Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Do We Need Oil Now More Than Ever?; Maryland Man Becomes First Prosecuted Under Hate Crimes Law
Aired April 11, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the crossfire tonight, as the crisis in the oil rich Middle East heats up, so does the debate over drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. Do we need that oil now more than ever?
A Maryland man becomes the first person to be prosecuted under the federal hate crimes law. Should his sentence be stiffer because his alleged victims were gay?
It's the Lone-Star Lefty versus the Bow-Tie Brawler. Who will prevail? All tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to the new CROSSFIRE coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.
Tonight, the verdict is in. In the federal case against Ohio Congressman James Traficant. We'll reveal the details where else but in tonight's CROSSFIRE "Police Blotter." But first, the crude politics of oil drilling in ANWAR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. A showdown is looming in the Senate over this centerpiece of the Bush energy policy. The administration says Alaskan oil will help wean America from its dependence on foreign oil, especially Iraq's. Critics say drilling will destroy pristine wilderness while barely making a dent in our import needs. And that is our first debate. And, Paul, this is really, as you know, about the musk oxen, a key Democratic constituency. Democrats doing everything they can to protect this sacred breed.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: If it wasn't for musk oxen, you would have no cologne.
CARLSON: That's an excellent -- I'm not going to deny that. What about $2 a gallon gas prices that people are going to face this summer? What do you say in response?
BEGALA: It's not about $2 -- it's about millions of dollars in campaign donations from big oil to Bush and the Republicans, and now they're trying to deliver for big oil.
CARLSON: You know perfectly well that that only is not true, but it won't work this fall when angry voters say, why did it cost me $1,000 to drive to Disney World? Because they don't want to hurt the musk oxen.
BEGALA: Certainly. Let's put it to a vote, but first, let's put it to our guests. Ring the bell and shut the hosts up. First, let me introduce our first guest from the left. He is a United States senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, a Democrat and a majority whip in the United States Senate. Thank you, Senator Reid.
CARLSON: Thank you, Senator.
BEGALA: And joining us from Capitol Hill, Frank Murkowski. He is a Republican from Alaska and the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee. Let's give Senator Murkowski a round of applause, please. Senator, thank you for joining us.
If I may, Senator Murkowski, let me begin with you. First, thank you for joining us. You are acknowledged as one of the Senate's experts on energy, the ranking Republican on the committee, the former chairman of the committee. These are the rationales, plural, that you, President Bush and others have offered for drilling in the Arctic wilderness. First, it was because of the California energy crisis.
Then it was because of the Bush recession. Then it was because of the current problems in Iraq, where, yesterday, Saddam Hussein cut off the flow of oil to the West. And then recently, just yesterday I heard on the Hill that you've promised steelworkers in the Midwest if we drill in the Arctic, you'll give them the proceeds for their health care benefits. I wonder if drilling in Alaska could cure this cold I've got and maybe my four-year-old's pink eye?
SEN. FRANK MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: Well, you might try it. You never can tell. You know, anything goes in politics. I'm sorry I'm not with you, but I didn't have a driver out there, so I had to do it the hard way.
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MURKOWSKI: You've got to get some different pictures of that area. You don't know what it's like for 10 1/2 months of the year. Your pictures are not in reality what that area looks like. In fact, one of the pictures isn't even Alaska.
BEGALA: Tell us. It's your state. Why should we drill in the Arctic wilderness there?
MURKOWSKI: Well, it's like why should we have decided 27 years ago to open up Prudhoe Bay, because Prudhoe Bay contributed 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country for the last 27 years. And the prospects of opening up ANWAR our that it's the largest likely discovery. It could equal what we import daily from our friend Saddam Hussein, who you know, indicated along with Venezuela that they're not going to have any imports coming into the United States. That's 30 percent of our total imports that are no longer available.
We've got a crisis in this country. We better wake up and recognize we can open ANWAR safely. Prudhoe Bay is the best oil field. You might not like oil fields and that's your own business, but we have got better technology now. The footprint in the House bill is only 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. Now, come on, America, wake up. You're looking at the weapon of oil funding terrorism and it's going to spread to our shores if we don't express our independence that we're going reduce our vulnerability. And when we send that message, it's going to be a strong one.
You know, the Saudis have now -- there's evidence that they funded about 33 million dollars into Palestinian relief efforts. That's fine. But, you know, this funds terrorism and terrorism is a very real threat because we're seeing oil used as a weapon. You remember what happened when airplanes were used as a weapon? And, you know, the Iraqis, the Iranians, with the Venezuelan crisis, we've got a situation in Colombia, we're looking at -- these are all countries we import and are dependent from.
CARLSON: Senator Murkowski, let me pose this to your colleague. Senator Reid, thank you for joining us, by the way. It turns out late-breaking news, the basis of the entire argument, your argument against drilling in ANWAR has been destroyed by a new study that has come out that said in the last 20 years of drilling in Prudhoe Bay, the caribou population, far from being adversely affected, has thrived, gone from 3,000 head of caribou to 27,000 head of caribou. So it turns out that drilling for oil doesn't harm the sacred caribou. What argument is left against drilling in ANWAR?
SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: Tucker, I think that may be your best argument, but it certainly isn't our best argument. The fact of the matter is, out of the 100 percent of oil preserves, petroleum reserves in the world, the United States, counting what is as Senator Murkowski said likely to be in ANWAR, we have three percent. Ninety- seven percent of the oil reserves are someplace else. They're not in the United States.
And so, I think we have to figure out what we can do to get as much out of the three percent as we can. And that's what we're going to do. But I don't think in the process we should do away with some of the things that would make it so easy. We're concerned about oil. Then why don't we do something about increasing the efficiency of automobiles? You know, CAFE standards, that would have been the thing to do. We would have saved millions of barrel of oil a day and wouldn't have had to do anything other than pass a law. We haven't done anything in that regard for 20 years.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Wait. Let me put that to Senator Murkowski. Senator Murkowski, you voted against fuel efficiency standards.
MURKOWSKI: Harry, Harry, Harry...
BEGALA: I know you are a great patriot. I know how much you are concerned with our energy independence and I respect that, but we would have done a lot more immediately for our energy independence if you and other senators stood up...
(CROSSTALK)
MURKOWSKI: Let's be realistic -- no, no, no. That wasn't the big corporations. That was safety. That was mom and the kids...
BEGALA: General Motors is not a big corporation?
MURKOWSKI: Just a minute. Mom and the kids going to the soccer game. That decision was made on safety issues, and that's very real. We talked about saving hundreds and hundreds, thousands of lives as a consequence of heavier automobiles. We could have voted for CAFE standards, but it was a vote on the safety of our children. That's realistic. Make no mistake about it.
CARLSON: Now, Senator Reid, now that we're not going to put everyone in America in a Honda Civic, you said...
REID: We need to have tanks.
CARLSON: But we don't. We have Suburbans instead, and those are good enough. But you said we need to figure out ways to reduce our independence on oil. Everybody agrees with that, but implicit in your statement is the fact that we haven't figured out all of them. ANWAR promises potentially to equal the equivalent of 30 years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. What specifically is the rationale for not tapping that resource which is ours?
REID: Tucker, the Alaska delegation led by Senator Stephens and Murkowski are brilliant senators. We understand how important this is to the state of Alaska, but it's not that important to the rest of the country. We cannot violate....
MURKOWSKI: Harry, Harry...
REID: ... what I believe is so, so vitally important for this country, and that is to do something -- you say you don't have answers? Of course we have answers. Why don't we do something with alternative energy: wind. Why don't we do something with solar? Why don't we do something with geothermal?
CARLSON: Wind and solar?
(CROSSTALK)
MURKOWSKI: Harry, what you forget is America and the world move on oil.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: ... together with the CAFE standard is extremely important. We also are talking about jobs. We offered an amendment to Senator Murkowski joined with us, let's build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, create as many as 400,000 jobs and make us really less dependent on foreign natural gas. We agreed to do that. It's not as if we're ignoring Alaska. It's just that we do not feel, and I believe, Tucker, your statistics, maybe they came out today, but we have other statistics about caribou herds -- of course we're being stressed to have this here, and to have some someone...
CARLSON: What does it -- what does it mean for the caribou herd to be in a stress? I mean, if they're producing at rates that they've never reproduced at before, what does it mean they're under stress?
REID: Tucker, I don't think...
(CROSSTALK)
REID: ... but of course it's not our best argument. You mentioned the caribou. I think we have to be concerned about the environment in general. And that's what we're talking about here.
MURKOWSKI: No. What we're talking about is American dependence on oil. America moves on oil; the world moves on oil. You can talk about all kinds of other alternative sources, but where is the oil going to come from? Our oil from Alaska goes to Washington, Oregon and California. We haven't exported a drop outside of that area for the last two years. We only exported that which was excess.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... is there anything in your bill that would require that oil be used in America or could it...
MURKOWSKI: Absolutely. It's in the bill.
BEGALA: ... be that ExxonMobil will ship it straight to Japan?
MURKOWSKI: No. No. No. And there hasn't been any oil...
BEGALA: There's nothing to stop Exxon from selling it to Japan, is there?
MURKOWSKI: Yes, there is. There is. There's a prohibition. There's a specific prohibition. They cannot do it.
(CROSSTALK)
MURKOWSKI: But let me tell you something, Harry. You know where the oil comes from now? It comes from Alaska. And you know where it's going to come from if we don't continue to develop oil in Alaska? It's going to come in in foreign ships into California, into the state of Washington, and there are going to be foreign crews, and they're not going to have the deep pockets of an Exxon, and they're going to come from Iraq, they're going come from Iran, they're going to come from Saudi Arabia.
