|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
White House Unhappy With Terror Alert Issued; Homeland Security Intruding on Privacy?
Aired November 14, 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.
We have a lot today for you here on this show, beginning with this, coming up just in a short while. Most of us woke up this morning to a new unsubstantiated terror threat against hospitals in the United States. And then the FBI, which issued the warning, got its own wakeup call from the White House. It seems the president wasn't too happy about causing a general alarm over what it calls unreliable information. We're going get the details on that White House reprimand in just a minute.
Then I want you to stay tuned as we figure out just how much the new Homeland Security Bill is going to intrude into our private lives.
And then I'm going to show you a Web site where pictures and details about sex-offending priests are maintained. But the site itself could be abusing innocent men.
OK, let's get back to that hospital threat and how it turned into an administration smackdown.
CNN correspondent Jeanne Meserve is going to fill us in with all the details.
Good afternoon, Jeanne. What's the latest?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, first let me say that this threat against hospitals comes from intelligence that is considered uncorroborated, very low credibility. Those are the phrases used by Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to describe it.
It involved the possibility of attacks against hospitals in Houston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Chicago, possibly using anthrax or bombs. This information went out from the FBI to hospital officials. And as a result of that, it became public, went it into the public domain.
Officials are underlining that this is uncorroborated information, it is unsubstantiated information, that there are many other targets in this country that they are much more concerned about than this. However, there are White House officials who are displeased with how this information was released and that it did become public. They're afraid that this has unduly alarmed the public about the situation. And right now, a review is under way about how information of this sort is going to be disseminated in the future -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And, Jeanne, the medical centers, they have been notified. They were definitely notified. And so the question now becomes, doesn't the public have a right to know about these sorts of threats?
MESERVE: Well, it's a very thorny question.
The hospitals have been notified. At least one hospital here in D.C. has told me that it did increase its security level today as a result of this. FBI officials, former FBI officials with whom I have spoken, said, in situations like this, they're between a rock and hard place. You don't want to get the public too upset about these threats, particularly ones of this sort that appear to be so sort of mushy.
But, on the other hand, if they don't put out the information that they have, if they don't warn people, and then something does happen, the responsibility comes back to rest on them. It's a disaster for their career and also obviously for the country. It's a very difficult thing to weigh.
NEVILLE: Jeanne, I know you mentioned anthrax. Tell us what more is in those threats.
MESERVE: We really have very little detail beyond that, simply that anthrax was raised. The possibility of bomb attacks was raised. And these four cities were mentioned. It also gave a timeframe of roughly mid-October through the holiday season. That's all the information we've been able to glean thus far.
NEVILLE: OK, Jeanne Meserve, thank you very much for the information you do have. And I'm sure, when you gather more, we'll see you again. Thank you.
OK, we're all concerned about security these days. And we are in a whole new world, where our sense of safety is constantly being changed or challenged. The House of Representatives yesterday passed the Homeland Security Bill. And the Senate is expected to follow suit.
It would create a new Homeland Security Department, which will combine 22 different agencies in an effort to protect the homeland from terror. But some privacy advocates worry the bill could create even more fears, as the government gains new powers to possibly spy on us.
CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor, joins us now.
And, David, first off, let's talk about this piece in "The New York Times" today. William Safire warned, the Homeland Security Act would create a huge database that could basically track our every move. If you would, tell us about that. DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, he said in the column that, under that program, there was the possibility of the creation of a new piece of the government that is, in fact, being researched and developed in part of the Defense Department.
This is an office for informational awareness, which is doing some R&D on whether the government could take certain steps. This is another one of those cases, Arthel, where Americans may have to choose whether they want more security or the same freedoms they've always had, with no reduction. As everybody knows, computer databases are already full of information about each and every one of us: credit card data, airline purchases.
Supermarkets know what we eat. Banks know about our debts. And different parts of the government know about our taxes, our employment, our travel visas, and driving history. The question is this. What if the government had supercomputers programmed to pull in all this data and discern patterns in it? Could they help predict who may be plotting terrorism?
