|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Pete Townshend Arrested; Death Row Opponents Say George Ryan Should Be Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize;
Aired January 13, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Well, U.N. inspectors in Iraq say they need more time, but over the weekend, thousands of troops began making their way to the Persian Gulf. Four naval ships headed out from Virginia over the weekend taking on Marines from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before going to sea.
Then, early today, an undisclosed number of soldiers were deployed from two bases in Virginia. Now, there are already some 65,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf region, and 62,000 more headed that way, but even as the troops prepare for battle, U.N. inspectors say it could take another year before they know if or what Saddam Hussein might be hiding.
Now, agency spokesman Mark Guzdecci (ph) says he thinks it will be worth the wait.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Blix and ElBaradei have made it very clear as late as last spring that this is an operation that could take in the vicinity of a year, and frankly, we think that it's worth the wait to get to a sustainable, long-term peaceful solution through inspections. It's a far better option to wait a little bit longer than to have to resort to war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Joining us today is CNN Military Analyst Major General Don Shepperd. Good afternoon, sir. How are you?
MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Hello, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Well, will the U.S. wait is the question.
SHEPPERD: There's one person that knows that, and that's the president of the United States, and I'm not sure he knows the answer to that yet.
Clearly, the deployment of forces is a step toward combat, a step toward military action. It also keeps the pressure on Saddam Hussein, and it keeps the pressure on the United Nations. But whether or not there will be imminent military action shortly after the 27th of January, or whether it will be a long time before that happens, we're just going to have to wait and see, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And mentioning that pressure you're talking about, how long could the United States keep that pressure going?
SHEPPERD: Well, it's unlikely that you will take a large number of forces and leave them sitting in place for a long period of time. On the other hand, we've been in Europe for years. We've been in South Korea for years. So they can sit for a long time. It's not an ideal situation. It's hard to keep up the morale. It's hard on families, and employers back home, in the case of the Guard and Reserve. But it's something that we could do if necessary and ordered to do by the president.
NEVILLE: And then what about the weather, sir? The reports of the weather getting hot after April?
SHEPPERD: Yes. That's been a little bit overplayed. The main factor in the weather is not just the heat itself, which we have lots of practice in. We do those exercises in the summer in the United States, in the California desert. But on the other hand, over there if you have to get into a chemical suit because of chemical attacks, it's really, really tough in the very, very hot weather over there where temperatures reach 115, 120 degrees.
NEVILLE: Now sir, what do you say to the argument that some folks might say, listen, you wait a year, that gives Saddam Hussein that much more time to go ahead and build up his nuclear arsenal, if in fact he's doing that?
SHEPPERD: Yes, it does indeed. And that is, of course, the quandary that we're caught in. Knowing that he's after weapons of mass destruction, knowing that he has used them in the past, and it's very likely he will do so in the future, do we give him more time? Do we give time -- a year, perhaps, being talked about now for the inspectors to work, or do we go ahead launch military action? Clearly, whatever happens, the president of the United States has to make the case with the American public and hopefully the world community that he has reason to go to war if, in fact, we do, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And then, general, there are some people at home who are sitting here thinking, Look, well, why did the U.S. deploy so many troops after only seven weeks of the inspection process?
SHEPPERD: Yes, well, it takes a long time to get troops over there. People have been talking about, Well, we will have 100,000 troops over there and be able to go to war at the end of January. It is true you can fly troops in quickly, but getting them over there, getting their equipment over there, getting it out of the ports and out of storage and in working order, and practice and exercise and ready to go for a starting flag, it takes a good deal of time. So it takes time to do this. And again, I don't know what's on the president's mind in the way of a timetable, but it looks like we're going to find out, and January 27 is an important date when that report comes out, even though it's not necessarily a final report. NEVILLE: Well, we'll be paying close attention. General Shepperd, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
SHEPPERD: Pleasure.
