|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Saudi Arabia Supporting Terrorism?; ACLU Declares War on John Ashcroft
Aired December 3, 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, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Is Saudi Arabia a reluctant or an enthusiastic partner in the war on terror? Today, Saudi Arabia pledged to crack down on Islamic charities. And at issue: a report outlining how it monitor charities, oversees the transfer of assets, and questions suspects. Is it all P.R. or is Saudi Arabia taking a stand on terror? We're going to get to that in a minute.
And then stay tuned, because the ACLU has declared its own war, of sorts, on Attorney General John Ashcroft. Wait until you hear their first attack.
Also, are the Democrats all about Bill Clinton? He delivered a party pep talk today. "Can he reenergize the party faithful?" is the question.
First, Saudi Arabia takes the pledge, promising to monitor charities and trying hard to prove that it's a friend to America. The move comes as a Saudi prince is being accused of delivering a stash of cash to Osama bin Laden in 1998. And money allegedly used by two September 11 hijackers was traced to a Saudi princess. And Saudi Arabia's foreign policy adviser today defended his country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADEL AL-JUBEIR, SAUDI FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: We believe that our country has been unfairly maligned. We believe that we have been subjected to criticism that we do not deserve. We believe that people have been misinformed about Saudi Arabia and what Saudi Arabia has done or frankly that people have lied about what we have done or what we allegedly have not done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So, has Saudi Arabia been taking it on the chin?
Let's talk about it with now Carl Jeffers, a columnist with "The Seattle Times."
Hi, Carl.
CARL JEFFERS, "THE SEATTLE TIMES": Hello, Arthel. Good to be here.
NEVILLE: Hey, I'm glad to have you here.
Joyce Kaufman, a radio talk show host on WFTL and WDJA in Miami.
Hi, Joyce.
JOYCE KAUFMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi.
NEVILLE: And Royal Marshall, host of "The Royal Treatment" on WSB Radio in Atlanta.
Royal, are you going to give us the "Royal Treatment" today?
ROYAL MARSHALL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Sure. Just for you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right, now.
And Martin Lewis, a political commentator and columnist who covers U.S. politics for the BBC.
Hey, Martin. Nice to see you again as well.
MARTIN LEWIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Always good to see you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right.
Carl, you're up first today.
JEFFERS: All right.
NEVILLE: Are the Saudis going far enough with their plan, is the question?
JEFFERS: I think that what we have to realize is that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is very complicated.
The fact is that the Saudis are our allies in the Middle East. They have been, consistently so, for the last 40 years. And what's even more important and perhaps more subtle is that there is a particularly strong personal and political alliance and relationship, going back to the Reagan and first Bush years and emanating all the way through today, that makes it very difficult for the United States to take a hard line on Saudi Arabia.
I think that, in terms of this particular issue, we should remember that we never found any direct evidence that someone in the royal family was contributing money directly to al Qaeda. With the family, as extended as they are, with a requirement in their society to give money as part of their charitable activities during the year, it is feasible that
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Without audits of those charities. JEFFERS: Without auditing. But, then, auditing is not part of their societal structure, because they don't pay taxes and there's no requirement for that.
NEVILLE: Correct.
JEFFERS: It is possible that this is a very innocent mistake. And what's more, no matter what, the United States is not going to take the same kind of approach dealing with Saudi Arabia that we would have had this been Yemen or Syria.
NEVILLE: OK, but, Royal, still, the question is, are the Saudis going far enough with this plan?
MARSHALL: Well, that's a very good question, Arthel.
But, also, keep in mind that I think they're kind of sort of fair-weather fans, if you will. I think they are our allies as long as we're protecting them from some of their more hostile neighbors in the middle east. And that's why they have our support and that's why we have their support, is because we have a mutual kind of relationship. We want the oil. They want the protection.
If you remove any one of those elements, then you might see a different type of Saudi Arabia. And I agree with Carl also when he says that they don't have that tax structure. And, therefore, it's very difficult for them to figure out -- put it like this. The impetus is not a lot of charitable organizations to find out where the money goes.
They trust people. They say, "If we give you $1,000 you're going to build a house with," they give them $1,000. And also keep in mind one last fact I want I point out. Al Qaeda is still a secret organization. So, if I were to give money to a man that I thought was a reputable man and he was to turn it over to a member of Al Qaeda, he might not know that he was giving money to a terrorist organization. So that's something to be considered as well.
NEVILLE: Joyce, what do you say?
KAUFMAN: Yes.
MARSHALL: Not a lot.
