Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Who killed Chandra Levy?; Is Bush Too Lax When it Comes to Human Rights Violations?; Should Women Who get Abortions Have their Pictures on the Internet?

Aired May 28, 2002 - 19:00   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.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE, on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the "Crossfire" tonight, somebody killed her. Will police find out who?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. POLICE CHIEF: We will solve this case, I guarantee you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Get an abortion, get your picture on the Internet. Shame on who?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEAL HORSLEY, ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVIST: Shame is a deterrent to evil behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The man behind a controversial Web site steps into the "Crossfire.".

Since September 11th has the U.S. become the home of the brave, but the land of the not so free?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Bush administration apparently believes that human rights are an impediment to national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight a man has taken his fight against abortion to the Internet. How would you feel if your picture appeared on his Web site? Also a man who says President Bush is a bulldog when it comes to confronting terrorism and a lap dog when it comes to confronting human rights violations.

But first, who killed Chandra Levy? As of today police are officially calling her death a homicide. Here to discuss what happens next is D.C. Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer.

TERRANCE GAINER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF: Hey Tucker.

(UNITELLIGIBLE)

GAINER: Thank you.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: ... Gainer, thanks, thanks for joining us again. I don't know if you saw the open. Let me replay it for you, but the Chief of Police Charles Ramsey had quite a specific boast about finding Chandra Levy's killer. Here's what he said.

RAMSEY: We're professionals here. We are one of the best police agencies in the world. And we will solve this case, I guarantee you that.

CARLSON: I guarantee you that. Can you guarantee us that the D.C. Police Department will solve this case and on the basis of what evidence when you and the chief say that.

GAINER: Well, there'll be a lot more work to do on it, and I think one of the things the chief was referring to, that no matter how long it takes, it can go solved. I think people around here remember the Starbuck murders, and it took us some three years, but we solved them and there's a trial up in Massachusetts right now that began some 25 or 30 years ago. So, we'll stay at it, even if the people who follow me are the ones that solve it.

CARLSON: Well I hate to use your own words against you. I'm going to have to. You've made predictions before. In fact, the very day last week that Chandra Levy's remains were found in Rock Creek Park, you were having breakfast, as you know, with a "Washington Post" reporter and the subject turned to Chandra Levy whose body had not been found, and here's what you said.

You said this case will be solved when somebody dimes somebody out or we find the body. In the end, of course, neither of those happened. The body was discovered by a guy walking his dog looking for box turtles. So it turns out the D.C. Police Department had nothing to do with solving the case up to that point. So, are you worried about making more predictions that you will solve it?

GAINER: Well I think that's a misinterpretation of what I was saying. We knew the next step would come when the body was found, and the body has been found. There's a lot of evidence that has been gathered there and will be processed by the FBI. So, I'm confident that based on the hundreds of interviews we've done thus far and that new evidence, that we can crack this. But we'll also need some help from the public. CARVILLE: Chief, we're told today that we don't know how Chandra Levy died, but we know it's a homicide. How do we know it's a homicide?

GAINER: It's based on the totality of the circumstances. The circumstances of her being missing, where the body was found. Some of the evidence we gathered at that scene and the - and the medical examiner and his team was available to him to help make his determination.

CARVILLE: But we -- according to the medical examiner we're still not sure how she died.

GAINER: That's correct.

CARVILLE: Chief, and I know there are a lot of the things that you can't talk about and I respect you for that. Are we closer to solving this today than we were a week ago?

GAINER: I think so. The very fact that we have her remains and have the determination it was a homicide, and I think we'll get closer as we get evidence back from the FBI what they may have found there. And I also think with the movement of this case back into the public eye, that someone can help us. We have to think back what people saw on May 1st and late in the afternoon where that young woman may have been.

CARLSON: Now (UNINTELLIGIBLE) case has moved - pardon me -- back to the public eye, there's been a lot of criticism, new criticism that this case is receiving too much attention from the Metropolitan Police Department relative to other cases, other people who are missing people or have been murdered. Do you think that's true?

GAINER: I don't. I think the public just isn't aware of what was goes on day in and out on cases. Now, this gets a lot of attention from Chief Ramsey and I because we handle the press. And the case will not be solved by chiefs of police or assistant chiefs of police, it'll be solved by detectives and detectives are working this case as they're working other cases.

CARLSON: Really because in the past 25 years, there have been more than 30 bodies discovered in Rock Creek Park, and I wonder if every one of those cases had, say the dedication of an eight-man forensic team or had archaeological experts from the Smithsonian Institution. I can't imagine that each one has.

GAINER: Well we'd have to go back and take a look at each one. I mean ...

CARLSON: Every one of those cases has had the resources Chandra Levy has?

