|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Three Men Charged With Identity Theft Scheme; To What Extent Are the Saudis Our Allies?
Aired November 25, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
There are thieves out there working overtime to steal your identity. Less than two hours ago, a U.S. attorney announced the feds have uncovered one of the largest identity theft rings in U.S. history. Could you be a victim? And how can you protect yourself? We're going to find out.
And then later, stay tuned, as we learn more about the Saudi Arabian ambassador's wife and a possible money trail leading to 9/11 terrorists.
And then later, no more all-or-nothing for the problem drinker. We'll meet a psychologist who says many can learn to drink in moderation. Do you think that's possible? I want to hear from you.
But first, though, three men are under arrest in that identity theft scam that has claimed 30,000 victims so far. It all started with one nondescript man in a key position.
CNN's Jason Carroll is here now to fill us in with the details.
And Jason, I mean, this story is unbelievable.
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly the way some people are describing it. As you say, 30,000 victims out there. The man that you are talking about, that nondescript man, his name is Philip Cummings. He worked for a company here in New York called TCI. TCI is basically the type of company that provides software to other companies that need to get access to your credit report, say a bank or a credit card company.
Well, this man, Philip Cummings, left TCI in March of 2000, but even though that he had left the company, he still had access to passwords and codes that enabled him to get inside the big three credit reporting agencies -- Trans Union, Equifax and Experian.
So, what he did was, he went in there, got names, got social security numbers and, according to the U.S. attorney's office, basically stole the identities of thousands of people who had good credit, and then sold the identities to people out there in the street. And according to the U.S. attorney's office, the financial outcome was devastating.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY: Bank accounts of victims were depleted, addresses changed on accounts, new checks were ordered, new ATM cards were ordered, new credit cards were ordered, new lines of credit were opened and quickly drained. People's credit cards were used, of course, without authorization, and people would -- criminals would assume the identity of victims to order merchandise to have shipped to different locations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARROLL: It's incredible. Comey actually during the press conference talked about one woman who called in. He said she was in tears, because of this theft ring. Someone had -- one of these men had taken out a loan for upwards of $35,000 that now she felt as though she was responsible for.
So, the damage here, Arthel, quite extensive.
NEVILLE: And, Jason, to think that they sold this information on the street for like $60.
CARROLL: $60 a pop -- that's exactly what it came down to, right? Basically, they would go out there -- and here's what else what would happen here. Not only would they sell someone's identity, Arthel, out on the street, but then the person that they sold it to would oftentimes then sell it again. So, it would be resold.
So, it was just sort of this system that just sort of spread out across the entire country -- again, thousands of people affected by this. Three people in custody.
The question now is: What then happens to many of these consumers out there who want to know how they can protect themselves?
NEVILLE: Absolutely, and we're going to talk about that right now. Jason Carroll, thank you very much for joining us here today.
And with us now is Steven Keating. He is the executive director of The Privacy Foundation.
And, Mr. Keating, I want to welcome you.
STEVEN KEATING, THE PRIVACY FOUNDATION: Good to be with you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: This is unbelievable. It's a very scary thing, because anybody and everybody is susceptible. First of all, tell us the most common ways identities are stolen.
KEATING: Well, you're seeing one from the U.S. attorney's office, which is a data bank is broken into and thousands of names are stolen, false identities created. And that probably has the most widespread effect, but it can also happen individually. Someone can get your social security number or other personal information and create a false identity, run up a lot of bills and cause damage. NEVILLE: OK, you know, the social security number, this is a pet peeve of mine. You cannot open many accounts unless you give your social security number. And is that going to change in the future?
KEATING: Well, I mean, for 70 years, the social security number been used as a skeleton key by government and private businesses to open up your life. And I think where you can refuse to give it, you should refuse to give it and it may mitigate some of the identity theft problems.
NEVILLE: And how do you know if you've been a victim of identity theft?
KEATING: Well, you're going to find out when you apply for a loan or try to get a mortgage on your house.
NEVILLE: Yes, but, Steven, you know what? A lot of people don't go around applying for loans or going to try to get a mortgage. I mean, you're just going about your everyday business. How do you know?
KEATING: Well, how about getting your credit card bill and it shows that you ran up $10,000 worth of charges that aren't familiar to you.
NEVILLE: But at the same time, as they were explaining, that some of the thieves, what they'd do is call in and have the address changed. You'd never get that credit card bill.
KEATING: Well, it will eventually catch up to you. I mean, this is why identity theft is so difficult to track, because the damage, you know, can play out over many months, and you may not find out until months later after that.
