Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Was Blair's Case for Disarming Iraq Convincing?; Do Different Terror Alert Colors Affect Americans' Actions?; Should Cameras Be Quasi-Policemen?

Aired September 24, 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.


CAROL COSTELLO, GUEST HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Costello, in for Arthel Neville.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair makes an impassioned case for disarming Saddam Hussein. Did he convince you? We will get reaction. Also, the United States is under a revised terror alert. Color it yellow. Does it really change anything, though? And then stay tuned and let us know how you feel about cameras eyeballing your every move as you go about your business. And find out why Miss New Jersey, Alicia Luciano, thinks the Miss America judges were out of line when they asked her about a well-known Mafia family. It's becoming a big controversy.

OK, we begin, though, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dossier on Iraq's ability to get, make and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq calls the report nothing more than propaganda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shi'a population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

LT. GEN. AMIR SADI, IRAQI SPOKESMAN: His evidence is a hodgepodge of half-truths, lies, short-sighted and naive allegations, which will not hold after a brief investigation by confident and independent experts in the relevant fields.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: OK, we want to talk about this with Hisham Melhem, a Lebanese journalist and Washington bureau chief for "As-Safir" newspaper; and Rich Lowry, who is editor of "The National Review."

Welcome to both of you.

Let's start with you, Rich.

Tony Blair made an impassioned speech, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. There is no plan of an imminent attack against the United States. In fact, I quote Tony Blair. He said: "I agree. I cannot say this month or next, even this year or next, that he will use his weapons."

What do you think?

RICH LOWRY, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW": Sure. Well, sure.

And this goes to the whole doctrine of preemption that the Bush administration is putting forward. The idea is that you end a threat before it can really hurt you. And it would be sheer insanity for the United States to wait until we definitely know that Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon and has the ability to deliver it on a long-range missile to the United States, because, if you wait that long, then it is probably too late to do anything about it, because the cost of doing something about it is potentially so high.

So we know enough about Saddam to know he is a threat. He is a vicious totalitarian murderer and liar. He is stockpiling these weapons of mass destruction for no good purpose. And it's time for the world community to enforce the U.N. resolutions and do something about it.

COSTELLO: OK, Rich, you call it sheer insanity to wait, but some in the Arab world think a whole different way.

Tell us about that, Hisham.

HISHAM MELHEM, "AS-SAFIR": Well, the Arabs are opposed to a war against Iraq not because Saddam Hussein is St. Francis of Assisi. Obviously, he is one of the worst leaders that we've seen in modern Arab history. But most people in the region believe that he has been contained for more than 11 years. They believe that he is a potential danger.

But they argue with the notion that he represents an urgent present danger. And they are asking questions why the United States and Britain are focusing their attention now on Iraq. People in the region also are saying that there is another war going in the region that deserves a great deal of attention from the international community, i.e. the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and attacks, and that conflict should be resolved first.

And then they are raising legal questions, questions of precedent, questions about the whole notion preemption. And they are wondering whether this will create, set in motion events in the region that cannot be controlled, not even by the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Before you go on with that thought, can I ask you how the Arab world -- does the Arab world fear Saddam Hussein's possible use of biological and chemical weapons?

MELHEM: Look, Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against the Iranians first. He used them again in 1988 against the Kurds in Northern Iraq in the city of Halabja.

COSTELLO: So why doesn't the Arab world want the United States to do something about this if it can?

MELHEM: Look, the United States did defeat Iraq in 1991. Iraq has been contained. Nobody argues that Saddam does not represent a potential threat. They are arguing about the timing. They are arguing why the United States should do it, especially unilaterally, without United Nations cover or a legal cover.

LOWRY: Well, can I jump in on the idea of Saddam being contained here?

COSTELLO: Go ahead, Rich.

LOWRY: That's just not true.

There have been no weapons inspectors since 1998. The cease- fires that stopped the war were dependent on those inspectors being in Iraq. And they have not been there for four years, during which time Saddam has continued his weapons programs apace and has also steadily cheated on the oil-for-food program to illegally sell oil, so he can funnel that money into his weapons program. So he's not contained.

COSTELLO: But, Rich, with that said...

MELHEM: Fine, but now let's challenge him on the inspectors.

I am of the notion and of the belief that inspectors should go back. I support coercive inspection. If he prevents them from moving to an area, maybe you can punish him. There are ways of dealing with this. Definitely, the United States should go to the United Nations.

LOWRY: The fact is Saddam has rejected the idea of any new tougher inspectors. He wants to limit the current inspections regime, even if he does let them back in. And that inspection regime was considerably weakened in 1999 because Saddam was able, with his oil wealth, to buy off, in effect, the support of France and Russia.

So, look, the U.N. has passed a decade's worth of resolutions trying to contain Saddam Hussein. He has rejected every single one of them. It is time for the world community to do something about it.

MELHEM: But, Rich, you would agree that, in the early '90s, when you had a better inspection system, most or a great deal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed, pulverized by the inspectors.

LOWRY: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Hisham, may I interrupt you for just a second, because I would like to ask you a question?

MELHEM: Sure.

COSTELLO: Do you believe, does Lebanon believe, does the Arab world believe that, if weapons inspectors went back into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein would show them everything he has?

MELHEM: Of course not. Of course not.

COSTELLO: Well, then, why do it?

MELHEM: But you can challenge him.

Look, Carol, every country maintains secrets, especially a dictatorial regime like Saddam. You would expect that. But you can deal with it. In the 1990s, he was forced to expose some of his weapons of mass destruction. And they were destroyed. I am not saying that this man is going to collaborate with the international community willy-nilly. He would have to be coerced to do it. I would be the first one to agree with that.

All I am saying is that the United States cannot give itself the right alone, unilaterally, to go and change regimes. We are not talking only about weapons of mass destruction. We are talking about changing regimes. And the United States, in the minds of many people in the region, is embarking maybe on imposing a new imperial order in the region, because they don't even talk about Iraq. They talk about Iran. They talk about Syria. And that's why we have a problem with that approach.

COSTELLO: OK, Rich, go ahead.

LOWRY: Carol, let me address very quickly just a couple of those points.

One, it is important to understand what inspectors are. Inspectors are meant to go in and confirm the compliance of a government that has honestly and in good faith declared its weapons sites and its weapons programs. They are not built to be able to hunt down every germ and biological and chemical nuclear weapon in a country where the government is bent on hiding them. That is an impossible cat-and-mouse game.

So even if my friend says that Saddam will never cooperate with inspectors, well, that shows how worthless inspectors will be. And the fact is, Saddam is the unilateralist here. He is the one that is rejecting 16 to 23 U.N. resolutions. And if the U.S. is not willing to lead the world community, nothing will ever be done about it.

COSTELLO: But, Rich, I am going to stop you right here. I'm going to stop you right here, because isn't part of this just a political game, too? Isn't Hisham right, in a sense, that, if you send them in and the weapons inspectors are not allowed access to every part of Iraq, now you have hard-core evidence to go in and maybe topple the regime?

LOWRY: Well, that's one line of thinking. I don't think it is even worth going in with inspectors one more time.

But also let's not forget, the state of belligerency between the U.S. and Iraq never ended. Every single, day as we sit here talking about this now, U.S. warplanes are flying over Iraq to enforce the no- fly zones. Iraq has already been half-dismembered by the United States. The U.S. is imposing sanctions on Iraq that are meant to crush its economy. It is an insane situation. Let's take care of the source of the problem, which is Saddam Hussein.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK, on that thought, I want you both to stop, because we have to take a break now, unfortunately.

A question for you: Do you support U.S. military action in Iraq? I want to know what you're thinking. Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e- mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

TALKBACK LIVE will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: living in the shadow of Big Brother? Are public cameras a public service or an invasion of privacy? Whose eyes are watching you?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back, everyone.

We are talking about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's blistering speech laying out the case against Iraq. And we are talking to two of our experts: Rich Lowry from "The National Review" and Hisham Melhem, who is a Lebanese journalist.

I want to ask you, Hisham, about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and why that has brought so much unrest to your part of the world. Lebanon actually borders Northern Israel. And there are Hezbollah guerrillas who hang out there. And that is causing a lot of friction between Israel and Lebanon and Syria. Tell us about the unrest and the fears in the Arab world if the United States decides to go ahead and attack Iraq.

MELHEM: See, that is why I said the timing of this potential attack on Iraq is disturbing to many people in the region, because they believe that what is urgent at this moment is the resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. People are dying there every day. You have an incredibly hellish life for the Palestinians today. Some Palestinians did make stupid mistakes. But Ariel Sharon is using the war on terror to deny Palestinians basic rights that have nothing to do with combating terror.

Unless we resolve the Arab-Palestinian issue, and then, beyond that, go to a resolution of the Syrian-Israeli conflict and the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, most people in the region will tell you that tension will remain, that the United States will always have problems in the region, that we are going to continue to waste extreme treasure in resources and human beings in this endless conflict.

And that is why I think that conflict cries out for a resolution, for the full attention of the president of the United States and the Security Council and the Arab leaders and the Israeli leaders to solve that problem.

