|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
FBI Searches for Five Illegal Immigrants; New U.S. Military Draft Coming?
Aired December 30, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We have quite an audience today. I'm Carol Costello. Arthel Neville is on vacation.
A massive manhunt is now under way in the United States. The FBI is looking for a group of five men after receiving intelligence they crossed into the country illegally, possibly through Canada. Sources say authorities want to question the men for more leads in the investigation of al Qaeda.
CNN security analyst Kelly McCann is here to discuss the facts.
Welcome, Kelly.
J. KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi, Carol.
COSTELLO: One question. It seems that intelligence officials are looking at these men as a group, as opposed to individuals who have sneaked across the border. Is there any significance to that?
MCCANN: Sure. It's in the methodology of terrorist cellular structure to operate in teams of four to six people.
And, of course, you have that combined with the timing of this whole thing. Christmas Eve, they were supposed to have come across the border and moving towards the New Year's celebrations. So, people are concerned. But there may be other reasons we should be looking at this.
COSTELLO: What other reasons would those be?
MCCANN: Well, methodology.
I mean, this could be -- that region right there where a lot of illegal alien smuggling gets conducted is rife with that kind of problem. The methodology that they used could be seen by other people who are interested in these kinds of criminal enterprises to actually bring al Qaeda or other people into the country. So, they may just want to talk to these men and learn from them, either witting or unwitting information they have to offer.
COSTELLO: That methodology thing is bothering me, Kelly.
MCCANN: Sure.
COSTELLO: The government isn't really releasing much information as to how exactly these men crossed the border. Did they cross in Eastern Canada? Because I know the governor of New York was alerted to this.
MCCANN: Well, true enough, Carol. But, if you think again, that region of Ontario, if you will, that province, it connects to Niagara, New York. So, that would make sense that they would contact them. And it also connects to the Detroit, Michigan, area.
So, locating the exact geographical area and then trying to say, well, OK, is there more significance? Could they be headed to New York or is this just another case of five illegals who are coming across? That's why people are interested in it.
COSTELLO: Well, a lot of people are interested in how exactly that the United States determined that these men were in the country. How did this information come to intelligence officials?
MCCANN: Potentially from an ongoing investigation.
In other words, it might have been passed to us by one of the 22 agencies that participate in the IBET, which is the international, if you will, law enforcement organization that covers that part of the border. They may have surfaced a variety of information. And, basically, these five popped to the forefront for a reason that could be they're attributed to a country that's on the watch list. That alone could mean it comes to the surface.
COSTELLO: Well, CNN has learned that Canadian officials found out about these guys from Pakistan. What significance is there to that?
MCCANN: Well, I don't know if we've traced the line all the way back to Pakistan or whether we learned of it from Canadian officials and then they approached the Pakistani officials. That's the key element.
And right now, it's hard to contact people. It's holiday season. It sounds trite. But the bottom line is, trying to run this to ground has been a little bit difficult. It might also be, Carol, that there simply is no more information and we know what they know and they're trying to use us as the eyes and ears of the police agencies.
COSTELLO: OK, give me the odds. Are we going to catch these guys and when? Is it possible?
MCCANN: Why would you do that to me, Carol?
COSTELLO: Oh, come on, Kelly.
(LAUGHTER)
MCCANN: I think that maybe through participation in small crimes, and certainly with all the people who are looking for them, they may blunder and we'll find them that way. The truth is, they'd probably be best served if they're just criminals to turn themselves in, because if it's -- it's only going to get worse. (CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Oh, I'm sure they're going to do that, Kelly.
MCCANN: Well, hear what I'm saying. If they're caught, regardless, they're going to be deported. If they're caught and suspected to be terrorists, things could play very badly for them.
COSTELLO: Yes, they could be held in custody and go to Guantanamo Bay.
MCCANN: I'd pay for that ticket if that's in fact why they needed to go there.
But the bottom line is, I'm sure we'll run this to ground, with as many people that are looking for them as we have got out there.
COSTELLO: OK, Kelly, stay right there. We're going to talk about another topic before we talk some more about those five men who somehow sneaked across the border, this out of Yemen.
A suspected Islamic extremist is being interrogated in Yemen in the deaths of three American missionaries. They were shot and killed at a missionary hospital in Southern Yemen today. Of course, this is not the first time violence has struck Americans there. The country is said to be a haven for Islamic Muslim extremists. The victims all worked in the hospital.
William Koehn was the administrator. Kathleen Gariety was the hospital's business manager. And Dr. Martha Myers was an obstetrician. Despite the violence, the Intelligence Mission Board says its works will continue.
Kelly, are Americans being targeted more and more in places like Yemen?
MCCANN: Absolutely.
In fact, is this another part of the hydra? And what I mean by that is, we've kind of exploded the al Qaeda network. They can't communicate as readily. They can't issue orders as readily. So, is this maybe an indication of unrelated and individual fundamentalists who now -- on the Arab street, it's kind of common in outlook that this whole thing with Iraq and our movement through Afghanistan is a Christian crusade or an American crusade against Muslims.
