|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Bush: War Against Iraq Imminent, U.S. Will Disarm Saddam; Russia Threatens to Veto Second Resolution
Aired February 28, 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, President Bush suggests war against Iraq is imminent, promising the U.S. will disarm Saddam Hussein now.
Russia threatens to veto a second resolution, as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix warns Iraq's compliance is limited.
And while Saddam Hussein says he will begin destroying his Al Samoud 2 missiles, will it be enough?
Then, can you be branded a security risk? The government plans to use bank records, credit reports and other personal information to code passengers. Civil rights groups say you could end up black listed from air travel. Talk starts right now.
Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. There's a lot of movement on Iraq today, as President Saddam Hussein agrees to destroy his Al Samoud 2 missiles. President Bush suggests war is imminent, and Russia threatens to veto a second U.N. resolution on Iraq. We have with us now CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel and senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson. And Nic, I will begin with you in Baghdad.
Now, word out of Iraq is that they will destroy those Al Samoud 2 missiles. And I'll ask you, when will this happen, Nic?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's supposed to happen tomorrow, Saturday. Now, what has to happen before Iraqis say they'll begin destroying the missiles, they say that they want technical talks, advice, they say, on how to destroy not only the missiles but the engines, part of the manufacturing process, software that's gone into research and development. And what the U.N. says it will do is says it will hold technical discussions with Iraqi officials tomorrow. Those discussions, they say, to set out a timeline and to set out an action plan for the destruction. They say these talks are not about Iraq saying, yes, we'll destroy this item and not this item. This is purely and simply, the U.N. says, to set a timeline so they can see when everything's going to be destroyed and an action plan how it will be destroyed. It needs to be destroyed, as the U.N. says, verifiably, that they know this equipment, these missiles are not going to be put to use again -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Nic, I understand you have some developments there regarding those interviews with the Iraqi scientists.
ROBERTSON: We have from a source in Baghdad tonight that we're told from this source that a number of people undergoing private interviews, even into the evening here in Baghdad.
Now, if I put this in context for you, normally, the U.N. officials here have been trying very hard lately, to have interviews with chemical, biological and missile experts. That has not been happening. What has happened, the nuclear experts have had interviews with Iraq's nuclear scientists. Those interviews have happened during the day. We've talked to U.N. officials here about these current interviews that we hear are under way. The U.N. officials tell us they don't have any details about this at the moment.
However, the sources we're talking to in Baghdad saying these interviews under way now, and the fact that they're going on this evening may be an indication, Arthel, and we can only say maybe at this time, this is developing, maybe the U.N. finally getting to interview those Iraqi chemical, biological and missile scientists.
NEVILLE: Very interesting development, Nic Robertson. Thank you so much for that live report from Baghdad.
We're going to go to the White House now, where Suzanne Malveaux is standing by. And getting back to those Al Samoud 2 missiles, Suzanne, and the dismantling of those missiles, seems that the White House isn't quite impressed with the reaction there.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, they completely are dismissing this development. They say that this is just another example of Saddam Hussein's deception, of his games. We spoke with White House spokesman Ari Fleischer earlier today, who says that this is exactly what the president expected, that Saddam Hussein would offer up a few missiles to destroy, that he certainly isn't going to destroy all of them, that for every one missile he would destroy, the U.N. actually says that he's producing more weapons of mass destruction.
We even saw in the paper today, "USA Today," the president saying that if Saddam Hussein was serious about disarming, that he would have already disarmed. So we asked the question to Ari Fleischer, what is it that Saddam Hussein could possibly do at this point to avoid a war? Well, he says, "completely disarm." What does that mean? Well, he gives an example. He says provide the 26,000 liters of anthrax or the one and a half tons of nerve agent. Short of that, of Saddam Hussein producing all of that and dumping it in the lap of the U.N. Security Council, there really is no way that he can show that he's completely disarming.
