|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Washington Allows Yemen to Receive Missile Shipment; Third- Graders Arrested on Marijuana Charges
Aired December 11, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Terror, tensions and questions grow after a shipment of North Korean missiles is uncovered in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. released the missiles after the government of Yemen fessed up to purchasing them. But why the secrecy?
And then stay tuned. The United States says it reserves the right to use land mines in any conflict with Iraq. And that has set off an explosive debate with critics who charge civilians are too often the victims.
And later: a shocking story out of Florida. Barely old enough to read and write, two third-graders are arrested with 15 bags of pot.
But first, let's get the facts on the missile story from CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Arthel.
Well, this story has taken a lot of turns. And it continued to take a lot of turns today: the Bush administration formally deciding to return the ship to Yemen and let it be unloaded, let those 15 Scud missiles and warheads be delivered to Yemen, this after Yemen finally said today that they had purchased the missiles.
They previously had denied knowing about the cargo. And it was that denial that led the international maritime intercept operation to finally board that ship Monday in the Indian Ocean. It was boarded, of course, by Spanish naval authorities. They had to fire shots across the bow to make the ship stop.
U.S. intelligence had been concerned about this cargo since it left North Korea a few weeks ago. It had been monitored. It had been under surveillance by the United States all the way from North Korea through the Indian Ocean. And it was when Yemen said they didn't know anything about it that the U.S. decided and the maritime coalition decided to board the ship.
But now it's all changed. The missiles are going to back to Yemen. Yemen has promised not to use them or transfer them to any third parties. But it's still going to be a big matter of discussion between the Bush administration and Yemen as to whether there will be any additional missile purchases -- Arthel. NEVILLE: And, Barbara, why did the Yemeni officials change their stories, first saying they didn't know anything about it and then going ahead and protesting for the -- the administration -- for the U.S. or the Spanish defense military for intervening.
STARR: You know, Arthel, that's a key question that nobody really has an answer to at the moment. One piece of fairly informed speculation we've heard around here is, when they finally got caught, the Yemenis probably had already paid for the missiles. They're a very poor country. They would not want to risk losing the money and having no missiles to show for it.
And, of course, North Korea is one of the most secretive countries on Earth. They do not acknowledge any of their shipments. They had these Scud missiles hidden in a ship that was not flying any flag, that had no clear markings on it. The missiles, the weapons were hidden under bags and bags of cement.
When the ship was first boarded by the Spanish back on Monday, the crew claimed that they were Cambodians, so, lots of efforts to hide this whole shipment. But, today, it all came to light.
NEVILLE: OK, Barbara Starr, thank you very much for clearing that up for us.
In the meantime, that shipment of Scud missiles is now heading to Yemen. What can these type of missiles be used for? And why would Yemen be adding them to its defenses?
To get an understanding of that, let's check in with CNN security analyst J. Kelly McCann.
Hello, Kelly.
J. KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi, Arthel.
Well, first of all, if you could explain the significance of the exchange of Scud missiles between North Korea and Yemen. And why would Yemen want them?
MCCANN: Well, they have a history of have used Scuds before, during their civil war, their own civil war. And it can be used for defensive purposes.
Now, there was just an interview that we aired in the last segment that showed them saying specifically it is for defensive purposes. But if you look at the range capability, 185 miles, and you draw as the center anywhere on the border of Yemen, you'd be hard- pressed to say what direction they would want to point them, because none of the nations that they would point them at gave them significant issue to be targeted at. So, it's an interesting question.
NEVILLE: And then, typically, what are Scud missiles used for?
MCCANN: Well, it's a surface-to-surface missile. It can contain either conventional explosives. The Scud B's, also, and the C's and D's, can be configured for nuclear, biological and chemical payloads as well. So it's an area anti-personnel or anti-material or anti- facility weapon.
NEVILLE: Now, and, Kelly, if this sale was legal, then why were the Scud missiles buried under bags of cement?
