Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

New Information on Tarot Card Found Near Sniper Scene; Pro- Palestinian Conference on Michigan Campus Provokes Protests, Lawsuit

Aired October 10, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
There is new information today about that Tarot card found in a wooded area near one of The Beltway sniper victims, and the sniper may have claimed another life last night. We'll have a live report.

Then stay tuned, and find out why a pro-Palestinian conference on a Michigan campus has provoked protests and a lawsuit.

And then, hear what Andy Rooney has to say about keeping women on the sidelines.

First, though, let's check in with CNN's Kathleen Koch, who is covering the sniper shootings from Montgomery County, Maryland.

Hi -- Kathleen. We want to know first up: Have authorities linked the latest shooting to the serial sniper?

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They haven't, Arthel.

And right now, they are still searching the scene there in Manassas, Virginia. They have been there since last night about 8:15, when the shooting occurred.

It was a man from this area, from Montgomery County, Maryland, and he lived in Gaithersburg. He was 53-year-old Dean Harold Meyers, and he was filling up his car at a Sunoco gas station when a shot rang out. Witnesses at a nearby Shoney's said they heard only a single shot, and then he fell to the ground. And authorities say that he died on the scene.

Now, police say they do have several witnesses, including an Asian man driving a black vehicle, who was apparently filling up his car at roughly about the same time as the shooting occurred. Now, police are calling him a witness of value.

And you may have heard that police have put out an all-points bulletin looking for a white-paneled van -- that's how they describe it -- that some witnesses saw leaving the scene. They don't know definitively that it is related, but they want to talk to the person or persons driving that van.

Now, police in Prince William County are taking sort of a different tact than we've seen authorities in other jurisdictions. They are saying that they are considering this shooting to be linked, unless they get ballistics evidence to the contrary.

Now, police here are saying very little. They are still looking for the white box truck. They haven't given us any new information on that.

But a highly-placed source close to the investigation does have -- has passed on some new information on that Tarot card and the reason the police were so very upset that it was released to the public. What we learned is that there was more than just the words, "Dear Policeman, I am God," on the card. There was also a warning to police not to share the contents of the card, that message, with the media.

And so, police feel that that may have ruined an opportunity to establish a rapport, perhaps set up sort of a relationship with the killer.

Back to you -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Right. Kathleen Koch, thank you very much for joining us with that update.

And with us now is Dr. Carl Taylor, a criminologist at Michigan State University, and Lou Palumbo, a former law enforcement agent. He is now director of the security agency, Elite Group, Limited.

We want to welcome both of you to the show.

DR. CARL TAYLOR, CRIMINOLOGIST: Thank you.

LOU PALUMBO, FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, Dr. Taylor, you are up first.

As you watch this story unfold, what stands out in your mind?

TAYLOR: Well, the instability of facts, of what has taken place. It's so unknown, and the victims have been women, the elderly and children. So, you don't know the target population. It's just so much that we don't know, so it's causing a fear to go across the whole nation in small and large communities.

NEVILLE: Right. But what facts or evidence at this point in this story just sort of sticks in your mind as you, in your expertise, sort of piece it together?

TAYLOR: Well, I'm not a forensics person. I look at the impact on communities. And the fact that stands out it is someone with a professional expertise that's acting with precision in a very evil way. So again, I go back to the unknown, and that it seems to be someone that is a professional, and we don't know when it's going to strike or where or why.

NEVILLE: Now, you know, earlier, Mr. Palumbo, you just heard Kathleen Koch reveal information regarding that there were further words on that Tarot card found at the scene, which said, do not share this with the media.

So, I have a two-prong question for you, which involves what if there was a media blackout on this story. Let's say 36 hours, OK? Will that help the investigation, because this guy is no longer getting the media attention? Or will it hurt, because now suddenly, he may feel he needs to kill more people to get attention?

PALUMBO: Well, a media blackout, it clearly couldn't do anything but help at this point. This isn't a case similar as we've dealt with, like an abduction of a child. There may be information that the police are acquiring that is very sensitive. For example, we've already alluded to the fact that in addition to the written, "Dear Policeman: I am God," there was an advisement not to release this to the press, and that there might be consequences.

Clearly, a blackout would facilitate a bit of an appeasement. And what the police are probably looking to do is to establish some lines of communication with this individual.

NEVILLE: So...

PALUMBO: And that would be done through compliance of his requests.

NEVILLE: Right. So, a blackout at this point may be a good idea, in your mind.

PALUMBO: I think it could potentially help this case, yes.

NEVILLE: Do you think, though, in the meantime, when there are those news conferences that we have seen over the past week, daily news conferences given by the police, do you think that the police used those opportunities to send either covert or obvious messages to the killer?

PALUMBO: Sometimes they are definitely trying to send messages to the killer. What they're really trying to do is to put the public at ease, to make the public aware that they're on top of this, that they're conducting appropriate investigations, that they're interfacing with the appropriate law enforcement agencies, be they continuous counties, or federal agencies such as ATF and the FBI.

But at this point, I wouldn't speculate and say that they're attempting to establish a type of dialogue with this individual through coded messages in interviews.

NEVILLE: I see.

Dr. Taylor, I'm bringing you back into the conversation on this aspect, because you're saying that your focus is on the community, of the impact it has on the community. And I ask you what you think about the idea of having these news conferences, these daily news conferences throughout the day. Does it ease the mind of the community, knowing that even if they don't have the final answers, that something is being done, people are out there working to solve this case? Or does it frighten people even more to know that it hasn't been solved?

TAYLOR: Well, in our day and age, we're accustomed to having 24/7 news and updates. I think it's a little of both. We want to feel reassured if we're getting good, strong facts, but there's a lot of speculation going on.

And I think that, for example, with young people -- there was a 13-year-old shot -- they take the news and they talk amongst themselves. And so, there is fear, because a lot of them can't handle that type of news at that young age, and they speculate also. They hear rumors and innuendoes.

NEVILLE: Right.

TAYLOR: So, it's a catch-22 for us. It's a tough question to answer.

NEVILLE: Right, because you said that all of the innuendoes and speculations and rumors are flying out there, and perhaps information coming through some of those news conferences could alleviate some of that spreading of unfactual evidence.

TAYLOR: Well, it's very important to have the check-and-balance. You are absolutely correct.

NEVILLE: Right.

TAYLOR: And during these times, in lieu of what took place on 9/11, at times we're hearing international terrorists, or it's a domestic terrorist. So, the news does serve, if properly done, as a check-and-balance.

NEVILLE: I want to go to Pennsylvania now. Nick is standing by on the phone. I'd like to hear your thoughts -- Nick.

CALLER: Yes, Arthel?

NEVILLE: Yes.

CALLER: It's in reference to the fact that they explained what weapons are used, they explained the ammunition. They say it came from a wooded area and how he did it, either laying on the ground. And then, they tell you they're worried about copycats. Shouldn't they conceal some of this information? I mean, you know, you can't tell everything. The media and the police have to keep something quiet, because people pick up on this.

NEVILLE: Well, now, they are. Police and the media both do -- we had Mike Brooks on yesterday, a CNN analyst, who has extensive work with the D.C. Police Department. He explained to us that indeed many times -- and we know this as well -- that many times, journalists and the police work in concert sometimes to keep information hidden or concealed at that moment, so not to damage the investigation process.

Mr. Palumbo, I'd like to hear your response to Nick from Pennsylvania.

PALUMBO: What I really feel that has to happen here, there has to be a balance and a responsible handling of information and evidence that's gathered.

I don't necessarily feel that, by discussing the caliber of a weapon or potentially a weapon type that's used in these crimes, that we're compromising the case. The public needs to have the feeling that the police are on top of this thing and that they're making headway, at least in regard to identifying what the weapon type is.

In other words, we have to give them some level of assurance that an investigation is being conducted and that there is an exercise here, that, hopefully, through a process of a type of elimination, we can narrow it down to a specific shooter. That's basically the concept.

I do believe that the police have a responsibility and the media have a responsibility to properly handle and disseminate information and not compromise the integrity of this investigation.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

Listen, I have to take a break. But, in the meantime, maybe you have some ideas about the killer or some questions for our guests. You can go ahead and give me a call or you can send an e-mail. I absolutely want to hear from you.

And later in the show: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict boiling over on a U.S. college campus. We're going to find out what has students pitted against each other.

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: A conflict born in the Mideast pits Muslims against Jews on the University of Michigan campus. Take on campus leaders and find out why one man's free speech sounds like another's hate speech today, as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about the sniper terrorizing the D.C. metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.

And Roland from New Jersey here in the audience, I want to hear your thoughts this story.

ROLAND: I think it's very -- it's a shame that it's happening. I think it hurts a lot of people. It cuts across a lot of different colors, backgrounds and things like that. I think that it's a person that is very hurt. And it's hurting a lot of other people.

