instance is we just have to be very careful in our understanding of why the people in the Middle East and Afghanistan despise America. I want to be sure -- I want to be positive that I can understand their culture and their hatred for us before we send what I believe are -- we've been talking about heroes since 9-11, the soldiers and the troops. We have to be very careful when those people are putting their lives on the line and for our freedom exactly why they're there. And I don't think we're always up front about that, and I think that's important to talk about.

MALZBERG: All right, Chris has a different viewpoint here in the audience.

CHRIS: This is Marsha from Georgia -- Marsha.

MARSHA: This war is about protecting our freedom as Americans. Isn't it ironic that he's enjoying that freedom to speak? And that's what this is about is freedom.

MALZBERG: OK, thank you.

Camille is on the phone from Illinois.

Hi, Camille.

JAMILLE: Hey, how you doing?

MALZBERG: Good.

JAMILLE: Thanks for taking my call.

MALZBERG: Jamille, sorry. Yes, go ahead.

JAMILLE: Yes, Jamille. I was just calling to say that I support Brother Farrakhan 100 percent. And we definitely -- America definitely has to look at her foreign policy and the way she treat people overseas in other countries.

MALZBERG: Do you think there was any excuse for what the terrorists did on September 11th no matter what our foreign policy is?

JAMILLE: No, there's no excuse, because violence begets violence. There's better ways to solve our problems and they shouldn't have done that. But we can't retaliate and go over there and kill them the way they killed us or they're going to retaliate. So it's going to keep going back and forth and back and forth. Where does it end?

MALZBERG: All right, thank you for the phone call.

Joe, I promise when we come back, you're up, you're on deck. Don't go away.

Let's take a break, and we will be right back on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALZBERG: All right, welcome back. I promised Joe Madison, and I am a man of my word.

Joe, your turn.

MADISON: You are that. And in case anybody wonders why I'm wearing this, I just got back from Utah, so don't we know. But the point I'm making is there is not oil in Afghanistan, you're absolutely right. But ladies and gentlemen, please, do not think that the National Security Council does not realize that all around Afghanistan, there is oil. There are natural gas pipelines. One of the things we're going to end up doing as a byproduct of this war against terrorism is we're going to build military bases, and they won't be there to protect Afghanistan against other terrorists. They will be there to protect oil, the Casman Seas (ph), the natural pipelines. You know, there's a company called Unical. The "Boston Herald" did a magnificent story about the energy interest in and around Afghanistan, so I think what Farrakhan was saying that often what you find in particularly Africa where you will have countries that you'll say are under-developed countries, but isn't it amazing how they can go in and get the resources from those under-developed countries and use them and be part of our vital interest?

MALZBERG: Well, first of all, what would be wrong with that if that were the case? If there's a byproduct of going into Afghanistan and weeding out the terrorists, we in fact -- and we haven't yet, but we in fact to set up shop there to an extent and protect -- get us some oil which we need very, very deeply in this country. What's the problem with that?

MADISON: Well, that's exactly -- you sound like Farrakhan.

MALZBERG: No, I don't. Farrakhan says...

(LAUGHTER)

Wait, wait, hold it, hold it. Joe, Farrakhan says the war is about our insatiable appetite for oil. That's not what it was about. It's about getting terrorists. Cliff, your turn.

MAY: Let me try to respond to this very, very quickly. We have interests in the world, and certainly, oil for our economy is one. We also have values. It would be wrong if we were to let our principles be submerged in order to pursue our interest, but clearly, that's not what it's about. It's going to cause billions of dollars to the American taxpayer to try to first to bring -- to liberate Afghanistan; and second, to help with the nation building that's going to take place in Afghanistan. Yes, we want peace and stability in that region. We don't want anybody's land.

And, again, I just say to you, Joe, if all our interest was about oil, we would not be having a fight with Saddam Hussein or with Iran. We would be doing -- we would have given them the key to the city. We'd be kissing them.

MADISON: You guys put words in my mouth.

MALZBERG: Joe, hold on a second.

MADISON: I'm not going to hold on. I didn't say all of our interest -- all our interest was in oil. I'm not going to sit here and allow people to put words in my mouth.

MALZBERG: Farrakhan said it. Wait, wait, wait.

MADISON: U.S. oil policy is what Farrakhan said, U.S. oil policy.

MALZBERG: But Farrakhan said it was about oil and only about oil.

MADISON: He didn't say...

MALZBERG: Now hold it, Joe, hold it, Joe, hold it. Hold on, we got Bob here in the audience from Michigan.

BOB: Yeah, I think everybody knows that Saddam Hussein's been harboring terrorists in Iraq. And yeah, they got some oil, and we could probably use it. But let's hope that George, Jr. goes over there and finishes the job the senior started.

MALZBERG: I'm for that. I hear you.

Hey, Joe, let me ask you to address this. Does anybody -- I know you could say, well, we're doing a show on it, but I mean, does anybody really care? Maybe the media, but otherwise, does anybody care what Louis Farrakhan has to say these days? I mean, how many people follow him? How many people care about a guy who's made so many anti-Semitic, anti-white statements, who favors -- flies to Libya when the State Department says don't? Who listens to him exactly?