And that is what Admiral John Poindexter is trying to find out. Now, he is the former national security adviser to President Reagan. He was indicted for false statements to Congress. But he is considered brilliant. He was No. 1 in his class at the Naval Academy.
Now, in this office that he is running, they have about a $200 million program, under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, looking into whether or not they could set up a program like this which would cover the whole world, including the United States, with supercomputers that would look into all this data, look for patterns and try to find terrorists.
Now, critics charge that this is a crazy idea and an obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Here, for example, is Peter Kornbluh of George Washington's National Security Archive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER KORNBLUH, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: This is program that incorporates all of the Big Brother operations that the American public has feared from its government for all these years and that the Constitution has protected us from: spying, invasion of privacy, you name it. And Admiral Poindexter, of all people, is now in charge of that program.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ENSOR: But Poindexter has said himself, in a speech in California, that, if terrorist organizations are going to plan and execute attacks against the United States, their people must engage in transactions and they will leave signatures in this information space here in the United States.
And, to "The Washington Post" he said: "How are we going to find terrorists and preempt them except by following their trail. How can we develop the best technology in the world. Unless there's public acceptance and understanding of the necessity, it will never be implemented." And he said that his office and others at the Defense Department "are just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy."
So, here's another one of those classic debates, Arthel. Do we want more security or do we want to keep the same amount of freedom?
NEVILLE: That debate will definitely continue.
David, in the meantime, how did Poindexter get that job and who is he accountable to?
ENSOR: Well, he worked after, obviously, leaving government and various other unfortunate activities. He ended up working for a while at a consulting firm in Northern Virginia that was working on information management.
And he made a proposal, I understand, to the Defense Department to do more research on this and whether they could look for discernible patterns in the activities of terrorists, drawing information from all around the world, and perhaps catch people before they actually attacked this country. It's a good idea, but there are real civil liberties questions involved.
NEVILLE: Well, we'll talk about some of those questions coming up in the show.
David Ensor, thank you very much for joining us today.
And, of course, we're not done with this story. I want to hear about how you feel about this, the Homeland Security Bill, and whether you're worried about it becoming Big Brother. The number: 1-800-310- 4CNN. Or you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.
Congressman Bob Barr will tell us why he's worried right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE: Will the Homeland Security Bill make us safer, or could it steal your right to privacy?
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL), VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We're an open society because we protect people's rights here. And that is one of our strengths. But it also gives us vulnerability.
NEVILLE: Find out if homeland security is something you can live with, as TALKBACK LIVE continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about the new Homeland Security Bill and whether it could be nicknamed Big Brother. Joining us now is Congressman Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia; Radio One talk show host Joe Madison. He is the former executive director of the Detroit NAACP; and Heath MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to "City Journal." She is also the author of "The Burden of Bad Ideas."
Good afternoon, everyone.
OK, Congressman Barr, I'm going to start with you.
What worries you most about the Homeland Security Act?
REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Well, the one thing that worries me most is the comments that you just showed before the break from Admiral Poindexter. I think the quote was, "We care as much as the next guy about privacy."
That either shows a deliberate misrepresentation or they have a very, very warped idea of what privacy really is, because the program that they're talking about here -- and it's not really new in the context of the Department of Homeland Security; this is a process that we've seen in the Congress here going on by the administration for many years now -- seems to be taking us in the direction of gathering every bit of information that they can and using massive computers, as you've already indicated, to develop certain types of patterns and information on citizens that don't know it's being kept on them.
They don't know what's happening to this. And we don't know what government is going to do with it. This is very, very frightening, because there are absolutely no checks or balances on what the government is doing here. They're not playing by the rules under which law enforcement has been operating for 30 years now.
NEVILLE: Now, Congressman, do you fear that perhaps innocent citizens could be harmed by the department and all of its power?
BARR: Two things are happening here.
Yes, innocent citizens will be harmed by having information on them, on what they are doing, what they intend to do, what they're saying, who they're meeting with, translated to the government, being taken from them, being manipulated, analyzed and maintained by the government. And it's already changing the way we operate in this country. This is what's most insidious.
