|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Tornado Strikes Mississippi; United States One Step Closer to War
Aired December 19, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: In the middle of Christmas shopping, disaster strikes without warning.
ANNOUNCER: A devastating tornado rips through the Southland. We'll have the latest from Mississippi.
The U.S. may be a step closer to war with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: These are material omissions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This man says Saddam may have something to hide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: There has been relatively little given in the declaration by way of evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But Iraq is saying Sean Penn saw nothing. Is Iraq using Hollywood for propaganda?
Going on a holiday trip? Don't lock that bag.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember, all bags are subject to search.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Airport security agents hand-checking your luggage: sound security or invasion of privacy?
ANNOUNCER: More than 500 prisoners set free.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. PAUL PATTON (D), KENTUCKY: We will be releasing 567 inmates. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: One state throws open its prison doors: drug dealers, addicts and thieves back on the streets just in time for Christmas.
A brutal blaze, a firefighter emerges from the flames with a small dog -- an amazing animal rescue.
And our "Person of the Day": a true trailblazer.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight: The good news is that there are no confirmed fatalities in Newton, Mississippi. The bad news is self-evident. A tornado slammed into a shopping center there, sucking rooftops up, pulling out walls and shutting down power for thousands of people. The Wal-Mart there was devastated. And we've got a witness from that store standing by.
The governor has declared a state of emergency. Mississippi Governor Ronnie Musgrove sped out to the small town of Newton. He declared that state of emergency. And we've got him now on the phone to tell us about it.
Governor, you've surveyed the area. What did you find?
GOV. RONNIE MUSGROVE (D), MISSISSIPPI: Connie, was there major damage to the business district of Newton.
The residential areas were spared a great deal. And, as you said, the most grateful thing is that there have been no deaths. The emergency management and local officials worked extremely well, great warning. And the people adhered. And I'm so grateful that there was no loss of life.
CHUNG: Governor, how many injuries and any of them in critical condition?
MUSGROVE: Connie, there are at least two critical injuries, approximately 40 other injuries, ranging all of the way from minor to less than critical.
But the local hospitals in neighboring towns helped tremendously. By declaring a state of emergency, I was able to pull other agencies in. The Department of Human Services set up a shelter for needed overnight accommodations. So, there are a lot of agencies working very closely. People who have been devastated by this storm can get help. And we want to return their lives back to normal.
CHUNG: Sir, we are looking at pictures of the Wal-Mart disaster. And I wanted to know, I know the windows blew out. And did the roof actually cave in?
MUSGROVE: The roof didn't cave in, but so much of it was removed, of course, by the wind damage and storm.
Major trucks and vehicles were upturned and found all over the streets. And the power is out, literally, for the entire town. We've got a large number of utility company people there to restore the power. And that's one of the most important critical first things that needs to be done.
CHUNG: So, you are talking about gas, electricity and phones?
MUSGROVE: Mainly telephones and electricity. Some gas usage is still there. Tonight, we are bringing in at least 20 highway patrolmen to help the local city officials maintain security, so that people can be safe.
CHUNG: Any idea when power is going to come back?
MUSGROVE: We are hoping that a substantial portion of the power will be back on tomorrow. I will be over there at 6:00 in the morning, our time, to make sure, with our emergency management director for the state, that all of the agencies are working together and everything has been done to restore power and to secure the entire area for the people there.
Safety is, of course, a critical issue at this point in time and making sure people have a place to stay in shelters.
CHUNG: And I want to talk to you about the damage assessment. I know the Wal-Mart was devastated, that drive-in. There's a Sonic Drive-In and also a La-Z-Boy company, one of the largest in the state. Do you have any estimates of damage assessment so far?
MUSGROVE: There are no damage assessment numbers yet. However, MEMA is there on the ground and doing their assessment.
The storm happened at approximately 1:00 this afternoon. I had issued the declaration by 2:30 and was over in Newton by 3:30. So, we have teams on the ground. As soon as we can make that assessment, certainly, we will get that information to FEMA and request a federal declaration and help with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
CHUNG: Now, did this tornado just come with no warning? Was there any warning for anyone?
MUSGROVE: There was warning of the path. It had touched down -- or part of the series of storms had touched down earlier in the southern part of the state.
I want to say that I'm so proud of our local emergency responders and the civil defense directors to make sure that all the people had adequate warning. And I believe people listened. And that's why there were no lives lost. And I believe that that's a strong testament to the local officials.
CHUNG: All right, Governor, we thank you so much for being with us, Governor Ronnie Musgrove in Jackson.
Now we are going to turn to CNN's Ed Lavandera in Newton, Mississippi, tonight.
Ed, what does it look like there?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Connie, the cleanup here is well under way.