For heavens sakes, why not have that come from America, where we can oversee oil fields and do it right? Nobody seems to give a -- a rat's ass, if you will, about how oil's developed overseas. They all say, well, gee, Prudhoe Bay -- Prudhoe Bay is the best oil field in the world. We've got better technology. We can open up.
And Harry, I wish you'd come up there. You know, I've come to your state, and I've looked at your repository there at Yucca Mountain. You folks ought to come on up, talk to our people. Our Eskimo people want a better lifestyle. And this is a bogus argument. The environmental community is milking this for all it's worth.
CARLSON: Now, Senator Reid, did we just address that? Senator Murkowski just said that the environmental impact of drilling abroad has got to be much more severe than in the United States?
REID: I'm really not too concerned about drilling in Saudi Arabia, what the adverse impact is there.
CARLSON: But if you care about the global environment, wouldn't that concern you?
REID: Of course, it will, Tucker, you know as well as I do, drilling in most of the Middle Eastern countries -- we have two countries there where 47 percent of the oil comes from, and they have the petroleum reserves, they are in two countries. They just have to punch a hole in the ground. It's easy to get it out there.
Now, what I think we should be concerned about, Tucker, is what we're going to do in the future for having America less dependent on foreign oil. And I say what we should do is raise CAFE standards, millions of barrels of oil a day would be saved. I think what we should do is we should get the automobile industry, I think we should get the oil industry interested in what we've been doing with alternative energy. We could save the environment...
CARLSON: Is wind and solar going to lower gas prices this summer? I guess that's my question.
REID: Well, why do we always have to worry about this summer? I'm worried about this summer, but why don't we worry about the future of this country? The automobile -- we have in America today children that are almost of epidemic proportions. They have chronic asthma. Why? Why? Because we have polluted air...
CARLSON: Nobody knows why.
REID: ... and we're going to continue...
CARLSON: Senator, you know that that's not true. I am sorry...
REID: I don't know that it's not true. I think that it's because we have polluted air.
CARLSON: That's your belief, but it's still in contention as far as the science.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We're going to have to take a break. We leave Alaska and naturally go to the Middle East and the president's predicament there. When we come back, what's the White House to do about the death and destruction in the Middle East?
And still ahead, our "Quote of the Day." Here is your first hint: He's not a lawyer, but he played one in court and apparently not very well. Find out who he is later on CROSSFIRE. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: We are back with the president's predicament in the CROSSFIRE. What is George W. Bush to do about the Middle East? His secretary of state is in Israel tonight on a mission some say was doomed before it even started. Tomorrow, he will meet with Ariel Sharon, Saturday with Yasser Arafat, in an effort to end the fighting and start the negotiating. What more should and can the president do?
Our guest on the left is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a former boxer and a George Washington law school graduate, and on the right, Senator Frank Murkowski of the great state of Alaska.
Senators, thank you again for sticking with us. If I can begin, Senator Murkowski, with a comment that Jeffrey Kemp read. Jeffrey Kemp was a Reagan administration assistant...
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: If you can hang on just a second.
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) audience, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: We are back on CROSSFIRE. Thanks for sticking with us.
Just before we took a break, I was about to ask Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska a question about the Middle East. Senator Harry Reid is with us as well. Senator Murkowski, thank you for sticking with us. We had a brief interruption there as a herd of caribou apparently from ANWAR came charging through the studio.
MURKOWSKI: I'm glad they're alive and well.
BEGALA: Our president is getting bad reviews on his Middle East policy, Senator Murkowski, not only from my friends in the Democratic party, but from your's in the Republicans. Let me read you a statement from Geoffrey Kemp, who ran Middle East affairs for the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan. Here's what he said about Bush, quote, "A 2-year-old could have seen this crisis coming. And the idea that it could be brushed under the carpet as the administration focused either on Afghanistan or Iraq reflects either appalling ignorance or arrogance."
Don't you agree with Mr. Kemp, Senator?
MURKOWSKI: Absolutely not. His oversimplification of a problem that's been -- we've lived with it since 1992. You remember we fought a war over there. And the ultimate objective of Saddam Hussein was to go into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and eventually Israel. And, you know, there's no changes in that.
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Talking about Israel itself and the Palestinian problem in Israel, which President Bush did ignore for 14 months until he was dragged into it.
MURKOWSKI: Well, I don't think anybody's ignored it. After all, this is a problem that's been with us for a long time, as I have said. It erupted as a consequence of efforts that have continually been made, whether it's the previous President Clinton, they just have not resolved in a peace process.
The real bottom line over there is the survival of Israel and the Palestinian -- if you look on the Web site of the Palestinian design, there's no Israel. It's all Palestine. And that's part of the problem, a failure to recognize that there's got to be a settlement here between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But when one side says it's got to be all Palestine and the other side says we're not giving up any of our territory, I hope that Secretary of State Powell is successful in this effort. But to start blaming one party or another, everybody's had a shot at this, and no one's been successful. But we still have hope.
CARLSON: And I'm sure, Senator Reid, you would agree with that and that the criticism last week, much it in the form of a whispering campaign, implying somehow the president was responsible for this mass -- responsible for the suicide bombings, pretty appalling.