NEVILLE: So, here is the question, though: How can you protect yourself? What would you say is the most important piece of information that you must protect at all costs?
KEATING: Well, I would say there are three rules that won't protect you in every situation, but it might help, which is don't give out your social security number if you can help it, get your credit reports from the agencies at least once a year, and also tear up your mail that has financial information before you throw it out.
NEVILLE: Oh, I mean, I've got to tell you all. I am borderline paranoid about this. I have a shredder at home. I shred everything.
KEATING: Right.
NEVILLE: Because it's true, you don't know who is going through your trash.
KEATING: Yes, that's possible.
NEVILLE: It's so true.
Mr. -- Dr. -- excuse me, sorry, sir -- Dr. Kadee (ph).
DR. KADEE: Yes, my name is Dr. Kadee (ph). And we were filling up gas at a gas station, and somebody picked up the piece of paper from the trash, and they used that number to pick up $11,000 worth of merchandise from a mall in Houston, Texas.
The credit card company called me right away, and that evening and said "Do you realize that you picked up $11,000 worth of material from the store, and you have never done that before?" All of a sudden, what happened? I said, 'Wait a minute.' We checked, and I still had my card. But that -- I say, well, this is not...
NEVILLE: So, ultimately, Dr. Kadee (ph), were you responsible for the money? Did the credit card company believe you that your card had been stolen or the number stolen?
DR. KADEE: Well, actually, I had to come up with some notarized statement, and all of that thing. And I think we ended up paying about $50, because we have the security protection on our thing. But if we didn't have that at that time, then we would end up paying all $11,000 from our pocket. Credit protection.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
You know, and speaking of credit protection -- thank you, Dr. Kadee (ph) -- speaking of that, again, I recently had a credit card company call me to confirm. It was the fraud department. I'm always so thankful when they call.
Do they usually believe -- I mean, I gave them every piece of information they needed. But is it difficult for people to prove to the credit card companies or whomever, that you are you and you really didn't charge these items?
KEATING: No, I think they do believe you. But I think one of the problems, as the previous speaker pointed this out, the damage is capped at $50, but that amount that was run up on the credit cards through identity theft, we all end up paying for that in higher interest rates on credit cards. So, the credit card companies need a new strategy in order to combat identity theft.
NEVILLE: Steven, who would you say is a good target, I mean, the best victims for these guys?
KEATING: We're all targets. I mean, certainly if you had a higher limit on your credit card, it would be longer before you found out, you know, that there had been false charges on it. But as this incident prosecution today shows, I mean, anyone is susceptible. If you're a name in a data bank, you're susceptible to this type of fraud.
NEVILLE: And how liable are you if someone indeed steals your identity and runs all of these like the $11,000, like Dr. Kadee (ph) said?
KEATING: Right. Well, in that case, the liability to him out of pocket is maybe only $50, but it could take, had he not acted quickly or it had gone on for many months -- the average length of resolving this is 18 months. So, you're spending a lot of time unwinding this problem. And there are thousands, maybe 700,000 people a year who suffer this.
NEVILLE: Steven, before I let you go, again, I know you said that the credit card companies tend to believe you when you say, my card has been stolen or what have you. But how difficult is it to prove that your identity has been stolen and to restore your credit? Because you hear the nightmare stories that people are saying, listen, I really am Susan Smith.
KEATING: Well, it's not just the credit card company. Somebody could open up a cell phone account, other bank accounts. I mean, if the thief is particularly devious, they can open up, you know, a dozen different accounts in your name. And so, now you have to deal with a dozen different entities to clear your name, and that's what people find most aggravating about this.
NEVILLE: Steven, I could talk to you more about this, but I do have to move on. Thank you so much, Steven Keating, for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
KEATING: Sure.
NEVILLE: OK. Up next, some high-level U.S. lawmakers are wondering, how much the Saudis can be trusted? We're going to look at a money trail that may lead from a member of the Saudi royal family to 9/11 hijackers. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE, we're following the money trail from a Saudi princess to two of the 9/11 hijackers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is also impossible that somebody directed that these funds go to these particular individuals, and Princess Haifa did not know why or understand what that was all about.
NEVILLE: Then later, the holidays can be difficult for problem drinkers. We'll tell you about a radical new treatment for alcoholics who want to dry out.
Talk continues after this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
What kind of an ally is Saudi Arabia? Top lawmakers are asking that question today as investigators trace a money trail that reportedly starts with the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., and could lead to some of the September 11 killers.
