Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Is the U.S. Too Lenient on Israel?; Female Fighter Pilot Sues Over Fashion; Blake Denies Hiring Stuntmen to Kill

Aired April 25, 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall listening to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and President Bush hammering out their differences at the Crawford Ranch?

The focus is on settling the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Word was the talks would produce fireworks. Well, we hope to find out what happened in just a minute. There were warnings Saudi Arabia might be prepared to use its oil as leverage to get the U.S. to lean on Israel. What would that mean for you and me? I want to hear from all of you, I want to know what you're thinking. Call me at 1-800-310-4cnn or e- mail talkback@cnn.com. Now, take a look at what else is on tap today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Culture clash: Should an American fighter pilot in Saudi Arabia be pressured to adhere to Muslim codes when she leaves the base?

And a Hollywood murder mystery, Robert Blake denies trying to hire stuntmen as hitmen in the death of his wife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they had a strong case that he murdered her, they would say he murdered her on such and such a day, end of story, we are going to present the physical evidence and prove that he murdered her. They wouldn't be throwing in subplots, other people that claim to talked to him. I read it as a weakness in their case.

NEVILLE: Is this case starting to look like an episode "Baretta?"

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Let's find out the latest on that meeting between the president and Prince Abdullah. CNN White House correspondent Major Garrett is with the president in Crawford, Texas. Good afternoon, Major.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello Arthel, let me give you the logistics so far. The president and the crown prince were due to sit down for about an hour with their top aides. That meeting went on for two hours, twice as long as originally scheduled, you can do the math as well as a I can. Right now they are having lunch, they took a truck tour of the Texas ranch, the president's Texas ranch, that is something he always does with world leaders, telling them where he likes to relax, where he likes to recreate. The issues are very important, and they are much beyond the question of Israel and Palestine, and the Palestinians.

It is also about oil as you indicated in the opening, about Iraq, it is about Saudi aspirations to join the World Trade Organization. All those things are on the table, but front and center are the Saudi government's concerns about the Bush Administration policy vis-a-vis the government of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.

Now Adel Al-Zabir, who is a very prominent foreign policy adviser to the Saudi Kingdom was here in Crawford talking to reporters a few moments ago, and he said the crown prince speaks directly, sincerely and does not mince words. He said that is very much like your U.S. president. And the Saudi crown prince could tell the president that is the United States didn't do more to reduce the level of violence in the region it would face -- and these are his words -- grave consequences to its interests.

He also had some very sharp words for the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, saying that if Sharon is left to his own devices, he will drag the region over a cliff. The central disagreement here, Arthel is that the United States government, on balance here, thinks Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, is more of a problem than Ariel Sharon.

They believe that suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians have created a destabilized things in the Middle East where many areas believe it is Ariel Sharon's aggressive military tactics against the Palestinians that have caused the destabilization to occur. So it is a huge disagreement about who is to blame, they are trying to work it out, but Saudi and U.S. officials say it is a relationship dating back 70 years and it will survive this disagreement about Sharon and Arafat.

They also point out, Arthel, that oil is not a tool on the table. Saudi officials here said repeatedly, we are not going to use oil as a means of leveraging our particular foreign policy pursuits against the United States government. We believe in stable supplies of oil, stable prices of oil and we will never use oil as a weapon. Al-Jabir (ph) told us a few moments ago, oil is not a tank, you cannot fire oil, we have no intention of trying -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: So it seems Major, even though there are some serious topics on the table, it seems that both sides seem as though they want to go ahead and maintain this 70-year-old friendship, relationship between the two countries?

GARRETT: Well, in point of fact, Arthel, the two countries do not have a strategic choice in the matter. Saudi Arabia wants to remain closely allied with the United States for all sorts of reasons, economic ones not the least of it. Saudi Arabia wants to maintain stable supplies of oil, wants to have the United States to continue to consume its oil, wants United States' help in the region. Militarily there, are 5,000 U.S. service personnel in Saudi Arabia.

