|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Could Mohammed Lead U.S. to bin Laden?; Can U.S. Go to War Without Turkey's Help?; Will Sheen's Anti-War Stance Hurt 'West Wing?'
Aired March 3, 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, Pakistani and American officials say they netted a big fish in the war on terror. Could Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lead authorities to Osama bin Laden? And how far do you think the government should go to make him talk.
Then Turkey throws U.S. war planners a curveball, refusing to allow American troops to us Turkey as a staging ground for an Iraq attack.
How big of a set back is and is, no, the final word?
Also, actor Martin Sheen says NBC is worried his anti-war stance could hurt the "West Wing."
Will you tune up anti-war celebrities or turn up the volume?
Your chance to talk back starts right now.
Hello, everyone, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, I'm Arthel Neville.
Well, the war on terror nets a big fish in Pakistan, while the march to Iraq nets a setback in Turkey.
How will this affect the countdown to war?
You're going to talk to correspondents from the State Department as well as the Pentagon.
And then later, Hollywood's attempt to generate anti-ware sentiment may be back-firing. You're going to hear what's happening to anti-war activist and actor Martin Sheen.
But first we're going to start with Iraq. We have news of more troop movements and the White House is surprised Turkey's Parliament blocked the U.S. from staging an Iraq invasion from its borders.
We'll find out more from CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel and CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
And Jamie, I'm going to start with you. If you could first tell us about the new military developments.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, just a short time ago, we confirmed that a U.S. RC135 surveillance aircraft flying an international air space off North Korea was apparently intercepted by some North Korean air craft, some MiG 29s, a pair of MiG 29s and another pair of MiG 29s. Now, there was no hostile action taken or anything. And the U.S. plane was flying in international air space. But it is unusual, it's the first time they've had such an intercept in quite some time.
Now, remember, this is the same sort of thing that happened with the U.S. surveillance plane that was flying over -- Near china when they had that incident. But in that case, the Chinese planes were taking threatening action, moving very close to the plane. In this case, apparently, that was not the case. But it just shows that there is a period of heightened tension. North Korea has been complaining about U.S. Military surveillance of its territory. Even thought U.S. conducts these surveillance or spy flights in international air space, they sometimes can be irksome to the country involved. And again, what apparently happened here is a number of North Korean MiG aircraft simply went up and flew alongside the U.S. plane while it was conducting its mission -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Jamie, you said this wasn't hostile action. Of course, given the recent development, in communications between North Korea and the U.S. This, of course, puts everyone on notice.
MCINTYRE: Well, yes. It's exactly the type of thing we wouldn't make much out of it were it not for the fact we are in a period of rising tension with North Korea over the nuclear program. So, everything is being watched more carefully.
NEVILLE: OK. Jamie, now getting on to this possible war with Iraq, there is more troop movement today, if you can give us those details.
MCINTYRE: Well, more troops are still getting deployment orders. We're hearing today about the first Calvary division from Fort Hood, Texas, getting deployment orders. It will be some time before they get there. The big question, of course, is how the U.S. is going to get around the fact that so far, it's not being able to get permission for basing troops in Turkey.
And one of the things we're told is that some weeks back, the Pentagon, as a contingency measure, decided to deploy the entire 101st air borne division, apparently in the early version of the war plan, only part of that division was going to be deployed to Kuwait. Now the entire division is being deployed. As I said, that decision made some time back. In order to give the U.S. the option of having more troops in the South that could move into the North without having to wait for the fourth infantry decision, which was originally supposed to go into Turkey to make the long trip to get in position in Kuwait.
NEVILLE: And then, Andrea Koppel, of course, there were diplomatic setbacks over the weekend we're talking about now. But seems as though the administration plans to move forward.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: There's still a big question mark out there, Arthel, as to whether or not the Turkish government will agree to resubmit this proposal to allow 62,000 American troops to base themselves on Turkish soil. Over the weekend, the Turkish Parliament really shocked everyone, including the Turkish government itself when they decided, by three votes, they did not pass this agreement. In fact, that the Turkish government had told the U.S. it was pretty much in the bag that U.S. troops would be allowed to base there.
