|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Who is at Fault in Nightclub Fire Tragedy? College Basketball Player Turns Back on Flag During Pre-Game National Anthem
Aired February 25, 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 and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I am Arthel Neville.
We start the day in West Warwick, Rhode Island, where the investigation into the cause of last week's deadly nightclub fire is underway. Attorneys for Great White say surviving band members have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. Paul Vanner, the stage manager of The Station nightclub reportedly says he warned the owners about pyrotechnics being used at the club a few months ago, and was concerned about the club's safety. Vanner was inside the club when the fire broke out.
Here to fill us in on all the latest developments is CNN National Correspondent Bob Franken -- and Bob, first of all, tell us a little bit more about what the stage manager had to say.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, if you don't mind, before I do that, Arthel, let me describe the situation here, which is a bit grim.
If you will look over behind the fence, where the club was, you can see there are some search dogs out there. They are going through the rubble. The police are keeping cameras from some distance, and they are also taking some tarpaulin and blocking off some of the areas. The reason is -- has to do with the fact the governor announced last night that there are four people who are unaccounted for, and they are hoping that they are not able to find any more people who died in this fire, in the rubble, but they are making absolutely sure. They have the dogs out here. They are going through with rakes and all that type of thing looking for whatever they can find in the hope that they don't find someone else.
Now, as for the stage manager, of course, he had told -- has told various media that he had warned the owners of this club that some bands were using pyrotechnics and he was saying that it was dangerous. What we don't know is if the owner stopped it, and of course it still does not answer the question as to whether Great White did, in fact, tell the club owners this time that they would be using the incendiary devices in their performance last Thursday.
That, of course, is one of the key questions investigators are now trying to determine if there is any legal blame here, and of course other attorneys are going to see exactly what the basis will be for their civil litigation. Of course, the other concern is the type of material which was the insulation, the soundproof insulation that was used here, amid some suggestions that they used a cheaper type of it, which is what was so flammable that it caused the fire to spread very quickly.
One other thing, Arthel, and that is that police have asked those who were in the club, who were able to leave, not to wash their clothes, but to turn them over to authorities. The reason is obvious. They want to see what kind of chemicals or compounds are in there that might give them some insight into exactly what happened inside the club during that horrific tragedy last Thursday night -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Sad scene there, behind you. Bob Franken, thank you very much.
There are likely to be criminal and civil charges in this tragedy. Some of the families have hired an attorney to look into the incident.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNETH MOLL, ATTORNEY: We've been asked to investigate claims against -- not only the club owners and the band, the manager and the promoter, but the manufacturer of the soundproofing material, the contractor who elected to use that material in that place, and also the failed inspections by the city.
So we've been asked by the families to conduct this investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now, how do you figure out who is to blame when it largely comes down to he said/he said.
Michael Bachner is a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He is now a criminal and civil attorney, and Bruce Baron is a civil and criminal defense attorney in Brooklyn, New York.
And gentlemen, what I'd like to do is go ahead and look at some of the factors involved here, and we can talk about who bears blame, and how much.
And Michael, I'll get you to start first for me. The first thing we want to look at, that stage manager, Paul Vanner, is saying that he told the station owners, warned them three months ago, that the bands were setting off pyrotechnics at the club. Apparently Michael and Jeffrey Derderian, the brothers who owned the club, stopped booking acts with pyro for about three months after that.
Now, the Derderians claim they did not know Great White was going to use pyrotechnics. So I'll ask you, Michael, first, how much are the Derderian brothers at fault, and what do they have to prove?
MICHAEL BACHNER, ATTORNEY: Well, the Derderians in connection with a criminal proceeding don't have to prove anything. They are presumed innocent, and it will be the burden on the prosecution to prove that the defendants, in fact, had done something wrong in connection with the litigation.
As far as their situation is concerned, the problem the Derderians are going to have, No. 1, is the public outcry that exists right now. We really need a cooling off period. People are extremely upset, rightfully so. There are a lot of people who died in this fire, and we really have to be able to settle down and take a very rational perspective at this. Clearly, if the Derderians knew that pyrotechnics were going to be used in connection with this presentation, they knew that they had no sprinkler system, and they knew that there was some type of question regarding the flammability of the matters used for the protection of the backstage. They're going to have some very serious problems, and what we have to keep in mind as well is that in a criminal proceeding, unlike a civil proceeding, the standard is whether there was a gross deviation for negligence purposes from a standard of norm.