The government also wants to maintain close economic ties to the United States as it tries to pursue ascension into the World Trade Organization, all a part of its long-term plans to develop its economy beyond oil. The United States needs Saudi Arabia for a lot of reasons. It needs it there obviously for the oil, it needs it there for its placing U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, and also will need that government's, if not support, at least acceptance of what may happen in Iraq, vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein. All those issues are on the table. There is no breakage of the relationship here, but clearly the Israeli-Palestinian matter has strained relations possibly as they have never been strained in recent years.

NEVILLE: Very intricate detailing there. OK, Major Garrett, thank you very much for the update.

Now joining us now are Fouzi El-Asmir (ph) a columnist with the newspaper, "Al-Ryadh" and Max Boot (ph) will be joining us later. He is the editorial features editor of "The Wall Street Journal" and author of "The Savage Wars Of Peace, Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power." In the meantime, welcome to you, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: I want to start with something from "The New York Times," there is a quote from a Saudi intellectual close to Prince Abdullah saying, quote, "it is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is necessary to survive." The person close to the crown prince said, "and if that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it, to the left of Qaddafi, so be it. Or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it. It's damn lonely in our part of the world and we can no longer defend our relationship to our people."

Those are quite strong words. What is your reaction to that?

FOUZI EL-ASMAR, "AL-RIYADH": Well, you know, it is an idea that journalists or a writer put it there, the stand of the Arabs in general and the Saudi Arabia in particular, that there -- they are going to help the Palestinian people to establish their own state, to reach peace in the Middle East, to stabilize the Middle East and stop the bloodshed there, so they, if this is necessary to do anything for that, they will do it, and that is what they really would like to do.

NEVILLE: Now, is that the sentiment of the people or is that of the head, the government over in Saudi Arabia?

EL-ASMAR: Well, this is the government, and the people are ready to do everything for -- the peace in the Middle East, and peace with the Palestinians. And you know, there are people, angry, and because of the American government's stance towards Israel, the big hug that the administration is giving to Ariel Sharon. And they are watching what Ariel Sharon is doing, and the massacre that's happened in Jenin and other places, and these are things that make people very angry.

NEVILLE: Yes, sir, let me jump in here if I may and ask you, what do you say to people that criticize the Saudi Arabia government for supporting financially, terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hamas?

EL-ASMAR: There is no evidence that Saudi Arabia's government is supporting al Qaeda. And nothing direct with Hamas, but they are supporting the Palestinian people.

NEVILLE: So sir let me jump in again if I may, and we are going to get Mr. Boot to join in on the conversation, and we will discuss this, what about the recent telethon, the Saudi Arabian...

EL-ASMAR: If you let me finish I will tell you.

NEVILLE: ... raising perhaps $100 million to support the terrorist groups?

EL-ASMAR: This is not terrorist group, it depends on how you look at it. If the American thinks that supporting the Palestinian people is a terrorist act, that is really very sad. They are supporting the people who are destroyed by the Israeli terrorism. And that is where, where we have to be very careful when you are saying that, because we can also accuse the United States and the American Jewish community that -- community, that supporting Israel with the lot of money, and billions and billions of money, to build settlements, to buy the arms, F-16's and all this stuff.

NEVILLE: I am going to interrupt you for a moment please, I would like to bring Max Boot in on this conversation. Mr. Boot, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

MAX BOOT, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Thank you for having me on.

NEVILLE: Great. We are having a conversation here, Mr. El-Asmar is saying that in many words, he is saying that the U.S. is too pro- Israel. Does he have a point?

BOOT: No, that is nonsense. The U.S. is supporting the only democracy in the Middle East, which happens to be Israel. Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes on the face of the world including the Middle East. It is laughable for Saudi Arabia to suggest that we should stop supporting Israel and give more to support to Saudi Arabia, because clearly it is Israel that is a country in tune with American interests, whereas Saudi Arabia happens to be the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers who rammed whose jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

NEVILLE: So how far should the U.S. go to accommodate Saudi Arabia?

