Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Two Americans Ambushed in Kuwait; Tax Breaks for SUVs?; Breast Feeding Mother Charged With Murder

Aired January 21, 2003 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Where is the support for war with Iraq? The French foreign minister says, count us out of any action in the coming weeks. And are China and Germany dragging their feet? Should the U.S. just go it alone?
Also, why would the government give tax breaks on Lincoln Navigators and other SUVs? Find out how the president's economic plan could make the luxury vehicles a grand write-off.

Then: A nursing mother is charged with her infant's death after the baby dies from a drug overdose. Authorities say the drugs were delivered through breast milk. An unfortunate accident or was it murder?

The talk starts right now.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

We now know about two Americans ambushed in Kuwait City earlier today. One of them is dead, the wounded in what U.S. officials call a terrorist attack. Michael Rene Pouliot died at the scene and the name of the other victim has not been released at this moment.

Right now, I want to take you to San Diego, where a company spokesman for Tapestry Solutions is addressing the situation.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

CHRIS WAHL, TAPESTRY SOLUTIONS: ...Tapestry Solutions. We are stunned by this senseless act of violence, which has taken a great man and a friend from our family. Tapestry Solutions will continue its overseas operation in perseverance through this horrible tragedy.

The safety of our employees throughout the world will continue to be paramount and we will not be intimidated by this act of violence.

QUESTION: Mr. Wahl, what can you tell us, if you know, about the two employees, the one who was killed and the one who was injured? Did you know any of those two gentlemen and what can you tell us about them?

WAHL: No, I didn't, unfortunately. But, again, our hearts and sympathies go out to them.

QUESTION: Can you talk to us about the security measures that these company employees were taking, if there were any? WAHL: No, we're not familiar with that at this time.

QUESTION: Do you know if there will be any security measures in place after this attack?

WAHL: I expect the company will be looking at that. But, right now, I'm not familiar with those actions.

QUESTION: I realize you didn't know them. But can you tell us, are they fathers? Did they have wives? (OFF-MIKE)

WAHL: Michael Pouliot was married and had two daughters.

QUESTION: And how old are his daughters?

WAHL: Twelve and 14.

QUESTION: What were they doing there?

WAHL: They were working on behalf of the United States government, developing software technologies.

QUESTION: Do you know if his family or any part of his family was with him in Kuwait or are they all here?

WAHL: I believe that they were here, Michael Pouliot, that is.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) When were they supposed to come back?

WAHL: I don't know that information, unfortunately. Sorry.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

WAHL: I know that they're doing their best to contact his family right now to let them know that he's doing OK.

QUESTION: Is he from San Diego?

WAHL: I believe that's correct.

QUESTION: Is he married? Does he have children?

WAHL: I know that he's married. I don't know about his children.

QUESTION: Do you have the spelling of his name, sir?

WAHL: It's all in the material that I handed out.

QUESTION: How many employees are actually here in San Diego?

WAHL: About 28.

NEVILLE: OK, right now, let's go to Kuwait City, where CNN's Martin Savidge is standing by with more on that story -- Martin. MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, there is a manhunt under way here in Kuwait, as authorities, aided by U.S. investigators, are trying to determine who carried out this attack. So far, there has been no one officially claiming responsibility for the attack.

Aside from the wounded American that underwent five hours of surgery today, it is not known if anybody else witnessed this attack. So, that would mean that investigators haven't got a lot to go on. It's unclear if they had the opportunity or if the wounded man was even able to try to describe the attackers to those that are investigating.

However, there is one possibility that CNN has learned. Apparently, there were television cameras that were mounted in the area of this intersection where the attack took place this morning. These are television cameras that are used to monitor traffic flow, similar to the ones that you find in the United States. They're reviewing tapes from the cameras to see if, in fact, that attack was captured on video, and, if it was, if they can try to ascertain if there was one attacker, if there were two attackers.

They don't even know the answer to that, because, whoever carried out this attack is believed to have fled the scene very quickly in a vehicle that was standing by.

Let me back you up and tell you what happened and what we saw when we got there. The attack occurred shortly after 9:00 this morning in an area about 45-minutes drive north of Kuwait City, about three miles from Camp Doha. Camp Doha, if you don't know, is the major U.S. military installation in this area. It's believed those contractors were driving away from Camp Doha, came to this intersection.

It's a three-way intersection with a traffic light. And it's believed that the attackers chose that spot because they knew that either there would be a red light or at least that the drivers would have to slow down. And they opened up with hail a of gunfire from some trees, small trees lining the side of the road. At least 24 bullets hit that vehicle -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Then, Marty, that makes me want to know how the other folks are feeling if, in fact, this is the way this was planned and carried out. This must have a lot of civilians over there a little bit worried.

SAVIDGE: It does. There's no question about that.

In fact, the U.S. Embassy today held a meeting with a number of leaders of the American community in this country, essentially warning them about what had taken place, filling them in on the details, and telling them to be concerned for their own safety. Keep in mind, the U.S. Embassy has links into the business community here as far as Americans, expats, so that there is an alert and warning system.

No doubt, people are going to be taking their own personal safety much more seriously and reviewing their plans -- Arthel. NEVILLE: And, Marty, do you know if there is any plan to pull out Americans from Kuwait and, specifically, Camp Doha?

SAVIDGE: No, we haven't heard of anything like that. Certainly, we have not heard of anyone pulling U.S. military personnel out of Kuwait because of this incident. If anything, they would say that they're emboldened in their position here of Operation Enduring Freedom because of what happened.

And this is not necessarily an indication of what the entire nation of Kuwait feels towards the U.S. military presence or U.S. military consultants, which these two men were. In fact, when we got the news about this attack, we were north of Kuwait City filming a sign that had been erected by a local businessman. The sign read, "God bless American troops" -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Martin Savidge, thank you very much.

And we're going to move on now to this. Who is with the United States in a possible war against Iraq? Right now, countries, including France and China, are threatening to put the skids on any Security Council-sanctioned action in the near future. But President Bush says he's confident he'll get what he calls a coalition of the willing to confront Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is about a disarmed Iraq. He has weapons of mass destruction, the world's deadliest weapons, which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies. He has been told to disarm for 11 long years. He is not disarming. This business about more time. How much time do we need to see clearly that he's not disarming?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: So, can the U.S. go it alone?

Let's ask our guests. Tom Donnelly is a defense analyst for the American Enterprise Institute. And Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. He's the author of "The 60s: Years of Hope, Days of Rage."

I want to welcome both of you to show.

OK, I'm going to begin with Todd.

Does it appear that the U.S. is alone on the war bandwagon? And should the U.S. wait or move forward toward military action?

TODD GITLIN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, it's beginning to look as though we have almost no allies. Perhaps Ariel Sharon is our ally.

The U.S. would be within its rights to fight if there were a direct threat to the United States. Despite what the president just said there, there is no direct threat that I'm aware of that he's ever explained, that anybody has ever explained. Therefore, it's a problem of collective security.

And since it's a problem of collective security, the United Nations Security Council, which has already passed a resolution and set up an implementation procedure, is the body that, by rights, has the moral right to declare war. And since the United Nations Security Council members and others, France, Germany, Turkey, our ally in many important matters, and others, since they're all unable to see that there is a case for going to war immediately, I think the United States is only asking for more anti-Americanism, more risk of actual use of terrorist weaponry.

And, by the way, what I'm saying now is the common sense of the American people. When Americans are asked whether they -- whether they're willing to go along with the unilateral declaration of war, only about a third of them want that. I think the public is absolutely dead-on about this.

NEVILLE: Well, Tom, do you agree with that?

TOM DONNELLY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: You'll be surprised to learn that I do not.

I think Todd has got it wrong in almost every particular. I won't try to unpack everything that he said, but two things are worth emphasizing. One is that it's not simply the most recent United Nations resolution that Iraq is flouting, but more than a dozen, going back to the end of the Gulf War. And, in fact, basically, every day, American pilots are shot at by Iraqi air defenses, which is, by every reasonable definition, by every classical definition, an act of war.

NEVILLE: So, then, why hasn't action been taken a long time ago, then?

DONNELLY: Well, that's a very good question. I would agree that this is a problem, a situation, and that Iraq is a danger that's been brewing for more than a decade. The fact of past inaction is not a good argument for further inaction.

