Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Federal Government Files Charges Against Snipers; Could Russian Hostage Scenario Happen Here?

Aired October 29, 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.
Several states have filed charges against the alleged Beltway snipers. And John Allen Muhammad now faces federal charges that, in at least one case, could carry the death penalty. You will get details on all of that in just a second.

And then stay tuned, because I want you to hear about the bishop who appointed Father Paul Shanley to a parish even though he knew Shanley was out there promoting sex between men and boys.

And later: You decide, bright idea or blunder? The Russians used a debilitating gas to rescue hundreds of hostages, but the gas kills more than 100 in the process. Could it happen here?

First, CNN's Patty Davis joins us with an update on the new charges being levied in the sniper case -- good afternoon, Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel.

An initial hearing scheduled to begin in about an hour in federal court, that hearing to inform John Muhammad of the federal complaint, the charges against him. Now, those charges in the federal complaint include using a weapon to commit a crime of violence, causing the death of a person. That charge could bring the death penalty -- conspiracy to effect interstate commerce by extortion and threats of physical violence -- now, extortion referring to that demand left in a note at the scene of one of shootings that demanded $10 million.

Now, the federal government careful to avoid filing charges in the state of Virginia. They don't want to supersede Virginia. One county there has not yet filed its charges. John Lee Malvo, the 17- year-old, is not named in this federal complaint. And that is because he is a juvenile.

Now, it's interesting, Arthel. In this complaint, the federal government details some of the evidence that it found in the 1990 Chevy Caprice, when they found these two individuals sleeping last week and when they took them under arrest and into custody: a rifle found behind the back seat: a brown glove similar to one that was left at the scene of that last shooting. That's where the bus driver, Conrad Johnson, was killed -- a global positioning system, presumably to help them find their way around; a pair of two-way transceiver radios; and a paper towel found outside of the car, underneath it, a single .223 bullet -- Arthel. NEVILLE: Hey, Patti, will the federal charges make a difference in terms of where these two might be tried first?

DAVIS: It does not impact that at all. It doesn't answer that question. That's still a question that they have to decide.

Now, presumably, since the federal government has custody of these two men, they are going to decide where they go to be tried first. The thought is either Virginia or Maryland, obviously. Those are the two states that want to try these two men. But Virginia seems to be winning at this point, although no decision has been made. It's been shown that, in Virginia, prosecutors are much more dogged in going after the death penalty and using it.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, I know that authorities have linked Malvo and Muhammad to a couple of other shootings. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

DAVIS: Well, what we have is Alabama, of course. And that's what led to their getting caught here in this area. In Alabama, they were capital murder charges filed there in connection with the shooting of two store clerks outside a liquor store. One of them was killed, the other one seriously wounded -- a fingerprint left at the scene of John Malvo.

And that's what led police to connect them all the way to Tacoma, Washington, and then to the Washington, D.C. area. Now, police in Tacoma, Washington, say that these two men are suspects in a murder there. That was Keenya Cook. Back in February, she was shot in the head and killed, the mother of a 6-month-old.

Now, a friend of Malvo and Muhammad called the sniper task force and indeed said: "I was a friend of theirs. They lived with me for six months."

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Keenya, let me interrupt you for a moment. I mean Patty Davis.

(INTERRUPTED FOR BREAKING NEWS)

NEVILLE: I was talking to Patty Davis, who was giving us an update on the sniper.

And, Patty, I accidentally called you Keenya, because I was trying to get you to get to Keenya Cook. That is the name of the suspect in Tacoma, Washington, who apparently is the niece of the woman who used to work for Muhammad, and in fact befriended Muhammad and his wife at the time, and perhaps the wife -- the aunt took the wife's side in really a bitter child custody case.

DAVIS: That's right.

And the aunt told police that she was concerned perhaps that Muhammad might have been shooting at her. And instead this woman, her niece, answered the door, was shot in the face and killed. So that brought police in Tacoma, Washington, to name these two men at least as suspects. They say they are far from charging them. They still have a lot of work to do, a lot of evidence to build.

They say they have a motive, they had the opportunity. Yet they have not been able yet to place them at the crime scene in that case. They're still working on that, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Sure. And then I know that there was a shooting outside of a synagogue, right?

DAVIS: It was vandalism at a synagogue. In fact, the police were telling me today that, at first, in May, the rabbi in that case just thought it was just something like a door had hit a wall and caused a hole in it.

But then he called police and said, "Hey, is there any way that Muhammad and Malvo may have been involved in something that happened at my synagogue?" Police investigated and in fact found bullets believed to have come from another weapon. And they believe that Malvo and Muhammad are now connected to that act of vandal at the synagogue as well.

NEVILLE: All right, Patty Davis, thank you very much for that update.

And joining us now again today on TALKBACK LIVE, it is time to meet our other guests: Roland Martin, editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com. He is author of "Speak, Brother: A Black Man's View of America."

Hello, Roland.

ROLAND MARTIN, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: How you doing, Arthel?

NEVILLE: All right.

Chris Ruddy, the editor of NewsMax.com.

Hey, Chris.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, EDITOR, NEWSMAX.COM: Arthel, thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: Good. I'm glad you are here.

Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist and vice president of communications for WorldNetDaily.com.

There you are, Rebecca. How are you?

REBECCA HAGELIN, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Hey, great. Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right.

And Callie Crossley head of Cross Channels, a public-relations group. She is a commentator for National Public Radio and a panelist on WGBH TV's "Beat the Press."

Hello. How are you, Callie?

CALLIE CROSSLEY, NPR COMMENTATOR: Good afternoon, Arthel.

OK, listen, we are going to talk about the snipers first.

And, Roland, I'm going to start with you on that one. Now we know there was a shooting at a synagogue. You just heard Patty Davis tell us about that. It's clarified as vandalism. Muhammad was a member of the Nation of Islam. Does that add up to anything?

MARTIN: Actually, we don't know. The investigation continues. We have not had an opportunity to hear from Muhammad, hear from Malvo, hear from their attorneys. What police are doing, they are scouring the country seeing if there's any connection, because, clearly, these two individuals were driving across country.

So I think it is far too early for anyone to begin to connect the dots as him being a member of the NOI. Louis Farrakhan had a news conference on Sunday where he said that he was indeed a member of the Nation of Islam, but was not active since 1999. So, again, there's no connection there. And he's been connected to the synagogue shooting, as opposed to him being the actual suspect. There is a difference there.

NEVILLE: Understood.

OK, Chris, quickly, your initial thoughts on this?

RUDDY: Well, I disagree there. I think already we know that he was an Islamic fundamentalist. And I don't want to criticize all members of Islam. I think most people are peace-loving individuals like you and I. But the truth is that he was a very radical Islamist.

NEVILLE: But, Chris, are you painting all Muslims with the same brush?

Hold that thought. I am going to get your answer when I come back. I have got to take a break right now, OK?

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Brooklyn's Bishop Thomas Daily now admits he knew what Father Paul Shanley was promoting when he put him in charge of a parish.

QUESTION: You also knew in 1983 that someone who expressed their endorsement of man-boy love relationships might also be someone who could be considered a threat to children. But you went ahead and appointed him, despite the fact that you had information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the NAMBLA organization.

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY, BROOKLYN: Correct.

NEVILLE: What would you suggest Bishop Daily do now?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUIS FARRAKHAN, NATION OF ISLAM: All of us who are members of the Nation of Islam have been instructed not to carry any weapons, not so much as a pen knife, not on our persons and not in our homes. So any member of the nation that may be found with such is in violation of our teachings. We do not rely on weapons of war to defend us. We rely on our belief and our faith in Allah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, speaking out.

Chris Ruddy, I promised I would let you answer the question. Are you painting all Muslims with the same brush?

RUDDY: No. And I clearly said that most Muslims are peace- loving people.