NEVILLE: OK. Does the buildup of troops and arms in the gulf mean the U.S. can't afford to wait a year for inspections to be completed? Joining me now to talk about it are Joe Madison, host of "Mornings with Madison" on XM Radio, and Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He is a former communications director for the Republican National Committee. Want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show. Nice to see you again.
CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Cliff, for this segment, I am going to begin with you. Should the U.S. continue the buildup of war or wait?
MAY: Yes, we need to have our troops in place for the possibility of military action in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. It's important to understand, Arthel, that the purpose of the current exercise is this. Saddam Hussein has been given one final opportunity to willingly, voluntarily disarm himself, to give up the weapons of mass destruction he has and we know he's had -- certainly we knew he had them in 1998.
So far he has not revealed where any of those weapons are, including the weapons that we know he had in 1998. If he doesn't do that, then I think it is incumbent upon us to disarm him. We cannot be in the situation with him that we are in with North Korea, where he has nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and uses them to blackmail us.
NEVILLE: So Cliff, let me understand. You're saying one year is too long to wait?
MAY: Yes, and we won't know at the end of that year either. If he has his weapons facilities on railroad cars, in trucks, buried underground, there is no reason to believe the inspectors will find them. It this turns into a game of hide and seek, Saddam Hussein will win that game. He always has in the past -- it's not meant to be that. It's meant to be one last chance for Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and for the weapons inspectors to verify that he has, in fact, done so.
NEVILLE: But the weapons inspectors saying that may take a year to verify that.
MAY: I think that is unfortunate and I think it is kind of puzzling. The weapons inspectors do not have the ability to beat Saddam Hussein at this game. There are not enough of them. The country is too big, and Saddam has had too much time to hide these weapons.
NEVILLE: Then what was the point of sending them over there in the first place, if you think they can't beat him at his own game?
MAY: Because the point was that Saddam Hussein would have one last chance to say here are my weapons of mass destruction, I turn them over to you, I am destroying them, let the weapons inspectors verify that I am doing so, and also to say, and here's where I could build them, and I am also willing to show you these places as well.
He hasn't done so. Not one weapon of mass destruction, not one facility has been shown to these inspectors. It is up to -- the burden of proof, Arthel, is on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction. The burden of proof cannot be on the weapons inspectors to go and find them where Saddam Hussein has managed to hide them over the past few years.
NEVILLE: Then Cliff, you know, having said that, there are some people watching, listening, and saying, Listen, you know, was this an exercise in futility?
MAY: Well, it may turn out to be. Again, it was one last chance to let diplomacy work. Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council unanimously, says Saddam Hussein is in violation, in material breach, in the first paragraph, of all the U.N. Resolutions going back 11 years.
We are going to give him one last chance to give up his weapons of mass destruction. If he doesn't do that, we will disarm him any way we need to do so. He has got the opportunity, the ball is in his court. So far, he has given no indication whatsoever that he's willing to disarm, that he is willing to give up his weapons, and the weapons inspectors go around -- and they could get lucky. Even a blind pig finds truffle occasionally, but the chances of them happening upon a site where the weapons are stored and catching him at it? Very, very remote.
NEVILLE: Joe Madison, continue the buildup to war or wait?
JOE MADISON, "MORNING WITH MADISON": I just find this amazing what I'm listening to because I asked the same questions that you've asked, and why did we bother in the first place if the bottom line was that we knew we weren't going to find them. It was almost near impossible to find them.
Look, here's the deal. I think we are going to keep building up, and I think that the January 27 date is not a drop-dead date. I heard Colin Powell say just recently on a couple of news programs that it never was a drop-dead date. The question is -- can we, in the course of waiting, bring Great Britain into it? Can we deal with Turkey? We've got billions of dollars...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Yes, Turkey is saying they're not sure that they're going to let those troops there, the 80,000 troops.