Of course, as the governor just mentioned, the tornado hitting here about six hours ago. We are just one block away from downtown here. What you see behind me is more of like an industrial area. The La-Z-Boy complex that's been talked about throughout the day is just up the way here. So, this is where a lot of crews are now beginning to focus their effort. We've had a chance to drive around this area for a couple of hours throughout the day here today.
And what we've seen are a lot of downed trees, a lot of power lines. But in several of the neighborhoods that we've been able to see this afternoon, there are many homes and many folks who were, quite frankly, very lucky. A lot of rather large trees in this area that have fallen have snapped in half, and those trees landing dangerously close to many homes.
But we saw very few homes in the particular area that we were looking at that were damaged, although we've heard reports from other folks around here that there have been several homes that have been damaged as well.
But in areas closer to the Wal-Mart, we had a chance to also speak with several people who described the scene as being very quick, that the tornado just kind of appeared to come out of nowhere, in many cases. We had several people tell us that it was over within the minute. But they were able to get a good look as it rumbled through this town, making its way toward the Wal-Mart this afternoon, where many of the holiday shoppers were spending part of their day.
Witnesses there were describing the situation that, when the storm hit, that the lights started flickering on and off inside the store. Then, all of the sudden, it appeared that the roof started just to peel away from the building. And a lot of people -- obviously, a chaotic scene there, as many people hit the ground, trying to seek any kind of protection that they could from this storm.
We were able to walk through that parking lot in the Wal-Mart area. And what we saw there was a lot of heavy destruction in that particular parking lot. Many of the cars that were there, windows completely blown outside. There was a Sonic restaurant that was also leveled, in many ways, and a Subway restaurant just across the street from the Wal-Mart that was also heavily destroyed.
So, a lot of folks here are dedicating their efforts tonight to just cleaning up the mess that this tornado has left behind -- Connie.
CHUNG: And I'm sure there aren't a lot of people out there. Is it kind of like a ghost town?
LAVANDERA: Well, they have. In some parts, what they have declared is a curfew to keep people and looters away from the more damaged areas. So, the area around the Wal-Mart, which is I believe just north of where we are here in the downtown area, the downtown area as well has been shut down for most people, no passers-by or people just trying to get a look at what kind of damage this has caused.
So, authorities here are trying to keep people away, so the crews can do the work they need to do.
CHUNG: All right, Ed Lavandera in Newton, Mississippi, thank you so much.
And now Iraq: President Bush tomorrow will address Iraq's lengthy report claiming it has no weapons of mass destruction. Official responses came today, first from the chief U.N. weapons inspector.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998 which were registered by UNSCOM and also by the air-marine report, as you say. And these have not been answered by evidence in the new declaration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Shortly after, the U.S. gave its official response, a significantly stronger one, but one that fell short of calling for war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: Iraq's response is a catalog of recycled information and flagrant omissions. It should be obvious that the pattern of systematic holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration is not the result of accidents or editing oversights or technical mistakes. These are material omissions that, in our view, constitute another material breach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Iraq defended its report as truthful, but leading U.S. allies today chimed in against Iraq's credibility.
What remains of that credibility is taking another shot, as Sean Penn's people claim the official Iraqi News Agency misrepresented comments the actor made during his trip to Iraq.
While he was there, Penn spoke with CNN about the purpose of his trip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN PENN, ACTOR: I was seeing a limited perception of the country by, you know, what I feel is a talk -- kind of dominantly talking head media in the United States that, in many cases, it seems to have a bias that just never made sense to me, humanly -- a little more understanding on both levels while being here. And I think that it's, you know, a necessary thing as an American to do if you don't feel that you're understanding it as it's presented there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: And earlier today, I spoke with senior international correspondent Nic Robertson, who conducted that interview, about the latest fallout from Penn's trip.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Nic, an online Iraqi newspaper said that Sean Penn -- quote -- "confirmed that Iraq is completely clear of weapons of mass destruction."
Now, you interviewed him and you asked him about weapons of mass destruction. Did he say anything like that to you?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No.
It's very interesting that that newspaper should say that, because we talked very clearly and carefully about weapons of mass destruction. I asked him if his trip to Baghdad had given him a greater insight into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And he said absolutely not.
He was very, very cautious, Connie. He clearly was aware of the sort of political tightrope that he was walking, that potentially any comments he made in Baghdad could have a huge impact on him and the way that his trip there was perceived.
CHUNG: Now, his spokesperson insists that he didn't say it, but critics are saying that they believe Sean Penn was manipulated by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. But I would imagine that anyone who would go there would be led by the nose and would only see what the Iraqis want him or her to see.
ROBERTSON: He had an official Iraqi government guide. That's what the government calls them. Many people call them minders.
They go with you wherever you go. There was a limit to what he would have been able to see and where he would have gone to. And he wouldn't have been able to really go anywhere that the government didn't want him to go and visit.
CHUNG: Nic, do you think you're in a position to judge whether or not he was duped?
