|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Necessary Security Measures or Big Brother?; Who Will be Person of the Year?
Aired November 22, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: an al Qaeda leader in U.S. hands. The trick now: putting him to work for America.
ANNOUNCER: A suspected al Qaeda mastermind captured and in U.S. custody.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It doesn't matter where they hide. We will find them and bring them to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: What will the U.S. learn from one of world's most- wanted terrorists?
Imagine the federal government tracking your every move, from watching your credit card purchases to reading your e-mail. Tonight: the latest government offensive in the war against terror or the Pentagon invading your privacy?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY NOJEIM, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: It would be the most intrusive, the broadest collection of information about Americans in history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: All eyes are on the bride as she walks down the aisle. All the while, a suspected thief is casing the chapel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER THOMPSON, BRIDAL CONSULTANT: When I saw her, I ran to the area of the building where all the purses were and had the janitor lock up that whole room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Police vow to put a so-called bridal bandit behind bars.
Martha, George W., Osama, or Saddam, who will be "TIME" magazine's person of the year?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening, everyone.
Tonight: The secret is out. Al Qaeda's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf is in U.S. custody. And he's talking. Officials kept his capture quiet as long as they could to keep other al Qaeda members off guard. But now President Bush has confirmed his capture.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We did bring to justice a killer. And the message is, we're making war on the -- or we're making progress on the war against terrorists, that we're going to hunt them down one at a time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena has learned more about who the al Qaeda captive is and the blood that's on his hands.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Captured al Qaeda operative Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is talking. According to sources, his interrogation has already led the FBI to warn about possible maritime attacks against targets, such as ports, naval bases, and cruise ship docks. Officials say that is his specialty. He allegedly helped plan the bombing of the USS Cole. But what other information could al-Nashiri offer?
ERIC MARGOLIS, AUTHOR: He and the higher echelon would know many of the subordinate cell members throughout the Mid East and southwest Asia.
ARENA: Terror experts rank al-Nashiri among the top 25 al Qaeda leaders. One source says he attended the infamous al Qaeda meeting at this building in Koala Lumpur in January of 2000. It was chaired by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad who government officials believe masterminded the September 11 attacks.
Officials say it's likely al-Nashiri knows about terror plots now underway, the location of active cells, perhaps the location of weapons factories and weapons caches. The key, according to a former FBI interrogator, is finding his weak spot.
CINDY CAPPS, FORMER FBI AGENT: Every person has a button that can be pushed but you have to find the button.
ARENA: But counterterrorism officials warn any information he provides about al Qaeda has about a six-month shelf life.
KENNETH KATZMAN, CONG. RESEARCH SERVICE: The only thing that's really going to devastate would be to find the top leadership, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. They are the charisma. They are the ethos behind the organization.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Experts say, because the two men are still at large, al Qaeda will have no problem recruiting new members to replace those who are now in custody -- Connie.
CHUNG: Kelli, obviously, the U.S. wants to get as much information from him as it can. What would be those hot buttons that would get him to reveal information?
ARENA: Connie, interrogators suggest that it could be a variety of things. One: Is he worried about family members and their safety? Is he worried about being transferred into the custody of another country that may use torture in interrogations?
So, you just have to depend -- you have to find out what the vulnerability is and capitalize. And, of course, time is always on the U.S.' side. I mean, he's not going anywhere. And the longer someone remains in custody, the more likely they are to slip up in interrogations.
CHUNG: Kelli Arena in Washington, thank you.
Does the Pentagon need to know what everyone in America buys in order to keep them safe? And who's to say that all that information about us won't someday be used for reasons other than anti-terror efforts? These are some of the questions raised after the Pentagon said this week it wants to establish a database, including information about almost every purchase made in this country.
The project is being overseen by a familiar figure from the Iran-Contra scandal, John Poindexter. What exactly is the project?
CNN's David Mattingly reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a challenge law enforcement faces every day: how to spot a terrorist who has blended seamlessly into American society before he can kill Americans.
EDWARD ALDRIDGE, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: You're looking for trends and transactions that are associated with some potential terrorist act. That's what you're looking for. And you're trying to put those pieces together.