BOOT: Not very far, in my opinion. I think we have already gone farther than we should in accommodating Saudi Arabia. Look, we have had basically a marriage of convenience between the United States and Saudi Arabia. We want their oil, they want our protection from Saddam Hussein. But at the same time that this has been going on, we have winked at an awful lot of stuff that Saudi Arabia has been doing.

The fact that they have been supporting radical Islamic groups all around the world, they have been spreading this ideology of hatred, and anti-Americanism and anti-Israel. We should not be having to put up with this from one of our closest allies, and I think it is really pretty cheeky of Crowned Prince Abdullah to be suggesting that the United States should be cutting off the most liberal Democratic regime in the entire region, which is Israel, when we have been putting up with far too much from the Saudis already.

EL-ASMAR: I hope you will give me a chance without cutting me off like you did with the gentleman. First of all that is nonsense to say that the Arabs and Saudis or any of the Arabs hate the Americans. We have some problems with the American policy toward the Middle East and not just towards everything that the Americans are doing.

In fact we have problems here, and if -- if you are supporting a person like Sharon, who is considered in this country or this administration consider him a man of peace, that is really a problem. We don't hate Americans, and that is not correct. And if we want to talk about Israeli Democracy, that is another issue, which I don't think that we have even to bring it here, because going for voting, it does not mean that this is democracy.

Democracy is what is happening on the ground. Democracy doesn't kick out journalists or allow journalists to go into Jenin or other place...

NEVILLE: OK, Mr. El-Asmir I am going to interrupt you because I have to take a break. But just for the record, you and I were having a conversation, one-on-one, so I did have to give Mr. Boot opportunity to respond to what we were talking about.

OK, in the meantime, we are going to continue in a moment, and then we will look at why a U.S. military officer is suing over recommendations she cover up as Muslims do when she's on the streets of Saudi Arabia when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

EL-ASMAR: It is nonsense even to respond to such a stupid comment. I am sorry. The prince, Prince Abdullah is coming here with initiative not just the Saudis, it is an Arab initiative. This is the only way, if it is going to peace in the Middle East, is to implement this initiative. And here, you hear somebody saying anti-semitism and hatred, they are coming here full of good thoughts, and carrying this initiative.

They want to implement, they want to recognize Israel, and solve the Palestinian problem, and instead of having some help of this kind of people, you have, why they should come, why they should even bother, and again, I mean, to make the Arabs hate Americans, this is not -- this is also something that not the way to look at it because Arabs does not hate America.

BOOT: I think that is actually a very accurate way to look at it. If you look at the history was going on in the Middle East, if you look at the nationalities of the people who rammed those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11, you would see that the majority of them were Saudis. And I think that shows more clearly than anything else what the true sentiments in Saudi Arabia are.

Now, just a second ago you were talking about claiming that Israel was less than Democratic somehow than Saudi Arabia which is an amazing statement.

EL-ASMAR: I am not saying...

BOOT: Can you let me finish, in Saudi Arabia there is no freedom of speech, there is no freedom of association, it is a repressive state, and the caller is absolutely right to talk about how Saudi Arabia spews anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. If you read translations of the Saudi Press, it is full of blood libel against the Jews. It is full of the most heinous statements against America and the United States.

Now we have been very nice to the Saudis. We have been protecting the Saudis for 10 years from Saddam Hussein, and this is what we get in return.

I don't call this gratitude and I do not think that Crown Prince Abdullah's so-called peace plan is very helpful either.

NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Boot, I am going to cut you off right now and let Brian from Tennessee speak out.

BRIAN: I think that the United States in my opinion has dug a hole and it is going to be interesting to go see what do with this 70- year relationship with Israel, how we handle it, our position, the repercussions that could take place if someone is offended based on our actions that we take. So I am very interested in seeing what happens.

NEVILLE: Thank you sir, Mr. El-Asmar, I would like to ask you, what happens if the Saudi Arabians do not get what they are asking of Bush?

