Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Free-For-All Friday for October 18, 2002

Aired October 18, 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.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday."

We lead today with the sniper investigation. Prosecutors are considering charges against a discredited witness, but police say they don't want that fact to discourage others from telling what they know. We're going to ask our panelists today what they think about this case and whether the unreliable witness should be prosecuted.

And then later, a Baltimore, Maryland, woman and her five children were killed in a fire. Police accuse a man with a drug history of torching their home. There is concern the fire was an act of retaliation against the family that tried to rid its neighborhood of drugs. Did police do enough to protect them?

And then later, music behind bars: Should killers, rapists and thugs be allowed to gain fame in prison? A new VH1 special is raising a lot of controversy and anger.

But first, we're going to go to Montgomery County, Maryland, where CNN's Daryn Kagan has the latest on the smite -- you know what, Daryn? I've got to tell you something. Not to get off the subject here, but I just had a piece of chocolate for my hypoglycemia. I'm having a little trouble with it right now -- but back to the serious news. I had to explain what was going on with me -- Daryn.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: That's OK. How about I take it from here and you can kind of get a sip of water or something back there in Atlanta?

I can tell this. We are more than 3 1/2 days since the last shooting. That is the longest stretch of time since these shootings began more than two weeks ago. Kind of an eerie feeling around here on this Friday, because, since the shootings began, the sniper has always struck on Friday. But so far so good.

I can tell you that topic you were bringing up, Arthel, about prosecuting the guy who gave bogus information about the Monday night shooting outside the Home Depot store, prosecutors saying, even though they're not pleased, that's really going to be a low priority for them. They want all their resources right now to go after finding this sniper.

How you doing now? NEVILLE: You know, much better. I had a glass of water. Thanks for asking.

KAGAN: Good. Good.

NEVILLE: OK, Daryn, well, listen, everybody, of course, is very interested in what's going on with this case.

And here to talk about the sniper investigation and our other "Free-For-All Friday" topics are: Victoria Jones, a radio talk show host and a special correspondent with Talk Radio News Service. She joins us from Washington.

Hello, Victoria. How are you today?

VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

WABC radio talk show host Mark Simone is in New York.

Hey, Mark.

MARK SIMONE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hey. How are you?

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

And Judge Greg Mathis, star of his own syndicated TV show, joins us right here in Atlanta. He has a new book called "Inner City Miracle."

Hello, Judge.

And political columnist Rich Galen is the publisher of Mullings.com and joins us from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to you as well, Rich.

RICH GALEN, PUBLISHER, MULLINGS.COM: Nice to be with you.

NEVILLE: Well, listen, Victoria, I'm going to start with you today.

If this guy intentionally lied, should charges be filed?

JONES: Yes, they probably should. But, frankly, it's not that much of a big deal. There are always people who come forward as false witnesses. There are always lunatics who make false confessions. I am sure there have been a lot of people who have phoned in totally phony, very-good-sounding stuff on the tip lines.

So, yes, they can go after him and try and make an example of him. But the kind of lunatics who do this are not going to be deterred by this guy being prosecuted.

NEVILLE: Mark, what do you think? GALEN: That's one of the reasons that police are very sensitive about releasing all of the details that they know, because that's how they test some of these witnesses. If they say something that's clearly different from what they know from their own either observation or forensics, then they know that that witness is probably not to be trusted.

They know who this person is. They know where to find him. And they can go back and prosecute him some other time. But, right now, I think right that it's correct that they are focusing their resources on trying to find the sniper.

NEVILLE: But what do you think should happen to him, Rich?

GALEN: Well, I think that, unless there is some clear evidence of mental illness, I think that, probably, at some point there ought to be some level of prosecution. I'm not sure that jail time is necessary. But there's probably something that ought to be done to -- if they find that the guy did this because he was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame, then I think that's prosecutable, just to show him that it doesn't work that way.

NEVILLE: And Judge Mathis.

JUDGE GREG MATHIS, AUTHOR, "INNER CITY MIRACLE": Yes, absolutely. They must be able to determine that it was intentional in order for them to prosecute him. If he intentionally misled a police investigation, that is obstruction of justice and he certainly should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law in such a serious case as this.

NEVILLE: So what could happen to him?

MATHIS: Well, he could be punished by up to a number of years in prison for obstruction of justice. On the other hand, filing a false police report or misleading information could be as small as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

NEVILLE: Police are -- they've chastised the media for going with unconfirmed reports.

And I want to know, Mark, do you think the media would be helping in this situation or hurting?

SIMONE: Well, I think the media is going to help, because the only way this guy is going to get caught is by somebody calling in something, a tip. And that's why this other guy has to be prosecuted. If there was ever a case where you were going to go after somebody for false information, this would be it. And his punishment should be to have to stand out there every night and pump gas for people.

JONES: I like that.

SIMONE: He has done nothing but hurt...

(LAUGHTER) GALEN: He can come here and do mine.

MATHIS: Put him in the line of fire, huh?

JONES: But, you know, what is so strange about all this is, we keep hearing that the media to blame, the media to blame for that. Anything that the media have has been leaked to them by somebody, very often from somebody in the police who feels that this information should get out.

And, frankly, I work better as a citizen with more information and not less, and I think most people do.

SIMONE: Well, just because somebody leaked it and snuck around it and passed it to you doesn't mean you're being responsible by broadcasting it.

NEVILLE: But what should you do, then, Mark?

JONES: Not necessarily, but I'm not talking about me as a media person. I'm talking about me as a citizen. If I know that the guy is weird, has very big guns, and also has weirdness with tarot cards, that gives me a heck more a clue than if I didn't know about the tarot card.

SIMONE: Yes, but if it's unconfirmed, it could be false information. Somebody leaked out our battle plans for Iraq. That's not helping anybody.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Mark, did you talk about it on your radio show?

JONES: Under your premise, nobody should ever say anything to the media. Let's just get rid of them.

NEVILLE: Hey, Mark, did you talk about it on your radio show?

SIMONE: Yes. There's certain things that would be helpful to broadcast. But you don't want everything that's leaked to you.

NEVILLE: But did you talk about the tarot card? Did you talk about the AK-74?

SIMONE: Well, I have to plead a little guilty here, yes.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: You're not that new at this. You know how to dodge these kinds of questions.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm going to go to the phones now. I have Lee on the phone, calling in from Fairfax County, Virginia.

Lee, what do you say? Are you still there, Lee?

Listen, Judge Mathis, I want to get to you, because I want to know if, in your opinion, you think having this unreliable witness come to the foreground, is this really a big setback in this case?

MATHIS: I don't think so. I think that whatever information he may have given them that was either misleading or false, they spent very a minimal amount of time pursuing that lead. So, therefore, it is really becoming a distraction, a distraction that may be necessary if they want to focus more -- if the media wants to focus more on this rather than giving out the secrets of the investigation, maybe it's a good distraction.

But, certainly, as just stated, he deserves to be prosecuted if he intentionally misled the police. But I don't think it distracted the investigation very much.

JONES: Arthel, could I just say something? I may be speaking for Rich here also. For those of us who live here, I don't hear anybody talking about him. Most of us are talking about who it is and when the next hit is going to be and where we go and where we don't go. So it doesn't seem to have impacted us too much.

GALEN: But I think that's because there was no immediate effect, negative effect of the guy doing it. If he had given out bad information and there had been a shooting with a completely different vehicle and the police had been led astray, that might be different.

But I think that's exactly right. Victoria is correct. Here, that IS an old story that we cared about for about 13 seconds. Now we're worried about where to go shopping for groceries.

NEVILLE: And, Victoria, I was going to get to that point, which is, with so much police coverage there -- now at the Pentagon -- do you think it's likely that the sniper will strike again? Hopefully not.

JONES: Wow. I'm not a criminal profiler, but, yes, I think he is going to strike again. The only reason I think he would stop is if he's dead or he's been caught for some other crime. I don't see why he would stop. He's winning. He's showing us all how brilliant he is, according to him. I think he'll do it again.

But I think he's enjoying the waiting. I think he likes torturing. And I think he's probably planning another very good escape route that is going to thwart us again. This is a very sadistic person.

NEVILLE: Let's hear what Logan has to say.