That's not correct, but that could be a common opinion that could move individuals like this to action. If that's the case...
COSTELLO: So, it's not so much targeting Americans as it is targeting Americans who may be pushing Christianity on the population in the Middle East?
MCCANN: Not necessarily, because, if you look at target value, you could go either way. If it's a religion vs. a religion -- which clearly this isn't, but it's perceived that way -- yes, they'd be more lucrative targets. But, generally, it's Western targets. Missionaries have always gone at risk. They've died in Colombia at the hands of the FARC. They've died in Guatemala and other places worldwide. So, they know the risks. It's just that this particular one is at the center of an incendiary issue.
COSTELLO: Is there anything that, really, America can do or countries like Yemen can do to protect Americans living in other countries?
MCCANN: Well, to the extent that they want to show their support for the U.S. and want to join into the war in terrorism, sure.
They can create a structure, early-warning system that works through the regional security officers in the embassy and have good relations at that point. But nobody should walk out of this country, and even in this country, trying to put responsibility for their safety on anyone but their own shoulders. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own personal safety.
COSTELLO: Tough stand, but true. Thank you, Kelly.
Now it is time for the debate. Let's meet two of our panelists this afternoon. Adam Eidinger is with the Green Party. And Erin Shannon is a lobbyist for the Building Industry Association of Washington state.
Let's start with you, Erin. Do you think that the -- well, let's talk about the Yemeni thing first off. Do you think that Americans should even be in countries like that at this particular time?
ERIN SHANNON, BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: At their own risk. I think Kelly is absolutely correct. These missionaries and any other Americans that choose to travel in these countries, they have to understand the risks. And they're obviously willing to take those risks. And it's unfortunate, but I don't think that there's a whole lot anybody can do when an incident like this does occur.
COSTELLO: Adam, do you agree? Do Americans belong in a country at this particular time or should they just get out?
ADAM EIDINGER, GREEN PARTY: Well, we have to ask ourselves, are we letting Arabs come to this country freely and to operate in this country freely? And we're not. And we have over 1,000 who are behind bars right now. They're being held as material witnesses.
I think Americans who are abroad are definitely at risk. And it has a lot to do with our foreign policy being so blunt and aggressive as it is. These actions of this president towards Iraq, I think, are only going to encourage attacks on Americans worldwide.
COSTELLO: Erin, do you agree with that?
SHANNON: No, I absolutely don't agree with that. I don't believe that you can -- I think that Adam is jumping on the blame-America-first bandwagon here. This had nothing to do with the president's policies. This has had do with what happened on September 11, which is, thousands of people were killed by Middle Eastern terrorists.
EIDINGER: And September 11 had nothing to do with our policy in the Middle East? I think it has absolutely everything to do with it.
I think people in the Arab world in particular see the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy when it comes to human rights in that part of the world. And the attack on the United States was just a small fraction of what Arab countries have suffered at the hands of the U.S. and other Western powers over the last 10 years. More than a half million people, children, have died in Iraq due to the sanctions that are pushed by this country.
SHANNON: Due to Saddam Hussein, not due to the United States. Do not try to put the blood of those children on the United States. Absolutely not.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Hold off on that point. I want our audience member to weigh in.
Will from Florida, do you think Americans should be in places like Yemen? Do you think that President Bush's policy is the reason so many Americans are being targeted overseas?
WILL: No. I think we have to have the policy we've got. And I think that people do take the chance to be in these other countries. Our worldwide network of industry requires us to be there.
But my real idea here is that, I think we'd feel a lot better as Americans if Muslims as a whole would make a statement against this kind of activity, being that all the terrorists seem to come from the Muslim. We realize that they're not all bad, but we'd like to see the good ones say: Hey, we don't like this kind of stuff.
COSTELLO: And a lot of Americans feel exactly the way you do.
Adam, why don't more Muslims come forward and say this kind of behavior and violence is wrong?
EIDINGER: I think they have been coming forward. I don't think the media and the public is listening to them.
I also think that they are also coming forward and saying, hey, we have this double standard with Israel. We have Palestinians, who are living in total misery right now who can't even hold an election because their land is occupied, yet our government seems to ignore that. The Bush administration is ignoring atrocities that happen to Muslims around the world.
COSTELLO: Erin, you can jump in at any time. SHANNON: Well, where do I start, Carol?
Israel is an important foothold for the United States in the Middle East. And if you want to talk about atrocities, let's talk about what the Palestinians are doing with the Israelis: suicide bombings, sending teenagers in, men, women children, to explode people in a marketplace.
EIDINGER: It's an act of desperation.
SHANNON: I don't care what it is. It's atrocious and it's wrong and you should not condone it.
EIDINGER: And so is, also, carpet bombing and dropping tons of weapons on an innocent population. You know, these...