EL-ASMAR: They will try to persuade Mr. Bush -- I have to say, Mr. Bush accepted the Arab initiative, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Saudis and then the Arab initiative, and he thought that this is a good initiative. And I don't think that the crown prince coming here was an ultimatum like if you accept it or not. He is coming here, speaking in the name of the Arab nations explaining to the president what this initiative means, and if I hair some people saying we do not need that, I would ask, what is the alternative?

The alternative, we have a murder like Sharon there -- Israel -- read the Hebrew paper you read the translation of the Arabic newspaper, I do not know what source they are translating, but I read the original, I read the Arabic, I read the Hebrew, and I know what most people are thinking.

BOOT: In Israel there are all sorts of opinions voiced in the newspapers whereas in Saudi Arabia you can go to jail for criticizing the crowned prince.

EL-ASMAR: That is not correct. BOOT: It is correct. It is correct, but look...

NEVILLE: Let me jump in, Mr. El-Asmar, I would like to ask you something, and that is, what, about 100 Saudi intellectuals are saying that the American role is shameful and they consider the U.S. to be quote "the nurturer of international terrorism." And I want to ask you, regarding the people of Saudi Arabia, is that the popular belief there?

EL-ASMAR: Well, the popular belief is that the United States is not an -- handling the situation in an even hand. It is not the way that you are supporting one party, and you are against the other party, like you know, President Arafat is in fact under siege, and they are asking him, you should do something, you should move, and Mr. Sharon is moving over the bodies of the Palestinians and nobody says anything to him.

NEVILLE: They are saying things to him, sir.

BOOT: That is a ridiculously one-sided view of the situation. To say that the U.S. should be even-handed would be like saying we should be even-handed with dealing with the Taliban or al Qaeda because that is the kind of threat to Israel -- that is the kind of threat...

EL-ASMAR: No, no, the Taliban has nothing to do with us.

BOOT: Would you let me finish for second -- that is the kind of threat Israel is facing. They have suicide bombers on the streets blowing up men, women, and children. What on earth is Israel supposed to do? It has to respond militarily...

EL-ASMAR: Israel has to stop the F-16 killing the people...

BOOT: Let me finish. Israel has actually shown tremendous restraint in its operations, far more restraint than Arab states have shown when they have faced similar problems in the past. Israel has actually shown tremendous restraint and we have been right to more or less back them up, but it is wrong to say that the United States has been one-sided because the United States has actually been putting pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, and, some people argue, prematurely withdrawn.

NEVILLE: Max Boot, thank you for joining us. And Mr. El-Asmar I would like you to stick around if you would for our next segment. Will you agree to that? Give you more time.

EL-ASMAR: Yes. Thank you.

NEVILLE: And we are going to talk about why American military women should follow Muslim customs when they are assigned to Saudi Arabia. This officer is suing over what she says is pressure to bow to local customs. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Muslim women who live in Saudi Arabia must be escorted by men, are not allowed to drive or ride in the front seat of a car, and, of course, they must cover up head to toe.

But, should an American woman, particularly and American military officer, be forced to abide by the same rules when she's not on base? Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally is suing the Department of Defense. She says military regulations, suggesting she and other American service women abide by local customs when off base send the wrong message.

John Whitehead is her attorney, and is president of the Rutherford Institute. Ben Works is the executive director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute. Welcome, Gentlemen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Mr. Whitehead, if you could, tell us what the basis of Martha McSally's lawsuit is.

JOHN WHITEHEAD, ATTORNEY FOR LT. COL. MARTHA MCSALLY: Well, it is a constitutional law suit on First Amendment grounds. First of all, she argues that her freedom of religion is violated when she has to wear an Abaya (ph) which is the Islamic religious garb, head to toe garment, because it offends her. She does not want to pretend she is Islamic.

And also her First Amendment right to free speech. She is being coerced to speak in terms of saying that she is subordinate to men, which she says that really that is one reason she is a pilot in the Air Force, she does not believe she should have to do that. We also believe that it is a violation of our First Amendment separation of church and state clause to have our government buying religious garments and forcing American officers to wear them, American military officers, and also there is a Fifth Amendment gender discrimination claim. The regulations don't apply to men. They just apply to a certain group of women. And we feel all of these are a violation of her constitutional rights.

