Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Pilots get Real or Stun Guns?; How Far Should the U.S. Go to get Info from al-Qaeda?; What Should the Guy do About the Lottery Ticket?

Aired April 29, 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, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. We are loaded with stuff today. You want to get in on this, so pick up the phone right now. Get ready to e- mail.

Today we are asking you: how far is too far? This week the Transportation Department could decide whether to allow stun guns in the cockpits of commercial jets. But the Pilots' Union says that's not far enough. The union is pushing for real guns, but is that going too far?

And what about the Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners? Should truth serum and torture be off limits? Can you go too far when it comes to information that could stop a terrorist attack?

And of course I want to hear from you about office Lottery pools. We're talking about a multi-million dollar jackpot. Now, if this is the case, do you trust your co-workers? OK, here's the info you need. Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN and e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.

And here's what else we're talking about today. Pilots could soon have a stunning way to stop would-be hijackers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One shot anywhere on the body and immediate incapacitation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: But will stun guns be enough to stop a determined terrorist?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The reliability factor isn't real high.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Should pilots be packing the real thing instead?

How far should U.S. interrogators go to get information from al Qaeda prisoners? Should they use truth serum? What about torture? Do the ends justify the means when it comes to terrorism?

Also today, a big game mystery turns into a legal battle. Who bought the winning ticket from this store? And was it part of an office pool?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know how a person could live with themselves if they're going to take advantage of their coworkers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Was it the right thing to do? And what would you do?

OK, we're going to start in the cockpit. Should pilots be armed and if so, with what? Joining us today, Arthur Wolk. He is an aviation attorney and a pilot. I want to welcome Mr. Wolk to the show.

ARTHUR WOLK, AVIATION ATTORNEY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Stun guns, pilots -- good idea? Good combination?

WOLK: I think it's a good idea, but only if there are two things that go with it: proper training in the use of it, but more importantly, proper training in when and under what circumstances it should be used.

NEVILLE: Expound on that. What circumstances are we talking about here?

WOLK: That's the problem. See, a stun gun may be satisfactory under limited circumstances to prevent someone from breaking into the cockpit. But certainly you don't want pilots leaving the cockpit and trying to be police officers onboard the aircraft with a stun gun. And that's where the training when and under what circumstances it should be used.

And I think that none of that really means much unless it's part of a comprehensive safety plan, which includes the flight attendants and even the passengers.

NEVILLE: I'm going to jump in here because I need you to clarify. You're saying yes to stun guns, or to real guns. Which one?

WOLK: First, the question was just the stun guns. The answer is yes. Real guns present a different kind of problem. First of all, they have to be equipped with very low-velocity bullets and very soft bullets, otherwise they can penetrate the airplane and cause more damage than even a terrorist. So you don't want those.

NEVILLE: I know that United Airlines, they're already training their pilots how to use stun guns. So, is this a done deal?

WOLK: It's a done deal as far as United is concerned, as long as the Department of Transportation and the Justice Department OK their use.

NEVILLE: What about you? Would you like to carry a stun gun? I mean, right now I know you're working in the private sector. But when your were in the commercial sector, would that have made you feel better?

WOLK: No, because as far as I'm concerned, once the terrorist gets to the airport, the chances of preventing terrorist acts is very, very small. I think we've got to prevent terrorism before the terrorists get to the airport.

NEVILLE: Nathan from Oklahoma, speak out for me.

NATHAN: I don't see any problem with the pilot having a gun in the cockpit. I think it's a misconception to think that when the bullet does, if it did happen to penetrate the wall of the plane, I think it's too much TV that people think we're all going to suck out some hole.

I think the bullets they have now that fragment in the person, and I'm looking for a more permanent solution to a hijacker problem than a little jolt, or to stun them.

NEVILLE: So you're are saying real guns would make you feel more comfortable as a passenger.

NATHAN: Well, with the proper training. I agree with what he said. Yes, I feel more comfortable as a passenger. And I think you can prevent further hijackings if you have trained people with guns on the plane.

NEVILLE: Yes, but here's a thought. And, Mr. Wolk, think about this as well. You have your pilot. Let's say he does have a stun gun, or in your case, a real gun. Would you want your pilot, though, being more concerned with flying the plane or worrying about that he has a loaded gun behind the seat, and if he's going to use it, when he's going to use it?