LOGAN: I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Judge Mathis. Earlier, you said the person should be prosecuted to the full amount. These are people's lives. That someone had the audacity to lie about for their 15 minutes of fame and people are dying I think is a tragedy, personally. So I think they should go to jail and face the consequences.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

Listen, I have to take a break right now. Thanks, Logan, for standing up. I've got to take a break right now.

But coming up: Is there a terror link in the sniper case? Call us and tell us what you think about this. We're going to talk about it after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): The sniper is making life anything but normal for people around the nation's capital, just when police thought they were getting help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's criminal, as far as I'm concerned. They should arrest him for false reporting.

NEVILLE: What should be done to a witness who gives false leads and clues to the police?

That and more when TALKBACK LIVE returns.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about the sniper investigation.

And before I get back to the panel, I want to go the telephones now, where Allison is standing by in Maryland.

What do you say, Allison?

CALLER: Yes.

I don't think it's fair that they should ban hunting in Anne Arundel County, which the sniper hasn't even hit in Anne Arundel County. And it's very sad. My boyfriend is highly upset about it, because he can't go hunting now because of the sniper, who is not even down this way.

NEVILLE: Allison?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: But what about the people who actually do live in that area? I mean, I think they're concerned about guns for a pretty good reason, don't you think? CALLER: Well, yes, I understand that. But I am on private property, where there is no way that the gun or the bullets that he shoots from can even hurt anyone.

NEVILLE: OK, Allison, listen. Thank you for calling.

Panel, I'm not sure if anybody wants to -- Victoria, I think you're shaking your head no. Do you want to say something?

JONES: Allison, get over yourself, for crying out loud, and stop being so selfish.

GALEN: Yes, pick up that baby in that background.

JONES: Leave Bambi alone for a few days.

NEVILLE: Yes.

GALEN: Well, I don't have any problem with hunting generally. But things are so tense here, I'm not sure that people who live outside this area have a real sense of the visceral reaction that people inside this area have having to the situation.

And anything that resembles a gunshot -- I will tell you that I have never noticed as many white vans before as I'm looking for now. It seems like everybody is driving some kind of white van. So I think that, with the heightened sense of almost panic here, that -- Anne Arundel County, for those outside of this area, is about two counties away from the Washington metropolitan area. That's where Annapolis is.

And it is quite a distance, but it's about as far on one end as Fredericksburg is on the other. So it's within the danger zone, I think, up in this area.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, I want to -- oh, go ahead, Judge. I think you want to say something.

MATHIS: Yes. I was going to say it's unfortunate, but many of us must make sacrifices in time of terror. And, unfortunately, ma'am, yes, your husband or boyfriend may have to eliminate a few days of hunting that so others of us won't be hunted. So please make that sacrifice for your fellow man if you don't care about yourself.

NEVILLE: That's right.

OK, listen, Rich, I want to get to you now. Authorities are going to question detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but there is no evidence at this point that this is related to terrorism. I wanted to know what you think?

GALEN: Well, Victoria and I were talking about this during the break. It depends on where you are in this area.

In my section, which is down at Old Town Alexandria, which is at the southern edge of the metropolitan area, the prevailing theory now is that it's not only two people, but it's two people who may be tied to terrorism. And the reason that people, in conversation -- this is the only conversation going on around here -- is that they think that that's why there hasn't been anybody bragging in a bar or anybody telling their girlfriend about it or boyfriend about it, depending upon the gender.

But there is the theory running around my end of the district that this is two people who may have ties to terrorism and they're trained to do this and not say anything about it.

NEVILLE: Mark?

GALEN: But I have no idea, clearly.

NEVILLE: Mark?

SIMONE: Well, the reason nobody is bragging about it in a bar is, these guys usually turn out to be loners who aren't that sociable and are hanging out in bars.

I don't think it's terrorism because there has never been a terrorist act where the terrorist tried to disguise it as something else. They always want it clear that it is terrorism. That's how it works.

NEVILLE: OK.

MATHIS: And then, secondly, the other thing we don't see is -- the usual method of operation is to cause hundreds of casualties at one time or cause some type of damage to a major economic interest. So this is different method of operation.

GALEN: Well, Judge, I've got to tell you, the economic interests in the Washington area have been damaged and are being damaged. We are again back as we were after 9/11. Tourism is down dramatically. Shopping is down dramatically. It is having an impact. I don't know that it's terrorism, but if it is, it's working.

JONES: Arthel, to go back to the Guantanamo Bay aspect of this, I think that's really quite intriguing, because I don't know whether the captives on Guantanamo Bay know this is going on. But if I was one of them and I was being interrogated about it, I might say that, yes, it is connected to terrorism, just to throw them off.

NEVILLE: Which is very possible.

JONES: So I don't know they're necessarily going to find out that way.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mark. I'm going to come back to you.

Brian from California.

BRIAN: I just don't think it makes a difference whether it's somebody local or someone from overseas. We should search for them in the same manner. We should prosecute them in the same manner. We should do our best to stop it.

NEVILLE: OK, go ahead, Mark.

SIMONE: Well, the reason we were talking to the Guantanamo people was, al Qaeda had had sniper training. But from what we know of that, it was for the purpose of assassination, for going after leaders. If this were terrorism, you would see it happening in three cities at once.

NEVILLE: That's an interesting point.

Let me get -- how do you say your name, ma'am?

BUNNY: Bunny (ph).

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

BUNNY: I just personally feel that, you know what? It's in our country right now. And we just need to follow up and go with what the credible clues are and go with that and get this person who is doing that just unlawful thing and just capture him, because we don't care who it is. We need to capture him, so we don't have any more people dying out there.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Listen, I have to take a break right now.

And coming up next: diplomatic maneuvering in the wake of North Korea's nuclear bombshell. What can the White House do now? We're going to hear from our panel and you. So give us a call or e-mail us.

More TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

North Korea dropped a bombshell on diplomatic ties with the U.S. by admitting that it has a nuclear weapons program. Intelligence officials say it could be Russia, Pakistan or even China who supplied help to the North Koreans. Pakistan and Russia deny their involvement.

President Bush says he wants to keep his options open. But how do you think the U.S. should respond?

Mark, I'll start with you on this segment.

If Pakistan, Russia or China is involved in any way, what can and should the U.S. do in response?

SIMONE: Well, there is nothing much we can do right now, except a lot of diplomatic pressure. North Korea has a history of doing things like this to cause an uproar and then get some kind of reward to give it up. And, actually, Russia and China have more to worry about here than we do in this case.

NEVILLE: Judge?

MATHIS: I think we should take it up with the United Nations. That's the body of government that kind of is the authority on worldwide issues. And when diplomatic relations go sour, that's where it should go.

Kofi Annan is a great secretary-general. He's doing a great job. And I think we should take it up there. If they determine there needs to be international sanctions against them or whatever the result, let's follow it. We must follow the United Nations. We cannot give them the power and then not follow it.

NEVILLE: Victoria.

JONES: Well, I agree with the judge certainly very much as with regards to the United Nations. Absolutely, we should.

But what I'm fascinated with is: Are we surprised? I thought they were No. 1 on the axis of evil. Obviously, they have dropped to No. 2. But didn't we all assume that they did have something like this? So, OK, they've confirmed it. And I agree with Mark on the reasons why. But I don't think I'm surprised. And they're a very wacky regime.

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: Saying that they admitted to this like they've done some good deed is nonsense. The reason they admitted to it -- I wrote a column about this this morning -- is because we showed them the photographs that we had of the fact that they had been cheating since 1994.

NEVILLE: Right.

GALEN: And we asked them, "Are you building a nuclear weapon?" They said no. We said, "What about these photos?"

They went: "Oh, yes, well, we are. Do you want some more kimchi? This is just nonsense, to try to say that they're good people because they fessed up. They didn't fess up. We caught them.

JONES: Who is saying that? Nobody is saying they're good people.

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: Listen, the United Nations -- if everybody has known about this, Victoria, and the United Nations has known about it since 1994, then the United Nations has no capacity to do anything to stop them.

JONES: Hey, we're the tough guys now. Why didn't we do anything about it?

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: I didn't say we knew about it. You did.

MATHIS: One of the other issues here: Have they expressed the type of hate and venomous that we've seen coming from fundamentalists of Islam over in the Mideast, like Iraq? They've expressly indicated that they hate the United States, they hate Americans, they want to kill us. We haven't heard that, to my knowledge, from North Korea. So it's a different situation.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: So, then, Judge, who is the bigger threat, Iraq or North Korea?