ROBERTSON: Clearly, if the newspaper in Baghdad is essentially appearing to put words into his mouth, then perhaps he would consider that he's been taken advantage of. I asked him: Aren't you afraid of being manipulated here? Aren't you afraid of being used by the Iraqi government? This is a very delicate political time for them.
And he was really -- he sort of avoided that question. And he said: Well, I feel that, if I don't come and do anything, then, by virtue of not taking action, then I'm being politically used, he said.
But anyone who comes to Baghdad has to realize that there is the potential for the Iraqi government to essentially use their visit to show to the Iraqi people, not necessarily what that person has come to do in Baghdad and perhaps not represent them in the way that they would desire to be represented. Anyone going to Baghdad should be aware of that.
CHUNG: Nic Robertson, if I don't talk to you before the next few days, happy holidays.
ROBERTSON: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: So, what exactly happened here? Did Sean Penn's visit backfire? Did Iraq blow a chance to win a Hollywood ally? Or did they succeed in duping an actor in over his head? No one should be surprised if we find different answers in San Francisco and in Washington.
First, we have got the trip organizer, Norman Solomon, executive director at the Institute of Public Accuracy, who accompanied Penn. And we have got Cliff May, former RNC communications director, now president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
First, Cliff May, do you think that Sean Penn was duped?
CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Oh, there's no question about it, Connie.
He was absolutely duped. He was taken around the hospitals, where he was told how the children there were there because of American sanctions. He got to learn nothing of the reality of Iraq. People in a totalitarian country, they don't come up and say: Hey, let me invite you home, so I can tell you what's really going on. He didn't get to see the people who have been condemned to Saddam Hussein's dungeons.
Vladimir Lenin has a name for people like this. It's called the useful idiots. And there's a long history. The Moscow bureau chief for "The New York Times" in the 1930s, Walter Duranty, he won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that Stalin wasn't engineering a famine in the Ukraine. Millions died.
During World War II, the Red Cross was broad to Theresienstadt by the Nazis, a model concentration camp, so they could put to rest, once and for all, the rumors, those ugly rumors that Hitler was doing something terrible to the Jews. This is the tradition it's in. And I really criticize not so much Sean Penn, because what does he know? I really criticize people like Norman Solomon for using him in this way, using him as a dupe.
CHUNG: All right, let's go to Norman Solomon. OK, you feel that he used Sean Penn.
Norman Solomon, were you led by the Iraqis? And do you think that you saw a true picture of Iraq? Or was Sean Penn used?
NORMAN SOLOMON, EXEC. DIRECTOR, INST. OF PUBLIC ACCURACY: Well, it was an interesting fantasy we heard from Mr. May, who I have spoken with before.
But the reality is that, even before Sean Penn got to Iraq, he was very clear about his understanding. As he put it, "I was born at night, but not last night." He took out a full-page ad in "The Washington Post," an open letter to President Bush. And he said quite clearly -- and I quote -- in that ad: "There can be no acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant Saddam Hussein" -- unquote.
So, when somebody's on the record calling Saddam Hussein a vicious tyrant, it's clear that he's going in with his eyes open, as indeed he did.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Mr. Solomon, he also accused President Bush of stifling debate and threatening civil liberties, didn't he, in that letter?
SOLOMON: Well, President Bush is trying to stifle debate and stifle civil liberties.
But, if you look at the actual content of the trip, as opposed to the fantasy we heard from Mr. May, we met extensively with UNICEF. Now, I don't know if UNICEF is considered to be a dupe of Saddam Hussein as well, but UNICEF is part of the United Nations, as we know. It's dedicated to the welfare of children. We met with the Baghdad director of UNICEF, who is not Iraqi. He's from the West.
And, also, UNICEF workers took us to several schools, took us around. And it would be interesting
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: But, Mr. Solomon, were you allowed to go anywhere without an Iraqi?
SOLOMON: That was my next point.
On the afternoon last Saturday, Sean Penn hopped into a taxi with French journalists, with no Iraqi minders whatsoever and went to Saddam's city and wandered around. So, it's interesting that we see somebody in Washington claiming to know what happened, when in fact the facts are quite different.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Your facts may not be correct, according to Mr. Solomon. In fact they did have freedom to go, not anywhere they wanted.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Now let me respond, if I may, Mr. Solomon. Connie has asked me a question. The fact that they jumped into a taxi for with a French journalist for a few minutes hardly means that they got to see the reality of Iraqi society or understand why Saddam Hussein is a danger to his people, to the region and to the United States.
CHUNG: But, Mr. May, even we interviewed him, our CNN reporter. And he said that -- he didn't say that the Iraqis do not have weapons of mass destruction. He didn't go there. He didn't try to pass judgment.
MAY: He passed judgment in that newspaper ad that Norman Solomon was talking about. He went there as a tool and a dupe of the anti-war movement, who think that Saddam Hussein is not a danger to us.