MCCANN: Well, that seems to be the question. And the official from Yemen that we had the interview with said: Well, it's the responsibility of the North Koreans to load the weapons and to transport them. How they do that is their business. Go ask them.
But, with a purchase this expensive, you know that a manifest was published. And, in fact, it just showed concrete and cement. That manifest would be pushed forward of the load actually coming into a port. You'd want to know who's coming to your port and what they're carrying. Secondly, commercial shipping works on speed, the speed to on-load and then off-load stuff, so that the ship can go back and make more runs.
To hand in place all of those bags of cement and concrete that you've seen makes absolutely no sense, when it should be palletized, they should be run on with a forklift, vehicles driven on, and, on the other end, driven off and unpalletized on the other side. So, again, significant questions.
NEVILLE: Kelly, in the meantime, reports are surfacing that the U.S. might use land mines in Iraq. I want to ask you, why would the U.S. military want to use land mines?
MCCANN: Well, as repugnant as it is because of the indiscriminate nature of mines, once they're in place, they really don't know the difference between a noncombatant and a combatant. And that's the issue, of course.
But all of warfare is repugnant. It's a question of: Would you rather be wounded by a 500-pound bomb or by a land mine? So, why would we want to use them? Well, there's four basic ways we use them. We use them in the defense in order to protect us and stop the enemy as they come into defensive positions. We use them in the offense to canalize or channelize the enemy to go a particular way, so that we can engage them in an E.A., or engagement area.
We use them as a nuisance obstacle in order to slow them down. If they have got momentum and we want to break their stride and slow them down, we introduce mines. And, lastly, the use of phony mines or phony mine fields, which, again, would conceal the actual mine fields. So, if you take the emotion out of it, they are a useful battlefield weapon.
NEVILLE: I know, but, Kelly, that's the point. A lot of people can't take the emotion out of that story. And, in fact, that's something I do want to talk to the panel about that.
In the meantime, I want to thank you, of course, for being here with us on TALKBACK LIVE today. And I'm sure I'll see you again. And I look forward to it.
MCCANN: A pleasure, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Kelly.
And, as I said, after the break, we're going to talk more about land mines and whether there is ever a place for them ever in war.
And later: 15 bags of marijuana, and Florida police arrest two of their youngest drug suspects ever at an elementary school, of all places.
Details when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): If there is a war with Iraq, would the Pentagon use land mines, and should they? That explosive debate coming up.
And innocent lost? Parents are reeling over a drug bust at an elementary school.
TRICIA TAYLOR, PARENT: It's very upsetting. It's very upsetting. How are they getting into the school with that much pot?
NEVILLE: What's ahead for the two 9-year-olds charged?
More TALKBACK LIVE after a short break.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: An attorney in private practice, hello, Marc. How are you?
MARC MORIAL, FORMER MAYOR OR NEW ORLEANS: Hey, Arthel. How are you?
NEVILLE: Good to see you in my hometown.
All right, Carol Swain is a law professor of Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.
Hello, how are you, Ms. Carol?
CAROL SWAIN, LAW PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Hello. Hello.
NEVILLE: Nice to see you. OK.
And radio talk show host Mark Simone is with WABC in New York.
Hello, Mark. How are you?
MARK SIMONE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hey, Arthel. Great to be back.
NEVILLE: All right.
Listen, there is a U.S. policy that calls for the military to stop using land mines everywhere in the world except Korea by 2003.
So, Meredith, if the U.S. uses land mines, is the U.S. being hypocritical, or is the U.S. military forced to play by a different set of rules?
MEREDITH BAGBY, AUTHOR, "WE'VE GOT ISSUES": I think they are being hypocritical.
And, of course, the Ottawa agreement in 1997, in which 146 countries agreed to stop using land mines, the U.S. didn't sign on to that. But I think there should be a policy not to use land mines. The General Accounting Office just came out with their study showing that they don't help win wars. And, further, 80 percent of the people who are killed by land mines are civilians. A third of those are children.
NEVILLE: Mark Simone, your thoughts?