And now, what you're really faced with, for the Turkish government, is do they want to risk having a second resolution rejected? This would really reflect badly on the Turkish government, and, you know, for the U.S., it's a dilemma, not only for military purposes, having a second front from the North, but also to be a buffer between Turkish forces and about 4.5 million Kurds who live in Northern Iraq.
In addition, Arthel, the U.S. wanted to try to be the first to get to the Kirkuk oil fields in Northern Iraq. They're the largest oil fields in Iraq. And for obvious reasons, the U.S. wanted to have control of the oil fields, at least in the beginning, before a new government is installed.
NEVILLE: So Jamie, how does this affect the military strategy?
MCINTYRE: Well, it -- the U.S. Insists it's still going to win a victory. It just may not quite as clean and may not be quite as quick. They have another couple of options they're exploring. First of all, this permission package from Turkey is right now an all- inclusive package of permission. They may try to break that down and get permission for little parts, for instance, overflight rights that would allow U.S. aircraft carriers to send planes flying over Turkey.
But again, if that doesn't work, they'll move the carriers down to the northern end of the Red Sea and fly into Iraq over Saudi Arabia, much as they did in the Persian Gulf War. Other options to be to get permission for search and rescue crews to be based in Turkey, something that would be seen as more humanitarian, not so much an offensive military action. But basicly, the U.S. has a whole range of plans to get into Iraq without Turkey, if it has to. For instance, one of the other things it would do is raise the premium forward bases in Iraq. Some of these abandoned airfields in Northern Iraq that right now might -- before now might not have been quite as critical in the plan, it will be more critical to take ground in Iraq in order to use those as staging areas to move troops in.
It's going to be harder, though, to move as many troops as quickly into the North, and that's part of the plan to, first of all, stabilize the northern part of Iraq so that the Kurds are not fighting with each other and they're not fighting with the Turks. To also open another front to put more pressure on Baghdad, and to secure those oil fields at Kirkuk in the North so that they can't be detonated or set ablaze. It's going to be more difficult to do that without a large number of troops right away. It could just make the whole operation a little more messy, but the Pentagon insists that the outcome will be the same either way.
NEVILLE: And Andrea, before we go, you were mentioning the second U.N. resolution giving the go ahead to military action still on the table.
So, What the U.S. need to do?
What are they doing, saying, offering the countries still skeptical?
We are talking about Chile, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan, and Guinea.
I mea, does money talk in these situations?
KOPPEL: Absolutely, money talks. Those countries you've just outlined are the middle six. Their votes will be critical if the U.S. is to get the nine out of 15 votes necessary to pass the second resolution. That's if there is no veto because by any other permanent member of the Security Council. I spoke with one official who has been working the African countries, and he said, you know it's bilateral relations is the way he put it.
Obviously, the U.S. is talking trade, it's talking aid packages, it's talking military supplies, if necessary. There is a lot of arm twisting. It's the proverbial carrots and sticks to try to get these countries on board. There is a lot of pressure. You've also had some high level diplomatic missions in recent days. You had a senior White House official down in Santiago, Chile last week. You have, again, a senior State Department official in Africa this week to try to work those countries.
You've got people on the phones, you have Secretary of State Powell over the weekend speaking with the Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, not only to congratulate him for his country's help in getting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, but also to say the U.S. really needs your vote. And this is -- there is a lot of bargaining going on right now, and those countries are in a pretty good position, Arthel, to get what it is they want from the U.S. government.
NEVILLE: But at the same time, Turkey, they have, what, a $92 billion financial deficit, and they didn't go for it, at least at this point.
KOPPEL: Well, you know, you're absolutely right. As one Turkish diplomat told me today, he said, that's democracy for you. Turkey is, after all, a Democratic government, and just because the prime minister and other senior Turkish officials, after much persuasion and persuading by the U.S. government, decided to say, OK, it's better to get the money, it's better to get $26 billion dollars than it is not to get that money, they weren't able to persuade enough parliamentarians to vote for it.