But, finally, to address the question of American public support for the war, that's why we have a government. That's why we have a Congress. And that's why we had a resolution passed in the Congress by a large majority several months ago.

NEVILLE: So, then, should they not listen to Americans? Is that what you're saying?

DONNELLY: No, but -- we have listened to -- the president has listened to Americans, has gone before the Congress to get approval for action against Iraq. And the vote was more than 2-1 in both the House and Senate.

NEVILLE: But do you not think, Tom, that now that American support, regular, average Americans, not elected officials, that that support is waning in terms of supporting a war with Iraq? DONNELLY: I think people are getting nervous as the prospect of war looms closer. This is a traditional and predictable and a good thing. Americans don't go to war lightly.

On the other hand, whether the poll of the moment reflects the broad sentiment of the American people and what they'll think if the prospect of war is actually realized is another question entirely. Electing government by public opinion poll is not a recipe for success.

NEVILLE: Quickly, do you support war with Iraq, yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: War with Iraq? Not unilaterally. I think we have to go as combined with all the nations of the world. This is a terrorism threat against the world, not just the United States. If we do it...

NEVILLE: Got to go to break, sir. I'm sorry. Thank you for your answer. I do appreciate it.

Listen, here is the question. Will the U.S. have to go it alone in Iraq? We're going to talk more about that when we come back.

And then later: a possible new tax break for SUV owners, would you qualify? Find out why the government has a soft spot for big vehicles.

Then, I want to know what you think about the flood of reality TV shows taking up prime time these days. It's our "Question of the Day": Do you want more or is it media overload? Give me a call or e- mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And I'll talk to you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Later on TALKBACK LIVE, we're on the case. Today, a mother faces murder charges after her infant dies from a dose of drugs allegedly delivered through her breast milk. Was it an unfortunate accident or was it murder?

That and more as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: This is the wrong war at the wrong time.

(APPLAUSE)

KENNEDY: The threat from Iraq is not imminent. And it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security, the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea. (END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And we will pick up on Senator Kennedy's comments with our guests now, Tom Donnelly and Todd Gitlin.

Todd, do you think that -- do you agree with Senator Kennedy that in fact terrorism and North Korea are a greater threat than Iraq at this point?

GITLIN: Absolutely. I think it's a no-brainer. We know what al Qaeda can do, what it has done against the United States. And there's every evidence that they'd like to do more of it. If the U.S. is tied down in a war with Iraq, first of all, we're more likely to elicit weapons of mass destruction used against either American troops or against American civilians at home.

And, secondly, we're recruiting more terrorists. The last thing in the world we need to do, in a world that, for reasons that are largely lunatic, despises us is to demonstrate that we're the bully on the block who can't even get the support of our own allies in a war in the Middle East. It's completely senseless.

NEVILLE: But do you think, at this point, Todd, that the U.S. has gone too far to back down now without risking credibility in the world community?

GITLIN: The credibility of the United States, I think, rests on whether we're pursuing a war that's perceived as just and sensible. The United States squandered its reputation during the Vietnam War on exactly this ground, the claim that we were going to lose face.

Here we go again. Except, this time, I think it's only really one face that's at risk, and that's the face of the unelected president of the United States, who sees this as his ticket to more years in the White House. And what this does for American security is beyond me. The same man who is pursuing Saddam Hussein, at the cost of many billions of dollars, is depriving the states and the cities of the money that we need to shore up security.

We shouldn't be going to war with Iraq. We should be safeguarding our ports if we want to keep Americans safe.

NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me. I want to get Joan in here.

Should the U.S. proceed with military action and should the U.S. go it alone?

JOAN: If they find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which he agreed that he would get rid of -- he's already broken his agreements once -- then I think we have to go alone if no one will help us.

NEVILLE: OK.

And, Margaret, calling in now, I want to ask you the same question. Should the U.S. go it alone? CALLER: Absolutely not. And why do we refuse to take no for an answer? When we don't get our way with the U.N., we refuse to pay our dues. When Turkey said no, we bought them off with $5 billion. It's an embarrassment and we're losing the international respect. We look like a spoiled baby.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much for the call.

Tom, can the U.S. take no for an answer?

DONNELLY: The United States doesn't have to take no for an answer in every case.

NEVILLE: But isn't that what Todd is talking about, that if, in fact, the U.S. goes around bullying and not listening to other countries and allies...

DONNELLY: Todd talked about a lot of stuff, including the 2000 presidential election, that I think is not apropos to your question.

Look, we're not going it alone. The report before this segment was about how Kuwait has accepted tens of thousands of American troops and is very deeply supportive of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. They have to live next door to this guy. It's simply false to say that this is a unilateral action.

NEVILLE: All right, then that is the final word here.

Tom Donnelly and Todd Gitlin, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

OK.

When we come back: a possible new tax break for SUV owners has environmentalists fuming. We'll have the story and the debate.

Don't go anywhere. The talk continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Who doesn't love a tax loophole? Well, how about a tax break on an SUV? Well, environmentalists are up in arms over President Bush's tax plan calling for business owners to get a tax write-off on capital equipment. That equipment could be a Hummer, a Lincoln Navigator or a BMW X-5.

CNN Financial News correspondent Allan Chernoff is here to explain how this all works.

And, Allan, a whole lot of numbers here to digest. So, help us sort it all out.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, we'll make it real simple. And, first of all, this tax break is already on the books for small businesses. We should point that out, only for small businesses. What it would do, the plan here proposed by the Bush administration, would increase the deduction that can be taken, from $25,000 all the way up to $75,000. And the idea here is to stimulate spending on what is known as capital equipment.

And guess what's included in capital equipment? Vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds. And, as you mentioned, that would include a Hummer, a Lincoln Navigator, those large sport utility vehicles. Now, the law originally was written back in 1958, when a farmer or maybe a construction company would be perhaps the only ones to buy a pickup truck. But, today, of course, plenty of people are buying sport utility vehicles: lawyers, doctors. And they can take this tax deduction.

There is one caveat, though. The vehicle is supposed to be used at least 50 percent for business purposes.

NEVILLE: And how are they going to prove that?

CHERNOFF: Well, certainly, it is something that you have to take a person's word for. And so, obviously, plenty of business people could tell a little tale to the IRS.

NEVILLE: But why not cars?

CHERNOFF: Cars actually are included here. But, for a car, you get a deduction of only $7,660. So, you have a limit there for cars. Sport utility vehicles above, as I said, 6,000 pounds, all the way right now on the books at 25,000 and higher, if the proposal goes through to $75,000. Again, the idea: to increase spending on capital equipment. A car wouldn't be considered capital equipment.

NEVILLE: And going back to what you were saying earlier, because now, a financial consultant, an accountant, someone who really doesn't need to haul stuff or people, for that matter -- I have a friend who has a company in Houston, Kids Express. So, she needs this. But there are people who are just driving by themselves. They don't need all that space in the car.

CHERNOFF: Right.

Well, this is not a matter -- the IRS is not making a judgment on how much space people need. They're really thinking of trying to stimulate the economy, trying to get businesses to spend. And it just so happens, a lot of small-business people also use these same vehicles for their own personal use.

NEVILLE: All right, Allan, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

We're going to debate that right now. And let's bring in Grover Norquist. He's president of Americans for Tax Reform; and Lawrence Bender, with the Detroit Project.

I want to welcome both of you to the show.

And, Grover, I'm going to start with you, OK?

Tell the average American watching you right now why this is a good idea.

GROVER NORQUIST, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Well, this is a step towards full expensing.

Right now, when you tax businesses, large and small, when they invest in something to help raise the productivity of workers, say, a $10,000 investment in a machine or a $100,000 investment, it has to be depreciated over five or 10 or 20 years. It's very complicated. It takes a lot of accountants and lawyers. And it is not as good as going to expensing.

So this, for small businesses, is the beginning of a reform that we want to do for all Americans. And that's, instead of having complicated depreciation schemes, go to expensing. If you spend $10,000 on new equipment this year, you take that $10,000 and deduct it from your income, because you don't have the money anymore. Other countries do this. It's sound economic policy.