NEVILLE: Interesting. OK, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

And I'm going to go to California now, where Damion is on the telephone.

Damion, what do you say?

CALLER: Hi, Arthel.

I'm a bit astonished and appalled that there are those in the media who operate with no regard or respect to the police investigation. The fact that they released the tarot card against this terrorist psycho's wishes and against the police officers' wishes is just sickening. And I support the family of the victim who was killed tragically last night.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Right. Let me get you to back up, Damion, just so I can clarify and understand, make sure I heard what you said, which is, you said you condemn who for...

CALLER: Well, now that the information has come out that the killer nor the police wanted the tarot card to be released to the media and that there are those in the media who have such a strong desire to get the scoop and the story...

NEVILLE: OK, but here's I want to clarify for you, Damion. And that is, someone from the police force leaked the information to the media, gave it to someone at Channel 9 WUSA out there in Maryland and said, "Here's the information."

CALLER: Well, I don't think that exonerates the media from any type of culpability. There is a responsibility that comes with being able to talk to the American public every day. And as soon as people in this country or those who have that power start taking that responsibility seriously, then we'll be a better-off nation, in my opinion.

NEVILLE: OK, Damion, hang on for me, if you can, because I want to ask Mr. Palumbo.

This is causing quite a stir, quite debate. Why did someone on the police department leak such crucial information?

PALUMBO: Just simply, I would just say accounted for as just being extremely irresponsible.

You know, I'm not going to probe or speculate as to what the motivation could be, except I will just simply say to you that it's a responsibility of a law enforcement agency to maintain the integrity of their investigation, part of which includes dissemination of information, which includes dissemination of information to the media.

They realize -- we all live in America today. Part of the function of the media is to disseminate information to the public. I think the gentleman from California's complaint was that there is little restraint by the media. And I have a tendency to agree with him. Unfortunately, I think maybe what he was upset about was the fact that the media at times look at information. They don't weigh how critical it might be or how it might compromise someone's safety or an investigation.

They're more concerned about getting it out as quickly as possible for ratings purposes. And I think that's a little bit about what he was upset about. But the fact of the matter is, the responsibility to covet information critical to an investigation rests in the hands of your law enforcement agencies.

NEVILLE: OK, Damion, thank you. If you had another little response, go ahead and throw it in there.

CALLER: Well, I think there's enough wrongness or there is enough blame to go around. I just think -- I already have a low opinion of the media, so this didn't help at all.

NEVILLE: Well, all right, listen, thank you for calling in. But the beauty is that you were able to use the media to express your opinion, so we appreciate your call.

In the meantime, Kevin from New Jersey, what do you say, sir?

KEVIN: Well, the one thing that I disagree about what they put on the news or spread about the information is what they showed about the caliber of the bullet. And you're going to have people who are going to commit other crimes that are going to try to use that to divert who they really are to make the people think that's the sniper.

NEVILLE: Oh, you mean like copycats could get ideas here.

KEVIN: That's a little bit too much to put out there. Some information is good, but then there's a line that you have to say, OK, we have to keep this information from the public because someone can use that to do what they want to do.

NEVILLE: Interesting.

Mr. Palumbo, what do you say to that?

PALUMBO: I agree with him.

Certain information that they have disseminated concerning the caliber size -- they haven't really spoken about what weapons they believe this particular -- these bullets are being fired from. They have to be very careful when they start to discuss things like ballistic fingerprinting and the significance of recovering a piece of evidence as critical as an empty casing at the scene of a shooting.

Simply stated, the law enforcement agencies know what they're doing. And it's their responsibility, I say once again, to carefully handle this information and to covet those bits of information that could potentially put this case at risk.

To just reiterate this issue about the caliber of the bullet and the empty casing, the exercise here is not to educate the person who is perpetrating these acts or give them a heads-up on how they can -- how not to feed us information. We want this individual to make mistakes, because that is one of the ways we may potentially catch him.

NEVILLE: I see.

PALUMBO: This gentleman is random. He's proficient. And he's mobile.

NEVILLE: Let me grab Dr. Taylor before I have to leave this segment here.

And I wanted to ask you, sir, how likely is it that these crimes may be being committed by one or more than one person, I should say?

TAYLOR: Well, it certainly is feasible.

We don't know, but it would not surprise me that there was more than one person. There could be a number of scenarios that you could find someone who had been in the military together. It could even be someone who is related to the other person. It's not unfounded. We don't know, so that's why we're in the dark right now.

NEVILLE: Dr. Carl Taylor and Lou Palumbo, thank you very much for joining us here today.

TAYLOR: Thank you.

PALUMBO: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And just ahead: Some students at the University of Michigan are trying to stop an upcoming pro-Palestinian conference. Do they have a case?

You decide after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Free speech or hate speech? That's the question surrounding a pro-Palestinian conference scheduled at the University of Michigan this weekend. Now, conference organizers are urging the university to divest in Israel. Critics charge the conference is anti-Semitic. And two university students are trying to stop the event.

We've invited student leaders to join us today. Richard Dorfman is among those suing. He is a member of the Michigan Student Zionists. Fadi Kiblawi is co-founder of the pro-Palestinian student group called SAFE. That's short for Students Allied for Freedom and Equality.

And I welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.

FADI KIBLAWI, CO-FOUNDER, STUDENTS ALLIED FOR FREEDOM & EQUALITY: Thank you.

RICHARD DORFMAN, MICHIGAN STUDENT ZIONISTS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, Fadi, I'm going to start with you.

Give me a synopsis of the mission of this conference.

KIBLAWI: Well, the main goal of this conference is very basic. We're just trying to open the circle of debate. We're trying to spark interest in people to learn more about what's happening in Israel and Palestine and give momentum to a movement, to a campaign that will work for peace in the region, peace for everybody, a peace based on justice and equality.

And that's through this divestment campaign, through urging our universities to cut financial ties to Israel, taken from a similar campaign against South African apartheid in the '80s.

NEVILLE: So are you suggesting that Israel's policies rise to the level of racist apartheid government in South Africa?

KIBLAWI: Well, I'm not the only one that suggests this. Anti- apartheid heroes from South Africa have also suggested this: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Ronnie Kasrils. And the list goes on.

But, yes, definitely, if you look at a map of the West Bank and Gaza, the occupied territories, and you see how the Palestinians have been isolated, denied very basic rights, the rights to move, all because of their religion, it's almost an exact copy of the Bantustans' homelands of apartheid South Africa. So yes.

NEVILLE: Yes, go ahead, Rick. I want to hear your response to Fadi's comments.

DORFMAN: I think that's appallingly anti-Semitic, absolutely baseless, and has absolutely no foundation to it whatsoever.

Claims of apartheid, apartheid was this terribly racist form of oppression against South African black people, the Africans. In Israel, Arab people -- I would support his claim if he could tell me one Arab nation that exists where Arabs are treated better than they are in Israel. In Israel, Arabs have the rights of free speech, have the rights to assembly. They vote one man, one vote. Arab women vote in Israel.

No Arabs vote anywhere else. Arabs living under Arafat's oppressive regime in the Palestinian territories, I feel for them. And they are oppressed people, but that is Arafat's fault. If you're going to be pro-Palestinian, be anti-Arafat, not anti-Israel.

NEVILLE: Fadi, I'm going to let you respond to that.

KIBLAWI: Can I respond to that?

NEVILLE: Yes.

KIBLAWI: All right, definitely.

OK, when you say all these things that the Arabs in Israel have, first, you have to look at the 3.6 million Palestinians that are denied the right to vote in the West Bank and in Gaza. And let me tell you something. For example, in the city of Nablus, they've been under curfew since July. And it's not Arafat that's telling them they can't leave their homes. It's not Arafat that's holding them at the checkpoints. It's not Arafat that's using excessive, indiscriminate force and has killed over 1,800 of them.

That's the Israeli occupation.

NEVILLE: OK, Rick, why do you want to prevent this convention from taking place? And why sue? Why not simply protest?

DORFMAN: Protest is a great forum. And we are protesting. In fact, Hillel (ph) organized an event. There were 1,000 people protesting this conference. And there's going to be a massive rally on Sunday, hundreds of people coming in from New York, from California, from Chicago, coming in to protest.

That is one facet. But how can I not sue? When there are legal grounds to sue, how can I sit on my hands?

NEVILLE: The university says there are no legal grounds to this case.

DORFMAN: How can I possibly sit on my hands and placate to anti- Semitism coming to my campus, coming to the university that I love? How can I sit on my hands and allow it to happen, like the Jews did in the 1920s in Europe, this level of anti-Semitism? We can't just say, "Let them have their silly little conference and then let's move on and it will go away."

The anti-Semitism is an attack. And there are going to people from all across the country coming to stand up and say: "We are not going to let you win. This is not acceptable. And we're not going to let this happen." We're suing the University of Michigan to stop this conference because incitement of violence is going to occur, based on the records of the speakers and of the organizers of the event.