About 90-plus percent of Turkish people are opposed to having a U.S. presence so their parliamentary, much as Congress, reflected the will of the people, and that was a democratic move there by the parliament and it was a surprise to everyone because it was a secret ballot. They believed, the government believed, that they had the necessary votes, and when the vote happened, Arthel, clearly, they were three votes short. NEVILLE: OK. Andrea Koppel, Jamie McIntyre, thank you both for those reports.
And coming up a little later in this show, is Hollywood's anti- war campaign about to backfire? Do actors turn you on or do you turn them off when they get on a political soapbox? We're going to tell you what's been happening to actor Martin Sheen right after this.
The talk continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, you can't miss the parade of celebrities speaking out against a possible war. Will fans applaud their right to speak up or tune out their programs?
And later, he was the hero of the sniper investigation. But now, Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose is facing some ethics questions. We'll have the details as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
It was a weekend of diplomatic setbacks for the White House. Will that have any impact on the countdown to war?
Right now, we're going to meet our guests, Ian Williams, who is the United Nations correspondent for "The Nation" magazine, and John Fund rights for "The Wall Street Journal"'s online publication opinionjournal.com.
Hello, gentlemen.
IAN WILLIAMS, THE NATION: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Ian, let me start with you.
You know, one of the things that happened over the weekend -- Saddam dismantled 16 Al Samoud II missiles. So I ask you, is this more deception or cooperation?
WILLIAMS: Well, it's cooperation, but up to a point.
The thing is that if you ask Saddam Hussein to disarm and he starts disarming, then the French and the Russians immediately say, Hang on, you say you must disarm, he disarms and then you still say you're going to go to war. So what incentive does he have to carry on?
NEVILLE: And then of course, he says, Look, I'm going to stop dismantling these missiles if, in fact, Washington is hellbent on going to war.
WILLIAMS: Which makes a lot of sense to people across the world.
You know, if the U.S. is going to go ahead anyway, then what possible incentive does he have to cooperate?
NEVILLE: So John, you know, of course, the other thing that happened, Turkey says no, we're not going to let the U.S. use the -- their soil as a military bases or for military purposes to house the troops.
But here's the question. Do you think that Iraq will go ahead and capitalize on Turkey's vote of no in some way?
JOHN FUND, OPINIONJOURNAL.COM: Well, just remember, more deputies voted for the U.S. base rights than didn't, it's just there were too many abstentions.
Since then, the Turkish stock market declined 11 percent today, in one day and I think they're going to have to reconsider that. There may have to be some adjustment in the agreement, but I think ultimately, the Turks will come around.
If they don't, actually, there's some benefit to that, because the Turks were setting down impossible conditions. They wanted a buffer zone between the Kurds and us. They wanted to be present when the Kurds were disarmed. So the Kurds will now be far more enthusiastic if the Turks aren't involved.
So there are benefits and drawbacks to that decision, if it happens. But I think the Turks will come around.
NEVILLE: So the stock market dropped 11 percent, the Turkish stock market, but the people over there, almost 100 percent, 95 percent of the people of Turkey said, No, no, we don't want the U.S. troops based here.
FUND: Just remember, that opinion is very variable. Turkey has had American military bases on its soil for over 40 years. They've been very happy about that. Those bases have often been used for operations. I think the Turkish people, ultimately, are also going to look at the kind of loans and grants that are being offered to them as a compensation for any risk they take.
Ultimately, the Turkish people may have to choose between their economy and their pride. And I think ultimately, the economy will win out.
NEVILLE: Speaking of ultimately, what do you think, Ian, will happen in terms of this possible war with Iraq?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think the president said he's going to go ahead. What will interesting -- I suspect that if the U.S. had actually got a resolution in the Security Council, then they would have won the vote in the Turkish parliament. It's the absence of this resolution which the president regards as the sort of discretionary, I think, as a favor to his chum, Tony Blair, rather than as a serious sort of legal standing for war.
I think that puts the pressure on the U.S. to get this resolution, which could be through twisting more elbows in Africa, as you were describing before. But it could also mean that they might become more flexible, because the resolution they put down a week ago was very much a take it or leave it one. And if they really want to win it now, they should be thinking, perhaps, of compromising and picking up some of the suggestions the Canadians made and even helping the French climb down from the flagpole that they've run themselves up on, which they're not really happy about.