COSTELLO: Sir, is there an added concern, too, because over the weekend, Israel said, if Iraq attacked Israel this time, Israel would fight back?

MELHEM: Carol, one reason many Arabs are very afraid of this is that they hear Israeli leaders from Likud and Labor urging the United States publicly to attack Iraq and saying that, "We will join in that campaign."

People believe -- and they look at Washington. They see some of those cheerleaders for the conflict with Iraq are essentially pro- Israeli politicians in academia and think tanks and whatnot. And that concerns them. They raise questions. Are these people doing it to save the people from Iraq that dictator, or they are doing it in part to help Israelis in the region? And I think the United States should be very clear with the Israelis. If they are not attacked, they should not get involved in this thing. And that is why I think...

COSTELLO: Well, Rich, I want you to respond to that, because isn't that a legitimate concern of the Arab world?

LOWRY: Well, a couple things.

One, I don't think it is in America's power to solve the Israeli- Palestinian dispute. I agree with a lot of what has been said. The Palestinians have been dealt a terrible hand by history. But I think it is incumbent on Palestinian society to reject Yasser Arafat's thugocracy and Yasser Arafat's tolerance of these criminal elements that wrap explosives around the waists of young men and young women and send them into Israel to blow up civilians and women and children, whoever happens to be around at shopping centers. That's a terrible thing.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: The constant conflict is on going there, Rich. So why doesn't the United States get back in forefront? Because it's sort of been on the back burner with this for some time. And now the violence is erupting there anew. Why doesn't the United States take care of that problem before it decides to fight on another battlefront?

LOWRY: Well, because, one -- it is not within our power to take care of the problem, one. It is a deep, long-lasting, historical dispute.

Two, President Bush has already laid out his vision. And that is for Palestinians to grasp their own future, for Palestinians to create a decent government that is not based on robbery and theft, the way Yasser Arafat's is, that is not based on terror, the way Yasser Arafat's is. And once the Palestinians do that -- and that process has begun.

Very brave people in the West Bank have spoken out against terror, at risk to their reputations, in some cases their lives. Those are wonderful and brave people. And the president supports that effort.

COSTELLO: Well, I understand all that.

But back to the matter at hand. While that is still going on, isn't there a real danger to throw even more bedlam in that part of the world if the United States goes ahead and invades Iraq without the support of the Arab neighbors, who are not exactly on Israel's side?

LOWRY: Well, look, why would Iran, which is a terrorist state, support the assertion of U.S. power in the region to overthrow a dictatorship when itself is a dictatorship?

Why would Syria, another terrorist dictatorship, support the United States coming into the region to free the people of Iraq? What those regimes are afraid of, Carol, is that the U.S. will actually succeed in creating a decent government in Iraq, where Arabs can be free. And maybe I am crazy here, but I don't think Arabs, deep down, like dictatorships.

Why would Arabs love living in an Iraq that is a thuggish dictatorship? And look what American power has already done in Iraq. In the north, we have created an autonomous area for the Kurds

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: I only wish, Rich, you could see Hisham's body language. I wish you could see it, because...

LOWRY: Just one last point: If you look in the north in Iraq, the Kurds are a relatively free society, where there are shopping centers. There's civil society. There's local elections, because they have been freed from Saddam. Let's do that to the rest of the Iraq.

COSTELLO: OK, before we go on with this argument, I want to get to at least one audience comment. On the phone we have...

MELHEM: Can I just say one word?

COSTELLO: Well, wait. Let's do Philip first.

Philip, where are you from?

MELHEM: OK, let's do Philip.

CALLER: I am from Washington state, Olympia, Washington.

COSTELLO: OK. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Well, I admire our Arab friends, but what we want to do is not have our toes stepped on. We want to go step on someone else's toes.

As an American Army veteran and a disable veteran and a brother -- four brothers that were in Vietnam, we need to go in and take care of business. And we can't be messing around and standing back and letting things go on as is. We need to go in and take care of business. And then, granted, we don't want to have mass destruction and collateral damage here and there. But we want to go in and take care of it and not be sorry for what happens to us. It's the old adage...

COSTELLO: Hisham, we have a little bit of time in this segment. I want you to have the last word.

MELHEM: Look, briefly, for Rich Lowry, I really appreciate his concern for the freedom of the Arabs. And I am one of them.

LOWRY: Good.

(CROSSTALK)

MELHEM: Asking the Palestinians to do reform, to have constitutions, transparency, rule of law, under Israeli occupations is as ludicrous as asking the founding fathers of this great country to write the Constitution, the Bill the Rights and the Declaration of Independence while fighting the British occupation. This is ludicrous, Rich, and you know it.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK, before you guys get into a big argument, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We have to end this segment. Thank you both, Hisham Melhem and Rich Lowry, for joining us on TALKBACK LIVE. It's time for a break. Thank you.

Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE: Surveillance cameras caught a mom beating her own child in a department store parking lot. But do they have a downside? You know, the cameras, I mean. Public service or invasion of privacy?

Tell me what you think about those prying eyes as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: One caught Madelyne Toogood beating her child outside of an Indiana department store. And most of us are glad to have them in a case like that. But are those spying eyes burning a hole in your privacy?

Here to talk about whether we even have a right to privacy are civil rights attorney Richard Emery and Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

Welcome to you, gentlemen.

Do you think people really know just how much they are being watched?

Let's start with you, Richard. RICHARD EMERY, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Oh, I don't think so at all.

I think that there are cameras everywhere. And, in fact, a great of deal of our society relies on the cameras that are everywhere, on the one hand. On the other hand, we find it extremely intrusive and problematic when it invades our privacy. But there are pluses and minuses to the prevalence of cameras in our lives.

COSTELLO: So what are the pluses?

EMERY: Well, the pluses are, we get to document that which people might have a different version about. A picture definitely documents the truth, the fact.

And, in fact, in many cases of government excesses, particularly police abuse, film and video have been absolutely critical to proving cases that everybody would not have believed if it had not been for the videotape.

COSTELLO: But sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes a picture doesn't say 1,000 words or doesn't -- what is that saying, that old saying?

Isn't that true, Phil? Sometimes we really can't tell what is happening by watching a videotape of something.

PHIL KENT, SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION: Well, I agree.

In fact, with the case of the three Middle Eastern medical students, at first we thought that they had run the tollbooth when they were supposedly running away. That was later clarified. They did pay the toll. I tend to share a similar view to my colleague. There are pluses. There are minuses. I generally favor cameras in public places.

But I would say this. The courts are not always the way to address cameras. That is why you have city councils, county commissions and state legislators. Maybe there is a public street that we don't want the camera focusing on you and me, Carol, when we are going shopping or just doing our day-to-day -- but that is a legislative area, not a court area.

COSTELLO: And having said that, I have a list, because I don't think people know just how much they are being watched by a hidden eye somewhere.

In Washington, D.C., there are 12 cameras on the Mall now. In Virginia Beach, police have cameras watching 42 blocks. In New York City, 5,000 cameras are watching Manhattan. In Delaware, police are actually able to -- they call them jump-out photos -- they can take pictures of suspects and keep them on file for however long they want.

And also, the Washington state Supreme Court -- and this is shocking -- I do not know if you have heard about it. I'd laugh at this, but it is not funny. They ruled it is legal for someone to actually use a video camera to shoot up your skirt.

KENT: Well, that's crazy.

COSTELLO: But they ruled because you are in a public place, so someone with a camera can do anything they want. And this person who shot up women's skirts in Washington state was selling the images over the Internet.

KENT: Well, hopefully, they would have some local ordinances.

Now, as a constitutional conservative, I do believe in local control over local affairs. And I have to go back to my previous point. That's where your city councils and your county commissions have to have regulations, whether it is perhaps an obscenity ordinance or whether it's an ordinance whether or not you should have cameras just simply on a public street.

But I will go back to Ms. Toogood, the example of the woman caught beating her child on tape. That is a case where I think we all would like the fact there was a store surveillance camera. Nobody else apparently, was around, and the camera caught her. So that's a good thing.

COSTELLO: OK, we've got to take a break right now, lots of issues attached to this main issue. It is time for a news break now, though.

Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, we want to talk about the new terror alert we're under. We're back to code yellow. Does that mean we can all breathe a little easier?

Call me. E-mail me. I want to hear from you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We're talking about surveillance cameras. Are there too many out there?

Let's talk about the most infamous case recently, and that was Madelyne Toogood, who was caught on tape in an Indiana parking lo allegedly beating her child.

A lot of positives connected to that, I know.

But an audience member has brought up a negative.

What do you have to say, David (ph)?

DAVID: Well, I felt that an isolated incident, like the one we saw on CNN and the other networks emotionally yanks us. We feel angry, and then it turns out that that was an aberration, that that woman may not have been a terrible mother; that it may have been a moment of anger, and no one really took the time to check about that woman, to find out what kind of mother she really was.

COSTELLO: Before her face was plastered on every television station across the nation.

DAVID: Absolutely, yes.

COSTELLO: Richard, would you agree with that? Is that a problem?