NEVILLE: I don't know, but we're talking about a lot of money here, why such expensive cars like a Hummer would be included. This is a pretty big cap here we're talking about.

NORQUIST: Look, what we want to do is eliminate the cap, so that every company can take advantage of this. This is only a small -- the only reason it's confusing is, the government's trying to do it and only let some people get it and not other people get it.

We should treat all businesses the same. And the reason why the number's high is that, somebody who buys 20 computers, you want them to expense up to $75,000 worth. It's not one thing for $75,000. It's all your investment for the year.

NEVILLE: Yes, but a lot of people will go out and buy that one thing, a big, fat SUV.

Lawrence, why is this not a good idea?

LAWRENCE BENDER, THE DETROIT PROJECT: Arthel, it's nice to be on your show.

It's funny. I would expect, actually, Grover and myself to be on the same side of the coin on this one, because he's a free-market person. It's absurd. There's already a very large tax loophole for SUVs. And now what the government is saying is, we're going to even give you more money back for buying these gas-guzzling cars.

We're at war right now. We're at war on terrorism. The president has said we're at war on terrorism. And he's also actually come out and said we need to get ourselves off our dependency on foreign oil. But yet, for some reason, we're actually going to help people to buy more cars that are more -- that take on more fuel. And it just doesn't make any sense.

NEVILLE: OK, let's see if it makes sense to Gloria.

Does it?

GLORIA: Absolutely not.

I think, if they want to spend some money to give people in small business a tax break, they should give to all the people in small business a tax break, not just segregate the people that choose to drive a huge SUV. Some people, perhaps, would choose to save on gas in economy. And for that, they should not be -- we should be able to all get the same break.

NEVILLE: Grover, what do you think about what Gloria just said?

NORQUIST: Well, I think the way you've described this tax cut, you've confused Gloria.

This is not a subsidy for anyone. It's, if you invest in a small business, the first $75,000 you invest -- it has nothing to do with SUVs. You can buy equipment, any sorts of things. It can be a car or a truck, if you wish. But that's your choice. If it's better to buy some stamp-and-dye equipment, that's what the companies will buy. So, people can have fun talking about SUVs, but we're talking about what small businesses buy as an investment, their decision. And there's no subsidy. It's just the government won't tax you on money you don't have.

BENDER: This is a loophole that you can drive your SUV right through.

It's an absurd thing, because, basically, we've been talking to accountants right now. And people are actually recommending to their clients to actually go out and purchase an SUV now, because they're going to be incentivized to do so. It's an absurd thing.

And I have to tell you, this is not a left thing or a right. This is not conservative or liberal thing. There are Democrats and Republicans that both are guilty of this. For instance, John Dingell's wife, Debbie Dingell, is a huge lobbyist for Detroit. There's a reason why the administration is giving a big tax incentive to SUVs right now. And it's not to help this country.

NEVILLE: OK. Unfortunately, I do have to go.

I'm sorry, Grover. I'm not taking any sides here. I just happen to be out of time, so that means Lawrence is going to get the last word on this segment. Grover Norquist and Lawrence Bender, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

And coming up next, we're going to shift gears again and move on to a couple of controversial legal cases, starting with a mother charged with murder of her baby. Prosecutors say she's a drug addict who killed her baby with her breast milk. We'll tell you her side of the story as well after the break. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Well some big legal stories are making headlines. We're going to begin with the mother of a 3-month-old baby who is accused of murder. Authorities say the infant overdosed on methamphetamine delivered through his mother's breast milk. Now the 30-year-old woman is charged with second-degree murder. She says she's innocent and that she had already weaned her baby.

Here with legal angles are Wendy Murphy, a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School. She's a former prosecutor and a victims' advocate. Also criminal defense attorney Robert Tarver. He's a legal analyst for northstarnetwork.com. I want to welcome both of you to the show.

ROBERT TARVER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

WENDY MURPHY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Nice to be here.

NEVILLE: Good. Nice to see you. And Robert, I want to start with you first. Should this mother be charged with second-degree murder?

TARVER: You know it's such a difficult thing. We have to first understand that we're talking about -- if the prosecution is true, we're talking about addiction. And addiction is a sickness. It's not something that you can control. And basically, the question here is whether or not they can prove that this woman could comprehend what she was doing to her baby.

Now the big thing about addiction and sickness is that no matter what you may think about on the rational side, there is an irrational side of addiction that says, I've got to have this thing and I've got to do it. And so it makes for a very, very difficult mix. It doesn't fit into the standard criminal justice problem.

NEVILLE: Yes, but Wendy, how difficult will it be for a prosecution to prove their case, because there's no proof that, in fact, there was -- first of all, the mother said that she had weaned her baby, so she was no longer breast feeding. And they weren't able to determine that the substance found in the baby's body was either formula or breast milk.

MURPHY: You know, Arthel, you're right. It's a tough case to prove exactly what happened. But one thing we know for sure is the 3- month-old didn't do it himself. I mean this is a very serious situation, because we know for sure that the infant died because of methamphetamine, and we know that it had to be some adult in the house, presumably. That leaves only the mother as the prime suspect. And I know that she's going to suggest that it was perhaps the boyfriend... NEVILLE: The roommate.

MURPHY: ... or the roommate; someone else who did it. And that's fine. That may well generate reasonable doubt. But the bottom line is we also know that she did breast feed the child. We know she was a drug user.

And you know my friend Rob is right, that drug addiction is a serious problem. And when adults hurt themselves because of drug addiction, that's fine. I think we need to decriminalize to a great extent the way we handle that kind of crime in society. But there's a big difference when you, as a drug-using mom, because of your drug use, cause harm to other people, especially defenseless newborn little babies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for a mother who, by virtue of her addiction or any other problem, causes the death of a defenseless infant.

NEVILLE: So then, Robert, what kind...

TARVER: Well sympathy, of course, is one thing, but there has to be some level of understanding and rational thought about what we're really dealing with. And when you're dealing with addiction, you're not dealing with rational behavior. We see it every day in the criminal justice system, Wendy. You've seen it as a prosecutor. And you have to just acknowledge that.

There have been several cases that have already been tried like this in California -- or, I'm sorry, that have already come before the California courts. And guess what? Resoundingly, juries have said, no, we're not buying this type of scenario as murder, and so they have already spoken as to how they see it.

NEVILLE: OK let me -- excuse me one second. I want to see how Dea (ph) sees it. She's calling in now on the phone from Missouri. Go ahead, Dea (ph).

DEA: Hi. I really don't like this right now, because I'm a breast-feeding mother. I have seven children. Out of the seven, I breast fed six.

One of my children -- I am a recovering addict of seven years. I do know that whenever you do breast-feed, and you do do drugs, be it inhaling through your mouth or through your veins, it does get into the blood and get into the milk ducts. Therefore, the milk is tainted with the drugs.

It does not matter if the mother was not using it. The stuff was still in her system while she was breast-feeding. And therefore, for like three days, the breast milk would not be any good.

MURPHY: And Arthel, this caller makes a really good point, which is that even drug-using parents can and should be responsible about causing harm to other people. Not themselves, but to other people. And you know Rob's suggesting that there's a kind of insanity defense here or limited mental capacity defense here. And maybe that's the way the defense will try this case, that she didn't intend to kill her child.

Fair enough. Maybe this will land as a manslaughter conviction. But there's no question that this child died because of the mother's inability to deal responsibly with her handling of this child. And you know the fact that the milk came from her breast or her bottle, it's irrelevant. It was the cause of this child's death.

NEVILLE: Hang on for a minute, Robert. Robert, hang on for me. I'm going to let you finish that thought when we come back. We're going to have more on this case.

And then I'll tell you why 500 people are ready to go to jail to protect the secrets of one alleged rape victim. And don't forget our "Question of the Day." Are you clamoring for more reality shows to fill your evenings? Or have you had it up to here? Give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN, or you can e-mail me at talkback@CNN.com

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. We're talking about a case out of California. A 30-year-old mother charged with second-degree murder after her baby's death, possibly, from breast milk. Allegedly. Robert, you had a comment before we went to break.

TARVER: Yes. I was going to say, Arthel, we give people a lot of credit, perhaps where we shouldn't. There are a lot of people who are just uninformed about the fact that you can transfer drugs through mother's milk, and that's the type of thing that we also need to look out for. Now fortunately, that's what the law says. You have to be able to prove that that person could comprehend it, but I have to say...