NEVILLE: And I want you to expound on that after the break.

I do have to take a break right now, but we're going to hear what the university has to say about this shortly. I want to hear from you as well when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

Don't go anywhere. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being played out on the University of Michigan campus. And, Rick, I want to start with you on this block. What happened when you first told university administrators about your concern surrounding the conference?

DORFMAN: Well, actually, the administrators have been more than helpful. Several administrators, board of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Andrea Newman and Larry Deitch have come out and said that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) movement in itself is extremely anti-Semitic. President Coleman has come out and said that she refuses to divest. And The university has been really more than helpful in our attempt.

I guess the big problem is people are not understanding the division between free speech and incitement of violence. And the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the incitement of violence is not protected under the general Americans' right to free speech. And I think to understand incitement of violence...

NEVILLE: Why do you think this conference would advocate violence?

DORFMAN: Because of some of the speakers. I want to introduce to you Sami Al-Arian, who is the co-founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He sits on...

NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me.

Rick, I want you to stick to this topic here. I understand this is related in some ways, but I want you to stick to the basics here. And I want to ask you, Rick, why do you think this conference would advocate violence?

DORFMAN: I think this conference would advocate violence because you have speakers at the conference, like Sami Al-Arian, who has openly called for the killing of Jews. He organizes terrorist attacks in Israel. He raises money. He ran a charity in Florida. He's been condemned by the...

NEVILLE: So having said those things sir -- having said that -- hang on. Get me back to the students. You're there at the University of Michigan campus with the students. I'm trying to get that perspective.

DORFMAN: OK. I agree. I'm trying to help you. I understand. I just want to go in and make very clear that this is a man who smuggles terrorists into the United States.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, I'm going to go now to Florida, where Dean (ph) is standing by on the phone. Dean, what do you have to say?

CALLER: Yes, this cuts to the very core of the freedom of speech and the first amendment. The Middle East evokes a very emotional debate, and it's a shame that if you speak out against Israel you're automatically branded anti-Semitic. If you actually speak out pro Palestinian, you're more or less (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fanatical.

The question I have for you is, as long as violence is not the core of the conversation, why not bring some middle ground and why not bring some common ground, because there is such a long history of violence? And being on the left and the right, why not have a conference, where maybe some answers and some solutions might come to the very core?

NEVILLE: Fadi, I want to talk to you. Thanks, Dean (ph), for calling in.

Fadi, is this conference about anti-Semitism?

KIBLAWI: Oh, definitely not. We actually have Jewish speakers. We have a very renowned Israeli historian coming in from Tel Aviv, amongst many other Jewish speakers. Now that actually is very disturbing, trying to cast us as anti-Semitic. And the main goal of that is to try to stifle the debates.

They don't want us to have any open discourse on this. I think Dean's suggestion was very good. And I think that instead of trying to attack American values and first amendment constitutional rights, why don't you organize another conference? Why are you trying to shut down ours? And, on top of that, if you want to call this anti-Semitic you can use the same logic to call the divestment from South Africa movement anti-white.

NEVILLE: OK, Fadi. Let me ask you this. Some of the critics are saying that this conference will advocate violence.

KIBLAWI: No, it's definitely not advocating violence. In fact, some of our speakers are leading workshops on non-violent resistance. We've repeatedly spoken out against violence. In fact, I'm personally a pacifist, and we would never advocate violence outside the scope of international laws of warfare. It's definitely not advocating violence. It's simply advocating for a non-violent movement divesting from illegal occupation.

NEVILLE: And having said that, can you assure certain students at the University of Michigan that they are -- will remain safe after this sort of conference takes place, if it takes place this weekend?

KIBLAWI: Yes, this conference is taking place this weekend, and we can definitely -- we're working as hard as we can with the administration within our own communities to basically state that no matter how, you know, inciting that certain lawsuits might get, to remain, you know, peaceful, the way we are. And I want to turn back for one second. I want to make a suggestion.

I read through this lawsuit. I thought it was -- I read through it one time. I thought it was really funny, actually, because it's something you can see maybe in North Korea or some other oppressive state where you can't advocate freedom. And if you want to claim that somebody is a terrorist, call the FBI. Don't call CNN TALKBACK LIVE. Go to the FBI and report the evidence you have that somehow slipped past the federal government.

DORFMAN: Fadi, number one, the FBI currently has an investigation going on with Sami Al-Arian. Absolutely...

KIBLAWI: That's not true. He's been cleared by the FBI years ago.

DORFMAN: Absolutely it is. He has not been cleared by the FBI.

KIBLAWI: He was cleared by the FBI years ago.

DORFMAN: United States attorney (UNINTELLIGIBLE) keeps on saying there is a clear and present danger of Sami Al-Arian being absolutely -- it is, and very unlikely, very, very, very rare case to say that there was a clear and present danger. It's not a lie.

KIBLAWI: That's a lie.

DORFMAN: His name is Mack (ph). Anyway, Mr. non-violence over here published an article June 14 of 2001 in a University of Michigan periodical called Ari Sala (ph), in which he claims the enemies are not only overseas. They're also among us. "I feel it is enough to strap a bomb to one's self and blow one's self up in order to kill those racists."

He goes on and says "The Zionist racists are as bad -- the Zionist Nazis are as bad as Hitler's Nazis."

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Rick, I got all your points. I want to let him respond to it. Rick, hang on for me. Rick, I am doing my best here to give both of you equal time. Please allow me to do my job. Now I have to give Fadi some time on that response. But I'm going to give you a fair chance as well, OK?

KIBLAWI: Thank you, Arthel. Can I respond to that? Basically, this whole entire lawsuit, all these allegations, are baseless, their ridiculous. Their the type of things that might maybe pass in an oppressive regime where people don't have the first amendment right. This is an attack on America. I never really met this guy before until the other day. And I've had one run-in with him and, to be quite honest with you, I really think that he needs to seek mental health.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, go ahead, Rick. Go ahead, Rick. Don't hit him whatever you do.

DORFMAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's not going to solidify his claims. The general population understands that the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) movement is anti-Semitic. Its aims are to destroy the state of Israel. There's nothing more anti-Semitic. Israel acts as the single greatest and legitimate method of self-defense against anti-Semitism. Terrorists are coming to this campus. NEVILLE: Hey, Rick, can you hear me? Rick, can you hear me? OK, Rick Dorfman and Fadi Kiblawi, thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.

Up next, Andy Rooney has found another place women don't belong. You tell us if you agree when we go to the sidelines after this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Andy Rooney complains about a lot of things. It's part of his job on "60 Minutes." But did he go too far when he complained about women sports reporters during an interview on MSG Network's Boomer Esiason show? When asked about female sideline reporters, here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY ROONEY, COMMENTATOR: The only thing that really bugs me about television coverage is those damn women they have down on the sideline who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I mean I'm not a sexist person, but a woman has no business being down there trying to make some comment about a football game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: All right, Andy. I don't know. But anyway, it's Esiason, Boomer's last name, by the way. Wanted to clarify that, correct it.

All right. I mean I can see a lot of you here are ready to jump in on this conversation, along with our guests, Wendy Hilliard, former president of the women's sports foundation, a former sports broadcaster and now managing director of sports for New York City 2012, an effort to bring the Olympics to the Big Apple in 2012.

Also, Steve Malzberg, a radio talk show host on WABC and a columnist for newsmax.com, also a regular here on TALKBACK LIVE. Welcome to both of you.

STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALKSHOW HOST: Hi.

WENDY HILLIARD, FORMER SPORTS BROADCASTER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: All right, Wendy. So Andy Rooney says he doesn't think much of the female sideline reporters at NFL games. Is it sexist? Is it offensive? Do you think Andy Rooney should apologize?

HILLIARD: Well, it is sexist and it is offensive. It's something you wouldn't expect from a seasoned journalist just to comment like that. Of course, Andy Rooney says a lot of things that I think a lot of people don't agree with, but still it was very irresponsible. And you really have to respect those reporters that are professional and they know their game and they're doing their job. And that's first and foremost.

NEVILLE: Well, Steve, you know Mr. Rooney also said that he doesn't think much of the male sideline reporters either. Does that make it better, soften the blow?

MALZBERG: Well, it kind of does soften the blow. Let's just hope that CBS doesn't do to him what they did to Jimmy the Greek when he made his unfortunate remarks. I think that we have to face facts.

It used to be, until recently, that the people on the sidelines were former players who knew the game inside out the way someone who hasn't played the game really can't know it. And that made sense to have these people down there asking the coach, asking the players, or commenting on their own about something that had just taken place or is going to take place.

The women are there. They may know the game a lot better than me, but they're there because the men, the audience want to look at a pretty face, want to look at a woman. That's why they're there.