KAUFMAN: I find it fascinating that everybody is just ignoring the fact that they still have madrasas in Saudi Arabia that teach hatred of the West, teach hatred of America. We're the great Satan. And, yes, we have some mutual needs, but those are political realities. The American people is sick to death of the Saudis. We'd like to get out from under their oil. And we know they hate us.
LEWIS: Well, exactly so.
One of the things that quite interesting is that the Saudis, of course, are honoring their solemn and very important bond they have with the Bush family and with the oil companies. They know where their bread -- which side their bread is buttered. They absolutely care very much about that oil relationship.
It's disingenuous. How come we haven't pursued much more vigorously the Saudi connection to 9/11? What is clear, this announcement, this recent announcement, is out of the Saudis quivering in fear at Henry Kissinger being appointed to head the investigation. It's like being savaged by a dead sheep. They're really worried about that, aren't they?
KAUFMAN: Yes, that's an obscenity. Henry Kissinger, a man who has lied to Congress and the American people for decades, he is going to be the truth police now. Great.
NEVILLE: I still ask, though, Martin what do you think? How much of the donations, the Saudi donations are going to terrorists deliberately, and how much of that money is going there inadvertently?
LEWIS: I suspect a large amount is going there quite deliberately. There has been no disguise about the way that the Saudi government stays in power and the royal family stays in power: by appeasing their extreme right wing, if you like, their religious leaders, who demand a kind of moral purity. That's the moral purity that allows Saudi princes to go off to London to whore in casinos and brothels, but not at home, of course.
Their utter hypocrisy that comes out of that country -- and it's time that the American government actually had some spine and stood up to it and said, "We want to have full accounting of how they are disbursing funds."
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So, then, the Saudis are saying that that's what they're going to do from this point on. Can you trust them?
LEWIS: I think the answer can be best described in the word no.
NEVILLE: Now, what's that word again, Martin?
KAUFMAN: Like the fox guarding the chicken house.
NEVILLE: We didn't understand you, Martin. What's that word again?
LEWIS: No! Read my lips, "No."
NEVILLE: Listen, Royal, how do you see this? Is Saudi Arabia a friend or a foe?
MARSHALL: Well, as I said before, they're kind of a fair-weather friend. As long as we're providing them protection, then we can count on them, to a certain degree.
But I agree with what the other panelists said about the religious right in Saudi Arabia kind of having -- the royal family kind of having to appease them to a certain degree. When our State Department tells the Saudi Arabia government, the royal family to freeze the assets of some of their most prominent citizens, that simply is just not going to happen. That's like the Saudi Arabia government telling us to freeze the assets of John Ashcroft. It's just not going to happen.
Saudi Arabia is kind of -- I'll put it like this. I can trust them as far as I can throw them.
JEFFERS: I would just add, Arthel, that one thing we still have to remember is that we are not debating about whether or not it is wrong or right for us to be a friend of Saudi Arabia or to treat them as a friend.
You have to remember that it is the policy of the Bush administration to, at the very least, take a more softer and more neutral tone and attitude towards Saudi Arabia as the official policy of the administration, as part of its foreign policy, because the administration sees specific interests of the United States being well-served by our preserving our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
So, those who would support the Bush administration cannot do that and, at the same time, attack the policy in Saudi Arabia without attacking the Bush administration's policy.
MARSHALL: I agree with Carl.
(CROSSTALK)
KAUFMAN: I'll attack the Bush administration. No problem.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFERS: I would expect that from Joyce, yes.
LEWIS: Another aspect, Arthel, something I find utterly disingenuous is seeing these Saudi spokesmen talking about their great charitable contributions and how much they care. And they also rail against Israel.
If they had any ounce of charity, they would -- we would see some of that going to Palestinian refugees in humanitarian aid, not in weapons, not in giving money to suicide families, but in actually doing proper things. But they don't. They don't care.
KAUFMAN: Bravo.
NEVILLE: OK, let's go to Pennsylvania now, where Kent is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, sir.
CALLER: Hi, Arthel. How you doing?
NEVILLE: Good.
CALLER: I have a question for anybody on the panel that would like to answer it. I agree with the gentleman that said that Saudi Arabia is merely a fair-weather friend at this time. And my opinion is that Muslims in general have a problem accepting that other people don't accept their beliefs or don't follow their beliefs.
And I was wondering what the panel thinks as to this relationship we have with Saudi Arabia now. Do they think that this relationship and further diplomacy can help us, in our lifetime, gain some acceptance in the Muslim community that they can coexist with us?
NEVILLE: OK, Kent, thank you.
Royal?