But we all have a real problem with radical Islam. And I include Farrakhan in that group. And let's not forget, he makes those nice comments about peace. But the next minute, he's visiting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Gadhafi, other butchers around the world that do propose and support radical Islam and terrorism. So I measure man by his deeds and who he associates with.

And I think we can draw a clear line between some of the inflammatory rhetoric that Farrakhan has given out to his Nation of Islam and some of these acts that we are seeing in the sniper shootings.

MARTIN: Chris, you cannot draw a direct line, when the NOI has not had a history of violence. Name one case that...

RUDDY: Malcolm X himself was assassinated by an internecine struggle within that movement.

MARTIN: OK.

RUDDY: How can you say it has no history of violence? That's utterly ridiculous.

MARTIN: Wait a minute. A history means more than one act. That's a history.

(CROSSTALK) RUDDY: Look at the comments he has made. Even after the Colin Ferguson shootings in New York back into the '90s, I think Farrakhan made some comments that were not condemnatory of this man.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Rebecca.

HAGELIN: Getting back to the sniper, I think we need to look at what his mind was. And where his mind was, he was an adherent to the Muslim faith.

WorldNetDaily.com has interviewed neighbors of his who say his house was filled with Muslim paraphernalia, scripture verses on the door. And he saw no conflict with his acts of terrorism and brutal member of 10 people with his religion. He found no conflict there. Now, there are many peace-loving Muslims. But the fact is, there is a radical element commonly referred to as Islamism which does promote jihad and murder and terrorism.

And it's not just al Qaeda. It's Hamas. It's Islamic Jihad. It's cell groups operating by themselves. The U.S. government has clearly said there are other cell groups in the United States. And we need to look very carefully at this.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, guys. Gentlemen, let me get Callie in here.

CROSSLEY: I just want to make the point that, because someone has all the paraphernalia, because someone appears to practice the faith does not mean that he is a member of the faith. So the only thing that we can say right now about Muhammad is that he practiced some tenets, it appears, of Islam. But even as far as the Nation of Islam is concerned, they did not count him as a member.

RUDDY: I think it's already clear there's already enough evidence...

(CROSSTALK)

CROSSLEY: Excuse me.

If you have issues with Farrakhan, that's one thing. But we don't have enough information to say where Muhammad was in terms of what he thought was spiritual and what he thought was his religion.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, panel. I have got Tim from Kansas.

TIM: Well, I think that painting somebody that is Islamic, all the Islamic people the same, it would be the same as me as a Christian being painted like Timothy McVeigh bombing Oklahoma City in '95, making all white guys to be a murderer.

(CROSSTALK)

RUDDY: There was an effort after the Oklahoma City bombing to blame conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. Let's not forget that stampede that took place.

CROSSLEY: But the point is that nobody said Timothy McVeigh is radical Christianity. Nobody said that.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, we're going to the phone now, going to the telephone, Alabama, where Teric (ph) is standing by.

Go ahead, Teric.

CALLER: Yes, I would like to comment on the fact that, oftentimes in the media, that Muslims are portrayed in a particular way, but it is to say that if a crime is committed, automatically that it is done in the name of Islam.

Now, I am a Muslim born of American descent. I'm a white male, OK? I converted to Islam practically 12 years ago. And I can tell that you what they betray...

NEVILLE: Teric?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: Are you a white guy?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: Wow. OK.

CALLER: But I would like to comment on what the gentleman said. There is no such thing as radical Islam. There is only one kind of Islam, one true Islam. Anything else would be considered a splinter group. Now, we don't consider all Catholic priests to be pedophiles.

NEVILLE: And I am going to cut you off on that note, because I have to take a break right now.

We are going to -- by the way, we are awaiting a joint news conference with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They could address the issue of terrorism. And, of course, when that happens, we will bring it to you live.

In the meantime, up next: A bishop admits he turned over an entire parish to a priest he knew was preaching man-boy love. You have to hear this one to believe it.

And then I want to hear what you have to say, so you go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And I'm back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Right now, we're going to go to Greenbelt, Maryland, where Bob Franken is standing by live now.

You just came out of a sniper hearing. And what are the latest details, Bob?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest details are that the 20 charges in the complaint against John Muhammad, who is the adult of the two who have been charged in the sniper killing, has now had the charges levied against him.

The magistrate here, who name is Charles Day, said, "Mr. Muhammad, do you understand the nature of the charges against you?"

Muhammad said, "Yes, sir."

The charges are a collection of federal charges against him in connection with the shootings that occurred in Maryland and the District on Columbia. The ones in Virginia were not covered. I will talk about that in just a moment. But these were charges that included seven counts using a firearm in a crime that resulted in the death, the murder of a victim. That is a federal crime that brings with it the death penalty.

The other crimes had to do with extortion, allegations of racketeering, allegations of interstate commerce to commit the various crimes, allegations of shooting, knowingly shooting into a school zone. But the ones that carry the death penalty are the seven charges that involve the use of a firearm in the commission of a murder.

And, as I said, he was asked about whether he understood the charges. And his answer was, "Yes, sir." He was also asked whether he was under the influence of drugs. He said, "No, sir."

"Is there any mental defect?" he was asked.

He said, "No, sir."

The next hearing is going to be on Tuesday. That will be one that will discuss whether there should be continued detention. In the meantime, Muhammad is being held in jail without bail.

Also, the 17-year-old, the one who claims to be 17-year-old, his companion, John Malvo, is also being held. He is considered a juvenile in federal law, so any proceedings involving him would be closed. We have no knowledge that he is here, as a matter of fact. He's being held right now in Baltimore.

The question will become whether he will be charged on some of the state charges. In Maryland, where many of the shootings occurred, six of them occurred, the fatal shootings, he could not be given the death penalty under Maryland law. In Virginia, where three of them occurred, he could get the death penalty. Those Virginia entities have not completed their legal work. The federal government moved as it did to make sure that it could proceed. Virginia is going to follow suit, or can follow suit, the counties that have not already made the charge, because now the federal government has gotten into the act. But the story here today is that John Muhammad has faced federal charges, including ones that carry with them the death penalty -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, Bob Franken, thank you very much for that update.

Listen, we are going to take a break right now. We have a whole lot to talk about here on TALKBACK LIVE, including the bishop who apparently let Paul Shanley keep his job while he was promoting sex between men and boys.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Accused molester Father Paul Shanley attended a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and allegedly supported sex between men and boys. That apparently was no surprise to Brooklyn's Bishop Thomas Daily. In a deposition now made public, Daily admits he knew about Shanley's public statements about sex between men and boys, but went ahead and put the priest in charge of St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts anyway.

CNN's Michael Okwu joins us now with details of the deposition -- good afternoon, Michael.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel. The taped deposition is strong stuff. And if you are a family member of any of the alleged victims, it's probably just plain too difficult to listen to. Bishop Daily was vicar general of Boston's archdiocese, serving as the number two, essentially, under the cardinal, when he gave Father Paul Shanley the nod to head a parish and its children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't you have some concerns about that?

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY: I would say I have some concerns. But keep in mind that, if I'm not mistaken, there were no calls, complaints, evidence of actions by him in regard to this whole field. That it was all ideas. It was all him making big speeches, for which he needed a kick in the pants, if you don't mind me saying, but it was all ideas and he was promoting these ideas. But no actions...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OKWU: Now Shanley was indicted in June for raping and molesting four boys when he served at St. Jean's in the early 1980s. The taped deposition was taken in August in connection to a civil suit filed by the four. Now Daily promoted Shanley, despite a parishioners claim that she overheard Shanley saying sex between children and adults was the child's fault. And despite knowing, Shanley had attended a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. More now from the deposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You also knew in 1983 that someone who might express their endorsement of man-boy love relationships might also be someone who could be considered a threat to children. Is that correct?

DAILY: He might. Yeah, I am aware of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you went ahead and appointed him despite the fact that you information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the organization?

DAILY: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you regret that?