Among many questions is whether Princess Haifa al-Faisal knew who she was giving -- or giving money to when she sent checks to two Saudi students in California?
Now, the students apparently have ties to two of the hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon. Saudi officials say the princess had no idea there was a connection.
ADEL AL JUBEIR, SAUDI FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Al Qaeda's objective is to come after Saudi Arabia as much as it is to come after the U.S., and the last thing we would do is fund people whose objective is to murder us.
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA: You can't have it both ways. You can't finance terrorists. You can't finance charities that you have reason to believe that will finance terrorism around the world, aid and abet it, and say, oh, we're great friends of the U.S.
AL JUBEIR: I think a lot of what is being said in Washington, I would subscribe to, the political debates that are going on. And I think we happen to the political football these days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, here to talk about U.S.-Saudi relations, and whether money is being funneled to terrorist, is Hussein Ibish, communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Hello.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMER.-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION CMTE.: Hi, great to be with you.
NEVILLE: Good. And Stephen Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, he is the author of "The Two Faces of Islam: The house of Saud, from tradition to terror."
And welcome to you as well, sir.
STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, FDN. FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good to be here.
NEVILLE: Good.
SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Mr. Schwartz, actually, I'm going to start with you today. Is it possible...
SCHWARTZ: OK.
NEVILLE: Is it possible that Princess Haifa did not know the money was going to supporters of the 9/11 attack?
SCHWARTZ: Well, yes, it's possible. But one has to understand that the issue is not how much Princess Haifa knew or any of those details. The issue is that the Saudi states, the Saudi monarchy is wedded to an extremist Islamic ideology called Wahhabism. It's the state sect in Saudi Arabia. It's the Saudi -- a section of the Saudi monarchy's finances, Wahhabism, and its extension throughout the world.
Wahhabism is what led to 9/11. Wahhabism is a form of Islam that attacks traditional Muslims, it attacks Shiites, it attacks Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs (ph). But at the same time, historically over the last 250 years, the Wahhabi Sabi (ph) alliance that rule in Arabia has had a two-face policy of attacking the other face and attacking the traditional Muslims, while depending on the Christian powers -- Britain, the United States and France -- to keep them in power in the Peninsula. And that's what's going on today.
I don't think there's any doubt that the whole political culture of the Sudari (ph) -- that is King Fahd, Prince Sultan, the father of Prince Bandar, Prince Bandar himself and Prince Nayef -- is a political culture that fosters extremism. There is simply no doubt about this.
And to try to make it a question as to whether or not we can find some particular check signed over to some particular person is not the issue. The issue is that everybody in the kingdom is indoctrinated in this extremist ideology.
NEVILLE: So, then...
SCHWARTZ: And what happened on 9/11 was not about Osama bin Laden having a tactic to separate the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. It was an inevitable outcome of the extremist ideology that is the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
IBISH: Well, of course, Mr. Schwartz is wise not to try to make the allegations that have been made about this check, because to draw anything suspicious about it, you have to make five or six different leads.
First you have to assume these men were involved in the 9/11 attack. There is no evidence of that. Secondly, you have to assume that their wives, to whom the checks were sent, actually signed the money over to them and that they received it. Then you have to assume that the money was used somehow for some nefarious purpose. And the fourth step, you have to assume that the Princess Haifa knew about this. So, this is a big sort of to-do about nothing.
However, there is an important question lurking behind it, which has to do with unanswered questions about the way in which al Qaeda emerges at fringes of Saudi society. Now, Stephen Schwartz has said it's an inevitable result of all of Saudi political culture. I think that's absurd!
(CROSSTALK) SCHWARTZ: I don't think all of Saudi political...
IBISH: Hold on, I think it's...
SCHWARTZ: I said of Wahhabism.
IBISH: Let me finish, Stephen. What I'm saying is, it's pretty clear that the Saudi government has been a very close ally of the United States, and that bin Laden is not only attacking the United States, it's actually attacking also the government of Saudi Arabia.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So then, having said that, Mr. Ibish -- excuse me, Mr. Schwartz. Having said that, Mr. Ibish, so you can say with 100 percent certainty that there is no direct link on the money trail between Saudi Arabia and terrorism?
IBISH: No, of course I can't say that. What I'm saying is in fact -- actually, in fact, I'm saying the opposite. What I'm saying is that there are unanswered questions about how people like Mr. bin Laden and people like the 15 hijackers emerged. What part of Saudi society do they come from? What is going on inside the fringe of Saudi discourse that allows this?