COSTELLO: OK, hold it right there. We've got to take a break. I'm sorry, panel.
Coming up: Do you think your son or daughter should be forced to serve in the U.S. military? Think they're safe from such mandatory duty? Think again.
The details of the debate when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: Is Congress considering bringing back the draft? We'll hear why one congressman actually feels it could keep the United States from going to war.
And more nuclear rumbling in North Korea, is it upping the ante in a high-stakes war of words or is it a prelude to something more sinister?
More TALKBACK LIVE right after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE on this New Year's Eve eve -- kind of New Year's Eve squared, right?
Fear can be a powerful motivator. We all know that. A New York lawmaker believes, if the children of Congress men and women are on the military's front lines, it would have an impact on their decisions.
Congressman Charles Rangel believes his fellow lawmakers would hesitate and even reconsider sending their own children into battle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: And, as a matter of fact, I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the free world against the threats that are coming to us from the Middle East. I'm talking about mandatory. I'm talking about mandatory service.
I think that we've been too cavalier in talking about who we are going to teach lessons. We got 35,000 troops in South Korea that are exposed to the North Koreans. We've got troops in the Middle East. We've got troops all over Europe. And we've got older people in the Congress like myself just talking about what we're not going to tolerate, that we have to teach them a lesson.
I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and more willingness to work with the international community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Now it is time for the debate. Let's introduce some more members of our panel right now.
Julian Epstein is Democratic counsel in Washington. He was the former chief Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. And Niger Innis is the spokesman for the CORE, the Congress on Racial Equality.
Welcome to you both.
NIGER INNIS, CONGRESS ON RACIAL EQUALITY: Good afternoon, Carol.
JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL: Thank you.
COSTELLO: Good afternoon.
Julian, let's start with you.
Is this a good idea that Congressman Rangel has?
EPSTEIN: Well, it's an interesting idea. And I think he's kind of making an oblique reference to Washington politicians, starting from the president on down, who talk tough about sending our young people into war, but, when it was their time to actually serve the country, found a way to avoid armed conflict and found a way to avoid putting themselves in harm's way.
I myself favor the idea of a one-year mandatory national service, because I think, Lord knows, there's enough work that needs to be done in this country. And I would favor a policy that would say that, during that one year, people could be drawn into the military, if need be.
I'm in favor, however, of a voluntary army for the following reason. Notwithstanding Congressman Rangel's point about democratizing the pain and the obligations that go with maintaining a democracy, I favor a voluntary draft because I think we have to have a professional military. And I think, in order to do that, you have got to have people that are willing to enter into this as a profession for more than a year or two. I think we have the best military in the world. And I think the voluntary Army is working very, very well. So, I wouldn't change that, but I would supplement it with national service.
COSTELLO: Niger, I want you to weigh in on this. Do you agree?
INNIS: I think that Congressman Rangel is being quite cynical and making a swipe at our policy in Iraq and the impending war with Iraq.
I think it's nonsense. I think that the voluntary system that's been in place for some 30 years has proven very effective. We have the best military on the planet. And more than that, those that enter the military are often liberated from terrible socioeconomic circumstances, in particular minorities.
Julian, my good friend out of D.C., talks about democratizing the military. The military is very democratic. And people choose to join. And if you join the military, you're not just there for a paycheck, but you're there knowing that you might have to risk life and limb for your country. And it's a proud thing.
EPSTEIN: I don't entirely disagree.
COSTELLO: But doesn't Congressman Rangel bring up a good point when he says that most congressmen, most senators don't have daughters and sons who are going to serve in the military, so how can they really understand?
EPSTEIN: Absolutely. I think that's exactly the point, Niger. I wouldn't dismiss it as cynical. I might disagree with the ultimate conclusion, but I think he makes a very, very good point.
The well-to-do in this country and the powerful in this country, they have children that don't face an economic situation where that is one of their best options. So, I think is about democratizing the obligations about maintaining an open democracy. I don't favor his conclusion, for the reason that I stated. But I think it's unfair to say that it's a cynical ploy on his part.
(CROSSTALK)
INNIS: It's just as cynical as some of the same people that...
COSTELLO: Excuse me. Excuse me, both of you. We want to bring it in our other two panelists, for Adam to weigh in on this subject.
Do you think that should there be a mandatory draft? And why not?
EIDINGER: I don't think a mandatory draft is going to reduce militarism in this country. I actually volunteered in the Israeli military about a decade ago. And everybody in that military is conscripted. And I got to tell you, that hasn't kept the Israelis from attacking Palestinians and being very aggressive. The second point I would make on this is, if you look at who is in the military today, it is true. It's mostly made up of minorities now. And that's because they're going to poor neighborhoods telling African-Americans and Latinos, there is no future for you unless you join the military. That isn't right. It's not American.