NEVILLE: All right.
Well, getting back to Turkey, though, Robert (ph) do you think Turkey did the right thing by saying no?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do think Turkey did the right thing, and I think it's been reflected by the panel of experts that you've spoken to today, by stating that it could get a little more messy, by messy I think they are presuming more loss of American lives. And by saying that money talks, and if we're just -- if we need to go around to all the countries that may oppose us and pay them off or offer them military aid or things of that nature, what is that saying of their true opinion of this war?
I mean, I do agree that money does talk and we do have a lot. But if we need to pay off people to be on our side, I mean, I think that reflects my point and I think there's...
NEVILLE: Thank you. Thank you, Robert (ph).
So let me get to John on that. And John, do you think that -- you know, you just heard Andrea Koppel say yes, money does talk. So how much money will it take, and, really, is that the way to go?
FUND: Well, the real question here is the validity of the United Nations.
If the United Nations members on the Security Council require nickel and diming deals to try to come around to enforce their own Security Council -- resolutions there have been 17 Security Council resolutions on Saddam Hussein.
If they need to be convinced with extraordinary means, it makes you wonder, is the United Nations really that viable an instrument? Is it the kind of use for international law that we would like it to be? Maybe it needs to be restructured.
NEVILLE: Ian, what do you think about that?
WILLIAMS: Well, it's interesting, of course, what the United Nations members are saying is how come only these 17 resolutions need to be enforced and not the ones against India or Morocco or Israel?
FUND: None of those countries are run by sociopathic madmen with weapons of mass destruction.
WILLIAMS: Well, we have North Korea. I don't think Kim Jong-Il Doesn't strike me as the quite -- you know, 100 cents to the dollar. FUND: Ian, that is going to be a very big problem in the next year. That's the next problem and it's going to be serious, you're right.
WILLIAMS: But you have John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for the Defense State Department -- he's going around -- he was in Israel last week, and he was saying that after we deal with Iraq, we'll deal with Iran and then we'll deal with Syria and then we'll deal with North Korea.
These countries don't have United Nations resolutions against them. No one in the United Nations is convinced that...
FUND: Ian, John Bolton...
WILLIAMS: ... that the United States has the best interests of the United Nations at heart with what it's doing now.
NEVILLE: And gentleman, that has to be the final word.
FUND: That's not U.S. policy.
NEVILLE: Ian Williams, John Fund, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you again.
And when we come back, I want to know what you think about celebrities speaking out on war. Do you want them to speak up or just shut up? It's the question of the day. Go ahead and give me a call right now, 1-800-310-4CNN, or you know the e-mail address, talkback@cnn.com.
And then later, U.S. authorities say they now have a major al Qaeda player in custody. We'll find out what investigators hope to get out of him and how do they plan to do it. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville. You've seen a number of celebrities in anti-war ads and marches against military action. Well, now there appears to be a backlash against the more outspoken entertainers. Web sites have popped up threatening boycotts of anti-war celebrities, and radio talk show hosts are questioning why anyone would put their faith in what Hollywood has to say about politics.
Now, actor Martin Sheen says he's received an avalanche of hate mail, and he says NBC execs are concerned his anti-war activities could hurt "The West Wing."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've been so public about your views on this war. Have you experienced any backlash as a result of that?
MARTIN SHEEN, ACTOR: Tons of it. Yes, tons of it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because people have equated being anti-war with being anti-American.
SHEEN: Yes, which is (EXPLETIVE DELETED), frankly, you know. I love my country enough to risk its wrath by bringing attention to the dark spots, the things that will really hurt us. When we don't have vision, we're blind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Here to talk about it are Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, and Sam Greenfield, a radio talk show host in New York City. Hello.
SAM GREENFIELD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right, Tom, so, will this hurt Martin Sheen's career and will viewers stop watching "The West Wing" because he's outspoken?
TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, I hope so. You know, these celebrities to me are abusing their position.
NEVILLE: How so?