NEVILLE: You know, and Suzanne, you mention that "USA Today" article. In that same article, the president said that the U.S. is going to disarm Saddam now. And I ask you, does that mean that war is imminent, it's going to happen now, or was this taken out of context?
MALVEAUX: Well, you have to see it in a larger context. Because right after he said "now," he also talked about the fact that Saddam Hussein had been deceiving the international community for 12 years, and that eventually, he would have to be disarmed. But he wasn't specifically talking about, well, at this very moment, today. But also, Fleischer did say earlier today that the president is talking about weeks, he's not talking about months. And that he's very serious about disarming Saddam Hussein.
NEVILLE: OK, and Andrea Koppel, of course now Russia is threatening to veto a second U.N. resolution. France is saying, listen, give Baghdad more time, the inspectors more time, Baghdad is cooperating. So does it look like a second resolution will pass?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: At this point, Arthel, it's really anyone's guess. Nobody knows. The U.S. needs nine out of 15 votes with no vetoes. At this stage of the game, they do not have those nine votes. But I can tell you, behind the scenes, there is an awful lot of diplomacy going on. You have a senior White House official, Otto Reich, who is in Chile right now, Chile is one of those 10 non-permanent members. You have another senior State Department official who is in Pakistan right now. And you also have today from the State Department, a tip of the hat to the Russians for the first time, the designation of three Chechen rebel groups as terrorist organizations. The State Department is saying that timing is pure coincidence, but, Arthel, this is something the Russians have been pushing for for quite some time.
NEVILLE: Now, of course, Andrea, as you know, Spain and Britain, they keep standing by the U.S. Can they afford to stand by the U.S. without a second U.N. resolution?
KOPPEL: Well, from some officials I've spoken with, in fact, they'll tell you that the Spanish government is even tougher and even more vocal about the need to go forward with military action against Saddam if he doesn't disarm than the U.S. and Great Britain are. So I don't really think there's concern -- I mean, certainly, Tony Blair is under a lot of pressure back home. He's had more than a million protesters on the streets. And even within his own Labour Party, there's a lot of criticism of his move.
So yes, it's important, certainly, for the United States and Great Britain and others that they get this resolution, but they -- you've heard all these governments say that they would go forward with military action even without one.
NEVILLE: OK, Andrea Koppel, Suzanne Malveaux, thank you both for the report.
Right now, we're going to meet two of our guests, Michael Eric Dyson. He is author of several books, including "Open Mike: Reflections on Philosophy, Race, Sex, Culture and Religion." And Terry Jeffrey is a syndicated columnist and editor of "Human Events." Gentlemen, welcome. Both of you have been listening to those reports, one from Baghdad, one from the White House and one from the State Department. And Terry Jeffrey, go ahead and start with you now. So what does it look like to you at this point? Is war imminent?
TERRY JEFFREY, HUMAN EVENTS MAGAZINE: Well, unless Saddam Hussein comes forward and completely disarms very shortly, I believe it is. Now, the president consistently has said if Saddam Hussein would peacefully disarm, then we don't need to use force. But a few weeks ago, at the U.N., Colin Powell showed the whole world surveillance photos of the chemical weapons bunker at Taji, Iraq, that was active. There are chemical weapons in it. He showed another photo, a month later, where those weapons bunkers have been sanitized before U.N. weapons inspectors arrived. The obvious question is, what did Saddam do with those chemical weapons three months ago and why isn't he bringing them forward right now and showing us where they are so they can be destroyed?
NEVILLE: And Michael, here's another question, can you trust Saddam that he'll, in fact, destroy, dismantle those Al Samoud 2 missiles?
MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, AUTHOR, "OPEN MIKE": Well, I think the reality is that we're living in a time, especially with a president who is rushing, I think, precipitously toward destruction, that is to say this country is so obsessed with trying to get at the root of terror, rightfully so, that we're missing the real sources of terror. In North Korea. So here we are now dealing with Saddam Hussein. No doubt about the biological terrorism, but let's talk about the lack of nuclear weapons that can destroy us as easily and as quickly as North Korea's.