MATTINGLY: To put those pieces together, the Pentagon proposes a database and technology that's bigger and smarter than anything now available, capable of not only monitoring the activity of individuals around the world, but also able to make links between activities, see patterns in behavior, and alert authorities before harm can be done.
WILLIAM DALY, CONTROL RISKS GROUP: In the old days, we hired trackers. We hired people to follow footprints. We can't do that anymore. But this is the electronic version.
MATTINGLY: Security expert Bill Daly says almost everyone generates megabytes of data every day, tiny electronic footprints that leave a trail through your life.
Retailers already keep tabs on you, watching your purchases on credit cards. The same goes for use of the Internet and cell phones.
(on camera): It sounds like all this information is already out there just waiting to be pulled together. Is it?
DALY: In many ways, it is. We're really not talking about creating new data. We're talking about gathering what's already out there. We're talking about bringing it into a central source and making it useful in some way.
MATTINGLY (voice-over): Large cash transfers, one-way air tickets, rental cars, and potentially dangerous chemicals are just some of the obvious red flags that make someone suspect.
But when it comes to investigating individuals, the little things could say a lot as well. For example, if I make transactions at an ATM, make a cell phone call, or pump gas on my credit card, I've given up lots of information: my location, possible associates, movements, any number of potential electronic markers. According to critics, this could make even non-terrorists vulnerable.
NORMAN SIEGEL, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: The brush is so broad that it's going to sweep in lots of Americans and innocent Americans. And the idea of the government knowing everything about our lives, where we go, who we associate with, what we eat, where we go on vacation, what we read, what we listen to, that's not the America that most of us grew up in.
MATTINGLY: It's a question of how to spot the terrorist in a crowd without intruding on the lives of everyone in that crowd. Some observers believe the true difficulty in creating this proposed new information tool would be in determining who uses it.
David Mattingly, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining us now from Washington with two different perspectives on this plan are Phil Anderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Chuck Pena, senior defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
Mr. Anderson, first you.
I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of the government tracking me. And I'm sure there are many Americans out there who are also uncomfortable with it. Isn't there something Orwellian about this? PHIL ANDERSON, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, I'm not sure, Connie.
I really think that the total information-awareness system is something that -- well, first of all, it's an experimental prototype. It's still being tested. And I'm not sure that it's going to provide the situational awareness that has been suggested on every American. It simply identifies patterns. And when those patterns are deemed dangerous or threatening to our national or homeland security, then they're acted on.
CHUNG: When you say patterns, what do you mean?
ANDERSON: Well, I think that there will be some very well- defined variables that define what represents a dangerous pattern, whether it be something that involves financial transactions...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: You mean moving around a lot of money, $10,000, $20,000, something like that?
ANDERSON: Sure. And, again, a key point here is, this is all information that's in the public domain. This is not the government hacking into things that is not in the public domain.
CHUNG: Mr. Pena, let's take that issue, then. A lot of telemarketers and insurance companies have this information. So what's wrong with the federal government having it as well?
CHUCK PENA, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, the biggest difference is, with telemarketers and others, I have a way to opt out and to ignore this.
And, quite frankly, it is a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things. If this has the potential to become something of a super- snooping spy program, I don't have the right to ignore the federal government spying on me. And I certainly have to worry about the fact that the federal government might choose to miscategorize me as a potential terrorist.
And then who knows what happens? Do I get interrogated and incarcerated? Am I classified as an enemy combatant and denied my constitutional rights? I don't want to sound alarmist, but now is the time to ring the alarm bells and ask these important questions, have the debate that we're having, so that this system doesn't move forward unchecked, without the possibility for safeguards and security.
CHUNG: Mr. Anderson, it does seem a little troubling, to say the least, if the government is just simply saying to us: "Trust us. It's going to be OK. We're not going to overstep our bounds."
But, then again, there is one overzealous bureaucrat who does something wrong and it infringes on my rights.
ANDERSON: Well, that's certainly a possibility. I think all of the negative press that has come out here in the last couple of weeks on this total-information-awareness system suggests that public servants, that public officials will act inappropriately, that they'll abuse their authority, that they will potentially engage in illegal acts. And I, quite frankly, have a problem with that. Beyond that, I believe that
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: But, you know, it has happened in the past.