I don't think those questions have been answered for...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Can you answer those?
IBISH: Well, I'd like to -- I'd like to...
SCHWARTZ: I can answer them.
IBISH: Oh, no, hold on. I'd like to tell you why -- no, we know what Stephen Schwartz says. He says it's all...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: Why don't you give me a...
(CROSSTALK)
Guys, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Schwartz, I will give you an opportunity to answer after Mr. Hussein.
IBISH: Yes, what I'd like to say is that, you know, it's obvious that both the United States and Saudi Arabia did promote sort of right-wing Saudi extremism, especially with regard to the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is our idea to collect, you know, radical Islamic militants, like bin Laden, and send them to Afghanistan. It was our idea to launch the first great global jihad.
I mean, this is a mistake that has been made by Saudi Arabia, by the United States, Pakistan, by a bunch of countries at a time when we thought it was a good idea in fighting the Cold War. Now, it's classic blow-back that's come back to haunt us.
NEVILLE: Mr. Schwartz, I know you want to respond to that. I will give you an opportunity. I have to take a break right now.
When we come back, are Saudi-U.S. relations in a crisis mode? We'll find out.
Plus, I want to take your calls and e-mails later about today's question of the day: If the government changes the way we are all warned about terrorism alerts, attacks and other crises, how would you like to be notified? By phone, pager, Internet, television, radio or whatever?
Give me a call, or you can e-mail me, and we're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: What's going on is the Saudis are trying to catch up with 10-12 years of very bad policy. I am doubtful that there was an intentional transfer of money from the ambassador's wife to the hijackers. There's a long pattern of the Saudis essentially buying off extremism in their country. They have built thousands of madrasas. They have charities that they know were not doing good things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about U.S.-Saudi relations in light of an investigation into money that possibly made its way from the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. to a couple of students with alleged ties to September 11 terrorists.
And, Mr. Schwartz, before the break, I promised I would let you respond to Mr. Ibish's comments.
SCHWARTZ: Well, first of all, this fairy tale created by the Saudis and their apologists about how Osama bin Laden is a bigger threat to them as he is to us is just ridiculous. There has been no terror campaign by Osama bin Laden inside Saudi Arabia. There were...
IBISH: Well...
SCHWARTZ: Please don't interrupt me, Hussein.
IBISH: All right.
SCHWARTZ: There have been two incidents that were ambiguous, one of which the Saudis tried to blame on Iran. The fact is, Osama bin Laden has never called for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, Osama bin Laden has never even named or attacked by name a single member of the royal family, and Osama bin Laden does not call for armed struggle or terrorism inside Saudi Arabia.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: And that implies, what, sir?
IBISH: Well, that's not true.
SCHWARTZ: And that implies...
IBISH: That is absolutely not true.
SCHWARTZ: ... that he represents -- he does not represent...
IBISH: Yes.
SCHWARTZ: ... opposition to the kingdom or the monarchy.
IBISH: You know, this is...
SCHWARTZ: He represents an ultra radical wing of the monarchy.
IBISH: You know, you should try listening to some of his speeches sometime. And the man...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: I have read all of Osama's text.
IBISH: Hold on, Stephen.
SCHWARTZ: Wait a minute...
IBISH: The guy goes on endless diatribes about the corrupt governments that have defiled...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: He does not name names. He does not call for overthrow. He calls for it...
IBISH: He condemns all of them, but he specifically condemns...
SCHWARTZ: No, you're wrong, Hussein. You're wrong.
IBISH: He specifically condemns...
SCHWARTZ: Hussein, you're wrong.
IBISH: ... those that are in bed with...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: You're wrong, Hussein. You're wrong!
IBISH: I am absolutely right.
SCHWARTZ: Osama bin Laden calls for a change in the policies of the government, and his discourse...
IBISH: Well, he...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: ... in addressing the royal family is that of a loyal opponent. He does not...
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: I don't agree with that at all. I think that that is a ridiculous mischaracterization.
SCHWARTZ: ... calling for the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
IBISH: No, that's a ridiculous mischaracterization.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: It's not a mischaracterization. It's a fact.
IBISH: Listen to me. Now, Stephen, listen to me. He has condemned...
SCHWARTZ: Wait! I don't see how why I should have to listen to a continuing diatribe by you.
IBISH: ... in the strongest terms all governments that cooperate with the United States...
SCHWARTZ: In defense of the Saudi regime.
IBISH: ... and that's clearly his...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: Why are you defending the most reactionary regime in the world?