WOLK: I wouldn't want the pilot to leave the cockpit under any circumstances. I certainly don't want him to leave the cockpit with a gun, whether it's a stun gun or otherwise, in an effort to subdue either a terrorist or an unruly passenger.

The idea behind this is simply this: if somebody breaks down the cockpit doors, as difficult as that is today with the reinforced doors, that's the pilot's avenue of last resort. And I think that's as much as I would be willing to approve.

NEVILLE: OK. So you're saying, Mr. Wolk, that you're fine with stun guns. I want to bring in Issy Boin right now. He's the president of Air Security International and he specializes in airline security.

Mr. Boin, do you think stun guns are a good idea, or no?

ISSY BOIN, PRES., AIR SECURITY INTERNATIONAL: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the system, just to be delay on the stun gun, and to say OK, we resolved the problem because they are armed with a stun gun. To me it's not sufficient.

NEVILLE: So it's not a good idea.

BOIN: It's a good idea if it's part of the program. As far as I'm concerned, this is not the right time to discuss it. We should do preliminary work and then test the system and see if we have to have something else.

NEVILLE: Excuse me, sir. You said we should do a preliminary what?

BOIN: Preliminary work, in order to install security procedures and to have the right training for the crew or the flight attendant, in order to provide them with some tools in order to respond to crisis situations.

NEVILLE: I see. Let me get Mark from Virginia to share your thoughts.

MARK: Well, I think my view has been already stated many ways. I'm kind of worried about the training that's going to be required, the mishaps that can happen. It's hard enough for people well-trained to shoot the right people.

And what I think the first gentlemen, Mr. Wolk, said, that terrorism has to be stopped at the gate. If they're already on the plane, I don't think anything is going to stop them. I don't think it would have stopped 9-11 if there was one pilot with one gun with four men on board. Even if they only had the box cutters that they had, I still think it would have been a bad deal.

I think that the pilots have to concentrate on flying the plane and doing what's necessary to make people on the ground and in the plane get them into safety, and not worry about trying to do it. I think that we need to bolster the U.S. marshal program.

NEVILLE: Oh, you like that idea, having more sky marshals on the plane?

MARK: They're the ones trained to do it. They're the ones not in the cockpit. They don't have the to worry about anything else. They can pay attention to the cabin, what are the suspicious characters. Who is doing what. That's where it should be. I don't see why the pilot should have to add it.

NEVILLE: Right, right. Too much responsibility for the pilot, in your mind.

I want to let Ivy, who is standing by on the line in California. Ivy, go ahead for us. What are your thoughts?

CALLER: Yes, I believe that the pilot definitely should have stun guns, or even a regular gun. They have to protect themselves. But I also think they also need to equip the stewardess with pepper spray. I think they need to carry pepper spray. I also think we need the sky marshals to go along with them, too.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Ivy. And Lee from California. What do you say?

LEE: Well, I think that since we trust the pilots with our lives in the first place, I think we can trust them enough to actually carry a gun also.

NEVILLE: Yes, but OK, well, you trust the pilot because they've been trained for years and years and years and have many hours of flying a plane. That's a different story than shooting a gun.

LEE: Putting a gun and shooting at somebody is a little bit more simple than flipping about 5,000 switches. I think they can actually be trained to do that within, like, half a day.

And I also like to comment on the pepper spray idea. I think that's probably a good one. The marshal, it's probably a little overboard, as far as creating new jobs just for the specific thing. But I like the pepper spray and I do like the stun guns. Shotguns, even. I mean, why not?

NEVILLE: See, now, you're getting a little out of hand with this.

LEE: I don't think so. I mean, like he said, he might not have been able to do it with just one gun. But if you had a shotgun and sprayed it at in the area of the...

NEVILLE: Yes, but what happens if you do have a gun on the plane and it gets in the hands of the wrong person? Mr. Wolk will respond to that for me.

WOLK: That's a real problem. And that's one of the reasons why we wouldn't want the pilots leaving the cockpit. Remember, this all has to be part of a comprehensive plan. It includes the sky marshals, it includes martial arts training on the part of the flight attendants. It includes psychological training for all of us as passengers, to perhaps recognize what's going on to the aid and assist the crew.

And more importantly, it means that the flight crew stays on the flight deck. Because none of this is going to mean anything if that flight deck crew is compromised or killed or disabled.