MADISON: There's a lot of back-channeling going on. So my position would be -- or I would think what the White House has to do is what the general says. They've got to start doing this back- channeling, putting things in place, and using this time, whether it's a year or less, to position themselves and decide what they're going to do. But I'm amazed when I keep hearing people say, Well, we didn't anticipate we'd find anything anyway. Then it's like saying we just wasted our time and we went through an exercise.
NEVILLE: Right.
MAY: Let me agree with Joe on part of this. I don't think most serious people, and serious people, understood this process, really believed the weapons inspectors would succeed in finding things or needed to. As Colin Powell said, we don't have to find a smoking gun. The point was to see if, given one last chance, and if Saddam understood that this military buildup by the U.S. and its allies was the real thing, he would say OK, I really don't want to get into another fighting war with the United States. I'll lose.
Don't forget, Saddam Hussein has not yet even provided lists, much less interview opportunities for his weapons scientists. He continues it fire at our pilots and planes in the no-fly zones. And, again, he hasn't even revealed the weapons we know he had in 1998. We were giving him one last chance to get out of this without a fight, and he does not appear to be taking that chance. Maybe when he sees our troops all around the area and his general tell him we can't win this fight, maybe he will. I hope so, but I doubt it.
MADISON: But the question I would have, what does he have to lose?
NEVILLE: He has power to lose. He doesn't want to lose power.
MADISON: Well, but -- let's keep in mind that what this administration has been talking about in addition to weapons of mass destruction is, what? Regime change.
NEVILLE: Right.
MADISON: And the bottom line is that if we don't find weapons of mass destruction, then the next discussion is going to be regime change, which means in other words saying, Saddam has to go.
NEVILLE: Right.
MADISON: Then the question is, is he going go willingly?
NEVILLE: Right. How do you get him out of there?
Joe, listen, I have to take a break right now. But later in the hour, I want you to know Illinois death row inmates rejoiced, victims families fumed and Jesse Jackson says tomorrow Governor Ryan deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Did Ryan do the right thing when he commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state? That's our question of the day. Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4cnn or of course e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com, and we're back after this break. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: the fight over nukes. Is North Korea trying to bully the U.S. into negotiations over fuel. When push comes to shove, should the U.S. give them what they want?
And later, what is the Republican National Committee doing to win over African-American voters? TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break. Stay right there.
(commercial break)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everyone.
After a lot of tough rhetoric from the White House saying it won't negotiate with North Korea a top U.S. diplomat is now saying the U.S. might be inclined to help North Korea with its energy shortages. First, the U.S. wants that country to derail its nuclear weapons ambition. Now, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly suggests there could be room for a deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES KELLY, ASSISTANT SECY. OF STATE: We are, of course, willing to talk to North Korea about their response to the international community, particularly with respect to elimination of nuclear weapons. And we're going to be talking here with government people over how are some of the best ways to do that. Once we can get beyond nuclear weapons, there may be opportunities with the U.S., with private investors, with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now, over the weekend, North Korea threatened to renew its missile program. It has also revved up nuclear power plant, withdrawn from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and thrown U.N. nuclear inspectors out of the country.
Joe, you're up first here. On the part of North Korea, is this leverage or intimidation?
MADISON: It's probably both. Why not? I mean, let's keep this open, and I said this the other day. Let's keep talking. It's one very interesting thing the assistant secretary of state said. Catch that word, or that phrase, private interests. Big business that want to sell supplies, materials, energy is multibillion dollar packages, and that's what's really going to drive this.
Yes, they're playing a hard game of poker. There's no ifs-ands- buts about it, but I'd much rather have this government talk than to enter into any kind of nuclear showdown or any kind of battle or a moment of crisis, as they like to say, with military standoffs. Let's keep talking. Let's keep talking.
MAY: And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Joe. We should keep talking, but talking is different than appeasing or making concessions to nuclear blackmail which is what Korea appears to be up to. Korea did not keep its part of the 1994 bargain. We've given them billions of dollars worth of aid. In exchange, they said they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons. They've done it anyhow. They have betrayed us on that. They need to get back into compliance. Then understand if they become our friend, we are very good to are friends. We protect our friends, defend our friends, but our enemies, ultimately, we will defeat. They have to understand that.