GAINER: I don't know what happened 30 years ago. I've been here for four years, and I know what effort we've put into the cases while I've been here, and this isn't the first case where we've called other experts in and it won't be the last case where we do that. But I think that's good news. If there's more science, more people can work on a case, I think that's good news.

CARLSON: That's great for Chandra Levy's family, but you can honestly say that every murder case in the four years you've been here has received this amount of resources from the police department?

GAINER: Yes.

CARLSON: OK.

CARVILLE: Chief, your department has come under withering (ph) criticism from people like - well not necessarily me, but people on cable TV and the media and everything. Do you think that - I know this is a soft ball, but I want to give you a chance to defend your people. Do you think we have a first class police department in the District of Columbia?

GAINER: Absolutely I do, and I think every day we improve, and I think we're - we will be better tomorrow than we are today, and we're better today than we were a couple of days ago. But we do have good people. They work very hard on this case, and the crime rate continues to drop in the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the fact that there are victims and there will be victims.

CARVILLE: Now this is something to the average guy looks at, you know, you search this thing, and you missed the body. What happened here? Why did we miss it on the first time around? We had these cadets and everybody out searching ...

GAINER: Well I think you have to have some perspective of the size of that park. You know being in the District of Columbia, it's some 1,700 acres. It is very hilly and terrain. It's not like where a lot of people picture the park in their town - in their town, and we knew we couldn't search every inch of this. And we tried to be very logical in the way we conducted that search.

But I'm going to tell you something. We missed that body 13 months ago, and we were probably 100 yards west of it at one time and 100 yards east of it, and it would have been better for the family if we had found the body, and it would have been better for this case had we found the body.

CARVILLE: You know my grandfather's farm was under 1,000 acres, and I couldn't - now that's pretty - that's a lot of land. I mean I'll defend you to some extent, and I know Rock Creek Park because I used to run in there. This is not some little, you know, square in the middle of Washington.

GAINER: No, no it's not.

CARVILLE: This is one of the largest urban parks in the country. I just want to point that out.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Well Billy Martin said something today, the attorney for the Levy family that may explain why the D.C. police didn't find the body. He said - quote - "there were extraordinary means taken to conceal the body". I'm not clear exactly what he meant by that, but apparently he got it from the police department. What did he mean?

GAINER: Well I don't know that he got any such thing from the police department. He shouldn't have, and I don't think there was extraordinary means. It appears to us that the body lay on the forest floor for some 13 months. It was not buried in any way, and I think the only thing covering the body, the remains, were the -- what transpires over the 12 or 13 months. Time and tide, leaves, twigs falling ...

CARLSON: So what Billy Martin said was untrue?

GAINER: I don't know what Billy Martin said. If you're quoting that ...

CARLSON: "There were extraordinary means taken to conceal the body".

GAINER: I don't know where that comes from. I'm not familiar with that.

CARVILLE: Did she -- is it your belief that she was murdered in the park or murdered somewhere else and taken to the park?

GAINER: That's a little bit harder to tell. I think the theories will be competing on whether that occurred or not. We'll know more once we get some information back on the soil samples and I hope we'll know more ...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: If I were a betting man, which I am, would you say murder - would you tell me to bet murdered in the park or murdered out of the park?

GAINER: I wouldn't bet until you have more information.

CARLSON: OK, well there is one outstanding question left and we'll get to that when we return. In a minute we'll ask Chief Gainer if he thinks Gary Condit did it.

And later, what's wrong with an extended stay in a tropical paradise? One of the people who says, plenty, steps into the "Crossfire". We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Washington D.C. police say Chandra Levy was murdered, but they aren't saying much else. We're trying to get information out of the D.C.'s Deputy Police Chief Terrance Gainer.

CARVILLE: Well you know I asked you chief, and one of the things we do here is we speculate, and we're not all that fair and we're cable TV and we "Crossfire" and everything, but the question is Gary Condit. Did he do it or not do it and I'm not going to ask our studio audience their opinion. If you think that Gary Condit did, please indicate by saying yea and then when I ask you if you think he didn't, indicate by saying nay.

All those who think he did, say yea.

AUDIENCE: Yea.

CARVILLE: Those who think he didn't, say nay.

AUDIENCE: Nay.

CARVILLE: Pretty close there, huh Tucker?

CARLSON: Not in my mind. Now Chief Gainer, isn't it - I mean look, there's essentially no evidence that he did, and isn't it time for the Metropolitan Police Department to apologize for slandering Gary Condit through innuendo over the past 13 months, destroying his political career, and in the end we learn there's really no chance he did it? Isn't that right?

GAINER: Well I don't believe we slandered his name. That will be for others to determine. We've talked to him on several occasions, as we have others involved in this case, and I think the only people who keep talking about whether he's a suspect or not is generally the media or his own attorneys.

