Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Jury Finds Westerfield Guilty; Massachusetts Law Outlaws Shooting Effigies; Shock Jocks' Sex Stunt Sparks Outrage
Aired August 21, 2002 - 15:00 ET
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.
I have so much I want to talk about today, including a shock jock's stunt in St. Patrick's Cathedral that could cause the station the jock works for to lose its license.
Also, is it legal to use Saddam Hussein's picture for target practice?
And Bill Clinton talks up a new career. We'll tell you what that's all about.
But I want to start with the Westerfield verdict.
First, though, let's meet today's guests. Here with me here in Atlanta is Neal Boortz, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host on WSB. Sam Greenfield is a comedian and radio talk show host on WEVD in New York. Marc Germain is host of "Mr. KABC" on that radio station in Los Angeles. And Cherylyn Harley is a senior fellow at the Center for New Black Leadership. She teaches politics, technology and culture through the Washington Center.
I want to welcome all of you to the show.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
CHERYLYN HARLEY, NEW BLACK LEADERSHIP CENTER: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK. Now, listen, less than an hour ago, a jury returned a guilty verdict for David Westerfield, convicting him of kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle Van Dam. He was also found guilty of possessing child pornography.
CNN correspondent James Hattori joins us now in San Diego -- James.
JAMES HATTORI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Arthel.
It was an eight-week trial, about nine -- more than nine days, 10 days of deliberations on the part of the jury. At one point, a lot of speculation that they would be a hung jury, reaching no verdict, but they, of course, came back this morning, within the last hour or so, and came back with unanimous verdicts: three counts of kidnapping, murder with special circumstances, which is, of course, a capital charge which means -- and as well as pornography.
And now the jury will be back a week from today to begin deliberations of the penalty phase to decide whether or not David Westerfield, a 50-year-old software engineer, should face the death penalty.
Charles Feldman, my colleague, was in the courtroom at the time when the verdict was read. The people we haven't heard from yet, and we didn't see on camera during the verdict, were the Van Dams.
Did you get a look and see how they reacted?
CHARLES FELDMAN: Yes, very much so.
And we should explain to viewers that, of course, because of the placement of the cameras, which is fixed by the court, we weren't able to see -- the TV audience was not able to see the reaction of the Van Dams. But as you pointed out, I was in a fairly good position to see them.
It's a very small courtroom, only three rows, in fact, for spectators, the media and family. The Van Dams were in the very last of the three rows against the door.
Prior to the verdict, both of them looked rather pensive. Mrs. Van Dam's eyes kept sort of darting around the courtroom. She was clutching a plastic bottle of water. She and her husband would occasionally drink from that.
But when the jury came in, everybody was, of course, in rapt attention. It was very silent in that courtroom. And the Van Dams clutched one another in anticipation of that jury verdict.
And as the jury foreman, that would be juror No. 10, read out the verdict of the jury, "guilty," on that very first count of murder with special circumstances, Mrs. Van Dam broke down and cried. You can hear her sobbing. It was very audible throughout the courtroom. She took her head, and she placed it on the shoulder, that would be the left shoulder, of her husband. He clutched her hand. He was very composed, it seemed me, throughout this. She was not, though.
And then, of course, came the ticking off of the other verdicts, because there were three charges that had to be -- that the jury had to pass judgment on. And throughout that whole period, Mrs. Van Dam continued to sob, although it trailed off a bit as she listened to the other verdicts.
What was also interesting to me, James, was that Mr. Westerfield -- I was seated right behind him, so it was a little hard to see his reaction, but he seemed to be very composed throughout the entire proceeding -- James.
HATTORI: And of course, the people that we haven't heard from as well are the jurors, and we won't hear from them, because they're going to be tied up with this penalty phase starting next week. And the judge made it very clear, no one is to approach them. They are to avoid all media reports and, of course, any solicitations from reporters.
Arthel -- that's the latest here.
NEVILLE: OK, James Hattori, thank you very much for that update.
And the panel, I want to go to you now.
Neal, I'll start with you. Your reaction to the verdict?