NEVILLE: Mr. Boin, I'd like you to respond to that.

BOIN: Sky marshals would be the absolute solution from this kind of affair. However, it will take a long time in order to educate and train sky marshals that can be able to function.

The question is what we are doing meantime. I think to the question to arm the cockpit is kind of a P.R. solution. The people in the street, the passengers in general, maybe feel more confident. To me, it's a different story to be able to operate a gun or to be able to actually operate it on 35,000 feet above sea level... NEVILLE: The pressure. You're saying that...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Right, because if you're not necessarily used to handling a gun and you add the pressure to that, who knows what could happen?

Steven, I know you're standing by in the line. Hold on for me. I want to talk to you when we back.

Here's a question. If stun guns aren't the answer, what would make you feel safer on the plane? Think about that and give me a buzz, e-mail me, you know how that works. And we'll talk about that after the break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're talking about whether pilots should have stun guns or the real thing in the cockpit. And. Steven, I know you're standing by. Go ahead. You're live.

CALLER: All right. Well, the only way I'd even consider getting on a plane after 9-11 would be if the pilot had real guns with real ammunition, the type that would fragment or whatever. And in addition to that, with air marshals in the passenger compartment.

And furthermore, I think the cabin of the airplane should have warning signs, to the effect that, "we carry onboard undercover air marshals." And the pilots on the pilot door, the reinforced door on the cabin, should have a sign that says, "these pilots are armed with real guns," as a preventive.

NEVILLE: OK. And, Steven, Melissa here from Michigan has something to add to that. And you're a flight, so listen to these words.

MELISSA: As a flight attendant with a major airline, I do think that the flight attendants are going to do everything they possibly can to stop any terrorist act, anybody getting to that cockpit door. Because the cockpit door is protected from flight attendants.

There's more awareness with the flight attendants around. And they're not going to let somebody just walk up to the cockpit. I mean, we are in the cabin to protect people. That is our No. 1 job. And I think people lose sight of that, as well.

And I think that flight attendants should have something, as pepper spray. Definitely not have the stun guns. That should be a last resort and that should be the cockpit members who are trained to do that, because they'll be fighting for control of the aircraft.

But I think we do lose sight of the fact that flight attendants are overlooked and that they are there for safety. And they will do everything they possibly can to prevent somebody from going into the cockpit.

NEVILLE: Do you think pilots should have real guns in the cockpit?

BOIN: No, I don't. Not at this point, I don't. I don't think that they have tested the stun guns to see the effectiveness that they have on that. And I think that the handguns should be a last resort. I think they should try the stun guns first.

NEVILLE: So, now, if you, as a flight attendant, if you were armed with some sort of pepper spray and trained a little bit better, or much better -- you fly everyday. Would you feel safer going to work?

MELISSA: Yes, I would. Yes, I would..

NEVILLE: Thank you. And excuse me, guys. I want to jump over here because Jeff back here had something to say. You all are going to make me take my shoes off, all this running. Go ahead, Jeff.

JEFF: It's not that I don't trust the flight attendants. It just seems to me that if you start putting weapons in the passenger compartment, you're just asking for trouble. Because these are terrorists. I mean, they're trained in marshal arts and whatnot.

And I just think that they'd have a...

NEVILLE: Could overtake the fly attendants, possibly. OK, Jeff, thank you.

And I wanted to get Velma, over here. Because, see, we talk during the commercials here on TALKBACK. So, go ahead, Velma. Stand up for me, please, and tell me what your thoughts are.

VELMA: I feel that all passengers should have pepper spray. And, not only can we protect ourselves, we're helping to protect our pilots. They can worry about us less because we're back there helping ourselves and helping them.

NEVILLE: Velma, I don't know what would happen if we all had pepper spray on one plane.

VELMA: It may be a little far-fetched. But that's still what I feel about it.

NEVILLE: Yes, because I don't know about that.

Mr. Wolk, you've been listening to -- thank you for speaking out.

You've been listening to these comments, Mr. Wolk. I'd like to know what you have to say about all this.

WOLK: I think the comments are great comments. I think that we want to make sure we don't make airplanes armed camps. But the thoughts are there, and the thought is this. We, as passengers, have to do the best we can to make sure that terrorists don't get to the cockpit. So, we have our role.