CARLSON: But wait a second, the D.C. Police Department, among other things, leaked the fact that he admitted having an affair in the third interview, publicly mocked him on television for not taking a police supplied polygraph examination, and in general acted like the guy was some sinister suspect. I mean, I watched this unfold on television as did our audience at home and ...

GAINER: Well Tucker, I can't give you the fact that someone leaked the information. Leaks are wrong in our business, and I guess if the media stopped buying the leaks the police would stop selling it. So I'm opposed to that.

CARVILLE: Chief, why am I here defending the public (ph)? You were bitterly criticized for not doing enough to bring -- to talk to Gary Condit sooner. Now Tucker's criticizing you for doing too much. Do you ever feel like you're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation?

GAINER: Only when you're on a show like this. But our people ...

CARLSON: Well what kind of softball question is that?

GAINER: Our ...

(CROSSTALK)

GAINER: We plow ahead and we stick to the facts and make our determination based on those facts. CARLSON: Yes, but wait a second. When the chief of police, and I believe you also on television, said oh, Gary Condit takes a polygraph exam supplied by his lawyer, that doesn't mean anything. When you mock him on TV, you are sending the message to viewers this guy has something to hide, and if he's really innocent, he'll come take our polygraph.

GAINER: That wasn't meant as a mock. It was meant as a statement of fact, that a polygraph examination had been administered by your own defense attorney, by your own polygraph examiner, in our business, is not worth much. And that was a statement of fact.

CARLSON: Are you going to interview him again, Gary Condit?

GAINER: I think everybody has an equal opportunity to be re- interviewed and be considered somehow related to this case. I would be surprised if we don't go back and talk to almost everybody we've talked to because we know so much more today than we did a week ago, and we'll know more in a couple of weeks as that evidence comes back in.

CARVILLE: The medical examiner said Chandra Levy was tied up. Is that correct?

GAINER: He did not say that, no.

CARVILLE: He did not say that? So that's just speculation in the media too?

GAINER: Apparently.

CARVILLE: But what do we know - how do we know, again, I come back, maybe it's just a stupid question, but we don't know how she died, but we know that she died at the hand of another. I mean maybe I watch too much TV, but you say that the defendant, you know, I mean the victim died of asphyxiation, of gunshot wound, such and such. When whoever it is that we bring to trial hopefully one day, how will we say - how will we know that this woman was killed, if we don't know how she died?

GAINER: Well I think as time goes on, and before anybody is brought to the bar of justice, we will know how she died. So it will unravel, but it will take more than 50 minutes and three or four commercials for us to do that.

CARLSON: OK, well in the 15 or 30 seconds we have left, can you tell us, have other suspects evolved in the past week? Are you looking at people you didn't look at before?

GAINER: There are no suspects in the case right now. But obviously we're interested in people who may be involved in similar crimes, and we continue to look in this area and nationwide for that type of thing. We continue to look to see if there's any pattern in how this young woman died. And we do need to have that evidence back from the lab. There may be some very telling information in the evidence we gathered. CARVILLE: Roughly a suspect is when the police think that someone did it, they become a suspect, right? How many people do you think might have done this right now? How many - I mean there's got to be kind of a number.

GAINER: We do not have any - we don't have any list of that. We have a very open mind, and we're not that close, close enough to identify a group or a singular person.

CARLSON: OK, ladies and gentlemen, Chief Terrance Gainer. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks.

CARVILLE: Next in the "Crossfire", a question of tactics in the fight over abortion. We'll ask what's wrong with a little shame?

And speaking of shame, something we speak about a lot here, our quote of the day concerns the sex scandal among Catholic priests. Guess who's giving the Pope a little advice? We'll tell you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. The abortion debate, it's not getting any friendlier. Some say Neal Horsley has single handedly pushed the acrimony into overdrive. Horsley operates a number of Web sites including one that posts pictures of women going into abortion clinics, presumably to get abortions. He says it's to deter people from killing their children. Supporters of abortion say it's an invitation to violence. Neal Horsley joins us from CNN center in Atlanta.

CARVILLE: Mr. Horsley, if a hair on one of these women's head was harmed or they were beaten up or murdered, I would hold you accountable for it for putting their pictures up there. Why would I be wrong?

NEAL HORSLEY,

NEAL HORSLEY, ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVIST: Well you could hold me accountable, but you would be doing what a journalist should have the right to do. If somebody did the same thing to me, you could be held accountable, but it's what we do as journalists, and we are part of the story, and we can always be blamed when -- for telling the truth.

CARVILLE: Well, you know, a lot -- most of these people go into these clinics afraid. They're tortured. They're making a very difficult decision in their life, and frankly I don't think that they deserve to have their pictures put up there, and I think that you're going to accept responsibility for harming a lot of people by doing this Mr. Horsley.