IBISH: I'm not defending anybody.
SCHWARTZ: You are defending them!
IBISH: I'm telling you what...
SCHWARTZ: You're an apologist for them!
IBISH: Where do you get that? I'm not apologist...
SCHWARTZ: You're trying to clean up their skirts. Why are you doing this? I don't understand it.
IBISH: What is this absurdity? I'm simply telling you what bin Laden says about the...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: I'm telling you what bin Laden says, and bin Laden has never called for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy...
IBISH: That's your -- what he has done...
SCHWARTZ: ... has never mentioned a single member of the monarchy by name...
IBISH: What he has done...
SCHWARTZ: ... and does not conduct terror inside in Saudi Arabia.
IBISH: Steven, first of all, all I'm doing is telling you the truth, which is that...
SCHWARTZ: No, no, I'm telling you the truth, Hussein!
IBISH: Will you stop interrupting me?
SCHWARTZ: You're masking the truth.
IBISH: No! What I'm telling you...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, gentlemen, I am going to step in right here, because I have Art in the audience from California.
IBISH: Thank you! What nonsense!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. If I can get a word in edgewise here.
IBISH: Please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just would like to ask Mr. Schwartz, to what extent he thinks the Saudi royal families in fact are committed to this brand of extreme Islam, and to what extent they are appeasing the radicals just to keep the lid on?
SCHWARTZ: They are the radicals. They are not appeasing the radicals. Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.
Now, inside the royal family there is a faction of hard Wahhabis represented by the King Fahd, by Prince Sultan, Prince Bandar and Prince Nayef. There's also a faction of the royal family that's not Wahhabi. Crown Prince Abdullah is not a Wahhabi.
I reject completely and reset Hussein Ibish saying that I said the whole of Saudi political culture is Wahhabi.
IBISH: You know.
SCHWARTZ: The whole of it is not.
IBISH: The problem is...
SCHWARTZ: Crown Prince Abdullah is not a Wahhabi.
IBISH: The problem is Crown Prince Abdullah is the senior most member of the government.
SCHWARTZ: Let me finish -- let me finish my time.
IBISH: You're using a sledge hammer when you need to be using a scalpel, and you're...
SCHWARTZ: Crown Prince Abdullah is...
IBISH: ... taking (ph) a very sweeping bushes here.
SCHWARTZ: Look the point is, there is a section of the royal family...
IBISH: It makes no sense. You've just contradicted yourself, by the way.
SCHWARTZ: There is a section of the royal family, a faction of the royal family that represents the extreme Wahhabi point of view. There is a tension between them and Crown Prince Abdullah. There is growing tension between the monarch, the royal family and the people of Saudi Arabia...
IBISH: Look, if you...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: ... and I'm on the side of the people in Saudi Arabia against these terrorists!
IBISH: If you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the between Crown Prince Abdullah's views and King Fahd's views, and you can't see a difference between bin Laden's view and Fahd's views, then you're missing the picture altogether.
SCHWARTZ: I'm not missing the picture.
IBISH: And it's so obvious.
SCHWARTZ: I'm not trying to pretty up a bunch of terrorists.
IBISH: I'm not prettying anything. I'm telling you exactly what it is.
SCHWARTZ: No.
NEVILLE: So, gentlemen, I ask both of you this question, which I want the answer after the break: Can the U.S. trust Saudi Arabia?
We're going to talk more about this. I've got some audience comments to share with you as well. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We talking about U.S.- Saudi relations. Are they extreme, those relations? I want to ask Mr. Schwartz if you think this latest information regarding a possible money trail from Princess Haifa to some suspected supporters of the 9/11 terrorists.
SCHWARTZ: Look, the Saudi government right after 9/11 should have done what any normal government in the world would have done. They should have declared they were going to carry out a full investigation, a thorough and transparent investigation of every aspect of 9/11 and they would hand the results off to us.
For a little over a year now they have been stonewalling us. They sent al-Jubir (ph) on to give these patronizing little lectures about fairness. They refuse to tell us the truth, they refuese to be up front with us. It's time for the United States to get the accounting from Saudi Arabia that we need of the funding, recruitment and backing...
NEVILLE: But will they do that, Mr. Schwartz? Will they do that? Because the U.S. depends on Saudi Arabia for oil and for military...
SCHWARTZ: Well, they have to do it. They have to do it. And if they don't do it, then we have to find ways to compel them to do it. And if they still do not do it, then we have to completely revise our relationship with them.