Flight attendants need to be trained in the marshal arts and if pepper spray is an answer, they need to have it to assist them. Pilots need to have stun guns to prevent anybody who busts through that cockpit door, from being able to disable them or take over the aircraft. And sky marshals have to be used regularly and effectively as a last resort against terrorism.

However, having said all that, terrorists need to be stopped before they get to the airport. And had everybody done their job like they were supposed to on 9-11, those terrorists wouldn't even have been in this country, let alone made it to the airport.

NEVILLE: So, Mr. Boin, with reinforced doors in the cockpit and better passenger screening, do you think that's enough?

BOIN: Definitely not enough, but it's much better than what we had before.

Let's face it, as far as I'm concerned, today we have 100 percent more security than we had September 10th. But when we talk about security, we are looking and actually believe in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that we should put in order. And as my colleague just mentioned, we should have all this kind of security measures in order. And then we should consider if it's enough.

And then I should have considered the fact if I would actually arm the cockpit. The cockpit is supposed to fly. All the others are supposed to actually to give him the capability to make his functions, his duty on a normal day.

NEVILLE: OK. Joe.

JOE: My concern over the pilots is more of the possible danger, what if they have psychological problems and use the guns as a weapon themselves? I think, prior to 9-11, the passenger, we are very passive and we would think, well, we'll do something and land safely. But right now, as a passenger myself, if I get, if I were hijacked I personally would overtake the hijacker and I think most of us would take an active role and passengers...

NEVILLE: Are you concerned about a pilot going off, like on the wrong person?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think 's a higher chance than an actual hijacker taking over the plane.

NEVILLE: All right. Standby. Thank you, sir. I want to get you -- Lee, stand up for me here. You we waving over here as he was saying that.

LEE: That was like the motor ridiculous thing. I'm not, I mean like I said before. We already need like sane pilots to fly the planes. There are already not going to be psychotic and try to shoot people. Why not give them guns?

NEVILLE: Arthur Wolk, what do you think about that? This little exchange.

WOLK: Of course I really believe that really virtually all pilots are sane because remember that they go first if the airplane crashes. Yes, could there be some abhorrent behavior by some pilot somewhere? There's always that possibility just like there is in the back. But the bottom line is that this is at least a step towards making the flight more secure.

NEVILLE: All right. I have 14-year-old Jason standing here. South Carolina, he's going to have the final say on this subject.

JASON: OK, what this lady here was saying, if they give them all mace and what if one of the passengers are terrorists? And one of the terrorists had the mace, then they could use it against the pilot or everything else.

NEVILLE: That's a good point you make there, Jason. Thank you very much. I want to thank everybody for speaking out on this subject. Everybody had lots to say.

Issy Boin, thank you for calling in and Arthur Wolk, thanks for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. Lots of food for thought.

OK, up next, we know the expression "you can't handle the truth." But can we handle how we get the truth out of suspected terrorists. We'll talk about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE everybody. I just wanted to remind you, last segment we were talking about whether or not airline pilots should have stun guns or the real guns or nothing at all. Certainly not to make light of a serious subject, but Roger here, from California, Roger mentions, he says, just give the terrorists plane food, airline food. That will take care of them. There you go. Thank you, Roger.

All right. OK, let's get serious again here. There are 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay and U.S forces are holding and interrogating senior al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah in another undisclosed location. Now, former CIA and FBI director William Webster says the U.S. should consider using truth serum on the detainees who aren't talking. Joining us now, Frank Gaffney, he is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, and Ron Kuby. He's a criminal defense attorney and talk show host at WABC.

Welcome to both of you, gentlemen.

OK, who has a problem with using so-called truth serum? Ron Kuby, what do you think?

RON KUBY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I thought maybe we could start with politicians or Enron executives before we invested ourselves in the war against terrorism. Start with something when the stakes are a little lower. The real problem with sodium pentothal is it's not truth serum. NEVILLE: It isn't?

KUBY: Medically it's a dis-inhibitor...

NEVILLE: It's a barbiturate that is used to suppress the central nervous system and it is usually used as an anesthetic. I want to get Mark over here.

KUBY: As an anesthetic and it is also used in order to release inhibitions, something a few shots of bourbon would do. But the studies have all shown that people may talk more on sodium pentothal, but there's no indication that they are speaking the truth.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Speaking on medical terms, Mark, I want to get to you jump in here.

MARK: Well, I think you...