MARSHALL: Well, I think, first of all, I want to say that it is -- you just, in my opinion, mischaracterized the Muslim religion when you say they're intolerant. You're looking at the minority of them that are proclaiming the jihad. And you don't look at the majority of the ones that live in other areas of the world that are peaceful, that are trying to coexist with other religious people.
And also keep in mind, if we're going to defeat our enemy in this war on terror, we're going to need the help of Muslim countries. We're going to need the help of even Muslim citizens to infiltrate these organizations, because I can't do it. Arthel can't do it. And any person in here lighter than me is surely not going to be able to do it. So we're going to need the help of some Muslim countries.
I think Islam as a whole, in my opinion, has been sort of maligned ever since September 11. And I'm not here to stand up for Islam or anything like that, because I'm a God-fearing Christian. But I also recognize that the religion itself isn't bad, but people use the religion to get whatever evil purposes they want to get done.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Panel, hang on, because I have a Muslim here, a man here who says he's Muslim, in the audience.
And, sir, you say what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I would like to say is, there are so many mischaracterization of Islamic religion in this country. People don't understand what Islam is and they can't appreciate between what the Islam is, what the Muslims are.
NEVILLE: So, then, what should the people who don't understand, what should they do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think what they say now is -- the caller say, the acceptance of the Islamic world, the acceptance is starting with the understanding each other's culture.
NEVILLE: So, where is the best place to get the information?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best place to get the information is just to...
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Show respect, but you have to get information. You need knowledge about it.
Thank you very much for standing up ,sir.
That is the bell. We are going to move on now.
And up next, I want to talk about Bill Clinton and whether he's the one who can bring the Democratic Party back to life.
Also, we've been hearing a whole lot about unhappy ocean-goers as the Norwalk virus attacks cruise ships. Our "Question of the Day": Would you take a cruise? Give me a call or e-mail right now and I'll take those calls and letters later in the hour.
And we're back in a moment, after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: He's back, telling Democrats how to save their skins. Is Bill Clinton the man to save the Democratic Party?
Also, wait until you here what the ACLU is saying about Attorney General John Ashcroft. Is the group comparing Ashcroft to a petty dictator?
The talk continues.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
As everyone knows, the Democrats took a beating in the midterm election. And ever since, there has been all kinds of Monday-morning quarterbacking about why it happened. Well, today, one of the most successful political animals alive is energizing the Democratic Party, telling leaders where they went wrong and what they need to do to win back American confidence and get votes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have a heavy responsibility to cooperate in uniting this country on security issues and also to come up with better ideas across the board. We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way. We have to have a clear and strong national security stand. We have to compare results from their efforts and ours. And we have to be tough and disciplined.
(END VIDEO CLIP) NEVILLE: OK, Joyce, can Bill save the day?
KAUFMAN: Well, judging by how many candidates he helped in the November 5 election, no, he can't. Everybody he went and campaigned for lost their election.
What the problem really is, is, there is no youth in the Democratic Party. It's either a 78-year-old Lautenberg or a 74-year- old Mondale. And now we'll bring back the president who was. You know, the Democrats need to find some vigor, some new ideas, and get a statesman up there to challenge the right.
NEVILLE: Carl, how do you see it?
JEFFERS: Well, I would take issue with a couple of points that Joyce made.
First of all, Bill Clinton can be of significant benefit to the Democrats, because he and Hillary represent the best fund-raisers that the Democrats have. And if their role is clearly defined within the party, that they are out on the huskings and raising money, the Democratic candidate, whoever he is in 2004, is going to need somewhere between $30 and $50 million.
And you can't start raising that money in October. And Bill Clinton and Hillary can be very effective in raising money. As far as being able to help candidates, I think clearly we've seen that, already, candidates make choices. And they've decided in their certain districts that Bill Clinton can't help them, so they don't have him come in.
But there are a lot of people in America who would not vote for Bill Clinton's choice for a candidate, but would pay $100 or $250 for a dinner to hear him speak. And that's what the Democrats have to do.
(CROSSTALK)
KAUFMAN: So that's all we are, political whores?
NEVILLE: So, Carl, if, in fact, the Clintons can raise money, then who should the candidates be?
JEFFERS: Well, I think, first of all, there are only two candidates in the Democratic Party who have a real chance to get the nomination for 2004, Al Gore and John Kerry. I think John Edwards is a very attractive candidate for the 2008. George Bush would crush John Edwards if he runs against him in 2004.
Edwards is not only in his first elected term as a U.S. senator. He's in his first elected term as U.S. anything. He's got to have more experience. Hillary Clinton: 2008. And none of the other candidates, Gephardt, Daschle, or Dean, will do better than single digits in any of the primaries.