SIMONE: Well, you got to leave this to professionals. We're not soldiers. We're not military planners. If they think they need them, I would trust Donald Rumsfeld's decision, instead of some commission. But most of the injuries are from land mines that are left over after a war is done. And we won't have that problem in this case.
NEVILLE: So, then, you're saying it's OK if you use these so- called smart land mines?
SIMONE: Well, it's the least destructive weapon we use. We use bombs and missiles that are far more destructive than this. These will do less damage than anything else we're using. And what they do is protect our soldiers.
NEVILLE: Carol Swain, I want you to weigh in on this one for me.
SWAIN: OK.
I think, regardless of what we think, the Bush administration has pretty much signaled that they will do what they want to do. And they have disregarded some of the precedents of past administrations and also international law. So, I think that might makes for right in this case. And whatever they do, they will do.
NEVILLE: And then, on that same note, Marc Morial, two-thirds of all countries have signed a 1997 treaty to ban land mines. The U.S. has not signed. What does that say to you?
MORIAL: The fact that other nations have banned land mines ought to be persuasive.
But even more persuasive is the fact that the GAO found that the use of land mines in the Kuwaiti war back in 1991 may have in fact impeded our own soldiers much more than they damaged the enemy. And I think that we have to recognize the fact that we have new, more precise weapons. And this is what Don Rumsfeld has been talking about: our ability to be more precise and reduce, significantly, civilian casualties.
These land mines hurt civilians and substantially have injured children. So, I think we can wage an effective war without the use of land mines.
NEVILLE: OK, moving on now: a tough warning from the White House today promising massive -- the word is massive here -- retaliation for any nation thinking of striking against U.S. interests or allies with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
A statement from the Bush administration says: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force, including through resort to all of our options to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies."
So, the question is: Should the U.S. retaliate with nukes?
Meredith?
BAGBY: I think that what they're saying is that we reserve any and all options. If a nation is going to attack us, especially on our homeland, we do have the option. We have the right to use anything at our means.
The thing that I think is truly interesting, though, about this particular statement is the use of counterproliferation. And I think what's different and a departure for the United States is that we're actually going out and trying to intercept shipments of other people's weapons. And I think you see that in Yemen. So, I think that's one of the cruxes of this statement a really fascinating departure from past policies.
NEVILLE: Mark Simone, are nukes allowed?
SIMONE: Well, we did this in '91. We issued this warning privately to Iraq. And it seemed to be effective then. It stopped them from using any chemical or biological weapons. Why we're doing it openly this time, I really don't know. I guess because we don't know where the enemy could be this time.
NEVILLE: Carol, is it a way to prevent further destruction by saying: Listen if you mess with us in those particular ways, we're going to retaliate by using nuclear weapons?
SWAIN: No, I think the threat might encourage other nations themselves to feel that, if the U.S. is going to be the big bully, that they, themselves will have to make sure they have their nuclear weapons.
And it makes it more likely we're back to where we were before, with mutual assured destruction. I think the U.S. needs to focus very much on what it's going to do about its domestic terrorists, because we do have domestic terrorists. How are we going to stop them?
NEVILLE: OK.
SIMONE: Well, one way would be to wipe out the biggest supply of chemical and biological weapons and not trust Saddam Hussein to safeguard that for the next few years.
MORIAL: Arthel?
NEVILLE: Yes?
MORIAL: I think we're talking about the wrong topic here.
What we ought to be focusing on today is the Graham-Shelby report, which outlined a number of intelligence breakdowns prior to 9/11. The key to stopping terrorism is prevention, that we have the strongest, most effective, most far-reaching measures of prevention available. And I think it's very important that, while we listen to all of the bravado about what we might do in the event that something occurs, that we focus the nation's great and vast resources on trying to prevent terrorism.
And that Graham-Shelby report has a number of very important recommendations and identifies the fact that there may have been problems before 9/11.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.
And we're moving on now.
Up next: third-graders arrested. How did 9-year-olds get ahold of 15 bags of pot? And what were they going to do with it?