NEAL BOORTZ, WSB RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: It was a little nerve- racking, wasn't it? The jury was out for such a long time. I think it was almost 40 hours of deliberation.
I think it's the right verdict, I mean, speaking from my lawyer background. But now, they're -- what I don't understand is they're talking about the death penalty. This is California. How many hundreds of people do they have on death row in California? This guy is going to die of old age in prison. Until they start executing people in California, the death verdict or the death penalty is totally meaningless.
And now is a good time for me to get a plug in for my idea: Murderers ought to die the way their victims did.
NEVILLE: You know what?
BOORTZ: And that goes for this guy.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: That's fine with me, fine by me, Neal. I agree with you.
Hey, Marc, you're out in California. What do you think about this?
MARC GERMAIN, KABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, it's not only a vindication for those of us who believed Westerfield was guilty, but also for the jury system, because a lot of people were questioning whether or not jurors can come to the right conclusion, and jurors could come to the right conclusion if given the opportunity to deliberate. It took two -- you know, 10 days, and people were saying, oh, this means that it's a hung jury here, that we're not going to get the verdict that we want.
And in truth, the jury came to the right decision. They weighed the evidence, the blood, the fiber, the fingerprints and the DNA, and came to the right conclusion. It's a vindication of the jury system, I think.
NEVILLE: But you know what's really kind of sad that people want it both ways. If a jury deliberates and comes back with the verdict quickly, then the question is: Did they deliberate long enough? And if they spend too much time, then what's taking them so long?
SAM GREENFIELD, WEVD RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I think that...
GERMAIN: Yes, it's a fair criticism.
GREENFIELD: I don't know if it's a fair criticism, because of the idea is they are deliberating. That's the idea. It's a deliberative body.
As far as the death penalty goes, I understand Neal's desire to wreak vengeance on this kind of person. But if you really want to wreak vengeance on someone who has done what this man did, you put him in general population and give him a life sentence.
NEVILLE: Yes, that's a good idea, too.
GREENFIELD: The people who receive the most punishment as convicts are people who have wrought hell on children. If they inject him with a needle, have him gassed twice and die in 40 seconds, to me, is not justice. You leave him in general population, and they know that he killed a child. That's all the punishment he's ever going to want.
BOORTZ: Yes, most of those people in these -- they have children. They have nieces...
GREENFIELD: That's right.
BOORTZ: ... they have nephews...
HARLEY: Absolutely.
BOORTZ: ... and will not be a comfortable situation for this man.
GREENFIELD: That's right.
NEVILLE: Cherylyn, I haven't heard from you.
HARLEY: I agree with the verdict, I mean, and I also agree with the rest of the panelists. I was, you know, getting quite nervous there with as long as the -- you know, the jury was deliberating. But they came to the right decision.
And I agree with the last panelist, you know, if anyone watches -- has ever watched that show, "Oz," he will probably last all of two weeks in general population, and they're just going to eat him alive. So, you know, I would like to see him face the death penalty, but if they do put him in general population, I think they're going to care of him.
NEVILLE: You know, the judge in this case has been pretty ticked off, I'll say, about the press coverage. And even today, he was telling all of the jurors, listen, all of your information, your names, your phone numbers, all of this stuff will be kept confidential. If anyone contacts you or tries to contact you, I want to know their names, any information you can get, get I.D. on these people.
I mean, he is not playing on this, huh, Neal?
BOORTZ: Oh, no. I love the judge for what is he doing. The media has a story to cover. They need to get out there and get the story. But so many people get so completely irresponsible in the media, they abandon any pretext of appreciation for the rule of law and the role of justice. They go after these jurors.
And I was glad to see the judge kick that one radio host out of the courtroom. And if somebody messes with this jury, go after them, sanction.
NEVILLE: Cherylyn, I'd like to ask you this, too, just speaking about the jurors. I mean, obviously, the judge told them, listen, the penalty phase begins August 28, that's next Wednesday.
HARLEY: Right.
NEVILLE: And they are free to go home, but they are under, you know, of course, strict orders not to discuss...
HARLEY: Right.