KAUFMAN: But how many times do you run a guy who can't win the election? And Al Gore has... JEFFERS: I appreciate what you're saying, Joyce. And that's a very good point.
But we can't forget that Al Gore is walking around with 50 million American voters who voted for him. And I've heard a lot of e- mails and people calling in saying, "I voted for him before, would never vote for him again." Let me tell you, anybody who actually voted for Al Gore in 2000 is a potential voter that, if he works hard, he can get him again. It's the people who voted for George Bush he can't go after.
NEVILLE: Let's see what Jeff from Boston has to say.
JEFF: Mr. Jeffers, one of the things that confuses me a little bit about your comment is actually taken from Bill Clinton's words himself, which is that the Democrat Party needs to be less liberal and more relevant, which is what he said today in his speech. And you need to focus on results.
Well, living in Boston, our state overwhelmingly voted for the Republican Party. And I think that's a symptom and a result of a fractured Democratic Party, which Bill Clinton has proved that he's unable to bring together. That would be further exemplified by his inability to get together with Al Gore, both in the previous election and since that election.
NEVILLE: So, what should they do?
Oh, I'm sorry. He has a question. I missed it. Go ahead.
JEFF: I was wondering what your perspective on that would be.
JEFFERS: Well, I agree with your point.
But remember what his exact words were. He said the Democratic Party needs to be more relevant, but not more liberal. And that's true, because I argued that, during the campaign, one of the reasons the Democrats did not do well wasn't because they weren't liberal enough. But because they caved in on issues like the war-on-Iraq resolution and they didn't bring out their message on Social Security and other social issues that are important to the American people, then they weren't relevant, because, if you're going to have the same message or, by default, let the Republicans make the case, then why wouldn't you just vote for the Republicans?
LEWIS: Can we just be clear? Can we just be clear? The party we're beating up on here is the one that held the White House for eight years, led us to record surpluses, better treatment of unemployment, and a better (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Is there anybody in the audience that is actually better off than they were two years ago?
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFERS: Well, I'm sure that it would be great if you were able to be here and vote. But, at this point, since you're not going to be voting, I'm addressing the people who will be.
And I think, to them, that the Democrats still have a lot of work to do, because, remember, the arguments you're making should have been the arguments that would have helped Al Gore in 2000.
(CROSSTALK)
KAUFMAN: Your most compelling argument, Carl, was that Bill and Hillary can raise money. And there we go again. Then we're irrelevant. If it's not issues and if it's not a philosophy and a platform, we don't deserve to lead, or the Democrats don't deserve to lead.
JEFFERS: Well, Joyce, though, they won't be the only ones raising money. But I think you'd agree that Bill and Hillary can raise funds. And the Democratic leadership, I don't agree that Terry McAuliffe should remain as chairman of the party.
KAUFMAN: So, let them head up the United Way.
LEWIS: But one of the things that we're getting here is that the Democrats have been spooked by the very effective power of our president. I refer, of course, to president Karl Rove, the puppeteer who actually controls George Bush. And the Democrats have been terribly spooked by that.
One of the things that is strange is the double standard. Do you remember a few years ago back when Jimmy Carter had just 300 hostages held in Iran? He was held personally accountable on a daily basis. "What was the president doing?" We have 280 million Americans held hostage by al Qaeda since 9/11. What is George Bush doing about it and where is the media holding him accountable on a daily basis?
MARSHALL: That is so ridiculous, first of all.
And let me point out, first of all, the Democratic Party is not being stifled magically. They're being stifled by solid leadership from the president. You need to wake up to that fact or you'll never, ever take over the White House again. Wake up to that, buddy.
Secondly, what the Democrats need to do -- and I would like to see the Democrats succeed. But what they really need to do to succeed is to quit harping on the past. They lost the election in 2000. If they didn't lose it, Al Gore gave it to Bush. We need to move on toward the future. It's time for new leadership.
I agree with Carl. The Clintons are great fund-raisers. But, unfortunately, the Clintons, by their very essence, alienate a lot of voters that they're going to need come 2004. So, if they keep harping, playing the same cards, Social Security and trying to scare old folks, people are waking up to these shenanigans. And it's just not going to work anymore.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Colin is going to have the last word in this segment. Go ahead, Colin.
COLIN: I'm from Tennessee and Al Gore lost the election in Tennessee. And I have to agree. The Democrats are dead. It's time for the Republicans to move in. They're really -- they're the ones who are going to be doing the job.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So they're dead. They're dead. He says the Democrats are dead.
(BELL RINGING)
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? Even if you disagree with what Colin just said, he still gets the last word, because the bell has rung and we're moving on.
OK, enough on Clinton. Let's move on.