NEVILLE: How can you say that? Wait a minute. You're implying that they're not qualified, Steve?

MALZBERG: How can I say that? I just said they may know the game better than me. I am not saying they don't know the game. I'm saying they're there, in my opinion, because they have a pretty face and that's why some schlumpy guy isn't down there and it's a pretty girl.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on. You know what, for years, schlumpy guys have been around.

Wendy, what do you say about this?

HILLIARD: Well, you know, Steve, you're making just as many irresponsible comments as Andy Rooney.

MALZBERG: What did I say that's irresponsible?

HILLIARD: Well, it's irresponsible to assume that's why they're there for their job. And, also, to assume that all of the other sideline reporters were former football players, which is not true. Well this is what I'm saying. So you can't make an exemption for a woman or a man.

The first thing you have to do is be a good journalist. The next thing you have to do is know your game of football. And the other thing is you have to realize you have to be able to report it. If you're going to be sexist and talking about the looks and things like that, you have to stop at first one.

You don't know the reasoning that everyone has back there. But the first thing is, they have to know their game. And it's very irresponsible and disrespectful to say otherwise.

MALZBERG: There is nothing irresponsible and disrespectful. If I say they know the game, I'm telling you why they're there and not somebody who played the game and would be more of an authoritative figure to the viewer watching at home, and that's an ex player.

HILLIARD: What do you mean more of an authoritative figure? Let me tell you this. As you just commented, not all former sideline reporters are former athletes, and that's true. So why are you saying that someone else who hasn't played the game it more authoritative than a woman who hasn't played the game?

MALZBERG: Look, we have a double standard here. Let's go to the locker room for a second. Do you know that in the NBA the women go into the locker rooms after a game and the men, I guess if they don't want to be seen, have to towel up? But after a WNBA game, do you know that there are special rules that apply when men go into a locker room?

NEVILLE: Rules like what, Steve?

MALZBERG: Rules that the women don't -- you know, have to stay in uniform, can't go shower. Rules that impede the women players themselves. They can't shower, they can't change until the men and everybody is out of the locker room. And there's a double standard here.

I mean I'm not saying that men reporters want to look at these women naked. But for crying out loud, if we've advanced so far, then a man going into a female locker room should have the same access and it should be the same kind of environment as a woman going into a men's locker room.

NEVILLE: All right. I've got Britt (ph) here from in the audience. Go ahead, Britt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I honestly believe that most men at one point in their life or not have played football and they know the emotions and some of the situations that it actually takes to be on the field, whereas most females have not played...

NEVILLE: I know you're not going to imply that playing sand lot football compares to knowing what it's like to playing in the NFL.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am saying that.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on, Britt. Let's take some e-mails right now.

OK. Let's see. It's coming from Ontario, Lisa (ph). She says, "The problem for Andy isn't that women can't talk football. It's the fact that they distract him from the game. Andy, listen to what they say and not what they look like."

I have another one coming in now -- another e-mail that is from Mark (ph). He says, "A woman talking about football is like men talking about the pain of childbirth." Mark, I surely wish you had told me where you were writing in from. Mark, come on. That's nowhere. Listen, Wendy, recent studies have shown that female sportscasters are still not regarded -- not regarded as having the same level of sports knowledge as their male counterparts. And just wondering if you think this view can ever be changed.

HILLIARD: Well, I think it will be changed and I think a lot of it has to be generational. I think that younger men and women who are growing up seeing more female reporters and sports reporters in general are going to feel more comfortable with that. Men that are over, let's say 80 years old, are maybe going to have more of a problem with that. But the key is education.

People didn't take women's professional basketball seriously. They didn't think women could play soccer very well, and they go on and win the World Cup. So it's a lot of education. It's always been a big push. You know there are over 1,600 young women playing football in high school now.

MALZBERG: I don't think the problem is just with men over 80. Ask yourself this question -- or answer me this question: Why aren't there any women in the NFL football booths? At lease as far as I know, there aren't. NBC tried it many years ago. It didn't work. Nobody has tried it since? Why not?

HILLIARD: You know I can't personally answer the question, but you have to ask how many jobs there are. Why aren't there more men in the...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Wendy, I have to take a break right now.

Coming up later, I'm going to read some of your e-mails about Charles Barkley joining the show. Also, we're going to hear what Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say about Harry Belafonte's criticisms. That's all ahead on TALKBACK LIVE. Don't go anywhere. We're going to continue talking sports next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about Andy Rooney's comment that women have no business reporting on football from the sidelines. And Marty (ph), you are a former sportscaster. You say what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Howard Cosell is acknowledged as one of the best football broadcasters. I don't think he ever played. John Madden today is at the top of his game. I would like to know the last time he stepped on a football field.

He was a coach. That's a little bit different perspective. But you don't have to play the game in order to report on it and have a perspective on the game.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And Stacey (ph) is standing by on the phone in Texas. Go ahead, Stacey.

CALLER: Yes, ma'am. I just would like to comment on the word whether they belong there or not. I think that's a little bit vague. If you say that someone belongs somewhere or they don't belong somewhere, that can limit what that person wants to do or how they want to do their job. Anybody that doesn't do a good job can look like they don't belong somewhere.

NEVILLE: All right, Stacey. Thank you for calling in here to TALKBACK LIVE.

And I have Bob in the audience from Alabama. What do you say, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I just like to think if we follow the train of thought that women don't belong there just because they're women or not have played the game means that most of our reporters should not be commenting on international news because they're not veterans of the State Department and served overseas in an embassy.

NEVILLE: All right. Thank you very much.

Hey, Wendy, I know you know that Jill Arrington posed for "Him" and "Maxim" magazines recently? Do you think this hurts the credibility of all female sportscasters?

HILLIARD: Well it's always difficult to have the mix. And when you want to try and get some attention from different media, it's better always to be judged on your talent, first and foremost. But I think what really -- especially the issue that we're talking about now, is that especially the female reporters that are down on the field right now have had to work so hard and overcome so much. And so they're much more qualified than I think they can even portray on television.

And you have to be very careful with your image and you have to be more patient with the American audience. I'm very surprised at some of the comments, but I think the most important comment is you have to be judged on your merit.

NEVILLE: So in the meantime, though, do you think that seeing someone like Jill Arrington pose for those types of magazines, does that set women back in sports?

HILLIARD: It's always a challenge when you have something like that and it's not preferable. But it's her choice in getting some attention. But you have to look at the other reporters that are out there that are trying to get it based on their job and their work. So it's a very delicate situation and women are often put into that challenge, which is unfortunate. But eventually we're going to overcome that.

NEVILLE: Steve, 15 seconds.

MALZBERG: It shouldn't set women back. It's an individual making an individual choice. But, again, if I'm running a network, I'm going to go to the most popular ex player I can find to be on the sidelines. And show me one ugly or not good looking woman on the sidelines and you'll be making my point, because you can't do it.

NEVILLE: Wendy Hilliard and Steve Malzberg, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

Up next, Secretary of State Colin Powell reacts to being compared to a house slave. Does Harry Belafonte owe Powell an apology? We'll be back after this break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Yesterday we told you about comments Harry Belafonte made about Secretary of State Colin Powell. Let me refresh your memory. During an interview on San Diego radio station KFMB Belafonte compared Powell to a house slave.

He said, "There is an old saying in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master, exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.

"Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

And Powell was asked about that comment last night during an interview on "LARRY KING LIVE." Let's listen to his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's unfortunate that Harry used that characterization. I'm very proud to be serving my nation. Once again, I'm very proud to be serving this president.

If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine. If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throw back to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. And rounding out today's show, your response to Charles Barkley. Yesterday we introduced him as TALKBACK LIVE's new weekly contributor. And a lot of you flooded us with e-mail.

Here's a sample: From Paul in Ohio, "What credentials does Mr. Barkley have that he deserves a weekly appearance? I think I'll pass on watching your show when he's on."

OK. Then from Robin (ph) in Texas. It says, "Charles Barkley shoots from the hip. He says what his on his mind and is honest and forthright with his opinions. He is good for America and I wish our politicians would be more like him."

But Fred in Illinois writes, "You lost me by adding Barkley to your show, who is nothing but an obnoxious, egotistical idiot. No thanks."

Fuzz (ph) in Kansas is impressed by Barkley's charity. He says, "After hearing what you are doing for your home neighborhood my opinion of you has changed. Forget the hype, you are a real man."

Jewel (ph) in Oregon wants to know, "Why did CNN choose Charles Barkley as a commentator? His opinion is no more valued or more important just because he is famous. How about getting a commentator who actually knows something?"

And this advice from Dominique (ph) in Florida, "Tell it like it is, Charles. If more people were as frank as you the world would be a better place."