NEVILLE: Are you a doctor.

MARK: Yes. Well, a radiologist, which means I don't use drugs very often. We read.

NEVILLE: I gave you a raise.

MARK: Yes, well, you actually you didn't, but that's a different story. We do all right.

No. The thing about the drug, as you said, it is a barbiturate, disinhibitor. There is no proof that this is going to be a truth serum.

Part of me really thinks it's an academic discussion because if the CIA does want to dot this, if they want to they are probably already doing it and don't know about it. They probably have already used it before. Most military kind of interrogations are not really privy to public discussion. But since we are talking about it today, I don't know enough about the Geneva Convention and things like that and treatment of prisoners of war. I kind of have a problem with it on those terms. I just don't think it's reliable. It's not what it's billed to be when you call it a truth serum.

NEVILLE: All right, Frank, go ahead and jump in.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Well, I think the question of whether this is torture has been put to rest by the previous conversation. This is possibly something that is part of an over all capability to assess what we are getting out of these guys, and to get more out of these guys seems to me to be an imminently reasonable thing to do especially given what the stakes are. We have a little light moment a moment ago but this isn't about low stakes. This is about the highest of stakes. These are trained killers who have been hardened in particular -- every step has been taken apparently to ensure that they will not break under interrogation.

NEVILLE: And well trained in deception. GAFFNEY: Absolutely. The secrets they may have about possible use of weapons of mass destruction that would make what we saw on September 11 look like a day at the beach makes these stakes the highest imaginable. And I think we have every right to use these kinds of techniques which clearly are not torture, to compliment the others that were using, in the way of professional law enforcement techniques to try to try to get at the bottom line, the truth.

KUBY: Well, one issue is why would we choose a technique which no court in this country recognizes and all have said is inherently unreliable. The second question, the legal question I think is a more difficult one once you get over the practical hurdle.

The reality is under the third Geneva Convention relative to treatment of prisoners of war, this would be prohibited and illegal under the convention. Now the Bush Administration takes the position that these folks are unlawful combatants. They fall outside any legal protection save what the president chooses to give them.

NEVILLE: So Ron, then if no truth serum what should we use? How do we get these guys to talk?

KUBY: I don't know that necessarily we are going to be able to get the truth of them. I mean, Abu Zubaydah is talking. Every week he says something, one week it's the banks, next weeks it's the malls. We run hither thither and yon. We are getting a lot of words, but we are not necessarily getting the truth.

NEVILLE: And the flip side, the flip side is how much do we want these guys to talk, because you are right, they could be sending the U.S. government on a wild goose chase trying to put more fear into the American people.

GAFFNEY: Obvious we would like to get the truth out of them. Ron's job apparently is to defend these guys. I'm not sure you want to ask him what kind of information we should be trying to get out of them. I think for the average American, the answer is obvious. We would like to get as much information as we can. We are going to have to use multiple techniques and cross examinations with other prisoners to try to ferret out what of the information we are getting is valid and accurate and useful.

But look, this is a hard problem. The only question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say well, if they won't just volunteer the truth, we won't do anything to get it out of them. I think that's simply irresponsible and crazy.

NEVILLE: Time out. I'm going to take a break. Here a question for you: Just what have U.S. officials learned from the captured al Qaeda leader? We'll ask our David Ensor when TALKBACK LIVE returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody. We are talking about interrogating prisoners and whether there is call for more drastic methods. To find out what U.S. has learned so far from the people already in custody we are going to go to CNN national security correspondent David Ensor.

David, what have they learned so far?

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, as you know there has been information put out that comes from Abu Zubaydahm, in part at least, that there was a threat at one point against banks in the northeast, that there was couple of other threats to supermarkets and so on.

But they say that this man is talking. They are cross-checking everything he says. They are not taking it for granted by any means. They do believe however that this is a man who knows a tremendous amount. Thousands of lives could be saved if they can get him to talk truthfully and they do believe they are getting some truth from him. But it is a difficult process.

NEVILLE: David, what are they doing currently to get him to talk?

ENSOR: They don't want to tell us in the public exactly what they are doing because they don't want to spread the message around the world to others who might later be incarcerated of exactly what they will or won't face. However, an official said to me today when I asked him that question, you can be assured we are using aggressive methods. Something much more than genteel questioning but something less than torture.