I think I have to thank Congressman Rangel for bringing out this subject, because he found a very creative way of getting people talking about it. But I don't believe, if you brought back the draft, that you would actually reduce U.S. military adventurism.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: On that note, we've got to take a break. We're going to continue to debate this topic, because a lot of audience members want to weigh in on a mandatory draft. Should we have one?
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
We've been talking about a mandatory draft. Congressman Rangel says maybe it's a good idea to bring back a mandatory draft. But if you think that mandatory draft would be the same as it was in the Vietnam era, you're sadly mistaken.
Let me read how the draft has changed since Vietnam. This says, before Congress made improvements to the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was full-time student. Well, under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester and then he can be drafted into the military service. It doesn't matter.
Our audience members want to weigh in on this in a big way. So, let's go to John here from Maryland.
Stand up for me. Do you think there should be a mandatory draft?
JOHN: Oh, no, not at all. I won't even go into the impracticality of something like that. But this is not about a Waterloo we're fighting, you know, if Napoleon got 20,000 more troops, he figures he's going to win. This is a war of highly skilled people, not numbers anymore, that is going to win the war.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's go to some e-mails and see what folks are saying out on the Internet. Should we put one up so I can read it for folks?
This one says: "The big-money people and their sons and daughters should be the first ones called into military service. It's time to stop making it always the youngest and poorest who die first," that from Verna in Maryland.
Let's go over to Betsy in Georgia.
What do you have to say?
BETSY: Well, I think that a hero is someone who volunteers their services. And my husband is in the military. He went to college, finished his masters in epidemiology. And instead of going into the private sector, he's volunteering his services in the military. And that's what I think a hero is.
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: I knew people would agree with you there.
Let's go to the phone lines now.
Who's on the phone with me? Grant?
CALLER: Yes.
COSTELLO: Grant, what do you think? Should there be a mandatory draft?
CALLER: I would like there to be a mandatory draft from 18 to 26 that, in that given time, everyone serve one year, only one year, in public military service.
That way, the things that happened in the '60s in Vietnam would be averted, because you and I know that, according to your station in life at that time, there were deferments available. People left and went to Canada, if they had the money. And other countries like Switzerland automatically require this. And it would familiarize the people in this country with their military. And there would be no exemptions.
COSTELLO: Grant, I think you have a point, because, didn't some of our most famous politicians who are in office right now escape the draft because they had wealthy parents or a way out, Erin?
SHANNON: Yes, Carol, I think that's probably the best point about Rangel's proposed legislation. And while I don't support universal military service, I believe in our voluntary military.
It would have the advantage of at least forcing those who end up serving in Congress, them having some military time under their belt, so they can understand what it is the military's about and understand what it is they're asking our service men and women to do.
(CROSSTALK)
INNIS: There were certainly very positive aspects of the draft that occurred before.
Those that are proposing a draft were burning their draft cards in the 1960s -- of integrating Americans and bringing Americans from all cross-sections of life together and into one unified unit fighting for our country, or supporting, giving service to our country. But, again, I want to get back to the motivation. The fact of the matter is, you measure the life of an individual from the ghetto or from the barrio of our country that goes into the military and then pursues a military life
(CROSSTALK)
SHANNON: Oh, Adam, please, I can't listen to this anymore.
INNIS: Erin, this is not Adam. This is Niger. Those that enter the military do far, far better than those that don't.
(CROSSTALK)
SHANNON: The opportunities provided to disadvantaged people through the military are immeasurable. They're immeasurable.
COSTELLO: All right, on than note, we've got to take a break. I'm very sorry.
Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE: Again, should military service be mandatory in the United States? That is our "Question of the Day." Call or e-mail us here at TALKBACK LIVE with your opinions. I'll take your answers later his hour.
And coming up next: Would a little talk go a long way in persuading North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons program? The debate over negotiations when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: One of the best audiences we've ever had here at TALKBACK LIVE. You're all just awesome. There are so many people here watching TALKBACK LIVE. We appreciate it. So let's go on.
As United Nations weapons inspectors prepare to leave North Korea, the communist nation is suggesting it may pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It's the latest salvo in the back- and-forth battle over North Korea's decision to restart a frozen reactor. The White House says the situation is not a crisis, though, and won't bow to North Korea's saber rattling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: We have made it clear to the North Koreans that there are ways to communicate, but we will not enter a negotiation where they sit there -- as they sit there and say, what will you pay us for our misbehavior, how will you appease our misbehavior this time?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Of course, no everyone agrees with that strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Our policy of engaging them was moving in the right direction. Changes came, and I think that the Bush administration has pursued a correct diplomatic policy but then calling them "axis of evil," provoking them, that's not the way you deal with them. North Korea doesn't negotiate like other countries. They're so isolated. They're not into the quid pro quo business. They're very unusual, dark minds that, if you provoke them, it gets a bad reaction, and I think we need to engage them directly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: How does the United States deal with North Korea. Let's head to our panel right now. Niger, you start. Is the United States on the right course?