NEVILLE: Come on. Everybody knows that, Robert. Come on.

TARVER: I cannot agree with you there. I have represented people for most of my life that have had difficulty in comprehending some of the things that many people think are medical -- simple medical pieces of information.

MURPHY: But as that previous caller noted -- and I think this is so important -- addicts know better than the rest of us exactly what happens when they get pregnant, when they're feeding their children through breast milk. They know because most pregnant women care about the well being of their unborn children and born children.

TARVER: Wait. How does this follow that addicts know...

MURPHY: They know what happens. They know that these toxic substances cross the placenta and go into the breast milk...

TARVER: How do addicts know that as a rule, Wendy? How do addicts know that?

MURPHY: Because they're very well aware of what... NEVILLE: So Robert -- I'm sorry, Wendy. But Robert, so are you saying that that's the defense attorney's only argument, that this woman didn't know?

TARVER: Absolutely not. I'm saying that that's at least one thing that needs to be considered. There are many things that we take for granted about people's level of knowledge and understanding that we shouldn't do. And that's the job of the defense attorney, to really bring home what the facts are in a case. It may well be that the facts are that this person didn't understand, although as I understand it, right now, the defense is that she just was not doing it.

NEVILLE: OK.

MURPHY: Yes. In fact, there is some evidence, Arthel, that she stopped breast feeding the child...

NEVILLE: Correct.

MURPHY: ... because she was aware that it did, in fact, create a toxic problem with her breast milk.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, we could debate that for days. But we have to move on to another topic now.

A rape crisis center in Salem, Massachusetts, has been ordered to -- by the court -- to turn over the records of an alleged teenage rape victim. Now lawyers for the man accused of the crime say they hope the records will prove their client's innocence. The center is refusing to do it, and some 500 people have signed up to go to jail, rather than turn over the document.

And Wendy Murphy is a lawyer representing the center. And Wendy, should these records be privileged?

MURPHY: Well, of course the records should be privileged, Arthel. And, in fact, the law in Massachusetts, as is the case in almost every state around the country, is that when a victim who has been sexually assaulted needs help afterwards, they're entitled to seek confidential counseling, whether it's a therapist, a psychiatrist, or a rape crisis counselor. They can't get better unless there's a meaningful promise of confidentiality.

Unfortunately, defendants and their attorneys across the country are asking and receiving production of these records. They're getting court orders to require these records to be produced either to the judge in some instances or directly to the defendant in other instances. And the defendants really don't have any explanation for why they want the records. They just want to fish through and see if they might be able to find something.

NEVILLE: But Robert, I suspect you disagree with that? Because of course...

TARVER: I absolutely disagree. NEVILLE: ... this puts you in sort of a legal catch-22, because if, in fact, there is proof in those documents, then you, as a defense attorney, you don't have access to those documents.

TARVER: Precisely. The one thing that we learned through Governor Ryan's acts of the past week is that many people who have been accused of crimes have been exonerated. They just were not guilty. The innocence project (ph) tells us 122 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, and that's because these people, as we said, are not guilty of the crime.

So we have a real question about trying to determine that people who say something happened actually happened. It's what we call a credibility test. And when you are you're looking to credibility, you should be entitled to see what a person says about an instance whenever they talk about it.

MURPHY: Yes, but look -- come on, Rob. Come on. You know that people who have been victimized need to talk about what happened in their private space, in their real world. They talk to their mothers, their fathers, their doctors, their lawyers, their therapists. I mean, are we willing to drag grandparents and lawyers into court?

What if the victim talked to me? Let me ask you this, Robert. What if the victim talked to me, Rob, and I have a file? As a private attorney, I have a file because she talked to me after the crime. Are you, the defense attorney...

TARVER: Well that's a different story.

MURPHY: Why is it a different story?

TARVER: It's a different story...

MURPHY: Why?

TARVER: ... because she comes to you for legal advice.

MURPHY: So what?

NEVILLE: Yes, but she goes to a rape crisis center...

TARVER: Wait a minute. If she goes to talk about the fundamentals of what happened in an incident, she's fully entitled to do that. But you cannot say that a man that is on trial for his life doesn't have a right to decide whether or not she is credible when she tells one story at one time and then a different story at another time.

(CROSSTALK)

TARVER: Hold on.

NEVILLE: No, no. Robert, I can't hold on. Hold that thought. I have to go to break. OK? Should rape center records be private? Tell me when you think when we come back. And tomorrow is your chance again to talk with big baller Charles Barkley. He'll be here, so don't miss him. And we're going to stay on the case when we come back. The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.

We're going back now to our legal roundup. We're talking about a rape crisis center that has been ordered to turn over the records of an alleged rape victim. And Robert, if these records are released, will this discourage women from going to shelters for help and for what they believe to be private counseling?

TARVER: Well it hasn't so far, I don't think. The fact of the matter is, generally, in most jurisdictions there has to be at least some showing by defense attorneys that these records might be relevant. And then you have a second level, where the a reviews these records in camera, which means by himself or in chambers, and then decides whether or not there's something there that might be important.

Those are the things meant for the protection of the victim. And they are important safeguards and they should be there. But there's a reason why we allow this to happen. And that's so that the defendants can be protected against possibly untoward types of charges.

MURPHY: No. You know what, Arthel, we do let people heal in the aftermath of violence. We let them talk in private places, because remember, the defendant's opponent in the criminal case is the government, not the victim. The victim is but a witness for the state. And we need people to be able to heal.

How would rape crisis centers function if, when the victim arrives at the door, they say sorry this happened to you. Before you say a word, you need to know that everything you say has to be turned over to your attacker. And they may as well shut down. It's ridiculous.

NEVILLE: And Wendy, hang on, because Jim (ph) has an important question regarding that.

JIM: Well, I was just wondering what aspects of the records would be released, what information? And if the victim were male, would the same criteria apply?

MURPHY: Good question and good point. In fact, we have a practice, unfortunately, in the criminal justice system of mostly requiring records to be produced when the women are the victims of sexual violence . And it is a disproportionate impact on women that we're seeing. Women are being forced to choose between prosecution and privacy. In some cases, they're stopping getting the help they need. In other cases, they're dropping the charges. It's not a fair choice. And it's a choice we impose most often against women victims of violence.

TARVER: Can I just address what he said? The only thing that would be admissible or turned over would be the things that are things relevant to the defense. So if someone is talking about their feelings or perhaps their childhood or something else like that, that's not information that's going to get out.

MURPHY: Nobody should be even snooping around.

NEVILLE: OK. And Robert Tarver, you have the last word on that one. Wendy Murphy, Robert Tarver, thanks so much for the conversation. And we do appreciate your visiting us here at TALKBACK LIVE.

OK. Get to those phones, send us those e-mails. I want to know what you think about the explosion of reality programs on prime time television. Had enough, or you want more? Give me a call. We'll talk about it next.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Time now for our "Question of the Day." Reality TV, "The Bachelor," "Joe Millionaire," "Survivor," (UNINTELLIGIBLE), "Fear Factor," "Meet The Folks," the shows are breeding faster than you can click the remote. Are they getting old or just getting started? Do you want more? Have you had enough -- Suzanne (ph).

SUZANNE: Had enough.

NEVILLE: OK. That's good. All right. Dean (ph) in Florida, you're on the phone. You're live. What's your answer?

DEAN: Yes, I think we've definitely gotten saturated. In fact, I think the most ironic thing about it is it's their version of reality, not ours. And as far as I'm concerned, look out the window or maybe turn on the public access or even CNN. That's my reality TV.

NEVILLE: All right. Got to love you, Dean (ph). All right.

Listen, we have e-mails coming in now. JP in Canada, he says, "Most of the shows are really good. Reality shows show normal people competing against normal people. I would like to see even more on TV."

OK. Another e-mail coming from Bill in Colorado. "These so- called reality television shows are incredibly stupid and a waste of the viewers' time. I vote for less, not more."

OK, Bill in Colorado. And we re out of time. Thank you for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow with more TALKBACK LIVE.