We're now having to start to think: "What are we saying? Are we saying something that, if the government overhears it, they might hold us accountable for it, that they might misconstrue it? Do we have to keep in mind what documents or magazines we have lying out in our car or in our home, because some government agent or somebody operating on behalf of the government might see it? They might think is suspicious, so they turn that information into the government."
This is what's most frightening. And it's changing the way that we live in this country into something that really does emulate "1984."
NEVILLE: But now, Congressman, indeed, September 11 changed the way we live here in the United States. And so I ask you, what are the options?
BARR: The options are very simple. We take the tools, the power the government already has, and we force government to do a better job with the power and the tools that they already have, rather than giving it more and more power to cover up the mistakes that it's already made.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I want to go to the phone calls, phones right now. I've got Dean calling in from Florida.
Go ahead, Dean.
CALLER: Yes.
There's been many references to George Orwell and "1984" and Big Brother. And the question I have is, the information already that we've seen in the last 20 years, like our medical, our financial, and really everyday information is gathered on us.
The question I have is, how can we protect ourselves and guarantee information that you're gathering on us won't be sold down the street to, say, an offshore Web site in international waters, where it's protected, or even another nation? What guarantees do we have as United States citizens that our information will be protected not only from you, but from another nation?
NEVILLE: Let's see what Heather has to say about that.
HEATHER MACDONALD, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Arthel, I think you were right to bring up September 11. It seems that we've lost all memory of what this nation went through on that awful day.
In fact, I agree with Congressman Barr. We should give government better tools to protect us. And that is simply what this law does. The government already has access to different databases, but it can only get to them individually, one by one by one. This is extraordinarily inefficient.
What this law would do -- or this office would do is allow the government to sift vast reams of data far more efficiently, looking for terrorist patterns. The government isn't interesting in finding out whether I'm buying a sweater at Neiman Marcus. What it wants to know is: Have I checked into a hotel in Singapore, gone onto Kabul, purchasing a laptop and multiple cell phones
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So, Heather, are you saying that maybe average everyday citizens don't need to be so paranoid about this?
MACDONALD: This is the opposite of spying. This is not wiretapping Joe Smith's home. This is looking at little points of data that has nothing to do with the individual. It is searching for patterns. And this is exactly the tool we need to be able to spot patterns of terrorist behavior globally.
We're facing a threat to the very survival of the nation. And the notion that we should keep our government operating in a totally inefficient manner to be able to spot terrorists I think is quite Luddite. And this also represents a level of paranoia that I don't find at all based in reality.
NEVILLE: OK, Joe, I haven't heard from you yet. What do you say?
JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, let me tell you, I do agree totally with Congressman Barr on this, absolutely.
You know, over the office door, I read in William Safire's article, Mr. Poindexter has a sign that says: "Knowledge is power. Information is power." It happens to be the slogan of our radio station. Who has the power? The power is in the hands of the people, everyone in your studio audience.
Take me, as a talk show host. Let's say I get a subscription to a magazine because I'm doing some research. Now that information goes into a database that is kept, by the way, ladies and gentlemen in America, at the Pentagon. This is where the constitutional question comes in. This is one of the most dangerous pieces of the Homeland Security Act that I think has been put in there since TIPS.
And at least Congress had the sense to keep us from spying on each other. So I strongly suggest that we write our senators, that we get this out of here right now, because the reality is, you won't know what information the Pentagon has on you. And it's not about this administration. But once it becomes law, it's about future administrations and how they might use it.
NEVILLE: Interesting.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Listen, excuse me, Heather. You know what? I will let you respond after the break. I have to take a break right now.
And Rick from Illinois, I know you e-mailed me. I'll read that when I come back.
And we're going to continue with this in just a minute.
And later, we'll talk to the founder of a survivors' group that's using the Internet to oust abusive priests.
TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about homeland security and your personal privacy.
And, Congressman Barr, I wanted to talk to you again first here, asking you now if you know this, collectively, if the Homeland Security Department will have additional rights that perhaps the independent agencies did not have?