IBISH: Do I get to answer the question?
NEVILLE: Yes, you do.
IBISH: OK. I mean, I think it's clear the Saudi government is a close ally of the United States. I also think it's clear that there are serious strains within that relationship. And the fact that this non-story has become a story indicates that those...
NEVILLE: How do you say that this is a non-story, Mr. Ibish?
IBISH: Well, it's a non-story because of the five leaps of faith you have to make to make this into something that's...
NEVILLE: Not necessarily, sir, because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So there are some dots that people might connect.
IBISH: Well that's my point. That's exactly my -- that's my point. My point is, this check business is, obviously, you know, not a story. But the fact is, that there is this problem between the United States and certainly an element of Saudi society. That's what actually propels this non-story about Czechs (ph) into being something that makes people interested.
And I think also that it goes further than that, because there's a lot of hostility towards Saudi Arabia in this country as well. And I think also...
NEVILLE: And why is that?
IBISH: It also...
NEVILLE: If that's the case, why is that, sir?
IBISH: Well, I think there's mutual recrimination here. I think there's alienation, and I think that it comes from a mixture of anger about the attacks. I think that there are people with an agenda, frankly, an anti-Arab agenda, who want to trash all -- especially Arab countries that are close to the United States. And I think that there's been a lot of anti-Arab propaganda in the entertainment industry and in the news media that has effected -- deeply and badly effected U.S. relations with all of its Arab (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
NEVILLE: I'm going back to the Dr. Acadia (ph) to hear your response to this.
ARCADIA: Well, only thing I can say about this, if you are a friend, this is the time the United States is at war with -- or about to enter war. Show us the friendship. Do not play games like this. If you are a true friend, show your friendship.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir. And Mehesh (ph) here had something to say.
MEHESH: Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by religious sacks that are heavily controlled by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and they've been funding the organizations that are extreme in their thoughts. Like in Kashmir, India, the Taliban was funded heavily by Pakistan at that time. And they were funded by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) also. Any time you fund the organizations like that, you can never be sure if the money will not go in the hands of terrorists.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir. And I have Mark Anthony (ph) over here in the audience who has something to say.
MARK ANTHONY: Yes, just a basic comment. I really believe that Saudi Arabia is not an ally of the United States. And it's not because of anti-Arab or anything like that. I mean, if a person shows exactly their true colors, you only can call a spade a spade. The bottom line is this, over the past year the Saudis have done x, y and z, as far as not helping with the war on terrorism.
IBISH: Well, that's not what the government says. You know the Bush administration, every senior official who has been asked about this, has said that Saudi Arabia has been very cooperative. I agree, that there are unanswered questions, but I think that they're not being asked by the Saudis, they're not being asked by us, because we're both afraid of the answers, frankly. We are afraid of our own history in promoting this kind of horrible politics. They are afraid of theirs.
MARK ANTHONY: The bottom line is this: the United States asks for military assistance to use bases to launch attacks on Afghanistan. As a prior military service man that served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, I believe that it's a slap in the face for all of the families that lost people over there in Saudi Arabia fighting to gain freedom for their country, because our country is already free. We went over there to help them out, and now that we need them to fight this global war -- hold on second, this global war on terrorism, the Saudis said no.
And I really believe that is a slap in the face. But the last point is this. I real believe that the United States should rethink who their true friends are. And remember, you need to keep your enemies close -- correction -- well, thank you. The bottom line is we got to do a little bit better in choosing our friends, and the Saudis they're not one of them.
NEVILLE: We know what you were saying. Thank you very much, Mark Anthony (ph). Mr. Ibish, I'll give you 10 seconds. I'm out of time.
SCHWARTZ: Wait a minute, what about me?
IBISH: You must mean Iraq, because the...
NEVILLE: OK, you, too, Mr. Schwartz.
IBISH: ... United States has not asked for permission with regard to Afghanistan. If it's about Iraq, the war on Iraq is not connected to 9/11. Iraq was not involved in 9/11; this is a very different thing. And if the Saudis don't want to get involved in something that many people in our own government, our own generals, our own CIA, our own State Department, many people...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Schwartz 10 seconds to you.
SCHWARTZ: Thank you. Ten seconds is fine.
IBISH: I mean, they're not obliged to embrace all our politics.
NEVILLE: Mr. Ibish, please don't make me cut you off. Go ahead, Mr. Schwartz.