Well, that is it for today. We are out of time. Thanks so much for watching, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville and I'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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




Pro-Palestinian Conference on Michigan Campus Provokes Protests, Lawsuit>


Aired October 10, 2002 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
There is new information today about that Tarot card found in a wooded area near one of The Beltway sniper victims, and the sniper may have claimed another life last night. We'll have a live report.

Then stay tuned, and find out why a pro-Palestinian conference on a Michigan campus has provoked protests and a lawsuit.

And then, hear what Andy Rooney has to say about keeping women on the sidelines.

First, though, let's check in with CNN's Kathleen Koch, who is covering the sniper shootings from Montgomery County, Maryland.

Hi -- Kathleen. We want to know first up: Have authorities linked the latest shooting to the serial sniper?

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They haven't, Arthel.

And right now, they are still searching the scene there in Manassas, Virginia. They have been there since last night about 8:15, when the shooting occurred.

It was a man from this area, from Montgomery County, Maryland, and he lived in Gaithersburg. He was 53-year-old Dean Harold Meyers, and he was filling up his car at a Sunoco gas station when a shot rang out. Witnesses at a nearby Shoney's said they heard only a single shot, and then he fell to the ground. And authorities say that he died on the scene.

Now, police say they do have several witnesses, including an Asian man driving a black vehicle, who was apparently filling up his car at roughly about the same time as the shooting occurred. Now, police are calling him a witness of value.

And you may have heard that police have put out an all-points bulletin looking for a white-paneled van -- that's how they describe it -- that some witnesses saw leaving the scene. They don't know definitively that it is related, but they want to talk to the person or persons driving that van.

Now, police in Prince William County are taking sort of a different tact than we've seen authorities in other jurisdictions. They are saying that they are considering this shooting to be linked, unless they get ballistics evidence to the contrary.

Now, police here are saying very little. They are still looking for the white box truck. They haven't given us any new information on that.

But a highly-placed source close to the investigation does have -- has passed on some new information on that Tarot card and the reason the police were so very upset that it was released to the public. What we learned is that there was more than just the words, "Dear Policeman, I am God," on the card. There was also a warning to police not to share the contents of the card, that message, with the media.

And so, police feel that that may have ruined an opportunity to establish a rapport, perhaps set up sort of a relationship with the killer.

Back to you -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Right. Kathleen Koch, thank you very much for joining us with that update.

And with us now is Dr. Carl Taylor, a criminologist at Michigan State University, and Lou Palumbo, a former law enforcement agent. He is now director of the security agency, Elite Group, Limited.

We want to welcome both of you to the show.

DR. CARL TAYLOR, CRIMINOLOGIST: Thank you.

LOU PALUMBO, FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, Dr. Taylor, you are up first.

As you watch this story unfold, what stands out in your mind?

TAYLOR: Well, the instability of facts, of what has taken place. It's so unknown, and the victims have been women, the elderly and children. So, you don't know the target population. It's just so much that we don't know, so it's causing a fear to go across the whole nation in small and large communities.

NEVILLE: Right. But what facts or evidence at this point in this story just sort of sticks in your mind as you, in your expertise, sort of piece it together?

TAYLOR: Well, I'm not a forensics person. I look at the impact on communities. And the fact that stands out it is someone with a professional expertise that's acting with precision in a very evil way. So again, I go back to the unknown, and that it seems to be someone that is a professional, and we don't know when it's going to strike or where or why.

NEVILLE: Now, you know, earlier, Mr. Palumbo, you just heard Kathleen Koch reveal information regarding that there were further words on that Tarot card found at the scene, which said, do not share this with the media.

So, I have a two-prong question for you, which involves what if there was a media blackout on this story. Let's say 36 hours, OK? Will that help the investigation, because this guy is no longer getting the media attention? Or will it hurt, because now suddenly, he may feel he needs to kill more people to get attention?

PALUMBO: Well, a media blackout, it clearly couldn't do anything but help at this point. This isn't a case similar as we've dealt with, like an abduction of a child. There may be information that the police are acquiring that is very sensitive. For example, we've already alluded to the fact that in addition to the written, "Dear Policeman: I am God," there was an advisement not to release this to the press, and that there might be consequences.

Clearly, a blackout would facilitate a bit of an appeasement. And what the police are probably looking to do is to establish some lines of communication with this individual.

NEVILLE: So...

PALUMBO: And that would be done through compliance of his requests.

NEVILLE: Right. So, a blackout at this point may be a good idea, in your mind.

PALUMBO: I think it could potentially help this case, yes.

NEVILLE: Do you think, though, in the meantime, when there are those news conferences that we have seen over the past week, daily news conferences given by the police, do you think that the police used those opportunities to send either covert or obvious messages to the killer?

PALUMBO: Sometimes they are definitely trying to send messages to the killer. What they're really trying to do is to put the public at ease, to make the public aware that they're on top of this, that they're conducting appropriate investigations, that they're interfacing with the appropriate law enforcement agencies, be they continuous counties, or federal agencies such as ATF and the FBI.

But at this point, I wouldn't speculate and say that they're attempting to establish a type of dialogue with this individual through coded messages in interviews.

NEVILLE: I see.

Dr. Taylor, I'm bringing you back into the conversation on this aspect, because you're saying that your focus is on the community, of the impact it has on the community. And I ask you what you think about the idea of having these news conferences, these daily news conferences throughout the day. Does it ease the mind of the community, knowing that even if they don't have the final answers, that something is being done, people are out there working to solve this case? Or does it frighten people even more to know that it hasn't been solved?

TAYLOR: Well, in our day and age, we're accustomed to having 24/7 news and updates. I think it's a little of both. We want to feel reassured if we're getting good, strong facts, but there's a lot of speculation going on.

And I think that, for example, with young people -- there was a 13-year-old shot -- they take the news and they talk amongst themselves. And so, there is fear, because a lot of them can't handle that type of news at that young age, and they speculate also. They hear rumors and innuendoes.

NEVILLE: Right.

TAYLOR: So, it's a catch-22 for us. It's a tough question to answer.

NEVILLE: Right, because you said that all of the innuendoes and speculations and rumors are flying out there, and perhaps information coming through some of those news conferences could alleviate some of that spreading of unfactual evidence.

TAYLOR: Well, it's very important to have the check-and-balance. You are absolutely correct.

NEVILLE: Right.

TAYLOR: And during these times, in lieu of what took place on 9/11, at times we're hearing international terrorists, or it's a domestic terrorist. So, the news does serve, if properly done, as a check-and-balance.

NEVILLE: I want to go to Pennsylvania now. Nick is standing by on the phone. I'd like to hear your thoughts -- Nick.

CALLER: Yes, Arthel?

NEVILLE: Yes.

CALLER: It's in reference to the fact that they explained what weapons are used, they explained the ammunition. They say it came from a wooded area and how he did it, either laying on the ground. And then, they tell you they're worried about copycats. Shouldn't they conceal some of this information? I mean, you know, you can't tell everything. The media and the police have to keep something quiet, because people pick up on this.

NEVILLE: Well, now, they are. Police and the media both do -- we had Mike Brooks on yesterday, a CNN analyst, who has extensive work with the D.C. Police Department. He explained to us that indeed many times -- and we know this as well -- that many times, journalists and the police work in concert sometimes to keep information hidden or concealed at that moment, so not to damage the investigation process.

Mr. Palumbo, I'd like to hear your response to Nick from Pennsylvania.

PALUMBO: What I really feel that has to happen here, there has to be a balance and a responsible handling of information and evidence that's gathered.

I don't necessarily feel that, by discussing the caliber of a weapon or potentially a weapon type that's used in these crimes, that we're compromising the case. The public needs to have the feeling that the police are on top of this thing and that they're making headway, at least in regard to identifying what the weapon type is.

In other words, we have to give them some level of assurance that an investigation is being conducted and that there is an exercise here, that, hopefully, through a process of a type of elimination, we can narrow it down to a specific shooter. That's basically the concept.

I do believe that the police have a responsibility and the media have a responsibility to properly handle and disseminate information and not compromise the integrity of this investigation.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

Listen, I have to take a break. But, in the meantime, maybe you have some ideas about the killer or some questions for our guests. You can go ahead and give me a call or you can send an e-mail. I absolutely want to hear from you.

And later in the show: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict boiling over on a U.S. college campus. We're going to find out what has students pitted against each other.

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: A conflict born in the Mideast pits Muslims against Jews on the University of Michigan campus. Take on campus leaders and find out why one man's free speech sounds like another's hate speech today, as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about the sniper terrorizing the D.C. metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.

And Roland from New Jersey here in the audience, I want to hear your thoughts this story.

ROLAND: I think it's very -- it's a shame that it's happening. I think it hurts a lot of people. It cuts across a lot of different colors, backgrounds and things like that. I think that it's a person that is very hurt. And it's hurting a lot of other people.

NEVILLE: Interesting. OK, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

And I'm going to go to California now, where Damion is on the telephone.