MATHIS: Absolutely Iraq. It's a hotbed over in Iraq of politics, of venomous towards the United States and so toward our allies over in that region, toward our interests over in that region, etcetera.

And it's totally different with North Korea. We don't have the same interests over there. And we don't have the same venomous and hate coming from North Korea.

JONES: Right. We don't care if the North Koreans are systematically starving their own people because they're spending all the money on military things. And I agree, in terms of national interest, we don't care. In terms of humanitarian interest, we should care.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Guys, hang on here.

GALEN: We made a deal with them in 1994 wherein they promised not to do this exact thing in return for all these good things we were going to do for them.

JONES: But they're not good guys, so why would you expect them to keep their promise?

GALEN: It was your president, not mine, that made the deal.

JONES: I don't care whose president it was. I thought we all lived in the same country here, Rich.

NEVILLE: A promise is a promise.

Listen, Bill from Michigan, what do you say?

BILL: Happy birthday, first of all.

Listen, I think that we can't be listening to everybody who wants to hold us for ransom. It's like, "You give us this much money and we won't carry through with the bombs." And Iraq is a much bigger threat. But I think, sooner or later, we're going to have to deal with everybody who has nuclear capabilities, because -- but like has been said, the passions are higher right now for Iraqis. But we've got to take them one at a time. We can't fight a war on all...

NEVILLE: So who is first?

BILL: Iraq, of course.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.

OK, listen, Jane from Virginia, what do you say?

CALLER: Hi, Arthel.

I think that, as tragic as it is that North Korea does have nuclear warheads, I think that somebody needs to call the Bush administration on this rhetoric, because it is one or the other: Weapons of mass destruction, you go over there, you do what you need to do, or not. North Korea is no different.

NEVILLE: OK, Jane, thank you for calling in.

Listen, we're going to take a break right now.

Up next: a very disturbing story of drugs, arson and the death of a Baltimore family. Did one mother's fight to make a neighborhood safe wind up killing her and her family?

More TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment. Don't go anywhere, please.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

Police say a Baltimore woman's crusade against drugs in her neighborhood cost her her life and the lives of five of her six children. Angela Dawson's husband is the only one who survived an arson fire that ravaged their home, but he's in critical condition with burns over 80 percent of his body. Police arrested a 21-year-old neighbor they say set the fire in retaliation for the family's anti- drug crusade.

Judge Mathis, now, some people say police should have done more to protect the family. Should they have?

JUDGE GREG MATHIS, "JUDGE MATHIS": Absolutely. This was an act of terror that occurs in inner cities throughout America for years -- it has been occurring. And this type of terror needs similar attention as the type of terror we see coming from foreigners.

NEVILLE: Victoria, how do you see it?

VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Absolutely. It does need that kind of attention. But unfortunately people who live in places like the badlands in Baltimore are often regarded as throw-away people. And so they're really not protected. And this woman was incredibly brave in speaking out and to the drug dealers in her area. And she had already been threatened.

They had already had some kind of firebomb. But, again, it's an area where if this had happened in a rich white area, I think there would be a lot of attention being paid to it. But unfortunately, because it's five people who are dead, we're getting attention. If it was just her who was killed, we wouldn't be getting this attention.

RICH GALEN, PUBLISHER, MULLINGS.COM: You know there is a parallel here, and I don't want to stretch it too far, but I'm going to stretch it to some degree, though. A parallel here, that I think what everybody is asking for, that the police should have taken some kind of preemptive action against the drug dealers because they knew this family was in danger.

And it is that exact argument that the president has been using on the issue of Iraq, that we need to take preemptive action. And my friends on the left who are opposed to that kind of action, their position puts them in the same place as this poor woman and her family. They have to wait until they come and burn her house down before we do anything.

JONES: Well, you can speak for other people on the left, Rich, but please don't presume to speak for me.

MATHIS: I don't think he has any friends on the left. But in any event, the question was, what should have been done. And so I still haven't heard your answer to that, Mr...

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: Part of the answer to that is decriminalizing drugs. Obviously, the war on drugs is a complete and utter and total failure.

MATHIS: Absolutely.

GALEN: The neighborhood -- the neighborhood didn't want to join this family. If they would have gone in as a neighborhood to stop this, then it would have cleaned the neighborhood up.

NEVILLE: Rich, time out. Rich, look what happened. Rich, look what happened, OK? This family stood up. This woman stood up...

GALEN: Because they stood by themselves.

NEVILLE: So do you think someone else would do anything?

GALEN: Well, they should have. That's why we have to take the kind of action that takes this out of the hands of the bad guys first.

MATHIS: That's why we have to have...

GALEN: My point is that in every big city in this country neighbors have decided to take their neighborhood back: black, white, Latinos.

MATHIS: That's vigilante justice. Neighbors should not have to defend themselves.

GALEN: Neighbors should act together, judge.

MATHIS: No, sir. That's vigilante justice.

GALEN: If the neighbors act together they can clean up their neighborhood.

MATHIS: Those people pay taxes like every other neighborhood in America. They deserve the same amount of protection. They should not have to resort to vigilante justice.

GALEN: I'm on the side of more police action. I think that the police should have done more as well. What I am saying is that the neighbors apparently were more interested in protecting themselves, allowing the drug culture to survive, than they were in joining together with the cops.

NEVILLE: You know, Rich, I don't think you can make a blanket statement like this.

GALEN: Sure I can. I just did it. I'll do it again.

NEVILLE: Look at these people. This family stood up and look what happened to them.

GALEN: Because the neighbors didn't join hands to take back their streets.

MATHIS: No, because of government neglect. Because of police authorities that neglected to go into the inner city and protect them as they have...

GALEN: How do you know that? You have no idea what you're talking about, judge.

MATHIS: Oh, I know. I've been there and I've done that. I've lived in those communities. You have no idea.

GALEN: You didn't live in that community, you lived in...

MATHIS: Because you've lived somewhere, some lofty suburb most of your life, if you've lived in the United States at all, and are totally out of touch with what's happening in the inner city.

And I know what's happening. I've been there, I've done that and I've adjudicated throughout the inner city.

Don't tell me I don't know. You don't know. You and your friends on the right don't know.

NEVILLE: OK. Now I'm going to get Logan (ph) in here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to direct this comment to Mr. Rich Galen. How can you make the analogy this family is anything like Iraq? You said that they should have went in there...

GALEN: No, no, no. Quite the opposite. I think -- absolutely not. I said the situation is like Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not the same. That's absolutely incorrect. This is a family. These are children. This is America.

Iraq is in Iraq. If we can't take care of ourselves in America we can't even go to Iraq if we can't take care of what's going on...

JONES: I totally agree with you, my friend. And what Rich is suggesting is preemptively arresting people in this country who haven't yet committed a crime. If you know, my goodness, you're talking about precogs in minority reports. The department of pre- crime? Is that what you want to be the minister of, Rich?

GALEN: Victoria, the report was that they tried to firebomb us once before and the cops didn't do anything. If they would have gone in and taken the preemptive action that I'm recommending, this family would be alive.

JONES: But you're speaking in terms of policy, and that's very scary. I don't want to be arrested for something I'm thinking about.

NEVILLE: OK, panel. Hang on one second for me. I have Tyrone (ph) here, who grew up in Baltimore.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma'am. You know I grew up in an area called Walbrook Junction (ph), in that same part of town. And it's easy to sit here, like Judge Mathis says, and live somewhere else and talk about how you deal with these kind of issues. It's not that simple.

You know my mom lives there. My mom is in her late 50s, you know, and she's there alone for the most part, and I worry about her every day.

You know there was a time when we were young, you could get up in the morning and go out and do things and everyone looked after each other. Well now the guns have taken over. I mean it's not about speaking up. Right now it's fear.

And like Judge Mathis said also, if the police are not going to do anything, what do you do? Do you continue to live in fear or do you look somewhere else? Do you move?

The man that said he lives in Alexandria, Virginia, that's a big difference from Baltimore, Maryland, East and West Baltimore. OK? It's a major difference.