If you want to learn about Saddam Hussein's Iraq, what you should do, actually, is talk to the people who fled from Saddam Hussein's Iraq or go to the north, where the Kurds, under American protection, live free of him. And go to the villages that he destroyed with chemical weapons and have them talk about the women and children who lied in the streets of Halabja and how 182,000 people were killed and how the gas killed them in their villages and wiped them out.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Mr. Solomon, do you think you're using Sean Penn for publicity?
SOLOMON: I think that's probably a misjudgment of the intelligence and the insight of Sean Penn himself.
He is actually a very well-read and well-informed person. He chose to take the ad in "The Washington Post," an open letter to the president. That was before we ever met him. But, more to the point, Sean Penn made a conscious decision. As he put it, he wanted to see the faces of Iraqi people that are in the gunsights of the Pentagon, who, in our names, with our tax dollars, are scheduled to be bombed with the greatest military technology the world has ever known.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLOMON: Excuse me, if I could continue for just a moment.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLOMON: ... discussion about the humanity of people who are in the gun sights of the Pentagon that you don't want me to finish the sentence?
MAY: They are not in the gun sights of the Pentagon.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: ... Saddam Hussein.
SOLOMON: The reality is that there is a plan to go to war. Everybody knows that. Sean Penn said, if you're going to bomb them, look them in the eyes. Look them in the face. Acknowledge their humanity. Don't just sit around and...
MAY: Answer one question.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Mr. May, do you think that you're really being fair to Sean Penn? Now, after all, he's being called Baghdad Sean? And is that really quite fair, if he's an intelligent person and he's just seeking information?
MAY: I feel sorry for him. He doesn't know that he can't go to Iraq and suddenly be a prize-winning investigative reporter. He's being used by people like Norman Solomon, who I'm sure were against the liberation of Afghanistan. They were against the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 and now are against the liberation...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let me finish, sir. Let me finish.
And now you're against the liberation of the Iraqi people from the worst tyrant they have had, who has slaughtered 182,000 Kurds. Do you really want the Kurds to go under his boot again?
CHUNG: Thank you, Cliff May.
And thank you, Norman Solomon.
Gentlemen, I am so sorry. I need to stop you. We appreciate your being with us. And we appreciate your discussion.
And while we're on the subject of actors who have dipped their toe into questions of war and peace, some familiar faces show up in tonight's "Snapshot."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Jane Fonda is in the Middle East on a mission to stop violence against women. Today, she visited Israelis wounded in suicide bomb attacks. On Saturday, Fonda visits Palestinian areas.
A different trouble spot for Vanessa Redgrave: In Washington, she spoke out on the struggle in Chechnya.
President Bush visited a food bank today and was put to work bagging food for the needy. Mr. Bush urged Americans to give more time and money to help the needy.
The Golden Globe nominations are out, the movie musical "Chicago" with eight nominations. The awards are usually a good indicator of Oscar nominations.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: State prisoners are set free to balance the budget books. As the prison doors open, should you be locking yours?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will return in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: I have a question for you: Would you be willing to check your bags at the airport without locking them? What if it were in the cause of national security?
Well, the Transportation Security Administration today issued new recommendations to travelers, including, they leave their bags unlocked so security screeners can easily check their contents. Do you plan on doing that?
Syndicated "Seattle Times" columnist Carl Jeffers might not be. On the other hand, we have also got the former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey chief of aviation planning Bill Fife, who is now director of aviation for DMJM & Harris, which has been implementing screening technology at some of the nation's biggest airports.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.
Mr. Fife, I check my bags, all right? And it goes through the screening process. It raises a red flag. So what happens next?
BILL FIFE, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, DMJM & HARRIS: The way it should work is, it would be evaluated to see if there were any potential problems. And, as a last resort, very honestly, I believe the approach would be to do some type of investigation, open the bag, and ensure that there was not a problem.
CHUNG: And this is out of my presence. In other words, I'm not watching. This is a checked bag.
FIFE: That is the intent right now. Obviously, each airport is different. There's no cookie-cutter in the design of airport security systems.
CHUNG: But, Mr. Fife, I'm afraid somebody's going to steal something. Somebody's going to steal my camera or whatever. I think that's a little disconcerting for the passenger.
FIFE: Well, I think it's a matter of education. I have spoken to a lot of folks about that over the last number of months. And frequent flyers want a safe and secure environment. And, as part of that, you want a system that works.
CHUNG: But haven't you seen these reports that reporters have done in which there's a camera watching baggage handlers steal things from bags that aren't locked?
FIFE: Well, I have heard of that happen. I haven't seen such a picture.
But I will tell you, I am so impressed with what TSA has done with their passenger screening. I am personally convinced that somebody who has lived through the horrors of 9/11 -- I spent 31 years at the Port Authority -- I lost friends and colleagues at the Trade Center -- that this is the right thing to do and we'll be safer. And it's not a problem in terms of people like myself, who travel over 100,000 miles a year.