NEVILLE: The Pentagon already changed its policy, saying that women are not required to wear the Abaya, but it is strongly encouraged?

WHITEHEAD: That is true. They have changed the policy to a certain degree, and I have said it in the press, and Martha has said it as well, it is a step in the right direction, but when you get into the area of semantic and say it is not mandatory to wear this religious garment, experts we have talked to say that in the military environment this would be taken as an order and it will continue.

In other words, when a young pilot lands, you will have a lieutenant colonel or whatever standing there and saying this is what happened to the Lieutenant Colonel McSally. Put this on. It is strongly encouraged. You don't have to wear it. She has to make a big decision. Is she going to risk her career, which Martha McSally has done, or is she going to put it on and violate her beliefs?

NEVILLE: How would she risk her career? Well, she has already received retaliatory marks. This is the Top Gun female pilot in the Air Force, by the way. She has flown 100 combat hours over Iraq, four years ahead of her peers she advanced. She is in the top 3 percent of advancements. For the first time, just recently, she was told that because she opposed the Abaya policy and sitting in the backseat of the car, for the first time her loyalty was questioned.

She is on her way to probably being a general but now her career was set back, and as the judge in the case acknowledged in a recent hearing, it took a lot of guts to do that.

NEVILLE: Mr. El-Asmar I would like to ask you, how offensive is it for an American woman to walk around Saudi Arabia to walk around in jeans and a t-shirt?

EL-ASMAR: Well, it is a question, this is not a question...

WHITEHEAD: They can't do that. That is not what is being argued here. She always wears conservative dress, and women do not do that, by the way, military women. The Saudi Arabian embassy has suggested conservative dress and that is what they wear. No women walk around in t-shirts or blue jeans.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, then I will rephrase. Mr. El-Asmar, how offensive is it to see an American woman walking around in civilian clothes and without an Abaya?

EL-ASMAR: This is not a question of civilians or not civilians. This is a tradition. This is the custom of that country.

And when you go to a country, you have to respect their custom and their laws. And that is what they have in Saudi Arabia. So, to do that or to change that into an offensive and something that you can't live without it, I mean, that is something that I think that

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Pardon me, sir.

Mr. El-Asmar, yes or no, is it is offensive to see American women walking around in civilian clothes, yes or no?

EL-ASMAR: I don't think it is offensive, but I think it is not acceptable traditionally and to the people. And nobody would say anything to a woman like that walking there.

But when they go to service there, they have. And they will be told what to do and how not to offend the other people. It's not just in Saudi Arabia. In every country...

NEVILLE: Mr. Works, let me let you jump in quickly before I go to break.

WORKS: Yes. I would like to invoke the ancient saying: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." The abaya, yes, it is something that is a custom that may pass in another generation. And certainly things are modernizing in Saudi; 35 years ago, they didn't not even have operating hospitals. Now this country is progressing as rapidly as it can.

The other thing is, colonels and privates are supposed to follow the principle: When you take the king's salt, you take the king's orders. And under the uniform code of military justice, we try to respect local customs to the maximum extent. And that is something that everybody understands when they take the oath of service.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, we've go to take a break right now. We are going to go for a news update. We're going to continue this on the other side of the break.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

We are discussing whether or not U.S. military women based in Saudi Arabia should or should not where the abaya when they are off base, off campus, if you will, and in the country, inside the country.

I want to go to Akil (ph) in New Jersey, who is on the phone right now.

Akil, your thoughts are?

CALLER: I believe that they should, because the U.S. government is more telling them that for a safety issue more than telling them they have to do it. That is why they did not make it a law. They said you can do it by choice. But they are urging them to do that. I believe that they should..

NEVILLE: OK, thank you for your call.

And I would like Dirdra (ph) from South Carolina to speak out.