ANDERSON: Sure it's happened in the past. I mean, there are exceptions, but it's certainly not the rule.
And this whole program has yet to be vetted, to my knowledge, through the legal system. I mean, this thing may not stand up to the test that the legal system imposes on it.
CHUNG: Mr. Pena, just the fact that we're talking about this concerns me a bit, because can't the terrorists go out there and say: "All right, so we won't move large amounts of money from this bank to that bank, $10,000, $20,000. We'll find a different way to do it, because this system is going to be in place."
PENA: Well, I think the terrorists are already adapting to things that we do, regardless of whether we're talking about it or not.
I mean, in Afghanistan, for example, General Myers has admitted that the al Qaeda terrorists are more nimble and better able to adapt to our tactics than we are to theirs. And, hence, we're moving on to nation-building and reconstruction in Afghanistan. So...
CHUNG: So would you say that this program is not worth instituting because they're already aware?
PENA: Well, what I would say is that now is the time to look at this very closely.
If it has some potential value, we also need to balance that against the risks of: Could it get out of control and could it be abused? And if the risks are too high, then maybe we might need to make the decision to cancel the program.
CHUNG: Chuck Pena, Phil Anderson, thank you both for being with us.
ANDERSON: Pleasure. Thank you.
PENA: Thank you.
CHUNG: Still ahead: Who would target weddings, of all things, for a crime spree? You'll meet the cop hunting the bridal bandit.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Next: After years on life support and little hope for recovery, a court decides a woman's fate.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A quick note about tonight's scheduled shuttle launch: It just got unscheduled. The shuttle Endeavour was supposed to have taken off right about now for a mission to the International Space Station, but bad weather over emergency landing strips in Spain forced NASA to scrub the launch for tonight.
Now, turning to another subject, if you think that the fighting between Iraq and the U.S. is still a ways off, you are wrong. Almost every day, Iraq fires on U.S. or coalition jets in Iraqi airspace, or the U.S. fires on Iraqi military sites in the north or the south. Now, the U.S. bombed one such site today.
For more than a decade, the U.S. has declared Northern and Southern Iraq no-fly zones and used force to back it up. But, lately, the frequency of these exchanges has been on the rise.
CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre explains why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): The U.S. has attacked Iraq four out of the last five days, hitting eight different targets, always, it insists, in self-defense. On Monday, Pentagon sources say, Iraqi gunners fired at U.S. and British planes close to 50 times, as much as 10 times as many firings than in a typical day. It seemed almost in defiance of the 120,000 leaflets U.S. planes dropped the day before, warning Iraqi gunners to back off.
In response, the U.S. conducted a heavier-than-usual strike against higher value targets -- 12 allied planes dropped 20 bombs on three separate buildings, communication facilities that are part of the Iraqi integrated air defense network.
The next day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hinted the U.S. would step up its strikes against Iraqi air defenses.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You can be absolutely certain we'll not allow our aircraft to continue to be shot at with impunity. We intend to respond.
MCINTYRE: The U.S. isn't only attacking in response to direct fire. Friday's attack came after an Iraqi MiG briefly violated the no-fly zone, flying below the 33rd parallel. Thursday, Iraq moved a spoon rest radar below the 33rd parallel, which the U.S. says is also a violation of the no-fly zone. It was hit twice by U.S. and British planes.
While the Pentagon says its attacks are purely defensive, the stepped-up strikes do have the effect of degrading Iraqi air defenses as the U.S. considers going to war. (on camera): Pentagon officials admit this week's strikes against Iraq have been more punishing than usual, but they say they are still operating under the same rules of engagement, namely, any time Iraq threatens coalition planes, the U.S. will respond at a time and in a manner of its choosing.
Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Now we have a heartbreaking story to report, a story we've been following recently. You probably remember it.
A judge has ordered that, after more than 12 years, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed in January on her 40th birthday. Her husband and her parents have been fighting for years over this.
And CNN's Mark Potter has been covering the court battles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The attorneys in the Terri Schiavo case received the court's order by fax. Judge George Greer ruled Terri's life support, nourishment received by a feeding tube, must be withdrawn on January 3 at 3:00 p.m. Attorneys for her parents say it would likely kill her in 10 days or so.