Up next, I am going to show you a new ACLU ad that makes the attorney general look like a dictator. You'll see I mean.
And then, I want to know if you would take a cruise in light of the Norwalk virus outbreak and the recent salmonella infections. Call me or e-mail me now.
And TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Hey, everybody. Welcome back.
It's the ACLU vs. Attorney General John Ashcroft. And, in its first attack, the group is airing a national television commercial designed to malign Ashcroft and the administration seizing of power in the aftermath of September 11.
Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, ACLU AD)
NARRATOR: Look what John Ashcroft is doing to our Constitution. He seized powers for the Bush administration no president should ever have, the right to investigate you for what you say, the right to intrude on your privacy, the right to hold you in jail without charging you with a crime.
John Ashcroft, he's supposed to defend the Constitution, not rewrite it. The American Civil Liberties Union, for 80 years, we've led the fight to defend your freedoms. Join us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Royal, what do you think about the ACLU's tactics?
MARSHALL: Well, since I'm not a big fan of John Ashcroft, I kind of like that commercial.
But I have two words to say to the Attorney General John Ashcroft: Jose Padilla. He's an American citizen. You said that he's trying to make a dirty bomb. But the president and you said you're going to hold him without counsel to an attorney, without an indictment, without anything, until you guys see fit to let him go.
This is America. American citizens are entitled to due process, which means, if you're going to hold someone, you have to indict them. You have give them counsel or provide counsel for them. So, Jose Padilla, it stands in the face -- let me also say this. I don't think Jose Padilla is a saint, OK. But I'm on the bandwagon with those people who say that he at least deserves to be indicted, if we're going to hold this man.
He's been held now for over six months without counsel and without any sign of letting us know when he's going to be let out or whatever he's going to be. He hasn't has a visit with his family or anything like that. That should not happen in this country. We've fought in this country for over 200 years. We have been able to fight all of our enemies without trampling on our Constitution.
But for some reason, ever since September 11, this administration seems that it's OK to trample on American citizens' rights. And I don't think that's appropriate.
NEVILLE: Joyce?
KAUFMAN: The most interesting thing about this is, the people who used to make fun of the ACLU, Bob Barr, Hyde, Dick Armey, are now all on the side of the ACLU. Wasn't it George -- King George I who said that Dukakis was a card-carrying member of the ACLU and therefore shouldn't be president? Now conservatives are looking to the ACLU to protect our rights.
I think the commercial is appropriate.
NEVILLE: So, then, what does that say, Joyce?
KAUFMAN: I think that there's a real threat to our civil liberties. I think that John Ashcroft needs to be called on it. So does this administration. And who better than the ACLU? I think it's a great ad.
LEWIS: Yes. I also have to say that we have to remember about John Ashcroft, he was a man who the good citizens of Missouri would prefer to have a dead man in the Senate rather than John Ashcroft. Having campaigned in the hope that he would be defeated, I now think that was a terrible mistake, because it gave George Bush the opportunity to put him in this great position of power.
What is really regrettable is this. Since 9/11, we have, quite rightly, railed against the extreme Islamists and their attitudes towards religion and their attitudes towards not giving people freedom. And then we ourselves are behaving in a similar fashion. We need to show that America is way...
NEVILLE: How so, Martin?
LEWIS: Because this kind of suppression of civil liberties is not American. It's very un-American. Where is the House committee on un-American activities when you really need it?
KAUFMAN: Don't tap my phones.
NEVILLE: Douglas. Last word to Douglas.
(BELL RINGING)
DOUGLAS: Well, we are in an unprecedented time for change. And we need more. This is a time of economic empowerment, so that we can have the freedom. And this country was built upon freedom. That's why we have been in power to have money to liberate us so that we can have all that we desire. It's a time for us to not plant down on the freedoms of Americans, but be free to challenge ourselves and grow beyond and support the things that are in economic and spiritual development.
NEVILLE: OK, Big Money Douglas (ph). Thank you very much. I let you speak beyond the bell. OK. He had props.
Anyway, up next, the Supreme Court decides if sex between gays is legal in Texas. Is this about immorality or privacy? I want to hear from you on this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. The Supreme Court is set to decide if sex between same-sex couples can be declared illegal. Sodomy is now illegal in 13 states, but only for gays in Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.
The case stems from a gay couple in Houston who was hauled off to jail for having sex. The attorneys say the government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. Attorneys for the state say nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to sodomy. And if someone wants to change the law, it should be done in the state legislature.
And Martin, I'm going to start with you on this one. Is it OK for states to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home?
LEWIS: I don't think states should be interfering in the bedroom. I don't think that the federal government should be interfering in the bedroom. I've actually always been slightly confused about the conservative position on sodomy.