We can't get into a position, Arthel, at some point North Korea says to us, I have got a Christmas list right. Here are the goodies I want you to give me. Because if you don't...
NEVILLE: Well, lets take a look it. They do have a short Christmas list right now.
Cliff, let's go ahead and take look at that, some of the demands. Assistance with nuclear power plants, security, relief assistance, economic aid.
Joe, you know, the question is, if the U.S. accommodates North Korea is it...
MADISON: Well, I think what Cliff is saying, again -- we find ourselves agreeing a lot today -- but I think what he's saying they could keep adding to that list.
NEVILLE: I see.
MADISON: OK. We've got this. Now here's something else we want or we'll break our promise again.
NEVILLE: So then, where does the U.S. draw the line?
MADISON: That's where it's tricky. Where do you draw the line and how do you draw the line? And one of the ways you draw the line or an easy way to do it is economic partnerships. You know, it's interesting. We tend not to go to war with countries we had economic partnerships with. And that's really what it's all about. You know, pretty soon this Sean-John suit I'm wearing could be made in North Korea.
NEVILLE: Now, You and P. Diddy are really big friends now. You just gave him a plug.
MADISON: He can send me a new color and I love it. But the bottom line is, is that it's trade. That's how we keep this fight going on. You know, Cliff said something, our enemies we beat. You know, I think the issue is, our enemies, we may end up going to war with. And if we're in war in Iraq, we're in war in North Korea, we're in war somewhere in South Asia, then how many fronts can we really fight on and how long will the American people put up with it? So we have to avoid war. I'm not saying ought all costs, but certainly I think the State Department is doing the right thing.
NEVILLE: Quick comment from the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the audience. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just wanted to say I thought it was policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists? And this is sort of like a higher form of terrorism or a hostage crisis, so to speak.
MADISON: But we negotiate with dictators. We always have.
MAY: Again, this is not right now a negotiation -- look, you've got to go to the point. When you talk about Kim Jong Il in North Korea and talk about Saddam Hussein, you are talking about terrible, ruthless mass murderers, who have oppressed their people for years and years and years. And that is not a good thing. We should understand, the people of Iraq and North Korea do not want to be oppressed any longer.
NEVILLE: Here is where I take a break, Cliff, sorry. I do apologize.
Up next, some African-American lawmakers from across the country are going through Washington to hear what the GOP has to say about race and their party. What can the Republican party do to reach out to the black voters? We'll get opinions on that.
(INTERRUPTED BY BREAKING NEWS)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MARKET UPDATE)
NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody. African-American state lawmakers and other conservatives are meeting with members of the Republican National Committee today in the aftermath of the Trent Lott debacle. The pressure seems to be on for the GOP to be more sensitive to the needs of minorities, and Joe, I start with you on this one.
What can the Republicans do to attract black voters?
MADISON: Well, the same thing that the Democrats did, beginning in 1948 and particularly in 1965, when, really, the Dixiecrats started to buck the Democratic Party. That was when Hubert Humphrey, Truman, and members of the Democratic Party said, Look, we're going to have to address the interests and the concerns of African-Americans, particularly as it relates to civil rights.
Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and Russell (ph) and others were just outraged, had nowhere to go, so guess who opened up their arms? The Republican Party, said, Well, you all come on over here. It was the Southern strategy. It was a political strategy. So they can have all the meetings they want, but if you want me, or you want the African-American, or you want the Irish-Americans or any particular group, soccer moms, women, you have to do, what? Address the needs of those individuals.
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: It's as simple as that. NEVILLE: I see. Cliff May, before you jump in, I have Pastor Richardson here, who is a Republican, and I want to ask you what can the Republicans do to attract more black voters?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, one, I really disagree. It's not the Republican Party's job to attract black voters. It's our job as black Americans to infiltrate the Republican Party and to set our own agenda.