BARR: The problem with what we're seeing develop here is that there's nothing in the Homeland Security Department bill that we passed through the House just yesterday that authorizes the government to develop this massive new government computer analysis system to collect data on unknowing individuals, including innocent citizens, and then analyzing it, manipulating it and storing it on American citizens.
This is a power that the federal government is making up. They are doing this not by statutory directive, but because they just want to do it. And they're doing it under the guise of making people feel more secure.
And I agree with what was said just before the break also. This is being done not by a traditional law enforcement agency that understands the Bill of Rights and is subject to the Bill of Rights, but by the Department of Justice. And this blurring of the lines between military and national defense, which operates under very different rules than domestic law enforcement, which has to abide by the Bill of Rights, is another very scary aspect of this.
MADISON: And, quite honestly, I'm quite surprised. I'd like to know how Admiral Poindexter got into the government and no one in the media knew this. That amazes me.
But aside from Poindexter, again, I'm telling you, this is extremely dangerous. Everyone, Republican, conservative, liberal, libertarian, everyone should be opposed to this. And they need to let their opposition be known. We can fight terrorism without having to have a supercomputer that has data on everything we do. That's not what the United States is about.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I want to get that e-mail now, as I promised, from Rick in Illinois. He says: "Make no mistake about this piece of work. It's very, very scary. If you have the feeling that Big Brother is watching you now, wait until this baby gets passed."
Heather.
MACDONALD: I think that we're not really getting the views of most Americans here. Everybody uses credit cards daily several times over. Credit card companies have reams of data on us. They call us at night based on data-mining patterns.
(CROSSTALK)
MACDONALD: The question is, do we want the government to protect us from terrorists or not?
NEVILLE: I'm just going to do a quick follow-up question with you, Heather.
MADISON: American Express is not the Pentagon.
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, because -- exactly. That's where I was going, Joe. Exactly.
Listen, I've got to take a break.
Congressman Barr, I know you have a very busy schedule. We do appreciate your joining us here. And we will excuse you, if it's OK.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: And, Joe and Heather, you guys stand there. You guys stay with us as well, because we're going to continue more about this Homeland Security Agency when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Kelly (ph) and Chris (ph), thanks for sending in those e-mails.
And we're talking about the Homeland Security Act. And Thelma (ph) from Virginia has something to say.
THELMA: I just wanted to comment that I feel that this is opening up a can of worms, because we are already under a lot of scrutiny. And I just think our identity is just out there for the taking. And that's happening a lot to us.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Thelma, first of all. And Joe, I wanted to talk to you about hackers. I mean this is probably going to run through the Pentagon, but let's talk about hackers who are out there who could possibly tap in and get this sort of information.
MADISON: I guess so. A 16-year-old could do it. I was just reading that e-mail. And these things about, well, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?
Look, let's forget that. It's not the point. Government has no authority to spy and gather information on American citizens without their knowledge. And, Heather, quit using the analogy that we've got credit cards. People don't like that now, because they get called at dinnertime by direct marketing.
MACDONALD: That's right. It's an annoyance, not an invasion of privacy.
MADISON: Well, excuse me. It's both.
MACDONALD: Joe, there is no greater invasion of privacy than getting blown up. I will have no more privacy rights the next time al Qaeda decides to take down a building or a city or explode a neutron bomb here.
MADISON: Yeah. So what happens...
MACDONALD: You know, again, I think we have to realize big brother -- you know, "1984" was a novel written about the Soviet Union, about a totalitarian system. This is a government in this country that is so imbued with checks and balances that you can -- two FBI agents on the same al Qaeda squad cannot currently talk to each other about...
MADISON: Heather, you've got to wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on for me. Joe...
MADISON: Oh, now she's going to talk over me.
NEVILLE: No, no. Hang on, Joe. Make your point quickly, Joe.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Guys, hang on for me. OK?
MADISON: My point is this. Heather, this is a country of the people for the people and by the people and not the Pentagon.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. Now you made your point.