Right now, "INSIDE POLITICS" and Judy Woodruff.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Breast Feeding Mother Charged With Murder>


Aired January 21, 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: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Where is the support for war with Iraq? The French foreign minister says, count us out of any action in the coming weeks. And are China and Germany dragging their feet? Should the U.S. just go it alone?
Also, why would the government give tax breaks on Lincoln Navigators and other SUVs? Find out how the president's economic plan could make the luxury vehicles a grand write-off.

Then: A nursing mother is charged with her infant's death after the baby dies from a drug overdose. Authorities say the drugs were delivered through breast milk. An unfortunate accident or was it murder?

The talk starts right now.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

We now know about two Americans ambushed in Kuwait City earlier today. One of them is dead, the wounded in what U.S. officials call a terrorist attack. Michael Rene Pouliot died at the scene and the name of the other victim has not been released at this moment.

Right now, I want to take you to San Diego, where a company spokesman for Tapestry Solutions is addressing the situation.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

CHRIS WAHL, TAPESTRY SOLUTIONS: ...Tapestry Solutions. We are stunned by this senseless act of violence, which has taken a great man and a friend from our family. Tapestry Solutions will continue its overseas operation in perseverance through this horrible tragedy.

The safety of our employees throughout the world will continue to be paramount and we will not be intimidated by this act of violence.

QUESTION: Mr. Wahl, what can you tell us, if you know, about the two employees, the one who was killed and the one who was injured? Did you know any of those two gentlemen and what can you tell us about them?

WAHL: No, I didn't, unfortunately. But, again, our hearts and sympathies go out to them.

QUESTION: Can you talk to us about the security measures that these company employees were taking, if there were any? WAHL: No, we're not familiar with that at this time.

QUESTION: Do you know if there will be any security measures in place after this attack?

WAHL: I expect the company will be looking at that. But, right now, I'm not familiar with those actions.

QUESTION: I realize you didn't know them. But can you tell us, are they fathers? Did they have wives? (OFF-MIKE)

WAHL: Michael Pouliot was married and had two daughters.

QUESTION: And how old are his daughters?

WAHL: Twelve and 14.

QUESTION: What were they doing there?

WAHL: They were working on behalf of the United States government, developing software technologies.

QUESTION: Do you know if his family or any part of his family was with him in Kuwait or are they all here?

WAHL: I believe that they were here, Michael Pouliot, that is.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) When were they supposed to come back?

WAHL: I don't know that information, unfortunately. Sorry.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

WAHL: I know that they're doing their best to contact his family right now to let them know that he's doing OK.

QUESTION: Is he from San Diego?

WAHL: I believe that's correct.

QUESTION: Is he married? Does he have children?

WAHL: I know that he's married. I don't know about his children.

QUESTION: Do you have the spelling of his name, sir?

WAHL: It's all in the material that I handed out.

QUESTION: How many employees are actually here in San Diego?

WAHL: About 28.

NEVILLE: OK, right now, let's go to Kuwait City, where CNN's Martin Savidge is standing by with more on that story -- Martin. MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, there is a manhunt under way here in Kuwait, as authorities, aided by U.S. investigators, are trying to determine who carried out this attack. So far, there has been no one officially claiming responsibility for the attack.

Aside from the wounded American that underwent five hours of surgery today, it is not known if anybody else witnessed this attack. So, that would mean that investigators haven't got a lot to go on. It's unclear if they had the opportunity or if the wounded man was even able to try to describe the attackers to those that are investigating.

However, there is one possibility that CNN has learned. Apparently, there were television cameras that were mounted in the area of this intersection where the attack took place this morning. These are television cameras that are used to monitor traffic flow, similar to the ones that you find in the United States. They're reviewing tapes from the cameras to see if, in fact, that attack was captured on video, and, if it was, if they can try to ascertain if there was one attacker, if there were two attackers.

They don't even know the answer to that, because, whoever carried out this attack is believed to have fled the scene very quickly in a vehicle that was standing by.

Let me back you up and tell you what happened and what we saw when we got there. The attack occurred shortly after 9:00 this morning in an area about 45-minutes drive north of Kuwait City, about three miles from Camp Doha. Camp Doha, if you don't know, is the major U.S. military installation in this area. It's believed those contractors were driving away from Camp Doha, came to this intersection.

It's a three-way intersection with a traffic light. And it's believed that the attackers chose that spot because they knew that either there would be a red light or at least that the drivers would have to slow down. And they opened up with hail a of gunfire from some trees, small trees lining the side of the road. At least 24 bullets hit that vehicle -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Then, Marty, that makes me want to know how the other folks are feeling if, in fact, this is the way this was planned and carried out. This must have a lot of civilians over there a little bit worried.

SAVIDGE: It does. There's no question about that.

In fact, the U.S. Embassy today held a meeting with a number of leaders of the American community in this country, essentially warning them about what had taken place, filling them in on the details, and telling them to be concerned for their own safety. Keep in mind, the U.S. Embassy has links into the business community here as far as Americans, expats, so that there is an alert and warning system.

No doubt, people are going to be taking their own personal safety much more seriously and reviewing their plans -- Arthel. NEVILLE: And, Marty, do you know if there is any plan to pull out Americans from Kuwait and, specifically, Camp Doha?

SAVIDGE: No, we haven't heard of anything like that. Certainly, we have not heard of anyone pulling U.S. military personnel out of Kuwait because of this incident. If anything, they would say that they're emboldened in their position here of Operation Enduring Freedom because of what happened.

And this is not necessarily an indication of what the entire nation of Kuwait feels towards the U.S. military presence or U.S. military consultants, which these two men were. In fact, when we got the news about this attack, we were north of Kuwait City filming a sign that had been erected by a local businessman. The sign read, "God bless American troops" -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Martin Savidge, thank you very much.

And we're going to move on now to this. Who is with the United States in a possible war against Iraq? Right now, countries, including France and China, are threatening to put the skids on any Security Council-sanctioned action in the near future. But President Bush says he's confident he'll get what he calls a coalition of the willing to confront Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is about a disarmed Iraq. He has weapons of mass destruction, the world's deadliest weapons, which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies. He has been told to disarm for 11 long years. He is not disarming. This business about more time. How much time do we need to see clearly that he's not disarming?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: So, can the U.S. go it alone?

Let's ask our guests. Tom Donnelly is a defense analyst for the American Enterprise Institute. And Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. He's the author of "The 60s: Years of Hope, Days of Rage."

I want to welcome both of you to show.

OK, I'm going to begin with Todd.

Does it appear that the U.S. is alone on the war bandwagon? And should the U.S. wait or move forward toward military action?

TODD GITLIN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, it's beginning to look as though we have almost no allies. Perhaps Ariel Sharon is our ally.

The U.S. would be within its rights to fight if there were a direct threat to the United States. Despite what the president just said there, there is no direct threat that I'm aware of that he's ever explained, that anybody has ever explained. Therefore, it's a problem of collective security.

And since it's a problem of collective security, the United Nations Security Council, which has already passed a resolution and set up an implementation procedure, is the body that, by rights, has the moral right to declare war. And since the United Nations Security Council members and others, France, Germany, Turkey, our ally in many important matters, and others, since they're all unable to see that there is a case for going to war immediately, I think the United States is only asking for more anti-Americanism, more risk of actual use of terrorist weaponry.

And, by the way, what I'm saying now is the common sense of the American people. When Americans are asked whether they -- whether they're willing to go along with the unilateral declaration of war, only about a third of them want that. I think the public is absolutely dead-on about this.

NEVILLE: Well, Tom, do you agree with that?

TOM DONNELLY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: You'll be surprised to learn that I do not.

I think Todd has got it wrong in almost every particular. I won't try to unpack everything that he said, but two things are worth emphasizing. One is that it's not simply the most recent United Nations resolution that Iraq is flouting, but more than a dozen, going back to the end of the Gulf War. And, in fact, basically, every day, American pilots are shot at by Iraqi air defenses, which is, by every reasonable definition, by every classical definition, an act of war.

NEVILLE: So, then, why hasn't action been taken a long time ago, then?

DONNELLY: Well, that's a very good question. I would agree that this is a problem, a situation, and that Iraq is a danger that's been brewing for more than a decade. The fact of past inaction is not a good argument for further inaction.