Regular negligence that would be provable in a civil case will not prevail in a criminal case. So they will have to demonstrate someone was really and truly grossly negligent in the proceedings.
NEVILLE: OK, sir. Bruce Baron, how do you see it?
ATTORNEY: Well, I certainly agree with everything that was just said. However, in this particular case, it may be very simple to prove negligent homicide if, in fact, there was knowledge of the owners to -- that they had prior to many concerts, having the pyrotechnics, and especially this particular band.
You know, it's going to be a forensic circumstantial puzzle that's going to prove this case ultimately, with a litany of civil and criminal statutes being violated.
NEVILLE: Now, Michael, you mentioned the soundproofing material that fueled the deadly fire. Now that was installed approximately 18 months ago by the way, and since then, pyro was set off at The Station at least three times. Now, this again is according to Vanner, so again, I ask you now, could the Derderians be held accountable for having flammable material installed?
BACHNER: Well, certainly if they had flammable materials installed, and they knew that the materials that were being installed were flammable, yes, I believe there would be responsibility there. The issue is going to be that we hired, they will argue, a contractor. It's the contractor's job to install this soundproofing, not ours.
So long as the Derderians did not have any input into the decision making process about the nature of the soundproofing materials, that is, let's not use a cheaper substance, for example, then I don't see how the Derderians could be held responsible if, in fact, they acted reasonably in installing the appropriate soundproofing materials. And, indeed, the fact that pyrotechnics were used in the past, they would argue that we had no notice. We had no idea to believe that something like this could have occurred. We were acting reasonably. And frankly, to the counter-side, because we lawyers like to look to the counter-side frequently, the Derderians could also be put in the position of having to justify. That is, they are taking the position, We didn't authorize the pyrotechnics.
Well, the fact they've authorized them three times in the past, the argument would go, Well, you've authorized it three times in the past. Certainly you would have authorized it this time. You didn't have any problems in those times in the past. So it becomes more likely they may have done it again.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Bruce, excuse me for a moment. I do have to take a break right now. I'll get you to respond on the other side of the break.
In the meantime, we're going to keep talking about who is to blame in this tragedy, and then later, I know many of you have probably heard by now about a college basketball player who has been turning her back on the flag during the national anthem. There she is right there. Now, some people are upset about this. We're going to get into this later, and I want to know what you think. So do me a favor and start calling me right now at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.COM. I will take your calls and comments a little later in the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, would a war of words ease tension between Saddam Hussein and President George Bush?
Also later in the show, we are going to talk about the young lady who is turning her back during the national anthem, turning her back on the flag. We'll find out who got carried away when she was approached by a Vietnam War vet.
More on TALKBACK LIVE after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville. We're talking about possible legal cases that could emerge from last week's deadly nightclub fire.
And Bruce Baron, I think you wanted to speak out before the break.
BARON: I agree with Michael in stating that the prosecutor has an uphill battle in proving the club owners criminally responsible. We have to take into consideration all the parameters the past use of the club in terms of pyrotechnics, and the current state laws that come into play. Rhode Island being one of them, that you have to have a certain certificate in order to qualify for pyrotechnics, and you must be a resident of the state of Rhode Island if you don't designate an attorney to obtain it for you. That puts more of the burden on the club owners.
NEVILLE: Michael Bachner, want to move to another point here. And that -- this is according to a "Boston Herald" reports a Banner -- Paul Banner the stage manager at the Station, reportedly says that the polyurethane foam that caught fire was present at the club both times, OK, both times the West Warwick Fire inspector visited the club to approve it late last year. Now, the inspector made no mention the foam when he cited the club for minor violations a month prior to the fire.
SO, how much is this inspector at fault?
BACHNER: Well, that's another good question. I was -- the "New York Times" reported today as well that in November of 2002, inspections were done and that other than fire extinguishers and some minor things there were no violations. Certainly the derderians will argue they did what they could do. The state came in, inspected. We hired a contractor. How much burden can you put on our shoulders.
We own the place, yes, but we had nothing to do with the checking. He had nothing to do with any of the other instances. They will of course, hang their hat and say we couldn't be negligent here, because everybody who had to do their job said we were doing ours right. So, this is a tragedy. If we have civil responsibility, let that proceed, but we should not be charged in a criminal case.
BARON: Michael, in effect all the patrons that go into the club place their safety in the concerns of the owner and not in fact the band.