Janie (ph) from Alabama is going to speak now. Thank you.
JANIE: I just had a comment about -- I really think this is like a double edge sword. On the one hand, I'm proud be an American and enjoy the privileges and securities that our nation provides. But on the other hand, I'm nervous about how much I'm really willing to give up in order to keep that.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Interesting point. I'm going to go to the telephones now. California is where I'm going, where Rico (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Rico (ph) or Rica (ph).
CALLER: Hi. How are you? I'm familiar with this program that Poindexter (ph) was talking about. And people have a lot of doubts that this technology would work. Basically, there could be tens and tens of thousands of people that were innocent that could conceivably fit some pattern. And to be potentially falsely accused for that low probability of one potential terrorist that they think that they have.
There are other ways to do this. There is too much belief that this technology is going to work. It involves massive databases throughout the entire world for it to work.
NEVILLE: OK. Rica (ph), thank you for calling in. I have -- one second, Heather. I'm going to give you a chance. Adrienne (ph), it's her chance now. Heather, excuse me for one second, please. ADRIENNE: I would like to say that I really appreciate the responsibility that the United States is taking in protecting our rights and privacy and protection. But, at the same time, I feel that the new homeland security is probably going to be a little too much of an invasion of our privacy. That's the foundation that the United States is built on, our individuals rights and the right to privacy.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you. Heather, 15 seconds.
MACDONALD: This bill doesn't change anything about the standard. The government already has access to information about us. It merely makes it more efficient to search that information simultaneously, so that if there's a terrorist pact happening tomorrow, the government can find that out and protect all of us.
NEVILLE: Joe Madison, quickly, 15 seconds.
MADISON: I have nothing to say. Heather's just wrong. Write America. Write to senators. Write.
NEVILLE: OK. Heather Macdonald and Joe Madison, thank you both for joining us here. Thanks for the debate. Do appreciate it.
And up next, who's paying for the sins of the fathers? Is a Web site listing abusive priests condemning the innocent? TALKBACK LIVE continues. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: U.S. bishops today are wrapping up their annual meeting after approving what some considered to be a watered-down abuse policy. Meanwhile, a database of some 600 abusive Catholic priests was launched this week by an advocacy group for survivors. It's a detailed online list of priests who had been convicted of sexual abuse, have settled cases out of court or have been accused of abuse.
The group maintaining this site is survivorsfirst.org, founded by Paul Baier, who joins us today in Washington. Hi, Paul. Also with us is William Donahue, president of the Catholic League. Hello, sir. How are you?
WILLLIAM DONAHUE, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: How are you doing, Arthel?
NEVILLE: I'm good, thank you. OK. Paul, you're up first today, because I want to ask you, why did you create this Web site and take such matters into your own hands?
PAUL BAIER, SURVIVORS FIRST: We created the Web site for two reasons. One is for healing for victims. It's very therapeutic for victims to break through the shame and guilt when they see the name of their priest. Second is for prevention. One of the things that I think is important is to start getting this knowledge out there. And one of the facts that have come forward from our research is that over 100 Catholic priests have already been convicted of sex crimes since 1985.
This was information that was not being shared with us by U.S. bishops. And as a Catholic parent, I still remain concerned about keeping my child and other children safe in our churches.
NEVILLE: OK. Now you're getting your information from newspaper articles, media Web sites and court documents. Correct?
BAIER: Correct. Essentially, what we have done, is taken information that's already in the public realm today, that's already reported by newspapers, and reformated that information into an easy- to-access listing in different categories. We are not taking any editorial license. We are not accusing, and we're not bringing any new information to the public here.
NEVILLE: OK. In fact, Mr. Donahue, I know you're there. I want to get you involved right now, because Paul just mentioned these lists. And that's what I want to go over right now and get both of your responses to these categories.
First, starting with convicted abusers. Paul -- no, Mr. Donahue, you first. Do you think this is good to have those names on the Web site, convicted abusers?