NEVILLE: ... any, any matters of the case to anyone. That's a lot of pressure, but I think jurors take their jobs quite seriously, and I think that they not speak to anyone.
HARLEY: And most jurors do. I mean, this -- and of all cases, I mean, this is one that -- I mean, we can only imagine what they went through during the deliberations. I just hope that all of them really adhere to what the judge has said, and that no one is able to get to them, no one is able to persuade them in any way. You know, let's just, you know, maintain the integrity of the justice system, and I hope that we can get through the next phase, you know, without a hitch.
NEVILLE: Hey, listen, I have to go to break. Before I do, I want to get to Pam who is calling in from Alabama. Go ahead, Pam -- let's hear your thoughts.
PAM: Yes, I was just calling to say that I was very pleased with how the jury took their time in weighing all of the evidence. And I am certainly glad that he was found guilty, and I do agree with the comment made earlier that the punishment should fit the crime.
I also hope that the defense attorney is eating crow at this time for the way that he drug the Van Dam's name through the mud. And I hope that this points to any future cases, any future defense attorneys, that just because a family does wrong that the jury is not going to think any less of the crime that was committed.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for calling in. I have to take a break, and we going to move on.
And up next: The "Amber Alert" system. It seems to be working pretty well. So why is Mark Klaas sounding an alarm? We'll talk about that after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Let's talk about the "Amber Alert" system. Is it too much of a good thing?
The missing child alert system is being credited for locating 10- year-old Nichole Taylor Timmons. She is the little girl who was abducted from her bedroom in Riverside, California. She was found unharmed in Nevada, some 300 miles from her home. A former babysitter is under arrest.
A good outcome by any standards, but some people, including missing child activist Mark Klaas, thinks the "Amber Alert" system is being overused, and should be limited to certain kinds of abductions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC KLAAS, KLAASKIDS FOUNDATION: These have to be for the most critical case, and you have to follow the criteria. The criteria is very simple: The child has to be, I believe, 17-years-old or younger, based on the situation that happened recently in Lancaster. You have to have very, very credible information that the child has been taken by a predator. And you have to believe that that child's life is endangered.
If you break that criteria, you're going to overuse the system, and when it's really necessary, when it is a situation like Polly's, then you're not going to be paying attention.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Cherylyn, I want to start with you on this segment. Is there a risk of overusing the "Amber Alert" system?
HARLEY: You know, with every system that we have, we're going to be subject to glitches. But the problem is that experts say that in these cases, 74 percent of them, the children are dead within the first three hours. Time is of the essence.
When a child's life is at stake, I think we go with what we've got. And what is the alternative? I don't see anybody coming up with any other options or alternatives. So I say, let's go with "Amber Alert," and it has proven to be effective in the past.
But again, if someone can come up with alternatives to improve the "Amber Alert" system, I'm all ears.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get to Pat from Ohio.
PAT: Let me -- in regards to the "Amber Alert" system, my take on it is that you have some children that are disgruntled at home, or they do have problems at home. They are running away from home from disgruntleness, and the parent could actually use the system to get the child back into a bad situation.
NEVILLE: However, though, you also raise another thought in my mind. And, Sam Green (sic), I want you to hear this, though. Because there are some children, sad to say, that might abuse the system. You know what I mean? And then suddenly just to get the parents in trouble as if they would be...
GREENFIELD: There is no...
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Sam.
GREENFIELD: There is no system -- hi, it's Greenfield. There is no system that does not get abused. 911 gets abused. They all get abused.
With all due respect to Mr. Klaas and the pain he must live through every day, let me just say, I have a 3-and-a-half-year-old daughter. One day, I turned around on the playground. She was gone for five minutes. You can't overuse a system that helps locate a child.
If it turns out the child was disgruntled and ran away from home, so be it.
NEVILLE: So be it.
GREENFIELD: You can't overuse a system when your child is missing...
HARLEY: Sam is absolutely right.
GREENFIELD: ... you cannot.
HARLEY: He is absolutely right.
NEVILLE: OK, let me hear...
GREENFIELD: Sorry.