CHUNG: Mr. Jeffers, what do you think? I know that I am not particularly comfortable with it, but, then again, I want security on those planes. What do you think?
CARL JEFFERS, "SEATTLE TIMES": Well, Connie, first of all, I'm amazed at Mr. Fife's response. He says that it's a matter of education. Yes, he's absolutely right. It's a matter of educating the people in the TSA and people in responsible government positions like Mr. Fife as to what the real realities are of the kind of chaos that such an inept and ill-advised procedure would create.
CHUNG: But don't you want to fly on a safe plane?
JEFFERS: Connie, listen, a year ago, after 9/11, every American would have been absolutely intolerant of any federal agency saying, we need two years in order to implement those security measures needed to enhance the security of this country.
CHUNG: So, what are you saying?
JEFFERS: But, a year later, we all know that, if an agency needs another six months to get it right, they should have it.
And the fact is, the reason why they're looking at this is because they're trying to meet the artificial deadline of December the 31st and that they haven't been able to meet. So, they want to come up with a haphazard approach that does not reflect the kind of thinking that's necessary.
Frequent flyers are not worried, Connie, about security anymore. We know that the security of the air and the skies has really been taken care of. What we're worried about is the chaos on the ground due to really ill-thought-out procedures like this. Connie, they say it at the airport. You should carry on one bag and one personal item. We all hear that.
Everybody's trying to get that personal item to be a trunk or something, because they want to carry on luggage. Now they're saying that, if you check luggage, we're going to perhaps have to open it and it cannot be locked.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Mr. Fife, doesn't he have a point or several points there? And the reality is, is that this is going to be an incredible inconvenience for passengers. And maybe the passengers really don't want that kind of extra security, if you will.
FIFE: I would disagree entirely.
I'm a user. I'm an advocate for doing the right thing. And I've been there with folks. And we've talked about this again and again. I would disagree 1000 percent, as they say, with our colleague from Seattle in terms of the view of frequent flyers and also the people we want to fly.
We want to have the mom and pops back in the air. We want them to feel safe and secure. We want a security system that is passenger friendly. And we have one now. If you've been through the most recent checkpoints on the passenger screening any time in the last month and compare that to what you might have experienced six months or a year ago or prior to 9/11, the people are friendly. They're helpful. And we're getting through in eight or nine minutes.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Mr. Jeffers, let me go to you for the last 15 seconds.
FIFE: And I really don't believe that the points being made from Seattle are really relevant.
JEFFERS: Connie, let me just make two quick points.
First of all, these points are not just from Seattle. They're from Seattle to Miami and from New York to Los Angeles. No. 1, we have the technology in America today. Let's get it right. Let's get machines that can check those bags and detect bombs and incendiary items without them having to be opened.
No. 2, he talks about the frequent flyers. The frequent flyers are the customers that drive the airlines. We have two airlines in bankruptcy now. We are going to have more if we don't get the people who fly 30, 40, 50 trips a year -- like myself, by the way -- back on the planes and not cutting back on our trips. And this type of nonsense is exactly the kind of procedure that will force many of us to say: I'm simply not going to fly unless I absolutely have to.
CHUNG: All right, Carl Jeffers, I thank you so much. I wish you felt a little more strongly about your thoughts.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: I'm kidding. All right.
And, Mr. Fife, thank you so much as well.
FIFE: Thanks, Connie.
JEFFERS: A pleasure to be here tonight, Connie.
FIFE: You're welcome.
CHUNG: And if you're one of the millions traveling for the holiday, the TSA has tips for you about your checked bags.
Listen. Don't pack wrapped gifts. Wrap them when you get there. Don't pack film. It will get damaged by new explosive-detecting machines. And if you pack books, spread them around. A big stack of dense material may cause screening machines to flag your luggage. And put toothbrushes and other personal items in plastic bags, so that security doesn't have to touch them and you don't have to have them touched by security.
Still ahead: Why did Kentucky's governor throw open the prison doors for 567 convicts? Good question, huh?
Well, stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Dinner's ready, the table is set, and then the phone rings. Now the feds are helping you hang up on telemarketers.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Right now, hundreds of convicted criminals are getting away. And they've got permission to do so. How about that? Kentucky Governor Paul Patton this week released 567 nonviolent inmates from jails, prisons and halfway houses.
How come?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATTON: A very, very difficult decision, but it's the one that is actually necessary as a part of the solution to Kentucky's severe fiscal revenue shortfalls, a situation shared by almost every state in the nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: The savings is estimated at $1.3 million, but is it worth it?
Joining me now are Marc Mauer, the nonprofit group the Sentencing Project and former Washington police officer Gary Hankins, who consults for police unions.
Thank you both for being with us.
Mr. Mauer, I can't imagine why you would support the idea of letting these criminals out.