INNIS: We're pursuing the right course. And Richardson is just so wrong. The fact is, North Koreans had broke away from their treat they had signed under the Clinton administration, going back to 1998. So, it had nothing to did with axis of evil. In fact, the axis of evil statement by President Bush that was ridiculed at the time by many on the left, has now proven to be prophetic.
We are doing the right thing. We are walking softly, carrying a big stick, allowing our allies in Japan and in South Korea, Russia and China to cajole the North Koreans to do the right thing -- let inspectors back in, deconstruct a nuclear arsenal that they might have, stop constructing the nuclear arsenal that they may have in the future, and to reaffirm the non-nuclear proliferation treaty. At some point, though, it may get to a point where we have to plan to knock out the Yongbyon nuclear facility,
COSTELLO: Well, couldn't you argue...
INNIS: ... but it hadn't come to that point yet.
COSTELLO: ... I'm glad you brought that up that nuclear facility, because couldn't you argue that the Clinton plan did deal with that and that North Korea has not reactivated that plant now? Adam, you want to weigh in?
EIDINGER: Well, it absolutely did. It was a constructive process. And you know, I don't get this logic, because of the previous person, because he's talking about how, oh, the president was right about the axis of evil comment. You know what, we called them the axis of evil when we had a treaty with them, and then break we're going to break our word and call them the...
INNIS: And they had already started breaking the treaty, Adam.
EIDINGER: If you want, oh, you know what...
SHANNON: That's right.
EIDINGER: ... you know what, we've got more nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. We have over 2,000 times the number. ENNIS: Therefore, Israel and Iraq....
SHANNON: But that...
INNIS: ... should break the treaty, Adam?
COSTELLO: Well, wait a minute. Not all at once. Adam?
SHANNON: North Korea is a rogue nation.
EIDINGER: Let me finish my thought here. They're scared to death of the United States and that's why they're building nuclear weapons.
ENNIS: They're not scared of the United States.
WOMAN: If anybody who believes for one minute that North Korea...
ENNIS: They're using it as a negotiating tactic.
EIDINGER: The Bush policy is not...
SHANNON: ...is not a serious threat, they are kidding themselves. North Korea is a much bigger threat than Saddam Hussein or Iraq.
EIDINGER: That's true.
SHANNON: ... or anyone in the Middle East ever was.
COSTELLO: Well, then Erin, why isn't the United States reacting to North Korea in exactly the same way as it's reacting to Iraq?
SHANNON: We can't. We can't. We cannot fight...
COSTELLO: Why not?
SHANNON: ... and be in a conventional war with North Korea, because they have a million combat soldiers, versus our 300,000 combat soldiers.
ENNIS: And then they...
SHANNON: We -- engaging North Korea in a convention war...
ENNIS: I actually have to disagree with Erin.
MAN: Can I get a word in here, Erin?
SHANNON: ... would be a bloody endeavor that I'm not sure and I do not believe that we could win.
COSTELLO: Niger, go ahead with your point.
ENNIS: I have to disagree with my conservative colleague. I do agree with Don Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, that we can fight two wars on two fronts. I just think, strategically speaking, we're going to give our allies and their neighbors in the region an opportunity to push them to do the right thing. South Korea...
SHANNON: I believe that's --
EIDINGER: So they can have -- so we can have a war, so they can have a war? We don't need these wars, OK. These wars are a big distraction.
INNIS: That's why we're not...
EIDINGER: ... to the important issues in this country.
SHANNON: Adam, Adam, I'm sorry. Maybe...
INNIS: ...inducting war, Adam.
SHANNON: ... maybe in your perfect...
EIDINGER: These wars aren't going to accomplish anything.
SHANNON: ... world, there are no wars.
COSTELLO: All right. Hold on, Julian.
EPSTEIN: Carol, can we get a moderator here, so get some intelligent conversation...
COSTELLO: Julian -- I know, Julian, I know you want to weigh in.
EPSTEIN: ... conversation going back and forth?
COSTELLO: Go ahead, Julian.
EPSTEIN: Well, first of all, Niger, with respect to talking softly and carrying a big stick, I think it's exactly the opposite. We have, I think by most peoples estimation, an incoherent policy here. What we have for the last two or three months is this kind of saber rattling and this brinkmanship, this attempt to isolate North Korea, referring to it as the "axis of evil" and beating the drums of war.
And then we find out that that doesn't work and the administration does an about-face yesterday on the Sunday programs. Secretary Powell was out saying there -- is out saying, well, we don't want a military confrontation with Iraq, we want to open the dialogue through other intermediaries. We're going to use the Chinese and the Japanese and the South Koreans now. So you've seen this is an enormous about-face on the part of the administration, as we did with Iraq.
Remember, with Iraq, it was originally regime change, then it went to disarmament? It was originally, we didn't trust the United Nations, then we did. You see, I think, a very, very incoherent policy with respect to North Korea. I think the mistake is on... COSTELLO: Stop right there because...