Second, it's an imperial presidency with a gunslinger mentality. Why don't we resort to diplomacy? If diplomacy is good enough for South Korea, for North Korea, then it certainly can be good enough here, because international pressure brought to bear can at least force preliminarily Mr. Hussein to act right. We're not suggesting that he's a saint. He's a thug. But that thuggery has to be dealt with in a diplomatic fashion.
NEVILLE: All right, Michael. We're going to take a break right now. And coming up next, a surprise ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll tell you what the judges said. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, could the search for terrorists put you on an airline black list? I'll tell you about a new government plan that uses your private records to help identify the bad guys.
Then later, hear about the newest PETA campaign. It's called "Holocaust on your Plate," and compares slaughtering of animals to the murder of Jews in World War II. The talk continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone, I'm Arthel Neville. The dietary supplement Ephedra has come under mounting scrutiny over concerns about its safety. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and the head of the Food and Drug Administration are going to be holding a news conference on the dietary supplement at 3:30 Pacific -- excuse me, Eastern, that's 12:30 Pacific. We're going to bring that to you live when it does happen. In the meantime, we're going to go back to our discussion now on Iraq.
Joining me now is Carolina Gonzales, an editorial writer for "The New York Daily News" and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus. Thank you, Cheri. Nice to see both of you.
Cheri, let me start with you and ask you, are you impressed that Saddam says he's going to dismantle those Al Samoud 2 missiles?
CHERI JACOBUS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Obviously, this is too little, too late. He's playing games. If he were sincere about disarming, he'd be doing a lot more than this. So I think obviously, the White House is correct in their assessment of what needs to be done.
It's possible there are a few of these U.N. nations that are somewhat wavering, and Saddam Hussein thinks that this will bring them over to his side for good, but this is a dangerous situation. I don't think there's any reason why we should be looking at the conflict, upcoming conflict in Iraq on Saddam Hussein's time watch, that he wants it to be his timeline. It's for us to decide, not him. It's a stall tactic, plain and simple.
NEVILLE: Carolina, how do you see it?
CAROLINA GONZALEZ, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Well, I think that it's not just our timeline. It's not Saddam's timeline, it's not our timeline. It's the world's timeline. And I think that while I do agree that this situation with the missiles is not -- is not very convincing in terms of swaying people over to Saddam's side, or, rather, fortifying the position of the U.S. side, I really think that it has to be consensus. I mean, there are ways to build consensus that aren't just about saying, well, it's either he dismantles these particular missiles, or not. It's not just about the missiles.
NEVILLE: OK. I want to let you guys know this, that just a short while ago, we learned that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is sticking by its original ruling, stating that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms. The Bush administration had asked the judges to reconsider an earlier ruling that the words "under God" compromised the pledge. Now, the issue could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Joining us now on the phone is CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. And Jeffrey, you know, this has to be very significant. Is it?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's actually very significant, Arthel. I think consensus in the legal community was that the full 9th Circuit would get rid of this goofy opinion as soon as it had the opportunity. But they have not done that. And now, either the Supreme Court will overturn or reconsider this decision, or the words "under God" will be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance in California and nine other western states.
NEVILLE: Wow. Now, how likely is it that the Supreme Court would let the ruling stand?
TOOBIN: Well, I've got to tell you, I thought it was extremely unlikely that the 9th Circuit would let it stand. I think it's likely that the Supreme Court will take this case. This was a significant change in the law. This is a country where most courtrooms say, "in God we trust," where the money says, "in God we trust," where the Supreme Court begins its sessions with the phrase "God save this honorable court." This "under God" was generally seen as no different from those others, and they have passed constitutional scrutiny. I think it is likely that this will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
NEVILLE: OK, Jeffrey, come Monday morning, when those students go to school, what happens?