So don't talk about Iraq. We need to deal with what's going on in our own country. NEVILLE: And that is the last word. By the way, Rich Galen, I want to let you know I know you took a lot of heat in that segment. No one is double-teaming you here, but, you know what, your comments I guess solicited that reaction. All right.

Listen, coming up, in the quest to get viewers, is one TV show crossing the line? A music channel's behind the scenes look at jailhouse bands is creating outrage with a victims' rights group who ask, why showcase the music of convicted criminals while the victims and their families are still suffering?

More TALKBACK LIVE when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

A show called "Music Behind Bars" on VH1 is profiling the music of prison bands. Victims' rights groups are incensed. The show features bands from several prisons across the country. The producers say the show is designed to show the redemptive power of music, but the mother of one murder victim says knowing here daughter's killer is on the TV show is like a slap in the face.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY ORLANDO, VICTIM'S MOTHER: When I saw it on TV, I went, no way. And I thought I'm going to fight this, because I don't think for everybody that they would want something like that on television. I can't believe they would allow something like that in prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Pennsylvania lawmakers are calling for profits of the show to go to a victims' rights fund.

OK, Mark, a jailhouse band on TV, is this a good idea or bad, and why?

MARK SIMONE, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This is an absolutely horrible idea. You know how many high schools have really talented kids who could have great bands? Why look in prisons? I mean the last time anybody out of prison had a hit record was Johnny Cash 50 years ago.

It's a terrible idea. And even if they had a big hit, it's not going to be easy for them to tour with this record.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: Well, I think it's absurd. Prisons are made for three reasons: rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence. This does neither of the three.

VH1 and Viacom would better use their time if they would lobby the government to mandate retraining in prisons, educating themselves in prisons, and finance that educating and the retraining so when they come back out of prison they won't knock us in the head again, they will be rehabilitated and productive citizens, not some rock star.

GALEN: Well, I don't think that's right. What's wrong with music? I mean there is a long history in America of people coming out of prisons -- a lot of blues players got well known while they were still behind prison bars.

And as far as the profits from this thing, Michael Moore has got a new movie that just opened dealing with the shooting at Columbine. I don't hear anybody demanding that he give the profits of that to the victims of the Columbine shooting. I think that if these guys are going to learn how to play music rather than use shivs (ph) on each other, I think that's a positive thing.

NEVILLE: Victoria.

JONES: Well, they may be doing both. They may be stabbing each other and also using music. And those guys in that video didn't look too rehabbed to me. They looked pretty violent.

GALEN: You can look at any rock group and they look like that.

JONES: Exactly you can, but they're not in jail for murder. You know there are some really great rehab programs in prison, but we don't get to see them, and that's a shame. This is very sad. But why are we surprised?

We already have shows where people degrade themselves by eating worms. We have shows where young women act like whores to get a man. Why are we surprised that this is the next step? We created this.

NEVILLE: OK. I have Tracy (ph) here from Wisconsin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I agree that prisoners deserve civil rights, but they do not have the right to be entertainers. And I think our children deserve far better role models.

NEVILLE: OK. Kelly (ph) from Kentucky, you're on the line. Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I would like to know, if they're in prison, why do they even have the equipment to be in a band? This is not supposed to be a resort. This is supposed to be punishment, isolation and treatment. This is astonishing to me that they even have the equipment to be in a band.

GALEN: It's astonishing to me that I'm the prisoners' rights guy on this panel.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis, what do you think about having instruments in prison?

MATHIS: Yes, I think the instrument they need is a book. And that book to empower themselves so that when they come back to society, they'll be productive citizens. We keep overlooking the main purpose of sending people to prison.

The three main purposes, once again: punishment, secondly, rehabilitate them so we wouldn't keep spending our tax dollars sending them back to this revolving door, warehousing them in prisons. I'm speaking from experience once again. In 1977 I spent six months in jail. The county taxpayers paid $35,000.

One year later, I went to the university. Didn't have parents. The county taxpayers had to pay again $8,000.

It was a much better investment to invest in my education than my incarceration. I was rehabilitated and now I'm a national television judge, as well as a lawyer and was a sitting judge in Detroit for five years. A much better use of money and resources than to give me an instrument.

NEVILLE: All right. Very good. Very, very good.

Let me get Tom (ph) in here, and then judge, I do have a follow- up for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I used to work in a jail up in New Jersey, and I think rehabilitation is very important. But I don't think that's the issue. The issue is VH1 and Viacom taking them and putting them on TV and I think that's a joke. I think everybody should boycott the show and boycott VH1.

NEVILLE: Judge, what do you think about the producers saying, listen, this is a way to rehabilitate these guys in prison?

MATHIS: I don't see the rehabilitation that's going to allow them to come out as productive citizens able to sustain a living, which they -- so that they don't turn to crime, able to take care of the babies they've produced out here in the world that everybody else has to take care of while they're in prison. That's the main objective, make them employable, productive human beings. We know how hard it is to get a record deal.

NEVILLE: OK. And that is the last word on this subject.

When we come back, professional football players make big bucks for having the best moves on the field, but one player's actions are raising more than just eyebrows in the NFL. We'll explain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Put on your seat belts. It's time for our flash round.

First up: former President Bill Clinton is being inducted into the Arkansas black hall of fame. He'll be the first white member and will be honored for his work on behalf of the black community. Author Tony Morrison once described him as our first black president. Was he -- Victoria. JONES: He probably was. I mean everybody should just leave him the bleep alone, quite frankly. This is probably the only hall of fame he's going to get into. Let him enjoy it.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well Bill Clinton did a lot for African-Americans just by not being one. You know, what about Lyndon Johnson, who made sweeping changes, rather than Bill Clinton who just made a couple of symbolic appointments?

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: I agree with the brother that just spoke. Lyndon B. Johnson passed the civil rights act, he passed the voting rights act. He did significantly more for African-Americans than Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton made a lot of high appointments in high places, but black faces in high places don't help the masses of black people.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: I don't understand what the black museum is doing in Arkansas.

NEVILLE: Next story: 49ers wide receiver Terrell Owens celebrates his touchdowns over the Seattle Seahawks in a unique way, by pulling a pen from his sock, autographing it and handing it to his financial adviser sitting in the front row. The league didn't punish him for it. Instead, he was fined $5,000 for an untucked jersey. If you were the commissioner of the NFL, what would you do, Victoria?

JONES: I don't think I would do anything. The whole thing is so bizarre and so ludicrous. I mean he has a pen in his sock, for crying out loud. And we behave toward these people like they're absolute gods, and why are we surprised when they act like them? I mean, really.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well anybody knows it's wrong to carry a pen. Anybody knows that it's a magic marker that you need to sign a football. It was shocking to see a football player give away a free autograph. Then it turns out it goes to his financial advisor.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: Well, I think that we kind of try to over-regulate the human spirit a little too much in athletics anyway. I mean, let him have a good time. Certainly some accuse it of being bad sportsmanship. But I wouldn't have even ruled against his shirt hanging out either. Let them have fun on the court and on the football field.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: Dion Sanders (ph) is furious. He didn't know you could do this.

NEVILLE: Next story: safer America, a store selling gas masks and parachutes opens today in lower Manhattan. They say they're trying to give people peace of mind, but critics think they're just trying to profit for fear. What do you say, Victoria?

JONES: They're trying to make money for themselves. Absolutely. I'm surprised it took somebody a year to think of this.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well, it's capitalism at its worse. You know the good thing about selling parachutes is, if they don't work, you don't have to worry about anybody returning them.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: It's extreme sensationalism and bad taste.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: I hate to agree with the judge, but I agree with the judge.

NEVILLE: All right. Well, listen, I have to take a break. More TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK. So Terrell Owens autographs a football in the end zone. So apparently these end zone antics work, they're memorable. What do you remember?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Icky shuffle.

NEVILLE: Who did that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Icky Woods (ph), Cincinnati Bengals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The dirty bird.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chicago Bears, the Super Bowl shuffle.

NEVILLE: All right. See there? So, there you go.

Anyway, on that note, we're saying goodbye to our guests today: Victoria Jones, Mark Simone, Judge Greg Mathis and Rich Galen. Thank you so much for joining me here today. And thanks to you, everybody in our audience and everybody here in our studio in Atlanta. Thanks guys.

I'm Arthel Neville. Have a great weekend.







Aired October 18, 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. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday."