When Richard Nixon, during Watergate, or Ronald Reagan, with George Bush Senior doing Iran-Contra committed that act on the American public, then apparently it's OK. But for consenting adults at home, it's not. I'm always confused about that.
JEFFERS: Arthel, let me just jump in here, because it seems to me that, if we're going to have a reasoned debate about this issue, that we can't really address what Richard Nixon did in someone's mind, visualization, and what, in fact, these two consenting adults did in Texas, where there is, in fact, a law against it. Let's leave Richard Nixon out of it. He's had all the fun he's going to have.
Adults today that are consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms, it seems to me that, as we just transitioned from the last segment, where we were talking about the role of the ACLU in protecting the rights of Americans in basic freedoms and we move into this segment, that it becomes pretty obvious that we need to protect the right of consenting adults. That's what you have to remember. Consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom.
I mean look at the issues we've had to deal with in the last year with the Catholic Church and with kidnappings and child molesters. These are the issues that relate to sexual perversion that our country needs to really focus our law enforcement activities on. And we could save a lot of time if we let the people in their bedrooms do whatever they need to do as long as when they come out they leave kids alone, they take care of their responsibilities in the streets. And that's what we need to do.
NEVILLE: OK. Royal, I want to hear from you on this one.
MARSHALL: I'm just going to repeat everything Carl said. Man, you're on fire. Say something more.
I agree with him 100 percent. You know the government should not be in my bedroom trying to figure out what I'm doing with whoever I'm doing it with. If anybody that's in my bedroom consents to it, and they are adults, then we can have a good time. As the saying goes, I am straight, but I'm not narrow.
I don't care what homosexuals do. If two homosexuals want to consent and they want to have a good time, they want to spread jelly all over each other and just have a nice time, that's fine with me. What I'm really surprised is that, how did these officers discover that these men were having sex?
JEFFERS: Actually, I can tell you, Arthel. There was a call that there was an intruder breaking into the apartment from someone else in the building, and that's how the report was made to the police. So the police said ostensibly that they came to investigate a call that there was an intruder and broke into the apartment since they didn't get a response, and that's when they discovered them.
MARSHALL: They heard a lot of huffing and puffing and said there must be something going on there that's illegal. NEVILLE: Go ahead, Joyce.
KAUFMAN: No, no. But what's bizarre about this ruling is that we're not really addressing sodomy. Because it's strictly sodomy when performed by homosexuals. It's OK if heterosexuals have sodomy in the privacy of their own homes, and that's just outright discrimination. It can't be all right for a man and woman and not all right for two men or two women.
MARSHALL: What I think is ironic is that the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas government has said that this is a case about Texas legislating morality. And it makes me nervous, because I'm a single guy, which means it would be immoral for me to have sex outside of wedlock. As well as -- even here in Georgia, as a matter of fact, it's a misdemeanor for you to have sex if you're married with someone other than your wife. What do they call that adultery? I'm not married.
NEVILLE: Royal, who should get to constitute what is abnormal sex?
MARSHALL: You know, anything that doesn't involve two consenting or three or four consenting adults. As long as it's consenting adults that are rational minded, you know that are not mentally defective or anything like that. If they consent to it, then it's OK.
LEWIS: Hear, hear. And even if it involves jelly. I think it's kind of important, though, actually, that we send out a clear message about the kind of tolerance that we have in this society that we do regard people with equality. And it is precisely what makes America such a great nation, that we are different than less enlightened Islamic nations that forbid all kinds of activities that are personal and private. That's why we have to send a good message.
MARSHALL: I also want to add, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights to have a good time, because two consenting adults having sex right here in the middle of CNN Center, it would probably disturb some of us. I mean I probably would watch it, but there would be children here and other people that would be adversely affected by that. So everything is not permissible. But behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home, 15 consenting adults is OK with me.
NEVILLE: OK.
LEWIS: Are you going to invite me to this party or what?
NEVILLE: Gabby (ph) from Virginia is going to speak out now.
GABBY: I'd just like to think that most of us are law-abiding citizens. And I think when a law is not good, the bottom line to the whole thing is change the law.
NEVILLE: OK. And you're from Virginia. We're going to go to Virginia now, where Kevin (ph), I think, is standing -- Jack (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, sir. JACK: Yes, this is Jack (ph) in Virginia. First of all, I'll identify myself as straight. I don't condone homosexuality. But I've discovered that I've broken laws in three states, Virginia, Florida and South Carolina. I don't know if I want to go to jail. I certainly don't want the federal or state government in the bedroom.