MADISON: Why have we been sitting here for a half an hour?

MALZBERG: I acknowledge that we're talking about it. I'm asking you who listens to him?

MADISON: Excuse me, why are you doing -- let me tell you, millions of people do care. Why is CNN bothering to do this show? And let me also point out something. Finally I'm going to say it one more time. You know, he spent the majority of that 2-1/2 hours talking about people coming...

MALZBERG: Doesn't matter, Joe. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.

MADISON: Well, then if it doesn't matter -- then if it doesn't matter, then why are we bothering to talk about it? Never again have Louis Farrakhan on your show. Never again discuss him. Just eliminate him from your conscience. If it doesn't matter with what he said, then why are we bothering?

MAY: Joe, if President Bush...

MADISON: What are you doing this for?

MAY: Joe, give me a second here. President Bush made a speech for two hours, and if there was one thing in it you found offensive, you wouldn't say, "Yeah, but most of the speech was OK so I don't want to bring that up." Second, I do think it's possible...

MADISON: Well, that's not true. I do this for a living and that's absolutely not true.

MAY: I do think it's possible -- OK, all right.

MADISON: And don't tell people -- don't go on television telling people what I do. We just met.

MAY: Secondly, OK, you would give Bush a break. I take it back. Secondly...

MADISON: No, I would deal with it intelligently.

MAY: Secondly, Farrakhan hasn't had much attention lately. I think this may be a way for him to try to get some attention by saying outrageous things.

MADISON: Please, please.

MAY: But you know what? The sentence for this kind of speech should be irrelevant for a long, long time.

MADISON: Read "Jet" magazine. Read "Ebony" magazine. Read "Essence" magazine.

MAY: I'm really sorry.

MADISON: Listen to what goes on in my community. And before you say he doesn't get a lot of attention eliminates an entire group of people in society who do listen to him.

(CROSSTALK) MALZBERG: Guys, hold on, hold on. We have somebody in the audience here which.

MAY: If African-Americans are...

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: All right, guys, we have somebody in the audience here with Chris.

CHRIS: This is Nicole. Go ahead, Nicole.

NICOLE: I don't appreciate Farrakhan's statement, because as an American citizen, I realize that our government is in place to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property. And I think we're doing the best that we can.

MALZBERG: Thank you, Nicole.

MAY: And so when he says things like that, you know, it's not...

MALZBERG: What about the Nuremberg comment? I mean, that's something, Joe, that really, really goes over the limit here with the president should be put on trial, you know, war crimes trials at Nuremberg. Again, that shows -- during wartime, it shows such a lack of respect for the goals of this country during its war effort. I just can't get over it.

MADISON: What do you want me to say? As I mentioned, you guys, do me a favor. Everybody watching, go get a book called "Nixon's Piano." And then -- and if the host will read it, and if May would read it, then we might have an enlightened conversation.

MAY: Let's do a whole show on Nixon if you want to. The fact is...

MADISON: The whole book is not about Nixon. You see how these comments come out?

MAY: Look, could you just say...

MADISON: The book title is "Nixon's Piano." The book is not about just Nixon.

MAY: Let's talk about his piano.

MADISON: It's about the policies -- it is about the policies of the United States towards people around this world in which Farrakhan was referring to.

MAY: Joe, do you think that President Bush should go on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes? Can't you just say he shouldn't have said that? No war crimes have been committed. Nothing we have done as Americans could possibly justify the atrocities we suffered: white, black, Hispanic. He was an American on September 11th.

MADISON: He wasn't talking about just this president. Read the statement. Did he say presidents?

MAY: He said presidents. Our presidents do not deserve...

MADISON: He said presidents. He was talking about the history of the United States.

MAY: Which president deserves to be on trial for war crimes?

MALZBERG: JFK, Nixon, LBJ. Which presidents, Joe, should be on trial at Nuremberg?

MADISON: I tell you what. I tell you what. When Eisenhower tacitly approved the assassination of Patrice Lamumba, would that count for one? But you don't count that history, do you?

MAY: What does tacitly approve mean? Tell people what...

MADISON: Oh, guys.

MAY: I don't know that he did.

MADISON: Now we're getting silly. Now we're getting silly.

MAY: But you're not talking about him ordering anybody's death.

MADISON: Now we're getting silly.

MAY: Tacitly approved by whom? That's nonsense.

MALZBERG: All right, I have one -- guys...

MAY: Eisenhower...

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: Joe, yes or no? Yes or no? Does Farrakhan...

MAY: Eisenhower is a war criminal because you say he tacitly approved...

MALZBERG: Joe, does Farrakhan remain relevant? Yes or no?

MADISON: Did you hear what he said? Just because Eisenhower tacitly approved...

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: All right, these guys are going to duke it out after the show. No doubt about that. Joe Madison...

MAY: You tacitly approve 9-11. You haven't said anything about it.

MADISON: Oh, man, get real. Read your history on President's Day. MALZBERG: All right, guys, we're out of time. Joe Madison and Cliff May, thank you for both joining us today. This is TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Steve Malzberg, and I'm looking forward to doing this all over again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern.

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