Damion, what do you say?

CALLER: Hi, Arthel.

I'm a bit astonished and appalled that there are those in the media who operate with no regard or respect to the police investigation. The fact that they released the tarot card against this terrorist psycho's wishes and against the police officers' wishes is just sickening. And I support the family of the victim who was killed tragically last night.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Right. Let me get you to back up, Damion, just so I can clarify and understand, make sure I heard what you said, which is, you said you condemn who for...

CALLER: Well, now that the information has come out that the killer nor the police wanted the tarot card to be released to the media and that there are those in the media who have such a strong desire to get the scoop and the story...

NEVILLE: OK, but here's I want to clarify for you, Damion. And that is, someone from the police force leaked the information to the media, gave it to someone at Channel 9 WUSA out there in Maryland and said, "Here's the information."

CALLER: Well, I don't think that exonerates the media from any type of culpability. There is a responsibility that comes with being able to talk to the American public every day. And as soon as people in this country or those who have that power start taking that responsibility seriously, then we'll be a better-off nation, in my opinion.

NEVILLE: OK, Damion, hang on for me, if you can, because I want to ask Mr. Palumbo.

This is causing quite a stir, quite debate. Why did someone on the police department leak such crucial information?

PALUMBO: Just simply, I would just say accounted for as just being extremely irresponsible.

You know, I'm not going to probe or speculate as to what the motivation could be, except I will just simply say to you that it's a responsibility of a law enforcement agency to maintain the integrity of their investigation, part of which includes dissemination of information, which includes dissemination of information to the media.

They realize -- we all live in America today. Part of the function of the media is to disseminate information to the public. I think the gentleman from California's complaint was that there is little restraint by the media. And I have a tendency to agree with him. Unfortunately, I think maybe what he was upset about was the fact that the media at times look at information. They don't weigh how critical it might be or how it might compromise someone's safety or an investigation.

They're more concerned about getting it out as quickly as possible for ratings purposes. And I think that's a little bit about what he was upset about. But the fact of the matter is, the responsibility to covet information critical to an investigation rests in the hands of your law enforcement agencies.

NEVILLE: OK, Damion, thank you. If you had another little response, go ahead and throw it in there.

CALLER: Well, I think there's enough wrongness or there is enough blame to go around. I just think -- I already have a low opinion of the media, so this didn't help at all.

NEVILLE: Well, all right, listen, thank you for calling in. But the beauty is that you were able to use the media to express your opinion, so we appreciate your call.

In the meantime, Kevin from New Jersey, what do you say, sir?

KEVIN: Well, the one thing that I disagree about what they put on the news or spread about the information is what they showed about the caliber of the bullet. And you're going to have people who are going to commit other crimes that are going to try to use that to divert who they really are to make the people think that's the sniper.

NEVILLE: Oh, you mean like copycats could get ideas here.

KEVIN: That's a little bit too much to put out there. Some information is good, but then there's a line that you have to say, OK, we have to keep this information from the public because someone can use that to do what they want to do.

NEVILLE: Interesting.

Mr. Palumbo, what do you say to that?

PALUMBO: I agree with him.

Certain information that they have disseminated concerning the caliber size -- they haven't really spoken about what weapons they believe this particular -- these bullets are being fired from. They have to be very careful when they start to discuss things like ballistic fingerprinting and the significance of recovering a piece of evidence as critical as an empty casing at the scene of a shooting.

Simply stated, the law enforcement agencies know what they're doing. And it's their responsibility, I say once again, to carefully handle this information and to covet those bits of information that could potentially put this case at risk.

To just reiterate this issue about the caliber of the bullet and the empty casing, the exercise here is not to educate the person who is perpetrating these acts or give them a heads-up on how they can -- how not to feed us information. We want this individual to make mistakes, because that is one of the ways we may potentially catch him.

NEVILLE: I see.

PALUMBO: This gentleman is random. He's proficient. And he's mobile.

NEVILLE: Let me grab Dr. Taylor before I have to leave this segment here.

And I wanted to ask you, sir, how likely is it that these crimes may be being committed by one or more than one person, I should say?

TAYLOR: Well, it certainly is feasible.

We don't know, but it would not surprise me that there was more than one person. There could be a number of scenarios that you could find someone who had been in the military together. It could even be someone who is related to the other person. It's not unfounded. We don't know, so that's why we're in the dark right now.

NEVILLE: Dr. Carl Taylor and Lou Palumbo, thank you very much for joining us here today.

TAYLOR: Thank you.

PALUMBO: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And just ahead: Some students at the University of Michigan are trying to stop an upcoming pro-Palestinian conference. Do they have a case?

You decide after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Free speech or hate speech? That's the question surrounding a pro-Palestinian conference scheduled at the University of Michigan this weekend. Now, conference organizers are urging the university to divest in Israel. Critics charge the conference is anti-Semitic. And two university students are trying to stop the event.

We've invited student leaders to join us today. Richard Dorfman is among those suing. He is a member of the Michigan Student Zionists. Fadi Kiblawi is co-founder of the pro-Palestinian student group called SAFE. That's short for Students Allied for Freedom and Equality.

And I welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.

FADI KIBLAWI, CO-FOUNDER, STUDENTS ALLIED FOR FREEDOM & EQUALITY: Thank you.

RICHARD DORFMAN, MICHIGAN STUDENT ZIONISTS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, Fadi, I'm going to start with you.

Give me a synopsis of the mission of this conference.

KIBLAWI: Well, the main goal of this conference is very basic. We're just trying to open the circle of debate. We're trying to spark interest in people to learn more about what's happening in Israel and Palestine and give momentum to a movement, to a campaign that will work for peace in the region, peace for everybody, a peace based on justice and equality.

And that's through this divestment campaign, through urging our universities to cut financial ties to Israel, taken from a similar campaign against South African apartheid in the '80s.

NEVILLE: So are you suggesting that Israel's policies rise to the level of racist apartheid government in South Africa?

KIBLAWI: Well, I'm not the only one that suggests this. Anti- apartheid heroes from South Africa have also suggested this: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Ronnie Kasrils. And the list goes on.

But, yes, definitely, if you look at a map of the West Bank and Gaza, the occupied territories, and you see how the Palestinians have been isolated, denied very basic rights, the rights to move, all because of their religion, it's almost an exact copy of the Bantustans' homelands of apartheid South Africa. So yes.

NEVILLE: Yes, go ahead, Rick. I want to hear your response to Fadi's comments.

DORFMAN: I think that's appallingly anti-Semitic, absolutely baseless, and has absolutely no foundation to it whatsoever.

Claims of apartheid, apartheid was this terribly racist form of oppression against South African black people, the Africans. In Israel, Arab people -- I would support his claim if he could tell me one Arab nation that exists where Arabs are treated better than they are in Israel. In Israel, Arabs have the rights of free speech, have the rights to assembly. They vote one man, one vote. Arab women vote in Israel.

No Arabs vote anywhere else. Arabs living under Arafat's oppressive regime in the Palestinian territories, I feel for them. And they are oppressed people, but that is Arafat's fault. If you're going to be pro-Palestinian, be anti-Arafat, not anti-Israel.

NEVILLE: Fadi, I'm going to let you respond to that.

KIBLAWI: Can I respond to that?

NEVILLE: Yes.

KIBLAWI: All right, definitely.

OK, when you say all these things that the Arabs in Israel have, first, you have to look at the 3.6 million Palestinians that are denied the right to vote in the West Bank and in Gaza. And let me tell you something. For example, in the city of Nablus, they've been under curfew since July. And it's not Arafat that's telling them they can't leave their homes. It's not Arafat that's holding them at the checkpoints. It's not Arafat that's using excessive, indiscriminate force and has killed over 1,800 of them.

That's the Israeli occupation.

NEVILLE: OK, Rick, why do you want to prevent this convention from taking place? And why sue? Why not simply protest?

DORFMAN: Protest is a great forum. And we are protesting. In fact, Hillel (ph) organized an event. There were 1,000 people protesting this conference. And there's going to be a massive rally on Sunday, hundreds of people coming in from New York, from California, from Chicago, coming in to protest.

That is one facet. But how can I not sue? When there are legal grounds to sue, how can I sit on my hands?

NEVILLE: The university says there are no legal grounds to this case.

DORFMAN: How can I possibly sit on my hands and placate to anti- Semitism coming to my campus, coming to the university that I love? How can I sit on my hands and allow it to happen, like the Jews did in the 1920s in Europe, this level of anti-Semitism? We can't just say, "Let them have their silly little conference and then let's move on and it will go away."

The anti-Semitism is an attack. And there are going to people from all across the country coming to stand up and say: "We are not going to let you win. This is not acceptable. And we're not going to let this happen." We're suing the University of Michigan to stop this conference because incitement of violence is going to occur, based on the records of the speakers and of the organizers of the event.