NEVILLE: Very cryptic, but it is a good point though, because you are right. These guys are not your average bear. They are already very tough. They are well trained in deception. They are very smart. And they have nothing to lose. So you are right, why give them an even better upper hand by telling them what's going on?

ENSOR: That's right. The U.S. doesn't want through me on your show to give out the word as to exactly what tricks they have up their sleeve, but they clearly do have quite a few tricks. There are things you can do to people short of torture that will, over time, get them to talk to you. That is what I'm told by U.S. officials. They believe the cards are mostly their hands, so they do admit this is a pretty tough customer.

NEVILLE: All right, David. Thank you very much for that report.

And our audience here has a lot to say about whether or not we should -- who raised your hand earlier? Let me come over there. Go ahead. Speak up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's examine the question a little historically here, from the historical perspective. Sodium pentothal was used during the Second World War. The civilized world was shocked. We condemned it. We were signatories to the Geneva Conventions. We signed it.

NEVILLE: What's your point here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My point is I don't think we should turn the clock back. And use this drug.

NEVILLE: All right thank you for making that point, sir. I want to go to, I think it's Michael. Is Michael standing by? Go ahead, Michael, you are on the phone live.

Go ahead Michael, you are live.

CALLER: I wanted to first of all dismiss the torture issue. To do that just makes the U.S. barbarian and terroristic anyway. Now as far as the sodium pentothal, I think anything of that sort is an absolutely fantastic idea. I do agree with the person who spoke not previously but the gentlemen before that. I think something to do with the security council or what have you, obviously we can't release that information and shouldn't release that information even to the American people because everything that we have is being monitored all over the world.

So obviously we don't want these people to know what it is we are doing and from what I know about use of the drug, the subjects themselves don't even know what's been done. Isn't doing them any harm.

NEVILLE: Hang on, Michael because Frank, one of our panelists wants to get in on this.

GAFFNEY: This is the key point. We are not talking about physically abusing these folks. They do not have POW status. We are trying desperately to avoid what could be real calamities. Among other things, are there counterparts with whom they trained who are already in place in the United States whose missions may already have been assigned, may be known to some of these people.

This is the kind of thing that we can play by the Marquis de Queensbury's rules if we like, but I can tell you, if it turns out there is another horrifying attack on this country and it might have been foreclosed by information held by these people, I suspect the American people will want to know why on earth we weren't doing much more aggressive technique. I don't want to go there if we can avoid it.

KUBY: Why don't we give them an answer and the answer goes something like this: Whether we regard these individuals as P.O.W., the rest of the world does rightly or wrongly. The rest of the world is...

GAFFNEY: Wrongly.

KUBY: ... the rest of the world is going to be guided by the type of precedent the United States of America sets. And already we see throughout the world in nations such as Russia and China cracking down on their domestic dissidents under the guise of fighting terrorism. The Bush Administration is getting ready to schedule a war with Iraq, probably sometime in January according to published accounts.

There is going to be 250,000... NEVILLE: Stay on course for me. The point is...

KUBY: The course very simply is if we are going to treat P.O.W.'s Like this who we capture, where is our moral authority to complain about how American P.O.W.'s and other P.O.W.'s Are ultimately treated?

NEVILLE: Who is to say American P.O.W.'s are not being tortured?

Terry, speak up for me.

(CROSSTALK)

TERRY: If I were a prisoner of war...

NEVILLE: Hang on. One at a time please.

TERRY: I think would I rather have sodium pentothal than alternative stressful methods whatever they might be.

NEVILLE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You bet. That's for sure.

NEVILLE: I am going to go up here to the top row where Deborah is...

GAFFNEY: While you are doing that can I just say that I think the question of how our troops are going to be treated is if they are wearing uniforms, if they are following the rules of war, if they are subordinated to identified commanders, they meet the tests of P.O.W.'s and they have to be treated that way.

And frankly the people who aren't going to treat them that way are going to treat them badly irrespective of how we treat these fellows who don't meet any of those tests at all.

NEVILLE: That is right. You are right. Deborah?

DEBORAH: I think 2001 is on a lot of our minds a lot more than the 1940's and I think if we are concerned about pussy-footing around with these people who aren't even American citizens and we could be getting valuable information, we need to really look at what we are doing as a country.

NEVILLE: Thank you. You can't be too politically correct in these situations, right Deborah?