But I'm wondering where are the Democratic alternatives to what the president is doing now? I noticed for all the complaining and whining, Democrats haven't offered up a vision for what they would do differently.
REID: Tucker, I don't think there has been any whispering. I've been speaking publicly for the last four months. And what I said is that Clinton worked on this problem until his last day in office. Upon President Bush taking office, his first day, he has ignored this until the last couple of weeks. And I think that's...
MURKOWSKI: That's not fair, Harry, and you know it.
REID: That's absolutely true.
MURKOWSKI: No, it's not.
REID: I think that's a serious problem. He thought it would just go away, I guess.
MURKOWSKI: Harry, we're not going to get at this unless we work together.
REID: Frank, I haven't interrupted you and your long dissertation. Let me talk.
MURKOWSKI: Well, you should.
REID: Let me just say this. I think we have to realize here that we're the only superpower left in the world and for anyone to think that the Middle East problem can be solved with our intervention, our action, is mistaken.
CARLSON: Well, see, this, Senator Reid, is exactly why you are giving the stereotypical example of what I was just talking about, sniping at the president saying he ignored it when you know very well that he didn't ignore it and expected it to go away.
REID: I guess when you say (UNINTELLIGIBLE) he didn't do anything. You know that.
CARLSON: He didn't do anything, that he ignored it and thought it would resolve itself, you know that that's not true. But the essence of the problem of what you just said...
REID: Don't keep saying you think I do. You need the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I don't.
CARLSON: You offered no alternative for what the president should be doing now. You just criticized him, and it's his fault. What would you do differently?
REID: Tucker, listen. I said that the president should have been involved and the secretary of state should have been involved.
CARLSON: What should he have done?
REID: How about talking to somebody in the Middle East.
CARLSON: Oh, talking to somebody. That's a plan. I mean, talking? I mean, what specifically should he have done that he didn't do apart from talking? Talking about what?
REID: I think very interestingly enough, whether you agree with President Clinton's plan in the Middle East or not, he had a plan. He worked on it until his last day in office. He almost got it on. In fact, he got it on, but Arafat wouldn't take yes for an answer. And that's one of the problems we've had in the Middle East.
CARLSON: Well, Sharon was against it too, for the record...
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Arafat wasn't in office at that time.
BEGALA: Senator Murkowski, let me bring you back into this. General Powell, Secretary Powell now, is in the region. And even as he's there, aides to President Bush are telling the "New York Daily News" that it's a failure. This is -- let me read to you from today's "New York Daily News": "As Powell takes his shuttle diplomacy to Jerusalem today, some aides -- that is aides to Bush -- believes his high-stakes mission is probably doomed. It's going to fail, one Bush official predicted yesterday, but we can't say that. He'll come home and say he made progress and our efforts will continue."
That, sir, is a level of cynicism that I think you as a Republican and a leader in the Congress ought to decry. Will you?
MURKOWSKI: Well, I do decry it, and I'm not sure that there's anybody that's going to identify with those statements because they're all unidentified statements. I think we have to let Powell do his job, come back and evaluate it and I think we should do it on a bipartisan basis.
This is above politics, Harry. This isn't Democrats and Republicans poking at the president. This is a reality that we've got to help solve this and we can only do it with our president, not Republicans and Democrats, but with a Congress that comes together and tries to come up and work with the president for a solution. If we're poking each other in the eye, it's just going to infuriate the issue, confuse our allies, and those that are in opposition to the U.S. position are going to capitalize on it.
REID: Frank, I agree with you. The president has engaged Colin Powell, he should have done it a long time ago. He's there. I hope it's a success. I hope Colin Powell, who I have the greatest confidence in, he's very good at what he does in diplomacy. I hope he's successful there. And I see no reason that we can't make progress. We're engaged. That's important.
CARLSON: OK. Senator Harry Reid, Senator Frank Murkowski, thank you both very much for joining us on CROSSFIRE. Appreciate it.
Is hate a crime? Coming up, the murder of two women in a national park thrust that question into the CROSSFIRE.
And just ahead, whether you light up or not, smoking is costing you plenty. The dollars and cents of cigarettes coming up next in a CNN "News Alert." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
CARLSON: Finally, we may have reached the end tonight of a long- running feature here on CROSSFIRE, the Jim Traficant update. Th verdict delivered this afternoon in the Ohio Democrat's federal racketeering trial. Guilty on all 10 counts, including taking bribes, filing falsified tax returns, and forcing his aides to clean horse stalls on his farm in Youngstown.
Minority leader Dick Gephardt has called for them to resign. Traficant represented himself during the trial. And from the beginning, legal experts said he was likely to be convicted. Traficant never believed them. He was defiant to the end, which brings us to our quote of the day. Shortly before the jury returned with its verdict, the congressman had this to say to the judge and prosecutor. "What the government gave them was a bunch of bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I think the jury recognizes it."