EMERY: Well, it's a very big problem when families are the issue.

You know, family life is tumultuous. And if cameras are intruding on family life, we're all in great trouble.

I think we have to be very restrained about the home and about the relationships between kids and their parents, and parents and parents. It's a difficult way -- the relationships are complex, and sometimes the camera isn't telling you the truth.

Now, in this case it looks very bad. We don't know what the real truth is and what kind of a mother this is.

And the fact of the matter is, though, there's nothing wrong with having a camera in that parking lot and of course, investigating the case. It's all the hoopla around it and all the presumptions and assumptions of terrible misconduct that trouble me, than when it may very well, as this gentleman said, not be the case at all.

COSTELLO: Exactly.

We want to get another audience member in. We've got a lot of kids in our audience today.

Perry (ph), you're from Georgia. What do you have to say about this issue?

PERRY: Well, I don't really think I agree with David (ph) that much because, yes, parents can have their angry moments. But why would they take it out on their children by beating them?

COSTELLO: Well, I think most of us agree with that, Perry, but the video, I don't think, shows the whole thing, because you actually can't see what that mom is doing inside the car. You can see for a time, but you can't see all the way. And that's really for someone else to decide.

And Richard, let me ask you this: Should the police have turned this videotape over to television stations across America?

EMERY: Well, that's very troubling because the key to dealing with videotape and the positive aspects of videotape is that government officials, especially the police, act responsibly and carefully and use it appropriately.

I think that this woman has a very strong complaint if, in fact, she wasn't doing what appears on the videotape, by inference, to complain against the police. She's been pilloried. She's been defamed. Her life may never be the same as a result of this. And certainly her daughter is going to have to live this down forever.

COSTELLO: Chris (ph), you're on the phone from Nevada. What do you have to say?

CALLER: I'd just like to say that these cameras are already in public areas where security should be of utmost importance. And I feel it's more of a matter of internal security than an invasion of privacy.

COSTELLO: But aren't there questions associated with that, too? I mean, might a private company go too far, and who is regulating them

KENT: Well, I don't have a problem, Carol, with -- again, with cameras in parking lots and in banks. Actually, it's helped catch a lot of criminals.

And my bleeding heart colleague here -- and I have to laugh. I mean, the woman actually admitted, yes, I did wrong. In fact, she would not have come forward had she not have known of the existence of the tape. She was going to just deny everything until her lawyer said, hey, they got you on tape.

So she was forced to do the right thing. So I reject, totally, that argument.

EMERY: So the police should then ruin their lives?

It makes no sense to me that the police can just ruin these people's lives because of a videotape. It ought to be handled in family court. That's where this belongs.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: And couldn't the police have just looked at the license plate? They have the license plate number, the police. Why couldn't they just handle it themselves?

KENT: Well, public place, public camera, let's get it out in the public. I always thought liberals liked things out in the open -- what is this?

EMERY: Well, a worldwide exposure of a child's relationship with her parent on one day, and everybody inferring that this is a horrible relationship, is not something that this family ought to have to live with forever, especially if it's curable.

Now it's made much, much more difficult to deal with.

COSTELLO: And Don't you think things might have gotten out of hand with surveillance cameras and people watching other people because of our terror alerts, for example -- we went up to a Code Orange, now we're down to a Code Yellow. Does that, in a sense, kind of create this surveillance mentality we all have of watching each other? Does it create a paranoia in the end?

KENT: I don't think there's a paranoia. That may be the wrong word. But I think we can feel a little safer in many of these examples.

Again, we take it case by case. In some areas we may not want the cameras. You bring up the war on terrorism, tough, we may need those cameras if things get worse -- if we have another attack, if we have planes slamming into our buildings, if we have suspects going around Atlanta trying to go after the Centers for Disease Control or other areas -- we may want those cameras out there.

COSTELLO: That's right, but how far is too far, and who is going to answer that question, ultimately?

I was giving you the example of Washington State where the guy could shoot up a woman's dress and then sell it on the Internet and that was OK because she was out in the public.

Isn't that going too far? Why is that stuff happening?

KENT: We can have local laws, or ultimately the court system.

COSTELLO: We have an audience member here, let's go to him.

John (ph) from New York, what do you say?

JOHN: Well, I just wanted to say, to air things like this on TV is definitely a breach of privacy. It's going way too far, because we can make a judgment call from one day.

But now that we can make that call, because we're seeing the tape, I will say she doubled back and you could see she looked to see if someone was watching as she beat her child. And that's what scares me, now that we are going to watch it.

COSTELLO: I think it scares a lot of people.

We have an e-mail now. Let me run over here so I can read it to you.

Let's put that e-mail up.

"I agree we need cameras, but I know how annoyed parents can get when your child acts up in the store. This was severe punishment, but the media sensationalizes the situation."

That from Royce in Texas.

And that is exactly what Richard was talking about, because we know nothing about this mother, really, except what we saw on the tape.

Richard?

EMERY: Yes, well, absolutely correct. I am actually more concerned right now with the kind of mentality that we're going to let the government do whatever it wants based on whatever it finds in surveillance.

I think this deference to government -- something my conservative colleague over here can't like -- is something that we all ought to be very afraid of.

And you get the five Buffalo guys, the evidence is extremely thin. The worst thing about them is that they went to Pakistan and Afghanistan and didn't like it and turned around and came back, and you have this kinds of paranoia mentality that the government is encouraging by telling the citizenry, we have to watch each other, we have to be suspicious of each other, we have to inform on each other.

That encourages the paranoia that we're trying to overcome.

COSTELLO: And talking about paranoia, Phil, wouldn't you agree that most Americans would probably go along with the idea of a lot of surveillance until something happens personally to them that they may not like? Something that was caught on tape that didn't really tell the whole story?

KENT: Sure, I think that's natural human reaction.

I have to laugh at what was just said, though. I don't where he gets the evidence is thin at all on the Buffalo five. One of those Buffalo five has already admitted to the FBI that he was in a terrorist training camp.

COSTELLO: He also said he didn't like it. He also said he begged to leave.

KENT: Well, that's right.

I didn't like boot camp when I was in the U.S. Army, but I served in the U.S. Army, so what does that mean?

COSTELLO: OK, we have to take a break on that note.

Richard Emery and Phil Kent, thank you both for joining us for this segment of TALKBACK LIVE.

KENT: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, we're going to talk about a big controversy in the Miss America Pageant. Should Miss New Jersey have been asked about "The Sopranos"?

You've got to stick around for that one.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Was Miss New Jersey sandbagged by "The Sopranos" at the Miss America Pageant?

Find out why Alicia Renee Luciano is upset with the judge's line of questioning as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

There's a little bit of controversy brewing out of this year's Miss America pageant. It seems Miss New Jersey and some Italian- Americans say a question she was asked during the interview segment hit a sour note. Alicia Luciano was asked what she thought of the HBO series, "The Sopranos." The award-winning show about a New Jersey crime family has been criticized by some Italian-Americans as promoting a stereotype.

And with us today is Miss New Jersey, Alicia Luciano.

Welcome to the program.

ALICIA LUCIANO, MISS NEW JERSEY: Oh, thank you.

COSTELLO: Why did this question upset you so much and what exactly was the question?

LUCIANO: It wasn't really that it upset me. I was taken back by it little bit. But the question, to my best of my knowledge, was that, What do you think about Italian-Americans?

COSTELLO: So what's wrong with that question?

LUCIANO: In the state of New Jersey, it's just that, it was asked to me, with an Italian background.

COSTELLO: So how did "The Sopranos" enter into this?

LUCIANO: They said, What do you -- Do you think that the show "The Sopranos" and the HBO shed a negative light on the state of New Jersey?

COSTELLO: And why do you think -- you think you were being singled out because you were Italian-American, but what was wrong, so wrong, with the question? Because didn't it come in, like, a pop culture segment and they were supposed to be asking you questions about the arts and pop culture?

LUCIANO: I never said there was anything wrong with the question. In that position you're supposed to be ready for anything and I was prepared to answer any kind of question. There are a lot of people who are upset about it and brought it to my attention. COSTELLO: OK, so you weren't upset at the question...

LUCIANO: No.

COSTELLO: The Italian-Americans -- some in the Italian-American New Jersey community were.

Can you explain that for us?

LUCIANO: That they were upset? I can see why they're upset because it was a question that wouldn't have been asked to anybody else. It was asked to me with an Italian background perhaps because I am in the state of New Jersey. I wasn't taken offense by it. I said that, It's a TV show, it's not reality, and it need to be taken with a grain of salt.

COSTELLO: What kinds of questions were asked of the other contestants?

LUCIANO: About the arts, different things. Miss Hawaii was asked about eating sushi. I can't tell you each question specifically, but nothing to my knowledge of ethnic background.

COSTELLO: And nothing of any real weight either.

It seems like you answered the question correctly though and with thought.

LUCIANO: With my heart. That's all you can do is be honest. It's a TV show. It's not reality and as far as violence on TV, it needs to be censored by the families and the parents at home and the TV shows shouldn't be responsible for that.