And then later: more trouble for Senator Trent Lott. But it's not the first time his mouth has gotten him into hot water for supporting a former segregationist's presidential bid.
More TALKBACK LIVE in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Do you remember what you were like when you were 9 years old? Well, police in Port St. Lucie, Florida, are scratching their heads today over the arrest of two third-graders -- arrests. They say the 9-year-olds were planning to sell marijuana at their elementary school.
Steve Barrett, with CNN affiliate WPTV, now with the facts of their surprising arrest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEVE BARRETT, WPTV REPORTER (voice-over): Cops say they really have no idea yet where the marijuana came from. LT. STEVE CLAUS, PORT ST. LUCIE POLICE DEPARTMENT: We're investigating it to determine exactly where. There has been a report, numerous reports of where it's come from. One was that it was found on the street. Another one is that another juvenile had provided it to one of the two kids.
BARRETT: Meanwhile, parents are floored by the thought of 9- year-olds with drugs on campus, caught between anger and disbelief.
TAYLOR: It's very upsetting. It's very upsetting. How are they getting into the school with that much pot? When you got an 8-year- old that goes to that school, it's upsetting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think the kids actually know what it is.
BARRETT: The school sent this note home, explaining, the best they could, what has happened here.
CAROLYN LONG, PARENT: I was totally shocked to hear that young kids had it. It's just unbelievable. When they first said on the news that it was in a school, I was thinking more like the high school or something like that.
BARRETT: The pot was in small bags, the kind sold for five to 10 bucks. But the principal of the school insists that the two boys weren't selling or using drugs on her campus.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I cannot speak for what happened off my campus. But in terms of here, I feel very comfortable with what happened and how it was handled. And, again, absolutely nothing like that occurred on this campus.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: So, what should happen to these kids? That is our "Question of the Day." Give us a call or e-mail me and I'll take your answers.
And later in the show, we're going to ask our panel about this. I have a feeling they have a lot to say about this story.
Also later: a question of custody. Why would a judge place two little girls in the care of a convicted sex offender?
TALKBACK LIVE will be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Now we're talking about an unusual drug bust in Florida, where two nine-year-olds are charged with felonies for allegedly possessing 15 bags of marijuana. Marc Morial, I'm going with you first on this one as well. The students have been suspended for 10 days and are scheduled for an expulsion hearing. So I ask you, should these kids be kicked out of school?
MORIAL: I don't know if they need to be kicked out of school, but they need to be punished and their parents need to be punished. And we need to recognize that this is yet another example of why the so-called war on drugs is a war that we're losing right here in the United States. This is unacceptable.
This is really an outrage that children so young would have access to these drugs. And it underscores the fact that we need to introduce or implement drug education and drug awareness much, much earlier with kids. We've got to recognize...
NEVILLE: That's right, because right now they wait until the fifth grade. And maybe it should happen earlier. Marc, excuse me...
MORIAL: It's got to happen earlier.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Excuse me for a moment. I'm going to go to Boston, where Kevin (ph) is standing by. Kevin (ph), I ask you, should these kids be kicked out of school?
KEVIN: No, they shouldn't be kicked out of school.
NEVILLE: What should happen to them?
KEVIN: They should go through counseling with their parents. Their parents should go through counseling. They should use the kids to find out where they got the drugs in the first place and then go after those people. Castrate the people that are handing the drugs off to a nine-year-old to go sell in school. Stop enticing the kids (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Use this, go make some money and I'll go buy you a brand new bicycle.
NEVILLE: OK, Kevin (ph), thank you so much for calling in. Jay (ph), you are what? What is your job?
JAY: I'm an assistant principal at the high school level.
NEVILLE: Yeah. So at what point do you think that kids should learn about drugs and not to use drugs?
JAY: Oh, absolutely at the elementary level. There's no doubt about it.
NEVILLE: But they do it in fifth grade. These guys are in third grade.
JAY: Well they need to move it back to the third grade, second grade, first grade. Start education the kids on a lot of these...