We lead today with the sniper investigation. Prosecutors are considering charges against a discredited witness, but police say they don't want that fact to discourage others from telling what they know. We're going to ask our panelists today what they think about this case and whether the unreliable witness should be prosecuted.

And then later, a Baltimore, Maryland, woman and her five children were killed in a fire. Police accuse a man with a drug history of torching their home. There is concern the fire was an act of retaliation against the family that tried to rid its neighborhood of drugs. Did police do enough to protect them?

And then later, music behind bars: Should killers, rapists and thugs be allowed to gain fame in prison? A new VH1 special is raising a lot of controversy and anger.

But first, we're going to go to Montgomery County, Maryland, where CNN's Daryn Kagan has the latest on the smite -- you know what, Daryn? I've got to tell you something. Not to get off the subject here, but I just had a piece of chocolate for my hypoglycemia. I'm having a little trouble with it right now -- but back to the serious news. I had to explain what was going on with me -- Daryn.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: That's OK. How about I take it from here and you can kind of get a sip of water or something back there in Atlanta?

I can tell this. We are more than 3 1/2 days since the last shooting. That is the longest stretch of time since these shootings began more than two weeks ago. Kind of an eerie feeling around here on this Friday, because, since the shootings began, the sniper has always struck on Friday. But so far so good.

I can tell you that topic you were bringing up, Arthel, about prosecuting the guy who gave bogus information about the Monday night shooting outside the Home Depot store, prosecutors saying, even though they're not pleased, that's really going to be a low priority for them. They want all their resources right now to go after finding this sniper.

How you doing now? NEVILLE: You know, much better. I had a glass of water. Thanks for asking.

KAGAN: Good. Good.

NEVILLE: OK, Daryn, well, listen, everybody, of course, is very interested in what's going on with this case.

And here to talk about the sniper investigation and our other "Free-For-All Friday" topics are: Victoria Jones, a radio talk show host and a special correspondent with Talk Radio News Service. She joins us from Washington.

Hello, Victoria. How are you today?

VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

WABC radio talk show host Mark Simone is in New York.

Hey, Mark.

MARK SIMONE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hey. How are you?

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

And Judge Greg Mathis, star of his own syndicated TV show, joins us right here in Atlanta. He has a new book called "Inner City Miracle."

Hello, Judge.

And political columnist Rich Galen is the publisher of Mullings.com and joins us from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to you as well, Rich.

RICH GALEN, PUBLISHER, MULLINGS.COM: Nice to be with you.

NEVILLE: Well, listen, Victoria, I'm going to start with you today.

If this guy intentionally lied, should charges be filed?

JONES: Yes, they probably should. But, frankly, it's not that much of a big deal. There are always people who come forward as false witnesses. There are always lunatics who make false confessions. I am sure there have been a lot of people who have phoned in totally phony, very-good-sounding stuff on the tip lines.

So, yes, they can go after him and try and make an example of him. But the kind of lunatics who do this are not going to be deterred by this guy being prosecuted.

NEVILLE: Mark, what do you think? GALEN: That's one of the reasons that police are very sensitive about releasing all of the details that they know, because that's how they test some of these witnesses. If they say something that's clearly different from what they know from their own either observation or forensics, then they know that that witness is probably not to be trusted.

They know who this person is. They know where to find him. And they can go back and prosecute him some other time. But, right now, I think right that it's correct that they are focusing their resources on trying to find the sniper.

NEVILLE: But what do you think should happen to him, Rich?

GALEN: Well, I think that, unless there is some clear evidence of mental illness, I think that, probably, at some point there ought to be some level of prosecution. I'm not sure that jail time is necessary. But there's probably something that ought to be done to -- if they find that the guy did this because he was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame, then I think that's prosecutable, just to show him that it doesn't work that way.

NEVILLE: And Judge Mathis.

JUDGE GREG MATHIS, AUTHOR, "INNER CITY MIRACLE": Yes, absolutely. They must be able to determine that it was intentional in order for them to prosecute him. If he intentionally misled a police investigation, that is obstruction of justice and he certainly should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law in such a serious case as this.

NEVILLE: So what could happen to him?

MATHIS: Well, he could be punished by up to a number of years in prison for obstruction of justice. On the other hand, filing a false police report or misleading information could be as small as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

NEVILLE: Police are -- they've chastised the media for going with unconfirmed reports.

And I want to know, Mark, do you think the media would be helping in this situation or hurting?

SIMONE: Well, I think the media is going to help, because the only way this guy is going to get caught is by somebody calling in something, a tip. And that's why this other guy has to be prosecuted. If there was ever a case where you were going to go after somebody for false information, this would be it. And his punishment should be to have to stand out there every night and pump gas for people.

JONES: I like that.

SIMONE: He has done nothing but hurt...

(LAUGHTER) GALEN: He can come here and do mine.

MATHIS: Put him in the line of fire, huh?

JONES: But, you know, what is so strange about all this is, we keep hearing that the media to blame, the media to blame for that. Anything that the media have has been leaked to them by somebody, very often from somebody in the police who feels that this information should get out.

And, frankly, I work better as a citizen with more information and not less, and I think most people do.

SIMONE: Well, just because somebody leaked it and snuck around it and passed it to you doesn't mean you're being responsible by broadcasting it.

NEVILLE: But what should you do, then, Mark?

JONES: Not necessarily, but I'm not talking about me as a media person. I'm talking about me as a citizen. If I know that the guy is weird, has very big guns, and also has weirdness with tarot cards, that gives me a heck more a clue than if I didn't know about the tarot card.

SIMONE: Yes, but if it's unconfirmed, it could be false information. Somebody leaked out our battle plans for Iraq. That's not helping anybody.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Mark, did you talk about it on your radio show?

JONES: Under your premise, nobody should ever say anything to the media. Let's just get rid of them.

NEVILLE: Hey, Mark, did you talk about it on your radio show?

SIMONE: Yes. There's certain things that would be helpful to broadcast. But you don't want everything that's leaked to you.

NEVILLE: But did you talk about the tarot card? Did you talk about the AK-74?

SIMONE: Well, I have to plead a little guilty here, yes.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: You're not that new at this. You know how to dodge these kinds of questions.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm going to go to the phones now. I have Lee on the phone, calling in from Fairfax County, Virginia.

Lee, what do you say? Are you still there, Lee?

Listen, Judge Mathis, I want to get to you, because I want to know if, in your opinion, you think having this unreliable witness come to the foreground, is this really a big setback in this case?

MATHIS: I don't think so. I think that whatever information he may have given them that was either misleading or false, they spent very a minimal amount of time pursuing that lead. So, therefore, it is really becoming a distraction, a distraction that may be necessary if they want to focus more -- if the media wants to focus more on this rather than giving out the secrets of the investigation, maybe it's a good distraction.

But, certainly, as just stated, he deserves to be prosecuted if he intentionally misled the police. But I don't think it distracted the investigation very much.

JONES: Arthel, could I just say something? I may be speaking for Rich here also. For those of us who live here, I don't hear anybody talking about him. Most of us are talking about who it is and when the next hit is going to be and where we go and where we don't go. So it doesn't seem to have impacted us too much.

GALEN: But I think that's because there was no immediate effect, negative effect of the guy doing it. If he had given out bad information and there had been a shooting with a completely different vehicle and the police had been led astray, that might be different.

But I think that's exactly right. Victoria is correct. Here, that IS an old story that we cared about for about 13 seconds. Now we're worried about where to go shopping for groceries.

NEVILLE: And, Victoria, I was going to get to that point, which is, with so much police coverage there -- now at the Pentagon -- do you think it's likely that the sniper will strike again? Hopefully not.

JONES: Wow. I'm not a criminal profiler, but, yes, I think he is going to strike again. The only reason I think he would stop is if he's dead or he's been caught for some other crime. I don't see why he would stop. He's winning. He's showing us all how brilliant he is, according to him. I think he'll do it again.

But I think he's enjoying the waiting. I think he likes torturing. And I think he's probably planning another very good escape route that is going to thwart us again. This is a very sadistic person.

NEVILLE: Let's hear what Logan has to say.

LOGAN: I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Judge Mathis. Earlier, you said the person should be prosecuted to the full amount. These are people's lives. That someone had the audacity to lie about for their 15 minutes of fame and people are dying I think is a tragedy, personally. So I think they should go to jail and face the consequences.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

Listen, I have to take a break right now. Thanks, Logan, for standing up. I've got to take a break right now.