NEVILLE: Yes, but why would black Americans want to infiltrate the Republican Party, if in fact, that party does not -- historically does not appease or appeal or try to accommodate that particular part of the community?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, once, I would disagree with that. Historically, when the Republican Party was first founded, it was founded by blacks. Now...
NEVILLE: And when Lincoln was in there, we were with Lincoln.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. So at this stage of the game, the Democratic Party is also failing the African-American community as well, but it's our job to get in and to set our own agenda...
NEVILLE: But what does that mean, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just saying when you have a party that's not taking care of your needs, not addressing your issues, you don't ostracize yourself from that party, you join that party and you set up policy, you set an agenda.
NEVILLE: OK. Cliff May, do you have any specifics?
MAY: Yes, I think I do. In a way, I am agreeing with Joe Madison that you need to address civil rights issues, and I would argue that the most important civil rights issue today is education. In too many schools, black kids can't get a decent education. If they can't get a decent education, they are not going to get good jobs and take advantage of the opportunities that exist.
Now, I would also say that the Republican Party has a much better attitude towards civil rights when it comes to education than the Democratic Party does, because the Republican Party believes that kids who are going to schools that fail them should be let out of those schools and allowed to go to other schools, public, private, religious, who cares? The important thing is that a generation of African-American kids are -- that they are able to get a really first- rate education right now. When Democrats say, Well, we have to fix the public education system and all our schools, we are talking three generations away. So if we are talking about civil rights right now, and most black families agree with this, the Republican Party's point of view is superior...
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: See, this is what -- see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm an African-American. Education is extremely important. But it doesn't stop there. He just took one issue. There is health care. There is employment. There is infrastructure in our community. Here's what I'm saying you do. Ask the people that you want to join your party what they want, and...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... is it good enough, then, to have these representatives in Washington discussing that very plan?
MADISON: Well, it depends on how honest they are. But let me also agree with what Reverend Richardson says. I happen to be one who believes that you do not get taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other, because both have practiced white supremacy in this country at one point in time in their history. What we have to do is find political leaders in our community who aren't looking for access, but they are looking for leverage.
The leverage is in our hands. We need to make both the Democrats and the Republicans respond to our needs...
NEVILLE: How do we do that, Joe? Quickly before we go.
MADISON: First of all -- first of all, you get out and register your behind to vote, and then make sure then you get out to vote. And then you get within that party. You finance the candidates. You go to these conventions. You force the issue. That's how do you it. That's politics.
NEVILLE: OK. Joe, very well said. I want to let you know that Pastor Richardson (ph) here in the audience is giving you a, preach brother, preach, brother. So you did a good job. All right. Joe Madison and Cliff May, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
OK. Coming up next, former Illinois Governor George Ryan leaves inmates smiling, victims crying, prosecutors raging and death penalty opponents rejoicing. Was his parting shot at capital punishment horrific or heroic? We're going to talk about it after this break. Stay right there.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BREAKING NEWS)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. He is a member of the legendary rock band. But now, guitarist Pete Townshend may be in legal hot water, arrested in connection with the child pornography investigation. CNN London Correspondent Diana Muriel joins us now from London with the details -- Diana.
DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Arthel. Pete Townshend was arrested by London police this afternoon at 7:30 this evening at his London home in Richmond in south London. This followed a raid by police detectives at the home. We understood they took away some documents and the hard drive of his computer.
We understand from Scotland Yard that a 57-year-old man has been arrested but not charged on suspicion of making and possessing indecent images of children and an incitement to distribute indecent images of children. A police source has confirmed anonymously that the arrested person was Pete Townshend. I should stress that he has not been charged with any of these offenses; the investigation is ongoing.
During the course of this weekend, when the story broke that Pete Townshend may have been the subject of a police investigation into child pornography and the use of child porn sites, he protested his innocence. He said he was willing to have his hard drive of his computer given to police so they could examine it to prove his innocence. And he said that was appalled by child porn.