NEVILLE: ... what Althea (ph) has to say here.
ALETHIA (ph): Alethia (ph).
NEVILLE: I'm sorry. Alethia (ph), all these names.
By the way, Sam Greenfield, my uncle's last name is Green, which is why I keep calling you Green. So I do apologize.
GREENFIELD: I am your uncle, and that's the whole shock of this day.
(LAUGHTER)
GREENFIELD: And I miss you.
NEVILLE: OK. GREENFIELD: You don't come around, you don't call. What's up with that?
NEVILLE: OK, go ahead.
ALETHIA (ph): I think any child that's missing deserves to be found. And just like we get used to police sirens and gunshots, and, you know, yes, there is the fact that sometimes you hear -- usually when you hear a gunshot, you would, you know, duck. Now, you hear it, and you almost keep going. So there is the chance that it will become, you know...
NEVILLE: So people will become desensitized perhaps, seeing the alerts along the side of the highway, like, oh, yes, there -- and just of ignore it, is what are you saying.
ALETHIA (ph): They may become desensitized. Yet, I still think every child...
GREENFIELD (?): Or they may become mobilized.
ALETHIA (ph): ... every child missing is worth being found.
HARLEY: Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Neal, how do you see this?
BOORTZ: I think every point is absolutely valid. I would warn you about two things.
First of all, when is the first lawsuit going to occur, because somebody was missing somebody, and they didn't use "Amber Alert? And another question is: When is there going to be a terrible error out there, where some citizens see an "Amber Alert," and round up the wrong guy in the wrong car with the wrong license number and a little vigilante justice occurs? Just some things to worry about, but it's marvelous the way the system has worked.
NEVILLE: But how do you foresee that happening?
BOORT: OK, an "Amber Alert" for a white pickup with a blue top driven by a 50-so-year-old bald, white guy. Uh-oh! And then, the next thing you know, you see me driving down the road, and I am end up being held at gunpoint by some citizens. It's just a possibility, but every point that's made is absolutely valid, and it's marvelous the way the system has worked thus far. It has saved lives.
NEVILLE: So bottom line, Marc, keep it around, keep it going?
GERMAIN: California has been kind of ground zero for the "Amber Alert," and it's been very successful. But again, it's new, and it got a lot of attention, and everyone wants to participate in the media. I know my radio station does here in L.A.
But that's not to say that it's something that can't be overused and abused and become "the boy who cried wolf." But for now, it seems to be a pretty good system that's worth it.
Look, in San Diego County, there were 6,000 abductions last year. Only two were stranger abductions. That needs to be the focus of the "Amber Alert," is stranger abductions. And as long as we follow that rule, I think the "Amber Alert" will continue to function as it is planned.
GREENFIELD: Although two of the children (ph) recently killed were killed by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fathers (ph).
NEVILLE: That's interesting. I have to take a break, guys. Sorry about that.
When we come back, we are going to talk about who should be able to listen to the cockpit recorder tapes from Flight 93. Does that moment in time belong to all of us?
Stay right there -- TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BUSINESS NEWS UPDATE)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody.
What was it like in those final minutes as passengers aboard Flight 93 decided to fight the terrorists who took over their plane? Those last moments are locked inside the cockpit recorder, and Gannett News Service would like them made public. So far, only the families of those killed in the hijacking have listened to the recording.
We get hints about an attempt to take back the plane from Lisa Beamer's new book, titled, "Let's Roll." She says: "The hijackers tried desperately to cut off the oxygen as big men moved quickly up a narrow aisle, accompanied perhaps by a flight attendant or two carrying coffee pots, spilling boiling water on themselves as they run. A food cart is used to ram the enemy."
Now, officials say they don't want to make the cockpit recordings public, because it could still be used as evidence.
OK, Marc Germain, if Lisa Beamer can include the recordings in her book, families have already heard them, should they be made public?
GERMAIN: Well, they're not actual transcripts that she is releasing in her book. And I think if it's evidence, then the government has an obligation to keep that under seal. But if it's not really evidence, I think that there is a First Amendment issue that people have a right to know what happened on that plane. Who are the heroes?