MARC MAUER, THE SENTENCING PROJECT: Well, we have to look at who they are and what's going on.
These are nonviolent offenders with an average sentence of three years in prison. And the governor is letting them out three months before they would otherwise get out. So, we are looking at people who are two years, nine months in prison rather three years.
CHUNG: I know, but you know what the recidivism rate is. People go out and commit crimes again. So, isn't that what's going to happen? MAUER: Some of them will. They're going to commit crimes in two years nine months, or three years.
The real question is what's going on in prison while they're there, what's happening when they come back in the community. The extra three months in prison is not going to make it or break it for people who have got underlying problems of substance abuse, difficulty getting a job, no family when they get out. That's the real critical question. But three more months in prison is not going to make them into angels if they not ready to come home anyway. They are coming home, one way or other.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Hankins, the inevitable. Mr. Mauer is saying, it is going to happen anyway. They are going to get out in three months. So, why not let them out earlier and save the state some money?
GARY HANKINS, FORMER WASHINGTON POLICE OFFICER: Well, because it's a false economy. They may save the money that they weren't spending in keeping them incarcerated. But what about the victims of the crimes that they are going to commit during those three months that they're out early?
CHUNG: Are they really going to commit more crimes in those three months?
HANKINS: Oh, absolutely.
There have been studies done. And the most recent was just released this summer by the U.S. Department of Justice. They looked at 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states between 1994 and 1997. They found that, of the ones they could track, of the total group, 70 percent of them had been rearrested for other offenses within three years, nearly half within the first year.
And I know, as a police officer, that we only arrest them for a fraction of the crimes they commit. We are not arresting Jean Valjean for stealing bread here. We are arresting people who commit crimes as a career. They burglarize people. They rob people. They sell drugs. They take their cars. And they are going to do it...
CHUNG: But they are nonviolent crimes, right?
HANKINS: How are you saving money when you are using -- what you're doing is transferring the weight to the victim. If your car is stolen, you've lost money. If you are injured in a burglary because you come home unexpectedly or you discover the burglar, you are the one, the private citizen, who is going to be harmed by this.
Millions upon millions of dollars of injury and property losses are going to take effect during that three-month period.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Mauer...
HANKINS: I'm not concerned about...
CHUNG: Let me go over to Marc Mauer again.
Mr. Mauer, even the governor says that a certain percentage of these criminals are going to not only commit the crime that they committed before, but they are going to commit a worse crime. And isn't this going to cost the state more money in the end?
MAUER: It's going to cost money. But we've been spending enormous amounts of money building prisons in the last 20 years. We have got a world record prison population. Half the people in prison are there for a nonviolent offense.
What we've short-changed is, we haven't done anything about the community issues that got them there in the first place. We know that, if we provide drug treatment to a drug addict, that is going to be far more effective than putting him in a prison cell for five years. And yet we're locking up hundreds of thousands of people who have a substance abuse problem.
CHUNG: Marc Mauer...
MAUER: Now, this doesn't mean get a free walk. It just means one way to deal with it.
CHUNG: Marc Mauer, I need to interrupt you. I am so sorry.
Marc Mauer, Gary Hankins, thank you both for being with us.
Earlier, we told you that Secretary of State Colin Powell called the Iraqi weapons report a material breach of U.N. resolutions. As we see in tonight's look at "The World in: 60," one of America's staunchest allies isn't going quite that far.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Iraq's omissions in its weapons declaration are not yet grounds for war, says British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. But he warns Baghdad to cooperate fully with the United Nations inspections.
Thousands of Iraqi exiles will undergo U.S. military training in Hungary next year to serve as guides and translators for American forces in a war with Iraq.
In Pakistan, police and FBI agents arrest nine suspected al Qaeda members, including two Americans and a Canadian, all of Pakistani origin.
South Korea has elected a new president, liberal candidate Roh Moo Hyun, whose campaign rode a tide of unprecedented anti-American sentiment on the peninsula.
Calling President Putin: The Russian president hosted a live call-in talk show to hear the people's concerns. Almost 1.5 million Russians submitted questions.
(END VIDEOTAPE) ANNOUNCER: Coming up: the house swept by flames. This woman gets out safely, but where is her dog? An amazing animal rescue -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A recent commercial Snickers portrays a scene I suspect many of you have imagined yourselves doing at some point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, SNICKERS AD)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hello. I understand, from our records, that you have subscribed to a magazine.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It's 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It's 8:00 here in Cleveland, sir. And I think you'll be very interested that the magazine rack is made of the same distinctive blue plastic molding as the entertainment center. And if you act now, you also get a very deep, deep discount.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: But since you can't solve the annoyance of telemarketing calls that way, whether they call you in the morning, at night, during dinner, or even when you're watching a movie, the government is doing something instead.