COSTELLO: Do you think that the Italian-American community or some within the Italian-American community is taking this program a little too seriously?

LUCIANO: Yes and no. I think they have a valid point and a valid reason to be upset because it does shed the Italians in a negative light and there is not much at all positive for Italians on TV today. So I can see why they're upset and how it is kind of ironic that I got hit with a question like that at this time.

COSTELLO: Why do you think this show is so amazingly popular? It's debut this year, I think, garnered the most ratings for HBO for this kind of show ever. Why is the show so beloved by the American public?

LUCIANO: I guess people are fascinated by it. It's a new kind of culture and it's a new inside twist. It's just entertainment and it's selling so they're going to go with it and that's fine. What are you going to do about it?

COSTELLO: Aren't there other programs on television though that depict Italians in a better light?

LUCIANO: I can't think of one. I could be wrong. I can't think of one off of the top of my head.

COSTELLO: You know, we were trying to think of shows that depict Italians and we came up with Sophia from "The Golden Girls" but she was a stereotypical character too.

I don't know if you've ever watched that show.

LUCIANO: Not really. I couldn't really give you comments on that.

COSTELLO: She's probably too young. But Sophia, she was a little tiny Italian grandmother. She always talked about part of her Mafia family back in Sicily.

Also the movie "Moonstruck" with Cher, do you remember that?

LUCIANO: I saw it quite a few years ago.

COSTELLO: Lots of Italian stereotypes in there.

Why do you think that Hollywood is so fixated on this part of Italian culture and it is part of Italian culture, I mean, you can't deny that.

LUCIANO: Because negative sells better than positive. It's a fact. And it's something negative that they can play on and people, you know, want to make fun of Italians I guess.

COSTELLO: Well, you didn't make it -- you didn't make it into the next round at the Miss America pageant, right?

LUCIANO: No, I did not.

COSTELLO: Of course, we all certainly think you're very lovely.

LUCIANO: Oh, thank you.

COSTELLO: But do you think that the question and the answer that you gave had anything to do with that?

LUCIANO: No. No, not at all. It had nothing to do with it. That question and that portion is 10 percent of my score. It really -- one question can't hinder whether you're Miss America or not. It just wasn't in my destiny. I'm happy to be home and I'm going to pursue my fight against breast cancer as Miss New Jersey. I'm going to have a successful year and it's just going to be wonderful. And we have an amazing Miss America.

COSTELLO: Yes, and congratulations to you for going that far.

LUCIANO: Thank you.

COSTELLO: When we come back, find out why some members of the Italian-American community are upset -- are so upset about this. And does it bother you?

Time for another break. TALKBACK LIVE we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

With us now is Anthony Marucci, vice president of the North Jersey Chapter of The Fieri, an Italian-American organization of students and young professionals.

And, of course, we're talking about the question posed to Miss New Jersey during the Miss America Pageant. She was asked about Italian-Americans and their depiction in the TV show "The Sopranos."

Let's go to Anthony first.

Why are you so upset about this question that was posed to Alicia?

ANTHONY MARUCCI, ITALIAN-AMERICAN ADVOCATE: I think the issue is not just the question. It's more or less the fact that it's symptomatic of the whole stereotyping of Italian-Americans today.

Again, like Alicia said, if she was anyone else, would that question really have been asked? And with all the contributions that Italian-Americans have made to the United States and to the world, why would they center it on such an issue like that?

MARUCCI: Just playing devil's advocate here: What better person to ask about Italian-American depiction or Italians' depiction in a television show than someone with an Italian background?

MARUCCI: Granted; but at the same time, is this the type of connection that we want to make with Italian-Americans in the United States today? And I'd say no.

The actors on the show I give a lot of credit for. The writing may be very good.

However, is this the best way we can position Italian-Americans today? And the answer is no; and that the type of question that was asked of her put her on the spot. They should address something with breast cancer, something that really brings out to what Miss America and the pageant is supposed to be about.

COSTELLO: Some in our audience have a strong opinion about this.

Stacey (ph) from Georgia, stand up, talk for me. Tell me what you said.

You watch "The Sopranos." Do you think it presents Italians in a bad light.

STACEY: Well, I don't know that many Italians, but I really do think that it's just a show. And I think people need to realize it is just entertainment. It really isn't -- it's not a depiction -- a negative depiction of Italian-Americans, in my view. I don't look at Italian-Americans differently just because of "The Sopranos."

COSTELLO: So the first thing that pops in your head, knowing that I have an Italian-America background is, oh, did she have a relative who was in the mob?

STACEY: Well, no, that does not ever occur to me because there are so many Italian-Americans in the world -- or in the United States, that that never even occurs to me. I don't think that way.

And I think that you can say that about pretty much any show on television. There are some positive portrayals of Italian-Americans on television. Ray Romano is a perfect example.

MARUCCI: Ray Romano is not a perfect example of a positive Italian-American.

COSTELLO: Why not?

MARUCCI: It's a comedy. I would like to see one dramatic...

COSTELLO: So it's a comedy -- what?

MARUCCI: Let me finish, please.

I'd like to see one dramatic TV show that shows an Italian- American in a very positive light, and you can't find one. Ray Romano is, as we say in Italian, is a buffone. It's a comedy.

COSTELLO: OK, Joy (ph) is on the phone from New Jersey. Do you agree?

JOY: I actually agree -- well, I'm sorry, I disagree with the line of questioning that was given to Alicia. I'm actually a friend of Alicia's, and she's a very intelligent woman and she definitely did a great job representing New Jersey.

She was given two to ask -- you know, that are asked of her to give her intelligence, and that's the only two questions she gets. And I was very upset with the way that it was portrayed to her. It almost...

COSTELLO: Now hold on a second. Hold on a second. That was not a dumb question they asked of Alicia, and she answered it in a intelligent way, so what's wrong with it?

JOY: Why didn't they ask the communications people who are actually going to be going into communications or things with TV? Why didn't they ask the girls that were going to be doing that as their profession? Why did they ask Alicia that?

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK Joy, point taken.

We've got to stop here because we have to take another break because there's a whole lot more to say about this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We're talking about how Italians are portrayed on television, mainly in "The Sopranos." You know, we always see Mafia members that are Italians, and people seem to like to watch that kind of stuff.

I want to hear from Steve (ph) from Georgia. He had an interesting comment.

Go ahead.

STEVE: My point is I think people ought to develop a thicker skin about such things. I am of Germanic extraction, myself, and I don't get all upset when "Hogan's Heroes" comes on.

The contributions -- like the gentleman said earlier, there are more contributions that Italian-Americans have made than the Mafia, and there are more that Germans have given to the world than, you know...

COSTELLO: Than "Hogan's Heroes."

MARUCCI: That's all well and good, Carol, but the issue still remains: You people eat our food, you drink our wine. Italy is the first or second-most visited country in the world, but yet when it comes to stereotyping, we're either put in that Mafia category or the Romano's (ph) Macaroni Grill or whatever type of buffone character is out there.

And I really think...

COSTELLO: Oh, come on Anthony.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Don't you think that the Italian culture is seen as a beautiful culture...

MARUCCI: I see it that way...

COSTELLO: ... filled with wonderful food, wonderful people. Don't you think that's out there too?

MARUCCI: Carol, I see it that way, but you tell me where you can find a positive Italian-American out there.

Forty years ago Allister Cook (ph) did an article and he said, I'm going to tell you what the Italian-American contributions to the United States was, and he listed every organized crime figure in the country.

In 1960 when John Kennedy was looking for a running mate, he went to Peter Odino (ph), and he was told not to go there because of the, quote-unquote, mob ties. And today we're supposed to be more sophisticated and more educated, but yet we still go back to what makes Italian-Americans...

COSTELLO: OK, I only have two words for you: Rudy Giuliani.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: There are a lot of Rudy Giulianis out there.

Alicia, do you feel at all used in this -- to drive this controversy?

LUCIANO: No, I don't feel used. I think that everybody is expressing their sentiments. And if this is what evokes it, then so be it.

And I support the Italian-Americans, but at the same time, I stand for the Miss America organization. So it's kind of hard because I am in the middle.

COSTELLO: Gotcha. We have 30 seconds, so I want to get Arianne (ph) in here from Georgia because she's been patiently waiting for her turn.

Go on; what do you have to say?

ARIANNE: I agree with Miss New Jersey -- no, she didn't ask -- the people didn't ask Miss Hawaii any ethnic questions, so why should they ask her any ethnic questions about "The Sopranos"?

COSTELLO: I think some would definitely agree with you.

LUCIANO: Thank you sweetheart.

COSTELLO: Very cute.

Thank you both, we out of time. Alicia Luciano, and Anthony Marucci, thank you both for joining us, again.

MARUCCI: Thank you.

COSTELLO: And I'm Carol Costello, and I have enjoyed filling in for Arthel Neville. Arthel will be back tomorrow.

And you can catch me at my regular time, 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Eastern time, and the show is called "DAYBREAK."

"INSIDE POLITICS" is coming your way next.