TOOBIN: They can still say "under God." The opinion, as I understand it, is still stayed. There's still a stay in effect until all the legal wrangling over the question is over. But somebody has to overturn this decision, and all that's left is the Supreme Court, if it's going to be overturned.
NEVILLE: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much for that significant update.
Boy, OK. Terry Jeffrey, you were just listening to Jeffrey Toobin's report there. I want to get your reaction first.
JEFFREY: Well, this is just another example of the absurd disregard for the Constitution that some federal judges have. Let me just put this in perspective, right? The First Amendment was written by James Madison in the first Congress of the United States. In that same Congress, James Madison served on the committee that ruled that Congress should hire a chaplain to start each day in the House of Representatives with a prayer. And the day after the first U.S. House of Representatives approved the First Amendment, and sent it to the states for ratification, they approved a resolution that they sent to George Washington asking him to declare a national day of Thanksgiving and prayer and fasting to thank God for the U.S. Constitution.
So a judge that says we have to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance or from the Supreme Court or anywhere else has absolute contempt for the intent of the founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment.
NEVILLE: Michael, what do you think?
DYSON: Well, I'm an ordained Baptist minister, and obviously I believe in God and think that God should be involved in the history of human affairs. But I wonder if God is really concerned about whether or not God's name is on either the money or the documents or being saluted in schools.
Treat people right. Treat people right who are on welfare. Don't do political suicide against the very people that we want to protect in the Constitution. So my point is, I think that there should be a separation of church and state. I believe that we should be agnostic in this sense, that no particular religion should dominate. So obviously, God is a neutral reference for those who believe in God. The deeper question is, how can we have a nation that adheres to the principles that we claim are part of the process of believing in God, which is about justice, fairness, truth and democracy. When we get that ready, everything else will take care of itself.
NEVILLE: All right. We have to take a break. Coming up next, red, green or yellow? Will you be coded the next time you go to the airport? A government plan to identify terrorists could make flying safer, but it comes at a price. And we're not talking about money. Find out what the government wants in exchange next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. Next month, Delta Airlines will begin testing a new airport security plan to identify terrorists. Now, it involves doing security checks on passengers and assigning each one a terror code. Passengers will be coded Green, Yellow or Red with Red coded passengers blacklisted from flights. Transportation officials say a computer system will be used to check bank accounts and credit reports and to compare passengers with names on government watch lists.
Now, the system's known as Caps 2, has some civil libertarians worried. They think the program will allow the government to put its nose in where it doesn't belong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHET LUNNER, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION: This information that we're looking at currently exists in commercial data bases. We don't keep it. We'll look at it in the space of about five seconds, pretty much clear most of the people who go through, get rid of the information as soon as the person's identity is resolved and they're through the system.
We don't have any plans. The system doesn't have any capability of storing any more information. These are existing data bases that are already operating under existing privacy law regulations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: All right, joining us to talk about this, Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, an organization founded by Ralph Nader. Want to welcome, sir. Tell us, first up, who gets checked? Is it everyone or those on this government watch list?
PAUL HUDSON, AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT: Well, it will be everyone will get the basic check, that is, all passengers.
NEVILLE: So they'll be checking bank accounts, credit reports. How does this work?
HUDSON: Well, the details are secret, and the program was prepared by airline representatives and DOT representatives without any representatives of the American traveling public.
So we don't know exactly what's in it, but our concerns are, first, that things will be used that shouldn't be used and things that perhaps should be used will be left out for reasons of diplomacy or political correctness.
NEVILLE: OK, and I want to ask you several more questions, Paul. I have to take a break right now, if you would hang on for me, I'd appreciate that.
In the meantime, I want to know if you think this new airline screening plan is good security or a violation of privacy. It's the "Question of the Day." Go ahead and call me right now, 1-800-310-4CNN or you know you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com. And we are back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Here is a TALKBACK LIVE update. We brought you the story of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler, whose death authorities say may be linked to the supplement ephedra. Baseball has now banned players with minor league contracts from taking the diet pill. Major league players, however, can still take the supplement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And I want to remind you any minute now, we're expecting Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and the Food and Drug Administration to hold a news conference telling us if the herbal stimulant ephedra is dangerous. We'll bring that to you live when it happens.