But coming up: Is there a terror link in the sniper case? Call us and tell us what you think about this. We're going to talk about it after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): The sniper is making life anything but normal for people around the nation's capital, just when police thought they were getting help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's criminal, as far as I'm concerned. They should arrest him for false reporting.

NEVILLE: What should be done to a witness who gives false leads and clues to the police?

That and more when TALKBACK LIVE returns.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We're talking about the sniper investigation.

And before I get back to the panel, I want to go the telephones now, where Allison is standing by in Maryland.

What do you say, Allison?

CALLER: Yes.

I don't think it's fair that they should ban hunting in Anne Arundel County, which the sniper hasn't even hit in Anne Arundel County. And it's very sad. My boyfriend is highly upset about it, because he can't go hunting now because of the sniper, who is not even down this way.

NEVILLE: Allison?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: But what about the people who actually do live in that area? I mean, I think they're concerned about guns for a pretty good reason, don't you think? CALLER: Well, yes, I understand that. But I am on private property, where there is no way that the gun or the bullets that he shoots from can even hurt anyone.

NEVILLE: OK, Allison, listen. Thank you for calling.

Panel, I'm not sure if anybody wants to -- Victoria, I think you're shaking your head no. Do you want to say something?

JONES: Allison, get over yourself, for crying out loud, and stop being so selfish.

GALEN: Yes, pick up that baby in that background.

JONES: Leave Bambi alone for a few days.

NEVILLE: Yes.

GALEN: Well, I don't have any problem with hunting generally. But things are so tense here, I'm not sure that people who live outside this area have a real sense of the visceral reaction that people inside this area have having to the situation.

And anything that resembles a gunshot -- I will tell you that I have never noticed as many white vans before as I'm looking for now. It seems like everybody is driving some kind of white van. So I think that, with the heightened sense of almost panic here, that -- Anne Arundel County, for those outside of this area, is about two counties away from the Washington metropolitan area. That's where Annapolis is.

And it is quite a distance, but it's about as far on one end as Fredericksburg is on the other. So it's within the danger zone, I think, up in this area.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, I want to -- oh, go ahead, Judge. I think you want to say something.

MATHIS: Yes. I was going to say it's unfortunate, but many of us must make sacrifices in time of terror. And, unfortunately, ma'am, yes, your husband or boyfriend may have to eliminate a few days of hunting that so others of us won't be hunted. So please make that sacrifice for your fellow man if you don't care about yourself.

NEVILLE: That's right.

OK, listen, Rich, I want to get to you now. Authorities are going to question detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but there is no evidence at this point that this is related to terrorism. I wanted to know what you think?

GALEN: Well, Victoria and I were talking about this during the break. It depends on where you are in this area.

In my section, which is down at Old Town Alexandria, which is at the southern edge of the metropolitan area, the prevailing theory now is that it's not only two people, but it's two people who may be tied to terrorism. And the reason that people, in conversation -- this is the only conversation going on around here -- is that they think that that's why there hasn't been anybody bragging in a bar or anybody telling their girlfriend about it or boyfriend about it, depending upon the gender.

But there is the theory running around my end of the district that this is two people who may have ties to terrorism and they're trained to do this and not say anything about it.

NEVILLE: Mark?

GALEN: But I have no idea, clearly.

NEVILLE: Mark?

SIMONE: Well, the reason nobody is bragging about it in a bar is, these guys usually turn out to be loners who aren't that sociable and are hanging out in bars.

I don't think it's terrorism because there has never been a terrorist act where the terrorist tried to disguise it as something else. They always want it clear that it is terrorism. That's how it works.

NEVILLE: OK.

MATHIS: And then, secondly, the other thing we don't see is -- the usual method of operation is to cause hundreds of casualties at one time or cause some type of damage to a major economic interest. So this is different method of operation.

GALEN: Well, Judge, I've got to tell you, the economic interests in the Washington area have been damaged and are being damaged. We are again back as we were after 9/11. Tourism is down dramatically. Shopping is down dramatically. It is having an impact. I don't know that it's terrorism, but if it is, it's working.

JONES: Arthel, to go back to the Guantanamo Bay aspect of this, I think that's really quite intriguing, because I don't know whether the captives on Guantanamo Bay know this is going on. But if I was one of them and I was being interrogated about it, I might say that, yes, it is connected to terrorism, just to throw them off.

NEVILLE: Which is very possible.

JONES: So I don't know they're necessarily going to find out that way.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mark. I'm going to come back to you.

Brian from California.

BRIAN: I just don't think it makes a difference whether it's somebody local or someone from overseas. We should search for them in the same manner. We should prosecute them in the same manner. We should do our best to stop it.

NEVILLE: OK, go ahead, Mark.

SIMONE: Well, the reason we were talking to the Guantanamo people was, al Qaeda had had sniper training. But from what we know of that, it was for the purpose of assassination, for going after leaders. If this were terrorism, you would see it happening in three cities at once.

NEVILLE: That's an interesting point.

Let me get -- how do you say your name, ma'am?

BUNNY: Bunny (ph).

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

BUNNY: I just personally feel that, you know what? It's in our country right now. And we just need to follow up and go with what the credible clues are and go with that and get this person who is doing that just unlawful thing and just capture him, because we don't care who it is. We need to capture him, so we don't have any more people dying out there.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Listen, I have to take a break right now.

And coming up next: diplomatic maneuvering in the wake of North Korea's nuclear bombshell. What can the White House do now? We're going to hear from our panel and you. So give us a call or e-mail us.

More TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

North Korea dropped a bombshell on diplomatic ties with the U.S. by admitting that it has a nuclear weapons program. Intelligence officials say it could be Russia, Pakistan or even China who supplied help to the North Koreans. Pakistan and Russia deny their involvement.

President Bush says he wants to keep his options open. But how do you think the U.S. should respond?

Mark, I'll start with you on this segment.

If Pakistan, Russia or China is involved in any way, what can and should the U.S. do in response?

SIMONE: Well, there is nothing much we can do right now, except a lot of diplomatic pressure. North Korea has a history of doing things like this to cause an uproar and then get some kind of reward to give it up. And, actually, Russia and China have more to worry about here than we do in this case.

NEVILLE: Judge?

MATHIS: I think we should take it up with the United Nations. That's the body of government that kind of is the authority on worldwide issues. And when diplomatic relations go sour, that's where it should go.

Kofi Annan is a great secretary-general. He's doing a great job. And I think we should take it up there. If they determine there needs to be international sanctions against them or whatever the result, let's follow it. We must follow the United Nations. We cannot give them the power and then not follow it.

NEVILLE: Victoria.

JONES: Well, I agree with the judge certainly very much as with regards to the United Nations. Absolutely, we should.

But what I'm fascinated with is: Are we surprised? I thought they were No. 1 on the axis of evil. Obviously, they have dropped to No. 2. But didn't we all assume that they did have something like this? So, OK, they've confirmed it. And I agree with Mark on the reasons why. But I don't think I'm surprised. And they're a very wacky regime.

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: Saying that they admitted to this like they've done some good deed is nonsense. The reason they admitted to it -- I wrote a column about this this morning -- is because we showed them the photographs that we had of the fact that they had been cheating since 1994.

NEVILLE: Right.

GALEN: And we asked them, "Are you building a nuclear weapon?" They said no. We said, "What about these photos?"

They went: "Oh, yes, well, we are. Do you want some more kimchi? This is just nonsense, to try to say that they're good people because they fessed up. They didn't fess up. We caught them.

JONES: Who is saying that? Nobody is saying they're good people.

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: Listen, the United Nations -- if everybody has known about this, Victoria, and the United Nations has known about it since 1994, then the United Nations has no capacity to do anything to stop them.

JONES: Hey, we're the tough guys now. Why didn't we do anything about it?

(CROSSTALK)

GALEN: I didn't say we knew about it. You did.

MATHIS: One of the other issues here: Have they expressed the type of hate and venomous that we've seen coming from fundamentalists of Islam over in the Mideast, like Iraq? They've expressly indicated that they hate the United States, they hate Americans, they want to kill us. We haven't heard that, to my knowledge, from North Korea. So it's a different situation.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: So, then, Judge, who is the bigger threat, Iraq or North Korea?