HORSLEY: Well that's -- you don't think that a baby's being killed there, obviously, and that's the difference between you and I. know for a fact that little babies are being butchered. If we would allow the fetus to have DNA testing, that's being accepted in every court, we could prove conclusively in a court of law that the human being is being killed there. The only difference between ...

CARVILLE: Well I would - I would be all for you taking it to a court of law. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is putting people who are getting a legal medical procedure in a position where they can be harmed or murdered. I hope you can get into a court of law with that.

(CROSSTALK)

HORSLEY: That's what they ...

(CROSSTALK)

HORSLEY: That's what they said about Louisa May Alcott when she wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin" too. She was jeopardizing the lives of the slaveholders by showing the plight of the slaves. The reality is little babies are being butchered. I don't forget that. You can ignore it. The American people can ignore it. God doesn't ignore it. I'm not going to ignore it either.

CARLSON: OK, now Mr. Horsley, of course Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin", but other than that ...

HORSLEY: I'm sorry. You're right.

CARLSON: ... I pretty much ...

HORSLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: ... I pretty much agree with you. I think abortion is wrong, but I wonder, though, if what you're doing convinces anybody else that it's wrong. And reporters at the "Chicago Tribune" wondered the same thing. They did a fascinating series of interviews with anti-abortion protesters outside a clinic. Here's what one of them said.

"Taking pictures and posting them on the Internet is not going to stop abortion. We're out there to offer the girls help. We're not out there to harass them, expose them or make them feel bad". Aren't you alienating people who would otherwise support you by doing this?

HORSLEY: Well we've seen many people turn around who were thinking about having an abortion and not having them. We've held these babies that were carried to term in our arms, and these people can say anything they want to, but we've watched the babies who were destined to be slaughtered live, and that's why we keep doing what we're doing.

CARLSON: Wait, but Mr. Horsley, I mean I think even people who are adamantly opposed to abortion save their wrath for the doctors who commit abortion, not for the women who have them who I think everyone agree are, you know, often confused and upset and for the most part don't believe they're committing murder. Why target them? Why not target the doctors if you're going to target somebody?

HORSLEY: Well you could say the same thing about any homicide, that where the person that committed the homicide was confused at the moment that he did it. The fact is little babies are being killed. People have to be held responsible when they are involved in a homicide or the entire system of morality and of society begins to disintegrate. The reason we see our nation disintegrating today is that we are reaping what we're sowing. We set loose this catastrophe of murder in our midst, and we're paying the price now.

CARVILLE: Well I reckon I disagree that our nation is disintegrating. I think we've got a pretty strong country. But I want to go -- ask you about the guy that was just in France that's coming to stand trial for the death of the doctor in Buffalo. Is that man a murderer?

HORSLEY: Well, I don't know. You know I'm sure that that's what they will try to find out at trial.

CARVILLE: Well, assume that he killed -- is it OK to kill a doctor who performs abortions?

HORSLEY: No, what I'm trying to do is to bring them to trial ...

CARVILLE: I'm asking you ...

HORSLEY: ... and then ...

CARVILLE: ... is the man a murderer that killed this doctor? Is it OK to kill the doctor who performs abortions?

HORSLEY: No, what is OK is for us to change the law so that we can bring these people before a court of justice. That's all I'm advocating. That's all I've ever advocated and that's all I intend to advocate.

CARLSON: But wait a second. I mean, again, let's just get back to the tactics. When people decided cigarette smoking was bad, they went after the tobacco industry, not after individual smokers. Why not go after the abortion industry, a pretty profitable industry, and not after these poor women who are - who are having abortions.

HORSLEY: Well these poor women who are having abortions are involved in homicide. They cannot be allowed to ignore the fact that they're killing a baby or in fact we begin to collaborate with their homicide. The fact that you call these people poor victims is part of the problem. They are killing a baby. Whether or not they have problems, whether or not they have justification for what they do is irrelevant. The person they are killing has to be protected or we all reap the consequences of allowing the least among us to be slaughtered.

CARLSON: OK Neal Horsley from CNN center in Atlanta. Thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

CARVILLE: Thank you Mr. Horsley. CARLSON: Coming up in a CNN news alert, Texas says you're never too young to face the consequences.

Also the self-appointed watchdogs of human rights point their fingers at the Bush administration.

And if you haven't put your finger on the source of the quote of the day, think of a non-Catholic who would get the Pope's attention. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Now for our quote of the day. It came just before the world's top Catholic got a visit from America's most prominent non Catholic. Just before his private meeting with Pope John Paul, the second today, President Bush said he was going to bring up the sex abuse scandal involving priests.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will tell him that I am concerned about the Catholic church in America. I'm concerned about its standing. And I say that because the Catholic church is incredibly important institution in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: Tucker, is the sort of only non Catholic on CROSSFIRE

Tucker, as the sort of only non Catholic in CROSSFIRE," with me and Begala and Novak in one corner, do you think the president expresses concern, but yet expresses support for people like Cardinal Law? Don't you think there's a sort of a mixed message there?