It turns out, Paul, the jury did not recognize it. And another proud Democrat bites the dust.
BEGALA: Oh, this is another Bush Democrat. A guy who voted with Bush down the line, just like Gary Condit.
CARLSON: What? He was a Democrat.
BEGALA: But you know, I spent enough time shoveling horse manure for politicians. I'm glad sow see one get caught for it and get bounced for it. Good-bye, good riddance, good rubbish. Get out, Jim.
CARLSON: I have to -- this put us on opposite sides. I really defend -- he was my kind of Democrat. Very -- no. He was great...
BEGALA: This is a Republican's kind of Democrat.
CARLSON: But he was straightforward about it. Most Democrats who steal and force their aides to muck (ph) horse stalls, they do it and cloak it in a self-righteous language. He and everything about him was straightforward. And I hope he comes back on CROSSFIRE in one of his many appeals opportunities.
BEGALA: I'm sure he will drag this out as long as he can. And we will help him as long we can. Just ahead, is hate a crime? Also, round six, where I take on Tucker in a no-holds bar debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to our all new, hour-long, high-flying, death-defying, supercharged CROSSFIRE! Live from George Washington University here in Washington.
In the CROSSFIRE, is hate a crime? Federal prosecutors say it is, filing charges against Daryl David Rice. Rice is already in prison for trying to kidnap a woman in 1997. Now he's been charged with two grisly murders in 1996.
The bodies of Julie Ann Williams and Laura Wynans were found in their tent in Shenandoah National Park, bound and gagged with their throats slit. Prosecutors say they were targeted because they were women and because they were gay.
The current federal hate crimes law does not cover gender or sexual orientation. But because the murders happened on federal land, prosecutors were able to enhance the charges against Rice. Had the women been killed outside the park in Virginia, hate crime charges would not have applied.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute says that's just fine. Murder's murder and a federal hate crime law is not necessary . Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign says a new law is needed. Please give them both a warm CROSSFIRE welcome.
CARLSON: Elizabeth, thanks for joining us. Now you're gay, I am not. Why should someone who kills you be punished more harshly than someone who kills me? Are you more valuable than I am ? That's the implication of hate crimes.
ELIZABETH BIRCH, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Well, the truth is I am, Tucker, but that aside... CARLSON: Thanks, we appreciate your candor.
BIRCH: Let's just make sure that the state of the federal hate crimes law today in America, and since 1969, is that gay people are not covered. In this case, there was an anomaly of a sentencing act that was passed in 1994. It is very narrow, and it is because this crime happened on federal land.
In fact, since 1969, based on ethnic origin, color, religion and race, in fact, hate crime are covered at the federal level. I am not covered. And for example, born-again white Christian males are covered. I'm not saying you're that, but I'm saying...
CARLSON: No, but I guess you're missing it. Let's say you were black, and I am not . You are murdered by someone who hates black people. I'm murdered by someone who hates conservatives...
BIRCH: That's covered.
CARLSON: Then, but...
BIRCH: That is covered.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is going to be less harshly punished than the one who murders you. And I'm just wondering why that is? Why should -- why is your life more valuable?
BIRCH: Tucker, one thing I want to make clear. You're right, David. It is white and black are covered, not because you're conservative, no matter how people feel about you. And the real important point I want to make here is that we make these distinctions all the time in society.
DAVID BOAZ, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, why should we is my question?
BIRCH: Because we say that someone who victimizes a very small child should be more punished than someone who victimizes an adult. Someone who kills a police officer in the line of duty. We have first, second, third-degree murder. They're all dead, but we have different penalties. They are all kinds of ways in criminal law that we make those distinctions.
BEGALA: David, let me tease a few of these out here. I am cursed with a legal education. And it seems to me not a very far reach to look at intent. If Begala shoots Carlson, you know, if it's in a war, and he's the enemy, I get a medal. If he's breaking into my home and it's self-defense and justified, I get a pass. If we were hunting and it's an accident, well, these things happen. If I'm drunk in a bar, it's neglect homicide. If I'm angry in a fit of passion, it's manslaughter. If it's deliberate killing, it's murder. But if I'm doing it for money, because Birch paid me to kill Carlson, that's a capital crime and I go to the death penalty.
Same act, six different results. What's wrong with looking at intent. We do it every day.
BOAZ: We do look at intent, but intent is not the same thing as what we're doing with hate crimes laws. We look at intent to find out did you intend to kill him? Was it just a bar brawl that got out of hand? Were you driving your car recklessly, which is not the same thing as seeking to run somebody down. But we don't look at who he was, and who you were, and what you were thinking inside your head.
BEGALA: No, but if I'm doing it for a job, it's murder one and I go to the chair.
BOAZ: Because it's premeditated murder.
BEGALA: No.
BOAZ: And what happened in the Shenandoah National Park was premeditated murder. And I guarantee you, Elizabeth, if it had happened outside the park in Virginia, that a man tracked down two women and killed them, he'd get the death penalty in Virginia. You wouldn't need a hate crime.