INNIS: I think it's a very...
COSTELLO: ... stop right there, Julian.
EPSTEIN: I think the mistake son two points, if I can.
COSTELLO: Our audience wants to weigh in. Mark from Maryland, do you think that we're on the right course with North Korea?
MARK: I think the right course in any relationship is open communication, as long as we're careful in that open communication, not to appease their misdeeds by rewarding them with something that they're looking for..
COSTELLO: So you think we should go ahead and sit down and talk to North Korea?
MARK: I do.
COSTELLO: Why not?
MARK: I'm sorry?
EPSTEIN: Absolutely, we should talk to North Korea. I think, there's no reason why we shouldn't. We're acting like...
COSTELLO: Why isn't the United States talking face to face with North Korea, Erin?
EPSTEIN: I think it's a mistake we're not. I think we're acting like petulant little children here. I think it is in our interests...
SHANNON: The only thing we need to talk to North Korea...
EPSTEIN: ... if I can finish the point.
SHANNON: ... about is to tell them that we will not capitulate to what is, essentially, blackmail. They're trying to blackmail us with the threat of nuclear weapons, so that the can extract more foreign aid and more money from us.
EPSTEIN: Well, this is a silly position, Erin.
SHANNON: And we need to sit down and say, no and call their bluff.
EIDINGER: It's not going to cost...
COSTELLO: OK. I have one point on the money issue. The United States is paying out an awful lot of money for countries to help us in the fight of Al Qaeda, and some call those payments bribes, so why not act the same way with North Korea?
ENNIS: It would be the worst signal to send, that after they break a treaty they signed with the Clinton administration, after they had nuclear weapons at their disposal, that we are going to sit down and try to blackmail them or cave in to them.
SHANNON: Exactly.
ENNIS: What we need to do, is...
EPSTEIN?: What about breaking the...
INNIS: ... do exactly what we're doing...
EPSTEIN? ... missile treaty?
INNIS: ... which is to economically and diplomatically isolate them and, if necessary, if it comes to the point, if necessary, to wipe out the Yongbyon...
SHANNON: They are diplomatically isolated.
EPSTEIN: We already have caved to them. Can I make a point? We already have caved to them. The Clinton administration policy was a much tougher policy in the following respects. It said...
INNIS: That's why they broke the treaty, Julian?
EPSTEIN: ... it said that if the North Koreans, if the North Koreans crossed the Rubican and attempted to develop a nuclear program, that it would use a military strike. What Secretary Powell said yesterday...
INNIS: And it was all talk and no action....
EPSTEIN: ... what Secretary Powell -- no...
INNIS: ... because it is...
EPSTEIN: ... because it was working.
INNIS: ... since 1998.
EPSTEIN: No, that's not true, because...
COSTELLO: OK, hold on, panel. I'm sorry. I must interrupt.
EPSTEIN: ... it was 1994, first of all. It was 1994.
COSTELLO: Hold on, panel. Hold on panel. Hold on. We have to take a break right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I am Carol Costello, in for Arthel Neville this afternoon. The arrival in the United States of a 7 pound baby girl named Eve is highly anticipated today because Eve could give proof to the Raelians' claim that she is the first human clone. Raelians, by the way, are a little known controversial religious group that believe space aliens created humans. Some of its members also found Clonaid, which announced Eve's birth last week. DNA evidence from Eve and her mother is expected to be collected and tested when the baby is finally seen. The head of the Raelians says cloning leads to eternal life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAEL: Believe what you want, but from 30 years ago I have been talking about human cloning coming. So this is not new. It's not something we take like a rabbit out of a hat to say, ah we find something. From 30 years ago, I have been saying, human cloning is coming. It will be received in our life. Then the next step, will be to discover accelerated growth process, which is coming soon. Then we will be able to live eternally from one body to another body and download, upload, transfer our memory and personality in a cloned body when we die. So we are alive forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Did you get all that? Is it all a hoax or --
EPSTEIN: He looks like -- he reminds me of Dr. Evil!
COSTELLO: It's just the outfit. I don't know. Like "Star Trek."
INNIS: You know, it's interesting. These individuals, these Ramulins or Vulcans, or whatever they are.
COSTELLO: Raelians.
INNIS: Raelians -- they're going to become, interestingly enough, poster boys for a total ban on cloning. As we know, Congress, the Louse of Representatives, passed a cloning ban bill recently. It didn't go through the Senate. But this could very well add momentum to those who would want a total ban. So, interestingly enough, this is actually going to take back a few steps those are who are for therapeutic cloning and for stem cell research.
EPSTEIN: But I think there's enough -- I think there's enough people that will make the distinction. I think that there should be a ban on reproductive cloning. I think, either way, this is either a hoax on the public, if there wasn't in fact a cloning, or it's a hoax on the little girl.
COSTELLO: Well, Julian, tell me why you think there should be a total ban on cloning?
EPSTEIN: Why should there be a ban on cloning?