But, finally, to address the question of American public support for the war, that's why we have a government. That's why we have a Congress. And that's why we had a resolution passed in the Congress by a large majority several months ago.

NEVILLE: So, then, should they not listen to Americans? Is that what you're saying?

DONNELLY: No, but -- we have listened to -- the president has listened to Americans, has gone before the Congress to get approval for action against Iraq. And the vote was more than 2-1 in both the House and Senate.

NEVILLE: But do you not think, Tom, that now that American support, regular, average Americans, not elected officials, that that support is waning in terms of supporting a war with Iraq? DONNELLY: I think people are getting nervous as the prospect of war looms closer. This is a traditional and predictable and a good thing. Americans don't go to war lightly.

On the other hand, whether the poll of the moment reflects the broad sentiment of the American people and what they'll think if the prospect of war is actually realized is another question entirely. Electing government by public opinion poll is not a recipe for success.

NEVILLE: Quickly, do you support war with Iraq, yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: War with Iraq? Not unilaterally. I think we have to go as combined with all the nations of the world. This is a terrorism threat against the world, not just the United States. If we do it...

NEVILLE: Got to go to break, sir. I'm sorry. Thank you for your answer. I do appreciate it.

Listen, here is the question. Will the U.S. have to go it alone in Iraq? We're going to talk more about that when we come back.

And then later: a possible new tax break for SUV owners, would you qualify? Find out why the government has a soft spot for big vehicles.

Then, I want to know what you think about the flood of reality TV shows taking up prime time these days. It's our "Question of the Day": Do you want more or is it media overload? Give me a call or e- mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And I'll talk to you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Later on TALKBACK LIVE, we're on the case. Today, a mother faces murder charges after her infant dies from a dose of drugs allegedly delivered through her breast milk. Was it an unfortunate accident or was it murder?

That and more as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: This is the wrong war at the wrong time.

(APPLAUSE)

KENNEDY: The threat from Iraq is not imminent. And it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security, the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea. (END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And we will pick up on Senator Kennedy's comments with our guests now, Tom Donnelly and Todd Gitlin.

Todd, do you think that -- do you agree with Senator Kennedy that in fact terrorism and North Korea are a greater threat than Iraq at this point?

GITLIN: Absolutely. I think it's a no-brainer. We know what al Qaeda can do, what it has done against the United States. And there's every evidence that they'd like to do more of it. If the U.S. is tied down in a war with Iraq, first of all, we're more likely to elicit weapons of mass destruction used against either American troops or against American civilians at home.

And, secondly, we're recruiting more terrorists. The last thing in the world we need to do, in a world that, for reasons that are largely lunatic, despises us is to demonstrate that we're the bully on the block who can't even get the support of our own allies in a war in the Middle East. It's completely senseless.

NEVILLE: But do you think, at this point, Todd, that the U.S. has gone too far to back down now without risking credibility in the world community?

GITLIN: The credibility of the United States, I think, rests on whether we're pursuing a war that's perceived as just and sensible. The United States squandered its reputation during the Vietnam War on exactly this ground, the claim that we were going to lose face.

Here we go again. Except, this time, I think it's only really one face that's at risk, and that's the face of the unelected president of the United States, who sees this as his ticket to more years in the White House. And what this does for American security is beyond me. The same man who is pursuing Saddam Hussein, at the cost of many billions of dollars, is depriving the states and the cities of the money that we need to shore up security.

We shouldn't be going to war with Iraq. We should be safeguarding our ports if we want to keep Americans safe.

NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me. I want to get Joan in here.

Should the U.S. proceed with military action and should the U.S. go it alone?

JOAN: If they find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which he agreed that he would get rid of -- he's already broken his agreements once -- then I think we have to go alone if no one will help us.

NEVILLE: OK.

And, Margaret, calling in now, I want to ask you the same question. Should the U.S. go it alone? CALLER: Absolutely not. And why do we refuse to take no for an answer? When we don't get our way with the U.N., we refuse to pay our dues. When Turkey said no, we bought them off with $5 billion. It's an embarrassment and we're losing the international respect. We look like a spoiled baby.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much for the call.

Tom, can the U.S. take no for an answer?

DONNELLY: The United States doesn't have to take no for an answer in every case.

NEVILLE: But isn't that what Todd is talking about, that if, in fact, the U.S. goes around bullying and not listening to other countries and allies...

DONNELLY: Todd talked about a lot of stuff, including the 2000 presidential election, that I think is not apropos to your question.

Look, we're not going it alone. The report before this segment was about how Kuwait has accepted tens of thousands of American troops and is very deeply supportive of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. They have to live next door to this guy. It's simply false to say that this is a unilateral action.

NEVILLE: All right, then that is the final word here.

Tom Donnelly and Todd Gitlin, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

OK.

When we come back: a possible new tax break for SUV owners has environmentalists fuming. We'll have the story and the debate.

Don't go anywhere. The talk continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Who doesn't love a tax loophole? Well, how about a tax break on an SUV? Well, environmentalists are up in arms over President Bush's tax plan calling for business owners to get a tax write-off on capital equipment. That equipment could be a Hummer, a Lincoln Navigator or a BMW X-5.

CNN Financial News correspondent Allan Chernoff is here to explain how this all works.

And, Allan, a whole lot of numbers here to digest. So, help us sort it all out.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, we'll make it real simple. And, first of all, this tax break is already on the books for small businesses. We should point that out, only for small businesses. What it would do, the plan here proposed by the Bush administration, would increase the deduction that can be taken, from $25,000 all the way up to $75,000. And the idea here is to stimulate spending on what is known as capital equipment.

And guess what's included in capital equipment? Vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds. And, as you mentioned, that would include a Hummer, a Lincoln Navigator, those large sport utility vehicles. Now, the law originally was written back in 1958, when a farmer or maybe a construction company would be perhaps the only ones to buy a pickup truck. But, today, of course, plenty of people are buying sport utility vehicles: lawyers, doctors. And they can take this tax deduction.

There is one caveat, though. The vehicle is supposed to be used at least 50 percent for business purposes.

NEVILLE: And how are they going to prove that?

CHERNOFF: Well, certainly, it is something that you have to take a person's word for. And so, obviously, plenty of business people could tell a little tale to the IRS.

NEVILLE: But why not cars?

CHERNOFF: Cars actually are included here. But, for a car, you get a deduction of only $7,660. So, you have a limit there for cars. Sport utility vehicles above, as I said, 6,000 pounds, all the way right now on the books at 25,000 and higher, if the proposal goes through to $75,000. Again, the idea: to increase spending on capital equipment. A car wouldn't be considered capital equipment.

NEVILLE: And going back to what you were saying earlier, because now, a financial consultant, an accountant, someone who really doesn't need to haul stuff or people, for that matter -- I have a friend who has a company in Houston, Kids Express. So, she needs this. But there are people who are just driving by themselves. They don't need all that space in the car.

CHERNOFF: Right.

Well, this is not a matter -- the IRS is not making a judgment on how much space people need. They're really thinking of trying to stimulate the economy, trying to get businesses to spend. And it just so happens, a lot of small-business people also use these same vehicles for their own personal use.

NEVILLE: All right, Allan, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

We're going to debate that right now. And let's bring in Grover Norquist. He's president of Americans for Tax Reform; and Lawrence Bender, with the Detroit Project.

I want to welcome both of you to the show.

And, Grover, I'm going to start with you, OK?

Tell the average American watching you right now why this is a good idea.

GROVER NORQUIST, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Well, this is a step towards full expensing.

Right now, when you tax businesses, large and small, when they invest in something to help raise the productivity of workers, say, a $10,000 investment in a machine or a $100,000 investment, it has to be depreciated over five or 10 or 20 years. It's very complicated. It takes a lot of accountants and lawyers. And it is not as good as going to expensing.

So this, for small businesses, is the beginning of a reform that we want to do for all Americans. And that's, instead of having complicated depreciation schemes, go to expensing. If you spend $10,000 on new equipment this year, you take that $10,000 and deduct it from your income, because you don't have the money anymore. Other countries do this. It's sound economic policy.

NEVILLE: I don't know, but we're talking about a lot of money here, why such expensive cars like a Hummer would be included. This is a pretty big cap here we're talking about.