DONAHUE: Oh, absolutely. Anybody who has been convicted, for that matter, of any crime, who is a priest, or for that matter, if he's a plumber, put his name up on the Web site. But you know when you start putting the names of people up there who have been accused, and then Paul says, well, this is to helps the victims, he's assuming that the accused are going to be found guilty.
Why in the world would you collate these names? I mean I think if I worked for CNN or NBC or CBS and I found out that my name was up on a Web site because somebody made an accusation against me, I would have a fit. And beyond that, Arthel, what Paul is not telling you, which makes me wonder about his honesty, is that these are not all priests. He has the names of seminarians up there.
That would be like putting interns who work at CNN and CBS and ABC up there as well. I think there's a game being played here and I don't like it.
NEVILLE: OK. Paul, I'm going to go to the next part of your list. It says people who have been arrested and listed in criminal cases. Why those people?
BAIER: Well, I appreciate Mr. Donahue's point of view, but certainly we do have a crisis in the Church. We have lost moral authority here. And we continue to have a set of bishops who refuse to have Catholic mother and fathers involved in a meaningful way in keeping our parishes safe.
And that's why we believe even the second category, where there's been civil settlements in the millions, tens of millions of dollars, are worth listing. Now civil settlements do not include admissions of guilt, but they are matters of public record, they have been reported by dozens of newspaper articles. And we believe this is important for the public debate about is the instance of pedophilia higher or lower in our Roman Catholic Church? And for people who give think money to the Church, which pays both priests and seminarians, we believe this is a responsible debate to have.
DONAHUE: Yeah, but let's make sure that the public understand this. We right now have 300 priests who have had to step down since January out of 46,000. That comes to two-thirds of one percent. In other words, 99.3 percent of the priests in this country are totally unaffected by any policy.
Now I would agree as a Catholic one priest is too many, but there's an image being created out there, and you're helping to contribute to it, Paul. Maybe unwittingly, but you're contributing to it, that somehow every other priest is some kind of a predator. I don't like it and I think it's time we told the truth about this matter.
NEVILLE: Then, Mr. Donahue, how do you get the truth out there about the priests who are abusive?
DONAHUE: Well, first of all, we also take care of the accused. Where is Father Rainworth's (ph) name on his Web site? Father Rainworth (ph) was found innocent yesterday in New Jersey. He's got three names of priests who have been found to be innocent of any charges.
How do you get them, Arthel? You do what the bishops did just yesterday. The game is over. I will be the first one to say, I've been angry at a lot of bishops and priests, the way this thing has been handled. But you know what? Fair is fair.
The game of musical chairs, of moving one priest from one diocese to another is over. They adopted zero tolerance. Indeed, I would like to see the public school industry, the social work industry, in fact, the whole rest of the country, now come up and say, you know what? The Catholic bishops, they didn't do a good job over the year, but they certainly came out with a good job now, and let's follow their model.
NEVILLE: Mr. Donahue, did the Vatican say no to zero policy -- zero tolerance?
DONAHUE: The Vatican did not. As a matter of fact, you know what the Vatican did? The Vatican said you guys didn't get it entirely right.
What they did in Dallas, they said that this policy only applies to diocesan priests, which is two out of every three. The Vatican said, no, no. No autonomy for religious order priests like Jesuits. This is going to blanket all 100 percent of you.
And the Vatican also said it is absolutely prohibitive to move a priest who has been found guilty of any type of sexual abuse from one parish to another. He is out. So I'm glad the Vatican stepped in. Some people say they tried to water it down. I think what they did is they sent the bishops a message, let's tighten it up even further.
NEVILLE: Paul, I'm going to give you a chance to respond shortly. I've got to take a break right now. And I know Sunshine (ph) up there wants to speak up as well. Listen, don't go anywhere because we're going to continue this debate after the break. And we have an e-mail I'll share with you after the break. We'll see you then.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about a Web site that lists abusive priests, among other things. And I want to let you know that later in this hour we're going to ask you the question of the day, which is: Is Michael Jackson still the king of pop? And we'll get to a live report out of California regarding Michael Jackson's courtroom appearance.