FITTON: They have a right to speak, but we don't have a right to listen. They don't have any expertise in the area, and the only reason the media's paying attention to them is because they're famous. Their job is to play fantasy characters on TV or write entertaining music. And by that, they get invitations to "Meet the Press" or whatever, and they want to play the game, and now the game is, people speaking out with their own mouths and saying, hey, we don't want to watch "West Wing" because that character actor, Martin Sheen, is using his role there as a way to attack America's position on the war in Iraq. They're going to suffer the consequences for their free speech, and that's part of the game.
NEVILLE: OK. So, Sam, you're a radio talk show host. You talk to people all the time all across the country. So what are they saying about this? Do they want to hear it? Or what's the difference between Martin Sheen and somebody who calls on your radio show to talk about it?
GREENFIELD: Well, two things. Number one, last time I checked, you didn't get punished for speaking your mind in the United States. And two, the last time I checked, the right wing didn't seem to care when Charlton Heston's became the lobbyist for the NRA, when Tom Selleck did commercials for "National Review," when Fred Thompson of "Law and Order" does commercials in favor of the war.
These are American citizens. They have the right to say whatever they want, just like people have the right to say they're upset about it.
FITTON: They can. GREENFIELD: But to say that you hope someone's career suffers, because an American citizen wants to speak their mind -- in the 1950s, when Robert Taylor and John Wayne and Adolph Menjou and Gary Cooper all named names as right wingers, I didn't hear anybody raising hell about that. But suddenly, the left wing has some influence and they're the Malibu crowd. Where do you think John Wayne lived, Death Valley? Come on, man.
FITTON: They don't have much influence.
GREENFIELD: No, they don't, neither side.
FITTON: And now they're whining that people are actually listening to them and responding negatively. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
NEVILLE: Tom, let me just ask you this. If, in fact, you believe -- and we'll get to a poll in a second -- you believe that they, being the celebrities, don't have much impact, but they're citizens, right, so don't they have a right to speak?
FITTON: I'm not suggesting they don't have a right to speak. I am suggesting we shouldn't pay attention to them.
NEVILLE: OK.
GREENFIELD: And you hope their career suffers. And you hope their career suffers.
FITTON: Frankly, you know, if someone in your audience was well read and was against the war and they wanted to call a press conference, no one would have paid attention. The only reason these people are being paid attention to by the media culture is because they play fantasy characters on TV or in the movies. And frankly, that is not strong enough reason for us to be paying attention to them and giving them the press and the media and the attention that they're getting. People are tired of people without expertise going on...
GREENFIELD: So, we shouldn't show any allegiance to Charlton Heston, because he played Ben-Hur and El Cyd, is that correct?
FITTON: People are going to judge -- you know, there are instances where actors -- you know, Bono, for instance, has some expertise in the third world...
GREENFIELD: Bono?
FITTON: Bono, whatever. Has the expertise in third world debt and people pay attention to him. And Charlton Heston has been a long time political activist, and even Sheen has some expertise. He's been a long-time critic of American policy, a long-time supporter of regimes that are terroristic and communistic in nature. This is no surprise to me.
NEVILLE: OK, Tom, let me keep it on today's page, for a second here, going to a spokesperson from NBC, Rebecca Marks. She told the Associated Press that she knows of no concern among top management at NBC regarding Mr. Sheen's stand against the war or fear that it could impact the show. And so, I go here to Sarah and say, so does it have any impact on you and whether or not you would watch a TV show or a movie?
SARAH: I don't think it does. The founders gave Americans through the Bill of Rights the right to speak out, and whether they're celebrities or not, they have a right to say what they think.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And you know what? Tom, you were talking about the impact earlier. I want to take a look now at a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll with some results. When asked if there are any celebrities whose political opinions would make you more likely to favor their views, 11 percent of those polled said yes, 87 percent said no.
So ultimately, I ask, go ahead and let Tom answer this, I'm sure you really want to. What's the impact of celebrities' public stance?
FITTON: Well, maybe it's not worth it, because no one is paying attention to them. Maybe they should just keep their heads down, and do what they do best, which is entertaining people. And I think most people understand that they have a right to speak, no one's suggesting that, but the idea that they can come out and speak without being subject to criticism or boycotts or something...