CARLSON: Well, I don't think it's the president's job to protect the standing of the Catholic church in the United States. On the other hand, it is nice to have a president who can talk about a sex scandal with a straight face, and not become a "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" live parody. And I do think though that this president, who is of course Methodist, does have a lot in common with Catholics. He's not reflexively hostile to religion as a lot of liberals are. I think he has a shot at winning a lot of Catholic votes the next election. I think it makes it sense for him to make a...

CARVILLE: So you think that his support for Cardinal Law is because he genuinely thinks Cardinal Law is a good man, as opposed to trying to get Catholic votes in the next election?

CARLSON: I think it was a ridiculous statement that he now regrets.

CARVILLE: He hasn't said that, has he? You regret that he said it.

CARLSON: I do regret that he said it, and I bet he does. Coming up, a watchdog calls President Bush a lap dog when it comes to human rights. Is Amnesty International barking up the wrong tree? Arf, arf.

And later, a CROSSFIRE news alert that will make the Hatfields and the McCoys blush. Stay with us for the latest from Kentucky's killer election. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom in Washington, D.C.

The Bush administration brought home lower than usual grades on its human rights report card today. Amnesty International yearly report criticized the conduct in the war in Afghanistan, as well as treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The group doesn't stop there. It complains that September 11 has given the U.s. and its allies an excuse to downplay the importance of human rights in the interest of security.

Stepping into the crossfire, Amnesty International director William Schultz and Colonel Bob Mcginnis of the Family Research Council.

[applause]

CARLSON: Mr. Schultz, I took a look at Amnesty International's report. And I have to say it is really the ultimate in blame shifting. Let me give you one example. In it you note, Amnesty International notes that last year, China executed over 2,400 people. Probably not all of them guilty. This is a problem, I agree. Who does Amnesty International blame? The United States, because the U.S. executed Timothy McVeigh, which you say in your report, "lends dangerous legitimacy to governments who execute."

So China executes 2,400 people, some of them innocent. We execute one guy as a federal prisoner, and it's our fault for China's behavior?

WILLIAM SCHULTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: No, of course it's not our fault, but it does compromise our moral authority when it comes to criticizing China. Look, I believe that President Bush is right when he says that this war against terrorism is about two things. It's about saving American lives. It's also about preserving American values, preserving freedom and respect for the rule of law.

All Amnesty asks is that the United States do exactly that. And whenever the United States compromises in its respect for the rule of law, it does two things. First, it turns the hair of our allies gray. Those who have hair. And secondly, it hands fodder to our adversaries to call us hypocrites. It compromises the authority of the United States to conduct this war. CARLSON: Well, first of all, the death penalty's not against the law, but let's talk about our adversaries. Now Amnesty International is a global human rights group.

SCHULTZ: That's right.

CARLSON: Keeps track of human rights abuses across the world. Today's report on the U.S. was 307 pages long. The last report you did on North Korea was 15 pages long, one of the world's police states.

SCHULTZ: Tucker, I'm sorry you have your facts wrong. The report today was an annual report on 152 countries. The report on the United States was five pages long. The report on most of the countries was three to five pages long.

CARLSON: Can you tell me that you have spent more ink on Iraq, Syria, and North Korea in the last 10 years than you have on the United States?

SCHULTZ: Absolutely.

CARLSON: No, you have not.

SCHULTZ: Oh, absolutely. There's no question.

CARLSON: So you have put out more reports on those countries than the U.S.? That's simply not true.

SCHULTZ: Oh, absolutely. Amnesty is unequivocal in its opposition to human rights violations in every country in this world. Our reputation is...

CARLSON: But you've written more on the U.S. than you have on those countries?

CARVILLE: Benjamin Franklin once said those who are willing to trade liberty for security end up with neither. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was wise in that statement?

COL BOB MAGINNIS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, I don't dispute Ben Franklin. He's a very wise man, and has provided a lot of direction in this country. But James, keep in mind the president said that this is a fight for civilization itself.

You know, we were bombed, we were attacked, and we're at war today. And you know, civil liberties, whatever -- however you define them quite frankly, are only going to be preserved if you have civilization. And look at Afghanistan today. It's a lot more civil and a lot more freedom in that country because we went to war to stamp out, you know, that sort of atrocities.

You know, I tend to -- you know, it's -- you know, I support the idea of exposing Iraq and Iran and North Korea and all their heinous things. But I think it's been in -- you know, unethical, quite frankly, to go after the U.S. when you know, you have countries as Tucker says, 2,400 people murdered, basically, in some cases last year.

CARVILLE: Well if you agree freedom of speech is a right we have, then this man has every right...

MAGINNIS: Freedom of speech -- he certainly does. And he can say the same thing to me.