BIRCH: But what might've happened is what happened in Laramie, Wyoming. Let's distinguish the death of James Byrd, African-American man who was dragged to his death with a chain. $284,000 federal dollars used in that prosecution with an incredible partnership between federal and local prosecutors.
What happened in Laramie, Wyoming? An incredible prosecution. They put those perpetrators into prison. But the Laramie Sheriff's Department went bankrupt. And they furloughed six officers for six months, leaving that community vulnerable. It seems to me of the trillions of federal dollars that we spend conducting battles outside of this country, it seems to me we should spend a few hundred thousand dollars on hate crimes here in America.
BOAZ: This is a whole new issue.
BIRCH: And indeed, that would be a good expenditure of federal money.
CARLSON: Yes, but what you're really about talking here is thought crime.
BIRCH: That is not right.
CARLSON: Yes, exactly right, because you are punishing someone extra for what he was thinking when he was committing the crime. You're punishing...
BIRCH: That is not right.
CARLSON: Well, how is it not right?
BIRCH: The way it works is this. And it is exactly the same anatomy of any criminal crime. You look at any criminal act. You look at intent, motive. And the evidence to motive doesn't come in because it is about what the person was thinking. It goes to their motive to help prove the case, that the murder took place.
(CROSSTALK)
BIRCH: There is nothing unusual about...
BEGALA: It's fair to say it's by Tucker's definition, and a...
BOAZ: No, that's not right.
BEGALA: Let me give another example that's a little less gory. Let's say I sneak over to Tucker's ritzy neighborhood and spray paint on the side of his expensive foreign car, "Go Longhorns." Should I get the same punishment if I spray paint "go Longhorns" or if I say, "kill the Jews?"
I think, actually, one is a much more vicious act, trying to harm an entire community. And I think we as civilized people have a right to draw that kind of distinction. Do you?
BOAZ: I think when you get down to that kind of level, you've got a much better argument. See, people keep bringing up the James Byrd case, the Matthew Shepard case, and now the Shenandoah National Park case. And in every one of those cases, the local juries, the local prosecutors, or in this case, the federal prosecutor are going for murder one, which is either death or life in prison without any hate crimes enhancement.
When you're talking about simply something like that, I grant you I think there's a difference there. I think there's a real serious question, even then, about whether you should punish what somebody was thinking, what somebody is saying. After all, if I were to say something anti-Semitic on this show right now, you don't think I should be punished, right? But you wouldn't invite me back.
BEGALA: That's why my example crossed the line.
BOAZ: That's right. And so then we punish the vandalism. And I don't think it's unreasonable for a judge to take into account whether you were a kid who got a little drunk or whether you actually intended to create harm, something like that. But I think it's different when you're talking about...
BEGALA: You're coming on to my side!
BOAZ: When you're talking about putting people in jail for what they were thinking, and where do you have to engage in an inquisition. And let me tell you, you do, in fact, often in these hate crimes cases go into it and start quizzing people. Do you have any black friends? Well, who are they? What are their names? Tell me how long you've known this person? That is an inquisition and nobody should want that.
BIRCH: David, that is not what happened. By and large, in this case...
BOAZ: It's what happened in state BY. Have you read that transcript?
BIRCH: Yes, I have. And in this case...
BOAZ: Then it happened.
BIRCH: The case that is the subject of this show, in fact, what happened, is that the perpetrator said precisely what he was doing. He wanted to victimize and had a pattern of victimizing women because they were more vulnerable. And he thought they should die because they were lesbian whores.
You don't have to go far to figure out intent here.
CARLSON: Wait a second, Elizabeth Birch. Nobody...
BIRCH: And motivation. And by the way, Tucker, can I just correct one thing David said, because it's important? In this particular case, because the jurisdiction limits were so narrow, in fact, they could not go for the death penalty without invoking the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
BOAZ: No, wait a minute.
BIRCH: And indeed, I want to commend Attorney General Ashcroft. I want to be on the record...
CARLSON: Oh, red flag right there.
BIRCH: ...commending him for this indictment, because he stated the case boldly and clearly.
BOAZ: The federal penalty for murder, premeditated murder, is death or life imprisonment.
CARLSON: Wait, let me just break in here, Elizabeth.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: We also have crimes again lynching. We've always had crimes against murder, but lynching a separate defense because of the message it tried to send to a community.
BIRCH: Right.
BEGALA: You don't want to repeal the anti-lynching laws, do you?
CARLSON: Oh, come on!
BOAZ: Don't be silly, Paul. For one thing, that was a collective crime. And this is not a collective crime. This guy is a cold-blooded murderer. And I'm glad...
BEGALA: But he should be punished.
BOAZ: And I'm glad to see that Elizabeth is for the death penalty. A lot of liberals are not.
BIRCH: I simply said that that was the rationale that Attorney General Ashcroft used to prosecute under the...