MATHIS: Absolutely Iraq. It's a hotbed over in Iraq of politics, of venomous towards the United States and so toward our allies over in that region, toward our interests over in that region, etcetera.

And it's totally different with North Korea. We don't have the same interests over there. And we don't have the same venomous and hate coming from North Korea.

JONES: Right. We don't care if the North Koreans are systematically starving their own people because they're spending all the money on military things. And I agree, in terms of national interest, we don't care. In terms of humanitarian interest, we should care.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Guys, hang on here.

GALEN: We made a deal with them in 1994 wherein they promised not to do this exact thing in return for all these good things we were going to do for them.

JONES: But they're not good guys, so why would you expect them to keep their promise?

GALEN: It was your president, not mine, that made the deal.

JONES: I don't care whose president it was. I thought we all lived in the same country here, Rich.

NEVILLE: A promise is a promise.

Listen, Bill from Michigan, what do you say?

BILL: Happy birthday, first of all.

Listen, I think that we can't be listening to everybody who wants to hold us for ransom. It's like, "You give us this much money and we won't carry through with the bombs." And Iraq is a much bigger threat. But I think, sooner or later, we're going to have to deal with everybody who has nuclear capabilities, because -- but like has been said, the passions are higher right now for Iraqis. But we've got to take them one at a time. We can't fight a war on all...

NEVILLE: So who is first?

BILL: Iraq, of course.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.

OK, listen, Jane from Virginia, what do you say?

CALLER: Hi, Arthel.

I think that, as tragic as it is that North Korea does have nuclear warheads, I think that somebody needs to call the Bush administration on this rhetoric, because it is one or the other: Weapons of mass destruction, you go over there, you do what you need to do, or not. North Korea is no different.

NEVILLE: OK, Jane, thank you for calling in.

Listen, we're going to take a break right now.

Up next: a very disturbing story of drugs, arson and the death of a Baltimore family. Did one mother's fight to make a neighborhood safe wind up killing her and her family?

More TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment. Don't go anywhere, please.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

Police say a Baltimore woman's crusade against drugs in her neighborhood cost her her life and the lives of five of her six children. Angela Dawson's husband is the only one who survived an arson fire that ravaged their home, but he's in critical condition with burns over 80 percent of his body. Police arrested a 21-year-old neighbor they say set the fire in retaliation for the family's anti- drug crusade.

Judge Mathis, now, some people say police should have done more to protect the family. Should they have?

JUDGE GREG MATHIS, "JUDGE MATHIS": Absolutely. This was an act of terror that occurs in inner cities throughout America for years -- it has been occurring. And this type of terror needs similar attention as the type of terror we see coming from foreigners.

NEVILLE: Victoria, how do you see it?

VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Absolutely. It does need that kind of attention. But unfortunately people who live in places like the badlands in Baltimore are often regarded as throw-away people. And so they're really not protected. And this woman was incredibly brave in speaking out and to the drug dealers in her area. And she had already been threatened.

They had already had some kind of firebomb. But, again, it's an area where if this had happened in a rich white area, I think there would be a lot of attention being paid to it. But unfortunately, because it's five people who are dead, we're getting attention. If it was just her who was killed, we wouldn't be getting this attention.

RICH GALEN, PUBLISHER, MULLINGS.COM: You know there is a parallel here, and I don't want to stretch it too far, but I'm going to stretch it to some degree, though. A parallel here, that I think what everybody is asking for, that the police should have taken some kind of preemptive action against the drug dealers because they knew this family was in danger.

And it is that exact argument that the president has been using on the issue of Iraq, that we need to take preemptive action. And my friends on the left who are opposed to that kind of action, their position puts them in the same place as this poor woman and her family. They have to wait until they come and burn her house down before we do anything.

JONES: Well, you can speak for other people on the left, Rich, but please don't presume to speak for me.

MATHIS: I don't think he has any friends on the left. But in any event, the question was, what should have been done. And so I still haven't heard your answer to that, Mr...

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: Part of the answer to that is decriminalizing drugs. Obviously, the war on drugs is a complete and utter and total failure.

MATHIS: Absolutely.

GALEN: The neighborhood -- the neighborhood didn't want to join this family. If they would have gone in as a neighborhood to stop this, then it would have cleaned the neighborhood up.

NEVILLE: Rich, time out. Rich, look what happened. Rich, look what happened, OK? This family stood up. This woman stood up...

GALEN: Because they stood by themselves.

NEVILLE: So do you think someone else would do anything?

GALEN: Well, they should have. That's why we have to take the kind of action that takes this out of the hands of the bad guys first.

MATHIS: That's why we have to have...

GALEN: My point is that in every big city in this country neighbors have decided to take their neighborhood back: black, white, Latinos.

MATHIS: That's vigilante justice. Neighbors should not have to defend themselves.

GALEN: Neighbors should act together, judge.

MATHIS: No, sir. That's vigilante justice.

GALEN: If the neighbors act together they can clean up their neighborhood.

MATHIS: Those people pay taxes like every other neighborhood in America. They deserve the same amount of protection. They should not have to resort to vigilante justice.

GALEN: I'm on the side of more police action. I think that the police should have done more as well. What I am saying is that the neighbors apparently were more interested in protecting themselves, allowing the drug culture to survive, than they were in joining together with the cops.

NEVILLE: You know, Rich, I don't think you can make a blanket statement like this.

GALEN: Sure I can. I just did it. I'll do it again.

NEVILLE: Look at these people. This family stood up and look what happened to them.

GALEN: Because the neighbors didn't join hands to take back their streets.

MATHIS: No, because of government neglect. Because of police authorities that neglected to go into the inner city and protect them as they have...

GALEN: How do you know that? You have no idea what you're talking about, judge.

MATHIS: Oh, I know. I've been there and I've done that. I've lived in those communities. You have no idea.

GALEN: You didn't live in that community, you lived in...

MATHIS: Because you've lived somewhere, some lofty suburb most of your life, if you've lived in the United States at all, and are totally out of touch with what's happening in the inner city.

And I know what's happening. I've been there, I've done that and I've adjudicated throughout the inner city.

Don't tell me I don't know. You don't know. You and your friends on the right don't know.

NEVILLE: OK. Now I'm going to get Logan (ph) in here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to direct this comment to Mr. Rich Galen. How can you make the analogy this family is anything like Iraq? You said that they should have went in there...

GALEN: No, no, no. Quite the opposite. I think -- absolutely not. I said the situation is like Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not the same. That's absolutely incorrect. This is a family. These are children. This is America.

Iraq is in Iraq. If we can't take care of ourselves in America we can't even go to Iraq if we can't take care of what's going on...

JONES: I totally agree with you, my friend. And what Rich is suggesting is preemptively arresting people in this country who haven't yet committed a crime. If you know, my goodness, you're talking about precogs in minority reports. The department of pre- crime? Is that what you want to be the minister of, Rich?

GALEN: Victoria, the report was that they tried to firebomb us once before and the cops didn't do anything. If they would have gone in and taken the preemptive action that I'm recommending, this family would be alive.

JONES: But you're speaking in terms of policy, and that's very scary. I don't want to be arrested for something I'm thinking about.

NEVILLE: OK, panel. Hang on one second for me. I have Tyrone (ph) here, who grew up in Baltimore.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma'am. You know I grew up in an area called Walbrook Junction (ph), in that same part of town. And it's easy to sit here, like Judge Mathis says, and live somewhere else and talk about how you deal with these kind of issues. It's not that simple.

You know my mom lives there. My mom is in her late 50s, you know, and she's there alone for the most part, and I worry about her every day.

You know there was a time when we were young, you could get up in the morning and go out and do things and everyone looked after each other. Well now the guns have taken over. I mean it's not about speaking up. Right now it's fear.

And like Judge Mathis said also, if the police are not going to do anything, what do you do? Do you continue to live in fear or do you look somewhere else? Do you move?

The man that said he lives in Alexandria, Virginia, that's a big difference from Baltimore, Maryland, East and West Baltimore. OK? It's a major difference.

So don't talk about Iraq. We need to deal with what's going on in our own country. NEVILLE: And that is the last word. By the way, Rich Galen, I want to let you know I know you took a lot of heat in that segment. No one is double-teaming you here, but, you know what, your comments I guess solicited that reaction. All right.