BACHNER: Well, certainly the owners -- look, when you go into a -- any location, you have to be assured as a patron that everything is being done up to par. The problem, of course, is that merely because I'm a patron -- merely because I'm an owner of a location doesn't mean that I physically have any responsibility with what type of polyurethane is used, what type of soundproofing is used. I hire people to did that work. So long as I do my job and act reasonably and I'm not complicate in anyone trying to avoid any type of violation. I don't think the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should bare any responsibility under...
NEVILLE: Gentlemen, excuse me.
I have an interesting call coming in from Ohio.
Rodney is a nightclub owner.
What do you say about this -- Rodney.
CALLER: I have to say that I'd have to disagree. I think the club owner has all the responsibility in making sure that they are there during the setup of the band, making sure that they are not using pyrotechnics. I mean, being a club owner or having been a past club owner it was important that I know what's going on in my club.
NEVILLE: But then Rodney, is it possible for a band such as Great White to slip in pyrotechnics?
CALLER: Not if your (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or a bar owner you have it either have yourself there or a manager there during setup and you know what to look for. They are going to test some of this out ahead of time, too. So make sure it's going to work right.
NEVILLE: What if the band doesn't test it out ahead of time, just goes ahead and slips it in there.
CALLER: You also want to make sure in your contract ahead of time you say I do not allow this in my -- on my premises. There's a lot of things you cover with the band ahead of time. So, I mean, I don't know about that state particularly, but I know in our state you are responsible. You carry a liability insurance up to let's say $500,000, which is probably all that they are allotted.
NEVILLE: I believe I read that in Rhode Island it's up to $1 million.
CALLER: It's very possible. It's been about a year since I was in the business. But I can tell you, that I think it is the club owner's responsibility. You are taking those people's lives in your hands when you let them in your bar.
CALLER: OK, Rodney, thank you for calling.
NEVILLE: I do want to talk about the band Great White right now. Apparently the club owners at the Station say that Great White did not get approval to use pyrotechnics that particular evening. Now, in clubs in four other states, in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maine say that Great White used pyro in the clubs without permission.
And Michael, starting with you on that one as well, could Great White face charges in those states as well or any charges on this?
BACHNER: You only can face charges, if I understand the question. You can only face charges for criminal activity in the state in which a criminal activity was engaged in. And so those other states, the answer would be no. One thing we also should keep in mind as far as club owners are concerned here, they were aware that there were cameras on premises investigating safety conditions in nightclubs. You have to wonder, would the derderians have permitted a pyrotechnic show to have gone on knowing they have polyurethane ceiling, when there is a camera going on investigating safety. I'd argue that they would not.
NEVILLE: OK, and Michael, I'm short on time. I have to give Bruce about 15 seconds.
Want to ask you Bruce the culpability you believe that Great White has in all of this.
BARON: Oh, clearly they have tremendous culpability. Certainly equally applied to the owners. They can have minor violations or infractions in the prior states which fortunately there were no death or tragedies. In this particularly case there was a tragedy and therefore, there may be a list of very serious murder charges against all parties concerned, including the contractors.
NEVILLE: And that is the final word.
Michael Bachner and Bruce Baron, thank you for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Still ahead: six members of Congress sue to stop the U.S. from going to war against Iraq. You'll meet one of those lawmakers coming up next.
Then, should President Bush debate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? It's our question of the day. I'll be talking about that with you later this hour.
In the meantime, don't go anywhere. The TALK continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Iraqis President Saddam Hussein has spoken, telling CBS News anchor Dan Rather his al Samoud missiles do not violate restrictions. Rather's reports that Hussein's comments suggest Iraq will resist destroying those missiles as demanded by Hans Blix. Saddam Hussein is also challenging U.S. President George Bush to a debate. The White House said simply that is not a serious statement.
Joining me now to talk about all of the latest developments are Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas and Daniel Pletka vice president for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Want to welcome both of you.
OK, Congresswoman, what do you think about a Bush/Hussein debate?
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: I think I'm going to let the president decide what forum he utilizes with respect to communicating with Iraq. But I certainly do believe that negotiations, diplomacy, is the option and war should be the last option. I, frankly, believe the important role that we should be taking as leadership in the U.N. Security Council, working with our allies like France and Germany and China and Russia to really focus on a vigorous U.N. inspection. And as well as many are speaking now in one voice, letting war be the last resort at this time.