I have a caller now, Ron, I think is the name -- John, go ahead you are live.

CALLER: Get it straight. How can you expect truth serum to work when you have millions of dollars tied up in polygraph test and you can't even get the truth out of people? People beat the polygraph.

GAFFNEY: That's right. That's why this is not a simple single- source solution. This is something that may contribute to breaking the code from people who are going to be trained and equipped and probably very much disposed to making that code as impenetrable as we can. We have to use every technique we can but short of terror -- or torture, I should say, because the terrorists that we are using it against, as our society sees it right now, and I emphasize right now, believe that that's beyond the pale. It may change if more terror is inflicted on us.

KUBY: It is easy to say this is war, and let's not be politically correct and let's not pussy-foot around. The reality is the people who drafted the third convention relative to treatment of prisoners of war knew that this was war and to the extent that we follow international precepts that we agree to, we ultimately strengthen ourselves as a nation in the fight against terror because we show ourselves to be the moral example that other people want to emulate and other people want to follow.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: But sometimes I think that needs to go out the window, because we are talking about people who blow up everybody if given the chance.

KUBY: But remember World War II? The Nazis were pretty bad people too. They marched all over Europe, exterminated Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and the like. Nonetheless, captured Nazi soldiers were treated as prisoners of war and there was -- expectation that American prisoners would be treated as prisoners of war as well.

GAFFNEY: They are not people who meet the test. Under the rules of the convention itself. That's the problem.

KUBY: Under the rules of the convention, as you well know, Frank, they are supposed to be a competent tribunal set up to establish who gets P.O.W. status and who doesn't. The Bush Administration has set up no tribunal. Has not even followed the procedural requirements that we agreed to follow as a nation.

GAFFNEY: It's self evident from the character of the people that we have picked up, the condition under which they were fighting and the kind of fighting they were doing. They are not prisoners of war under the definition of the convention itself.

NEVILLE: OK, Cody, from South Carolina.

CODY: I agree with what you said earlier about, they have been trained in deception, and how do we know that they are telling us the truth? What happens if we try to prevent it and just make everything worse?

GAFFNEY: You have to take it with a grain of salt.

CODY: I don't think we should use it because they could be tricking us the whole time, making us think that it is actually working. NEVILLE: That's interesting. Somebody over here raised his hand. Thank you, sir for standing up. Is it you, Dennis, who wanted to say something?

DENNIS: First of all I would like to ask Mr. Frank Gaffney this question: Is the process of using the truth serum the same as using the lie detector test for extracting the truth from a person?

GAFFNEY: No. I think as we have heard earlier in the show the so-called truth serum is something that injected into the individual's body with the view of trying to reduce their inhibitions, to giving them an opportunity not only to talk, but hopefully to talk freely. The lie detector is simply monitoring some of their body signatures as they speak. Two different things all together but can be used complimentarily I think.

NEVILLE: Frank Gaffney, Ron Kuby, thanks so much for your time. And ahead money makes people do strange things. Did a New Jersey man cheat his co-workers out of $59 million? Ahead, the New Jersey Lottery mystery that has lawyers on the move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody. All right. You remember the $331 million jackpot earlier this month, right? Well there were three winning tickets. So far only one has come forward and that's Erica Green, right here in Georgia. Now employees of a nursing home in New Jersey say they have been cheated out of the winnings but -- and it's a big but -- the co-worker they have accused says he doesn't have the ticket. I don't know.

Well now the lawyers are involved of course. The lawyers are involved, right, Terry. Lawyers always want to get involved. OK, let's go to our guest; Rebecca Paul, she is the president and CEO of the Georgia Lottery Corporation. And in New York, Randy Cohen. He's writes the ethics column for the "New York Times Magazine." And he is the author of the book "The Good The Bad And The Difference." Welcome to the show to both of my guests.

RON COHEN, AUTHOR "THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE DIFFERENCE": Thank you very much.

REBECCA PAUL, CEO, GEORGIA LOTTERY CORPORATION: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Randy, so what if this guy, Angelito Marquez, bought the pool tickets and bought one on the side for himself, but he mixed them all up? What does he do?

COHEN: Yes, just a merry mix-up involving millions of dollars. It could happen to anyone.

NEVILLE: What should he do?

COHEN: I think he has to look deeply into his heart and ask himself, didn't I buy this with my work mates? Weren't we all in this together? NEVILLE: Randy, you are talking about $59 million. Come on now.