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





Different Terror Alert Colors Affect Americans' Actions?; Should Cameras Be Quasi-Policemen?>


Aired September 24, 2002 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, GUEST HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Costello, in for Arthel Neville.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair makes an impassioned case for disarming Saddam Hussein. Did he convince you? We will get reaction. Also, the United States is under a revised terror alert. Color it yellow. Does it really change anything, though? And then stay tuned and let us know how you feel about cameras eyeballing your every move as you go about your business. And find out why Miss New Jersey, Alicia Luciano, thinks the Miss America judges were out of line when they asked her about a well-known Mafia family. It's becoming a big controversy.

OK, we begin, though, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dossier on Iraq's ability to get, make and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq calls the report nothing more than propaganda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shi'a population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

LT. GEN. AMIR SADI, IRAQI SPOKESMAN: His evidence is a hodgepodge of half-truths, lies, short-sighted and naive allegations, which will not hold after a brief investigation by confident and independent experts in the relevant fields.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: OK, we want to talk about this with Hisham Melhem, a Lebanese journalist and Washington bureau chief for "As-Safir" newspaper; and Rich Lowry, who is editor of "The National Review."

Welcome to both of you.

Let's start with you, Rich.

Tony Blair made an impassioned speech, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. There is no plan of an imminent attack against the United States. In fact, I quote Tony Blair. He said: "I agree. I cannot say this month or next, even this year or next, that he will use his weapons."

What do you think?

RICH LOWRY, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW": Sure. Well, sure.

And this goes to the whole doctrine of preemption that the Bush administration is putting forward. The idea is that you end a threat before it can really hurt you. And it would be sheer insanity for the United States to wait until we definitely know that Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon and has the ability to deliver it on a long-range missile to the United States, because, if you wait that long, then it is probably too late to do anything about it, because the cost of doing something about it is potentially so high.

So we know enough about Saddam to know he is a threat. He is a vicious totalitarian murderer and liar. He is stockpiling these weapons of mass destruction for no good purpose. And it's time for the world community to enforce the U.N. resolutions and do something about it.

COSTELLO: OK, Rich, you call it sheer insanity to wait, but some in the Arab world think a whole different way.

Tell us about that, Hisham.

HISHAM MELHEM, "AS-SAFIR": Well, the Arabs are opposed to a war against Iraq not because Saddam Hussein is St. Francis of Assisi. Obviously, he is one of the worst leaders that we've seen in modern Arab history. But most people in the region believe that he has been contained for more than 11 years. They believe that he is a potential danger.

But they argue with the notion that he represents an urgent present danger. And they are asking questions why the United States and Britain are focusing their attention now on Iraq. People in the region also are saying that there is another war going in the region that deserves a great deal of attention from the international community, i.e. the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and attacks, and that conflict should be resolved first.

And then they are raising legal questions, questions of precedent, questions about the whole notion preemption. And they are wondering whether this will create, set in motion events in the region that cannot be controlled, not even by the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Before you go on with that thought, can I ask you how the Arab world -- does the Arab world fear Saddam Hussein's possible use of biological and chemical weapons?

MELHEM: Look, Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against the Iranians first. He used them again in 1988 against the Kurds in Northern Iraq in the city of Halabja.

COSTELLO: So why doesn't the Arab world want the United States to do something about this if it can?

MELHEM: Look, the United States did defeat Iraq in 1991. Iraq has been contained. Nobody argues that Saddam does not represent a potential threat. They are arguing about the timing. They are arguing why the United States should do it, especially unilaterally, without United Nations cover or a legal cover.

LOWRY: Well, can I jump in on the idea of Saddam being contained here?

COSTELLO: Go ahead, Rich.

LOWRY: That's just not true.

There have been no weapons inspectors since 1998. The cease- fires that stopped the war were dependent on those inspectors being in Iraq. And they have not been there for four years, during which time Saddam has continued his weapons programs apace and has also steadily cheated on the oil-for-food program to illegally sell oil, so he can funnel that money into his weapons program. So he's not contained.

COSTELLO: But, Rich, with that said...

MELHEM: Fine, but now let's challenge him on the inspectors.

I am of the notion and of the belief that inspectors should go back. I support coercive inspection. If he prevents them from moving to an area, maybe you can punish him. There are ways of dealing with this. Definitely, the United States should go to the United Nations.

LOWRY: The fact is Saddam has rejected the idea of any new tougher inspectors. He wants to limit the current inspections regime, even if he does let them back in. And that inspection regime was considerably weakened in 1999 because Saddam was able, with his oil wealth, to buy off, in effect, the support of France and Russia.

So, look, the U.N. has passed a decade's worth of resolutions trying to contain Saddam Hussein. He has rejected every single one of them. It is time for the world community to do something about it.

MELHEM: But, Rich, you would agree that, in the early '90s, when you had a better inspection system, most or a great deal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed, pulverized by the inspectors.

LOWRY: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Hisham, may I interrupt you for just a second, because I would like to ask you a question?

MELHEM: Sure.

COSTELLO: Do you believe, does Lebanon believe, does the Arab world believe that, if weapons inspectors went back into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein would show them everything he has?

MELHEM: Of course not. Of course not.

COSTELLO: Well, then, why do it?

MELHEM: But you can challenge him.

Look, Carol, every country maintains secrets, especially a dictatorial regime like Saddam. You would expect that. But you can deal with it. In the 1990s, he was forced to expose some of his weapons of mass destruction. And they were destroyed. I am not saying that this man is going to collaborate with the international community willy-nilly. He would have to be coerced to do it. I would be the first one to agree with that.

All I am saying is that the United States cannot give itself the right alone, unilaterally, to go and change regimes. We are not talking only about weapons of mass destruction. We are talking about changing regimes. And the United States, in the minds of many people in the region, is embarking maybe on imposing a new imperial order in the region, because they don't even talk about Iraq. They talk about Iran. They talk about Syria. And that's why we have a problem with that approach.

COSTELLO: OK, Rich, go ahead.

LOWRY: Carol, let me address very quickly just a couple of those points.

One, it is important to understand what inspectors are. Inspectors are meant to go in and confirm the compliance of a government that has honestly and in good faith declared its weapons sites and its weapons programs. They are not built to be able to hunt down every germ and biological and chemical nuclear weapon in a country where the government is bent on hiding them. That is an impossible cat-and-mouse game.

So even if my friend says that Saddam will never cooperate with inspectors, well, that shows how worthless inspectors will be. And the fact is, Saddam is the unilateralist here. He is the one that is rejecting 16 to 23 U.N. resolutions. And if the U.S. is not willing to lead the world community, nothing will ever be done about it.

COSTELLO: But, Rich, I am going to stop you right here. I'm going to stop you right here, because isn't part of this just a political game, too? Isn't Hisham right, in a sense, that, if you send them in and the weapons inspectors are not allowed access to every part of Iraq, now you have hard-core evidence to go in and maybe topple the regime?

LOWRY: Well, that's one line of thinking. I don't think it is even worth going in with inspectors one more time.

But also let's not forget, the state of belligerency between the U.S. and Iraq never ended. Every single, day as we sit here talking about this now, U.S. warplanes are flying over Iraq to enforce the no- fly zones. Iraq has already been half-dismembered by the United States. The U.S. is imposing sanctions on Iraq that are meant to crush its economy. It is an insane situation. Let's take care of the source of the problem, which is Saddam Hussein.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK, on that thought, I want you both to stop, because we have to take a break now, unfortunately.

A question for you: Do you support U.S. military action in Iraq? I want to know what you're thinking. Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e- mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

TALKBACK LIVE will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: living in the shadow of Big Brother? Are public cameras a public service or an invasion of privacy? Whose eyes are watching you?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back, everyone.

We are talking about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's blistering speech laying out the case against Iraq. And we are talking to two of our experts: Rich Lowry from "The National Review" and Hisham Melhem, who is a Lebanese journalist.

I want to ask you, Hisham, about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and why that has brought so much unrest to your part of the world. Lebanon actually borders Northern Israel. And there are Hezbollah guerrillas who hang out there. And that is causing a lot of friction between Israel and Lebanon and Syria. Tell us about the unrest and the fears in the Arab world if the United States decides to go ahead and attack Iraq.

MELHEM: See, that is why I said the timing of this potential attack on Iraq is disturbing to many people in the region, because they believe that what is urgent at this moment is the resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. People are dying there every day. You have an incredibly hellish life for the Palestinians today. Some Palestinians did make stupid mistakes. But Ariel Sharon is using the war on terror to deny Palestinians basic rights that have nothing to do with combating terror.

Unless we resolve the Arab-Palestinian issue, and then, beyond that, go to a resolution of the Syrian-Israeli conflict and the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, most people in the region will tell you that tension will remain, that the United States will always have problems in the region, that we are going to continue to waste extreme treasure in resources and human beings in this endless conflict.

And that is why I think that conflict cries out for a resolution, for the full attention of the president of the United States and the Security Council and the Arab leaders and the Israeli leaders to solve that problem.