NORQUIST: Look, what we want to do is eliminate the cap, so that every company can take advantage of this. This is only a small -- the only reason it's confusing is, the government's trying to do it and only let some people get it and not other people get it.

We should treat all businesses the same. And the reason why the number's high is that, somebody who buys 20 computers, you want them to expense up to $75,000 worth. It's not one thing for $75,000. It's all your investment for the year.

NEVILLE: Yes, but a lot of people will go out and buy that one thing, a big, fat SUV.

Lawrence, why is this not a good idea?

LAWRENCE BENDER, THE DETROIT PROJECT: Arthel, it's nice to be on your show.

It's funny. I would expect, actually, Grover and myself to be on the same side of the coin on this one, because he's a free-market person. It's absurd. There's already a very large tax loophole for SUVs. And now what the government is saying is, we're going to even give you more money back for buying these gas-guzzling cars.

We're at war right now. We're at war on terrorism. The president has said we're at war on terrorism. And he's also actually come out and said we need to get ourselves off our dependency on foreign oil. But yet, for some reason, we're actually going to help people to buy more cars that are more -- that take on more fuel. And it just doesn't make any sense.

NEVILLE: OK, let's see if it makes sense to Gloria.

Does it?

GLORIA: Absolutely not.

I think, if they want to spend some money to give people in small business a tax break, they should give to all the people in small business a tax break, not just segregate the people that choose to drive a huge SUV. Some people, perhaps, would choose to save on gas in economy. And for that, they should not be -- we should be able to all get the same break.

NEVILLE: Grover, what do you think about what Gloria just said?

NORQUIST: Well, I think the way you've described this tax cut, you've confused Gloria.

This is not a subsidy for anyone. It's, if you invest in a small business, the first $75,000 you invest -- it has nothing to do with SUVs. You can buy equipment, any sorts of things. It can be a car or a truck, if you wish. But that's your choice. If it's better to buy some stamp-and-dye equipment, that's what the companies will buy. So, people can have fun talking about SUVs, but we're talking about what small businesses buy as an investment, their decision. And there's no subsidy. It's just the government won't tax you on money you don't have.

BENDER: This is a loophole that you can drive your SUV right through.

It's an absurd thing, because, basically, we've been talking to accountants right now. And people are actually recommending to their clients to actually go out and purchase an SUV now, because they're going to be incentivized to do so. It's an absurd thing.

And I have to tell you, this is not a left thing or a right. This is not conservative or liberal thing. There are Democrats and Republicans that both are guilty of this. For instance, John Dingell's wife, Debbie Dingell, is a huge lobbyist for Detroit. There's a reason why the administration is giving a big tax incentive to SUVs right now. And it's not to help this country.

NEVILLE: OK. Unfortunately, I do have to go.

I'm sorry, Grover. I'm not taking any sides here. I just happen to be out of time, so that means Lawrence is going to get the last word on this segment. Grover Norquist and Lawrence Bender, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

And coming up next, we're going to shift gears again and move on to a couple of controversial legal cases, starting with a mother charged with murder of her baby. Prosecutors say she's a drug addict who killed her baby with her breast milk. We'll tell you her side of the story as well after the break. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Well some big legal stories are making headlines. We're going to begin with the mother of a 3-month-old baby who is accused of murder. Authorities say the infant overdosed on methamphetamine delivered through his mother's breast milk. Now the 30-year-old woman is charged with second-degree murder. She says she's innocent and that she had already weaned her baby.

Here with legal angles are Wendy Murphy, a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School. She's a former prosecutor and a victims' advocate. Also criminal defense attorney Robert Tarver. He's a legal analyst for northstarnetwork.com. I want to welcome both of you to the show.

ROBERT TARVER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

WENDY MURPHY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Nice to be here.

NEVILLE: Good. Nice to see you. And Robert, I want to start with you first. Should this mother be charged with second-degree murder?

TARVER: You know it's such a difficult thing. We have to first understand that we're talking about -- if the prosecution is true, we're talking about addiction. And addiction is a sickness. It's not something that you can control. And basically, the question here is whether or not they can prove that this woman could comprehend what she was doing to her baby.

Now the big thing about addiction and sickness is that no matter what you may think about on the rational side, there is an irrational side of addiction that says, I've got to have this thing and I've got to do it. And so it makes for a very, very difficult mix. It doesn't fit into the standard criminal justice problem.

NEVILLE: Yes, but Wendy, how difficult will it be for a prosecution to prove their case, because there's no proof that, in fact, there was -- first of all, the mother said that she had weaned her baby, so she was no longer breast feeding. And they weren't able to determine that the substance found in the baby's body was either formula or breast milk.

MURPHY: You know, Arthel, you're right. It's a tough case to prove exactly what happened. But one thing we know for sure is the 3- month-old didn't do it himself. I mean this is a very serious situation, because we know for sure that the infant died because of methamphetamine, and we know that it had to be some adult in the house, presumably. That leaves only the mother as the prime suspect. And I know that she's going to suggest that it was perhaps the boyfriend... NEVILLE: The roommate.

MURPHY: ... or the roommate; someone else who did it. And that's fine. That may well generate reasonable doubt. But the bottom line is we also know that she did breast feed the child. We know she was a drug user.

And you know my friend Rob is right, that drug addiction is a serious problem. And when adults hurt themselves because of drug addiction, that's fine. I think we need to decriminalize to a great extent the way we handle that kind of crime in society. But there's a big difference when you, as a drug-using mom, because of your drug use, cause harm to other people, especially defenseless newborn little babies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for a mother who, by virtue of her addiction or any other problem, causes the death of a defenseless infant.

NEVILLE: So then, Robert, what kind...

TARVER: Well sympathy, of course, is one thing, but there has to be some level of understanding and rational thought about what we're really dealing with. And when you're dealing with addiction, you're not dealing with rational behavior. We see it every day in the criminal justice system, Wendy. You've seen it as a prosecutor. And you have to just acknowledge that.

There have been several cases that have already been tried like this in California -- or, I'm sorry, that have already come before the California courts. And guess what? Resoundingly, juries have said, no, we're not buying this type of scenario as murder, and so they have already spoken as to how they see it.

NEVILLE: OK let me -- excuse me one second. I want to see how Dea (ph) sees it. She's calling in now on the phone from Missouri. Go ahead, Dea (ph).

DEA: Hi. I really don't like this right now, because I'm a breast-feeding mother. I have seven children. Out of the seven, I breast fed six.

One of my children -- I am a recovering addict of seven years. I do know that whenever you do breast-feed, and you do do drugs, be it inhaling through your mouth or through your veins, it does get into the blood and get into the milk ducts. Therefore, the milk is tainted with the drugs.

It does not matter if the mother was not using it. The stuff was still in her system while she was breast-feeding. And therefore, for like three days, the breast milk would not be any good.

MURPHY: And Arthel, this caller makes a really good point, which is that even drug-using parents can and should be responsible about causing harm to other people. Not themselves, but to other people. And you know Rob's suggesting that there's a kind of insanity defense here or limited mental capacity defense here. And maybe that's the way the defense will try this case, that she didn't intend to kill her child.

Fair enough. Maybe this will land as a manslaughter conviction. But there's no question that this child died because of the mother's inability to deal responsibly with her handling of this child. And you know the fact that the milk came from her breast or her bottle, it's irrelevant. It was the cause of this child's death.

NEVILLE: Hang on for a minute, Robert. Robert, hang on for me. I'm going to let you finish that thought when we come back. We're going to have more on this case.

And then I'll tell you why 500 people are ready to go to jail to protect the secrets of one alleged rape victim. And don't forget our "Question of the Day." Are you clamoring for more reality shows to fill your evenings? Or have you had it up to here? Give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN, or you can e-mail me at talkback@CNN.com

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. We're talking about a case out of California. A 30-year-old mother charged with second-degree murder after her baby's death, possibly, from breast milk. Allegedly. Robert, you had a comment before we went to break.

TARVER: Yes. I was going to say, Arthel, we give people a lot of credit, perhaps where we shouldn't. There are a lot of people who are just uninformed about the fact that you can transfer drugs through mother's milk, and that's the type of thing that we also need to look out for. Now fortunately, that's what the law says. You have to be able to prove that that person could comprehend it, but I have to say...