Over the objections of the telemarketing industry, the Federal Trade Commission is setting up a national do-not-call list, which is different from private ones, because it's got some teeth: a fine of up to $11,000 whenever telemarketers call someone on the list. But will that outweigh the almost $300 billion a year that power this industry? And are legitimate telemarketing jobs being put in jeopardy along with the right to free speech?
Joining me now are telemarketer Ray Mascola in Boston and the president and CEO of the Director Marketing Association, Robert Wientzen.
Thank you so much for being with us.
All right, I'm going to start with Ray.
RAY MASCOLA, TELEMARKETER: Hi, Connie.
CHUNG: Hi, Ray. I know you work between 5:00 p.m. and...
MASCOLA: Hi. Merry Christmas, Connie.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Well, thank you. Aren't you nice? I know you work between, what, 5:00 and 9:00 p.m., right, which is really dinner time. Oh, my gosh. This is one of America's pet peeves. How do you even stand someone being someone that America loves to hate?
MASCOLA: Well, Connie, I work with a cross-section of people around the country and around the area that we call. My approach is to be positive, professional, respectful of their time, give them a concise value proposition of why I'm calling. And if they're not interested in what I have to say, I respectfully move on.
CHUNG: But, Ray, I have to admit that I'm actually not very nice. Usually I'm nice all of the time, all right? But I'm not really nice if it's in the middle of dinner, it's in the middle of doing something, or I'm on the way out. So, do you have a most horrible story of how rude someone has been to you?
MASCOLA: Well, Connie, what I'd like to say is, just like in any walk of life, you meet all sorts of people.
And what I try to always do is be positive. If I'm intruding on their time, if it's a bad time and they're interested, I'll call back. That happens many times. If I'm intruding on their dinner time, I'll respectfully move on to my next call.
CHUNG: I know, but don't they hang up you? Don't they hang up you sometimes? Because, I'll tell you...
MASCOLA: Sure. You get...
CHUNG: ... if I did your job, I'd probably be suicidal. My husband would have to take all the sharp objects out of the kitchen. "Oh, nobody likes me. They're just hanging up on me."
So, don't you feel awful?
MASCOLA: No, I don't. I feel the company that I work for, Omni Marketing Services, performs a service. We work with homeowners. I work with a lot of people.
And, in the course of an evening, I work with a myriad of different types of people. Some people hang up. Some people listen to my presentation and then say, no, they're not interested. Some people will not let me get through. And then they say they're not interested or that what I have to sell doesn't apply to them. And then I move on.
CHUNG: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
MASCOLA: But the secret is to remain positive and to go through.
CHUNG: OK, good, remain positive.
Mr. Wientzen, I thank you so much for allowing me to say such awful things about your industry. But we do hate you.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERT WIENTZEN, PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR MARKETING ASSN.: Sure. And I think a lot of people do find intrusive the calls that telemarketers make. But the reality is, a huge number of people buy a huge amount goods and services.
CHUNG: Yes, but if we don't want to hear from you, don't you think it's better to have this federal system whereby those who don't want to talk to you have the opportunity to not hang up on you?
WIENTZEN: Well, Connie, absolutely. We think that people who don't want to get calls should not get calls. That's why for 18 years we have, indeed, had such a service. We've got about 7.5 million people on it already. It's free. It's available today.
CHUNG: But from state to state. Why not a uniform -- no?
WIENTZEN: No. Ours is national.
CHUNG: Oh, all right.
WIENTZEN: There are some states that do have their own lists, about 27 of them, 28 of them now. And we incorporate their list into ours. So, we already have a national list, which will reduce calls by about 80 percent, because, in fact, some local people still call. Some small companies still call on folks they're not aware of.
CHUNG: What's wrong with the federal government getting involved in this? What's wrong with a national system?
WIENTZEN: We think the national system is unnecessary. It will cost taxpayers money. It will cost telemarketers a lot of money. They are going to spend $16 million to just put it together.
We charge our telemarketers about $650 to use the list a year. The federal government is talking about charging 10 times or more. So, the reality is, the consumer has the option. There's going to be a lot of jobs lost if the federal government decides that telemarketing is really a bad thing.
CHUNG: You mean Ray won't have a job, maybe?
Ray, what do you think? Maybe you won't be able to work from 5:00 to 9:00, as you love to do, right?
MASCOLA: Well, Connie, my view is, the do-not-call list that's being discussed is a win-win situation.
CHUNG: Why? Very quickly in about in about 15 seconds, OK?
MASCOLA: OK. Sure.
People that don't want to call -- don't want telemarketers to call will have a vehicle to do this. The telemarketers, like myself, will then have a more refined list of people who would be more receptive to what we have to say. My view is that the Direct Marketing Association is the right vehicle to administer and implement this.
CHUNG: All right, there you go. Well, see, that's what one of the employees thinks. It's not so bad.
WIENTZEN: Well, the government...
CHUNG: I've got to go now.