DAILY: I regret that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OKWU: If you believe his accuser, Shanley was the worst kind of predator priest. One alleged victim said he became terrified of god. That, in fact, he believed Shanley was god. Bishop Daily says he knew Shanley was a troubled priest who, "needed help." So the question his detractors are asking today, and perhaps for the coming months, is why did he choose this priest to be elevated to a position where he might have unrestricted access to children?

Moments ago I talked to a spokesperson for the Brooklyn Archdiocese who says he saw the bishop last night. He said it's tough, it's a very difficult time. That Bishop Daily is suffering because he doesn't want to hurt the church -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Michael, stand-by for me. I want to talk to the panel about this.

Rebecca I want to start with you. You just heard the deposition from Bishop Thomas Daily. Do you think he should face any criminal charges or civil liability?

REBECCA HAGELIN, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: I tell what you, Arthel, I think this problem is so deep and it's so obvious that this an egregious decision by the bishop. NAMBLA is a place for pedophiles. That's what organization is, an organization of pedophiles to commit the most egregious acts against children.

And I think that this bishop needs to be held accountable for that. I think it would strengthen the Catholic Church, if he were too, because it would show America that they're not going to hold back and say we don't want the law to get involved when children are hurt.

NEVILLE: Well, Callie Crossley, speaking of the Catholic Church, how much blame should be placed on the Catholic Church?

CALLIE CROSSLEY, NPR COMMENTATOR: Well, I think in this case, there's a lot of blame. And for certain, he should bear some of that responsibility in a public way and in somehow in a legal way. I think it's hard for us at this period of time when we talk about these issues so frankly to realize that there was somebody who just, said, oh, well. You know, he's involved in this organization, but it really -- we haven't heard any complaints, so we'll just let him about go ahead.

It's shocking, it's horrific and I believe that the church has to bear responsibility for that in making a strong statement within its own system. And also he should go up for civil charges at the very least.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, NEWSMAX.COM: Arthel, I think it's important, you know, we didn't tar and feather a whole group of people: the Catholic Church. I'm a Catholic layman and I certainly think what the bishop said is reprehensible. I think the hierarchy needs to be held accountable, because here you have a situation where you had a priest not only advocating something that's immoral and in violation of Catholic teaching, but it's illegal.

It's illegal for the adult male to have sex with a child. And he was advocating it and this bishop allowed him to now take control a parish. I think it's terrible and I think he should resign.

ROLAND MARTIN, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: And Arthel, what is even more offensive is the fact that D.A.s across the country and the Justice Department have done virtually nothing. They have been silent. For the first 25 years of my life I was a Catholic, altar boy, involved in the church. And for the hierarchy to sit here and accuse this kind of behavior, they're caught in this attitude of forgiveness, love and compassion. Look, I will forgive you, I will love you. I will have compassion for you, even while you sit your priestly behind in a jail cell.

NEVILLE: Hey, Michael Okwu, are you still there?

OKWU: I sure am.

NEVILLE: Yes, you know I know that you are covering this, and I'm wondering if you had a chance at all to get any sort of reaction from the folks in the archdiocese up in that area?

OKWU: Well, I can tell you from talking to people in the archdiocese that there is not the great hew and cry that followed -- basically followed Cardinal Bernard Law up in Boston, who is, of course, been under the gun for months. When you talk to them, they say the sort of things that you have been hearing now for several months. Which is the fact that the Catholic Church is a family.

And the Archdiocese in Brooklyn is really an immediate family, as far as the people there are concerned. And with any family, there are great disagreements and some dissension. And even with the dissension, there are -- they are basically -- there is a waiting period, where people give members of the families, so to speak, an opportunity to try to resolve the issue.

However, Arthel, I should say that this is still very early. People are just finding out the extent to which of their particular bishop was involved in this. So it remains to be seen what happens in the coming days, the coming weeks, the coming months.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm going to go to the phone right now. Excuse me, guys, I have Doris (ph) standing by on the phone in New York. Go ahead, Doris (ph).

CALLER: Hi, Arthel. I am calling because I think that the bishop should be in jail alongside with Shanley. Because people who have relied on the Catholic Church to help them morally and everything, and then turn around and have bishops up there who knew these things about this fellow, and he should be right alongside with him in jail for permitting that.

NEVILLE: OK.

RUDDY: I think the important thing here is any human institution is going to have these types of problems. But there's got to be an accountability. We can forgive people, but there has to be an accountability, and I think that Michael is exactly right. That there needs to be something done here to show that somebody is responsible for what took place.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: I'm sorry, Roland. I've got to go to break.

MARTIN: No problem.

NEVILLE: Michael Okwu, thank you very much for joining us.

Up next, a mysterious gas ends a hostage crisis in Moscow. But can a rescue be declared a success when dozens of the hostages died? TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone.

More than 680 people were freed when Russian authorities pumped a mysterious gas into a Moscow theater and brought an end to a terrifying hostage crisis. Two of the hostages had already been killed by Chechen guerrillas demanding an end to the war in Chechnya, but the debilitating gas killed another 115, leading some critics to call the whole rescue operation a major blunder.

OK, Rebecca, did Russian authorities do the right thing?

HAGELIN: Well, obviously there was a major blunder. And you know I think what we have to think of in terms of is what does this mean for the United States? How is the United States preparing for a similar situation, whether it would be terrorists that would take hundreds of people hostage in an auditorium, and certainly other ways, other than using boot force and guns and bombs have to be explored. But clearly, Russia made some horrible mistakes, and this is a great human tragedy.

CROSSLEY: I'm not certain, I have to say, whether or not there were mistakes made. I think that Russia may have decided this is how we are going to deal with terrorism. And that's something that we in the United States are not prepared to deal with, and that's casualty as it relates to war.

NEVILLE: OK, but Callie -- Callie, now the Russian authorities didn't even tell the doctors in Russia what they were using.

CROSSLEY: I understand that.

NEVILLE: So when the folks were taken to the emergency rooms, the doctors were scrambling trying to figure out how to treat the patients because they didn't know what they had inhaled.

RUDDY: Well, it's pretty clear...

CROSSLEY: Well, first I want to say that I think that we don't know all of the details. And still following what I said about whether or not this is a mistake, it they had determined that this small loss of life was more important than a larger loss of life, then not telling the doctors would be part of that plan.

RUDDY: Russia is close to being a police state under Putin. We won't know the details; it's not a democracy. They still have not released the name of the gas. And, basically, what they followed is what we did in Waco, which is you kill the patient to save the patient. It's crazy thinking, but any time you use gas, you know that the by-product is possibly fire or the death of the people inhaling it. And we are -- we should be condemning Russia at the U.N. and worldwide about this, but we can't, because we lost our moral high ground at Waco.

MARTIN: You know, we don't -- Arthel, there are two issues here.

CROSSLEY: I think you're absolutely right about that, but I also think that we have to look at it, as Rebecca said, because this may be something we decide to do on a global basis. I mean, President Bush has been very clear that he's not going to deal with terrorism.

NEVILLE: OK. Roland, let me get you in there with your two issues -- go ahead.

MARTIN: Well, it's very simple. There were 750 people who they said we're going to kill beginning at 6:00 AM on Saturday. They had a choice.

There are two issues. The first issue is they were correct to go in. And if they used gas, they were trying to save hostages. Where they failed was not having ambulances at the scene to transport them to hospitals. They failed to tell the doctors what kind of gas they used. So they were correct in going in. Let's keep in mind, how many people... HAGELIN: It wasn't a well-thought out strategy from the beginning.

MARTIN: How many people survived?

RUDDY: I think there is a larger lesson for America to learn is that the new Russia is like the old Russia. Putin is an old KGB goon. That's where he comes from. Even when the Kursk -- remember that submarine went down.

NEVILLE: OK. But hang on, Chris. What do you say if Vladimir Putin just let this crisis continue and let those rebels just blow up the theater?

RUDDY: Well, there apparently were two people dead, but there were still over 100 that were alive. You try to exhaust all options, and you don't use a gas that's going to probably kill...