NEVILLE: Come on. Everybody knows that, Robert. Come on.

TARVER: I cannot agree with you there. I have represented people for most of my life that have had difficulty in comprehending some of the things that many people think are medical -- simple medical pieces of information.

MURPHY: But as that previous caller noted -- and I think this is so important -- addicts know better than the rest of us exactly what happens when they get pregnant, when they're feeding their children through breast milk. They know because most pregnant women care about the well being of their unborn children and born children.

TARVER: Wait. How does this follow that addicts know...

MURPHY: They know what happens. They know that these toxic substances cross the placenta and go into the breast milk...

TARVER: How do addicts know that as a rule, Wendy? How do addicts know that?

MURPHY: Because they're very well aware of what... NEVILLE: So Robert -- I'm sorry, Wendy. But Robert, so are you saying that that's the defense attorney's only argument, that this woman didn't know?

TARVER: Absolutely not. I'm saying that that's at least one thing that needs to be considered. There are many things that we take for granted about people's level of knowledge and understanding that we shouldn't do. And that's the job of the defense attorney, to really bring home what the facts are in a case. It may well be that the facts are that this person didn't understand, although as I understand it, right now, the defense is that she just was not doing it.

NEVILLE: OK.

MURPHY: Yes. In fact, there is some evidence, Arthel, that she stopped breast feeding the child...

NEVILLE: Correct.

MURPHY: ... because she was aware that it did, in fact, create a toxic problem with her breast milk.

NEVILLE: OK. Listen, we could debate that for days. But we have to move on to another topic now.

A rape crisis center in Salem, Massachusetts, has been ordered to -- by the court -- to turn over the records of an alleged teenage rape victim. Now lawyers for the man accused of the crime say they hope the records will prove their client's innocence. The center is refusing to do it, and some 500 people have signed up to go to jail, rather than turn over the document.

And Wendy Murphy is a lawyer representing the center. And Wendy, should these records be privileged?

MURPHY: Well, of course the records should be privileged, Arthel. And, in fact, the law in Massachusetts, as is the case in almost every state around the country, is that when a victim who has been sexually assaulted needs help afterwards, they're entitled to seek confidential counseling, whether it's a therapist, a psychiatrist, or a rape crisis counselor. They can't get better unless there's a meaningful promise of confidentiality.

Unfortunately, defendants and their attorneys across the country are asking and receiving production of these records. They're getting court orders to require these records to be produced either to the judge in some instances or directly to the defendant in other instances. And the defendants really don't have any explanation for why they want the records. They just want to fish through and see if they might be able to find something.

NEVILLE: But Robert, I suspect you disagree with that? Because of course...

TARVER: I absolutely disagree. NEVILLE: ... this puts you in sort of a legal catch-22, because if, in fact, there is proof in those documents, then you, as a defense attorney, you don't have access to those documents.

TARVER: Precisely. The one thing that we learned through Governor Ryan's acts of the past week is that many people who have been accused of crimes have been exonerated. They just were not guilty. The innocence project (ph) tells us 122 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, and that's because these people, as we said, are not guilty of the crime.

So we have a real question about trying to determine that people who say something happened actually happened. It's what we call a credibility test. And when you are you're looking to credibility, you should be entitled to see what a person says about an instance whenever they talk about it.

MURPHY: Yes, but look -- come on, Rob. Come on. You know that people who have been victimized need to talk about what happened in their private space, in their real world. They talk to their mothers, their fathers, their doctors, their lawyers, their therapists. I mean, are we willing to drag grandparents and lawyers into court?

What if the victim talked to me? Let me ask you this, Robert. What if the victim talked to me, Rob, and I have a file? As a private attorney, I have a file because she talked to me after the crime. Are you, the defense attorney...

TARVER: Well that's a different story.

MURPHY: Why is it a different story?

TARVER: It's a different story...

MURPHY: Why?

TARVER: ... because she comes to you for legal advice.

MURPHY: So what?

NEVILLE: Yes, but she goes to a rape crisis center...

TARVER: Wait a minute. If she goes to talk about the fundamentals of what happened in an incident, she's fully entitled to do that. But you cannot say that a man that is on trial for his life doesn't have a right to decide whether or not she is credible when she tells one story at one time and then a different story at another time.

(CROSSTALK)

TARVER: Hold on.

NEVILLE: No, no. Robert, I can't hold on. Hold that thought. I have to go to break. OK? Should rape center records be private? Tell me when you think when we come back. And tomorrow is your chance again to talk with big baller Charles Barkley. He'll be here, so don't miss him. And we're going to stay on the case when we come back. The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.

We're going back now to our legal roundup. We're talking about a rape crisis center that has been ordered to turn over the records of an alleged rape victim. And Robert, if these records are released, will this discourage women from going to shelters for help and for what they believe to be private counseling?

TARVER: Well it hasn't so far, I don't think. The fact of the matter is, generally, in most jurisdictions there has to be at least some showing by defense attorneys that these records might be relevant. And then you have a second level, where the a reviews these records in camera, which means by himself or in chambers, and then decides whether or not there's something there that might be important.

Those are the things meant for the protection of the victim. And they are important safeguards and they should be there. But there's a reason why we allow this to happen. And that's so that the defendants can be protected against possibly untoward types of charges.

MURPHY: No. You know what, Arthel, we do let people heal in the aftermath of violence. We let them talk in private places, because remember, the defendant's opponent in the criminal case is the government, not the victim. The victim is but a witness for the state. And we need people to be able to heal.

How would rape crisis centers function if, when the victim arrives at the door, they say sorry this happened to you. Before you say a word, you need to know that everything you say has to be turned over to your attacker. And they may as well shut down. It's ridiculous.

NEVILLE: And Wendy, hang on, because Jim (ph) has an important question regarding that.

JIM: Well, I was just wondering what aspects of the records would be released, what information? And if the victim were male, would the same criteria apply?

MURPHY: Good question and good point. In fact, we have a practice, unfortunately, in the criminal justice system of mostly requiring records to be produced when the women are the victims of sexual violence . And it is a disproportionate impact on women that we're seeing. Women are being forced to choose between prosecution and privacy. In some cases, they're stopping getting the help they need. In other cases, they're dropping the charges. It's not a fair choice. And it's a choice we impose most often against women victims of violence.

TARVER: Can I just address what he said? The only thing that would be admissible or turned over would be the things that are things relevant to the defense. So if someone is talking about their feelings or perhaps their childhood or something else like that, that's not information that's going to get out.

MURPHY: Nobody should be even snooping around.

NEVILLE: OK. And Robert Tarver, you have the last word on that one. Wendy Murphy, Robert Tarver, thanks so much for the conversation. And we do appreciate your visiting us here at TALKBACK LIVE.

OK. Get to those phones, send us those e-mails. I want to know what you think about the explosion of reality programs on prime time television. Had enough, or you want more? Give me a call. We'll talk about it next.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Time now for our "Question of the Day." Reality TV, "The Bachelor," "Joe Millionaire," "Survivor," (UNINTELLIGIBLE), "Fear Factor," "Meet The Folks," the shows are breeding faster than you can click the remote. Are they getting old or just getting started? Do you want more? Have you had enough -- Suzanne (ph).

SUZANNE: Had enough.

NEVILLE: OK. That's good. All right. Dean (ph) in Florida, you're on the phone. You're live. What's your answer?

DEAN: Yes, I think we've definitely gotten saturated. In fact, I think the most ironic thing about it is it's their version of reality, not ours. And as far as I'm concerned, look out the window or maybe turn on the public access or even CNN. That's my reality TV.

NEVILLE: All right. Got to love you, Dean (ph). All right.

Listen, we have e-mails coming in now. JP in Canada, he says, "Most of the shows are really good. Reality shows show normal people competing against normal people. I would like to see even more on TV."

OK. Another e-mail coming from Bill in Colorado. "These so- called reality television shows are incredibly stupid and a waste of the viewers' time. I vote for less, not more."

OK, Bill in Colorado. And we re out of time. Thank you for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow with more TALKBACK LIVE.

Right now, "INSIDE POLITICS" and Judy Woodruff.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Breast Feeding Mother Charged With Murder>