MORIAL: Kindergarten.
JAY: Kindergarten, sure.
NEVILLE: So what should happen to these students? JAY: Well I think there needs to be disciplinary action taken. They need to be looked at for expulsion, like they are. However, expelling the kids from the system is putting a Band-Aid on a knife wound. We have to move them to another school system. We need to rehabilitate them, educate them, get them in counseling, look at why they are in the situation in the first place, deal with the parents and the community.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Now -- thank you very much. So Carol, these kids face felony charges. Now is there someone else who should be held responsible? And could their guardians face any sort of criminal charges?
SWAIN: I think that their guardians should face criminal charges because, for nine-year-olds to be in possession of drugs, there's some adult somewhere involved. And they -- I believe also they should be suspended from school. They should be out of school and counseled. And we should find out which adults are exploiting these children.
NEVILLE: I have a lady in the audience here. You are a retired principal?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Retired from a college system.
NEVILLE: OK, college system. Then I ask you, ma'am, who do you think bears more responsibility, the school system or parents?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's the parents. I think the schools at all levels are asked to do far too much. The parents need to have some accountability in this whole situation.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And Meredith, I haven't heard from you. Any thoughts on this particular topic?
BAGBY: I think that the focus shouldn't be on punishment, but education. And I agree with what most of everybody has said here, is we have to start educating them at a younger level. And also, one more thing. I think the resources we give our schools are abominable, and we really have to go back and focus on giving schools more resources and putting parents in better contact with teachers and with principals.
NEVILLE: Mark Simone, what is wrong with the school system? What is wrong with the education system? What is wrong with parental guidance? What went wrong? Why do you have third graders carrying 15 bags of pot to school and allegedly trying to sell that to other students?
SIMONE: I'll tell you one thing that alarmed me in that piece was that high school principal --- or that school principal -- she didn't seem that alarmed. She didn't seem outraged. NEVILLE: She just wanted to make sure it wasn't being sold on her campus, but she didn't seem to be bothered enough by the fact that third graders had marijuana in the first place.
SIMONE: Yeah, and she didn't seem bothered enough that 15 bags of it were in her school. That's not just caught smoking a joint. You know I did a lot of things wrong in school, but none of them were so awful that it became the topic of the day on CNN. That's when you're in expulsion territory.
NEVILLE: That's a point well made. Listen, we're going to move on right now. And just ahead, we want you to weigh in on our question of the day. What do you think should happen to the nine-year-olds arrested in the elementary school pot bust? Give us a call: 1-800- 310-4CNN, or e-mail me at TALKBACKLIVE@CNN.com. And we are back after this break. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Just ahead, should a convicted sex offender be granted permanent custody of two little girls? Why some people are calling a family court judge's ruling outrageous. The debate when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: A stunning ruling by a family court judge in New York. He is allowing a convicted sex offender to have custody of two little girls. Melissa Medalie of CNN affiliate WTVH filed this report from Auburn, New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA MEDALIE, WTVH (voice-over): It's a real-life family drama played out inside Cayuga family court. The two young girls at the center of the fight will now live with Roger Kulakowski, a convicted child molester. Judge Peter Corning says Kulakowski and his sister Joanne (ph) will continue raising the children because the kids are doing so well in the home.
The judge went a step further to say he's reviewed the testimony used to convict Kulakowski 17 years ago. And he's not sure the father should have gone to prison at all. Neither Kulakowski or his attorney would comment on camera. The decision comes as a shock to the girls' grandparents, who were fighting for custody and only got visitation rights.
DONALD BABCOCK, GRANDFATHER: We have to play by the law. The law is ultimately the law. And we were advised by our counsel that we did not have a legal leg to stand on. And so, yes, we were backed into a corner.
MEDALIE: Bonnie and Donald Babcock say if they didn't agree to give Kulakowski custody, they would risk losing visitation rights altogether. That wasn't a risk they were willing to take.
BABCOCK: I have to believe that the god that we serve is watching over them.