Terri's father, Bob Schindler, vehemently opposes ending his daughter's life and called his family with the judge's ruling.
BOB SCHINDLER, FATHER OF TERRI SCHIAVO: She doesn't have all the order yet, but, apparently, he's ordering to kill her. All right?
POTTER: In his ruling, the judge wrote: "Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state."
That also is the view of Terri's husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo. He argues his wife is beyond help and should be allowed to die with dignity. After the ruling, he criticized Terri's parents for trying to keep her alive.
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, HUSBAND OF TERRI SCHIAVO: It wasn't about Terri. It's about what they want. How about their daughter? How about her feelings? Their daughter would be extremely angry with them right now. And they know that. They know that in their hearts.
POTTER: Terri's parents say their daughter is responsive and not brain-dead. They argue that, with proper medical care and therapy, she could improve. In a bitter battle with their son-in-law, Bob and Mary Schindler vow to still fight to keep their daughter on life support. SCHINDLER: He's going to kill her. It's that simple. And I get angry then. And this whole thing to me is legalized murder. Bottom line, that's what it is.
POTTER: By setting the January 3 date to end life support, Judge Greer gave the parents and their attorney time to file a notice of appeal and to try to get his order delayed. The parents said they expected the judge to rule against them and believe their best hope now lies with the 2nd District Court of Appeals.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
POTTER: The fight between the parents and the husband has gone on for years. Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo remains in the hospice facility behind me, her fate still in the hands of the courts, still uncertain -- Connie.
CHUNG: Mark, Terri's parents have accused her husband of abusing her. Can you tell us more about that?
POTTER: Well, the parents asked the judge to hold a hearing to determine whether she may have been abused right before she collapsed in 1990 and suffered brain damage.
However, the judge threw that out today. He refused to hold a hearing. The husband has said he never abused his wife, he never harmed her. And he has accused the parents of simply doing this to delay the proceedings -- Connie.
CHUNG: And, Mark, the parents are appealing, aren't they?
POTTER: Indeed they are. They're going to the 2nd District Court of Appeals.
They feel that they've never gotten a fair shake from the circuit judge, Judge Greer. He has ruled consistently against them, they argue. Their best hope, they say, lies with a three-judge panel at the 2nd District. That panel can look at the very same medical evidence that the judge here saw. And they hope that maybe he will see it a different way and keep their daughter alive, keep her on life support.
CHUNG: All right, Mark Potter, thank you. It's so sad.
When we come back: Remember that kid who made your life just miserable in school? Whatever happened to him? Well, one reporter decided to find out.
Stay with us and you will, too.
ANNOUNCER: Next: a thief lurking in the chapel? Police are on the lookout for a bridal bandit.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: If you don't already know it yourself, take it from me. Having a wedding is a lot of work. So imagine how much more difficult, more stressful it would be to plan your wedding and make it to that special day, only to find out that a thief had set her sights on your magic moment?
Believe it or not, police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, say there is a woman who does exactly that, earning her the nickname the bridal bandit.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Who is that lurking in the shadows just beyond the flower girl and the ring bearer? Could it be the so-called bridal bandit, an uninvited guest who shows up, waits until the bride walks down the aisle, and then heads to the bridal room to steal credit cards and cash?
Police investigators believe she may have struck 86 weddings around Tulsa over the past 2 1/2 years, so many, in fact, that she's become infamous to people in the wedding business. But an alert bridal planner may have helped foil the bridal bandit when she spotted her at a wedding on September 8, 2001.
THOMPSON: When I saw her, I ran to the area of the building where all the purses were and had the janitor lock up that whole room.
CHUNG: The bridal planner had told the photographer of the wedding video to get pictures of the woman in the back of the chapel. So, nothing was stolen during this wedding. And the bride, Stacey Zahn, was thankful.
STACEY ZAHN, BRIDE: If I would have been like one of the other brides that had lost honeymoon money or everything in there, oh, yes, very frustrating.
CHUNG: But there could be a break in the case. Ten days ago, a local station aired this story. Since then, Tulsa police have received 10 tips, leads they're currently pursuing to try to stop the bridal bandit.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: And here comes the bride. Stacey Zahn is with us from Tulsa, along with bridal consultant Jennifer Thompson and Sergeant Tony Cellino, who supervises the Tulsa police fraud and forgery unit and who, just a short time, ago interviewed a suspect.