NEVILLE: They had already killed two hostages.

MARTIN: Hey Chris, they killed two and they said that beginning of 6:00 AM, sunrise, we're going to begin to kill hostages. They were people who were strapped with bombs.

RUDDY: What is the solution as to put a gas in that kills almost everyone else?

MARTIN: OK. Chris, what would you do?

CROSSLEY: I think the larger issue is what are we going to do if faced with that scenario?

HAGELIN: That's exactly the point.

NEVILLE: OK. Rebecca, I want to hear your thoughts on that. But let me get Phillip (ph) from Georgia here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's easy to be critical of decisions made by governments when you sit on the sideline after the fact. I mean, I love our country, but we don't have a good track record of making those -- making good decisions in similar situations as well.

RUDDY: But it's really important that we are critical of these officials because it will affect our future and our lives in the future.

MARTIN: Arthel, how many people survived?

HAGELIN: WE have to have a well-thought out plan. How are we going to respond in this new era of terrorism, when terrorists can likely take hundreds if not thousands of people hostage? Now, Waco was a horrible disaster. But under the current administration, I kind of take offense to comparing that the United States is the same as Russia in the way they operated here.

Russia's problem was they didn't think it through all the way and they weren't prepared. The United States has got to come up with some very -- the United States has got to come up with some very full-proof methods. And thinking it all the way through, bringing the health officials into it. What do you do in such a crisis?

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Rebecca. I'm going to go ahead and toss to Martin Savidge standing by in the newsroom with some breaking news -- Marty.

(BREAKING NEWS)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: We want to take you now to Greenbelt in Maryland. There was a hearing that was taking place today in federal court for John Allen Muhammad and we are expecting to hear some reaction in regarding. So let's listen in now.

JIM WYDA, MUHAMMAD'S ATTORNEY: Let me start by introducing myself and my colleagues. I am Jim Wida -- that's W-Y-D-A. My colleague to my right is Paul Hazelherst (ph). My colleague to my left is Peter Johnson (ph).

We are all from the office of the federal public defender. I want to make a brief statement and unfortunately, for you, I guess, I'm not going to answer any questions at this time. My statement I'm going to emphasize is -- at this time, I want to talk about process.

Today, you heard the government's allegations against Mr. Muhammad. At this point, we still have not heard any evidence in a court of law against Mr. Muhammad.

We know a few things at this point. Mr. Muhammad is a 41-year- old father. He was an American who served in the Persian Gulf. He was honorably discharged from the United States military.

He has never been convicted of another crime at any time, anywhere. Now today, he stands accused of an incomprehensible crime. One that has had a profound impact on our community and has destroyed the lives of good people and innocent families.

What I'm asking you to do, at this point, is to wait for the process to work. Americans understandably have a great deal of pride in our system of justice, including its core principles, including the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. What we are asking you to do and asking the public to do is to respect that process.

Mr. Muhammad needs it very badly when there is this type of attention focused. His lawyers have watched as the media has focused so much attention on this case. And again, as I said last time, this is a situation when there is so much emotion and so much passion that breeds the chance for error and mistake.

Today, we had an initial appearance on behalf of Mr. Muhammad and his charges in federal court. The next step in the process, we have a detention hearing next Tuesday in the same courthouse. After that, we will have an arraignment, where we will set a schedule for these cases to be tried in federal court. Again, Mr. Muhammad and his lawyers still trust this system of justice. Please let it work.

Thank you very much.

SAVIDGE: And you have been listen to Jim Wyda. He is the public defender for John Allen Muhammad, the suspect -- one of the suspects in the D.C. sniper-area case. There were about 20 federal charges that were presented against his client just a short while ago. And you heard Mr. Wyda as he was saying that today he wanted to talk about the process.

He said that we have heard the government's allegations. But he said that they have not heard any evidence in a court of law against his client. He says that his client stands accused of an incomprehensible crime and he is asking that we wait for the process to work. And he said that Americans take pride in some basic principles, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and the right to the fair trial.

Let's bring in CNN's Bob Franken, who is also there. And Bob, what do you make of this statement coming from the public defender? First of all, why would he speak out, do you think?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think what he's trying to do is to try and stop this from being totally overcome by the public passions, the outrage that accompanied the shootings. There has been a voice that's been muted a little bit, and that is the voice of, for instance, death penalty opponents who are saying that in this rush to exact revenge -- not their words, I am paraphrasing them -- that the normal orderly process that is so much a part of the United States in its Constitution is being ignored.

And so what public defender was trying to do is, hey, give this guy a chance. It's not something that everyone is inclined to do, but he is innocent until proven guilty. The right to a fair trial is very much a part of the process in the United States.

It was really just the plea to everybody to, let's get some perspective. That's what federal public defender was charging. Now it was interesting, Martin, to be in the court. It was so calm, so deliberate, so normal, when you consider how extraordinary the last three weeks have been with the shootings and the rein of terror. That's the only way to describe it.

So all the public defender was trying to do is say, let's have some perspective here -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Right. Very, very interesting. Thank you, Bob Franken, from Greenbelt, Maryland.

We will take break. TALKBACK LIVE will continue right after that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I am Arthel Neville. You were just listening to a news conference with Jim Wyda, public defender for John Allen Muhammad.

Chris Ruddy, Mr. Wyda was saying, listen everybody, keep in mind that you are innocent until prove guilty. Can Muhammad get a fair trial?

RUDDY: Well, I believe he will. I believe that he will have a full -- all of the legal rights of any American citizen. And it's true, he's not convicted until done so in a court of law.

NEVILLE: Roland?

MARTIN: Oh, absolutely. It's all a matter of him given the opportunity to say his peace, allow for the evidence to be presented, and allow the law enforcement to finish their investigation and then commence the trial.

NEVILLE: Rebecca?

HAGELIN: He will get a fair trial. Hey, if ever there was a time a lawyer didn't want to be a public defender, this is probably it. He has to do his job, but he knows public opinion is against him. And as Bob Franken used the term "rein of terror," as a Richmond resident, I have to agree with how it was a rein of terror for those of us who lived here, who had our schools shut down. But I don't think there's going to be a real hard time for him to get a fair trial because our system will work.

NEVILLE: Callie?

CROSSLEY: Well, it was a rein of terror for the rest of us as well who, we woke up every morning fearful for you, right in the immediate area. And while I think that he will get -- definitely get a fair trial legally, the trial in the media is something else again. And I would like to hope that journalists will be very careful in how they present the information and tell the story.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Hugh (ph) from England.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes with a case like this, maybe international jurors can help.

NEVILLE: Interesting. Thank you very much, sir.

Hey, listen, I am not sure who I want to go with this. Rebecca, I will go with you. What do you think the defense would be in a case like this?

HAGELIN: They're going to be hard-pressed to come up with a good defense. I am not an attorney, so I don't know what particular tactics they're going to take. But I have to say, in the state of Virginia, we are considering pressing the first charges in our antiterrorism law.

So this guy's going to have a lot to do. He could face charges in Virginia, Maryland, federal government. And they will be hard pressed to come up with a good defense, frankly.

NEVILLE: Roland?

RUDDY: Well we know that he can use psychiatric claims, obviously.

HAGELIN: Which he won't be able to.

MARTIN: Well, actually some of the folks that I have talked to who are defense lawyers said their focus would actually be on making sure that he doesn't get the death penalty. So they would try to save his life, because they understand that there's a lot of physical evidence in this case that's going to point to him.

NEVILLE: And that is the last word. Thank you very much to Roland Martin.

MARTIN: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right. You're welcome. And Chris Ruddy, Callie Crossley and Rebecca Hagelin, thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you all again.

And thanks you, too, for watching us. Don't forget Charles Barkley -- sir Charles -- joins us tomorrow. That's going to be pretty fun, I think. I'll see you tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

"INSIDE POLITICS" up next.

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST: Thanks, Arthel.