COSTELLO: Yes.
EPSTEIN: For the following reason: Human beings don't play God very well. And we've known from the attempts to clone animals that these animals --
COSTELLO: Julian, we play God every day.
EPSTEIN: Well, we don't when it comes to science. And we know when we try...
COSTELLO: We do too. What about in vitro fertilization?
EPSTEIN: Well, I think that's entirely something different. That's a more natural form of conception and evolution. What we're talking about here --
COSTELLO: In a petrie dish, in a test tube?
EPSTEIN: Well, what we're talking something I think -- the cloning of one person, putting adult cells, adult DNA, into an unfertilized egg in an attempt to fertilize it, what we've seen in animals, is that the babies are born deformed. And I think in all likelihood, any attempt to do that on a human level will be unsuccessful as well. Apart from the fact that I think the idea is a little bit obnoxious to begin with. The idea of evolution is that we continue to mix genes, and that's how we continue to evolve biologically.
I think that there will be and there should be not just a ban here in the States, but I think that there could be an international regimen that would attempt to impose civil liabilities on people that do this thing, that do this type of cloning because, I think, again, in all likelihood, these children are going to be born in some type of deformed way. That's entirely different --
COSTELLO: Hold on for a second, Julian. I want other panel members to weigh in on this.
SHANNON: I agree with Julian. This is -- it's absolutely Frankenstein-esque. However, to me, the real question is, how is it controllable? I would like to see it controlled. And I really do hope that this is a hoax. But how do you control? We can't control the proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue countries, how are we going to control cloning?
COSTELLO: Well, Erin, you bring up a good point. Why not regulate cloning and not ban it?
Adam, do you want to weigh in?
EIDINGER: Yes. I think you definitely have to regulate this. We have to, you know, not lose sight of therapeutic cloning or stem cell research for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, and these other diseases. This is really important. It's going to help a lot of people. I actually hope that there's a silver lining in this whole Raelian dispute, is that people are talking about that more, as a legitimate thing.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people on this planet who don't have parents. There are a lot of orphans. If you really want a child badly, you should be adopting.
One other thing. The government's got to do a better job of regulating this. However, if cloning is successful, if they are able to clone a human being, and there are no side effects, and these are normal human beings without arthritis, without these horrible deformities we heard about having with some of the animals that have been cloned, that it's going to become accepted behavior. And if anything that science fiction has taught us, if man can think it up, he eventually is trying to do it.
COSTELLO: OK. Hold on panel, we want our audience to weigh in right now. Albert from South Dakota, do you think cloning should be banned?
CALLER: I think it should.
COSTELLO: Why?
CALLER: Because the worst thing about cloning is that every clone has no identity.
COSTELLO: Why is that, sir?
CALLER: The only way you can identify a clone is to rubber stamp it or tattoo it. Otherwise, you'd have no way of determining one clone from the other. They're all exactly at like.
COSTELLO: That brings up a point, Albert. And I wanted to address our panel with that point.
There are some who say that there be no true clones, because you have to bring in the nurture part of the argument, the environmental part of the argument, that even with identical twins, which are true clones, twins, identical twins, sometimes are very, very different. So is there really such a thing as a true clone?
SHANNON: Well, I think you have to be careful when you start messing with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Every species on this planet has evolved, and I'm not sure who mentioned that earlier, if it was Adam or Julian, but there's a reason for that, so that our weaknesses can be bred out and our strengths can be continued or be perpetuated. And with cloning, you completely remove that element. And we do not have -- we don't know what the long-term effects are, psychological, mental, physical. I really believe it's a dangerous, dangerous thing.
EPSTEIN: It's a very serious --
COSTELLO: OK, so panel, if you had your best guess, panel, what do you think Congress will do? Will the House of Representatives go along -- or, I'm sorry -- will the Senate go along with the House of Representatives and vote to ban cloning?
Julian?
SHANNON: I think so. EPSTEIN: I think that they will vote to ban reproductive cloning. We should try to have an international system that imposes liability for doing this thing. I don't think that they should do it for therapeutic cloning, because that's the best hope right now for solving things like Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. And we're really talking about entirely something different when it's therapeutic cloning.
COSTELLO: All right. Thank you very much. I want to extend my thanks and our thanks to our entire panel. Adam Eidinger, Niger Innis, Julian Epstein and Erin Shannon.
When we come back on "Talk Back Live," pregnant and missing, where is Laci Peterson? The search for the missing California woman gets a big boost. Details when "Talk Back Live" returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to "Talk Back Live." The mother of Laci Peterson is pleading for her daughter's safe return. The 27-year-old pregnant woman disappeared from her Modesto, California, neighborhood while she was walking her dog on Christmas Eve.
Simon Perez from CNN affiliate KPIX joins us now with the latest in the search, and I would assume that many volunteers are out and about this afternoon?