MEDALIE: Another player in this bizarre case is Martha (ph). She didn't want us to show her face on camera. She says she's Kulakowski's first wife, the person who turned him in when she realized he was sexually abusing a little girl they baby-sat for. Martha (ph) says the judge's ruling is appalling. She says the decision puts the two little girls in the path of a sexual predator.
MARTHA, KULAKOWSKI'S FIRST WIFE: Let Judge Corning drop his grandchildren off there, and let them baby-sit for their children if they trust him so much. Because they know, shame on them, that he is a sexual predator. He did it before and he's going to do it again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: OK. Carol, you're a law professor. Does this judge's ruling make any sense to you?
SWAIN: I think the ruling is insane. And obviously, there was enough evidence eight years ago to convict this man of the crime. And we know that when children as young as five testify, that, you know, there may be some problems with the testimony. But eight years ago there was enough evidence to convict this man of child molestation. And I think that to put two young girls in his reach is just totally outrageous. And I believe that the state should be held accountable if anything happens.
NEVILLE: Mark Simone, does this make any sense to you?
SIMONE: You know every so often we see one of these crazy decisions, and there's really no recourse that the public has with a judge like that. At times, you want to err on the side of caution. And when you're talking about a convicted sex offender and young children, I think that would qualify as one of those times.
For this guy to say that the testimony years ago wasn't valid is ridiculous. There was a judge there who saw that it was.
BAGBY: You know, effectively, what this judge has done is overturn that decision in 1984 and really invalidated it. And he's sort of gone above the previous decision and said, well I don't believe it. Therefore, I'm going to turn these children over to their father.
MORIAL: You know what I question? I question the maternal grandparents' counsel. It troubles me that he would say that we had to agree to custody or risk losing visitation rights. I'm not familiar with New York law, but that's bizarre, that a consequence of contesting custody being placed in the hands of a sexual predator would mean that you lose your own potential visitation rights as maternal grandparents. This case just plain stinks.
NEVILLE: So Marc, should the maternal grandparents have gotten custody?
MORIAL: I believe they should have gotten custody. I think the original grant of custody to this father back in '99 troubles me because, at that point, I think the father had a duty to disclose to the court his prior conviction for sodomy and for sexual abuse. So the entire case reeks.
Something happened. I bet it happened in some pretrial conference before this judge. And I hope that this matter is reviewed by an appellate court somewhere.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Mark Simone -- go ahead.
SIMONE: Well something has to be done about this judge. You can't let this guy just sit on a bench and do things like this. He should be maybe sent off with Cardinal Law someplace and maybe they can open a consulting firm or something.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, listen, right now, let me go ahead and take a look at what the judge in this case had to say. He says -- Judge Peter Corning says, "I would not agree to this unless I was wholly convinced that there is no peril to the children. These children have flourished and are well on their way to be productive, good people." Meredith?
BAGBY: I think -- well, the interesting thing here is that, originally, everybody did trust this man. The maternal grandparents trusted him, one of the children's biological fathers trusted him. The wife agreed for him to be -- for them to be in custody. They've been in his custody for a number of years now.
So I think that the revelation that he was a convicted sex offender is shocking and is making these people revisit this. And I think Judge Corning used that and said, look, we trusted him for all of these years. There hasn't seemed to be a problem in the years that he's held the children. Therefore, why don't we continue the situation as is? I think that's one of the problems.
MORIAL: I'm also troubled...
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, Marc, because I have an interesting person calling in on the phone right now, the court administrator in this case. David Bookstaver is on the phone. Mr. Bookstaver, I'd like to ask you your position. How do you feel about the judge's ruling?
DAVID BOOKSTAVER, SPOKESMAN, NEW YORK STATE COURT SYSTEM: Well, I am not the administrator. I'm the spokesman for the New York State court system. I discussed this case with the judge just two hours ago.
He was aware two-and-a-half years ago that there was a prior sex offense. The judge was very, very concerned about that. He made sure that he heard from social services, from probation. He didn't put that child in the custody of the biological father without a great deal of consideration. And at that time, everybody consented to that.