And there's a lot of conspiracies going on, where people believe that it was shot down, for instance. I think we need to reveal that information to dismiss those ridiculous claims once and for all.
NEVILLE: Sam Greenfield.
GREENFIELD: I think that you could have -- you could have a videotape inside there and the conspiracists would still go on.
Let me just speak for myself. I'm the only person on this panel who saw both World Trade Center Towers going down from his apartment building in New York City. Speaking for myself, I don't want to know what's on the tapes. I just don't. That was the most surreal moment of my life.
If people have the quest to know, the First Amendment does allow them to know. But -- and if there is evidence involved, then it should wait until the evidence is dispersed and decimated and used. But speaking for myself, I have no desire to know about that last talk. I just don't.
NEVILLE: I'm going to...
GREENFIELD: I've had it, I am done.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get an audience member in here first, and Cherylyn, I will get you after that.
HARLEY: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sam, I am in full agreement with Sam. I feel like we live in a society where people are guilty until proven innocent, especially in the public eye. If we release those tapes, the public is going to react to that. It's going to be another O.J. trial. He is going to be guilty until proven innocent. And actually he was still guilty...
NEVILLE: I'm not sure I get the correlation between...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's -- well, I'm saying that if by letting out these tapes, the whole public is already going to assume that he is guilty. And they already assume he's guilty. And you're going to be guilty until proven innocent.
NEVILLE: But who are you protecting here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm protecting the defendant. I'm actually -- in a legal standpoint -- don't get me wrong. I mean, I feel that...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What defendant?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... from my...
HARLEY: Yes, which defendant?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moussaoui -- well, Zacarias -- Zacarias Moussaoui.
NEVILLE: OK, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm talking about his rights. I mean, the whole -- and also for the videotapes being released, I feel that it's also a personal thing. It has been a personal issue. It's a family -- if that happened to me, I would want to keep that to myself.
NEVILLE: OK, Cherylyn.
HARLEY: Well, first of all, I think the government needs to decide which parts of these transcripts they need. And after a ruling has been done on that, then I think the bigger question of having the transcripts, once the government is finished with all of the evidence, I don't think it's a good idea to release them to the public. I think the country is still grieving, and I also think it would be very, very difficult for the families of the victims that died on 9/11. I think we have seen enough, we have heard enough, and I just think that the -- you know, the transcripts are just rubbing more salt in the wounds.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you.
Sue, how do you see it?
SUE: Today's news media has become so entertainment-based that we have a real problem with what's real, what's not, where the entertainment is. When you hear the tapes, and they're real, and it's real news, the way it should be done, then we each have an opportunity to decide if that's really news or not. And it's one way of stripping out the entertainment factor that we see today.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
Listen, I want to let everybody know that Lisa Beamer will be talking about her new book and the tapes Friday on "LARRY KING LIVE" at 9:00 Eastern.
And when we come back, we'll talk about using pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for target practice. Is that legal?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(INTERRUPTED FOR "NEWS ALERT")
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody. It seems some people like to use pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they go target shooting.
But a Massachusetts law bans some gun clubs from using human images as targets. Its supporters say using human targets could lead to killing real people. So when the Supreme Court returns in October, it will decide whether to hear a court challenge, claiming the law violates free speech.
Neal, what do you think about this?
BOORTZ: Well, it's absurd but it's Massachusetts, OK? (LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Uh-oh. You know what? There are several people from Massachusetts in the audience. You better watch out, Neal.
BOORTZ: If you have a law right now that says you can't take a target shot, how much further is it to say, well, you can't take a pot shot either...
NEVILLE: Right.
BOORTZ: ...unless -- you cannot, in other words, you can't say something negative about somebody.
NEVILLE: Exactly, exactly.
BOORTZ: And look, shooting at a target does not deprive anybody, even the person whose image is on the target -- it doesn't deprive anybody of their right to life, liberty or property. Now, the editorial page editor of a certain large American daily newspaper has a dart board in their office with my picture on it. And...