He said, though, that he had been on child porn sites. He visited two or three of them, and he did admit that he had used his credit card to access one child porn site in particular. Although he stressed he had not downloaded any of the material found there on to his computer.
The arrest this afternoon is part of Operation All, which is a much larger investigation begun by American police. The FBI in their operation, Operation Avalanche, where they have discovered many thousands of men using the Internet to access child porn and tracking them through their credit cards. A list of more than 7,000 names were given to British police last year and they've begun a series of arrests. So far, more than 1,300 people haven been arrested as part of Operation All, and the investigation is ongoing.
Police have Pete Townshend in their custody this evening. We understand he may be released later on bail, he may not. And we wait to hear whether any charges are going to be brought in the next few hours.
NEVILLE: Now, Diana, Pete Townshend has gone on record saying he was abused as a child. And, in fact, that's why he reportedly was on this Web site to do research.
MURIEL: That's right. He says that he went on to these sites as part of the research he was carrying out for his autobiography; the section dealing with his own childhood. He believes that he may have been abused himself as a child between the ages of five and six, when he was living away from his parents with a family relative.
This was what he gave in his statement over the weekend as the reason for visiting these sites. He wanted to see what was on there, presumably, and to see whether or not that had any resonance with his own experiences.
NEVILLE: OK. Diana Muriel, thank you so much for being with us. And I want to read a statement right now coming across from Pete Townshend. It says, "I am not a pedophile. I have never entered chat rooms on the Internet to converse with children. I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry, and vocal, especially on my Web site, about the explosion of advertised pedophiliac images on the Internet."
That's from Pete Townshend. We have to take a break right now. And when we come back, Illinois' governor take what's some call a bold step, others call it a betrayal. The death penalty and Governor Ryan when we come back. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Former Illinois Governor George Ryan went out with a bang. His decision to commute the sentences of 167 death row inmates over the weekend stunned prosecutors and victims statewide. The move followed the pardon of four death row inmates on Friday. Now death row opponents say Ryan deserves to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ryan called capital punishment one of the great civil rights struggles of our time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE RYAN, FMR. GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS: We had 37 -- 39 people on death row. Seventeen of them have been exonerated after having been found guilty by a jury of their peers, been through every appellate process that we have here in Illinois, gone to the Supreme Court of Illinois, to the United States Supreme Court, only to have their convictions verified in each case. Only to come back and find that they, in fact, were innocent, and it took journalism students from Northwestern University to find that three of them were innocent.
People had recanted their testimony, DNA evidence, and lots of things that turned that around. In the meantime, we executed 12 people out of that number, and exonerated 17. That's a 60 percent error rate. I don't know who can survive any business in a 60 percent error rate. That's why I did this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Here to talk about it are criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt. She was one of the principal defense attorneys for Timothy McVeigh. Also, Matthew Mangino, the district attorney of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. I want to welcome both of you.
JERALYN MERRITT, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi.
MATTHEW MANGINO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LAWRENCE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be here.
NEVILLE: And Matthew, you're up first on this. Do you applaud or condemn Governor George Ryan's actions?
MANGINO: Well, I'm disappointed in Governor Ryan's action. I think this is more about opposing the death penalty than it is about protecting people who are potentially innocent from being executed. And you know I think that studies have shown, recent studies, that the death penalty is a deterrent. That for every person that's executed in this country, 18 innocent people are saved from being killed by one of these convicted murderers. So I think that Governor Ryan is giving the wrong message to the American people.
NEVILLE: But, Matthew, you just heard Governor Ryan mention how many people were wrongfully convicted. So how do you feel about that?
MANGINO: Well, I don't necessarily agree with that. I mean, you have to look at each case on an individual basis.
NEVILLE: So -- hang on. You don't agree that there are people who were wrongfully convicted?