CARVILLE: Right.

MAGINNIS: But you know, freedom of speech is important. And that's why I fought for this country. And that's why those young 7,000 people over in Afghanistan are there, to defend the interests of liberty, not only in Afghanistan, but our own liberty in this country.

CARVILLE: Yes, and that's good. And I served my country, too. But what -- tell -- let's get -- what's something we're doing that really bothers you? And let's give Colonel Maginnis a chance to respond to it. Tell us.

SCHULTZ: Well very simply, I'm sure the colonel respects and supports the Geneva conventions. The Geneva Conventions are very simple with regard to the question of ambiguity about detainees. They say that the question should be resolved by an independent tribunal. My guess is that if the administration took the question of the status of al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. civilian court, my guess is the court would probably agree with the administration that they were not prisoners of war.

But we don't know that, because at this point, the administration has chosen not to abide by the Geneva Convention. And you as a military man, of all people, ought to be worried about what that says in the future. If this is going to be a long war, as the president says, then unfortunately, some of our own young men and women are going to be taken into captivity.

(CROSS TALK)

MAGINNIS: Bill, of course, they've gone through the whole iteration of determining they're combat detainees and not POWs. As you know in article 5, it gives that provision. But you know, these people were not wearing uniforms. They were giving themselves to an ideology and not a country. And quite frankly, they fought in the shadows and they killed innocent men, women, and children. And so, the classic definition, back in 1950 when we started the Geneva Convention, doesn't apply to the terrorist regimes that we find in this world today.

SCHULTZ: Maybe not, but that isn't up to you or me. It's up to an independent tribunal.

CARLSON: Wait.

MAGINNIS: It's up to a sovereign country to determine that.

CARLSON: Let me ask you this question.

SCHULTZ: Not under the Geneva Conventions.

CARLSON: You would agree that the purpose -- one of the purposes of the Geneva Convention is to make certain that prisoners are not mistreated. You're aware of how the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are being treated.

SCHULTZ: That's right.

CARLSON: They have medical care, which is exactly equal to that received by American servicemen over there. There have been 45 different surgeries on prisoners since they were held. Every prisoner has a checkup. They're given free korans. They have a government funded religious leader leading services. And they're (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by golf carts. They eat Fruit Loops in the morning. Holy smokes, what more do they need?

SCHULTZ: Look, look, that's right. And that's why Amnesty International, despite the fact that we haven't been permitted to have direct examination, has not complained about the treatment of the detainees. Our issue is whether we're following the Geneva Conventions with regard to their status. Another issue is the question of...

MAGINNIS: Oh, we're treating them better than anyone who was ever treated under the Geneva Convention, World War II or World War I.

SCHULTZ: For what purpose? The purpose is that we either abide by the Geneva Conventions when we take people captives, or we can't expect our own soldiers to be protected.

CARLSON: But what about Colonel Maginnis' point that these were not members of a regular army, that they were not in uniform?

SCHULTZ: But Tucker, that isn't what the conventions say. That may be true. The colonel may be right. You may be right. It's not up for us to decide. The conventions are very, very clear. They say an independent tribunal must make that decision.

CARVILLE: Every person that God knew is watching this show, and I grew up in Louisiana, is saying this right now, I tell you exactly what they're saying, "Now here's this guy sitting here blaming the United States, when he's son of bitches knocked down two of our buildings, rammed an airplane into the Pentagon. And all they're doing is worrying about some rights of some damn criminals. And what do you say to these people? Why is this thing important? Why as Americans should these guys care about that?

CARLSON: And these people he's referring to is me, by the way. I feel the same way.

SCHULTZ: Because the fact is that this war is about values, as well as about protecting American lives. It's about respect for the rule of law. And if the United States, whether in its treatment of detainees, whether in its potential torture of people who we have at least suggested, people in the FBI have suggested that that may be what we need to resort to, to get information from them, in whatever way we undertake this war and this struggle, if we ourselves violate our most fundamental values that we ourselves have established, then what is in the ultimate sense, have we won this war?

MAGINNIS: I hope you're not suggesting we torture...

CARVILLE: I'm going to give you plenty of time. And I want to say we had you on the show. And you were against torture also. So I don't want to put...

MAGINNIS: Well, I hope you're not suggesting we're torturing anyone?

SCHULTZ: I don't know whether we're torturing anyone. I'm certainly not saying that, but I'm saying that the FBI certainly floated the idea. It was in many newspapers. There have been reports on all the national networks that we may have transferred Qaeda detainees to Egypt, where torture is common. I don't know whether that's true or not.

MAGINNIS: No, that's an allegation I'd be careful making.

SCHULTZ: Well, I'm not making it as an allegation. ' MAGINNIS: OK.

SCHULTZ: But I'm saying that the suggestion has been raised. And many people, including Alan Dershowitz, have said that torture is acceptable.