COSTELLO: Sir, is there an added concern, too, because over the weekend, Israel said, if Iraq attacked Israel this time, Israel would fight back?

MELHEM: Carol, one reason many Arabs are very afraid of this is that they hear Israeli leaders from Likud and Labor urging the United States publicly to attack Iraq and saying that, "We will join in that campaign."

People believe -- and they look at Washington. They see some of those cheerleaders for the conflict with Iraq are essentially pro- Israeli politicians in academia and think tanks and whatnot. And that concerns them. They raise questions. Are these people doing it to save the people from Iraq that dictator, or they are doing it in part to help Israelis in the region? And I think the United States should be very clear with the Israelis. If they are not attacked, they should not get involved in this thing. And that is why I think...

COSTELLO: Well, Rich, I want you to respond to that, because isn't that a legitimate concern of the Arab world?

LOWRY: Well, a couple things.

One, I don't think it is in America's power to solve the Israeli- Palestinian dispute. I agree with a lot of what has been said. The Palestinians have been dealt a terrible hand by history. But I think it is incumbent on Palestinian society to reject Yasser Arafat's thugocracy and Yasser Arafat's tolerance of these criminal elements that wrap explosives around the waists of young men and young women and send them into Israel to blow up civilians and women and children, whoever happens to be around at shopping centers. That's a terrible thing.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: The constant conflict is on going there, Rich. So why doesn't the United States get back in forefront? Because it's sort of been on the back burner with this for some time. And now the violence is erupting there anew. Why doesn't the United States take care of that problem before it decides to fight on another battlefront?

LOWRY: Well, because, one -- it is not within our power to take care of the problem, one. It is a deep, long-lasting, historical dispute.

Two, President Bush has already laid out his vision. And that is for Palestinians to grasp their own future, for Palestinians to create a decent government that is not based on robbery and theft, the way Yasser Arafat's is, that is not based on terror, the way Yasser Arafat's is. And once the Palestinians do that -- and that process has begun.

Very brave people in the West Bank have spoken out against terror, at risk to their reputations, in some cases their lives. Those are wonderful and brave people. And the president supports that effort.

COSTELLO: Well, I understand all that.

But back to the matter at hand. While that is still going on, isn't there a real danger to throw even more bedlam in that part of the world if the United States goes ahead and invades Iraq without the support of the Arab neighbors, who are not exactly on Israel's side?

LOWRY: Well, look, why would Iran, which is a terrorist state, support the assertion of U.S. power in the region to overthrow a dictatorship when itself is a dictatorship?

Why would Syria, another terrorist dictatorship, support the United States coming into the region to free the people of Iraq? What those regimes are afraid of, Carol, is that the U.S. will actually succeed in creating a decent government in Iraq, where Arabs can be free. And maybe I am crazy here, but I don't think Arabs, deep down, like dictatorships.

Why would Arabs love living in an Iraq that is a thuggish dictatorship? And look what American power has already done in Iraq. In the north, we have created an autonomous area for the Kurds

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: I only wish, Rich, you could see Hisham's body language. I wish you could see it, because...

LOWRY: Just one last point: If you look in the north in Iraq, the Kurds are a relatively free society, where there are shopping centers. There's civil society. There's local elections, because they have been freed from Saddam. Let's do that to the rest of the Iraq.

COSTELLO: OK, before we go on with this argument, I want to get to at least one audience comment. On the phone we have...

MELHEM: Can I just say one word?

COSTELLO: Well, wait. Let's do Philip first.

Philip, where are you from?

MELHEM: OK, let's do Philip.

CALLER: I am from Washington state, Olympia, Washington.

COSTELLO: OK. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Well, I admire our Arab friends, but what we want to do is not have our toes stepped on. We want to go step on someone else's toes.

As an American Army veteran and a disable veteran and a brother -- four brothers that were in Vietnam, we need to go in and take care of business. And we can't be messing around and standing back and letting things go on as is. We need to go in and take care of business. And then, granted, we don't want to have mass destruction and collateral damage here and there. But we want to go in and take care of it and not be sorry for what happens to us. It's the old adage...

COSTELLO: Hisham, we have a little bit of time in this segment. I want you to have the last word.

MELHEM: Look, briefly, for Rich Lowry, I really appreciate his concern for the freedom of the Arabs. And I am one of them.

LOWRY: Good.

(CROSSTALK)

MELHEM: Asking the Palestinians to do reform, to have constitutions, transparency, rule of law, under Israeli occupations is as ludicrous as asking the founding fathers of this great country to write the Constitution, the Bill the Rights and the Declaration of Independence while fighting the British occupation. This is ludicrous, Rich, and you know it.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK, before you guys get into a big argument, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We have to end this segment. Thank you both, Hisham Melhem and Rich Lowry, for joining us on TALKBACK LIVE. It's time for a break. Thank you.

Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE: Surveillance cameras caught a mom beating her own child in a department store parking lot. But do they have a downside? You know, the cameras, I mean. Public service or invasion of privacy?

Tell me what you think about those prying eyes as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: One caught Madelyne Toogood beating her child outside of an Indiana department store. And most of us are glad to have them in a case like that. But are those spying eyes burning a hole in your privacy?

Here to talk about whether we even have a right to privacy are civil rights attorney Richard Emery and Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

Welcome to you, gentlemen.

Do you think people really know just how much they are being watched?

Let's start with you, Richard. RICHARD EMERY, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Oh, I don't think so at all.

I think that there are cameras everywhere. And, in fact, a great of deal of our society relies on the cameras that are everywhere, on the one hand. On the other hand, we find it extremely intrusive and problematic when it invades our privacy. But there are pluses and minuses to the prevalence of cameras in our lives.

COSTELLO: So what are the pluses?

EMERY: Well, the pluses are, we get to document that which people might have a different version about. A picture definitely documents the truth, the fact.

And, in fact, in many cases of government excesses, particularly police abuse, film and video have been absolutely critical to proving cases that everybody would not have believed if it had not been for the videotape.

COSTELLO: But sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes a picture doesn't say 1,000 words or doesn't -- what is that saying, that old saying?

Isn't that true, Phil? Sometimes we really can't tell what is happening by watching a videotape of something.

PHIL KENT, SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION: Well, I agree.

In fact, with the case of the three Middle Eastern medical students, at first we thought that they had run the tollbooth when they were supposedly running away. That was later clarified. They did pay the toll. I tend to share a similar view to my colleague. There are pluses. There are minuses. I generally favor cameras in public places.

But I would say this. The courts are not always the way to address cameras. That is why you have city councils, county commissions and state legislators. Maybe there is a public street that we don't want the camera focusing on you and me, Carol, when we are going shopping or just doing our day-to-day -- but that is a legislative area, not a court area.

COSTELLO: And having said that, I have a list, because I don't think people know just how much they are being watched by a hidden eye somewhere.

In Washington, D.C., there are 12 cameras on the Mall now. In Virginia Beach, police have cameras watching 42 blocks. In New York City, 5,000 cameras are watching Manhattan. In Delaware, police are actually able to -- they call them jump-out photos -- they can take pictures of suspects and keep them on file for however long they want.

And also, the Washington state Supreme Court -- and this is shocking -- I do not know if you have heard about it. I'd laugh at this, but it is not funny. They ruled it is legal for someone to actually use a video camera to shoot up your skirt.

KENT: Well, that's crazy.

COSTELLO: But they ruled because you are in a public place, so someone with a camera can do anything they want. And this person who shot up women's skirts in Washington state was selling the images over the Internet.

KENT: Well, hopefully, they would have some local ordinances.

Now, as a constitutional conservative, I do believe in local control over local affairs. And I have to go back to my previous point. That's where your city councils and your county commissions have to have regulations, whether it is perhaps an obscenity ordinance or whether it's an ordinance whether or not you should have cameras just simply on a public street.

But I will go back to Ms. Toogood, the example of the woman caught beating her child on tape. That is a case where I think we all would like the fact there was a store surveillance camera. Nobody else apparently, was around, and the camera caught her. So that's a good thing.

COSTELLO: OK, we've got to take a break right now, lots of issues attached to this main issue. It is time for a news break now, though.

Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, we want to talk about the new terror alert we're under. We're back to code yellow. Does that mean we can all breathe a little easier?

Call me. E-mail me. I want to hear from you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We're talking about surveillance cameras. Are there too many out there?

Let's talk about the most infamous case recently, and that was Madelyne Toogood, who was caught on tape in an Indiana parking lo allegedly beating her child.

A lot of positives connected to that, I know.

But an audience member has brought up a negative.

What do you have to say, David (ph)?

DAVID: Well, I felt that an isolated incident, like the one we saw on CNN and the other networks emotionally yanks us. We feel angry, and then it turns out that that was an aberration, that that woman may not have been a terrible mother; that it may have been a moment of anger, and no one really took the time to check about that woman, to find out what kind of mother she really was.

COSTELLO: Before her face was plastered on every television station across the nation.

DAVID: Absolutely, yes.

COSTELLO: Richard, would you agree with that? Is that a problem?

EMERY: Well, it's a very big problem when families are the issue.