MANGINO: Oh, no. There are people who are convicted, but we have the appellate process, we have the federal habeas corpus process that enables us to review these cases. You know they talk about the number of people who have gotten new trials or have been exonerated or were not retried, and I think that when you look at those particular instances, you have to judge the whole picture. You have to look at each case on an individual basis.
That shows that the process is working. Not that it's flawed.
NEVILLE: OK. But Anthony Porter, this all began with him, when some Northwestern University students, 48 hours before this man was to be executed, they did some research, along with professors, and saved his life. He was innocent.
MANGINO: Well there was a process, there was a mechanism in place that enabled them to do that. The appellate process reviews the trial court. You can't look at the trial court in a microcosm. We have the appellate courts, we have the federal habeas corpus possibilities that exists out there.
This shows the process actually does work. What opponents attack the process with is actually what shows that the process works. That cases are reviewed and that people who are wrongfully convicted are later exonerated or later have an opportunity for a new trial.
NEVILLE: Jeralyn Merritt?
MERRITT: I disagree completely, and I think Governor Ryan is a hero for what he did. First of all, these cases could not be fixed in the court, and Governor Ryan just said that. Seventeen of these people have been exonerated from death row because the courts did not give them any justice. And if you're looking to hold someone accountable for this, the people to hold accountable are the Illinois state legislature, because in 2000, Governor Ryan established a commission to study what went wrong in these cases.
The commission was composed of prosecutors, judges, and business leaders. They came up with 85 reforms to make the system fairer, and the Illinois legislature adopted not a single one of them. They left Governor Ryan with no choice but to declare a blanket clemency.
NEVILLE: Now Gail (ph), you're from Illinois. Did your former governor do the right thing? GAIL: He definitely did the right thing. I have to precede that by saying that I am not a proponent of the death penalty to begin with. However, it took a lot of courage. He weighed it carefully, and he was in a position to do it. He did what he thought was right. And he sleeps well.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
MANGINO: That's precisely the issue. There are people out there who are opposed to the death penalty. No moratorium, no commission, nothing will change their mind no matter what you provide to them.
MERRITT: But Governor Ryan is not one of them. Governor Ryan has always been a supporter of the death penalty. He voted in Illinois to reinstate the death penalty. He has lived and breathed this issue for the past three years, studying every single one of these cases. And the more he studied them, the more he found there were flaws that could not be fixed, unless the legislature acted, and they didn't.
NEVILLE: That's right. Governor Ryan said, "The capital punishment system haunted by a demon of errors. Error in determining guilt, error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die. Raising questions such as what effect was race having, what effect was poverty having." Matthew, any legitimacy to these concerns and issues?
MANGINO: No, I don't believe that there is. I think that if you take a look at the country as a whole, death penalty opponents have been talking about 102 innocent people who've been convicted and sentenced to death. And if you take a close look at those, the number ares more like a third of those 102 people are actually factually innocent. And that's out of 7,400 death penalties in this country. 99.4 percent of the death penalty convictions are proper convictions.
MERRITT: That's not true. That's not true. And you're looking only at cases that DNA has been able to prove people's factual innocence. But there are a lot of other cases that have been proved that the people were factually innocent through other means such as coerced confessions, jailhouse snitches, faulty eyewitness identification procedures, and, most importantly, ineffective assistance of counsel. Those people may be factually innocent as well, and the courts have declared them wrongfully convicted, and they count.
NEVILLE: OK, listen. Right now, before we move on, Matthew -- excuse me -- we don't want to forget the victims' families in all of this. They are the ones who definitely will suffer no matter what. And we want to hear some reaction now from some of those relatives.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has slapped everybody in the state of Illinois in the face.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He thinks that he's going out with this courageous -- having done this courageous deed, when, in fact, he has done nothing courageous. He is, if anything, a coward and a liar. And that's what he'll be remembered as in the state of Illinois by citizens of Illinois.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yesterday from the grave I heard Patty Ann (ph) screaming out to me, Governor Ryan, why are you doing this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Matthew, I interrupted you. Go ahead and complete your thought. And I want to hear your reaction after hearing those particular sound bites.