DIRDRA: Hi. I believe that she should abide by the customs that are in place in that country.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

Moving over here -- the audience has a lot to say about this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't see this as a feminist issue or even a religious issue. To me, it's an issue of respect. And, at these times, it seems like it makes more sense to err on the side of cultural respect.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And, ma'am, did you have something to say as well? I know I want to get this young lady over here, if you would.

Who is over here who wanted to say something? A young man. Excuse me, sir.

Feet in. Feet in, please.

Go ahead, Keith.

KEITH: I feel when you go to their country, it is like when you come to our country, we got laws. And when you go their country, you have got to abide by their laws, you know what I'm saying? That is the way I see it.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you for speaking out.

Is there a young woman over here who would like to speak out? I am going to cut through here. Scoot over and let me cut through here.

Go ahead. Stand up for me, Lakisha (ph).

LAKISHA: Well, I think that she should not abide by their rules because, OK, plenty of times, I have seen people from other countries in the U.S. walking around with abayas on their head. And I don't feel offended by it. And it is hard to get used to something you are not -- it's hard to abide by something you are not used to. You can't just go to another country and be like, "I want to wear an abaya." It is not going to be like that.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Always like to get the young people to speak out here on TALKBACK LIVE.

Mr. El-Asmar, your heard all of those comments. That should make you pretty happy, I would imagine.

EL-ASMAR: Well, it does not make me happy or not. But if I go to Japan -- for example, when I went to Japan, I have to take off my shoes to go to my friend's house, because that's the custom.

NEVILLE: And so did I. It didn't bother me.

EL-ASMAR: That's right.

NEVILLE: Mr. Works, go ahead and jump into this conversation.

WORKS: Yes. And I would like to point out, I have been both in Japanese households to take off my shoes and in Jewish Orthodox households to take off my shoes. You wear a yarmulke when you go to a synagogue or go to the Western Wall.

So, we respect all of those things. And this Saudi thing with the abaya is no different. And it is something that we in the military encounter in country after country.

(CROSSTALK) WHITEHEAD: It's not the Saudi Arabian government requiring this. It is our local military. Our Department of Defense doesn't even require this. It is not a Saudi Arabian law.

(CROSSTALK)

WORKS: Mr. Whitehead, you have made your point, but let me make mine, because these countries are...

NEVILLE: Mr. Whitehead, I will give you a chance to respond after this.

Go ahead, Mr. Works.

WORKS: These countries are in transition.

Obviously, the policy has changing. And, at the same time, what we are interested in is demonstrating that we respect the country's cultures and customs as we watch that country and assist it in its transition into modernity, which takes a couple of generations.

WORKS: Well, this is a local rule of the local base. It's not a Department of Defense rule. It's not a Saudi Arabian rule. No one is requiring this but some local commander. That's all there is.

But if we want to follow customs, let's think about this. If we were in South Africa during apartheid, would we separate and discriminate against our African-American soldiers? No. You don't always follow customs. We have a higher law in this country. It's called the Constitution. And we protect our American values and our American women. And we long ago gave up the idea that we were going to segregate black people. Long ago, we gave up the idea we were going to segregate women.

So, why would we do it when it's not even the Saudi Arabian custom or the law to do it? It is an American rule. And that's all it is. And we are challenging the rule.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Mr. Works?

WORKS: Yes.

NEVILLE: Excuse me sir.

WORKS: Sorry.

NEVILLE: I am going to jump in now with an e-mail from one of our viewers. OK. It says: "It's ironic that, in the West, Muslims lobby to have their customs honored and acknowledged, but in Saudi Arabia, no other religious custom or point of view is allowed." And that is from Susan.

Go ahead, Mr. Works. You were saying? WORKS: Well, yes. And, again, countries make a transition over a couple of generations to modernity. Saudi Arabia did not even have an operating hospital until 1965. So, we will see things tend to open up over time.