MAGINNIS: That's interesting.

CARLSON: If that's your argument, it falls down right there by citing Alan Dershowitz. But I think you actually make my point for me when you say there was talk of sending them to Egypt or a third country that does use torture. And the point is that if you're going to hold up the rule of law, there is no country that embodies of the rule of law like ours.

SCHULTZ: And we must conform our behavior to the values that we embody.

CARVILLE: But I think the colonel, let's give him a chance, because something is bothering him. And I know it's on your mind, colonel. Go ahead.

MAGINNIS: Yes, freedom's dear to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes, I'll tell you how I feel, Bill. Freedom's dear to us in this country. We give up a lot of freedom.

Unfortunately, when we go to the airport today, just because of what happened on 9/11. Because I don't like to wait in lines. And I have to wait longer in lines. We may have to give up certain freedoms in the future, you know, just to go to the mall here for the Memorial Day service the other night, you know, because we had to go through metal detectors in which we didn't have to before. You know, this is a different time period. We have gone through an attack. We're at war.

These people who fight in the shadows, as I indicated, want to kill us. They have made it very clear. Those...

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), isn't it? I mean...

MAGINNIS: That's right, James. They want to kill us. And we don't necessarily, because of how they act, we don't know where they are. And they, on many cases, may be amongst us.

CARLSON: Let me...

CARVILLE: Why don't we take it to this independent tribunal, and let them decide what they ought to...

MAGINNIS: We don't have to. Article 5 is very clear. We determined, after close scrutiny, that those are combat detainees. We took the Kalashnakovs (ph), we took out of their hands, and we put them in jail. They would have shot us had we not.

Now Mr. Schultz, I want to clear something up just so our viewers to make sure I understood you right. Were you saying earlier that because the United States has the death penalty, legal in the United States, that it's unfit to criticize countries like China that kill people for their (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

SCHULTZ: I said that it compromises our moral authority. I didn't say it made us unfit. And I wish we would criticize China more for the death penalty. I said whenever we violate human rights ourselves, it's simply compromises our ability to be as effective spokespersons against human rights as we would like to be. Look, let's take the example, during the campaign...

CARVILLE: I think you're both great Americans, and both being great Americans, you understand when you've got to go, you've got to go. We're out of here.

CARLSON: Thank you both.

MAGINNIS: All right thank you.

CARLSON: Colonel Maginnis, thank you.

Coming up in fire back, a viewer's suggestion for a permanent memorial to Chandra Levy.

But next, coffee, tea, or the lotus position? Among the stories in the CROSSFIRE news alert, an airline that's encouraging you to meditate your way across the country. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Now it's time for a look at those unusual, interesting, and downright shocking stories that you might not find anywhere but in our CROSSFIRE news alert. In case you think we Democrats are too tough on George Bush, I assure you, we usually have good reasons. Listen to this. The German magazine, "Der Spiegel" reports that during last week's European summit, Mr. Bush asked Brazil's president, "Do you have blacks, too?" "Der Spiegel" says National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had to quickly explain that Brazil probably has a larger black population than the U.S., and perhaps the largest black population outside of Africa.

If the question is open, I want to put up a picture of Pele. He's the man on the right, and perhaps the most famous Brazilian of all time, at one time the most famous human on the planet. He sure looks black to me. Well, maybe he's been in the sun too long. Mr. President, I don't know.

[applause]

CARLSON: Firefighter Wayne Walker, inner city cab driver, political candidate in the state of Kentucky. what do all these careers have in common? They're some of the most dangerous jobs in America. On Sunday, a candidate running for clerk of County Kentucky survived an assassination attempt, dodging more than 30 bullets. Later that same day, a staffer for his opponent was shot six times. He survived.

In March, Paul Browning, Jr., a candidate for sheriff of Harlan County, was found murdered in his truck. The man, who himself had done time in prison for conspiracy to commit murder, had been shot in the head, and set on fire. The following month, Pulasky County sheriff Sam Catrin (ph) was killed by snipers who left a political rally. His opponent has been charged.

Earlier this month, absentee voting was halted in Clay County, after reports that many in the crowd outside a polling place were carrying guns. Violence has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Kentucky feeling defensive about their state's image. As one local historical complained, all this makes Kentucky seem like some kind of Banana Republic. True, but without bananas and more violent.

CARVILLE: I worked in Kentucky in 1987. I'm glad I survived. You can get taken out in Eastern Kentucky are pretty tough, pretty serious there.

Jack Weekly's, Jr.'s past isn't that wild, but back when he was 19 and living in Michigan, he got in a parking lot fight over a missing jacket. Heck, I did a lot worse than that when I was 19. Anyhow, now that Jack is 30, he's won the Democratic primary for a seat in Pennsylvania's legislature. But that fight may catch up with him. Pennsylvania law says people convicted of infamous crimes can't hold public office.