Listen, coming up, in the quest to get viewers, is one TV show crossing the line? A music channel's behind the scenes look at jailhouse bands is creating outrage with a victims' rights group who ask, why showcase the music of convicted criminals while the victims and their families are still suffering?

More TALKBACK LIVE when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

A show called "Music Behind Bars" on VH1 is profiling the music of prison bands. Victims' rights groups are incensed. The show features bands from several prisons across the country. The producers say the show is designed to show the redemptive power of music, but the mother of one murder victim says knowing here daughter's killer is on the TV show is like a slap in the face.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY ORLANDO, VICTIM'S MOTHER: When I saw it on TV, I went, no way. And I thought I'm going to fight this, because I don't think for everybody that they would want something like that on television. I can't believe they would allow something like that in prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Pennsylvania lawmakers are calling for profits of the show to go to a victims' rights fund.

OK, Mark, a jailhouse band on TV, is this a good idea or bad, and why?

MARK SIMONE, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This is an absolutely horrible idea. You know how many high schools have really talented kids who could have great bands? Why look in prisons? I mean the last time anybody out of prison had a hit record was Johnny Cash 50 years ago.

It's a terrible idea. And even if they had a big hit, it's not going to be easy for them to tour with this record.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: Well, I think it's absurd. Prisons are made for three reasons: rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence. This does neither of the three.

VH1 and Viacom would better use their time if they would lobby the government to mandate retraining in prisons, educating themselves in prisons, and finance that educating and the retraining so when they come back out of prison they won't knock us in the head again, they will be rehabilitated and productive citizens, not some rock star.

GALEN: Well, I don't think that's right. What's wrong with music? I mean there is a long history in America of people coming out of prisons -- a lot of blues players got well known while they were still behind prison bars.

And as far as the profits from this thing, Michael Moore has got a new movie that just opened dealing with the shooting at Columbine. I don't hear anybody demanding that he give the profits of that to the victims of the Columbine shooting. I think that if these guys are going to learn how to play music rather than use shivs (ph) on each other, I think that's a positive thing.

NEVILLE: Victoria.

JONES: Well, they may be doing both. They may be stabbing each other and also using music. And those guys in that video didn't look too rehabbed to me. They looked pretty violent.

GALEN: You can look at any rock group and they look like that.

JONES: Exactly you can, but they're not in jail for murder. You know there are some really great rehab programs in prison, but we don't get to see them, and that's a shame. This is very sad. But why are we surprised?

We already have shows where people degrade themselves by eating worms. We have shows where young women act like whores to get a man. Why are we surprised that this is the next step? We created this.

NEVILLE: OK. I have Tracy (ph) here from Wisconsin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I agree that prisoners deserve civil rights, but they do not have the right to be entertainers. And I think our children deserve far better role models.

NEVILLE: OK. Kelly (ph) from Kentucky, you're on the line. Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I would like to know, if they're in prison, why do they even have the equipment to be in a band? This is not supposed to be a resort. This is supposed to be punishment, isolation and treatment. This is astonishing to me that they even have the equipment to be in a band.

GALEN: It's astonishing to me that I'm the prisoners' rights guy on this panel.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis, what do you think about having instruments in prison?

MATHIS: Yes, I think the instrument they need is a book. And that book to empower themselves so that when they come back to society, they'll be productive citizens. We keep overlooking the main purpose of sending people to prison.

The three main purposes, once again: punishment, secondly, rehabilitate them so we wouldn't keep spending our tax dollars sending them back to this revolving door, warehousing them in prisons. I'm speaking from experience once again. In 1977 I spent six months in jail. The county taxpayers paid $35,000.

One year later, I went to the university. Didn't have parents. The county taxpayers had to pay again $8,000.

It was a much better investment to invest in my education than my incarceration. I was rehabilitated and now I'm a national television judge, as well as a lawyer and was a sitting judge in Detroit for five years. A much better use of money and resources than to give me an instrument.

NEVILLE: All right. Very good. Very, very good.

Let me get Tom (ph) in here, and then judge, I do have a follow- up for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I used to work in a jail up in New Jersey, and I think rehabilitation is very important. But I don't think that's the issue. The issue is VH1 and Viacom taking them and putting them on TV and I think that's a joke. I think everybody should boycott the show and boycott VH1.

NEVILLE: Judge, what do you think about the producers saying, listen, this is a way to rehabilitate these guys in prison?

MATHIS: I don't see the rehabilitation that's going to allow them to come out as productive citizens able to sustain a living, which they -- so that they don't turn to crime, able to take care of the babies they've produced out here in the world that everybody else has to take care of while they're in prison. That's the main objective, make them employable, productive human beings. We know how hard it is to get a record deal.

NEVILLE: OK. And that is the last word on this subject.

When we come back, professional football players make big bucks for having the best moves on the field, but one player's actions are raising more than just eyebrows in the NFL. We'll explain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Put on your seat belts. It's time for our flash round.

First up: former President Bill Clinton is being inducted into the Arkansas black hall of fame. He'll be the first white member and will be honored for his work on behalf of the black community. Author Tony Morrison once described him as our first black president. Was he -- Victoria. JONES: He probably was. I mean everybody should just leave him the bleep alone, quite frankly. This is probably the only hall of fame he's going to get into. Let him enjoy it.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well Bill Clinton did a lot for African-Americans just by not being one. You know, what about Lyndon Johnson, who made sweeping changes, rather than Bill Clinton who just made a couple of symbolic appointments?

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: I agree with the brother that just spoke. Lyndon B. Johnson passed the civil rights act, he passed the voting rights act. He did significantly more for African-Americans than Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton made a lot of high appointments in high places, but black faces in high places don't help the masses of black people.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: I don't understand what the black museum is doing in Arkansas.

NEVILLE: Next story: 49ers wide receiver Terrell Owens celebrates his touchdowns over the Seattle Seahawks in a unique way, by pulling a pen from his sock, autographing it and handing it to his financial adviser sitting in the front row. The league didn't punish him for it. Instead, he was fined $5,000 for an untucked jersey. If you were the commissioner of the NFL, what would you do, Victoria?

JONES: I don't think I would do anything. The whole thing is so bizarre and so ludicrous. I mean he has a pen in his sock, for crying out loud. And we behave toward these people like they're absolute gods, and why are we surprised when they act like them? I mean, really.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well anybody knows it's wrong to carry a pen. Anybody knows that it's a magic marker that you need to sign a football. It was shocking to see a football player give away a free autograph. Then it turns out it goes to his financial advisor.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: Well, I think that we kind of try to over-regulate the human spirit a little too much in athletics anyway. I mean, let him have a good time. Certainly some accuse it of being bad sportsmanship. But I wouldn't have even ruled against his shirt hanging out either. Let them have fun on the court and on the football field.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: Dion Sanders (ph) is furious. He didn't know you could do this.

NEVILLE: Next story: safer America, a store selling gas masks and parachutes opens today in lower Manhattan. They say they're trying to give people peace of mind, but critics think they're just trying to profit for fear. What do you say, Victoria?

JONES: They're trying to make money for themselves. Absolutely. I'm surprised it took somebody a year to think of this.

NEVILLE: Mark.

SIMONE: Well, it's capitalism at its worse. You know the good thing about selling parachutes is, if they don't work, you don't have to worry about anybody returning them.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis.

MATHIS: It's extreme sensationalism and bad taste.

NEVILLE: Rich.

GALEN: I hate to agree with the judge, but I agree with the judge.

NEVILLE: All right. Well, listen, I have to take a break. More TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK. So Terrell Owens autographs a football in the end zone. So apparently these end zone antics work, they're memorable. What do you remember?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Icky shuffle.

NEVILLE: Who did that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Icky Woods (ph), Cincinnati Bengals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The dirty bird.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chicago Bears, the Super Bowl shuffle.

NEVILLE: All right. See there? So, there you go.

Anyway, on that note, we're saying goodbye to our guests today: Victoria Jones, Mark Simone, Judge Greg Mathis and Rich Galen. Thank you so much for joining me here today. And thanks to you, everybody in our audience and everybody here in our studio in Atlanta. Thanks guys.

I'm Arthel Neville. Have a great weekend.