NEVILLE: Well, they are very much subjected to criticism.
FITTON: And maybe they're just better off doing what they do best if they can do it at all.
NEVILLE: Sam, I'll give you -- I'll give you 30 seconds, Sam.
GREENFIELD: And you know I'm really amused by the fact that, when someone speaks their mind against a war, you know, Tom -- and Rush Limbaugh, I might add, who has never served a nanosecond in the military -- they're communists. They're communists? There are three communist countries: Albania, China and Korea.
And, by the way, Martin Sheen's activist walks the walk. This is a man who has been arrested several times for protesting against apartheid in South Africa. His activism stretches back 35 years. And I'll be the first one to tell you that a lot of these people speak up like this because they do like face time; there's no doubt about it. But that's true of the right and left. But to accuse Martin Sheen of that is fatuous.
NEVILLE: All right, gentlemen. That is the last word there. Tom Fitton and Sam Greenfield, thanks so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
GREENFIELD: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK.
FITTON: Thank you. NEVILLE: And when we come back: a major arrest in the war on terror. We're going to have details and find out how authorities will get terror suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to spill the beans on what he knows. Would torture ever be used? CNN security analyst Kelly McCann takes your questions when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: The arrest of suspected al Qaeda mastermind. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has apparently led terrorism investigators to a treasure trove of names, computers, computer disks, paper documents and cell phones. Now FBI officials say Mohammed, a suspected key planner of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is now being interrogated with "all appropriate pressure" at an undisclosed location.
Joining us is CNN security analyst Kelly McCann. And Kelly, so what sort of skill and method will interrogators need to rely on with someone like Mohammed?
KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, for this investigation and interrogation, the varsity team will be let loose, Arthel. I mean they'll bring in their best and brightest. This person is very, very intelligent, very clever man. He's eluded authorities for a long time, so no one to be trifle with.
But the process is fairly clear. Usually, that destabilizing kind of raid environment, where you're woken at 4:00 in the morning, you know, suddenly grabbed in your sleep, you're never going to really regain your balance after that. They're to keep him away from his touchstones, they're going to keep him through a process of basically shaving him, keeping him off balance, making sure he's processed correctly and understands he is not in control anymore.
After that's done, an initial interview is undertaken, where they'll develop personality traits and characteristics that will be provided to the interrogation team. The interrogation team will look at that and then judge, based on those traits, how best to proceed with the interrogation. Whether they use the stress and duress model or don't depends on that initial interview. And then over time, they'll check the veracity of the information against previous answers to questions that were close, but worded slightly differently.
NEVILLE: Right, because that's what I was going to ask. How do authorities know that he's not sending them on a wild goose chase?
MCCANN: Well remember that right now we're in a lot better stead than we were when we started this. We've had the luxury of several months with detainees down in Guantanamo who have been able to get some information, and other top leaders that we've detained. So now we'll be able to discern more quickly disinformation or misinformation, which will accelerate the speed of the interrogation.
NEVILLE: So you have a little bit more to gauge it on, basically? MCCANN: Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Let's take a look though at some dos and don'ts in terms of interrogating suspects like Mohammed. The interrogation technique, same question asked different ways, sleep deprivation, make them feel uncomfortable. But what is not applied would be the use of drugs or torture or force. Correct, Kelly?
MCCANN: That's correct. I mean the last two are kind of the movie rendition. In other words, the introduction of sodium pentathol, where suddenly the person is the font of truth and starts to offer information willingly. That's just not the case.
Nor is it the case with the application of force. You stand really the possibility of two things happening, Arthel. One is you apply force and it's resisted effectively, empowering the person you're questioning. Or he does anything, will say anything to make the pain stop, immediately making the information questionable.
So the movie kind of rendition is just not the way things are done. The first three are the key to a good interrogation.
NEVILLE: But then in getting back to the reality of someone like Mohammed, this man is trained to deal with interrogators. He's also a person who would probably not have a problem dying a martyr. So how do investigators or interrogators get in his head?
MCCANN: I dispute the first, but not the second.
NEVILLE: OK.