You know, family life is tumultuous. And if cameras are intruding on family life, we're all in great trouble.

I think we have to be very restrained about the home and about the relationships between kids and their parents, and parents and parents. It's a difficult way -- the relationships are complex, and sometimes the camera isn't telling you the truth.

Now, in this case it looks very bad. We don't know what the real truth is and what kind of a mother this is.

And the fact of the matter is, though, there's nothing wrong with having a camera in that parking lot and of course, investigating the case. It's all the hoopla around it and all the presumptions and assumptions of terrible misconduct that trouble me, than when it may very well, as this gentleman said, not be the case at all.

COSTELLO: Exactly.

We want to get another audience member in. We've got a lot of kids in our audience today.

Perry (ph), you're from Georgia. What do you have to say about this issue?

PERRY: Well, I don't really think I agree with David (ph) that much because, yes, parents can have their angry moments. But why would they take it out on their children by beating them?

COSTELLO: Well, I think most of us agree with that, Perry, but the video, I don't think, shows the whole thing, because you actually can't see what that mom is doing inside the car. You can see for a time, but you can't see all the way. And that's really for someone else to decide.

And Richard, let me ask you this: Should the police have turned this videotape over to television stations across America?

EMERY: Well, that's very troubling because the key to dealing with videotape and the positive aspects of videotape is that government officials, especially the police, act responsibly and carefully and use it appropriately.

I think that this woman has a very strong complaint if, in fact, she wasn't doing what appears on the videotape, by inference, to complain against the police. She's been pilloried. She's been defamed. Her life may never be the same as a result of this. And certainly her daughter is going to have to live this down forever.

COSTELLO: Chris (ph), you're on the phone from Nevada. What do you have to say?

CALLER: I'd just like to say that these cameras are already in public areas where security should be of utmost importance. And I feel it's more of a matter of internal security than an invasion of privacy.

COSTELLO: But aren't there questions associated with that, too? I mean, might a private company go too far, and who is regulating them

KENT: Well, I don't have a problem, Carol, with -- again, with cameras in parking lots and in banks. Actually, it's helped catch a lot of criminals.

And my bleeding heart colleague here -- and I have to laugh. I mean, the woman actually admitted, yes, I did wrong. In fact, she would not have come forward had she not have known of the existence of the tape. She was going to just deny everything until her lawyer said, hey, they got you on tape.

So she was forced to do the right thing. So I reject, totally, that argument.

EMERY: So the police should then ruin their lives?

It makes no sense to me that the police can just ruin these people's lives because of a videotape. It ought to be handled in family court. That's where this belongs.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: And couldn't the police have just looked at the license plate? They have the license plate number, the police. Why couldn't they just handle it themselves?

KENT: Well, public place, public camera, let's get it out in the public. I always thought liberals liked things out in the open -- what is this?

EMERY: Well, a worldwide exposure of a child's relationship with her parent on one day, and everybody inferring that this is a horrible relationship, is not something that this family ought to have to live with forever, especially if it's curable.

Now it's made much, much more difficult to deal with.

COSTELLO: And Don't you think things might have gotten out of hand with surveillance cameras and people watching other people because of our terror alerts, for example -- we went up to a Code Orange, now we're down to a Code Yellow. Does that, in a sense, kind of create this surveillance mentality we all have of watching each other? Does it create a paranoia in the end?

KENT: I don't think there's a paranoia. That may be the wrong word. But I think we can feel a little safer in many of these examples.

Again, we take it case by case. In some areas we may not want the cameras. You bring up the war on terrorism, tough, we may need those cameras if things get worse -- if we have another attack, if we have planes slamming into our buildings, if we have suspects going around Atlanta trying to go after the Centers for Disease Control or other areas -- we may want those cameras out there.

COSTELLO: That's right, but how far is too far, and who is going to answer that question, ultimately?

I was giving you the example of Washington State where the guy could shoot up a woman's dress and then sell it on the Internet and that was OK because she was out in the public.

Isn't that going too far? Why is that stuff happening?

KENT: We can have local laws, or ultimately the court system.

COSTELLO: We have an audience member here, let's go to him.

John (ph) from New York, what do you say?

JOHN: Well, I just wanted to say, to air things like this on TV is definitely a breach of privacy. It's going way too far, because we can make a judgment call from one day.

But now that we can make that call, because we're seeing the tape, I will say she doubled back and you could see she looked to see if someone was watching as she beat her child. And that's what scares me, now that we are going to watch it.

COSTELLO: I think it scares a lot of people.

We have an e-mail now. Let me run over here so I can read it to you.

Let's put that e-mail up.

"I agree we need cameras, but I know how annoyed parents can get when your child acts up in the store. This was severe punishment, but the media sensationalizes the situation."

That from Royce in Texas.

And that is exactly what Richard was talking about, because we know nothing about this mother, really, except what we saw on the tape.

Richard?

EMERY: Yes, well, absolutely correct. I am actually more concerned right now with the kind of mentality that we're going to let the government do whatever it wants based on whatever it finds in surveillance.

I think this deference to government -- something my conservative colleague over here can't like -- is something that we all ought to be very afraid of.

And you get the five Buffalo guys, the evidence is extremely thin. The worst thing about them is that they went to Pakistan and Afghanistan and didn't like it and turned around and came back, and you have this kinds of paranoia mentality that the government is encouraging by telling the citizenry, we have to watch each other, we have to be suspicious of each other, we have to inform on each other.

That encourages the paranoia that we're trying to overcome.

COSTELLO: And talking about paranoia, Phil, wouldn't you agree that most Americans would probably go along with the idea of a lot of surveillance until something happens personally to them that they may not like? Something that was caught on tape that didn't really tell the whole story?

KENT: Sure, I think that's natural human reaction.

I have to laugh at what was just said, though. I don't where he gets the evidence is thin at all on the Buffalo five. One of those Buffalo five has already admitted to the FBI that he was in a terrorist training camp.

COSTELLO: He also said he didn't like it. He also said he begged to leave.

KENT: Well, that's right.

I didn't like boot camp when I was in the U.S. Army, but I served in the U.S. Army, so what does that mean?

COSTELLO: OK, we have to take a break on that note.

Richard Emery and Phil Kent, thank you both for joining us for this segment of TALKBACK LIVE.

KENT: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, we're going to talk about a big controversy in the Miss America Pageant. Should Miss New Jersey have been asked about "The Sopranos"?

You've got to stick around for that one.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Was Miss New Jersey sandbagged by "The Sopranos" at the Miss America Pageant?

Find out why Alicia Renee Luciano is upset with the judge's line of questioning as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

There's a little bit of controversy brewing out of this year's Miss America pageant. It seems Miss New Jersey and some Italian- Americans say a question she was asked during the interview segment hit a sour note. Alicia Luciano was asked what she thought of the HBO series, "The Sopranos." The award-winning show about a New Jersey crime family has been criticized by some Italian-Americans as promoting a stereotype.

And with us today is Miss New Jersey, Alicia Luciano.

Welcome to the program.

ALICIA LUCIANO, MISS NEW JERSEY: Oh, thank you.

COSTELLO: Why did this question upset you so much and what exactly was the question?

LUCIANO: It wasn't really that it upset me. I was taken back by it little bit. But the question, to my best of my knowledge, was that, What do you think about Italian-Americans?

COSTELLO: So what's wrong with that question?

LUCIANO: In the state of New Jersey, it's just that, it was asked to me, with an Italian background.

COSTELLO: So how did "The Sopranos" enter into this?

LUCIANO: They said, What do you -- Do you think that the show "The Sopranos" and the HBO shed a negative light on the state of New Jersey?

COSTELLO: And why do you think -- you think you were being singled out because you were Italian-American, but what was wrong, so wrong, with the question? Because didn't it come in, like, a pop culture segment and they were supposed to be asking you questions about the arts and pop culture?

LUCIANO: I never said there was anything wrong with the question. In that position you're supposed to be ready for anything and I was prepared to answer any kind of question. There are a lot of people who are upset about it and brought it to my attention. COSTELLO: OK, so you weren't upset at the question...

LUCIANO: No.

COSTELLO: The Italian-Americans -- some in the Italian-American New Jersey community were.

Can you explain that for us?

LUCIANO: That they were upset? I can see why they're upset because it was a question that wouldn't have been asked to anybody else. It was asked to me with an Italian background perhaps because I am in the state of New Jersey. I wasn't taken offense by it. I said that, It's a TV show, it's not reality, and it need to be taken with a grain of salt.

COSTELLO: What kinds of questions were asked of the other contestants?

LUCIANO: About the arts, different things. Miss Hawaii was asked about eating sushi. I can't tell you each question specifically, but nothing to my knowledge of ethnic background.

COSTELLO: And nothing of any real weight either.

It seems like you answered the question correctly though and with thought.

LUCIANO: With my heart. That's all you can do is be honest. It's a TV show. It's not reality and as far as violence on TV, it needs to be censored by the families and the parents at home and the TV shows shouldn't be responsible for that.

COSTELLO: Do you think that the Italian-American community or some within the Italian-American community is taking this program a little too seriously?