NEVILLE: Oh, why would anybody want to have your picture on their dart board, Neal?
BOORTZ: I love it! Listen, I want a picture of it, but they won't send me one. I have no problem with it. If she throws a dart at me, then we have a problem.
GREENFIELD: I think that the one thing Neal may be ignoring -- I understand why he thinks it's silly -- we're ignoring the moron factor. If it was just Osama bin Laden that you want to shoot at, I have no problem with that. But the next day it's going to be a guy whose girlfriend dumped him, and her picture is going to be there, and since he's using a gun, and since it has ammo, and since, if you arm one moron, you have to arm them all, you're going to be on a slippery slope of a guy saying, ooh, picture -- real thing. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, it does. If it was just Osama bin Laden, that's fine with me, but you cannot ignore the idiot factor, and that is the part that makes me hedge.
BOORTZ: In my defense, let me say I was recognizing the idiot factor and moron factor when I mentioned that this was a Massachusetts law.
GERMAIN: There is a story out here in California, where a target range -- there were two guys -- they had a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton they were taking shots at, and that is considered a threat to the president. The secret service the next day knocked on their doors and asked the question, how far are you going to take this? It just illustrates the point...
NEVILLE: Different circumstances for the president, though.
GERMAIN: Agreed, agreed. But they are still human beings, and there are other human beings that feel threatened. But the fact is... GREENFIELD: And the next day it's not Osama bin Laden. The next day it happens to be a Arab, just an Arab.
BOORTZ: Well, what is the big difference between taking a target shot at the target and sitting in the living room saying that guy needs to die?
(CROSSTALK)
What is the difference there?
GREENFIELD: Have you ever been shot at, Neal? Have you ever been shot at, Neal?
BOORTZ: I'm sorry?
GREENFIELD: Have you ever been shot out, Neal?
BOORTZ: Have I? Yes, I have.
GREENFIELD: Well, I have too, and I want to keep the idiots...
BOORTZ: Well, they missed me.
(LAUGHTER)
GREENFIELD: ...away from the guns. Not law-abiding citizens, just idiots.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, hang on. You know what? I am going to get a phone call in here now. Eric (ph) is calling in from Iowa. Go ahead, Eric.
CALLER: Yes, I don't necessarily understand what the difference is between shooting at silhouettes on the target range, which we've been shooting at for years now, and just adding a little bit more detail to it and making it the face of an enemy. I think it would lower the chances of you actually wanting to go out and kill a human being, instead of just shooting at a likeness of the human being.
GREENFIELD: Yes, once again, you're making the assumption that the person who's shooting at the silhouette or the target is a normal rational person. You may feel that way, because I presume you are a normal rational person. But if you don't feel that way, it's today the silhouette, tomorrow the actual image, the next day the real thing. And don't say it doesn't happen. It happens.
BOORTZ: Sam, how far are you going to take this? How far are you going to take this, Sam? Are you going to make it illegal to say anything negative about somebody because the next thing you know, you're going to want to shoot at a target picture of them?
GREENFIELD: No, no, no. That's demagoguing. I'm talking...
BOORTZ: How far do you want to take it?
GREENFIELD: No, I am talking about -- you are talking about talking, I am talking about a gun, bullets. Even in Massachusetts they know the difference between talk and bullets.
BOORTZ: I know, but guns and bullets aren't illegal, nor is talk, but you want to make the bullets and guns illegal.
GREENFIELD: A bullet coming out of a gun at someone because they dumped you is not -- is illegal.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I have an e-mail I want to share with you guys now. I'll be popping that on the screen. Please. It's from David in Florida.
He says, "Osama bin Laden is wanted dead or alive by the U.S. government. There is nothing wrong with using his picture as a target."
Cherylyn.
HARLEY: I actually think I would rather have people shoot at silhouettes of Osama bin Laden or whoever else they are upset with, I would rather have them shoot at silhouettes than go out and release their aggressions on innocent bystanders and citizens.