We'll find out what she had to say in just a minute, but first, we're going to go start with some background.
Jennifer, as a bridal consultant, had you heard about this so- called bridal bandit?
THOMPSON: I'd heard about it probably about three weeks previous to Stacey's wedding. And because I was at another wedding, and I had seen her at that wedding, and heard about it through a photographer, and then found her at that particular wedding that I was at, and kind of snuck around to find her. And then, when I did, she kind of ran out real quick. And then I kind of knew about her being around. So I had alerted Stacey about it about 10 days before her wedding. And then she hired me to be her coordinator for the day of the wedding.
CHUNG: All right, Stacey, you were at your wedding. We're at the wedding day now. You're about to walk down the aisle with your father. And you actually talk to this woman. Who did you think she was?
ZAHN: Well, it was amazing. I thought she was the videographer's wife when I saw her, even though I was well aware of her possibility of showing up there. So I talked to her, thinking she was part of the wedding.
CHUNG: But, actually, Jennifer kind of clued you in. And then what did you say to Jennifer?
ZAHN: Well, once she got everyone down the aisle except me and my dad, that's when she alerted me that that was the bridal bandit.
So I told her: "Don't worry about me. Go ahead and go get her. Don't let her get away with anything."
CHUNG: Now, you walked down the aisle. Were you thinking about the bandit or were you really thinking about your wedding?
ZAHN: Well, about halfway down the aisle, me and my dad are walking down the aisle pretty fast. And then I slowed him down. And then, once I saw my husband -- it sounds corny -- but once I saw my husband, I pretty much forgot about it until we walked out of the church after the ceremony.
CHUNG: Good for you.
ZAHN: So, she wasn't on my mind, which was kind of nice, during the ceremony.
CHUNG: Sergeant Cellino, I hear you have a break in the case. What's happened?
SGT. TONY CELLINO, TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT: Connie, we identified a lady and brought her in to talk to us. And we've got a solid suspect now. We've got information enough to present charges to the district attorney's office and have charges filed.
CHUNG: Why do you think this might be the bridal bandit?
CELLINO: She fits the description. And we've got the evidence to back it up. Her photographs...
CHUNG: What kind of evidence, sir? CELLINO: We have newspaper articles that she cut out. She admitted to some of the taking of credit cards, cash, and some other items from the weddings themselves.
CHUNG: Were those wedding announcements that she was cutting out in the newspaper?
CELLINO: Yes. We identified about 86 of them that she had attended and roughly around 20 that, in the little right-hand corner, she would write "yes," which meant she got something from them, either cash or a credit card.
CHUNG: Did she express any remorse? Did she admit to going to these bridal rooms and stealing credit cards and cash?
CELLINO: At first, no. She was a little reluctant. But, as we got to discussing the case, she felt bad. Basically, she's homeless. She needed money to live on. She has a couple of pets she's carrying with her in a vehicle, moving from one hotel room to another. So, yes, she did feel bad. She wants to straighten her life out.
CHUNG: How did you know that this might very well be the woman? I mean, did you at least look at Stacey and Jennifer's video?
CELLINO: Yes, I did. I reviewed the video. We pulled a mug shot that we had, matched it up. And we knew we had the right person at that time. It was just a matter of linking up the evidence.
CHUNG: Stacey, can you imagine your wedding video being part of a case and maybe helping to solve it?
ZAHN: No. You know, when we saw that right after the wedding, we had no idea. We were amazed and couldn't believe she was there and that we had it on video. It was just amazing how clear it was, seeing her just walk around, just literally sneaking around. I can't believe it.
CHUNG: Jennifer, isn't it quite astounding that she was able to hit 86 -- or reportedly able to hit 86 weddings?
THOMPSON: Well, it's not really surprising, because it was almost perfect what she was doing to steal. Nobody would even notice. She came as a guest. And she pretended like she was a guest until the ceremony started. And then, once the ceremony started and everybody was focused on the ceremony, then she would wander off into the bridal room.
CHUNG: You were quite a good detective, because you said to yourself, "I'll bet I know which one is the next one" because you knew what was in the newspaper, the wedding announcements.