WIENTZEN: The government doesn't need to intervene here. It's effective. It will get people -- people are happy when they're on the list. They can go to our Web site and we will take them off telephone lists tomorrow.
CHUNG: All right, Robert Wientzen, thank you very much.
And, Ray Mascola, thank you as well.
WIENTZEN: You bet.
CHUNG: Still ahead: Would you give mouth-to-mouth to a dog? You'll meet the firefighter who did and the woman who is glad he did.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Who will be our "Person of the Day"?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A dramatic rescue at a house fire in Wilmington, North Carolina, yesterday, but the rescuee wasn't a person. It was Sandy, a 2-year-old chihuahua.
Firefighter Drew Peterson administered mouth-to-snout resuscitation and revived Sandy, to the obvious relief of Sandy's owner, Janet Larian (ph). Both of them are here with us tonight from Wilmington, along with Sandy.
Well, good evening. Good evening, Janet.
Good evening, Drew.
And hey there, Sandy.
How are you all tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening.
Say Hi, Sandy.
DREW PETERSON, FIREFIGHTER: Good evening, Connie. I'm fine.
CHUNG: Drew, I know you were the last fire truck to arrive. And what did you see? What happened?
PETERSON: Well, we arrived -- we were actually the third-in truck.
We arrived and the fire was being contained. And I was driving the truck. And my crew went interior and assisted. And right as I walked up to the front door, Sandy was being brought out. So, I grabbed a medical bag off one of the other fire trucks, ones that we use on humans. And another firefighter got oxygen ready. And I could see she wasn't breathing enough, so I just gave her some air, just kind of did my job, really.
CHUNG: But, Drew, I think dogs are nice, you know? But I don't think I could have brought myself to do that. Did you think about it for a half a second before you launched into this mouth to snout?
PETERSON: I really didn't. It just needed to be done, so I tried to help her out the best I could. And, luckily, it worked.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You stay over here.
CHUNG: Have you ever done anything like that before?
PETERSON: I haven't, no, not on a dog. I've never had a rescue on a fire scene.
But I can't say that that rescue was really mine. I have to give it to Lieutenant Gain Bores (ph) and firefighter Rooks (ph) of New Hanover County Fire. They were the ones who pulled the dog out of the fire. If it weren't for them, she wouldn't be here right now.
Janet, when you saw Drew giving your precious Sandy mouth to snout, what did you think?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, please, bring her back. Please save her. She is so sweet. And they were so brave to go in there and look for her.
CHUNG: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She had a brother in there, too. He didn't make it.
CHUNG: Oh, I'm so sorry.
I just want to ask Drew, do you have animals?
PETERSON: I do. I've got a cat and a ball python snake, actually.
CHUNG: Did you say python?
PETERSON: Yes, ma'am. A ball python.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.
All right, Janet, I know you haven't actually seen Drew until now. Is that right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right. I kept asking them after she came around who -- where he was and who he was. And I never -- everyone was just so busy, we never did connect.
CHUNG: Oh, so you didn't get a chance...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I knew I was going to meet him tonight.
CHUNG: So, you didn't get a chance to thank him?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn't get a chance to -- no, not until today.
CHUNG: Oh, so you must be so happy to see him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've both been very busy.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yes. We didn't realize that this was going to be all over television everywhere. I had to call my family to tell them, "This is happening, but it's OK."
CHUNG: Janet, I want to know, if he hadn't given Sandy mouth-to- snout, would you have been able to do that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yes, if I could have got to her. Well, she kisses me on the mouth all of the time, not by my choice, but...
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: And she's perfectly fine now, huh?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's just a sweet little girl.
CHUNG: Is she perfectly fine now?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we have her mama.
Yes, she is. Yes, I am going to take her in. Her eyes are watering and giving her a little trouble. So, I'm going to take her into the vet. Drew said that he was going to check into a vet for me here.
PETERSON: Yes, we're going to see if we can't get a donation from a veterinarian to get her checked out.
CHUNG: Oh, that's great. Drew, you know, you're the best.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're awesome.
CHUNG: We're just going to have to follow your career. You're awesome.
Drew Peterson, thank you so much. And Janet Larian (ph)...
PETERSON: It's really not like that. I was just doing my job.
CHUNG: Oh, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
PETERSON: Thank you, Connie.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: OK. Thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Sandy.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: And still ahead -- oh, there's Sandy. Bye, Sandy.
Still ahead: Even in 2002, you can find a major racial barrier in major league sports. And our "Person of the Day" just broke it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tonight, at a time when America's ongoing debate about race has picked up an overdue breakthrough led to our choice for tonight's "Person of the Day." Robert Johnson is now the first African-American principal owner of a major league American sports franchise. He plucked down a $300 million expansion fee for a new basketball team to make its home in Charlotte, North Carolina. The team will begin playing in the 2004-2005 season.
And that's our program for tonight. Thank you so much for joining us. And we'll say good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
to War>
|