I also want to us caution that after 9/11, we saw pictures. We saw images and videos from overseas of Arab children who were punching silhouettes of President Bush and Tony Blair, and we didn't like that, either, so I just caution everyone to sort of remember when we didn't appreciate that. So while we are having this discussion, keep that in mind.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Listen, I have to take a break. Sorry, whoever that was. Who was that?
GERMAIN: That was me. Mr. KABC, Marc Germain.
NEVILLE: All right. Listen. We're going to talk about whether a mom deserves jail time for letting her kids get sunburned. You must stay around for this story. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(15:50)
...we should just cut TV altogether, all the sex that's on TV, you know. Let's cut the licenses for all of the shows that are on TV right now.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, so it wasn't enough that a Virginia couple was arrested last week for allegedly having sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Add to it that shock jocks Opie and Anthony carried a graphic description of the public show as it was happening. It was part of their "Sex in Dangerous Places" shtick on radio station WNEW.
Only this time, it could cost the station its license. The Catholic League is pressing the FCC to fine the station and wouldn't be unhappy if WNEW also had its license revoked. Sam Greenfield, should WNEW lose its license?
GREENFIELD: WNEW won't lose its license. They shouldn't lose their license, but let me say this: unless WNEW changes formats from talk radio to another format, these guys are not going to get fired. This is the third or fourth time they've been suspended. They were fired from a station in Massachusetts for reporting erroneously and on purpose that the mayor of Boston had been killed.
NEVILLE: On April Fool's day.
GREENFIELD: Let me finish. This is...
NEVILLE: Hang on, though. But I'm just saying, they did that on April Fool's day.
GREENFIELD: I understand.
NEVILLE: I'm not defending them. I'm clarifying what you said.
GREENFIELD: OK. The problem is that there's an anti-Catholic sentiment right now because of the sex scandals. Let me ask you this question: if they had had two guys dressed as Arab terrorists break into a synagogue on Yom Kippur firing off rifles, do you think they'd still have a job? If they went into a Black Baptist church with two Klansmen holding a burning cross, you think they'd still have a job?
Absolutely not. That's what part of this is about. And the guy who reported it, the reporter is actually a Catholic and a graduate of Providence College. The thing that makes this disgusting in so many ways is they imposed their will on other people...
HARLEY: That's right.
GREENFIELD: ...and the premise of it was fatuous. This wasn't sex in a dangerous place. It's a church on 5th Avenue. It's not dangerous. It's inexcusable, and the program director and the general manager of this station have been suspended. That's news. Those guys have been suspended four or five times. The general manager and the program director have been suspended. So...
NEVILLE: What about the jocks?
GERMAIN: This is just a dumb radio stunt, no one got killed, there was no gunplay. These were people now, that they are saying that they were simulating a sex act.
GREENFIELD: If your kids were in that church, would it be just a dumb stunt?
GERMAIN: Yes, it's is bad taste.
GREENFIELD: If your kids were in the church, would that be a dumb stunt? No. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
GERMAIN: It would still be a dumb stunt -- it would still be a dumb stunt, but it doesn't mean that people need to go to jail or radio stations need to lose their licenses...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: What should happen to those jocks?
BOORTZ: They should both lose their jobs. It wasn't a dumb stunt, it was a vile stunt. But the people that talk about...
(CROSSTALK)
Let's talk about this yanking the license thing.
(CROSSTALK)
GERMAIN: ...people don't lose their jobs. I'm sure there are people who think that what you do on the radio is vile. Doesn't mean the radio station loses its license.
BOORTZ: Listen, I...
GERMAIN: No one was harmed, no one was hurt.
GREENFIELD: How do you know no one was hurt?
BOORTZ: I agree with you, Marc. This thing about losing the license -- Sam, thanks -- losing the license -- 200 people would lose their jobs, 200 people would lose their livelihoods...
HARLEY: That's right.
BOORTZ: Kids would lose their support from their parents. That's an idiotic thing to say that the station should lose their license...
GREENFIELD: No, absolutely. I agree.
BOORTZ: But Opie and Anthony should lose their jobs...
GERMAIN: But they won't...
BOORTZ: If the program director knew about it, he should be gone.