CARLSON: In San Francisco, you can be convicted of a hate crime for focusing or targeting someone who is fat. Now I'm wondering this, in addition to about nine other categories, and I wonder is there any category of person who shouldn't be covered under hate crimes legislation? I mean why...
BIRCH: Conservative people with bow ties. I would say.
CARLSON: You know, as always, you get points for candor.
BEGALA: On that happy note, we appreciate both Elizabeth Birch from the Human Rights Campaign, David Boaz from Cato Institute for joining us in a good, enlightening debate on a difficult topic.
The voice of the people is still ahead, however, our viewers get to fire back. And straight ahead, Tucker and I step into the ring for round six. Find out which pundit get pummeled. And I think you know which one, right? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: It is CROSSFIRE, round 6. Begala versus Carlson. No guests. No holds barred. No matters either. Topic number one, nukes in space. Tucker Carlson, our defense secretary, Rummie, clearly getting into the rum.
In the newspaper today says he wants to revive an idea 30 years dead of using nuclear tipped missiles as part of our national missile defense. This is now the fourth Star Wars plan that Bush has. He wants to explode nuclear weapons over our country to protect our country.
CARLSON: How did you get so deeply reactionary? The guy is considering it. And do you know why? Because they're the only thing that might defend against bioterrorism. Somebody launches a missile that explodes with anthrax spores. You laugh. Actually, something like that happened in the country recently. You ought to read the papers.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: So we should drop an atomic bomb on the World Trade Center? That wouldn't be a great idea.
CARLSON: Of course not. But these actually have been in use in the Soviet Union for 40 years. This is something that's thought through and it's something that the Defense Department is thinking through, because it might make sense, and it might protect American lives. And I'm sorry if you're afraid of...
BEGALA: Tucker, your first doctrine, Tucker, was if an axis of evil nation is going to develop weapons of mass destruction, we're going to get them before they even build it. So why the hell do we need $60 billion of Star Wars? I'm for getting them before they're operational.
CARLSON: Because sometimes, Paul, you know, people sneak up on you. And it's just funny, I love to use -- as it happened on September 11, but I love when you use the word nuclear on a liberal. They go crazy. They're the sort of people who are afraid of microwave ovens. You know, they're just -- you use the word nuclear, and they go absolutely crazy.
BEGALA: Oh, a 30 megaton bomb going off over Cleveland is the same as heating up my tea in a microwave?
CARLSON: Clearly, Paul, if you believe...
BEGALA: Sure. A hell of a job cooking the tea!
CARLSON: If you would just relax. I want you to take a deep breath and let science make the decision which is merely...-
BEGALA: Every step we've done has failed, except the ones we rigged.
CARLSON: I understand. The forces of reaction are hot tonight.
(RINGING BELL)
CARLSON: And we switch subjects again. This one you'll lose.
An appeals court in Ohio has decided, thankfully, that that law's law against carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional against that state's constitution. This challenge was brought, by among other people, a private detective and a guy who was a food delivery man, who goes into tough neighborhoods and wants to carry a gun with him for self-protection.
Now if this country guarantees one thing, it seems to me, it's the right to protect yourself. You cannot in a million years defend a law that prevents people from simply carrying a gun to protect themselves. Not committing a crime, protecting themselves. How can you be against that?
BEGALA: Well like you, I'm a gun owner. But unlike you, I'm not a gun nut. You see, we...
CARLSON: I'm not a gun nut either. I believe people ought to be able to protect themselves.
BEGALA: The states that actually have these right to carry laws have higher murder rates than the states that do not. In my home state of Texas...
CARLSON: Is that true?
BEGALA: Yes. CARLSON: Because 43 states have them, Paul. Do your homework, pal. 43 states. You can't make -- there are 50 states. That means only seven don't have them. So how can states with them have a higher murder rate? Statistically meaningless.
BEGALA: Yes, but the murder rate's there. My home state of Texas...
CARLSON: Come on.
BEGALA: ...George W. Bush, when he was our governor, signed a law to allow Texans to carry guns in churches and amusement parks. Now that's insane. If you have to carry a gun in church,you're going to the wrong church, Tucker.
CARLSON: Man, I tell everybody, CROSSFIRE's not a dangerous job. Being a cable talk show host, not dangerous. But lots of people out there in the rest of the world have jobs that are dangerous.
BEGALA: So what -- should you -- looks like...
CARLSON: And to strip them of the right to protect themselves is appalling. I can't think of a more fundamental right than that.
BEGALA: Father Miguel would have a lot more success at the collection plate if you pack a 45.
CARLSON: Now you go to a pretty rough church, it sounds like.
BEGALA: Yes, exactly.
CARLSON: But I do think it is...
BEGALA: So you're with Bush on guns in church? Come on, say it.
CARLSON: Guns? You know, Paul, that's a political ad. He brought guns to church!
BEGALA: He did, he found a law.
CARLSON: It threatens your children. No. On September 9th.
BEGALA: That is a specific law that closed the loophole, that said we can allow guns in church.