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






Russian Hostage Scenario Happen Here?>


Aired October 29, 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.
Several states have filed charges against the alleged Beltway snipers. And John Allen Muhammad now faces federal charges that, in at least one case, could carry the death penalty. You will get details on all of that in just a second.

And then stay tuned, because I want you to hear about the bishop who appointed Father Paul Shanley to a parish even though he knew Shanley was out there promoting sex between men and boys.

And later: You decide, bright idea or blunder? The Russians used a debilitating gas to rescue hundreds of hostages, but the gas kills more than 100 in the process. Could it happen here?

First, CNN's Patty Davis joins us with an update on the new charges being levied in the sniper case -- good afternoon, Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel.

An initial hearing scheduled to begin in about an hour in federal court, that hearing to inform John Muhammad of the federal complaint, the charges against him. Now, those charges in the federal complaint include using a weapon to commit a crime of violence, causing the death of a person. That charge could bring the death penalty -- conspiracy to effect interstate commerce by extortion and threats of physical violence -- now, extortion referring to that demand left in a note at the scene of one of shootings that demanded $10 million.

Now, the federal government careful to avoid filing charges in the state of Virginia. They don't want to supersede Virginia. One county there has not yet filed its charges. John Lee Malvo, the 17- year-old, is not named in this federal complaint. And that is because he is a juvenile.

Now, it's interesting, Arthel. In this complaint, the federal government details some of the evidence that it found in the 1990 Chevy Caprice, when they found these two individuals sleeping last week and when they took them under arrest and into custody: a rifle found behind the back seat: a brown glove similar to one that was left at the scene of that last shooting. That's where the bus driver, Conrad Johnson, was killed -- a global positioning system, presumably to help them find their way around; a pair of two-way transceiver radios; and a paper towel found outside of the car, underneath it, a single .223 bullet -- Arthel. NEVILLE: Hey, Patti, will the federal charges make a difference in terms of where these two might be tried first?

DAVIS: It does not impact that at all. It doesn't answer that question. That's still a question that they have to decide.

Now, presumably, since the federal government has custody of these two men, they are going to decide where they go to be tried first. The thought is either Virginia or Maryland, obviously. Those are the two states that want to try these two men. But Virginia seems to be winning at this point, although no decision has been made. It's been shown that, in Virginia, prosecutors are much more dogged in going after the death penalty and using it.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, I know that authorities have linked Malvo and Muhammad to a couple of other shootings. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

DAVIS: Well, what we have is Alabama, of course. And that's what led to their getting caught here in this area. In Alabama, they were capital murder charges filed there in connection with the shooting of two store clerks outside a liquor store. One of them was killed, the other one seriously wounded -- a fingerprint left at the scene of John Malvo.

And that's what led police to connect them all the way to Tacoma, Washington, and then to the Washington, D.C. area. Now, police in Tacoma, Washington, say that these two men are suspects in a murder there. That was Keenya Cook. Back in February, she was shot in the head and killed, the mother of a 6-month-old.

Now, a friend of Malvo and Muhammad called the sniper task force and indeed said: "I was a friend of theirs. They lived with me for six months."

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Keenya, let me interrupt you for a moment. I mean Patty Davis.

(INTERRUPTED FOR BREAKING NEWS)

NEVILLE: I was talking to Patty Davis, who was giving us an update on the sniper.

And, Patty, I accidentally called you Keenya, because I was trying to get you to get to Keenya Cook. That is the name of the suspect in Tacoma, Washington, who apparently is the niece of the woman who used to work for Muhammad, and in fact befriended Muhammad and his wife at the time, and perhaps the wife -- the aunt took the wife's side in really a bitter child custody case.

DAVIS: That's right.

And the aunt told police that she was concerned perhaps that Muhammad might have been shooting at her. And instead this woman, her niece, answered the door, was shot in the face and killed. So that brought police in Tacoma, Washington, to name these two men at least as suspects. They say they are far from charging them. They still have a lot of work to do, a lot of evidence to build.

They say they have a motive, they had the opportunity. Yet they have not been able yet to place them at the crime scene in that case. They're still working on that, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Sure. And then I know that there was a shooting outside of a synagogue, right?

DAVIS: It was vandalism at a synagogue. In fact, the police were telling me today that, at first, in May, the rabbi in that case just thought it was just something like a door had hit a wall and caused a hole in it.

But then he called police and said, "Hey, is there any way that Muhammad and Malvo may have been involved in something that happened at my synagogue?" Police investigated and in fact found bullets believed to have come from another weapon. And they believe that Malvo and Muhammad are now connected to that act of vandal at the synagogue as well.

NEVILLE: All right, Patty Davis, thank you very much for that update.

And joining us now again today on TALKBACK LIVE, it is time to meet our other guests: Roland Martin, editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com. He is author of "Speak, Brother: A Black Man's View of America."

Hello, Roland.

ROLAND MARTIN, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: How you doing, Arthel?

NEVILLE: All right.

Chris Ruddy, the editor of NewsMax.com.

Hey, Chris.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, EDITOR, NEWSMAX.COM: Arthel, thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: Good. I'm glad you are here.

Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist and vice president of communications for WorldNetDaily.com.

There you are, Rebecca. How are you?

REBECCA HAGELIN, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Hey, great. Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right.

And Callie Crossley head of Cross Channels, a public-relations group. She is a commentator for National Public Radio and a panelist on WGBH TV's "Beat the Press."

Hello. How are you, Callie?

CALLIE CROSSLEY, NPR COMMENTATOR: Good afternoon, Arthel.

OK, listen, we are going to talk about the snipers first.

And, Roland, I'm going to start with you on that one. Now we know there was a shooting at a synagogue. You just heard Patty Davis tell us about that. It's clarified as vandalism. Muhammad was a member of the Nation of Islam. Does that add up to anything?

MARTIN: Actually, we don't know. The investigation continues. We have not had an opportunity to hear from Muhammad, hear from Malvo, hear from their attorneys. What police are doing, they are scouring the country seeing if there's any connection, because, clearly, these two individuals were driving across country.

So I think it is far too early for anyone to begin to connect the dots as him being a member of the NOI. Louis Farrakhan had a news conference on Sunday where he said that he was indeed a member of the Nation of Islam, but was not active since 1999. So, again, there's no connection there. And he's been connected to the synagogue shooting, as opposed to him being the actual suspect. There is a difference there.

NEVILLE: Understood.

OK, Chris, quickly, your initial thoughts on this?

RUDDY: Well, I disagree there. I think already we know that he was an Islamic fundamentalist. And I don't want to criticize all members of Islam. I think most people are peace-loving individuals like you and I. But the truth is that he was a very radical Islamist.

NEVILLE: But, Chris, are you painting all Muslims with the same brush?

Hold that thought. I am going to get your answer when I come back. I have got to take a break right now, OK?

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Brooklyn's Bishop Thomas Daily now admits he knew what Father Paul Shanley was promoting when he put him in charge of a parish.

QUESTION: You also knew in 1983 that someone who expressed their endorsement of man-boy love relationships might also be someone who could be considered a threat to children. But you went ahead and appointed him, despite the fact that you had information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the NAMBLA organization.

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY, BROOKLYN: Correct.

NEVILLE: What would you suggest Bishop Daily do now?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUIS FARRAKHAN, NATION OF ISLAM: All of us who are members of the Nation of Islam have been instructed not to carry any weapons, not so much as a pen knife, not on our persons and not in our homes. So any member of the nation that may be found with such is in violation of our teachings. We do not rely on weapons of war to defend us. We rely on our belief and our faith in Allah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, speaking out.

Chris Ruddy, I promised I would let you answer the question. Are you painting all Muslims with the same brush?

RUDDY: No. And I clearly said that most Muslims are peace- loving people.

But we all have a real problem with radical Islam. And I include Farrakhan in that group. And let's not forget, he makes those nice comments about peace. But the next minute, he's visiting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Gadhafi, other butchers around the world that do propose and support radical Islam and terrorism. So I measure man by his deeds and who he associates with.