MANGINO: Well, I agree with those people and I feel for them. Certainly, they have been victimized. They've lost a family member. And we've set aside the true innocence here. The true innocent people are the people who are killed, you know, savagely by someone premeditated, which is what first-degree murder is and which results in the death penalty.
We forgot about those innocents. The only innocents that we want to talk about are these potential innocents that are on death row.
NEVILLE: Jeralyn, I've got 15 seconds. Go ahead.
MERRITT: Sure. I also have tremendous empathy for the families of the people who were killed. But no one wins if the wrong person is executed, and if the wrong person is convicted, the real killer is out there.
NEVILLE: OK. Jeralyn Merritt and Matthew Mangino, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
MANGINO: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK. Up next: the Internet is buzzing as always. We'll tell you what the people are talking about right after this. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Do you think former Illinois Governor Ryan did the right thing by commuting the death sentences of every convict on death row? We'll hear what you have to say later in the hour. And, of course, the governor's decision seems to be a very hot topic on the web. Regina Lewis joins us now for our weekly "Buzz" segment. Regina, so how does the death penalty story rank on the AOL Buzz Index?
REGINA LEWIS, AOL BUZZ INDEX: Well, Arthel, nothing prompts online reaction like controversy. So (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Governor George Ryan is in the top spot. At one point, we saw message board postings at a rate of about one per second and they are picking up.
In the number two spot is Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein. They are neck and neck in terms of their related controversies. Number three is a somewhat related item, SUVs and American reliance on oil. Some people saying, "I thought I was helping the economy in buying one of these vehicles. Now I feel guilty driving in."
Number four: "Joe Millionaire," the very hot box reality TV show. Some people can't get enough. Others think we've hit a new entertainment low in this country.
And lastly, football. It was a big weekend. In particular, we're seeing a lot of discussion after the controversial call by an official that decided the outcome of the Pittsburgh and Tennessee Titans game.
NEVILLE: Oh, yeah. That game. So Regina, expound a little bit for me on what they're saying about Governor Ryan.
LEWIS: Well, here's what happened. There was an almost instant reaction. Remembering, when he made the announcement at Northwestern, it was in a fairly controlled environment. Meaning the families of the victims, for instance, were not in attendance. Of course, you now see them on cameras; we've watched during the show.
Online, it's a little like talk radio, but every call gets through. So we're seeing very disparate opinions. It's a hot and heavy conversation. We've got some message board postings that are somewhat representative.
I should also point out that a transcript of the governor's speech is being circulated online. So if you missed that and you want to see line for line what he said, it is available online.
The reaction from people in Chicago is a little bit more nitty- gritty. They feel that they're familiar with the governor, his track record. Some are suspect that he was trying to create a legacy or trying to distract people from focusing on his record, which did include some controversy. So that's their perspective.
Others are, of course, saluting his decision as extremely courageous and calling for him to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And lastly, a lot people are just saying, wait a second. You know, "Thank goodness I live in Texas," one person wrote. "What's wrong with you people up north?" Very...
NEVILLE: OK Regina, I'm sorry. I'm being told I have a hard out here. I'm sorry. Regina Lewis, thank you so much for joining us. And we'll see you again next week. OK? LEWIS: OK, thanks.
NEVILLE: All right. Now is your last chance to get in on our question of the day. Do you think former Illinois Governor Ryan did the right thing by commuting the death sentences of every convict on death row? Your responses after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. We're going to get some answers to our question of the day right now. Coming in, e-mail from Charles in Illinois. "Ryan has been an utter failure as governor. I feel very sad for the victims' families, who were the real victims of his decision."
We are out of time today. Thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE. "INSIDE POLITICS" up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Ryan Should Be Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize;>
|