LUCIANO: Yes and no. I think they have a valid point and a valid reason to be upset because it does shed the Italians in a negative light and there is not much at all positive for Italians on TV today. So I can see why they're upset and how it is kind of ironic that I got hit with a question like that at this time.

COSTELLO: Why do you think this show is so amazingly popular? It's debut this year, I think, garnered the most ratings for HBO for this kind of show ever. Why is the show so beloved by the American public?

LUCIANO: I guess people are fascinated by it. It's a new kind of culture and it's a new inside twist. It's just entertainment and it's selling so they're going to go with it and that's fine. What are you going to do about it?

COSTELLO: Aren't there other programs on television though that depict Italians in a better light?

LUCIANO: I can't think of one. I could be wrong. I can't think of one off of the top of my head.

COSTELLO: You know, we were trying to think of shows that depict Italians and we came up with Sophia from "The Golden Girls" but she was a stereotypical character too.

I don't know if you've ever watched that show.

LUCIANO: Not really. I couldn't really give you comments on that.

COSTELLO: She's probably too young. But Sophia, she was a little tiny Italian grandmother. She always talked about part of her Mafia family back in Sicily.

Also the movie "Moonstruck" with Cher, do you remember that?

LUCIANO: I saw it quite a few years ago.

COSTELLO: Lots of Italian stereotypes in there.

Why do you think that Hollywood is so fixated on this part of Italian culture and it is part of Italian culture, I mean, you can't deny that.

LUCIANO: Because negative sells better than positive. It's a fact. And it's something negative that they can play on and people, you know, want to make fun of Italians I guess.

COSTELLO: Well, you didn't make it -- you didn't make it into the next round at the Miss America pageant, right?

LUCIANO: No, I did not.

COSTELLO: Of course, we all certainly think you're very lovely.

LUCIANO: Oh, thank you.

COSTELLO: But do you think that the question and the answer that you gave had anything to do with that?

LUCIANO: No. No, not at all. It had nothing to do with it. That question and that portion is 10 percent of my score. It really -- one question can't hinder whether you're Miss America or not. It just wasn't in my destiny. I'm happy to be home and I'm going to pursue my fight against breast cancer as Miss New Jersey. I'm going to have a successful year and it's just going to be wonderful. And we have an amazing Miss America.

COSTELLO: Yes, and congratulations to you for going that far.

LUCIANO: Thank you.

COSTELLO: When we come back, find out why some members of the Italian-American community are upset -- are so upset about this. And does it bother you?

Time for another break. TALKBACK LIVE we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

With us now is Anthony Marucci, vice president of the North Jersey Chapter of The Fieri, an Italian-American organization of students and young professionals.

And, of course, we're talking about the question posed to Miss New Jersey during the Miss America Pageant. She was asked about Italian-Americans and their depiction in the TV show "The Sopranos."

Let's go to Anthony first.

Why are you so upset about this question that was posed to Alicia?

ANTHONY MARUCCI, ITALIAN-AMERICAN ADVOCATE: I think the issue is not just the question. It's more or less the fact that it's symptomatic of the whole stereotyping of Italian-Americans today.

Again, like Alicia said, if she was anyone else, would that question really have been asked? And with all the contributions that Italian-Americans have made to the United States and to the world, why would they center it on such an issue like that?

MARUCCI: Just playing devil's advocate here: What better person to ask about Italian-American depiction or Italians' depiction in a television show than someone with an Italian background?

MARUCCI: Granted; but at the same time, is this the type of connection that we want to make with Italian-Americans in the United States today? And I'd say no.

The actors on the show I give a lot of credit for. The writing may be very good.

However, is this the best way we can position Italian-Americans today? And the answer is no; and that the type of question that was asked of her put her on the spot. They should address something with breast cancer, something that really brings out to what Miss America and the pageant is supposed to be about.

COSTELLO: Some in our audience have a strong opinion about this.

Stacey (ph) from Georgia, stand up, talk for me. Tell me what you said.

You watch "The Sopranos." Do you think it presents Italians in a bad light.

STACEY: Well, I don't know that many Italians, but I really do think that it's just a show. And I think people need to realize it is just entertainment. It really isn't -- it's not a depiction -- a negative depiction of Italian-Americans, in my view. I don't look at Italian-Americans differently just because of "The Sopranos."

COSTELLO: So the first thing that pops in your head, knowing that I have an Italian-America background is, oh, did she have a relative who was in the mob?

STACEY: Well, no, that does not ever occur to me because there are so many Italian-Americans in the world -- or in the United States, that that never even occurs to me. I don't think that way.

And I think that you can say that about pretty much any show on television. There are some positive portrayals of Italian-Americans on television. Ray Romano is a perfect example.

MARUCCI: Ray Romano is not a perfect example of a positive Italian-American.

COSTELLO: Why not?

MARUCCI: It's a comedy. I would like to see one dramatic...

COSTELLO: So it's a comedy -- what?

MARUCCI: Let me finish, please.

I'd like to see one dramatic TV show that shows an Italian- American in a very positive light, and you can't find one. Ray Romano is, as we say in Italian, is a buffone. It's a comedy.

COSTELLO: OK, Joy (ph) is on the phone from New Jersey. Do you agree?

JOY: I actually agree -- well, I'm sorry, I disagree with the line of questioning that was given to Alicia. I'm actually a friend of Alicia's, and she's a very intelligent woman and she definitely did a great job representing New Jersey.

She was given two to ask -- you know, that are asked of her to give her intelligence, and that's the only two questions she gets. And I was very upset with the way that it was portrayed to her. It almost...

COSTELLO: Now hold on a second. Hold on a second. That was not a dumb question they asked of Alicia, and she answered it in a intelligent way, so what's wrong with it?

JOY: Why didn't they ask the communications people who are actually going to be going into communications or things with TV? Why didn't they ask the girls that were going to be doing that as their profession? Why did they ask Alicia that?

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: OK Joy, point taken.

We've got to stop here because we have to take another break because there's a whole lot more to say about this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We're talking about how Italians are portrayed on television, mainly in "The Sopranos." You know, we always see Mafia members that are Italians, and people seem to like to watch that kind of stuff.

I want to hear from Steve (ph) from Georgia. He had an interesting comment.

Go ahead.

STEVE: My point is I think people ought to develop a thicker skin about such things. I am of Germanic extraction, myself, and I don't get all upset when "Hogan's Heroes" comes on.

The contributions -- like the gentleman said earlier, there are more contributions that Italian-Americans have made than the Mafia, and there are more that Germans have given to the world than, you know...

COSTELLO: Than "Hogan's Heroes."

MARUCCI: That's all well and good, Carol, but the issue still remains: You people eat our food, you drink our wine. Italy is the first or second-most visited country in the world, but yet when it comes to stereotyping, we're either put in that Mafia category or the Romano's (ph) Macaroni Grill or whatever type of buffone character is out there.

And I really think...

COSTELLO: Oh, come on Anthony.

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Don't you think that the Italian culture is seen as a beautiful culture...

MARUCCI: I see it that way...

COSTELLO: ... filled with wonderful food, wonderful people. Don't you think that's out there too?

MARUCCI: Carol, I see it that way, but you tell me where you can find a positive Italian-American out there.

Forty years ago Allister Cook (ph) did an article and he said, I'm going to tell you what the Italian-American contributions to the United States was, and he listed every organized crime figure in the country.

In 1960 when John Kennedy was looking for a running mate, he went to Peter Odino (ph), and he was told not to go there because of the, quote-unquote, mob ties. And today we're supposed to be more sophisticated and more educated, but yet we still go back to what makes Italian-Americans...

COSTELLO: OK, I only have two words for you: Rudy Giuliani.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: There are a lot of Rudy Giulianis out there.

Alicia, do you feel at all used in this -- to drive this controversy?

LUCIANO: No, I don't feel used. I think that everybody is expressing their sentiments. And if this is what evokes it, then so be it.

And I support the Italian-Americans, but at the same time, I stand for the Miss America organization. So it's kind of hard because I am in the middle.

COSTELLO: Gotcha. We have 30 seconds, so I want to get Arianne (ph) in here from Georgia because she's been patiently waiting for her turn.

Go on; what do you have to say?

ARIANNE: I agree with Miss New Jersey -- no, she didn't ask -- the people didn't ask Miss Hawaii any ethnic questions, so why should they ask her any ethnic questions about "The Sopranos"?

COSTELLO: I think some would definitely agree with you.

LUCIANO: Thank you sweetheart.

COSTELLO: Very cute.

Thank you both, we out of time. Alicia Luciano, and Anthony Marucci, thank you both for joining us, again.

MARUCCI: Thank you.

COSTELLO: And I'm Carol Costello, and I have enjoyed filling in for Arthel Neville. Arthel will be back tomorrow.

And you can catch me at my regular time, 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Eastern time, and the show is called "DAYBREAK."

"INSIDE POLITICS" is coming your way next.

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





Different Terror Alert Colors Affect Americans' Actions?; Should Cameras Be Quasi-Policemen?>