NEVILLE: OK. And that will be the last word on this segment. We're going to move on now.
Up next, Santa. We're talking about Santa Claus gets the boot from some Australian kindergarten. But wait until you here why old Saint Nick is suddenly politically incorrect.
And don't forget to give me a call or e-mail me on today's question of the day. After the reports about on board sickness, would you still take a cruise? TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. Several kindergartens in Australia have banned Santa Claus from classrooms, saying the jolly old elf might offend minority groups. One political leader there calls it political correctness gone mad. Or Joyce, I ask you, is it about respecting cultural differences?
KAUFMAN: I don't know that Santa Claus is a culture. It's a cartoon character. It's like don't have "Spiderman" come into the classroom.
NEVILLE: When I say cultural, you have some religious groups, for instance, Jehovah's Witnesses and maybe some of the Muslims may not want to deal with Santa Claus. That's what I mean.
KAUFMAN: Well, they don't have to sit on his lap. But I think that his ability to appear in the classroom is innocuous. It doesn't hurt any child unless he's a pervert of some kind. But the average Santa Claus is just an image, like a cartoon image.
NEVILLE: Martin, I think you probably have a lot to say about this.
LEWIS: Well, I have one or two things. I am, after all, British, and the Australians, like it or not, are part of the British Empire. Well, used to be. I'm totally against Santa Claus being there for one simple reason: he's not Santa Claus. His name is Father Christmas. I don't know where the Australians think they can get off changing it and Americanizing it to Santa Claus.
Furthermore, Australia at Christmastime, they celebrate Christmas day. It's approximately 115 degrees, which is not Christmas weather. You cannot wander around in Father Christmas or Santa Claus outfits in that weather. It's terrible.
JEFFERS: Arthel, let me just add one point to bring this into a different perspective. And that would be my only comment here. Many people probably think that the objection to Santa Claus in Australia is coming from ACLU types or liberal types. And the only reason I want to make a comment at all, is because I consider this a pretty non-important issue in terms of how ridiculous it is.
But it was actually the liberal party members, the opposition party in Australia, who, in fact, were the ones that said this was political correctness gone mad. So that there are times when all political persuasions, the left and the right, can come together when something is so bizarre and so ridiculous as to be an insult to all of us who are good thinking people. So I'm just pointing that out to you.
LEWIS: I hate to explain something to you here, but, actually, the Australians, being upside down people, liberal actually means conservative there.
JEFFERS: He was the liberal opposition leader because of the conservative party that was in power.
KAUFMAN: And Santa is really Satan there.
MARSHALL: In 1971, a poor black boy wrote Santa Claus, and all he wanted was a three-speed bicycle with a banana seat. Santa, if you're out there listening, you never delivered. So I'm not mad that they kicked you out of school. I kicked you out of my house too. Because I never got that bike.
NEVILLE: Well, I'm sorry you didn't get your bike, Royal. But, you know what, the Santas now may have been receiving death threats. I mean isn't that taking it too far?
KAUFMAN: Yeah.
JEFFERS: Well that's why I said it's a ridiculous issue. It's a non-issue. I don't think that we should be we depriving kids around the world of the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of believing in Santa Claus and having the wonderful family orientation that provides.
They will spend -- if they live -- the actuarials say you'll live to be 70 after about eight or 10. That means 60 years of their life they'll know who Santa Claus is or whether he is. Let them have those eight or 10 years. And I don't believe it was that offensive to have allowed Santa Claus to be there in the classroom and be part of the Christmas celebration.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. And it is time for another break.
Up next, our TALKBACK LIVE flash round. The bell keeps going.
And don't forget, Charles Barkley makes his weekly visit to TALKBACK LIVE tomorrow. You'll want to join us for that. In the meantime, stick around. We're back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And it's time for our quick-witted flash round. First up, the story that never dies. A 25-year member of Augusta National has resigned from the club over its refusal to admit female members. Thomas Wyman (ph), a former chief executive of CBS, says Augusta is being pig-headed and says many other members agree. Will his defection matter -- Carl.
JEFFERS: Well, the point here that I would make is that this story is more and more becoming less about the issue of women being admitted to Augusta, which I certainly fervently believe, because I couldn't stand for any kind of discrimination in any way by any group. But it's becoming less about that and more about the personal ego of Hootie Johnson (ph), the president of that club and his desire to simply maintain his steadfast position. And, at some point, he's simply got to realize that, I believe in the end, he cannot win.
NEVILLE: Joyce.
KAUFMAN: The most amazing thing is that it took this guy 25 years to figure out that it's wrong not to have women. And it took him 15 years to figure out it was wrong not to have blacks at Augusta. I mean this is a media horror (ph) of the worst kind.