NEVILLE: So the form of communication, you said, should be decided by the president. Then...
JACKSON LEE: Absolutely. I don't think that...
NEVILLE: Do you think there should be some communication directly between Hussein and Bush at this point?
JACKSON LEE: I think we should be in negotiations with Iraq, as I believe we should be in negotiations with North Korea. The White House has already called this a frivolous offer if you will, and so I don't wan the to White House or the administration or the United States to engage in frivolous talks. I believe war is too important for a question of life and death and we should be engaged in serious negotiations. If the White House feels more comfortable in negotiating in the United Nations forum or around the Security Council, the debate the question of using the weapons inspectors, then that's the way it should be.
I do believe that we should listen to Saddam Hussein, as he should listen to the United States. The path we are going is the path that will cost the United States more than just lives. And that's an ultimate price to pay, even though our military are prepared to serve. It will cost us an enormous amount of money. Making choices of huge amounts for war as opposed to the social needs that we need. And as well as it is destabilize the world, as it is destabilizing the Middle East. We need to find some way to communicate, dialog, and find a resolution other than war.
NEVILLE: Let's look now at Saddam Hussein's statement. We have a full screen graphic of that. I want to show you right now. Coming from CBS News, Saddam Hussein says, "I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue, a debate, with your president. I will say what I want, and he will say what he wants. I call for this because war is not a joke."
OK, Danielle, what do you think about a debate?
DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE: I think the Congresswoman is exactly right. This is completely frivolous, and it forgets the main point here. This is not a fight between the United States and Iraq. This is a debate, if you will, between Iraq and the United Nations Security Council, in which the Security Council has quickly called for Iraqi compliance.
Saddam Hussein believes, as he has, for the last dozen years, that he can talk his way out of it, that he can pull stunts to get out of it, that he cannot disarm. And the international community has to take extraordinarily seriously his statement that he is not willing to destroy his al Samoud missiles, despite the fact he's been ordered to do so by Hans Blix and the Security Council.
NEVILLE: What should happen if he refuses to destroy those missiles?
PLETKA: This is a matter for Blix to report on, and for the Security Council to discuss. But it is a very clear and one of the latest violations.
NEVILLE: But I just wanted to ask you what you, Danielle, what you think, if in fact, Saddam Hussein refuses to destroy those al Samoud II missiles? What should happen?
PLETKA: I think we should destroy them for him.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's see what Brian thinks about all this. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need someone to answer for me, we have inspectors in the country doing what we wanted them to do, inspect and look for the weapons. And on the larger part, they really can't find any weapons. They found these missiles, but they are not a huge deal.
Why do we not be -- seem to be accepting anything that they are saying to us, Hans Blix and the inspectors, that they are not finding anything?
NEVILLE: Congresswoman, you want to answer that?
JACKSON LEE: I think we should listen to the United Nations Security Council, which the United States has recognized by way of their membership. And that is the U.N. has stated, even in 1441, we want to see vigorous U.N. inspections. This is the first time the United Nations inspectors have been in for a number of years. I applaud the United Nations and the Coalition for making that happen. Now we need the United Nations inspections to go forward, listen to the periodic reports.
Hans Blix is not finished. They want to continue for months in the future to be able to determine what they can and cannot find. They have given ultimatums. The president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, I believe, without interpreting what he thinks, I believe he's thinking that if I destroy these missiles, I'm still being taunted for war. So why should I leave my country unprotected. We need to seriously focus on one direction -- disarmament through U.N. inspection. I want war to be the absolute last resort.
PLEKTA: Congresswoman...
JACKSON LEE: I believe so strongly that I've filed the lawsuit. Constitutionally, the president is move on war without a declaration of war. I believe we should fight against war and fight for peace through continuing negotiations with the United Nations.
NEVILLE: I'm trying to give you an opportunity to address something that I think is very important to you, and that is I wanted to ask you if you think President Bush needs Congressional approval.
JACKSON LEE: Arthel, I absolutely do. And I thank you for that. I think it's a simple question of the constitution. And that is article 1, section 8 says Congress has the authority to declare war. Also, when we debated this in October, the debate was under the auspices, the threat of imminent attack, which did not occur. Not only that, but Congress was not aware of the crisis in North Korea and, of course, the debate did not center around the 30 or so nations that have weapons of mass destruction.