In the meantime, we're going to go back to our discussion of a new screening system for all airline passengers that has the ACLU alarmed, of course. And Paul Hudson, going back to you now, if you could tell us who has access to this information? We're talking about credit reports, bank account activity and how can one, a traveler be assured this information would remain private and not get into the wrong hands?
HUDSON: Well we have no assurances right now. Essentially this is a joint effort between the airlines an the government.
NEVILLE: OK. So then who would be considered a security risk here?
HUDSON: Well, once again, since the details are secret, we don't know for certain. But from what has come out publicly, it would appear that travel history, perhaps credit history would be used. And it would appear that some of the things that are most associated with the al Qaeda terrorists would be left out of the system.
Cheri, I know you've been listening to this. There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. How this is going to work, who it's going to really affect, if it's even going to improve security. Just your thoughts on this.
JACOBUS: Yes. Well, at this point, I think since September 11, we all know that the world is a different place and we have to change the way we think about privacy and security. I think most Americans would agree that we need to do -- take every reasonable measure, and even those that bump up against what seems to be unreasonable by our old standards and implement those measures if it means saving lives and enhancing security.
However, having said that, I think that the privacy concerns -- I mean, are very real. And I hope as we go forward with something like this -- and I think that we all need to understand that the future of travel and a whole lot of other things in our country are going to be changed very much. So we have to be willing to look at new ways to keep secure.
I'm sure there will be bumps along the road on this. It's not going to be perfect. And I think that there is a real role for the ACLU and other organizations to keep a watchful eye on this. So I don't think it's a real black and white issue. We know we have to do something, we know we have to do better, and we also need to be real Americans and protect those things that make us Americans, like privacy. And I would also like to say that, in terms of being politically incorrect, most people would be tology throw political correctness out the window if it means enhancing security.
DYSON: Can I say something, Arthel? The problem is, I agree of the fact that we need to be safe. And I take my shoes off with my stinky socks and the security people smell them. And I'm ashamed, but I'm sad for them.
But the reality is, is that I'm worried about the bleeding of private information into the wrong hands. The government has already proved itself to be unreliable when it comes to the distribution of information and the uses to which it's been put in the past.
(APPLAUSE)
DYSON: So what we're concerned about are not only civil liberties, but the protection of the very democracy that we claim we want to protect when we do our anti-terrorist thing. That's the thing. Can we not compromise on the civil liberties we enjoy, but also the ability to use that information in ways that are destructive to American citizens that are already here. So the government has the campaign of informal terror against its own citizens. That's what I'm concerned about.
NEVILLE: Sure -- go ahead, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would just like to say that, by implementing such a system, we're kind of saying that the terrorists have won. Their whole idea is to bring down America. America is about liberty and freedom, and we're giving up our liberties and freedoms in exchange -- basically, we're saying that terrorists have won.
NEVILLE: OK. Well let's see what Terry Jeffrey has to say about that. Terry, what do you say about that?
JEFFREY: Arthel, I think there's a great deal of sense what Mr. Hudson said. I'd like to put a sharper point on it. If you had gotten on a plane September 11, 2001 and there are no young men from Saudi Arabia or Egypt on your plane, your plane was not going to be hijacked. Those planes were hijacked exclusively by young men from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
And to impose this sort of draconian investigative procedure automatically on the entire American population on the theory that we're going to protect ourselves from radical Muslim terrorists from a handful of Middle Eastern countries is an absurd position on our liberty. It doesn't get to the point.
GONZALEZ: Can I add to that?
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
GONZALEZ: Yes. I think one of the big problems is that we've seen this huge rise in identity theft crimes, which shows us that a number of these databases are incredibly insecure. I don't personally have a lot of trust in the security of any of these databases at the private sector level or at government level.