MCCANN: Now, if you look at it as an analogy, Arthel, general officers in the military don't undergo the same kind of hands-on practical training that say captains and lieutenants and sergeants and corporals do, who may be taken prisoner on the battlefield. Similarly, he may have known of the kind of training that was being done in Afghanistan, but whether he subjected himself to it or not is significantly of question.
I mean he's been now labeled the playboy terrorist for kind of his cavorting in the Philippines and other places. He's obviously a moneyed person. The second one I don't think anybody can dispute.
These men are committed men. And regardless of what we think, they ideologically have been committed to the same thing, which is keep your mouth shut, this is what we believe, et cetera. The test is over time.
NEVILLE: And how important is time in an interrogation like this one?
MCCANN: It's key. Because if you ask a question, the same question 15 different ways over 30 days, it's almost impossible, when you add in sleep deprivation, some of the uncomfortableness that you talked about a little bit earlier. It's almost impossible to track what you were asked, how it was asked and how you answered. So that's where you start to surface the inconsistencies and the consistencies.
NEVILLE: Kelly, we have a question from an audience member.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, hi. I was wondering, since he's being alleged of conspiring for the September 11 attacks and several other attacks on the U.S., how come he wasn't transported to this country?
MCCANN: Well, there's a couple of different reasons. One is the perishable nature of the information we're to get out of the raid environment. His cell phone, his disks, pocket litter, things that he had on or about his person. Some of those things have to be moved on very, very quickly or you're going to lose the opportunity. So the questions have to start immediately.
Secondly, he may be moved to a foreign country because that foreign country may want to talk to him first. And sometimes the threat of the potential of unlimited violence, versus the reality of use of unlimited violence, is worse, because it never happens. You don't know. You keep a person suspended. So there are many reasons he may be moved to another country and not the U.S.
NEVILLE: OK. Kelly McCann, always good to see you on TALKBACK LIVE. Thank you very much.
MCCANN: You bet, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. And coming up next, Chief Charles Moose, the man we all came to know during the D.C. sniper attacks, is finding himself in hot water. I'll tell you why after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, the officer who brought us those daily briefings during the D.C. sniper shootings, may be experiencing the downside of fame. We'll tell you why he has come under the ethics spotlight.
And then some celebrities who speak out against war experience a backlash. Tell me whether they should speak up or shut up. It's the "Question of the Day." Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me at talkback@CNN.com. The TALK continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Accused D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo was in court today. The judge was deciding on whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom during his November trial. Malvo is accused of murdering FBI analyst Linda Franklin outside a Home Depot in Virginia.
Meanwhile, Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose face a county hearing tonight on possible ethics charges. Here to tell us all about everything, CNN's Patty Davis outside the Fairfax County Circuit Court. And Patty, first, though, give us the latest on the John Lee Malvo trial.
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, lots of motions argued today by the defense. In fact, the defense has been pretty successful here today. No cameras in the courtroom. That's what the judge ruled.
The defense will get three investigators to help them investigate this case, look at evidence. They will also get -- the defense said an excessive number of police officers will not be allowed to guard Malvo during the trial. The defense had been worried in this case that it would appear to the jury that Malvo was dangerous or perhaps a threat to the jury themselves.
And the prosecutors, the judge ruled, are going to have to turn over any credible leads that police were pursuing before they arrested Malvo and John Muhammad in October. The defense here looking for, perhaps, any information that police had that might implicate somebody else in these sniper shootings, Arthel.
NEVILLE: So Patty, is that the final word, those decisions, no cameras in the courtroom?
DAVIS: Well, the final -- that's right; that's the final word. Because this is the judge that will be holding the trial and presiding over that trail in November as well. So it is the final word on that.
NEVILLE: OK. So, Patty, tell us why Chief Moose is under scrutiny.
DAVIS: That's right. He is in hot water. Specifically, because he cut a book deal.
The book is going to be about his life and about the sniper ordeal. And he also, after the sniper shootings, got involved in a consulting firm, started a consulting firm on crisis management, conflict resolution. Well, apparently, he did get the approval of Doug Duncan, a Montgomery County executive. And we have some video of them together today at the National Association of Counties meeting in Washington, D.C.