And I think we can draw a clear line between some of the inflammatory rhetoric that Farrakhan has given out to his Nation of Islam and some of these acts that we are seeing in the sniper shootings.

MARTIN: Chris, you cannot draw a direct line, when the NOI has not had a history of violence. Name one case that...

RUDDY: Malcolm X himself was assassinated by an internecine struggle within that movement.

MARTIN: OK.

RUDDY: How can you say it has no history of violence? That's utterly ridiculous.

MARTIN: Wait a minute. A history means more than one act. That's a history.

(CROSSTALK) RUDDY: Look at the comments he has made. Even after the Colin Ferguson shootings in New York back into the '90s, I think Farrakhan made some comments that were not condemnatory of this man.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Rebecca.

HAGELIN: Getting back to the sniper, I think we need to look at what his mind was. And where his mind was, he was an adherent to the Muslim faith.

WorldNetDaily.com has interviewed neighbors of his who say his house was filled with Muslim paraphernalia, scripture verses on the door. And he saw no conflict with his acts of terrorism and brutal member of 10 people with his religion. He found no conflict there. Now, there are many peace-loving Muslims. But the fact is, there is a radical element commonly referred to as Islamism which does promote jihad and murder and terrorism.

And it's not just al Qaeda. It's Hamas. It's Islamic Jihad. It's cell groups operating by themselves. The U.S. government has clearly said there are other cell groups in the United States. And we need to look very carefully at this.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, guys. Gentlemen, let me get Callie in here.

CROSSLEY: I just want to make the point that, because someone has all the paraphernalia, because someone appears to practice the faith does not mean that he is a member of the faith. So the only thing that we can say right now about Muhammad is that he practiced some tenets, it appears, of Islam. But even as far as the Nation of Islam is concerned, they did not count him as a member.

RUDDY: I think it's already clear there's already enough evidence...

(CROSSTALK)

CROSSLEY: Excuse me.

If you have issues with Farrakhan, that's one thing. But we don't have enough information to say where Muhammad was in terms of what he thought was spiritual and what he thought was his religion.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, panel. I have got Tim from Kansas.

TIM: Well, I think that painting somebody that is Islamic, all the Islamic people the same, it would be the same as me as a Christian being painted like Timothy McVeigh bombing Oklahoma City in '95, making all white guys to be a murderer.

(CROSSTALK)

RUDDY: There was an effort after the Oklahoma City bombing to blame conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. Let's not forget that stampede that took place.

CROSSLEY: But the point is that nobody said Timothy McVeigh is radical Christianity. Nobody said that.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, we're going to the phone now, going to the telephone, Alabama, where Teric (ph) is standing by.

Go ahead, Teric.

CALLER: Yes, I would like to comment on the fact that, oftentimes in the media, that Muslims are portrayed in a particular way, but it is to say that if a crime is committed, automatically that it is done in the name of Islam.

Now, I am a Muslim born of American descent. I'm a white male, OK? I converted to Islam practically 12 years ago. And I can tell that you what they betray...

NEVILLE: Teric?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: Are you a white guy?

CALLER: Yes.

NEVILLE: Wow. OK.

CALLER: But I would like to comment on what the gentleman said. There is no such thing as radical Islam. There is only one kind of Islam, one true Islam. Anything else would be considered a splinter group. Now, we don't consider all Catholic priests to be pedophiles.

NEVILLE: And I am going to cut you off on that note, because I have to take a break right now.

We are going to -- by the way, we are awaiting a joint news conference with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They could address the issue of terrorism. And, of course, when that happens, we will bring it to you live.

In the meantime, up next: A bishop admits he turned over an entire parish to a priest he knew was preaching man-boy love. You have to hear this one to believe it.

And then I want to hear what you have to say, so you go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And I'm back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Right now, we're going to go to Greenbelt, Maryland, where Bob Franken is standing by live now.

You just came out of a sniper hearing. And what are the latest details, Bob?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest details are that the 20 charges in the complaint against John Muhammad, who is the adult of the two who have been charged in the sniper killing, has now had the charges levied against him.

The magistrate here, who name is Charles Day, said, "Mr. Muhammad, do you understand the nature of the charges against you?"

Muhammad said, "Yes, sir."

The charges are a collection of federal charges against him in connection with the shootings that occurred in Maryland and the District on Columbia. The ones in Virginia were not covered. I will talk about that in just a moment. But these were charges that included seven counts using a firearm in a crime that resulted in the death, the murder of a victim. That is a federal crime that brings with it the death penalty.

The other crimes had to do with extortion, allegations of racketeering, allegations of interstate commerce to commit the various crimes, allegations of shooting, knowingly shooting into a school zone. But the ones that carry the death penalty are the seven charges that involve the use of a firearm in the commission of a murder.

And, as I said, he was asked about whether he understood the charges. And his answer was, "Yes, sir." He was also asked whether he was under the influence of drugs. He said, "No, sir."

"Is there any mental defect?" he was asked.

He said, "No, sir."

The next hearing is going to be on Tuesday. That will be one that will discuss whether there should be continued detention. In the meantime, Muhammad is being held in jail without bail.

Also, the 17-year-old, the one who claims to be 17-year-old, his companion, John Malvo, is also being held. He is considered a juvenile in federal law, so any proceedings involving him would be closed. We have no knowledge that he is here, as a matter of fact. He's being held right now in Baltimore.

The question will become whether he will be charged on some of the state charges. In Maryland, where many of the shootings occurred, six of them occurred, the fatal shootings, he could not be given the death penalty under Maryland law. In Virginia, where three of them occurred, he could get the death penalty. Those Virginia entities have not completed their legal work. The federal government moved as it did to make sure that it could proceed. Virginia is going to follow suit, or can follow suit, the counties that have not already made the charge, because now the federal government has gotten into the act. But the story here today is that John Muhammad has faced federal charges, including ones that carry with them the death penalty -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, Bob Franken, thank you very much for that update.

Listen, we are going to take a break right now. We have a whole lot to talk about here on TALKBACK LIVE, including the bishop who apparently let Paul Shanley keep his job while he was promoting sex between men and boys.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Accused molester Father Paul Shanley attended a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and allegedly supported sex between men and boys. That apparently was no surprise to Brooklyn's Bishop Thomas Daily. In a deposition now made public, Daily admits he knew about Shanley's public statements about sex between men and boys, but went ahead and put the priest in charge of St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts anyway.

CNN's Michael Okwu joins us now with details of the deposition -- good afternoon, Michael.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel. The taped deposition is strong stuff. And if you are a family member of any of the alleged victims, it's probably just plain too difficult to listen to. Bishop Daily was vicar general of Boston's archdiocese, serving as the number two, essentially, under the cardinal, when he gave Father Paul Shanley the nod to head a parish and its children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't you have some concerns about that?

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY: I would say I have some concerns. But keep in mind that, if I'm not mistaken, there were no calls, complaints, evidence of actions by him in regard to this whole field. That it was all ideas. It was all him making big speeches, for which he needed a kick in the pants, if you don't mind me saying, but it was all ideas and he was promoting these ideas. But no actions...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OKWU: Now Shanley was indicted in June for raping and molesting four boys when he served at St. Jean's in the early 1980s. The taped deposition was taken in August in connection to a civil suit filed by the four. Now Daily promoted Shanley, despite a parishioners claim that she overheard Shanley saying sex between children and adults was the child's fault. And despite knowing, Shanley had attended a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. More now from the deposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You also knew in 1983 that someone who might express their endorsement of man-boy love relationships might also be someone who could be considered a threat to children. Is that correct?

DAILY: He might. Yeah, I am aware of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you went ahead and appointed him despite the fact that you information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the organization?

DAILY: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you regret that?