THOMPSON: Right. I kind of deduced from Stacey's wedding and the prior wedding, too, that they both had wedding engagements in the paper. They had the date and the place.
And then I just assumed that's how she found out. And she went to the weddings. And then, if she could, she would sneak around to find the bridal room. And most people didn't know who she was, so they just thought she was an invited guest.
CHUNG: Sergeant Cellino, have you ever heard of anything like this before?
CELLINO: No. This was a first for me, as far as this type of larceny goes.
CHUNG: All right, well, we thank you so much for being with us. It's quite a tale.
Stacey Zahn, Jennifer Thompson, and Sergeant Cellino, thank you again for being with us.
And when we come back: the rise and tragic fall of a childhood bully.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: The countdown is on. Who will be "TIME" magazine's person of the year?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Once upon a time, bullies were considered an unavoidable part of a kid's life, normal, if not healthy. Today, we know differently. The National Association of School Psychologists estimates 160,000 kids skip school every year to avoid bullying. And the effects of bullying often last a lifetime.
"Wall Street Journal" reporter Jonathan Eig decided to track down Doug Milteer, the kid who bullied him.
And Jonathan joins us now from Chicago to tell us what he found. We're also joined by Doug Milteer's brother Scott in Los Angeles.
SCOTT MILTEER, BROTHER OF CHILDHOOD BULLY: You're welcome.
CHUNG: Thank you both for joining us tonight.
Jonathan, it was 25 years ago that you were bullied. And, you know, the funny thing, though, is, all of us remember it. We remember who bullied us and we remember vividly what happened to us. Tell us what happened to you.
JONATHAN EIG, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, Douglas and I lived a few doors apart. And we went to the same school.
And he was a tough kid. He had two big brothers. And they were tough kids. And I was a lot smaller. And he liked to pick on me. For what reason, I never really knew. So he'd beat me up a few times. He'd tease me the way kids do. But it was -- it reached a point for a couple of years where I was really afraid of him. I went way out of my way to avoid him.
But sometimes, it seemed unavoidable. It just seemed like he was everywhere. And it was a big part of my childhood. I think we all went through that. Many of us did. And for me, at that time, it was a frightening experience.
CHUNG: Frightening, you say. Did it really have a profound effect on you as you grew up?
EIG: You know, it's hard to say. I know that, because I was bullied, that I probably gravitated toward the brainier kids in the class and the nerds. And I still hang out with the brainier people and the nerds, I suppose.
And I learned to avoid confrontation, because I just didn't want to do anything that might provoke Doug. And I probably still avoid confrontation. But I know that it stayed with me. I know I never forgot Doug.
CHUNG: Scott, the amazing part of this story is that you actually did connect because your brother Douglas, who bullied Jonathan, your brother Douglas died.
Tell us how it came about that the two of you, here tonight, came together when your brother died.
MILTEER: Well, when Doug was very ill, I was very unhappy with myself as well. And I wanted to make amends with one of my teachers back in New York. So I had telephoned her to apologize for my behavior when I was in her class.
CHUNG: Why did you do that, though? I mean, what was it that prompted you to call your fifth-grade teacher? Was it something that you and Doug had been talking about?
MILTEER: No, not in that way. I just -- I treated her awful. And I felt bad about it.
So, she worked with Jonathan's mom. And she had told Jonathan's mom about Doug passing away when I had called her to tell her that I was sorry. And that's how Jonathan found out about Doug dying.
CHUNG: Now, Doug actually wanted to contact a lot of the people he bullied before he died. Can you explain to us what was going through his head?
MILTEER: Doug had treated a lot of people very unfairly in his life. And he was very unhappy with that when he knew he wasn't going to live any longer. So he tried to reach out and apologize to those people that he was very unfair to. And he wasn't able to before he passed away.
CHUNG: Was Jonathan Eig one of those people that he wanted to meet and see and tell him how sorry he was?
MILTEER: No, he never did mention Jonathan. But I know that Doug knew that he was a very abusive young man.
CHUNG: Jonathan, I'm wondering what you got out of this, because I know that I actually still see the girl who used to bully me. And I want to say something to her, but I don't, you know? I know you didn't get to see Doug, but what did this experience do for you?