NEVILLE: And I want you to expound on that after the break.

I do have to take a break right now, but we're going to hear what the university has to say about this shortly. I want to hear from you as well when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

Don't go anywhere. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being played out on the University of Michigan campus. And, Rick, I want to start with you on this block. What happened when you first told university administrators about your concern surrounding the conference?

DORFMAN: Well, actually, the administrators have been more than helpful. Several administrators, board of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Andrea Newman and Larry Deitch have come out and said that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) movement in itself is extremely anti-Semitic. President Coleman has come out and said that she refuses to divest. And The university has been really more than helpful in our attempt.

I guess the big problem is people are not understanding the division between free speech and incitement of violence. And the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the incitement of violence is not protected under the general Americans' right to free speech. And I think to understand incitement of violence...

NEVILLE: Why do you think this conference would advocate violence?

DORFMAN: Because of some of the speakers. I want to introduce to you Sami Al-Arian, who is the co-founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He sits on...

NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me.

Rick, I want you to stick to this topic here. I understand this is related in some ways, but I want you to stick to the basics here. And I want to ask you, Rick, why do you think this conference would advocate violence?

DORFMAN: I think this conference would advocate violence because you have speakers at the conference, like Sami Al-Arian, who has openly called for the killing of Jews. He organizes terrorist attacks in Israel. He raises money. He ran a charity in Florida. He's been condemned by the...

NEVILLE: So having said those things sir -- having said that -- hang on. Get me back to the students. You're there at the University of Michigan campus with the students. I'm trying to get that perspective.

DORFMAN: OK. I agree. I'm trying to help you. I understand. I just want to go in and make very clear that this is a man who smuggles terrorists into the United States.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, I'm going to go now to Florida, where Dean (ph) is standing by on the phone. Dean, what do you have to say?

CALLER: Yes, this cuts to the very core of the freedom of speech and the first amendment. The Middle East evokes a very emotional debate, and it's a shame that if you speak out against Israel you're automatically branded anti-Semitic. If you actually speak out pro Palestinian, you're more or less (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fanatical.

The question I have for you is, as long as violence is not the core of the conversation, why not bring some middle ground and why not bring some common ground, because there is such a long history of violence? And being on the left and the right, why not have a conference, where maybe some answers and some solutions might come to the very core?

NEVILLE: Fadi, I want to talk to you. Thanks, Dean (ph), for calling in.

Fadi, is this conference about anti-Semitism?

KIBLAWI: Oh, definitely not. We actually have Jewish speakers. We have a very renowned Israeli historian coming in from Tel Aviv, amongst many other Jewish speakers. Now that actually is very disturbing, trying to cast us as anti-Semitic. And the main goal of that is to try to stifle the debates.

They don't want us to have any open discourse on this. I think Dean's suggestion was very good. And I think that instead of trying to attack American values and first amendment constitutional rights, why don't you organize another conference? Why are you trying to shut down ours? And, on top of that, if you want to call this anti-Semitic you can use the same logic to call the divestment from South Africa movement anti-white.

NEVILLE: OK, Fadi. Let me ask you this. Some of the critics are saying that this conference will advocate violence.

KIBLAWI: No, it's definitely not advocating violence. In fact, some of our speakers are leading workshops on non-violent resistance. We've repeatedly spoken out against violence. In fact, I'm personally a pacifist, and we would never advocate violence outside the scope of international laws of warfare. It's definitely not advocating violence. It's simply advocating for a non-violent movement divesting from illegal occupation.

NEVILLE: And having said that, can you assure certain students at the University of Michigan that they are -- will remain safe after this sort of conference takes place, if it takes place this weekend?

KIBLAWI: Yes, this conference is taking place this weekend, and we can definitely -- we're working as hard as we can with the administration within our own communities to basically state that no matter how, you know, inciting that certain lawsuits might get, to remain, you know, peaceful, the way we are. And I want to turn back for one second. I want to make a suggestion.

I read through this lawsuit. I thought it was -- I read through it one time. I thought it was really funny, actually, because it's something you can see maybe in North Korea or some other oppressive state where you can't advocate freedom. And if you want to claim that somebody is a terrorist, call the FBI. Don't call CNN TALKBACK LIVE. Go to the FBI and report the evidence you have that somehow slipped past the federal government.

DORFMAN: Fadi, number one, the FBI currently has an investigation going on with Sami Al-Arian. Absolutely...

KIBLAWI: That's not true. He's been cleared by the FBI years ago.

DORFMAN: Absolutely it is. He has not been cleared by the FBI.

KIBLAWI: He was cleared by the FBI years ago.

DORFMAN: United States attorney (UNINTELLIGIBLE) keeps on saying there is a clear and present danger of Sami Al-Arian being absolutely -- it is, and very unlikely, very, very, very rare case to say that there was a clear and present danger. It's not a lie.

KIBLAWI: That's a lie.

DORFMAN: His name is Mack (ph). Anyway, Mr. non-violence over here published an article June 14 of 2001 in a University of Michigan periodical called Ari Sala (ph), in which he claims the enemies are not only overseas. They're also among us. "I feel it is enough to strap a bomb to one's self and blow one's self up in order to kill those racists."

He goes on and says "The Zionist racists are as bad -- the Zionist Nazis are as bad as Hitler's Nazis."

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Rick, I got all your points. I want to let him respond to it. Rick, hang on for me. Rick, I am doing my best here to give both of you equal time. Please allow me to do my job. Now I have to give Fadi some time on that response. But I'm going to give you a fair chance as well, OK?

KIBLAWI: Thank you, Arthel. Can I respond to that? Basically, this whole entire lawsuit, all these allegations, are baseless, their ridiculous. Their the type of things that might maybe pass in an oppressive regime where people don't have the first amendment right. This is an attack on America. I never really met this guy before until the other day. And I've had one run-in with him and, to be quite honest with you, I really think that he needs to seek mental health.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, go ahead, Rick. Go ahead, Rick. Don't hit him whatever you do.

DORFMAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's not going to solidify his claims. The general population understands that the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) movement is anti-Semitic. Its aims are to destroy the state of Israel. There's nothing more anti-Semitic. Israel acts as the single greatest and legitimate method of self-defense against anti-Semitism. Terrorists are coming to this campus. NEVILLE: Hey, Rick, can you hear me? Rick, can you hear me? OK, Rick Dorfman and Fadi Kiblawi, thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.

Up next, Andy Rooney has found another place women don't belong. You tell us if you agree when we go to the sidelines after this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Andy Rooney complains about a lot of things. It's part of his job on "60 Minutes." But did he go too far when he complained about women sports reporters during an interview on MSG Network's Boomer Esiason show? When asked about female sideline reporters, here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY ROONEY, COMMENTATOR: The only thing that really bugs me about television coverage is those damn women they have down on the sideline who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I mean I'm not a sexist person, but a woman has no business being down there trying to make some comment about a football game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: All right, Andy. I don't know. But anyway, it's Esiason, Boomer's last name, by the way. Wanted to clarify that, correct it.

All right. I mean I can see a lot of you here are ready to jump in on this conversation, along with our guests, Wendy Hilliard, former president of the women's sports foundation, a former sports broadcaster and now managing director of sports for New York City 2012, an effort to bring the Olympics to the Big Apple in 2012.

Also, Steve Malzberg, a radio talk show host on WABC and a columnist for newsmax.com, also a regular here on TALKBACK LIVE. Welcome to both of you.

STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALKSHOW HOST: Hi.

WENDY HILLIARD, FORMER SPORTS BROADCASTER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: All right, Wendy. So Andy Rooney says he doesn't think much of the female sideline reporters at NFL games. Is it sexist? Is it offensive? Do you think Andy Rooney should apologize?

HILLIARD: Well, it is sexist and it is offensive. It's something you wouldn't expect from a seasoned journalist just to comment like that. Of course, Andy Rooney says a lot of things that I think a lot of people don't agree with, but still it was very irresponsible. And you really have to respect those reporters that are professional and they know their game and they're doing their job. And that's first and foremost.

NEVILLE: Well, Steve, you know Mr. Rooney also said that he doesn't think much of the male sideline reporters either. Does that make it better, soften the blow?

MALZBERG: Well, it kind of does soften the blow. Let's just hope that CBS doesn't do to him what they did to Jimmy the Greek when he made his unfortunate remarks. I think that we have to face facts.

It used to be, until recently, that the people on the sidelines were former players who knew the game inside out the way someone who hasn't played the game really can't know it. And that made sense to have these people down there asking the coach, asking the players, or commenting on their own about something that had just taken place or is going to take place.

The women are there. They may know the game a lot better than me, but they're there because the men, the audience want to look at a pretty face, want to look at a woman. That's why they're there.

NEVILLE: How can you say that? Wait a minute. You're implying that they're not qualified, Steve?