As to the Constitution, Colonel McSally and our military personnel are covered under the uniform code of military justice, which does embed compromises of the Constitution. And we have to respect the local status of force's agreements with our host country. So, to invoke the Constitution in a foreign country is a bit disingenuous.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITEHEAD: It's not a Saudi Arabian law. I just keep saying that. You don't understand it. It is not a Saudi Arabian law. It's some American rule that, obviously, I think we are going to get overthrown. And it has already been partially overthrown.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Mr. El-Asmar, I would like to bring you in and ask you: How do the Saudi Arabian women feel about wearing an abaya?

EL-ASMAR: Well, as much as I talked with the women that are wearing the abaya, they feel comfortable with it. It is part of their custom. It is part of their heritage. And I agree that this is something that is going to be changed by time.

It's like going to India and say: "Why are you wearing your national clothes for women?" It is the same. Why it is a big issue, I really don't understand. Nobody is coming here to say to the Americans: "Why do you allow striptease nightclub?"

(CROSSTALK)

WHITEHEAD: Again, the Saudi Arabians are not requiring this. So, the Saudi Arabians are not saying, "Wear the abaya." It is an American commander.

EL-ASMAR: Well, I think the Pentagon has to bond with the custom of the country that they sent their own people there.

NEVILLE: And that will be the last word. John Whitehead, Ben Works and Fouzi -- pardon me -- El-Asmar. I've got to get your name right. I do apologize.

EL-ASMAR: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sir, thank you so much for being here with us on TALKBACK LIVE today. They have got to give me these words. I don't know what's up.

Anyway, up next, we're going to go to Los Angeles for the latest in the Robert Blake case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

A Hollywood murder mystery that has actor Robert Blake accused of killing his wife is playing out something like a television serial. Two stuntmen who worked on the "Baretta" series with Blake reportedly told prosecutors the actor tried to hire them to kill Bonny Lee Bakley. Now, Blake's attorney says that the men are not telling the truth.

Right now, we are going to go -- to find out where this story is headed, we are going to talk to CNN correspondent Charles Feldman, who is covering it for us from Los Angeles -- hello, Charles.

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Arthel.

Yes, you hit it right on the head. This story just is getting stranger and stranger by the minute. We found out after Robert Blake was arrested that, according to prosecutors, anyway, he tried to hire two hitmen to kill his wife. And, for some reason, they never acted upon that. And the prosecutors allege, of course, that Robert Blake then took matters into his own hands and shot and killed Bonny Lee Bakley, his wife.

Well, yesterday, his lawyer, already trying to sort of put spin on his side of the story, announced that, through court papers, he discovered the identities of the two would-be hitmen. And it turns out that the two were and are actually veteran Hollywood stuntmen. And they both at one time worked with Blake on his TV series back in the '70s, you'll recall, "Baretta."

Now, why he approached -- if he did approach -- these two is unclear. But Blake's lawyer is saying that, yes, they hung around together. And maybe, at some point, Mr. Blake discussed his troubled marriage with them. And there may have been some banter about killing his wife. But his lawyer says that it was not a serious discussion. And at no time, says his lawyer, did Blake ever try to enlist anybody to kill his wife, because he did not kill his wife. At least, that is the lawyer's point of view.

Where it goes is a court hearing on Tuesday.

NEVILLE: Charles, stay right there for me, because I want you keep you involved in this conversation.

And I want to bring in two other people now for us now. It's going to be Kevin James, a former federal prosecutor and entertainment litigator. His clients have included Tom Cruise, Donald Trump, Penny Marshall, Roger Clinton. Name-dropper.

KEVIN JAMES, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Somebody has done their research. Wow.

NEVILLE: Name-dropper.

(LAUGHTER) NEVILLE: Anyway, also with us: criminal defense attorney John Burris. He was an associate trial counsel for Rodney King -- all high-powered people here on TALKBACK LIVE.

You have heard the discussion we were talking about. I want to bring you gentlemen in here now. And talk about this gun and DNA. Supposedly, authorities have the gun. They have found the gun. And maybe there is some DNA of Robert Blake's on there. It seems to me that here is a man who would go through so much to plan the death of his wife, the killing, the murder, the hit, however you want to put it, and yet would be so careless as to have DNA on a gun and try to get rid of it. What is up with that?