And since Jack pleaded guilty to a felony as a result of that fight, some people are asking, should he be kept out of the legislature? Heck no. We Democrats need more people willing to fight in parking lots and anywhere else. Go ahead, Jack, we're for you, baby. CARLSON: The bar fight constituency.

In airline news, don't panic if the passenger next to you begins chanting in a foreign language and suddenly reaches for his feet. It's not necessarily an attempted shoe bombing. More likely, it's airplane yoga. Jet Blue Airlines announced this week it will place how to instructional yoga manuals in each of its 24 airliners. Each card will illustrate easy to assume yoga positions, not necessarily the ones seen here, that the company claims will help passengers relax during flight. For those before flight jitters, Jet Blue is installing gym quality punching bags in its terminal at New York's Kennedy Airport. All the physical exercise, says an airline spokeman, is designed to bring, "inner peace to the skies." Privately, however, Jet Blue officials concede that all the stretching in the world's unlikely to be as effective as two stiff cocktails and some ample leg room.

Next in fireback, a fat smoker huffs and puffs about something I said the other night but didn't really mean. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for our fireback segment. Every night, perhaps foolishly, we invite you to e-mail and tell us what you think. Every night you do. Here's what you said. First up, Mike Tittle, apparently his real name, from El Dorado Springs, Missouri writes, "Tucker, you Republicans that we insisted that we put all of Congress on hold and embarrass the country to investigate and impeach President Clinton for lying about having a sexual affair." True enough.

"Now Republicans are not willing to investigate to see if someone failed to protect the lives of 4000 innocent Americans killed in a terrorist attack." I can see you've been on the did DNC website, Mike Tittle. Not true, though. Republicans are all for an investigation, as you know.

CARVILLE: Oh, really? Well then why is Vice President Cheney calling up people saying don't have one?

CARLSON: There is one going right now, led by Congress.

CARVILLE: As they damn well should and ought to.

"I believe that a bill should be passed in memory of Chandra Levy to remove government officials who act in adulterous affairs from office. It is a violation of the public trust to use political power for personal gain." Sam Kreewell of Brooklyn, New York. Sam, might not be a bad idea, but we'll lose three quarters of the people in town run out of here. So Be careful what you wish for.

CARLSON: Eve Lupert of Charlotte, North Carolina writes, "Tucker, the other night, you mentioned that everyone thinks it's ok to make fun of fat people and smokers. Well, not everyone. As a fat smoker, I can confirm that we make fun of you! Then we have cake." Eve, you missed it! Eve, I'm on your side. I am the sole defender of fat smokers. Keep that in mind nest time you make of me.

CARVILLE: And fat smokers who eat cake, too.

CARLSON: Amen.

CARVILLE: There it is. Let them eat cake.

CARLSON: Yes.

CARVILLE: And smoke cigarettes.

"James, are you an alien?" Constance Lyons, Charlotte, North Carolina. Actually, I'm a Carville, but I knew those aliens. And it wasn't worth a damn, all of them. I resent being called one of them.

CARLSON: And now to the audience, yes, a question.

T.J. MULLIN: My name's T.J. Mullin and I'm from West Palm Beach, Florida. And my question is, as a member of the press who frequently bash Congressman Condit without the full facts, do you think the media is in part responsible for his now failed political career?

CARLSON: If that question is to me, the answer is, absolutely right. And I actually, to congratulate myself, I have thought from the beginning Gary Condit, whatever his many faults and unseemly as his behavior was in many ways, was probably not a murderer, and that it was unfair of the D.C. police department to imply otherwise.

CARVILLE: Well, I'm definitely not a member of the press, but I'm a blowhard or whatever they call it. I'm proud of it. Yes, I'm sure they did, but you have an affair with an intern and she shows up missing, you're going to catch flack for it.

CARLSON: So I guess what James Carville is saying, it's wrong to have an affair with a young intern. Anyway, yes, sir, a question?

CARVILLE: I agree.

CHIP DELOUISIO: Hi, my name's Chip Delousio from Springfield, Pennsylvania. My question's for both of you. Do you think Pakistan was wrong in doing a routine test of ballistic missiles near Kashmir, while there was one million Indian troops stationed on the border?

CARVILLE: Well, it's a good question. I suspect what the Pakistanis -- what they were trying to do is remind India, as if they needed reminding, that they had these weapons and the capacity to deliver them. Unfortunately or fortunately, India has the same capacity and one only hopes and prays that somebody get in the middle of this thing and stop this before it breaks out to something that we can't stop.

CARLSON: Immediately, before millions die.

CARVILLE: Yes.

CARLSON: Yes, not a recipe for peace. And that's about it. CARVILLE: From the left, I'm James Carville. Good-night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.

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