SIMON PEREZ, KPIX CORRESPONDENT: Hundreds of them, Carol. Good afternoon to you there. Hundreds of them are out in the fields actually trying to help out and look for her. They are trying to assist the police to try to track down any type of leads. Here are some of the leads that the police are following. One includes interviewing sexual offenders and parolees with violent pasts in the neighborhood where Lacy Peterson lives, trying to see if they had anything to do with it.
Where were they? What were they doing on Christmas Eve? But so far, no luck. There is also the issue of a burglary that happened right across the street from where Lacy Peterson lives, and they are trying to see if, perhaps, she may have seen something. The burglar saw that, and then retaliated against her, but once again, no luck. So there are plenty of leads out there, they are just not being able to progress on any of them.
COSTELLO: Simon, a couple of questions for you. I know she was walking her dog. Where did they find the dog?
PEREZ: The dog was actually just walking right in her neighborhood down the street. One of the neighbors found the dog. It had the leash still attached to it, and a neighbor picked it up and said, Oh, well, let me take it back to the Petersons' home. The neighbor just stuck the dog in the backyard and apparently thought nothing more, until the husband, Scott, came home, and found his wife missing on Christmas Eve.
COSTELLO: So the husband, Scott, on Christmas Eve, was away from his wife, and he was fishing, I believe. And then, when he come home, he called her in missing?
PEREZ: Yes, called her in missing, and that's when the search began. All the volunteers came out. The police have been out. They have been on foot; they have been on horseback, they have had divers in the creeks and ponds in the area. They have been up in helicopters. And, in fact, they have been able to raise some money to try to help out with the reward for her safe return. Started out at about $125,000, which is quite a bit in itself to be raised from friends and family and relatives. And then, just a couple of days ago, an anonymous donor came in and dropped in another $375,000 to bump it up to half a million.
So that shows you exactly just how much interest there is, and I can tell you with all those volunteers out there, and all that money and all that support, despite the fact that there aren't any leads, the family is not giving up hope.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PEREZ (voice-over): Another day dawns with volunteers doing their part in the search for Laci Peterson. The 27-year-old woman disappeared on Christmas Eve. She is due to give birth to a baby boy in the coming weeks.
Volunteers have set up their own command post where they made copies of flyers with Laci's picture on it. Then, they head out to post them wherever they can. The reward for her safe return requires editing to the already printed flyers, switching the total from $125,000 to half a million after an anonymous donation of $375,000.
(on camera): ... makes you think she's going to come back alive?
SUSAN COUDILLO, SISTER IN LAW: We're going to keep positive. That's the best way to -- to think. And there's no other option for us, and we're not going to go down that road.
PEREZ (voice-over): The police department continues to question people with violent pasts in the area where Peterson lives. Authorities say Peterson's husband Scott was the last person to see her before he left Modesto for a Christmas Eve morning fishing trip on San Francisco Bay. While the authorities won't say who is and who isn't a suspect, Scott Peterson's family insists there's no way he's involved.
LEE PETERSON, FATHER IN LAW: He's the most gentle, you know, wonderful person you'd ever want to meet, and there's just no possibility. There's just -- it's not worth discussing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PEREZ: I'll tell you, I spoke to Laci's mom this morning, and she said they had Christmas Eve dinner planned, they had a Christmas Day brunch planned, Carol. Everything was perfectly normal. She has just disappeared.
COSTELLO: Well, much luck to you out there in California. Simon Perez, thanks for joining me today.
By the way, Laci Peterson's mother will be a guest on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." That airs today at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE, we will hear what you had to say about our question of the day. Do you think military service should be mandatory in the United States? Your answers when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. It is time for our question of the day. We told you about Congressman Charles Rangel's plan to push for legislation that will require all Americans to serve in the military, the mandatory draft. Should it be mandatory at all? Want to go right to our audience right now. Who's first? Chris (ph), I'm looking -- Rick from New York, should there be a mandatory draft?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... for one year, then each person is equipped to do a certain kind of thing, only learn so much about the military in a year. So what they do should be very specific.
COSTELLO: So you would be all for your son -- if had you have a son, being part of a mandatory draft?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No one person's going to go into combat after a year of training, but there are a lot of a variety of things to do in the military in one year. Might be time well spent.
COSTELLO: Got you. Let's go to another audience member now. Do I have one? Running right over here. Do you think there should be a mandatory draft, Tim (ph) from Maryland?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don't.
COSTELLO: Why not?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because everybody's not made to be in the military. You have to make the choice to go in the military. You got people making $600,000, $700,000 a year, no, they're not going to go into the military, because they are going to sit there and make everybody else do their work.
COSTELLO: They are going to find a way out of it anyway, aren't they?
Thank you very much, Tim. That's all the time we have for TALKBACK LIVE. Thank you so much for watching this afternoon. I am Carol Costello, Arthel Neville is on vacation. I'll be back tomorrow with more TALKBACK LIVE. Candy Crowley is next on "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Military Draft Coming?>
|