COHEN: Sorry, I forgot about the part where we don't have to be honest above what? A million dollars, when can we start not telling the truth?

NEVILLE: I am just being real. We are talking about a lot of money here.

COHEN: Oooh, real. You know, someone a lot smarter and meaner than I am called lotteries a tax on the stupid because the odds against winning are just so high. But if everybody bought Lottery tickets just for fun, then there's no ethical problem. But maybe state government shouldn't be raising money this way.

NEVILLE: Really? Rebecca Paul, what do you have to say about that?

PAUL: Well Lotteries are legal in 38 states plus the district of Columbia and raise money for some very, very good causes here in Georgia. In just 8 years $5 million have gone to send 600,000 students to college, 400,000 students to lottery funded pre- kindergarten programs buy computers for classrooms. It's a very, very popular way to raise money for needed programs.

NEVILLE: So that money is going directly to those programs? We know that for a fact and we have records to show that?

PAUL: Absolutely. In Georgia it's written into the constitution that those are the only three programs we can fund, and over 600,000 students have gone to college in Georgia funded by the Georgia Lottery.

NEVILLE: How many?

PAUL: Six hundred thousand. Over half a million.

NEVILLE: Randy, I know you are into this whole ethics thing, and I understand, but we are talking about $59 million. So once again, that would make a lot of people lie. Not necessarily me. Not saying that.

COHEN: Surely not you. Surely not honest people like you or me.

NEVILLE: Randy....

PAUL: Or me.

NEVILLE: That's right, see, Rebecca is in this.

COHEN: And Rebecca. Rebecca seems like a very honest person.

NEVILLE: Randy, who is to say the other co-workers aren't lying? What if they if they didn't put in a couple of bucks for a ticket?

COHEN: The difficulty of sorting out the facts of the case is not something I would want to have to take on. That is I'm afraid were the lawyers get involved and the fun goes out. But it's ethical obligations. The ethical obligations of everyone involved is to tell the truth even for the big money.

NEVILLE: Rebecca, you had to deal with the taxi cab drivers a couple years ago.

PAUL: About a year ago we had a $90 million big game jackpot here in Georgia. And there were 23 cab drivers who claimed the prize and we had a number of court rulings; one saying don't pay, eventually saying do pay, and we did write the check to 23 cab drivers, all from Ghana. And there are still a handful of their pool-mates who are suing them in court. So it's out of the Lottery's hands and into civil court right now.

NEVILLE: And I need to ask you some other questions, like how do you figure out who is going to get the money, how do you divide it up, and this whole office pool thing. It might not be a good idea.

PAUL: Well as long as you get rules in writing ahead of time.

NEVILLE: We'll find out about that. I have to take a break and we'll be back to talk about this whole office pool thing, because I know you all have played the office pool before at work. You need to know how to handle this in case you hit the big bucks. OK, don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right everybody. We are talking about the big confusion over the big game Lottery jackpot, and I want to go back to Rebecca Paul here. Now what's the best way about going about this whole office pool thing if you actually do participate in one?

PAUL: You wouldn't do any kind of a contract where one million dollars was involved when it wasn't in writing. We are talking about $100 million. Get everything in writing. Set up rules. Make them simple and make sure everyone who is in that pool has a copy of the ticket that was purchased for the pool prior to the drawing.

NEVILLE: OK, but who decides how the money is disbursed? Let's say I put in $5, you put in $1. Do I get 5 times the amounts?

PAUL: Those are the rules you need to get in writing prior to playing games. So if you are going to be in an office pool, set up what the rules are in writing before the tickets are ever purchased.

NEVILLE: OK, Randy...

COHEN: That is excellent advice.

NEVILLE: Do ethics fly out window when we are talking about this kind of money?

COHEN: Certainly not. Not for decent people like us. I would like to respond to just one thing Rebecca said earlier, that the money -- that the lottery money -- the programs the Lottery money goes to are wonderful programs, but the question isn't where the money goes, but where it's coming from. With lotteries it comes from the poorest people in the state. Wouldn't it be better if it came from the wealthiest?

NEVILLE: We are out of time. Randy Cohen and Rebecca Paul, thanks for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. Thanks of course to you for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. See you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. Judy Woodruff is up next now with a look at what is coming up on INSIDE POLITICS.

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