EIG: Well, I had a lot of curiosity, really. I wanted to know why he had been a bully.
You know, when we're kids, what goes on behind the doors of our neighbors' houses is just a big mystery, where everything is simple, black and white. Kids are mean or they're nice. They're your friends or they're not. But it's rare as an adult that you get the chance to go back and figure out what made someone the way they were.
And that's kind of what I do as a reporter all the time, except I'm doing it with strangers. Here I had the chance...
CHUNG: And what did you discover?
EIG: Here, I found that Doug had been very angry his whole life and that he'd come from a family where there was a lot of tension, a lot of anger in the home. I think Scott can probably speak to that better than I can. But...
CHUNG: Scott?
EIG: He was not a happy kid.
CHUNG: You, too, were a bully, but you got over it as you grew up. And yet your brother Doug did not.
And, incidentally, we should tell everyone that he did die of AIDS.
Go ahead.
MILTEER: Yes, he did.
And I also was a bully. I mean, we had a lot of tension in our house and a lot of hostility. And I think that's how we went out and struck out, because of what went on at home. And the children that we played with that we were friends with, when we were mad at them, it was just very abusive, because I know that there was friends when I was in elementary school that I would play with one day and, the following day, I would beat them up.
And there was times where their parents would call my parents and say, "Scott's not welcome here and we don't want our kids playing with him."
CHUNG: Jonathan, what's the moral of this story, do you think?
EIG: That's a good question. The moral, I don't know.
The moral to me is that, it's -- when we can understand why kids behave the way we do, there's a chance to do something about it. I think people today are so much more in tune with bullying. People are really paying much more attention to it. And maybe, in talking to the kids and finding out what's going on in their homes, they can help. I don't know. I hope so, anyway.
CHUNG: I think you're right -- Scott, because you have passed along to your children that concept, haven't you?
MILTEER: Yes, I have. I've tried to instill in them, as far as being fair -- being fair at home and being fair outside the home is what I try to have them practice every day.
CHUNG: All right.
Thank you so much. Jonathan Eig, Scott Milteer, thank you both for being with us and sharing your memories and your personal stories.
EIG: You're welcome.
MILTEER: Thanks for having us.
CHUNG: When we come back: How will they choose the person of the year?
We'll find out right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: When people think of the person of the year, they assume it's an honor. But when "TIME" magazine names its person of the year, it's a recognition of impact, good or bad. That's why Osama bin Laden was one of the top candidates last year. That's also why past designees include Adolf Hitler, as well as Pope John Paul II and Martin Luther King Jr.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): The tradition started 75 years ago in 1927. "TIME" magazine named Charles Lindbergh its first man of the year because it was criticized for failing to put him on the cover seven months earlier, when he made his historic flight.
The title changed to the politically correct "person of the year" in 1999. People recognized have included visionaries, innovators, and statesmen. In fact, since Franklin Roosevelt, every president except Gerald Ford has been named. Even nonhumans have made the cover: 1982's machine of the year selection, the personal computer.
Some covers have been fraught with controversy: Adolf Hitler in 1938, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. In response to its critics, the magazine's editors point out that the criterion is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or worse.
Who will be this year's pick? Only "TIME" will tell.
(END VIDEOTAPE) CHUNG: Ouch. Wasn't that awful?
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: But, you know, it doesn't mean that we can't guess. And we've asked for some help from advertising legend Jerry Della Femina.
Thank you for coming.
JERRY DELLA FEMINA, ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE: Good to be here.
I thought you were telling me I was the man of the year. I got so excited.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: I don't think so. It's OK. You're not.
Now, the candidates, as you look, and you know: President Bush, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, maybe Martha Stewart, Eminem. Who do you think would sell covers?
FEMINA: Well, I think that President Bush will sell covers. I am against -- I mean, I know that Osama bin Laden, in that damp cave where he's hiding, suddenly said to himself: "I'd better send out a tape that I'm alive, because I'm not going to make it as man of the year if I'm dead."
CHUNG: Oh, Jerry.
FEMINA: He could be a great dead man of the year.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: You know, though, last year, "TIME" magazine came under such criticism because "TIME" chose Rudy Giuliani and yet there were some who believed that Osama bin Laden should have been.