In the meantime, though, back to our story that we're talking about currently. What I wanted to do is give Paul a chance to go ahead and respond to Mr. Donahue's comments before the break.
BAIER: Thank you. I think this is actually a good indication. It's important to get this discussion out of emotion and into facts. The facts are, in the database, priests who have not had any legal action, criminal or civil, their names are not in the database.
The other fact is that its church itself has released dozens and dozens of names. Today anyone can go to Cardinal Keeler's (ph) Web site at the Archdiocese of Baltimore and see 85 names on the Web site that the priests have been removed or have accusations against. This is the church itself.
The third thing that's important from a fact standpoint, the fact is, is that no bishops have been held accountable for this.
NEVILLE: All right, listen, I have a quick -- quickly, Sunshine (ph), what do you say?
SUNSHINE: I would just like to say that since they haven't been convicted yet, don't we still have our rights as Americans, innocent until proven guilty? And they're subject to chastisement by their peers and everybody else they know in the church by having they're names on the Web site.
NEVILLE: That is, indeed, the final word on that subject. I do have to take a break right now. In the meantime, William Donahue and Paul Baier, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And up next, the second day of Michael Jackson's testimony should begin soon. We're going to go live to Santa Maria for the latest. And Jackson is the subject of our question of the day. Is Jackson still the king of pop? Call or e-mail now at TALKBACK@CNN.com. We're back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Pop star Michael Jackson is scheduled to take the stand soon in California. He is being sued by longtime promoter Marcel Abram (ph) for allegedly backing out of a couple of millennium concerts. Now cameras caught the picture of Jackson testifying yesterday, and CNN Correspondent Brian Cabell is in Santa Maria, California, where the trial resumes at the top of the hour. And Brian, what's going on today?
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Arthel, a number of us are scratching our heads. Some people are getting a little bit angry. Some people are a little impatient, because, frankly, he was supposed to show up about four hours ago. Did not show up.
After about an hour, they said, well, he's not going to show up until about 1:00 Western Time. So, as you can see behind me, the fans are waiting, about 100 or so. Waiting for him to appear in a van and then he'll go inside and testify for a second day in this lawsuit against him. A $20 million lawsuit filed against him by a promoter -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Yeah, but, Brian, how can he get away with showing up late for court?
CABELL: A lot of people have asked that. A lot of people in the media. We're told that apparently in this court system that's the way things are run around here and, of course, Michael Jackson has a little bit of pull here. So apparently he had some sort of personal problem, perhaps medical problem, we're not quite sure what.
But the judge accepted it. And the judge is now waiting for him. The jury is inside. Everybody's waiting for Michael Jackson to appear along with these 100 or so fans.
NEVILLE: OK.
CABELL: Yesterday, Arthel, there were about 200, 250, and it was quite a scene.
NEVILLE: All right. Brian, thank you very much for that update. And we'll check in with you later.
Right now, it's time for our question of the day, which occurred to us after viewing this picture of pop entertainer Michael Jackson. Is Michael still the kind of pop, is the question.
In an e-mail from S.B., "No, Michael Jackson is not king of pop anymore. He's old news." Another e-mail says -- Akhil says, "Michael Jackson is now and will always be the king of pop. No one can do what he's done as far as pop music is concerned worldwide."
I'm coming to Crystal (ph) now to see what she has to say about Michael Jackson.
CRYSTAL: I think Michael is the king of pop because the way he -- his physical appearance has nothing to do with his musical talent and his musical ability. So we shouldn't judge him by the way he looks, but by what he can do in the music industry.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Let's see what Tash (ph) has to say over here.
TASH: Well, I agree with her. And I say that just because he looks a little crazy does not mean that he did not set the standard for pop worldwide, and I think he should still be seen as a pop star. Because he is.
NEVILLE: All right. Thank you very much for participating, to my audience, and everybody who e-mailed and called us today. We're out of time. That's it for today.
Join us again tomorrow for "Free-For-All Friday." As always, it's going to be lots of fun. So I hope you come back. And thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Security Intruding on Privacy?>
|