JAMES: There is no perfect murder, Arthel.

And I'll tell you what. With this one, you can bet that the Los Angeles district attorney's office and the Los Angeles Police Department did a thorough job here because of prior embarrassments with Menendez and O.J. Simpson. You can bet they are careful here. And that is where the DNA evidence was found. It is in connection with the gun. You've now got the man at the crime. You've got the weapon. And you have got a motive.

NEVILLE: Mr. Burris, I want to talk to you about the idea of cameras in the courtroom. It has not been decided yet on this case. But what do you think of that? Do you think that will change the way defense or a prosecution would proceed?

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, typically, it would not, if the judge, him or herself, conducts the trial in a way that -- in a very highly professional way. If so, then there will be real order.

I think what everyone is concerned about with cameras in the courtroom is, it will become more of a circus atmosphere that we had in the O.J. Simpson. Lawyers were preening to the cameras. The prosecution seemed to be preening to the cameras, and even the judge himself. And that somehow affected the administration of justice.

I don't think that that is a real issue in this case, if you have a solid judge who knows how to handle the courtroom. At the end of the day, the question is: Is it in the best interests of everyone to have this matter with cameras in the courtroom? And I think, fundamentally, the answer is yes. I think the public ought to be able to see it.

Now, certainly from Robert Blake's point of view, he may not want that. He may not want the day-in, day-out type of publicity. From his point of view, he may be looking beyond this. Certainly, as an actor, he does not want to be viewed as a person in a courtroom and charged with murder and seen there on a daily basis. He would want to be seen as an actor.

NEVILLE: Because, Mr. Burris, he wants the people to remember him from TV Land, his repeats.

BURRIS: Absolutely.

NEVILLE: Anyway, we are going to take a break right now, guys. We are going to continue this in just a moment.

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, we are talking about the Robert Blake case and the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley.

Mr. Burris, I would like to talk to you about this. Does it seem that Braun is already trying this case in the media?

BURRIS: Well, I think what he is trying to do, of course, is to discredit, as much as he can, that kind of prosecution evidence that could be used against him.

And, in this case, we are talking about two or three former stunt hands. I am certainly he wants to discredit them now so that the media itself and the general population and even potential jurors will have heard about the testimony, knows about their background, that each of them have had some prior criminal activity. Of course he wants to do that.

And the other approach he is doing, of course, is casting negative aspersions towards Blake's wife. And, by doing that, he is certainly trying to suggest that other people may have had a motive to do so. Now, it may be that the evidence itself in this case is not very strong. I am not convinced that the DNA they have is the kind that is irrefutable. And, as a consequences of that, if there is no definitive smoking gun, if you will, and you have witnesses who are not credible, and you have a former wife who has problems, then I think his plan is that he'll have a good chance to get a not-guilty verdict.

And so it is a grand plan that he has. And it has a lot of value to it. I think the only thing that he is doing that should be a little bit circumspect, of course, is that he really does not know yet all the evidence that the prosecution has. And it may be an unwise thing to cast too much negative aspersions on other -- on evidence that ultimately may get refuted with credible evidence.

NEVILLE: Because then you have to worry about perhaps it backfiring and maybe not even finding a jury pool that is not tainted.

BURRIS: Well, they are going to find a jury pool because there's nine million people in the county. But the question is whether or not it will backfire on them and people will have heard about it. And it kind of makes Blake look like a very suspicious and not a good person.

NEVILLE: Mr. James, final thoughts from you.

JAMES: Final thoughts. Well, I think that the district attorney's office has a great case here. Again, you have the weapon. You've got the man at the crime. You also have a motive. And you can bet that they did an airtight investigation. You've got a new district attorney here.

NEVILLE: We shall see what happens. We are out of time right now.

JAMES: And he's going to do the right things.

NEVILLE: Charles Feldman, Kevin James, and, John Burris, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

And thanks to all of you for watching.

I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, right here, TALKBACK LIVE. And don't miss "Free-For-All Friday."

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