DAILY: I regret that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OKWU: If you believe his accuser, Shanley was the worst kind of predator priest. One alleged victim said he became terrified of god. That, in fact, he believed Shanley was god. Bishop Daily says he knew Shanley was a troubled priest who, "needed help." So the question his detractors are asking today, and perhaps for the coming months, is why did he choose this priest to be elevated to a position where he might have unrestricted access to children?

Moments ago I talked to a spokesperson for the Brooklyn Archdiocese who says he saw the bishop last night. He said it's tough, it's a very difficult time. That Bishop Daily is suffering because he doesn't want to hurt the church -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Michael, stand-by for me. I want to talk to the panel about this.

Rebecca I want to start with you. You just heard the deposition from Bishop Thomas Daily. Do you think he should face any criminal charges or civil liability?

REBECCA HAGELIN, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: I tell what you, Arthel, I think this problem is so deep and it's so obvious that this an egregious decision by the bishop. NAMBLA is a place for pedophiles. That's what organization is, an organization of pedophiles to commit the most egregious acts against children.

And I think that this bishop needs to be held accountable for that. I think it would strengthen the Catholic Church, if he were too, because it would show America that they're not going to hold back and say we don't want the law to get involved when children are hurt.

NEVILLE: Well, Callie Crossley, speaking of the Catholic Church, how much blame should be placed on the Catholic Church?

CALLIE CROSSLEY, NPR COMMENTATOR: Well, I think in this case, there's a lot of blame. And for certain, he should bear some of that responsibility in a public way and in somehow in a legal way. I think it's hard for us at this period of time when we talk about these issues so frankly to realize that there was somebody who just, said, oh, well. You know, he's involved in this organization, but it really -- we haven't heard any complaints, so we'll just let him about go ahead.

It's shocking, it's horrific and I believe that the church has to bear responsibility for that in making a strong statement within its own system. And also he should go up for civil charges at the very least.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, NEWSMAX.COM: Arthel, I think it's important, you know, we didn't tar and feather a whole group of people: the Catholic Church. I'm a Catholic layman and I certainly think what the bishop said is reprehensible. I think the hierarchy needs to be held accountable, because here you have a situation where you had a priest not only advocating something that's immoral and in violation of Catholic teaching, but it's illegal.

It's illegal for the adult male to have sex with a child. And he was advocating it and this bishop allowed him to now take control a parish. I think it's terrible and I think he should resign.

ROLAND MARTIN, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: And Arthel, what is even more offensive is the fact that D.A.s across the country and the Justice Department have done virtually nothing. They have been silent. For the first 25 years of my life I was a Catholic, altar boy, involved in the church. And for the hierarchy to sit here and accuse this kind of behavior, they're caught in this attitude of forgiveness, love and compassion. Look, I will forgive you, I will love you. I will have compassion for you, even while you sit your priestly behind in a jail cell.

NEVILLE: Hey, Michael Okwu, are you still there?

OKWU: I sure am.

NEVILLE: Yes, you know I know that you are covering this, and I'm wondering if you had a chance at all to get any sort of reaction from the folks in the archdiocese up in that area?

OKWU: Well, I can tell you from talking to people in the archdiocese that there is not the great hew and cry that followed -- basically followed Cardinal Bernard Law up in Boston, who is, of course, been under the gun for months. When you talk to them, they say the sort of things that you have been hearing now for several months. Which is the fact that the Catholic Church is a family.

And the Archdiocese in Brooklyn is really an immediate family, as far as the people there are concerned. And with any family, there are great disagreements and some dissension. And even with the dissension, there are -- they are basically -- there is a waiting period, where people give members of the families, so to speak, an opportunity to try to resolve the issue.

However, Arthel, I should say that this is still very early. People are just finding out the extent to which of their particular bishop was involved in this. So it remains to be seen what happens in the coming days, the coming weeks, the coming months.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm going to go to the phone right now. Excuse me, guys, I have Doris (ph) standing by on the phone in New York. Go ahead, Doris (ph).

CALLER: Hi, Arthel. I am calling because I think that the bishop should be in jail alongside with Shanley. Because people who have relied on the Catholic Church to help them morally and everything, and then turn around and have bishops up there who knew these things about this fellow, and he should be right alongside with him in jail for permitting that.

NEVILLE: OK.

RUDDY: I think the important thing here is any human institution is going to have these types of problems. But there's got to be an accountability. We can forgive people, but there has to be an accountability, and I think that Michael is exactly right. That there needs to be something done here to show that somebody is responsible for what took place.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: I'm sorry, Roland. I've got to go to break.

MARTIN: No problem.

NEVILLE: Michael Okwu, thank you very much for joining us.

Up next, a mysterious gas ends a hostage crisis in Moscow. But can a rescue be declared a success when dozens of the hostages died? TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone.

More than 680 people were freed when Russian authorities pumped a mysterious gas into a Moscow theater and brought an end to a terrifying hostage crisis. Two of the hostages had already been killed by Chechen guerrillas demanding an end to the war in Chechnya, but the debilitating gas killed another 115, leading some critics to call the whole rescue operation a major blunder.

OK, Rebecca, did Russian authorities do the right thing?

HAGELIN: Well, obviously there was a major blunder. And you know I think what we have to think of in terms of is what does this mean for the United States? How is the United States preparing for a similar situation, whether it would be terrorists that would take hundreds of people hostage in an auditorium, and certainly other ways, other than using boot force and guns and bombs have to be explored. But clearly, Russia made some horrible mistakes, and this is a great human tragedy.

CROSSLEY: I'm not certain, I have to say, whether or not there were mistakes made. I think that Russia may have decided this is how we are going to deal with terrorism. And that's something that we in the United States are not prepared to deal with, and that's casualty as it relates to war.

NEVILLE: OK, but Callie -- Callie, now the Russian authorities didn't even tell the doctors in Russia what they were using.

CROSSLEY: I understand that.

NEVILLE: So when the folks were taken to the emergency rooms, the doctors were scrambling trying to figure out how to treat the patients because they didn't know what they had inhaled.

RUDDY: Well, it's pretty clear...

CROSSLEY: Well, first I want to say that I think that we don't know all of the details. And still following what I said about whether or not this is a mistake, it they had determined that this small loss of life was more important than a larger loss of life, then not telling the doctors would be part of that plan.

RUDDY: Russia is close to being a police state under Putin. We won't know the details; it's not a democracy. They still have not released the name of the gas. And, basically, what they followed is what we did in Waco, which is you kill the patient to save the patient. It's crazy thinking, but any time you use gas, you know that the by-product is possibly fire or the death of the people inhaling it. And we are -- we should be condemning Russia at the U.N. and worldwide about this, but we can't, because we lost our moral high ground at Waco.

MARTIN: You know, we don't -- Arthel, there are two issues here.

CROSSLEY: I think you're absolutely right about that, but I also think that we have to look at it, as Rebecca said, because this may be something we decide to do on a global basis. I mean, President Bush has been very clear that he's not going to deal with terrorism.

NEVILLE: OK. Roland, let me get you in there with your two issues -- go ahead.

MARTIN: Well, it's very simple. There were 750 people who they said we're going to kill beginning at 6:00 AM on Saturday. They had a choice.

There are two issues. The first issue is they were correct to go in. And if they used gas, they were trying to save hostages. Where they failed was not having ambulances at the scene to transport them to hospitals. They failed to tell the doctors what kind of gas they used. So they were correct in going in. Let's keep in mind, how many people... HAGELIN: It wasn't a well-thought out strategy from the beginning.

MARTIN: How many people survived?

RUDDY: I think there is a larger lesson for America to learn is that the new Russia is like the old Russia. Putin is an old KGB goon. That's where he comes from. Even when the Kursk -- remember that submarine went down.

NEVILLE: OK. But hang on, Chris. What do you say if Vladimir Putin just let this crisis continue and let those rebels just blow up the theater?

RUDDY: Well, there apparently were two people dead, but there were still over 100 that were alive. You try to exhaust all options, and you don't use a gas that's going to probably kill...