(RINGING BELL)
CARLSON: We're going to have to stop there before it gets sillier. And it will.
Enough about us. What about you? What do you think? You're our viewers. And we're going to give you a chance to fire back when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for you to fire back. Actually, many of you have fired back. Let's take a look at the results, your e-mails.
First one from Paul, Rochester, New York. To Paul, "Paul, I thought were you a smart guy, mistake number one, but do you know anything other than how to spin each topic to blame Bush? Expand your mind, Paul. It's never too late to get educated."
Actually, Paul's case, it is a little too late. The whole old dog, new trick problem.
BEGALA: It is entirely too late, Paul in Rochester as they say up there. No, I don't only blame Bush. I also credit Clinton. I'm a multidimenstional talk show host, as opposed to the far right, which can only trash Clinton and doesn't even bother to try to defend Bush.
CARLSON: I think he does a very good job of it, thank you very much.
BEGALA: Can't be very sensible. OK, here's number two. "It's a shame that someone as intelligent (and cute) as Tucker can be wrong on so many things." From a guy named Leigh Anne. Well Mr. Anne of Clarksville, Tennessee, that's awfully nice of you.
CARLSON: You know, Leigh Anne, you're halfway there. Keep watching. Keep watching. OK, from another Leigh Anne. This Lee Ann Rigby from Highland, California. "I believe Mr. Ashcroft when he said the drapes were for a cover for construction. Anyone who could not say the word breast on national TV could not tell a lie."
Which raises the interesting question, since I just said that word on national television, what does that say about me?
BEGALA: I think Ashcroft -- what did he call them? Whamos, I think? Wasn't that -- hooters. You know, Ashcroft has some pet name that he learned at Bob Jones University that he uses for them. I don't know.
Well, Lee Ann, thank you for that e-mail.
"You guys should switch to decaf," Dan Dembiski, St. Catherine, Ontario. Actually, straight vodka.
CARLSON: Actually, we are sponsored by Jolt Cola. We're not allowed to go decaffeinate. We have a question from the audience? Sir, what's your name?
RAUL: Hi, my name's Raul Crayla (ph) from Silver Spring, Maryland. And my question is what response should the U.S. have to Netanyahu's statement that the U.S. should treat Arafat no different than Mullah Omar and other terrorists?
CARLSON: Well, a lot of people are saying that, a lot of very smart people are saying that. And it's a valid point, but the raises the question, if not Arafat, who? And considering there's seems to be a lack of alternatives, people who can credibly be said to speak for the Palestinian Authority, for Palestinians in general, if you don't speak to Arafat, who do you speak to? And the consensus is you have to speak to someone.
BEGALA: Right. And actually, Yitzhak Rabin, the slain Israeli prime minister said we deal with Arafat not because he is our friend. We talk to him because he is our enemy. That's who you make peace with is your enemies. And unfortunately, Arafat has consistently walked away from the peace tables. So it probably will take new Palestinian leadership.
CARLSON: The sound of one hand clapping. Yes, ma'am, your name?
JILLIE: Hi, my name is Jillie McKnight and I'm from Malvern, Pennsylvania. My question's for both of you. There's an Internet petition circulating right now, that's asking people to sign it to revoke Yasser Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize. What do you think about that?
BEGALA: I got an e-mail on this today, in fact, from a guy in New York. And I'm all for it. You know, there's some nutball -- what, European elitist who's trying to take away Shimon Peres', who had been a great champion for peace, who won it simultaneously with Arafat. I say yank it from Arafat, but leave it with Peres.
CARLSON: The whole thing (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Do you know anyone who doesn't have one? I mean, that's the real question. And keep in mind, that Riga Burtamenschu (ph) who made up an entire memoir about herself won one, and no one took hers away. So the whole...
BEGALA: Henry Kissinger made up and entire war. And he got one.
Yes, sir, your name?
GREG: My name is Greg Proper from Rye, New York. My question is a recent poll in "USA Today" showed that generic voters in the congressional race preferred Democrats over Republicans at three to four percent. Is this going to stick around until November? And will leader Gephardt be the next Speaker of the House?
CARLSON: That's the problem with generic voters. They're confused. And it's not clear actually who generic voters are. No, of course -- if every analysis of it I've seen indicates the Republicans will hold the House.
BEGALA: No, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) earn his living on those polls and in those races. It was actually seven. And it's a very clear sign that if the election were held today, Democrats would win. And it's been increasing for Democrats.
CARLSON: Oh, it's going to be held today?
BEGALA: So, yes, I am once again...
CARLSON: Good news, election held says Paul Begala.
BEGALA: As I did last night, I'm going to continue to suck up Dick Gephardt. Speaker Gephardt, come on CROSSFIRE here.
CARLSON: America...
BEGALA: If you're going to be the next Speaker of the House.
CARLSON: ...will be a lot more awake by mid or early November. There will not be Speaker Gephardt. That's ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: The words send chills down the spine.
BEGALA: With that thought, from the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night, Friday night, for another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