HARLEY: Absolutely. GERMAIN: They're not going to lose their jobs. They're going to get pay increases, because it's creating so much attention, these guys are going to be superstars, not that they aren't already. They're making $30 million on a 5-year contract...
BOORTZ: And a nice fine from the FCC would help.
GERMAIN: They he are huge, huge stars.
GREENFIELD: Neal, do you remember the movie "Broadcast News" where the Holly Hunter character says to William Hurt you crossed the line...
BOORTZ: Yes.
GREENFIELD: And he said, "But they keep moving that little sucker."
NEVILLE: Huh.
GREENFIELD: That's the reason that these -- that's the reason the general manager and the p.d. got suspended, and I agree, I think they should lose their jobs.
BOORTZ: And by the way, somebody has to say that the Catholic League may not -- they may not be in the best place right now to tell other people that they should lose jobs over sexual misconduct.
NEVILLE: Quickly, what should happen to the couple? What should happen to those people involved?
HARLEY: Well, you know, those poor souls, they were sucked into doing this thing by these two clowns.
NEVILLE: Oh, come on. They are 35-years-old and 37.
HARLEY: I'm not making any excuses for them, but we also don't know if they were paid to do this. We don't know, but...
NEVILLE: That's ridiculous, Cherylyn. There is no amount of money that would get me to do something like that.
HARLEY: I know. I am not making -- hey, I am not making any excuses for them. What I'm -- the two people who are responsible are these two clowns. Also these other two, the couple, had no business doing it, and they just have poor judgment as well. But the bottom line is these two clowns need to lose their jobs.
NEVILLE: OK. It's almost time for our flash round, but first Judy Woodruff wants to tell us what she has planned for "INSIDE POLITICS" -- Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, straight ahead Tom Delay talks Iraq policy and brings down the hammer on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Two political lightning rods go down to defeat, a look at the power of the crossover vote in the Georgia primary. Is former President Clinton back in the running for a TV talk show? Plus California Republican Bill Simon talks about his campaign for governor. "INSIDE POLITICS" is next. It begins at the top of the hour. TALKBACK LIVE returns after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody. It's time for our flash round, a test for our quick-witted panel and audience. First up: OK, Neal, you're going to be first on this one. Former President Clinton's associates are talking to network executives again about a Bill Clinton talk show. CBS is interested. Are you, Neal?
BOORTZ: What I -- am I interested in watching it? Absolutely not. I'd live to be a guest on there and ask him some questions, though.
NEVILLE: Sam.
GREENFIELD: Anybody who can make $30 million a year trying to be the new Oprah leaves me in awe and amusement.
NEVILLE: Cherylyn.
HARLEY: All I can say is Jerry Springer, watch out.
NEVILLE: Marc.
GERMAIN: I'll watch, you will too.
NEVILLE: OK. Next I want your comments on Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr, big losers in Georgia's congressional races -- Marc?
GERMAIN: Good riddance to bad rubbish.
NEVILLE: Cherylyn.
HARLEY: Good riddance, Cynthia McKinney, too bad about Bob Barr.
NEVILLE: Sam.
GREENFIELD: I think it's wonderful when I idiots on both sides of the spectrum lose their job.
NEVILLE: Neal.
BOORTZ: The voters of Cynthia McKinney's district have grown up.
NEVILLE: OK, let's move on. Eminem tells White America, I could be one of your kinds. His new video basks in controversy, his character urinating on the White House lawn, and other rebel without a cause displays. Is it about rebellion or about the sales. Neal.
BOORTZ: This is a good argument for postnatal abortion. NEVILLE: Sam.
GREENFIELD: People are praying, Eminem is praying that people my age and Neal's age hate this music.
NEVILLE: Cherylyn.
HARLEY: Eminem is what's wrong with our music industry.
NEVILLE: Marc.
GERMAIN: Just a song. If you don't like it, turn it off.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, we are out of time. Neal, Sam, Cherylyn and Marc, thanks so much for joining me here today.
(CROSSTALK)
I'm Arthel Neville. This is TALKBACK LIVE. I'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern. See you then. And Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