And, frankly, I believe that the Congress has a responsibility whenever the United States puts its military in the forefront and where life and death is at a question. And we should not advocate our responsibility. We should zealously protect it.
And let me just share one final thought. There was an amendment put forward to the United States Congress that indicated that if the U.N. did not declare war then the president should come back to Congress for a debate on the question of war. One-third of the members of the House of Representatives voted for that even though it did not pass.
(CROSSTALK)
PLETKA: Congressman, two-thirds voted against it.
NEVILLE: Danielle -- excuse me ladies.
Danielle I'm sure you have something to say about that. I have to take a break. I promise I'll let you respond after the break. So, again, if war erupts, some say a major humanitarian crisis will follow in Iraq. The U.S. has a plan in place. Critics say it's too little, too late. You decide when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK. Welcome back, everybody. Danielle Pletka, I promised I would let you respond. Go right ahead.
PLETKA: Thank you for my word in edgewise. One thing that I think is important to respond to is the point that Brian (ph) in your audience made. There are 100 inspectors in Iraq; there are 24 million people in Iraq. They are there not to disarm, but to verify Iraq's disarmament.
And, in fact, the documents that Iraq has provided to the United Nations again and again have been full of lies. Iraq has not provided the necessary documents to disarm them. They can never verify that a country is disarming if they are not willing to do so.
I want to also come back to an important point that this lady made about congressional authorization. Three quarters of the Senate and approximately the same percentage of the House voted to provide the president the authority to use whatever means necessary to enforce these resolutions and to protect the U.S. national security. They did so explicitly, consistently with the war powers authorization.
The Congress has every right to turn around and change its mind and take that authority away if it so chooses, but the votes aren't there to do that. Congress is the representative of the people, and they have spoken to this matter.
NEVILLE: OK. And I have to move on. I mean we're going to continue this talk about a possible war with Iraq. But what happens when any such war is over? Will the war create a humanitarian crisis? And what can and will the United States and others do to help rebuild Iraq?
CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel joins us now -- Andrea. ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, as one senior U.S. official who is intimately involved with the preparations for a post-Saddam Iraq told me, he said that they are preparing for the worst but they're hoping for the best. And if you remember that Iraq is a country that has been under 12 years of economic sanctions, 60 percent of all Iraqis already survive on U.N. handouts, most of it food.
So for that reason, and kind of ramping up and getting ready for the potential for a humanitarian crisis there, you have got a potential number that they are looking at right now of up to two million Iraqis who would be potentially refugees or internally displaced people. For that reason, it would be impossible to suddenly ramp up and get humanitarian assistance to the region overnight.
So they've begun pre-positioning and storing U.S. government relief supplies in four countries in the Persian Gulf region, including Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey. They are stockpiling supplies in enormous warehouses, like blankets, water, ladders, shelter supplies, medicines and food. There is a 60-person disaster assistance response team. That is the largest ever, and they expect it to be in place by the middle of next week.
And what they are going to do is they're going to be embedded with the U.S. military. They'll go into the liberated areas and then they'll coordinate with NGOs and international organizations to get the help in there. In addition, they're going to streamline; in fact, they've already begun to do this. NGOs licensing procedures within the office of foreign asset control, and they're going to resume the U.N.'s ration distribution system under the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program.
The 60 percent of the Iraqi people that I was telling you about, the 24 million Iraqi people, 60 percent of them receive that oil for food -- those rations. And so they're going to try to make sure, Arthel, that that's up and running as soon as possible.
But there is one other problem. And that is, how do you prepare for self-government to turn Iraq into a democracy? That, I got to tell you, is a whole other show, which we can get into at a later time.
NEVILLE: OK. Andrea Koppel, thank you very much for that report. Going to go back to the panel now. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is with us. What should a post-war Iraq look like?
JACKSON LEE: Well, I think Andrea made the point at the end of her conversation, which is how will we instill or put in place democracy in Iraq? And I just want to comment. It was interesting that the United Nations inspectors after 1991 did more in disarming than the 1991 Gulf War.
So I think the United Nations efforts around the Security Council for inspections is in route to go in that war. But underlining all of this is the cost to the United States. Right now, it is thought that the war would cost $9 billion to $13 billion a month. We're already giving to Turkey $6 billion to $13 billion to $20 billion. How many other countries are we having to pay?
I think the brunt of democratization is going to fall on the United States. Has the president shared with the American people 20 years of occupation of Iraq, 20 years of occupation of Afghanistan? With the crisis that we have here economically, and I believe the biggest question is our war on terrorism. Where does that leave us? So I think...