SCHWARTZ: Well, all I have to say is this is not about being anti-Arab. I am not anti-Arab. I have no hidden agendas except that I want the people of Arabia to enter the road of a transition to democracy. I want this powerful wealthy society called Saudi Arabia right now to become a modern normal state.
NEVILLE: That's been ten seconds.
IBISH: And I'll go along with all of that. Yeah, I'll go along with that.
OK. Hussein Ibish and Stephen Schwartz, thank you very much, both, for the lively discussion. We enjoyed both of your perspectives. Thanks so much for being here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
And up next, some therapists say the only way most alcoholics can regain those lost weekends is to part company with the bottle forever. But our next guest insists problem drinkers may not have to be that dry. Could there be sipping room for the reforms? We'll find out after this break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Most of us have heard of Alcoholics Anonymous, right, and its 12- step program? And for years, it has been generally accepted that in order for an alcoholic to sober up, he or she had to do it for a good, no looking back. But that theory doesn't hold true for our next guest, who says problem drinkers can take back control of their lives, but they can still enjoy a sip or two along the way.
Let's meet Mark Kern, a psychologist with over 25 years of clinical experience helping people overcome alcohol. He is co-author of "Responsible Drinking: A Moderation Management Approach For Problem Drinkers." He is also founder of Addiction Alternatives in Los Angeles.
And also with us is psychologist Michael Nuccitelli, and he is executive director of SLS Health, which treats a variety of psychological and wellness issues. And I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Dr. -- do I need to call you doctors, or do you mind if I call you Mark or Michael?
MARC KERN, ADDICTION ALTERNATIVES: Doctor, I prefer it.
NEVILLE: All right, Dr. Dr. Kern, I want to start with you. First, if you would -- if you don't want to answer this, you don't have to, but I wanted to know if you have any personal experience with being a problem drinker or an alcoholic?
KERN: Oh, absolutely. That's how I got into this field. I was graduating college with a degree in architecture and a degree in -- I'll call it alcohol problems or drug problems. This comes up -- my work and my -- what I'm trying to do comes out of my very much personal experience and the experience of many others that I've worked with directly. NEVILLE: I just wanted to get that out front, because you know some people listening to your comments may say, well, what does he know, he doesn't have a problem, he's never had to deal with it. In the meantime, let me go ahead and slide into this next question, which is, what is responsible drinking and who is this program designed for?
KERN: Well, earlier you spoke of a problem drinker versus an alcoholic. This is for early-stage problem drinkers, people that have under 10 years of problems with alcohol. There's generally been no significant biological problems due to the alcohol use, no legal problems, no sort of social complications. These are not hard-bottom alcoholics. This is early stage problem drinkers we would call them.
NEVILLE: Well then how do you know the difference, sir?
KERN: That's really a very difficult question. And even the medical establishment isn't quite sure. Most people really -- I don't really believe that as many people that we talk about as alcoholics are really alcoholics. They're really problem drinkers, but we don't have any interventions that are appropriate, that are for anything less than the most severe problematic drinkers.
NEVILLE: OK. Then I'm going to bring in Dr. Nuccitelli and ask you, what do you think about this notion of kind of going half way? You can be a responsible drinker? I mean, this doesn't work for many people. They can't -- it's either all or nothing for many people.
MICHAEL NUCCITELLI, PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes, good afternoon. First and foremost, no disrespect to the good doctor, and I'm sure his intentions are genuine and good, but quite frankly, his philosophy is preposterous. To assume that a problem drinker, whether they're in early stages or not, can they go to indulge into social use? It is literally impossible, and it seems that...
KERN: I question of where you come up with that preposterous notion. That is not the reality. I was sitting out in the waiting room for this and there was a young lady who said that she had a problem and she has resumed non-problematic drinking. Your notions of this all being a black and white phenomena is more preposterous than what you're calling my thinking or the moderation management approach.
NEVILLE: Listen, I have David (ph) here. David (ph), who was kind enough to tell us in the break that you've been sober for ten years. Congratulations. That's great.
DAVID: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Yes. Very good. And what do you think about this notion?
DAVID: Well, I've been drinking -- I'd been drinking close to 35 to 40 years. And it came from an experience for me, and I would have to say that treatment was one of the main factors in me getting this thing right. There is no miraculous care; there's no book that's going to be able to cure me. What I need is a strong support system around me at all times. NEVILLE: And you still go AA meetings?
DAVID: That's correct. In fact, I'm going on circuit and I'll be targeting youth and helping them.
NEVILLE: Good. And you know, I ask you, you know, I don't -- I personally don't think that you can have, you know, one sip of this. I don't think that works for people in your situation.