I mean, I think all of us can think of an example where we have either had a minor inconvenience or had our lives completely disrupted by the wrong information being put on our files. And even when you try to fix it, it never comes off. Now, when you imagine all these databases coming together, that threat just multiplies.
NEVILLE: OK. Cheri, I haven't heard from you on this one.
JACOBUS: Yes. I mean, the fact is there are going to be problems with this. And I think that everybody is right to have their concerns. But I don't think that's a reason to just throw the whole idea out the window. We're living in a new time and I think we have to be patient, but we do have to watch them diligently. And there are going to be problems.
Privacy is a concern. So this is one of those things that, again, we don't just accept it and say, OK, go ahead with that, we think this is a great idea. I think we have to try it out. I think we have to nip certain things in the bud that aren't working, and we have to, at some point, get it right and find that happy medium. I don't think we can just write off the idea out of hand...
NEVILLE: Well, Jenny (ph) here in the audience says she has a good idea. Let's hear it.
JENNY: I think we have a chance here to use our resources in a smart way to screen people coming into airports. It's better than just picking people Random out of the line and putting them through the metal detector. I saw an old lady here being metal detected. I thought it was...
NEVILLE: Well, we have to do that, because, you know what? We're in an open arena here, so we do have to use that process to get people into the audience. But anyway, in the meantime, I want to remind everybody, I know people here in the audience want to speak out on this. I'm going to give you a chance later. It's our "Question of the day." So I will get to you.
And I want to remind you that we're waiting for a news conference by the Health and Human Services secretary and the head of the FDA on the dietary supplement ephedra. Is it a risk to your health? They will offer some answers coming up next.
And, PETA's new ad campaign claims meat eaters are supporting a holocaust. The campaign and the outrage when we come back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: We're going to go to Washington now. That press conference with the FDA, as well as the Health and Human Services secretary is just about to get under way. We're going to dip in now.
OK. Apparently, they are not quite ready to start that discussion. So we are going to go ahead and talk back to -- I'm told that the news conference is beginning. We will go ahead and dip in now.
(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)
NEVILLE: OK. We've been listening to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.
Right now, we're going to bring in CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen to discuss the significant findings in this Rand report. Also, Elizabeth, if you can tell us what prompted this study.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, when many people say what prompted the release of this study today was the recent death of Steve Bechler, a major league pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles, who died. And the coroner said that ephedra was a contributing factor.
This report wasn't due out until April. It's very interesting that it's being released today. It was apparently rushed out, from what we here. And what we just heard Secretary Thompson say is that they're going to take a month, get some public comments, and it sounds like they're moving in the direction of having tougher warning, labels requiring tougher warning labels on ephedra that would include the word "death."
In other words, one would think the warning label might say something like "This supplement could possibly cause death." There have been reports of 88 deaths that may be linked to ephedra to the FDA. Those were those adverse incidents or adverse event reports that you heard the secretary mention.
It's not completely known whether or not those deaths were due to ephedra or whether they were coincidence. Someone took ephedra and died. Well, was it the ephedra or was it something else? That's what this Rand report is supposed to sort out. But the bottom line of what we heard today from Secretary Thompson is that it appears that the FDA is moving in the direction of requiring stricter warning labels on ephedra -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Because it is a supplement, isn't that as far as the FDA can go?
COHEN: Well, they could go even further, but it is very tough for them to go far. I mean he sort of talked about the irony of how with the drugs the FDA can take it off the market pretty quickly. That's what happened with the diet drug fen-phen. However, when you're talking about herbal supplements, it is much harder for them to take it off the market.
The government actually has to prove, as he said, that the supplement poses significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. That is a huge burden for the government to prove. They've got to have lots of data in order to prove that. So for the government to do anything, it's very tough. For them to take it off the market would be very tough, but not impossible -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. Elizabeth Cohen, thank you very much.