NEVILLE: I have to...
JACKSON LEE: ... post-war Iraq means that the United States will be engaged for at least 20 years.
NEVILLE: Excuse me. I have to get Danielle in there. I've got about 30 seconds. Go ahead, Danielle.
PLETKA: Let's ask how much did September 11 cost the United States? War is awful. War is expensive. But if we can bring a better government to the people of Iraq in a responsible way, if we can bring them democracy, that is worth an enormous amount in saved conflict in the future.
NEVILLE: Well thank you for being concise there. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, thank you very much for your time today joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
JACKSON LEE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: And Danielle, stay right there for me. What's the story that's coming up? It's about a basketball player who turned her back on the flag during the national anthem, and what happened when she was confronted by a Vietnam vet. We'll show you that on-court offensive right after this. Don't go anywhere. The TALK continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
College basketball player Toni Smith doesn't say much, but when she turns her back on the flag during the pre-game national anthem, she gets a lot of words thrown at her. In today's "What's the Story," the woman's anti-government protest meets up with a Vietnam vet's outrage. Matt Murphy of CNN affiliate News 12 in Westchester, New York, has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATT MURPHY, MANHATTANVILLE, NEW YORK (voice-over): Just minutes into Sunday afternoon's Manhattanville College women's basketball game in Perchas (ph), Jerry Kiley, a Vietnam War veteran, interrupted play and was quickly escorted out of the gym. The quick exit came after Kiley approached senior Toni Smith asking her not to protest against the American flag, which she had done right before tip-off by turning her back to it during the singing of the national anthem. JERRY KILEY, VIETNAM WAR VETERAN: Toni Smith disgraced this flag and disrespected the veterans who all fought and died, the women and men, brave women and men who fought and died to defend the freedom that this flag stands for. This flag does not stand for government policy. It stands for freedom, it stands for honor.
MURPHY (on camera): Smith has actually been turning her back against the flag since the beginning of this season. It wasn't until Manhattanville traveled to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point when her stance gained so much attention.
(voice-over): Smith was jeered by hundreds of spectators at that game at February 11. She didn't want to speak on camera, choosing to explain her protest of the flag through a written statement. In it she says, "The inequities that are embedded into the American system have bothered me. As they are becoming progressively worse, and it is clear that the government's priorities are not on bettering the quality of life for all its people, but rather on expanding its own power, I can no longer, in good conscience, salute the flag"
Whether students agree or disagree with Smith, many believe she has the right to express her views in the way she has chosen. But nearly all the students News 12 spoke with disagree with the way Kiley chose to exercise his free speech.
IAN SCHRAIER, FRESHMAN: Well I saw the man run out from the side exit, he brought out the American flag and put it right in front of her face. And that was definitely wrong. That was the wrong thing to do.
MARY CORRARINO, COLLEGE SENIOR V.P.: I'm always concerned when people walk on the campus. He had been turned away from the campus several times and apparently walked on. And we are a 100-acre campus. So you can get on the campus if you want.
But he's entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to be on private property. And this is private property.
MURPHY: Kiley was later escorted off the campus and asked not to return.
KILEY: I'm a Vietnam veteran. I'll suffer the consequences just like Toni is now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Was it appropriate for Toni to turn her back to the flag? Jenny (ph), you say what?
JENNY: I think that if you are an American, then one of the major freedoms we have is freedom of speech. And if she wants to express herself by turning her back and saying, this is my opinion, then everybody in America should have the right to do that.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Emily (ph) is calling in from Georgia. Emily (ph), you are a basketball player, right? What do you think about this?
EMILY: Yes, I'm a varsity high school basketball player. I just believe this was incredibly wrong. If you are going to live in America and you are going to enjoy all the freedoms that were made by sacrifices of our veterans, then you need to respect the flag and you need to have a little respect for those who fought and died for your freedom.
NEVILLE: OK, Emily (ph). Thanks for calling in. Danielle Pletka, how do you see it?
PLETKA: I think that the young lady has a perfect right to exercise her first amendment right. In America, you are free to behave like a fool if you want to. I do think, however, that it's really, really sad that she doesn't understand, as so many don't understand, that all over the world the American flag symbolizes freedom, liberty.