But I think we have to look at where we are today. The child, as the judge's statement reflects, is flourishing. To now take that child and put that child in someone else's custody would be horribly disruptive. I think you can second-guess the judge's decision, but you have to say how are the kids doing today? And it does reflect well on the judge's decision. The kids are flourishing.
SWAIN: Often, we think the children are flourishing and then we find out later that they weren't really. And that there are things that are hidden that come to light later. And so you can never be sure.
BOOKSTAVER: Well you can speculate and you can speculate. But the judge went to great pains to make sure that the child was in a good place. And to date, the child is flourishing.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Mark Simone and Marc Morial, I have to take a break right now. We are going to keep Mr. Bookstaver on the line. And when we come back after this break, I'll let both of you go ahead and make your comments or ask a question. OK? TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about a case in Auburn, New York, where a convicted sex offender has been given custody of his biological daughter and her half-sister. And joining us on the phone right now is the spokesperson for the New York State courts, David Bookstaver.
And Mr. Bookstaver, I say this to you, now the judge said that he reviewed the transcripts from Kulakowski's trial, right? And said that he is not convinced of his guilt. But the molestation conviction was upheld even on appeal. So, I ask you, is it fair for the judge to second-guess that conviction?
BOOKSTAVER: I don't think the judge second-guessed any conviction. The judge took into consideration the conviction. The judge got probation reports, reports from social services. And the judge took into account that he felt that those children would be best off, not in the foster care system, but with their biological father. And at the time, all the parties agreed with him, they all consented.
NEVILLE: Marc Morial.
MORIAL: Yeah, but there was an alternative. And that alternative was the maternal grandparents. And I don't think any judge has a right to just lightly dismiss a criminal conviction, where someone spent eight years in jail, the conviction was upheld on appeal, by saying, I reviewed the transcript. And I would not -- had I been the trier of fact in the case, convicted the person. I think this is an outrage. And I'm certain that it's going to lead to changes in New York law, which will, perhaps, create a ban on parental rights for people who are convicted of this kind of awful crime. Sexual abuse, sodomy of a five-year-old child, is just one of the most awful crimes that anyone can be convicted of.
NEVILLE: Mark Simone, quickly.
SIMONE: Well, you know you said you consulted with all the parties. Did this judge ask the judge from eight years ago if he thought it would be all right for this guy to have custody?
SWAIN: And also, just because those individuals consented, maybe after they consented they had trouble sleeping at night. Maybe they worried about it. Maybe that's why it's come forward again.
NEVILLE: OK. David Bookstaver, thank you so much for calling in to TALKBACK LIVE, sir.
BOOKSTAVER: Thank you very much.
NEVILLE: And Meredith Bagby, Mark Simone, Carol Swain, Marc Morial, thanks so much for joining me here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right. And next, I want to hear from you. You've heard about the two nine-year-olds who were busted and charged with possessing marijuana. Our question of the day: What do you think should happen to them? I'll take your calls and e-mails after a short break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. It's time for our question of the day. We told you about the two nine-year-olds facing felony charges for marijuana possession at school. What do you think should happen to them? We have some e-mails coming in now I want to share with you.
David in Huntsville, Alabama, "The third-graders should either go to jail, or the parents should be brought up on child neglect charges." OK.
And Jackie says, "The kids should be placed in custody of social services. And the person who gave them these drugs should be charged. Nine-year-olds are not responsible for this."
And Mary (ph) in the audience, you say what? What should happen to these kids?
MARY: Two things. These kids should be educated about the penalty of their actions, as well as the parents should be educated. And we've got to start seeing this as a national issue and not just merely two children isolated. This is a national problem that we, as a country, have got to address.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And we have another e-mail coming in right now. Jonathan in New York, "The kids should be required to volunteer in a drug and alcohol rehab center until they graduate high school."
Good idea, Jonathan. Thank you very much. That is all the time we have for today. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Third-Graders Arrested on Marijuana Charges>
|