MALZBERG: How can I say that? I just said they may know the game better than me. I am not saying they don't know the game. I'm saying they're there, in my opinion, because they have a pretty face and that's why some schlumpy guy isn't down there and it's a pretty girl.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on. You know what, for years, schlumpy guys have been around.

Wendy, what do you say about this?

HILLIARD: Well, you know, Steve, you're making just as many irresponsible comments as Andy Rooney.

MALZBERG: What did I say that's irresponsible?

HILLIARD: Well, it's irresponsible to assume that's why they're there for their job. And, also, to assume that all of the other sideline reporters were former football players, which is not true. Well this is what I'm saying. So you can't make an exemption for a woman or a man.

The first thing you have to do is be a good journalist. The next thing you have to do is know your game of football. And the other thing is you have to realize you have to be able to report it. If you're going to be sexist and talking about the looks and things like that, you have to stop at first one.

You don't know the reasoning that everyone has back there. But the first thing is, they have to know their game. And it's very irresponsible and disrespectful to say otherwise.

MALZBERG: There is nothing irresponsible and disrespectful. If I say they know the game, I'm telling you why they're there and not somebody who played the game and would be more of an authoritative figure to the viewer watching at home, and that's an ex player.

HILLIARD: What do you mean more of an authoritative figure? Let me tell you this. As you just commented, not all former sideline reporters are former athletes, and that's true. So why are you saying that someone else who hasn't played the game it more authoritative than a woman who hasn't played the game?

MALZBERG: Look, we have a double standard here. Let's go to the locker room for a second. Do you know that in the NBA the women go into the locker rooms after a game and the men, I guess if they don't want to be seen, have to towel up? But after a WNBA game, do you know that there are special rules that apply when men go into a locker room?

NEVILLE: Rules like what, Steve?

MALZBERG: Rules that the women don't -- you know, have to stay in uniform, can't go shower. Rules that impede the women players themselves. They can't shower, they can't change until the men and everybody is out of the locker room. And there's a double standard here.

I mean I'm not saying that men reporters want to look at these women naked. But for crying out loud, if we've advanced so far, then a man going into a female locker room should have the same access and it should be the same kind of environment as a woman going into a men's locker room.

NEVILLE: All right. I've got Britt (ph) here from in the audience. Go ahead, Britt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I honestly believe that most men at one point in their life or not have played football and they know the emotions and some of the situations that it actually takes to be on the field, whereas most females have not played...

NEVILLE: I know you're not going to imply that playing sand lot football compares to knowing what it's like to playing in the NFL.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am saying that.

NEVILLE: Oh, come on, Britt. Let's take some e-mails right now.

OK. Let's see. It's coming from Ontario, Lisa (ph). She says, "The problem for Andy isn't that women can't talk football. It's the fact that they distract him from the game. Andy, listen to what they say and not what they look like."

I have another one coming in now -- another e-mail that is from Mark (ph). He says, "A woman talking about football is like men talking about the pain of childbirth." Mark, I surely wish you had told me where you were writing in from. Mark, come on. That's nowhere. Listen, Wendy, recent studies have shown that female sportscasters are still not regarded -- not regarded as having the same level of sports knowledge as their male counterparts. And just wondering if you think this view can ever be changed.

HILLIARD: Well, I think it will be changed and I think a lot of it has to be generational. I think that younger men and women who are growing up seeing more female reporters and sports reporters in general are going to feel more comfortable with that. Men that are over, let's say 80 years old, are maybe going to have more of a problem with that. But the key is education.

People didn't take women's professional basketball seriously. They didn't think women could play soccer very well, and they go on and win the World Cup. So it's a lot of education. It's always been a big push. You know there are over 1,600 young women playing football in high school now.

MALZBERG: I don't think the problem is just with men over 80. Ask yourself this question -- or answer me this question: Why aren't there any women in the NFL football booths? At lease as far as I know, there aren't. NBC tried it many years ago. It didn't work. Nobody has tried it since? Why not?

HILLIARD: You know I can't personally answer the question, but you have to ask how many jobs there are. Why aren't there more men in the...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Wendy, I have to take a break right now.

Coming up later, I'm going to read some of your e-mails about Charles Barkley joining the show. Also, we're going to hear what Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say about Harry Belafonte's criticisms. That's all ahead on TALKBACK LIVE. Don't go anywhere. We're going to continue talking sports next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about Andy Rooney's comment that women have no business reporting on football from the sidelines. And Marty (ph), you are a former sportscaster. You say what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Howard Cosell is acknowledged as one of the best football broadcasters. I don't think he ever played. John Madden today is at the top of his game. I would like to know the last time he stepped on a football field.

He was a coach. That's a little bit different perspective. But you don't have to play the game in order to report on it and have a perspective on the game.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And Stacey (ph) is standing by on the phone in Texas. Go ahead, Stacey.

CALLER: Yes, ma'am. I just would like to comment on the word whether they belong there or not. I think that's a little bit vague. If you say that someone belongs somewhere or they don't belong somewhere, that can limit what that person wants to do or how they want to do their job. Anybody that doesn't do a good job can look like they don't belong somewhere.

NEVILLE: All right, Stacey. Thank you for calling in here to TALKBACK LIVE.

And I have Bob in the audience from Alabama. What do you say, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I just like to think if we follow the train of thought that women don't belong there just because they're women or not have played the game means that most of our reporters should not be commenting on international news because they're not veterans of the State Department and served overseas in an embassy.

NEVILLE: All right. Thank you very much.

Hey, Wendy, I know you know that Jill Arrington posed for "Him" and "Maxim" magazines recently? Do you think this hurts the credibility of all female sportscasters?

HILLIARD: Well it's always difficult to have the mix. And when you want to try and get some attention from different media, it's better always to be judged on your talent, first and foremost. But I think what really -- especially the issue that we're talking about now, is that especially the female reporters that are down on the field right now have had to work so hard and overcome so much. And so they're much more qualified than I think they can even portray on television.

And you have to be very careful with your image and you have to be more patient with the American audience. I'm very surprised at some of the comments, but I think the most important comment is you have to be judged on your merit.

NEVILLE: So in the meantime, though, do you think that seeing someone like Jill Arrington pose for those types of magazines, does that set women back in sports?

HILLIARD: It's always a challenge when you have something like that and it's not preferable. But it's her choice in getting some attention. But you have to look at the other reporters that are out there that are trying to get it based on their job and their work. So it's a very delicate situation and women are often put into that challenge, which is unfortunate. But eventually we're going to overcome that.

NEVILLE: Steve, 15 seconds.

MALZBERG: It shouldn't set women back. It's an individual making an individual choice. But, again, if I'm running a network, I'm going to go to the most popular ex player I can find to be on the sidelines. And show me one ugly or not good looking woman on the sidelines and you'll be making my point, because you can't do it.

NEVILLE: Wendy Hilliard and Steve Malzberg, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

Up next, Secretary of State Colin Powell reacts to being compared to a house slave. Does Harry Belafonte owe Powell an apology? We'll be back after this break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Yesterday we told you about comments Harry Belafonte made about Secretary of State Colin Powell. Let me refresh your memory. During an interview on San Diego radio station KFMB Belafonte compared Powell to a house slave.

He said, "There is an old saying in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master, exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.

"Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

And Powell was asked about that comment last night during an interview on "LARRY KING LIVE." Let's listen to his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's unfortunate that Harry used that characterization. I'm very proud to be serving my nation. Once again, I'm very proud to be serving this president.

If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine. If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throw back to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. And rounding out today's show, your response to Charles Barkley. Yesterday we introduced him as TALKBACK LIVE's new weekly contributor. And a lot of you flooded us with e-mail.

Here's a sample: From Paul in Ohio, "What credentials does Mr. Barkley have that he deserves a weekly appearance? I think I'll pass on watching your show when he's on."

OK. Then from Robin (ph) in Texas. It says, "Charles Barkley shoots from the hip. He says what his on his mind and is honest and forthright with his opinions. He is good for America and I wish our politicians would be more like him."

But Fred in Illinois writes, "You lost me by adding Barkley to your show, who is nothing but an obnoxious, egotistical idiot. No thanks."

Fuzz (ph) in Kansas is impressed by Barkley's charity. He says, "After hearing what you are doing for your home neighborhood my opinion of you has changed. Forget the hype, you are a real man."

Jewel (ph) in Oregon wants to know, "Why did CNN choose Charles Barkley as a commentator? His opinion is no more valued or more important just because he is famous. How about getting a commentator who actually knows something?"

And this advice from Dominique (ph) in Florida, "Tell it like it is, Charles. If more people were as frank as you the world would be a better place."

Well, that is it for today. We are out of time. Thanks so much for watching, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville and I'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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




Pro-Palestinian Conference on Michigan Campus Provokes Protests, Lawsuit>