The Italian prime minister was sitting with the president of the United States the other day, and he said, for the people of my country, we look out and we see that flag, and that means our freedom. He couldn't have said it better.
NEVILLE: OK. Danielle Pletka, thanks so much for joining us today on TALKBACK LIVE.
Do you ever wonder what they are talking about in all those AOL chat rooms? Well, guess what? Regina Lewis is coming up next, and she has a line on all the hot topics from news to gossip. It's the Buzz Index coming up after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. What are people talking about on the net? The chat rooms are buzzing. And here to talk about the hottest topics this week is Regina Lewis with the AOL Buzz Index -- hi, Regina.
REGINA LEWIS, AOL BUZZ INDEX: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: What's buzzing?
LEWIS: Well, a lot of negative buzz around. Something called spam. I'm betting that a lot of people in the audience there don't like it. It's a very, very big issue.
NEVILLE: I hate it.
LEWIS: Yes. I talked to some AOL engineers today who are on the front lines. And get a load of these numbers. They are currently blocking about 800 million pieces a day. That adds up to about 22 million pieces of junk that isn't making it into mailboxes right now. So you can only imagine the pressure and focus on this issue.
NEVILLE: Now if you get that junk mail, do you reply to it, or what do you do with it?
LEWIS: Great, great question. That is the number one mistake. When you reply to spam, in some cases you are only validating that yours is an actual e-mail address and you are making yourself a bigger target. You are better to turn it in.
Those engineers I spoke with says that helps them fine-tune the controls. So it would be great to see this drop off the list moving forward.
NEVILLE: Turn it in how?
LEWIS: Notify your ISP. You can turn it in both to your ISP and the FTC. On AOL there is actually a notify AOL button. You don't even have to open it, just forward it.
NEVILLE: OK. What else? Grammys, huh?
LEWIS: Number four, yes. It was a big night for music on air and Online. A lot of the young artists actually had their careers jump-started by the Internet. Artists like Avril Levine and Michelle Branch, who have debuted songs Online.
Stars like Norah, for instance, went from star to superstar. And we're seeing big spikes in their Online album sales. Also, who can resist talking about the fashion? I'm paraphrasing, but someone said, what was Aretha thinking?
And the other thing was Eminem's T-shirt. A lot of speculation on what did it mean. It said, "Free Yayo (ph)." It turns out that is one of his rapper buddies who is in jail. So there was a lot of Online buzz about that, and the mystery is solved.
On a more serious note, number three is the nightclub inferno in Rhode Island. Some interesting news developing there, and very big Online polls as the blame game kicks in. In an Online poll, about 48 percent of people said they think that the band and nightclub are equally responsible. Also in another poll, when asked, "Will you be more anxious at crowded events," 59 percent said yes. So perhaps there is some positive consume awareness coming out of that tragedy.
In the number two slot, also some consumer awareness. Jesica Santilan, a very, very sad ending to that story. However, I was struck to see increased traffic to a site called organdonor.gov. If you go there, you can actually print a business-size organ donor card. So nice to see people taking advantage of that.
And then in the number one spot, showdown with Iraq. We talked about it a lot, the debate. The administration says no go, but in an Online poll, 53 percent of people said they'd like to see that debate.
NEVILLE: OK. Regina Lewis, thank you very much for joining us. We'll see you again next week, right?
LEWIS: Great. NEVILLE: OK. Coming up next: should President Bush debate Iraqi president Saddam Hussein? Give me a call or e-mail me and we'll talk about it after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. Time for our "Question of the Day." Should President Bush debate Saddam Hussein? E-mails coming in now. Let's share them with you.
David in Florida says, "A debate would be preferable to war. We could all judge and decide who won, and the loser gets a pie in the face."
One more e-mail for you right now. Jay in South Dakota: "Hussein is a known liar. What possible benefit would be there -- would there be in allowing the leader of the free world to debate him? This would ohm give some credibility to his lies."
OK, Matthew (ph), what do you say?
MATTHEW: I think we should put it on TV and let everybody see it. Everybody wants to see it. See what's brought to the table. How worse -- can it get any worse?
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Matthew (ph). I have another e-mail I want to share with you before we go. John in Chicago, Illinois. "A debate would serve no purpose other than to offer the tyrant an opportunity to lie to our president's face." Thanks, John, for your e-mail.
We are out of time. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific with more TALKBACK LIVE.
Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Basketball Player Turns Back on Flag During Pre-Game National Anthem>
|