DAVID: I think he has to be careful with his book, because what he's doing, he's sending a strong message to our youth and saying that it's OK to drink.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Most certainly.
NEVILLE: Listen, Brett (ph) -- thank you, sir, very much for sharing your story. And Brett (ph), I know you're on the line. You want to share your story with us. I'll get to you after the break.
What do you think about Marc's alternative to AA? Give me a call or e-mail me right now and we'll continue this discussion after the break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about a treatment for problem drinkers that does not require abstinence. And I want to now to Oregon where Brett (ph) is standing on the phone with your comment. Go ahead, Brett (ph).
BRETT: You know, there's that old question, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it make a sound? And I guess I kind of twist that around for this scenario and say, if an alcoholic can drink in moderation, was he ever really an alcoholic? I've been clean and sober for 12 years and to me the key was admitting that I had a problem and then trying to find a spiritual path in my life. And I think that kind of clouding the problem by suggesting that perhaps you could drink in moderation as long as it doesn't hurt some people.
That being said, I will say that whatever works for you. If you think you have a problem and you think you can use moderation to your benefit, then whatever works for you, but I definitely have my doubts.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Brett (ph), for calling in. And I have Matt (ph) here from California in the audience.
MATT: Yes, my question is, what is it about our society that makes us prone to binge drinking?
NEVILLE: Dr. Nuccitelli, will you answer that, please?
NUCCITELLI: Sure. I mean bingeing is one part of an alcoholic pattern. There are many different ways that the alcoholic uses, consumes and abuses alcohol.
But my question is, is to the doctor. Doc, you and I are both doctors of psychology, we're addiction experts. Let me ask you, the alcoholic right now that is watching this show, the problem drinker that's going to go out and purchase your book, how many of them do you think right now are going to go out and now are justified in their drinking?
KERN: Well, first of all, I think it's important to differentiate again between a problem alcoholic. This program is not for an alcoholic. Do not go off your abstinence course and try moderation. I'm rather appealing to people who are out there drinking. I want you to take look at your drinking...
NUCCITELLI: How do you define problem drinking, sir?
KERN: Well, how do you define an alcoholic? I can't ask a college drinker, like we were speaking of a moment ago, who binges. I can't define him as an alcoholic. But moderation management, the program, will lend a stepping-stone to abstinence. That's our whole -- we're not trying to get people from abstinence back into drinking, but rather the other way around. Because you'd have more people into treatment.
NEVILLE: Let me...
NUCCITELLI: Any longitudinal data, any research, anything supporting your notion of this theory? Or is this an idea you came up with?
KERN: No. Come on, you're a professional, you've read the literature. You know that most -- less than 10 percent of people who are alcoholics enter treatment. We're trying to get more people into treatment than perhaps the standard black and white notion that you are continually offering and have been offering the last 50 years. We are trying to get people into to treatment, not scare them away with your hysteria.
NEVILLE: Listen, Mark (ph) from Georgia, what do you say?
MARK: Well, I mean, I drink four to five time as week. I'm 23 years old, I'm having a good time. If you can live that lifestyle, you can live that lifestyle. But I don't think there's any reason for anybody to think that I'm a problem drinker. I mean, I do it, I have fun. But it's not like I'm hurting myself that badly. Everything I've read about the liver, you can cure it by...
NEVILLE: But see -- I'm out of time. But Dr. Nuccitelli, how do you know if you're a problem drinker, quickly?
NUCCITELLI: Get professional help. The easiest way to know if you're a problem drinker is, do you suffer negative consequences from the usage? If you suffer one consequence, whatever that may be, you're a problem drinker.
NEVILLE: OK. Marc Kern and Michael Nuccitelli, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
NUCCITELLI: Thank you for having me.
KERN: Thank you.
NEVILLE: And up next, the question of the day: How do you want to be warned about a possible terrorist attack? Your cell phone, CB radio? Call me or e-mail me and I'll take those calls and letters after this breaks.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, the Department of Homeland Security was signed into law today. And a panel of emergency experts is urging the new department to develop a high-tech terrorism warning system. That brings me to today's question of the day.
How do you want to be warned about a terrorist attack? We've got an e-mail coming in now from Adam in Clinton, South Carolina. "I would like to be warned of an impending threat via some sort of telephone call to my cellular telephone." OK, Adam, thank you so much for writing in.
And we are out of time. I'll see you tomorrow. I'm Arthel Neville.
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Extent Are the Saudis Our Allies?>
|