NEVILLE: Royal.
MARSHALL: You know, I'm going to be the dissenting opinion here. You know I'm not happy that Augusta National doesn't have women, and I'm not happy that they waited until 1990 to admit one black guy. But the reality is this, folks. This is a private organization. And if you allow people to bully this organization into allowing whoever they want to say you admit, then what happens to these other -- keep in mind, Martha Berk's (ph) own organization won't allow men in it. So Hooty (ph) could never join that organization.
NEVILLE: Martin.
LEWIS: OK. Three quick points. Number one, I'm quite in favor of this Augusta club for a simple reason. It's very hard to teach children what the world Neanderthal means. Sharing this kind of Neanderthal attitude is very helpful to explain that.
Number two, golf is the most retarded game. People wandering around in polyester. It's horrible.
And, number three, what is a grown man calling himself Hootie (ph) for? I mean, really, the whole thing is ludicrous.
NEVILLE: OK. Up next, the midterm elections are barely over and, already, we have a possible presidential contender. Senator John Kerry has announced he's filing papers this week to create an exploratory committee. Does he have a chance -- Carl.
JEFFERS: Well, I've said earlier that he's one of only two that actually have a chance. Al Gore is the prohibitive favorite. Will be the most difficult to defeat. But if anybody can do it, if Al Gore's not the candidate in 2004, it will be John Kerry for the Democratic Party.
NEVILLE: Joyce.
KAUFMAN: He's certainly got the best hair.
NEVILLE: Royal.
MARSHALL: I agree with Joyce on the hair. And he is a welcome addition to the Democratic Party as far as a running for candidate. I'm happy to see someone running against Al Gore. Maybe it will help refine Al Gore and help him sharpen up some of his skills.
NEVILLE: Martin.
LEWIS: It's going to be a real challenge for us, the American people, and the media. Can we pay attention to the issues? Because this guy speak as lot of sense. He doesn't have a lot of charisma. What do we want, substance or people who are glib on TV?
NEVILLE: And finally, seems like every day brings a new cruise ship illness in reality. Three cruise ships in three weeks have had Norwalk virus outbreaks. And on Monday, another ship reported a mine or salmonella infection. So with all these reports coming out of outbreaks, would you go on a cruise -- Carl.
JEFFERS: Yes, because we have to remember the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, has at this point not issued an alert. We don't have an epidemic or panic level yet in this case. This is, in fact, part of what ordinarily can be found. Just that it's confined to a specific area. So let's not get too crazy yet and let's maintain some understanding and common sense.
NEVILLE: Joyce.
KAUFMAN: Yes, I would go on a cruise and I'm going to buy Royal a bike.
LEWIS: Oh absolutely. You should definitely go on a cruise. I think it's a very good thing. Because the biggest problem with a cruise is the tendency to overeat in the buffet. And there's nothing like a bout of dysentery to put you off overeating.
MARSHALL: I'm going to disagree with them one more time, because if I want to throw up, I can do it at home. Get drunk and save a lot of money on top of that.
NEVILLE: OK. Carl Jeffers, Joyce Kaufman, Royal Marshall and Martin Lewis, thank you so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
Up next, everybody, we heard what our panelists had to say about cruising. Now I want to hear from you. I'm going to take your calls and e-mails on the question of the day. Given all you know about the Norwalk virus, would you take a cruise right now? We'll talk about that after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Viruses have plagued more than 1,000 people on pleasure cruises over the past few months. So our question of the day, after all the stories about the Norwalk virus and now an outbreak of salmonella, would you take a cruise right now?
OK. Brad (ph), in Pennsylvania, what do you say?
BRAD: Well, as of yesterday, I just put down my last payment on my cruise that's coming up in about 30, 40 days. I'm just praying this isn't the tip of the iceberg.
NEVILLE: Can you get a refund?
BRAD: No. I haven't asked for it yet. I'm kind of hanging in there and hoping to go. And I just don't want this to be the berg that sinks my cruise, you know, and end up paying $4,000 for a case of dysentery or something.
NEVILLE: Oh no. Good luck, Brad (ph).
OK. Let's share some e-mails now coming in. Peter (ph) in Arizona, he says "I already had the flu this season and once is enough for me. I was planning a cruise with the family, but have decided to buy a large screen TV that everyone can enjoy instead."
All right. Listen, we are out of time right now. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville, and I'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 for you West Coasters. And don't forget, Charles Barkley will be here as well with me tomorrow and we'll see what he has to say.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT WWW.FDCH.COM
John Ashcroft>
|