FEMINA: Well, I think "TIME -- the problem is that "TIME" looks at it as a -- it doesn't look at it as a popularity contest. But it's perception and reality.
The people who buy that magazine really feel that it is a popularity contest. It is someone who they want to see on there. And I don't think there's a place for Osama bin Laden on it. I don't think he's going to win this year again. I think it's going to be George Bush.
CHUNG: Do you? You know what? I think so, too. I think you're right.
FEMINA: Yes.
CHUNG: Well, what about -- does this help the person? For instance, if it were Martha Stewart, would it help her? Would it harm her? FEMINA: Oh, I think it would help her, because people see it as a popularity contest, again. So they would say: "It's Martha Stewart. It really means something."
I would also say that they could do a conglomerate. They could put a whole group together. The crooked corporate leaders really have affected our lives this year. So they might have a shot at it.
The other thing I really believe -- and I know that they say, "Well, 9/11 happened almost two years ago." But the fact is that the people who died in the World Trade Center, they have -- they died and our entire lives have changed. They have -- changing in security, planes, financially. Everything has changed in our life as a result.
So, it would be a good thing to honor them by saying that they really, as a group, all of the people who perished belong as the people of the year.
CHUNG: Well, maybe that's what "TIME" magazine really should have done last year, you know, because it was 2001. It was a moment to remember them.
FEMINA: But this year, there are so many things happening. There are so many rules being passed, so many things being passed as a result of their deaths. Why not do it for them, too? I mean, I think it would be a great thing to do. Bring back Rudy Giuliani two years in a row. Come on. Sure.
CHUNG: No, no, no.
FEMINA: Well, it's a popularity -- I think it's a popularity contest.
CHUNG: It's about popularity?
Do you think that "TIME" magazine selects this person really based on how many magazines it can sell? Or is it real, genuine, from-the-heart "Who is the most important person of the year?"
FEMINA: I think it's genuine, from the heart, and they believe it. But I also think they sit around a room and say, "If we pick this person, this is not going to be a very good choice." And I think that picking Osama bin Laden would be just a disastrous choice.
CHUNG: What about Eminem?
FEMINA: Next to Osama bin Laden, in my opinion...
(LAUGHTER)
FEMINA: Fine. All the parents in the world would go after you.
No, the fact is that that's sort of a novelty act. And I don't think that he would qualify as man of the year or whatever he is of the year.
CHUNG: So you've ixnayed Osama bin Laden. What about Saddam Hussein?
FEMINA: Saddam Hussein, possibility, possibility, because the difference with Hitler was, it was in 1938. We weren't at war with Germany. He was a bad guy. He was a terrible guy. But he got in. I don't think they would have picked Hitler in 1943. And that makes a difference. And we're not at war with Hussein yet. Who knows? Any minute.
CHUNG: All right. Jerry, we love having you. And we appreciate your thoughts on this. But I'm with you. I think it's going to be Bush.
FEMINA: You're sure it's not me?
CHUNG: No, not even a chance.
(LAUGHTER)
FEMINA: The story of my life. I'm just every guy, Mister...
CHUNG: You look the same after all these years, but it ain't going to be you, Jerry.
FEMINA: Oh, God, my heart's broken.
CHUNG: I know it is.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Go home to your wife.
Still ahead: Charles Barkley puts his donkey where his mouth is. You've got to see this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A final note for anyone who thinks having your own TV show is risk-free.
Last night on TNT's "Listen Up," former pro basketball star Charles Barkley -- Sir Charles, as he's called -- made good on his bet with co-analyst Kenny Smith. Barkley had bet that rookie pro basketball player Yao Ming wouldn't score 19 points in a game. As you might guess, from what Sir Charles is doing, he lost the bet. And, true to his word, he paid up on national television in front of guests, including Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.
He's a good man. And, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Monday: facing down accused sniper John Lee Malvo. We'll meet the prosecutor who's going to fight to get the 17-year-old accused killer convicted and executed.
And coming up next on LARRY KING LIVE: actress Melanie Griffith.
Thank you for watching. And have a good night and a good weekend. And we'll see you on Monday.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Person of the Year?>
|