But it appears that he may have not gotten the approval of the Montgomery County Ethics Commission. Now, he, a source tells CNN, will be appearing before that Ethics Commission tonight. And, in fact, that commission will look into whether or not he should have gone ahead with that book deal and whether or not he should have gone ahead with that consulting firm without their permission. And they will be hearing more about what he has to say about it, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And, Patty, we will check back with you tomorrow for that report. Patty Davis, thank you very much.
And when we come back, what stories are Internet users buzzing about? We're going to get the AOL buzz after this break. Stay right there. The TALK continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. You know what? At TALKBACK LIVE, we try to stay on top of the buzz. So AOL's Regina Lewis comes by once a week to share all the topics being tossed around inside AOL's chat rooms. And what do you have for us this week, Regina?
REGINA LEWIS, AOL BUZZ INDEX: Hi. Well, we're look at the buzz; in particular, things that are bubbling up.
In the number five slot, something called gaspricewatch.com. This is interesting. Right now there are over 70,000 price spotters around the country looking for the best deals on gas prices. You can become one of these spotters or use them as a reference.
Right now, $2.37 in California is the high. And in Georgia, $1.38. So $1 difference. Not worth the drive...
NEVILLE: $1.38 is the high?
REGINA: No, it's the low in Commerce, Georgia.
NEVILLE: Oh, OK, yes. Commerce, man, that's too far for me to drive.
LEWIS: Well, but in some cases, going halfway across town can save you money. And that's why a lot of people are referring to that site.
NEVILLE: And what's the name of that site again?
LEWIS: It's called gaspricewatch.com. You can also check out digitalcity.com. Just go to whatever area you live in. A lot of people giving tips on this kind of thing.
NEVILLE: The good stuff.
LEWIS: Number four is SUVs. This has been on and off the list. But the Hummer is so hot right now, that a lot of people are talking about the safety. Most people say when they buy them it makes them feel more in charge.
Most of the crash data says it's a little bit of a wash, because SUVs roll over. But now there's an ethical discussion of god help you if you get hit by a Hummer. Is it really fear to have people driving them with other people driving cars?
In the number three, we looked for a spike on what are people going to be wearing? Of course there's a ton of teenagers on America Online. If you look at the data, they are looking for pink vintage prom dresses. So perhaps the trend there that we'll see this spring.
And number two is identity theft, a more serious issue. Monster.com, the big job site, tried to get out in front of this issue this week, warning people to be very careful about the data that they put in their resumes posted online. There are more than 25 million resumes posted online. So be sure to look at those tips before posting one.
Number one, of course, is Iraq. Most people are saying pretty good get on the playboy terrorist that -- all the news that's breaking today. On Turkey, some disappointment, but many others are saying wow, they probably have their own issues. It's hardly like living next to Canada. You know Iraq can be a tough neighbor.
On celebrities, one important point there. They are posted on the worldwide Web, and there is some concern that that gives other countries the impression that the whole United States is against the war.
NEVILLE: All right. Regina, I wish I had more time to chat with you. But thank you so much for showing up, and we'll see you again next week.
LEWIS: Terrific.
NEVILLE: All right. And, of course, I'm going to take your calls and e-mails next on the "Question of the Day." Celebrities speaking out on war. Do you want them to speak up or just shut up? Give me a call or e-mail me. We'll talk in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And it is time for our "Question of the Day." What do you think about celebrities speaking out on war? All right. I have e-mails coming in here now; they're flying in. Let's see who is coming in now first.
OK. Coming in from Minnesota, Karen says "Actors have every right to express their opinions regarding U.S. policy. I applaud Martin Sheen for his stance on the war. He is an American and has the right to free speech, just like all of us." Thanks, Karen.
Now another one coming in from Houston in California. "Just because Martin Sheen plays the president on TV, doesn't mean I really care about what he says about politics in America."
All right. And we have an e-mail, Irene in Washington. "Martin Sheen is a brave man. I support his stand and will make a point of watching "The West Wing" from now on.
And I think that's all the time we have. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be here again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE. 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
Without Turkey's Help?; Will Sheen's Anti-War Stance Hurt 'West Wing?'>
|