COHEN: Thanks.
NEVILLE: Time for another break. And coming up next: the Flash Round, including State Farm Insurance putting an unusual limit on auto claims. I'll give you a hint. It has to do with bombs. We're back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. This just in to CNN: The San Francisco police chief, as well as nine other members of the police department, have been arrested. Warrants have been issued following a grand jury investigation. This is stemming from a brawl that took place last November involving some undercover officers, and apparently that brawl was covered up. We will continue to follow this as the developments come in. We'll keep you posted.
In the meantime, we're going to go now with our Flash Round. A sign of what's to come at Augusta National. The Ku Klux Klan and Jesse Jackson have both applied for demonstration permits. The KKK wants to support the golf club's right to all-male membership, while Jesse Jackson takes the side of the women. Will anyone be watching the golf -- Michael.
DYSON: Well, they certainly will, unfortunately. I think that Augusta National should see the KKK signing its own consent to go along with what it believes represents the fact that Augusta National has some heinous bigotry they need to deal with. And precluding women is a ridiculous thing.
NEVILLE: OK -- Terry.
JEFFREY: Well, listen, the KKK is an evil organization. Racial discrimination is immoral, but it's a far cry from joining together in an all-male golf club to go out and play a game, which is not immoral or evil.
NEVILLE: Carolina?
GONZALEZ: Well, obviously, the KKK thought that they have something in common with this policy and with an organization that supports this policy. So let them all protest and then let everybody sort out who they support.
NEVILLE: Cheri?
JACOBUS: The KKK on your side is certainly bad PR, but in this country we have freedom of speech, and sometimes freedom of speech ain't pretty. But luckily, we all have it and we can say what we like in negative terms about the KKK.
NEVILLE: OK. Coming up next: State Farm Auto Insurance has sent out notices to its customers declaring damage done to their cars by nuclear explosions or radioactive fallout will not be covered. The company says it's to save it from possible bankruptcy. A sign of the times or unnecessary -- Michael.
DYSON: Let me get this right. So we had nuclear coverage until the real threat of nuclear possibility comes. Now we're going to cut you off. Heartless capitalism at its worst.
NEVILLE: Terry?
(APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY: I think if your car gets hit by a nuclear blast, the last thing you would be worrying about is your auto insurance.
NEVILLE: All right -- Carolina.
GONZALEZ: If getting hit by a nuclear device is the biggest concern with your car, then by all means get the insurance and pay, you know, however many millions of dollars it's going to cost you to insure it.
NEVILLE: All right -- Cheri.
JACOBUS: If other car insurance companies are going to pay for nuclear damage, then State Farm will simply lose customers and that's the American way of competition. If they choose to do this, people will go elsewhere.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, that's going to do it for the Flash Round. Carolina Gonzalez, Cheri Jacobus, Michael Eric Dyson and Terry Jeffrey, thank you all for joining us today on TALKBACK LIVE. Enjoyed it.
JEFFREY: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right. See you again. And, coming up next, I want to hear from you about that new airline security program that would give every passenger a risk code. Is it good security or a violation of privacy? Go ahead and call me at 1-800-310-4CNN, or you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com. And I will talk to you after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. There's our "Question of the Day." And here's Rick (ph) with his answer.
RICH: Well, what I was saying is that airport profiling basically won't work because it will just encourage the terrorists to get more creative. They'll move the targets around. So if you target young Arab men, they'll get women to do it or they'll get older men to do it.
NEVILLE: Interesting. OK. Thank you, Rick (ph).
We have an e-mail coming in we want to share with you. Caroline in Utah: "My personal information is no one's business, including the federal government. Since we, the people, seem to have no input, the only way we have of objecting is not to fly." Caroline, thank you very much. The audience loved that one.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, we're out of time. I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again Monday with more TALKBACK LIVE. Don't go anywhere, because Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Russia Threatens to Veto Second Resolution>
|