NEVILLE: They had already killed two hostages.

MARTIN: Hey Chris, they killed two and they said that beginning of 6:00 AM, sunrise, we're going to begin to kill hostages. They were people who were strapped with bombs.

RUDDY: What is the solution as to put a gas in that kills almost everyone else?

MARTIN: OK. Chris, what would you do?

CROSSLEY: I think the larger issue is what are we going to do if faced with that scenario?

HAGELIN: That's exactly the point.

NEVILLE: OK. Rebecca, I want to hear your thoughts on that. But let me get Phillip (ph) from Georgia here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's easy to be critical of decisions made by governments when you sit on the sideline after the fact. I mean, I love our country, but we don't have a good track record of making those -- making good decisions in similar situations as well.

RUDDY: But it's really important that we are critical of these officials because it will affect our future and our lives in the future.

MARTIN: Arthel, how many people survived?

HAGELIN: WE have to have a well-thought out plan. How are we going to respond in this new era of terrorism, when terrorists can likely take hundreds if not thousands of people hostage? Now, Waco was a horrible disaster. But under the current administration, I kind of take offense to comparing that the United States is the same as Russia in the way they operated here.

Russia's problem was they didn't think it through all the way and they weren't prepared. The United States has got to come up with some very -- the United States has got to come up with some very full-proof methods. And thinking it all the way through, bringing the health officials into it. What do you do in such a crisis?

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Rebecca. I'm going to go ahead and toss to Martin Savidge standing by in the newsroom with some breaking news -- Marty.

(BREAKING NEWS)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: We want to take you now to Greenbelt in Maryland. There was a hearing that was taking place today in federal court for John Allen Muhammad and we are expecting to hear some reaction in regarding. So let's listen in now.

JIM WYDA, MUHAMMAD'S ATTORNEY: Let me start by introducing myself and my colleagues. I am Jim Wida -- that's W-Y-D-A. My colleague to my right is Paul Hazelherst (ph). My colleague to my left is Peter Johnson (ph).

We are all from the office of the federal public defender. I want to make a brief statement and unfortunately, for you, I guess, I'm not going to answer any questions at this time. My statement I'm going to emphasize is -- at this time, I want to talk about process.

Today, you heard the government's allegations against Mr. Muhammad. At this point, we still have not heard any evidence in a court of law against Mr. Muhammad.

We know a few things at this point. Mr. Muhammad is a 41-year- old father. He was an American who served in the Persian Gulf. He was honorably discharged from the United States military.

He has never been convicted of another crime at any time, anywhere. Now today, he stands accused of an incomprehensible crime. One that has had a profound impact on our community and has destroyed the lives of good people and innocent families.

What I'm asking you to do, at this point, is to wait for the process to work. Americans understandably have a great deal of pride in our system of justice, including its core principles, including the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. What we are asking you to do and asking the public to do is to respect that process.

Mr. Muhammad needs it very badly when there is this type of attention focused. His lawyers have watched as the media has focused so much attention on this case. And again, as I said last time, this is a situation when there is so much emotion and so much passion that breeds the chance for error and mistake.

Today, we had an initial appearance on behalf of Mr. Muhammad and his charges in federal court. The next step in the process, we have a detention hearing next Tuesday in the same courthouse. After that, we will have an arraignment, where we will set a schedule for these cases to be tried in federal court. Again, Mr. Muhammad and his lawyers still trust this system of justice. Please let it work.

Thank you very much.

SAVIDGE: And you have been listen to Jim Wyda. He is the public defender for John Allen Muhammad, the suspect -- one of the suspects in the D.C. sniper-area case. There were about 20 federal charges that were presented against his client just a short while ago. And you heard Mr. Wyda as he was saying that today he wanted to talk about the process.

He said that we have heard the government's allegations. But he said that they have not heard any evidence in a court of law against his client. He says that his client stands accused of an incomprehensible crime and he is asking that we wait for the process to work. And he said that Americans take pride in some basic principles, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and the right to the fair trial.

Let's bring in CNN's Bob Franken, who is also there. And Bob, what do you make of this statement coming from the public defender? First of all, why would he speak out, do you think?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think what he's trying to do is to try and stop this from being totally overcome by the public passions, the outrage that accompanied the shootings. There has been a voice that's been muted a little bit, and that is the voice of, for instance, death penalty opponents who are saying that in this rush to exact revenge -- not their words, I am paraphrasing them -- that the normal orderly process that is so much a part of the United States in its Constitution is being ignored.

And so what public defender was trying to do is, hey, give this guy a chance. It's not something that everyone is inclined to do, but he is innocent until proven guilty. The right to a fair trial is very much a part of the process in the United States.

It was really just the plea to everybody to, let's get some perspective. That's what federal public defender was charging. Now it was interesting, Martin, to be in the court. It was so calm, so deliberate, so normal, when you consider how extraordinary the last three weeks have been with the shootings and the rein of terror. That's the only way to describe it.

So all the public defender was trying to do is say, let's have some perspective here -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Right. Very, very interesting. Thank you, Bob Franken, from Greenbelt, Maryland.

We will take break. TALKBACK LIVE will continue right after that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I am Arthel Neville. You were just listening to a news conference with Jim Wyda, public defender for John Allen Muhammad.

Chris Ruddy, Mr. Wyda was saying, listen everybody, keep in mind that you are innocent until prove guilty. Can Muhammad get a fair trial?

RUDDY: Well, I believe he will. I believe that he will have a full -- all of the legal rights of any American citizen. And it's true, he's not convicted until done so in a court of law.

NEVILLE: Roland?

MARTIN: Oh, absolutely. It's all a matter of him given the opportunity to say his peace, allow for the evidence to be presented, and allow the law enforcement to finish their investigation and then commence the trial.

NEVILLE: Rebecca?

HAGELIN: He will get a fair trial. Hey, if ever there was a time a lawyer didn't want to be a public defender, this is probably it. He has to do his job, but he knows public opinion is against him. And as Bob Franken used the term "rein of terror," as a Richmond resident, I have to agree with how it was a rein of terror for those of us who lived here, who had our schools shut down. But I don't think there's going to be a real hard time for him to get a fair trial because our system will work.

NEVILLE: Callie?

CROSSLEY: Well, it was a rein of terror for the rest of us as well who, we woke up every morning fearful for you, right in the immediate area. And while I think that he will get -- definitely get a fair trial legally, the trial in the media is something else again. And I would like to hope that journalists will be very careful in how they present the information and tell the story.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Hugh (ph) from England.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes with a case like this, maybe international jurors can help.

NEVILLE: Interesting. Thank you very much, sir.

Hey, listen, I am not sure who I want to go with this. Rebecca, I will go with you. What do you think the defense would be in a case like this?

HAGELIN: They're going to be hard-pressed to come up with a good defense. I am not an attorney, so I don't know what particular tactics they're going to take. But I have to say, in the state of Virginia, we are considering pressing the first charges in our antiterrorism law.

So this guy's going to have a lot to do. He could face charges in Virginia, Maryland, federal government. And they will be hard pressed to come up with a good defense, frankly.

NEVILLE: Roland?

RUDDY: Well we know that he can use psychiatric claims, obviously.

HAGELIN: Which he won't be able to.

MARTIN: Well, actually some of the folks that I have talked to who are defense lawyers said their focus would actually be on making sure that he doesn't get the death penalty. So they would try to save his life, because they understand that there's a lot of physical evidence in this case that's going to point to him.

NEVILLE: And that is the last word. Thank you very much to Roland Martin.

MARTIN: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right. You're welcome. And Chris Ruddy, Callie Crossley and Rebecca Hagelin, thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you all again.

And thanks you, too, for watching us. Don't forget Charles Barkley -- sir Charles -- joins us tomorrow. That's going to be pretty fun, I think. I'll see you tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

"INSIDE POLITICS" up next.

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST: Thanks, Arthel.

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






Russian Hostage Scenario Happen Here?>